Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRock
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?
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
|
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?
Quote:
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.
|
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.