Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people with low IQs like to always reply with "source" or "cite?" So tiresome. read the WSJ story, mentioned above. the reporting is the source!

Nice insults, but in the time you took to post that long quote, you could’ve also included, wait for it.. the source and link. This thread could go on forever no one scrolling back for links for your random quotes.

DP. I’m the poster who posted the WSJ gift link. I’ll post it again but maybe you could just keep up with the thread.

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/film/michael-jacksons-biopic-blinds-us-from-the-truth-6a41b5a6?st=DLhwtr&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people I know seem utterly convinced of his guilt but I have to say I’m persuaded otherwise by Macauley Culkin’s defense of him. Macauley DGAF and would have no reason to lie.

All that says is that he didn't abuse Macauley. Doesn't mean it didn't happen to someone else. He can only speak to his experience. I found the accusers believable.

Well, and it doesn't even really "say" that. It just means Macauley says he didn't. You say he "DGAF and would have no reason to lie" but you don't know that. People protect their abusers for all kinds of reasons.

Anonymous wrote:I’m inclined to believe so. Being an oddball doesn’t make you a predator.

Anonymous wrote:People make so many excuses for him because they liked his music or were fans of him growing up.

He had major mental health issues and was abused, and I truly believe that he is guilty of many of these accusations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people with low IQs like to always reply with "source" or "cite?" So tiresome. read the WSJ story, mentioned above. the reporting is the source!

Nice insults, but in the time you took to post that long quote, you could’ve also included, wait for it.. the source and link. This thread could go on forever no one scrolling back for links for your random quotes.

Anonymous wrote:I think he was odd and had mental health struggles. I do not believe in my heart he was a pedophile. ( I am 53)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people with low IQs like to always reply with "source" or "cite?" So tiresome. read the WSJ story, mentioned above. the reporting is the source!

Nice insults, but in the time you took to post that long quote, you could’ve also included, wait for it.. the source and link. This thread could go on forever no one scrolling back for links for your random quotes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen-Xer here. I'm always fascinated at how younger generations examine this question and come away with idk...maybe he's innocent...

The man is guilty as hell. There are stories upon accounts upon cases corroborating the allegations. But MJ was a God in the 80's, this was decades before me too, and many families were complicit in allowing access to their children in exchange for money/perks. There may also have been episodes that were shake-downs for $$ from his estate, but many things can and usually are true at the same time.

Because he was a soft-spoken, gentle-voiced, undoubtedly talented performer, he doesn't fit the profile of what most of us think of as a predator. But there was way too much smoke on this situation for it to be anything other than an inferno.

Millennial here and in our defense...his trial took place while a lot of us were still too young to follow legal news. Posted earlier that his '05 trial went down when I was a kid and I was in either 6th or 7th grade. I just remember my dad saying "I think he's innocent" and then he was later found innocent so I just filed it away and never thought of it again. I'm not an MJ fan so I didn't really think about it until this thread came up. He wasn't really a star for most of our childhood, at least not tail-end millennials like me. I think I said earlier in this thread, I was confused about his race and gender for several years lmfao so it's not like he was just such a big celebrity to me.

That being said, my bf is a few years older than me and graduated from hs the year the trial took place so I asked him his thoughts (I was curious after reading this thread). He was like "Idk, I always just thought he was developmentally delayed in some way and was just creepy and weird, rather than evil." He's also not a Michael Jackson fan, so I don't think there's bias there.

So, yeah, I think we as a generation are just out of the loop, for lack of a better term.

I'm an elder millennial and I think anyone who feels this way needs to take it upon themselves to educate themselves. I think you have an obligation. Stop taking things you read online at face value, ask more questions, and when there appears to be a controversy around a person that doesn't make sense based on what you know, dig deeper until you understand it.

Not just with MJ. With politics too. I'm tired of re-litigating stuff like the Iraq War, Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky, literally everything about Trump, because people just consume short, misleading social media soundbites about this stuff and don't bother to actually look it up. There were people who voted for Trump in 2024 who weren't even aware of the Access Hollywood tape from his first campaign, even though it was just 8 years prior.

Educate yourself.

I mean, I'm not sure what response you're looking for here. I was saying I was 12 when the trial happened and my mom understandably didn't let a 12yo watch updates about a child sex abuse trial on the news every night. I saw the headlines that he was innocent, he died a few years later, and I haven't thought about it for years until I saw this thread. I was giving an explanation to PP as to why younger generations may presume innocence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we debating this when boys were able to describe his pen!s?

Was this ever corroborated?

It was part of a legal proceeding, not sure what other corroboration you need? Read the WSJ piece linked above.

“A significant reason for the large settlement totaling about $25 million made by Jackson in 1994 to the Chandler family and their lawyer was the drawing of specific markings Jackson had on his penis caused by the skin condition vitiligo.

Jordie Chandler drew the markings and the drawing was put into a sealed envelope. During the criminal investigation, Jackson was so resistant to having his genitals photographed that he slapped one of his doctors. It didn’t matter for the civil suit. My reporting showed that when Jordie’s drawing was unsealed, it matched the photos.”

Source?

Anonymous wrote:I feel like people with low IQs like to always reply with "source" or "cite?" So tiresome. read the WSJ story, mentioned above. the reporting is the source!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we debating this when boys were able to describe his pen!s?

Was this ever corroborated?

It was part of a legal proceeding, not sure what other corroboration you need? Read the WSJ piece linked above.

“A significant reason for the large settlement totaling about $25 million made by Jackson in 1994 to the Chandler family and their lawyer was the drawing of specific markings Jackson had on his penis caused by the skin condition vitiligo.

Jordie Chandler drew the markings and the drawing was put into a sealed envelope. During the criminal investigation, Jackson was so resistant to having his genitals photographed that he slapped one of his doctors. It didn’t matter for the civil suit. My reporting showed that when Jordie’s drawing was unsealed, it matched the photos.”

Source?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gen-Xer here. I'm always fascinated at how younger generations examine this question and come away with idk...maybe he's innocent...

The man is guilty as hell. There are stories upon accounts upon cases corroborating the allegations. But MJ was a God in the 80's, this was decades before me too, and many families were complicit in allowing access to their children in exchange for money/perks. There may also have been episodes that were shake-downs for $$ from his estate, but many things can and usually are true at the same time.

Because he was a soft-spoken, gentle-voiced, undoubtedly talented performer, he doesn't fit the profile of what most of us think of as a predator. But there was way too much smoke on this situation for it to be anything other than an inferno.

Millennial here and in our defense...his trial took place while a lot of us were still too young to follow legal news. Posted earlier that his '05 trial went down when I was a kid and I was in either 6th or 7th grade. I just remember my dad saying "I think he's innocent" and then he was later found innocent so I just filed it away and never thought of it again. I'm not an MJ fan so I didn't really think about it until this thread came up. He wasn't really a star for most of our childhood, at least not tail-end millennials like me. I think I said earlier in this thread, I was confused about his race and gender for several years lmfao so it's not like he was just such a big celebrity to me.

That being said, my bf is a few years older than me and graduated from hs the year the trial took place so I asked him his thoughts (I was curious after reading this thread). He was like "Idk, I always just thought he was developmentally delayed in some way and was just creepy and weird, rather than evil." He's also not a Michael Jackson fan, so I don't think there's bias there.

So, yeah, I think we as a generation are just out of the loop, for lack of a better term.

I'm an elder millennial and I think anyone who feels this way needs to take it upon themselves to educate themselves. I think you have an obligation. Stop taking things you read online at face value, ask more questions, and when there appears to be a controversy around a person that doesn't make sense based on what you know, dig deeper until you understand it.

Not just with MJ. With politics too. I'm tired of re-litigating stuff like the Iraq War, Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky, literally everything about Trump, because people just consume short, misleading social media soundbites about this stuff and don't bother to actually look it up. There were people who voted for Trump in 2024 who weren't even aware of the Access Hollywood tape from his first campaign, even though it was just 8 years prior.

Educate yourself.