Simon
I'm basing it on common sense ... a 40+ year old freaky guy who sleeps with kids (boys only? ... hmmnn). Occams razor ...
Careful, you'll cut yourself. To use Occam's razor in this instance is to say that
- MJ has only abused two boys out of hundreds he has had the opportunity to abuse,
- Or that they are the only ones who have come forward
- That all other parents of the boys he have abused are unaware or looking at the money
- That the only employees who testified against Jackson were ex-employees who had unsuccesfully sued him and later been succesfully prosecuted for theft, and all the other employees are blind or so corrupt they will ignore the abuse of boys taking place round them
- That despite being rich enough to secure sexual partners of whatever preference he has in a comparatively safe fashion - i.e. rent boys - he instead is dumb enough to abuse children in his own bed
- That the father of Chandler and the mother in the latest case just happen to both, either in court or on tape made statements that seriously undermine their own credibility
- That there has not been any material evidence in any of the cases
- That despite allegedly being a pediarist MJ only has two victims (atypical)
- That all pornographic material seized on PC, CD, DVD, books, VHS and magazines has been legal... not one byte of illegal porn
... I think you cannot use Occam's Razor to deduce MJ is guilty as MJ being guilty is a complex explanation in light of the above.
But King-of-Pop-Auto-de-Fe is always a fun entertainment for the masses...
Strange ... this is something that one of the jurors said too - and yet she supposedly thought he was innocent. If he was innocent then why would she think & say that? It doesn't make sense.
Simon, you know perfectly well that the Prosecution did a bad job of presenting a poor case and that given the quality of the evidence and the dubious testimony of the Witnesses, the jurors had no chioce but to do the job they were charged with. Not validate "everyone's" opinions of whether Jackson was guilty or not, but to make a judgement on THAT case. A juror commeting on the fact only an idiot would let a child stay at Jackson's house is besides the point as far as that case goes. He was not being tried for 'suitability as a slumber party host'.
Also, the family may have been (probably were) money grabbers looking for a payoff ... but whether that is true or not still does not make him innocent.
But it makes THEM guilty.
Kind of like a sting operation ... the person is still guilty if they get caught even if they were setup.
No, the charges were not proved; to use your analogy, the police failed to prove he purchased the drugs from the undercover agent
Brooke
Is it ok for Michael Jackson to have the book "Boy's will be Boy's" ...showing pornographic pictures of Children?
As far as I am aware the pornographic material recovered from MJ's house was all legal in California, some of the magazines prosecutors entered into evidence weren't published until 4 months AFTER the alleged “molestation” was supposed to have occurred, and the fingerprints of the boy were not lifted from the magazine they were found on until AFTER the Grand Jury where he handled the magazine. The book you mention (as you have shown people) is a photo essay of the making of Lord of the Flies. Quite why it would be surprising for anyone with a Peter Pan fixation to have something like this, I don't know. It's the Lost Boys. Doh!!!!
If this is pornographic, then Jock Sturges, Sally Mann and David Hamilton are all pornographers. Only New Zealand have banned such material; go into your local bookstore and check, you'll be able to get their books. Nudity is not just about sex, at least outside of America...
As for the actual porn found - "Barely Legal" is a mass-market magazine published by Larry Flint's Hustler organisation; it was just given top billing as it make him sound guilty. Fortunately one's guilt is not determined by one's taste in (legal) porn.
I would imagine that many people would have some pornography in the house, and have no intention of using it for grooming, so the magazine article you provide basically says "Jackson had legal erotic material in his house. Sometimes erotic material is used for grooming by pedophiles." It avoids saying "Search lots of houses and many people will have erotic material which they would never use for grooming", even though this is true. Wither journalistic itegrity? Ah, it was Court TV; they're a bunch of media whores - choose your sources wisely.
I Never EVER took pictures of my kids naked in the bath tub thinking it could get into the wrong hands! Or someone would think bad of me! That is my choice.
It's a pity you feel so afraid of being falsely accused of inappropriate behaviour towards children. Naked bodies are not sexual; anyone who has been bought up to believe nudity is sexual or otherwise wrong has had a rather un-natural psychological burden placed upon them. It's other people's view that nudity is neither wrong or sexual, and they have as much right to this view as you do to yours.
You don't have a child! You do not have a Son. When you do then take a look at the Book. Not just the Cover!
Funnily enough it doesn't matter how many! exclaimation! marks! you! use! it! still! isn't! porn! and! yes! I! do! have! children!
