Reddit mentions of Michael Jackson Conspiracy

>either everyone is out to get him and he's a total victim or where there's smoke there's fire.

You have to understand the nature of this case to get where I am coming from. The prosecution was desperate in trying to find anything incriminating against Jackson. The best they could find was two legal photography books out of a library of thousands. The FBI had been involved and searched 16 hard drives for child porn and none was found. At one last desperate attempt, the prosecution tried to say MJ's Barely Legal magazines could be child porn because the women could be lying about their age. (Thereby incriminating every man who faps to these magazines for not ID'ing the women beforehand). They actually tried this. I strongly urge you read the court transcripts from 2005 to see just how weak this case was.


Have you read the post I linked you to? There are photos of all books that were found. These are books you would find in a college library. You can still buy them off amazon and they are not in the least bit sexual in nature.

From the Wikipedia page you cited:

>There were also a few books seized (from a library of thousands) that the prosecution suggested were evidence of homosexuality and/or pedophilia. Boys Will Be Boys included pictures of boys, many naked, in various non-sexual activities such as climbing a tree or sitting on a bench. The book had an inscription reading, "To Michael: From your fan. Love XXXOOO Rhonda – 1983, Chicago."[56] Wade Robson testified he considered Boys Will Be Boys "not a pornographic book," and said he would not be concerned about its owner being in the same bed as a 12-year-old.[56] Another book, The Boy: A Photographic Essay was inscribed, "Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys' faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ." The book contained pictures of boys in various situations by different photographers, including pictures taken during the filming of the 1963 Lord of the Flies movie and showed the boys on the set, usually clothed but sometimes nude, playing in the sand, reading comic books, and having pillow fights.[57][58]

I think you would be rather surprised at how deep this case is. There are a number of theories to why the D.A Tom Sneddon was so obsessed with Michael Jackson for a decade, going around the world on tax payer dollars, looking for "victims", though none were found. Setting up a hotline and website for people to call in and say they were a victim of MJ, offering money for victims to come forward.

Alfonso Ribiero actually was offered a large sum of money by a tabloid to say Michael Jackson molested him. He declined of course, and still defends him today.
Tabloid sensationalism profited greatly off of Michael Jackson. This is a man who was the biggest star on the planet, and had never even gotten a DUI before. These allegations were the jackpot for the media. Notice the title of the page you linked

"Neverland kiddie porn collection reveals disturbing evidence".

Its a salcious title meant to draw people in. There was no kiddie porn, the author fails to mention the fact that this is a prosecution motion and not the actual evidence list, (I posted the actual list in my earlier comment), and the use of the word "reveals" is highly sensational, meant to insinuate that this is new and never before seen, and this is the end all be all evidence of guilt. Which is obviously not the case, as the document is dated 2005 and has been available to the public since then and was show to the jury and dismissed. Much of this list was not presented in court as it was that weak. They were actually taking photos of Jackson's nephews when they were kids and presenting them as evidence of pedophilia. A jury saw all this and didn't buy it. That should say something.

I appreciate you not being rude like so many others are, but I think if you are interested enough in the case, I recommend you reading this book and getting back to me about your opinion on this. The author Aphrodite Jones is an accomplished court journalist and crime writer who went into court thinking Jackson was guilty and came out with an entirely different opinion. She cites directly from court transcripts, was in the courtroom ever day of trial and was even allowed to photographs the evidence after the trial was over. In her authors note, she mentions that when she tried to get her book published (she had 8 New York Times best selling books by then) she was specifically told, "we can't do anything pro-jackson" by publishers even though the book itself is just a retelling of what happened in the court room, after jackson had been acquitted of all charges.) she eventually had to self publish. It remains the most authoritative book on the subject, and it's a really good read

I'm interested to see if you still feel the same way after reading the book, if you are not up for reading court transcripts.

>very similar behaviours.

At a superficial, flanderizing level, maybe?

>How was Jordy Chandler able to describe Michaels penis?

That's simply not true. The only thing 'he' got right was that he had splotches (in the "same 'relative' location"), which any monkey that had seen his vitiligo could assume. Otherwise, he described it as "circumcised", which, based on the fact it'd be a safe bet considering 82% of Americans are circumcised; was clearly just an unlucky guess. A better question might be, "in the court of public opinion, why did Sneddon only request the descriptions at the end of the trial when it was obviously just going to be refused"?

>Why did Michael pay out to the Chandler family?

He refused to "pay out" the Chandler family, which is why they decided to go public with the allegations in the first place. The Chandlers were desperate to make sure it was in fact the civil (monetary) trial that went first, as described in the same biography (All That Glitters):

"The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal [trial] behind us. I don’t want them going first.” [1; page 201-202]

Not to mention that if the civil trial went first, the prosecution would be able to change their stories, (a la Wade Robson) for the criminal trial - and the defense would be fighting on two fronts.

It was a strategy by the Chandlers to gain as much funds as possible. Not only did they accept the money, they later attempted to sue for 60 million, and could have also testified in 2005 if they cared to. So how does any of this make MJJ look guilty?

Not that it matters why, when or how he settled, considering the settlement doesn't work as a bribe, they could have pushed for a criminal trial regardless. But surprise, they refused.

This is more evidence against the family than Michael Jackson. Wouldn't you agree?

If you're interested in the 2005 trial, and how he was still very obviously innocent, I'd recommend reading Aphrodite Jones' book.

edit: Here's a good playlist on YouTube if you would like to know more.