Support NeoGAF

[SomedayTheFire]

Christ. Money can buy you anything.

 

[Volimar]

I always thought he walked the line. Had naked photos of children as "art" etc. just constantly skirting around the line of legality. Hardcore child pornography should have been an open and shut case though.

But then you have a case where every one of your witnesses is bribed into not telling the truth.

If you have photographic evidence, you don't need the witnesses. Any half decent prosecutor would connect payoffs to a lack of credibility.

 

[MadSol]

What some money and fame will get you out of...
This always disgusted me https://youtu.be/TMLS-nP6TO8

 

[sangreal]

He's long dead. Why not?

Besides which, this is maybe the first real solid piece of evidence the public has seen that hasn't had some cloud immediately cast upon it. Up until now it was mostly "his word or theirs" stuff that made it harder to parse due to the settlement agreements.

This is photographic evidence of his pornography collection.



It was known-ish. It wasn't known. Not to this extent.

It was used as evidence in the case against him in 2003

 

[Twookie]

damn... not surprised but fuck I hoped it wasn't true

 

[darkwing]

yikes, I wouldn't want to be the owner of the rights to his music right now, it would be strange playing his music now

 

[breakfuss]

Say it isn't so.

 

[Moff]

I thought this shit was known.

there was never proof
and too many people believed the bs he made up to spend so much time with children, including sleeping in the same bed with them

 

[RustyNails]

Wait HOLD ON.

Who is this "anonymous reporter" that's selling this junk to a tabloid about blood, sacrifice, gore and ~orgies~?

Secondly, the books about partially nude adolescents are just those, books. They were not porn. Some were discussing biology, others were just catalogues. They were shown to the jury during the trial and didnt amount to squat.

 

[Fried Food]

Nice now I never have to bother investigating his discography.

 

[Tatsumi Oga]

I am confused, why wasn't this used in the courts, why wasn't it leaked once he got off scott free from bribes?

Exactly this. I've closely followed the case, i've done a shitload of research and i was convinced the dude was innocent. There was just so incredibly much shit that didn't add up at all. To me that was clear as day, of course for people who did not do any research and simply only listened to the media had no idea.

This stuff would have been demolishing for him during the trial, if any of this is even true, that is. But in fact they lacked any kind of hard evidence during the trial. After all this stuff i was convinced the dude couldnt hurt a fly. Call it denial or whatever you want, because i admit i liked the dude a lot, but i need more before i say....''omfg.''

The biggest piece of 'evidence' was a art book of semi nude children, a legal book. Unopened actually and sent by a fan. THAT was one of the biggest pieces if not biggest evidence during the trial.

So yeah....

 

[diffusionx]

yikes, I wouldn't want to be the owner of the rights to his music right now, it would be strange playing his music now

As opposed to any time in the past 20 years when we all knew he was a pedophile.

The way the fact that this guy was a creepy child molestor was just brushed under the rug after his death was the oddest thing.

 

[k91191]

I'm going to need better sources

 

[LiK]

Original story from Radar Online since that's the source for all those sites. Not sure why they weren't linked.

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

 

[AJLma]

10+ years later? After all the court cases and settlements?

Media needs another payday it looks like. Not buying it. MJ is just a safe name to slander for a quick check. Look at how hilariously quickly the story is making the rounds to all the big sites.

EDIT: And of course it ends up being some tabloid bullshit.

 

[Volimar]

The Vanity Fair piece was updated with this:

So...it's bullshit? Just for once I'd like a straight answer from prosecutors in this case.

 

[John Kowalski]

Fucked up if true. But from the Vanity Fair link:

Radar Online, the source that other outlets are citing, is a tabloid/rag.

Yikes.

 

[Izuna]

I think this was already reported on. Even gave the names of books that included nude children.

 

[Forerunner]

 

[NHarmonic.]

Sickening. How could such an amazing musical genius be this twisted inside?

 

[User 479360]

Colour me unsurprised

I kind of expected this, and was never a fan.

 

[breakfuss]

Always been a fan of his music. Grew up on it. But I surely hope no one attempts to come in here and defend this. There's always one.

 

[73V3N]

But then you have a case where every one of your witnesses is bribed into not telling the truth.

i dont think i would ever accept money if i was a victim to be honest

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It was used as evidence in the case against him in 2003

I don't remember the actual images being made public back then.

As with most aspects of the trials against Jackson, the behind-closed-doors nature of the settlements/agreements allowed a lot of people to doubt the legitimacy of the evidence being introduced. "Well if it was real, why would they settle. You know they probably just made some shit up. It probably wasn't even that bad anyway, even if it was real, which it probably wasn't, just people trying to take him down."

That kinda thing.

You're seeing it happen in this thread right now, in fact.

 

[Papytendo]

Wait HOLD ON.

Who is this "anonymous reporter" that's selling this junk to a tabloid about blood, sacrifice, gore and ~orgies~?

Secondly, the books about partially nude adolescents are just those, books. They were not porn. Some were discussing biology, others were just catalogues. They were shown to the jury during the trial and didnt amount to squat.

Yeah, everyone that was found was listed and released to the public years ago.

 

[LakeEarth]

If they had this physical evidence of child pornography on MJ's estate, yet never charged him for some ($) unknown ($$) reasons ($$$), shouldn't there be an investigation on why charges were never pushed forward?

 

[Arnie7]

Fucking sicko. Everyone knew this but did nothing. Hero worship at its worse. I turly hope hell exists for people like him.

 

[Tiberius]

There's an update on vanity fair article.

Update (June 21, 10:10 A.M.): A representative from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department gave Vanity Fair the following statement regarding the documents:

Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense.

So it was made up or is it true ?

 

[Vex_]

I'm going to need better sources

same here. I dont really believe it yet. Will continue to update the OP if I find anything.

 

[NinjaCoachZ]

Wait HOLD ON.

Who is this "anonymous reporter" that's selling this junk to a tabloid about blood, sacrifice, gore and ~orgies~?

I'd like to know this too... I dunno. I'm just thinking about the time all these tabloids ran with this "Jack the Ripper identified!" story and it turned out to be some anti-immigrant, poorly-backed-up nonsense put forth by some guy with a book deal.

Like...

Fucked up if true. But from the Vanity Fair link:

Radar Online, the source that other outlets are citing, is a tabloid/rag.

This in particular makes it sound confusing and ambiguous to me. I don't know. I'm just not sure about these sources since they all seem to be tabloids who take partially-sensationalized stuff as headlines all the time, but of course there's always the angle of rich people paying others off. I don't know enough, I'm sorry.

Of course if this is true then yeah, this is horrible. No questions asked. I know it sounds lame but I'm just not sure about these sources, but obviously there's a chance they are onto something.

 

[Milly Osworth]

Might be true, but its worrying how quick people believe an article.

 

[Cindi Mayweather]

No. No no no NO NO NONONONONO.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

So it was made up or is it true ?

That reads like the Office isn't denying the veracity of stuff from their own office, just that it didn't come directly from them, while also pointing out there are images mixed into their own stuff that came from other sources as well.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Yeah, fuck the victims, right? Why should they have an attempt at closure?

Would love to know how you got "fuck the victims" out of what I said.

If there's active lawsuits against his estate from victims then I totally understand why this is coming to light now.

 

[Paganmoon]

So I don't get this:

It is alleged that the star – who could have faced up to 20 years in prison – paid out more than £100 million to silence as many as 20 victims of sexual assault.

Ok, he paid off the victims to stay silent, but the prosecutor still had the damned evidence, right? So why couldn't the charges continue based on the picture evidence alone?

 

[Data West]

Is Spotify going to make his artist page only findable through direct links like they did with LostProphets?

no? What's that, dollar signs? oh ok

 

[BKSmash]

Stop believing shit like this until you have real proof and not just people stating stuff. If this was true he would in no way had won the trial and been freed from all charges. People in this thread commenting disgusting things without the sites showing actual proof, that says enough.

 

[Coreda]

I'd read about the so-called 'artistic' nudes earlier but only now an investigator is reporting there were additional items? Seems strange it would only come to light now.

The document scan from the Mirror describing the known book of nudes is where the 'grooming process' quote comes from, rather than about this newly mentioned collection but the article states there's a more complete report.

Is there anywhere this new report can been seen or is it just quotes atm?

Edit: the Vanity Fair piece had a link.

 

[Lan Dong Mik]

Fuck. I always felt like I gave him the benefit of a doubt but after this, goddamn. Sick as fuck.

 

[rashbeep]

What some money and fame will get you out of...
This always disgusted me https://youtu.be/TMLS-nP6TO8

Those comments jesus christ

 

[73V3N]

Might be true, but its worrying how quick people believe an article.

yeah, it's sad and scary, people don't even question what they read, "if it's online then its true"

 

[Brinbe]

This isn't surprising, but people always looked the other way or downplayed things because of who he was.

But lol, GJ Vanity Fair. Don't print this salacious shit if you're not sure. Not a good look.

 

[Sanjuro]

The same Michael Jackson from Captain EO!?

 

[FZZ]

Saw it on KTT but wasn't sure if the source was good enough to be posted

Guess it is

Horrible

 

[HStallion]

Sickening. How could such an amazing musical genius be this twisted inside?

He had a horrible childhood and a terrible abusive father who destroyed him in a lot of ways. Its no excuse but it shouldn't be that surprising he turned out messed up.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

He gave us Billie Jean you said he touched those kids?

 

[BadAss2961]

Always been a fan of his music. Grew up on it. But I surely hope no one attempts to come in here and defend this. There's always one.

I don't think anyone's gonna defend these actions. But people will always be skeptical of these allegations without proof or hard evidence.

I want the receipts.

 

[Easy_D]

Tabloids gonna tabloid? It's hardly an official statement. Was he weird as fuck? Yeah, yeah he was, the man dangled his baby over a balcony, not a very healthy thing to do. Did he have an unhealthy relationship with children? Probably. But the jury's still out on sexual abuse, I feel. Maybe it's just denial on my end though.

 

[Tom Nook]

I'm not surprise he had that stuff but Torture?!......What a sicko!

 

[sangreal]

I don't remember the actual images being made public back then.

As with most aspects of the trials against Jackson, the behind-closed-doors nature of the settlements/agreements allowed a lot of people to doubt the legitimacy of the evidence being introduced. "Well if it was real, why would they settle. You know they probably just made some shit up. It probably wasn't even that bad anyway, even if it was real, which it probably wasn't, just people trying to take him down."

That kinda thing.

You're seeing it happen in this thread right now, in fact.

The documents that leaked today were not public, but it was certainly known that the prosecutors wanted to (and did) show the jury his collection of porn and books of naked kids. IIRC evidence from his computer was excluded but the rest was admitted

e:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/24/michaeljacksontrial.usa
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackson-jury-sees-nude-boy-books/