Posted on 07/15/2009 5:06:27 PM PDT by Kimberly GG
"When Montreal-born author Ian Halperin first set out to write the definitive Michael Jackson biography, his intention was to nail the pop icon to the wall.
It was 2005 and Jackson had just been acquitted of a second charge of child molestation.
By the time Halperin, 44, finished the book, and long before Jackson died two weeks ago, his opinion of the troubled artist had undergone a 180-degree shift."....
Porn under current law, if intended to induce sexual arousal, yes, but I don't know about 1993 law and perhaps a tough sell because they were "art" books.
The big brouhaha was that the prosecutor wanted to introduce them into evidence in the most recent trial as evidence of MJ's proclivities -- and MJ's defense argued they were too remoted in time (from 1993) to have any bearing on the current case.
But yes, MJ did have two books of nude boys -- doubly locked away in his bedroom compound (what else do you call the multiple rooms and hallways with security buzzers and alarms) -- back in 1993.
Let’s take a look at the book MJ inscribed that contains “nude” picture of boys.
http://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/books_giftbook.cfm?productID=6913122
This is the book: Boys Will Be Boys: Celebrating the Adventurous Spirit in Every Little Boy
Keep in mind that in the trial, only front and back cover of this book is shown. And the jury were told that the book contains pictures of boys in various states of undress, running, jumping and swimming.
Now judge for your self if this book is appealing to ‘prurient interests’
And why did he keep them doubly locked in his special little closet?
Did they appeal to Jackson's prurient interest? I don't know.
Did the prosecutors overstate the case with respect to Boys Will Be Boys? Quite possibly. Then again, I don't know a lot of 40+ year old men who spend their time leafing through photographic essays of boys, 10% of whom are undressed.
Let's face it. You don't think MJ molested children. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. I'll never be able to convince you that he most likely did it, and you'll never convince me that he most likely didn't.
And because you'll ask, my 90/10, 10/90 figures on nudity come from http://www.dailypress.com/news/national/ny-usjack304239544apr30,0,5191126.story. I'm not going to waste my time looking for other sources.
You seems still angry about me asking you for source in the other thread, in which you falsely claim that MJ had a settlement in 1990. I questioned you because I knew exactly that MJ didn’t have a settlement in 1990. There’s no need to be indignant about that. If you post something that is untrue, be prepared that someone will point out.
It really bothers me that you keep emphasizing that the book contains 10% nudity, and ask “I don’t know a lot of 40+ year old men who spend their time leafing through photographic essays of boys, 10% of whom are undressed.” The book appears totally innocent to me, and it wouldn’t be a problem to me if a 40 year old or whatever age male “leaf through it. If I came open such a book in book store, I may leaf through it myself (I’m in my 30s), because it’s simply lovely. If anyone has an issue with an adult male reading such a book, the issue is his/her own.
So you want to infer that MJ is guilty based on the way he lock up his belongings? I can’t really see how that’s relevant. This is just too trivial to give serious consideration.
And the other book, apparently it’s from a fan. He may or may not have read it. Even if he “leafed through” it, it’s still totally not clear weather he liked it or not. I wouldn’t draw any conclusion on this. You can speculate as you like that MJ personally requested the book be sent to him, he read it every night and masturbate on it, he “double locked” it up for fear that other people will discover it. But then again, that’s just your speculation. And the fact that you speculate it this way say something about your prejudice against MJ.
Yes we have different opinion. I’m not here discussion opinion, I’m pointing out the fact that the book MJ inscribed is totally innocent. The way the prosecutor even treat this as “evidence” says a lot about they way they went about prosecution. It’s just despicable for him to try to convince the jury that this book is inappropriate.
That was “Jesus Juice”.
Thx for the correction.
Whether he did or didn’t, God knows and has judged him.
All I can speak to is the fact the guy spent $20 Million+ to shut up kids rather than have days in court. Now this could have been simply bad decisions on his part, or it could have been willfully trying to shut up things that honestly happened.
It certainly smells as though he tried to shut things up. He’s lived his life and faced his final judgement, nothing we do or say on this earth now will change any of that.
“All I can speak to is the fact the guy spent $20 Million+ to shut up kids rather than have days in court.”
That’s probably one of the biggest misconceptions, based on media lies. As I posted above, #13, the 1993 allegations by Jordy Chandler, MJ did not pay off the family, MJ wanted his day in court and was devastated that the insurance company and SONY settled and payed. The family walked away with the money and did not pursue criminal charges. MJ KNEW he’d never live it down, and sadly he hasn’t.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.