Porn Collection Shown to Juors

Michael Jackson Forum

Jurors see Jacko's porn collection

MICHAEL Jackson's reading habits in the privacy of his Neverland Ranch bedroom included an Australian book: "Camp Cove, Photos of Sydney Men".

The volume, which features pictures of naked men posing on the shores of Sydney Harbour, was in a parcel of evidence tendered at Jackson's child sex trial in a California court today.

Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Deputy Karen Shepherd testified to finding "Camp Cove, Photos of Sydney Men," and another title, "Dress up: Playacts and Fantasies of Childhood" in a police raid on Jackson's luxury home.

The material – including pornographic but legally available magazines and DVDs – was seized from the pop star's bedroom and could bolster the testimony of his young accuser, Gavin Arvizo.

Prosecutors have not linked the material directly to their case against Jackson.

But the accuser and his younger brother, Star Arvizo, have said the 46-year-old entertainer showed them pornography in Jackson's bedroom.

According to three police witnesses, the material was found in two briefcases in the bedroom, a box at the foot of his bed, a nightstand, a plastic bag, a computer case next to his bathroom sink, on the edge of his Jacuzzi-style bathtub, in a bathroom closet and stacked on a television.

It included magazines – with titles such as "Barely Legal" and "Teenage" – which feature young women meant to appear underage, along with more mainstream publications such as "Penthouse" and erotic books by well-known photographers.

Most of the magazines and videotapes featured grown women.

Among the videotapes seized in the police raid was one titled "Believe It or Not," which promised a variety of unusual sex acts.

On cross-examination by Jackson defence attorney Robert Sanger, each of the police witnesses agreed the material was legal to possess and that the singer's young accuser had not remembered seeing any particular magazine or DVD.

In fact, the officers conceded, some of the magazines and DVDs were not published or released until after the young boy and his family left Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch for the last time in March 2003.

In one instance, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Detective Victor Alvarez was unable to confirm the release date of a DVD in late March 2003 because the print on the label was too small – until Jackson lent him his reading glasses from his seat at the defence table.

The entertainer, who came to court dressed in an electric blue jacket, satin pants, an aquamarine vest and waist chain, is charged with molesting then 13-year-old Arvizo in February or March 2003.

He is also accused of plying the boy with alcohol in order to abuse him and conspiring to commit child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment.

Jackson has pleaded innocent.

He faces more than two decades in prison if he is convicted on all 10 criminal counts.

Also today, AP reported that a detective testified the Gavin Arvizo told police he thought the singer had molested him five to seven times but could only remember the details of two occasions and became emotional as he spoke.

"He was fine with talking to us," Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Sergeant Steve Robel Robel said of the teenage boy's initial interview. "When I got into the molestation acts I noticed a change in (his) demeanor. He became very quiet, folded his arms and sank down into his chair. ... He even became choked up."

- with Reuters / AAP

After listening to the E! courtroom re-enactments each day, I too believe that Michael will not be convicted.

The alleged victim comes across as flippant, arrogant and it does seem like he's not telling the complete truth at times. His answers are so vague and he doesn't seem to be acting like a 15 yr old boy who's childhood was taken away by the evil MJ. He admits to changing stories so many times, you don't know what to believe.

What 15 year old do you know that answers "...per se"??. He sounds coached. Just my opinion.

I believe the prosecutor is trying too hard and the jury probably is seeing this, although one can never predict the thoughts of a jury or their verdicts.

Nothing illegal about any of the material Mike had in his house. It’s more like “see what I found in Mikes bedroom, porno. He must be guilty then of molestation”. Then he only proceeds to point out only a fraction of what they found, even though all of it was legal and most of it were adult women.

At first I thought Mike was going down. This case couldn’t move me in good conscience to convict anyone on its merit thus far.

I believe this prosecutor thinks Mike is a molester of children but he has to know he has very shaky ground to build this case on. I don’t even think he believes this particular child has been molested and may be simply using him to get Mike for what he think Mike’s done. But that’s just an opinion.

Its unfortunate to me that this is happening.

Children are not the best witnesses for many reasons, but mainly because they seem to fear what will happen while sitting in the same room with the accused.

Alot of courts allow children to testify from another room, while on a court watched television...the defendant would be allowed to be on a phone with his attorney while the kid was being questioned from the other room.

I think that the court made a big mistake in not allowing this type of testimony to occur.

Maybe the kid is not reliable...but I wonder if they did the proper cognitive tests to see if he was...

On the other hand...I think the kid might be afraid of MJ actually sitting in the room staring at him the entire time.

Fear is just one symptom of a previous molestation.

I totally agree with Mystic's post. I also think that the kid should have been allowed to testify via TV from another room. We have to keep in mind that it is quite easy for an experience lawyer to trip up a kid in testimony. Court is intimidating and not all kids have the best attention span to sit there for hours and endure what this kid had to endure.

Umm.... anyway, back to the issue: PORN!

Well, if they convict him for having a tape depicting unusual sex acts, then they'd have locked me away... well, probably 20 or 30 times by now

TMI Gabo, TMI.

Michael Jackson's Japanese porn stash

Michael Jackson posted pornographic magazines to himself from Japan, his child abuse trial heard yesterday (10-05-05).

During cross-examination by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, Silva - who was called as a witness for the defence - also said she that she had told an investigator that as a mother she wouldn't allow her own children to participate in some activities at Neverland because some children "were running wild".

But when Jackson's attorney Robert Sanger re-questioned Silva she admitted she did allow her daughters and granddaughters to attend Jackson's home for "family fun days".

During proceedings, Silva also insisted she never saw any visiting children drinking alcohol or appearing intoxicated at the ranch - refuting claims by Jackson's accuser that he had been given alcohol by the eccentric star before sexual abuse took place.

Jackson denies all ten charges against him.

- Female First

Revelance: NIL

Owning porn is not illegal. His posting it home is not suspicious. Can you imagine the tabloids if an Airport worker or someone saw it in his bags? It'd be all overthe press. No wonder he posted it home.

I really wish the attorneys would stick to the real case. They've turned this in to a circus. What's next? Parking Fines?

inner city blue, i know you really, really want to believe he's innocent. he may very well get off. other guilty people have gotten off too, because of the flaws in the justice system. i hate to bust your bubble, but if anyone was ever guilty of molesting young boys it is your hero, mike. he may be not guilty of conspiracy, i don't know. the accuser's mother may be the world's craziest, kookiest liar. i don't know that either. she may be after his money. it's possible. maybe she had a leg wax and maybe she had a full body wax. i don't know and i don't care. the fact is MICHAEL JACKSON IS A PERVERTED CHILD MOLESTER. deal with it.

the way these million dollar lawyers work, they find out that someone who testifies against their rich client once told a lie - like they understated their age 20 years ago to get the child's ticket price at the movies. therefore, they lied then, so they surely must be lying now.

a dishonest, lying accuser (assuming that's the case) does not mean that the defendent gets one free crime... although in mike's case, there were apparently numerous crimes committed down through the years.

a bumbling criminologist or a racist cop does not entitle a defendent to two free murders.

nobody is perfect. every case has it's holes. but that positively DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CRIME WAS NOT COMMITTED!

you can poke holes all you want at the less than perfect case put on by the prosecution. jackson is guilty as sin! so was oj simpson. so were many other celebrities who had the money to hire million dollar lawyers who could make juries doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east. probably robert blake got away with murder too. bill o'reilley bought his way out of a sexual harrassment case. these celebrity injustices make me sick to my stomach.

hopefully, for ONCE, justice will prevail in this case. mj should spend some time in prison and never, ever be allowed to sleep with innocent boys again. whether they and/or their mothers are liars, cheaters or whatever! one thing does not neutralize the other, like it never happened. the fact is, it DID happen, no matter how much doubt the million dollar defense team is able to cast on it.

i have seen some porno material myself in my lifetime. just about every one of us has, but we don't go around showing them to young kids. neither do we sleep with those kids, and justify it by describing it as "very sweet" as he did in the bashir documentary. that's bs!

don't be fooled by your hero's innocent sounding little voice. his other voice has been heard by some. he is a conniving, scheming pervert who MUST be punished!

sorry jim, but gaboman is right. that's what's wrong with the media in America these days. they believe their opinions so much they report them as facts. being sure about something doesn't all of a sudden make it true.

and the fact the sun will rise in the east is a fact. there's no way to twist it so it's your opinion. you're comparing a known fact to what you believe. it's apples and oranges.

fact

opinion

fiction

delusion

what about an atheist and a Christian?

how would you resolve that? with your logic, an atheist is so sure that there is no God that it is a fact. and on the other side is the Christian with equal but opposite conviction. whose fact is correct in the event of a conflict? that's why we call them opinions. a fact is not something that has to be proven. i may believe m.j. is a child molester but until it's proven then it's nothing but my opinion no matter how much i believe it. and it doesn't matter what i believe. only what the jury believes. and that is a fact.

I persoanlly think he is, and even though the evidence seems to be stacked against him, I really wouldn't say it is a fact yet, that is the entire point of the judicial system and the motto "innocent until proven guilty".

I don't care, I think Jackson is innocent and he needs some mental health because of his unhealthy relationship with children. However, I don't think he molested any children.

"A leopard doesnt change his spots..." unless he can afford a whole lot of plastic surgery. but you're right. he has shown a propensity for this sort of behavior over and over again and we shouldn't expect him to magically turn over a new leaf. if he's sorry it's only because he might have to pay the piper this time. he's sorry somebody called him on it again, not for what he's done.

you can spout off until you're blue in the face about what you would do in a "what if..." situation. the quickest way to inaction is to have a well-defined plan about a "what if..." situation.

i'm no fan of inner city blue (not personally, but politically), but to say icb is biased is like the pot calling the kettle black. and to say you "entered this whole affair with an open mind" is quite a stretch as well.

you are as far from unbiased and open-minded as you can be with that whole "strong opinions are as good as facts" scenario.

so to answer you, i can tell you right now i'd never wager my soul on the basis of a "very strong opinion" and just because you would doesn't alter the fact that a very strong opinion is still nothing but a very strong opinion. i wouldn't choose guilty or innocent because unless you are mj or one of those kids you'll never know exactly what did or did not happen. and since we are disregarding the judicial system for the moment. then mj's definition of molestation may not meet the criteria of your's. therefore in his mind he may not feel he is guily of molestation. he just loves children. and what if the arbiter of your choice agrees with mj's view? then you'd have a one way trip to hell. all because of your "fact."

there. so now what?

but i'm with schmiggens below. for $5 i'd go with guilty.

I'm still confused about where he's guilty or not. Mystic makes a good point (and not for the first time ) about him paying off the kid years ago, but that doesn't sit as evidence of anything in my books (it comes across as suspicious to me, but not something that'd confirm guilt), then looking at the trial, the prosecution were cocky enough to think they had an airtight case, which was just blown to bits.

Normally I would think it was just a tricky (and damn expensive) lawyer, but the way that the prosecution's case was blown was just ever so easy that the lawyer must not only be a tricky lawyer, but a GREAT lawyer, or else the Prosecution made its case up over a lie. The fact that Sneddon is still on top of this whole thing just gives me the willies too.

I mean, you've got witnesses saying McCauley Culkin was touched by Michael, and you've got McCauley himself saying he was never touched. Who do you believe? You've got a mother who's obviously... "unbalanced", let's say, saying this and that is so, and you've got a lawyer with past dealings with her saying that the mother's previously told her how well her kids may be able to lie if told to... it just miffs me

That being said, this case may be BS, but there has been something going on... I'll take schmiggens' $5 bet, though, and we'll just base the result on a verdict of guilty or innocent.

I accept cheques schm.

I said I'd bet $5.00 on him BEING guilty, not on him being found guilty at TRIAL. The outcome of this trial either way will not prove one way or another if he really did it.

So unless you can get a camera into his bedroom and film him doing whatever he does or whatever he doesn't do, then we'll never really know the outcome, so I'll never be able to pay out on my bet.

Unless God is listening ......

God is listening... and the eyes of truth are always watching you.

Here is my take on molestation cases in general...(as I have had first hand looking at a few at work).

First off...we can take the molestors word that he did nothing wrong....and no, we arent allowed, as a nation, to put camera's in someone's bedroom.

So...if we take the word of the molester...then we just allow all molesters to walk the streets...forever.

Who is listening to the children?

Children now have rights in the courtroom....and we cant just say, well, they are kids, and they dont know what they are talking about or that they are always convinced by someone else's words to do wrong. In testing, it has been found that kids are just as capable of telling the truth as adults are..and that is why kids now have rights in court unlike years ago when people were putting the children last, instead of first.

No, this mother may not be the greatest in the world...but she could have easily taken payoff hush money (which Id bet he would have given her) if money was all she was after.

Its not so much the mother that people should listen to...its the children...

Many children have helped to put their molesters away (which the majority of molesters are people they know)....in fact, there were five sisters that just recently testified against their dad for molestation...and the jury believed them because even though their original testimony was a little skewed from the second, the basis of the stories were consistent.

So...are the boys stories consistent with the stories of the other payoff kids? After all..they never heard those stories, as it was kept hush hush until recently...right?

Thats just my take on the whole scenario.

Im not gonna just believe MJ because there was no camera in his room....there must be just as much weight given to the victims (not the mother) as given to MJ.

But he made Thriller...Thriller...

Well, this looks like a fun thread...

Is MJ guilty? I don't know for sure, and though Jim is strongly convicted, he doesn't KNOW for sure either, though he sure does believe strongly if he'll wager his soul on 50/50 odds (he either did it, or he didn't. evidence brought forth in a court case don't change those odds, only our perception of the case, which changes our personal viewpoint, and alters our own opinions on what the odds actually are...). I'm not about to do that, because knowing my track record where luck is concerned, I'd get it wrong and have to spend the rest of my soul's existence with a bum like Satan...

I wonder if the DA's or police ever asked the opinion of any of Michael Jackson's dancers on the subject.

Obviously they didn't or they would have had a case.
Or, if they had interviewed the dancers, it's obvious the dancers followed the protocol: If they ask, don't tell.

uh, excuse me, larke, but you said THIS:

I guess I mines well chime in. Let me start with Mystic.

Mystic you make a good point about taking the child’s story into serious consideration and normally so, I would agree. However in this particular case there’s more to consider than the child’s word alone.

See, so many want to judge Mike by his history (i.e. paying off past accusers) but what is conspicuously absent in your summation is the history of the accuser’s family, including the accuser himself. I don’t believe the word “jaded” can accurately describe this family’s past.

Indeed the mother should be taken into serious deliberation given the history of her influence over these children, one of which the accuser has admitted lying in court in the past, history of trouble (shoplifting) and involvement in what everyone sees to be a frivolous lawsuit against JC Penny.

Furthermore, this family has the repeated propensity to surround themselves with celebrities, playing off the accuser’s illness in an obvious attempt at financial gain. Both Jay Leno and Chris Tucker said they believe the family was on the take. Chris even warned MJ that the family is suspect.

Now given this family’s history, along with Chris’s warning, it’s just too much of a coincidence that MJ now finds himself facing them in court proceedings. I also find it absolutely absurd that the accuser says the molestation started AFTER an investigation was launched against MJ. If this is the case, why did they launch the investigation in the first place if no crime was committed?

Let me try and shorten this up.

MJ has issues, everyone can see this. However his sleeping with children also fits the mindset of a child now doesn’t it? Adults normally do not behave such but MJ mentally isn’t an adult unfortunately with power and wealth at his disposal. That’s a recipe for disaster in anyone’s cookbook.

There is absolutely no way MJ could be the molester Sneddon paints him as and we find nothing material to support it. Pointing to porn in his house that wasn’t even illegal is ridiculous. He’s grasping at straws.

As weird as MJ appears, I find this family to be weirder. That alone should sway anyone one way or another but when the accuser, even a child has a checkered past and history of illegal and troubled behavior, I find this a little more pressing to simply take this same child at his word because other children are misunderstood in the judicial process.

And the other two boys that Michael paid off....I suppose you would believe the hype that they would be liars too.

Ever seen the bumper sticker "Believe the Children?"

How many boys do they need to bring into a courtroom before you people see the light?

By the way, my point is....
children who have been molested tend to exhibit dysfunctional behavior....

In a sense the child is taught to lie....the perpetrator makes them keep a secret...sometimes to the point of physical threat to the kid or his or her family...
The actions of having to harbor the molestations, the pain of it, and the lies to go along with it set the stage for such behavior.
I am hoping you are not a social worker or a psychologist because you wouldn't make a very good living at it...and you would not be helping anyone.

The problem with your chapeau is that they have interviewed 100's of such pedophiles....and they said that they intentionally go after such families with such checkered pasts so that people like you can point at them and say what derelicts they are.

We could go round and round on this fun little merry go round and the fact remains...you believe there is no way Michael is a pedophile and I believe there is no way he isn't.

What do you know about these previous children? Were they from wealthy families? Were they from middle class families? Were they from poor families? Did they have fathers living in the household?
What do you know about their therapy since 1993?

Have you talked to them?
Are they "happy, enthusiastic" children?
Are they on any psychiatric medications?

Maybe you should watch some of the pedophile interveiews....
find out what kind of pie they like.

And what do you know to make you say that these children are going through all this psycho trauma you seem to believe is going on? You honestly think for one moment, with all the crap Sneddon presented, he wouldn’t have presented all this you seem to believe is going on?

I guess no one would dare use their kids in this manner right. I mean certainly we live in a country where this isn’t even likely to ever happen.

Keep dreamin' oneopeace.
Everything has a silver lining.

Yeah. I think this all started when Michael Jackson's entourage took poor ol Sneddon's parking place one night outside the best restaurant in Santa Maria.

Ever since then, bad boy Sneddon has had it out for bad boy Michael.
One day, bad boy Sneddon conjures up a way to make Michael pay!!!!
Hmmmmm what does Michael love best? Children!
That's it, I'll make that bad boy Michael out to be a pedophile and children will never come round him again. He'll be broke. His back will be magically broken. He will get the sniffles and force a poor old woman to die of a heart attack.

Yeah. This Sneddon dreamed it all up because of losing a parking place one night.

Sneddon was salivating at this opportunity because he was made he didn’t get him in 93. You can’t even admit he presented a weak case can you?

I bet if a con artist was trying to bilk you out of millions you’d have a different outlook n things. Granted MJ has no one to blame but himself but that doesn’t mean we should believe anything because a con artist said so.

Where is Jerry Orbach when you need him?
He'd have Michael Jackson in jail by morning!
This case would have done been proven and sniffed out by now!!!!

Sneddon you lousy attorney!
Quit doing the police work!
Build the case or retire, old man!

(Paid for by the fund to imprison Michael Jackson forever)

This much I do know, be it Orbach or Sned. They better have a case first before trying to try someone. Sned looks desperate. He hopes if he says it enough, then everyone will believe MJ has WMD on the ranch.

This kid in whom you seem to believe so whole-heartedly in, I don’t think there’s a DA on earth that could make a reasonable jury believe he and his family isn’t on the take. The “Mike is going after kids with checkered pasts” is just a little too convenient in explaining away past con attempts and lies. Facts are if you cry wolf 100 times, why would someone believe time 101, the wolf is actually in the chicken coop?

This case in my opinion was a waste, especially if MJ skates. Somehow I believe some of you will blame the jury or MJ’s millions when in fact it’s just plane and simply. The case is WEAK!

Mike could very well be guilty however with this accuser there is simply too much doubt. You say that a pedophile will never admit his crime. Well neither will a con artist and that is exactly what they are.

Who said anyone believed whole heartedly in anyone here?
The thing I know is that MJ is a pedophile...the details should be left up to the police and prosecution to prove.
Whether this happened or not, I don't know, I stayed out of this discussion during the details because I am not interested in knowing those.

If the case was weak...they will have to work even harder to lock him up next time...and there will be a next time if he walks.

Look, sometimes it takes several attempts to nab the head of a mob. And usually it's for crimes that are not as serious as the actual ones the mobster has actually committed. The point is getting the mobster behind bars for as long as you can get him there.

MJ also has his own little racket going...and the above paragraph applies to him.