Michael Jackson #4: To pedo, or not to pedo

quote:

---

Op zondag 28 december 2003 13:34 schreef milagro het volgende:
en doordat hij een eerdere zaak afgekocht heeft alleen al, heeft hij iedere schijn tegen zich.

want iemand die onschuldig is, die hoeft niets af te kopen...

---

Jacko: 1994 Article Raised Questions About Alleged Victim

All his scandals are not helping Michael Jackson's bottom line. Already in constant financial difficulty, the one time King of Pop needs some CD sales to offset some of his debt. But people are registering their opinion of him thusly.

Lost in all this mess is any kind of real defense of Jackson concerning the molestation. But a 1994 article in GQ Magazine by respected journalist Mary A.Fischer may wind up being Jackson's "smoking gun." In a good way. Called "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" the heavily researched article revealed that the parents and stepfather of the 13-year-old who sued Jackson were at odds with each other and in financial disarray when they seized on the idea of destroying Jackson.

In particular, Fischer wrote, that the child's father, set out to "destroy" Jackson for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the father's inability to make it in Hollywood. Fischer also revealed that the father had spent quite a bit of time with his son and Jackson at his home and on vacations. Fischer, in fact describes the family using Jackson as a pawn in their endless custody battle.

Interestingly, the Fischer article seems to have disappeared over time, although some Web sites still carry links to it. Fischer, who lives in Los Angeles, wrote a number of explosive investigative pieces during the mid 1990s. Coincidentally, she also had experience writing about child abuse in the McMartin case.

In her GQ piece, she cites a taped phone call between the child's father and his wife's second husband.

Fischer wrote that on the tape, the child's father: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over."

So, is it possible that Michael Jackson -- known for eccentric behavior beyond the pale -- was an innocent who was extorted by evil-doers? Maybe the answers aren't that clear. There will undoubtedly be more to come shortly.

Zo vreeemd is het dus niet dat MJ deze zaak afkocht tegen iemand die alle gaten had gedicht en (financieel) niet kon verliezen.

The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo.

quote:

---

Op zondag 28 december 2003 00:39 schreef schatje het volgende:

[..]

Joh, een vent van 45 hoort niet het bed te delen met niet verwante kinderen. Wat is daar zo moeilijk aan te bergijpen??

---

En een scheiding maken tussen verwante kinderen en niet verwante kinderen is flauwekul, want (en dat zijn velen uit het oog verloren, veel oorlogen als gevolg hebbend) we zijn allemaal verwant aan elkaar.

Begrijpen is onmogelijk zonder begrip!

quote:

---

Op zondag 28 december 2003 14:06 schreef Brave_Sir_Robin het volgende:

[..]

Schijn bedriegt in dit geval. Als je wat meer informatie over die zaak probeert in te winnen dan zie je dat er een vuil spelletje werd gespeeld door de vader van Jordi Chandler (toenmalig 'slachtoffer').

---

Het blijven net zo goed veronderstellingen wat in dat artikel staat. Bovendien zou ik iemands leven ook proberen zuur maken wanneer hij/zij aan mijn kinderen zou zitten.

quote:

---

Op zondag 28 december 2003 14:08 schreef Iwan1976 het volgende:

[..]

Zolang er niks verkeerds (voor alle duidelijkheid: seksuele handelingen) is gebeurd tussen Michael en Gavin, is er geen reden om hem te veroordelen

---