“PORN” found in Michael Jackson´s home 3


  by Helena on vindicatemj.wordpress.com


July 15th, 2010

We are coming to the end of the list of ‘evidence’ seized at Neverland in 2003 at last. Just one final touch and I’ll be free as a bird…

The list was long and for some reason several books were reviewed by the police twice – for example “Taormina” by Wilhelm Von Gloeden which is found in the last part of the police review again. Well, since they are repeating it let me also add a couple of details to the description given earlier.



Taormina” is a collection of photographs from a famous photographer (who was born in the 19th century and died in 1931) made in a spot called Taormina somewhere in Sicily. The main fun of the book is that the photographer took pictures of young Sicilian peasants as Roman and Greek gods. None of those photographs depicted the individuals “in sexually explicit activities”, according to the police. The point I’d like to add here is that now that it is clear that Michael used those photography books for his work it seems very much likely that Taormina (as well as Parrish’s painting of 1922) inspired Michael to include some antique scenes into his “You are not alone” video with Lisa Maria Presley. See what Wayne Isham who directed the video (videostatic.com interview) says about it:



We had planned out all these elements for the video and then Michael had this idea where he wanted to use this Greek, classical-styled, artistic imagery. And, he wanted to appear in it naked with his wife, Lisa Marie Presley. Like they were Greek gods. It had nothing to do with the video we were doing, but I said, “OK, that’s cool. We can shoot it.”

Oh, I can very well understand that – when people are in love they do feel like gods with no one around because true love is something really HEAVENLY.



The next book on the police list is titled, The Golden Age of Neglect, by Ed Templeton. The police officer says about it:

“This book appeared to be signed by Ed Templeton in 2003. The signature was on the inside front cover. This book appeared to be a compilation of photographs which pertained to problem issues with adolescents and teenagers. These issues seemed to focus on antisocial behavior on the part of adolescents including alcohol consumption and sexual behavior. Specifically, the sexual behavior depicted in this book contained photographs which depicted male and female subjects, in various stages of undress, including full nudity…. It should be noted the subjects who appear in the photographs which depicted the sexually explicit poses, appeared to be within the age range of late adolescence to young adults. However, I was unable to accurately determine whether the subjects were under eighteen years. Therefore, I was unable to determine with any accuracy if material within this book could be considered child pornography”.

The main thing here is that the book was signed by its author which automatically turns it into a present and closes discussion of this book once and for all. However my curiosity led me to the Amazon.com to see their “product description” for the book. This is what they say: “There are teenage smokers and drinkers. There are those whose despondence reads clearly as they confront the camera with vacant eyes. This is a classic example of Ed Templeton’s work which is deeply anchored in street life and street style, music (rock, punk, and rap), and graphic culture (wall paintings, murals, tags, and graffiti). A fixture of the Los Angeles skateboarding scene, Ed Templeton has been producing photographs, documenting a real story of his life, international tours, and encounters in the skateboarding world for over 10 years. This book is the reprint of the original version, which quickly rose to cult status shortly after its first printing in 2003.”



The above makes The Golden age of Neglect our second book about adolescent behavior (the first one was The Fourth Sex, Adolescent extremes discussed in previous parts). Donít they form a certain pattern when taken together? EXTREME behavior of adolescence and NEGLECT as one of the reasons for it? Is it a terrible surprise that Michael Jackson was interested in these problems? Absolutely not. Michael was very much concerned about parentsí neglect for their children and the harmful effect it has on the younger generation. He spoke of this problem on numerous occasions, even proclaiming (in his Oxford University speech) that Friday evening should be the time when children must have their parents all to themselves, adding a somewhat sad and funny note that children should NOT be the ones to compete with the evening news for their parentsí attention.

So if these two books are an “evidence” of anything at all, the only thing they speak to is that Michael was very much concerned about the problem of adolescent defiant and often criminal behavior and that he was a top responsible parent himself, as he was getting ready well in advance for the adolescent age his own children would one day naturally reach too.

The last and the worst book in our list is exhibit 596 titled “Man, a Sexual Study of Man” with text material by Larry Stevens. This book was at the very top of the prosecution hit list during the 2005 trial. The police officer described it as ‘a compilation of photographs and writings, which pertained to homosexual activity between men. The photographs depicted naked males engaged in sexually explicit activities including oral copulation and anal sex.’ I honestly tried to find it in the internet but couldn’t – which is probably a sign that the book is indeed breaking all decency rules… The only thing I was able to find is its description on one of the websites:

Burbank, CA: DSI. MAN from the publishers of DSI A Sexual Study of Man illustrated with photographs and art prints. Text Material by Larry Stevens. Undated. This is an early gay publication that masquerades as a scientific study of the sexuality of man, but is really erotic fiction. More photo and illustration than science by far. A large folio sized book of 300 pages with at lest half being illustrations or pictorial in some manny. Condition is Good, some moisture damage to the front cover and the first 20 pages or so causing a minor warp to the first section. A small 1“ length of the cover is missing right at the bottom of the spine. A fair amount of tanning inside, but otherwise clean and unmarked text. First Edition. Good. Catalogs: Rare, Out-of-Print, Antiquarian, Gay & Lesbian. (Inventory #000942).


So the book is an early, rare and now antiquarian gay publication with photographs, art prints and some text masquerading as a scientific study? Interesting… Could this rare copy be a present from somebody? Yes, it could.

Could Michael buy it as a scientific study of male sexuality as the title and text of the book innocently suggested it? Easily.

Could he buy it to learn of the roots of male same-sex love to avoid some mistakes in upbringing a boy? He naturally could (I did study similar material for this reason too).

Could he buy something more contemporary and probably more explicit than this out-dated material if the only thing he wanted was a collection of photographs on homosexual relations? Sure, no problem.

Could he be guided by curiosity about “what male sex is all about” or “what the gay movement started with” since the book was one of the first gay books and had long been out of print? He could, why not?

Who knows under what circumstances and for what reason this only one book on homosexuality came into Michael’s possession? I sometimes shudder at the thought what people might think of my own preferences in reading if they look into my computer – after all those posts about pedophilia and Tom O’Carroll’s writings which are left as bookmarks there… OMG, I must erase all that to avoid possible questions and all the embarassment…

Our Suzy spoke about Michael’s curiosity in an admirable way: What straight man would have a book like that? Well, a curious one. As far as I understood from the police document it is a study book on homosexuality, with photos and also with text. So he had tons of heterosexual porn dated from 1991 to 2003, the date of the house search, tons of heterosexual material on the hard drives of his computers, traces to straight pornographic websites only, but the odd art and study book should reveal the real truth about his sexual orientation? Is that what the haters say? Then I wonder if they would say the same, had it been the other way around: if they had found gay porn magazines instead of heterosexual ones, traces to gay websites instead of heterosexual websites – and the odd art book about naked women and one study book about the heterosexual act. I’m sure they would scream “gay” then, and in that case they would be right. However it was the other way around….. But then again, let me remind you: Michael was not on trial to determine his sexual orientation. Fact is he had nothing illegal in his possession!

So there was ONE homosexual book and LOTS of ‘sexually explicit’ heterosexual material in Michael’s possession – absolutely legal and commercially produced. We could leave the discussion at that but as the heterosexual materials were so many I would want to ask one more question which is probably none of my business at all (I am just being curious too) – Are all those heterosexual materials a sign that elaborate sex shown there was necessarily something he was very much bent on? I know, I know – this is a question which is beyond the subject of that police list but the reason why I am asking is because I sincerely think he collected all those materials not so much for practising “those tricks” but for educational purposes mostly - you know, just to be knowledgeable of things and learn the subject in all its perfect entirety.

Why am I making such a bold conclusion on the issue which is none of my business at all? Because I remember Michael speaking to Rabbi Shmuley about his preferences in love and sex in those notable tapes which were never meant for the public eye and which are therefore a great source of genuine and first-hand information about his true inclinations. This is what he said there:

SB: The women you have dated, the ones who were smart enough not to throw themselves at you, were they the ones that you were more interested in, the ones who weren’t always available and you had to chase them a bit?

MJ: The ones who were classy and quiet and not into all the sex and all the craziness because I am not into that.

SB: They are the ones that you are more interested in?

MJ: Aha. I don’t understand a lot of things that go on in relationships and I don’t know if I ever will. I think that is what has hurt me in my relationships because I don’t understand how people do some of the things they do.

SB: Mean things?

MJ: Mean things and vulgar things with their bodies. I don’t understand it and it has hurt my relationships.

SB: So for you love is something very pure?

MJ: Very pure. It shocked me some of the things……….


Michael was pure in his very essence and knowing things for him was not equal to practising them. I’ve also learned a lot of filth since the time I started clearing Michael’s name of it, but it does not mean that it has become part of my life. Sorry for this off-topic observation – just wanted to share some of my views with you… Our story would be incomplete if we didn’t look at the way our list of “evidence” (evidence of what, I wonder?) was discussed at a cross-examination during the 2005 trial.

The witness being cross-examined here is Wade Robson who became friends with Michael Jackson at the age of 5, who often accompanied Michael but was never molested by him and who never took a shower with Michael though that Francia maid claimed otherwise.

Wade Robson’s testimony is an interesting read as it provides some more detail on the books already discussed here and the two fiercely opposite points of view from which these books were regarded by the prosecution and the defense:



Mr. Zonen of the prosecution: Q. Exhibit 596 [Man: A Sexual study of Man], please. Take a moment and look at that book. Let’s stop there for a moment. That’s the first, in fact, picture in that book; is that correct?

A. I didn’t notice, no. Do you want me to go to the first picture?

Q. You know, no, you can pick any picture, actually. Just go ahead and open the book at random. Right there.

A. Oh, sorry.

Q. Is it a fact, as you look through that book, what is depicted in that book throughout that book are a series of photographs of two men engaged in sex acts with one another?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, the sex acts are all acts of either masturbation, oral sex or sodomy; is that right?

A. From what I saw, yes.

Q. And sodomy, as you understand, is an act of anal sex; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you be concerned about a person who possesses that book crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?

A. Yes, I guess so.

MR. ZONEN: No further questions.


MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes.

Q. Mr. Robson, I want to show you Exhibit No. 841. It says, “Boys Will Be Boys.” Do you see this?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, I’d like you to read the inscription on that book, okay? Read it out loud, if you would.

A. Okay. “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces. This is the spirit of boyhood, a life I never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children. MJ.”

Q. Having read that inscription and having looked at this book, would you have any concern being in bed with Michael Jackson if you knew this book was found in his home?

A. No.

Q. Let me show you Exhibit No. 842. Please read out loud the inscription on that book.

A. Is that, “To Michael”? Yeah. “To Michael, from your fan. Kiss, kiss, kiss, hug, hug, hug. Rhonda. 1983.”

Q. You’ve looked through that book – okay? – and it says, “The Boy; A photographic Essay,” right?

A. I didn’t look through that book.

Q. Okay. Why don’t you look through this book the prosecutor showed you, and please say whether or not you would have a problem being in the same bedroom with Michael Jackson based upon what you see in that book and the inscription.

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, let me show you — let me show you Exhibit No. 596 that the prosecutor showed you. Just read the cover, if you would.

A. “Man, A Sexual Study of Man. Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints.”

Q. Okay. Now, you’ve seen those photographs, and you’ve said you were somewhat disturbed by the pictures, right?

A. Well, I wasn’t disturbed by the pictures.

Q. Well, if you — if you read this book, and it appeared to be a book dealing with male sexuality in all different areas, and you knew that this book existed with hundreds of editions of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse –

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: — would that bother you?

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object as leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat it?

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Sure. Let’s assume that you learned that Michael Jackson had ten years’ worth of Hustler, Playboy, Penthouse – okay? – magazines, heterosexual-type magazines, and let’s assume that — have you ever seen Mr. Jackson’s library?

A. Yes.

Q. How many books do you think are in there?

A. Thousands.

Q. And let’s suppose in the middle of all those books you found, “A Sexual Study of Man, Illustrated With Photographs and Art Prints,” okay?

A. Yes.

Q. Putting all this together, would being in bed with Mr. Jackson concern you?

A. No.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.


Q. BY MR. ZONEN: Mr. Robson, the three books that are in front of you that you’ve already taken a look at, I’d like to go back over the inscription that — 842 is a book, and you were asked to read that inscription out loud. Take a look at that inscription again, would you, please? A. Do you want me to read it again?

Q. No, you don’t need to read it again. Go to the last word, which is the name. What is the name on that?

A. Rhonda.

Q. Notice anything unusual about the name?

A. No.

Q. Do you notice it’s written with quotations on both sides of it?

A. Yes.

Q. Doesn’t that usually mean that that’s not the name when somebody writes it in quotation marks?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Have you ever written your name in quotation marks?

A. No.

Q. That’s actually from somebody who’s not named Rhonda, right?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: The three books I’ve given you so far to take a look at, they all feature either boys or adult men, predominantly nude, and the one on adult men is engaged in sex acts; is that correct?

MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object; asked and answered. This is cumulative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’m going to show you three additional books now, if I could. Let’s start with Exhibit 578, if you’ll take a look at that one, please.

MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Cumulative; it’s not character; it’s beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: I’ll start with the first picture. What do you see right there? A. I see in the center of the picture, it’s a drawing. And there’s a naked man with his genitalia exposed, and there’s kangaroos on either side [Camp Cove Sydney men, by an Australian photographer)] .

Q. Okay. Go ahead and proceed. You can keep going. Just keep going through it. You can stop. What you’ve seen so far are all pictures of naked men; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Exhibit No. 590-B, take a look at that, please. Tell us the title.

A. “Before the Hand of Man.

Q. Go ahead and take a look at the content of that book. That’s enough. Pictures of naked young men; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you consider that to be homoerotic material?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. I look at this more as sort of – it’s about the photography and it’s more of an art book, to me.

Mr. Robson, are you concerned about a man possessing these seven books being in bed with a 12-year-old boy?

A. If it was a man I didn’t know, maybe. But not Michael.

Q. Is that because you view Mr. Jackson as being, for the most part, asexual?

A. No.

Q. Because you believe that he doesn’t really have a sexual interest?

A. I believe that he has a sexual interest in women.

Q. In women?

A. Yes.

Q. These books don’t suggest otherwise?

A. Not necessarily.

Q. All right. Let’s go to some other side of the counter. Exhibit No. 575, have you ever seen this magazine before?

A. No.

Q. Not that specific one. A magazine of that nature?

A. Of that nature, yes.

Q. Okay. And go ahead and turn through it. You can stop there. You don’t need to go too much further.

A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this.

Q. That’s enough. You would agree that this is a depiction of a man and a woman engaged in virtually every variation that a man and woman can do with one another; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. The collective material that you have just been shown does not cause you a moment of pause when you think about the prospect of this person who possesses all of this crawling into bed with a ten-year-old boy?

A. No.

Q. And you would allow a child to crawl into bed with such a person?

A. If I knew the person, yes.

Q. If you knew them?

A. If I knew the person, yes.

Q: When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No.


Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, let me show you again Exhibit No. 841. Do you see that? A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let me show you again Exhibit No. 596. It says, “A Sexual Study of Man.” Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And let me show you again Exhibit No.842, “A boy; A Photographic Essay,” okay? And that’s the one with the inscription, “To Michael, from your loving fan, Rhonda,” okay?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, you see young children with rather innocent photographs of young boys, correct? Innocent photographs of young boys in various situations, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You see a young boy hanging from a tree, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see a young boy sitting outside a door, right?

A. Yes.

Q. See young boys on a beach, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, let’s go to — quickly, to the material the prosecutor for the government showed you, okay? He showed you some magazines with heterosexual activity, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Have you seen one book that depicts child pornography in that group?

A. No.

MR. ZONEN: I believe there was a Court restriction on the use of that word, Your Honor, one initiated by the defense. Unless that reservation is finished.

MR. MESEREAU: He’s correct. And I made a mistake using the word. I’ll withdraw it, and I apologize… In those books that the prosecutor for the government showed you, you see books about men, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You see one book that says, “A Study of Male Sexuality” and shows some sexual acts between men, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And he [Mr.Zonen] showed you a number of magazines involving sexual activity between men and women, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Has he shown you one book involving children having sex?

A. No.

Q. Has he shown you one book where a man is having sex with a child?

A. No.

Q. The prosecutor tried to suggest that Mr. Jackson is asexual. Do you remember that question?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe he’s asexual?

A. No.

Q. Have you seen Mr. Jackson with women in your lifetime?

A. With what kind of woman? A woman that he’s in a relationship with?

Q. That he’s been married to.

A. Yeah, with Lisa Marie.

Q. When you were at Neverland, did you ever see anything that suggested pedophilia?

A. No.

Q. Ever see any magazine or poster that suggested pedophilia?

A. Never.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.


MR. ZONEN: Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?

A. Right now I did.

Q. All the years that you have known Michael –

A. Actually, no one’s told me where this came from.

Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.

A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. This is something new that you’re learning just today; is that right?

A. Yes….


Wade Robson’s surprise is genuine…. You can’t fake it. He never expected Michael Jackson to possess such materials. And all the other witnesses also showed the same kind of surprise. Not that it disturbed them much. They just never saw it before - the court was the first time they ever saw it.
Wait, so for all those twenty years Wade Robson was Michael Jackson’s friend he never saw any of those magazines or books lying around in his home?


And he never saw Michael reading any of them?

And Michael never showed anything of the kind to him or other witnesses who displayed the same kind of surprise at the witness stand?

But if none of them ever saw those materials before WHAT “GROOMING” NONSENSE DID THE PROSECUTION TALK ABOUT AT ALL?

O-la-la….

P.S. Here is a link to that police “evidence’ list once again to refresh your memory of its utter ridiculousness (don’t forget to note the odd socks, underwear of different sizes left behind by Michael’s numerous guests and loose pieces of paper in addition to the above list of books):

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/060804sdcontsheet.pdf

And here is the hit list of the choicest “evidence” out of all that trash which finally made it into the court room:
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/041905minuteorder.pdf





Thank you Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!








TOP