General info about the Arvizos

[redfrog]

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.

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?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

My defense is that these books in themselves are simply not conclusive. You have to look at the context of them. If they had been in the context of an obsessive amount of nude pics of kids then they would be incriminating. If MJ could not have stopped collecting such books and in 2003 again a great number of such books would have been found then they would be incriminating. If they are found in the context of a huge art book collection of all kinds, in the collection of a guy who just generally seems to have an interest in art photography then it is not incriminating. Also the inscription by MJ makes it clear that he didn't think of these photos in a sexual way. The other being inscribed by a fan is also an indication that they were sent by a fan. I agree that a pedophile wouldn't just wait for people send him such material, he would actively collect them. In that I agree. I'm more bothered by such arguments as what a pedophile would do before a raid, or that he wanted to send it back. That's just way too speculative and when you build a defense on such things it is way too easy to debunk it.
---------------------------------------

Well said.

 

[redfrog]

Most of my arguments are based on what the accusers said and did, what Gutierrez said and did etc. and not on pedophile profiles (which are nevertheless important)
It's a fact that many pedophiles like to look at pictures which are in those books.
I don't know whether you ever saw the picture which Zonen and Court TV singled out, I did once it no longer shows up in Google imagine search but there is no doubt that picture was designed for pedos. Defending those books won't work with most people, doesn't
matter if they are legal or not, or if they are in the LOC or not.

Haters do not say that MJ forgot about the books. They say he used them for sexual gratification for years.
That's why they say he needed them in his bedroom and tried to hide them from everyone.
Zonen even emphasized that MJ had the books during the period when the "prior act victims" were molested.
Haters say MJ cleared the house but I say he did not. If he had the police wouldn't have found those books.
I say that MJ told the truth and he in fact didn't know that books with nude boy pictures were in his possession,
haters says the opposite that he LIED to Sawyer.
Their argument that MJ remembered those books well and cleared the house but left those two books in his bedroom just makes no sense. Do you think it does?


Yes the context is important as I pointed out that he clearly didn't collect such things and didn't even own them after 1993.
But on top of that there is no evidence he knew those books were full of pictures of nude boys, either.
That's not speculation but based on his own words and the lack of contrary evidence.

You want to say that MJ knew those pictures including the suggestive ones and despite that he wanted to keep the books
because the pictures are "in the eye of the beholder"? Is that your argument?

Regarding the inscription we agree but haters say it's evidence that MJ lied to Sawyer.
Their argument is stupid. The inscription is about the cover picture, four happy boys jumping in a lake
and MJ probably signed and inscribed many books fans sent or gave him without paging through them.

It's also just a sidenote in the bigger context of an article that there might possibly be a connection between VG and Evan. The word possibly notifies that this thought is speculative however it doesnt really affect the main theme of the article.

Neither does the sidenote that his inscription indicates he wanted to send it back to the fan.
You really think it's common to tell yourself in a book "Look at" something and then sign your initials?

The other being inscribed by a fan is also an indication that they were sent by a fan.

You conclude that not based on actual proof but circumstantial evidence so why don't you call this highly speculative?
Only one of them was inscribed by the fan not both so haters could say MJ bought the other one himself, in fact I saw them say just that. If one being inscribed is an indication that both were sent by a fan then MJ writing "Look at..." is not an indication that he wanted to send that message to someone instead of keeping it for himself?

I agree that a pedophile wouldn't just wait for people send him such material, he would actively collect them. In that I agree.

But you said we cannot know what a pedophile would do. So now you admit
there are certain things which we can reasonable assume a pedophile would do or not do?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I guess someone swapped those approx 20 computers aswell to make sure there was nothing incriminating on them ?

 

[InvincibleMJ]

^ come on let's not give castor another false theory to worry about

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Sorry ?

 

[KOPV]

the argument of reasonable speculation and argument of what it did look like vs. what it was is a pointless argument to have now simply because the fact Michael was acquitted for THAT exact reason. The jury was smart enough to separate the appearance of guilt vs. physical evidence.

Who books/products came from is the same type of argument the prosecution used.. "appearance of" the end of the day it does not matter who what was sent to Michael, physical evidence is what was found (in this case not found) in his home..

If the defense stood there and tried to argue the point "Well this book was sent from a fan, see the inscription here - it says." That would have lost the case.. trying to get people to overlook evidence would have worked just as good as the prosecution trying to get people to overlook the LACK of evidence.. it DID NOT work..

Throwing it all on the table and dealing with what is dealt plays for a smarter game than trying to get people to look at what's around the table and explain how it got there.. People see that as game playing and intentional distraction which people do when they have something to hide.

 

[Soundmind]

the argument of reasonable speculation and argument of what it did look like vs. what it was is a pointless argument to have now simply because the fact Michael was acquitted for THAT exact reason. The jury was smart enough to separate the appearance of guilt vs. physical evidence.

Who books/products came from is the same type of argument the prosecution used.. "appearance of" the end of the day it does not matter who what was sent to Michael, physical evidence is what was found (in this case not found) in his home..

If the defense stood there and tried to argue the point "Well this book was sent from a fan, see the inscription here - it says." That would have lost the case.. trying to get people to overlook evidence would have worked just as good as the prosecution trying to get people to overlook the LACK of evidence.. it DID NOT work..

Throwing it all on the table and dealing with what is dealt plays for a smarter game than trying to get people to look at what's around the table and explain how it got there.. People see that as game playing and intentional distraction which people do when they have something to hide.

The defense did do just that. They told the jury they were sent by a fan, they asked the witnesses including detectives to read the inscriptions made by mj and the fan. The defense did want the jury to know mj did not buy such books, and when he looked at them he could not think anything sexual of the images it contained hence the totally innocent inscription by him.

Add to that the jury heard from the detective who seized those books that although they were hidden in a cabinet, the one who had the keys was Blanca of all people not to mention the police did not touch that cabinet until she arrived with the keys.

The haters tend to say even if they were sent by a fan if he was not really interested in such books he would not have kept position of them for 10 years, he did not even have never land when those books were sent to him, so they meant something to him for him to have them moved to never land and to keep them under lock and key in his bedroom. So the revelation about Francia's part in the 1993 raid makes everything surrounding their location and position very fishy to say the least.

We should always keep in mind that she was a maid at Encino where he supposedly got the books and she was known for stealing his stuff.

 

[MJTruth]

I think you're on shaky ground if you want to build a case that Francia planted the books in the safe. There's no evidence that it happened so you're better off using arguments based on fact rather than your own guesswork.
The books were in the safe but we don't know who put them there or when. Yes Francia had the key but that doesn't mean she planted the books. Also, I don't know whether there was a reason the police had to call in Francia to open the safe - perhaps the locksmith could not gain access. I agree it is strange that they would call her of all people, but strange things happen in life without there being a conspiracy.

 

[Soundmind]

I said every thing surrounding the two books is very fishy.

 

[KOPV]

We simply have to accept that haters have reason to speculate simply because 1. that is what they are fed 2. there are things that APPEAR like evidence.. When people look for bad qualities or actions they will see only the "evidence of guilt" (this applies to anything)..

Michael said it himself best:

"I'm gonna be exactly what you want to see"

"and If you want to see Eccentrialities, I'll be grotesque before your eyes".. "But if you came to see the truth the purity, it's right here in a lonely heart"

 

[ChrisC]

"and If you want to see Eccentrialities

Eccentric oddities, no?

 

[KOPV]

^ Yeah well that's what I say but I copied and pasted from lyric sheets and two of the ones I found said that.. maybe used from each other.. the word used in the lyric sheet isn't even a real word but I was like.. ahh maybe I'm wrong so I'll post it anyways lol..

point still made though right? maybe? haha

 

[redfrog]

Yes, I did say there are reasonable speculations but many of yours are just not. When you have an inscription in a book by a fan it's reasonable to conclude it was a gift from a fan.

That's not what you said. You said
The other being inscribed by a fan is also an indication that they were sent by a fan.
So you assumed that because one was inscribed by a fan Boys will be boys was also sent by her.
That is speculation and not more reasonable than MJ writing that message to someone else not himself.
You didn't answer my question: do you think it's common to tell yourself in a book "Look at" something and then sign your initials?

Just because he intended to send it to someone doesn't mean it had to happen.
As you said MJ wasn't someone who was highly organized in fact he was pretty messy.
He could lose the address, he could put it aside and forgot about it. He could tell his employees to do it and they could lose the address.
MJ said he didn't remember having any such book so it's not that he had plenty of time to send it back
it's that he didn't even know he had it he forgot about that book.

As for it being possible not to view those pictures in a sinister light did you see those pictures?
I did. Those pictures are immoral. Without a doubt. They are only legal because they do not meet the definition of
child porn.

And it isn't just MJ who interpreted it in a way that is not sexual

MJ didn't interpreted them in any way he said he didn't know such books were in his place.
You are against baseless speculation but you talk like you know for sure MJ was familiar with those pictures.
So you think that he lied to Sawyer?

The inscription is about the cover photo , clearly those boys look very happy.
And just because you sign a book does not mean you have to leaf through it.

As for your argument about the search, again it is weak. It is possible for someone to clear the house but forget to clear up some material.

Not when you are accused of molesting a boy and threatened with a police investigation and you used those books for sexual gratification for
10 years. Under those circumstances the very things a guilty person would make sure are no longer there are pictures of nude boys
especially in his bedroom! Unless he is a complete idiot.

I agree there was no cover up. MJ didn't clear the house. He would have if he had been guilty.

You didn't answer:
Do you think it makes sense that MJ remembered those books and cleared the house but left those books in his bedroom?
That is the haters' argument.

 

[terrell]

Well, these two books have interesting story to say the least. The detective who found them testified in 2005 that they found them in a locked cabinet in MJ's room. While they unlocked everything in his room with the help of a local locksmith who accompanied them during the raid, that particular cabinet they preferred not to open until Francia Blanca, mind you by that time she had been fired for at least two years , came with the keys!!! I am not joking. This was indeed his testimony on the stand.

So yes MJ did receive them from a fan and signed one of them, but why the police did not ask the locksmith to open that cabinet, how the police knew that Francia of all people had the lock for that cabinet which ended up having the ONLY "incriminating" evidence they found in mJ's house. It does seem like they knew they were going to find something there. She was known for stealing mj's stuff. Maybe when she was approached by Guitzer before she was fired she went through mjs stuff and found the books, took them, and when the 1993 allegations surfaced planted them in a suspicious way, separately in a locked cabinet in his bedroom, locked cabinet with the help of other maid. She was still in good contact with many employees. It does seem that she was at least in contact with the police when the raid took place so she must have known his house was going to be raided. Frankly speaking, the odds are high the books were planted there given the circumstances surrounding them. The police did tell on themselves.

And most of the time, MJ was not at home. That maid had the key and she was fired two years? I missed that testimony. I bet a lot of stuff was in MJ's home and he did not know about.

 

[terrell]

I think you're on shaky ground if you want to build a case that Francia planted the books in the safe. There's no evidence that it happened so you're better off using arguments based on fact rather than your own guesswork.
The books were in the safe but we don't know who put them there or when. Yes Francia had the key but that doesn't mean she planted the books. Also, I don't know whether there was a reason the police had to call in Francia to open the safe - perhaps the locksmith could not gain access. I agree it is strange that they would call her of all people, but strange things happen in life without there being a conspiracy.

As someone who worked in law enforcement, If law wants to get into something especially a case like this, they can get in it QUICK even if they have to destroy the house and the safe. I want to know more about this part. Remember, this was a RAID on MJ's home not some cops coming because someone called and police are being kind to wait and see who is who.

 

[KOPV]

As MJ fans.. We have to understand when we are talking to haters, simply spitting facts makes you (us/me.. whatever) look ridiculous, close minded and creeps people out.. Never forget when you are speaking to a hater, or more so an every day person - they don't care like we do..

If you came to me and asked me diet tips and I spit at 100 miles an hour science.. it would overwhelm you and most likely be like "Jeez, that guy is intense.. lets not go down that track again"..

That's the same with Michael.. We have to put a 'sales' hat on.. You are selling a concept of Michael being truth.. Put more physiological thought to it than tossing facts out hoping they will stick..

just my word on this for now

 

[elusive moonwalker]

So those books or the cabinet had not been moved in at least 2 years.heck did anyone other than francia even have a key for the box. Francia had obviously looked in the box and kept a key and probably told the police about it.at least two years later it was still sat in the same postion.

Or did she find the books somewhere else ie in the libary and then move them into the box herself and leave them there inorder to make them look incriminating.then works with sneddon.. you can put nothing past her

 

[redfrog]

Jesus, redfrog, do you ever hear yourself talk? With defenders like you MJ doesn't really need haters. I can only hope this is not how you "defend" him to the outside world. At this point you would be welcome at *******. Sometimes you do more harm with your "defense" than good.

Denying the obvious is not a good defense. Some of those pictures in Boys will be boys
are immoral and I don't think that if MJ had seen them he would have decided to keep that book
or send it back. He would have thrown it away.

The Amazon Reviews prove nothing pedophiles can defend Boys will be boys. You don't know who wrote those reviews.

The comment on Amazon was about Boy A photographic essay not Boys will be boys. To be clear as far as I know the immoral pictures are in Boys will be boys. Most pictures in A photographic essay are those of clothed boys and are indeed innocent. I don't know any picture in that book which is undeniably sexual. I'm sure Zonen would have singled them out if they existed. That's why I wrote

This book, like the above mentioned books is child erotica only if you think about sex while looking at naked boys and girls which pedophiles do but normal people don't.

The above mentioned books referred to the five art photography books which had pictures of nude girls.
If you read the whole comment you can see that it's against the idea that pictures of nude children are automatically
child erotica simply because they are nude, which I definitely don't believe.
It's also about the fact that there are other photographic books with pictures of nude girls which some could say are even more questionable photos than the ones in Boys will be boys and are still legal and considered art. But those pictures are undeniably artistic while I don't see what is art about a boy sitting with his legs open with a suggestive look on his face.

Yes they could publish Boys will be boys because most of those pictures are not suggestive
and they are not child porn and the 60s were different times. But could they publish Boys will be boys today? I doubt it.

As for adopting hater ideas don't you see that you are doing just that? They say MJ lied to Sawyer!
You keep talking like you know for sure that Michael saw those pictures despite the fact he said he never opened those books which means he never saw those pictures INSIDE those books, period. You think because he inscribed it he had to see the pictures inside
that is a hater argument in case you missed it.
He obviously saw the cover photo his inscription is about those happy looking boys.
But they are also four boys in their swimming trunks! A pedo looking at that picture would have been very much interested in what was inside he would have leafed through it. MJ wasn't interested and didn't look inside just inscribed it put it aside and then forgot about it. Don't you see how someone can look at the cover of a book, write a message on the white page, close it, put it aside
move to the next item?

The question was do you think it's common that someone writes to himself "Look at " and then sign his initials?
It was actually To Michael not Dear Michael but there is need for "Dear Rhonda" to send a message to Rhonda, come on, that too is just speculation. The other question was how do you know that Boys will be boys was also sent to him by a fan not just Boy A photographic essay, (that was the one inscribed by the fan)? Why is that a more reasonable speculation?

Especially if their basic stance is looking at those pics with innocence - as MJ seemed to have based on his inscription.

The inscription is not about the boys with bananas in their mouth or the one siting with his legs open
There is no "joy and happiness" on those boys' faces and there is not a shred of evidence MJ would
have seen those pictures as innocent.
The inscription is about the cover photo. Do you deny that?

The point is, that it is not a good defense to say "if he was a pedophile and cleaned up the place before the raid he wouldn't have had those two books there". It is easy to counter this argument by saying mistakes do happen.

Seriously you think it's easy to counter it with this argument?

A pedophile is being threatened with a police investigation and therefore he wants to eliminate any and all incriminating evidence but because mistakes happen he just forgets about two books with pics of nude boys he used for sexual gratification for 10 years and which he carefully put in a file cabinet to hide from everyone and make them easily accessible in his bedroom?
And he would somehow not recall having those books in his room between July 9 and Aug 15??
Yeah a complete idiot pedophile or one with a severe case of amnesia would have made that mistake.
What haters say is an extremely implausible scenario. How come you don't see that?

I personally don't think there was any cover-up and hiding of material before the raid at all and if someone says there was the burden of proof is on them to prove it. There is no credible evidence of that, other than tabloid level desperate speculations in order to explain away the lack of evidence. And how do they then explain the lack of evidence in 2003?

Don't you understand that I say the same thing? There is absolutely no evidence there was a cover up.
MJ did not clear the house! But if he had been guilty if he had been a pedophile
he would have remembered those books very well for obvious reasons and he would have cleared the house
after being threatened by Chandler and would have got rid of those books at least after the Aug 4 meeting if not
right after hearing Chandler's threats on July 9. The police therefore couldn't have found them.

It reminds me on your inconsistency regarding MJ's supposed asexuality when in some other posts you will bring up his hetero porn to say it shows he was sexually interested in women.

There is no inconsistency you are simply incapable of understanding that
watching porn and having a drive to have sex with others are two different things. Asexuals may watch porn, may masturbate
that doesn't mean they actually need sexual contact with others. Clear?
MJ was attracted to women and he did have sex with Lisa Marie and possibly with Debbie to make kids but there is no evidence
he ever had sexual contact with anyone else.

 

[KOPV]

The argument of Michael cleaning the scene prior to does not really fly with me and I think other people would not buy into it either.. It was obviously planned when Michael was out of state and unexpectedly in that regard.. OK, have it be he knew there was interest in him at the time about specific subject matter but that does not eliminate the fact that Michael lived a life that what he says goes.. People with that type of power don't assume or feel the need to prepare for someone intruding there home like that ESPECIALLY when innocent.

Let's give it another benefit of doubt, lets say Michael cleaned 'evidence'... Well he did not clean the house, he was a messy individual and do you know how much DNA would be found all over that room knowing his lifestyle when it came to his messiness..

Or how bout nothing inappropriate found on his computer(s).. You can erase browser history but you can't erase the trial of everything you've done/looked at on that computer.. It's STILL there.

Someone cleaning evidence leaves things CLEAN.. the parts of Neverland that MJ 'managed' was messy to say the least. He was a pack rat in that regard.. Seemed to be borderline hoarder with things everywhere.. The way Michael lived.. IF there was something, they WOULD HAVE found something.

 

[redfrog]

The argument of Michael cleaning the scene prior to does not really fly with me and I think other people would not buy into it either..

He didn't clear the house. The point is he would have if he had been guilty
don't you think? A pedo has those books in his bedroom, is being threatened with a police investigation
and would just go on tour leaving those books in his room knowing full well the Chandlers could
go to the police any way?

Makes no sense.

The haters' argument is bullshit. They say he did clear the house, got rid of logs for example,
but at the same time left those books in that file cabinet. Books which they say he used for sexual
gratification for 10 years. Books which Zonen said he knew he had when he molested
Chandler in 1993. He would remember the logs in Aug 1993 but not those books?

 

[Soundmind]

The issue with the way they found those two books was that a local locksmith was with them so why wait for Francia? Not that they were hesitant to trash MJ's belongings both at Encino and Neverland.

Second was it a coincidence that they found ZERO incriminating evidence besides those two books?

How could Francia even know they were still there if she was fired more than two years ago by that time?

Go back to the testimony of Neverland employees, you will discover that Francia was still friend with some of them.

I do not put anything beyond her. Actually, it is very reasonable to believe the books were planted by Francia where they were found given the circumstances at the time and what we know now.

What are the chances everything was a coincidence? I am sorry but I do not believe it was a coincidence at all

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Sounds logical to me that francia took those books from the libary put them in the case and locked it. Then two years later they are still there! and not only that she remembers and tells the police that theres these incriminatng books in a random box on their own.they find the box and get the key from her to confirm it is thee box.

 

[Soundmind]

Sounds logical to me that francia took those books from the libary put them in the case and locked it. Then two years later they are still there! and not only that she remembers and tells the police that theres these incriminatng books in a random box on their own.they find the box and get the key from her to confirm it is thee box.

Or maybe she stole them while she was working at Encino among many other things and when the investigation began she thought that they would be incriminating so she asked an employee to put them in MJ's room and had the cabinet locked so no one can remove them before the police arrived.

Why would an employee lock a file cabinet and have the keys?! She was a maid for God's sake not his personal assistant.

Was she on good terms with one of the fab five?

I believe she was among the very first people to go on air and sell stories. Was she on Hard Copy before or after the raid?

 

[Soundmind]

Francis stole MJ's sketches of Elvis. That was something she believed would sell. She might have stolen the books because she thought that they were controversial and she could make some money on them at some stage. It did seem that she was stealing left and right so it is not a stretch to assume she indeed found the two books and stole them.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Possibly. There is the issue of them being there for two years and the entire trunk never been moved by mj or any other staff. .

Bottom line the fact francia knew all about it years after being sacked and had a key for a box where the only things that could be argued as incriminating where found together on their own stinks to high heaven. Either her doing on her own or working with the nev 5.

 

[redfrog]

LOL, sure. That's why you keep bringing up Boys Will Be Boys in that post and defend that too, even though the commenter you reply to never mentioned it. And funny, how you now leave out the nex part to explain away your flip-flopping. I am sorry but no matter how you try to spin it now, it is clear that you have also meant Boys Will Be Boys, not just The Boy.

Read that paragraph as a whole and don't ignore the context which was about whether nude kid pictures are automatically child erotica or not. In that paragraph I explained why Essay and Boys could be published (meaning why they are legal) The hater argued because the kids are nude Essay is child erotica. If that had been the case that and Boys will be boys couldn't have been published, regardless of the suggestive pictures. The mere fact the kids were nude would have rendered the books illegal. Pictures of naked kids can be legal because in general most people don't think about sex while looking at them. That doesn't mean certain legal pictures of nude kids are not immoral. As I wrote the 60s were different times, today Boys could not be published I'm sure of that.

Otherwise why mention it in this context when the person you reply to did not even mention Boys Will Be Boys? You are the only one bringing it up to defend it with the same sentence that you use to defend The Boy.

Because I knew she was a hater, she brought up MJ (in fact I'm sure she submitted that review specifically to bash MJ) it's obvious she knew that both books were found in his home. She also said if those were girls no one would call Essay an art book so I pointed out that some art books have pictures of nude girls AND nude men together (which have been criticized even more than Boys will be boys) and they are still considered art, if they are indeed artistic.

No, I don't think MJ lied. I think it is perfectly plausible to think he just forgot about it.

He was very clear that he didn't know about any book which had pictures of nude boys
and if such books existed he never opened them. He sounded like he would not tolerate such books in his home.
He didn't say "well if they found such books they must be art books" or "I could possibly have them because
I have a lot of art books and some of them have pictures of nude boys.".
His reaction was unequivocal no, he was not interested in books with nude boys, period
and if they found any that's only because he never saw those pictures.

SAWYER: Then, they found photographs, books of young boys who were undressed

MICHAEL: No, not that I know of, unless people sent me things that I haven't opened.

But if he inscribed it he obviously opened it at one point.
You can't argue he never opened it when his inscription is in it.

Come on, you know very well he didn't mean opening it like when you sign a book
but opening it to look inside the book, to see what's on the pages.
The inscription does not prove he saw the pictures.
It proves that he saw the cover picture and that's it.
Everything else is speculation that contradicts what he said and HOW he said it, too.
He reacted with genuine surprise that they found books with nude boy pics.

Again, it is not unreasonable but there is a country mile between saying something is possible than saying "this is what
happened, period" - like you (and also haters) seem to do.

But you said earlier that particular speculation was "just way too much and just make you look desperate."
and it was "just way too speculative" that it was "speculative nonsense".
Now you say it's not unreasonable. Flip flop.
First you made this definitive statement: "you don't know what a pedophile would or wouldn't do"
then you said "I agree that a pedophile wouldn't just wait for people send him such material, he would actively collect them" Flip flop.

Besides, do you think MJ wanted to send this book to someone else as well? Look at all the imperatives "make yourself respected", "look", "do this find an image", "wow read law".

You compare apples and oranges.
Those are notes all over the place not a pretty inscription coupled with his initials
They are clearly instruction for himself, memos, things he wanted to remember, things he wanted to
do to achieve his goals. There is an arrow at Look pointing to the part of the text he wanted to remember.
Obviously he didn't write "Look at the joy and happiness on these boys faces ....this is the life I never had and will always dream of" M. J. because he wanted to remind himself to look at the joy and happiness of those boys and wanted to remind himself that he never had a happy childhood. That would make no sense.

That's because I do not say "this is definitely what happened, I know it, period".

Neither did I say "he wanted to send it back, I know it, period." You exaggerate.

I said:
the inscription in Boys will be boys show that he not only
didn't have sex on his mind while looking at boys but wanted
to send the book back to the person who sent it. One doesn't tell himself
"Look at..." and one doesn't sign a book for himself either.

You said:

The other being inscribed by a fan is also an indication that they were sent by a fan.

I said the inscription shows you said the inscription is an indication.
The definition of indicate is
point out; show, be a sign of; strongly suggest.

We said basically the same thing about circumstantial evidence which indicate
that both books were sent by the fan and MJ intended to send one of them back to her.

That's exactly why I use the word "possible" there and don't say: "this is what happened, period". I always specify it when something is just possible and when something is a fact.

You didn't say it's possible. You said the inscription IS an indication that they were sent by a fan,
not a possible indication.
And I never said "he wanted to send it back, period". Those are your words not mine.
I said that one doesn't inscribe a book like that for himself (that is a reasonable assumption)
and that shows he wanted to send it back. It's possible he didn't want to but the inscription
shows / indicates that he did.

And you keep focusing on those cherry-picked photos.

No I keep focusing on the fact that a pedophile would have been crazy about those books
and MJ wasn't interested in them at all. And you keep saying that MJ saw those pictures and had no problem with them
that's why he kept them. That without any evidence that he saw them at all let alone that he
wouldn't have any problem with them.

And who the hell said the inscription was about boys with bananas in their mouth or the open leg pic?

You said this:

I can imagine there are a couple of others that can be deemed suggestive,
but again it doesn't mean everyone picks up on such suggestions. Especially
if their basic stance is looking at those pics with innocence - as MJ
seemed to have based on his inscription.

The inscription in no way indicates that MJ looked at the suggestive pictures with innocence as the inscription is clearly not about those pictures.

And the cover isn't the only innocent photo in the book.

The inscription is not about innocence but "the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces."
Unless the book if full of similar pictures where boys are smiling from ear to ear having a great time
it's hard to see why MJ would write that like it's the overall theme of the book.

I already said what I wanted about this, it is going in circles now. I just don't think it is a great argument.

No, you are dodging the question for the third time.
You think a pedo who clears the house would actually make the mistake of leaving books with nude boy photos he used for sexual gratification for 10 years in his bedroom? You consider that a plausible scenario? Yes or no?

I think by now you realized how implausible that would be just don't want to admit it.
All along you believed I argued MJ cleared the house when in fact I said the opposite.

I just find it highly comical when I see you on other boards and comment section argue with someone about MJ's sexuality and you throw in the hetero porn magazines as a way of proving his sexuality.
I mean, knowing that here you argue he was asexual. If you really think that he was asexual then why throw in his hetero porn magazines whenever someone calls him a pedophile or even just gay, why not stick to what you claim to believe: ie. that he was asexual?

I find it highly comical that you still don't understand being attracted to women
and watching porn are not the same as having a continuous drive to have sex with women.
I've said this a 100 times already and for some reason you still don't get it.
Based on the available evidence I believe he was asexual in a sense that he did not have
recurring sexual desire towards others, that is he was just fine without doing it
with anyone. He had a general disinterest in sex but I never said he never had sex with any woman.
So the magazines prove his sexuality as in he only had sex with women never with males
and he was only attracted to females never to males. Clear enough?

There are different type of asexuals it's not a black or white thing.

Asexuality is hard to define because, like sexuality, it works differently in different people.
In one 2010 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, 81% of men and 30% of women who identified as asexual masturbated at least once a month.

http://fusion.net/video/229211/do-asexual-people-masturbate/

When someone calls him gay I never see you say "no, he was asexual". Instead you throw in his hetero porn magazines. If you think your asexual argument is so incredibly great why not use that in debates instead of the hetero porn magazines?

Not true. I often say he wasn't even that much interested in sex let alone sex with males.
When people say he was gay they mean he was attracted to males and had sex with males.
Clearly, he was attracted to women only and his magazines prove that.

Here's an asexual guy who never had sex but is attracted to both men and women:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwxo6t7XBYs&t=213s

 

[barbee0715]

A lot of people send celebrities pictures, books, things to sign and they autograph them, or write something in them and have them sent back-and I think that was probably the case here. Seems like Michael looked at the cover, and wrote a lovely little inscription inside, and then something happened (like Francia stealing it) and it wasn't sent back.

Molly Meldrun asked Michael to inscribe a book-a book by Stephen King-during their last interview. And Michael was happy to oblige.

 

[redfrog]

A lot of people send celebrities pictures, books, things to sign and they autograph them, or write something in them and have them sent back-and I think that was probably the case here. Seems like Michael looked at the cover, and wrote a lovely little inscription inside, and then something happened (like Francia stealing it) and it wasn't sent back.

Molly Meldrun asked Michael to inscribe a book-a book by Stephen King-during their last interview. And Michael was happy to oblige.

That's what I'm saying too. That inscription is about the cover, the fan (or possible pedo who fantasized about MJ we know NAMBLA targeted him since the 80s)
sent him both books asked him to sign and send Boys will be boys back MJ wrote an inscription and signed it then put it aside and
forgot about it or his employees whose job it would have been to send it back lost the address or forgot to do it then it ended
up among his countless books.

I always wondered why Sneddon didn't do a fingerprint test on those books, why only on the magazines.
They basically said MJ paged the hell out of those books over 10 years so why didn't they try to prove it?
I think they were afraid it would come back negative.

As for the key the police didn't want to know where the other key was?
They didn't want to know how he accessed those books?
They turned the place upside down but didn't find a second key?
Or they thought it was with him in Thailand? That would make even less sense
yeah I leave the books behind but will take the key with me.

Or if Michael had no key to the cabinet how can they argue he used those books for sex?
He did it for a while then put the books in the cabinet closed it and lost the key?
Makes no sense he still would have found a way to open it.

Why would he let anyone let alone Francia have a key in the first place if he wanted to hide the books?
And what did she do with that key over they years? She used it saw the books
but didn't care that this guy keeps nude boy books in a file cabinet in his bedroom?
Or she never used it and never wondered why did he give me this key at all?
If she stole it why did she steal it? Did someone else other than MJ give it to her? If so who
and why?

 

[KOPV]

He didn't clear the house. The point is he would have if he had been guilty
don't you think? A pedo has those books in his bedroom, is being threatened with a police investigation
and would just go on tour leaving those books in his room knowing full well the Chandlers could
go to the police any way?

Makes no sense.

The haters' argument is bullshit. They say he did clear the house, got rid of logs for example,
but at the same time left those books in that file cabinet. Books which they say he used for sexual
gratification for 10 years. Books which Zonen said he knew he had when he molested
Chandler in 1993. He would remember the logs in Aug 1993 but not those books?

Yes... We all know that his room and his common areas that were more so 'private' were a mess.. IF there was something to hide he would have had that place clean.. Hire a group of people to clean everything out and get rid of everything suggestive..

Instead around that time he had MORE guests over the house when he was there and traveled outside of California even more so than average... After he was under the radar he started to make sure people were at Neverland when the Arvizos were there.. The Cascios, MJs cousins and friends started to visit Neverland more in 2003 after LWMJ aired and that Chandler doc leak...

IF he were guilty it would want no one there, get that place wiped clean.. double/triple checked... and DONE! but no.. it was a mess, nudy mags found and basically things that many men have.. no DNA to put Michael to anything inappropriate or anything.. sexual acts leave DNA.. we all know that