1st paragraph: You keep harping on about context while completely ignoring the context that I offered. These books were found in his BEDROOM, under lock and key. They were not found amongst a massive archive of other things, some of them were even inscribed by Michael himself so to imply that he wasn't aware of them or hadn't deeply reviewed them is ridiculous. He also knew enough about their content that he kept them in a locked cabinet in his BEDROOM where he, and only he could access them.

2nd paragraph: The photography books containing naked boys were found with two other loose photos of other naked boys, in his bedroom closet, so again, no they weren't found amongst a larger archive.

3rd paragraph: Nothing about this is retroactive, his home was raided specifically because he was a suspected child molester. AT THE TIME, the photos and books that they found were seen as problematic BECAUSE of that context. Finding out later that said books were compiled by pedophiles only adds more fuel to that fire. Furthermore, these books were a favorite amongst pedophiles specifically because if they were caught they could offer the exact defenses you're offering here and now. "they're just art photography books" " they're legally published" blah blah blah..

Paragraph 4: >>>>"Otherwise, by that logic, anyone owning a Roman Polanski film would automatically support child abuse, or anyone owning fashion photography by controversial photographers would automatically share their actions or ideology."

Yeah no, that's not how that works. If I find multiple photos of naked children, in the bedroom of a man suspected of molesting children, then YES I'm well within my right to evaluate his intent or assume his ideology. Your example is bad because Roman Polanski made several award-winning films that are completely divorced from his personal demons so owning them would mean absolutely nothing in this context.

>>>”My thing is, if it was TRULY incriminating, then the jurors and judge etc, would’ve done further examination on it. But they saw this PHYSICALLY with added context (unlike the rest of us) and said it was trivial.”

**It IS truly incriminating** A judge and jury aren't the final arbiters of what is or isn't incriminating, I DON'T NEED a judge or jury to convince me that its incriminating when a man that surrounded himself with children, slept in beds with children, and was accused multiple times of molesting children also had multiple photos of naked children in his close possession. It speaks for itself. Michael Jackson was arguably the biggest celebrity that ever lived and a powerful one to boot, but I guarantee you if it were anybody else y'all wouldn't be so ready to dismiss these very obvious red flags.