[user104658]

What's interesting is that the "everyone just wants money" defense has been used repeatedly - in every single accusation - for now nearly 30 years. It's become the stock line to dismiss anything anyone has to say negatively about MJ... Ever since that very first out of court settlement.

But like the "piece of work" director said in the GMB interview - who gives a supposedly lying-through-his-teeth 13 year old boy $22 million? Even for Jackson, that's not chump change. That's the sort of money you pay to make a problem go away. They did NOT want the Jordan Chandler case to go to court, but people (fans) refuse to even question why that would be.

They ignore that there wasn't "no evidence" in the 2005 case, and that it wasn't simply thrown out easily; the jurors were extremely conflicted but ultimately the physical evidence was lacking. They ignore that Wade Robson was the key witness in throwing doubt on some of that other evidence and that if he had said now what he's saying today, Jackson may well have been convicted. They tell themselves that people who change their stories "must just be liars", with apparently zero understanding of how long it can take an abuse survivor to process what was done to them.

They also insist that the claims have recently been "thrown out of court" despite it being easy to find the information on these recent lawsuits; they have been dismissed on technicalities involving the length of time since MJ's death, and contention over whether or not the management company can be held liable for the acts of the individual. They have NOT been deemed false claims.


But more than anything, you can tell from the incredulous, mocking tone of most of MJ's defenders that they simply don't want to believe it and will find a reason not to regardless.

I understand people saying "there's no hard evidence so I'm not willing to condemn him". But I don't understand people who are adamant that he DIDN'T do it, especially given the fact that there's no hard proof of his innocence either (yes, I know that's not how it works legally, but we're talking opinions here not convictions). The balance of probability is that he engaged in some very suspect activity but yes its based mainly on witness statement. So being on the fence, sure. Anyone "totally sure" of his innocence though can only possibly have their own reasons for not wanting to even consider it.