Did MJ actually diddle kids?

[Overly Serious]

I mean that was literally his defense for the first pedo trial.

As for the FBI, what's the chances he could have paid them off.

As for the porn, unless we have exact copies of all of it I doubt he had it around just to laugh. Which bring me to my next point what sort of porn mags did you buy where the stuff was comical?

Beyond all that, let's imagine he actually was stuck as a child, instead of just on the inside but the outside too. What sort of boy doesnt sometimes hang with girls. I'm sure if they let him come out of the closet it might have helped things. I know when I was 7 i was already crushing on the opposite sex. And according to stories from when i was younger i was blatantly hetero in action before then.

Maybe it's a chemical castration thing, but I highly doubt even those dont hang out with women ever. Michael clearly understood the need for a woman when it came to his music videos and performances. He wanted a movie career. Even Peter pan has a Wendy; he couldn't have found some woman to be his damsel in distress?

Is Michael fucked up? Yes. But it's hard to believe he was a unique starchild when it's way more probable that he was basically like every other famous gay man. Also if he just wanted to be around and protect kids, he could easily do that a whole bunch of ways beyond sitting in a private house away from the parents. Fucking hell, how many of you were allowed to have friends over when your parents were away? I bet it's a lot less than you think, and from the huge amount of podcasts I've heard, when kids hang out together and parent supervision is miles away it leads to molestation most of the time

You have terrible arguments. Firstly you cling to beliefs without anything behind them. Example: Someone says he has child porn, you accept it. The evidence for this is exploded and instead of abandoning your belief you now want to find reasons there might still be evidence ("he paid off the FBI") rather than accept the evidence for your belief has gone. Classic behaviour of the person that doesn't question their own beliefs. You go on and argue that he's a child molester because 'every famous gay man' abuses children and 'he didn't have to invite children to his ranch so he must have had a bad reason to do so'.

Quite honestly, you remind me of people like Alyssa Milano who want to Me Too someone with or without evidence. There's nothing wrong with having a book of nudes amongst the many books he had in his library. Hell, I have one - I use it as an artistic reference for my sketching. The entire artistic canon of Western culture is filled with nudes whether that's paintings, sculptures or photography. MJ's library, from what I can find, had over 10,000 books in it. It would almost be weird if they couldn't find something they could present as incriminating. Gods - what if they had found a copy of Lolita? His guilt would be beyond question!

There's nothing inherently wrong about him wanting to spend time with and entertain children. I love entertaining children and it's not because I have any weird designs on them, it's just fun and joyful to play with kids and see them laughing and happy. He had a fucking Ferris wheel on his estate and a whole bunch of other things - and that's fine. He had the money to make a fun park for little kids and he wanted to. Not everyone who missed out on their childhood wants to destroy other people's childhood out of twisted darkness. Some people want to help others enjoy what they never had. I'd say most people are like that, personally.

Everything you come out with is supported by your desire for it to be true. No evidence for child porn? He paid off the FBI. Known people report they felt perfectly safe with him as kids? He hid his abusive tendencies from them. We have no evidence that stands up? Well other child molesters were abused as kids and MJ's childhood was really tough so he is one, too. Oh, and of course, people who don't believe he's guilty are "retarded".

Take a look at the man in the mirror, pal.

*tips fedora*

 

[Eggsy]

It's been a while, but when I was reading up on the case I found the author of the "mjfacts" site very biased in his presentation of the facts. MJ had an absolutely tremendous private library, which is where at least one of the books in question was actually recovered from IIRC -- and while creepy, two volumes of famous art photography out of an entire library collection doesn't amount to much. One was also clearly sent to him by a fan, who even inscribed the book with a note and signature. The FBI admits that no CP (or even particularly obscene adult porn) was found in his residence, so I think the "omg but the books!" claim the site author makes is just more grasping at straws.

Whether or not the author's presentation of the facts are biased is moot. I'm just looking for the facts alone. Are any of the points being reported untrue?

"MJ had an absolutely tremendous private library, which is where at least one of the books in question was actually recovered from IIRC"

If you ever happen to recall correctly, I'd like to know a source for the second half of your statement. The article cites that "it was revealed at Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial that the book was found in a locked filing cabinet in Jackson’s bedroom, along with it’s companion piece, Boys Will Be Boys)."

It's a bit ironic that you find the author biased in his presentation of the facts, and then immediately afterwards apply subjective reasoning over MJ's possession of the books. The article literally addresses each point you've made in your post, because you're repeating the same talking points from MJ fan-circles, who scour social media and repeat the script ad nauseam. Everything from the fan's signature, the downplaying the books as 'artistic photography', the whole 'they were mere irrelevant afterthoughts in the vast libraries of MJ' spin.

The authors of the two books were paedos. The books were geared towards paedos. Yes, they aren't considered CP in the US because I suppose they're allowed to own picture books of naked children as long as they're done 'artistically'. Or you know, host image boards like 8chan with boards dedicated to child modeling.

Now, in MJ's defense, what I would like to believe is that although he may have owned the books, he would have looked at them from an innocent perspective. Longing for a carefree childhood, or whatever. Creepy and not entirely impossible.

 

[Bibendum]

Whether or not the author's presentation of the facts are biased is moot. I'm just looking for the facts alone. Are any of the points being reported untrue?
If you ever happen to recall correctly, I'd like to know a source for the second half of your statement. The article cites that "it was revealed at Jackson’s 2005 molestation trial that the book was found in a locked filing cabinet in Jackson’s bedroom, along with it’s companion piece, Boys Will Be Boys)."

It's a bit ironic that you find the author biased in his presentation of the facts, and then immediately afterwards apply subjective reasoning over MJ's possession of the books. The article literally addresses each point you've made in your post, because you're repeating the same talking points from MJ fan-circles, who scour social media and repeat the script ad nauseam. Everything from the fan's signature, the downplaying the books as 'artistic photography', the whole 'they were mere irrelevant afterthoughts in the vast libraries of MJ' spin.

The authors of the two books were paedos. The books were geared towards paedos. Yes, they aren't considered CP in the US because I suppose they're allowed to own picture books of naked children as long as they're done 'artistically'. Or you know, host image boards like 8chan with boards dedicated to child modeling.

Now, in MJ's defense, what I would like to believe is that although he may have owned the books, he would have looked at them from an innocent perspective. Longing for a carefree childhood, or whatever. Creepy and not entirely impossible.

There were several books containing artistic photographic nudes found in the library area (as well as in the master bathroom) which were examined by the sheriff's department, and I conflated those with the two particular ones you referenced (The Boy: A Photographic Essay and Boys Will Be Boys), which were found in a filing cabinet in the bedroom closet. I'm familiar with the mjfacts article you posted, I just don't find his arguments compelling. I don't dispute the authorship, nor do I dispute that pedophiles have taken interest in those books. But those weren't the only photography books found in the home, nor were they the only ones that featured nudes (the sheriff's report details several), so I don't think they suggest a prurient interest focused on little boys. No pornographic content featuring children was found in the home or on his devices. Am I really supposed to believe a prolific pedo who has actively molested numerous children -- and also has near infinite financial and social resources -- would just content himself with relatively tame 60s nudist photos? Especially considering the well-known phenomenon of escalation among sex offenders (and that he could definitely afford it, or maybe even produce it himself with the kids of sick fuck fans), why wouldn't MJ have a bountiful secret stash of actual CP if he were so inclined?

Mjfacts does lay out the relevant facts, but his framing is as subjective as mine. He spends much of the article engaged in his own speculation, for example:

One could also legitimately ask the question, if these books were coffee table books, as they’ve been described by others, why didn’t Jackson have them proudly out on display rather than hiding them in a filing cabinet? Probably because anyone with an intense interest in children, such as Jackson did, would be held in high suspicion were these books ever openly displayed in their home.

Well, I could just as easily speculate that when some fan (possibly a pedo themselves, who the fuck knows) gifted the books to Jackson, he realized they might look a little weird -- even next to his other coffetable art books, considering modern sensibilities about nude kids -- and were definitely not appropriate to have around the children he hosted, so he locked them in a closet cabinet. Mjfacts routinely argues for the least charitable interpretation of the facts, but I choose to be more generous in mine.

 

[janedoe]

that interview clip with him and that kid admitting mj had to bribe him to get him to lay in bed with him is highkey sus. mj was just giggling about it like a fucking degenerate too.

i hate that shitty documentary that came out, because people are using its inaccuracy as an excuse to discredit the fact that michael jackson is a faggot creep with children.

doesn't matter if diddling happened or not. laying in bed with a grown man youre not related to is fucking weird and wrong. considering all the degeneracy that goes on in hollywood, i wouldn't doubt worse shit is in his closet.

 

[Trump's Chosen]

Sucks to be castrato singer though.

 

[Bad Gateway]

Lots of denial in here.

He did that shit.

 

[Polyboros2]

MJ did not sexually molest children, but he did have poor boundaries with them. Not nearly as heinous, but still inappropirate.

 

[TFT-A9]

As for the FBI, what's the chances he could have paid them off.

You... don't really pay the FBI off. Bribery is a dicey proposition and bribing Feds will get you fucked, HARD.

 

[A Thick Piece of Meat]

He
-slept with kids in their beds in their parents house
-slept with kids in his bed
-spooned kids
-created neverland ranch a place for kids on his property
-his room and hallway had noise makers installed when anyone got near
-had nude imagery of children in his bedroom, albeit legal somehow

the issue is people don't want to think the amazing music he made that they listened to and fell in love with could possibly be created by someone who did things to kids but all the signs really point to it, especially his hard upbringing.

I still jam to his tunes but I also don't lie to myself about what he did either

 

[FunPosting101]

The FBI and local law enforcement investigated him multiple times and found sweet fuck all to indicate he ever touched or did anything sexual with children, so unless MJ was a super-villain in disguise or some crap, no, he didn't molest or fuck kids.

 

[A Thick Piece of Meat]

Another thing to remember is that Sony bought out a settlement for him before the case progressed. So it's not like he was found not guilty. And the little boy knew exactly where the "splotches" on his dick were

Like unless that was a lucky guess to the exact spots...that's pretty damning.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

I never really thought about it until I saw this speech of his. He claimed that Sony was manipulating him hard. I think MJ was pretty insane, but no matter what Sony made a huge amount of money off of his death. He died before his contract ran out. After he died, Sony retained the rights to his image and music, and created a stage hologram of his character.

The infamous Sony speech.

This is really creepy. People say no one wanted to accept he could be a pedo, but look at Sony, happy to keep raking in money.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Another thing to remember is that Sony bought out a settlement for him before the case progressed. So it's not like he was found not guilty. And the little boy knew exactly where the "splotches" on his dick were

Like unless that was a lucky guess to the exact spots...that's pretty damning.

I'm not even a fan of MJ's music and I think he's innocent of actually doing acts of pedophilia.

Michael Jackson may have been a total nutcase, a manchild, and an unintentional creep but given how meticulously the FBI combed over his estate and still turned up squat aside from one weird arty book from the 50's, I think he was totally innocent on that end and was more or less a mental manchild who didn't fully grasp why so many people thought he was inappropriate.

As for the Chandler case and the spots on his dick, that probably was one of those lucky guesses since this was around the time we started seeing "Plastic White Female" Michael Jackson and the fact he had vitiligo was already publicly known.

 

[DelicateMageflower]

MJ did not sexually molest children, but he did have poor boundaries with them. Not nearly as heinous, but still inappropirate.

Agreed. I think he wanted what he perceived as the innocence of childhood around him all the time and behaved inappropriately as a result. And don't get me wrong, that could still traumatize an unsuspecting child, so I'm not saying he was completely innocent. His own childhood trauma emotionally stunted him. He needed years of qualified intensive therapy and not being surrounded by people who enabled his shit.

 

[A Thick Piece of Meat]

I'm not even a fan of MJ's music and I think he's innocent of actually doing acts of pedophilia.

Michael Jackson may have been a total nutcase, a manchild, and an unintentional creep but given how meticulously the FBI combed over his estate and still turned up squat aside from one weird arty book from the 50's, I think he was totally innocent on that end and was more or less a mental manchild who didn't fully grasp why so many people thought he was inappropriate.

As for the Chandler case and the spots on his dick, that probably was one of those lucky guesses since this was around the time we started seeing "Plastic White Female" Michael Jackson and the fact he had vitiligo was already publicly known.

im on the opposite side, im fan of his music and still think he did it

i just dont really buy into someone being that 'pure', no one is no matter what it seems on the surface

 

[Syaoran Li]

im on the opposite side, im fan of his music and still think he did it

i just dont really buy into someone being that 'pure', no one is no matter what it seems on the surface

I never said he was pure nor do I think he was. All I said is that he was not a pedophile. MJ was definitely messed up in other ways though.

We know for a fact he was a drug addict and I would not be surprised if he was gay or at least bisexual, but I do not think he was a pedo.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

The difficulty in assessing the accusations against Michael Jackson is that he was such a peculiar man to begin with, and there are arguably lots of ways that his eccentricities can be interpreted (some innocent; some not so innocent).

One interpretation is that he was an insecure man browbeaten by his immense fame, and that he suffered from arrested development due to the fact that his abusive father and cruel formative circumstances never allowed him to have a childhood of his own. In this context, his fondness for making friends with children makes some sense, since they would no doubt have served as a substitute for the friends he never had during his own childhood.

Then again, this doesn't necessarily mean that these relationships were innocent, because another interpretation of his behavior is that he was abused as a child himself, and subsequently dealt with that abuse by directing similar abuse against other children as an adult (which is a fairly well documented phenomenon within the literature on this).

Ultimately, I have no idea if he's guilty or not, and wouldn't feel confident taking a firm position on either side. What I will say is that perhaps the most damning evidence against his accusers is that many of them have changed their stories over the years, and some of the families have even sought large monetary settlements. I could see why such people might have a strong incentive to lie about him being guilty, but then again, there is arguably an equally strong incentive for such people to lie in order to protect him. After all, he was a huge star with an almost religious following, and I can only begin to imagine how daunting it must be for someone to publicly make themselves an enemy of such a zealous fanbase; especially by making accusations as egregious as the ones against Jackson.

 

[Bad Take Crucifier]

I don't think Jackson had sex with his actual wife. His kids look nothing like biracials, except for Blanket maybe.

Most male singers have a mountain of groupies they have sex with. I'm not sure MJ was gay either, though, because he denied that and I don't know of any guys he might have had sex with. A lot of gay pedophiles tend to at least have a presence in the clubbing scene.

 

[Steve Hightower]

Yes, he did. The smoking gun is that Jordan Chandler accurately described the marks on his penis. If he hadn't paid his way out through a settlement, he would've been found guilty. Hell, Johnnie Cochran advised him to settle instead of going through a trial. Nevermind the "art books" that were found in Neverland that is just legal CP for pedos.

It astounds me how many people have fallen for the fan myths. For example, the FBI didn't investigate him for ten years. In reality, they gave technical assistance to local police departments and looked into occasional tips. I was a defender years ago until I opened my eyes and looked into the other side.

I recommend listening to the Telephone Stories podcast as they've talked to people involved in the case.

Although Sean Lennon has said that nothing illegal was done to him, this song and video is quite damning.

 

[DelicateMageflower]

Yes, he did. The smoking gun is that Jordan Chandler accurately described the marks on his penis. If he hadn't paid his way out through a settlement, he would've been found guilty. Hell, Johnnie Cochran advised him to settle instead of going through a trial. Nevermind the "art books" that were found in Neverland that is just legal CP for pedos.

It astounds me how many people have fallen for the fan myths. For example, the FBI didn't investigate him for ten years. In reality, they gave technical assistance to local police departments and looked into occasional tips. I was a defender years ago until I opened my eyes and looked into the other side.

I recommend listening to the Telephone Stories podcast as they've talked to people involved in the case.

Although Sean Lennon has said that nothing illegal was done to him, this song and video is quite damning.

I dont necessarily think the discoloration on his penis is a smoking gun. He could have changed clothes or urinated in front of the kid, which is wildly inappropriate, but not necessarily a sign of sexual abuse. Creepy as fuck, but not a legal slam dunk.