So did Michael Jackson do it?
Isn't it odd this comes out 10+ years after he's dead?
breitbart.com
So did Michael Jackson do it?
>Reading Breitbart
You actual faggot
I didn't know Michael Jackson browsed Sup Forums
>breibart
Fuck off Milo
Also not Sup Forums related
Here's what I don't understand
>evidence seized in 2003
>used as evidence in 2005 trial for the jury
>evidence isn't relevant to the molestation charges so is dropped
>absolutely nothing is done about a multitude of child and animal pornography found in a mans house, just because it wasn't relevant at the time
Can a law fag please explain
>not reading Breitbart
Enjoy your brain damaged leftist media.
He's right, kikebart is awful.
It's just pictures so what?
money and lawyers
it has the most traffic of any news site though
>falling for the old media meme
>'SHOCKING'
dat headline
white privilege in action
if michael had been a black man he would have gotten jailed
Yes the bbc, Huffington post and msnbc are much more reliable news sources
>10+ years
There's no fucking way, right?
Right?
>IT'S A QUESTION
someone somewhere wrote that the child pornography pictures were Victorian era pictures of nude or semi-nude children, and the others were pictures of tortured animals with faces of children placed on the animals.
basically, none if it legally counted as CP
>Being a beta orbiter of a greasy attentionwhore homo
>Muh leftist conspiracy
You're a moron.
he's right though. Kike is Jewish run website pushing for Jewish agendas. You'd think you Sup Forumstards out of all people would know this.
The allegation was seemingly that he used it to seduce boys, and evidently it couldn't be proved that was the case.
>no pictures
>every article says the same slightly worse thing then the article ends..
>all this shit was normie articled up a couple of years ago
yeah ok
Planted evidence.
>the bbc, Huffington post and msnbc are much more reliable news sources
yes. actually they are
>tortured animals with faces of children placed on them