Westboro Baptist Church will picket Michael Jackson's funeral

[LaChapelle]

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

[Micjones]

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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Micjones

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 included 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.

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

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

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?

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by BigRock

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?

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

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by BigRock

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?

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

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

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?

[gblowfish]

Fred is a Thriller!!

[Chiefnj2]

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.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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.

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

[Pioli Zombie]

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

3 feet short.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by BigRock

Neither.

- 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.

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.

- 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.

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.

- 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?

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.

[BigRock]

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Micjones

my initial post bubbling over with facts.

It was certainly bubbling over with something.

[Micjones]

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.

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?

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.

[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

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.

Originally Posted by Micjones

Mind you, the biographer Taraborrelli has said on the record that he did not know if Jackson had molested Chandler or not.

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?

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

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.

Originally Posted by Micjones

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz

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?

Originally Posted by Micjones

the sodium amytal, and the strip search

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.

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

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: