Did MJ actually diddle kids?

[Bad Take Crucifier]

Although Sean Lennon has said that nothing illegal was done to him, this song and video is quite damning.

I need an adult after watching this

 

[Steve Hightower]

I dont necessarily think the discoloration on his penis is a smoking gun. He could have changed clothes or urinated in front of the kid, which is wildly inappropriate, but not necessarily a sign of sexual abuse. Creepy as fuck, but not a legal slam dunk.

Yet some of the people who have worked on the case have considered it to be the 500 pound elephant in the room. Combined with all the other evidence that was found, such as a photo of one of his special friends in the nude, it was damning. Jordan also drew an ERECT penis. If he was just changing clothes or urinating, how would Jordan have known its erect appearance? On the Telephone Stories podcast, Prosecutor Lauren Weis, who worked on the 1993 allegations, confirmed that Jordan had correctly described the strange markings.

 

[Lemmingwise]

(((

Prosecutor Lauren Weis, who worked on the 1993 allegations, confirmed that Jordan had correctly described the strange markings.

)))

The pic was of the penis was uploaded page or two back and it isn't exactly convincing evidence.

 

[Steve Hightower]

(((

)))

The pic was of the penis was uploaded page or two back and it isn't exactly convincing evidence.

To be fair, that was just what's publicly released. The photos of the actual penis are very much sealed to law enforcement still. It shouldn't be totally discounted though as it was the penultimate evidence of the allegation. Linking to reddit, but it features a soundbite from the podcast I've been dropping spoken by Carl E. Douglas who worked on MJ's side during the 1993 case discussing how much of a smoking gun it was. Criminal justice basically works off of circumstantial evidence as it's very rare for the actual crimes to be photographed/videoed as it happened.

https://old.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/ej8925/carl_e_douglas_one_of_michael_jacksons_1993/

 

[Syaoran Li]

The biggest reason why I think MJ was innocent is because while the FBI may not have been as intensely involved in the case as the fans would like to believe, I do know that pedophilia is one of the few things that the Feds do not fuck around on.

If the FBI so much as suspect there might be CP or other evidence of pedophilia, they'd be all over it and working closely with local cops and with how high-profile those cases were, you'd think something more concrete would've turned up.

 

[Bibendum]

the issue is people don't want to think the amazing music he made that they listened to and fell in love with could possibly be created by someone who did things to kids but all the signs really point to it, especially his hard upbringing.

I still jam to his tunes but I also don't lie to myself about what he did either

As much as I enjoy some of his tunes if they come on the radio like the next person, I'm not a fan and have zero emotional investment in his music. I think this argument is just a cheap, trite way of dismissing those of us who don't believe Jackson was guilty. While I'm sure some fans have motivated reasoning, it really doesn't apply to all of us skeptics.

Another thing to remember is that Sony bought out a settlement for him before the case progressed. So it's not like he was found not guilty. And the little boy knew exactly where the "splotches" on his dick were

Like unless that was a lucky guess to the exact spots...that's pretty damning.

Jackson was found not guilty on all counts in the 2005 case. You're talking about the Jordan Chandler allegations from '93, which are extremely suspect for a number of reasons. All the hype around the dick description is plainly absurd when you see the drawing the prosecution produced (posted earlier in the thread), and the fact that Chandler's description was inaccurate: he claimed Jackson was circumcised (he was not -- a notable mistake, considering Chandler was supposed to have seen and handled this dick dozens of times), and the question of whether the described discoloration actually matched is highly debatable. Not only was Jackson's vitiligo public knowledge by that point, but Evan Chandler (the child's father and likely source of the abuse allegations) had apparently given Jackson an injection in his asscheek on a prior occasion, and thus would have had firsthand knowledge of Jackson's affected skin below-the-belt. Interestingly, the attorney representing Chandler in the civil suit had a conversation with Evan Chandler about the discolorations on Jackson's penis, where they cynically discussed how vitiligo markings can change over time, so if the kid's description were wrong, they'd have a convenient excuse. Prosecutors even asked Jackson's mother whether he had somehow altered the appearance of his penis -- why would they have needed to do that, if in fact the description matched reality?

Yes, he did. The smoking gun is that Jordan Chandler accurately described the marks on his penis. If he hadn't paid his way out through a settlement, he would've been found guilty. Hell, Johnnie Cochran advised him to settle instead of going through a trial.

As I explained above, the supposedly accurate description turned out not to be so accurate after all. The settlement was paid in the civil case, which was purposely pushed ahead of the criminal trial by the Chandler family (the law allowing this was swiftly changed); the payment of the settlement would not have prevented Jackson from being found guilty in the criminal case. But once the money was paid out, Jordan Chandler refused to testify and the case was dropped. He was awarded emancipation from his parents about a year later. Before the 2005 trial, the now adult Chandler was approached by prosecutors to testify against Jackson and adamantly refused, saying he would fight any efforts to make him do so. Jackson's defense attorney revealed that he had witnesses who would have testified that Chandler had privately admitted to them that the abuse never occurred, and that his parents had forced him to make the allegations against Jackson. When prosecutors put Chandler's mother on the stand to testify to Jackson's alleged prior bad acts, she admitted she hadn't spoken to her son in eleven years by that point; a few months later, he obtained a restraining order against his father. In 2009, four months after Jackson's death, Evan Chandler committed suicide in his home -- he had stipulated that he didn't want his family notified of his death until after his funeral. Jordan's story is certainly tragic, but I don't believe Jackson ever abused him.

 

[Lemmingwise]

The biggest reason why I think MJ was innocent is because while the FBI may not have been as intensely involved in the case as the fans would like to believe, I do know that pedophilia is one of the few things that the Feds do not fuck around on.

If the FBI so much as suspect there might be CP or other evidence of pedophilia, they'd be all over it and working closely with local cops and with how high-profile those cases were, you'd think something more concrete would've turned up.

Unless your name is Elvis, David Bowie, Epstein, Alefantis, Dan Schneider, Podesta, Woody Allen and possibly Michael Jackson.

My instincts say that he was innocent, btw but I don't really know.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Unless your name is Elvis, David Bowie, Epstein, Alefantis, Dan Schneider, Podesta, Woody Allen and possibly Michael Jackson.

My instincts say that he was innocent, btw but I don't really know.

True, but with Epstein, he had close ties to high-level politicians and he was sort of an exception to the rule.

I'm inclined to think MJ was innocent but I don't think we'll ever really know for sure.

 

[Lemmingwise]

he was sort of an exception to the rule.

That rule has a lot of exceptions.

 

[Gravityqueen4life]

short answear: it was misunderstanding and the jews used it against him

long answer: i dont think MJ outright fucked kids but something weird did happen. he was a troubled man who longed for a childhood he never had so he liked surrounding himself with kids because kids, are pure unlike the adults that try to use him for clout. he most likely did weird things such a take baths or sleep on the same bed during sleep overs but it was not sexual. most of these cases were proven to have never happened anyway and people he thought were his friends suing him for a quick check.

 

[Niggernerd]

I don't think he did anything atrocious as diddle kids. The faggots that had recently-ish came out seemed like attention seeking fucks who wanted money. Sure he was weird due to not being able to live his childhood so he was exceptional after he had all the time in the world.
Also i vehemently don't trust the music industry, they're known to hate people who don't give them their gibs as if they're owed it (both Jackson and Prince owned their own music) so it wouldn't surprise me if the industry put those chuckle fucks to "come out"

 

[Steve Hightower]

As I explained above, the supposedly accurate description turned out not to be so accurate after all. The settlement was paid in the civil case, which was purposely pushed ahead of the criminal trial by the Chandler family (the law allowing this was swiftly changed); the payment of the settlement would not have prevented Jackson from being found guilty in the criminal case. But once the money was paid out, Jordan Chandler refused to testify and the case was dropped. He was awarded emancipation from his parents about a year later. Before the 2005 trial, the now adult Chandler was approached by prosecutors to testify against Jackson and adamantly refused, saying he would fight any efforts to make him do so. Jackson's defense attorney revealed that he had witnesses who would have testified that Chandler had privately admitted to them that the abuse never occurred, and that his parents had forced him to make the allegations against Jackson. When prosecutors put Chandler's mother on the stand to testify to Jackson's alleged prior bad acts, she admitted she hadn't spoken to her son in eleven years by that point; a few months later, he obtained a restraining order against his father. In 2009, four months after Jackson's death, Jordan Chandler committed suicide in his home -- he had stipulated that he didn't want his family notified of his death until after his funeral. His story is certainly tragic, but I don't believe Jackson ever abused him.

Not accurate only because of the circumcision detail, yet one of the people on MJ's defense team referred to it as the 300 pound gorilla in the room and has basically stated without directly saying it that he thought MJ was guilty. Also, Jordan did go to police during the 2005 trials, but he seems to majorly value his privacy considering rabid fans literally gave him death threats back in 1993. Also, it was his father, Evan, who committed suicide, not Jordan. For further context, Evan was dealing with cancer. Around that time, Michael's fans falsely claimed that Jordan retracted his allegations. That had never happened.

It is so bizarre to see this site parrot fan myths as I figured it would be one of the places to actually look into every side of the case, especially considering the majority of MJ's fans haven't even actually watched the documentary.

This is an interesting watch as even in the best case scenario where his relations with kids was sketchy at most, he was still quite manipulative.

 

[Bibendum]

Not accurate only because of the circumcision detail, yet one of the people on MJ's defense team referred to it as the 300 pound gorilla in the room and has basically stated without directly saying it that he thought MJ was guilty. Also, Jordan did go to police during the 2005 trials, but he seems to majorly value his privacy considering rabid fans literally gave him death threats back in 1993. Also, it was his father, Evan, who committed suicide, not Jordan. For further context, Evan was dealing with cancer. Around that time, Michael's fans falsely claimed that Jordan retracted his allegations. That had never happened.

It is so bizarre to see this site parrot fan myths as I figured it would be one of the places to actually look into every side of the case, especially considering the majority of MJ's fans haven't even actually watched the documentary.

You're right about the suicide, I messed that up as I was editing my response so I've edited my post to reflect the correction. I wouldn't say it was "only" because of the circumcision detail, considering we don't actually know if the descriptions matched, there's circumstantial evidence for both arguments but neither was really validated by the court proceedings. I would personally disregard fan claims because of their obvious motivating interest; however I acknowledge the Chandler family had an equally obvious motivating financial interest in pursuing their civil case.

You've really harped on people "parroting fan myths," but I came at the case through my interest in true crime and false abuse allegations, not because I give a shit about Michael Jackson or his music. Of course I've watched the documentary, and I've read through the perspectives of both sides -- I just find the defense arguments more compelling. I haven't dismissively said you're "parroting guilter myths" and implied you're unfamiliar with the details of the case -- I should think it's pretty clear we're both acquainted with the relevant facts. We're looking at the same circumstantial evidence and simply reaching different conclusions because we weigh the elements differently. You believe the Chandler/Robson/Safechuck allegations, but what about the Arvizo case?

 

[Steve Hightower]

You're right about the suicide, I messed that up as I was editing my response so I've edited my post to reflect the correction. I wouldn't say it was "only" because of the circumcision detail, considering we don't actually know if the descriptions matched, there's circumstantial evidence for both arguments but neither was really validated by the court proceedings. I would personally disregard fan claims because of their obvious motivating interest; however I acknowledge the Chandler family had an equally obvious motivating financial interest in pursuing their civil case.

You've really harped on people "parroting fan myths," but I came at the case through my interest in true crime and false abuse allegations, not because I give a shit about Michael Jackson or his music. Of course I've watched the documentary, and I've read through the perspectives of both sides -- I just find the defense arguments more compelling. I haven't dismissively said you're "parroting guilter myths" and implied you're unfamiliar with the details of the case -- I should think it's pretty clear we're both acquainted with the relevant facts. We're looking at the same circumstantial evidence and simply reaching different conclusions because we weigh the elements differently. You believe the Chandler/Robson/Safechuck allegations, but what about the Arvizo case?

I believe the Arvizo case as well. It didn't help his case that his family wasn't remotely perfect, but it was in plain sight as a result of the Living with Michael Jackson documentary.

This was also the case where it was discovered that MJ owned violent, weird heterosexual porn and homoerotic photobooks and sex manuals. They also tried to admit the "art" books as evidence in the 2005 case, first found in 1993. Linking to MJ Facts as they have every court document uploaded.

https://www.mjfacts.com/resources/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf

 

[Overly Serious]

I dont necessarily think the discoloration on his penis is a smoking gun. He could have changed clothes or urinated in front of the kid, which is wildly inappropriate, but not necessarily a sign of sexual abuse. Creepy as fuck, but not a legal slam dunk.

Tangent but it never used to be inappropriate because people never thought of it as sexual. I remember as a kid going into the men's room and urinating at the urinal alongside other people, which sometimes could be adult depending on when and where I was.

Heck, I'm old enough that it still seems silly to me when I enter a men's room and they have those little privacy shields in between the urinals as if "oh no - someone might look at my penis". I mean, whenever I went to the swimming baths or gym everyone is getting changed right in front of each other in the communal area and that's still the case today. But I think in America there's more of a fear of nudity. It didn't used to be the case though. Anyone growing up in the 60's or 70's would never have been freaked out about changing in front of other members of the same sex.

That was before gayness, though.

 

[Freya]

I honestly have no idea but there were plenty of signs that he may have been a paedo. It's also reasonable to assume that some false allegations may have been brought up against him to extort money out of him. Both could be true at the same time.

So? Just because he didn't molest Macaulay Caulkin (a massive celebrity at the time) doesn't mean he couldn't have touched any of the other countless, non-famous children he had access to.


Not watching the whole video because tl;dr and the guy is annoying, but to address his first point about the pornography, this website goes into detail of the two books found locked in a filing cabinet in his bedroom, and it's a very disturbing and eye-opening read. This compounded with his strange fixation on adolescence and his inappropriate relationship with boys, I think, gives plenty cause for concern.

Jesus..he had actual CP

 

[Vatred]

He was a broken man who didn't get a childhood. He lived under abuse and was puppeted in front of crowds by his for almost his entire life. I hate people who hurt children, and never have sympathy for them. That being said, I honestly do believe he never molested kids.

They say that stars will forever mentally stay at the age they were when they first became famous. I think this was the case with Jackson; he might have acted strange and childlike, behaving in a way that is okay for kids with other kids, but not for adults with kids. I think it came from a more naïve place.

If I lived the life he did, I too would have spent my riches living in a childhood fantasy. Strange upbringings create strange people.
That, and kids have come out saying that their parents forced them to say that Jackson diddled them.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

I just think Michael was a creepy fuck who had child mentality and tried to relive his childhood

I know it's creepy but to be frank a predator wouldn't build a fucking fantasy land, have a closet full of child things and images. It would be more sexual in nature.

I guess it would be predatory if he built all those things to attract kids ...but really? Why go through all that to just attract some random kids? Wtf? Why not build a small playground or some shit.

MJ had all this money and he used it to create his version of paradise. His excitement. It was to live as a child again.

Now to degree of pedohilia, I don't know frankly.

 

[Kosher Dill]

Another consideration: if the biggest celebrity on the planet really was a pedophile, would it have been so hard for him to join one of the existing Hollywood pedo rings? MJ apparently did associate with Jeffrey Epstein, so it's not like he never could have had an "in" to that world. It seems strange that he would be running his own amateur operation when there are pros out there who'd have loved to recruit him.

 

[Freya]

Yeah he wasn't a pedophile. He just had them sleep in his bed with him and had jizz stained pictures of naked boys tucked away in a file cabinet in his room.