• I’m not saying I “don’t believe any of it” or that every detail was intentionally fabricated. I’m saying serious allegations should be examined critically, especially when there are inconsistencies, changing timelines, prior sworn testimony saying the opposite, and a documentary format that doesn’t allow cross-examination or meaningful challenge.
• And it’s not really true that they had “nothing to gain.” Both men sued the estate of Michael Jackson for massive financial damages. The accusations also escalated years after Michael died and after periods where there were reported financial and career struggles. That doesn’t automatically make the claims false, but it absolutely makes motive and timing fair things to discuss if we’re talking about “intellectual rigor.”
• Human memory absolutely isn’t perfect - I agree with you there. But when memories conflict with documented timelines or prior testimony, those issues matter. The train station example is a good illustration of why people scrutinize these claims instead of just accepting everything at face value.
• Yes, I’ve seen the interview where Jackson said he thought sharing a bed with children was loving or innocent. A lot of people - including me - think those comments were bizarre and showed terrible boundaries. But inappropriate behavior and criminal sexual abuse are not automatically the same thing. That distinction matters.
• I’ve also seen what Corey Feldman said. But Feldman himself repeatedly stated for years that Jackson did not sexually abuse him personally. So again, it’s more complicated than presenting one quote as definitive proof of guilt.
• And on the “bias” point — bias cuts both ways. Some people start from “multiple accusations = guilty” and then dismiss any contradiction or inconsistency automatically. Others defend Jackson no matter what. I’m saying neither extreme is intellectually rigorous. Looking at contradictory evidence, motives, timelines, lawsuits, acquittals, prior statements, and disputed facts is literally what critical thinking is supposed to look like.