Michael Jackson: The Verdict [2026]

June 19, 2026

3-part Documentary (50 minutes per episode, around 2.5 hours altogether)

Focusing on his 2005 trial on sexual assault charges, Michael Jackson: The Verdict turned out to be a definitive Michael Jackson documentary. At least for me. There’s one singular moment in this 3-part documentary that convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson is not who he claims to be. I don’t have to know all the specifics, and I doubt we’ll ever find out what really happened. However, we can piece together a story that paints him in an extremely negative light. Before we really dig into this, I want to bring something to your attention. I don’t know if you saw the new Michael Jackson biopic, simply titled Michael. If you didn’t, I have to tell you that it’s bad. It’s so bad that I will write a separate review for it detailing everything that’s wrong with it.

The estate that controls and reaps benefits from his catalogue was surely behind it. This Satanawful movie eventually became hugely successful, making a BILLION fucking dollars on a $200 million budget. It also prompted a lot of people to use this new attention to promote their documentaries. First came Michael Jackson: An American Tragedy, and now we have this little thing. I guess that’s just how the world works. Moreover, if you head over to IMDb, you’ll see that not only is the movie rated insanely high, but all the documentaries about him are rated incredibly low. For example, the documentary we’re talking about today has only a 4.7 rating. This is proof that Michael Jackson still has diehard fans who are willing to disregard anything and downvote a perfectly good docu.

I said it once, and I’ll say it again: this is something similar to a cult. I don’t want to say an outright cult because of all those real cults. At this point, I have to address something. When it comes to this stuff, I am of the relatively firm belief that you should separate art from the artist. This is why I think that Roman Polanski or Luc Besson movies are great, but they’re actually pieces of shit in real life. And don’t get me started on Woody Allen. In that case, I think not only is he a piece of shit, but his movies are as well. With that out of the way, it’s time to go over some important stuff regarding this documentary. Michael Jackson: The Verdict features a lot of evidence from his 2005 trial that I have never seen before.

The lead prosecutor will methodically explain things from his perspective, leading us through this bizarre trial. We will also hear from one of Michael’s lawyers and a lot of his entourage from back then. And then there’s the video evidence. We’ll get to see parts of the bodycam footage from the initial raid that’s just stunning. When you enter the house, you can see that there’s something terribly wrong here. Not eccentric, not artistic, just plain old wrong. Now, it is true that focus is on this trial, but to fully understand how we got here, the docu goes back in time to even more court cases, settlements, and unsettling accusations. This has been happening for a long time, and up until 2005, they were able to keep it somewhat contained.

And I don’t want to keep you waiting too long, so I’ll just come out and tell you what that thing is that tipped the scales for me. And a funny thing happened after that single moment. I started looking at everything surrounding this case through a different lens. I know it’s going to sound a bit odd that, among all of this evidence, including interviews, testimonies, and all different kinds of stuff, a single magazine page did it for me. It all starts with Vincent Amen, his associate and firm supporter. He ends up with this bag he’s asked to stash away. Curiosity got the better of him, and he looked in it. What he finds is something extraordinary. A magazine you can use to order pornography, in which Michael Jackson circled the videos he wanted. Can you guess what those videos featured?

Naked children. Naked children, you sick fuck. Correction, you sick fucks. I mean, how is this even possible in 2003? How can you order a video cassette titled EURO Nudist families, Nudist Youth Weekend, and Fathers-Sons and Friends? Upon seeing this, Vincent Amen changed his mind about Michael and the whole trial and never looked back. Finally, I do want to further clarify my position and thought process when it comes to the allegations that Michael Jackson sexually abused kids. My initial psychological analysis was that Michael was a person who had, or equally distressing, didn’t have a good childhood. He missed out on all the stuff a normal kid was going through, plus had a vicious father, and that scarred him for life.

Once he had enough money and power to make anything happen, he decided to recreate it. To recreate and “share” it. I was thinking that since he was so damaged during his childhood, he wanted to provide other children a better experience. He wanted to provide them with a surrogate father and family in a way that’s supposed to be beneficial for both parties. Perhaps he was even trying to solve his own demons and show his father how you should treat children. I know that all of this sounds perverse considering what happened, but just bear with me.

In criminal psychology, there’s this concept that those who were abused are trying to recreate the moment that was the most damaging to them, but with the reversal of roles. This is not a universal rule, far from it. There are plenty of people who go through all sorts of trauma and do not commit crimes. However, let’s focus for a moment on those who do. If, for example, a man was sexually assaulted as a child, and then, as an adult, he commits a sexual assault, in his mind, he’s reliving that traumatic memory but from a perspective where he has all the power and control.

This is where things get a bit complicated. I don’t think Michael was sexually abused as a kid, although that’s also a possibility. Especially when you consider his sexuality, that’s repressed either because of this or other factors. Those factors can include the possibility of homosexuality, something that a superstar of his caliber simply could not afford. Correction, he could afford it, but the record label and all those profiting from him could not. If we used the Occam’s Razor principle, all of this trauma started to manifest once he was in a position of power, and possibly with a mind altered by drug use. I wonder what your opinion is on this. If you have something to say, the comment section is below.

Oh, and just one more thing before I go. When it comes to the outcome of this trial, the interview with Juror number 8 was quite illuminating. You can see what a veteran top lawyer can do with a case full of incriminating evidence. I mean, just remember the OJ trial and everything will be clear.