iRON-mAn
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2019
This is literally why Robson's case got thrown out. He missed the deadline.
Did Michael Jackson Do It
- Thread starter Mariposa Electrique
- Start date
- Status
This is literally why Robson's case got thrown out. He missed the deadline.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2019
Four of them didn't wait 'til it was too late, though Terry George's accusation was nowhere near as serious as the other three who sa ccused while Jacko was alive.
That's not the worst it could be. No one's stepped forward to accuse Dan Schneider of anything, even though one of his rumored victims allegedly had his baby. No one's stepped forward to accuse Ryan Murphy of inappropriate behavior even after two Glee castmembers committed suicide. No one's stepped forward to accuse Onision of anything even after all the women in his life are turned into anemic pregnancy-fetish targets, and that one time he admitted to killing and eating his pet.
But Jacko had four accusers during his lifetime, three of whom alleged rape. That should never be glossed over, but for ten years it was.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
According to the "there are so many accusers" school of thought, then Schneider should be innocent, no ones accused him of anything. That's why trial by mob doesn't work.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2018
Did you even read my freaking links? No shit the estate isn't suing the SBCP because the SBCP also acknowledged the damn report was fucking fake. Read the damn thing again - or better yet, I'll put the best part here for you:
"Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff's Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff's Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the internet or through unknown sources," a representative of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department said in an email to Billboard. "The Sheriff's Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff's Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense." The rep continued: "The documents with a header titled Sheriff's Department that contain a case number appear to be Sheriff's Office documents. The photos that are interspersed appear to be some evidentiary photos taken by Sheriff's investigators and others are clearly obtained from the Internet."
https://www.billboard.com/articles/...ichael-jackson-alleged-pornography-collection
Not to mention the blog you linked me (a fucking blog??? Really?) that talks about the endless child porn found in MJ's house cites the police report I JUST proved was fucking false.
And I don't care about the truth? What the fuck gives you that idea? Because I'm defending MJ? I don't even give a shit about him. Sure, I like his music, but if you think I'm defending him because I'm a rabid MJ fan, you're incredibly mistaken. This could've been ANYONE else and I'd still have the same damn opinion. The only reason I'm passionate about it is because I've been fucking lied to by the MSM by what really happened and stupid idiots on this thread keep sayjng, "I believe the victims are telling the truth." That's practically ALL anyone here is going by. Their gut and fucking stories we HAVE to rely on to be true
The Leaving Neverland movie gave us nothing but stories from people and omitted any facts or evidence. People were pissed off as shit during the Kavanugh hearing because it was obvious Ford was lying by the facts and evidence presented, But in this same situation, people are just believing the victims with the same listen and believe bullshit. Why? Why is this case different? Because he was a weirdo? Well, you're right. He IS a weirdo. And he might've been an ass for all I know. But you can't accuse someone guilty of a crime because of it. The same principles MUST apply.
If tomorrow another victim came out and said MJ touched him and gave solid proof and evidence to prove it happened without a shadow of a doubt, of course I would believe him. But all of the "victims" who ever accused MJ DON'T have that. ALL of their stories are sketchy as shit and too many people like you believe tabloid headlines that lie in order to get clicks.
Give me a damn break.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2019
Innocent doesn't mean "didn't do it". OJ Simpson, legally, is innocent of those two homicides that had his DNA over it. Lizzie Borden, legally, was innocent of murdering her parents; even though there were never any other serious suspects, and she had more motive snd better oppurtunity to do it than anyone, and she did a whole bunch of shit at the time that resembled evidence disposal.
Likewise, Dan Schneider, at this point, is hearsay. But there's no reason to think a guy whose protégés all ended up going insane, dropping out of showbusiness, or both; whose material has always been loaded with hot teen-and-tween girls doing fetish jokes; and who once asked thousands of fans of Sam and Cat, most of whom are underage girls, to send him pictures of their feet; should not be investigated by the proper authorities, nor assumed to be above board by the general population.
And for the record, I don't believe in the "so many accusers" school of thought. I believe in actual investigation, from rals sources, not PR teams.
The SBCP just said "the photos intersperced", not "the porography and erotica found in MJ's home that we catalogued didn't exist".
Even the Razorfist videos where he says the items were only vaguely pedophilic doesn't involve actually looking at the books which were found in MJ's home. Here's one of 'em: its existence was discovered in the raid, reconfirmed in the trial, and you can buy it yourself if you have $400 to fork over. But before you do, ask yourself this:
- Why is the book so out of print that it's selling for $400?
- Why aren't photos from this book easily available to view online?
- Why hasn't the book been reprinted?
- Why does this book only have a first edition?
- Why do the photos Lloyd R. Stevenson displayed as excrepts in his Amazon review (please don't click on this if you live in Canada, or a country with similar laws) of the book look like the kind of photos seen in naturist magazines of adults before legalized porn killed the market in the US?
- Why would a fan give Michael Jackson a several-hundred dollar out-of-print book filled with pictures of naked boys?
- Why did Michael Jackson own several other out-of-print, quite-expensive books filled with pictures of naked boys?
- And most important: Do you live in a place where it's legal to own this book? (You'd definitely get in trouble in Canada for owning The Boy: A Photographic Essay)
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
And there was, 10 years of investigation, 2 raids, an FBI report, and an 18 month trial. He's the most investigated man on the planet. So, how did he get away with it? How did he fool everyone?
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2017
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2019
He didn't fool everyone. Most people have thought he was guilty since '93, and he bought himself outta trouble for $20 mill, in a case that didn't even involve a celebrity accuser. Most people just stopped talking about it after he died, kinda like what happened in Russia after the 9/'99 bombings even after a literal Kremlin Commie accidentally outed the whole thing as the work of the FSB before the bombings were even finished.
Bill Cosby never settled for anything resembling that sum, and he was convicted. Jimmy Saville never settled for anything resembling that sum, and fewer people pretend he's innocent than they pretend with Cosby, even though he died never even going to court.
OJ Simpson is the only American, or even Anglosphere, celebrity I can think of who went through something similar to Jackson. Except that was 'cause OJ lost the civil trial, after being found innocent. MJ coughing up what OJ had to pay for losing his civil trial, when he had less evidence against his guilt than Jacko, doesn't make sense unless his lawyers told him he couldn't something that'd be worse than what the jury'd give 'im. How many things can you think of worse than losing $20 million dollars? That's private-island money to everyone who isn't a billionaire nowadays, let alone '91, and Jacko was neither a billionaire, nor did he lead a frugal lifestyle.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2019
Michael Jackson was half-a-billion dollars in debt before he died.
Grooming and bribing underage boys isn't cheap. Especially when you've ruined your health with plastic sugery, an obvious eating disorder, and a shitton of powerful drugs; and thus start no showing important gigs more often than you arrive, not to mention repeadedly ruining your reputation by continuing to hold sleepovers with boys between eight and sixteen.
The Estate only turned it around because Jackson was no longer alive to hang out with Justin Bieber and Chris Colfer and anyone else whose parents would be stupid enoigh to hang out with Michael Jackson.
iRON-mAn
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2019
This is kind of misleading, since it's not like Jackson wasn't still making money, he was just overspending. He routinely spent $15-30 mill on jewellery and artwork and whatever else took his fancy. He also refused to sell Neverland, even after he was no longer living there and it had gone into foreclosure. That alone should tell you that $20 mill wasn't something Jackson considered a lot of money, even if he should have. But to put it even more in perspective, the 'Ghosts' short film made for the music video, written by Stephen King, had a budget of $15 mill, all of which came straight from Jackson's pocket, and the real figure is probably much higher, considering marketing and promotion. And 'Ghosts' made zero profit. The fact is Jackson just wasn't that smart with money and probably wouldn't have had a second thought about losing $20 mill.
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2018
....
Can you read? I'll put this here again.
Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense.
The SBCP did find the books you listed, but the report you cited is NOT where that offical info is from.
Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, but it's not. Plain and fucking simple. If it were, why the hell would this be allowed on Amazon.com? Is CP this easy to get? Fact of the matter is, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not, the book still doesn't fit the legal criteria for CP by American law which is why it was disregarded in the trial.
"Former Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who helped prosecute Jackson and recalls viewing the actual documents tied to the case, tells PEOPLE that law enforcement did discover adult pornographic magazines and videos, though nothing constituting child pornography. There were all kinds of conventional porn magazines,” says Zonen. “Things like Playboy, Penthouse. There was one called Barely Legal. It was a publication that featured young women presumably over the age of 18 but selected because they look much younger.” Law enforcement also discovered a book of “masochistic” type drawings. When it comes to items relating to children, “There were photos of nude children but they weren’t sexually graphic,” he says. “They weren’t children engaged in sexual activity and there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children. There were videos that were seized but they were conventional adult sexually graphic material. No children involved.” Specifically, the nude images of children he says, showed children “playing in the stream, climbing trees, nature photographs, nudist colonies, things like that,” he said. “They came from professional publications. Were they designed for pedophiles or designed as artistic photographic books I can’t comment on that.”
https://people.com/crime/michael-jacksons-estate-blasts-new-pornography-reports/
And there a thousands of books that have never been reprinted, only have first editions, don't have any of its pictures online, and sell for $400 or more dollars. That in no way means those books also have some great CP conspiracy surrounding it. And I do say conspiracy because these publications are still considered art books. Yes, you can try as hard as you can to make them about CP and possibly make headway, but it still doesn't prove without a reasonable doubt that MJ molested those kids if there's no other evidence against him.
And you're telling me a FAN gave MJ that book anyways? He didn't even buy the damn thing himself? Wow, every MJ fan must know about his secret CP desires ?
And also, if you're going to keep bringing up the same damn books to prove Michael is guilty, be fucking fair. There were LOADS of other porn involving women in his damn house. FAR MORE than those books. Not to mention when the police raided his home and searched his computer they found NO CP on it. Funny thing is, they were STILL able to find the adult porn websites he went to.
https://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/michael-jacksons-porn/
You want me to call the SBCP because you're too damn lazy to prove your own argument yourself? And you linked the damn contact page? What kind of autism do you have?
It seems all you have to prove your argument are these fucking books that
even the police say can't be entirely be labeled as CP. You never bring up the facts of ANY of these damn cases. Well, you questioned me, so how about I question you:
- How did Jordan Chandler's description of MJ's genitals he gave to the police not match up with the real thing?
- Why did Jordan Chandler change his story between his mother and father?
- Why did Jordan Chandler's father say, "If I go through with this, I win big time. I will get everything I want." on that leaked tape? What did he mean and WHY did he constantly say I?
- Why is it the Chandlers wanted so desperately to have a civil case?
- Why is it Michael wanted so desperately to have a criminal case?
- Why would the parents of a molested child be perfectly okay with money over justice?
- Why did Jordan get emancipation from his parents?
- Why did Jordan not show up to testify in 2005 against MJ?
- Why did Jordan's mother say they never spoke to each other for eleven years after?
- Why did Jordan's father commit suicide months after MJ's death?
- Why is it when the makers of Leaving Neverland reached out to Jordan Chandler to tell his story, he never responded???
- Why has Jordan Chandler since left the country?
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
Michael Jackson is kinda like Mickey Mouse.
They both have high pitched voices, they both wear gloves, they both like little kids, they both have an amusement park in their back yard, and they are both black with white faces.
They both have high pitched voices, they both wear gloves, they both like little kids, they both have an amusement park in their back yard, and they are both black with white faces.
ObsoleteMediaFormat
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2019
Most of what @Rabidcolombian posted is redundant as fuck, but he kneecapped himself so thoroughly near the end, I'll spoiler-tag the rest, just to get to the good stuff right away:
I'm saying that the only reason books like these were made are because actual child pornography is still illegal in the United States, and pedophiles can spank it to these works without risking trouble.
Pornography of any kind was, until recent times, illegal in the United States, under the stricter interpretation of the laws against obscenity snd prostitution. Porno actors, actresses, directors, and producers, 'til the late '80s and People v. Freeman, were regularly raided and arrested for violating laws against hooking and pimping. Nowadays, the only times (in America, which is what really matters in this case), that a work is considered child pornography is if a child performer does something in the work that's also illegal for them to do off camera.
Which is ultimately for the best. No society can control what people masturbate to. But, that has never meant that there haven't always been legal material for spanking the monkey available. And most of it, unlike Lolita or American Psycho or the NatGeo mags which had topless African girls that were the favorite of every male Baby Boomer middle-schooler, was made for no reason other than to provide jerk-off assistance.
Michael Jackson had those (legal) underage-boy books because he wanted to masturbate to their contents. The law, ultimately for the best, can't prosecute the owner of any legal work just because they want to masturbate to it. But nobody repeatedly finds themself in the possession of thousands of dollars of gay erotica, mostly focused on underage boys, for any reason other than their wanting to masturbate to it.
And there's far more evidence, which I've posted repeatedly: his loveless marriages; his bearding with Brooke Shields (even most gay dudes would've had sex with her back in the '80s); his consistent awkwardness around women that makes Tom Cruise look natural in comparison; and, most damning and least contested, his preference for friendships with young boys above all other company.
But even if they were gifts from fans, Jacko wouldn't've kept the books unless he wanted to masturbate to 'em. It's not like any celeb on his level even checks their own mail anyway. Either he was ordering his help to keep works like Larry Stevens books, or his help assumed he wanted gay erotica.
I knew you were braindead, but actually linking to the same list I've posted repeatedly, earlier, that you said wasn't worth looking at, where the very same highly suspicious tapes from the '03 raid are contained (complete with Chop Suey and Man: A Sexual Study of Man, both of which are extremely expensive gay erotica focusing on pederastic themes) shows a breathtaking lack of intelligence even for you.
The only difference between your page and mine is that the MJFacts people actually looked at the contents of what was in Jacko's pornography colkection, and yours didn't, because there's no way to defend it once you know that Jacko had a brown showers tape in the same bedroom he held sleepovers with little boys in.
Owning gay and straight pornography on its own'd be fine if Jackson had shown any believable interest in women. Ownibg gay and straight pornography, espevially in such vast quantities, when your prefered company is boys between eight and sixteen, means you own it for the same reason Birdman watched Li'l Wayne have sex with a fourteen-year-old girl when Weezy was eleven.
And given that you already linked the very same list of pornography I posted, you don't need to. Given that I discouraged you fron calling them anyway before you linked the very same list of porn you doubted the veracity of when I posted it, but support when you post the same fucking list, you doubly don't need to.
What you do need to do is actually look at the contents of the porn that was found. Or, if you don't want to actually buy a brown showers tape yourself, you can read this article, which did the hard part for you.
This post has already gone on too long, so I'll address the Jordie Chandler part later. Not for your sake, but for the sake of anyone else here reading the posts who has any doubt about the creepy old man who held private sleepovers with little boys, who kept shelves of pornography easily accessible to said little boys at said sleepovers, was a chomo.
I'm not saying The Boy: A Photographic Essay, nor Bruce Weber's Chop Suey Club, nor Boys Will Be Boys fit the American legal definition of child pornography.
I'm saying that the only reason books like these were made are because actual child pornography is still illegal in the United States, and pedophiles can spank it to these works without risking trouble.
Pornography of any kind was, until recent times, illegal in the United States, under the stricter interpretation of the laws against obscenity snd prostitution. Porno actors, actresses, directors, and producers, 'til the late '80s and People v. Freeman, were regularly raided and arrested for violating laws against hooking and pimping. Nowadays, the only times (in America, which is what really matters in this case), that a work is considered child pornography is if a child performer does something in the work that's also illegal for them to do off camera.
Which is ultimately for the best. No society can control what people masturbate to. But, that has never meant that there haven't always been legal material for spanking the monkey available. And most of it, unlike Lolita or American Psycho or the NatGeo mags which had topless African girls that were the favorite of every male Baby Boomer middle-schooler, was made for no reason other than to provide jerk-off assistance.
Michael Jackson had those (legal) underage-boy books because he wanted to masturbate to their contents. The law, ultimately for the best, can't prosecute the owner of any legal work just because they want to masturbate to it. But nobody repeatedly finds themself in the possession of thousands of dollars of gay erotica, mostly focused on underage boys, for any reason other than their wanting to masturbate to it.
Name one.
And there's far more evidence, which I've posted repeatedly: his loveless marriages; his bearding with Brooke Shields (even most gay dudes would've had sex with her back in the '80s); his consistent awkwardness around women that makes Tom Cruise look natural in comparison; and, most damning and least contested, his preference for friendships with young boys above all other company.
I don't buy the "fan gift" story for a second. I'd believe he got those books from Santa Claus before I'd believe they were fan gifts.
But even if they were gifts from fans, Jacko wouldn't've kept the books unless he wanted to masturbate to 'em. It's not like any celeb on his level even checks their own mail anyway. Either he was ordering his help to keep works like Larry Stevens books, or his help assumed he wanted gay erotica.
This is the same list the guys at MJFacts went over, because it's the list from the SBCP raid, complete with Michael Ryan's Believe It or Not, which is the brown showers tape found in his bedroom.
I knew you were braindead, but actually linking to the same list I've posted repeatedly, earlier, that you said wasn't worth looking at, where the very same highly suspicious tapes from the '03 raid are contained (complete with Chop Suey and Man: A Sexual Study of Man, both of which are extremely expensive gay erotica focusing on pederastic themes) shows a breathtaking lack of intelligence even for you.
The only difference between your page and mine is that the MJFacts people actually looked at the contents of what was in Jacko's pornography colkection, and yours didn't, because there's no way to defend it once you know that Jacko had a brown showers tape in the same bedroom he held sleepovers with little boys in.
Owning gay and straight pornography on its own'd be fine if Jackson had shown any believable interest in women. Ownibg gay and straight pornography, espevially in such vast quantities, when your prefered company is boys between eight and sixteen, means you own it for the same reason Birdman watched Li'l Wayne have sex with a fourteen-year-old girl when Weezy was eleven.
I don't know, but at least I don't have the kind that leads me to white knight a celebrity pedophile with slightly more fury than a Spanish inquisitor. That'd be really embarrassing.
And given that you already linked the very same list of pornography I posted, you don't need to. Given that I discouraged you fron calling them anyway before you linked the very same list of porn you doubted the veracity of when I posted it, but support when you post the same fucking list, you doubly don't need to.
What you do need to do is actually look at the contents of the porn that was found. Or, if you don't want to actually buy a brown showers tape yourself, you can read this article, which did the hard part for you.
This post has already gone on too long, so I'll address the Jordie Chandler part later. Not for your sake, but for the sake of anyone else here reading the posts who has any doubt about the creepy old man who held private sleepovers with little boys, who kept shelves of pornography easily accessible to said little boys at said sleepovers, was a chomo.
G
GS 281
Guest
kiwifarms.net
Same.
This has devolved more into weird conspiracy theories than "did MJ do it?" Locking.
- Status