Optional

Au contraire. Those guys told the truth. MJ groomed them, raped them, and paid them. They have the receipts. It’s the case.

But look, you don’t wanna see it, so, you can’t tell me anything about it. Do you know what that means?

🧐

I just like the truth. And it’s the truth.

There’s a lot more than one inappropriate thing. A lot more.

They are substantiated AF.

You do? Weird.

Seriously you people are way up in that tree with no interest at all in getting down, so. Ok. Have fun thinking MJ didn’t rape boys.

OJ wasn’t guilty either right

Okbye

The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You’re making a claim here, you back it up.

The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.

And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings?

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.

Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.

I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.

But you’re missing the sound and visuals. That informs the context. Plus the transcript is auto-generated. Why read it but not watch it?

And yes, you’re right, both episodes together are 236 minutes total.

Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.

I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:

Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.

Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.

The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.

He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.

You’d have to quantify them, which is difficult as many did not come forward.

You read the transcript of a 90 minute movie?

Lots of people blame them. I blame them. They blame them. They said so, on camera, with examples of how they failed. One of which was getting financial rewards for looking the other way.

All of whom have since either quietly retracted their testimony and/or admitted they lied.

That’s not true.

Are you this mad about them too?

Madder, fwiw. Trump’s dancing is awful.

Just watch “Leaving Neverland”. It’s spelled out very plainly.

No proof except multiple eyewitness / victim testimony and a mountain of corroborating evidence. Like Epstein. Or trump.

Did you watch “Leaving Neverland”?

Oh, I think you know. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡°)