Michael Jackson’s Estate Slams Those Insane Child Porn Rumor!

We had a seeming

According to M.J.’s estate, he never possessed child porn star tortured minors in explicit positions or demeanors. Per the singer’s rep, the leaked documents are just an extension of a “witch hunt” that all started when the county of Santa Barbara are determined to press brat molestation charges against the icon in 2003.

Speaking to the Los Angeles Times , the creative’s estate explained πŸ˜› TAGEND

“Everything in these reports, including what the County of Santa Barbara announces ‘content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources’ is untrue. No incredulity duration 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 indicts produced against him in a failed witch hunt.”

Wow! It’s clear Michael’s people are NOT here for this alleged slander!

To make the “witch hunt” claim even more credible, a spokesperson for the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office added πŸ˜› TAGEND

“Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photograph taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with material that appears to be obtained off the internet or through unknown beginnings. The photos that are interspersed appear to be some evidentiary photos taken by Sheriff’s investigators and others are clearly obtained from the internet.”

Hmm … so is the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office suggesting that some of these reports are bogus?

Ron Zonen , a former prosecutor who tried the Jackson case, went on to divulge πŸ˜› TAGEND

“There were all kinds of conventional porn magazines. Stuffs like Playboy, Penthouse. There was one called Scarcely Legal. It was a publication that peculiarity young women presumably over the age of 18 but selected since they are appear much younger. There were photographs of nude babes but they weren’t sexually graphic. They weren’t brats engaged in sex activity and there was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children. There were videos “thats been” seized but they were conventional adult sexually graphic textile. No children involved.”

Very interesting! This account surely contradicts what Ron allegedly reported yesterday.

The investigator also went on to add that although there were photos of naked progenies, they were of girls “playing in the stream, climbing trees, quality image, nudist settlements, things like that”. While that item is a tad strange in itself, Mr. Zonen went on to explain πŸ˜› TAGEND

“They came from professional brochures. Were they designed for pedophiles or designed as aesthetic photographic works I can’t comment on that.”

Well , no matter what you believe, we are to be able agree that this case is extremely controversial.

So, who do YOU accept?

[ Image via WENN .]

Like it.? Share it:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.