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. It’s also stories, and you know, sit people tell the truth in stories sometimes, and sometimes they don’t. And you don’t know. You don’t know. Netflix wanted the verdict to feel like the final word on Michael Jackson, but the problem is simple.
A one-sided documentary cannot erase the full record. The biggest issue is not only what Netflix says about Michael, it is what it asks the audience to forget. The changed stories, the trial he already won, the weak points in the case, and the fact that Michael is no longer here to answer any of it.
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? Joe Rogan and Brendan Schaub question the documentary because Michael is no longer alive to defend himself. They also point out that the accusers once denied that anything had happened, then later changed their stories.
That is why many viewers struggle to accept Netflix’s version without having any questions. To them, the verdict does not feel like the full truth. It feels like old doubts are being brought back with missing context and edited manipulated footage. The guy’s dead. He can’t defend himself. respect, Schaub. Here’s the thing.
Those two dudes who were doing it, they would one was the key witness when he got away in court. What dudes? The dudes in the documentary, the two Oh, we got busted. The one was the number one key witness who saying he didn’t get 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. Be 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 [clears throat] 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?” Rogan’s earlier comments addressed the same problem.
He questions the pattern of people saying one thing for years, then changing the story when a documentary gives them attention. That matters because the Michael Jackson debate depends on more than emotion. It depends on timing, credibility, and whether the audience is being shown the complete picture or only the most dramatic version.
What is your take on that documentary? I have not watched it, but I’ve heard that those two guys testified saying nothing ever happened to them before this, and then then now they’re down on their luck and now they’ve changed their tune and saying that it was They they go into that in in detail in the doc and basically they’d been replaced by the new young boy and they’d been kind of kicked to the side and then Michael reached out and said, “I need you to help me.
” And and they say it was exciting the idea to be to be back in Michael’s good books and be wanted by Michael again. Attorney Brian Oxman takes the criticism further and goes straight at the documentary. He says the film is not just unfair to Michael, it is built in a way that ignores facts people should be looking at.
To him, Netflix is selling a clean damaging story, but the real timeline and evidence make that story much harder to believe. 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, the presentation of where these people were, where Michael Jackson were. He was never together with this family. Oxman then explains the pain the Jackson family is enduring. For them, the hardest part is that Michael cannot respond anymore.
He cannot sit across from the filmmakers, correct the record, or defend himself against old accusations being brought back again. Oxman says they never witnessed anything wrong, and he also points to the evidence, arguing that it did not support the idea that Michael harmed children. 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. Then Tom Mesereau brings the focus back to the courtroom, and that is where Netflix’s version becomes harder to accept.
The jury did not watch a short edited film. They heard months of testimony and still cleared Michael on every count. Mesereau’s point is clear. The verdict cannot act like the full truth if it highlights accusations, but skips the problems that came out during trial. The jury deliberated for eight days. They had seen almost five months of testimony.
They had been in trial five days a week during those five months. They deliberated eight days, and they came back with not guilty on every felony count and every misdemeanor count. 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 had enough. And I didn’t want to participate in it because we don’t need it. He was exonerated. The jury couldn’t have sent a stronger message. Do you feel there’s been a kind of commercial whirlwind around this issue that people have raced to make money out of it, to be blunt? Well, that’s what it is.
The The media, I’m not including everybody, the media [clears throat] 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. That is why people keep pushing back. A real documentary should test the story from both sides. It cannot just present emotional claims, add dramatic music, and call that truth. If Netflix brings back a case this serious, it has to question credibility, check the timeline, and show what does not add up.
We have some strong concerns about whether a couple of these accusers are credible. The stories they’re telling, whether they’re credible, and in particular in that so-called documentary that was done called Leaving Neverland, whether the filmmaker did the audience a disservice by not raising the very clear credibility questions of the two witnesses who were the main players in that movie.
Um the problem for this story in making up your mind is that everyone who has publicly accused Michael Jackson, everyone save for the last four who just came out the the Cascio family like a month ago, cuz we just haven’t really No one’s really looked into them. But everyone has serious credibility problems.
I don’t want to beat up on these guys. If they were actually the survivors of molestation that’s the last thing you want to do, but you have an obligation in telling the story, you know, to to look at the other side, at least if you’re going to call yourself a documentary. Netflix is accused of treating Michael’s old verdict like it is still open for debate, even though he was acquitted.
The criticism is that the documentary does not simply discuss the case. It makes the audience feel like the courtroom result was never fully settled, and that is why it starts to feel like another public trial. Now, I know Netflix doesn’t care about the truth. They just want people to talk about their show.
The series comes about 1 week ahead of the 21st anniversary of Michael Jackson being acquitted of all 14 of those charges on June 13th, 2005. And for some reason, Netflix wants to spin this conversation up like that verdict was controversial. And I say for no reason, but we all know the reason is that the Michael Jackson biopic has been a huge success taking over the box office as well as skyrocketing his music back to the top of the charts.
Then the focus moves to the settlement. Critics argue that Netflix brings it up in a way that makes it sound like proof while leaving out what it legally did and did not mean. That matters because a settlement can shape public opinion even when it is not the same thing as a conviction.
Episode 1 also introduces us to Diane Diamond who’s an investigative reporter. Are we serious? She first brings up the 1993 settlement. Of course, she doesn’t mention that it was not an admission of guilt and didn’t prevent a criminal child, but okay. Her point, in her words, is that, and I quote, “In the case of the Arvizos, they never went for the money.
” The strongest criticism comes when the documentary is accused of misrepresenting evidence. The claim is that Netflix gives false meaning to Michael’s artwork and uses editing to make old material feel more suspicious than it really was. That is why the backlash is bigger than fan loyalty.
It is about whether selective framing changed how viewers understood the case. When that interview drops, the media runs with this idea that it’s so weird that Mike is sitting with this kid holding his hand. People are in a frenzy. Also, if you watch the Netflix doc, they shamelessly edit the scene about Gavin talking about sharing his bed with Michael.
Gavin and Michael Jackson never, I repeat, never shared a bed. People seem to get very hung up on this, but there’s a huge difference. Here’s the Netflix clip. He finally said, “Okay, he loved me to sleep in my bed.” I was like, “Oh, man.” You can see it. You look at that moment in the short documentary. And I stood in there and I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom.
He let me stay in the bedroom and I was like, “Michael, you can stay sleep on the bed.” And he was like, “No, no, no, you sleep on the bed, sleep on the bed.” I was like, “No, no, no, you know, you sleep on the you sleep on the bed.” And then he finally said, “Okay, if you love me, you sleep on the bed.” I was like, “Oh, man.
” So, I finally slept on the bed. It was fun that night. I slept on the floor. Michael is offering his bed for the kid to sleep in while Michael Jackson sleeps on the floor. Not to mention, Michael’s kids were also reportedly there as well as other adults. Also, please note that Michael Jackson’s bedroom was 3,000 sq ft.
His bedroom. How big is your house? But would you believe that none of that even matters? If you want more breakdowns like this, make sure to like, subscribe, and share your thoughts in the comments.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
