A Year Since 'Leaving Neverland' First Hit Headlines - How do you feel?

[DangerUs'91]

Well gang, it's been a year since the press and Dan Reed started planting the rumblings of the shit-storm that would soon commence in March of 2019. Needless to say, it's been a ride...

But given that it's been a year since this all began - I figured a discussion about where you are at as a fan is and where you think the public pulse is would be relevant.

So, all in all - how are you feeling about the documentary situation? Hopeful? Vindicated? Negative?

What do you think the pulse is on Jackson in terms of his legacy, whether people believe the documentary/allegations as a whole, etc.? Has the documentary been discredited at large or do you feel it's still widely believed?

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

I'm still a fan and always we be. as so my mom. we not done yet dude. (if you a dude if not sorry.) we still got trials on the way. I feel at the end of the day it's what people should think. both me and my mom believes Michael is innocent. now at the end the day if any still feels he's guilty they have the right too. i'm not gonna make anyone believes he innocent. I mean he is but i'm not gonna harass anyone who believes he's guilty.

most people who believes he's guilty are nothing but haters etc. now i wouldn't call everyone who believes he guilty a hater etc. that's what they believe and just let them.

i actually lost some friends who believes he's guilty.

i think widely people believes he's innocent while the general public don't really care. last year Michael music streamed big. what that tell you?

we not done yet though.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

I'm really hoping this year we be the year were everybody say sorry to Michael, his friends, his fans, and family. with all the docs coming out this year and trials i just hope and pray we will win. we kind of already won. but not quite yet.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

now at the end the day if any still feels he's guilty they have the right too.

No, they don’t. The presumption of innocence is a human right.

 

[NatureCriminal7896]

it's a human right but people don't have agree with it. you see what i mean?

I believe this poor man is innocent but i'm not gonna harass anyone who doesn't. we only hope these trials win.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

it's a human right but people don't have agree with it. you see what i mean?

I believe this poor man is innocent but i'm not gonna harass anyone who doesn't. we only hope these trials win.

I have to disagree here. People don’t get to “believe” if someone’s guilty or innocent, because that’s how lynch mobs start, and this is precisely why we have laws, courts, judges, and juries. There is no evidence and the story should have ended right there. And honestly, I really don’t want to discuss that BS on a fan forum.

 

[Anna]

I have to disagree here. People don’t get to “believe” if someone’s guilty or innocent, because that’s how lynch mobs start, and this is precisely why we have laws, courts, judges, and juries. There is no evidence and the story should have ended right there. And honestly, I really don’t want to discuss that BS on a fan forum.

Except the US justice system is flawed and corrupt and people know it. Innocent people end up on death row and people like OJ Simpson walk free. 'Not guilty' is not the same thing as 'innocent' if the case doesn't have concrete evidence to definitively prove innocence, which is typically the case with things like alleged abuse. 'Not guilty' often just means reasonable doubt. So people will always draw their own conclusions from cases like that. It's just human nature. They're entitled to believe he's guilty, as long as that belief doesn't extend to negative behaviour — since they can't prove he's guilty. And we're entitled to believe he is innocent, but we can't prove it either. All any of us have is our beliefs when the evidence can't prove otherwise either way.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

The lynch mob mentality is the root of the flawed US justice system. It’s important to change that mindset, if you want a change for the better.

The presumption of innocence is a human right, and it’s better that a guilty person walks free than that an innocent person ends up in prison. That’s the risk you must take. Maybe OJ walked free because mistakes were made. (*) There were no mistakes made in MJ’s case, he won in a landslide victory and is to be presumed innocent. You can’t just say that because one guilty man wasn’t convicted, we’re entitled to judge everyone else who wasn’t convicted in the court of public opinion. That’s not how it works.

Things are very different here in Germany, and honestly what’s going on in the USA & UK is beyond disgusting.


* EDIT: I added the “maybe” because I’m really not educated enough on the OJ case to know for sure.

 

[Anna]

The lynch mob mentality is the root of the flawed US justice system. It’s important to change that mindset, if you want a change for the better.

The presumption of innocence is a human right, and it’s better that a guilty person walks free than that an innocent person ends up in prison. That’s the risk you must take. OJ walked free because mistakes were made. There were no mistakes made in MJ’s case, he won in a landslide victory and is to be presumed innocent. You can’t just say that because one guilty man wasn’t convicted, we’re entitled to judge everyone else who wasn’t convicted in the court of public opinion. That’s not how it works.

Things are very different here in Germany, and honestly what’s going on in the USA & UK is beyond disgusting.

OJ Simpson was just a famous example to illustrate my point, he's certainly not the only case. The point is that people don't trust the justice system in America for good reason. And you can't blame people for believing MJ is guilty when there's been decades of brainwashing from the media, multiple accusers, and Michael's own behaviour really didn't help either. Behaviour that he continued even after being burned the first time.


Back on topic, LN hasn't been widely discredited outside of the fan communities on social media and YouTube. Generally, public opinion at this point seems to be either disinterest in the whole thing or that he's probably guilty. LN did significant damage and I don't see his image being restored unless something major happens in uncovering the truth.

 

[myosotis]

I agree that 'belief' is a troubling word. Like 'belief' in anything, it depends on whether the belief is based on evidence and facts or 'feelings'. The 'After Neverland' Oprah show majored on 'feeling', and attempted to ramp up belief in MJ's guilt on that basis.

When 'belief based on feelings' goes on to become 'cancel culture', it's problematic. Radio stations removed MJ airplay, shops removed MJ apparel. In that sense, I don't agree that in culture, 'belief (eg of victims) based on feelings' should override 'evidence'.

I've been impressed with the anecdotal evidence on social media that numbers of people who originally 'believed' LN have done research and now 'believe the evidence' that MJ is innocent. It feels as if the pre-LN population that always 'thought MJ might be guilty' generally continue to look for information that confirms their bias. I suspect that people who changed their minds maybe didn't feel strongly either way before.

Overall, LN has had the effect of bringing a lot of fans together on social media, and several excellent and factually-informative MJ docs have been produced and received good numbers of (but not numerically overwhelming) viewings. It's good that all the facts are now 'out there'; the question is will people who are 'anti-MJ' be interested to look into those facts? My gut feeling (!) is 'No'. Sadly, I don't think the anti-MJ press will turn their views around, even after Wade and James cases are 'most likely' thrown out of court. They will always come up with excuses as to why the court cases don't succeed, and why MJ's former child friends (like Macauley) continue to defend him.

I'm guessing that no-one else will be stupid enough to make up abuse stories about MJ, so I'm hoping that one good outcome is that no more opportunists / extortionists will appear.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

OJ Simpson was just a famous example to illustrate my point, he's certainly not the only case. The point is that people don't trust the justice system in America for good reason. And you can't blame people for believing MJ is guilty when there's been decades of brainwashing from the media, multiple accusers, and Michael's own behaviour really didn't help either. Behaviour that he continued even after being burned the first time.

This is why it has to change, and it can only change with a change of each and every person’s mindset. Those who are not “brainwashed” need to stand up and fight for what is right, and not try to find excuses for the public’s unethical behavior. Nothing will ever change if we remain silent. Silence helps injustice to continue.

I also don’t think that this is off topic, because that’s exactly how I feel a year after.

Things need to change at the root of the problem, so something like this can never happen again. And the public’s willful disregard of the presumption of innocence is the very root of the problem. Because if people would get that right, there would be no way for the media to “brainwash” them into convicting an innocent man in the court of public opinion.

 

[Anna]

I'm guessing that no-one else will be stupid enough to make up abuse stories about MJ, so I'm hoping that one good outcome is that no more opportunists / extortionists will appear.

I think so too. And time is another thing we have on our side, because the further we get from MJ's death, the more ridiculous it looks for someone to suddenly come forward and say they were abused. It should be very telling for anybody paying attention to this circus that no one else has come forward since LN. Reed was expecting a wave of new accusers. The trouble is that only happens when abuse has actually happened!

 

[ScreenOrigami]

I think so too. And time is another thing we have on our side, because the further we get from MJ's death, the more ridiculous it looks for someone to suddenly come forward and say they were abused. It should be very telling for anybody paying attention to this circus that no one else has come forward since LN. Reed was expecting a wave of new accusers. The trouble is that only happens when abuse has actually happened!

Yep, in the long run, Reed may have done us a favor actually. The claims made in his fantasy movie were just too ridiculous for thinking people to swallow unquestioned.

 

[john13th]

Now in hindsight, I think it's very sad that Michael had sleepovers in his bedroom at Neverland and hotels in the first place, no matter how innocent it was, that he slept on the floor in later part of his life and that most friends near to him and relatives understood him and the whole practice. He should have understood that people in general think in their minds something sexual when it comes to bed and it is considered a tabu and inappropriate thing in regular society. Had he say yes to Diane Sawyers question about ceasing with to have sleepovers at Neverland and really did so, he wouldn't have the grifter Gavin sleeping in the same bedroom as he did five years later after the interview in 1995.

And while I feel it is unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in future make a claim and sues the Estate for the same thing as Wade & James, especially someone who also did have a sleepover at Michael's place in the past. But on the other hand I am so glad to see so many youth friends of Michael like Barnes, Culkin, Spence and Feldman stood up in defense for him after the documentary. Not what Reed definitely had expected.

 

[ScreenOrigami]

I agree that 'belief' is a troubling word. Like 'belief' in anything, it depends on whether the belief is based on evidence and facts or 'feelings'. The 'After Neverland' Oprah show majored on 'feeling', and attempted to ramp up belief in MJ's guilt on that basis.

A great video to show people, who tend to “believe” the allegations, is The Gutter Monkey’s:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VpR-QboDfyg" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

several excellent and factually-informative MJ docs have been produced and received good numbers of (but not numerically overwhelming) viewings.

The good thing is, when someone looks up LN on YouTube, they&#8217;ll find LN itself and around 20 rebuttals. LN is 4 hours long. I would guess that now, before someone sits through the entire thing, they&#8217;ll probably look into the rebuttals to see if it&#8217;s even worth their time. :laughing:

I assume that most people of the general public will only watch on or two of those, so the number of people who actually watched at least one of them will be greater than the number of any individual video.

It's good that all the facts are now 'out there'; the question is will people who are 'anti-MJ' be interested to look into those facts? My gut feeling (!) is 'No'. Sadly, I don't think the anti-MJ press will turn their views around, even after Wade and James cases are 'most likely' thrown out of court. They will always come up with excuses as to why the court cases don't succeed, and why MJ's former child friends (like Macauley) continue to defend him.

The anti-MJ people are just like any anti-something people out there. As a vegan, I&#8217;ve met the anti-vegan cult (yes, anti-vegans exist!), and it&#8217;s the same thing. Stupid, stubborn, or downright evil people won&#8217;t change their mind, because they&#8217;re building their entire existence on hate.

And the media will write whatever makes money. Again, it needs a shift of the public&#8217;s mindset to stop buying the lies.

 

[PoP]

Except the US justice system is flawed and corrupt and people know it. Innocent people end up on death row and people like OJ Simpson walk free. 'Not guilty' is not the same thing as 'innocent' if the case doesn't have concrete evidence to definitively prove innocence, which is typically the case with things like alleged abuse. 'Not guilty' often just means reasonable doubt. So people will always draw their own conclusions from cases like that. It's just human nature. They're entitled to believe he's guilty, as long as that belief doesn't extend to negative behaviour &#8212; since they can't prove he's guilty. And we're entitled to believe he is innocent, but we can't prove it either. All any of us have is our beliefs when the evidence can't prove otherwise either way.

I hear ya, the California justice system is absolutely fked up than before, still the worst justice system in all of U.S. that b@$^@#% Sneddon extended the law just to get at Michael and even his underling Vince Finaldi is getting the new law in just to get at Michael again allowing Robson & STABchucks case to reopen. This why I hate California laws, they're completely fked up! This is what I feared early this year along with COPPA ruining YouTube just now.

And to answer the topic. That defaming film has caused me a whole year of stress, in fact 2019 is the worst year of the decade in my life, fighting against haters and those who believed in these backstabbing MFers calling them "brave" which gets on my nerves so much on social media putting them one by one in to my H8T list and the list was bloating so much I have to make Part 2 of the list. I was happy the film bombed everywhere and still making people who watched it stupid by getting their brains poisoned, because of that I was also on a boycotting spree, I've boycotted HBO, OWN, Starbucks, The Simpsons and you name it, I've also added a few more not relating to this which is Rogers and Sportsnet. Plus all this MeToo, MuteMJ, CancelMJ and CancelCulture were a major epidemic, they wanna ruin everything, yet CancelMJ and MuteMJ failed miserably luckily, but CancelCulture was bad in Canada over Don Cherry, majority of Canadians including myself were angry over Sportsnet firing Grapes over the "You people" remark believing was "racist", that remark isn't racist, it's these Grapes haters whom are racist and besides he says "You people" all the time referring to everybody watching with "Coach's Corner" or "Hockey Night In Canada". Both LN and the news of Cherry getting fired ruined my year.

Well this year is gonna be different, I will continue to fight and 2020 will be Michael's year and since it's also the 15th anniversary of his victory in court June 13th. This will be #MJInnocent15 year.

 

[DifferentKindOfLady]

I feel like last year. Shocked to see what these two punks did and with a big anger towards them!

 

[wendijane]

I just wish they would go away and i dont think for a moment they are believed. I hope that this will all stop soon enough.

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

I still don't think LN has had a huge impact on his legacy. I still hear his music, and he is still celebrated. New fans have actually been made out of this so I think it's almost a blessing. I still hope Wade and Jimmy get what's coming to them, but it might be a while. But I'd say I feel better about the situation than I did a year ago. Can't believe it's been a year.

 

[Nantucket Cat]

It should be very telling for anybody paying attention to this circus that no one else has come forward since LN. Reed was expecting a wave of new accusers. The trouble is that only happens when abuse has actually happened!

YES! This is my favorite thing to point out to people who believe the accusations. People will sometimes counter that with "well, look at the backlash these guys got," but that argument doesn't really make sense, given all the positive media attention they also got. If more accusers came out, especially if there was actual evidence for their claims, the backlash would go way down, so if anything, that should be even more motivation for any hypothetical victims to come out. That won't happen since there were no victims to begin with, but it's an interesting thought exercise.

 

[DangerUs'91]

Honestly, guys - I'm optimistic.

Checking every corner of every comment section on any Michael Jackson article or anything related to Robson/Safechuck - most people are defending Jackson, slamming the "documentary" and such.

Even places like Reddit are changing their tune back to "Yeah, he was probably innocent" whereas when the documentary came out - you'd see the opposite.

Most I know don't think Jackson is guilty. Though, I do have two friends who believe he's guilty - one I got into a debate with the other night. I'd never had to debate this before, so. She kind of didn't want to be convinced, it seemed.

Anyway, social media and online culture seems to have backlashed against the documentary. And in this day and age, with the traditional press meaning less and less - that's a good thing.

So yeah, I'm seeing far more pro-Jackson stuff than ever. Maybe this documentary is going to be helpful to killing this crap once and for all?

 

[DangerUs'91]

One thing I don't understand is how people who think he's guilty keep touting that "child porn was in his house!". Which is not true - the files and raid findings are all public record.

And on top of that, they somehow are implying the Santa Barbara County Police Department just shrugged that off child porn and decided not to charge him or admit it as evidence.

Sometimes the excuses to keep the accusations alive become conspiracy theory-esque. I read someone write that the 'train station inconsistency' must have been fabricated by the MJ Estate by altering blueprint dates. Or the discussion I had with a friend last night where I pointed out many issues with accusers' accounts, provable lies and such and each time I was countered with "Oh, he must have paid someone off" or "MJ groomed them so well that he must have also coached them to also forget specific dates or locations of abuse" and my favourite of last night - "Michael probably has people paying off courts to rewrite Robson and Safechuck's earlier testimonies to make them look unreliable and there's no more accusers because Michael's team is threatening people who come out of the woodwork."

Like...what?!

Suddenly, Michael Jackson becomes the Suge Knight of pedos with his entourage of strong-arming hustlers.

 

[myosotis]

Two aspects of the false allegations came to mind when I was listening to the radio (UK Radio4, News /talk / factual / comedy) this morning - 3 minutes at the end of one programme and 2 mins at the start of the next.

1. Desert Island discs, interviewing Michael Lewis, author of 'Liar's Poker' about the 1987 financial crash.

Asked 'what does he see in the future?', he responded that things would be different because

'there has been such a decline in trust, in both your society (UK) and my society (USA); trust in institutions, trust in other people.. '

( so things would be different about the goverment being trusted to handle it, because the accepted 'solution' depended on public trust). But the bigger and more general point was about a new lack of trust in almost everything and everyone.

2. The Unbelievable Truth - (Panel game chaired/ hosted by 'comedian' David Mitchell)

'I'm David Mitchell. The Ultimate truth at the heart of all creation is love - not my words, but the words of Michael Jackson. There will now be a short, uncomfortable silence'.

(This opening was met by a short burst of not very amused-sounding laughter. More - 'ha ha trying to be clever!', than 'ha ha very funny'.

I think one result of the media campaign over the last year has been to leave all fans with a lasting impression that media stories are not to be trusted, and secondly that LN has given a certain group of 'comedians' (largely white, middle aged, playing to similar audience) 'carte blanche' ('pun' intended) to vilify MJ in the belief that no-one will complain because 'everyone' believes him to be guilty' (largely because of the media coverage of LN).

Desert Island discs (@28 mins)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d6s1

The Unbelievable truth, Series 23 ep 2
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000czlr

 

[terrell]

Proud. Everything I said that was going to happen is happening. I said it was a lying documentary with OVERKILL lies that people will start dissecting and exposing the lies.

 

[terrell]

Now in hindsight, I think it's very sad that Michael had sleepovers in his bedroom at Neverland and hotels in the first place, no matter how innocent it was, that he slept on the floor in later part of his life and that most friends near to him and relatives understood him and the whole practice. He should have understood that people in general think in their minds something sexual when it comes to bed and it is considered a tabu and inappropriate thing in regular society. Had he say yes to Diane Sawyers question about ceasing with to have sleepovers at Neverland and really did so, he wouldn't have the grifter Gavin sleeping in the same bedroom as he did five years later after the interview in 1995.

And while I feel it is unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else in future make a claim and sues the Estate for the same thing as Wade & James, especially someone who also did have a sleepover at Michael's place in the past. But on the other hand I am so glad to see so many youth friends of Michael like Barnes, Culkin, Spence and Feldman stood up in defense for him after the documentary. Not what Reed definitely had expected.

At this point, to accused MJ is sound like crying wolf if anyone else say something. MJ was investigated far worst than anyone and look at the two liars now. Two guys who defended him for 20 years even after death until they had money issues and jumped on these lies and Wade did not get what he wanted 9MJ show).

 

[CaptainEoLove85]

One thing I don't understand is how people who think he's guilty keep touting that "child porn was in his house!". Which is not true - the files and raid findings are all public record.

And on top of that, they somehow are implying the Santa Barbara County Police Department just shrugged that off child porn and decided not to charge him or admit it as evidence.

Sometimes the excuses to keep the accusations alive become conspiracy theory-esque. I read someone write that the 'train station inconsistency' must have been fabricated by the MJ Estate by altering blueprint dates. Or the discussion I had with a friend last night where I pointed out many issues with accusers' accounts, provable lies and such and each time I was countered with "Oh, he must have paid someone off" or "MJ groomed them so well that he must have also coached them to also forget specific dates or locations of abuse" and my favourite of last night - "Michael probably has people paying off courts to rewrite Robson and Safechuck's earlier testimonies to make them look unreliable and there's no more accusers because Michael's team is threatening people who come out of the woodwork."

Like...what?!

Suddenly, Michael Jackson becomes the Suge Knight of pedos with his entourage of strong-arming hustlers.

I find it funny when haters would say fans see Michael as a god, but then turn around and come up with arguments like this. Does that not mean they see Michael as some sort of a god or wizard too? lol

 

[dam2040]

It definitely did huge damage to MJs reputation and was the final nail in the coffin for many.

However, I feel that the negative feel around MJ has weakened greatly and will eventually fade. Taj's doc series, if landed on a major platform, would do wonders for MJs image and probably be the best thing ever released about him if done right.

 

[ozemouze]

Except the US justice system is flawed and corrupt and people know it. Innocent people end up on death row and people like OJ Simpson walk free. 'Not guilty' is not the same thing as 'innocent' if the case doesn't have concrete evidence to definitively prove innocence, which is typically the case with things like alleged abuse. 'Not guilty' often just means reasonable doubt. So people will always draw their own conclusions from cases like that. It's just human nature. They're entitled to believe he's guilty, as long as that belief doesn't extend to negative behaviour &#8212; since they can't prove he's guilty. And we're entitled to believe he is innocent, but we can't prove it either. All any of us have is our beliefs when the evidence can't prove otherwise either way.

But that's how the justice system works! There are only two verdicts in criminal law: "guilty" and "not guilty", so there's no point in philosophizing about whether it means innocence or not. We have to understand and accept that the court (humans) aren't "omnipotent", they have to work with the evidence available to them, also basic notions such as it's not the innocence that should be proven (as you can't prove a negative), it's the guilt, and that's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There's a major problem with many people simply not understanding how things work (independently from MJ's case), and I don't think we should support this behaviour just because "that's the way it is". It would be nice if instead of "beliefs" people would value education.

I don't really get the above reasoning anyway, it's like "well, the justice system is flawed, let's get lenient about its fundamental basics as well" - even though they are there exactly in order to ensure fairness, and if that fails - as there's no perfect system lead by humans - at least the accountability of the process. It's the flaws we have to call out and fix, not throw away the entire system!

I have to disagree here. People don&#8217;t get to &#8220;believe&#8221; if someone&#8217;s guilty or innocent, because that&#8217;s how lynch mobs start, and this is precisely why we have laws, courts, judges, and juries. There is no evidence and the story should have ended right there. And honestly, I really don&#8217;t want to discuss that BS on a fan forum.

The presumption of innocence is a human right, and it&#8217;s better that a guilty person walks free than that an innocent person ends up in prison. That&#8217;s the risk you must take. Maybe OJ walked free because mistakes were made. (*) There were no mistakes made in MJ&#8217;s case, he won in a landslide victory and is to be presumed innocent. You can&#8217;t just say that because one guilty man wasn&#8217;t convicted, we&#8217;re entitled to judge everyone else who wasn&#8217;t convicted in the court of public opinion. That&#8217;s not how it works.

Thanks for summarizing this so clearly, it's shocking how many people still don't get it - not just its meaning and importance, but how generally applicable it is to all of us, not just to MJ or anyone partcular in question. Many people can't recognise their own good interest (and right), and that's a problem.

And to answer the question: how do I feel? - still (and more and more) furious.

 

[Anna]

But that's how the justice system works! There are only two verdicts in criminal law: "guilty" and "not guilty", so there's no point in philosophizing about whether it means innocence or not. We have to understand and accept that the court (humans) aren't "omnipotent", they have to work with the evidence available to them, also basic notions such as it's not the innocence that should be proven (as you can't prove a negative), it's the guilt, and that's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution. There's a major problem with many people simply not understanding how things work (independently from MJ's case), and I don't think we should support this behaviour just because "that's the way it is". It would be nice if instead of "beliefs" people would value education.

I don't really get the above reasoning anyway, it's like "well, the justice system is flawed, let's get lenient about its fundamental basics as well" - even though they are there exactly in order to ensure fairness, and if that fails - as there's no perfect system lead by humans - at least the accountability of the process. It's the flaws we have to call out and fix, not throw away the entire system!

Err, no. I was just saying that because a lot of corruption exists in the US justice system &#8212; shown in cases like OJ, or R. Kelly who got off despite a literal sex tape with a minor &#8212; people will often take a not guilty verdict as just another injustice if it's not innocence proven definitively by DNA evidence or an alibi from CCTV showing participation in a crime as impossible, etc. I'm not saying that view is right or acceptable or whatever, I'm saying it's understandable and inevitable because to doubt is human nature and sometimes that doubt is justified. People are entitled to presumption of innocence, but reality is usually a lot more complicated than that very simple notion. So, again, as long as they don't negatively act on it, people should be free to believe what they want. All of us on both sides are just utilising belief, since none of us were actually there for any of it.

 

[MJTruth]

It definitely did huge damage to MJs reputation and was the final nail in the coffin for many.

However, I feel that the negative feel around MJ has weakened greatly and will eventually fade. Taj's doc series, if landed on a major platform, would do wonders for MJs image and probably be the best thing ever released about him if done right.

That's a big IF.

The problem around all of this is public perception and that is based largely on inaccurate, biased, and malicious reporting.
The default position the news takes is to promote whatever allegations are made. The few news reports that DID highlight issues with the train station story did so with great trepidation and were very careful not to criticise the accusers. Those very same outlets immediately reported their allegations as FACT. their language was all about promoting them as victims, not accusers. It's sickening really because the evidence that PROVES the accusers have lied have been available to anybody who wants to read them for YEARS!

so back to TV.

Amazon Prime allowed "Chase The Truth" on their platform but that was accompanied by a gutless statement that made it clear the producers distanced themselves from the content of the show.

The Sat 1 Akte special commented that "we'll never know" if MJ was guilty or not, despite highlighting that the accusers are liars.

I can't see any mainstream channel or streaming service taking on Taj's documentary. At least not while the court case is ongoing, and probably not for a decade after it finishes.