• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Michael Jackson apparently had a child pornography collection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Been trying to ignore some of the insanely misinformed bullshit here.

Jesus juice? Really? You do realize all of that was made up, right?

He had a fairground...must mean he molested children. Yeah makes a lot of sense.


Shit...i am done really.
 
where's the proof

I'm gonna need the receipts

Sounds waaaaay too extreme. Show me the verified receipts.

These are the reciepts. Sherriff's Office verified a lot of this stuff was stuff put together by them, but simply that they didn't directly release it to anyone in the media. They're confirming the validity of the imagery you're looking at, except for some other images (that they aren't specifying) which came from outside the office and was not part of the evidence they gave to the prosecution.

I guess the question is now a) which images didn't come from the Sherriff's Office and b) are those images and/or their possession by Jackson falsified?

As Sangreal's pointed out in earlier posts, you can read reports from the 2003 trial talking about this stuff being presented in court and admitted into evidence.
 

Ajax125

Banned
The guy was a real sick fuck. Nothing would surprise me. But at the same time, he's long dead.... why air this out now?

Because he's long dead....Which means less blow back.

It's the same way that the military/ government declassifies files 50 or so years after an event occurs....
 

Onemic

Member
I have no idea what that update from the Sheriff's office means.

Radar has the full sheriff's report, including images taken as evidence. Here: http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf

From what I was able to scroll through, they're mostly rather tame "art" shots and excerpts from legally sold books. That would explain why he was never charged for having illegal child pornography, because he technically did not have any. The prosecutor used the books and pictures as proof of a grooming scheme for his alleged victims, but it never panned out.

Oh, so the same shit that was released back in 2009?
 

Bad_Boy

time to take my meds
not surprised. but shit sucks yo.

his music was great. i mean i guess it still is. but it's got like an * now.
 

73V3N

Banned
i wonder what some people talking shit here think of neogaf members that use loli anime characters as their avatar
 

marrec

Banned
Been trying to ignore some of the insanely misinformed bullshit here.

Jesus juice? Really? You do realize all of that was made up, right?

He had a fairground...must mean he molested children. Yeah makes a lot of sense.


Shit...i am done really.

Ya get out before the denial you've built around this sicko is taken down and you see the harsh truth.

I'd hate to ruin your day.
 
Been trying to ignore some of the insanely misinformed bullshit here.

Jesus juice? Really? You do realize all of that was made up, right?

He had a fairground...must mean he molested children. Yeah makes a lot of sense.


Shit...i am done really.

I've seen denial but this seems like something even worse.
 

Volimar

Member
I just want to know for sure. This vague stuff and allegations and pics that might have been from the internet and not Jackson and bla bla bla. Just give me a smoking gun.

I remember his death thread on GAF when people were going apeshit at anyone who even hinted he was a pervert or had had plastic surgery.

Okay, the kiddy porn stuff seems uncertain, but how could anyone deny he has had plastic surgery?
 
I mean does this really shock anyone? He settled out of court with one of his victims. If that shit isn't true you fight it to the grave. Especially when you are rich as fuck like he was.

"Oh there's nothing wrong with him sleeping with young children. He's innocent! Like Peter Pan." What the fuck ever.
 

Rembrandt

Banned
These are the reciepts. Sherriff's Office verified a lot of this stuff was stuff put together by them, but simply that they didn't directly release it to anyone in the media. They're confirming the validity of the imagery you're looking at, except for some other images (that they aren't specifying) which came from outside the office and was not part of the evidence they gave to the prosecution.

I guess the question is now a) which images didn't come from the Sherriff's Office and b) are those images and/or their possession by Jackson falsified?

As Sangreal's pointed out in earlier posts, you can read reports from the 2003 trial talking about this stuff being presented in court and admitted into evidence.

so the receipts are the books that have pics of nude men, women and children? none of the gore or any of the other crazy shit listed in the OP?

i wonder what some people talking shit here think of neogaf members that use loli anime characters as their avatar

i think we can get banned for referencing their avatars now.
 

zaccheus

Banned
Isn't the alleged 'nude children and women' source NOT new, and actually just some picture books he had on his coffee table with some weird fetishes and shit from around the world? It's not illegal to have photos of naked people/children if it's not in a sexual manner. All the source says is that they are nude. My relatives have weird books with weird pictures in it too. I've got a Ripley's believe it or not book with photos of some bizarre ass people in it. It's not uncommon.
 

dakun

Member
looking at any of the children and their family that ever alleged MJ did anything reveals quite quickly how insane these people were and at what length they went to get some money from him.
From the guy who's estranged father drugged his own child to get a "confession" to the crooked mother of the other guy who tried to get money from several celebrities before MJ, who MJ was warned about by Chris Tucker but naivly took their cancer ridden child and payed the bills to heal him.
To the guy who testified in court against the second guy and years after MJ's death tried to make a quick buck by having this "revelation" of how he was molested.

MJ was an idiot to let these 3 families into his house and trusting them. There are dozens of other families who have quite a different story to tell about MJ.
 
[EDIT]My presumption of guilt on MJ's part is based on my own ignorance.

According to the UK Mirror site, Michael Jackson had zero photographs that could legally be described as child pornography.

Seems to be a lot of loose talk, but it isn't illegal (but definitely creepy) to have books of children partially dressed and/or nude. Seems like a baity sort of headline when there really isn't too much of a story here, and also, wasn't this 'evidence' pretty well known back when he was first charged?
 

Geist-

Member
Not strange for me, honestly. Always assumed the worst, but Off The Wall is still a god tier album.

To be fair, there's a lot of art, literature, and respected people throughout history who have the same sick, degenerate skeletons in their closets. We can still enjoy their works even if they themselves were terrible people.

Same applies to music.
 

dyergram

Member
Not surprised at all in fact I thought we already knew this I remember seeing something about photography books that were border line child porn. Slightly unrelated but it really depresses me when black celebrity's who's work I enjoy imply that mj and more recently Cosby were just victims of white conspiracys to slander them.
 

gogogow

Member
Isn't the alleged 'nude children and women' source NOT new, and actually just some picture books he had on his coffee table with some weird fetishes and shit from around the world? It's not illegal to have photos of naked people/children if it's not in a sexual manner. All the source says is that they are nude. My relatives have weird books with weird pictures in it too. I've got a Ripley's believe it or not book with photos of some bizarre ass people in it. It's not uncommon.

The article almost makes it sound that they got NEW and/or unreleased EVIDENCE. All Radar Online got is the police report from back in the day and wrote a story around it. So, no new evidence, just another tabloid article.
 

riotous

Banned
The book with nudist pictures isn't new info; and the police report outright states it doesn't qualify as child pornography.

I think the title of "The Fourth Sex: Adolescent Extremes" is new, but it was described vaguely before IIRC. And he had BDSM books as well.

Never heard anything about animal sacrifices though but a lot of that reads like speculation... they find a book with weird pictures and then a detective says "In my experience this stuff is used to groom children."; either way IMO the original details from over a decade ago seemed pretty bad on their own but it's not my business either way, it's the business of the families involved.
 
I just read through that report and y'know all of it was what we knew before

Arty nude type crap, I didn't see any mention of actual child pornography. I think what's more worrying was the copious amount of drugs near kids, I definitely think he was well a child molester but none of this stuff is what we were presented with. Child mutilation and the like.
 

Arkeband

Banned
The article almost makes it sound that they got NEW and/or unreleased EVIDENCE. All Radar Online got is the police report from back in the day and wrote a story around it. So, no new evidence, just another tabloid article.

It sounds like it's the same evidence that lost in court but now it's been released so the court of public opinion can decide.
 
I mean does this really shock anyone? He settled out of court with one of his victims. If that shit isn't true you fight it to the grave. Especially when you are rich as fuck like he was.

"Oh there's nothing wrong with him sleeping with young children. He's innocent! Like Peter Pan." What the fuck ever.

Wut.

I'm pretty sure MJ was guilty, but this just doesn't make sense. People settle out of court for shit they don't do all the time. In a hypothetical world where I'm as rich as MJ and also not guilty of the accusations it makes a lot of sense to just throw money at the problem to make it disappear, particularly since an extended trial could bring bad PR that would theater future income from his music.
 
Is anyone really surprised by this? All this stuff is old news.

Either you believed it back when he was alive, or you didn't - I don't think this is going to change the minds of people who always chose to believe in "poor vulnerable MJ, he was messed up by his abusive father that's all, he was a child himself because he never had a childhood...." - Abusers often have a history of abuse themselves, so why would him having an abusive childhood himself prohibit him from being an abuser? If anything it would strengthen the case.
 

Mechazawa

Member
Don't get me wrong, because I think he was a pedophile, but, according to the partial report on the UK Mirror site, Michael Jackson had zero photographs that could legally be described as child pornography.

Seems to be a lot of loose talk, but it isn't illegal (but definitely creepy) to have books of children partially dressed and/or nude. Seems like a baity sort of headline when there really isn't too much of a story here, and also, wasn't this 'evidence' pretty well known back when he was first charged?

Skimming through the PDF Ray Wonder posted, the books in question keep getting described with an appended note of "this can't legally be considered child pornography", so I think you're right on that count.

That said, I'm no prude, but some of the images in that PDF are preeeeeeeeetty fucking unsettling to look at.
 

Volimar

Member
Here's what I'm wondering. Was he just a fucked up kid who grew into a fucked up adult who had these things because taboo subjects were the only things that could turn him on? Or was he calculated in that he got books and pornography that was questionable but technically legal so that he could skirt the law?

Skimming through the PDF Ray Wonder posted, the books in question keep getting described with an appended note of "this can't legally be considered child pornography", so I think your right on that count.

That said, I'm no prude, but some of the images in that PDF are preeeeeeeeetty fucking unsettling to look at.

Scrolling through that RADAR Online watermark made me seasick or something. But yeah some pretty disturbing stuff in there, oddly mixed with incredibly tame stuff.
 

ASIS

Member
For one thing it helps his victims. They've had many years of being disbelieved by huge numbers of people, accused of making things up, accused of just doing this for money. It's much harder to say they're making things up when you have this information.

I think he's more so asking about the timing. Not that it's coming out.

He died 7 years ago, why didn't this come out 3,4,5 years ago, I guess?
 

Boem

Member
Even with all the evidence in the world, people will still claim the guy was just harmlessly and charmingly odd and childish. People like their heroes to be heroes.

Being odd and childish is fine of course, but the moment you harm a child you're out for me.

Fuck that guy. Nothing but a sick weirdo pervert.

I think he's more so asking about the timing. Not that it's coming out.

He died 7 years ago, why didn't this come out 3,4,5 years ago, I guess?

Holy shit, 7 years already? Christ, I'm getting old.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom