Nort 💫Apr 26
e tYeah, because it’s clearly unfair to the defense to be forced into that kind of situation. But it’s not a factor of guilt or innocence either way.
yeah, i agree. im just sharing a little fact i remembered about the case.
- e t 👽Apr 26·2 replies
AshTheRobotKeeping a book that featured naked children in it is weird no matter what you present to try and spin it. If we were talking about a college professor who taught photography, MAYBE it would be a tad bit less weird.
But it isn't just the books. Its the combination of everything
- Nude Art Books with naked children in it is still weird. No matter how you try to spin it, you are basically using a "its a 3000 year vampire" adjacent Loli argument with extra steps.
- Multiple accusations.
- The friendly adult, who invites children over their house to either predate on them, or groom them. Which is a common trait for predators that many ppl(including myself) have experienced.
- Having p*** on the ranch, which even IF he didn't show kids the p***, this directly contradicts the idea of this being a paradise and safe space for kids.
- On top of that, his childhood being filled with abuse is sad. However, and abusive childhood is the most common traits amongst predators.
- Etc.
Again, I can agree that it is possible that he didn't touch kids. I can agree that some accusers may have been looking for money. But a lot of the facts we do know are MASSIVE red flags, even if he didn't commit a crime. You know good and well if you knew someone with this track record you wouldnt be okay with kids in your life being around them.
I don’t think it’s automatically weird if it’s a legitimate art book and part of a broader collection of art books. I don’t think nudity itself always has to be inherently sexual, and if the books were sexual in any nature, they would not have been legally allowed/sold in the first place.
But it is definitely weird if a guy who prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys also has a book of naked little boys. The context is everything.
Apr 26·2 repliesAshTheRobotKeeping a book that featured naked children in it is weird no matter what you present to try and spin it. If we were talking about a college professor who taught photography, MAYBE it would be a tad bit less weird.
But it isn't just the books. Its the combination of everything
- Nude Art Books with naked children in it is still weird. No matter how you try to spin it, you are basically using a "its a 3000 year vampire" adjacent Loli argument with extra steps.
- Multiple accusations.
- The friendly adult, who invites children over their house to either predate on them, or groom them. Which is a common trait for predators that many ppl(including myself) have experienced.
- Having p*** on the ranch, which even IF he didn't show kids the p***, this directly contradicts the idea of this being a paradise and safe space for kids.
- On top of that, his childhood being filled with abuse is sad. However, and abusive childhood is the most common traits amongst predators.
- Etc.
Again, I can agree that it is possible that he didn't touch kids. I can agree that some accusers may have been looking for money. But a lot of the facts we do know are MASSIVE red flags, even if he didn't commit a crime. You know good and well if you knew someone with this track record you wouldnt be okay with kids in your life being around them.
I can see from a surface level of course certain things look suspect. But that's all it is, surface level.
You have to actually look specifically at what is alleged to have happened. And once you do that, it's physically impossible to be true.
Example being James Safechuck alleging abuse in a building that didn't exist. Or being taken to award shows and abused when MJ never attended.
Or when the Arvizos had to change the entire narrative of abuse including the timeline because MJ had a stone cold alibi. When you know specifics and not just generalising points it becomes very clear.
Apr 26
NOTREOPENINGSHIBROThere are dozens of threads on this site alone with naked children on album covers are you f***ing stupid or something
You would know
- Apr 26·1 replye t
I don’t think it’s automatically weird if it’s a legitimate art book and part of a broader collection of art books. I don’t think nudity itself always has to be inherently sexual, and if the books were sexual in any nature, they would not have been legally allowed/sold in the first place.
But it is definitely weird if a guy who prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys also has a book of naked little boys. The context is everything.
"Prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys" = false
The context is exactly why those books were introduced as evidence. They found nothing, let me repeat NOTHING else that even alluded to an interest in children.
So two readily available (even in University libraries) photograph books (over 200+ pages each, containing "slice of life" style photos, not just nude photos) was all they could point towards.
- e t 👽Apr 26·1 replyKingOfPop
"Prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys" = false
The context is exactly why those books were introduced as evidence. They found nothing, let me repeat NOTHING else that even alluded to an interest in children.
So two readily available (even in University libraries) photograph books (over 200+ pages each, containing "slice of life" style photos, not just nude photos) was all they could point towards.
What?
He said it himself
- Apr 26·1 replye t
What?
He said it himself
!https://youtu.be/MMrOZte3hvo?si=5GZeZCZKhcck_CoT I am not denying it happened, I am saying your wording, "he prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys" is false.
Apr 26·2 repliesMike innocent
- e t 👽Apr 26·1 replyKingOfPop
I am not denying it happened, I am saying your wording, "he prefers to hang around and sleep with little boys" is false.
I’m confused. Are you arguing semantics?
Let me rephrase my original statement then. It is weird that a man who sleeps in the same bed as various little boys repeatedly also owns a book of naked little boys.
Apr 26Sir RealMike innocent
- Apr 26·1 replye t
I’m confused. Are you arguing semantics?
Let me rephrase my original statement then. It is weird that a man who sleeps in the same bed as various little boys repeatedly also owns a book of naked little boys.
Yes, because you're framing it the way the 2005 prosecution tried to. Little boys this, little boys that.
MJ befriended entire families, mothers, fathers, children (boys and girls) and there are accounts of them all sleeping in MJs room and bed.
The notion of "its always little boys" is low IQ nonsense, which also goes against the entire point of this thread, as one of the Cascio sisters falsely claims abuse. So what do those desperately to believe children were abused here actually think?
The claims don't add up and don't need to?
Apr 26AshTheRobotI grew up in a household where my mom is obsessive MJ fan, and still is to this day. So i grew up most of my life believing he was innocent and framed.
I can agree that maybe he didnt physically touch kids, based on the evidence that is there.
But based on the stuff we do know, absolutely nobody would be fighting tooth and nail to defend innocence for an ordinary guy. Like, if your homeboy had a “art book” of nude children in their possession, theres no explanation he could possibly give you that would ease your mind of thinking he’s a pedo.
On top of that, with MJ ppl ignore behavior that we would rightfully call grooming behavior if it were anyone else. We rightfully call Drake regularly texting a 13YO girl weird. We rightfully call Lewis Carrol’s obsession with a kid weird. But for MJ having sleepovers with young boys is somehow not weird. It’s like suddenly ppl forget, that even if he didnt touch kids, the entire concept of grooming exists. The entire concept of creeps getting gratification through things other than actual physical touch is a thing.
I more so don’t get arguing with ppl who reasonably believe he’s a pedo, when absolutely nobody else would get this charitabilty in the same scenarios lolThat nigga gave us Billie Jean
- e t 👽Apr 26KingOfPop
Yes, because you're framing it the way the 2005 prosecution tried to. Little boys this, little boys that.
MJ befriended entire families, mothers, fathers, children (boys and girls) and there are accounts of them all sleeping in MJs room and bed.
The notion of "its always little boys" is low IQ nonsense, which also goes against the entire point of this thread, as one of the Cascio sisters falsely claims abuse. So what do those desperately to believe children were abused here actually think?
The claims don't add up and don't need to?
Nobody needs to make the notion that it’s “always little boys”. The fact that it’s “sometimes little boys” is bad enough. Even if the entire family was in his room, and yet the little kids were in his bed instead of with their parents, that’s somehow even creepier.
There’s no world in which this can be considered normal.
Apr 26Sir RealMike innocent
- Apr 26
WATCH SQUARE ONE ON HULU TODAY
Apr 26·4 repliesWe see right through it
- Apr 26https://twitter.com/tervisscoot/status/2048471072027099167Hades
We see right through it
“The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.”
Apr 26https://twitter.com/tervisscoot/status/2048471072027099167HadesWe see right through it
this sure is proof
- Apr 26
RT score is not a relevant or usual review format & yet the public is beholden to it good or bad
- Apr 26·1 replyhttps://twitter.com/tervisscoot/status/2048471072027099167Hades
We see right through it
I’m pro rt but this is just absurdity how did this even happen ?The Netflix crime doc slop worked on the critics but not the audience ? :
- Apr 27·1 replyKingOfPop
I can see from a surface level of course certain things look suspect. But that's all it is, surface level.
You have to actually look specifically at what is alleged to have happened. And once you do that, it's physically impossible to be true.
Example being James Safechuck alleging abuse in a building that didn't exist. Or being taken to award shows and abused when MJ never attended.
Or when the Arvizos had to change the entire narrative of abuse including the timeline because MJ had a stone cold alibi. When you know specifics and not just generalising points it becomes very clear.
Again. I can believe that actual physical molestation may have not happened(and even then, my stance on that is “idk”. Not a definitive “it didn’t happen”)
My point is that even if no actual assault has happened, a lot of this stuff is still creepy and red flag behavior. All of it is only defended because we’re talking about a massive pop star. Even the point that “he befriended entire families”. Befriending the parents is also a extremely common predator tactic.
There are documented predators who do things that are inappropriate without actually doing anything illegal. Its not possible for us to know what his intentions were, because we didnt know him. And its even not possible to know intentions of ppl we do know.
I love and respect the dude’s art, as it was a massive part of my childhood. But just accept that his behavior was weird and creepy, and there is a possibility he wasnt a great dude. There is enough there that its reasonable for ppl to believe he was a pedo, and i wouldnt argue with them
- Apr 27NOTREOPENINGSHIBRO
I’m pro rt but this is just absurdity how did this even happen ?The Netflix crime doc slop worked on the critics but not the audience ? :
Some might say there are some ulterior motives in making Michael look bad
Apr 27KingOfPopI can see from a surface level of course certain things look suspect. But that's all it is, surface level.
You have to actually look specifically at what is alleged to have happened. And once you do that, it's physically impossible to be true.
Example being James Safechuck alleging abuse in a building that didn't exist. Or being taken to award shows and abused when MJ never attended.
Or when the Arvizos had to change the entire narrative of abuse including the timeline because MJ had a stone cold alibi. When you know specifics and not just generalising points it becomes very clear.
It’s crazy that you make the same argument with everything that people bring up regarding MJ being a weirdo. “It’s all surface level, this particular thing isn’t weird”
But when you put the 100 different things you’re trying to defend together, it’s obviously f***ing weird.
Apr 27·1 replyWRUsome pointers
- fbi found no evidence of foul play
- naked boys books were a fan present
- allegations come from the same camp with one of the parents knowingly first letting kids stay there and then coming after him, they were milking this stuff for ages
- mj was robbed of his childhood and abused by his dad which played a part in him ending up in the weirdo territory (not saying that sleeping with children isnt weird but thats not what theyre accusing him of)
- mj was in a massive beef with sony music and its a known secret in the entertainment industry that the whole thing was basically to f*** with his career and make an example out of him because he was getting too independent and didnt wanna play by the industry rules
1) The FBI never investigated Michael Jackson. They only provided minimal assistance in the 2003 and 1993 cases.
2) Michael had personal inscriptions in the books of naked boys and if you look up the contents of these books (I don't recommend that you do) , you'd wonder what "fan" would gift him a straight up child erotica book in the first place and why Michael would accept it (And like it so much that he'd write in it). A book which today, is banned in many countries.
I'm not even gonna acknowledge your next 2 points because it's a conspiracy theory with no basis and justification for his disgusting behavior with children.
- Apr 27·1 reply
shaleiroseI'm usually very against the whole "industry plotting against one powerful guy" conspiracy, but I think the one case it absolutely applies to is MJ
Yeah bro he was just acting as a spy and trying to save the kids obviously
