Creepy New Michael Jackson Evidence

[ari_belle]

Gross.

http://jezebel.com/michael-jackson-stockpiled-gruesome-pornography-photos-1782318923?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[seattlechic]

Damn, that is some weird shit right there. I remember thinking back in the day that:

1. MJ was a pedophile. 

2. The parents of the victims should have been tried as well. 

 

[hollyandivy]

11 minutes ago, seattlechic said:

2. The parents of the victims should have been tried as well. 

 

I agree!

[Cleopatra7]

I had heard that a cache of porn was found at Neverland Ranch, but I assumed it was fairly mainstream. As if any of Michael Jackson's interests could ever be mainstream. I'm surprised that more hasn't come out about him now that he's dead. I guess he preemptively took care of that with nondisclosure agreements and payouts.

[Maggie Mae]

I googled it because I refuse to give Jezebel any clicks. The police report is up at Radar Online but nothing credible is reporting it yet. 

I haven't read through the entirety of the report - 88 pages. I do suggest that people read what actually happened in the case though, before jumping to "MJ is a pedephile," as, like everything reported ever, there is more to the story than what the mainstream news and the tabloids report. 

[Glasgowghirl]

Not surprising it will be like the Jimmy Saville scandal in the UK. Both abused young people and were able to get away with it because they were famous and died before they faced any real justice only difference was Jackson was tried, I still don't understand why he was found not guilty.

[Maggie Mae]

33 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

Not surprising it will be like the Jimmy Saville scandal in the UK. Both abused young people and were able to get away with it because they were famous and died before they faced any real justice only difference was Jackson was tried, I still don't understand why he was found not guilty.

Because he wasn't guilty? Have you read the court reports about what actually happened? 

[Fundie Bunny]

That man was for sure fucked up, whether he was guilty or not

[devoe364]

He was emotionally and physically abused as a child. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he had been sexually abused as well. I am not an apologist for MJ and I believe that he was a truly messed up man, and I think he did engage in inappropriate behaviour with these children. 

However, I also believe that he was genuinely mentally ill. I think that his upbringing, and then how he was able to surround himself with people who never told him no, resulted in him living in his own world, and he really was like a big child in terms of how he behaved.

However, he had money and with money comes power. That creates an unequal relationship where abuse becomes more likely. 

[ADoyle90815]

32 minutes ago, Fundie Bunny said:

That man was for sure fucked up, whether he was guilty or not

I agree, regardless of whether or not he was guilty, his abusive childhood and the JW cult really fucked him up in a major way.

[Fundie Bunny]

Just now, ADoyle90815 said:

I agree, regardless of whether or not he was guilty, his abusive childhood and the JW cult really fucked him up in a major way.

He was also involved with them? I thought that was just prince

[Maggie Mae]

5 minutes ago, Fundie Bunny said:

He was also involved with them? I thought that was just prince

His mother converted when he was young and raised him in the "church." He was disassociated in the late 1980s. His father never converted to JW. I think his mother and oldest sister are still active with the JWs. 

 

[nastyhobbitses]

Whatever the verdict, MJ was FUBAR. His childhood was ridiculously messed up, and then as an adult, he was basically given a truckload of money and told "you're an adult and you can spend this money however the hell you want, also here's an entourage of hangers-on who will say and do whatever you want them to do, and a public image/profile that gives you unfettered access to kids who are just like you used to be: surrounded by exploitative and abusive adults, robbed of a childhood, and eager to please because mommy and daddy/their hangers-on/their very careers financially depend on them being adorable and pliable."

[Cleopatra7]

I don't think that Michael Jackson was ever the wide-eyed naif he claimed to be. No one can be in show business for as long as Jackson was and be "innocent" in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps he created the asexual Peter Pan persona as a way to compensate for his abusive childhood, but that was simply one aspect of his personality. There was also the hard-nosed business man, the composer/performer who could write and perform highly sexualized songs, the drug addict, the shopaholic, etc. There were all these Michael Jacksons residing in one person. Who knows which was the real one? Maybe he didn't know himself.

This is what the police said about the Radar Online report:

Quote

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.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection

I guess this means that parts of it are real, and other parts are fake.

[ari_belle]

2 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I don't think that Michael Jackson was ever the wide-eyed naif he claimed to be. No one can be in show business for as long as Jackson was and be "innocent" in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps he created the asexual Peter Pan persona as a way to compensate for his abusive childhood, but that was simply one aspect of his personality. There was also the hard-nosed business man, the composer/performer who could write and perform highly sexualized songs, the drug addict, the shopaholic, etc. There were all these Michael Jacksons residing in one person. Who knows which was the real one? Maybe he didn't know himself.

This is what the police said about the Radar Online report:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection

I guess this means that parts of it are real, and other parts are fake.

How can we tell what's real and what's fake? Is it possible?

[smittykins]

6 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

His mother converted when he was young and raised him in the "church." He was disassociated in the late 1980s. His father never converted to JW. I think his mother and oldest sister are still active with the JWs. 

 

I've also read that his mother is raising his kids as JWs, which Michael was vehemently opposed to.

[ari_belle]

12 minutes ago, ari_belle said:

How can we tell what's real and what's fake? Is it possible?

Found it:

 "The documents with a header titled Sheriff's Department that contain a case number appear to be Sheriff's Office documents. The photos that are interspersed appear to be some evidentiary photos taken by Sheriff's investigators and others are clearly obtained from the Internet."

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7415547/police-reports-michael-jackson-alleged-pornography-collection

[theinvisiblegirl]

While I do agree that MJ was a very messed up person as a result of his childhood, I absolutely think that, if this new evidence was real - especially pictures of naked children - then they would have used it against him in the trial. A part of me just isn't buying it.

[Cleopatra7]

14 minutes ago, theinvisiblegirl said:

While I do agree that MJ was a very messed up person as a result of his childhood, I absolutely think that, if this new evidence was real - especially pictures of naked children - then they would have used it against him in the trial. A part of me just isn't buying it.

A large cache of porn was introduced as evidence at the trial to show that Jackson groomed the alleged victim with pornography. Magazines were found with the fingerprints of Jackson and the alleged victim. So the fact that Jackson owned pornography of some kind is a matter of public record. Some of this porn appears to be adults in sexual situations with photos of kids pasted on them, which while distasteful for many people, does not meet the criteria for child pornography. There also seems to have been art books of naked tweens and teens which also seems to be in a sort of gray area. Perhaps someone more familiar with erotica/art books can fill us in. The question right now is whether the animal torture stuff belonged to him, and I'm inclined to say no, because if he did, that would have been shown at the trial. 

[theinvisiblegirl]

4 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

A large cache of porn was introduced as evidence at the trial to show that Jackson groomed the alleged victim with pornography. Magazines were found with the fingerprints of Jackson and the alleged victim. So the fact that Jackson owned pornography of some kind is a matter of public record. Some of this porn appears to be adults in sexual situations with photos of kids pasted on them, which while distasteful for many people, does not meet the criteria for child pornography. There also seems to have been art books of naked tweens and teens which also seems to be in a sort of gray area. Perhaps someone more familiar with erotica/art books can fill us in. The question right now is whether the animal torture stuff belonged to him, and I'm inclined to say no, because if he did, that would have been shown at the trial. 

Thanks for explaining it a bit more for me. I wasn't aware of all the exact details of his stash of porn. Those do seem like pretty grey areas. I know nothing of erotic art, so I'd be curious to see what someone who knows a bit more could offer on that subject. As far as the animal torture stuff... I don't know. I'm also leaning towards no on that one. He treated Bubbles the chimp like he was a member of the royal family. Obviously, I have no insight into Michael Jackson's psyche and what made him tick, but I can't see someone who loves animals as he seemed to getting their kicks from animal torture.

[Maggie Mae]

I realize that I am incredibly biased in this case. I guess I am a 'celeb' person sometimes.

I find it surprising that someone has such a beef with him (or someone else) that they would bring this up, seven years after his death, the day after a new book about his final days is released. The day after a new mini series was announced, based on the book. 

Or maybe I'm not surprised at all. Maybe it's just shitty viral marketing. 

While I realize that his public persona doesn't say anything about his private issues, I find the animal abuse to be most shocking and unlike the person he presented to the world. Obviously child abuse is bad, if true, but I don't believe he was guilty at all of molesting kids. I've had lots of time to read about the case and the allegations. 

[samira_catlover]

Uhhh. Am on the fence about MJ in general. Yes, he DID seem rather severely weird, but weird is not too unusual in a public persona.  

Don't know whoever who took control of property in the aftermath of his death, but am I way wrong in thinking there should have been one Major Serious Inventory of Stuff, if only to make the probate judges happy?  

Excuse me, but WHY is this stuff only being brought up years later? (FWIW, I hate the very-time-bound statute of limitations on human sex offenses to be just a little bit less "ugly" than the dear holy saints hate "evil.")

This "news account", to me, sounds really shifty. GONNA go all wide here (dives into flameproof shelter): adult pornstuff, even shocking, with consenting adults participating and viewing it---that, to my best recollection, is NOT illegal. 

It may be wayyyyy offensive and ugly to many viewers, and that is OK.  I can't and won't regulate your feelings and opinions.  It might be scandalous and way awful, and definitely fall under the YourKinkIsNotMyKink, but absent a court ruling on adult-oriented, adult-actor-made porn---i think it's legal.

 

[devoe364]

28 minutes ago, samira_catlover said:

/snip

This "news account", to me, sounds really shifty. GONNA go all wide here (dives into flameproof shelter): adult pornstuff, even shocking, with consenting adults participating and viewing it---that, to my best recollection, is NOT illegal. 

It may be wayyyyy offensive and ugly to many viewers, and that is OK.  I can't and won't regulate your feelings and opinions.  It might be scandalous and way awful, and definitely fall under the YourKinkIsNotMyKink, but absent a court ruling on adult-oriented, adult-actor-made porn---i think it's legal.

 

The problem is that the pornography was used to groom potential victims. In the last trial, the victim described looking at the materials with Jackson and his finger prints as well as those of Jackson were on the materials. 

[Clementine]

On 2016-06-22 at 9:25 PM, devoe364 said:

The problem is that the pornography was used to groom potential victims. In the last trial, the victim described looking at the materials with Jackson and his finger prints as well as those of Jackson were on the materials. 

I remember that Corey Feldman talked about MJ showing him a book with nude or pornographic photos when he was a kid. He was too young to fully realize how inappropriate it was but said that as an adult with kids of his own, he is appaled by it.

 

 

[Grimalkin]

On June 24, 2016 at 2:37 AM, Clementine said:

I remember that Corey Feldman talked about MJ showing him a book with nude or pornographic photos when he was a kid. He was too young to fully realize how inappropriate it was but said that as an adult with kids of his own, he is appaled by it.

 

 

     Did he name MJ then? I had read some of his interviews but don't recall him naming name. I thought it happend on the set of Lost Boys and it was a person affiliated with that movie.