HIStory
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Points
- 0
Just refuted this video:
My comment:
My comment:
Hi guys, A lot of things you said in this video is simply wrong. I don't blame you because this tabloid article went viral world wide thanks to irresponsible copy&paste "journalism" and now everyone takes it as a fact, but it is a lie. So please bear with me a little and let me show you what exactly we are talking about, because you are basing your opinion on fallacy.
First of all this is not "only coming out now". This has been available since 2005, I have this document for years. Only Radar Online is manipulating, twisting and sensationalzing its content now. Even the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office issued a statement regarding this matter that the document Radar Online posted is not their original police report but someone added other pages to it.
Radar Online's version: http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf
The real, original version: https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/evidence-sheet-1.pdf
The original document simply lists all the books and some magazines that were found in MJ's possession. None of it is child porn and when you read the actual police report at each and every item they note the fact that that it's not child porn and it's not illegal. Of course they also note that the material can be used to "groom" children, but that MJ used it for that is not a fact but simply a prosecution theory. Also since this is a prosecution document of course they try to word it sometimes in an inflammatory manner to the defendant. It's not an unbiased source. It's one side's claims.
If MJ had ever possessed child porn he would have been charged with it and that's not an issue of good lawyers like you guys are trying to indicate. It's simply a legal fact since the possession of child porn is a federal crime. There is no such a thing that they find child porn in someone's home and they do not charge that person with it. MJ was never charged with the possession of child porn. He had none!
The books listed are all legal art photography books. You can find them in any book store, library, on Amazon and some of them are even in the US' Library of Congress. Yet the media is trying to paint a horrible picture of them. One book in particular, Simen Johen's Room to Play is being painted as something really, really horrible. It's being called a "sex book" that involves children in one article. It is indicated in others that it cointains all kind other horrible stuff. In reality it is a book of surrealistic art photograpy by a renowned artist. The book is even in the Library of Congress: http://lccn.loc.gov/2004297659 Y
ou can also google it, it's nothing child pornographc, nothing sex, nothing illegal.
About Simen Johan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simen_Johan
Here is a skim through of another book the list names (The Golden Age of Neglect). You can see its full content in this video: https://vimeo.com/54012676
It's the same with all the other books. By calling it child porn you are basically calling renowned photo artists child pornographists. Artists that are regularly interviewed and promoted by mainstream media. So when MJ has their books it's "child porn" and horrible, but when others do it is back to being art? What's that with the hypocrisy?
Michael Jackson had a collection of 10,000 books and most of them art photo books since he was an avid fan and serious student of art photography. The prosecution simply took everything with a nude person in it (that was about 15-20 books out of 10,000) and then tried to criminalize it in lieu of actual real evidence. So if art books like these are a prosecution's main evidence in a trial what does that tell you about how strong their case was?
And yes, this was all introduced to the trial in 2005, it was not kept out, like you wrongly assumed, the jury saw it all and thought nothing of it because it really is nothing. They are legal art books. Some of the tabloid media and the prosecution still has an axe-to-grind against MJ because he was aquitted and they are trying to twist nothing into something in the court of public opinion where they are not getting double checked or challenged by a defense, but it was all tried in a court trial that this very same prosecution lost in lieu of real evidence.
Oh, as for the MJ took drugs for sex addiction - that too is an uncorroborated and very desperate prosecution theory (if they indeed told you in private that they thought so, because in the original prosecution document that is not there, the only thing that is there is the fact they found a Precocet prescription - the "sex addiction" thing is a new addition in the Radar Online version). They never even introduced that idea to trial because it simply has no basis. That they found a prescription for Precocet at his home now proves sex addiction based on what? Precocet is a painkiller first and foremost, you can look it up. MJ had issues with painkillers - that is well known.
They also found prescriptions for other painkillers like Demerol. As for the settlement in 1993, that too has its legal reasons, which explains it all, but that's a whole another story.?