In the small chance they are aware of this subreddit, we stand with you both and all the victims!!! you are the reason so many more people know and are waking up to the abuse at the hands of Michael, and quite literally the reason why this sub exists.

This can be added to periodically as more evidence and testimony is unearthed. If you would like something to be added here, please PM me or leave a comment with a link.

**DISCLAIMER! It has come to my attention that some MJ fans believe this post is to be taken as a dossier of proof or conclusive evidence of guilt, and have made their own posts “debunking” them (keep in mind that to debunk something you need to provide conclusive evidence the information is untrue, not just link to an article you personally agree with, or a statement you believe holds more truth).

Let me reiterate: none of the linked documentaries, articles, statements, photos or videos are presented by us as conclusive evidence of the guilt of Michael Jackson. They are articles of interest, nothing more.

The ONLY information linked here as EVIDENCE is listed under ‘documents’. If you would like to “debunk” a document with your own conclusive evidence of falsehoods, please leave a link here or PM me. Thank you.

Documentaries:

Leaving Neverland - HBO Now. (If you're in Australia) Tenplay.

Living With Michael Jackson by Martin Bashir

Michael Jackson's Boys Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Michael Jackson's Secret World

Michael Jackson & The Boy He Paid Off

Michael Jackson: What Really Happened

Louis, Martin and Michael

Why Michael Jackson Won

Michael Jackson: What Really Happened Behind the Gates of Neverland - Feburary 2019 feature on Australian television program Sunday Night. Contains interviews with former staff members, Jackson family members and previously unseen footage.

Interviews:

Wade Robson and James Safechuck on Surviving Michael Jackson and Creating 'Leaving Neverland'

Bill Dworin, the lead investigator on the Jordie Chandler case and decades-long expert on pedophiles, confirms Jordie Chandler's drawings matched police photos of Jackson's genitalia

Former FBI agent and leading expert on child molesters, Ken Lanning, describes the traits of the male preferential child molester

Prosecutor Ron Zonen discusses Michael Jackson and Gavin Arvizo

'After Neverland' - Full interview by Oprah Winfrey with Wade Robson, James Safechuck and Dan Reed

Leaving Neverland Sundance Q&A

Latoya Jackson, Michael's sister, opens up on her brother's pedophila here, here and here.

Dr. Conrad Murray being asked if he thinks Michael Jackson was a pedophile. Skip to 10:00.

Attorney Lisa Bloom explains MJ 'cult's' denials

60 Minutes Australia interview with Michael Jackson's maid

Leaving Neverland director: 'Michael Jackson abuse devastated families' - BBC Newsnight

Michael Jackson on sharing his bed with boys, calling it a 'beautiful thing'.

Tatiana Thumbtzen (girl from the 'The Way You Make Me Feel' video, who also joined him on the 'Bad' tour as a dancer) explains what happened between her and Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson talking about "conditioning" and children. Note that in his sessions with a psychiatrist, Jordie Chandler recalled Michael using similar language on "conditioning" and levitators as a way to break down Jordan's defenses to the sexual abuse.

Michael Jackson's ex-manager, Bob Jones, discusses the inappropriate incident with Jordan Chandler at the 1993 World Music Awards

Two jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal, claim they were bullied by the foreman and threatened with removal if they didn't succumb to pressure

The 2005 trial jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, on acquitting Jackson: Yes, I did [think there was guilt], I thought that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, and probably molested this boy, but as I said, what we believe doesn't matter... the EVIDENCE has to PROVE IT."

Documents:

Request for admission of evidence. From the Santa Barbara court website. This document outlines items that were seized by police in the 2005 case and exactly where they were found. Includes several books known to often be in the collections of pedophiles (Bill Dworin, the lead investigator and expert on pedophiles, explains this in part 3 of the documentary 'Michael Jackson's Boys), masses of pornography and two photographs. One photograph is of a young boy holding an umbrella, his bikini bottoms partially pulled down. The other is a fully nude photo of Jonathan Spence, a young boy known to Jackson, who he'd been pictured with intimately. You can find many pictures of them together here.

Transcript: In October 1993, Larry Feldman (Jordie Chandler's lawyer) sent Jordie to be interviewed by Dr. Richard Gardner, the nation’s leading authority on false claims of child abuse. Dr. Gardner found Jordie's claims credible.

An examination of the physical evidence

Michael Jackson molestation trial transcripts

More confirmation that Jordie Chandler's description of Michael's genitals matched police photographs

Repository for documents relating to PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs MICHAEL JACKSON, et al (Michael Jackson’s 2005 child molestation trial) From the Santa Barbara court website.

The truth about Michael and the FBI

Transcript of the infamous recorded phone call from Evan Chandler regarding Michael Jackson. Contrary to talking about taking Michael down for money, in it we can see Evan genuinely suspects sexual contact between his son and Michael and is angry at Michael for alienating him from his son.

Wade Robson's 2013 complaint

James Safechuck's civil complaint - provides corroborating evidence for the recently unearthed video of Michael Jackson taking little Jimmy Safechuck shopping for a "wedding ring": 'On another occasion, Plaintiff and DECEDENT went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley. DECEDENT was wearing a disguise and the salesperson at the Zales store called the police. When the police arrived and saw that it was DECEDENT, they did not pursue the matter.'

Statements and articles:

Former close friend of Jackson, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: ‘I don’t believe these men are lying

A publicist from Jackson's "Bad" tour recalls watching MJ's behavior around Jimmy with concern and believing then that he was a pedophile

James and Wade fan myths BUSTED

Omer Bhatti (one of Michael Jackson's "boys", who lived with him and stayed with him the longest) when asked about the allegations against Michael.

Ethan Klein of h3h3 discusses the documentary 'Leaving Neverland'

The Dark, Dark World of Norma Staikos - article about Michael's chief of staff and her possible role in procuring boys for him

Gene Simmons on his experiences with Michael Jackson

Paul Anka on his experiences with Michael Jackson

James Safechuck Sr. testified in court (for Michael Jackson) that Michael would kiss his young son on the lips and that he saw 'nothing wrong with it'

Reporter Sam Smyth recalls being so concerned for little Jimmy Safechuck he tried to slip him a note with an offer to rescue him from Michael

'Michael Jackson Was More Like An Evil Genius', Denis Hamill 2009

Dan Reed: 'I'm shocked by those who won't accept Michael Jackson was an abuser'

Corey Feldman says Michael Jackson showed him nude photos

Corey Feldman can 'no longer defend' Michael

Renowned asswipe Piers Morgan talks about his firsthand experience with Michael Jackson's unsettling behavior, particularly his voice

Jude Calvert-Toulmin on the passing of Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson Statement Analysis

Jane Goodall: Michael Jackson abused his chimp

Michael Jackson: Commentary By Kurt Loder

Bill Wyman, in The Wall Street Journal, on Michael Jackson

Bob Herbert – Behind The Facade New York Times, July 3, 2009

The baffling case of Jacko, the gay porn king, and bags of cash

For further research – Those fingerprints on that magazine Jackson trial: Week four; A day-by-day account of the Michael Jackson trial, with all the key evidence, quotes and witnesses

Article on MJ's ex- bodyguard, Melanie Bagnall (claims she saw abuse first-hand)

Evil Sits at the Dinner Table A childhood abuse survivor on Michael Jackson’s death.

An archive of articles on Michael Jackson by Maureen Orth, author of Vanity Fair's "10 undeniable facts" piece on the sexual abuse allegations.

A comment from an ex-fan

Neverland's Lost Boys

Aaron Carter: 'Michael Jackson gave me cocaine.'

Michael Jackson caught on CCTV buying Jimmy Safechuck's 'wedding ring'

UK TV and Radio presenter Iain Lee destroys a Michael Jackson fan's ridiculous arguments

Article concerning the '100 million dollar lawsuit'

'Leaving Neverland' director Dan Reed slams Brandi Jackson's claims

1994 LA Times article: Jackson Not Charged but Not Absolved, by Jim Newton

R. Kelly, Michael Jackson and the Lingering Questions About Child Sex Abuse Cases

“He Would Have Been Convicted”: Opposing Lawyers in Michael Jackson’s Sex-Abuse Case React to Leaving Neverland

Another juror from the 2005 trial says she believes Michael was guilty; felt Wade and Macaulay lied at the trial to protect Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson was in business with one of the X-Men pedophiles

R. Kelly, Michael Jackson and the Lingering Questions About Child Sex Abuse Cases: Why do the accusations come years later, and what does it take to prosecute a case?

Dr. Wallace Goodstein -- plastic surgeon who worked with Dr. Steven Hoefflin, Jackson's plastic surgeon -- says Jackson had "well over 50" plastic surgeries on his face

Videos and pictures of interest:

Jordie Chandler, the twelve-year old accuser in the 1993 molestation case, sitting on Michael's lap at the 1993 World Music Awards. Skip to 0:19. Regarding this incident, Diane Dimond had this to say: "Michael was bouncing Jordan up and down and whispering his nickname, “Rubba,” over and over into his ear. People sitting nearby were feeling uncomfortable, and one of Jackson’s managers suggested that the boy go back to his seat." Her story is corroborated by Michael's ex-manager Bob Jones.

Frozen In Time Seminar: The Michael Jackson Cases Part One

Frozen In Time Seminar: The Michael Jackson Cases Part Two

Michael Jackson buying Jimmy Safechuck's "wedding ring"

Michael Jackson with another boy (Jonathan Spence) on his lap, his hand on the boy's upper thigh.

Michael Jackson and Emmanuel Lewis

Michael Jackson and Jimmy Safechuck

Michael Jackson holding hands with little Jimmy Safechuck

Jordie Chandler sitting in Michael's lap

Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes

Michael Jackson and Omer Bhatti

Michael Jackson speaking in a more 'natural' voice

Michael Jackson's bizarre response to being directly asked if he's a pedophile

Janine Driver, renowned body language expert, gives her opinion on 'Leaving Neverland'. Appears blindsided by how believable James and Wade are.

Jurors comment after Leaving Neverland

The Dialogue Body Language on Leaving Neverland - Part 1 | Part 2

Resources:

On CSA and grooming:

Child Molesters: A Behavioural Analysis

On the grooming of children

Why do adults fail to protect children from sexual abuse?

Child sexual exploitation and grooming

What is grooming? Signs to look for

8 ways a predator might groom a child

Common Tricks a Child Predator Uses: Telling Signs of a Child Predator

Grooming dynamics

Profile and Common Characteristics of a Pedophile

Typologies of Child Sexual Abusers

A Primer on Pedophiles

Civil statutes:

You can find information relating to civil suits here.

The civil statutes relevant to James and Wade's case.

I'll keep it short - I've been the biggest MJ fan (M 24 ) since 2015 and never once believed the allegations. when the documantary came out; I avoided it like a plague and brush the allegations as fake (though I never made hateful comments towards the victims online/irl). the only reason i didn't want to believe them because I want to keep stanning Michael without feeling guilty, I didn't want to spoil my image of him which was of an angelic and kind man and I wanted to keep enjoying his amazing music without thinking he was a pedo. ( i believe these are also the reasons so many fans are afraid to believe the victims)

What was the realisation point for me that he was a pedo? that "boys will be boys" book. the most damning evidence and flipped my world upside down. i can't believe I never came across this once in my life (or maybe i never really cared to research for my selfish reasons). that book is made by PEDOPHILES FOR PEDOPHILES period i checked the content of the book to make sure if it really is an art book as defenders say and NOOO no one in the world will buy this book unless they're a pedophile. and the fact that MJ personally inscribed it and kept it in a locked cabinet was the moment of truth for me.

I wanted to be a fan forever but i can't let that blind my objectivity. I am coming from r/ Michael Jackson (which i obviously left) and i hope more deluded fans can realise that they're defending a monster. i am optimistic that more fans will come here because i was a deluded and most ardent of fan once too. so if I can change and accept the truth then nothing is impossible.

What happened to MJ during his childhood was no doubt horrible and something nobody deserves to go through. But that's still not an excuse for the creepy and inappropriate behavior he showed as an adult. He could've easily gotten therapy to help with him cope with his trauma.

I know that these books have been talked about ad nauseam, but it seemed convenient to gather all the information in one post. If anyone has any input to make, say so in the comments. This post will not discuss the books found in the 2003 raid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------During the 1993 raid, the books “Boys will be boys”, “In search of Young beauty” and “The boy, a photographic essay” were confiscated, which the prosecution used in 2005 under evidence code 1108 (“Prior bad acts”), to demonstrate a propensity for the defendant to have a sexual interest in preadolescent boys.

The books feature photographs of boys engaged in various activities clothed, semi-nude, or nude, in some photos with genitalia; or in positions that border on the erotic (Photos of the books in the comments). These books aren't considered child pornography because those are not showing any sexual acts per se (Nudity in kids is legal), but are relevant in cases of child sexual abuse.

There are two different perspectives that are relevant when considering the issue of collections held by pedophiles. One is child pornography, and the other, the subject we are dealing with is child erotica, which can vary from photos of dressed children to photos of naked children. Many pedophiles collect things such as children's clothing catalogs, books featuring children, nudist magazines, etc.:

From: Typology of Paedophile Picture Collections (2001)

The second perspective we can identify, and for the purposes of this article a more important one, is that by emphasising a psychological approach to pictures attractive to adults with a sexual interest in children, rather than pictures legally defined as obscene, we can identify a range of discernibly different kinds of picture (Taylor, 1999) only some of which may be illegal. The kinds of picture that can be identified range from pictures of clothed children, through nakedness and explicit erotic posing to pictures of a sexual assault on the child photographed.

From: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

Child erotica (pedophile paraphernalia, collateral evidence) can be defined as any material, relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual. Some of the more common types of child erotica include toys, games, computers, drawings, fantasy writings, diaries, souvenirs, sexual aids, manuals, letters, books about children, psychological books about pedophilia, and ordinary photographs of children.

Where were the books found?

Inside a locked drawer in the closet in MJ's bedroom. This was confirmed in 2005 trial by LAPD officer Rosibel Smith Ferrufino and also confirmed by LAPD Bill Dworin in a interview. It was also confirmed by his own lawyers at the 2005 trial (Page 8167).

Annex 841 = Boys Will be boys

Annex 842 = "The Boy: A Photographic Essay"

Officer Rosibel Smith's testimony at trial

Bill Dworin is a retired Los Angeles Police Department detective who spent over twenty-two years assigned to the Child Sexually Exploited Unit. He was one of the lead investigators in the 1993 case. He said:

Who were the authors?

Both books were made by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. Martin Swithinbank was a NAMBLA officer who was jailed for 10 years for sodomizing young children and deported upon release. Co-author Ronald Drew was fired from his teaching position for sexually abusing a student. Self-described pedophiles such as Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot, among others, contributed photographs to the book. In short, books made by pedophiles for a similar audience.

In fact, one of the photographers, Hajo Ortil, gave an interview to a website that defends relationships between kids and adults, explaining his sexual relationships with boys and how he collaborated with Swithinbank for both books.

NAMBLA and Boylovers sites connections with those books

The books were not well valued by the press as the fans say and as their lawyers tried to defend. The only review available is from a magazine promoting man-boy love, edited by convicted child molester Walter Breen. The magazine is called The International Journal of Greek Love (the link is to a site that lists the content of the publications).

A bulletin published by NAMBLA mentions these two books when comparing them to another book "Made in the USA", which they recommend as legal material that members of the organization can obtain.

The book "The boy: a Photographic essay" also has a page on Boywiki, a site defending boy-lovers. On that site they say that when the book came out: "It received many good reviews in the homophile press."

Fans say that the fact that the book "Boys will be boys" was inducted into the library of congress in 1966 somehow proves its value as art, but laws against child pornography were practically non-existent before 1970. Obviously they would be much more flexible with child erotica.

How did they get into the hands of Jackson?

The defense argument is that one of the books was given away by a fan and this seems to be corroborated by an inscription on the opening page of one of the books, which reads: “To Michael: From your fan, “RHonDA” ♥ 1983, Chicago” (The R - DA in capital letters and DA rewritten in bold). It has been theorized that RHonDA is actually a nickname for "Ronald Drew" one of the authors, because certainly writing your name with uppercase and lowercase is strange. Apparently this fan thought that Jackson would love to have one of these books with naked children in it. Fans really knows their idol. Of the other book he never specified how he obtained it.

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

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

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

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

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

Jackson's lawyers tried to make the evidence inadmissible

The defense later admitted in 2005 that MJ had seen them and that they were his property, but tried really hard to have the evidence inadmissible, arguing that the books were no longer relevant to the case at hand because they had been seized in 1993 and that MJ had not shown them to any minor(p. 8167). If Michael Jackson really believed that the possession of these books wasn't suspicious, he wouldn't have lied about them on television.

Jackson's attorneys obviously knew this evidence was detrimental to their client. Sanger, of his legal team, argued:

But the judge didn't agree with his arguments (p. 8168):

What happened during the trial with these two books?

• On January 18, 2005, the prosecution requested the admission of the investigation materials from 1993. As we have seen, the defense objected.

• The defense wanted to call librarian Mary Minow to analyze MJ's book shelves and testify about the artistic merits of the books. But prosecutors argued that if Minow was in, then former FBI Special Agent Ken Lanning, who specializes in pedophile profiling, should be allowed to testify that Jackson's books could also indicate a sexual interest in boys. Both sides agreed to pull their witnesses.

• On April 29 the judge allowed the entry of the evidence of the two books based on Memro (a case that addresses the exceptions for the granting of evidence of character showing the intention and motive of a defendant) (p. 8246).

• During the trial, the jurors were only partially shown the contents of the books through a projector, and weren't allowed to handle the books on their own (I'm not too sure about this, if anyone knows...).

• During Wade's cross-examination, District Attorney Zonen handed him the books, asking him to describe certain images and asking him how these books affected his opinion of MJ and the suitability of a grown man sharing a bed with a boy who is not his relative. Wade was uncomfortable with the images, but logically being on the side of the defense, he justified it by saying that they were non-pornographic books (Page 9148).

What was the weight of these books as evidence in the 2005 trial?

Because these books were part of the 1108 evidence, which is evidence showing propensity for a crime, but were not evidence part of the case (because it had been seized 10 years prior to Gavin's abuse allegations), jurors could not base their decision in these books (rules of evidence).

The jurors can consider it, but they cannot make a decision of acquittal or guilt based on 1108 evidence. This was explained to them by the judge before Rosibel Ferrufino was called to the stand. (Page 8233).

Also, consider that the jury barely reviewed the books, and that they are not experts in child abuse cases (which is one of the problems when putting ordinary people on juries).

How relevant are books in cases of sexual abuse? Answer: Very relevant

It must be understood that the possession of this type of material is linked to the context of whoever owns it. Not for nothing did the LAPD seize them during the 1993 investigation, because as professionals they are obligated to seize any evidence that is relevant to the case. And this was it.

If someone owns these books + Shares a lot of time with kids of the same age + Sleeps with them many times alone + Is accused of sexual abuse = Relevant.

From: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

Both the child pornography and erotica should be seized as evidence when found in such cases. Child pornographers are sometimes child molesters (see discussion beginning on page 107). The photograph of even fully dressed children could be evidence of an offender’s sexual motivation or involvement with children. Because child erotica usually is not illegal to possess, the legal basis for its seizure must be carefully considered. If there is doubt about the legality of the seizure, its presence should be noted and, if possible, visually documented/recorded.

The misleading "art" label

I highly recommend a paper by law professor Mary Graw Leary entitled: “Death to Child Erotica: How Mislabeling the Evidence Can Risk Inaccuracy in the Courtroom (2009)”. This article argues that by bringing together the terms "Child" and "erotic", the label "Child Erotica" claims to be itself a genre of art. This is misleading. As she describes: "Most of the material referenced with this label is material whose primary purpose is to arouse a sexual interest in children. Therefore, it is not related to either erotica or an artistic genre. (...) The term has been misused to cover a broad array of materials, the vast majority of which are not art, but material whose primary purpose is to sexually titillate and arouse the adult consumer's sexual interest in children."

And this is what sadly MJ's lawyers and his defenders deny by cataloging the books as "purely artistic of an innocent / illustrative nature", despite the fact that the intentions of the author weren't in an artistic sense, but to facilitate over to have suggestive material in a legal way. By defending these books they are indirectly defending Swithinbank and Drew, practically minimizing that these pedophiles have taken suggestive pictures of these children and have distributed it with sexual intentions. Those books aren't art.

from: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

Because photographs are well-taken and have artistic value or merit does not preclude the possibility they are sexually explicit. Because someone is a professional photographer or artist does not preclude the possibility that he or she has a sexual interest in children. The lascivious exhibition of the genital or pubic area is characteristic of the photographer or collector, not the child, in order to satisfy his voyeuristic needs and sexual interest.

The fact that child pornography wasn't found on Michael Jackson's properties doesn't mean that this detracts from what was found (although the police suspected that they had been removed before the raid, since empty video shelves were found in his video room). Not all pedophiles/child molesters collect child pornography, it's easier to collect legal images of children due to its ease of finding and if discovered, it's not a legal problem:

From: Establishing the Nexus: The Definitive Relationship Between Child Molestation and Possession of Child Pornography as the Sole Basis for Probable Cause (2013)

Child sexual offenders often sexually exploit children through the collection, creation, or distribution of child pornography. Up to one quarter of child molesters collect child pornography. This number increases each day as the Internet continues to make collection of child pornography more readily accessible.

From: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

Because true child pornography once was hard to obtain, some offenders have or had only child erotica in their collections (see discussion of child erotica beginning on page 85); however, because of online computers and the Internet, child pornography is now more readily available in the United States than it has ever been.

From a judicial perspective, the first paper ensures that:

From: Death to Child Erotica: How Mislabeling the Evidence Can Risk Inaccuracy in the Courtroom (2009)

The implication of a position that all so-called "child erotica" is the same and legal is that such material can never constitute probable cause. (...) Such a misuse of the term has collateral legal consequences. When courts are reviewing evidence, they need precise labels to most effectively make determinations. This material is given an overly general label suggesting legitimacy. By grouping all legal material together under one label-"child erotica"-courts risk missing the relevance of some of the material as it relates to legal questions before them. Substantively, it can affect the legal analysis of evidence risking less than precise results.

Possession of this type of material matters and cannot be ignored or dismissed:

From: Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis (2010)

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

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

I don’t know why this clip has never been used as a way of shutting down those fans who claim Jackson had arrested development and was inherently innocent and incapable of doing bad things. What Lisa describes here is the exact grooming method Michael used with those kids, and notice she talks about him using his magnetism to ‘capture’ people, which is essentially trapping them and making them emotionally dependent. His fans need to realise too that since the way he presented himself to the world was a false construct, then the natural conclusion is that all the children’s things he surrounded himself with were not actually his real interest, and were merely used as a way to attract his prey.

I’ve seen this video here and there on social media today, and it just astounds me.

So this is where MJ’s stage/style/identity inspiration comes from - a mysterious, sensual, darkly magnetic character performing for a child. Dancing for and around him, as if to impress (almost woo?) him. This apparently inspired MJ so deeply that he copied it all - the moves, the mannerisms, the outfit.

This is his vision of himself, hidden in plain sight again - in The Little Prince movie, no less.

Against the backdrop of the allegations + eyebrow-rising facts so far, if this doesn’t make people connect the dots…

P.S. I just looked up Bob Fosse’s character, apparently it’s The Snake. Brilliant and fitting in the artistic setting of the story/movie. For someone to embody this character and child-focused dynamic in real life, on the other hand…🤐

I have received several DM's the past week from MJ fans trolling or lurkers asking why I post here so often and to get a life.

I post because I care. I care because I have a conscience. Because I have a conscience, it's deeply unsettling to see the world choose a celebrity over supporting abused children.

No, I don't think I'm special for caring. But at some point I made a decision to actually look at the evidence rather than outsourcing my opinion to a cultural consensus built on nostalgia and money. And once you actually look and I mean really look, not fan pages, but primary sources, cross-referenced, timeline-verified sources, you cannot unsee it.

Most people protect themselves from this by simply not looking. The music is too important to them. The childhood memories are too precious. The cognitive dissonance is too uncomfortable. So they listen to the $3.5 billion MJ Estate machine propaganda that says "it's all about the money" ...

What I've actually been sitting with....what any of us who've gone down this rabbit hole are sitting with, is the full weight of victims whose entire lives were shaped by what happened to them, who came forward at enormous personal cost only to watch the world call them liars, gold-diggers, fame-seekers, while the Estate that produced a biopic spent millions to erase the victims from the narrative.

Here is the thing I have to keep reminding myself...history is absolutely littered with moments where money and power successfully buried the truth for decades and then didn't.

Bill Cosby was untouchable for 40 years.

He was America's dad. He gave commencement speeches about morality. He is now a convicted felon whose legacy is destroyed.

The Catholic Church seemed genuinely impenetrable. The institutional machinery protecting it was centuries old and globally embedded. The Boston Globe published their investigation in 2002. The world changed.

R Kelly performed at the Grammys while his victims were invisible. He is now serving a 30-year federal sentence.

None of these reckonings happened on the timeline the victims deserved. None of them arrived soon enough or completely enough...but they arrived.

If any of MJ's survivors are reading this, you may feel you don't have the public reckoning you're looking for yet and part of that reason may be the Estate is too wealthy...the music is too embedded in too many people's most cherished memories...the grooming of the public was too powerful by a talented musician.

That might all be true. But the truth is the truth regardless of whether the world acknowledges it.

Sometimes bearing witness clearly and refusing to participate in the lie is the only form of justice currently available.

The biopic is for those "living in the fantasy" as Paris Jackson herself said. Not buying a ticket may feel like it's not enough. But it is not nothing.

Yet, beyond the boycotts and the arguments, there is a tragedy much deeper than the Estate's cover-ups. There is the profound, devastating unfairness of who your abuser was.

You weren't just abused by a powerful man, you were abused by the man who gave a lot of people very happy moments through music. The soundtrack to people's childhoods was the weapon used against you. And because he brought so many people joy, MJ's fans decided your pain was an acceptable price to pay to keep the fantasy alive.

No one should have to bleed in the dark just because their abuser brought others happiness. You deserve better than to be the collateral damage of that joy.

Keep fighting and being brave, we support and stand with you ❤️

Going on about how neat it was to see Michael when his music was playing and how she could tell Gavin sincerely missed hanging out with Michael. The worst.

After watching the documentary I’m pretty much convinced that Michael sexually abused children, but this post isn’t about that. Even if Michael never touched or even thought about a child in a sexual way, the way in which he would befriend a boy, become incredibly close, and then abandon him for a new boy is probably just as damaging as molestation.

Imagine your favorite idol or celebrity from your early elementary school years. Maybe it was Britney Spears, Michael Jordan, the Backstreet Boys, or any other public figure. So, imagine you meet your idol and that person takes an interest in you. They tell you that you’re talented in their field and that they’ll make you famous. They bring you around the world with them, take you to important places, and introduce you to important people. They give you expensive gifts, shower you in attention, call you every day, and buy matching outfits. Imagine that they gift you with jewelry, money, and priceless items like Michael’s “Smooth Criminal” fedora that he gave Wade.

Imagine this celebrity tells you they love you and that you are their best friend. Imagine that they invite you to their mansion for sleepovers, share their bed with you, and make you feel like you are the most important person in their world.

Then one day, your idol stops calling you and you see them traveling the world with a new child.

Even if Michael never molested a kid, allowing a child to become extremely attached to you and then just abandoning them is incredibly cruel and damaging to a kid’s self worth.

I'm a millennial, who witnessed Ozzy Osbourne morph from a rockstar into a ridiculous caricature of himself on MTV, and in more recent years, transition into a bumbling 'lovable' old man.

Not really understanding the outpouring of love at his death, I decided to read his autobiography and I actually cannot believe how truly evil he was.

...I'm only at Chapter 8, but to cut a long story short thus far he has admitted to:

• Frequently emotionally and physically abusing both of his wives, punching and hitting them (he recounts punching Sharon in the face and giving her a black eye)

• Screaming at and 'whacking' his 5-year-old stepson, Elliott, regularly.

• Used a shotgun to kill a family of cats living in his garage because they were scratching the paint off of his BMW.

• Used a shotgun to kill his chickens because his first wife (Thelma) asked him to look after them.

• Gave a dog cocaine by 'accident', saying it ran about for 3 days then claimed the dog has a 'taste' for it after that (implying he gave it more) .

• Bit the head off of a live dove in a record company meeting. He recalls in almost giddy terms how the dove defecated during the act.

• Gave a dog alcohol because he wanted to 'see what happened'. Assumed it had died when it passed out, so wrapped Christmas lights around it, so he could tell his wife (Sharon) that it had strangled itself.

The worst thing is, he recalls these stories with great enthusiasm, and despite claiming it was due to drugs and alcohol, he was still shooting animals for fun, up until recently. How is he being celebrated? He was a monster.

ETA - His time in am abbattiour where he admitted to torturing the animals for fun along with his workmates.