Jackson caught with photos of naked kids: Police

The Times of India ^ | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003 06:04:58 PM | ANI

[AM2000]

Maybe he is trying to get his nose to look like a child's weiner so he can kiss it as he walks

You've got quite the sick and twisted imagination there, mannaboy.

[cavtrooper21]

Wacko-Jacko ping

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

[onedoug]

Lying cop or cowardly prosecutors? Possession of child-pornography is supposed to be a crime.

[Commander8]

How can a guy like Michael Jackson get away with so much?

[DainBramage]

Maybe he is trying to get his nose to look like a child's weiner so he can kiss it as he walks,

I nominate this for the:

"Post most likely to make everyone stop talking and turn and look at you Award".

[garbanzo]

Am I parsing the sentence correctly - is it that he had photographs of naked children in his bedroom or did he take pictures of naked children in his bedroom?

[f.Christian]

Is this what pepsi does to you . . .

I resented the very day they gave him all that money - - -

.. .. .. he would hold it ==== "not drink it" ! !

Poison !

[garbanzo]

Possession of child-pornography is supposed to be a crime.

If the pictures are not sexually explict then in general it's not a crime to have naked pictures of children.

[AM2000]

It's not clear.

[OperationFreedom]

sick man ping

[garbanzo]

I'm not excusing MJ here - just saying that the cops have to have clear evidence that the photographs were taken without consent - if the parents were bought off then there is no case. Also, I'm not sure for the description in the article whether or not Jacko took the pictures or simply had pictures of naked kids in his bedroom.

[Jhoffa_]

The find was kept a secret as prosecutors decided that the shots would not convict him without 13-year-old Jordy Chandler's testimony, the retired Los Angeles cop added.

Oh! My Butt!

If it "would not convict" him, then what's Pete Tounsend in trouble for?

Last time I heard, posession of child porn was a crime..

Hell, I even read about a case (right here as a matter of fact) where a underage girl posted her own pics online and was charged with posessing child pornography.

They let him go because he's a pop-star! Go ahead and say it outright, but just don't insult the intelligence of the reader by suggesting otherwise.

It's demeaning..

[AM2000]

And there were no charges over the snaps because they were not sexual poses.

Maybe that's why it doesn't count as child porn? I don't know the law well enough to know for sure, but that's a guess.