Source: Fingerprints of Jackson, boy on magazines
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/11/jackson/index.html

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Fingerprints of Michael Jackson and those of his accuser have been found on "pornographic magazines" seized during a raid on the pop singer's Neverland ranch, a source familiar with the case told CNN.

Investigators raided Jackson's Los Olivos, California, property based on allegations of child molestation in November 2003 and seized a variety of items from the entertainer's estate, including items from his bedroom and master bath, sources said.

Investigators reportedly found a "collection" of pornographic magazines, and other periodicals in those rooms, and fingerprint testing was later performed on those materials, sources said.

CNN has also learned that authorities seized wine bottles found on the property, and those have been forensically tested as well, sources said.

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville will decide what can be introduced as evidence in the trial, set to begin January 31.

Jackson, 46, has pleaded not guilty to charges of child molestation, conspiracy and giving alcohol to his accuser, a cancer-stricken boy who lived for a time at the ranch.

The boy and his family also claim to have been held captive on the property.

They were also there when Jackson was away, and allegedly had "free run" of the property in the entertainer's absence, a source told CNN.

They were "into everything," crashing golf carts and being generally "disruptive," the source said.

The boy appeared with Jackson in a British television documentary in February 2003.

It is not clear in what room at the ranch that sheriff's investigators found the wine bottles. At a recent court hearing it was disclosed that a hidden wine cellar was build beneath the Neverland arcade. The entrance for the basement-type area was concealed behind a juke box facade, which swung open to reveal the top of a staircase that led down to the cellar.

A week ago, Jackson gave sheriff's investigators a DNA sample at his ranch. The meeting had been arranged by Jackson's defense lawyers, and Jackson cooperated fully, a source said.

in a word:
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!~ :distress: :shocked: :distress:

IMHO, there is no crime worse than child molestation...the man should burn! :mad:

~Alex

Not this kind of Child Molestation. I mean yeah this is bad, but this is like first class child molestation. The Child Molestors on the street who abduct and torture chilldren and molest them and occaisonally hurt and KILL them, those guys should burn. MJ should be toasted slightly. I mean getting paid tons of money and getting the treatment these gets get, not comparable in the slightest bit to other cases of child molestation. MJ is sick and this is wrong AND i don't like him in the slightest for his music so don't think I'm defending him because I'm an MJ fan, but there are crimes worse then this.

Like what?
In a sense what he is doing is worse. He gains their trust and then molests them. The man obviously has some kind of compulsion and the people around him have been enabling him for years-otherwise they kill the goose that lays the golden egg. It is completely sick and twisted. It ruins the victims for life. They are unable to ever trust anyone again and it manifests itself in everything they do from that point forward. Most molestation victims know their abuser.
It will be interesting to see how his defense team will spin this.

I think someone who harms a child should be punished severely, no matter what.
Having lavished your victims with gifts, etc., doesn't alleviate the severity of what you've done. Pampering them while abusing them is simply some sort of warped rationalization.

If Michael Jackson is guilty of this crime... and circumstantial evidence, at least, has always been pretty damning... then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Molestors also cannot be rehabilitated so when they get out of jail they will offend again. They should get life, IMO. This crime is extremely insidious because often those who were abused become abusers and the awful cycle continues.

IMO, anyone who is guilty of causing harm to a child, the punishment should be severe.

I would like to comment on magazine fingerprints being used as evidence. I myself have stumbled upon a room where there were magazines of illicit content (okay already it was a playboy! HA!) and flipped through a few pages....say the person is arrested for some type of sexual crime...could I then guilty by finger association? :shocked: :laugh:

This evidence DIRECTLY links MJ to his accuser in a sexual situation. It will be VERY hard for MJ to refute this. His ONLY argument is the accuser found the mag. and looked at it without MJ knowing it. After all, fingerprints alone cannot establish the time they were put there. I suppose that situation is possible and it is even possible that the accuser looked for the mag and put his prints there on purpose (remember this accuser's family (I think this is the same one) has tried to extort before) - This defense, however, will fail because MJ will have to take the stand to refute it and the cross will go something like this "why were the porno mags accessible in ANY way to minors, which you admittedly have there ALL of the time - and how did they even know about them." - I cannot think of a good response to that - can anyone here :shrug: Also, it will be interesting to see what the actual content of the mag. is. Playboy is one thing, but there are others that are for fetishes, etc. MJ is in trouble here and unless the jury believes some sort of "plot" against MJ (which I doubt they will based on the evidence I have seen - which granted is not all of it) - he will go to jail.

Also, it will be interesting to see what other tests of the mag. reveal. It could be the accuser's fingerprints reveal he had the same lubricant on his hands as MJ (assuming MJ's reveal lubricant)

Again, I just do not see MJ getting away from this DAMNING evidence.

Exactly. They shared a bedroom together on more than one occasion and the kid could have found it under Jacko's mattress while Jacko was in the bathroom brushing his teeth or bleaching his face. This is some pretty piss-poor evidence, IMO, and even though I think he's guilty as sin, I don't see this "evidence" as any such thing. It doesn't prove molestation in the least, it only proves that Jacko neglected his duty to protect children from such material while in his home. It's damning in that manner, but not when it comes to sexual molestation. I sure hope this isn't all the prosecution has or else they'll be looking at a hard case to win. And if Jacko is convicted on this alone, he'll have a ball when he appeals his conviction.

I agree - I wish it were stronger - and it may be that once all tests are run, etc. BUT - the reason I think it is daming is MJ will HAVE to take the stand to refute it - and trust me, MJ has no intent of EVER taking the stand - it would be suicide for him to do so because he cannot then avoid the prosecutor's leading questions. No one else can do this for him because his prints are on the mag. I suppose he could have a servant testify that the mags. were kept under lock and key - but then how did the boy get access to it without MJ giving it to him. Finally, most peds show their victims some sort of porn to get them aroused and them they make their move.

Again, I just do not see how Jackson is going to explain this one away, esp. considering public sentiment for the most part has already convicted him and his actions have done NOTHING to stop that.

I think it all depends on all of the evidence that the prosectuion has. As much as I'd like to see the sick bastard locked up, I have the feeling that the prosecution just doesn't have a heckuva lot to work with. I've gotten the feeling from day one that this whole thing was a scavenger hunt and just now they've found some potentially damning evidence. BUT - if this is all they really have, Jacko has absolutely nothing to worry about. It could be taken care of and done away with in the closing argument in the same manner that the two of us explained it away above.

So, while I do think he will be found guilty and should be found guilty, it shouldn't be on this ****ty evidence. :laugh:

On another note, I was watching CNN yesterday morning when this broke and the news alert they had was as if Osama had been captured. And the headline was so salacious and distasteful: "Jacko's Prints Found On Porn Mags." :lol:

I feel like I saw on the news that they found pretty compelling evidence to do the original massive search. They had not been able to bring this to trial before, so I think they really found something fairly hot to be able to go ahead with the investigation, et. al.

Yeah, taking the stand would be suicide for him because every time he opens his mouth he digs himself in deeper. Good point about molester's common use of porn which, hopefully, the prosecution will use in its arguments.

It scares me what passes as hard news these days. These types of alerts should be reserved for real news. On Faux I saw one of these when Ben and Jen broke up, I was like, um is that really news? Everyone saw it coming. It's celebrity nonsense and should be under "entertainment news". Blurring news and entertainment is very scary.

Nahhh....
 

turning 'em into a "Brigsford Charcoal Brisket" is too easy, I say we bring back the nice Christian-like "Impalement"...Hell, I would volunteer to be the new milliennium's "Vlad the Impaler" in that case :thumbsup:

Hurt a child, lose your life...Simple as that!

Brian j.

Money - pure and simple. This sells and it sells well. When the tide changes and the networks will as well :nod:

Well, I guess I'm the only here who thinks there's a chance he's innocent. :sorry: I know the popular opinion with the public is that he's guilty, but I've gotten to the point where the consensus means absolutely nothing to me. The porn magazine evidence seems weak, as diss already explained. To believe beyond any shadow of a doubt that he did what he has been accused of, I have to have real proof. I'm thinking I may not ever see that, though.

Not that I don't think it's weird for a grown man and a boy to share a bed. But Jacko's done lots of things that I think to be weird, and I don't assume he's a criminal. On the other hand, I know y'all aren't assuming, since there is an abundance of circumstantial evidence and he certainly has a way of saying and doing things that don't help his case.

As for the comments earlier on in the thread about the severity of his crimes (if he has committed them), I have to say that I think he should be punished severely as well, but not as severely as someone who mercilessly tortured, molested, and murdered a child. (I'm thinking that should be obvious). I just don't agree with the assertion that he may have done the worst thing that one can do, because of the scenario I just mentioned. But I don't mean to downplay the harm in manipulating a child into trusting you and then betraying him or her in that way. As someone already said, that will follow a child around his or her entire life.

But am I the only who thinks it's very likely that there's something very wrong with this guy, mentally?

Hillary

No. I think they should've busted out an insanity defense. I mean, that guy is CRAZY. And, I think there is much more evidence then we are privy to, as intimated by the police who originally obtained warrant to search Jacko's ranch. You don't get a warrant like that, for someone that famous and rich, based on little or nothing, i tell you what. :wavey:

Yeah...
 

he's definitely a sad pathetic & mentally messed up person...

Do I think he's guilty or innocent? Who cares...I am sick about hearing about him everyday on the news (Which nowadays is as entertaining as having yer wisdom teeth yanked out without anesthetic)

What next, Michael's camp says it was Bigfoot's hand print on the porn mag, Not the noseless wonders, that was sent down from JFK's U.F.O. that the FBI created to frame him to get the media's mind off of OBL & Iraq???

Brian j.

For any insanity offense to work, it would have to be demonstrated by the defense that Jackson's mental problems prohibited him from being able to tell what is right and what is wrong or some other similar test. That will be very hard to prove in this case because of all of the deception Jackson has been involved with.

13 months later the revelation of prints on a mag :confused:

I disagree in that MJ will be "forced" to take the stand to defend himself on this evidence...it can and most likely will be refuted by his lawyer and any number of consp theorists without testimony from MJ

For example, this scenario of how the prints surfaced:
Officer handing mag to def, "have you seen this?"
Officer handing mag to vict, "have you seen this?"
Of course... "they" are never this sloppy :rolleyes:

As always I will reserve my personal "verdict" until the trial and evidence is revealed.

As I typed earlier, IMO, anyone who is guilty of causing harm to a child, the punishment should be severe.

IMO, should he be found not guilty of these specific charges, by MJ's own admission of "sleeping" with children, that is enough to warrant some sort of stipulation (e.g. no association with children under 18.) So fin what if he has to go to bed without his milk and cookies! :shrug:

yeah, i figured that. I'm sure that wouldn't work (although, i think maybe his mental problems do prohibit that :shocked: ) but i do think he is very crazy. Great. I'm taking a break from writing my big law paper (with oral report, six o'clock tonight!) to talk about law... :laugh: :rolleyes:

That's interesting because it makes me change the channel so as not to fill my head with drivel :shrug: I bet a lot of people are tired of it. The network news is already bad enough, now there's "too much" flu vaccine in some places, isn't that supposed to be good? What passes for news astounds me.

As companies keep doing things just for the money they are going to self-implode. There has to be a quality product being sold or it will eventually be rejected. The shocking headlines are no longer shocking. Maybe a thoughtful story would catch people's interest now, "Hey look, that's different."

1. Instead of proving that the first boys allegations were "lies," he paid him off from anywhere between $15-$30 million. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of a crime that was baseless and couldn't be proven, I certainly wouldn't pony up five cents, let alone tens of millions.

2. The first boy to publicly accuse him of molestation knew of and described in great detail the marks on Jackson's genitals. When Jackson was stripped by police, the marks described by the boy were coroborrated.

3. Jackson's bedroom is rigged so that if anyone comes near it, doors lock and alarms go off.

4. A secret storage closet filled with unmarked videotapes was made public when one of Jackson's employees shot a video of the house and leaked it to the media. The closet and the tapes mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter.

5. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as children.

6. Some of his old business associates have come forward and claimed to have seen him slip alcohol to young boys.

7. Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around...

There's more where those came from. :laugh:

I think the ratings support them. I think the people that get the J-Lo and Ben interview get the ratings boosts. I also think the networks know they do not have to take any risk by branching out into something new. They can recognize and follow trends almost immediately these days :shrug: Finally, I do think the main media does report the headline political news. I know they are lambasted for not reporting what many think is relevant in situations like the Iraq War, but they do report on the war and most of the stuff happening there. I mean no one buried the prosoner abuse story, etc. That all saw the light of day - granted not enough for some people and I am not about to get in that argument again :laugh: So, I think the media presents things like J'Lo, etc. because the majority of the people want to see it and I think the presentation of this does not significantly get in the way of presenting the major political, etc. news. I also think the advent of the 24hr. news channels gave them FAR more time to fill - but Liz and Ruchard certainly made headlines in the 60's WAY before the dawm of cable news networks :shrug:

Anyway - foor for thought!! :cool:

Yipes! And there we have part of the masses of evidence i was referring to!

That reminds me. :laugh:

I was watching TV Land's "100 Greatest Television Moments" while I was wrapping presents over the weekend and Leslie Stahl cracked my ass up (and I love Leslie Stahl). One of the moments was the "wardrobe malfunction" and she said "That's all the news talked about for days, for weeks. Nevermind that there's a war in Iraq that needs coverage." She said in such a deadpan, dry way that it reminded me of Bea Arthur. :lol:

Just to play devil's advocate :laugh:


1. Instead of proving that the first boys allegations were "lies," he paid him off from anywhere between $15-$30 million. I don't know about you, but if I was accused of a crime that was baseless and couldn't be proven, I certainly wouldn't pony up five cents, let alone tens of millions.

True - but lawsuits are settled everyday and back then, that $$$ was not that relevant to him - it would have been like most people paying $1,000 or so. Also, the legal fees for Jackson would easily have been $10 million and there is chance he may not have won due to disfavorable public opinion. So, this is not that relevant.

2. The first boy to publicly accuse him of molestation knew of and described in great detail the marks on Jackson's genitals. When Jackson was stripped by police, the marks described by the boy were coroborrated.

Anyone of Jackson's personal servants could have seen these markings and passsed them on for $$$$$$$. I mean much info. about celebrities is bought from their help. So, why should this be any different. Also, the kid could have spied on Jackson at the bequest of his parents in an attempt to export Jackson.

3. Jackson's bedroom is rigged so that if anyone comes near it, doors lock and alarms go off.

Many rich people have these types of panic rooms. This is not that out of the ordinary in their world even if it is to us.

4. A secret storage closet filled with unmarked videotapes was made public when one of Jackson's employees shot a video of the house and leaked it to the media. The closet and the tapes mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter.

Nothing illegal of of ped. nature has ever been proven to be on those tapes. They could have been work product and he moved them and the closet after he discovered the sotrage place had been disposed of. Also, if he had tapes of all of these children (and according to that there were a bunch of tapes) - wouldn't at least ONE of them be coming forward :shrug: None have. That is strange :shrug:
5. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as children.

6. Some of his old business associates have come forward and claimed to have seen him slip alcohol to young boys.

Perhaps true - but none of that has been proven. AND - weren't some of these people disgruntaled :shrug: Again, where are these kids? Certainly if it happened in the quantity that suggests, at least one of them would be coming forward :shrug:

7. Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around...

That is not exactly true. He has little girls and boys over there based on the pics. I have seen.

Thus, I think other than the genetalia markings, the rest are of no damning nature. The fingerprints on the porn are far more damning.

In any event and no matter the evidence, he will be convicted without a doubt in my mind based on what I have seen.

Show me a girl who goes over to the Neverland Ranch and shares his bed and I will show you the six breasts that jut out of my back. :wavey:

As for the rest, need I point no further than Scott Peterson. It isn't that anything has to be proven, it's all of it put together. With all of it put together side by side, it's simply impossible to refute it all and still have credibility. And that will be Jacko's downfall, especially considering that he has zero credibility to begin with.

Hmmm, those were more like "Phil, prince of heck" arguments compared to the original arguments. But, it could well be enough of a defense. :shrug:

Sorry - I thought your statement "Even though he claims to have such a great love for children, he never seems to have any little girls around..." meant at parties and things like that. As for spending the night, I do not know the answer to that. Where are you getting your info. that it is only little boys?

As for the rest, I agree and sadly so for the most part because I think the state has to make its case with things other than :"common" panic rooms, the words of disgruntled people, and other circum. evidence.

Will you be needing a special bra :laugh: :wavey:


Mankiewicz: "Of those children how many were boys and how many were girls?"

Wegner: "To my knowledge I think he had one female girl in there one time, the rest were all boys."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855/

Here is another:

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/...ory.php?s=2017

I believe I read in a reputable source (although I can't remember now) that it was Barely Legal.

They were already trying to explain it away by saying the child and family "ran wild" and had "free roam" of the house whne Jackson was away. I don't believe that for a second.

Wait, that doesn't make sense with his obvious predilictions... :confused: :confused:

Yes it does. Jackson may be a homosexual, but that does not mean his victims were. They would be turned off by a man's mag. Also, if Jackson were a homosexual, that is not dispositive of his pedophilia. When shown pics of pre pubescent boys and girls, almost all peds. become aroused by both. They are attracted to the pre pubescent youth and the ability to control them. That is different from a homosexual and heterosexual.

Ped. is its own sexuality - Peds. are attracted to the youth and gender really is irrelevant. That most reported cases are from homosexuals doing Ped. activity is disarming though - but men touching prepubescent girls happens all of the time as well and, as evidenced below, more common than men touching little boys. And - yes, you can be a homosexual and a Ped. just like you can be a heterosexual and a Ped. Many Peds. lead normal hetero or homosexual lives and commit Ped. acts on the side.

Here is some info (emphasis supplied):

Paraphilias

Paraphilias are attractions that in extreme forms are socially unacceptable deviations from the traditionally held norms of sexual relationships and attractions.

The key features of a paraphilia include repetitive, intense, sexually arousing fantasies or behaviors that usually involve objects (for example, shoes, underwear, leather or rubber products), the infliction of suffering or pain on oneself or one's partner, or having sex with nonconsenting people (for example, with children, with helpless people, or in rape situations). Once these arousal patterns are established, usually in late childhood or near puberty, they are often lifelong.

Some degree of variety is very common in healthy adult sexual relationships and fantasies. When people mutually agree to engage in them, noninjurious sexual behaviors of an unusual nature may be an intrinsic part of a loving and caring relationship. When taken to the extreme, however, such sexual behaviors are paraphilias, psychosexual disorders that seriously impair the capacity for affectionate, reciprocal sexual activity. Partners of people with a paraphilia may feel like an object or as if they are unimportant or unnecessary in the sexual relationship.

Paraphilias may take the form of fetishism, transvestic fetishism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, masochism, or sadism, among others. Most people with paraphilias are men, and many have more than one type of paraphilia.

Fetishism

In fetishism, sexual activity makes use of physical objects (the fetish), sometimes in preference to contact with humans. People with fetishes may become sexually stimulated and gratified by wearing another person's undergarments, wearing rubber or leather, or holding, rubbing, or smelling objects, such as high-heeled shoes. People with this disorder may not be able to function sexually without their fetish.

Transvestic Fetishism

In transvestic fetishism, a man prefers to wear women's clothing, or, far less commonly, a woman prefers to wear men's clothing (cross-dressing). In neither case, however, does the person wish to change his or her sex, as transsexuals do. Cross-dressing is not always considered a mental health disorder and may not adversely affect a couple's sexual relationship.

Transvestic fetishism is a disorder only if it causes distress, results in impairment of some type, or involves "daredevil" behavior likely to lead to injury, loss of a job, or imprisonment. Transvestites also cross-dress for reasons other than sexual stimulation, for example, to reduce anxiety, to relax, or, in the case of male transvestites, to experiment with the feminine side of their otherwise male personalities.

Pedophilia

Pedophilia is a preference for sexual activity with young children. In Western societies, pedophilia is defined as sexual fantasy about or sexual relations with a child younger than 13 by a person 16 or older. Some pedophiles are attracted only to children, often of a specific age range or developmental stage, whereas others are attracted to both children and adults.

Although state laws vary, the law generally considers a person older than 18 to be committing statutory rape if the victim is 16 or younger. Statutory rape cases often do not meet the definition of pedophilia, highlighting the somewhat arbitrary nature of selecting a specific age cutoff point in a medical or legal definition.

Pedophilia is much more common among men than among women. Both boys and girls can be victims, although more reported cases involve girls. Pedophiles may focus only on children within their families (incest), or they may prey on children in the community. Force or coercion may be used to engage children sexually, and threats may be invoked to prevent disclosure by the victim.

Pedophilia can be treated with psychotherapy and drugs that alter the sex drive, with varying results. Such treatment may be sought voluntarily or only after criminal apprehension and legal action. Incarceration, even long-term, does not change pedophilic desires or fantasies.

Exhibitionism

In exhibitionism, a person (usually male) exposes his genitals to unsuspecting strangers and becomes sexually excited when doing so. Further sexual contact is almost never sought, so exhibitionists rarely commit rape. Most exhibitionists are younger than 40 and may or may not be married. Exposure of genitals to unsuspecting strangers for sexual excitement is rare among women. Provocative dressing by women is increasingly accepted by society as normal. In addition, social venues in which women can expose themselves are not uncommon, and such behavior may not constitute a mental health disorder.

Voyeurism

In voyeurism, a person becomes sexually aroused by watching someone who is disrobing, naked, or engaged in sexual activity. It is the act of observing (peeping) that is arousing, not sexual activity with the observed person. Some degree of voyeurism is particularly common, more among boys and men but increasingly among women. Society often regards mild forms of this behavior as normal. As a disorder, voyeurism is much more common among men; it may become the preferred method of sexual activity and consume countless hours of watching. The amount and variety of sexually explicit materials and shows available to men and women have increased significantly, but engaging in these activities lacks the element of secret observation that is the hallmark of voyeurism. The Internet has made voyeurism easier to engage in without the neighborhood prowling traditionally associated with this behavior.

Sexual Masochism and Sadism

Sexual masochism involves acts in which a person derives sexual excitement from being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise abused. Sexual sadism involves acts in which a person derives sexual pleasure from inflicting physical or psychologic suffering on another person. Some people act out their sadistic urges with a consenting partner (who may have sexual masochism); rarely, some act them out on nonconsenting victims. Fantasies of total control and dominance are often important, and the sadist may bind and gag the partner in elaborate ways.

Some amount of sadism and masochism is commonly play-acted in healthy sexual relationships, and mutually compatible partners often seek one another out. For example, the use of silk handkerchiefs for simulated bondage and mild spanking during sexual activity are common practices between consenting partners and are not considered sadomasochistic.

In contrast, the disorder of sexual masochism or of sexual sadism takes these acts to an extreme and can result in severe bodily or psychologic harm and even death. For example, masochistic sexual activity may involve asphyxiophilia, whereby the person is partially choked or strangled (either by a partner or by the self-application of a noose around the neck). A temporary decrease in oxygen to the brain at the point of orgasm is sought as an enhancement to sexual release, but the practice may accidentally result in death.

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns...zch104czPzhtml

Here is another site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile