Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

You’re missing the point here. Not all evidence is uniform. Not everyone is going to see the same things and have identical experiences even if they work with / for someone.

Linking to this video as a supporter linked to a video of this same woman on one of the threads because she had a video where she thinks Safechuck and Robson are lying.

Anyway....interesting part from 1 hour 37 talking about pedophile behavior and 'preferential pedophiles'. Sounds exactly like MJ.

I think he seems very genuine. Don't you think it's interesting that this is another employee offered substantial money to tell a an untruth?

I haven't listened to all of it, Genuine about what though? He thought he was a good man and never saw MJ doing anything in the 3 years he was his bodyguard? What does that prove? or what do you mean?

As far as I know MJ did eventually stop sleeping in bed with little boys after the Arvizo trial, so anyone working with him after that time wouldn't have seen inappropriate behaviour anyway.

I believe Omer Bhatti was with him in his later years, another of MJs 'special friends' but he was over 18 by then.

Does he have any evidence that he was offered money to tell 'untruths'?

There was plenty of money to be made with his book, and the documentary and I believe he is still a security professional and has a career there so he had just as many, if not more money making opportunities by defending him but perhaps he very much does think MJ was a nice guy who never harmed kids, doesn't mean he's correct though.

I only watched about a minute of that video and I think he mentioned his book 3 times. As you say, he's still working, nobody would employ him if he 'told tales' on his clients. He benefits much more by defending MJ.

Please read...art photography in a library of thousands of books.

themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/27/has-child-pornography-ever-been-found-in-michael-jacksons-possession/

They were locked in a filing cabinet.

I can't believe you have tried to claim on a previous comment you're not taking sides.

I have made my position clear on the books many times now, they are made by pedophiles and owned by pedophiles.

I wasn't convinced the 1st time or the 10th time when posters tried to make out these books were meaningless and harmless, and I know that none of you would believe that either if it were any other man.

I mean 🤔

You mean what?

What are you suggesting? That she planted them there? To the best of my knowledge even the defense didn't try to claim that.

A video being labeled a “documentary” on YouTube doesn’t guarantee any editorial standards, fact-checking, or accountability. Anyone can produce one with selective evidence, dramatic narration, or unsupported claims.
Established documentary producers and broadcasters usually operate under stronger constraints:

• professional researchers and fact-checkers
• legal review for defamatory or unsupported claims
• editorial standards
• reputational risk
• independent sources and archival verification
• clearer separation between reporting and opinion

Organizations like BBC, PBS, National Geographic, Channel 4, or streamers commissioning serious nonfiction work often have processes that reduce outright fabrication, even though they can still have bias, framing choices, or mistakes.

Sort of. Although he did say must of the celebrities he's come across and worked for have been difficult people.

Have you read the article linked to @kkloo ?

It's a propoganda piece stating that these are 'art books'. I skimmed it but am not reading it all.

"They do include nude photographs of children, but the photographs are not pornographic or sexual. They show the children in various non-sexual activities, playing, swimming etc."

I've seen censored versions of some of the pics, they are absolutely disgusting and wildly inappropriate. I'm going to assume you have not seen them but be aware then that you are spreading dangerous propaganda by sharing 'articles' like this condoning these books when they are 100% a pedophiles dream, anyone who is not a pedophile would have a visceral reaction to how bad the photos are, and that's even when they're censored.

There's a reason pedophiles will pay a fortune for those books and have ripped the pages out of the ones in the British library leading them to be restricted to the public, they're not ripping them out for the love of 'art'.

Ok. How do we explain they didn't have his fingerprints on them? Aside from the front cover.

How am I spreading dangerous propaganda?

https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-not-guilty-verdicts-in-the-michael-jackson-case-was-justice-served-or-thwarted.html

Fingerprints are not always left behind and fingerprints are not always recoverable.

I'm sure also that they wouldn't have dusted every single inch of every single page of the book, because why would they?

I would imagine the only instance that they would do something like that is if they had a book or something that was the only piece of evidence and had no idea who had touched it and so they went through every page painstakining inch by inch to find a fingerprint, in this case the prints were on the front, he had personally inscribed it and it was locked in his filing cabinet so they knew it was his book.

You're spreading dangerous propaganda because these books are made by pedophiles, for pedophiles and you have been told what's in them many times, but you are continuing to try to push the narrative that they are 'art books'. I'm really not sure how you can do that in good conscience....perhaps you are relying on ignorance as a defense so you're confident in sharing this propaganda. Ignorance stops being a defense after a while though, you can't say you haven't been made aware.

I'm sure also that they wouldn't have dusted every single inch of every single page of the book, because why would they?

Because they have expert forensics who's sole job is to be thorough. They wouldn't just pick a few random pages to dust for prints.

Dangerous propaganda. Oh please @kkloo Nobody here is suggesting anybody goes out and purchases themselves a copy.

Oh and why is that?
Because they're books for pedophiles!!

It is dangerous propaganda, you are spreading the lies that pedophiles and apologists spread about these books.
There's no 'oh please' about it. It's a fact.

Because they have expert forensics who's sole job is to be thorough. They wouldn't just pick a few random pages to dust for prints.

And they found them on the cover. And he owned the book. And he personally inscribed the book with praise. And he stored the book.

I don't think you can confidently claim that they thoroughly checked the book inside inch by inch considering you're asking questions about how it's explained they didn't find fingerprints inside, as if that would be a massive mystery.

At no point in this thread have I stated that I agree with the book's content or the views of its readers and authors. Freedom of speech is allowed on this forum, @kkloo. We are both entitled to our opinions, even when they differ. I have not attacked or slandered you personally because of our disagreement, and I would appreciate the same courtesy in return.

I'm not attacking or slandering you personally. I am explaining the issues with what you are posting, because it is important.

It has been explained to death on all of these threads that these books have been created by pedophiles and used by pedophiles and that the books are nowhere near as innocent as the supporters would have you believe but yet you persist in posting stuff which claims the same, do you expect to be able to continue on with that unhindered? People may have been ignorant of the contents in the earlier threads but at this point people cannot feign ignorance. It is now willful ignorance which is fundamentally different.

I'd appreciate a thread where people wouldn't keep trying to make out these books are harmless and where people wouldn't keep trying to minimise their contents so that we didn't have to keep re-stating just who made them, who owns them, and their purpose but yet here we are......

@Hubhubba26 Considering your stance on here (you say you're not picking sides but continuously post pro-innocence material) if you're going to continue to post to articles which suggest that these books are just art books and say 'please read' and then 'have you read it' when I said I wouldn't be changing my mind on the books then you are very much suggesting that you agree with the contents of the articles and find them convincing, so do not try to turn it around on me acting like I am doing something wrong to you, when I am not. I am taking the posts as you are intending them.

Ok. But what I'm saying is we will never know how MJ viewed the books, how well used it was, and whether he was even aware of the authors intent. The only clue we have is the inscription on the inside cover.

Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces, this is the spirit of boyhood, a life I've never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.

What's your interpretation of his words here?

No that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm suggesting you read the article objectively and see how you feel about it. Obviously any literature, media, or blogs should be read with critical thinking mindset.

I have explained this around 3 times in the past threads, possibly including to yourself but you were at least involved in that section of the thread.

I think it was either a cover story in case that book was found, OR if not it's perfectly in line with things the 'boy lover' type pedophiles say about kids and childhood.

Interesting. I think it might mean he wanted his children, Paris, Prince, Blanket, to be happy and free.

As naive as that may sound on my partner. You see a belief in innocence is the complete opposite of a paedophile apologist.