How funny would it be to see a bunch of pissed off Jacko fans, all dressed up like THRILLER, beating the crap out of the Phelps gang. LMAO

As a Christ believer, I'd like to throw up now.

Good grief.

Just tell the LA Cops Fred is related to Rodney King....

nice cover up by Dr. Katz

Dr. Katz love him some tax free millions in a Swiss bank account.

FAX

The MJ death is a big conspiracy with the Obama administration, needing a side story to take over all the media while his bullshit 15,000 page bill goes through Congress.

You are a great poster, Mr. Groves. Thoughtful and articulate. I predict great things in your future.

Meanwhile, here's my theory ... I think that a high percentage of supposed God-fearing preachers, pastors, and priests develop an interest in sexual activities for a couple of reasons; First, they spend a lot of time condemning the behavior in others which, ultimately, fosters curiosity. Secondly, they are sexually repressed and, to coin a phrase, eventually the bottle blows.

That's why I figure that ol' Fred probably likes it in the ass with a pineapple. I, therefore, predict that it's only a matter of time before some disgruntled flock member describes how he personally gruntled Fred's flocker.

FAX

Jacko probably spent the first few years of his life sharing a bed with siblings. He never grew up.

Hmmm. I think you may be onto something here, Mr. CoMoChief.

Clearly, if JFK could have Marilyn killed, Obama could certainly arrange for somebody to off Jacko. The Republican Party needs to begin an investigation into this outrage. We're quickly running out of celebrities.

FAX

Do you have kids? If so, would you let them play "sleep over" at this regressed 10-year-old's house? Why or why not?

Yes, I have an 11-year old son.

I wouldn't allow my son to "sleep over" at your house KCF, but that hardly makes you a pedophile. It just makes me a very protective father who is unwilling to put my son in potentially dangerous situations...unnecessarily.

Does it matter to anyone that Janet Arvizo approached Larry Feldman (Jordan Chandler's attorney in the 1993 case) BEFORE going to the authorities? Does it matter to anyone that this woman was convicted of welfare fraud? Does it matter that the boy's testimony contradicted prior statements that he made to law enforcement officials? Does it matter to anyone that Gavin's mother Janet concocted a story about having been viciously beaten in 1998 by JC Penney security after being detained on suspicion of shoplifting (that INCLUDED Gavin himself)? An accusation that two years later was amended to include her "having been fondled for more than 7 minutes". Does it matter to anyone that she received a $137,000 settlement by Penney because of it?

Nah...

Facts tend to function as annoying speed bumps to misguided rants.
So people tend to just...drive around them.

Fred is a Thriller!!

KCF?

Of course, you, like other sane person, would use some common sense. It's a situation that, at best, is disconcerting, but, most likely, is more troubling than this.

Based on what I've read, as long as Michael was paying the bills the Chandler family didn't make any accusations. Once the money stopped the trouble began.

Sorry, I was in the middle of multi-quoting a response and got confused.

I just find it disheartening that people have convicted him in the court of public opinion despite the man-sized holes in the two prior accusations.

The EXACT same situation occurred with the Arvizo family.
Mike was footing medical bills for Gavin.

I always thought the mic part of your username stood for something else. Good to know you're ok, MJ. :)

ROFL

Interesting phrase, given the subject matter.

ROFL

That's not normal?

I mean, I'm just askin'.

Is it the wax lips?

So are you denying that there's numerous facts to support the notion that Michael Jackson was molesting boys? Or are you just driving around those annoying speed bumps?

This case is of course much more visible than most, but I'd imagine that the phenomenon is true of nearly all accused sex offenders. It's such a strong societal taboo that even being accused of it is enough to sway most opinions toward the negative.

What are the numerous facts supporting the notion he was guilty?

Are you waiting for someone else to present those facts or were you just bluffing?

Exactly.
And it's shameful.
He was an easy target because of how regressed he was as an adult.
He had no real sense of reality.

If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong.

Neither.

Navigate these speed bumps:

- As mentioned already in this thread (and ignored), the first accuser accurately drew pictures of Michael's private regions, identifying discolored marks on his penis, testicles, and buttocks. These were drawn prior to the police taking pictures of Jackson.

- Michael's lawyers did everything possible to delay his deposition in the civil case brought by the first accuser. The night before he was finally supposed to go under oath on the matter, knowing that -- among other things -- he'd be asked about the accurate pictures the boy drew, Michael decided to settle and pay them off.

- The woman who worked at Neverland ranch and made the arrangements with families to bring their children there -- someone the cops wanted to talk to, needless to say -- abruptly left the country the night before she was supposed to be questioned about the situation with the first accuser.

Years later, Michael was still sending her money in Greece, where she'd fled to.

- Likewise, the guy who ran security at Neverland ranch during that period of time continues to get large yearly payments.

- During a suit brought against him by former bodyguards, Michael was asked about child molestation and plead the fifth.

- Depsite all the talk about Michael letting "children" sleep in his bed, the authorities conducted two different investigations a decade apart, talked to hundreds of people, and never found a single person with knowledge of girls sleeping in Michael's bed. It was always little boys.

In fact, many of the boys Michael took "special interest" in over the years, including three of the boys who accused him, all had the same physical characteristics.

Not only that, most of them came from the same family circumstances, where the parents were divorced, the father was absent, and the mother was in a financial position where she'd respond well to being lavished by gifts.

Probably all a coincidence.

- Following up on the previous item, there are, in fact, more than two boys who have come forward to say Jackson molested them. One was the son of Michael's former maid, who Jackson paid off for her silence. Now an adult, he testified during the criminal trial. The other boy's parents refused to let him testify.

- The first accuser has not spoken to his mother in 15 years because he blames her for turning a blind eye and allowing Jackson to prey on him. Seems odd that he'd shut out his mother if they were all just making it up for money.

For that matter, the entire family ended up a broken mess, despite their enormous financial windfall.

- Lots of pornographic material, including a popular book among pedophiles of naked young boys, was removed from Neverland. The police found six other books either featuring naked young boys or featuring naked men engaged in explicit sex acts. There was also a picture of a naked boy found in Michael's bedroom.

- The "second" accuser (from the criminal trial) said that Michael had shown him dirty magazines. Among the pornography removed from Neverland were dirty magazines with both Michael and the boy's fingerprints on them.

- Michael's legal team, which was fiercely protective and went after numerous people for libel and slander (perhaps most notably the author of a book that detailed Michael's relationship with the first accuser) never once brought any action against Vanity Fair for their series of articles about Jackson, where each of these facts I've mentioned have been cited.

In other words, they don't dispute any of this.

Should I keep going?

And molesting young boys.

He was an artistic homosexual pedophile.
Posted via Mobile Device

What did Steve McNairs quest for a championship have in common with one of Michael Jacksons lovers?

3 feet short.
Posted via Mobile Device

Not sure if you have kids Mic.....but would you have let your kids share a bed with MJ?
Or any other grown man for that matter??

Makes perfect sense to me. Go along son, stay over at Neverland. Share a bed with a whacked out adult celebrity who purposely disfigures his face and is obviously sexually confused from his being abused as a child.
Yeah, sure, go ahead Junior.
Posted via Mobile Device

Interesting theories, Mr. FAX. Probably two pineapples.

Jordan Chandler's description of Jackson's genitalia was found to be inconsistent by the officials who conducted the strip search. Remember... Chandler claimed that Jackson was circumcised. Officials later determined that he was not.

After having submitted to the search of his own volition?
I'm failing to understand the logic in agreeing to the search and later fearing the consequences...settling.

I'm sorry, but I can't take any of this conjecture seriously.
The Maureen Orth article in Vanity Fair can't be called empirical.
Much of it is strictly speculative information she received from former Jackson employees or from the Chandler and Arvizo camps. She conveniently glossed over Janet Arvizo's checkered past. That strikes me as quite a bit disingenuous.

To draw the conclusion that Jordan Chandler's estrangment from his birth mother had nothing at all to do with her having initially dismissed her son's accusations, the father being ordered to stay away from the family for an extended period of time, and their subsequent divorce...well...also disingenuous.

Again, Jordan Chandler declined to cooperate with authorities following the settlement citing fear of retaliation from Jackson and his cronies. A spokesperson with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office was unable to substantiate such a claim. Orth would argue though as her "source" with the Prosecution was certain they were in imminent danger. Oddly neither the police or the Grand Jury were willing to bring charges either. So much for all of the evidence. After interviewing over 200 witnesses the Grand Jury was unable to find anyone to corroborate the Jackson story.

I'm sorry sir, but Vanity Fair conjecture is not an answer to my initial post bubbling over with facts.

Maureen Orth is the SAME woman that went onto "The Today Show" and "Hardball" less than 24 hours after the story broke that Jackson had passed. She recounted the VERY same innuendo and rumors that've been regurgitated over the last 16 years.

The SAME woman who went to great lengths to throw in another unsubstantiated rumor about Jackson during her interview with Matt Lauer on TTS AFTER he tried to wrap up the interview.

This is the SAME woman who obtained and divulged private medical information from Jackson's doctor.

The SAME woman who said that Jackson might've "staged" this incident for publicity reasons.

The SAME woman who said that Jackson would've wanted to "go" this way because of the publicity it would've generated.

The SAME woman who said (and I quote), "I think this ending is great for Michael."

The SAME woman who fancies herself an authority on Jackson despite never having known the man personally.

This woman has been seething over Jackson for YEARS and obviously has an axe to grind.
She doesn't help your argument.

I have an 11-year old son Deberg.
And again, I wouldn't allow him to share a bed with you.
That hardly makes you a pedophile though.
It just makes me a concerned father who wouldn't allow something so potentially compromising to take place.

How much for the women? The LITTLE GIRLS!!!

http://lh4.ggpht.com/jloughli/R8INQ8...esBrothers.jpg

Do you know that there still are people who believe that OJ was innocent of the murders of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman and that he was railroaded when found guilty of the Las Vegas kidnapping and robbery of the people in the hotel room? I guarantee you that the next story of a 30+ year old man, celebrity or not, sleeping with pre-teens or adolescents will bring out the defenders of such actions. The defenders will use Michael Jackson as an example of a fine person who did exactly the same thing and that no harm ever came from the man-boy relationships.

Many times, defenders of those who engage in illegal, criminal or immoral behavior are those who have a problem dealing with authority figures or behaving in a conventional manner themselves. They grab any situation short of absolute visual evidence or a confession as a means to demonstrate that, yet again, the "authorities" are trampling on the rights of the accused.

Not saying that these defenders are good or bad, just curious.

I'm sure there are, but I'm also sure they are few and far in between.


Your ability to state the obvious is matched only by my indifference to your personal moral code.

Hi! My name is US Justice System! Have we met before?!

Did you also know that when Michael paid them off, it was handled by his insurance company, it never cost him a dime, and they paid off the accusers against Michael's wishes?

That's not true, of course, but that story is right out of the same "facts used to defend Michael Jackson" playbook as the circumcision, sodium amytal, and "Dr. Katz said Jackson didn't fit the profile" stuff.

Do you have a verifying statement from these "officials" to support the circumcision story? Or are you just going from the credibility-straining story from Michael's biographer, who fully believes Michael to be innocent?

Also, before I forget, the DA has stated on the record that the sodium amytal story is bullshit, and Dr. Katz -- "world-renowned clinical psychologist" in your words -- examined the accuser from the criminal trial (and his brother) and believed the accuser had been abused.

So, yeah, a lot of that stuff doesn't really fly.

If by "agreeing to the search", you mean "forced by a search warrant" and "fought tooth and nail against it, including having to be physically restrained (and striking a doctor) and at one point outright refusing to comply", then yes, I suppose he agreed willingly.

All of this, referring to his anger and behavior, was sworn to in numerous affidavits by the people there. Oddly, though, it wasn't quite described that way by Jackson's biographer in the "circumcision" story.

As for the logic, perhaps this flowchart will help:

Boy draws pictures of Michael's junk --> cops get search warrant to take pictures of Michael's junk --> Michael fights and refuses but ultimately photos are taken --> Michael agrees to pay settlement.

I must say, there is some degree of irony in the fact that you have a problem with the Vanity Fair material -- none of which was ever challenged by the Jackson camp -- while freely citing whatever dubious "JACKO DIDN'T DO IT" nuggets you can get your hands on.

Just for the record, though...

- that the woman from Neverland fled the country the night before she was to be questioned

- that no one has come forward with knowledge of young girls sleeping in Michael's bed

- that Michael plead the 5th during a deposition when asked about child molestation

- that there were common physical and social characterictics between the boys Michael was most attached to

- that there were more than 2 accusers

- that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine

...are all verificable facts and hardly "conjecture" from a magazine article. You can attack the magazine or the author all you like, but the magazine columns are simply a handly archive of the information.

I'm sure a site like The Smoking Gun has many of the legal documents in support of those facts, if you ever feel like taking your head out of the sand.

It was certainly bubbling over with something.

Ya know, there's a good chance the Phelch clan will be mauled by an angry crowd. It's win win.

"that graphic pornographic material, including stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house (from his bedroom, in fact, which was such a haven for the world's children)

- and that Michael and an accuser's fingerprints were found on a porn magazine"

If investigators found child porn material at Michael's house, why wasn't he ever charged with criminal counts of possessing child porn?

Just trying to see where you were coming from with that last statement.


This:


"If he was guilty of anything...
It was of violating social norms that say sharing your bed with a child not your own is wrong"


Made it sound as if you didnt have a problem with him sharing a bed with a young child.

You can read about it here. I glanced through it but have little interest. I think he was a talented yet twisted freak show. I have no proof that he molested kids but there is plenty of evidence out there pointing that he did. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...........

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michael...5jackson2.html

Weren't you sold on the credibility-straining article from Maureen Orth (who never knew Jackson personally), who fully believes Michael to be guilty?

Mind you, the biographer Taraborrelli has said on the record that he did not know if Jackson had molested Chandler or not. This is the SAME biographer who was critical of Michael's choices in life on a number of occasions both personally and in print. I think that dispatches this idea that the biography was merely fluff and that Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz, the sodium amytal, and the strip search were untrue.

But, if you'd like... We can throw it all out.
And what we'd be left with... Wouldn't look favorable to your argument.

The Vanity Fair article wasn't empirical. Why on Earth would a defense attorney with two wits about him try to disprove conjecture that has no bearing on the case?

You mean the same TSG article that says, "If the harrowing and deeply disturbing allegations in these documents are true..."

More conjecture from "sources" that made the information available to TSG second-hand. Bravo sir.

The other thing to consider is how many people were intimidated into silence by his goons or quietly paid off before anything broke in the press? Obviously nothing can be proven now, but if Jackson (or his people) would sic goons on one guy to shut him up, I find it difficult to believe that tactic wasn't a common problem solver.

I might be radical Deberg, but I'm not crazy.

Should I again bring up the fact that Michael's lawyers, who often went after people that made certain claims, never once challenged anything printed in the Vanity Fair columns?

But it doesn't matter. As I said before, we can throw out any subjective material from the Vanity Fair columns and just focus on the facts archived within them. You're the one who was so big on people ignoring facts, remember?

Clearly, though, you have no interest in any facts that don't support your side of the story.

Assuming you're correct -- which, let's be honest, has been rare here -- is that supposed to overule him saying he believes Michael is innocent?

Oh, OK. Because the biographer was critical of some of Michael's life choices, it doesn't really matter that his book is the ONLY place you'll find references to two major items suggesting Michael's innocence.

I see.

:rolleyes:

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz are irrelevant. As I've already mentioned, Katz had sessions with both the accuser from the criminal trial and his brother, and he believed they were telling the truth. Katz, as he's required to do, contacted Child Protective Services because he believed the boy had been molested.

This is not speculation. This is not conjecture. This is a matter of public record. Of course, it's not a detail you'll find on Wikipedia, so I can understand how this might be new information to you.

This doctor, who you yourself held up as a grand expert, believed the accuser when he said he'd been abused by Michael Jackson.

Does that not give you pause?

Two claims that you'll only find in one specific book, at least one of which has been specifically refuted on the record by the LA District Attorney. Yet you freely accept both claims as the gospel truth.

Again, I point out how odd it is that you're so willing to believe any little nugget that suggests Michael's innocence, while you put on your tap shoes and shuffle around actual documented facts supporting his guilt.

I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between facts and allegations?

- It is a FACT that more than two boys accused Michael Jackson. A third accuser testified at Jackson's criminal trial.

- It is a FACT that tons of porn was removed from Neverland. You can see the search warrant article at The Smoking Gun, to say nothing of the evidence introduced at trial.

- It is a FACT that they found fingerprints from Michael, an accuser, and the accuser's brother on dirty magazines taken from Michael's bedroom.

- It is a FACT that Michael plead the fifth on the subject of child molestation.

And so on and so on down the list I made earlier. These aren't "allegations". Do you see the difference?

Just be honest: you have no interest in honestly discussing anything here. You're all about discussing the facts until ones come up that don't fit your position, and then you're as guilty of driving around those speed bumps as anyone, if not moreso.

Your entire argument boils down to this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/36sKMwbwfWc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/36sKMwbwfWc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The material with young boys wasn't explicit pornography. That's bad wording on my part.

I should have said "graphic pornographic material, plus stuff with nude young boys, was taken from Jackson's house".

I suppose if you'd rather do that than answer my original question. What purpose would it serve to pursue Vanity Fair in court when the article had absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the case?

Convenient. Let's pick and choose what information from Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth, who has consistently vilified Jackson over the years, and adopt her alleged sources and their subsequent information as truth. We'll just gloss over the fact that her representation of the facts is spotty at best and tend to contradict agencies like...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.

I'll explain, slowly, so you'll understand.
The fact that Taraborrelli's been critical of Jackson both personally and in print dispatches the idea that he CANNOT be objective as it relates to Jackson and his circumstances.

But the Maureen Orth piece is gospel? Gotcha.

Are we talking about the Chandler case or the Arvizo case?

In the Arvizo case...the same doctor, himself, characterized his examination of Gavin Arvizo as cursory. He went on to say that he was NOT asked to do an in-depth evaluation of the boy.

Care to provide a link for that?

Where are these facts documented aside from Vanity Fair and The Smoking Gun piece that you alluded to previously?

You mean Jason Francia (Jackson's first accuser)? The SAME Jason Francia who told the investigators who approached him that he had only been tickled?
The SAME Jason Francia who later leveled molestation charges on Jackson? The SAME Jason Francia whose mother, former employee of Jackson's, received $20K for a "Hard Copy" interview?

It's also a fact that the lead investigator, Robel, said the materials were LEGAL.

It's also a fact that the magazines weren't examined until AFTER the boy's Grand Jury testimony where he handled the documents in question.

You're right. And there's good reason why you've repeatedly danced around the holes in the Arvizo case.

Yeah. All of that information I provided is insignificant.
But if Vanity Fair or TSG printed it...by God...it's gotta be true!

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2...shaneohgod.jpg

Is this a serious question?

What purpose did it serve for Jackson's legal team to pursue ANY of the numerous people they did for libel and slander? They went after Diane Diamond and Hard Copy. They went after TV and radio stations. They went after authors.

They've also made suits for things completely unrelated to the child molestation accusations. They've sued tabloids for any number of things, like stories about Michael's plastic surgery.

They had a noted history of lashing out against stories or coverage unfavorable to Michael. The "purpose" would seemingly be to set the record straight and to correct what they thought (or wanted people to think) was false information and/or lies about Michael.

But despite that impressive work load, at no time did they ever bring a legal challenge against Maureen Orth or Vanity Fair. Kind of interesting, wouldn't you say?

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/280...vichstupid.jpg

Do I really have to go over this again?

Try to follow along: there are things called ALLEGATIONS. Right? Still with me? And there are things called FACTS. Are we good? Do you need to lie down and digest all this?

There are ALLEGATIONS in the Vanity Fair articles. Things that have only appeared from Maureen Orth's reporting. Things that some independent person cannot prove without having access to her notes or sources.

Then there are FACTS in the articles. Things that are common knowledge. Things that are a matter of record. Things that can be verified.

For example, that Michael had a bunch of porn in his bedroom at Neverland -- a place he referred to as a safe, sweet place for children -- is a FACT. It is not an allegation. It can, and has, been proven to be true. There are numerous documents, from the seizure reports when it was taken from his home to when it was entered as evidence at his trial, to show it.

Let's try one out.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: your Chiefsplanet handle is Micjones

Give up? That one's a fact! Let's try another.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: you're being reeruned

This is a tricky one! I know it seems like a fact, but it's only an allegation.

We can, believe it or not, separate facts from allegations. You can cry about Maureen Orth all you want. You can completely ignore the allegations made in her articles if you don't believe her. But you can't ignore facts. If Hitler tells you the sky is blue, are you going to deny it's true because of who told you?

I have outlined a laundry list of facts that you are running away from like a taut pre-teen boy with no pants trying to get out of Neverland. The more you continue to ignore the existence of these facts, the more foolish you look.

Just so you know, this is what you're coming off like:

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7...verearsxs9.jpg

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/650...ettleblack.jpg

So it doesn't raise your suspicion that this one book is the only place you're going to hear these stories?

The author described the strip search far differently (and far better for Michael) than the people who were actually there, but that doesn't raise any red flags with you? The author made it seem like everyone was there to see if Michael was circumcized, when it was actually the colored splotches, and that doesn't seem at all strange?

That he'd completely misrepresent the story while giving this grand detail of Michael's innocence -- a detail that apparently only HE knows -- doesn't make you wonder? Not even just a little bit?

Of course it doesn't because you're not even familiar with what I just described. You're taking your talking points off some "WAYS TO DEFEND JACKO" website.

As I've said what seems like 10 times, and as you continue to demonstrate, you're willing to believe anything and everything in support of Michael. But anything against him has to meet an emmense burden of proof that nothing short of a tape of Michael jacking some kid off will ever reach.

And then you'd just tell us how the tape was doctored.

The world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) said he believed the boy had been abused by Michael Jackson. He interviewed him twice, just for the record.

I'll ask again: does that not give you pause? Or is that world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not such a good source anymore? Is a world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not capable of making such a determination after conducting two separate "cursory" interviews with a child?

Because if not, it sure is strange that you'd jump to cite him as a character witness for Michael -- someone he never examined at all. Yes, that's another issue you were wrong about when you were "bubbling over with facts".

Other examples aside, I know he's quoted directly on the matter in one of the Vanity Fair articles. I gave the link earlier in the thread.

Read 'em, maybe you'll learn something as you look for the quote. Unlikely, I know.

Court records of Case #1133603 - The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson. Just to name one source you may be familiar with.

The Santa Barbara Superior Court site has pretty thorough documentation of things that go through their county. Go nuts:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org

That would be the guy who testified at the trial, yes. That's three accusers, a direct contradictment of your statement in your post "bubbling over with facts" where you said "Only two kids have EVER come forward".

I mean, right off the bat you were wrong. Come on.

Yes, there's nothing illegal about having copies of Barely Legal and "Plumpers" and whatever else he had.

But does it not give you pause that Michael had these magazines (and videos!) (and pictures of naked boys!) right there in his bedroom, the place he's repeatedly hailed as a wonderful safe place for children? Where kids can frolic and play and climb into bed with him and, why, it's just the most loving place in the whole wide world?

I suppose this explains why you've had such trouble separating facts from allegations -- you don't actually know what a fact is.

Just because Michael Jackson's defense argues something doesn't make it true. The defense tried to argue that the accuser MIGHT have touched something during the grand jury. The prosecution called a witness in rebuttal that said, uh, no they didn't.

The defense also suggested the boy and his brother broke into Michael's porn stash behind his back and Michael caught them with dirty magazines, which he took away from them. (They just happened to know where the porn was.)

It's called "grasping at straws". They're going to suggest anything to explain why the boy's fingerprints were on Michael's porn, other than the obvious reason.

I haven't danced around anything. I didn't say there were no holes in the Arvizo case. Quite obviously there were, since the jury found Michael not guilty.

You are the one who acted like there's nothing at all to suggest that Michael ever molested children. Quite obviously, you're wrong.

The question is whether you'll ever admit it.

"Michael Jackson was a pedophile!!"

"No, he wasn't!!"

End of story. None of you know and none of you ever will.

Little kids saw so much of Mike Jacksons nutsack that they could draw pictures pointing out all the Dusty Rhodes splotches on it.

But yeah, we will never know.

No, we won't. You might, but we won't.

And the guy who knows it never happened?

He doesn't know either.