• Michael Jackson Stockpiled Nude Images Of Children, According To Police Report
    82 replies, posted
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-jackson-stockpiled-child-porn-animal-torture-photos-according-to-newly-surfaced-report_us_5769644fe4b0a75709b7d847[/url] [QUOTE]Police discovered Michael Jackson had a large collection of pornography, which included images of children, animal torture and gore, reportedly used in his bid to seduce young boys. The collection was revealed in newly surfaced documents obtained by RadarOnline that detail a raid on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch estate in 2003, carried out as part of an investigation into child molestation charges against the singer. [/QUOTE]
The Estate of Michael Jackson gave a statement about this, it's at the bottom of the article. I agree with them tbh.
[url=http://radaronline.com/]the source is a tabloid[/url] [img]http://foxcock.me/web/images/ShareX/2016_06/2016-06-22_06-57-15.png[/img]
[quote]animal torture and gore, reportedly used in his bid to seduce young boys[/quote] What young boy doesn't love gore and animal torture and find it sexually arousing?
Quality source right there
The statement from his estate [quote] Seven years ago this coming Saturday, the world lost an amazing artist and humanitarian devoted to helping children in need in all corners of the world. Michael Jackson's fans, including the Executors of his estate, prefer to remember the wonderful gifts Michael left behind instead of having to once again see his good name dragged through the mud by tabloid trash. Everything in these reports, including what the County of Santa Barbara calls "content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources" is false, no doubt timed to the anniversary of Michael's passing. Those who continue to shamelessly exploit Michael via sleazy internet "click bait" ignore that he was acquitted by a jury in 2005 on every one of the 14 salacious charges brought against him in a failed witch hunt. Michael remains just as innocent of these smears in death as he was in life even though he isn't here to defend himself. Enough is enough. [/quote] I wouldn't put it past a shitty tabloid to fake this for views
[QUOTE]Seven years ago this coming Saturday, [/QUOTE] Damn, 7 years already huh?
That's some shitty sauce there, mate.
Meanwhile, on the police report: [IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Clf7R26WMAA1tDl.jpg[/IMG]
So, it was true?
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50566937]So, it was true?[/QUOTE] Check the post above you, should answer your question.
[QUOTE=James xX;50566964]Check the post above you, should answer your question.[/QUOTE] If there are a load of non-pornographic pictures of children there is still a load of pictures of children. I didn't want to believe he was a paedophile. :/
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567043]If there are a load of non-pornographic pictures of children there is still a load of pictures of children. I didn't want to believe he was a paedophile. :/[/QUOTE] I have a bunch of regular pictures of kids on my phone, what does that mean?
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567043]If there are a load of non-pornographic pictures of children there is still a load of pictures of children. I didn't want to believe he was a paedophile. :/[/QUOTE] I have a lot of pictures of guys on my phone, yet I'm not into guys.
[QUOTE=MisterSjeiks;50567088]I have a bunch of regular pictures of kids on my phone, what does that mean?[/QUOTE] looks like you're a pedo mate, hate to break it to ya /s
yeah very funny but having a collection of kids is another thing how is there three people taking the piss yet again?
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567043]If there are a load of non-pornographic pictures of children there is still a load of pictures of children. I didn't want to believe he was a paedophile. :/[/QUOTE] It probably depends on the photos. They don't have to be pornographic to be pretty suspicious. Then again, we don't know shit so we have nothing to go on.
[QUOTE=NikoChekhov;50567121]I have a lot of pictures of guys on my phone, yet I'm not into guys.[/QUOTE] they are [B]children[/B] wow you're pretty fucking weird if you're defending having kid photo collections i forgot paedo-apologism is the latest trend
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567162]they are [B]children[/B] wow you're pretty fucking weird if you're defending having kid photo collections i forgot paedo-apologism is the latest trend[/QUOTE] wot are you on about mate if the police report says the pictures don't meet the requirements to be child porn then guess what???? It's 99.9% not child porn
[QUOTE=Rowtree;50567175]wot are you on about mate if the police report says the pictures don't meet the requirements to be child porn then guess what???? It's 99.9% not child porn[/QUOTE] yeah but if i had a collection of twenty-thousand photos of children and just because none of them were pornographic that's not fucked up? it screams pedo [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] Of course you're getting gold stars. What is the fuck is happening to facepunch's incredible liberalism? This is the wrong thread for me guys sorry, I just don't believe paedo-apologism should be tolerated as the next trend
I think the real problem is that you can't seem to handle disagreement. Is the 20,000 number in the source? I've been having trouble finding it, but if it's from RadarOnline I'm not really feeling inclined to believe it.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567179]yeah but if i had a collection of twenty-thousand photos of children and just because none of them were pornographic that's not fucked up? it screams pedo [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] Of course you're getting gold stars. What is the fuck is happening to facepunch's incredible liberalism? This is the wrong thread for me guys sorry, I just don't believe paedo-apologism should be tolerated as the next trend[/QUOTE] Imagine getting this upset on an internet forum about a dead guy.
[QUOTE=doommarine23;50567226]Imagine getting this upset on an internet forum about a dead guy.[/QUOTE] What an absolutely fucking brilliant response. Thanks for making me check this reply. Never change, Facepunch. [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=NikoChekhov;50567222]I think the real problem is that you can't seem to handle disagreement. Is the 20,000 number in the source? I've been having trouble finding it, but if it's from RadarOnline I'm not really feeling inclined to believe it.[/QUOTE] The dude collected photos of kids, he's a paedo. :v: Doommarine, I'm not upset about a dead guy (every single reply I get on this hiveminded forum is a fucking straw man, that's what upsets me), I'm upset about FP becoming that much of a SJW hive that now paedo-apologism is cool and worthy of gold stars of tolerance and circlejerk over how enlightened you all think you are
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567179]yeah but if i had a collection of twenty-thousand photos of children and just because none of them were pornographic that's not fucked up? it screams pedo [editline]22nd June 2016[/editline] Of course you're getting gold stars. What is the fuck is happening to facepunch's incredible liberalism? This is the wrong thread for me guys sorry, I just don't believe paedo-apologism should be tolerated as the next trend[/QUOTE] Yeah man, I hate the weirdo side of facepunch/far left wingers that seemingly defends pedos or beastiality or whatever. There are some sickos on here. But this isn't that. MJ wasn't a pedo. He probably had some weird interest in children due to his own lack of a childhood. But that isn't a crime, and pedophilia isn't the word for that.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50567240]Yeah man, I hate the weirdo side of facepunch/far left wingers that seemingly defends pedos or beastiality or whatever. There are some sickos on here. But this isn't that. MJ wasn't a pedo. He probably had some weird interest in children due to his own lack of a childhood. But that isn't a crime, and pedophilia isn't the word for that.[/QUOTE] I don't know what to believe about MJ anymore :/ I defended him like hell when it all came out in the news, but this new evidence is pretty striking. The collection, the gore, the animal torture? The man was definitely sick but all this means is that the character testimony no longer works in his favour as being the sweet innocent man, because the dude obviously had some prevelant demons.
You're running with your own assumption that he's a pedophile and flipping your shit when people aren't automatically agreeing with you. This forum is hardly a hivemind, I see disagreements/debates/arguments between different posters all the time. If we all agreed with you, wouldn't that make the forum just as hiveminded anyway?
[QUOTE=NikoChekhov;50567247]You're running with your own assumption that he's a pedophile and flipping your shit when people aren't automatically agreeing with you. This forum is hardly a hivemind, I see disagreements/debates/arguments between different posters all the time. If we all agreed with you, wouldn't that make the forum just as hiveminded anyway?[/QUOTE] If by you see disagreements you mean you all disagree about how much Sanders has a chance? Some say 100% while others say 50% and all that. Anything contrary or pro-Trump and you're all there with your pitchforks You disagree about mostly common interests, don't gimme that :v: Sensationalist Headlines is the closest thing I've seen on the internet to an actual Borg-esque hivemind, but it hasn't always been that way.
[QUOTE=Rowtree;50567175]wot are you on about mate if the police report says the pictures don't meet the requirements to be child porn then guess what???? It's 99.9% not child porn[/QUOTE] Are you that obtuse that you dont find it troubling that a man with such a history as MJ had a very large photo collection of children? I get that they weren't pornographic in nature but it's still fucking weird and screams -maybe- pedophilia.
I'd like to re-emphasize the very questionable source of this evidence as well. I don't trust tabloids, and the fact that so far that seems to be the only place this is coming from is setting off major red flags for me.
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567229] The dude collected photos of kids, he's a paedo. :v:[/QUOTE] If we're gonna stoop that that genius logic over a report by an incredibly dubious source, the least you could do is not have your icon be of a guy also [URL="http://www.salon.com/2016/01/13/the_dark_side_of_david_bowie_as_the_mourning_goes_on_we_cant_ignore_his_history_with_underaged_groupies_in_70s/"]accused by dubious sources[/URL] of being a pedo too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.