Soundbites: Michael Jackson, did he, or didn't he? The question dominating timelines and conversations after Leaving Neverland airs

Michael Jackson performs at the Super Bowl XXVII Halftime show at the Rose Bowl on January 31, 1993. Photo / Getty Images

Did he, or didn't he?

That's the question which has dominated timelines and conversations in the last week, ever since the controversial documentary Leaving Neverland hit mainstream screens overseas.

This week, the two-part film based on claims that Michael Jackson sexually abused young boys, reached free-to-air television in New Zealand. The conversation continued … and intensified.

After watching it, many people have come to the conclusion that MJ, without doubt, is guilty of sexually abusing the two men, on which this documentary is centred, while they were children. They cannot fathom a reality which revolves around these two men being untrue in their words, particularly due to the detail each has given of their alleged abuse.

Others, some of whom have chosen not to watch the four-hour doco at all, are ride or die for the King of Pop and, no matter what proof is or isn't given to them, will never believe MJ can do wrong. Instead, they believe the artist is the victim and his accusers are the actual predators.

I can appreciate MJ's talent and the creative genius that he was, but as someone who admired his dancing over his music, I'm not a massive fan and don't feel the need to be protective of him.

But what I cannot comprehend, after watching both episodes, is how either group can arrive at a definitive decision.

The more I hear how disturbed people are by the detail of the acts, the more I question whether I am missing something.

I felt nothing watching the documentary. I wasn't disturbed, I wasn't shocked and I didn't feel as though anything I watched or heard was a revelation.

There are no proven facts. We have the words of two strangers and their loved ones. We have background about other sexual abuse allegations that followed MJ for years. The narrative of this documentary makes for very one-sided viewing and should be taken for what it is - the views of one side of a story.

MJ was different. He was hard to relate to and he put himself in situations that, unsurprisingly, got him into trouble. He was a grown man who spent a lot of alone time with young kids, particularly boys, and people cannot understand that. Fair enough.

Would I be surprised if the allegations were true? No, not at all. Would I be surprised if they were untrue? Again, no.

But there is no way any of us are ever going to know the truth. Unless footage that shows exactly what went on comes to light, the only people who know what really went on behind closed doors are these men and Michael Jackson.

We live in a world where we are expected to take a stand on serious issues, particularly when it comes to sexual abuse. We are expected to act immediately and if you're seen to be questioning whether a victim's testimony is in fact true, you can be accused of victimising them even further. No one wants to further victimise any victim but, surely, no one wants to cast guilt on someone without all the facts either?