Michael Jackson and "Leaving Neverland"

[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.