Posted by Art Books Turned into child porn by Desperate Prosecution MB #262 Unbelievably desperate prosecutors now trying to turn two 1960s art books into child porn MAY 1 2005 — Prosecutors have been scrambling in the past few days to put as much distance between Debbie Rowe’s explosive testimony and the end of their “case” as possible. The prosecution has introduced 2 art books seized from Neverland in 1993….yeah, we’re back to 1993…again. They hope that the jury will overlook the fact that these books are legal, available for purchase, and really have nothing to do with either the 1993 allegation or the 2003 allegation. Just when you thought it couldnt get more ridiculous, the prosecution always takes it one step further. One of the books is called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and consists of photographs taken on the set of the classic movie Lord of the Flies. The other is called “Boys will be Boys” published in the 1960s
.yeah, the 1960s. To be clear, none of this is child pornography. But the prosecution wants the jury to believe otherwise. According to Savannah Guthrie, the “Boys will be boys” book is inscribed by Michael Jackson with the words: “Look at the true spirit of joy on these boys’ faces. This is the life I never had. This is the life I want for my children.” Is that supposed to be evidence of pedophilia?? If anything, that inscription alone knocks out any argument that prosecutors want to make. What’s more, neither one of these books were shown to any kid; not now and not in 1993. There’s never been an allegation that any of these people were shown these art books for any nefarious purposes. Oh, but it gets worse for the prosecution. As just mentioned above, the other book called “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” includes pictures of the actors taken on the set of the classic movie Lord of the Flies. Dealing yet another slap to the prosecution, defense attorney Robert Sanger pointed out that the book wasnt purchased by Jackson and was a gift to him by a fan named “Rhonda”. Ouch. That book, too, is inscribed by the fan named Rhonda in 1983 with the following words: “To Michael Jackson, from your fan Rhonda xoxoxo”. 
This alleged erotic book either is or was also in the Library of Congress. Its Congress Catalog Number is 65-7 according to an image scan of the book found on Lordoftheflies.org. Ouch, ouch. I guess those pedophilic Congressmen needed it in the Library of Congress at one point too, huh? Ridiculous. One cannot stress this enough, but this is not pornography nor does it have anything to do with pornography. But Sneddon allegedly seized upon this book in an effort to convince what he must hope will be a stupid jury panel that this book is somehow evidence in this current case. If you remember, tabloid reporter and prosecution shill Diane Dimond ran around to various news outlets waving The Boy: A Photographic Essay around as if it was the holy grail in the prosecution’s “case”. Whats weird is that she obviously has it in her possession as well. Does that mean shes a child molester? She was running around showing it on various TV shows with no problem. So does that mean shes distributing child porn? How erotic or sick is it really if she was allowed to both purchase it and broadcast it? In another article written by her for the NY Post, shes spinning the prosecutions allegations, just as she did with her ridiculous Debbie Rowe article prior to this one. According to her latest drivel, she says she had to purchase A Boy: A Photographic Essay for $250. Ironically enough, she did a lot more to get her copy than Jackson did to obtain the copy that police took from his Neverland in 1993. Oops. What she exaggerates as sick, may be drawing the ire of the authors and editors of said books. One wonders how they would respond to Dimonds insinuation that they have created child pornography? Could these people or the children of these people be looking into filing a defamation lawsuit in the future? What prosecutors and their media whores — as some have harshly characterized them — fail to keep in mind is the sheer lack of what was NOT found at Jacksons ranch. There was no child porn. There was no computer child porn. Possession of child pornography is a federal offense and had any of that been found, Jackson would also be facing federal charges, which hes not. And the fact these prosecutors, with the help of their talking heads, now have to take legally obtained art books and turn it into something sinister just smacks of a non-existent case. Further, these books werent found in a vacuum. What the public has known since at least the 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey is that Jackson has a library full of books and collections of material in his home. He has thousands of books and other gifts from fans, from the authors of certain books, and from celebrity pals sent him. More information from the preface of that book reveals just why it may have been of some import to Jackson. From the preface of the book “The Boy: A Photographic Essay”:
In a world grown increasingly complex, where violence and confusion are commonplace, the human heart leaps at the recall of innocence. This book is a testament to the beauty of innocence and to the human capacity for recalling that beauty. To a boy, boyhood is timeless and eternal. There seems to be no tomorrow. To the adult observer, boyhood lasts but a fleeting moment; it is gone in the twinkling of an eye. The art of capturing the fleeting moment in time has long been the province the poet, the painter and especially the photographer, who through the selective eyes of his camera, captures and preserves forever the ephemeral image. (see The Boy: A Photographic Essay)
Oooo that bastard! How dare he have legal art books filled with such beautiful sentiment in his house! In a world grown increasingly complex, where violence and confusion are commonplace I think Jackson has first-hand knowledge of this commonplace confusion over the course of his lifetime. Some observers say it almost sounds like something Jackson himself would have written. And more than a few of those observers have complained that if this is the kind of evidence prosecutors have, then they are in even more of a hole than they appear to be in; while other observers emphatically state that this is not evidence of anything. Attorney Mickey Sherman appeared on the Abrams Report April 29 2005. He had the following to say about these art books:
MICKEY SHERMAN: No I don’t think its a big deal. Shame on Tom Sneddon for sliming Michael Jackson in the remaining moments of his case because this has nothing, as you say, nothing to do with moving the ball forward as to whether or not Michael Jackson molested this particular [accuser]. 1993, 12 years ago there was some art books in his home. What does that have to do with whether or not he committed this crime?
Thats the big question. Just what in hell do these art books have to do with proclivity or the commission of a crime? Nothing. Remember, this isnt child pornography. There are no sex acts with children. In MJEOL Bullet #241, The Boy: A Photographic Essay was discussed. Back then, some cautious pro-prosecution “case” observers offered advice to prosecutors, warning them that they better make sure this book wasn’t given to Jackson as a gift by someone. Apparently, they didnt heed that warning because now we know for sure that the book Dimond cites as so sick really was a legally obtained gift given to Jackson by a fan. The media will be the media, and not surprising to some, this keyholes worth of information is being magnified by the likes of Dimond and whiny prosecutors who WANT it to be what they WANT it to be, instead of accepting it for what it is. Once we get the full picture, complete with context, its likely to be an entirely different story. At the moment, many people are just waiting for the prosecution to get off the pot, rest their case and sit down. I can honestly say Im one of them. I want to hear all the things the prosecution left out of the story, which are sure to be brought up when the defense presents its case. __Tab reporter Ian Drew, out__ There was another setback for the prosecution recently. Us Weekly “nut” Ian Drew has been disqualified as a witness because of the vagueness of his testimony. Prosecutors claimed he would say that Ron Konitzer told him that the family “escaped from Neverland in the middle of the night.” Going back to Drew’s words, he never really said Konitzer told him they “escaped”. He says he was trying to make a deadline and he couldn’t really recollect what he said. We know Drew got pinched by the prosecution to be called as a witness in the first place because of statements he made in an interview with tabloid reporter Diane Dimond recently. By the way, her fingerprints seem to be all over this “case”, both in 1993 and 2003. But long story short, Drew got up before the judge, the judge asked him what he recalled, then the judge struck him as a witness in this trial. Stay tuned. -MJEOL