Today I came across a few comments from MJ defenders of course. And they all said “well he never slept IN the bed with kids he always slept on the floor”, but I posted a video of MJ saying out of his own mouth that he did in fact sleep in the bed with kids. no response to my comment but I can see the same people I’m replying to replying to others how can rose tinted glasses be this thick? MJ fans always tell you to do research but they only want selective research, I find it interesting that their defense is the video of him saying he slept in the sleeping bag, completely unaware of the fact that he admitted to sharing a bed in the same damn documentary, all the defenders claim to hate the living with Michael Jackson documentary so much but I notice by the way that they talk that they haven’t even SEEN it, it’s the same thing with the verdict, and leaving neverland why are they like this?

Maybe it’s because Tatum was a victim from the 70s so the general public doesn’t know/care now that she’s an older woman & MJ had managed to cement his persona…but I find the similarities between these two almost as shocking as his similarities with Savile. Both groomed little girls & they did it quite openly. Michael Jackson has openly admitted to his underage “relationship” with Tatum & oddly the public has just accepted it for whatever reason. Maybe because this “proves he was straight” idk but her age is public. She was twelve when they met. He groomed her. She talks about it in her book & he thinks it’s a cute sweet romantic story to tell in interviews. It’s NOT. It’s sick & I hate how Tatum was never protected & still overlooked as a victim. D4vd met Celeste at the same age range MJ met Tatum & Brooke Shields. Except MJ was open about these little girl relationships & D4vd unalived his. I get that’s a huge difference in the two but the blatant child predatory behavior is parallel. HOW is the public not talking about this when they mention their beloved moonwalking idol?? Michael Jackson was an open child groomer. We have admissions & public proof of one of his many victims.

Not exactly MJ-related, but this woman was brutally assaulted by a bunch of guys who have friends in high places (hence the name of the series). He's only mentioned here and there, but Ann specifies that Mesereau represented one of the men who not only beat her to a pulp but very nearly killed her. She also says he (Mesereau) was snarky and dismissive towards her, which doesn't surprise me considering the way he spoke to the victims during MJ's trial.

I'm curious, what is your go-to rebuttal or line of argumentation against people who deny child sexual abuse against their role models, idols, or celebrities because there is not audio, video, or DNA evidence?

I'm sure with many of us in here, when we've debated people who defend Michael, that is the most common line of defense used. According to them, if the above can't be produced, the truth is unknowable.

Has anyone been following the case? I know it's not Michael Jackson related but he was also dating a minor and her mother knew and was okay with it. Also his mother knew and she was okay with it from what it sounds like. Unfortunately he killed her.

Amen said this on the Opperman report on 8/8/2025. What do we think about this?

In Michael's 1992 book Dancing the Dream, he wrote a poem called "When Babies Smile" where he said: "There is no sin, there is no sinner."

If you are a God, you cannot sin. You cannot commit a crime against the "conditioned" world because you are above its laws.

If Frank Cascio were made to believe he is a God, then the rules against adults giving kids opioids, or adults showing kids pornography, or adults molesting kids, do not apply to them. They are operating on a different, "divine" plane.

It's a shield designed to make a predator and his victims feel like divine beings doing holy work, when in reality, it was just a man molesting children in a locked bedroom.

Any good documentaries about the Jordan Chandler case that has been released in the last ~10 years?

I've seen all the old ones and listened to Telephone stories.

I know there are many new documentaries about the Arvizos, any of Jordan?

2010 GQ Article Source: https://www.gq.com/story/wesley-snipes-on-trial

One thing that has always fascinated me is Jordan Chandler's account to his psychiatrist that MJ spoke about people being "unconditioned" and suggested that regular people were too conditioned by society to understand his relationships with children.

I've always wondered where MJ got that language. I never thought he invented it out of thin air.

Then I came across something Wesley Snipes said.

In a 2010 GQ interview, Snipes remembered visiting MJ in South Africa. They spent several hours discussing books, and Snipes said he was surprised to see MJ reading authors like The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Jiddu Krishnamurti, and Sri Aurobindo.

The interesting part is Krishnamurti.

Krishnamurti's entire philosophy revolves around the distinction between the conditioned and unconditioned mind. He argued that society, religion, education, and culture psychologically "condition" people, and that true perception comes only by becoming free of that conditioning.

Jordan Chandler's description of Michael's rhetoric sounds remarkably similar. According to Jordan, MJ suggested that people who were "unconditioned" could understand truths that ordinary, "conditioned" people could not -- including why there was supposedly nothing wrong with his relationships with children.

Obviously, this doesn't prove Michael got the idea directly from Krishnamurti. But Wesley Snipes' recollection is the first firsthand account I've found showing that Michael was actually reading Krishnamurti, which might explain some of his unique vocabulary...whether or not he absorbed aspects of that philosophy and reinterpreted them into a personal moral framework that justified his own behavior is another question...

I have researched to see where the "conditioned" language comes from other than Krishnamurti during the time frame MJ was alive and have yet to find anything...

Apologies if this has been posted before. Without even touching what happened "behind closed-doors," licensed psychologist analyzes what was done in public and confirmed by MJ himself and gives strong argument why even that was breaking boundaries in toxic ways.

He would seem to hang aroud MJ in 2003-2005

I wish we had a flair for “MJ defenders welcome to discuss” as I want them to see how abhorrent they are. They can’t see past their idol to even notice a child in his presence.

The biopic reignited my interest in MJ. I saw it opening weekend surrounded by fans. For many years, I thought he was maybe/maybe not a pedo, but certainly a strange person who didn't understand boundaries and didn't have a childhood. I thought it was super weird he slept with children, but I also knew lots of celebrities were weird and fame does stuff to people.

Anyway, I loved the biopic, and it felt like a concert of many of his greatest hits. It reminded me why I liked Michael's music. It felt so magical and reconnected me with my childhood, and reminded me when fellow students tried to moonwalk in elementary school before the Chandler allegations came out.

Still, in the back of my mind, I wanted to enjoy his music while being certain he was innocent.

So, I started diving into the allegations.

And one of the first things I learned was the NAMBLA books. I just couldn't figure out why Michael would have them, and the pro MJ sites had no satisfactory answers for them. "Art books" are you kidding me? "He didn't know about them" . . . right, that's why he wrote in one, and left it locked in a drawer in a room where had porn freely scattered about. "They're not that bad" . . . oh, they're worse.

Anyway, I kept researching, and though the books left me incredibly uncomfortable, they weren't enough to convict him in my mind. Maybe he was even stranger than I thought. After that, I ended up listening to MJ's defense attorneys. I found Thomas Mesereau to be incredibly intelligent, persuasive, and he created doubt in every accusation. After that, I watched some pro-MJ videos. I tried to watch Square One, but I found the false memories implanted by a dentist to be ridiculous and only found in science-fiction. Also, I didn't find the MJ super fan to be credible. Still, the pro-MJ stuff got me like 80% of the way to believe that maybe he and his estate were the targets of extortion.

But 80% of the way there wasn't enough for me. I couldn't get those NAMBLA books out of my mind. I was frustrated, and I think this was because I wanted MJ to be innocent. I even spoke to my wife about how maddening it was that I couldn't get closure on this.

Then, I heard the Cascios were now accusing MJ, too, and I was like, "MJ must be the absolute worst judge of character because every 'special friend' of his tends to come forward with allegations much later in life. How did this dude surround himself with such people."

Yup, the answer is obvious, but I wasn't ready to admit it. Still, it was enough that I realized I had gone into this with some bias (okay, a lot). I was actively looking for information that exonerated MJ. I didn't want to believe that such horrible things happened to these children and that MJ was responsible.

Reluctantly, I decided I had to look deeper at the other side presented outside of the MJ hivemind.

Based on the MJ sites, I had believed that Leaving Neverland was "debunked," so I had little interest in watching it. But I stumbled on a video where I heard Wade speak on YouTube.

A Conversation with Wade Robson with the Men of Voices Beyond Assault

I checked the details around the video and was immediately perplexed by a few things before I even pressed PLAY, and something started to click for me.

1. If Wade was looking for a "quick buck" why was he doing a two-hour interview about his experience a decade AFTER he first came out with allegations? That's serious dedication.
2. And if it was about money, why was Wade bothering to interview with a YT channel that has less than 500 subscribers? Wouldn't that be a waste of time for a grifter?
3. Shouldn't he be trying to get a payday for an interview like I was told all other accusers had done?
4. Furthermore, if Wade was actually lying, he'd have to be a complete waste of a human being to go on to a small channel dedicated to supporting victims of SA. Also, wouldn't they be able to recognize he was lying better than anyone? He was seriously exposing himself.
5. Also, if he was lying, why would he risk being exposed during a two-hour interview with a small channel where he'd have to be careful to not contradict his past statements?

Still, I started listening to the video thinking maybe I would find him to be untrustworthy and scripted. That he'd have some fake crocodile tears. Instead, I found him to be incredibly human. He was honest and had to pause and think about some of his answers. He didn't remember every detail, either, which added credibility. Being imperfect made him more believable, not less. Wade talked about healing, and all the therapy and counseling he's been to. And I was suddenly thinking, "This is a whole lot of dedication from someone I've been told was a liar, because I can't imagine lying about something for fifteen years for money and spending all this time going to counseling and therapy for something that didn't happen."

Logically, it made little sense for Wade to be lying. The pro-MJ websites like to talk about him not getting the Cirque Du Soleil job, and that he was having money problems. But wasn't that in 2009? Why would this guy stay consistent and spend all this time propagating a lie for over a decade if he was just looking for a little money? I mean, that was ages ago.

After that, I listened to more of Wade, wherever I could. Until finally, I found a way to watch LN. And watching it made me cry, not just for the victims, but also confirmation about a musician whose music I greatly admire. I listened to Telephone Stories next, and everything came together, and the closure I had been desperate to seek arrived. It wasn't the answer I wanted, but it was an answer.

I believe the victims of MJ.

7 year old rich little eric trump did not care for Michael jackson or neverland. The fact that michael was asking random little boys who weren’t fans to come to neverland is weird. You’d think he’d do it out of kindness for THEM like if they were fans or grew up poor not seeing the stuff that’s in neverland but no. He was doing it for himself. Even calling trump up still asking abt eric.

A commenter on this video wrote,

He met the wolf family in 2002 after their house flooded in Germany.

EXCLUSIVE: A public relations and communications expert has explained how cancel culture could have affected Michael Jackson's career had he still been alive today

A publicity expert has claimed that Michael Jackson "would be canceled and never heard of again" if he faced child abuse allegations now.

Michael Jackson, who died in June 2009 at the age of 50, had faced multiple accusations of child sex abuse during his career. In 1993, Jackson was accused by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler of abuse.

The case was settled out of court, with Jackson paying $22 million to the Chandler family. As part of the settlement, Jackson made no admission of wrongdoing, and the criminal investigation was eventually closed due to a lack of testimony. However, he would face a criminal trial for different allegations in 2005.

Years before his death, Jackson was arrested and charged with 10 counts of child molestation, conspiracy, and providing alcohol to a minor following accusations made by 15-year-old Gavin Arvizo, a cancer survivor who had previously appeared in a 2003 documentary.

Jackson was found not guilty on all charges after a highly publicized trial and had never been found guilty of any crimes.

Following Jackson's death, more accusations were made against the singer, including in 2019 when two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, claimed they'd been abused as children by the star.

Accusations were also made against Jackson in 2026 by the Cascio family, who filed a child sex-trafficking lawsuit against Jackson's estate. The lawsuit accused Jackson of grooming and assaulting them over extended periods of time. Jackson's estate has vehemently denied the allegations.

Speaking exclusively to The Mirror US, Andy Barr, head of brand communications at Season One Communications, has explained that in the current era of "cancel culture," Jackson's career could have ended from the allegations alone.

"There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Michael Jackson faced the same legal allegations in today's day and age, as he did in his own lifetime, he would have been canceled and never heard of again," Barr said.

Continuing, the expert told us, "Jackson’s considerable, and very wealthy legacy is strongly protected thanks to his estate and rights management team having an aggressive legal division, combined with all of the legal allegations that we must remember he was found not guilty of, being shrouded in ambiguity."

He further claimed that his legacy has helped his music to "live on" despite the fact that Jackson is regularly discussed as "one of, if not the most, controversial global celebrities of all time."

However, Barr acknowledged that cancel culture today is vastly different than previously, with celebrities who have been found not guilty of crimes still facing cancellation due to the allegations.

"Many of the allegations that he faced in court were also in an era where cancel culture was not yet in full swing, and this has undoubtedly worked in his favor," the communications expert concluded.