Wasnt there an FBI investigation on the guy for years, that found no conclusive evidence towards him? So yeah.

Honestly before the documentary I was on the fence about MJ, afterwards and doing a bit of research on guys making the claim (who happen to being suing the estate for 100s of millions) I now believe he's innocent. The documentary was extremely one sided and if you were to only watch it and not do any further digging, its easy to fall prey to their compelling and graphic story.

There are so many holes in their story upon further research. One factoid that sticks out in my mind is Safechucks's mother claiming she was so happy when she learned MJ passed. "I was so glad he wouldnt be able to hurt anymore children". Um yeah MJ died in 2009, but Safechuck claims he didn't realize he was abused until 2013. Is she a time traveler?

I went in very skeptical. But by the end..I believe he really did this.

Other things have come out. Like Michael going with James to a jewelry store to buy rings. The pieces are falling into place. And to me, these two guys didn't come off as liars.

On a good note, this documentary will probably empower children who are going through this, and are afraid to speak out. There are far too many, and most of them are too afraid/ashamed to come forth. So in that aspect, this documentary is very good. And it's very well constructed as well. Seems legit.

This. People are ready to hang a dead man from a one-sided "documentary" on HBO. Ignoring the fact that he was aquitted in 2005 and the parents of the first accuser in 1993 had no interest in pursuing a criminal case once they got a $20 million settlement. 

I haven't seen the documentary but my opinion on the matter is complicated.

He's not innocent...but he's not guilty either.

I'm fairly certain he did the things he's accused of, but I am also pretty sure that I remember reading a thing about how due to a chemical or hormonal imbalance he mentally never progressed into maturity so while his BODY was that of an adult, he remained childlike in his heart. So, from an outside perspective he's just a creepy pedophile, but to him it 'was just love' or that he was with his kin when he did those terrible things.

So yeah, he's not innocent, but he's not really 'guilty' either. The things he did was wrong but the explanation behind it alleviates much of the negative connotations that come with it. I can't prove it, but I do remember hearing that years ago and it made sense given everything I knew about his attitude and behaviour.

Nope, just contradictions. They spend 5 years making up this whole plan but still couldn't get thileir story straight

No hard evidence? Okay, just checking.

I saw part 1 and read a review of part 2 and did some research for myself. I think he's innocent.

Evidence A: The stories of these accusers have had inconsistencies through the years.

Evidence B: They claim Michael Jackson exchanged gifts for sexual favors. If he was so gone mentally to use such bold, rash, and ignorant forms of malicious activity which required assuming that children are so absentminded or underrepresented that he could get away with it, then he would likely have taken more risks with Macaulay Culkin.  If he enjoyed Macaulay's company so much and in the same way as the other children, then in those close moments, what would have stopped him from attempting something malicious once or twice? But Macaulay has repeatedly said through the years that Michael never did anything with him, so in this documentary, the accusers had no choice but to incorporate that he never touched Macaulay, because it never happened.

Evidence C (suggestive): This is probably the only way that these accusers would ever get publicity.  They also have an opportunity to be pitied, which, if nothing actually happened, is a free life allowance toward many rewards, and since Michael is so famous, this would be an easy status award for them, no work needed. All of their life they have had this to fall back on for attention.  Most people do not have that level of safety net and end up conceding to the many difficulties in life; some adults even work humbly at McDonald's and with multiple jobs just to feed their kids.  But if you are famous, you are presented many alternative, less-demanding opportunities to build your lifestyle and ego. 

Evidence D: When people tell themselves a story repetitively throughout their life, it becomes a part of their identity, more fleshed out with each iteration and firm in their minds. 

My take - I think that Michael longed for true childhood connections and friendship. He was underdeveloped socially, by society standards, because of early fame and high parental expectations, which stole his childhood.  So a part of him, or his entire self, desired to "play" as a child would throughout his life affecting, in some ways positive, his view of the beauty of the world around him and his appreciation for people who were like him on the inside, namely kids. He probably truly felt like Peter Pan inside. While Peter Pan is a concept that appeals to the magic of children, it also appeals to the nostalgia of adults, a want to stay young or return to youth, but Michael never fully transitioned to his adult self, he was socially a child and did not fully understand how adults could close themselves off from that beautifully creative, magic source that he flourished in. At some point he probably discovered that his inner child was the source of his talents and joy and chose to cherish it, and thus children in general, far beyond what our society, in its forced perspective, deems acceptable.  Most adults hate kids, ignore kids, disrespect kids, or abuse kids, even parents. I think in those children, he found acceptance, friendship, understanding, and, for him, completion, similar to when a parent is appreciative of the life and imagination of their child, but even more so, because this was a defining part of him. It is possible that through that love and appreciation for having them there that he may have slept next to them, hugged them, or held them while they slept, similar to how a parent or young sibling might do, a want to be close because of that feeling of connection.  He may have put his hand on their shoulder at times while talking or messed up their hair in a playful way.  He may have had other close interactions that were not malicious in nature. Laughing, playing, sharing, interacting, appreciating. Nothing short of what parents or friends may do. However, the kids may not have felt this sort of interaction was appropriate through how their parents raised them, their mental reminders that Michael was a "stranger" along with parents questioning the events, causing them to also overly question Michael's mannerisms and actions. Not saying that this is bad in the world we live, we should always be cautious and educate kids on the potential dangers and where lines should be drawn, but this is obviously different than how Michael viewed his interactions. His feelings of connection were not that of a stranger because they were positively rewarding for him and he believed they were reciprocated. He would not have seen anything wrong with that level of action nor would he have anticipated parental questionings because for him, nothing was malicious. This conflict of perspective led to parental conversations and verbally developed additions to the story which became implanted memories consistent with the concerns.  A memory take on self-fulfilling prophecy. These, now externally influenced, child understandings of their own feelings and the events would eventually define them and as adults, become their convenience. Psychologically, if you look intently for something, then whether it exists or not, you'll probably find it. 

The main question is, did Michael ever crossover his interest in the kids with natural adult sexual desires.  Could Michael have gone farther than actually holding or hugging the kids in a loving, appreciative way?  Well we know that he had a wife and kids of his own, which provides its own insight.  His sexual needs seemed to be compartmentalized in other ways.  Yes, he could be bisexual or have other odd definitions of psychosis but this weakens the possibility at the least.  Also, what of his kids?  Did he ever abuse his kids?  If not, then yes, it is possible again that he compartmentalized, psychologically defined his kids as different, or that he had grown to a different point as a person, but again, if he did not abuse his kids, this weakens the possibility.  I think though, that if he would have abused those children, then his moral structure would have been so compromised that his actions would have been lax and severe, and this would have been a lot messier than it was, similar to Bill Cosby.  But we may never know the full truth.  Macaulay Culkin, or any other 3rd party present during their gatherings, would be the primary evidence that we could point toward the truth, but as it stands, the word from Macaulay is that he wasn't like that with them.

I think this is the very essence, people shouldn't let the documentary dictate their opinions alone. The court of public opinion is only hearing one side of the story presented in the series. While yes sex abuse victims should be believed, the accused deserves their side of the story to be heard as well. How many innocent people have been accused of sex crimes, only to have the accuser later admit they lied etc?