# Michael Jackson the Pederast? What Do We Actually know? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 6, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108 "2009-07-06T18:25:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/181 "2009-07-13T21:13:33Z")
This thread has already had links to cites - that is how I am aware of it. However, how about this? > [@](#): > > In a series of interviews with Martin Bashir, broadcast in 2003 as Living with Michael Jackson, Jackson was seen holding hands and discussing sleeping arrangements with Gavin Arvizo, 13, who later accused him of sexual abuse.[112] Shortly after the documentary aired, Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in relation to Arvizo.[112] > > Jackson denied the allegations, saying the sleepovers were not sexual in nature. **Elizabeth Taylor defended him, saying she had been there when they were in the bed.** > **[Michael Jackson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson#2003.E2.80.9305:_Second_child_sexual_abuse_allegations)** > > Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009) was an American singer, songwriter, dancer, and philanthropist. Dubbed the "King of Pop", he is widely regarded as one of the most culturally significant figures of the 20th century. Over a four-decade career, his musical achievements broke American racial barriers and made him a dominant figure worldwide. Through his songs, concerts, and fashion, he proliferated visual performance for artists in popular music, popularizing street danc... Though Gavin was 13 at the time, according to the same source. Ah, here’s one, though not a firsthand cite. This is from the Maureen Orth _Vanity Fair_ article from 1995 talking about a PrimeTime Live interview, discussing the first case. > [@](#): > > Investigators who contacted approximately 400 witnesses say that no one has found a single little girl who was invited to bed with Jackson. He slept only with little boys. Jackson’s chauffeur, Gary Hearne, testified under oath that on 30 nights he had dropped Jackson off at the small house in Santa Monica where the boy who brought charges lived. Even Jackson’s camp admits that he slept in the same bed with the boy all those nights. [http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509?currentPage=3](http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509?currentPage=3) Okay, so you will ask if there a cite for the claim by Maureen Orth. Not linked there. Okay, how about another cite of Michael and a 13 yr old? > [@](#): > > On March 28, a private jet was sent to pick up Jamie, his mother and sister, and Jackson at the Santa Monica airport and fly them to Las Vegas, where they stayed in the Michael Jackson Suite at Steve Wynn’s Mirage Hotel. It was the first night Michael and Jamie would share the same bed, Michael wearing sweats, Jamie wearing pajamas. Michael had rented The Exorcist, and Jamie got scared. His mother and sister stayed in another bedroom in the suite. The next night the two wanted to sleep together again. But a confrontation ensued, because Jamie’s mother objected. > [@](#): > > That did it—Jamie’s mother was won over. From that night on, with few exceptions, s **he allowed 13-year-old Jamie and his 34-year-old rich and powerful friend to share the same bed for more than three months. Michael essentially moved in, and lived with Jamie in one room of the family’s small, unpretentious house** in Santa Monica Canyon while his little friend went to school. Bolding added. [http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1994/01/orth199401?currentPage=2](http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1994/01/orth199401?currentPage=2) I didn’t read all the linked Vanity Fair articles. Just the first two. I haven’t had the time for more followup. ---
**Author:** ![2ply](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/b2d939/32.png) [@2ply](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ply)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/182 "2009-07-13T22:02:53Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > And it’s quite interesting that Jackson’s lawyers never tried libel or defamation suit. Tom Cruise has successfully bitch-slapped publications for far less. Not suing the magazine doesn’t tell us much. Trying to prove defamation in the US, especially when you are a public figure, is next to impossible with this country’s first amendment protections. Tom Cruise has only ever sued one publication and that was a newspaper in Great Britain where defamation laws are much more friendly to the plaintiff. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/183 "2009-07-14T07:08:40Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Question–I’m reading a book about the molestation allegations. Those who think it was all drummed up by greedy parents, how do you account for the fact that Jordie Chandler correctly identified the markings on Jackson’s penis? Including the fact that he said there was a spot under his penis at the base that would only be visible if it was erect or lifted up? Coincidence? Evan Chandler drugged Jackson and pulled his pants down in the night to find it? How do you explain your total lack of citation to where this is demonstrably true? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/184 "2009-07-14T15:47:40Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > How do you explain your total lack of citation to where this is demonstrably true? Well, I can’t cite the book I read it in because not everyone has it. But I found this: > [@](#): > > With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised. > **[The Smoking Gun: Public Documents, Mug Shots](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/)** > > Public Documents, Mug Shots ---
**Author:** ![Drain\_Bead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e47774/32.png) [@Drain\_Bead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drain_Bead)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/185 "2009-07-14T16:19:23Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Well, I can’t cite the book I read it in because not everyone has it. But I found this: > > [http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html) Except wasn’t he NOT circumcised? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/186 "2009-07-14T16:21:44Z")
> [@Drain\_Bead](#): > > Except wasn’t he NOT circumcised? Indeed, he was uncut. But I love salacious claims about I read it in a book, the name of which I won’t give you, but here’s a tabloid article to back me up. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/187 "2009-07-14T16:28:32Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Indeed, he was uncut. But I love salacious claims about I read it in a book, the name of which I won’t give you, but here’s a tabloid article to back me up. O-kay, the book was Diane Diamond’s Be Careful Who You Love. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/188 "2009-07-14T16:31:01Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Indeed, he was uncut. But I love salacious claims about I read it in a book, the name of which I won’t give you, but here’s a tabloid article to back me up. The Smoking Gun is most definitely not a tabloid. The website deals only in court records, affidavits, police reports, etc. You can attack those if you please but not the site, which merely passes them on. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/189 "2009-07-14T16:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > According to the sworn affidavit of a law-enforcement photographer, there is a dark spot on the lower left side of Jackson’s penis. > [@](#): > > The boy who had accused Jackson of sexually molesting him, according to those familiar with the evidence, was able to draw—first for the district attorney, then for his own lawyers—an accurate picture of the dark spot on Jackson’s penis. The boy’s drawings were sealed in an envelope and clearly postmarked on a postal meter before the police ever photographed Jackson. According to these sources, the boy’s drawings were an accurate match of the photographs. From Maureen Orth’s [Vanity Fair article, “The Jackson Jive,”](http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509). ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/190 "2009-07-14T16:53:05Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Well, I can’t cite the book I read it in because not everyone has it. But I found this: Lawyers have been known to overstate the significance of evidence they wish to present. We ourselves aren’t able to use our own judgement for comparison. The bulk of this description could be arrived at through inference, and we are unable to determine whether or not there is conclusive resemblance. I have never seen an authorative cite for the actual status of Michael Jackson’s foreskin, one way or another. Born in the USA during the 1950s, though? The _smart_ money’s on “circumcised.” If Evan Chandler’s actions were more in accord with what you might reasonably expect of a man who sincerely believed that his son was the victim of a paedophile, this is something that would have been given a lot more scrutiny. Personally, I have a hard time crediting it. If my child were sexually abused by someone, I’m pretty sure that I’d want to see some actual justice done. A slight increase in a multibillionaire’s insurance premiums would not give me any satisfaction at all, at all, at all – I’d want to see that person do some hard time. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/191 "2009-07-14T16:55:24Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > If Evan Chandler’s actions were more in accord with what you might reasonably expect of a man who sincerely believed that his son was the victim of a paedophile, this is something that would have been given a lot more scrutiny. > > Personally, I have a hard time crediting it. If my child were sexually abused by someone, I’m pretty sure that I’d want to see some actual justice done. A slight increase in a multibillionaire’s insurance premiums would not give me any satisfaction at all, at all, at all – I’d want to see that person do some hard time. But I don’t think you can blame the father for what happened to the son. Yes, most people wouldn’t behave that way, we’d hope. But there are a lot of really selfish, greedy people out there and I guess Jordie Chandler’s parents were like that. For what it’s worth, one of the psychiatrists who saw Jordie Chandler was an expert on false reporting of child abuse and he still thought the kid was telling the truth about what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/192 "2009-07-14T17:41:19Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Indeed, he was uncut. But I love salacious claims about I read it in a book, the name of which I won’t give you, but here’s a tabloid article to back me up. We haven’t really seen a definitive cite that he was uncircumcised, but that wouldn’t be a very good refutation anyway, since the foreskin would have been retracted when he was jacking off on the kid or whatever he was doing. Plus, the kid might not have really known the difference anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/193 "2009-07-14T18:15:55Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > For what it’s worth, one of the psychiatrists who saw Jordie Chandler was an expert on false reporting of child abuse and he still thought the kid was telling the truth about what happened. “Expert testimony” (from either side) is often not worth much at all, when it comes down to brass tacks. Given that Jordan Chandler initially denied any wrongdoing by Jackson, and only said otherwise after [the administration of sodium amytal](http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist/200907/michael-jackson-truth-serum-and-false-memories), a reasonable person might have some doubts about the veracity of his testimony. These allegations were investigated _very_ thoroughly in the People v. Michael Jackson. Hundreds of people (including ~50 kids with whom Jackson had close relationships) were interviewed, and there was no indication of any wrongdoing. How likely do you suppose it is that an _actual_ paedophile would have this much close conduct with so many children over such a long period of time, but only two would be claimed as victims of an assault? If you can go so far as to accept that possibility, how much further do you have to go to discount the coincidence that the families of these children would have such considerable credibility problems? ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/194 "2009-07-14T18:23:04Z")
According to “Be Careful Who You Love,” sodium amytal wasn’t used. He was given anaesthetic/sedatives, but not sodium amytal which is extremely difficult to find. Also, a lot of people did give testimony that a number of children were molested. I think it’s very likely that few victims would come forward due to the social stigma–especially in cases involving males, where the stigma is even greater. And a lot of kids don’t necessarily think of it as sexual assault–they think of it as this person they really like who’s being nice to them who’s doing something they don’t like, and maybe it’s their fault. Plus he did supposedly threaten one of them (not sure if it was Gavin or Jordie) with juvenile hall if they spoke out. The guy wielded a lot of power–I’m not surprised if kids were too afraid or confused or whatever to speak. ---
**Author:** ![cgg419](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cgg419/32/2847_2.png) [@cgg419](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cgg419)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/195 "2009-07-14T18:32:40Z")
[quote=] The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect [/quote] So the investigators somehow managed to view him when he was erect? ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/196 "2009-07-14T18:38:43Z")
> [@cgg419](#): > > So the investigators somehow managed to view him when he was erect? I was wondering this as well when I read it earlier. Based on the descriptions I’ve read about the photo session, I’d find it pretty difficult to believe MJ could manage a boner during that. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/197 "2009-07-14T19:32:18Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Also, a lot of people did give testimony that a number of children were molested. Can you name one? It was widely reported that one of the most serious weaknesses of the prosecution’s case was that the only testimony to the effect that Jackson touched any child inappropriately came from the accuser and his brother. > [@](#): > > I think it’s very likely that few victims would come forward due to the social stigma–especially in cases involving males, where the stigma is even greater. And yet it’s very common for serial child molestors to have multiple victims come forward at trial. In this case, hypothetical victims would have more than just their abusers’ just punishment as an incentive to overcome their reluctance to speak; going on the record as a victim would see them in a position to revisit the case in civil court. There’s got to be some credible witnesses, hasn’t there? No? Just these ones who appear to have been coached by their mother in an earlier six-figure settlement case involving sexual abuse? No corroboration possible in that case, either? If Michael Jackson wasn’t such a weirdo, this would never have gotten any traction at all. As weird as he was, though - his side of the story was at least consistent and corroborated. Undeniably uncomfortably weird and (in my opinion) unhealthy, but not child molestation. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/198 "2009-07-14T20:07:44Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > I was wondering this as well when I read it earlier. Based on the descriptions I’ve read about the photo session, I’d find it pretty difficult to believe MJ could manage a boner during that. No, they meant that it would be impossible to see that spot unless the penis was physically lifted up (as in the photographs) or if it were erect. When it was deflated, the penis had to be physically lifted up for anyone to see the spot, meaning that the boy either saw it when it was erect or was in a position where someone was manually manipulating it. As for other testimonies, there were a number of people listed in “Be Careful Who You Love” who saw things. The Jackson camp did everything in their power to paint those who did as disgruntled employees or for people looking for money. I don’t have names right now but I can find them. As for other victims coming forward, at trial, Jordie Chandler didn’t want to come forward (can you blame him) though prosecutors wanted him to. Jason Francia, the son of Jackson’s maid, did come forward and testified at trial. ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/199 "2009-07-14T20:16:09Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > From Maureen Orth’s [Vanity Fair article, “The Jackson Jive,”](http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/archive/1995/09/orth199509). I wish people would stop bringing up this one magazine as if it were the holy bible. It’s basically a smear job. Orth allows those who have ran afoul of Jackson to direct the narrative. I finally got my hands on Taraborrelli which offers the most complete account of what actually happened that I’ve seen so far. One example of her lack of integrity: > [@](#): > > In March 2003, Vanity Fair reported that, without the prosthesis, Michael ‘resembles a mummy with two nostril holes.’ This is not true. Without the device, his nose appears flatter, more blunt - not pointed - and he doesn’t really look like . . . Michael Jackson. Self-conscious about his face, he refuses to be seen without it. If nothing else, the prosthesis must be a painful and daily reminder to Michael of his past choices where plastic surgery is concerned, and the impact they have had on his life. Another one > [@](#): > > Jesus Blood. Jesus Juice. Those two descriptions of red and white wine as ascribed to Michael Jackson made headlines in February 2004, as a result of a scathing article about him, by Maureen Orth in Vanity Fair. The allegation made by Orth is that Michael gave Gavin Arvizo and another boy wine - Jesus Juice - in Coke cans on a flight from Florida in February 2003. […] Orth’s primary source for increasingly lurid stories about Jackson in Vanity Fair is his former business advisor Myung-Ho Lee. Lee was Jackson’s financial advisor from 1998 to 2001. He sued him for $14 million in 2002, and hasn’t stopped talking about him since - even though Jackson settled the suit by giving him the money. Lee is the person who told Orth, in another Vanity Fair article, that Jackson hired a witch-doctor named Baba to sacrifice dozens of cows in order to put a curse on David Geffen and Steven Spielberg. That’s hard to believe… even for Michael Jackson. And finally, she alleged that Jordie drew a perfect description of Jackson’s junk but never mentioned that there was a discrepancy over him being circumcised. She wouldn’t have access to the information that Jackson had “splotches” on his crotch but not the information about his foreskin. She left it out because it doesn’t fit her case. Unfortunately she keeps bringing this up in subsequent articles too. For completeness, here is what Taraborrelli says. > [@](#): > > Apparently, Jordie had claimed that Michael had distinguishing marks on his genitals. He even drew a diagram of Michael’s penis on a napkin for police, and wrote on it: ‘Michael is circumcised. He has short pubic hair. His testicles are marked with pink and brown marks. Like a cow, not white but pink colour. He has brown patches on his ass, on his left glut’. > > Police were now determined to learn if Jordie’s description was accurate. If so, then he obviously had seen Michael Jackson unclothed. […] > > Finally, an anguished Michael was told to stand on a platform in the middle of the room as about to have his pants hemmed by a tailor. He was still wearing a bathrobe. ‘Please don’t make me do this,’ he said, his doe-like eyes watery. ‘This is Terrible. Don’t make me.’ > ‘Sir, we have no choice,’ said another one of the detectives. > Then while standing on that platform and staring at a picture of Elizabeth Taylor on the wall, Michael took off the bathrobe. Under it, he wore a bathing suit. > ‘You’ll have to take it off, sir,’ said the detective. > Still staring at the photograph of Elizabeth, Michael slipped the bathing suit off… under which he had on boxers. > ‘Sir, please.’ > Crying softly now, Michael slipped off the boxers and stood naked, stripped not only of his clothing but of the illusion that he’d always had: that of his invincibility. All eyes went right to his penis, which did not appear to be circumcised. > ‘Is the subject uncircumcised?’ asked the doctor. Everyone stepped in for a closer look. > ‘Yes, he is…’ > ‘No, he’s not…’ > ‘Yes.’ > ‘No’ > ‘Oh my God,’ Michael whimpered. He looked dizzy, as if about to faint. > ‘You don’t know?’ asked one of the detectives of Michael’s physician. > Michael’s medic became indignant. ‘Sir, I have never seen his penis before now.’ > ‘Well, the subject is clearly _not_ circumcised,’ decided the other doctor, finally. He made a note of his finding. > As everyone circled slowly around him slowly, they began making feverish notations about Michael’s body. > Yes, he did have patchy-coloured skin on his buttocks, as Jordie described. > Yes, he had short pubic hair. > Yes, his testicles were marked, pink and brown. > However, no matter how many different ways they looked at it, all seemed to agree that his penis was uncircumcised. But did that matter? In fact, an uncircumcised penis can look circumcised when aroused. If Michael had been sexually excited when seen by Jordie, would anyone, let alone a thirteen-year-old know if he was circumcised or not? But there was now doubt about the identity of the person in question. So my point is that the Vanity Fair articles were heavily slanted. I am not saying Michael is innocent, but there is at least some room for doubt if he is guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/200 "2009-07-14T20:37:18Z")
I don’t really see how the prothesis thing is relevant either way. Second, if it’s so unclear to people who saw his penis whether or not he was circumcised, doesn’t that make it understandable for why Jordan Chandler was mistaken? I’m not really sure how the Taraborelli excerpt shows that the Vanity Fair one was slanted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=11)