SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

the charges would have been brought but when the evidence is/was dismissed so to would the charges. but, yes, initially (if the photos constituted child porn) the charges would have been filed along with the others.

It’s slander
You say it’s not a sword
But with your pen you torture men
You’d crucify the lord
And you don’t have to read it,
And you don’t have to eat it,
To buy it is to feed it,
So why do we keep foolin’ ourselves

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the tv screen
Don’t make it factual
Though everybody wants to read all about it
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the tv screen
Don’t make it factual!!

I'll put on a schoolboy uniform and play with him for a few million bucks.

vainandy said:

Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2004

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S ATTORNEY, THOMAS A. MESEREAU, JR.


The Michael Jackson defense team has learned that information is circulating throughout the media regarding alleged photographs supposedly seized from Mr. Jackson’s residence. That information is false. The prosecution has confirmed that it is false.

We demand an immediate retraction from any news or media organization that made such an announcement. Journalistic integrity is an important factor in all reporting. This kind of reporting is irresponsible. Mr. Jackson, like all other people in America, is entitled to a fair trial. This case will be fought in the courtroom, not in the media. Mr. Jackson is innocent and will be vindicated.

Source: MJJsource


End of 'story'!!!

kremlinshadow said:

Yeah, y'all gone all quite now huh? Even the damn prosecution admits the story is false.

So quiet...?

Just wait for the next lie. Since this case is over the prosecution will order it very soon.

BlueNote

From the London Evening Standard today:

Jacko denies 'seized photos' report
By This is London
22 September 2004
Michael Jackson's defence lawyer said today in a court-approved statement that reports about photographs allegedly seized from the singer's home were false and that the prosecution in his child-sex case agreed.

The information was not specified, but defence lawyer Thomas Mesereau's statement followed a report by Los Angeles radio station KFI that half-a-dozen photos seized were images of a naked boy or boys.

KFI news director Chris Little said a lawyer for Jackson called and asked for a retraction but was turned down.

"We stand by the story," Little said.

Parties in the Jackson child molestation case are under a gag order, but Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville has allowed lawyers to comment on news reports in approved statements.

Mesereau read his statement in a law office in Birmingham, Alabama, but took no questions from reporters.

"The Michael Jackson defence team has learned that information is circulating throughout the media regarding alleged photographs supposedly seized from Mr Jackson's residence. That information is false. The prosecution has confirmed that it is false," Mesereau said.

"We demand an immediate retraction from any news or media organisation that made such an announcement," he said.

Prosecution spokeswoman Susan Tellem said she had not spoken directly with Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, but she confirmed that Mesereau's statement had been approved by the court.

The KFI report, which cited unnamed sources, described a boy in a bathtub and a boy in a bed and said that it was not clear if each picture showed the same boy.

The station reported that the photographs were referred to in court on Friday during a hearing in which the defence is challenging some of the seizures authorities made.

During the hearing, prosecutor Ron Zonen said items taken from Jackson's Neverland Ranch estate included six photos of a boy.

"It's very apparent looking at those items why we seized them," he said, without elaborating.

adoreme said:

Really? Oh well... lets see, it wasn't discussed during the hearing. What does that mean? Since it was in official hearing they have to reveal their source, cause Mesereau will sue the station.

BlueNote
[Edited 9/22/04 4:16am]

Dayum i leave for a few days and i already miss all the damn action!

i didn't bother reading the post above me but first let me tell you
WHY the media did not release this!
Because everyone under the trial is under a Gag order, thus they wouldn't release information like this
so it might be misleading

2. Celeb, Justice released this, From their sources (most likely the same sources that released the rubbish about the love letters)

3. If the police seized child nudie pictures thier gonna have a hard time proving it as porn
because the last time they found child nudity at Mj's house, it was sent to him and never opened, or
they where in artistic books.
Celeb Justice has been told by their "Sources"
"prosecutors told the judge they have six photographs of young men seized at Neverland. But "CJ" has been told there may be an innocent explanation for the pictures, and that the reports surrounding them are "totally inaccurate."
thus family picture, friends

Don't jump to primary conclusions,

In reality six photos is laughable, but the prosecution needs as much evidence as they can get

now What you should be concerned with, is the Forensic Analysis of Mj's Bed
now this might be the only way to legitmately prove mj is guilty

But remember anything Coming out of Celeb, Justice can always be questioned...
It doesn't surprise media didn''t latch onto it, its not a good place to start

My question in all this is this. Would you seek to suppress something that does not indicate your guilt?

for the record both defense and prosecution have denied this story..

not that i care....

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

What are you talking about? The pictures? Nobody tries to suppress them!

BlueNote

BlueNote said:

*edit*

I meant the statement not the pictures. Sorry.

BlueNote
[Edited 9/22/04 11:13am]

Sorry man its Phony Story,

was just confirmed

wasted all this time annd energy for nothing

i really have to stop defending this man,

i'll never learn

Luv4oneanotha said:

I'm not on a crusade against MJ. I was just posting this story as it seemed like a major part of the case.