Do you work for the National Enquirer?

 Reply

My point, which you ignore, is that he used his whimsical boy-man identity to get his way in a way that was shrewd and nasty.

I get it- you are trying to discount the presentation of FACT (i.e, the pajamas was a PR move to undercut a minor testifying about his sexual abuse- which is undoubtedly a nice guy move) - by inserting innuendo. So, if I work for the Enquirer then if I recite fact- well, it must be crap then. Yeah, not so much.

 Reply

note: we may agree to disagree and should probably call "impasse" before we turn to argument. I don't feel like arguing....its sunny outside

 Reply

Also, the whimsical man-boy theory started with Sir Paul McCartney (to my knowledge). He was friends with McCartney and then screwed him over at an auction for the Beatles' music catalogue. McCartney famously hates his guts.

 Reply

FACT (i.e, the pajamas was a PR move to undercut a minor testifying about his sexual abuse- which is undoubtedly a nice guy move)

isn't a fact. It's an interpretation based on one reading of facts. And then you use that interpretation to evaluate him as a person. Different from listing facts, and far more loaded.

 Reply

Listen, you don't believe, you don't agree, you are unmoved by the stories. Whatever. You have an opinion about the case. Fine. I. DO. NOT. CARE. I have formed a judgment about the case. Based upon FACTS presented into a court of law before a fact-finder and sworn to their accuracy by the party presenting them. I found those facts more believable than the Defense's. WHY. DO. YOU. CARE?

I'm not sure what the witch-hunt around here is about but there are a lot of legitimate reasons and "facts" for educated people to come to the conclusion that MJ is a pedophile.

By the way, nice of you to copy & paste the summary of an earlier post (which was my conclusion based upon the facts) as a rhetorical device to illustrate I am relying on interpretation rather than facts.

 Reply

When you are a public figure, the public is let into your life for better or worse. And when MJ *wanted* to withdraw from the scene - he did. We haven't heard much about him at all in the past two years. Alls I'm saying is that creative genius doesn't excuse hurting people. With that, let the discussion go back to the man's music and legacy.

 Reply

Yes, there are SOME people who deny he did anything wrong (less, I would say, than those who insist he did). But I think the majority of us simply recognize that he had deep issues. This is not the same as excusing molestation, that's fucking ridiculous.

 Reply

A friend of mine recently told me that it didn't matter whether an accusation like child molestation was true or not. You tell enough people, and soon you've got a mob mentality going on and, given that this is a country full of crazies, someone's just going to knock on your door and blow your head off.

So why is anyone surprised that this happened to a black man who happened to be enjoying too much success?

 Reply

If any of those comments were made in a thread about anorexia or bulimia, you'd get disemvowelled faster than...I don't know, things that are really fast.

Sorry if I sounded a bit snappy, but I do get touchy when issues like these don't get respect/protection from Jez commenting rules, but if it's a weight-related issue, then the slaughtering commences (FYI, I don't like snark on those posts either).

 Reply

One reason probably weight issues get more attention is that more of us have direct experiences (and varied experiences that lend us a deeper perspective) with them than with SI or certain other mental health issues. There's a lot of secrecy even now about many mental health issues, so even if your best friend is on medication for depression or whatever else, you might not know about it. And a lot of times diagnoses come after friends and family members have gotten used to labeling a person as crazy. So just societally, and reflected here, people have less deeply polite opinions about other mental health issues.

And of course sometimes people just say things they shouldn't say, or things they can't word quite right, or things that come out more strongly than they mean.

But that's the nature of individuals, which is ultimately what comprises "Jezebel."

 Reply

If he is Catherine then who is Violet Venable? His family?

 Reply

I don't want to harp on this, people who want to mourn him can and should. But as a lawyer, I don't think the lack of a conviction means much - look at OJ.

 Reply

[www.vanityfair.com]

 Reply

@roodles: To repeat, ONCE AGAIN, what stoprobbers keeps saying. The child's description of his genitals DID NOT MATCH. It was NOT conclusive. How easy would it have been for his father, who was regarded as a money grubber, to tell him about the disease vitigilo and infer that his genitals were affected as well.

I'm done talking about this. I'm letting the man rest in peace.

 Reply

Sometime afterwards, Evan Chandler was tape-recorded saying amongst other things, "If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over."

That's the kid's father. Considering that if you know anything about vitiligo (and I do, my dad has it) you can basically GUESS what it would look like on any part of his body, and considering that the doctors who examined MJ said that the kid's description was similar, but not entirely accurate, don't you think that accusation MIGHT have been dubious?

 Reply

Damn, I never expected that his death would cause so much drama.

 Reply

The second kid I was not so sure something happened. I read a couple of articles about him and his family and they seemed to take the stuff they knew from the first accusations and just repeat it. Plus, there was an actual trial the second time and I believe that the prosecutors really tried a great case and he was still found not guilty. Plus, the first kid came from a pretty wealthy family and the second kid's mom asked for a settlement before going to the police.

 Reply

No, I am not as greatly impacted by his death as others, but I find the total denial of any wrongdoing just as strange as the insistence upon it.

No one knows, that's that.

 Reply

The police investigators involved with the case that lost said that convincing corroborating evidence was not allowed in basically because it was obtained through admittedly questionable methods on their part. He's paid anywhere from 10-22 million dollars to make these other cases never see the light of a courtroom.

If it were anybody else people would be pissed.

 Reply

If it was Joe Blow the neighbor it would be a different situation entirely as Joe Blow isn't a world-famous multi-millionaire with a giant target on his back.

 Reply

I disagree with it being out of left field, but in the realm of fact, the doctors who examined Jackson to compare his anatomy to the kid's description said it was similar, but not a truly accurate match. So... there goes that.

 Reply

[jezebel.com]

 Reply

BTW, that whole thing about the kid not being able to describe MJ's body part accurately can be because maybe MJ did give that kid alcohol and i believe it's harder to remember exactly what happens when you're under the influence.

I personally had and incident where i had to give the police a statement before and i couldn't remember exaclty how all the events played out and I met with the police just a few hours after the incident happened.

Imagine trying to remember everything that happened to you, while you where inebriated, to the last detail. Now imagine trying to remember those details a few months (or however long it took for that case to go to trial) after.

I've been molested myself, and I've tried so hard to get those images out of my mind so I can move on with my life. Maybe that kid tried to do the same before the trial and maybe that's why those images because less than clear for him during the trial (where btw, he was put under a lot of pressure to get everything right).

That's probably one of the hardest things that kid had to go through in his life, it's only reasonable to think that he probably tried suppressed a lot of it. And its even harder when your abuser is someone you looked up to and is so beloved by the rest of public.

 Reply

Ultimately, as Penny and TD say, we'll never know what happened now so...

 Reply

Michael did NOT pay the settlement so the case would "never see the light of day" as you so dramatically, yet erroneously stated. His insurance company did.

He did NOT want them to pay it, he wanted to fight the case. However the insurance company wanted it to go away and celebs don't control the actions of their insurance companies.

All of this stuff is in court papers and easily found on the interwebs. I wish people would learn about the case before talking out of their asses.

 Reply

I'd suggest people do some serious RESEARCH and reading up on this case.

Here's a start

[www.buttonmonkey.com]

 Reply

Watching him and knowing what a troubled person he was, I have got to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. He was found NOT GUILTY in a court of law but continued to be guilty b/c he was STRANGE later in life. So strange + celebrity + air of impropriety = guilty in the court of public opinion - even if he was acquitted. Now would I leave my (hypothetical) children alone with MJ? Hell no. But I'd also say "Hell no" to leaving my kids alone with 98% of the people I know or am acquainted with.

PEOPLE (his family, accusers, greedy enablers, and the media) drove this musical genius to his early death. I love humanity but individual people fucking disappoint me.

 Reply

All of the research I have personally done, just as a curious individual who hasn't been a hardcore MJ fan since age 8, has made me seriously, seriously doubt he molested anyone.

 Reply

This is a compulsive illness that the abuser acts on at EVERY CHANCE.

Michael was around tons of children pretty much constantly yet only TWO accused him of molestation. Every other child who spent considerable time with MJ who was interviewed by the investigators in the second case denied ever being treated inappropriately...

Also, molesters don't stop molesting while married...he had two wives who never reported witnessing anything untoward.

Just some food for thought...

 Reply

Didn't we have a post recently about a judge who gave a guy only 4 years for raping a 5 year old because she wasn't a dependable witness? That judge and that rapist were PILLORIED here. I don't recall any comments that said, "Well, none of us were there, so we really don't know what happened, so he's probably innocent. I mean, that girl could have just gotten close to being right on the description of his penis by chance!"

Please.

 Reply

People complain how unfair it is to compare MJ to other celebrities, but I think its unfair to compare him to their molesters. Sure there is always a pattern that can be identified in each molestation case, but its ridiculous to dismiss MJ just because he didn't molest a ton of children.

There a lot of people who have been abuse who never come forward. I don't understand why some people just want to believe that these children are just making all this shit up.

 Reply

Lots of pedophiles have children they never touch or only molest their on children. Many others intentionally go after kids who seem vulnerable while leaving others alone. None of the molestor-priests molested even the majority of alter boys, they picked some. Many molesters have wives who never notice.

It is totally possible that MJ did nothing to Webster or the Culkins but molested dozens of other kids.

I understand saying the man is dead and nothing was proven, so I'll focus on this music, but the whole thing as very, very sketchy.

 Reply

Probably because there is a ton of information out there regarding the accusers, their shady families, and the inconsistencies in their stories?

Also with ALL of the children he was around ALL THE TIME, it is very UNLIKELY he would have only acted on the urge to molest two. It is also very odd that once these TWO allegations came out, no others followed.

A prudent person would find these facts strange and not just brush them off.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the families of the two accusers have some very big red flags with regard to their histories of deception and profit seeking ways.

The fact that the two families have this in common, that there are no other children accusing MJ of sexual abuse, and the fact that they first sought out funds rather than reporting these alleged crimes to the authorities should raise some very BIG red flags to the people in these threads so set on condemning this man as a molester.

There isn't any proof that he is. I wish someone would bring forth some researched facts about these cases pointing toward his guilt instead of tossing off every doubt as some kind of fluke.

 Reply

The fact that this isn't raising people's doubts or causing them to question their CERTAINTY that he is a sexual abuser, really disturbs me.

 Reply

You are entitled to your opinion but so am I. I feel comfortable with the judgments I have made. I feel that they made it past the burden of proof needed to file a civil complaint and that the testimony in mnay cases was believable despite the holes you are enjoying blowing into them years later. I believe the accusers, here.

There is more than enough evidence for a "prudent" and educated person to believe the accusers.

 Reply

@Chocolate Sex Bunny: I read that article that you had linked in a previous post. It seemed to me that the journalist already had an opinion on the case and decided to gather information that made that opinion seem credible (but not to me).

I read it and I picked and pointed out things that I could have used in order to write my own article on that story and prove MY point. and just like @lolacat mentioned, the article left out the shady past of two of MJ's people, why? because the writer decided to focus on the incidents that the other party had instead of presenting them both.

There where other things in the article that weren't explored further and other things was made the evidence against the accusers more suggestive than factual. There where statements that contradicted each other and I personally am not going to base my opinion based solely on another person's point of view. Specially since I personally believe the writer of that article was kind of biased. But that's just my opinion.

 Reply

The fact that Pellicano was a crook = Michael is without a doubt molesting kids. My mistake. Because people who hire investigators are always aware of the illegal tactics being used!

Oh and yes, the maid's son Jason, who when initially interviewed, was one of the 30+ kids who swore he had not been molested.

Until he was badgered by the police's aggressive questioning techniques.

The article I linked to up thread:

"The police also employed aggressive investigative techniques -- including allegedly telling lies -- to push the children into making accusations against Jackson. According to several parents who complained to Bert Fields, officers told them unequivocally that their children had been molested, even though the children denied to their parents that anything bad had happened. The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, "have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as 'We have nude photos of you.' There are, of course, no such photos." One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he'd interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman."

Also from the article regarding the maid:

" {the maid} told Dimond (a reporter with the tabloid show Hard Copy) and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. ...and yet later... under deposition by a Jackson attorney, she admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged."

This being the same maid who was caught going thru MJ's wallet and also trying to steal a watch from Neverland.

So we have: endless lies, attempted theft, borderline extortion, police misleading and pressuring impressionable kids...

I'm exhausted.

Oh but I'm glad none of these inconvenient facts gets in the way of you being comfortable with your judgment that he was most certainly a sexual predator.

 Reply

It's more convenient.

 Reply

In case you failed to read my post, I'm entitled to believe the accusers rather than the defense and I do because I believe they presented a much more believable case (each time and historically - I feel the 1993 case is MUCH more believable, today, with what we know now). Your reading of the facts is a universe away from mine, obviously.

I get it angers you but ... I don't really care.

 Reply

I truly apologize if all the facts, confirmed witness/police statements, depositions, etc. I am bringing up leave you at a loss and all you can counter with is "fuck me with a chainsaw". Oh and stating over and over that you "believe" the allegations, without being able to identify any specific facts that are contributing to your OPINION.

 Reply

[www.vanityfair.com]

and

[www.vanityfair.com]

Also, well-reviewed and meticulously researched. Also, Maureen Orth is a well-respected journalist (Tim Russert's wife!)

 Reply

I don't think that people want to desperately believe he was a molester. I would rather believe that he wasn't, but based on what I have read I believe he was. There are as many people (maybe even more) who are just as desperate to believe he's innocent. it's a two way street.

You believe what you want. I don't think that article is the best representation of the case. And I think its kinda sad you seem to believe everything in it and believe everything said in it is a fact. Out of all the research you say you did you come a present an article that I personally found was very flawed and that won't change my mind.

It would have been more convenient for me not to read it, but I still did because I like to hear every side of the story. that article did not express both sides and I still believe that MJ did it.

You believe he is innocent, and that your opinion, to each their own. I believe he did it, because no matter how many excuses people make for him I still feel there's more information out there that indicate MJ did molest children. That's all.

 Reply

Not so much as taking my ball and leaving but rather backing away slowly without ever taking my eyes off of you.

 Reply

Well, that article is what was readily available for me to link to. It is not, on it's own, what shaped my opinion. Honestly I have read to many different items to know links off the top of my head for every single one of them.

I have at least provided a starting point filled with actual facts and statements from key people in the case for people to do their own research. What I find sad is that you and a lot of other commenters keep implying that there is all this information out here which points to guilt but have yet to offer up anything substantial.

 Reply

Height of dramatic, yet asinine prose there.

Also, if GQ is a tabloid, I'll definitely save myself the trouble of reading the VF shit you just linked to.

Raise the journalistic bar or post more of your fancy prose.

 Reply

Comedy.

 Reply

The fact is that you have an opinion and so do I, and no matter how many articles we read, we'll probably just see the things that proves each of our points as facts. My opinion was not shaped on that article either btw. I can go an point out each thing that I found wrong about it but its seems pointless 1) because I'm not out to change your mind since you have the right to your own opinion 2)I don't believe it's a substantial piece like you said. I would rather focus on a better source, at the same time everything in the media is so sensationalized I don't know if I'll ever find one that is actually credible.

This thing can go on forever. I don't have as much time as other people to go out and read everything regarding that case, having said that my opinion is based on what I have read and what I have seen reported and that's just mine. I don't know If everything that I read and saw reported on tv is actually completely true, but I've yet to find anything to convince me otherwise.

If you're so sure that MJ is innocent then it shouldn't matter what other people think, specially since people who believe in his innocent have the upper hand in the debate since he was never convicted. I don't know why I've spent so much time on this really. I stand by everything I've said though. It's only my opinion and nothing but actual facts will ever change it.

 Reply

You've criticized the article and suggest it is pure nonsense, without really saying why you believe the info contained isn't factual. You say, "nothing but facts will change my mind", (um, the depositions and recorded phone calls documented should be good enough to past your "fact" test but OK).

I'm taking the time to present this stuff and this is what I'm hearing in response:

"My opinion is based on what I have read", and then *crickets*

"The article pointed to guilt", and then crickets.

"Based on what I've read, he is a molester", and then crickets.

No elaborations, no relaying of any real, tangible information, no expounding upon what specifically you read that influenced you this way...just a whole lot of nothing basically. We are left to guess what you could possibly be referring to or try to draw it out of you.

I'm pretty over it.

 Reply