[Barbing]

I recognized that anesthetic from its famous irresponsible use-

"Attention to the risks of off-label use of propofol increased in August 2009, after the release of the Los Angeles County coroner's report that musician Michael Jackson was killed by a mixture of propofol and the benzodiazepine drugs lorazepam, midazolam, and diazepam on 25 June 2009." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propofol

Used properly, however:

"To induce general anesthesia, propofol is the drug used almost exclusively, having largely replaced sodium thiopental."

[stavros]

Apparently MJ was taking propofol to sleep, which another commenter said was akin to "getting a haircut by undergoing chemo".

[poszlem]

That "another commenter" was Robin Williams - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fZkFooaaaSo

[Barbing]

Miss this brilliant man

—

Happy to’ve learn a URL trick on HN so I’ll reshare:

https://www.youtube.com/v/fZkFooaaaSo

[stavros]

Oh wow, I can't believe he was on reddit!

[hungryhobbit]

Between what he did to children, and what his parents did to him, it's hard to really blame the guy for having extreme sleep problems though.

[applfanboysbgon]

> what he did to children

The media and the people who bought into their shameless attention-grabbing lies are the reason he had sleep problems. He was unanimously acquitted of all counts, but the media made his life into a living hell by consistently portraying him as a pedophile because it drove incredible engagement numbers. A justice system should be "innocent until proven guilty", and yet MJ was deemed guilty even after proven innocent. Longform read from an actually good journalist, if you care to learn for yourself: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_61...

[openasocket]

That article was written 16 years ago and misses a lot as a result. it doesn’t mention the new allegations, including those documented in Leaving Neverland. It also glosses over the accusations in the 1990s. It’s papered over that those allegations were lies, but he settled the lawsuit with them for over $23M.

[applfanboysbgon]

Settling isn't an admission of guilt. It's plausible that he wanted to avoid the media circus that would inevitably result, and given that fighting it out in court was significantly more damaging to his reputation than settling the 90s case was despite being exonerated, he was probably right to settle. The article does also touch on the indications that those allegations were also not credible, although it doesn't do a deep dive.

I don't give much credence to new allegations. Where were these allegations when he was alive, and why are people still publishing documentaries? You don't need a documentary to make an allegation. They're doing it because they want to make money, then. Off a dead man, who can't defend himself.

[palmotea]

This seems pretty damning:

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/film/michael-jacksons-biopi...:

> Over the years, Jackson and the estate have paid out millions to settle various claims, with some lawsuits still pending without ever admitting wrongdoing. A significant reason for the large settlement totaling about $25 million made by Jackson in 1994 to the Chandler family and their lawyer was the drawing of specific markings Jackson had on his penis caused by the skin condition vitiligo.

> Jordie Chandler drew the markings and the drawing was put into a sealed envelope. During the criminal investigation, Jackson was so resistant to having his genitals photographed that he slapped one of his doctors. It didn’t matter for the civil suit. My reporting showed that when Jordie’s drawing was unsealed, it matched the photos.

[openasocket]

> I don't give much credence to new allegations. Where were these allegations when he was alive

It’s worth noting that it’s common for it to take years or decades for victims to speak out against an abuser. Especially when the victims are children. Especially when the abuser is a prominent figure, like the literal King of Pop.

I’m not going to try and convince you that these allegations are credible (though I believe they are), I just want you to think about how a child victim might behave in that situation. There’s almost never any objective evidence or 3rd party witnesses of abuse. It’s almost always the word of one person against another. And it may be years before a child victim even fully understands what was happening, and years beyond that to come to terms with it.

[sokoloff]

> yet MJ was deemed guilty even after proven innocent.

He was not “proven innocent”; that’s not how the legal system works. He was “found not guilty” which is a much lower standard than “proven innocent”.

(OJ Simpson was similarly found not guilty; do you think he was also “proven innocent”?)

[applfanboysbgon]

I am aware. Being pedantically correct would ruin the intended rhetorical point of reversing the standard phrase, though. "Deemed guilty even after found not guilty" just doesn't really work. I even knew I was going to get a reply about OJ when I wrote it. Miscarriages of justice certainly do happen, but still we should broadly presume innocence until proven guilty, and none of the evidence or testimony in MJ's case came close to being as compelling as OJ's, nor was there any indication that the jury was making a political statement by acquitting.

[appletrotter]

> Being pedantically correct would ruin the intended rhetorical point of reversing the standard phrase, though

Maybe it's a sign

[iwontberude]

I mean, he may have never done a sexual thing but his pedophilia was quite obvious and the degeneracy of parents to allow their children to spend the night in the bed of a grown man is not really good for society.

[lukan]

"he may have never done a sexual thing but his pedophilia was quite obvious"

How is it obvious pedophilia, if you say he may have never done a sexual thing to them?

[hilariously]

because he paid families to sleep in beds and hang out with their children, this is not a normal adult man behavior, and defending it on the internet is weird.

[jp_sc]

And you know this because of your firsthand experience observing it... or because the media told you so? Considering how readily the media is willing to lie for engagement, the truth is more likely to be the opposite of what they report.

[jvanderbot]

According to you. (And me, but just saying, society is a big place to be homogenized)

[malbs]

Here's a podcast deep diving into what it was he did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J1JQaIrxRU

[falsaberN1]

It's not only not been proven, but the island man stuff and testimony of people like Culkin suggest he actually did the opposite of doing bad things to children and was most likely a scapegoat for the "elites" of Hollywood because of his race.

At the very least drop an "allegedly" or something to make it sound a little tasteful.

[Barbing]

> a scapegoat for the "elites" of Hollywood because of his race

Never connected Jackson to e.g. Weinstein - if allegation’s true that’s a horrible thing