Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones
I'm sorry, but I can't take any of this conjecture seriously.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones
my initial post bubbling over with facts.
|
It was certainly bubbling over with something.