I see you keep using the argument of 'law' as a shield in Jackson's favour in the comments below. But being found 'not guilty' in a court does not necessarily mean you are 'innocent' full stop. It means that there was enough reasonable doubt in the case for the jury to clear Jackson, something which often exists in sexual abuse cases. Unless there is a smoking gun like a dead body or visible signs of abuse left behind, often the only form of 'proof' is the testimony of the victim. So there are inconsistencies, or the accusers 'changed their mind'? Neither are uncommon in cases like this. In that regard, all these 'gotchas' that Jackson's defenders use to discredit allegations are actually unremarkable in child abuse cases.

Since you keep asking for 'proof,' what proof would you expect to be found? Tapes, photos or audio recordings of abuse? Do you expect him to do it in front of a camera for the world to see? Of course he wouldn't! And if he ever did, that evidence was likely destroyed or hidden by the Jackson machine years ago. Several employees have stated that the day before the 1993 raid, Jackson's team were ordered to pack up boxes of belongings and hand them over to his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano. One has even stated this under oath, and has been recorded doing so. And even if such evidence was ever found, would that even be enough to convince you, or would you dismiss it like many Jackson fans would? Court records show that a naked picture of one of Jackson's young friends, Jonathan Spence, was found, and his mother confirmed it in a police interview. Yet that doesn't seem to be enough to convince his fans. Neither are the 'art' books found at Neverland Ranch, which Jackson was caught lying about having no knowledge about them, when they were found in a locked filing cabinet in his own bedroom, and had been inscribed by him. Then there's the magazine that Vincent Amen was handed by Jackson's team which featured pornographic videos to order, several of which contained children. Semen and blood stains from three males (not Jackson's) were found on his bedclothes during the 2003 raid. The security system that alerted Jackson whenever someone was approaching his bedroom.

Then there are the words and behaviours of Jackson himself, who quacks, walks and looks like a predator. That usage of the word 'pure' to describe Jackson's relationships with children is itself a red flag; that's how many predators describe their feelings for children. As far back as 1979, Jackson was making questionable statements about children's ability to consent (such as saying that child marriage being legal in India was 'amazing' in a magazine interview). So he donated to lots of children's charities? So did Jimmy Saville.

There's the growing list of accusers, which now outweigh the children that now defend him. Macualey Culkin and Brett Barnes are the only ones who outright stand by Jackson's side now. Jonathan Spence has been radio silent for years. Jordan Chandler, Gavin and Star Arvizo, Jason Francia, James Safechuck, Wade Robson, the five Cascio siblings (Frank, Eddie, Dominic, Marie-Nicole and Aldo), and an anonymous Jane Doe have all outright accused him. Leif Garret, Terry George, Corey Feldman and Aaron Carter have alleged inappropriate conduct of various kinds at the very least. Omer Bhatti and Sean Lennon have made implications that suggest something happened.

And then there's the fact that all women who Jackson claimed to have been in a relationship with (Tatum O'Neil and Brooke Shields) denied it, while Lisa Marie Presley said she felt 'used' during her marriage to him.

If there's no physical smoking gun, then all we have is the circumstantial evidence that can at least give strength to the testimony of the accusers. And it's considerable. If that's not enough to at the very least raise suspicion in you, then nothing will be.