Agreed. Sick and disturbing. The parents failed these kids. I think they got 'star struck'
[Reply]

Money grab?
[Reply]

Also finished part 1. Wow. A completely manipulative predator.

I think the parents were starstruck for one and frankly it was a bit of a different time period. Go look at Abducted in Plain Sight on Netflix (an even bigger parental failure).
[Reply]

If we cant hear Black Betty at games anymore because the author was a child molester/rapist, how does Micheal Jackson's music still get played?


I hope there is a special place in hell for people who sexually abuse kids.
[Reply]

I heard this was an incredibly slanted hit piece.
[Reply]

Doesn't need to be, the guy absolutely did it and is a fucking monster.

I say to everyone, just watch it....
[Reply]

I will say this - there are also very compelling defenses of Jackson presented by people who are far more informed and have spent far more time going down these rabbitholes than I ever care to go. They also tend to dispense with the over the top melodrama and are very point by point; allegation by allegation. In terms of presentation and substance, the defenses I've seen have always been better assembled than the attacks, which tend to rely on inferences. And I've yet to see anything that attempts to come at it from the middle.

And when you have a bizarre billionaire involved, it's virtually impossible to get in that person's shoes and try to relate to decisions he made and ways he behaves. And I don't mean that to say "we can't understand what compels a rich weirdo to want to !@#$ boys" but rather "we can't understand why someone would pay 5% of a year's earnings and .5% of his net worth to someone just to make an allegation go away..." Because we hear '$20 million' and get in a tizzy over it. Michael Jackson hears '$20 million' and thinks - 'well shit...do y'all take personal checks? I only carry $5 million in petty cash in my suitcase"

And the guy was just as socially awkward as they come and because of that (and what is probably a lifetime of insecurity) he was also far more beholden to the decisions of his legal team and business manager than others.

I've watched some stuff on both sides of this discussion and I truly wouldn't feel comfortable making the call either way. But what I will say is that in a weird way, I almost hope he did it. Because if he didn't, society broke down and eventually killed one of the greatest philanthropists of all time on a whim. If he was guilty, then he was a carefully constructed, conniving sociopath. If he wasn't, then he was one of the truly caring, misunderstood, incredible human beings of the century.
[Reply]

I truly wish that he didn’t do it.

But he most likely did. Entire thing is sad....
[Reply]

I'm not convinced he did anything wrong.
[Reply]

Get Dane here, he claimed to have known the man

I’m not convinced he did it honestly... this reeks of character assassination
[Reply]

We'll never know what he did and didn't do. Not really.

What we do know is that people are going to try to generate income by capitalizing on a dead guy's fame and reputation.

He led a very strange life and his afterlife isn't going to be much different.

FAX
[Reply]

He also settled because the lawsuit was filed in the middle of a tour, which he would of had to cancel to actually fight the lawsuit.

It was settle and lose some money or fight it lose a lot of money and then go through some more lawsuits due to the cancelled tour.
[Reply]

[Reply]

Who is it??!
[Reply]