Debates with the public

[Bad7]

Those people in that forum don't know shit and they seem the kind who believe everything they read or hear from tabloids. No wonder yellow journalism still sells. :no:

Some didn't believe it though. More than I thought didn't believe it. Some had the common sense of 'this was shown in 2005'.

 

[HIStory]

I can't believe the things he says on the case. I saw fans tweeting him and hater's chimed in with 'arguing with an expert'. This same expert said Jordan described a white marking, just like the Smoking Gun article did. So, okay, no arguing with an expert here then either?

I wonder where he got his stories from. He's the only person ever to say Gavin gave a description of MJ's privates. As well as saying Jordan and Gavin told very similar stories about the grooming yet they'd never met. Nothing was similar really. Add to that Jordan's declaration leaked therefore the whole world could of formed a similar story.

I just recalled also he's an arrogant idiot. I think you yourself mentioned him before as using 'i'm a trained professional' as a reason for being correct to fans. That's just nonsense.

The reason why he would have been called was to give a general testimony about child abusers - in terms of profiles etc. But about this actual case he doesn't know much. I say that with confidence because I experienced his ignorance about the facts of the case when I debated with him. For example, he said that scene in the Bashir documentary showed it to his expert self that MJ molested Gavin, because Gavin was so submissive and he could tell by just their body language that MJ was molesting him. Then I pointed out to him that according to the accuser's story no molestation had happened at the time yet. LOL. At the very least he should know the accuser's story if he is such an expert of this case, right? He doesn't. He is a poser.

And obviously Gavin never gave a description about MJ's privates. In fact he said that he had never seen his penis (obviously to avoid having to give a description - they learnt from the Chandler case). His claim was that MJ masturbated him, not the other way around.

There was one claim when Gavin and Star claimed that MJ ran up to the upstairs room where they were naked and they saw him naked with an erection, but Gavin's claim was this was such a short thing and he didn't look at his penis. Something like that. Obviously they were trying to avoid having to describe it and they never did.

One of their claims was that on one occasion Jackson deliberately showed himself to them naked with an erection. The Arvizo kids claimed they were hanging out upstairs in Jackson’s bedroom when the singer walked up naked with an erection to show himself to them then walked down again. Their details of the story, however, differed. Gavin claimed Jackson just ran up to get something and went back down again immediately without saying a word. Star on the other hand claimed Jackson sat down on the bed with them for about two minutes and told them it was natural. When you ponder the above story about Jackson allegedly showing himself nude to the Arvizo children, please also consider the fact that another time during his testimony there was an exchange between Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau and Gavin about Jackson’s skin condition and the fact that his skin had brown patches on it. During this conversation Gavin said he was not aware of it, he thought Jackson was “just all white”:

Q. And you knew that that disease was causing certain patches of white and brown on his skin, right.

A. Yes. I guess.

Q. And –

A. I don’t know. It’s not like I was making fun of him yesterday, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.

Q. Well, you knew that his skin is vulnerable to sunlight, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s why you see him with an umbrella, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And you also knew, because of the patches that appear on his skin from that disease, he does sometimes put some makeup on, right.

A. I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white. [10]

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-changing-content-of-the-allegations-and-contradictions/

So Gavin didn't even know MJ had patches on his body. How could he have given a description? LOL. No such description was ever mentioned by the prosecution. Clemente is full of it.

As well as saying Jordan and Gavin told very similar stories about the grooming yet they'd never met. Nothing was similar really. Add to that Jordan's declaration leaked therefore the whole world could of formed a similar story.

Not only could Gavin read Jordan's declaration, psychiatrist interview and all the leaked stuff, but it is not even true their grooming stories were similar. Gavin's grooming story was MJ randomly showing him and his brother porn and giving him alcohol. None of that was claimed by Jordan Chandler.

Clemente can have all the credentials in the world, but when he is just plain wrong and ignorant about the basic facts of the case - even about what was and what wasn't alleged - I cannot take him seriously as an "expert".

 

[Bad7]

What was his response when you mentioned about no alleged abuse having taken place during the Bashir documentary? Or did he dodge it? I may of asked before as I recall you saying he said abuse was going on during the Bashir documentary.

 

[HIStory]

What was his response when you mentioned about no alleged abuse having taken place during the Bashir documentary? Or did he dodge it? I may of asked before as I recall you saying he said abuse was going on during the Bashir documentary.

He tried to get out of it by saying some nonsense about how it doesn't matter because MJ already groomed him to be submissive. Wrong again, because MJ and Gavin have not even met for almost three years, or only for a "hello-good bye" before the Bashir doc, and that too is in the accuser's own testimony. LOL. He was just rambling some nonsense to try to save face and got back to his fallacy of "I am right because I am the expert" and then just disappeared and never came back. LOL.

 

[prettyyoungthaang]

Does anyone have any useful evidence to use against the claim by Terry George that he and MJ discussed masturbation on the phone? I have only recently come across this 'story' and don't know/can't find much about it.

 

[HIStory]

Does anyone have any useful evidence to use against the claim by Terry George that he and MJ discussed masturbation on the phone? I have only recently come across this 'story' and don't know/can't find much about it.

Terry George


Terry George never filed a lawsuit against Jackson and in fact never reported his allegations to authorities but he was a frequent source for British tabloid stories in the wake of the 1993 Chandler scandal and has since been at their disposal whenever a fictitious story about Michael Jackson being inappropriate with children is required.

George, a disc jockey at the time, gained notoriety on August 29, 1993 when only six days after the Chandler case was first reported by the media, he appeared in British tabloids claiming that Jackson had been inappropriate with him in 1979, when Jackson was 20 and he was 13 years old.

George was a celebrity-obsessed teenager who regularly sought out celebrities, sneaked into their hotels to meet them, asked for their autographs and hoarded photos and taped interviews of them. As an adult George, who now amongst other businesses, runs a gay adult phone chat service, still likes to present himself as someone associated with celebrities. According to George, he met Michael Jackson in a hotel in February of 1979 while the Jacksons were on tour in the UK. He actually taped an interview with Michael and his brother, Randy, which was later aired on local radio stations. After the interview, George claimed, Michael Jackson asked for his telephone number and Jackson then regularly called him for about three months. George alleged that during these phone calls Jackson was once inappropriate with him, speaking about masturbation and masturbating while he was on the phone with him.

In the article it is claimed that the phone contact ended when George’s parents realized that he had run up a high telephone bill calling the US. George then tried to reach Jackson from a phone box but claimed that Jackson would not take his calls: according to one of the original 1993 tabloid articles “it became clear his superstar friend didn’t want to know” [10].

George, however, kept stalking Jackson. According to the article, “the final rejection came four years later when Terry tried to rekindle their friendship when Jackson came to London again. Terry tracked him down and was even photographed alongside his idol, but now the management were on hand to issue the polite brush-off.” [10]


In the article George concludes that Jackson rejected him because he was no longer a child, however this contradicts the earlier claim that Jackson actually refused to take his phone calls four years earlier, when George was still 13.

In a 2003 documentary made by British broadcaster, Louis Theroux, George spoke about his alleged “friendship” with Jackson. George proudly recalled his phone conversations with Jackson as a happy and joyful experience. It is Theroux who brings up his 1993 tabloid allegation that Jackson was inappropriate with him on the phone. George is reluctant to talk about that and claims what was printed “came out really without my authority”. When Theroux asks him if the story was true, George claims “parts of it are true” but adds that papers twisted and sensationalized it. Then, after stating he did not want to talk about that because “it is well documented in the papers”, he tries to go back to discussing what a great “friendship” he had with Jackson. [11]

Unfortunately the contradiction between the story being “well documented” in the papers and the claim that papers twisted and sensationalized it, is not resolved in the interview and George makes no attempt to make it clear what parts of the story, according to his current position, are true and what parts are not.

In the Theroux interview, George also says that it is unfortunate that the focus of the media has been on this small detail of the story, when they had such a great “friendship” otherwise. We are to believe that when George went to the tabloid media with these claims, six days after the Chandler allegations became public, he did not know what impact this story would have and what people would focus on. In actuality, it is safe to say that this hook, the masturbation claim, is just what George needed to include in his story to be picked up and printed by the tabloid media at all and to lend George national and international notoriety. Why did he make his allegations in the tabloids, which are known to pay money for such claims, instead of contacting the prosecutors in the Chandler case?

In January 2005, on his website George criticized tabloids for rehashing his story from 1993 and claiming that he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Despite this criticism and George’s claim to Theroux that the original story had been released without his authority, sensationalized by the media and that the “small detail” about the alleged masturbation had received disproportionate attention, in February 2005, shortly after Jackson’s trial began, George appeared in Martin Bashir’s slanderous documentary entitled Michael Jackson’s Secret World and rehashed the original story that was printed in the tabloids in 1993, adding even more focus on the masturbation claim.

Although the tabloid articles in 1993 claimed that George was ready to help investigators in the Chandler case, he never did. Based on Jackson’s FBI files, the FBI monitored George’s claims in the tabloid media, but then the prosecution never used him. Either the prosecution did not consider him credible and/or he was not willing to repeat his claims under oath and subject himself to a cross-examination about them. In 2005, on his website, he vehemently denied media reports that claimed he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Instead of testifying at Jackson’s trial and subjecting himself to cross-examination he chose to smear Jackson in the media and in Bashir’s documentary. His platform to make allegations against the star was always only the media and mainly the tabloids which are known to pay money for such allegations. George never testified about his claims under oath and was never cross-examined about them.

In 2009, in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, George once again made his rounds in the British tabloids, now posing as a “friend” of the star and recounting stories with very questionable credibility. According to a June 28, 2009 Mirror article, George conveniently claimed that just before his death Jackson called him to apologize and they made up. “He phoned me out of the blue and we both made our peace about what had happened in the past. I’ve forgiven him for what happened” [12]. Not surprisingly, he had no evidence for this alleged phone call and once again we are just supposed to take George’s word for it.

George used the opportunity to make false statements in order to promote a website he set up in 2005, Gone Too Soon, curiously bearing the name of a Michael Jackson song, although it has no association with the star.

“Terry also revealed that ***** had taken a strong interest in the website he’d founded, Gonetoosoon.org – where users post tributes to people who die young. “He had been on the site and said he was touched to see some of the messages,” he said. “It had left him very sad and emotional.” [12]​

No other child has ever claimed that Jackson masturbated while on the phone. Several recordings exist of private phone conversations Jackson had with children, as people often taped their telephone conversations with him without his knowledge and consent, but no tapes have shown that Jackson ever behaved inappropriately with children. On the contrary, all of his taped phone conversations with children are very child-like and innocent. Terry George could never present evidence for his claims either (consider that he often taped his conversations with celebrities), though there is plenty evidence of his opportunism.

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

 

[Bad7]

The first thing that made me doubt Terry was when I read about him taping conversations with celebrities yet never taped Michael Jackson. MJ was a big name even before Thriller. Then I did some research and saw he had a blog. I wondered if he'd mentioned MJ's death. He hadn't. However, he did make a post in 2008. In 2005 he sat all sad telling his story in Bashir's other documentary. Fast forward to 2008 and...

'My old friend'. The same old friend who supposedly was maturbating down the phone whilst you were 13 and whom you spoke about whilst sat with a sad face? Terry even had the audacity to mention the allegations which, whilst small in comparison to others, he played a role in furthering.

Edit:

This makes no sense...

In the article it is claimed that the phone contact ended when George’s parents realized that he had run up a high telephone bill calling the US. George then tried to reach Jackson from a phone box but claimed that Jackson would not take his calls: according to one of the original 1993 tabloid articles “it became clear his superstar friend didn’t want to know”

Famous, and rich, man Michael Jackson, who we're meant to believe enjoyed doing certain things whilst speaking to Terry didn't call Terry himself? He had him make phone calls? When Terry supposedly stopped ringing MJ, due to the bill, MJ never thought to call Terry?

 

[HIStory]

Famous, and rich, man Michael Jackson, who we're meant to believe enjoyed doing certain things whilst speaking to Terry didn't call Terry himself? He had him make phone calls? When Terry supposedly stopped ringing MJ, due to the bill, MJ never thought to call Terry?

I know. It seems like this little creep was simply stalking MJ and MJ one day had enough and cut him off totally. I don't think he would do that to a kid with no reason. Terry must have been real creepy (he does seem like a creep and a stalker). His story is all over the place, like with all liars. He claims MJ asked for his phone number and insisted on calling him, yet in another paragraph he says his (Terry's) parents were the ones who run up a huge telephone bill and then Terry went to a phone box trying to call MJ but MJ "didn't want to know". It seems like he was the one calling him and stalking him, not the other way around. LOL. Well, that is if even there were calls at all, which I am not sure of with this liar. And in 2008 he wrote they last met 20 years before. Funny, because in earlier articles the last meeting was the polite brush off in about 1983-84.

 

[barbee0715]

Well, I'm writing because I'm just ticked off. I think I posted that when the Radar story came out, I was on several different sites pointing out the rebuttals, etc. Billboard, People, ABC News. And while I was on ABC News, a troll started attacking me-and also started making wild accusations about Michael wanting to be a white woman, etc. and on and on. Then out of the blue he asked me "why are you harassing Paris?" WTH??? I asked him what in the heck he was talking about and he said he could see my Twitter-which I don't have, and wouldn't harass a kid anyway.

So, that was about ten days ago, and I logged in to Yahoo last night and read a story on ABC News-and tried to make a comment and I'm banned for life.
I did some research and apparently that guy reported ME (although I used no profanity, nothing vulgar, nothing but quoted fact) and he reports me and I'm banned. Disqus can do nothing about it-you have to contact ABC and I did, but you just get a email back that you can't answer.

His vile remarks on the site are still there, however. I googled "being banned on ABC News" and I guess this happens to a lot of people. I know it happened to me once on TMZ thru Disqus, but they just took down my remarks, not the troll ones-but they also didn't ban me for life. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the tricks they know to use.

 

[HIStory]

^ Silencing opposing opinions. How "brave"!

 

[terrell]

He tried to get out of it by saying some nonsense about how it doesn't matter because MJ already groomed him to be submissive. Wrong again, because MJ and Gavin have not even met for almost three years, or only for a "hello-good bye" before the Bashir doc, and that too is in the accuser's own testimony. LOL. He was just rambling some nonsense to try to save face and got back to his fallacy of "I am right because I am the expert" and then just disappeared and never came back. LOL.

He know he is no expert. He is just some fool frontin on the internet. The fact that he did not know the real facts of the case show he knows nothing. just frontin.

 

[terrell]

Well, I'm writing because I'm just ticked off. I think I posted that when the Radar story came out, I was on several different sites pointing out the rebuttals, etc. Billboard, People, ABC News. And while I was on ABC News, a troll started attacking me-and also started making wild accusations about Michael wanting to be a white woman, etc. and on and on. Then out of the blue he asked me "why are you harassing Paris?" WTH??? I asked him what in the heck he was talking about and he said he could see my Twitter-which I don't have, and wouldn't harass a kid anyway.

So, that was about ten days ago, and I logged in to Yahoo last night and read a story on ABC News-and tried to make a comment and I'm banned for life.
I did some research and apparently that guy reported ME (although I used no profanity, nothing vulgar, nothing but quoted fact) and he reports me and I'm banned. Disqus can do nothing about it-you have to contact ABC and I did, but you just get a email back that you can't answer.

His vile remarks on the site are still there, however. I googled "being banned on ABC News" and I guess this happens to a lot of people. I know it happened to me once on TMZ thru Disqus, but they just took down my remarks, not the troll ones-but they also didn't ban me for life. I'm thoroughly disgusted by the tricks they know to use.

what is the site on yahoo. I go in for you.

 

[barbee0715]

what is the site on yahoo. I go in for you.

Oh, that's so nice of you. It's actually the abcnews.com web site, but that includes every single news article on ABC, and Good Morning America and everything they own. I'm just shocked that their moderators didn't actually read the conversation and banned ME. It's pretty easy to see who was being polite and civil, and who was being vile and disgusting.

I read that other people just create a new disqus account, and get a new email address, but if they can ban you that easily, I don't want to bother. It just makes me sad-I read most of my news there.

 

[terrell]

Oh, that's so nice of you. It's actually the abcnews.com web site, but that includes every single news article on ABC, and Good Morning America and everything they own. I'm just shocked that their moderators didn't actually read the conversation and banned ME. It's pretty easy to see who was being polite and civil, and who was being vile and disgusting.

I read that other people just create a new disqus account, and get a new email address, but if they can ban you that easily, I don't want to bother. It just makes me sad-I read most of my news there.

In other words, they cater to internet trolls. That what that sounds like. Did you know some people are PAID to be internet trolls? So true. You can clearly spot an internet troll. the person who you was talking to clearly is one (they are there to keep you in a rise and to keep clicking and create drama in a site). One of the worst were 4 years ago with a tv host. Trolls got into her site and told her to go kill herself because the new program revealed she suffered from depressionn and was suicidal. She recovered but shared her story. Anyway, the TROLLS came on there going back and forth with people who supported. The new stations was able to track down two of the trolls due to their accounts. One was a sixteen year old brat who worked in a fast food shop; the other was a college student who made his living off of being a troll. They tried to hide but the cameras followed them and even the tv host to ask why would they go online and say suh mean things, one was paid to do it while the 16 year did it out of being boring. stupid.

 

[barbee0715]

^^Wow-I like Disqus because you can be anonymous and no one sees your personal info and you also don't have to join the web site-like TMZ or ABC News. I know to avoid those obvious trolls-when they took down my comments on TMZ last year, I was in the middle of a discussion with normal people and then next thing I know the trolls butted in and had all our remarks removed.

This time, I was in what I thought was a normal conversation, but wham-here this guy comes. I notice the one other person that was remarking on this story with me and also pointing out real facts, is also deleted. Guess she got banned too. It does make me mad-I avoided the gossip sites and stayed on news sites only-and was really pointing out facts for people who are reading-I've learned a lot by reading comments, myself.

 

[terrell]

^^Wow-I like Disqus because you can be anonymous and no one sees your personal info and you also don't have to join the web site-like TMZ or ABC News. I know to avoid those obvious trolls-when they took down my comments on TMZ last year, I was in the middle of a discussion with normal people and then next thing I know the trolls butted in and had all our remarks removed.

This time, I was in what I thought was a normal conversation, but wham-here this guy comes. I notice the one other person that was remarking on this story with me and also pointing out real facts, is also deleted. Guess she got banned too. It does make me mad-I avoided the gossip sites and stayed on news sites only-and was really pointing out facts for people who are reading-I've learned a lot by reading comments, myself.

Exactly. gossip site breed trash and they trash everyone not just MJ either. Look at Russell and Ciara (a beautiful couple. Can not get no better than that). Even they were trashed by some. some people get their kicks off trashing people because they think they are in hiding. Look how he came out of the blue with you YET you were banned. That is what the moderaors want on that site. Trash. Do not be surpise if it is a moderator from that site doing it. I said the same about Radaronline. I believe that is two people who change their names to many other names (you can almost tell by their style of writing and they type differerent comments).

 

[barbee0715]

Exactly. gossip site breed trash and they trash everyone not just MJ either. Look at Russell and Ciara (a beautiful couple. Can not get no better than that). Even they were trashed by some. some people get their kicks off trashing people because they think they are in hiding. Look how he came out of the blue with you YET you were banned. That is what the moderaors want on that site. Trash. Do not be surpise if it is a moderator from that site doing it. I said the same about Radaronline. I believe that is two people who change their names to many other names (you can almost tell by their style of writing and they type differerent comments).

I know that to be true on TMZ definitely. I think it's one or two guys posing as twelve people. It might be just as well-most of the comments I read on abcnews (and they affiliated with Yahoo News) are extremely bigoted and racist now-it didn't used to be that way.

 

[FullLipsDotNose]

Yesterday, talking to my sister.
Sister: "Michael looked much nicer as a black guy."
Me: "But he was black all the time. He just had a skin disease. His sister and his son have it, too."
Sister: "But his sister looks black."
Me: "I don't mean Janet, but Latoya. I'll show you pics... See? She has a very light skin. In this pic, she's even lighter than Michael."
Sister: "Ahhh, OK."

 

[KOPV]

^ well has it ever been talked about IF Latoya has vitiligo? Her skin is actually fairly dark without makeup.. she drenches herself with it!

 

[barbee0715]

^^No. It has not.

 

[etoile 37]

La Toya doesn't have vitiligo, as far as we know. She was just born with a lighter skin tone than her siblings.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

A lady at the barber shop told me yesterday, that she saw a video online, where cops broke down a secret door at Neverland and found child porn. I'd heard such material belonged to the Arvizos, and that Michael had a huge art collection which included some nudes...but this is the first I've heard about the cops actually finding a room full of it. Is there any merit at all to this? I remember Frank Cascio mentioning in his book, that Michael did have some secret rooms at Neverland, but this lady yesterday was so convinced that it really bothered me. She wasn't mean-spirited about it at all, just a little sad and regretful. I've long championed MJ's innocence, especially about the Arvizos...but a secret porn-stash literally locked behind a secret door and caught on video? It makes me feel suspicious, but also torn. Any honest person could never claim Michael wasn't paranoid; he had some persecution issues, some reasonable due to his father and the media. I want the truth, but I'm also scared of it, if that makes any sense.

 

[HIStory]

A lady at the barber shop told me yesterday, that she saw a video online, where cops broke down a secret door at Neverland and found child porn. I'd heard such material belonged to the Arvizos, and that Michael had a huge art collection which included some nudes...but this is the first I've heard about the cops actually finding a room full of it. Is there any merit at all to this? I remember Frank Cascio mentioning in his book, that Michael did have some secret rooms at Neverland, but this lady yesterday was so convinced that it really bothered me. She wasn't mean-spirited about it at all, just a little sad and regretful. I've long championed MJ's innocence, especially about the Arvizos...but a secret porn-stash literally locked behind a secret door and caught on video? It makes me feel suspicious, but also torn. Any honest person could never claim Michael wasn't paranoid; he had some persecution issues, some reasonable due to his father and the media. I want the truth, but I'm also scared of it, if that makes any sense.

The lady you talked to might not have been mean-spirited but she sure was gullible in believing tabloid garbage (and apparently even putting her own twist on it). The issue has been all discussed in detail in the past few weeks here. Of course the prosecution never found ANY child porn, let alone a full room of it. Are people really so dumb that they think the police found child porn and MJ still walked free when the possession of child porn is a federal crime?

Read this article please: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?section=

Even the prosecutor, Ron Zonen stated they never found child porn or anything illegal:

Former Santa Barbara Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who helped prosecute Jackson and recalls viewing the actual documents tied to the case, tells PEOPLE that law enforcement did discover adult pornographic magazines and videos, though nothing constituting child pornography.

"There were all kinds of conventional porn magazines," says Zonen. "Things like Playboy, Penthouse. There was one called Barely Legal. It was a publication that featured young women presumably over the age of 18 but selected because they look much younger."

Law enforcement also discovered a book of "masochistic" type drawings.

When it comes to items relating to children, "There were photos of nude children but they weren't sexually graphic," he says. "They weren't children engaged in sexual activity and there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children. There were videos that were seized but they were conventional adult sexually graphic material. No children involved."

http://www.people.com/article/michael-jackson-estate-blasts-porn-reports

(Zonen's characterization of Barely Legal can be disputed. You can see what it is like here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barely_Legal_(magazine) ).

 

[barbee0715]

A lady at the barber shop told me yesterday, that she saw a video online, where cops broke down a secret door at Neverland and found child porn. I'd heard such material belonged to the Arvizos, and that Michael had a huge art collection which included some nudes...but this is the first I've heard about the cops actually finding a room full of it. Is there any merit at all to this? I remember Frank Cascio mentioning in his book, that Michael did have some secret rooms at Neverland, but this lady yesterday was so convinced that it really bothered me. She wasn't mean-spirited about it at all, just a little sad and regretful. I've long championed MJ's innocence, especially about the Arvizos...but a secret porn-stash literally locked behind a secret door and caught on video? It makes me feel suspicious, but also torn. Any honest person could never claim Michael wasn't paranoid; he had some persecution issues, some reasonable due to his father and the media. I want the truth, but I'm also scared of it, if that makes any sense.

it's a false story and the video is simply the raid on Neverland. No child porn was ever found and the prosecuting DA and Santa Barbara sheriffs dept. rebutted the story the next day.
Art books and adult magazines were all that was found.
Go to the News section and read the thread "What Michael Jackson had in his bedroom" and you'll find the truth.

That will make you feel better although it's idiotic these fraudulent stories are making the rounds.

Edit: Sorry respect. We are posting in the same minute.

 

[Bad7]

It's shocking how many people lack the common sense over the whole 'child porn' issue. Had child porn been found he'd of been put behind bars for that alone. Seeing as though he wasn't, that should register in people's minds that it's nonsense.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Well, the lady I spoke to yesterday, said she thought someone was paid off to keep Michael out of jail. Whatever video she was describing, it really struck a nerve with her. She said she used to be a fan, but seeing that video with her husband put them both off.

 

[Bad7]

Well, the lady I spoke to yesterday, said she thought someone was paid off to keep Michael out of jail. Whatever video she was describing, it really struck a nerve with her. She said she used to be a fan, but seeing that video with her husband put them both off.

You should tell to check out the this exact link - http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/main.html . That will show her that the prosecution certainly wasn't paid off.

Or, in a nutshell, tell her that Sneddon tried for ten years to find a victim. He changed the dates of alleged molestation three times for the 2005 trial, falsified evidence and had Neverland ripped apart. No way would they of been paid off!

 

[HIStory]

Well, the lady I spoke to yesterday, said she thought someone was paid off to keep Michael out of jail. Whatever video she was describing, it really struck a nerve with her. She said she used to be a fan, but seeing that video with her husband put them both off.

She seems to be gullible and believe any tabloid nonsense she reads or sees, plain and simple.

The videos the tabloids were circulating about a month ago were nothing new and nothing shocking either. They were videos of the house search that have been long out there on YouTube and uploaded by fans, actually. Tabloids now took them put their twisted false narrative on them and made untrue claims about them. Such as MJs's actual bedroom being some "secret room" and nonsense like that.

Here is a video that's been uploaded by a fan a long time ago.

Here is how tabloids posted the same or very similar videos. The title is already manipulative. Calling it "secret underage sex closet". They also put the music on some creepy horror movie music on it (or in other cases they accompanied it with a creepy narration, full of lies). Please point out to me, where do you see any child porn in any of those videos? Or any "secret underage sex closet" - like the title claims?

The so called "secret closet" is actually a closet full of memorabilia and clothes and jewelry.

So "secret" that MJ himself posed in it for an interview in Life magazine.

And don't even get me started on the "paid off" nonsense. People who believe that crap are simply utterly ignorant about the case. How do you pay off Tom Sneddon when you are Michael Jackson? Did this woman know about the relationship and history between MJ and Sneddon? Does this woman even know basic facts about the trial? It does not look like that.

 

[KOPV]

IF they found child pornography in THE MICHAEL JACKSONS bedroom... It wouldn't be on little old Radar, or entertainment sites.. That would be world wide breaking news... CNN/BBC/MSNBC/ freakin' telemundo and every local news station...


I mean why don't people (even if they don't give enough $#!+S to research to at least think of that?

 

[MJresearcher]

People who don't know much about this are the prime target for stories like these. It's easy to fool people by manipulating then using emotion invoking music and speech accompanied by police footage. Some people have even been mislead into believing that the finding of the closet is new and that it was searched recently and this awful material was found. That can be disproved by a YouTube video where Matt Lauer gives a tour of neverland (he puts some of his personal assumptions into it) including this 'secret' closet and it's all empty. This video was uploaded in 2009. The police report proves there was no child porn and all people have to back up their view that these claims are true is their game of 'what if' based speculation. People assume police or the jury were paid off with no evidence to back it up. It's a good enough explanation for them so they buy it and the truth is irrelevant to those people. Those who have an honest interest in the truth won't hold to such reasoning.