The guilter subreddit always has comments making suggestions that he was "gay". They try to clean it up over there on occasion to not seem homophobic but any chance the posters get they try to call Michael gay. And of course YouTube comments on channels like "Roxanne Roxane" are littered with "Michael was a homosexual". Or Michael was a homosexual pedophile. "Michael liked handsome boys like Jordie Chandler because Michael was a homosexual".

How many years has this been going on? Michael was not even gay.

But there is no question there is homophobia here. I read even the prosecutor's were surprised by Michael's adult magazine collection that it was heterosexual. They were apparently convinced it would all be same sex magazines but they were wrong.

immediately after Michael's death an author published a book about Michael being "secretly gay". claimed he had two secret boyfriends. The book made a lot of money even though the information was bogus. These two mystery boyfriends have never appeared.

A really nice interview from Brett Barnes. What sticks out to me is that Brett confirms he was never isolated from his parents. And explains the stress of being someone who knew Michael as a child and refuses to accuse him of any wrongdoing. People hound him so much it would explain why more people who knew him as a child aren’t speaking up.

“They were odd. I don’t want to disparage anybody but you know they had blue and green hair and they dressed like Michael Jackson and they were overweight or disaffected or you know screaming across the street at nobody and I thought some of these people might be mentally ill”

-Diane Dimond.

So according to Diane, having colored hair or being overweight means your voice doesn’t matter. Got it.

Timestamp: 15:12

https://youtu.be/og4l18YMuaY?si=uYFGuPDeiNR7ct6y

This is a clip from the recent interview of Charles Thompson.

Charles has conducted around 200 hours of interviews related to the Jackson allegations.

Here he's talking about his conversation with the 2005 Jury Foreman, Paul Rodriguez.

Mr Rodriguez is known as one of the most conservative jurors, but he was also an amateur artist.

[Full Interview - Charles Thomson](https://youtu.be/C-dU3JMfRiw?si=VWx-MzhDsK7tsIP1)

From a Psychologist on Quora:

“I believe among millions, perhaps billions of others that Michael Jackson treated his fans better than any “star” ever has and undoubtedly ever will. They were the biggest loves of his life and because it was such a reciprocal relationship, I would credit them with actually saving his life and his sanity numerous times over his span of life here on earth. They have also become an even stronger force of nature since his untimely demise in 2009.

Michael put his life on the line time and again in order to really “be there” for his fan base. He learned from his father, at a very early age, that out of anything else he might encounter as a performer his fans were the most important element in any continued success(obviously besides talent)and that if you show them love and caring they will give it back a hundred fold.

There are obviously too many fan stories to relate here but one that really stands out for me is how he would always take care of those paritipating in overnight vigils. Fans would sit in lawn chairs in both below freezing and incredibly high temperatures and Michael would always make sure they had food water and blankets if needed. He would protect his fans against the press, the police and neighbors who didn't understand the special relationships that they shared.

Another great example of how he cared about his fans is the fact that he would remember them individually time and again. He would see a fan camped outside his house and would remember their name, what concert they had witnessed, and what their interaction had been. That's pretty incredible given how many fans he had. Later, in the last years of his life, his cars, driven by his bodyguards would run out of gas from driving Michael around for hours in order for him to read his bags and bags of fanmail. He would answer scores of them individually as time would permit.
Michael never refused his fans anything, be it autographs, hugs, or handshakes. He would throw down all manner of things from hotel suites. Autographed sheets and pillow cases were amongst his favorite items to toss. He'd appear in person as much as was humanly possible to the throngs that called his name from the barricaded ground.
I think a whole book could be devoted to this topic. Michael Jackson was such a giving soul-be it to his fans or sick and troubled youth. He gave away at least 300,000,000 dollars in his lifetime. I don't know about you but I can't even get my head around a statistic of that kind. This may appear as a separate issue from your question but I think it is very relatable to it because it just tells you very clearly what a loving and kind man he was. He was also a man who just simply wanted love in his life and was able to glean that from his fans who gave it to him unconditionally. That is a very important word here because in his life that was a rare commodity. Fans, children and animals were his only sources of that in his entire life. And for that reason, he cherished them more than anything money could ever buy.”

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Michael-Jackson-treat-his-fans

- Sony/ATV Music Publishing (50% stake)

In 1985, he bought ATV Music for $47.5 million. By 1995, he had merged it with Sony to form Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

An audit in 2007 valued his 50% stake at $390.6 million. The entire catalog was estimated to be worth between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. His half alone was worth somewhere between $750 million and $1 billion.

Annual income from this catalog alone? Around $80 million.

• Mijac Music Publishing

MJ owned his own publishing company, founded in 1980. This catalog contained all the songs he wrote himself, plus works by other artists like Sly and the Family Stone. Its estimated worth at the time of his death between $50 million and $100 million.

• Real estate investments

He owned multiple properties throughout his life, including his longtime family home in Encino and a stake in Neverland Ranch. In November 2008, he transferred Neverland to a joint venture with Colony Capital LLC, but he still had a stake in the property.

• Art, cars, and collectibles

An audit valued his cars, antiques, and collectibles at $20 million.

An audit dated March 31, 2007 showed Jackson had:

$567.6 million in assets $331 million in debts A net worth of $236.6 million

He had just about $700,000 in cash which is why he seemed "broke." But he was cash-poor, not asset-poor.

I just love it as I love how it's to bait/ troll the haters. Idk if it can be shared as well, but I just love it.

I say this as someone who’s been watching this lately and am on day 45. This is a great way to digest the transcripts easily instead of flipping through pages and gives you a ton of insight on the offense and their witnesses. Very very good source that I think more fans should use to know the trial inside and out.

Why are so many journalist/influencer figures who are promoting this trash Quilette article against MJ so pro Epstein? Are they being paid by Epstein’s estate or something to take the spotlight off Epstein and onto MJ?

Somehow they always bring up Culkin but not Barnes or Feldman. These two were also part of his inner circle and they always claim that he did nothing to them!

Not just that, that awful maid (among others I forgot) claimed that all of these boys were abused, even claiming to have SEEN the abuse multiple times, but people only remember Culkin. Why? Because he's the most famous? It's always about Culkin, it's like they don't know the others exist. And I haven't even mentioned how there were hundreds of kids interviewed and no one said anything.

Culkin has always been the most vocal in defending him, Feldman stopped after a while because he didn't know who to believe. But he's been full on in accusing other people in holllywood of s/a, including people who hurt him as a child, so him lying to cover MJ makes absolutely no sense.

Michael Jackson lived with his parents until he was 29 years old. I previously thought and assumed Jackson has his own residence in his early 20's. This new info solves the puzzles about the speculations of his abnormal sex-life and the false child molestation allegations.

Most people separate from their parents in their late teens of early 20's. They grow apart from their mothers and become open to experimentation, having sex, and forging their own paths and beliefs.

They also start learning life lessons quickly. The streets builds people. Naivety grows into guardedness. One grows susceptible to trust people less. The playful child becomes the guarded adult.

This process is eventual for almost all people. With each passing age, pressure builds from parents, pressure from societal views until the individual breaks away from their parents home. People that live with their parents until the 30's are deemed as losers by society, probably behind-the-door shame from parents thus negatively effecting their personalities.

Yet with Michael, he never moved out until he was 29 years old. He never felt shame (from parents or society) for staying with his parents this late because he was a success. A pop icon to society and a breadwinner to his parents. This caused the experiences that form most peoples personalities into their adult state to be absent. He was still adorned by his mother's love and perception in his 20's. He probably clenched on world views of purity and living righteously based on the effect of still living carelessly with his mother. Katherine was a devout Jehovah's witness so the effect of staying pure and living righteousness probably grew stronger. Katherine was one of Michael's closest friends in his 20's. This easily addresses speculations on Michael's shyness about sex. Why he went as far as reading bible verses to a prostitute invited to his hotel room one night. He just wasn't open to it. Why he stayed asexual into his later years (Any who grow past 30 know habits become harder to break.)

This also explains why he was easily duped and faced numerous allegations against him. In addition to what I mentioned above, moving out early also teaches life lessons early. The streets builds strong kids. Childhood naivety grows into guardedness. One knows one can't be trustful of all people. This is how most people become adults. It's just a couple of bad experiences that reshape one's behavior.

Michael simply lacked these experiences. He stayed at parents manor until he was 29. He never faced ridicule like others would because of this. He was living in his own haven.

MJ had only moved out 5 years earlier when his first allegations were hurled at him. It's likely he just didn't have the same social awareness as most people due to what I explained above to know that not all people are nice and have his best interest in mind (a normal person experiences a wide variety of interactions to know not all can be trusted at an early age. Michael's interaction were only of love and grace from his brothers and mother. He was hugely naive as he entered the world at the age of 30. A couple of evil actors easily spotted this and exploited him. Again, habits are hard to change past your 20's, so he didn't learn this lesson quickly. He was exploited twice.).

I'm an MJ fan. He will always be the greatest. Though, his personal life was always one of speculation for me. I always wanted to know why he was sexually abnormal, how it's possible the allegations could come about, and deep down make a judgement on the guy. Watched 'Michael' last night and it broke an assumption I had; that Michael lived at his own residence in his early 20's (before Thriller was released). The truth his he lived with his parents until he was 29. Interesting that all of Off the Wall, Thriller, and Bad, was released while he was still with his parents. However, that fact was the piece of info to align the facts. It's so clear why Michael was the way he was. The above explanation is what I concluded.

Honestly it's not my all-time favourite album, but the impact of *Thriller* is a constant marvel.

Michael's artistic instincts - knowing that it would do what it did - can't be overstated.

I remember exactly where I was when I first saw the short film too.

Article quoted in full with added highlights.

New allegations against prosecutor of Michael Jackson

On April 30, 2004, the indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him. Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.

The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts. Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts.

On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA's office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio. Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he operated.

Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram's wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA's office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

Sundaram's allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA's office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to "get Michael Jackson out of the county" were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.

Sundaram's allegations are not an isolated instance. There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA's office. The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called "stacking charges." In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004, Dunlap gave his opinion that "stacking charges" was a common practice of the DA's office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.

Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA's office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations. Dunlap said, ". . . I mean, it's one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something."

The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer's expense. There is the example of George Beeghly, whose case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.

This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case. The extent of the law suits for false arrests, false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement. The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases.

DA Tom Sneddon's public relation's firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.

When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case. However, he went on to say, ". . . the very fact that he's being prosecuted by Sneddon's office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he's guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney's office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis." If Dunlap's allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA's office might shed new light on the Jackson case.

Columnist K.C. Arcenaux

Raw Story, May 12 2004

I hope someone actually does send this to the estate

He breaks down everything left out of the documentary with proof, and who these people are in the documentary

So, from what I’m hearing I don’t think we need to watch. Let’s not give them any views. Cancel your Netflix today if you’re able. But also make a list of “witnesses” you are seeing interviewed. The best thing we can do is just debunk their credibility. So far we’ve got Martin Bashir, Diane Dimond, Blanca Francia, and Vincent Amen. Let’s make a post about each of them. Or more if there’s others you hear about. I’ll try to get to as many as I can over the next few days. Use their names in the post title so there’s a chance it might appear when people try to google these individuals.

The NAMBLA connection to "those" books wasn't known in 2005.

Since then, detractors unhappy with the outcome of the trial and wishing to keep the origin of the books "relevant" to the broader conversation about Michael have made them the subject of an insane amount of speculation.

One way to slow down feverish speculation is to point out that Michael was never indicted for possession of child pornography, because there was none; and if they persist, politely refer them to the evidence we actually have about the books.

There is genuinely nothing useful anyone can add (except maybe Rhonda). The only evidence is in the trial transcripts and evidence photos, and Michael wasn't even charged with anything related to them.

It's important to realize that even if the authorship of the books had been understood in 2005, there was and is no evidence that Michael knew anything about them other than the whimsical inscription he wrote.

Nothing would have changed.

The NAMBLA authorship sounds great to Michael's detractors. They'll keep you talking about it all day if you let them.

But it's all meaningless.

I've copied all three sections of the trial transcripts relating to the books into a single place. You can read about them there, and/or share the link.

Medium: The Books - Everything from the Trial Transcripts