I actually thought the books were completely legal books. Even registered to Library Of Congress. I've followed all of this for a while and have never heard about sperm being on the books.

RODSERLING said:

jaawwnn said:

Well the prosecution also tried to make the case that Michael Jackson kept pictures of himself with topless young boys which turned out to be a photoshoot with his nephews that was in magazines, so take it all with a pinch of salt.

[Edited 3/8/19 2:18am]

Yes, it was the photoshoot of WHY for the music video. But once again the judge forbidden the accusators to use the nude boys book, so it s understandable they tried everything they could to show that MJ had an habit of unhealthy behaviour with young boys. . Frankly, MJ had huge luck the judge didn't retain the nude magazines and books. MJ would have been crucified. Spending hundred of thousands dollars on nude boys pictures, masturbating on it, and locking bit in a safe in his bedroom...He would have been literally crucified in court and would still be in jail as of now. .

There was no sperm found in the books and he didn't spend 200000USD on kid pics. Those books were made by pedophiles for pedophiles to own taking advantage of the fact that they are not legally classified as child porn and thus are legal to own. That alone is enough to paint MJ as a molester. Claiming they had semen and all of that just takes credibility off of you as it is not true.

Tuls101 said:

I actually thought the books were completely legal books. Even registered to Library Of Congress. I've followed all of this for a while and have never heard about sperm being on the books.

They are legal as there is no sexual content - just naked boys in 'artful' poses. Perfect for a paedophile to get his rocks off to without getting into trouble with the law.

The creators of The Simpsons are permanently pulling the Jackson episode.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/...ndex.html

RichardS said:

Tuls101 said:

I actually thought the books were completely legal books. Even registered to Library Of Congress. I've followed all of this for a while and have never heard about sperm being on the books.

They are legal as there is no sexual content - just naked boys in 'artful' poses. Perfect for a paedophile to get his rocks off to without getting into trouble with the law.

Exactly this. There is no looking away from it.

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.

Nobody is making anything up it has been common knowledge for years now, it's not like anything I said was a new revelation. MJFacts is probably not the place to go.

It sounds to me like you don't like being proven wrong and have an agenda with each post you try and discredit anythying that leads to innocence.

'The boys' was a book sent to him by a fan, consisting of images of boyhood and mainly photos from lord of the flies. So it's ok for anybody else to have a copy but MJ? It's a commercially distributed book it's not as though he went out of his way to purchase a copy. Are you not able to appreciate photography without the need to jerk yourself off?

[Stay on topic snip - luv4u]

kremlinshadow 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.

Nobody is making anything up it has been common knowledge for years now, it's not like anything I said was a new revelation. MJFacts is probably not the place to go.

It sounds to me like you don't like being proven wrong and have an agenda with each post you try and discredit anythying that leads to innocence.

'The boys' was a book sent to him by a fan, consisting of images of boyhood and mainly photos from lord of the flies. So it's ok for anybody else to have a copy but MJ? It's a commercially distributed book it's not as though he went out of his way to purchase a copy. Are you not able to appreciate photography without the need to jerk yourself off?

It wasn't mainly photos from Lord of The Flies - it had some photos from Lord of The Flies, but it was mainly other photos. I posted a link to court document which you said was doctored, but could not provide any evidence that it was faked when I asked you to. I would prefer to be proved wrong, but you were not capable of doing so.

I can certainly appreciate photography without wanking, but I don't wish to see pictures of naked boys. I'm sorry if you think that is somehow not up to your standard of appreciating art. Personally I disagree that such material (underage boys, full frontal and rear nudity) should be published and I would have suspicions about anyone who purchased it.

[Stay on topic snip - luv4u]

PeteSilas said:

if he wanted a real docu he would have had more people, he would have had lie detector tests, he would have had psychologists, he was lazy, trying to make some come up by interviewing these "victims" and taking photo ops with them to put his ugly face out there. in this era, even if he didn't do it, people are going to believe.

This is one of the unfortunate reasons I can't believe this thing was objective. The blatant "I'm at the center of this" business with the film maker. Although they could not use his likeness for the film It's a lot of career advancement going on. A strike against the motivations...

However, yeah... MJ's lurid infatuation with childhood etc.. took on some drastically creepy turns... the doll for instance in his death room.... that stuff kinda blaringly "screams" out DISTURBED...

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

jaawwnn said:

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

Exactly this. There is no looking away from it.

Im willing to let him get away with having them, its their particular placing that bothers me.

Yeah, I see what you mean. If they were in some vast library covered in dust, without any evidence that he'd even looked at them, then owning them per se would not necessarily be an issue. But to have them in the same vicinity as other homosexual and heterosexual adult porn is serious cause for concern. Basically - who keeps their art books in with their porn stash?

Michael Jackson's former nanny defends him against new sex abuse allegations in HBO's 'Leaving Neverland' By CHRIS FRANCESCANI SANTINA LEUCI Mar 7, 2019, 3:41 PM ET PHOTO: In this Nov. 21, 2008 file photo,


Grace Rwaramba, nanny to singer Michael Jacksons children, arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.Alastair Grant/AP, FILE WATCHExplosive reaction to Michael Jackson documentary Email The simmering debate over last weekend's new HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland” could be heating up again. One of Michael Jackson’s longest-serving employees has come forward to defend the late pop star, saying that in all the years she worked for Jackson she never witnessed, suspected or learned of any sexual abuse of children by the pop star. In a lengthy statement released to ABC News, Grace Rwaramba – the former nanny to Jackson’s children, Prince Michael I,

https://people.com/music/...neverland/

I think they are telling the truth, because what they are saying is so hardcore and crazy that it has to be true. If you were going to make up lies about MJ molesting you, you would keep it believable and sort of base it on the sort of stuff that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said. Stuff like fondling, kissing and oral sex. You wouldn't say stuff about holding open your butt cheeks, so he could look inside your anus while masterbating and then from time to time putting his tongue up there. if you were making up lies and you came up with that- You would be like- Hold on that's way too much out there, nobody's going to believe that. I better tone it down and keep it more CONSISTENT with what those other two guys said. That's why I think it's true. Nobody would even think of that shit, unless it really happened. Also those other two were making it sound like it happened from time to time. These guys have MJ doing this shit every damn time they were alone with him and everywhere on the ranch. Why would someone that is trying to lie add all of this and rev it up so much?

PurpleBlackmon said:

PurpleBlackmon said:

I think they are telling the truth, because what they are saying is so hardcore and crazy that it has to be true. If you were going to make up lies about MJ molesting you, you would keep it believable and sort of base it on the sort of stuff that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said. Stuff like fondling, kissing and oral sex. You wouldn't say stuff about holding open your butt cheeks, so he could look inside your anus while masterbating and then from time to time putting his tongue up there. if you were making up lies and you came up with that- You would be like- Hold on that's way too much out there, nobody's going to believe that. I better tone it down and keep it more CONSISTENT with what those other two guys said. That's why I think it's true. Nobody would even think of that shit, unless it really happened. Also those other two were making it sound like it happened from time to time. These guys have MJ doing this shit every damn time they were alone with him and everywhere on the ranch. Why would someone that is trying to lie add all of this and rev it up so much?

By the same token, why would somebody, who does that, do it with the other 2 "from time to time", as you say and less "hardcore", but do it so hardcore and all the time with these 2? See, it goes both ways.

PurpleBlackmon said:

I think they are telling the truth, because what they are saying is so hardcore and crazy that it has to be true. If you were going to make up lies about MJ molesting you, you would keep it believable and sort of base it on the sort of stuff that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said. Stuff like fondling, kissing and oral sex. You wouldn't say stuff about holding open your butt cheeks, so he could look inside your anus while masterbating and then from time to time putting his tongue up there. if you were making up lies and you came up with that- You would be like- Hold on that's way too much out there, nobody's going to believe that. I better tone it down and keep it more CONSISTENT with what those other two guys said. That's why I think it's true. Nobody would even think of that shit, unless it really happened. Also those other two were making it sound like it happened from time to time. These guys have MJ doing this shit every damn time they were alone with him and everywhere on the ranch. Why would someone that is trying to lie add all of this and rev it up so much?

The details.... that is usually an indication someone is telling the truth.

PatrickS77 said:

PurpleBlackmon said:

I think they are telling the truth, because what they are saying is so hardcore and crazy that it has to be true. If you were going to make up lies about MJ molesting you, you would keep it believable and sort of base it on the sort of stuff that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said. Stuff like fondling, kissing and oral sex. You wouldn't say stuff about holding open your butt cheeks, so he could look inside your anus while masterbating and then from time to time putting his tongue up there. if you were making up lies and you came up with that- You would be like- Hold on that's way too much out there, nobody's going to believe that. I better tone it down and keep it more CONSISTENT with what those other two guys said. That's why I think it's true. Nobody would even think of that shit, unless it really happened. Also those other two were making it sound like it happened from time to time. These guys have MJ doing this shit every damn time they were alone with him and everywhere on the ranch. Why would someone that is trying to lie add all of this and rev it up so much?

By the same token, why would somebody, who does that, do it with the other 2 "from time to time", as you say and less "hardcore", but do it so hardcore and all the time with these 2? See, it goes both ways.

If stuff like this was happening, you can't see why Jordie and Gavin would tone it down and leave stuff out out of shame and embarrassment? I'm sure MJ did stuff like that to them as well and just as often.

[Edited 3/8/19 16:10pm]

PurpleBlackmon said:

PatrickS77 said:

By the same token, why would somebody, who does that, do it with the other 2 "from time to time", as you say and less "hardcore", but do it so hardcore and all the time with these 2? See, it goes both ways.

If stuff like this was happening, you can't see why Jordie and Gavin would tone it down and leave stuff out out of shame and embarrassment? I'm MJ did stuff like that to them as well and just as often.

Why would they tone it down, if it really happened? Because a "little" molestation is more believable than full on molestation? That doesn't make much sense.

DiminutiveRocker said:

PurpleBlackmon said:

I think they are telling the truth, because what they are saying is so hardcore and crazy that it has to be true. If you were going to make up lies about MJ molesting you, you would keep it believable and sort of base it on the sort of stuff that Jordie Chandler and Gavin Arvizo said. Stuff like fondling, kissing and oral sex. You wouldn't say stuff about holding open your butt cheeks, so he could look inside your anus while masterbating and then from time to time putting his tongue up there. if you were making up lies and you came up with that- You would be like- Hold on that's way too much out there, nobody's going to believe that. I better tone it down and keep it more CONSISTENT with what those other two guys said. That's why I think it's true. Nobody would even think of that shit, unless it really happened. Also those other two were making it sound like it happened from time to time. These guys have MJ doing this shit every damn time they were alone with him and everywhere on the ranch. Why would someone that is trying to lie add all of this and rev it up so much?

The details.... that is usually an indication someone is telling the truth.

Right. Or maybe it' s just an indication that these people know that to sound somewhat believeable they have go into detail. More and more graphic and shocking detail than the previous accusers. See, also that goes both ways.

skywalker said:

wilmer said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said: We know for sure what Hitler. Whereas MJ not so sure yet. The thing is will there ever be a definitive proof? I don't think there will be. If he actually was and it proved to be true, he would certainly be up there with Hitler. An evil great.

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.

While I think it is posisbe he may have done it - I do not think he is some devious monster out to molest 100s of kids. He was a complicated guy who seemed like he was also damaged in some way. He was generous, kind, philanthropic and immensely creative - but he was also strange and mysterious and peculiar.

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.

Yes I'm a woman. I don't want to judge at all because under traumatic circumstances like the ones described not everybody may react the same way. Shame could absolutely play a huge part, considering these 2 men have wives and kids, but why still want to be involved with a show dedicated to Michael if something that horrible happened? That happened after Michael passed away. MJ was also investigated by the FBI for several years for the same crime and they found nothing. I don't know what to think honestly, if they are telling the truth I hope they find peace with the horrible things that happened to them.

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

PatrickS77 said:

PurpleBlackmon said:

If stuff like this was happening, you can't see why Jordie and Gavin would tone it down and leave stuff out out of shame and embarrassment? I'm MJ did stuff like that to them as well and just as often.

Why would they tone it down, if it really happened? Because a "little" molestation is more believable than full on molestation? That doesn't make much sense.

So I guess you're just going to ignore or pretend that I didn't use the words shame and embarrassment

[Stay on topic folks, thanks - luv4u]

PurpleBlackmon said:

PatrickS77 said:

Why would they tone it down, if it really happened? Because a "little" molestation is more believable than full on molestation? That doesn't make much sense.

So I guess you're just going to ignore or pretend that I didn't use the words shame and embarrassment

If you admit molestation, I guess you're past the point of shame and embarrassment. There is no such thing as little embarrassment or more embarrassment. Either you are or you aren't.

PatrickS77 said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

The details.... that is usually an indication someone is telling the truth.

Right. Or maybe it' s just an indication that these people know that to sound somewhat believeable they have go into detail. More and more graphic and shocking detail than the previous accusers. See, also that goes both ways.

A blind loayalty to MJ, ignoring or making excuses for certain facts and the constant use of the "both ways" comment is not really convincing.

DiminutiveRocker said:

PatrickS77 said:

Right. Or maybe it' s just an indication that these people know that to sound somewhat believeable they have go into detail. More and more graphic and shocking detail than the previous accusers. See, also that goes both ways.

A blind loayalty to MJ, ignoring or making excuses for certain facts and the constant use of the "both ways" comment is not really convincing.

Whether you find it convincing is of no importance. It doesn't change the fact that you can interpret it either way.

PatrickS77 said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

A blind loayalty to MJ, ignoring or making excuses for certain facts and the constant use of the "both ways" comment is not really convincing.

Whether you find it convincing is of no importance. It doesn't change the fact that you can interpret it either way.

Yeah, not buying the wishy washy either or therories, nice try though.
This is the thread you should post on:

http://prince.org/msg/8/458083

[Edited 3/8/19 13:51pm]