Why are they trying to make him look guilty?? If they do, then people are more likely to forget him and move on and find some other artist. I don't want to read about what nasty person #79838 did today, I want to read about good artists who are nice people.

If they say that he is innocent, then he will have more fans and people will look for more news on him to honour his memory. There are plenty of reasons to honour his memory.

Besides, all the facts point towards him being innocent, so by making him look guilty they both alienate his fans and turn away people who are actually interested in doing research into true crime (who would eventually find out the facts) and create this weird pocket dimension of people who believe he's guilty and a bunch of other things about him that aren't true to this reality.

tl;dr the media loses views by making him look guilty so I don't know why they do it

Obviously I am not homophobic. This post is NOT about gay people. It's entirely about Michael Jackson, do not derail. If I seem emotional at all, it's because people are out here saying that he is gay with full confidence, which to me is like saying the sky is green even though you can look outside and see it isn't.

But any time I see someone say he's gay, I immediately lose faith in them. I admittedly have been focusing more on trying to prove his innocence to people in my research, but just from what I've seen, he is like one of the LEAST homosexual people ever?????

There are. SO. MANY. VIDEOS. Posted by his fans and everyone else where he's doing stuff with women. They're not hard to find either. If you look up 'Michael Jackson Flirting' on youtube and scroll past 100 videos there won't be a single one where he's flirting with a man. THAT'S how much content there is about him flirting.

If you ignore his music videos, like THRILLER and DIRTY DIANA and REMEMBER THE TIME and KEEP IT IN THE CLOSET and THE WAY YOU MAKE ME FEEL and BLOOD ON THE DANCE FLOOR and SMOOTH CRIMINAL and COME TOGETHER and SHE'S OUT OF MY LIFE and a bunch others where he gets to interact with a hot woman and dance with her, he still goes into concert and dances with his women dancers in a very close way, let me add that he CHOREOGRAPHS HIS OWN DANCES.

Why are there numerous quotes from multiple people who knew him talking about how he loved to grab ass on women and flirt with them? When he wasn't being recorded at all?

https://www.truemichaeljackson.com/man/michael-and-women/

He burst into tears multiple times while recording SHE'S OUT OF MY LIFE because it affected him so much. He cried so much that eventually they just left his crying in the official recording. Would a gay man do that??????????

There's so many of them where he specifies that the listener is a GIRL. He wrote the lyrics himself.

On a private phone conversation where he didn't know he was being recorded (Stein family recordings), he openly discussed how much his breakups hurt him. He discussed being attracted to Diana Ross though, something he never talked about in public.

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

What kind of gay man hoards hundreds of magazines specifically involving adult women?

What kind of gay man routinely flirts with women? ACTUAL flirting, talking about their beauty and how he wanted to marry them, not talking to a man and smiling like other people on this sub have pointed to and claimed was flirting.

He called looking out for women and flirting with them fishing, and would call them fish, there are many videos of him doing that and many female fans call themselves fish because of this.

Also, in this current internet, stans are OBSESSED with gay people. If they think two guys are hot and then watch the two guys interact, suddenly there's 100000 fan arts and fanfics about htem kissing and anything else, and sometimes if they're sure enough they even start telling the guys to start dating, and they are INFAMOUS for hallucinating homosexual interaction. Celebrities have had to come out as straight if they don't like the attention they're getting. This is why I bring up what MJ's fans think of him. Internet stans watch for signs of being gay like HAWKS. and, unlike tabloids who's job it is to chase whatever gives them views and move on, they watch him for hours even when he isn't performing. I have been in those spaces and not even his stans think he's gay, I have not heard that ONE SINGLE TIME. I have never even seen anyone believing he's bi. This is my own perception though. There's a very small portion that ships him with Prince Rogers Nelson but it's done in a very unserious way, no one believes that irl.

Thomas Mesereau said that he didn't believe that Michael was gay, but he said that the prosecution tried to paint Michael as being gay in order to make it more plausible that he had molested children.

"WELL MAYBE HE'S PRETENDING TO NOT BE GAY"
He isn't homophobic either. He raised money for queer charities in the 90s, it's on his wikipedia. His daughter Paris said he was aware that she was bisexual from a young age, and would playfully tease her about crushes she had from random women in magazines, so why would he bother to keep it a secret?

Evan Chandler admitted to drugging him while he was over at his house in the book and asked him if he was gay. Michael said he wasn't. Not even the fucking Chandlers wrote him saying he was gay.

I can't find the interview at the moment but he says he isn't gay in one.

Also there's this one video where he gets sexually assaulted by a male fan who kisses him on his face, he goes into shock because of it and tries to run as his security pulls the fan away. I don't want to look up the video because I find it upsetting, but it's definately on youtube shorts.

I guess you could argue that he was arospec if his relationships with women seemed distant and didn't always last. But that means he was arospec, not gay. But if the media claimed that he was arospec or aspec instead of gay, they wouldn't be able to claim that he was a pedophile nearly as easily.

I am also shocked, that a subreddit, with the title PSYCHOLOGY OF MJ, still has posts with many upvotes that said he's a pedofile. That's like 75% of why people talk about his psychology and you didn't even do research into the cases???????? NO reading tabloids does NOT count as doing research into cases, those things call themselves 'entertaimnent' instead of news so they aren't legally liable for reporting misinformation, they can make whatever shit up so long as it gets clicks or people to buy it or whatever depending on the era, MJ is far from the only celebrity who they lie about

Any time someone claims he's gay, I immediately think 'wow you have no idea what you're talking about'.

When someone FULLY INSISTS HE'S GAY, I think 'you are in an echo chamber. You do not have any idea what you are talking about, and walk life with a blindfold of confident lies. You are the kind of person who would be told that Jim Carrey was killed and replaced with a clone, or that there are lizard people in government, and if you heard it enough you would believe it.'

Because no offence, the lack of evidence for him being gay is SO FUCKING OBVIOUS AND ABUNDANT I cannot take anyone who says it seriously.

I found a post made by queer people about how hard it is to stay closeted https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLGBT/comments/heptye/how_hard_is_it_being_closeted/ and the top comments all say it is very hard and exhausting. I don't know how you could look at Michael happily being heterosexual and call him closeted. I guess some people might call him bi but no one does that. The only evidence is that he didn't have carefree marriages, but that points more towards him being aromantic or arospec more than gay.

Tessa

• antiheroic
• aussie
• dead

Gummigoo

• sympathetic villain who came around
• aussie
• dead

Mud

• anti hero
• aussie
• not dead at the time of writing but given that he's a rotling, he's probably died a few times before so I guess he counts

Chompers Snappers (sorry)

• sympathetic (?) villain who definitely has standards about villany
• aussie
• dead

The best way to train for law school is just to go to law school.

But I sometimes play ttrpgs and I feel like it might have some similarities.

By TTRPGs I mean like D&D, fantasy combat stuff.

I think they're a good way to train you how to memorise information, be alert and come up with things on the spot. Everything else you need to actually read.

	TTRPGS	Court
memorising rules	the rules of the game	the law
coming up with quick responses	If you take too long speaking your players won't be happy	Taking too long to speak makes you look uncertain and weaker
Remembering things that are currently relevant to you	you need to remember your player character and what abilities they have, so you can use them most efficiently	you need to remember your case is and what points you have, so you can use them most efficiently
Remembering things that are currently relevant to other people	Remembering your teammates abilities so you can effectively strategise with them	Remembering what other people have said so you can combine those points and produce better arguments or not accidentally say something that contradicts a point you made
Coming up with strategies fast	Remembering enemy NPC abilities and traits so you can run damage reduction	Whatever's going on

What do you think?

So I had an unusual experience just then.

I was arguing against a redditor who was calling MJ the usual things, and I linked articles and stuff to prove him wrong. Something felt off. He kept on writing as if he wasn't reading what I told him, and then missing out on massive pieces of information, I felt like he wasn't even reading my replies sometimes and he proved that he hadn't read the article through how he spoke. I figured that arguing with someone who doesn't read and makes things up was a waste of time, told him that and blocked him.

Then another redditor came from another sub and told me that to ignore that guy, that guy was always trolling on other subs and that he was mentally ill. I replied that I had already blocked him.

THEN that same redditor told me that THE GUY I WAS ARGUING WITH ADMITTED TO BEING IN A SEX OFFENDER REGISTERY.

WHAT THE FUCK??????!!!!!!!!!

The weirdest thing is that the sex offender redditor was using pedo as an insult earlier too. I know some people, myself included, believe that real sex offenders try to make people believe that MJ is guilty, in order to deflect from their own crimes. I still don't know if this is true, since according to the guy who told me, the guilter admitted to being in the registery himself. But now we have confirmation that at least one guilter is a real sex offender.

Can you please send me as many images as you can of Michael with a young Wade or James in the same photo? The more obscure the better. Find the date when they were taken, and the location, in that case I'll be able to find similar photos that way.

I'm trying to do something with the photos.

There was a massive controversy over some photo, a family of photographers wanted to remake a much older photo of a kid sitting on a rock by the beach. IIRC the girl was 7 and the photographers were her parents, she posed nude on a rock by the sea and her parents took the photo. She was curled up so there was nothing showing, no genitalia or anything. People got very angry about it and newspapers reprinted the photo with a massive censor bar over the nudity, and even Kevin Rudd weighed in and called it disgusting.

The girl was interviewed as an adult on tv about how she felt about the media reaction to the photo. She said she felt very upset that her artwork was being interpreted in this way, that it was completely innocent and people were making things up. I can't remember her saying much else because the program then just moved on to the family living their life.

I don't remember what tv program it was???? I think it was Australian Story back when I lived there. They pick an interesting person or several people and interview them about their life and such.

I felt like posting this because it's a reminder of how artistic nudity is seen by the public. A lot of people are against it and a lot of people are neutral, and the art books found in MJ's house have been far from the only time they've raised a lot of controversy. You know how they say that there's three things that you can never discuss with people? Money, politics and religion? Add artistic nudity to that list. ESPECIALLY children!!!!!!!!

Anyway I just want to say again, if you argue with guilters about artistic nudity, you're not arguing whether or not MJ was innocent, you're arguing about whether or not artistic nudity involving children should be legal, which is an entirely different thing and looks really bad for optics when you try to argue for it, because the public doesn't even like the consensual photos that aren't regretted later that were taken in the context of art photography by non abusive parents. I suggest just sticking with arguing over whether or not he committed actual crimes, because at least there's concrete evidence they can't dispute.

IIRC he got rid of all the books that could have possibly contained artistic nudity after 1993, beccause they didn't find anything in 2005 even after a surprise raid. That is probably the least surprising thing he could have done. Guilters never bring that up though.

see above

I've heard a number of interesting things about him but I'm having trouble sourcing everything.

There's a rumor that Jordan refused to testify in 1993, and that everything was lead by Evan. I have heard that he refused to testify for a criminal trial, and I would LOVE to see where that document came from.

Evan could still do a criminal trial after the civil one, but he didn't, and neither did Jordan. Why would they try and do a criminal trial even though they had the opportunity? Was it because.... they made up the allegations and didn't want to be forced to pull up even more evidence than they had initially? Because they knew they would lose? They wouldn't have any reason to stop once they received money.

Some guilters will point out that Evan was a wicked father, who they say exposed Jordan to abuse for money. Even then, that still doesn't explain why they didn't go for a criminal trial. Heck, if MJ really WAS guilty, Evan could have been free to say whatever the hell he wanted for even more money than he already had, once the guy was behind bars and unable to sue him., so even Evan's abusiveness doesn't explain away why they didn't go for a criminal trial.

And... you know what else I've heard? I've heard that in 2005, Jordan refused to testify, and went on record saying that he would legally fight any attempt at making him testify.

And Tom Mesereau said that Jordan had told him in private that Michael never molested him, and that if Jordan was ever brought to trial, he already had testiments from Jordan's classmates and others who knew him that Jordan had been telling people that Michael never molested him.

If that's the case in 2005, then why do guilters even bother bringing up LITERALLY anything related to Jordan Chandler? Unless they think that MJ magically hypnotized him into saying these things??????

And I've also heard that, when Michael was suing Victor Gutirrez for the disgusting pedo fanfiction, Jordan denied that he ever had anything to do with the book. Are there any file transcripts on this like there were with the 2005 case? I would love to read them.

Speaking of which, I don't believe I've ever seen any direct quotes from Jordan before. Only accounts from other people about his behaviour.

I don't have sources for any of my above comments, I came here asking if you did. On official documentation, because that's the only thing that guilters will read.

I SWEAR someone said that the jurors were interviewed after Leaving Neverland aired, and they said that they still think MJ is innocent. Does anyone have a link to that interview?

Since continuing it on the other thread would break the rules, u/ instanding do you want to talk here?

This article repeatedly says that none of his fingerprints were ever found in the content of the art books that the guilters l o v e to bring up, indicating that he never read them.

I NEED to find a source to this claim. Would be huge if verifiable, like 99% of their arguments about him are talking about the books. They won't trust as easily if I link Jael's blog, because she didn't specify the legal document she got it from.

Just a couple of hours ago a guilter said that Lisa Marie Presley's song Disciple was proof that she thought that he was guilty, and that it got removed from her album because MJ's lawyers bullied her

This was after I pointed out that

1. She repeatedly said she thought was innocent and it's easy to see direct quotes on her wikipedia page

2. It's out of character for her to hide something like that, given her reaction to finding csam on Michael Lockwood's computers

3. She didn't mention MJ anywhere in the Disciple song, why would his lawyers bother in that case?

4. She openly said in a Rolling Stone interview that it was about her marriage with MJ. And somehow the imaginary lawyers didn't intervene?

5. Why the fuck are you trying to conspiracy theorist meaning out of a song when the songwriter has already clearly stated what the song is about and what she believes??? What's next, Monarch programming?? Illuminati holding her tongue?????

And they had the idiocy to double down after I called them out the first time.

I blocked them. I don't argue with stupid people. There's no point to arguing with stupid people, it's like playing chess with a chicken.

Just a couple of hours ago a guilter said that Lisa Marie Presley's song Disciple was proof that she thought that he was guilty, and that it got removed from her album because MJ's lawyers bullied her

This was after I pointed out that

1. She repeatedly said she thought was innocent and it's easy to see direct quotes on her wikipedia page

2. It's out of character for her to hide something like that, given her reaction to finding csam on Michael Lockwood's computers

3. She didn't mention MJ anywhere in the Disciple song, why would his lawyers bother in that case?

4. She openly said in a Rolling Stone interview that it was about her marriage with MJ. And somehow the imaginary lawyers didn't intervene?

5. Why the fuck are you trying to conspiracy theorist meaning out of a song when the songwriter has already clearly stated what the song is about and what she believes??? What's next, Monarch programming?? Illuminati holding her tongue?????

And they had the idiocy to double down after I called them out the first time.

I blocked them. I don't argue with stupid people. There's no point to arguing with stupid people, it's like playing chess with a chicken.