Need some help schooling some people on things

Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,603
Points
113
Hey all,

For a long time i've given up on going against naysayers, the ignorant people that simply parrot tabloid media. But sometimes i just can't stop myself from replying back, trying to give them the facts. Yesterday i saw a new rare video from '93, MJ with the Cascio family photoshoot. The anti-MJ folks were there in full force in the comment section. Some were just hating for no reason, but others were spreading complete misinformation like how several psychiatrists had confirmed that MJ fitted the profile of a pedophile, but the exact opposite is true. Also that they found plenty of evidence and what not. I decided to reply and say that psychiatrists actually said he never did fit the profile of a pedophile and that no real evidence was found at all. I said that if these people would do some real research that they would be shocked about how anti MJ the media has been most of the time.

One person replied and said this:

The book containing 90% nude boys was not sealed, it was actually enscribed by Michael himself. He kept this book, along with a nude photo of a boy believed to be Jonathan Spence in a cabinet in his bedroom.

The bed-sharing with underage boys is already a massive red flag. Throw in a naked photo of one of his special friends and you have a pedophile. It's that simple.

It's the first time i see someone claiming this. From what i remember he did indeed have a book but it was sent by a fan and it did not contain 90% nude boys. Plus that stuff about a Jonathan Spence. I dont even know who that is. It's been a long time for me that i did a lot of research on that great site full of facts, but can anyone enlighten me on these matters, so i can reply back to the dude with cold hard facts? I'd appreciate that a lot.

You guys always know what you are talking about, so that's why i came back here. :)
 
Last edited:
You have to know that whenever someone goes on about this supposed nude photo of Jonathan Spence it's almost surely one of those MJFacts haters. Bringing up this alleged photo and the two books from 1993 is their main argument. It comes from a prosecution motion from 2005 where Sneddon claimed that in 1993 they found a nude photo of a boy believed to be Jonathan Spence. However they never actually showed this supposed photo, it was never introduced to court. Why if this is the bombshell evidence haters believe it to be? Actually when the prosecution eventually introduced evidence from 1993 they introduced two books but never even mentioned the supposed Spence photo again, let alone introducing it. So it's probably not really what the prosecution claimed. Let's not forget that the prosecution had a habit of claiming things in motions which did not turn out to be true in court. This alleged photo was never shown by them.

As for the books, it were two art books, one inscribed by a fan, the other inscribed by MJ. MJ was a collector of art books and it's not that he had an obsessive collection of books with nude boys. He had two such books in 93 in a collection of thousands of books - and they appeared to be a gift by a fan. If he had a sexual interest in such material he would have had a large collection of such material, but instead we are talking about two books in 93. Let's not forget they also searched his home in 2003 but haters are still forced to go on about those two art books from 93. Tells a lot about their best evidence..
I'm going to add some more things but I'm on my phone now.
 
One of the many reasons i love MJJC. You guys truly know what you are talking about. Thanks a great deal for this. I will definitely explain this to that guy, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he then starts calling me a MJ Stan or obsessed or some other cheap nonsense. It's usually how these folks respond.
 
It's possible they're also getting this garbage from Wikipedia. I ck it once a week and they edit it like mad. Usually junk stuff on how many albums he really sold or his occupations or how many siblings he had.
But with the allegations they have badly worded junk and the sources are ALL tabloids.
 
Unfortunately haters took over Wikipedia. Haters are a lot more active in spreading their versions of MJ than fans are.
 
One of the many reasons i love MJJC. You guys truly know what you are talking about. Thanks a great deal for this. I will definitely explain this to that guy, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he then starts calling me a MJ Stan or obsessed or some other cheap nonsense. It's usually how these folks respond.
if he does, too bad. Just ignore it. At least you got fact out there-it's for all the other people reading who don't know what's fact or fiction.
 
I'm still on my phone but one thing I wanted to mention is that I found the circumstances of how those two books were found in 93 a bit odd. The detective who found them testified in 05 and said that the books were found locked in a cabinet in a closet within the bedroom. And to have the keys for it they called Blanca Francia who brought the key from home. I find this very odd. Francia has not worked for MJ for more than 2 years at the time. Why did she have the keys for that cabinet? How did the police know that they were supposed to call a maid who had not worked there for more than 2 years to have the key ? Why didn't they simply break it up like they did in 05? Did Francia put those books there? I don't know, I just find this element extremely strange. Why would she have and keep the key for that particular cabinet,for more than 2 years after she left employment?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the books weren't Michael's, just that there is something odd to me in that story by the prosecution how they were found, something is just not right with it IMO.
 
Last edited:
That's the most bizarre thing I've read. Of course they would just drill the lock open. That doesn't sound at all credible.
 
It was a settlement 1993 but only for the civil case, Chandlers could have tried to take Michael to a criminal trial without losing any money because the settlement was only about negligence.
But they didn´t want to and even if the prosecutor did his best he couldn´t find evidence that Michael was guilty.
 
Much appreciated, all of you. I'll wait with replying to the guy until i have everything you were planning on posting. :)

And even if those books were indeed locked in a cabinet, it doesn't mean a thing, the books itself were pretty normal books. I find it disturbing and at the same time so pathetic how badly these people want MJ to be guilty, grasping at straws, creating websites that completely parrot tabloids. Wow...they need a life.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier;4065986 said:
One person replied and said this:

The book containing 90% nude boys was not sealed, it was actually enscribed by Michael himself. He kept this book, along with a nude photo of a boy believed to be Jonathan Spence in a cabinet in his bedroom.

The bed-sharing with underage boys is already a massive red flag. Throw in a naked photo of one of his special friends and you have a pedophile. It's that simple.

So here is my answer:


If this is so simple then why did the prosecution never manage to get a conviction for MJ?

About that supposed nude photo of Jonathan Spence. This is a mysterious piece of "evidence" because while it's been mentioned in one prosecution motion it's never actually been presented by the prosecution. Never ever. MJ haters consider this their ace evidence which is funny, because if this was really that strong of an evidence why did they never introduce it to court? In fact, when they eventually did introduce evidence from the 1993 search a couple of weeks later they only introduced two books and never even mentioned this supposed photo again. In a later motion when they ask for the introduction of 1993 evidence again, the supposed photo is never mentioned again. It was also never mentioned by the prosecution in court. Why if this was their ace evidence as MJ haters often assume? Thing is with prosecution motions that they are just that: biased, never proven, never cross-examined claims by one party. Actually prosecution motions often included claims which were twisted or even turned out to be totally untrue in court, some even refuted by their own witnesses. With such an unreliable prosecution we cannot accept whatever they claim in a motion as true when they never actually provided matrial evidence for it. Moreover, right after the search in 1993 the police said the following, according to the LA Times: &#8220;the search warrant didn&#8217;t result in anything that would support a criminal filing&#8221; ( http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-27/news/mn-28516_1_jackson-case ). <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->Yet haters believe that they have a bombshell evidence in this never presented, never seen, never cross-examined mysterious alleged photo. If they have to pin their hope on something as murky as that then it tells a lot about how strong their case against MJ actually is.

And the book. Yes, it was inscribed by MJ. The inscription read: &#8220;Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys&#8217; faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.&#8221; They found two books hat had nude kids in 1993, they were art photography books from the 1960s - and apparently they were gifted to him by a fan because they were sequels to each other and the other one was inscribed: &#8220;To Michael: From your fan, &#8220;Rhonda&#8221; &#9829; 1983, Chicago." This does not prove pedophilia. If fact, both of these art books are in the Library of Congress. It's very telling that with two big searches at Neverland, one in 1993 and one in 2003, with 70 sheriffs and all, this is the best "evidence" - two art books from the 1960s found in the 1993 search, apparently gifted to him by a fan - that the prosecution could come up with. Pedophilia is an obsessive disorder. A pedophile would not be satisfied with two innocent art books from the 1960s in the course of 10 years. Those books fit into the context of his large collection of art photography books and his general interest in art photography which is well documented.
 
Last edited:
respect77;4066020 said:
I'm going to post the transcript when I get home.

Here it is. It's in Rosibel Ferrufino's testimony on April 29:

23 Q. Do you recognize that photograph?

24 A. Yes, I do.

25 Q. And that photograph is what?

26 A. This is a photograph that was taken during

27 the search warrant of Neverland Ranch, and it

28 depicts the file cabinet that the books were seized 8164

1 from.

2 Q. All right. And is that file cabinet

3 depicted in that photograph?

4 A. Yes, it is.

5 Q. How many drawers in that file cabinet?

6 A. Four.

7 Q. In which drawer were those two books seized,

8 from which drawer?

9 A. From the third drawer.

10 Q. Was that file cabinet locked?

11 A. Yes, it was.

12 Q. How were you able to unlock it?

13 A. We were able to get the key from -- the maid

14 brought the key over to the home and we were able to

15 unlock it at that time.

16 Q. Do you remember which maid that was?

17 A. I believe it was Blanca Francia.

18 Q. Thank you. Is that photograph -- does that

19 photograph accurately depict the subject matter

20 contained within it?

21 A. Yes, it does.

And then Zonen said:

1 MR. ZONEN: If the Court would like, yes.

2 Just briefly, Your Honor, the books that

3 were seized in 1993 were seized at a time that was

4 contemporaneous with the evidence presented pursuant

5 to 1108. There were four young boys who were

6 involved in Michael Jackson&#8217;s life. It&#8217;s

7 interesting and unique that the maid who was called

8 to open up this file cabinet was, in fact, the

9 mother of one of those victims at that time.

Interesting and "unique" indeed. A bit convenient too.

I don't know what it means, it just sounds very odd to me knowing that Blanca Francia had not worked for Michael for more than two years at the time of the search (she left employement in early 1991, the search was in August 1993). So why would you call her to bring the key? How did the police know she had the key? Why did she have the key to that specific cabinet? Why did she keep it? Why didn't they simply break up the cabinet? Knowing Blanca Francia was the prosecution's "go-to" witness for anything they wanted and knowing Francia's friendship with Victor Guiterrez it's just very suspicious to me. The books were Michael's (see his inscription), that's not what I dispute. And yes, I agree Staffordshire Bullterrier, that even if the books were really locked in that cabinet by MJ it would not mean anything, but this testimony is just so odd to me. There is something suspicious to me around this account of finding the books involving the prosecution's favourite "go-to" witness, Blanca Francia, who had not worked for MJ for more than two years at the time, yet she apparently happened to have the key to exactly this cabinet and the police happened to know she had the key and she is the one who had to be called for the key. Something smells in this story to me.

And if this is true it does not appear that MJ was obsessed with these books anyway. I mean these books lay there, locked in a cabinet with Blanca Francia keeping the key and apparently MJ did not miss and read these books at all for more than two years. It does not seem like some obsessive sexual interest in them to me.

PS: The supposed Spence photo was never mentioned at the trial. It was only mentioned in that one prosecution motion by Sneddon haters so love to parade around and never again.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately haters took over Wikipedia. Haters are a lot more active in spreading their versions of MJ than fans are.
It makes me pretty angry. And the information they write on the bio page conflicts with stuff in other pages.
I have been trying to figure out how to get a letter to them, or to volunteer just to REWRITE some parts of it-because the way they have it now, doesn't really make sense. And a lot of people use it as a real information source-book reports, etc.
 
There is something suspicious to me around this account of finding the books involving the prosecution's favourite "go-to" witness, Blanca Francia, who had not worked for MJ for more than two years at the time, yet she apparently happened to have the key to exactly this cabinet and the police happened to know she had the key and she is the one who had to be called for the key. Something smells in this story to me.

I agree, that does seem strange. Doesn't a search warrant allow them to access anything they want including being able to break into anything locked? It sounds like MJ didn't really care about those books that much and wasn't worried about them. This is a woman who's son was supposed to have been molested by MJ. He must have known that Blanca had that key, so why not try to get it back? Plus, like you said, he wouldn't have looked at those books for at least 2 years and nothing else was ever found so it doesn't sound like he really cared.

It's almost funny that people use this to try to "prove" anything, those books weren't porn, they weren't illegal, and they hadn't even been looked at in years. In reality it's a pretty desperate stretch to say that they "prove" anything. Wasn't the book send by "Rhonda" still in the packaging it had been sent in? Vindicate MJ had something about that a couple of years ago. I'll look for the post.

It makes me pretty angry. And the information they write on the bio page conflicts with stuff in other pages. I have been trying to figure out how to get a letter to them, or to volunteer just to REWRITE some parts of it-because the way they have it now, doesn't really make sense. And a lot of people use it as a real information source-book reports, etc.

I personally avoid wikipedia like the plague and I can't imagine any credible school, university or any other honest academic place accepting wikipedia as a source for anything, it's far to unreliable since anyone can edit it. When I was in high school we were in a class learning about Aboriginal history and were told to go to a certain page on wikipedia. Looking back on it now I don't understand why we weren't given a better source. I was reading something about Aboriginal history and out of nowhere there was a sentence that said "Hi my name is Bryce and I like apples." There was a guy named Bryce in my class sitting not too far from me, I looked over at him and he laughed knowing that I'd seen what he'd done.

Haters probably use it because they know that wikipedia is one of the first sites that comes up when you search for something and since you can edit it yourself it's a good tool to use for those who are desperate to have people reading their information. I don't know where these people get time to be writing there, at topix, mjfacts and everywhere else they post.
 
About Wikipedia-most of the important things are locked. And you seem to have to go thru a vigorous screening process to be an editor-which is why I haven't pursued it further.
The bio on Michael was pretty good 5 yrs ago but too many people have been messing around with it. The sentence about these books for example is so badly worded that you just say "huh "
And the editors fought that out for days. And I really object to their sources.
You are correct tho. Sometimes a spammer gets in there and writes something about him being alive -or some other fake stuff-but they catch that fairly quickly.
 
And I have to add that the testimony about the books doesn't sound like any raid I've seen in the movies or on the news.
Sounds like the books were picked out and planted there.
 
The bio on Michael was pretty good 5 yrs ago but too many people have been messing around with it. The sentence about these books for example is so badly worded that you just say "huh "

And that's how you know haters are behind those edits. These books were never a big part of the case, yet they make them so important. The Wikipedia page does not really explain most important aspects of the case, but it randomly jumps to bringing up these books - just like haters always do. Someone who is truly interested about the ins and outs of these cases will not learn anything from Wikipedia. It's just a collection of randomly cherry-picked info (most selected by haters), not a full presentation of what actually happened. Thank that to Wikipedia's policy and standards.

I once had a conversation with a Wikipedia editor and he told me that the criteria to put something on Wiki is not whether it's true or not as Wikipedia does not take it on itself to determine if a claim is true or not. The criteria is "verifiability". Verifiability means to them that you can provide sources to a claim which comply with Wikipedia requirements. Now Wikipedia requirements for a source are that it's not a blog, but a book or an article published on some official website. There are also requirements for what books you are allowed to use: you are only allowed to use books which are not self-published. It's a stupid, stupid rule, because just because a book is not self-published it does not mean it's more reliable than a self-published book, but that's their rules are. So for that reason you are not allowed to use Geraldine Hughes, Aprodite Jones or Ray Chandler for example (I mention the latter, because I think you actually can use that book to refute the Chandler claims), even though they come from first hand accounts, from people who were there, unlike Dimond's or Orth's or Taraborelli's books and articles. Since there are lots of crappy and untrue books and articles about MJ out there, it's easy for haters to find sources such as Orth, Dimond etc. to "verify" these lies.

Look at for example what it claims about Jordan's description - saying that it was a perfect match:

In August 1993, Jackson's home was raided by the police who, according to court documents, found books, and photographs in his bedroom featuring young boys with little or no clothing.[SUP][171][/SUP] In December 1993, Jackson was strip searched.[SUP][172][/SUP] Jordan Chandler had reportedly given police a description of Jackson's intimate parts, and the strip search revealed that Jordan had correctly claimed Jackson had patchy-colored buttocks, short pubic hair, and pink and brown marked testicles.[SUP][172][/SUP] Reportedly, Jordan had also previously drawn accurate pictures of a dark spot on Jackson's penis only visible when his penis was lifted.[SUP][173][/SUP] This dark spot was corroborated by the sheriff's photographer[SUP][174][/SUP] and the District Attorney in affidavits.[SUP][175][/SUP]

The sources used are Taraborelli (172), Maureen Orth (173), Diane Dimond (174) and Sneddon's motion from 2005 (175). All biased against MJ. (This is why I never understood how fans can be supportive of Taraborelli's crap. His book is extremely harmful, especially because many take it as the Bible on MJ's life and is extensively used in MJ's Wiki article as a source, for example.)

It's just very sad. A lot of these haters are IMO clinically obsessed people and fans just cannot keep up with that zeal. The result is that they hijack the narrative on pages like Wikipedia. The most we can do is point out to unsuspecting people that Wikipedia is very unreliable as anyone with an agenda can edit it and often the most agressive party wins those wars on who will get to edit a page. That's what happened in the case of the pages on MJ.

ETA: Apparently there's even an Anti-Wikipedia Coalitionion:

The Anti-Wikipedia Coalition[SUP][1][/SUP] (also known as the A-W Coalition[SUP][2][/SUP], and the A-W C[SUP][3][/SUP]) is a coalition of members of Wikipedia who have the intent to tear down the ruthless organized resource of lies that Wikipedia has let loose onto the world wide web. However, the battle against this powerful and destructive force of lies is going to take tremendous effort, and we need more members in order to achieve our goals of freeing America of this plague of malevolent information, and bringing truth to the American people

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Anti-Wikipedia_Coalition
 
Last edited:
I like how they leave out the circumcision inaccuracy in that article. How convenient! I don't remember anything about Jordan having a spot on any drawing he did, I only heard about him doing one drawing.

I ended up getting side tracked and spent all day reading over this document of the Neverland search for the Arviso case: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

I'd taken screenshots from the document about the pictures/books/magazines found there and was underlining things said about it. I'd gone onto the VM site to find info on the 2 books we were talking about here earlier and ended up reading that document instead lol. VM did some posts about what was found in that search and talked about the contents of the book and magazines.

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-2/

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/porn-found-at-michael-jacksons-home-2/

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-4/

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-last-remark/
 
I like how they leave out the circumcision inaccuracy in that article. How convenient! I don't remember anything about Jordan having a spot on any drawing he did, I only heard about him doing one drawing.

I know, right... Just like the prosecution and the Chandlers did. Sneddon never mentions the circumcision issue in his motion and Ray Chandler also completely omits that little piece of information from his book. However they made sure to edit out the claim about MJ being circumcised from that drawing that was made by the Chandlers in 1993 and that was circulated in the media in 2005. The original is in VG's book. It claimed MJ was circumcised. Then this info mysteriously got earsed from the drawing in its 2005 circulation. Wonder why. LOL.

I have written about the description here: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inst-Michael?p=3831201&viewfull=1#post3831201

I heard that nowadays haters try to deny that the Chandlers ever claimed MJ was circumcised. It's clear that they did. See Linden affidavit as leaked in 2005 to Smoking Gun and see the drawing in VG's book. Apparently changing and denying historical facts is the strategy by haters.

As for the books and mags found in 2005, it's ridiculous that the prosecution tried to make something out of that. I mean they took art photo books with nude adult females and males and paraded them around in court as if they were relevant to this case. Just shows how they did not have anything relevant if they had to rely on that. (Unfortunately the MJAllegations site is off temporarily but there is also an article about this subject there.)

They tried to say that art photo books with nude men meant that MJ was gay (not sure what relevance even that would have to pedophilia, but this prosecution apparently thought it did), when he had art books with nude women just the same. And ALL of his actual pornography (the porn mags, the porn found on his computers, his porn DVDs) - so ALL of his actual pornography was heterosexual. But a couple of art books with nude men found in a box with hundreds of other art photo books was supposed to be the proof that he was gay. Ignore all the heterosexual porn kept in places like his nightstand.

For example, they confiscated a book with some nude males in it by Bruce Weber. Bruce Weber is a very famous, renowned photographer who has worked with many, many celebrities (even made videos for artists like Chris Isaak or the Pet Shop Boys). He was the one who made the 2007 L'Umuo Vouge (sp?) photos of Michael and in that issue he wrote:

October 2007. The last photoshoot with the King of Pop by Bruce Weber for L'Uomo Vogue. "I first met Michael Jackson in the late 70s. Andy Warhol asked me to photograph a group of kids called the Jackson Five for Interview Magazine"
They were staying with their tutor while on tour at a hotel in mid-town New York City. Their tutor was an elegant lady - almost like a character out of a George Cukor's film, The Women. When I started taking the photographs, Michael and his brothers were having a pillow fight, and she was trying to make them behave like gentleman. Michael wasn't posing; he was only interested in reading the newspaper and looking for his reviews.
That was almost 30 years ago, and since then I've had the chance to know his charming sister Janet and shared good friends like Muhammad Ali's manager Bernie Yuman, the film director Brett Ratner and a lady who is beyond description, Elizabeth Taylor.
For years Michael and I have talked about taking photographs, but it never happened again until now, because our busy lives kept us at different ends of the globe. Luckily this time, we both found ourselves in New York City at the same time. I wanted to photograph Micheal instead of sending him a thank you note explaining all the joys I've had listening to him sing and watching him dance. Each of these times were marked as celebration in my crazy life: falling in love, driving my dream car, getting a new dog, photographing my family, or hanging out with a friend over a few beers. If I had to count how many times Michael's music has given a life to my photographs, that number would be in thousands. Because of the music's rhythm and soul, I would end up taking so many photographs that I would run out of film and all my cameras would break down.
So Michael, accept my gratitude for you have a big place in a lot of people's hearts. As they say on the street "Michael's in the house and lets just do it!" - "Lets just get down and take some pictures and see if we land once again on the moon."

Bruce Weber
New York City
2007


So having a book by this photographer is supposed to be a proof of what? I'm a big fan of his photography as well, they are beautiful photos. It's well documented that MJ was a huge art photography fan and also a big fan of books. (In the bodyguards' book they tell a story about how MJ bought up a whole book store without even looking at what all the books were.) These are the type of things the prosecution tried to use against MJ. Just very desperate stuff.

ETA: Here is Weber's video for the Pet Shop Boys. It has some nudity in it too - shock, horror. LOL. Very beautifully photographed, in typical Weber fashion.


And here is his vide for Chris Isaak

 
Last edited:
I saw that a great number of the books containing nudity were nudist magazines, it looked like he had an interest in that subject in general. It looked like there were books and magazines everywhere in the house and books were full of naked people of all ages. Personally I wish he'd been a little more careful about what kind of books he had after 1993, unfortunately a lot of people don't care if the books are art and not child porn, if you've been accused of something and you have any books that contain naked children you're guilty. I don't agree with that logic because things are more complicated that but it does make it a little more difficult to get people to listen to you because people get pretty emotional and angry once anything with naked kids is mentioned.

I can understand where people are coming from, if we heard these things about someone who wasn't MJ we may have our suspicions too but there's much more to the story. I still think the books with those pictures would have been far greater in number if the books were there for the purpose of sexual interest. The hetersexual porn was in far greater number. If we take the logic of thinking that naked books and pictures must equal sexual interest then a person would have to believe that MJ was bisexual, was a pedophile who was interested in both sexes and was also a hebephile all at the same time. That's a fail. ;)
 
I read you post on the strip search subject, now I understand better about the mess with Jordan's drawing. So many excuses were prepared for something he should have been able to get right. If you're telling the truth and your relatives and the prosecution say they think it's true they shouldn't even have to think about preparing for what happens if it's wrong. It appears that they knew damn well!
 
I saw that a great number of the books containing nudity were nudist magazines, it looked like he had an interest in that subject in general. It looked like there were books and magazines everywhere in the house and books were full of naked people of all ages. Personally I wish he'd been a little more careful about what kind of books he had after 1993, unfortunately a lot of people don't care if the books are art and not child porn, if you've been accused of something and you have any books that contain naked children you're guilty. I don't agree with that logic because things are more complicated that but it does make it a little more difficult to get people to listen to you because people get pretty emotional and angry once anything with naked kids is mentioned.

I can understand where people are coming from, if we heard these things about someone who wasn't MJ we may have our suspicions too but there's much more to the story. I still think the books with those pictures would have been far greater in number if the books were there for the purpose of sexual interest. The hetersexual porn was in far greater number. If we take the logic of thinking that naked books and pictures must equal sexual interest then a person would have to believe that MJ was bisexual, was a pedophile who was interested in both sexes and was also a hebephile all at the same time. That's a fail. ;)

I know what you are trying to say but I find your arguments here a bit unfortunate. Do not use them on public forums, they would not serve MJ well.

I can understand where people are coming from

I cannot. Thing is haters often mislead people about the content of these books, for example when they post that prosecution motion listing them as "a list of child porn found in MJ's home". Many people are lazy to look for themselves so a couple of books with adult nudes become "child porn" in internet folklore. But at least we should know better.

if we heard these things about someone who wasn't MJ we may have our suspicions too but there's much more to the story.

Suspicions about what? I guarantee you that a lot of people who are interested in arts have these very same or similar books and no, that would not make me suspect they were pedophiles.

Let's make it clear: these books found in 2005 are not books full of nude kids, but of adults! And again we are talking about a couple of such books (BOTH of males and females) in a collection of thousands of art books. If someone is interested in art photography it's inevitable that he will have books with nudes as art photography has a great interest in the representation of the human form. Because the prosecution picked all books with a nude person in it (for example the above mentioned Weber book has like 6 nudes among 150 photos - but they took it because it had some nude photos...) and it's what they went on and on about in court, it makes it appear that they were more numerous, more of a typical representation of his library and worse than they actually were. Do not fall for it. Also do not fall for the prosecution propaganda that his house was full of books with nude people. The books confiscated was only a very tiny portion of a huge book collection of thousands of books. And like I said with the example of the Weber book - they took everything that had a nude person in it, even if it was just one or two pics in a book, not a book full of such pics.

The nudist magazines were found in one bunch in a box with other books - they were old magazines from the 1930s and 1960s. You have to know about old nudist mags that they did not show male genitalia and they were heavily focused on females - adult ones. At least the type of mags which were found in MJ's posession.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, on which two books are we talking about? Is it "Sexual Study of Man"? And what else?
 
I'm sorry, on which two books are we talking about? Is it "Sexual Study of Man"? And what else?

Sexual Study of Man was the "worst" they found in 2005. So "bad" that the prosecution even brought it up in their closing argument. LOL. That was probably because that was the only publication found with male-on-male sexual activity in it. Among ADULT males, of course. It was found in a box in the downstairs portion of MJ's bedroom suit, among hundreds of other books, possibly coming from a book store. There is a photo of those boxes in Aphrodite Jones' book:

rv8ufo.jpg


So somewhere in that bunch inside one of those boxes there was this important piece of an evidence, Sexual Study of Man, that was supposed to prove MJ was gay. Meanwhile he had a bunch of heterosexual porn mags in places such as his nightstand but that was not supposed to prove anything about his sexuality. LOL.

There were other books confiscated with both male and female nudes in them but no other book including male nudes was sexual in nature. The ones with female nudity were more sexual. (You can see the books under the link MJresearcher provided to VMJ.)

BTW, many of these books were old, vintage books - probably coming from second hand stores, which MJ was also a big fan of. Sexual Study of Man for example is a book from the early 70s, not in print any more. So a lot of these were actually book rareties. A lot of them are also in the Library of Congress, so truly, truly dangerous stuff. LOL.

Talking about the Library of Congress. Here is one the "boys" books from 1993 in the Library of Congress: http://lccn.loc.gov/66001965

And here is the other: http://lccn.loc.gov/65000007
 
Last edited:
Exactly. "Study of Men" could -at most- prove interest in men, not children. Though I know in some cases they try to show a man is homosexual and then reflect this attraction on children (boys?) somehow. I wonder if there is an actual connection or is it an old myth on homosexuals and pedophiles, either way, I don't think proving a person is attracted to the same sex is an empirical evidence that shows this person is indeed a pedophile. Not that I believe that Michael was homosexual nor that these books were there for more than artistic or educational reasons.

Anyway, I'm asking because I don't understand which books are supposed to have "90% of children nudity"? 99% of that "nudity" (with sexual nature) that was found in Neverland were women - and the book mentioned above. So I don't know how to react to a reference of two unnamed books - are these books from 1993 police search that weren't listed in 2005 evidences? Is it the book Diane Sawyer was talking about on PTL?
 
InvincibleTal;4066119 said:
Anyway, I'm asking because I don't understand which books are supposed to have "90% of children nudity"? 99% of that "nudity" (with sexual nature) that was found in Neverland were women - and the book mentioned above.

The book with supposedly "90% nude boys" was one of the books from 1993, Boys Will Be Boys. The other, Boy - A Photographic Essay contained about 10% of nudes acc. to the prosecution:

Here is what Zonen said of those two books:

1 MR. ZONEN: If the Court would like, yes.

2 Just briefly, Your Honor, the books that

3 were seized in 1993 were seized at a time that was

4 contemporaneous with the evidence presented pursuant

5 to 1108. There were four young boys who were

6 involved in Michael Jackson&#8217;s life. It&#8217;s

7 interesting and unique that the maid who was called

8 to open up this file cabinet was, in fact, the

9 mother of one of those victims at that time.

10 Those books -- one of the books -- both of

11 the books are pictorial essays of adolescent boys.

12 One of them, about 10 percent of the photographs are

13 completely nude boys. And the other one, 90 percent

14 of the photographs are completely nude boys. The

15 possession of those books by Mr. Jackson, we

16 believe, is evidence of a prurient interest in

17 adolescent boys and it&#8217;s exactly contemporaneous

18 with the state of the evidence as to all of the 1108

19 witnesses. Therefore, we believe it adequately

20 corroborates within the meaning of People vs. Memro.

21 We&#8217;d ask that it be admitted.

The nudity in these books is not of sexual nature, of course. Just kids playing, swimming etc. nude. One of the books was documenting the making of the movie The Lord of the Flies. Some Amazon reviews:

Amazon review on The Boy

I do love this book. For me it represents an innocence we've lost to political correctness, paranoia, and a change in how children spend their time, it's a glimpse back in time.

This book contains many great images of boys being boys, I assume often away on camp together and those sorts of times and environments. Nowadays this book would probably cause a bit of an uproar because it has images of boys swimming naked etc and it would bring howls from the puritans who's reasons for their retentive Victorian attitudes are always a bit suspect anyway. It's sad that nowadays at events like the `Nudist Beach Olympics' political correctness has made it the childrens' events have had to be withdrawn because of the same twisted thinking. I have no desire to see kids naked but I do love seeing kids being kids and if that incorporates a lack of twisted adult values about nakedness that's cool.

I doubt banning and censoring will ever reduce the sickness which the `ever so holy' people (who I assume were born fully clothed) quite rightfully wish to combat. I hope we would all do anything to protect the innocence of childhood, that is never in question. This book takes us back to an era when most adults were less familiar with violence, death, war, and unhealthy sexual values than the average 10 year old boy is now and reminds us how special that era was if you happened to be that 10 year old boy.

I enjoy this book because it truly does capture that innocence, before it was damaged by TV and the media and before we destroyed that innocence in our efforts to protect it.

Cheers

Lloyd


On Boys Will Be Boys

This book reminds me of my youth growing up in the south and the pleasures of being free. Nostalgic and innocent. Those were the days. They don't exist anymore. How sad.

Innocence From The Past
By Vido on December 10, 2012
Format: Hardcover Amazon Verified Purchase
This book captures the innocent boyhood youth of the past when the world was alot more simple and everything wasn't so serious as things are today. Although all photographs are black & white they still capture the spirit of boys. The photos are mainly from the 1960's and possibly from the 1950's and are presented in an artful form with some nudity involved. I highly recommend it for anyone who likes and appreciates boys.

As we have seen by his inscription MJ had a similar sentiment about these books, not a perverted one, but seeing the innocence and fun of boyhood in it:

&#8220;Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys&#8217; faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children, MJ.&#8221;

"This is the life I want for my children" is somehow not what I think someone with sexual thoughts about it would say.

These two books were the crown jewels of the prosecution's evidences - which tells it all. Think about it this way: after two big searches, set apart by 10 years, two books from 10-12 years before were the evidence they were still forced to go on about. Pedophiles do not operate like that. Pedophilia is an obsessive disorder. If MJ's interest in those books had been sexual he should have had a great number of such material (and worse) both in 1993 and in 2005. He did not. Instead the prosecution in 2005 was still forced to make two art books from the 1993 search the crown jewel of their case. LOL.

So I don't know how to react to a reference of two unnamed books - are these books from 1993 police search that weren't listed in 2005 evidences? Is it the book Diane Sawyer was talking about on PTL?

Yes, these are the two books. They were introduced to court in 2005 and the jury saw them.

As I said above, they are both in the Library of Congress - a bunch of pervs must be sitting there as well then. LOL.

http://lccn.loc.gov/66001965

And here is the other: http://lccn.loc.gov/65000007
 
Last edited:
Boy - A Photographic Essay was from that Rhonda girl, and the two of them were locked inside that cabinet only Francia could open?

I actually read Wade Robson's testimoney on these books (and "Study of Man") last week... Of course, he said he's not bothered that Michael owned such books, IF they were indeed his. (Wade's words).

These two books were the crown jewels of the prosecution's evidences - which tells it all. Think about it this way: after two big searches, set apart by 10 years, two books from 10-12 years before were the evidence they were still forced to go on about. Pedophiles do not operate like that. Pedophilia is an obsessive disorder. If MJ's interest in those books had been sexual he should have had a great number of such material (and worse) in 2005 as well. He did not. Instead the prosecution was still forced to make those two books from 1993 the crown jewel of their case. LOL.

Agreed. And surely he'd have more children books than women magazines - Since he did own magazines and tapes with sexual nature (heterosexual, that is.). Once again we see how the whole case was hanging by a very weak thread. Alleged ~6 victims from 88-93 and then another one in 2003 - When most of them denied an abuse or never actually said they were abused. Then you have two dusty 10 years old books about children that have nothing to do with sex and one book about homosexuality. These haters don't realize a man who fits their accusations would have a huge amount of child pornography and dozens of victims.
 
I know what you are trying to say but I find your arguments here a bit unfortunate. Do not use them on public forums, they would not serve MJ well.

It's a reflection on the current way that people see things unfortunately. Back when a lot of these books were published a lot of people probably didn't think anything of it because things were different back then. I think a lot of the hysteria around pedophilia came about around the 90's, but even then teachers could still walk around schools and hold hands with the kids while they were on yard duty, I remember doing this when I was in primary school in the 90's. Nobody can do that now, at least not where I live, a teacher can't hug or touch a child who falls over and hurts themselves in the playground for fear of how people might think about that which is sad.

There's been a pretty big overreaction about this kind of thing, only about a week ago there was an article being posted around facebook about how children shouldn't sit on the lap of people are dressing up as Santa at shopping malls. It's gone too far, it's getting ridiculous. This is more of an indictment on how some people think these days but I'm not sure that it's likely to change. Realistically, at least where I am, a lot of people do think that these materials being owned by MJ sounds dodgy. I don't agree with them and will explain why but it can be difficult to do when a lot of people will only think I'm stupid. At the end of the day though, I think that's their problem.

People have to be pretty biased and unfair to think that a person's art books must reflect their sexuality which is why I was pointing out how many different sexualities these narrow-minded people would have to think someone is if they judge their art books to be what a person's sexual interest is. I don't think I did it very well but I was trying to say how stupid I thought that logic was. I don't think it was MJ's fault that people saw these books and magazines the way they did, it appears to me that he could be naive about how things can be perceived in that way which was used against him by sick minded people.

What pisses me off is how people ignore all the pictures of adult women like they weren't even there. Like you said, there was plenty of that and also a hell of a lot of books about art and many other subjects, the few that were picked out were a drop in the ocean and nothing more. The twisting of these things makes me want to pull my hair out! I saw the part in the body guard's book about MJ buying a whole bookstore, he liked to read about lots of different things and he'd probably bought a heap of books like that many times without even knowing about every book that was in the pile he bought and how arseholes would later try and miserably fail to use it against him in court.

I cannot. Thing is haters often mislead people about the content of these books, for example when they post that prosecution motion listing them as "a list of child porn found in MJ's home". Many people are lazy to look for themselves so a couple of books with adult nudes become "child porn" in internet folklore. But at least we should know better.

Haters calling anything that was found there child porn is blatant stupidity, under every item description in the document I read it stated very clearly that it was not child porn. Can't these people read?


Suspicions about what? I guarantee you that a lot of people who are interested in arts have these very same or similar books and no, that would not make me suspect they were pedophiles.

I wouldn't jump to thinking they were a pedophile, especially after I've seen what happened with MJ i'm very reluctant to make conclusions about people. What I was trying to say (which didn't come out well) is that I understand why people are suspicious about MJ because of the hysterical attitude and lack of proper knowledge about everything. When I talk to people outside of the fan community I try to make sure they know that I see where they're coming from even though I don't agree and can give evidence about why, I've learned the hard way that if I don't do that, they write me off as a blind starry-eyed fan and will no longer listen, and it's not only haters that will do that.

Let's make it clear: these books found in 2005 are not books full of nude kids, but of adults! And again we are talking about a couple of such books (BOTH of males and females) in a collection of thousands of art books. If someone is interested in art photography it's inevitable that he will have books with nudes as art photography has a great interest in the representation of the human form. Because the prosecution picked all books with a nude person in it (for example the above mentioned Weber book has like 6 nudes among 150 photos - but they took it because it had some nude photos...) and it's what they went on and on about in court, it makes it appear that they were more numerous, more of a typical representation of his library and worse than they actually were. Do not fall for it. Also do not fall for the prosecution propaganda that his house was full of books with nude people. The books confiscated was only a very tiny portion of a huge book collection of thousands of books. And like I said with the example of the Weber book - they took everything that had a nude person in it, even if it was just one or two pics in a book, not a book full of such pics.

The nudist magazines were found in one bunch in a box with other books - they were old magazines from the 1930s and 1960s. You have to know about old nudist mags that they did not show male genitalia and they were heavily focused on females - adult ones. At least the type of mags which were found in MJ's posession.

Exactly. The prosecution are focused on making things as bad as they can make them look for the purpose of getting a conviction. I too noticed that the nudist magazines were mainly involving women and it didn't look like it had anything to do with sex, it seemed to be a get back to nature kind of thing. When these pricks take everything out of context like this it can be hard to talk to people about it because the of the propaganda put into people's heads by the prosecution. Sometimes I really hate people!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top