Okay, so Janet Ventura-Arviso-Jackson, the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser, is a loon, a celebrity butt-sniffer, and probably a grifter. But does that mean Michael Jackson didn't molest her son?
I think the conspiracy charge involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion is going to be rather difficult to convince the jury of, in light of the apparent fact that no one was ever abducted or imprisoned, although there does appear to have been an air of threat and perhaps coersion regarding the front the Arviso's were expected to present to the public in respect to their relationship with the popster after the PR disaster of the Bashir film, Living With Michael Jackson, wherein Arviso's son is shown holding hands with the singer, who defends as "innocent" his practice of sharing his bed with children. The prosecution showed video footage that was clearly members of the Arviso family being surveiled by associates of Jackson, tape found in the office of Brad Miller, a private investigator working for Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos.
So there was something going on, but Roger Friedman reports on the family's alleged imprisonment at the Country Inn & Suites in Calabasas:
- On the day they arrived in Calabasas, the Arvizos' "kidnapping" began with dinner at the Outback Steak House ($131) [using Jackson associate Marc Schaffel's credit card].
The next day, Feb. 26, 2003, this welfare mother, who also received food stamps, hit the Banana Republic ($415), Wilson's House of Leather ($127), Pacific Sunwear, The Gap, Jockey, Anchor Blue ($454), Robinsons-May Company, Abercrombie & Fitch, Jeans Outlet ($430) and a Ralph's supermarket ($127 for cosmetics and liquor). The family dined at the tony Black Angus steak restaurant in Woodland Hills ($175).
The next day Arvizo continued to eat her way through Jackson's money at Foot Locker ($85), stopped again at Robinsons-May and made one more trip to Anchor Blue.
On Feb. 28, she had a manicure and pedicure ($51) and she and all three kids also got haircuts.
The next day was March 1, and she hit the Topanga Canyon Mall and Anchor Blue again before taking in a showing of the movie "Old School" (concessions $32, dinner at Johnny Rockets $26). The family also consumed quantities of Baskin-Robbins ice cream that day.
On March 2, she returned to Robinson-May ($71 for "night repair and lipstick"), spent $171 at Champs Sports and grabbed a Starbucks coffee.
...Arvizo told the jury yesterday that as she was "held hostage" at the Country Inn & Suites in Calabasas, she made only a few phone calls and spoke in code, quickly, "dropping clues" about her situation.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Pete
No it doesn't mean he didn't molest her son. But if she is lying about a charge as serious as kidnapping, why should we believe that the molestation occured? Especially when the kids' testimonies have massive holes in them.
I have a massive problem with the case from a legal and human rights standpoint. Jackson is villified and there is no proof - just a group of money hungry people looking for a buck any way they can.
2 - Dina
I dont see how any jury could find Jackson guilty based on what we have heard so far, and let's not forget this case and this case alone is all he has to answer to. The historical stuff is unsubstantiated and never been tested in a court of law, so shouldnt come into it at all. This family is obviously completely disfunctional and they have no credibility. How could anyone say, based on what we have heard so far, that there is not reasonable doubt - there clearly is.
3 - R Keogh
Janet (mother of accuser)has a dubious character, she has admitted to having lied under oath before and has been successful in suing before (sexual harassment of Pennys guards)...she knows the score-she has this past experience, including being abused by her previous husband, that is helping her to muddle her way through the current case. Maybe Janet has had too much time on her hands over the years to orchestrate such stories about Mr Jackson.
May the truth prevail. Janet may be smart but lawyers are smarter!
4 - Robert
Michael Jackson is INNOCENT.
The jury verdict will be INNOCENT.
End of story.
STOP TRYING TO MAKE A QUICK BUCK OUT OF MICHAEL JACKSON.
5 - james mclafferty
an i just point something glaringly obvious in this are you all forgetting he has kids of his own that live with him.To of spent all this time with gavin and others he would of i assume not been able to watch his own kids and look after them his oldest is 8yrs old and would probably take a lot of his time up,unless some of you are sick enough to say that his kids were also with him he's a father at the end of the day as well and i'm quite sure he wouldn't want his own kids abused by somebody.Why would a person who is a father himself, risk losing his kids due to molestation?.There is a parent on both sides of this case.
6 - Eric Olsen
the evidence of past behavior is allowed under California law with the purposeful intent of making it easier to convict child molesters, whose cases are notoriously difficult to prove due to lack of evidence. I think it's a good idea. I would say the prosecution did a convincing job of establishing a pattern of behavior.
I think the kidnapping charges were an overreach by the prosecution, but I am personally close t obeing convinced that he did provide alcohol to minors and did molest the boy, who it seems reminded him of his first love, Jordy Chandler
7 - George Richardson
Just think about this. Is there anyone in the prosecutions witness list that has not received or tried to receive money from Michael Jackson?. From Tabloids, to settlements, to shopping sprees. Janet Arvizo has had the greatest kidnapping episode in History, spending as much money as she could get her hands on. PLEASE Michael Kidnap me and hold me hostage. Don't forget to send me to a mall with your credit card.
8 - Eric Olsen
agreed George, but that has little orno bearing on the molestation issue, which is really what the trial should be about. I don't think the prosecution did itself any favors piling on a bunch of dubious extra crap
9 - Pete
Eric Olsen, there is NO PROOF of giving alcohol to minors at all. You just want him convicted on something. Its pathetic.
The 'prior bad acts' testimony was by ex employees who were made bankrupt by Jackson after the court ordered them to pay him $1.6m. Credible witness?
Did these witnesses call the police when they saw molestation? NO. Did they stop Jackson performing these dispicable acts? NO.
Their reasons?
'who would believe me?'
'I couldn't lose my job'
Please. All of them said this. Add the fact that three of the kids who were supposedly molested have publicly said nothing happened.
End this case. It's stupid.
10 - Eric Olsen
there is testimony from a number of people that children drank alcohol in the presence of Jackson - again, the Jackophiles wish to dismiss anything ever sadi by anyone who is not a perfect human being when it suits their vision of reality.
11 - Pete
So far there has been testimony from one person who saw Jackson drink alcohol in the presence of children. The others have not said the same. And the last time I checked, that was NOT ILLEGAL. There is noone who has said they have seen him give alcohol to kids.
And sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm no Jackophile. I could also accuse you of being some anti-Jackson protestor, no?
Again. Desperate.
12 - Jim B
The prosecution will have a problem proving up the molestation 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The mother's behavior now, and before do not strengthen thier case. There is a hint of actual mental illness and treatment of the mother in previous documents filed in the matter.
I do believe that there has been "inappropriate" touching and such by Mr. Jackson, but so far, I haven't seen any evidence that would convine 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Mr. Jackson actually molected the current accuser.
It may simply boil down to whom the Jury find more credible - the current accuser and his brother - or the defense witnesses and Mr. Jackson. It will be interesting to see 'what else' the prosecution offers to support thier case. What is needed is DIRECT evidence.
13 - Uncle Sam
Quote "Okay, so Janet Ventura-Arviso-Jackson, the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser, is a loon, a celebrity butt-sniffer, and probably a grifter."
No proof to these allegations of the mother, plenty against Michael jackson.
14 - james mclafferty
Here is the latest report from ROGER FRIEDMAN who eric mentions at the top of the page.
FOX 411 Time to End the Jackson Trial
Created: Saturday, 16 April 2005
Saturday, April 16, 2005
By Roger Friedman
It's now time to stop the madness and declare a mistrial in California vs. Jackson. What happened on Friday in the Santa Maria courthouse should not have happened at all. Whether or not Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation is no longer the issue.
The Santa Barbara District Attorney's office is now potentially guilty of exploiting a disturbed woman's condition to get a conviction. It's wrong, and it's not going to achieve anything but tarnishing the reputations of their well-intentioned staff.
The testimony on Friday of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson's teenage accuser, was alternately maddening and heart breaking. She came across on the stand during her cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau as a compulsive and pathological liar, a shrewd manipulator and a real operator.
But she was also quite sad, and unable to control her emotions. At one point she declared in an aside, "I now know that Neverland is a place for booze, pornography, and sex with little boys." The statement was immediately stricken from the record.
In fact, Arvizo may have really alienated an already shell-shocked jury. Mesereau played a video made by Jackson's associates in February 2003 in which Arvizo and her three children sang the pop star's praises as a father figure. Arvizo's appearance in the video was in stark contrast to the woman on the stand. In the film she is glamorous, with a winning smile and laugh. She resembles a darker complected version of Meg Ryan.
But the woman on the stand now, who had to take questions every few minutes, is about 25 pounds heavier and stripped of her bubbly determination. Two years and two different people. It was startling.
Then again, neither of these two Janet Arvizos resembles the one on a police interview tape leaked to a TV show last winter. That makes three Janets, and there are probably more to come.
The Janet Arvizo who testified on Friday was close to the one described to me a year ago, and about whom I've been reporting on since then. She was feisty and obnoxious, manipulative and cunning.
She did not shrink from fights with Mesereau. She often addressed the jury directly instead of answering Mesereau's questions, and didn't seem to care how Judge Rodney Melville instructed her. Her hubris was her undoing, and it was magnificent and tragic.
She had sharp recollections of things that interested her and no memories of dates, times, or places that could undermine her case. She couldn't recall, for example, how much money her children or ex-husband received in their settlement from JC Penney. She also could not remember how she met a Los Angeles police officer, how they became friends, or if he once gave her a ride in his car.
She couldn't remember how many times she'd discussed the current case with her lawyer, Larry Feldman, the same man who secured a $20 million settlement for another Jackson accuser in 1993.
Building on a theme she started Thursday concerning Jackson's group as "masters of choreography," Arvizo nearly stopped court entirely when Mesereau brought up a visit she made to a Los Olivos salon while staying at Neverland.
First they tussled over whether she received a "body wax" or a "leg wax." She insisted it was the latter, and also claimed she'd paid for it. That was a mistake. Mesereau, of course, had the receipt for $140, which showed multiple beauty treatments including leg, bikini and lip waxing, and a manicure. "Do you want to see the receipt?" Mesereau offered.
Arvizo refused, claiming that he'd somehow changed it. It was another example of what she termed the Jackson team's masterful "choreography."
"Who paid for it?" Mesereau demanded. Arvizo refused to answer several times, finally claiming: "I don't know." She also said it was all a plot to enhance Jackson's P.R.
There was more. It seemed endless, and painful. Mesereau walked her through the "rebuttal video," an interview with her and her three children that wasn't finished in time to be included in a Jackson TV special. Even though all four members of the family seem relaxed and spontaneous, Arvizo insisted over and over again it was scripted.
When this position became ludicrous to maintain, she refused to back down. Instead, she embellished the story. "Dieter [Wiesner] worked with me on it ten times a day so I could memorize the lines. I was acting!" she declared continuously, speaking of Jackson's former manager.
Wiesner, she said, wrote every word of it, despite the fact that he's German, has a poor command of English, and had no contact with Arvizo " by her admission " after about a week.
There wasn't a single person in the room who believed her.
The rebuttal video may also have proven her a liar. On it, she makes reference several times to the Martin Bashir special, "Living with Michael Jackson."
In an outtake, she instructs the video director to "make it like in Bashir," i.e. showing her clasping hands with her son: a very specific image. But Arvizo, her new husband and her kids have insisted in all their testimony thus far that she has never seen the documentary.
What was most striking, though, about Arvizo's video performance was her incredible disloyalty to her then boyfriend, now husband, retired US Army Major Jay Jackson.
Even though Jackson was supporting her and her kids at the time of the rebuttal video, Arvizo pretended he didn't exist. Over and over in the video she and her children praised Jackson as a father figure who'd completed their family.
Their compliments could not have been more effusive or sycophantic, and they were all the more creepy considering they had a real father figure at home. Never mind that their biological father was a convicted abuser whom the mother has accused of everything short of sinking the Andrea Doria.
The worst moment came right before court was recessed for the weekend. It was then that Arvizo, who'd shown us high and low moments of great extremes, finally burst into tears, though not because she thought her son had been molested by Michael Jackson. It was because she conceded that she did not accompany her husband to Army functions.
"I'm not smart enough to be with those people," she said, and sobbed. Even Jackson and his mother, Katherine, must have felt for this woman. Abused, destroyed, mentally broken, there is nothing left to her. More cross-examination on Monday seems almost beside the point. She needs help.
And then there was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who sat not with the other prosecutors during this brutal performance, but on a bench behind them. In full view of the jury, Sneddon sat with his head often in his hands, looking askance at what he's wrought. Sneddon has devoted the last twelve years to proving Jackson is a child molester, but he chose the wrong case and the wrong people to close his deal.
That was clearly conveyed to the jury on Friday. The whole thing is mind-boggling. But for Sneddon to continue the public torture of this battered soul would be worse than trying to finish the case. His one chance for redemption is to call a halt to this nightmare before it gets worse. That will ensure him a better legacy than the one he may have created for himself.
FOX NEWS
15 - Pete
"No proof to these allegations of the mother, plenty against Michael jackson."
Care to let us in on the proof uncle sam?
Also don't forget the defence has yet to put on their own case.
16 - james mclafferty
Heres another factual report you might be interested in
Day 33 The Mother of the Accuser Admits Lies… and More Lies
Created: Saturday, 16 April 2005
On Day 33 Michael Jackson's lawyer savaged the credibility of his accuser's mother, making her admit she committed perjury, lying under oath at least twice and suggesting she wanted to cash in on the star's wealth.
In one of the most explosive showdowns of the seven-week-old trial, attorney Thomas Mesereau launched an intense attack on the 37-year-old woman he has branded and showed evidence to support the fact that she is a rapacious money-grubber and "professional plaintiff."
In a grilling so fiery that trial Judge Rodney Melville warned the lawyer and witness to tone down their rhetoric, Mr. Mesereau accused the woman of acting and suggested that her claims against Mr. Jackson were "in her mind."
In his bid to undermine claims that Mr. Jackson and his aides kidnapped her family and implicitly threatened their lives, Mr. Mesereau forced her to concede she lied in a deposition she made when suing a department store in 2000.
"You lied under oath to increase the amount of money you could get ... correct?," Mr. Mesereau asked, referring to her claim she was sexually assaulted when she and her children were detained on suspicion of shoplifting.
Mr. Mesereau also noted that in a sworn statement, the woman said she had never been abused by her husband at the time " an important issue, because her alleged injuries may have been caused by such violence. The woman had claimed she was never abused by her now ex-husband, who she later reported to authorities for beating her and abusing their three children.
"You were not telling the truth under oath when you made those statements," Mr. Mesereau said.
The woman eventually responded, "This is correct."
She also acknowledged being untruthful when she said in the lawsuit that her husband was honest.
"How many lies do you think you told in the JCPenney case?" Mr. Mesereau asked. In evasive responses, she reluctantly conceded she lied about anything to do with her then husband until his subsequent arrest.
Mr. Jackson's team claims the woman is a con artist with a history of coaching her children to lie under oath to win financial settlements, including the 152,000 dollars they won from the JCPenney store.
On the stand, the woman downplayed her role as whistleblower. "I give them [the police] information, and they did whatever they did with it," she testified.
Earlier, jurors heard the woman's teen-age daughter testify that her mother told her that she--the girl--had once been molested by her father. In court, the mother referred to the alleged molestation as an "event...that happened way over 10 years ago."
Mr. Mesereau, meanwhile, used a tape recording of a phone conversation between the mother and Mr. Jackson associate Frank Tyson to raise doubt as to the woman's claims of being held against her will by the singer's camp.
In the tape, the mother tells Tyson, one of Mr. Jackson's unindicted coconspirators, that she loves him and his family, even though she doesn't know his family. On the stand, the woman said she loved them the way she loves "people 50 and over--[I] have a tender spot in my heart."
Overall, the woman didn't think the tapes were honest at all--she claimed the recording had been "manipulated."
Legal analysts said Mr. Mesereau, who listened quietly to the testimony of the crucial prosecution witness for two days, seriously damaged her credibility.
"The more she talks, the worse its gets for the prosecution," said trial watcher Michael Cardoza. "She won't answer the simplest of questions," he said. "If this was a heavyweight fight, it would be stopped right now."
Mr. Mesereau suggested the defiant witness's stories of kidnapping were a tissue of lies and that she was in fact living in the lap of luxury as Mr. Jackson's guest at Neverland.
"How many times, in your mind, did you escape from that dungeon, Neverland?" Mr. Mesereau persisted, getting the woman to admit that she had left and returned three times during her alleged captivity.
"You didn't escape from Neverland at all, did you," he asked provocatively. "Oh yes I did," she retorted.
In a surprise revelation, she also conceded she was once investigated for allegedly abusing her own child -- the alleged victim in the case.
The witness gave as good as she got in her extremely testy sparring match against former boxer Mr. Mesereau, prompting the judge to warn he would cut the hearing short if the pair did not behave.
She pointedly corrected Mr. Mesereau, turning directly to jurors to say: "His statement is inaccurate."
In her testimony, she admitted under questioning that she had recently been in touch with the lawyer that brokered a settlement worth more than 20 million dollars for a boy who accused Mr. Jackson of abuse in 1993.
The war of words came a day after the woman wrapped up a complex and disjointed account of how Mr. Jackson aides allegedly used fear and intimidation to keep her family prisoner for three weeks in February and March 2003.
The woman claimed her family was then coerced into making a "rebuttal video" in which they described Mr. Jackson as a beloved father figure.
She said she did not want to make the video, which was played for jurors Friday, and claimed everything in it -- even the laughter -- was scripted: ""I was acting," the woman said. "I mean you are not going to call Halle Berry and say, 'Are you [really] Catwoman?' I am a poor actress."
But Mr. Mesereau shot back: "You are a good actress."
The judge chastised Mr. Mesereau for the remark and told the woman to refrain from delivering long answers unrelated to attorneys' questions, telling her, "It's as much your fault."
When Mr. Mesereau asked how it took to memorize her lines or how long the script was, she could not answer.
The mother said Mr. Jackson associates gave her a precise script to follow in the rebuttal video but later told her she had strayed too far from it, leading to the comments on her acting skills.
The woman testified that almost everything on the video " even breaks where the boy complains about his seat and the family laughs at jokes " was scripted by Mr. Jackson aides. She said the only departure from the script was when she discussed God, cancer and child welfare workers.
At one point on the tape, the boy speaks at great length about the agonies of undergoing cancer treatment.
"Do you believe what (he) was saying was the truth or not?" Mr. Mesereau asked the boy's mother.
"I believe what he was saying was according to a script," she said.
The woman suggested that she met with one of Mr. Jackson's associates 10 times at Neverland to discuss what she would say on the video. Mr. Mesereau noted that she had never said this before in interviews with police or prosecutors, and suggested she was trying to enhance her story.
Analyst Cardoza said the entire case, including the molestation charges, could hinge on whether the jury believes the woman and her son.
"If they believe the mother put the son up to it, then this case is over," he said.
Mr. Jackson's lawyers have suggested and displayed evidence to corroborate the fact that the child-molestation charges were concocted by the boy's mother in an attempt to shake down Mr. Jackson for money.
The showdown commenced with wrangling over a beauty treatment the woman underwent while she allegedly was being held captive two years ago. She insisted spitefully that she paid for the ‘leg wax’ until Mr. Mesereau produced the receipt, pointing out another lie in her stream of contradictory tesimony.
It devolved into defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. derisively quipping that the prosecution's key adult witness was a fine actress.
Mr. Mesereau got the woman's hackles up with a question about whether it was Mr. Jackson bodyguard Chris Carter who once drove her from Neverland to a nearby salon for a body wax.
"Incorrect," the mother replied.
"Who took you for a body wax?" Mr. Mesereau asked.
"No one ever," she said.
"Well, you went for a body wax when you were at Neverland, did you not?" Mr. Mesereau asked.
"Inaccurate," the woman insisted.
And so the two went on, like Abbott and Costello, without the laughs, until it was established that the mother was not going to agree to Mr. Mesereau's statement until he used the correct terminology.
"I had a leg wax done... He keeps saying 'body wax,' " the woman said, in an apparent appeal to the jury. "There is no body wax."
The mother frequently referred to Mr. Mesereau as "he," declining to address the counsel directly.
Mr. Mesereau, meanwhile, went directly after the woman--the linchpin in the prosecution's conspiracy case against Mr. Jackson.
The hits kept coming. At one point, the woman very inappropriately even imitated Mr. Jackson's high-pitched voice.
Amid the tumult, Mr. Jackson was the model defendant.
Cross-examination of the witness is expected to continue when court resumes Monday.
In other developments, Celebrity Justice reported that CNN host Larry King was subpoenaed Friday to appear as a defense witness.
King's name surfaced at the trial earlier this month when Mr. Mesereau asked Larry Feldman, an attorney who represented the accuser's family, if he ever told King that the mother was "making up these allegations." Feldman denied making such a remark.
Source: MJJsource / AP / AFP
17 - linda gross
This has been the best coverage I have seen presented on Michael's case. I wanted to see for myself if Michael was actually guilty or just a man thinking in the eyes that 'Jesus Christ, or the likes would with children and animals.This was the way I feel Michael could do (as money) to keep and care wasn't going to be a problem with children to give them more than they ever could believe possible. He had somethings to offer and wanted to share, and seeing the love he has for children and children's type of natural fun all made sense to him. We know that this life we live now has taken away the natural care and feelings that weren't classified as dirty when you may accidently be touched in the wrong way during time of fun. Now in doing so would be handled so seriously as we are now seeing. My goodness in sports how many times did we get in a situation saying "Hey! Careful where you are touching there eh!" This boy could have said that as well if something really was going on. I seen my husband lift up one of the kids butt and crotch in passing him up to another from a boat to get over the side does this call for investigation.. Hardly. We are so touchy now its scary to help to our neighbours in case we are get sued if something doesn't go right and be blamed for it. What a life... I'm still waiting for Michael's case to really show me he's done wrong.. really done the horrid deed.
18 - james mclafferty
Hi Linda are you on about my last two posts or the site in general i'm curious as to your opinion on the case what are your current conclusions?
19 - Scoota Rey
Michael Jackson:
Throw that motherfucker in jail just for making his fucking face cause little kids nightmares. Whenever you get your face on Rotten.com and you're still ALIVE, something is fucking wrong.
Michael Jackson- The Adombinable Child Molesting Black-Turned-Snowman
20 - Brenda
I do believe that any mother who saw Michael molest a child, would confront
Michael as soon as they witnessed the abuse, would have removed the child from Michael's presence, and never let their child around Michael again, and would have reported it right away. Job or no job! if they realy care about children as they claim they do.
Time for a MISTRIAL. NO REAL PROOF ONLY LIES!
21 - Pete
Brenda. The thing that troubles me is that this woman says she say Jackson lick her son on an aeroplane 'over and over'. She says she didn't do anything because she thought she was imagining it. Well if she was imagining it, stop it in your imagination too. I'm sorry, but that's a joke.
And another man who owes Jackson $1.6m says he say Jackson giving oral sex to Chandler whilst standing there and watching. He says he just WALKED AWAY. God damn, if i had seen that, I'd go rescue that kid straight away. What was he scared of? Jackson is a stick. He actually said he wasn't scared, he just said 'who would believe me'?... I'm very troubled by these witnesses.
22 - DrPat
Just heard Matt Drudge from London - he said the first thing he saw as he got off the plane was news of the "Jacko" trial. It's apparently all the Brits want to talk about.
(Poor Camilla - upstaged by a younger, whiter, prettier face again!)
23 - rob
To the person who said:
"There is noone who has said they have seen him give alcohol to kids. "
Ummm.... Yah the boy said it. His brother saw him drunk. That's a crime. I don't think the defence will deny they boy got alcohol. They'll just say the boy helped himself.
If underage boys were allowed into a bar, consumed alcohol, and got drunk, the bar would be charged and shut-down. Hopefully, Neveralnd will be
shut down for good.
24 - Wayne
Michael, Michael,
When will you learn that you are an easy mark for money grabbing losers, who are willing to make money on their childerens backs.
Michael is a child inside a mans' body who just wants to help make thing right for the disadvantaged and sick children. The reason for paying out of court settlements is the same for everyone .. a protracted court case would trash his career and in the end he would win, but at what cost. Both parties agree that there was no wrongdoing .. they just want it over.
Michael would not be caught with pictures of women if he was attracted to boys, and what a bunch of spoiled brats he was helping. Not to mention that the parents let their children stay over even after they claim abuse was happening. If he was a molester why would he pursue this activity at his home where it is full of staff and cameras at any given time. America is a society that is sue crazy and that careers can be ruined on speculation.
Wayne
25 - Eric Olsen
hate to burst that particular bubble, but it is apparently common for pedophiles to show boys skin mags -- with gilrs -- to get them charged up. Jonathan King used the "technique" as well