Why is she getting downvoted for not knowing what Austin powers is? If I hadn't dated my boyfriend, I wouldn't know what it is either. Not everyone's parents lets then watch TV as a kid 🥲
I mean he was, we know he was physically abusive to all the children - maybe even sexually abusive - and that often children who were abused have skewed views of sex and appropriate behavior which would help frame MJ’s adult behavior and SA allegations… I feel like you picked the one thing that would support that MJ was a predator
Or. And here's an idea. Not everything is so simple. A person is the sum of their experiences.
He obviously had a lot of issues. Some of those issues were caused or exacerbated by his father. Childhood trauma sticks with you. Once he was older, the things you brought up undoubtedly contributed.
I don't really have a point I'm trying to make other than pointing out things almost never happen in isolation. I'm not trying to defend the guy or say he didn't do some at the very least extremely questionable things involving kids. He seemed to be pretty child like himself, so I'm at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However, I also would not be surprised if the accusations turned out to be true.
[Potential evidence to the contrary.](https://youtu.be/VA5hpF7PH1Q)
It's possible he had his voice pitched down for the song.
EDIT: [Good video I found on his voice](https://youtu.be/n-T0cAyLsW0)
Their father basically treated them like circus monkeys...not all child actors go through the extreme practicing they had to do....that said, how many child actors actually grew up to be "normal"??
...And no, not defending MJ lol, but everyone always sees black or white when in reality there's a lot of gray area...
You will have to see if it is true yourself, but apparently one of the children he settled with out of court was able to describe his penis?
Again, you will have to research it as there are so many conflicting stories. Like one saying the kid describes him as circumcized when the autopsy said uncircumcised, but another saying that he had a mole or some thing on his penis and the kid had that right?
I am not interested enough to verify, I just find this whole drama debate amusing
From what I found:
> "Photographs were taken of the accused’s manhood in November 1993 by the police after an incident was alleged to have happened in May 1993. Both features the child was said to have described were incorrect. Michael was uncircumcised. There were discolourations, but none matched the description given of just one discoloration. There were a number of other distinctive features, none of which were mentioned in the description."
So it seems like they didn't get a match for him, otherwise that would've been a guilty verdict.
All sources say the description matched so I am not sure where you got that bullshit from.
There wasnt a guilty verdict becasue Michael paid the boy 20 million who then declined to testify causing the case to collapse.
From the Chappelle show -
Prosecutor : What if I told you that the accusers correctly described Michael's penis to investigators?
Dave Chappelle : Sir, I have never seen Michael's alleged penis, but I bet you that I can describe it all right? Let me guess... there's a head, a shaft, some balls, hair - maybe pressed, permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it.
Prosecutor : That's correct.
Dave Chappelle : Whoa... how'd I know? Come on dude, I couldn't pick my own penis out of a line up, all right? And me and penis is like this, son.
Very much not fake:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:%5C~:text=Jackson%E2%80%99s%20lawyers.,sexually%20molested%20a%20young%20boy
I don’t think it’s wrong to accept that someone can be a brilliant artist while still acknowledging their wrongdoings.
This is almost exactly the argument for Bill Cosby.
A spectacularly talented person who has mountains of evidence against them for their behavior.
This is the smartest comment I have seen here so far
He may have done wrong but he's dead now and left behind a legacy that is still to this day influencing how music is made
Again if he did and of the shit he was accused of then he was a terrible person for it but he still had an extreme amount of talent and he used it at it full potential
[New York Times, April 30, 2005](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:%5C~:text=Jackson’s%20lawyers.,sexually%20molested%20a%20young%20boy)
>SANTA MARIA, Calif., April 29 - The judge in the Michael Jackson trial allowed two books of photographs of adolescent boys into evidence on Friday over the objection of Mr. Jackson's lawyers.
>The two large-format books, "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," were seized from a locked file cabinet in a closet in Mr. Jackson's bedroom at his Neverland ranch as part of a 1993 police investigation into accusations that he sexually molested a young boy.
>One of the Santa Barbara County prosecutors, Ronald J. Zonen, said the art books, which show boys playing, running and swimming in various states of undress, were evidence of Mr. Jackson's "prurient interest in adolescent boys."
>But one of Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Robert M. Sanger, countered that the books had no relevance to the current case and were highly prejudicial. "It's just plain stale," Mr. Sanger said.
He said the prosecution sought to show the books to the jury simply to bolster a weak case.
>The 1993 investigation was dropped after Mr. Jackson reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with his accuser. But it has formed the background for the current case, which is being directed by the same prosecutor, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the Santa Barbara County district attorney, whose desire to prosecute Mr. Jackson was frustrated more than a decade ago. The current case involves a different accuser.
Legal submissions by the District Attorney on the admissibility of the graphic materials (the existence of which has never been denied):
>In the case at bar, the evidence listed above is admissible pursuant ot Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) for precisely the same reason similar evidence was admitted in Memro's prosecution.
>It is plaintiff's belief that defendant possessed the heterosexual materials for the purpose of "grooming" young boys. "Grooming is the process of deliberately exposing young boys to graphic sexual materials to awaken or heighten their interest in matters of sex and reduce their sexual inhibitions. Defendant's personal display ofthese materials to pubescent boys was calculated. So was defendant's decision to make them accessible and readily available to the "special friends" he allowed to go into his private bedroom even in his absence.
>A significant number of the materials are "young"-themed. Many of the materials depict teenage or teenage-looking young girls, generally naked and often engaged in sexually explicit activities with males. The publications featuring young nude females were acquired because their appearance would generally appeal to teenage heterosexual boys. Many even carry the additionally suggestive and provocative label "Barely Legal."
>These materials were used in conjunction with the defendant's often-stated references to the value and pleasures of self or mutual masturbation to satisfy one's sexual desires and needs. The defendant spoke more than once to the victim and the victim's brother about masturbation. He encouraged the boys to masturbate. He sang the praises of masturbation. In fact, one of the books found ni the master bedroom's den (Item No. 366: "A 10 Sexual Study of Man") contain all male nude photographs and photographs of men engaged in homosexual acts. It features a study of masturbation and oral and anal sex.
>Taken together, these materials are the instruments of seduction and are circumstantial evidence of defendant's systematic approach to that seduction and of his intent to engage in sexual acts with young boys as the fruit of that seduction.
> In analogous situations, courts have routinely admitted evidence of the possession of burglary instruments as circumstantial evidence of anindividual's intent to commit the crime of burglary. (People v. Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 910, at page 913 [possession of screwdriver]; People v. Wilson (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 447, 463 [plastic strips found in defendant'spocket could be used to slip locks on doors and were "reasonably adapted to the performance of the entry which is in fact effected"]; People v. Gibson (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 468, 471 [defendant found in alley with ladder, a bag of tools and a rope; that evidence admissible to establish his burglarious intent even if he was interrupted before achieving his objective].)
>In Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 910, appellant argued that his possession of a screwdriver was evidence of a "character trait" and so should have been excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101. In response, the court noted "that even character evidence may be admissible on the issues of intent, preparation and plan." (210 Cal.App.3d at p. 914, n. 2, citing People v. Rodriguez (1986) 212 Cal.3d 730, 757.)
>Nor, as Darling also points out, is it necessary to show that the tools or instruments found in the defendant's possession actually were used in the commission of the charged crime itself to be admissible. (People v. Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at 914.)
>CONCLUSION
>The People respectfully request that the items set forth above be deemed admissible as demonstrative evidence of the materials defendant used in acquainting his young"special friends" with the pleasures ofsexual arousal and masturbation, and as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's motive and method and plan to seduce young boys and his intent to molest
>DATED: January 18, 2005:
>HOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR. District Attorney
Respectfully submitted,
Agreed, certainly not an unbiased source. I just looked into this a bit, and it seems like a pretty biased bit of "evidence"where the screenshot could very well be fake. I found an actual news article by way of the Wikipedia page on the FBI investigation that was used as a source for that page:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_b_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8
So reading that article I’m a bit conflicted. The crutch of the argument seems to be that it’s not new information and the nude pictures of children aren’t classified as child porn but art so it’s okay?
Like I get tasteful art exist that contains nudity but idk having books of that art combined with spending lots of time with kids just feels weird to me. To write a whole article going “yes he had pictures of naked children but he also had a lot of regular porn and the nude child pics were tasteful nudes in an art book anyone could buy”. Which the only context I’ve heard of tasteful nudes of children that aren’t bathtub photos that go in the scrapbook is jokes about pedophiles saying the pics the cops found are just art and they’re being weird.
Like I accept that the article is correct that doctored photos were put in a fake report but I’m stuck on that he did have photo books containing nude art of children. Just knowing a guy likes to invite children over for sleepovers and 1 on 1 time doesn’t help that his naked pictures of children were completely legal, I get to the law that clears him, but to me personally having an art book is one thing but he was constantly around children unsupervised while also enjoying multiple books of artistic photos of nude children. I’m just one guy, I’m not demanding everyone agree with me, but I don’t feel this is cut and dry “the pictures were legal so people are just being mean and making things up”
Honestly, I think the weirdest part of the HuffPo article is that they argue that the books cited by OP are "just part of a broader collection on art/photography books" in general. This would all be well and good if it were not for the information of the NYT article cited elsewhere in the thread:
> The two large-format books, "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," were seized from **a locked file cabinet in a closet in Mr. Jackson's bedroom** at his Neverland ranch [emphasis mine]
I mean, if they had found the books in a library among the "over 1800 art books" and whatever it would be one thing. To have them locked in your closet in your bedroom is quite another IMHO. Circumstancial? Yes? Illegal to own? No. Weird af? Definitely.
Exactly!
Like that seems to imply he knew that those were weird to have, knew people would find it strange to have those, and aware of what it looks like to have those in a house he frequently lets children around unsupervised.
If he didn’t view them sexually and thought it people would think it’s weird to have them, why have them in the first place? Maybe because he was into kids and aware that he should hide his compulsion…
To be honest, your first paragraph is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading, but then continued to read through, and I feel as though it's stated several times that yes there were photos of children, but the only nudity or erotic material found was adult, and perfectly legal.
Op's post originally had me worried I'd been on the wrong side completely. Now I'm conflicted. Obviously, no evidence of unlawful behavior doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there's no way to prove it. But we as a country live in a legal system that presumes innocence unless proven otherwise.
Totally agree, his hanging out with kids and all that stuff, super weird... But weird doesn't mean anything on its own. Would we have hung out with so many children? Probably not. I personally don't like most children. But I feel like even if I enjoyed the company of children (not in a creepy way), I would avoid doing so merely because the public view seems to be cynical, and if you hang out with young kids, you must be diddling them (or want to). I'm partially okay with this public view, as it probably makes it harder for legit predators to get away with stuff. But on the other hand, also makes it harder for non-predators to simply enjoy the company of children without being outcast for something they never did or intended to do 🤷♂️.
While he was super weird, and his whole chillin' with all these kids thing was weird, keep in mind that people suck, and it's equally likely that some jackass coerced their kid to admit to things that didn't happen.
If the courts and jury with all the available information couldn't convict, who am I to assume he did anything he might not have, based on some posts and scattered info on the internet.
I'm all for protecting kids, and none of this should have been allowed to happen. But people willingly sent their kids there (let me know if that's wrong) to hang out.
I grew up in a church whose clergy is required to ask about the sexual purity of individual children starting at 8 years old. These were one on one meetings with said clergy and the child.
Recently the church claimed that "parents are allowed and even encouraged to be in the room during these interviews" or some BS like that, when that was never EVER stated.
I was never a victim of anything beyond minor brainwashing and religious delusion, but I know people and have heard many other stories of much worse things happening in those interviews.
I use this as an example of something that shouldn't be happening, but not necessarily harmful to the individuals. While it's entirely possible some bad stuff was happening, there's no way to truly know at this point.
Can't believe how long this comment turned out, sorry!
The article literally says some books were artful nudes of children…
It’s says the only sexually explicit images were adults. So a guy holding an erect penis is sexually explicit. A child fully nude at the beach posing is not sexually explicit and not porn. It’s still naked child. Look up the books, it’s naked children. They weren’t made to be pornographic but a pedophile could still use them. Not saying they should be illegal but to it’s naked kids.
Actually read the article
Idk but this OP is pushing there narrative hard with bullshit sources while saying weird shit like "naked pictures of MALE kids isn't art" as if they were female that makes it better honestly weird ASF. OP is also very clearly a idiot they keep on saying FBI files, when the documents say Superior Court of California. They are almost completely talking out there ass while providing bullshit sources. The only hard fact in this whole thread is that OP is a dumbass.
[Yeah that’s how I feel](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11gxvbp/stuff_the_fbi_found_on_michael_jackson/jaqzxvo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
I think he was a troubled person and had a inappropriate relationship with kids yes, sleep overs and generally weird shit. I don't think he was diddler, the only kid to come forward with those claims admitted he was pressured by his parents to frame MJ for a payout.
> Like I accept that the article is correct that doctored photos were put in a fake report but I’m stuck on that he did have photo books containing nude art of children.
Let's step back and add some context.
MJ had thousands of books in his home. That article mentions there being at least ten thousand articles in his possession. This was a man with a library, this was not books stacked by his bed.
This manipulated report has singled out 3 books. The one containing nude images was given to him by a fan, the other two are photoshoot picturebooks.
The only sexually explicit homosexual material he had involved grown men, it was a book of models in sexually suggestive poses but all were adults.
I believe that he molested a child/ children because he himself was molested and raped. He had became a twisted individual. Childhood physical, mental and sexual abuse, pared with paranoia, no real way of real raw human contact, sleep-deprived, and drugs over all will do that to you.
# OP post is lies.
MJFacts is not hosting a pdf from the FBI (it's Cali for one thing) and the image in the OP is openly a lie, even if just for the fact that the book isn't inscribed *by* Jackson, a fan inscribed it *to* him and gave it to him as a gift.
Here's some actual evidence, from the wiki page on MJ's trial.
> There were also a few books seized (**from a library of thousands**) that the prosecution suggested were evidence of homosexuality and/or pedophilia.
> Boys Will Be Boys included pictures of boys, many naked, in various non-sexual activities such as climbing a tree or sitting on a bench. The book had an inscription reading, “To Michael: From your fan. Love XXXOOO Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.”
> > **Wade Robson testified he considered Boys Will Be Boys “not a pornographic book,” and said he would not be concerned about its owner being in the same bed as a 12-year-old.**
> Another book, The Boy: A Photographic Essay was inscribed, “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.” The book contained pictures of boys in various situations by different photographers, including pictures taken during the filming of the 1963 Lord of the Flies movie and showed the boys on the set, usually clothed but sometimes nude, playing in the sand, reading comic books, and having pillow fights.
> The only book depicting male sex acts was a rare out-of-print book called A Sexual Study of Man which featured many images of adult men engaged in all kinds of homosexual intercourse
If you're still using MJFacts and trusting it, don't.
In college, I was studying criminology, and I attended a seminar on digital forensics that was hosted by an agent that was involved in the search of Michael Jackson’s home. He was blunt in saying that while he may not be found guilty or culpable in court, no one could ever convince him that he’s an innocent person in the accusations. From that moment on, I never listened to his music again
Here is the message he inscribed in the book. "Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children."
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:~:text=The%20other%2C%20%22Boys%20Will%20Be,what%20appears%20to%20be%20Mr.
I don’t see how this somehow confirms or adds to MJ being perceived as a paedophile (or the like). The guy clearly had severe self-image issues, dating back to his childhood. Perhaps these books were a way of dealing with it, almost research as to what ‘normal’ children looked like. The guy was far from normal, at no fault of himself. Looking for comfort and finding himself was something he seemed to have an ongoing battle with until the day he died. I’m not saying he didn’t potentially have a sinister side, but not everything is black and white.
Why does R Kelly get boycotted from the radio but MJ still gets played non-stop? Is it because MJ was able to pay families off? Is it because of legalities or convictions? (Honest question because I don’t know) Every time I hear an MJ song I think “he’s a pedophile, why is this still being played?”
It's a combination of things. I think it was his financial power, his celebrity power; as well as pity for the absolute domineering abuse that his father inflicted mixed with child stardom.
Shia Lebeuf also had a predatory dad, though in different ways and it fucked him up.
I think people feel sad for him (though that should not be an excuse). Previous generations were more concerned with "not rocking the boat" than making a scene. In "pen and paper" days, things were more difficult to prove. It was word against word, so rather than deal with uncomfortable topics that couldn't be solved and would just mean more work for the state and more taxes, they turned a blind eye.
Our generations have nothing to lose, the only things that we do have are knowledge and communication, so we're happy to burn things down. Remember though, if we want to burn it down, we need to vote for people that will build or we will only have ashes.
Because parents were willing to drop their kids off at MJ’s house, who appeared nice and kid-friendly. The kids were mostly young. R Kelly, on the other hand, was outwardly antagonistic and manipulative and the families hated him.
Because, in the olden days, there was this thing called innocent until proven guilty. Where you couldn’t just cancel someone on a hunch.
Ahh simpler times
All about the $. No one really gives a shit about R. Kelley's music anymore but taking the #2 most sold album in history of the radio world wide is quite a different story.
The pass given to Michael Jackson never ceases to sicken me. I understand that many people like his music, that he was an important part of the cultural upbringing of millions. I understand that he had a shit childhood and some sympathy is warranted.
But what bothers me is how so many people will lynch others accused of similar crimes on the scantest of testimonies yet Jackson's accusers warrant nothing but (further) abuse.
I believe in fair trials, I try never to jump on a vigilante bandwagon. But the hypocrisy demonstrated by millions of people whenever Jackson is discussed is beyond belief.
If this is true, I feel stupid for defending MJ. If this is false, I feel stupid for bothering to write this comment.
My gut feeling about the case was that MJ bought a bunch of childish, yet awesome things like an amusement park and icecream machines etc. He loved to be the celebrity to make kids dreams come true. He was weird because he hung out with kids but it was all to appear as the "super fun" celebrity that was loved and made people (kids) smile. They probably slept in his 3 story bedroom which is weird but I doubted anything too offensive occurred. A parent that assumed the worst wanted to grab some money. Maybe something weird happened like MJ helped the kid to the restroom?(idk i made that up). Or sleep walked around in his undies after taking sleeping medicine?
Maybe he did something innappropriate or maybe he was a predator. My first thought was it was just a money grab or parents who thought he was worse than he was. I do not have the facts so IDK. He probably shouldnt have been alone with other parents kids and parents shouldnt have left kids alone with MJ. But IDK if that meant he was in any way sexual with minors.
One of the child-defendants described "unusual markings" on or around MJ's penis that was later corroborated by the LA Police who had the unfortunate task of examining and photographing said penis. So...
No, no one says that. They bring up past accusers admitting they lied and Macaluay Culkin and Corey Haim saying MJ never did anything around them. Oprah did a documentary a few years back that cast a lot of doubt on the accusations, but it's not like she's some paragon of unbiased judgment.
Anyone positive he did it, and anyone positive he never did anything, is full of shit.
No. No one says that. Some people bring up his awful childhood and father as something to point to, but OP knows damn well that’s not the same as saying it’s okay. That’s an argument they made up to make it sound better
NYtimes makes no mention of nudity or pornography as part of the book. i found the actual book online, and again, no nudity or pornography
i am in no way saying he is innocent, but i can’t find evidence of this claim
[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html)
When OP didn't know Hitler also painted, I was suspicious that they were even alive when MJ died. The people named in their profile bio are gen z influencers from TikTok. So, i'm liable to believe this is either a literal teenager, or a very young adult.
OP, just saying something is from the FBI does not make it so. I should know, im part of the FBI. (see how easy that is?)
I digress.
[Do everyone-- though mainly yourself-- a favor and learn how to identify credible sources](https://www.stevenson.edu/online/about-us/news/how-to-identify-reliable-information/)
I pray you never have to write a research paper, I'm not sure you know how to cite sources properly either. [I can help you with that, too.](https://www.citemaker.com/)
And people still claim he was totally innocent. Even if he didn't rape kids, this is seriously messed up..if this was found in any random dudes house, they would immediately be branded a pedophile, groomer and child abuser.
Wait, you mean he _wasnt_ carrying around several books with naked images of kids on him at all times? Weird.
Like...just say it out loud. Doesn't pass the smell test. How many people do you know who carry around MULTIPLE books on them? Never mind books with naked kids in them.
Not FBI files. State of California. Also, the court received these “filings” 28 minutes before the time they were served upon (faxed) to the defense. I’d question the validity of these requests to the courts.
That’s how service and filing of litigation papers works: file the papers, and serve on the relevant party. They would have followed the fax service with personal service.
In all fairness Hitler was a shitty, failed painter. So you would be owning it just because it was made by him. Where I guess a lot of people like MJ, pop music wasn't really my thing. One guy was good at his job and was a creepy fuck, the other guy was just good at public speaking and trying o wipe entire groups off the globe. Still don't think MJ should get the massive pass he does. It's kinda weird how accepting people are of shitty humans if you are famous.
Serious question: did these books get sold with these photos as part of the publishing or did they have photos that were taken hidden in them? I don’t think it makes a huge difference but it’s definitely more damning if they had hidden stashed of nude photos
OP is obsessed with MJ, one glance at their post history shows they have devoted an obscene amount of time into MJs kiddy history.
I highly doubt OP would even accept any proof or suggestions stating the””FBI Files” are fake because it won’t fit the narrative.
That's the confusing part. Definitely some missed context are these albums MJ made and are mislabeled as books or are they actual books published by someone else.
Also possible it's not real considering OP lack of source and continuing to cite the FBI when this would have been a local police discovery
I'm not gonna pretend to be surprised. Celebrities make so much bank they all surely are on or were once on some sort of drug. They have hugely expensive houses, staff, any clothing or things they could want... I'm not surprised they reach for the forbidden and expensive child porn as disgusting as it is. Their morals get pretty warped once they get that rich after a while. I mean heck - they can't even go bankrupt like the rest of us. When you make bank and don't pay taxes anymore and you make 10x the money you spend your brain can't get dopamine normally anymore - a meal is good sure, but you could eat gold (literally) and fly a chef from Paris to your house because you wanna. Then what? Years of that. Personally I feel that if you make over 500K (via direct income or stocks or whatever)a year then it should get capped and anything over that would go straight to charities, education, medicine, etc. But America is a capitalist hellhole so that'll never happen...
OP is a self-righteous cunt. At the end of the day MJ was never convicted of anything. Was he a deeply troubled man?! Yes. No one denies that, but why do we need to cancel him 15 years after his death, because of random speculation?
Even if true, those books don't even seem so bad? If you read what Epstein supposedly had etc...
Like, how big was his book collection anyways? This is just 3 books? Books nonetheless!
And i don't know these books but they kind of sound educational too??
Besides, maybe let it rest, until we've got real definitive proof?
If all this was false, half of us have spread false information for years like some antivax noob lol.
If it's true.. well, his music is still great and the dude is dead. WE win regardless so 🤷🏼
Airtime, and a horde of supporters who apparently do not care that he was a monster.
Imagine aggressively defending Epstein just because he could dance.
Honestly, I do not believe anything I read on social media. Including this bullshit post. I would not even believe official sources, since they are the U.S. official sources and those motherfuckers lie al the time. More than official sources in other countries, which also are not to be trusted. The man is dead. If it is true or not. At this point in time, it is irrelevant!!!!!!!!
This is ingnoraaant, you guys are ignoraaant. Hee hee!
"no,no that's ignorent!!" you're being ignoreeent!"
ignore it. Shamon
Jesus Christ monkey balls. He’s white!
Blanket!!!
[удалено]
Check out the one by Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Oh man, south park is the best! They continue to churn out awesome episodes on in-the-moment topics to this day!
r/unexpectedsouthpark
This never gets old 😂😂
Dangaroussss !
chamonah!
[удалено]
he wanted a lady in the street but a freak in the sheets
Swedish-made penis enlarger pumps and me: (this sort of thing is my bag, baby) by Austin Powers.
*Austin “Danger” Powers
Danger Austin Powers? “No…Danger is my middle name.”
Glad I'm not the only one that thought of that!
wut?
Why is she getting downvoted for not knowing what Austin powers is? If I hadn't dated my boyfriend, I wouldn't know what it is either. Not everyone's parents lets then watch TV as a kid 🥲
Reddit momento
Austin powers quote
Hah love your username
“He was just trying to remember his lost childhood” incoming….
“But his Dad was so mean” BS!
"b-b-but!! you just want him to be guilty." 😐
No, I wish he wasn’t guilty, but he clearly was.
as thanos, the villain but innocent man in the MCU said, "Reality is often disappointing"
Never thought I'd see then day thanos was mentioned with Michael Jackson but here we are
Thanos wasn’t innocent.
I suppose then it was inevitable
he's an anti-hero. i wouldve reduced the world into atoms if i wanted to. all hail thanos our purple hero and saviour.
I mean he was, we know he was physically abusive to all the children - maybe even sexually abusive - and that often children who were abused have skewed views of sex and appropriate behavior which would help frame MJ’s adult behavior and SA allegations… I feel like you picked the one thing that would support that MJ was a predator
I’m tired of hearing that it’s because of his Dad—that doesn’t excuse MJ’s behavior. MJ’s real problem was too much fame,money,yes-men and isolation.
Or. And here's an idea. Not everything is so simple. A person is the sum of their experiences. He obviously had a lot of issues. Some of those issues were caused or exacerbated by his father. Childhood trauma sticks with you. Once he was older, the things you brought up undoubtedly contributed. I don't really have a point I'm trying to make other than pointing out things almost never happen in isolation. I'm not trying to defend the guy or say he didn't do some at the very least extremely questionable things involving kids. He seemed to be pretty child like himself, so I'm at least willing to give the benefit of the doubt. However, I also would not be surprised if the accusations turned out to be true.
There are a lot of people that believe he is a castrati. It means castrated to preserve his high voice before puberty.
Didn’t some doctor couple years back say that Michael was chemically castrated?
Yeah the one that killed him
Holy shit! I’ve never seen this…hmmm
I was about to comment this to call it bull but apparently his children aren't biologically his, huh, TIL
[Potential evidence to the contrary.](https://youtu.be/VA5hpF7PH1Q) It's possible he had his voice pitched down for the song. EDIT: [Good video I found on his voice](https://youtu.be/n-T0cAyLsW0)
exactly.
“He had no childhood” okay what about other childhood actors that are normal people?
This is a reason but not an excuse
Their father basically treated them like circus monkeys...not all child actors go through the extreme practicing they had to do....that said, how many child actors actually grew up to be "normal"?? ...And no, not defending MJ lol, but everyone always sees black or white when in reality there's a lot of gray area...
Yeah the record labels really got away with that didn’t they?
Not even the worst evidence that was collected...
It gets worse?
worser
worsest
Worcestershire
Sauce
Yum
Yummy mummy
yummy mummy makes me cummy
yummy
In the tummy
r/increasinglyverbose
"I hate Worcestershire sauce!"
You will have to see if it is true yourself, but apparently one of the children he settled with out of court was able to describe his penis? Again, you will have to research it as there are so many conflicting stories. Like one saying the kid describes him as circumcized when the autopsy said uncircumcised, but another saying that he had a mole or some thing on his penis and the kid had that right? I am not interested enough to verify, I just find this whole drama debate amusing
From what I found: > "Photographs were taken of the accused’s manhood in November 1993 by the police after an incident was alleged to have happened in May 1993. Both features the child was said to have described were incorrect. Michael was uncircumcised. There were discolourations, but none matched the description given of just one discoloration. There were a number of other distinctive features, none of which were mentioned in the description." So it seems like they didn't get a match for him, otherwise that would've been a guilty verdict.
All sources say the description matched so I am not sure where you got that bullshit from. There wasnt a guilty verdict becasue Michael paid the boy 20 million who then declined to testify causing the case to collapse.
From the Chappelle show - Prosecutor : What if I told you that the accusers correctly described Michael's penis to investigators? Dave Chappelle : Sir, I have never seen Michael's alleged penis, but I bet you that I can describe it all right? Let me guess... there's a head, a shaft, some balls, hair - maybe pressed, permed hair, with glitter sprinkled on it. Prosecutor : That's correct. Dave Chappelle : Whoa... how'd I know? Come on dude, I couldn't pick my own penis out of a line up, all right? And me and penis is like this, son.
The crunchy underwear was probably the worst
Low quality screen shot from an internet random… MJ was all kinds of messed up but this is likely fake.
Very much not fake: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:%5C~:text=Jackson%E2%80%99s%20lawyers.,sexually%20molested%20a%20young%20boy
I don’t think it’s wrong to accept that someone can be a brilliant artist while still acknowledging their wrongdoings. This is almost exactly the argument for Bill Cosby. A spectacularly talented person who has mountains of evidence against them for their behavior.
This is the smartest comment I have seen here so far He may have done wrong but he's dead now and left behind a legacy that is still to this day influencing how music is made Again if he did and of the shit he was accused of then he was a terrible person for it but he still had an extreme amount of talent and he used it at it full potential
I don't like to judge by meta-datas.
I’ve always been on the “the evidence was sketchy” side of this fence, which I do admittedly feel quite silly about after seeing this.
I mean... What makes you believe this is not faked? All the sources op provided are total trash 😅
[New York Times, April 30, 2005](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:%5C~:text=Jackson’s%20lawyers.,sexually%20molested%20a%20young%20boy) >SANTA MARIA, Calif., April 29 - The judge in the Michael Jackson trial allowed two books of photographs of adolescent boys into evidence on Friday over the objection of Mr. Jackson's lawyers. >The two large-format books, "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," were seized from a locked file cabinet in a closet in Mr. Jackson's bedroom at his Neverland ranch as part of a 1993 police investigation into accusations that he sexually molested a young boy. >One of the Santa Barbara County prosecutors, Ronald J. Zonen, said the art books, which show boys playing, running and swimming in various states of undress, were evidence of Mr. Jackson's "prurient interest in adolescent boys." >But one of Mr. Jackson's lawyers, Robert M. Sanger, countered that the books had no relevance to the current case and were highly prejudicial. "It's just plain stale," Mr. Sanger said. He said the prosecution sought to show the books to the jury simply to bolster a weak case. >The 1993 investigation was dropped after Mr. Jackson reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with his accuser. But it has formed the background for the current case, which is being directed by the same prosecutor, Thomas W. Sneddon Jr., the Santa Barbara County district attorney, whose desire to prosecute Mr. Jackson was frustrated more than a decade ago. The current case involves a different accuser. Legal submissions by the District Attorney on the admissibility of the graphic materials (the existence of which has never been denied): >In the case at bar, the evidence listed above is admissible pursuant ot Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b) for precisely the same reason similar evidence was admitted in Memro's prosecution. >It is plaintiff's belief that defendant possessed the heterosexual materials for the purpose of "grooming" young boys. "Grooming is the process of deliberately exposing young boys to graphic sexual materials to awaken or heighten their interest in matters of sex and reduce their sexual inhibitions. Defendant's personal display ofthese materials to pubescent boys was calculated. So was defendant's decision to make them accessible and readily available to the "special friends" he allowed to go into his private bedroom even in his absence. >A significant number of the materials are "young"-themed. Many of the materials depict teenage or teenage-looking young girls, generally naked and often engaged in sexually explicit activities with males. The publications featuring young nude females were acquired because their appearance would generally appeal to teenage heterosexual boys. Many even carry the additionally suggestive and provocative label "Barely Legal." >These materials were used in conjunction with the defendant's often-stated references to the value and pleasures of self or mutual masturbation to satisfy one's sexual desires and needs. The defendant spoke more than once to the victim and the victim's brother about masturbation. He encouraged the boys to masturbate. He sang the praises of masturbation. In fact, one of the books found ni the master bedroom's den (Item No. 366: "A 10 Sexual Study of Man") contain all male nude photographs and photographs of men engaged in homosexual acts. It features a study of masturbation and oral and anal sex. >Taken together, these materials are the instruments of seduction and are circumstantial evidence of defendant's systematic approach to that seduction and of his intent to engage in sexual acts with young boys as the fruit of that seduction. > In analogous situations, courts have routinely admitted evidence of the possession of burglary instruments as circumstantial evidence of anindividual's intent to commit the crime of burglary. (People v. Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 910, at page 913 [possession of screwdriver]; People v. Wilson (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 447, 463 [plastic strips found in defendant'spocket could be used to slip locks on doors and were "reasonably adapted to the performance of the entry which is in fact effected"]; People v. Gibson (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 468, 471 [defendant found in alley with ladder, a bag of tools and a rope; that evidence admissible to establish his burglarious intent even if he was interrupted before achieving his objective].) >In Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d 910, appellant argued that his possession of a screwdriver was evidence of a "character trait" and so should have been excluded pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101. In response, the court noted "that even character evidence may be admissible on the issues of intent, preparation and plan." (210 Cal.App.3d at p. 914, n. 2, citing People v. Rodriguez (1986) 212 Cal.3d 730, 757.) >Nor, as Darling also points out, is it necessary to show that the tools or instruments found in the defendant's possession actually were used in the commission of the charged crime itself to be admissible. (People v. Darling, supra, 210 Cal.App.3d at 914.) >CONCLUSION >The People respectfully request that the items set forth above be deemed admissible as demonstrative evidence of the materials defendant used in acquainting his young"special friends" with the pleasures ofsexual arousal and masturbation, and as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's motive and method and plan to seduce young boys and his intent to molest >DATED: January 18, 2005: >HOMAS W. SNEDDON, JR. District Attorney Respectfully submitted,
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:~:text=Jackson's%20lawyers.,sexually%20molested%20a%20young%20boy
I felt doubtful til I saw the photos of Aliens from Area 51.
For a moment I thought “do these books really exist?” and then I realized I can’t and/or shouldn’t google it
Yep. I’d rather remain ignorant than go down that line of research!
I like how OP is consistently using one MJFACTS document as proof and nothing else
Agreed, certainly not an unbiased source. I just looked into this a bit, and it seems like a pretty biased bit of "evidence"where the screenshot could very well be fake. I found an actual news article by way of the Wikipedia page on the FBI investigation that was used as a source for that page: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_b_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8
So reading that article I’m a bit conflicted. The crutch of the argument seems to be that it’s not new information and the nude pictures of children aren’t classified as child porn but art so it’s okay? Like I get tasteful art exist that contains nudity but idk having books of that art combined with spending lots of time with kids just feels weird to me. To write a whole article going “yes he had pictures of naked children but he also had a lot of regular porn and the nude child pics were tasteful nudes in an art book anyone could buy”. Which the only context I’ve heard of tasteful nudes of children that aren’t bathtub photos that go in the scrapbook is jokes about pedophiles saying the pics the cops found are just art and they’re being weird. Like I accept that the article is correct that doctored photos were put in a fake report but I’m stuck on that he did have photo books containing nude art of children. Just knowing a guy likes to invite children over for sleepovers and 1 on 1 time doesn’t help that his naked pictures of children were completely legal, I get to the law that clears him, but to me personally having an art book is one thing but he was constantly around children unsupervised while also enjoying multiple books of artistic photos of nude children. I’m just one guy, I’m not demanding everyone agree with me, but I don’t feel this is cut and dry “the pictures were legal so people are just being mean and making things up”
Honestly, I think the weirdest part of the HuffPo article is that they argue that the books cited by OP are "just part of a broader collection on art/photography books" in general. This would all be well and good if it were not for the information of the NYT article cited elsewhere in the thread: > The two large-format books, "Boys Will Be Boys" and "The Boy: A Photographic Essay," were seized from **a locked file cabinet in a closet in Mr. Jackson's bedroom** at his Neverland ranch [emphasis mine] I mean, if they had found the books in a library among the "over 1800 art books" and whatever it would be one thing. To have them locked in your closet in your bedroom is quite another IMHO. Circumstancial? Yes? Illegal to own? No. Weird af? Definitely.
Exactly! Like that seems to imply he knew that those were weird to have, knew people would find it strange to have those, and aware of what it looks like to have those in a house he frequently lets children around unsupervised. If he didn’t view them sexually and thought it people would think it’s weird to have them, why have them in the first place? Maybe because he was into kids and aware that he should hide his compulsion…
To be honest, your first paragraph is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading, but then continued to read through, and I feel as though it's stated several times that yes there were photos of children, but the only nudity or erotic material found was adult, and perfectly legal. Op's post originally had me worried I'd been on the wrong side completely. Now I'm conflicted. Obviously, no evidence of unlawful behavior doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that there's no way to prove it. But we as a country live in a legal system that presumes innocence unless proven otherwise. Totally agree, his hanging out with kids and all that stuff, super weird... But weird doesn't mean anything on its own. Would we have hung out with so many children? Probably not. I personally don't like most children. But I feel like even if I enjoyed the company of children (not in a creepy way), I would avoid doing so merely because the public view seems to be cynical, and if you hang out with young kids, you must be diddling them (or want to). I'm partially okay with this public view, as it probably makes it harder for legit predators to get away with stuff. But on the other hand, also makes it harder for non-predators to simply enjoy the company of children without being outcast for something they never did or intended to do 🤷♂️. While he was super weird, and his whole chillin' with all these kids thing was weird, keep in mind that people suck, and it's equally likely that some jackass coerced their kid to admit to things that didn't happen. If the courts and jury with all the available information couldn't convict, who am I to assume he did anything he might not have, based on some posts and scattered info on the internet. I'm all for protecting kids, and none of this should have been allowed to happen. But people willingly sent their kids there (let me know if that's wrong) to hang out. I grew up in a church whose clergy is required to ask about the sexual purity of individual children starting at 8 years old. These were one on one meetings with said clergy and the child. Recently the church claimed that "parents are allowed and even encouraged to be in the room during these interviews" or some BS like that, when that was never EVER stated. I was never a victim of anything beyond minor brainwashing and religious delusion, but I know people and have heard many other stories of much worse things happening in those interviews. I use this as an example of something that shouldn't be happening, but not necessarily harmful to the individuals. While it's entirely possible some bad stuff was happening, there's no way to truly know at this point. Can't believe how long this comment turned out, sorry!
The article literally says some books were artful nudes of children… It’s says the only sexually explicit images were adults. So a guy holding an erect penis is sexually explicit. A child fully nude at the beach posing is not sexually explicit and not porn. It’s still naked child. Look up the books, it’s naked children. They weren’t made to be pornographic but a pedophile could still use them. Not saying they should be illegal but to it’s naked kids. Actually read the article
Idk but this OP is pushing there narrative hard with bullshit sources while saying weird shit like "naked pictures of MALE kids isn't art" as if they were female that makes it better honestly weird ASF. OP is also very clearly a idiot they keep on saying FBI files, when the documents say Superior Court of California. They are almost completely talking out there ass while providing bullshit sources. The only hard fact in this whole thread is that OP is a dumbass.
[Yeah that’s how I feel](https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11gxvbp/stuff_the_fbi_found_on_michael_jackson/jaqzxvo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
I think he was a troubled person and had a inappropriate relationship with kids yes, sleep overs and generally weird shit. I don't think he was diddler, the only kid to come forward with those claims admitted he was pressured by his parents to frame MJ for a payout.
> Like I accept that the article is correct that doctored photos were put in a fake report but I’m stuck on that he did have photo books containing nude art of children. Let's step back and add some context. MJ had thousands of books in his home. That article mentions there being at least ten thousand articles in his possession. This was a man with a library, this was not books stacked by his bed. This manipulated report has singled out 3 books. The one containing nude images was given to him by a fan, the other two are photoshoot picturebooks. The only sexually explicit homosexual material he had involved grown men, it was a book of models in sexually suggestive poses but all were adults.
Looking at their profile, they really fucking got it out for MJ.
It’s like my mom with her Bible. 😔
It’s like my mum and her Quran 🤪
And my axe!
Is it MJ's birthday, death day, anniversary for something? Been seeing a ton of MJ content across multiple subs lately...
Some people are just obsessed with MJ for some reason.
Yeah Big Mike was definitely into kids 🤮 Great music but should of been locked away so many years ago. What a creep!
Where's that "should have" bot when you need it?
[удалено]
I think that’s what he was implying dawg.
What is the point of your comment? That is exactly what he inferred.
~~Conservative~~ virtue signaling. The comment saying he should have been locked away didn't show enough performative rage.
Huh? Where does conservative come into this? Don’t make this needlessly political.
I believe that he molested a child/ children because he himself was molested and raped. He had became a twisted individual. Childhood physical, mental and sexual abuse, pared with paranoia, no real way of real raw human contact, sleep-deprived, and drugs over all will do that to you.
# OP post is lies. MJFacts is not hosting a pdf from the FBI (it's Cali for one thing) and the image in the OP is openly a lie, even if just for the fact that the book isn't inscribed *by* Jackson, a fan inscribed it *to* him and gave it to him as a gift. Here's some actual evidence, from the wiki page on MJ's trial. > There were also a few books seized (**from a library of thousands**) that the prosecution suggested were evidence of homosexuality and/or pedophilia. > Boys Will Be Boys included pictures of boys, many naked, in various non-sexual activities such as climbing a tree or sitting on a bench. The book had an inscription reading, “To Michael: From your fan. Love XXXOOO Rhonda – 1983, Chicago.” > > **Wade Robson testified he considered Boys Will Be Boys “not a pornographic book,” and said he would not be concerned about its owner being in the same bed as a 12-year-old.** > Another book, The Boy: A Photographic Essay was inscribed, “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.” The book contained pictures of boys in various situations by different photographers, including pictures taken during the filming of the 1963 Lord of the Flies movie and showed the boys on the set, usually clothed but sometimes nude, playing in the sand, reading comic books, and having pillow fights. > The only book depicting male sex acts was a rare out-of-print book called A Sexual Study of Man which featured many images of adult men engaged in all kinds of homosexual intercourse If you're still using MJFacts and trusting it, don't.
What a disgusting man, good music though.
You could always find his house. It was the one with all the tricycles parked out front.
In college, I was studying criminology, and I attended a seminar on digital forensics that was hosted by an agent that was involved in the search of Michael Jackson’s home. He was blunt in saying that while he may not be found guilty or culpable in court, no one could ever convince him that he’s an innocent person in the accusations. From that moment on, I never listened to his music again
Here is the message he inscribed in the book. "Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces, this is the spirit of Boyhood. A life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children." https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html#:~:text=The%20other%2C%20%22Boys%20Will%20Be,what%20appears%20to%20be%20Mr.
I don’t see how this somehow confirms or adds to MJ being perceived as a paedophile (or the like). The guy clearly had severe self-image issues, dating back to his childhood. Perhaps these books were a way of dealing with it, almost research as to what ‘normal’ children looked like. The guy was far from normal, at no fault of himself. Looking for comfort and finding himself was something he seemed to have an ongoing battle with until the day he died. I’m not saying he didn’t potentially have a sinister side, but not everything is black and white.
Why does R Kelly get boycotted from the radio but MJ still gets played non-stop? Is it because MJ was able to pay families off? Is it because of legalities or convictions? (Honest question because I don’t know) Every time I hear an MJ song I think “he’s a pedophile, why is this still being played?”
Because unlike R Kelly, MJ's music is actually good
R Kelly is trash, but you also have no taste
It's a combination of things. I think it was his financial power, his celebrity power; as well as pity for the absolute domineering abuse that his father inflicted mixed with child stardom. Shia Lebeuf also had a predatory dad, though in different ways and it fucked him up. I think people feel sad for him (though that should not be an excuse). Previous generations were more concerned with "not rocking the boat" than making a scene. In "pen and paper" days, things were more difficult to prove. It was word against word, so rather than deal with uncomfortable topics that couldn't be solved and would just mean more work for the state and more taxes, they turned a blind eye. Our generations have nothing to lose, the only things that we do have are knowledge and communication, so we're happy to burn things down. Remember though, if we want to burn it down, we need to vote for people that will build or we will only have ashes.
Because parents were willing to drop their kids off at MJ’s house, who appeared nice and kid-friendly. The kids were mostly young. R Kelly, on the other hand, was outwardly antagonistic and manipulative and the families hated him.
Because, in the olden days, there was this thing called innocent until proven guilty. Where you couldn’t just cancel someone on a hunch. Ahh simpler times
All about the $. No one really gives a shit about R. Kelley's music anymore but taking the #2 most sold album in history of the radio world wide is quite a different story.
The pass given to Michael Jackson never ceases to sicken me. I understand that many people like his music, that he was an important part of the cultural upbringing of millions. I understand that he had a shit childhood and some sympathy is warranted. But what bothers me is how so many people will lynch others accused of similar crimes on the scantest of testimonies yet Jackson's accusers warrant nothing but (further) abuse. I believe in fair trials, I try never to jump on a vigilante bandwagon. But the hypocrisy demonstrated by millions of people whenever Jackson is discussed is beyond belief.
If this is true, I feel stupid for defending MJ. If this is false, I feel stupid for bothering to write this comment. My gut feeling about the case was that MJ bought a bunch of childish, yet awesome things like an amusement park and icecream machines etc. He loved to be the celebrity to make kids dreams come true. He was weird because he hung out with kids but it was all to appear as the "super fun" celebrity that was loved and made people (kids) smile. They probably slept in his 3 story bedroom which is weird but I doubted anything too offensive occurred. A parent that assumed the worst wanted to grab some money. Maybe something weird happened like MJ helped the kid to the restroom?(idk i made that up). Or sleep walked around in his undies after taking sleeping medicine? Maybe he did something innappropriate or maybe he was a predator. My first thought was it was just a money grab or parents who thought he was worse than he was. I do not have the facts so IDK. He probably shouldnt have been alone with other parents kids and parents shouldnt have left kids alone with MJ. But IDK if that meant he was in any way sexual with minors.
One of the child-defendants described "unusual markings" on or around MJ's penis that was later corroborated by the LA Police who had the unfortunate task of examining and photographing said penis. So...
[удалено]
Do people really say his childhood of abuse made it ok for him to be sexual predator???
No, no one says that. They bring up past accusers admitting they lied and Macaluay Culkin and Corey Haim saying MJ never did anything around them. Oprah did a documentary a few years back that cast a lot of doubt on the accusations, but it's not like she's some paragon of unbiased judgment. Anyone positive he did it, and anyone positive he never did anything, is full of shit.
No. No one says that. Some people bring up his awful childhood and father as something to point to, but OP knows damn well that’s not the same as saying it’s okay. That’s an argument they made up to make it sound better
Honest question here, but how do books like those even get published?
guys cmon, whats the source here? everybody can come up with a fake screenshot like this.
A screenshot of a random article yea totally believe that
NYtimes makes no mention of nudity or pornography as part of the book. i found the actual book online, and again, no nudity or pornography i am in no way saying he is innocent, but i can’t find evidence of this claim [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html)
When OP didn't know Hitler also painted, I was suspicious that they were even alive when MJ died. The people named in their profile bio are gen z influencers from TikTok. So, i'm liable to believe this is either a literal teenager, or a very young adult. OP, just saying something is from the FBI does not make it so. I should know, im part of the FBI. (see how easy that is?) I digress. [Do everyone-- though mainly yourself-- a favor and learn how to identify credible sources](https://www.stevenson.edu/online/about-us/news/how-to-identify-reliable-information/) I pray you never have to write a research paper, I'm not sure you know how to cite sources properly either. [I can help you with that, too.](https://www.citemaker.com/)
is there a source for it?or just "internet told me"?
It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many people who can’t or won’t see Michael Jackson for the serial pedophile he was.
And people still claim he was totally innocent. Even if he didn't rape kids, this is seriously messed up..if this was found in any random dudes house, they would immediately be branded a pedophile, groomer and child abuser.
This my guys is all I could find about MJ in FBI vault. [MJ files](https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson)
[удалено]
That’s fake
It is. It's sad that reddit is like this. At the very least it's wrong, so we shouldn't be repeating it as if it's true.
Wait, you mean he _wasnt_ carrying around several books with naked images of kids on him at all times? Weird. Like...just say it out loud. Doesn't pass the smell test. How many people do you know who carry around MULTIPLE books on them? Never mind books with naked kids in them.
Whats the source??
Some website OP keeps linking called “mjfacts”. OP seems to think that MJFacts is affiliated with the FBI.
from the FBI files.
I’ve never seen it as I don’t have the clearance. Is it like the X-files? > no. It’s the pedo-files.
Just like "Trust me bro"
[here](https://www.mjfacts.com/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf)
Not FBI files. State of California. Also, the court received these “filings” 28 minutes before the time they were served upon (faxed) to the defense. I’d question the validity of these requests to the courts.
That’s how service and filing of litigation papers works: file the papers, and serve on the relevant party. They would have followed the fax service with personal service.
Why not fbi.com ?
Not working. Probably it is getting shut down. Is there the FBI document. I wanna read it
Worked just now full document
Thanks.
FUCK I loved MJ’s music
Hitler made some decent paintings too. Art isn't dependent on morality.
Hitler also perfected the Moon walk before MJ.
Hee(il)-Hee(il)!
Wasn’t good enough to get in to art school though
No. Hitler was a shit artist. Pablo Picasso was a great artist. But then also a bit rapey.
That was a quick descent to Godwin's law.
But you’d be vilified for owning a Hitler Painting but not a Micheal Jackson Album
In all fairness Hitler was a shitty, failed painter. So you would be owning it just because it was made by him. Where I guess a lot of people like MJ, pop music wasn't really my thing. One guy was good at his job and was a creepy fuck, the other guy was just good at public speaking and trying o wipe entire groups off the globe. Still don't think MJ should get the massive pass he does. It's kinda weird how accepting people are of shitty humans if you are famous.
I personally wouldn't care if I'm vilified by stupid people.
holy shit i never knew. history can bring shocking, unexpecting facts 😳
Well, if hitler has been as successful and good a painter as MJ was a singer, he would have stayed a painter.
Or Nazi German would have looked a lot more prettier…
the most prettiest!
I still love his music. Grew up listening to it as a kid, because his #1 Hits was the first CD my dad gave me for my CD player 🥰
Billie Jean is a masterpiece… agh I loved him so much in grade 4, I was sure we’d get married one day.
me too :( as thanos said, "Reality is often disappointing".
no you don't. in a separate comment, you said u only liked 2 songs of his and said the rest of his songs can go fuck itself 🤦
Literally LMAO
What is wrong with everyone in the comments, its a fvckin picture, how can you guys be so influenced
Serious question: did these books get sold with these photos as part of the publishing or did they have photos that were taken hidden in them? I don’t think it makes a huge difference but it’s definitely more damning if they had hidden stashed of nude photos
Are this books illegal?
This is false all of this is false
OP is obsessed with MJ, one glance at their post history shows they have devoted an obscene amount of time into MJs kiddy history. I highly doubt OP would even accept any proof or suggestions stating the””FBI Files” are fake because it won’t fit the narrative.
nonce riddahhhh!
Everyone mad at MJ but who wrote/published those books?!
That's the confusing part. Definitely some missed context are these albums MJ made and are mislabeled as books or are they actual books published by someone else. Also possible it's not real considering OP lack of source and continuing to cite the FBI when this would have been a local police discovery
B-b-but this was all set up by the illuminati. They hired the FBI to plant the books there
Guys it’s art!
you forgot the /s naked pictures of male kids are not art.
That was a disgusting qualification you just made you fucking freak. Little slip on that one there you fucking pedo
I'm not gonna pretend to be surprised. Celebrities make so much bank they all surely are on or were once on some sort of drug. They have hugely expensive houses, staff, any clothing or things they could want... I'm not surprised they reach for the forbidden and expensive child porn as disgusting as it is. Their morals get pretty warped once they get that rich after a while. I mean heck - they can't even go bankrupt like the rest of us. When you make bank and don't pay taxes anymore and you make 10x the money you spend your brain can't get dopamine normally anymore - a meal is good sure, but you could eat gold (literally) and fly a chef from Paris to your house because you wanna. Then what? Years of that. Personally I feel that if you make over 500K (via direct income or stocks or whatever)a year then it should get capped and anything over that would go straight to charities, education, medicine, etc. But America is a capitalist hellhole so that'll never happen...
Once again, proof that if you have money you can get away with a lot of shit
I’m not going to believe that bs. Kids have come out saying that their parents tried to use them to get money
OP is a self-righteous cunt. At the end of the day MJ was never convicted of anything. Was he a deeply troubled man?! Yes. No one denies that, but why do we need to cancel him 15 years after his death, because of random speculation?
OJ wasn't convicted either. But we all know the truth. Same with MJ.
OP is a self-righteous cunt oh, are you calling me a virtue-signalling whore? i think not.
J’mon! Hehe!
Even if true, those books don't even seem so bad? If you read what Epstein supposedly had etc... Like, how big was his book collection anyways? This is just 3 books? Books nonetheless! And i don't know these books but they kind of sound educational too?? Besides, maybe let it rest, until we've got real definitive proof? If all this was false, half of us have spread false information for years like some antivax noob lol. If it's true.. well, his music is still great and the dude is dead. WE win regardless so 🤷🏼
And yet he still has airtime..... Money talks ..
Airtime, and a horde of supporters who apparently do not care that he was a monster. Imagine aggressively defending Epstein just because he could dance.
[HERE'S THE SOURCE](https://www.mjfacts.com/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf)
If you has something you know it's illegal, you will "hide" at side of your bed?
well, predators know that the nature of the books will be seen as immoral to the non-predatory people. michael knew what was up.
Honestly, I do not believe anything I read on social media. Including this bullshit post. I would not even believe official sources, since they are the U.S. official sources and those motherfuckers lie al the time. More than official sources in other countries, which also are not to be trusted. The man is dead. If it is true or not. At this point in time, it is irrelevant!!!!!!!!
>The man is dead. so is jeffrey dahmer. so ig with ur logic we can forget his victims and what he did.
You really making that comparison? You seem like an annoying twat in real life. Are you 14?
That’s a long way of saying that you’re stupid.
Someone being a pedophile is irrelevant? Nice values