ANSWERS: 2
-
They found... GASP... straight adult porno. How they tried to tie that in to pedophilia is rediculous. One person put it best when they said "What we found out is that Michael Jackson is a 49 year old who drinks wine, watches porn, and has a bad back. Who knew?" In other words, absolutely nothing incriminating. Investigating his accusers lives is far more interesting. Both of them had parents who had criminal histories of suing for false claims in the past. Interesting, no?
-
No, it was not straight adult porno. Go to Vanity Fair's website and read Maureen Orth's 15-year-span of articles. Yes, it's a time investment and requires critical thinking skills. But you will be armed with the facts, pro and con. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/06/michael-jackson-is-gone-but-the-sad-facts-remain.html If you still believe that Michael wasn't almost absolutely a pedophile, then you should continue to say so. This is America, and everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. But at least use the documented facts of the pedophilia issue to argue for his guilt or innocence. For me, the jury is in: I love MJ's music, but he was a pedophile. Idolizing him while ignoring the facts that scream loudly about what he did to children breeds a false sense of security and credibility for this kind of criminal behavior. To those of you who say he is innocent because he wasn't convicted: he is LEGALLY innocent. This means he cannot be LEGALLY held accountable. This does not have any bearing on ACTUAL innocence. The man who killed Medgar Evars was originally found LEGALLY innocent, too. Was he?
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

by 