So the family may have tried to extort money from him, so therefore he didn't molest this child or any other?
There was an article posted here last night by Charlite from Men's News Daily. It's titled, "Is Michael Jackson a Pedophile?" If I knew how to link, I would....I think you should take a look at the article, it involves a profile of a pedophile.
"So the family may have tried to extort money from him, so therefore he didn't molest this child or any other?"
I'm saying there's no compelling evidence. In this country people are innocent until proven guilty, and the proof is lacking.
Jackson may fit a profile of a pedifile. That doesn't make him a pedifile. Sexually abusing children makes him a pedifile. That's a charge that needs to be proven, and it doesn't look like the proof is there.
If I had kids I sure wouldn't let them go anywhere near Jackson.
I tried to find the article on Men's News Daily, but their archives are listed by author and I didn't see a Charlite, so I assume that's the freeper that posted the article, not the author of the article.
Ok, I found the article and read it.
Yea, Jackson's actions and the accusations made against him appear to meet the profile.
Profiles aren't indicators of a person's actions. They're templates used to narrow down a field of suspects.
It's not proof. It's just conjecture based on his strange actions.
To convict someone, you're supposed to have actual evidence.