Worldwide icon-chevron-right Europe icon-chevron-right United Kingdom icon-chevron-right England icon-chevron-right London icon-chevron-right London, it’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson
News / Music

London, it’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson

LEAVING NEVERLAND
Pro Co

I was DJing on the night Michael Jackson died. In the basement of The Social near Oxford Circus. Around 8pm, friends and punters started giving me rumours from the hospital via TMZ. When it was confirmed, I played the acapella of ‘You Are Not Alone’ through layers of slightly ghostly echo. It seemed fitting at the time.

Now, having watched a screening of a forthcoming documentary film about two young boys close to Jackson, I’m not sure I ever want to hear his music played out again. I know this sounds extreme, but I  honestly think you’ll feel the same, very soon.

Set to show on Channel 4 next week, ‘Leaving Neverland’ is a four-hour HBO/Channel 4 doc that lets two men – an American, James Safechuck, and an Australian, Wade Robson – tell their unconnected but darkly similar life stories, having encountered Jackson aged ten and seven respectively.

Both were publicly and visibly child companions of Jackson in his late-’80s megastar heyday, accompanying him on tours, in TV interviews, adverts and more. Both claim they endured HORRIFIC sexual and emotional abuse by Jackson, the details of which are ghastly and intensely shocking. Too shocking for us to print, I’m sorry to say. (For the record, the Jackson estate denies all the film’s allegations and has called the documentary a ‘tabloid character assassination’)

Now, if you love MJ’s music, your impulse might well be to avoid this film. To turn a blind eye to the colossal depravity alleged in it. To continue to stifle the hunch many of us have about him – based on decades of rumours and allegations, evidence from investigations and a trial, plus his very public, unashamed interest in children.

But I’m here to tell you that’s not an option. If you love his music, you can’t run away from the film’s claims about paedophilia. Honestly, what’s more important: music or serious allegations of child abuse? How can there be any debate here? I own the bulk of Jackson’s work on vinyl. I’ve loved his music my entire life, but having seen this film there’s simply no choice. It’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson.

You might think it’s a waste of time to boycott a dead person’s music. But there’s a greater reason why I think the music is done. Jackson’s biggest accomplice in becoming what the film’s director Dan Reed calls ‘a criminal sexual predator’ was his fame. He allegedly used it to dazzle parents with opportunities and wow children to the point of devotion. But like democratic power, fame is something that we the people bestow. And we can take it back.

Carrying on partying to his music sends out the message that we as a society are cool with allegations of child abuse. Doing nothing sends the message to the next powerful and abusive man (it will obviously be a man) that if they couldn’t even be bothered to cancel Michael Jackson, nobody is ever going to stop him. Victims of abuse need our solidarity. They don’t need club after club humming to the sound of an alleged rapist. It’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson.

Luckily, I genuinely believe this city’s music and nightlife community has the strength and morality to respond to this extraordinary issue. Take London’s clubbing scene, which has proved to be a staggeringly progressive force in European culture in the last ten years. It’s worked better than any section of the entertainment industry to promote gender equality, respect LGBT+ creativity and – relevant to MJ – take a moral stand against artists who are proved to be sexist, bigoted or abusive. Put simply: if an artist fucks up, the scene will shun you. Period.

Techno producer Ten Walls never got a gig again after he made outrageously homophobic comments. Ditto, arena-packing DJ Jackmaster after he admitted to being abusive at a festival. Azealia Banks called Zayn Malik ‘curry-scented… Punjab… dirty bitch’ and immediately got dropped as a headliner. And so on. With respect to my fellow Time Out section editors, this kind of decisive moral activity is still rare in the worlds of food, bars, comedy, movies and art.

Off the record, DJs I’ve spoken to recently have already started saying goodbye to their disco edits of ‘Rock with You’, prizing ‘Off the Wall’ out of their record boxes, deleting ‘PYT’ from their memory sticks. I can’t stress how much this is for your own good. After this film, you will not want to listen to Michael Jackson on the dancefloor, at a wedding, at a club, anywhere.

I think it’s essential that ‘Leaving Neverland’ sparks so much outrage that a movement for change begins straight away. Yet outrage itself is a complicated issue in 2019. Take a common reaction to any artist accused of wrongdoing, which goes: ‘But this is hypocritical. If we censor X, then surely we should censor Y and Z too?’ Yes, it’s true that hypocrisies occur. For instance, there’s no mob of people trying to purge the music of David Bowie, despite a well-known claim that he took a 15-year-old’s virginity in California during the early ’70s – which under state law would classify Bowie as a rapist. That’s undeniably a double standard, but it shouldn’t stop us getting mad about Jackson.

When conversations around abuse and morality explode and become newsworthy, they genuinely have the ability to affect the way the world thinks. This is finally happening with R Kelly, whose alleged sexual abuse victims are only now being supported by the mainstream. This is also happening with Ryan Adams, who’s been accused of being deeply abusive to young female fans and respected fellow artists alike. Hypocrisy is a small price to pay if victims are finally being believed, if marginalised voices are being heard. Don’t we all now wish we’d supported sooner the brave people who spoke out about Jimmy Savile? Or Bill Cosby? Or Gary Glitter? For the chance to show support with victims alone, it’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson.

If you’ve read all this and think I’m overreacting, see the film and make up your own mind. If you’re cynically minded and instinctively think the two men are liars (or just after money, a picture Jackson habitually tried to paint of any accuser), see the film and make up your own mind. Yes, Michael Jackson made some of the finest music ever recorded, but it’s not enough any more. Letting his songs stay ingrained in the fabric of our society says that our society is morally dead. 

‘Leaving Neverland’ will be shown in two parts on Channel 4 on Mar 6 and Mar 7.

Advertising
Advertising

Comments

67 comments
Sue J

Well Oliver, here we are along the line a ways and don't know if you've kept up with the whole Leaving Neverland farce which has become more and more disputed along the way BY THE DAY!! Take for instance: a director (Egghead Dan Reed) who, like yourself, clearly researched Michael Jackson as a human being on the most minimal scale possible!!!


Just one example : James Safechuck's classic lie about being "abused" in the Neverland train by Michael.... EXCEPT said train and railway wasn't built for another two years, oops!!!


Suffice to say, Jacobshagen is as much a lying crook as the other three and here's an expose on him: 


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K8lYPCtiXLE


You know, you can bitch or diss us, MJ's fans, if you wish but here's where you might give us indirect thanks because actually, as far as researching with facts and credibility go, we do your job for you, just much BETTER!! 


Now, I'm off to listen to MJ, please do NOT  EVER tell me who I can and can listen to, you are aware England is a free country, right??!! 



Sue Jackson - England 

6th April 2019 

Ayda L

Hi Oliver, thank your for your column. I think however that you are "fan-shaming" me as an MJ-fan. 

I get the feeling that you are perceiveing yourself and those who believe the two men's stories as the "good" people and the rest of us who want to see and read a little more investigative journalism, but for that reason not judge the two men's stories as lies, are the "bad" ones and that we are victim-shaming them. That you, when you choose to stop playing and listening to MJ are doing the right  thing and the rest of us who choose to keep listening are doing wrong. That we lack morals. 

As an MJ fan, I just want to say that most of us go through a painful time with complex and conflicting thoughts and feelings about this whole thing. Of course, it is worse for the two men, if their stories are true, to live and handle this for the rest of their lives.



I also think that you are stressing us to make up our minds about this whole thing extremely fast. 3 weeks ago the world was preparing tributes of the passing of Michael Jackson. And now the world wants to dig him up from his grave, puke on him and kill him. Again. It takes time to process the film and the allegations, maybe months, years. I don´t know.


You are free, like the rest of us, to share your opinion but please do not tell us what to do or think. We are not forcing you to keep playing Michael Jackson if that is your choice and wish. We are (still) independent individuals with minds of our own.


With much respect to you and Timeout magazine,

Ayda Lund

(Sorry for the broken English, I live in Sweden)

georgia a

Thank you. It is time to take a moral stand.

mark t

I never listened to Michel Jackson and have no desire to. However,surely one must "categorise".I don't regret once having gone to a Gary Glitter concert. Almost all idols have feet of  clay if you look deep enough,surely?


Clubland's pc blacklisting of artists because of a comment or two is indefensible. They should be judged on their abilities,not their politics. How about an alternative circuit of blacklisted artistes?

Pete D

I think you are reacting in short soundbites and thinking about it too black and white- pardon the pun. Life isn't like that I'm afraid- it's very grey. For instance as Jill said in Nighty Night- 'Peter and Sonia Sutcliffe had some lovely days out when he wasn't raping'. We are all not one thing or another- we are all flawed. By listening to Michael's music, we are not accepting his alleged abuse, we are just appreciating that he was also a talented musician.

lea r

Ok I think I get this now this is time outs way of getting publicity!!! It has to be!!! .... Reversed psychology as this is an extremely bad article and the amount of recaction from it is immense and the the majority all backing our beloved MJ.

Love you always MJ always have & always will you are a complete Legend and forever listen to your music !

With that in mind I feel I cannot and will not add to this forelore of ludicrously!

Leslie S

One of the two accusers came up with this story after being snubbed for a job with the MJ-Estate. He first shopped for a book-deal for his story, which was rejected by publishers. He then went on to file a civil-suit against the Estate to get hundreds of millions of dollars (yes, you read the amount right) and was joined in that by the other guy, both sharing the same lawyer. 


The judge found that their sworn testimony was so riddled with easily documented lies and contradictions that "no rational trier of fact could possibly believe" them. Both are in debt. Robson in particular is also obsessed with becoming famous (his career had been failing shortly before he came up with his story). One of the items submitted as evidence in court during their civil trial was a note he wrote to himself, which read "My story of abuse will make me more relevant/relatable". This is all a matter of public record, so anyone interested can read up for themselves.


During his lifetime, Jackson was subjected to a long and thorough investigation by the FBI (incl. unannounced raids of his properties), which found no evidence of any wrongdoing (his file is on the public record). He was cleared in trial, with accusers having been exposed as grifters. He made himself an easy target, and he paid for that dearly. He was surrounded by sharks.


Accusers with a well-documented and obvious financial incentive, especially now that the man can't defend himself, should not be believed in spite of evidence contradicting their claims, just because they repeat them in a movie with background music and mood-lighting.

Stephon

So, are y'all going to ban Elvis Presley's music too? For sleeping w/ a 14 year old Priscilla??? Or is it just for black musicians?

Richard L

Dear author... please list ALL the "evidence from investigations" you found. FYR, the FBI found no evidence.... so ? 

BeeBee R

This article is absolute trash. WHAT kind of journalist are you??? Did you fact check ANYTHING? So because two people that previously went under OATH stating that Michael Jackson NEVER touched them is now saying this, it must be true? DO YOUR RESEARCH. This is a MONEY grab. PERIOD.

Joachim R

That‘s a rather stupid line of argumentation. Whatever someone did or did not do in his private life, has no bearings on her or his work or art (even though it may contribute to better understand and interpret the given piece)

How many books, sculptures, paintings, music or even relevant scientific research would you, Oliver, want the world to scrap and forget about just because the respective creator happened to be a factual or potential asshole?? How much of an asshole would you yourself turn into if you ever came to immense richness and or power?

C‘mon people, stop being immature and let‘s stop this childish ‚political correctness bullshit‘.

If MJ or anyone else committed crime, let justice forcefully deal with it. But that‘s there is to it.

uvioletrae

Where to even start? You do know people make false accusations, right? Money is probably the biggest reason. And it's an undeniable fact that Robson/Safechuck have a $1.5 billion claim in appeals court (despite their false claim they have no financial incentive to do this film). Drumming up public support has been a reliable method of swaying courts in the US, see for example, Bill Cosby. Tabloid justice seems a likely litigation strategy here.
 

So why are Reed, Robson and Safechuck lying about *the fact* that they have a financial incentive for making these accusations? Shouldn't journos be thinking more critically about this? And why won't Robson/Safechuck come clean about their meeting in 2014 (see depo transcripts where their lawyer won't allow questions about this)? Why aren't journos curious about why they share an attorney, giving them plenty of ways to align their stories?


Sorry. But the club scene in London is not going to be sufficient to fill the shoes of an artist like Jackson. If you think I'm overreacting, I sincerely hope you will dig into the scholarly literature on Jackson and start thinking more seriously about his cultural significance and why these accusations are so entertaining to some. I would also encourage you to put your emotional feelings about this "documentary" aside long enough to make your way through court transcripts and documents that will give you much more detailed information. When you get a fuller picture, you can then "make up your own mind."


Seth C

No other option? Of course you have the option: to FACT CHECK these accusers and look at what they did and said in court over the last 6 years as they tried to extort money from MJ's Estate with every trick under the Sun.

You have the option to study MJ's history and who he was falsely accused by even those who never even met him. Daniel Kapon and Joe Bartucci fabricated graphic allegations against him, horrible just like Robson's and Safechuck's. They never ever met MJ. They lied. So did a Canadian boy in 1995 who accused him of graphic detailed abuse. He was such a good liar he fooled the police before he admitted none of it was true.
A woman names Jane Doe accused MJ of molesting her at age 12 15. She was recruited by Robson's lawyers to play the victim around 2016 Halloween to generate some bad press for the Estate. She accused MJ of rape. Just like Robson. Same lawyer same lies. The woman then dismissed her own lawsuit and vanished.

Recently Michael Jacobshagen accused MJ of abuse. He came up with a story of sleepovers, Jacuzzi, being close to MJ for years and how MJ gave him a book with pics of nude boy and he inscribed it. Except none of it is true. MJ only met him once in 1998 with other people present, German TV reported it at the time, Jacobshagen had nothing but good to say about MJ. He was never alone with him let alone have sleepovers with him. After MJ died Jacobshagen tried to make money by writing a book about his non existent long term relationship . He also forged MJ's writings and German TV exposed him for selling fake items to fans.
Now once against seeing an opportunity to cash in he changed his tune and concocted an elaborate story of how MJ abused him and gave him a book with his inscription. Except it's forgery.

FIVE people who falsely accused MJ of sex abuse for much less than the hundreds of millions Robson and Safechuck are demanding. And you want to ban MJ's music based on their allegations alone? 



Asha N

oh oh, one more thing! ... what about that article photo?? is that the best you could find? because it looks like a perfectly normal picture to me, nothing wrong with it at all. i guess you couldn't find anything nasty. You've just made a really bad impression of yourself with this article, trying to start some sort of rebell movement and riff between people. MJ was a star, he'll always be remembered for being a musical legend. this stupid article wont even make it to the end of this week.

Leonard

MJ's music will continue to be played around the globe, no amount of BS they come up with will ever change that. If YOU personally don't play it anymore, good for you. You don't get to tell other's what they should or shouldn't do.

Asha N

Oliver Keens, how dare you write this disgusting article about a dead legend, one who wanted nothing but peace and betterment for this world. You rather believe a 4 hour film by two unknown people who are desperate for fame and money? They are the ones taking undue advantage, not Michael. MJ was not a child molester, he was a child at heart. He was a musician, a hero, a performer, a talented artist with a celebrated and yet tragic life. You will never understand it. But what gives you the right to tell others to boycott his music? His music has healed people, has transcended race and religion, has united old and young. He has collaborated with the creme de la creme, and they wouldnt do so if he was a child molester. I cant believe that people including yourself are still bothered attacking him, may his soul rest in piece. I am shocked that you were allowed to publish this article. Stand for unity and peace, not for dividing people and starting a war. Shame on you.

- asha

Rachel S

Roman Polanski was a child abuser but Hollywood still applaud him.

Seth C

@Rachel S And MJ was innocent and the US and UK media smears him every day because to proven liars who want money from his estate made a 100% one sided disgusting movie.

Jeff M

Why don't delete your own record collection and leave the totalitarian censuring stuff to another country that does stuff like that to its citizens? Maybe you'll add: Elvis Presley, Jimmy Page, Marvin Gaye, 2Pac, Jerry Lee Lewis, Don Henley, Chuck Berry and on and on...In the meantime, millions of people will continue to listen to Michael Jackson's music.

Joe S

Same reason I can't listen to Lost Prophets again...

uvioletrae

@lanie d @Truth B The jurors who suddenly changed their minds are the jurors who decided to shop book deals. At the time, no one wanted to publish a pro-Jackson book. The money was in salacious material, true or false didn't matter. That's what was profitable. (just like now)

Truth B

@Joe S Ian Watkins was found guilty and is in prison. Michael Jackson was found innocent and is dead and has no right to reply...Just because someone says something about someone doesn't mean you get to ignore the facts. 

lanie d

@Truth B He was never "found innocent".  He was found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt".  And a few jurors said afterwards they believed he was guilty but were bullied and pressured into voting not guilty. 

Seth C

@Joe S Except MJ was innocent! These two men in the movie repeatedly lied in court since they changed their tune in 2013 and sued MJ's Estate for millions. 

This movie is 100% one sided propaganda. There is an ocean of evidence these two men are liars

and fabricated their allegations by copying Victor Guteirrez's pro pedophilia fiction book.

The media is covering up for them.

Seth C

@lanie d @Truth B Those jurors wanted to profit from a guilty verdict and had a bookdeal with a crooked tabloid hack. The honest jurors said it was pretty clear there was no molestation and the mother coached the boys to lie. That family had a history of falsely accusing people of sex abuse and lying under oath. The case was a total farce. There was way more than just reasonable doubt.

There was no doubt MJ was framed by those grifters.

Seth C

@lanie d @Truth B None of those jurors said after the verdict that they were bullied into voting not guilty. They only came up with that excuse weeks later while trying to publish a book. In fact Elenor Cook, one of those corrupt jurors said on Larry King that she made friends with the other jurors and it was a great experience. 

No credible person ever said MJ was guilty. Not one.

Paul G

Can you substantiate your last statement Ianie? Because I’ve had a look and not found any genuine evidence of bullying or pressuring of that particular jury.

Not guilty against 14 charges, in the face of a prosecution that cost $5 million... there’s just no way you can compare that to Watkins

Seth C

@Joe S Except Watkins if a proven pedo who had child p o r n and admitted to be a pedo. How can you compare that to MJ who never admitted wrongdoing to the contrary, who has no proof against him whatsoever, who doesn't have any credible accuser but dozens of people who grew up with him defend him even today? 

uvioletrae

@lanie d @Truth B Not true. His attorneys didn't try his case as a reasonable doubt case. They promised they would prove his accusers were lying and they did. Read it for yourself.

Thomas B

It would appear from reading some of the comments on this page that thre are still many MJ fans who will continue to defend him by gving the same old excuses. MJ managed to escape justice through his wealth, through his lawyers, through his fame and through the abusive and insulting behaviour of his fans who bullied his victims. I salute you for the article you have written, and I hope that our society will reach a turning point where celebrity can be challenged and justice done. The abuse from his fans will continue, but as time passes they will become smaller in number and will be viewed by us all as apologists for a child sex offender.

Chantel W

@Thomas B


"MJ managed to escape justice through his wealth, through his lawyers, through his fame and through the abusive and insulting behaviour of his fans who bullied his victims."


Jackson escaped nothing. Had he "escaped", he would be like Elvis: a man who we all know was sexually and romantically involved with underage girls - his wife Priscilla being one of them - and yet somehow manages to skate through society without so much as a outcry or a finger wag.


Truth B

@Thomas B You're the only person who is deluded. You clearly either haven't looked into the cases at all.

lanie d

@Thomas B Exactly.  These people could see a video of him doing it and they would still defend him.  Celebrity worship is beyond absurd in 2019 - after we've seen so many of them do atrocious things that betray their public image.   These people will defend him sleeping in the same bed as young boys -- a behavior that should NEVER be defended or normalized.. all because he danced well and had some good music.   At minimum he crossed boundaries and acted inappropriately.. but they still defend him.   

Seth C

@lanie d @Thomas B No, we defend him because we actually read the court documents, books, watched video evidence, listened to the dozens of kids who grew up with him 

followed these two serial liars in the movie and know for fact they are lying.

MJ shared his bed with men women boys girls alike not just boys and only when those people wanted to sleep there. Wade Robson testified that he asked if he can sleep in MJ's room, Gavin Arvizos told Bashir he ASKED if he can sleep there, June Chandler testifed Jordan asked her to allow him to sleep in MJ's room. Kids followed MJ like ducks MJ just allowed them to stay out of kindness. Ask Macaulay Culkin Brett Barnes Corey Feldman Taj Jackson Simone Jackson Mark Ronson if you don't believe me.

It's not about his music or dance. It's about the ovewhelming evidence that he was a kindhearted, benevolent, innocent person who has been brutally treated by a corrupt senstationalist media and a few crooked false accusers who wanted to get rich by inventing all kinds of sex stories about him.

Seth C

@Thomas B You are rewriting history. MJ was one of the most investigated prosectuted man in recent times, millions were wasted to try to find evidence against him. FBI LAPD SBDS DCFS and the media all investigated him , everyone with power was against him: media judge DA police except nobody ever found any proof he ever committed any crime. The accusers were not victims, and they could say anything about Jackson and get away with it. nobody ever was afraid of Jackson and his fans had no power. the police, judge media had. Jackson didn't get away with anything , his false accusers got away with extortion and countless perjuries.

Jackson was falsely accused because of his money, Chandler Arvizos Francia all wanted to get rich with those bogus accusations. And he has been treated horribly by the mass media because of his fame. The jurors were white and conservatives and not his fans.

If you think he got away with it, well, what exactly do you think he should have been convicted for? 

uvioletrae

@Thomas B "abuse from his fans"? It seems to me the shoe is on the other foot. False accusations = abuse.

uvioletrae

@lanie d @Thomas B Not true. They wouldn't. They are staunch defenders and protectors of children. (and that's putting it mildly.)

p l

He was pretty much taken off the radio before he died. There were lots of allegations going round at the time, I remember thinking I’d not heard a Michael Jackson song on the radio for ages, that was in 2008 and I swear I didn’t hear one (in the UK) until he died. After that his music was all over the radio.

Seth C


@p l No allegations were going around before he died let alone lots of. The Arvizos and only the Arvizos accused him in 2005, the rest was made up by the media. TheUK media brutalized MJ for decades. And it's obvious why. He was black, huge and not one of you. Bowie could have s e x with underage girls and you the UK treats him like a hero.

Jini C

Keyword here is "alleged". There was no evidence found against him in court and now that he is dead gold diggers are coming out of the woodwork to get their pound of flesh. Always been an MJ fan and always will be, despite the lies people try to spread. What's more important, good music or buying into lies and bs, umm music. Anybody who truly loves music would say the same.

Sandeep P

Can I have your MJ vinyl? Please?

Chantel W

"For the chance to show support with victims alone, it’s time to stop listening to Michael Jackson." 


A fatal error. We have undeniable evidence that individuals like R. Kelly, Jimmy Saville, Bill Cosby (at his own admission during trial), and Gary Glitter are guilty. We, however, do not have undeniable evidence to confirm that Michael Jackson was guilty of committing the crimes the media, as well as the uninformed public, continue to try him for long after his death.


"Leaving Neverland" contains ALLEGATIONS of child sexual abuse crimes from two individuals who have continued to change their claims year by year, day by day. Individuals who are taking advantage of the "believe victims" climate created by #MeToo in hopes that people will simply take what they say at face value and not do their own background research to confirm the validity of their claims - and many people have already proven them right. 


There was an extensive trial in 2005 against Jackson in which "evidence" from 1993 and the 2003 allegations were brought into the courtroom. The jury chose not to convict because they not only found the Arvisos unbelievable, but that the "evidence" compiled by the prosecution was either greatly disproven at court or found to be extremely unreliable (case in point: all of the witnesses they called to the stand). Consider this as well as the fact that the FBI, two different California police departments, and several other agencies assisted in investigative and technical support in 1993 and 2005 and still found nothing to confirm Jackson's guilt.


What does this tell you? That we should not compare the allegations being brought forth in this movie to that of the crimes of R.Kelly, Jimmy Saville, and co. That we should be looking at EACH on a case by case basis and looking at ALL of the allegations - Chandler, Francia (both of which he was also acquitted of in 2005), Robson, and Safechuck - brought against Jackson on a case by case basis as well. 

sandy h

The investigators found a sickening collection of pornography that included images and footage of naked children and adults, as well as animal torture, bondage and sado-masochism


I love how his crazy fans like to ignore stuff like the fact that their innocent peter pan who slept with kids for decades also owned disgusting pornography 

no jury wouldve found him guilty cause they are part of the blind 

Chantel W

@sandy h


This is an extremely irresponsible comment. 


Child pornography was never found in his home. This was confirmed by former Senior Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen, who helped prosecute Jackson in 2005.



Gary C

Where on earth did you get that information from? The person in the mirror behind you? Loon!

Andrea B

Sorry I didn’t get to the end of your long ramble but what you have written is not true. If police had found child porn at MJs house he’d have been in jail. Such material is illegal.

If anyone reading this wants a list of all the million+ books they found at MJs house, this list is available online within the court transcripts of the case.

Seth C

@sandy h No they did not. That was tabloid junk by Radar Online. In reality they only found ADULT magazines ADULT DVDs, and a few art books which you can find on Amazon. MJ had about 10000 books and 100s of art books and few among them which had nude models. Have you wondered why the media didn't condemn the authors, publishers of those books? Only MJ? 

There was no animal torture LOL the media called Simen Johan's Room to play animal torture book. It's just a surreal art photo book, the very same pictures were in exhibitions. 

The sado maso book was a Japanese art book, again, anyone can buy it, and MJ had 100s of art books, people sent him such books. No evidence he ever opened. An how does an ADULT sado maso book prove he was into boy anyway? 

Virtually every adult men have  pornography. Why should MJ be convicted for having the same? 

None of it was illegal. MJ liked women and liked to look at nude women. So what?

A S

Just because it’s 4 hours, it’s graphic, it doesn’t make it TRUE!!!!!! This was their aim!! To make the CRAZIEST POSSIBLE STORIES TO MAKE U GO ‘WOW!! I hate this man!’ This was their goal...