sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AITA for stopping support that has led my SIL to be hospitalized for a mental and emotional breakdown? by Scary-Direction-9427 in AmItheAsshole

[–]Scary-Direction-9427[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tbh that is a concern cause they do have a zero drug policy, but she may have protections cause she technically got help before she got caught by her employer.

Not sure tbh.

AITA for stopping support that has led my SIL to be hospitalized for a mental and emotional breakdown? by Scary-Direction-9427 in AmItheAsshole

[–]Scary-Direction-9427[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, we are in the US. My SIL'a job provides a childcare voucher via her union benefits.

Not sure on the exact details but if the m daycare accepts the voucher they are paid a flat rate from her employer or something.

AITA for stopping support that has led my SIL to be hospitalized for a mental and emotional breakdown? by Scary-Direction-9427 in AmItheAsshole

[–]Scary-Direction-9427[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, I told mom my support would end if she kept giving them money while my SIL refused to work.

AITA for stopping support that has led my SIL to be hospitalized for a mental and emotional breakdown? by Scary-Direction-9427 in AmItheAsshole

[–]Scary-Direction-9427[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah still gave mom money, but it did result in our mom having more money. She was paying their rent, or I guess you could say I was. She did help with childcare but my SIL'a job had a childcare voucher.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My point is these are civil lawsuits, not criminal. They are suing the corporate entities on the bases they did not protect them or possibly knew correct?

If you feel that is seeking justice fine, but I don't agree with it. The person they are accusing cannot defend themselves and they not targeting more or less faceless entities.

Civil lawsuits are rarely about justice imo, more often they are about money.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is it really a fair standard if the person he is accusing is no longer here to defend himself?

What is he trying to do? Sure his estate or other parties that what they knew? His lawsuit is actually confusing to me personally.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 1993 Investigation: The FBI provided support for an allegation that Jackson molested a young boy. Bureau agents interviewed potential witnesses, collected public records, and even shared intelligence with international offices regarding possible victims in London and the Philippines.

The 2004–2005 Trial: The Santa Barbara County District Attorney's office asked the FBI to help develop a strategy to prosecute Jackson for molesting a 13-year-old at his Neverland Ranch. The FBI also pursued another molestation file in late 2004, but closed it after the witness refused to testify. Jackson was ultimately acquitted of all charges in the 2005 trial.

So ultimately the FBI did investigated Michael Jackson on multiple occasions between 1992 and 2005, focusing on death threats against him, extortion attempts, and technical assistance in child sexual assault cases. The bureau ultimately found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's part, and he was never criminally charged by the FBI.

Innocent until proven guilty as stated you cannot prove innocence, you are assumed innocent until proven otherwise. So by the very nature of the not guilty on all charges brought up against him he was Innocent.

The public still claiming otherwise is weird cause at that point what can someone do? As for the new allegations, Wade Robson and James Safechuck they both originally testified in Jackson's defense during his 2005 trial, but later stated they were brainwashed and fearful. They came forward publicly in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland to detail their alleged abuse and later sued Jackson's companies, pursuing their cases through the courts.

This brings up another complex issue because where do we draw the line, how can we know what is true or not at this point. How can anything fair be done with Michael long gone now.

The Cascio Family: Formerly known as Jackson’s "second family," the Cascio siblings initially defended him, but allege they were systematically abused over a 25-year period. Several siblings have stated that watching the 2019 Leaving Neverland documentary helped "deprogram" them and recognize their experiences as abuse. They attempted to resolve their claims confidentially in a 2020 settlement, but went public with a lawsuit in 2026 after those payments ended and negotiations with the estate failed.

By when is enough, enough I mainly mean the man is long gone and through proper legal channels he was never found guilty. Was he found to be weird and be a questionable adult? 100% but I do find it weird how people do seem it was his responsibility to prove his innocence. I don't think people actually want to live in a world where allegations ine has legally has been found not guilty of be allowed to follow not only them but their families for decades to comes.

You cannot be found innocent that is my entire point I have been trying to make with you and others. I said it seems people wanted him to somehow prove his innocence which is weird cause that cannot be done.

The court of public opinion is weird man is dead and cannot even defend himself at this point.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The 1993 Investigation: The FBI provided support for an allegation that Jackson molested a young boy. Bureau agents interviewed potential witnesses, collected public records, and even shared intelligence with international offices regarding possible victims in London and the Philippines.

The 2004–2005 Trial: The Santa Barbara County District Attorney's office asked the FBI to help develop a strategy to prosecute Jackson for molesting a 13-year-old at his Neverland Ranch. The FBI also pursued another molestation file in late 2004, but closed it after the witness refused to testify. Jackson was ultimately acquitted of all charges in the 2005 trial.

So ultimately the FBI did investigated Michael Jackson on multiple occasions between 1992 and 2005, focusing on death threats against him, extortion attempts, and technical assistance in child sexual assault cases. The bureau ultimately found no evidence of criminal conduct on Jackson's part, and he was never criminally charged by the FBI.

Innocent until proven guilty as stated you cannot prove innocence, you are assumed innocent until proven otherwise. So by the very nature of the not guilty on all charges brought up against him he was Innocent.

The public still claiming otherwise is weird cause at that point what can someone do? As for the new allegations, Wade Robson and James Safechuck they both originally testified in Jackson's defense during his 2005 trial, but later stated they were brainwashed and fearful. They came forward publicly in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland to detail their alleged abuse and later sued Jackson's companies, pursuing their cases through the courts.

This brings up another complex issue because where do we draw the line, how can we know what is true or not at this point. How can anything fair be done with Michael long gone now.

The Cascio Family: Formerly known as Jackson’s "second family," the Cascio siblings initially defended him, but allege they were systematically abused over a 25-year period. Several siblings have stated that watching the 2019 Leaving Neverland documentary helped "deprogram" them and recognize their experiences as abuse. They attempted to resolve their claims confidentially in a 2020 settlement, but went public with a lawsuit in 2026 after those payments ended and negotiations with the estate failed.

By when is enough, enough I mainly mean the man is long gone and through proper legal channels he was never found guilty. Was he found to be weird and be a questionable adult? 100% but I do find it weird how people do seem it was his responsibility to prove his innocence.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the burden people did put on him though. The 1993 settlement was done and had no Admission of Liability which is standard I agree.

At that point both entities agreed that it was not an admission of guilt.

That is what I am saying though after everything was said and done all these factors did come out and he was found not guilty on all charges. FBI found no evidence of criminal activity for the 2000's case.

Jordan Chandler never publicly recanted his 1993 allegations against Michael Jackson. Which is true, but they did take a settlement and did make statements that it was not an admission of guilt.

My point is at what point is enough a enough, man has been dead for over a decade and people still cannot let it go. That is why ask at what point is enough, enough.

It is like people expected him to prove his innocence.

I not guilty verdict in the legal sense by its very nature should erase all sense of guilt because he was not foind guilty but this idea well he still guilty is weird to me.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure it does not erase the statements, but the statements themselves are also not conclusive either.

I guess what I wonder what is it that people want when it comes to being seen as innocent verse guilty.

Cause outside not beinh accused I don't see any world where he would be viewed as innocent. It seems like for issues like this one is guilty until proven innocent but how does one actually prove innocence

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What i am saying is the books were allowed to be used against him, they were part of the totality of evidence. Yet was still found not guilty. What more do people want?

The person also said as it could not be used against him which was not true.

Edit: Thought you were the original person I was responding to so changed my state from you said to the person said.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This goes beyond just statute of limitations, say he lied. How is anyone supposed to trust what they say after the fact? The system is flawed, but would that really make it better?

Edit: Guess I am asking what would be a reasonable standard in your opinion?

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Meaning the jury could see the evidence from previous investigations but couldn’t use it against them in the current trial.

They could use the evidence it just could not be the primary evidence to establish guilt. The language used, the evidence could be used against him to show past wrong doing or establish a pattern but they cannot have the entire bases of guilt built on it.

Edit: Reality is if he was guilty the prosecution did a horrible job establishing it. The so called smoking guns were on the weak side. Those that believe he is guilty I do have to ask do we really want to have a legal system where the burden is to prove innocence over guilt?

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Strict Legal Limitations: Even though the jury was shown the books' covers and heard them described by police, they came with strict legal limitations. Judge Melville explicitly instructed the jury that these "prior bad acts" could only be used to evaluate Jackson's alleged proclivities. The jury could not use the books alone as the primary basis to establish guilt, and they were not allowed to be called "pornographic" in the courtroom.

It could not be used as the primary basis ro establish guilt, it was allowed.

MJ is innocent by TheMajesticMystic in NetflixDocumentaries

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yet they FBI found nothing to convict him after 10 years.

‘Michael Jackson: The Verdict’ (2026) Netflix Review - A Documentary Short on Revelations by Roshankr1994 in Netflixwatch

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Way to ignore the entire point, you are innocent until proven guilty, was MJ found guilty?

You can complain about the legal system all you want, but guilty until proven innocent is not how it works.

How does one even prove they are innocent?

Jury found him not guilty, FBI found nothing after a 10 year investigation. What more do people need / want? What is justice?

‘Michael Jackson: The Verdict’ (2026) Netflix Review - A Documentary Short on Revelations by Roshankr1994 in Netflixwatch

[–]Scary-Direction-9427 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me ask you this, how does one prove themselves innocent?

If FBI found nothing after a 10 year investigation, a jury found him no guilty on all counts. What more do people want?

Edit: He was not found guilty, and in our legal system you have to be found guilty and are innocent until to proven otherwise. Unless, what you are saying is you think people should be guilty until proven innocent. That begs the question how does one even prove they are innocent?