Critics will claim that Michael Jackson fans are desperately trying to prove Michael\u2019s innocence. That claim is false for the simple fact that it is not possible. None of us have been around Michael Jackson 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for his complete adult life. It is an impossibility to prove something <u>did not<\/u> happen.\r\n\r\nWhat <u>is<\/u> possible, is to examine the allegations in-depth and determine if there is any truth to them. Of course there are those in Michael\u2019s fan base who defend him without basic knowledge of the allegations, but the naysayers who take the time to debate with Michael\u2019s fans will notice that most of them are able to shower the critics with facts for days on end.\r\n\r\nAs we showed in our previous video that the mainstream media is exhibiting only the allegations, while willingly ignoring the side of the defence. We make these videos so that people have a rebuttal archive to go back to when debating the critics. But also for people who do not know the whole story in order to educate them and in some cases maybe even change their minds.\r\n\r\nCritics often mention that Jackson allegedly used adult magazines to groom children as to sexually abuse them. They claim that the prosecution allegedly found semen on his bed that a was not his and argue after they can\u2019t come up with anything valid, that unrelated children slept in the same bed with him so he must be guilty. The only thing Jackson is guilty of is not explaining himself well enough, which is why we will do it for him.\r\n\r\nDuring the 2005 trial the prosecution argued that the fingerprints of Gavin and Star Arvizo were found on some of Jackson\u2019s adult magazines. They argued that it proved their claim that Jackson showed them these magazines. But there are several problems with this conclusion.\r\n\r\nThe first important fact to mention is that the adult magazine with the accuser\u2019s fingerprints was tested for prints only after the boy handled the magazine at a grand jury proceeding in April of 2004.\r\n\r\nIt was also shown during the trial that the Arvizo boys weren\u2019t as na\u00efve and innocent when it came to pornography as the prosecution tried to portray them. In his grand jury testimony in April of 2004, Star Arvizo testified that he and his brother had surfed porn websites before. When confronted with a transcript of this testimony, Star Arvizo replied that it was \u201cjust a paragraph that somebody wrote.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn his opening statement Mesereau stated that rather than showing the magazines to the boys, Jackson actually caught them once with the magazines and took the them away from the children.\r\n<blockquote>\u201cThe prosecutor told you that there were girlie-type magazines and sexually explicit material in Mr. Jackson\u2019s home, and there were. Mr. Jackson will freely admit that he does read girlie magazines from time to time. And what he does is he sends someone to the local market, and they pick up Playboy and they pick up Hustler, and he has read them from time to time. He absolutely denies showing them to children. And, in fact, the magazines the prosecutor referred to were in a locked briefcase. And Mr. Jackson will tell you he found those kids going through his magazines, and grabbed them from him and locked them in his briefcase.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nThere is evidence of Gavin and Star going into Jackson\u2019s bedroom when Jackson was not present. Gavin denied this on the stand but his brother Star later admitted in his testimony that they did. Not only did they go into Jackson\u2019s bedroom, they even slept there when Jackson wasn\u2019t around. In fact, Star Arvizo testified that he knew the code to get into Jackson\u2019s bedroom.\r\n\r\nThat means they were perfectly able to go through Jackson\u2019s belongings whenever they pleased, which would be consistent with their behaviour around other people as well. Jackson\u2019s lawyer Thomas Mesereau pointed this out in his closing arguments based on various testimonies heard during the trial.\r\n<blockquote>\u201cAnd the only forensic evidence they had to hang their hat on are fingerprints on some girlie magazines that were owned by Michael Jackson. And you know that everywhere the Arvizo children went, they would rummage through drawers, rummage through the house. They did it at the dentist\u2019s office. They did it in Vernee Watson Johnson\u2019s home. This is the way they behave.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nDuring cross-examination, Mesereau showed Star Arvizo a copy of Barely Legal and repeatedly asked if it was the specific magazine Jackson had shown him and Gavin. Gavin insisted over and over again that it indeed was, only for Mesereau to reveal that it had been published in August 2003, no less than five months after the Arvizo family\u2019s departure from Neverland. This information went almost entirely unreported, as the media was micro- focused on the allegations disregarding the cross-examination by Mesereau which blatantly undermined the boys testimony.\r\n\r\nThe prosecution\u2019s theory was that Jackson showed the Arvizo boys the magazines to groom them, to lower their inhibitions and\/or arouse them before sexually molesting them, because that typically is what paedophiles use pornographic magazines for.\r\n\r\nDuring the 2005 trial, Gavin testified that he first saw the suitcase that contained Jackson\u2019s adult magazines next to a couch in a room where he was hanging out with Jackson while Jackson was putting on make-up. He indicates that he picked it up and opened it to look through it after which Jackson grabbed the suitcase and, clearly embarrassed, claimed they were Frank Cascio\u2019s magazines. In a later account he claims the briefcase was next to Jackson\u2019s bed and he, Star and Jackson went through the magazines while making fun of Frank.\r\n\r\nThese alleged scenes do not make much sense as attempts to groom the Arvizo boys in order to molest them. First because, according to the boys own words, no molestation or sexual act followed after the story of the magazines but the alleged molestation happened on totally different occasions and with no mention of pornography being shown to Gavin at all.\r\n\r\nSecond, as for lowering inhibitions, according to Gavin\u2019s story Jackson was clearly embarrassed and tried to distance himself from the material, claiming they were Frank Cascio\u2019s. He allegedly even made fun of Frank because he allegedly used phrases like \u201cFrank\u2019s stinking ass\u201d. Jackson disassociating himself with the magazines is obviously not in line with an intent to groom a child into participating in a sexual act.\r\n\r\nThe defense claimed that the boys went into Jackson\u2019s room when he was not present and looked at the magazines on their own. This is supported by Star Arvizo\u2019s testimony that they knew the code to Jackson\u2019s bedroom so they could enter whenever they wanted.\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s crucial to mention that the adult magazines story originates with the Arvizo\u2019s. Neither Jordan Chandler, nor Jason Francia ever made such a claim, likely because they never found any of Jackson\u2019s magazines in the house.\r\n\r\nThe pornography claims only became a part of the molestation stories after it became publicly known during the Arvizo trial that Jackson in fact had such material at all and the prosecution had publicly stated their theory that Jackson used it for \u201cgrooming children\u201d.\r\n\r\nRobson and Safechuck built their stories in 2013 and 2014 with that hindsight information from the 2005 case. In fact, Robson was shown this material by the prosecution on the stand during his testimony in 2005, claiming he had no idea Jackson even owned magazines like it.\r\n\r\nAnother gem that critics include in their \u201cevidence\u201d list is something that was even dismissed by the prosecution in 2005, they didn\u2019t even try to introduce it to court.\r\n\r\nOn January 18, 2005, Jackson\u2019s defense filed a motion to exclude fourteen items of irrelevant evidence. Among them were two DNA reports carried out by the prosecution, that did not uncover anything incriminating. One report included three sets of male DNA found on Jackson\u2019s bed \u2013 one was Jackson\u2019s DNA, the other two of unknown males, but they did not belong to the alleged victims. There was never any mention of it being semen.\r\n\r\nThe second report was about DNA found on bed sheets that were found in a bag of dirty laundry, along with underwear. Again, the DNA did not belong to the alleged victims.\r\n\r\nIn their reply on January 31, 2005, the prosecution agreed with the defense that the DNA on the bed was irrelevant, as they informed them that they did not intend to refer to that evidence in court.\r\n\r\nThe prosecution suggests in their reply that the DNA came from semen stains, but at this point they knew it could not be proved otherwise, since that evidence would not be introduced in court, meaning the defense would never have their own forensic examination of it. Ultimately, the prosecution knew that it was not incriminating evidence, otherwise they would have tried to introduce it.\r\n\r\nKeep in mind that people would stay in Jackson\u2019s bedroom when he was not at home. For example, during the trial on March 23, 2005, there was a discussion about the legal, heterosexual material found on one of Jackson\u2019s computers. From that discussion we learned that according to the evidence on this computer, whoever used the nickname \u2018Marcel Jackson\u2019 accessed the computer on November 17th of 2003 when Jackson was in Las Vegas where he stayed until after the raid on November 18. It is believed that \u2018Marcel Jackson\u2019 is one of Michael\u2019s adult cousins.\r\n\r\nMembers of Jackson\u2019s staff also testified to the fact that people sometimes stayed in Jackson\u2019s bedroom when he was not there.\r\n\r\nRegarding alleged laundry evidence, the DNA in underpants that the prosecution did try to introduce sounds bad in their motion: they claim that Jackson kept underwear belonging to another male. But in the defense\u2019s reply on February 8, 2005 we learn what that underwear actually was. Basically, the prosecution wanted to introduce underwear from another male, that was found NOT in Jackson\u2019s bedroom, but in a different building in a storage area with other miscellaneous items of laundry, and they wanted to use it as \u201cevidence\u201d of Jackson keeping other male\u2019s underwear for nefarious reasons. They tried to use this to support Gavin\u2019s claim that Jackson kept his underwear, even though Gavin\u2019s underwear was never found at Neverland. This is how desperate the prosecution was. Yet they refrained from wanting to use the DNA on the bed, which tells us that it was an even weaker piece of evidence than the ridiculous tidy whitey story.\r\n\r\nOnce again the prosecution practiced extreme mental gymnastics to try to create \u201cevidence\u201d in the absence of real, damning evidence. Not surprisingly, Judge Melville deemed this evidence irrelevant and did not allow the prosecution to introduce it in his court.\r\n\r\nTom Sneddon, as vicious and evil as he was, was not a dumb man. He was a seasoned prosecutor with a clear obsession to get Jackson behind bars, and he had all the support in the world to get that done. But he failed. Not once, but twice. Not because he was a bad prosecutor, he failed because the evidence he introduced was not proof of any wrongdoing on Jackson\u2019s part and the testimonies by the accusers were so inconsistent and in some cases even proven lies, that they were not believed by the jury.\r\n\r\nTechnically every testimony is considered evidence but that does not say anything about the truthfulness and credibility of that testimony. You can have two totally contradictory testimonies about an event in a case and technically both are considered evidence, but only one of them can be true. If evidence would equal proof, why would it need to be tried in court?\r\n\r\nThere have been cases where people were on trial with much more evidence against them than the prosecution ever had against Jackson, and they were proven to be innocent. Your neighbour can accuse you tomorrow of molesting his child, that doesn\u2019t make it true. People lie and false testimonies exist. No one can deny that fact for it happens daily. One of the reasons why we have a legal system and the right to a fair trial is to listen to these testimonies and assess their truthfulness in the light of other testimonies and the presented evidence.\r\n\r\nJordan Chandler, the 1993 accuser, was never cross-examined. He never testified in court. In actuality, any time it came to subjecting himself to cross-examination Jordan was nowhere to be found. The Chandlers went to civil court before going to the police, got what they wanted and refused to testify in a criminal court. Since their testimonies was all the prosecution had, two grand juries refused to indict.\r\n\r\nGavin Arvizo and Jason Francia did testify in 2005. The Jury did not find them credible and with good reasons. We have gone into detail about both of them in previous videos. Gavin Arvizo's brother Star, took the stand early in the trial and claimed to have witnessed two specific acts of molestation - but his testimony was inconsistent. Regarding one alleged act, he claimed in court that Jackson had been fondling Gavin with his hand, but in a previous description of the same incident he told a different story, claiming that Jackson had been rubbing his penis against Gavin's buttocks. He also told two different stories about the other alleged act on two consecutive days in court.\r\n\r\nImportant to mention is that it was revealed in court that Janet Arvizo signed a document prepared by the sheriff\u2019s department that said the following:\r\n<blockquote>\u201cFrom time to time, between January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson\u2019s interaction with me and my children at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and elsewhere [\u2026].\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nThe Arvizo\u2019s didn\u2019t meet Jackson until <u>August<\/u> of 2000. When Janet Arvizo was confronted regarding the date on her signed statement she responded: \u201cSince August, the same thing \u2026\u201d and rambles on without answering the question but did mention one of the lawyers: George Owen Feldman who was associated in a law office called Feldman & Rothstein. They represented Janet Arvizo during the J.C. Penney case where she sued the company for battery, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. At the time no sexual assault was alleged but almost a year later their complaint was amended and sexual assault allegations were added. They settled for over $150.000.\r\n\r\nIn a testimony on May 24, 2005 Mary Holzer, an office manager and paralegal who worked for the Law Offices of Feldman & Rothstein that represented the Arvizos in the J.C. Penney case, testified that Janet Arvizo admitted to her that she was lying about the photographs of her bruises that were used to prove her allegations against J.C. Penney. The photographs showed Janet Arvizo with bruises that she claimed she got during the altercation with the J.C. Penney guards. However, according to Holzer, Janet Arvizo admitted to her that the bruises were not caused by the J.C. Penney guards but by her own husband.\r\n\r\nWhen the Arvizo\u2019s wanted to claim their pot of gold from the Bank of Michael Jackson, they were told by their civil lawyer that they had to get a conviction in criminal court first. Had that not been the case, the Arvizo\u2019s, like the Chandlers, would have gone to civil court straight away to see if they could repeat what the Chandlers did and get rich, but California law had changed since the Chandler\u2019s allegations.\r\n\r\nWade Robson and James Safechuck both continually change their stories. When there was no financial gain for them, they both testified under oath that Jackson never touched them. Now, with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, they miraculously remember that Jackson did allegedly molest them. And not once, but hundreds of times, even recalling very graphic details.\r\n\r\nThere are many problems with their new claims. Robson for example claimed he was abused hundreds of times including on one occasion where his family went to the Grand Canyon without him, yet from their own 2016 depositions we know that they were only at Neverland while Jackson was there a handful of times and that the whole family went to the Grand Canyon, including Wade.\r\n\r\nSafechuck claims that he was abused in a train station in the years before he turned 14, which was in 1992, because he claims that after he turned 14, Jackson had lost interest. The tiny problem Safechuck has is that the train station didn\u2019t exist yet. The permit wasn\u2019t approved until 1993 and the train station didn\u2019t open until 1994, when Jackson lived in New York. These are just two proven lies out of dozens.\r\n\r\nThe accusers\u2019 families are obviously biased parties in the case. Often they have been instrumental in creating allegations themselves. For example, Jordan Chandler made his allegations after his father, Evan Chandler, had pressured him into making these allegations so he could use it to get money from Jackson to finance his movie project. Yet Evan Chandler, nor any other family member for that matter, ever claimed to have witnessed the alleged molestations.\r\n\r\nGavin Arvizo\u2018s brother Star Arvizo claimed to have witnessed Gavin\u2019s molestation, but their mother, Janet Arvizo, was known to coach her children to lie. The family had a history in fraudulent behaviour and falsely testifying in court, for example in the case against J.C. Penney.\r\n\r\nJason Francia\u2018s mother, Blanca Francia sold stories to the tabloid media and sued Jackson for money. Evidence shows she had told contradictory stories in different testimonies and she had no problem spicing up innocent stories and turn them into something sinister when that served her purpose. Jason never made allegations until a heavily biased police talked him into \u201cremembering\u201d things that he did not have memories of before.\r\n\r\nThe Safechucks had a financial motive since their family company was sued for $800,000 in a business dispute, right before James \u201crealized\u201d that he was allegedly sexually abused by Jackson. Because James\u2019s lawsuit did not get past the demurrer phase as of now (although the case is under appeal), he and his family were not yet deposed and cross-examined since James started making allegations against Jackson. Safechuck\u2019s family never have claimed to have witnessed the alleged molestation.\r\n\r\nTestimonies by Wade Robson\u2018s family, in particular by his mother Joy, actually inadvertently undermined a lot of Wade\u2019s allegations in his lawsuit. Robson\u2019s family never have claimed to have witnessed the alleged molestation either.\r\n\r\nThen there are the disgruntled ex-employees of Jackson that the prosecution put on the stand to testify against him. All of these people proved to be untrustworthy and their testimonies crumbled under scrutiny. They made up stories to sell them to tabloids or to monetize it in other ways through books, lawsuits etc. Some of these witnesses were even proven to be liars, thieves and fraudsters in court.\r\n\r\nThen there are so called expert witness testimonies. During the 2005 trial there were experts testifying about more technical subjects. All of them could be considered \u201cexpert witness testimony\u201d, but none of them incriminated Jackson. There was also expert testimony that seemed pretty irrelevant to the case, such as a forensic accountant hired by the prosecution testifying about Jackson\u2019s finances and debt.\r\n\r\nThe prosecution also put a psychologist called Anthony Joseph Urquizo on the stand to testify about child sexual abuse who didn\u2019t prove Jackson was guilty of sexually abusing anyone, but rather gave a general testimony about child sexual abuse. Urquizo was paid by the prosecution for his testimony, and admitted during cross-examination that false allegations of child sexual abuse do happen.\r\n\r\nJackson never admitted to sexually abusing children. In reality he always vehemently denied it, both publicly and in private. In addition it is well documented that he did not think of sex between children and adults as \u201cloving\u201d or \u201cnormal\u201d, he specifically condemned it.\r\n\r\nJackson did say though that he saw nothing wrong with sharing a bed or bedroom with unrelated children. Often, when the critics run out of arguments, they base their \u201cguilty\u201d verdict on this, without seeing any further need to research the case or understand the statement from Jackson\u2019s point of view.\r\n\r\nIt is completely understandable that this statement makes people feel uncomfortable. No one advocates sharing a bed with unrelated children, and it definitely was not Jackson\u2019s wisest decision to share his bedroom with unrelated children. Not because he was a predator, but because he is an extremely vulnerable target for extortioners considering his wealth, fame, naivety and eccentricities.\r\n\r\nPossibly the biggest publicity backlash that Jackson has received because of this \u201csharing your bed\u201d issue was after the airing of the 2003 documentary, \u201cLiving with Michael Jackson\u201d, where Martin Bashir interviewed Jackson over a period of several months. The infamous scene featured Jackson and his later accuser Gavin Arvizo holding hands while Jackson insisted that there was nothing wrong with \u201csharing your bed\u201d with unrelated children. He said that whenever a child wanted to sleep in his bed he would allow them, while he would sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag. He also said that sometimes he and children, like Macaulay Culkin and his brother Kieran, had slept in the same bed, but he usually slept on the floor.\r\n\r\nJackson also stated that he never asked children to come to his bedroom:\r\n<blockquote>\u201cWe have guest units, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me, they never want to stay in the guest rooms.\u00a0<strong>And I have never invited them into my room, they always just wanna stay with me. They say, \u2018Can I stay with you tonight?\u2019, so I go \u2018If it\u2019s OK with your parents then yes you can\u2019.\u201d<\/strong><\/blockquote>\r\nAt the 2005 trial both the prosecution and the defense agreed that, at the time of the Bashir interview, there was no other occasion of Gavin sleeping in Jackson\u2019s bedroom than the one time in 2000 when other people slept in the room as well. In the interview with Bashir, Gavin admitted that he had specifically asked Jackson to be allowed in his bedroom and sleep there with his brother Star:\r\n<blockquote><em>Gavin: \u201cThere was one night,\u00a0<\/em><strong>I asked him<\/strong><em>\u00a0if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, \u2018Michael you can sleep in the bed\u2019, and he was like \u2018No, no, you sleep on the bed\u2019, and I was like \u2018No, no, no, you sleep on the bed\u2019, and then he said \u2018Look, if you love me, you\u2019ll sleep in the bed\u2019. I was like \u2018Oh mannnn?\u201d so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.\u201d <\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nDespite of the public outrage and the media frenzy that went into all kinds of speculations about Jackson\u2019s relationship with Gavin because of that scene, few paid attention to what Jackson actually meant by \u201csharing a bed\u201d. He meant giving up his bed to Gavin and his brother Star while he would sleep on the floor.\r\n\r\nNever in the interview is it claimed that Jackson and Gavin had slept in the same bed. In actuality, both state that Jackson slept on the floor, and at the 2005 trial Gavin testified that Jackson\u2019s friend and personal assistant Frank Cascio had also slept in the room that night, as well as Gavin\u2019s brother Star and Jackson\u2019s two children, Prince and Paris. All the children slept on Jackson\u2019s bed while the two adult men, Jackson and Cascio, slept on the floor.\r\n\r\nIn Frank Cascio\u2019s book, <em>\u201cMy Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man\u201d<\/em>, Cascio recalls that it were the Arvizo children who insisted that they wanted to sleep in Jackson\u2019s bedroom despite of the fact that Jackson was reluctant to let them.\r\n<blockquote><em>\u201cGavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet\u00a0<\/em>[Arvizo]<em>\u00a0said to Michael, \u201cThey really want to stay with you. It\u2019s okay with me.\u201d Michael relented. He didn\u2019t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, \u201cFrank, if they\u2019re staying in my room, you\u2019re staying with me. I don\u2019t trust this mother. She\u2019s fucked up.\u201d I was totally against it, but I said, \u201cAll right. We do what we have to do.\u201d Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.\u201d <\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nNevertheless, this is the scene in the Bashir documentary that caused worldwide uproar and speculation about the nature of Jackson\u2019s relationship with children. The picture the media painted of Jackson was that of a predator who lured children into his bedroom with the intent of sexually molesting them while keeping them away from their parents.\r\n\r\nIn reality, Jackson\u2019s two-story bedroom was a gathering place for families, friends and the parents of the children were allowed to stay there as well. Even Jordan Chandler\u2019s mother, June, admitted in her testimony in 2005 that she was allowed to go into Jackson\u2019s bedroom and stay there whenever she wanted. Not only was June always allowed into the room where Jackson and Jordan were, even her brother and his wife could just walk into Jackson\u2019s bedroom unannounced according to her own testimony. In Joy Robson\u2019s 2005 testimony she stated that she was allowed to go to Jackson\u2019s bedroom any time she wanted as well.\r\n\r\nIn an interview that he gave to Larry King in 2004, Macaulay Culkin stated very firmly that all those years that he had spent time with Jackson as a child, Jackson had never done anything inappropriate to him.\r\n\r\nAnother person who spent time with Jackson since an early childhood was Frank Cascio. Echoing Culkin\u2019s sentiments, in his book, Cascio also attested to the fact that the media often misrepresented this issue. Cascio wrote in his book:\r\n<blockquote><em>\u201cIn Bashir\u2019s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin\u2019s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>What Michael didn\u2019t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn\u2019t care to ask about, was that\u00a0<strong>Michael\u2019s suite at Neverland, as I\u2019ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn\u2019t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn\u2019t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below<\/strong>. But, perhaps more important, he didn\u2019t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael\u2019s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>What Michael said on Bashir\u2019s video is true. \u201cYou can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I\u2019ll sleep on the floor. It\u2019s yours. Always give the best to the company, you know.\u201d Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, \u201cYes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.\u201d The fact of the matter is, when he was \u201csharing\u201d his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it\u2019s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>Now, I know that most grown men don\u2019t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn\u2019t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn\u2019t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it\u2019s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It\u2019s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile? I\u2019m quite sure that the answer is no.<\/em>\r\n\r\n<em><strong>The bottom line: Michael\u2019s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn\u2019t make him a criminal.<\/strong><\/em>\r\n\r\n<em>The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn\u2019t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn\u2019t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael\u2019s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there\u2019s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir\u2019s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.\u201d<\/em><\/blockquote>\r\nIt is also a misrepresentation that only boys slept in Jackson\u2019s room. Girls did too as did adults. For example, William B. Van Valin, an adult, heterosexual man and his family befriended Jackson in the early 2000\u2019s. He wrote about staying in Jackson\u2019s bed a few times in his book entitled \u201cPrivate Conversations in Neverland\u201d:\r\n<blockquote>\u201cIn Michael\u2019s room there was a couch with a King sized roll out bed in it. It was always in the rolled out position and it was always turned down like you were in a hotel. It faced the biggest TV I\u2019d ever seen at that time. We would put in a movie, order from the kitchen whatever we were hungry for and watch movies until late at night. If Michael fell asleep while we were watching a movie, I would turn the volume down slowly, unplug it (because if I used the controller it made a loud noise as it turned off ) and quietly leave the room and go home. I remember I did this one night and was tiptoeing to the door when I heard Michael say, \u201cSee you tomorrow, Barney.\u201d For whatever reason, it was very difficult for Michael to sleep. So, if he fell asleep I was always careful to let him stay that way. Sometimes he\u2019d ask me to read something to him and I\u2019d find a book and just read it out loud then slip away when it seemed he was asleep.\u201d<\/blockquote>\r\nBesides all this, Safechuck especially said he was 'upset' that Jackson would have left the room when he woke up, admitting that Jackson would not even stay in the room after the children would fall asleep on his bed. It is very likely that on most occasions, Jackson would sleep in one of the guest rooms himself after giving up his own bed.\r\n\r\nSo what did these sleepovers really mean for Jackson? According to German psychologist and psychotherapist Dieter Speck, Jackson assumed the dual roles of being a child and a father at the same time due to his childhood trauma, his loss of childhood, his father\u2019s abuse, etc. He saw himself in the children he surrounded himself with and he wanted to gave them the non-sexual fatherly affection and love that he never got from his own father.\r\n\r\nVictims of child sexual abuse do not want to be around their abuser because they fear their abuser. Children know it is wrong when an adult sexually abuses them. But all the accusers wanted to stay with Jackson wherever he went. They started to dress like him, they looked up to him. June Chandler even claims in her testimony that Jordan didn't want to be with her and her sister anymore, but wanted to be with Michael Jackson.\r\n\r\nHe was a 13 year old boy with a crappy father, who didn't pay any attention to him as you can read in June\u2019s testimony and he was tens of thousands of dollars behind on his child support in addition. To Jordan, Jackson was the closest to a father figure he could have. To him, Jackson was not only a superstar, but he was taking on the dad role by actually paying attention to him, helping him with his homework and playing video games with him. This pattern repeats itself with the other accusers where the fathers were not around, either by their own choice or pushed away by the mothers who were clearly in love with Jackson, or they were complete deadbeats.\r\n\r\nIf you care just a little bit about the truth, check out the facts for yourself. Not the version of the\r\n\r\nmainstream media because the media lies, and not just about Michael Jackson. Both the media and Hollywood are controlled by very wealthy people who do not want people to know their own evil dealings. Jackson was a threat to them because he knew their game, something he was very vocal about in his artistic work. And what do you do with a threat? You either make the threat disappear or you assassinate his character. No doubt that they attempted the first option, but when they didn't succeed they stuck with the latter. They broke the man into pieces. The trial shouldn\u2019t have lasted a month longer or it might have literally killed him.\r\n\r\nMichael Jackson had access to millions, and probably even billions of dollars. If he really were a paedophile like the media and Hollywood wants you to think, you would have seen hundreds of victims pop up, if not thousands. Paedophiles molest an average of hundreds of kids in their lifetime, yet no one has anything on him other than a bunch of discredited extortioners and their allegations despite the fact that Jackson has been surrounded with people everywhere he went ever since he was a child himself. The accusers are doing a huge disservice to real victims of child sexual abuse.\r\n\r\nAs divided as the Michael Jackson community sometimes is, when it comes to accusations of child molestation against Jackson, the community will always unite and form a huge army in his defense. And they are armed with knowledge that will break the allegations into tiny little pieces with military precision, simply because they know that much more about the allegations than anyone else.\r\n\r\nBut to be able to defend him with so much passion, this army first had to investigate for themselves, since no one involved will ever defend someone who hurts children in any kind of way. We stand for victims, but that includes victims of false accusations.\r\n\r\nWe did our homework, months of it, years of it, digging into every little detail and aspect of Jackson\u2019s life and the allegations. We have read all the court transcripts, depositions, articles, books and watched every interview available and could only come to one conclusion: the allegations as we have heard them hold no merit at all.\r\n\r\nIn fact, they have been debunked inside and outside of court in so many ways, that it's clear to anyone who takes the time to investigate for themselves, that it has been a witch hunt ever since the first allegation hit the fan.\r\n\r\nWe looked beyond Jackson as the King of Pop and his musical accomplishments, we have come to know, appreciate and love the man behind all the hoopla.\r\n\r\nWe have learned what he had to go through in life to get to where he was and the pain he has endured, while staying strong and full of love for humanity, giving away hundreds of millions of dollars to people, and mostly children, in need.\r\n\r\nAnyone who really studies Michael Jackson, the man, and not the 'King of Pop', would be as passionate as Michael\u2019s Army in defending his name against atrocious allegations like these.\r\n\r\nDid he say stupid things? Sure. Did he make decisions that might not have been very smart? Of course he did. Was he weird? Sure, if anything out of the ordinary is called weird, call him weird if you like. But does that make him a paedophile? Absolutely not. It makes him human. Michael Jackson is not like the average person. The little things in our youths that defined us, that matured us, the things we take for granted, are things he never got to experience because he has worked ever since he was a small child. We could never even try to imagine what we would be like as adults if we had grown up the same way as Michael Jackson did.\r\n\r\nThis is not just about defending Michael Jackson, this is about defending the truth and defending the innocence of a man that gave the world his life since he was 5 years old. A man that is not able to defend himself. What they did to him, they can do to you, me, to our families or anyone else for that matter who goes against the status quo.\r\n\r\nWe cannot allow Michael Jackson to be found guilty in the court of public opinion. Not being able to prove his innocence does not mean he is guilty. It\u2019s not how the legal system works. If you accuse someone of a crime, you have to prove they are guilty, a defendant should never have to prove their innocence because as stated at the very beginning of this video, it\u2019s not possible.\r\n\r\nRegardless of your belief regarding President Donald Trump, a scenario regarding his guilt was raised recently when Robert Mueller testified that he could not exonerate President Trump in the Russia Investigation. Lawyers called the claim outrageous, simply because a person is innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way around. This applies to everyone, including Michael Jackson, who was tried in court and found not guilty. This is why we stand up for him.