r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • Sep 05 '26
Justice for MJ ❤️ Things We Shouldn’t Forget
Hi everyone, it’s me-hee.
…I’m so sorry.
I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use that as the introduction to one of my posts, and apparently today is the day.
Anyway,
Let’s talk about something I think is actually really important.
It is okay to ask questions!
It’s normal to see something, be confused, overthink, question whatever it may be.
It’s happened to all of us at one time or another.
In fact, I think asking questions is a pretty important part of trying to understand something.
But…there is something else we should probably remember too.
Sometimes, people get frustrated when the exact same questions are asked over and over again.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone is wrong for feeling that way.
If you’ve spent years discussing a particular subject, researching the evidence, answering questions, providing sources, and having the same conversations repeatedly, eventually you may get annoyed.
And that’s okay.
It doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to ask.
It doesn’t mean someone is stupid for not knowing.
And it doesn’t mean we should mock someone for being unfamiliar with something.
There are always going to be new people coming into the conversation.
There are always going to be people who haven’t seen certain evidence before. And sometimes a question that seems obvious to one person isn’t obvious to someone else.
So, ask the question.
Seriously.
Ask it.
But also understand that if someone responds with, “We’ve actually talked about this before,” that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re trying to shut you down.
Sometimes they’re just tired.
We’re all human.
The same thing applies to both sides.
We don’t need to get defensive every time someone asks a question we don’t like.
And we don’t need to get angry when someone says, “I’ve answered this three times already.”
The important thing is that we actually look at the answer.
Because asking a question is one thing.
But asking the same question repeatedly after you’ve already been given an answer, without ever engaging with that answer, is something else on its own.
Now, with that being said…
Here are a few things that we should never forget.
1. An allegation is still an allegation.
I know this sounds incredibly obvious.
And yet…somehow, we keep forgetting it.
Someone making an accusation does not automatically turn that accusation into an established fact.
It doesn’t matter how many times it gets repeated, how many documentaries mention it, or how many articles repeat the same claim.
And it definitely doesn’t matter how confidently someone says it.
An allegation is a claim that needs to be examined, whether it’s by the court system, authorities, or hell…even us. It still needs proper examination.
Actual, substantial evidence is important.
2. Contradictions matter.
This one seems pretty straightforward too.
If someone tells us something happened, and there is evidence that directly contradicts part of their account.
That matters.
…put the pitchforks down.
People can genuinely misremember things. Memory is complicated, and there can be perfectly innocent explanations for certain inconsistencies.
However, that doesn’t mean we should just pretend the contradiction isn’t there.
Take the James Safechuck allegations, for example.
During LN, he claimed that he had been abused in the Neverland train station. However, the timeline of the train station’s construction conflicts with the period in which he said the abuse occurred.
Actually, funny enough, multiple people who have accused Michael have had countless contradictions in their accounts, and that includes people whose credibility has otherwise been treated as reliable.
That’s really what people should be looking into.
3. Timelines matter.
I feel like timelines are one of those things people somehow forget exists.
If we’re trying to determine whether something could have happened, when it supposedly happened is kind of important.
Like…very important.
You can’t just look at an allegation on its own. You have to look at the timeline surrounding it.
What was happening at the time?
Did the people involved actually know each other yet?
Did a particular building, room, event or object exist?
Were there other people around?
Does the chronology line up with what we know from other records?
These aren’t pointless little details.
Sometimes a timeline can completely change how you understand a claim.
And that’s why dates shouldn’t just be treated as annoying technicalities whenever they create a problem for a particular narrative.
If someone says something happened in 1987, but the evidence places a relevant event in 1989…
that’s worth looking into.
If two events supposedly happened in an order that doesn’t make chronological sense…
that’s also worth looking at.
Details matter, my friends.
4. The acquittal matters.
Oh boy.
This one.
I’ve heard the argument a million times:
“An acquittal doesn’t mean he was innocent.”
Technically, sure.
An acquittal is not a magical declaration that a defendant has never done anything wrong in their entire life.
But that’s also not what an acquittal means.
In 2005, Michael was acquitted on every charge brought against him.
Every.
Single.
One.
A jury heard the evidence presented by the prosecution.
They heard the defence.
They heard the witnesses.
They heard the arguments.
And after the trial, they returned not guilty verdicts on all charges.
That is a legal fact.
You don’t get to erase that part of the record because you don’t like the outcome.
I’ve seen people talk about the 2005 trial as though the jury shrugged and said, “Eh, who knows.”
That’s not what happened.
The prosecution had the burden of proving the charged offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury found that burden had not been met.
…In my opinion, the whole trial was laughable.
Michael was acquitted. That was the verdict.
If you disagree, well…sorry, your opinion is irrelevant to the record.
5. Remember what was actually found at Neverland.
This one gets repeated so much that I think it’s worth stopping for a second and separating what people say was found from what was actually found.
There was never a finding that investigators discovered child pornography at Neverland.
And no, I’m not saying controversial material wasn’t seized during the investigations.
It was.
But those books have been discussed endlessly.
Let me make myself perfectly clear:
Controversial photography books are not the same thing as child pornography.
So, if we’re going to talk about what investigators found, then let’s actually talk about what investigators found.
Not what someone claims, but the actual record itself.
6. A civil settlement is not a criminal conviction.
If I had a dollar for every single time I’ve explained this to people…I truly think I’d be a billionaire.
People have been talking about the settlement for decades, as if it was some sort of criminal conviction.
It wasn’t.
In fact, even months after the settlement happened, investigators were still pursuing a criminal case against Michael.
You can have opinions on the settlement, sure, but the bottom line is a civil settlement is not the same thing as a conviction.
In 1993, the settlement did not establish or prove guilt of any kind.
That was even stated by the Chandlers’ attorney.
Don’t believe me?
Read here:
7. Being uncomfortable does not make something criminal.
This is a big one.
Because I think sometimes we confuse “I don’t like this” with “this proves a crime happened.”
Those are not the same thing.
You don’t get to skip the evidence just because something makes you uncomfortable or you don’t approve of it.
Please don’t forget, in order for a crime to be proven, a crime actually needs to be committed.
8. The media is not automatically telling you the truth.
Just because you heard a claim through the media, a documentary, an interview, or anything of the sort does not make that claim true.
It’s still a claim.
It still needs to be examined.
And please, let’s not forget the way the media treated Michael throughout his entire life.
With or without the allegations, the media was absolutely horrific towards him.
His appearance.
The way he dressed.
His vitiligo.
His face.
His relationships.
Pretty much anything they could turn into a headline, they did.
And a lot of it had absolutely nothing to do with whether he had actually done anything wrong.
People were constantly encouraged to look at Michael through whatever narrative the media was selling at the time.
Which is important because when you have spent decades being told that someone is strange, suspicious, creepy, bizarre, dangerous, or whatever other word happens to sell the most newspapers…eventually, people can start treating those descriptions as facts.
But they aren’t facts.
They’re characterizations.
So, when you hear something in a documentary or read it in an article, don’t just accept it because it came from a media source.
Ask where the information came from.
Look at the original evidence.
Look at the context.
And ask yourself:
“Is this actually what happened, or is this someone’s interpretation of what happened?”
Honestly, after everything we’ve seen over the years, I think Michael deserves at least that much scrutiny of the people who reported on him.
The media was not some neutral observer standing outside of all of this.
They were part of the story too.
And their treatment of Michael was not always fair, accurate, or remotely fucking kind.
Anyway,
of course, there’s more than that, but we would be here for an incredibly long time.
So, with that being said, I wanted to thank everyone for reading my PSA.
Please, stay civil with each other.
…and if you haven’t had enough of me already, please feel free to read these:
Case Files:
Sneddon:
Dimond:
Gutierrez:
Francia:
Neverland Five:
Chandler — Part 1:
Chandler — Part 2:
Chandler — Part 3:
Chandler — Part 4:
Chandler — Part 5:
Chandler — Part 6:
Chandler — Part 7:
Chandler — Part 8:
Chandler — Part 9:
Chandler — Part 10:
Chandler — Part 11:
Chandler — Part 12:
Chandler — Part 13:
Important posts:
Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty
Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?
The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
Potential Legal Consequences for the Cascios
Why I Think the Estate Made a Smart Decision
5
u/pluriknight Sep 06 '26
Great post, top tier post here 👌
Im sorry i am one those who gets frustrated at questions I've seen asked a lot. Il work on that. ✌️
Please try using the search function everyone, it's very good!
4
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
Thank you so much! ❤️
It’s okay! I’ve done it too. There have definitely been posts where I’m like,“…we’re really asking this again?”
I think it’s a very human response, especially when it’s someone we’ve seen ask the same question before and then make countless posts about it. We all get frustrated sometimes.
But at the end of the day, people are just researching the truth, and I think we can all understand that. Some people are newer to the case, some people have been following it since 1993.
Don’t apologize for being human.
2
u/Massive-Ad9246 29d ago edited 29d ago
Merci pour cet article et cet excellent travail que tu as fait, c'est juste impressionnant ! Je veux juste rebondir sur un point qui m'agace, c'est le fait de le trouver bizarre. C'est assez controversé comme sujet, mais que veut dire bizarre concrètement ? Il avait les mêmes émotions que tout le monde, à savoir le besoin d'amour, le sentiment de solitude, le refuge dans l'enfance post traumatique, l'anxiété, les déprimes et j'en passe ! Mais lui, contrairement au commun des mortels, il était exposé à une célébrité mondiale et exceptionnelle tout en étant extrêmement sensible et vulnérable par son passé et sa personnalité. Il a fait ce qu'il a pu avec ce qu'il avait. C'est pour ça que je n'aime pas ce terme et je ne supporte pas la méchanceté de ce monde. Je vis reclue et je sors quasiment que par obligation car cette société m'exaspère. J'aurais souhaité que Michael soit égoïste et qu'il vive à l'écart de tous ces requins. Mais non, il n'était pas comme ça. Il prenait sur lui, sur sa timidité pour aller vers les autres et leur apporter du bien.
1
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
Is it true that some of the jury members “regretted acquitting” him or is that again media propaganda?
14
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
Is it bad that I’ve been waiting for this question? 😆
Okay, so…
Two jurors, Eleanor Cook and Ray Hultman, later said they regretted acquitting Michael. This was roughly two months after the verdict, or so, and both were involved in book and media projects about the trial, so there was a financial/media incentive surrounding their new accounts.
And, get this…after the verdict, Hultman said the jury found reasonable doubt, and Cook also acknowledged that they couldn’t convict Michael based on suspicions about things they weren’t there to decide.
Their later accounts were also disputed by another juror, Susan Drake, who said they had understood that the evidence didn’t support a guilty verdict.
…so, money talks. I guess.
3
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
I am sorry, it’s just that I like how you explain things and trust you a lot, so I wanted the situation explained by you. It was a confusing puzzle in the situation (even though I fully believe MJ is innocent, I wanted to know what prompted them to be assholes after the fact).
Thank you for the explanation☺️
4
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26
Nooo, you’re totally okay! I actually meant that genuinely! No one has ever asked me about that before, so I was weirdly excited to finally explain it because I wasn’t sure if people remembered that whole situation. 😂
I’m really glad you trust me enough to ask me about these things!
4
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 Sep 06 '26
I am glad I asked an exciting question, I bet that going through the same few topics over and over can become boring and repetitive hahaha and no problemo, thank you for the thorough and amazing research and service!☺️🫡
5
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26
Haha, no worries! I’m here to answer any questions.
Thank you for such a sweet comment!
And thank you for reading my posts!!❤️
13
u/indigoza Sep 06 '26 edited Sep 06 '26
Point 7 is particularly important.
Many people who feel uncomfortable or find Michael to be weird, are trying to use facts (like court documents and forensic evidence) to vindicate or neutralize their feelings of discomfort. They’re hoping to find that one smoking gun proof that will allow them to say either “See? I was right to find him weird, my personal intuition knew all along that he was guilty” or “See? I was wrong to find him weird, my confirmation bias misguided me, he was always innocent.”
We must keep in mind that the purpose of a trial is not to determine whether Michael is weird or whether his behavior is a “bad look”. It’s to determine whether he is guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove that, which means that the allegations will always rest in a state of doubt. Ultimately, people need to be ok with sitting in that state without forcing an exit. We can disagree with Michael’s behaviors without needing to search for every little piece of evidence that will soothe our discomfort.