Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

Calm down.

The full transcript from the 2005 court is available on YouTube. All the presented evidence can be found here. I posted the link earlier but here it is again

How about you calm down? You're the one who repeatedly keeps trying to dictate on here telling people (only one side though) how to post, and also trying to tell people the only reasonable way that they can form conclusions. 😂

If you calmed down and got off your high horse of superiority trying to dictate to people you disagree with then we wouldn't even be having this exchange.

🤣

Aaaaand there we have it

The nuanced argument that the pedophile supporters put forward in defence of a child abuser

Hey folks it hasn't convinced me

We really are very lucky to have such mature individuals on this thread to keep telling the rest of us how to post 😅

I think this is a case of ‘please only post pro Michael posts or it will really upset me and I’ll have to call you out for being nasty…I, however can post anything I like, including uncorroborated stories/information but that’s okay because I have deemed it to be real evidence. Also I’m going to call all of you out for being a mob but if you were all agreeing with me that would be fine!’ 🙄

I’ve read some crazy stuff on mumsnet over the years but that takes the prize for craziest!

I was trying not to give it air space! 🤣

There has been a ton of uncorroborated stories / information presented as evidence from people convinced he’s guilty. I have almost always given links to credible sources when posting information about the case. The stuff is out there in the public domain and often takes less than a minute to find, and, in some cases, rebut.

The one main piece of evidence which is continually ignored is that he slept in his bed with young boys and kept porn. I don’t really need much more than that as that’s enormously damning in itself. I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary that has changed this one awful fact.

So he kept porn, like many men in the 90s and early 2000s. Why is that evidence to you he was a paedophile?

Theres porn and then theres books with little boys legs akimbo with their genitals showing

Not that complicated really

So two very different things. Almost all men have used porn.

"Almost most men" have not shown porn to children though. The accusers were able to describe where this material was located and their fingerprints were on it, along with Jackson's, in the case of Gavin arviso and his brother as far as I remember.

And it's a bit different when a man accused of sexually abusing boys, and who admits to inappropriate relationships and bed sharing, and admits to leaving pornographic material within reach of children, also happens to possess material which was produced by literal paedophiles for a specific target market, don't you think?

Sure, my point was referring to what the other person was saying about keeping porn (generally). I didn’t know the porn was within easy reach of the kids.

The argument for this book appears to ne that it was "sent" to him.

Let me tell you something, if someone sent thst book to my husband, or any man with non pedophile urges, the first thing they would do was burn it to fuck.

Not keep it stored somewhere!

Very very different. Thanks for making my point

Whether you agree with a bit of porn to jazz up your sex life or not, its a different thing to having child images.

Looking at it with children though.....

Almost most men" have not shown porn to children though. The accusers were able to describe where this material was located and their fingerprints were on it, along with Jackson's, in the case of Gavin arviso and his brother as far as I remember.

So just ran a fact check on this. At trial the magazine dates were found to be inconsistent with the prosecutions timeline ( the publications were dated after the Arvizos last visited Neverland) Full transcript can be found in the link above.

Just searched and Gavin claimed Jackson showed him porn magazines.

No they weren't really. The lawyer showed a magazine and said was this what he showed you and the accuser said yes. It was a copy of "Barely Legal", which was one of the magazines found where he said it would be, albeit a later dated one. I'm not going to accuse a child of being a liar based on that. Its entirely plausible that he saw the logo and a similar cover image and presumed it was one of the ones he had seen there.

The fact is, "Barely Legal" magazines were found in jacksons bedroom exactly where he said they would be. Its on the evidence list. Do you normally try to discredit children who make claims of sexual abuse or is it just in this one case?

To add, both jacksons fingerprints and the accusers were found on some of the magazines recovered from his bedroom, including barely legal (ugh, hate typing that). The fact that his lawyer made sure to show a later edition as a "gotcha" is neither here nor there IMO. Its entirely probable that that particular copy was added to the briefcase later but before the police raid

Link

Apologies I did not write a whole post on exactly what porn but I assumed that most people here were pretty familiar with exactly what kind and where it was kept so I didn’t think I needed too but again, looking for loopholes and sidestepping the evidence.

I certainly knew what porn you were referring to, but the denial is fierce in some directions,

Laughing at being accused of being a pitchfork welding mob from posters trying desperately to twist children's evidence though 😅

I think that kind of magazine pretty much looks the same, whatever date it is. I’m not sure that’s a winning argument. Michael definitely kept porn and some of which had young children it. Some were DVDs which had a variety of ‘unsual sexual acts’ in them. Some of the pornography included images of children’s faces superimposed on adult bodies. All this was mostly found in his bedroom, next to the bed, at the foot of the bed etc. the police siezed in their raid so it definitely existed and it definitely belonged to Jackson.