Please read and share the excellent article written by Raven Woods.
No Child Porn Found At Neverland Then…Or Now! The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom
Last week, as the world geared up to remember Michael Jackson on his seventh death anniversary, a deluge of negative publicity hit regarding allegations of “disturbing” child porn that was supposedly uncovered during the 2003 raid of Neverland, conducted prior to Jackson’s 2004 indictment on charges of molesting a minor. The highly publicized trial in 2005 resulted in Jackson’s acquittal on all fourteen counts. The problem is that the police documents in question and the list of items seized from Neverland are not “new” or “recently unearthed” documents, as some media outlets have mistakenly claimed in an effort to bolster salacious headlines.
These were all items that were entered in court back in 2005-items that were well known to both the prosecution and defense and were presented before both Judge Melville and the jury. None of the items seized from Neverland fit the legal definition of child pornography, and in fact many of the items that are currently creating the most media hysteria were not pornographic at all. They were legal art books; a few of them containing some examples of adult erotica, but again, these were not titles that could be in any way deemed as pornographic or even obscene. This isn’t to say that Jackson didn’t own any pornography at all. The truth was that a sizable amount of adult heterosexual pornography had been confiscated in the raid, but Jackson was a grown man and this type of pornography is not illegal to own. In the absence of any hardcore “smoking gun” evidence against Jackson, the prosecution tried desperately to make a case for several legal art books which Jackson owned as part of an extensive library, one that contained over ten thousand titles on art and photography (subjects that were of interest to him as inspiration for his own lyrics and films). These art books, as they were written up and described in the original police reports, were clearly stated as not being pornographic in nature but as items that could “possibly” be used as part of a “grooming” process (however, it is important to note that this was not a claim the prosecution was able to successfully prove in court). Secondly, it has been confirmed via a statement issued by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department that several pages of the document-which originated with the publication Radar Online-appeared to have been falsified, with images that were never part of the original documents, claiming those images “appeared to have been taken from internet sources.” Since this story spread like proverbial wildfire through the tabloid media-and even to legit mainstream media who apparently never bothered to fact check either the origin or contents of these documents-we really must pause to consider how the media operates in spreading such hoax stories on celebrities. We also must ask some hard questions about why better laws are not in place to protect deceased persons-famous or not-from this kind of libel.
READ MORE here: