« Sister Souljah! | Main | Time To Buy? »

Porn! Porn!

Pardon me, but isn't the fact that Michael Jackson owned a lot of pornography featuring naked women exculpatory, rather than incriminating? Why is the prosecution introducing this stuff. Michael Jackson seems like a real weirdo. The fact that he, owns porn just like a regular old heterosexual man makes him seem more normal.

March 25, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83473d21169e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Porn! Porn!:

Comments

especially the fact that there was, of all things, mature porn in there.

and, by the way, i can't believe i'm commenting on this.

Posted by: dan | Mar 25, 2005 2:31:40 PM

I have read that it is a usual M.O. for molesters to provide porn and alcohol to their victims. It is not exculpatory when the magazine has arguably been used to entice the victim.

Posted by: eric | Mar 25, 2005 2:36:10 PM

Nonsense. Only perverts have porn. If just anybody owned porn then porn would be one of the biggest industries in the country. Why, you might even be able to buy it on the internet from tens of thousands of sites. Large donors to virtually every member of congress might be part-owners of companies that manufacture pornography if that were the case.

Shirley you jest.

Posted by: Njorl | Mar 25, 2005 2:36:45 PM

The point the prosecution is trying to make is that Jacko was using the porno as a lure for his underage (but presumably horny) victims. At least, I hope that's the point; a good deal of the McMartin case back in the '80's revolved around the fact that Raymond Buckey owned porn magazines, and that didn't turn out well for the district attorney.

Posted by: Steve Smith | Mar 25, 2005 2:37:22 PM

Okay but isn't some of it (I'm not looking! I'm not looking!) copies of Barely Legal? I mean, I know that's like, barely legal, but isn't it only, like, just? Doesn't that at least suggest a litle problem with women as grownups and not as girls?

And don't call me Shirley. :)

Posted by: weboy | Mar 25, 2005 2:39:40 PM

Shit. That dude could make anything seem creepy, even stashing porn (which is a very legitimate, admirable thing, see).

Posted by: Dan | Mar 25, 2005 2:47:39 PM

I hate the fact that I let CNN play in the background while I write for precisely the reason of hearing drivel about Jacko, etc..

But, what I heard yesterday was that much of the pron being submitted was downloaded long before and long after the accuser was at Neverland. The Judge thought this fact made it predjudicial. Porn that the accuser actully did see, is already entered as evidence.

Thanks for making me feel dirty.

Posted by: def | Mar 25, 2005 2:49:13 PM

Doesn't that at least suggest a litle problem with women as grownups and not as girls?

"little problem"? I think you're forgetting that also included in the stash was a magazine called Plumpers.

Posted by: anonymous coward | Mar 25, 2005 2:57:06 PM

but isn't the fact that Michael Jackson owned a lot of pornography featuring naked women exculpatory.

Not if he's showing it to young boys in an effort to arouse them.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Mar 25, 2005 3:37:00 PM

um... wasn't the point of the porno mags the fact that the accuser's fingerprints were on them? that doesn't seem too exculpatory.

Posted by: right | Mar 25, 2005 3:37:13 PM

SoCalJustice is right. It depends on how the materials were used. See, for example, the case of Arnold Friedman:

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-friedman052889,0,1599081.story

Posted by: JDC | Mar 25, 2005 3:42:35 PM

JDC, I'm assuming you're being clever. For those not in on the joke, Arnold Friedman was innocent.

Posted by: Sam Rosenfeld | Mar 25, 2005 4:12:08 PM

ciward - dude! TMI... :)

Posted by: weboy | Mar 25, 2005 4:24:28 PM

Well, I was wondering how they were going to blow this case. Now I know.

Posted by: Social Scientist | Mar 25, 2005 4:56:19 PM

Literally nothing that would have been unearthed in this trial would have shocked me more than learning that Michael Jackson enjoys Jack Daniels and straight porn. What else is he hiding, a fondness for Skynyrd?

And it's not really exculpatory, because most molestation of young males is done by men who identify as heterosexuals. The proportion isn't even close to 50-50 from what I've heard.

Posted by: Adam M | Mar 25, 2005 5:03:21 PM

JDC, I'm assuming you're being clever. For those not in on the joke, Arnold Friedman was innocent.

whuh? I saw Capturing the Friedmans. His son was very probably innocent. Arnold's conviction was unjust given the suggestion employed by the police with their young witnesses, and had he had the money to hire a good lawyer/the subsequent decades of psych research on the fallibility of memory, he might well not have been convicted, but that's different from "was innocent." Some of the charges against him were extravagant to the point of absurdity, but he admitted to molesting children outside the computer class, so it's not so much of a stretch to think he might have molested some in it. He was a pedophile.

Posted by: Katie | Mar 25, 2005 5:24:30 PM

I wonder what kind of Google hits this thread is attracting...

Posted by: Julian Elson | Mar 25, 2005 5:28:10 PM

That collection as listed is really bland and ordinary, not even thoughtful as boy-enticing tools. Not that I would know such things, but I could imagine better than Oui and Plumpers.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 25, 2005 5:54:05 PM

Hey, what the heck is Plumpers? I mean, does it specialize in some particular area?

Posted by: ricardo | Mar 25, 2005 6:12:08 PM

And here I am thinking if I was a rock star I wouldn't need pictures of naked women lying around -- I'd have the real thing. Just shows to go you.

Posted by: scout29c | Mar 25, 2005 6:16:32 PM

JDC is right. We need evidence that Jackson actually Jacksoned off to the girly pics before it looks normal. Maybe there are unexplained deposits on the mags that we could test for Jackson emissions.

Posted by: grytpype | Mar 25, 2005 6:23:38 PM

Maybe there are unexplained deposits on the mags that we could test for Jackson emissions.

Or, to coin a phrase, "Flotsam and Jackson."

Posted by: bobo brooks | Mar 25, 2005 7:37:54 PM

I think the sticking point is not necessarily what Jackson did with the materials on his own but what role these materials played in his interactions with minors. I would assume the prosecution will try to make the case that he did what abusive pederasts are known to do–that he used the materials early in their relationship to make them feel they could do proscribed things with him (see Eric's comment above), starting from an assumed common male heterosexual perspective. And at the same time, the aim would be to make them feel as if they were doing something wrong, to make them feel complicit and guilty. Hence the information that has circulated that accuser's fingerprints have been found on the magazines.

Posted by: JDC | Mar 25, 2005 7:54:32 PM

Next up: Michael, an unconscious female groupie, Seattle's Edgewater Inn, and a shark.

A legend is born, and a conviction evaded.

Posted by: Brian C.B. | Mar 25, 2005 9:16:53 PM

Exculpatory, Matthew? Come on, you are smarter than that. How would a homosexual pedophile get a boy excited?

Posted by: Fab | Mar 25, 2005 9:29:00 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.