Michael Jackson is no longer around to defend himself!

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

2 ай бұрын

He defended himself more than enough times. It's the victims who deserve our respect, care and sympathy.

@timothyossei-berkoh9775

2 ай бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 Wade and James were lying. They were trying to sue MJ's estate. The truth has finally been revealed!

@user-rs1iq3kt6l

2 ай бұрын

Neither is Jimmy Savile

In my unpopular opinion of MJ, I think you can't cancel his music directly, cos he was a creative genius when it comes to music and his music carried such touch positive message unlike any of the artists in this era.. I just can't see me not listening to "man in the Mirror" or "who is it"... n so n so... Same way I never stopped watching Johnny Depp Movies, because pirates of the carribean is such a timeless masterpiece and Rango n the tourist n et cetera... When JD's allegations came out of him a-salt-in Amber I was like okay, what an unfortunate situation there but guy can act! So I ignored all that his private life and yeah! I enjoyed the movies amidst the chaos... I think what we need to learn is to separate the art from the artist and know that these showbiz people are just there doing their jobs at the end of the day it's like a 9 to 5 and they'd go home and take off that persona and carry on with their normal lives separately from the big screen characters they've woven for the public to see... So this could've happened, there's that possibility but who's to know?!? It's a never-ending story here.

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

Ай бұрын

Of course you can. Radio stations have stopped playing Rolf Harris, so they should stop playing MJ.

@mwitaemmy

Ай бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 You are right. They can.. But can they?, with Biopic on the way....

It's a messed up world when you're called a child molester with no evidence.

I listened to Michael Jackson bodyguard who did a podcast can find it on KZread with Matt Fiddes and he answered many reason why Michael Jackson didn't do those things he was accused of and how his own reputation with marital art classes would have put himself in jeopardy. If you listen to that it's much more informative than Lou's I believe Jimmy Wade without a good explanation why. There are way too many holes in their case unless Jimmy saville , Harvey Weinstein etc . People need to check real facts to come to a conclusion

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

2 ай бұрын

He was guilty. I would include ALL the evidence here for you, however KZread doesn't allow me to do that, so you'll have to go it alone. Good Luck with your research. P.S. Michael victimised many, many people. It's those victims and their families who deserve our respect, care & understanding; NOT the guilty one!

@faroukomer7781

2 ай бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541What evidence? So you're telling us that you have the evidence the court of law and FBI weren't able to find? You can't just abruptly claim that he abused many, many people without proof. He had about 4-5 accusers, each of which were proven to be extortionists. And how are you sure that these people are victims? Just because they say they're victims, it doesn't mean that they're victims. The proof of them lying and the holes in their accusations discredits them, so they definitely aren't victims.

@richardingamells7213

26 күн бұрын

He's was a friend of his so is obviously lying on his behalf. Don't be so naive

@richardingamells7213

26 күн бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 Underneath the giggly childlike demeanour he put across was a ruthless paranoid control freak. The years of abuse he went through under his monster of a father the numerous meds he was on aswell aswell the heavy influence of the Hollywood celebrity machine of depravity contributed to one very dubious sick individual. Both sad & repugnant. He only helped others for ulterior purposes

@faroukomer7781

26 күн бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 I guess you got the evidence that the court wasn’t able to find but ok

Result= Michael Jackson was found INNOCENT in a law of court and invesigated by the FBI and Louis was a friend of JIMMY SAVILLE!!! who you gonna trust????? FFS

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

2 ай бұрын

Totally incorrect. He wasn't found "innocent". Based on the fact that the jurors had to make a verdict on the facts & evidence presented to them, their verdict reached was "not guilty". Big difference. Also, we must acknowledge that 3 of the jurors were threatened. (Those 3 jurors were adamant that the accused was, in fact, guilty.)

@claudia-Silva

Ай бұрын

Louis was NOT a friend if Saville! What a ignorant thing to say.

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

Ай бұрын

@@claudia-Silva Actually, the pair WERE friends. Do your research and you'll learn!

@claudia-Silva

Ай бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 Acctually they were NOT. The journalist was trying to catch him off guard but it takes some Intelligence to understand that...

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

Ай бұрын

@@claudia-Silva Actually, at one time, they WERE. Like I've said, if you do your research, you'll learn. So Good Luck with your research!

Always thought it was obvious Michael did it, why would a grown man want to spend time in bed with children and discard them entirely when they become late teens?

@yvesbissouma8210

8 ай бұрын

U have no brain. Michael was too pure to every hurt a child he’d been proven innocent so many times, his body language showed he was telling the truth and there was never an ounce of real evidence. Leave micheal alone and let him rest in peace.

@1989maihan

7 ай бұрын

What made you come to that conclusion? Did you study the complete timeline of all events, claims , source material, court transcripts?

@yvesbissouma8210

7 ай бұрын

@@1989maihan yep, saw he was cleared of all 14 charges in 2005, and was NEVER found guilty of anything despite fbi raiding him and investigating him for years, what about you?

@samanshafiezadeh7155

7 ай бұрын

he never invited anyone to his bedroom .NEVER EVER .There were always adults around .he was vindicated in 2005 .He was investigated by FBI more than 13 years in 30 countries and they found no evidence against him .You can simply google it and have access to 300 pages. can you at least do some research instead of trusting your assumptions ??

@rasheed9705

6 ай бұрын

​@1989maihan When you look at all the documents it's even more clear he was falsely accused. The accusations are filled with contradictions, false narratives, proven lies, and stories that defy time, space, and logic.

Never had a lot of time for the bloke to be honest, he clearly knows nothing about the cases at all....imagine a journalist not being able to do the core part of the job. Then again, he thought Saville was alright

@creepycrawler2151

8 ай бұрын

I'm sure he doesn't have much time for you either... Then again who are you, oh that's right, no one.

@GovnaBuckingham

8 ай бұрын

Louis basically proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the yale guy is guilty. It was actually some spectacular journalism. Watch that documentary. He confronts the guy and he gets caught lying.

@zxbc1

5 ай бұрын

It's too harsh to criticize Louis for taking the side of the currently vocal party. He's somewhat gullible in that sense. But him being bamboozled by Jimmy Saville was not particularly his fault - he tried to do a lot more than most journalists, and failed like most people at the time. I think in due time the case of MJ will be clearer, because the lack of actually credible evidence will drown out the few money chasers from time to time and speaks for itself.

@patriceaqa288

4 ай бұрын

​@@zxbc1Louis admitted he was charmed, manipulated and won over by savile. That's a pretty hard thing for anyone to admit

Louis Theroux had such a crush on MJ. Well, MJ was only interested in women. Boohoo to silly old man Louis!

He said "I believe" without seeming to have dug in the criminal cases, testimonies and etc. regarding Michael Jackson. He just believes.

@jonblazeinc

11 ай бұрын

Louis is a moron....like most of those who believe MJ really did what the accusations said without doing their own research

@OneEyedWheeler

10 ай бұрын

He literally used the phrase, "if you dig into it..." which suggests very much to me that he, a researcher and maker of documentaries, has dug into it. Are you sure you're not just defending a man who shared his bed with several boys because you like his music?

@jonblazeinc

10 ай бұрын

@OneEyedWheeler here we go .....think about it most if not all predators would actually hide what they are doing, if MJ did it do you think he would be stupid enough to openly admit kids sleep in his bed ? This is how dumb haters are. Also what makes you think Louis has looked extensively into MJ case? Because he's a reporter it means nothing. Has Louis made any documentary about MJ? Not to my knowledge. Look you don't have to like MJ but look into evidence on both sides , and ask yourself why so many holes in the accusers cases. End of day MJ was cleared if he was meant to go down there would have been enough solid evidence to bring him down

@assifrau

10 ай бұрын

​@@OneEyedWheeler Leaving Netherland is the prosecution side, now compare it with the accusers changing stories of their testimonies of their ongoing civil suits against the Jackson Estate they are suing. (Did u notice that this film was propaganda? There is manipulation in sound and image in order to convince the public) Robson and Safechuck also had the opportunity not only to sue while Jackson was alive but had 2 specic occasions in 1993 and 2005 to come forward and if what they say is true, put an alleged child molester in jail. Instead they defended him (Robson even as an adult in court under cross examination). Just after Jacksons death and money problems, they are telling their story with many inconsistencies and proven lies. I see credibility issues and have my doubts. (official testimonies, Lies of leaving Netherland). If Jackson was alive, HBO would not have taken the risk to do this film because, he had legal grounds to sue them. But because he is dead, they walked through with whatever agenda they have had. Jackson has lived an unique life and was an unique person in unique circumstances including D.A. Sneddon, a judical system which failed him (First in 1993, and then 2005 even though acquitted, but with a weak case like this no other person would have been dragged to court) and the money/sensational hungry mass media operating without journalistic integrity. In my country the judical system is different, here jackson would have been able to only have a criminal case in 1993, no civil case before a criminal one which he thought he had to ge rid of to get to the criminal one. (More insights: Documentary Square One) The allegations (Chandler, Arvizo, and now those guys) cannot be compared 1:1 with the neighbour Joe or Caren. Makes no sense to me. Instead of going to the police, all accusers went to a civil lawyer first. To have a better understanding of the cases the defense side is also very important. The prosecution (Sneddon) talked about little boys, the defense about families, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, girls, boys, fathers, mothers and so on who also slept in Jacksons private area in his house. In the Chandler and Arvizo case there also was no incriminating evidence. The FBI was also assisting in the 1993 and 2005 cases. Important to highlight is that Jordy Chandlers description of Jacksons penis was wrong otherwise Jackson would have been charged at the very least. He never was. The Arvizo case was just a weak mess. Sneddon himself said that he believed Arvizo without further investigation (but threw allegation after allegation at Jackson with an overconstructed case ) just presenting the case in court. The Us judical system shows to me in both Jackson cases that there have been serious problems in the system. Balance and checks of power? Jackson was a walking 1billion fortune and human. The brand still has a lot of value but he is dead. I think Michaels crime was being too nice and maybe somewhat naive in some occasions. I tend to be more on the innocent side after looking at both sides in every case. Just my opinion, in the end I of course do not know 100%.

@ekscentar1

10 ай бұрын

​​@@jonblazeincwhat you cannot accept is that MJ REALLY WAS very stupid. He had no formal education and could not express himself in ordinary conversation at all. His vocabulary was super poor, so in all the interviews he just threw out the sleazy phrases he heard along the way. He read nothing but picture books for children and was convinced that it was up to him only to live his life as he pleased, and for everything else he paid professionals. Yes, he was VERY STUPID!

Money jiggle

@samanshafiezadeh7155

7 ай бұрын

specially for LOUIS .cause he is making money by talking about a dead proven innocent person .

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

2 ай бұрын

@@samanshafiezadeh7155 Michael isn't a "dead person proven innocent." The verdict was "Not Guilty". Big difference.

Michael Jackson was innocent.

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

2 ай бұрын

No, he wasn't.

@pat0583

2 ай бұрын

@@kathleenmaclachlan1541 yes he was

@richardingamells7213

27 күн бұрын

​@@pat0583 Well his angel like attorney family members & close buddies/cronies swear blind he's innocent so of course he must be?! Oh to be so naive

@pat0583

26 күн бұрын

@@richardingamells7213 What are you saying. No one is making conclusions based on he said she saids

Poor excuse for a journalist, no knowledge of mj documentary and mates with saville

@claudia-Silva

Ай бұрын

False!

@antonellaluque4532

Ай бұрын

@@claudia-Silva your false

@claudia-Silva

Ай бұрын

@@antonellaluque4532 No as you, i am a real person.

Not a journalist. This hit piece was never a documentary. All lies. This man doesn’t even know what he’s talking about. Michael was innocent. Please let this man rest.

@kathleenmaclachlan1541

Ай бұрын

Clearly you're another one who hasn't done their research. If you had, you'd know already that Michael was guilty. So Good Luck with your research!

@macfonty

Ай бұрын

Give me 1 tiny shred of proof. You can’t. Because this man is and always was innocent.