I changed my mind about Michael Jackson

I used to think he did it. Molest kids, I mean. You know the saying on smoke and fire, and where the former is?
But then a Jackson fan told me that one of the 2 accusing boys now admits to lying. It sounded like a hoax story, so I looked it up. It was a hoax- a factually incorrect little piece that even gets the names of Jordan and his father wrong, and has only old photos of him, claimed that Jordan Chandler recently admitted his father made him lie about Jackson. That hoax tale was, rightfully, not carried by any major media source.

But those same articles I googled to see if it’s a hoax, also contained other facts. Facts that made me look deeper:

Two boys, both 13 at the time, accused Michael Jackson of molestation. Jordan Chandler did so in 1993, and Gavin Arvizo in 2003.

Jordan Chandler

Jordan‘s mother allowed him to share a bed with Michael, at both Jacko’s place and hers. She never believed he would molest her child. Jordy only accused Jackson after moving in with his divorced father. The father allegedly came to Michael for money to fund a film project. After Michael refused, he accused Michael for allegedly abusing his son. The father, Evan, on a tape recording, was heard to say:

“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”.

In the same recording, he was asked how this will affect his son. He answered

“That’s irrelevant to me…It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. It’s going to be bigger than all us put together…This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief…He will not sell one more record”.

But was Evan Chandler selfishly using molestation that did happen as a way to blackmail his son’s molester, or were they making it up? His son started making the allegations after his father, a dentist, gave him sodium amytal. Admissions made under the influence of the drug is highly controversial. Still , a significant anti-Jackson fact is that the boy described MJ’s buttocks and pubic area, and, according to the prosecution, it matched photos they took in their investigation:

With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
It wasn’t long after law enforcement’s photo session that Jackson agreed to settle Chandler’s civil claim for north of $20 million.
In a recent sealed affidavit, Tom Sneddon is quoted as saying that Chandler’s pre-search description (and a drawing) “corroborated” photos taken of Jackson and observations made by officers who examined the body of evidence.

Jacko chose to settle out of court with the family, for an amount reported as between $15 million and $22 million. The criminal case against Michael for allegedly molesting Jordan was dropped after that, since the young accuser refused to continue with criminal proceedings. The settlement contract spelled out that charges against Michael (called “the Action” in the document) had to be dropped after the pay-out. Jordan broke contact with his mother in 1994, and later got a court order against his father Evan for hitting him with a heavy object, macing him and choking him .

Gavin Arvizo

The second case is even more suspect. I’ll start with a story from years before the Jackson allegations: Young Gavin Arvizo, who later accused Jacko of molesting him, stole clothing from a JC Penney store in 1998. The security guards got involved in a scuffle with the family, and the mother claimed the guards assaulted her. (This article claims differently) JC Penney chose to settle, rather than drag a high-profile case to court. Michael’s lawyers used this evidence later, among others, to show the mother’s willingness to extort money.

People first got suspicious of the friendship between Jackson and Gavin Arvizo about at the time when Jackson admitted, in a BBC documentary on its “20/20” program, that he has shared his bed with children who were not related to him. Explained Jackson: “When you say bed, you’re thinking sexual. It’s not sexual, we’re going to sleep. I tuck them in It’s very charming. It’s very sweet.” He was holding Gavin Arvizo’s hand in said documentary, with the boy resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder. The suspicions were reported, but the boy denied allegations of abuse to an experienced social worker. (It is unclear if the later-alleged incidents was claimed to happen before or after the denial.) The Department of Child and Family Services did not suspect MJ of sexual abuse. Nor did they suspect the mother of neglect as also claimed by the informant.

The molestation allegations came out some months later, after the mother, Janet, contacted the same lawyer who helped in the Jordan Chandler case. The lawyer had a psychologist interview Gavin and his brother. The brother told how he saw Michael fondling Gavin, and Gavin himself testified to two occasions of alleged sexual abuse. They claimed that Michael made Gavin, a cancer survivor with his spleen and a kidney removed, drunk to facilitate the abuse. The psychologist believed them, but others witnessed that the boys’ mother taught them to lie when it would benefit them.

Several people witnessed that the Arvizo’s previously used the boy’s cancer to grift money from well-known people.(See here for one example.) George Lopez and others testified how the Arvizo’s cheated and lied to get what they want, and others told how the children were taught to lie. Gavin’s mother was found guilty of cheating on welfare some years before. Neverland employees (whom, it should be admitted, has a simple practical reason to lie on Michael’s behalf) testified that Gavin Arvizo and his brother was “out-of-control youngsters” who roamed Neverland stealing wine and getting drunk . In the week the mother and sons was allegedly kept prisoners at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch, the mother ran up $7 K in shopping bills. Her captivity story was obviously untrue.

On the other hand, the alleged victim testified that Michael would give him clean briefs to put on after each sexual encounter. Boys briefs like the alleged victim wore was found in Jackson’s home.
Gavin and his brother, among other stories, told that Jackson showed them nude photos prior to starting to molest Gavin, and they saw pornography in his room. The police investigation did reveal that there were loads of pornography and books of nude photos all over Neverland
, mostly not locked away, and his young guests most certainly would have had access to them.

Gavin and his brother contradicted themselves in the trail. Their mother was obviously dishonest. Macauley Culkin gave a glowing testimony , claiming that he often slept in Michael’s bed as a child, but there was no molestation. In the end, the jury had no choice but to find Jackson innocent on all charges. (Found “innocent” really only means that it is impossible to find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case there is good reason to believe the Arvizo family was dishonest.)

Conclusion

There is some change that the first, and a very good chance that the second, Michael Jackson molestation allegation was fake, both made up to extort money from the singer. Aphrodite Jones’ book “The Michael Jackson Conspiracy” apparently gives a very believable account of the second trail, by a journalist who started out believing he is guilty, but was convinced otherwise by the court evidence.) Yet I still dislike Michael. I find his strange relationships with children, motivated so much by his own needs and not theirs, unjustifiable.


13-year old boys do not need to sleep in bed with adult males. His habit of taking boys to bed was clearly motivated by his own needs- even if those were emotional and not sexual needs. He definitely left loads of pornography and nude photo books where his young guests could easily find them. A heavy drinker and prescription drug user himself, he apparently left alcohol within their reach too. And a “friendship” in which his little friend can even describe the splotch on his penis is highly suspicious, regardless of the terms you try to coax it in.


His own children were purposefully kept away from their mothers. Children need mothers, but he was apparently not concerned with their needs. Right now, his kids lost, for all practical purposes, the only parent they knew. And it could have been different. They could have still had motherly support in their lives now.

——

My second post on the topic is here: http://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/michael-jackson-not-a-pedophile-the-most-misleading-statement-made-by-michael-jackson-fans/

55 responses to “I changed my mind about Michael Jackson

  1. well i cannot make judgements on either parties for lying because i simply dont know what the truth is …and it is not for me or anyone else to judge based on the little info we know about each person..its only for god to know and judge and its in his hands!!

  2. Mel, I agree. But I won’t judge those who do judge him either. People did find it creepy when he admitted on TV to sleeping with boys (and basically advocated it as good.) And when the very boy who’se hand he was holding in that documentary, who’se head was on his shoulder, accused him of molestation some months later, we simply cannot judge the world for judging. And I cannot judge the boys either – we don’t really know.

  3. …ek is jammer maar ek val nie vir al die post mortem “erkennings” van die klaers nie. Waarom ‘n saak buite die hof skik as jy onskuldig is? En as jy ryk genoeg is om die beste verdediging denkbaar te koop?

  4. Hi Neil
    Ek stem. As jy skik beteken dit jy erken dit, hoekom verdedig jy nie jouself nie, tensy jy dalk iets ergers het om weg te steek as die aanteigings teen jou? En soos Retha sê: Hoekom is daar geen amptelike aankondiging gemaak dat dit leuens was nie, niemand nie?

  5. Neil en Boervrou: Nie een van ons glo die post-mortem erkennings nie. Ek het ook nie hierdie geskryf om hom onskuldig te bewys nie. (Dan sou ek mos nie die “splotches” op sy privaatdele, of die seuns-onderbroeke in sy huis genoem het nie.) Hierdie was ‘n elke-saak-het-2-kante inskrywing.

  6. Hi Retha
    Ek verstaan, ek gee net my opinie…

  7. AS FOR THE PIC AND JACKSON PENIS, THAT WAS A LIE. THE PIC SHOWED A MAN WHO WAS CIRCUMSIDED MJ WAS NOT. VITILIGO STARTS IN THE GROAN, ARMPITS AND MIDDLE BUT, ANYONE WITH A COMPUTER COULD FIND THAT OUT. EVAN CHANDLER WAS A DENTIST WHO KNEW DOCTORS AND AND FRIEND OF MJ. ALSO SINCE WHEN DOES A KID KNOW WHAT A CIRCUMSIZED AND UNCIRCUM LOOKS LIKE.

    THATS WHY THE SECOND CASE COULDNT USE THAT, IT WAS ALREADY TRIED.
    EVAN CHANLER WAS A JEW SO HE THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS CIRCUMZIED. THE PICTURE WAS NOT ACCURATE.

    MJ SAID HE HAD SLEEP OVERS, HE SAID HE SLEPT ON THE FLOOR, WITH GAVIN ON HIS BED, AND HIS BROTHER AND OTHER PPL IN THE ROOM, MJ HAS A BIG ROOM.

    HE ADMITTED IN 93 TO SLEEPING IN BEDS BUT SAID IT WASNT PLANNED, THEY SLEPT WHERE THEY GOT SLEEPY. I AGREE WITH HIM AND HIS KIDS AND WHAT YOU SAID.HE WAS WRONG FOR THAT.

    AS FOR PORN AND DRINKING, THE FIRST PORN I SAW WAS MY DADS, AND AS FOR DRINKING THE FIRST SIP I HAD WAS MY MOMS. YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT MIKE STOP LETTING KIDS IN HIS HOUSE HE WAS KIND OF OVER THE KID PHASE, HE HAD MOSTLY FAMILY MEMBERS WHO KNEW NOT TO TOUCH HIS STUFF, AND HIS KIDS WERE TODDLERS. THE GAVINS SOMETIMES STAYED THERE WHEN HE WASNT THERE. THEY STAYED AT HIS HOUSE A HANDFUL OF TIMES, THEY WERENT PERMANENT GUESS, SO YOU WOULD SEE WHY HE DIDNT MAKE HIS HOUSE SO ANTI PORN LIQUIR PROOF, MOST OF HIS COUSINS WERE TODLLERS, OR JUST KNEW NOT TO DIG IN HIS STUFF. BUT I AGREE THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOCKED UP.

    BUT AS FOR MJ USING THOSE KIDS THATS WRONG, THEY WERE HIS FRIENDS, JUST LIKE YOU HAD FRIENDS WHEN YOU WERE LITTLE. MACULLY CULKIN IS HIS CHILD GOD FATHER PRINCE AND PARIS.

    HE KICK STARTED ROB DANCING CAREER, ONE OF THE KIDS WHO CAME AND TESTIFIED FOR HIM, THEY WERE HIS FRIENDS.

    BRETT BARNES AND HIS STILL TALKED, ALONG WITH BRET MOM.

    I HATE THAT THEY MAKE IT SEEM LIKE HE TOOK THIS BOYS AND STOLE THEM. THE MOTHERS WOULD BE IN THE ROOM DURING THE SLEEP OVERS TOO.
    THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH SLEEPING IN THE SAME BEDS AS PPL. THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH TOUCHING LIL BOYS, WHICH HE DID NOT DO. BOY SCOTS USE TO SLEEP IN TENTS WITH BOYS, WAS THAT WRONG.

    THOSE KIDS ARENT BIOLOGICALLY HIS AND HE SLEPT IN THE BED WITH THEM, WAS THAT WRONG. NO

    PEDOPHILES USAULLY MOLEST A COUSIN OR CHILD SO IT DOESNT EVEN MATTER.

    ALSO BOTH PARENTS SIGNED A PAPER THAT SAID MIKE DID NOT MOLEST HIM, IT WAS THE EXACT WORD DID NOT MOLEST. ALSO THE PAPER DID NOT STOP JORDAN CHANDLER FROM TESTIFYING, BUT EVAN ALREADY GOT WHAT HE WANTED SO WHY GO THROUGHT THAT. HERE IS A LINK TO THE SETTLEMENT

    CHANGE THE # BEFORE THE GIF TO SEE THE 22 PAGE DOCUMENT.

    THE MEDIA HAS TWISTED THIS WHOLE THING, AND I THINK IM GONNA WRITE A SCREEN PLAY, MAYBE I WILL ASK EVAN CHANDLER TO HELP ME, AFTER ALL HE DID WANT A SCREENPLAY OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT

    TODDLES I SLEPT A LOT WORNG OH W/E

  8. Also many thought mj dipigmentated his whole body, but he didnt he still had pigment at his death. People close to him, (evan chandler and june chandler) would no that was fully white

  9. also his first accusation was that he touched the boy and his brother, and gave th sis wine, its in his first indicment. im sure tom sneddon said lets stick with the boy with cancer. and do research on tom, he wrote a new law just for micheal. it had to do with civil cases having to be after criminal cases, which is why when the arvizos went to larry felman( the lawyer who got the chandlers 15,000,000) they sent them to sneddon, cause the civil trial is not allowed before the criminal, sneddon just loved mike. The family also changed the times of the “molest” three times, to collaborate with mike cause as i stated before, the WHOLE family was there a couple of times when mj was out of town. the fam screwed up and so did the DA, they probably could have fooled the jury if they did not add the “kidnap” charges, cause she went to a spa and came back, went home and came back. her daughter had sex with one of the helpsd uring the “kidnap” they were of age. the chandlers were smart the arvizos were terible liars. lol this really should become a movie, i have found out so much since he has past. also the chandlers were known frauds, and they never lied about a child being FULLY covered by isurance for cancer yet still taking money from charitys and recieving money. The chandlers are my heros. lol

    ps. he was found “not guilty”, that doesnt mean innocent though i trully believe he was.

  10. read this blog they have the trascripts, where june chandler say that JORDAN chandler wanted the money for his molestion. sick.

    mike said he never had hate for the kids and said it was there parents, so freaking true. they were just kids so sad

    http://antonjackson.blogspot.com/2005/12/reason-why-michael-jackson-was-found.html

    look for transcripts

  11. lol i just had to come back,

    the funniest thing, is that evan chandler sued mj in 96 for 60,000,000 cause in his interview mj said he didnt do it. although evan himself signed a paper that said mj said he never molested him.
    mike breach the settlement by talking about it publically which they both are not allowed too. and guess what he ask for in the law suit lol. he wanted mike to pay for an album he wanted to release and album called EVANstory, coincedence mike just droped an album called HIStory.lol

    i really want to make a movie about this.

    i keep invading your blog lol this is all just so funny, i doubt it was funny to mj though’

    aww rip

  12. Almal het nou hulle eie opnie oor die hele MJ afair. Bottom line: ‘n Volwasse man slaap nie in die selfde bed as iemand anders se kinders nie. In vandag se tyd is daar soveel sick-ous jy kan nie bekostig om jou kinders moontlik bloot te stel aan so iets nie. Hy ♥ kids, ek verstaan, maar wys dit op ‘n ander manier. Hier by ons is ‘n ou in ‘n redelike mags posisie, hy kry met kinders te doen elke dag. Die ou maak my woedend! Hy druk altyd dogtertjies en vat aan hulle hare, en niemand sê niks, ek hou hom dop soms as ek wag vir my kids. Party meisies(hul begin al ontwikkel) probeer draai uit sy greep uit dan maak hy ‘n grap daarvan. Ek het nie tyd vir mense(mans) wat hul posisies gebruik om op kinders te prooi nie! Ek het vir my girls gesê as daai man aan jou raak sê jy my en ek breek sy vingers! Toe vra my dogtertjies maar hoekom hys so vriendelik, toe sê ek want hys ‘n oom, hys nie jou maaikie nie.

  13. Vitiligo, I said in my piece I understand now that he may be innocent. And I agree that one nagging point in my mind when I try to think he may be guilty in one (or maybe more) of the cases, is that many of the boys who spent time with him came forward to say they spent a lot of time with him, and he never molested them.

    AS FOR THE PIC AND JACKSON PENIS, THAT WAS A LIE. THE PIC SHOWED A MAN WHO WAS CIRCUMSIDED MJ WAS NOT.

    Why, then, would the prosecution have wanted to use the info that Jordan gave about MJ’s private parts? Why say: “I’ll show how precise the photo’s is” if the photos will show the opposite? You could say a lot of negative things about Sneddon, but you can’t say that he will undermine his case on purpose. (Oh, and what is your source for MJ being uncircumcised, since I assume neither of us saw the MJ body part we are currently discussing?)

    ALSO BOTH PARENTS SIGNED A PAPER THAT SAID MIKE DID NOT MOLEST HIM, IT WAS THE EXACT WORD DID NOT MOLEST. …. HERE IS A LINK TO THE SETTLEMENT

    I also link to the settlement. Where does it state that Mike did not molest him? Which page? I read it and can’t find what you find. It’s important to me – where does it say did not molest? (It does say they should not understand the payout as an admission of guilt, though.)
    Point 6, page Page 8 & 9: “The minor, ….. acquit and forever discharge … Jackson … from any and all charges, …. causes of action, suits … against Jackson.” I would guess that means Jordan could not criminally charge him after the pay-out.

    read this blog they have the trascripts, where june chandler say that JORDAN chandler wanted the money for his molestion. sick.

    mike said he never had hate for the kids and said it was there parents, so freaking true. they were just kids so sad

    There is no transcripts on the link you gave. About blaming the parents, that I believe. It is obvious that the parents were using their kids in both the Chandler and Arvizo stories to get what they want. And that is very sad. The Arvizo kids was taught to lie, I believe the defence in the case on that.

    Boervrou: It’s a pity you gave your opinion in Afrikaans, it might have benefitted Vitiligo to read it.

  14. .

    lol MOST black men dont get circumszed.

    i really dont get what you are saying. sneddon, never went to trial in 93, mj was indicted. he said it was exact but it was not and a doc said it wasnt, but sneddon wanted you to think it was. he never told a jury it was exact, he told the media that.

    point blank, mike pennis still wasnt depiged. it didnt matter if jordan got every brown strip wrong, it was the fact that he knew he had brown strips, as i stated research and being in the medicalk field you would know where viti hits you. there also rumors of a close maid to mike who help evan chandler, who worked real close with mj

    ok i will link it it is 22 pages long, dang im gonna have to go through the whole thing ill be back, translet it for me

  15. price of settlement paid by mikes insurance

    this is the page where he admits to some fancy word, but says he does not admite to moslestation http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0616041jacko7.gif

    it basically made it seem like he paid for a car accident injuries lol

    it basically stop them from talking about it in public or making a book. BUT they can talk about it in court, which june chandler did do in 2005. where it was revealed she has spoken to her son since 1995 when the dad took him away.

    rumor has it that chandler will not talk about cause he knew nothing happen and that is why he did not testify in 2005.

    chandler can not issue a statement if he does he will have to give back 15,330,000.

    the moms 1.5 mill the dads 1.5 mill and the lawyer who slit it with the psychologist 5 mill and jordie 8 mill.

    he want be speaking, unless he finds Jesus or something.

  16. the transprits or on the side bar,its under the name of contributers

    http://antonjackson.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.html

    it is right before it list the months and archives its alot, it is really funny too

  17. sorry i mean mj wasnt indicted.

    i wish you would get aquantied with sneddon he has been upset with mike since 93. he even went to australia to make bret barnes say someting happen, in i think 95 but he said nothing happen and came back with his mom in 2005 to testify for mike and both said nothing happen and the mom admitted to sleeping in the room sometimes.

    they had no case yet still went to trial tom was relentless. and he would lie and say it was an exact. i doubt you even know your exact penis(if you have one) but i trully believe that if the boy was exact then mike would have been indicted, cause they already had jordan chandlers statement. they did need him to go to trial, but they did need him to win the trial.

    the grand jury TWO grand jurys heard all the evidence and still did not indict mj,
    also though he was forced mj could have done something, gotten a tatoo, put make up, something before the examination, but he just took off his pants and showed them.

    i cant find the link of the article that said it was inconclusive

    and i think no matter what. ppl will always say theres no way a man lets his song get touched and doesnt press charges.

  18. I dont know if you are familiar with the oj case but he was found not guilty and then sued and lost a wrongful death case.

    now one thing is that Evan chandler sued mike civilly first, so he would have had to go to court civiilly and then criminally. the civil case would have been first, so the prosecuter would have seen his defense and maybe use it to convict him. so he settled the civil case to avoid the criminal case knowing his defense. but of course the chandlers got what they wanted so they did not make the child tesityfy.

    (and there was another boy(yeah i know crazy) but his mother took a payment of 2 mill, when he tesified in 2005 he said he did know she was getting money( they dont pay all at once it monthly installments. his story still makes me second guess mikes, he says mike tickled him and touch his balls when he was 7 and 10. but in his first interview he said nothing happen and said he wanted “to hit the cops cause they kept pusihing him to remember” a cop also admitss later on to lying to the boy and saying he himself was molested)

    but yeah the chandlers got what they wanted. so there was no need to make there child lie once again.and as i stated before sneddon change the law right after the mike case, to make it that the civil case had to start after the criminal case all for his love mj. so the arvizos were gonna sue right after he was found guilty, so sad they would have watch him go to jail while his kids suffered. money money money money……money

  19. “The boy had given a detailed description of the star’s body and the detectives needed to check if it was true. Jackson was warned that if he refused to cooperate, he’d be arrested and taken away in handcuffs.”

    from some book, he indeed could have made sure he wasnt exposed,he would have went to jail, but no one would have ever seen him.

    HERE IS A SITE ITS BIT BIAS, BUT IT GIVES FACTS ABOUT LAWS

    http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/main.html

  20. evan chandler speaking on tape

  21. VITILIGO kry jou eie blog, jy neuk retha se moi blog op, en kry ‘n woordeboek!

  22. Logically speaking, is the claim that Chandler made about Jacko’s privates likely or not?
    Which sources would be most likely to know if Chandler’s claim was true? I’d say that the police photos taken in the first case, the policemen who took it, and the people, including the prosecution, who had access to it, would be good sources.

    Premise 1: The Jacko police photos in the Chandler case is the best source for how Jacko’s privates looked.

    According to Court transcripts (date 26 May 2005, Block 12175 to 12176, from the transcript link Vitiligo gave), it was the prosecution (deputy district attorney Zonen) who wanted to use the photos.

    Premise 2: The prosecution knew the photos, and wanted to use them as evidence.

    The defense argued that the photos should not be allowed. (Sanger- Block 12176-12181) In the end it was inadmissable, since Jordan Chandler would not be witnessing to say that those photos matches his description.(12183, lines 6-11)

    Premise 3: The defense did not want the photos used.

    Conclusion 1: The photo’s would help the prosecution’s case, not the defense’s.
    Conclusion 2: Assuming that the prosecution were not mis-reporting wat Jordan Chandler said, you may assume that Jacko’s privates looked like Chandler said.
    Conclusion 3: Assuming that the press accurately reported what was indirectly said by Chandler, with the word “circumcised” being no mistake, you may assume that Jacko is probably circumcised.

    My best guess, therefore, is that his description was accurate. Second best guess: the prosecution lied about what the boy described, in order to match the photos. I don’t see how the prosecution would have wanted to use a wrong description and photos that contradict it.

  23. RealityCheck

    Ask yourself this: If Jordan Chandler’s 1993 description and drawings did not match the later photos of Jackson’s genitals, why then did the Santa Barbara District Attorney try so hard to get both admitted as evidence of MJ’s prior bad acts in the criminal trial more than a decade later?

    Seriously, only a few people have seen Chandler’s drawings, and the photos of MJ’s privates, one of them is the DA, and in a close trial, this DA requested during the rebuttal phase that the jury be allowed to see the drawings and photos so that they could make up their own minds as to whether or not Chandler accurately described Jacksons’ genitals.

    The request, opposed by the defense, was denied, but the fact remains: the DA was confident enough in Chandler’s drawings and descriptions to ask that the jurors be allowed to see this strong evidence of Jackson’s involvement in the Chandler case.

  24. Thanks, Reality check, that’s exactly what my comment #23 meant.

  25. REtha and reality , all i know is that in 1994 the grand jury did not indict MJ, they saw these pics, TWO grand jurys did not indict them, and one person said that there wasnt enough eveidence. Now the simple fact that chandler knows mike had vitiligo marks on his penis was enough. the jury would have saw that, it would not matter if they were to the t accurate, its the simple fact that he knew it.The jury would have been swed, and mike could DID NOT HAVE TO TAKE THAT PICTURE. he would have been arrested but he did not have to take it they would probably have to get another warrant, and hey by that time mike could got a tatoo, or circumsised or change something.im just saying, if you know you did it and you know your penis is unique, why not just get arrested and beat the case, the grand jury saw it and apparently it was not enough for them. lawyers are slick, you know how they ask a question they know they are not suppose to ask, and the person sort of answers, then teh judge says, strick that answer out. the jury still heard it, its in their minds, that pic would have swed them. even if it wasnt to the “T”, I as a jury would be like,”it wasnt exact, but how did he know he had discoloration down there”

    “Seriously, only a few people have seen Chandler’s drawings, and the photos of MJ’s privates, one of them is the DA, and in a close trial, this DA requested during the rebuttal phase that the jury be allowed to see the drawings and photos so that they could make up their own minds as to whether or not Chandler accurately described Jacksons’ genitals.”

    i myslef have seen the drawings, some guy put it in his book. it was on this blog but was deleted. i will search for the pic, but ist useless, cause i dont have a pic of mikes

  26. IM SORRY I HAVE READ SO MANY ARTICLE’S ON THESE CASE’S AND NO GOOD PARENT WOULD EXCEPT MONEY IF THERE CHILD WAS MOLESTED OVER SENDING HIM TO JAIL. I ALSO READ THAT THEY BOTH ADMITTED THEY HAD LIED, THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THEM UP ON CHARGES FOR USING THERE KIDS TO GET MONEY. SHAME ON THE PARENT’S.THEY RUINED A MANS LIFE AND I TRULY BELIEVE THEY ARE A PARTIAL REASON WHY MICHALE IS DEAD. HE WAS SO HUMILATED HE COUD NOT HANDLE WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. HE SEEMS LIKE SUCH A WARM KIND GENTLE OF INNOSENCE WHO WOULD NEVER HURT A FLY, NO LESS CHILDREN..

  27. Vitiligo-
    Yes, I agree that there was not enough evidence in 1994. There couldn’t be enough evidence, since Jordan said he would not testify. There is hardly any kind of evidence that can make up for lack of a molested witness in a child molestation case. In fact, if you had a pregnant 13-year-old girl, and DNA evidence of who the adult father is, and she told a policeman he raped her, but she refuses to testify in court, the law in most places in the Western World would still not prosecute him. Without a testifying victim, it is very unlikely that a child molestation case will be prosecuted. That is true in most of the world.

    Would there have been enough evidence here, had Jordan Chandler testified? I don’t know. But he did not testify after MJ’s payment, so the case was dropped.

    Butterfly – no reputable source say the boys (men now) admitted they lied. It may be so that they lied and ruined a man’s life, but the stories about them admitting it are not reliable. (See the words in second paragraph, after “but then …”)

  28. I AGREE RETHA.

    I AM ORDERING TWO BOOKS ONE CALLED THE MJ CONSPIRACY AND REDEMPTION WRITTEN BY THE PARALEGAL WHO WORKED WITH THE LAWYER EVAN FIRST TRY TO SCAM WITH BUT WAS LATER SNUBBED. HIS ASSISTANT WROTE A BOOK AND IT SUPPOSDELY EXAPLIAN HOW THE WHOLE PLAN WENT DOWN. WHEN IM DONE I COME AND WRITE A REVIEW

    I THINK IM AM GOING TO WRITE A SCREEN PLAY ABOUT THIS. BUT I WILL PUT IN FAKE NAMES, LIKE MICTHEL JACOBS. CAUSE I REALLY DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPEN, AND I WOULD WANT TO BOTHER A ABUSE VICTIM. THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN AMERICA IS SCREWED. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT MOVIE. FALSE ALLEGATION CAN RUIN SOMEONES LIFE, MOLESTATION ISNT A JOKE AND KNOW ONE SHOULD USE IT TO GET MONEY.

    BYE FOR NOW

  29. He died…let him rest now.

  30. people, Jackson Was Not Pedophile nor gay! poor thing was castrated, some sources say his father hit him on purpose to keep his voice high. or there are suspicions he might have taken young Michael through medical procedure. What ever it was MJ very much fits castrato profile. the last officially known castrato dead in 1920 in Europe. If you take a look at Michaels life and his strange behavior including child molestation and plastic surgeries castration would clearly make senses to you. go see in wikipedia or just search google “michael jackson castrati” and you ll find really interesting articles about this. i myself dont have any questions and doubts about MJ. I know he was a Peter Pan as he told us many times, he just never grew up, he never understood why could not he “child” was not allowed to sleep over or hang over with another boys. because mentally he was a boy himself, Peter pan. He never had sex with woman and i believe with nor men or boys either. He was a HUMAN Tragedy behind the glorious King of POP. Rest in Peace Angel.

  31. Almal is net so groot fans van Micheal dat hulle nie die waarheid raak sien nie. Hy HET (en dit is bewys) kinders gemolesteer. Die waarheid is onderdruk, glo wat jy wil maar daar is ‘n ware waarheid en ten minste is die ou pedofile dood!

  32. Stephen, jy sien seker dat ek nie gesê het hy is wel onskuldig nie? Die bostaande stuk het argumente vir albei kante gegee, na ek besef het die mense wat reken hy is onskuldig het meer argumente as wat ek gedog het. Maar as jy van nog redes weet om te glo hy is skuldig, gee gerus jou redes – en sommer bronne vir die redes ook- hier. Dis hoe ons ander nou weer by jou leer.

  33. Pingback: Michael Jackson “not a pedophile”? The most misleading statement made by Michael Jackson fans « Looking around and trying to understand

  34. Pingback: For people still doubting michael jackson was a pedophile « quintal do

  35. I know I’m going to probably sound like a fucking idiot, but all because the child accurately described his penis it doesn’t necessarily mean Mr. Jackson molested him. He could have seen him naked in the bathroom without him knowing or his father (or him) could have obtained that piece of information from someone, who knows.

    I think Michael Jackson definitely had major psychological issues but I personally don’t believe he was a pedophile. There’s too many suspicious things about both families.

  36. Anyone who saw Michael with swim trunks on or a tank top could tell you that he had discolorations all over his body.

  37. The story of Jordan Chandler going public and saying that he made the whole thing up is a lie. However, there is some truth to the claim that he admitted it never happened and he would never forgive his parents for what they made him say. Tom Messereu talks about it in 2005 here.
    http://site2.mjeol.com/video/video-2005-mesereau-had-witnesses-ready-to-testify-against-chandler.html

  38. I posted a lot on your other blog and didn’t notice this one. So it seems you are a reasonable person, even if you don’t like ‘wako jacko’.

    We don’t know if the pictures were an exact match cause Sneddon was on a vendetta and is willing to say and do anything to ruin Michael Jackson’s reputation. His blind hatred for Michael Jackson caused him to embarass himself in court and loose all credibility. He could be just lieing about those pictures. By the time he asked to used the pictures in 2005 case (he made a last minute bid) he’d already lost the case and had nothing to loose by showing them off. So what if he shows them pictures that don’t match the drawing? At least they get a good look at Michael’s spotted prick. He’d already called Debie Rowe to the stand and everybody knows how that went. LOL

    And quintal do, I already got you good on your own blog.

  39. Also, I agree with you about MJ’s relationships with kids being inappropriate. According to Corey Feldman, who was friends with MJ as a kid and vehemently denies he was ever molested, MJ would get very close to a child, then ditch them. He would tell them he would always be there for them and if they needed him they could call him. A few weeks later he’d stop returning their calls and change his phone number. He was very disloyal to be and couldn’t keep many close relationships even with children. Corey claims that did more harm than good to the kid he was supposed to be helping.

    I think thats exactly what MJ did to Gavin Arvizo. He made the poor think he was his friend and would be ‘Daddy Michael’ forever. Then he started ignoring him and not returning his calls. The boy got emotional about this on the stand, but was very calm and easy going when describing his alleged molestation. Probably sometime after the Martin Bashir interview, it became clear MJ did not want to have anything to do with him anymore. That was probably why he was willing to go along with his mother’s schemes.

  40. I dont think his friendship with children are innappropriate. I think Michael may have had a good reasons to ditch those kids because maybe their parents are questionable. Maybe he sensed something. When kids get too close to him it makes the parents jelous sometimes and I think that is probably the reason why he had to cut some of those relationships off. Plus he was busy, He had so many things to do. Corey Feldman, the things he doies in his personal life, to me was questionable. Maybe thats why MJ dissed him.

  41. No, Look at the documentary The Truth About Neverland, The Gavins had gotten out of control. They started taking advantage of Michael’s kindness. Plus, Gavin looked bad on televison after the Bashir documentary aired and was teased. I guess they felt that they should have been compensated.

  42. Ok, you make good points. However, it is still VERY cruel to do that to a 12/13 year old especially one like Gavin who had few people in his life who were good to him.

    The problem is he showered to kids with TOO much attention. He should not have led them on like that. Yes, he could be nice and caring but he should not act like or claim that he will be there for the kid forever when he won’t. MJ had very bad judgement in the way he carried out these relationships.

    And if Gavin and his siblings were out of control at Neverland I suspect its at least partially because MJ contributed to the problem. He allowed them to do whatever they wanted. He did not set rules or give them any boundaries.

    I don’t think its fair to put all the blame on Gavin, when MJ was the real adult(even if he refused to act like one) in the relationship and should have been more responsible. He’s not their daddy. He has his own kids. How come he let them call him ‘Daddy Michael’?

  43. How do we know that Michael even said that?A woman can vow to love a man forever, and his actions can push her away. And as far as giving them rules and setting bondaries, He was hardly even there. That’s what they had parents for, and they acted one way around him and his employees were telling M They were out of control before they even met Michael Jackson and I don’t blame Gavin for what transpired at the time because he was a child it was his mothers fault. But now, Gavin is responsible for himself and his own actions. He needs to come forward and tell the truth.

  44. How do we know that Michael even said that?A woman can vow to love a man forever, and his actions can push her away. And as far as giving them rules and setting bondaries, He was hardly even there. That’s what they had parents for, and they acted one way around him and his employees were telling Michael something completely different. They were out of control before they even met Michael Jackson,stealing and lying under oath. and I don’t blame Gavin for what transpired at the time because he was a child it was his mothers fault. But now, Gavin is responsible for himself and his own actions. Jordan Chandler is responsible for himself and his own actions. Its time to tell the truth!!!!!!!!!!!

  45. Chris Tucker even talked about how bad Gavin was before the allegations on Jay Leno

  46. Amerie Says:

    Oktober 13, 2009 at 8:38 vm
    The story of Jordan Chandler going public and saying that he made the whole thing up is a lie. However, there is some truth to the claim that he admitted it never happened and he would never forgive his parents for what they made him say. Tom Messereu talks about it in 2005 here.

  47. Everyonw who comments next time, Please state your sources after you give an example:)

  48. truth say.

    the media makes it seem like mike and gaivn spent alot of time together, but they did not. They saw each other about 15 times, in the span of 2000-2003. He spoke to him on the phone praying with him alot, telling him to heal and they asked mike to let them call him dad and they he said if its okay wth your parents, cause thats what they mother taught them to do, cause she knew MJ had a soft spot for kids and would keep them with him. It wasnt like jordan, who he considerd a friend and spent ALOT of time with his mother.

    with that said.Mark Geragos mikes first lawyer told mike to get rid of that family, he had found out that they sued jc penny, and told mike to get rid of them, still he did not, but his ppls started monitoring them, cause mark G told them too. They left neverland,mike did not kick them out mike did not tell them to stop talking to him.In fact she said, I know its not mike its his ppl she said” they dont want us to be around mike, cause they know my children pull at his heart strings” exact words.

    Correy is weird, he said mike helped him when he had his drug addiction when he was a grown man, he showed up to his funeral dressed like him, that guy is weird.

    MJ was friends with these children, one boy even got married at neverland. I dont think it was inapropriate if nothing happen. Mj was friends with hundreds of boys and girls and I have heard of only 3 saying bad things about him(though three is enough to raise eyebrows). During the trial, grown women and men, came to trial to testify and say that they love mike, and still are friends with him to this day and visit neverland yearly. So the whole theory of droping them when they get older is crap.

    I blame the parents, mike was not at fault, if he indeed did not touch them.

    Picture this, your sitting at home, you get a call from make a wish foundation (who has him on speed dial),this kids dying and his last wish is to meet you, what do you do, you do everything, he is gonna die so you lavish him with gifts, you take care of his family you show this boy love maybe he will live if you do, and even if he dies, he will know hat someone cared.

    They said that boy was gonna die, they said its a miracle he didnt, I dont know what happen. All I know is that mike was tracked down, and thrown a sob story, they knew who to call.

    me and gavin are the same age, in 2000 my dying wish would not be to meet MJ.I would wanna meet him, but it would not be my dying wish. Gavin wanted to be an actor, just like jordan chandler, he didnt wanna be a singer or dancer, why would you wanna meet mike, y not justin timberlake or britney spears, leanardo dicaprio, they were big at that time, those our the artist of my generation.

    THAT MOTHER KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING, THAT
    IS WHY SHE CONTACTED LAYWERS ABOUT MIKE BEFORE SHE EVEN MET HIM, THATS WHY SHE USED THE SAME LAWYER THAT THEY USED IN THE 93 CASE, THIS WAS A CON.

    AND ANY MOTHER WHO WOULD LEAVE HER SON ALONE WITH A MAN WHO WAS ACCUSED OF MOLESTATION, SHOULD BE HANGED, EVEN MIKE SAID HE WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO LIVE HIS CHILD WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS ACUSSED OF THATIF HE DIDNT PERSONALLY KNOW HIM. SHE SAID MIKE WAS NEVER ALONE WITH HER SON, THEN LATER SAYS HE WAS, IF HE WAS MOLESTED(I DONT THINK HE WAS) THEN THIS WOMAN COULD GET IN TROUBLE, WHICH IS WHY THE D.A HAD O BRING OUT THIS WHOLE KIDNANPPED STORY TO MAKE SURE THE MOM DIDNT GET IN TROUBLE FOR ALOWING HER SON TO BE “ALONE” WITH HIM.

    RANT OVER

  49. June and mj,I love you. I am so totally with you. I think it was a setup from the beginning. You made a good point, why would he want to meet Michael Jackson? He wasnt alive in that era.

    Second, Jordan Chandler turned into an extortion case once Michael refused to pay his fathers 20 million dollar deals. The third accuser, (the maids son) which is questionable, but you have to evaluate the person making the claims. The mother sold stories to the tabloids, stole from Michael, lied on the stand, and this boy and his mom were cross examined by 2 grand juries– and it still didnt go to trial.

    Also, even if the accusers were paid, those settlements didnt prevent them from pressing charges. A guilty person would not allow this. Thats why they were able to testify in court in 2005.(The maids son) His whole story of the molestation to me sounded dubious. 5 years of therapy with the DA present for the first year?– Parents who were questioned in 93 acknowledged that the police were saying things to trick the children into making allegations.

    The police flew across the world to examine the maid because she sold stories to the tabloid. If she didnt back up her claims she may have went to jail for “public mischief” she was a greedy woman who made her son lie as well. And why would Tom Sneddon use the same witnesses that were torn apart by the grand jury 10 years prior? The were exposed as liars in 93.

    Tom Mesereau did his research and spoke with someone who were on the original grand juries in 93. He said they thought it was all a hoax and there was no crime and the families just wanted money. If Michael was a pedo, it would be safe to say that he wouldnt be good around his own children.

  50. Amerie, thank you. To me the maid son, was the only beleivable one.UNTILL I found out the details, tom sneddon found her from a tabloid. Jason said and is on tape saying MJ did not touch him, and admitted that the cops were pressuring, but later on says he was affraid to tell the cops.

    Then he was asked if MJ would give him money for good grades, one day he said yes, the next he said no, during the trial. He says Mj tickled his ball and gave him $100 and told him not to tell his mom. Where was he gonna spend 100 bucks without his mom finding out. the ice cream truck doesnt take it. He said it happen 3 times at age 7,9, 10. That big of a money, why not five bucks.

    To me MJ was a smart man, ppl can say what they wont, but he wasnt dumb, he was a billionare by the age of 30, you dont get there by being dumb, If he was a pedo he wouldnt be so open about tell ppl about having kids in his room, especially after the first allegation.
    im just sayin.

  51. Your absolutely right, and while people want to judge him, saying he put himself in that predictament, think about this. A child makes a dying wish to meet you. You visit him, the child is bald, lost vital organs to cancer, and can barely walk. He says: I want to go to your house, I want to tag along with you. Let me stay with you. Not to mention the fact that this man loves kids. I don’t really fancy children that much but even I cant see myself turning away from that situation. He was lured in, The kid was dying.

  52. the truth Says:

    Oktober 17, 2009 at 12:43 vm

    “Ok, you make good points. However, it is still VERY cruel to do that to a 12/13 year old especially one like Gavin who had few people in his life who were good to him.
    The problem is he showered to kids with TOO much attention. He should not have led them on like that. Yes, he could be nice and caring but he should not act like or claim that he will be there for the kid forever when he won’t. MJ had very bad judgement in the way he carried out these relationships.
    And if Gavin and his siblings were out of control at Neverland I suspect its at least partially because MJ contributed to the problem. He allowed them to do whatever they wanted. He did not set rules or give them any boundaries.
    I don’t think its fair to put all the blame on Gavin, when MJ was the real adult(even if he refused to act like one) in the relationship and should have been more responsible. He’s not their daddy. He has his own kids. How come he let them call him ‘Daddy Michael’”?

    **************

    There are no reliable sources, (apart from Corey Feldman, alone, said, and he obviously took his experience very personally) to say that this was some kind of trait with Michael Jackson.

    However, he would have had every right to distance himself from the following:

    The Arvizo brothers ran amuck in Neverland whenever Michael was away, which was quite often, and delved into places they KNOW they should not have, including being caught by Neverland staff sneaking in/out of the wine cellar,(drinking), disrespecting property, leaving one of the go-carts damaged and overturned, leaving their rooms trashed, etc…Neverland staff found them too wild to handle at times , bad mannered and foul mouthed: More details about their behaviour are straight from court transcripts, Aphrodite Jones, ‘Michael Jackson Conspiracy’.

    Conveniently – within months of the Bashir documentary being aired, AND only after Michael distancing himself from Arvizos, (which they did NOT take kindly too), low and behold, they start their accusations- Jackson decides to fight this time and it goes to trial – however, by the end of it, he was left a gaunt and broken man – and never the same after that.

  53. 40.the truth Says:

    Oktober 15, 2009 at 1:33 vm

    “Also, I agree with you about MJ’s relationships with kids being inappropriate. According to Corey Feldman, who was friends with MJ as a kid and vehemently denies he was ever molested, MJ would get very close to a child, then ditch them. He would tell them he would always be there for them and if they needed him they could call him. A few weeks later he’d stop returning their calls and change his phone number. He was very disloyal to be and couldn’t keep many close relationships even with children. Corey claims that did more harm than good to the kid he was supposed to be helping.

    I think thats exactly what MJ did to Gavin Arvizo. He made the poor think he was his friend and would be ‘Daddy Michael’ forever. Then he started ignoring him and not returning his calls. The boy got emotional about this on the stand, but was very calm and easy going when describing his alleged molestation. Probably sometime after the Martin Bashir interview, it became clear MJ did not want to have anything to do with him anymore. That was probably why he was willing to go along with his mother’s schemes”

    Oops! Replied to wrong post… My last post was actually in reply to your post, above.

  54. Angie, You know what I also found interesting is that the Arvisos never mentioned child molestation until they met with the lawyer who won the Chandlers (reportedly 20 mil) 10 million dollars.They initially were looking for lawyers to sue Martin Bashir. She must have spoke to him and saw dollar signs.

    Similar to Evan Chandler, I dont believe he was thinking about child-molestation until he got with Barry Rothman. At first he claimed that Michael just broke up the family.

Lewer kommentaar

Verskaf jou besonderhede hieronder of klik op 'n logo om in te teken:

WordPress.com Logo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by WordPress.com. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Twitter. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Facebook. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Google+. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s