• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whacko Jacko Kiddie Porn King

Captain Adverse said:
I'm curious.

Did you actually review the material provided in the "Read the Reports" link in the article? I just finished.

Nothing appears to be as the article states. In fact, page after page states that the "documents" were books, videos, and photos that displayed no illegal pornography.

Instead, the expert keeps saying "in my professional opinion these items were part of a grooming process." This comment switched on my "Defense Attorney Radar" as intentionally prejudicial. Reviewing these materials page by page I would have brought in counter-experts to refute this statement for each and every "Item"...easily.

Evidentiary items are supposed to be identified clinically, without personal opinion involved. You identify an item clearly, without editorializing. Professional opinion takes place in Court during a battle of the experts.

Now I don't know what was really going on with Michael Jackson. I doubt we will ever know the truth since it is easier to denigrate than it is to review things with an open mind. But this article is just a smear campaign and an impersonal review of the documents failed to support the article's claims.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. If it was actual child porn, then he would probably have been toast. But, isn't any image of a nude child illegal? I know you can't film a naked minor
 
calamity said:
That makes sense. If it was actual child porn, then he would probably have been toast.
Click to expand...

COnsidering that DA's can and do get a convictions on Child Porn when the kids in the pics have all their clothes on and no one touches them the fact the Wacko was not convicted of anything says something.
 
calamity said:
That makes sense. If it was actual child porn, then he would probably have been toast. But, isn't any image of a nude child illegal? I know you can't film a naked minor
Click to expand...

Hard to say. There are some considerations for natural photos (i.e. un-posed pictures parents might take of their children for family albums...you've all heard of the "baby on the rug" type), but it is simply safer to not have any at all since the hysteria is more likely than not to misinterpret even such innocent pictures.

Consider all the horrible implications when a teen takes a picture of him or herself and finds themselves charged and convicted of child pornography.

IMO, assume the worst and make sure your kids are always properly dressed from diapers to swimsuits. :shrug:
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hard to say. There are some considerations for natural photos (i.e. un-posed pictures parents might take of their children for family albums...you've all heard of the "baby on the rug" type), but it is simply safer to not have any at all since the hysteria is more likely than not to misinterpret even such pictures.

IMO, assume the worst and make sure your kids are always properly dressed from diapers to swimsuits. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The government did that on purpose, did not give you clean rules (exactly like they do with sexual consent) so that you will be confused and scared and will error on the side of doing nothing that could possibly offend your government minders.

****. THEM!

I am not having it.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Some people collect pics of gruesome death scenes...No really, this is a thing.

Freaks are freaks

WACKO. JACKO.
Click to expand...

pooping-dog-calendar-2.jpg
 
I am sorry, did we slip back into the '90s?

Where has this information been for the past 20 years?
 
At the sheriff's office until Radar Online went after them?
 
Mason66 said:
I am sorry, did we slip back into the '90s?

Where has this information been for the past 20 years?
Click to expand...

A lot of details were never released. These are just a few.

The wife said Neverland Ranch was still up for sale. $100M. It's been up for a year, no takers. She asked, "Who lives at an amusement park?"

My answer: a child molester.
 
calamity said:
A lot of details were never released. These are just a few.

The wife said Neverland Ranch was still up for sale. $100M. It's been up for a year, no takers. She asked, "Who lives at an amusement park?"

My answer: a child molester.
Click to expand...

I know a kid that was left with Michael, like as a baby sitter in the '80s, and SHE told me nothing untoward ever happened.

Maybe it was just boys, who knows.
 
Mason66 said:
I know a kid that was left with Michael, like as a baby sitter in the '80s, and SHE told me nothing untoward ever happened.

Maybe it was just boys, who knows.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the situation is that it was definitely a boy thing...and, he had a way of sorting them out. So, like any predator, he only molested those he knew he could manipulate.
 
Mason66 said:
I am sorry, did we slip back into the '90s?

Where has this information been for the past 20 years?
Click to expand...

It was part of the trial too. My question is --- if the trial was on CourtTV and this evidence was discussed, how one earth are there still people who think he wasn't a sexual deviant?
 
Josie said:
It was part of the trial too. My question is --- if the trial was on CourtTV and this evidence was discussed, how one earth are there still people who think he wasn't a sexual deviant?
Click to expand...

I don't remember any of this information from the trial and I watched most of it.
 
"Whacko Jacko"?

Hmm. I thought that we should have respect for the dead. Or isn't that a common courtesy anymore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom