I know this is not going to be popular, but. Some of my greatest memories are with this guy. I remember when we had an influx of people from latin america and we'd play his music. We'd dance in the basement and just feel really free.

I'll admit I don't want to taint those memories. And sometimes it's hard not to, because who am I to deny people's perception? I want to somehow lesser his crimes, yet I realize what a fools game that is. And yes, I do realise how sick that sounds, but it's how good my memories are. I do not want them associated with this.

Either way, what do you suggest to move on from this guy? Pretend he never existed? Try to entirely separate his music from his person?

This is something that is so unnecessary. Why is it that when you write pdf-file or corn or some other masked word here, that people make it into a big issue? Many of us comment on multiple platforms, and it's downright impossible to remember what words can be used where.
I get restricted on facebook, youtube and instagram if I used those words. I leave a lot of comments about MJ, so I type those words a lot, I don't know if that's the reason.
And my comments don't show up or they disappear if i type out those words, I know this for a fact since I haven't been able to comment for days because of it.
And yesterday I also got auto flagged by Reddit for repeating what MJ fans say about Jew*s being out to get MJ. So don't say that you can type out anything here, it's not true:

https://preview.redd.it/hcqkj6zz8h2h1.png?width=910&format=png&auto=webp&s=09b824ba91047051dbb27a7733ed18722d92ef51

A revised post from original removed yesterday by moderators.

I have been thinking about the ethics of Non-Disclosure Agreements, which are called NDAs. When an estate uses massive wealth to buy someone's silence, it does not just protect a legacy. It actively harms other victims who are trying to tell the truth.

If we look at history, there is a huge difference in how things played out.

Jordan Chandler received a settlement, but he never denied what happened. He never hid where he stood, and his mother June Chandler took the stand to testify for the prosecution in the 2005 trial. Jason Francia also received a settlement and took the stand as a key witness to tell his story.

The Cascio siblings finally recognized the reality of the abuse after watching Leaving Neverland in 2019. But right after that happened, the MJ Estate stepped in and reached a secret five year settlement in 2020 to buy their silence.

An NDA is not going to explicitly say it is a payoff for sexual abuse on paper, because that would be a confession. Instead, estates use clean looking legal paperwork to hide things that are completely illegal.

This is where the actions of the MJ Estate become very toxic. Because they successfully locked down that five year silence, fans used the Cascios as the ultimate proof that nothing bad ever happened. The Estate basically manufactured a false shield of innocence.

There are also other individuals who were friends of Michael's as children who still actively deny the abuse happened. It would be very worrying if people are being paid to stay quiet while posting a false narrative. I am unaware of any direct denial from the Cascios since Leaving Neverland came out, which is a good thing. It is very uncomfortable to see anyone continue to defend a legacy and deny abuse if they are actively receiving money while knowing full well what happened.

When Wade Robson and James Safechuck came forward, they faced massive abuse from the public. Fans aggressively used that enforced silence to make Wade and James look like liars.

The paid silence from the Estate did real damage. It isolated active survivors and made it twice as hard for them to be believed. It kept the public in the dark for years just to protect a corporate brand.

That is why buying silence is so ethically wrong. The MJ Estate used corporate legal tricks to turn a serious public safety issue into a private business deal.

If more people come forward in the future who have been paid by the estate, the estate should definitely be held accountable for actively silencing victims.

What do you think? Does the fact that the Estate used legal loopholes to cover up illegal acts make these silence agreements completely wrong? Do you think that if more come forward and it is apparent that the Estate silenced them by awarding them financially, the Estate should be punished for that alone in some way?

I haven't even watched the documentaries and wasn't old enough to understand the court cases/what the allegations were just remember the pedo jokes on late night tv or in eminem vids which I didn't have a frame of reference to understand due to my age. I know me and my family enjoyed his music and I remember everyone being sad about his death. I'm gen z or some would say a zillenial as I'm on the cusp.

Went to see the biopic with my family and I enjoyed it. I enjoy music and regularly go to concerts someone asked me who I would see if I could see anyone dead or alive and I picked MJ literally last week.

But I kept seeing "do your own research" every time the allegations were brought up on social media by people defending MJ and now I've done my own research I'm convinced this guy was probably a nonce.

Even if I knew nothing, no one can convince me a guy that looked like that is normal. MJ defenders could be right about family members or witnesses being money motivated. But I see news of parents selling their 6 year olds into child marriage/sexual slavery, in fact, it's probably happening right now in some part of the world unfortunately.

It's not far fetched that families wouldn't do it with substantially more money, fame and a celebrity involved, and even so families being money motivated wouldn't absolve MJ of wrongdoing anyway just means their parents were problematic too (especially those who did sleep overs after the allegations????).

**1.) They were legal art/photography books, not illegal child pornography

Law professor Mary Graw Leary’s 2009 paper “Death to Child Erotica” argues that the term “child erotica” is misleading. It falsely implies an artistic genre, when most such material is created primarily to sexually arouse adults with an interest in children—not art.

This critique applies directly to the defense of Michael Jackson: labeling the controversial books as “purely artistic” or “innocent illustrations” ignores their actual purpose. By doing so, defenders inadvertently downplay the actions of photographers like Swithinbank and Drew, who produced suggestive images of children with clear sexual intent. These books are not art.

2.)The images were “non-sexual” in context

“Boys Will Be Boys!” (1966) — About 90% pictures of nude boys according to prosecutor Ron Zonen.

You might have seen Playboy magazines where women are completely naked and posed in a sexualized way. In the case of these books, it's similar in the sense that the children are also completely naked and photographed in posed ways.
So if Playboy is considered pornography, then why aren't these books considered child pornography?

Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew
There soul intention was to normalise pedophilia with there work
They were
reportedly sentenced to about 7½–15 years in prison for child sexual abuse.

It’s crazy how the law can sometimes classify material like Boys Will Be Boys as “art” even when the intent behind the creators and promoters was openly connected to normalizing pedophilia. History has shown that when authorities concluded certain “art” or media had exploitative intent toward children, it was often seized, banned, or destroyed instead of defended as artistic expression. For example, the “Wonderland Club” child abuse network in the 1970s was dismantled and its material seized after authorities recognized it as child exploitation, despite some attempting to frame it as photography or expression.

Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

Few law-enforcement officers would ignore or fail to seize sexually explicit child pornography found during a search. But, over and over again, officers ignore and leave behind the child erotica and collateral evidence. In some cases even adult pornography can be child erotica and, therefore, of investigative interest.
Although not as significant or damaging as child pornography, child erotica is valuable evidence of intent and a source of valuable intelligence information. The ledgers, diaries, letters, books, souvenirs, adult pornography, or nonsexually explicit images of children that can be part of a child-erotica collection can be used as supportive or corroborative evidence.
The recognition and evaluation of the significance of this type of material requires insight, common sense, and good judgment.

3.) Defenders claim of having no fingerprints on the book as evidence

It’s also funny how some creators who defend MJ claim there was forensic evidence proving no fingerprints were found on these books.

But in reality, no forensic fingerprint examination was ever done on the books.

So this is another claim that keeps getting repeated and spread around as fact, even though there’s no evidence for it.

4.) Jackson collected huge numbers of books and art items

There is a myth that Jackson received thousands of things from fans, which he had no opportunity to review, but this is not correct, taking into account the testimony of Joseph Marcus, the Neverland property manager, who worked there 17 years. He testified in 2005 that any gifts from fans addressed to Jackson in the past were first filtered and only the "best things" were chosen, the ones they thought Jackson would like to take back to his properties (Page 9710).

5) The “he wanted to send the book back to the fan”

The “he probably wanted to return the book to the fan” argument becomes even weaker when you look at the timeline.

The inscription from “Rhonda” is dated 1983, meaning Michael Jackson had the book since at least that year.

The books were then discovered during the 1993 Neverland raid — that is already around 10 years later.

And the books were brought up again publicly during the 2005 trial, which is around 22 years after 1983.

Even if someone ignores the 1983 inscription and only starts counting from the 1993 raid, the books were still being discussed again in court in 2005 meaning he had kept them for at least 12 more years after they were discovered.

So the idea that the books were simply forgotten gifts he intended to “eventually return” becomes harder to believe when you look at how long they remained in his possession.

Michael Jackson lied on TV when asked about these books in 1995

In an interview with Diane Sawyer from 1995 when asked about the books, MJ lied saying that he was not aware of them and had not seen them, despite having them locked in his room and having written inside the cover of "Boys will be boys" (p. 8173):

"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. M.J."

(Note: Read the preface of the book written by the authors, and you will find similarities with Jackson's way of speaking: the speech about joy, the innocence of children, the celebration of childhood and boyhood, etc.)

https://www.todocoleccion.net/libros-segunda-mano-diseno-fotografia/boys-will-be-boys-varios-fotografos-book-adventures-inc-new-york-1966-fotografias-ninos-raro~x191482652

6.) The book is in the library of congress

True ,but

The book being in the Library of Congress does not automatically prove a book is morally good, harmless, or endorsed by the government. The Library of Congress archives and preserves materials for historical, cultural, legal, academic, and research purposes including controversial, disturbing, or offensive works.

A book being there mainly means it was cataloged or preserved as part of documenting human history and published material, not that the Library agrees with its content or considers it ethical. Libraries and archives often keep difficult or controversial material so researchers, historians, courts, and the public can study society, history, crime, propaganda, psychology, art, and cultural debates.

History also shows that works later viewed as harmful, exploitative, racist, or abusive were still preserved in archives or libraries for documentation purposes. Preservation is not the same thing as moral approval.

Some of the books which are present in

library of congress :-

Mein Kampf — widely condemned for promoting antisemitism and Nazi ideology.

The Turner Diaries — associated with white supremacist extremism and violent ideology.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion — a notorious antisemitic forgery used to spread conspiracy theories.

The Anarchist Cookbook — controversial because of instructions related to explosives and illegal acts.

Historical racist propaganda pamphlets from segregation eras in the United States.
Wartime propaganda publications from regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Bonus: In Latoya's 1991 book, she described how Jackson once told her, "If you really want to know someone, look in the bottom of their bedroom drawers." (Link to the photo).

I often comment on other subreddits when I see misinformation about the MJ case, and every time, even though I debunk some lies with evidence and documents, I receive a lot of downvotes. Do you experience this too?

Who has a greater financial motive to lie: a victim seeking compensation for a destroyed life or a corporate empire that will collapse if its sole asset is universally recognized as a pedophile?

Whenever the subject of Michael Jackson’s accusers comes up, especially with the recent survivors, the Cascios, the fanbase immediately deploys their favorite shield: "They just want money!"

It’s a simple, comforting narrative that allows people to dismiss the ugly reality of their hero.

But if you actually step back and apply basic logic, human psychology, and the reality of the American legal system, the "money" argument is possibly the weakest defense of Michael Jackson there is.

No rational human being would put themselves and their families through this hell if the abuse wasn't real.

When someone accuses Michael Jackson, they are not quietly filing a claim and waiting for a check. They are volunteering to have their lives destroyed.

Look at Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and the Cascios. The moment they came forward, they became the targets of one of the most vicious, well-funded, and relentless fanbases in human history. They are doxxed. They receive death threats. Their families are harassed. Their mental health histories are weaponized. Their parents are vilified as pimps and failures. Fans tear accusers to shreds finding every imperfection possible, yet fail to acknowledge any of their idol's documented lies and grotesque boundary violations.

If you are a liar looking for a quick payout, you do not pick a target with a multi billion dollar estate backing the best lawyers on earth, a battalion of internet detectives, and a cult-like fanbase that will ensure you never have a peaceful day again. You pick an easier target. You certainly don’t spend a decade fighting in a legal meat grinder, as Robson and Safechuck have done, with no guarantee of ever seeing a single dime.

Why would the Cascios, who spent decades defending Michael, who were essentially his adopted family, suddenly decide to become the most hated people in the MJ fandom, subjecting their parents to global humiliation, just for a chance at a payout? You don't throw your own parents under the bus for a grift. You do it because the trauma became too heavy to carry in silence.

As Rose McGowan, a survivor herself, articulated after Leaving Neverland:

>"Why on Earth would anybody want to come out and expose themselves to so much hate if they weren’t trying to regain some control in their own life? Control that has been robbed and stolen?"

CSA destroys a victim’s fundamental sense of autonomy. The abuser takes control of their body, their mind, and their reality. Staying silent is continuing the abuser's control. Coming forward, even at the cost of your own peace, is the ultimate reclamation of self. The "hate" they endure is the price of their freedom. Fans think the world revolves around money, survivors know the world revolves around trauma.

The fanbase treats seeking financial compensation as a dirty word, somehow proving the abuse didn't happen. This is legally and morally absurd.

Child sexual abuse is a catastrophic injury. It is a psychological and physical wound that alters the trajectory of a human life. If a drunk driver paralyzed you, you would sue for damages to cover medical care, lost wages, and pain. If a corporation gave you cancer, you would sue. CSA is an injury caused by another person’s negligence and malice, and the civil justice system is the only mechanism we have to hold perpetrators accountable and compensate the victim for the lifelong fallout of that injury.

The "they just want money" argument cuts both ways and it actually points right back at the Jackson estate.

If we are questioning financial motives, let's look at the people whose entire existence depends on Michael Jackson remaining a pristine, beloved icon. The Jackson estate is worth $3.5 billion. Katherine Jackson receives a $67,000 monthly stipend that she distributes to her kids. The family's entire financial ecosystem -- and the estate's ability to generate billions more through biopics, music sales, and Broadway shows -- relies entirely on the myth of MJ's innocence.

The Estate has the deepest pockets, the most powerful PR teams, and the most to lose. When they pay out settlements, it is not an admission of guilt to them, it is a business expense to protect the brand.

Ultimately, the "they just want money" defense reveals a deeply disturbing outlook on humanity held by the fans. To believe that multiple people across different decades, countries, and backgrounds would willingly subject themselves and their parents to years of torture, public humiliation, and death threats just for a chance at cash requires you to believe that human beings are inherently mercenary and devoid of conscience.

It tells us more about the fans' worldview than it does about the victims. They project their own desperate need to protect a celebrity onto the victims, assuming everyone is operating with the same transactional, soulless calculus.

The reality is much simpler and much sadder. The Cascios, Robson, Safechuck, and the others aren't exposing themselves to this nightmare for a payout. They are doing it because they are injured, they are exhausted by the lies, and they refuse to let the man who stole their childhoods continue to dictate the truth of their lives.

What frustrates me more everyday right now is that he is kind of everywhere right now weather its his music back in the charts or the movie or endless videos of fans making saying how amazing he is or he is innocent or was framed every video he is on no matter what the context is weather its praising him or calling him out on his grooming behavior every top comment with thousand of likes is always "MJ is innocent" "The FBI investigated him for years and found nothing". 🙄

The more it goes on the more frustrated I get because it's so obvious MJ was a predator a serial predator at that and arguably even worse than Epstein who everyone supposedly hates but are fine to back MJ because his music was so good consider most of MJ victims was 7-10 years old when it started. Then you call Michael out for what he was his fans tell you to "do your research" Like hello that's how I am here how do they do their research and not even slightly consider this as a possibility it's not even just crazy obsessed fans either it's most of the general public who ignored all the signs, leaving neverland and all his accusers and happily sing him praise it just blows my mind everyday and makes me hate him even more because I am a survivor of CSA myself and I am strong on Justice so all this really frustrates me. Anyone else feel the same? and more so I just feel for his victims those who have spoke up and also those who are still suffering in silence because having your abuser being glorified must be horrific and I know it took a lot from them to come forward and tell their story their very intimate story of what they went through and now it's like it doesn't even matter.

I watched watching neverland YEARS ago. I absolutely believed all the victims.

When I brought up the documentary to my brother, I was shocked how quickly and adamantly he defended Michael. He wasn't even that big of a fan. Also my husband does the same. It's so weird to me honestly.

I kinda remained in a state of confusion and delusion for years until I found this sub and it confirmed what I intuitively knew all along.

I think why so many people support him despite the fact that he was obviously a PDF file...Is because he basically represented the American Dream. Also he transmuted his trauma and turned it to art that was universally embraced and enjoyed. People really identify with the underdog story even though he was extremely shrewd in his business practices, was an elitist social climber, and definitely narcissist.

Also look at him, he was absolutely demented looking, a freak show. He is wasn't wildly successful, rich, and talented, people would be disgusted by him.

Anyways Hollyweird is basically run by PDF files. I think he was trying to bring it into the maintstream. Also I think he was sexually abused a lot as a child. I think he has seen and experienced some really horrific things. He is both a victim and a predator/narcissist and people cannot seem to hold both of these truths simultaneously.

I watched this entire interview about a few days ago like most of us here.

and I do not remember any blurred photos/clips. I am re-watching it again tonight.

I noticed at the 8:10 and 20:30 marks, these portions have now been blurred.

anyone have an original recording preserved of this interview?

Incredible testimonies. This interview has got me re-evaluating my appreciation and understanding of Michael jackson.

all forms of SA need a platform to be spoken about and exposed. Without shame or embarrassment. We need absolute freedom to heal, speak the truth, and expose those who are committing the unspeakable. No matter who it is.

i was too young at the time to be aware (i was born in late 2001, so i was about 3 years old) but i’m curious. what did the general public’s reaction look like in real time? from the initial news breaking, all the way to the verdict?

did people think of it as another “extortion” attempt, or thought (rightfully so) “not this shit again, he really can’t help himself”? or was it split 50/50?

i know for a fact that michael’s death made people do a 180 on how they approached him, so i’m guessing while he was still alive, his reputation was…not doing too hot.

(and ofc for clarification, i wholeheartedly believe he was guilty & a preferential pedophile. this sub has opened my eyes to that fact, as a former MJ stan)

For me its:

The names of those who willingly helped. Ex. Norma Staikos

The alcohol and drug aspect. Ex. Aldo talking about how his child mind registered him becoming higher as the monster coming out.

The details the victims have shared of exactly what happened during the abuse, and how horrifying he really was with them.

New documentary

Probably just wishful thinking on my part but I do hope so.

Wade said in an interview how much he regrets not helping Gavin get justice during the trial, idk if Wade has commented on this at all but I feel like this is the right thing to do.

With the settlements, the matching genitalia description, and the locked cabinets of nude books, it’s easy to view Michael Jackson as a stone-cold liar protecting his empire. But when he said he could never harm a child, he likely believed it

It all starts with Joe Jackson. Given the corroborated physical, emotional, and sexual abuse in the Jackson home, MJ’s internal compass was shattered before he hit puberty. Sexual deviance was normalized. He lost the natural revulsion a child should feel toward adult-child contact.

Why the obsession with children specifically? They represented the innocence violently stolen from him. He didn't just want to be around them...he wanted to absorb their unbroken purity. By possessing them, he subconsciously hoped to merge with their "childness" to feel whole. And because his primary attachments were sources of terror, his definition of intimacy warped into subjugation, control, and boundary-crossing. He literally could not separate love from abuse.

He watched his brothers use and discard groupies, adopting the exact same pattern for boys. Having learned early that survival meant telling people what they wanted to hear, he became a masterful groomer, mirroring desires to isolate children and buy their parents' silence.

He called children his "natural high" and "magic." Like an addict justifies stealing for a fix, MJ justified his abuse because he needed them to survive his agony. He compartmentalized his sexual actions as just innocent childhood games ("play time" as his friend recently revealed).

Enter the Savior Complex.

He targeted vulnerable, working-class boys, positioning himself as their benevolent rescuer. By paying off mortgages and buying cars, he bought loyalty. In his twisted logic, a savior couldn't be a predator....therefore, whatever he did to them must be love.

Yet when boys hit puberty, he discarded them coldly -- proving his attraction was fetishistic, not platonic. Once they lost the "spirit of boyhood" (as he inscribed in the NAMBLA book found in his locked cabinet at Neverland) he fetishized, the magic was gone.

Understanding his psychology makes him far more terrifying. A villain who knows they are doing evil can be caught. But a predator who convinces himself his abuse is an act of salvation is a monster who hides in plain sight. And after Thriller, he became too big and too universally adored for the public to believe he could do something so horrible. His internal delusion was dangerous, but the world's collective idol worship made it bulletproof...

https://preview.redd.it/xpk2qfv6vc2h1.png?width=570&format=png&auto=webp&s=6ccd01f2bf7e4045de8bd99c244e958adee7c008

From Jordan Chandler’s psychiatric interview:

Jordan: [Michael] would get me to do things and convince me that the things he was doing weren't wrong, because he would talk about people who levitate, you know, it was weird.

Dr. Gardner: And what did he say about levitation? 

Jordan: That the people who levitate are unconditioned. It's confusing; it took me a long time to understand it. [...] they were not conditioned to believe that gravity existed, and I suppose that that meant that those who are unconditioned would find what Michael was doing was not wrong.

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/j-chandler-gardner-interview.pdf