Latest on MJJC

[Discussion] Michael Jackson Slandered By The Mirror / New assult Pg 38

BeautifulSoul said:
This thread was in the Entertainment section of GagaDaily(which I've linked to before):
http://gagadaily.com/index.php?showtopic=51939

:(
Click to expand...

Please next time you give a link, give a description of what it is.

So it's about Lady Gaga fans discovering that old motion of Sneddon from 2005 where he requested the introduction some of Michael's books and porn magazines. This has been circulated on a couple of internet forums recently, people totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it (obviously not even knowing the content of those books and magazines). Of course Sneddon tries to make them look worse in his motion than what they were.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

On contrary to what those idiots say on the LadyGaga forum NONE of it was child pornography. As it's actually obvious from the very fact that Michael was not even charged with the possession of child pornography.

ALL of it (except the Interet porn - all heterosexual, none illegal) was introduced to court and the jury saw them. Moreover two Grand Juries saw those two books from 1993.

Here is a good blog post introducing all of these books (for those who worry because of the URL: it's NOT that hater Desiree's blog, but a blog that counters her): http://desireespeakssoolisten.blogspot.hu/p/lets-take-look-at-that-so-called-child.html

(BeautifulSoul, if you are a member of that Lady Gaga forum, maybe you can post them the above link to see these books for themselves.)

You can see photos of these books and their description. None of it is child porn (most isn't even about children and those which are, of course, are absolutely NOT pornographic), none of it is illegal. You can buy them in book stores, on Amazon, anywhere.

If Michael should have been put to jail for those books (like some of those idiotic Gaga fans suggested on that forum) then Gaga should have been put to jail a long time ago for her videos... (you can tell them this too...)

Michael had a library of literally thousands and thousands of books. There were books EVERYWHERE. Even his bathroom had book shelves. He was this avid book collector - especially collector of art books, art photography books and vintage books, rareties (as you can see many of these books are from the 60s-70s, many are out of print, they are book rareties). It's natural that someone who has so many artbooks will have some which has nudes in it - men and women alike. A lot of art book has nudes.

Michael's adult magazines (the real porn that was found), which were also introduced, were ALL commercially produced, ALL legal and ALL heterosexual (or lesbian) themed. No male/male gay porn mag was found in his possession. He kept those hetero magazines in his nightstand, in a box at the base of his bed and in a briefcase in a closet of his bedroom. While most of the art books were in big cardboard boxes full of all kinds of books and art books. He had lots of boxes full of books. And out of those many books the prosecution took basically everything with a nude person in it. It was simply desperation by the prosecution to have these introduced.
 
Last edited:
^ Exactly. If those items were illegal to own, he would have been charged with it and hauled off to jail. Are any of those idiots on the Gaga board capable of realizing that???
 
GreenEyes said:
^ Exactly. If those items were illegal to own, he would have been charged with it and hauled off to jail. Are any of those idiots on the Gaga board capable of realizing that???
Click to expand...

The real scary thing is that someone throws in a claim ("MJ had child porn and here is the proof") and people start parroting it without even checking it out if it's really so. I have seen this document circulating on various forums in the past weeks and everyone is just parroting "MJ had child porn" without having any actual knowledge about what these books really are, the context they were found in etc. It's really scary how easy it is to manipulate and lead people astray with such inflammatory things. I guess the psychology behind lynch mobs must have been something similar. Humans did not change much ever since...

Actually, not even Sneddon and the prosecution claimed any of these were child porn or illegal in any way, because they knew full well none of it was. If you look at the way how the prosecution described them in their document where they detail this material, every one of them is described as NOT containing anything illegal. So even the prosecution acknowledged that. The reasoning behind their confiscating and introducing them was that they claimed these could be used as "grooming material" - even though none of the kids ever claimed to have seen any of these books (the Arvizos only made allegation about MJ showing them porn magazines, not any of these books). In reality they just tried to use it as inflammatory material to try to prejudice the conservative Jury against MJ, in the absence of real evidence against him. And someone apparently just found this prosecution motion (which is, BTW, obviously worded in biased way by Sneddon) and decided to use it once again as inflammatory material to smear Michael - now appealing to people's ignorance about what these books really are.
 
respect77 said:
The real scary thing is that someone throws in a claim ("MJ had child porn and here is the proof") and people start parroting it without even checking it out if it's really so. I have seen this document circulating on various forums in the past weeks and everyone is just parroting "MJ had child porn" without having any actual knowledge about what these books really are, the context they were found in etc. It's really scary how easy it is to manipulate and lead people astray with such inflammatory things. I guess the psychology behind lynch mobs must have been something similar. Humans did not change much ever since...

Actually, not even Sneddon and the prosecution claimed any of these were child porn or illegal in any way, because they knew full well none of it was. If you look at the way how the prosecution described them in their document where they detail this material, every one of them is described as NOT containing anything illegal. So even the prosecution acknowledged that. The reasoning behind their confiscating and introducing them was that they claimed these could be used as "grooming material" - even though none of the kids ever claimed to have seen any of these books (the Arvizos only made allegation about MJ showing them porn magazines, not any of these books). In reality they just tried to use it as inflammatory material to try to prejudice the conservative Jury against MJ, in the absence of real evidence against him. And someone apparently just found this prosecution motion (which is, BTW, obviously worded in biased way by Sneddon) and decided to use it once again as inflammatory material to smear Michael - now appealing to people's ignorance about what these books really are.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right! And if Sneddon could have nailed Michael on any of it, he absolutely would have. It was all used and "presented" to try to make him seem like a sexual deviant. I think all of these books are available on Amazon, if I'm not mistaken.

But that court document first came to light on Desiree's blog. And from there a few (and her only followers) used those court links to pass on to other forums. The person who runs MJfacts is one of them.
 
^ Yes, it's their modus operandi to cherry pick and present prosecution documents as if the claims in them are fact, and throw in inflammatory things like that without giving a background and a context. Unfortunately I have learnt that this works on most people as most people are sheep who will just parrot a claim when they hear it and do not vet the claim themselves. That's also why the claim about the so called "FBI files" went viral. No one bothered to background check the story, not even the so called serious media which decided to give it a platform. It's pretty scary actually how easily manipulated humans are.
 
I want to add that child pornography is a federal crime. The feds would have gotten Michael not Sneddon
 
^Then the FBI would had had business there to arrest him and convicting him if they had found child pornography in his possession. Gary Glitter an UK glam rock singer was convicted first for having child pornography on his computer 5 years or something like that. Then he was imprisoned in Cambodia for molesting (if I'm not mistaken) under aged girls there.
 
I checked and Glitter was sentenced just 4 months in prison for possessing child pornography and in Cambodia from 2006-2009 for molesting 10 and 11 year old girls but if he had raped them he'd had been executed.

Pretty soft sentence for child pornography if you ask me.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan said:
I checked and Glitter was sentenced just 4 months in prison for possessing child pornography and in Cambodia from 2006-2009 for molesting 10 and 11 year old girls but if he had raped them he'd had been executed.

Pretty soft sentence for child pornography if you ask me.
Click to expand...


i thought molesting is pretty much the same thing as rape
 
^^Molesting implies touching sexually and rape is forcing penetration violently or not but when it's not consensual, is rape.

I forgot to add, if the minor consents having intercourse, that's called statutory rape.
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
The real scary thing is that someone throws in a claim ("MJ had child porn and here is the proof") and people start parroting it without even checking it out if it's really so. I have seen this document circulating on various forums in the past weeks and everyone is just parroting "MJ had child porn" without having any actual knowledge about what these books really are, the context they were found in etc. It's really scary how easy it is to manipulate and lead people astray with such inflammatory things. I guess the psychology behind lynch mobs must have been something similar. Humans did not change much ever since...
Click to expand...

If people really don't like mj, they'll believe it as it fits their view of him and so must be true, they're not going to spend the time to actually engage their brain and think about how feasible it all is. I've seen mj fans drink up stacy brown articles which trash the jacksons and are clearly cut and paste from other media sources but with added sensationalism, and regard it all as bona fida as it fits their viewpoint.

As i've mentioned before, ray chandler on his glitter book tv tour in 04 actually said in a tv interview that mj had commercially available hard core child porn and the tv interviewer didn't even do a double take, so i can imagine what goes on in internet forums.
 
The former head of the uk press complaints commission has recently been appointed the managing editor of the sun, kind of gamekeeper turned poacher. It gives a good idea of the cosy and ineffectual nature of the self-regulation of the media in the uk.
 
I am sorry but those British tabloid are far worst than the American. What is it? they do not have much to do.
 
UPDATE FROM THE PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION - New June 23, 2014

For those who have followed this in the past, today I just received a new email from the Press Complaints Commission regarding the fake FBI file tabloid articles. These articles were debunked by Roger Friedman and CNN, and even Diane Dimond agreed they were false.

In this new email, it appears that the Estate has indeed pursued it further, and used another lawfirm to pursue it. One time in the past it was listed on their website that the Estate dropped the ball and let this investigation slip away, but now it seems they have pursued it. Anyway, here is their answer to me, as I really PUSHED them and my complaints regarding the horrible British slanderous tabloid reports.

I can't believe what they are telling me. They have actually tried to say what they reported was accurate, when in fact in was proven lies by Alan Duke, Roger Friedman, Diane Dimond and Drew Griffin from CNN. Here is the CNN article to refresh the memories. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/showbiz/michael-jackson-files/

The Press Complaints Commission isn't even specifically addressing the outright lies that were in the Sunday People and the Mirror!:mat:

I'm not done with these son's of bitches.:mat: I'm going to keep pushing it.


New email:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sean Goldstein


6:19 AM (12 hours ago) 23 June 2014

I write further to my colleague Simon Yip’s email, regarding your complaint against the Daily Mirror and / or People.

Following an earlier complaint, the Commission considered this matter and issued the decision copied below.

Thank you for contacting the PCC, and please don’t hesitate to get in touch in future.

Kind regards
Sean Goldstein
Complaints Officer

Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD


Tel: 020 7831 0022

Website: www.pcc.org.uk


Commission’s decision in the case of

Estate of the late Michael Jackson v The People / Daily Mirror​


The Estate of the late Michael Jackson complained through Arnold & Porter LLP about four articles which the Estate considered to have been inaccurate and misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The articles reported that ‘secret FBI files’ revealed that Michael Jackson ‘spent £23 million buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he [had] abused over 15 years’. The complainant said that such allegations were false, and that the information contained in the FBI files was not new; indeed, it had been seen by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office in the period preceding Mr Jackson’s 2005 trial. The complainant noted that Philip LeMarque had also testified at this trial, and therefore Mr Jackson’s acquittal proved that his claims were false.

Under the terms of Clause 1 (i) of the Code, newspapers must take care not to publish inaccurate information, and Clause 1 (ii) makes clear that significantly misleading information must be corrected ‘promptly, and with due prominence’.

The newspapers were entitled to report the information which they had received. In doing so, they had made clear that the reported allegations were not new, in the sense that law enforcement authorities had been notified of them already, and that Mr Jackson was ultimately acquitted of the allegations which he faced in 2005; in two of the reports, it was specifically stated that before Mr Jackson’s 2005 trial, the Santa Barbara District Attorney had reviewed the claims in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file, and had declined to refer them to the California State prosecutor. The June 30 article noted Anthony Pellicano’s ’15-year jail sentence for racketeering’, and so readers would have been able to come to their own view as to the credibility of the source for the reported claims; one of the Estate’s former legal representatives was also quoted in one of the reports. Taking all of these factors into account, the Commission was satisfied that the newspapers had taken sufficient care not to publish inaccurate information, and that there was no breach of the Code.

While Philip LeMarque testified at Mr Jackson’s 2005 trial, this was also the first time that the transcript of his interview had been published. The Commission was satisfied, therefore, that readers had not been significantly misled and there was no breach of the Code on this point


Reference Nos. 135014 / 135015
 
I love how they worded that so it looks like they were totally innocent and reported facts only. And the reader was supposed to figure out that because Pelicano was convicted the files were false?
Add 2 and 2 and get 5.
I hope the Estate goes right back at them.
This had been reprinted all over the world.

(You're doing a great job)
 
What a bunch of BS! Their source was not Pellicano. Pellicano is in jail, he did not talk to them. Their source was an "unnamed man" - who we know was Paul Barresi, but the paper did not reveal him as the source. This answer to the complaint did not even get the article's referenced source right! Unreal!

The newspapers were entitled to report the information which they had received. In doing so, they had made clear that the reported allegations were not new, in the sense that law enforcement authorities had been notified of them already, and that Mr Jackson was ultimately acquitted of the allegations which he faced in 2005; in two of the reports, it was specifically stated that before Mr Jackson’s 2005 trial, the Santa Barbara District Attorney had reviewed the claims in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file, and had declined to refer them to the California State prosecutor.
Click to expand...

No they did not make it clear. If they had made it clear then the rest of the media would not have run with this claim as if it's some new, bombshell revelation. If no misleading by the article happened why did lots of people came away with the impression that "it's been verified and proven by the FBI that MJ has paid off dozens of boys"? In fact they spefically claimed that they had insight into “secret FBI files which “reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years”. How is that not misleading when no such thing happened?

@GreenEyes

If you decide to press it further please check out the arguments and facts listed in this article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...o-silence-them-after-he-sexually-abused-them/

I'm going to help you with information in any way I can.

I found this Arnold and Porter law firm on the net. Do you think we should send them a link to the above article so that they have more information?


I think you should write them that their answer to the complaint is unsatisfactory as it does not even get the basic facts of this case right. For one, the article does not claim that their source for this information was Anthony Pellicano. They claim their source was an unnamed man who worked with Pellicano. They do not reveal the identity of this unnamed man, so they do not give a chance to the reader to weigh in his credibility. From other sources and the history of some of these documents however it can be traced that the source is likely Paul Barresi, a well known tabloid broker, who already sold this information earlier in other contexts. He's never worked for Michael Jackson and the documents he provided are misleadingly labelled as "FBI files" giving the false impression that the claims in them are facts proven and verified by the FBI, which is not the case.

The answer is also unsatisfactory because it claims that they had given the readers enough information to come to a balanced conclusion. This is untrue. The article is deliberately worded in a misleading way and specifically claims that the paper had insight into “secret FBI files" which “reveal Michael Jackson spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years”. It is factually untrue that Michael Jackson "spent £23million (about $35 million) buying the silence of at least two dozen young boys he abused over 15 years". If no misleading by the article happened why did lots of people came away with the impression from that article that "it's been verified and proven by the FBI that MJ has paid off dozens of boys"? Not only readers, but other publications as well, which reprinted these claims without vetting the information that the Sunday People/Mirror published?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top