Story Alleging Michael Jackson Abuse Pulled After $100 Million Lawsuit

radaronline-logo

Is Radar Online about to go… offline?  A controversial story about Michael Jackson has now disappeared from view.

Radar Online is known for a lot of things in the tabloid world, but factual reporting apparently isn’t one of them.

We first reported back in June a laundry list of items supposedly found in Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department back in 2003. The full report was published and posted in PDF format on Radar Online’s site on June 21.

However, in going back to review this tragic news story of the late singer being harassed by more and more reports of alleged sexual molestions, this writer found that Radar mysteriously deleted the story just weeks before Taj, TJ, and Taryll Jackson filed their $100 million liberal lawsuit against the website in late July.  I decided to ask myself the same question I started off this article post: Was Radar Online publishing a “real news story,” or was this just a sensationalist trash piece that got way bigger than what the tabloid expected it to?

Were they now trying to bury this piece to avoid a huge payout to the Jackson Estate?

I decided to report it to my editor. He told me, “Why don’t you investigate to see what happened? I have the perfect headline! ‘$100 MM suit alleging incest etc. story pulled!’” All right, I said to myself. What’s the worst that I could find? What exactly is Radar Online trying to hide?

To see exactly what happened, this writer searched through archive.org using the PDF link once widely available on Radar Online’s website. However, what I found is that the final time archive.org was able to save a full snapshot of the PDF was on July 10. The PDF is now only available through this website, but a word of warning to the wise, as first reported back in June, there are several black-and white NSFW images embedded onto the document, so please, don’t open this at work, in front of your boss, or in front of your children.

The actual report contains images of nude teenagers and young adults, pictures of nude children, images of a pornographic magazine. There are also lengthy summaries of what exactly the Sheriff’s Department found.

To see what happened, I then decided to go on Radar Online’s site to see the articles in question. The actual website no longer has the controversial articles indexed on their site, with the only article “published” (read: indexed) this year is of Paris Jackson’s estranged mother, Debbie Rowe, having breast cancer.

The article before it? Photos of the singer’s home taken in Jan 28, 2010. This seems like a no brainer, I thought to myself. If there aren’t any direct article links, then what exactly could Radar Online be sued over? To prove if this was the case, I decided to check previous links to the articles in question in the $100 million libel suit. After clicking on several links that I’ve posted on, I found out that, sure enough, they’re right there on Radar’s site, hiding behind search engine indexed pages.

These pages are still intact, right down to the sensationalist, clickbait titles, which apparently haven’t been changed:

Jacko’s Sick Excuses Exposed!

Inside Michael Jackson’s Twisted Closet of Secrets

Break The Door Down! Cops Serve Warrant To Michael Jackson’s Staff In Epic Raid

Michael Jackson’s Secret Pain: Never-Before-Seen Drawings Illustrate Anxiety, Depression & Insecurity, Art Therapist Claims

Inside Michael Jackson’s Twisted World: ‘Frightening’ Raid Evidence Exposed

I found out, however, that clicking on all of the links didn’t take me to their original, respective articles. What are they trying to do? I thought to myself. I then came to the realization that Radar Online, in a desperate attempt to avoid being sued, has tried to redirect this year’s Michael Jackson articles to other, more current (read: not-liable) stories. When I clicked on an article titled, “Michael Jackson’s Secret Ex-Lover Tells All,” I was taken to a Kim Kardashian photo gallery where she was apparently planning a new nude photo shoot back in late May. Will this strategy work? I asked myself. Probably not. The internet has grown too big and these articles are still on everyone’s minds, especially of those who have seen them before on Radar’s site.

No direct statements have been given by Radar Online or parent company American Media, Inc. The only statement American Media was able to give was in defense of the stories in question.

“The Radar article clearly states that detectives reported that Michael Jackson may have used photos of his nephews ‘to excite young boys’. This theory was, in fact, presented by the prosecution during Michael Jackson’s 2005 criminal trial. Radar looks forward to correcting plaintiffs’ misstatements in a court of law.”

This writer wonders what Radar’s lawyers will have to say about these “missing” articles once the court date comes around.

 

Guilty!! image by clement127, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0)

123 Responses

  1. MJJJusticeProject

    Please read Raven Wood’s complete debunking of the original Radar Online articles that were filled with inaccuracies, fabrications, twisted information and downright lies. – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8 There were no nude, no child porn found at Neverland, not in 1993 and not in 2003- Pls also read Canadian artist -Jonathan Hobin’s – he exposes Radar Online as well – His art was part of the art that Radar claimed Michael Jackson used to groom children.. only problem is .. Jonathan Hobin’s art didn’t even exist at time of Sheriff’s raid – http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-artist-photo-michael-jackson-1.3651598

    Reply
    • Daniel Adrian Sanchez
      Daniel Adrian Sanchez

      I was unable to find those articles myself. Thanks for the heads-up. I’ll go right ahead and read them. Thanks a lot!

      Reply
  2. Terry

    The document Radar posted wasn’t even the original police report, it had 88 pages but soon after the story was posted the police told them that most of what was there was from unknown internet sources. One of the books they had pictures from wasn’t even published until 2010 but the original police document was from 2003. One of the pictures that was in the document had black boxes placed over the genitals of the men in it but the original picture from the book clearly shows that the men were actually fully clothed. The police report actually states the whole way through that none of the material they actually found was child porn; Radar’s story was horrendously innacurate manipulated fabrications.

    Reply
    • Daniel Adrian Sanchez
      Daniel Adrian Sanchez

      Gotta agree with you there, but do you happen to have a direct source confirming this so I can go right ahead and check it out?

      Reply
      • vulcan

        This is the DA’s response to the child porn claim:
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/authorities-rebut-claims-child-porn-found-michael-/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=socialnetwork

        This shows that Radar took pictures from this website
        http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/isabella-burley
        and simply put it in the PDF file. They blacked out the genital areas and claimed MJ had those pictures. In fact they were in books MJ didn’t even own and the police report does not mention:
        https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2016/07/03/another-fake-in-radar-online-papers-and-another-frame-up-of-michael-jackson/

        RAdar also photoshopped a picture from Jame Bidgood’s artbook Bidgood making it look like they were naked boys when in fact they were clothed men. The book was not porn, it had pictures of young men in non-sexual situations:
        https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/radar-onlines-fake-to-mark-the-seventh-anniversary-of-michael-jacksons-death/

        They also ignore the fact that the DA never argued that MJ used of the books mentioned in the police report to groom anyone and the Arvizos, Chandler, Francia never mentioned any book either.
        Instead Sneddon/Zonen argued that the few books with naked men and the one book about gay adult sex proved that MJ was homosexual.
        The argument was one of the many contradictions in the DA’s case as they also argued that MJ lost interest in males once they became too old, that is 14 years old.
        They ignored the books which had hetero sex and naked women and also the pictures of nude girls.

        The only items during any of the raids that took place in Neverland which actually showed
        full frontal boy nudes were two coffee table books from the 1960s, Boy A Photographic
        Essay and Boys will be boys, both of them can be found in the Library of Congress or bought
        on Amazon. And these two books actually prove that MJ was not a pedophile here’s why.

        1. When MJ left for the third leg of the Dangerous your in Aug 1993 he knew very well that the Chandlers could accuse him.
        MJ had a meeting with Evan Chandler on Aug 4 1993 in the Westwood Marquis Hotel where Evan Chandler threatened to ruin
        him unless he give him what he wanted, that was 20 million which Chandler later lowered to 1 million. MJ refused to pay.
        If he had been guilty, if he had used those books for sexual gratification he would have destroyed them right after
        he learned that Chandler had a plan to accuse him , which was actually on July 9 1993 but at least before he left for the tour
        knowing full well that Chandler could trigger a criminal investigation which would mean a rain on his ranch.
        The very fact that the police found those books proves that MJ didn’t even remember having them and therefore didn’t
        destroy them in July or Aug 1993. And if he didn’t remember them that means he didn’t use them for sexual gratification
        which means he was not a pedophile as a pedophile most certainly would have used those books for just that!

        2. He didn’t buy them, a fan named Rhonda sent them to him in 1983, she inscribed one of the books it was read out loud during the trial. From your

        fan “Rhonda” kiss kiss hug hug 1983. The other book
        was by the same authors also published in the 60s, out of print by the 80s so most likely they were
        sent together. This book, Boys will be boys, was inscribed by MJ himself, indicating that he wanted to
        send it back to the fan, one does not inscribe a book for himself. There can be a number of reasons why it was not sent back.
        A pedo would not just wait for some stranger to send him some books with nude boys, he would
        activelly look for such material but there is zero evidence that MJ ever did such a thing. However there is evidence
        that MJ actively looked for pictures of nude women, as this store owner witnessed it:

        “He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.”
        http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

        And a pedo, if he finally gets such a book like that would not think about sending it back, obviously.

        3. The police took the two books in 1993 and then didn’t find them during the 2003 raid which means
        MJ didn’t miss them at all. Instead they found art books which had nude men, women, boys, girls alike
        but no frontal boy nudes. So someone who wanted to look at teenage penises for 10 years suddenly
        switched to a few artbooks which did not show that at all instead of reobtaining the original books.
        That makes no sense.

        4. A pedo would have paged the hell ouf those books in 10 years and therefore there would be wear and tear
        there would be fingerprints all over those pages. But the prosecution did not present any such evidence
        there is no evidene that MJ ever paged those books at all.

        5. A pedo would not be satified looking at the same pictures for 10 years he would want new stuff. But
        police found no other pictures of frontal boy nudes at all. Just those two books.

        6. MJ’s inscription in Boys will be boys is about the cover of that book which shows four happy boys jumping in a lake.
        A pedo would not have these thoughts while looking at boys in their swimming trunks:

        “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy on these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood. A life I never
        had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ”

        Wow what a monster indeed! He focused on the boys’s happiness instead of their dick. That proves he was a pedo, obviously.?

        Reply
  3. MJ Realist

    Those articles are still there:

    Jacko Betrayed! Sex Perv Singer’s Family Turned Against Him In Abuse Probe – http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-child-molestation-investigation-family-spoke-cops-claims/

    and

    Paedo Proof? Never-Before-Seen Cop Reports Expose Michael Jackson’s Sick Secrets – http://radaronline.com/videos/michael-jackson-police-reports-search-warrant-pornography/

    The $100 million lawsuit is baseless and the nephews don’t have a chance as this article points out – http://www.mjfacts.com/four-nephews-and-a-pop-star/

    And, contrary to what MJJJusticeProject posted above, many incriminating items were found at Neverland including what many people would regard as child porn but was just within the law – http://www.mjfacts.com/was-child-pornography-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/

    Reply
    • Daniel Adrian Sanchez
      Daniel Adrian Sanchez

      Yes. In the article, I still managed to link to several articles, just as you have.

      Reply
    • Sarai

      Oh, for Pete’s sake! Do you crazies go around searching for any and every article pertaining to Michael Jackson just so you can spam the comments with links to your site that is filled with nothing but suggestive and persuasive writing, innuendo, speculation and opinions masquerading as facts? The writers — for a lack of a better words — at MJFacts purport their site to be an objective source when it is anything but that. The former name of the site was WackoFacts. That, alone, shows the true nature of the content and of the content’s creators. That BLOGSITE (because that’s all it is) is a cesspool.
      How about devoting your time to “exposing” real abusers that are alive and free instead of continuing on with this fetish over a man who died years ago?

      Reply
      • Not Buying It

        Fans criticize the MJ Facts site, but they never refute any of the facts in any of the articles. All they have are ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments. I’d love to see just one fan go on that site and show any of the articles to be factually incorrect. It won’t happen though 🙂

        Reply
        • Hammer

          Those “facts” have been refuted countless times it’s just that you don’t want to accept the real facts.
          Not factually incorrect? What about the fact that Chandler failed to accurately describe MJ’s body, that he didn’t even know he was circumcised despite claiming that he masturbated him 10 times? That alone kills his entire BS molestation story which you know very well was written by his father, the wannabe screenwriter loser Evan Chandler who was pissed of when MJ stopped returning his phone calls and cut him off.
          And this is just one of many many facts which MJFacts like to twist or ignore as they make a case against MJ using court proven liar pedophilia advocate Victor Gutierrez. Please….

          Reply
          • Astowill

            Irregardless of Evan Chandler’s motives, if Jordan Chandler “failed to accurately describe MJ’s body,” and “didn’t even know he was circumcised” the civil claim would have been dealt with at the summary judgement phase, after discovery revealed the supposed “discrepancies”.

            Instead of shutting down the lawsuit, Michael Jackson paid the Chandlers around $20 million, which buttresses the argument that Jordan Chandler described Michael Jackson’s junk accurately.

            Oh, and nothing is hidden! https://www.google.com/#q=Paedo+Proof%3F+Never-Before-Seen+Cop+Reports+Expose+Michael+Jackson%E2%80%99s+Sick+Secrets

          • Hammer

            The fact that you are pretending to be someone else and cite tabloid garbage as some kind of evidence show how dishonest you are and how weak your argument is. You are not Astowill, I am. It is my other twitter account and you know it.

            No wonder you dodge the main issue.

            It’s a FACT that Chandler said MJ was circumcised, reported by numerous anti-Jackson sources, Gutierrez, Taraborelli, Smoking gun, even Dimond and Clemente admitted he said it and Arnold Klein who was present at the strip search also said it in an interview.
            That fact alone proves Chandler never jerked MJ off contrary to what he told Dr. Gardner and you cannot deny that fact. No way he would not have seen Mj’s foreskin if he had done that especially 10 times!

            It’s also a fact that Tom Sneddon’s declaration, Dimond’s book about what Gary Spiegel the photographer said about Mj’s junk and the Chandler’s book about what Jordan supposedly described all contradict each other, Sneddon talking about one dark blemish on the RIGHT side,
            Spiegel on the LEFT side and the Chandler book about “numerous markings and discoloration” which took two hours for Jordan to describe.
            They cannot have it three different ways and claim all three was accurate! On top of that the NBC documentary Ray Chandler said the mark was on the underside and Dimond said on her blog it was pink splotches on an erect penis. These are Mj’s worst enemies they are all over the place
            but we still should believe it was totally accurate, right? Which version was accurate? Who lied? Chandler? Sneddon? Dimond? Spiegel?

            Your argument that the case would have been dismissed on summary judgement so MJ wouldn’t have settled if he had been innocent is nonsense for a number of reasons.

            1. Whether the photos matched Chandler’s theory about MJ’s body or not was not up to the judge to decide! That would have been up to a jury to decide a judge does not have that right and there is no law which would have allowed MJ’s side to argue hey look Chandler didn’t know
            I am uncut so throw this case out. Remember Judge Melville also didn’t make any decision on whether the photos and the description matched or not he only had the right to decide whether there was a legal basis to show the photos /description to the jury.
            Regarding the pigmentation the Chandlers made it clear in their book how they would have defended themselves it the photos contradict the “description”: with vitiligo pigment comes and goes fast so MJ changed since May 1993, which he indeed did and that’s just one reason why the whole idea that Chandler’s “description” and the photos taken many months later on Dec 20 could be an “absolute match”. Nonsense. MJ did not look on Dec 20 as he looked on May 1993 especially not since he used Benoquin.

            2. Just because you would win in in court does not mean you want a trial. MJ won in 2005 and it still destroyed him. What’s the point of having a circus like that when people ignore the verdict? He lost much more than 20 million because of that trial not to mention he never recovered from it.
            So of course he settled especially since others like Lisa Marie and Sony also urged him to settle.
            Just because someone gets money does not mean they are victims. Francias got money and look what happened in 2005? They were laughed out of the courtroom.

            3. If MJ had been afraid that Chandler knew how his junk looked why did he cooperate and allowed the strip search in the first place?
            Why didn’t he settle right after the news came out that Chandler gave a description to the police and Feldman said he wanted a medical exam of MJ’s body? MJ knew that long before Dec 20 and he didn’t settle instead he filed motions to have the criminal case go first which is not what a guilty person would do and you know it. It was the Chandlers who fought to keep the criminal case behind the civil case. Why? Because they only wanted money not punish the “molester” and protect other kids. Why? Because they knew MJ was no threat to any kid and he didn’t molest anyone. Logical.

            4. If MJ cooperated on Dec 20 because he was threatened if he doesn’t they would arrested him then how come Sneddon didn’t arrest him
            after he had the photos? He had the smoking gun evidence, Chandler still didn’t tell him he won’t testify (that came only in June 1994)
            and he or Garcetti still didn’t arrest and charge him? Why? Because they didn’t get what they wanted that’s why! The photos and Evan Chandler’s
            THEORY did not match at all. Instead Sneddon questioned Mj’s mother about whether MJ did something to his body so the photos and the description woudl not match! No need for that question is it was a match, obviously.

            5. Larry Feldman filed a motion in January 1994 to EXCLUDE the photos from the civil trial which clearly indicates they didn’t want the jury to see them and the photos were taken AFTER the judge already rejected MJ’s motion to delay the civil case and set a trial date and the judge forced MJ to expose his defense strategy in a civil deposition. It’s no coincidence that he signed the settlement just one day before that deposition was scheduled. They were waiting for the criminal case to be closed, MJ hoped once they see the photos didn’t match they would close it but of course Sneddon would never admit that MJ was innocent no matter what so the criminal case went on and on despite the Chandlers having no proof at all no credible eyewitness, all the boys Chandler named as other victims denied being victims, they had nothing just the stupid story Evan Chandler wrote and Jordan Chandler couldn’t even keep straight as he said one thing in Aug 1993 about Monaco and Las Vegas and the opposite in Oct to Gardner. The Chandlers didn’t want a trial because they knew they would lose and they even admitted that in their book, another fact you like to ignore.

            6. No matter how innocent you are there is not one competent lawyer who will allow you to be deposed when a criminal trial is still possible especially not a zealous DA like Sneddon. If Chandler had been a victim they would have wanted a criminal indictment and a criminal trial instead they did everything to AVOID it and only go for a “highly profitable settlement”. So that fact alone buttresses the argument that Chandler was a molestation victim and MJ a criminal. You go and testify against a criminal in a criminal trial not go after his money only. But Chandler even as a grown ass man refused to testify against MJ, in fact he threatened Sneddon with legal action if he dared to put him on the stand. Such a victim indeed.

            And yes nothing was hidden. You really think that Radar Online knows something now Sneddon and Zonen did not in 2005?
            The police report was used by Senddon to build the case against MJ , the judge reviewed everything and his magazines and books were shown in court. They prove nothing except that he liked hetero adult magazines and had a bunch of books from various sources including hundreds of artbooks many of which he didn’t even buy himself or open.

            Don’t get me started on that ridiculous sex closet story not even Sneddon argued that MJ ever molested anyone in that closet and it was not secret even Kelly Parker knew about it she showed it to the whole world after MJ died.

          • Susan

            Evan’s motives and actions are crucial since he was the one who had a “plan” to destroy Michael and June even when Jordan kept denying that he was molested. Clearly his father already knew what he would throw at Michael, he didn’t need Jordan’s “confession”. All that sexual stuff came from Evan’s imagination and Jordan was in his custody after July 11, he had plenty of opportunity to brainwash his son.
            Jordan’s words to Dr. Gardner reveal that his father educated him about what to tell the police the doctors etc. At some point during that interview Jordan sounds exactly like Evan, almost verbatim. Evan’s hostility toward June also comes through Jordan’s comments about his mother.

            Diane Dimond had access to Jordan’s 1993 August DCFS interview and in her book she revealed that Jordan accused Micheal of performing oral sex on him right before the Monaco show. But by the time he talked to Gardner in October that story changed. He no longer complained about oral sex in Monaco, instead he talked about taking baths and masturbation only and he said Michael switched to oral sex in his father’s home, weeks after Monaco.
            Now that is a pretty big difference, don’t you think? The oral sex in Monaco didn’t happen if it had Jordan would have remembered it in October too.
            If it didn’t happen where did it come from?
            It’s not in Evan’s chronology. But it’s in Gutierrez’s own story! And since Gutierrez invented other oral sex stories (one about Jeremy Jackson and the one about Brett Barnes which made Sneddon and co. travel to Australia) it’s clear that Gutierrez helped the Chandlers put together their story which is quite disturbing if you consider Gutierrez’s ties to NAMBLA and pedophilia advocacy.

            That Jordan was so inconsistent shows that no amount of coaching can transform a lie into the truth.

          • Summary judgement

            You don’t know what summary judgement is all about, do you?
            Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court’s finding that:
            there are no disputes of “material” fact requiring a trial to resolve, and
            in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.

            The civil claim couldn’t have been dealt with at the summary judgement phase just because Chandler’s drawing was poppycock because there still would have been disputes of material facts requiring a trial to resolve.
            The Chandlers were prepared to say that MJ’s pigmentation changed since May when the boy first saw him naked and the boy doesn’t really know the difference between cut and uncut. Most people would not buy this of course but the judge can’t just dismiss a case because a plaintiff’s argument is implausible.
            That the plaintiff is not believable is not a valid affirmative defense.
            And Jackson probably didn’t want a bunch of strangers, including female jurors, to look at his vitiligo afflicted wang anyway. I sympathize.

            What do you think Larry Feldman’s trickery was all about with that multiple choice motion which included excluding the photos from the civil trial? If they proved Chandler’s story why exclude them from the trial? Such a shady bunch.

        • Amber

          You sound crazy, Fans or people who are open for the TRUTH have refuted the lies. I have seen court testimony and logic debates from people who know Michael was innocent. No, it is haters like you who want to twist the truth and believe tabloid nonsense with attacks.

          Reply
    • vulcan

      You are promoting tabloid junk which was repeatedly disproven and you call yourself a realist? I bet you think that Simen Johan’s book Room To play in a cardboard box with all those half naked GIRLS somehow proves that MJ molested boys. Realism, sure.

      yes the Nephews do have a case as Radar Online lied about them being molested and covering up a crime. you know very well that they were not molested and didn’t cover up anything. It’s just more BS from Radar.

      Reply
    • vulcan

      Wrong. Child porn is a federal crime and if they had found any MJ would have been charged and convicted for it. Coffee table books with nude boys nude girls are not porn just like pictures of nude women nude men is not porn. If it was porn you couldn’t buy them on Amazon or see them in the Library of Congress, obviously. You try to redefine child porn because you are desperate to create proof against MJ which simply does not exist. The fact is that the only sexually explicit stuff MJ himself bought over many years was all hetero and adult.

      Nothing incriminating was found in Neverland you are just desperate to spin everything which had a remotely nude person in it as incriminating. In reality the context for those books is that MJ had thousands of books, he bought them by the hundreds, he got books from fans and photographers and among them there were a FEW which had pictures of nude men, nude women, nude boys and nude girls
      without actual evidence that MJ himself bought them or paged them let alone that he liked the pictures.
      Artbooks in a huge library belonging to an artist who was interested in art and photography ever since he was a child and who was a hoarder of books is not incriminating. That’s not what a boy molesting pedophile would have. If he had collected nude pictures of boys you would have a point. But he did no such thing in fact he collected pictures of nude women and hetero adult magazines and DVDs and his computers too had only hetero adult stuff and pics of nude women, not boys all of which actually proves that he was heterosexual and into women not boys. One does not need that many and that diverse collection over 12 years to groom boys, it’s ridiculous not to mention noone over those 12 years even mentioned that he had those magazines or books, the first ones who did were the Arvizos who broke in to MJ’s room, rummaged through his things and found the magazines themselves. Safechuck and Robson claims that MJ showed them magazines and books only AFTER they learned form 2005 case that he had them. But it makes no sense that MJ would use that stuff to groom them and then not at all to groom Chandler while he kept buying magazines between 1992 May and 1993 July while he supposedly groomed and molested Chandler.
      It was also revealed during the trial that MJ took those magazines with him to a trip in Japan where he was alone as Sneddon never mentioned that any boys was with him. Why would he need those magazines in Japan if not for his own enjoyment?

      Reply
    • MJJJusticeProject

      Additionally, the “incriminating evidence” were art books- one by Simen Johan – “Room to Play” – also sold on Amazon – Is Amazon a purveyor of porn? And this same artist own work ‘Room to play’ pictures you label as “incriminating” are in US exhibitions, Check – pic.twitter.com/UQSw4cXgnh– Just because a sheriff report says fro HIS opinion these items could be used to “groom” children, doesn’t mean they were. Michael Jackson had a library of 10K+ volumes and topics ranging from Disney to Meta-physics — that library had to be combed to find these few art books… The real crime committed here was the effort of DA, Sheriff and media to create a villian out of Michael Jackson when in fact, he was the furthest from that type of individual.

      Reply
      • Another MJ Realist

        If you had read the comment by MJ Realist you would have noticed they stated “many incriminating items were found at Neverland including **what many people would regard as child porn but was just within the law**. They never suggested Michael Jackson owned child porn *as defined by the law*. The article linked http://www.mjfacts.com/was-child-pornography-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/ explained what was and what was not found, it would be better if you read that before commenting again because you only make yourself look foolish.

        Once you do read the article you will realize that ‘Room to Play’ wasn’t too serious, and the truly objectionable books Michael Jackson owned (and kept separate from the rest of his library) were ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ and ‘The Boy: A Photographic Essay’, both published by Book Adventures, a pedophile publishing house and both featuring boy’s anuses, penises, and erections. There is also the matter of two photographs found at Neverland – one of a naked boy and another of a semi-naked boy.

        Once again, nothing illegal was found but most people would regard the items that were found obscene, and totally unsuitable to be owned by a man who shared his bed with boys of the age depicted in those materials.

        Reply
        • vulcan

          Actually those two books prove that he was not a pedo and wasn’t interested in looking at teenage penises at all. You ignore a lot of facts about those books.

          1. When MJ left for the third leg of the Dangerous your in Aug 1993 he knew very well that the Chandlers could accuse him.
          MJ had a meeting with Evan Chandler on Aug 4 1993 in the Westwood Marquis Hotel where Evan Chandler threatened to ruin him unless he give him what he wanted, that was 20 million which Chandler later lowered to 1 million. MJ refused to pay.
          If he had been guilty, if he had used those books for sexual gratification he would have destroyed them right after
          he learned that Chandler had a plan to accuse him , which was actually on July 9 1993 but at least before he left for the tour
          knowing full well that Chandler could trigger a criminal investigation which would mean a rain on his ranch.
          The very fact that the police found those books proves that MJ didn’t even remember having them and therefore didn’t
          destroy them in July or Aug 1993. And if he didn’t remember them that means he didn’t use them for sexual gratification
          which means he was not a pedophile as a pedophile most certainly would have used those books for just that!

          2. He didn’t buy them, a fan named Rhonda sent them to him in 1983, she inscribed one of the books it was read out loud during the trial. From your fan “Rhonda” kiss kiss hug hug 1983. The other book
          was by the same authors also published in the 60s, out of print by the 80s so most likely they were
          sent together. This book, Boys will be boys, was inscribed by MJ himself, indicating that he wanted to
          send it back to the fan, one does not inscribe a book for himself. There can be a number of reasons why it was not sent back.
          A pedo would not just wait for some stranger to send him some books with nude boys, he would
          activelly look for such material but there is zero evidence that MJ ever did such a thing. However there is evidence
          that MJ actively looked for pictures of nude women, as this store owner witnessed it:

          “He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.”
          http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

          And a pedo, if he finally gets such a book like that would not think about sending it back, obviously.

          3. The police took the two books in 1993 and then didn’t find them during the 2003 raid which means
          MJ didn’t miss them at all. Instead they found art books which had nude men, women, boys, girls alike
          but no frontal boy nudes. So someone who wanted to look at teenage penises for 10 years suddenly
          switched to a few artbooks which did not show that at all instead of reobtaining the original books.
          That makes no sense.

          4. A pedo would have paged the hell ouf those books in 10 years and therefore there would be wear and tear
          there would be fingerprints all over those pages. But the prosecution did not present any such evidence
          there is no evidene that MJ ever paged those books at all.

          5. A pedo would not be satified looking at the same pictures for 10 years he would want new stuff. But
          police found no other pictures of frontal boy nudes at all. Just those two books.

          6. MJ’s inscription in Boys will be boys is about the cover of that book which shows four happy boys jumping in a lake.
          A pedo would not have these thoughts while looking at boys in their swimming trunks:

          “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy on these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood. A life I never
          had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ”

          Wow what a monster indeed! He focused on the boys’s happiness instead of their dick. That proves he was a pedo, obviously.?

          Let’s look at the pictures and statutes MJ wanted to see every day which he had in Neverland. They are not boys but boys and girls and not naked but clothed. The only common theme is they looked happy and playfull which is what MJ loved about kids, he wanted to make them happy not to make them suffer not to violate or humiliate them. I don’t know any boy molester who surrounds himself with happy statutes and pictures and painting of boys, girls and babies.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          Most people? Most people watch porn! Many men have magazines like MJ had and yes they have kids and may even sleep in a bed with their kids or relatives at least. Yes porn is obscene and most people like it. Get over it. You sound hypocritical.
          My father had porn magazines where we kids could find it even though he tried to hide it. MJ did a pretty good job in hiding his porn magazines over 12 years noone even mentioned that he had them. It was his home and he had every right to have those magazines and those books like every other adult and you can bet that most large libraries with a bunch of artbooks among them will have at least a few with “obscene” pictures. Hell, the Library of Congress has those very same “obscene” books. I guess they are perverts too.

          If you cannot understand that bedsharing has nothing to do with sex that’s your problem not MJ”s and to make the leap from those books which MJ didn’t even buy didn’t even page and didn’t even remember to have to molestation is simply ridiculous. If that was the case then you should argue he had sex with men, women and girls alike after all he had books with pictures of those and he also shared his room and bed with men women girls alike.

          Those books are way too random and way too diverse for someone who was supposedly interested in teenage boys exclusively and it makes no sense that someone like that would suddenly lose interest in pictures of frontal boy nudes in 1993 and instead by a few artbooks with nude men, nude women and nude girls

          You are desperately trying to twist his hetero adult magazines and artbooks into proof that he molested boys even while you cannot name a single boy molester who had that kind of collection amid a huge library.

          Reply
    • Amber

      You are correct. Mike would have been charged with that lone. Look at Jared from the Subway commercials. Those people from MJfacts do not know nothing. If they have to do that much twisting, that only means more they are liars. What Vaulan laid out is in court and sworn testimony. Not tabloid junk.

      Reply
    • Amber

      They know but he/she is so desperate to want to believe MJ abuse kids that they are willing to say stupid things that proves nothing to prove their fake points.

      Reply
  4. MJJJusticeProject

    “If Michael Jackson owns Johan’s pictures he is into animal abuse. If Johan makes those picture? He is an artist.” – quote from Twitter’s HammertonHal ~~~ Please do ponder – If the New Yorker & the Wall Street Journal admire Simen Johan and his ART – how then does it become unlawful for Michael Jackson to do the same? – http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/01/31/simen_johan_until_the_kingdom_comes_documents_shifting_ecosystems_photos.html The Hypocrisy is overwhelming.

    Reply
    • MJ Bad

      The police report repeatedly mentions that none of the images are illegal. It also has a list of the ‘art book’ and imagery found in in his place. Here’s just some:

      “Boys Will Be Boys” containing photographs of boys under the age of 14, full frontal nudity.
      “Bid good” nude young teenage men
      “Taormina Wilhelm Von Gloeden” – nude photos of teen boys from 1800s
      photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathen Spence, fully nude
      etc.

      (This is not about him being gay, nor having porn. It is about accumulation of details — especially including statments from victims — that show him as a possible paedophile.)

      Reply
      • Paul Resnikoff
        Paul Resnikoff

        This is the part I never quite understood. How is purchasing naked images of boys underage not paedophilia? Seems like that’s exactly the definition?

        I’m just confused by all the arguments that somehow Michael Jackson’s behavior was legitimate and not abusive or exploitative. And, even more confused as to why these reports weren’t released back when they were first chronicled by the Santa Barbara police.

        Reply
        • Hammer

          1. He didn’t purchase naked images of underage boys actually he purchased pictures of nude WOMEN as this store owner witnessed himself:
          “He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women. ”
          http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

          2. The pictures of frontal nude boys were all in two books which MJ did not buy. They were sent to him by a fan named Rhonda in 1983, she inscribed one of them it was read out loud in court. The other book was by the same authors both out of print by the 80s so most likely they were sent together. MJ inscribed this one indicating that he wanted to send it back to the fan, one does not inscribe a book for himself.
          There was no evidence that MJ ever paged those books and there is evidence that he didn’t even remember having them in 1993 and certainly didn’t miss them after 1993 as the police didn’t find them again in 2003.

          A pedophile would not just wait for a stranger to send him such books and most certainly wouldn’t want to send it back to anyone and most certainly would remember them after 10 years of using them. But MJ didn’t even remember that he had those books as he knew a raid could happen when he left for the tour in Aug 1993 and he didn’t destroy the books! The very fact that the police found those books proves that MJ was not interested in them and forgot that the got them back in 1983.

          3. The reports have been available since 2005 they are not new. Just because Radar Online and the rest of the media pretends that they are knew it won’t be true. Look, these blogpost about the books mentioned in the report was written years ago:
          https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/?s=porn

          4. Every magazine and book was shown in court, they proved nothing except that he liked hetero adult magazines and he had thousands of books among then a few art photography books with naked men, naked women naked boys and naked girls in artistic non-sexual context as he loved art and photography since he was a child and bought hundreds of art and photography books and sent his people to do the same and fans and photographers sent him such books all the time. That’s the context of those books not pedophilia.
          Especially since no fingerprint evidence was shown that he ever paged the books which had nude boys let alone that he did it repeatedly over many years.

          5. MJ didn’t abuse anyone and you would understand that if you looked at the actual evidence instead of the media’s garbage , what the accusers did and said, how the allegations emerged as they always originated with adults who were abusive and exploitative and wanted to profit from those allegations, the Chandlers repeatedly actually. Read the facts about Mj’s accusers http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/

          6. If you want to understand how MJ’s behavior with kids far from being abusive or exploitative then listen to the very kids who knew him best, who had the most sleepovers with him for that matter and who unlike Chandler or Arvizo didn’t have a reason to lie. You can start with Frank Cascio’s book
          My Friend Michael, Corey Feldman’s book or Michael Jacobshagen’s book.
          Three boys who spent a lot of time with him and were not molested quite to the contrary to this day, even as grown men, they couldn’t be more positive about MJ. Along with the vast majority of boys and girls who knew him.
          the only kids who accused him all had greedy crooked parents who wanted them to accuse him and then profit from it. Take away Evan CHandler and the money and MJ would have never been accused. Francia and Arvizo were opportunist bandwagoners which always come when big money is at stake.

          Name just one credible person who ever accused MJ and explain why you think they are credible.

          Reply
        • zerosum

          There is no evidence Jackson purchased images of nude boys. He was a bibliophile and bought a lot of art books himself but sometimes sent his people to do it for him , just pick up any they could find in a store, fans also sent books to him as gifts the two books with images of nude boys were such, one was inscribed by a person named Rhonda . What does two books from a fan among thousands of volumes in Jackson’s giant library prove?
          If he had been a pedophile he would have consistently bought such books himself but he did not. Instead he kept purchasing Playboy and Stiff dick for Lynn and his hard drives were full of images of nude women and visits to heterosexual websites. That does not prove he was a straight male but two books from a fan proves he was a pedophile?

          I don’t buy the grooming theory. He had too many adult magazines, too many images of nude women too many adult material on his computers for that.

          I never understood Star Arvizo’s presence in this story anyway. If Jackson wanted to groom and molest Gavin why did he show porn magazines to Star why did he want Star in the room at all? To have a witness to all that is not something a pedophile would do.

          Reply
        • Um, just to be helpful

          This question/concern of yours had already been addressed on a previous article where you raised it. You didn’t respond, so maybe that means you never read it. Here it is again for convenience:

          “Reasonisimportant, Soiscontext
          August 18, 2016
          Why not? Is this a real question? Or just a very bad attempt at sarcasm? Naked pics of a child are always pornographic, really? Always?

          So, every parent who takes a picture of their infant/toddler playing in a bathtub is guilty of creating child pornography? And every time they show said pic to a grandparent, sibling, best friend, etc., they are now guilty of distributing child pornography? There’s no way you can believe that to be true.

          I’m a medical resident; I couldn’t begin to count the number of photos/illustrations I’ve seen of naked children. Are we to believe that all of those health, biology, medical, physiological, anthropological books are actually peddling child porn? And all the writers, publishers, sellers are trafficking child pornography?

          Pictures of naked children = pornographic material of children? Period, end of discussion? You can’t be serious”

          If you can understand even a bit of what was written there, it’s difficult to see why this particular “issue” is still such a head scratcher. What I’d add to this is that the Santa Barbara PD has repeatedly said that they haven’t released anything “new” regarding this case. They issued that in an official press statement and in interviews with several mainstream publications (vs. tabloids/blogs). So, why do you insist upon saying that you can’t understand why the information wasn’t released previously? The accurate (undoctored, untampered with) report from the Neverland raid was released back in real time. And parts of it were entered into evidence and read out loud in open court during Jackson’s trial in 2005. Just because you didn’t hear or read something doesn’t mean it was kept secret or had nefarious implications. It might mean, though, that you could have paid a bit more attention to the subject, back when the information in question might have had some actual relevance to anything. Just a thought…

          Reply
      • Hammer

        They are not victims they are proven liars who accused him because their crazy crooked parents coached them and wanted money and revenge. If MJ had been pedophile his accusers wouldn’t be this awfully fishy.

        Bidgood is about young men not boys so you want to argue that he was sexually attracted to 18 and up? Sneddon argued that he lost interested at age 14. You guys are all over the place. James Bidgood is a gay artist not a pedo. He is into young men not boys. The pictures in his book show men over 18 but definitely older than 14. Sneddon didn’t use Bidgood against MJ during the trial as it prove nothing it’s just an artbook where the young men are not even naked.

        Taormina did not have nude photos of teen BOYS but young men, why do you think Sneddon didn’t even bother to show it in court? Just because it’s in a police report or DA motion does not mean it’s true. Unless it was shown in court it doesn’t matter what they write about those books. Judge Melville was very pro-DA and so everything which Sneddon/Zonen considered incriminating was shown to the jury. Sneddon even lied that Chronos was found in MJ’s room. In fact it was found in the arcade library along with a bunch of other books. He was so desperate to use these artbooks and magazines he had no problem lying about them in his motions or in court.

        No frontal boy nude was found during the 2003 raid. None!
        Only frontal nudes of women and grown men and girls.
        So how does that prove that MJ was so much interested in looking at teenage penises?
        Those two books which he didn’t even buy proves nothing except that he got a bunch of books from fans and he didn’t throw books away.
        If he had been a pedophile he would have collected pics of nude boys including after 1993 when the police took those two books and didn’t find them again

        If statements by people is proof that MJ was into women as three women claimed they had sex with them. Or he was gay as two men claimed they had sex with them.
        And since MJ had tons of pictures of nude women and hetero adult magazines by your logic we should accept that he was hetero and into women.

        You can’t have it both ways.

        Reply
      • Hammer

        You know very well that Radar Online and the rest of the copypast media made a BIG deal out of Room to play and accused MJ of stockpiling animal abuse pictures and pictures of sexualized children because of this one book!

        Room to play is a surreal artbooks nothing else and the very same pictures mentioned in the police report have been in mainstream museums even in the US here’s one exhibition of the “animal abuse” and “sexualized children” pictures:
        http://www.physicsroom.org.nz/media/cache/90/de/90debe42a29a730570423cb33ef742ac.png

        The hypocrisy is just staggering. America is full of morons. They apparently cannot even tell the difference between art and sex anymore. Well at least when it comes to Michael Jackson, apparently as Radar Online and the rest of the media does not call Simen Johan, or the museums, or the Library of Congress or Amazon perverts, sickos for making those pictures, storing them, selling them and exhibiting them.
        But hey if MJ has that book among a bunch of other artbooks without any evidence that he ever even opened it let alone that he liked the pictures he a sicko and a pervert.

        Reply
      • Question

        Also found at Neverland, during the 2003 raid, and actually found in his personal living quarters (unlike those items you state above) was a bunch of items actually labeled as pornography. These items were documented in the police report and subsequently entered into evidence for the court case — and a number of the items were brought up at the trial. A partial list of these pornographic items:

        1 E X H I B I T S

        2 FOR IN

        3 PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

        4 471 Photo of female image 3711
        5 472 Photo of female image 3711
        6 473 Photo of female image 3711
        7 474 Photo of female image 3711
        8 475 Photo of female image 3711
        9 476 Hustler centerfold,
        10 August 1992 3711
        11 477 Playboy centerfold, Miss October 3711
        12 478 Registration card for
        13 briefcase 3711
        14 479 Playboy centerfold, Miss November 3711
        15 480 Playboy centerfold,
        16 Miss March 3711
        17 481 Hustler centerfold, June 1993 3711
        18 482 Page 28 from “G-Spot”
        19 article 3711
        20 483 Playboy centerfold, unknown date 3711
        21 484 Penthouse Page No. 153-154 3711
        22 485 Centerfold, Miss May 3711
        23 486 Penthouse, Page 8 3711
        24 487 Penthouse centerfold 3711
        25 488 Playboy centerfold 3711
        26 489 Penthouse centerfold 3711
        27 490 Penthouse, August 1991 3711
        28 491 Penthouse centerfold 3711

        1 E X H I B I T S

        2 FOR IN PLAINTIFF’S NO. DESCRIPTION I.D. EVID.

        4 492 Club International centerfold 3711
        5 493 Penthouse, double page 6/211 3711
        6 494 Penthouse centerfold 3711
        7 495 Penthouse, May 1992 3711
        8 496 Hustler, Centerfold Special Holiday Honey 1991 3711
        9 497 Penthouse centerfold 3711
        10 498 Penthouse centerfold 3711
        11 499 Penthouse, November 1991,
        501 Playboy Magaine, Centerfold Miss November, SBSO 31
        502 Playboy Nagazine, Centerfold Miss February (Not same:
        503 Playboy Magazine, Centerfold Miss December, SBSO #3
        504 Al Golstein’s 100 Best Adult Videos Advertisement, SBSO
        505 Playboy Magazine, Centerfold SBSO #31722
        506 Hustler Magazine Cover, May 1992, SBSO #317BBB
        508 Page from Unknown Magazine, SBSO #317CCC
        509 Brown Paper Envelope, SBSO #317F
        510 Stiff Dick for Lynn Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317
        511 Barely Legal Magazine, SBSO #3171
        512 Just Legal Magazine, (Premier Issue) (In Notebook), SBSO
        513 Finally Legal Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317L
        514 Playboy Magazine, February 1993 (In Notebook), SBSO #317M
        515 Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook), SBSO #3170
        516 Playboy Magazine, December 1994 (In Notebook), SBSO #317P
        517 Playboy Magazine, May 1994 (In Notebook), SBSO #317Q
        518 Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook), SBSO #317R
        519 Penthouse Magazine (In Notebook), SBSO #317S
        520 Visions of Fantasy Magazine, A Hard Rock Affair (In Notebook), SBSO #3171
        521 Visions of Fantasy Magazine, Sam Jose’s Black Starlett (In Notebook), SBSO
        522 Double Dicking Caroline Magazine (In Notebook) SBSO #317V
        523 Big Tits and a Hard Stud Magazine
        524 Hustler Magazine, sBSO #317X
        525 “The Second Female G-Spot” Article (In Notebook) SBSO #317BB
        526 File Folder Title PRN, SBSBO #317DDD
        527 File Folder Titled, “Thank You” SBSO #317EEE
        528 Celebrity Skin Magazine (In Notebook) SBSO #317FFF

        Notice a trend in these items from Michael’s bedroom? They’re all legal, adult, heterosexual pornographic material. And they were found during that infamous raid and detailed in court. Neither side (DA or defense) disputed their existence, authenticity, or ownership (that they belonged to Michael).

        So, you have 2 or 3 legal art books/pics that depict children (which no paper trail could be found that were purchased by Michael; his fingerprints appear on no pages of the books or on the pics; and one book is inscribed as a gift to Michael from a female fan) vs. the preponderance of totally legal, man-woman porn photos and publications that had Michael’s fingerprints on any number. Why would the reality of these “court-documented” facts prove anything close to what you suggest?

        Reply
        • art books can be porn too

          …which can all be explained as material used to stimulate young hetero males. Also, having hetero porn doesn’t mean he has interest in other stuff.

          he had young boys over for sleepovers in his bed. one described his genitals accurately enough for MJ to settle for 20 million. if the kid was innacurate, they would have proceeded with the court case. obviously the kid saw something that was specific or accurate to MJs junk. stop talking about ‘art books’.

          Reply
          • Question

            “Can all be explained as material used to stimulate young hetero males?” Uh, so could the cover of a Britney Spears cd, or an old box set of Baywatch re-runs, or an autographed poster from Farrah Fawcett back in her heyday. In other words, a person could look around any individual’s home and find stuff things that could possibly “be explained as material used to stimulate young hetero males.” To try to use that logic as evidence of a crime is to say “we got nothing.”
            I’ve had young, teenaged hetero sons, nephews, brothers, cousins, boyfriends from by youth and it wouldn’t take an extensive library such as the one above to get not a single one of them stimulated. I mean, how experienced and high-minded are the 13/14 year old boys that you know?
            Plus, I can see why the prosecution would have bombed so badly on the porn stuff because the police report readily admits that the art books were not porn at all — and they mean the legal definition. But they wanted them entered into evidence to prove this “stimulating/grooming” theory that I guess you’re talking about. Except that it defies logic that a person would use pics of young naked boys to stimulate young hetero males — and those were the photos they were talking about from the art books. Psych experts will tell you that you can’t argue both, particularly for the same individual. Used naked pictures of adult females to stimulate teen boys and also used naked pictures of prepubescent males to stimulate those same teen boys. It’s a matter of forming a theory and conclusion and then trying to wedge the found material into said theory/conclusion. Versus, the other way around. You know, the way policing and investigation is actually supposed to work…

  5. Mary

    Michael was not a pedophile. He did not go around molesting children. He had his innocence proven in a court of law. He has been dead for nearly 8 years. He did not have a ‘DARK’ side, and it is time the media STOPPED portraying him as some sort of twisted perverse individual simply so they can keep making money of his NAME

    Reply
  6. Jom

    This just shows who is sick and crazy. It is the media and these tabloid nut jobs and the people who follow them. Michael was innocent and all the evidence show he was innocent and they have to keep pushing these lies.

    Reply
  7. ChrisB

    As Mjjjusticeproject notes, Raven Woods has several excellent articles about this very topic on Huffington Post. Her own blog carries excellent factual information about a variety of Michael Jackson topics. Here is part 4 on this very topic on her blog: http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=10832

    Another good source of transcription of the 2005 trial are handled well on this wordpress site by sanemjfan: https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/

    Factual information is out there for those who seek it. Lots of great writing by those who really research the topics from trial transcripts, FBI files, and other court documents. No one need be ignorant. Radaronline clearly has an agenda. Wonder who’s calling the shots?

    Reply
  8. Michelle from Oz

    ROL and National Enquirer really hit a low point when Prince died and they ran a cover story saying that he had AIDS for many years. But the official medical examiner’s report said it was from a Fentanyl overdose and there no ‘other significant conditions’ that contributed to his death. They just print whatever they want. Nothing is beyond limits.

    With this Michael Jackson ‘news’ story, to coincide with the heightened interest near the anniversary of his death, they put together an article from some very old information, mixed with some new material that was never a part of the original investigation. It was all put in a PDF and downloadable from the ROL site but after only a day or so, they removed it and replaced it with a shortened version that did not have the graphic pictures. Those pages had been removed, but some had saved the original version.

    The image with the ‘Jon Benet Ramsey’ theme was included in the original pdf but was claimed by this artist as a more recent work

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

    This is the article that started it all, with a link to the abridged pdf. I won’t directly link the new pdf, but it’s there on this page.

    http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-police-reports-search-warrant-pornography/

    Many other media outlets repeated the story but added some false and misleading terms, such as ‘child porn’. If actual child porn had been found at Neverland, MJ would have been arrested immediately because that is an illegal offence. The materials fell into the category of adult erotica, or ‘art’ works. Legal, even if they could be found somewhat distasteful or disturbing. That’s artistic licence.

    Another strange thing was ROL suggesting that MJ was taking Percocet pills for sex addiction. Percocets are most commonly prescribed of course for treatment of pain.

    I’m not defending Michael Jackson entirely. It’s quite possible he was inappropriate with kids and much of the original evidence still bothers me. But it’s a very complex case and those who intend to cover it should do their research instead of publishing these lazy messed up pieces of journalism such as by ROL.

    Reply
    • Hammer

      You should take a look at all the evidence it’s clear MJ was framed, he didn’t molest anyone, was not attracted to boys at all or any male for that matter.
      There is overwhelming evidence that Evan Chandler made up the molestation claim for money and revenge, coached Jordan for a month blackmailed MJ if he doesn’t pay they would accused him and after MJ refused to pay they did their very best to avoid a criminal trial and only go for money. Repeatedly actually.
      This revelation by a publisher who was approached by Ray Chandler right after the settlement was signed alone should tell you what the Chandlers were all about:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM

      http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/

      You have to ask why Chandler why Arvizo ?
      Why not the boys who spent the most time with him who had the most sleepovers with him? Brett Barnes, Mac Culkin, Frank Cascio, Eddie Cascio, Omer Batthi, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis and many many other boys and girls totally contradicting what the Chandlers and Arvizos said with their ever changing inconsistent stories.
      How come they still support him and praise him even now they are grown men and MJ is dead?
      That alone should tell you who he was and how he treated kids.

      Reply
  9. MJ Bad

    Gawker was put out of business by a 150 million dollar lawsuit backed by a billionaire who didn’t like what they reported. The Michael Jackson empire is also worth billions, and needs to protect itself. Of course they are going to try to shut down
    Radar.

    You can argue all you want about the photos found in MJs place to be ‘art’; nevertheless, in the police report (who are experts and have seen this before) these images, or MJ’s ‘regular’ porn, could be used to stimulate the boys. MJ follows the pattern of predators: pick young kids, isolate them from their parents, put them in vulnerable situations (alone in his room), in a situation where they either change clothes or wear less (i.e. pajamas), provide substances to lower their defences (‘Jesus Juice’) as well as materials to stimulate them (‘art’ photos, or regular porn like Hustler, which he was shown to have.) Note also that the ‘art’ books were found in the arcade room, not in some private library or den.

    Sandusky was protected because of the 100s of millions the football team brought to the university. He got away with it for years. Jimmy Saville (UK tv presenter) got away with it for years, also because of fame and money. Billy Preston. (Cosby too, for drugging & raping). There were no photos or video of Sandusky, Saville, Cosby, etc caught in the act, but lots of victims coming forward. And payoffs. (Also note the story of the two Coreys. Their perpretators have not been named for fear of reprisal, because they are very wealthy & prominent in the film industry.)

    It’s mentioned repeated that the original police report has ‘other material’. NOTE THAT THE TEXT REMAINED THE SAME. Some images were added — probably by a sloppy researcher who later found the books or images or works from the artists being discussed online and included them in. So it’s not that the images aren’t from those books or those authors, it’s just that they weren’t included in the original police report (and definitely shouldn’t have been presented if they were. They should have been shown as ‘examples of’.)

    Interestingly, LaToya mentioning the boys would stay in the room for days is pretty honest, clumsy, questioning, and believable statement (“There are a lot of Jordies out there”): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp_XA9ycbqk Who to believe, his sister who lived with him for years, or a superfan who just bought all his records and posters?

    MJ had many young boys over for sleepovers. He did show them porn: the police report mentions that two of MJs accusers fingerprints are on the porn mags found in his bedside briefcase, which the boys said MJ showed… etc etc.

    A lot of the recent rebuttals are “this is not new material”. So what? It’s still documentation. They also say “added info, faked from internet”. Okay, ignore the images, just go with the police text, which mentions all the images found. How many ‘regualar’ people have , many, many ‘art books’ depicting nude teen males or kids (though not explicit, or illegal, as the police report states over and over). How many adult males have multiple sleepovers with young boys not related?

    Absolute proof? No. But enough of a pattern and information that it should bother any human being (even a superfan who doesn’t want their fantasy destroyed.)

    Reply
    • You know who I am

      Trolls coming along from MJ Facts muddying the waters again. The article isn’t about Michael Jackson, 2 books found in 1993 or the books found in 2003 and what they mean to you.It is about the availability of articles that Radar posted saying these things.
      It’s about something called consciousness of guilt, meaning that the articles in question are next to impossible to find during an ordinary search and the changing of either the keywords connected to them or the titles that circumvent the search engines ability to show them.
      In other words it is looking like Radar Online is trying to cover its proverbial butt.

      Reply
      • I have no idea who you are

        The articles are still there and easily searchable on Google or through the ROL website, with the original titles and keywords. Try it. This story is just a beat up by a writer who doesn’t even know how to do a basic fact check.

        The only reason the final time archive.org was able to save a full snapshot of the original PDF was on July 10 is only because that’s when ROL changed the name of the file. There is no consciousness of guilt, ROL are a tabloid and care little for what anyone thinks of them or their stories. There is no butt covering.

        Not defending ROL in any way here, what they did was sloppy, badly written and sensationalist. If you want to point fingers over water muddying you should start with Daniel Adrian Sanchez.

        Nothing to see here folks, move along.

        Reply
        • Daniel Adrian Sanchez
          Daniel Adrian Sanchez

          Thanks for the obvious compliment, but despite having a high opinion of what you’ve written, I’d love to see examples of what you’re referring to specifically, as most other Digital Music News posters have clearly done, and what you have clearly failed to do.

          Now, as you can see from the current comments section, most users are split as to whether or not the accusations are true or false. Some users have provided me with their evidence, for which I’m very grateful to each user, irregardless of their position.

          The point of this story was not to promote what Radar Online has done, but rather, write a story investigating what it seemed at the moment the tabloid has tried to hide just before being hit with the $100 million lawsuit. Take for this piece what you will, but I can tell you with a heavy heart in no way was this a sensationalist piece. If I’ve been wrong on what I wrote, I will be quick to write an apology if you feel in any way this piece has offended you. But like I said earlier, thanks again for the compliment.

          Reply
          • Puzzles

            Daniel, I still don’t understand the purpose of this article.

            Your stated aims in the introduction were:

            Was Radar Online publishing a “real news story,” or was this just a sensationalist trash piece that got way bigger than what the tabloid expected it to?

            Were they now trying to bury this piece to avoid a huge payout to the Jackson Estate?

            What exactly is Radar Online trying to hide?

            Your answer to the first question is indeterminable, but we can all agree that the story that ROL published was trash.

            The second question wasn’t answered satisfactorily. ROL are not burying articles. Yes, the links you clicked on led to unrelated stories, but that is how many links work on ROL. Check a few stories and you will see. All Michael jackson stories are still on the ROL site just as they were before under /tag/michael-jackson/

            What you have failed to make clear, and what would have improved your story and it’s aims is this – the original PDF document that ROL used as a backbone for their story was subsequently altered. The original PDF contained many photos which were purportedly taken from the material referenced in the reports, of which most were subsequently proven to be from other sources. In it’s second iteration the PDF now attached to the article contains no photos.

            Was this a deliberate attempt to cover their tracks? Probably, although we don’t know for sure. It looks suspicious, although the change occurred before the letter flagging a possible lawsuit arrived from the Jackson family’s lawyer so perhaps it’s the case that an editor realized the error in the PDF and fixed it.

            Your third question wasn’t answered either. The photos in the original PDF had nothing to do with the originators of the lawsuit, Michael Jackson’s nephews so it’s not clear what they are trying to hide. Their sloppy journalism? Linking an innocent book to child and animal abuse images? ROL’s horrendous fact checking skills? It’s not clear.

          • Um, just to be helpful

            Daniel, a good place to start might be to contact the United States Library of Congress and ask them why they would accept a book such as one of the ones in question (Boys will be boys) as a piece of historical art to preserve it for historical purposes if it is an illegal work and obscene and deranged, etc.? Here’s it document number if you need it…
            Library of Congress TR680 .S15

            Next, I’d contact Amazon to ask them why they’re selling and allowed to deliver child pornography or illegal publications? Because both books that are talked about in this article and the report have been offered on Amazon a number of different times over the years. Again, links here if useful…
            https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214
            https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Georges-St-Martin/dp/B000OREMI0

            And while you have them on the line, another helpful step might be to ask them if they can tell you what page of A Room to Play is the JonBenet Ramsey lookalike on? Of course, they won’t be able to tell you because that photograph doesn’t actually exist in the real book. It was just wedged in on Radar’s fake report. A Room to Play was published in 2002 and the artist who took the JonBenet photo has publicly said that it was taken in 2009. So, almost seven years after the book went to print.

            Then, maybe you could follow up with the editors and/or owners of Radar Online and ask them why they inserted this photograph into the report and talked about it in their article when the picture doesn’t even exist as part of the book? If there was so much “damning” evidence against Michael Jackson contained in the official report, why did they have to add false “evidence” into it? Or why they put black bars over the genital areas of some men in the book when the men in the book photographs are simply wearing swim trunks? And pretty old, conservative ones at that. Or why there is now a photo of a child holding a dead animal in the report when there was no such picture in the original SB document nor any mention of anything of the like?

            I mean, those are just suggestions. But, if I was charged with investigating this “story” or its aftermath, that’s where I’d start.

          • TrueQuestions

            Daniel, a good place to start might be to contact the United States Library of Congress and ask them why they would accept a book such as one of the ones in question (Boys will be boys) as a piece of historical art to preserve it for historical purposes if it is an illegal work and obscene and deranged, etc.? Here’s it document number if you need it…
            Library of Congress TR680 .S15

            Next, I’d contact Amazon to ask them why they’re selling and allowed to deliver child pornography or illegal publications? Because both books that are talked about in this article and the report have been offered on Amazon a number of different times over the years. Again, links here if useful…
            https://www.amazon.com/Room-Play-Simen-Johan/dp/1931885214
            https://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Georges-St-Martin/dp/B000OREMI0

            And while you have them on the line, another helpful step might be to ask them if they can tell you what page of A Room to Play is the JonBenet Ramsey lookalike on? Of course, they won’t be able to tell you because that photograph doesn’t actually exist in the real book. It was just wedged in on Radar’s fake report. A Room to Play was published in 2002 and the artist who took the JonBenet photo has publicly said that it was taken in 2009. So, almost seven years after the book went to print.

            Then, maybe you could follow up with the editors and/or owners of Radar Online and ask them why they inserted this photograph into the report and talked about it in their article when the picture doesn’t even exist as part of the book? If there was so much “damning” evidence against Michael Jackson contained in the official report, why did they have to add false “evidence” into it? Or why they put black bars over the genital areas of some men in the book when the men in the book photographs are simply wearing swim trunks? And pretty old, conservative ones at that. Or why there is now a photo of a child holding a dead animal in the report when there was no such picture in the original SB document nor any mention of anything of the like?

            I mean, those are just suggestions. But, if I was charged with investigating this “story” or its aftermath, that’s where I’d start.

    • Hammer

      Excuse me but if a vile tabloid like Radar Online and their doctored PDF files and bogus stories about sex closets and non-existent child porn and his nephews being abused when they were clearly not is the best you have against Michael Jackson you have a pretty weak case.

      Do you always convict people based on tabloid reports or just MJ?
      Radar Online lied about the nephews being molested and them covering up a crime.
      They were asked to correct their article. They refused.
      This is why they are being sued and they should be punished.

      If a tabloid claimed that you are molested then fooled the police because you were paid off wouldn’t you try to get justice? Wouldn’t you be mad?

      Reply
      • JoM

        Exactly. Especially when you had a DA who was WILLING to put MJ away. No, they did not did it because those people they were lying on MJ. People use our system everyday to make false claims. This is NOT limited Michael either. In South Carolina this week, a woman was found to have LIED about being rape. Today, we have people lying about crimes just as much as crimes are happening. This is why we have to judge every case on its own merit.

        Reply
    • Hammer

      LaToya said what his felon husband told her to say and remember she also claimed that Safechuck’s parents got money well Safechuck claims no such thing in his lawsuit because it never happened. LaToya talked about checks written to families she never named, when challenged to show proof that such checks existed she couldn’t.
      LaToya, after she got rid of Jack Gordon, have never accused MJ of anything, she appologized and clearly stated in an interview with Barbara Walters that MJ was NOT a pedophile.
      If there had been a lot of Jordie out there you would have seen them join Jordie in 1993 or at least Gavin in 2005 and instead the boys kept defending MJ one after another.
      Jordan was an outlier because only he was a coached by a mentally ill father who got pissed off because his dream of MJ financing his screenwriter career was slipping away. The whole thing was about money and revenge and you know it.
      It’s no wonder that Jack Gordon never talked about anything remotely inappropriate between MJ and boys before the Chandler case made such stories lucrative even tough Gordon hated MJ long before Aug 1993.

      Look when you use LaToya -Gordon as a source you instantly lose credibility.

      Name just one honest person who did not have ulterior motives to accuse MJ who actually accused him. There is none. It’s crooked parents and their coached puppets, fired ex-employees who lost lawsuits, tabloid whores like Blanca Francia, the Quindoys or Murdoch and a woman beater felon with ties to the mob and his puppet wife.

      Oh and two books MJ didn’t even buy, didn’t even page, didn’t even remember having and wanted to send back to a fan with an inscription so innocent and non-sexual that it was used by the defense during closing arguments and the DA didn’t even dare to mention it.

      Reply
    • Amber

      Latoya admitted she LIED on Larry King because Jack Gordon would beat her. Jack Gordon was trying to make living off of the Jackson especially Michael. Remember Latoya came out in September 1993 defending MJ but in December 1993 she started talking about him. And if you look back, Latoya walked around with black eyes. And “regular” people having art books of teens and people, Look in people’s yards with the boy peeing in a pond, or if they are collectors of ART. I think people get caught up on the word “sleepover”. There are plenty of people who have people staying to their home but again some people want to make everything sexual. As for your last statement of information that should bother any human being, that is based on the evidence and the to know the FACTS of his case. I do not think Mike should have put himself in a position to be lied on like this but I understand. I had a grandmother who would pick up a stranger if they looked “ok’ with us in the car. was that smart? No but that did not make my grandmother a bad person. she let her kindness in helping people living in the country let her do it. and my grandmother and family let people “spend the night” at her home. This is why I understand Jackson in that regards.

      Reply
    • JoM

      No, fans and good thinking people want the truth; and it is very clear that Michael was innocent. Along with the FACTS of his case, Michael ALWAYS stood his ground, NEVER changed his story, NEVER seem to hide anything, ALWAY cooperated with authorities, and SING on his history cd about his treatment (a REAL pedo would not this because bring the issue up will make people keep talking about it. Michael song about it on his History cd). What you fail to see MJ bad is that some people can see through nonsense. Who cares if you do not agree with someone having certain arts books. That DOES NOT prove someone abused children. This would be like the thinking because someone dresses a certain way, he/she must be a criminal. That is STUPID especially when there are people who dress up who are criminals. And MOST pedophile DO NOT give you the impression that they are pedos. Most pedos will look normal, act normal, be normal. Look at Jared from the Subway commercial or the actor from “seventh Heaven” and many more even Sandusky, who was the coach of football which many see as a “man’s man sport”. Also, do not compare MJ case to men you listed. ALL cases are different. If that is the case, then we can compare Michael’s case to the many men who have been falsely accused, the Duke Lacrosse case, the Georgia Teacher who was accused and aquitted in 2007, etc. No, MJ bad, it seem that people like you do not want your fantasy of seeing Michael destroyed. No, these people falsely accused MJ and if you look at the actions of these people to be claiming to be VICTIMS, they look like liars. Michael was given NO special treatment. I have seen child abuse investigation and they are no where near the way they treated Michael which was far worst. Look at the how everyone was at the courthouse during Michael’s trial and saying the public has a right to know YET that same day or week there were other child abuse trials going on YET none of those reporters attended those trials. Give me a break

      Reply
      • Hammer

        This too is interesting. He gets some facts wrong (like Chandler never claimed he was molested in Neverland he did but he also said he was molested in Monaco and other locations) but overall sums up pretty well why the whole case against MJ is beyond ludicrous. The way he lived his life itself would make it impossible to be a serial molester. He would have been caught a thousand times:

        Reply
  10. Andy Corell

    Radar Online are a bunch of compulsive liars. unfortunately too many stupid people fall for their dirty tricks.

    This is all the police said about the 3T photos:

    Based on my training this type of material can be used as part of a grooming process by which people (those seeking to molest children) are able to lower their inhibitions of their intended victims and facilitate the molestation of said victim.

    It’s the standard comment the author attached to every item which had a nude person. That’s what the police did: they raided the ranch and selected anything which showed a naked man, woman or child then put the “this can be used to groom kids” spin on it. Pretty lame, actually.

    That the photos can be used to groom children does not mean that Jackson did it, in fact it was proven during the trial that he did not do it. No boy claimed that Jackson showed them those photos and Sneddon did not present any such theory in fact the photos were not even shown in court as Sneddon did not request their introduction. Radar should know this by reading the trial transcripts. Oh, they hate those pesky facts I forgot.

    The photos prove nothing except that Jackson participated in a photoshoot for a single cover which intended to appeal to 3T’s female fanbase.
    Radar presenting them as something dirty and incriminating let alone evidence that Jackson wanted to excite young boys (how does one do that with pictures of young men anyway?) is yet another tortuous attempt by the tabloid media to “prove” Jackson’s guilt with fabricated evidence. Shame on them.

    Reply
  11. MJ WORSE

    MJ was severely addicted to drugs, 30 xanax a day. Multiple puncture sites were found on his body from other drugs.

    He dangled his child out the window.

    He had (hundreds) of millions of dollars of debt when he died, spending way more than he could afford.

    He had extreme body dysmorphia.

    He had books on his bookshelf that contained pictures of nude young boys.

    At what point do you say “he is not a hero”. Was he exploited when he was young? Absolutely. But that doesn’t absolve him.

    Reply
    • Pen

      These statements you make are not facts but half-truths, speculation and sensationalism – the very lifebread of outlets like ROL. And none of them are indicative of pedophilia.

      Reply
      • MJ WORSE than WORSE

        There are multiple police reports and medical reports about his drug use.

        There is video of him dangling his kid out the window for the press/fans. It is very disturbing, and shows how out of touch he is with reality (or is so drugged up he barely knows what he’s doing): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ElddgJCgyg

        Lawsuit after lawsuit and reports from Billboard to Forbes stating he was borrowing enormous amounts of money, far more than he was taking in. Not paying for his purchases, not paying taxes, etc.

        Body dysmorphia is hate of one’s body. Like anexoria, it is a mental disease. One sign is continuous plastic surgery. Proof: look at his nose.

        Re: books, see police report. Not just one or two, but many. (If I have multiple books about new new airplanes, it means I like airplanes. Doesn’t matter if they were given to me, or I have 10,000 other books.)

        Not specucaltion, but facts. None indicative of pedophillia, for sure. But facts stated to illustrate that MJ fans will, no matter what, refuse to see him as anything but a hero/martyr.

        Reply
        • Hammer

          Your “facts” are the product of your imagination not reality.

          Police report (especially one written by Seddon’s witch-hunt department) cannot say anything about his actual drug use only what they supposedly found in his home. When why those drugs were taken they cannot know. And if MJ had been an addict they would have found much more drugs in 2003 anyway.
          Not even the Arvizos said they ever saw MJ dugged up and there were in Neverland for weeks. His doctor who treated him in 2003 Dr. Farchasian said on Dr. Drew that the media exaggerated MJ’s drug problem and MJ was in fact afraid of drugs. There’s no evidence he ever took anything without a doctor’s supervision. The police cannot and does not diagnose anyone as an addict. The mere presence of drugs in someone’s home is not proof of addiction let alone severe addiction.
          There is no medical record which proves he was severely addicted to anything. In fact if he had been his organs would have been damages but his autopsy report showed no such thing.
          Ferrigno, his bodyguards, Nurse Lee, Patrick Treacy , Tom Meserau, Kai Chez all interacted with him in the later years 2004-2009 none of them saw sign of addiction. MJ’s drug use was simply too random for him to be an addict.
          Again, the only medical records which were shown in court proved that he was dependent on painkillers and sedatives because of legitimate medical problems, he had chronic insomnia, dancer’s feet, chronic backpain due to the 1999 accident, lupus, and after 1993 chronic pain due to the scalp surgery (BTW one of the medical facts in 93 May-July which makes Chandler’s story ridiculous).
          Here’s Murray’s own expert talking about the Klein records and the fact that based on those he would not call MJ an addict:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBUGswAgV3A&t=19m39s
          Here’s Nurse Lees who dealt with addicts before saying that MJ didn’t act like one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wExHYeKgpgw&t=630s
          Dr. Treacy also said while living in Ireland MJ never asked him for any drugs and saw no sign of any addiction. Someone who is severely addicted to benzos, as you said he was , will not just stop taking them without severe withdrawal symptoms which MJ never had.
          In any case I don’t know what’s your point with this. People with chronic pain and insomnia often become addicted so what? Prince used opiods because of his chronic hip pain. That’s a side effect it’s still better than living with pain or not getting sleep for days or weeks. It’s not the same as getting drugs to get high. People like Prince or MJ are not junkies.

          Plastic surgery is not proof of body dysmorphia, if it was Cher and Joan Rivers should be called body dysmorphic too. Tons of plastic surgery on their faces. You don’t know MJ’s medical history and you don’t know what kind of surgery he had an why. There are procedures which can change the way you look but are not plastic surgery, fillers for example. Makeup tatoos can also change how you look. Sunken cheeks, which MJ had, alopecia which he also had can also affect how you look. Bad vigs, lighting, various facial expression can “change” your face too. He had lupus and keloid scars which could affect his breathing, lupus can fuck up your face google it. MJ was never diagnosed with body dysmorphia and in any case whatever he was doing it worked pretty well for a long time as he made the ladies go nuts for him even at age 47. Go watch the 2006 WMA on YouTube to see 20-something women scream their heads of for him. The fact is that he indeed had a too big nose and he would have looked ridiculous with that nose and snow white skin. In any case why do you even talk about this? Who cares how he looked like? People look the way the do and that’s it, irrelevant. If you want nosejobs have nosejobs. Who cares.

          No he didn’t have MANY books with nude boys not at all stop lying.
          Those books in the 2003 police report are way too random for a boy molester pedophile and why would he have those when he could have easily re-obtained the two pre 1993 books which actually showed frontal nudity?
          Sneddon couldn’t show a single picture of a frontal boy nude from the 2003 raid! Not one. In court he had to use the books from 1993 raid. So if he wanted to look at teenage penises between 1983-1998 how come he was not interested in that anymore after 1993? Nude does not mean pictures which show genitalia. The whole report mentions only 21 books out of about the 10 000 books which he had in Neverland.
          Only FIVE of those had nude or semi nude boys and girls and none if it showed male genitalia.
          Only three of those books were found within MJ’s private suite, among hundreds of other books by the way, and they were so innocent or irrelevant that Sneddon didn’t even bother to show them to the jury. They are all art photography books and of course there was no evidence that MJ bought them let alone that he ever opened them.
          Dressup Playacts and Fantasies of Childhood by Starr Ockenga
          and
          Rineke Dijkstra: Beach Portraits
          Room to play.
          Dressup was published in 1978 Beach Portraits and Room to play in Feb 2003 so you believe that between 1993 and 2003 MJ somehow got sexual gratification from those three artbooks which didn’t even show frontal nude boys but hey he had more than 80 hetero adult magazines and DVDs during the same period and that somehow does not indicative of his sexual interest.
          Don’t you see how contrived your entire argument is?
          Dressup is what he got off to between 1993-2003? Come on.

          The only other books in the 2003 police reports which included pictures of semi nude or nude boys and girls, but again, no frontal boy nudes, are
          Underworld Cronos. Both were found in the arcade among hundreds of other books, no evidence that MJ bought them no evidence he ever opened them and again how do those books prove that he was into teenage penises?
          The books have nude men women boys and girls alike, as art photography nothing sexual about them.

          Other than those five books the only publications which had nude children were the vintage nudist magazines but we know that MJ liked vintage photos of nude women as a store owner saw him buying them and those magazines did not show genitalia at all, that was the police in the 1930.
          The magazines focused heavily on the adult female form not on boys. Moreover the magazines were found in those cardboard boxes which got into Neverland sometimes after the Arvizos left and were full of bunch of books. Most likely MJ instructed one of his people to buy artbooks, as he did many times and vintage nudist magazines and he bought everything he could find that’s how that gay sex book which had artprints ended up in that cardboard box along with the artbooks which naked men. No fingerprints were introduced which proved that MJ ever looked into those nudist magazines or ever handled them. Based on the storeowner’s blog MJ would have kept the pictures of women and would have thrown the rest away when he would have had the time to check what were in those cardboard boxes.

          Bottom line: police does not find any frontal boy nudes in 2003 and that proves that MJ wanted to look at teenage boy genitalia? Hello?

          “I have multiple books about new new airplanes, it means I like airplanes. ”

          Oh really? So that means MJ was sexually attracted to naked men naked women naked little girls? After all he had multiple books with such pictures.

          He had many many hetero adult magazines so you admit he liked looking hetero adult sex?
          He had all those naked women in those old nudist magazines so he liked looking at naked women, right?

          Your argument is flawed. If you have a library of 10 000 books and among them are hundreds books about transportation and you have fans and people who work in transportation who often send you books they believe you would like because they know you are interested in transportation in general and a few of those books are about airplanes that that does mean you like airplanes.
          Unless we have fingerprint of other evidence that you wanted to have those books, opened them and looked at the pictures more than once we cannot possible know whether you like airplanes or just hoard books about transporation. We can only know that you have a big library with a few books about airplanes.
          Similarly, we know for a fact that MJ loved art and photography ever since he was a child and loved coffee table books and even loved adult nude photography (Greg Gorman was one of the nude photographer who worked with him). We also know that he loved babies and children so his fans sent him books about children, books about art photography and some sent him books which had nude children (the one who called herself Rhonda). None of that proves that MJ himself loved to look at nude boys.

          Reply
      • JoM

        That is what fools who want to believe MJ abused kids. They can NOT give facts from REAL court transcripts but tabloid bull and half truths trash and have to plant FAKE stories and doctor up pictures. When you are dealing with TRUTH, there is no need to lie or doctor up anything or bring up nonsense in the topic. Regardless what these kinds of fools think, Michael will always be loved because most people knew this nonsense was bull. That was why MJ was still able to sell MILLIONS of cd even before his death and sell out 50 shows in mintues; but as often, the haters get the attention and bark the loudest.

        Reply
        • MJ Worstest

          That’s why he was going broke to the tune of 400 million a year. People saw enough of the facts in North America and stopped buying his albums. The rest of the world maybe is still ignorant to the facts. (See also smoking rates in N.A. vs. India, Middle East, etc.) You’ve been lied to by billion dollar corporations.

          Reply
          • Hammer

            You mean “facts” like MJ abducting the four Arvizos after the Bashir special aired while him being in Florida and the Arvizos begging Chris Tucker to taken them to him?
            “Facts” like MJ giving wine to Gavin on the airplane when even the DA’s own witnesses Chris Carter and Cyntia Bell testified that MJ didn’t share his drink with anyone on that trip?
            “Facts” like MJ telling Gavin if boys don’t masturbate they will rape women when Gavin previously said his grandmother told him that?
            “”Facts” like Gavin and Arvizo seeing MJ fully naked he upstairs bedroom…except Gavin didn’t even know that MJ’s skin was brown and white not fully white?

            Oh yes the American media sure knew how to present those “facts” and brainwash the plebs , this is a country after all which elected Bush twice so I don’t expect much critical thinking from them. They still believe
            MJ gave Jesus Juice to Arvizo who was caught in the wine cellar with an open bottle then lied about it under oath.

            You are wrong actually. After the Chandler settlement HIStory still sold 7 million in the US and Thriller 25 which was released after the Arvizo circus was No. 1 in the US catalog chart. It was a commercial success for a remix album to sell three million in 2006.
            It was never his albums which brought in the most money but his tours. And given that the UK media was just as horrible as the US media during and after the trial the fact that he sold out 50 shows in the O2 withing just a few hours and demand was enough to sell out at least 80 shows just shows you if MJ had wanted to he could have made tens of millions

            His debt was the result of a number of factors, the biggest is that he stopped working, except for the remixes, his lost control over his money and was ripped off , he was sued and didn’t want to go to court anymore so he just threw money at them to leave him alone and he kept spending because hey he was a always big spender.

            The rest of the world was not brainwashed by the sex maniac rating hungry disgusting US media you know? That’s the difference.

    • JoM

      What heck does this have to do with the issue we are talking about? He had ART books which a fan gave him and those books are in the libraries and other PUBLIC places (I know people who love Roman art from that era). Michael had HETRO sexual porn which you did not talk about since you want to bring up everything else something MOST men have in their home. As for his spending, so what. MJ made those MILLIONS so he can spend his money anyway he wanted to spend it and he left enuf assets back here to take care of his bills (his estate is worth billions). As for meds, Michael had pain from the pepsi accident and back pain from a fall and a sleep problem. No one said he was perfect (neither are you, me, and no one else). And there is NOTHING MJ has to absolve. He did NOTHING proven in court regardless if you want to believe it or not.

      Reply
      • MJ Worstest

        Again, no one cares if he is gay. Or has porn featuring adults. (Btw the hetero porn could have been used to arouse the young boys.) The issue is why he had young boys over for sleepovers in his bed, and why he had multiple books with pictures of nude kids.

        Also added the above predator pattern (get them young enough so they aren’t independent, separate them from parents, give them alcohol, etc., isolate them from observers (your room at night), stimulate them with porn, groom them with ‘oh that’s normal’ discussions, put them in a situation where they are barely clothed (bathrobe, bathing suit, pjs), lavish them with money/gifts/trips as a type of reward) is the fact that pedos put themselves in positions near kids: boy scout leaders, catholic priests, jimmy saville and his child hospital work, Sandusky around young (legal but powerless) males, Hollywood producers/directors with young casts (see Corey Feldman, and multiple allegations against Bryan Singer)…

        … add to that MJs ‘save the children’ stuff, and the amusement park at Neverland.

        See also the movie Spotlight for how tough it is for the media to actually cover cases of pedophiles.

        Reply
        • Hammer

          1. Zonen did try to use the books with nude men and the one gay book to convince the jury that MJ was gay and that somehow proved he molested boys. Of course he ignored the books with nude women and girls and also argued that MJ lost interest in boys once they became 14, so he was all over the place as usual. You haters cannot make a coherent case against this guy.

          2. MJ bought hetero adult magazines for 12 years they ran from 1991 to 2003, he kept buying them even after the Arvizos left which itself prove he didn’t need them to arouse boys as he would have had enough magazines for that purpose already , more than 80. No need for that many adult magazines to groom boys, that’s nonsense. Some of those magazines were Plumpers and Over 50, how does one groom young boys with those? Just more nonsense.
          Over those 12 years no kid or parent ever claimed that they even knew about the magazines, Chandler never mentioned them and MJ kept buying them during the very period when he supposedly was grooming and molesting Chandler. Why? Because he was interested in hetero adult sex not sex with Chandler, that’s why. There is no other reasonable explanation.
          The first time anyone learned that MJ had such magazines was when the Arvizo boys broke into his room in Feb 2003, rummaged through his closet, found the magazines. MJ never showed porn to them, Gavin and Star lied about that too like they lied about many other things. They contradicted each other about when and how MJ supposedly showed them the magazines, and Star claimed MJ showed him a magazines which wasn’t even published yet when the Arvizos were on the ranch.
          Brett Barnes, Mac Culkin, Wade Robson all testified under oath that they had no idea MJ had such magazines and Francia never mentioned them either.
          Sneddon showed no fingerprint evidence that any kid other than the Arvizo boys touched those magazines.
          So the evidence if overwhelming that MJ did not use them to arouse young boys.
          He in fact did a good job hiding those magazines from everyone throughout all those years.

          “The issue is why he had young boys over for sleepovers in his bed, ”

          1. Because he grew up sharing rooms and bed with others all the time, he shared a bed with Marlon thousands of times,
          he also slept with adults like Bobby Taylor: when he was a kid:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGcGsx3psZI#t=37
          because the kids followed him like ducks and wanted to be with him all the time (June Chandler, Joy Robson, Paris Jackson, Frank Cascio, Karlee Barnes, Mark Ronson all confirmed this phenomenon) and asked their parents and MJ whether they can sleep in his room, because MJ couldn’t say no to kids he didn’t want to hurt their feelings so he didn’t turn them away, because he didn’t see anything wrong with sharing his room and bed with others he saw it as an act of kindness nothing more. That’s it. You are making a big deal out of nothing. Sleeping has nothing to do with sex and I don’t know any serial molester who has countless sleepovers with boys and girls while their parents can walk in the room at any moment.
          He shared his bed with boys for the same reason why he shared his bed with girls like Alison V Smith or Simone Jackson or 19 year old Brett Barnes or with is adult sister LaToya. Bedsharing for him was just that: sharing a bed. He slept on one side the other person on the other and that was it.
          This is how Brett Barnes described the experience in 1993 and pay attention to how nonchalant he was about it. If he had been abused
          he would have looked uncomfortable while talking about it but he was just the opposite, like yeah what’s the big deal?
          He was also genuinely shocked to hear that MJ supposedly did something bad to a child and you can see the disbelief on his face.
          Keep in mind the Chandlers and Gutierrez dragged Brett into their nasty story trying to boost their case. They lied about him
          just like they lied about MJ. Brett was clearly not molested, everything about his behavior, body language testimonies and actions this day prove that.
          And if Brett Barnes who was the same age as Chandler and even looked like him and shared a bed with MJ many times
          was not molested then Chandler wasn’t either, nothing else would make sense.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOr2NpMIDnU
          Corey Feldman, who also had sleepovers with MJ and MJ gave him the bed because he considered it impolite to take it himself,
          wrote he reacted to the Chandler allegations the same way, with total disbelief he just thought it was ridiculous as he knew how real pedos behaves and operated and MJ was nothing like them.

          When MJ slept over in other people’s home he slept whereever the host wanted him to sleep.
          When he lived with the Lewis family they gave him a room he slept there. When he was in June Chandler’s home Jordan wanted him to sleep in his room so he slept there. When he was living with the Cascios in 2007 he got room in the basement he slept there while his kids slept with the nanny, interesting noone has any problem with that. I guess because she is a woman. Hypocrisy.

          2. Read Frank Cascio’s book Chapter Misunderstood if you want to understand how and why kids ended up sleeping in his room. Frank and his siblings had the most sleepovers with MJ and were NOT molested. Noone was.

          ” why he had multiple books with pictures of nude kids. ”

          1. The Library of Congress has the exact same books with nude kids! Why? Because it’s a huge library with an art photography section that’s why.
          MJ had them for the same reasons why he had multiple ART books with nude men and nude women. He was an artist who loved art and photography all his life and who was a hoarder of books. He got books from fans and photographers too and when you have that many artbooks as he had it’s inevitable that at least a few of them would have nude people as the history of art photography is the history of nude photography.
          Again, you are making a big deal out of nothing. Why do you think they found Room to play TWICE in Neverland? Because he needed it twice? He didn’t even know he already had it! But we are supposed to believe he was sooo interested in it, right? Why don’t you ask the very photographers who made those pictures why they made them? The publishers why they published them. The bookstores which sold them. The Libraries which have them. Maybe you would understand why someone can be interested in the artistic presentation of the human form.
          Having said that, unless you have fingerprint or other evidence that MJ even opened those books you don’t have a case.
          There is no evidence that MJ wanted to look at pictures of nude kids. There is plenty of evidence that he wanted to look at pictures of nude women and hetero adult sex, though.

          2. He was not accused of molesting kids but BOYS. So where are the frontal nude boy pictures the police found in 2003? That was what you think he was interested in. Instead they found a bunch of pictures of nude women, a few books with nude men and few artbooks which only had frontal nude girls. Sneddon coudln’t show any frontal nude boy picture except the two books from the 1993 raid and those two books actually prove MJ was not a pedo. Go read above why.

          MJ was nothing like those predators and his entire life and circumstances would have made it impossible for him
          to be a serial molester. You forget that this was one of the most scrutinized man on earth who was virtually never alone and with the tabloid media constantly speculating about him and targetting anyone who had some contact with him for some juicy story. Given those facts if MJ
          had been guilty no way he would have been that open about having those boys with him all over the world! And no way
          he would have built a place like Neverland as it would have crossed his mind that others may start to think about what he was
          actually doing. The very fact that he behaved like he was totally unconcerned itself proves that he was indeed unconcerned
          which he wouldn’t have been if he had molested one kid after another. Kit Culkin called him a scaredy-cat, others said he was paranoid
          but yeah we should believe the one thing he was not paranoid about was someone starting to speculate about him and boys
          or someone spilling the beans.
          SImilarly, talking about sharing his bed with kids proves that he had nothing to hide. Noone who uses bedsharing to molest would invite a Martin Bashir into his life for 8 months and tell him that he slept in a bed with many children. No pedo ever did that! But we should believe that
          MJ of all people, who was accused before, who knew that Sneddon had a hard on to get him, who knew how the media treated him
          he was the only pedo who choose to advertise to the whole world that he shared his bed with kids.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          1. Get them young enough so they aren’t independent? What does that mean? MJ befriended 4 year old Amy Agajanian and 4 year old Frank Cascio, both of whom had nothing but good things to say about him. But then he befriended 13 year old Chandler who , thanks to his scumbag father, accused him. MJ loved babies, toddlers, teenagers all children. He had no such pattern of getting them young enough, besides both Chandler and especially Arvizo were not the type who would have been good target for a pedophile they knew way too much about sex already and they were clever and 100% into girls wouldn’t have tolerated any molestation by a guy.
          Name just one boy molester who is attracted to boys between 7-14 who befriended as many girls and women as MJ did, who loved babies like MJ did ever since they themselves were kids.

          2. He didn’t separate them from the parents at all quite to the contrary! The parents were almost always around read Kit Culkin’s book, him being around when his kid were on the ranch was one of the reasons why it didn’t even occur to him that MJ was a pedophile.
          In fact MJ spent most of his time with Chandler in June Chandler’s home which a predator would not do. The very fact that MJ slept over in the Safechuck home,Robson’s home, June’s home Evan’s home is proof that he had nothing to hide. Sandusky never invited the parents to his home an certainly didn’t go to the father’s home to molest his kid while the father could walk in at any moment!
          Name just one predator who has as many sleepovers with kids in their parents’s homes as MJ had.

          3. MJ didn’t give alcohol to any kid which is why he was acquitted on the misdemeanour charges too even though those were no-jail time counts. It was proven during the trial that the Arvizo boys lied about MJ giving Gavin alcohol on the airplane and it was proven that the Arvizo boys were stealing alcohol behind Mj’s back and not getting it from him. It’s very telling that before the Arvizos no one accused MJ of giving alcohol to minors, Chandler Francia never said that either. The Arvizos were con artists who falsely accused NINE people. They were not abducted, not falsely imprisoned not kidnapped, not intoxicated not molested. Get over it. The evidence that they lied, just like they lied when they falsely accused the JC Penny guards of molestation and false imprisonment, is overwhelming.

          4. MJ didn’t isolate any kid from observers quite to the contrary. The parents could walk in his room at any time they wanted and his maids even had keys to his room not to mention his security chief who was former LAPD sergeant also said he had a key to his room and was never told not to go in there. Fact: Neverland was filled with potential witnesses it was not an isolate place at all! June Chandler, Joy Robson, Lisbeth Barnes all testified that they could go in his room whenever they wanted. Mac Culkin testified that MJ had an open door policy , Kit Culkin confirmed it in his book. The alarm wouldn’t have protected MJ as the staff and the parents knew how it worked and just by running through the hallway would have circumvented it the parent or staff couldn’t have been at the door in a few seconds. Moreover, obviously there was no alarm in June’s home, Evan’s home, Safechuck’s home, Robson’s home so MJ was not concerned about being protected in those places…because he had nothing to hide, Occam’s razor.
          Name just one predator who regularly invites the parents, both mothers and fathers to be on his ranch while he wants to molest their kids.

          5. He didn’t simulate any kid with porn, again you ignore the evidence which was revealed during the trial. MJ was hiding his porn from everyone he didn’t show them to kids. Mark Ronson actually described how MJ freaked out when Mark tried to show him porn on TV! The exact opposite of what Arvizo said. Ronson didn’t have a reason to lie Arvizos did and they did lie.
          It’s no wonder that the only kids who claimed MJ showed them porn were the Arvizos. They were the only ones who went into MJ’s room while he was not there and rummaged through his things and found the magazines then Star even stole some of them.
          Name just one boy molester predator who has as many hetero adult magazines, DVDs and hetero stuff on his computer as MJ had.

          6. MJ didn’t groom any kid with “oh that’s normal” discussion. The only ones who ever accused him are all proven liars, they all had ulterior motives. He never had a credible accuser so just because they threw in this cliche of him telling them that’s it normal ( that’s the BS that Canadian boy also said remember? He said MJ molested him and he didn’t even meet him. If he could tell those lies what makes you think Chandler and Arvizo couldn’t? It’s easy to accuse others. Everyone can do it. That won’t make it true.) And he most certainly didn’t think molestation was normal, read the lyrics of Do you know where your children are which he wrote before the Chandler allegations when he didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, ask Taj Jackson how MJ behaved when he learned that Taj was molested by an uncle or read the note MJ wrote to Taj’s mother about molesters. MJ knew very well that molestation hurt kids and it was very wrong.
          Name just one predator who only have such fishy dubious and greedy accused as MJ had.

          7. MJ didn’t put any kid in situations where they were barely clothed. The kids always wore whatever they wanted to wear and just because he was in the Jacuzzi with them does not mean he wanted to molest them. Every guest in Neverland could use the Jacuzzi and they did, adults kids alike. So what? Wearing PJs is barely clothed to you? LOL It’s called FULLY clothed which they were and so was MJ, not the least because he did his best to hide his skin disease. Mac Culkin for that matter slept in Neverland in his day clothes.
          Name just one predator who was as ashamed of his skin as MJ was and tried his best to hide it from everyone.

          8. MJ gave many things to many people not just Chandler or Arvizo or Robson. He was simply a very generous person who lavished Mark Lester’s daughters with gifts, lavished Laura Chaplin with gifts, lavished the Cascio family with gifts lavished Chris Tucker with gifts, lavished Cory Rooney with gifts, lavished homeless people with 100 dollar bills, lavished Ryan White with a Mustang, anyone. Men, women boys and girls.
          The Chandlers didn’t get more from MJ than the Barnes and the Barnes to this day are his most ardent defenders, Brett was not molested and that alone proves Chandler was not molested either as it would make no sense to believe that he has two boys who look alike. He was simply a big spender who gave a lot to a lot of people throughout his life and that’s the only pattern in his behavior not that he gave gifts to groom kids. That’s bullshit.
          Name just one predator who was as consistently generous with as many people as MJ was.

          9. Trips were rewards? So he rewarded Marielle Tourelle when he traveled with her in Poland for what? He rewarded 17 year old Gotham Chopra who traveled with him in 1992 for what? He rewarded the Cascios who traveled with him to South America for what? He rewarded the Barnes who traveled with him for what? He rewarded Mac Culkin when they went with the Goldsteins to Bermuda for what? He was not molested and he was a rich kid anyway. How did he reward Sean Lennon, another rich kid? Or Emmanuel Lewis? Or Bob Good? Or Bryton McClure? Or Michael Jacobshagen? He rewarded Lisa Marie and his kids and Omer Batthi who traveled with him to South Africa for what? None of those people were molested. Once again you ignore the full picture: MJ traveled with a lot of people, boys girls men women among them with the Chandlers and the Safechucks. They were nothing special and no it was not a reward for anything. MJ just liked to travel and be with people he believed he could
          trust and whom he believe loved him for who he was not what he had.
          Name just one predator who traveled with men, women, boys and girls like MJ did.

          11. Yes pedos put themselves in positions to be close to kids to get easy access to kids. They have to do that because otherwise they couldn’t select vulnerable boys or girls. And their job is their cover to make it look like it’s perfectly normal that they are around kids so often. That’s why Sandusky became a coach and founded Second Mile that’s why Saville went to hospitals! Every Sandusky victim who testified met him through Second Mile.
          And Saville looked for victims among patients.
          But compare that to MJ!
          None of his accusers were vulnerable in anyway quite to the contrary. Chandler, Arvizo, Robson were all confident even pre-matured kids with good relationships with their parents. Safechuck in a stable nuclear family, how was he vulnerable? And look at the other kids who were his friends? The Cascios, Brett Barnes all in stable loving nuclear families, confident smart kids to a point that Brett and his sister both said even as a kid he knew right from wrong was a strong and wouldn’t have tolerated any molestation, period. Emmanuel Lewis made a PSA about molesters at age 13! He would have been the last person a pedophile had picked! Mac Culkin was described by his father as fearless, how was he vulnerable? How would he have been a good pedo target? Omer Batthi, same. Stable nuclear family, not neglected not weak not vulnerable in any way.
          His charity Heal the World had absolutely nothing to do with any of his accusers! In fact a pedo would have used Heal the World to get victims as busloads of kids were taken to Neverland. But the fact is that most of the time MJ wasn’t even there and none of those kids ever complained. Not one!
          His accusers came from families who wanted to get close to MJ and tried to get to him! The Chandlers tried it twice before they succeeded. The Arvizos asked Carol Lemere to introduce them to MJ and when MJ avoided them Gavin complained that he couldn’t reach him on the phone. Robsons were desperate to locate him in 1990 called around so they could show him Wade’s videos. Then they grabbed every opportunity they could do be with MJ when he was in LA. Even with that Robson barely spent any time with MJ between 1993-1997 as MJ spent most of his time ouside of California. Not exactly what a predator would do, don’t you think?

          Unlike Saville Mj didn’t visit hospitals ever since he was a kid because he wanted to molest anyone. He went there to bring joy into those sick kids’s life he wanted to help and if you deny that you are simply a liar or plain evil. MJ worked his ass off to help sick, abused, injured kids that was the only reason why he let the Arvizos onto his ranch, why he contacted Ryan White, why he befriended Dave Dave, Mandy Porter, David Sonnet, Donna Aschlock and many other sick boys and girls all over the world.
          Name just one pedo who cared about l children and babies all his life all over the world like MJ did.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          Name just one pedo who ever built a place like Neverland.
          No pedo ever needed a place like Neverland to get victims!
          But you believe that Michael Jackson of all people who had fans under the age of 14 in the tens of thousands he would need to spent tens of millions on a zoo, amusement park, trains, arcade, movie theater because
          otherwise no way Jordan Chandler or Rosbon or Safechuck would want to spend time with him!
          And then after spending all that money on a totally unnecessary “flypaper” he fills the place with adults to have witnesses for his criminal activity, firemen, chefs, maids, gardeners, technicians, managers AND policemen to so security in the very place where he wants to molest kids.
          And then he gives his maids the key to the very room where he wants to molest kids so they can walk in and catch him.
          And then he invites the parents to the very ranch where he wants to molested their kids.

          Don’t you see how totally ridiculous your theory is?
          the very fact that MJ built Neverland proves that he was not molester and he had nothing to hide!

          You know why he build Neverland? Because he had the money to have everything he loved as a child and couldn’t get often enough! He always loved animals, always loved amusement parks , always loved moved cartoons, trains, Disney, Peter Pan, candy, water balloon fights, hide and seek , pillow fights he simply loved those things and had them. That’s it.
          Wanna no more why Neverland was build? Then ask the very guy who built that amusement park,
          Rob Swinson, this is his facebook page. Not surprisingly he has a totally different opinion about MJ than you.
          He was there you were not. He knew him you did not:
          https://www.facebook.com/rob.swinson.75?fref=ts
          Here’s an interview with them, he called MJ one of the most kindhearted people he ever met:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRucWXcTd44

          Why do you think he rented out amusement parks for himself and his crew all over the world?
          Why do you think he visited every zoo that he could find?
          Why do you think he built Hayvenhurst which was a smaller version of Neverland?
          Do you think he wanted to molest kids in the very house where his father, mother and siblings lived?

          Ridiculous. Nothing about Mj’s life fits what pedophiles do.

          Ask Corey Feldman. He was abused by real pedos and also knew MJ as a kid.
          This is what he wrote about MJ in his book:

          Feldman’s childhood was so troubled that he looked to his friend Michael Jackson, introduced to him by director Steven Spielberg, for normalcy. “Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place,” he writes. “Being with Michael brought me back to my innocence. When I was with Michael, it was like being 10 years old again.” Feldman stresses in the book that Jackson never once acted inappropriately toward him.

          http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/22/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/corey-feldman-sexual-abuse-book-ew/index.html

          Predator, my ass.

          You have a bunch of crazy ideas about MJ and you think your twisted fantasy is who he really was.
          He was instead a childlike, kindhearted, gentle soul who cared about children with all his heart and was cruelly exploited by scumbags like the Chandlers and Arvizos and now Robson and Safechuck all for MONEY!

          Reply
    • Hammer

      There is no evidence that he was severly addicted to drugs in fact an expert during the AEG trial testified that he was dependent but not addicted and even Murray’s own expert refused to say based on the medical records that he was addicted.
      There is no evidence that he was addicted to benzos let alone that he took 30 Xanax a day. In fact there is evidence that he didn’t want to take the benzos from Murray as they didn’t work.
      MJ used painkillers and sedatives because of legitimate medical problems not because he wanted to get high.
      Punctures were found because Murray sedated him with IV propofol for weeks.
      That does not mean he ever self-administered anything. And puncture sites themselves are not proof of addiction. Many people get drugs because they need to get drugs to live without pain.

      He didn’t dangled Blanket he showed him to his fans who were screaming his name and it was bad judgment but he meant no harm. People who think they are in control of the situation may not sense the danger which outsiders see. Steve Irwin did the same when he fed crododiles while holding his baby or what about this Steve Jobs?
      http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QiZRrpbooXM/T23YYksxYtI/AAAAAAAAAV0/oYj7YLDMaAA/s1600/steve_jobs.jpg

      He didn’t have control over his money in his later years and some took advantage of that including Thome Thome but it just shows why he settled in 1994. He lost much more than 20 million because of that trial as it pretty much destroyed him. BTW it was his money and he spent hundreds of millions on others so what’s your point?

      There is no evidence he had extreme body dysmorphia and stop diagnosing people whose medical records your don’t know.

      He had thousands of books among then a FEW which had artistic pictures of nude men, nude women nude boys and nude girls so what? Every large library with an art section will have at least a few of such books do you want to trash the photographers, publishers, bookstores, libraries which have those books or just MJ? Hypocrite.
      In any case there is no evidence that MJ ever paged any of those books let alone that he liked the pictures. Why do you judge someone because he has a bunch of artbooks? How is that wrong let alone a crime?

      You tell lies about him, lies of omission, you pick on him for things other people also do and you lecture others about what to think of him?
      Absolve him from what?
      He never hurt anyone and was a far better person than most, especially you.

      Reply
      • MJ More Worstest

        Ok, I there’s my proof showing that MJ superfans are unreasonable and will never get past the cognitive dissonance of fame with terrible, terrible behavior. In no way can you ever justify dangling your kid out a window. (Your Steve Jobs photo has the 7 year old kid about a foot over water. Not the same thing as 8 floors above pavement. MJ knew he was that high, because he was looking down at everybody. The terrifying part is when he actually drags the kids shin, which is caught, over the railing.)

        Of course MJ meant no harm… but now that I think about it, that’s probably what a pedo thinks when he’s predating on a kid: “I mean no harm” or “I’m showing my love for him” or “It’s all innocent…”

        As for the body dysmorphia… I mean… have not seen pictures of him over the years? The sever surgery he’s done to his face? And what do you think the mask is about? It’s reflective of some kind of shame — whether it’s about his body or some other things. Even he wanted to change, or at least hide, who he was.

        Reply
        • Hammer

          Oh the desperation. You don’t have real proof against this guy or a credible accuser so you grab everything remotely negative and use it to justify your irrational hatred. I’m sure you consider that he dressed Bubbles like he was human also proof of pedophilia. Whatever.

          Who the heck justified it? It was stupid and he apologized but good people can do irresponsible things because they think they are fully in control of the situation. Whether the kid is a baby or 7 years old is irrelevant and whether there is water there or not is irrelevant. If Steve Jobs had dropped her she could have hit her head and suffer a freak accident. Look : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QiZRrpbooXM/T23YYksxYtI/AAAAAAAAAV0/oYj7YLDMaAA/s1600/steve_jobs.jpg
          He was irresponsible just like MJ.
          And so was Steve Irwin who fed crocodiles while holding his baby. How do you justify that? That went on for a minutes not just few seconds. Or videos on YouTube where parents let their dog sit on their babies head! I wouldn’t let any dog anywhere near a baby.
          I myself did something even more irresponsible than just holding a baby over a balcony for 2 seconds, I even injured someone in the process so I know what it’s like to not think about the consequences of your actions. It can happen to anyone. I’m also sure if he had not communicated with his fans through hotel windows and balconies for years he wouldn’t have done it. There was another occasion when he showed Prince to his fans lifting him up at the window.

          ” The terrifying part is when he actually drags the kids shin, which is caught, over the railing.”

          LOL then be terrified it’s all on your mind, buddy. His shin was not caught. Just because your imagination terrifies you does not mean that there was REAL danger. You know why Blanket didn’t fall? Because the laws of physics didn’t allow him to fall, MJ held him strongly everything else is just your crazy fantasy.
          The bottom line is nobody got injured because MJ indeed held him tight
          and because he held him tight he didn’t perceive the situation as dangerous.

          “Of course MJ meant no harm… but now that I think about it, that’s probably what a pedo thinks when he’s predating on a kid: “I mean no harm” or “I’m showing my love for him” or “It’s all innocent…””

          1. Man, you and your convoluted “logic”. How the heck does showing Blanket over the balcony to his fans prove that he was a pedophile? The two have nothing to do with each other. If MJ had a pattern of putting kids in danger and being irresponsible maybe you would have a point. But the opposite is true. He was very protective of kids whether it was warning one of the Ma twins not to bite a CD or making sure that Omer didn’t fall from a three here:
          https://www.instagram.com/p/BHF8PiygXF5/?taken-by=kidslife&hl=en
          or making sure that the seats on the carousel in Neverland were safe
          or instinctively throwing a glove at an unknown man who appeared in the middle of the night while he and the Cascio kids were watching the stars or dropping everything when he heard that Amy Agajanian fell from a horse in Neverland or just his compassion for sick, injured starving kids ever since he himself was a child and later as an adult for Dave Dave, Bela Farkas, Donna Aschlock, David Sonnet, Ryan White and yes Gavin Arvizo.
          One stupid incident is not indicative of his character. His lifelong commitment to help kids and his gentle interaction with thousands of kids all over the world is. You cannot tell when he became a monster amid all this because it never happened:
          https://s30.postimg.io/kdflg679d/hospital.jpg

          2. If every parent who ever unintentionally endangers
          their kids was a pedo we would have a pedo in every second home.

          3. A pedo may very well think that sex with children does not harm them but MJ thought that molestation was very much harming children as it is obvious from his reaction to the molestation of Taj Jackson, the note he wrote to his mother: http://www.allforloveblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/letter-to-Dee.jpg
          with which he wanted to educate his nephews about how to protect themselves from molester or the lyrics of Do you know where your children are?
          which he wrote years before the Chandler allegations when he didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, it came from his heart just like all his lyrics and all his art. Noone who thinks molestation is OK would write let alone sing a song like that!.

          4. “have not seen pictures of him over the years”
          Keep your pshychobabble for yourself. You don’t know Mj’s medical record, you don’t know what was done to his face you don’t know why and you are and idiot if you try to diagnose him based on pictures which can look very different depending on makeup, lighting, angle, expression, wigs, not to mention he aged like everyone else, he had alopecia, he had vitilgo and discoid lupus so of course he covered his face that’s when he first started to wear the mask after he was diagnosed with lupus in 1984
          I don’t see any severe surgery on his face, he had nosejobs, a cleft was put in his chin and he had facelifts. If that is severe then please diagnose Joan Rivers and Cher with body dysmorphia. It’s reflective of some kind of shame, you know? Why else would all those people in Hollywood have plastic surgery left and right? They all want to change and hide who they are. Ridiculous.

          You know very well that his father and brothers were teasing him for his big nose, and yes it was indeed big. You know that he had vitigo and lupus and yes he was ashamed of how his skin looked which is one reason why he didn’t expose that to Jordan Chandler or any other kid!
          He didn’t want to hide who he was he wanted to look good for his fans David Gest said he wanted to look perfect as he was a perfectionist never satisfied with anything including himself but you keep ignoring a little fact: for many many years, even with vitligo and lupus , somehow managed to look so good that he had this effect on women all over the world:

          Reply
        • Hammer

          Oh the desperation. You don’t have real proof against this guy or a credible accuser so you grab everything remotely negative and use it to justify your irrational hatred. I’m sure you consider the fact that he loved apes, rats and snakes also proof that he was a pedophile. Whatever.

          Who the heck justified it? It was stupid and irresponsible and he apologizes but he meant no harm and that’s a fact. People can do irresponsible things because they think they are in fully control of the situation as MJ believed he was because he held Blanket tight. Whether the kid is baby or 7 years old is irrelevant and whether there is water there or not is irrelevant too. If Steve Jobs had let her go she could have hit her head and suffer a freak accident.
          Look : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QiZRrpbooXM/T23YYksxYtI/AAAAAAAAAV0/oYj7YLDMaAA/s1600/steve_jobs.jpg
          Not to mention Steve Irwin when he fed crocodiles while holding his baby. How do you justify that? That went on for a minutes not just few seconds. Or Tom Cruise holding his baby over deep waters. Or videos on YouTube where parents let their dog sit on their babies head! I wouldn’t let any dog anywhere near a baby.
          I myself did something even more irresponsible than just holding a baby over a balcony for 2 seconds, I even injured someone in the process so I know what it’s like to not think about the consequences of your actions. But you make it sound like MJ intentionally put Blanket in danger and just dangled him for the hell of it or for some kind of stunt and that’s not true.

          ” The terrifying part is when he actually drags the kids shin, which is caught, over the railing.”

          LOL then be terrified your problem if you are overeacting to the situation where noone was even injured let alone fataly.
          It’s all in your mind, buddy. His shin was not caught. Just because your imagination terrifies you does not mean that there was REAL danger. You know why Blanket didn’t fall? Because the laws of physics didn’t allow him to fall, MJ held him strongly everything is just your crazy fantasy.
          The bottom line is nobody got injured because MJ indeed held him tight
          and because held him tights he didn’t perceived the situation as dangerous.

          “Of course MJ meant no harm… bust now that I think about it, that’s probably what a pedo thinks when he’s predating on a kid: “I mean no harm” or “I’m showing my love for him” or “It’s all innocent…””

          1. Man, you and your convoluted “logic”. How the heck does showing Blanket over the balcony to his fans prove that he was a pedophile? The two have nothing to do with each other. If MJ had shown a pattern of putting kids in danger and being irresponsible maybe you would have a point. But the opposite is true. He was very protective of kids whether it was warning one of the Ma twins not to bite a CD or making sure that Omer didn’t fall from a three here:
          https://www.instagram.com/p/BHF8PiygXF5/?taken-by=kidslife&hl=en
          or making sure that the seats on the carousel in Neverland were safe for kids
          or instinctively throwing a glove at an unknown man who appeared in the middle of the night while he and the Cascio kids were watching the stars or dropping everything when he heard that Amy Agajanian fell from a horse in Neverland or just his compassion for sick, injured starving kids ever since he himself was a child and later as an adult for Dave Dave, Bela Farkas, Donna Aschlock, David Sonnet, Ryan White and yes Gavin Arvizo.
          One stupid incident is not indicative of his character. His lifelong commitment to help kids and his gentle interaction with thousands of kids all over the world is. You cannot tell me exactly when he became a monster amid all this:
          https://s30.postimg.io/kdflg679d/hospital.jpg

          If every parent who ever unintentionally endangers
          their kids was a pedo we would have a pedo in every second home.

          2. A pedo may very well think that sex with children does not harm them but MJ thought that molestation was very much harming children as it is obvious from his reaction to the molestation of Taj Jackson, the note he wrote to his mother: http://www.allforloveblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/letter-to-Dee.jpg
          with which he wanted to educate his nephews about how to protect themselves from molester or the lyrics of Do you know where your children are?
          which he wrote years before the Chandler allegations when he didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, it came from his heart just like all his lyrics and all his art. Noone who thinks molestation is OK would write let alone sing a song like that!.

          3. “have not seen pictures of him over the years”
          Keep your pshychobabble for yourself. You don’t know Mj’s medical record, you don’t know what was done to his face you don’t know why and you are and idiot if you try to diagnose him based on pictures which can look very different depending on makeup, lighting, expression, wigs, not to mention
          he aged like everyone else, he had alopecia, he had discoid lupus so of course he covered his face that’s when he first started to wear the mask after he was diagnosed with lupus in 1984
          I don’t see any severe surgery on his face, he had nosejobs, a cleft was put in his chin and he had facelifts. If that is severe then please diagnose Joan Rivers and Cher with body dysmorphia. It’s reflective of some kind of shame, you know? Why else would all those people in Hollywood have plastic surgery left and right? They all want to change and hide who they are. Ridiculous.

          You know very well that his father and brothers were teasing him for his big nose, and yes it was indeed big. You know that he had vitigo and lupus and yes he was ashamed of how his skin looked which is one reason why he didn’t expose that to Jordan Chandler or any other kid!
          He didn’t want to hide who he was he wanted to look good for his fans David Gest said he wanted to look perfect as he was a perfectionist never satisfied with anything including himself but you keep ignoring a little fact: for many many years, even with vitligo and lupus , somehow managed to look so good that he had this effect on women all over the world:

          Reply
        • Hammer

          Oh the desperation. You don’t have real proof against this guy or a credible accuser so you grab everything remotely negative and use it to justify your irrational hatred. I’m sure you consider the fact that he loved apes, rats and snakes also proof that he was a pedophile. Whatever.
          Who the heck justified it? It was stupid and irresponsible and he apologizes but he meant no harm and that’s a fact. People can do irresponsible things because they think they are in fully control of the situation as MJ believed he was because he held Blanket tight. Whether the kid is baby or 7 years old is irrelevant and whether there is water there or not is irrelevant too. If Steve Jobs had let her go she could have hit her head and suffer a freak accident. Look again: 3.bp.blogspot.com/-QiZRrpbooXM/T23YYksxYtI/AAAAAAAAAV0/oYj7YLDMaAA/s1600/steve_jobs.jpg
          Not to mention Steve Irwin when he fed crocodiles while holding his baby. How do you justify that? That went on for a minutes not just few seconds. Or Tom Cruise holding his baby over deep waters. Or videos on YouTube where parents let their dog sit on their babies head! I wouldn’t let any dog anywhere near a baby. I myself did something even more irresponsible than just holding a baby over a balcony for 2 seconds, I even injured someone in the process so I know what it’s like to not think about the consequences of your actions. But you make it sound like MJ intentionally put Blanket in danger and just dangled him for the hell of it or for some kind of stunt and that’s not true.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          “The terrifying part is when he actually drags the kids shin, which is caught, over the railing.”
          LOL then be terrified your problem if you are overreacting to the situation where no one was even injured let alone fatally.
          It’s all in your mind, buddy. His shin was not caught. Just because your imagination terrifies you does not mean that there was REAL danger. You know why Blanket didn’t fall? Because the laws of physics didn’t allow him to fall, MJ held him strongly everything is just your crazy fantasy.
          The bottom line is nobody got injured because MJ indeed held him tight and because held him tight for about 2 seconds he didn’t perceive the situation as dangerous. You are making a big deal out of an isolated incident of bad judgment.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          1. How the heck does showing Blanket over the balcony to his fans prove that he was a pedophile? The two have nothing to do with each other. If MJ had had a tendency to put kids in danger you would have a point. But the opposite was true. He was very protective of kids whether it was warning one of the Ma twins not to bite a CD or making sure that Omer didn’t fall from a tree here: instagram.com/p/BHF8PiygXF5/?taken-by=kidslife&hl=en
          or making sure that the seats on the carousel in Neverland were safe for kids or instinctively throwing a glove at an unknown man who appeared in the middle of the night while he and the Cascio kids were watching the stars or dropping everything when he heard that Amy Agajanian fell from a horse in Neverland or just his compassion for sick, injured starving kids ever since he himself was a child and later as an adult for Dave Dave, Bela Farkas, Donna Aschlock, David Sonnet, Ryan White and yes Gavin Arvizo. One stupid incident is not indicative of his character. His lifelong commitment to help kids and his gentle interaction with thousands of kids all over the world is. You cannot tell me exactly when he became a monster amid all this. When exactly do you think that happened? s30.postimg.io/kdflg679d/hospital.jpg

          2. If every parent who unintentionally endangers their kids at least once was a pedo we would have a pedo in every second home.

          3. A pedo may very well think that sex with children does not harm them but MJ thought that molestation was very much harming children as it is obvious from his reaction to the molestation of Taj Jackson at the hands of an uncle on his mother’s side, the note he wrote to his mother: http://www.allforloveblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/letter-to-Dee.jpg
          with which he wanted to educate his nephews about how to protect themselves from molesters or the lyrics of Do you know where your children are? which he wrote years before the Chandler allegations when he didn’t have to prove anything to anyone, it came from his heart just like all his lyrics and all his art. Noone who thinks molestation is OK would write let alone sing a song like that!.

          Reply
        • Hammer

          How the heck does showing Blanket over the balcony to his fans prove that he was a pedophile? The two have nothing to do with each other. If MJ had shown a pattern of putting kids in danger and being irresponsible maybe you would have a point. But the opposite is true. He was very protective of kids whether it was warning one of the Ma twins not to bite a CD or making sure that Omer didn’t fall from a three here: instagram.com/p/BHF8PiygXF5/?taken-by=kidslife&hl=en
          or making sure that the seats on the carousel in Neverland were safe for kids or instinctively throwing a glove at an unknown man who appeared in the middle of the night while he and the Cascio kids were watching the stars or dropping everything when he heard that Amy Agajanian fell from a horse in Neverland or just his compassion for sick, injured starving kids ever since he himself was a child and later as an adult for Dave Dave, Bela Farkas, Donna Aschlock, David Sonnet, Ryan White and yes Gavin Arvizo. One stupid incident is not indicative of his character. His lifelong commitment to help kids and his gentle interaction with thousands of kids all over the world is. You cannot tell me exactly when he became a monster amid all this: s30.postimg.io/kdflg679d/hospital.jpg

          Reply
  12. MJ Realist

    “Which version was accurate?”

    The one that Michael Jackson paid the Chandler family over $20 million for. He wasn’t going to pay that amount of money for lies, he wasn’t stupid. Unless you’d like to argue that MJ *was* stupid? Have at it.

    Reply
    • Hammer

      Yes he DID pay money to liars because liars like the Francias and Arvizos can still drag him through the mud in a lengthyand very costly circus like the one in 2005.
      So just because and accuser is all over the place like Chandler, Francia and Arvizo were does not mean they cannot do a lot of damage especially if they are supported by those who have the power: the DA, the police and the media.

      If you don’t think you would get a fair trial, if you want to protect your chance for a fair criminal trial which is about your life not just money, if you don’t want the whole world to see your vitiligo ridden junk, if you don’t want to go through a 5 months hell like the 2005 trial was, if you would lose much more than 20 million if you had a trial
      even if you win, if you think the media would potray you as guilty no matter the verdict then you settle the civil case and that doesn’t make you guilty and doesn’t make you stupid either. When innocent people plead guilty in America instead of going to court how can you say that innocent people would not settle a civil case?
      JC penny settled with the Arvizos even though it’s clear Janet made up the whole sex abuse story and it’s not that JC penny was stupid or guilty but settling was simpler and cheaper. Bill O’Reilley also settle for millions because he wanted to put an end to the whole mess not because his accuser could prove her story.

      So the question is not why MJ settled the civil case the question is why the Chandlers never wanted a criminal indictment and fired Gloria Allred when she dared say that Jordan was ready to testify in a criminal court. Why the Chandlers only wanted
      a “highly profitable settlement” instead of getting a conviction first.
      Why the Chandlers demanded 20 million from MJ in Aug 1993 in the first place
      and why did they tell him if he doesn’t pay they would accuse him. Why Evan Chandler lowered that amount to just 1 million and why the Chandlers admitted in their book if MJ had paid in Aug they would have left him alone?
      Which real victim does that? Which father who is indeed concerned about his son,
      who indeed believes MJ is molester who hurt not only his own son by at least five other boys (the ones they cherrypicked to be in their BS story)?
      The Chandlers would have taken 1 milion in Aug 1993 and would not have accused him of anything. Think about that before you feel sorry for them.
      They were golddigers not victims. Extortionists and perjurers who got away with it because the DA, the police the media and the judge were all on their side.
      If the law had been in 1993 what it was after 1993 or if Jordan had been just a few months older there wouldn’t have been any settlement, the Chandlers would have lost in criminal court IF there had been an indictment at all.

      So the question is still there: which version of Chandler’s ever changing story was the truth? The one where they cuddled in bed in Las Vegas or the one where there was no physical contact in bed in Las Vegas?
      The one where he didn’t want his mother to know or the one where he tried to tell his mother but she didn’t listen?
      The one where he considered any sexual contact with MJ disgusting or the one
      where he thought it felt good and saw nothing wrong with it?
      The one where MJ performed oral sex on him in Monaco right before the WMA show or the one where there was no oral sex in Monaco at all?
      The one where MJ was overwhelming and powerful or the one where MJ was just like a regular person who functioned like a child?
      The one where he could easily stop MJ doing what he did by just telling him to stop or the one where it was difficult to just say no to him?

      Reply
  13. MJ Realist

    “Which version was accurate?”

    The one that Michael Jackson paid the Chandler family over $20 million for. He wasn’t going to pay that amount of money for lies, he wasn’t stupid. The Chandler’s claims were solid as evidenced by Jackson’s failure to stop their lawsuit in it’s tracks. Someone with MJ’s resources would have easily been able to dismiss the Chandlers if there were the holes in their story that you are trying to create from speculation.

    MJ’s own lawyer Carl Douglas stated that they needed to act quickly to do all that they could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson because of Jordan’s description and the subsequent photographing of MJ’s genitalia for collaboration.

    Feel free to twist or deny the facts, but MJ paid because he feared going to jail – an outcome that would have been impossible had the Chandlers lied the way you are arguing. The Chandler case was totally different from the 2005 trial where the evidence was weak and the accusers less than credible.

    Reply
    • Paul Resnikoff
      Paul Resnikoff

      Interesting. I know in the American legal system, the side with more money has a far greater chance of prevailing. It’s almost always that way, even when the other side is right. So your point worth reflecting upon.

      Reply
      • Interesting

        So, you mean the City or County of Santa Barbara, or the State of Californiaa would have had a significantly better chace of winning the criminal case then, right? Because that’s who/what Michael Jackson would be up against if criminally charged and taken to trial in 1993. The same way he was in the 2005 trial — it was The People vs. M. Jackson then, as it would have been 10 years earlier.

        Also, for MJ Realist, if you could please provide a link or give the name of the article where you saw the quote from Carl Douglas, I’d appreciate it. Mr. Douglas came to speak at my university and said something entirely different then what you infer here. When directly asked about the picture/description by one of the students, he said it didn’t and if there had been a match — 1) There would have been a criminal trial as a result and 2) The settlement amount would have been a lot higher. Because MJ’s corp., business partners and insurance company dealt with biz transaction numbers way north of that settlement figure. So, was just wondering where you were getting your information? Thanks!

        Reply
        • Deep Pockets

          no. the state/county does not have deep pockets. state hired attorneys or counties are govt. employees, not that well paid. and generally it seems that the best lawyers go into private practice (because there’s more money to be made.)

          an example would be the OJ case, where a few state lawyers had a very difficult time facing a huge team of superstar lawyers paid for by deep pockets.

          it’s also why white collar financial crime rarely results in convictions or jail time. they million/billionaires can spend and spend, delay and delay, until the state has to settle.

          Reply
          • Mixingapplesandoranges...

            It’s been well researched and documented that the gov’t spent millions of dollars pursuing, investigating and prosecuting Michael Jackson in that 2003-2005 case/trial. I mean, to begin with they descended on his property with over 70 officers to execute their search warrant, during the well-known raid. An act that took financial and physical resources that had never been seen before in a one-time event, in the pursuit of a single individual — when imminent danger of harm to the public wasn’t a factor. And there hasn’t been seen since.
            A couple years ago, a news documetary featuring headlining court cases said that they didn’t do anything near that to search Charles Manson’s residence and belongings or during the Hearst stuff in the early 70s, among other causes where murder was part of the crime and/or kidnap victims.
            Also, what you’re leaving out — either intentionally or because you aren’t aware — is that 4 separate agencies were officially part of the MJ case/investigation: the Santa Barbara DA office, LA County investigators (because the SB DA requested their more “advanced” resources), the State of California Dept. of Children Services, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (because part of the allegations suggested that possible crimes had taken place across state lines)…
            In a report that aired during the 10th anniversary of the verdict (so just last year), several legals from different arenas said that there might have been more money spent to try and convict Michael Jackson than had ever been spent to prosecute anyone. One guy, who was a former president of the American Bar Assn., actually said there had been talk of the taxpayers of SB suing the DA’s office for a waste of tax dollars.
            And in the 1993 situation that the commenter above is talking about, it was estimated that about $1.5 million dollars were spent going out doing police “field work” and interviewing upwards of 200 people to try to build a case. Ultimately, there wasn’t enough evidence to even come up with a charge of a single misdemeanor — let alone anything more serious…
            And I’m not sure what your assertion that state/county employees aren’t paid very much has to do with the subject of prosecutorial financial resources. Maybe you’re thinking about public defenders and the talk about them being over-burdened/relatively low paid. But, PD’s wouldn’t have anything to do with this case…

          • Hammer

            The state/county had deep enough pockets to hire a bunch of experts do the biggest fingerprint analysis in 20 years, hire a PR firm. travel to Canada and Australia to find “victims”, pay for dozens of prosecution witnesses, conduct multiple raids, send 70 cars to MJ’s ranch …in other words spend millions to try to convict this one man! Anyone who says that MJ won because he outspent them is a liar.
            Also just because a lawyer and his PI take a lot of money does not mean they are effective. Mark Geragos and his PI took a lot of money from MJ and they were totally useless. Listen to this interview with Scott Ross a PI who worked for Tom Meserau Geragos did nothing for all that money :
            http://www.themjcast.com/episode-033-vindication-day-special-with-scott-ross/

            MJ wasn’t investigated he was targetted with everything Sneddon and the SBDS could use. As Corey Feldman said it was witch-hunt.

        • Fax

          Here’s the quote:
          “…We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”

          So they silenced Jordan by paying him because his description was accurate to the photos and they would have lost the criminal case if it had proceeded to that. (If the description was not accurate, they would not have paid, then gone to criminal court, and win there as well.)

          http://www.mjfacts.com/300lb-gorilla/

          Reply
          • Interesting

            Where do you see or does he say anything about the description being accurate? It’s not here in what you’ve quoted. Is it something that you’re just inferring? Because in the forum that I was a part of, Mr. Douglas was asked that specific question directly and he directly responded. It wasn’t anything that required intimation, inference or speculation. That’s why I was interested in seeing/reading something he said which directly flew in the face of what he told us. What’s provided here doesn’t do that — even when I follow the link. It’s just a bunch of theory and assumptions surrounding a statement, and what someone or a group of individuals thinks was meant by that statement.
            I thought you had a quote or link with Mr. Douglas addressing this issue specifically. But, thanks anyway…
            Though, I will say that I’m not sure what people would be reading into the quote that is provided. That his attorneys wanted to do everything possible to avoid a criminal case for their client? That’s the ideal goal of every defense lawyer. There’s not a defense attorney on the planet who wouldn’t do everything they legally can to keep a client’s case from going to court/trial. It forms the primary basis of their practice. I have professors who still practice and they haven’t had to actually see a jury or go to trial in 20 years. The objective is to avoid that at all costs. Just as a kinda fyi…
            Oh, and the accuser could still have testified in a criminal case after getting a civil settlement. The DA’s office issued a statement saying exactly that after the settlement was made public. They said the criminal investigation was still ongoing and would not be detered/impacted by the civil case closing.

          • Hammer

            None of what Douglas said, not to mention none of MJ’s actions, Sneddon’s and Garcetti’s words and actions,
            the timeline of events and Larry Feldman’s words actions supports your
            theory that MJ settled in Jan 25 1994 because the photos matched the description.

            1. Every good lawyer’s goal is to avoid a criminal trial, are you kidding? Especially when the client is
            and African American who is hated by the media as MJ was and the jury could be easily prejudiced by racism and/or
            the coverage and the trial would be a damn circus. None of that proves that someone is guilty actually
            every time an innocent person is forced to go through a trial it’s a gross injustice.

            2. Between Dec 20 (strip search) and Jan 25 (settlement) Sneddon or Garcetti could have arrested and charged him but they
            didn’t which itself proves the photos did not match the description. As Douglas said if there had been
            a match there would have been a criminal filing. It’s that simple.
            Why do you think Sneddon wanted the photos in the first place? He just took them and sat on them.
            If Sneddon had got what he wanted it would have been all over the media in Dec and Jan
            and MJ would have been handcuffed.

            3. If MJ had been so concerned about the photos there wouldn’t have been any strip search at all.
            He would have settled with the Chandlers right after he heard the news that Larry Feldman
            wanted a medical exam and Jordan gave a description to the police.
            Instead he cooperated because he believed the photos would prove his innocence
            and the criminal investigation would be closed and refused to sign the settlement until the very last minute
            on Jan 25 1994 right before he was scheduled to give a civil deposition. There was no rush to settle
            with Chandler after Dec 20. Why didn’t MJ settle before Jan 25?
            Because between Dec 20 (strip search) and Jan 25 he hoped that Sneddon and Garcetti
            would close the criminal investigation seeing that the photos contradicted Chandler.
            Instead the DAs were not willing to take no for an answer, even though the circumcison issue
            alone proved that Chandler lied, he said he masturbated MJ 10 times, if he had done that
            he would have seen MJ’s foreskin, period. Sneddon was a fucking racist zealot and Garcetti
            played politics with the case so neither of them was willing to admit that the kid is a coached liar
            and MJ was innocent even tough Garcetti said this in Sept 1994:

            “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not
            convicted of a crime. We are not charging Michael jackson with a crime.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/22/us/no-charges-for-now-against-michael-jackson.html

            He would have not said that if he had been convinced MJ was a serial molester.
            Garcetti moved on. Sneddon the obsessed racist pig did not.

            4. Why do you think Douglas said this during the same seminar?
            “He’s also correct that the decision that was hotly contested, in terms of having a
            trial in that case, set in 120 days was a devastating tactical loss for our team, and it
            was significantly powering efforts in trying to resolve the case.”
            Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbZNhi7UHog
            This article explained what Douglas meant by “significantly powering”:
            https://s32.postimg.io/52f1cwbrp/civil.jpg

            After the Chandler filed their lawsuit MJ wanted the criminal case go first, he filed motions to delay the civil case until
            the criminal case is resolved. His lawyer Bert Fields said this in early December:

            “We do want him to testify in the civil case for sure,” Fields said.
            “If things change in the criminal case, we would reconsider the whole question of the civil case.
            We want the criminal case to go first.”

            http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-04/local/me-63891_1_criminal-investigation

            The Chandlers wanted money only so they wanted the civil case go first and they used Jordan’s age to achieve that.
            The judge allowed the civil trial within just 120 days because Jordan was not yet 14.
            That was the Chandler’s only argument and it worked and it was of course absurd
            Jordan turned 14 in Jan those few months didn’t make any difference in terms of his memory.
            But because this stupid law in CA and the judge’s bias toward the Chandlers he flat out
            violated MJ’s rights for a fair criminal trial by orderring him to give a deposition in Jan
            and gave the DA access to the civil discovery! It was a travesty of justice.
            Of course a competent lawyer would not want criminal charges while a civil case
            was going on simultaneously! That would violate the client’s rights for a fair criminal trial.
            No competent lawyer would advise you, no matter how innocent you are, to give a civil
            deposition and show everything you would use to defend yourself in a criminal court.
            Innocent people get convicted all the time, many people who were falsely accused of molestation
            got convicted, so no matter what you should never expose your defense strategy to the prosecutors.
            That’s why the DAs are not allowed to raid the office of a PI who works for a defendant, for example.

          • Hammer

            5. Jordan was NOT silenced and you know it.
            By quote unquote silenced Dougleas meant ending the civil case, the settlement
            did not end the criminal case it went on for months after Jan 25 1994 and Chandler only told
            Sneddon and Garcetti that he won’t testify in June 1994!
            The only person who silenced Jordan Chandler was Jordan Chandler. He had every right to testify
            in a criminal court and he didn’t want to because he was not a real victim but a liar who along with
            his golddigger parents only wanted money.
            (Of course he talked through his uncle’s book in the media too as the “brazen opportunist” Chandlers
            tried to squeez even more money out of their bogus story, listen:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM)

            6. If Mj was guilty how come he didn’t pay Evan Chandler in Aug 1993 when he would have been willing
            to shut up for just 1 million, by his own admission? Why didn’t MJ want to prevent a police investigation,
            a raid and the media frezy if he indeed molested 7 boys as Sneddon claimed?

            7. If Sneddon and Garcetti didn’t have enough evidence to arrest and charge MJ before
            Jan 25 1994 what makes you think they had it after Jan 25 and the only missing piece was Chandler’s
            testimony? they already knew Chandler’s story before Jan 1994 and they didn’t arrest and charge him
            not even after they had the photos.

            8. The photos were the 300 pount gorilla because MJ was a terrified if Larry Feldman gets his hand on them
            they would be leaked and the whole world would see his vitilgo ridden junk! It’s also quite possible
            that MJ didn’t want any stranger, let alone female jurors to see his dick or he didn’t think the photos
            would stop in the courtroom. All of those things would have been on your mind too
            if you have been Michael Jackson come on you know that.
            Feldman filed a multiple choice motion in Jan 1994 where he asked for the photos or asked for the photos
            to be excluded from the civil trial. Why did he do that? Why include that option if the photos
            corroborated your client’s story?

            9. It’s not a question whether Chandler’s description was accurate it’s a proven FACT that it
            was not accurate. Chandler said MJ was circumcised (reported by nunerous anti-Jackson sources, Smoking Gun, Dimond,
            Gutierrez, Taraborelli, and also by Arnold Klein who was present at the strip search) and he also said MJ had one dark blemish on his otherwise
            white penis. (Tom Sneddon’s 2005 declaration: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf)
            In reality he was uncut and had more than one dark spots on his penis, as he was a black
            man with a black penis who was losing melanin not a white man with a white penis with one dark mark on it.
            Dr. Strict who did the strip search told Fox News in 2005 the “genitalia was very oddly colored with brown skin and light skin”.
            That’s a far cry from one dark blemish.
            The fact is that what Reuters reported in Jan 1994 was the truth the photos did not match

            An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday.

            http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/doc/306619746.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&type=current&date=&author=&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=Photos%20may%20contradict%20Michael%27s%20accuser1

            Chandler’s description was just a theory his father came up with, you can see it on this document
            this is Evan Chandler’s handwritten note, in the middle My theory at the top
            Mike circumcised:
            http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/drawing-VG-book.jpg

            The very fact that Evan Chandler needed a theory proves that Jordan never saw MJ’s naked body.
            This theory was based on well known facts and speculation:
            the fact that MJ had vitilgo, his skin was splotchy, he was not a hairy guy
            and they assumed like most American guys he was circumcised. That’s it.
            Evan Chandler’s theory was totally wrong., therefore MJ was not arrested and not charged
            after the strip search. Simple as that.

            10.The very idea that MJ looked the same on Dec 20 1993 as he looked in May 1993
            is absurd as he had vitilgo universalis and used Benoquin. As the Chandlers themselves recognized
            (and stated in their book) pigmentation comes and goes and changes fast.
            On top of that Benoquin can eliminate brown spots within months.
            Whatever Chandler would have seen in May 1993 couldn’t have been the same what the police saw on Dec 20.

      • Hammer

        Nonsense. Martha Stewart Winona Ryder had plenty of money both were convicted so were Tupac Mike Tyson and Chris Brown. OJ had plenty of money and he was found liable in civil court 10 to 0 and then convicted even though the race issue saved him in 1994.
        Money does not win cases, solid arguments do. MJ’s money had nothing to do with the countless lies the Arvizos and Francias and other prosecution witnesses told in court. Those testimonies gave plenty of ammunition to Mj’s lawyers even without paying for any defense witness. Sneddon and co spent millions to convict MJ they even hired a PR firm so please. Sneddon lost because as Matt Taibbi Rolling Stones magazine put it
        “His case was bullsh—t. California vs. Jackson turned out to be basically a tale of a family of low-rent grifters trying to lay a criminal-molestation charge on a rich celebrity as a prelude to a civil suit.”

        As or the 1993 case think about it. MJ had the money to silence Chandler in Aug 1993 when Chandler first demanded 20million and then lowered it to just 1 million. They admitted this in their book.
        So MJ was guilty , not only molesting Jordan but 7 boys as Sneddon claimed how come he didn’t pay in Aug 1993 to prevent the police investigation and the media frenzy? How come he didn’t even settle after he heard the news that Chandler gave a description and Larry Feldman wanted a medical exam?
        He didn’t settle until the very last minute when it became clear that the criminal case won’t be closed before the civil desposition, which would have forced him to either take the fifth or expose his defense strategy to the DA which noone would no no matter how innocent you are because innocent people are convicted, just like Kelly Michaels was convicted for child molestation she never committed.

        The side which the more money was the LAPD, the SBDS, the DA’s office and the FBI. They spent millions and millions of dollars to investigate and harrass MJ for 10 years and what did they find?
        80 hetero adult magazines and a a few artbooks with nude men nude women nude girls and nude boys without any evidence that MJ ever opened them.
        That’s it.
        There is no proof in this case at all. No DNA, no tape, no note , no letter, no credible eyewitness. They had plenty of time to arrest MJ between Aug 17 1993 and Jan 24 1994 when the civil settlement was signed, the criminal investigation actually went on for months after that settlement and they still didn’t arrest him.
        why if they had such solid evidence against him and if Chandler was so credible?
        How come Sneddon didn’t even arrest him not even after having the photos ?
        Because in reality they had nothing except the Chandler’s story which Jordan couldn’t even keep straight. He said one thing about what happened in Monaco in his DSFC interview and another thin in Oct to Dr. Gardner. His interview with Gardner itself if full of contradictions. He would have been torn apart on cross-exam which is why he never wanted to testify in court not even as a grown man in 2005!

        Reply
    • Hammer

      1. Yes he was not stupid so he knew that he would lose much more than 20 million if he had had a trial just like he lost more than 20 million after 2003. It was cheaper to settle. Sony wanted him to settle too and you can bet they did a calculation.
      MJ paid a few million per year to the Chandlers which was nothing compared to what he could earn if he wanted to. You talk about him like he was some Joe Q. MJ didn’t have the same perspective on money and you and I do. This is a guy who paid 1.5 million for a goddamn Oscar statuette and spent millions on artworks.

      2. He was not stupid so he knew that even if he wins in court the media would tell everyone that he got away with it because he was a celebrity, rich, the jury was stupid blah blah blah. That’s exactly what happened in 2005 and after! What’s the point of winning in court when people like you ignore the verdict? Why go through that circus? Your hypocrisy is staggering. Even if he had won against the Chandlers in court you would still be here today saying that he got away with it because he was rich celebrity.

      3. He was not stupid so he didn’t want to give a civil deposition when a criminal case was still possible! It doesn’t matter how innocent you are you don’t tell the DA what you would use to defend yourself in a criminal court and you won’t find a competent lawyer who will advise you to do that. Again, innocent people can get convicted happened many times in US history and African American tend not to trust the justice system and MJ especially had many reason to believe that he would get a prejudiced jury, judge not to mention an overzealous DA.

      4. He was not stupid and looked at the what the media had been doing during those 6 months and how they prejudiced the public against him, looked at Sneddon who refused to close the criminal case despite knowing that Chandler had no clue about the basic features of his junk (foreskin, very oddly colored genitalia with brown and white skin not just one dark blemish on an otherwise fully white penis, that’s ridiculous) he looked at the judge who gave the Chandlers everything they asked for and probably looked at other fake child molestation case in the 80s and 90s where innocent people were convicted and concluded that most likely he wouldn’t get a fair trial, if Jordan is well coached as they had plenty of time to do it and if the jury has rabbid haters like like he could be found liable with a 9 to 3 decision.
      When you don’t think you would get a fair trial you settle or even plead guilty like this poor guy who was falsely accused of molesting three kids and went to prison instead of fighting in court. Settling a civil case for 20million was nothing compared to that:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6c1o5NRZOo

      5. The Chandlers didn’t have a strong case which is why MJ refused to pay Chandler off in Aug 1993, which is why Bert Fields didn’t want a settlement wanted to fight them and wanted the criminal case go first so badly that he even said at one point a criminal indictment was imminent when in fact it was not they did their very best to avoid a trial. They admitted in their book that they didn’t want a criminal indictment only a highly profitable settlement and they didn’t think they would win in a criminal court as it would have been Jordan’s words against MJs. They didn’t have any proof, and all five boys Chandler dragged into his story DENIED that they were molested.

      6. Money couldn’t have stopped the civil case that’s ridiculous. You can stop a civil case with a demurrer or summary judgment. Demurrer wasn’t even filed as that would have been pointless and summary judgement couldn’t have been granted since there were clearly issues which only a jury could decide, including whether the photos and description matched and if not why not. You don’t know what summary judgement is all about if you think that the judge had the right to throw out the case
      just because Chandler’s description was totally off.
      You keep ignoring some undeniable facts:
      It was MJ who filed motions to delay the civil case until the criminal case was resolved and that’s a fact. The Chandlers fought against that they wanted the civil case go first. Why? Because they wanted money and money only. If Chandler had been a victim they would have been eager to put MJ behind bars and THEN get his money like the Sandusky victims did it. Mj’s lawyer Bert Fields clearly stated that they wanted the criminal case go first, which no guilty person would want for obvious reasons.

      7. If the Chandlers had such a solid case how come MJ wasn’t even arrested and charged based on Chandler’s testimony and the photos which Sneddon had by the end of Dec 1993? Why did MJ cooperate and allowed the photos to be taken? Because Sneddon threatened him with arrest if he didn’t. So then he has the photos and he does not arrest him. How come? Don’t tell me that he didn’t because of the civil settlement. That was not signed until Jan 25 1994 and the strip search happened on Dec 20 1993! the first time Chandler informed Sneddon that he won’t testify in a criminal court was in Jun 1994 not in Dec or Jan 1994!

      8. Douglas never said such things! That’s your misinterpretation of what he said.
      He said that the photos were the 800 pound gorilla but he did not say that was because they were the smoking gun evidence or because it proved MJ’s guilt. MJ simply was afraid that the photos would be leaked if there is a trial the whole world see the pictures of his vitiligo ridden junk and obviously he did not want that. He wanted to photos hidden from the world forever and I don’t blame him at all.
      And Douglas also said that losing the motion which would have put the criminal case first was a big blow so of course they didn’t want a criminal filing under those circumstances when the civil case went first and MJ was forced to expose his defense strategy in a civil deposition. Here’s an article which explained why MJ had to settle the civil case if he wanted a chance for a fair criminal trial:

      https://s32.postimg.io/52f1cwbrp/civil.jpg

      You keep ignoring this and keep ignoring that the Chandlers had every right to testify in a criminal court after they got the settlement. Why didn’t they?
      The civil settlement did NOT silence Chandler, except in the media. Even his lawyer Larry Feldman admitted that in his 2005 testimony. There is nothing in the settlement agreement which precluded the Chandlers from talking to the police, testifying to the grand jury or a criminal court. They didn’t because they never wanted to!
      Why didn’t Jordan Chandler testify in 2005? Why did he threaten Sneddon with legal action if he tried to put him on the stand? No real abuse victim would do that. He didn’t want to show up because, as he told Dr. Gardner, he was afraid of cross-examination he knew he lied and he didn’t want to be exposed. Simple as that.

      8. It’s a fact that the photos did NOT collaborate Chandler’s story as Chandler said
      If they had MJ would have been arrested after the strip search and charged with molesting Chandler. Why do you think Sneddon wanted the photos in the first place? Hello?
      It’s a fact that Evan instructed Jordan to say that MJ was circumcised but MJ was not circumcised. Since Chandler also told Dr. Gardner that he masturbated MJ 10 times that alone proves he lied. There is no way he would have not seen MJ’s foreskin if he had indeed done THAT! No way.
      Also, which version of the description was the accurate one?
      The one Senddon talked about, the one the Chandlers talked about in their book, the one Dimond talked about in her blog, the one Dimond talked about in her book, the one Ray Chandler talked about in the NBC documentary?
      Which one was it? Left side, right side, underside, one dark blemish, multiple discolorations and markings, pink splotches? You can’t have that that many different ways!

      9. Why did Evan Chandler theorize about how MJ’s body looked if Jordan had a
      “clear memory” of it, as they put it in their book? This is Evan Chandler’s handwritten note published in Gutierrez’s book.
      http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/drawing-VG-book.jpg
      In the middle he wrote
      My theory: ass blotched shades of brown so how is MJ’s p.?
      At the top he wrote Mike circumcised short pubic and the other stuff on this note are nasty fantasies about Brett Barnes and masturbation and vaselin. Where did that come form?
      Not from Brett Barnes, he was not molested he is one of MJ’s most ardent defender to this day and no not because he wants to cover up for the man who abuse him repeatedly but because he was not abused at all.

      Reply
  14. You know who I am

    I have both versions of the “document” that appeared on ROL. I have the original with the “pictures” inserted and when the police came forward to state that it had been altered they removed them and left a 61 page document which is actually a compilation of 3 documents. The original evidence return only has 48 pages.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf
    And I have them all. The 3 original court documents unaltered, the original 88 page document complete with ROL water mark and the one that they left up after removing the pictures that were inserted.
    Adam you are right. I tried a simple search and had to poke around a lot to find the articles and the one you are redirected to an article on Shana Magantal.So you are right an no apologies will be necessary.

    Reply
    • Being Sensible

      According to you and many other zealous fans the Chandlers were full of easily proven lies, so it’s puzzling how you translate that into a lengthy and expensive trial. If a lay person such as yourself can easily pick apart the Chandlers, MJ’s highly competent lawyers would have made mincemeat out of them without spending anything like $20 million dollars. The 2005 trial reputedly cost MJ only $3 million and that included dozens of investigators and legal teams from several different firms.

      It’s far more likely that Michael Jackson molested Jordan Chandler and knew that were the case to come to trial he would be found liable for damages, so in an effort to lessen the damage to his career he paid the family a settlement.

      I now command you to type another lengthy post which only those who enjoy tortuous prose will read.

      Reply
      • Yes

        Exactly. Love how these internet lawyers sitting in their basement know better than the team of professionals with decades of experience who advised Jackson to settle

        Reply
        • Hammer

          MJ’s lawyers didn’t advise him to settle in 1994 because they believed he couldn’t win in court if that had been the case they would have advised him to settle much sooner not in the very last minute on Jan 25 1994 before the civil deposition was scheduled. They advised him to settle but because no competent lawyer would advise their client to give a civil deposition while a criminal trial was still possible. Larry Feldman knew this which is why they were so hellbent on getting the civil case first and trying to avoid a criminal trial. Innocent people get convicted all the time (remember Kelly Michaels or the Kern county case or the fat that Raymond Bucky never got an aquittal just hung juries?) The bottom line: just because MJ settled the civil case in Jan 1994 does not mean the Chandlers had a strong case in fact they had no proof at all, all the boys they dragged into their story denied under oath that they were abuse, we know that Jordan changed his story about what happened in Monaco he was inconsistent in many other ways they would have lost in court just like the Arvizos did. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have ruined MJ. The 2005 trial ruined him despite the victory.

          Reply
        • Susan

          Hilarious. The Chandlers were so confident they freaked out when their first lawyer Gloria Allred announced that Jordan was going to testify in criminal court. They quickly fired her and hired Larry Feldman to go after Jackson’s money. Not an indictment but a settlement. Jordan was so confident the only thing he was afraid of was cross-examination ( read the transcript of his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner Oct 6 1993) and not only refused to testify in 1994 but in 2005 too, Sneddon didn’t even dare to subpoena him. He subpoenaed everyone and their momma but not Jordan Chandler. You fanatic Jackson haters think you know it better than the Chandlers themselves who admitted in their little book All that Glitters they didn’t think they could win a criminal trial and it would be Jordan’s words against Jackson’s they had no proof whatsoever. (Where are those tapes Evan was talking about? Oh he lied about those too.) And let’s not forget that Jordan’s words were like the weather you can see how inconsistent he was if you read Dimond’s book, Gardner’s interview, All that Glitters. Just put together everything the Chandlers said and wrote and you get a mess. And then the mother and father both wanted their share of the settlement money?? Gimme a break.
          They would have been obliterated in court. Why do you think they never wanted to testify? No I don’t believe in Santa Claus, don’t believe in the tooth fairy and don’t believe Jordan Chandler was molested. He and his family saw money and opportunities to exploit Michael like so many others.

          Reply
      • Hammer

        Don’t worry Tom Meserau was prepared to cross-examine Jordan and Jordan didn’t want any of that which is why he threatened Sneddon with legal action if he tried to put him on the stand. That alone shows that Chandler’s story was bogus he was never abused, except by his crazy father. Did you forget that the Arvizos were picked apart in court too? MJ won in court against them just like he would have won against the Chandlers with a fair jury that is. And how much money did he lose because of that trial? Much more than 20m since he could never get over that trauma he stopped working he lost control over his money he was more an more in debt. That’s exactly what would have happened in 1994! Yes he would have won in court but his life would have been destroyed. MJ didn’t want a circus like the one was in 2005 he had enough, he wanted to move on, he really didn’t trust the judge or that he would get a fair trial and most of all didn’t want to expose his defense strategy when a criminal case was still pending. You always ignore that little fact.
        If MJ had molested Chandler he would have paid Evan Chandler off in Aug 1993 when Evan first demanded money. He could have silenced them with just 1 million, that is according to the Chandler’s own book! He refused to pay which is why Chandler accused and sued him! They admitted that too in their book so what do you deny? And if MJ had molested Chandler the way Chandler told Dr. Gardner he should have known that MJ was uncut. He didn’t, because his story was not true. Oh by the way you forget that Mj’s first lawyer Bert Fields didn’t want to settle at all and thought the Chandlers had a weak case and tried to get the criminal case go first! No guilty person would do that!
        Also look at Brett Barnes he was not molested and if he was not than Chandler wasn’t either as the two boys looked very similar and had similar relationships with MJ.

        Reply
  15. In And Of Itself

    In and of itself buying, selling, or owning a book full of photos of naked boys does not make someone a pedophile.

    However owning TWO books full of photos of naked boys from the same pedophile publisher Book Adventures PLUS sleeping in the same bed with boys the same age as those depicted in those photos PLUS going on vacation with boys PLUS taking boys on your PLUS grooming boys PLUS not having any realistic relationships with women PLUS being accused by boys of inappropriate sexual behavior and molestation PLUS paying multi millions of dollars in settlements to boys PLUS refusing to answer questions about your relationships with boys from law enforcement and courts WOULD mean that you almost certainly were a pedophile.

    You can deny it or make excuses for Michael Jackson but please don’t expect me to join your club. I prefer reality even if it’s painful.

    Reply
    • I know it can be painful, or inconvenient, but...

      Do you prefer reality? And do you prefer that reality be steeped in those little things that some of non-reality people (I guess) call facts? Cause there’s a whole lotta assumptions and speculations in your post; yet you say and appear to believe that it adds up to “reality” of some kind…
      But, I’m glad you wrapped up your litany of accusations and what you believe it adds up to with what really matters: it “WOULD mean that you almost certainly were a pedophile.” Cause, while you put the emphasis on the word WOULD, the one that really matters is “ALMOST.” Which means after all that, even if everything you speculate about were true, it could still mean that the person wasn’t a pedophile. Why? Cause not a single thing you’ve said here actually says that the person is a pedophile (not a shred of actual evidence). Which is why you’re trying your best to stitch together an outfit, with the threads of “knowledge” you believe you have. But you couldn’t even convince yourself totally, not 100% — hence the “almost.”
      So, it would seem that you are actually in the same club as the rest of us (most of us). That the reality is, despite how things may appear on the surface, it’s possible that it just might not be what it seems. There is a world of difference between absolutely/definitely and almost certainly — and that’s the reality that we all have in live with…

      Reply
      • In And Of Itself

        I’m being honest when I say almost certainly — I was not in the room with MJ and his boy friends and nobody else was either. The point here is that nobody can say he was innocent as some wildly claim. On the balance of probabilities, he molested boys. In a civil court, that would mean he did. I believe Michael Jackson is a pedophile, and I’m going to listen carefully to the evidence of his new accusers before I make up my mind 100% as to whether he was a child molester.

        It’s not helpful though for people to dismiss evidence based on their impression that “MJ was a nice guy,” or “MJ would never do that.” That’s not a good argument — nice people do bad things just as bad people do nice things.

        Reply
        • Would you swear to it, on a stack of bibles?

          Were you replying to the post above? Because I don’t see anything that says “MJ was a nice guy or simply would never do that.”
          And then you go on to just state what you believe to be true, with no more supporting actual evidence than those people you accuse of simply thinking MJ was too nice of a guy to do what some have alleged. You’re basically doing the same thing that you’re blaming others of. Thinking that he’s not a nice guy or creepy or anti-social or gay or has self-hatred, etc. doesn’t make him guilty either.
          And the probability of MJ being guilty is the same as the possibility — it’s possible that he was, it’s possible that he wasn’t. 50-50. Which I guess ultimately is just about the same as anyone’s…

          Reply
    • Hammer

      Well your twisted fantasies about MJ grooming boys and molesting them must be painful indeed but let’s see how much you ignore facts which totally undermine your “reality”: MJ had books with naked women PLUS never expressed attraction toward boys only girls and women PLUS bought pictures of nude women PLUS his computers only had pictures of naked women not boys and hetero adult stuff not child porn PLUS had paintings on his wall of women who looked like the ones he dated or married (Brooke Shields Lisa Marie) PLUS dated girls and women ever since he was a teen (despite being raised as a Jehova Witness who are not supposed to date unless they want to marry the person) PLUS shared his bed with women PLUS had 80+ hetero adult magazines over 12 years PLUS kept articles about the G-spot, PLUS took going on vacation with women PLUS three women claimed that they had sex with him PLUS many other witnesses stated they saw him making out with women, checking out women flirting with women PLUS having actual love notes to women PLUS being caught on tape talking about loving women and wanting to have a real relationship with them PLUS being caught on video checking out hot women PLUS having a wife who got obsessed with him and followed him for years after the divorce (oh yeah no realistic relationship my ass you sure know it better than she does) PLUS never having any credible accuser who went directly to the police instead of trial lawyers who were not caught in lies and inconsistencies who were contradicted by the other kids who had sleepovers with MJ who were either discredited in court or simply refused to be cross-examined in court who always wanted to profit from the allegation some of them repeatedly (Chandlers) PLUS having DOZENS of boys who defended him including those who had the most sleepovers and spent the most time with him (Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Omet Batthi, Brett Barnes, Mac Cuklin, Frank Cascio Eddie Cascio) even after he died even as grown men PLUS having a lifelong history of caring about babies and children and trying to do good things for them (not just having a charity like Second Mile to get access to vulnerable boys like Sandusky)
      lifelong that is ever since he himself was a child to the very end. All of that proves that he was into women and he was not a pedophile as no pedophile has only THOSE kind of accusers that many defenders and so much interest in the adult female form throughout his life and no pedophile ever loved and cared about children all over the world including children he never even met, children who were ugly, disfigured disabled terminally ill both boys and girls of all ages as much as MJ did consistently throughout his life.

      Reply
    • Hammer

      How is it relevant who published those books and whether they were pedophiles? Do you think MJ background checked every author and publisher whenever he got some books from someone? Who does that? Noone. It’s even possible that pedophiles sent the books to MJ after all we know they targetted him like many other crazies and creeps, that went along with his extreme fame. We know NAMBLA wanted to turn him into their poster boy long before NAMBLA supporter Victor Gutierrez teamed up with Evan Chandler to accuse him. But just because pedos fantasized about him or even if they sent him books does not mean he looked at those books like they do. In fact the inscription in Boys will be boys clearly proves that sex was not on MJ’s mind while looking at those happy boys jumping in a lake. And there was never any evidence that MJ ever looked inside that book, where is the fingerprint evidence from those pages? Nothing was shown in court, they didn’t even look or if they did it came back negative and Sneddon buried that evidence because it was exculpatory. MJ took it inscribed it then moved to the next fan item, never paged it and then forget about it is no doubt that happened to many books in his huge library. You simply ignore the facts about those two books which actually prove that he was not a pedophile and prove that Chandler was not molested. Such as this fact: If MJ was guilty and if he had those two books for sexual gratification for years why didn’t he get rid of the books after he learned that Evan Chandler had a plan to accuse him? How come he didn’t get rid of them after Aug 4 meeting where Evan read Dr. Abrams report? He should have been concerned that the Chandlers would go to the police and the police would then raid his ranch and found the books. How come he didn’t get rid of them at least before leaving for the tour? He knew what Evan and Jordan were up to. He knew there could be a raid. But you think he still left those two books in that closed filed cabinet in his private suite just to make sure the police could find something incriminating if the Chandlers accuse him! Look none of that makes sense. The only reasonable explanation is that the books were there because MJ didn’t even remember having them so it didn’t occur to him that the police could find them. And if he didn’t remember them that proves he was not a pedophile because a pedophile would have loved those books and used them many times over those 10 years.

      Reply
  16. simon

    anyone with a brain and the ability to use it to any reasoanble standard already knows that they found no such thing at the neverland ranch. and had they done so the utterly contemptable and desperate prosecution team would have used it. if michael jackson was in posession of child pornography the FBI would have been compelled to charge him with a crime. you may not like michael jackson but you should still be a decent enough person to use your head and logic to wade through these continuous hit pieces by crappy lazy and vindictive journalists

    Reply
  17. You know who I am

    In and of itself it seems that you know an unordinary amount of information about those books and who put them together and for what purpose.
    It’s creepy to say the least and unnecessary if it was true.
    Just exactly how does one gain so much useless information about two pedophiles from the 1960’s?

    Reply
    • In And Of Itself

      Intelligent people will see your ad hominem attack as an attempt to deflect from what I posted. I understand why you wanted to do that.

      I have yet to engage with a Michael Jackson fan who has seen inside the two naked boy books that MJ owned. If they did, they would never argue the points they do.

      A man who innocently loved children would have nothing to do with those books. A quick browse would show what these books really are — legal child pornography masquerading as art. These books were put together by pedophiles to appeal to people who have a sexual interest in children and feature photos of naked boys all around the same age with a focus on their penises, buttocks and anuses. The man in question would be disgusted and throw these books in the trash immediately. He would never keep them or inscribe them. There is also the matter of the 2 naked/semi-naked original photographs of boys MJ owned, and the collection of naturist magazines. While naturist magazines seem harmless, investigators say that many pedophiles collect them because they are a legal way of hoarding naked photos of children.

      It can be argued that MJ wasn’t someone who loved children, not the way he proclaimed.

      A man who loves children does not own suggestive naked photos of them.

      A man who loves children does not make them think he is their best friend and then summarily change his number so they can’t contact him anymore, as MJ did with Corey Feldman.

      A man who loves children does not dump them when they start getting a little older, as MJ did with Sean Lennon.

      A man who loves children does not selfishly use them to capture a lost childhood. MJ took children away from their families for weeks at a time so they would provide companionship for him.

      A man who loves children does not put them in comprosing positions behind closed doors so that they are viewed as possible victims for the rest of their lives, as he did with many boys.

      A man who loves children does not use them as pawns in his PR strategy by having them come on TV to explain their sleepovers with an adult as he did with Wade Robson. Wade was 11 years old.

      A man who loves children does not use them as tools to improve his public image, as MJ did by visiting hospitals when it was convenient for him, or setting up Heal The World and then losing interest after a few years.

      MJ lied when he said he had a selfless love for children. His relationships with children were selfish and self serving.

      Reply
      • You know who I am

        The books that you have changed this discussion to were seen in court by two of the defense leading witnesses at the time.
        Wade Robson himself was told to look through those books while on the witness stand and unwaveringly declared that they meant nothing to him.
        I think it’s time that we stop discussing them because they meant nothing then and mean even less (if that is possible) now.
        The reason is no one here seems to understand a couple of important things.
        One Wade Robson’s case is not about Michael Jackson. It is him suing companies that belonged to Michael Jackson for damages/injuries. You can’t sue a dead person for damages because a dead person can’t damage you.
        Second: I know this going to disappoint you all but on June 13th,2005 Michael Jackson was found not guilty. That means he was returned to the status of being free from guilt. The court actually has to recognize that. It has already been proven he is innocent of the crime that you allege he committed.
        And last but not least, Wade Robson testified 3 times in favor of Michael Jackson and now he suddenly changes his mind and demands money.
        That should tell anyone what his case means and what those books mean.

        Reply
        • In And Of Itself

          Lots of scattered and irrelevant ideas in that comment, I’ll reply to just one.

          I’m surprised you think that these naked boy books mean nothing, when the owner of said books had been sharing his bed with a succession of young boys the same age as those depicted for a number of years.

          Those we know of include Jonathan Spence (1984-1987), Jimmy Safechuck (1987-1992), Sean Lennon (1987), Wade Robson (1990-1997), Brett Barnes (1991-1996) and Jordan Chandler (1993). That list is only the boys (that we know of) Michael Jackson slept with before the police seized these books as part of the 1993 investigation.

          That is a major red flag. If your neighbor shared his bed with a succession of boys for several years you wouldn’t even need these books as further evidence but because this is Michael Jackson, he gets a benefit of the doubt at a magnitude your neighbor never would. It doesn’t make sense. Those books are further proof Michael Jackson was a pedophile.

          Also, a very important point that many people miss is that Michael Jackson’s lawyers, during court discussions, never denied MJ owned these books (or the actual photographs of naked boys for that matter). They were quite open that yes, MJ owned these books, but argued they should be ignored because they had “no probative value”. The judge allowed them in. Yes, a couple of witnesses saw them but to say they weren’t disturbed by them is a lie. They were. It was only after a couple of leading questions from Jackson’s lawyer that they attempted to minimize how important those books were (and we now know at least one of these witnesses, Wade Robson, was coached by Michael Jackson).

          It is only Michael Jackson fans who want to dismiss those pedophile books as “nothing”. Everyone else knows they mean a lot.

          Reply
          • Nice Try

            Actually, a 12-person jury of his peers, who had more details about the allegations, the evidence and the case than you ever will, also dismissed them as “nothing.”
            Oh, and so did the 4 psychological experts who were called to testify (including those for the prosecution). And that if they did “mean a lot,” then you wouldn’t have to try to add “weight” to their meaning with the barrage of all that other stuff mentioned that you call “facts.”

          • Not if what you want is money

            Oh, and do we now know that Wade Robson was “coached” by Jackson? How do we know that? When and where was it proven? In a court of law? What/where is the evidence to substantiate that claim? Or are we now supposed to take the person who said a wide variety of things that completely fly in the face of this alleged coaching (while under oath and swearing to tell the truth) — are we now supposed to take this particular “truth” from him at face value? On Robson’s word? Be for real…

  18. art books can be porn too

    again: MJ settled. Remember how Cosby paid an accuser off, and a stipulation that she couldn’t talk about it? A decade or so later, with more accusations, it’s revealed in those court cases that Cosby ADMITTED to using drugs to knock his vicitims out… but for years and years the woman (women) were portrayed as goldiggers.

    30 plus women later, the truth about Cosby is out. MJ is the same. Why settle, if innocent? Why settle, if the description of your penis was incorrect?

    Reply
    • Civil not the same as Criminal

      No, I don’t remember that. Cause the accuser you’re referring to is actually one of the witnesses in his current trial. So, how did his payment or their settlement keep her from talking about what happened to her? I’m sure it did stipulate that she couldn’t talk about the sum of money (almost every civil settlement has that, to keep other folks from coming up with stories and trying to get paid). But if a criminal case had gone forth at that time (which was up to the DA, not the accuser), she could have testified then. And would not been in breach of her settlement then, just like she won’t be now. Settling a “civil” case can not and should not, prevent a person from any activities surrounding a “criminal” case. After she got paid, this accuser and others still tried to get someone (anyone) to prosecute Cosby. They wouldn’t. Completely unlike the Michael Jackson situation, despite what you said. Cause, in his case, the accusers ran as fast as they could from any criminal proceedings and definitely didn’t want to go to trial — although they still had every right to pursue “criminal” legal action if they wanted to.
      And let me answer your last question like this — why wouldn’t the parents of an alleged child victim want to see the criminal trial all the way through and the person go to jail for their crime — if the penis description was correct as you say? Cause the case would have been a slam dunk, right? So, you get MJ to go to jail and actually pay (for real) for what you’re alleging he did. And then you sue him/his businesses in civil court. Probably would walk away with 5x the settlement amount. MJ was at the height of his financial power at that time I’m sure. So, you get $100 mil and MJ rots in jail? Why would anyone in their right mind, and out for justice, not take that route — if they had the smoking gun of the accurate penis description?

      Reply
      • Humanity

        they didn’t proceed because the kid, and family, would be attacked by haters like you (and the press) and millions of other rabid fan(atics) for years and years and years as the trial would have dragged on. (look at how all the women who accused Cosby were treated.) they would be in a type of jail for years.

        re: the cosby case, the original records were sealed by court order. the woman couldn’t legally talk about it. do you seriously think the stipulations would say “you can’t talk about the sum, but feel free to talk about details of the case?” of course not.

        Reply
        • Facts are facts

          Haters? Are you a teen yourself? Because, if so, I wouldn’t want to waste time trying to have a discussion with you.
          But, it’s a good thing that you’re admitting that the accuser and his family had a choice to go forward with criminal proceedings — and chose not to. Which was the poster above’s point. Backlash (from haters, the press, rabid fanatics, martians, unicorns, social media and whomever else you’d like to blame) is something that every alleged rape/molestation victim has to endure — on varying levels. (Though a minor’s identity would legally have to be protected, so their backlash is certainly lessened.) And while backlash shouldn’t happen to anyone, ultimately the choice to try to “get justice” in open court is still theirs. And this accuser/family had that option. They opted not to take it. Plain and simple.
          Nothing you said in response to the above poster changes that…

          Reply
    • Hammer

      Mj is totally no the same. In fact the differences between Cosby and MJ shows why Cosby is guilty and MJ is not.
      Bill Cosby vs. Michael Jackson
      scribd.com/document/322026636/Bill-Cosby-vs-Michael-Jackson
      Why settle? How can you ask that in light of what happened in 2005?
      He won in court and it didn’t matter. You still ignore the verdict. What’s the point of going through that hell when people like you don’t accept that he didn’t molest that accuser? Innocent people not only settle they even plead guilty if they don’t think they would get a fair trial. If MJ had been guilty he would have paid Chandler in Aug 1993 to prevent a police investigation. the very fact that Mj refused to pay itself proves that he was innocent and he believed that justice would prevail.
      The description was incorrect, if it had been correct he would have been arrest and charged after that strip search. MJ obviously didn’t want those photos to be shown to the whole world and wanted to make sure Larry Feldman didn’t get his hands on them.

      Reply
      • Humanity

        the very fact that MJ refused to pay until an accurate description of his private parts was given — meaning it was more than just “your word against mine”, but factual — says that MJ is guilty.

        Reply
  19. You know who I am

    The description was not a match. If it had been he would have been arrested because the description was the Statement of Probable Cause. The Sheriff and attorney’s including Sneddon went there with two warrants one for his body and one for him if the evidence was proven. It wasn’t obviously which is exactly why Michael Jackson went on TV to show.

    Reply
    • Casper

      Michael Jackson paid to settle the claim in that case, which shows a few possibilities.

      1) The description was correct and matched so Michael Jackson paid;

      2) Michael Jackson wasn’t sure if the description matched or not, but he and Jordan had been in situations where Jordan had seen is genitals so he knew the boy probably got it right so Michael Jackson paid;

      3) Michael Jackson knew there was no way the description could be correct, but decided he would prefer to be known as a child molester rather than fight it, so he paid.

      4) He was forced to pay by the companies he worked with.

      Number 3 and 4 make little sense. Child molestation is not something that can be swept under the rug – Michael Jackson’s lawyers knew this and the companies he worked with knew this. There is no way they would put the cash machine in jeopardy, if there was a choice between proving him innocent or paying money to have child molestation allegations go away they would choose proving him innocent every time.

      No, Jordan’s description was the final proof positive in a saga that Jackson thought he could get out of with threats and lowball offers to the family, before the corroborating photos were taken. After that, he had no choice. He knew that description was what the Chandler family needed to finally show the world MJ was guilty, and had no choice but to pay up.

      It’s true the Chandlers were greedy and wanted money and never wanted to go to court (except for the mother who appeared at the 2005 trial). It turned out that they didn’t have the leverage to bypass the courts until Tom Sneddon got the evidence.

      Can you give a link in regards to Tom Sneddon having two warrants?

      Reply
  20. Casper is a great cartoon

    I’m sure glad that you were able to weigh in and give us all the possibilities in a situation such as the one in question. Oh wait, you didn’t give us all the possibilities — you clearly state that your comment only lists a “few” possible options, or theories as they were. Unfortunately, the fact that you were only able to come up with the multiple choices that you did is really simply an indication of your abilities (or lack thereof). What’s it not is an exhaustive list of the myriad reasons for an individual in a situation of that kind to settle…
    And given the various other “conclusions” you make and you state as “facts” — like “child molestation is not something that can be swept under the rug” or “they (an attorney) would choose proving him (a client) innocent every time” only shows that you have little to no understanding of this particular case and even less comprehension of how legal proceedings and being a legal advocate for your client work.
    It’s good to hear that you are aware that the mother from the 1993 allegations did testify in the 2005 trial though — because that fact serves to disprove all those who think that taking a settlement prevents an individual from participating in a criminal case. Should I also assume you’re aware that the mother testified that she never thought her son had been molested in 1993? And that her son never told her that he was or gave any indication of such? Her testimony was supposed to be the day in which the prosecution would win their case — and nothing of the sort materialized.
    But, have you or anyone who thinks it was such an obvious case of guilt ever wondered why prosecutors didn’t put the father from 1993 on the stand in the trial of 2005? I mean, he’s the one who made the allegations and claimed his son told him about the abuse…
    So, why wouldn’t the DA put him and his knowledge of the “accurate penis description” front and center as the absolute final nail in the coffin during the later court trial? Cause the description being a match is a fantasy and the father was even less helpful (believable) as a witness than the mother…

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *