You have not refuted the Huffington Post article I notice. Typical.
The prosecution also played up the sexually explicit websites, briefcases full of nudie magazines, and centerfold cutouts...but the strategy backfired. It made Michael Jackson seem like a heterosexual male-Knopper 290-291
The jury in 2005 had every opportunity to see what Jackson possessed, as well as what he did not. People may form their own conclusions about his tastes in art, or even if they are prudent enough, his tastes in adult erotica. But let’s keep something in perspective: What was the man put on trial for? His tastes in art and erotica, his character, or to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a crime had been committed?
But just as there are some individuals who will never accept that the Civil War ended in 1865, so, too, is a faction who will never accept that Michael Jackson was fully exonerated by a court of law in 2005. To this end, they will continue to lie, to rehash and sensationalize old stories, to distort truth and yes, even to fabricate new “evidence” where none exists. I can only see this as a thinly veiled attempt to keep an old battle going that has already long been fought ― and won.
The fact is two controversial(by today's standards) art books amoungst the thousands he owned(and he owned alot) does not equate to evidence.
FACT: Perverts usually have ILLEGAL pornographic material too, and HE HAD NONE... Only two funny-by-todays-standards art books that were arguably quite PC in their time(both 60s books). One of them even seems to reference Golding's Lord of the Flies.
All his ACTUAL porn collection was Hetrosexual (and maybe slightly BI too) and legally obtained. He was a known fan of Barely Legal....
If I had books on Cherubs, you'd probably claim I had a baby fetish and I'm a pervert.....