RichardS said:

kremlinshadow said:

You really are trying too hard, you sound like you are trying to convince others of things already disproven and not questioning of things ie sh!t-stirring.

Are you joking, the guy put his alcohol in coke cans becuase he didn't want to promote drinking of alcohol to kids. The man was old enough like billions of others that drink alcohol, dont try twist things thatis what Gavin tried in court and failed.

The books he had never had any kids posed in sexual positions at all, they were books sent to him by fans. You are reading files from radar which are doctored files that were originally published by the FBI.

You have to be naive to think he wouldn't of been charged if he was in posession of anything illegal, yet he had every computer he owned checked along with every room in 3/4 properties and they found nothing. Stop shi!tstirring you're sounding worse than the enquirer.

Which files are doctored? Please provide evidence of this e.g. links to the original files, or other evidence that they were doctored. Otherwise you are also sounding worse than the enquirer.

Hardly, he's the one talking BS. Do your own investigation I aint doing it for you it's been out there forever. FBI released files under freedom of information, radar doctered them to look questionable.

Do a search it's not hard ffs.

RODSERLING said:

The nude boys book had nothing to do with lots of the flies thing...Did you see the pictures in this? Nude boys with genitals in some explicit positions. The other book had a written inscription of MJ in it such as " what beautiful expression they had on their faces". Faces of white boys nude full frontal ! . MJ never denied the owning of those books and the twenty The Nudist. . Brian Oxman said MJ bought them as an "historical investment"! Lol who can believe that? He bought them at the time 10.000 dollars each magazines, they worth now 50 dollars. . The Nudist were the only legal way to Have nude photographs of boys in the USA . And MJ kept them locked in a safe. In his room. And yes, fingerprints and sperm tests were done on those books and magazines and they were positive. . But since they were "legal" they were dismissed by the judge, and the accusators couldn't use these in court against MJ. That s why Sneddon tried his own way with the playboy lol . Again, that doesn't mean MJ molested children. But that does mean he clearly was obsessed with white boys naked, that he presumably masturbate in front of it, and that he knew well it shouldn't be discovered, hence he locked it in a safe. [Edited 3/8/19 1:25am]

Some sperm for you. https://themichaeljackson...magazines/

RODSERLING said:

kremlinshadow said:

RichardS said:

Which files are doctored? Please provide evidence of this e.g. links to the original files, or other evidence that they were doctored. Otherwise you are also sounding worse than the enquirer.

Hardly, he's the one talking BS. Do your own investigation I aint doing it for you it's been out there forever. FBI released files under freedom of information, radar doctered them to look questionable.

Do a search it's not hard ffs.

Sorry, you sound like you're making it up. I provided this link - https://www.mjfacts.com/r...aseemd.pdf

If you can provide evidence that was doctored, then great. I can't find any. If it's easy for you to find, then please do so, so that I can see it. If you can't, then I can only assume you're just making it up.

Even that MJFacts website admits the Radar story was nonsense so there's nothing to be confused about on that one.

jaawwnn said:

Even that MJFacts website admits the Radar story was nonsense so there's nothing to be confused about on that one.

Exactly. The prpblem I have is that when people say it's all lies, and then they get asked about something very specific that is very disturbing, they never provide a direct answer, with anything concrete to back it up.

So although that none of that stuff was illegal, none of it was child pornography, using the legal definition, it does show that MJ had an interest in viewing photographs of underage naked boys, that bordered on pornographic. Not illegal to do that, doesn't automatically make him an abuser, but it's disturbing and imo (only my opinion), an unhealthy sexual interest.

RichardS said:

jaawwnn said:

Even that MJFacts website admits the Radar story was nonsense so there's nothing to be confused about on that one.

Exactly. The prpblem I have is that when people say it's all lies, and then they get asked about something very specific that is very disturbing, they never provide a direct answer, with anything concrete to back it up.

So although that none of that stuff was illegal, none of it was child pornography, using the legal definition, it does show that MJ had an interest in viewing photographs of underage naked boys, that bordered on pornographic. Not illegal to do that, doesn't automatically make him an abuser, but it's disturbing and imo (only my opinion), an unhealthy sexual interest.

I'm willing to accept that the prosecution is painting everything in the worst light. My problem isn't that he had these books, he had a billion books, it's that they were in a locked box "beside his bed". I want clarification on what that means, were they actually beside in his bed or just somewhere in his massive bedroom complex.

Or take this piece of defense:

https://themichaeljackson...on/#spence

says these photos might never have even existed. Then compare it to the MJfacts website which shows Jackson's lawyer admitting they do exist.

But then, as has been pointed out, if these existed why were they not considered problematic in 1993? I could go back and forth forever.

I think I just have to come to the uncomfortable position that I can't say for sure either way.

[Edited 3/8/19 6:03am]

$afechuck claims that MJ took him on a honeymoon (lmao) to Euro Disney in 1988. That's astonishing considering that Euro Disney didn't open until 1992.

Props to MJ the time traveller!

Cloudbuster said:

$afechuck claims that MJ took him on a honeymoon (lmao) to Euro Disney in 1988. That's astonishing considering that Euro Disney didn't open until 1992.

Props to MJ the time traveller!

Where did he claim that? In the documentary, or other documnted interview, or in a court document? Can you provide a link for us?

Statutes of limitations are 7 years in California. Rob$on testified for MJ on May 5 2005. He first made sex abuse allegations to his therapist on May 8 2012 only three days after the statutes of limitations ran out for him being able to commit the crime of perjury, protecting him from any legal consequence. Clever cunt.

Cloudbuster said:

Statutes of limitations are 7 years in California. Rob$on testified for MJ on May 5 2005. He first made sex abuse allegations to his therapist on May 8 2012 only three days after the statutes of limitations ran out for him being able to commit the crime of perjury, protecting him from any legal consequence. Clever cunt.

I would have thought (could be wrong) that anything he told the therapist is protected by doctor/patient confidentiality and so he could have told the therapist on May 6 2005 without any legal consequence.

There are exceptions to doctor/patient confidentiality, especially with regard to child abuse, but that is when the client admits to chld abuse, not when the client says they have been abused. Again, I could be wrong, but a legal expert and/or therapist would be required to confirm.

Or we could all just state stuff as fact without knowing if we are correct. It would be a heck of a lot easier that way.

wilmer said:

I watched the interview with Oprah and I don't understand why she didn't ask Wade R. why he recently wanted to work with Cirque de Soleil for their MJ show. That guy did a lot of shady things in the past, and he lied on the stand (if now he's saying the truth) when he was 22 years old, not exactly a child anymore. I don't know much about the other guy. He doesn't seem to work in entertainment, he's more credible than the other one?

[Edited 3/8/19 7:13am]

wilmer said:

It's so sad to see what this has come to. MJ is not discussed in artistic terms anymore. We're in need of something that restores MJ's good name as an artist, something that reminds people how great MJ could be. This is not the conversation we should be having, but alas it is. No matter how much we slice it and dice it, it's going to be almost impossible to reverse the tenor of the public narrative. Only the estate can counterattack in an effective way given all their resources, but it seems they're just sitting on their asses. Are they going to sit idly by and let this thing hurt Michael's name and legacy? Not that Michael himself isn't responsible for this mess we're in, but there should be a way to piece together a definitive doc that traces the entire history of the accusations and lays the facts bare once and for all. Otherwise, what little good will MJ was afforded after his death will be totally depleted. In this day and age, the truth is irrelevant. Things just have to sound like they could be true to be believed by the general public. And that's the battle the estate stands to lose. I can't tell anyone anymore I'm an MJ fan without getting that cold, silent reaction.

It would be nice to have a defintiive document that lays ALL the facts bare, but it's not possible. And even then people will interpret the facts in different ways. For example, (hypothetical) if there's a photograph of a naked 14 year old boy exposing his buttocks. Genuine art or borderline child porn? Is the person who took the photo an artist or using it to get away with legal, but unhealthy, sexual gratification? Is the person looking at it an art lover or a pervert? How can you ever be 100% certain?

Oops!

https://twitter.com/roppa...8667922434

RODSERLING said:

The nude and porn magazines with pictures of boys that Police found in 1993 and 2003 in a vault of MJ s room, locked with a key are really disturbing. . Moreover, forensics revealed there was sperm on it. . It doesn't prove he molested children, but that does prove that he had sexual and physical attraction to young white boys. . I didn't knew about those books, even if I followed the trial in 2005 day after day. These books were in fact dismissed by the judge because there were not illegal, in the sense the nude boys on the photographs were not in a sexual encounter. . I bought the official explanation from MJ sites at the time that it was just one book with nude babies presented in an artful ways, while it was in fact 2 books and like twenty nudist magazines nudist from the 30s !

Go to iTunes and search "Time Will Teach Us All" and you will see the same.

If he had anything illegal, he would have been charged with that separately.

I've read so many articled claiming "Facts proved with MJ" and they are wrong.

wilmer said:

It's so sad to see what this has come to. MJ is not discussed in artistic terms anymore. We're in need of something that restores MJ's good name as an artist, something that reminds people how great MJ could be. This is not the conversation we should be having, but alas it is. No matter how much we slice it and dice it, it's going to be almost impossible to reverse the tenor of the public narrative. Only the estate can counterattack in an effective way given all their resources, but it seems they're just sitting on their asses. Are they going to sit idly by and let this thing hurt Michael's name and legacy? Not that Michael himself isn't responsible for this mess we're in, but there should be a way to piece together a definitive doc that traces the entire history of the accusations and lays the facts bare once and for all. Otherwise, what little good will MJ was afforded after his death will be totally depleted. In this day and age, the truth is irrelevant. Things just have to sound like they could be true to be believed by the general public. And that's the battle the estate stands to lose. I can't tell anyone anymore I'm an MJ fan without getting that cold, silent reaction.

Right. And who exactly would believe a documentary done by the estate?? Certainly not the people who are believing the Leaving Neverland mockumentary and are cancelleing Michael now. Someone independent would have to make that documentary, to really have an effect. And even then, people will believe what they want to believe.

[Stay on topic - luv4u]

Superstition said:

RODSERLING said:

The nude and porn magazines with pictures of boys that Police found in 1993 and 2003 in a vault of MJ s room, locked with a key are really disturbing. . Moreover, forensics revealed there was sperm on it. . It doesn't prove he molested children, but that does prove that he had sexual and physical attraction to young white boys. . I didn't knew about those books, even if I followed the trial in 2005 day after day. These books were in fact dismissed by the judge because there were not illegal, in the sense the nude boys on the photographs were not in a sexual encounter. . I bought the official explanation from MJ sites at the time that it was just one book with nude babies presented in an artful ways, while it was in fact 2 books and like twenty nudist magazines nudist from the 30s !

Go to iTunes and search "Time Will Teach Us All" and you will see the same.

If he had anything illegal, he would have been charged with that separately.

I've read so many articled claiming "Facts proved with MJ" and they are wrong.

It's true that looking at pictures of naked boys' buttocks for sexual gratification is not illegal.

cindymay said:

I watched the interview with Oprah and I don't understand why she didn't ask Wade R. why he recently wanted to work with Cirque de Soleil for their MJ show. That guy did a lot of shady things in the past, and he lied on the stand (if now he's saying the truth) when he was 22 years old, not exactly a child anymore. I don't know much about the other guy. He doesn't seem to work in entertainment, he's more credible than the other one?

[Edited 3/8/19 7:13am]

These are all things I questioned as well. I willfully admit I was pretty clueless (as I can tell many are in this thread now) on just how far reaching the affects of sexual abuse are. Prior to seeing this documentary, I was anticipating 4 hours of graphic descriptions of sexual abuse. In my mind, it's not hard to concoct graphic descriptions of abuse as it is what it is when it comes to that. The thing people don't get though is that while yes, this was clearly abuse, it was done in a loving way. Not to veer into the disgusting here but like Oprah said, when someone is stroking your penis at 7 yrs old....it feels good. Michael didn't force himself on them, he wasn't abusive, he did it all in a "loving" way. Surely, you can understand how that can be a major mindfuck to someone that has gone through that? Even by age 22 you may not fully understand what happened. Even if you did though, ask yourself this....and I'm assuming you're a woman based on your name but any (especially straight) men reading this ask yourself: if you were a victim of sexual abuse would you really feel comfortable going in front of the entire world and discussing intimate details about how another man put his penis up your butt? Or how you spread open your butt cheeks while another man looked at your hole and jacked off? Or how you put a man's penis in your mouth?

I know that's extremely graphic but that's what we're dealing with here. I seriously doubt many here that are calling these men horrible names would want to talk about those things if those things had happened to them. Consider, that it's even stated in the documentary how Wade felt almost jealous of Jordy Chandler so even after that whole ordeal, he was somewhat releived when Jordy was out of the picture because that meant he was "the main one" again.

Everyone will come to their own conclusions with this film obviously but I seriously question the integrity of anyone that doesn't at least entertain the idea that these guys are absolutely not lying after they see this film. This is coming from someone who was deadset that MJ is absolutely, unequiviocally not guilty. There are so many subtleties in this film that just can't be explained away.

Cloudbuster said:

https://twitter.com/MJJJu...2849771520


Hmmm.

Hmmm indeed.

https://twitter.com/Pearl...0566782976

jaawwnn said:

RichardS said:

Exactly. The prpblem I have is that when people say it's all lies, and then they get asked about something very specific that is very disturbing, they never provide a direct answer, with anything concrete to back it up.

So although that none of that stuff was illegal, none of it was child pornography, using the legal definition, it does show that MJ had an interest in viewing photographs of underage naked boys, that bordered on pornographic. Not illegal to do that, doesn't automatically make him an abuser, but it's disturbing and imo (only my opinion), an unhealthy sexual interest.

I'm willing to accept that the prosecution is painting everything in the worst light. My problem isn't that he had these books, he had a billion books, it's that they were in a locked box "beside his bed". I want clarification on what that means, were they actually beside in his bed or just somewhere in his massive bedroom complex.

Or take this piece of defense:

https://themichaeljackson...on/#spence

says these photos might never have even existed. Then compare it to the MJfacts website which shows Jackson's lawyer admitting they do exist.

But then, as has been pointed out, if these existed why were they not considered problematic in 1993? I could go back and forth forever.

I think I just have to come to the uncomfortable position that I can't say for sure either way.

[Edited 3/8/19 6:03am]

I will say one thing: MJFacts is a reliable site which uses evidence only from credible sources including court transcripts. If MJ fans were to read it they would see their usual arguments against the site are not correct. It does not distort evidence, its sources are not tabloids and every time they use evidence from the prosecution they immediately corroborate it with evidence stemming from MJ's camp and make sure to point this out.

[Edited 3/8/19 8:47am]

Tuls101 said:

cindymay said:

I watched the interview with Oprah and I don't understand why she didn't ask Wade R. why he recently wanted to work with Cirque de Soleil for their MJ show. That guy did a lot of shady things in the past, and he lied on the stand (if now he's saying the truth) when he was 22 years old, not exactly a child anymore. I don't know much about the other guy. He doesn't seem to work in entertainment, he's more credible than the other one?

[Edited 3/8/19 7:13am]

These are all things I questioned as well. I willfully admit I was pretty clueless (as I can tell many are in this thread now) on just how far reaching the affects of sexual abuse are. Prior to seeing this documentary, I was anticipating 4 hours of graphic descriptions of sexual abuse. In my mind, it's not hard to concoct graphic descriptions of abuse as it is what it is when it comes to that. The thing people don't get though is that while yes, this was clearly abuse, it was done in a loving way. Not to veer into the disgusting here but like Oprah said, when someone is stroking your penis at 7 yrs old....it feels good. Michael didn't force himself on them, he wasn't abusive, he did it all in a "loving" way. Surely, you can understand how that can be a major mindfuck to someone that has gone through that? Even by age 22 you may not fully understand what happened. Even if you did though, ask yourself this....and I'm assuming you're a woman based on your name but any (especially straight) men reading this ask yourself: if you were a victim of sexual abuse would you really feel comfortable going in front of the entire world and discussing intimate details about how another man put his penis up your butt? Or how you spread open your butt cheeks while another man looked at your hole and jacked off? Or how you put a man's penis in your mouth?

I know that's extremely graphic but that's what we're dealing with here. I seriously doubt many here that are calling these men horrible names would want to talk about those things if those things had happened to them. Consider, that it's even stated in the documentary how Wade felt almost jealous of Jordy Chandler so even after that whole ordeal, he was somewhat releived when Jordy was out of the picture because that meant he was "the main one" again.

Everyone will come to their own conclusions with this film obviously but I seriously question the integrity of anyone that doesn't at least entertain the idea that these guys are absolutely not lying after they see this film. This is coming from someone who was deadset that MJ is absolutely, unequiviocally not guilty. There are so many subtleties in this film that just can't be explained away.

I hear ya loud and clear. If painted in one direction: dude was an absolute monster.

If painted in another direction: He was a person extremely out of touch with day to day life and sought out a surrogate family to relive his childhood...

HOWEVER... with the allegations surfacing and the creepiness of the 'constant proximity' and 'covetedness' thats evinced by the frequency of it all..... it's really creepy shit. If I hadn't known MJ had vitiligo and put on makeup etc, I would've found those polaroids even more creepy. A made up dude who eventually donned a Peter Pan style look that hung around with (preferably) young boys for kicks.

I would need that Chopra guy to come out and say something about his visits. Or Barry Gibb, or someone who spent lengths of time, because the reality is that MJJ had the potential to be a brainwashed and controlled character for entertainment (make up, looks, prettied up etc).. while some of it was not his fault, the image stuff screamed out conflicted and prob gay. But who the hell knows... I wish someone who we'd not heard from who was in it and involved in this guys world would just come out and settle the matter somehow.

If not for the $1.5 BILLION cash attempt and the questionable reporting (as stated by CLOUDBUSTER.... the date)

I used to think that the dude simply hung around with kids outside of business stuff and work, and contemporaries because he was trying to do his own "creative inspiration" by seeing things from that perspective and not losing sight of it... But if any of that stuff is true it really really really really really really really REALLY paints a disgusting picture of the guy's crotch grabbing move....

...Has anybody considered THAT $#!+?. I've thought about this and dude's behavior for years with frustration. Getting people to replicate your moves also entails that genital "ungH" move... which, if any of this is proven... is a very disturbing characteristic that would prob be employed by someone like that. I want to remain objective and "find out" what happened.. but really... it's such an expense of time that I almost want to say "f*** these people AND MJJ...." I gotta get back to my life... y'all dead already... leave!....

It's frustrating to not have a definitive truth about things that happened or didn't. No one is impartial it seems, and though he did have the investigation against him, for certain much of his private life still remains private. Who after all, was there to witness him in bed with LMP? (she was damn HOT back then...)...

Hahhaa... oh man. But I understand, it's basically in the fans and peoples hands (investigators/journalists/detectives etc) to determine this "legacy"... whether it'll be tainted and thrown away or what. Such a damn shame. I really want to believe the guy was a decent dude.

[Edited 3/8/19 8:51am]

skywalker said:

wilmer said:

[Stay on topic - luv4u]

Again, the narrative is that Michael Jackson was this devious monster that lured hundreds of children to Neverland to abuse and molest them. Again I ask, where is the evidence? There's not even a bit of proof.

-

Don't get me wrong, the dude was super weird and messed up in so many ways...there is much evidence/proof of that. Also, I not saying it's entirely impossible that he molested kids. I just have a hard time believing that, after decades of being investigated, that this could be possible. He is the most famous person ever, and was constantly under the microscope (especially/specifically for this after 1993.)

-

There would be evidence. Not just speculation or rumor or he said/she said. There would have to be enablers (staff/parents/etc) that would have come forward by. You saw this with Cosby, you saw this with R. Kelly.

But what evidence could possibly be presented here? The only ones that would know for sure are the victims and MJ. Cosby told on himself, R. Kelly has the tape. Even though that ultimately did not get him convicted that tape has played a huge part in the public opinion of him.

I totally get where you're coming from. That was my thought too, that they should've found something, anything to bring light to the situation. It's not easy to do that though which is why so many abused go their whole lives without getting any justice whatsoever. In the case of MJ, there have been staff that have come forward and they immediately get shut down.

There seems to be a popular perception that MJ was investigated for 10 yrs straight from the time of the '93 accusations on up to '03. That's not exactly true though. He was not monitored that entire time. Even if he had been though, someone that is really good would still be able to get away with it even without the resources that someone like MJ would have available.

2045RadicalMattZ said:

Tuls101 said:

These are all things I questioned as well. I willfully admit I was pretty clueless (as I can tell many are in this thread now) on just how far reaching the affects of sexual abuse are. Prior to seeing this documentary, I was anticipating 4 hours of graphic descriptions of sexual abuse. In my mind, it's not hard to concoct graphic descriptions of abuse as it is what it is when it comes to that. The thing people don't get though is that while yes, this was clearly abuse, it was done in a loving way. Not to veer into the disgusting here but like Oprah said, when someone is stroking your penis at 7 yrs old....it feels good. Michael didn't force himself on them, he wasn't abusive, he did it all in a "loving" way. Surely, you can understand how that can be a major mindfuck to someone that has gone through that? Even by age 22 you may not fully understand what happened. Even if you did though, ask yourself this....and I'm assuming you're a woman based on your name but any (especially straight) men reading this ask yourself: if you were a victim of sexual abuse would you really feel comfortable going in front of the entire world and discussing intimate details about how another man put his penis up your butt? Or how you spread open your butt cheeks while another man looked at your hole and jacked off? Or how you put a man's penis in your mouth?

I know that's extremely graphic but that's what we're dealing with here. I seriously doubt many here that are calling these men horrible names would want to talk about those things if those things had happened to them. Consider, that it's even stated in the documentary how Wade felt almost jealous of Jordy Chandler so even after that whole ordeal, he was somewhat releived when Jordy was out of the picture because that meant he was "the main one" again.

Everyone will come to their own conclusions with this film obviously but I seriously question the integrity of anyone that doesn't at least entertain the idea that these guys are absolutely not lying after they see this film. This is coming from someone who was deadset that MJ is absolutely, unequiviocally not guilty. There are so many subtleties in this film that just can't be explained away.

I hear ya loud and clear. If painted in one direction: dude was an absolute monster.

If painted in another direction: He was a person extremely out of touch with day to day life and sought out a surrogate family to relive his childhood...

HOWEVER... with the allegations surfacing and the creepiness of the 'constant proximity' and 'covetedness' thats evinced by the frequency of it all..... it's really creepy shit. If I hadn't known MJ had vitiligo and put on makeup etc, I would've found those polaroids even more creepy. A made up dude who eventually donned a Peter Pan style look that hung around with (preferably) young boys for kicks.

I would need that Chopra guy to come out and say something about his visits. Or Barry Gibb, or someone who spent lengths of time, because the reality is that MJJ had the potential to be a brainwashed and controlled character for entertainment (make up, looks, prettied up etc).. while some of it was not his fault, the image stuff screamed out conflicted and prob gay. But who the hell knows... I wish someone who we'd not heard from who was in it and involved in this guys world would just come out and settle the matter somehow.

If not for the $1.5 BILLION cash attempt and the questionable reporting (as stated by CLOUDBUSTER.... the date)

I used to think that the dude simply hung around with kids outside of business stuff and work, and contemporaries because he was trying to do his own "creative inspiration" by seeing things from that perspective and not losing sight of it... But if any of that stuff is true it really really really really really really really REALLY paints a disgusting picture of the guy's crotch grabbing move....

...Has anybody considered THAT $#!+?. Getting people to replicate your moves also entails that genital "ungH" move... which, if any of this is proven... is a very disturbing characteristic that would prob be employed by someone like that. I want to remain objective and "find out" what happened.. but really... it's such an expense of time that I almost want to say "f*** these people AND MJJ...." I gotta get back to my life... y'all dead already... leave!....

Hahhaa... oh man. But I understand, it's basically in the fans and peoples hands to determine this "legacy"... whether it'll be tainted and thrown away or what. Such a damn shame. I really want to believe the guy was a decent dude.

I completely hear you on all of this! Believe me, I wanted to believe the same thing. I looked over so many things that I would never look over with your "average Joe" but these are absolutely not oridnary circumstances so to me, that was completely justified to look at it from a different angle.

Like you say, everyone will come to their own determination and truly I do understand both sides. For me though, I just can't turn a blind eye anymore. MJ was my first love musically. Obviously as years have gone by there have been many artists who's music I adored (and continue to adore) that I've found truly were not good people. I feel fortunate that I'm one of those people that is able to separate the music from the person. I'm always going to love MJ the artist, I can't just make that go away after all of these years. I don't feel bad or guilty for that in any way either. I feel like that's what we have to do sometimes. MJ as this larger than life, almost magical entity that even as an adult I felt is over though. That's ok though! The music lives on. That doesn't change.

nd33 said:

RODSERLING said:

The secret rooms were proved, but that doesn't mean they were molested.
But Arvizo said MJ used to walk in Neverland with a can of Coca in front of the kids, while in fact it was coca + vodka.
.
I didn't believe it back in 2005, but the This is it trial in 2011 revealed that MJ used to do that for years, even in plane.
.
That means that MJ used to walk with children inhibited with a cocktail of alcohol and drug.

Not sure what TF you’re trying to say, but pretty much every adult I know drinks alcohol in front of kids fairly often, including my own mother. Have you met kids?!

RODSERLING said:

The nude and porn magazines with pictures of boys that Police found in 1993 and 2003 in a vault of MJ s room, locked with a key are really disturbing. . Moreover, forensics revealed there was sperm on it. . It doesn't prove he molested children, but that does prove that he had sexual and physical attraction to young white boys. . I didn't knew about those books, even if I followed the trial in 2005 day after day. These books were in fact dismissed by the judge because there were not illegal, in the sense the nude boys on the photographs were not in a sexual encounter. . I bought the official explanation from MJ sites at the time that it was just one book with nude babies presented in an artful ways, while it was in fact 2 books and like twenty nudist magazines nudist from the 30s !

The sperm part is not true. MJ did have the books locked in a secret room but there was no sperm in it. And those books were made by pedophiles for pedophiles to own since they are not illegal.