Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

[terley]

They said they found a lot of items but from what i read apparently they found notthing that could have been used against him? They said they found pornography and animal torture scenes and then when it went to court i read it was all false

There are lots of very odd things found at the crime scene, all circumstantial and along with "witnesses" testifying made non of them stick.. there was no smoking bullet, similar to Saville.

The witness accounts now along with the circumstantial evidence paint a very different picture however...

 

[Gerard]

They said they found a lot of items but from what i read apparently they found notthing that could have been used against him? They said they found pornography and animal torture scenes and then when it went to court i read it was all false

There was a list of items seized that was viewable at one time, a few of them were apparently porn mags with kids faces stuck over the faces of the people in the shoots..

Some extracts from the sheriffs report

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

 

[Gerard]

There are lots of very odd things found at the crime scene, all circumstantial and along with "witnesses" testifying made non of them stick.. there was no smoking bullet, similar to Saville.

The witness accounts now along with the circumstantial evidence paint a very different picture however...

I'm no expert, but i'm guessing he didn't want people in that room?

 

[VortexA1]

There was a list of items seized that was viewable at one time, a few of them were apparently porn mags with kids faces stuck over the faces of the people in the shoots..

Some extracts from the sheriffs report


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

Nah..that's BS


The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

None of the items seized from Neverland fit the legal definition of child pornography, and in fact many of the items that are currently creating the most media hysteria were not pornographic at all. They were legal art books; a few of them containing some examples of adult erotica, but again, these were not titles that could be in any way deemed as pornographic or even obscene. This isn’t to say that Jackson didn’t own any pornography at all. The truth was that a sizable amount of adult heterosexual pornography had been confiscated in the raid

 

[terley]

The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

Essentially that argument says that he had 1800 images of porn, the questionable images couldn't be used in court because anyone could have put them there..

Thats it, regardless of that you dont need porn to groom children.

 

[ubersonic]

Seen the documentary now, still think they're just scammers hoping to get a payout from his estate or something.

At the end of the day, and this may sound very insensitive, we know he was close friends with Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin (other child stars which he shared common ground with) and he never touched them, or any other of his child star friends. The only ones accusing him of owing them money molesting them are ugly poor people.

Now you can say that all his alleged victims being poor is just coincidence, but as the entire case against him is circumstantial and has no real evidence baring the word of people who have previously defended him ("we're not lying now but we were lying before but we're not liars, give us money!"), I think it's safe to say it's something we will never know for sure, but as weird as he was the evidence is still on his side.

I've seen the stories also referencing the fact he did the pay outs, now please if I'm wrong correct me.

He did settle but did not accept any liability, meaning the kids family could have pursued action still.

I do not get why any normal sane parent wouldn't do that, they should have taken him to court still and got him into jail if proven guilty.

Basically, the criminal cases (accused and or taken to court by the police) he fought and won, his accusers proven to be lying. The civil cases (people suing him) he just settled out of court because he could afford to pay the gold diggers to go away.

 

[terley]

Seen the documentary now, still think they're just scammers hoping to get a payout from his estate or something.

At the end of the day, and this may sound very insensitive, we know he was close friends with Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin (other child stars which he shared common ground with) and he never touched them, or any other of his child star friends. The only ones accusing him of owing them money molesting them are ugly poor people.

Now you can say that all his alleged victims being poor is just coincidence, but as the entire case against him is circumstantial and has no real evidence baring the word of people who have previously defended him ("we're not lying now but we were lying before but we're not liars, give us money!"), I think it's safe to say it's something we will never know for sure, but as weird as he was the evidence is still on his side.




Basically, the criminal cases (accused and or taken to court by the police) he fought and won, his accusers proven to be lying. The civil cases (people suing him) he just settled out of court because he could afford to pay the gold diggers to go away.

Its too easy to write it off as money, and there are many examples of why money isn't a motivator for them coming forward, i.e. not monetizing the film, keeping hold of rings worth tens of thousands etc etc..

 

[adam cool dude]

Its too easy to write it off as money, and there are many examples of why money isn't a motivator for them coming forward, i.e. not monetizing the film, keeping hold of rings worth tens of thousands etc etc..

Lol he befriended Jimmy Saville and never saw it.

 

[terley]

Lol he befriended Jimmy Saville and never saw it.

Did you even watch that documentary? Louis asked him straight if he was a paedophile.. of course he saw it.

 

[jpaul]

Did you even watch that documentary?

yes we all saw it - the original theroux interview - google it - etc etc
Louis Theroux says Jimmy Savile didn't seem 'malevolent' at the time .... In response, the filmmaker confessed: “I feel a bit ashamed now ..

 

[beh]

Did you even watch that documentary? Louis asked him straight if he was a paedophile.. of course he saw it.

I don't think he would have remained friends with Jimmy had he believed him to be a paedophile. That's what makes the follow up documentary he did so interesting, he's trying to get his head around why he didn't see it.

 

[adam cool dude]

Did you even watch that documentary? Louis asked him straight if he was a paedophile.. of course he saw it.

As mentioned above he did a follow up documentary many years later about it!

 

[beh]

As mentioned above he did a follow up documentary many years later about it!

It's the same thing that makes this documentary interesting. The parents are really struggling with how they didn't see it, but worse than Louis and Jimmy, that they were therefore partly culpable for their child being abused.

 

[Tek81]

Innocent or guilty, the documentary has certainly led to more people mass-debating Michael Jackson. On another note, it's interesting to see Louis Therouxs opinion. For some reason I imagined he'd be more sceptical of the claims.

 

[terley]

Innocent or guilty, the documentary has certainly led to more people mass-debating Michael Jackson. On another note, it's interesting to see Louis Therouxs opinion. For some reason I imagined he'd be more sceptical of the claims.

Because after watching both parts of the documentary you realise the veracity of those claims.

 

[Roland Butter]

The Australian couple must surely have questioned this strange man/boy's motives, why was Michael giving them a free
round the world holiday ?

I mean their son was an enthusiastic but average dancer, any LA Children's Dance Studio could
have lined up dozens of better boy dancers.

If Michael had any vestige of a reputation left, this doc has scuppered any chances of a renaissance .

 

[Tek81]

Because after watching both parts of the documentary you realise the veracity of those claims.

Having watched both parts a couple of days ago, I agree. However, probably due to the fact that I also watched "Louis, Martin & Michael" the week before, I concluded that Theroux was going to be "on the fence" about the whole thing. I can't quite explain why though. More of an assumption; an incorrect one.

 

[Merlin5]

we know he was close friends with Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin (other child stars which he shared common ground with) and he never touched them, or any other of his child star friends.

Maybe those kids, who are now stars in their own right, weren't as starstruck by MJ as the other kids and not as easily led and brainwashed to sleep with him.

 

[Chris344]

If it was purely innocent and child like friendliness, then why no little girls too?

 

[pitkin]

Why didn't the people he paid off, refuse to take his money and continue to pursue him legally? They could have still claimed damages when he was found guilty. Surely that would have been the better option, potentially jailing him and saving other children he may have done it to afterwards? They basically allowed a paedophile to carry on with his actions by not challenging him in court.