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.