Michael Jackson Pedophile Reality Check: Is It Mean to Suspect that Michael Jackson Might Have Been a Pedophile?
The short answer is no, it’s not mean or irrational.
Under normal circumstances nobody gets to do what Michael Jackson did (bring unrelated children into his bedroom overnight). No adult man gets to do that without suspicion cast upon him by other adults. It’s simply not sane to give adult males that kind of latitude with the most vulnerable among us. And for Jackson to engage in that behavior—bringing children into his bedroom overnight—and then act put-upon by the public for being suspicious that he was a pedophile is outrageous.
An analogy: Every weekend a suburban woman goes to a street corner known to be frequented by prostitutes. She gets picked up by cruising men who drive her to nearby motels. Before they return her to the same street corner, they give her money. She tells people that she never has sex with the men. Never touches them. Never blows them. Never lets them put their hands on her. She just talks to them. They simply drive around. She feels compassion for the men. They’re lonely. She tells them about Jesus. She wants to help them. She doesn’t understand why all those around her suspect she’s a whore.
Jackson engaged in equally outrageous (and suspicion generating) actions—many of them characteristic of pedophiles—and then he is shocked—shocked!—that people might suspect that he is, well, a pedophile. And the power disparity between Jackson and the children who visited his bedroom for “sleep-overs” is enormous. A wealthy man in his forties was bringing children unrelated to him into his bedroom alone overnight. A person needs to absorb the import of that before suggesting that the suspicion directed toward Jackson is unreasonable and based on animus.
Furthermore, to treat pedophile-suspicion directed toward Michael Jackson as a form of persecution is to tell people it is wrong to speak plainly about what is evident. Jackson lived his life in ways characteristic of a pedophile. It doesn’t mean that he was one. It means that there is a real probability that he was one. No adult male gets to bring unrelated children into his bedroom alone overnight without suspicion being rendered by other adults. It would be a monstrous dereliction of duty toward the children involved not to cast that suspicion. And it would be Orwellian not to speak to others plainly about it.
I understand “innocent until proven guilty.” But I sure the hell wouldn’t have had him anywhere near my children. And the children that he did bring around him were oftentimes hugely vulnerable (cancer patients; boys of poor single mothers). An adult single male obsessed with Peter Pan and decorating his bedroom with children’s toys was bringing kids into his bedroom for “sleep-overs.” That should set off five alarm predator worries in any sane parent who is not stupid or tempted by greed. And Jackson showed zero evidence of having any serious impulse control. The older I get, the less patience I have for bullshitters. Michael Jackson was, in my view, a huge bullshitter who got away with spectacular amounts of bullshit. It’s like Rush Limbaugh, G. Beck, and Jimmy Swaggart. Everyday, bullshitters look at their bank accounts and say, “How stupid people are!” This, in my view, was what Jackson was doing. He was using his fame and wealth and “mystery power” to get away with things. It’s an old game. If you dress like a glitzy version of Captain Crunch (as Chris Rock noted that Jackson did), or put on the clothing of a priest, or have money, then you can cast spells on people and get away with stuff.
Jackson was a spell-caster.
Below is a video of reporter Martin Bashir speaking of Jackson. Bashir illustrates the problem. Note Bashir’s rhetorical tone-down of what it means to be a single man bringing young boys into his bedroom for “sleep-overs,” and his logically fallacious “I never saw anything” obscurantism. His emotional solemnity is also cloying. It’s all slight of hand and euphemism. Of course he wouldn’t have seen anything. It means nothing. I have a great deal of contempt for people who use language in ways that distort, rather than clarify, an issue. It’s like using “enhanced interrogation” for “torture.” Michael Jackson was suspected of being a pedophile because he brought vulnerable children into his orbit and took them into his bedroom overnight alone. At least Bashir, as a journalist, could describe things accurately. But, of course, he doesn’t. But the rest of us should.
I can see why the embedding of this video was disabled. Its complicity is shameful. But you can still get to it directly here.
[...] more of my take on Michael Jackson, see here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)THURSDAY MOURNING WITH FARRAW FAWCETT AND MICHAEL [...]
Michael Jackson. The Emperor Has No Clothes? « Prometheus Unbound
June 29, 2009 at 8:31 am
I agree with content of this blog as I believe where there is smoke there is fire and the suspicious smoke surrounding Michael Jackson was the equivalent of the Great Chicago Fire.
I also agree that Jimmy Swaggart, Michael Jackson and even Rush Limbaugh are bullshitters. (Rush because he praises all things R and denigrates all things D.) But I disagree about Glenn Beck. He is a conservative commentator who like other commentators just speak their opinion. I personally find him to be conscientious and accurate. He admits when he was wrong, and gets blasted by liberal apologists. And the liberal apologists (like B. Walters and W. Goldberg) do not offer the same courtesy of admitting when they got something wrong about Beck.
Harold
July 2, 2009 at 8:47 pm
It is very reassuring to read and see the intelligence of this blog after all the BS of the press coverage.
I loved Jackson’s music and dancing, but he was a paedophile and young, vulnerable children were exploited for his grown man perversions.
Just read the transcript of Jordan Chandler’s evidence in court, it is sickening and a child could not make it up.
Very rich people can get away with anything they want and we the people allow it, through our infatuation with celebrity.
As for Bashir saying Jackson was the greatest song and dance entertainer. Ever heard of Fred Astair? And he did not generate rumours involving children.
Katherine
July 4, 2009 at 10:14 am
I’m a fan of Fred Astaire but Michael Jackson was a thousand times more talented. As far as pedophilia goes, who cares?
MJ is dead now. Get over it.
Will
July 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Get over it? Is that what you tell his tens and probably hundreds of victims? A majority of them will never get over it and that needs to be acknowleged. I just don’t understand how people have turned a blind eye to the victims and the consequences they suffer at the hands of Michael Jackson.
When I saw Michael Jackson’s performance at the Mowtown 25 celebration, it blew me away. It’s probably the greatest performance I’ve ever viewed. So what. He was a serial pedophile who destroyed countless lives. That is what matters!
Ginnette
July 28, 2009 at 11:43 am
Ginnette:
To be fair, he was an alleged pedophile. He was never convicted.
—Santi
santitafarella
July 28, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ginnette:
Yes, that is what I would tell his alleged victims. He’s dead now. What can they or anyone else do about it now?
Will
July 30, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Well Will, I don’t think Jackson was more talented than Astaire. And why should we get over his pedophilia? Why should it be OK to sexually abuse young children just because you like Jackson’s “Pop music” and moonwalk?
As a matter of talent, not pedophilia, try watching Astaire dance “Putting on the Ritz”. It is far better than the strutting and posing before a moonwalk.
It is not OK to sexually asault little children or seduce poor people with money, so you can get your hands on their kids. If you don’t like that, get over it!
Katherine
July 12, 2009 at 9:54 am
You can Michael’s dancing “strutting” and “posing,” but it’s still much more refined than anything Fred Astaire did. Anyway, judging dancing is subjective, so it doesn’t matter to me if you think Astaire is better.
As for the “molestation,” if it occured, why did the mother of the boy side with Michael? Why would they just take money and not demand MJ be thrown in prison?
Honestly, no one will ever know for sure, but it just seems like that kid’s father was after money.
Will
July 12, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Much as I liked Michael Jackson, I think he took a really wrong turn later in life. We all know he didn’t experience a normal childhood and suffered abuse at the hands of his father. But this is no excuse. He was protected by everyone around him when he should have been receiving help/therapy for his problems. Not he is dead through self-destructive means at age 50.
After Brooke Shields spoke at his memorial it’s clear they were close. Yet he turned her down for being too ‘ordinary’ and not high enough legend status. Instead he ended up alone except for the kids at Neverland Ranch. And his world became very sick indeed.
I’d like to remember the music and entertainment, he was a remarkable performer. But making him a national icon and heroic figure is inappropriate and dangerous, in my opinion. He was warned about the consequences of his behaviour but would not listen. So unfortunately that was the price he paid.
Michelle
July 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Dear
Actually MJ proposed to Brooke Shields and it was she turned him down. He had her posters in his bedroom as a child-his sisters would take them down.
He went out with Caroline Kennedy and she refused to kiss hm saying tht her mother would never approve her kissing a black man. He was really in love with Diana Ross for years but she married a white norwegian millionaire-he ws so upset he wouldnt go to the wedding
Theres a lot of evidence he went out with Princess Stephanie of Monaco and he went out with two black singing stars before Lisa Marie – you can see them on youtube-Stephanie Mills and Romona G. a Motown singer plus Shana Mangatal who worked for MJ publicity. All of these are pictured and interviewed on youtube. However-fans did not like the ides of their stars romantically involved. But he believed in waiting for marriage for sex – as a Jehovahs Witness. Whats wrong with that? In 2003 he went out with a lovely French girl-joanna Morae- and she was completely flamed by his fans. This is covered by the French press and US TV. MJ liked to keep his private life private!
annalis
September 19, 2009 at 8:23 am
Michelle, can you cite with credibility that Michael turned Brooke Shields down because she was “too ordinary?” It seems that he asked her several times to marry him but she declined.
In any event, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he’s called iconic because he was. He gave millions and millions to childrens charities. He spent as much time visiting sick children in hospitals as he did giving concerts–which to many people is heroic. Whatever his personal demons–and there surely were many, he played an important part in many people’s lives, and for that he should be given his due.
SoCalGal
July 13, 2009 at 12:29 am
Michael Jackson was many things, including too honest when trying to explain his attitude towards children, but he was not a pedophile.
(1) The 1993 case involving Michael Jackson was blatant extortion instigated by a shady and pathetic dentist who maliciously manipulated and drugged his son for that express purpose. [SEE: tr.im/t4P5, tr.im/t4OR, tr.im/t4OY]
(2) Michael Jackson’s insurance company negotiated and paid to settle the 1993 case — and I quote from a legal document filed with the appropriate court — “over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.” Those present say that Jackson nearly collapsed when told he was being forced to settle instead of pursuing vindication in court. [SEE: tr.im/t4Ob]
(3) The 2005 case was likewise an extortion attempt rooted in mind-numbing greed. Furthermore, the perpetrators were proven serial liars who had attempted similar nonsense against other celebrities previously. The behavior of the accuser’s mother, both in and out of court, also hinted she could be mentally ill. [SEE: tr.im/t4Qg]
(4) There are no other child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, although pedophiles are notorious for leaving a trail of over 200 victims during their lifetime. How interesting considering the large number of children Jackson interacted with on a regular basis before and after the allegations.
Honestly, at this late stage the facts are all readily available, most right on the Internet. Instead of hastily labeling or blindly wondering whether Michael Jackson was a pedophile, just open your eyes with a little interesting reading based on reality.
You might be surprised at what you learn and then you can enjoy Michael’s legacy fully and taint-free. He really was only trying to make the world a better place for children, and he succeeded with all but two who were used and abused by their lousy excuse for parents.
Lorrie
July 20, 2009 at 3:28 am
This is something I’d like to look into too. What are your sources?
pgAesthetics
July 21, 2009 at 12:48 am
Definately read Diane Dimond’s book “Be Careful Who You Love; Inside The Michael Jackson Case”
Ginnette
July 28, 2009 at 11:50 am
I feel afraid to trust these sources. I worry about believing them (including that book and websites that have this information). How do they get it, is it credible?
pgAesthetics
August 2, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Definitely read The Michael Jackson Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones. and Redemption by Geraldine Hughes
These both should be enough to clear Michael’s name once and for all.
Everyone needs to stop taking what the media feeds them as fact. The media did their best to make him
out to be guilty and not report all facts. Look into the lives of the accusers and the facts of the case before you label poor Michael a pedophile. He did more humanitarian things to help sick children that the media never reports, even now.
Also, I know for a fact that children do lie about sexual abuse at times. To please someone (parents)
or for revenge. It happened in my family…the child admitted he made it up because he was mad.
Michael was a lovely human being and should be treated as such. Let the poor man be vindicated and RIP.
fgreen
September 8, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Michael Jackson selected his victims carefully, all were from dysfunctional families with wack job parents, and he showered the boys and their families with lavish gifts so that they could later be portrayed as grifters should his situation with his little lovers go south. Jackson’s defenders think exposing the dysfunction of these families some how exonerates him from their charges, and yet if you really think about it, these were obviously not the kind of people a wealthy superstar of Jackson’s stature would normally choose to have anything to with, let alone shower with money, gifts and attention… well, unless he had some ulterior motive that is.
That being said, the fact remains that Jordan Chandler accurately described and portrayed in drawings Jackson’s genitals. Chandler’s drawings were a close match to the photos taken by investigators some weeks later. Jackson’s defenders falsely claim otherwise, and yet the fact also remains that the Santa Barbara District Attorney (one of the few people who can claim to have actually seen the drawings and photos) wanted to have this evidence from the 1993 case admitted into evidence at Jackson’s 2004 criminal trial (see link to original Court TV coverage of the trial below).
Now ask yourself this: If Chandler failed to accurately portray Jackson’s most intimate parts, reportedly including the way a certain mark on the supposed King of Pop’s penis changed location when it was erect, why on earth did prosecutors want so badly for the 2004 jury to see this evidence?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060102141420/www.courttv.com/trials/jackson/052605_ctv.html
Also, I find it curious that Jackson’s fans claim his insurance company negotiated the $25+ million dollar settlement and forced Jackson into cutting the deal. For one thing, the settlement is signed for the defense by (in addition to MJ) Larry Feldman, Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman. All three were Jackson’s personal criminal defense attorneys during this period. Their signatures are on the document because it is their creation, their settlement. Lawyers don’t sign the work of other lawyers. Further, Jackson settled the day before he was scheduled to be deposed under oath in the Chandler’s civil suit. It would thus appear that Jackson wanted very badly to avoid having to invoke his 5th Amendment right to refuse to incriminate himself under oath the next day.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html
RealityCheck
July 21, 2009 at 10:35 am
Sorry, ‘RealityCheck’ but you are dead wrong. Michael Jackson was most likely not a pedophile. If you actually bothered to research the case and looked at ALL the facts, not just the few tid bits that may support your theory, and are a reasonable person you would come to the conclusion that MJ was most likely not a child molester.
The 2005 trial was a bizarre spectacle that the DA should be ashamed of. They tried to use your line of reasoning by arguing that he chose his victims carefully and seduced them by showering them with gifts. Because their case was so weak on its own, they won a bid to have old child molestation accusations as evidence. This blew up in the prosecution’s face.
They claimed MJ molested three other boys by inviting to Neverland and showering them and their parents with gifts. The prosecution’s shady witnesses claimed they saw MJ abusing Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Brett Barnes. All three boys themselves testified that MJ never did anything to them. So who’s lying they or those shady ex-employees who’d already sold stories to tabloids and tried to sue MJ. The prosecution was shameless. Even though Macaulay Culkin, who actually slept in the same bed with MJ on many occasions claimed that nothing happened, the prosecution kept pushing it by proposing maybe MJ did it while he was sleeping and he didn’t notice it. Say what!?! This shows the shear desperation of the prosecution. And makes me wonder what they must have put the hundreds of kids they interviewed through in the 1993 case to try to get them to corroborate Jordie Chandler’s story. They could convince only one kid, the son of a disgruntled former employee to make accusations. Jordie Chandler himself skipped the country so he wouldn’t have to testify in the 2005 trial.
So if he’s a pedophile then where are all his victims? For twenty years MJ had befriended hundreds of kids and invited thousands, mostly disadvantaged, kids to Neverland. He was often seen in public with numerous boys. He acted the same way around them as he did around Jordie Chandler and showered them with expensive gifts and vacations. This would fit the grooming argueHow come after 12 years of investigating MJ ( they even set up a hotline for alleged victims to come foward) they could only find three boys to make accusations. In 20 years he decides to molest only 3. He was able to control his pedophile urges while repeatedly sleeping in bed with Macaulay Culkin and other boys (not including the 2005 accuser who admitted that MJ slept on the floor)and never touch them. This is ridiculous. Only the kids with con-artists for parents remember being sexually abused.
As for your other claim that Jordie Chandler accurately described MJ’s penis, you don’t know that for a fact. According to MJ’s biographer there were some similarities and some key differences. Jordie Chandler said MJ was circumcised when he wasn’t, according to Tarraborelli. The prosecution never claimed otherwise and never said the description was an exact match. Instead were focusing on only ONE blemish, they claimed matches Jordie’s drawing. How could the kid predict the blemish? Maybe cause he knew MJ had Vitiligo and probably saw the discoloration on other parts of his body. Anyway he had a 50/50 chance of guessing right, circumcised or uncircumcised, and guessed wrong.
The fact that the prosecution wanted to have it admitted doesn’t mean it was an exact match. They already showed their bad judgment in their attempt to prove prior bad acts and decision to call shady witnesses to the stand. Most importantly, if the pictures were strong evidence they would have asked to use it at the beginning of the trial, not at the end of the trial when they’d already embarrassed themselves and had nothing to loose. I suspect they just wanted to humiliate MJ as much as possible and convince the jury that he’s a freak who deserves to be convicted regardless of the evidence. They already had ‘Porn Day’ where they’d show the jury slides of all the pornographic images they found at Neverland. All of it was legal heterosexual porn. They couldn’t find any child porn. They probably wanted to shock and disgust the jury as much as possible. According to your own link the judge refused to allow it because it was more “prejudicial than probative”. Therefore, my suspicions are probably right.
As for the payment=admission of guilt argument, get real. JC Penny settled Janet Arvizos (the mother of the 2005 accuser) civil suit for more than $100,000. Therefore, that must be an admission that their guards beat and sexually abused her in front of her son when they were caught shoplifting. Please! People act as though he made a secret agreement with the 1993 accuser not to testify against him in criminal court. Instead it was a legal settlement of the CIVIL suit brought by the accusers. The police were trying to put together a CRIMINAL case (notice 2 different court cases), while the accusers pursued the civil case with their lawyers. Once they got their settlement they refused to cooperate with the police investigation. The settlement was for the civil case, not the criminal case. It was Chandler’s decision to run after taking the money. MJ and JC Penny had millions of logical reasons why they would choose to settle instead of risking lengthy and expensive court cases. While, the Arvizos and Chandlers have no logical reasons to explain why they are so interested in civil cases instead of criminal cases when they accuse people of these terrible crimes. Instead of calling the cops first they call their lawyers.
Notice a successful criminal conviction gaurantees money in civil court. So its not like they had to choose between money or justice, they could have gotten both. The law changed by 2003, so that the Arvizos couldn’t pull the same hit and run stunt as the Chandlers in 1993. They had to go through with the criminal case.
getyourfactsstraight
September 1, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Well said….you were way more articulate than me
Love you Michael forever and you are vindicated in the eyes of God and your true fans
fgreen
September 8, 2009 at 2:24 pm
I love the way you describe. I hope you open up some eyes here. luv u man.
Neelam
September 21, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Silence from all the haters is golden.
getyourfactsstraight
September 30, 2009 at 10:21 am
I think I love you. Seriously. No one can argue with that.
Ambreen
November 11, 2009 at 3:41 pm
It’s all so hard to wrap my mind around. I’m not coming from the point of view of a sexual abuse victim, so I imagine it’s hard for some of you to understand why I and others feel this way.
pgAesthetics
August 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm
If i’d dress glitzery like MJ, mutilated my face and collapsed my nose with endless plastic surgery so that i look half like zombie, half like woman/child, put heavy make-up, lipstick and eyeliner on, talked in a fake high kiddy voice, were a single with no girlfriend ever, and i’m a notorious liar, grabbed my penis all few seconds when dancing, am not interested in your daughter and children younger than 10 and older than 14, and requested your 12 y old son to spend the night in my bed, and when you object i offer you $ 1,000,000 .. would you let me do it .. well sure, i mean how can you dare thinking i might be a pedophile .. i mean i LOVE children .. especially 10-13 y olds with dark brown hair and eyes with divorced parents .. i mean hey I am the victim here of people who suspect disgusting things about me and they dont even know me really ..
Ashtar
August 8, 2009 at 11:38 pm
The world would be a much easier place if pedophiles actually did fit this description. Instead pedophiles look and act like normal people not like Michael Jackson. MJ fits the description of someone with serious emotional problems and probably mental illness who has been able to live his own world with enablers. This does not fit the profile of a pedophile.
getyourfactsstraight
September 1, 2009 at 9:08 pm
hell yeah he molested kids shit every pedophle i know is a white man and that cracker micheal molested them end of period hes a smooth criminal who like to beat beat it and
james
August 31, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Guys please give respect to the dead.
He was not a pedophile becuase none of that was ever proven. And as the question for Martin Bashir,Bashir has been subjected multiple times for journalism wrong doing.
And thanks to getyourfactsstraight I hope your message gets through people.
Michael Allah will do you justice on judgement day and you will be vindicated.
Mahira
September 21, 2009 at 8:51 pm
These ‘HE WAS A PEDOPHILE!!!!!!!!’ people believe what they WANT 2 believe. I’m ashamed 2 say I was 1 one of them, but I saw the light after read the GQ article ‘Was Micheal Jackson Framed?’ and I cried just thinking how wrong I was. I misunderstood him.
me
October 15, 2009 at 2:38 am
Is it mean to suspect Micheal Jackson of being a pedophile?
Let me ask you something.
Is it mean to suspect someone of a crime even though it’s been _proven_ that they haven’t done it, but you choose to ignore it simply b/c you’ve already made up your mind and refuse to admit that you are wrong?
Is it mean to suspect someone of a crime, b/c you’ve read and believed all of the tabloid sensationalism that you’ve read rather than taking the time to go and search for the truth yourself?
I mean, seriously. Does getting older also mean that you get lazier about going out to find the truth in the sea of lies that we have to swim through everyday? Reality check hun. Newspapers and media outlets are known to outright lie and twist words for the sake of making money.
There is countless proof of this whether it be in America or anywhere else in this world. This is what’s so great about the internet. You can take 5 seconds to find your own answers. Even then not everything is true on the net either so you have to read all of your sources and use critical thinking to come to your own conclusions.
HungryAnon
October 15, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Sure there were reasons to suspect Charles Manson of murder but he never committed any murders.Michael was a very naive man living in a different world than your average person.He was a sweetheart child who wouldnt hurt a flea so sit your hating self down.
Deb
October 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm
This is a disgusting article. Michael Jackson was not a child molester. People need to read the trial trnascripts. It was a joke! Every attorney out there laughed at this and the last case. Michael was innocent, he was so out there..honest about everything regarding children. Yeah right, Michael Frickin’ Jackson would molest a 13 year old kid with CANCER. PLEASE, people…read the trial transcripts, it was a joke. The family that accused him were nothing but money sucking low-lifes. Oh yeah, and MJ tried to kidnapped them too they couldn’t get off the ranch, all the time the mother was off at the spa getting her nails done on charging it to Michael. PLEASE!
Lauren
October 19, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Hmmmm…..seems that unfortunately, retards abound in here. Well, the entirety of the ‘net at least.
Ok ‘Tards, let’s try: You are stupid, me talk REAL slow, and use BASIC common logic. (And you would have to be a fuckin’ moron to NOT understand this next part). PedoBear Jackson-
Me grown Man. Me invite children who are not mine to me bed. ME BED. Not down the hall, down the street, or next door. IN MY BED. OVERNIGHT (like FedEx). Remember, me grown! Me legal age Adult, people who sleep with me? NOT legal age!
Ok, if you did not understand any of that paragraph, you are so fucking stupid your existence is nullified by your own stupidity. You actually SLOW DOWN evolution, and space/time. I mean, you should never have children, as PedoBears like Jackson would call you EXTREMELY stupid, and they are child molesters for Christ’s own sake.
So, it is obvious that you people are MORE fucked up than PedoJacko, and I can only be glad you live nowhere near me, as you are proof that Humanity is too stupid to survive.
Good thing too. I will remember your stupidity when your child is molested, and you call it “emotional”, and then charge the asshole that did it an hourly fee.
Unlike you freaks, I wouldn’t whore MY kids to a known PedoFreak for whatever he could pay.
Thank God Almighty Himself there are less of you, and more of me. And…FINALLY, one less PedoJacko too.
The world is better to sweep the trash away, and to not keep it. It stinks less that way.
YouTards
October 21, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@YouTards:
Besides your entire post being completely inane and just as ‘retarded’ as the people you criticized AND the original author’s post, your points that were based on one statement do not support the argument that Michael was a pedo in anyway. All it does is to reiterate how ignorant people like you are and how there are too many of them in the world.
Also, it’s posts like these that convince me that people really have no understanding of anything concerning pedophilia. People who commit crimes of any nature do not just go babbling about it to any Tom, Dick, and Harry, ESPECIALLY on TV when there’s a chance of there being 20+ million people watching. This does not happen. Pedos know that society heavily frowns upon what they are doing, which is why never speak about it, especially in PUBLIC. Pedos do more than just sleep in the same bed with children. They actually harm children, especially in a sexual manner. Most of us are arguing that there is NO proof that Michael did that.
Either way, if Michael was an actual pedophile, we would have had more children coming out claiming that he had touched them rather than the suspicious two that came out with their money hungry parents. I mean, all those years and all those children @ Neverland and only two ‘victims’ came out, especially with the last ‘victim’ that came out AFTER the documentary? That seems too unlikely and nearly impossible. A good example is the Roman Catholic Church sex scandal. Were you even born then? You think only one kid came forward against those priests? Try about hundreds of them.
If anything, Michael seemed to be stunted in terms of mental growth and guilty of being extremely naive. This can be traced to the fact that he was robbed of his time to ‘grow up’ like the rest of us, so it’s hard to look at his life in relation to ours. We can’t. It’s impossible for the normal layman.
There’s only one guilty pedo recently, and his name is Roman Polanski. Unlike Michael he _was_ found guilty and ran away from the law with his legs in between his legs.
HungryAnon
October 22, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I think it is possible to be both a paedophile and a good person. The person just needs to be sexually distorted in some way, be it from abuse they themsleves have indured in the past, stigmatism, or simply not being able to relate to other adults, etc.
Michael got very close to his younger male friends. He has said so himself a number of times.
These were relatinships in which he had all the power.
Can you imagine being 10 years old and having a friend who could make your wishes come true regardless of the cost. A friend who lived by their own rules. Had their own house. Had their own amusement park. Not only that, but they’re also a famous star.
Add to that some other factors people have mentined. Coming from a bad home, Michael’s home would have been paradise. You trust him. You’ve shared secrets.
Then one day he touches you where you know he shouldn’t. He doesn’t hurt you. He’s extremely gentle. He tells you nice things. He has given you some of your greatest desires and has never asked for a single thing in return.
You know it’s wrong but you don’t know where it’s going, and you don’t know how it’s going t effect you in the future.
He moves very slowly, to the point where you may even be unable to pinpoint an exact time when things went from being platonic to sexual.
What do you do?
Many kids get abused in this way. While not violent it can leave the worst scars as victims feel they let it happen. They feel it’s as much their fault as the paedophile. often victims never face it.
Elf
October 28, 2009 at 10:44 am
Please research the cases and stop assuming things. You probably know nothing about the actual FACTS of the cases and yet you think you can make these assumptions.
What you say makes sense, however that is not what the alleged victim claimed happened to him. The jury was faced with two competing versions of reality.
The accuser not only claimed MJ touched him inapproriately, he and his family claimed MJ was the devil incarnate, who plied them with alcohol and porn before molesting them and also conspired to kidnap them and hold them prisoner at Neverland in order to force them to make a rebuttal video. They also claimed they saw MJ humping mannequin and licking their brother on the head like a cat. They had so many outlandish stories to tell the jury. (stories that were strikingly similar to the ones told in tabloids)
Their kidnapping and conspiracy claims were easily disproven. Even if the molestation part of their story were true why did they feel the need to make up all that other stuff? Also, why couldn’t the alleged victim figure out when MJ molested him? He orignally claimed MJ molested him on days when MJ was not even at Neverland. He eventually had to go with AFTER the Bashir interview (when MJ was under investigation for molesting him) because MJ spent so little time with him at Neverland before it. Contrary to popular loar, he was not a ‘little boy’. He was 15 years old at the time of the trial and 13 during the alleged molestation.
And no he did not sleep with MJ. He slept in the guest house (which he and his siblings trashed) with his family according to the testimony of witnesses at the trial and even implied in the Bashir interview if you paid attention. And no he did not have that close of a relationship with MJ like the 1993 accuser. He fumed with rage on the stand when explaining the way MJ ignored him when he was at Neverland and did not return his phone calls. While being pretty laid back when discussing his alleged molestation. The family did not think to come up with their stories until they realized they were being evicted from Neverland for good.
The facts of the case speak for themselves if people bothered to research them. Read Aphrodite Jones’ Michael Jackson Conspiracy, and the GQ article ‘was MJ framed’ by Mary Fischer before passing judgement.
the truth
October 28, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I actually know very little about the Jackson cases – was never a fan, and tabloids aren’t that big of a thing where I live).
But whenever I hear a Michael Jackson debate the main argument in his favour always seem to be ‘that he was to much of a nice, gentle, kind man to be able to do those horrid things.
The next thing is to attack whoever said those things. In my mind it desn’t matter if he came frm the wrst family backgrund r the best.
Maybe the boy is lying, maybe not. Maybe smething he is half lying. It could also be possible that Michael was grooming him, but the boy was able to break out of the cycle and tell his parents about the abuse. Maybe they then decided to really exaggerate things – milk it for everything they could. or a number of other scenarios could have occured
What I’m really trying to say is there’s no way to really know for certain. To be honest, I don’t really care. There’s nothing I can do about it either way.
But I do find it frightning that people can be so dismissive of some clear warning signs.
In most cases of child abuse it appears to be the case that a child is abused by a trusted adult. The parents would never suspect that the adult involved could do something so damaging to their kid and that’s where the vulnerability comes in. They’re not watching out for warning signs.
Elf
October 29, 2009 at 3:08 am
@Elf:
You don’t have to be a fan of anyone to do a little research. Whether Michael Jackson was kind & gentle and/or straight, gay, or bi has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
Once again, there was NO PROOF of him abusing those TWO kids and there’s NO PROOF of him abusing anyone else. Though, there is a ton of proof of the media twisting up stories and downright lying many, many times whether it be for Mr. Jackson or anyone else. There’s also proof of those two families lying their asses off for money.
Real pedos don’t announce their crimes to the world and it isn’t as obvious. They also have a tendency to molest their own children. Real abuse is silent and not so easy to spot which is why I call bullshit on people who claim that Michael was guilty. Also, there would have been more than two victims, but there weren’t which is why this claim is bullshit. Most people here pointing the finger have no idea about actual pedos themselves.
HungryAnon
October 29, 2009 at 6:49 am
Elf, again quit assuming things and actually research the case. Before you do that, you have no right to make inaccurate claims about the accusers.
First of all, you don’t know what you are talking about when you claim that boy confessed to parent that a trusted adult molested them. Not true. Both boys were originally under a lot of pressure from parents, police, and media to say that MJ molested them. Evan Chandler in 1993 had to drug his son before he could get molestation stories out of him and it wasn’t until Arvizos were harrassed by the media for the Bashir interview and found out MJ was no longer going to support them, that they began making their molestation claims.
These stories never come from a scared child shockingly confessing to parents that a trusted adult molested them, they come from boys who were under intense pressure from adults with financial and career motivations to come up with molestation stories.
the truth
November 7, 2009 at 11:22 am
Is it mean to suspect MJ was a pedophile? No, it is not. Is it fanciful and naive to believe he was innocent? No, it is not!
Why not?
Because the point is, we don’t KNOW! For every argument or apparent piece of evidence FOR the allegations, there is one AGAINST! If this was not the case, we wouldn’t all be sitting here debating it right now!
Michael insisted on living his life shrouded in mystery. This had its fan appeal, sure, but it also meant that his life was ripe for speculation and misinterpretation. Michael complained vehemently about being misrepresented by the media, however, not only did he actively help construct some of his own, ultimately negative “wacko” PR (for eg; the story about wanting to buy the “Elephant Man’s” bones) but he did nothing to ensure the public that behind it all, was just an eccentric guy having a bit of fun – he carved his face to pieces (his nose was all but disintegrated in the end) and then openly lied about it; he surrounded himself with hundreds of children (mainly little boys) and let them sleep in his bed, and he quite literally BOUGHT his three children, apparently, because he couldn’t stand the idea of legitimate married life with an adult female!
If people were disconcerted by Michael’s behaviour, then they had genuine reason to be! Furthermore, Michael couldn’t legitimately claim “the media” was behind every negative thought about him!
Of course, none of this means he was actually a PEDOPHILE, which brings me back to my original point – that we simply don’t KNOW (and will never know!) what really went on! I have read the court transcripts at the Smoking Gun, the biography by Tarraborelli, The Michael Jackson Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones, numerous blogs and watched numerous TV documentaries, and still, I don’t know if MJ was a pedophile or not! And again, the person to blame for this more than anyone is Michael himself! He was so determined, it seems, to stay in the spotlight for SOMETHING, that he was prepared to risk just about EVERYTHING! No adult NEEDS to have sleepovers with children (there are plenty of ways Michael could have supported and accommodated sick and needy children without actually having them in his bedroom); nobody NEEDS to have children to two different surrogate mothers, children that are apparently now, not even his biologically, and nobody ever NEEDS to carve their face to bits! Let’s face it, this bizarre crap could easily have been avoided, but it was Michael, the man with the fame, privilege, and billion dollar bank balance, who chose to do these things!
It seems that when Michael was actively constructing his “bizarro” image in order to help ring in the fans and sell more records, he never stopped to think of the potentially devastating, real-world effects it could have on his life. He also never stopped to consider the disappointment that many of his fans may feel to think their idol may actually be some kind of sexual predator! He did nothing to reassure them that he was sound and sane – sure, he vehemently denied having sexually molested anyone, however, he never did explain, if not sex, what he WAS doing in bed with numerous 13-year old boys!?? I’m sure he just thought he could go on forever being a “mysterious”, billionaire, Peter Pan-figure who slept in an oxygen chamber (another story he helped invent!) unmarried and surrounded by little boys and it would never catch up with him! Unfortunately though, whether truly guilty of any crimes or not, Michael’s deliberate and/or helpless eccentricities would come back to bite him on the ass! And, all things considered, it’s amazing he kept the strong, supportive fan-base that he DID keep!
Michael Jackson was acquitted in a court of law of all charges and died under sad and regrettable circumstances, so to call him horrible names like “sicko pedophile” is, in my opinion, highly inappropriate and disrespectful. However, is it wrong for an intelligent, rational personal to suspect this man may have been a pedophile? Of course not! And I agree with the author of this blog that to try and stifle such speculation is truly Orwellian. We are, after all, discussing children here – the most important of all creatures – and if they don’t deserve our honest and vigilant attention, then nobody does. What’s more, if Michael Jackson was really who he claimed to be, then he would have to agree!
Alison
November 11, 2009 at 7:40 am
@Allison:
I will agree that Michael wasn’t perfect, because he was human. He had quite a bit of flaws. He was horribly naive, which may have been his biggest flaw of all. So even though Michael was going against societal norms, I blame the parents more than anything. Even if he is Michael Jackson you do not let your kids sleep w/other people that are not you. End of story there.
Whether or not the man lied about the surgery done to his face or had some kind ‘bizarro life’ irrelevant. Focusing on it only makes it easier for the uneducated to point the finger @ that person is b/c they are ‘different.’ History has shown that anyone who is ‘different’ always suffer b/c it’s easier to blame them. As w/MJ.
As for the original question, is it mean to suspect MJ of being a pedo, I still say yes. Why? Not b/c he’s MJ, but based on the fact that MJ’s actions DON’T match up with that of REAL PEDOPHILES.
If MJ was truly a pedo, why aren’t there more victims? The only two victims that have come out have both been proven to be money chasers. These two victims came out in the span of 10 years. If Michael truly was a pedo in the truest sense of the word then he would have MORE victims, including younger nieces, nephews, cousins, AND even his own children. All of these kids would have come out by now, but none of them did. Also, pedos usually possess child porn, which is illegal. MJ had none of that, except for some book that they were trying to parade around as child porn, b/c it wasn’t.
This is what I’m trying to say. If you have any working knowledge pedophiles rather basing it off irrational emotion then you will realize that MJ’s actions just don’t match up. It doesn’t. What pedo would want to go on camera and announce their crimes to the world? What criminal in general would want to do that? None. Pedos see children as sexual beings b/c they are attracted to them. Not having more victims and/or any porn of them is highly odd and unrealistic of an actual predator.
MJ’s case was nothing like OJ’s murder case. In OJ’s case there was more than probable cause to suspect him of being the murderer. There was actual evidence and he already had a history of domestic abuse. In MJ’s case, there is no history of any prior acts that would give way to insinuating that he was willing to hurt children. NOTHING. This is why the suspicion is based on false means and ignorance.
Personally, aside from the 1993 case, the fact that anyone would believe that family in the 2004-5 case is beyond me. Is anyone going to tell me, w/a straight face that they didn’t predict that child was going to suddenly cry molestation after that interview? The fact that case went to trial was a complete joke.
HungryAnon
November 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Hey Santi, I just realised I accidentally exposed my email by typing it in the website field by mistake! Is there any way you could remove it?
Thanx!
Alison
November 11, 2009 at 7:57 am
Alison, what do you mean he bought his kids? People adopt and have children through artificial insemination everyday. They don’t endure anywhere near the venom that MJ has had to endure for some reason. Please explain why its okay for them but wrong for Michael Jackson?
Also, how do you know he could have children the natural way?
the truth
November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm
@HungryAnon
I’m not sure I would describe Michael as “horribly naive”. Regardless of how astute his advisers were, Michael himself still had to be pretty switched on in order to amass the fortune he did. He wasn’t too naive to make strategic career moves or to buy out the Beatles song catalog from right under Paul McCartney’s nose! And, as far as personal relationships were concerned, Michael came from a large, extended family and saw many examples of healthy, heterosexual life (regardless of any divorces, etc, that may have taken place). Not only was he one of nine children himself, but he grew up witnessing the family relationships between his brothers/sisters and their partners and children. There is just no WAY that Michael could have been under the delusion that an unmarried, adult male sleeping with unrelated kids on some isolated ranch was a perfectly ordinary thing to do! Perhaps he was a little naive in some ways, but not THAT naive! Michael chose this lifestyle KNOWING it was unusual and then basically bragged about it on international TV!
Of course, the fact that he bragged about it probably makes it less likely he was actually a pedophile, after all, what pedophile in their right mind alerts the whole world to the fact that there are children in his bed?? Still, if you ask me, it shows that Michael was always chasing publicity, and was prepared to play with some pretty explosive subject-matter to ensure he got it!
Why even raise the subject of sleeping arrangements with Martin Bashir in 2003? Was it really necessary to provide this information? The important thing was that Gavin Arviso was a very sick child and, apparently, Michael’s nurturing helped him get better. This is where the story should have ended, but thanks to Michael, it became a three-ring circus! You would think that after the hassles he endured in ‘93 with Jordan Chandler, Michael would have been frightened to tempt any further pedophile accusations, but instead, he seemed to be deliberately invoking them!
All this shows to me that MJ was, if nothing else, unstable, and possibly, extremely superficial. His whole life seemed to revolve around publicity; where were his real-world, adult relationships? We all know that he lost his childhood, but plenty of people have lost their childhood to war, famine, sexual abuse, etc, yet they still go on to form cohesive, regular relationships with other people. MJ always stated he was lonely and I feel deeply sorry for him in that, but it’s not like he didn’t have plenty of opportunities to remedy the situation! Sorry, but it seems to me he was just such a narcissist that he couldn’t bear to truly share his life with anyone else. He sat there and cried to Bashir that families were falling apart in the modern age, yet, in the next breath, bragged about the fact that he deliberately constructed a family with “no mother”!
As far as “evidence” he may have been a pedophile .. sorry .. but there’s plenty! If you don’t call sleeping in bed with children, spending thousands of dollars on toys every year, building a ranch that is tailor-made to children’s desires, and refusing to have a legitimate relationship with an adult woman “evidence”, then what DO you consider evidence?? Of course, this stuff is largely circumstantial, but let’s not forget the fact that Michael WAS actually accused of specific acts of pedophilia and intoxication of minors in a court of law! Like I say, I don’t KNOW if he was guilty or not, but certainly, there was EVIDENCE!
Alison
November 11, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Look, I’m not going to get trapped into discussing this man’s life. No one really knows and it’s all up to speculation, most of yours which is derived from tabloids.
According to the FACTS of the 2005 case there was no concrete evidence pointing towards him to the crimes and too much pointing towards the fact the family was full of some shady characters who were known to swindle people out of money. The 1993 case ended up failing to get to criminal court due to the fact that the alleged victim, Jordan Chandler, refused the testify once his family received the money settled on in the CIVIL trial. This was before California changed the laws so that something like that could not happen again.
However ‘crazy’ his life or anyone’s opinion on it has nothing to do with the FACTS.
Also, anyone who would claim that building ‘Neverland’ is more than enough evidence of someone being a pedo needs to really take a good look at themselves and realize how completely ignorant they are. Before 1993 no one had even thought what Michael was doing since the 80s had any connotations being pedophiliac which goes to show how utterly ridiculous that statement is.
You don’t just ‘become’ a pedophile in your thirties. It’s a sexual preference, something you deal w/your entire life, especially after puberty hits genius. If Michael was, in fact, using Neverland as a way to lure children, then there would be way more than 2 victims, especially in a 10 year period. More children would have come forward and revealed their claims of Michael molesting them either back in 1993 OR 2005 and in those years in between AND before/after. This would also include family members and his own kids.
Since there were only two children to have come forward in Michael’s 50 years on this earth. One of which skipped out on the actual criminal trial and the other losing his case due to lack of sufficient evidence (in direct opposition to OJ, Robert Blake AND Roman Polanski ), then it is safe to assume that he was DID NOT touch those kids.
Since the police did not find any traces of child pornography in his house or anywhere on him then it is safe to assume that he did NOT view children as being sexually attractive.
That means that it’s safe to assume that he was NOT a pedophile.
If, one day, we get some more people coming out and proving that he, in fact, that he did molest them or actual concrete evidence then it would be safe to assume that he probably was a pedophile. Until that happens, please do yourself a favor next time and do some actual research before you start sprouting uneducated drivel.
Thanks.
HungryAnon
November 12, 2009 at 4:29 pm
@the truth
When you say “people” adopt children (or conceive them by artificial means) every day, you mean couples .. right?
Even if we are speaking of a gay or lesbian couple, we still mean a COUPLE – a pair of people who desire to create a FAMILY that they, for whatever reason, are unable to create through natural means??
Yes?
Well sorry, but this is different to a single guy with millions of dollars who pays his dermatologist’s assistant to bear two of his three children in exchange for a ranch!! Furthermore, he didn’t even use this skin nurse for all three children – we don’t even KNOW who the third mother is!
Michael Jackson was not in a relationship with ANYONE, it seems, but himself, and rather than wishing to start a “family” with someone he loved (male or female), he desired to be a “daddy” in order to fulfill some need that lay within HIMSELF! Didn’t he tell Martin Bashir that he used to walk around cradling baby dolls?? He also told him that he wanted to be sure “the mother” (of Blanket) had a high IQ and that her “vision” was okay (???) And what was that business of grabbing the newborn still wrapped in its umbilical cord and racing out of the hospital?? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to convince people this was a sane, adult male?? Would any other person on planet earth get away with such ludicrous behaviour??
Sorry, but it simply isn’t a legitimate argument to compare Michael Jackson with other couples who have adopted or used surrogates!
Alison
November 11, 2009 at 8:04 pm
P.S. @ the truth
Even if Michael COULDN’T conceive children the natural way, it still excuse him being so insanely narcissistic that he wanted the children he DID create all to himself, and not with a partner. This demonstrates that all he was thinking about was himself; he didn’t care that the children had two parents to guide and support them or, it seems, even that they knew for sure who they were biologically!
And now that Michael is tragically gone, there is no other parent for the children to cling to. All they have is some dermatology nurse who barely knows them and a large, extended family who, while no doubt loving, they can’t even be sure they are in any way related to!
P.P.S. Ask yourself how ridiculous it is that in the event of his death, this man left his children first, to his 80yr old mother, or failing that, to Diana Ross – some singer from the 1960’s! These children are human beings – not part of his “memorabilia” collection, for cripes sake!
Alison
November 11, 2009 at 9:26 pm
“Ask yourself how ridiculous it is that in the event of his death, this man left his children first, to his 80yr old mother, or failing that, to Diana Ross – some singer from the 1960’s!”
That’s kind of an ignorant thing to say. You have no idea what is going on his life to make those kind of assumptions and this is really not the place for them. So unless you have been w/Michael raising those kids and living his life w/him please refrain from making judgments since you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Which seems to be a recurring theme w/you.
HungryAnon
November 12, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I have never stated that I believe Michael Jackson to be a pedophile. All I have ever stated is that I don’t KNOW (and nobody knows) whether he was guilty or not, so it isn’t unreasonable to speculate that he MAY have been a pedophile, so long as that speculation doesn’t become foul-mouthed or abusive (he was, after all, acquitted of all charges at the 2005 trial). By the way, if Michael really WAS guilty of sexually molesting Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arviso (and I stress “if”), then strictly speaking, he wasn’t a “pedophile” but a “hebephile”: a pedophile prefers pre-pubescent children, whereas a hebephile is attracted to currently pubescent children (around 12-15). The incorrect usage of the term “pedophile” has always irked me about this case!
Anyway, the last thing I want to do is run down Michael’s memory. I have been a fan of his all my life and my gut instinct was always that he was gentle and sweet and no kind of predator. However, he DID live his life in a very enigmatic way, so as a rational, realistic adult, I have to concede that it’s understandable people may have been suspicious of his motives (hence, the entire theme of this thread!). You simply can’t expect a forty year-old man can constantly bring unrelated children out to his isolated ranch for “sleepovers” and nobody is going to wonder what’s going on! Whether innocent or not, Michael was extremely unreasonable in this expectation. The fact that none of us really know what went on there (at Neverland) is already a problem. As an adult, particularly a male, when you close the doors at night, if you have children behind those doors you better be damn certain that every action of yours can be accounted for. Other people shouldn’t have to speculate .. “what went on?” .. “what didn’t go on?”, etc. It shouldn’t be a game – these are CHILDREN we are talking about, so there shouldn’t be any ambiguity about the situation!
I want to say that I don’t believe this should apply to parents who sleep in bed with their OWN children. A lot of ppl have tried to use this practice as a way of justifying Michael’s actions, but any sane person can see that this is a ridiculous and unfair comparison! It’s one thing for a kid to snuggle up in bed at night with the people who gave birth to them; it’s quite another to be getting underneath the sheets with some pop-star you just met at a charity drive!
The irony of all this is that Michael was so obsessed with protecting his OWN children, yet he expected that nobody would inquire into the emotional and physical well being of OTHER ppl’s children!
It also bugs me the way the dodgy history of the Arviso family has been used as some kind of foolproof argument that Michael was innocent. So child molesters only molest kids from good backgrounds? The fact that the family had a history of trying to scam money certainly increases the chance they were simply trying to extort Michael, however, it isn’t a sure thing. Furthermore, just because they were dodgy, doesn’t mean by default that Michael WASN’T a molester!
People also like to use the fact that Macaulay Culkin testified to Michael’s innocence as another “foolproof” argument, like all roads begin and end with Macaulay! Well can’t people stop to consider that maybe Michael chose his targets strategically, and that Macaulay Culkin (Corey Feldman, Ricky Schroder, et al) was too high-profile to risk molesting?
Michael often used the argument that he didn’t INVITE children into his room, but that they followed him in. Again, is this meant to be some kind of foolproof justification for his actions? I wonder what would have happened if my 13 year-old girlfriends had ended up in MY father’s bed, for eg? How do you think the community would have reacted if my father had argued “Oh it’s okay. I didn’t invite them. They followed me in”??
The Neverland ranch was equipped with a Ferris wheel, an electric train, arcade games, candy stalls, a movie cinema and plenty of guest rooms. There was every opportunity for MJ to accommodate sick and needy children without having to actually co-sleep with them (even if he WAS “on the floor” while the children were in the bed).
It also annoys me that people tend to look at this as simply “guilty” or “innocent”. Obviously, if MJ was a molester then he was truly “guilty”, but even if he WASN’T actually a molester, he was still a negative influence on the lives of at least two children. As a result of his bragging about his sleeping arrangements to Martin Bashir, for eg, the Arviso children copped a lot of taunting at school for Gavin being a “fagot” and Michael’s “booty-buddy”, etc. Maybe Michael didn’t molest him, but he still wasn’t entirely “innocent” either! He also, according to a variety of different sources (inc. J. Randy Taraborelli), monopolised Jodie Chandler’s time to the point where it started to alienate the child from his friends and family. It is well documented that instead of attending his graduation dance for Junior High, Jordie spent the evening with Michal Jackson – a 34 year-old man! Again, even if no actual molestation took place, Michael was still obviously capable of negatively affecting the life of a minor.
Finally, I am as entitled to my opinion in a public forum as anyone else. I have always maintained respect and objectivity when discussing Michael Jackson, and I appreciate that I didn’t know him personally. The info I have to work with is the same info that any other member of the public has, and I certainly don’t rely solely on tabloids! In this, I am no less “educated” then any other member of the public when it comes to Michael Jackson!
Alison
November 12, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“Real pedos don’t announce their crimes to the world and it isn’t as obvious. They also have a tendency to molest their own children.”
Excuse me, but how do YOU know Michael didn’t molest his own children??
I am NOT accusing him of this, merely wondering how you can be so sure about it??
Alison
November 12, 2009 at 11:05 pm