Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Didymus 34,379]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

FBI isn't restricted to investigating federal crimes only for your information. It has offices throughout the country and often times work with local law enforcement at the state level.

Still, Michael's investigation was not led by the FBI and thus is not a FBI investigation and definitely not a 10 year one and to say it was is just incorrect and misleading Simple as that.

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

For "they're art books, not ****ography" that was the finding of the court. Why should I go with what anyone else says, when such things were tried already? Have you seen the material? You have not. The court did, and determined there was nothing illegal about them or anything close to child ****ography. So why should I believe anyone who didn't see them and say otherwise?

That was not the finding in court The jury had nothing to say about it, obviously. They were only there to determine Michael's guilt or innocence and those books in and of themselves did not prove a thing (and they shouldn't). As the investigators themselves acknowledged: while the books don't prove pedophilia in and of themselves, they are "child erotica" if the person is in fact a pedophile. Nevertheless, in the '04-'05 trial the Senior Deputy District Attorney acknowledged that the books found in Michael's home clearly indicated a specific interest in nude boys and not in images of children in general. This was not Michael's defense, this was one of the most important investigators. Not to be ignored. Likewise, Santa Barbara Detective Craig Bonner admitted that the p-rn and "art book" collection in Michael's bedroom looked exactly like a classic example of materials used to groom children, and the kids' finger prints on them underscore exactly such a conclusion. So no, sis, there were people in court who saw those materials firsthand who flatly denied what you're claiming here.

You would then need to be able to prove that Michael was in fact a pedophile to prove that these materials are p-rnography and in Michael's case that didn't happen because there wasn't any solid evidence (and why would there be). Important distinction, obviously. In any case, the kind of books Michael had were also found in the homes of other convicted pedophiles and child abusers exactly for the reason MJ fans keep repeating: they are legal to own and don't prove anything. Yet they suffice as child p-rnography for the guilty party. Even worse, one of the two now infamous books found in Michael's bedroom was actually compiled by two pedophiles... When the books were acquired by Court TV in '05 the host refused to show the full pictures of the nude boys in them because they were that explicit. Similarly, time and time again Michael's defense tried to bar the books and photographs from entering the court because they thought it would unfairly "sway" the judges. That in itself shows the material was bold enough to change some of their minds, which definitely means they weren't innocent.

More importantly, Michael absolutely lied about not knowing anything about the children's nudity books found in '93 as they were both found locked away in his bedroom, and one of them was inscribed by Michael himself. No staff member would've put them there. He also claimed he did not know anything of pictures of naked boys while, again, they were just lying around in his bedroom. Yes, these books were found in other people's homes, but not locked away in a room where adults come to sleep in the same bed with not-their-own children. The very fact that he locked them away shows Michael was self-conscious of them and/or that the treasured them as special items, which again makes them different from mere "art books" found in his library or lying on some coffee table. You don't keep an "art book" locked away in your bedroom which, oh what a coincidence, also contains photographs of nude kids Even if he never touched a kid, to have that **** spread around his bedroom where his "best child friends" could freely take a look at them shows extreme negligence and carelessness on his part.

[AMEN Monster 33]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:27 AM, Evolve said:

Yeah, everyone believes it's a lie because MJ is the king of pop. Sure thing. That's why everyone was afraid to come out in the first place. Y'all stoned R Kelly, you should do the same with MJ. You should be ashamed of yourselves for accusing people that went through traumatic experiences of lying.

Literally nobody believes it. Anytime someone is accused of molestation everyone is like: "YES! HE DID IT!" without even looking deeply into the situation. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@Didymus I think your problem is you think that everything that the prosecution says is right. The Judicial system works in a way that the prosecution will do EVERYTHING they can to try to prove someone is guilty (regardless of their own feelings about it), and the defense will do EVERYTHING they can to try to prove someone is innocent. A balance between the two extremes is what determines someone's guilt or innocence. 

Defense trying to bar something from being entered as evidence doesn't prove guilt. I am really disappointed. Because as someone who's studying law, I find it really appalling how easily average people want others convicted. No, the burden of proof in our system is that every count has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We can't convict someone of molestation because there were books with children on the covers swimming and playing. We can't convict someone because some heterosexual **** was visited on their computer. Keep in mind that this is a mansion we are talking about with many workers. We can't be so sure who watched that **** (it was legal **** anyway).

Give me one example of a famous pedophile who got away with their crimes multiple times and was never jailed? Just one example! Everyone I know of ended up behind bars even if they managed to be acquitted initially. You know why? Because serial pedophiles have a pattern of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

To understand Michael's mentality, you have to start with his art. This is someone who wasn't writing about sex like your average singer. Almost most of his discography is about spreading good in the world from earth song, to They Don't Care About Us, to Healing The World to Black and White. He believes in love. He wanted to help children have the childhood he never had. And it was a mistake. He was unaware of how evil human beings can be. He opened his mansion's doors to all of them and their families and even if they wanted to sleep in "Michael Jackson's room" he let them, which is again a mistake. Maybe he was just too innocent and loving to see how people can add an evil twist to that. 

Money brings the worst out of humankind. I am not surprised that he suffered what he suffered throughout his life, because people wanted money. Notice that NOT A SINGLE one of his accusers did not have financial interest, from Chacon and McManus who were filing a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal asking for money, to Chandler's family which was asking for millions of dollars, to Arvizo's father who was begging them for money, and apparently MJ did not give enough (how low to use his kid's cancer for monetary gain), to now Wade and Safechuck who are bothing suing for hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Didymus 34,379]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

Defense trying to bar something from being entered as evidence doesn't prove guilt. I am really disappointed.

When have I ever said in this thread that something proves Michael is guilty though  All I've said is I don't know but there is more than enough reason to be suspicious. If you're studying law as you claim you are, you definitely aren't doing well in the reading department 

What I did say was that the defense trying to bar the photography books as evidence shows that the books are not as innocent as you're claiming they are since the defense explicitly argued that they had the power to sway the judges' proper judgment. Obviously, if that's the case, we're not dealing with innocent pictures of kids playing on the beach here, and if you've ever taken the trouble to actually look at the pictures yourself you'd know that yourself as I do too.

My point was: stop pretending those books are simply innocent art books. They're not and if they were found, today, in anyone's home suspected of being a pedophile they would be more than enough evidence for a lot of people to have the suspected party locked up immediately  

Again, not saying they prove Michael's guilt, just sayin' y'all are missing the ball completely by repeating, or should I say by pretending that they were acquitted from suspicion in court.

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

 

Give me one example of a famous pedophile who got away with their crimes multiple times and was never jailed? Just one example! Everyone I know of ended up behind bars even if they managed to be acquitted initially. You know why? Because serial pedophiles have a pattern of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

Omg are you kidding... 

Maybe that goes for the molesters who actively seek out to rape children they don't know but you are aware that about 80% of sexual assault victims being molested are molested by someone they know intimately, like a family member, though right?  Specifically, the younger the child victim, the more common it is for someone who acts as a supervisor to the child to be the guilty party. This has been documented time and time again and it directly results in lower chances of these molesters ever being tried or even reported at all.

This excerpt comes from ABC News' piece on the official reports of the Center for Sex Offender Management:

"Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted of their crimes. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision."

Current estimates are that only about 30% of sexual assaults are ever reported, and that 30% mostly represents people who did not know their molester which would mean that the kids who spent so much intimate time with Michael have a 70% chance of never reporting their experiences. More specifically, according to the Child Lures Prevention organization: "the FBI estimates that only 10% of sex crimes are ever reported, which means there are millions of sex offenders living in the United States, many of whom have never been reported - or caught."

As ABC concludes: "The low rate of reporting leads to the conclusion that more than 90 percent of all sex offenders are living in communities nationwide without ever having been charged for their crime."

For someone studying law you're sure running behind on the facts. Sad, really. And all because you're trying to warp the facts to defend your favorite artist  

[Didymus 34,379]

52 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

To understand Michael's mentality, you have to start with his art. This is someone who wasn't writing about sex like your average singer. Almost most of his discography is about spreading good in the world from earth song, to They Don't Care About Us, to Healing The World to Black and White. He believes in love.

Then why did he have a bigger p-rn collection than the average American?  

Also, what a ****ing embarrassing turn to take in general, I'm like... stunned a law student is using this absolute shite as proof that Michael is innocent  That is completely irrelevant. It is an established fact that most people who molest children are experts at grooming which means they would never be suspected of being an abuser. We're talking about babysitters, guardian or foster parents, children's sports coaches, youth organization volunteers, school chaperones,... Hell, what's next, you're gonna say no priest has ever molested a kid because he believes in God?  How naïve can you be?

Once more: I am not saying Michael is guilty beyond reasonable doubt but I am surely not convinced that we should be looking into his songs and artistic persona more than books and pictures of NAKED KIDS in his friggin' bed- and bathroom which kids visited on long-term basis, like, how obvious does it need to be?  If we can't even regard that as evidence then we sure as hell can't use his songs and lyrics, what are you smoking exactly?

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

7 minutes ago, Didymus said:

 

This excerpt comes from ABC News' piece on the official reports of the Center for Sex Offender Management:

"Only a fraction of those who commit sexual assault are apprehended and convicted of their crimes. Most convicted sex offenders eventually are released to the community under probation or parole supervision."

Current estimates are that only about 30% of sexual assaults are ever reported, and that 30% mostly represents people who did not know their molester which would mean that the kids who spent so much intimate time with Michael have a 70% chance of never reporting their experiences. More specifically, according to the Child Lures Prevention organization: "the FBI estimates that only 10% of sex crimes are ever reported, which means there are millions of sex offenders living in the United States, many of whom have never been reported - or caught."

As ABC concludes: "The low rate of reporting leads to the conclusion that more than 90 percent of all sex offenders are living in communities nationwide without ever having been charged for their crime."

For someone studying law you're sure running behind on the facts. Sad, really. And all because you're trying to warp the facts to defend your favorite artist  

That was not my question though. If you read again: Give me one example of a famous pedophile who got away with their crimes multiple times and was never jailed? 

Again you're deviating from the question. I wasn't talking about common sexual assault. I was trying to make the point that Michael Jackson's allegations were very famous and known to everybody and that he was way too scrutinized to evade conviction if he really was the serial pedophile you guys think he is. He was subject to several unannounced raids/searches. He was subject to several independent journalistic investigations. He was also subject to multiple civil lawsuits. Two or three decades of living under a microscope and being the most scrutinized public figure ever, yet nothing was found? He deserves the presumption of innocence at this point.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Also, what a ****ing embarrassing turn to take in general, I'm like... stunned a law student is using this absolute shite as proof that Michael is innocent  That is completely irrelevant. It is an established fact that most people who molest children are experts at grooming which means they would never be suspected of being an abuser. We're talking about babysitters, guardian or foster parents, children's sports coaches, youth organization volunteers, school chaperones,... Hell, what's next, you're gonna say no priest has ever molested a kid because he believes in God?  How naïve can you be?

Understanding the mindset of someone is crucial to determining guilt. If you studied law you would've known. There's something called mens rea, which pertains to the criminal mind of a wrongdoer. Without establishing that the mens rea requirement no defendant can be found guilty actually. What I was trying to say is that, yes he was around children a lot. Yes he had many children in his house and he allegedly let them sleep in his bed (whether he slept in the same bed or not is disputed), but he did not seem to have a malicious/criminal intent behind it (something an actual pedophile would have).

And that's why trying to understand his mindset is actually relevant from a legal perspective. Please don't talk **** about my studies if you don't know about these things.

[Didymus 34,379]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

That was not my question though. If you read again: Give me one example of a famous pedophile who got away with their crimes multiple times and was never jailed? 

Jesus, why do they have to be famous?  

That scrutiny argument is groundless. Michael was up with those kids in friggin' Neverland Ranch where they were left completely unsupervised, removed from all media, police,.... He was sleeping with kids in their own beds in their parents' homes, you're really trying to claim he was being scrutinized?  These parents let him do all that stuff unquestioned exactly because he was a semi-divine celebrity  That's how he got in contact with these kids, that's why it looks acceptable for him to form precious friendships with him. It's the celebrity factor that has actually helped Michael, not the other way around.

That raids and searches thing again is equally dumb, I'm sorry. What were they supposed to find there? Illegal child p-rnography? Where the **** was he supposed to get that? Was he gonna send his assistant to some illegal get together of molesters?  He's Michael Jackson, hello. He wouldn't be so dumb to plant direct and unambiguous evidence all around his house to get caught. What they did find, however, is already convincing to more than one person, like the nudity books, the photographs, the bloodied bed sheets and men's underwear hidden in a bag in the friggin' kids' play room  It's the evidence they did find in Neverland that has convinced many people he was guilty after all, so don't sit here and pretend that it's not relevant.

[Didymus 34,379]

18 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Understanding the mindset of someone is crucial to determining guilt. If you studied law you would've known. There's something called mens rea, which pertains to the criminal mind of a wrongdoer. Without establishing that the mens rea requirement no defendant can be found guilty actually. What I was trying to say is that, yes he was around children a lot. Yes he had many children in his house and he allegedly let them sleep in his bed (whether he slept in the same bed or not is disputed), but he did not seem to have a malicious/criminal intent behind it (something an actual pedophile would have).

Award-winning post here. Just... staggering  You should totally become a lawyer, my friend, you should work for the Vatican, all those priests are just dying to have you represent them!  

Again: most child offenders are either family members or people who worm their way into supervising positions in children's activities, areas, jobs,... how the hell would you ascertain criminal or malicious intent there based on their outer appearance? You wouldn't.

Also, a friggin' public pop persona that is interfered with from a musical label and general management perspective is not a good way to understand Michael's psychology  We should be looking at privately written poetry, photographs he has taken, random drawings, etc. As far as I know, nothing of the sort is available. All we have are a bunch of songs, the majority of which he didn't write btw (can't believe you missed that one) and which don't correspond to how most fans understand him anyway.

Where are his songs about feeling like a little kid inside an adult body? Where are the songs about Peter Pan and Neverland? Why are there so many songs about adult female-oriented romances in there when he clearly didn't show much sexual or romantic interest towards women? Where are the songs about his child friendships? Those songs don't give us **** in terms of personal entry into Michael's private or inner life and you god damn well know it.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

14 minutes ago, Didymus said:

That raids and searches thing again is equally dumb, I'm sorry. What were they supposed to find there? Illegal child p-rnography? 

So allegedly he was teaching children how to masturbate right?

A forensic search could've possibly revealed traces of DNA, presence of certain other children in the room. It could've revealed traces of semen and established the identity of the person. It could've established the presence of certain sex toys or sex products (like condoms, lubricant etc...) in the same room where the children allegedly slept.

I'm not saying every search results in finding these things. But it's fallacious to say that searches could've revealed nothing anyway. There's always a chance some type of evidence is unearthed.

 

 

[Didymus 34,379]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

So arguably he was teaching children how to masturbate right?

A forensic search could've possibly revealed traces of DNA, presence of certain other children in the room. It could've revealed traces of semen and established the identity of the person. It could've established the presence of certain sex toys or sex products (like condoms, lubricant etc...) in the same room where the children allegedly slept.

I'm not saying every search results in finding these things. But it's fallacious to say that searches could've revealed nothing anyway. There's always a chance some type of evidence is revealed.

When the hell did I say forensic investigations couldn't reveal anything? I'm the one who's been constantly mentioning the fingerprints on the p-rn zines, the bloodstained bed sheets, the fluorescent stains on the nude zines,...

I was only responding to your claim that they never found anything incriminating so that must mean he's innocent. I'm both stating that (1) they did find incriminating stuff, actually; (2) the expectation of finding unambiguous evidence like child p-rnography, video tapes of him engaging in the abuse, etc. is ill-founded for such a high-profile celebrity or for abusers in general.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

12 minutes ago, Didymus said:

When the hell did I say forensic investigations couldn't reveal anything? I'm the one who's been constantly mentioning the fingerprints on the p-rn zines, the bloodstained bed sheets, the fluorescent stains on the nude zines,...

I was only responding to your claim that they never found anything incriminating so that must mean he's innocent. I'm both stating that (1) they did find incriminating stuff, actually; (2) the expectation of finding unambiguous evidence like child p-rnography, video tapes of him engaging in the abuse, etc. is ill-founded for such a high-profile celebrity or for abusers in general.

Where's your source that they found incriminating stuff including "bloodstained bed sheets"?

You realize they can do a DNA test right? And it belonged to the children, he'd probably be in jail if indeed they find evidence of sexual activity.

So please I can't fact check everything you say, but fact check what you read at least. Tabloids aren't a credible source of information.

For the fingerprints, I encourage you to read this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

"Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis."

Hence why the Jury was not convinced. 

 

[ZiggyZiggs 29,973]

I really don’t know what to think I’m truly torn 

it took almost a week for me to watch all 4 hours cuz it was triggering and traumatic 

im leaning more towards the accusers but I just don’t even know anymore. MJ was a HUGE part of my childhood 

[Didymus 34,379]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

Where's your source that they found incriminating stuff including "bloodstained bed sheets"?

The Santa Barbara legal papers  This is a description from one of the seizing officers:

"The next item of evidence I reviewed Item Number 510. This item was described as being two bags of miscellaneous underclothes and bloodied bed linen. These items were located in the upstairs library room of the video/arcade area. The first bag was a plastic Disneyland bag and the second was a plastic Garden City Hotel bag. ... I [found] the bag to contain a white cotton sheet with reddish brown stains on it, which I believed were consistent with blood staining."

These materials were actually tested for DNA (didn't you say you knew all the facts? How come I'm the one explaining you all this?) and revealed that there were semen stains on the underwear in the bags that were not Michael's (or the accuser) and could not be identified. Since there was no direct connection to Gavin, the defense labored to have their mention removed from court and succeeded. The bloodstains were considered irrelevant even to the prosecution as Gavin had not claimed Michael penetrated him (but in light of Wade and James' testimony they do seem relevant as they claimed he did engage in penetration and ordered them to get rid of bloodied underwear). The only bloodstains focused upon were those on one of the items of underwear since it contained traces of cocaine (still a mystery).

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

For the fingerprints, I encourage you to read this:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

"Sneddon was later caught seemingly trying to plant fingerprint evidence against Jackson, allowing accuser Gavin Arvizo to handle adult magazines during the grand jury hearings, then bagging them up and sending them away for fingerprint analysis."

Another cliché of the MJ fan community continuing to pop up. I see you once more haven't done your research beyond fan video's.

The claim of Sneddon tampering with the evidence came from Jackson's lawyer Robert Sanger. However, the judge allowed the defense to conduct interviews with each and every single one of those grand jurors involved in the hearing at which Sneddon supposedly handed Gavin the magazines to, to eventually confirm that Gavin had not touched them at that hearing at all. So the defense suddenly did a 180 and claimed that Gavin had broken into Jackson's bedroom and grabbed the p-rn zines on his own without Michael's involvement, leading Michael to then lock the zines away (and leave his fingerprints on it).

The whole fan shared story about how the magazine turned out to be published after the boys had left Neverland and all of that nonsense are nothing but pure invention, Mesereau (eventually) never denied that Gavin's fingerprints on that magazine were authentic  

So isn't this a nice illustration of what's going on in this thread. You're coming out here with facts and fables that are flat out wrong or severely incomplete and yet you're claiming that we can't do our own research, that we're blinded by biased narratives and are not relying on the facts   Crazy.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@Didymus so now you are posting evidence that you admit yourself is inconclusive and even the prosecution did not use against Michael Jackson?

One advice, please don't ever think about being a judge with that type of mentality. Apparently you'll convict people based on suspicion alone. And again you're not posting your sources regarding your claims about "However, the judge allowed the defense to conduct interviews with each and every single one of those grand jurors involved in the hearing at which Sneddon supposedly handed Gavin the magazines to, to eventually confirm that Gavin had not touched them at that hearing at all."

This is the first time I read this, can you please provide your source?

For more insight into the actual trial, I encourage you to watch "The Jury Speaks: Michael Jackson" where the jurors who'd been there for 4 months explain what was going on. You'll really gain a lot of insight from the people who delivered the verdict and saw all the evidence first hand.

And the jurors themselves DENY your claim and actually admit they lost faith in the prosecution after it turns out that they contaminated the only tangible evidence (that particular magazine you're talking about).

SO PLEASE PLEASE fact check what you say.