Or heterosexual porn might just get Michael off. I'm not sure I see a clear claim in this article that Jackson had kiddie porn in his place. They come close to saying it, but stop short.
One of those confiscated books withh photos of naked teenage boys was shown on the Today Show or some similar show, and it did not look pornographic unless you consider naked bodies just standing there porn. I don't think the Supreme Court does.
I hope prosecutors are relying on things they're not telling us to make their case.
An isolated photo of a naked child is not necessarily pornographic. To me it would depend on where and why it was taken. A book full of naked pre-teenage boys seems sick to me. If it's in the possession of a grown man who admits sleeping with boys, it's part of a pattern.