Debates with the public

[KOPV]

^ I am one to believe that Sneddon believed Michael was guilty and was willing to do pretty much ANYTHING to convict him.. a said In my opinion he would have to believed the Arvizos to some extent to believe he could convict MJ with them... He was WRONG, but he HAD to believe them.. Maybe seeing them speak at court changed that but going in.. totally believed

 

[redfrog]

^ I am one to believe that Sneddon believed Michael was guilty and was willing to do pretty much ANYTHING to convict him.. a said In my opinion he would have to believed the Arvizos to some extent to believe he could convict MJ with them... He was WRONG, but he HAD to believe them.. Maybe seeing them speak at court changed that but going in.. totally believed

No he didn't believe them. Remember Sneddon saw the photos saw Chandler's description he knew that that case was bogus. If he had believed MJ
was guilty in that case he would have charged him after the strip search. After all why did he want to do the strip search in the first place?
Just to humiliate MJ? That was part of it but he wanted to use the photos as probable cause to arrest him.
I don't know anyone in the media who ever asked him why he didn't arrest MJ after the strip search if the photos matched. They let him get away with that probably he even asked Orth and Dimond never to ask that question.

He also had to know about the ever changing nature of Chandler's story and how crazy the father was. He had to know that Chandler demanded 20m from MJ in August. So if he knew that there was more than enough reasonable doubt about the Chandler case do you think he didn't know the same about the Arvizos whose story was even more implausible?

He simply molded the case as he discovered exculpatory evidence. He invented a conspiracy charge after he heard and saw the tapes where Arvizos praised MJ to high heaven.
Look how he simply changed the timeline and the number of "molestation" between the arrest and the grand jury.
He knew full well the Arvizos were full of shit he was not an idiot.
He knew that Janet Arvizo had a history of false sex abuse claims (oh by the way, David Arvizo said that Janet's second cousin accused Janet of molesting her when she was 8-10, oh the irony).

It's that Sneddon desperately wanted someone to accuse MJ for 10 years. Anyone. And this is the best he could come up with.
And he must have thought look even if I lose I would still destroy him humiliate him and he enjoyed every minute of it. Same goes to Zonen.
These racist medocre rednecks represent the typical MJ hater. They hate him for being so different than they are and being so much more successful than they are.
they hated to see all those Rolls Royces and Bentleys in his garage too if you know what I mean. They hated that he was called the King of Pop. Hated that he did Ghost and made fun of Sneddon and his "normal valley".

When you listen to Jim Thomas making jokes about his umbrella and armband he couldn't even hide how much he hated that someone like MJ
and African American who looked white had people holding his umbrella for him.

 

[KOPV]

^ If you really study cases those who falsify evidence and hunt someone down to an extreme level believes in the guilt of the defendant and will do ANYTHING to lock them up..

That is a commonly known thing that happens.. Similar to what people believe about the Steven Avery case.. Remember that Tom Sneddon at the time had record of never losing a case through his career.. MJ was always the one that 'got away' from his 'perfect conviction list'..

That does tell you something, he was a skilled SOB when it comes to finding evidence and proving guilt.. Within 22 yrs never lost a case! Someone like that does not take on cases they don't believe in, simply because they know how evidence works.. He was a conviction master!! You don't have 20 yrs of undefeated 'success' without knowing your stuff and knowing to convict someone the only sure way to keep your record is to "know" or "believe" its fact..

Do I think his bias judgement and jealousy clogged his vision enough to over look the obvious? Hell yes!!! He never had it out for anyone the way he did Michael.. I desperateness and how low he sunk to get Michael shows his hatred for him, not his disbelief in that MJ was guilty. (which he wasn't)

Successful prosecutors take on cases that they believe in because they can't stand losing.. When Michael did not go to court in '93/94... He did not let it go. EVER! But his 0 loses in court shows fully that he only takes on what he believes he can win... Remember taking on the biggest star and losing over shadows his 2 decades prior.. So THAT+ his hate is why he hunted Michael.. Not for a pointless, "I don't like this guy" mentality.

 

[barbee0715]

^ I am one to believe that Sneddon believed Michael was guilty and was willing to do pretty much ANYTHING to convict him.. a said In my opinion he would have to believed the Arvizos to some extent to believe he could convict MJ with them... He was WRONG, but he HAD to believe them.. Maybe seeing them speak at court changed that but going in.. totally believed

I don't agree with you that he believed the Arvizo family, because I think when you get down to it, they're obvious liars. But I think he did believe Chandler-and as you said above, as a successful prosecutor who never lost a case and a hatred for Michael anyway, it must have been a huge blow to the ego to not be able to indict him with TWO separate Grand Juries.
So I think he latched onto this very willing family and was more than happy to falsify anything in order to finally win this case.

 

[redfrog]

Successful prosecutors take on cases that they believe in because they can't stand losing.. .

But that itself would prove that Sneddon didn't think MJ molested Chandler as he did not arrest and charge him
after the strip search!
Think about it. By Jan 1 1994 he had the photos. He had Chandler's interview. He had the two books with nude boys.
He had Francia's "confession". He had Blanca Francia's shower story.

And he still didn't think that would be enough to convict MJ because
he knew the photos didn't match, he knew the Chandlers were fishy as ****, he knew Francia was ridiculous his mother
was a tabloid whore, he knew the nude books had that inscription
and no evidence MJ even remember them in fact that the books were there proved that MJ didn't remember them
as he knew about the Chandler's plan sine July 9 and he went on tour without destroying the books.
If he had remembered them he would have destroyed them as he could assume there would be a raid if Chandler publicly accuses him.
And if he didn't remember having them obviously he didn't use them for sexual gratification.
I remember that idiot Jim thomas telling NBC that they didn't find evidence against MJ in Neverland and "some things were missing"
because someone cleaned the place before the raid. Oh so then why did MJ leave those two books there? So the police could find them? Just more nonsense. Don't you think Sneddon knew about this little contradiction? Of course he did.



This monster was really just interested in tormenting MJ in any way he could and was desperately looking for the smoking gun evidence he could use to convict him. But he knew there was no such evidence which is why he didn't even charge him in 1993 1994.

Let's assume MJ doesn't settle. What would have happened?
Sneddon still didn't have any evidence after Jan 25 1994 which he didn't have before that.
So he would have arrested and charged MJ with what probable cause? He had nothing.

But 2003 he was so desperate that he would have taken someone right out of he loony bid as long as he was willing to testify against MJ.
Sneddon took the Arvizo case to trial because he really believe he could win it not because
he didn't know the Arvizos were liars but because of the quantity of "evidence" and all the salacious stuff
his witnesses told about MJ and he hoped that a conservative jury, prejudiced by the media where Sneddon also
played it against MJ with full force would convict him despite the bullshit evidence.

 

[barbee0715]

But that itself would prove that Sneddon didn't think MJ molested Chandler as he did not arrest and charge him
after the strip search!
Think about it. By Jan 1 1994 he had the photos. He had Chandler's interview. He had the two books with nude boys.
He had Francia's "confession".

This monster was really just interested in tormenting MJ in any way he could and was desperately looking for the smoking gun evidence
he could use to convict him. But he knew there was no such evidence which is why he didn't even charge him in 1993 1994.

But the grand juries didn't buy his evidence so he couldn't charge him. He WAS trying.

I think that's why he went so eagerly with these looney tune Arvizos later. And this time the GJ bought the story. Sneddon was determined not to leave office without the biggest success of his entire career. Convicting Michael. The one that got away, so to speak.

 

[redfrog]

But the grand juries didn't buy his evidence so he couldn't charge him. He WAS trying.

There is no proof that Sneddon ever asked for an indictment. Yes he was trying to find some smoking gun evidence but he didn't have it and he knew it and that's why he didn't ask for an indictment.
If he had tried everything why didn't he show the photos and description to the grand jury?
Or why didn't he subpoena Blanca and Jason Francia?
Besides, you cannot get an indictment without an arrest and charges first.
Why do you think he didn't arrest and charge him after he had the photos?

I think that's why he went so eagerly with these looney tune Arvizos later. And this time the GJ bought the story. Sneddon was determined not to leave office without the biggest success of his entire career. Convicting Michael.

That doesn't mean he believed he was guilty. He hated MJ and you know how Mj's haters are. They are the most obsessed freaks on the planet.
And they don't believe half the shit they say.

 

[KOPV]

Sneddon knew he could not build a case in 1994 with the 'evidence' he had... photography books with nude children are not considered pornography, there was a settlement so he did not have a believable 'victim' an he knew he needed more than stories to convict him..

So he spent decade spending MILIONS and MILLIONS of tax payers money looking for victims and evidence with very little to bring something on Michael... Than he watches LWMJ, sees a kid holding Michaels hand saying he slept in his room (from Sneddons view he sees something creepy) and thinks. THIS IS IT (No pun intended) and what does he do, he basically brings the case to the Arvizos, and gets the opportunity to raid Neverland.. The largest raid in US history..

If building a case on a documentary that has that scene with Gavin and MJ and pushing the largest raid in US history isn't THIRSTY, I don't know what is..

He simply never had enough evidence and after seeing that footage and meeting with the Arvizos he knew he had enough (believed) to bring MJ down.. He had nothing of substance prior to Gavin.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Unless you're going to see a psychic to talk to Sneddon's ghost I doubt any of you knows better what he was thinking.

 

[KOPV]

^ well that's why we are discussing it lol! If we KNEW we wouldn't care to... It is interesting though to try to get into his head by looking at what we know and don't know.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

^ as long as you're aware that this is not a factual argument and your opinion is not better than the other. It doesn't look like everyone is aware of that.

 

[redfrog]

Unless you're going to see a psychic to talk to Sneddon's ghost I doubt any of you knows better what he was thinking.

No need to get into his head to know what he wrote in his declaration and how he chickened out at the end of it.
That alone proves he knew very well the photos didn't match the description.
The very fact that he didn't arrest MJ after the strip search also proves he knew Chandler lied.
There is no other reasonable explanation.

Then there is the fact that he simply changed the timelines and the number of molestations
as they discovered the tapes. At least at that point he had to know the Arvizo story was junk.
But I bet he knew it before and he actually helped them put together their story.

 

[KOPV]

InvincibleTel - me stating "I am one to believe...." would insinuate that I am aware it's an opinion of mine right? And yes we can all have opinions baste off of facts that we know.. ie an hypothesis!

All I was pretty much saying is I believe Sneddon believed Michael was guilty and would bend and manipulate rule to prove it... That's my main point!

 

[redfrog]

I found this recently:

"Irregardless of Evan Chandler’s motives, if Jordan Chandler “failed to accurately describe MJ’s body,” and “didn’t even know he was circumcised” the civil claim would have been dealt with at the summary judgement phase, after discovery revealed the supposed “discrepancies”.


I'm not a legal expert but I suspect this is bullshit.

Those of you who know more about CA law could this have happened?
If there had been no settlement did the judge have the right to compare the photos and description and dismiss the case
just because they didn't match or that would have been up to the jury?

 

[HIStory]

^ Whoever wrote it doesn't seem to understand what summary judgement is and isn't about.

In American legal practice summary judgment can be awarded by the court before trial, effectively holding that no trial will be necessary. Issuance of summary judgment can be based only upon the court's finding that:

there are no disputes of "material" fact requiring a trial to resolve, and
in applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to judgment.

Just because the photos didn't match it wouldn't mean there wouldn't remain any "material fact requiring a trial to resolve" or there would only be "undisputed facts" remaining. The Chandlers would still claim abuse happened and could dispute what the unmatch means (eg. they may use the typical hater arguments like "an erected uncircumcised penis may look like a circumcised one" - BTW, it is funny how haters use this argument less and less today and now instead choose to flat-out deny that Jordan ever said MJ was circumcised LOL) and it would be up to a Jury to decide whether they find that explanation plausible or not, not to a summary judgement. Sneddon claimed in his motion that it was a match, yet when we exmine it deeper it seems like he is just trying hard to make something match that really did not. But the possibility of this subjectivity about it shows that it is not a matter for a summary judgement to decide.

Besides, the description would probably NOT even have been a part of the civil trial, since Larry Feldman himself asked for the barring of the photos.

 

[KOPV]

That's the thing when it comes to description as evidence.. There Is that grey area well "this" could be" that" if "this was...." You describe something and does not match it's easy to give an excuse... "an uncircumcised penis could look.." BS!!! Description NOT RIGHT! should be end of story but it's not..

 

[HIStory]

Or let me put it this way: According to the Chandlers' own book they already prepared an answer in explanation of why Jordan's description did not match (that vitiligo spots are subject to changes). The circumcision issue was fully avoided by them and also by Sneddon in his motion (no wonder) but again they could still dispute whether it was relevant or not. Even if they had a totally lame explanation for the discrepancy (eg. the one I mentioned above) it would make it a subject of debate between the parties that couldn't be decided on summary judgement. So the photos and the description not matching would surely not be enough to throw out the case on summary judgement.

 

[KOPV]

^ Vitiligo is subject to change.. lol all within the same year... Vitiligo doesn't work like Warshaks mask... lol they are so sleezy!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/afe4533a358cc00c3e6bf25bf55423c6/tumblr_mlpykez1UP1soxmo4o1_500.gif

 

[redfrog]

^ Vitiligo is subject to change.. lol all within the same year... Vitiligo doesn't work like Warshaks mask... lol they are so sleezy!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/afe4533a358cc00c3e6bf25bf55423c6/tumblr_mlpykez1UP1soxmo4o1_500.gif

Actually the type MJ had, vitiligo universalis combined with Benoquin which he did use by then most certainly changed his skin between May 1993 and Dec 20 1993. This is one reason why the match could not be a match. No way MJ looked the same for 8 months.

Did MJ's lawyers have access to Dr. Gardner's interview with Chandler?
That's the only publicly known occasion when Chandler talked about masturbating MJ 10 times which of course would
eliminate the erection looks the same circumcision argument.
I think MJ didn't know what Chandler told Gardner when he settled and they didn't have access to Chandler's description either.
But why not? How come Mj's lawyers didn't get that during discovery?

and it would be up to a Jury to decide whether they find that explanation plausible or not, not to a summary judgement.

it would make it a subject of debate between the parties that couldn't be decided on summary judgement.

Yes that's what I thought too but exactly why is it that such a decision cannot be made by the judge?
Is it because in summary judgement credibility is never the issue unless there is hard proof?
For example if Chandler says he really doesn't know the difference between circumcised and not circumcised
the judge even if he doesn't believe him (and pretty much no sane person would) cannot dismiss the case
but if a plaintiff is obviously lying like he says I was in London on Jan 4 and defendant produces proof he was in Tokyo
that could be a reason to dismiss?

Besides, the description would probably NOT even have been a part of the civil trial, since Larry Feldman himself asked for the barring of the photos.

But wouldn't MJ himself want to show the photos and description to the jury as the smoking gun evidence that Chandler never
saw him naked?

 

[HIStory]

Yes that's what I thought too but exactly why is it that such a decision cannot be made by the judge?
Is it because in summary judgement credibility is never the issue unless there is hard proof?
For example if Chandler says he really doesn't know the difference between circumcised and not circumcised
the judge even if he doesn't believe him (and pretty much no sane person would) cannot dismiss the case
but if a plaintiff is obviously lying like he says I was in London on Jan 4 and defendant produces proof he was in Tokyo
that could be a reason to dismiss?

I already showed you why this issue is not like when someone says he was in London on January 4 when there is hard cold evidence that he wasn't. Which brings me to your next question:

But wouldn't MJ himself want to show the photos and description to the jury as the smoking gun evidence that Chandler never
saw him naked?

Except it cannot be used as a smoking gun evidence that Chandler never saw him naked when they can give all kind of explanations why there wasn't a match, like "vitiligo spots are subject to changes" or "an erect penis may look circumcised" (which we know are excuses that they were already preparing). A Judge cannot decide on summary judgement about the validity, credibility or plausibility of such claims and theories. These issues would actually be very typically for a trial jury to resolve.

MJ may or may not want to use such evidence in court, but the bottom line here is in that in a summary judgement they are inadequate to get a case thrown out. At worst for the Chandlers the credibility of this one evidence would be put into question and would be useless against MJ, but it doesn't mean the whole case could be thrown out based on Jordan's failure to accurately describe his penis, when they would offer all kind of alternative theories why that happened. Where someone was on January 4 if it can be proven is a hard cold factual thing. Why Jordan failed in his description, his state of mind when he made the description, the theories about whether MJ's vitiligo changed or not or whether the acts as Jordan describes them make it plausible or not that he wouldn't know MJ was not circumcised are issues that can be debated and as such they are for a trial jury to decide not for a Judge in a summary judgement.

Two criteria must be met before summary judgment may be properly granted: (1) there must be no genuine issues of material fact, and (2) the Movant must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A genuine issue implies that certain facts are disputed. Usually a party opposing summary judgment must introduce evidence that contradicts the moving party's version of the facts. Moreover, the facts in dispute must be central to the case; irrelevant or minor factual disputes will not defeat a motion for summary judgment. Finally, the law as applied to the undisputed facts of the case must mandate judgment for the moving party. Summary judgment does not mean that a judge decides which side would prevail at trial, nor does a judge determine the credibility of witnesses. Rather, it is used when no factual questions exist for a judge or jury to decide.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/summary+judgment


A summary judgement is not to decide about anyone's credibilty, you have to understand that.

Certainly why Jordan failed in his description is an issue that can be disputed so it is not something for a summary judgement to decide. Whereas where someone was on January 4 (if there is hard cold evidence he was at a certain place) is not up to debate and dispute. Or if it is then the moving party has to introduce evidence why that is so and that makes it debatable whether he really was there on January 4. Then it becomes a disputed fact and then summary judgement cannot decide about it and the case has to move to trial.

 

[redfrog]

I already showed you why this issue is not like when someone says he was in London on January 4 when there is hard cold evidence that he wasn't.

I wanted to be 100% sure whether in the US it's generally true that
summary judgement is never about the credibility of the plaintiff except when what he says is simply impossible
(such as being in London and Tokyo at the same time, for example).

The "erect penis may look circumcised" argument doesn't hold any water given what Jordan told Dr. Gardner.
He said he masturbated MJ about 10 times , no way someone can miss the foreskin then, it moves, looks nothing like a circumcised penis.
What excuse the Chandlers could have come up with to explain that? That Jordan never looked?
That would contradict their book, they wrote Jordan saw Mj's genitalia "from every possible angle" and had a "clear memory" of it.
It's no wonder that the post-strip search declaration does not include this particular type of molestation.

Let's assume MJ had access to the Gardner interview (obviously he didn't have access to the Chandler manuscript).
Every reasonable person could see that what Jordan said was impossible not just improbable.
If he had done those things he should have known that MJ was uncut, period.
That the judge still wouldn't have dismissed the case based on that evidence, which IMHO is in the same impossible category as being in a two cities at the same time, once again shows that common sense is not the foundation of the US legal system.

 

[redfrog]

I came across this about how Boys will be boys and Boy A photographic essay being found by the police
actually proves that MJ was innocent. Do you think it's a valid argument?


MJ first learned about Evan's "plan" to accuse him on July 8 or July 9 1993.
Then there was the Aug 4 meeting where Evan threatened to ruin him.
Then MJ went on tour knowing full well the Chandlers could go to the police and then the police
could raid his ranch.

If what Zonen and haters say had been true and MJ had found those books sexually exciting
he would have got rid of them after learning of Evan's plan or at the very least before he left for the tour?

You are guilty if molesting Chandler, Robson, Safechuck Francia Culkin Barnes Spence
you know you have those books in your room you are caught, the father threatens to ruin you
and what do you do? Just leave those two books there unconcerned that the police may find them?
That just does not make sense.

When Sawyer asked MJ about the books in 1995 he didn't seem to remember them at all.
And if he didn't that would easily explain why the books were there.
But if he didn't even remember having them that proves he didn't use them for sex or even cared
about those pictures which alone would prove he was not a pedophile as a pedophile would
have looked at those pics a lot over those 10 years.

I remember Jim Thomas talking in that horrible NBC special trying to explain why they didn't find
any physical evidence. He said yes some things were missing and that was not because
MJ didn't molest anyone but someone was ordered to "clean" the place before the raid.
Well, if that happened how come MJ forgot to destroy the two nude boy books?

 

[HIStory]

I don't think it is a good argument at all. It actually plays into the hater argument that MJ knew in advance that his house would be searched and cleaned the place that's why they haven't found anything incriminating. There is no evidence he knew in advance his house would be searched (And what about 2003 then? Why did they not found anything incriminating then?). One can say that he might have assumed just based on the fact Evan threatened him with the allegations but that's not a proof he knew, much less that he cleaned his house and that's why incriminating evidence haven't been found.

It is obvious that those two books in themselves and in the context of MJ's general interest of art photography are not incriminating. That haters and prosecutors need to use something as lame as that as their smoking gun evidence tells all about the "strenght" of their case. Even they know that deep down, that's why they come up with all these excuses and lame, uncorroborated theories that MJ cleaned the house in advance. Jim Thomas can go on some sleazy TV "documentary" and claim BS like that and not be challenged for his BS, but where is his actual evidence that the house was cleaned before the raid? He is simply assuming because this prosecution was never unbiased. The moment Chandler made his allegations they decided MJ was guilty and if evidence didn't support it that wasn't because there wasn't any such evidence, but because some crazy, uncorroborated, unproven conspiracy. They did the same with the lack of corroborating alleged victims. When no other boy said they were molested they didn't accept it as "oh well, then no other molestation happened", instead they came up with the unproven, uncorroborated claim that other victims must have been paid off and that's why they don't say anything. Of course they never repeated any of these theories (that MJ cleaned his house before the search or he paid off victims not to talk) in court because they knew there was no evidence for these assumptions and nothing supported them and it was just their desperate attempt to try to explain away the lack of incriminating evidence. This was an extremely prejudiced, biased, unprofessional prosecution.

 

[redfrog]

I don't think it is a good argument at all. It actually plays into the hater argument that MJ knew in advance that his house would be searched and cleaned the place that's why they haven't found anything incriminating.

But they did find those books which actually prove that he did not clean the house at all!
Why would he eliminate every other evidence but leave those books there?
Just makes no sense at all. It just shows how desperate Thomas and his department was to explain why there was no physical or medical evidence. Instead of admitting that MJ didn't do anything they looked for excuses. It's proof of their extreme bias.

There is no evidence he knew in advance his house would be searched (And what about 2003 then? Why did they not found anything incriminating then?). One can say that he might have assumed just based on the fact Evan threatened him with the allegations but that's not a proof he knew, much less that he cleaned his house and that's why incriminating evidence haven't been found

But if he had been guilty he would have been concerned about a possible raid, don't you think?
And a pedophile would have remembered those books very well for obvious reasons.
A guilty person once he is caught and threatened by the father would clean the house instantly as he would be afraid that the police could come any day. He would not leave those two books there and go overseas knowing that it's quite possible the Chandlers would trigger a police investigation.

It is obvious that those two books in themselves and in the context of MJ's general interest of art photography are not incriminating. .

I agree it's a stupid desperate argument given how many books and pictures MJ got from fans and friends and photographers
and let's face it he was kind of a hoarder too and hoarders own a bunch of things they don't need.
But I don't think MJ was interested in those two books at all, photography or not, he didn't even know that inside there were pictures of nude boys, watch his reaction during the Sawyer interview, it was genuine surprise, he didn't remember those books, period.

I saw a bunch of things about those books which taken together prove he was not a pedophile.
I'd like to know your opinion about these:

1. He didn't buy them a fan sent them to him in 1983. A pedophile would not just wait for a random stranger to send stuff like he would actively
look for such pictures which MJ never did. In fact he kept buying pictures of nude women not boys.

2. He inscribed and signed Boys will be boys which indicats that he wanted to send it back to the fan. One doesn't inscribe and sign a book for himself
like "Look a the at the true spirit of happiness and joy on these boys' faces. " He reminded himself to look? That makes no sense.
He wrote that to someone else. A pedophile wouldn't think about giving away such a book he would want to keep it. There could be a number of reasons why it was not sent back eventually.

3. A pedophile would use those books a LOT over those 10 years 1983-1993 and there would be clear signs of that, wear and tear fingerprints
on the inside pages. No such evidence was shown in court. I always wondered why Sneddon didn't fingerprint analyzed the books just the magazines.
I think he was afraid the result would be negative and it would undermine his whole argument .

4. The police took them in 1993 and didn't find them in 2003. A pedophile would have tried to get those books again or similar frontal nude pictures
but the 2003 raid didn't find a single picture of a frontal nude boy. A pedophile would not suddenly lose interest in that kind of thing in 1993
and then go and buy books like Room to Play and Underworld which had everything but frontal boy nudes.

5. A pedophile would not be satisfied looking at the same pictures for 10 years he would want new stuff. But
police found no other pictures of nudes boys at all. Just those two books.

6. MJ's inscription in Boys will be boys is about the cover of that book which shows four happy boys jumping in a lake.
A pedophile would not have these thoughts while looking at boys in their swimming trunks:

"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy on these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood. A life I never
had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ"

This is in line with all the statutes and paintings and pictures MJ liked to surround himself: happy smiling kids not naked boys.
Stuff like this:

and this:

He even had a poem in Neverland about smiling babies:

I don't know about any serial boy molester who wants to see happy smiling babies girls and boys all the time.
He wanted to see kids happy not to violate and humiliate them and the public totally missed that, such a shame.

And of course the whole Blanca Francia had the key to that closed file cabinet story doesn't make any sense.
It only shows that they tried to frame MJ and put the books in an "incriminating" place or at least said that they were there
to make them look more important for MJ than they were.

 

[redfrog]

Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I can't find the debate with the public thread so I post it here.
Does anyone know when the settlement with the Francias were signed?
Was it before the June 14 1995 Sawyer interview or after?

 

[barbee0715]

I can't find the debate with the public thread so I post it here.
Does anyone know when the settlement with the Francias were signed?
Was it before the June 14 1995 Sawyer interview or after?

Somebody is debating this on discus. They said after. I wasn't sure but I thought it was after also.

 

[Bad7]

This article says it was settled in two stages in 1996 and 1998 - http://www.uptownmagazine.com/2013/...-wade-robson-lawsuit-against-michael-jackson/

The source for that however is unclear.