A nude photo of Jonathan Spence?
Besides all the material shown above the prosecution’s January 18, 2005 motion also mentions two photographs allegedly found in the 1993 search. One is described as “a photograph of a boy, believed to be Jonathan Spence; fully nude [3]” (Jonathan Spence was one of Jackson’s young friends in the 1980s), the other is described as “a photograph of a young boy holding an umbrella; wearing bikini bottoms, partially pulled down [3]”.
These claims, and especially the claim about the alleged Spence photo, are sometimes used on various Internet forums and comment sections against Jackson as some major, bombshell evidence of his guilt, but in reality the prosecution never proved even the existence of these alleged photos, let alone introducing them to Court and giving the defense a chance to cross-examine them.
As you have seen above the parties can claim many things in motions but they are not always true or can be one-sidedly twisted and whatever claim they make they need to prove them in Court to be accepted as facts. Prosecution motions are just that: often biased, never proven, never cross-examined claims, theories and opinions by one of the parties. In actuality, in this case prosecution motions often included claims which were twisted or even turned out to be totally untrue in Court – some even refuted by the prosecution’s own witnesses.
This prosecution claimed these photos in this one motion but when they finally got to introduce their 1993 findings to the Court, after the Judge ruled on the admissibility of “prior bad acts” evidence in March 2005, they only introduced the art books found in the 1993 search that we have discussed above. After this one motion they never even mentioned these alleged photos again either in Court or in other motions requesting the introduction of items found in 1993. There is no evidence of their existence.
Please also consider that right after the raid of Jackson’s homes in 1993 the police stated that “the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing” [2]. Moreover, when the prosecution tried to introduce testimony about Jonathan Spence on March 28, 2005, the Judge turned it down exactly because all the prosecution could offer regarding him were testimonies about the supposed “grooming” of Spence (at least that is how the prosecution called the fact that Jackson bought him gifts – as he did to almost everyone, young and old, he ever was friends with) [37]. That was all the evidence they could offer to the Court about Spence and that is why he was not allowed by the Judge to be introduced to the Court as one of Jackson’s alleged victims. A nude photo of Spence found in Jackson’s possession would have been just what the prosecution needed to be able to point to more than just “grooming” and be able to introduce him as an alleged victim, but they never produced any such photo. One has to wonder if this is indeed the bombshell evidence that it was turned into in Internet folklore why was it not used in Court by the prosecution to get Spence introduced as an alleged victim? Or at the very least why did not the prosecution fight tooth and nail to have it introduced to Court? When Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau was asked about that alleged photo in a recent podcast by King Jordan Radio he said he had never even seen any such photo, so it apparently was never even shown to the defense – as you are obliged to do with any evidence that you attempt to introduce to Court as a prosecution.
For the record, Jonathan Spence never claimed any wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour by Jackson and he and his family still talk fondly of the entertainer.
Keep in mind that this prosecution was very zealous against Michael Jackson, throwing “everything but the kitchen sink” at him, but the only material “evidence” they could come up with in this case were art photography books, old nudist magazines and legal, heterosexual adult material. They spent days with presenting Jackson’s heterosexual adult magazines to the Court which puzzled the jury because they felt it was irrelevant. That the prosecution was forced to harp on such irrelevant evidence instead of real, damining evidence is a good indication that they did not really have any damining evidence.
