• Michael Jackson Stockpiled Nude Images Of Children, According To Police Report
    82 replies, posted
If anything we should be discussing what the show biz did to MJ I mean the guy was obviously absolutely psychologically wrecked yet managed to somehow still come across as a friendly, alas really really weird guy.
[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] My grandma had a picture of my dad holding my naked baby sister, point of this being that there's a whole lot more to it than just "fuck it's a picture of a child it's obviously for sexual stimulation"
[QUOTE=Tools;50569736]My grandma had a picture of my dad holding my naked baby sister, [/QUOTE] This is a dumb comparison to having lots of pictures of someone elses kids though..
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50569308]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.[/QUOTE] Except they're still echoing the tabloids. They included the responses [B]after[/B] the fact that they posted the article, most likely to cover their asses for releasing an obviously clickbait title whilst still having a clickbait article. Huffington post isn't a tabloid, but this article is definitely a product of one. Let's say a user on facepunch gets banned for spewing stupid shit, something like "Obama is a secret muslim" and cites that his insider's found evidence to it. I then make the same post, citing the user as my source. Am I not on the same level as him? [editline]40[/editline] Really, what I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't ignore news sources for being tabloids, but we should start ignoring news sources for posting tabloid articles. Echoing what everyone else is saying in here , this was an obviously false accusation to begin with.
Check the police reports its far more than "just" innocent pååictures. [url]http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf[/url]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;50570028]Check the police reports its far more than "just" innocent pååictures. [url]http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] It doesn't seem to allow hotlinking. It just redirects to their main site. You have to look at the article itself and click the link from there. [editline]3[/editline] I'll be following this story it looks like. I want to know the validity of the report, wondering if it's forged or anything of the sort. Pages are missing and im wondering if submitting legal adult porn alongside illegal child porn as evidence is a thing that police do.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;50570028]Check the police reports its far more than "just" innocent pååictures. [url]http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] this link doesn't work
[QUOTE=bitches;50566451][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] an article truly for intellectuals
[QUOTE=Aetna;50568081]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.[/QUOTE] "Artistic nudes" of children when combined with a giant million dollar ranch where you invite children over for private sleepovers screams pedophilia about as loud as you can possibly scream it without actually hitting the burden of proof for a criminal conviction, though.
why do i get the feeling MJ was a total /b/ro when he was alive
Wasn't there some weird stuff with animals as well, the thing I saw about it suggested it might have been used to desensitise the kids to abuse. Seems like more to it than just "innocent pictures of kids" maybe the news stuff I've seen is spinning a yarn though
I don't know what good can come from this really. If he was a paedophile which seems likely but will never conclusively be proven, it's too late to do anything about it. Now it will only come down to opinion and speculation for the media's sake.
If you want someone to witch hunt, go after that bitch ass Afrika Bambaataa. I hope one the kids he and his Zulu nation abused shoot the fat fuck.
[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 just want to address this. Sorry to bump this thread but it's not that old a thread anyway. imo Michael Jackson was simply a man who never really grew out of his childhood; and he was abused as a child. There have only been two cases which were both proven to be lies to get a large settlement, one which succeeded. Now if this were a case like Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris which, by the way... over 20 allegations were made to each individual then you have some reasonable proof as a whole that they were criminals. Yet this entire discussion regarding Michael Jackson being one, is completely unjust. You know very well he was ridiculed for his mannerisms and lifestyle. But in all honesty, after 30 years of discussion, this thing needs to really be put to rest. The man is dead and it's gone a decade, and no more allegations.
[QUOTE=mickers;50567353]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] Dude that is fucked up. You don't hoard pictures of children you don't know. That's extremely obsessive and creepy.
Didn't he take group photos with the orphanage kids or whatever that visited his park? What if it was just a scrap book of them or something?
[QUOTE=thegrb93;50848145]Dude that is fucked up. You don't hoard pictures of children you don't know. That's extremely obsessive and creepy.[/QUOTE] of course it's creepy, given the circumstances that he was abused as a child, it made him happy. It was widely known his father tortured him to be a flawless performer. I'd rather him finding joy in making unfortunate people happy than a jimmy saville case which is inhuman. Yet the story is always pushed into making it worse.
[QUOTE=thegrb93;50848145]Dude that is fucked up. You don't hoard pictures of children you don't know. That's extremely obsessive and creepy.[/QUOTE] He collected books, he had a big-ass library in Neverland, reportedly over 10.000 books.
[QUOTE=AK'z;50848650]of course it's creepy, given the circumstances that he was abused as a child, it made him happy. It was widely known his father tortured him to be a flawless performer. I'd rather him finding joy in making unfortunate people happy than a jimmy saville case which is inhuman. Yet the story is always pushed into making it worse.[/QUOTE] Intergenerational child abuse is a thing. So it's not unlikely that he wasn't exactly totally innocent.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50849012]Intergenerational child abuse is a thing. So it's not unlikely that he wasn't exactly totally innocent.[/QUOTE] I know it is, and I'm not saying he's totally innocent. But right as of this moment, I don't see defining evidence to make me think he has abused children.
This dead horse is quite literately dead. Why is kept getting brought up every few months( not on FP exclusively, but on any major internet site)?
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;50851421]This dead horse is quite literately dead. Why is kept getting brought up every few months( not on FP exclusively, but on any major internet site)?[/QUOTE] Because "Michael Jackson, pedophile" is like the perfect storm of clickbait even if literally nothing at all has changed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.