In a first for Heretic TOC, this blog brings you news before it has even happened: a story from New Zealand datelined 30 November, even while a good few hours of 29 November remain to be completed here in Britain.
As usual, though, the news is not good. A defendant found guilty of “historic offences” a few months ago is now faced with losing his house to a forfeiture order, on the grounds that the house itself facilitated sexual offences.
That’s what the prosecutor said about Michael Jackson’s Neverland (see book extract below), but Jackson was never threatened with losing ownership. This latest development appears to take prosecutorial vindictiveness to a new level.
And what did the house do that was so terrible? (Maybe the dwelling itself should have been in the dock, which would have been a squeeze!) This is what its owner allegedly did:
”He made alterations to the property to make it more attractive.” Mattresses were kept downstairs for street children and a key was left out.
”He allowed [victims] to personalise the home by placing their tag in it.’
Home improvements? Disgusting!
Making visitors feel at home? Heinous!
Worst of all, youngsters were clearly coming because they wanted to, and were not being forced into anything. But we cannot allow the horrific possibility of them having consensual sex, can we?
Read here the full horror of this low-life’s crimes.
From my book (authored under the name Carl Toms) Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons, p.412:
[Prosecutor Tom] Sneddon even seemed to indict Neverland itself. While conceding the ranch was a “beautiful thing”, used for “beautiful causes”, such as hosting deprived inner-city kids on day trips, he contended its influence on young visitors staying for longer periods… was less benign. They would begin to change, he said, “because of the personality of the ranch”. Basically, he was saying they were allowed the run of the place, with no rules, and had more fun than was good for them.