r/interesting • u/BroadCap6161 • Sep 17 '26
Mysterious Letter from Michael Jackson to a 12yo girl
2.1k
Sep 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
919
u/Ok_Slide4905 Sep 17 '26
Can’t believe the Monopoly King would say such things
343
u/muted_physics77 Sep 18 '26
straight to jail
105
11
44
u/ant-farm-keyboard Sep 17 '26
Mr. Monocle Moneybags, no!!
18
u/TrumpsFaceAnus Sep 18 '26
Monopoly Man never had a monocle! Mandela Effect.
13
u/astralchanterelle Sep 18 '26
There's no "effect". People just confused one cartoon character logo for another, both wore top hats, Mr. Peanut and the Monopoly man. Nothing supernatural in this universe.
18
u/theCynicalChicken 29d ago
I dunno, do you know how many of us would've sworn under oath that the Fruit of the Loom logo used to have a cornucopia in it, even though it (supposedly) never has?
→ More replies (6)10
u/plantastic420 29d ago
My mum used to buy me multi packs of fruit of the loom t-shirts when I was a kid in the 80s because they were cheap. I'm sure I remember the cornucopia too,infact I'm adamant there was one.
→ More replies (1)3
u/theCynicalChicken 29d ago
I was adamant too! But I saw someone post about how we all have this Mandela effect about the fruit of the loom logo and when I looked it up I can't find any actual examples of the logo with the cornucopia. Even fruit of the loom has stated there was never cornucopia. It's the weirdest thing!
→ More replies (2)7
u/NicoleNicole1988 29d ago
There is an effect, you just aren't someone who is experiencing it. And that's okay. Mind your business.
→ More replies (6)6
u/YcemeteryTreeY 29d ago
My dad was a cop and he always said people make the worst eyewitnesses, and this is so true. A huge portion of the population waa thrown off by a hat. A HAT is all it took to make a peanut look like a mustachioed white guy? and why do people remember the monocle but not the cane?
8
u/HabitAcceptable8621 29d ago
I had a personal experince that demonstrates how unreliable eye witnesses are.
I was walking down the street. I heard a skid and the sound if an impact behind me. I turned to look.
I "saw" the motorbike impact with car.
This is impossible and yet I have a clear visual memory of the moment of impact. My mind simply filled in the blanks in real time.
Having experienced this kind of false memory so clearly, makes me very skeptical of eye witness testimony.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Wooden_Ad1779 29d ago
In Germany there is a word for that: Knallzeuge, kind of sound witness. They hear the sound and then think they saw the accident. They are worthless in car accidents.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
46
u/BadahBingBadahBoom Sep 17 '26
I've heard the Michael Jackson accounts so many times over it's weird that now the only thing that piqued my interest was that.
Like was he just really good at Monopoly?
49
u/flapsmcgee Sep 17 '26
Probably not that hard against 12 year olds
47
u/Dicky_Penisburg Sep 18 '26
Uhhhh, I'm guessing it was pretty hard against 12 year olds.
→ More replies (1)23
14
6
18
u/keefkola Sep 17 '26
If they let him win they might not have to drink the sleepy juice.
5
11
2
3
6
2
u/Sufficient-Aspect77 29d ago
I thought it was signed by MonoPox. So at least that's not a thing yet. Just Monkey Pox
→ More replies (22)6
u/Linux_Account 29d ago
The final straw fir he was when he used the wrong form of "you're."
→ More replies (2)4
949
u/Shankar_0 Sep 17 '26
Am I the only one that hears that in MJ's voice?
453
u/ambasciatore Sep 17 '26
hee hee
82
u/NagsUkulele Sep 18 '26
Hee did that shit
29
→ More replies (4)17
u/Professional-Fun-838 29d ago
Yup. And it’s crazy to me that In Living Color was brave enough to call it out (even if couched in satire) when most news orgs at the time glossed over his weird behavior until the accusations came out in ‘93.
2
u/the2nddoctor111 23d ago
Always threw me for a loop that Jonathan Taylor Thomas was on In Living Color.
3
128
28
29
8
8
3
→ More replies (5)2
342
Sep 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)66
522
u/JayPlenty24 Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26
When I hear people make excuses like he was "childlike", or "innocent" because his maturity was stunted, and these are just "friendships", it irritates the hell out of me.
Even if you give him full benefit of the doubt, that doesn't make it any less damaging for the victims of these innapropriate relationships.
Even if there was truly no physical sexual assault, these are innapropriate relationships and it is not acceptable to treat a child like this.
When I was a companion for special needs adults I dropped one client after 3 days because she would touch herself, and touch other people, and her parent would let watch porn at the dinner table. When I explained I wasn't going to be sexually assaulted and their daughter would be a liability until they stopped infantilizing her and held her accountable they insisted there was nothing they could do about it. I told them she was clearly capable of following instructions and they hadn't told her "no" a single time over 3 days, and if she can search up pornography she's capable of cognitive functioning they insist she is not capable of.
A victim isn't less victimized because the perpetrator has a disability.
264
u/AndreLeGeant88 Sep 18 '26
He was so childlike and innocent when he engaged in complex business dealing, bought the Beatles catalogue out from under his supposed friend Paul McCartney, etc. It's amazing how the childlike nature only arose when he was around potential victims
→ More replies (8)15
u/fradrig 29d ago
I seriously doubt that he did any of his business himself. He had people for that kind of thing.
→ More replies (1)40
u/BeautifulTrue9968 29d ago
You should read some interviews where Quincy Jones talks about Michael Jackson. He makes clear that Jackson was incredibly astute and cunning and even cheated several songwriters out of having their names in some of his songs. He was definitely involved in business decisions.
29
100
u/Grape-Julius Sep 18 '26
Yep. And not one person supporting him would do the same if the “childlike, innocent, stunted” man was a balding guy named Harold running the local bowling alley. Fame and money blinds people.
6
u/Kaapnobatai 29d ago
Is this you, Harold?
8
u/Grape-Julius 29d ago
Oh, you know him? He had a rough upbringing, so pay no attention to his odd behavior. He’s just reliving the childhood he never had.
66
u/GreenFinch_x 29d ago
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!! THIS IS THE SAME THING IM ALWAYS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY START WITH THE "JUST A BIG KID" CRAP. INTENT < IMPACT. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT LITERALLY RAPING KIDS OR SNATCHING THEM INTO VANS DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE A SAFE ADULT OR NOT BEING HARMFUL AND INNAPROPRIATE!!!!!!!
Eta: Sorry for yelling. I feel very strongly about these things lol.
29
u/DamonTheAlboner 29d ago
NAH the yelling was needed nobody is grasping that a child having a “child” friendship with a full grown adult is NOT healthy!! 😭
14
6
18
u/sherehitewasright 29d ago
The thing with that is, people even tell toddlers to masturbate in private, not to touch others on certain body parts, in public and/or when they don't want to be touched, to especially be careful around adults and much older children, etc. They aren't even treating her like a 2 or 3 year old. It's very concerning.
7
u/JayPlenty24 29d ago edited 29d ago
My experience was that the majority of parents who have children with disabilities underestimated their adult children, or infantilized them in some way instead of treating them like an adult. But not even close to the degree that was happening in that home.
5
u/Pins89 27d ago
This is my stance- I don’t care if he physically touched them or not, he was a paedophile and he abused kids. Writing them love letters, spending hours on the phone with them like a lovesick teenager, buying them gifts and having sleepovers with them then dropping them like a sack of shit as soon as they were too old. These are all documented, proven things that he did. People who deny his nature are wilfully fucking ignorant and gross.
18
u/Evil_Sharkey Sep 18 '26
He seems to have thought of himself as a little kid doing stuff he probably learned as a kid, but, like you said, that doesn’t make a lick of difference to his victims. Even worse, it must have been a cruel betrayal for kids who idolized him.
18
u/Powerpuff_Bean 29d ago
The whole ‘childlike’ excuse people make are a load of BS. He specifically chose which children to groom and which ones not to. He was a very dangerous man who knew exactly what he was doing.
15
u/throw7661 29d ago edited 29d ago
Also....as someone with small children....this isn't how children communicate.
He's not asking her about her favorite color or if she wants to play Minecraft. He didn't make a friendship bracelet or draw her a picture.
Without any context, if someone gave me that letter, and asked me to guess the age of the author, it's going to be middle school or high school and it'd be very clear that they have romantic feelings for the girl.
Children, even teenagers, do not express platonic love or friendship like this.
11
u/summerlad86 29d ago
MJ fans and Chris brown fans are the worst in this department I think when it comes to excuses. It’s insane.
4
u/Holiday_Pool_9817 27d ago
Yes. If absolutely nothing else you are normalizing this behavior to them and eroding their ability to recognize dangerous behavior from other less “childlike” and “innocent” adults.
There’s no way to justify willfully confusing a child about what is safe and appropriate, in the name of getting the close relationship you as the adult want with them.
4
u/theslavesdream 29d ago
He was not blameless but neither were all the people around him who let him be like this. It upsets me how money seems to melt morals.
3
u/Long_Dragonfly_3067 28d ago
Many people around him told him to stop being around kids, and MJ ignored their advice and often distanced himself from them
2
2
u/Akeera 28d ago edited 28d ago
THANK YOU.
I worked at a hospital where one of the (adult) patients with mental disability was abusing one of her caretakers (her mother) while only showing angelic innocence to the other (her father) and was consistently turning them against the other. Her father used the patient's mental disability as the excuse for any bad behavior, but the fact that the patient could turn her behavior on a dime clearly meant she had the cognitive function to control herself in most situations.
A nurse saw the patient literally carve lines into her mother's arm with her nails, so it was extremely obvious physical along with verbal abuse.
I feel sad for the mother, because she clearly was so beaten down by the abuse + had such love for her family (or society's expectation of such) that it was clear she'd never leave. And it'll likely be for the rest of her life (or at least most of it) because her abuser is younger than her.
2
u/JayPlenty24 28d ago edited 28d ago
Yeah this woman would also randomly decide she wanted diapers. Not because she needed them. She could use the washroom just fine.
If her mom gave either sibling any attention she would start screaming to be diapered. It was clearly a power play, and she would smirk at her mom with her legs spread wide open. I made it clear I would not be participating in this. At one point when I was there her mom made her wait like 2 minutes to take a soiled diaper off her she took it off herself and literally threw her shit at her mom.
During my last conversation with them the father admitted to me that multiple professionals had suggest numerous therapies/programs but the mother refused and insisted the daughter wasn't capable and they were expecting too much from her. He was clearly at the end of his rope. He begged me to stay and talk more with his wife.
If their other two children had been younger I would have called CPS, because this was an incredibly abusive environment for them to be living in.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ewitsanewe 24d ago
Fully agree - especially with the SA allegations. Even if no SA happened (which nobody will ever get a clear answer on, since they’re isn’t any dna evidence that I’m aware of) he was still putting children in a position for them to be victimized by more nefarious groomers. He had a responsibility as an adult not to give in to his own desires of childishness and let the children around him keep and maintain healthy boundaries that would protect them as they grew up.
→ More replies (8)2
u/emmymoss 23d ago
So I finished listening to the Telephone Stories podcast about MJ's trials and I'm now 100% convinced he abused these kids sexually and he knew what he's doing - and nobody batted an eyelid because he "never had a childhood and was emotionally stunted", I would recommend that podcast to everyone.
494
u/MiserableFloor9906 Sep 17 '26
Would not pass scrutiny today because being mentally broken isn't an excuse to be grooming or worse.
412
u/Poster_Nutbag207 Sep 17 '26
Have you ever heard of the president of the United States?
85
u/HonestBudget1124 Sep 17 '26
You can now murder your three innocent children and get off the hook.
27
u/poeschmoe Sep 18 '26
Genuinely wondering, do you think this is the first case where a defendant who committed murder got a sentence of not guilty by reason of insanity? If you’re against it you’re against it, but you can’t act like it’s a new thing you can “now get off the hook” for.
→ More replies (3)87
u/fumblinthrulife77 Sep 17 '26
Because life in a mental asylum would be "getting off the hook"
→ More replies (2)8
Sep 17 '26
[deleted]
41
u/not_so_impressed Sep 17 '26 edited Sep 17 '26
Incorrect. There have been other cases like hers and even in states that have almost no official minimum requirement to remain institutionalized after such an act, the patients are STILL made to remain there for decades.
People who do these crimes and are found Not Guilty by reason of insanity still basically remain locked up for life.
Futhermore- L. Clancy is paralyzed from the chest down and therefore wouldn't have gone to a regular tough prison anyway if she had been found guilty. She would've been either assigned to a secure housing unit that's assigned for prisoners with severe health problems or to a medical unit that was converted into a prison for such prisoners. A regular infirmary at a prison would not be able to provide for her medical needs as the woman literally needs round the clock care.
→ More replies (12)3
u/Powerism Sep 18 '26 edited 29d ago
The national average for time spent institutionalized after an NGRI verdict is 5-7 years.
Edit: This source conflicts with the narrative, must downvote.
4
u/not_so_impressed Sep 18 '26 edited Sep 18 '26
Thank you for proving my point. 5-7 years is a really long average considering the fact that less than 15% of NGRI verdicts consist of murder.
5
u/Powerism Sep 18 '26
You said “People who do these crimes and are found Not Guilty by reason of insanity still basically remain locked up for life.”
How does a direct refutation of your point prove your point?
→ More replies (1)4
u/not_so_impressed Sep 18 '26 edited 29d ago
Do you understand the meaning of the word "average"? You obviously don't if you think what you said is a "direct refutation" instead of support.
Basic math: What do you think happens when you average out those who commit smaller crimes and get out earlier with those who commit more serious crimes and stay much longer? -especially when those who commit the more serious crimes and have much longer stays are in the minority?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (2)13
Sep 17 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)6
u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 Sep 18 '26
With a due respect. I really can appreciate what you do for these people but I’ve been an officer for 30 years. I’ve seen numerous former psychiatric patients in state institutions that were doing everything right and “responding to treatment “ to be released and commit even more heinous acts than what they were institutionalized for. Problem is that when they are doing really well they decided that they no longer need to see the clinicians or take their meds. Then they go right back to the same state or worse. They often attempt to self medicate and that compounds the problem. I am 100% sure that some absolutely succeed. The question though is at what risk to society do we release them? I can just about guarantee that if the attending psychiatrist, therapist or whomever has to make the recommendation had to house them in their home with their families for a year after release, the innocent by reason of insanity murdered wouldn’t be walking the streets again
→ More replies (18)6
2
29
u/glytxh Sep 18 '26
Being a billionaire seems to get you a free pass though. You can even become president of the United States! There’s a whole system designed to protect you from any potential legal ramifications of being a child molester
11
u/_joos_ Sep 18 '26
don't be ridiculous. only a society whose checks and balances have been completely corroded into a useless system that only punishes the poor would have something like that
38
u/mondaymoderate Sep 17 '26
People still defend his actions today. This dude would 100% be able to parade around a harem of little kids and you’d have millions of people defending his actions today.
8
u/RaspberryFluid6651 Sep 18 '26
A lot of people probably just don't have the real facts because of some of the media and publicity around the time that perspective became popular, they defend him because they still believe the narrative that he was more of a victim than someone who completed the cycle and became an abuser.
3
u/mazikeen_pi Sep 18 '26
Honestly I used to be on the fence about it but this photo officially pushed me off
13
u/luujs Sep 17 '26
Some people willingly bury their heads in the sand with all of the dodgy things Jackson did just because he was the most famous pop star alive. If anyone else without that fame and fanbase behaved the same way, even another beloved celebrity, there would be significantly less debate about whether a man who was known to have slept in the same bed as multiple young boys who later accused him of sexual abuse was very possibly a paedophile and not just a fully grown man with a childlike innocence who just really liked little boys. Platonically of course.
→ More replies (13)5
180
u/throwawaynnfuxanyway Sep 18 '26
Iirc netflix had some doc come out about him and everyone suddenly started supporting him and defending him. While he may have been emotionally stunted, so are a lot of child stars. It's brutal and sad,.but he didn't seek help. He sought comfort in children and that isn't okay. For anyone.
→ More replies (61)34
u/OkOriginal715 Sep 18 '26
Having lived through all the flavors of MJ, I’ve seen the tide of public opinion turn all directions, based on the leanings of the most recently released documentary. This newest Netflix doc has still shocked me, insofar as how much his popularity and support has been affected. It’s a brave new world.
11
u/Expert_Cautious 29d ago
Wait, why is he the Monopoly King??
3
u/andersin_ART 26d ago
...that's what you took away from this?
5
3
u/Expert_Cautious 26d ago
Haha no.. but I've never heard him referred to as the Monopoly King 😂 I've heard of all the other things he's been called
364
Sep 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
114
u/_Phil_McCracken_ Sep 17 '26
His whole trial was a debacle and made a farce of the court system. Really unfortunate that his victims never got any justice. Perfect example of the multi-tiered justice system. If he was a poor no-name he would have been found guilty after minimal deliberation.
27
u/Western_Control_5860 Sep 17 '26
How exactly was the trial a debacle? If you look into it, there was plenty of reasonable doubt in that case (e.g. accusing family had a history of making false allegations for financial gain, inconsistent testimony, a nonsensical timeline etc.). The jury rendered the correct verdict in my opinion.
→ More replies (3)36
u/_Phil_McCracken_ Sep 18 '26
I have looked into it quite a bit. First of all, it would be extremely difficult to find a jury of people that don’t already have opinions about Michael. He was the most famous person in the world. You have people that love him for his music and fame, before they hear a single argument in the case. Finding an impartial jury would be damn near impossible. Watching interviews with jurors after the fact, several of them seem nothing short of star-struck.
Secondly, the press coverage of the case was all consuming. It was covered by every major and local news outlet. You had crowds of MJ fans surrounding the court every day of the trial, shouting and chanting proclamations of his innocence. It would be impossible for even the most well intentioned juror to not have some of that begin to weigh in their mind, especially after 13 weeks of testimony and deliberation that was suck in deadlock for 7 days.
The jury was split initially. They deliberated for several days with no consensus in sight. The foreperson went to the judge and told him they couldn’t reach a unanimous decision. The judge told them he refused to allow a mistrial and that they would stay until they could agree.
At some point, even the most convicted juror will want to end the daily grind of deliberation and intense public scrutiny.
There was a mountain of credible evidence against MJ. He admitted himself to sleeping in the same bed with underage kids. He spent weeks at a time sleeping in the same bed young boys/girls. Victims were able to describe with detail areas of MJ’s private areas and a specific birth mark that is only visible beneath his underwear. (There was a court-ordered examination of his private regions to confirm the details of the victim’s testimony.)
He had a history. He was accused in 1993 but settled with the victim out of court before criminal charges were filed.
In my opinion, the reasonable doubt was overblown. It was a smear campaign perpetrated by the best criminal defense lawyer money can buy. The questions of witness integrity don’t hold as much water with the more victims that come forward. 5 victims came forward in the high profile 2005 trial. And more have come forward since the trial, and since his death.
I don’t know why how many people would want to subject themselves to the intense scrutiny and legal battles that come with accusing and extremely famous and rich person, unless they are actually guilty and you want to protect future victims.
There is no doubt that MJ spent many many nights in bed with underage kids. What happened during those nights comes down to whether you believe all of the victims or you believe Michael. Either way, the trial was never going to be fair and impartial. MJ was always going to have an advantage.
15
u/Western_Control_5860 Sep 18 '26
Some inaccuracies in your comment. For example, there were not 5 victims who came forward in 2005. There was one accuser at the centre of the 2005 case, and another one also testified as part of the 1108 evidence (whose claims were so dubious that a criminal probe wasn’t ever initiated for them - he had been badgered by police as a child into making these claims). The 1993 accuser refused to testify and threatened legal action if forced to do so.
In relation to the media coverage, sure there were fans outside the courthouse but the coverage was largely pro-prosecution (e.g. Nancy Grace, CourtTV).
Reasonable doubt was sure and plenty. The accuser and his family had previously falsely accused JC Penney security guards of assault and molestation which netted them a 6-figure sum. They had gone to two civil lawyers prior to going to police (one of whom was the lawyer who netted the original settlement). The prosecution had to rewrite its entire abuse timeline when they found out MJ had an alibi, the prosecution were alleged to have falsified fingerprint evidence. The family claimed they were held captive but evidence indicates they left Neverland numerous times to go on shopping sprees etc. and went back each time. The list goes on.
Not to mention the claim of there being a ‘match’ in terms of the genital description has never actually been cross-examined. If this smoking gun evidence actually existed, he would have been charged in 1993. The claim of a ‘match’ also ignores the fact the 1993 accuser (the only alleged victim to actually offer a description) incorrectly stated MJ was circumcised.
2
u/Fun-Benefit116 29d ago
The claim of a ‘match’ also ignores the fact the 1993 accuser (the only alleged victim to actually offer a description) incorrectly stated MJ was circumcised.
An uncircumcised penis can easily look circumsized when it is erect. A child who likely had to have the definition explained to them would obviously have a difficult time knowing which it was, especially if they had been abused (meaning they would have seen it erect and not flaccid).
2
u/Historical-Mammoth-1 29d ago
Jordan Chandler was 13 years old and half Jewish. Had he really done the things with MJ that he described to Dr. Gardner, he would have seen and felt MJ’s penis both erect and flaccid… and he would’ve been able to accurately say whether MJ’s penis was circumcised. There were also more problems with the “match” theory than the circumcision issue. Jael Rucker did a good job of summarizing: https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2F%40ruckerjael%2Fhow-come-nobody-ever-apologizes-to-michael-jackson-the-1993-strip-search-no-it-was-not-a-match-bc954e8272ec&data=05%7C02%7Ctmahfood%40crmatthewslaw.com%7C027be8c9f4144d56f45c08df15b47e5a%7Cd8f0a187b3994b548ef2f58cda6ad4bd%7C0%7C0%7C639253537260814796%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L2SDyoF5NN5sJMcJ%2FCjVOX1X5noQyIP7U0prEuAzIv0%3D&reserved=0
Even Tom Sneddon’s Motion in 2005 acknowleged that whether there was a “match” was not a fact. It was a question for a jury. And Detective Weis admitted that vitiligo was a disease in which the splotches shift and move, and that there was no way to know if MJ’s penis at the time of photographing looked the same as it had 6 months prior … the last time he had seen Jordan.
Jordan also conveniently never once told detectives or Dr. Gardner that MJ had a balloon at the base of his scalp. Had he seen MJ without the hat, he would’ve known that. MJ had scalp reconstructive surgery during the timeframe he was hanging out with June, Jordan, and Lilly. Had Jordan really taken showers with MJ, surely that hat would’ve come off at some point.
Jordan also was asked by Dr. Gardner of he was afraid of MJ. He said no. He was asked if there was anything he was afraid of. He replied, “Just cross-examination.” That always makes me chuckle. He was afraid of having his story tested under oath… so much so that even as an adult, he fled the country in 2005 to avoid a subpoena so that he wouldn’t have to testify against MJ at Gavin Arvizo’s trial. By the way, his friends and girlfriend were on the defense witness list prepared to testify that jordan had told them Michael never abused him and that his father had made him lie.
If you look into all the stuff with Evan Chandler (who was a sleazy dentist and wannabe film maker trying to extort money out of MJ for a film project ) and his connection to Victor Gutiérrez and that disgusting book… plus tabloid stories… I can’t fathom how people think MJ was guilty of the 1993 allegations.
Watch Frontline’s 1994 special called Tabloid Truth. You’ll also see that tabloids and media were giving people money to make up salacious stories and false allegations against MJ.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Western_Control_5860 Sep 18 '26
The claim that the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict and went to the judge to inform him of this doesn’t appear to be true. According to reports, on the final day of deliberations they sent a note saying they couldn’t agree on the lesser alcohol counts, but quickly retracted this note to deliver a unanimous verdict. I don’t see any substance to the claim they were deadlocked on any of the main charges and voted not guilty just to end deliberations.
→ More replies (1)4
29
→ More replies (14)2
76
15
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Long_Dragonfly_3067 29d ago
Ohh the parents were negligent so Michael just had to sneak their kids in his bed and even if he molested them it's the parents fault for allowing him to do it /s
3
→ More replies (3)3
u/el_torko 28d ago
This is my whole thing. Do I think he diddled kids? I honestly don’t know, maybe, he was a super weird dude. That could be justification either way. Would I allow my young child to sleepover at his house unsupervised? Absolutely the fuck not, I would not have allowed him around my children for ten minutes unsupervised.
So yeah, in conclusion, he may have diddled those kids but those parents offered them up on golden platters.
→ More replies (3)
8
24
u/ltnew007 Sep 17 '26
How old was Michael Jackson when he wrote this?
42
u/BroadCap6161 Sep 17 '26
1986-1989, he was 28yo-31yo
15
u/IfICouldStay Sep 18 '26
Ew! Okay, I was wondering if this was possibly written circa 1970, when MJ was 12 himself.
5
112
u/milka-d-mousse Sep 17 '26
crazy how people say we should send to jail every millionaire powerful man who sleeps with kids, but when MJ is mentioned everybody goes "well actuallyyyy...". Not all ped os I guess.
57
→ More replies (6)6
u/Reasonable_Tap_8215 Sep 18 '26
I think the main reason he shouldn’t be put in jail is cuz he dead.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/EstatePhysical5130 29d ago edited 29d ago
As expected, Reddit is being Reddit again—posting for engagement without a shred of shame or fact-checking—and, of course, their favorite target is MJ. Anyway, this concerns the "Jane Doe" case; it emerged on the heels of the Wade Robson and James Safechuck cases, orchestrated by their lawyer at the time, Finaldi, to lend credibility to their accounts.
BUT... well, much like your own tasteless jokes: a woman? See, the accusations against Michael are rooted in claims of inherent misogyny and even homosexuality, so how on earth does a girl figure into the mix now? She claims Michael sent certain letters, yet these were never even verified, and the stories about "hush money" payments don't add up, given that Michael's accounts were thoroughly audited in 1993 and 2005.
So, that’s another hole in the story.
Shortly after MJ's defense team began investigating her claims, she fled and withdrew the "complaint," though the estate is still pursuing her to clarify her statements.
http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/332-jane-doe-accusations-scraping-the-barrel
2
u/One_Froyo505 29d ago
To hype liars as victims is utter nonsense. Promoting accusations of fakery will cause huge problems and make the next film three times more interesting. MJ's critics are the best advertising.
2
u/EstatePhysical5130 29d ago
They always have been; this place is so detached from reality that the comments are tragicomic—they’re just that idiotic.
→ More replies (1)
32
u/BroadCap6161 Sep 17 '26
Context (reading your thoughts about this)
A 42-year-old woman claimed in 2016 that Michael Jackson sexually abused her for three years, beginning when she was 12, and that he set up two companies as “the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organizations the world has known.” Jane AA Doe sued Doe 1 and 2, both California corporations, in Superior Court. She says Jackson controlled both companies, which “were held out to the public to be businesses dedicated to creating and distributing multimedia entertainment by Michael Jackson,” but they served a “dual purpose.” Jane Doe says the sexual abuse started in 1986, when she was 12 years old and continued until she reached puberty at 15. It began, she says, when her family stopped by Jackson’s home in Hayvenhurst to sightsee, and he entered the gates in his Mercedes, then sent a guard to invite them in to see the grounds. “Jackson then invited only plaintiff and her mother into the home to see his candy area,” where he “requested and received (their) home phone number,” the complaint states. Jane Doe says the sexual abuse “included Michael Jackson fondling plaintiff sexually on her genitals and body, digitally penetrating plaintiff, giving plaintiff what he termed ‘movie kisses’ where he tongue-kissed her mouth and body, orally copulated plaintiff, forced plaintiff to orally copulate him, rubbed his clothed and unclothed body against plaintiff’s, and rubbed his penis on plaintiff’s vagina and attempted to fully insert it into her vagina, only partially inserting it and causing plaintiff to bleed.” She says Jackson used his “position of trust and authority over her, for his own sexual gratification,” without her legal consent, as she was a minor. One handwritten letter attached as an exhibit states: “Your Valentine picture was so original and sweet. I love you sooo much. Also you’r making me love you even more the more I talk to you. I’m crazy about you. All my Love.” The letter is signed: “Michael the Monopoly King.” Jane Doe says Jackson bought her gifts before, during and after the period of sexual abuse. She says he groomed her by calling her and speaking with her “for hours at a time, about varying subjects, including his affection for plaintiff.” She says he would “tell her things that were to be kept ‘secret’ from plaintiff’s parents and everyone else.” She says he also groomed her mother by spending “long hours on the phone with her, telling her intimate details about his life and his past, in an attempt to gain a ‘closeness’ with plaintiff’s mother and earn her trust so that she would allow him to spend time alone with plaintiff” and “would tell her how much he cared for plaintiff as a friend.” Doe says the sexual abuse occurred in many places, including Jackson’s Hayvenhurst home, Universal Studios, at the Universal Sheraton hotel, at his Neverland ranch, in the back of his limousine, at Lorimar Studios in Studio City and at his personal apartment/condo, which he called the “Hideout.” She seeks punitive damages for negligence, negligent supervision, negligent retention and hiring, negligent failure to train, warn or educate, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
7
→ More replies (12)6
u/Western_Control_5860 Sep 17 '26
Why did this Jane Doe drop her lawsuit before it could be subjected to any scrutiny?
→ More replies (1)
17
11
13
3
u/MisterEvilBreakfast 29d ago
We'll just put this letter next to the naked kids magazines and sippy cup wine in the "Nothing Sus" box.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Aghastcactus12 29d ago
So creepy. Yet an entire community of people will die on the hill defending him no matter what evidence they are confronted with. The fact the movie made over a billion dollars and doesn’t address this part of him at all is a great reflection on the state of our society. But he has good dance moves at least I guess so let’s just not talk about that little “issue”
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Remarkable_Rough_649 Sep 18 '26
Was Michael Jackson even interested in girls? I thought little boys were more his thing
→ More replies (1)8
u/Wedjat_Eye 29d ago
He molested a couple of little girls too but yes boys were the constant.
→ More replies (12)
11
5
2
u/malcolm313 Sep 18 '26
How old was he when he wrote this? It looks like little kids writing.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
6
u/Zillajami-Fnaffan2 Sep 17 '26
I can barely even read it
5
u/Cack-Yo-W33n Sep 18 '26
It says
“Hello ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️
Your valentine picture was so original and sweet
I love you so much also you’re making me love you even more the more I talk to you
I’m crazy about you
All my love
Michael The Monopoly King”→ More replies (2)
6
3
u/Temporary_Brother436 29d ago
Of all of the people who have been "cancelled," I'll never understand why MJ isn't one of them.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Mortambulist Sep 18 '26
Come on, guys, this is obviously innocent. Jackson only fucked 12-year-old boys.
3
3
3
u/real_Bahamian Sep 17 '26
Exactly how do we know who this letter is written to??!! 🤨🤨
9
u/Delicious_Star_4232 Sep 18 '26
https://abc7.com/post/woman-alleges-michael-jackson-molested-her-as-child-30-years-ago/1573174/
The woman who was 12 at the time came forward with the letter addressed to her.
1
u/TanAllOvaJanAllOva Sep 18 '26
How many games of monopoly do you think he actually won? Like what’s his win/loss we think
1
1
u/Serious-Manager2361 Sep 18 '26
This can't be real. I thought he only liked boys?!
2
u/harlotmuffin 29d ago
He has two female victims that have come forward. The first one filed suit a decade ago. While he seemed to have a preference for boys, this idea that he wouldn't harm girls at all is harmful and an inaccurate representation of how many predators operate
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 17 '26
Hello u/BroadCap6161! Please review the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder message left on all new posts)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.