Latest on MJJC

Debates with the public

Just refuted this video:


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.?
Click to expand...
 
there's more vids going up on youtube.. can we get them taken down? more haters
 
The Smoking Gun article about the Linden Affidavit regarding Chandler's description is no longer available on the archive website. That and all the documents regarding the 2005 case have been taken off the websites in the last few days. Has anyone noticed anything else disappearing?
 
MJresearcher said:
The Smoking Gun article about the Linden Affidavit regarding Chandler's description is no longer available on the archive website. That and all the documents regarding the 2005 case have been taken off the websites in the last few days. Has anyone noticed anything else disappearing?
Click to expand...

The Smoking Gun article disappeared for a long time. I think they took it down when MJ's autopsy came out...
 
I was thinking, some of us have documents that have now been taken off the court website but is there somewhere else we can upload the PDF documents we have to? I really don't like that this information isn't as easily accessable to the public now.
 
@Respect-you were kind to them-I thought that was quite horrible and actually, everything I've seen of theirs has made me mad. I wonder if they will do a rebuttal video now that so many people have clarified this-including the Santa Barbara Sheriff's department.
I made a few comments on this on YouTube, but most of my commenting was on Billboard.com and People.com today-recognized one of our posters from here over there too.
I don't know-I just think this has to stop. The Estate has smart lawyers-they've got to think of something-Michael's kids are affected by this in the most terrible way-and it seems like they would have some legal rights here.
 
MJResearcher
I was thinking, some of us have documents that have now been taken off the court website but is there somewhere else we can upload the PDF documents we have to? I really don't like that this information isn't as easily accessable to the public now.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on that. There should be a place that people can look up this information at the source-if it gets erased, it's like it didn't happen, and people will not know the truth.
 
Last edited:
I commented this Huffington Post article yesterday and I see now it has 110 likes and is the top liked comment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...11337575581649_1011337575581649#f324559899432

It IS worth the effort sometimes.

Thanks for a more reasonable approach of the subject than most articles. However, I still have some issues. The fingerprint evidence found on porn magazines by the accuser did not prove anything because testimonies showed (even the accuser's brother's testimony which contradicted the accuser's testimony on the issue) the accuser and his brother went to MJ's bedroom when he wasn't there. Clearly they could have touched those magazines then. (And it was interesting the brothers contradicted each other on the issue. While the accuser Gavin denied that they had ever been in MJ's bedroom in MJ's absence, the brother Star had very vivid memories of not only going there with his brother but also sleeping in the room while MJ wasn't there. There were also witnesses who testified to the fact that the brothers begged staff to let them in MJ's room while he wasn't there. So Gavin was caught in another lie with that denial.)

MJ wasn't only aquitted because the accuser admitted to a teacher that he wasn't molested. That's just one small tiny part of the many reasons why he was aquitted. The timeline didn't make sense. The accuser changed his story on many important points when new emerging evidence showed his original story did not hold up. The brothers contradicted each other on many important details and they also contradicted their own earlier statements. Basically they clearly lied on the stand.

There is a good summary about the 2005 case on this website (and also about the 1993 case): http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-2005-allegations/

As for books that had nude pics of children, those weren't a lot of books. The context was a collection of over 10,000 books much of them art photography books as MJ was a huge photography fan. The prosecution took everythig with a nude (or sometimes just semi-nude) person with it. This meant confiscating about 17 books out of a 10,000 collection. Most of those about adults (both male and female). Some had nude or semi nude kids, but it wasn't the focus of MJ's collection. It really cannot be estbalished from them that he had some sort of weird sexual inerest in kids. It seems more like he had an interest in art photography and in a collection like that you are bound to have some nudes.

I am very bothered by the fact that the media can get away with lying and twisting facts the way they do with this tabloid stuff that Radar Online started. It went viral within hours and other publications uncritically reposted them as if the claims in the article were facts. Claims like that Simen Johan's book Room to Play was a "sex book" and some sort of perverted horrific thing. That guy is an acclaimed artist, so is the media now accusing him and the other artists of being child pornographers? The same media has no problem promoting these rt works and artists, and now their work is all of a sudden criminalized just because someone has an interest in smearing Jackson's name beyond the grave? And do we accuse the Library of Congress of keeping child porn? http://lccn.loc.gov/2004297659

I looked up all of those books and they are just not what the media claims them to be. How the media manipulates us is just extremely disturbing.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know who those Young Turks people are but they are morons. Yesterday I posted to them Zonen's comment and told them they should change the title because even the prosecution denies they found child porn. They did change it, but to another biased one "Police: MJ used porn to brainwash kids". They just cannot seem to admit being wrong.

The police report actually did not say that either. They just inserted a standard text saying "due to my training this material can be used to groom children". "Can be used" is not a statement of "MJ did use it". Of course, the prosecution did claim that, but again that is a prosecution theory, not a fact. People just cannot seem to differentiate between an unproven claim or theory and a fact. Plus people think of a prosecution as if they are an unbiased party in a case when in fact they are one side of the case. And this prosecution was definitely not unbiased with all their decade long axe-to-grind against MJ.
 
I can't stand it when people say ''I don't think he was a child molester, but he was messed up in the head''

Even though they think he's innocent they still have to get a little dig in. Or maybe they want to say something negative so they won't get labeled as a crazy Michael Jackson worshiper.
 
^ Probably the later? It seems fans are less listened to. However if you seem more neutral people are more likely to listen to what you have to say. It's also harsh way of putting that Michael was different due to his upbringing (of course anyone brought up in the spotlight would be).
 
I haven't watched it all but apparently it is someone who has actually done his homework, for a change.

 
respect77 said:
I haven't watched it all but apparently it is someone who has actually done his homework, for a change.

Click to expand...

Wow, I remember his video about Michael's career from a few years back and it was a really good look into his discography as a whole. I'll have to keep this open in a tab to watch it later - thanks!
 
respect77 said:
I don't know who those Young Turks people are but they are morons. Yesterday I posted to them Zonen's comment and told them they should change the title because even the prosecution denies they found child porn. They did change it, but to another biased one "Police: MJ used porn to brainwash kids". They just cannot seem to admit being wrong.

The police report actually did not say that either. They just inserted a standard text saying "due to my training this material can be used to groom children". "Can be used" is not a statement of "MJ did use it". Of course, the prosecution did claim that, but again that is a prosecution theory, not a fact. People just cannot seem to differentiate between an unproven claim or theory and a fact. Plus people think of a prosecution as if they are an unbiased party in a case when in fact they are one side of the case. And this prosecution was definitely not unbiased with all their decade long axe-to-grind against MJ.
Click to expand...

I used to watch TYT many years ago when their channel was still mainly about politics and I liked their approach. Sad to see they've become just another tabloid show with clickbait headlines now.
 
respect77 said:
I haven't watched it all but apparently it is someone who has actually done his homework, for a change.

Click to expand...
I just finished watching this. Thought it was excellent. Especially like the way he describes the decision to pay the settlement. That's the one single bone of contention, I think, and he goes into all the whys behind the decision and really explains why it seemed to be a no-brainer at the time to do it.
 
The Young Turks apparently back track a bit and they are also getting it even from some of their readers for jumping the gun on this story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7028_KN9xM

elmar maria3 days ago
what kind of media organization are you guys ?xD you should have investigated !?
Click to expand...

Rita Evelyn Yanez4 days ago
Okay so you're just telling us that you're a show like Wendy Williams' show. And who the hell said that "we" want you to have an investigator at every scene? I think "we" just expected a higher level of journalism--or whatever you're doing there--because we've become used to something better from you of late. How about just stick to your politics. This was just not something you should have left alone if you didn't have time--or you're not old enough--to do the research or know what any of these old stories are about.?
Click to expand...

Rj Anthony3 days ago
Cenk, you said keep it real, so keep it real. You know I'm down with TYT, but you guys dropped the ball on this one.?
Click to expand...
 
Good! Some of the tabloid crap was posted on the 'God' comedy Facebook page and there a quote of lot of comments on there calling bullshit on it and saying that they were disappointed that something so full of shit was posted.
 
On the God facebook page a woman posted about how she used to believe MJ could have been set up but then she found the MJfacts website. She doesn't appear to be one of their posters, just someone who was convinced by what she read on their site. Interesting to see how much they're twisting things since they're claiming MJ's semen was on the books with boys in them. Their lies are disgusting and people are believing them. I posted a link to the MJ allegations website a few times but it kept disappearing so I linked to another post on the thread that contained a link to the site that had been left there. Hopefully she takes a good look at it. It was interesting to note that she started off saying she didn't claim the books were child porn but then refers to at least one of the books with young boys in it as porn. Oops.

27851969382_4ca9c8bf2d_z.jpg

27851969362_b5daeb9bfc.jpg
 
Last edited:
^ I have seen that hater lie earlier about MJ's semen being found on nudist magazines with nude boys, and I did a research about it back then and this is what I found and wrote to use when needed:

In December 2014, the hater website MJFacts published an article in which it was claimed that MJ's semen was found on the nudist magazines confiscated from MJ's home during the 2003 November search. The significance was, according to their argument, that while MJ's semen was not found on his heterosexual porn magazines (except for one), his semen was all over on these magazines which contain images of nude children. It has to be noted that while these vintage nudist magazines (mainly from the 1930s and some from the early 1960s), do contain some images of nude children, their focus is overwhelmingly on nude adult females. So even if the above claim was true it would not necessarily mean that MJ jerked off to images of children, but the claim that his semen was found on these magazines isn't even true. I will show below what haters twisted into this claim and I will also show - citing the prosecution's own expert witnesses - why their conclusions are all wrong.

First of all let me tell you that I do not visit that hater website because I know how they twist things and so their twisted stories have no value to me. I rather deal with facts and so I go back to the original sources, court docs, trial transcripts etc rather than read about the case through the twisted filter of MJ haters. However, I got informed about this claim through another fan. I was very perplexed because I have read about this case extensively, I read the court documents, the trial transcripts but I have never read about such a claim re. these nudist magazines before.

So where does this info come from, all of a sudden?

I went back to the trial transcript again, read the expert testimonies, read the testimonies about the use of ALS (alternate light source), read about what was said about these nudist magazines in trial by the prosecution's own experts and police officers and I found nothing at all. Nothing that mentioned that MJ's semen was found on these nudist magazines. If fact, not even his fingerprints were found on them and when Janet Willams, the police officer who confiscated them, testified on April 19 about them she admitted she had no way of telling if MJ ever even opened these magazines. Obviously, semen from MJ on them would be a clear way to tell that he opened them if such an evidence existed. And obviously if this evidence had existed it would have been mentioned by the prosecution at some time in court. Instead the prosecution spent days on tedious fingerprint talk (found on MJ's heterosexual magazines) and analysis, but not one mention about semen found on nudist magazines.

By the way, from Janet Williams' testimony we also learnt that District Attorney Tom Sneddon either was mistaken or deliberately lied in one of his motions and also in his opening statement at the trial about the location where the nudist magazines were found. He claimed that they were found in the upstairs bedroom section of MJ's room at the base of his bed along with MJ's hard core pornograpghy. Well, officer Williams clearly refuted this claim. She said that she found these magazines in the downstairs, sitting room portion of MJ's room in a box that otherwise had all kind of other books, art books etc - not pornography.

So now I knew this claim didn't come from the prosecution. Where did it come from then? Then it suddenly occured to me that haters love to use prosecution motions and refer to them as facts (even though they are just claims and allegations, not facts). So is this claim in one of the prosecution's motions?

I went straight to the motion where there is a detailed list of a part of the items which were found during the search. And there it was! No, the claim is not what haters made of it that the semen of MJ was found on nudist magazines, but you can clearly see that this was the information that they twisted into what they claim:

http://www.filedropper.com/page44-45semenonnudistmagslie

So the document says that because of alternate light source (ALS) testing showed some flourescents on the surface of these particular magazines they sent them to the Santa Barbara Department of Justice to further testing. It doesn't say it was semen, let alone MJ's. It was hater's jumping to a conclusion that such a flourescents can only be semen (and only MJ's at that, "of course" - although these old, vintage magazines were clearly bought second-hand). Even this document says that such a flourescents can be anything from hair to fibers. In fact, during expert trial testimony ALS was explained even further. It's not a detector of exclusively semen like haters so like to represent it - it detects ANYTHING biological! Hair, fiber, saliva, blood - or anything of biological origin. If such a flourescent shows up on one surface of an item then the item is sent to a laboratory for further analysis to see what it is exactly and whom it belongs to.

From the March 24 testimony of Lisa Susan Roote Hemman, a senior identification technician in the forensic unit of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department:


9 Q. Could you explain that for us, please?

10 A. I was asked to do a visual inspection of the

11 contents, and I used an alternate light source which

12 goes into the UV wavelengths. And when you look --

13 search for body fluids, they will fluoresce under UV

14 light, and anything that seemed to fluoresce, it

15 could be body fluids, but it could also be other

16 things.

17 My job was to find items that weren’t on the

18 paper when they were published, they were placed

19 there later. It could be anything that fluoresced.

20 And I separated those items out for further testing.

21 And when I did that, I repackaged them into another

22 bag and I sent them to the Department of Justice Lab

23 to find out what those fluids or deposits were.

24 Q. How did you mark on a specific item where

25 you suspected there may be some kind of body fluid

26 or other substance that was foreign to that magazine

27 or picture?

28 A. I sent the entire item to be reinspected by 3371


1 the Department of Justice. I also put a yellow tab,

2 a post-it note, on the page that I suspected, but I

3 also requested that the Department of Justice

4 reevaluate the entire magazine or piece of paper.
Click to expand...


Later in her testimony some more was explained about ALS and what it actually detects:


26 Okay. Now, the alternative light source

27 that you used during that one-week period from

28 January 20 to January 26th was for the purpose of -- 3412

1 oh -- was for the purpose of determining whether or

2 not there was bodily fluids?

3 A. Or any trace evidence, hair, fibers.

4 Q. And an alternative light source, can you

5 describe that briefly?

6 A. Yes. What --

7 Q. Let me stop you for a second. We’ve already

8 had a little testimony. What color is it, and did

9 you wear goggles, or was there a different color?

10 What did you do?

11 A. Yes, it’s basically a light source that goes

12 through numerous wavelengths, mainly in the UV, and

13 I wore orange goggles which narrows the band down

14 and helps you see things fluoresce, or absorb the

15 light, turn dark. And so basically I just went page

16 by page, wearing those orange goggles, and using the

17 UV light and examining each piece of paper.

18 Q. All right. Is this destructive of the

19 evidence to do that?

20 A. No. The CSS -- the light source has dials

21 on it, which dial each wavelength, and the CSS is

22 the one that we use mainly for searching for body

23 fluids, and that one is not, as far as I know,

24 destructive to DNA evidence.

25 Q. Okay. It’s not destructive to the paper?

26 A. No.

27 Q. Okay. So when you do an alternative light

28 source examination of that sort, you can then do 3413

1 other tests on the materials --

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. -- freely thereafter, right?

4 A. It’s harmless to the evidence that we looked

5 at.
Click to expand...

Then from the testimony of Charlane Marie on the same day. Marie worked for the California Department of Justice at the Santa Barbara Regional Crime Laboratory as a senior criminalist. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office sent the evidence from this case to this laboratory for deeper analysis.



3 Q. Okay. And your job was to look at that with

4 an alternative light source, correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Did I ask you this? On 766, that’s your

7 handwriting on the notes around the pictures?

8 A. It is.

9 Q. All right. And when you looked at the

10 alternative light source, looked at the items with

11 the alternative light source, did you find any

12 suspected DNA to sample and analyze?

13 A. Well, the light source is just a presumptive

14 searching tool, and all it’s going to tell you is if

15 something’s glowing. If something’s glowing,

16 biologicals do glow, so that’s one area that you

17 might want to test.

18 Q. Okay. Is that what you were looking for?

19 A. I was looking for biological material, yes.

20 Q. Bodily fluids, pretty much?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. The question is, did you find any?

23 A. I did not.

24 Q. So as far as you could tell, there was no

25 DNA to be tested from the materials you were sent?

26 A. Well, there’s no seminal material.

27 Q. There’s nothing you felt -- just to make it

28 clear, I’m not trying to trap you here, but there 3477


1 was nothing that you found and you said, “Ah-hah, we

2 ought to send this off to Sacramento or have a DNA

3 lab do a further analysis of this”; is that correct?

4 A. That’s right.

5 Q. You pretty much packaged it back up and sent

6 it back to Santa Barbara?

7 A. I did, yes.
Click to expand...


So this is why the prosecution never mentioned to have found MJ's semen on nudist magazines. Because such an evidence simply doesn't exist! As simple as that. At the trial the prosecution only talked about the nudist magazines in the context of where they were found and under what circumstances - that you can read in Janet Williams' testimony on April 19. No semen is ever mentioned in connection with those magazines. Like so often, haters simply jumped to erroneous conclusions, without checking out the totality of the material that was said about ALS or what was said about the nudist magazines at the trial.
Click to expand...

How much clearer can it be that they found no semen on any of those magazines when the prosecution expert witness who did the examination states that on the witness stand loud and clear?

It's pretty frustrating to see people who are otherwise uninformed about these cases fall for that manipulative hater website. They do not know that that website - far from presenting "every bit of evidence and testimony" - cherry picks, twists facts and - like in this case - simply makes up things. All they do is selecting prosecution claims and tabloid articles and mix it up with a bit of armchair psychology to make it all sound "convincing" (for the uninformed, anyway) and then present it as "the truth".
 
Last edited:
And LOL @ MJFacts trying to represent themselves as not haters but as some objective people. Is that why their wesbite started off like this?

mjfacts-1.jpg


Raven Wood wrote a great article about that:

Both the strategy of this website and of Desiree’s blog-the two main hater sites responsible for the sycophant followers who now attempt to “terrorize” and monopolize most unmoderated MJ discussion forums and articles, have subtley changed over time, and their method is transparently obvious. One thing that every MJ hater is usually most quick to defend is that fact that they are, indeed, haters. They prefer that unknowing readers think of them as merely objective researchers. Obviously, adopting this tone and style would appear-on the surface at least-to give their sites more credibility, and thus, unsuspecting readers might be more apt to trust the information they report as reliable and objective.


However, a quick glance at MJFacts’s past and current screenshots tells the history quite plainly, and since we know that this site has not undergone any change of hands since its inception, it is quite obvious that this site began as a blatantly obvious hater site. What else would you call a site that advertises “***** Facts?” (I apologize for even posting these offensive screenshots here, but I really want you to see with your own eyes that this is one and the same website; thus, it is obvious that this site’s administrators have no interest in presenting objective facts).


The various screenshots from the MJFacts website, courtesy of Worthofweb.com, clearly show the site’s transition over the past four years from a blatant “hater site” to a much more cleverly disguised-but still transparent- “hater site” that pretends to have neutral objectivity as its goal. Note how the prominently displayed “***** Facts” of the site’s earlier incarnation has now been replaced by the much more neutral sounding “Michael Jackson Facts” and, finally, MJFacts (but make no mistake, it has always been the same site run by the same individual as before!)

Over time, perhaps realizing that one can catch more flies with honey than vinegar (and as a front to ward off the accusations that their information lacks credibility since it comes from an obvious “hater” site) they changed from “***** Facts” to the more deceptively neutral sounding “MJFacts” (a misleading name indeed since there are very few “facts” to be found on this website). You can also clearly see that, over time, they have purposely changed their tone and approach. This is for one reason and one reason only-so that unsuspecting readers who stumble onto the site will be “tricked” into believing they are reading more neutral, factual information than they will get from a fan site.
Click to expand...

http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=9426
 
I noticed the evolution of MJfacts too, and I had the same reason in mind as to why. I'll be glad to show that to people who have been sucked in by that site. I knew the semen claim was false and it both made me angry and made me laugh at the same time. Angry because it's a lie and people will believe it but funny because it shows how desperate these people really are. If they have to fabricate things like that it's because the 'evidence' they actually have is so unbelievably weak. They seem to rely mainly on lies and emotional manipulation. No surprises there.
 
They're definitely desperate if they're using that document to try to prove there was semen on the nudist magazines, the document very clearly states that the hair, and fibers as well as fluids. All it says after that is that the items were put into new evidence bags and sent off for further analysis. The results of the tests aren't there and we know they didn't find semen in the end. This is pathetic.

27972705805_e5d9469495_z.jpg
 
respect77 said:
I haven't watched it all but apparently it is someone who has actually done his homework, for a change.

Click to expand...

This was good. I was also surprised by some of the comments to the video, leaving aside all the other "stuff" around the comments which is not even worth mentioning. I was very happy to hear how some people weren't fans of his music, but after watching this vid (and at times even prior to it) were convinced of his innocence and kindness of spirit. I thought that was beyond cool. Gimme that type of people any night and day over that other option, the ones who enjoy Billie Jean and Thriller, but call him a pedophile.

On another note, but not terribly o/t - we all know that at some point in the future the tabloids will be back to these silly tricks again. Unfortunately, in Michael's world this is not a question of if, but rather of when. Some predicted that it would be before his birthday. Don't have any crystal ball around, but somehow I doubt that considering the outcome of this latest scheme. Beyond the initial shock and the propagation of these disgusting lies across social media, things were somewhat reversed due to the differing declarations. Somehow I doubt anyone will try to pull such a stunt so soon. So many of them still got some egg left on their faces. But in this twisted lie manufacturing industry one can never know, right? So, whenever the next wave of ludicrous inventions hits I would suggest that folks avoid clicking on these twisted stories, but access the virtual life out of the ones that are balanced and point out facts. And yes, that type of articles does exist.

It's not a question of seeking praise from the media and from the world for Michael's every action which would be of course senseless, but in these most serious matters it is a question of truth and justice. And for those who dare call themselves journalists it is a question of integrity. I've always believed that praise should be individualized, while criticism expressed in vague and general tones. And there is always the third option of simply ignoring certain offenses to logic and common sense. That can be the best strategy many times, but this latest attack on Michael's good name sadly demonstrated how that is not always achievable................
 
Anybody notice how, at times, you'll respond to somebody on a forum or such with information and they don't respond lol. There was one particular on a forum who made several posts, has made a new thread (not related to MJ) in the same section the MJ thread is located, and yet hasn't responded to my posts.
 
Bad7 said:
Anybody notice how, at times, you'll respond to somebody on a forum or such with information and they don't respond lol. There was one particular on a forum who made several posts, has made a new thread (not related to MJ) in the same section the MJ thread is located, and yet hasn't responded to my posts.
Click to expand...

Hehe, that may mean you won the debate, sometimes people decide to slink off quietly rather than publicly admit defeat.
 
MJresearcher said:
Hehe, that may mean you won the debate, sometimes people decide to slink off quietly rather than publicly admit defeat.
Click to expand...

Probably so. Luckily, that forum wasn't taken in my the nonsense of the Radar article really. Most had common sense. Here's that thread if anybody is interested- https://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=117383

It was onto Page 4 the first time I went on there after the Radar article, so any nonsense prior I didn't get a chance to respond to. The one with the agenda is the one with the Britney avatar and he/she piqued my interest.

Luckily the thread has died down and ended with someone saying they love him and 'I don't believe it. I won't receive it.' which is a great way of putting things. The post I responded to, as 'ForAllTime' was 'he's probably guilty of every charge he's been accused of. But he's dead now, so it doesn't matter.' It didn't stop them posting about it though. I showed why that was nonsense and no reply has yet been forthcoming.
 
Bad7 said:
Anybody notice how, at times, you'll respond to somebody on a forum or such with information and they don't respond lol. There was one particular on a forum who made several posts, has made a new thread (not related to MJ) in the same section the MJ thread is located, and yet hasn't responded to my posts.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. It also happened when I challenged Jim Clemente's nonsense on YouTube. He just disappeared and never replied to me. LOL.
 
respect77 said:
Well, yes. It also happened when I challenged Jim Clemente's nonsense on YouTube. He just disappeared and never replied to me. LOL.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Those people in that forum don't know shit so the majority who think Michael was guilty and they seem the kind who believe everything they read or hear from tabloids. No wonder yellow journalism still sells. :no:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top