Michael Jackson the Pederast? What Do We Actually know?

You don’t think it’s odd that he sought out the friendship of a boy with cancer and whose family had a history of suing unsuccessfully? Actually, I think it’s odd that he would seek out the friendship of young boys to begin with. Why only young boys? And why only boys between a certain age (about 10-13) who he tended to drop when they got older. It’s classic pedophile behavior, much as Dio has posted on above.

But 5 of those characteristics would apply to your average nerd and you can get up to 8 if you have a kid-friendly job. Labeling everyone that has a few of those characteristics as a likely pedophile would paint a lot of people with that brush.

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.

Being accused twice and having a rather lenghty and serious criminal prosecution against him suggests that it was more than him being a little confused.

Put it this way, would you let a 10 year old boy near him?

He may not have. He could be totally innocent of anything. It just doesn’t seem that way. It just seems like it’s reaching to say that it’s because he was so child-like. Yeah, he could seem child-like when he wanted to be, but he was also ruthless enough in terms of business decisions and in terms of the kinds of people he hired, like PI Anthony Pellicano. Or those Vanity Fair articles that talk about how afraid people who work for Neverland are to speak out against him in any way. It’s nicer to be able to see him as a confused man-child, but I just don’t see any evidence of that.

Diogenes, I have no particular interest in defending Michael Jackson, or accusing him, but the other day I read the readable Wiki article on him, and noticed the following:

22 million bones.

ETA who paid Katz?

He paid one off, not two. While I would certainly never let him hang around my kids (if I had any), I see nothing unlikely about the possibility that he was a magnet for shakedown artists, which these kids and their families clearly were. This doesn’t rule out his having been a child molester, but it doesn’t prove he was either.

With OJ, there was clear evidence he did it, but it was excluded from the criminal trial and admitted in the civil trial. I don’t believe this was ever the case with Jackson.

You either have special knowledge of his criminal acts, or you don’t. If you do, that ship sailed a few years ago and your silence made you complicit. If you don’t, the ship never arrived and what you “believe” is pretty irrelevant.

What evidence was excluded from the OJ criminal trial?

Not all evidence can be used – or maybe I watch too much Law & Order. It’s entirely possible that something else WAS found that wasn’t admissible in court.

That and Culkin’s father was an extreme bully – he would have blackmailed and sued Jacko into oblivion.

Let’s not forget that Jordy Chandler was able to describe the man’s genitalia. In detail, from what I can recall.

I’m sorry, dude was PEDO-Pan.

Go here and scroll down to “The Mistakes” near the bottom of the page.

Also, he confessed to Rosey Grier (who visited Simpson in jail, in his capacity as a clergyman) within earshot of several other people.

I don’t think Culkin’s testimony means anything either. Just because he didn’t molest one kid, doesn’t mean he didn’t molest others. It would be like producing a bunch of 13 year old girls that Roman Polanski didn’t rape.

The first case never went to trial, so we don’t know what the evidence was. MJ paid the kid not to testify.

I’ve also never known a 13 year old boy (or an eight year old boy or however old MJ thought he was) who liked sleeping in the same bed as another kid his age or snuggling or holding hands, as MJ was doing in the Bashir documentary. I’d assume that most 13 year olds would react to that kind of behavior with, “Ew, homo” or “Fag.” Which actually is how, I believe, Gavin Arvizo’s peers reacted when that documentary aired.

Did he really, or did those “several other people” – who weren’t in the room – only hear what they wanted to hear?

IIRC, when Jackson had to have his “member” photographed, there was some speculation that there were distinctive marks due to his vitiligo. But after the pay-off Chandler refused to testify which is why no criminal charges were pursued.

Looking an Wiki, I’d completely forgotten there was a third boy who was paid a couple million in hush money.

The only thing that wasn’t “odd” about Michael Jackson was every other digit. I don’t think it begins to make a lick of sense to suggest that Gavin Arvizo was singled out as a kid that could be diddled with impunity because of his family’s shady side – it’s not as though momma showed up on the doorstep and said “Hi, I’m Janet, and this is my son, Gavin. We’ve just about run through the $150,000 settlement we extorted from J.C. Penney with a nuisance lawsuit claiming sexual abuse, and there’s only so much to be made from welfare fraud and ‘cancer fundraisers’ for treatments covered by our insurance, so we thought we’d just hang with you for a bit, if you don’t mind.”

The suggestion that the witnesses for the prosecution were singularly unconvincing is actually because Michael Jackson had a brilliant end-game in mind when he chose his victims is prima facie ridiculous.

As for the Whys and Wherefores of his behaviour with regard to young children, I think it’s fairly evident that he was emotionally and developmentally a pretty messed up dude, for whom a real-life “Neverland” held some appeal.

I’m not arguing with you, because I have no opinion in this matter, but I honestly don’t understand neither of your lines. Perhaps the first line is a saying I haven’t heard before (not American/British)? The second, was Katz on the defense?

I thought Corey Feldman had recently hinted at being molested by MJ, but doesnt seem to have anything but kind words about him in this article.

Larry Mudd, I dont have any desire to start an arguement with you about Michael Jackson, but do you really believe that no pedophile has thought out his actions in advance, groomed a suitable potential victim and passed up other less attractive/ more risky targets to focus on the one who would be the most suitable for said pedophile?

It would seem to me that a successful pedo would have to be quite adept at delayed gratification, as opposed to (to quote Michael Palin) “Just going around buggering people”… (sorry, I know the context dosent really fit with Jackson , but that is my all time favorite line from A Fish Called Wanda)

Point is, I dont think your hypothetical is totally out of the question. Why wouldnt he want to keep many other children around, including many he was not abusing?
Seems like a good way to deflect attention to me…