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."
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.
Governor Bush on Kosovo war exit strategy in 99 ” Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
President Bush on Iraq war exit strategy from 2003 to 2008. “ “
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.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
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.
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.
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?
schmiggens said this in post #10 : They've turned this in to a circus. What's next? Parking Fines?
No! Don't give them ideas!!!
They're really just trying to grab for whatever case they could possibly bring. The funny thing is, the defense were fine, but the prosecution basically shot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
the prosecution basically shot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly.
They've shot themselves in the head. They may as well give up and go home. no jury is going to convict any one of anything with this prosecution. I've almost forgotten what he's actually being charged with.
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?
I think the aim is to defame Jackson by saying, "Look he has a porno collection!"
"The girls are legal, but they look young!" (Like all porn tries to be)
This is ridiculous and this prosecutor is just trying to drag Jackson's name through the mud. But this was going on from the start because porn keeps getting repeated over and over again. Then the allusions to Jackson's bankruptcy was yet another piece to just discredit Jackson. I think it's obvious he has no case and even with the accuser's poor testimony, his siblings did enough with their poor testimonies also. Michael Jackson better be found not guilty because there is no case.
I believed innocence, but I was willing to give them prosecution a chance to make a case, but then as the weeks went on, it was just obvious that there was no case and the best they could ty to do to get a conviction was establish a history of abuse and they failed in that regard also.
I wonder if they'll leave Mike alone after this?
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
Only if he stops molesting young boys. And that ain't gonna happen.
He may just become even better at concealing it.
Maybe he won't brag about sleeping with boys, or maybe he just won't care and have the attitude of "Catch me if you Can, I survived this trial, I survived in 1993.
I will bop those boys to my belts content and there ain't nothin' you can do about it. Yeah, you know, I'm bad.
Ehuehi! "
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!
03-17-2005 08:30 AM
