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.
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.