The biggest proof that Michael Jackson was innocent — yes, you read the title correctly. What is it? The biggest proof of Michael Jackson's innocence is none other than his "detractors" themselves. Sounds cliché like something a typical fan of Jackson would say, since there is no other word better than "detractor" to use, and the only other word which could be used is "hater" (which is even worse...), "detractor" is the only word sufficient enough to use for this; "why are the "detractors" the biggest proof of Jackson's innocence? It doesn't make sense." Don't worry, it will once you read this article.
Eager For Guilt
Have you ever been so eager to have someone be guilty? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Apparently not for Jackson's "detractors" (is there really no other word better than this?). Jackson's "detractors" seem to be obsessed, if not preoccupied, with proving that Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation. So much so, they delve into the world of pedophilia just to prove the singer guilty. Allegedly, for them they aren't "haters" of the singer, which appears to be potently false — to claim you don't hate someone whom you want to be a pedophile, to which the degrees you take are making whole accounts and websites just to slander, is just blatantly contradictory in terms of what they say.
What is the proof? According to the most known Jackson hate sites, is none other than "MJFacts", which had lingered since before 2009 (from 1995, though it seems hard to believe), remains an active website in trashing the singer's name by portraying him as a pedophile by using none other than inflammatory stories and the prosecution's motions from Michael Jackson's molestation trial in 2005. Anyways, how do they have relevance within the topic being discussed? Well, see the following picture and you'll see:
So it's sad and pathetic to love a celebrity you have never met, it's also sad and pathetic to hate a celebrity you have never met, according to "MJFacts". Let's add some to this — it's also sad and pathetic to make a whole website slandering a celebrity you never met. Expressing an opinion? And a whole entire website since 1993 (copyright) is necessary for that? Most will express their opinion on Michael Jackson by simply passing a comment or two when asked about him with whom they discuss with — but apparently it's needed to conspire a whole website since 1993 to express an opinion.
How's this proof of innocence? In a very, very indirect way is this a proof of Jackson's innocence. Once thoroughly examined though, it's easy to see this. If Michael Jackson were say, truly guilty of sexually abusing children; then why would a whole website (billions of them out there) be needed to prove his guilt, if it were just obvious? Frankly, even if it weren't obvious, there still wouldn't be a need to do so. You don't see a website on Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Cosby, or even the exploits of David Bowie either — it's just Michael Jackson.
Was Michael Jackson guilty? After research, the answer remains not guilty — how about for others? For them, the answer is not researched and instead, answered with innuendo, mistruth, manipulation, and speculation. Using the same ol' speculations and mistruths seem to be the favorite activity of the "detractors" of Jackson. There's nothing on these websites which cannot be debunked, denied, & refuted with basic evidence. If you do visit these websites; however, it won't seem this easy to debunk information without advanced knowledge of the cases of Michael Jackson. These websites are very glib in how they write presented information, and if you read all the articles on the website, it's easy to tell that these people rely heavily on the same points, which leads to the next point of this article.
The Same Points
Blah, blah, blah — anything else? The exact same points are relied on when making assumptions about Jackson's alleged guilt are used on these websites. If you want to visit these websites, keep in mind the following points when considering their information and credibility:
These same points are used on these websites, creating a pattern of information used by these "detractors". For instance, the 1994 settlement paid to Jordan Chandler is somehow a proof of Jackson's guilty, despite the massive evidence contributed to proving the opposite. Child erotica? Really? If Jackson owned something which was that sexual in nature pertaining to children, he would've been arrested and cuffed, and instead of flashy and fancy suits, Jackson would be dressed up in a jumpsuit. Owning books among thousands of other books in an enormous library somehow proves Jackson's guilt. Sharing his bed? How many times does this have to be explained? Just click the link in the parentheses.
If Jackson lied about other things in his life, say the amount of plastic surgery he had, or his private life, or his children — this doesn't mean he is lying when he is defending himself and denying the allegations of child molestation made against him, does it? After all, everyone has the right to privacy. If someone doesn't want to discuss the amount of cosmetic operations they had on their face, then so be it. Just because Jackson was a celebrity, keep in mind this important point — he was a man, entitled to his very own privacy, same as everyone else. Besides, it's very visible when Jackson is lying about something, and it shows on his face. For the allegations, it's obvious that he was not lying when denying the allegations.
Befriending boys who looked like "handsome models" is a common theme among Jackson's "detractors" who prove his guilt. However, there's several things wrong with calling all the young boys whom Jackson befriended "handsome models"; for starters, Google the name "Dave Dave", and realize that he was not a model, and 99% of his body was burnt by his father. Ryan White, not a model and a victim of AIDs, a disease which at the time, nobody would dare encounter a victim who suffered from this. Gavin Arvizo, with no offense, was also not a model whom Jackson befriended, and was an average and normal young boy who unfortunately suffered from rare types of cancer, which makes him not a model. Just because some of the boys which Jackson befriended were exceptionally "handsome" when they were young, doesn't make Jackson a pedophile.
As for young boys and befriending — countless examples could be given to prove that Jackson was friends with both sexes, and did not limit his friendship with children to young boys. Jackson befriended several young females, and some examples which could be given are Kellie Parker, Nicole Richie, Quinn Culkin, Lily Cascio, and many others. When Jackson was friends with young boys, he often befriended their entire families (*with some exceptions). Brett Barnes, Jordan Chandler, Omer Bhatti, Macaulay Culkin, Frank Cascio and more, were all Jackson's friends whom he was friends with the whole family.
Why Michael Jackson?
To this point, why Michael Jackson? Why is it always Jackson who is the poster boy and under scrutiny for things, be it plastic surgery, skin color, or what society would call, "odd" behavior. It's always Jackson. Nobody questioned Mick Jagger for the cosmetic operations he had on his face, or the enormous amounts of makeup which David Bowie put on. Instead, Jackson became the poster boy for weird, odd, freakish, alienated, and eccentric. The above mentioned examples are completely relevant when questioning the double standards of society, when it comes to Michael Jackson. Other people are free to do what they like with their faces, but when it comes to Michael Jackson, he apparently cannot visit Steve Hofflin, the Beverly Hills plastic surgeon for a nose job.
Michael Jackson's "Detractors"
So why not express opinions and have discussion on every single celebrity there is? Why is it just Michael Jackson featured on those sites, after all, he is deceased? But apparently, it's only Jackson who is discussed for his pedophilia allegations, despite other pedophilia crimes being committed but being ignored because of their "worthless appeal" compared to the crimes alleged against Jackson. For some, it's interesting to dwell into the world of Jackson's "epic secret relationships with young boys". So once again, why don't other celebrities warrant the same speculation when they do things, other than Michael Jackson? It's always Jackson.
Here's some examples:
Believe it or not, there are plenty more websites doing the exact same thing. Why? This doesn't make sense, and there's no way to put this and explain. However, if websites dedicated to exposing a deceased singer doesn't seem odd, then what does? Apparently, discussing a deceased pop star and the allegations made against him are something which websites should be constructed for.
The Allegations Just Keep Comin'
Piles of stories and allegations keep coming up against Jackson from "detractors" and documentaries made about the singer. It seems as if Jackson cannot be respected for the many good things he did, and instead the allegations of pedophilia for which he was acquitted for, are still brought up as the relevant topic when Jackson is spoken of. From Martin Bashir's documentary in 2003, "Living with Michael Jackson", to Dan Reed's documentary in 2019 "Leaving Neverland", the docs just keep piling up against Jackson. When was there an actual fairly presented production in favor of Jackson broadcasted on an international and relevant level the way these were. As for Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who keep adding up to the pile of allegations against Jackson, it seems that Jackson is the 'only option' for gaining money.
The Biggest Proof of Michael Jackson's Innocence
So what's the biggest proof of Michael Jackson's innocence? Well, some would dispute over this. However, the care which Jackson truly had for children seems to be the biggest proof of his innocence. Jackson revealed his true intention behind his comeback concert "This is It", and why he was friends with children, in privately recorded tapes by Conrad Murray, who recorded Jackson in secrecy who wanted to gain something to blackmail Jackson with.
Here is an excerpt from the tapes:
Courtesy of "Vindicate MJ" for the transcripts
MJ: Elvis didn’t do it. Beatles didn’ t do it. We have to be phenomenal. When people leave this show, when people leave my show, I want them to say, “I’ve never seen nothing like this in my life. Go. Go. I’ve never seen nothing like this. Go. It’s amazing. He’s the greatest entertainer in the world”.
That, is the biggest proof that Michael Jackson was innocent.