Support NeoGAF

[Bobby Roberts]

They literally took every book or magazine with nudity in it and said that it could be used to manipulate. This includes his copy of Club mag and any other normal 18+ porn magazines. With that logic, someone can check your browsing history and say that your porn history could have been used to manipulate children. There is nothing to create that link.

Which is why I typed

The prosecution was not judged to have successfully made that case. This article now lets you look at the evidence provided by the Sheriff's office directly.

Of course, I wouldn't have ever put myself in anything even remotely resembling Jackson's situation so the logic (that isn't) that you're attributing to me wouldn't apply because my "porn history" wouldn't be applicable due to my not having unattended children in my home for multiple nights at a stretch, sleeping in my bed with me.

Again, simply saying "it's not child porn!" isn't really the point (although the title of the thread is confusing people coming in and not reading the multiple spires/structures/deeping walls of text quickly erected within) - The point of entering it into evidence was to try to build the case that he was grooming children with it. At which point "you can buy it at the store!" isn't much of a defense against that. You can buy lots of shit at the store that can be used to fuck with a kid's head to the point they feel that it's perfectly okay to let an adult take advantage of them, I'd bet.

That the prosecution was judged to have not made their case is very important to keep in mind. But that doesn't mean the evidence that a lot of people are looking at for the first time today in that context gets to be summarily thrown out. Not even the judge did that.

 

[Syder]

Too shocked to read the whole thread.

Then you have nothing to add to it.

 

[Peterthumpa]

If it's true people might stop listening to his music. I think radio stations would stop playing them at least.

There's also the fact that people keep coming forward about this in an attempt to get money from the Jackson estate, which has an estimated net worth over around $1.125 billion. It's all about money.

 

[qcf x2]

Man, like 50% of the posters in this thread should be banned. How much straight up ignorance is okay? No proof, just pop in here and say (paraphrasing) "man that african american with the 2 letter nickname did it, just like the other one, I KNEW IT" and bounce? It's like wave after wave of truthers.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

Then you have nothing to add to it.

Asking for a reply or an update on what the fuck this is about, but thanks anyway. I see replies contradicting each other even on here.

 

[Syder]

Man, like 50% of the posters in this thread should be banned. How much straight up ignorance is okay? No proof, just pop in here and say (paraphrasing) "man that african american with the 2 letter nickname did it, just like the other one, I KNEW IT" and bounce? It's like wave after wave of truthers.

Just shows how strong the narrative is.

 

[Flipyap]

I sometimes don't know what to believe, but I'm definitely not willing to condemn Jackson over an article written by a person who clearly did not understand the report, full of stuff taken out of context, if not clearly misrepresented by people determined to make the man look even worse than he already did. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to do so.

It's probably smart to remain skeptical, but if you were to stop for a second and consider the possibility that he really was an innocent developmentally-challenged person, to imagine what a nightmare his existence must have become because people were so eager to condemn him based on his peculiarities, not willing to try and understand what might have actually been wrong with him, why he couldn't comprehend that his behavior would be considered inappropriate... the thought of wrongly accusing such a person is unbelievably distressing to me and I couldn't make that judgment based on little more than a hunch.

 

[bootsthecat]

If it's true people might stop listening to his music. I think radio stations would stop playing them at least.

Nah. His music is ubiquitous and popular enough to live on in popular media regardless imo. Maybe he wouldn't be getting any post-mortem Grammy dedications, but it would be in and out of the news cycle in a week (since he's dead, and most adults had heard the stories already)

 

[Wolfe]

Asking for a reply or an update on what the fuck this is about, but thanks anyway.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if you'd just read the thread?

 

[- J - D -]

So we end up again at "can't say for sure either way". Feels like a decade ago.

 

[borghe]

Look up where those kids are now and tell me if you feel the same.

None of the names were ever released.. except for the Arvizo family.. oh hey let's look up on the Arvizo family shall we!!!!

As of late 2004, David insisted: "My children are routinely rehearsed by their mother, Janet, to do or say whatever she wishes."

In February 2006, Janet Arvizo was convicted of welfare fraud for failing to report the $150,000 civil settlement in that case. She was sentenced to 150 hours of community service and an $8,600 fine.

It was also revealed that Janet Arvizo had enrolled all three of her children in acting classes and had accused a JC Penney security guard of sexually molesting her two sons in 2001.

Many witnesses testified that the Arvizo children were poorly behaved and demanding. Jackson staff members testified that they broke into Mr. Jackson's wine cellar and had been caught in Jackson's bedroom on their own, going through his things. Housekeeper Kiki Fournier testified that the guest quarters assigned to the boys were trashed by them, and that at one point the accuser's brother pointed a knife at her in Jackson's kitchen.

On the first day of her testimony, the accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, pled the Fifth Amendment regarding welfare fraud and perjury allegations. Melville ruled that she could testify without being questioned about the fraud and perjury allegations. The defense would later have the opportunity to present other evidence for welfare fraud. She admitted that she had lied under oath in the J.C. Penney case,[45][51] and other witnesses testified that Janet had both lied about the alleged sexual assault by J.C. Penney employees and had coached her children to corroborate her story.

Not only was the credibility of the main accuser, his mother, and entire family in question, but also that of the many witnesses called to testify in the trial. Prosecution witness Chris Carter, who had been Jackson's bodyguard from August 2002 through August 2003, was arrested in Las Vegas on February 19, 2005, after police searched his mother's house and found a handgun. In addition, he had been accused of robbing a RadioShack in October 2003, a Subway sandwich shop in August 2004, a KB Toys store in January 2005, and a Jack in the Box restaurant in February 2005. He refused to testify. Adrian McManus, a former maid in Neverland and one of the "Neverland Five" who lost their suit against Jackson, was convicted of stealing a sketch of Elvis Presley made by Jackson and selling it to a tabloid for $30,000. Philippe Lamarque, a potential witness who ultimately did not testify, was the host of a porn site called "Virtual Sin." Tapes of a conversation he had with Paul Baressi revealed that for $100,000, Lamarque would say he saw Jackson touch Macaulay Culkin's crotch outside of his shorts, but for $500,000, the hand would go inside the shorts.

 

[Peterthumpa]

I sometimes don't know what to believe, but I'm definitely not willing to condemn Jackson over an article written by a person who clearly did not understand the report, full of stuff taken out of context, if not clearly misrepresented by people determined to make the man look even worse than he already did. And I don't understand why anyone would choose to do so.

It's probably smart to remain skeptical, but if you were to stop for a second and consider the possibility that he really was an innocent developmentally-challenged person, to imagine what a nightmare his existence must have become because people were so eager to condemn him based on his peculiarities, not willing to try and understand what might have actually been wrong with him, why he couldn't comprehend that his behavior would be considered inappropriate... the thought of wrongly accusing such a person is unbelievably distressing to me and I couldn't make that judgment based on little more than a hunch.

Yep. No wonder why he died so young, the constant usage of medicine to sleep, the plethora of plastic surgeries, everything IMO was somehow attached to his daily routine of being accused for this kind of thing all the time.

 

[xxracerxx]

Man, like 50% of the posters in this thread should be banned. How much straight up ignorance is okay? No proof, just pop in here and say (paraphrasing) "man that african american with the 2 letter nickname did it, just like the other one, I KNEW IT" and bounce? It's like wave after wave of truthers.

Wait, people are bringing up OJ in here?

 

[Mr Waluigi]

Which wouldn't have been necessary if you'd just read the thread?

It's fucking 15 pages long and if mods are letting this live, I should suppose it is in fact true.

Or should I take a fucking nap before being allowed to react?

 

[Boem]

As for this new 'news' by fantastic reliable sources......

1. You are being fooled by manipulative journalism.

2. This is nothing new. All these books are public record since 2005 so Radar Online acting like some it was some new damning evidence is dishonest.

3. It was never damning evidence. It's what the media twisting this into. None of it was illegal. None of it was child porn. If it had been then MJ had been charged with it plain and simple. It's really frustrating that people are so misinformed about basic law.

4. All the material was shown to the jury in 2005 and they didn't find them damning.

5. That is because they are not. They are legal art books that you can buy in any book store or library. Several of the books are in the Library of Congress.

Let me show you how the media manipulates the public with this. The Daily Beast for example wrote that "child pornography was found" (simply not true - if someone insists there was ask him to show you where MJ was charged with it, because he should have been if child porn had been found). Then the stuff they claim to be "gore" and "child torture" is a book called Room to Play.

"Sex book". No, it is not a sex book. It's an art book by a renowned photo artist. An art book that is also in the Library of Congress. http://lccn.loc.gov/2004297659

An art book that contains surreal, photoshopped pics of children, in surrealistic settings. Pics like these:

https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/room-to-play-simen-johan-004.jpg?w=640

https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/room-to-play-simen-johan-001.jpg?w=640

https://i0.wp.com/michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/roomtoplay13.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/roomtoplay12.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/roomtoplay07.jpg

"which included a photo of murdered child beauty queen Jon Benet Ramsay with a rope around her neck" - This is the photo they are talking about.

https://s31.postimg.org/h3yxkgu9n/Clipboard03.jpg

So that description too is very manipulative as it implies that there is a photo about the actual murdered body of Ramsey.

And this goes on with all the books and all the manipulation. The books all have been ALL introduced to trial in 2005 and the jury found him "not guilty". If child porn had been found MJ would have been charged with it. If anything illegal like child torture, animal sacrifice etc. had been found it would have been emphasized to death by the prosecution.

These are simply art books, some pics might be "edgy" or not everyone's cup of tea, but they are art books that you can find in any book store or library. Here is another one of that supposedly horror collection (by the way the media is trying to describe these books now) - The Golden Age of Neglect. You can skim through the full book here:

https://vimeo.com/54012676

MJ was a big fan of photography.


But i know...i know....i am in denial.

Right, but what you're missing here is this: the courts decided it was not within the law's definition of child pornography. Fine. But that's not what people are discussing here, even though that's the fact you're defending. The law isn't something that descended from the heavens, it's a set of rules set up by certain people because you need to know where to legally draw the line. That has nothing to do what we, the public, should see as acceptable. The fact that all of his images/books fall within those line isn't what anyone here is disputing, it's now that we're actually seeing some of these pictures that we're realizing how fucked up some of it is. Regardless of what the law says about it. It's adding all these disturbing pictures, as seen in that pdf (and I still don't know how people could get through it all), to the stories of him letting unknown children sleep in his own bed (which he himself admitted), him developing relationships with these kids to an unhealthy degree. The stories have been out there for ages, and he admitted to most of them himself.

What the defenders are trying to claim is that he was just a misunderstood weirdo. After all, he's an artist with a troubled childhood, he's just reclaiming his youth! Nothing wrong with that, right?

But there is a lot wrong with that. It's simply not a healthy way for an adult to act towards children. And I don't even care about his own mental state, I'm talking about the effects that has on those children. The question 'was MJ a pedophile' isn't the same as 'did MJ fuck children?'. That's not the only definition of pedophelia. The real question is 'did MJ have irresponsible and fucked up relationships with children', and the answer is most definitely yes. Bad childhood or not, he was a grown adult who should have known better, but he decided to act on his unhealthy and selfish desires without any regard (or at the very least a severely warped regard) for the effect that has on children and their development.

If you want to add the question 'did he perform sexual acts with these children?', then yes, I do believe there are enough clues there to believe it. But we will never get a truthful answer to that at this point. But was he a pedophile? All signs point to yes, he was. He had an unhealthy attraction to children, and he acted on it. How far he went, we'll never know. But we have at least enough proof for the things he definitely did to condemn him for it.

If this was just a random rich guy, not publicly known for a bunch of good records, none of you would be defending him. I do believe that yes, some people might have been out for money going after him. But that doesn't mean we get to ignore all that other evidence.

It's not like pedophelia works with 'sleeping with kids in your bed is okay, but the moment genitalia are touched is where the line is'. That line lies way, way earlier. And don't forget, there is proof that children have at least seen his genitals.

But I guess I'm just a media whore who blindly believes anything.

 

[SCReuter]

Doesn't it suck when you go buy tasteful nude children books to read in bed with nude boys who you give wine to and they're just stuffed with random child pornography? Not just once but over and over? I mean geeze people. Quit accidentally selling your unwanted hoards of child porn to unsuspecting collectors of innocent child nudity!

-There was no child pornography.
-The two "nude children books" can be legally purchased on Amazon.
-One of the two "nude children books" was inscribed with the following note by Jackson himself: "Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ."

 

[TaterTots]

Man, like 50% of the posters in this thread should be banned. How much straight up ignorance is okay? No proof, just pop in here and say (paraphrasing) "man that african american with the 2 letter nickname did it, just like the other one, I KNEW IT" and bounce? It's like wave after wave of truthers.

Not once did I think of Michael Jackson's color. I've made my posts due to the sheer weirdness of his past interviews. If I was a 40+ year old man and wanted to have a sleep over with your 10 year old....and shared the same bed. Wouldn't you find that a little fucky? I'm not related to you. I just want to hang out with your kid I'm over 30+ years older than and play and sleep in the same bed......totally normal. Serious defense force shit happening in this thread. I get it. You like his music and refuse to see him in a negative manner, but don't bring color into this shit. "Paraphrasing" before making a weird comment does not make it ok.

 

[VexMythoclast]

Then you have nothing to add to it.

I agree with your sentiment, never understood people who commented for the sake of commentimg. Im also disgusted by the people who think that just because the man is dead that his crimes shouldnt be brought to light.

 

[nortonff]

What's in that PDF file anyway?
Sorry for asking but I'm at work right now so I don't wanna open anything nsfw.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Wait, people are bringing up OJ in here?

Yeah, I think a couple different attempts to draw a line between jury decisions not necessarily being the most just things.

It's buried in here somewhere, but I know I saw at least one comparison brought up as a response to the idea that this stuff shouldn't even be looked at because a jury acquitted him.

At which point someone "but OJ'd" I think.

 

[Syder]

It was also revealed that Janet Arvizo had enrolled all three of her children in acting classes and had accused a JC Penney security guard of sexually molesting her two sons in 2001.

I don't think I even knew about this one. Jesus, what a degenerate that woman is.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

I agree with your sentiment, never understood people who commented for the sake of commentimg. Im also disgusted by the people who think that just because the man is dead that his crimes shouldnt be brought to light.

I comment for the sake of commenting because apparently, after all the disproven accusations, we find out it was in fact true. Which I cannot believe, but the OP is absolutely not ambiguous and the thread hasn't been locked. And half of the thread is acting shocked at what has been found while the other half is saying it's just tabloid bullshit. I am confused and looking for clarification.

Whatever.

 

[Cimarron]

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

This is a prosecution motion, why are people so dumb? Just because the prosecutors claimed what they claimed in that motion does not mean it was factual. Most of the books seized were not even touched. Under cross- examination the police officers who seized them did admit that they found most in sealed cardboxes among many other books and they had no idea how they got there, whether he bought them or they were sent to him, under cross examination they could not confirm that he even was aware of their existence.

MJ's lawyer provided evidence that most were sent to him by renewed photographers among Hundred of other books. The only reason they were seized was that DA Sneddon asked them to look for any thing that resemble nudity in mj's library. They searched more than three thousand books and seized every book that has any material of interest to them. Irrespective whether Mj bought it or saw it.

To those who are creeped by those photographs, there was zero evidence Mj saw them or even was aware of them, there is a reason why none of the books was tested for finger prints. Read the testimony of the officers who seized the books and Mj's lawyer's cross exam.

 

[Wolfe]

It's fucking 15 pages long and if mods are letting this live, I should suppose it is in fact true.

Or should I take a fucking nap before being allowed to react?

No you should just read the thread.

You don't have to read every word and letter, some posts are clearly skippable few words that add nothing. There's plenty of long posts you can skim to see what they are about.

But hey sure, come in and ask (again, not the first person) for everyone else to fill you in as it's too hard to do yourself.

I dunno man, maybe you should take a nap before continuing.

 

[qcf x2]

Not once did I think of Michael Jackson's color. I've made my posts due to the sheer weirdness of his past interviews. If I was a 40+ year old man and wanted to have a sleep over with your 10 year old....and shared the same bed. Wouldn't you find that a little fucky? I'm not related to you. I just want to hang out with your kid I'm over 30+ years older than and play and sleep in the same bed......totally normal. Serious defense force shit happening in this thread. I get it. You like his music and refuse to see him in a negative manner, but don't bring color into this shit. "Paraphrasing" before making a weird comment does not make it ok.

When people bring up OJ SIMPSON in a thread about Michael Jackson, why would you not think race had something to do with it? Why OJ and not any white celebrity?