(no title)

HOW TO THINK ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON

1. Reject (or, at the very least, quiet) previous beliefs. Original learning is always done with an open-mind but, in the case of Michael Jackson, he is not new; often, the weight of his public persona impacts the way any of us view him. When reading about anyone’s story, we should evaluate them away from any biases or preconceived notions; that is how this blog transformed into what it became: by viewing Jackson with an open-mind, I only followed the trail of the evidence and reported what I found. For example, Jackson was a stratospheric superstar, talented artist, and, possibly, a musical genius. Because of these credentials, it’s hard for many people to imagine him doing any wrong, such as abusing young boys. But consider actions away from biases and what does one often see? If they are truly thinking without any bias, they will accept that Jackson—like any of us—is capable of anything (call this “The First Step”).

2. Consider the whole. Whenever any single piece of information is considered alone, it is easy to dismiss (or accept); however, when you consider it along with related information as a whole—rather than as disparate, independent pieces—you not only are provided with a bigger picture, but also a more solid foundation on which to base your dismissal (or acceptance) of the information. For example, Jackson’s owning of books featuring naked boys may mean little on its own (for argument’s sake) but when it is put together with other pieces of information, such as consistently and insistently having sleepovers with boys the same age as those nude in his books, as well as being accused of molesting boys the same age as those nude in his books, Jackson’s owning of the books becomes much more significant.

3. Evaluate contextually. A core tenet of the social sciences, for example, is the idea of viewing things “in context”; this means that behaviors, actions, or ideas meaningful in one setting may not be meaningful in another—as it is said, “Everything works in theory (read: out of context).” The rule follows that everything evaluated must be from the proper perspective. For example, think of this Michael Jackson-related question: is it “okay” for an adult to sleep with young boys? It is not so simple to answer when no context is considered. It would be perfectly acceptable for a mother or father to sleep with a young boy, the condition (“context”) being that they are his parents. However, in the context of Michael Jackson, who owned books featuring images of naked boys, was rarely, if at all, seen with female companions (including little girls), and was accused five times of child molestation, sleeping with young boys doesn’t seem like a good idea.

4. Nothing in reality is ever perfect so judge it based on its merits. (This goes nicely with #2 and #3.) Should you believe Blanca Francia when she says that she heard two voices in Jackson’s shower, one definitely being Jackson and the other being a young boy, as evidenced by a pair of boy’s underwear on the floor? What about Ralph Chacon’s statement that he saw Jackson performing oral sex on Brett Barnes in the pool showers? How about believing the claims of Jordie Chandler, especially since Jackson paid him a $15.3 million settlement? It would be reasonable to believe all of this evidence against Jackson if the reality of “things not being perfect” is accepted. In reality, witnesses have flaws and victims are not always squeaky clean—these facts, however, in reality, do not make them invalid as witnesses and victims. For example, Francia went on Hard Copy for $20,000 but still received a settlement and didn’t buckle under Jackson Defense questioning; Chacon lost a lawsuit against Jackson, sold stories to tabloids, and called Brett Barnes “Jordie Chandler”, but he described Brett Barnes to a T and authorities trusted his account to the point they went to Australia to investigate it; and the Chandler clan didn’t go to the police immediately upon finding out Jordie was abused, but they did get a settlement that guaranteed Jackson would pay or lose his assets. The point? No one is perfect, but that does not make them untrustworthy.

5. Nothing in reality is ever perfect so judge it based on its merits—PROBABILITY. Will the sun rise tomorrow? In reality, we don’t know for sure, but not knowing perfectly and completely does not mean we should let that doubt be anything more than a fleeting thought! Probability laws dictate that every event has a likelihood of occurring between 0 (0% chance of happening) and 1 (100% chance of happening). These laws also state that even things considered most likely to occur will never occur with a certainty of 1, such as the sun rising in the morning each day. Even more so, these laws state that with certain conditions, likelihood increases or decreases. For example, what is the likelihood of a man being a pedophile conditional upon him being accused of pedophilia, owning books made and owned by pedophiles, having young boys as constant companions, and an addiction to sleeping in the bed with kids? This probability, based on typologies created by pedophilia experts and law enforcement, is NOT 1 but it is close to 1, so close that the probability of this man being a pedophile is high enough to believe he is one. And what about the probability of being a pedophile given five accusations? Not a perfect 1 but damned near close to it.

6. ABOVE ALL ELSE, this is not a United States court of law, so Jackson is NOT to be afforded “Reasonable doubt” or “Presumption of innocence”. If you’re going to read DSSL, you must understand that there are no holds barred, and the evidence presented here, along with its discussion, is not restricted for or molded to fit an adversarial justice system. Michael Jackson will be scrutinized and, as much as a defendant is always allowed to “maintain innocence”, he will, in at least equal measure, have to defend his innocence. That is how it works in the real world. For example, it is reasonable to hold the belief someone is a pedophile if they are constantly accused of it—it would be irrational to reject that belief for a “presumption of innocence” for the accused!

If all of the above are followed when reading this website, you will have a much more satisfactory experience with the information presented here, not to mention, you will have made yourself smarter and more rational for it.

At the end of the day, everything can be said more simply: “Use common sense.”

Entry title	Why you ought to know it
The Jordie Chandler settlement revisited	Was Michael Jackson a pedophile? By far, the strongest evidence in support of this is the $25 million settlement Jackson made with Jordie Chandler in 1994 over the boy’s claims that he’d been sexually abused. Settlements typically are made in order to keep matters from going to court or to keep information from going public; they also make the one offering the settlement look as if they have something to hide. Why did Jackson settle, especially when he claimed he was innocent? According to the actual language in the settlement papers, Jackson not only decided to settle Chandler’s claims under his own free will, he also paid the settlement with his own money. The question is, “Why settle for such a large sum if you’re innocent?” Maybe because he wasn’t.
EXPLOSIVE PROOF: Michael Jackson was gay	Jackson’s mysterious sexuality has been an interest to many people wanting to know: Was he gay? Was he straight? Was he a pedophile? We can never know for sure but there exists reasonable suspicion that Jackson had sexual interests in males: DNA analysis of semen samples found on his mattress, in a bed sheet, and in a pair of underwear kept with his own underwear containing semen uncovered the semen of 3 different males.
An Addendum to “Michael Jackson was gay”	A follow-up to and full analysis of the previous post, it not only clarified the findings of semen stains of 3 different males, it placed them into context with all of the other reasonable suspicion that Jackson was a homosexual, including gay rumors, his strange and short marriage to Lisa Marie Presley, and the real meaning behind his pornography collection. Re: Michael’s sexuality: was Michael molested?
Re: Michael’s sexuality: was Michael molested?	This important post examined Jackson’s past, since what is in our past often impacts and influences what is in our futures. According to various accounts, Jackson was not only a victim of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, he was also sexually abused. Could it be that Michael Jackson’s sexual abuse history led him to sexually abuse young boys?
No Girls Allowed: Neverland’s rule du jour?	Jackson’s main companions always appeared to be young boys between the ages of 10 and 14, and many people have wondered, “Where are the little girls?” One little girl, a member of a family Jackson was friends with for years, wrote Jackson a note in distress: she told him she knew he did not like her as much as he liked her brothers because she was a girl, and she knew Jackson did not like girls as much as he liked boys.
Little known witnesses: is everyone a liar?	Witnesses claiming to have seen Jackson act in strange and untoward manners with young boys have often been jeered as “liars” because, in addition to telling their accounts to police, they also sold them to so-called “tabloids”. Because of this, some doubt their stories without a second thought. However, there was one witness to Michael Jackson’s behavior with ‘special friends’ who’d never sold her story to the press, only telling it to police: she claimed Jackson was a “chickenhawk”, slang for pedophile.
Aaron Carter round-up: boys, booze, and blow	Pop singer Aaron Carter was one of the numerous boys who befriended Michael Jackson when he was a teen. After Jackson died, Aaron gave a startling account of he and Jackson’s friendship when he was just 15-years-old: Jackson gave him alcohol; they smoked weed together; and Jackson tried to creep into his bed while he was sleeping. Aaron Carter’s account helpfully demonstrated a pedophile’s pattern: sleepovers, drugs, and alcohol.
Jimmy Safechuck findings	Jimmy Safechuck was another ‘special friend’ taken in by Jackson. Although he never officially claimed that Jackson molested him He has now officially accused Jackson of abuse (as of MAY 2014). Witnesses, including PR man Bob Jones and secretary Jolie Levine, claim to have seen behaviors that validate the boy’s position. Jimmy may have never accused Jackson of abuse but Jackson gave his parents an enormous check, which was seen by La Toya Jackson—why? Jackson defense attorney Tom Mesereau claimed that Jimmy was married at Neverland Ranch, which would make it seem as if Jimmy was just an ‘innocent pal’ of Jackson’s; however, no evidence exists to support Mesereau’s story, including the fact Jimmy got married to another woman in Chicago. Why the lies? It seems there is more to Jimmy-and-Jackson than meets the eye.