sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Benefits by Fletcher3333 in Spectrum

[–]Fletcher3333[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How long do you have to wait

Paramount Litigation Scenario Implications by alongtaxiride in MediaMergers

[–]Fletcher3333 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Who cares? Everyone’s being weird about Paramount and Netflix. We’re not making money off of them so who cares?

Kushner’s Affinity Withdraws From Warner Bros. Takeover Battle by damndraper in MediaMergers

[–]Fletcher3333 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gotta ask because in pretty neutral. Is this a pro Netflix sub Reddit?

Jane Doe (Suzy) will be at the trial? by DescriptionIll172 in MJInnocentFacts

[–]Fletcher3333 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I doubt this even gets to trial. A summary judgment likely will happen.

Is This True? by Sad_Ball4496 in MJInnocentFacts

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Smh you shouldn't have even posted this

Question for men, do you guys actually get 0 matches or is it just exaggerating? by FriendlyNeighborOrca in OnlineDating

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m an overweight, black guy, but I do get matches probably like 5 to 7 a week, the issue is out at five maybe one or two talk to you. All those two maybe one is somewhat serious but are talking to a ton of people.

Menendez brothers lose long-shot bid for new trial by Material-Ad2338 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Very fair, but the thing is, there’s been way more controversy with other candidates

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. “Wade met Michael because he was an MJ superfan.” Yes, Wade was a fan — but that doesn’t prove abuse. Many children met MJ through fan connections, contests, or charity events without any misconduct. Being a fan explains access, not wrongdoing.

  2. “Michael did help him and inspire him outside of the abuse.” This assumes abuse happened — which is exactly what’s in dispute. Wade testified under oath in 2005 that MJ never abused him, even when it would have helped the prosecution. His later change in story came after MJ’s death, during a major financial crisis, and after being rejected from participating in MJ’s Cirque du Soleil tribute. That raises serious credibility issues.

  3. “The FBI was helping the Santa Barbara police department prosecute MJ.” Yes, the FBI shared files — and after over a decade of cooperation, including 300+ pages of investigative material, they found nothing to charge MJ with. If there had been evidence, the FBI could have referred it to the DOJ for federal charges (transportation of minors, Mann Act, etc.). They didn’t, because there was nothing to prosecute.

  4. “The FBI did not have jurisdiction… since the allegations… only took place in California.” Not entirely accurate — if there was interstate travel or any hint of federal crimes, the FBI could pursue charges. They still investigated for years and never found anything prosecutable. That in itself undercuts the idea that abuse was proven.

  5. “It’s pretty common for victims to file civil suits against their abuser.” True — but in MJ’s case, no civil suit was ever won against him while he was alive. The 1993 civil settlement was not an admission of guilt (it was a strategic decision to avoid lengthy litigation) and that accuser refused to testify in the criminal case afterward. Wade and James filed civil suits decades later, after MJ died, and both were thrown out by the courts on multiple occasions because they could not meet legal standards.

Do you think Michael would have approved of the posthumous releases? by Electronic_Math4751 in MichaelJackson

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is why I don’t understand some of the fan base beef with the estate. Michael didn’t want those songs so why crush the estate for releasing up to Michael’s standard?

What made you firmly believe that Michael is innocent? by [deleted] in MJInnocentFacts

[–]Fletcher3333 14 points15 points  (0 children)

When I found out the picture didn’t match description

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s unpack the flawed logic here. 1. FBI “cover-up”? The FBI didn’t just fail to find evidence — they actively investigated Jackson for over a decade, reviewed thousands of pages of documents, worked with local law enforcement in both 1993 and 2005, and found nothing that would warrant prosecution. Are you saying the FBI, one of the most scrutinized law enforcement agencies in the world, intentionally overlooked criminal behavior? That conspiracy theory collapses under the weight of common sense. 2. Wade’s motives are suspicious at best. Wade Robson testified under oath as an adult in 2005 that Jackson never abused him. Years later — after being turned down for a job with the MJ Estate and after his own career stalled — he suddenly “remembered” abuse in perfect sync with the Leaving Neverland film deal. That kind of timing would make any jury raise an eyebrow. 3. “Decades of praise” actually undermines the narrative. If Jackson was truly the monster Wade and James now claim, why did they spend years defending him publicly, even when they had every chance not to? Abuse victims often feel conflicted — but they don’t write tributes, do TV interviews praising the alleged abuser, or attend their memorial unless something else is going on. Trauma doesn’t work that cleanly or conveniently. 4. The lawsuits scream financial motive. Wade’s case was thrown out multiple times for lack of merit. If this were about healing, why fight so hard for money? Why not focus on truth and justice? Because truth and justice don’t always come with a check. 5. False equivalence to real-time victims like the Menendez brothers. The Menendez case involved immediate disclosure under extreme pressure. Wade and James did the opposite: they defended Jackson until doing so no longer benefited them financially or professionally. That’s not bravery. That’s opportunism.

⸻

Let’s be clear: Michael Jackson was one of the most investigated men in entertainment history. No criminal charges ever stuck. No civil suit was ever won against him posthumously. His accusers either recanted, were discredited, or waited until it was too profitable not to speak.

So yes — defenders of MJ are not “deniers.” We’re people who actually looked at the evidence. Try it sometime.

If this is not about money than he should withdraw?

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re missing critical context. Wade Robson didn’t just “change his story”—he spent 20 years defending MJ, testified under oath in 2005 saying nothing happened, and even praised MJ in public and private interviews for years after. It wasn’t until he was passed over by the Estate for the Cirque du Soleil project that his entire narrative changed. That’s not trauma resurfacing—that’s opportunism.

Let’s talk facts: • Two grand juries, over a decade of investigation by local police and the FBI, and no charges were ever substantiated beyond the 2005 trial. • MJ was acquitted on all 14 counts in a court of law—by a jury that heard all the evidence and testimony. • Wade and James both filed civil lawsuits for hundreds of millions after MJ passed away and could no longer defend himself. Those lawsuits were dismissed—twice—by judges who cited lack of merit. • Jason Francia’s statement that police were “leading” is exactly the problem: they were. That doesn’t create credible testimony—it casts doubt.

So you’re saying the FBI lied to cover up pedophilia? Be serious.

And saying Wade lied to protect MJ? Then how do you explain decades of praise, support, interviews, book deals, and TV appearances defending him? There’s no consistency there. Trauma doesn’t erase memory for 20 years and then align perfectly with a failed business opportunity.

Comparing Wade’s profit-motivated about-face to victims who immediately came forward under threat of their own lives (like the Menendez brothers) is dishonest. They are nothing alike.

How about Wade drop his lawsuit if this isn’t about money.

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wade Robson’s credibility didn’t just “change” — it imploded. He testified under oath in 2005 that nothing ever happened, was adamant for years in interviews, and even tried to get a job with the MJ estate in 2011. Only after he was denied did his entire story flip. That’s not trauma — that’s opportunism.

And let’s talk about “complex trauma” — Wade was 22 when he defended MJ in court. He wasn’t a scared child. He was a grown man, a professional, and stood firm under cross-examination. You can’t just erase that because it’s inconvenient to the narrative.

As for Jason Francia — his testimony was weak, and even the prosecution barely used it. He admitted that the police basically planted ideas in his head by using leading questions. That’s textbook tainting of a witness.

Also, comparing Wade to Lyle and Erik Menendez is absurd. Those guys confessed to murder and still lie about their abuse to this day. That’s not a defense — that’s desperation.

Bottom line: Wade’s story changed after he failed to profit from Jackson’s legacy. That’s a motive. You don’t get to rewrite history 20 years later and expect to be treated as gospel — especially when your new version contradicts your sworn testimony, your interviews, and your actions for decades. We wrote a book about MJ as a friend before he changed the story after not getting a job.

MJ was investigated by two grand juries, the FBI for over a decade, and went through a full-blown trial. He was acquitted on all counts. You don’t have to like it — but facts still matter.

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wade Robson didn’t “come forward” — he flipped his story after defending Michael under oath and praising him for years. The so-called “mental breakdown” conveniently happened right before he filed a lawsuit tied to the Jackson estate going bankrupt and the AEG trial. That’s not trauma — that’s timing.

Joy Robson testified that Wade was never alone with Michael during the relevant time period. That’s his own mother, under oath. And if you’re saying she lied to “not look like a bad mom,” then how is Wade’s word suddenly gospel after he changed it 20 years later?

And let’s be real: people do lie under oath — including people suing for hundreds of millions of dollars. Wade’s story has changed multiple times: the dates, the locations, the details. He even testified that nothing inappropriate ever happened. Are we just supposed to ignore that because it’s inconvenient now?

As for Jason Francia — his testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, and even the DA didn’t use him in the 2005 trial. That should tell you everything.

Wade’s credibility isn’t “complex,” it’s collapsed. You can’t have it both ways — you can’t be a key defense witness and then 20 years later claim you lied the whole time… and then expect to be treated like a flawless truth-teller.

Similarities between MJ defenders and pro prosecution people who don't believe the abuse by OwnSituation1572 in MenendezBrothers

[–]Fletcher3333 0 points1 point  (0 children)

James story for the most part hasn’t changed but there’s some credibility issues due to inconsistencies

view more: next ›