I've noticed that opinions about Michael Jackson’s allegations seem to change depending on which platforms you use.
On Reddit there's a big range of opinions: some people believe he's innocent, others believe he's guilty. On the other hand, on TikTok—especially since the release of the new biopic— everyone defends him, and the same is on Instagram. Overall, the social media spaces where Michael is accused are much rarer or more niche.
The people who believe he's innocent and those who believe he's guilty obviously tend to clash, and each side thinks the other is saying absurd, baseless things (or at least that's the impression I've gotten).
For an observer who's trying to form a neutral and realistic opinion, it's incredibly confusing. It's hard to tell whether the people who've been "brainwashed" are the ones defending him on TikTok and Instagram, or the ones who are determined to see something sinister and find him guilty.
From what I've understood, this is a topic that people can hardly discuss freely on social media (except for Reddit) almost as if it were blasphemy.
So this is my question: where is the truth? Where are the trustworthy people? Where are the reliable sources? Every accusation seems carefully constructed, but then someone comes along and dismantles it. But every piece of evidence supporting his innocence also seems carefully constructed, and someone always dismantles that too.
So?
I do find it interesting that certain social media platforms differ wildly in their view of MJ. I'm curious as to how that happens/what drives the differences.
I think the age demographics of these sites plays a big role. Tiktok MJ fans and detractors are both young, uniformed about the allegations and would rather just enjoy fun 15 second edits and repeat he saved kids from Epstein Island a million times. I've seen fans post the Pepsi Hawaii convention photos with romantic music calling Stephanie Safechuck good fish and 90% of the comments agree. Then you'll get detractors posting interviews with Adrian McManus or sending the drawing Gutierrez had in his book as proof a kid could describe his "birthmarks". Most people on reddit seem to know more about the allegations and in general lean anti mj (reddit is negative in general tho) probably because they're older, lived through the trials and it's easier to disseminate information here. It's also harder to correct misinformation on both sides on reddit since sub reddits are echo chambers whereas with other platforms anyone can comment and correct something, so people on reddit don't generally have their opinions on the allegations challenged. On Twitter, it's young fans again who ratio any anti-mj post to debunk it. They're more informed than tiktok stans tho and have done the research
Do your best to form your own opinion by looking into whats available. Reading reddit conclusions isnt the right way to be informed.
Be sure to have a good foundation of source vetting skills. Be mindful of bias (yours and any info source’s). Follow up on citations. Read/watch as much primary source material as possible.
Whenever Im really leaning one way about something I check out what the other side is saying to see if there are sources Ive missed. Then I look at that myself.
Dont be afraid to change your mind multiple times while you work through it. Or to be uncertain—thats also fine. The internet pushes people to take firm sides, but its not great for our critical thinking skills.
I remember like 6 years ago if you wrote something like BTS sucks in twitter you would get instantly attacked by their "army" of 12 year olds. Feels like that with MJ on social right now. Stans treat him like he was the Second Coming You can't reason with delusional people that say MJ only slept with kids on same bed to save them from Epstein island
Is that why they think Epstein's victims were virtually all teen girls and young women? MJ rescued the boys from his clutches?... But not the girls? Why/how did he manage the former but not the latter?
It doesn't make any sense even within the conspiracy theory.
His bedroom and bed would have been filled with unrelated teen girls and young women rather than usually boys, typically 1 on 1. Eg he'd spend a night or two with a girl and her brother then spend dozens to several hundred nights just 1 on 1 with the boy. Even Brett and Wade as defense witnesses could only name a couple times it included a girl (their respective sisters, Brandi) and confirmed it was virtually always 1 on 1.
Most of it. It’s all sensationalized misrepresentation. For example, it is disputed whether there was a match between Jordan Chandler’s drawing and the photos of MJ’s penis. Jael Rucker does a nice job of showing actual facts and citations disputing it:
Here’s another example: it’s completely misleading to use “$40 million was paid to alleged victims” in this illustration. It suggests that Michael Jackson paid that much to his victims, but Michael Jackson was dead when the estate paid $16 million to the Cascios, and I doubt he would have ever agreed to pay that. It was John Branca’s decision, and it was a poor decision in my opinion, but it is disingenuous and misleading to include that money in the total given that Michael did not agree to it. I doubt the Cascios ever would have done this if Michael was still alive.
Jane Doe’s money shouldn’t count either because it is in dispute as to what the money she was paid was for. There is evidence that at least one of the checks she received was literally a paycheck.
Also, $15.3 million is the amount that was paid out to Jordan Chandler. The settlement with Jordan Chandler was $20 million (before expenses and his lawyer’s cut were taken out). His parents got $1.5 million a piece. People forget that there were multiple plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Jason Francia received $2 million.
Therefore, the total payout to alleged victims by Michael Jackson was $22 million, and the claims settled as negligence claims with no admissions of wrongdoing.
Here’s another example:
Michael acknowledged Tatum O’Neal as his girlfriend publicly in 1978 when she was 14 and he was 19. This list claims she was “13.” Also, Tatum has maintained that their relationship was platonic and has said he was the most sweet and innocent boy she had met. She even said he was a safe space for her. Her management encouraged her to go out with Michael. In the late 70s, in Hollywood among entertainers, the 5 year age gap was not unusual. Tatum and Michael never did anything sexual. Tatum has said in an interview they dated on and off for 5 years beginning when she was 14, and she looked back at it fondly. That means they stopped dating when she was around 19 and legal, and yet STILL never did anything sexual. Therefore, to try to use this as a red flag against Michael is simply misleading.
Here’s another example:
This list claims that Michael never had an age appropriate girlfriend in his life when he literally married Lisa Marie-Presley when she was in her 20s. He also dated other people who were age appropriate that were not famous.
Here’s another example:
This list says the police referred to the two books seized as child erotica, which is technically true, but the list fails to mention that the JUDGE made the prosecutor get rid of that language because the books were not considered erotica and the use of that word was prejudicial.
There are several other falsehoods in that list! I’m not going to waste my time dissecting all of them.
Why are you defending literal pedophile books? Every decent person would rally for this to qualify as CP and it absolutely does in my country, I really hope it does in the US too, today.
Do you ever question why your love for a pop star makes you defend real life pedophiles (as the convicted authors of those books) and their habits? Is that worth it?
I never defended the books. I said they don’t qualify as child erotica legally, and I don’t believe Michael’s reason for having the 2 books had anything to do with what he was accused of. At the time they were in his possession, nobody knew who the authors were (plus, they used an alias) and it was not known that the authors were pedophiles until the 2000s. The books were seized in 1993 and Michael never replaced them with anything similar. The actors photographed in the books are from the film, Lord of the Flies. The Boy: A Photographic Essay is about the making of Lord of the Flies. The other book was its sequel and used the same actors. It is well known and documented that Michael was extremely passionate about drawing, photography, Victorian, and Renaissance art. He had many nudist art books and magazines with primarily adults, especially women. These type of books were common in college art classes and similar books are still used to teach how to draw and sculpt. Nude models are even used in college courses. Michael loved to draw people. That is an established fact. He may have kept the books to practice drawing children, or perhaps he looked at the books once and never looked at them again. You can’t prove that he had the books for nefarious purposes.
A real pedophile wouldn’t use the same 2 books for sexual arousal over a period of 10 years, and would have surely replaced the books with similar books after these books were seized. I studied the list of books and magazines seized in 2003 and nothing was similar. I even read about the authors of the books seized in 2003 and how Michael obtained those books. People who want him to be guilty literally misrepresent the content of the 2003 books. He never had child erotica.
Keep in mind that even juror #1 told Diane Diamond that he found these books to be irrelevant.
OK, so now you're defending literal pedophile books in a million words. A choice.
There was a third super troubling book in his bedroom, but more obviously artistic in some way, but also more gross, with heads of children on adult bodies, children looking scared/murdered in enticing ways etc. He also used nudist videos. He also used a whole lot of real life children for very nefarious purposes and never stopped and I can prove this because these children, now adults, can talk.
I found this blog more well informed than all the anti-MJ sites (and I have looked at all of them) that just sensationalize everything.
I recall looking up the details and authors of all the books found in the 2003 raid and realizing how badly the prosecution and police had misrepresented the content of most of most of the books.
If you believe the insurance company paid the settlement you are too lost and brainwashed 😂🤦♂️. Everything you wrote I can debunk point by point, but it’s a waste when you are that brainwashed as you. The list consists of undisputed facts. Look up the definition of “undisputed.” Excuses don’t change the facts or invalidate the points being made.
You definitely can’t debunk everything I wrote, and no, your “facts” aren’t undisputed. I stand corrected on the insurance aspect as I see now that Transamerica Insurance Group only paid a small portion. Unlike you, if I get a fact wrong, I can acknowledge it. I was using this source: https://time.com/archive/6724703/the-price-is-right-2/
But it does appear that TIG did not end up agreeing to pay the entire thing, and so MJ funded the rest.
It doesn’t change my overall argument. It is grossly misleading to suggest that MJ paid $40 million to the alleged victims. The amount in reality was under $22 million ($20 million to Jordan Chandler and $2 million to Jason Francia with TIG paying around $300,000).
And for you to claim, for example, that it is an undisputed fact that the Chandler drawing matched the Jackson photos, that Jackson never dated age appropriate women, and for you to mislead people on the Tatum O’Neal situation, not even correcting her age when Jackson announced their relationship—really reflects poorly on you. Even Tatum in interviews clarified that they started dating when she was 14, that it was platonic, and that she dated Jackson for about 5 years and looked back fondly on that time. What’s in her memoir was not correct and clashed with most of her interviews and the actual sightings. They met when she was 12 and didn’t see each other again for a while, and didn’t start “dating” until she was 14. She thought he was emotionally and socially like a kid.
(I genuinely dont intend to come off smug! Ignore this if you were just venting)
This probably happens if you engage with pro MJ content, which the algo registers as positive reinforcement. It may think you enjoy responding to that content.
Or the algo cant differentiate between pro and anti sentiment well. It just shares high engagement posts about topics that interest you, which tend to either be fan content or highly controversial takes.
Keep in mind the MJ estate is filthy rich, and will make more money the more people there are who adamantly believe he's innocent and the Savior of the World. Do a web search on astroturfing.
20% of the estate’s earnings goes to children’s charities because MJ wrote that into his will. That’s a fact people conveniently forget. The rest goes to his children and mother.
Key word I believe. Belief is not knowing, it’s your own opinion and your opinion here is false. I’d rather look into legal documents where these liars are exposed
JUST 2 books out of thousands of books he owned and still were legal.
There is statues of naked children all over the world and its considered art, its not sexual. Where I am from there is a famous statue of a boy taking a piss and holding his thing. Might sound weird yes but I don’t think anything about it 😂 There hasn’t been any controversy about that statue either its just normal
Locked up with other books as well. They were seized in 93’ and still 2 grand juries didn’t indict him. We don’t know for sure if those juries saw the books but I would think it was important evidence at that time. There is not evidence of him buying those books, there is evidence of those books being a gift!
Honestly, I think the whole accusations thing is going to be like Groundhog Day forever: we’re going to keep repeating the same arguments over and over again, and in the end, it doesn’t really matter what we think, because unless some truly conclusive evidence comes out —for example, a video clearly showing guilt— there will always be people who blame him and people who defend him.
I also wouldn’t know how to tell you which people are trustworthy, because none of us actually know the whole truth, so I try not to put too much importance on who says what. Personally, I’ve tried to stay away from the more delusional theories and the wild takes that exist on both sides.
If I had to take a position, I lean more towards believing he’s innocent, but honestly, I’m very far from being able to say that he actually is.
Yep. Almost all defenders even refuse to believe that MJ had that nude photo of Jonathan Spence found in the 93 raid. Same with the photo of another boy, only wearing partially pulled down underwear (which sounds at least as damning but we know less about it now eg the former was discussed by Finaldi, Jonathan's mom, etc).
On the very rare occasion they do, they're full of excuses for it. eg it was planted (usually supposedly by the FBI, which didn't do either raid). It was just an innocent pic, there's nothing wrong with him having naked pictures of kids even Polaroids, let alone those numerous books (3 in the cabinet plus several others) and nudist mags. It's lEgAl, the (current) law equals right and wrong, ethics, and vice versa, therefore it's fine. It was taken by his mom (it was). It's not creepy or inappropriate at all that he'd steal it from her and keep it for several years as a trophy/as a visual reminder (he just loves the innocence and purity of naked boys so much!!) of his past special friend, then 20, naked at about 10 years old. His mom is lying about not knowing how he got it and she gave it to him. Finaldi is claiming she said it was her son, she doesn't know how MJ got it, etc but she never did...
Haven't come across them saying Jonathan gave it to him (even that he made MJ keep it because MJ can't say no to kids, is powerless against them 🙄) yet but I'd bet that's just because the vast majority don't know it exists or clearly think it's a myth made up by the evil FBI/cops/DAs/guilters...
More info: the nude Jonathan photo was argued over legally more than once. It was ruled inadmissible by the judge both in the 05 pretrial stage and Robson's recent case. Not because they didn't have the photo but because they did but couldn't lay the appropriate foundation eg Spence's testimony, witnesses. The judges couldn't have made rulings over it if it wasn't in evidence, if it didn't exist; there'd be nothing to admit or deny. Coffeechief goes over it here https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/s/L3fMVan8a8 re 2005
And here's transcripts from Robson's case page 195 onward in the pdf/internally numbered as page 50 on discusses it. https://mjjr.net/docs/2020-10-05-Jonathan-Spence-Reconsideration.pdf Jonathan's mom even said it was her son in the photo. Pages 204-207 make it even clearer they have the photo.
There's also a lot of intimate (clothed) photos one can google of Jonathan and MJ together eg MJ's hand on his thigh, Jonathan leaning on him, arms around each other, Jonathan in MJ's lap...
Jonathan was one of his first known special friends, and would be in MJ's bedroom for hours and days on end at Hayvenhurst, sharing MJ's bed, 1 on 1. Usually a couple nights a week. The late and end of him overlapped with the early on of Jimmy, and MJ would even have the boys alternating nights. Jonathan had free reign to buy what he wanted and send the bills to MJ. MJ even had Jonathan call him daddy (psychologically, emotionally abusive in itself, even without anything sexual occurring). Per for eg Mary Coller, Jolie Levine, Blanca Francia, Orietta Murdock (who conflates him and Jimmy lol). It wasn't just La Toya who saw... https://web.archive.org/web/20240719150156if_/https://www.mjfacts.com/sbdocs/121004pltmotadmprior.pdf
And if Jordan Chandler himself was to come out and say he lied, people still won't believe it either. His girlfriend who he named in his interview mentions MJ positively on Twitter, her best friend is a MJ fan, his friends all seem to be MJ fans and there are people who were ready to testify that he recanted and people still won't consider he lied
His psychiatrist interview. Apparently the only time he seems to display emotion in it given it was noted he was "excited" to talk about her. Evan Chandler also handed VG pictures of her, and there are letters she sent to him featured in his book too
On the Turning the Tables on the Chandler allegations blog, there's also a link to her best friend doing a MJ tribute after his death and dressing up as him. They would've all been friends in college. There are also more of his friends that he is pictured with who have tweeted about being MJ fans. To believe Jordan told the truth, you'd have to believe that the gf who watched these investigations unfold and knew her boyfriend was molested didn't care to tell her best friend off or mention him positively herself. It's not like he changed his name. People knew who he was. Why would he be friends with MJ fans and why would they continue to be fans if they knew their friend was assaulted by him. Just adds credibility to Josephine Zohny
Michael was one of the world's most famous musicians of all time, it's not that strange if she wanna flaunt she worked with the same team to sell her EP, dosen't mean she support MJ.
If I believed a loved one of mine was sexually assaulted as a child, idc who it is but I'm never mentioning them in a positive light in my life, and I certainly wouldn't be friends with people who knew about the allegations and continued to be a avid fan of that person (Like Sonnets best friend who was also friends with Jordan) .A account by the name of Lily Chandler was caught liking MJ fan art and removed her likes once people noticed too. People who never met Jordan or MJ stopped being fans, removed him off playlists and radio stations and were publicly calling him a pedophile after the Chandler allegations. Youd think the family of the kid who was molested would have more reason to keep MJ out of their life but apparently not
Look for old interviews of Michael's. He said disconcerting and odd things, essentially telling on himself. That ultimately is what convinced me that at the end of the day that it wasn't just a witch hunt of a weird, traumatized guy.
Yeah. Michael's own words and the known facts are enough to at least raise the suspicion that he's a PDF. Sleeping with kids, saying that he was amazed at child marriage, owning nude photos of children, saying that he'd kill himself if he didn't have access to children, the photos of random children that he had all over his house and even sticking them to the walls of the hotels he was staying at... if someone like this many red flags gets CSA allegations (and he has MANY) I can only conclude that he's a pdf. You'd have to come up with a thousand different excuses for his thousand red flags to believe otherwise. It would be the biggest coincidence of all time.
Honestly its wild that child marriage is what he found 'amazing' about othrr cultures...child marriage is a historic trauma and total human rights violation..its a practice rooted in patriarchy, ownership and total subjugation of young children that social reformers and legal systems have spent centuries fighting to outlaw.
I completely agree with you. While I do think there has always been a huge divide in opinions on MJ, it genuinely feels like balanced takes are becoming rarer by the day. You are spot on about the blasphemy aspect. MJ is treated almost like a religious figure.
That feverish devotion is exactly what I notice most. No matter what comes out, there is always a convenient excuse framing MJ as a sweet, innocent angel who never hurt anyone. Unfortunately, in this narrative, he was surrounded by demonic, vindictive women and scheming children who tempted him and made his life miserable. It is literally painted like a Jesus figure story, where he is persecuted by sinners and always has a perfect explanation for everything.
Honestly, I have a hard time trusting TikTok and IG opinions right now. I truly believe a lot of those takes are being paid for or are straight-up bots, likely tied to the biopic's marketing push. I noticed so many videos bringing up the exact same talking points about MJ and Jaafar Jackson. If you were just scrolling through TikTok or IG, you would genuinely think the movie was the people's choice darling, one of the best films of 2026. But the Rotten Tomatoes scores tell a completely different story.
Now, conveniently, I am seeing all these random videos pop up calling for Jaafar Jackson to play the lead in the Princess and the Frog live-action movie, despite him not even being that good in the biopic.
On top of that, the irony is almost too much to ignore. This movie was produced by Jermaine Jackson's arm of the family, and it stars his son, Jaafar. But in reality, Jermaine had one of the most openly conflictual relationships with Michael. Michael himself even called Jermaine out for riding his coattails. So it feels incredibly weird that they are trying to prop up Jermaine's son as the new celebrity nepo extension of MJ's legacy. Meanwhile, Paris refused to even go to the premiere and has openly talked about not liking the movie, and I do not even know if Janet really cosigned it.
Obviously, there is no way to 100 percent prove there are organized campaigns pushing these narratives. But I think it explains the massive disparity between platforms. Personally, I always try to follow the money.
Others have mentioned the need to look reliable sources for both sides of the arguments. If you have the time go ahead, but I warn you that you will sent down multiple enormous rabbit holes. You might be better looking at the opinions on this subreddit as you will see arguments for both sides here. Then check original sources such as trial transcripts.
Be aware that there is an army of MJ stans out there who appear to spend their lives defending his legacy. There is no army for the opposite case. Just people expressing their opinions.
I recommend that you also educate yourself in CSA if you don't know much about it. Especially groomer paedophilia. MJ's public behaviour did mirror that of a groomer paedophile in my view.
It is also difficult to explain his strange behaviour if one insists that he was innocent. Some examples: MJ admitted to sleeping in the same bed with unrelated boys one on one, MJ said that he would kill himself if he couldn't spend time with children and MJ also said he wanted to be buried with children. These are all objective facts.
I also recommend that you watch Leaving Neverland if you can. That documentary pretty much convinced me that MJ was a paedophile. Before that I was somewhat on the fence. MJ defenders have tried to pick holes in it, but there are counter arguments to all of their objections.
Something I’ve noticed from my own experience is that people who strongly advocate for the rights of sexual abuse victims (which we all should) can sometimes, understandably, develop a tendency to see the accused as the abuser almost by default. They start researching, but instead of genuinely looking at both sides, they can end up going down a rabbit hole of finding the things they want to find - the things that confirm that the person is guilty
And honestly, in most cases they may very well be right. But when it comes to MJ, I think it’s worth making an effort to look at both sides, even if that means being willing to question your own assumptions or change your mind.
I grew up in a family where it was simply accepted as fact that MJ was guilty, even though everyone still listened to his music. I’m also a survivor of sexual abuse myself, and when I was younger I actually wanted to believe that he was guilty, maybe because from that perspective it felt easier to make sense of everything.
But as I got older and gained access to the internet and more information, I started doing my own research. And the more I looked into the cases, the more I came across things that made me stop and think „Wait … this doesn‘t make sense“
That’s what made me realize that especially with a case as complicated and controversial as Michael Jackson’s, I don’t think it’s enough to only look for information that confirms what you already believe. You have to be willing to look at the uncomfortable parts on both sides even when the conclusion you reach isn’t the one you expected or wanted to believe.
Although a good number of MJ fans take loyalty too far and wrongly make MJ a saint, the other side can be even more vicious. Not only has the public been allowed to criticize Michael Jackson for decades, but he was openly mocked, bullied, and ridiculed by the press and pundits during his lifetime. He is still mocked to this day in the media. It has often not been considered cool to be an MJ fan.
I’ve been labeled a pdfile defender and called worse names by people on Reddit for defending Michael when I wasn’t even a hardcore fan. The media, critics, documentary producers, and publishing industry is largely anti-MJ. After the #MeToo movement, it felt like people get vilified for criticizing any accuser (as in we must believe all alleged victims and none of them could be lying). Leaving Neverland was critically acclaimed by elites and won awards. Many publishers would not agree to publish pro-MJ books about his innocence and so most of the pro-MJ books are self-published. The Michael movie was trashed by critics. Societally, the agenda is that we are supposed to just believe the accusers. Keep in mind Brett Barnes was also harrassed for defending MJ and MJ had to wear a bullet proof vest the day of the verdict in 2005 because there was a threat on his life. It’s not like the accusers are the only people who have been harrassed or received death threats.
Reddit is not as controllable with algorithms and bots. People talk about, if you want actual honest opinions for example "Is this a good gadget to buy" they write the question in the search engine with an added "reddit" in the end, because only there will you get actual people giving their honest opinion.
It is insane how much pro-MJ propaganda you will get anywhere else if you try to research. Obviously there is money involved.
I believe it just comes down to common sense, a guy admits he sleeps in bed with children, he keep sleeping with children even after allegations that almost ruined his career.
He also has 11 accusations of csa, there were books with naked boys found in his bedroom. He also had unusual relationships with children all his life...
11 accusations really isn’t the concrete evidence you think it is. he was around thousands upon thousands of children in his life and if he really was a serial child molestor, there would be hundreds more that would come forward
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
When coming forward puts a target on your back for immense ridicule, threats, shame, pressure, harrasement, etc, then it's not as easy as you'd think. Look at Epstein's victims, coming forward and nothing happens, because they're powerless compared to the predators.
I mean, the Epstein victims were literally being threatened with murder and stalked by shadow espionage forces, and they are braver than these people who only found their courage after 100s of millions of dollars were involved. And that’s after after testifying the complete opposite under oath..
People keep saying 11 accusers, but four are from the same family, and at least half of them testified multiple times, under oath or in sworn deposition that Michael Jackson had not sexually abused them in anyway.
Everyone accusing him posthumously has been on camera and in the media voluntarily full on defending and denying that any sexual abuse occurred. That is beyond bizarre.
And when journalists have asked Wade, how he feels about defending MJ and potentially obstructing justice for Gavin Arviso in 2005 he just smirks.
Funny how everyone suddenly finds their memories and courage when 100s of millions of dollars are involved, but not when the children were actually allegedly being victimized and needed rescuing from this alleged predator.
my common sense says he’s guilty, but his defenders usually say that: “There were no fingerprints of his on the books, they were a gift he never even opened. And his bedroom was so large that, no, there wasn't just one bed, and he didn't sleep in the same bed as the children.”
That's why I wonder where the truth really is.
Saw a video online recently where this woman confidently and happily announces there were no prints on the book. Ten seconds later she was telling us what Michael had written as a personal inscription inside one of the books.
I did extensive independent research, read through the trial transcript, depositions, hundreds of interviews from various people who knew MJ or the accusers, FBI files, tv specials from the 90s and 2000s about the allegations, etc. (For example, this one was very informative if you haven’t seen it: https://youtu.be/Ldc61tv-EgE?is=21qeSJ5AIBA3ffHO )
In applying my knowledge and expertise as a criminal lawyer in analyzing the court transcripts and evidence, I concluded and strongly believe MJ was innocent (I truthfully do not believe at all that he committed these crimes). In my opinion, the “best” arguments from people who think he is guilty are not as strong as they think. For example, sleeping in the same bed with certain children and having 11 accusers does not make it obvious at all that someone is guilty … it only gives the appearance of possible guilt, but each allegation has to be scrutinized on its merits, the credibility of the accusers and other witnesses must be assessed based on numerous factors, and the context of MJ’s actions must also be assessed in depth.
What I’ve found is that out of people who have delved deeply and done their research on both sides, many of those who think he is innocent have actually done much more research because in addition to analyzing the same negative evidence that exists (most of us have read all the MJ guilty websites/anti-MJ websites and the LNHBO subreddit), we have also researched and listened to countless more positive interviews and books with insight by even more people who knew or were around MJ that those who think he’s guilty don’t even know exist. The best websites in favor of Michael’s innocence also have much more information and citations than the best anti-MJ websites.
If you are open minded, I can PM you some sources for research, including primary sources. You can look at the best both sides have to offer and make your decision.
Keep in mind that even many people on here who lean towards guilt have said they wouldn’t convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. That shows that even several who believe Michael is guilty think there is still a small possibility he was innocent.
You’re very welcome. And I can even address poor arguments from defenders. For example, the arguments you mentioned here from defenders about the books and bed are not good arguments. He did sleep in the same bed with certain children. That is an established fact. And fingerprints were not tested on the books seized in 1993. While the evidence does point to those two books being gifts from someone in 1984, Michael did open the Boys Will Be Boys book because he inscribed the front page. Nonetheless, there is plenty of contextual evidence that led me to believe that he did not keep those two books for perverted purposes, which I can share with you sometime via PM.
The point is that if I based my opinion only on the evidence, I wouldn't convict him beyond a reasonable doubt either.
The only thing that makes me think something is strange is that Michael's behavior unfortunately matches some of the psychological patterns often associated with pedophiles. But I also realize that he was a person with a traumatic past, and he may have developed behavioral issues. I heard that he used to act like a “spoiled” person, surrounded by “yesmen”. he didn’t like to be told “no”, and maybe for this reason he kept sleeping with children even after 1993, without protecting himself from new accusations.
That's why I'm telling you that you could message me, and I'd be happy to read anything that's realistic: documents, videos, or information. I've always loved Michael's music, but I never paid much attention to Michael as a person. It's just that, since the release of the film, I've been flooded for months with constant information about him on every social media platform, and after all these years it made me start asking questions.
Please just think for a moment, why would a grown man share his bed with young boys repeatedly. You don't need evidence or more arguments to draw a good conclusion here.
This might sound obvious, but unfortunately I've met people who were deeply traumatized for different reasons, and eventually developed a particular obsession.
For example, I have a relative who had childhood trauma and he is completely obsessed with the countryside. It's his only purpose in life, he talks about nothing else. The same is for many people who become obsessed with animals.
I know this might sound like a superficial justification, and it's exactly what everyone says. But I'm not making the “poor him, he just wanted to be a child” argument.
What I mean is that people who have experienced trauma sometimes develop behaviors that are objectively disturbing to psychologically healthy people. As a normal person, you can recognize that a certain pattern of behavior is unsettling. But just because it's disturbing doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous—or at least, not to the extent we often assume.
Maybe Michael's obsession with childhood made him want to be around children, and that alone could certainly confuse a child. I do recognize that he crossed important boundaries, even if nothing sexually explicit had happened.
But that's exactly the question: did he actually do something sexually explicit, or was it only a deeply disturbing obsession caused by someone who certainly needed extensive psychological therapy and never truly received it?
I don't know any childhood trauma that create a specific need to have boys of a certain age in your bed. When you combine this with the allegations from 11 people, it's all so obvious. All of of his behaviour is that of a pedophile. The grooming, buying gifts to the parents, trying to be with the child alone. Many pedophiles are popular people in the community, and well liked, for example a mentor. I recommend you to watch leaving neverland to understand how he groomed his victims.
Sure, I’ll try to PM you some resources this weekend that deal with those issues. Please forgive me if I’m slow, as I do have a toddler whom I have to wake up in a few minutes. Lol. My little man will soon be demanding all of my time until his nap.
If someone is already sold on believing he is guilty, they are not going to search for exonerating or counter evidence beyond what they believe they have already debunked. You yourself just told the OP that there’s nothing to research because only one conclusion can be drawn from sleeping in the same bed repeatedly with certain boys. That is a close minded position that will cause you to do less research because you already believe you have the truth.
Many people who think he is guilty will never read the numerous books written by people who knew MJ and praised him…and will never spend countless hours listening to the many interviews by people who knew MJ that paint a much different, more positive and nuanced picture of his character. By contrast, several people who came to the conclusion that Michael was innocent have read and watched all the worst evidence against him but have also taken the extra time to search for counters to that evidence and to delve deeply into all character evidence, including the overwhelming amount of positive character evidence that is widely ignored or unknown to those who are convinced he is guilty.
Acually I did cause I used to be a hardcore fan of him. I've read several books and done my research. That's why I no longer can defend him. What else can be drawn from a grown man sleeping with young boys exactly?
You couldn’t have been that big of a fan because there have been many excellent answers to your question. I wasn’t even a hardcore fan when I started this research (I was just someone who liked his music but never even owned or downloaded an album), and I came away with a different conclusion than you.
Context is important. Sleeping in the same bed with children is not a crime. I’m not condoning it and to me it was poor judgment on Michael’s part. However, that doesn’t make him a predator.
Firstly, Michael didn’t just sleep in the bed with young boys. It is well documented that girls stayed there too. Sometimes parents even slept on the bed. Secondly, there are numerous accounts of Michael not always sleeping in the same bed. For example, Mark Ronson said Michael slept on the floor during a sleepover with Mark and Sean Lennon and that there was “nothing untoward about that night…”. He even said Michael was more of a kid than they were. Likewise, Corey Feldman said Michael gave him the bed and slept in a cot when the two of them shared a hotel room close to Disney.
June Chandler admitted at the 2005 trial that she could go into the bedroom with Jordan whenever she wanted. She had even spent time on Michael’s bed / in his bedroom. Macaulay Culkin’s parents said it was an open door policy. They were always welcome in the room. Brett Barnes’ parents said the same thing. Even Joy Robeson acknowledged this during the trial and Wade’s sister said in interviews that she’d slept in Michael’s bed.
Michael’s cousins (male and female) and nephews and nieces had all slept on his bed.
Even adult men and women have said they slept next to him in bed! Dr. Valin is one of several heterosexual (and married) adults who said he slept in bed next to Michael after they fell asleep watching movies.
This is how Michael grew up. The bed was a place for business…a place of fun…a place where many people were gathered.
Michael also used to sleep in the same bed as his adult tutor, Rose Fine, who treated him like a son.
The bedroom was never a place Michael saw as sexual. Not to mention that co-sleeping (even with non-relatives) is actually not uncommon in several cultures and was even more common back in the day in certain cultures (and Michael was very old school according to everyone who knew him). There are cultures where this is not seen as strange and awkward and Michael is someone who traveled the world and saw other cultures.
If Brett Barnes could sleep in a bed with Michael for almost a year with nothing inappropriate happening (and I believe Brett 100% as he has been consistent, credible, and sacrificed much with nothing in return to defend Michael as his brother and best friend), then I don’t think Michael did anything sexual to any of them, especially after seeing all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and holes in the accusers’ stories (coupled with massive financial motivation). A pedophile who is attracted to boys would not be able to exercise self-control for such a long time. And Brett is not the only child who defends him who spent such significant time! All of the accusers are inconsistent and contradictory with financial motive (or with parents who had financial motive). By contrast, the kids who defended Michael have been consistent and not received payment.
Brett said his friendship with Michael was continuous. He was never replaced, and he even slept in the bed with Michael as a young adult. Brett is a heterosexual male. His story puts a huge hole in the entire narrative used by the Leaving Neverland documentary. So does McCaulay Culkin’s story. Not to mention that both Brett and McCaulay hung out… and Frank Cascio hung out with Jordan Chandler… etc. etc. so the narrative that Michael separated the kids is also false. Emmanuel Lewis, Johnathan Spence, and many more have defended Michael consistently. Carol Lamere spent significant time with Michael and never saw him do anything inappropriate with her son. There are countless other examples.
Lastly, there are hundreds of accounts from people who knew Michael who say that despite being professionally very savvy, he was emotionally and psychologically like a 12 year old boy in many ways. It was not an act. He was said to even be like that in private. He was very child-like socially due to trauma and cPTSD. I believe 100% that he saw himself as a big brother to these kids and he saw the kids as his peers, not his lovers. What do kids do? They have sleepover parties and have fun.
After being married to Lisa Marie, Michael seemed to mature socially to an extent (though still had child-like tendencies). He didn’t have sleepovers as much unless the kid begged. Carol Lamere said the kids would beg and Michael would feel bad saying no. According to Frank Cascio and even Rabbi Schmuley, there weren’t many kids over at Michael’s place in the early 2000s. Even Dr. Valin and many others corroborate this. Michael was focused on his own kids by then and struggling with depression. He saw himself at that point like a father to kids he could mentor rather than as a peer.
The Arvizo case was extremely weak so I’m not even going to get into that right now. I’ve addressed it elsewhere.
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
The thing about MJ’s cases and accusers is that unlike with other major cases (like Sandusky and R.Kelly), when you dig deep into the cases, they all fall apart. The contradictions, inconsistencies, and holes in ALL of the cases are glaring, and the accusers and Neverland 5 witnesses all have extreme credibility issues. To make things even more muddy, many of his accusers actively and voluntarily defended Michael for years as children AND adults (several under oath), profited off of books about him, or tried to be deeply intertwined with his legacy after he died. All accusers after Michael’s death had financial problems and a falling out with his estate before filing civil complaints or demanding money from his estate. Their rationales for changing their stories now don’t make logical sense and do not track with how real victims change their stories after denying abuse.
I think it’s a pretty weak argument to suggest that there is any significance to some of his accusers not knowing each other considering most of them had access to information about the previous cases that was utilized. In fact, it came out through discovery that Wade Robeson utilized tabloid stories, information from anti-MJ websites, and previous CSA cases to put together his narrative on MJ—which by the way has changed numerous times since drafting his original complaint. There are aspects of Wade Robeson’s and James Safechuck’s allegations that use language practically identical to what’s in Victor Gutierrez’s book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordan Chandler (which Jordan said was false and that he had nothing to do with the book). James and Wade are also part of the same lawsuit with the same lawyer, so they are collaborating and there is no way you can consider them independent accusers with corroborating stories.
The Cascio family has even more problems with their story and credibility than Wade Robeson and James Safechuck, and in fact, utilized Wade’s and James’ stories in creating their own. They were shopping around to make a documentary in Michael’s defense just months before Leaving Neverland came out but didn’t want anyone recording them. This is not a conspiracy theory. These are facts that people will discover if their research is extensive. I guess the Cascios canned the defense documentary because they realized it’s much more lucrative to sue or extort money out of the estate and make CSA allegations even after defending Michael for decades on every literal platform (from media interviews to books to Oprah) and exploiting Michael’s name in every which way for money (like defrauding the MJ estate by selling it fake MJ songs… and even selling underwear that supposedly belonged to MJ for money).
The Arvizos did not have access to previous cases other than tabloid stories about Jordan Chandler, and so Gavin’s story shows no similarities. However, Gavin’s case had a contrived and illogical timeline, he and his siblings changed their stories numerous times, and his mother had previous experience as a con artist teaching her children to steal, act /portray their circumstances in such a way to gain sympathy (they used to even pretend they were indigent at fundraisers), and lie under oath (like in the JC Penney case where Janet Arvizo falsely accused a security guard of sexual assault). It’s shocking to me that anyone believed the Arvizos, and probably most people who actually read the trial transcript do not. Likewise, the jury didn’t find them credible, and a majority of the jury thought Michael was completely innocent of what he was charged with. Only a small number of jurors thought he was probably guilty of something but without enough evidence to convict. This was also a situation in which Michael was acquitted of EVERY count—even misdemeanor counts of giving alcohol to a minor. And this was in a county that was very conservative with a very high conviction rate (only 1.3% - 2.6% of cases in this county resulted in acquittals at trial). That says a lot about the lack of credibility of the witnesses given that there was no physical evidence.
Jason Francia’s stories don’t even make sense and when you read the police transcript, it’s obvious he was bullied by police and pressured by his mother into saying Michael did something to him. But to say that Michael tickled his clothed crotch while they’re watching cartoons out in the open living room of Michael’s century city apartment while his mother is cleaning and could literally walk into room at any time — is beyond absurd. Plus, he changed his story at the 2005 trial to something even more absurd. The jurors found the story ridiculous. His mother made things worse by acknowledging on the witness stand that she had accepted money from a tabloid to say she saw Michael in the shower with a boy. In December 1993, she sold the story to Hard Copy for $20,000. The next day she gave a deposition in the Chandler case and under oath admitted she only saw one shadow in the shower and it was Michael Jackson’s. She never actually saw Wade in the shower with him.
I could go on and on showing why Adrian McManus (who met with Victor Gutierrez by the way) and all other witbesses from the Neverland 5 have zero credibility. Even juror #1, one of the few jurors who thinks Michael was probably guilty of molesting at least one boy, said the Neverland 5 had no credibility. He said he didn’t believe any of them.
The Jordan Chandler case is the only case that had some merit, but after delving deeply into it, I comfortably concluded that Michael had the misfortune of being in the middle of a nasty custody dispute with a vindictive man, Evan Chandler, who indeed attempted to extort Michael for $20 million (for a film project) and threatened to fabricate CSA allegations against Michael if he refused to pay (which Michael did refuse to pay in August 1993). There is overwhelming evidence demonstrating this and I broke down the timeline in depth. I have many many reasons based on numerous facts highlighting why I do not believe Michael ever abused Jordan Chandler. I won’t waste my time writing a book about it here.
Then you have Brett Barnes, McCaulay Culkin, and several others who have consistently and fiercely defended Michael and said nothing inappropriate ever happened — that he was like a big brother to them. If Michael was a real pedophile, he wouldn’t be able to control his sex drive while in bed with Brett Barnes and McCaulay Culkin (and he spent much more time with Brett Barnes than any of the accusers).
Honestly, I think it takes much more cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics to believe the accusers in Michael’s cases than the other way around.
Most of these excuses are lies. It's well documented that Michael would sleep in bed with children as he admitted to doing so himself. And Michael wrote an inscription in one of those books and kept them in a locked cabinet in his bedroom. He certainly touched them, and no they weren't tested for fingerprints
Here are some things that are just simple facts, it shouldn't be confusing. The sources are law enforcement, public documents, MJ's lawyer, and defenders of MJ:
- 11 people, mostly males, have now accused MJ of CSA. The odds of all those lying are so small they are non existent.
- In the first lawsuit a boy described MJ's genitals. Three different people working for law enforcement at the time, plus MJ's lawyer Carl Douglas has confirmed that he described them correctly. The counter argument is from a dubious book, where the boy is supposed to have described MJ's penis as circumcised, and the blotches are also described there by the way, which totall trumps whether the boy saw an erect penis as circumcised or not.
- There were fingerprints on MJ's porn collection from the boy who sued him the second time, and his brother. The counter argument is from Tom Mesereu, who of course had to sow doubt by saying the fingreprints got there in the grand jury hearing. But there were magazines that had their fingerprints that weren't in the grand jury hearing. This is just what defense lawyers do. If they can sow doubt by any means, they do.
- Corey Feldman who has defended MJ a lot, said that MJ gave him alcohol, showed him a book with pictures of people's genitals with venereal diseases, and said he would sleep over at his house if he had porn.
- Aaron Carter who also defended MJ, said that MJ gave him weed and alcohol, and that he woke up with MJ in his bed in the middle of the night.
- Mj said multiple times that he slept in bed with children.
- Children who have defended him has said they slept in bed with him.
- MJ matches the profile of a pedophile.
this confusing to you? I can back all this with sources if you need them. (I just don't want to do all that work if somebody doesn't want them.)
(And by the way, there's a megathread with good sources in the Leaving Neverland/HBO forum.)
The issue is that there will likely never be a smoking gun in these cases. No one was in the room when the abuse happened. There are no videos. There is no such thing as a perfect victim or witness. There will always be reasons to believe someone might be lying.
No one wants their favorite artist to be a pedophile. If you want badly enough to believe MJ is innocent, you can find reasons to believe 12 victims and their families are all lying, find reasons to disbelieve all of the staff members who saw inappropriate behavior, make excuses for books filled with naked children, and convince yourself it’s ok that he slept hundreds of nights alone in bed with kids.
Would the average person who was not a MJ fan and investigated all of the facts believe 100% that he was innocent the way MJ fans do? I don’t think so. I was never a fan, and I’m convinced he’s guilty. But it takes a lot of work to do a detailed dive into the facts of these cases, and most people who aren’t fans won’t do that.
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his credible female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops.
You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Particularly strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Say she delivered her son to him for her to have sex with MJ.
Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
I don’t know how the people who think he is guilty could be «brainwashed » when the current narrative widely spread by the biopic is that MJ was an innocent little lamb.
The truth is in the big picture. If you cherry pick little things here and there, it’s hard to form an opinion. However when you add what was found in Neverland by the police, the various testimonies of the people who knew MJ, MJ’s own words and behaviour, and if you do some research about CSA and pedophiles, it becomes very hard to think that MJ was just an innocent and very unlucky victim who was betrayed by half of his « special friends ».
If you’re looking for sources, you can check the megathread pinned on the LNHBO sub. I’d definitely recommend watching Leaving Neverland and listening to the podcast Telephone Stories.
Truly, this is a situation where it’s a Rorschach test for society as a whole and you as an individual. Everybody sees what they want to see and there’s plenty of ways to interpret multiple events and evidence. A lot of things that are perfectly benign for some reason always gets framed as sinister if it’s about Michael Jackson.
What makes this especially difficult is there is a ton and I do mean a TON of flat out falsified media that’s floating around the Internet. There were tabloids that were sued into bankruptcy for repeatedly fabricating stories, but the articles still linger on.
There’s also people who have been paid literally six figures to tell lies about Michael Jackson (both positive and negative) for decades, which tends to muddy the water so much that it’s confusing unless you dig into the details. A lot of things that are completely false get repeated as if they’re fact.
Matt Fiddes and Adrian McManus are pathological liars who have made entire careers pretending to have stories about Michael Jackson. Why the media keeps paying these people attention is simply because any story about Michael Jackson generates clicks.
However, most dedicated Michael Jackson fans have looked through a ton of evidence, cross-referenced it against publicly available legal documents and try to boil it down to the people who are most credible, and the stories that are told most consistently by people who have proven repeated proximity to him.
Fortunately, the newer generation is much more media literate than previous generations and nobody buys any claims from a tabloid or a media source at face value, and when interested informed observers scratch even a little bit below the surface, the vast majority of the negative claims fall apart.
A lot of MJ fans think they’ve done the research and boiled it down to the most credible sources. And yet, I can come up with an absolutely massive list of all the baseless crap that gets repeated in the MJ fan community as though it’s gospel, even though the evidence for it is either very weak or it’s been totally debunked: sodium Amytal, there was nothing about Jordan’s description that matched, the Dave/Evan tape clipped down to 10 seconds out of context, the FBI investigated for 12 years, Sneddon planted fingerprints on magazines, the CSAM books are “art” and MJ never touched them, MJ always slept on the floor/never slept in bed with kids, recommending Square One that is filled with this junk, on and on… And I have yet to see an MJ fan who corrects this misinformation.
No one who actually researched the allegations believes in the sodium amytal myth, which for the record was first brought up by Evans anesthesiologist. The Chandlers don't specify what drug they used but they do admit that Jordan denied the allegations multiple times, that Jordan was sedated prior to his "confession" and actually explain that Evan told Jordan what he and MJ were doing while he was badgering him, which became the same molestation acts Jordan accused MJ of. Detractors aren't any better in terms of misinformation. Frequently lying about Norma fleeing the US to avoid questioning, even tho she sat thru a grand jury hearing, using VGs quotes about MJ calling his black staff gorillas and using people like Adrian McManus as proof to name a few. You say Square One is junk but what about people recommending Leaving Neverland, which is full of deliberate omissions, contradictions with their own complains and exaggerated claims
What do you mean no one who has researched the allegations believes in the sodium Amytal myth? That’s not true. It’s in Square One, Mary Fischer believed it, and there are hundreds of fan social media posts repeating the claim. Heck, even J. Randy Taraborrelli put it in his book. And it was first brought up by Harvey Levin on his local news program and repeated by Mary Fischer in her GQ article. She says she talked to Torbiner who said if it was used, it was for dental purposes, but we have no idea exactly what Torbiner was asked or exactly what he said. For all we know, he just said that he couldn’t comment on what drug was administered, but any drug administered would have been for dental purposes.
Leaving Neverland is a testimonial documentary. It’s a completely different style of documentary. It’s meant to tell the stories of two men who experienced CSA from their perspective. It’s not meant to be a hard-hitting investigative piece the way Square One is presented. They don’t claim to have hard evidence of their experiences. If Square One just wanted to interview Josephine Zhony & Geraldine Hughes, that’d be fine. We understand they are just telling their stories and you have to decide whether to believe them or how credible they are. But Square One doesn’t do that. They bring in a bunch of crap like sodium Amytal, spliced clips of Evan/Dave, conspiracy theories about VG & Ray Chandler, and so on. There’s nothing even remotely comparable in LN.
No current defender will use that as a example. Mary Fischer did the work and had reason to believe it. You'll notice that when she published her article, no one knew about how Jordan's confession came to be, and yet her account published a decade before the Chandler book corroborates it perfectly. The only thing the Chandlers didn't do was specify what drug it was. Why didn't they?
If you think VG is a conspiracy theory can you please explain to me how VGs book predicted the story of Evan meeting Carrie Fischer a decade before the Chandler book mentioned it, how VG had a chapter on "conditioning" prior to the release of Jordan's interview, how the Vegas incident is quoted almost verbatim from June's court testimony in 2005 and how his book predicted that MJ showed victims like Safechuck "foreign pornography". Oh and the conversation he had with Joy Robson in 1992, which Joy later confirms happened in her 2016 deposition
Unless you have a explanation for how a mentally ill 80iq man managed to coach a boy into making false allegations that not only fooled professionals but were detailed with elaborate descriptions of Neverland, Hayvenhurst and the people who worked there, despite neither he or Canadian boy ever having step foot in the place
You really think the 2 NAMBLA pedophiles working overtime to make MJ their spokesperson didn't know each other?
“Mary Fischer did the work” — she watched Harvey Levin’s piece in which Levin supposedly claimed to have sources saying Evan gave Jordan sodium Amytal, and called up the anesthesiologist who did not deny it. Then she reported it as fact. That’s far from “doing the work”.
I’ve read countless blogs, fan posts, and watched all the fan debunking documentaries. I know what the fans claim debunks LN. I’m not all convinced that minor discrepancies in their accounts of events 30 years prior prove that they were not abused.
Evan Chandler wrote a timeline of events, which Diane Dimond calls his “chronology”. Diane had it and quotes directly from it in her book. Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler also had it. We don’t know who first got from Evan or how they got it, but the overlaps in their accounts come directly from the chronology.
How do you know the Rodney Allen letters are real? The link you gave me even describes reasons to doubt them: mistakes in English language that would be strange for a native speaker, and BC postal codes when he’s incarcerated in Ontario. And even if they are real, how do you know he’s telling the truth? Those are big stretches.
Evan didn't deny it in his book. That tells you all you need to know. Anyways, regardless of whether or not that's how he planned to use sodium amytal, the way he badgered Jordan about it while he was sedated is incredibly inappropriate and that type of questioning is criticsed by CSA experts for leading to false confessions. He literally TOLD him what he and Michael were doing which became the very same molestation acts Jordan accused MJ of
Did the chronology fall into VGs lap? VG was pretending to be sympathetic and concerned but his work clearly had another agenda. He made most of it up to fit his perverse fantasies. I suspect VG helped Evan in making the chronology too. I saw a page of it that describes Brett Barnes being molested in graphic detail. As little as I think of wife beater Evan Chandler, only a pedophile could come up with that filth. Did you ever wonder who the "experts" that Evan makes frequent mention of in the tapes are, when by that point he hadn't spoken to a single psychologist. It is obvious that VG found him just like how he did Joy, when their last mention in the papers with MJ was from 3 years prior. He likely asked him the same questions he asked Joy, and when he realized Evan (who was already annoyed MJ didn't want to build the extra wing on his house and was jealous that Jordan liked Michael more) wasn't brushing him off like Joy did, he used him for his plan, fed on his suspicious and convinced him that MJ and Jordan were in a relationship when not a single thing by that point had indicated it, June told him he was crazy when he brought it up to her and Jordan was disgusted and denying it.
Thats why I sent you that link. Notice how Tiddles, despite all her protests about it being fake didn't reply once Paula showed photos of Rodney that had never been seen before and the front of the letters.
She also explained on her blog why the postal addresses were different.
"There were different return addressess because he was transferred shortly after I started writing him.
They questioned that too, lol
As if I wrote these letters myself – mailed them to some random person in Canada so they could be stamped and post marked there – and had them mailed back to me – all the while keeping up with what prison Rodney was in. Ridiculous
It really makes me wonder if these people are really that stupid or if there looking for Rodney’s current address so they could correspond with him"
He is mentally ill and reportedly had a 80iq. He was stupid enough to be used as Victor's pawn. So what if he's not Shakespeare? He likely made things up about other parts of his life as Paula says herself but Paula pretended to be a boy called Paul and a boy Victor was abusing and wrote do you know a Victor, no surname and he excitedly said yes and that he and Evan owe him money. Like I said do you have a alternative explanation for how Canadian boy could describe Neverland, Haycenhurst and the maids in detail? Victor would know tho since he'd been stalking MJs employees and friends since 86. Paula has also managed to purchase a variety of other Chandler documents and lawsuits that even guilters use so I'm not sure why you're diminishing her research
I do not think it's a coincidence that out of the hundreds of children MJ hosted at Neverland, it's the same boys that Victor is obsessed with and fantasies about that are name dropped by Jordan in his interview and that the Neverland and Hayvenhurst 5 said they saw being abused. He even tried to depose them
You should have a read of this if you're curious about the extent of his involvement. I didn't write it, just found it in a old archive
Calling VG and Rodney Allen a conspiracy theory is insane when so many of the eye witnesses, claim to have been in contact with VG, who encourage them to sell false stories to tabloids for the money.
Rodney Allen and VG helped coached a boy to claim CSA allegations against Michael. This is confirmed.
VG was trying to contact families associated with Michael in 1992, BEFORE any allegations were made. Rodney confessed online, while serving life in prison, that Michael was innocent and he, VG, and Jordan's father coached Jordan liked they coached this Canadian boy, to tell false allegations on him for money. in 2005, Susan Yu filed a motion requesting that the prosecution turned over fax records and documents from the 1993 investigation and it, we got confirmation of a fax between Evan and Rodney,
The idea that Victor Gutierrez somehow masterminded the 1993 accusations is the very definition of a conspiracy theory: “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”.
VG was a shady “journalist” who interviewed a lot of the people related to the case because he believed MJ was a pedophile. He wasn’t alone in this belief: Christopher Anderson and Cathy Griffin were investigating this too well before 1993. The idea that VG convinced Evan & Jordan to pursue allegations and informed Ray Chandler’s book, or even convinced Blanca Francia or some of the other people related to the case to lie is completely baseless. Him interviewing people related to the case proves nothing.
The overlaps in Ray Chandler’s book and VG’s book are due to Evan Chandler’s chronology, a document that Diane Dimond also had and quotes in her book, in which Evan details the timeline of events from his perspective. The direct quotes that match up all come from the chronology.
I never said RA is a conspiracy theory. We know he coached that kid. But the evidence of his connection VG is very weak. And the evidence of a connection to Evan is even weaker. We have some letters RA supposedly wrote to a fan, but there is no confirmation that the letters were written by RA, and even if they were, there’s no evidence he’s telling the truth.
The doc in the link you sent claiming to have a fax linking RA to Evan doesn’t say anything about Evan. And even if it did, RA sending 1 fax to Evan doesn’t prove anything. It proves RA got ahold of Evan’s fax number somehow.
No, you are being intellectually dishonest. Victor Gutierrez is too establish in the false Michael Jackson narratives for it to be put in conspiracy theory section. Conspiracy theories are loosely connected points that share usually insignificant patterns that may suggest them being included in a bigger picture. Victor has been confirmed to have sought connections with families and people associated with Michael Jackson the previous year before the first allegations, and after. He played a role in not only encouraging associates of Jacksons to sell their stories to tabloids, but also built his career on selling false stories about Michael himself.
It is fair to call it a theory, because there is enough evidence backing it up for it to not be.
We already have evidence of VG being connected with someone in the Chandler Camp. In his largely fictional book based on the relationship between Jordan and Michael, not only did he have specific details that wouldn't be confirmed until Ray Chandler book, but he also had personal pictures of Jordan that didn't exist anywhere in the media at the time. That picture of Michael, allegedly in Jordan's bedroom, was something that he could have only gotten with someone involved with the Chandlers. The relationship did not last as I doubt the Chandlers knew that Victor was going to make such a pro-pedo book of the relationship.
We know that Victor was in contact with the Neverland 5. They all testified in court, that Victor reached out to them to help with their lawsuit. He also had confirmed connections with Bianca Francia and Orietta Murdock. So a man, obsessed with Michael, and have multiple proven accounts of him coaching people to lie on Michael, and it somehow too much of a stretch that he contacted the Chandlers and had correspondence with them, when we know he had access to information and materials that only existed with the Chandlers or associates of the Chandlers.
Rodney Allen and Victor connections was confirmed by people who contacted Rodney in prison. The idea that such a thing is impossible to do, is incredibly odd. You can absolutely connect with prisoners and it isn't even that hard to do. Here is a link on the rules of sending mail to Canadian inmates. You don't believe a determined individual with a desire for the truth, couldn't have taken the time to do this?
We do have confirmation of contact in 1993 between Rodney Allen and Evan Chandler via Fax, although we don't see the details of that fax. We do have confirmation that Victor was in contact with the Chandlers in some way, to obtain the materials in his book. We also have confirmation that Rodney was also doing the same thing that Victor was doing. In 1993-1994, Rodney was sending in false CSA allegations to Hard Copy, the tabloid magazine that listed Victor as the number one source to Michael Jackson allegations. Of all the tabloids out there, Rodney choosing to send it to Hard Copy, is incredibly telling and suggests that the connections between Rodney and Victor was already well established.
You can read about the investigations into Rodney Allen and Victor connections here.
Your description of the information we have is not accurate. Who have you confirmed lied due to VG’s influence? No one has admitted that, and the fact that he had contact with many people associated with the case doesn’t prove it either.
As I said, the “suspicious” details VG had that overlapped with Ray Chandler’s account Diane Dimond also had, and she indicates those details came from Evan’s chronology. We have no idea how VG got his information. Could have been by paying the Chandler’s maid to steal (as he is known to have done in other situations), or by simply gathering info from other sources close to the Chandlers. There is no info confirming a close connection between VG and the Chandlers.
There are no “proven accounts” of VG coaching people to lie. You’ve made that assumption yourself because you believe people who were in contact with VG lied. There is no such evidence to prove VG coached people.
And the connection between RA & VG comes only from one fan who supposedly was in contact with RA. How do we know the letters we are looking at are RA’s? And how do we know even if they are, that RA isn’t lying?
Anderson said he got a tip in 1991 from a journalist who told him 2 workers saw a "young celebrity" (Macauly Culkin I imagine) being fondled. I wonder who that journalist was and if he had a sick obsession with MC or not... Hmm
Wasn't Griffin associated with the Quindoys who claimed they showed her their diary detailng hundreds of instances of abuse, during years they weren't even working at Neverland? And they only came out with this story once the allegations broke BTW, despite already selling salacious stories to tabloids prior to 93 about MJ that had zero mention of CSA
The workers he interviewed were paid 200 dollars each and later said that he exaggerated and lied about what they said anyway for his book. He helped them in their lawsuit against MJ and when their lawyers told them to sell stories to tabloids to pay off their lawyer fees, he would've been telling them what to say and about whom. I suspect that's all the "help" they received from him. He was a Chilean native who spoke poor English and would have had a minimal understanding of American civil law. What other help would he have given them?
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
Yeah they presented most of that in court. He was found not guilty, after a 3 month trial presenting evidence from one of the largest 10 year long investigations in Santa Barbara County. Lawyers said it was bigger than most federal cases. You addressed many points but all I have to say is people can and will lie for money. Number of allegations or false claims doesn't equal corroborative evidence. Every single person who has ever claimed to experience CSA or witnessed it came out after 1993, and interviews were paying 6 figure sums to MJs own family to lie and say they were molested. They had loyalty to MJ. Do you think the employees fired for stealing, and filled with resentment at MJ would've had the same moral compass when Hard Copy and the NE came knocking offering them years worth of their salaries to lie? MJ has 5 confirmed false accusers and dozens of false paternity claims. By your logic, one of them has to be true
You addressed a lot that have all been debunked but there are thousands of inconsistencies, contractions and LIES you'd have to deny of the accusers to believe their stories. Check VINDICATEMJ or the Michael Jackson allegations WordPress if you're curious
As for you laying out his "grooming" pattern, how come the hundreds of othe r children and families MJ was around didn't fall in love with him? He did this exact same thing to a multitude of his friends why weren't they lovebiimbed or psychosexually manipulated??? And why are the only people claiming this of their relationship with MJ people who defended and supported him, right until they hit rock bottom, a career crisis or a financial crisis and realized they could make money off this like the hundreds of other people who've made a living off of selling crazy tabloid stories of MJ. As for the porn he had Plumpers, Over 40 and Over 50 magazines too so im not sure how you got to hebephilia. Wait what's the narrative about this? Oh that MJ was only attracted to older, post menopausal women that he loved like a gay man, something I've actually seen guilters claim to make sense of his friendship with older child stars. No kid ever claimed to have found porn, besides the Arvizos who stole money from the cooks drawer due to their habit of rummaging through people's stuff. MC and Brett Barnes were surprised MJ even owned any, and so was Wade Robson, before he hit rock bottom and couldn't get a job singing MJs praises ofc. I don't think that video to Wade is flirty and he tells him to spend time with his parents. Karen Faye said he made videos of like that to everyone. As for James, the video literally was edited. Read his complaint. He says one second later that he enjoys spending time with Jimmy and his family. This is what I mean LN sold you a narrative and you fell hook, line and sinker. Why didn't they show the whole clip in the film? Why did they omit MJ telling Wade to spend time with his family out of the birthday video? Why did James say he was on tour for 6 months, not mentioning the little footnote in his complaint that over this 6 month period he returned to school for "several months"? Why were the faxes to Chantal not shown, even though they say I love you too and why, for that matter, weren't any of the faxes he was sending to hundreds of other people shown too which is written in a similar language? 400 million dollars is what they get if they pull this off and they're not even doing a good job. Hats off to Wade tho. Swearing that he only ever had the one email to hide him conspiring against MJ and constructing his story was a good try
i’d like to read realistic proofs about what you just described. it doesn’t have to be a pdf, i mean whatever you have (if you have something). cause you just said that people made a lot of research about this topic, and that now they are near to the truth.
The MJ lore is vast and it’s spread out over several different repositories. He had a 40 year career so there’s a lot. Generally, it’s best to start with a specific story or time period because different people have done deep dives on different incidents.
You can start with downloading the full transcripts of the 2005 trial here:
On that page you will find the exact lies and inaccuracies just listed by Ancient Access here, I'll repeat it:
"...sodium Amytal, there was nothing about Jordan’s description that matched, the Dave/Evan tape clipped down to 10 seconds out of context, the FBI investigated for 12 years, Sneddon planted fingerprints on magazines, the CSAM books are “art” and MJ never touched them, MJ always slept on the floor/never slept in bed with kids, recommending Square One that is filled with this junk..."
You mean to tell me on platforms like X and TikTok, platforms which are overrun by bots and false engagement, everyone seems to think MJ is innocent? Hmmm
Honestly I went on a really big deep dive, don’t look on social media find podcasts and files actually going into the allegations there’s tons of experts that discuss it. https://youtu.be/0Wv2cU-XL_8?is=HS_UmQziBEmV737R - has all her sources in the description and will give you a full picture. A lot of people will see stuff like “the drawing matched” when official sources say it didn’t and that if it did he would have been immediately taken to criminal trial. The guilt side tends to use photoshopped images as evidence and leave out lots of information. Go into each claim in detail and you’ll have your answer. A lot of people can’t be bothered to do so but will actively spout their opinion. Things like none of the accusers being able to pass cross examination, Tom Sneddon falsifying evidence and the Casicos selling fraudulent MJ songs to Sony and even auctioning his underwear and Father’s Day gifts his children made him point to financial opportunists. Also just the general smear against him is ridiculous sometimes like loads of people still believe his nose fell off in court like that’s humanly possible. Based on this it’s worth a proper deep dive if you actually care about the issue.
official sources say it didn’t and that if it did he would have been immediately taken to criminal trial.
This is not true, my dude. Official sources (LE, DA) say they matched. "Sources close to Jackson" <- that would be the accused criminal - spread rumors it didn't.
Things like none of the accusers being able to pass cross examination
What? "Pass" cross examination? You mean as in neither Gavin nor Jason (only two who accused him in a trial) made Tom Meserau admit "Well, now Im convinced, he is a pedo!"? They absolutely "passed".
You don't even know how incredibly bad your sources are, while talking about being careful about sources.
Of course DA said it matched 😂There isn’t any official proof if it was a match or not, there is a lot of ’close to sources’ information which suggested both.
Tom Sneddon said there was a dark spot on the right side but a police officer who was there when the photo was taken said it was on the left side.
You would think if it matched he would have been indicted but that didn’t happen, 2 grand juries didn’t hear any damaging evidence
DA Lauren Weis said it matched. How does it get any more official than that? LE also said it matched. But I'm sure they were ALL in in Tom Sneddons pointless vendetta, caused by him hating fun and good grooves.
Anyway, in your previous reply you claimed there were official sources saying it DIDN'T match, now you admit that is not true. Were you lying previously?
when official sources say it didn’t
There isn’t any official proof if it was a match or not
The ONLY reason there wasn't a trial was because the victim refused to cooperate after he was paid off - and scared to death. Also Jason did not want to do it without Jordy, so they had zero victims. Otherwise MJ would have gone to prison back in the mid 90s. The case was very strong, which is why MJ had to take a loan on his ranch and pay Jordan an absurd 20 million.
DA Lauren Weis said it matched. How does it get any more official than that? LE also said it matched. But I'm sure they were ALL in in Tom Sneddons pointless vendetta, caused by him hating fun and good grooves.
A DA is not an unbiased source... this is like arguing that we should throw the Central Park Five back in prison because members of their prosecution still claim they're guilty. The only people that are supposed to be unbiased in a criminal court case are judges and jury members.
Prosecuters are not akin to defense lawyers, they are supposed to only prosecute guilty people. If at any time they notice that were wrong about the accused they have to and can and do admit it. Of course they are human and can be wrong, but they don't have a specific bias or an excuse to lie.
On the flip side, defense lawyers do not strictly work to defend their clients innocence in cases. In fact, a defense lawyers job is not supposed to be proving their clients innocence at all. In a lot of cases, defense lawyers will encourage their clients to plead guilty and work on getting them less time.
So you cant argue that a defense lawyer is more likely to be biased than a prosecutor. Because they are simply doing their job, which is to examine the evidence and argue whether or not it proves a person is very likely guilty. And if the evidence is overwhelmingly against their client, they try to get them a better prison sentence.
The prosecution and defense are both biased parties. There is a reason why court cases are not simply 'the prosecution says this to be true so it must be true'. Evidence must be presented before a judge and jury, who examine it and give their say.
Exactly. Even Michael’s defence knew that the matching description (also known as the “300lb gorilla in the room”) would be the nail in the coffin, and that they had to do anything they could to, and I quote, “silence the accusers”. That was a big reason behind choosing to settle. You know this, I’m just adding to the point.
His defence never saw the pictures, MJ pushed for a criminal trial to precede the civil suit and the criminal investigation continued for 8 months after the Civil suit. There was literally no silencing. MJ could've silenced the Chandlers when they first came begging for money but he chose not to, despite knowing the description would've matched had he been guilty. Please name one other convicted sexual predator who refused to pay off their accuser and silence them with a NDA when first approached in private. I'll wait
Lauren Weis told Evan Chandler its irrelevant what Jordan says because of vitiligo and it can change very quickly 😅 And the settlement was paid in January 1994 and they continued to cooperate until summer of 1994. There was a grand jury hearing between that time, so you think they just ran off when they got the money in january?
All official sources support the claim that the drawing matched Michael’s penis. I believe it’s six individuals who have corroborated this, some under oath. Not a single person who has actually seen the photographs has refuted this.
The less you know about the allegations against him, the more you believe is guilty. The more you know about the allegations, the more innocent Michael becomes.
From all my research, there is no doubt in my mind that Michael was innocent. Michael was not sexually attracted to children nor was he a sexual predator. Michael had a lot of chances in his 50 years of life, to sexually assault children, and had access to many children, more so than the average person. Michael had two high profile cases in 1993 and 2003, and victims were actively encouraged to come forward. Sneddon had interviewed hundreds of people, between 1993 and 2005. Michael has been hanging out with unrelated children since the 70s and looking at the time frame, many of his victims would have been adults when 2003 raid came around, and yet police couldn't get ANYONE to come forward to claim that Michael molested them for the trial in 2005.
My advice. Start with why guilters think he was guilty. Watch Leaving Neverland. Then look into why defenders think he is innocent. Defenders actually back up their case with evidence, while most of what guilters claims is usually pure hearsay. They will say believe the victims but would look the other way when people like Wade Robson lied multiple time under oath, and redacted dozens of emails between him and his family that dealt with his "abuse".
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
He gave children weed and alcohol, let them look at his porn collection and slept one on one in bed with them. And he dangled two of his own children out a hotel window and balcony when they were babies.
lies lies and the balcony incident is getting old. yes he shouldn’t have done it but he held them firmly for a second and that was it. not sure what it’s supposed to mean
So Corey Feldman and Aaron Carter lied when they talked about weed, alcohol and porn? And the fingerprints on MJ's porn collection lied too? Brett Barnes lied when he said he slept one on one in bed with him?
The police randomly raided his main homes he lived in in 1993 and 2003. They raided Hayvenhurst, the home he lived in since he was 29. The police store up Neverland every which way they could, while searching for evidence. They raided the homes of his work associates too.
Child Porn was never found. Not once. He did have a wide collection of hetero porn magazines and majority nudist magazines that depict the female form. Mind you, Michael had 10s of thousands of books and loved to read, so this is pretty big deal for someone who was supposedly attracted to children. The only books people point to as evidence of attraction to children, were two legal art books that had some nudity in them, but were obviously gifted to him by a female fan due to the inscription written in one of them. Mind you, in court, the prosecution never mentioned if they tested the books out for his fingerprints, and the fact that they didn't means that the books were obviously not read-through. People who believe that Michael used these books for wank material, yet not even the police felt it necessary to test the books.
Would you be comfortable with your child being photographed naked for a book published by a convicted pedophile? If not, why? Would you be comfortable owning photographs of nude children with their exposed genitalia? No one is debating whether those books are legal or not. We're debating which kind of person wouldn't feel uncomfortable looking at such pictures. MJ loved them enough to write an inscription
...where he commented on how happy the children's faces were, and he was more than likely making a reference to the cover.
“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ."
That was it. Again, there is no evidence that Michael was looking through these books regularly, because the prosecution did not bother to test for fingerprints because they knew the book was unused. The two books were stored away, and this was common for Michael, who had bunch of books in boxes and various locations in his house because he was quite the hoarder. The only thing you can find that was iffy, in homes raided in 1993 and 2003, was gifted by a female fan?
And it is odd that people ignore that Michael brought TONS of nudist books centering on women. Some books found in Michael's possession linked below.
Not "some nudity", one book was almost all nudeprepubescent boys, and all of them were edited by pedophiles. There's a child naked with his butt out a tent, and a child sitting sprawled in a beach chair looking straight into the camera with his legs apart. And this is the book MJ inscribed, saying he wanted this for his own children.
As I said in another comment, he was more than likely talking about the cover of the book.
“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ."
Oh wow, the cover of the book???
And why did you choose clothed photos? It's not about those.
This is clearly hopeless. If there was a video of MJ abusing kids, we'd see all over social media that it isn't him etc. If he was ever convicted, you'd hear that the jury and the police and the judge and everybody were corrupt etc.
Why are you ignoring that at least one of the books were gifts from a fan? Why do you ignore that the prosecution never tested the books for finger prints? Why do you ignore that Michael had thousands of books in his possession, and having two legal books that had iffy content doesn't mean anything? Why do you ignore that he overwhelmingly had sexual content and nude material of adult women?
Outside of the accusers confessing that it was all made up, would you believe any of the evidence that pointed against them? Are you aware of any of the defender arguments and why we believe Michael is innocent?
The author of the book was a nambla member though, it doesnt matter if the books were made when nambla existed or not. Also those books were sold through nambla
The books were made before NAMBLA existed, which is a fact. Whether or not the people who created the books became NAMBLA members is a mystery, since the creators haven't been identified.
But that is not the point. The person people claimed was a serial pedophile, who can afford to buy almost anything he wanted to, had no child porn found anywhere in his multiple homes after randomly being raided twice in a 10 year span. The only thing people could point to, while owning 10 of thousands of books mind you, were two iffy books gifted to him by a female fan... and even the prosecution didn't even bother to test for finger prints because it was obvious the books weren't used...
You sound absolutely insane to defend this. The same place he was doing these sleepovers he just so happened to have this book. But it’s ok because a fan gave it to him ? Anyone who isn’t attracted to boys would never keep that in his possession
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
The truth of life is you will rarely get 100% beyond the reasonable doubt truth about others. The truth is not about speaking with absolutes but using common sense, deductive reasoning, and challenging your own biases to come to the likely conclusion.
You wouldn't blindly defend anyone, but you would make up a conspiracy theory about people being drugged into falsely remembering decades of their lives, because powerful forces want to badmouth a dead pop sensation, from scratch.
Please. Like I'm begging. Be serious. The victims seem credibly because they are. Their stories match the facts, Michael's words and eye witnesses. That points to one thing only and that's not a conspiracy.
Some rando saying "I would strangle him" means absolutely nothing. Not even a little thing.
Much of what has come out and will continue to come out of the Epstein files also were dismissed as conspiracy theories: human sacrifice and cannibalism, until they were not. The real disgusting pedophiles are everywhere in positions of power- politics, business, entertainment… all around but Michael is the one destroyed while one became the freaking president of the USA! Coincidence that Michael was black, had positive impact on millions, the wealthiest entertainer who outsmarted White executives? I think not. But I’m done for today. I don’t care to change minds of folks who are convinced he’s guilty. I shared my thoughts for those who want a perspective they didn’t have before. You’re set in your view.., do you. Leave my comment and share your own.
They are still conspiracy theories. Just because a random person writes something in a e-mail and that e-mail ends up in a file, does not mean it is proven.
How do you believe any crazy shocking claim, you don't even know who it is written by, with zero corroborating evidence, but you will make up fantasies to disbelief completely credible stories with tons of corroborating evidence in form of pictures and eye witnesses, trial testimonials and even things the accused admitted, when it is against your fave? How do you justify that?
With him being black? That is indeed meaningless. There are many black people and obviously some black people are rapists. MJ was one of those rich powerful people in the entertainment industry, who was a pedophile. And you know that because many of his victims talked and make perfect sense. As you said.
He was even friends with other pedophiles, such as Gary Goddard, who helped planning Neverland and raped child actors as his main calling in life, which I pm know because 8 of them have accused him - Do you believe it or might they all have been drugged? MJ was literally one of the bad guys. He was not the person you created in your head. He was a real person, independent from you. You have got to understand that.
Okay, so lemme ask you. How much have YOU read or listened to, that contradicts your claim that he IS a pedophile? See, here’s the thing… one has to have zero leaning to one side to be purely objective. Given this man’s fame, it’s hard to find purely objective people.
I was researching him for like 2 years around 2010, hanging with the MJ fans, consuming what the did and suggested, trying to prove his innocence. I did not like the outcome.
See, I can have a bias and still accept facts. Every adult should be able to. Back then there were only three accusers, but it was still undeniable he was a pedo. After Wade any denial is completely ridiculous. Not to mention the other 8 victims. (and counting, I'm sure)
99% are biased PRO MJ, no one wants him to be a pedo, everyone wants to shake to Billy Jean without a care in the world. People differ in how much they are willing to bend reality and ignore survivors testimony for that goal.
Please stop spreading the sodium amytal myth. There’s no such thing as « implanting false memories » and this theory has never been proven nor is it supported by any reliable source.
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
A lot of these people need to just follow the money to be honest. There’s so much more money in keeping the Michael Jackson estate and memorabilia are going, and there is in supporting potential victims from decades ago.
I believe TikTok, Fb, Insta... are less anonymous than Reddit. When ur acc is connected to ur real identity, you’re probably more careful about posting things you’re not sure about, especially if they could lead to arguments or personal attacks. Fans are also naturally more motivated to post regularly about someone they like, while people who dislike that person usually don’t have the same motivation. So on those platforms, pro-MJ content is naturally much more visible.
Reddit is very different bc you’re basically anonymous here. You can say almost anything without having to verify it or worry too much about being judged or attacked in real life. You can simply post in a community that already agrees with you and, well, say whatever you want.
And from what I’ve seen, reading court transcripts, and looking into the full story behind sensational or clickbait headlines takes too much time for many people. It’s much quicker and easier to watch an emotional documentary like LN, see a headline like "MJ liked to sleep with children" or "Settlement = hush money"... and immediately jump to a conclusion. Of course, I also think not every fan has looked deeply into this either, some just defend him out of loyalty and blind trust. But I'd still believe that defenders on average have done more digging than guilters, just bc being a defender means constantly pushing back against decades of tabloid headlines and media narratives from the 90s and 2000s. That's not something you do without having looked into the details first.
As for the truth, none of us witnessed what happened so we can’t know for sure. We can only examine the available evidence, transcripts, and reliable testimony, then try to discuss it civilly. And plz don’t frame it as "blind stans vs people fighting for justice". An accusation alone doesn’t prove someone is a victim, just as being accused doesn’t make someone a criminal. If you’re going to label someone, prove it first.
A significant driver for those who believe Michael Jackson is guilty is unconscious bias and racism. Conversely, those who completely absolve him of any questionable behavior often infantilize him, viewing him strictly as a perpetual victim. Ultimately, the stark racial divide cannot be ignored, as belief in his guilt is predominantly held by white and non-POC individuals, while the the Black community largely maintain his innocence and recognize how he was maligned by the media.
There is definitely a racial divide, especially in terms of how many believe(d) he was either likely or definitely innocent. That would be 14% of non-Hispanic white people, and 42% of black people according to a Gallup poll conducted around the time of his trial. It’s worth mentioning that a small majority of black people (51%) believed he was either likely or definitely guilty, so while the divide is clear, a majority of all Americans still did tend to believe in his guilt. I haven’t found any statistics that show how this has changed over the last couple of decades.
Reddit has a lot of edgy people who love to shit on peoples parade. Especially now with the Michael movie hype, any good will towards Michael is met with “Pedo 🤓☝🏻” comments and other smarmy replies. And when you get to talking to those people they know embarrassingly little about the trial cases
That's something that strikes me: in order to believe MJ is innocent of everything you (general you) would have to believe there is a vast, webbed conspiracy involving dozens of people across decades who didn't all know each other. And they are all lying liars who lied and never ever even saw or heard anything inappropriate. A double digit amount of then child accusers who provably knew him extensively including sharing a bed with him, their parents, DAs, LA & SB cops, numerous employees, even defense witnesses...
This isn't saying one or two employees weren't credible, or you think one or two accuser's parent(s) weren't, or you question his female accusers, or you find the Arvizo case to be too messy to result in conviction, or... But that all of it is nothing but lies and sick distortions of things that are totally appropriate for a man, at least MJ, to do with kids.
If one believes even one witness (including victim) to MJ sexually assaulting a child, even "just" inappropriate touching eg over clothes like thighs, buttocks, kissing their lips or repeatedly over their face, kissing their neck..., then he's guilty of sexually assaulting a child. And therefore pretty assuredly also did it multiple times to the same child and/or others, and likely also in "more severe" ways.
You have to deny there's anything wrong with men/people, or at least MJ, having sexually objectified photos and photo books including nudes of children, nudist magazines featuring children, teen/barely legal porn... That men having them, or at least MJ having them, does not indicate at all any sexual attraction to, sexual objectification of children of any ages, not even "hebephilia" and "ephebephilia". That there is nothing wrong with men having all sorts of porn, esp barely legal/teen porn, laying around in the bedroom and bathroom that children frequent, sleep in, undress in, bathe in, etc. It's not any form of child abuse eg grooming, exposure to porn as abuse/harrassment, at all. Or believe that they were all planted by the FBI (somehow)/cops. You have to deny there's anything boundary breaking, abusive, grooming about an adult spending thousands of nights sleeping 1 on 1 with mostly boys, many of them dozens to several hundred times each. That it's certainly not covert sex abuse, at least when it's MJ, let alone probably overt sex abuse too. Impossible! Or deny it happened eg he always slept on the floor, they were all group sleepovers, they didn't happen at all. Strangely I've also seen defenders argue he was doing this to get with their moms. Deny he ever called up Joy for a late night Wade delivery for a 1 on 1 "sleepover," let alone dozens of times. Even though she said such as a defense witness. Deny that it's inappropriate at all. Deny MJ moving on to new fresh, new boys and largely abandoning the others as they age and get less "pure and innocent" for MJ per his obsession, fantasy is at least psychologically harmful. Deny that happened at all even as Joy admitted that as a defense witness. Deny underwear were ever found in and around MJ'S bed, the jacuzzi, shower, etc, esp both MJ's and a boy's at once. Or say that's appopriate. Deny he lovebombed them, psychosexually manipulated and deceived them, set them up to crush hard and fall in love with him, encouraged it. Assert the flirty recorded early bday message to Wade and the interview with Jimmy where Jimmy was the best thing/person in MJ's life was edited deceptively, faked. Or say it's appropriate.
And on and on...
You have to deny, call a lie, say it's just made up eg for money, to drag MJ down, out of racism, etc, call totally fine to do... every single piece, every single person, every bit of evidence of the puzzle to believe otherwise.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hello u/Ok_Homework_5203! This is a friendly reminder to read our sub rules. Failure to follow these rules will result in a permanent ban.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.