So apparently Michael Jackson really was sick

Bad people go free sometimes. Doesn't mean they aren't awful people. Maybe the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible for some reason. Or money changed hands.
Also there times when people are innocent. It is easy to people to believe that Michael was guilty because he wasn't like everyone else. People just saw some weird guy so it is easy to think bad about him.
 
or you could just accept that the guy was a monster.
 
In that Radar Online article they mention that Michael had a horrible book called Room to Play. It turns out that it's just an art book. United States’ Library of Congress has that book:

https://lccn.loc.gov/2004297659

They try to twist things in that article. I hope people don't believe everything they read.
 
Last edited:
Building Neverland and wanting to have sleepovers with little kids didn't give it away? All he needed was an ice cream truck to go around and pick up kids to complete the creepy trifecta.
 
Building Neverland and wanting to have sleepovers with little kids didn't give it away? All he needed was an ice cream truck to go around and pick up kids to complete the creepy trifecta.

Yeah. I can't wait for someone to come and say the typical jargon. "It was innocent, he was a child at heart. He just wanted to live his childhood."
 
Jacko seems like a modern day Pied Piper.
 
Don't put Bill Clinton in that category. Not saying I agree with adultery but getting a beej in the oval office is nowhere near as bad as what OJ, Cosby or now even MJ did.

They're all the same..men with power preying on others. The magnitude of their offenses differ. The Clintons have been connected with deaths but not enough evidence to convict. They're all the same.
 
Yeah. I can't wait for someone to come and say the typical jargon. "It was innocent, he was a child at heart. He just wanted to live his childhood."
He did. I find it sad that many people are willing to believe that he was guilty so easily.
 
I used to be uncertain and kind of want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I leaned toward the interpretation that his dad never let him have a childhood, so he was an emotionally stunted, kind of asexual man-child who surrounded himself with kids to vicariously live out the childhood he never had.

But if all this is true, it's kind of hard to look at it innocently. And if he was on prescription drugs treating sex addiction, that blows a pretty big hole in the asexual Willy Wonka image.
 
Don't put Bill Clinton in that category. Not saying I agree with adultery but getting a beej in the oval office is nowhere near as bad as what OJ, Cosby or now even MJ did.
I put Clinton there because the Lewinsky case was something that had a smoking gun and turned out to be true. Same goes for Cosby, OJ and Jacko.
 
In that Radar Online article they mention that Michael had a horrible book called Room to Play. It turns out that it's just an art book. United States’ Library of Congress has that book:

https://lccn.loc.gov/2004297659

They try to twist things in that article. I hope people don't believe everything they read.
Apparently he cut out the heads of little kids and placed them on the head of nude men.

You can keep lying to yourself though.
 
Apparently he cut out the heads of little kids and placed them on the head of nude men.

You can keep lying to yourself though.
Sounds like a pedo in denial. "If I replace the body with an adult one, it's still fair game, right?"
 
Vanity Fair article has this update:
"Update (June 21, 10:10 A.M.)
A representative from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department gave Vanity Fair the following statement regarding the documents:

Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense."

Somebody on other forums noticed that Radar Online was blocking out the crotch area on photos that are not actually explicit in the documents. They also made them black and white so you wouldn't see the clothes.

 
So it's bogus and Radar is just digging for traffic? I'm confused.
 
Probably a bit of both. They manipulate what they have to increase traffic then ignore anyone who says anything otherwise while the defenders claim it's fake or altered and those that already believe the worst claim it's exactly as they thought.
 
Vanity Fair article has this update:


Somebody on other forums noticed that Radar Online was blocking out the crotch area on photos that are not actually explicit in the documents. They also made them black and white so you wouldn't see the clothes.


You do realize this confirms it is real and that includes the written bits right?
 
You do realize this confirms it is real and that includes the written bits right?
The prosecutors had all of these documents back in 2005 and he was found not guilty. If they are as bad as the tabloids say he wouldn't have won the trial and been freed from all charges.
 
So he had the porn in his possession, but the charges were child molestation. His lawyer probably argued there was no connection?
 
So he had the porn in his possession, but the charges were child molestation. His lawyer probably argued there was no connection?
He had porn but not child porn. I haven't seen much of the documents but people say it has photos from art books for example. Radar Online posted all the documents online.
 
The prosecutors had all of these documents back in 2005 and he was found not guilty. If they are as bad as the tabloids say he wouldn't have won the trial and been freed from all charges.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "'technicality" or the OJ Simpson trial? Also being found not guilty does not make one innocent.
 
He had porn but not child porn. I haven't seen much of the documents but people say it has photos from art books for example. Radar Online posted all the documents online.
An "art book" full of nude images he showed to kids. But because it is "art" it doesn't count?
 
This Michael Jackson news is really surprising people? LOL.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"