Hide Your Porn!

[sweetnpetite]

The prosecution against micheal jackson isn trying to use his legal stash of (as far as I can tell hetero) porn to prove that he's a perv and therefore did indeed molest a young boy.

They said some of the magazines showed girls who looked underage (tv showed 'barely legal' for there example) and sais that it proves somehow that he has an attraction to young people- and to boys!



I've seen barely legal, and yes, they do have girls who look as young as 13 and 14- I have never seen any that really look like *kids* (ie, 10 year olds) nor have I ever seen any boys!

Wouldn't a subcription to Nambla weekly be more incriminating? I have heard nothing of any 'gay porn' and feel quite certain that they would have honed in on that if there was any, whereas with what was said, I'm sure many will assume that he has a bunch of gay pedo materials.

the judge has apparently decided to allow this 'evidance'

Where is shereads on this? Has she already posted a link?

I find this turn of events both appaling and frightening. Do you have a copy of barely legal? i suggest you burn it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've never read the mag "Barely Legal" but I have seen the web site and even copied some MPEGs to use for inspiration. The females therein don't look what I would call "girlish" and they especially don't look like young boys. The prosecutor may be shooting himself in the foot here.

"Hide your porn" is always a good idea anyhow because the cops will always try to use its existence against a person suspecred of anything, even jaywalking, even if the porn is legal.

 

[TheEarl]

What? What the f... What?

So you're telling me that because Michael Jackson has a porn mag collection, the prosecution claim a QED that he's a paedophile?

Hands up any man who has never looked at pictures of nekkid women? Anyone? Didn't think so.

That is... just off the map. Lost for words.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

What? What the f... What?

So you're telling me that because Michael Jackson has a porn mag collection, the prosecution claim a QED that he's a paedophile?

Hands up any man who has never looked at pictures of nekkid women? Anyone? Didn't think so.

That is... just off the map. Lost for words.

The Earl

that's pretty much how I felt when I heard the story on the news.

If anything, it bodes well with me that MJ owns het porn. The defense should use it to prove that he really likes women! (that may be harder to prove than his innocence) What! he likes teenage girls, what hetosexual male doesn't? Well, I've met 90 year old me who still think they are 19 in there head!

 

[Liar]

Ok MJ got porn.
Straight porn.
Straight porn magazines.
Mainstream straight porn magazines (It was Barely Legal, right? Afaik, that's Hustler.)
Mainstream straight porn magazines showing adult women playing teen girls.
So?

 

[TheEarl]

Which honorable members of the jury will admit to never having looked at naked ladies before?

The Earl

 

[CharleyH]

Which honorable members of the jury will admit to never having looked at naked ladies before?

The Earl

Every day

Barely Legal, the porn site? ROFL. I have seen sites that are much younger. All, of course over 18, but some of these sites YOUNG down a 20 year old model to make it appear . . . well, you get it. Barely Legal? Seen it, and am with Box, Bare yes, legal, def!

 

[TheEarl]

I have to say that if I was a member of that jury, that evidence would make me feel a hell of a lot better about Jackson. Hell, it does make me feel better about him. This is the first tinge of normal human behaviour from him in a long while.

The Earl

 

[Boota]

I have to say I am shocked. Not just that they are linking the ownership of straight porn to pedophiliac criminal acts, but that Michael Jackson actually owns any straight porn. Makes me wonder if he decided to plant it for the next raid. Hmmm?

 

[Lisa Denton]

I heard it a little different and don't know if its correct, but here is what I heard.

Police have a magazine showing naked underage boys pictures, with Michael Jacksons fingerprints on it and also the fingerprints of the boy he is accused of molesting.

The thing I read said that the defense was going to argue that Michael Jackson took the magazine away from the boy when he picked it up.

I usually joke, but not about anything underage, that is what I read.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

OK people,

Wake up call here.

How many of you, will go out onto the street, and speak with your average American, and admit you like porn??

Go-on, I dare ya??

You wont, because you too, will be considered a freak of the worst order. People, before you know it, will have you strapped up some lamp-post, and flogged for even suggesting it.

"People like you and that pervert MJ should be strung up!!!" will be just one of the cries you'll hear.

Mention Internet porn, and thay'll go absolutely freakin nuts, and they may well string you up.

You know it's true, so why are you so surprised at these statements with the MJ case????

The only thing that surprises me, is that you seem surprised.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

And then there's evidence...

 

[sweetnpetite]

I heard it a little different and don't know if its correct, but here is what I heard.

Police have a magazine showing naked underage boys pictures, with Michael Jacksons fingerprints on it and also the fingerprints of the boy he is accused of molesting.

The thing I read said that the defense was going to argue that Michael Jackson took the magazine away from the boy when he picked it up.

I usually joke, but not about anything underage, that is what I read.

Thanks Lisa,

I did hear that now that you mention it, but not from any official sourse.

Here's 1 link, and I'm looking for more:

 

[sweetnpetite]

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (Reuters) - "Erotic material," including pictures of nude children, seized from Michael Jackson (news)'s Neverland Valley Ranch, can be shown to jurors at the pop star's upcoming child molestation case, a judge ruled on Friday.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville said that Santa Barbara County prosecutors could introduce the books, magazines and DVDs, which were found during a police raid on Jackson's sprawling estate in November of 2003, as evidence -- over the objections of defense attorneys.


Melville also ruled that Jackson's accuser, now 15, and his brother will have to testify in open court, rejecting a prosecution attempt to close the courtroom to the press and public for that key portion of the trial. Prosecutors had argued that forcing the boys to take the witness stand in open court would traumatize them.


But in another setback for the defense, Melville ruled that a British television documentary about Jackson by journalist Martin Bashir could be shown to jurors as evidence. The documentary, which aired in 2003, shows Jackson holding hands with the boy, then 13.


The judge also said that Bashir would have to testify in the case. His attorney had argued that, as a reporter protected by California law, he should be exempt from taking the witness stand.


In seeking to have the seized books, magazines and other material admitted as evidence, prosecutors said they demonstrated Jackson's sexual interest in children.


"Some depict children nude. Some depict adults who appear to be the age of our children (in the case)," Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said. "All of which, taken together, indicates the defendant's prurient interest in children, particularly boys."


Lawyers for the 46-year-old entertainer had asked Melville to exclude the evidence, saying prosecutors had not established that the items belonged to Jackson, since about 70 members of his staff had access to the areas where they were found.


Jackson's attorneys also objected to showing jurors the documentary by Bashir, saying it was heavily edited and would be misleading.


The defense won some small victories when the judge instructed prosecutors to refer to the seized material as "adult" or "sexually explicit" but not "pornographic" or "obscene." Melville also barred material seized from Jackson's home in 1993 in connection with an earlier case.


The seized evidence that can be admitted includes 17 books, 55 magazines, two DVDs and four computers. Jackson's lawyers say that 23 of the magazines are from 1936 and are considered collector's items.


Jury selection in the Santa Maria, California, trial is scheduled to begin next week and could take more than a month to complete.


Melville, who has imposed virtually unprecedented secrecy in the case in what he said was a move to protect Jackson's right to a fair trial, cautioned attorneys for both sides as they squared off at Friday's hearing.


"The world is watching justice in the United States here -- the world. Not Santa Maria, not Santa Barbara County, not California -- the world," he said.


"I expect and know that you will all -- on both sides -- carry the burden of showing the world what a fine system we have. That does not include name calling or personal attacks. I will not abide that. I will not put up with it," the judge said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050129/people_nm/crime_jackson_dc_9

they seem to *imply* a hell of a lot more than they say.

Also, I heard on the tv news that the prosecution points out that all of it was legal. If this is true, then there couldn't be any pictures of minors- although maybe in some of the books?

 

[sweetnpetite]

OK people,

Wake up call here.

How many of you, will go out onto the street, and speak with your average American, and admit you like porn??

Go-on, I dare ya??

You wont, because you too, will be considered a freak of the worst order. People, before you know it, will have you strapped up some lamp-post, and flogged for even suggesting it.

"People like you and that pervert MJ should be strung up!!!" will be just one of the cries you'll hear.

Mention Internet porn, and thay'll go absolutely freakin nuts, and they may well string you up.

You know it's true, so why are you so surprised at these statements with the MJ case????

The only thing that surprises me, is that you seem surprised.

I am not shocked at all. I know that people are like that.

What I am shocked by is that the judge allowed it as evidence. (beyond the 1 magazine w/ finger prints -I found more on that and will post a link in a sec.) It seems extremly prejudicial as well as irrelevent- unless it directly relates to the case, which most of it doesnt.

The judge is also allowing a documentary made about MJ into evidence. What about not being able to incriminate yourself -are they going to use his own words against him?- what about the fact that a documentary is heavily edited?

I think we should be shocked when a man can't get a half way fair trial and is demonized for normal behavior. we should be a little worried when it's stuff we do ourselves. how are we going to find the real molesters if we think everyone with porn is the boogy man?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Dozens of adult-oriented books, magazines and DVDs seized at Michael Jackson's Neverland ranch _ one with the fingerprints of Jackson and his accuser _ can be used as evidence in the singer's upcoming trial, the judge ruled Friday. The judge also ruled that Jackson's accuser should testify in open court instead of in a closed courtroom with an audio hookup for the media.

At a hearing just three days before the start of jury selection, Judge Rodney Melville permitted most of the proposed evidence to be used at trial but said the prosecution could not refer to the material as pornography, obscenity or erotic. Instead, the words "adult" or "sexually explicit" can be used, he said.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen said the 50 print and video items that were seized in 2003 included graphic sexual material that was heterosexual and homosexual in nature. The material also included nude photos of models who may have been 18 but looked much younger, he said.

Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. countered that all the materials seized were legally available. In the case of the magazine with the prints, he said, evidence will show Jackson took it away from his accuser and locked it up. Zonen said investigators found the fingerprints of Jackson and his accuser on one of the magazines but gave no further details.

On another matter, the judge ruled that jurors will be allowed to see a British documentary broadcast on ABC-TV in 2003 that contains footage of Jackson and his accuser holding hands and Jackson defending his practice of sleeping in the same bed with children.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What I am shocked by is that the judge allowed it as evidence. (beyond the 1 magazine w/ finger prints -I found more on that and will post a link in a sec.) It seems extremly prejudicial as well as irrelevent- unless it directly relates to the case, which most of it doesnt.

The judge is also allowing a documentary made about MJ into evidence. What about not being able to incriminate yourself -are they going to use his own words against him?- what about the fact that a documentary is heavily edited?

I think we should be shocked when a man can't get a half way fair trial and is demonized for normal behavior. we should be a little worried when it's stuff we do ourselves. how are we going to find the real molesters if we think everyone with porn is the boogy man?

It probably does relate to the case. I haven't seen any of the porn but if it is pics of a man having sex with a young boy, that certainly shows an inclination. Porn that people own is usually depictions of things they do or want to do. It could also result in an additional charge against MJ. Such porn is illegal in the US but not in all other places and Jackson could easily obtain it during his travels.

I would assume the documentary was made after the arrest and if MJ chose to make statements to a journalist, he cannot now claim any kind of violation of his const. rights. Since the documentary was edited the journalist may be required to produce the original footage or explain what was edited.

Do you really tihnk that the behavior is normal? Having legal porn is but having the illegal stuff is not. A 46 year old man wanting to share his bed with young boys isn't either. Have any of us ever shared our beds with children except when sleeping space was in short supply. I certainly haven't and I don't think you have either.

 

[TheEarl]

Nope - the documentary was made way before the arrests. It was very, very biased against Jackson. The edit wasn't kind to him.

I think it's unfair that they are allowing someone else's opinion as evidence. Cause that's effectively what a documentary is. Complete unedited, raw footage would be acceptable. An edited programme that's trying to convey a point shouldn't be to my mind.

The Earl

 

[sweetnpetite]

Do you really tihnk that the behavior is normal? Having legal porn is but having the illegal stuff is not. A 46 year old man wanting to share his bed with young boys isn't either. Have any of us ever shared our beds with children except when sleeping space was in short supply. I certainly haven't and I don't think you have either.

Well, I certainly wouldn't admit it if I had.

I don't think that sleeping is a sexual activity.

I still don't think he has illegal stuff, although he certainly could have bought stuff in his travels that would not be allowed in the US. You are making the assumptions from what is unstated or unclear, just as the prosecuters want you to.

23 out of 55 magaizines were from 12936!

I don't have any illegal porn, but I do have items that could be similerly misconstrued. For example, I just bought a book from Barns and Noble that is a reprint of a victorian underground erotic fiction magazine. There is quite a bit of underaged sexual activity in it. But thats not why I bought it, I didn't know it was there till I sat down to read it. I bought it at barns and noble. In the US- and I don't molest 12 year old girls. Nor do I have any desire to do so.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345410041/026-6768944-6566064

 

[sweetnpetite]

sleeping in a bed with young boys isn't normal-

however there is a long way between 'not normal' and child mollester.

I do lots of things that are not normal. Read for one.

Being a supermega pop star with tons of money isn't normal either.

just a thought.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Nope - the documentary was made way before the arrests. It was very, very biased against Jackson. The edit wasn't kind to him.

I think it's unfair that they are allowing someone else's opinion as evidence. Cause that's effectively what a documentary is. Complete unedited, raw footage would be acceptable. An edited programme that's trying to convey a point shouldn't be to my mind.

The Earl

Apparently the documentary aired in 2003. No date was given. I don't remember when the arrest occurred but I think it was before then.

I must agree that a documentary, in itself, is poor evidence but there are statements in it by MJ. They should show the unedited material and have the journalist there to explain it.

Yes, Sweet, sleeping is not a sexual activity but sharing a bed with somebody is frequently intended to lead to sex.

The fact that the mags were old doesn't change anything.

Does the book from B & N show photos of sex with minors? That would make it illegal but written descriptions would not be except maybe in some states.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Does the book from B & N show photos of sex with minors? That would make it illegal but written descriptions would not be except maybe in some states.

No, but I have pornographic magazines and DVDs. Lump it all together and you could easily make it sound much more sinister.

"Sweet has porn depicting homosexual and heterosexual relations. she has magazines and dvds and other materials. some of her porn depicts young girls having sex."

 

[Boxlicker101]

From time to time I get SPAM from porn sites in my email. Usually I look at it and then delete it. Sometimes the site is sending pics of underage sex. I delete those but I believe that there are traces left and a clever enough person could dig them up and reproduce the original SPAM. If so, I could actually be then arrested for possession of kiddy porn even though I had never made any effort to own it.