r/MJInnocentFacts

But he admitted to sleeping with children...?
▲ 20 r/MJInnocentFacts+1 crossposts

But he admitted to sleeping with children...?

"You can have my bed if you want it. Sleep in it. I'll sleep on the floor. It's yours.' I always give the beds to the company" - Michael Jackson

Michael has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.

As Tom Sneddon put it - "Under California law, merely sleeping with a child, without affirmative, offensive conduct' isn't criminal, and law enforcement officials would also have to have cooperation from a victim before any charges could be brought"

Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest that people seem to have forgotten about.

So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Jackson's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise.

To understand this mindset, you have to understand how he grew up. The Jackson family of 9 children lived in a very small house. Michael and his brothers slept two at a time on each floor of a triple bunk bed. Later, they slept together in cars or hotel rooms, sometimes with other people.

https://preview.redd.it/q5cc60bnahne1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74ad85fe7ee1b8613cb4334aabb9fc8c18134733

Beds used to be a place of meetings, coming up with ideas, rehearsing, talking, watching TV, falling asleep and sleeping. Nothing sexual. It´s other people who think about the bed only as something sexual.

https://preview.redd.it/px8idlbubhne1.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=278a3663a9b5ae36deb51a05593b425ed32e6b4d

https://preview.redd.it/cj9uwnovbhne1.jpg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4240557766f1e93a5c73318e334e1ba3ae8681aa

This idea of exclusive bedrooms has racial and socio-economic classist undertones as well. In many ethnic cultures & poor households, people don't have the luxury of having private rooms, as explained in this video clip

https://reddit.com/link/1j6j9wa/video/wxati9nsahne1/player

Perhaps he should keep children out of his bedroom to avoid any appearance of impropriety but, again, bad judgement does not make a person guilty.

With that said, I'd like to point out that if there was anything inappropriate going on during those sleepovers, why would Jackson draw attention to his behaviour by talking about the sleepovers so openly on national television? Also, if he really wanted to molest children, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious?

Finally, we do not know the context of the sleepovers, how often they occur, with whom, if there is supervision, etc. Any conclusions drawn about Jackson's behaviour are presumptuous and speculative at best. What we do know is that Michael Jackson has said that he never invites children into his bedroom.

When they raided his Neverland home in 2003, a folding futon was found on the lower level of his bedroom, which corroborates his claim of sleeping either on the floor or in sleeping bags while letting the child have the bed.

His bedroom at Neverland had an upper & lower level. It was the size of a small apartment so it was not a regular bedroom in the way one would typically imagine.

Testimonials Of Those That He Shared His Bed With

  • Karen Faye, Dennis Tompkins, Michael Bush on ABC 20/20 Friday June 25th 2010 :

>Michael Bush: When they say bed, a lot of people think sexual, and that was a farthest thing from Michael's mind. I mean we would go do an award show, you come back, everyone jumped on there with 15 people on a bed, watching a show or cartoons or whatever a movie he had to show.
Question: You never saw you never heard anything of the course of a 25-year relationship that made you think that Michael Jackson was a pedophile?
Karen Faye: No nothing, nothing. I absolutely feel I would have seen something over the years but not a thing.

  • Karen Faye, April 2019

>"I would spend hours in Michaels bedroom doing his hair at night, as children would be sleeping all over his room. He would even go tuck the covers over them making sure they were warm and comfortable. I had free access to everything in MJ’s homes and hotels.
There were times when Michael wanted time for himself. The parents and kids would be so insistent on being with him, he would always give in. He always put them first. This is so unfair to run this evil scam on MJ. It hurts me tremendously.
I witnessed on many occasions...the parents PUSHING their kids on Michael. “Go ask Michael” “go play with Michael” “go tell Michael to get the chefs to make us some food”,”go ask Michael to take us shopping”, “get his credit card”
Kids slept everywhere around his room. On the floor, in big chairs, in front of the fireplace. MJ’s room was 2 stories. Michael usually let them sleep in his bed and he slept elsewhere. I often fell asleep in his bed.
Michael’s bed was like a living room sofa. After concerts, everyone (fans, friends, co-workers) would jump on his bed visit talk and laugh...in Neverland and his hotel suites. I am sure most ppl do the same thing.
I witnessed many times, Michael telling the kids to go back to the guest quarters with their parents and the kids and the parents BEGGING him for the kids to stay in the main house with him. Michael had a difficult time saying no.
Michael did most of his work, composing, writing, dancing at night, so he wanted that time for himself. He would wait for the kids to fall asleep, and then slip out to the theater, where he was set up to work"

  • Kit Culkin, Macaulay & Rory's father - taken from 2005's Lost Boy

>"Michael’s bedroom (an enormous room with alcoves and dressing rooms and a fireplace and French doors leading out to a private garden, as well as a stairway leading to the entire upstairs) was almost always an open place to hang out in, as was most all of the rest of the house. My children would sit on the bed, as would I, to play cards or checkers, or watch television or whatever, but then we would do so most everywhere else also. They might of occasion fall asleep there, just as they might of occasion fall asleep most anywhere else, and at most any daylight hour. While they had a bedtime, I rarely enforced it, as they were, after all, at Neverland to play; and as is most always the case with children (as any parent will tell you), they never enforced it themselves, thinking that they should get some rest so as to be better rested to play again the coming day. Children don’t worry about “the coming day”. Therefore, I was constantly and most usually after suppertime, having to round them up and often carry them (sometimes by golf cart) to their accommodations. They’d fall asleep watching a movie at the movie theater or playing with the toy trains in the toy trains room, and there was one occasion, I well remember, when one of them was actually found asleep on the carousel!”

  • June Chandler, Jordy Chandler's mother

Admitted in her 2005 testimony that she was allowed to go into Jackson’s bedroom and stay there whenever she wanted:

>And why were you in the bedroom those ten times?

>Because I’m Jordie’s mother. I’m allowed to go into the bedroom.

>

>Were you dropping clothes off?

>

>Oh, I might have. I don’t recall.

>

>Did you ever sit down and watch T.V. or anything in there?

>

>Yes.

>

>How often did you do that?

>

>A few times.

>

>Did you ever have food delivered to you in Michael Jackson’s bedroom?

>

>I don’t recall

  • Joy Robson, Wade Robson’s mother

Also stated in her 2005 testimony that she was allowed to go to Jackson’s bedroom any time she wanted:

>Did you go into Mr. Jackson’s room at all hours of the day?

>At any time I wanted to, yes.

>

>Do you recall being in his room during the day?

>

>Yes.

>

>Do you recall being in his room during the evening?

>

>Yes.

>

>Do you recall being in Mr. Jackson’s room late at night?

>

>Yes.

>

>Did you ever get the feeling that somebody was trying to keep you out of Mr. Jackson’s room?

>

>No

  • Frank Cascio, My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man

>What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.

>Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?

>I’m quite sure that the answer is no.

>The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.

  • Nicole Richie

>"You know, a group of us would all sleep in the same room,” she said. “It was like, absolutely nothing more than just…an adult kind of wanting to be a kid again. Just, you know, enjoying the company of children. I grew up with him. I have spent many evenings there and many days there.” Noting that she could “only speak for myself,” she still added “that absolutely nothing went on.”

Nicole also said that she wouldn’t have held her tongue had Jackson tried anything with her.

>“I’m not a quiet person,” she said. “If there was something going on, I’d be like ‘who are you?’… and I’d tell my parents. But my parents would never put me in hands that they thought were dangerous. I never had any complaints, and you know, I love him.”

  • Lottie Rose’s daughter. Lottie Rose was Michael Jackson’s hairdresser between 1981- 1994

>Lottie Rose: He would allow me to bring my daughter with me. She would stay the nights and slept in Michael’s bed. I would be working on him. At Neverland, because the drive was so long, I would stay and we would have our own little room.

>Her daughter: I met MJ when I was 11 years old… Just so happens, I was at my mom’s hair salon on a Saturday when she received a phone call from Bill Bray, MJ’s right hand man at the time. He told my mom that MJ liked her work (she did the hair for the soft sheen print advertisements) they called soft sheen and they referred them to her.

>My mom thought it was a joke until the limousine pulled up in front of the salon. She told me about MJ at the very last minute… I couldn’t believe it and went crazy while Bill was pulling the limousine around to the back of the salon. Let me tell you… it was the best night ever for an 11 year old.

>Really nice guy, very friendly and the best part was that I practically had MJ’s attention all to myself.

>He was not shy at all. In fact, I was very shy and afraid to meet him at first because he was MJ.

>However, he was very friendly and helped me to warm up to him.

>MJ and I talked mostly about me and my friends, what we did for fun, where we liked to go, what it was like to go to the mall, favorite stores, amusement parks, favorite rides, going to the beach, movies and more… He would also call me at home from time to time to chat on the phone.
Michael loved to play practical jokes. He would tell my mom that muscles or bubbles was around, and then would rub her leg to make her think it was one of the animals. She would hop around and scream sometimes… was really, really funny!”

  • Simone Jackson, Michael's cousin

During her testimony at the 2005 trial, we learned that she too slept in Jackson’s bed

>Did you ever spend the night in Michael Jackson’s room?
Yes.
Okay. By yourself?
Yes.
Did you ever spend a night in his room in his bed with him?
Yes.
By yourself?
Yes.
All right. How old were you when you did that?
I was about eight or nine

  • William B. Van Valin (adult hetero male), “Private Conversations In Neverland":

>“In Michael’s room there was a couch with a King sized roll out bed in it. It was always in the rolled out position and it was always turned down like you were in a hotel. It faced the biggest TV I’d ever seen at that time. We would put in a movie, order from the kitchen whatever we were hungry for and watch movies until late at night. If Michael fell asleep while we were watching a movie, I would turn the volume down slowly, unplug it (because if I used the controller it made a loud noise as it turned off ) and quietly leave the room and go home. I remember I did this one night and was tiptoeing to the door when I heard Michael say, “See you tomorrow, Barney.” For whatever reason, it was very difficult for Michael to sleep. So, if he fell asleep I was always careful to let him stay that way. Sometimes he’d ask me to read something to him and I’d find a book and just read it out loud then slip away when it seemed he was asleep.”

  • Elizabeth Taylor on Larry King

https://reddit.com/link/1j6j9wa/video/ge44847rehne1/player

  • Michael Jackson story time with kids

https://reddit.com/link/1j6j9wa/video/i07kwfeqfhne1/player

In the interview with Bashir, Gavin also admitted that he had specifically asked Jackson to be allowed in his bedroom and sleep there with his brother Star:

>“Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.”

https://reddit.com/link/1j6j9wa/video/okni0nkjehne1/player

In actuality, both state that Jackson slept on the floor and at the 2005 trial Gavin testified that Jackson’s friend and personal assistant, Frank Cascio had also slept in the room that night, as well as Gavin’s brother, Star and Jackson’s two children, Prince and Paris. All the children slept on Jackson’s bed while the two adult men, Jackson and Cascio, slept on the floo. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man, Cascio recalls that it were the Arvizo children who insisted that they wanted to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom despite of the fact that Jackson was reluctant to let them.

>“Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo – the boys’ mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, 'Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s fucked up.' I was totally against it, but I said, 'All right. We do what we have to do.' Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.”

So what did these sleepovers really mean in Jackson’s life?

According to German psychologist and psycho-therapist Dieter Speck due to his childhood trauma – his loss of childhood, his father beating him etc. – Jackson assumed the dual roles of being a child and a father at the same time.

https://reddit.com/link/1j6j9wa/video/h2oyljx4ehne1/player

In the children who he surrounded himself with he saw himself and he wanted to gave them the – non-sexual – fatherly affection and love that he never got from his own father. In other contexts he was a child himself. Speck does not think that Jackson was a pedophile or that his relationship with children was sexual

reddit.com
u/FunUniversity6245 — 1 day ago

Body Language Observations of Wade Robson & James Safechuck

I have always thought this about their body language and the comment on the smiling and or smirking is on point I was so irritated watching leaving neverland I just wanted him to keep his hands from his mouth if your gonna smile if you think its so funny do it openly don't try and hide it.

youtu.be
u/Tumastar — 1 day ago

I need context and help

I need some context for the photo, please. It’s from an Instagram post, and it struck me as odd. Is there any evidence to debunk this? Moderstors please, don't delete this. I need the information.

u/SprunFank — 2 days ago

I think about the “I hurt” audio a lot :\

Even when he was heavily sedated, not in his right mind and just a few days/weeks away from death all he could talk about is helping children and wanting to build a hospital for them. No talks of sexual desire for them, nothing. Just pure love coming from the soul even when he’s so drugged. I can’t see a pedophile doing that, I’m sorry.

reddit.com
u/Severe-blake6720 — 3 days ago

About the alleged Jonathan Spence photo

Hello everyone! I am a new fan from Russia, and English is not my native language, so please forgive any mistakes. I've read through this sub, and I'm really impressed by the deep breakdowns here.

‎I wanted to ask about the alleged photo of Jonathan Spence. From what I know, this photo never actually existed and was just a rumor/manipulation by the prosecution.

‎However, I would love to hear your thoughts and get a detailed breakdown of this specific matter. What are the key facts and documents regarding this?Thank you so much in advance for your answers and for keeping Michael's legacy safe! ❤️

reddit.com
u/MoonwalkHistory — 2 days ago

Case File: Chandler — Part 11

Guess who decided to crawl her way back out of the archives?

…me.

Surprise, surprise.

Although, if you’ve been following these, you probably should’ve seen that coming.

Welcome back to the Case Files.

🚨 If you’re new here, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–10.

Like…seriously, do it.

Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9

Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

…I know, that’s a lot of numbers.

Anyway, 

By April 1994, the criminal investigation into Michael was still ongoing.

In fact, despite reports that prosecutors had already decided not to file charges, both Gil Garcetti and Sneddon publicly denied that the investigation had reached that point.

And where did those reports come from?

Hard Copy.

Of course it fucking did.

The tabloid television program claimed that Michael’s case would be called a “D.A. reject,” meaning that the prosecutor had decided not to file criminal charges.

Garcetti‘s response:

“No decision has been made.”

Now, this is exactly why Hard Copy is my journalism reject.

At the time, Garcetti said he expected the investigation to be completed by the end of April.

But there was another interesting detail buried in that same report.

The two grand juries were still hearing testimony, and…

“Sneddon said the boy is scheduled to meet with prosecutors this week.”

So, despite the settlement having already been reached in January, the Chandlers were still cooperating with the criminal investigation in the spring of 1994.

And then Variety dropped something that, in my opinion, deserves a very close look:

“Although prosecution sources admit to being frustrated in their grand jury probe, failing to get direct evidence linking the singer to the molestation charges, privately they concede that their case would be stronger if the boy would agree to testify.”

Yes, you read that correctly.

The prosecution was reportedly frustrated because they were failing to obtain direct evidence connecting Michael to the alleged molestation, and sources were privately acknowledging that the case would be stronger if Jordan agreed to testify.

Which brings us right back to the photographs.

Read here: 

Case File: Chandler — Part 9 

If the photographs taken during the December 1993 strip search actually matched Jordan’s alleged description with the level of accuracy that has been claimed for decades, wouldn’t those photographs have been a very significant piece of corroborating evidence?

Especially considering that the entire stated purpose of obtaining those photographs in the first place was to corroborate Jordan’s description.

And yet, here we have an April 1994 report saying prosecutors were struggling to obtain direct evidence and privately acknowledging that their case would be stronger if Jordan testified.

…any guilters wanna take this?

Going once…

Going twice…

No one?

Alright.

There goes your smoking gun, babe.

But don’t worry, there’s more…

The alleged nude photograph.

The prosecution had also claimed that investigators had discovered a nude photograph of a minor boy during the 1993 investigation.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

This is extremely significant because prosecutors later doubled down on the alleged existence of that photograph in a 2004 motion filed during the later investigation into Michael.

According to that motion, the photograph was supposedly discovered in August 1993.

But here’s the thing…

If prosecutors genuinely believed they possessed a photograph depicting a minor in a sexually explicit or nude context connected to Michael, then…why wasn’t it used as evidence?

And the prosecution couldn’t claim they weren’t sure about its significance later on, because their 2004 filing specifically identified the photograph and its supposed discovery date.

Yet this photograph was never actually entered into evidence in either the Chandler investigation or the later Arvizo case.

So we’re supposed to believe the prosecution had a potentially explosive piece of evidence, knew about it in 1993, referenced it again more than a decade later… and somehow nobody thought, “Hey guys, maybe we should actually use this”?

…well, that’s certainly odd.

But that detail becomes even more important when placed alongside the April 1994 reporting: prosecutors were reportedly frustrated because they weren’t finding direct evidence connecting Michael to the alleged crime.

Again:

If the photographs matched.

If the alleged nude photograph existed.

If prosecutors believed both were legitimate evidence.

Then what the hell were they still looking for?

Variety went on to report:

“While grand jury testimony is sealed, sources said that none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer.”

And then came this rather remarkable comment from an investigation source:

“The only thing Jackson could be convicted of at this point is bad judgment.”

…yeah.

Honestly, me too.

My bad judgment was reading anything to do with Evan Chandler, cause that guy…is something else.

Anyway,

Remember, this wasn’t happening after the Chandlers had completely disappeared from the picture. Jordan was still reportedly scheduled to meet with prosecutors that very week.

Moving on,

This also becomes relevant when we look at the testimony from some of Michael’s former employees.

Read here:

Case File: Neverland Five

As we know Kassim Abdool testified before the Los Angeles Grand Jury, and Ralph Chacon testified before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury.

Both men were among a group of five former employees who had filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against Michael.

But…here we have another issue for the prosecutors.

Those employees had not previously reported the alleged abuse they later claimed to have witnessed.

In fact, Abdool and Chacon reportedly didn’t even tell each other about these supposed incidents until they encountered one another during the grand jury proceedings.

The five former employees were also later connected to efforts to sell sensational stories about Michael and the allegations for money. Chacon was among two of the five who had been accused of stealing from Michael, and the group was ultimately found to have engaged in serious misconduct during the subsequent litigation.

…I’m telling you, everyone wanted something from Michael. It’s disgusting.

An appellate filing summarized the situation rather…bluntly:

“Appellants were sanctioned several additional times for lying to the court, perjury by each of the Appellants, collusion by their lawyers, destruction and spoliation of evidence, failure to make discovery and for violation of court orders.”

The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Michael in March 1997, and the former employees were ordered to pay him.

…pay up, bitches.

Now, obviously, much of this misconduct was established after the 1994 grand jury proceedings. So we can’t retroactively pretend prosecutors in 1994 knew everything that would eventually come to light.

But here’s what is relevant:

Whatever these witnesses had to say in 1994 apparently wasn’t enough to produce the damning evidence the prosecution was looking for. 

And that matters because these weren’t random people sitting in a courtroom twenty years later. They were actually part of the evidence gathering process at the time.

And now we have Marlon Brando…

Yes, I know.

There has been a later claim that Brando gave prosecutors information that was supposedly damaging to Michael.

Brandon Ogborn, one of the producers of The Telephone Stories, later told the Los Angeles Times that Brando had allegedly told prosecutors it was:

“pretty reasonable to conclude that he (Jackson) may have had something to do with kids.”

That’s a pretty serious allegation.

If one of the most famous actors in Hollywood had actually gone before prosecutors and provided testimony suggesting that Michael may have been sexually abusing children, that would certainly sound significant.

But there’s a problem.

Brando’s own son disputed the story.

…yes, I also laughed.

Brando’s grand jury appearance was conducted behind closed doors, so the public doesn’t have a transcript of his testimony to examine. But the grand jury itself obviously would have received whatever evidence prosecutors presented during those proceedings.

So let me get this straight.

We’re supposed to believe Marlon Brando went before a grand jury, essentially told prosecutors that it was “pretty reasonable” to believe Michael may have been involved with children, and somehow this supposedly explosive testimony left absolutely no trace in the reporting about what the grand jury had actually uncovered?

Because if that testimony existed in the way it has been presented, “none of the witnesses so far have offered anything that would directly implicate the singer” suddenly becomes a rather inconvenient sentence.

And yet here we are.

This is exactly why I’m far more interested in what the record actually said at the time than what someone decided to tell us twenty years later.

…I’m sure you can guess all the people I’m referring to.

Anyway, 

Let’s continue… 

According to the Los Angeles Times, one of the two California grand juries investigating the allegations against Michael had ended its deliberations without returning an indictment.

The report, published May 1st, 1994, stated:

“Grand Jury Ends Jackson Inquiry, TV Report Says”

The article went on to explain:

“One of two California grand juries that has been investigating sex abuse allegations against pop superstar Michael Jackson has ended its deliberations for now without returning an indictment, a Los Angeles television station reported Saturday.”

So, you’d think that was the end of the investigation against Mike…right?

Nope.

In fact, the very next day, Showbiz Today aired a segment with Jim Moret detailing the Santa Barbara grand jury’s disbanding.

Moret opened the segment by emphasizing that, more than eight months after the allegations first surfaced, it remained unclear whether criminal charges would ever be filed.

“After three months of investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson, the Santa Barbara County grand jury disbanded Friday without announcing any action.”

Howard Weitzman who represented Michael at the time, said he wasn’t surprised.

“I did not believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all.”

But wait…here’s the fun part:

According to Moret, one of the grand jurors told CNN that he had not heard any “damaging testimony” against Michael during the hearings.

Read that again.

As Michael says, “You gotta let it simmer…It’s got a moment where it has to simmer.”

No damaging testimony.

This wasn’t some tiny little investigation where three people had a conversation and called it a day.

The nineteen member grand jury had spent approximately three months hearing testimony and gathering information.

Moret explained that CNN had previously reported that the panel was never asked to render an indictment and that no vote was taken.

The grand jury was being used as an information gathering mechanism, with witnesses being compelled to testify.

Among those witnesses were Michael’s former valet, Miko Brando, his former private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, and the mother of a boy who had admitted to CNN that he had slept in the same bed as Michael.

So, after months of testimony and an investigation that had already involved an enormous amount of resources, the grand jury was disbanded without an indictment.

Fuck it, y’know who I want to indict?

Victor Gutierrez for being a sick son of a—

Okay…I’ll get to that later.

But, and this is important, the grand jury being disbanded did not mean the criminal investigation itself was over.

Moret specifically noted that both Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti had declined to predict when the overall investigation would conclude.

Their joint statement emphasized that the dismissal of the Santa Barbara grand jury did not bring the investigation to an end.

So, to be clear: no indictment was issued. No vote for an indictment was taken. And at least one juror publicly stated that he had not heard damaging testimony against Michael.

The investigation, however, continued.

And considering everything that had happened up to this point, that distinction is going to matter.

Speaking of…

Let’s revisit the strip search again, shall we?

So of course, during these very same grand jury proceedings, investigators decided to bring in Katherine Jackson and question her about whether Michael had done anything to alter the appearance of his body so that it wouldn’t match the description.

…all who said “what the fuck?” say aye.

Let’s go back to the actual reporting.

A Los Angeles Times article by Jim Newton reported that Katherine had been ordered to testify before the Los Angeles County grand jury.

Howard Weitzman expressed just how unusual he found this:

“In all the years of my experience, I’ve never before seen the mother of the target of an investigation called before the grand jury.”

He continued:

“It’s just done in real poor taste. It borders on harassment.”

…yeah, I’m with Weitzman on this one. 

And according to a source close to the investigation, Katherine could be questioned specifically about Michael’s physical appearance.

Why?

Because investigators were apparently trying to determine whether Michael had done anything to alter his appearance so that it did not match the description provided by the alleged victim.

Wait, wait, wait…

Come again?

The photographs supposedly matched, that has been the argument for decades.

So why are investigators now trying to determine whether Michael could have altered his appearance in a way that would explain why it didn’t match the description when the photographs were taken?

Shhhh, don’t tell the guilters,

Their narrative is cracking…

Anyway,

The article noted that Katherine had consistently defended her son publicly and that Michael himself continued to maintain his innocence.

It also addressed the settlement and the ongoing question of whether Jordan would cooperate with investigators:

Larry Feldman continued to insist that:

“nobody bought anybody’s silence”

while also emphasizing that psychologists believed Jordan needed to put the matter behind him.

Meanwhile, Gil Garcetti said he expected the investigation to be wrapped up within roughly another month, with a final charging decision expected within two or three weeks after that.

And although grand juries were meeting in both Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties, Michael’s attorneys said they had been told that neither grand jury was considering an indictment at that point.

The Los Angeles Times also explained why grand juries were being utilized in the first place: because they have subpoena power and can compel statements from witnesses who might otherwise be reluctant to speak with investigators.

That brings us back to the bigger picture.

The Santa Barbara grand jury had disbanded. No indictment was returned. No vote was taken. One juror said he heard no damaging testimony. The overall investigation was still ongoing.

And investigators were still trying to determine whether Michael’s physical appearance had somehow been altered in a way that could explain a supposed discrepancy with Jordan’s description.

As for the Los Angeles Grand Jury, it continued for roughly another two months after the Santa Barbara Grand Jury disbanded.

According to a July 9th, 1994 report from the Los Angeles Times:

“The county’s 23 grand jurors ended their term last Thursday without handing up criminal indictments against Jackson…”

The article added that the grand jurors had also taken no action in an unrelated arson case, and that a new grand jury had been impaneled which could take up the work of its predecessor, although officials would not confirm whether either case had been transferred to the new panel.

So, by July 1994, the Los Angeles Grand Jury had also finished its term without indicting Michael.

Santa Barbara had disbanded.

Los Angeles had disbanded. 

May they rest in peace.

The investigation had now been going on for nearly a full year.

And still…

Nothing.

Finally, on September 22nd, the prosecution announced that Michael would not be charged, while also stopping short of declaring him formally “absolved.”

By this point, the Chandlers had officially stopped cooperating with investigators. That ultimately contributed to the decision to close the case.

But… 

The investigation had lasted 13 months, involved two grand juries, and included interviews with more than 400 people.

And after all of that, prosecutors claimed they had encountered two additional children who said Michael had molested them.

There was just one problem, of course:

Neither child wanted to testify.

Let’s stop there for a moment…

After interviewing more than 400 people, conducting searches, travelling internationally, convening two grand juries, and investigating Michael for more than a year…

Two additional alleged victims supposedly existed…and neither wanted to testify.

Okay.

So we’re just collecting apparent allegations now?

Amazing job, Sneddon.

Let’s take a closer look at one of these supposed “victims,” because this is where the record gets particularly interesting.

…ladies and gentlemen, Brett Barnes.

The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the children supposedly lived outside the country and had turned against Michael in 1994.

Except…

That child was Brett Barnes.

And, as we know, Brett has spent decades publicly defending Michael and denying that he was ever abused by him.

So how exactly did Brett end up being characterized as one of these supposed “victims”?

Well, the 2005 proceedings give us a rather important piece of the puzzle.

In a prosecution motion concerning testimony from Brett’s mother, Lizette Barnes, the prosecution itself acknowledged that Brett had previously been identified by witnesses as a “victim” during the 1994 investigation.

The motion stated:

“Ms. Barnes is the mother of Brett Barnes, previously identified by witnesses as a victim during the 1108 portion of the People’s case.”

Ah, there’s the problem.

Brett himself was never interviewed by investigators during that 1994 investigation.

Instead, his name had apparently been brought up by other witnesses, resulting in investigators travelling all the way to Australia to determine whether his parents would allow him to be interviewed.

This fucking matters.

Why?

Because being identified by someone else as a supposed victim is not the same thing as the person himself making an allegation. Especially when that person later spent decades saying the exact opposite.

The 2005 filing also discussed the visit to the Barnes family home in Australia by members of the prosecution team, including Sneddon.

According to the defence’s account referenced in the prosecution’s filing, the purpose of the visit was to determine whether the Barnes family would allow Brett to be interviewed because his name had surfaced during the earlier investigation.

Lizette Barnes later characterized Sneddon as:

“heavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.”

…she was right.

The prosecution, unsurprisingly, objected strongly to that characterization and argued that the defence was attempting to portray the District Attorney in an inflammatory manner.

The prosecution’s filing stated:

“The defense intends to elicit testimony from this witness designed to portray the District Attorney as heavy-handed, demanding, and determined to prosecute Jackson.”

The filing then disputed Lizette’s account of what had been discussed during the Australia meeting.

According to the prosecution, Sneddon himself had done relatively little of the talking. Instead, Judge Lauren Weis Birnstein had conducted most of the meeting and was the person who explained the allegations to the Barnes family.

Now, listen to this shit:

The prosecution claimed that the Barnes family had been told about an allegation involving oral copulation during that meeting, despite Lizette later maintaining that Sneddon had never mentioned “oral sex.”

The prosecution argued that her recollection of the meeting was inaccurate and that the information being presented by the defence was contradicted by other people who had been present, including Judge Birnstein and Head Deputy Hodgman.

So, to recap:

Brett was apparently identified as a “victim” by other witnesses.

Investigators traveled to Australia because his name had surfaced.

His parents were approached about allowing him to be interviewed.

But investigators never actually got to interview Brett himself.

And yet, years later, he could be described in the prosecution’s own filings as someone who had previously been identified as a victim.

Do you see the problem?

Because I do.

And there is another little detail I want you to keep in the back of your mind:

The prosecution ultimately characterized the Australia visit as irrelevant to the proceedings.

Which is an interesting position to take considering the reason they were in Australia in the first place was because Brett’s name had surfaced in their investigation.

“We flew to Australia to investigate this alleged victim, but let’s not talk about that part.”

Right.

Anyway, 

The important takeaway is that the September 1994 reporting about these “two additional children” needs some serious context.

One of the children identified in later records was Brett Barnes, a person who never accused Michael, was never interviewed during that investigation, and who has consistently maintained his defence of Michael.

So, remember Ralph Chacon?

*Well…*while the prosecution’s filing does not identify the security guard who allegedly reported the supposed incident, the description lines up with allegations later made by Ralph Chacon.

Mhm.

The former Neverland security guard who had previously been involved in litigation against Michael and who later testified that he had supposedly witnessed Michael behaving sexually with a young boy.

A Santa Maria Times report described Chacon’s testimony:

“Chacon, who said he spied the act through a window, testified that Jackson kissed the child on the mouth, then worked his way down to the boy’s genitals.”

The report identified the child as Jordan Chandler.

And oh look, yet another problem…

In a December 2004 motion, Sneddon himself acknowledged that Chacon may have confused Jordan with Brett Barnes.

The prosecution explained that Chacon had difficulty distinguishing between the two boys because, according to Chacon, they looked remarkably similar.

Don’t forget, this is the same witness whose credibility had already been seriously challenged.

Chacon had been accused of stealing from Michael, had been involved in litigation against him, and was later found to have engaged in serious misconduct during that litigation, including lying under oath.

And, because apparently this story needed another layer of what the fuck…

Sneddon’s office also assisted Chacon with certain expenses, including moving expenses and a gun permit.

Three strikes Sneddon, you’re out.

If the alleged incident involving Brett originated from a security guard’s claim, and that claim may have been based on a mistaken identification between Brett and Jordan, then the media reporting that Brett had effectively “turned against” Michael becomes a very different story.

Because Brett didn’t turn against Michael.

He never accused him.

He was never even interviewed.

And his parents refused to allow investigators to interview him.

Now, let’s go back in time again.

Remember that the September 1994 reporting said the investigation had uncovered two additional children who allegedly claimed Michael had molested them but refused to testify.

We can now identify one of those children as Brett Barnes.

So you’re probably wondering who the other child was…

Well, guess who that was?

Jason Francia.

Blanca Francia’s son.

Oh, Blanca…we meet again.

Read here:

Case File: Francia

The same Jason who testified about Michael supposedly touching his genitals while tickling him, despite being fully clothed.

And the same Jason who admitted that he couldn’t completely remember the events he was describing.

His own testimony included:

“He just started tickling me, which, cool, shoot, I was a tickle guy.”

…”I was a tickle guy.” should tell you everything you need to know.

So, how do we know Jason was the other child referenced by Sneddon?

Because Sneddon specifically said that the other child had been in therapy and that prosecutors had spoken with the child’s counsellor.

He said:

“The other child said he was molested three times by Jackson and has been in therapy since last fall.”

Sneddon continued:

“After conversations with the counselor, conversations with the child and conversations with the child’s attorney, they have expressed their reluctance to go forward…”

Now compare that with Jason Francia’s testimony in 2005.

He acknowledged that he had been in counselling and that his counsellor, Mike Craft, had been present when he encountered Sneddon:

“It wasn’t a counseling session. But Mike Craft, which was my counselor, was there.”

So we have another alleged “victim” who ultimately chose not to participate in a criminal prosecution.

And once again, the public narrative was much simpler:

Two more children came forward.

Except when you actually dig into who those children were and what happened, things become considerably less straightforward.

One was Brett Barnes, who never accused Michael, was never interviewed, and whose family refused to allow investigators access to him.

The other was Jason Francia, whose allegations we’ve already examined in detail.

…and was tickled, apparently.

Anyway, 

That brings us to the end of part 11. 

See you in Part 12. 👋🏼

My previous case files:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler – Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler – Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler – Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler – Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler – Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler – Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler – Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler – Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler – Part 9:

Case File: Chandler – Part 9

Chandler – Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Sources and additional information:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/plugin-schwartz_chandler.pdf

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2023/07/09/michael-jacksons-friend-brett-barnes-some-notes-on-his-interview-with-charles-thomson/

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-settlement/

https://medium.com/@ruckerjael/how-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-the-post-settlement-investigation-5aaf6d09065a

https://www.amazon.ca/Redemption-Michael-Jackson-Molestation-Allegations/dp/1576880362

https://site2.mjeol.com/1994/05/02/jackson-grand-jury-disbanded-1994/

https://variety.com/1994/biz/news/d-a-garcetti-denies-jackson-probe-ended-120071/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-07-07-me-12852-story.html

https://www.latimes.com/la-me-michael-jackson-lawsuit-22-sept-94-story.html

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/040705.txt

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM&ra=m

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/050505.txt

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/050605.txt

https://www.themichaeljacksoninnocentproject.com/blog/040405.txt

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pDa27x6mTWs&t=33s&pp=2AEhkAIB&ra=

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/reference-materials/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-parts-1-3

Important posts:

Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty 

Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.

Talking in circles 

What Would You Do for $20 Million?

“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”

Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson

A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson

Not Everyone Is a Narcissist

The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?

The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence

u/Emotional_Ball_5181 — 2 days ago

Bigg Bu¢k - Cascio (Official Music Video) [Cascio Family Diss Track]

Ever since The Cascio Family turned their back on Michael I thought about doing a diss track on Cascio so when their case got moved and everything so I decided to drop the track

youtu.be
u/Bigdickyricky1995 — 3 days ago

Debunking Alcohol Claims & Michaels Behavior

The Arvizo kids testimonies all include stories of drinking with Michael and Aldo. And Star makes these claims about Marie Nicole saying her and Michael drank all the small liquor bottles. And Michael making disgusting comments about wanting to **** her.

I was having a conversation with someone who believes the Cascio claims because you can look back on testimonies from 2005 and it’s all laid out. That witnesses, whether they won in court or not, from 20 years ago corroborate their current story.

Were Aldo or Marie Nicole ever questioned about all the drinking they allegedly participated in with Michael during the time of the trial? Did Sneddon ever try and contact them?

I cannot believe Michael would be behaving like this in the middle of a PR disaster, but then again during his deposition regarding signing his power of attorney away he said he was probably impaired for the entire year of 2003? I’m sure that’s just overblown so he can get out of that contract. But still.

Prior to 2005, so many of the stories that children shared about Michael were of classic fun- water balloon fights, squirt guns, go carts, good natured practical jokes. People like Brett and Mac consistently saying it was innocent fun.

The 2005 trial and then the cascio family now, paints such a different picture of Michael- so many alcohol allegations, porn, crude and disgusting sexual comments from Michael, crude and sexual prank calls, drinking games. It doesn’t fit in with who he was, but I’d appreciate any actual facts🙏

u/Substantial_Bug_5390 — 3 days ago

If you are having trouble reading the court transcripts, there are trial reenactments on YouTube by MJJRespository

Thanks to our friend over on X and YouTube, MJJRespository! They have uploaded ALL court days to YouTube.

Please keep in mind that these videos do have legal analysts and a host, so there will be brief interruptions, but they are important. I, sometimes, struggle focusing to read, so watching the reenactments REALLY do help me take in all the information.

Happy watching/listening!

youtube.com
u/mymoonwalker54 — 3 days ago

What is one thing as a defender that you still don't understand about the case?

This should be an interesting discussion. This can be from evidence, testimonies, or what Michael did overall (he didn't do anything inappropriate or illegal). There is no right or wrong answer.

For me, it's for the description "matching". If it matched as they claimed on the prosecution side, why didn't they use it as evidence?

Please be respectful when discussing 🙏 🙂 😊

reddit.com
u/mymoonwalker54 — 4 days ago

Terry George never had any telephone calls with Michael Jackson.

A few months ago I wrote my first post about Terry George, but I felt it was very poorly written, so I decided to rewrite it without all the fluff and simply to refute it.

  • Terry himself doesn’t know when the calls started:

Every time Terry tries to explain when the calls started, he ends up contradicting himself

The original story (1993):

https://preview.redd.it/1crlqcu92tjh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=55d1e9962081c503f913b2da41ba94fcc5bd0f1e

Louis, Martin & Michael (2003):

https://preview.redd.it/uzk3yvju5ujh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=c189728a0b9b02bb14137220d13c27ca1a48af12

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/wsx6wshhkujh1/player

As you can see, we went from the calls starting several days later after Terry’s interview with Michael (an interview that took place on February 19, 1979) to the calls starting just the day after that interview and not only that, but Terry tells us that Michael had even left Leeds, and then the story changes again to say that the calls actually began BEFORE Michael appeared on the show Swap Shop (Terry also tells us that he actually visited Michael for almost an entire week).

But wasn’t Michael supposed to have already left Leeds the very next day after the interview, just as Terry himself told us? How is it possible that Terry visited him when he was no longer there?

And speaking of the show Swap Shop, Michael did appear on that show (or rather, The Jacksons appeared on that show) what Terry doesn't tell you is that the episode actually aired on February 10, 1979, nine days before Terry even met Michael.

https://preview.redd.it/4trd1775uujh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=92e0ad71785e1b9d36b2671b60e8eee2cbdd61ac

So, as you can see, Terry himself doesn't know when those calls started

After the alleged inappropriate call, we're told that Terry and Michael lost contact (around mid-May 1979, which would mean almost 3 months of contact: late February, March, April, and mid-May), and in the Sky News clip, you can see Terry saying that their calls actually took place almost all year long (an obvious lie), this brings us to my next two points.

  • Multiple visits in 1979:

We touched on this topic briefly in the previous point, so this one will be shorter.

Untitled Interview (2005):

https://preview.redd.it/lfuk39xihvjh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=42aa6b3c0fc85b0ce015dcbd96ec69bd2fc73db4

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/z7vwlgn80vjh1/player

Now we see how we go from Terry visiting Michael two days after the interview to almost an entire week during which Michael introduced Terry to all of his family. (Don't forget that Terry had also told us that Michael left Leeds the day after the interview.)

  • Two meetings in 1983:

Terry and the media want you to believe that Terry and Michael met again only once in 1983, but in fact it happened twice

The original story (1993):

https://preview.redd.it/3a9du13u2vjh1.png?width=1664&format=png&auto=webp&s=de20102fd7b97e3ebb0c4fb8c14027f55c2a4ced

Michael Jackson's Secret World (2005):

It's interesting how they avoid mentioning those two meetings in 1983 so that the narrative that \"Michael lost interest when they reached a certain age\" makes sense.

Back in 1983, I'm sure there were two meetings, judging by the clothes they're wearing.

Probably February???

Probably November???

Oh, and we even have a news article from that time

Y.E.P 15 FEB 1983

Please note that there is no mention of Terry having been friends with Michael (or even of the alleged phone call recordings).

Plus a mention of a second interview that we only heard about in this article.

However, later on, Terry himself tells us a different story, this time about what happened in 1983

Sky News Interview (2009):

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/faphlxzaavjh1/player

https://preview.redd.it/howrn6q5bvjh1.png?width=1664&format=png&auto=webp&s=f6ff9fabdc3872579c9f1dc8b9938847202c7812

Whether it's true or false (probably false), Terry has told us here that Michael actually even gave him a song instead of rejecting him when he was trying to rekindle their friendship, as he had mentioned in his tabloid story, although this is the first and last time he has mentioned this demo.

  • Hours of phone conversations

Whenever Terry is asked about his 1979 interview, he always ends up telling you that he has hours of recorded phone conversations, yet we’ve never heard a single snippet of them and later on (probably anticipating that he’d be asked if he had that tape, Terry got rid of it in a very… stupid way).

https://preview.redd.it/8wi3ir9ievjh1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=e868ac34c7ca9cec69cb25c1331e443754994de2

In my previous post, I received a comment saying that Terry might have been referring to phone calls in general, but the way Terry phrased his response “the tape” and the 'fact' that the media has it, is what makes it really, really obvious to me that he's talking about the inappropriate recording.

When you really think about what this means, that's when you realize this was the stupidest thing he could have said I mean... the media has the tape (even worse, the sensationalist tabloids have the tape) in which Michael speaks inappropriately to Terry, and they've never published it in over 30 years. Yeah, that makes sense.

  • The phone bill doesn't make sense

Aside from the fact that the amount on the bill changed from £340 to £300 to £350, there’s also the fact that it was Michael who called Terry, not the other way around.

(In case you don’t understand, Back in 1979 with international calls, the person making the call is the one who is charged; therefore, Michael is the one who should have received the bill, not Terry.)

https://reddit.com/link/1vqkd0w/video/3f61ozt9mvjh1/player

Whenever Terry talks about being the one who called Michael, he always refers to those occasions as if he were already reversing charges or calling from a phone box (this was after the alleged inappropriate call and after he received the £300 bill which is extremely convenient, because once the inappropriate call occurs, the number of calls starts to decrease over the next few days, and within a few days, their phone service is cut off. It couldn't have happened during the previous months, when they were supposedly talking 2 to 3 times a week from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. on some occasions.)

Well, that brings us to the end. I apologize if at any point this post seems poorly written; I tried to make it as clear and easy to understand as possible (even though I used a translator). As you can see, Terry’s story is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, I have more points to make about him as the opportunist that he is, but for now we’ll leave it at that, since this post is meant to refute the claim that he had phone calls with Michael.

u/Just_Smoug — 4 days ago

About Michael crying about Jordan not heing able to sleep in the same bed as him

In June Chandler's 2005 testimony, she says that Michael cried about Jordan not being allowed to sleep in the same bed as him. Michael pleaded and said "Why? There's nothing wrong with it. Aren't we a family?"

Afterwards June relented and allowed it to happen and he latter bought her a bracelet. This sort of disturbed me hearing about it. Im not saying this was his intention, and Ive read everything else about the 1993 case and so on so I don't believe he physically harmed Jordan, but it sounds manipulative. What do you guys think?

reddit.com
u/Traditional_Can_2646 — 4 days ago

I don’t think MJs name will ever be cleared unfortunately

Hello everyone

I became an MJ fan in 2019 after looking into the allegations during the lies of Neverland.
Beforehand I was unsure because I was too young and didn’t know the case to form an opinion.
But I was talking to friend about this I feel that the damage and 30 years of propaganda by the media - Michaels name will never be cleared.

Even with the newer generation having a different perspective I just feel that the media has distorted so much about Michael and want to paint him as this monster. THEY WILL NEVER BACKTRACK AND ADMIT they were WRONG because that would open a can of worms in itself so they will continue to push this narrative

It’s very sad 😔

reddit.com
u/CFFlorence — 4 days ago

Male survivors of CSA stay quiet their whole lives…

I’ve been following this content creator who is unbiased, and still thinks Michael is innocent. He is coming out with a documentary soon, and he’s examining the court documents in its entirety.

Interesting take on how the Guilters love to compare MJ’s accusers to the victims of Epstein, Cosby and Trump.

tiktok.com
u/didistutter_416 — 4 days ago

What's the craziest, stupidest thing you've heard a guilter say?

So yesterday I was taking a look through leaving neverland just to see what crazy things they've said that CAN be disproved. And guess what? I come across a post that states somewhere, 'I've come to the conclusion that MJ manipulated Lisa into defending him', and I couldn't help but laugh and hope the person realised how stupid they sound. Lisa loved Michael and her daughter even says their relationship was real. I don't really know how else to disprove them. It's like arguing with a wall...

I would appreciate some facts to disprove this.

Then I came across a comment saying 'MJ scared his victims (he didn't have any SMH) into staying silent and threatened the kids', like that doesn't even make sense as kids loved being around him and if someone or something is scaring you, you don't like the person/thing.

Any other facts to disprove this would be greatly appreciated.

RIP MJ

reddit.com
u/Careless_Side_681 — 5 days ago

Are we the majority or minority?

I remember a time where my biggest hot take was that MJ is innocent, thankfully now I feel like that's a pretty cold take, maybe it's just the people I surround myself with but most people I know think he's innocent now, online is a big can of worms though, there's huge corners of the innocent who know he's innocent and huge corners who think he's guilty, but i feel like in general places of the internet that aren't strictly supporting or against him, more people think he's innocent, anyone else feel like we've reached the majority or do you still think we're pretty small compared to guilters? Or maybe it's a 50/50

reddit.com
u/occasional_account — 5 days ago

Looking at the numbers, and why they say a lot but not so much at the same time

Jimmy Savile: hundreds of alleged victims + witnesses
Harvey Weinstein: over 80 alleged victims + witnesses
Bill Cosby: over 60 alleged victims + witnesses
Michael Jackson: 9 accusers + witnesses with the credibility of a tortilla. Do u see the MASSIVE difference? Michael Jackson was alive for 50 years with the most money in the world and was supposedly a prolific pedophile but only molested 9 children, that doesn’t make sense.

reddit.com
u/Severe-blake6720 — 4 days ago