Michael Jackson MRSA

[Bill]

I reject that as implausible because it seems like a bit of a stretch for the extortionists. From what you've stated, 'cause I'm not researching a damn thing at this point, it seems like the most elaborate scheme these folks are able to put together is not that much above a simple slip and fall or assault charge. Criminals are criminals because they are lazy, and I don't believe they would think they'd even need anything more than the allegation of molestation to get their payoff, and that's apparently all it took. Why research his health, study his disorder, then take that knowledge and gamble on it paying off when you don't need to. It doesn't make sense. Path of least resistance; why take that unnecessary risk and do all that extra work. I think you're giving the extortionists too much credit. I don't disagree that those kids were used for a payday, but I don't believe that the only crime that was committed was by the parents.

On the other side, if the extortionists were cunning enough to put something like that together could it also be argued that Michael Jackson could study and select a family who would be less than credible were it to become an issue?

As for people undressing in front of you as a child, unless you were at the YMCA or amongst family members I don't see that happening. Certainly not someone who was already thought of as strange or odd. And the bathroom glimpse, the most plausible, would be more than a "oops, you're in the bathroom, sorry" situation. If by some chance it was accidental, at the correct angle, at the correct moment, with enough time to at least make the simplest of studies of his body, I think that would be too many factors to make an amazing coincidence. Jackson would have to be very, very unlucky for all of those things to align by accident.

[Vortigern99]

I don't believe I'm being unreasonable.

No, Bill, you're not being unreasonable. I regret if I implied or stated that you were. I just mean that if there were others actually looking into the facts of the two cases, I wouldn't be the only one arguing from reason and logic, which are fact-based methods of debate, rather than arguing from emotion.

As to how a child could have known about the spot on Michael's privates without being molested, I can think of any number of possible scenarios. One is logical inference based on knowledge of the vitiligo condition. (You've rejected this as implausible, but I'm not sure I understand why.) Another is that Michael may have undressed in front of the boy (which adults used to do in front of me when I was a kid, to no sexual end). Another is that the boy may have glimpsed it during a bathroom break.

This is the 1993 Chandler case we're discussing here, against which there are numerous damning facts. These include audio-recordings of the father, made before the boy came forward with the accusations, discussing with an associate how he, the father, was going to "destory" Jackson in a "nasty, cruel way". There is also the matter that the father had his own son drugged with a substance that is scientifically known to concretize false memories, and that until these drugs were administered, the boy denied that any abuse had taken place.

It's EXTORTION. If you guys believe in justice and fairness, you have got to put aside your fear of the strange and unusual person that you know Michael to be, and examine the facts for yourselves.

[Bill]

If any of you would actually look into the matter -- which you won't, because your mind is already made up -- we could have a reasonable, fact-based debate about this. Instead, you return to the same point again and again: "He slept in the same bed with a kid! That means he's creepy, and that means he definitely did it, no further investigation necessary! Facts? Bah!"

I don't believe I'm being unreasonable.

[Bill]

To clarify, Presley told TV journalist Ed Bradley that the spot wasn't as the Chandler boy had described. It wasn't part of Jackson's legal defense, because the Chandler family had already withdrawn their accusation in the wake of the monetary settlement. These charges never even went to trial, civil or otherwise, because as per the terms of the settlement, the Chandler's acknowledged that the "abuse" never happened and refused to further testify.

Understood, but certainly the interview wasn't completely ad lib; it should have been clear that certain questions were going to come up and how they should be addressed.
Whether or not the case was dismissed has no bearing on how a child was able to describe such a detail on Michael Jackson; I don't believe for a minute that it was a lucky guess based on research of his medical condition. I can think of no circumstance where a child could come across such knowledge without some for of abuse.

[Vortigern99]

Kirk, that's a good point. Women are not usually child molestors, though a few do exist, one of whom I happened to be acquainted with in college (she had never acted on her urges, but she did have them). My point was that just because Jackson slept in the same room or bed with a child or children does not mean perforce and without a shadow of a doubt that he sexually assaulted a child or children.

There can be no question that Jackson is an unusual person, different from most of us with respect to his feelings and perceptions of the world. But the charges against him have never been proven, and once again -- in case you missed it -- these accusations are absurd, contradictory and demonstrably driven by greed in both cases.

If any of you would actually look into the matter -- which you won't, because your mind is already made up -- we could have a reasonable, fact-based debate about this. Instead, you return to the same point again and again: "He slept in the same bed with a kid! That means he's creepy, and that means he definitely did it, no further investigation necessary! Facts? Bah!"

I can only express relief that none of you making these claims are judges, scientists or journalists, because your refusal to rely on facts to decide a matter for you reveals your opinions in this issue have no basis in reality.

[Zemo]

Zemo, given two individuals, one of whom has researched the facts of two cases in order to distinguish truth from falsehood, and one who has drawn conclusions based on hearsay and innuendo without further investigation into the matter, which of these two individuals would you say has their "head buried in the sand"?

My response is that it certainly isn't me.

Well you believe that, and I guess that's all that matters.

Also, I can't say with certainty that my truck will start when I leave work, but I'm 99.9% sure it will.

[Vortigern99]

Zemo, given two individuals, one of whom has researched the facts of two cases in order to distinguish truth from falsehood, and one who has drawn conclusions based on hearsay and innuendo without further investigation into the matter, which of these two individuals would you say has their "head buried in the sand"?

My response is that it certainly isn't me.

[Mikey]

Also, the woman babysitter sleeping with your kids comment don't work either.

Woman, for the most part are not molestors

Maybe it's they way they're wired, I dunno why ... But most of them just aren't.

Of course there might be a few weirdos, but not many.

[Zemo]

Vort...I don't know what's more scary...Jacko himself...or you defending him tooth and nail.

Seriously.

Man, late on this thread. Can't stand the freak because of the reasons Hector stated.

IMO if anybody thinks the creepy sob is anything but a child molesting wanna be white guy, well I think your head is buried in the sand.

Why does he want lighter skin?
Why are all his women white?
Why did he pay a white women to have his children?
Why does he create an amusement park in his yard?
Why does he sleep with kids?
Why does he pay them all off?

Why doesn't he just shoot himself?

[Vortigern99]

I'm defending him because the accusations are false. If any of you, who have already made your minds up about this based on half-truths and innuendo, would actually look into the facts of the case, you'd see the Chandler and Arvizo charges for exactly what they were: extortion.

About the bed-sleeping thing, I've already said:

Look, it's impossible to get around the "sleeping in the same bed or room" thing. It looks weird and creepy and it's difficult to defend. But it is not evidence of molestation or sexual abuse. The Arvizo kid acknowledged that the bed-sleeping occurred in the Bashir documentary, during which time the entire Arvizo family, including the boy, were singing Michael's praises and insisting that no abuse had occurred. It wasn't until a lawyer from the previous case contacted this already absurdly litigious family that they began to sing a different tune, including the demonstrably false accusation that Jackson had imprisoned the entire family for a period of 6 weeks. When it was shown that Jackson could not have committed these crimes because he had an ironclad alibi and that the family had spoken positively about Jackson after the supposed incidents, the prosecution (Sneddon) literally altered the facts of his case, including and especially dates, to make the charges seem more plausible.

[Hector]

I'm sorry...I don't mean to keep bugging Vort...he's a cool dude.

But really...Jacko is just one sick and weird puppy...I don't like him..yes...immensely talented...the king of pop without a doubt...but a sick and weird puppy nevertheless.

Was he ever convicted? No.

Does that mean he gets a free pass from me? HELL NO!!!!

Ask OJ.

Nuff said.

[Hector]

What if it were a woman? If an adult woman were babysitting your child, and ended up sleeping next to the child in bed, would you be so quick to conclude that 1) the woman was sexually molesting your child and 2) she needed to be physically assaulted as punishment?

It's not the same.

A baby sitter is a person that is hired to care for your kids ......
Their only reason for being there is to make money.

Jackson is the opposite.
He is the employer and babysitter sleeping with the kids.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry, but Vort is just reaching now.

[Hector]

Vort...I don't know what's more scary...Jacko himself...or you defending him tooth and nail.

Seriously.

[Vortigern99]

"The spot on my husband's privates isn't quite the size and shape that a young boy described."

If I ever make my wife say such a thing just shoot me in the face and get it over with.

Really? That's the best defense his team could come up with?
My wife says it isn't so?
That's the defense?



He wasn't convicted, so he's no fugitive in my eyes, but do you honestly think he wasn't up to no good?

To clarify, Presley told TV journalist Ed Bradley that the spot wasn't as the Chandler boy had described. It wasn't part of Jackson's legal defense, because the Chandler family had already withdrawn their accusation in the wake of the monetary settlement. These charges never even went to trial, civil or otherwise, because as per the terms of the settlement, the Chandler's acknowledged that the "abuse" never happened and refused to further testify.

[Vortigern99]

Look, it's impossible to get around the "sleeping in the same bed or room" thing. It looks weird and creepy and it's difficult to defend. But it is not evidence of molestation or sexual abuse. The Arvizo kid acknowledged that the bed-sleeping occurred in the Bashir documentary, during which time the entire Arvizo family, including the boy, were singing Michael's praises and insisting that no abuse had occurred. It wasn't until a lawyer from the previous case contacted this already absurdly litigious family that they began to sing a different tune, including the demonstrably false accusation that Jackson had imprisoned the entire family for a period of 6 weeks. When it was shown that Jackson could not have committed these crimes because he had an ironclad alibi and that the family had spoken positively about Jackson after the supposed incidents, the prosecution (Sneddon) literally altered the facts of his case, including and especially dates, to make the charges seem more plausible.

http://www.geocities.com/nickoblake/jackson.htm

It's hogwash people. Don't let your (natural, human) fear of the strange lead you to falsely incriminate this man. If you look into the facts of both cases, as opposed to the hearsay and snap judgements you've been relying on, you'll find ample evidence that both families were motivated by greed and that their accusations had no basis in reality.