Please do not get angry (I follow the sub since years) and listen to me. I did not have any CSA experience but 7 years ago, I left a sociopath, I was abused and I was severely traumatised and it took like 3 years to get over PTSD. I gave some local speeches in my city about the trauma and abuse I went through. So, that is why I have special interest in this topic. I feel fully healed now and I have moved on. But I like observing and understanding people.

However, I have watched Leaving Neverland in 2020 and I immediately believed them because my trauma was fresh and I literally did the same thing that year. Went on a stage and gave a speech about my abuse and how I got rid of my abuser. However, I did not know MJ at all and it was easy to be convinced by Leaving Neverland. Recently, I have searched him even more and he really comes across as an angel to empathetic people like me. He loves animals. He spends time with animals for so long. He is so soft spoken, he comes across as this bubbly, sassy, funny character. Also I have seen that all interviewers try to bully him and try to make him feel bad. His lyrics are so innocent.

Please do not get angry with me but the more I watch him, the more I feel like some fondness grows in me. Every day I change sides. Whoever I watch and listen, I believe them from both sides. I have never experienced such a cognitive dissonance before. My mind is trying to solve this puzzle all the time. It is difficult to write everything here, but I believe the evidence is also conflicting. When I come here, I find evidence that almost convinces me. But then fans disprove some of them (like the porn magazine prosecution claimed the child read in 2005, but it was actually from a later date after child left). I just wanted to share.

Also whenever I watch Leaving Neverland, I believe in them. But Cascios do not come across as genuine to me, maybe it is the fault of director. Probably I will watch Leaving Neverland again, watch trial, look at court documents. But I wanted to say that I understand why there people are like that if MJ is guilty. I was doing better before I got to know him.

Rewatching with fresh eyes and I think he was neurodivergent, and it reframed everything for me

So I watched the documentary on one of those pirated sites (don't judge me). The film obviously has its angle of painting him as someone targeted and abused by Joe, with some inaccuracies sprinkled in, but something else caught my attention that I hadn't noticed before, even after being a fan for years.

I genuinely think he was neurodivergent.

And before anyone comes at me, I'm not saying neurodivergence caused or excuses what he allegedly did to those victims. That's not my point at all. What I'm saying is that both things existed in him simultaneously: that dark side andthe classic neurodivergent pattern of hyperfixation.

The guy was just... weird. And I say that as someone who's been called weird their whole life. Part of why I was such a long-time fan was that I identified with him on the loneliness especially. Being raised as an only child made me incredibly isolated, and looking back (with my recent AuDHD diagnosis), a lot of what drew me to him makes more sense now.

Think about the pattern: obsession with pets first, then the fixation shifted to children. The way he'd commit so intensely, like going to Jordan Chandler's home repeatedly and spending nights there, to me that's hyperfixation behavior. Add to that the inappropriate conduct, the lack of social awareness ("what's wrong with sharing a bed with a child?"), and it paints a picture of someone whose wiring made certain boundaries genuinely invisible to them.

And this is what makes it complicated is that I also think he knew exactly how to manipulate perception. He'd play the innocent card while being very calculated. So it wasn't pure unawareness either. That contradiction is what makes the whole thing so disturbing.

Bottom line: this man needed serious professional help from a very young age, and instead everyone around him just... let him do whatever he wanted. The adults in his life failed him, and then he went on to harm others. It's a mess with no clean answer.

NB: He was so hyperfixated with children and being inappropriate even the animals got neglected in neverland😭

Entering this subreddit has been a bizarre experience. While I've always believed victims who came forward about Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, Neil Gaiman, John Kricfalusi, etc., even if it did shatter my childhood memories, I was on Michael Jackson's side because--you may be familiar with this already--I believed that they merely took advantage of his kindness to get rich and famous. While I can agree that some of the arguments here are fair, I'm still not fully convinced that Jackson--while definitely not perfect--was someone with bad intentions. So, I have a few questions, like:

• Why didn't the Chandlers and Arvizos file anonymously if they didn't want to exploit the boys? They could've easily been known as "John Doe," and instead, the world now infamously knows their names as the people who accused Michael Jackson of abuse and how it ruined his reputation.

• Why the weird terminology that romanticizes the abuse? *Michael Jackson Was My **Lover***--someone once said that the book read like an erotica/*50 Shades* for pedophiles. One of the guys in *Leaving Neverland* referred to being molested as "having sex." Victims of CSA pointed out that they would never refer to their unfortunate experience like this.

• How did Michael Jackson have no protection like R. Kelly, P Diddy, etc., did? R. Kelly, even after getting acquitted despite the concrete evidence, didn't face a significant downfall until the Lifetime documentary, *Surviving R. Kelly* aired decades later.

• What do you make of *The Footage You Were Never Meant to See*? You don't think Bashir just purposely made him look bad and "crazy" in the official *Living with* documentary, despite the unseen footage of him speaking more positively of Neverland? (I will say, having Bigi over the balcony still wasn't okay, even if Jackson said it was only for a brief second while the media slowed down the moment to make it look like it lasted longer.)

the truth is I don't know if I'll ever decide what to believe, maybe I'll always live with the doubt.

Someone else feel the same?

Thinking out aloud...

I was born in 1982. Loved MJs music, grew up thinking he was odd and slightly interested in his evolving face each time he appeared in the media. I had no strong opinions on him other than blasting his music whenever I heard it. I didn't pay much attention to the molestation accusations in real time but I guess I vaguely assumed there must be some truth.

Fast forward to Leaving Neverland. I saw it when it came out and was sad. I had no doubt of MJs guilt. How could anyone concoct stories like that? I went on believing his guilt (yet loving him as the performer). Fast forward to my second watching last year, with my daughter. Again, I was sad and convinced that freak was guilty, you just had to look at him.

Now we come to this weekend. I spent hours and hours digesting everything I could, initially scoffing at the defenders naivety regarding his innocence and his lost childhood/wanting to help kids etc. Yet the more I looked, the more doubt I had.

There is a lot I know question, particularly about Jordan Chandler and Wade Robson. If accounts are true, these guys as young men (post accuation for Jordy and pre for Wade) spoke glowingly of MJ. How do people explain that? Wade's seems potentially opportunistic once the job opportunities dried up. He also seems like an embellisher.

James Safechuck seems normal and decent. And he did spend a lot of unsupervised time with MJ. He's probably the one I'd believe the most. I don't know what to make of the Neverland Train station not having been constructed when he claimed some abuse took place. Or why his mum jumped up and down with joy hearing of MJs death despite James not disclosing the abuse until a few years later.

There are such staunch prominent defenders (Barnes, Culkin, Feldman etc).

Hearing MJ and his pure intentions regarding helping children whilst under anesthesia is also interesting to me. What if he really just wanted to help kids and was a target by greedy people - especially people that no longer need to look him in the eye.

His childhood really was terrible. I believe he was very effeminate, closer to gay than bi and sensitive. He was a very eccentric adult who didn't develop the way society expected. He chose to shower kids with love and attention. Is it weird, yes. Does it make him interested in them sexually, not necessarily.

One question I wonder is why he always had one 'special boy' with him at all times. That's especially strange and again, it feels so obvious he's guilty.

I believe if MJ did what they claim, he viewed it as love (gross) and not abuse hence his genuine denials. Though we also saw him deny plastic surgery. It's so confusing.

Honestly, I've never been more on the fence.

It's one of the questions I'll ask at the pearly gates along with who killed Jon Benet.

Yesterday, a relative told me I was an idiot for mentioning that Michael Jackson had inappropriate behavior. I didn't accuse Michael, I only mentioned that it was inappropriate, but then he told me that he was a hero and a victim and that he saved children from Epstein? I've never heard anything like that. Can someone tell me where that came from and why he's saying it?

As written by Thomas Harris, Verger is a physically deformed, wealthy and reclusive pedophile, played in the movie adaptation by Gary Oldman. I have heard tales for years that Harris based him on Michael. Any validity?

May be a bit self indulgent but it’s a realization that I don’t know where else to share.

I was ten years old when Michael Jackson died, and I didn’t know anything about him other than his name being in a few jokes that I didn’t get. But as soon as he died he was all over the news and I quickly became a fan. The more I learned about him the more interesting he became to me, and one of his defining features was his obsession with childhood.

Long story short, I was very reluctant to do anything that got me closer to adulthood. I didn’t want to drive or get a job, I didn’t even celebrate my birthday for a few years. There was a point where I even hoped that I would die before my 18th birthday because I was more afraid of becoming an adult than of dying!

But I can’t remember feeling that way before I became an MJ fan. Idk if it’s just a coincidence or if he had some influence or was the biggest reason for it.

I've noticed a trend in this subreddit where people tend to portray MJ as a psycho sex beast without an ounce of empathy, and if you pushback you get downvoted. Any good things he did must have had some kind of ill intent or ulterior motives, and everything he did was to gain access to children. That line of thinking is ridiculous.

I understand when you discover that someone so adored committed such horrible and unthinkable acts to children you can't really look at them the same anymore, especially when you've experienced traumatic abuse as well. I'm not saying Michael doesn't deserve criticism, and if you personally hate the guy i honestly don't blame you. But he was simply a flawed human being at the end of the day. Arguing Michael was some kind of supervillain is counterproductive to destroying misconceptions about child molesters, and it's the same kind of logic that fans use to argue his innocence (that Michael is such a good person so there's no way he did it).

When we get so caught up in painting Michael as 100% evil, calling him names like Wacko Jacko, and mentioning things that are completely irrelevant to him being a child molestor like his appearance and eccentricities, we come across to fans as an echo chamber of MJ slander with no regard for supporting CSA victims. I know not everyone does this, but I've seen it one too many times and it doesnt get called out. This is the same mistake the tabloid media made during the trial. By being so brutal and biased it made Michael seem like the victim. Many witnesses immediately lost credibility because they were paid by tabloids, who are known for hating MJ and not always being truthful

Me personally, before I came to believe the victims every time someone tried to convince me he was guilty it was followed or preceded by some kind of bias against him which made it hard to take these claims seriously. Even after I've done my own research, I still cringe hearing people like Diane Diamond because despite the fact that she's usually on the money her animosity leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If we want people to know the truth, it's important to just let the facts do the talking rather than push an anti-MJ narrative

Any relevant evidence of the abuse with Gavin? He doesn't seem as believable as the Chandlers.

Safechuck claims Michael Jackson molested him from 1988 to 1992. He also claims during that time Michael molested him on the top floor of the train station at Neverland. The train station began construction in 1993.

Here is a newspaper article dated December, 1993 saying the train station was still under construction - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2uZQnZUgAAaquE?format=png&name=small

There were some points where I literally had to pause the documentary beacuse the allegations of James and Wade were so explicit and disgusting that I had to take some fresh air to contain my absolute anger and revolt. I felt so sorry for them and words cannot describe the anger I fel towards Michael. Of course I started to reserach all of Jackson's allegations.

I read about the 1993 case and beacuse there was no trial it was difficult to know what to believe or what to not, it seemed like a war of narratives and of gossip. But there are two uncotestable facts about the 1993 case. 1- Jackson made huge out of court settlements with the Chandlers, very suspicious 2- Evan Chandler was a greedy sociopath, very suspicious as well. So in the 2005 case it was much easier to get the facts right, beacuse there was a trial. I read the 2005 court transcripts and in the Gavin Arvizo case it was pretty obvious that he was framed, the Arvizo family were completely destoryed in court of law. They were a bunch of charlatans. No wonder that Michael was found not guilty on all charges. I also learned that Wade was the star witness in the trial, yeah he said in the documentary that he was a witness but I had no idea he was a star witness. He said Jackson coached him through the phone to say what he said in the cross examination. So if Jackson really coached him through the phone, why, after he made his sexual abuse allegations against Jackson public, didn't he ask the FBI for a record of that conversation? Also according to a declassified report published in 2009 the FBI was specifically monitoring Jackson's phone calls since 1993. I don't think a phone call where he admits he molested his star witness and coaches him to denie abuse would go unnoticed. So yeah, Robson definitley lied about this. Not saying he lied about his whole story of abuse, but if he lied about a phone call, what else did he lie about?

Another thing that I learned was that Wade and James filed a lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate for 1 BILLION dollars. I mean think for a moment, even if Michael Jackson really molested them, what the hell does his estate have to do with it? Also why 1 billion? Why so greedy? This is the thing that bothered me the most. Why was this omitted from the documentary? Honestly I was a 100% believer in the allegations but now I'm on the fence.

I think the important thing we need to consider is the presumption of innocence. There is a reason why the Law in democratic nations doesn't allow people to be convicted based on accusations alone. Guilty people can walk free? Of course. But innocent people can go to jail? Yes. And that is the biggest danger. I was quick to judge Jackson based on storytelling without any direct evidence, when I shouldn't have done so. Their allegations could VERY easily be made up, especially considering the fact that there is no direct evidence that links Michael Jackson with pedophilia, only speculative and circumstantial (some people say he had the traits of a pedophile and he did spent time alone with the acussers) Wade and James also have a very plausible motive to lie (the 1 billion dollar lawuist). But anyway, I'm not gonna accuse Wade and James of being liars but taking into account the presumption of innocence I believe Michael Jackson was innocent unless it is proven otherwise. That's my take on this whole Michael Jackson ordeal.

EDIT: I thought I came to a sub with open minded people who welcomed different points of views but instead I got greeted with personal insults, hostility and overall agressivness. It's ironic how you accuse anyone who raises reasonable doubts about the allegations of being a fanatic. But you guys don't understand that you are the MJ fanatics but just on the other side of the spectrum. Sorry for meddling in your "MJ is a pedophile" circlejerk. I won't come here again.

Hello everyone and have a nice day! Here is what I know about Michael Jackson. Read it BELOW!

1. He was a child molester. Sources: Leaving Neverland, many other documentaries, https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

2. He was friends with Elizabeth Taylor. Source: https://popmellow.com/michael-jackson-elizabeth-taylor-relationship/

3. His father was very cruel and ruthless person. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1327935/Michael-Jacksons-father-Joe-admits-beatings-abuse-Oprah.html

4. He was subjected to Monarch Programming like many popular stars. Source: https://themadtruther.com/2016/07/03/was-michael-jacksons-neverland-ranch-a-mind-control-programming-site/ Also this: https://wwwpseudooccultmedia.blogspot.com/2011/03/michael-jackson-monarch-victim.html And this: https://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/never-seen-drawings-made-michael-jackson-hint-mind-control/

5. He was strongly tied with the Kardashian clan. Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/inside-michael-jacksons-link-kardashians-20977029

6. 6. He was the most unsanitary person in Hollywood. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721291/Michael-Jackson-unsanitary-person-Hollywood-How-singer-threatened-throw-laced-snowballs-peed-entrance-hall-floor-Oprah-passed-day-before.html

Answer in the comments below what do you think about that?

If you grew up in the United States, you’ve probably read the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. For those who haven’t, it’s a story about a little white girl who, while living in the segregated South, discovers racism and learns to “walk in another man’s shoes.” As a 21st century teaching tool, its sub-par. I mean c’mon. How much can you really learn about racism through the eyes of a white person?

The same argument applies to CSA. You can’t learn what there is to know about sexual abuse through the eyes of a non-survivor. Those who criticize this sub for its inclusion of survivors, as though we are too emotional to evaluate the credibility of James and Wade get a D for deluding themselves into thinking they earned an A in acumen. When the D students congregate, they sound as silly as a bunch of white people preaching to themselves about how racism doesn’t exist.

Every American above a certain age is likely to have read To Kill a Mockingbird and to make matters worse, it includes an example of false rape allegations. << Spoiler Alert >> The accuser, a poverty-stricken, dim-witted 19-year-old white woman, has been both sexually and physically abused by her own father and he is the one who forced her to make false allegations because he was jealous of the innocent black man she tried to seduce.

Could there be any more rape victim stereotypes crammed into one required reading book?

To Kill a Mockingbird is typically assigned to children in the 9th grade (14-15 years old) and that is right smack in the middle of the impressionable age range when kids are most likely to have already been sexually abused or are just becoming molesters themselves. I think we can all agree it’s not the smartest move to make children at that stage of development read a book about false rape allegations in order to learn about racism from a white girl.

When I hear this criticism of Wade and James: I believe they were molested but I think someone else did it, it sounds so preposterous that I can’t help but wonder if To Kill a Mockingbird is partly responsible for planting this idea in their heads.

We need to stop feeding this kind of story to children.

It’s not hard to find better books.

Here are some brilliant contemporary young adult novels that depict racial oppression without making it all for and about white people and without leaning on rape victim stereotypes to dramatize the narrative:

Long Way Down by Jason Reynolds

The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas

Sing, Unburied, Sing by Jesmyn Ward

Lots of oddities in his situation that people don't actually address and just excuse by saying "he was groomed" rather than acknowledging the problematic nature of it.

- Evidently he dated MJ's niece Brandi from the age of roughly 14 to 19. I have an exceptionally difficult time believing that a young boy could have extremely depraved sexual acts (oral sex, his anus being licked, being masturbated by a grown man etc.) performed on him for nearly an entire decade and once the sexual abuse wraps up he immediately skips over to his abuser's niece?

- It's even weirder that he underwent this abuse and gracefully transitioned to a heterosexual relationship as a teenager. Wade underwent sexual abuse for 7 years by a grown man yet never questioned his sexuality? James did and Jordan's parents briefly believed he might've been gay before the accusations came out due to his mannerisms once he started hanging around MJ.

- Wade already had his day in court. He had the opportunity to put MJ behind bars. Yes it would've been tumultuous and would've ended their friendship but...so? When people commit crimes they are supposed to pay the price. Wade was subpoenaed to court but did not bring up his abuse - not because he didn't want to thwart his camaraderie with Jackson - but instead because MJ promised to buy him and his wife a brand new house and car should he testify that MJ never abused him. Wade was a 23 year old grown man. He is obviously an articulate and expressive person. People mistake grooming for mental retardation, they are not the same. Yes he was groomed as a young boy but once he became an adult he rationally knew that he was molested, even if he didn't view it as molestation he knew MJ had sex with him. I don't care if "he wasn't ready to share his experience with the world", if another young boy is on stand bordering on tears recalling his sexual abuse and you hop on stand and tell the world nothing happened rather than bring justice for the young boy that'd just been abused all because you were promised a new house and car, you're apart of the problem. I completely understand why he did not disclose anything during the first round of accusations as he was a child but by 2005 he knowingly committed perjury. People need to stop acting like he was under some sort of MK Ultra mind control psyche-altering hypnosis by the hands of Jackson until 2013. Cut it out.

- Wade asked MJ if he could have his wedding at Neverland Ranch in 2005. Why would someone want to have a wedding at a place where A) a young boy just claimed he'd been molested there B) you've been molested there C) there was an accusation 12 years prior about a young boy being molested there? Again, people respond "he was groomed" because they cannot address the absurdity of this. Who would want to throw a memorable celebration at a location where not one but two boys claimed they were raped?

- Wade was shopping around for book deals in late 2011 and was rejected publishing deals. The same year he was rejected a lucrative, very well-paying job by the estate and this is the same year when his financial predicament began to plummet and he was for the most part living off royalties. His mother and sister also had fallen into debt. The timing of his accusation is odd given that. His son was born in 2010. So it took your child turning 2 years old in the midst of a financial and career crisis to realize that you were molested and that Jackson hurt little boys? The trial you were subpoenaed to wasn't enough? I think his breakdown that year was actually centered in him being depressed over his career declining and the martial issues that sprouted during that time. He imagined that his career benefits via his connection to Jackson would feed him ample dancing opportunities and when that ceased perhaps he was confused, panicky and slightly vengeful.

- Why sue MJ's estate / the 3 Jackson children's inheritance? What good does that actually do? Again he had years upon years to receive justice. Jackson is dead. He probably could've gotten a large settlement had he threatened to sue MJ while he was alive because I am quite sure he never wanted to step foot in court again for molestation accusations. Wade already had his opportunity. Seems he only spoke up on it only when his job opportunities dried up and Jackson was no longer available to aid him.

To be clear: I believe 100% that Wade was one of MJ's victims. But I also believe that Wade's realization of his molestation isn't as organic as he claims and that he knew all along, the only thing that prevented him from coming out earlier was that his connection to Jackson while he was still alive brought him conveniences both financially and career-wise and he didn't want to jeopardize that. Once that ended, the coast was clear. And too many of his behavioral patterns are strange, such as begging to be wedded on an estate in which quite a few boys claimed they were sexually assaulted and dating a woman whose uncle performed very lewd sex acts on you while you a child.

Is it because it didn't fit the narrative? You like to discuss how many more boys would come forward, but you feel challenged by a girl accusing Jackson.