Random News Items

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Meanwhile in 'merica

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2016/06/06/man-sued-30k-over-40-printer-he-sold-craigslist/85478168/

[The Unknown Poster]

18 hours ago, iso_55 said:

In 2003 when Danny Heatley killed his teammate Dan Snyder in Atlanta he wasn't charged by the DA in Atlanta because Snyder's parents went public & said they didn't want that. The DA respected their wishes even though he had the evidence to put Heatley in jail but didn't pursue the more serious charge of first degree vehicular homicide which would have meant years of jail time. Instead the DA charged Heatley with second degree vehicular homicide, speeding, driving too fast for the conditions & failing to maintain his lane. He was fined $25,000 & put on probation for 3 years . He was also required to give 150 speeches about the dangers of speeding. Victims or their families do have a say in what happens.

There is a HUGE difference between the Heatley crash and Polanski plying a 13 year old with booze and drugs.  But to your point, 5 more serious charges were dropped against Polanski as part of a plea deal, in part to spare the child from testifying.  How much more should the DA capitulate for an admitted child sex abuser?

This isnt about trying to prove a case.  He already plead guilty, admitted what he did.  If a person avoids jurisdiction long enough, he gets a free pass?  When you attempt to evade police, you often end up with extra charges precisely to discourage people from evading in the first place.  Not only should Polanski be properly sentenced for the crime (and he should be thankful he can only be sentenced based on the law at the time and not now) but should also be charged and sentenced for fleeing.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

John Oliver Knocks Oprah off as Queen of daytime TV with $15 Million dollar give away.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/06/technology/john-oliver-medical-debt/index.html

 

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://torrentfreak.com/canada-federal-court-restrains-sale-of-pirate-boxes-160610/

[FrostyWinnipeg]

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/professor-who-donates-sperm-in-city-bathrooms-has-sired-22-kids/

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Microsoft buys LinkedIn for 26 billion.

 

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Microsoft buys LinkedIn for 26 billion.

 

Damn, Linkedin just became 100 times more annoying.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

2 hours ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

Damn, Linkedin just became 100 times more annoying.

Well it's Microsoft so in 2-3 years LinkedIn will be written off as a loss.

Kinda sickening the stock went up $64 today because MS is paying $65 more then what its worth.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

the NDP are so dumb. They are up in arms over the PC's reverting back to the requirement to unionize resting on an anonymous vote. Meat heads. 

[Jacquie]

On June 3, 2016 at 4:06 PM, iso_55 said:

Well, I see you want to play that game. Okay, I'llplay. You can't say he didn't. Anyway I'm done. Jackson was a pervert & I won't change my mind.

I don't think you'll be surprised by this article from the LA Times, Iso.

Quote

 

Michael Jackson’s activities at Neverland Ranch are back in the news this week amid the disclosure of documents suggesting the King of Pop kept a stash of pornography there.

The issue of pornography first arose about a decade ago when Jackson was on trial on molestation charges. 

At the time, Santa Barbara County prosecutors described Neverland as a fantasy world that Jackson built to lure young boys, who he then "groomed" with alcohol and pornography before molesting them. Jackson was acquitted in that case. He died in 2009.

Now, Radar Online has published what appear to be case documents as well as pornographic images that were purportedly among items Jackson used to lure children. 

Kelly Hoover, a spokeswoman for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, told The Times "some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office" along with evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel. But she cautioned that they are interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through other sources. The sheriff's material, she added, had case numbers on it.

Hoover said the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents or photographs to the media.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-michael-jackson-porn-neverland-20160621-snap-story.html

It looks like RadarOnline has removed some of the pictures.

Edited June 22, 2016 by Jacquie

[Rich]

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Looking at porn doesn't equate to abusing children, obviously. 

[iso_55]

No, guess it's okay for kids being sexually exploited for profit & gain so adults can get their perverted jollies. How isn't that  abuse? Sure, whatever you want to believe is okay. That's what every ugly fat guy who spends too much time in the bathroom always thinks. "I didn't do anything, I just watched."

Edited June 22, 2016 by iso_55

[Jacquie]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Looking at porn doesn't equate to abusing children, obviously. 

From Global News:

Quote

 

Radar Online presents the findings in the form of reports written by members of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.

The police reports claim that at least seven collections of artwork found in the ranch show teenage boys — in some cases younger — partially clothed or completely nude.

One of the collections is described in court papers as “Nude photos of teenage boys from late 1800s.”

(It should be noted that a lot of antique art, and artwork in general, features nude bodies, so it is impossible to determine that Jackson had pedophilic tendencies based on books found at the ranch. Similarly, it’s not known how the discovered pornography came to be in Jackson’s possession.)

Police also searched a rented storage locker (paid for by the Jackson estate) after Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Detective Craig Bonner requested a warrant. Investigators were led to the locker by witnesses who said items were moved there once the ranch was under investigation.

The locker reportedly contained photos and videos depicting animal torture and sacrifice, child nudity, torture and female bondage. The Radar Online report does not include visual evidence of these findings.

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2777216/michael-jackson-had-stockpile-of-pornography-erotic-art-report/

Here is the link to the documents obtained by RadarOnline (WARNING: GRAPHIC):

http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf

[Brandon]

I don't have time to look through the documents,  but if he had child porn on him I would sure hope that at the time he would of been arrested. 

Animal torture and sacrifice is some weird stuff but I don't think it's illegal to have?  

Any porn or bondage stuff who gives a crap ,  tonnes of men and women watch that stuff daily.   

I'm sure MJ was screwed up... but innocent until proven guilty.  Just because he had a huge stash of porn it doesn't mean that alone made him a child molester.  

[StevetheClub]

It's mentioned numerous times throughout the report that the type of material found is consistent with material that is used "to lower the inhibitions of their intended victims and facilitate the molestation of said victims". I haven't done near enough research to take a position on the case, but if the documents are legitimate than that is awful concerning.

[The Unknown Poster]

10 hours ago, iso_55 said:

No, guess it's okay for kids being sexually exploited for profit & gain so adults can get their perverted jollies. How isn't that  abuse? Sure, whatever you want to believe is okay. That's what every ugly fat guy who spends too much time in the bathroom always thinks. "I didn't do anything, I just watched."

Again you're making assumptions. Look no one will change your mind. You can just open a phone book and point to a name and call the person every name in the book. Doesn't mean you're correct. People can call you a pedophile. Doesn't mean it's true. You won't look at actual facts. Just whatever supports your opinion. So let's not argue about it. Your opinion is just that, absent of fact and evidence. 

[Jacquie]

15 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Again you're making assumptions. Look no one will change your mind. You can just open a phone book and point to a name and call the person every name in the book. Doesn't mean you're correct. People can call you a pedophile. Doesn't mean it's true. You won't look at actual facts. Just whatever supports your opinion. So let's not argue about it. Your opinion is just that, absent of fact and evidence. 

You look at the "facts" and interpret them one way, Iso looks at them and interprets them differently. The fact is being acquitted doesn't mean he didn't do it. The only people who know the truth now are the children who visited Neverland Ranch. For the rest of us, it's just opinion. 

[iso_55]

32 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Again you're making assumptions. Look no one will change your mind. You can just open a phone book and point to a name and call the person every name in the book. Doesn't mean you're correct. People can call you a pedophile. Doesn't mean it's true. You won't look at actual facts. Just whatever supports your opinion. So let's not argue about it. Your opinion is just that, absent of fact and evidence. 

I don't look at actual facts? Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You either argue with someone putting up 5,000 word essays no one wants to read thru or you beat them down to nothing constantly by never stopping arguing your own personal POV here generally on subjects like this. What makes your opinion more important than anyone else here?

[The Unknown Poster]

14 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

You look at the "facts" and interpret them one way, Iso looks at them and interprets them differently. The fact is being acquitted doesn't mean he didn't do it. The only people who know the truth now are the children who visited Neverland Ranch. For the rest of us, it's just opinion. 

This will spiral off topic.  But actually I have provided much information supporting the fact Jackson was a victim of extortion.  Ofcourse being found not guilty doesnt mean he's innocent.  OJ clearly did it and he was fund not guilty.  But its a pretty large coincidence that there is overwhelming evidence that Jackson was extorted AND also happened to be guilty.  What luck on the part of the extortioners.

In the face of the evidence against the idea of Jackson as child abuser, its somewhat irresponsible to just say "but I dont care about any of that".

[iso_55]

Yeah, my opinions are certainly absent of facts & evidence...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

[The Unknown Poster]

16 minutes ago, iso_55 said:

Yeah, my opinions are certainly absent of facts & evidence...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3653380/Michael-Jackson-s-secret-underage-sex-closet-Inside-raid-uncovered-King-Pop-s-extensive-collection-photos-featuring-naked-teenage-boys.html

I missed where it said he was pedophile.  Also, that's the same information posted earlier, is it not?  Hey Iso, do you think Jackson was extorted or is that evidence not relevant?

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I missed where it said he was pedophile.  Also, that's the same information posted earlier, is it not?  Hey Iso, do you think Jackson was extorted or is that evidence not relevant?

This article was posted yesterday, and while initial reports just said he had porn, this article details it more to be specifically naked men and boys.  Also in the opinion of experts, it is the type of photographs used to lower the inhibitions of children.

Then if you read all the way to the bottom of the article, there is this nugget.

Quote

Jackson was ultimately acquitted in 2005 after being charged with seven felony counts of child molestation and two felony counts of providing an intoxicant to a minor under the age of 14 when Gavin Arvizo came forward claiming that he had been sexually assaulted by the singer.
Gavin was a 13-year-old cancer survivor at the time of the alleged incidents.

The claims made by Gavin were similar to the ones made a decade earlier when another 13-year-old boy, Jordan Chandler, came forward to say he had been molested by Jackson.

No charges were ever filed against the singer however after police discovered the Chandler's father may have been attempting to extort Jackson and the young boy's mother claimed Jackson never touched her son.

Jordan however was able to perfectly describe Jackson's buttocks, pubic hair, and distinctive marks on both his testicles and penis.

The mark on the penis could only be seen if it was lifted and was otherwise not visible.

In the end, Jackson settled with the Chandler family for $22million and no charges were ever filed against him in court.

So how about both extorted and a pedophile.

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, Rich said:

This article was posted yesterday, and while initial reports just said he had porn, this article details it more to be specifically naked men and boys.  Also in the opinion of experts, it is the type of photographs used to lower the inhibitions of children.

Then if you read all the way to the bottom of the article, there is this nugget.

So how about both extorted and a pedophile.

How about incredible coincidence that he was extorted, children admitted to lying, AND he was a pedophile.  Incredible stroke of luck.  But to be fair, I dont ignore evidence used to paint him that way.   I just think its silly to ignore the other evidence which some (or one) in this discussion is doing.

Its like arguing OJ didnt do it. lol

[Rich]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

How about incredible coincidence that he was extorted, children admitted to lying, AND he was a pedophile.  Incredible stroke of luck.  But to be fair, I dont ignore evidence used to paint him that way.   I just think its silly to ignore the other evidence which some (or one) in this discussion is doing.

Its like arguing OJ didnt do it. lol

I don't know if you have children or not, but here is the bottom line question....

If he were still alive today, given all that you have read and researched, would you let your kids (or nephews or nieces or whoever) sleep over at his house unsupervised?

I sure know my answer.