so anyone watch this last night? some of the boys who are now men that they interviewed said he wasnt a fiddler and the others they interviewed said he was.

his trial starts next week and by all accounts they changed the law in the state where it is so that it would be illegal for him to pay someone off like he did with jordy chandler.

what struck me was that lots of the families of the kids they interviewed obviously werent well off and were on the breadline. therefore his lavish gifts to them would have made it easier for them to keep their mouths shut IMHO.

and latoya, is she he? they are both the same colour and have the same nose and eyes. scary as fuck. why on earth would you want to look like him if she indeed is latoya and not jacko in disguise.

so guilty or not guilty? let us jurors decide.

what struck me was that lots of the families of the kids they interviewed obviously werent well off and were on the breadline. therefore his lavish gifts to them would have made it easier for them to keep their mouths shut IMHO.
What about the parents of these boys? If he's guilty then they were complicit in child abuse, and regardless of his guilt they still cynically sent their children to him in the hopes of a payoff.

They should be punished and vilified too, but I doubt they will be.

I saw something on court-tv the other day that it was leaked that the pornography that they confiscated from his bedroom was mostly hard-core with child porn included. Fingerprints of Jackson, the boy, and his younger brother were all found in some of the porn (which corroborates at least part of the kid's story). They also showed a copy of one of the books that was found... titled "The Boy" (which was basically just photos of naked boys). Pretty damning, if you ask me.

Also, some law-speaking-guys were saying that the judge wouldn't allow a lot of boys who weren't molested by Jackson to be used as character witnesses for the defense; it is a misleading argument, since a child molester could have hundreds of potential victims that he decided not to molest or never had the chance to molest.

I say guilty.

http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/012505_dimond_ctv.html


One of the books confiscated from Jackson's home in 1993 is entitled "The Boy: A Photographic Essay." According to child erotica connoisseurs on the Internet, this rare book is considered to be "a homoerotic classic." The book, published in 1964, contains dozens of photographs of nude prepubescent boys, many in suggestive poses. There are nude boys captured outdoors, nude boys who appear to be posing for the camera, and boys displaying full frontal nudity.

Dr. Patricia Farrell, who has worked with pedophiles and their victims, studied the book for Court TV and concluded, "I think that this book could be used as a vehicle in a plan for seduction." Dr. Farrell said the photos in the book are perfect ammunition for a pedophile to use to begin a dialogue with a potential victim.

"It's to introduce that whole sexual kind of atmosphere," Dr. Farrell explained. "Then you can begin to use [it] and go on from there. You know, it's like going through a maze [for the molester]. They don't go through directly to the target — you go this way and that way to get to the target."

there was one bloke on there who was saying when he was molested he was told to use cream (or something, i was having a barney with the dog when this bit happened) and he only realised years later that the "cream" was infact a lubricant.

and then another talking about jakko performing oral sex on him.

i really shouldnt watch progs like this as they make my blood boil.

They should be punished and vilified too, but I doubt they will be.

I've been saying this from the start. The parents should be punished moreso than Jacko.

Jacko is probably clinically insane. You probably don't need a top-dollar psychiatrist to tell you that. There's a good chance he doesn't recognise what he's done as wrong, or doesn't even realise what he did--if he did what he is alleged to have done.

However, the parents of the children that stay at his place know full well what kind of nutcase he is. The only reason any parent would send their child to Jacko's gaff is in the hopes Jacko would slip 'em one up the pooper so they can cash in on the Jordy Chandler gravytrain.

The book you're refering to, Greasy, is fairly well known to photographers--a sort of pre-War Sally Mann, minus the Freud. If you've seen it, it's a heavily sentimental Huck-Finn-at-the-old-Swimmin'-Hole kind of thing, cornier than Norman Rockwell, who could also arguably be used to seduce children by a molester. "Look at the older policeman buyin' this little boy a soda, Timmy! You like soda, don't you Timmy? The little boy is using a straw to suck up the soda, Timmy. Would you like to practice sucking something, than have a soda, Timmy?"

Fact is, I don't really buy using something like that as evidence. If he had copies of Underage Bondage Boytacular, that would be different.

the important thing to do is try and get your hands on a book entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover. It was written by a Chilean journalist whose name escapes me at the moment, and is about the Jordy Chandler relationship, featuring extensive interviews with Jordy himself, and including photographs of the detailed drawings of Jackson's genitalia that he drew for the police as well as photos of the lavish gifts that Jackson provided for the boy's mother.
Jackson people prevented the book from being printed in the U.S. but perhaps you can find it in Europe.

including photographs of the detailed drawings of Jackson's genitalia that he drew for the police

This is just silly. I bet I could do a very detailed drawing of Michael Jackson's genetalia too. A pinkish-purple head, an off-white shaft, maybe a couple of balls, some hair. Unless there's some kind of defining feature like a tattoo of bubbles the chimp, what could these drawings be worth.

Anyway, when have you seen a child of that age render something on paper accurately for it the be admissable as evidence.

if you recall, monica lewinsky was able to provide descriptions of idiosyncratic markings on bill clinton's penis.

the markings the child drew were similar, i.e. not just a standard cock, but particular markings in specific areas.
if you can draw that and have it match up to what the police find in photos of his cock, i will give you ten silver dollars to spend on as many burberry print hats as your little heart desires.

$300 at Biblio (http://www.biblio.com/books/22373689.html), about the same at half dot com. List price is $19.95, looks like this was a more profitable smuggle that the usual south american fare.

thanks for the link, flyerdan.
too rich for my blood, i'm afraid.

if you recall, monica lewinsky was able to provide descriptions of idiosyncratic markings on bill clinton's penis.

An adult with a coheasive memory instead of a child who probably couldn't remember what he had for breakfast that day.

the markings the child drew were similar, i.e. not just a standard cock, but particular markings in specific areas.

Still extremely dubious don't you think?

"See this line here that kinda looks like a smiley face? Well, if we look at the picture of Michael Jackson's penis, it is in approximately the same area as this vein."

C'mon, unless there's something uniquely identifying like a mole or ancient cave art on there, surely any similarities between a child's scrawl and Mickey's penis are all in the heads of those who interpret them.

if you can draw that and have it match up to what the police find in photos of his cock, i will give you ten silver dollars to spend on as many burberry print hats as your little heart desires.

/-{}-\ /-{}-\

he wasn't a toddler at the time, you know. i believe he was 12 when the relationship ended, and certainly old enough to remember what the man's penis looked like.
but listen, you want to defend a relationship between an adult and a child, go ahead. i understand why you have a vested interest in doing so.

but listen, you want to defend a relationship between an adult and a child, go ahead. i understand why you have a vested interest in doing so.

You're so pathetic it makes me happy to be me.

Fact is, I don't really buy using something like that as evidence. If he had copies of Underage Bondage Boytacular, that would be different.

But the book was included in his porn collection (according to court-tv, anyway)... and Jacko's no photographer. If the book had been in a collection of photography books, perhaps I'd find it more benign.

Also from court-tv site is a "psychiatric interview" with the 1993 accuser (Jordy?).. http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html ... it's a pretty disgusting read. Be warned.

Not wanting to wade into the Kormic-stays stoush, but if you were traumatised you'd be able to remember everything. Everything. In detail.

kormiic i think your wrong, he would be able to remember.

stays - what kind of a comment is that? cant argue your point with kormiic so you revert to making snide comments and insinuating either A) he is a pedo or B) he has been abused?! thats so childish.

your demented, you know that?

besides what happened to considering things logically as opposed to from a heated pedo-witch-hunt point of view? sure i think mikey was doing some dodgy shit but i also think he is just a little boy who never grew up and is quite obviously a picnic basket short of a picnic.

I can't decide whether he's guilty or not, but I'm sort of hoping he is. Not for the sensational headlines, but for his own sake, because then he might start to realise what's gone wrong and what's now needed. It's tragic seeing a once vast talent end up like this, but it was that vast talent that set it all in motion when you think about it. Kormic's theory of him being clinically insane sounds a bit much, but, paedo or not, I think he's been crying out for help for years.

Kormic's theory of him being clinically insane sounds a bit much, but, paedo or not, I think he's been crying out for help for years.

I think having a surgeon transform your nose into a vagina qualifies you as clinically insane.

I understand much of his surgery, and his continual fetish for surgical garb (bandages, masks etc) is seen as evidence of munchausen's syndrome according to some.

Many celebs like to crack on about how tormented and troubled they are, and they're usually talking shite. MJ might actually be the real thing. One serious fuck-up, methinks.

I tell you all what, shut up !!

Why dont we just all keep on topic and discuss the original question at hand or close the thread as its becoming personal now.

Plus i think this should have been in the Mass Debate forum, but thats just my opinion.




stays - what kind of a comment is that? cant argue your point with kormiic so you revert to making snide comments and insinuating either A) he is a pedo or B) he has been abused?! thats so childish.

your demented, you know that?



Isnt it also childish on your part to revert to name calling ?

Also while im not being judge or jury, if he is found guilty for having sexual relations with children wouldnt that make him a paedophile. So the insinuated comment would hold some weight yes?

paedophile

n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children

but listen, you want to defend a relationship between an adult and a child, go ahead. i understand why you have a vested interest in doing so.I think Skeletorfonze was refering to this statement. stays was insinuating that kormic was a pedo, not jacko. It's understandable that this subject can cause people to become very emotional, but that's not a very nice debating tactic.

haha

why on earth would she insinuate Kormic is a pedo or abused when (unless im grossly ignorant) he's quite obviously not !!

Thats why i took it as Skeletorfonze was referring to Jacko :) (sorry should have read the whole goings on properly instead of just skimming through)

But anyway the lot of ya, stop your damn bickering or else ill start singing and gee whizz you certainly dont want that :no:

I think this should be moved to flambee so we can a damned good slanging match.

Does jacko post on this board then Royster?

but listen, you want to defend a relationship between an adult and a child, go ahead. i understand why you have a vested interest in doing so.
Who the fuck was she refering if not kormic? Read the statement objectively and we can stop bickering and get back to the pertinent point of this discussion: that Michael Jackson is a sick fuck.

Does jacko post on this board then Royster?



Hey who knows with some of the Trolls we get on this board :)

Anyway Harry calm down, i wasnt trying to be forceful or argumentative with my comment, i was just saying

ofer fuxake.
Kormiic knows what i was referring to. You lot don't need to.
But i was not implying in any way that he is a paedophile.

well if you were not calling him a pedo then, like i said, it seems like your saying he was abused as a child. please, if this isnt the case then explain yourself and i will gladly apologise. if it IS the case then its pretty cruel to have done so. if i had been abused and someone brought it up in so callous a fashion a public web board i would be greatly upset... especially as im guessing you would have to be a pretty close friend to have been told in the first place no?

i think this shoulda been in mass debate also. but i really dont see the difference between everything and mass debate in certain areas... what is everything for that isnt covered by one of the other boards?

as i said, he knows what i was referring to.
if you really think that i would ever mock someone on the grounds of their having been abused, then you are really not the sort whose apology would hold any weight with me.

so don't worry your pretty head about it.

in other words you cant justify what you said for whatever reason and so will just try and side step my observation. yes, you do that my dear... i will be sitting in the corner worrying away. yes, thats all i have to do all day long; worry about your wonderful OTT attacks on people with views you disagree with.

shush.

"But the book was included in his porn collection (according to court-tv, anyway)... and Jacko's no photographer."

I see details like this as a chilling reminder that there's more than Jacko's lunacy at work. Whether or not the guy's a pedarast, owning this particular book shouldn't be an issue, regardless of whether it was stored with hard-core porn (kiddie porn or adult, by the way? One's legal, the other isn't). My grandmother had a collection of bronze statues from the 1800s. One of these was a statue of a nude boy feeding an eagle (Ganymedes). It had a definite whiff of eroticism about it. But that doesn't mean my grandmother was into small boys. Oh, I suppose she could have used it to molest children some way or other--primarily by knocking them unconscious by smacking them over the head with it--but come on. Indicting someone on some legal thing they own is ridiculous and scary. Where would this end?

"Your Honor, you can see that the defendant, Michael Jackson, owned a box of peppermint sticks. Quite obviously, he could have used these sweets to lure small children into a large black car (which he also owned) and then perhaps he could have even violated them with the peppermint sticks! The foul fiend!!"

And so forth.

[way off-topic] alright, flame this if you must, but skeletor, i really don't feel the need to explain myself to you. just think..."well, maybe it's not necessary for people to explain themselves to me...maybe i shouldn't be so quick to decide the content of someone's statement when i don't know any of the backstory and maybe i should go back to posting about how badly i want to fuck some classmate in sweden" [/wayofftopic]

edited for purposes of avoiding repercussion from the gods.

Jeez, Royster I take that back.

stays, you're losing it gal, I'd shut up now if I were you.

flame it i have. and i think deservedly so. i dont take offence to 90% of the stuff people say on this board because, like you said, i have no right to. but i really did think you were being over the top (even by your standards) with your post to kor. no, i dont know the back story and i bet most people here dont. so why post something like that? it could obviously be misconstrued (although, without the mysterious back story, i cant see how i am wrong) and it has been. instead of trying to side step it, then trying to attack me on a personal level (twice, badly) and then trying to make like im in the wrong...why not just drop it yourself? you keep responding even though its pretty obvious you have nothing to say in your own defense except "i dont have to answer to you". if you dont then stfu. really, its that simple.

and which classmate in sweden would that be btw? or is it merely another of your warped attempts to 'win' this 'argument'? you really did seem like such a nice girl before...

/me takes sip of water and waits for next "yo mamma-ism" from skeletor who still feels it his place to criticize that which he does not understand.

Ask Kormiic if he ever thought i was referring to him as a paedophile.

hahahahaha. keep on going stays, your as bad as i am when it comes to getting the last word. sad that most of your posts make no real sense and NEVER do something as silly as answering any questions posed to you.

tell you what, i will be the bigger person here; i will not reply after this if you once again respond with some half thought out nonsense that doesnt answer anything i asked. ok? see you on the moral high ground sweet heart. heres a cookie.

this from the same person who demanded i apologize to him for saying that one of his jokes was crap.
go one then. tuck that tail between your legs real good.
(here's a clue for the rest of your life: trying to emphasize that you are being the bigger person by pointing it out means that you are actually a petty little pussy who is too embarassed to admit that he misunderstood what i said and yet could not help but dig deeper and deeper).

and for next time: tell me i look fat or something, that will really get to me. But saying that you won't respond isn't so much an insult as a gift from the heavens.

Ad hominem attacks make you look fat.

^^that's the spirit!
wait...you calling me a paedophile, Harry?

and now back to the original topic: I don't know what Jackson did to these boys, but i think that whenever you're dealing with celebrity (or someone wealthy in general) it is very difficult to get past the spin. Entire teams of people are kept on retainer for the purposes of intimidating and slandering those who suggest that the client is a less than stellar citizen. One private eye who for years was on Jackson's payroll (Anthony Pellicano) was recently convicted on a number of criminal charges, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. As a consequence, you can't believe everything that is said about the parents of the alleged victims.

ok im taking this to PM's now. i was going to let it lie but your insane. and i cant help but argue with insane people.

and although this is so way off topic... i dont care if you thought my joke was crap, lots of people do. you made out like i was being racist or some such nonsense. once again you jumping to conclusions without so much as a forethought to analysis.

and you have already been told that you lost this one by someone else. its not just me who thinks your wrong... do you actually realise how petty you are? argh! i cant believe i feel i have to explain myself to you on a public board. christ! im taking this to PM's because im sure everyone is bored of our 'discussion' (i know i am) but im betting you reply here anyway with some snide off topic attack on me so as to try and make me justify myself. so mods, i am attempting to go to PMs... if it gets back on here then im sorry.

wait...you calling me a paedophile, Harry?
No, I'm saying that resorting to insults (the exact meaning of the insult is irrelevant) as the premise of an argument makes you look like a silly person. Confounding your error by insulting the person who says "wait a minute, one of the premises of your argument is a fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html)" makes you look like a bloody fool.

Meanwhile, back in lucid-land:

I don't know what Jackson did to these boys, but i think that whenever you're dealing with celebrity (or someone wealthy in general) it is very difficult to get past the spin. Entire teams of people are kept on retainer for the purposes of intimidating and slandering those who suggest that the client is a less than stellar citizen. One private eye who for years was on Jackson's payroll (Anthony Pellicano) was recently convicted on a number of criminal charges, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. As a consequence, you can't believe everything that is said about the parents of the alleged victims.
I agree. But would you also agree that the circumstances in which at least some of those children ended up the guest of the alledged 'casonova' (given his 'reputation', as it were), could make the parents complicit in whatever went on.

get off that horse of yours, Harry, it doesn't become you and you're the one who chose to get involved.

In respect to the second part, no responsible parent should allow their child to sleep over at a grown man's house when that grown man is neither a relative nor a family friend, etc. and even in the latter cases, there is some room for doubt. But people lose all sense when it comes to celebrities, some more than others. Another point is that the parents were often invited to stay at the mansion as well, albeit in another part of it. Who knows if they were asleep when Michael crept off to the children's quarters?
Of course their judgment was faulty, but they aren't the first people to be dazzled by fame and fortune.

Don't like to see people ganged up on, I thought I'd even the odds. My horse suits me, yours doesn't.

are we talking horses or michael jackson? or has he been accused of doing something else untoward on that ranch of his?
if so, what? and are there accompanying photos?

and no one was being ganged up on, thank you. I made what i thought was a valid point to someone else (i.e. not you) only to have it be ridiculed. So i thought right, you want to get silly, fine, i can do that too.

Jacko is probably clinically insane.

I agree, and if thats the case then it really doesnt matter what he did/does he should be locked up and given help.

I did start to watch the program in question, but I found it quite nausiating and I turned over after 20 mins or so.

Well that's just the thing....people who have worked along side him (and those who are no longer employed by him and therefore have no reason to protect him) deny that he is crazy. Yes, he has a lot of plastic surgery, but that could be chalked up to body dysmorphia (cf. Jocelyne Wildenstein). Yes he keeps giraffes, but neither proves nor disproves his sanity.
He didn't sneak up to some kid and touch his penis. The reports suggest that he actively seduced them and that takes some brains.

This is a plea to one of the mod's out there to close this thread as this thread has no benefit to anyone anymore. (unless you enjoy somewhere to back answer each other).

Its like a bloody school playground

hmmmm, maybe not the best thing to say in a thread about Michael Jackson !!

I somehow managed to miss page 3 when I read this topic the first time, unfortunately I spotted it (and read half of it) after replying.

Stays & Skeletor sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.
(you are both acting like children and should be treated as such :P )

He has cooties.

I simply replied to being accused of something i didn't do. And then further replied when the insults were stepped up.
However, there are a number of points that have been made about the original topic and for that reason, the thread should remain open.

mj waving to crowd on top of a limosene at the couthouse, O J Simpson clone :cheese: :cheese: :cheese:

see it's precisely antics such as the dance ontop of the limousine that lead people to conclude that the man is crazy. Disconnected from reality, perhaps. Surrounded by yesmen and those who would never dream of criticizing him, almost certainly. But i still don't think that he can be deemed clinically insane and IF he is guilty of these crimes, it would be a miscarriage of justice for him to attain a lenient sentence because of supposed mental incompetence.

too bad jury pob selectected, we have a winner here,yo mj jacks off 8-9-12 year od boys
right or wrong, appears he does and will continue..

hmmmm true that (if) he seduced them then that show pre-thought and therefor premeditation and thus is a strong argument against his insanity. and yes, dysmorphia is prolly a strong contender for the cocktail of problems the silly bastard has. i still think his biggest issue is having never grown up. its all the way through his life, his lifestyle, his choice of friends and past times and i think thats the problem. is he insane or merely troubled? i dont think anyone could honestly say he is 100% grade A mental health olympian...

the parents shouldnt have had a problem with their kids staying at Mikes place... it would have been a dream come true. the problem should have arisen when they were sleeping in the same bed together. W. T. F?! i mean really... there is only so far you can go before having to admitt you knew your kiddie was being finger banged.

from what i can tell, i.e. people who have no economic connection to him anymore, he has a good rep with a lot of people. of course there is the strong argument that he maybe just didnt molest everyone and was simply more selective in those worthy of his 'love'.

i think its incredibly unfair to put him on trial though and incredibly unfair not to. he WILL NOT, CANNOT get a fair trial. everyone knows the story and everyone has made a decision as to his guilt they may as well save their money on lawyers and just pick 12 people on the street and ask them for a vote. i will be heavily surprised if anyone changes their mind over the course ofthe trial. and if he goes to court, which he is obviously, he is going to jail. Whos bad? bubba, your cell mate, who is balls deep in you.

Kid that can outrun Jacko
lmao

This thread has amused me no end... I think it's about expired now.

Ask Kormiic if he ever thought i was referring to him as a paedophile.

There was ambiguity as to whether you were calling me a pedo or not, but I couldn't care less. Call me a pedo all you like. Hell, I've called myself a pedo for comedy value a bunch of times.

My annoyance was that you chose to state I was defending a harmful relationship between man and child because I believe a 12 year old child's geometric and spatial perception combined with their ability to render their memories on paper some time after an event is wholley insufficient to be admissable as evidence against a person.

william miller age 12 drawingb.gif (http://ittakesahome.org/itahimages/william%20miller%20age%2012%20drawingb.gif)

ofer fuxake.
Kormiic knows what i was referring to. You lot don't need to.
But i was not implying in any way that he is a paedophile.

/off-topic rant/ You chose to bring it up into a PUBLIC forum, so please, enlighten us. Or have you actually discovered you know NOTHING of someone elses life?? Seems to me, you need to worry about what's going on in your own life, with your own family, rather than insinuate something about someone you hardly know./rant over/

as for the topic in question

Yes, MJ is crazy, yes, he prolly did do some unspeakable things, yes, he deserves to get jailed. However, in the fairness of the law, that is MY opinion and it is based on knowledge gained through readings and interviews I've seen (not some stupid gossip I heard from some cow on some website or chatroom.)

Once again Kormiic, i will point out that the child did not draw a penis. He described and drew idiosyncratic markings that appear on Jackson's penis, which the police and D.A. then compared to photographs of Jackson's penis. This is a point that you keep missing and/or willfully misrepresenting.

to describe and draw those idiosyncratic details would prolly include drawing a penis, no? and besides, have you ever tried to describe something to someone (even incredibly simple shapes) without using drawings or hand motions? we had to do it for an exercise in psychology during high school... damn near impossible.

so to explain such subjective things as physical markings on something as inconsistent as skin would be hard for a medical examiner let alone a child with a lexicon that im guessing would be pretty shallow.

How long ago did the allegations first surface?

I think what the kid said was that it was like a cock, but smaller. Whether this will stand up in court remains to be seen.

including photographs of the detailed drawings of Jackson's genitalia

Your misinformation, not mine, dollface.

Still, think about this for a second. Look at an array of cocks. Try picking out a single distinguishing feature on any of them. It's a shaft with a head on the top, a set of balls swinging below. What distinguishing features could there possibly be? Furthermore, is it something that a 12 year old child has any chance of rendering accurately for it to be used as evidence in any kind of fair trial? To think that would be absurd.

I couldn't even pick out my own penis from a line-up, and me and my penis are like THAT! (holding crossed fingers up)

I'm not gay, but I've seen enough peni (sp?) in my life to be of the opinion that distinguishing characteristics do exist (length v. width, color, and markings.. I guess). (Peni observed in locker rooms, saunas, etc).

I thought peni was a sort of pasta.

^ Looked it up.. apparently the plural form is either penes or penises.

It's an education this thread. :fact:

The whole problem with this court case is that on planet Jackson, the man-child has done nothing wrong. Jackson is clearly emotionally retarded, psychologically stunted and deeply traumatised. He is a messed up adolescent with an adolescents craving for discovery of pleasure trapped in a grown body, with all of the hormonal and physical issues that entails.

He simply does not understand that he has done wrong, because he has always been given exactly what he wants with no repurcussions. In his own mind he can do no wrong.

How does the law judge someone like this? He can not be tried according to normal standards, because he is not a normal member of society (I speak here of his mental illness, not his celebrity or fortune) so therefore he can not be tried by a jury of peers.

Lock him up, chemically neuter him, make him pay for masses of therapy, whatever. The man is a menace to himself and juveniles.

I think what the kid said was that it was like a cock, but smaller. Whether this will stand up in court remains to be seen.
:haha: It's his penis now, it probably used to be his nose.

distinguishing characteristics.

and don't call me dollface. you don't have the wit to pull off condescension
:chav:

call me thick but wtf is going on here?

call me thick but wtf is going on here?

Just get out of here while you can !!

I'm not gay, but I've seen enough peni (sp?) in my life to be of the opinion that distinguishing characteristics do exist (length v. width, color, and markings.. I guess). (Peni observed in locker rooms, saunas, etc).

Length, width and colour, sure. Can a 12 year old adequately recreate these for it to be admissable evidence. Remember the words "beyond any reasonable doubt" and think about that. Google a bunch of observational drawings by 11-13 year olds and tell me if size, shape and colour are recreated to any kind of reasonable scale.

And markings? Markings?? Are you looking at zebra cocks or something?

circumsized penes have scars which appear differently depending on later development.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" refers to the verdict, not the viability of evidence. I'm sure Jackson's lawyers will bring in their experts saying that the evidence should be disregarded based on your arguments, while the prosecution will bring in experts of their own to argue that the drawings (which presumably match mj's penis in appearance) are reliable.

he might have a lare mole on his shaft or something. or maybe theres a small patch of brown skin, the only part of jacko that isnt white. or is that his rusty sherrifs badge?

I thought peni was a sort of pasta.

Tsk. It's 'penne', you oaf.

Honestly, my Italian grandmother will be turning in her grave at your scandalous implications regarding her culinary habits.

There's no need to call me an oaf just because I can't tell cock from conchiglie. We haven't all had the benefits of a public school education I'll have you know.

And markings? Markings?? Are you looking at zebra cocks or something?

Moles, freckles, skin leisions, scars and those funny little skin lumps some people have would all constitute markings. I would have thought if you looked closely enough a penis would be much like a fingerprint.

Moles!!!!! D'you think he's had moles down there as well!!! That's just plain wrong.

Moles, freckles, skin leisions, scars and those funny little skin lumps some people have would all constitute markings. I would have thought if you looked closely enough a penis would be much like a fingerprint.

I very much doubt little Jordy was taking notes.

he has a white tongue, I imagine he'll eat lik-em-aid purple candy on courtroom breaks, ...to disguise it, imagine his pecker looks like moby?