Do you have factual proof he was trying to have sexual intercourse with the kids? No? Then stop claiming it. You have the burden of proof here, and if you cannot back it up, don't claim it.
Sexual abuse doesn't have to involve intercourse or even the desire for intercourse.
As for proof. It can be argued that having children in his bed and giving them alcohol (as several witnesses have said) is the grooming pattern of a sexual predator.
Many kids have even testified that nothing happened
True...But only to them. Not pertaining to those who allege abuse.
It's me being rather creeped out at the fact that rather than accept that all available evidence points to the fact that at worst, you could label his lifestyle odd, people choose to belief there's this mythical evidence out there that'll prove him to be a paedo.
Well lets look at documented paedophile behaviour and see how much of it is applicable to MJ
Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)
Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)
Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)
When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)
The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)
It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour
Coooos they had nothing.
So the lack of evidence automatically means it didn't happen?
An example of the fallacy of this is that if Hitler were to be tried for the mass extermination of the Jews in WW2 then, on the basis of solid evidence, he would be found not guilty because not a single document exists that he has signed authorised the extermination of the Jews...
An extreme analogy? No doubt...But it emphasises my point that proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. Couple it with my point that sexual abuse is extremely difficult to physically prove and that it often relies on testimony.
Look at Matthew Kelly and Pete Townshend; both accused, both found entirely innocent (I believe, though there were technicalities in the latter's case). They're still riddled with stigma, though.
In Pete Townsend's case he was accused of and did look at child pornography. He got off with it by arguing that it was research for a book (which to my knowledge he never wrote or was at least never published) and by not clicking on thumbnail pictures....But he did look at them.