Official - Michael Jackson was scum

[Checkmite]

I'm going to add to my post a bit, because I think this one aspect of Jackson's character is what immediately prejudices everyone against him, so after that all the evidence is jaundiced a bit.

I've known several children who did not hesitate to climb into bed with any adult handy if they became anxious or weren't used to sleeping alone. As a lot of parents co-sleep with their children, when those children are at someone else's home, they still expect to sleep with an adult.

The problem isn't the children being willing to sleep with an adult.

 

[DragonLady]

The problem isn't the children being willing to sleep with an adult.

I've conceded several times that Jackson had boundary issues.

To me, it's a bit like high school teachers who are flirted with by students. Someone has to be the adult, and it isn't the students.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm going to add to my post a bit, because I think this one aspect of Jackson's character is what immediately prejudices everyone against him, so after that all the evidence is jaundiced a bit.

I've known several children who did not hesitate to climb into bed with any adult handy if they became anxious or weren't used to sleeping alone. As a lot of parents co-sleep with their children, when those children are at someone else's home, they still expect to sleep with an adult.

That said, IIRC, the only time the Arvizo child(ren) was allowed to sleep in Jackson's bedroom, another man was there, too. I don't believe there were any accusations of abuse occurring that night.

Michael Jackson got quite excited when he talked about it. He even calls it "very loving" and says that it's a "beautiful thing" about sleeping with those young children. Considering that the person who interviews him realizes the gravity of the allegations and takes it seriously he manages to come off as extremely creepy to the point that I'd bet that he's doing it for his own enjoyment as opposed to any alleged therapeutically value in "healing a child".

I've conceded several times that Jackson had boundary issues.

To me, it's a bit like high school teachers who are flirted with by students. Someone has to be the adult, and it isn't the students.

It's more like if a high school teacher would show up and shower together with their students after PE, including with those of the opposite sex. Irrespective of how uncomfortable they might find themselves in that kind of situation i strongly believe that many, if not most, of the students wouldn't have the courage to tell them to go away and stop being a creep.

The same applies to MJ and him getting just close enough for it to be uncomfortable, hence why even if he didn't sexually abuse them his conduct could still traumatize them. I's inappropriate even if he's not "jack the ripper". I mean he's giving them with gifts and affection in what could be called a kids paradise so they are more than likely going to feel indebted to him.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I don't know whether Jacko messed with kids or not, but he was certainly a weird guy, and no wonder, considering his upbringing.

What gets me, is these little scavengers coming out of the woodwork after the fact, trying to score some moolah.

As a parent, why on earth would you allow your children to spend the weekend with a celebrity such as Michael Jackson, anyway? The parents of these supposed victims were clearly sniffing some major glue, or were just trying to leech some free swag.

 

[Elagabalus]

MOST of the claims regarding Jackson are of this latter variety. People on the lower floor of his room playing video games, talking and laughing together, then falling asleep. In some cases, he gave up his bed to kids, while he slept on the floor...

Actually they're not. Here's Jimmy Safechuck's civil complaint.

https://www.mjfacts.com/jimmy-safechuck-civil-complaint/

This is from 2015.

Here are some links from the same site.
https://www.mjfacts.com/links/

I recommend reading the articles written by Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair at the bottom of the page (She's currently being vilified by the Not-Guilty crowd).

Some excerpts from the article CSI Neverland (2005) about the MJ 2005 trial.

...Zonen produced one of the great moments of the trial when he cross-examined the first defense witness, 22-year-old choreographer Wade Robson...He strode over to the table where the evidence was kept and pulled out a large photo book called Boys Will Be Boys. Over and over he asked Robson to pick a page and describe what he saw—naked boys of 10, 11, or 12 with their genitalia prominently displayed...

...Jason Francia... was the only young man to come forward and tell the jury that Michael Jackson had molested him, beginning when he was seven. After five years of therapy, the devout evangelical Christian said, he now works as a mentor to troubled young people ...

...As a parent, why on earth would you allow your children to spend the weekend with a celebrity such as Michael Jackson, anyway? The parents of these supposed victims were clearly sniffing some major glue, or were just trying to leech some free swag.

...As I watched the mother on the stand, one thing seemed clear to me: Michael Jackson would probably never have spent more than a moment's time with this poor, dysfunctional family if he hadn't had an ulterior motive...

 

[Arcade22]

As a parent, why on earth would you allow your children to spend the weekend with a celebrity such as Michael Jackson, anyway? The parents of these supposed victims were clearly sniffing some major glue, or were just trying to leech some free swag.

If the "Leaving Neverland" documentary is accurate then it's quite likely he earned the trust of his victims parents as well. He apparently called James Safechuck's mother a lot, even-though most time on the phone was spent with James. By all accounts he spent far less time with the other members of his family, noticeably he interacted little with his sister who described being left to play and become friends with the monkeys MJ kept.

If he really was just a "child at heart" and mentally immature shouldn't he have also spent more time with her instead of fixating on James? Note that these traits would not be exclude him being a pedophile, many pedophiles are mentally immature.

 

[theprestige]

I've conceded several times that Jackson had boundary issues.

To me, it's a bit like high school teachers who are flirted with by students. Someone has to be the adult, and it isn't the students.

Serious, fundamental question: Why do you believe someone has to be an adult in that situation?

 

[Checkmite]

I don't know whether Jacko messed with kids or not, but he was certainly a weird guy, and no wonder, considering his upbringing.

I've left this oft-repeated sentiment alone, as it's understandable enough; but perhaps it is time to reexamine it, considering that Michael had six siblings who grew up in precisely the selfsame circumstances and conditions but are not known for norm-divergent attitudes toward adult/child bedroom relationships, or indeed for any other general "weirdness" really.

 

[DragonLady]

Michael Jackson got quite excited when he talked about it. He even calls it "very loving" and says that it's a "beautiful thing" about sleeping with those young children. Considering that the person who interviews him realizes the gravity of the allegations and takes it seriously he manages to come off as extremely creepy to the point that I'd bet that he's doing it for his own enjoyment as opposed to any alleged therapeutically value in "healing a child".

It's certainly true the reporter was able to get into Jackson's head and entice him to really open up about the subject of bed sharing. I think he also did an excellent job highlighting the weirdness to make his final product as sensational as possible.

It's more like if a high school teacher would show up and shower together with their students after PE, including with those of the opposite sex. Irrespective of how uncomfortable they might find themselves in that kind of situation i strongly believe that many, if not most, of the students wouldn't have the courage to tell them to go away and stop being a creep.

You might be right. I don't know.

The same applies to MJ and him getting just close enough for it to be uncomfortable, hence why even if he didn't sexually abuse them his conduct could still traumatize them. I's inappropriate even if he's not "jack the ripper". I mean he's giving them with gifts and affection in what could be called a kids paradise so they are more than likely going to feel indebted to him.

I don't really have an opinion here. My first thought is that lots of kids are occasionally showed with gifts and affection -foster kids come right to mind- without claiming to feel indebted later. But I do agree Jackson's wealth and status may have changed the dynamic a lot. So I really can't agree or disagree.

 

[DragonLady]

Serious, fundamental question: Why do you believe someone has to be an adult in that situation?

Okay; someone SHOULD be the adult in that situation. By that, I mean, the person who is old enough to know better should also be mature enough to know better and put an end to it.

But...perfect world and all that.

 

[theprestige]

Okay; someone SHOULD be the adult in that situation.

Why?

Why do you believe that is necessary?

 

[DragonLady]

I've left this oft-repeated sentiment alone, as it's understandable enough; but perhaps it is time to reexamine it, considering that Michael had six siblings who grew up in precisely the selfsame circumstances and conditions but are not known for norm-divergent attitudes toward adult/child bedroom relationships, or indeed for any other general "weirdness" really.

Wasn't Michael a lot younger? This link is so pro-Jackson it even makes me a bit uncomfortable (and years out of date), but it addresses some of the things that come to my mind about MJ's sexualization. If he was a pedophile, he was most likely also a victim.

 

[wasapi]

I've left this oft-repeated sentiment alone, as it's understandable enough; but perhaps it is time to reexamine it, considering that Michael had six siblings who grew up in precisely the selfsame circumstances and conditions but are not known for norm-divergent attitudes toward adult/child bedroom relationships, or indeed for any other general "weirdness" really.

Perhaps, but I have had a few gay, male friends whose siblings were not, and exhibited their preference at a young age.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps, but I have had a few gay, male friends whose siblings were not, and exhibited their preference at a young age.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Nor is homosexuality comparable to pedophilia. Unless your contact with gay male friends tells you something the rest of us don't know?

 

[Checkmite]

Wasn't Michael a lot younger?

He was the third youngest, IIRC, and only a year behind the next oldest.

Perhaps, but I have had a few gay, male friends whose siblings were not, and exhibited their preference at a young age.

Do you suppose the circumstances of their upbringing led them to be gay?

 

[Dismember]

I recommend reading the articles written by Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair at the bottom of the page (She's currently being vilified by the Not-Guilty crowd).

She praises an openly NAMBLA-friendly bottom feeder, Victor Gutierrez, and there are inaccuracies (some of them rather significant) in at least a couple of her Jackson articles. The trust in Gutierrez as a reliable source is likely why she's being vilified, and IMO, she deserves it:

"Gutierrez describes a passionate love affair and numerous sexual trysts of Jackson and the boy, day by day, week by week. The book quotes former employees who corroborate details of Jackson’s allegedly illicit behavior, and who also spoke to the authorities. It is heavily illustrated with fragments of official documents from the case as well as pictures of Jordie, the room where he and Jackson slept together, even his report card. [...]

There is also Jordie’s description of Jackson’s genitals and distinguishing marks, and mention of three-way sex with a second boy. [...]

The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler."

Among other things, the description of Jackson's genitals turned out to be wrong: in Jordan Chandler's description, he claimed Jackson was circumcised. We learned after his autopsy that he was not. Also, strangely, the prosecution fought to have the description and the photographs of Jackson barred. Why would that be, if Chandler got it right? Are there other good reasons Feldman would have done that? Anyone here a lawyer, or in some related field that can offer some insight?

Jordan's description (added spoiler tags for the sake of overall brevity)

Did Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's penis match the photographs taken of the star's genitalia by the police?

Shortly before Jackson’s trial in 2005, on January 6, 2005 The Smoking Gun website, which seemed to be close to the prosecution (they reference claims in supposedly sealed prosecution documents – and that always with a pro-prosecution bias), published an article in which they claimed to have reviewed an affidavit by former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department Deputy Deborah Linden, which "was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts" [6].

According to the article, based on Linden's affidavit:

"With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised." [6]

If this is indeed what Jordan said, then his description may have been "precise" (as in detailed), but it certainly was not accurate.

We know by now for a fact that Jackson was not circumcised as per his autopsy, released in early 2010 [7]

I've only skimmed a couple other articles by Orth, including the one you posted earlier, from 1994. From that article, the following section about Jordan's (referred to as "Jamie") disclosure is a falsehood.

Orth's version:

On August 17 came the dénouement. Jamie's father, desperate that he would lose his son, made an early-morning appointment with the psychiatrist to whom he had posed the hypothetical situation: Dr. Mathis Abrams. During a nearly three-hour session, Jamie told Dr. Abrams for the first time the full extent of his alleged sexual relations with Jackson. By California law, such an accusation must be reported to the appropriate authorities, which automatically triggers an investigation. A police sergeant and a social worker from the Department of Children's Services interviewed Jamie and found that his story was consistent. The therapist told the authorities that he felt the boy was telling the truth.

==========

The longer version is a bit more complicated and includes obvious coercion, but unlike what Orth claims in that article, Abrams himself never stated whether HE thought Jordan was credible or not:

"Taking Jordan to Abrams instead of the police, was another strategic move by Evan. Therapists are required by law to report all child abuse allegations to authorities. Having the therapist report the allegations instead of Evan himself reporting them was a way to report them through a third party without liability passing to the parent in case the allegations turn out to be false.
Although Dr. Abrams dutifully reported the case, ten years later, on December 12, 2003 he told CBS News that he did not spend enough time with Jordan to conclude whether the boy was telling the truth or not: "I think that this [children changing their stories] is a possibility in both cases, that there could be coaching, but, again, I wasn’t given the opportunity in the initial one to even try to find out."

source: The 1993 Chandler Allegations (summary version) Note: see the full versions for footnotes and citations.

Jordan Chandler "Confesses"

On July 11, Jordan was sent to his father for a one-week visitation but at the end of the week Evan Chandler refused to return the boy to his mother.

On July 14, Evan Chandler and his lawyer Barry Rothman contacted Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist, and presented him with a one-sided, heavily loaded description of Jackson and Jordan’s relationship. In reply, on July 16, without having met either the child or the accused, just based on what Evan and Rothman had told him, Abrams sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred”. It has to be noted that during their July 14 discussion Abrams did urge Evan to bring the child to him for an evaluation, but Evan refused. All he needed from Dr. Abrams was this “blind” letter that he could then use as a “negotiation” tool with his ex-wife June and with Michael Jackson.
In actuality, at that point Jordan still denied having been molested by Jackson. According to the Chandlers’ story his “confession” would come on July 16, conveniently on the day when Evan was scheduled to return him to his ex-wife. According to the Chandlers’ story, Evan sedated Jordan for a minor dental procedure (pulling a baby tooth) with the help of his anesthesiologist and friend, Mark Torbiner (the same person who also participated in the suspicious drugging of Jackson on Memorial Day Weekend). After Jordan emerged from the sedation Evan started pressuring him to “confess” and corroborate his “suspicions” that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him. The boy refused. Then Evan started to blackmail him with lies and threats against his friend, Michael Jackson. First Evan claimed he had bugged Jordan’s bedroom, but Jordan remained “silent, seemingly unimpressed” and “sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack”. Then he tried to cajole Jordan by telling him that being bisexual was not only OK but was “sorta cool, in a way”. That didn’t work either, Jordan still would not say that Jackson was sexual him.

Then Evan’s threats against Jackson became more direct and more aggressive: “I’m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I’m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it’ll be all your fault because you’re the one person who could have saved him.”

Jordan by this time, of course, knew what his father would consider “the truth” and what would he consider a “lie”, since Evan made that very clear. Ray Chandler writes in his book: “In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn’t need Jordie to confirm it.” In other words Evan had a fixed, preconceived idea that Jackson had molested his son and he would only accept confirmation from Jordan as “the truth”. Everything else would be considered a “lie” and would result in Evan acting to “taking down” the entertainer. And this is when Jordan, after pleading with his father not to hurt Jackson, allegedly, gave in:

“Okay. What’s the question?”

“Did Michael touch your penis?”

Jordie hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered “Yes.”

Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged back, tight.

“We never talked about it again,” Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn’t matter. “The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.”

After all these threats and blackmailing Jordan “confesses” with an almost inaudible “yes” and we are to believe that Evan doesn’t have any further questions? Supposedly his son just confessed that he had been molested but his father is not interested in details, such as when, where, how, how many times and exactly what happened, under what circumstances was his son’s penis touched by another man? In actuality, Evan later tells the Los Angeles DA that “we never talked about it again”. It would only make sense if Evan knew there were no details to be told. It also seems to be an attempt on Evan’s part to avoid suspicion that he coached his son.

All the “details” would later coalesce when we hear about the masturbation, mutual masturbation and oral sex claims but those “details” only surfaced after Jordan spent more time in his father’s care and in the office of Evan’s attorney, Barry Rothman, a person that Evan himself described in his taped phone conversation with David Schwartz as the “nastiest son of a bitch”. Rothman’s secretary at the time, Geraldine Hughes later said in an interview: “I really believe that the whole thing was plotted and planned and the words were given to him [Jordan Chandler] to say because I actually witnessed the 13 year old in my attorney’s office without any supervision of his parents and he was kind of snuck in there, it was like no one in the office knew he was in there. He was behind closed doors with my attorney for several hours, and I kind of believe that is where he was being told what to say.”
The story about July 16 is the Chandlers’ own story about Jordan’s alleged confession, and even if we went by this version of the events, the way Jordan was coerced and threatened into a “confession” would make these allegations very problematic.
However, there are reasons to doubt the claim that Jordan “confessed” anything at all on July 16. Namely the fact that Evan Chandler, while described as desperate to convince June and David Schwartz that Jackson had molested Jordan, never mentioned Jordan’s alleged confession to them in the next few weeks. All he used to try to convince them was Dr. Abrams’s letter. Why would he “forget” to mention the most important element, Jordan’s own confession? Evan’s explanation in the hindsight was that he did not want to betray the boy’s trust, but that makes little sense considering the fact that he did not have any problem with betraying his son on other occasions, plus he already claimed to June that Jackson had allegedly molested Jordan, basing his claim on Dr. Abrams’ letter.

According to Ray Chandler’s book June kept asking Jordan about his father’s allegations during that period and even told him that she would help them punish Jackson if he would confirm what his father claimed, but Jordan refused to do so. The confirmation would finally come on August 11, when Jordan called his mother and told her about his allegations on the phone – with Evan standing next to him. June then requested to talk to the boy alone, but Evan refused to let them.

Consider the fact that initially Evan should have returned Jordan to his mother on July 16. To invent in the hindsight that Jordan “confessed” to him that day about having allegedly been molested by Michael Jackson, would be a good way for Evan to justify why he did not and avoid legal action. [. . .]

Another one of her articles states that a photograph of a naked boy was found in his home during a raid, a photograph "believed to be Jonathan Spence" (paraphrased). This photo was allegedly found in a raid on Jackson's home, but no such photo was ever admitted as evidence in either trial and there's no evidence that the photo existed to begin with.

The only thing ever admitted into evidence were the art photography books (also wrongly claimed by some to be child pornography).

Just to be clear about Victor Gutierrez, excerpts from the forward and intro of his 1996 book, and other info:

"For me it was confusing, not knowing whether to refer to the boys as victims or ex-lovers. My interviews with the participants in the criminal investigation against Jackson will surprise you. I leave you with the evidence, which was neither edited nor censored. It is a tale of dreams and sexual games between the King of Pop and his young lovers. I ask only that you read with an open mind; you will need it."

Another lengthy read, but necessary to understand how big a role he played: Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Jackson

Gutierrez claimed that he based his book on Jordan’s diary, however the Chandlers say that Jordan never kept a diary. A diary in which Jordan documented his abuse would have been very important evidence in any investigation against Jackson but no such evidence was ever produced. Again, the only person who ever claimed to have seen the diary was Gutierrez, a man with a very questionable credibility, yet his book was believed by the prosecutors, at least according to Maureen Orth.

It is pretty clear that rather than Jordan’s diary, the graphic sexual content in Gutierrez’s book was based on Gutierrez’s own perverted fantasies. Quite disturbingly, Gutierrez does not disapprove of the alleged abuse but instead celebrates it as a consensual love story, a wonderful “relationship”; it is no wonder since in the foreword of the book, amongst the credits he thanks NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), an infamous pedophile organization [5]. Guiterrez, citing unnamed “experts”, advocates pedophilia in his book as something that is not harmful to children but misunderstood by society, and he uses the Chandler allegations in support of his point. For example, he writes:

"The cliché of pedophiles as old men who kidnap children in sacks is as erroneous as thinking that all homosexual men attack other male pedestrians on the street. Psychiatrists report that there are pedophile rapists and murderers, just as there are homosexuals and heterosexuals who commit these crimes. These same experts indicate that sexual relations between adults and minors are sometimes loving and do not have a negative effect on the youngster’s life. What better example than Jordie? He was more harshly affected by the legal procedures associated with his case than by his relationship with Jackson." [5]

When Michael Jackson was accused of molesting Gavin Arvizo [more about that case in the The 2005 Allegations section], Gutierrez, perhaps sensing another opportunity to further his agenda, became very active in the media. He assisted in the making of slanderous "documentaries" about Jackson. Apparently the people who employed him as an expert on the allegations against Jackson did not find his history, the fact that he was Court ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million for lying about him, the pedophiliac theme of his book or his apparent association with NAMBLA problematic.
https://imgur.com/IOCJSNY

In a September 2006 British GQ article about Gutierrez it is claimed he was even engaged to work on Martin Bashir’s Jackson documentary [6].
================

Personal note: It's not clear if the claim about working on Bashir's documentary is true. This image suggests the possibility, but I can't find the original E! Universal webpage where this was posted. https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/victor-gutierrez-was-an-advisor-to-martin-bashir.jpg

 

[Checkmite]

The only thing ever admitted into evidence were the art photography books (also wrongly claimed by some to be child pornography).

The ones we've recently discovered were authored by known pedophiles?

 

[Dismember]

Dismember: The only thing ever admitted into evidence were the art photography books (also wrongly claimed by some to be child pornography).

The ones we've recently discovered were authored by known pedophiles?

Were they? Was that discussed in this thread? If so, I missed it or haven't read it yet.

All I know is that one of them had an inscription and appeared to have been sent by a fan, and both or all (2 or 3, total, I don't recall the exact number) are in the United States Library of Congress, so, whoever wrote them, it certainly doesn't seem likely that they're child porn.

 

[Checkmite]

Were they? Was that discussed in this thread? If so, I missed it or haven't read it yet.

All I know is that one of them had an inscription and appeared to have been sent by a fan, and both or all (2 or 3, total, I don't recall the exact number) are in the United States Library of Congress, so, whoever wrote them, it certainly doesn't seem likely that they're child porn.

It was a few pages back, but the pertinent link is here. The principal author Ronald Drew was at the very least indicted for sex crimes against children, although I can't find anything that conclusively says whether he was acquitted or convicted. However the books' editor Martin Swithinbank very definitely served several years in prison for sexually assaulting young boys at his house and was deported to the UK after serving his sentence.

This article which focuses specifically on Swithinbank's long history of involvement with pedophilic organizations and publications (read the whole thing if you want, I guess; it's boring and awful), has this to say about Book Explorers, Inc - the company which published the two "art books" in question:

Book Explorers, later evolving into Book Adventures, Inc. published Martin Swithinbank‘s 1964 “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and 1966 “Boys Will Be Boys!” with Swithinbank using the alias “Georges St. Martin” and co-author Ronald Drew, a New York public schoolteacher, using the alias “Ronald C. Nelson.” Drew was later fired for molesting a student but was able to retain his pension through legal action. Book Explorers also publish a quarterly magazine called Boyhood, as well as pederast calendars and literature.

...

Another significant detail from the 1977 Nichols interview is his discussion of George Parker Rossman, ordained minister and former dean of Ecumenical College at Yale University. Rossman was arrested in 1973 with Dr. Morris Fraser, Belfast child psychologist, and other in a Long Island, NY, boy sex ring. Nichols said that Rossman received a pederast mailing list from Nichol’s [and Swithinbank‘s] Book Explorers company. We can assume this is the same list discovered in Nichol’s and Swithinbank‘s Aquarius Press operation which was raided in 1970, the same year Nichols left Book Explorers. Nichols said that Rossman published his book on boy sex trafficking “Boys for Sale” through Book Explorers using the alias Jonathan Drake. Nichols, Swithinbank and Rossman were all obviously very good friends.

So the books were authored by at the very least an accused pedophile, edited by a convicted child rapist, and even published by a company specifically aimed at a pedophile audience.

Are they books "child porn"? Not legally. But that's the entire point: the books were made and sold with the intent of providing pedophiles with photos of naked children that they could use for pornography but which they could legally own because they photographs aren't explicitly sexual.

And if you think that's a stretch, this isn't even an outlier case. Only a few years ago a company in Canada was busted up which sold "naturist lifestyle" videos (exclusively containing young boys), and hundreds of people from its mailing list worldwide were arrested, some of them having been found with much much worse material besides.

Several of the American defendants contend the videos they bought aren't pornographic at all, but just legal videos of naked boys, using the same argument that led to Mr. Eisenlohr's acquittal. U.S. courts so far have sided with the prosecution and a number of defendants have already been found guilty.

This argument is identical to the one used to defend Jackson's owning these books. But the context of the material having been made by pedophiles primarily for pedophiles, changes things up a bit; because if that's the case, then these aren't some general-popular-interest random art-books that anyone looking for photography of children might easily have in their art-book-library, as has been argued heretofore. They're the kinds of things that were consciously made to appeal to a specific taste and have to be specifically looked for to be found.

 

[sadhatter]

It was a few pages back, but the pertinent link is here. The principal author Ronald Drew was at the very least indicted for sex crimes against children, although I can't find anything that conclusively says whether he was acquitted or convicted. However the books' editor Martin Swithinbank very definitely served several years in prison for sexually assaulting young boys at his house and was deported to the UK after serving his sentence.

This article which focuses specifically on Swithinbank's long history of involvement with pedophilic organizations and publications (read the whole thing if you want, I guess; it's boring and awful), has this to say about Book Explorers, Inc - the company which published the two "art books" in question:



So the books were authored by at the very least an accused pedophile, edited by a convicted child rapist, and even published by a company specifically aimed at a pedophile audience.

Are they books "child porn"? Not legally. But that's the entire point: the books were made and sold with the intent of providing pedophiles with photos of naked children that they could use for pornography but which they could legally own because they photographs aren't explicitly sexual.

And if you think that's a stretch, this isn't even an outlier case. Only a few years ago a company in Canada was busted up which sold "naturist lifestyle" videos (exclusively containing young boys), and hundreds of people from its mailing list worldwide were arrested, some of them having been found with much much worse material besides.



This argument is identical to the one used to defend Jackson's owning these books. But the context of the material having been made by pedophiles primarily for pedophiles, changes things up a bit; because if that's the case, then these aren't some general-popular-interest random art-books that anyone looking for photography of children might easily have in their art-book-library, as has been argued heretofore. They're the kinds of things that were consciously made to appeal to a specific taste and have to be specifically looked for to be found.

I'd equate it to knife making.

A certain type of knife is illegal, companies will then make knives that are as close as possible to this ( one good example is torsion spring blade activated knives being almost identical in function to switch blades. ) , and the audience is those that want that kind of knife, but also do not want trouble with the law. (People who don't care will obviously buy them anyway. )

My point being, people who buy these things ( drug paraphernalia also comes to mind) are comprised of people who want them, but with the addendum of also not wanting legal trouble.

Owning a book such as this says "I want pedophilic porn but don't want to be arrested" in the same way having a 'speed safe' knife says " I want a switchblade but don't want to be arrested"