# 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:** 11
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/201 "2009-07-14T20:44:09Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > 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. Well, to be fair, the doctors weren’t playing with MJ’s dick. Presumably in a child molestation case, there’s some child-penis interaction? ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/202 "2009-07-14T20:47:45Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Well, to be fair, the doctors weren’t playing with MJ’s dick. Presumably in a child molestation case, there’s some child-penis interaction? I don’t remember what the allegations exactly were, but not necessarily. They could just have involved the child being manipulated/touched. Seeing the penis doesn’t mean he touched it. Besides, as **Diogenes** has posted, if the foreskin was retracted, it could have looked cut. How do you explain away the tell tale spot? ---
**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, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/203 "2009-07-14T20:52:42Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I don’t remember what the allegations exactly were, but not necessarily. They could just have involved the child being manipulated/touched. Seeing the penis doesn’t mean he touched it. Besides, as **Diogenes** has posted, if the foreskin was retracted, it could have looked cut. How do you explain away the tell tale spot? Well, it’s not like his vitiligo was unknown to the public. If the child had been coerced, it’s hardly a stretch to come up with “he has a pigmentation disorder all over his body, so say he’s got some spots on his ass and balls, kid.” ---
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/204 "2009-07-14T20:54:51Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Well, it’s not like his vitiligo was unknown to the public. If the child had been coerced, it’s hardly a stretch to come up with “he has a pigmentation disorder all over his body, so say he’s got some spots on his ass and balls, kid.” But he didn’t just say he had a bunch of spots. He specifically said that he had one on the lower left side of his penis. And described the position of the other spots. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/205 "2009-07-14T21:00:34Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > But he didn’t just say he had a bunch of spots. He specifically said that he had one on the lower left side of his penis. And described the position of the other spots. Yes, so you’ve said. Where are the court papers which allege this? That have the drawing that supposedly exists? ---
**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, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/206 "2009-07-14T21:20:09Z")
> [@Brandus](#): > > I finally got my hands on Taraborrelli which offers the most complete account of what actually happened that I’ve seen so far. I would give Taraborrelli about as much credence as Dimond - that is to say, not much. Anything that depends so heavily on unnamed sources isn’t much use in determining “what we actually know.” In this case, what we _know_ is that an unauthorized biographer (or a crimesploitation hack) has asserted that some anonymous person has told them something. In both cases, the primary answer to a _cui bono_ inquiry is “The author, the publisher, and the ‘sources,’” because it’s all _quid pro quo_. _E Pluribus Unum_ and _Hocus Pocus_, for good measure. ---
**Author:** ![Wakinyan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wakinyan/32/352_2.png) [@Wakinyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wakinyan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/207 "2009-07-14T22:16:24Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I don’t remember what the allegations exactly were, but not necessarily. They could just have involved the child being manipulated/touched. Seeing the penis doesn’t mean he touched it. Besides, as **Diogenes** has posted, if the foreskin was retracted, it could have looked cut. How do you explain away the tell tale spot? No offense, but the “MJ is a child molester” side is sounding more and more like a CT clutching at straws. Going back to the OP, _what do we actually know?_ That’s what I’d like to know. Also, if there’s any UFOs involved. ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/208 "2009-07-14T22:32:07Z")
> [@Wakinyan](#): > > No offense, but the “MJ is a child molester” side is sounding more and more like a CT clutching at straws. Going back to the OP, _what do we actually know?_ That’s what I’d like to know. Also, if there’s any UFOs involved. That three children have made claims (one led to a trial where Jackson was acquitted, two were paid large sums of money), that a number of people have testified that they did see child molestation occur, that MJ admits to sleeping in the same bed as children, and that books of naked boys that may not necessarily be child porn were found in his house, and that we’ve seen MJ on television snuggling with a 13 year old boy, that he tends to associate with children of the same age range and gender. That’s not the same as videotaped evidence of him molesting a child but if you knew someone with all that evidence against him, would you really believe he’s no danger to a child? That leaves aside the evidence that we don’t actually have like the intimidation of Jordie Chandler and his father and the actual description of the penis and the photographs, or the evidence of the psychiatrists who examined Jordie. ---
**Author:** ![Wakinyan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wakinyan/32/352_2.png) [@Wakinyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wakinyan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/209 "2009-07-14T22:46:09Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > … would you really believe he’s no danger to a child? That is not the question. You sway from insignificant details to sweeping generalizations. “Prove to me \*this \* particular photograph is _not_ an UFO!” to “Do you really believe \*all \*unidentified flying objects in the air space are weather balloons what are your nuts?! Hey, I read a _book_!” After reading this thread carefully, I’m just not conviced. - I have no personal emotions invested in Michael Jackson (I’m in to rock’n’roll, rather), and I don’t care, but your argumentation just fall short. I might be wrong, fight my ignorance and prove me wrong. What do we know? ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/210 "2009-07-14T22:48:28Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > That three children have made claims (one led to a trial where Jackson was acquitted, two were paid large sums of money), that a number of people have testified that they did see child molestation occur, that MJ admits to sleeping in the same bed as children, and that books of naked boys that may not necessarily be child porn were found in his house, and that we’ve seen MJ on television snuggling with a 13 year old boy, that he tends to associate with children of the same age range and gender. That’s not the same as videotaped evidence of him molesting a child but if you knew someone with all that evidence against him, would you really believe he’s no danger to a child? > > That leaves aside the evidence that we don’t actually have like the intimidation of Jordie Chandler and his father and the actual description of the penis and the photographs, or the evidence of the psychiatrists who examined Jordie. Who exactly testified they saw molestation occur? I saw no such witness in the one trial he had. Which person was it that swore under oath and said outright that he saw MJ banging a kid? ---
**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, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/211 "2009-07-14T22:49:03Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > That three children have made claims (one led to a trial where Jackson was acquitted, two were paid large sums of money) Three? I thought there was the first one that was settled out of court, then the one that went to trial. No? ---
**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, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/212 "2009-07-14T22:52:45Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > Three? I thought there was the first one that was settled out of court, then the one that went to trial. No? There was a third child who was paid off, Jason Francia, the son of Blanca Francia, one of the maids who worked at Neverland. Jason Francia testified at Jackson’s trial. As for names of people who testified, I don’t have them now–a number of them were mentioned in the Diane Dimond book. I don’t know how many testified at the trial versus how many were just giving evidence related to the Jordie Chandler trial. No, I suppose we can’t conclusively say anything. I’m just saying that based on all this, if I had to guess one way or the other, it seems more likely that Jackson, a man who admits that he enjoys sleeping and cuddling with kids who aren’t his children, is a pedophile than that there was a massive conspiracy to frame him. ---
**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, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/213 "2009-07-14T23:41:57Z")
> [@Freudian Slit](#): > > I’m just saying that based on all this, if I had to guess one way or the other, it seems more likely that Jackson, a man who admits that he enjoys sleeping and cuddling with kids who aren’t his children, is a pedophile than that there was a massive conspiracy to frame him. I think this is the crux of the disconnect, right here. I mean, this is the germ of it. This is the intellectual basis for Ms. Dimond’s book, right here. Last week, on her [webpage](http://dianedimond.net/a-word-about-sources/#idc-container), (in the comments for a blog posting in which she defended her reliance on anonymous sources for her book by pointing out that she _thanked_ those sources in the book’s dedication) she responded to someone who asked if it wasn’t possible that Jackson _was_ innocent, (pointing out that he was quite candid about the co-sleeping, which is counter to what you might expect if he was actually molesting children,) the total of her response was: > [@](#): > > The law says men are not supposed to sleep with stranger’s boys. Period. The law says men who do this are suspect. ~ DD This is an astonishing statement for someone that pretends to be a journalist – and not only for its utter disregard for law or language. It’s natural that this is going to push some emotional buttons for people, but I don’t think it’s possible to look at the facts of the case as they have been presented and conclude that it’s probable that Michael Jackson molested children. You say that the defense “did their best” to paint the witnesses for the prosecution as unreliable. The plain facts are that the defense didn’t have to work very hard to put that impression across - it was ready-built. You and I might (with perfectly good reason) be totally squicked out about the idea of a forty year old man being that cuddly with young children. However, no-one has ever presented a compelling argument that his motivations for this were sinister. When we are able to give the accusations the full benefit of our reason, they don’t add up. If you take your opinions from some supermarket sensationalism, you’re doing yourself a disservice. (This is probably why they don’t just hand juries 12 copies of some hatchet-job or hagiography and then ask them to mete out some justice.) ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/214 "2009-07-15T01:35:29Z")
> [@Larry\_Mudd](#): > > You and I might (with perfectly good reason) be totally squicked out about the idea of a forty year old man being that cuddly with young children. However, no-one has ever presented a compelling argument that his motivations for this were sinister. Except that it is by far the most likely explanation psychologically speaking, and that no counter explanations that have been presented make any kind of sense whatsoever. We know how pedophiles behave; they behave a lot like MJ did. By the way, just because he was pedophile does not necessarily mean he was directly molesting the children. He might have jerked off while watching them sleep, for example. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/215 "2009-07-15T07:46:53Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Except that it is by far the most likely explanation psychologically speaking, and that no counter explanations that have been presented make any kind of sense whatsoever. We know how pedophiles behave; they behave a lot like MJ did. Really? Many pedophiles becomes international superstars? Have lots of plastic surgery? Dance well? Have money? Sorry, you’ll need to do much better than that. > [@](#): > > By the way, just because he was pedophile does not necessarily mean he was directly molesting the children. He might have jerked off while watching them sleep, for example. You can only dream. How about if we get back to OP: what do we _know_. Not “what kind of wild ass crazily stupid assertions can I make up on the spot because I want to believe that he is a pederast”. K, thanks. ---
**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 15, 2009, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/216 "2009-07-15T13:39:53Z")
We know that he admitted his guilt by paying at least two of them off. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/217 "2009-07-15T14:55:05Z")
Paid 2 kids off had 2 trials for molesting numerous people have said they witnessed him doing bad things with children he gave an interview saying sleeping with other peoples kids is fine and natural He was weird in so many ways None of it is proof . But when the pile gets deep enough ,you have to be very suspicious. I completely understand if someone thinks he was guilty. But it is still not proof. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/218 "2009-07-15T16:09:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > We know that he admitted his guilt by paying at least two of them off. Hrm, no. It isn’t a necessary conclusion that if someone pays someone to shut up that they’re guilty. It’s called nuisance money and it happens day in and day out simply because it’s easier to pay people off than deal with them. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/219 "2009-07-15T16:11:47Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Paid 2 kids off > had 2 trials for molesting > numerous people have said they witnessed him doing bad things with children > he gave an interview saying sleeping with other peoples kids is fine and natural > He was weird in so many ways > None of it is proof . But when the pile gets deep enough ,you have to be very suspicious. I completely understand if someone thinks he was guilty. But it is still not proof. Not only isn’t it proof, but it’s not even evidence. Evidence is the same for everyone and is objectively true. A person’s assertion isn’t evidence; it’s testimony. It isn’t objectively true, like, say, a fingerprint. Yes, I have no doubt he was batshit crazy, and lacked either the capacity to constrain himself in a reasonably normal manner, or the emotional ability to do so. That, however, doesn’t imply he’s a pedophile. At the end of the day, all people have is their unsupported belief that he one. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/220 "2009-07-15T17:38:14Z")
You got us there. He’s highly unlikely to be convicted at this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=12)