You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
The last 15 years of Michael Jackson's life were ruined by the sexual molestation allegations and quite possibly led to his death. So I think the man suffered enough to make you happy. I think it's sick to think along those lines personally. He was found innocent. You can act like you know he was guilty all you want but you have no proof, this isn't OJ Simpson, no matter how many times you want to bring that up. The media was all over Jackson his entire life, good and bad, but mostly bad during the latter years. You want them to keep all over him now that he's dead? Is that respectful? Even though he was found innocent. I don't know what kind of world you live in, but I personally have no interest in being a part of that world. You're free to have your thoughts on the matter, that's fine. But don't sit here and preach that the world is a sick place and should be picketing and burning pictures of Michael now that he's dead. That is not the answer.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
Acquiesce, I don't remember anything about a book of nude boys. Not saying its false, just don't remember it. You read that in a book or see it in a documentary? Only thing I know of regarding anything of that nature is the pic of Culkin in his underwear, and innocent or jerk off material for him, cannot be classified as child porn.
It was mentioned in his trial.
According to District Attorney Tom Sneddon, "The idea that there are not any photos or pictures or anything is pure poppycock. In the search, Jackson said, they didn't find anything unless it was 'something somebody sent me.' The statement there were no books or photos of nude children on his premises is incorrect. That is not truthful."
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles." There was also a picture of a nude little boy, scantily draped with a sheet, found in Jackson's bedroom.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/arch … orth199509
--
Mesereau inadvertently opened a door for Zonen by asking Robson, "If you had known Michael Jackson, as a grown man, was reading Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, magazines like that, showing naked women, would that have concerned you?" Robson said no, but it would depend on the kind of pornographic material. Zonen seized the opportunity. He strode over to the table where the evidence was kept and pulled out a large photo book called Boys Will Be Boys. Over and over he asked Robson to pick a page and describe what he saw—naked boys of 10, 11, or 12 with their genitalia prominently displayed. Then Zonen produced a second book, "of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another." He asked, "And, in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex, or sodomy; is that right?" Robson said yes. "Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a 10-year-old boy?" Robson said, "Yes, I guess so." And so on. Every time Mesereau tried to blunt the previous testimony, Zonen would get up and grab another book—seven in all.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
1) Wrong. When did he ever confess?
2) He was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he is innocent.
3) Of course they are, but when even the own jurors that sat on his trial said they feel he is a pedophile then it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
4) What makes him different than OJ?
5) That's what members of NAMBLA would say
6) Or because like most pedophiles he had a certain type. If he was worried about having girls in his bed being a liability then why wasn't he worried about having boys in his bed? Either way people are going to look at you in a highly suspicious manner. Males don't make it seem any more innocent.
7) There are plenty of people that did and are contuing to do so
8) Wrong, learn the facts of the case. It was testified to at trial
9) I posted the quotes so again, you're wrong.
10) What are they?
11) Never happened. Wrong
12) Wrong again, he was not married to Lisa Marie at the time
13) Wrong again, Cochran was not his lawyer
14) Testified to at trial
15) Mentioned by law enforcement
16) Money helped, but it's obvious people don't want to convict celebrities
BTW the source of most of my information came from Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) from her series of articles for Vanity Fair.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
I'm only commenting on the facts I know:
There was only one book that had naked boys, which was a photography book, and that was sent to Michael by a fan. A book that was found with other fan gifts and not in his collection. The only other books were erotica art of adults, along with his magazines. There was no child pornography found. No nude pictures of children. He would have been convicted on that alone...
8 - Every night? ooookay. btw, J.C's father was planning on building a second wing to the family's house for Michael and wanted to adopt him, at the same time he was supposed to be "concerned."
10 - I do know he had a great fear (paranoia) of people breaking in and kidnapping him. He had a panic room in his bedroom also.
11 - Yes, it did happen.
12 - She did tell him to settle when he wanted to fight. She also made him enter rehab. Those were her 2 conditions.
13 - Cochran did represent Michael at the beginning.
14 - He paid a former worker money so that she wouldn't accuse him right after the first allegations. She was also part of a group of employees (who were actually pretty infamous back in the early 90's talk show circuit) who made countless accusations against him that were proved false. And they weren't called to testify, mainly because the kid, who's an adult now, backed off the claims of the mother.
15 - I don't know if that's ever been proved, but I know they were accussing his private eye, the one who just went to jail for illegally wire tapping peoples homes.
16 - You have to consider this: with all of this "evidence" he was found not guilty on 14 counts. 14 counts, not guilty. His celebrity wasn't helping him here, either.
Maureen Orth also got slapped down recently by calling Michael's death a great thing and hasn't exactly been unbiased in the past. That's not exactly a great source. 
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
Wasn't easy to watch, feel sorry for his kids.
Not so much for the promoters.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
My rebuttal 
Yeah, that was MJ's defense of the books, but do you think he is going to be truthful about it? Why would a fan send him such a book and why would it remain in his house? You may say well maybe he didn't look at his gifts, but I am sure he had employees that went through everything that came through the house so again why would it remain in his house? Normal people would be disgusted by such a book and wouldn't want it lying around the house. I'm sure you wouldn't find such a book in any other celebrities house. Yet a book of nude pre-pubescent boys shows up in the home of the man who sleeps with pre-pubescent boys. Gee, what a shocker and a coincidence.
8) It was every night for 30 days as was testified. No one said his parents weren't guilty of bad judgment. Clearly they were just as guilty as MJ because as I said no one would have let their child sleep with him if he was a nobody, but they were blinded by the glitz, glammer, money, and gifts. That's why JC has refused to associate with his mother since it happened because he feels she essentially sold him to MJ. And it's not just her. Every single parent that let their kid spend one night in his bed is guilty. So the fact that they exercised extremely poor judgment (to put it mildly) is not a defense of MJ. They're all guilty.
10) Maybe his paranoia stemmed from the fact that he had something to hide.
11) I'd like to see the proof where it happened under sedation. He told a psychiatrist, lawyers, law enforcement, and prosecutors. That doesn't seem forced and his story was consistent each time. Moreover, he was able to accurately able to describe MJ's genitals which prompted MJ to immediately settle.
12) You are right, my mistake. I didn't realize she was in his life at that point. However, I don't think any innocent person would settle against such accusations just because a friend/lover encouraged them to do so. If you have nothing to hide and people are trying to extort you as you claim, then why would you give into their extortion? Such as settlement would forever cloud him in suspicion and would make him vunerable to more extortion attempts in the future. It's not exactly in your best interest to settle there unless you're guilty and want to make it go away.
13) Correct, but he wasn't the one handling the civil case that settled to my knowledge
14) Actually her son did testify at the trial that he was molested by MJ and had been in therapy for 5 years afterwards. Again if you are so innocent why give into someone's extortion? Why not have her prosecuted or sue her? There was also an audio tape of MJ's goon begging her not to go to the authorities.
15) Yeah, him. There was quite a bit written about him in those articles and about how employees were terrified to talk because of him and how he intimidates people. Also people involved in the case received threats. Even JC and his family. JC wanted to be protected and he wasn't.
16) Sure he was, but he wasn't found innocent on all charges. Not guilty = they were unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't necessarily prove someone's innocence. I don't see how his celebrity wasn't a factor. Do you honestly think anyone would accept an average joe who liked to sleep with boys? No way, it's absurd. At least one of the jurors was a fan of his and another went to Neverland as a kid. Could it be that they were biased from the start?
So Maureen Orth would only be a great source if she would have said "He was a true icon. This is a terrible tragedy and the world is an emptier place without him?" Get real, it doesn't make her any more biased than the loonies who can't get enough of MJ. Did it ever occur to you that she came to the conclusion while researching for her articles since she actually spoke to people involved in both cases? I don't think she set out with an agenda.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
James Lofton wrote:Acquiesce, I don't remember anything about a book of nude boys. Not saying its false, just don't remember it. You read that in a book or see it in a documentary? Only thing I know of regarding anything of that nature is the pic of Culkin in his underwear, and innocent or jerk off material for him, cannot be classified as child porn.
It was mentioned in his trial.
According to District Attorney Tom Sneddon, "The idea that there are not any photos or pictures or anything is pure poppycock. In the search, Jackson said, they didn't find anything unless it was 'something somebody sent me.' The statement there were no books or photos of nude children on his premises is incorrect. That is not truthful."
Investigation sources say police found a lewd, commercially published hardcover book of black-and-white photos of nude boys aged about 7 to 12 "at play," and according to one, that book "is often found in the home of pedophiles." There was also a picture of a nude little boy, scantily draped with a sheet, found in Jackson's bedroom.
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/arch … orth199509
--
Mesereau inadvertently opened a door for Zonen by asking Robson, "If you had known Michael Jackson, as a grown man, was reading Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, magazines like that, showing naked women, would that have concerned you?" Robson said no, but it would depend on the kind of pornographic material. Zonen seized the opportunity. He strode over to the table where the evidence was kept and pulled out a large photo book called Boys Will Be Boys. Over and over he asked Robson to pick a page and describe what he saw—naked boys of 10, 11, or 12 with their genitalia prominently displayed. Then Zonen produced a second book, "of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another." He asked, "And, in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex, or sodomy; is that right?" Robson said yes. "Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a 10-year-old boy?" Robson said, "Yes, I guess so." And so on. Every time Mesereau tried to blunt the previous testimony, Zonen would get up and grab another book—seven in all.
I remember the case, and I remember the allegations.
For all that "evidence" that supposedly existed, Tom Sneddon still failed to convict Michael Jackson on anything. So apparently the evidence wasn't too good, or was full of holes (pardon the expression).
The only thing i've heard confirmed, from a legit source, is that Corey Feldman claimed Michael had porno mags of women lying around, and it was unintentional on Michael's part that he found them. When Michael questioned him, it was more fatherly or big brother, explanation on women anatomy, nothing sexual.
Sneddon, and yes this is my 'opinion', really has killed ALL of his credibility since 1993. He seems like a prosecutor with a vendetta, bound and determined to get Michael Jackson on anything. The problem is, short of 'claiming', he never produced ANYTHING of substance from his claims.
I'll be interested to see what happens post Michael's death. Maybe Sneddon will be able to produce a book, with evidence, and we might be able to get to the bottom of his quest to jail Jackson, with maybe some facts.
For now, short of someone CHOOSING to believe Sneddon, the evidence, as well as verdict, have all went in favor of Jackson's story, not to mention COUNTLESS people who have backed up Jackson's personality, and story for years and years and years.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
Again I will bring up OJ Simpson. The DNA evidence in that case was unusually strong for a murder case and yet there was a still a not guilty verdict. Everyone knows it was because he was a celebrity and because he was black. So the fact that MJ was not convicted doesn't even necessarily mean the case wasn't proven. It's not illogical to think the jury had made up their mind based on his celebrity status.
The book was produced at trial. The quote specifically states it.
Zonen seized the opportunity. He strode over to the table where the evidence was kept and pulled out a large photo book called Boys Will Be Boys. Over and over he asked Robson to pick a page and describe what he saw—naked boys of 10, 11, or 12 with their genitalia prominently displayed. Then Zonen produced a second book, "of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another."
Every time Mesereau tried to blunt the previous testimony, Zonen would get up and grab another book—seven in all.
The evidence was there, but people fall for the defense party line that Sneddon was out to get MJ that they completely miss the evidence. Why would an accomplished prosecutor be out to get an innocent man who happens to be one of the biggest legends in music history? Don't you think he would pick a battle he could actually win instead of going against a musical giant with a high probability of damaging his image? Clearly he believed in his case or it would have been a waste of time for him. Whether or not you believed in his case is another matter, but I don't see how he killed his credibility when he went had a case he believed in.
Most people who backed up MJ's character weren't sleeping in bed with him and the boys. Just because they thought he was a nice guy doesn't mean he wasn't a pedophile. How many times do you see someone get arrested for some horrendous crime and the people that know them respond in shock because the person they knew was completely different than the monster who committed the crime?
And YES I choose to believe the man who dedicated his life to upholding the law over the man who sleeps in bed with pre-pubescent boys and owns books that features nude boys and has EVERY reason to lie.
Re: Michael Jackson's This Is It Discussion
1) Wrong. When did he ever confess?
2) He was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he is innocent.
3) Of course they are, but when even the own jurors that sat on his trial said they feel he is a pedophile then it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
4) What makes him different than OJ?
5) That's what members of NAMBLA would say
6) Or because like most pedophiles he had a certain type. If he was worried about having girls in his bed being a liability then why wasn't he worried about having boys in his bed? Either way people are going to look at you in a highly suspicious manner. Males don't make it seem any more innocent.
7) There are plenty of people that did and are contuing to do so
8) Wrong, learn the facts of the case. It was testified to at trial
9) I posted the quotes so again, you're wrong.
10) What are they?
11) Never happened. Wrong
12) Wrong again, he was not married to Lisa Marie at the time
13) Wrong again, Cochran was not his lawyer
14) Testified to at trial
15) Mentioned by law enforcement
16) Money helped, but it's obvious people don't want to convict celebrities
BTW the source of most of my information came from Maureen Orth (Tim Russert's widow) from her series of articles for Vanity Fair.
1. "If I Did It" - OJ Simpson, a book. It was basically his post-trial confession.
2. In your world. In the real world, he's innocent until PROVEN GUILTY. He was not, so your religion of his guilt, continues.
3. Jurors are not sources. Period.
4. OJ later confessed. Michael was found not guilty, and proclaimed his innocence 'til the day he died, not to mention the countless witnesses and evidence that back up Jackson's claims.
5. That's because NAMBLA is full of perverts. Jackson's life has been backed up time and again that he was not a pervert, and was actually uncomfortable with the concept of sex, yet you choose to believe false illusions.
6. Males make it extremely more innocent with other men. My mother babysits a young boy, who is very young and practically looks at me as a uncle, and sometimes he asks for me to get in bed with him to watch Scooby Doo until he goes to sleep. I do, until he falls asleep, and leave him be as he sleeps. He's not related to me, although I do know his parents. Some people would look at that as weird, but it's extremely innocent. But, I guaranteee you, if that was a little girl in the bed with me, people would freak, and out of liability, if it was a little girl, I would never do it.
7. Anybody that is burying their head in the sand right now, is doing so out of respect. But the coverage leading up to Jackson's memorial today, just about every news cast referenced the allegations, and even during the memorial for Jackson, congresswoman Shiela Jackson Lee proclaimed Jackson's innocence, directly referencing the allegations, during Jackson's own memorial.
8. Then get the facts. The burden of proof is on YOU. He was found innocent, yet you claim he is guilty. You have to prove me wrong, not the other way around. It's like you saying the Moon Landing was faked. It's not NASA's job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove how it was faked.
9. Sneddon has never provided ANY evidence outside of a courtroom, and even what was presented in the court room has conflicting reports. When he provides real, hard copy evidence, SOMETHING, other than his own beliefs. I'll listen. I swear to God I will.
10. Michael had a grave fear of being kidnapped, and his life was threatened on a daily basis. Lisa Marie also claimed Michael was extremely sensitive to his presentation and how he looked to people, not to mention the new drug allegations for years that have come to light. Michael also had a panic room installed. Michael could've been in fear, he could've wanted the alarms to run to the bathroom to throw on makeup, or to hide his stash of drugs. All are totally plausible, in addition to the idea of "stop molesting the kid".
11. See right here, you just proved, you have no clue what you're talking about. In the words of my main man Axl, "you're pulling it out of your ass". IT DID HAPPEN. The father confirmed it in the courtroom, the court proceedings you so half-ass followed. Jordie Chandler's father sedated his son for a dental procedure, and then coached him on the confession, which pretty much killed the case. Their case was weak, and Michael's defense was more about damage control to his rep. Either way, Jordie's father did nothing more than give his son "truth serum", and start planting stuff in there. The whole, he identified Michael's genitals thing, could've been a variety of things. He might've snuck in and watched the guy take a leak for all any of us knows.
12. I don't know whether they were married or not, but they were an item, and yes Lisa Marie did convince him to settle, when he wanted to fight it. You know how I know? Lisa Marie fucking said it out of her own mouth.
13. Cochran was his lawyer in beginning. If he changed midstream, I don't remember. Either way, Cochran was his lawyer in the beginning, and was delaying his trial. The reason? That's what a good lawyer does. Witnesses change their mind, they move away, things change. That's why defense lawyer's delay trials. It doesn't prove guilt one way or the other.
14. Proof?
15. Proof?
16. Tell that to Martha Stewart.
