Micky Jackson in trouble again

Flippyfloppy

8-10 wrote: »

Of course you'd stop it. It's very inappropriate behaviour. No reasonable parent would allow it, would you allow your kids to do it?

Why is it very inappropriate?

BBFAN

AllForIt wrote: »

It was revealed he had adult porn on his computer. So what? You'd think that would be a positive in his defense since it was adult porn but your using it as circumstantial evidence to support your view where in fact it goes against your view.



What on earth is that statement suppose to mean? What do you think is the motive and what do you think the ppl your talking about have to gain?

Your comment about MJ being a self obsessed arsehole is quite telling.

Telling of what? That I have no respect for a multi millionaire who carried on the way he did? You're right I don't.

Boggles

twill wrote: »

No, because boys and men have described how he abused them. Jackson's employees described witnessing abuse. Because his behaviour is consistent with that of other paedophiles. Because he used intimidation to threaten the families of the abused boys and others who were keeping his secrets. Because he bankrupted his estate in payoffs to boys he abused and others who knew too much. Because the majority of the witness accounts corroborate each other and are consistent with known facts. Because every single investigator believed him guilty, and they had nothing to gain from the prosecution.


Oh, but he wasn't a paedophile, because he had power, and we must protect powerful people at all costs. Right?

Full House of false!

Congrats. :pac:

Flippyfloppy

Boggles wrote: »

Full House of false!

Congrats. :pac:

Apt username....the mind boggles

ceadaoin.

fin12 wrote: »

That’s not my defense for saying he wasn’t a paedophile, I’m asking why didn’t he as people claim here he was such a rampant paedophile?

The alleged collection of pornography, Could have belonged to anyone, staff, members of his family.

And they left their pornography, all over his private quarters, including his bedroom and bathroom? Uh huh

And there is nothing "alleged" about it. it's on the official police reports. Unless you think the police planted it there? Or maybe it was the kids who did it to to back up their story that it was there and it was used to groom them? Or maybe they were just telling the truth?

8-10

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Why is it very inappropriate?

Don't play dumb of course it's inappropriate

Are you a parent?

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

Oh give over!! Lol. “That money was just resting in my account” :pac:

I’ve never described him as a rampant paedophile. I believe he was more opportunistic and sought out children with vulnerabilities. Plenty of paedophiles have families and children of their own who they never touch. It’s nothing to applaud.

That’s why I said people have claimed here, that not singling out u. Sorry are u trying to imply that I think a paedophile should be applauded because they don’t abuse their own kids?

Just like uve said there is plenty who abuse their own likewise.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

That’s why I said people have claimed here, that not singling out u. Sorry are u trying to imply that I think a paedophile should be applauded because they don’t abuse their own kids?

Just like uve said there is plenty who abuse their own likewise.

Nope. I’m not sure what you were trying to imply tbh. It was kind of a moot point.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

Nope. I’m not sure what you were trying to imply tbh. It was kind of a moot point.

Read over your reply to me.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

Read over your reply to me.

You said if he was such a rampant pedo why didn’t he abuse his kids..
I said the fact he didn’t doesn’t mean he didn’t abuse others. Plenty of paedos don’t abuse their kids, plenty do, but plenty also do not. The fact he didn’t is not really conducive to whether he was or wasn’t one. It proves nothing only a) he didn’t piss on his own doorstep, or b) he did, and they aren’t ready to talk about it yet, if ever.

Flippyfloppy

Can we agree that some of us think there’s no smoke without fire whilst others have applied their judgement and life experience to think the opposite? Would that be a first for boards?

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Maybe in your mind it has been, the reality is a lot different. Nothing has been produced on this thread that has even wobbled my belief that he’s anything other than a predator.

I get that but still not a single bit of proof posted in the entire thread. Zero. Nothing found in the house was illegal. Zero. After raiding the house there was nothing that allowed the police to bring charges. They also searched his PCs. Their digital forensic department didn't find traces of deleted child porn or anything illegal on the hard drive. No traces of visiting illegal sites.

The police found absolutely no proof or evidence. Zero. It stands to reason that any claims of proof now on the Internet has to be bogus. All you will find is claims by money hungry people.

Robinson you mention. Only coming to grips with the terrible damage done to him? Does he go to the police? Does he prove to the world what Jackson did? No. He tried to get a billion dollars from the estate. He wasn't looking for validation. He wasn't looking for justice. He was looking for money.

The books are photography books. You won't find them in the erotica section of a bookstore. None of the nude or semi nude photos are of sexual nature. This was all pointed in a detailed post last night. The post gives a full breakdown of the photos in the book.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. I prefer proof to searching obscure sites for made up stories. I can't say he was innocent but I can put my hand on heart & swear that I haven't seen any proof or evidence.

Here's what I have difficulty with. Some posters here saying he's guilty have posted on other threads saying that the rugby players were found not guilty therefore they are not guilty. This doesn't make sense to me. Court says not guilty then they are not guilty

up for anything

This is quite an illuminating article on the subject. I like this part especially because I don't want MJ to join the ranks of kiddy fiddlers that seem to populate my back catalogue of favourite songs over the years.




"The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

Why would you go to a civil lawyer ($$$) before a criminal one if you are claiming you were molested?

This jumps out at me too.

The man surrounded himself with money grabbing people

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I get that but still not a single bit of proof posted in the entire thread

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.

The police found absolutely no proof or evidence. Zero.

If there was no proof or evidence then he wouldn’t have been arrested, let alone charged with a crime and brought to trial. People don’t just arrest people on a hunch, I can’t just rock up to the Garda station and claim someone abused me and have them arrested. There’s a process involved where evidence is gathered; but I’m sure you know this.
The fact he was acquitted is based on there not being enough evidence to prove the allegations, not that the allegations never occurred. His defence team put forward a convincing argument,
but after an acquittal the default conclusion doesn’t assume the victim is a liar. Unless you have proof these men are liars then you should stop assuming them to be so.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The books are photography books. You won't find them in the erotica section of a bookstore. None of the nude or semi nude photos are of sexual nature. This was all pointed in a detailed post last night. The post gives a full breakdown of the photos in the book.

Would you be comfortable having these books in your home?

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.

No there wasn't. There has been made up claims but no proof.

If there was any proof, any evidence, the cops would have charged him. There was no proof evidence & nothing new has surfaced in all these years. The original case the cops had absolutely nothing to charge him with. The second case he was found not guilty. The parents of the boy were shown to be nothing more than money grabbers. The child was lying. His story didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

I'm open as to his guilt or lack of. I'm waiting to see proof before I label a man a paedophile. There has not been a shred of proof posted here.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.



If there was no proof or evidence then he wouldn’t have been arrested, let alone charged with a crime and brought to trial. People don’t just arrest people on a hunch, I can’t just rock up to the Garda station and claim someone abused me and have them arrested. There’s a process involved where evidence is gathered; but I’m sure you know this.
The fact he was acquitted is based on there not being enough evidence to prove the allegations, not that the allegations never occurred. His defence team put forward a convincing argument,
but after an acquittal the default conclusion doesn’t assume the victim is a liar. Unless you have proof these men are liars then you should stop assuming them to be so.



Would you be comfortable having these books in your home?

What crime was he charged with?

Actually you can go to the Garda station and make an allegation about someone abusing you and the person can be arrested. What happens if you make an allegation against a person who abused you 20/30/40 years ago what evidence would be there then? This cases happen all the time and the accused is arrested and jailed.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

There has been plenty of proof posted. You just refuse to believe it’s true or dismiss it as being irrelevant or find some other kind of twisted defence for it.



If there was no proof or evidence then he wouldn’t have been arrested, let alone charged with a crime and brought to trial. People don’t just arrest people on a hunch, I can’t just rock up to the Garda station and claim someone abused me and have them arrested. There’s a process involved where evidence is gathered; but I’m sure you know this.
The fact he was acquitted is based on there not being enough evidence to prove the allegations, not that the allegations never occurred. His defence team put forward a convincing argument,
but after an acquittal the default conclusion doesn’t assume the victim is a liar. Unless you have proof these men are liars then you should stop assuming them to be so.





Would you be comfortable having these books in your home?

The synopsis of that book is given by the prosecution, obviously going to be biased to suit there case, this is there interpretation of the book.

kowloon

Hoboo wrote: »

He was sleeping with kids. That's not wacko. That's paedo.

I'd argue it's both.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

What crime was he charged with?

Molesting a minor
How do you not know this?

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

The synopsis of that book is given by the prosecution, obviously going to be biased to suit there case, this is there interpretation of the book.

Do you think they’re allowed to embellish facts and lie? Seriously, get a grip of yourself.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

Molesting a minor
How do you not know this?

What are u on about? U said he was charged????

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you think they’re allowed to embellish facts and lie? Seriously, get a grip of yourself.

Seriously do u think you can call me a liar? Get a grip of yourself .

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

What are u on about? U said he was charged????

Yeah he was charged with molesting a minor fin, back in 2004. Is this seriously news to you? How do you think he had a trial?

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

Seriously do u think you can call me a liar? Get a grip of yourself .

I didn’t call you a liar? time to put the phone down I think.

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Do you think they’re allowed to embellish facts and lie? Seriously, get a grip of yourself.

Their job is to put a particular slant on it. They might dig up an expert saying that the books were grooming.
The other side will come back with a world renowned photographer stating that the books are art and every budding photography student should have a copy.

Neither one might be correct but it's what lawyers do. It's part of their job

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

I didn’t call you a liar? time to put the phone down I think.

You seem to get confused a lot when questioned on your comments.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

You seem to get confused a lot when questioned on your comments.

It comes naturally when reading your posts.
Where did I call you a liar fin?

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Their job is to put a particular slant on it. They might dig up an expert saying that the books were grooming.
The other side will come back with a world renowned photographer stating that the books are art and every budding photography student should have a copy.

Neither one might be correct but it's what lawyers do. It's part of their job

Of course, but they’re not allowed to lie. The fact a myriad of impartial psychologists have formed the same conclusion that those books (written by paedophiles) are used to initiate the grooming process is enough for me. Clearly not enough for some.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

It comes naturally when reading your posts.
Where did I call you a liar fin?

When I said how their account of the book was biased and suited to their needs as the prosecution.

People lie all the time under oath? If you believe his accuser Wade whatever the f*ck his name, he lied under oath already didn’t he if he’s now claiming Jackson abused him.

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

When I said how their account of the book was biased and suited to their needs as the prosecution.

People lie all the time under oath? If you believe his accuser Wade whatever the f*ck his name, he lied under oath already didn’t he if he’s now claiming Jackson abused him.

What? When did I call you a liar?

Did you misread “they’re” for “you’re” in this post?

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you think they’re allowed to embellish facts and lie? Seriously, get a grip of yourself.

ceadaoin.

fin12 wrote: »

You seem to get confused a lot when questioned on your comments.

Clearly confused as to how you came the conclusion that she called you a liar when she clearly said "they're" and was obviously referring to the prosecution. You seem a bit confused yourself

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Of course, but they’re not allowed to lie. The fact a myriad of impartial psychologists have formed the same conclusion that those books (written by paedophiles) are used to initiate the grooming process is enough for me. Clearly not enough for some.

They don't lie but they can keep looking for an expert to bend the truth for them. The expert won't even be deliberately lying. You find the one that believes what you want them to believe to suit your case. I bet if I had the resources I could find a professional, maybe a doctor or something who truly believes that photos of girls in bikinis are obscene. They might encourage men to rape!

Do you believe that everyone with one of these books is a paedophile? Men & women?

Despite what the "experts" say about the books they are still not banned 25 years on. If they are truly as evil as described surely they would have gotten them reclassed as pornography or more to the point child pornography. The government obviously doesn't take these "experts" seriously because if they did the books would be banned. The "experts" have spooked posters here but not the government who have genuine "experts" they take advice from. The "experts" in court are picked because they have a particular opinion. They are hand picked for their opinion. This opinion may well not be correct.

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They don't lie but they can keep looking for an expert to bend the truth for them. The expert won't even be deliberately lying. You find the one that believes what you want them to believe to suit your case.

Of course, and if there was anything incorrect here which a whole host of impartial psychologists have attested to that could have been refuted by the defence then it would have been; but there wasn’t. The court room is an open and level field in that regard.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Do you believe that everyone with one of these books is a paedophile? Men & women?

Possession of those books in and of itself would have a red flag waving yes. There’s no reason a normal rational human being should own such a book, it’s odd. Possession of these books coupled with the knowledge this man (or woman) liked to sleep in his bed with little boys, preferring their company over that of their spouse, and being extremely tactile and having paid off a previous abuse accuser with hush money would have me running for the hills. More red flags than a bull fighting convention.

fin12

retro:electro wrote: »

What? When did I call you a liar?

Did you misread “they’re” for “you’re” in this post?

Ya I did. Sorry

I guess u were right about me putting down the phone

retro:electro

fin12 wrote: »

Ya I did. Sorry

I guess u were right about me putting down the phone

Haha no worries!

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote:

Of course, and if there was anything incorrect here which a whole host of impartial psychologists have attested to that could have been refuted by the defence then it would have been; but there wasn’t. The court room is an open and level field in that regard.

Again I point out that the government hasn't listened to these "impartial psychologists". The government have their own "impartial psychologists" they take advice from. 25 years on & it's still not banned, still not pornography & people who own it don't go to jail for owning it. I put it to you that the government don't believe the "impartial psychologists" at all. I suggest that if most "impartial psychologists" felt the same about these books that they would be banned by now. This suggests to me that the prosecution pick some wack jobs as "impartial psychologists" to spin their spin.

AllForIt

BBFAN wrote: »

Telling of what? That I have no respect for a multi millionaire who carried on the way he did? You're right I don't.

I asked you a question but you ignored it and expect me to answer your question. It's obvious where your coming from btw.

I've never used the ignore anyone on this site but I think it's about time to see how that works.

twill

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Robinson you mention. Only coming to grips with the terrible damage done to him? Does he go to the police? Does he prove to the world what Jackson did? No. He tried to get a billion dollars from the estate. He wasn't looking for validation. He wasn't looking for justice. He was looking for money.

You didn't happen to be on Bill Cosby's defence team, by any chance?

BorneTobyWilde

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmalHcQh54

He rarely sang in an intimate setting, but when he did he was good.
A song he sang once only, for Sammy Davis Jr

Sleeper12

twill wrote:

You didn't happen to be on Bill Cosby's defence team, by any chance?

I'm not saying that he's guilty or not guilty. I'm just saying I couldn't label a man a paedophile without proof. He was found not guilty in a court of law and I respect all court decisions. I couldn't blacken a man's name based on made up Internet stories.

Here's the difference between the two group of posters as I see it. He's guilty and that's it. I'll dig up any oul cack to back up my beliefs. I'll prove here on boards what a well financed police force & DPP couldn't do & I don't care how I do it.

Most of the other side seem open that he could be guilty or innocent. They are arguing that there is no evidence or proof to make a decision one way or the other.

twill

Most of the other side seem open that he could be guilty or innocent. They are arguing that there is no evidence or proof to make a decision one way or the other.

There have been many credible accusations, and strong indications that Jackson shut them down by intimidation, bribes, manipulation and cunning. Yes, Jackson was acquitted, but that has to be viewed in the context of the difficulty of prosecuting sexual crimes against children, Jackson's known cunning and manipulation, and the new evidence emerging.

And attacking someone who reveals that they were abused as a child because they were abused by a rich and powerful man is reprehensible. It indicates that the powerful can behave as they want, and that people should be intimidated into silence. You don't even have to believe them to refrain from behaving in that way.

Sleeper12

twill wrote:

And attacking someone who reveals that they were abused as a child because they were abused by a rich and powerful man is reprehensible. It indicates that the powerful can behave as they want, and that people should be intimidated into silence. You don't even have to believe them to refrain from behaving in that way.

I don't think anyone attacked any alleged victims. There just haven't been any credable ones. First child Jewish claims to have seen Jacksons erect penis. He's asked to draw it. He draws a Jewish cut penis. Jackson has to show his penis to doctors. It was obvious that the child never saw Jackson penis. It was the prosecution that didn't want the drawing to be shown in court.

Second court case he was found not guilty. The parents were money grabbing. Not fit to be parents.

The two liars now are after money. One billion from the estate. They got knocked back on that so they sold their story to the movie. They are liars because they are lying now or purgerd themselves in court and lied publicly constantly over the years.

This the caliber of the people accusing him. Loyal friends when he was alive and they could milk money from him. He dies and their story changes & they want a billion.

Really credable people

joeguevara

twill wrote: »

There have been many credible accusations, and strong indications that Jackson shut them down by intimidation, bribes, manipulation and cunning. Yes, Jackson was acquitted, but that has to be viewed in the context of the difficulty of prosecuting sexual crimes against children, Jackson's known cunning and manipulation, and the new evidence emerging.

And attacking someone who reveals that they were abused as a child because they were abused by a rich and powerful man is reprehensible. It indicates that the powerful can behave as they want, and that people should be intimidated into silence. You don't even have to believe them to refrain from behaving in that way.

I am not saying you are wrong and indeed if true is reprehensible as you say but do you have any concrete (I’m not going to say evidence) accounts where this can be corroborated. So many people have been found to be liars and gold diggers. So many have been caught out in lies. How are you so sure of your statement?

Boggles

twill wrote: »

There have been many credible accusations,

How many?

By whom?

retro:electro

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He was found not guilty in a court of law and I respect all court decisions. I couldn't blacken a man's name based on made up Internet stories.

You’re speaking like someone who refuses to believe or else doesn’t know that sometimes guilty people get off. He was acquitted because it is notoriously difficult to bring a sexual abuse charge against someone; let alone one where some time has passed. It is an undisputed fact that more guilty people walk free than innocent convicted.

Even two of the jurors have come out and stated they were wrong to go Not Guilty. And I know I know... book deals, cash, yada yada yada. The thing is though they could have written a book about any of the trial process and it would have been just as financially beneficial.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll dig up any oul cack to back up my beliefs. I'll prove here on boards what a well financed police force & DPP couldn't do & I don't care how I do it.

the DPP, or DA could do it. Which is why he was arrested and charged and brought to trial. We’re not plucking these things out of the sky here.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This the caliber of the people accusing him. Loyal friends when he was alive and they could milk money from him. He dies and their story changes & they want a billion.

What kind of a world do you live in where you think there are so many bad people willing to cash in on total fabrications? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but to the degree you’re suggesting- The DA, the victims, the jurors, his maids, yada yada.. Unlikely. Maybe, just maybe- what they’re stating has actually happened?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It was the prosecution that didn't want the drawing to be shown in court.

I wonder why? because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs.
Yes he got some of the penis description wrong but what a lot of his defenders fail to acknowledge is that he also got a lot of it right, including blemishes that he couldn’t have just guessed. Again, he was a child, of course there’ll have been errors. Unless you’ve seen the images in question then you’ve no authority whatsoever to say whether they were a match or not. All you’re doing is reading and believing pro Michael propaganda blogs like “Free MJ.com”
Again, why would you pay off someone with $20m in hush money who so clearly drew a hodgepodge representation of your penis and then block their right to have copies of the photos? Wouldn’t that have gone in his favour? Hmmm..

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Even two of the jurors have come out and stated they were wrong to go Not Guilty. And I know I know... book deals, cash, yada yada yada. The thing is though they could have written a book about any of the trial process and it would have been just as financially beneficial.

No it wouldn't have FFS.

What were the name of the 2 books do you know?

Sleeper12

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re speaking like someone who refuses to believe or else doesn’t know that sometimes guilty people get off. He was acquitted because it is notoriously difficult to bring a sexual abuse charge against someone; let alone one where some time has passed. It is an undisputed fact that more guilty people walk free than innocent convicted.

Even two of the jurors have come out and stated they were wrong to go Not Guilty. And I know I know... book deals, cash, yada yada yada. The thing is though they could have written a book about any of the trial process and it would have been just as financially beneficial.



the DPP, or DA could do it. Which is why he was arrested and charged and brought to trial. We’re not plucking these things out of the sky here.



What kind of a world do you live in where you think there are so many bad people willing to cash in on total fabrications? I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but to the degree you’re suggesting- The DA, the victims, the jurors, his maids, yada yada.. Unlikely. Maybe, just maybe- what they’re stating has actually happened?



I wonder why? because both Jackson’s attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office refused to give him copies of the photographs.
Yes he got some of the penis description wrong but what a lot of his defenders fail to acknowledge is that he also got a lot of it right, including blemishes that he couldn’t have just guessed. Again, he was a child, of course there’ll have been errors. Unless you’ve seen the images in question then you’ve no authority whatsoever to say whether they were a match or not. All you’re doing is reading and believing pro Michael propaganda blogs like “Free MJ.com”
Again, why would you pay off someone with $20m in hush money who so clearly drew a hodgepodge representation of your penis and then block their right to have copies of the photos? Wouldn’t that have gone in his favour? Hmmm..

I think you are mixing things up here. I have no idea what photos you are talking about? Are these the ones that there is no record of them existing apart from a request to see them?


The drawing of the penis was done by the child. HIS lawyers didn't want this drawing shown in court because when examined Mr Jackson looked like a typical male jew but the boy who never saw jacksons penis drew a cut penis. This wouldn't be very good for their case.

Flippyfloppy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think you are mixing things up here. I have no idea what photos you are talking about? Are these the ones that there is no record of them existing apart from a request to see them?


The drawing of the penis was done by the child. HIS lawyers didn't want this drawing shown in court because when examined Mr Jackson looked like a typical male jew but the boy who never saw jacksons penis drew a cut penis. This wouldn't be very good for their case.

That doesn’t even make sense, the poor boy would have seen it when it was erect when the foreskin was back anyway.... ridiculous that the case rest on a boy remembering correctly and drawing it correctly.

Sleeper12

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

That doesn’t even make sense, the poor boy would have seen it when it was erect when the foreskin was back anyway.... ridiculous that the case rest on a boy remembering correctly and drawing it correctly.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/phimosis/


Very common. Runs in familes. Doesn't effect the female side of the family too much though