I agree the guy ain't "normal." But I don't think it's normal, or "ok" to pronouce guilty verdicts without evidence, or to prosecute people who are weird and rich just because they're weird and rich. Since I have never been present at MJs ranch, and since I was not privy to all the evidence that was presented at his trial, I am not at liberty to shout "guilty!" despite how things may appear.
It's a shade disconcerting to see so many people able to pronounce verdicts when they we're absent from both the alleged crime and the trial. Well, pigs do like to roll around in slime for fun, so it should be no surprise some folks relish thoughts of public and private public perversity.
The point I am trying to make is that our society views certain sexual acts as child abuse (,ie, lewd). However, while technically these do not meet the legal requirements, there are many types of sexual abuse that don't fall into those criteria in the psychological sense. And those can also be very damaging to children. That is why I "accuse" him of child abuse.
"But I don't think it's normal, or "ok" to pronouce guilty verdicts without evidence..."
There was no evidence?