[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

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

Some articles keep referencing a signed photo of Macaulay Culkin that they found:



I don't understand - are they trying to make something of this? Surely it is just a reference to his movie franchise 'home alone', are they really trying to insinuate Macaulay was scared of Michael/Neverland or something? Unbelievable.

They are trying to sensationalize everything. I remember to have seen that pic in one of the videos and it was a framed pic of Mac from Home Alone with a dedication to MJ. But the media are trying to make everything look sinister.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

A google search won't tell you the whole picture about the magnitude of how far reaching and influential a story was. I did not see the mainstream media in my country pay much attention to Robson and Safechuck, but this one is on each one of the mainstream portals here. And I have seen fans from other countries say the same in their countries.


This is getting a bit silly now.
I read news from my own country which is small little Scandinavian country, and I tell you Wade story was posted in our tabloids but only 1 tabloid (no mainstream) picked this current bs story. I don't know how that translates to your magnitude far reaching but I'm sure something comes up if you want.

There is no need to be all loom and gloom and promote the idea that MJ legacy stops here if the estate doesn't release statement that stops the press right now.

It really doesn't matter if somebody some corner of the earth believes the bs what they read or how far the news travel, there is not amount of statements that is going to stop it.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Some articles keep referencing a signed photo of Macaulay Culkin that they found:



I don't understand - are they trying to make something of this? Surely it is just a reference to his movie franchise 'home alone', are they really trying to insinuate Macaulay was scared of Michael/Neverland or something? Unbelievable.


It's utterly unbelievable and the sad thing is that people are ignorant enough to believe it.

Btw - do you know that's actually Elena Romanenkova in your sig? She's a female Mj impersonator from Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's utterly unbeleivable and the sad thing is that people are ignorant enough to beleive it.

Btw - do you know that's actually Elena Romanenkova in your sig? She's a female Mj impersonator from Ukraine.

Yes, someone has informed me. Well, she had me fooled. :laugh:

The thing is, is that I think perhaps MJ's rep could have recovered from the 1993 trials but a re-emergence of accusations in 2003 just brought people to be more suspiscious - people think, how likely is it that an innocent man would be accused twice of this? But a lot of the public don't understand how much money stories sell for, or how internet traffic works. People also don't understand the lengths people will go to for money - people lose their morals, integrity and honesty in the pursuit of money, and Michael was probably the richest celebrity around, and he was easy to manipulate due to his inclination towards children.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Funny (not really) how it appears to be the opposite here. When the WR story first broke, most people in my country, even if they generally thought MJ was a weirdo, were very sceptical. In fact, I remember only a handful of mentions about this case. Yet, this time around, nearly ever source has picked up on this RadarOnline story. (I'm from a small European country). People are convinced there's now legit PROOF that MJ was a sexual predator. Yeah, there's probably nothing the Estate could do at this point, because our news just pretty much copied from the original source without any follow-ups, but imo, this is time it's so much worse than it has been in the last seven years.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

BTW, I got two "celebrity" followers on Twitter over this. I never contaced them, I retweeted a tweet from Peabo Bryson where he defended MJ and he started following my account. I remember from this hit in the 1990s.


And someone called Katherine Farnham whom I haven't heard about before but she is a recording artist and has a couple of songs on YouTube.

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

That was a good article maybe ppls will see that this new news is really old news and that it is from 1993 and the 2005 trial.:yes:
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That was a good article maybe ppls will see that this new news is really old news and that it is from 1993 and the 2005 trial.:yes:

Just wish the rebuttal took up as many column inches as the original 'article' did. Better late than never though.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Better late than never indeed with the retractions. I can't help but wonder though how many of the websites and media outlets which were so quick to publish that tabloid garbage have since reviewed their stories..........

The USA Today article was such a breath of truthful air in a sea of mendacity that it deserves another read.

More refutations are starting to come out now. Mez apparently talked to USA Today.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...rt-public-opinion-years-after-death/86249956/

Beyond the temporary clamor caused by these lies I think we should try and focus on the grand picture and people's love for Michael which goes much deeper than any tabloid head will ever be able to comprehend.

About 12 hours ago, the most prominent newspaper in my country The New Zealand Herald posted an article on Facebook about how Paris responded to the new claims. I just went back to it to see the comments and thankfully they're not as bad as I thought they'd be. In fact people are actually using their brains! These are a number of the most liked/prominent:

When you mess with the music industry, they can blame you for things you never did. I've read quite a bit on this and all I can say is don't be too fast to judge. And don't be a sheep

I don't believe it. If it was the case then he would have been convicted. Blatant evidence like that would convict a person regardless of their stardom. It's a load of bollocks. Let him rest in peace.

Tabloid trash. If any of this was true or any real basis it would have come out years ago. His money is still helping charities long after he passed. Why don't you report on that instead of fabricated sensationalised stories.

Very sad how far people will go to rip a man family apart even after he is dead

Why is this coming up now, he was cleared in 2005... Let's move on and not smear the King of Pop any more the people doing this need to be charged with Defamation... Let MICHAEL Rest in Peace and move on.... This makes me angry....

I'm glad someone is speaking up for Michael, he was acquitted over those charges and now he's not here to defend himself. It's obscene the way people have exploited him.

Hopefully more people will think along these lines, ESPECIALLY the second and third comments I pasted here.


As much as these last two days have made me despair about mankind, there has also been another side to it, where I've been pleasantly surprised by the amount of people who have stood up for him, or the amount of folks who are intelligent and switched on enough to not trust everything that the media feeds them. I've even had a friend on FB who in the past has made fun of MJ speak out and defend him when I was trying to reason with a bunch of idiots on a comments section. This really meant a lot to me. Not everyone is a sheep. Chin up MJ fans. This will blow over. We an army and we won't be broken in our love and support of this wonderful human being they called Michael Jackson.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Show of hands...who here gives a rip if Michael did indeed have ADULT Porn at his crib? Not me. Why the %$%#! is this even a story? NO CHILD PORN. That has been made clear as crystal. It's despicable that evil scum like radaronline get to damage MJ's image (only with those predisposed to believe the negative) with dirty laundry. Hey I bet Elvis Presley had his share of porn but that wouldn't be news, would it? I'm not a fan of porn but I've succumbed to it more times than I care to admit. :blush:

It's legal.

Show's over. Move along shameless media.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It's utterly unbelievable and the sad thing is that people are ignorant enough to believe it.

Btw - do you know that's actually Elena Romanenkova in your sig? She's a female Mj impersonator from Ukraine.
Again, I think we are giving haters too much credit. I still do not believe this is going to change the minds of people who love MJ and really I think most people still love MJ but haters get the attention (as for internet, many of these people are internet trolls and degrade everyone). My department just did a skit on the new running man and one of my co workers did Michael Jackson. They received great reviews for it yesterday. Again, that puts things back in place. Even President Obama girls are degraded by nuts all because one is graduating from school. Fools hide behind computers and you can almost tell these kind of people.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Show of hands...who here gives a rip if Michael did indeed have ADULT Porn at his crib? Not me. Why the %$%#! is this even a story? NO CHILD PORN. That has been made clear as crystal. It's despicable that evil scum like radaronline get to damage MJ's image (only with those predisposed to believe the negative) with dirty laundry. Hey I bet Elvis Presley had his share of porn but that wouldn't be news, would it? I'm not a fan of porn but I've succumbed to it more times than I care to admit. :blush:

It's legal.

Show's over. Move along shameless media.
As one man put it yesterday, "that made him look normal".
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

And remember, if anyone try to use this article o trash MJ, you now have the retract even from the Judge sign off and the DA denying it. One thing I love about the Urban news to had this, their readers said what we been saying "this is a straight up lie. if Michael child porn, the courts would have thrown the book at him".
 
ivy;4153347 said:
A few comments

- The content of that email should not be surprise. Estate have been saying that for years. It's not about any specific article, it's their overall position. It has been for years.

- It looks like fan asked why these statement aren't posted on MJ's social media accounts. They clearly want to keep those as positive and in remembrance. I have seen in the past fans complain why MJ account isn't tweeting about the vindication day. But you got to realize that mentioning vindication day also makes people remind that he had went through a trial.

- They have a point about hits to an article. Radar is an online news source. So they earn money through hits and unique visitors. So the more hits they get, more money they make and more likely they are to continue with the same thing. It's also true that they don't care if the hits come from normal readers or angry fans. They might even want to make fans angry to attract more interest. Fans contribute to this to an extent and also work to stop it as well. Copying articles so others don't click is helpful in reducing hits and visitors. However at times you see fans fighting the articles, posting comments in defense etc which actually increases the hits. Plus at least in the fan circles if fans don't alarm other fans most of us won't even know about such stuff. For example I don't check radar, I read about the article here. We discussed it here and I did not mention it on social media for 12 hrs. (Because I didn't want to mention Radar article on social media and contribute to them becoming popular). I was hoping it would go away. But all my timeline was talking about Radar article non stop. Then the rest of the media started posting radar article. So I'm curious how does that happen? For example people tweeting about Radar article about MJ attracts other media and get them repost it?

- However I wouldn't put it all on the fans. While yes fans popularize such articles among the fan community, there are also the public, the intentionally click bait article titles, that bring general public and hit numbers. So even if fans completely ignore it, it won't go away.

- That being said, the comment to billboard thing doesn't make sense at all. I can understand ignoring it all, I can understand not releasing statements first and fuel the discussion. But when you decide to respond to a request to comment from Billboard (or any media), it doesn't make sense to limit the response to that specific media. The moment they decide to comment on a matter, they could send the comment to all media for faster circulation. After all other media copied their comment to Billboard so why not help it spread faster?

- I agree with Bubs. Although we want articles to counter the negative stories and want rebuttals, fighting etc if you look to the large picture those doesn't make much difference either. It only eases our minds. This isn't the Radar's first time doing this, this isn't the first time we fight against it. and here we are again.

I agree with Travis Smiley as well

"Smiley says the Radar story won't change minds about Jackson's guilt or innocence.

"If you think Michael Jackson did it, your point of view is still the same, and if you think he didn't, your point of view is still the same," Smiley says. "Michael's fans didn’t trust (prosecutors and investigators) then, and they don't trust them now.""

So like Bubs said these defense, statements from people, fighting etc, mostly only makes us feel good. I don't think they have much effect on the perceptions that are already set.
And like I said, I think MJ HAS more love than hate but haters and being nasty gets the most attention. And this seem to be for everyone who is a household name. Again, idoits hide behind computers. As long as Michael is celebrated, many radios will be celebrating his life tomorrow in playing his song, as long as his music is still selling, people young and old across all lines do his moves and keep MJ alive, and he stay in the Top ten celebs who is still making money and image in still in gyms, schools, dance halls, etc, All this rehash nonsense means Nothing. We will get through this. again, if Mj was so disliked, No one to the level that was shown would have been in SORROW and pain from his death (even the media had to say the WORLD is in shock and Mourning death off MJ)seven years ago. enuf said.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The thing is this is the continuing conspiracy.
The only goal is to spread BS stories and lies every 10 years (+-), refresh the old recycled BS stories and make them new, infect the new fans or those who dont know the fact because they were too young at the time of the trial and investigation (1993/2003-2005) and delude the people (who happened to forget the allegations) into thinking the worse picture than ever before.
Its a repeating strategy to spread this tabloid cancer and destroy the continuing legacy that is making billions.

1993-2003/2005-2013/2016 .... vs. 1979-1989-1999-2009!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

That's because that too was a similarly lukewarm answer as this one. They never refuted the actual claims in the article and they were totally refutable. Point by point. It were the same lame ass answer. "He was acquitted, so that should be enough, otherwise let's just ignore it and it will go away and oh, don't forget to buy tickets for MJ ONE".

Of course, such replies don't help one bit. If anything, they may even make people think the Estate is unable to refute it so it must be true.
-------------------------

Exactly. This is what im saying.you put out such a half hearted crappy statement that does nothing to shoot down the claims then all it does it make the claims look true to the gen public. (ie is that all they can say) Even more so when its so easy to do a point by point denial.are they just so lazy they cant be bothered to or what.all i know is they are pissing off alot of ppl that love mj and will defend him to the end and have all the facts to hand yet dont have the ability to put the info out there to the masses yet the estate has the abilty but arent intrested in doing anything. Whos side are they actually on!?

Weitzman told the media in 2005 he was not sure of MJ innocence, and he is the one advising the estate now. So what do you expect? Out of all the brilliant lawyers out there Branca brought back one of the losers of 1993 whose stupidity and incompeteny surprised Feldman himself. Do you believe a person who is not sure of your innocence will defend you like a person who does especially for a crime as heinous as molesting children? No way. He was seen laughing and joking with wade's lawyers minutes after they called Mj everything under the sun. In a 5-month trial during which Mez met Sneddon and his dogs on daily basis never did anyone report any friendly interactions toward them. Actually, they were furious with him, they attacked him personally. I believe those who followed the trial at the time remember when he stood in front of the jurors and told them when a prosecutor leaves everything and resorts to attacking the defense counsel that tells you how much of a case he has.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I used to think branca was a friend to mj....not anymore.. :(
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The thing is this is the continuing conspiracy.
The only goal is to spread BS stories and lies every 10 years (+-), refresh the old recycled BS stories and make them new, infect the new fans or those who dont know the fact because they were too young at the time of the trial and investigation (1993/2003-2005) and delude the people (who happened to forget the allegations) into thinking the worse picture than ever before.
Its a repeating strategy to spread this tabloid cancer and destroy the continuing legacy that is making billions.

1993-2003/2005-2013/2016 .... vs. 1979-1989-1999-2009!
Sorry but it wont work in the end.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Clipboard02.jpg
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

haha-glad you found this picture. I seem to remember this "secret room of horrors" prominently displayed in Life Magazine and this is the picture I remember.

Wait-isn't that the guy from Mad Magazine in the back? He looks like he has a gag on his mouth. Guess being tortured.
 
Paris is very angry!

27835944976_5b8699b103_z.jpg


Another relatively positive article. Someone from MJfacts is in the comments section with their bullshit and is promoting their website.

Authorities rebut claims child porn found at Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch

Authorities familiar with the matter are dismissing a report earlier this week by Radar Online alleging that the late pop star Michael Jackson had a cache of child pornography at his Neverland Ranch when police raided the compound in November 2003.

While “law enforcement did discover adult pornographic magazines and videos” there was nothing found “constituting child pornography,” People magazine reported on Wednesday.

“There were all kinds of conventional porn magazines,” former Jackson prosecutor Ron Zonen said. “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.”
Mr. Jackson did possess “photos of nude children but they weren’t sexually graphic,” Mr. Zonen, a former Santa Barbara assistant DA, said. “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.”

In June 2005, a jury found Mr. Jackson “not guilty of four charges of child molesting, one charge of attempted child molesting, one conspiracy charge and eight possible counts of providing alcohol to minors,” People magazine said.

The pop star died at his ranch of a propofol overdose seven years ago this Saturday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/23/authorities-rebut-claims-child-porn-found-michael-/
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

haha-glad you found this picture. I seem to remember this "secret room of horrors" prominently displayed in Life Magazine and this is the picture I remember.

Wait-isn't that the guy from Mad Magazine in the back? He looks like he has a gag on his mouth. Guess being tortured.

Yes, that's the Mad Magazine guy.

The media is just ridiculous with giving a sinister connotations about innocent things. What on Earth does a closet full of clothes, books, memorabilia prove about child molestation?

I think the reason why Radar pushes this story is because Safechuck uses the "secret room" angle in his lawsuit. He is the first ever to claim to have been molested in the secret room, which story is no doubt inspired by the fact that tabloids in the past always gave this closet a sinister connotation and suggested MJ molested kids there, when actually no one ever claimed that. Until Safechuck now. It shows how him and Robson are fabricating their stories from tabloids. And that Radar Online pushes this angle now once again points to the involvement of Robson/Safechuck's lawyers in this attack.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Paris is very angry!

27835944976_5b8699b103_z.jpg


Another relatively positive article. Someone from MJfacts is in the comments section with their bullshit and is promoting their website.

I am glad people show how the media manipulates things. I see the Daily Fail posted the photo about the three guys with their genitalia blurred out, as if it was something horrible. Someone sent it to Paris.

ClrF1_sWIAERyYV.jpg


I also ran into the Daily Fail article on another forum and it is beyond pathetic. They demand to know how all this information was hidden for so many years. Why wasn't the media informed about it? Except it wasn't hidden, dumbasses! Just because you were too lazy to look for court info it was not hidden.

The original document of what was now manipulated by Robson's camp/Radar has always been freely available on that Santa Barbara court website that had all the documents from the trial and that has just recently been taken down. Fans have all these documents for years, they have analyzed and dissected them on blogs and forums, there is nothing secret, shocking or new about it. Nor is there anything incriminating about it. The media needs to manipulate their public by describing these books in all kind of horrific ways to make them look incriminating. When in fact they are legal, artistic photographic albums by renowned photographers. They especially go on about that Room to Play book and I don't get why because I don't see anything horrific about it. The pics are weird, yes, and surrealism is not everyone's cup of tea, but surrealistic art is now a crime or what? They are actually pretty interesting pics. It's like some dumb ass, ignorant, low-brow attack on art in general.

And then at the end of their article they have the nerve to play the fan card, saying something like fans will no doubt further defend him out of blind devotion, but we reasonable people wonder with all this evidence how could he ever escape a guilty verdict. LMAO at the arrogance of it!

Fans are more well informed than any of your dumbasses in the media, that's why you think this is some new bombshell evidence, while fans had it for years. And of course we also know and analyze every single aspect of the case, not cherry pick things. THAT's why we know he is innocent, not out of blind devotion. We research facts and court documents and don't get our info from tabloids like those supposedly "reasonable people". And if you wonder how with this evidence he could escape a guilty verdict, just point out to me please, exactly which one of these publications, books, magazines is illegal to have? So why on Earth he would have been convicted for having something that is legal to have for anyone?
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

haha-glad you found this picture. I seem to remember this "secret room of horrors" prominently displayed in Life Magazine and this is the picture I remember.

Wait-isn't that the guy from Mad Magazine in the back? He looks like he has a gag on his mouth. Guess being tortured.

Yes it is, and seemingly there are 2 ET dolls too. I wonder what and how MJ abuse them:)
All in all, its a messy room where MJ put his collectables, but seemingly its a crime to be messy and have your collectables in locked room:doh:

Funnily enough Daily Fail had an article of NL in July 2009 showing photos of stunning NL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-photographs-Michael-Jacksons-fantasy.html
Michael's secret room of horror is being described as "The interior of the small 'secret room' with three deadbolt locks used by Jackson to store valuable items", but now it is secret chamber of horrors:)

According to media: Michael cannot have Vitiligo, no he wanted to be white. He cannot have children, or married, both fakes. Cannot have porn, it must be child or animal porn. Cannot have room to store his collectables, must be secret torture room.
 
Last edited:
respect77;4153368 said:
Yes, of course it's not some new finding, nor it is something horrific like how the media tries to portray it. It's just a collection of art books that are perfectly legal and are available in regular book stores, in libraries and on Amazon. Some of them are in the Library of Congress. Radar Online just used such descriptions of these books that make them look horrific and perverted, when they are not at all. And the rest of the media are just copy&pasting as usual.

Even Ron Zonen came out refuting the child porn allegations or that anything illegal was found.

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

It's nothing new, it was all seen by the jury in 2005. Mez.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...rt-public-opinion-years-after-death/86249956/

Thanks for those quotes (that come from both sides).

I know that Ron Zonen never intended to use those findings (artistic books with nude boys) as possession of child pornography (on the part of MJ). It seems his intention was to raise concerns (from defense witnesses, like Wade Robson at that time) about its possession from a person who admitted to sleeping with children. Yet, Robson rebutted such correlations (“To me, it’s not pornographic book. It’s just a book”, for example).

Regarding the heterosexual adult material, honestly I never understood how it could have worked in the prosecution’s favor. The prosecution’s claim (that aimed at sexually arousing the two boys so as they could have been more easily molested by MJ) simply sounds off-beat & far-fetched to me!

We should not forget also that the adult, heterosexual pornography (from the Neverland 2003 raid) included also magazines oriented at older ages (such as ’44 Plus’, or ‘Over 50’) which were submitted by the prosecution in order to bolster the child molestation claims!
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

edit: nm
 
Last edited:
mj_frenzy;4153455 said:
Regarding the heterosexual adult material, honestly I never understood how it could have been worked in the prosecution’s favor. The prosecution’s claim (that aimed at sexually arousing the two boys so as they could have been more easily molested by MJ) simply sounds off-beat & far-fetched to me!

It is even more far fetched when you know the Arvizo's claims regarding the pornography. Here is Gavin's story:

9 Q. Now, when you first saw the suitcase, where
10 was it in that room.
11 A. It was next to -- it was to the left of that
12 couch thing.
13 Q. And did you ever see Mr. Jackson pick up the
14 Exhibit 470.
15 A. Yeah, like I was hanging out with him in
16 there, and he was like putting on his makeup or
17 something, I don’t know. And then he -- he grabbed
18 the -- grabbed the suitcase, and then he told me --
19 he told me it was Frank’s. And he showed me, he was
20 like, “This is” --
21 Q. Okay. Well, what did he show you.

22 A. He was, like, “Look at the” -- “Look at this
23 stuff. Frank’s stinking a-s-s.” Frank’s
24 stinking -- it was S- -- Frank’s stinking ass.

25 Q. All right. What was inside the suitcase.
26 A. Adult materials.
27 Q. And how many did you look at with Mr.
28 Jackson. 1643
1 A. Well, he showed me just one -- like he
2 showed me, and there was this girl in there and then
3 he put it away.
4 Q. And how was the girl.
5 A. She had her legs spread open, and her vagina
6 was, like, showing.
7 Q. All right. Did you ever see that suitcase
8 again.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Where.
11 A. We had it -- like, we had it up in his --
12 near his bed, and then we were looking at all the
13 stuff.
14 Q. Who was “we”.
15 A. Me, my brother and Michael.
16 Q. And do you recall, where in the bedroom was
17 the suitcase when you first saw it that time.
18 A. The first time I saw it, it was in the rest
19 room kind of thing. And then the second time we --
20 I don’t know if we brought it up there or, like,
21 Michael brought it up there or something. I don’t
22 know. But it was up next to his bed. And we were
23 all going through the thing and we were making fun
24 of Frank.

25 Q. Did you look at the magazines.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw.
28 A. We saw, like, practically everything, but 1644
1 there was a few we didn’t look at.
2 Q. How much time do you figure you were looking
3 at all those things.
4 A. 30 minutes to an hour, probably.
5 Q. Did Mr. Jackson make any comments during the
6 time -- other than the ones you’ve talked about, any
7 other comments that he made at any of the
8 photographs or the magazines.
9 A. Not really. We just were, like, making fun
10 of Frank.

The story is not that MJ used these to arouse him before molesting him. According to Gavin's story MJ told him it was Frank's and made fun of Frank. It doesn't make much sense if the intent is to sexually groom him or arouse him, does it? However it makes much more sense if what Meserau said about this is the truth, namely that one day MJ caught Gavin and Star looking at his porn in his room and took it away from them. Then I can understand MJ trying to distance himself from the material by saying it was Frank's (to maintain his purity in the kids' eyes) and saying things like "it stinks". However it doesn't make any sense with the grooming, arousing theory. The point of grooming is exactly to "normalize" such things in a kid's eyes, that it's all cool and all great, not to say it stinks.

And this alleged event and the actual molestations are two seperate events in Gavin's story. The alleged showing of porn was not followed by molestation and when MJ allegedly molested him he did not show him porn. So the arousal theory doesn't make sense either.

So this story was always very much off to me, along with many other's in Gavin's story, of course.

And once Mark Ronson told a story which confirms that MJ was not at all cool with kids looking at porn. He cringed and said it was silly and made them stop.

Producer Mark Ronson once tried to make his childhood pal Michael Jackson watch porn - but the pop superstar hated the experience and wasn't amused.
Ronson, whose father Laurence was a band manager, used to spend his time in the company of John Lennon's son Sean and Jackson as they were growing up.
The trio would frequently have sleepovers - but when Ronson and Lennon used to switch over the TV to the pornography channel, Jackson was left cringing with embarrassment.

He recalls, "It's a weird story, but I didn't touch him. We (Ronson and Lennon) used to watch the porn channel because we were like 10 and, 'Oh my God, tits!' So Michael was in bed. And me and Sean said, 'Michael do you want to see something cool?'

"We turned the dial to the porn channel and there were strippers shaking their tits around. We were like, 'Michael, Michael, how cool is this?' We turned around and he was cringing, saying, 'Ooh stop it, stop it, ooh it's so silly.' We were like, 'Michael, you have to look, maybe you're not seeing it right, it's naked girls!'

"He was not down with the programme whatsoever! I think he had really strong feminist views on porn."
Ronson's comments were made during the taping of British gameshow the Sunday Night Project, which is due to air in the U.K. on Sunday (22Jun08).

http://hub.contactmusic.com/mark-ronson/news/ronson-jackson-hated-watching-porn_1072121


Oh there is a fan who a couple of years ago made an interview with Paul Hernandez who worked at a a comic store, the Golden Apple at Melrose, that MJ once visited with Jordan Chandler. He gave a pretty detailed account of his impressions etc. and among others he said that once Jordan started to wander to a section of the store where the X-rated material was. It was a smaller room that was seperated so that kids don't see it. And MJ asked what it was and Hernandez told him it was where they stored the X-rated material. And MJ told Jordan to not go there it was where the "bad books" were but Jordan kept on pushing his limits, like he giggled and still kept on wandering towards the room. MJ then put his feet down and said if he was going there he would not buy him anything and Jordan was like "no, no, okay" and came back.

He also said that MJ was interested in the comics/items that didn't have too much violence or graphic material. He bought multiples of certain items because he used them in gift bags for the children they visited Neverland.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top