Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets - Sensationalist Headlines

My dad saw the documentary and it was "very convincing". i'll have to watch it myself but it's fucking long. The way the guy who was interviewed described it was that he defended Michael because he loved him or something (and as a child he was mentally incapable of providing consent and didn't realize he was abused), but its hard for me to understand whether there's malice or honesty in the documenraty without actually watching it. I still think it's stupid to wipe any hsitory of Michale out of a comedy show because of it. The show can stand on its own merits and just because one VO did a bad thing doesn't make the episode tainted. The episode has value and depriving it to spite a dead guy is dumb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHZ-tSjlDjo NOTICE: He says he was a drug addict, and we know this

Honestly I haven't watched it so anyone can take it with a grain of salt, but stories like this are always "very convincing". Remember Serial? That podcast about a potentially wrongly made judgment in court? (Idk if it continued, but I'm talking about season 1) Like that shit was considered by me and probably very others "very convincing" but what does it actually present rather than "guy in prison seems like decent fellow and other suspect not in prison seems to not want to talk HMM I WONDER WHY THAT IS". Did that shit ever get back into court? It's very easy to oversell stuff, hence it's packaged in formats like this. I'd watch stuff like this for entertainment but honestly cases like this are better made if the target is that the court system itself is bad (like, to a serious degree) rather than "specific case was made poorly, please reevaluate based on this emotions-heavy thinkpiece i made"

Dun prove that he dun diddled kids tho.

Yea and the FBI just made a mistake in their decade plus of thorough investigations that found absolutely nothing.

People think Loose Change is "very convincing."

im not. but people say he's on straight narrow when he wasnt then argue against everything

There is unironically more proof that Michael's dad was the kiddy diddler, not Michael himself. The fact that this subject still causes kvetching in Hollywood and shit like this raises strange questions...

Have you seen the recent documentary? He only got an acquittal for the amount of control he had over the boys in those cases. Just because something was settled in court, doesn't mean shit. We all KNOW OJ Simpson killed people, but it's not proven in court. But we all KNOW it's true. Michael Jackson raped kids.

thank you humanabyss, some sense at last. people argue vehemently that his music isnt being played on the radio etc.. but does that really matter anyway, we'll see the long term effects here and gradually people will come to the right conclusion he did a lot of inappropriate things

Yeah I was confused by this when it happened to someone I believe is guilty, R. Kelly, I have for decades, but a fucking documentary gets trending and suddenly everything sticks? People like Lady Gaga who collabed with him less than 5 years ago suddenly posting up #muterkelly and acting like he wasn't on tape doing this shit eons ago? Suddenly he's being investigated for those old allegations? What is so special about these trending documentaries that it suddenly shifts everything? Seems like an odd phenomenon to me. It's kind of funny that R. Kelly got away for so long then suddenly got fucked by a production and some hashtags out of nowhere but damn if it isn't strange. Speaking of you'd think Cosby would've been checked out before a Hannibal Buress joke got people to look closer, but at the time that didn't stand out as too weird to me I guess since it seemed like a fluke rather than a pattern.

Him inadvertently becoming addicted to painkillers ultimately as a result of abuse from his family and other business interests is hardly inappropriate. Baseless claim.

BRB, ordering documentaries on Woody Allen and Roman Polanski https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

Yep. It's baseless. I still stand by it, and I reject the idea that the courts are infallible as it relates to Michael Jackson. I guess we'll just let male rape victims be raped, and never come forward. We saw this happy with Terry Crews, people just wanted to tear him down. We've seen it with other men who come out about being assualted or raped. We're seeing it here. A kid who won a dancing competition and was brought into the orbit of a billionaire who was themselves abused as a child(one of the most prominent things we see in child molestors is that they were usually abused themselves) and continued the cycle of abuse and harm, and had billions of dollars, and entire media empires willing to vouch for him, and keep the image going. if you people think raping a kid, or anyone, frankly, would be a signal to a company/studio to step away from someone professionally, you're fucking wrong. Look at Weinstein and the large scale at which sexual abuse is, and most importantly has been metered out over the last 2 decades. We're finding out a lot of these fucking people are able to hide the worst things they've ever done because other people WILL choose to be complicit if it enriches them. This happens, this is happening, this isn't going to stop happening. And it never could stop happening if we have people who will endless vouch for child rapists just because they have the ability to manipulate courts. what a joke.

He isn't defending a rapist, he's saying Michael Jackson is not a rapist You need to cool down dude

neither does a protracted trial reported by a bloodthirsty media that doesn't care about journalistic integrity In 2010, the British journalist Charles Thomson wrote an article for The Huffington Post in which he described the [Michael Jackson] trial as "one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history".[29] He described the media coverage as "out of control ... the sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension."[29] In the same journal, Luka Neskovic wrote that the trial "displayed media at their worst. Sensationalism, exclusivity, negativity, excentricism, chaos, and hysteria were some of the features."[49] For example, according to Neskovic, when pornography was found in Jackson's home, many media outlets misreported it as child pornography.[49] Neskovic observed that the media was more interested in reporting the prosecution than the defense, and that, for example, the Hollywood Reporter chose not to report two weeks of the defense case.[49] Mesereau, Jackson's lawyer, told Neskovic: "It was horrible. I learned very quickly that the media was the enemy, that the media had an agenda, and their goal was not justice, it was not fairness, it was not truth."[49]

I 100% thoroughly believe he is. I understand, and respect that others don't. The truth will keep coming out as time goes on. Yes, he was acquitted in his last trial. I don't believe that is proof he never did anything criminal in regards to this. We have seen courts fail before, we will see them fail again. I truly believe he is an example of money and power overcoming the consequences of his actions. Somehow, we're willing to believe Michael Jackson didn't abuse his power, his status, and his wealth but these men who were just kids when they were molested, are actually the villains who just held on to a lie for so many years so they could tarnish his name for fun? What reason do these people have to lie at this time? I've known enough people who were abused, who had no ability to do anything about it, who were blamed for their circumstances, were called liars, and I've seen that happen to more powerful people than just randoms, and we're still willing to believe there's nothing untoward? Sorry, I've read everyone of your posts on this subject, and I can't believe some of the reasoning you've used here. His bedroom was the size of a house, so that justifies having kids from different families sleep in the same room? That eliminates the possibility of untoward and abusive situations? I've never seen a power dynamic as fucking extreme as Michael Jackson to a child, be defended so severely by so many people. Yeah, his music means a lot to me too, so it hurts knowing he did this shit, but at the same time, it hurts me more that people will bury what are obviously very painful realities for the sake of not breaking the myth.

The lot of you had so much energy to attack different people for lesser things and now suddenly so much energy for a kiddy diddler who is suddnely"innocent until proven guilty" after the most "on the knife edge" shady shit. If you truly believed that, you wouldn't say anything about most trial threads when they are posted.

In a case like that, it could never go back to court. That's called "Double jepoardy" and you can't face trials for the same thing twice. So if you want to know why it never went back to court, because it legally can't. So essentially, if the justice system fucked up the first time, and they just failed to get the evidence needed, or investigators fingered the wrong guy for something for much of their investigation and wasted precious time, they could lose the real perp forever. I believe in the power, and value of the court system. But we're all lying to each other if we don't think money, power, fame, status, everything around these people of astronomical means, have a different experience in most courts, than we do.

I'm willing to consider the possibility, but i'm going to need a lot more evidence than a documentary before i start making absolute statements. Just because the court could have wrong, as they have been in the past, does not mean they are.

The FBI investigated Jackson for 10 years and even raided his home unannounced. They didn't find anything. The 22 mil settlement was for a civil suit, the criminal investigation (which, y'know, you can't settle) went on after the settlement, and Jackson wasn't even the one who paid for (or even agreed to) the settlement, it was his insurance company. The claims made back then and now are full of holes (claim Jackson gave you the prop bullwhip from Indiana Jones, it was donated to the London Institute Of Archaeology in 1990. Claim Jackson took you on a "honeymoon" to Euro Disney in 1988, it wasn't even opened until 1992. Claim you saw Jackson's circumcised penis, the coroner report from his death says he was uncircumcised. etc.). 2 separate Grand Juries could not indict him due to lack of evidence. This whole farce is a cynical cashgrab by people who think 10 years is more than enough time to trash a dead man's legacy for profit, and anyone who falls for this bullshit ought to be ashamed of themselves.

can you please list some of your proof that he actually did rape anyone or at least the things you have seen that lead you to believe such?

If MJ isn't a pedophile, then he is the most pedophile-like non-pedophile to ever live

Literally watch the documentary then I don't have proof. It's, as I stated quite clearly, my belief that he did. You can't even find proof Jeffery Epstein raped anyone, yet it's public knowledge that he ran a sex trafficking ring of underaged girls. Half of my argument/point is that taking the establishment on it's word that a billionaire with more power than you or I could ever imagine didn't do something wrong is shortsighted at the very least. Power lets you bury information in ways that may mean it never shows up again. If the only proof is the account of a woman Harvey Weinstein raped, why would he ever suffer a consequence if it's "Just an accusation"? Criminals who commit sex crimes are often quite skilled at manipulation, and at hiding information, even from the professionals. Pair that up with someone who has literally unending resources to throw money at problems, and I am honestly a bit confused as to how easy it is to convince the public you're the victim. More information will come out as time passes, of that I'm sure. Maybe i'm wrong, and if so, I'll change my mind, but if the argument that we're going to rely on to say that he's definitively not a predator is that the courts acquitted him, we all know that's flimsy as fuck. They acquitted OJ. They've let billionaires and millionaires off lightly or entirely from numerous crimes of all varieties. Corruption is real.

Maybe not the trafficking, but he still pleaded guilty to fucking underaged prostitutes, which did have evidence behind it. So it's a lot easier to believe. You keep bringing up these other celeberties as if their situation is anything like MJ's.

I bring up other instances of the courts failing around the ultra rich, and that's "Nothing like MJ"? Lol okay

Ottawa artist angry over unauthorized use of photo in online gos.. Also, that wasn't even from the FBI raid.

The context is different is what i'm saying dummy People believe Epstein is guilty because he has a known history of abusing children. As far as we're aware, MJ has no such history despite his old accusations, so people are less willing to blindly believe these new accusations. And with OJ, the investigation found a actuay substantial evidence for his crimes. The reason he was acquitted was because of Fuhrman (and also several other issues in the court and society), unlike MJ who got away because of a lack of evidence. I should stress this doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent. I just think that believing he's guilty because other rich people got away is fucking dumb and close minded

So, what, you're idea that he did so that you believe wholeheartedly is based on what? Faith that he did it? He's rich so he must be lying? I'm not sure I understand how you came to the conclusion he's a pedophile

That's not "Why" I believe it, so, sorry to spoil your assumption. It's a part of why I doubt the story, it's not "Why" I believe anything though. Jesus.