Posted on 07/07/2009 10:34:52 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
This was the news article that was not written.
This was the scoop that was not painstakingly sought after by responsible members of the American news media, in fierce competition with each other.
These were the shaking, impressionable quotes and stunning off-camera comments that were not gathered in the course of good American journalism.
In short, this was the story that was not to be.
It could have been a full fledged story.
Those who were involved as overnight guests for milk, cookies and "Jesus Juice" at the Neverland Ranch, some no doubt with scars to this day, could have been tracked down easily through press techniques, and given chances to interview, even if kept anonymous. But this was not to be.
I am willing to be corrrected and ask the moderator to pull this vanity thread if in fact there was any substantial journalism from any major, respected news outlet on this aspect and angle of the Michael Jackson legacy and aftermath--including victims' interviews.
But to write such a story, would this not step on too many toes? Would it not turn over too many sacred cows? Would it not be too politically incorrect and not (as liberals are so apt to prattle) "FOR THE CHILDREN"? Would it not risk giving rise to "the truth" in such a morally subjective world as ours today? Would it not be so NOT 2009 America?
One wonders what could have been.
Rabid Michael Jackson fans, however, have been brutally condemning both victims, even wishing for their deaths. But the most ridiculous item that was spread this week by fans of the self-titled “King of Pop” is that Michael Jackson’s first victim has come out and said he lied about Michael Jackson’s wrongdoings all along. This libelous information was spread like wildfire over the Internet. It’s amazing how websites can spread information without even checking sources.
Two phone calls and ten minutes of our time revealed that Jordan Chandler did not comment about anything. If he did, he could lose the millions of dollars in hush-hush money that he was paid.
Several sites that posted the false story have been closed down or don’t have a working link to the story. Most likely, they were served with the threat of a lawsuit by Jordan Chandler’s attorneys.
We should honor Michael Jackson for his musical achievements. Perhaps, we should also honor him for his philanthropy projects. Turning him into a saint, however, is disgusting and spreads a message that pedophilia is okay as long as you have talent and money. Even more disgusting is the fact that two alleged victims of child abuse are being victimized even more.
from the examiner
ask and ye shall receive, I guess ;-)
I’m not a fan of Michael Jackson. I’ve never liked his singing or dancing. But he was acquitted of alleged crimes by an apparently impartial jury. And the more I read about it, the more I’ve become convinced that he was in fact innocent of being a child molester. The obsessive Michael Jackson haters, in Congress and out, aren’t as weird as Michael, but they’re very likely a lot meaner than he was.
Everyone knows, for example, NO WAY that OJ Simpson offed Nicolle Simpson and that Goldman dude.
For what it’s worth. I’m kind of torn on this one. Considering how the media has been shown to be so corrupt and willing allies in personal destruction; I don’t know if they hounded him until they wore him down enough to pay the fines or he actually did what they said and some how got acquitted.
Whatever happened I think the prayer at the end put it in perspective for me. Micheal Jackson the king of pop had to bow his knee to the King of kings. I was reminded Christ died for sinners which Michael was. I only hope he got it straight at the end.
The link only brings me back to FreeRepublic browse page.
Neither you nor I will know that for sure.
“he was acquitted of alleged crimes by an apparently impartial jury”
In one case. You fail to mention what happened in the other.
you are motivating me to make my own AmericanInTokyo webpage... how many have been on my case for years to do something like that.
“Everyone knows, for example, NO WAY that OJ Simpson offed Nicolle Simpson and that Goldman dude.”
Everyone who knows that is obviously mistaken.
Your “logic” seems to be that if one black man was unjustly acquitted by a racially biased jury of 10 black and 2 whites, another black man who was acquitted by a jury of 11 whites and one asian must also be guilty. Calling this “logic” is perhaps unduly flattering to you.
Thank you for your input!
So Duke Lacross players were guilty of rape even though the DA found they had no case to answer?
Is that the way your logic works?
“In one case. You fail to mention what happened in the other.”
I’ve read he paid off the young man to avoid a trial. The young man refused to testify against him at his later trial, in spite of repeated invitations from DA Sneddon. I’ve also read on this site that the young man initially misidentified the nature of Jackson’s private parts (the post was removed by our Admin Moderator, who is apparently not an admirer of Mr Jackson).
No doubt Michael Jackson was quite a strange man, and suspicion of him being a child molester was quite reasonable. It’s taken me quite a long time to realize that he was in fact very likely innocent of these charges.
About as logical as running Tony Snow for President in 2012 I guess.
With OJ, there was evidence that an actual crime occurred. There were bodies and blood. Not so with MJ.
He might’ve been guilty. I used to think so. But, he might’ve been innocent because no charges were brought against him the first time, and he was cleared on all counts the second time. Maybe these families were looking to take advantage of a rich, eccentric man. He claimed he settled with the first family because his lawyers advised him the case could go on for years and they couldn’t guarantee a win. We really don’t know what happened.
he slept with young boys in his bed, he has paid off at least one boys parents to prevent a trial, he was accused by at least one other boy, and there are reports flowing around from staff at his ranch that they carefully hide dirty sheets.....
and we won't even go into this creatures bizzaro world of face masks, white skin, no nose, high pitched voice, and now the facts that he was horrendously addicted to drugs.....
since this is not a court of law only of opinion, my guess would be that the real truth about Jackson is very sinister and evil...
I don’t know the truth of it. I do know that kids who are abused are much more prone to abuse others. The problem with Jackson is that he did everything he could to attract children to him. That can be the act of a nice person. It can also be a classic sign of drawing kids in to be a victim.
People have as much right to defend him here, as we do to raise questions. I have never said I think he is definitely a pedophile or worse, but there isn’t a chance in hell I’d have put my kids anywhere near him at any time in their lives.
I would judge it an act of child abuse for a parent to leave a child in his care. There’s just no way to clear him. The jury probably did the right thing considering the witnesses, but Jackson’s staff member were not comfortable themselves.
Well, neither am I.
I don't care how rich someone is, no one will pay an accuser $20 million for a baseless allegation to go away, no one.
I don't know if this last kid was molested or not. As you say, he was acquitted by a presumably impartial jury of his peers. He was acquitted. He wasn't found innocent. There's a tremendous difference as our criminal justice system demands. I suspect in a civil trial, where the burden switches from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence", would have elicited a much different verdict. That's why the civil case was settled.
The Duke Lacrosse players didn't pay the stripper $20 million to go away.
The bottom line:
Would you have put your own little son in bed with Michael Jackson? No, of course not.
Why not? Because is was dangerous.
The very act of exposing a young child to that situation with a strange man is abuse.
What are we to believe of the police reports of pornography seized at the guy’s place, and his own admission that he slept with young boys—and his own sister (before being shut up suddenly) telling the world that she told Michael to knock that crap off (having boys for overnighters at his age and sleeping with them) before he “gets in big trouble.” This isn’t the half of it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, then......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1025975/posts
I've read many similar comments on this site, it seems many of you are concluding he is guilty based mainly on the out of court settlement. I'm going to re-post some things I wrote on another site:
As for the 20 million ... There could be a number of reasons he ended up doing that, that we aren't aware of. It could be as simple as him not wanting to go through a grueling, lengthy and embarassing (regardless of his innocence or guilt) trial, or the possibility of being wrongfully convicted of something he didn't do.
Another very interesting possibility (that is being increasingly discussed, btw) and which would explain a lot, if true, is that he was a castrato. As his dad's cash cow, many have speculated that he was castrated (either chemically or surgically) before he hit puberty, so his voice wouldn't change, which could've meant the end of Joe Jackson's gravy train. Sounds extreme, but from what we know about Joe Jackson, many people wouldn't put that past him. Getting back to the settlement - if that was the case, he might've thought that dark secret being exposed could mean the end of his success, so he would NOT have wanted to go through a trial where his private parts were discussed to the world. It's possible he would rather settle with the accuser (who imo only wanted money in the first place) and have some people think he was a pedophile, rather than go through with the trial and have everyone know he was a eunuch.
A third possibility is something I read about today, that he was basically forced to settle out of court. Here is an excerpt from an article that stated this. I don't know if this is article is true, but I have heard the same thing from another source too, so FWIW here's an excerpt and the link:
When Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser, Jordan Chandler, for more than $15million in 1994, his career went into a rapid decline from which he never recovered.Jackson had not wanted to settle the case. I have obtained legal documents proving that his insurance company forced the settlement on him against his will.
The documents state: 'The [1994 Chandler] settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.' Jackson was said to have almost collapsed as the settlement was forced upon him. His aides insist this marked the beginning of his mental and physical breakdown.
I also have read in a few places that his then wife, Lisa Marie, strongly encouraged him to make an out of court settlement, (even though she stated he was wrongly accused) because she was worried about his frail health and prescription drug abuse. She encouraged him to settle out of court and go to rehab. And he did both.
Those are just a few possibilities, there could be other reasons we don't know about.
That said, I think the settlement is actually more damaging to the accuser. And Evan Chandler's goal from the get-go seemed to be getting money from Jackson, which is not what a parent of a true case of child molestation would want, they would want the perpetuator to be behind bars, for a very long time, so justice would be served, and so their child and other children would be safe. They would want the victimizer to receive the full brunt of the law, for the judge to 'throw the book' at him, they would not be satisfied with money alone, as Chandler clearly was.
His lawyers were smart and their advice well to heed. My lawyer told me if I was charged, my best course of action was to leave the country, for good. Fortunately, in my case, a polygraph by the nation's best was enough to keep the hounds at bay. You know not of what you speak.
You can do anything you want anytime you want if you have enough money.
Voter agrees with Peter King. . . . . .
He DID at least travel the USO circuit, sometimes with Bob Hope, and entertain US troops, so there was some good in the man, RIP.
A stopped clock is 100% correct 2 times a day.
All the clocks around here are, or seem broken, in our house! ;-)
Did you hear that Idi Amin is dead?
Politically speaking, you and I are on the same page AIT!!
But not on this.
The reason your suggested story does not exist is because there are NO “victims”.
The ONLY victim, Michael Jackson, is dead. May he NOW, FINALLY rest in peace.
Exactly....even if it wasn’t proven he committed sexual acts, there was ALOT of “other” stuff that was confirmed not just by other children, but by staff as well. The Jesus Juice (what kinda sadistic whacko comes up with THAT?) - the pornography - the secret room - his public support of adult males sleeping with children and doesn’t the world need more of that sort of thing?
Fully agreed.
Not to mention what he obviously did to his own children.
Imagine what they have had to watch on a daily basis as their father popped pills and injected himself to keep himself in a permanent fog.
They clearly were not “raised” by him as he was physically incapable of it.
So they were raised by hired help and daddy played with them when he felt up to it.
He covered them with veils and gave the youngest a ridiculous name.
He made them constantly to pick up and move as he mooched off of various people.
He even died in front of his son.
How horrifying.
I could not believe the over reaching in the ceremony yesterday.
He was “pure”? rubbish.
...”I don’t know if they hounded him until they wore him down enough to pay the fines or he actually did what they said and some how got acquitted.”
Just two clarify...you are referring to two separate claims. The first, accusations by Jordy Chander in the 90’s, was settled by SONY and the insurance company, AGAINST MJ’s wishes. The insurance company made the decision, MJ had NO choice in the matter. THEY paid off the family. Oddly, after receiving the $$$, the family chose NOT to file criminal charges.
The second, 9 counts, brought about by the Arvizo family, MJ was found NOT guilty of ALL charges and acquitted. Having followed the trial and read the daily transcripts, I found the decision to be correct.
Yeah. Great with kids. Great role model.
How somebody could idolize this individual is really beyond me. I just can't see it. But then again, last year, we saw those big American crowds with the Hitler Jugen type tropical stare at rallies featuring ZERO, so I guess anything is possible.
Guess I did not drink the Jesus Jui...er, Koolaid, that's all.
Any joe shmoe w/ Jackson’s tendencies would not have been allowed to purchase children.
And even if the average joe shmoe still got away with purchasing children - similar drug addiction and dangling of babies would have caused DSS to remove them.
One for THEM.
One for THE REST OF US.
“I’ve also read on this site that the young man initially misidentified the nature of Jackson’s private parts (the post was removed by our Admin Moderator, who is apparently not an admirer of Mr Jackson).”
That is absolutely correct. MJ was subjected to a dehumanizing search and nude photos taken of every square inch of all private parts. While Jordy Chandler’s description of “splotches” was correct (due to vitilago) , his claim that MJ was circumcised was NOT.
That great liberal ‘empathy’ doesn’t seem to extend to their victims. Prayers for Jackson’s victims.
Like I said, the best lawyers can buy all kinds of "breaks" and injustices in our system for the privileged and famous. You just gotta pony up the bucks. No prob.
If Jackson really was innocent, I’m the Easter Bunny.
Did you notice some of the speakers at the memorial? Bryant, johnson, sharpton, jesse jackson? All of them have a common background, Major Media coverage over some big scandal. (one w/hiv, one accused of rape, etc)
Hey! Watch it! Don’t pull down our idols and role models like that... ;-(
I was very confused as to why we didn’t see Louie Farrakhan anywear? Or any Nation of Islam thugs?
What’s the dealio? I thought MJ was a covert to Islam and had taken on a new muslim name?
I have no idea..I read a few days ago on FR that he converted to Christianity a few weeks ago. I don’t know how they arrived at that conclusion.
Do you know if the pastor at the memorial service was a jehovah’s witness?
Everyone knows, for example, NO WAY that OJ Simpson offed Nicolle Simpson and that Goldman dude.
That is a stupid comparison. Why weren't OJ's victims interviewed??
Michael Jackson was weird but that doesn't make him a pedophile.
I question his "victims" because there would have been a lot more than two if he had been sexually abusing children, don't you think? He could have been the victim of people out for $$$$ knowing that MJ would be found guilty in the court of public opinion, which you prove.
For the record, I have never bought a MJ recording and was not a fan.
The jurors in the child molestation case in which Jackson was found innocent were interviewed after the verdict, as is common.
The transcript has been posted repeatedly on FR and is available in other locations. Multiple jurors stated that ALL of the jurors believed that Jackson had sexually molested children. However, they didn’t not believe that the state had met the burden of proof with respect to the specific child with respect to whom the charges were brought.
Jackson was found not guilty — not the same as “innocent” — by a group of jurors who heard testimony of other Jackson encounters with other young boys. The jurors publicly stated they believed Jackson sexually molested young boys, but that this one molestation charge had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It was like a jury finding Ted Bundy innocent in Florida, saying “we all believe Bundy is a serial killer who killed women in Colorado and other states, but we don’t think the the State of Florida proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed these particular FSU coeds.”
One of the female sexual abuse specialists from the police force wrote a book about the case and included lots of evidence that was ruled inadmissible in court. If true — and Jackson never sued her — the evidence she presented was damning.
In response to questioning last week, a police representative stated the department’s belief that Jackson had spent between $200-220 million in secret settlements and attorneys’ fees to settle all of the charges brought against him for child abuse.
I’ve watched the pirated video where Michael is first being questioned about Jordy (who had slept in his bed for what, a year?) and initially denies knowing him.
O.J. was never convicted. The world is full of people who for various reasons — often celebrity status — are never convicted for criminal acts because of the heavy burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the state must carry. They are never sued in civil court if they can spend $22 million to settle the case — and are quite well protected if the settlement agreement prevents the victim from mentioning the acts.
To enter Jackson’s personal bedroom required first going through several hallways and other rooms, all of which were equipped with security cameras, motion detectors, and other entry-detection devices which signaled an incoming intruder to Michael’s bedroom and bathroom (with a siren loud enough to be heard in the shower). I can’t put my hands on it right now, but there’s an excellent British magazine article on the special security system set up to prevent and delay any entry into his bedroom.
When Michael had his young boy visitors, the parents, sisters, and brothers not within his preferred age range stayed in a bungalow quite a distance from the main house at Neverland.
I’ve read enough from those who access to all of the evidence, seen enough of the interview tape of Michael, and heard enough from the jurors who “acquitted” Michael but were convinced he had sexually molested other children to believe personally, beyond doubt, that he sexually molested young boys. Repeatedly.
There’s room for a difference of opinion on most subjects. Regarding Michael and young boys, however, I think it’s a case where people who think he never molested young boys either haven’t taken the time to read and view the available evidence or, well, they also believe that Michael kept unicorns at Neverland.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.