• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Footage of Michael Jackson ring shopping with a young boy resurfaces

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,744
While a little weird, it's just a ring. Maybe the boy asked for it, maybe it was MJ's way of showing appreciation to a kid, don't forget that he's always been kinda odd like that
Or maybe it was rewards for specific sexual acts, as the person in the video later said in the documentary. MAYBE....
 
Jan 12, 2018
304
Pretty much everyone I know who casually hung out with adults without their parents when they were 9-12 years old were molested by those adults. Just saying, these totally non-sexual child-adult friendships might not be as common as you think.
 
Nov 7, 2017
401
Pretty much everyone I know who casually hung out with adults without their parents when they were 9-12 years old were molested by those adults. Just saying, these totally non-sexual child-adult friendships might not be as common as you think.
What about friendships with millionaires who have rooms full of pornography and books filled with naked pics of kids? They're innocent enough according to some here.
 
Jan 21, 2019
347
I have been in contact with a mod because I was banned last time for being disingenuous and I don't want to repeat that.
So I shall be clear of my position.
In my eyes Michael Jackson is guilty for sleeping with all these kids. Because he is an adult and he is responsible and should have known that that was wrong. He should have been penalized for it the moment it was known. In that way he abused these children.
Now I don't know if he is guilty of sexually molesting children. I really don't know. That's why I want as much information as possible to come forward and as much information presented.
And I see posts here and on the internet of both sides that bring good points.
That's maybe why I come over as disingenuous.
So I have said to the mod that I am not going to post here anymore on this thread.
But hopefully now you know my position more.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,238
What? Wait what are you even talking about? I don't follow. If you think I'm defending MJ just stop and read my other posts please, this shit is infuriating and I don't even know what you're replying to.
Sorry bro. Nothing against you. I simply quoted you necause you hung out woth older people. Just making the point that social network didn't exist back then and people still knew right from wrong.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,238
Pretty much everyone I know who casually hung out with adults without their parents when they were 9-12 years old were molested by those adults. Just saying, these totally non-sexual child-adult friendships might not be as common as you think.
Same. My older cousin is a molester and did this to me and my other cousins. I can remember every detail.

Adults DO NOT become friends with children long term unless they have an agenda. They dont. Anyone who says otherwise is naive.
 
Nov 7, 2017
401
I bet she hasn't watched the documentary
To be fair to Paris Jackson, you can't really expect her to do anything differently.. it's her father after all. She's not going to ever entertain the notion, IMO.
I have been in contact with a mod because I was banned last time for being disingenuous and I don't want to repeat that.
So I shall be clear of my position.
In my eyes Michael Jackson is guilty for sleeping with all these kids. Because he is an adult and he is responsible and should have known that that was wrong. He should have been penalized for it the moment it was known. In that way he abused these children.
Now I don't know if he is guilty of sexually molesting children. I really don't know. That's why I want as much information as possible to come forward and as much information presented.
And I see posts here and on the internet of both sides that bring good points.
That's maybe why I come over as disingenuous.
So I have said to the mod that I am not going to post here anymore on this thread.
But hopefully now you know my position more.
I'm not sure how anyone could be needing more evidence at this point. Probably for the best.
 
Nov 7, 2017
401
Wait, wait, what? Earlier folks were out here being like "these photography books are right there on Amazon" but these are books made by convicted abusers???
Yeah, apparently they were convicted. They are connected to NAMBLA, iirc. Look up Michael Jacobshagen and the pics of the inscription in the copy of that book he has. It's like "WOW! --> Enjoy my Rubba Rubba Boy' with an arrow pointing to the opposite page or something equally as horrifying.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,443
USA
I think laws pertaining to what constitutes child porn were different then. I remember seeing stuff about 10 years ago about websites that offered pictures of “child models” in bathing suits that skirted laws because the children weren’t nude and eventually became illegal because they obviously were sexualizing children and were therefore porn.

I think if Michael were caught with those books today he would be put away. I mean it’s photos of naked kids compiled and edited by convicted child abusers.
Yo what?

Man and we had to endure all this /finger in the air "well technically they're legal".. and they were compiled by convicted child abusers??
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,011
No. I don't care whether he was a nobody, or made good music or cured cancer. A pedo is a pedo is a pedo. Anyone who defends him gets the side eye.

I know you're not defending him btw. Just saying.
Lol, I was about to go OFF. I agree with all of that. I just understand why it’s hard for them.
 

Andrew-Ryan

Banned
Member
Dec 4, 2018
290
Just seen what type of books MJ had. My mistake pal, really sorry for what turned out to be a pointless and ignorant discussion on my part. I guess I wasn't totally versed on this subject. I'm big enough to own up when I've been in the wrong. So again sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
306
"I need more evidence"

We are reaching a point with many evidence and one escalating more than the previous one, that probably the only evidence left are explicit videos of MJ doing it...

The guy is a pedophile. Accept it. If you want to keep hearing his music, fine by you, but the guy is a fucking pedo and child molester
 

Andrew-Ryan

Banned
Member
Dec 4, 2018
290
You seem to be conflating "grooming" with "proof that he sexually abused children". You do realize you can groom without ever committing sexual assault right? It's about intent.

So, let me ask you then. Do you think a grown man, who admitted to sleeping alone with strange children didn't have a sexual motivation in doing so? Show me one, single case of a man who develops inappropriate relationships with children and sleeps, in the same bed with them, alone (after convincing the parents to provide access to their children via gifts and persuasion), without any sexual intent (someone who was already proven to be in possession of sexually explicit and nude child images). I'll wait.

Let's look up an extended description of grooming:


So you're really gunna sit there and tell me this isn't black and white grooming? He admitted to doing this exact act on camera. The above description describes what MJ did, exactly, without having any proof that he actually committed illegal sexual acts.

Now, to your accusation that I lied about what you said. Your claim:

Your post in question:

This is absolutely a defense of MJ sleeping with children. You're excusing it as not being clear abuse when it is. Full stop.

So, if you wanna amend this to "he abused children, but it's not proven that he sexually abused them", I'll wait.
Yeah sorry pal, just saw the court findings about the books MJ had. I'd always read he didn't have any books relating to stuff like that but that seems to have just been a BS technicality. Without question a massive smoking gun that. Sorry for being ignorant during this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
15,443
USA
Andrew-Ryan Nah. I'm not doing some shitty back and forth quote for quote with someone who can't even fucking admit that MJ's intent lines up with what defines grooming, literally word for word. You're really gunna sit there and argue "well, maybe he didn't have sexual intentions", when he admitted to sleeping with children in bed and fits the definition of a groomer to a T.

You don't get to claim strawman because you said something you didn't mean. My point was that I was clarifying that you do, in fact, acknowledge that he abused children, even without considering the accusations.

This started because you made a shitty defense, whether intentional or not, of MJ by trying to argue that's not factual that he abused children.

And yes he did have sexually explicit images of children. Someone posted it a few pages back:

Oh, ok, you're gunna put me on ignore because you can't admit that a grown man sleeping with strange children has sexual intentions. You are a coward and are trying to get out on the technicality of "well, we can't prove that his intentions were sexual", even though every single piece of evidence shows that this was the case.

A grown adult doesn't develop close relationships with children and their guardians and sleep in their beds without sexual intent.

Yet you're going to sit here and call my arguments disingenuous, lol. I know you'll read this so let me point you to the docs that prove he had child porn, even if it wasn't illegal at the time:
"A photograph of a a young boy holding an umbrella, wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down"

That is a sexually explicit image.
 

Andrew-Ryan

Banned
Member
Dec 4, 2018
290
Andrew-Ryan Nah. I'm not doing some shitty back and forth quote for quote with someone who can't even fucking admit that MJ's intent lines up with what defines grooming, literally word for word. You're really gunna sit there and argue "well, maybe he didn't have sexual intentions", when he admitted to sleeping with children in bed and fits the definition of a groomer to a T.

You don't get to claim strawman because you said something you didn't mean. My point was that I was clarifying that you do, in fact, acknowledge that he abused children, even without considering the accusations.

This started because you made a shitty defense, whether intentional or not, of MJ by trying to argue that's not factual that he abused children.

And yes he did have sexually explicit images of children. Someone posted it a few pages back:

Oh, ok, you're gunna put me on ignore because you can't admit that a grown man sleeping with strange children has a sexual component. You are a fucking coward and are trying to get out on the technicality of "well, we can't prove that his intentions were sexual", even though every single piece of evidence shows that this was the case.

You don't develop close relationships with children and their adults and sleep with them without an explicitly sexual intent.

Yet you're going to sit here and call my arguments disingenuous, lol. I know you'll read this so let me point you to the docs that prove he had child porn, even if it wasn't illegal at the time:
"A photograph of a a young boy holding an umbrella, wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down"

That is sexually explicit.
Corrected myself later on mate after I read what exactly the books were and who published them. Don't think you can have any questions about his intentions after learning that out. Like I said sorry of the moronic ignorance on my part and for some of my petty behavior.
 
Nov 7, 2017
401
Corrected myself later on mate after I read what exactly the books were and who published them. Don't think you can have any questions about his intentions after learning that out. Like I said sorry of the moronic ignorance on my part and for some of my petty behavior.
I think that evidence sheet was what pushed me over the edge, too. There's just... no denying it after seeing that.
 

Andrew-Ryan

Banned
Member
Dec 4, 2018
290
I think that evidence sheet was what pushed me over the edge, too. There's just... no denying it after seeing that.
Yeah like I said I'd always read that it wasn't anything related to sexual images of children but didn't know exactly what they were. When you read what the actual books were about I'm lost for words at how they're "legally" allowed and how it seems he got off an on BS technicality since they couldn't be admitted into evidence.
 
Nov 7, 2017
401
Yeah like I said I'd always read that it wasn't anything related to sexual images of children but didn't know exactly what they were. When you read what the actual books were about I'm lost for words at how they're "legally" allowed and how it seems he got off an on BS technicality since they couldn't be admitted into evidence.
Even one of the jurors said he thinks he molested those kids but couldn't convict based on the actual evidence. Just reeks of technicalities and also Wade's testimony got him off too. The Michael Jacobshagen stuff is a whole other level of WTF.
 
OP
OP
Rilakkuma Fanatic
Nov 20, 2017
2,559
Question for the thread: Does putting the title 'footage of ____ resurfaces/is uncovered' basically mean that the writer went on a searching binge to find a youtube clip that was uploaded years ago? Or is there a clip that was uploaded to youtube recently that I'm missing in this thread?

Just wondering why doesn't the article(and OP for that matter) honestly just say 'hey I went and found this old youtube vid of MJ, let's have a discourse about it' instead of acting like this was hidden footage found in a bunker and leaked?
It was trending again on social media lately, shared onto ONTD and then reposted. I didn't dig it up myself.
 
Nov 1, 2017
3,256
Boise
The key to seeing this shit clear as day is comparing Michael’s documented actions with young boys to how you express your own sexuality.

I know when I’m in the courting stage with a woman she’ll occupy my mind to the point of distraction. I text her. I call her. I send her pictures. I plan my day around seeing her. When I do see her my only goal is to get closer to her. Listen to her stories, hear her opinions, and depending on how she reciprocates, test the waters with physical contact.

You could try to describe these actions as an act of simple friendship, and I may lie to you and say they are, but deep down you and I both know that I’m seeking a sexual partner. I want to have sex with her, but that’s not my only goal - I want the intimacy and fulfillment only a lover can provide. No matter how close my platonic friends are, I don’t express myself the same with them. I can’t even if I tried.

Michael Jackson was a sexual person, this we know based off the pornography found in his possession. He claimed to be a straight man, but looking at his very public relationships with women we just don’t see the same level of affection he shared with his constant child companions. He quite obviously spent the energy you and I would spend on an adult sexual partner on these boys.

It’s all there in plain sight. The only thing missing is forensic and video evidence of him with those boys.
 

Krejlooc

Dreamcast Porno Party
Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,744
The key to seeing this shit clear as day is comparing Michael’s documented actions with young boys to how you express your own sexuality.

I know when I’m in the courting stage with a woman she’ll occupy my mind to the point of distraction. I text her. I call her. I send her pictures. I plan my day around seeing her. When I do see her my only goal is to get closer to her. Listen to her stories, hear her opinions, and depending on how she reciprocates, test the waters with physical contact.

You could try to describe these actions as an act of simple friendship, and I may lie to you and say they are, but deep down you and I both know that I’m seeking a sexual partner. I want to have sex with her, but that’s not my only goal - I want the intimacy and fulfillment only a lover can provide. No matter how close my platonic friends are, I don’t express myself the same with them. I can’t even if I tried.

Michael Jackson was a sexual person, this we know based off the pornography found in his possession. He claimed to be a straight man, but looking at his very public relationships with women we just don’t see the same level of affection he shared with his constant child companions. He quite obviously spent the energy you and I would spend on an adult sexual partner on these boys.

It’s all there in plain sight. The only thing missing is forensic and video evidence of him with those boys.
Right? And you listen to the other side, from Wade Robson and James Safechuck, and they reciprocated. That's the entire point of grooming. It becomes a two way romantic relationship. When they talked about when Michael Jackson came into their lives, I kept thinking about how it sounded like two guys reminiscing about their first girlfriends. They talk about the doting attention like I remember giving girls in highschool. It was clear as day when they had the recording of young James being like "What was your favorite part of filming this video?" and Michael was like "Being with you! You were my favorite part!" That shit is exactly like the corny shit you'd tell a girl.

That's precisely why these men are so confused and even feel guilty today. They were in romantic love back with him. Only difference is they were fucking 7 year olds, just beginning puberty, and were confused out of their fucking minds and in no way able to handle the realities of falling in love with another person romantically. That is entirely on the adult. He preyed upon their love for him.

And a layer of fucked up beyond all that -- he was a shitty romantic partner on top of all that. He'd throw them away when he was done with them. Parade their replacements in front of them. An extra dimension of emotional and psychological abuse. Imagine dealing with that at 12 years old, and not being able to even express it to anybody because, "what are you gay or something?" It's like when James says it's like a puzzle and you can't get any help from the outside on it, so you just never figure it out and it keeps getting worse.

Makes me sick to my goddamn stomach on every fucking level. What a monster.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,234
I have been in contact with a mod because I was banned last time for being disingenuous and I don't want to repeat that.
So I shall be clear of my position.
In my eyes Michael Jackson is guilty for sleeping with all these kids. Because he is an adult and he is responsible and should have known that that was wrong. He should have been penalized for it the moment it was known. In that way he abused these children.
Now I don't know if he is guilty of sexually molesting children. I really don't know. That's why I want as much information as possible to come forward and as much information presented.
And I see posts here and on the internet of both sides that bring good points.
That's maybe why I come over as disingenuous.
So I have said to the mod that I am not going to post here anymore on this thread.
But hopefully now you know my position more.
What else do you need?, a time machine so you can be in the same room as they were being molested?, sorry but you're not gonna get that. The video that came out shows MJ shopping with Safechuck (just like he said in the doc) and still you doubt?, you are hopeless.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,234
The key to seeing this shit clear as day is comparing Michael’s documented actions with young boys to how you express your own sexuality.

I know when I’m in the courting stage with a woman she’ll occupy my mind to the point of distraction. I text her. I call her. I send her pictures. I plan my day around seeing her. When I do see her my only goal is to get closer to her. Listen to her stories, hear her opinions, and depending on how she reciprocates, test the waters with physical contact.

You could try to describe these actions as an act of simple friendship, and I may lie to you and say they are, but deep down you and I both know that I’m seeking a sexual partner. I want to have sex with her, but that’s not my only goal - I want the intimacy and fulfillment only a lover can provide. No matter how close my platonic friends are, I don’t express myself the same with them. I can’t even if I tried.

Michael Jackson was a sexual person, this we know based off the pornography found in his possession. He claimed to be a straight man, but looking at his very public relationships with women we just don’t see the same level of affection he shared with his constant child companions. He quite obviously spent the energy you and I would spend on an adult sexual partner on these boys.

It’s all there in plain sight. The only thing missing is forensic and video evidence of him with those boys.
Excellent post.