I think it is important to remember that he may have not done the bad things he is said to have done. He may have just done stupid things that look that way. I wasn't there so I withold judgement on him.
That seems a fair and reasonable position to take. On the other hand, Michael's ex-advisors have reported that they tried to persuade him to tone down some of his child-like public defensiveness about his preference for being around children. However, he could not see that, when it comes to allegations of a sexual nature, you not only have to do the right thing, but be seen to do the right thing.
In my earlier work in prisons as a registered clinical psychologist working with sex offenders they were often their own worst enemies: Insisting that they had a right to be with children even unsupervised. It was as if they didn't get a key point obvious to almost everyone else:
Don't repeatedly put yourself in (private) situations in which you lay yourself open to further allegations. It's noteworthy that more than 2 years after the initial allegations against Micahel arose, he continued to hold stayovers in his bedroom. Who can forget one intyerview in which Michael with a totally suprised look in his eyes, questioned his interviewer about why it was wrong to have young boys sleeping in his bedroom??!
Michael may well be innocent. However, he had a persistently disturbing "blind-spot" when it came to children - a trait that has been commonly found in convicted child-sex offenders.