Michael Jackson 'kept photos of naked children and pornography stash' at Neverland Ranch, police records show

Police said the documents dating back to 2003 had been used in a trial where the singer was acquitted



Michael Jackson kept picture books, magazines and videos depicting nude children, animal sacrifice and pornography at his Neverland Ranch, police documents show.

Records of evidence gathered by police during their 2003 raids of the singer’s home in California have been published by RadarOnline almost seven years after his death.

Records compiled by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department alleged that Jackson used the images, dominantly featuring young men and boys, as “part of the grooming process by which people are able to lower the inhibitions of children and facilitate the molestation”.


Neverland Ranch in its heyday (Getty)

The evidence was used at Jackson’s subsequent trial on charges of child molestation but a jury acquitted him of all 14 charges in 2005.

Among the material seized were “notes, diaries, documents, photographs, audiotapes and videotapes”, along with more than 80 video recordings and computer hard drives.

Ron Zonen, the Santa Barbara senior assistant district attorney who worked on the prosecution in the trial, told Radar Online that Jackson used the images to “desensitise” children and admitted sharing his bed with them.
“We identified five different boys, who all made allegations of sexual abuse,” he added. “There’s not much question in my mind that Michael was guilty of child molestation.”

The singer, who closed Neverland Ranch and temporarily moved to Bahrain after the case, continually denied allegations of child sex abuse and previously reached a financial settlement with the family of a 13-year-old boy who accused him of abuse in 1993.

The publication of the 2003 documents was condemned by Jackson’s family, including his nephew Taj Jackson.
“Not only is there absolutely no truth to this story whatsoever, but I'm truly sick of this crap. #getalife and stop living off ours,” he wrote on Twitter.

Representatives of Jackson’s estate said the release had overshadowed the loss of an “amazing artist and humanitarian devoted to helping children in need”.

“Michael Jackson's fans, including the Executors of his estate, prefer to remember the wonderful gifts Michael left behind instead of having to once again see his good name dragged through the mud by tabloid trash,” a statement said.

“Everything in these reports, including what the County of Santa Barbara calls ‘content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources’ is false, no doubt timed to the anniversary of Michael's passing.


“Those who continue to shamelessly exploit Michael via sleazy internet 'click bait' ignore that he was acquitted by a jury in 2005 on every one of the 14 salacious charges brought against him in a failed witch hunt.

“Michael remains just as innocent of these smears in death as he was in life even though he isn't here to defend himself. Enough is enough.”

Kelly Hoover, a spokesperson for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, told The LA Times that parts of the 88-page publication stamped with a case number were legitimate legal documents.

But she said they were “interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the internet or through unknown sources” and that none of the official evidence had been released to the media.

“The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defence,” she added.

Jackson died in June 2009 after going into cardiac arrest following an overdose of sedatives.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-jackson-photos-naked-children-pornography-neverland-ranch-police-records-leak-abuse-a7094876.html



So who thinks he was innocent, because I never did.

Why are they releasing them now? All of a sudden?

No idea.

And why wasn't it enough to put him away back then?

sassy wrote:No idea.

Well that's the first thing that sprang to my mind. Why now?

[clipped]Kelly Hoover, a spokesperson for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office, told The LA Times that parts of the 88-page publication stamped with a case number were legitimate legal documents.

But she said they were “interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the internet or through unknown sources” and that none of the official evidence had been released to the media.[clipped]

"None of the official evidence has been released to the media"

WTF??? So it headlines with the "official" shit and ends up saying the complete opposite!!
Media crap.


In other words a non-story, out in time to coincide with the anniversary of his death, in a few days

No, click on Radar Online, fifth line down, and it brings you up the actual documents from the Sheriff's Department

Sassy the bit I've quoted is from the article you posted by the Independent newspaper.
Like I say, contradicting itself.

Sorry, misread, but it obviously has because it's there to see.

".....and that NONE of the official evidence had been released to the media"

I think this a click-bait story

Click on the link, it's official documents no matter what the sheriff's office says.

So here we have again, a newspaper telling us the truth then lying about its own claims in its own article, then it's readers are all confused about that which is true and that which isn't.

I am getting further away from believing any of the mainstream media nowadays.

The evidence was seen and heard in court and he wasn't convicted.
End of story really.