redfrog
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2015
- Messages
- 947
- Points
- 0
respect77;4202286 said:This isn't a very good defense of MJ. As none of the speculative stuff that you often use as defense. All the "what a pedophile would do..." kind of stuff. Also that he wanted to send it back is highly, highly speculative and then by the end you refer to that highly speculative stuff as a fact. You cannot conclude it from an inscription that he wanted to send it back. That's a massive jump in logic. Sometimes people write inscriptions in books just for themselves. You don't know what a pedophile would or wouldn't do, so to go on long rants about what a pedophile would do or wouldn't do isn't a very good defense of MJ IMO. I am saying this of your general defense of MJ as well which always seems to be basically your speculations about what a pedophile would or would not do. This is not very strong defense. Esp. after you have just declared that the book is a book "let there be no doubt they were created by pedohiles for pedophiles" which is statment for that haters would certainly pat you in the back. This whole post is something that haters would love. Sometimes you do sound like you have spent too much time on hater websites, adopting many hater views.
1. That's like saying "you don't know what a heterosexual man would do so arguing that MJ had all those girly magazines
because he was a hetero man isn't a very good defense."
We do know that heterosexual men like to look at pictures of nude women.
And we do know that boy molesters like to look at pictures of nude boys. It's not merely speculation.
You should tell these guys that "you don't know what a pedophile would or wouldn't do":
http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf
Or these
https://www.thoughtco.com/profile-of-pedophile-and-common-characteristics-973203
When you pointed out that MJ showing child porn and adult porn to Safechuck then only adult porn to Robson
then nothing to Chandler and Francia then again only adult porn to Arvizo clearly you didn't think
"I don't know what a pedophile would do". You believed, correctly that a pedophile using
porn to groom would not flip flop like that from boy to boy. It just makes no sense.
Similarly it makes no sense that a pedophile would just sit there wanting for some stranger to send him such stuff
or that he would consider sending such a book to someone once he finally obtained it unless he has another copy which clearly MJ did not or that he would just leave it his bedroom while anticipating a police raid.
2. You don't need to be a hater to see that those books do have pictures which are clearly suggestive.
One of the photographers in the book is Hajo Ortil:
Hajo Ortil (born January 10, 1905 in Bremen , Germany) was a Bremen educator , photographer and author .
He devoted himself to free-body culture and wrote his books on the subject, which he himself illustrated mainly with nudists of children and puberty youths.
A few years before his death, Ortil publicly confessed to having had sexual experiences with many minor boys during his life.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajo_Ortil
As for the editor he seems to have a little bit too much interest in boys, don't you think?
And Georges St. Martin doesn't sound like a real name.
From Helena's comment on her website:
Amazon says that the “Most widely held works by Georges St. Martin” are:
– The boy; a photographic essay by Georges St. Martin ( Book )
2 editions published between 1964 and 1972 in English and held by 43 libraries worldwide
– Boys will be boys by Georges St. Martin ( Book )
1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 13 libraries worldwide
– Twelve : a day in the life of a boy, a photographic essay by Frederick Secord ( Book )
1 edition published in 1966 in English and held by 11 libraries worldwide
– Boyhood : a quarterly magazine devoted to the world of boyhood ( Serial )
in English and held by 1 library worldwide
After reading about all these “boys” I am beginning to really dislike the author,
This blog which is about books not MJ but is using the books against MJ
claims that Georges St. Martin is a pseudonym for Martin Swithinbank.
D. W. Nichols, according to his 1977 interview in the Midwest Gay Academic Journal by Daniel Tsang [Published through the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Gay Academic Union – the same school where Martin’s cousin glacierologist Charles Swithinbank did his research], was with Book Explorers, Inc. from 1967 through 1970. Book Explorers, later evolving into Book Adventures, Inc. published Martin Swithinbank‘s 1964 “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and 1966 “Boys Will Be Boys!” with Swithinbank using the alias “Georges St. Martin” and co-author Ronald Drew, a New York public schoolteacher, using the alias “Ronald C. Nelson.” Drew was later fired for molesting a student but was able to retain his pension through legal action. Book Explorers also publish a quarterly magazine called Boyhood, as well as pederast calendars and literature
https://bitsofbooksblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/1981-nambla-britishpedigree/
Martin Swithinbank was a pedophile
NAMBLA Fights grand Jury Subpoenas.
Mendenhall, George // Advocate; 9/17/81, Issue 326, p8
Reports that three officers of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) have been subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury investigating Martin Swithinbank, a Nassau County, New York resident who was arrested on adult/youth sex offenses. Claim made by officers David Groat, Peter...
http://connection.ebscohost.com/tag/SEX crimes&offset=2650
3. It makes no sense to believe that a pedophile would get such books have them for 10 years and wouldn't even look
inside them, don't you agree? The argument against MJ is that he wanted to have them for sexual gratification
and he kept them in that file cabinet in his bedroom for that purpose. We do know that pedophiles
want to have such material they actively look for it , they collect pictures of nude boys and child erotica
so it's very relevant what MJ did with those books and why he had them in the first place.
The fact is MJ didn't even buy them, didn't even page them, didn't even own them after 1993 and didn't even
remember having them in 1993 (unless you think that he lied to Sawyer) and did not collect such pictures,
these two books are random among thousands of books proves he was not interested in such pictures
which proves he was not a pedophile. Nothing else makes sense.
4. Yes people might inscribe a book for themselves but it's not very likely that they would
tell themselves "“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. " and then sign their initials.
The books were published in the 60s both were out of print by the 80s. So most likely they were sent together,
it would make sense that the person who sent them would ask him to sign it and return one of them.
A lot of evidence is not 100% certainty we accept them because they are more likely than not to be true.
For example:
There are also facts to consider about a possible connection between Gutierrez and Jackson’s first accusers, the Chandler family.
https://themichaeljacksonallegation...e-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/
One could argue this is just speculation because there is no solid proof Gutierrez
contacted Evan Chandler it's that the combination of various facts makes it more likely than not
that they did collaborate.
respect77;4202286 said:It may be stimulating for pedophiles but it is wrong to say the book is for pedophiles. I guess the Library of Congress stores books for pedophiles now?
The books are legal and include legitimate art photography that's why they are in the LOC.
That doesn't change the fact that a picture with a banana in his mouth and a picture
with a naked boy sitting with his legs open will make most people think something is not right.
I don't see the point of defending this book. What's your argument?
That MJ looked at those pictures and kept those books for 10 years and it's
no big deal because those pictures are in the eyes of the beholder?
You think that's a good defense?
Last edited: