I don’t want to watch that Michael Jackson thing. First of all, it’s weird cuz he’s not alive. He’s not alive to defend himself, so it’s weird. said that Michael said this was a first person word of anything in this documentary. Okay. Okay. 14 times they said not guilty. He was totally exonerated.
So, why are we going through a documentary on this? What’s the point? I don’t think we need a documentary on this. I think they’ve been enough. And I didn’t want to participate in it because we don’t need it. The new Netflix documentary has pushed Michael Jackson’s name back into controversy, but this time he is not alive to defend himself.
That is why so many people connected to Michael are angry and refusing to support it. To them, this is not a fair investigation. They believe Netflix is bringing back an old case that was already tested in court while ignoring key facts, witness problems, and testimony that helped Michael’s defense. For his defenders, the documentary is not the full truth.
It is another one-sided attack built to make him look guilty again. What I also kind of didn’t like much about the movie is that they show him with the chimp and the the weirdo stuff and all that and kind of surprised me that they shoved that all in maybe they felt they had to. I never saw any of that either. I never saw Michael as a weirdo at all.
Michael Jackson’s defense attorney Thomas Mesereau explains why he refused to take part in the Netflix documentary. Mesereau says the media focuses on dramatic and disturbing allegations, but ignores the counter arguments and major problems with the prosecution’s witnesses. He brings up other witnesses who raised concerns about the accuser’s family, but says those details were not properly included in the documentary.
The documentary is one-sided because it highlights accusations while leaving out testimony that helped Michael’s defense. He says this should be a happy time for Michael’s fans because the biopic, his music, memorabilia, and even moonwalk are all getting attention again. But instead, Netflix brings back a 21-year-old case where Michael was already cleared.
Well, first of all, this is a very joyous time for supporters and lovers of Michael Jackson. A biopic is setting all kinds of records. His memorabilia is selling all over the world. His music is streaming all over the world. Even his book Moonwalk is is flying off the shelves. I mean, this is a great time to be a supporter and lover of Michael Jackson.
So, why do we need a biopic in the mid Excuse me, not a biopic. Why do we need a documentary in the middle of this that goes back 21 years in a case where he was completely exonerated? The jury deliberated for 8 days. They had seen almost 5 months of testimony. They had been in trial 5 days a week during those 5 months.
They deliberated 8 days and they came back with not guilty on every felony count and every misdemeanor count. Well, that’s what it is. The The media I’m not including everybody. The media tends to want to glorify salacious allegations. They don’t like to spend time on the counter argument.
So, the media and this documentary spends time on very dramatic, disturbing, salacious allegations and doesn’t do justice to the problems with the prosecution’s witnesses and the prosecution’s case. For example, there’s no mention of Chris Tucker, who was our last witness, the famous comedian and actor. He testified as our last witness.
He said that he knew this family. He had experience with them. He had concerns about them and he told Michael to be careful. And he described the accuser as cunning. And this is where the story gets more direct because Brian Oxman does not soften his words. He attacks the documentary and calls it the same kind of hatchet job people have seen before.
His point is not just that the documentary is negative. His point is that the people speaking on the case do not understand the actual facts. Oxman argues that when you look at the real timeline and evidence, Michael was not with the accuser’s family in the way the accusation suggested. That matters because the documentary depends on viewers believing one version of the story without fully seeing the defense side.
So, right from the beginning, the backlash is not built on blind loyalty. It is built on the claim that the documentary leaves out important facts and pushes the darkest version possible. I think it is the same hatchet job that we have seen in other documentaries where people who have no clue, no understanding, no knowledge of the facts of the case come in and cry crocodile tears.
Oh, the the boy he made such a convincing story. Look, you haven’t seen the evidence, the documents. Oxman also explains why the Jackson family is hurt by this. Michael is gone, which means he cannot sit in front of a camera, answer questions, challenge claims, or defend himself in court. So, when old accusations are brought back, the family feels like they are fighting for someone who no longer has a voice.
Oxman says the family never saw anything wrong, but he goes further by saying the evidence showed Michael did not touch or hurt children. This helps the story move from just legal arguments into something more emotional. To people close to Michael, this is not only about a documentary, it is about watching his name get attacked again when he is not here to respond.
They are hurt by all of these accusations. You have to look at it and say, “How would you like your child to be pointed at and say, ‘weirdo, molester, freakazoid’ all of these things? And he’s not here to defend himself, but he’s your child. He’s your brother, your sisters.” They look at this and go, “I never saw anything.
” But most important, the evidence the evidence showed that Michael did not touch these children. He has never hurt a child. That same concern appears in the Joe Rogan and Brendan Schaub conversation. They say they do not even want to watch the Michael Jackson documentary because Michael is not alive to defend himself.
Then the discussion turns to credibility. They bring up that the men in the documentary were once key witnesses who denied being abused and now they are telling a different story years later. That raises a hard question for anyone watching. If someone made one statement under oath, then changed the story years later, how should the public judge that? They also mention the Jackson side questioning whether the timing is convenient because of financial issues.
Whether viewers agree or not, this is exactly why many people did not accept the documentary at face value. He’s not alive. He’s not alive to defend himself, so it’s weird. It’s also stories and you know [sighs] sit people tell the truth in stories sometimes and sometimes they don’t and you don’t know. You don’t know.
The guy’s dead. He can’t defend himself. respect, Schaub. Here’s the thing, those two dudes who are doing it they would one was the key witness when he got away in court. What dudes? The dudes in the documentary, the two who are like, “Oh, we got molested.” The one was the number one key witness who saying he didn’t get molested.
Okay, well then he shouldn’t be able to say anything. Both of them were witnesses. And now they’re like, and now they’re like, “Well, no, that’s not true. We were young. We were 20.” How old was he? He was in his 20s. Well, also like isn’t that perjury? It means he lied in court. He [ __ ] You can’t lie in court either way, one way or the other.
You can’t lie to protect somebody and you can’t lie to accuse someone either. You can’t lie. I don’t know what the deal is with that. I mean that seems like that’s something they could drag him to court for. And the Jacksons came out and went, “Well, isn’t it convenient you guys are coming out now when you’re in financial trouble?” Even before the details are broken down, the reaction from Breakfast Club’s hosts is already negative.
They admit they hated the documentary and they bring up that Michael Jackson’s own parents publicly called the allegations false. That tells you how strong the family reaction was from the start. They were not treating this as a balanced investigation. They saw it as another attempt to damage Michael’s name after his death.
And because the documentary came out without Michael being able to respond, every missing detail became even more important. To his supporters, the problem was not just what Netflix showed, it was what they believed Netflix chose not to show. The Michael Jackson the verdict the documentary which is now streaming on Netflix.
I got a chance to watch yesterday. I know just if you guys didn’t watch it I’m sure you watched it. Got it. I hated it. Same. Okay, so it’s a three-part documentary. Now involved in this docu-series you have on both there’s people from both sides. So on the legal side you have prosecutors, you have Mark Geragos who is the father of Tini Geragos.
You guys know Tini Geragos because she led the Diddy trial. But he was the one of the defense attorneys for Michael. You also have Brian Oxman who was Michael Jackson’s family attorney. They brought in two jurors. There’s a bunch of different media talking heads. You see Michael Jackson’s family in the documentary even though they don’t speak.
You just see like when well there is one part though of it where you do see an interview that his mother Michael Jackson’s mom and dad were in where they’re saying that all of this was BS like all of this was all allegations, right? But other than that you just see his family coming to court to support him and that is it. is where the criticism becomes even sharper because the hosts say the documentary was not balanced.
They argue it leaned too heavily on accusations and did not give enough space to the other side. For a case this serious, that matters. When viewers are shown only pain, emotion, and shocking claims, they can walk away feeling like the story has already been proven. But Michael’s defenders argue that the full case includes contradictions, court history, past statements, and defense witnesses.
Without that, they believe the audience is being guided toward one conclusion instead of being allowed to think for themselves. That is why they see Netflix as pushing another negative story instead of letting Michael rest. Can we just talk about how much we hate the doc? I hated the doc. Yeah. Not not artistically or creatively because it is very well put together.
I just hate what it represents cuz it just left me feeling confused. You know, I don’t know what to believe. The accusers look crazy in this doc. MJ looks crazy in this doc. I just don’t see what the intention of this project is besides raining on the parade of the MJ movie cuz when you go see the Michael Jackson movie, that film going to make you feel good.
This doc does the opposite and I don’t think it’s worth the backlash that it’s sure to bring. And I still I still I still believe Michael Jackson They don’t care. I think it’s for them it was a check. Like they did that documentary getting paid off of the documentary. What did they say? Bleed or what if it bleeds it leads? It’s It’s a negativity is going to sell.
clout chasing cuz they they said they had the documentary done before the movie even dropped. I I just I just hated the doc because I felt like they didn’t fairly portray both sides. Like there was too much leaning on like the allegations and he did this, he did that and not enough on the other side. I think Michael was innocent.
If we were going to explore it, I wanted it to be heavily on both sides and allow me to choose. The more we talk about it, the more that people who haven’t heard about it or didn’t even think about it is going to want to see it. It’s on Netflix. It’s on there. And they talk about all this porn Michael was into.
Like they show you they they Well, they don’t even show you. They talk about this briefcase full of porn that they don’t they don’t ever show you. And then that one scene don’t even look real when the guy is going through the old footage and it’s a porn. Yes. And it’s all of these child porn videos circled. There’s a Michael Jackson associate who who alleges that he has video of the porn that was taken out of the house.
But they we don’t ever It doesn’t really connect all the way through. It wasn’t It was a magazine. Yeah. the magazine they had child porn circled that they were supposed to order for Michael. And when the guy asked him, “Why why what is this?” He said, “Oh, that’s just a phase me and Michael was going through.
” Like man, cut it out, man. Cut it out. Let that man rest in peace, please. But the pushback does not stop with lawyers and commentators. People who were actually around Michael also speak differently from the image shown in documentaries. Rodney Jerkins, who worked closely with him, says he never saw anything wrong.
That matters because people who knew Michael personally often describe a very different person from the one created by headlines. They talk about someone kind, shy, generous, and deeply connected to music and family. Jerkins also says it is shameful to bring these claims back now that Michael is gone and cannot defend himself.
So again, the same theme keeps returning. The documentary may have a platform, but the people close to Michael say the story being pushed is not the person they knew. When when you hear those allegations I just think that when I think allegations are merely allegations. I feel as though like for people to come out after someone dies, should be ashamed of yourself.
Yeah, these days, yeah. Like even but even like even before all of that though like they’re they’re just allegations like we don’t you know you know isn’t isn’t right now with everything going on in the outside world based off allegations? Yeah, the whole Me Too movement. It’s all based I’m not not just Me Too just everything though.
Everything, yeah. Everything is based off of someone saying this happened and we don’t know what really happened, right? Because we weren’t there, right? I never seen anything happen and I was around him a lot. I don’t buy into propaganda. Yeah. I don’t buy into I don’t buy into all that fake stuff like because I and then I I really get upset when when someone passes away and then then you try to like um kill their legacy.
Like you know wasn’t it that you wasn’t strong enough to do it when he was alive so you wanted now that he’s under in the in the ground, well let’s take him let’s take him further down. Then the conversation moves into a bigger theory about why Michael may have been targeted. Akon says the attacks began when Michael refused to give up control of his catalog.
According to him, once Michael became too powerful in the music business, the whispers and propaganda started to grow. This is important because it changes the way some people view the accusations. They do not see them only as personal scandals. They see them as part of a larger fight over money, control, and ownership.
Akon also remembers Michael as one of the most generous artists he ever met, which makes the public image even harder for him to accept. To him, the man he knew and the man shown in the media were not the same person. because of that. Uh but what Akon said was that, you know, based on his relationship with Michael, he feels that all those accusations started when Michael refused to sell his catalog.
So, he had access to a lot of like American uh uh just just value, and he owned it. And if he didn’t own it 100%, he owned it 50%. You know what I’m saying? Like he owned a big chunk of America’s value. That’s the That’s the best way to put it. And at some point, you know, they’re going to want to have the option to buy it back or control it to an extent.
Mike just wouldn’t allow it. And I think at that moment, that’s when a lot of the propaganda and all this whispers and stuff start coming out about him, which was clearly not true. That can be true. What I What I What I What I What I do know is that I’ve never met a more um giving person, an artist that’s willing to that was willing to pay for hospital bills for people he didn’t know.
While the documentary tries to bring back the darkest version of Michael Jackson, people who saw his kindness in real life tell a different story. Jason Lee talks about Michael coming to Stockton after a school shooting, meeting victims, helping families, paying bills, and showing real compassion at a time when the community was broken.
This kind of story matters because it is not about fame, concerts, or image. It is about what Michael did when cameras were not the main focus. Jason says that moment changed how he saw Michael forever. And for supporters, these are the stories that rarely get the same attention as the accusations.
And so, when he came to Stockton, I just really got a sense of compassion and humanity and community and like that was the the biggest lesson of selflessness that I could ever imagine because he didn’t have to come here. And what he did was he met with all the kids to say, “Hey, your life matters. You’re still here.
You got to keep going.” He paid for all the medical bills. He paid for all the funerals. He met with the staff. He went to the hospital and met with the families. Like that was something I had never understood. So I fell in love with him. Years later after Michael was gone, Jason Lee says the public persecution bothered him deeply.
He admits Michael may have been too open with people’s children and that honesty makes his point stronger because he is not pretending every part of Michael’s life was easy to understand. But he also says nothing he experienced made him believe Michael was the monster the media kept trying to create.
That is the difference Michael’s defenders keep pointing to. They are not saying Michael was a normal celebrity. They are saying being unusual does not automatically mean being evil. And when people who spent time around him speak, many describe someone damaged by fame, but not the criminal image that was repeated for years.
It really bothered me when he died how many people persecuted him and you look at the era of me too now where everybody’s catching a me too. Me too, me too, me too. It’s like me too again, me too men too. Like everybody’s a me too. When you look back at Michael and although he was I think more friendly to people’s children than he probably needed to be in that personal space for self-protection, I didn’t get the sense from him on the phone or the sense from what he did for our community that that was that monster they were trying
to paint. Akon gives a similar view from inside the music world. He says he spent time around Michael and believes the public was never given the full truth. According to him, once he saw things up close, the media version did not match what he witnessed. Then the conversation goes deeper because Akon suggests Michael was not only fighting rumors, he was fighting powerful people who wanted to bring him down after he became too rich, too smart, and too powerful in the business. This gives the story another
layer. To Akon, the attacks were not random. They were connected to control, ownership, and the fear of an artist who understood his value. So, no, but it was it was all bull. Mhm. All not only bull, but Mike had a lot of power, bro. And he owned a lot of coordinated attack, you think? Yeah, he was he was See, Mike was just a smart businessman.
And he outsmarted a lot of the guys at the top. And they wanted to come for that. That was That’s exactly what was happening. But away from the business theories, there are also people who defend Michael’s character in a personal way. Rabbi Shmuley says the Michael he knew was not the strange celebrity the media created.
He describes him as a loving father, a soulful man, and someone very different from the character shown on screen. That kind of defense is important because documentaries often reduce Michael to the most uncomfortable parts of his life. They show the mystery, the suspicion, and the strange image. But people who sat with him privately often describe someone lonely, sensitive, and desperate to be understood.
This does not erase the serious questions around him, but it does show why many people believe the media version was incomplete. Yeah, but I don’t see but I don’t see him in that way. Michael never moonwalked for me. He never sang for me, not even once. I think maybe once you know, he used to come to us for the Friday night Shabbat meals all the time.
I think once he may have gone just because his kids asked him to. But we would be playing hide-and-seek with with with with our kids. We would be, you know, cuz he would always bring Prince and Paris. Blanket wasn’t born yet. Uh Prince was three, Paris was two. They were beautiful children. Michael was an was an exemplary father.
He was around them all the time. Um I never really knew Michael the entertainer. I knew Michael the man, and uh he was a beautiful human being. The more I rehabilitated Michael’s life to be more normal, the more the leeches suddenly came back and said, “Oh my god, he’s back. Now we can do it Now we can do more concerts.
” Then Charlamagne brings the conversation back to power. He argues the attacks on Michael Jackson were never only about allegations. In his view, Michael became too powerful after owning valuable music rights, especially the Beatles catalog, and that made him dangerous to people in the industry.
According to this argument, destroying his reputation was a way to weaken him and take away the power he had built. This is where the story becomes bigger than one documentary. For people who believe this view, Netflix is not starting something new. It is continuing a pattern that began when Michael became hard to control.
They believe the same image keeps being recycled because it works. Once the public sees someone as strange, it becomes easier to believe the worst. There’s only one person and I I really mean this when I say this and I know this is pure conspiracy theory. There’s only one person I believe in Hollywood who people conspired to actually take down.
Who? I’m talking about a mass conspiracy. Anytime they take you down, it’s cuz people conspiring. But it’s usually cuz you did some [ __ ] But I think that there’s one person who they really took down because he had too much power and I believe that person was Michael Jackson. Wow. believe that.
And the reason I believe that is because you can look into the story. And you know, we had Deion Cole on Breakfast Club today. Deion Cole told us the story about how he got high with Paul McCartney and Paul McCartney told him Paul McCartney and Michael used to be real cool. Paul was telling Michael like, “Yo, you got to get your business together.
You got to get your business right.” Uh he told him about the publishing game. He bought the Beatles publishing. Michael ended up getting so big that he bought the Beatles publishing. The Beatles publishing was worth so much that literally Sony gave Michael Jackson half of their publishing company just to own the Beatles catalog.
I believe that Michael Jackson had too much power in the music industry. Had too much control over the most valuable asset in music, which is people’s publishing. publishing. And I believe they had to take him out because of smear his name, you know, eventually get him up out of here in 2016. [laughter] They got it back for way cheaper than they probably would have paid if he was still alive.
Michael’s former bodyguard, Bill, says the accusations changed Michael, took away friendships, and made it harder for him to trust the people around him. What makes it even worse is that many celebrities who now praise Michael were silent when he needed support the most. So, the question is not just why Michael was attacked, it is why so many people waited until he was gone to defend him.
After the trial and after the the accusations, it changed a lot within him. I I it I know that. It changed him. Um and I think he lost a lot of friends. Uh you know, people would I think a lot of people was stuck in between, did he or didn’t he? You know, uh so, a lot of people certainly took some backsteps in whatever relationship they had with him.
So, the level of trust people it was hard to say. Again, a lot was business. A lot of phone calls I received was about business. Personally, I can’t say they were people friends calling him. The level of trusting anyone was was was difficult. So, a lot of the people showing him love now, they was nowhere to be found when he was alive.
After No. By no means, none of them. I I can’t think of one you know, particular celebrity that showed sincere care and concern. If you watched till the end, make sure to like the video, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don’t miss what’s coming next.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
