International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Official - Michael Jackson was scum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308545)

cullennz 24th June 2016 03:03 AM

Official - Michael Jackson was scum
 
Forgive me if already posted

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/entertainmen...ectid=11661948

applecorped 24th June 2016 03:14 AM

beat it

The Central Scrutinizer 24th June 2016 03:28 AM

If I'm reading my Warrior Playbook correctly, I don't think you're allowed to judge people of color.

Reported.

Porpoise of Life 24th June 2016 04:21 AM

A secret kiddie shrine? That's creepy. I mean, most things about MJ were creepy in his latter years, but this is really creepy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer (Post 11349558)
If I'm reading my Warrior Playbook correctly, I don't think you're allowed to judge people of color.

Reported.

Reading? That's ableist.

devnull 24th June 2016 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 11349540)
beat it

Bad.

TragicMonkey 24th June 2016 04:45 AM

I can't help but remember how damning everything seemed at the time of the trial from the media coverage, and then years later to find out how much of that was completely made up and reported distortedly for ratings. The lesson I learned was to not trust media, particularly if they are reporting something "juicy".

Mumbles 24th June 2016 05:01 AM

If Jackson had actual child pornography, which is a crime against the state, and the prosecutor was eager to go after him...why wasn't he prosecuted for possessing child porn? More importantly, why wouldn't he have been charged at the federal level?

In truth, even the prosecutors stated that he had not child pornography, according to statement signed by the trial judge.

A lot of this is the same stuff that was available to the public back in 2003, so it's worth noting that the State's case basically collapsed when examined. For example, the article gives us this:

Quote:

This raid also revealed for the first time the King of Pop's secret closet, hidden in the back of his bedroom and kept closed with three deadlocks. It was in here that he kept memorabilia like a signed photograph of Macaulay Culkin, stuffed animals and games, and naked photos.

Culkin signed his photo with the message: 'Don't leave me alone in the house.'
Culkin also testified in court that Jackson had never attempted to touch him, leaving us to wonder why the Home Alone start would sign a photo of himself with a joke about being left home alone.

I have no doubt that the prosecution genuinely thought hat Jackson was a child molestor/rapist, and that they were doing the right thing by prosecuting him, and certainly any such allegation should be taken seriously. But as I said, their case fell apart completely.

Anyway, in this USA Today link with an obnoxious autoplay video so you can't say I didn't warn you, the police in charge of the investigation state that they had released everything they had over a decade ago, so you should be wary of anyone claiming that something is "new" or "newly released".

NoahFence 24th June 2016 05:29 AM

Hey, the man was a smooth criminal.

Cleon 24th June 2016 05:46 AM

Yeah, something doesn't smell right about this.

I can see him paying hush money to kids' parents, but I can't imagine the cops sweeing kiddie porn under the rug.

Molinaro 24th June 2016 06:55 AM

They were in fact pictures of nude boys. But if I remember correctly the nude images where classified as art.

Eddie Dane 24th June 2016 07:26 AM

This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).

Denver 24th June 2016 07:38 AM

Yeah this has been going around for about a week, and does have a lot of red flags around it.

Quote:

...secret closet, hidden in the back of his bedroom and kept closed with three deadlocks.
Sounds like overdone sensationalism, even National Enquirer-esqe. My first impression is it will turn out to be false. If not, it will be interesting to hear why it was not more of a focus in the trial.

Dr.Sid 24th June 2016 07:52 AM

Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?

Tale 24th June 2016 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane (Post 11349833)
This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).

This is what I want to believe.

I'm hard pressed to see how he could have gotten his 2005 acquittal if they had that kind of stuff on him.

Foolmewunz 24th June 2016 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 11349878)
Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?

I'd be willing to bet that they former ass't d.a. they contacted wasn't far away, as he is most likely the one who gave them the evidence. His former office refused to comment, but the sheriff's department in Santa Barbara says the evidence didn't come from them. Zonen and his former boss are still trying to vindicate their case because they got crushed in the trial.

Typical tabloid crap - picked up by some actual news outlets, but all referring back to the tabloid. The anniversary of Jackson's death is this week.

Rincewind 24th June 2016 09:45 AM

But "scum" means "It has arrived" doesn't it?

Gilbert Syndrome 24th June 2016 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer (Post 11349558)
If I'm reading my Warrior Playbook correctly, I don't think you're allowed to judge people of color.

Reported.

It doesn't matter if you're black or white.

Scootch 24th June 2016 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by devnull (Post 11349617)
Bad.

Billie Jean

Babbylonian 24th June 2016 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid (Post 11349878)
Wait ? Is there more ? Linked articles says there were 'naked photos' .. nothing about what kind of naked photos it were. Child pornography is not mentioned. No new facts to old molestation cases are presented. So what's the fuzz ?

They were able to legitimately connect the terms "Michael Jackson," "naked," "children," and "photos" in one story. Who wouldn't want to publish that?

Seriously, I think it's possible (even probable) that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But the article strings things together in such a way as to imply that what was found in his home was proof of that, including the implication that he was in possession of child pornography. If the police had found child pornography, he would have been charged as such and it would have been easy to prove even if the sexual abuse case fell apart.

Yep, it's garbage masquerading as journalism.

Elagabalus 24th June 2016 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tale (Post 11349891)
This is what I want to believe.

I'm hard pressed to see how he could have gotten his 2005 acquittal if they had that kind of stuff on him.


IIRC, post raid it went from "they found child pornography" to, gasp, "they found pornography" to "children doing adult things". It was at this point that I knew the S.B.D.A. didn't have ****.

The look on Nancy Grace's face when he was acquitted was priceless.

Elagabalus 24th June 2016 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane (Post 11349833)
This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).

Amen, brother.

Denver 24th June 2016 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 11350224)
IIRC, post raid it went from "they found child pornography" to, gasp, "they found pornography" to "children doing adult things". It was at this point that I knew the S.B.D.A. didn't have ****.

The look on Nancy Grace's face when he was acquitted was priceless.

It was during this trial that I first became aware of Nancy Grace. She was so sure, so positive, of his guilt, and I just never got why.

And then we learned of the evidence and the verdict.

I've never seen a reason to watch her again since.

Tony Stark 24th June 2016 05:53 PM

From what I could tell this is stuff that investigators claimed was evidence that he was grooming kids for molestation but not actual child porn. Images of naked kids are not necessarily child porn. If it was child porn, they would have claimed that's what it was, charged him with that, and secured a conviction.

Checkmite 24th June 2016 06:07 PM

IIRC, Jackson owned an "art book" comprised entirely of artistic nudes of prepubescent boys, and the book was kept together with a supply of actual (adult) pornography. I think this is rather strongly suggestive of the artistic material's actual purpose for Jackson; and I'm even going to go further than Babbylonian and opine that in conjunction with all of the other unfortunate facts about the man and his tastes and habits I think it makes a case beyond any reasonable doubt that he was a male-fixated pedophile. Given that, and with Jackson's regular access to and frequently arranging special "alone times" specifically with young boys, it would be quite surprising to me if he had actually not molested at least some of them. As to whether he molested the specific ones who accused him, obviously there's no concrete proof.

bruto 24th June 2016 06:30 PM

I would not be surprised to find that Jackson was all sorts of nasty things, and had all sorts of nasty thoughts, but thoughts are not acts, and one has to wonder how damning the material could be if it was not enough to convict him, and if we're reading about it now 13 years after the raid. Breaking news. Michael Jackson was peculiar.

cullennz 24th June 2016 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tale (Post 11349891)
This is what I want to believe.

I'm hard pressed to see how he could have gotten his 2005 acquittal if they had that kind of stuff on him.

He paid most of them off
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 11349979)
I'd be willing to bet that they former ass't d.a. they contacted wasn't far away, as he is most likely the one who gave them the evidence. His former office refused to comment, but the sheriff's department in Santa Barbara says the evidence didn't come from them. Zonen and his former boss are still trying to vindicate their case because they got crushed in the trial.

Typical tabloid crap - picked up by some actual news outlets, but all referring back to the tabloid. The anniversary of Jackson's death is this week.


cullennz 24th June 2016 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane (Post 11349833)
This seems like the media giving very lurid descriptions of the materials found.

Some of the materials were shown on a site I visited recently. As I recall the 'photo's of underage boys doing adult things', was actually a picture of a 17-year-old Keanu Reeves smoking a cigarette.

Which makes me wonder about the pictures of 'animal torture' etc.

There was a really shocking picture of a fully clothed woman holding a whip. Oh noes.

The suggestion that these pictures could be used to groom kids for abuse, seems also te be pulled from the rectum of a sensationalist journalist or attention-hungry official.

He seems to have liked some edgy art. The altar to kids may have been ironic.
I briefly had an altar to Charlie Sheen in my mancave. (when mister Sheen was going through his 'winning'-period and was living with two porno actresses).

He had little boys sleeping on his bed

Tony Stark 24th June 2016 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350919)
He paid most of them off

If he had child porn, there was nobody to pay off. Unless you're suggesting he bribed the cops/prosecutors?

cullennz 24th June 2016 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Stark (Post 11350923)
If he had child porn, there was nobody to pay off. Unless you're suggesting he bribed the cops/prosecutors?

The accusations against him

Tony Stark 24th June 2016 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350925)
The accusations against him

Your OP was about images they found in his house. Images that they didn't even claim were child porn.

cullennz 24th June 2016 07:16 PM

The pay offs were brought up by someone else.

To separate the two as evidence ! is pretty un skeptical and frankly laughable

Tony Stark 24th June 2016 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350935)
The pay offs were brought up by someone else.

To separate the two as evidence ! is pretty un skeptical and frankly laughable

Posting an article about alleged child porn that even cops/prosecutors didn't claim was child porn as proof that MJ was a scumbag is pretty unskeptical and laughable.

cullennz 24th June 2016 07:47 PM

Indeed. Nude pre pubescent boys are art.

And the pay offs were "gifts"

Tony Stark 24th June 2016 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350971)
Indeed. Nude pre pubescent boys are art.

And the pay offs were "gifts"

If they were child porn why was he never charged with child porn?

cullennz 24th June 2016 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Stark (Post 11350977)
If they were child porn why was he never charged with child porn?

Because he had a group of some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US saying it was art and to go settle for a pay off

Checkmite 24th June 2016 07:59 PM

As I have already stated, the images themselves were not pornographic.

But it is preposterous to imply that it can't be separately determined via context that Jackson used them as pornography.

Ray Brady 24th June 2016 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elagabalus (Post 11350224)
IIRC, post raid it went from "they found child pornography" to, gasp, "they found pornography" to "children doing adult things".

It was a VHS tape of Bugsy Malone.

TragicMonkey 24th June 2016 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350971)
And the pay offs were "gifts"

You're not that familiar with the cases, are you?

The one you're thinking of recanted when he reached adulthood, admitted his parents pressured him into making the whole thing up. He subsequently got legally emanicipated from them.

cullennz 24th June 2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 11350984)
You're not that familiar with the cases, are you?

The one you're thinking of recanted when he reached adulthood, admitted his parents pressured him into making the whole thing up. He subsequently got legally emanicipated from them.

Then why did he pay them off?

TragicMonkey 24th June 2016 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 11350979)
Because he had a group of some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US saying it was art and to go settle for a pay off

During his criminal trial? You're not just unfamiliar with the case, you're unfamiliar with how law works. You can't "settle" with the prosecution to exclude evidence of the thing they're trying to convict you of!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.