Michael | Official Trailer

It was the accuser and his lawyers that made them cut that topic from the movie ironically.

As regarding allegations, I can only look to the fact the prosecution threw everything they had at him, but there was no smoking gun to be found, and I can't get past how people who were called by Michael to defend him, are now labelling themselves victims. Never in the history of a court of law, has a guilty person, called on other victims to defend him of the same crimes against another, that I will never get past. If you were a rapist, would you call on other people you raped, that the police don't know about, to get on the stand to defend you, that is so mental, it bonkers, not possible that a person would do this.

These so called victims went to therapists with the one aim of making them believe their own lies, as to make it as real to them as possible, so that they will forever believe they are now victims. We've seen throughout the years, that people who do commit such crimes, who are caught, never walk free, and there are 30 smoking guns in such cases, it's simply undeniable , and an easy conviction.

I can only base my thoughts on the facts before me, highly trained professionals put him on trial, and found nothing, so it's not about what I actually think, as how could I know one way or the other, I can only look at the facts, not the fiction of Documentaries and Tabloids who need to sell sell sell. There were 100's of untrue stories about MJ when he was alive, it's a very long list, he seemed very happy on first day in court, delighted to finally put it right, dancing on top of his car, declaring lies run sprints, truth runs marathons, it don't seem like the action of a guilty person.

I think most of us trust in DUE PROCESS. If someone is guilty of a crime they should given a fair trial. No amount of back and forth on an internet forum is going to change people's minds. Michael Jackson was given a fair trial and acquitted quickly and easily. He was also subjected to 10 year investigations by LA sheriff and FBI with not enough evidence to even charge him.

If he was guilty I'd be the first to want him charged and convicted.

The current film conveniently ends in 1984 - shows him at the peak of his career and doesn't have to deal with any of the weird stuff or allegations of the 1990s. But the ending to me made sense as it was a natural turning point in his career and I think they dealt with everything very well. I'm delighted it's doing well at the box office.

A sequel is going to be very difficult - covering 1985-2009 with lots of controversies and of course the estate will try to show it all in a positive light which is going to be very difficult. A lot of these superstars and once in a generation talents lives end very tragically.

For anyone interested in the REAL Michael Jackson - look up some podcasts on which Matt Fiddes is a guest. Very interesting guy, very smart and articulate and obviously knew him very well.

You're now citing screenshots of geminis AI generating summaries from Facebook posts? On top of that, all of this is heavily influenced by your prompt which I'm sure is entirely unbiased... You can write a prompt to backup any perspective you want and it will include citations.

I've also done a search to see if a judge ever used such a quote in relation to Jackson and there appears to be no proof of it. It goes back to Facebook claims and Michael Jackson forums.

You're presenting things as fact via AI's citing Facebook. The burden of proof is very much so on you with the claims you're pushing. Eg the no rational trier of fact line, can you provide a source where a judge uttered those words in relation to the credibility of the claims? A primary source eg the DOJ.

I don’t really agree with boiling it down to no conviction = he’s done nothing wrong.

Regardless of any conviction, things we’ve seen him say and do, and things we know he owned are deeply troubling.

Saying stuff like sharing a bed with a child is the most natural thing in the world is shocking. Even if he didn’t do anything sexual it’s still very much not okay. Children are still incredibly impressionable and it’s possible that this would give the child a skewed view of relationships with adults and normalising it increases the chance of other adults who do want to take advantage getting an opportunity.

And the stuff like the books with nude boys - inscribing it with something like this is what I want for my kids? Again, very worrying. It might suggest that he equates childhood innocence and being carefree with nudity. How can you not be worried about that, especially with a man so devoted to living out his childhood that he lived in a theme park?

He didn’t get the childhood he wanted, and that’s rough. But he wasn’t a child, he was a grown man in deep need of therapy. What makes this discussion go round and round imo is that ardent fans absolutely refuse to acknowledge that he’s done anything remotely concerning, and have fully bought into his persona of being this innocent childlike man who just wants to give the world a big hug, when I think most others will at least admit that regardless of any allegations, so much of how he behaved is simply not ok.

I completely understand not accepting one result of a trial. However how do you explain the 10 year investigations by 2 separate agencies with no witnesses or evidence found?

I agree with most of that. A lot of Michael's Jackson's behaviour was not normal and not acceptable, you won't get any fight from me on that. I just personally don't think he was guilty of child molestation. He was a deeply troubled genius.

I wouldn't want my children to be world famous at 10 years of age - not normal and not healthy.

I think it's all weird.

I'm not referring to Wade's motivations I was referring to Jackson's. When you add up the totality of Wade's behaviour it just does not make sense and he appears to be just a lying grifter.

Brushing away possession of child porn as "weird" is precisely the problem here. A grown man sleeping in a bed with a 10 year old boy is not weird, it's deeply troubling. The celebrity and discography of the offender should not matter but his defenders are waving away things that are patently wrong because of who the offender was.

I can only assume you don't have kids yourself.

Right.

Would you let your kids do a sleepover in a grown man's bed, knowing he had child porn in the house?

And if not, why not? Sure it's all grand, right? Common sense.

Obviously I would not and most parents would not. However when it comes to allegations against Jackson you need to think about what type of parent would? Extorting grifters that's who.

If you are so certain ask yourself this - how did the FBI and Sheriffs department run two separate investigations over 10 years with no charges filed? How is that possible? If you did the same on Epstein, Weinstein or Savlle I imagine you'd have a strong case quite quickly.

Tom Sneddon dedicated a huge part of his life to this and came up empty handed.

Really not comparing like for like. If a Woody Allen movie was released, only covering the early years and avoiding the accusations that would still result in it being discussed. You're trying to control the narrative basically.