Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Do you think Michael Jackson was guilty?

702 replies

InnocentOrGuilty · 12/05/2024 09:48

Of the sexual abuse of boys.
I'm interested in a poll.
G = you think he was definitely guilty
I = you think he was innocent
(Stemming from a debate with DH last night!)

OP posts:
Thread gallery
21
beguilingeyes · 15/05/2024 18:38

ChishiyaBat · 14/05/2024 19:50

It was Johnny Rotton who tried to speak out about Saville, but he and the Sex Pistols were banned from appearing on the bbc if I remember correctly.

They weren't banned for anything to do with JS. They said 'fu#k' on live TV, which would probably get you a ban even now.

ChishiyaBat · 15/05/2024 18:43

beguilingeyes · 15/05/2024 18:38

They weren't banned for anything to do with JS. They said 'fu#k' on live TV, which would probably get you a ban even now.

I never said they did get banned for anything to do with Saville, just that they were banned, I wasn't even born until 1980 so I know nothing other than what i've read about it and interviews i've seen.

whatsitcalledwhen · 15/05/2024 22:38

@cultjarteriaky @StandingMyGround888 @Springtime111 @SLIGEACHEIRE

www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/

Can I ask you to read this and then share your thoughts on whether it is cause for you to consider your original belief that he was not a paedophile?

SLIGEACHEIRE · 15/05/2024 22:52

BigMandsTattooPortfolio · 14/05/2024 11:20

C and Teenage pornography Jackson possessed. Trigger warning:

https://www.mjfacts.com/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

That's a prosecution filed document. It's not like they'd be deceitful or try to skew information into the worst possible light.

Oh, wait, it is.

Tom Sneddon Had A Vendetta Against Michael Jackson

Tom Sneddon, the lead prosecutor, for those who don't know, was caught trying to tamper with evidence. Now, why would someone do that, if you've got such a great case against Michael?

Back to your link. It looks pretty damning doesn't it? But like I said, this is from the morally corrupt prosecution, and the link below explains better than I can what was found and how it was debunked.

www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/b0tiih/uhh_can_someone_tell_me_the_justification_of/

"Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis."

That's an extract from an article covering the same tampering of evidence.

One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

Tom Sneddon Had A Vendetta Against Michael Jackson

Tom Sneddon obviously had a vendetta against Michael Jackson in 2003. He was caught planting evidence according to William Wagner.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JfjEuMp3gC0

StandingMyGround888 · 15/05/2024 23:21

OK here we go. Firstly my mother has a book with images of nude children and adults as it is a book of pictures taken throughout African traditional societies that wear different clothes. It is perfectly legal and nothing sexual about it.

[Pages not in order; listed how they appear]

Page 4:
Evidence Item #507. Piece of notebook paper, with drawn image of boy inside a circle.

Impressions of writing from words written on other sheets on top of this one in the pad; indecipherable words.

NOT RELEVANT OR PAEDOPHILIC, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO DRAW A BOY AND IT SAYS NOTHING RE SEXUALITY.

Evidence Item #508. Book with images of ‘nude teenagers and/or young adults’

Located in upstairs library area of video/game room. The book was titled, The Fourth Sex: Adolescent Extreme, with no listed author.

The investigator noted that this book focuses on ‘adolescents and counter culture,’ contained lots of images of semi-clothed or naked ‘teenagers and/or young adults’ and actually isn’t illegal under US law. But, it represents a tool that could be used to ‘lower the inhibitions of intended victims’ and ‘facilitate the molestation of said individuals’.

NOT RELEVANT. BOOK ABOUT COUNTERCULTURE.

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

The hard cover book is titled Cronos, by author Pere Formigeura, contains images of nude children of both sexes, as well as adults. Same location as item #508.

THIS IS A BOOK BY A PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOS OF TWO PEOPLE OVER THE WHOLE COURSE OF THEIR LIFE. NOT PAEDOPHILIA.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens. The Garden City bag also contained:

a bright orange pair of shorts, size 4, ‘possibly for a young girl’.

HE WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF LIKING GIRLS

a new pair of Spiderman socks.

OK

child-sized, off-white t-shirt.

OK

pairs of gray, white, and blue child socks.

OK

a significant amount of clothing for an adult male.
OK

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY WAY. COULD HAVE BEEN A BAG OF WASHING. IF IT WAS ANYONE RELEVANTS BLOOD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. COULD HAVE BEEN A WOMAN BLEEDING ON SHEET DUE TO PERIOD. NO RELEVANCE.

Evidence Item #517. Compact disc.

Contents duplicated at police crime lab, before returned to evidence bag.

NO RELEVANCE

Evidence Item #302. Pornographic magazine.

The Best of Club, Issue no. 201. Also suspected by the inspecting officer to be ‘grooming’ materials.

ADULT PORN, NO RELEVANCE, INSPECTING OFFICER OPINION NOT BACKED BY EVIDENCE

Page 3.
Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

CANNOT SAY AS NO IDEA WHAT THE BOOK IS. LIKELY AN ART PRODUCTION OF SOME KIND.

Page 7.
Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Naked and semi-clothed images of women ‘in sexually explicit poses,’ as well as naked men as filmed by a gay photographer. One book contained semi-clothed or fully-nude teenagers or pre-teenagers, according to the report.

GAY PHOTOGRAPHER - IRRELEVANT
WOMEN BEING SEXY - IRRELEVANT
NO CONTEXT FOR NUDE ADOLESCENTS
THE COMBINATION OF THESE BOOKS INTO ONE EVIDENCE ITEM SUGGESTS ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE OPINION - GAY, SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE, CHILDREN, WHEN NONE OF THESE ARE CONNECTED

Evidence Item #304. Two pornographic magazines, two ‘nude art books’

Magazines were Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse, with one book titled, The Gynoids Genetically Manipulated. That book contained, according to the report, ‘appeared to have a fetish (bondage, Sadomasichism, piercings, etc.) related theme’.

IRRELEVANT, LEGAL ADULT PORN

Page 8.
Evidence Item #305. Photograph of McCauley Caulkin.

Taken on set from a Home Alone movie, comically signed by the actor.

IRRELEVANT

Page 9.
Evidence #306. Pornographic magazine inside a metal briefcase.

Couples, Volume 7, Issue 2.

IRRRELEVANT

Evidence #307. Book with pictures of nude men.

The models are posing only, and not in sexually explicit or suggestive poses.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence #309. Black leather laptop bag containing pornographic magazines and DVDs, several sheets of paper.

Of the pieces of paper, one simply contained the words, ‘Paris and me’. Another was a Guess ad ripped from a magazine. The DVD was separated into evidence number #309-A. Other items in the bag included a pen, business card from Goldman Sachs, ripped-up fax pertaining to a concert details, batteries, jewelry, children’s book, some handwritten notes, and a syringe. It also contained a letter from a counselor at the Gary Community School Corporation, arranging plans to bring children to visit California in the first half of 2004.

Also included were notes between Jackson and Gavin Arvizo, who later accused the pop star of molestation.

The DVDs were the following titles: Michael Ryan’s Believe It or Not, which featured hardcore pornography, and Sloppy Dogs Presents: Fuck Me, I’m a Bad Girl.

There were also two issues of Gallery, a pornographic magazine.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Evidence Item #313. Book containing nude photographs.

No images sexually explicit in nature.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

MJs inscription: 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 always dreamt of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls,

YOU CAN FIND THIS ON AMAZON

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/8147419603/in/photostream/

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

CANT COMMENT DONT KNOW WHO THAT IS

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

CANNOT COMMENT DO NOT KNOW CONTEXT

Evidence Item #363:

12 pornographic magazines;

IRRELEVANT ADULT PORN

12 nudist magazines, vintage 1930s.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #364: ‘The Chop Suey Club’

Photo book, young adult male models, some nude.

A DUBIOUS BOOK BUT NEVERTHELESS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND IN ART CIRCLES

Evidence Item #365: Pornographic books, including images of naked children.

‘The Christy Report’, nude images from the 1940s, some described as sadomasochistic.

THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PORN, NO CHILDREN IN IT

‘Robert Maxwell Photographs,’ various images, including those of children.

THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHERS NAMED ROBERT MAXWELL, ONE A CELEBRITY PHOTOGRAPHER. THE WORD NUDE IS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ITEM THEREFORE UNLIKELY NUDE CHILDREN

Evidence Item #366: Several books, containing images of nude men and children.

Nude images of a nude male couple, another contained nude images of men from the 1800s. Photos of teenage males nude, images of adults with childrens’ faces morphed on top, some nude photos of children.

THESE ARE NOT DETAILED OUT SO CANNOT BE COMMENTED ON

Another book, Man: A Sexual Study of Man, described as a ‘graphic primer for homosexuals,’ including pictures of masturbation, oral and anal sex, homosexual erotica.

IRRELEVANT

This evidence group also includes ‘two dozen nudist magazines’.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #301: Five pornographic DVDs.

Includes ‘Pimps Up – Ho’s Down,’ plus 4 ‘Barely Legal’ DVDs.

IRRELEVANT

Most of this list is akin to... I have a picture of my nephew on the coffee table and a legal porn DVD of lesbians and a nudist brochure and this is grouped into EVIDENCE 120 A COLLECTION OF ITEMS INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN, NUDISM AND GAY PORN THAT THE INVESTIGATOR SUSPECTS MAY BE GROOMING MATERIAL

None of us were in the room. None of us know whether he did it. But don't be so naive that you can't see through a manipulative list like this one.

ChishiyaBat · 15/05/2024 23:28

StandingMyGround888 · 15/05/2024 23:21

OK here we go. Firstly my mother has a book with images of nude children and adults as it is a book of pictures taken throughout African traditional societies that wear different clothes. It is perfectly legal and nothing sexual about it.

[Pages not in order; listed how they appear]

Page 4:
Evidence Item #507. Piece of notebook paper, with drawn image of boy inside a circle.

Impressions of writing from words written on other sheets on top of this one in the pad; indecipherable words.

NOT RELEVANT OR PAEDOPHILIC, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO DRAW A BOY AND IT SAYS NOTHING RE SEXUALITY.

Evidence Item #508. Book with images of ‘nude teenagers and/or young adults’

Located in upstairs library area of video/game room. The book was titled, The Fourth Sex: Adolescent Extreme, with no listed author.

The investigator noted that this book focuses on ‘adolescents and counter culture,’ contained lots of images of semi-clothed or naked ‘teenagers and/or young adults’ and actually isn’t illegal under US law. But, it represents a tool that could be used to ‘lower the inhibitions of intended victims’ and ‘facilitate the molestation of said individuals’.

NOT RELEVANT. BOOK ABOUT COUNTERCULTURE.

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

The hard cover book is titled Cronos, by author Pere Formigeura, contains images of nude children of both sexes, as well as adults. Same location as item #508.

THIS IS A BOOK BY A PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOS OF TWO PEOPLE OVER THE WHOLE COURSE OF THEIR LIFE. NOT PAEDOPHILIA.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens. The Garden City bag also contained:

a bright orange pair of shorts, size 4, ‘possibly for a young girl’.

HE WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF LIKING GIRLS

a new pair of Spiderman socks.

OK

child-sized, off-white t-shirt.

OK

pairs of gray, white, and blue child socks.

OK

a significant amount of clothing for an adult male.
OK

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY WAY. COULD HAVE BEEN A BAG OF WASHING. IF IT WAS ANYONE RELEVANTS BLOOD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. COULD HAVE BEEN A WOMAN BLEEDING ON SHEET DUE TO PERIOD. NO RELEVANCE.

Evidence Item #517. Compact disc.

Contents duplicated at police crime lab, before returned to evidence bag.

NO RELEVANCE

Evidence Item #302. Pornographic magazine.

The Best of Club, Issue no. 201. Also suspected by the inspecting officer to be ‘grooming’ materials.

ADULT PORN, NO RELEVANCE, INSPECTING OFFICER OPINION NOT BACKED BY EVIDENCE

Page 3.
Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

CANNOT SAY AS NO IDEA WHAT THE BOOK IS. LIKELY AN ART PRODUCTION OF SOME KIND.

Page 7.
Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Naked and semi-clothed images of women ‘in sexually explicit poses,’ as well as naked men as filmed by a gay photographer. One book contained semi-clothed or fully-nude teenagers or pre-teenagers, according to the report.

GAY PHOTOGRAPHER - IRRELEVANT
WOMEN BEING SEXY - IRRELEVANT
NO CONTEXT FOR NUDE ADOLESCENTS
THE COMBINATION OF THESE BOOKS INTO ONE EVIDENCE ITEM SUGGESTS ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE OPINION - GAY, SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE, CHILDREN, WHEN NONE OF THESE ARE CONNECTED

Evidence Item #304. Two pornographic magazines, two ‘nude art books’

Magazines were Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse, with one book titled, The Gynoids Genetically Manipulated. That book contained, according to the report, ‘appeared to have a fetish (bondage, Sadomasichism, piercings, etc.) related theme’.

IRRELEVANT, LEGAL ADULT PORN

Page 8.
Evidence Item #305. Photograph of McCauley Caulkin.

Taken on set from a Home Alone movie, comically signed by the actor.

IRRELEVANT

Page 9.
Evidence #306. Pornographic magazine inside a metal briefcase.

Couples, Volume 7, Issue 2.

IRRRELEVANT

Evidence #307. Book with pictures of nude men.

The models are posing only, and not in sexually explicit or suggestive poses.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence #309. Black leather laptop bag containing pornographic magazines and DVDs, several sheets of paper.

Of the pieces of paper, one simply contained the words, ‘Paris and me’. Another was a Guess ad ripped from a magazine. The DVD was separated into evidence number #309-A. Other items in the bag included a pen, business card from Goldman Sachs, ripped-up fax pertaining to a concert details, batteries, jewelry, children’s book, some handwritten notes, and a syringe. It also contained a letter from a counselor at the Gary Community School Corporation, arranging plans to bring children to visit California in the first half of 2004.

Also included were notes between Jackson and Gavin Arvizo, who later accused the pop star of molestation.

The DVDs were the following titles: Michael Ryan’s Believe It or Not, which featured hardcore pornography, and Sloppy Dogs Presents: Fuck Me, I’m a Bad Girl.

There were also two issues of Gallery, a pornographic magazine.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Evidence Item #313. Book containing nude photographs.

No images sexually explicit in nature.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

MJs inscription: 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 always dreamt of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls,

YOU CAN FIND THIS ON AMAZON

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/8147419603/in/photostream/

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

CANT COMMENT DONT KNOW WHO THAT IS

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

CANNOT COMMENT DO NOT KNOW CONTEXT

Evidence Item #363:

12 pornographic magazines;

IRRELEVANT ADULT PORN

12 nudist magazines, vintage 1930s.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #364: ‘The Chop Suey Club’

Photo book, young adult male models, some nude.

A DUBIOUS BOOK BUT NEVERTHELESS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND IN ART CIRCLES

Evidence Item #365: Pornographic books, including images of naked children.

‘The Christy Report’, nude images from the 1940s, some described as sadomasochistic.

THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PORN, NO CHILDREN IN IT

‘Robert Maxwell Photographs,’ various images, including those of children.

THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHERS NAMED ROBERT MAXWELL, ONE A CELEBRITY PHOTOGRAPHER. THE WORD NUDE IS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ITEM THEREFORE UNLIKELY NUDE CHILDREN

Evidence Item #366: Several books, containing images of nude men and children.

Nude images of a nude male couple, another contained nude images of men from the 1800s. Photos of teenage males nude, images of adults with childrens’ faces morphed on top, some nude photos of children.

THESE ARE NOT DETAILED OUT SO CANNOT BE COMMENTED ON

Another book, Man: A Sexual Study of Man, described as a ‘graphic primer for homosexuals,’ including pictures of masturbation, oral and anal sex, homosexual erotica.

IRRELEVANT

This evidence group also includes ‘two dozen nudist magazines’.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #301: Five pornographic DVDs.

Includes ‘Pimps Up – Ho’s Down,’ plus 4 ‘Barely Legal’ DVDs.

IRRELEVANT

Most of this list is akin to... I have a picture of my nephew on the coffee table and a legal porn DVD of lesbians and a nudist brochure and this is grouped into EVIDENCE 120 A COLLECTION OF ITEMS INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN, NUDISM AND GAY PORN THAT THE INVESTIGATOR SUSPECTS MAY BE GROOMING MATERIAL

None of us were in the room. None of us know whether he did it. But don't be so naive that you can't see through a manipulative list like this one.

Nah pal still think he's a nonce. It doesn't matter what you say about the list, I mean I could say that he looked at the books with a paedo eye, but regardless of the porn he still slept with little boys and sat little boys on his lap with his arms all over them like an octopus, that's noncey as fuck behaviour!

Grumpyoldblonde · 15/05/2024 23:30

Guilty, grown men don't share their bed with children for innocent reasons. There are no innocent reasons.

Mirabai · 15/05/2024 23:31

a manipulative list

🤨

cultjarteriaky · 15/05/2024 23:32

@StandingMyGround888 thank you for taking the time

People who KNOW 110% for sure that MJ is guilty say that fans were groomed but they fail to see how they themselves are groomed by the hysterical narrative

In this thread there is a video that I believe brings a very balanced anylises

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5075138-leaving-neverland-was-mj-guilty-watch-this-analyses?reply=135270297

Leaving Neverland. Was MJ guilty? Watch this analyses. | Mumsnet

Try and leave emotions out of it if you and watch this. Also if you are not familiar with Dr. Grande yet, he has lots of objective analyses on lots...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5075138-leaving-neverland-was-mj-guilty-watch-this-analyses?reply=135270297

ChishiyaBat · 15/05/2024 23:38

cultjarteriaky · 15/05/2024 23:32

@StandingMyGround888 thank you for taking the time

People who KNOW 110% for sure that MJ is guilty say that fans were groomed but they fail to see how they themselves are groomed by the hysterical narrative

In this thread there is a video that I believe brings a very balanced anylises

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5075138-leaving-neverland-was-mj-guilty-watch-this-analyses?reply=135270297

Nope, I am just believing what I saw with my own eyes and drawing my own conclusions!

Fizbosshoes · 15/05/2024 23:42

I think its very likely that he's guilty given the things he's actually admitted to.

Having pre pubescent boys for sleepovers with a grown up, single, unrelated man is not appropriate in itself regardless of what his own childhood was like.

And the argument that he was childlike and that was his personality and he was reliving the childhood he didn't have? If there was an adult with a disability or LD, for example which meant they were childlike and had a mental age of 10 there would be some ways that would be appropriate to act, or interact with children ...having sleepovers definitely wouldn't be one of them!

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 00:40

SLIGEACHEIRE · 15/05/2024 22:52

That's a prosecution filed document. It's not like they'd be deceitful or try to skew information into the worst possible light.

Oh, wait, it is.

Tom Sneddon Had A Vendetta Against Michael Jackson

Tom Sneddon, the lead prosecutor, for those who don't know, was caught trying to tamper with evidence. Now, why would someone do that, if you've got such a great case against Michael?

Back to your link. It looks pretty damning doesn't it? But like I said, this is from the morally corrupt prosecution, and the link below explains better than I can what was found and how it was debunked.

www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/b0tiih/uhh_can_someone_tell_me_the_justification_of/

"Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis."

That's an extract from an article covering the same tampering of evidence.

One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

It’s a prosecution filed document based on evidence.

If it wasn’t evidence it wouldn’t be admissible (and it appears that there was a reporting restriction on this, no doubt lodged by Jackson’s expensive defence team). You seem to be really angry that a prosecution team was involved in a court case which is just odd.

That HuffPost article proves absolutely nothing it seems to be written by a superfan who is whining about the press coverage bias he believed was in place in the US. I don’t agree with him at all but then I wasn’t exposed to US press during the trial. His accusations of Sneddon are pure speculation and he provides no evidence at all.

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 00:47

StandingMyGround888 · 15/05/2024 23:21

OK here we go. Firstly my mother has a book with images of nude children and adults as it is a book of pictures taken throughout African traditional societies that wear different clothes. It is perfectly legal and nothing sexual about it.

[Pages not in order; listed how they appear]

Page 4:
Evidence Item #507. Piece of notebook paper, with drawn image of boy inside a circle.

Impressions of writing from words written on other sheets on top of this one in the pad; indecipherable words.

NOT RELEVANT OR PAEDOPHILIC, ANYONE IS ALLOWED TO DRAW A BOY AND IT SAYS NOTHING RE SEXUALITY.

Evidence Item #508. Book with images of ‘nude teenagers and/or young adults’

Located in upstairs library area of video/game room. The book was titled, The Fourth Sex: Adolescent Extreme, with no listed author.

The investigator noted that this book focuses on ‘adolescents and counter culture,’ contained lots of images of semi-clothed or naked ‘teenagers and/or young adults’ and actually isn’t illegal under US law. But, it represents a tool that could be used to ‘lower the inhibitions of intended victims’ and ‘facilitate the molestation of said individuals’.

NOT RELEVANT. BOOK ABOUT COUNTERCULTURE.

Evidence Item #509. Book with pictures of nude children.

The hard cover book is titled Cronos, by author Pere Formigeura, contains images of nude children of both sexes, as well as adults. Same location as item #508.

THIS IS A BOOK BY A PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOS OF TWO PEOPLE OVER THE WHOLE COURSE OF THEIR LIFE. NOT PAEDOPHILIA.

Evidence Item #510. Disneyland plastic bag containing underclothes and bloodied bed linens. The Garden City bag also contained:

a bright orange pair of shorts, size 4, ‘possibly for a young girl’.

HE WAS NEVER ACCUSED OF LIKING GIRLS

a new pair of Spiderman socks.

OK

child-sized, off-white t-shirt.

OK

pairs of gray, white, and blue child socks.

OK

a significant amount of clothing for an adult male.
OK

THIS IS NOT RELEVANT IN ANY WAY. COULD HAVE BEEN A BAG OF WASHING. IF IT WAS ANYONE RELEVANTS BLOOD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. COULD HAVE BEEN A WOMAN BLEEDING ON SHEET DUE TO PERIOD. NO RELEVANCE.

Evidence Item #517. Compact disc.

Contents duplicated at police crime lab, before returned to evidence bag.

NO RELEVANCE

Evidence Item #302. Pornographic magazine.

The Best of Club, Issue no. 201. Also suspected by the inspecting officer to be ‘grooming’ materials.

ADULT PORN, NO RELEVANCE, INSPECTING OFFICER OPINION NOT BACKED BY EVIDENCE

Page 3.
Evidence Item #505. Books with pictures of nude children.

Three books, containing ‘photographs of nude and partially clothed children’. The investigator noted that the books contained images of partially clothed or naked children, as well as images of nude adults with children’s faces morphed on top. This technique may be used to sexualize and lower the inhibitions of a victim, according to the report.

CANNOT SAY AS NO IDEA WHAT THE BOOK IS. LIKELY AN ART PRODUCTION OF SOME KIND.

Page 7.
Evidence Item #303. Three books containing nude photographs, including those of teenagers and pre-teenagers.

Naked and semi-clothed images of women ‘in sexually explicit poses,’ as well as naked men as filmed by a gay photographer. One book contained semi-clothed or fully-nude teenagers or pre-teenagers, according to the report.

GAY PHOTOGRAPHER - IRRELEVANT
WOMEN BEING SEXY - IRRELEVANT
NO CONTEXT FOR NUDE ADOLESCENTS
THE COMBINATION OF THESE BOOKS INTO ONE EVIDENCE ITEM SUGGESTS ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE OPINION - GAY, SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE, CHILDREN, WHEN NONE OF THESE ARE CONNECTED

Evidence Item #304. Two pornographic magazines, two ‘nude art books’

Magazines were Barely Legal and Girls of Penthouse, with one book titled, The Gynoids Genetically Manipulated. That book contained, according to the report, ‘appeared to have a fetish (bondage, Sadomasichism, piercings, etc.) related theme’.

IRRELEVANT, LEGAL ADULT PORN

Page 8.
Evidence Item #305. Photograph of McCauley Caulkin.

Taken on set from a Home Alone movie, comically signed by the actor.

IRRELEVANT

Page 9.
Evidence #306. Pornographic magazine inside a metal briefcase.

Couples, Volume 7, Issue 2.

IRRRELEVANT

Evidence #307. Book with pictures of nude men.

The models are posing only, and not in sexually explicit or suggestive poses.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence #309. Black leather laptop bag containing pornographic magazines and DVDs, several sheets of paper.

Of the pieces of paper, one simply contained the words, ‘Paris and me’. Another was a Guess ad ripped from a magazine. The DVD was separated into evidence number #309-A. Other items in the bag included a pen, business card from Goldman Sachs, ripped-up fax pertaining to a concert details, batteries, jewelry, children’s book, some handwritten notes, and a syringe. It also contained a letter from a counselor at the Gary Community School Corporation, arranging plans to bring children to visit California in the first half of 2004.

Also included were notes between Jackson and Gavin Arvizo, who later accused the pop star of molestation.

The DVDs were the following titles: Michael Ryan’s Believe It or Not, which featured hardcore pornography, and Sloppy Dogs Presents: Fuck Me, I’m a Bad Girl.

There were also two issues of Gallery, a pornographic magazine.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Evidence Item #313. Book containing nude photographs.

No images sexually explicit in nature.

NO EVIDENCE OF PAEDOPHILIA

Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

MJs inscription: 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 always dreamt of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ

Book: ‘In Search of Young Beauty,’ containing pictures of children, boys and girls,

YOU CAN FIND THIS ON AMAZON

Book: ‘The Boy, a Photographic Essay,’ containing images of boys, some nude.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/8147419603/in/photostream/

Photograph: Noted in the document as ‘believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude.’

CANT COMMENT DONT KNOW WHO THAT IS

Photograph: young boy holding an umbrella, with bikini bottoms partially pulled down.

CANNOT COMMENT DO NOT KNOW CONTEXT

Evidence Item #363:

12 pornographic magazines;

IRRELEVANT ADULT PORN

12 nudist magazines, vintage 1930s.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #364: ‘The Chop Suey Club’

Photo book, young adult male models, some nude.

A DUBIOUS BOOK BUT NEVERTHELESS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND IN ART CIRCLES

Evidence Item #365: Pornographic books, including images of naked children.

‘The Christy Report’, nude images from the 1940s, some described as sadomasochistic.

THIS IS A BOOK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF PORN, NO CHILDREN IN IT

‘Robert Maxwell Photographs,’ various images, including those of children.

THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHERS NAMED ROBERT MAXWELL, ONE A CELEBRITY PHOTOGRAPHER. THE WORD NUDE IS NOT MENTIONED IN THIS ITEM THEREFORE UNLIKELY NUDE CHILDREN

Evidence Item #366: Several books, containing images of nude men and children.

Nude images of a nude male couple, another contained nude images of men from the 1800s. Photos of teenage males nude, images of adults with childrens’ faces morphed on top, some nude photos of children.

THESE ARE NOT DETAILED OUT SO CANNOT BE COMMENTED ON

Another book, Man: A Sexual Study of Man, described as a ‘graphic primer for homosexuals,’ including pictures of masturbation, oral and anal sex, homosexual erotica.

IRRELEVANT

This evidence group also includes ‘two dozen nudist magazines’.

IRRELEVANT

Evidence Item #301: Five pornographic DVDs.

Includes ‘Pimps Up – Ho’s Down,’ plus 4 ‘Barely Legal’ DVDs.

IRRELEVANT

Most of this list is akin to... I have a picture of my nephew on the coffee table and a legal porn DVD of lesbians and a nudist brochure and this is grouped into EVIDENCE 120 A COLLECTION OF ITEMS INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN, NUDISM AND GAY PORN THAT THE INVESTIGATOR SUSPECTS MAY BE GROOMING MATERIAL

None of us were in the room. None of us know whether he did it. But don't be so naive that you can't see through a manipulative list like this one.

First I’m ASTONISHED that anyone has tried to actually defend these items. Are you for fucking real? In the context of Jackson being accused many, many times, it IS relevant that he was naked pictures of little boys.

Please please please say you aren’t a parent? Or have care of children or vulnerable people, ever.

Firstly my mother has a book with images of nude children and adults as it is a book of pictures taken throughout African traditional societies that wear different clothes.

Has your mother been accused of sexual abuse by 8 children? Does she share her bed with children, parade them around as her friends and have them sit in her crotch?

None of us were in the room.

No short Sherlock, but crimes arent just charged where people are in the room. Otherwise no pedophile would ever be charged. This apples to you BTW / you weren’t in the room so you don’t know that it didnt happen

But don't be so naive that you can't see through a manipulative list like this one.

A list of relevant evidence is manipulative? How convenient to your narrative.

Can I ask - if you were raped and your rapist had books of rape images in their house, would you tell the police “don’t be silly that’s not relevant”?

Can you answer the Barry from Asda analogy please?
Can you tell us if you’d let your child share a bed with Jackson?
Can you tell us why Jackson behaved so much like a pedophile even if he wasn’t one.

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 00:49

ChishiyaBat · 15/05/2024 23:28

Nah pal still think he's a nonce. It doesn't matter what you say about the list, I mean I could say that he looked at the books with a paedo eye, but regardless of the porn he still slept with little boys and sat little boys on his lap with his arms all over them like an octopus, that's noncey as fuck behaviour!

Honestly these apologists walk among us. Jackson could have absurd a child on the red carpet and people would make excuses for the nonce.

Imagine being that kind of person - you like a bit of music so believe that EIGHT victims are liars because….well you like the music of the man abusing them.

It blows my mind.

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 00:52

cultjarteriaky · 15/05/2024 23:32

@StandingMyGround888 thank you for taking the time

People who KNOW 110% for sure that MJ is guilty say that fans were groomed but they fail to see how they themselves are groomed by the hysterical narrative

In this thread there is a video that I believe brings a very balanced anylises

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5075138-leaving-neverland-was-mj-guilty-watch-this-analyses?reply=135270297

No I just believe the men who say they were sexually abused by the worlds most obvious pedophile. I’ve heard their stories and weeper, they are so utterly compelling and it smells me sick that people would rather call little boys liars and thieves than face facts that their “King of Pop” was in fact and dangerous pedophile.

Can you answer the Barry from Asda analogy please? (Without the answer being the ridiculously dumb “Barry isn’t an artist” - artists CAN be pedophiles and have proven to be)
Can you tell us if you’d let your child share a bed with Jackson?
Can you tell us why Jackson behaved so much like a pedophile even if he wasn’t one.

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 00:55

ChishiyaBat · 15/05/2024 23:38

Nope, I am just believing what I saw with my own eyes and drawing my own conclusions!

YBH I didn’t need James and Wade’s testimonies to believe Jackson was a pedophile. I believe Jordy and I believed Gavin. At the time of the Gavin trial I thought I’d fallen through the looking glass with so many people defending quite an obvious pedophile. I was so happy when he died, and happy when Wade then James came out with the truth. I feel like people with more than half a brain cell now accept he was a pedophile and I’m pleased I’ve thought it all along.

StandingMyGround888 · 16/05/2024 02:23

Your words:
First I’m ASTONISHED that anyone has tried to actually defend these items. Are you for fucking real? In the context of Jackson being accused many, many times, it IS relevant that he was naked pictures of little boys.

My reply:
I am not defending the items. I am illustrating how the listing of the items is manipulative. The vast majority of that list is legal porn. There is no illegal content. The list has been written in such a way to insinuate things - as to whether or not what they are insinuating is true or not is a different story. The list itself when looked at rationally is deliberately manipulative I.e. it contains a narrative.

Your words:
Has your mother been accused of sexual abuse by 8 children? Does she share her bed with children, parade them around as her friends and have them sit in her crotch?

My response:
No but let's say she was accused of sexual abuse of children. Do you think her African book would be good evidence?

Your words:
No short Sherlock, but crimes arent just charged where people are in the room. Otherwise no pedophile would ever be charged. This apples to you BTW / you weren’t in the room so you don’t know that it didnthappen

My reply:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I said none of us know. The list I am analysing independently. You are too easy to manipulate.

Your words:
Can I ask - if you were raped and your rapist had books of rape images in their house, would you tell the police “don’t be silly that’s not relevant”?

My reply:
This is false equivalence because MJ did not have any images of CSA.

Your words:
Can you answer the Barry from Asda analogy please?

My reply:
Obviously he would be seen as a weirdo. I am not saying whether I think his sleepovers or relationships with children were acceptable or not acceptable. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he sexually abused them or not. The other aspects are eccentric and to most inappropriate and out of the bounds of normal. But not criminal.

Your words:
Can you tell us if you’d let your child share a bed with Jackson?

My reply:
I wouldnt let my child share a bed with any grown man.

Your words:
Can you tell us why Jackson behaved so much like a pedophile even if he wasn’t one.

My response:
This works the other way around, too. If he was a paedophile why did he essentially go to no lengths to hide it and in fact bring up the sleepovers himself in interviews. "Acting" like something doesn't mean you are it.

StandingMyGround888 · 16/05/2024 02:33

Highlighting this part from my long post to illustrate how evidence can be manipulatively recorded:

As recorded:
Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Not reported:
MJs inscription: "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 always dreamt of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ"

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 02:45

StandingMyGround888 · 16/05/2024 02:23

Your words:
First I’m ASTONISHED that anyone has tried to actually defend these items. Are you for fucking real? In the context of Jackson being accused many, many times, it IS relevant that he was naked pictures of little boys.

My reply:
I am not defending the items. I am illustrating how the listing of the items is manipulative. The vast majority of that list is legal porn. There is no illegal content. The list has been written in such a way to insinuate things - as to whether or not what they are insinuating is true or not is a different story. The list itself when looked at rationally is deliberately manipulative I.e. it contains a narrative.

Your words:
Has your mother been accused of sexual abuse by 8 children? Does she share her bed with children, parade them around as her friends and have them sit in her crotch?

My response:
No but let's say she was accused of sexual abuse of children. Do you think her African book would be good evidence?

Your words:
No short Sherlock, but crimes arent just charged where people are in the room. Otherwise no pedophile would ever be charged. This apples to you BTW / you weren’t in the room so you don’t know that it didnthappen

My reply:
I didn't say it didn't happen. I said none of us know. The list I am analysing independently. You are too easy to manipulate.

Your words:
Can I ask - if you were raped and your rapist had books of rape images in their house, would you tell the police “don’t be silly that’s not relevant”?

My reply:
This is false equivalence because MJ did not have any images of CSA.

Your words:
Can you answer the Barry from Asda analogy please?

My reply:
Obviously he would be seen as a weirdo. I am not saying whether I think his sleepovers or relationships with children were acceptable or not acceptable. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he sexually abused them or not. The other aspects are eccentric and to most inappropriate and out of the bounds of normal. But not criminal.

Your words:
Can you tell us if you’d let your child share a bed with Jackson?

My reply:
I wouldnt let my child share a bed with any grown man.

Your words:
Can you tell us why Jackson behaved so much like a pedophile even if he wasn’t one.

My response:
This works the other way around, too. If he was a paedophile why did he essentially go to no lengths to hide it and in fact bring up the sleepovers himself in interviews. "Acting" like something doesn't mean you are it.

Formatting tip: most people here copy and paste text they want to reply to and bold it up by putting a * either side of the text.

makes it all easier on the eye!

Like so:

I am not defending the items. I am illustrating how the listing of the items is manipulative. The vast majority of that list is legal porn. There is no illegal content. The list has been written in such a way to insinuate things - as to whether or not what they are insinuating is true or not is a different story. The list itself when looked at rationally is deliberately manipulative I.e. it contains a narrative

It doesn’t have to be illegal content to be relevant, it is to show the character of Jackson which is that he WAS a sexual man with an interest in looking at naked bodies of children. This is allowed in criminal cases, of course prosecutions are allowed to create a narrative of who someone’s character is. I imagine the defence team, had these not been discovered, would have claimed he was a-sexual with no interest in sex.

No but let's say she was accused of sexual abuse of children. Do you think her African book would be good evidence?

of course. But she hasn’t been accused - probably because she isn’t a pedophile. Jackson has been accused many times, because he IS a pedophile. His interest in these ‘art books’ is therefore different to that of someone who isn’t a pedophile

There’s a difference between a book on the culture of African people, who have different views of acceptable nudity than the West, and books dedicated entirely to the form of naked little boys. What cultural corner do they belong to??

I didn't say it didn't happen. I said none of us know. The list I am analysing independently. You are too easy to manipulate.

Says the person who think the worlds most obvious pedophile is innocent because he makes good music and had a ‘lost childhood’
”None of us know” - his victims know.

This is false equivalence because MJ did not have any images of CSA.

He bad pictures of naked little boys. A man accused of molesting little boys. If your rapist had books of pictures depicting rape, would that be relevant?

Obviously he would be seen as a weirdo. I am not saying whether I think his sleepovers or relationships with children were acceptable or not acceptable. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he sexually abused them or not. The other aspects are eccentric and to most inappropriate and out of the bounds of normal. But not criminal.

Thats not answering the question. If Barry from Asda had little boy friends that he groomed then swapped up, slept with little neighbourhood boys he wasn’t related to in his bed, built a fairground in his back garden, had dozens of books of naked little boys in his house and and then was accused of child sexual abuse, would you say “He’s innocent”? Or would you, like normal people, see this as a huge obvious nonce?

I wouldnt let my child share a bed with any grown man.

Why not?? If Jackson isn’t a pedophile and he’s just eccentric what would be the problem?
Do you actually have children?

This works the other way around, too. If he was a paedophile why did he essentially go to no lengths to hide it and in fact bring up the sleepovers himself in interviews. "Acting" like something doesn't mean you are it.

Have you ever heard the term ‘hiding in plain sight’? Saville did it. It’s about being almost caricature-like in your character that people will think exactly like you and say “nah it would be too obvious”

Giving you the benefit of the doubt for a moment - even if Jackson WAS just eccentric and not a pedophile, you can’t deny he’s had a revolving door of little boy friends, who he held hands with, say them on his crotch and they dressed like him. They worshipped him and slept in his bed with him. A year later, he’d suddenly not be seen with that boy and a new one would be on the scene behaving the same. What do you think about that kind of behaviour and how this grooming (because even you can’t deny that’s a form of grooming) made those little boys feel? Being treated like the latest lover only to be discarded when he was no longer of use.

And why didn’t Jackson hang out with little girls or have little girl accusers?

YaMuvva · 16/05/2024 02:47

StandingMyGround888 · 16/05/2024 02:33

Highlighting this part from my long post to illustrate how evidence can be manipulatively recorded:

As recorded:
Other items described in court filings (contained within the same document stack):
Book: ‘Boys Will be Boys,’ contains full frontal nudity of boys under the age of 14; personally inscribed by Michael Jackson.

Not reported:
MJs inscription: "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 always dreamt of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ"

Because he’s not an idiot. His inscription was never gonna be “Can’t wait to masturbate over these boys”

What do you think about a grown man having a book full of fully naked little boys that he declares he wants his children to be like?

Why do you think he was searching adoption websites? And why did he buy his children and use women as a vessel to deliver someone else’s babies? What about the baby dangling? Do you REALLY think this man is safe to be around children?

frenchnoodle · 16/05/2024 05:20

@StandingMyGround888

So someone who claims to be Asexual and not into boys having a large collection of pornography, and naked photos of boys (at least one of which was a Polaroid of his 'special friend' from 1982 - 1985) is not relevant to a court case about him being abusing kids?

Surely you see why these items were collected and used as evidence?

How many naked photos of friends so you have in your toilet, because I have none?

Beefcurtains79 · 16/05/2024 07:05

It’s weird, the same fans who are claiming he was asexual also claim he had a totally normal sex life with Lisa Marie, which is it then?

I bet none of them would actually let a kid sleep in Michael Jackson’s bed if it came down to it. They know, deep down what he was.
There was a documentary on Studio 54 a little while ago. There was Michael, in the offices where everyone used to hang out taking drugs. He spoke in his normal voice and looked, and acted like any other adult.

This was before he started pushing the ‘child in a man’s body’ narrative though, in order to get deranged fans to defend him when his padophilia was exposed.

whatsitcalledwhen · 16/05/2024 08:24

@StandingMyGround888

This works the other way around, too. If he was a paedophile why did he essentially go to no lengths to hide it and in fact bring up the sleepovers himself in interviews. "Acting" like something doesn't mean you are it.

Do you believe Jimmy Saville was innocent?

Because he was a 'hiding in plain sight' child abuser.

Mirabai · 16/05/2024 08:26

The vast majority of that list is legal porn.

Can you even hear yourself?

Itsmychristmasdress · 16/05/2024 08:40

Even if they saw MJ in the act of CSA. These superfans would say it was deep faked or bribed into doing it and it's only because he is so childlike he agreed.
Images of naked boys, an admission of sleeping with them, only little boys, no little girls were his "special friends", very public grooming of young boys and then dropped once they're older, paying off of accusers parents mortgages....you would have to be really fucking dim to think he is innocent.

"Oh he was so child like and asexual"..... bullshit his house was a cesspit of sexual material.

Honest to christ I fear for a lot of those superfan's children.