Michael Jackson: Was he Innocent?

[Anonymous]

I thought the reporter from Hard Copy in the documentary was really annoying but probably right. The prosecution overcomplicated things by adding the conspiracy count and making impossible to prove allegations involving other boys without doing their homework first. You don't allege he abused MC without first asking the kid if he'll testify to that effect.

Posters say that MC had family to protect him but cmon. MC hated his father. Still does. MC had every reason at that trial to come clean on any abuse and blame his father for letting it happen. Yet, he didn't.

[Anonymous]

Tried watching The Verdict last night. The Bashir interview where Michael described going to bed with other boys and how beautiful it was with warm milk, cookies, tucking them in made me want to throw up in my mouth.

Then the black suitcase full of porn he showed his overnight child guests and then partying with German boys while his house was being raided.

It's too much. This guy ticks every pedophilia box there is.

[Anonymous]

He is innocent. Let the man RIP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is innocent. Let the man RIP

Pedophiles aren't innocent. He is burning in hell.

[Anonymous]

Finished watching the Verdict and I was surprised that I went from believing he was guilty to believing there absolutely was reasonable doubt for the Arvizo charge.

The first case that was settled for 23 million seemed like a much, much stronger case and he probably would have been found guilty. But even that case there is evidence the father who was a Beverly Hills dentist tried to get a payout for a screenplay he was writing and was upset when Jackson wouldn't pay.

The timeline in the Arvizo case doesn't make sense. He allegedly abused him after the Bashir video. It seems likely the mother realized how it looked on TV and they could get a payout. The boy changed his story on how many times he was allegedly abused (5,7,2?), instead of going to the police they went to a lawyer to file a civil suit to get money. I don't think they realized CA requires a criminal trial first. The Arvizo boy only spent a few days at Neverland unlike the Chandler case where he spent Jackson flew him to Monaco, France, and Florida and spent according to the mom 30 days overnight at the mom's house.

The Arvelo family just seems super sketchy. In the JC Penny case there was evidence that they shoplifted, then when detained filed a lawsuit, got a payout and still were getting money from welfare. The mother plead no contest to welfare fraud in 2006 and had to pay back the money. The boy got treatment at Kaiser which is an HMO and covers 100% of the cost of cancer treatment, yet they regularly solicited donations saying they needed the money to pay for medical care. The comedian George Lopez said they aggressively asked for money so much that he grew suspicious. If your kid has been abused who thinks about going to a lawyer to get money instead of first going to the police. They just seemed like grifters.

So it is unfortunate this was the case that was prosecuted because it makes it seem like since this case seems really sketchy then all of them other allegations are as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The black community was really cruel and joked about Michael “bleaching his skin” . My dad just said MJ was a self hating weirdo but I feel bad now learning from his autopsy that he actually did have vitiligo. It didn’t seem like Oprah even believed him when he said it to her.

He was destined to lose melanin due to genetics. He was not lying about that.

As for the nose jobs, he first received one after breaking his nose during a dance rehearsal in 1979. Then in 1984, his hair and scalp caught on fire filming the Pepsi commercial. This happened while vitiligo was intensifying and he was touring all around the world and stressed

It makes sense why he was in a battle with his body and face for so long

Ok. Explain then why he chose to have white children.

[Anonymous]

This documentary was so bad. It’s obvious there was no case against Michael and they wanted So badly for him to be guilty.

Let the poor man rest in peace. He was innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This documentary was so bad. It’s obvious there was no case against Michael and they wanted So badly for him to be guilty.

Let the poor man rest in peace. He was innocent.

You think it's normal to order and watch porn featuring men and boys? NAMBLA style? Do any of the men in your life have sleepovers with unrelated kids and build their whole life about enticing them and bestowing gifts on them?

[Anonymous]

There was 0 child porn!!

He had a pretty large collection of heterosexual porn!!

You guys don’t even know your facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was 0 child porn!!

He had a pretty large collection of heterosexual porn!!

You guys don’t even know your facts.

That's not what was in the magazine he circled or what his assistant said. He said they watched it together in a "phase" and he was the one who ordered it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was 0 child porn!!

He had a pretty large collection of heterosexual porn!!

You guys don’t even know your facts.

That's not what was in the magazine he circled or what his assistant said. He said they watched it together in a "phase" and he was the one who ordered it.

Allegedly!!! No evidence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was 0 child porn!!

He had a pretty large collection of heterosexual porn!!

You guys don’t even know your facts.

That's not what was in the magazine he circled or what his assistant said. He said they watched it together in a "phase" and he was the one who ordered it.

Allegedly!!! No evidence!

I'll take witness testimony. Also the kid described a black suitcase full of porn and lo! Guess what was found when they raided the house? A lucky guess, right?

[Anonymous]

He only had boys share his bed. Never any of the women he was in relationships with or married to.

The hetero porn was to groom the heterosexual boys in his bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This documentary was so bad. It’s obvious there was no case against Michael and they wanted So badly for him to be guilty.

Let the poor man rest in peace. He was innocent.

Innocent people don’t pay 30 million to their accusers and make them sign a non disclosure statement to avoid going to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the reporter from Hard Copy in the documentary was really annoying but probably right. The prosecution overcomplicated things by adding the conspiracy count and making impossible to prove allegations involving other boys without doing their homework first. You don't allege he abused MC without first asking the kid if he'll testify to that effect.

Posters say that MC had family to protect him but cmon. MC hated his father. Still does. MC had every reason at that trial to come clean on any abuse and blame his father for letting it happen. Yet, he didn't.

It’s already been said here but I will say it again: just because Jackson may not have abused Culkin does not mean that he didn’t abuse anyone.