Michael Jackson canceled (new documentary)

[popcorn]

Yes, that "pretty big coincidence" doesn't have to be a coincidence at all. If CaB poster St Eddie is able to know what Jordan Chandler said about MJ's abuse it is not extraordinary that Robson and Safechuck could either.

[popcorn]

Quite an evening's browsing.

[mrpupkin]

To be fair you could paint someone in many different lights by cherry picking their browser history. I'm sure many other visitors to adoption.com have also looked at legal porn sites.

[popcorn]

Yep.

[Shit Good Nose]

To be fair you could paint someone in many different lights by cherry picking their browser history. I'm sure many other visitors to adoption.com have also looked at legal porn sites.

It's the physical items as listed in the link Eddie posted on the previous page which is an eye opener for those of us with limited knowledge of the case(s) - it's more than just a legitimately innocent Paul-Reubens-one-book-with-a-couple-of-questionable-photos-amongst-thousands-of-non-questionable-books-and-photos-in-an-enormous-pile-of-kitsch thing.  A LOT more...

[Head Gardener]

this news just in

[poodlefaker]

"Robert Maxwell Photographs" - what kind of sick pervert was he?

[gib]

It's the physical items as listed in the link Eddie posted on the previous page which is an eye opener for those of us with limited knowledge of the case(s) - it's more than just a legitimately innocent Paul-Reubens-one-book-with-a-couple-of-questionable-photos-amongst-thousands-of-non-questionable-books-and-photos-in-an-enormous-pile-of-kitsch thing.  A LOT more...

Absolutely. How anyone is even in the slightest doubt after reading that is baffling. Here's the link again:

Here's the official document of items seized in the raid on Neverland.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

ADDITIONAL: Here's the official document of items seized in the raid on Neverland.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

[gib]

ROBERT MAXWELL PHOTOGRAPHS, blimey.

[buzby]

ROBERT MAXWELL PHOTOGRAPHS, blimey.

Does arty B&W portraits for the likes of Vanty Fair, but his photobooks have a bit more questionlabe content, lots of retro-style nudes, including some of his own kids. Brrrr.....shades of the old Eric Gill.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Robert-Maxwell-CL-Photographs/dp/1892041324

[PaulTMA]

Apologies if a Mirror link is frowned upon, but yeah, footage of Jackson (and a young lad) buying a wedding ring in 1989.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-caught-cctv-using-14124162

[Head Gardener]

Does arty B&W portraits for the likes of Vanty Fair, but his photobooks have a bit more questionlabe content, lots of retro-style nudes, including some of his own kids. Brrrr.....shades of the old Eric Gill.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Robert-Maxwell-CL-Photographs/dp/1892041324

isn't one of those Milla Jovovich aka Luc Besson's ex-missus?

[St_Eddie]

To be fair you could paint someone in many different lights by cherry picking their browser history. I'm sure many other visitors to adoption.com have also looked at legal porn sites.

Yep.

Is there also an innocent explanation for the pornographic magazine ('Hustler - Barely Legal Hardcore') having multiple fingerprints of both Jackson and one of his accuser's within its pages?  What was it his accusers said again; oh yes, "Michael would show us pornographic magazines to normalise sex, as part of the grooming process".

How about the nude photograph of Jonathan Spence.  Did Jackson take that nude posed photograph of someone else's kid by accident?

There's more actual physical evidence in this case than the ever was with Jimmy Savile and yet something tells me that you weren't so keen to discredit the accusers in that particular instance.  Now, why is that?  Is it because Jackson was likable and Savile wasn't?  Perhaps because Jackson was immensely talented and Savile wasn't?  I think that you need to ask yourself these questions because the evidence in the Jackson case is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

[Sin Agog]

Michael Jacks Sons.

[Nowhere Man]

Apologies if a Mirror link is frowned upon, but yeah, footage of Jackson (and a young lad) buying a wedding ring in 1989.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-caught-cctv-using-14124162

Yeah that's fucking creepy as fuck, that and the boys fingerprints on Jackson's porn magazines as St Eddie just mentioned are pretty fucking solid evidence, in line with Safechuck's testimony.

[idunnosomename]

Michael Jacks Sons.

It doesn't look good for Bruce Dickinson!!!

[TrenterPercenter]

Is there also an innocent explanation for the pornographic magazine ('Hustler - Barely Legal Hardcore') having multiple fingerprints of both Jackson and one of his accuser's within its pages?  What was it his accusers said again; oh yes, "Michael would show us pornographic magazines to normalise sex, as part of the grooming process".

Well yes of course there is (as you'll see).

They both viewed the magazine separately as was the defence claimed at the trial (don't worry there is more).  The question is "is it conceivably possible that the two sets of finger prints could occur independently from each other?", and the jury considered yes, likely because it is actually possible, just like it is possible for minors to find and touch porn stashes all over the world.

However that is just the considerations that should happen for any balanced appraisal, what claimed in the trial was that the fingerprints were placed on the magazine AFTER they were seized as evidence, as the magazine was handed to the plaintiff at the grand jury prior to magazine being inspected for finger prints.  Which sounds mad but was witnessed and reported on:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis.

also the fingerprints were not lifted until a year after confiscation and you missed out the bit that no DNA evidence was ever found, which you would expect if MJ was going to wipe DNA away he'd wipe fingerprints as well.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/celebrity/jackson-trial-told-of-year-s-delay-before-fingerprints-were-taken-1-740951

There is some wider naivety of the law going on here as well I might say.

Anyway as it says in the report it is the corroborating testimony of Arviso that makes the items admissible so it came down to whether the testimony was believed:

this is what one of the Jurors said:

Paulina Coccoz "As a mother of three children, I felt very strongly about the Michael Jackson case and was determined to consider all sides of the story. But despite my natural impulse to side with the children, I was among the majority of jurors who felt the accuser, and his family, were simply not credible enough to indict Michael."

I feel the constant leading of ones conclusion makes you negligent with the evidence, on both sides of this people only want to see what they want to see.

Safechucks testimony for example, the question is "is it conceivable that Safechuck knew about the allegations made against MJ prior to his testimony" the answer is yes of course, just like you he could have looked it up.

I'm not saying this because I think MJ is innocent, i'm saying this because not actually dealing with evidence properly allows guilty people to to get away with things, this is possibly what has happened with MJ.  It also absolutely possible that MJ was a child abuser but didn't abuse Wade or Safechuck......that hasn't even been considered once in this whole conversation.  All these two have to do is read these case reports like you, to make corroborating stories, it is incredibly simple.

This is why you have to report everything....an amazing smoking gun (like your fingerprints) becomes counterproductive when you get so narrowly focused on your prejudged conclusion as to not critically assess it.  It sounds funny but to prove MJ is guilty you first have to consider he could be innocent.

How about the nude photograph of Jonathan Spence.  Did Jackson take that nude posed photograph of someone else's kid by accident?

Again sloppy, why do you assert that MJ took the picture?  But anyway of course putting "nude picture of boy" next to a load of porn appears highly questionable.  I don't know about this but you've already shown some bias in your framing of it.  I'll have a look and see if there is anything more around this.

There's more actual physical evidence in this case than the ever was with Jimmy Savile and yet something tells me that you weren't so keen to discredit the accusers in that particular instance.  Now, why is that?  Is it because Jackson was likable and Savile wasn't?  Perhaps because Jackson was immensely talented and Savile wasn't?  I think that you need to ask yourself these questions because the evidence in the Jackson case is, quite frankly, overwhelming.

These kind of emotional appeals are really not helpful.  The cases are completely different for loads of obvious reasons.  Can I just say that minds really do play tricks on people and if you are already convinced of someones guilt then you are compromised as a witness and investigator (unless you are paid to represent them in court).  That is a very different thing than someone being guilty or not, and like I say the real problem is when in pursuing someones bias they end up imprisoning the wrong person OR letting a guilty person go by tainting trials etc...

[bgmnts]

"Very graphic" made me laugh for some reason.

[Noodle Lizard]

It was the one with "children's heads morphed onto older bodies" that made me laugh.  Impossible not to think of the Brass Eye special.

--

Back to the documentary, I also just watched the Surviving R. Kelly series, and found that to be far more convincing and engaging - despite all its tacky American tabloid presentation.  It left me without a doubt in my mind, and the part where one of the victims' mothers actually goes and "rescues" her is phenomenal.  Unless any of that was staged (which seems highly unlikely), it's impossible to come to any other conclusion about R. Kelly and it's pretty amazing that he's even allowed to roam free for the time being.

With the Jackson one, it's hampered by the fact that he's dead and so there's no real justice to be had, as well as the fact that its presentation is little more than two people talking at length and a bunch of moody drone shots of LA.  I'm well inclined to believe their stories are true, but it didn't leave me with the certainty that the R. Kelly one has.

[St_Eddie]

These kind of emotional appeals are really not helpful.  The cases are completely different for loads of obvious reasons.  Can I just say that minds really do play tricks on people and if you are already convinced of someones guilt then you are compromised as a witness and investigator (unless you are paid to represent them in court).  That is a very different thing than someone being guilty or not, and like I say the real problem is when in pursuing someones bias they end up imprisoning the wrong person OR letting a guilty person go by tainting trials etc...

No, no.  You're right.  I now think that Savile was innocent.

[TrenterPercenter]

No, no.  You're right.  I now think that Savile was innocent.

Now now come on you know what I meant.  How do you feel about the fingerprints now?

[Golden E. Pump]

Let me get this straight:

A man is accused of paedophilia - yeah okay, innocent until proven guilty, fair enough.
Said man is accused of paedophilia at least four times - hmmm, none of the evidence seems to stick though, so maybe he's innocent here.
Said man is known to hang about almost exclusively with, and share a bed with, multiple young boys and then is accused of paedophila at least four times - this is starting to sound a bit weird, but maybe he's a man-child.
Said man is proven to have purchased a 'wedding ring' for one of the children whom we know he shared a bed with as described during one of at least four times he was accused of paedophilia - maybe it's a coincidence, I don't know. Maybe the boy really liked jewellery?
Said man is known to have purchased a 'wedding ring' for one of the children whom we know he shared a bed with as described during one of at least four times he was accused of paedophilia and just so happened to have possessed naked pictures of boys from a variety of sources in his home - oh fuck you, Michael. You're either a paedophile or the world's stupidest man.

How can people still deny it after all this? It's as if a man found to be in possession of multiple exotic knives and weapons, who had gone on record as saying he loved to hang around prostitutes and whose house was always the last known location of several missing call girls would be totally bewildered when somebody says 'hang on, I reckon that guy may be murdering all those missing prostitutes'. It's an astounding leap in logic to defend him at this point.

[idunnosomename]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xmAC9Qu908

"No, no, no, fingerprints!!"

[St_Eddie]

These kind of emotional appeals are really not helpful.  The cases are completely different for loads of obvious reasons.  Can I just say that minds really do play tricks on people and if you are already convinced of someones guilt then you are compromised as a witness and investigator (unless you are paid to represent them in court).  That is a very different thing than someone being guilty or not, and like I say the real problem is when in pursuing someones bias they end up imprisoning the wrong person OR letting a guilty person go by tainting trials etc...

I'm not appealing to anyone's emotions.  I'm pointing out hypocrisy, your own included.  Did you or did you not sit on the fence when the accusations against Savile came into light?  Did you try to break down people's testimonies against Savile?  Did you do these things, as you now are for Jackson?  I think that I already know the answers to those questions.

Jackson had a ton of 'naturist' magazines, featuring naked young boys.  Read my prior links; these magazines are a favourite of peadophiles looking to legally possess child pornography.  You are incredibly naive if you think that Jackson had those magazines for completely innocent reasons.  You actually tried to dismiss the naked photo of Jonathon Spence by way of "how do you know that Jackson took that photo?".  Get real.  You're dripping with bias.

[St_Eddie]

Now now come on you know what I meant.  How do you feel about the fingerprints now?

I don't care.  It's far from the only evidence.  It's just one small factor.  Not that I necessarily buy the defense but it's not the only "smoking gun" of the case.  There are dozens upon dozens.

[St_Eddie]

Let me get this straight:

A man is accused of paedophilia - yeah okay, innocent until proven guilty, fair enough.
Said man is accused of paedophilia at least four times - hmmm, none of the evidence seems to stick though, so maybe he's innocent here.
Said man is known to hang about almost exclusively with, and share a bed with, multiple young boys and then is accused of paedophila at least four times - this is starting to sound a bit weird, but maybe he's a man-child.
Said man is proven to have purchased a 'wedding ring' for one of the children whom we know he shared a bed with as described during one of at least four times he was accused of paedophilia - maybe it's a coincidence, I don't know. Maybe the boy really liked jewellery?
Said man is known to have purchased a 'wedding ring' for one of the children whom we know he shared a bed with as described during one of at least four times he was accused of paedophilia and just so happened to have possessed naked pictures of boys from a variety of sources in his home - oh fuck you, Michael. You're either a paedophile or the world's stupidest man.

How can people still deny it after all this? It's as if a man found to be in possession of multiple exotic knives and weapons, who had gone on record as saying he loved to hang around prostitutes and whose house was always the last known location of several missing call girls would be totally bewildered when somebody says 'hang on, I reckon that guy may be murdering all those missing prostitutes'. It's an astounding leap in logic to defend him at this point.

Spot. Fucking. On.

[St_Eddie]

"I think Savile was probably falsely accused".  "I think that O.J. Simpson is innocent".  Not something you hear very often.  "Michael Jackson was just a kid at heart, that's all".  Something you hear far too much of.

Sick of the hypocrisy.  You liked Jackson's music.  Fine.  He was, in 99% probability, a peadophile.  Deal with it.  Jumping through hoops and performing mental gymnastics in order to excuse a peadophile, just because you like their music, is not something I look kindly upon.

Listen, I love the films of Roman Polanksi.  Love them.  Bitter Moon remains my favourite film of all time.  I still acknowledge that he's a dirty little bastard and hold no absolutely no respect for him as a human being though.  I just love his art.  I can't stand people who refuse to see the truth, just because they're too ego-centric to accept that they like the works of a bad person.  Willful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance.

[gib]

Trenter mate, do not die on this hill.

[TrenterPercenter]

I think Savile was probably falsely accused.  I think that O.J. Simpson is innocent.  Not something you hear very often.

Sick of the hypocrisy.  You liked Jackson's music.  Fine.  He was, in 99% probability, a peadophile.  Deal with it.  Jumping through hoops and performing mental gymnastics in order to excuse a peadophile is not something I look kindly upon.

This is little more than a tantrum mate.  This is exactly what needs to stop. Stick with the facts.

Please highlight the mental gymnastics/hoops that are being jumped through about the fingerprint evidence? 

It's late so i'll response tomorrow