I don't buy that for one sec, what kind of mom obeys her child to keep quiet in such a situation?

And no one is forgetting these guy's testimonies in the previous case(s), that's one of the main reasons people don't buy their stories now. 

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.

Especially when the person who allegedly did this to her son is undergoing a criminal trial for the exact same crime committed to another child, where if he was convicted of all counts and charges pressed against him, would lock him away for 25 years. Not to mention ruin his entire career and reputation in the process. 

If there was ever a time to put Michael away and expose him as a pedophile it was that trial. Not only was Michael acquitted of all charges, he was acquitted RESOUNDINGLY. 

One of the oddest things about the Jackson family is how so many of them decided to mutilate their noses/faces. Even Janet, who IMO at one time was one of the hottest women in the world. 

Jackson's estate will take on the fraud, lies, deception of these two accusers. Just like 2005 Jackson was proven innocent, innocent of all charges against him. Bring on the court case and the defense lawyers will cross examine and tear apart the accusers stories and expose them as liars, fraud and fortune chasers. Both accusers are struggling financially and they want a massive pay day by suing Jackson's estate. Why are so many people blindly believe the witch hunt against Jackson? I did not watch the documentary and I refuse to listen to liars that try to destroy legacy of celebrities. Jackson has been dead for 10 years and he can not even defend himself against these vicious lies made against him.

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.

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?

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. 

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

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.