This thread has already had links to cites - that is how I am aware of it.
However, how about this?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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, 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Another one
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.
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.
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.