Michael Jackson

[b]-fatty- wrote: It
was a reference to the books which the police seized from Michael
Jackson's bedroom, the one he shared with children during those
innocent sleep-overs.

'Boys Will Be Boys,' Containing
photographs of boys under the age of 14; full frontal nudity. the book
is personally inscribed by Michael Jackson;

'In Search Of Young Beauty,' containing photographs of children, boys and girls; some nude;

'The Boy, A Photographic Essay," containing black-and-white photos of boys; some nude;

I
haven't seen the books myself but, given the description of the titles
in MJ's library. I'm guessing that they hail from a time when it was
considered avant garde to have children pose for erotic photographs and
due to some legal loophole they're not technically considered to be
child pornography. The fact remains that MJ kept naked photographs of
children in his bedroom. Of course he kept a lot of gay and straight
porn too and I'm not going to judge the guy on that but I think it's
naive to think that MJ's interest in children was entirely innocent. fatty.[/b]


Well,
from what I understood Michael Jackson had a library of thousands of books. Many of them collectibles. So you think he showed these books in particular to his sleepover buddies? Surely the police went through
every single printed inch of those books to find fingerprints to prove this point. Yet, nothing emerged. These books were confiscated from a locked cabinet (so they were clearly not kept in visible sight) already
back in 1993. They certainly did their best to find prints during the criminal investigation in 1993 and with the 2003-5 Arvizo (People vs J) case, they were able to show that prints of Jackson and the accuser were on the same heterosexua porn magazine. However, the defense was also able through witness' to show that the boys brought their own porn to Neverland and were sexually active (jacking off to porn) and behaved suspiciously even before the alleged abuse, grooming and offering of alcohol by Jackson took place.

The defense naturally did their best to dismiss the books as proper evidence.
As Jackson's defense stated
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/012105oppdarasem.pdf

[b]"According to the District Attorney, heterosexual adult materials do not
demonstrate a sexual interest in adult women, they are evidence of "grooming".
An art book depicting nude males does not demonstrate an interest in
photography, it is evidence of homosexuality. In other words, wheter or not
the evidence is what it is, the District Attorney wants to use it as a prop
to distract the jury, rather than to prove his case using real evidence."[/b]

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/012705MJreplyexcl.pdf
[b]"The defense discusses the prosecutions attempt to use the possession
of books by well-known artists as evidence of a crime against the state.
Stating that these books are found in public libraries and university
curriculum across the country where art, photography and cinematography
are taught."[/b]

[b]"Mr. Jackson's house is filled with thousands and thousands of books, videos,
and magazines. In this enormous collection, plaintiff found 17 books by noted
authors of world wide reputation that plaintiff has chose to condemn as if
plaintiff had any such right to censor what Mr. Jackson may collect in his [blank]"
[/b]
****

During the P vs Jackson case of 2003-5 I suppose it would have probably made the D.A look a bit more less eager if he had not made dubious claims that visits to adoption websites were proof of intent, or the fact he constantly claimed Jackson sexually molested Mac Culkin, Wade Robson and Bret Barnes, all three who testified that nothing of suchmanner took place. Having attempted to introduce former disgruntled Neverland employees who had first sold their story to a tabloid (rather than the police) as proper rebuttal witness' against the testimonies of these alleged victims surely did not help Sneddon's case one bit.

As far as these books go. Let's be honest, atleast round here libraries have worse material than the three books mentioned... That is if we are looking for material to prove intent to molest boys. Should we track down people who loan such photography books from public libraries as suspected child molesters?

I recall a claim that the book "Boy -a photographic essay" was a gift from
an MJ fan to MJ. However if this was the case, I'm sure Jackson's defense mentioned it
at sometime, but I'm yet to read such a document.
This information about the inscription and the other book being a gift was
however mentioned by several magazines, including New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/national/30jackson.html?fta=y

As for the books in question...

Boys will be boys
http://www.amazon.com/Boys-Will-Be-Photographic-Essay/dp/B000OREMI0
As a collectible on Amazon from 1000 dollars upwards.

The personal inscription on the book by M.Jackson is as follows
"Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. T
his is the spirit of boyhood. A life I’ve never had and will always dream of.
This is the life I want for my children." (information quoted by several newspapers, including NY Times above)

Boy - A Photographic essay can be viewed online.
http://lordoftheflies.org/img/lotfboy1.htm

As the url tells and the website states, all pictures in this section were taken on location during the shooting of the film "Lord of the Flies" by Ken Heyman on Vieques Island. This information is conveniently not introduced when using it as evidence of sexual interest/intent towards minors.

I don't know what you consider child pornography or "technically not child pornography", but as I come from the land of Sauna Perverts I fail to see such in these two cases. But I do have to admit that I would be suspicious of having
my kids sleepover with a black man who owns such books or owns a huge amount of normal straight porn, no matter how much they might show his interest in photography or that simply loved to jack off to plumper
magazines. But that's just because I'm a racist, nothing to do with the books or his taste in porn.

As I recall, the police seized some "art photographs" owned by Sir Elton John from an exhibit, they were
apparently child porn weren't they? Now why wasn't a fully fledged investigation against old-Reg launched immediately, I'm sure he has several of these art books, he collects art and penis statues and
whatnot. Where is the child molestation investigation on him? Oh but then again he isn't a gullible bastard who admits to having sleepovers with kids. Good for him.

continued...

As for the Chandler case of 1993. As I'm not that familiar with the U.S judicial system, I must wonder why
the case against Jackson was a civil suit, even though a criminal investigation was pending solely due to this civil suit? From what I've understood, in civil court person a) accuses person b) of whatever and demands a monetary compensation. No jail sentences can be given by civil courts.I do know that O.J Simpson managed to get acquited by a criminal court, but lost the civil suit and was sentenced to some 35 million dollars in damages for wrongful deaths. From what I've read aproximately 95 percent of civil cases do not go to trial, they are
settled out of court.

 As for criminal trials, you are trialed by the people and sentenced accordingly. The 2005 trial was a criminal
case, where MJ was acquitted. However, it was strangely enough also a case that the Los Angeles Dep. of Child services considered unfounded to begin with if The Smoking Gun is anywhere reliable with this
document,  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo2.html
thanks to an MJ praising testimony by Janet Arvizo. However thanks to former Chandler-case lawyer Larry Feldman, the Arvizo's did see the light and the children saw a psychologist who saw the signs of abuse and was able
to extract the "real story" of abuse.

From what I've understood, the civil settlement of 1993 caused the criminal investigation to dry
up. However this doe s not mean that Jordan Chandler was not questioned by authorities about abuse afterwards (naturally he coudl refuse to testify at court about it). It makes me wonder, how a judicial system
would allow a child molestation case criminal investigation to fade out, if they at all saw it fit to take matters into criminal court. Then again, the plaintiff and lawyer did choose the civil route where the only thing you ask for is compensation, then one can always speculate their motivation. If they really were after justice, surely
they would have wanted a proper criminal trial, to have their story face cross-examination etc. So why didn't the Chandler's help put Jackson away from hurting other children in the future? Why was it a civil case to begin with? As civil cases aim for monetary settlements, naturally at this point, why bother when you already got the money.
Which does give the impression that you were not after justice to begin with.

Apparently California laws had been adjusted since 1993, therefor the 2003-2005 case became a criminal case. The law was changed so that any civil cases about the same crime would remain inactive until the criminal proceedings.
For the Arvizo's, the fact that they first went to Larry Feldman (Chandler's lawyer) might be taken as an
indication that they wanted a civil case, but the criminal investigation that followed prevented it. However, if successful in a criminal trial, they could have also sued Jackson in a civil court for
damages.

Tidbit, did you know Evan Chandler was a screen writer? How bizarre.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107977/fullcredits#writers

The father, Evan Chandler apparently made a second civil claim against Jackson in 1997, which resulted in zero cash that time. This time he wanted more, hoping for another settlement I'm sure.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

He claimed that Jackson breached their previous civil settlement by publicly denying that he molested his son.

His civil claim is perhaps one of the finest pieces of comedy available. Sadly old CourtTV-documents are nowadays mainly available through archive.org (as linked above)

"42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's, and others' material
breach of the Agreement as herein alleged for commercial exploitation and
financial enrichment, Plaintiff demands all economic benefits gained by
Defendant Jackson and other Defendants from the commercial exploitation of
the facts of the "Underlying Action" in an amount in excess of $60,000,000.00.

43. As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson's and
others' material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the
need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy
of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for
sale a certain musical composition entitled "EVANstory." This album will
include such songs as: "D.A. Reprised": "You Have No Defense (For My
Love)"; "Duck Butter Blues"; "Truth"; and other songs. "

Yes, these are two of Evan Chandler's actual claims in the second civil suit!
Duck Butter Blues? All economic benefits gained by Jackson and the other defendants in an amount in excess of
60,000,000,00! EvansStory?

You can't make this up, can you? Am I the only person who thinks
there's something wrong with Jordan Chandler's father. I mean as, if
writing the story for Robin Hood: Men in Tights wasn't enough evidence.

Why did Evan Chandler attempt to dig into MJ's pocket again with a second civil suit if he was not after money? He utilized his son Jordan's alleged molestation twice against MJ. Succeeding in it once. Perhaps he thought he had struck gold with MJ and they'd settle rather than go to court on every occasion someone asks for money?

Why, in 2006 did Jordan Chandler file a lawsuit against his father Evan for assault and wanted a restraining order?

Here's the document from the New Jersey Superior Court
http://www.njccr.org/Temp%20nj%20CL%20files/z%20RO%20NP%20nj%20060608%20Chandler%20vs%20Chandler%20a0422-05.pdf

"The judge found that plaintiff had proved that he and his
father, the defendant, were members of the same household when
defendant struck him on the head from behind with a twelve and
one-half pound weight and then sprayed his eyes with mace or
pepper spray and tried to choke him. The judge also found that
the weight could cause serious bodily injury or death. Thus,
the judge was satisfied that plaintiff had provided evidence,
which if believed, would support a finding of aggravated
assault. Despite that finding, the judge refused to issue a
final restraining order, reasoning as follows:..." (pg 2)

This, atleast in my gullible eyes, furthers the image that Evan Chandler is a dubious character. Even if his son was not actually molested, he was certainly a victim of his father back then and as an adult.

The Chandler case was not the only civil lawsuit against Jackson for sexual molestation
, Thomas Bartucci Jr. accused made very similar accusations of sexual battery.

Joseph Thomas Bartucci, Jr. v. Michael J. Jackson

A civil complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans, Louisiana
seeking financial damages against Michael Jackson, alleging that the
entertainer sexually abused, battered, falsely imprisoned, and caused
severe emotional distress to the plaintiff in Lousiana and California
when he was 18-years-old.
November 1, 2004
http://cobrands.docs.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/jacko/brtccmj110104cmp9.html

However Bartucci's quest for financial damages did not really go his way, he lost.
http://www.websupp.org/data/EDLA/2:04-cv-02977-114-EDLA.pdf
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1184539,00.html

This whole civil court vs criminal court thing is rather puzzling. Perhaps
someone more familiar with the American judicial system could elaborate
on the differences. Could someone actually settle a case of child
molestation in a civil court for money and it could not result in a
criminal investigation? I fail to see that happening if a criminal
investigation results in suspicion of something as serious as child
molestation. Of course the civil settlement by MJ/EC/JC does not
mention molestation or admit to any wrongdoing. Naturally they use much
more vague terms, which is customary for civil cases.

As if MJ himself was not suspicious, so were these cases. Not to mention the
Arvizo's civil claim against JC Penneys in 2001. The BBC trial reports
of the Jackson case
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4584531.stm
mention that "But defence lawyers were able to put a number of dents in Gavin's credibility as a witness.
It emerged that the boy, and his younger brother and older sister, had
taken acting lessons ahead of a 2001 lawsuit against US retailer JC
Penney. "

Mary Holzer testified for the defense, giving on final
blow to the credibility of the Arvizo's by revealing that they had lied
during their civil case against JC Penney's department store
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/25/local/me-jackson25

To be honest, even if these Arvizo boys had been drilled by a pinewood sized dildo at MJ's house, with their background  and lack of credibility no-one would have ever believed them. And that leads us to the problematics of child molestation cases, the problem works both ways. Even if you were molested, there might just be a total lack of physical and dna-evidence to support your case, especially if the acts occurred a long time ago. So all you can do is stick to your story, your word against his/hers as it goes. However, this is what makes false accusations easy. There generally is not any evidence, so if you have a story without holes and you can stick to it and place yourself and person X into the same place at the same time (preferrably in private) you might just win it. But naturally, any accusation as severe as sexual abuse should and will be taken seriously, no matter how
made-up it might be or turn out to be. And that's how it should be. I'm sure none of us want to return to an age where rape victims are laughed at and children who tell of kiddyfiddlers are said to "have a vivid
imagination"... or did we ever leave that era to begin with?

Sorry, had to split this post into three parts and write it mainly while burping my son, srry about typos.Yes, I was bored, no I had never read about MJ's trials before his death.

Great posts, Pete. It's so much easier to throw around some innuendoes and accusations than to look into the facts. People say that when a man has been accused various times there must be some reason and something must be fishy.

A couple of years ago in my home town a whole family of 25 people were tried in court for sexually abusing their 15 children. The initial charges were brought up by a child protection organisation called "Wildwasser" who works in daycare helping to detect and prevent cases of child abuse. After 4 years of trial in 2 courts the whole case collapsed and all defendants were acquitted. Not a single case of child abuse had happened - it was all in the minds of the Wildwasser people who had brainwashed the children to a point when they finally accused the prosecutor of having abused them. In the end even the prosecution pleaded for acquittal. It was the biggest legal scandal I ever witnessed and the end of "Wildwasser". It was also very harmful for child protection groups because they were no longer trusted after the witch hunt by "Wildwasser". Nothing was fishy about this family, no fire caused the smoke. But the family was destroyed -  up to this day they have not been re-united with their children.

People are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No matter how often they are accused.

Well the "facts" seem pretty clear to me: MJ used the "While I was coming out of the shower, I slipped and landed on my pet hamster, which ended up in my rectum" defence, which is on a par with Eddie Murphy's "I was only offering the transvestite prostitute a ride home" defence. 

Or if you want a more serious answer, in celebrity trials "hyperbolic" doubt sometimes replaces "reasonable" doubt as the criteria for acquittal i.e. O.J. SImpson got off as, although any reasonable person would conclude that he was guilty of murder, the defence managed to convince the jury that the needed to be 100% certain he had done it -- a standard that is impossible to live up to. This is where money and fame enters the equation: juries want to believe that celebrities are innocent because they've been conditioned to believe media images of those celebrities are what they're really like. As I said previously, celebrities work very hard to ensure what we see is what they want us to see. Stripped away of the glitter, and in the context of child abuse accusations, MJ
fits the profile of an abuser.

In this case, the defence created "hyperbolic doubt": taking the books out of context (which is what all the MJ defedners here are doing) they convinced the jury that child porn was "art", which, I concede, in another context/society/time period it might actually be. But in the context of a middle-aged man's bedroom, where he has arranged to be alone with vulnerable kids, the evidence seems clear.

The O.J.Simpson case was totally different: not only was the crime much more serious, it was also a trial that was brought to the world live on TV and turned the trial into a public spectacle of unprecedented quality. I believe that O.J.Simpson was aquitted because the principal witness from the LAPD had a history of being a racist and a history of planting evidence in cases when the defendants were black. I believe that the jury was just fed up over their ears with racial issues coming from the LAPD and they acquitted Simpson only because of that without even looking further into all the presented evidence.

Things were very different in the MJ case. The judge did not allow cameras in the court room and forbade lawyers to talk to the media. He tried hard to make it a normal case. The jury was all-white with 8 women and 4 men. I believe the reason why MJ was aquitted was that the prosecution failed to make a case that convinced the jury of the guilt of MJ because most of the witnesses presented by the prosecution ended up testifying in favour of MJ. There was only this one alleged victim who again had a history of lying and fabricating lawsuits against other people/ companies.

The possession of legal magazines and books cannot possibly create any circumstancial evidence - where would that lead us? My parents used to have a locked book shelf with books they considered unfit for us children to read while they encouraged us to read anything else from their library. We used to steal the key because these books were more interesting than all the available ones. I cannot say that we understood much of what we read (it was not porn, the books just had "sexual scenes") but kids are curious, they want to see, read, taste what is not meant for them. It's not like you have unprotected weapons or heroine lying around in your house.

Of course there are differnces between OJ and MJ, but the similarities are what's important -- the celebrity, the wealth, and the image. No matter what precautions the judge took, it would be hard -- maybe impossible -- for the jury to separate Jackson from his self-created image of the sexually non-threatening Peter Pan, the "boy who never grew up". The celebrity image is so powerful that it becomes difficult for the jury to treat him the way they would treat an ordinary person accused of the same crime. I mentioned before that he fits the profile of a child abuser, for example, but because he built a fairground ride in his garden instead offering them a bag of sweets, it becomes hard for people to see past the glitter to get at the bare facts.

ps legal material can and does become circumstantial evidence; if someone is accused of an anti-semetic crime, for example, and the police find legal but anti-semetic writings in their home, that can be used in evidence.

I can't believe that this thread has stretched to 13 pages without descending into full-scale nuclear warfare so I suppose it's down to me to enter the launch codes.

Michael Jackson raped kids and anyone who doesn't share my opinion is a fucking moron!

Seriously though, there's far too many grey areas for anyone to come to an informed decision in ths discussion. On one hand I think it's a fair assumption that Michael Jackson's relationships with minors weren't as innocent as some would have us believe. On the other hand, he was tried and cleared of all charges in a court of law by people in possesion of far more facts and an understanding of US legal procedure than I have. The fact is that the truth will never come out. It's buried beneath handfuls of bullshit from both sides. On one hand you have the tabloid rumours and on the other you have the blind devotion of his hard-core fans.

fatty.

[QUOTE]





























[b]Zebonka12 wrote: [/b]































































I still think MJ was at least a tiny bit dodgy.





























[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]













[b]-fatty- wrote:[/b]







there's far too many grey areas for anyone to come to an informed decision in ths discussion.





[/QUOTE]
And until we go through what he went through from age 5, he will forever appear to us as being "dodgy", and the grey areas will always be there.  The first step is to attempt to go from attack mode to empathy mode.  It's easy to attack someone like MJ, being people comfortably in the middle class who have led comparatively normal lives.

I totally agree, Bob.

here is what makes me angry and I hope I do not get the usual "you are anti-American" in return:

9 years into the 21st century it is still legal for American parents to beat their children as a punishment. As late as 2005 the supreme court outlawed the execution of juveniles with the smallest possible margin (5:4). At the time dozens of juvenile offenders were on the death row. Estimated 8% of all American children have no access to health care, estimated 900 000 children are subject to abuse and neglect each year, just google the facts. There are thousands of children who have no home, no food, no education and are subject to all kinds of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. But the state of California spent millions of dollars to find out it was okay for Michael Jackson to rest his hand on the knee of a boy while they played a video game (because that was often to what the accusations boiled down to in the trial.) Please give me a break. I call that the Monica Lewinsky effect: leave the real issues alone and witch hunt the famous suspect, instead.  I do not call it privileged treatment of a celebrity when a guy who is so obviously different is ridiculed, persecuted and lied about by the media year after year after year.

Michael Jackson was never accused of raping someone  - he was accused of touching boys in an indecent manner, allow them to see him nude through an open door and to give the alcohol to make it easier to touch them etc. I do not take these allegations lightly but they were not proven in a court of law. I wish they would have taken the 20 millions and spent them on serious child protection projects instead of allowing a Tom Sneddon to spend all that money on his witch hunt.

Of course I know that most Americans do not beat or neglect their children, many are against the death penalty and the overwhelming majority of Americans have only the best interest of their kids in mind. Parents should not allow that the real issues are literally overshadowed by such "celebrity trials".

If only that could be seen on page 1 of every newspaper...

Great post.

OJ is not a good subject for comparison because he really was guilty.  No ifs or buts about it.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]As for my use of the word 'dodgy', I don't use that without forethought of the dodgy upbringing he had.  Shit goes in, shit goes out...  you'd have to be a fool not to realise that for every odd trait he had, there was probably a sold beating from his freak of a father behind it.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Barb, Pete, and Bob for putting in to words what I have not had the patience to do. Unlike Barb and Pete I am an avid Michael Jackson fan. I have all of his albums and still have most of my cassettes. I have the posters and the buttons.

I remember when the trials were going on and I remember how I felt...confused, in shock, etc. I remember thinking, I love his music, I love to see him perform but I do not know him personally and I am not God, I can't judge him so I will continue to love his music and watch his perfomances and let a jury of his peers decide his fate. They did and I accept it.

Let's not forget about the countless number of respected people he worked with in front of cameras and behind over his 45 years in the music industry and what they have to say about him. I do not have the time to pull quotes but all of them with out faulter state that he was an absolute joy of a human being to work with and be around...a true humanitarian who loved children. It is a travesty that this love turned out to be his biggest ridicule.

I've always loved MJ's music and I always will. I hope he can be remembered for what he really was and in my opinion that is the greatest entertainer and artist that will probably ever walk this earth. My opinion totally and I will respectfully agree to disagree with anyone who doesn't feel the same as me.

[QUOTE]

 



[b]StoneColdClassicQueen wrote: [/b]



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



Ok, this has gone way too far.
First, nonstop coverage of MJ, now a public viewing of his body?!?!?!?!
What the fuck have we become?
I hear the streets of Downtown L.A. will be closed for tomorrow's memorial. I can't imagine the traffic my dad will have to face!!! And my brothers need to get to school dammit!
This is all a fucking money scam. Televised event?? What THE FUCK?!?!?! This is getting too weird. Why would anyone want to see their idol's lifeless body?? This, this is too much. I can't take it anymore!
I can't escape it. Even my parents are into the gossip hype. They always have the news channels on where they gossip about MJ. And we have 3 televisions in the house -_-  I told them, "They should just leave him alone." My mum was like, "Why? He just died. He's the biggest news around." She just looked at me weird, like if she wanted to tell me I should really care.

I'm ashamed to be living near the Staples Center (just a couple of minutes away)..... my cousin was saying, "We should have signed up for tickets!" I was like, "What for???" No offense, but who in their right mind would want to see a dead person (unless you do it for a living or whatever), especially when this person is MICHAEL JACKSON!??!!?!??! He kinda already looked dead this past decade, now to actually see him deceased?!?!?! THIS IS SICK!



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



One of the only funny things I find from this is that under every local news item of MJ that popped up on my email page there's a caption saying, "Did you receive Michael Jackson Memorial Tickets? Tell CBS2/KCAL 9 about it!" Contacting a news channel just to say you got tickets? Wow, that's pathetic...

Well, my rant is over for now I guess. Feel free to disagree or whatever.



 



 



 



EDIT: now i hear MJ will be laid to rest before the public memorial....that's more like it.



 



 



 



 



 



 



 

[/QUOTE]

this is a sick world we live in my friend.  Michael Jackson was good for what he was (a pop star) but let's be real.  This is pretty sick, his funeral is on tv?...his little girl has to say a speech at his funeral, on tv?...his family is sick, and it starts with michael's crazy father.   Again, michael was a good pop star, but he's not mozart for god's sake.  I saw the "bad" video the other day on tv, and my first thought was what a bunch of overated crap.  They showed the whole video including the intro, it was pretty embarrassing to look at.  He had to prove how bad he was..lol...    did he, or didn't he molest those kids?...He was accused of abuse more than once, but a lot of greedy people out there who would love too take advantage of someone like michael jackson.  IMO, Michael was set up from the start.

What a silly uninformed opinion. Yes, it is clear the family are mad, but there is nothing wrong with a child talking at their parents funeral, on or off TV.