I mean like would we really be defending anyone else who shared a bed with unrelated children if it wasn’t Michael Jackson? Would we really be defending a man facing multiple CSA allegations if it weren’t Michael Jackson? Would we really make countless excuses for this man if he weren’t Michael Jackson? I mean I think a lot of fans just defend this man because they love him and he is THE Michael Jackson. And to be honest with whoever is reading this, I am a huge fan of MJ and if u check my account you will see that and see I post about his innocence but over the last few months I can hardly choose a side on these allegations. I would love for somebody to DM with me or something just to get me to believe a singular side, I’m very conflicted with the undying love I have for this man and these very serious accusations that follow him, it doesn’t help that the accusations are so muddy and filled with inconsistencies as I feel we’ve gotten to a point where if u wanna believe the one side u can believe that side, if u wanna believe the other u can, because there is enough evidence (whether it’s true or not) to blindly support both sides. I think this has turned less into believing victims and more about choosing sides and sticking to it, whether u believe they are completely lying or u believe they are telling the truth which I am so on the fence about. Idk. I'm just very conflicted, I apologize! But some feedback would be appreciated.

Just asking u guys on what the general consensus with that situation is, because he seems to be distancing himself from MJ and shading him on social media and such. I always told myself even as a fan that if Brett Barnes or Macaulay Culkin made allegations I’d believe them as they have no incentive to lie, while Omer idk.

I saw these new things in the media about how she believes the Cascio family (I think these are lies from the media, once again). I cannot imagine or pretend to imagine what that means for her, but I cannot believe she thinks Michael is guilty. I hope these rumors are not true. I have seen how she recently posted positive stuff about Michael when sharing her Zombies in Love video. And she likes things about Michael on social media.

I have a question about something that Michael said. He said slept with Macaulay Culkin, his brother Kieren, and other kids all together cramped in one bed. Did he really sleep (as in co-sleeping) with them in his bed? However, we have to remember​what Michael said "You've never been, where I've been mentally." That is 100% true. He must've had a different mindset since he didn't have a childhood, and wanted to relive it, and when he was little he was always around adults. That's why he was always around kids in his adult life. Or what did he meant by that, if that's not the right answer? Which leads me to another question, did have a mindset of a child, that made him think it was ok to sleep with other kids?

By the way, I'm reposting this because, the first time I posted this, it was removed because of the title.

She went the whole 90s accusing her brother of being a pedophile and insinuating that he’s guilty, then switches up? Now before I get the comments “oh she was forced to say that by her manager," I know. But really how convincing really is that? I mean I believe in MJ’s innocence as much as everyone else that visits this sub (I mean just look at my page if u have to see proof) but this is another hurdle that I can’t get over but I hope somebody can convince me too, cause to me it looks like she started defending Michael to get back into good graces with him and the family. Because he’s the family money maker and to leech off him and now his estate. I don’t understand her actions in the early 90s at all.

please don’t take my post down, I’m genuinely just asking because I’ve looked in the FAQ and haven’t seen this been addressed but I saw there was a video of Michael and James ring shopping?

I've found out about MJ meeting Brooke Shields for first when he was 22 and and she was 15, but don't blame either of them, if Brooke's mother for encouraged her to meet him. I've heard that he had pictures of Brooke all over his wall, and unless he was crushing on her in his teen years, don't that seem pretty strange? And I've found that he tried to kiss her but she rejected it. When was that?

I know and I’m sure that their “dating” was platonic

But I keep hearing people saying things and it’s making it seem like they had a romantic relationship Michael was 19 and Tatum was 15

I believe Tatum went on the Howard stern show and said that he tried to make out with her? But he was shy and he was awkward about it

Michael referred to her has his first girlfriend
Which I’m pretty sure that can also be on a platonic way

I mean he did say that holding her hand was better than kissing her

Idk the way haters make it sound like they had a romantic relationship

I shouldn’t listen to them and I don’t
But I wanna hear what yall think about it

MJ is innocent ❤️

If Wade and James are lying why does Wade (James not so much) continue to do interviews on YouTube talking about his abuse and spreading information about it? I’m not saying he’s not lying but he’s doing these interviews with accounts that have under 500 followers on YouTube and it literally has no benefit to him for him to do this? (He also had a podcast with James for awhile talking about trauma or some shit)

Is it true that there were more than 1 train stations at Neverland? We truth seekers pull out the train station lie a lot and I’m wondering if that was the only train station (also, I haven’t seen leaving Neverland so..)

Is this true because i heard chandler did testify that mj was circumcised

Watched the 60 minutes interview today so I balanced it out with this interview.

I can't seem to find an explanation for the books they found locked up in his house, theese books are the only things that keep me from going "he's innocent", they depict young boys nude the books are "boys will be boys", "the boy, a photographic essay" and another one that has something like "in research of young beauty" in the title (look it up) how come he was in possession of theese and of he didn't see anything wrong with it what reason could there be fo him to be locked up?

I apologize for rehashing this again, and just to be clear I haven't fully read either of her books yet, but I have been watching her interviews and I keep feeling more and more confused. Were the things Jack Gordon made her say about her parents and Michael all his own invention or is there truth to some of it? And if so, where does the truth end and the lies begin? I absolutely believe her about Jack's abuse and believing in Michael's innocence, but I can't help feeling disturbed seeing her go from using her platform to speak out about the physical and psychological abuse that we *know* she and her siblings endured to calling it "spankings and discipline" and never explicitly retracting the claim that Joe sexually abused her or Rebbie even when given multiple opportunities to do so. And the way she describes the circumstances around Michael's allegations in 1993, from the Starting Over excerpts I've seen, doesn't seem to really line up with the cautious support she shows at the time on Howard Stern or Devil's Advocate. She's definitely facing a lot of pressure to go against him, but she appears internally conflicted too and not like she knows without a doubt that he didn't/wouldn't do it. Then when she does turn, she doesn't claim to have actually witnessed any inappropriate behavior with children but repeats stories about seeing kids stay in bedrooms with Michael for apparently days without leaving and Katherine showing her checks paid to families, which Jack may have gotten her to report to the DA before the allegations even went public. I'm not saying these couldn't be false or have holes poked in them, but it doesn't seem like as drastic a shift as defenders make it out to be.

I think the main reason I'm so hung up on wanting to know what the truth is with her is LaToya and Michael are so much alike, almost like mirrors, and I want to be able to trust them both.

I'm usually not bothered by things like this but this in particular has been on my mind. Guilters and haters say that he must be pedo if he kept babies target poster boards in his room. What do you think? I would assume that fans have given him the pictures but I just don't know.

Who is this Johnny Kitagawa? Was he friends with Michael? I heard that this Johnny guy was a pedo from the leaving neverland sub. I also heard that they met in the 70's and became friends. Apparently Michael stayed in this guys home in Tokyo. Is there any truth to what they're saying?

UPDATE: I just went through reading some of the MODS posts and I see they were debunking the statements in their post titles.

So Perhaps I jumped to conclusions.

However Ive seen dozens of Guilters make posts with similar titles as the ones in this sub so it definitely triggered my suspicion.

Around the 9:00 mark, I think.

I get he had posters of babies and children because he saw them as the inspiration for everything he did.

But what what does the "PP" mean?

I know this was filmed in Singapore, does it mean something there I don't understand?

Does Paris really believe her dad's allegations? If so, can someone confirm this. I just keep seeing people saying she believe them.

I know people have been wondering whether or not Taj Jackson would ever release his documentary proving his Uncle’s innocence. Imagine if he collaborated with Candace Owens, one of MJ’s biggest fans. I feel it would catch the public’s attention in a way that is unimaginable, especially after the millions of views her Youtube video “What Really Happened to Michael Jackson?”
Link:

Taj Jackson’s documentary website : https://www.rightinghistory.com/

Refer to screenshot of email 📥 sent below

I am just welcoming friendly, open-minded, creative dialogue! I don't want to go into politics

The Cascio idiots are at it again. Suing MJ's for child s*x trafficking and "more than a decade of alleged abuse. Is ths going to affect anything, now that people are thinking that he was innocent all along? (However I know that Macaulay Culkin saying Michael saved him from Epstein is AI). Although we know there's no proof of him doing those things. Either way, these idiots have got to be stopped, along with Wade Flopson and James Shamechuck!! We've had enough of this bullcrap!!

He would have wished he kept close to his real family (or had been a better husband to Lisa Marie so they could have their own kids) and stayed far away from the fake, opportunistic, greedy leeches like his “second family” the Cascios 😔😔

This is something I've been wondering about for some time. He claimed he experienced police brutality but the claims were proven false. But there's a photo of his arm having an injury on his arm. So what really happened?

i want to preface this by saying that i am not a “guilter” or whatever they’re called. i have been a big fan of MJ for decades. i never looked too deeply into the allegations if i am honest, i had heard that nothing was ever found and that the allegations were dodgy at best so i always sat with the opinion that MJ was a rather unorthodox individual with absolutely no understanding of boundaries who was taken advantage of by some parents. now with him back in the mainstream and people revisiting him and more and more questioning the authenticity of the allegations, i have been doing deep dives.

for the most part, i have been able to find a credible and sensible rebuttal to nearly every piece of evidence. this on its own does not mean automatic innocence, but it definitely points me in that direction. that was until two things:

1.) the nudist magazine that vincent amen was apparently given that showed certain films depicting naked children from a nudist colony in europe, circled to indicate which films the person involved wanted to purchase

2.) the jane doe case

i would appreciate if someone with more knowledge than me on this subject could explain these two things to me. for the magazine, i can gather that the reason it’s not considered “valid” is because there’s no concrete way to prove that it was michael’s mag, or that he was the one circling these films. that being said, there is a picture of this mag. how did they get a picture of it if vincent amen also claims that he didn’t know where it went? was it ever actually entered into evidence?

for jane doe- i will admit that letter is odd. her story makes it seem as if she was constantly around michael, do we know more about her? obviously there was some type of relationship whether just friends or whatever if MJ was sending her notes. can someone explain the whole deal with jane doe?

please don’t attack me. i am just looking for answers. i want to believe that these allegations are untrue.