However, I do not believe that he is a child molester. If he is in fact proven without doubt to have done it, I will change my opinion. In the meantime, I for one believe that he would not sexually molest a kid, I believe he is a rare bird, and aside from his obvious lunacy, I also think he is good. Held up to the klieg light of mainstream American scrutiny, which ones of us would not be considered completely perverse, if judged by our appearances or the way we live? I go on instinct, and instincts can definitely be wrong. But it's a hell of a lot better than going on what's written in the news. Why not use one of the old early American tests of guilt or innocence, such as weighting him down with boulders and tossing him into a pond. If he sinks he's guilty. If having a seriously altered face, being artistic, preferring a fantasyland to real life and being eccentric as hell AND not wanting to admit to any of those things also means one is a childfucker, I suppose most of the people we know are guilty of it. There is such an effort to cover up the ones who are really doing it, such as all the priests, but of course, they are unknown, drab, uninteresting, farty old pedophiles. They won't look as interesting being gobbled up by the lions in the coliseum as will Michael Jackson. I would like to meet him very much.