Michael Jackson, King of Pop: 1958 - 2009

Matt Perri

The information regarding Jackson's '93 allegations are everywhere, not just Wikipedia. Taraborrelli's books matches what the news reported and is recorded as such on Wikipedia.

As such, I consider The Smoking Gun website to be invaluable because it does have some great information...HOWEVER, I don't like the commentary because then it turns into a tabloid of he-said, she-said...in fact, the site's design looks just like that...which includes a great big red 48-point font title, "THE CASE AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON".

So you can talk about bias, but there's also bias in running tabloid commentary. There's also a problem with TSG:

The fact that they're just reporting anybody's words and saying, "here ya' go!"

Well...that's all well and good...but if that person's lying, then what?

Evan's a snake. We know that. So why would you believe a word the man says? Because the Smoking Gun reported it! Oh, also, Jordan (running off the drug-addled confession induced by his father) reports stories to the cops and to a doctor could just be Jordan lying.

As for the "splotch" report...that's awfully damning. Why didn't any major news organization run with it except for The Smoking Gun?

Because Sneddon is the ONLY person who thinks the photos DO corroborate Jordan's story. That's why. Because it's HIS opinion.

They were already "not a definite match". That's already been reported.

And I like their clever insinuation: it wasn't long after the photos were taken that they decided to settle. What a load of crap. That's nothing but speculation driven by theory.

So, seriously, give it a rest already. I'm not interested in crap that The Smoking Gun tried and failed to dig up.

Hell, they have a report on the site that concludes that no improper conduct happened with the newer case.

It really says something when nothing could be proven AT ALL and the main people involved said he didn't do it and wouldn't testify and the ONLY person interested wanted cash and accepted that instead of his child's well-being.

But keep believing he did it. It's ok. Someday, you'll figure out that logic and common sense outweigh paranoia and baseless accusations for ratings and profit.

Jun 30 - 04:04 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

"I consider The Smoking Gun website to be invaluable because it does have some great information..."

"The fact that they're just reporting anybody's words and saying, "here ya' go!""

Those statements contradict each other. It sounds like you're willing to engage in 'sampling' from sources as long as they correspond to your convictions.

It appears you became very comfortable with the scant details on that Wikipedia page early on...and decided not to venture farther afield for other sources. How incredibly naive.

I half-jokingly suspected you were clinging to Wikipedia...but I never thought you'd mount a defense of it over other news cites!

Jun 30 - 06:39 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

"sites"

not "cites"

(Shhhh...don't disturb the Spellcheck Monster...)

Jun 30 - 06:40 PM

Tragically Hip

Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black!

Tabasco, you've pounded the proverbial forum pulpit with all the passion and devotion of a Fire and Brimstone speech about credibility, credibility, credibility...

And ooooooh the irony.

While you're preaching about the credibility of everyone EXCEPT Jackson...I find it very humorous that you're relying on a web site that has no credibility to begin with!

Jun 30 - 07:27 PM

Kristin Turner

Devon B.

Why do you constantly base your theory on a child detailing Jackson's junk?

Jun 30 - 09:44 PM

Matt Perri

LOL...

Awwww...what's the matter, Taze and Contra? Angry because all you can do is slam me and provide nothing to back up the people accusing Jackson???

Uh-oh!

Wikipedia alert! Wikipedia is the basis of all things that are evil in the media! I completely forgot.

Thank you for reminding me that NO OTHER NEWS NETWORK OR MEDIA SOURCE COVERED THE 1993 ALLEGATIONS!

Wow! All this time, I was TRICKED! I was really watching WikiNN! I was really reading The San Jose MerWiki News! I was perusing The San Francisco ChroniWiki! I was analyzing articles found in USA WikiDay!

Damn...NONE of what I've said was covered ANYWHERE else, huh?

Is that what you're saying? I just wanna be sure that's what you're saying before I list the media sources that covered everything I'm saying...including The Smoking Gun, whose "settlement" document proves that not only could the Chandlers STILL take Jackson to court...they chose NOT to...

C'mon...tell me again that all I'm using is Wikipedia so I can show you how full of **** you really are...

Jun 30 - 10:40 PM

Matt Perri

Tragically...

Just a note. What makes you say that Wikipedia isn't a credible site?

You do know that Wikipedia sources its information, right?

Here...let me prove it to you:

Check out this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson

Check out this sentence:
"At the time of his death, he was preparing for This Is It, a series of 50 concerts that would have been held in London beginning July 13, 2009. [4]"

And here is Wikipedia, providing the source (that little "[4]" following it) to back up that statement:
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/20/michael.jackson.tour/

That article (by CNN, dated May 20, 2009) states THIS in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE:
"Several of Michael Jackson's comeback concerts in London have been postponed until next year because producers can't be ready in time for the July debut, according to a "Dear Customer" e-mail sent to ticket holders Wednesday."

Hey! Look at that! Wikipedia's site stated it, listed the source, the source backs up the statement on Wikipedia!

How about THAT?!? :D

You're right though. Wikipedia is all lies and isn't at ALL credible. Not one bit. In fact, they're lying about Thriller being the best-selling album ever...they're also lying about all the Grammies he's won, his nickname "The King of Pop", how he was a part of the Jackson 5, or how he's been inducted into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame twice.

In fact, by your rationale, if Wikipedia isn't at ALL credible, then all the stuff about him and the allegations of abuse are complete lies, too.

You're a moron.

Have a nice day.

Jun 30 - 10:54 PM

Matt Perri

Contra:

"Well...that's all well and good...but if that person's lying, then what?"

Do you even understand that this statement totally applies to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF WIKIPEDIA'S ARTICLES?

Damn you're thick...

--

So, Contra...are you saying that everything Wikipedia says is a lie?

If so, I'm laughing right now.

Jun 30 - 11:04 PM

Matt Perri

"Wikipedia is legendary for not being credible...and no 'credible' researcher or news agent would ever cite them. Except you. Ad infinitum."

Let me correct you: nobody actually CITES Wikipedia. They cite other sources. Wikipedia is nothing but a catch-all utilizing said sources. This includes books, magazines, and other news sources such as newspapers and news websites.

Common practice of use of Wikipedia is "if it isn't cited, don't use it". Unfortunately, for you, everything cited happens to come from a book that's ALSO using citations from various public media sources and eyewitness accounts.

Do you even know this or do you just keep talking out of your *** because it's fun for you?

"TSG actually provided links to the legal documents...which is a lot more 'credible' than some Jackson family friend's book on him which Wikipedia depends on heavily. It's surprising how much Wikipedia LEFT out that has been verified. The Father's confrontation of Michael, and other details are conspicuously absent..."

Because the father is the only person who can actually corroborate his own story, ya' mook. Conveniently, NOBODY ELSE saw or HEARD of this "confrontation" but EVAN CHANDLER! There's no outside source that can back up his "confrontation" story. ANYBODY could go to a police station right now and fabricate a story about somebody assaulting their kids and the police can document it!

Please tell me you're not this stupid.

Let me reiterate it so you can understand: just because somebody gives the police a statement doesn't mean what they're saying actually HAPPENED. The Smoking Gun has access to a police document with the testimony of somebody who has come under deep scrutiny for the mess involving Jackson from using a mind-altering drug on his child to get an answer out of him to the multiple phone recordings (which are actual PHYSICAL evidence instead of some guy just shooting his mouth off to the police).

"B-b-b-b-b-b-b-ut...Wikipedia sited their work! B-b-b-b-b-b-b-ut...Wikipedia's source is backed up! B-b-b-b-b-b--get over it!"

LOL, awwww...upset that I just poked several holes in your little "Wikipedia has no credibility at all" bull****?

I know you're hurt. I know that you're losing the fight and all you can say is "he's using Wikipedia" to defend this crappy, crumbling "case" that's somehow still being debated.

I know you want me to tell you how GQ Magazine's Mary Fischer wrote an entire article about what happened following a five-month investigation into the proceedings.

How she found official pyschiatric documents PROVING that Evan Chandler was drugged up by Sodium Amytal. Where did she get them? Probably from the KCBS-TV reporter who got them. Where did THAT person get them?

Off the boy's uncle, Ray Chandler. After he DENIED the whole drugging affair, the dumbass actually SOLD the documents on his website for MONEY.

The Chandlers just keep shooting themselves in the foot for cash, don't they?

Talk about the funniest irony imaginable.

Oh, in case you want to check all this, here's a list of sources:

Abramsam, Mark. %u201CDunlap Sues Over Arrest.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 5 Dec. 2003.

Abramsam, Mark. %u201CLawyers Press for Investigation of DA, Staff.%u201D The Lompoc Record. 28 May 2004.

%u201CAlleged Vendetta.%u201D Good Morning America. ABC. 29 Apr. 2004.

Arceneaux, K.C. %u201CNew Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael Jackson.%u201D The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004. (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm).

Ayscue, Osborne Jr. %u201CKey Distinctions in the U.S Court System.%u201D USIS. 1999. Issues of Democracy. 7 Mar. 2004. (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0999/ijde/ayscue.htm).

Bauder, David. %u201CDiane Dimond%u2019s reporting has put Court TV at forefront of Jackson story.%u201D The Standard Times. 5 Jan. 2004: Pg. B1.

Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. %u201CLeak of Jackson Memo Criticized.%u201D LA Times 8 Jan. 2004.

Breuer, Howard. %u201CNew Jackson Accuser %u2018Recovered%u2019 Memories.%u201D Reuters. 14 Apr. 2004.

Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. 2 Jan. 2004.

Brown, Stacey. %u201CGeragos says he%u2019s in charge of Jackson defense.%u201D MSNBC. 6 Jan. 2004. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3891212/)

Chawkins Steve and William Wan. %u201CJackson Lawyers Call D.A. to Testify.%u201D The Los Angeles Times. 17 Aug. 2004.

%u201CCivil Suit brought up by therapist.%u201D The Today Show. 19 Mar. 2004.

CMJFC. %u201CToronto Street Kid Falsely Accuses MJ in 1995.%u201D Online posting. 16 Dec 2003. MJJForum. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19721&hl).

Corbett, Steve. %u201CAll the little voices deserve equal attention.%u201D Santa Maria Times. 17 Jan. 2004.

Corbett, Steve. %u201CTrouble follows Sneddon all the way up to Canada.%u201D Santa Maria Times. 25 Jul. 2004.

Cota, Matt. %u201CHorse Ranch Hearing Begins.%u201D MSNBC. 1 Oct. 2003.

Cota, Matt.

Jul 1 - 08:44 AM

Kristin Turner

Get over it! He uses wikipedia, maybe you should try it and learn some more facts, yes *facts from wikipedia*, because yours seem to be a little less non bias and little more from an opinionated source.

Jul 1 - 08:54 AM

Matt Perri

Devon...you have nothing.

NOTHING.

Don't you get it? Your precious "documents" mean dick.

They're as good as the idiot liar who started the whole thing with Jackson.

You wanna call bull****, start with yourself. I actually listed all the sources that tell the TRUTH.

Oh...just one more truth for you, to finally crush you:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

There. That's from your beloved Smoking Gun.

That's the settlement document. In no way, shape, or form does that document PREVENT further legal action from being taken against Jackson.

The family simply chose not to testify. They took the money instead.

Boy, that's gotta hurt your little theories.

Game over.

Jul 1 - 09:19 AM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Okily-dokily neighbors. Seems this topic has created quite a stir...might need to get the RT guys to perform an exorcism.

I don't think anyone's suspicions have crushed anyone else's suspicions. That hasn't happened. No one's convinced either party one way or another. Sure, we can stack up a bunch of facts on either side and arrange them to fit our own idea of whether Michael was or wasn't guilty.

The truth of it is this:

Nobody here knows sh**. That's right. Nobody. Not me, not Tabasco, not Devon, nobody.

Were we all flies on the wall of Neverland Ranch for those sleepovers? No.

Did any of us SEE the photos of Jackson's bits? No.

The drawing of Jackson's penis by Jordie Chandler? No.

Has any of us READ Chandler's purported diaries in Gutierrez's book? I doubt it. And so what if we did? We still wouldn't know sh**.

Michael knows. The kids know. None of us on RT know sh**.

I will miss Michael's music and his legacy. Though my mind hasn't been changed about those suspicions (and they will remain just that: suspicions...since none of us truly knows what happened to begin with), perhaps it's time to give this volatile issue a rest.

Can that happen? All this talk about people crushing one another and calling each other stupid, or retarded and full of sh**. Seriously, let's be cool. Let's move on and just agree to disagree.

In the end, it really isn't up to you or me to judge him. That's between Michael and his God.

Jul 1 - 12:38 PM

Matt Perri

Mm. Indeed.

Sources come out after I'm told that I'm just wiki'ing to death so I prove I'm not...I tear down every argument and I prove these guys were complete liars (as many in the press did) and now it's "Whoa, ok, hey, look at the time...we gotta agree to disagree...I gotta see a guy about a thing...so let's just all walk away."

Give me a break. You guys make me laugh. Tear down somebody, come to the rescue of some ignorant jackass who knows nothing about the case, ignores key facts, and then acts like, "hey, no biggie."

At least you know when to quit. I'll give you that.

Jul 1 - 01:26 PM

Dylan 123

Shut the **** up Devon B., you *****.

Jul 1 - 01:40 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Tabasco, Devon B., et al,

I'm actually trying to give us all a break.

And Tabasco, whether you used or didn't use Wikipedia doesn't matter. Your sources became more substantive once you were challenged for doing so. What I'm saying is that your argument, for the first time on this forum, strengthened. That's a compliment.

If you want to high-five yourself, go ahead.

(You're still high-fiving yourself aren't you? Okay...let me know when you're done and then you can continue to read the rest of my post.)

Look...to restate my earlier point, none of us ultimately knows anything.

I think there's some compelling information out there, most of which came from Michael's own admissions, that have made me suspicious of his character.

The dude slept with boys. He says it wasn't sexual. He settled out-of-court on one accusation, and was found not guilty on the other.

I only suspect that his continual proclivity to surround himself with boys was unusual. I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

Though I have suspicions, I still don't know. That's why they remain suspicions...not certifications.

In the end, it shouldn't really doesn't matter to me. I can't believe I've even bothered spending this much time debating it in the first place. He's gone. His music remains.

But he's probably never going to be 'free' of those suspicions because its unconscionable to imagine a grown man sharing his bed--innocuously--with boys.

Jul 1 - 04:21 PM

Don't Tase Me Bro

Whoa-Nelly!

Just read Mary Fischer's article for GQ (thanks Tabasco).

Let's put this into perspective about the 1993 allegations...

Devon B....STFU!

And anyone else who agreed with him...

If you think Michael raped Chandler...you NEED to read that article first and then honestly give an answer.

Tabasco, I owe you a MAJOR apology for siding with what initially appeared to be, substantial evidence against Michael. Dude...Fischer's article has made me see the light. In fact, I apologize to anyone for any offense caused.

There is no way that any jury on Earth would have or could have convicted Michael in 1993. It would've been a farce if they tried.

I'm no longer in doubt that Michael was innocent of those charges...

Yes he was weird. Yes he was strange. He was a deeply troubled man. I think somewhere along the way, the media and the blogosphere treated Jackson like some side-show circus freak. 'Our' curiosity to pull back the curtain and expose the 'freak' is ironic: it has actually exposed how sad, stupid, and indifferent we truly are to a human being's dignity.

Jackson's no saint. No one is. Guilty of molestation? I don't think nor do I suspect it anymore.

Tabasco, sometimes healthy debates do reveal the truth. I'm glad it emerged. I'm glad my mind was 'open' enough to accept it. Thank you for fighting Michael's corner. That Wikipedia page (plausibly everyone's first port-of-call if searching about the 1993 case) doesn't do the issue enough justice. It should be conflated with Mary Fischer's article...throughout. It's a injustice that it currently isn't.

For the rest of you ignorant pricks, read the article first. Come on. I dare you and then see if you have the sack to come back here and continue your baseless accusations.

Jul 1 - 07:07 PM

Contraflow X

This is still funny...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er1Pm37yX08

and this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h1euQKJsr4&feature=related

Jul 1 - 07:27 PM

Matt Perri

Tase, here's a towel.

You're dripping with so much sarcasm, you're shorting out this forum.

Jul 2 - 07:29 AM

Matt Perri

karmees...

That's an uncorroborated story. There's no source to back that story up. The media isn't reporting it because of THAT, not because they don't want a story. Trust me, if it came out that Jordan was lying and it was backed up by an actual statement, the media would be all over it.

The ratings would be off the hook. Trust me - the media wouldn't wear egg on its face for very long. They can always spin it to make themselves look like the good guys.

Jul 2 - 09:14 AM

Matt Perri

That link, if anybody wants an article WITHOUT bias that's researched thoroughly and actually contains more journalistic integrity in just a few pages than the entire media has had in the last 15 to 20 years, here's the link:

"Was Michael Jackson Framed?"
by Mary Fischer, GQ Magazine
http://www.usnewslink.com/framedjackson.htm

Jul 2 - 11:16 PM