Be prepared to never see the MJ episode of The Simpsons ever again...

LMAO! I woke up my wife laughing to that.

Either way, I have my copy of the Simpsons Season 3 collection, so I can watch the episode anytime I want..... OR I could sell it for a high price?

The FBI were rigorously investigating, tracking and monitoring MJ from 1993 to 2005 (e.g. tracking down where he went, monitoring his computer activity, interviewing many people, tracking down leads, etc.), and have over 600 pages of documentation on him (the majority of which were publicly released after his death in 2009), yet the investigation found no evidence that he committed any crime at all, or any evidence of pedophilia (not even on his computer, where someone like him could've easily gotten access to child porn), let alone child sexual abuse:

In addition, the 2005 court case against MJ was among the biggest federal court cases ever, with a humongous amount of evidence presented (equivalent to that of a hundred court cases) and a huge amount of witnesses prepared (500 witnesses)...

After such exhaustive investigations spanning more than a decade, and humongous amounts of evidence and witnesses presented in court... even after all that, it still couldn't be proven that MJ committed any crime at all, let alone child sexual abuse. The court thus came to the most rational verdict: MJ is not guilty of all charges.

Not a bad idea.

@FireEmblem_Man: Doubtful. Those VHS, DVD, Blurays, etc are plentiful in the market. Probably saturated. Plus they’re not airing them - doesn’t mean they are being omitted from future catalogues.

While rare items usually fetch higher prices, wouldn't there also be a flip side that something could lose value if it gets smeared with so much negative press?

Not sure, someone was selling a french copy for $500 on ebay

@PfizersaurusRex: Well, I don't think they didn't have a choice. What exactly do you think would have happened if they didn't pull the episode?

In any case...I disagree with the decision, but it's their choice to make.

Weird timing for Capcom to be paying homage to MJ:

If you ever watch rebuttal videos defending M.J. his rabid supporters do address the question of little girls. True to form they don't expand upon what is meant by "where are the little girls" and will post photos of girls around him but NEVER in the context of how boys were around him as in sleeping in his bed or acting all touchy feely in old videos and clips.

When I watched the two part documentary I was annoyed and dismayed at the rationale both men had for defending M.J. from past allegations. Essentially they tried using their love for him as a reason to protect him. Molestation allegations aside, he treated these two boys like disposable action figures. When their worth was up, they were gone...until he needed them again. They were defending a very one sided and subjective friendship. One still has to question the motives and legitimacy of only being able to hear one side of a story. Talk about insanity.

You brought up the cultural difference in a means to excuse. It depends on culture sure, but we're speaking specifically on actions done in western culture, not eastern. In an court of law in western society, you can't present a defense for stoning a homosexual man by citing a theocracy in the Middle East where this may be an accepted practice and a cultural norm. So what? I'm not saying that sleeping with boys or such is illegal, it's just to cite the fallacy of logic. It's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand and a nothing but an attempt at diversion by false equivocation.

As far as Brandi's testimony, I've listened to a bit of it (it's quite lengthy) but regardless of how much I listen to, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's he said, she said. She, MJ being her uncle, has just as much vested interest in protecting him as you could claim Wade and Safechuck have in financial incentive to attack him. So what if she contradicts his statements? Unless she's witnessed the abuse herself, I'm sure she fully believes them. That's not indicative of truth, and what grants her more credibility? Her insider knowledge? Wade and Safechuck were insiders too and I'm sure they had many times with MJ when she wasn't present. I see her testimony of being just as credible, but Wade and Safechcuk do have things on their side that I haven't heard addressed: why did MJ predominantly focus on boys (and as for being shy around girls, I've already addressed this), and why did he take specific, concerted effort to focus on only a few families of those boys and shower them, for years, with an intense degree of attention, gifts, and adoration? Why did he groom these families and the relationships?

You don't need to do that if you love children and simply want to be around them. I would think that any grown man that adored children would do so in an indiscriminate collective. He would've had equal amounts of boys and girls around him and he would've paid them equal attention instead of the specific targeting of a handful. That's what make me suspicious. If MJ's interests were sincerely innocent and if he were smart, he would have taken extraordinary lengths to assure skeptics he wasn't taking it farther than that, not only by being unspecific and indiscriminate in his attention, but by having the kids sleep in separate buildings, having witnesses he trusted watching him, hell, even having cameras to document his every move and moment when the questionable actions occurred. His own housekeeper came out and claimed that she found various pieces of evidence of improper conduct (finding their underwear with MJ's when she cleaned up the hot tub, etc). I don't know if she's seeking money, but I haven't heard of it if she is.

In the end, even if MJ is innocent, there is no way you can scoff and blame people for suspecting him a pedophile. The benefit of the doubt of his innocence hangs by a shred, it always will, and when you're speaking in the defense of someone so famous who's touched so many lives, that is far more than sufficient in them absolving him.

@MirkoS77:

Some more evidence I posted above:

I don't see any convincing reason why I should trust a one-sided documentary's conspiracy theory from two accusers, especially Wade Robson (who several witnesses claim to be a compulsive liar with ulterior motives), over the court's verdict that MJ is not guilty, the 500+ witnesses involved in the trial, or the FBI who rigorously investigated, tracked and monitored MJ for 12 years. The FBI and the courts had far more evidence and witnesses available to them, and have far more expertise and experience regarding this matter, yet their conclusion is that he is not guilty of committing any crime.

Ultimately, we can never be 100% certain about anything, so there is still a chance that he may have been guilty, but the most likely rational conclusion in light of all the evidence from both sides is that he is not guilty, as the court declared back in 2005. Either way, it looks like we probably won't be coming to any kind of agreement here, so we may as well just agree to disagree.

A related point I mentioned earlier: While the mass-media is going after MJ, they're completely ignoring the rock music industry, where child sexual abuse claims are widespread, against the likes of Elvis Presley, David Bowie, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, etc. It reeks of double-standards for the mass-media to single-out MJ (despite the fact that he was found not guilty by the courts and FBI) while giving a free pass to the rock music industry (where there are numerous claims about rockstars sexually abusing child "groupies").

@Jag85: You've still refused to answer my questions that are begging for explanations, but I will say it's not surprising that someone under investigation would take means to remove evidence implicating themselves once they are in the eye of the law. It's remained unexplained why MJ targeted specific individuals (of a specific gender) with intense infatuation that he took effort to grow close to for years to throw money and his lifestyle at, it doesn't address his maid who worked for him for years (who was a first hand account and not seeking monetary compensation) that's spoken on suspicious circumstances of what she saw. There's immense smoke......there's more than likely a huge fire.

But I agree, let's part ways in disagreement.

It's interesting the MJ reaction but stuff like The Usual Suspects is still getting shown on TV without anyone batting an eye-lid considering Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey's current predicaments.

I have to say, even knowing that these guys are shit-bags, I'd still watch and enjoy the movie, but probably wouldn't listen to Michael Jackson if he popped up on MTV.

Trial by media is barbaric in nature, and shouldn't be allowed, this documentary may be true but it's also there to make money. That's not a proper way to achieve justice, justice must be done by independent organizations, like the justice system.

So either the justice system is corrupt, or these people are liars, mj could also have outsmarted the justice system, but then the justice system must do their work and not the media.

In 200 years they will look at this just how we look at the middle ages. Truly sad that, since we kinda figured out already in the eighties, but the internet made sure leaders got scared of a lot of stupid people, because they all have a voice, If you told me 20 years ago if there would ever be a large group of people from western countries that would believe the earth is flat, I would have called you crazy.

You don't even have to go back to the Middle Ages, but we only need to go back to the 20th century to see the kind of savagery that can result from "trial by media" and mob justice without due process: lynchings that targeted black males throughout the 19th century and most of the 20th century. Back in those days, if a white female accused a black male of sexual assault, that was an immediate death sentence, as he'd be surrounded by mobs of white males jumping to her "defense" and lynching him on the spot in broad daylight, in the most horrific, barbaric manner possible (tortured and killed far more brutally than anything even ISIS could think of). Thousands of black males were brutally lynched in this manner, up until the savage 1955 lynching of 14 year-old Emmett Till, which sparked the civil rights movement. All because public mobs automatically "believed" the allegations of white females over the denials of black males (and because of rampant racism, of course), without being given the right to defend themselves in court.

What the medieval inquisitions and the 19th/20th century lynchings show are the incredible damage that can result from "trial by media" and mob justice without due process. Every citizen deserves due process and a fair trial, no matter how convinced the public mobs are that s/he is guilty. What we have today are essentially the digital equivalent of lynchings, destroying the reputation of people on the basis of allegations that have never been proven in a court of law.

And yeah, the internet has brought all kinds of crazy people out of the woodworks, from all corners of the political spectrum, and has given them a platform to spread their views to the whole world. The internet is like a double-edged sword, with a lot of good and a lot of bad that's come from it.

@nintendoboy16: @

I'm literally watching the episode now on Xfinity's on demand.