Did Michael Do It? The untold story of the events that brought down a superstar (1994 story)

GQ ^ | October 1994 | Mary A. Fischer

[Luis Gonzalez]

OK...so Jacko, the King of Strange is on the hot seat again.

There are lots of "I heard that..." comments flying around concerning what happened in the 1993 Jordan Chandler case, this old GQ article covers some ground that most never were aware of.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I support the truth, I neither defend nor attack Jackson, if he's is guilty, then send him to jail.

You also didn't like it when I challenged your defense of convicted pedophile and murderer David Westerfield.

I was after the truth then, and I was right, I am after the truth now.

I'll find it this time as well.

[hflynn]

You are a prime example of how the media, and politicians, manipulate the masses. You didn't read anything, yet you make some inane comment, and have your mind made up that Jackson's guilty.

Right and Michael was wrongly the subject of similar allegations in 1993 and 1994 brought by a 14-year-old boy who declined to testify. But the wrongly accused Michael later reached a multimillion-dollar (reportedly 15 - 20 million)out-of-court civil settlement with the boy's family. And exactly why did he settle? I'm waiting.

[MizSterious]

Oh, I'm sure that in your mind, you're "right" regardless of the truth. You have yourself convinced on every case. And you will viciously attack anyone who dares to disagree.

For me, we know (not suspect) that he dangled that baby off the balconey. For me, that's enough to at least have his children taken away from him. That's child abuse. Perhaps not sexual abuse, but abuse nonetheless. It shows he has no regard whatever for children, and will use them for whatever needs, however petty and self-serving, he has.

That anyone at all would defend this monster (who we saw dangle a helpless baby over a balconey) is just beyond me. Let him rot--from the nose onward.

[MEG33]

If Jackson had the sense God gave a goose he would not sleep with young boys and announce how sweet and charming it is in an interview.

He was forewarned by the first suit.His friends have told him to desist.

I have no idea if he is a sexual abuser but I do know he is responsible for creating doubt about his sanity and sexual proclivities.

[Cicero]

Well, there are at least two issues here. One, is Jackson guilty of pedophilia? As you say, a jury will decide. Juries are not always right, but they are the best means we have to decide such matters.

The other question you raise is whether parents should bring their young boys to Neverland. I'd say, clearly no. In the first place, whether fairly or not, Jackson is suspected of being a pedophile. In the second place, I can't think of a worse role model for a kid even if Jackson is completely innocent of this charge. I wouldn't bring my young kids to the home of most rock stars, either. I don't think they are appropriate models for admiration.

[AgThorn]

this article seems to quote a good number of other sources, legal backgrounds, and a good historical backdrop to the whole belief that Michael is nothing but a perceived "lottery ticket" (as his lawyer recently stated) to a lot of deadbeats out there.

Good post! Thanks for bringing this current ...

[MizSterious]

"You also didn't like it when I challenged your defense of convicted pedophile and murderer David Westerfield. "

Yes, but it took you at least three screen names (that we've counted) to make the argument.

[AgThorn]

Sent to the wrong person.

I meant "thanks for bringing this current" for your posting ofthe article, Luis.

[TexasCajun]

This is really Jermaine Jackson, isn't it?

...come on, 'fess up!

[proud American in Canada]

Isn't it true that the boy was able to describe Jackson's genitalia and it matched, when he was ultimately forced to have a picture taken? That's what I read yesterday.

[MizSterious]

I think the second question is at least as important as the first. If Jackson is found guilty for molesting this or any other child who has been left in his care, shouldn't the parents share some of the punishment? Could "child endangerment" come into play somehow?

[tiki]

While I'll reserve my judgement, I think that everyone is jumping the gun. Micheal deserves a fair trial.

[Luis Gonzalez]

On January 27, 1994 Reuter's news service reported that after the pictures ordered by the DA were examined, Jackson's genitalia did not match up to the description given to the DA, but the news came after the case had been settled and got very little attention.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I used one screen name, as opposed to your two.

[proud American in Canada]

I hadn't heard that. I'm not sure where I read it to the contrary, so I can't source it.

Thanks, though. I, too, do look forward to hearing the facts. :)

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We've counted"?

Still using the royal "we"?

Darkdrake was a caricature of a well-kown FReeper, used strictly to mock him, and never posted on any Westerfield threads.

Do you still think that he's innocent?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The other question you raise is whether parents should bring their young boys to Neverland. I'd say, clearly no."

I wouldn't have a problem taking my boys there, but I would not leave them unsupervised with Jackson.

Then again, I don't leave them with any adults other than their grandparents, or mine and my wife's siblings.

[cinFLA]

By the way, the whole country has tried Jackson and found him guilty on just an accusation. That's way less than what this article provides.

No. The country found him guilty prior to this accusation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You have yourself convinced on every case. And you will viciously attack anyone who dares to disagree."

Funny, those were your tactics on all FR threads releted to the Van Dam case and the subsequent trail of David Westerfield.

A little projection here?

[MizSterious]

I changed my screen name, with permission from the owner of this board. That is not the same as logging on as Darkwing whatever and the several other names you are known to have used.