Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

There only one kind of porn.

Is there?

I believe so. Are you aware of different kinds?

Semantics now

Adult porn exists and in children's case its a very old fashioned use of the word which thankfully is now termed sexual abuse.

Why do you think Michael had these magazines and why do you think there were both his and children's fingerprints on them? Barely Legal...ugh

All boys physically very alike who were dismissed when they had the tenerity to become adolescents?

Yes, well, is there only one type of book or building or item of clothing? 🧐 It’s all ‘clothing’ but crotchless panties are slightly different to a cardigan. Wouldn’t you say? If you are saying all men look at porn and that’s fine to do so I would argue that it does depend on what kind of porn. I’m not keen on any really however, if my partner was getting his kicks watching two people (adults) having fairly bog standard sex on a video then I probably wouldn’t be as upset as finding he had stuck photos of young boys faces on top of adult bodies in his Barely Legal magazine because it turned him on. I don’t quite know what you are trying to argue here? That it’s fine your hero MJ had disgusting illegal and disturbing images in his room, on his DVDs and on his computer?

My point was about the published porn that’s legal and that almost every men uses. I had no idea there’s evidence that Jackson stuck on head pictures of kids onto images of adult bodies from the porn magazines, which is clearly abhorrent.

So much intellectual dishonesty 🙄🙄 Playing dumb over things that have already been discussed many times, and then when they get responses they don't like they play the victim and make out others are immature or wielding pitchforks.

When people do this in real life it's called gaslighting.

The inscription in one of the books is intriguing because who was Rhonda? And why hasn’t she come forward? I’ve always thought Rhonda was a pseudonym for someone. They added quotation marks - “Rhonda”.

I don’t have the mental capacity to remember every single argument, point, opinion, and piece of evidence on two or three long threads, from a complex case that has been ongoing for years. Great that you do, though.

Yes it seems like it was a pseudonym, the artists picture of the inscription also shows that some of the letters were capitalised, "RHonDA".

I assume the reason she/he hasn't come forward is due to the subject matter of the books.

Some suggest the pseudonym is for Ronald Drew which was a pseudonym used by one of the pedophiles who made the book.

Im still waiting for an explanation that makes sense why Michael and his child accusers fingerprints were on Barely Legals pages

Im also waiting to hear why he kept a book written by pedophiles either hidden or not, if id been sent that vile material id be ditching it pronto

Michael had some use for it....

I mean you have been on this thread for quite some time and all of what was discovered has been discussed previously, you also talk about the ‘locked away books’ so you must know something about what kinds of pornography was found in his possession?

Yes, those locked away books I was well aware of and definitely questionable. Which is different from the porn that was found.

I have severe brain fog myself so struggle with mental capacity also, but if yours is so bad that you can't even remember things we've discussed in these threads then maybe you shouldn't be accusing people of not providing evidence or saying all over the thread that there's fuck all evidence and then complaining about the responses you get.

From what I've seen you seem to have no recall issues for anything that is pro-innocence.

You also on one of the other threads tried to shut me down saying I was 'getting mixed up again' when it was you.

So if you have issues remembering stuff and don't retain information that relates to his guilt then maybe you shouldn't be so antagonistic and blaming others for their responses.

Is there evidence of kids faces stuck on Barely Legal porn?

You're quite emotionally invested in this aren't you @kkloo

Now now, its a discussion, I know how heavily invested some folk are in his innocence but you really have some front calling another poster emotionally invested when your self appointed position of Thread Inspector has had you call other posters mobs and pitchfork waving yadayada.

Any answer to the poster who countered and explained how the information you posted this morning was misleading?

Who explained that both sets of prints were there? Why were a child's prints on pornographic magazines in his bedroom?

Which post was misleading? I didn't see the question

You posted a link this morning stating that the magazine in evidence was dated after Gavins visit to MJs so basically it couldn't have been his fingerprints, insinuating obviously that it was an untruth

Another poster has explained how that scenario actually played out in court and it wasnt the "gotcha" you thought.

And that there were Michael's and his child accusers prints on the magazines. How did a child get prints on a pornographic magazine.....ive caught up here just yesterday, asked at least 5 times and its been deflected with 'nothing to see here posts'

I mean its not like it was far back it was just this morning with links from the poster.

This post

@kkloo I don’t have severe brain fog at all, but I’m human, have things going on, and thus cannot remember every single detail from this complex case that have been presented on threads that cover literally hundreds of unique posts. Most of it, but not all. Remembering the gist of the trial testimonies alone would challenge anyone. It doesn’t matter if anyone doesn’t believe me - I’ve been on online forums for a long time, so I know the ropes.

This is what has thrown me because I had never heard of this until today. Perhaps @Missohnoyoubetterdont could enlighten us?

Yes I'd say I'm fairly emotionally invested in calling out this crap where people post a certain way and then play the victim.

You on the other hand are emotionally invested in trying to manipulate one side into shutting up so that people can just keep posting money and vomit emojis all they want.

Weird.

There's only 7 pages left in the thread so maybe if you can avoid once again getting up on your high horse the thread can carry on.

Here is a link which details what was found in the neverland raid. I mean, if people have (conveniently) never heard of all this incriminating evidence maybe it's better to get the full info before calling children liars and going all in on defending an obvious pedophile?

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection?srsltid=AfmBOoqGxgSFoVxYXlkKTKF_KsMVHTPuS1jt_GgVBoHbBKvDROlMSl9Q

That's absolutely fine if you don't remember things, but don't tell other people that they're mixed up or not providing evidence or that there's fuck all evidence when you just don't remember it, even when it may have just been discussed a few pages ago.