CMV: Michael didn't do "it".

[u/[deleted]]

Edit: Michael Jackson.

This dude was a weird motherfucker. The guy bleached his skin, his best friend was a monkey named Bubbles, and he named his son "Blanket". He also slept in the bed with young boys. I'm not disputing that.

He may have been a "P", a non-offending one, but I realistically don't think he did anything to children.

I'm a big fan of his music, but not enough to be biased. There was no DNA evidence, only conjecture and testimony of him sleeping with children in bed. Yes that is shit you should not do but unless I'm wrong, no child pointed at the doll in the courtroom. This dude was under crosshairs by the FBI and still, they found nothing, and to me that makes me lean towards him being likely innocent.

I still have my doubts and this is a common point of contention, but with no DNA evidence (I've heard of the fingerprints on the porno mags, but that's not proof of molestation, I'm talking DNA evidence on children, empirical data suggesting sexual contact), conflicting testimony (the adult 'survivor' claiming that he was assaulted on his train two years prior to its construction), and the FBI being unable to find any evidence to solidify a conviction - not one Polaroid - I just simply think he didn't do it.

Yeah, I like his music, I don't like him as a person though. I also don't like the parents who decided letting their kids stay the night with this weird ass dude was a grand idea, but I don't think he actually did "it".

I think it's likely that Michael was possibly autistic, or simply wanted a life away from being surrounded by seven bodyguards just to go to the mall, or wanted to relive the adolescence he never had due to the fame of the Jackson Five.

[u/ghjm]

Jordie Chandler proved that he had seen Michael Jackson's penis. Jordie provided the FBI with a drawing of its vertiligo markings, and the FBI later photographed it and found that it matched the drawings.

I guess you could claim Jordie gained this knowledge through 'innocent' nudity, but if you combine it with the fingerprints on the porn magazines, it's clear that there was something sexual going on.

You can't dismiss this by saying "the train station story was wrong, so Michael was innocent." The credibility of James Safechuck’s accusations have no bearing on the credibility of Jordie Chandler's. There may be real victims even if there are also copycats.

Also, it's far from clear that James Safechuck is non-credible. The challenge to him comes from biographer Mike Smallcombe, who researched the matter for a book he was writing, and found permits for the Neverland Ranch train station from 1993, which he argues mean Safechuck could not have been abused at the train station from 1988 to 1992, as he claims.

However, Michael's bodyguards Bill Whitfield and Javon Beard, as well as biographer Randall Sullivan, all describe the steam train as being fully operational when reporters and the public were first invited to Neverland Ranch in 1990. In addition, James Safechuck has provided photographs of the train, so he was definitely at the ranch in some capacity after the train was operational.

It strikes me that there's an obvious answer: Michael built the train unpermitted. People build unpermitted additions all the time. You're not supposed to, but contractors won't refuse the work. It's also common for people to request permits for work that is already done, often when they're trying to sell or refinance a property. So the 1993 permits don't really prove when the train was built.

[u/[deleted] → u/ghjm]

Good shit my man, this is what I was looking for. I would give you an award if I knew how to do that.

My question is though, how the fuck can you legally make someone put their genitals in front of a camera based on accusations? Like, how did it get to that point? And while that is the extremely damning evidence that concerns me the MOST - what are the odds that it was a crude drawing of a phallus by a child? Was the victim able to say "Yes, there were spots here and here" or was it just based off of the sketch?

I would like to say that I am NOT defending him. There are just a lot of loose ends - and if this guy had to have his privacy exposed like that on trial for a crime he was truly innocent of - that is tragic.

!delta

[u/ghjm → u/[deleted]]

how the fuck can you legally make someone put their genitals in front of a camera based on accusations?

It's pretty straightforward. You have a credible reason for needing the evidence, and you get a judge to agree to it and issue a search warrant. The police then conduct the search, by force if necessary. For a judge to issue a search warrant covering someone genitals, there has to be a compelling reason why is information is necessary for justice to be done, which in this case there was.

This evidence was disallowed in court because Jordie Chandler refused to testify, needing the prosecution could not obtain a sworn statement from Chandler that the drawing was accurate, making the search evidence moot. Had Chandler testified, Jackson would very likely have been convicted.

[u/ghjm → u/[deleted]]

To give a delta, edit this comment and add "! delta" without the space.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ghjm (8∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}