# 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:** 5
**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, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/81 "2009-07-07T00:47:07Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > 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. > > 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. It comes from a selective viewing of evidence. Why bother contemplating all of it? It’s complex and involves many variables. Let’s just focus on the parts which arguably serve to bolster my claim and pretend that arguments, and their evidences, which counter my beliefs don’t exist. This is, after all, the very paragon if scholarship.\* - or not. ---
**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, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/82 "2009-07-07T00:52:54Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > 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. “Conviction?” Am I putting him in prison? The legal standard only applies to the state. I’m allowed to have whatever opinion I want. ---
**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, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/83 "2009-07-07T00:55:58Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > 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. Those videos are only from when he had publicity events inviting kids to the amusement park or whatever. The rest of the time it was all tween boys all the time. Even if he let some of their siblings stay at the ranch, it’s still significant that they were there only because they WERE siblings of the boys he was interested in. ---
**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, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/84 "2009-07-07T00:56:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Those videos are only from when he had publicity events inviting kids to the amusement park or whatever. The rest of the time it was all tween boys all the time. Even if he let some of their siblings stay at the ranch, it’s still significant that they were there only because they WERE siblings of the boys he was interested in. How. . . do you know this? Were you there? ---
**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, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/85 "2009-07-07T00:57:18Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > It comes from a selective viewing of evidence. Why bother contemplating all of it? It’s complex and involves many variables. Let’s just focus on the parts which arguably serve to bolster my claim and pretend that arguments, and their evidences, which counter my beliefs don’t exist. This is, after all, the very paragon if scholarship.\* > > - or not. $22 million is an admission of guilt. There’s no other way to read it. ---
**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, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/86 "2009-07-07T01:01:39Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > How. . . do you know this? Were you there? All the kids said so. He had little serial boyfriends. Go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you want. He was just a child himself. He never had any fascination at all with little boys. Uh huh. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/87 "2009-07-07T01:02:34Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Nobody’s saying that the guy wasn’t broken. But I don’t think the case has been made that he sucked on little boy’s dicks. > > I saw him as a stunted, pathetic man, mentally trapped in a miserable childhood. > > It might be that he wanted surrogates of him at that age, that he wanted to improve the lives of children like he saw himself. > > Broken and child-like doesn’t mean he was a predator, it means he was a mess. I would agree with this. I wouldn’t leave MY children alone with him. (if I had any). But I think MJ’s problem was more that he was a freaking nut, rather than little kid dick sucker. I really think his “friends” and family let him down. It was obvious 20 plus years ago that he needed psychiatric help. But no one wanted to upset the gravy train of money. ---
**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, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/88 "2009-07-07T01:05:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > All the kids said so. He had little serial boyfriends. > > Go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you want. He was just a child himself. He never had any fascination at all with little boys. Uh huh. Whatever. I didn’t say that second stuff you are saying, I’m just asking you how you claim to know this super top secret information. What kids said so? What serial boyfriends? When did they make the claims you’re espousing? I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking for evidence so I can look at the situation in all it’s merits. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe he is a big, fat, stinky kiddy diddler. Show me. ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/89 "2009-07-07T01:08:09Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > All the kids said so. He had little serial boyfriends. > > Go ahead and bury your head in the sand if you want. He was just a child himself. He never had any fascination at all with little boys. Uh huh. Whatever. How would those “serial boyfriends” have any clue who was over there _when they weren’t there?_ You’re saying a kid is basically, “well I was there and I was a 10-12 year old boy and so that’s all who was ever there”. Uh, right. That’s some great logic, there. ---
**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, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/90 "2009-07-07T01:22:02Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > I didn’t say that second stuff you are saying, I’m just asking you how you claim to know this super top secret information. What kids said so? What serial boyfriends? When did they make the claims you’re espousing? > > I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking for evidence so I can look at the situation in all it’s merits. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe he is a big, fat, stinky kiddy diddler. Show me. There’s nothing “top secret” about it. It’s in just about any material you’d want to read. A lot of it comes from the victims, but I seem to remeber some other stuff coming from insiders like Lisa Marie. He always had one special little “friend” that he’d take around with him. He never had a _female_ Jordan or Macaulay or whatever. There were also other staff who saw things, like the nanny who was the mother of one of the kids he paid off. There was a security guard who said Michael gave him naked polaroids of kids to burn, and another security guard who saw him blowing a kid. The police found naked pictures of kids when they searched his ranch, by the way. I find it absolutely incredible that there could be this much smoke and no fire. I’ve never seen or heard of any other adult male in my life who routinely slept “innocently” with other people’s kid. I’m not buying it for a second. He clearly had a sexual interst in these kids. Exactly what he did or how far he went, I don’t know, but I find the notion that it was all perfectly innocent to be implausible in the extreme. ---
**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, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/91 "2009-07-07T01:38:55Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Conviction?” Am I putting him in prison? > > The legal standard only applies to the state. I’m allowed to have whatever opinion I want. I haven’t said you aren’t free to come up with whatever baseless conclusions you want. But an entire jury of people saw more evidence than you have and concluded exactly opposite. I’m glad to know that before conviction, more thought is required than “I can hold whatever I want to be true as true - evidence be damned.” No, you aren’t putting him into prison. Fortunately, as I said, our system requires more than your opinion. It requires evidence, which was clearly inadequate to convince 12 reasonable people that the offenses alleged actually happened. You keep speaking to the fact that he did these things. Nothing bears out your claim. But you are surely free to continue believing anything you want; just don’t try to pawn it off as anything more than a visceral reaction. ---
**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, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/92 "2009-07-07T01:46:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > There’s nothing “top secret” about it. It’s in just about any material you’d want to read. A lot of it comes from the victims, but I seem to remeber some other stuff coming from insiders like Lisa Marie. He always had one special little “friend” that he’d take around with him. He never had a _female_ Jordan or Macaulay or whatever. > > There were also other staff who saw things, like the nanny who was the mother of one of the kids he paid off. There was a security guard who said Michael gave him naked polaroids of kids to burn, and another security guard who saw him blowing a kid. > > The police found naked pictures of kids when they searched his ranch, by the way. > > I find it absolutely incredible that there could be this much smoke and no fire. I’ve never seen or heard of any other adult male in my life who routinely slept “innocently” with other people’s kid. I’m not buying it for a second. He clearly had a sexual interst in these kids. Exactly what he did or how far he went, I don’t know, but I find the notion that it was all perfectly innocent to be implausible in the extreme. Why do you assume you know what I would and wouldn’t want to read? My position is simply from _what I’ve seen_, the molestation bullshit seems to be just that. I’m more than open to read whatever you’ll throw at me, so stop acting like I’m some ostrich-necked twit. Lisa Marie never said that- in fact the one thing she’s been adamant about throughout the years- even when she hated Michael- was that he would never hurt a child. I’ve seen several interviews with her over the years where that question pisses her off more than any about her father. I believe she said something like that if she had ever even vaguely suspected he had done something like that, she’d string him from a tree. Where is the stuff from victims? I’d like to read it. Now, while the staff members you mention might certainly be telling the truth, all of the ones that came forward with things you’re saying also had on going financial complaints against Jackson. So, maybe the dirt on them got dug up to denounce their story- it’s possible, I acknowledge that. It’s also possible that it was a group of opportunists that were pissed at their boss. Shit happens. That still doesn’t prove one way or another that he did anything. By the way, the naked pictures of children that the police found at the ranch were art books among piles of non child having art books (per the police records). Fuck, I have a few art books that have nude people in them, some with children- am I a child fucker now, too? And I don’t disagree with your last assertion- there is a lot of smoke, but I’m trying to find some fire in there. While we’re all entitled to our opinions, I can’t just write someone off as a pedophile when there are so many pieces that don’t make sense for me. You and I, we’re in the same place. I’m genuinely open to reading whatever you think I’m not, that’s why I’ve asked to see it a few times now. ---
**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 7, 2009, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/93 "2009-07-07T01:50:21Z")
Pictures of naked boys, along with accusations, and the fact that he admits to sleeping with kids, and has made his home a gigantic kid magnet doesn’t look at all odd when taken together? It’s all just one huge coincidence? Isn’t the simplest solution that he’s attracted to young boys? ---
**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, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/94 "2009-07-07T02:07:10Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Pictures of naked boys, along with accusations, and the fact that he admits to sleeping with kids, and has made his home a gigantic kid magnet doesn’t look at all odd when taken together? It’s all just one huge coincidence? Isn’t the simplest solution that he’s attracted to young boys? It’s possible, I don’t deny that. To me, it just seems unlikely. I get that it’s just me and I’m not opposed to reading other stuff; I’d like to, actually. The dude grew up spending his nights in strip clubs playing music, then spending his days in Motown studios, listening to the kids in the park across the street playing. I don’t know, I had a normal childhood and I’d build Disneyland in my backyard if I could, that’d be fucking _bad ass_. If I really had no child hood, I could see such a thing meaning even more to me. Also- and I’m not trying to argue this is necessarily any better, just clarifying: Michael was never actually accused in any of the charges of sleeping in the bed with the kids, he always slept on the floor, while the kids slept in his bed. So, maybe he is boning down little boys. Well, was. I don’t know. If I had to bet, though, based on everything I’ve seen, I’d have to say no. Too many holes in the other side’s story. Now, maybe those holes aren’t there and I’m willing to read that. Seriously, I promise I’m not a crazy “stan”, I’m open minded and consider myself moderately reasonable. That said, basically saying BECAUSE I SAID SO, POOPY HEAD DUMMY isn’t really a compelling argument and that’s what appears to be happening in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![pepperlandgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f17d59/32.png) [@pepperlandgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pepperlandgirl)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/95 "2009-07-07T02:42:09Z")
**Diosa** did you read the Vanity Fair articles? Regardless of whether or not they were “embellished” (A statement nobody has proven yet), they do lay out some pretty basic facts that are apparently undisupted, even by MJ’s litigious group of lawyers. He _did_ have serial boyfriends, they _were_ all between the ages of 10-13, they all came from “broken homes,” (absent father with a struggling or starstruck mother) and authorities did find naked pictures of children, as well as a certain book (I think it was “Boys at Play”) that is just a picture book of fully naked 10-13 year olds playing. The very book that has been found in the possession of pedophiles before. Furthermore, Jordy did correctly draw the markings on MJ’s junk and buttocks. And as for “sleeping on the floor” nonsense, please. I don’t know where people get the ridiculous notion that where one sleeps indicates what one was doing prior to sleeping. It’s not difficult to jack off a boy (or fellate him), make him orgasm, and then say “Good night! If you need me, I’m on the floor!” Insisting on spending _every_ single night with a boy? Insisting on sleeping _in the boy’s home_ for a month? How can that seem innocent to anybody? Look, forget about the floor vs bed thing. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that he locked himself up in a dark room, with a young boy, every single night, knowing _full well_ that nobody would interrupt them. The guy had motion sensors installed outside his bedroom door. Nobody was coming in or out of there without him knowing about it–how does that not raise a million red flags? The maid’s son testified against him at the trial. He broke down in tears when he recounted what MJ did to him. Big payoff time? Hardly. He didn’t even _know_ his mother had accepted a payoff when he was a child, and when he testified for the prosecution, he was an adult participating in a criminal trial, not somebody suing for damages. I can’t wait to find out what sort of scam artist or evil person he must have been. ---
**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, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/96 "2009-07-07T02:42:42Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > It’s possible, I don’t deny that. To me, it just seems unlikely. You can say it’s not proven, but it’s absolutely ridiculous to say it’s “unlikely.” ---
**Author:** ![Brandus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Brandus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brandus)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/97 "2009-07-07T02:47:30Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > Pictures of naked boys, along with accusations, and the fact that he admits to sleeping with kids, and has made his home a gigantic kid magnet doesn’t look at all odd when taken together? It’s all just one huge coincidence? Isn’t the simplest solution that he’s attracted to young boys? Do those books really need have to be seen in such a sinister light? > [@](#): > > [The first book was called Boys Will Be Boys, and the cover showed fair-haired boys wearing swimming trunks jumping into a pool. It was signed by Jackson himself, and said: “Look at the true spirit of happiness and joy in these boys’ faces, this is the spirit of boyhood, a life I’ve never had and will always dream of. This is the life I want for my children.” > > Written in small letters on the same page were the words “very scarce,” possibly a reference to the book’s 1960s vintage. Another notation said that the book was out of print. > > The second, The Boy: A Photographic Essay, featured many pictures of boys in various states of undress. It also contained an inscription that said: **“To Michael from your (heart symbol) fan, XXXOOO, ‘Rhonda’.” The note was dated 1983.**]([Pictures of naked boys were found at Jackson ranch | The Independent | The Independent](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pictures-of-naked-boys-were-found-at-jackson-ranch-526717.html)) The first sounds like a passing memento that reminded him of his lost childhood, and the second was a gift from a fan. This hardly sounds like it was his own personal spank bank. ---
**Author:** ![Jolly\_Roger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/91b2a8/32.png) [@Jolly\_Roger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolly_Roger)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/98 "2009-07-07T02:50:27Z")
Man, I cannot wait until the “Michael Jackson Files” are made public, so we can settle this, either way it goes. For my money, I’m able to say he was basically a mentally disturbed person, but I can see how Diogenes could well be right. Crap, He probably IS right. I can’t prove it, neither can Dio, really. But I’d never leave MJ alone with anyone under the age of 18. EVER. Paranoid? Maybe. But would you let him babysit your kids? ---
**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, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/99 "2009-07-07T02:50:42Z")
As another data point, it’s exceedingly rare for boys to lie about being molested by men. The humiliation, shame and harrassment it brings from peers is worse than it is for girls, and reportedly, MJ’s accusers did suffer harrassment and taunting from peers (as well as death threats from fans). ---
**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 7, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108/100 "2009-07-07T02:51:51Z")
> [@DiosaBellissima](#): > > It’s possible, I don’t deny that. To me, it just seems unlikely. I get that it’s just me and I’m not opposed to reading other stuff; I’d like to, actually. > > The dude grew up spending his nights in strip clubs playing music, then spending his days in Motown studios, listening to the kids in the park across the street playing. I don’t know, I had a normal childhood and I’d build Disneyland in my backyard if I could, that’d be fucking _bad ass_. If I really had no child hood, I could see such a thing meaning even more to me. I get that. But why not do all that stuff, build Disneyland and so on, without the sleeping thing? At one point in the Bashir documentary, MJ says that it’s the most loving thing you can do, share your bed with someone, and why not share your bed with a kid who needs love. That just raises a million flags. Why? Just…why? I’ve never voluntarily shared my room/bed with someone. I mean, unless you have to–you’re staying at someone’s place, etc. But he has countless beds in Neverland. I just think if you really want to help a kid, mentor him. Teach him to moonwalk, introduce him to the joy of music. But the fact is these kids came from broken homes, in the case of Gavin Arvizo, he’d already had cancer. Why take a kid who’s already had such a hard life and then do something confusing like ask him to share a room with you? Even if your intentions are pure (which I doubt his are), he’s not doing it for them. He’s doing it for him. He’s doing it because he has some need that’s fulfilled. If he really gave a shit about any of those kids, I think he would have just left them alone. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > As another data point, it’s exceedingly rare for boys to lie about being molested by men. The humiliation, shame and harrassment it brings from peers is worse than it is for girls, and reportedly, MJ’s accusers did suffer harrassment and taunting from peers (as well as death threats from fans). ETA: Yes, I’ve heard this, too. Apparently, the kid was taunted even after the documentary aired, which I think was before the accusations. I think to go on national TV holding a teenager’s hand and cuddling him and then to expect that people would treat him normally is deluded. Even if he hadn’t molested him, touching him that way in that documentary is appalling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/michael-jackson-the-pederast-what-do-we-actually-know/502108.md?page=6)