The forbes article is a good read. It definitely makes the doc sound pretty one sided. I've never fallen on either side of the debate, guilt or innocent. That being said, most of the time where there is smoke, there is fire. As a parent of two, I have a single job, protect my children. So even if I never bought into his guilt or innocence, I would not be sending them to hang out at his place. Simple as that. The stakes are just too high.

One more reason Prince is better than Michael Jackson

This guy writing this Forbes article is just as one-sided as the documentary! He makes himself out to be an 'expert' on Michael Jackson but he leaves out all of the bat shit crazy stuff that just never made sense! I bet he is part of SONY Music and the Jackson estate's PR machine.

First of all, yes, he was acquitted but at the time that decision was very controversial and many believed it was like OJ Simpson all over again, the rich get better legal representation than public prosecution can ever provide.

There was a mountain of weird shit that came out during the trial that the Forbes article conveniently forgets about or seems to have written off just because of the acquittal. But the fact Jackson got off does not dismiss what was found at Neverland. What about the crazy clubhouse that Jackson had built inside the mansion where he spent the night with the kids that had secret rooms controlled by release buttons that Jackson could use to lock people out? What about the 'Jesus Juice' he served that was actually some kind of alcohol and grape juice? What about the testimony of the Filipino couple who were his former housekeepers at Neverland who admitted that Jackson would spend DAYS at a time alone with the kids while their parents were kept off site so they couldn't get to them and that even they had their doubts that something strange was likely going on. What about the pornographic magazines that were found with fingerprints of MJ and the boys? What about the multiple claims from MJ security staff, Neverland cooks, landscapers, etc who said they saw MJ kissing the boys or patting their asses?

And what about the 'humiliating' time that Jackson had to have his penis photographed because it was said that he had identifying skin pigment patterns on it that one of the victims said they could describe?

But most damning of all is the payouts. Why have all these payout to kids and their families with non-disclosure agreements. Not all of these kids were poor charity cases or had health problems. Most were middle class and didn't need the money. So what was the payout for?

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....believe me, I wanted to think this guy was innocent too. I still love his music and I'll never throw it out just because he was a freak. But at some point you have to believe your first instinct.

Michael Jackson was a pedophile who sexually abused children.

It's like calling Hitchcock an abusive asshole now. Yeah, maybe he was, but can we please focus on the guys who are still alive and abusing other's right now?
I just can't find it in me to care much about MJ, when R. Kelly is still a free man.

The Forbes piece says everything I want to, so I'll leave it at that.

Forbes piece doesnt state facts?

Jermaine Jackson defends brother Michael after Leaving Neverland debuts at Sundance.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-film-festival

Jermaine, like the rest of the kids, has shown himself in the past to be nutty.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says...

Minor Celebrity Claims Deceased Superstar Brother, Whose Estate Brings in Millions for Family Every Year, was not a Predatory Pedophile! Film at 11.

How convenient.

It boils down to the fact that no one will ever truly know for sure, unless some damning video or photographic evidence surfaces that will surely never happen. So for people to defend him is just as wrong as people to attack him. None of us know for sure. I can look at the life he lead and the parents he had and see the guy was seriously screwed up, and there is clear evidence that when children are raised in abusive households they tend to grow up to be abusers themselves, so i personally believe there is some truth in the allegations. But again, no one will ever know for sure. One big problem MJ always had is that many times accusations come out after the person passes away, but he was dealing with them for years even before he died. I am curious to see the documentary as it sounds like it gives a good reasoning on how he grew up to be the freak show he ended up being. A very sad story i am sure for a guy who was probably very lonely and had very few, if any, genuine friends in life.

Uh, that wasn't the point of the article. You might want to read it again. The article's goal wasn't to present an all encompasing look at whether MJ was innocent or guilty, it was simply to point out how little credibility those involved in the documentary have. They did so by providing facts and statements from the people involved.

In fact the very first sentence of the piece is "Disclaimer: this article is not intended as a review of Leaving Neverland, which I have not seen, but rather of the context behind the allegations in the documentary. "

Sure they can because a lot of people have a moral superiority complex and are like the religious puritans of old. In their view, you either are morally pure and believe every allegation against every famous person accused, regardless of lack of supporting evidence, or you too are morally corrupt. These Moral Supremacists dominate social media now and are absolutely intolerance of anyone who fails their moral purity standards - as they see it, morality is a dichotomy and you can either be a saint (like they think they are) or a sinner, and skepticism of any allegation is a serious sin.

Let's not forget he was married twice...the first coming immediately after settling the pedophilia case for $22 million, the second to someone willing to produce children for him before going away.

Not sure it is moral superiority to think with at least 99% certainty that Jackson was a pedophile.

Ah yes, the glorious feeling of moral superiority over the eccentric celebrity who chooses to sleep in bed with numerous children who are not related to him and rigs up sophisticated warning systems to alert him of any imminent interruptions. I know the feeling well.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R_Ze8LjzV7Q" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jackson estate is suing HBO for $100 million over tell all documentary.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ry-lawsuit-hbo

Interesting. So they aren't claiming Libel, they are stating that it's a violation of a previous contract HBO signed 27 years ago in order to show a concert on their network back then. I wonder if that would hold up in court, given the fact that he's dead. Can a non-disparagement clause be upheld years after the subject has died?

I'm think probably not.
I've never heard of such a thing surviving in court....

The contract apparently has "at any point in the future" language in it.

Razorfist the Rageaholic gives his strong opinion on this documentary

That's amazingly prescient to put in a contract, but I don't know if it would hold up under appeal.