• 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

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...

Amen, brother.
 
Elagabalus said:
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.
Click to expand...

It was during this trial that I first became aware of Nancy Grace. She was so sure, so positive, of his guilt, and I just never got why.

And then we learned of the evidence and the verdict.

I've never seen a reason to watch her again since.
 
From what I could tell this is stuff that investigators claimed was evidence that he was grooming kids for molestation but not actual child porn. Images of naked kids are not necessarily child porn. If it was child porn, they would have claimed that's what it was, charged him with that, and secured a conviction.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile. Given that, and with Jackson's regular access to and frequently arranging special "alone times" specifically with young boys, it would be quite surprising to me if he had actually not molested at least some of them. As to whether he molested the specific ones who accused him, obviously there's no concrete proof.
 
I would not be surprised to find that Jackson was all sorts of nasty things, and had all sorts of nasty thoughts, but thoughts are not acts, and one has to wonder how damning the material could be if it was not enough to convict him, and if we're reading about it now 13 years after the raid. Breaking news. Michael Jackson was peculiar.
 
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...
He paid most of them off
Foolmewunz said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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...
He had little boys sleeping on his bed
 
The pay offs were brought up by someone else.

To separate the two as evidence ! is pretty un skeptical and frankly laughable
 
cullennz said:
The pay offs were brought up by someone else.

To separate the two as evidence ! is pretty un skeptical and frankly laughable
Click to expand...
Posting an article about alleged child porn that even cops/prosecutors didn't claim was child porn as proof that MJ was a scumbag is pretty unskeptical and laughable.
 
As I have already stated, the images themselves were not pornographic.

But it is preposterous to imply that it can't be separately determined via context that Jackson used them as pornography.
 
cullennz said:
And the pay offs were "gifts"
Click to expand...

You're not that familiar with the cases, are you?

The one you're thinking of recanted when he reached adulthood, admitted his parents pressured him into making the whole thing up. He subsequently got legally emanicipated from them.
 
TragicMonkey said:
You're not that familiar with the cases, are you?

The one you're thinking of recanted when he reached adulthood, admitted his parents pressured him into making the whole thing up. He subsequently got legally emanicipated from them.
Click to expand...
Then why did he pay them off?
 
cullennz said:
Because he had a group of some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US saying it was art and to go settle for a pay off
Click to expand...

During his criminal trial? You're not just unfamiliar with the case, you're unfamiliar with how law works. You can't "settle" with the prosecution to exclude evidence of the thing they're trying to convict you of!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom