i'd like to add
that he's on trial for child molestation not child negligence
now if you and the rest of the whiners like gloria allred have a problem
take it up with child services L.A.
http://www.childsup.cahwnet.gov/
bitch to them
[Edited 12/11/04 17:50pm]

Luv4oneanotha said:

Sooooo, it's okay to show a kid porn as long as it's straight porn??? Even if he left it around for them to find he's a fucking idiot

NAIL

COFFIN

I think the "straight porn" detail is more a trivial tidbit about what MJ allegedly gets off on.

CalhounSq said:

C'mon now you know i didn't say that

CinisterCee said:

basically



C'mon your getting your legal insight from a crime show?
give me a f*cking break
To be blunt, Straight Porn is NOT used for luring children into deviant behaivior, especially Man to boy abuse, they are sticking with the wine with that
now if you did anytype of homework
you'd know that Prosecution is using the porn as a Defame of charachter,
they want to portray his as a sexually active person
and not abstinent
Prosecution knows if they try to use the porn as an angle it might backfire on them
because you can't put a legitimate time frame on it
since the children where their times jackson wasn't at home its not good enough evidence
so the porn will be used to discredit Jackson
how do i know cause when the evidence was released a year ago prosecution said what the porn was going to be used for

Luv4oneanotha said:

I just don't get the logic Porn is porn. Showing it to a kid or leaving it around for him to find is wrong. Period.

DELETED
[Edited 12/11/04 18:11pm]

uhg Fug your a female, forget i said that

He wrote "she drives me wild" after looking at

http://www.privekliniek.c...ckson1.jpg

[photo edited, linked instead = June7]

thesexofit said:

thesexofit said:

Looking at himself naked
Mj's has a big ego, but cm'on thats a bit much

http://www.privekliniek.c...ckson2.jpg

The original source of this information is the NEW YORK POST. It is not even known for sure if porn was found at Neverland. Remember the "Love letters" story that was printed all over the media? Even Tome Sneddon admitted that wasn't true.

And if MJ showed the kid porn... why isn't it in the charges? It is a crime to show a child pornography.

WildStyle said:

actually this is true wild

unlike the Love letters which came from diane Daimond and her "sources"

why isnt it in the charges?
well because its not that substantial

Luv4oneanotha said:

Maybe I missed something. I've been keeping away from the MJ boards. How is it true?

And showing a child porn is illegal. So logically, it should be in the charges. But it doesn't surprise me as nothing the prosecution has done in this cas can be considered logical.

WildStyle said:

aiight lemme break it down breh,

their are only fingerprints on the Pornography
now if the pages where stuck together by bother Mj's and the accusers semen(sorry for being graphic)
it would be better evidence
They can't Prove that Mj showed the kid his pornography just by his and the accusers finger prints being on it
thus its not on the rap sheet
they'll try to create a picture, but the porn only will be used to discredit Mj as careless whatever, being sexually active etc

My god-brothers found my straight porno I stole stashed in my closet somewhere with their fingerprints and mine on it too when i was 16 or 17 and they were 8, 9 and 11..does that make me a mollester..a clild negligent..mollester
[Edited 12/11/04 21:41pm]

Yeah I'm not so sure about the "negligence" idea Not like anyone keeps porn on the coffee table.

Except for maybe DavidEye and Madonna's Sex book.

CinisterCee said:

I need that !!!

CinisterCee said:

your evil lol
but that is so right lolol

Who Cares about a Fingerprint when you might have The Acuuser & Jacko's DNA (plus another male) in his bedroom.

If True. We all can Lip Sync "The Party is OVER!"


http://www.courttv.com/ne...d_ctv.html


Fingerprints, DNA and the latest searches
By Diane Dimond
Court TV

Dec. 9, 2004 — The Court TV Investigative Unit can now report that something defense attorney Brian Oxman blurted out to the New York Post (see below) last weekend is true. Forensic tests on evidence taken from Neverland in November 2003 have detected the presence of three separate samples of male DNA.

While Oxman says none of the DNA matched the young accuser's, our sources contradict that. The now 15-year-old’s genetic fingerprint was, indeed, among those gathered from the pop star’s bedroom. So, who belongs to the other two samples? Our very reliable, confidential sources say one is Michael Jackson; the third could be from yet another youngster. Watch this space.

Speaking of fingerprints, the National Enquirer cites sources saying “Michael Jackson’s fingerprint and his accuser’s fingerprint (were) on the SAME PAGE of a pornographic magazine” taken as evidence from the pop star’s bedroom.

“One of the magazines police confiscated was Barely Legal…it features adult women dressed in sexy young outfits to make them look like teenagers.”

Court TV's I-Unit can confirm the report of the fingerprints on the magazine, but our sources say the prints were not found on the same page, only within the same magazine. Still, this would lend credence to the young accuser’s claim that Jackson had a secret stash of pornography in his bedroom suite and he used it to arouse him.

paisleypark4 said:

well.. come on.. he's bringing children to his home, and showing them porn?

orgjacko said:

IS Oxman still causing trouble i swear i hate him
And Org
why the hell are you posting this yellow Journalism
Diane Dimond was the worst journalist when she was on hard Copy
thats why her ass got kicked off
she always has "sources" that arent mmm
TRUE
christ ona bike lol
the national enquirer?
C'mon man
i thought you would at least have some kind of intelligence
but if your depending on this trash
i suggest pick up a book
and read some substatial my friend
Cat In The Hat is a good one

WildStyle said:

Perhaps because the evidence wasn't known at the time he was charged.
[Edited 12/11/04 23:25pm]

paisleypark4 said:

I understand your point, but this is what makes me furious about Michael Jackson.

He is a middle-aged man who sleeps in the same bed with young boys, and is disturbingly affectionate with them on national TV. Assuming this latest story is true, it could be explained away in isolation. But taken together with the other stupid things he does, it only makes him look worse. This could all be a big misunderstanding, and I wish that were true. Innocent or not, MJ is still to blame for looking a whole lot like a predator.

Luv4oneanotha said:

Whaaaa? So if I had a dick I'd understand & give it a pass? WTF?

Paedophilic Pervert.

'dre

Luv4oneanotha said:

DreZone said:

hold your horses fella. Not yet, though it looks that way on the face of it.

Good to see National E. and New York P. still gets your attention.

Can we please start the trial!

BlueNote