Michael Jackson 'kept photos of naked children and pornography stash' at Neverland Ranch,

This is the Michael Jackson I always feature when his name comes up.

I remember one jury member in that child molestation trial saying that he was pretty convinced that Michael Jackson was a child molester, but that the prosecution did not prove that he molested the youngsters that were presented in the trial. At that trial, young people who had previously stuck up for Jackson, and who vouched for the fact that they came over to his house, (how can any parent allow that?), and Jackson didn't do anything wrong, turned around later and said that he did molest them. There was speculation the mother was going after money.

I fail to see how anyone treats him with anything other than disgust.

I'm not a Jackson supporter or detractor.

However, reading this link, it is just all over the place, and I can say that while in the middle of my first cup of coffee.

One thing I will quote from the article, for now....

“Those who continue to shamelessly exploit Michael via sleazy internet 'click bait' ignore that he was acquitted by a jury in 2005 on every one of the 14 salacious charges brought against him in a failed witch hunt."

At this moment (I'll be back later) I simply see too much of this click bait material in the attached story.

I didn't even read the article. I already regarded him this way. Maybe some details are wrong, but in general, Jackson the pedophile is not my cup of tea.

That's the thing edgar. I'm not convinced he was (I'm not convinced he wasn't), and the article does absolutely nothing to help me in that indecision.

That says more about American Justice and money than it does about Jackson's innocence, like O J Simpson or George Zimmerman.

This is not sleazy click bait, it's an article in The Independent, a well respected newspaper.

What's brown and often found in a boy's shorts? Michael Jackson's hand.

Well, I can't speak to either of those statements izzy, as saying this speaks to American Justice and money doesn't say that someone couldn't say the same about UK Justice and money. I know it's not fair, but I don't keep up on UK trials of famous or non-famous people, so I can't compare.

I'm sure I've read other articles from The Independent, but that's not saying this particular article doesn't have elements of sensationalism.

Again, I am not saying one way or the other regarding his guilt or innocence, but to point out direct statements from that article that could fall apart under scrutiny:

He had a "considerable" amount of pornography. What exactly constitutes a considerable amount? It goes on to make mention of a Hustler and a Penthouse magazine. The Hustler somewhere saying "barely legal" Yeah, no one has ever looked at girls under the guise of pretending they might be just a tad under the legal age of 18. And what if he did have "a considerable stash"? I'd like to take a porn detector, similar to a metal detector, and walk up and down my street to see what I could come up with.

Talks about images of naked boys, then you find out they were images from the late 1800's. Art? Or porn? I don't know unless I can see them. I'm grossed out by those statues of fountains that look like little boys peeing, but could that be defined as porn? I might, most wouldn't.

Images of men's bodies with childrens faces superimposed on them. Doesn't say the men are totally naked, naked at all, or in any way sexual. Do you know? I don't. For all I know, it could have been a picture of a fireman with the face of a boy that said that's what he wanted to be when he grew up.

Erotic or provocative art photography, including works from a book entitled The Fourth Sex, by artists such as the Chapman Brothers and Tracey Emin.

I just looked up those 2 artists, and while there are some depictions of nudity, I found it more odd than erotic. Most of their stuff doesn't envolve sex.

The Fourth Sex? Good God. It's a coffee table book for heavens sake. I looked at some of the pictures from it. It's pictures of adolescents being all angsty. A couple of naked teens sitting up in a tree was the worst I could find. I'd show that book to my maiden Aunt Tillie.

Animal tortue? Children bleeding and in pain? Could they be booklets or materials pertaining to animal rights activism, or children in war torn countries or child abuse victims anywhere?

Drugs for sexual addiction? I looked up what they could be. For sex addiciton they mostly use SRRI's and other anti-depressants. Before I state he was taking "a sex addict drug" I would need to know what particular medication they found.

The bottom line for me after reading this article from a respected newspaper is that there was nothing in there that either (a) hadn't been covered before, and/or (b) is on very shaky ground.

I don't have any particular liking or dislike toward him. This just goes to show that if the media could get into any one of our homes and other private areas, and allowed free reign for speculation, we'd all be in prison for one reason or another.

I don't think any amount of evidence will be enough to open your eyes.

I'm amazed that Jackson commands such fanatical devotion even after death.

Put crudely, it's porn if you use it get horny.

Honeztly5? Radar on line? No news ever stated in this regard are you sure it is a reliable source?

I'm certain it's a reliable source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent

I'm sorry to say this but Chai's quoted sentences reminds me of the sort of stuff BillRM used to post. In particular a thread about someone watching child porn on a plane. He went on art pictures, stuff that would have been legal twenty years ago, naked children on holiday pictures, that sort of thing. It turns out to have been the worst sort of abuse, with other passengers who'd just caught a glimpse needing counselling.

There is a story, possibly apocryphal, that John Ruskin got aroused, during the funeral of Charles Dickens, by the carved cherub boys in Westminster Abbey. Also, regarding the idea that what is porn is that which is used as porn, I once read an interview with a psychiatrist who worked with child sex offenders at Grendon Underwood, a specialist UK prison. He ran a programme designed to help prisoners stop offending. Key to success, he said, was commitment by the prisoner, and various indicators of this were available. One was that the man withdrew from the informal groups of prisoners who shared family magazines and holiday catalogues. These contain pictures of children in swimwear etc and were used as masturbation material, ordinary pornography being banned, and probably not what those men wanted anyway. Apparently the programme had an encouraging success rate, and quite apart from the harm to childrem avoided, cost the justice system very much less than the probable future trials and custody would have done. A big problem was that such a programme was less politically acceptable than "throw away the key" type solutions.

I know nothing about Michaei Jackson or his guilt or innocence but that critique of the article was Brilliant.

That's the thing izzy. I love evidence. There just wasn't any in that particular article.

Exactly how many times must I say I'm not stating any of this with any opinion of guilt or innocence? I think I have already stated to that effect 4 or 5 times, feeling rather foolish while doing so after the 2nd time, as I was thinking no one would call me to task on "having my my open" or having any kind of devotion, let along "fanatical devotion" to him, before or after death.

If you can find anything that isn't somewhat vague in it's presentation, I really do what to know about it.

Frankly izzy, it seems a little odd you to try to indicate I'm stubbornly keeping my eyes closed, and am some sort of devotee to Jackson. Not too much could be further from the truth.

I'll say it more strongly this time. I really didn't care for his music. I mean, it was all right, but that's about it. I thought he was very eccentric, to say the least. I do have many concerns about the fact parents apparantly let their children stay there, and so forth and so on. I wonder about allegations that have been made and dropped, and statements reversed. I question a lot of things about his entire life, not just about this subject.

Did you hear that? I hope so. I don't want to have to repeat every other post.
In addition, I'm not going to let this turn into a one sided argument about how I am a Jackson supporter (or detractor for that matter). If it come up again, just carry on without me. That's fine.

I'm not however, going to let this article that is heavy on sensationalism, light on actual facts, with no actual evidence written about, sway my indecision one way or the other.

Christ, it's just so bloody tiring when it happens that a person must over and over again say the same thing as far as their stance, and it's ignored.

There's plenty of evidence, but you're jumping through hoops trying to dismiss it.

You claim not to be a devotee of Jackson but your need to belittle/ameliorate torture pictures and naked pictures of children suggests otherwise. Your response to all this is far from neutral.

Observation:

This post had 2 thumbs up, when I first saw it. With little forethought, I thumbed it down as it was just too ridiculous, stupid and insulting for words.

Now I wish I hadn't. It would have been an indicator that someone who has been reading this thread, perhaps posting on it, finds this a humorous subject, or at least unimportant enough to make light of child abuse in any form.

Old, worn out, not funny the first time, sophomoric, racist, inappropriately sexual jokes get thumbed up.

Yet, I am the one accused of having my eyes closed when trying to express cogent thoughts about whether or not or whether an article presented is actual evidence, or just anecdotal and circumstantial.

My eyes are also closed because I'm actively seeking actual verfiable facts and evidence, and refuse to express feelings of innocence or guilt without anything more substantial that what is found in the particular article. Without going back and rereading, the more I'm thinking this article leans towards "slow news day" as it either brings up nothing new, and or expresses things just vaguely enough that emotionally one could say "this is horrible", but that just doesn't stand up to even the most passing scrutiny.

I wonder who did thumb that joke up? Meh, no matter.