I’m curious what the reaction would be if he weren’t famous or rich. Just a nice guy from down the block with a great entertainment system who, oh yeah, had a bad childhood and likes to have neighborhood boys to his place for sleepovers. So much of this is about being spoiled and surrounded by Yes Men and Women. It could have all been innocent, helping him fill a need, but he never acknowledged that he was ‘getting away’ with something others couldn’t – how would child welfare have reacted had an everyperson dangled their baby over the side of a hotel balcony?
I want to live in a world where grown men can have close relationships with younger boys (and girls) and not be labeled pedophiles, not be paranoid that someone will misinterpret their Big Brother status or their devotion to the Little League team they coach or whatever. I really, really do. But he didn’t make it very easy to think the best of him.
Can someone give me the cliff notes of the first Vanity Fair article? I tried but after page 5 but could not keep track of the parents, step parents, what attorney represented who, etc.
Michael Jackson-the King of Pop, owner of Neverland Ranch, accused kiddy diddler
His staff:
Phillippe and Stella Lemarque, former cooks at Neverland, claimed that Jackson had a history of molesting young guests
Mark and Faye Quindoy-former managers of Neverland, suing Jackson for back wages, questioned by police
The Accuser and his family:
“Jamie”, real name Jordan Chandler- 12 year old Michael Jackson fan
Jordan’s Family, consisting of:
Jordan’s Stepfather, Dave Schwartz, owner of Rent-a-Wreck, a car rental agency in LA
Jordan’s Mother, June Chandler Schwartz, an ex-model
Jordan’s Father, Evan Chandler, a dentist
Jordan’s Half Sister, a 6 year old.
The Lawyers:
Larry Feldman- Jordan’s attorney
Gloria Allred- Jordan’s first attorney, outspoken attorney and feminist
Barry Rothman-Evan Chandler’s attorney
Michael Freeman-June Chandler Schwarz’s attorney
Bertram Fields-Jackson’s entertainment attorney, Partner at Greenberg Glusker
Howard Weitzman-Jackson’s criminal attorney,Partner at Katten Muchin Zavis & Weitzman
The Professionals:
Anthony Pellicano- “Private Investigator to the Stars”, hired by Fields to investigate the Chandlers
Dr. Mathis Abrams: Evan Chandler’s psychiatrist, analyzed Jordan Chandler
Others:
Eddie Reynoza: Actor, dancer in Thriller video, claims to have been molested by Jackson
Paul Barresi: Friend of the Lemarques, secretly taped them and is trying to sell their story to the tabloids.
Kevin Smith, Gary Morgan- Tabloid brokers, Owners of Splash News Service
Diane Dimond-reporter for Hard Copy
Cabell Bruce- producer of Hard Copy
J. Randy Taraborrelli- author of an unauthorized biography of Jackson
Could it be that he had some really severe issues such as a combonation of Asperger’s Syndrome-like behavoirs (not understanding normal social protocols) and borderline personality disorder? (as well as that disorder bodily dysmorphic disorder?)
It’s very clear that he was incredibily emotionally stunted…to the point where I think you’d have to create another dx in the DSMV for him.
I have to say that I think MANY if not most pedos are very emotionally stunted and can’t tell the difference between “friendly interest” and real honest to god healthy adult realtionships. It’s so sad.
It’s hard to say whether or not he was a kiddy diddler or not. Yes, he was severely emotionally fucked up…but that still doesn’t mean that he was preying on kids.
“Paying off” the accusers seems to run counter to logic and is not something a rational person would do. BUT we don’t know what advice Michael was getting, we don’t know what else was happening at the time, we don’t know just how batshit insane he actually is and what was going through his head. The payoff (no matter in what amount) shouldn’t be used to support his guilt in and of itself.
After all - the guy built his own personal themepark - just how sensible was he with money?
And I make the reasonable conclusion that abounds in science: no evidence = bad theory. You make the contrary conclusion: no evidence = likeliest solution anyway. One accords with a methodological process which has served the progress of humanity. And the other is yours.
I think this has been your most reasonable response yet. Why did he wait so long to throw money directly at the problem to make it go away instead nipping it early on? You’d have to ask him, but rumor has it he isn’t telling.
I don’t know, maybe the lack of a criminal prosecution meant it was just publicity. I’m sure you’ve heard that all publicity is good publicity, right? I don’t know that this is his reasoning, but as I’ve said earlier, he surely does seem to buy into his own PR.
There is no doubt that his mind didn’t work just like everyone else’s. The man lived in a fantasy about a lot of things. That, I think, is a fair assertion based on the evidence to which we have access. I just decline to read into his eccentric behavior that he’s a child rapist, without supporting evidence. Not one shred of evidence has ever come to light indicating he’s a child rapist.
If people want to, as you seem to have no problem with, believe any dumbass idea out there just because they want to, so be it. That’s what a church is for. But, like many of people who walk out of the church and try the same tired arguments on the masses find out, a good portion of us humans actually enjoy having a powerful mind. We sometimes even use it. Why you refuse to be reasonable about it I don’t know. But if you want to believe he’s a child rapist despite your argument being precisely 1 piece of evidence shy of having an actual piece of evidence, have at it. Just stop with the bs rationale that it’s “the likeliest” conclusion. If the conclusion were so obvious, and so much the likeliest, one wonders why it isn’t universally held.
The “likeliest” answer is time-honored claptrap. Why bother having to defend one’s position when one can just imply that others in the conversation aren’t bright enough to know what you claim to know? Obviously there’s a problem: this is the likeliest possible conclusion to be drawn, duh. It’s mentally vacant and intellectual dishonest.
Ummm, the man died 500 million in debt. He had some grand schemes to get out of from under it but he had been hemorrhaging money for years. He certainly had some advisers around that made some good business decisions over the years, but even those, like the purchase of the Sony catalog feel the same as collecting the Elephant man’s corpse. Just collecting something cool because he had the money.
I weep that you are applying your rigorous scientific mind to Michael Jackson instead of supersymmetry theory.
However I disagree that there’s no evidence. No concrete proof, I agree, and you may not find the evidence convincing, but it isn’t invented out of whole cloth either.
No conclusions are universally held. I guess you believe your argument is stronger if you paint everyone else as frothing and irrational, but I made it clear from the beginning that I was stating my opinion and did not denigrate anyone who disagreed.
It’s also vacant and dishonest to invent accusations like “you refuse to be reasonable” and “imply[ing] that others in the conversation aren’t bright enough.”
A thousand pardons. I thought the title of the thread was “. . . What do we know” not what do we guess.
And again, I ask you, since this evidence isn’t invented and is extant, please present it. You have, to date, not. You say I might not think the evidence is convincing, but you’re merely talking about some alleged evidence. Present some and we’ll discuss that.
Moderators sometimes intervene to keep threads from going wildly off track, but we aren’t the hijack police. In any case your objections are very, very late, since there is speculation even in the first post in the thread.
Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize it’s my job to keep track of this. =P
Of course, I was merely jesting because you, a moderator, seem to the one who refuses to deal with what we do know instead going with a “what I feel” vibe.
Curiously enough, and I admire your patience, have refrained from posting even one piece of evidence so that your position would no longer be one piece of evidence shy of having one piece of evidence. The self-restraint is amazing.
Seriously though, you said that your position isn’t invented whole-cloth, that I merely am unconvinced by the evidence. I again invite you to lay some out for us.
I’ve laid out my reasons for thinking what I think. I’ve also refrained from high handedness and unnecessary digs in the process, which you haven’t been able to do.
But you’ve laid out precisely zero evidence, yet based your reasoning on it. If the evidence is there, why not clue me in so that my errant thinking can be corrected?
My point is that you have zero evidence because there is zero evidence. Reasons aren’t evidence. Assertions aren’t evidence. Conclusions aren’t evidence. But this is your position.
Also, let’s not get too uppity as you’ve thrown a few digs as well. Or were your digs “necessary” and mine “not”? They are equally unnecessary, but make for rhetorical flourish.
