Michael Jackson Stockpiled Nude Images Of Children, According To Police Report
82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Doritos-pope;50567264]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.[/QUOTE]
He probably did have sex with some underage people, fuck knows. Why are you questioning Bowie now? :v:
CHANGE THE SUBJECT
[editline]22nd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=NikoChekhov;50567263]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]
Completely reasonable, I'm waiting for more sources and developments before I believe anything 100%
[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]
They were artistic, iirc.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50567262]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.[/QUOTE]
Mate if the police report says it isn't child pornography then it's not child pornography.
I don't give a fuck what he's into, man can like what he wants, but there's no maybe pedophilia if the police report itself says it isn't.
Man was proven innocent on all charges 11 years ago.
Any of you collect nude ~~~artistic~~~ images of children, by any chance?
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Will never stop having meltdowns and/or shitposting" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
Even 7 years after his death, this song is still relevant.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crbFmpezO4A&ab_channel=michaeljacksonVEVO[/media]
[QUOTE=Rowtree;50567296]Mate if the police report says it isn't child pornography then it's not child pornography.
I don't give a fuck what he's into, man can like what he wants, but there's no maybe pedophilia if the police report itself says it isn't.
Man was proven innocent on all charges 11 years ago.[/QUOTE]
OK let's put this into a hypothetical. You go over to your friends house and he decides to show you his 20,000 picture strong collection of various children, you don't find that eyebrow raising in the slightest?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50567346]OK let's put this into a hypothetical. You go over to your friends house and he decides to show you his 20,000 picture strong collection of various children, you don't find that eyebrow raising in the slightest?[/QUOTE]
What would be so weird about him having a lot of pictures of regular children, if i did charity stuff or had children come over to my amusement park every year im sure i would amass a bunch of pictures of happy children.
Where did it say 20,000 pics
[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]
I personally don't give a shit at all if he's got non-pornographic pictures of children or if he has lolicon/shotacon. As long as kids aren't being harmed, and he isn't bugging others about it, he can explore sexuality in private however he likes.
It really doesn't bother me until he's actively harming children or it's becoming weirdly self-destructive. I'll totally defend non-offending pedophiles. Leave them alone.
[editline]22nd June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;50567346]OK let's put this into a hypothetical. You go over to your friends house and he decides to show you his 20,000 picture strong collection of various children, you don't find that eyebrow raising in the slightest?[/QUOTE]
What am I supposed to do? Say, "Hey, you shouldn't have that collection of children?" He isn't hurting anyone by having it, and if he's getting off to it in private who cares?
It becomes a problem when it's actually child porn, because kids are being hurt at that point. But it isn't, so it's people freaking out over someone's potentially damaged sexuality or incorrectly developed sexuality, and at that point people aren't really doing it out of concern. They're just bullying at that point, or just looking to create an enemy that doesn't exist. No one's looking at Micheal Jackson and thinking, "poor guy" when they see stuff like this. They automatically think he's a weirdo, and are trying to tarnish his reputation.
I've legitimately talked with people who think non-offending pedophiles should commit suicide on very many occasions and this shit is whack. I'm tired of the flak that non-offending pedophiles are getting.
Okay, moving right along from yet another "Cypher_09" meltdown...
Michael Jackson was kind of fucked in the head a little, but I still seriously doubt he was into kids.
I mean, we've got a tabloid source that's still riding off of all the controversy and false accusations made against the man by washed-up child stars. The man is innocent. Legally, at least.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;50567444]Michael Jackson was kind of fucked in the head a little, but I still seriously doubt he was into kids.
I mean, we've got a tabloid source that's still riding off of all the controversy and false accusations made against the man by washed-up child stars. The man is innocent. Legally, at least.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'd be unphased either way mainly because he was just a broken person all around and it's not necessarily something that makes a difference. If there was wrongdoing, I'd totally be interested and I might condemn the guy, but with what information we have, it's really inconsequential. He was a seemingly cool dude regardless that had a seemingly cool effect on the world around him.
[QUOTE=Doritos-pope;50566565]Meanwhile, on the police report:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Clf7R26WMAA1tDl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't nude pictures of children however. I mean, the source for this is accusation is tabloid bullshit, but assuming there is any truth to the accusation that he had a stockpile of photos of nude children, that wouldnt necessarily violate child porn laws. You can skirt the legal definition of "child pornography" pretty damn liberally. As long as the subject of the photos isn't in an overtly sexual situation, Pedos can get away with a fucking lot using rulings surrounding nudism and artistic expression. It's pretty goddamn blatant, too, but the precedent exists and for the time being there's not much to be done about it.
Michael was friends with kids, it's why he had his Neverland Ranch. Isn't it possible the photos of children are just some of his guests that came over to his ranch?
some things best left buried in history
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567246]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.[/QUOTE]
Did you literally ignore the fact that the police report does not contain any of those things mentioned in the tabloid?
[QUOTE=Cypher_09;50567300]Any of you collect nude ~~~artistic~~~ images of children, by any chance?
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Will never stop having meltdowns and/or shitposting" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Dude, you're taking this wayyyy out of proportion. Loads of people take pictures of their naked babies and post it on facebook all the time with their dicks hanging out, and it's not child pornography. CP is defined as:
"Child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation."
If there is no exploitation, it is not against the law, and no child is being harmed.
can we just let MJ die in peace and leave him alone already
he's dead. It doesn't matter any more. His reputation is either already ruined or he's already gotten away with it. Either way who cares. His story is over.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50568178]can we just let MJ die in peace and leave him alone already
he's dead. It doesn't matter any more. His reputation is either already ruined or he's already gotten away with it. Either way who cares. His story is over.[/QUOTE]
Completely agree.
Past is past,no use bickering about this thing,for it will not change anything
[QUOTE=Zufeng;50568196]Completely agree.
Past is past,no use bickering about this thing,for it will not change anything[/QUOTE]
People think it's shitty enough for trying people for war crimes
what would this solve anyways? what are we going to do? Put his ghost on trial?
[QUOTE=J!NX;50568178]can we just let MJ die in peace and leave him alone already
he's dead. It doesn't matter any more. His reputation is either already ruined or he's already gotten away with it. Either way who cares. His story is over.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zufeng;50568196]Completely agree.
Past is past,no use bickering about this thing,for it will not change anything[/QUOTE]
I disagree. Sure the dude himself wouldn't be able to care anymore but his legacy would be tarnished by libel.
We should kindly and respectfully remember the dead, not spit over his grave over something the media twisted for their own sake.
He's a guy who would like kids to have an enjoyable childhood.
But there are motherfuckers think it's a fun idea to take "guy who like kids" out-of-context for fun and idiots who take things these remarks seriously.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50568243]People think it's shitty enough for trying people for war crimes
what would this solve anyways? what are we going to do? Put his ghost on trial?[/QUOTE]
Often times i found many people with that logic.
They found something disturbing about long-dead celeb,then they think "i never thought he/she like this".
Then rage consumed them,they despise the said celeb,then went on posting abstract nonsense about that celeb.
Whenever the slight possibility of MJ's pedophilia is brought up because he was constantly surrounding himself with children, I always remind myself that not only did the dude start performing when he was 6, he had an abusive childhood. Verbal abuse, whipping, a youth he described as 'lonely and isolating'? Yeah, I totally get his childlike behavior and his preference to be around them.
There's also a sexism angle to it. When a woman says she likes kids, it's normal but when a man says he likes kids or works with kids, people assume they're paedophiles or they're kept under a close eye because they think they might be paedophiles.
There's a member here who works as a kindergarten teacher or something like that and they specifically told him to never be alone with a child or to ever touch one for whatever reason whereas the female teachers never get told any of that
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;50568492]
I can't prove that MJ was not a pedo, but it's clear that his life was ruined by two pedophile witch hunts against him. The mere accusations were enough to demolish his reputation.
And seven years after his death, tabloids aren't done milking him for clickbait. Disgusting.[/QUOTE]
And it doesn't help that people like cypher think an accusation is proof, like to think they know more than juries, and think they have the moral high ground because "for the children". Even though they don't realize that they're the kind of people that support politicians when they push for some horrible shit in the name of security or freedom
I think the most infuriating thing was the second court case's jury verdict (the case brought by the woman who claimed MJ abused her kids, the same kids who couldn't keep their story straight in testimony) was, "we think MJ [I]is[/I] a pedophile, but in this case he is not guilty". It's like, nobody fucking asked you for anything but the last two words of that sentence.
I think his association with kids is understandable seeing as he basically never got to experience his own childhood and was abused. It's pretty depressing and sad to think that the most powerful pop star alive [I]was not happy[/I] despite having practically everything he could ask for.
I can't prove that MJ was not a pedo, but it's clear that his life was ruined by two pedophile witch hunts against him. The mere accusations were enough to demolish his reputation.
And seven years after his death, tabloids aren't done milking him for clickbait. Disgusting.
[QUOTE=Doritos-pope;50566565]Meanwhile, on the police report:
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Clf7R26WMAA1tDl.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Michael "Lego" Jackson walking the line between pedo and super creepy
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;50568339]Whenever the slight possibility of MJ's pedophilia is brought up because he was constantly surrounding himself with children, I always remind myself that not only did the dude start performing when he was 6, he had an abusive childhood. Verbal abuse, whipping, a youth he described as 'lonely and isolating'? Yeah, I totally get his childlike behavior and his preference to be around them.[/QUOTE]
On the flip side, a history of childhood abuse is also a major recurring theme in most child predators.
Disclaimer: I have no strong opinion on this Michael Jackson shit. I don't know nearly about the case to form an opinion either way. I've never been much of a fan of his music, and I know very little about the accusations or investigations into his alleged pedophilia.
Tabloid sources like this shouldn't be allowed. They make shit up on the daily.
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50569116]Tabloid sources like this shouldn't be allowed. They make shit up on the daily.[/QUOTE]
They're not, but Huffington Post is basically just reporting on the accusations the tabloid made, and the family and lawyers' responses to it, which kinda sideskirts that?? I dunno, doesn't really seem worth making a stink over unless the thread derails any further.
what a terrible article from Huffington Post
This just seems pointless to me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
