Sigh. If only I had known before you were dead Michael.
I havenât read the article (nor do I intend to) but this all sounds like very damning evidence. Yet in the face of all of this, he acquitted?
All I can say is that damning âevidenceâ coming to light 7 years after his death and being reported by a tabloid seems very fishy to meâŚ
The question now is why didnât they press any charges with what they had??? Thereâs going to be some hell to pay for the LAPD. There really needs to be a independent investigation/review into what really went down at their offices
Thatâs more or less my point (although you said it much better than me). Donât get me wrong, I definitely think that Jackson was a deeply disturbed individual â no doubt caused by a lifetime of being abused himself.
The trial was months long and Iâd imagine such evidence would be incredibly damning in showing a pattern of intent. Yet, he was somehow acquitted of all charges? Yeah, something definitely doesnât add up here to me.
This was in Los Olivos, Santa Barbara County. LAPD doesnât have jurisdiction.
Agreed; no matter what comes of these new claims, I will always regard the life of MJ as a cautionary tale:
Money cannot buy happiness, and forcing your own dreams off onto your children at any cost is a heinously evil thing to do.
Unfortunately, the PDF docs do look authentic, I havenât had the time to look at the highlighted material, but it did list a lot of pornographic material. I wasnât able to read the article because it stopped my phoneâs browser with all the ads.
I state this every time it pops up, because it pops up so frequently:
Cops donât charge people. You wouldnât want them to. Theyâre not lawyers, and often donât know the law well enough. Itâs not their job. The job of filing criminal complaints is that of the prosecutor. The LAPD doesnât get to make that decision even if they want to. The prosecutor makes decisions on charging based on whether they have sufficient evidence to meet the standard of reasonable doubt. Without knowing the details, itâs possible evidence was thrown out, tainted, mishandled (c.f. OJ Simpson and the LAPD), or was otherwise insufficient. In any case, if you have a problem with the complaint actually filed, take it up with the DA or equivalent office first.
Iâm not even going to bother, honestly.
The man is dead, and even if any of this is legit, itâs still sensationalism; a ploy to get more clicks.
Itâs not like any good will come of this story, or that any kind of justice will be served.
My mistake then
Alright you got me on that one
Well, Xeni, I did read through the PDF, seems he had a few porno DVDs and magazines, of the straight kind around, no crime there. He also had several photo books and collections which had nudity in it, nothing you canât get on Amazon or your local book store, this was were the âextreme stuffâ and âanimal tortureâ was âfoundâ. There were some collectible nudist magazines from the 30s and 60s, pretty harmless. I donât think I would think twice about any of this being in the possession of any of my friends, but with a little tabloid hype it looks bad. Question is, why is Boing Boing repeating this drivel?
This BS? From BoingBoing?
Look through the list. Thereâs no âtorture pornâ. Thereâs no animal cruelty. Thereâs no child porn.
This is a police report from Thomas Sneddon, who hunted MJ for a decade. It repeatedly declares that his ownership of things like mainstream porn are evidence that he used them to âgroom kidsâ. Ridiculous.
Put another way: In the criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: The police, who investigate crime, and the district attorneys, who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories.
He kept a picture of McCauley Caulkin in his master bathroom? Thatâs strange.
Based on my training, the above listed books contain material that can be used as part of a âgroomingâ process by which people (those seeking to molest children) are able to lower the inhibitions of their intended victims and facilitate the molestation of said victims.
This phrase (or a close variant of it) reappears constantly throughout the document. By applying this phrase to rather innocuous and quite legal pornography, it really makes it obvious that Sneddon is trying his best to smear Jackson as much as possible. As described by Sneddon, some of the other items found do seem questionable, but I also question Sneddonâs ability to accurately describe these items in an unbiased manner.
How does that old saying go?
Give me six DVDs owned by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him.
God knows what someone might say of the Vertigo, EC comics and Jhonen Vasquez graphic novels in my collection, let alone any saucy coffeetable books.
If you have not read them, the series that Maureen Orth wrote for Vanity Fair gives all the horrid awful details of what a horrible awful person he was. They are well written and convincing.
