- Joined
- Jun 21, 2018
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 0
why are you changing the subject? defensive much?What banned member are you?
New people aren't joining sherdog.
why are you changing the subject? defensive much?What banned member are you?
New people aren't joining sherdog.
Read the motion.
I actually don't really care one way or another about this thread.why are you changing the subject? defensive much?
im not. if u want to make a thread about me go for it this thread is about Michael JacksonI actually don't really care one way or another about this thread.
Why are you trying to hide?
Maybe you're Michael Jackson.im not. if u want to make a thread about me go for it this thread is about Michael Jackson
The motion means nothing though because the pictures were proven to be part of the art books.Read the motion.
please provide a link that supports your claim that these photographs were from a book and not taken by MJ or for MJ.The motion means nothing though because the pictures were proven to be part of the art books.
They weren't pornographic at all and is the reason that people tried to find a new angle to attack him.
You don't have a link that shows the pictures, shows that MJ took it, or that it was taken for MJ.please provide a link that supports your claim that these photographs were from a book and not taken by MJ or for MJ.
I read the entire motion. here. https://www.mjfacts.com/resources/011805pltreqaseemd.pdfYou don't have a link that shows the pictures, shows that MJ took it, or that it was taken for MJ.
Have you gone through the full motion? Have you read everything after the full motion?
The only porn found was heterosexual porn in his house.I read the entire motion. here. https://www.mjfacts.com/resources/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf
Way back at the beginning when I introduced the motion I prefaced it by saying that nothing found was illegal. But it is consistent with grooming and also shows that MJ had an unusual interest in young boys.The only porn found was heterosexual porn in his house.
No child porn at all.
So what did you find that the courts didn't find?
Kenneth Lanning, an FBI expert in the study of the sexual victimization of children, says in relation to pedophiles, “Adult pornography is frequently left out for the children to “discover.” A collection of adult pornography is effective in sexually arousing and lowering the inhibitions of adolescent boys. This is an important reason why preferential child molesters collect adult pornography. Some of them may even attempt to use this collection as proof that they do not have a sexual preference for children.”Let's also remember that the Prosecution and the Judge both signed a statement saying no child porn was found.
Let's also remember that the Prosecution and the Judge both signed a statement saying no child porn was found.
beat itYeah but have you ever listened to thriller,?!?
the phone call where a little pommy kid called him for an interview and wacko jacko was having a wank on the other end was creepySo what i’m seeing is that there is still a lot of question surrounding the allegations that he moleste children. For the people just assuming he did, would you also assume any man accused of sexually harassing a woman, based on the same evidence, was guilty? Because I seriously fucking doubt it. Almost any thread i’ve Seen in which a woman accuses a man of sexual abuse or harassment has most of these same people citing evidence or reasons for her story being fake.
Did that happen?the phone call where a little pommy kid called him for an interview and wacko jacko was having a wank on the other end was creepy
please provide a link that supports your claim that these photographs were from a book and not taken by MJ or for MJ.