Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Crux

Michael Jackson: Paedophile

Recommended Posts

 

1 hour ago, karbatal said:

Yes, there were: 

According to child sexual abuse consultant Bill Dworin, one of the lead detectives on the case, Jordan's description comported with the photos taken of Jackson's genitalia.[52] Dr. Richard Strick, who conducted the examination of Jackson's genitals, said "I was told later that the photos and description absolutely matched".[53]Sneddon later that "the photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis", and that "Chandler's graphic representation of the discolored area on Defendant's penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs".[54] Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s photographer, claims he observed a dark spot on the lower side of Jackson’s penis.[55]
 

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Lies! http://www.michaeljacksonisinnocentofallcharges.com debunks this story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karbatal said:

Yes, there were: 

According to child sexual abuse consultant Bill Dworin, one of the lead detectives on the case, Jordan's description comported with the photos taken of Jackson's genitalia.[52] Dr. Richard Strick, who conducted the examination of Jackson's genitals, said "I was told later that the photos and description absolutely matched".[53]Sneddon later that "the photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis", and that "Chandler's graphic representation of the discolored area on Defendant's penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs".[54] Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff’s photographer, claims he observed a dark spot on the lower side of Jackson’s penis.[55]
 

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Good try. Now let's go through this, shall we?

1) Bill Dworin was involved in the investigation, that is correct. However, the actual evidence - meaning the taken pics and the description submitted by Jordan Chandler - were never submitted to him for review, but to Gil Garcetti (Los Angeles District Attorney) and Lauren Weis (his deputy) who both concluded there was no match. This formed the basis to the news from USA Today, Reuters, LA Times etc. that all reported a mismatch, before the money settlement even came into discussion.  (But I hear factsdontmatterwithmichaeljackson.com tells us they were all paid off obviously, so it's all good)

2) Similarly, Dr. Richard Strick or Gary Spiegel were not present when the comparison took place. They were told (as Mr. Strick himself says) there was a match, and digging a bit deeper (or looking into the document) will quickly bring out who they were told by, and it's of course Mr. Sneddon.

3) This leaves us with Mr. Sneddon. Considering he was one of the lead investigators in '03 as well and had Jackson's whole Neverland Ranch turned on its head in order to find sth compromising, I wonder why he didn't choose to include the pics if they were so matching? Hmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nonoka said:

Good try. Now let's go through this, shall we?

1) Bill Dworin was involved in the investigation, that is correct. However, the actual evidence - meaning the taken pics and the description submitted by Jordan Chandler - were never submitted to him for review, but to Gil Garcetti (Los Angeles District Attorney) and Lauren Weis (his deputy) who both concluded there was no match. (But I hear factsdontmatterwithmichaeljackson.com tells us they were both paid off obviously, so it's all good)

2) Similarly, Dr. Richard Strick or Gary Spiegel were not present when the comparison took place. They were told (as Mr. Strick himself says) there was a match, and digging a bit deeper (or looking into the document) will quickly bring out who they were told by, and it's of course Mr. Sneddon.

3) This leaves us with Mr. Sneddon. Considering he was one of the lead investigators in '03 as well and had Jackson's whole Neverland Ranch turned on its head in order to find sth compromising, I wonder why he didn't choose to include the pics if they were so matching? Hmmmm.

Oh dear, it was the JUDGE who didn't accept it. He couldn't included the prove as only a court order was possible.

Sneddon originally asked Jackson's first accuser Jordan Chandler to draw a picture of the singer's genitals in 1993 after the boy claimed Jackson had a unique blemish on his manhood - which is reportedly "striped like a barber's pole"Police then took photos of Jackson's penis to see if it matched the descriptionAlthough the case was settled out of court, the prosecution wanted to show the pictures in the trial to 'prove' previous intimate relationships with childrenHowever, the judge refused saying the pictures would prejudice the trial. Sneddon, meanwhile, has angrily denied possessing the pictures saying they were put into storage over 10 years ago

He said: "It's just nonsense I don't have those photos Nobody can get them without a court order"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Supernatural said:

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

 

According to http://ww.maninthemirrormichaelweloveyou.com  he was asexual but had hetero pornography because he was not into minors but he didn't like anything when little children slept with him in the bed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jazzy Jan said:

Sorry Kurt but completely disagree.  Only when people see the full details,  can they understand what was happening.  

Have you ever watched any documentary series on Jimmy Saville ?   Well, there was not " proof"  there either,  only the victim's words.  One girl who come from a rough, troubled childhood went into detail of what happened.  Jimmy used to take her out and get her to give him blowjobs.  This girl explained that she copped it because she had a grandfather at home that used to sexually abuse her far worse than that and it seemed like nothing as Jimmy did not hit her.  I can't remember it exactly but along those lines.  She was talking so matter of factually and then all of a sudden become teary and emotional.  It was so real and so devastating.  I started crying too watching it,  thinking of how dreadful this girl's life was that she was able to explain being sexually abused as a child and just copping it.   

There have been royal commission into things such as child sex abuse in the church,  sexual abuse and torture in the armed forces as rituals etc where again victims have told explicitly what happened to them.  It makes people understand exactly what they went through.  There is no use sugar coating things, otherwise people will just think it is not that serious.  Similar with that movie "  The stoning of Soraya M "   That movie affected me and upset me for months after seeing it and again showed exactly what women getting stoned to death go through.  Lots of times, people just block out how horrifying and real sexual abuse is and why should abusers be given that luxury. 

I think @Nonoka explained this better than I can.

This is the only high profile case that I've ever really questioned because there are so many convenient "coincidences" (on both sides) and "blurred lines".......of course that's to be expected to a degree with most cases like this. However, some of things that Nonoka outlined in their post do deserve to be considered. 

I'm not as well versed with the Saville allegations. I know just the bare basics I suppose.....literally hundreds have come out and the stories are pretty unwavering. Based on the little I know of this, it's far more "cut and dry" than MJ's case. I'll have to read up more on it though. 

I get your point though Jazzy, I can see how hearing unfiltered accounts of the abuse does hit harder for the viewer making it more impactful and believable. Have never heard of that movie, "The Stoning of Soraya M" but I just read up on it and that sounds absolutely horrifying. I don't know if I can even watch that tbqh. Sounds potentially traumatizing. 😢 This world never fails to disgust me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, karbatal said:

According to http://ww.maninthemirrormichaelweloveyou.com  he was asexual but had hetero pornography because he was not into minors but he didn't like anything when little children slept with him in the bed. 

So the sham "I'm a straight male into adults look at me kiss Elvis' daughter on live tv" PR stunt doesn't get factored in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To each of you who believe he was guilty... 

Have you read the court documents?

Have you listened to or watched any interviews with those involved, accusers, witnesses, lawyers, jurors etc...? 

Have you read books about it?

What are your opinions based on? 

Just out of interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Supernatural said:

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

 

My guess is that he was into women but was also a bit intimidated by them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Supernatural said:

So the sham "I'm a straight male into adults look at me kiss Elvis' daughter on live tv" PR stunt doesn't get factored in?

I'm afraid not.

Though I would venture the guess this could be an indiciation for where his interests might have possibly lied, no?

Spoiler
  • Hustler centerfold, 10 August 1992
  • Playboy centerfold, Miss October
  • Playboy centerfold, Miss November
  • Playboy centerfold, 16 Miss March
  • Hustler centerfold, June 1993
  • Playboy centerfold, unknown date
  • Penthouse Page No. 153-154
  • Centerfold, Miss May
  • Penthouse, Page 8
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Playboy centerfold
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Penthouse, August 1991
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Club International centerfold
  • Penthouse, double page 6/211
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Penthouse, May 1992
  • Hustler, Centerfold Special Holiday Honey 1991
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Penthouse centerfold
  • Penthouse, November 1991
  • Playboy Magazine, Centerfold Miss November
  • Playboy Magazine, Centerfold Miss February
  • Playboy Magazine, Centerfold Miss December
  • Al Golstein’s 100 Best Adult Videos Advertisement
  • Playboy Magazine, Centerfold
  • Hustler Magazine Cover, May 1992
  • Page from Unknown Magazine
  • Stiff Dick for Lynn Magazine (In Notebook)
  • Barely Legal Magazine
  • Just Legal Magazine, (Premier Issue) (In Notebook)
  • Finally Legal Magazine (In Notebook)
  • Playboy Magazine, February 1993 (In Notebook)
  • Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook)
  • Playboy Magazine, December 1994 (In Notebook)
  • Playboy Magazine, May 1994 (In Notebook)
  • Hustler Magazine, Barely Legal (In Notebook)
  • Penthouse Magazine (In Notebook)
  • Visions of Fantasy Magazine, A Hard Rock Affair (In Notebook)
  • Visions of Fantasy Magazine, Sam Jose’s Black Starlett (In Notebook)
  • Double Dicking Caroline Magazine (In Notebook)
  • Big Tits and a Hard Stud Magazine
  • Hustler Magazine
  • Celebrity Skin Magazine (In Notebook)
  • Oui, March 1998 in binder
  • Over 50, Volume 5, #9, 1996 in binder
  • XX rated, April 1995
  • Close Up, April 1995 in binder
  • Just 18, Volume 4, Issue No. 10
  • Plumpers centerfold
  • Hustler, August 1992
  • Hustler, April 1998
  • (No cover) in binder
  • Penthouse, March 1992 in binder
  • Juggs, June 1996 in binder
  • 44 Plus, June 1996 in binder
  • Plumpers, May 1996 in binder
  • Club International, March 1998 in binder
  • Live Young Girls, September in binder
  • Finally Legal, July 2003 in notebook
  • Finally Legal Freshman Class
  • Orgy, August 2002 in binder
  • Purely 18, October 2002 in binder
  • Purely 18, December 2002 in binder
  • Tight, November 2002 in binder
  • Hawk, November 2002 in binder
  • Hawk, January 2003 in binder
  • Live Young Girls, June 2003 in binder
  • Girlfriends in binder
  • Live Young Girls in binder
  • Parade
  • Finally Legal, February 2003 in binder
  • Girls of Barely Legal in binder
  • Hawk, February 2003 in binder
  • Girlfriends, Special Editions in binder
  • White binder containing The Girls of Penthouse, August 19 2003 in binder
  • White binder containing Barely Legal, July 200 21 in binder
  • Gallery 5/2002
  • Binder containing Playboy
  • Couples Volume 2, Issue 2
  • White binder containing Barely Legal, Anniversary 2002
  • White binder containing Naughty Neighbors, December
  • Hustler Barely Legal  [31]

DVDs:

  • Pimps Up, Hos Down (1998 documentary)
  • Fresh Picked Pink
  • Dirty Teens Come Clean
  • Hot! Wet! Tight! Pink!
  • Fuck Me, I’m Legal
  • Michael Ryan’s Believe It Or Not
  • Sloppy Dogs Presents: Fuck Me, I’m a Bad Girl
  • Adult World #2
Spoiler

A search of over sixteen computer hard drives seized in the 2003 raid revealed nothing except that he occasionally visited a few adult legal porn sites where he liked to log in as “Dr. Black” and “Marcel Jackson.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?guccounter=1

(Not according to the-court-of-public-opinion.com though who have ruled all of this was used for grooming / for decoy / as tactics (special offer today, choose one theory of your liking and get two for free)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Supernatural said:

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

 

I think he may have been intimidated by adults and adult sexualities.

If he was heterosexual he was certainly intimidated by women. 

He may have felt shame and self-loathing at the thought of sex and after a sexual activity.

I don't know if he sexually abused those boys but he was certainly a paedophile in behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karbatal said:

Oh dear, it was the JUDGE who didn't accept it. He couldn't included the prove as only a court order was possible.

Sneddon originally asked Jackson's first accuser Jordan Chandler to draw a picture of the singer's genitals in 1993 after the boy claimed Jackson had a unique blemish on his manhood - which is reportedly "striped like a barber's pole"Police then took photos of Jackson's penis to see if it matched the descriptionAlthough the case was settled out of court, the prosecution wanted to show the pictures in the trial to 'prove' previous intimate relationships with childrenHowever, the judge refused saying the pictures would prejudice the trial. Sneddon, meanwhile, has angrily denied possessing the pictures saying they were put into storage over 10 years ago

He said: "It's just nonsense I don't have those photos Nobody can get them without a court order"

 

Um, no. No idea where you got this from (well, Google tells me it's from femalefirst.co.uk), but Sneddon did choose to leave out the pictures when preparing the prosecution. He did try hastily introducing the pictures mid-way through the trial in 2005 (again, I wonder why only then, hmmm) and this was rejected by the judge indeed for obvious reasons. You had months and months to prepare your evidence, but then try to bring this in 2 weeks before the trial was supposed to end? Hmmmm. 

Here is the court transcript (propaganda) where you can read this yourself:

https://de.scribd.com/document/111094302/UNSEALED-Grand-Jury-Court-Transcripts-People-v-Michael-Jackson-Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion-to-Set-Aside-the-Indictment-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Au (under May 26, 2005)

2 hours ago, karbatal said:

I do love your humour, though :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Supernatural said:

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

I truly don't know. He was married to a woman and apparently had tons of straight porn so, there's that. People will say it was all fake and a decoy or whatever but I'm sure if they had found an equal amount of just gay porn (something that fit into their pre-conceived narrative) then the "what if's" about his sexuality would cease to exist and that porn would be the "smoking gun" as far as being definitive proof of his true sexuality. Even though they found the straight porn and he was married to a woman, nobody is taking that as definitive proof of his sexuality (myself included). It's funny how that works. On paper though, I suppose he was straight. 🤷‍♂️  

I don't mean this in a nasty way whatsoever but I don't know how his sexuality is even relevant really. Sure, if they had found mounds of child porn then that's that but would anyone care whether he's straight or gay then? Even if he had been a well known "womanizer", that had seemingly normal relationships his entire life but still had these exact same claims against him, would that really make a difference in assessing his guilt? On the flip side, if he were an out and proud gay man and had these same allegations, would some people be more inclined to believe he's definitely guilty? All interesting things to consider really.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kurt420 said:

I truly don't know. He was married to a woman and apparently had tons of straight porn so, there's that. People will say it was all fake and a decoy or whatever but I'm sure if they had found an equal amount of just gay porn (something that fit into their pre-conceived narrative) then the "what if's" about his sexuality would cease to exist and that porn would be the "smoking gun" as far as being definitive proof of his true sexuality. Even though they found the straight porn and he was married to a woman, nobody is taking that as definitive proof of his sexuality (myself included). It's funny how that works. On paper though, I suppose he was straight. 🤷‍♂️  

I don't mean this in a nasty way whatsoever but I don't know how his sexuality is even relevant really. Sure, if they had found mounds of child porn then that's that but would anyone care whether he's straight or gay then? Even if he had been a well known "womanizer", that had seemingly normal relationships his entire life but still had these exact same claims against him, would that really make a difference in assessing his guilt? On the flip side, if he were an out and proud gay man and had these same allegations, would some people be more inclined to believe he's definitely guilty? All interesting things to consider really.

 

 

 

I guess I'm asking because if someone doesn't view his fixation on children as his sexuality, I'm curious what romantic or sexual relationships they view him as having? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nonoka said:

(Not according to the-court-of-public-opinion.com though who have ruled all of this was used for grooming / for decoy / as tactics (special offer today, choose one theory of your liking and get two for free)

It's that very court of public opinion that allows YOU to theorize as you did a few posts ago about why you think one of the guys is making it all up - because he didn't get a choreography contract and no one would buy his book. You don't need "proof" for that either.

3 hours ago, Supernatural said:

For those that think he was innocent, what is your opinion on his sexuality? Where do his interests appear to be? Men? Women? Children? Nothing?

I'd say the constant steady stream of cute little boys on his arm would give an indication. Still boggles my mind that this just gets filed under "pied piper, peter pan, recaptured childhood" CRAP when it was clearly the cover for his deviancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, White Heat said:

To each of you who believe he was guilty... 

Have you read the court documents?

Have you listened to or watched any interviews with those involved, accusers, witnesses, lawyers, jurors etc...? 

Have you read books about it?

What are your opinions based on? 

Just out of interest. 

I think there's abuse in grooming children for your own needs whatever they may be. I think telling the world man/ boy sleepovers are ok is absurdly  harmful to children. I don't really feel the need to dig deeper to determine if he was touching kids too as if everything else was OK. And millionaire singer vs poor children court case is going to be a clusterfuck of misinformation (from both sides) anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Supernatural said:

I guess I'm asking because if someone doesn't view his fixation on children as his sexuality, I'm curious what romantic or sexual relationships they view him as having? 

Ah ok! Makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think for one second he was straight. The two women he married and the marriages were weird.  Lisa Marie is a messed up celebrity herself, always known as Elvis's daughter and her mother and her become Scientologists full blown for years. Her whole life has been full of scandal and weirdness. It reeked of a mutual agreement.  Debbie Rowe marriage was even weirder. Nobody could even call that remotely a normal marriage. She married him out for her own interests and did not even bother with her children. Suited them both. 

He had the opportunity to have affairs and relationships with women all the time - fame, money and would of met countless beautiful women but he didn't. He preferred to be in the company of little boys. Says it all really.  Peodophile behaviour and if anyone else did what he did, spending time with young boys and having sleep overs with them - nobody would be even contemplating where their interests were. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh oh. This thread is going to get ugly now. Meltdown in 3, 2, 1......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kurt420 said:

MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE SUES HBO OVER "LEAVING NEVERLAND" CITING BREACH OF CONTRACT FROM 1992 NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/02/21/michael-jackson-estate-sues-hbo-over-leaving-neverland-citing-breach-of-contract-from-1992-non-disparagement-clause

Unbelievable. They signed a contract that HBO could never show anything negative about him or his agents etc in 1992.   Pathetic and shows how he and his management operated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're obviously in panic mode now. Another network can easily pick it up, and the bigger the fuss his estate makes about it, a hotter property it becomes!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he actually had a deal with a big broadcasting network that they won't show anything negative about him? that's fucking insane. isn't that more suspicious? it's censorship.. and any good person wouldn't do that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Supernatural said:

I think there's abuse in grooming children for your own needs whatever they may be. I think telling the world man/ boy sleepovers are ok is absurdly  harmful to children. I don't really feel the need to dig deeper to determine if he was touching kids too as if everything else was OK. And millionaire singer vs poor children court case is going to be a clusterfuck of misinformation (from both sides) anyway. 

Well I agree with the first part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nonoka said:

Uh oh. This thread is going to get ugly now. Meltdown in 3, 2, 1......

Their source is https://leavingneverlandfacts.com, so it must be apologist propaganda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kim said:

They're obviously in panic mode now. Another network can easily pick it up, and the bigger the fuss his estate makes about it, a hotter property it becomes!

 

A bit counterproductive then isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever. I'm sure it'll be on youtube eventually and everybody in this thread will watch it. At that point, I think it's going to be a bit more difficult to defend MJ and blame his victims. Some will change their minds, and some will just shut the f**k up. Mark my words.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kurt420 said:

MICHAEL JACKSON ESTATE SUES HBO OVER "LEAVING NEVERLAND" CITING BREACH OF CONTRACT FROM 1992 NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE

https://www.showbiz411.com/2019/02/21/michael-jackson-estate-sues-hbo-over-leaving-neverland-citing-breach-of-contract-from-1992-non-disparagement-clause

If true, I await the Streisand effect. You can't do things like this in the internet age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, White Heat said:

Their source is https://leavingneverlandfacts.com, so it must be apologist propaganda. 

Well the source above was Roger Friedman's column funnily enough. I bet if that fat greasy bastard was pictured with a succession of little kids y'all would be screaming PAEDO. 

1 hour ago, White Heat said:

A bit counterproductive then isn't it?

Of course. Just as paying 20 million dollars to make abuse allegations "disappear" was counter productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...