# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/61 "2009-07-06T22:19:23Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > If your 10 year old boy was supposedly molested by him, would you actually accept just _money_? In fact, would you first contact the potential molester and ask him for money instead of calling the police first? Actually, in their shoes, I don’t blame them for accepting the settlement. If you read the Vanity Fair articles, it was pretty clear that the boy and his entire family was being harassed. Given how devoted MJ fans are (and I trust I don’t need to provide evidence of said devotion), I wouldn’t want my child caught in a 3-ring media circus. Especially when the person controlling the circus is the same guy that’s accused of criminal activity. In sexual crimes, there’s always an abuse of power. In 1993, it would be difficult to find a man who had more power and influence than Jackson. He had limitless resources, a cadre of attorneys, and the ability to flee the country at will and hide with rich and powerful friends. On the other side, you have a 13 year old boy with parents who did not have bottomless pockets. If the choice came down to subjecting my child to a trial and probably _years_ of harrassment, against $22 million in hush money, I’d take the money. In fact, that _was_ the choice. The boy was hoping to have a chance to get into witness protection in return for his testemony, and I don’t blame him (according the VF article, nobody offered him that in exchange for testifying so he chose not to testify). I think thepeople who are arguing that MJ is a poor, misunderstood, acquitted, child-like waif of a man need to read the Vanity Fair articles. He _was_ a shrewd businessman, and he was also a master manipulator. How does being $400 million in debt prove he wasn’t shrewd? Jesus christ, people kept giving him money! People would have continued to give him money if he lived to be 100! What does he care if he was in debt? He got to live the life he always wanted, his kids will be well cared for (due to his catalogue of unreleased songs) and he never, not once, had to pay for his perversions or his addictions (at least, not beyond the actual money he paid to keep it quiet). ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/62 "2009-07-06T22:25:20Z")
As I suspected, The Vanity Fair articles are heavily embellished with an extra helping of innuendo. It also leaves out key facts such as Jordan Chandling claiming that Michael Jackson is circumcised but he actually wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/63 "2009-07-06T22:32:13Z")
> [@zweisamkeit](#): > > If your 10 year old boy was supposedly molested by him, would you actually accept just _money_? In fact, would you first contact the potential molester and ask him for money instead of calling the police first? > [@Guinastasia](#): > > If your lawyer told you that you didn’t have much of a case, if you were being threatened by a bunch of big time lawyers and people like [Anthony Pellicano](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Pellicano), and perhaps your child was refusing to testify (as in Jordy Chandler’s case), perhaps some people might decide it was better to cut their losses, and think of their child first. > Remember, a lot of these people weren’t all that well-to-do, they had someone rich and powerful throwing a hell of a lot of money and clout at them, and they might have wanted to get their son in therapy, rather than try and put him through the trauma of having to testify in court and the like. > > Let’s also keep in mind – say Michael Jackson WAS simply ten years old mentally. Does that mean he wasn’t capable of molestation? A “you show me your’s, I’ll show you mine?” Please. > > :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Right back at ya, kid. First of all, the father of one boy drugged him to get the “confession of molestation” out of him- a method shrinks around the world say is completely unreliable, as the subject is totally suggestible. Mind you, the father didn’t start by contacting authorities, no, he started by demanding $20 million dollars of hush money. The same father who was quoted as saying (in a private conversation after the MJ camp declined his various attempts and extortion-- er, justice for his son): > [@](#): > > There was no reason why he [Jackson] had to stop calling me…I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find [Evan Chandler’s lawyer, Barry Rothman], all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s smart and he’s hungry for publicity. Everything’s going to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I’ve given him full authority to do that. Jackson is an evil guy, he is worse than that and I have the evidence to prove it. If I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever…Michael’s career will be over I guess what strikes me about that quote is. . . there’s no mention of justice for his son; just lots of talk about fame, winning “big-time”, etc. Jordan Chandler supposedly also refused to testify because he knew it wasn’t true and stood up to his dad’s bullying. When the dad was asked, in that same convo, what effect he thought this all would have on his son- remember, the one he was fighting for justice for, he said: > [@](#): > > “That’s irrelevant to me…It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want. It’s going to be bigger than all us put together…This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief…He will not sell one more record” Remember: what he wanted was $20 million dollars. Not Jackson in jail. That was NEVER something he claimed to want. So, sorry. I can’t help but think that whole thing was one big extortion scheme that in the end worked. To the second charges, my understanding is that your point about visual ID of genitalia is moot because the detectives found that while there were similarities in the kid’s explanation (MJ’s vitiligo wasn’t a secret, so I’m sure it was probably something like- there are spots on his penis), it wasn’t close enough to use as reasonable evidence. And, in the end, 12 jurours who sat through the whole trial, saw everything, and heard everything decided he was not guilty. Either he didn’t do it or there wasn’t enough proof, but lets not sit here and pretend there is some widely known, logical, obvious argument for his guilt. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/64 "2009-07-06T22:34:02Z")
> [@Brandus](#): > > As I suspected, The Vanity Fair articles are heavily embellished with an extra helping of innuendo. It also leaves out key facts such as Jordan Chandling claiming that Michael Jackson is circumcised but he actually wasn’t. Proof that such articles were “embellished?” Chandl_er_, by the way, might not have known what circumcision was. And I’d like a cite for that as well. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/65 "2009-07-06T22:43:02Z")
I guess, for me, just reading the basics of what happened during those two accusations and the one trial. . . it just seems so. . .sketchy. Sketchy on behalf of the parents. I admit that’s just a personal feeling, but just rereading through the People v Jackson Wiki article is making me wonder how anyone can be so adamant that he’s 100% absolutely guilty (I’m not pretending Wiki is a legit source or anything, it’s just what I’m presently reading). ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/66 "2009-07-06T22:46:17Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Proof that such articles were “embellished?” Chandl_er_, by the way, might not have known what circumcision was. Proof that they were embellished. Fine. They quote heavily from his attackers and hardly ever from his defenders. > [@](#): > > If you’re on the side he’s against, the flamboyant Pellicano, who also writes on the side, is a goon and a bully who fights dirty. If he’s on your side, he is an invaluable ally, a trusted adviser, a canny investigator. He is most often called in when there is deep doo-doo all over that needs to be avoided or slung in the opposite direction. In this case, Pellicano soon became a major player. “If this is such an innocent relationship,” asks Larry Feldman, “why have the likes of Fields or Pellicano?” Larry Feldman (the prosecutor) suggests that they very act of hiring Pellicano is practically an admission of guilt because he’s such a meanie. So according to the lawyer prosecuting you, a very wealthy celebrity should hire a wimpy, no-name lawyer. Sounds great to the prosecution!! Vanity Fair is a piece of garbage. Oh and you actually think a 12 year old boy can’t tell the difference between a cut dick and a uncut dick? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/67 "2009-07-06T22:51:27Z")
OK, here’s the wager. I have a piece of paper that unequivivally tells me the truth. It was delivered to me by Og himself. So I have the truth. If you are right about MJ then you get $X if you are wrong you pay me $100. What is your X? ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/68 "2009-07-06T22:51:56Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > And I’d like a cite for that as well. Aren’t you feeling persnickety today! > [@](#): > > Crying softly, Michael took off the boxers and stood, stripped not only of his clothes, but of all his dignity. All eyes peered at him to see if he was circumcised, as Jordie had claimed (he wasn’t). ‘Oh my God,’ Michael whimpered. He looked as if he was about to faint. An excerpt from J. Randy Taraborrelli > **[How Jackson's surgery was a desperate bid not to look like the father he hated](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196633/How-Jacksons-surgery-desperate-bid-look-like-father-hated.html)** > > Here, close friend J. RANDY TARABORRELLI explains how Jackson's hatred of his bullying father made him want to look as different as possible to him, fuelling his addiction to plastic surgery. edited url tags ---
**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 6, 2009, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/69 "2009-07-06T22:53:57Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > I’m not sure he planned it to the letter, but if you’re going to molest young boys, why not choose ones who have no credibility? Whom the defense can paint as money grubbing low lifes? What makes this a particularly implausible scenario for me is that all this came out after the accusations. I suppose it’s _possible_ that Mr. Jackson routinely had people discreetly investigated, and consciously determined that the benefit of being able to get in a little diddling in (while gambling that the courts would disregard the testimony of established scammers) outweighed the risks inherent in cozying up to people with such an established m.o. I think that it’s much more plausible that Jackson didn’t have a clue about the J.C. Penney settlement, or the welfare fraud, or any of the other things that cast doubt on their story. You might just as well say that it was clever of him to ensure that the only people who were able to offer corroborating testimony had similar credibility issues. How deep does it go before you eventually admit the possibility: “Geez, maybe they weren’t being entirely truthful.” For sure there was a huge cult of personality around the man, but child molestation is so fundamentally abhorrent that I can’t really credit a significant conspiracy to enable him to prey on children. With this case, the prosecution witnesses were conspicuously easy to cast as venal, dishonest, and sketchy. If I’ve got half-a-dozen people averring that such-and-such happened, and their stories don’t add up, and they all expect significant remuneration… …well, I want to see some testimony from folks who _don’t_ expect to cash-in “big time,” and _don’t_ have an axe to grind with the accused. Where are they? Neverland had some incredible HR department that selected for people willing to excuse paedophilia in their employer, at least until they became embroiled in some unrelated civil action and found themselves in the totally unfair position of having to come up with a couple million bucks somewhere to pay _Michael Freaking Jackson’s_ legal bills for a “frivolous” suit you’ve brought? And then it’s, “Oh, yeah, he _totally_ boned that kid, and you can quote me, for six figures.” I guess I figure if he was really getting nasty with kids, it wouldn’t be _too_ hard to find someone to testify to that effect that didn’t positively reek of “scam-artist” or “whack-job.” ---
**Author:** ![torie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@torie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/torie)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/70 "2009-07-06T22:54:05Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Proof that such articles were “embellished?” Chandl_er_, by the way, might not have known what circumcision was. And I’d like a cite for that as well. [http://www.anorak.co.uk/celebrities/215691.html](http://www.anorak.co.uk/celebrities/215691.html). Wikipedia quotes it’s source as some book by Randy Taraborrelli. I tried to find other sources, but my Google-Fu is failing me. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/71 "2009-07-06T22:54:13Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > OK, here’s the wager. I have a piece of paper that unequivivally tells me the truth. It was delivered to me by Og himself. So I have the truth. If you are right about MJ then you get $X if you are wrong you pay me $100. What is your X? As much as you’d be willing to pay me, frankly. Sure, I don’t know for sure, but I lean heavily toward the fact that the man didn’t do it. I don’t know about the child waif man business, but the motives of the families involved seem pretty questionable to me, which makes me lean towards MJ’s innocence. ---
**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 6, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/72 "2009-07-06T22:55:01Z")
I think that Jordie Chandler’s parents can be assholes but MJ can still be a pedophile. From everything I’ve read, even a book written by Jordie’s uncle/Evan’s brother that’s trying to defend the Chandlers, they still come off pretty awful. Taking presents of expensive $20,000 jewelry and watches in exchange for letting MJ basically move in to the same room as their kid. Seriously, wtf? In what world is that normal behavior? Even if he does wish he were a kid himself, he’s old enough to know that this is just weird and wrong. ---
**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 6, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/73 "2009-07-06T22:57:12Z")
> [@Brandus](#): > > Larry Feldman (the prosecutor) suggests that they very act of hiring Pellicano is practically an admission of guilt because he’s such a meanie. > > So according to the lawyer prosecuting you, a very wealthy celebrity should hire a wimpy, no-name lawyer. Sounds great to the prosecution!! Vanity Fair is a piece of garbage. Except that Pellicano isn’t a lawyer, he’s a PI who’s currently in jail for racketeering charges. It’s not a matter of hiring a wimp, it’s a matter of hiring a guy who has used unethical and illegal means. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/74 "2009-07-06T23:32:18Z")
> [@Brandus](#): > > Aren’t you feeling persnickety today! > > An excerpt from J. Randy Taraborrelli > [How Jackson's surgery was a desperate bid not to look like the father he hated | Daily Mail Online](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196633/How-Jacksons-surgery-desperate-bid-look-like-father-hated.html) > > edited url tags You still haven’t told us how the VF articles were “embellished.” ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/75 "2009-07-07T00:11:56Z")
> [@torie](#): > > [http://www.anorak.co.uk/celebrities/215691.html](http://www.anorak.co.uk/celebrities/215691.html). Wikipedia quotes it’s source as some book by Randy Taraborrelli. > > I tried to find other sources, but my Google-Fu is failing me. It’s kind of weird, but the looking around that I just did turned up **only** that book as the primary source for the claim that the statement about circumcision status didn’t match the reality. So far we pretty much have to take that author’s word for it, as far as I can tell? ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/76 "2009-07-07T00:29:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > You still haven’t told us how the VF articles were “embellished.” Nor has anyone here delineated proof positive that MJ actually molested anyone. ---
**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 7, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/77 "2009-07-07T00:32:28Z")
How would the kid necessarily even know what an uncircumcized cock looked like? MJ probably would have had the foreskin retracted when he was jerking off on the kid anyway. Also, the kid DID know about the vitiligo on Michael’s junk. ---
**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 7, 2009, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/78 "2009-07-07T00:38:33Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > Nor has anyone here delineated proof positive that MJ actually molested anyone. Nor has anyone claimed to have done so. We’re allowed to form our own opinions, though. Incidentally, it is not strictly necessary for Michael to have physically touched the kids to have derived sexual gratification from them. It could be that showering with them and snuggling them in bed was enough. Another point that should probably be noted is that he had a very specific preference for age and gender. He didn’t just fill his ranch and his bed with random, diverse children of all ages and genders. He focused exclusively on boys aged about 10-12. People who just love all children don’t have preferences. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/79 "2009-07-07T00:42:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > How would the kid necessarily even know what an uncircumcized cock looked like? MJ probably would have had the foreskin retracted when he was jerking off on the kid anyway. > > Also, the kid DID know about the vitiligo on Michael’s junk. Well, I’m glad to know our legal standard for conviction isn’t _a priori_ “probably”. ETA: after all, let’s not let evidence get in the way of a perfectly reasonable guess. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/80 "2009-07-07T00:45:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Another point that should probably be noted is that he had a very specific preference for age and gender. He didn’t just fill his ranch and his bed with random, diverse children of all ages and genders. He focused exclusively on boys aged about 10-12. People who just love all children don’t have preferences. One of the boys in question- I can’t remember which, regularly had his siblings over with him, as well, and they all slept in Michael’s bed while he stayed on the floor. I know at least one of the siblings was a girl, but I’m not sure about the rest. It was mentioned repeatedly during the trial that he was never actually alone with the kid, because siblings or adults were always around. When you watch videos of kids at Neverland, there are tons of girls and boys of all ages, so I don’t know where it’s coming from that he only was around 12 year old boys. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=5)