So apparently Michael Jackson really was sick

[Mike_D202]

All of the material mentioned in the documents was commercially available at some point. The material that isn't currently commercially available is simply out of print

As I'm sure you're aware, possessing child pornography is illegal. None of the material mentioned in the documents was deemed as such by the authorities. They've had years to investigate it.

Had any of the materials been determined to be obscene, pornographic, or pedophilic they would have been banned, likely never published at all, or brought forward at Mr. Jackson's trials as his legal adult material was.

Also, none of the materials mentioned in the documents was self-produced save for photographs described in the documents as shirtless barely clothed black teens who are in certain shots posing with Mr. Jackson. That's a pretty salacious way to describe an album cover shoot, wouldn't you agree? I believe the album is still available. I hear it's pretty good.




Yes it does in this case. The assertion that Mr. Jackson possessed child pornography has been debunked according to the statutes of the United States government.




As I said, I'm not aware of the particulars of the Cosby situation and furthermore that last sentence makes no sense to me. Bill Cosby is not Michael Jackson.



The material you're describing has been praised by art aficionados as a masterpiece of surrealism, including reviews on Amazon praising such works as (paraphrasing), "This book was recommended to me by the author's mother who was a high school art teacher for many years".

How many nude paintings or photographs feature nude women as their subjects? Are all the artists who produce this work merely horndogs? How about the many art lovers of the world? Are they secretly getting their jollies to the depiction of naked flesh?

Are we to assume that the scores of people who rave about "Apocalypse Now" are warmongers and advocates of animal abuse because it is extremely violent and contains a scene of an animal being slaughtered?



You're arguing from emotion instead of logic. Where was your outrage when Oprah had her featured pajama-clad sleepover party with a group of underage girls for her show? I didn't see any from anyone.

I suppose it's her lack of obvious cosmetic surgery that made it ok for her to sit in a bed with a group of underage girls in pajamas.

It's so refreshing to come across logic once in a while.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

First off he didn't own any gay pornography but even if he did what's wrong with that? And yes he had various playboys and like I said I think I remember a report from 07ish saying he even had a copy of "Ghetto booty 5" or something to that degree. But I ask you, what red blooded male has not owned or atleast watched porn before? Now are you saying it's impossible to watch porn and be a nice person that is childlike? That preposterous! However, I will say this.. He was a great humanitarian and very childlike person but a lot of it was an act to cater to the image his fans had of him. There have been various reports of Mj just flat out being a "playa" if you will.

Pharrell has said before that Michael would have 2-3 Brazilian women around him at one time walking around half naked. Frank Delio said that Michael had quite a few sexual flings with some celebrities of whom's identity they won't divulge. Hell even Lisa Marie said he was a much different relaxed man that even spoke in a manlier register behind closed doors. Now obviously none of this is proof that he didn't do it but it's more insight into the man. At the heart of it all Michael was a normal man, childlike? Yes to a degree but innocent and just loved the company of children. Eccentricities? Yea, stupid decisions? Tons! But not a pedo

You do realize these things don't mix right? This is the obvious contradiction. He is childlike in his naivete, but he had this huge adult sex drive that he indulged in all the time.

 

[The Batman]

It's so refreshing to come across logic once in a while.

I second this.

 

[Knightfall]

You do realize these things don't mix right? This is the obvious contradiction. He is childlike in his naivete, but he had this huge adult sex drive that he indulged in all the time.

I didn't say a huge sex drive. I said he was childlike in ways but was also a red blooded male and loved women. He was more naive in his younger days ala Jackson 5- The Jacksons to even the Off the Wall era. However around the Thriller era he started coming out more in confidence and by the Bad era it was evident because he had become a sex symbol of sorts and he liked it. That being said, yes he was still childlike in ways but that doesn't mean he was asexual. Just because one has a playful childlike merriment doesn't mean they can't also be a man when it's time and do the dance with no pants..

 

[Dark Raven]

I didn't say a huge sex drive. I said he was childlike in ways but was also a red blooded male and loved women. He was more naive in his younger days ala Jackson 5- The Jacksons to even the Off the Wall era. However around the Thriller era he started coming out more in confidence and by the Bad era it was evident because he had become a sex symbol of sorts and he liked it. That being said, yes he was still childlike in ways but that doesn't mean he was asexual. Just because one has a playful childlike merriment doesn't mean they can't also be a man when it's time and do the dance with no pants..

Well, that would give new meaning to the Moonwalk.

 

[auditor]

You do realize these things don't mix right? This is the obvious contradiction. He is childlike in his naivete, but he had this huge adult sex drive that he indulged in all the time.

actually people with arrested development still have hormones and sex drives. Just like diabetes or cancer or bowell problems.

 

[Marvel Spider]

The supposed pic of the Jonbenet Ramsey lookalike was taken in 2008, five years after the search, and wasn't something that was found by officers when they searched the ranch. Radar made it up.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

 

[KevanG]

What a surprise. Useless tabloids spewing false information to gain sales.

 

[auditor]

the name of this thread should be changed to " new rumors regarding Michael Jackson"

given how offensive this is and how important Michael Jackson is to so many people and taking into consideration the fact that this controversial and devices not everybody agrees the moderators never should have allowed this thread to be titled the way it was titled.

it was stated like it was a fact when it's just somebody's opinion on top of the fact that these new rumors have been debunked. in 2003 nothing was found at the Neverland Ranch. the prosecutors claimed that was because Michael Jackson knew they were coming and that that's the reason they found nothing. now we're supposed to believe they secretly follow all this incriminating evidence in the entire world media conspired to cover it up. everything and anything found at the ranch was brought up at a hearing to determine what is admissible and it inadmissable. and none of this stuff was there.it has been confirmed by the police department that these are fake altered versions of the police reports drawing inspiration from pre existing rumours.

Let the man rest!

 

[auditor]

it's difficult to type with the phone I apologize for my grammatical errors

 

[Reek]

I thought he was sick before this thread was made... so it's a pretty accurate thread title.

 

[CFE]

Yea it's really hard to even think of his music... how can you support that monster now?

I mean no disrespect but a few things, if I may. This is just how I feel about this particular part of the subject:

1. Whether these allegations are true or not, the fact is that he's dead. So he himself is obviously not being supported by anything in any way, shape or form. So who are the beneficiaries of whatever revenue his name and record sales bring in? His family? His children? And for all we know, they're innocent and upstanding people who had nothing to do with any of his alleged vices.

2. This is my big point in response:

The artist and the art are two separate things. Just like how constructive criticism of a work is not meant to be taken personally because it's not a critique of the given artist as a person.

Morgan Freeman is an alleged adulterer having cheated on his wife. Something to do with some crazy rumor involving his own step-granddaughter. Whatever, that's not my point. My point is, hypothetically, would something like that spontaneously mean he's NOT a disciplined and skilled actor? Would that mean I'm not allowed to enjoy his performances? Of course not.

Regardless of rumors, facts, personal information regarding his character or the kind of man he was, Michael's music is an entity unto itself and who he was personally, if we're being logical and fair, has no bearing on its quality or appeal or anything like that.

3. A knee-jerk reaction like dismissing his music has no impact on anything. Like how they just pulled "The Cosby Show" from syndication. I get that it's meant to cut off the financial royalties Bill Cosby was seeing from the show's prolonged shelf life but again, he and that show aren't synonymous. If that was the intention, couldn't a judge have done something about that?

So what then? Pulling the show was a moral choice? Okay but again, the show ran from 1984 to 1992. The rape allegations against Cosby occurred literally decades after that show ENDED much less when it premiered so we're talking about a lifetime. So taking reruns of a 30 year old sitcom off the air does...what?

What damage has been done, whether to Michael's victims (if true) or to his name (if false), has been done. Refusing to listen to his music accomplishes nothing in terms of healing either wound. So why dismiss it at all?

Again, just my take on it.

 

[Reek]

I was being mostly sarcastic with that, because his music shouldn't be shunned because of his personal life... we discussed that later on in the thread.

 

[James.B]

Warning:this review contains extremely graphic details

‘Leaving Neverland’ Review: Devastating Four-Hour Doc Proves Michael Jackson Sexually Abused Children


Michael Jackson Doc Premieres Leaves Sundance Audiences Shellshocked – Rolling Stone

 

[Aximili86]

So this is proven? No too familiar with Radar, they're not just some tabloid type thing?

I mean, hardly surprising, but...yeah. Just a little skeptical this stuff wouldn't have come out years ago during all the investigations and such.

 

[CJ]

Macaulay Culkin has defended him for years and MJ had two children who loved him. I don't believe it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Macaulay Culkin has defended him for years and MJ had two children who loved him. I don't believe it.

Wait, so having kids and one person defend you means you aren't a sexual predator? Would you like to explain how that works?

 

[OutOfBoose]

Interesting. Need to check out that documentary.

 

[WhoMani]

I do believe that some of the parents convince their kids to lie about Michael abusing them which has been documented. It was very weird that Michael had kids sleep at his Neverland Ranch and that he shared the same bed with some of the kids.

But Wade Robson who will be in this documentary has testified in Michael's DEFENCE in 2005. When do we believe him? When he testifies under oath in a court of law in MJ's defence or when he files a case, for money, years after MJ is dead? Is this more of cash grab or a genuine desire to expose MJ? Honestly this is more about if you find the stories in the documentary to be believable.

I will still check out this documentary just to see what evidence they will present to the world.

 

[Greens]

The details of this documentary are definitely interesting, but I've seen some MJ defenders say that some of the claims have already been debunked, some by the accusers themselves. It's such a complicated issue that to truly make a judgement one would have to gather ALL the information and quotes from these guys and not just the one-sided view in this documentary.

 

[Mani-Man]

I dont think we will ever know the 100% truth of what was going on.
Personally i have a hard time believing that he did some of the stuff he is accused of.
I dont know, i always got the feeling he was too broken to sexually abuse someone...at least knowingly.

To me it always looked like he hated everything that comes with "invading" his personal space, even when it came to kids.
I dont know, maybe i just have too much empathy and felt bad for him too much because of his abusive father and the fact that he never was allowed to be a child for long.
Maybe he was a sexual abusive Monster...i dont know what to believe.

Either way im interested in this documentary, maybe it will change my view on this.

 

[Greens]

Unless we some day get concrete photos or videos showing the abuse, none of this will make a difference. His defenders will keep defending him, his detractors will stay the same.

 

[Erik20]

So this is proven? No too familiar with Radar, they're not just some tabloid type thing?

I mean, hardly surprising, but...yeah. Just a little skeptical this stuff wouldn't have come out years ago during all the investigations and such.

I don't considerate it "proven" if all they did was interview these guys, and at the same time dismiss people like Macaulay Culkin who said nothing happened... So yeah, this seems really one-sided.

And is it even legal to claim that it's proven? To this day there are still old articles and videos floating around about how investigators supposedly found child pornography in the house of MJ after he died, while it turned out to be just some mainstream porn. (And they never bothered to rectify or remove it)

To me this does seem like a "tabloid thing," but perhaps they have found some new evidence besides the interviews

 

[Erik20]

Unless we some day get concrete photos or videos showing the abuse, none of this will make a difference. His defenders will keep defending him, his detractors will stay the same.

And mostly this ^