Michael Jackson and "Leaving Neverland"

[Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl]

have you tried looking at it dispassionately?

He did have a very unique upbringing so it's possible he did have a non-sexual yearning for the company of boys. Maybe he was just one of the weirdest people ever to have existed.

But I also still just don't see the point in denying MJ as a MAP. What does that serve us?

I get that MAPs that want to have positive representation in pop culture to rally around, but I think it would be better if the figures in question were people who were heavily documented as being minor-attracted (exclusive or not) and had contact with 100% certainty, such as Oscar Wilde, Rabindranath Tagore, Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Simone de Beauvoir, Elvis Presley, etc... rather than ones with a high level of ambiguity regarding their possible minor attraction (e.g., MJ, Marion Bradley, Lewis Carroll, Alexander the Great, etc...).

I would argue there is no ambiguity with MJ being a pedophile.

[Artaxerxes II]

Him getting acquitted doesn't mean much when you consider the fact that in order to be found guilty, he would have to had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible for an allegation to be completely true or partially true and still for the verdict to still reach not guilty. Considering the fact that some of the jurors did believe Gavin was telling the truth, but they still considered there to be reasonable doubt, so they had to vote not guilty. Some of the jury thought that particular accusation was false but that Jackson had molested other boys in the past. Some of the jury also felt pressured by other members to change their verdict to not guilty. Some felt that there was going to be a hung jury, so they thought it would be best to just vote not guilty. So it's not as if the jury had came to the conclusion that he was undoubtably not guilty of any child molestation. I recommend watching "The Jury Speaks" season 1 episode 2.

How could the FBI have exonerated Jackson of CSA allegations when they never investigated into him? All they did was provide assistance to the Santa Barbara County police investigations that happened in 1993/1994 and 2004/2005.

Razorfist videos are not a good source. Pretty much every point of his is inaccurate information.

False. The FBI did investigate allegations against him, and found nothing to charge him with. And if the 2005 trial isn't enough to prove that Michael Jackson wasn't anything but an eccentric guy with Peter Pan syndrome who was a victim of political machinations, then I don't think much else will convince you tbh.

Also, which claims by Razorfist are false in your opinion? As much as I don't like the guy, he did a really thorough research on Michale Jackson's alleged abuse of boys with his 6-parts video, so I would be interested in hearing what your issues are with his series since I haven't heard anyone debunking his claims.

The Fbi did not investigate him, this is literally what us said on the site "The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases."

Providing assistances for the investigation is not the same as investigating. The FBI had no reason to ever investigate him. He wasn’t accused of breaking any federal law.

Also some of the other stuff you said is incorrect. Not all of his accusers are or were poor. Wade Robsin (sic) is a healing coach for child abuse and a faculty member at the broadway dance center. James Safechuck works for an IT company and is financially comfortable. The Chandler’s family wasn’t broke. They were rich.

Also your point about him spending most of his intimate adult life with women is incorrect. He had few verifiable romantic relationships with women and none were long, intimate, or serious.

No Razorfist did not go through thorough research. He's either lying or didn't actually do much research.

The FBI worked closely with local authorities, reviewing thousands of pages of evidence and performing background checks on Jackson as part of their standard protocols. Importantly, no incriminating evidence surfaced in these reviews, and no federal charges were ever filed. If any credible federal offense had been discovered, the FBI had jurisdiction to pursue charges. The FBI’s thorough handling without resulting charges points to a lack of evidence.

The 2005 trial acquittal was based on extensive testimonies, including cross-examinations of accusers and testimony from witnesses like Jackson’s former staff. The jury deliberated for over 30 hours, and their verdict reflected a lack of compelling evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the jurors did have some doubts, the verdict was ultimately based on extensive review of the evidence available, meaning that MJ wasn't just proven innocent "beyond a reasonable doubt", but also that the prosecution's case wasn't credible even under intense scrutiny.

If MJ did commit contact offenses as you believe, I don’t think that a man as scrupulous and wealthy as him would ever let it be known to the public. Remember that time he went doctor shopping just to obtain pain medication in complete privacy, avoiding any public scrutiny? His efforts to control even minor, controversial aspects of his life (like managing pain) show that he went to great lengths to protect his reputation and maintain privacy..

As for Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both men had previously defended Jackson under oath, and Robson even testified in the 2005 trial in Jackson’s defense. Years later, they changed their stories, which suggests that they had financial motives, especially as they were involved in civil suits. And let's not forget the documented inconsistencies in their testimonies as given in Leaving Neverland (e.g., Safechuck alleged he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland, but the construction of the train station didn’t begin until the end of 1993, and it did not open until 1994 — two years after Safechuck said the abuse ended at age 14.).
You can read more here: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/why-is ... -pouncing/

Point being, if these accusers had genuine trauma, it would be unusual for them to repeatedly switch between staunch defense and serious accusations. This lack of consistency, especially as it aligns with financial pursuits, brings the credibility of these claims into serious question.

As for Jordie Chandler, the initial high-profile case involving him and his family ended in a $20 million settlement. The settlement with the Chandler family, often misinterpreted as an admission of guilt, was instead a strategic choice by Jackson to avoid prolonged negative media exposure, as his career faced immense damage from the allegations alone. High-profile individuals often settle to protect their reputation, which, in Jackson’s case, was particularly vulnerable due to his status and wealth.

Consider the case of the Arvizo family, who accused Michael Jackson of abuse during the 2005 trial. This family had a documented history of making allegations against others for financial gain. Prior to targeting Jackson, they had filed a lawsuit against J.C. Penney, alleging assault by security guards, and later settled for a significant amount of money. In that case, inconsistencies in their story were evident, including allegations that were exaggerated or contradicted. This history of dubious claims raises questions about their credibility and motives when they later accused Jackson of abuse. Given this family’s track record, it’s reasonable to view their accusations with skepticism, especially when financial gain appeared to be a motivating factor.

Also your point about him spending most of his intimate adult life with women is incorrect. He had few verifiable romantic relationships with women and none were long, intimate, or serious.

False. He had long-term relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe, which are well documented, and Debbie's case shows the series commitment by MJ (such as marriage and having children with her). MJ's relationships were well-known and his consistent choice of having relationships with adult women are inconsistent with the characteristics typical of a boylover, or an exclusive one just to be charitable, although the case of MJ being a non-exclusive MAP is already tenuous as it is.

Look, just because he hanged out with boys and had an eccentric personality that tabloids picked upon doesn't necessarily make him a MAP, anymore than Charles Dobson's close relationship with Alice Liddell is conclusive proof of Charles being a girl-lover. Many psychiatrists and psychologists who observed Jackson, including those involved in his defense, viewed him as having a "Peter Pan syndrome" rather than being sexually attracted to boys.

No Razorfist did not go through thorough research. He's either lying or didn't actually do much research.

Razorfist’s series includes extensively researched points, with sources like biographer Mike Smallcombe corroborating the details. If there’s a specific instance of inaccuracy, it would be helpful to discuss it and provide examples of it, but as of now, his arguments remain well-supported and reliable.

I should also note that numerous children who spent a considerable amount of time with Jackson—including famous individuals like Macauley Culkin and Brett Barnes—have defended him publicly, asserting that he never behaved inappropriately with them. These individuals had no financial incentive to defend Jackson and often faced public scrutiny for doing so. The consistent defense from those close to him, in my opinion, adds weight to the argument that Jackson’s intentions were misinterpreted and possibly exploited for financial gain by others, such as the mainstream media and greedy families.

In sum, Jackson’s extensive defense, the inconsistencies among accusers, and the lack of credible evidence from investigations all underscore his innocence. Considering the motivations of his accusers and the unconvincing nature of the cases brought against him, the evidence leans heavily towards Jackson being a target of exploitation rather than a perpetrator.

[Artaxerxes II]

if these accusers had genuine trauma, it would be unusual for them to repeatedly switch between staunch defense and serious accusations. This lack of consistency, especially as it aligns with financial pursuits, brings the credibility of these claims into serious question.

This sounds like such an anti thing to say.

Just because he didn't abuse them or cause trauma that doesn't mean he didn't sleep with them.

It’s true that the absence of trauma doesn’t necessarily mean something didn’t happen. But when assessing serious claims, credibility, consistency, and context are essential. You’d think the “victims” would keep their accounts and attitudes consistent at the very least. Wade Robson’s shift from being one of Jackson’s strongest defenders, even testifying under oath, to later accusing him in a civil suit raises questions about what motivated that change—especially since it happened after he faced career setbacks and financial struggles.

Furthermore, Jackson’s careful management of his public image, even going so far as to doctor-shop discreetly for pain medications, shows that he was deeply aware of the career risks tied to public scandals. Given his high profile and the intense scrutiny he was under, if Jackson had been involved in incriminating conduct, credible evidence likely would have emerged, especially during the extensive investigations by law enforcement and the FBI. Knowing the serious consequences of such accusations, it’s hard to believe he would risk behavior that could so easily be misinterpreted. His meticulous approach to reputation suggests that he was proactive about avoiding scandal, which weighs heavily in favor of him not being a MAP.

[Harlan]

Given his high profile and the intense scrutiny he was under, if Jackson had been involved in incriminating conduct, credible evidence likely would have emerged, especially during the extensive investigations by law enforcement and the FBI. Knowing the serious consequences of such accusations, it’s hard to believe he would risk behavior that could so easily be misinterpreted. His meticulous approach to reputation suggests that he was proactive about avoiding scandal, which weighs heavily in favor of him not being a MAP.”

Evidence of what? He probably washed off (or licked) the sperm of the boys he masturbated right away. The boys also washed off his saliva on their penises (if he gave them blowjobs). Do you think he would keep prohibited content at home ? There are stories, but most likely what is told in the film is greatly exaggerated.

Years later, they changed their stories, which suggests that they had financial motives, especially as they were involved in civil suits. And let's not forget the documented inconsistencies in their testimonies as given in Leaving Neverland (e.g., Safechuck alleged he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland, but the construction of the train station didn’t begin until the end of 1993, and it did not open until 1994 — two years after Safechuck said the abuse ended at age 14.).
You can read more here: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/why-is ... -pouncing/

Point being, if these accusers had genuine trauma, it would be unusual for them to repeatedly switch between staunch defense and serious accusations. This lack of consistency, especially as it aligns with financial pursuits, brings the credibility of these claims into serious question.

As for Jordie Chandler, the initial high-profile case involving him and his family ended in a $20 million settlement. The settlement with the Chandler family, often misinterpreted as an admission of guilt, was instead a strategic choice by Jackson to avoid prolonged negative media exposure, as his career faced immense damage from the allegations alone. High-profile individuals often settle to protect their reputation, which, in Jackson’s case, was particularly vulnerable due to his status and wealth.

The whole point is that they clearly had no trauma, but they had a financial interest. And the confusion of the testimony speaks of attempts to exaggerate and present the story as more dramatic than simple jerking off and petting.

The problem is that people either agree with the accusation completely or completely deny it. Another dichotomy. No one thinks that there is a third option, where the truth may be in the middle.

[Artaxerxes II]

Given his high profile and the intense scrutiny he was under, if Jackson had been involved in incriminating conduct, credible evidence likely would have emerged, especially during the extensive investigations by law enforcement and the FBI. Knowing the serious consequences of such accusations, it’s hard to believe he would risk behavior that could so easily be misinterpreted. His meticulous approach to reputation suggests that he was proactive about avoiding scandal, which weighs heavily in favor of him not being a MAP.”

Evidence of what? He probably washed off (or licked) the sperm of the boys he masturbated right away. The boys also washed off his saliva on their penises (if he gave them blowjobs). Do you think he would keep prohibited content at home ? There are stories, but most likely what is told in the film is greatly exaggerated.

Years later, they changed their stories, which suggests that they had financial motives, especially as they were involved in civil suits. And let's not forget the documented inconsistencies in their testimonies as given in Leaving Neverland (e.g., Safechuck alleged he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland, but the construction of the train station didn’t begin until the end of 1993, and it did not open until 1994 — two years after Safechuck said the abuse ended at age 14.).
You can read more here: https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/why-is ... -pouncing/

Point being, if these accusers had genuine trauma, it would be unusual for them to repeatedly switch between staunch defense and serious accusations. This lack of consistency, especially as it aligns with financial pursuits, brings the credibility of these claims into serious question.

As for Jordie Chandler, the initial high-profile case involving him and his family ended in a $20 million settlement. The settlement with the Chandler family, often misinterpreted as an admission of guilt, was instead a strategic choice by Jackson to avoid prolonged negative media exposure, as his career faced immense damage from the allegations alone. High-profile individuals often settle to protect their reputation, which, in Jackson’s case, was particularly vulnerable due to his status and wealth.

The whole point is that they clearly had no trauma, but they had a financial interest. And the confusion of the testimony speaks of attempts to exaggerate and present the story as more dramatic than simple jerking off and petting.

The problem is that people either agree with the accusation completely or completely deny it. Another dichotomy. No one thinks that there is a third option, where the truth may be in the middle.

Based on what is written above, and Fragments's statement:

I don't disagree with this. Being motivated by money doesn't mean nothing happened, though.

Equally possible in my mind is that Wade had a good experience, didn't want to sell out MJ when he was still alive, but after he died and Wade had his own problems he decided that revealing the story could be to his advantage.

People turn against their exes all the time for personal gain. It's slimy, but at least he waited until MJ was dead.

I can only conclude that one can, at best, be agnostic when it comes to whether MJ was a MAP. Not to say that the nuanced perspectives you both offer isn't valuable, but I believe that attributing Michael Jackson’s actions or character to speculative motivations risks overlooking the actual evidence we have—and lack. Jackson was under relentless scrutiny for decades, and everything he did, even things as private as managing his own health, was intensely monitored by the media, law enforcement, and public opinion alike. This level of examination alone makes it difficult to believe he would engage in illegal, incriminating behavior without any credible evidence surfacing, especially with children.

The high-profile investigations into Jackson, including by the FBI, didn’t yield evidence that could substantiate criminal behavior with minors. If Jackson had been engaging in illegal relationships, it seems improbable that absolutely nothing incriminating would have been found. In fact, his meticulousness was well-documented; he went to great lengths, even doctor-shopping, to keep his pain treatment private (like propofol, which wouldn't come to light until way after Jackson's death, in 2009). This level of vigilance just to avoid being possibly charged with prescription fraud suggests he would have been extraordinarily cautious in any other area of his life where the stakes could mean worse criminal charges, yet no tangible proof of wrongdoing was ever found.

As for Robson’s accusations, the change only came after Jackson’s death and amid Robson’s financial difficulties, which can’t be ignored. While after-sex remorse might be at play, the timing and financial context raise doubts. Speculation should not overshadow facts, and the lack of evidence leans heavily toward Jackson’s innocence.

We also need to keep in mind the broader context of tabloid-driven public opinion. Much of what people believe about Jackson, including speculation about his personal relationships, was heavily shaped by sensationalized and almost coordinated media narratives, which can distort reality. In a world where accusation often carries as much weight as evidence, Jackson’s ability to legally clear his name and avoid any concrete charges is significant.

[G@yWad43]

I genuinely dont know. From a pdfile persective, he was 100% a shotacon, but from a “weird and eccentric childish man perspective” he probably wasnt. If some regular guy was hanging with boys like he did, they would, without a shadow of a doubt, be a map, but Micheal Jackson wasnt “some regular guy.”

He was famous his entire life, never taught “normal” boundaries from either his family or outside social life

His house was an amusement park

Had a pet chimp

Racially transitioned from black to white

Half of the human population both is and was his fanbase. Let me repeat this. HALF OF THE HUMAN POPULATION. HE HAS 4 BILLION FANS. THERES ONLY 8 BILLION PEOPLE, EVEN LESS DURING HIS PEAK

Permanently changed pop music and dance forever

Helped significantly decrease racial tension

His accusers are money hungry and cant stick to an accurate story, plus the added baggage of accusing a dead man.

For a black man in the 80s-2000s, if he really did commit any crimes, the law decided to be extremely woke, as they are normally far stricter and imprison black men for far less severe offenses. However, he did have HALF OF THE HUMAN POPULATION on his side, having 4 billion people on your side will definently help.

He was unusually close with them. He held their hands and snuggled with them, he had paintings of himself with them, he would call them and let them sleep in his bed, however, this could all be platonic, and with the shitty money based inconsistent accusations from his “victims” im leaning towards platonic.

Lying under oath or claiming that you lied under oath is fucking crazy by the way. Any and all credibility you have is ruined once you do that. And I dont know which would be worse, MJ being completely innocent legally yet getting lied on and defamed by money hungry assholes, or MJ breaking the law but still being non coercive/abusive and being a genuinely good partner to the boys, yet getting lied on and defamed by money hungry assholes. Either way, MJ didnt and will never deserve all the bs he got and is still getting, treating him like fucking Albert Fish for a crime he either A. Didn't commit in the first place or B.Did commit, but did so without abuse and is solely getting shit on for statutory, not sexual abuse or statutory sexual abuse.

There are good arguments from both sides, but im leaning towards no, or if he was a map, he had no sexual contact and it was purely romantic, and his accusers made up some bullshit about it getting sexual for money and fame.

However, I think both sides are too optimistic. Micheal Jackson was a strange man living a strange life. Im a fan who would love for him to be a boylover, just as much as pedophobic MJ fans would love for him not to be. The real answer is that he probably platonically or romantically loved boys, seeing them as either peers or lovers, but never broke any laws sexually, which is how he avoided persecution(legally) despite his close relationship.

So was MJ a shotacon? Yesn’t. If his accusers werent lying, greedy, money hungry douchebags, we would probably know the truth, but they ruined their own reputability with their constant lies and exaggerations, so we will probably never know, and outside of the map community, it doesn't really matter in the first place. He was still great man who made great music, and none of his accusations were of force and coercion, they were purely statutory, so even if he did break the law, he still wasn't violent or an abuser.

Also, if MJ is a pedo, he is the pedoeyist pedo to ever pedo in the history of mankind. If the allegations are true, which im still not quite sure on, he allegedly pedoded so hard that he not only managed to groom dozens of boys and every single one of their families but also half of the worlds population, INCLUDING pedos themselves, into loving him. Hell, the average MJ fan treats him like a god anyways and worships the very ground he walked on. So theres either two options, either MJ is innocent, he had a strictly platonic interest in boys and he was accused for money reasons, OR, secret pedo mind control(grooming) is real, and if we all max out our secret pedo grooming mind control skills to level 10 like Micheal, we too will have the power to groom multiple billions of people into supporting us.

[CynicalOptimist]

not only did he spend most of his intimate life with adult women

There is no evidence that MJ spend most of his intimate life with women. Other than Lisa Marie Presley, there's no other known woman he ever had sex with. He never had sex with Debbie Rowe, his second wife and mother to two of his children.

Lisa Marie Presley stated in her memoir that MJ told her he was a 35-year old virgin when their relationship began. Why would a straight man of that age, who had countless women vying for his attention, claim to be a virgin? The most plausible explanation is that he lacked interest in women and that he didn't want LMP to know that his only sexual experiences were with males. A man genuinely attracted to women would not resort to hiring someone like Debbie Rowe to bear his children. If he was straight, he have chosen to marry a woman with whom he had a meaningful sexual relationship. Furthermore, no other woman, apart from LMP, has ever claimed that she had sex with MJ.

Michael Jackson biographer Ian Halperin is convinced that MJ was homosexual. He says that he some of MJ's male hook-up partners have shown him proof that they slept with him:

Q: You state in the book that you believe Michael Jackson was homosexual. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A: If this was a Caucasian artist, nobody would be making any statements about the gay angle in the book. It’s only two pages! Michael Jackson said he never came out because he feared racism. He said guys like George Michael, Boy George, Elton John can come out, their careers go through the roof. African-Americans can’t, and I challenge everyone to read a book called Hiding in Hip Hop by Terrance Dean. He wrote a book about rap artists being unable to come out of the closet, because they’re African-American, and that’s why I believe Michael in this. I don’t care about his sexuality, but I had people come on the record [to say] that they had intimacy with Michael Jackson, and I had to run with that. They provided proof.

Christopher Anderson wrote in his book that MJ was interested in boys and barely legal men, but not women:

Other that the infrequent trips to the UCLA medical center operating theater, Michael seldom ventured out. When he wasn't tooling around the yard in his electric car, Michael spent hour upon hour holed up with male friends in his darkened room. Not all were children. "Michael always seemed to be around young men." said his former friend and business partner Bob Michaelson. "On the road, in the studio, he always had some good-looking guy with him, usually somebody between seventeen and. say. twenty. Never a woman. Never

but the FBI files pertaining to allegations of CSA by Jackson following death threats being issued against him, exonerate Jackson

You might not be aware, but just less than half of the pages are missing from the FBI files. Only part of the files were released:

The FBI files comprise over 600 pages; 351 pages were released publicly, divided into eight parts. They include copies of letters from members of the public commenting on Jackson's performances, newspaper clippings, and various documents reporting that Jackson was the target of threats and extortion attempts. The files received extensive media coverage.

The FBI file does not exonerate MJ, nor does it provide proof he committed a sex crime. This is because the FBI never carried out a formal investigation themselves. They mainly provided technical assistance to local police departments.

I should also note that many of the accusers, such as Jordie Chandler, has often shown inconsistencies when it comes to his accusations against Jackson, and that a similar pattern is seen by other accusers, such as James Safechuck: https://www.nealdavislaw.com/blog/sex-c ... -debunked/

The accusers have been much less inconsistent than the deniers like to claim. For example, the website you linked claims that the whole Robson family went to the Grand Canyon in February 1990, implying that Wade lied about being alone with MJ during that time. This problem with this claim is that there is undeniable evidence that Wade was telling the truth:

In her 1993 deposition, Joy said that she went to the Grand Canyon with her family. She left on the weekend (3/4 February 1990) and returned the following weekend. Wade did not lie about being left behind. Mark Quindoy's testimony states that he took MJ and Wade out in the car on Friday evening (9 February 1990), a day or two before Joy and the rest of the family returned to Neverland. When questioned about her 1993 deposition in 2005, Joy stated that Wade had the option of going to Japan or staying at Neverland. He chose to stay behind at Neverland.

-

Prior to targeting Jackson, they had filed a lawsuit against J.C. Penney, alleging assault by security guards, and later settled for a significant amount of money. In that case, inconsistencies in their story were evident, including allegations that were exaggerated or contradicted. This history of dubious claims raises questions about their credibility and motives when they later accused Jackson of abuse. Given this family’s track record, it’s reasonable to view their accusations with skepticism, especially when financial gain appeared to be a motivating factor.

There is zero evidence that Janet and David Arvizo ever made their children lie for money. The boys lied about whether their father beat them. They denied it. That was the only lie they told, to protect their father from prosecution. Gavin didn't lie about his broken arm and black or anything else.

The "alleged " assault by the security guards actually happened. Their injuries were documented and photographed and a settlement was reached, no fraud involved. Of course, it's impossible to be 100% certain if Janet was telling the truth when she accused one of the security guards of groping her, because groping doesn't leave any physical evidence, but there's no reason to assume she lied about that either.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that Mary Holzer lied when she claimed that Janet's injuries were inflicted by her husband the evening after the assault:

There was just one problem with Mary's testimony. She claimed that Janet told her that the injuries were inflicted by David the evening after the JC Penney incident. The problem was, Gavin and Star had been taken by their grandparents after the incident while Janet and David went with the police. Janet was released after a few hours and David was released just after midnight. David could not have inflicted the injuries because he was in police custody and the boys were with their grandparents.

-

The 2005 trial acquittal was based on extensive testimonies, including cross-examinations of accusers and testimony from witnesses like Jackson’s former staff. The jury deliberated for over 30 hours, and their verdict reflected a lack of compelling evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the jurors did have some doubts, the verdict was ultimately based on extensive review of the evidence available, meaning that MJ wasn't just proven innocent "beyond a reasonable doubt", but also that the prosecution's case wasn't credible even under intense scrutiny.

There were members of the jury at the time who were convinced that MJ was a pedophile. The strongest evidence wasn't allowed in this trial, because they could not convince Jordan Chandler to come and testify. What the prosecution needed was a witness. Someone like Wade Robson. At the time he was still under MJ's spell, and it is largely because of his testimony that MJ walked free a second time. 3 other witnesses who saw MJ doing sexual things with Wade were not believed. Wade Robson has since come out to corroborate the accusations against MJ, together with the testimonies of the three that weren't believed earlier, to me it seems that there is enough corroboration to make WR's case solid.

Going off a tangent, the debate regarding Michael Jackson's sexuality kind of reminds me the debates as to whether Charles Dobson a.k.a., Lewis Carroll, the author of "Alive in Wonderland", was actually a girl-lover or not, with the evidence for it being scant.

There's much more evidence that MJ was a MAP than that Lewis Carroll was a MAP:

https://michaeljacksonwasguilty.com/show-me-the-proof/

Razorfist’s series includes extensively researched points, with sources like biographer Mike Smallcombe corroborating the details. If there’s a specific instance of inaccuracy, it would be helpful to discuss it and provide examples of it, but as of now, his arguments remain well-supported and reliable.

RazorFist is actually quite ignorant and his videos are full of inaccuracies. MJFacts went through his videos and highlighted the most glaring errors:

https://www.mjfacts.com/strange-bedfellows/