• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

I can't help but remember how damning everything seemed at the time of the trial from the media coverage, and then years later to find out how much of that was completely made up and reported distortedly for ratings. The lesson I learned was to not trust media, particularly if they are reporting something "juicy".
 
If Jackson had actual child pornography, which is a crime against the state, and the prosecutor was eager to go after him...why wasn't he prosecuted for possessing child porn? More importantly, why wouldn't he have been charged at the federal level?

In truth, even the prosecutors stated that he had not child pornography, according to statement signed by the trial judge.

A lot of this is the same stuff that was available to the public back in 2003, so it's worth noting that the State's case basically collapsed when examined. For example, the article gives us this:

This raid also revealed for the first time the King of Pop's secret closet, hidden in the back of his bedroom and kept closed with three deadlocks. It was in here that he kept memorabilia like a signed photograph of Macaulay Culkin, stuffed animals and games, and naked photos.

Culkin signed his photo with the message: 'Don't leave me alone in the house.'
Click to expand...

Culkin also testified in court that Jackson had never attempted to touch him, leaving us to wonder why the Home Alone start would sign a photo of himself with a joke about being left home alone.

I have no doubt that the prosecution genuinely thought hat Jackson was a child molestor/rapist, and that they were doing the right thing by prosecuting him, and certainly any such allegation should be taken seriously. But as I said, their case fell apart completely.

Anyway, in this USA Today link with an obnoxious autoplay video so you can't say I didn't warn you, the police in charge of the investigation state that they had released everything they had over a decade ago, so you should be wary of anyone claiming that something is "new" or "newly released".
 
Yeah, something doesn't smell right about this.

I can see him paying hush money to kids' parents, but I can't imagine the cops sweeing kiddie porn under the rug.
 
They were in fact pictures of nude boys. But if I remember correctly the nude images where classified as art.
 
This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).
 
Last edited:
Yeah this has been going around for about a week, and does have a lot of red flags around it.

...secret closet, hidden in the back of his bedroom and kept closed with three deadlocks.
Click to expand...

Sounds like overdone sensationalism, even National Enquirer-esqe. My first impression is it will turn out to be false. If not, it will be interesting to hear why it was not more of a focus in the trial.
 
Last edited:
Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?
 
Eddie Dane said:
This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).
Click to expand...
This is what I want to believe.

I'm hard pressed to see how he could have gotten his 2005 acquittal if they had that kind of stuff on him.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet that they former ass't d.a. they contacted wasn't far away, as he is most likely the one who gave them the evidence. His former office refused to comment, but the sheriff's department in Santa Barbara says the evidence didn't come from them. Zonen and his former boss are still trying to vindicate their case because they got crushed in the trial.

Typical tabloid crap - picked up by some actual news outlets, but all referring back to the tabloid. The anniversary of Jackson's death is this week.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?
Click to expand...
They were able to legitimately connect the terms "Michael Jackson," "naked," "children," and "photos" in one story. Who wouldn't want to publish that?

Seriously, I think it's possible (even probable) that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But the article strings things together in such a way as to imply that what was found in his home was proof of that, including the implication that he was in possession of child pornography. If the police had found child pornography, he would have been charged as such and it would have been easy to prove even if the sexual abuse case fell apart.

Yep, it's garbage masquerading as journalism.
 
Tale said:
This is what I want to believe.

I'm hard pressed to see how he could have gotten his 2005 acquittal if they had that kind of stuff on him.
Click to expand...


IIRC, post raid it went from "they found child pornography" to, gasp, "they found pornography" to "children doing adult things". It was at this point that I knew the S.B.D.A. didn't have ****.

The look on Nancy Grace's face when he was acquitted was priceless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom