Re: On Michael Jackson

sdarren40 — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:03:17 -0000

I was never a really huge Michael Jackson fan, but ever since he died, I've been doing a little research on the guy out of curiosity - I've spent hours and hours scouring the net reading all about this man (I know..pretty sad). From what I have read about both chid molestation cases, I must say I truly believe the man was innocent. He may have led an unorthodox lifestyle, but there was not a single shred of evidence I found that can link him up with these allegations.

The 1993 case seems nothing more than extortion. Evan Chandler, the father of the alleged victim, accused Jackson of molesting his son. Chandler was caught on tape threatening to damage Jackson's career. When asked how this case would affect his son, he said the well being of his son was irrelevant as long as he gets what he wants. The boy, Jordan Chandler, told investigators of incidents where Jackson supposedly touched him inappropriately. He even had a description of Jackson's genitalia. To prove his innocence, Jackson allowed investigators to inspect and take pictures of his nude body to show that the boy's description was not a match. The boy claimed Jackson was circumcised...false. Eventually, Jackson's advisors convinced the pop star to settle at the cost of $22 million. Now I don't know about you, but if my child was molested, I would not settle for any amount of money. I would be adamant in making sure the monster rots in jail. But the Chandlers seemed to be content with the money, which to me is very suspect about their intentions.

As for the 2003, man I can go on and on giving evidence as to why I believe Jackson is innocent but it'll take too long. So I'll just give some key facts. First of all, the Arvizo family...well we all know their history of trying to extort money. Their credibility is moot. Especially the mother..wow, that woman is a piece of work. I won't get into detail, but many of the claims they had made were refuted by many witnesses as straight up lies. The siblings of the "victim" kept changing their stories...and some of their accusations were laughable.

Many Neverland employees had a dislike for the Arvizo clan claiming they were disrespectful and acted as though Neverland belonged to them. The Arvizo children have also been caught drinking, masturbating and causing a ruckus...all without Jackson's knowledge. As for the Neverland employees who testified against Jackson, let me just mention that majority of them were terminated from their job, which gives them motive to lie to the court. Some of them testified that Jackson had molested other children, one of whom was Macaluy Culkin. Culkin, as well as the other children, have vehemently denied that Jackson ever touched them.

Now the porn...first of all, all the porn was of a heterosexual nature. If Jackson wanted to use this porn to lure little boys, why in the world would he have stacks and stacks of it? Now, a few magazines here and there...sure. But stacks and years worth of porn? I don't think so. There were two books found containing images of partially nude boys - art books. Completely legal. And what many fail to mention is that these two books had an inscription inside - they were nothing more but gifts from a Michael Jackson fan. Another thing I found interesting was the pornographic DVD. The accuser's brother had said Jackson showed him a particular porn dvd. This said DVD, it turns out, was never released until 3 months after the Arvizo family had already moved out of Neverland. That's interesting...how could Jackson show them that DVD when it didn't even come out until after the family was long gone? Not only that, but the prosecution ran out of evidence, so they had to go back to the 1993 case just so that they could keep their case going. There is soooo much more evidence that proves that man is innocent but this is too long. I was not at the trial so obviously I'm not an expert on this. But let's quote someone who was actually at that trial everyday, Andrew Cohen, the Chief legal analyst for CBS news stated: "The case against Jackson was so bad that even you would have acquitted him based solely upon the evidence. Yes, it was that bad."

Michael Jackson was a weirdo? Yes. Was he a pedophile? Absolutely not. I have so much sympathy for this misunderstood man. People already painted Jackson out to be guilty even before the trial started. I guess it's the pack mentality...

I wrote a damn novel, lol I apoloize =)

Disqus - Latest Comments for sdarren40

Re: On Michael Jackson