>Thats why he sought them out,

this is patently false.
it is easily proven that the only contact Michael ever had with these children was through the persistent contact of their parents. rare was it that he voluntarily chose their company.


>kept them sleeping in his bed,

as is this. there is no doubt that he slept in the same bed as children and that's reasonable room for suspicion. but this has been litigated numerous times already.

he absolutely did not invite children into his bedroom or his bed.

>showed them porn

false. this was disproven in the 2005 case. no children were ever shown pornographic material. it was alleged, but it was found that the porn entered into evidence was printed AFTER a report was made. Sneddon also allowed the accuser to handle the material in question during grand jury proceedings BEFORE entering it into evidence.

>and kept them young, replacing one after the other.

absolutely false.
this allegation falls apart when you look at the allegations of Leaving Neverland in detail.

Wade suggests he was "replaced" by Macaulay Culkin, who has for decades denied abuse, in and out of court, including under penalty of perjury. Culkin's father (who was abusive to Macaulay and his brother) even corroborates these claims.

Culkin is older than Wade Robson by a couple of years.

the other principal accuser alleges the end of abuse at age 14. he also alleges abuse in a location that did not exist until he was at least age 16.

he also alleges being "discarded" at the same age. there are multiple photos showing him in the vicinity of Jackson 2 years after that point. and much later in the 2000s, on a job shooting his last video prior to the allegations of that period. his mother is also seen in some of those same photos.


>If you REFUSE to see the obvious, that's on you.

what's obvious is that you've been regurgitating tabloid falsehoods that were disproven when brought up under a microscope.

and you refuse to see the tangible proof otherwise.

that is, on you.