This thread has been an interesting and devastating read. It also made me realise that Leaving Neverland never had to convince people, it only had to leave them with doubts. That was the goal, because that's enough when it comes to something as abhorrent as what they're accusing Michael of. They wanted to plant a seed that they could continue to water and I believe this was Evan's objective also.
In the UK, there was a doctor called Andrew Wakefield (I know this may seem random but stay with me...) who concocted a sham paper linking vaccines to autism. The paper was eventually removed from medical journals due to the credibility issues and it was later discovered that he was trying to ruin the reputation of the vaccines being distributed because...he wanted to sell his own vaccine. Decades of scientific research has established no relationship between vaccines and autism but it's still a widely held belief. There are even doctors who perpetuate this belief and it's always for money or notoriety. There's money in medical conspiracy theories and there's money in saying shocking things about Michael Jackson. What Michael said about starting to believe a lie you hear often enough is very true. A lie can live on for far longer than any person, and grow and evolve as the torch is passed and people twist it and use it to benefit their own agenda. It doesn't have to be credible - it just has to be "plausible enough" to people who are either leaning on the side of that belief already or people who aren't invested enough to look deeper into it. Does that sound familiar?
I remember having fears and doubts when I was younger, as soon as I was old enough to comprehend and research the allegations. All I knew was that somebody here was a monster, either Michael or the people pretending to be abuse victims for financial gain and I've never lost that determination to find out which party it is. I've destroyed my mental health on many occasions researching (I'm a survivor myself and I find this subject particularly upsetting but that feels silly to say, because who doesn't?) because I wanted to do my due diligence as someone who loves to talk about Michael to anyone who will listen. How could I continue to do that without being as certain as I can be that he's not a child abuser? Nothing hurts me more than people who say that fans of Michael turn a blind eye because they want to enjoy his music. There is no person on this Earth I could look at with anything but disgust if I thought they had hurt a child, there is no redemption in my eyes. My love of his music is entangled with my love of who he was as a person as I personally find it hard to separate art from the artist.
In all of my years researching Michael, there's never been an accuser or witness who doesn't have something to gain from saying he's guilty and that's something I've never, ever seen before in other people who have been accused of the same things. It's not just the fact that they sue for money, it's the timing, the inconsistencies that can't be explained by poor memory because they're so egregious...you'd have to believe that Michael selectively and masterfully only abused people who would turn out to have credibility issues and a financial motive and have been correct every single time.
It's my belief that he was lonely and wanted to be part of these families and be a father or uncle figure. My personal theory is that it was therapeutic to him to be kind and nurturing to children and prove to himself that he was nothing like his father. I think his higher speaking voice may have been a product of this too...he was determined to never be violent or intimidating in any way. He wanted to be the adult he needed when he was a child and make sure every child he knew felt safe and loved. While not a healthy or appropriate approach to childhood trauma, I don't think he ever looked at a child in a sexual way. That being said, he also seemed to love children from even a young age. I think he felt safe around them in comparison to adults and that never changed. He may have been somewhat idealistic but he never expressed that he saw sexual relationships between children and adults to be anything other than disgusting. Meanwhile, you have Dan Reed describing abuse as a "sexually fulfilling relationship" and Evan sexualising his own son to Carrie Fisher. I can't help but feel that some people are projecting onto Michael.
I'm sorry for the wall of text this turned out to be!
