LindavG;3914338 said:
It's been years since I've read the court documents. I don't know the exact details of it anymore, just the basics. Is there a way to view them online? I tried to download them the other day (someone linked to a zip file) but it just gave a virus to my computer and I couldn't open them.
Wasn't this one of the charges in the 2005 case? I seem to recall that the prosecution tried to pass off these perfectly legal art photography books as pornographic material. Anyway, I used the same argument you did, that the possession of child porn is a federal offense and if there was any evidence that MJ was guilty of this, he would have been convicted. The hater's response was that the material was "child erotica" and not child porn; that is was not illegal in and of itself but endorsed by organisations like NAMBLA and that it was highly suspicious for MJ to have them. He also said MJ had nude pictures of Jonathan Spencer, another boy he "slept with".
Here are the court transcripts:
http://www.sendspace.com/file/7vibp9
La_C already answered most of it.
It was one of those MJ-bashing documentaries in which one of the prosecutors called those two books "child erotica" - knowing he can't call them child porn because it simply isn't - so haters ever since use that inflammatory term to describe these two art books.
But in reality we talk about two art books which were made in the 60s, which were a gift by a fan and one of which was inscribed by Michael showing how he viewed them. (
“Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ 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.” ) Here I wrote about about them:
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...inger-s-home?p=3856585&viewfull=1#post3856585
LA_C is right, you are being tricked by a hater and these are the same copied-pasted flawed arguments, verbatim, that a hater website uses.
No, MJ was never charged or even attempted to be charged with child porn. In fact in 1993 after the search (in which those two books were found) invstigators acknowledged that
“the search warrant didn’t result in anything that would support a criminal filing”. The prosecution knew well it was not child porn, nor child erotica - they never used even the later term in court.
The hater's response was that it's not unusual for witnesses to "protect" the abuser and to keep quiet when they know abuse is going on.
LOL. For haters everything that they can't answer in a logical way becomes just "not unusual". So to them it's normal for adult people to witness child molestation and keep quiet about it until some tabloid offers them money? It's also "normal" for them for parents and alleged victims rather wanting money than the accused in jail.It's also "normal" for them for alleged witenesses to go to tabloids rather than authorities.According to these people none of these affects these people's credibility? Alright then.
He also insisted MJ had lots of homosexual (male-on-male) porn. According to this hater, MJ was not only a pedophile but gay as well.
Another lie. The only piece of material that can be perhaps called male-on-male "porn" was a rare book called Sexual Study of Man which was published in the 60s and which was found with hundreds of other books and vintage books in a cardboard box. That book was about homosexuality and apparently had pics in it which depicted homosexual activity. If that is "lots of"... There were some other books with both nude males and females that they confiscated - none of those were porn, none of those depicted sexual activity (except for some books on females), they were art photo books. The context in which you have to put those books is (including the two books from the 1993 search with the kids) that MJ had a huge collection of art books and especially art photo books. Obviously some of those will have nudes in it. He also had a fondness for rare, vintage books.
Here is, for example, Todd Gray talking about MJ's love for art photo books:
"When Michael did find time to relax, he loved to leaf through photographic picture books. He would bring his favorite books with him on tour and buy more books while on the road - the bus weighted with an increasing number of boxes as we left each city. The Triumph Tour began in Memphis with no boxes; by the time we got to Dallas, a few days later, I noticed two; then came Houston; and by the time we hit San Antonio, I noticed a score of boxes being loaded onto the bus. He especially loved books on Hollywood glamour from the 1930s, richly illustrated children’s books, and coffee-table books on photography. Michael would usually hole up in the rear of the bus, while the others spent their time together in front. I also preferred the quiet at the back, and I would sit down with him while he was engrossed in a book of Hollywood glamour photographs from the 1930s. Looking at a particularly striking photo, he would say, “This is magic. They don’t make photos like this anymore.” He studied the pose, eyes, make-up, and expression - everything that went into a great glamour photo.
Michael also loved books that showed children from around the world. One day on the bus I remember him saying “I wish I could write a book about the children of the world. I could go to every country and show how everyone on earth is beautiful. I want to go to India and show the poverty and suffering of the children there, and maybe I could help improve the situation. Africa, too, where there is so much starvation and disease. Todd, would you want to do that with me?” I was stunned, both because I wondered how Michael would ever find the time and also that he wanted me to be the photographer. I suggested that he take a look at the photographs of Lewis Hine, the influential photojournalist whose work helped spur the introduction of child labor laws in the early twentieth century.”
"When Michael and I leafed through photography books on the tour bus, he would point out images he especially liked. He particularly loved the light that bathed the faces of the stars in classic Hollywood portraits. "This light is magic," he'd say in a whisper. "This picture is magic. Look at her eyes. They are so innocent and beautiful. Todd, I want you to photograph me like this." He also told me he wanted to be photographed in expressions similar to those in the photographs of children laboring in factories taken by Lewis Hine in the early 20th century, the subject of another book we had looked at on the bus."
The books confiscated were books by renowned photographers such as Bruce Weber - the same photographer who did the L'Uomo Vouge photos of Michael in 2007 and who Michael knew since he was a teenager because he also used to photograph him back in the 70s. The prosecution were simply desperate to use this kind of stuff as evidence for anything. They introduced it saying that they can be used to "groom victims", even though no alleged victim ever claimed to have seen them...
Michael's real porn was all 100% heterosexual or the type of female-on-female stuff which is targeted to heterosexual men. No male-on-male porn was found among his magazines, DVDs, the websites he visited or the pics which were cached on his computer, only stuff which is targeted to heterosexual men. All legal, of course.
It amazes me that someone can know so much about the case and still believe MJ was guilty. How can you possibly research the accusations against him and not see that it was clearly a matter of extortion?
Don't fall for that "knowledge". They are good at selling themselves to those who are uninformed, but most of these haters do not know much about the allegations. There is a hater website that they go to for ammunition to argue and they use the exact same terms (for example "NAMBLA endorsed books") and that's how you can tell they take their arguments from there. It's a highly flawed website with carefully cherry-picked and twisted information about the cases and evidence. They do not present the full picture and context because they know that would exonerate MJ. Those who created that website simply WANT MJ to be guilty. If they would be really honest and genuine in their research they would not need to make up stuff and take things out of context, twist things and they would present the full picture and context, not just cherry-picked stuff. They are clearly not honest and genuine. The same people tried to plant child porn on Charles Thomson, tried to impersonate him online, bullied Paris on Twitter etc. Why to do all that if you are an honest researcher? Well, they are not, they are haters.
