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.

Pedophiles are often aware enough to not target kids with enough of a support system that they'd be easily caught.

What support system did Mac have? Dude had to emancipate himself from his parents!

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.

Pedophiles are often aware enough to not target kids with enough of a support system that they'd be easily caught.

I am 50 and do not believe he is innocent.

I am sure he was a victim himself first but that does not excuse him. Spouse and I agree on that and tend to change the station when MJ comes on.

Haven't any of you seen Neverland and then Oprah's interviews following up on that movie? You cannot watch that and have any doubt he was guilty.

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.

He also had a very close friendship w/eightie’s icon Corey Feldman who also says Michael never abused him.

Perhaps Michael only abused boys that were not so famous……?

The current men that are trying to sue Michael’s estate come off to me as money-hungry snakes.

Just a weird vibe I get…….

I am on the fence on this ->> have never been able to form an opinion on this either way.

However what I AM clear on is that I find it wholly inappropriate of a grown man having young boys over to his house for sleepovers.

By doing this on multiple occasions - Michael had set himself up inadvertently for these claims to emerge.

Sadly I think Michael was a very sad, tragic + troubled human. ❤️‍🩹

He told us he liked to sleep with little boys.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You must not have read much about the allegations. A kid was able to draw a picture of the Vitilago markings on his penis. I don’t think he was evil but mentally ill. He was abused physically, mentally and sexually as a child and as a result didn’t know what being normal is.

This. I think he was seriously mentally ill. He may not have intended to harm children, but he did. He was not innocent. I also think the parents of those kids were nothing short of opportunistic star effers by proxy. They were blinded by the money and access and perks of having “chosen” children.

NP. Agree with both these posters.

The PR machine seems to be working overtime to clear his name and make $$$.

Idk that there’s a PR machine. He was found innocent so I think a lot of people just assume he was innocent rather than lack of evidence to prove guilt.

That being said the movie is just one big money making scheme for his family. Really? His 30yo nephew (who is far better looking than he ever was) who has never acted is the lead and all of his siblings just decided to take up movie producing in their 70s? lol.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You must not have read much about the allegations. A kid was able to draw a picture of the Vitilago markings on his penis. I don’t think he was evil but mentally ill. He was abused physically, mentally and sexually as a child and as a result didn’t know what being normal is.

This. I think he was seriously mentally ill. He may not have intended to harm children, but he did. He was not innocent. I also think the parents of those kids were nothing short of opportunistic star effers by proxy. They were blinded by the money and access and perks of having “chosen” children.

NP. Agree with both these posters.

The PR machine seems to be working overtime to clear his name and make $$$.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, his estate has paid close to $50M in settlements. They wouldn’t have paid near this amount if there wasn’t evidence of his guilt. I guarantee these settlement agreements have confidentiality clauses.

Because I think some allegations are entirely true, like sleeping in the same bed as minor children. While that's not sexual abuse, it's hard to convince the public that there isn't something else he did with these kids. So he chose to settle instead of fighting, which I can understand.

What I do not know is whether there was actual abuse going on.

Me again. To clarify, I think he was mentally disturbed and had the perfect psychological profile to be an abuser, so even if he didn't, I don't think he's a particularly shining example of virtue. So on some level, for me, this debate is moot.

+1000. Whether or not he actually did anything, I certainly wouldn’t want to be alone with him or leave children alone with him, let alone sleep in bed next to him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, his estate has paid close to $50M in settlements. They wouldn’t have paid near this amount if there wasn’t evidence of his guilt. I guarantee these settlement agreements have confidentiality clauses.

Because I think some allegations are entirely true, like sleeping in the same bed as minor children. While that's not sexual abuse, it's hard to convince the public that there isn't something else he did with these kids. So he chose to settle instead of fighting, which I can understand.

What I do not know is whether there was actual abuse going on.

Me again. To clarify, I think he was mentally disturbed and had the perfect psychological profile to be an abuser, so even if he didn't, I don't think he's a particularly shining example of virtue. So on some level, for me, this debate is moot.

Nope he's not innocent. I'm odd/weird whatever you want to call it. And I don't have sleepovers with kids. I've babysat my niece and nephew overnight but everyone has slept in their own bed.

I have an odd/weird friend who doesn't have kids and has a trampoline in her backyard. She just likes playing on it. She would also never be inappropriate with kids.

You can be weird and still not cross boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you're totally trolling here.

No, he's very guilty paid off at least 3 boys that we know of and a few boys were able to describe his messed up genitalia. Why would that be OP?

+1 Read the Variety article. https://variety.com/2026/film/features/leaving-neverland-director-torches-michael-alleged-abuse-1236732764/

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? You must not have read much about the allegations. A kid was able to draw a picture of the Vitilago markings on his penis. I don’t think he was evil but mentally ill. He was abused physically, mentally and sexually as a child and as a result didn’t know what being normal is.

This. I think he was seriously mentally ill. He may not have intended to harm children, but he did. He was not innocent. I also think the parents of those kids were nothing short of opportunistic star effers by proxy. They were blinded by the money and access and perks of having “chosen” children.