Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[bruto]

I think some people are still making a mistake confusing likelihood and bad feeling with conviction and punishment. What does it mean that most people would not have let their kids stay the night with Michael Jackson? A lot and a little both. I would not have because I would have considered it a bad risk. But does that mean I think he should have been prosecuted without good proof? No. We act for ourselves as we think prudent. We act on others as we think proper. There's a difference.

 

[DragonLady]

When the alarm was first mentioned, I just thought of it as a toy. Of course, I should've realized it would just be one part of a very serious security system.

If I was worried about that I would have a blaring alarm that would wake everyone in the house, esp. security, who would come running to save me. Or, if I had enough money, I would just pay a bodyguard to stand guard outside the bedroom door. I wouldn't install some doorbell chime you can barely hear. ESP. if I'm taking something like propofol before I go to sleep.

If you're paranoid about being attacked, and you take heavy sedatives to sleep, wouldn't you want your alarm to sound like the world was coming to an end? Wouldn't you have guns nearby for self-defense? I don't buy the paranoia explanation.

(snip)

But it's never about what you or I would do. It's about what the people involved in the situation would do. THEY clearly see an alarm as being a thing they needed or wanted, and their reasons do not need to align with anyone else's reasons.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If he was drugged out he may not have cared. And also if he knew it was the other boy he may have gotten off on him watching. It annoys men when people make illogical arguments that supposedly proves something that it doesn't.

Me too

Also, why does a person need an alarm bell to "let them know when someone s coming" when they are innocently sleeping in bed with a boy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The "Alarm" sounded like a door bell. I'd suggest that the most obvious reason for it was that since the bedroom was two stories, it is more than possible for people to enter the lower area without being heard, and most would not want to head upstairs while he was asleep, so the "alarm" was a way of letting him know when people had come to see him without their having to yell or come up the stairs to see if he was there.

People seem to be focused on "Why did have need an alarm when he had a boy sleeping in his bed" but the real question is, why have the alarm when he didn't? The answer is likely to be the same.

 

[DragonLady]

The "Alarm" sounded like a door bell. I'd suggest that the most obvious reason for it was that since the bedroom was two stories, it is more than possible for people to enter the lower area without being heard, and most would not want to head upstairs while he was asleep, so the "alarm" was a way of letting him know when people had come to see him without their having to yell or come up the stairs to see if he was there.

Yes; that's what it seems to be to me, too. Just a way of preventing people unexpectedly walking into his sleeping quarters, or yelling in an area where other people were often trying to sleep, too.

More speculation, but I'd also hazard there may have been a bit more to than meets the eye. It may have been rigged so his security team could alert him if there was something that caused them alarm, and he probably had some kind of protocol to follow if that happened.

 

[Fudbucker]

No. The point is that like the OP, you're arguing from assertions and personal incredulity.

You want to diddle boys in private.... you dead bolt the front door, or put a chain lock on it. Ever stayed in a hotel? The staff can come through your keypad locked door at will. You have internal bolts or chains to prevent that. He had a chime. It went off when someone entered his bedroom suite, not when they were on the stairs. The staff and several associates had the keypad code. He just wanted to know when someone was coming and it could've been for multiple reasons, yet you've eliminated all but one of those reasons.

Because he liked to sleep with little boys and surrounded himself with them.

This is a skeptics board, is it not? We'll never know for sure what he did, but the evidence we do have is damning. I don't know if he ever molested anyone, but men who sleep with little boys and have kiddie-porn are probably pedophiles

One of the books found in Jackson’s possession was titled, Room to Play, which “contained numerous photographs of children.” According to the report, some of the images contained children’s faces superimposed on adult bodies with their private parts exposed.

Authorities also found numerous photos of children located inside a safe in the employee break room of Jackson’s home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...y-surfaced-report_us_5769644fe4b0a75709b7d847

If police raided your house, would they find that kind of stuff?

 

[John Nowak]

Ransom was originally 50,000 then raised to 70,000. Not quite "millions" but it was 1932 so that was real money. Well, more real at least.

Indeed, the inflation calculator I used makes $70,000 in 1932 $1,227,483.21 in 2016. Of course, Jackson was richer than Lindy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Because he liked to sleep with little boys and surrounded himself with them.

This is a skeptics board, is it not? We'll never know for sure what he did, but the evidence we do have is damning. I don't know if he ever molested anyone, but men who sleep with little boys and have kiddie-porn are probably pedophiles

One of the books found in Jackson’s possession was titled, Room to Play, which “contained numerous photographs of children.” According to the report, some of the images contained children’s faces superimposed on adult bodies with their private parts exposed.

Authorities also found numerous photos of children located inside a safe in the employee break room of Jackson’s home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...y-surfaced-report_us_5769644fe4b0a75709b7d847

If police raided your house, would they find that kind of stuff?

It is? I never would have guessed by your post. Did you even bother looking up the book to see what it was, or did you just accept HuffPost's claims?

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1811

Probably not my taste, especially at $750, but certainly not child porn or what the Huff claimed.

 

[DragonLady]

The collection was revealed in newly surfaced documents obtained by RadarOnline that detail a raid on Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch estate in 2003, carried out as part of an investigation into child molestation charges against the singer.

Fixed it for 'em. If this stuff was found then, and if it was illegal, why wasn't he prosecuted for it? If it was so damning, why wasn't he convicted?

According to previously unseen reports from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, authorities seized more than 80 video recordings and computer hard drives, as well as notes, diaries, documents, photographs and audiotapes.

Unseen by whom? Are they telling us the Sheriff's Department never looked at all this stuff?

Former Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who helped prosecute Jackson’s case, told RadarOnline that many of the materials found were may (or could) have been used to “desensitize” children.

Fixed another one. Jackson was acquitted.

One of the books found in Jackson’s possession was titled, Room to Play, which “contained numerous photographs of children.” According to the report, some of the images contained children’s faces superimposed on adult bodies with their private parts exposed.

I *assume* that's this:

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214/

I don't know what's in it, but I'm fairly certain if I can buy it on Amazon.com, it's probably not illegal.

I'm not certain what this means, but it seems to be saying there's nothing new:

UPDATE (June 22): The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office released a statement to Billboard explaining that “The documents with a header titled Sheriff’s Department that contain a case number appear to be Sheriff’s Office documents.”

The majority of the 88-page report consists of documents with a Sheriff’s Department header and case number, however, the authenticity of the few photographs and images included alongside those documents is harder to assess. “The photos that are interspersed appear to be some evidentiary photos taken by Sheriff’s investigators and others are clearly obtained from the internet,” the Sheriff’s Office said.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Because he liked to sleep with little boys and surrounded himself with them.

This is a skeptics board, is it not? We'll never know for sure what he did, but the evidence we do have is damning. I don't know if he ever molested anyone, but men who sleep with little boys and have kiddie-porn are probably pedophiles

One of the books found in Jackson’s possession was titled, Room to Play, which “contained numerous photographs of children.” According to the report, some of the images contained children’s faces superimposed on adult bodies with their private parts exposed.

Authorities also found numerous photos of children located inside a safe in the employee break room of Jackson’s home.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...y-surfaced-report_us_5769644fe4b0a75709b7d847

If police raided your house, would they find that kind of stuff?

I wonder if this is a skeptics board or not sometimes, or if some of you have just wandered in with your biases.

Have you read the transcripts of the trial?

This is the same crap that Zonen and his boss started peddling from the beginning.... "this is classic paedo grooming technique". Yet not one iota of any of the evidence they bagged is viewed as child porn. Zonen is, obviously to me, the source of the RadarOnLine articles and the person who had all the files. The police reviewed the files and so did the DA. Why wasn't any of this information included in the trial? Simple... it is meaningless. It is all innuendo.

HuffPo cites RadarOnLine. Brilliant skeptical evidence-gathering.

 

[DragonLady]

I couldn't get the link to the cited .pdf to open. Here's another one, which is working for me. The pages are out of order, and there's a lot of weird images (which appear to be ads) between so it's not very user friendly. But if anyone else wants to review it, here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/2016062...ne.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf

 

[Eddie Dane]

HuffPo cites RadarOnLine. Brilliant skeptical evidence-gathering.

My opinion of HuffPo has...diminished in recent years.

 

[Foolmewunz]

My opinion of HuffPo has...diminished in recent years.

Like the Enquirer, they may stumble on something from time to time in their rush to publish. This doesn't seem like one of those times.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

The staff can come through your keypad locked door at will. You have internal bolts or chains to prevent that. He had a chime. It went off when someone entered his bedroom suite, not when they were on the stairs. The staff and several associates had the keypad code. He just wanted to know when someone was coming and it could've been for multiple reasons, yet you've eliminated all but one of those reasons.

Yeah, I assume this room was more akin to an apartment than a bedroom (IIRC someone earlier mentioned it had two stories?). If you are in a room like that and staff comes and goes, it wouldn't be easily apparent from everywhere in the room when someone enters. I wouldn't be surprised at a small chime on the door to alert him that someone else might be in the room so he doesn't do something like walk naked out of the bathroom, can stop what could be a confidential (business or personal) conversation on the phone, or something like that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I couldn't get the link to the cited .pdf to open. Here's another one, which is working for me. The pages are out of order, and there's a lot of weird images (which appear to be ads) between so it's not very user friendly. But if anyone else wants to review it, here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/2016062...ne.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf

Well after reading that I'm convinced... I'm convinced that after their training, some people see grooming materials in anything from nude artwork to adult magazines. Thus it is clear that anyone that has in their possession any form of depicted naked people, and has contact with Children, then they need to be dealt with as if they have grooming materials for those children, cause according to the training, this is the case.

 

[John Nowak]

I would not have because I would have considered it a bad risk. But does that mean I think he should have been prosecuted without good proof? No.

I'm inclined to agree, and I suspect most of us are in agreement. "There is no slam-dunk proof that Jackson was a child molester." Beyond that, I don't see a big conflict between "But I think he was / wasn't / no opinion."

I think Lizzie Borden was guilty. I don't think the evidence would hold up in court.

I have no opinion on whether Michael Jackson was a child molester. No evidence held up in court.

 

[DragonLady]

Well after reading that I'm convinced... I'm convinced that after their training, some people see grooming materials in anything from nude artwork to adult magazines. Thus it is clear that anyone that has in their possession any form of depicted naked people, and has contact with Children, then they need to be dealt with as if they have grooming materials for those children, cause according to the training, this is the case.

Apparently, yes. I just slogged through all 88 pages, and I feel a bit sorry for the investigator who had to type up all the descriptions of that motley hoard.

Too bad MJ never met our Tragic Monkey. TM could've taught him how to have a trove worth looking through!

 

[3point14]

Well, I've been a full on consumer of the blue milk over this for years.

Sorry Jacko.

(anyone remember when we had a press with journalistic integrity?)

 

[Fudbucker]

It is? I never would have guessed by your post. Did you even bother looking up the book to see what it was, or did you just accept HuffPost's claims?

https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214

http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=book&id=1811

Probably not my taste, especially at $750, but certainly not child porn or what the Huff claimed.

Certainly not?

"The effect of the image is certainly transgressive, and those who are uncomfortable with any sexualized depiction of children will probably have pejorative labels for this work."

Sounds like kiddie porn.

 

[Fudbucker]

I wonder if this is a skeptics board or not sometimes, or if some of you have just wandered in with your biases.

Have you read the transcripts of the trial?

This is the same crap that Zonen and his boss started peddling from the beginning.... "this is classic paedo grooming technique". Yet not one iota of any of the evidence they bagged is viewed as child porn. Zonen is, obviously to me, the source of the RadarOnLine articles and the person who had all the files. The police reviewed the files and so did the DA. Why wasn't any of this information included in the trial? Simple... it is meaningless. It is all innuendo.

HuffPo cites RadarOnLine. Brilliant skeptical evidence-gathering.

So does Telegraph, Vanity Fair, and Daily Beast. Maybe the report is ********, but from the documents and videos leaked, it looks legit.