Quantcast
"Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Forums - General Discussion - "Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Thriller and Invincible or Bad and Dangerous

Good guy, wrongly accused 50 51.55%
 
Talented Bad guy 25 25.77%
 
A little of both. 22 22.68%
 
Total:97
d21lewis said:
shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, he looked like a Vampire crossed with Joan Rivers for the final 10 years or so of his life, lol. Lil Wayne would be an improvement for sure. 

Yeah. But "in his prime" he looked pretty friendly and nice. His appearance in the 70s probably would have been more off-putting for mainstream America.

Even "in his prime", 1982-1984 when Thriller was dominating charts, breaking records, becoming the best selling album of all-time (which it still is to this day), and he was on top of the world, he was already getting vilified, antagonized, and attacked by the media because he was a black man who was achieving levels of success, fame, fortune, and stardom on par with Elvis Presley and The Beatles. (So imagine how unbelievably pissed off those people were when Michael bought the ATV/Sony Music Catalogue in 1985 that included the rights to all the Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs. That's an entirely different can of worms that warrants its own discussion for another day.) The media had it out for him even THEN. It was in his prime in 80s where the "Wacko Jacko" nickname started. So, of course they would double down when he, either voluntarily or involuntarily, definitely ignorantly, added fuel to the fire with his cosmetic surgeries, paling skin, and child-like behavior and mannerisms.

Last edited by PAOerfulone - on 14 March 2019

Pancho A. Ovies

Nintendo Switch in Japan (Famitsu): 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=238945&page=2

PlayStation 4/Xbox One/Nintendo Switch: 2018 vs. 2019
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239387

Around the Network

It's a really complicated issue that we, ultimately, will not get full closure from both sides because Michael Jackson has long been gone.

As many have said here in this thread, there are so many layers that built off one another. From MJ's rough upbringing, his unusual habits/lifestyle over the years, his behavior, his interaction with children (and others), the media scrutiny he had to endure since childhood, how much the scrutiny evolved as he became an adult and even more famous, the tabloids, his drug addiction, etc. Granted, he put all of the children stuff on himself by being a bit too attached to them, especially when they were at his home in Neverland Ranch, of all places.

I also agree that timing of this documentary (with all of the #MeToo movement, the use of social media, how easily we can point fingers and make accusations on one another, etc.) have made this new documentary release...too convenient. All of this stuff have already been discussed and dissected ever since the allegations went public in 1993. Michael Jackson was, arguably, the biggest star in the world at that time. Thus, the allegations had huge exposure even until the bitter end of his life. I wonder...why now? The man has been dead since 2009. What do the accusers want to gain out of this at this point? Where and when will it end?

He was a weird, unusual, complex, but talented man. I wonder how could he survive in such a world today, with social media being a 24/7 newsfeed and never ending discussion?



PortisheadBiscuit said:
3sexty said:

Apart from several books containing nude images of children particularly boys. Look it up. The books were however not deemed to be illegal. Sill quite quite revealing about the character in question. 

These were books commercially available to the public, not some underground creepy child porn. It'd be like calling someone a pedo because they have a copy of Nirvana's Nevermind album with the naked baby on the cover in their home. I suppose cupid is child porn as well? You also failed to mention things like Playboy and Penthouse were found in his home, no little boys found in those publications. 

At the end of the day, nothing the FBI found was admitted into evidence against Jackson. You want to believe he's guilty as sin and that's fine, but all the 'hard evidence' against MJ is all anecdotal and has been that way since 1993. 

And there was also a book titled  'the boy-a photographic essay which exclusively contained nude pics of young boys. Again not illegal by any measure but don't you think that a reasonable assumption can be drawn here? There is such thing as legitimising illegal behaviour with legal content. YouTube is a known hotspot for this kind of thing. Also the whole Chandler fiasco which ended in a large sum of payments was a highly questionable case which included accurate details when Jordan was asked to describe MJs private body parts. No charges laid because this case culminates to large sums of money money being paid. It all adds up in the end. Lucky for him he had shit loads of money and lawyers that could fight off these claims. It all reminds of the OJ case. Technically innocent but guilty as all fuck. Add to this that all the accusations had similar themes of getting to know the child, befriend the family, invite them over to Neverland and even have the entire family relocate so that countless nights could be spent sharing a bed with the child. Now all this does not come out looking incredibly strange??? I think it's very damning. But hey that's just an opinion. 

Last edited by 3sexty - on 14 March 2019

Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70

d21lewis said:
What if Michael Jackson looked like Lil Wayne? Would that have any effect on anyone's opinion of him?

No. Even though i'm not a huge fan of Carter 5 I'd consider myself a Lil Wayne fan.



3sexty said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

These were books commercially available to the public, not some underground creepy child porn. It'd be like calling someone a pedo because they have a copy of Nirvana's Nevermind album with the naked baby on the cover in their home. I suppose cupid is child porn as well? You also failed to mention things like Playboy and Penthouse were found in his home, no little boys found in those publications. 

At the end of the day, nothing the FBI found was admitted into evidence against Jackson. You want to believe he's guilty as sin and that's fine, but all the 'hard evidence' against MJ is all anecdotal and has been that way since 1993. 

And there was also a book titled  'the boy-a photographic essay which exclusively contained nude pics of young boys. Again not illegal by any measure but don't you think that a reasonable assumption can be drawn here? There is such thing as legitimising illegal behaviour with legal content. YouTube is a known hotspot for this kind of thing. Also the whole Chandler fiasco which ended in a large sum of payments was a highly questionable case which included accurate details when Jordan was asked to describe MJs private body parts. No charges laid because this case culminates to large sums of money money being paid. It all adds up in the end. Lucky for him he had shit loads of money and lawyers that could fight off these claims. It all reminds of the OJ case. Technically innocent but guilty as all fuck. Add to this that all the accusations had similar themes of getting to know the child, befriend the family, invite them over to Neverland and even have the entire family relocate so that countless nights could be spent sharing a bed with the child. Now all this does not come out looking incredibly strange??? I think it's very damning. But hey that's just an opinion. 

Assumptions to be made from a book that isn't illegal? Not really unless you're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, just because Jackson settled didn't mean criminal charges couldn't have been filed as well. Once the Chandlers got what they wanted ($20 million), they had no interest in pursuing a criminal case. It's also speculated that Jackson was too sick at the time to have undergone a civil trial. It's known he was battling an addiction to pain medication at the time and his advisors at the time didn't want him to go through with it. As regards to Jordan accurately describing Jackson's genitals, that's a bit of revisionist history. There are conflicting accounts on how accurately he described them, one account stating Jordan claimed Jackson was circumcised when he in fact was not. A grand jury felt there was no clear match with Jordan's descriptions. 



Around the Network
3sexty said:
PortisheadBiscuit said:

The FBI found found nothing in 300 pages of documents on him. 

Apart from several books containing nude images of children particularly boys. Look it up. The books were however not deemed to be illegal. Sill quite quite revealing about the character in question. 

They found a lot of “artsy” images of children and teens either partially nude, fully nude, or in provocative poses. Today someone resurfaced a news report from the early 90’s iirc of MJ and a kid going ring shopping. He tried to pass it off as a ring for a relationship she was in with Sheryl Crow but he denied it and it turned out to be one of the rings from one of his “weddings” he had with some of these kids.

If there’s a hell, kid fucker Michael Jackson is burning in it right now.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJaWSdKKvGU

This video is all the prove you need, watch him correct the boy when he insinuates them sleeping in the same bed,"I slept on the floor, or was it a sleeping bag?" How can you not fucking remember? This boy has obviously been groomed and is in love with him, this whole video just screams sexual predator. He looks very comfortable lying and covering up. How can anyone watch this video and not see what is going on here? This is not even a young boy, this kid is already hitting puberty and is holding hands with a 40 year old man.



All the evidence points to him not being guilty and the two guys in Leaving Neverland are known liars and both of them where in difficult financial situations before appearing in the documentary so they pretty much lied to get paid.



PortisheadBiscuit said:
3sexty said:

And there was also a book titled  'the boy-a photographic essay which exclusively contained nude pics of young boys. Again not illegal by any measure but don't you think that a reasonable assumption can be drawn here? There is such thing as legitimising illegal behaviour with legal content. YouTube is a known hotspot for this kind of thing. Also the whole Chandler fiasco which ended in a large sum of payments was a highly questionable case which included accurate details when Jordan was asked to describe MJs private body parts. No charges laid because this case culminates to large sums of money money being paid. It all adds up in the end. Lucky for him he had shit loads of money and lawyers that could fight off these claims. It all reminds of the OJ case. Technically innocent but guilty as all fuck. Add to this that all the accusations had similar themes of getting to know the child, befriend the family, invite them over to Neverland and even have the entire family relocate so that countless nights could be spent sharing a bed with the child. Now all this does not come out looking incredibly strange??? I think it's very damning. But hey that's just an opinion. 

Assumptions to be made from a book that isn't illegal? Not really unless you're grasping for straws. Keep in mind, just because Jackson settled didn't mean criminal charges couldn't have been filed as well. Once the Chandlers got what they wanted ($20 million), they had no interest in pursuing a criminal case. It's also speculated that Jackson was too sick at the time to have undergone a civil trial. It's known he was battling an addiction to pain medication at the time and his advisors at the time didn't want him to go through with it. As regards to Jordan accurately describing Jackson's genitals, that's a bit of revisionist history. There are conflicting accounts on how accurately he described them, one account stating Jordan claimed Jackson was circumcised when he in fact was not. A grand jury felt there was no clear match with Jordan's descriptions. 

Yes the book is a piece of anecdotal evidence and as we both have stated it is not illegal. I still agree on. This. But let's make one thing  clear if we have a collection of this type of evidence even if it cannot corroborate a position of guilt, one would still be strongly inclined to make assumptions in regards to the type of behaviour on display. It's human nature to do so. Let me ask, in knowing these details would you be comfortable leaving your child unsupervised with MJ. Good human judgement would err on the side of very strong caution here and I know I wouldn't. That's for sure. As a parent if you see smoke in a direction, you would steer clear of it even if there is by small chance no fire there. The anecdotal evidence makes a strong case for at least  somekind of judgement call.Again its an opinion which many people share based on what we know. 



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70

Not a good documentary tbh as it was contradicted by things already known even some of the statements made in it for example when one of them was describing feeling Jackson's hair it didn't make sense as the description contradicts the fact that he had jheri curls at the time. Jackson was an odd and strange person but this documentary and the information already out only backs the notion that people have that the two people were out to get money from him and the estate.