About These ‘New’ Michael Jackson Evidence

Written by | June 24, 2016 5:19 am | one response

Share
porn

 

People’s short memory and lack of perspicacity will always surprise me. The fact that tabloids and other publications can trumpet everywhere that they have obtained new documents from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department baffles me! Don’t get me wrong, I am not defending Michael Jackson here and I am well aware that these documents are real, but new documents? There is nothing new, really nothing. If people would only pay attention.

If you had followed the excellent reportages by Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair and read her articles back then (Nightmare in Neverland, Losing his grip, Neverland’s Lost Boys, C.S.I. Neverland) you would know that these ‘new’ items, featuring pornography and S&M, are really old news. Michael Jackson had a pornographic collection? Plenty of books with photos of naked young boys, or photos of men engaging in sexual acts? Again nothing new, Maureen Orth had reported about it in 2007, and all these items had been seized during a 2003 raid of the singer’s house. Orth attended the trial and during a cross examination, she described this scene between Ron Zonen, an expert on child-abuse cases, and 22-year-old choreographer Wade Robson, a former “special friend” of Jackson’s who had begun sleeping with the pop star at the age of seven and denied any allegation of molestation (he has since changed his mind by the way):

‘He [Zonen] strode over to the table where the evidence was kept and pulled out a large photo book called Boys Will Be Boys. Over and over he asked Robson to pick a page and describe what he saw—naked boys of 10, 11, or 12 with their genitalia prominently displayed. Then Zonen produced a second book, “of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another.” He asked, “And, in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex, or sodomy; is that right?” Robson said yes. “Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a 10-year-old boy?” Robson said, “Yes, I guess so.” And so on. Every time Mesereau [the chief defense counsel] tried to blunt the previous testimony, Zonen would get up and grab another book—seven in all.’

Clearly the pornographic material (or part of it) was presented during the trial. In Orth’s articles, you can read other parts like this one:

‘The accuser testified that Michael had given him a jacket and a watch he told him was worth $75,000. He also said Michael had taught him how to eavesdrop on phone conversations in Neverland. He recounted how Michael had once simulated sex with a mannequin of a young girl, and how they had looked at pornography in magazines and on the Internet. An issue of Barely Legal magazine presented as evidence had both their fingerprints on it. Police searching Neverland in 2003 had found dozens of erotic magazines and books in Jackson’s bedroom and bathroom.’

So why are people now surprised to learn about pornographic material? It was presented at the trial! But people once again have a very short attention span. A few years ago I found this file (below) of the superior court of Santa Barbara and downloaded it over the internet. It compiles all the items that were seized at Neverland and that Zonen and his team were fighting to present during the trial,… and this long list is so compelling.

Thus when I see Radar on Line pretending to have acquired new material, I think they are rehashing this old file just because it’s gonna be the anniversary of Jackson’s death in a few days. It’s a shame, and false reporting. There is nothing new, the evidence have always been there.

List of items seized at Michael Jackson’s Neverland ranch

One Response to “About These ‘New’ Michael Jackson Evidence”

  1. David

    You may not be “defending” Michael Jackson, but I am! He was 100% innocent, and it’s abundantly clear that your knowledge of the case is exclusively drawn from Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair articles, which amount to nothing more than sensationalized yellow journalism, completely devoid of the mountains of exculpatory evidence showing that Jackson was 100% innocent and maliciously prosecuted by a fame thirsty DA who wanted a conviction, rather than justice.

    Here’s a suggestion for you: please read this summary of the trial to learn all of the exculpatory facts that Orth deliberately excluded from her articles: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

    And read this rebuttal to the false story that Jackson had “child porn” at Neverland. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

    Please read both articles from start to finish, and let me know if you still think Jackson was guilty (which you strongly implied by stating that you’re not defending him). Thank you.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *