The 1993 case. [Threads merged, All discussion in this one thread]

[StaceyMJ]

Any discussion of the children's biology is not welcome at MJJC and stops here. Please do not carry on that part of the discussion from here on. Thanks.

[earthlyme]

As for the elder Chandler, he eventually had numerous cosmetic surgeries that radically altered his appearance ostensibly to avoid the constant opprobrium from Jackson fans.

hmmm...oh, well...I guess thats what he gets for messing up a mans life isnt it? If he was ever alive, I'd have asked him "WAS IT WORTH IT TO DESTROY A MANS REPUTATION FOR MONEY???"

[elusive moonwalker]

no fans went near him lol if they ahd hed have been dead along time ago. same ole excuse all the way back to 93.like most fans even knew what he lookedl ike. he was up his own ass to much

[bluetopez]

Redemption Book isn't a hardcover tabloid either that was such a stupid thing to say and it only shows that u think MJ might be guilty to me! You can't even except FACTS dancemasterman!


Also to answer the other question that some else was asking about Evan calling MJ evil lol, well it's simple MJ wasn't gonna give him what he wanted like he said on tape and he was also jealous of the relationship that MJ had with his ex and son, plus, he said MJ stop calling him too! lol

[elusive moonwalker]

edemption Book isn't a hardcover tabloid either that was such a stupid thing to say and it only shows that u think MJ might be guilty to me! You can't even except FACTS dancemasterman!
the poster obviously has issues. redemption was written by the woman who worked for barry rotherman (chandlers lawyer) not quite sure how that is seen as tabloid but i guess excuses/attacks have to be used for anything that supports mj no matter how illogical those attacks are. not quite on the same level as all that glitters is it?


he said MJ stop calling him too! l
funny gavin said the same thing. always the same with thse ppl. when the friendships/jobs end they going running to the tabs or money lawyers

[sharon007]

Of course we all know it was for money but it didn't bring them happiness. Not even in life or death.

[Lorraine]

Any discussion of the children's biology is not welcome at MJJC and stops here. Please do not carry on that part of the discussion from here on. Thanks.


^ This...

Thread cleaned..

[Sophielo]

Its a very sad soceity that we live in nowadays when so many people will do anything for money.

[mjlover1988]

There is a journalist who defends MJ about 1993 but I can't find it.

I will look for it.

[mjlover1988]

Has anyone else seen this?


When it emerged yesterday that two weeks go Evan Chandler, father of Jordan Chandler, shot himself in the head, few tears were shed despite the media's best efforts to eulogise him.

Most media outlets are touting Chandler as 'the father of the boy who accused Jackson of child molestation'. Wrong. Chandler was the father who accused Jackson of molesting his son.

The initial allegations against Jackson were made not by Jordy Chandler but by his father Evan, in spite of Jordy's insistence that Jackson never touched him inappropriately, a stance that the boy maintained for several months.

Relations between the boy's father and Jackson had soured in early 1993 when Evan asked the popstar to build him a house and Jackson politely declined. A failed screenwriter, Chandler contacted Jackson shortly afterwards and asked him to negotiate three scriptwriting deals on his behalf. If Jackson did not comply, he said, he would accuse him of molesting his son. Jackson didn't comply - and the rest is history.

As revealed by Mary Fischer in her 1994 GQ article 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?' - Jordan Chandler only claimed to have been molested by Jackson after Evan - a dentist by trade - plied him with a mind-bending drug called sodium amytal, which is known to induce false memory syndrome.

Even once Jordan Chandler began to toe his father's line, his testimony was so unconvincing that DA Tom Sneddon took his case to three separate grand juries and none of them allowed him to bring charges against Michael Jackson. Contrary to widely reported myth, Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Jackson's genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised while police photographs proved that he was not.

Unsurprisingly, none of this information has made its way into the mainstream media's reportage of Evan Chandler's death. Instead, Chandler's suicide is seen as another opportunity to sling mud at Michael Jackson and perpetuate the same, tired old myths about the 1993 allegations - particularly with regard to the settlement.

News outlets the world over are once more reporting that in 1994 Jackson paid the Chandlers a settlement. This is total fiction.

Court documents from the time state clearly that Jackson's insurance carrier "negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

Jackson didn't even agree with the settlement, let alone pay it.

Amongst the publications that rehashed this age old nonsense was The Sun, to which I often contribute as a Michael Jackson expert. I was contacted yesterday and asked to provide information about Evan Chandler and the 1993 allegations, which I did. However, none of my information was used - most likely because it reflected too well on Jackson. Myths that imply Jackson's guilt are evidently more important than truths which exonerate him.

Noticing that The Sun's article on Chandler's suicide contained several factual inaccuracies (most promintently that Jordy initiated the claims of molestation and that Jackson paid the family a settlement) I contacted two members of staff at the newspaper - my usual contact and the journalist who wrote the article. Neither email was replied and the article was not changed.

Elsewhere, The Mirror ranked several places higher on the adbsurdity scale as it attempted to portray Chandler as a martyr of some kind. 'Michael Jackson sex case dad Evan Chandler wanted justice but ended up destroyed', read the headline.

Justice?

If Evan Chandler had wanted justice, why did he contact Jackson and ask for a three-movie script deal before he went to the police? If he wanted justice, why did he accept a settlement from Jackson's insurance carrier?

Indeed, the settlement included a clause which stated that accepting the payment in lieu of a civil trial would not affect the family's ability to testify in a criminal case. So if Evan Chandler wanted justice, why didn't he allow the police to press ahead with their investigation?

The headline, along with much of the article, is nonsense.

Having taken Jackson's insurance carrier for just under $15million (not the $20million usually alluded to by the press), in 1996 Evan Chandler tried to sue Jackson for a further $60million after claiming that the star's album HIStory was a breach of the settlement's confidentiality clause. In addition to trying to sue Jackson, Chandler requested that the court allow him to produce a rebuttal album called EVANstory.

Yes, really.

So the man who The Mirror claims only 'wanted justice' thought that the best course of action after the initial media storm died down would be to release an album of music about the supposed abuse of his pre-pubescent son.

The Mirror alluded to the fact that relations between Jordan and his parents were strained after 1993, but laid the blame at Jackson's door, claiming that the trauma of the case had driven them apart.

In actuality, Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson's 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson's legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan - who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name - had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson's innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months before Jackson's insurance carrier negotiated a settlement, Michael Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged with any crime.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. Tape recorded telephone conversations heard him dismiss the boy's wellbeing as 'irrelevant' and claim that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth. (Click here for Mary Fischer's GQ article, which contains transcripts of the telephone calls.)

Mary Fischer's evidence shows that as well as falsifying the sexual abuse of his own son in an elaborate extortion plot, when Jordan refused to play along Evan plied him with mind-altering drugs in a bid to trick him into believing that he was molested.

But even drugging a child as part of an extortion plot wasn't Evan Chandler's lowest point. That came when he petitioned the court to allow him to release an album of music about the supposed sexual abuse of his own son.

If Evan Chandler wanted justice, he got it two weeks ago.

As for the media, this latest incident cements once more the industry's almost total unwillingness to report fairly or accurately on Michael Jackson, particularly on the bogus allegations of sexual abuse that were levelled against him. None of the aforementioned information and evidence was included in any article about Chandler's suicide that I have read so far, despite the fact that I personally delivered it to at least one newspaper which has repeatedly paid me as a Jackson expert on other stories.

Exculpatory facts are overlooked in favour of salacious myths. A black humanitarian is tarred as a paedophile and hiswhite extortionist is painted as a martyr.

As for Jordy Chandler, maybe with his father gone he will find the courage to do the honourable thing. Perhaps he will surface somewhere and tell the world what he's been telling his friends for over a decade now - that Michael Jackson never laid a finger on him. Until then, I suspect he will live with the same torment that it seems eventually claimed his father, suspiciously soon after the demise of the biggest victim in all of this; Michael Jackson.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

[mjlover1988]

Another one!


The Guardian was today forced to disable the 'comments' function on an editorial about Michael Jackson after hundreds of readers voiced their disgust at the irresponsible factual inaccuracies that it contained.

Tanya Gold's bemusing rant about Michael Jackson provoked outrage as she lambasted the King of Pop, claiming that he couldn't write hits, wasn't a great dancer and that his innovation of the music video was meaningless.

Most shocking, however, was her strong insinuation that Jackson was a paedophile, which supported with a number of incorrect 'facts'.

Gold's editorial wrongly claimed that during Jackson's 1993 child abuse storm, Jordan Chandler had accurately described the star's genitals to police officers.

This is a fiction.

The myth that Chandler accurately described Jackson's genitals is one that has been perpetuated by hack writers for over one and a half decades.

In 2007 Jacques Peretti - also a Guardian contributor - faced a barrage of OFCOM complaints after his pseudo-documentary 'Michael Jackson - What Really Happened' also rehashed this myth.

It is well documented that Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Michael Jackson's genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised, whilst police photographs proved that he was not.

Here is Chandler's drawing of Jackson's penis, which he gave to police officers 1993:




Damning, I'm sure you will agree.

Chandler's failure to corroborate his allegations - including his inability to accurately describe Jackson's genitals - was the reason Jackson never faced charges in 1993.

The white media would have you believe that the reason Jackson never faced trial in 1993 was because he paid off the boy's family.

This is also bogus.

The investigation into Jackson's conduct began in 1993 and lasted long into 1994. During this prolonged period - long before the financial settlement was reached - Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged. This was due to a complete lack of corroborative evidence. DA Tom Sneddon took his 'case' against Jackson to three separate grand juries - all three refused to let him bring charges against the star.

But the media won't tell you that.

Ergo, the media's widespread claim that Jackson bought his way out of a criminal trial is a myth - he was never going to stand criminal trial in the first place. When Jackson settled with the Chandler family, he was not being prosecuted. He was being sued.

To claim that Jackson settled the case at all is also a myth, although that's not the way the mainstream media tells it.

Jackson never paid the Chandlers a cent in the 1994 financial settlement. It was the the star's insurance company which covered the costs, not the Jackson himself. Furthermore, documents prove that the settlement was arranged against the star's wishes.

A 1994 document reads: "The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

All of this, Tanya Gold fails to include in her editorial.

It seems to have escaped Tanya Gold's notice that Jackson was acquitted and vindicated in his 2005 trial - a trial that included testimony about the 1993 case. As such, Jackson died an innocent man, and no person has the right to insinuate otherwise.

Interestingly, Gold - who never attended a single day of Jackson's trial - seems to believe that she knows better than the 12 jurors who sat through every nanosecond of testimony.

Such breathtaking arrogance is a problem that dogged Jackson for much of his career. The media has a habit of hiring clueless laypersons to offer 'expert analysis' on subjects they don't understand and Jackson fell prey to this trend more than his fair share of times.

The problem hit fever pitch during Jackson's trial. On weekday evenings in spring/summer 2005, shows like 'Richard and Judy' would regularly invite assorted columnists to offer 'expert opinion' on the star's trial. Presumably, none of these journalists had actually attended Jackson's trial, given that it was often in session in Santa Maria at the very moment that they were discussing it on 'Richard and Judy'.

Gold is another in a long line of non-experts masquerading as an expert. Her 'facts' have no basis in reality. She claims that Chandler accurately described Jackson's genitals - he didn't. She claims that Jackson bought off the boy's family - he didn't.

Gold's pathetic editorial is indicative of the systemic failure of the British media to report accurately on black celebrities. Rather than physically check whether Chandler accurately described Jackson's private parts, Gold vaguely recalls hearing some other hack claiming that he did and assumes that this is proof enough. And if it isn't - who cares? You can't libel the dead anyway.

Another half hour of online research - which isn't too much to expect from a professional journalist - would have produced further evidence that the 1993 allegations were a crock.



In the wake of the 1993 scandal journalist Mary A Fischer penned an article entitled 'Was Michael Jackson Framed?' The investigation appeared in GQ magazine and contained compelling evidence that the star had been set-up, including transcripts of tape recorded telephone calls in which the boy's father, Evan Chandler, was heard discussing his plans to extort money from Michael Jackson.

In 2004 Geraldine Hughes, legal secretary to Jordan Chandler's lawyer during the 1993 allegations, wrote a book called 'Redemption'. In the book Hughes detailed how she had witnessed, from the inside, the boy's father and his lawyer masterminding the plot to extort money from Michael Jackson, or destroy him if he didn't comply.


During Jackson's 2005 trial Jordan Chandler was called by the prosecution, but failed to show up to court. Instead his mother, June Chandler, took the stand. During her testimony she admitted that Jordan had legally divorced both of his parents and no longer spoke to either of them.

During a subsequent Q+A at Harvard University, Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau revealed that the reason Chandler divorced his parents was allegedly because he was incensed that they had forced him to lie to the police and in doing so had destroyed his friendship with Jackson.

Mesereau also stated that had Chandler taken the stand, the defence had numerous witnesses lined up who were willing to testify that Chandler repeatedly told them he was never molested by Jackson and that his parents, particularly his father, had concocted the entire story.

The evidence that Jackson abused Jordy Chandler is zero. That is why the star was never arrested and never charged. Conversely, the evidence that Jackson was innocent is overwhelming.

Tanya Gold, like many journalists, would do well to research her subjects in future, rather than arrogantly concluding that her own ill-informed assumptions trump the proven facts. Of course, every columnist has the right to his or her opinion. However, what they do not have is the right to misrepresent facts - and they certainly do not have the right to label innocent men paedophiles.

Put simply - it is irresponsible. In the digital age, the Guardian has a worldwide internet readership. This means that a potential audience of millions could happen upon Tanya Gold's nonsense editorial, consume it and retain her bogus factual information. Similarly, Jacques Peretti's 2007 show was watched by millions and has been repeated incessantly ever since.

Writers - be they journalists or columnists - have a responsibility to their audiences. This is why research is of the upmost importance.

Tanya Gold has failed in her responsibilities. Readers put trust in journalists, particularly broadsheet journalists. Gold's editorial was teeming with factual inaccuracies.

Rarely have I seen such irresponsibility, particularly in a newspaper such as the Guardian.



http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/guardian-columnist-insinuates-that.html

[mjlover1988]

About the documents that say the insurance carrier settled the case - where are they?

I always see them quoted but I want to download a copy and keep it so I can show it to idiots when they trash MJ.

[Nivea]

thank you so much for posting those mjlover1988! :flowers:

[dancemasterman]

Any discussion of the children's biology is not welcome at MJJC and stops here. Please do not carry on that part of the discussion from here on. Thanks.

I'll follow the rules, but I want to know if it goes both ways. Does this rule only apply to people who doubt they are his or does it apply to people who insist they are his children?

I could care less. I could give two craps if they are related to him. It just gets sickening how people here lie so much, and they do it knowingly. I just got a Pm telling me MJ never said what I claim he said. I was just about to post a link showing him saying it, but I wont.

You should probably make a sticky notifying members of the new rule, because most members here will not notice this post in this thread.

[dancemasterman]

This motion filed by T-Mez during the trial last year should clear that info:

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....

he was 13 not a young child and hes told many ppl that mj did nothing so his memory is no problem.

blanca francia went to the tabs around the time history was on its way.it was rumoured that sony paid the money cause they didnt want another p.r disaster. who knows? shes a prime example of being turned into a victim by diane dimond, at first the police interviewed her son and he said nothing happened.they harrassed him to the point of blanca actually making complaints that her son was being pushed into making accusations against mj by the police. during one of these interviews jason complained to the the police saying they were pushing him to say something had happened so he said mj may have accidently touched him once when play fighting. all this was documented during the trial. as soon as dimond came knocking with money the story suddenly changed.blanca had been sacked b4 this happened for stealing from mj.she claimed to have seen the likes of wade robson etc abused although said it was through frosted galss so she couldnt even see who was there. of course wade etc came to court and denied such thing ever took place. jason francia was laughed at by the jurrors during he trial because hes was so unbelievable. he claimed he had only found out a couple of weeks b4 testifyed that his mother had got 2 mill. he never asked her and didnt bother to ask why she didnt work and went from being a maid to living a nice life all those years ago. the jurrors said him claiming hed been in rehab for years cause he was accidently touched 15 years ago was a joke. they said he was nothing but a lair. he became know as tickle me elmo to the fans who were here during the trial



read the motion written by mez during the 05 trial. or are u claiming mez comitted perjury? that is what im basing this off what confidentiality clauses were created by either side is a seperate issue.at the end of the aday mj would have been given no choice but to settle the case either way as the cali system did not protect those who were been sued and being investigated by the police at the same time. all sneddon would have done was sit in on the civil case and build his prosecution around that. mj lawyers tried to file motions to stop the civil case from progressing b4 the crim case was over but of course the judge refused. after 93 the law in cali was changed to give the D.A the ability to stop a civil case from going forward b4 a crim case was over. they blamed mj for deciding to change the law when infact mj had been asking for this all along. as normal they lied and tried to make mj to be in the wrong.

theres also the issues with the us legal syatem as it was then with civil cases being allowed to happen b4 crim cases which hinders ppl right to a fair trial. cant remember if its been talked about in here or not.

yes it was reported on abit at the time but for the most part covered up as it just shows how gready he was.even more so when hes wanting to sing songs about child abuse. the case dragged on for years as chandler kept appealing when judges through the case out. its thought he used pretty much all his money from the settlement on going after mj for the second time.and when he became ill thats when jordan came back into his life until evan tried to kill him in 2005

why no link to the document? And again Michael Jackson agreed to settle out of court. He also agreed not to talk publicly about the allegations in exchange for them doing the same.

Besides according to Tom Mezzereau, I'm probably spelling it wrong, MJ got bad advice from his laywers and he agreed to settle. Cochran told him he didn't know if he would win, so Mj said settle it. Tom said that had he been MJ's lawyer at the time Mj would have fought and won.

Remember when the documents leaked to smoking gun right before the start of the trial? well here they are. the link I am posting is to the last page with MJ's signature authorizing the settlement. but you can easily click on the previous pages.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****22.html

there you go.

[mjlover1988]

He chewed Roger Friedman's butt off in another blog, hahaha.

[dancemasterman]

Redemption Book isn't a hardcover tabloid either that was such a stupid thing to say and it only shows that u think MJ might be guilty to me! You can't even except FACTS dancemasterman!


Also to answer the other question that some else was asking about Evan calling MJ evil lol, well it's simple MJ wasn't gonna give him what he wanted like he said on tape and he was also jealous of the relationship that MJ had with his ex and son, plus, he said MJ stop calling him too! lol
Oh no you got me . I'm busted.

well I'm not a prophet so yeah Mj might be guilty. He also might be innocent. Is there something wrong with me for saying that?

I do except facts. But people here put up false facts left and right. Redemption is a hardcover tabloid which even lied about the transcipts of the tape. Half the book is talking about religion as if that has anything to do with the case. I actually wasted my money on the damn thing.

[Rockin.]

Another one!



http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/guardian-columnist-insinuates-that.html

This is the one we wrote to the Press Complaints Commission about. Ohh.. I'll have to add this to that thread.

[Nivea]

He chewed Roger Friedman's butt off in another blog, hahaha.

Very interesting and informative blog! thanks for sharing! there's stuff there that even I didn't know! :) I really hope more people get a chance to read his work.

[mjlover1988]

This is the one we wrote to the Press Complaints Commission about. Ohh.. I'll have to add this to that thread.

The Guardian one?

Can you link me to the thread about it?

[mjlover1988]

An interview on his website with Aphrodite Jones:

http://www.charles-thomson.net/aphrodite.html

Is there an Aphrodite Jones thread?

[Rockin.]

The Guardian one?

Can you link me to the thread about it?

Yep, here it is

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79832&highlight=Press+Complaints

I tried to comment on that guy's blog to say thank you but I didn't know how to do it.

[dancemasterman]

Anybody who wants to read the settlement contracts can do so here. I'm not reading the entire thing, but it does appear as if his insurance company was invovled but it also proves once and for all that MJ and his lawyers along with the Chandler's and their lawyers agreed to this. In fact those are the only people that signed the agreement.

Michael admits no wrong doing in the documents. It is understandable why an innocent man in his position would agree to settle. In fact most celebrities prefer to settle to get the news talking about something else as fast as possible. Even Kobe Bryant settled with his accuser, and they literally 100% proved he was innocent. I do not blame MJ for settling at all.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

[mjlover1988]

Yep, here it is

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=79832&highlight=Press+Complaints

I tried to comment on that guy's blog to say thank you but I didn't know how to do it.

I'm not sure but I think there's a comment box and you write in it but then when you go to post it you have to enter your name and a URL but you don't have to be a member of blogspot or anything. I think you could just leave this site as your URL.

Otherwise if you go to his website his contact details are on there.

www.charles-thomson.net

[Gottobethere]

Sure... it's in my post upthread at http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2386555 .

Thanks i've been meaning to read it for a long time.

[MusicMan26]

Those last few articles were really good.

[dancemasterman]

There have been rumours about these documents swirling for years. Among the rumours

1. MJ paid the family not to testify in criminal court
2. MJ bribed the family into not pressing charges
3. Mj didn't actually settle. It was the insurance companies who settled.

None of these are true. It is up to the prosecutor and the prosecutor only to decide whether to press charges and who to call to the witness stand. The accuser and his family had no say in the matter, and the settlement has no bearing on whether charges will be brought. Mj settled a civil lawsuit only. He did not settle criminal charges. These is no legal way to do so. In fact even attempting would be illegal itself.

Here are the documents for all to read. They were leaked to smoking gun right before the trial. Mj was very angry about this leak. He even issued a statement as to how this was done to taint the jury pool.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

Obviously this wont squash the rumours worldwide, but at least it can clear things up for us here at MJJ community.

as for the rumour that Mj never chose to settle, here is a quote from page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

[Moonroller]

Cant we just let this go. It is very old at this point.

[8701girl]

^ i agree

[dancemasterman]

Cant we just let this go. It is very old at this point.

well many here have been talking about it rescently, and there appears to be a lot of confusion on the part of a lot of members here as to what the agreement was and who agreed to it.

a lot of members here do like to vidicate MJ and this way when they see rumours flying at other sites or nasty comments on you tube videos, now they have the link to offer proof.

[Memefan]

I think it is high time we all move on from this mess

[dancemasterman]

I do anticipate a few members wont like this being posted because they helped spread the rumour that MJ never agreed to settle, and this kind of proves that they either didn't know what was true, or they knew what was true and they don't want the truth being known.

edit... when I say the truth being known, I mean the truth about who agreed to settled.

[Adore]

The only thing you're proving here is your lack of understanding regarding how insurance settlement agreements work.

[8701girl]

He chewed Roger Friedman's butt off in another blog, hahaha.


CLASSIC! :lol:

[dancemasterman]

The only thing you're proving here is your lack of understanding regarding how insurance settlement agreements work.

are you still claiming that MJ didn't settle? come on man. the proof is in the pudding. Nobody can force somebody to sign a contract. The insurance company isn't even a party in this contract. There were two parties. Michael Jackson and his legal team and the Chandler's and their legal team.

[MJJ:G.O.A.T]

Has anyone else seen this?

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html


Another one!

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/10/guardian-columnist-insinuates-that.html

Thank you, thank you, thank you for these! Well done.

[Rockin.]

You know those last two are from someones blog not newspaper reportings.

It would be amazing if such articles could be seen in a paper.

[MJJ:G.O.A.T]

You know those last two are from someones blog not newspaper reportings.

It would be amazing if such articles could be seen in a paper.

Yeah I know. But blogs/internet only media are getting much more notice now (even though tons of people have one). Just look at the Huffington Post to see what I mean. Ariana Huffington; the owner, is called to give commentary on certain issues by CNN and MSNBC.

Still I agree with you. I wish these articles were in a newspaper or mainstream media.

[.Butterflies.]

About the documents that say the insurance carrier settled the case - where are they?

I always see them quoted but I want to download a copy and keep it so I can show it to idiots when they trash MJ.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

[dancemasterman]

on page 3 it does it does refer to Michael Jackson as a "party to this agreement."

Page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

There you go.

[dancemasterman]

Just make sure your fair and you show them both those documents and the settlement itself. especially on page 5 where it says the following


"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

here is the link for the documents.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

[Rockin.]

Yes but I mean everyday people walking the street won't know about this blog like they know about the stuff in the papers. I'm from the UK and I have heard of The Huffington Post, I haven't heard about this blogger before. Its a personal blog right thats just on blogspot.com?

This guy said he contributed to certain papers and is even employed by The Sun as a Jackson expert, but they didn't use any information from his article about the Chandler suicide because they obviously didn't want to promote the truth. He also said he contacted people there to correct mistakes in the article, but he was ignored. This is such a sad situation to be in. I'm so greatful for the articles but the high majority of the public will see what is in the paper, not what the blogger writes. Why is the truth hidden?

[*MissChanel*]

Amazing not ONE single paper in Australia has reported on this cause it will make Evan's credibility go out the window! Sickening!

The media make me feel ill.

[bluetopez]

Anybody who wants to read the settlement contracts can do so here. I'm not reading the entire thing, but it does appear as if his insurance company was invovled but it also proves once and for all that MJ and his lawyers along with the Chandler's and their lawyers agreed to this. In fact those are the only people that signed the agreement.

Michael admits no wrong doing in the documents. It is understandable why an innocent man in his position would agree to settle. In fact most celebrities prefer to settle to get the news talking about something else as fast as possible. Even Kobe Bryant settled with his accuser, and they literally 100% proved he was innocent. I do not blame MJ for settling at all.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

Well YA! I said that didn't I?! What's up with it "APPEARS as IF?" It's in the docs... The insurance paid! lol Except it! And just because redemption has religion in it don't mean sh*t it doesn't take away what Evan said on the tape sorry for u if u never heard the whole thing or read the whole taped Convo! She isn't the only one who as leaked the convo so maybe u should look elsewhere for them?

[PrettyYoungThang]

The spin that is being put on this now in many reports is that the suicide was due to evans torment over what Michael did to his son - they are making evan a poor victim of Michael the monster. It makes me sick!

[bluetopez]

on page 3 it does it does refer to Michael Jackson as a "party to this agreement."

Page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

There you go.

MJ agreed But, the insurance paid the out of court settlement for him for negligence so I would agree too! LOL And the chandlers obviously did too because that's what they wanted which is why they ALL three agreed on and specifically stated distress as the cause for settling because they knew damn well the insurance would pay for those kinds of claims! The money was not from MJ's pocket so it's whatever and it was for Negligence, the chandlers dropped the claims of Molestation, PERIOD! The prosecution didn't have a case before or after the out of court settlement!

Two Grand Jury's in L.A and Santa Barbara refuse to indict MJ, Jordan was even taped by the cops after the settlement to build a case and nothing came out of and he always refuse to testify, even in the grand jury so the cops had to read his affidavit instead and tom Sneedon always blamed that for a reason that he didn't file charges lol! The statue of limitations on this case ran out in 1999 that was plenty of time to build a case don't ya think? Or for anyone to decide to testify too! LOL

And why must people make threads about the same thing over and over again?, please leave it in the same thread it is much more easier if u want to get a discussion going instead of people saying their over it and them getting bored lol

One more thing if your gonna point out page 5 in the docs then you should also point out the part where it also says in the docs that it was not in M.J's or his illegal counsel control if his insurance wanted to pay, That's in their too! It's one thing to except it but it's another that u can do anything about it!

THANK YOU!

MOVING ON......:)

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

fck the media, they will never say the truth, F THEM!

[OldSchoolMJFan]

Cant we just let this go. It is very old at this point.

Concur.

[Veromca]

Thank you elusive moonwalker for the info. I read through this thread and have another quesition. This case should be closed as soon as the insurance company settled. But why they did it until the limitations had run? Is there any other else case like this? It looks strange to me.
Edit. Why Jordan left his father after this case?

[bluetopez]

Thanks to the blogger and the one who posted them!:)

But, it is a damn shame that the media won't report the truth that MOST of them know and trust me they KNOW! Most of them helped Chandler then and still are, all for money!

[Bo G]

So it appears the Chandler news has subsided, at least for now. I don't find where it made into the larger papers, though I expected that once it hit CNN. I was also surprised that I couldn't even find it yesterday on the main Fox News site, only on some local channels.

Interesting... not sure if I think it's good or bad. I know many have weighed in already here and on the previous, related thread on the merits of press coverage on Chandler's death. I was surprised that even that got too heated here (are you happy NOW?!!! :wild: as if our wanting/not wanting press coverage makes much difference :) )

Let me know if I missed any major media (not tabloids) ... thanks.

[Bo G]

The spin that is being put on this now in many reports is that the suicide was due to evans torment over what Michael did to his son - they are making evan a poor victim of Michael the monster. It makes me sick!

That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count. I doubt Michelle Obama has lost much sleep reading in the latest tabloids that her husband is dying of lung disease because he coughed recently.

If you're aware of mainstream news that had this spin, do give the link. If you're not sure if something's a tabloid or not, give us the name and we can look it up, or just check on Wikipedia.

[Bo G]

Yeah I know. But blogs/internet only media are getting much more notice now (even though tons of people have one). Just look at the Huffington Post to see what I mean. Ariana Huffington; the owner, is called to give commentary on certain issues by CNN and MSNBC.

Still I agree with you. I wish these articles were in a newspaper or mainstream media.

This is a good point. There are blogs that approach newspapers in influence, yet can't be fairly considered tabloids. Huffington Post and Politico are the two main examples. Huffington Post vacillates on being a tabloid, but I'm still quoting it (when I like it :) ) I think it's reasonable to include at least them.

It's still interesting to see what smaller blogs have to say, and I think it's great to give good ones lots of hits by linking to them from here. That's how little blogs become big blogs!

Really, I think we need to count our blessings and give a sigh of relief... we don't want to be LOOKING for reasons to get mad, we've got plenty enough reasons :)

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Maybe if they had reported these facts back then like they are now (using the words "alleged", mentioning the insurance company and the fact that Jackson volunteered to be photographed) the public might have a different perception of this whole ordeal.

To many, they have the perception Jackson pulled out a checkbook, wrote a check and the charges disappeared, and that really couldn't be further from the truth.

yeah, totally, and thats what they should have done, but, is too late now...


That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count. I doubt Michelle Obama has lost much sleep reading in the latest tabloids that her husband is dying of lung disease because he coughed recently.

If you're aware of mainstream news that had this spin, do give the link. If you're not sure if something's a tabloid or not, give us the name and we can look it up, or just check on Wikipedia.
i hope you-re right

[Yazman]

Yeah things could be changing for MJ. We need to ensure that they do. The media however seems to be turning just a little towards supporting Michael.

[Angel]

Anybody who wants to read the settlement contracts can do so here. I'm not reading the entire thing, but it does appear as if his insurance company was invovled but it also proves once and for all that MJ and his lawyers along with the Chandler's and their lawyers agreed to this. In fact those are the only people that signed the agreement.

Michael admits no wrong doing in the documents. It is understandable why an innocent man in his position would agree to settle. In fact most celebrities prefer to settle to get the news talking about something else as fast as possible. Even Kobe Bryant settled with his accuser, and they literally 100% proved he was innocent. I do not blame MJ for settling at all.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

You seem to really be hung up on this one issue - what does it matter anyway?
Even if he was the one that wanted to settle in the first place (which I don't believe) it may have been for other reasons ( like his image being hurt if he went through lengthy trials - as it turned out the settlement backfired as well but that was a risk they took), it doesn't prove he was guilty.
If you really want it spelled out I for one think he didn't want to settle but they convinced him - the insurance company, his PR team, his record company - everyone would have probably lost more if it had gone to trial.
So of course he had to agree and sign his name.

And about Jordan's statements to his high-school colleagues or whatever they were - that's just a rumor right? Seems strange that he would talk about that so 'carelessly' when he kept his silence for so long ( that's assuming that what's been said about him getting into trouble with the law if he made such statements is true).

[bluetopez]

And about Jordan's statements to his high-school colleagues or whatever they were - that's just a rumor right? Seems strange that he would talk about that so 'carelessly' when he kept his silence for so long ( that's assuming that what's been said about him getting into trouble with the law if he made such statements is true).

NO, it's not a rumor T-mez MJ's lawyer for the 2005 trial said he had Jordan friends ready to testify against him if he had chosen to take the stand!

[Angel]

NO, it's not a rumor T-mez MJ's lawyer for the 2005 trial said he had Jordan friends ready to testify against him if he had chosen to take the stand!

Wow, I must have missed that, thanks!

[bluetopez]

Your welcome! :)

[bluetopez]

Edit: Never mind the you tube video I wanted to put up was deleted lol

[StaceyMJ]

I'll follow the rules, but I want to know if it goes both ways. Does this rule only apply to people who doubt they are his or does it apply to people who insist they are his children?

I could care less. I could give two craps if they are related to him. It just gets sickening how people here lie so much, and they do it knowingly. I just got a Pm telling me MJ never said what I claim he said. I was just about to post a link showing him saying it, but I wont.

You should probably make a sticky notifying members of the new rule, because most members here will not notice this post in this thread.

No, the rule applies as a whole, it is not to be discussed in any way.
This is written in the forum rules, which you can read here - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1890587#post1890587
Under point number 2.

The first rule on the list is respect, please show some to your fellow members. That goes for everyone!

[.Butterflies.]

I think this is a valid thread actually because this has confused me for a while. Regardless of who paid the Chandlers, how could Michael have signed the document agreeing to the settlement but been under protest about signing it? To me, it's either one or the other. If you are protesting, why sign? No one put a gun to his head? He himself even says he and his lawyers wanted to whole thing done with so he agreed to the settlement. That doesn't sound like someone under protest? Can anyone fill in the blanks here assuming I'm missing any?

[.Butterflies.]

Unless 'under protest' has it's own legal meaning that I may be missing

[Rockin.]

Amazing not ONE single paper in Australia has reported on this cause it will make Evan's credibility go out the window! Sickening!

The media make me feel ill.

I'd rather they ignore it here to be honest. It just brings up 1993 again and doesn't report the full story yet again.


That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count.

Tabloids are what everyone reads though..so they are mainstream media. At least in the UK.

[.Butterflies.]

Ok, dictionary.com.

Protest definitions

1.Law.
a. (upon one's payment of a tax or other state or city exaction) a formal statement disputing the legality of the demand.

2. Law
b. formal statement drawn up by a notary for a creditor declaring that the debtor has refused to accept or honor a bill.

:ermm: Erm, so does that mean mj HIMSELF initially paid them and then put in a 'formal statement disputing the legality of the demand' after having done so, and so his money was returned and the insurance co. picked up the bill?

Or does it mean he signed to pay but THEN 'refused to accept or honor the bill' so the insurance company stepped in basically saying 'Dear Chandlers. We regret to inform you that Mj has now decided you can all get stuffed despite signing. Here is your money from us. Please piss off now.'

Anyone here study law? I'm even more confused now. lol

(Assuming I'm interpreting the definitions right) could it be that Mj DID agree to settle like he says in interviews, even to the extent that he signed to (and maybe even went ahead and paid the chandlers from his own pocket). Hence the docs on the smoking gun. But could it be that he THEN had second thoughts about letting them get away with it, so he put in 'a formal statement disputing the legality of the bill'. and the insurance co picked it up for some reason I still don't entirely understand?

??

[ASIS]

I don't think we should move along just yet. I have many questions and misunderstandings regarding this case and i want to know the truth.. we will move on but not yet.

[Sophielo]

Amazing not ONE single paper in Australia has reported on this cause it will make Evan's credibility go out the window! Sickening!

The media make me feel ill.

Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.

[Beachlover]

I see it is actually now out of main stream media and has been taken over by "Oprah Leaving her Show" and news about Janet and its dying away. So that's a good thing.

[Rockin.]

Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.

Same here. I don't see any comments there, mine aren't approved. 'michael jackson sex case dad evan chandler wanted justice'...and they say Jordy started the allegations which he didn't it was Evan. It also said that MJ had 'an album of nude boys' which I assume they mean the art book that was given to him by a fan. They also talked about removing other items including rolls of film. They don't actually state that there was nothing incriminating.

They won't let us have our say by just posting a comment, its so frustrating.

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
oh my God, that was so ridiculous...

[Bo G]

I'd rather they ignore it here to be honest. It just brings up 1993 again and doesn't report the full story yet again.



Tabloids are what everyone reads though..so they are mainstream media. At least in the UK.

I know they dominate there, and read somewhere that this alone was why Madonna wouldn't live there. (I haven't verified that). My understanding from a moderator upthread is that the no-tabloids rule is a site rule set by Gaz. He's UK-based, so he's aware of the situation. The "tabloid" definition does not come from its number of readers, but from whether it's journalism-based with at least the GOAL of being fact-based, vs sensationalism-driven with no concern for facts.

Frustrating, I know. I've seen the same thing happen on CNN's comment page. One thing I know, though, is these sites get thousands of comments, and a staffer randomly picking those to post may not actually be finding your comment. Statistically, you could get lost in the mob. So it may not be intentional. Or it may be -- hard to say...

But people who read tabloids have some sense that it's entertainment more than news -- look at the gossip about the other celebrities as well; they're getting soundly thrashed, and I do think there's a decent percentage of people who understand it should be taken with a grain of salt. That's why 's best not to let it get under your skin too much. I'd hoped the Guardian and BBC would have come out with good stories, but better to have none than bad, which is what we have there.

[elusive moonwalker]

I'd hoped the Guardian
the guardian are one of the worst broadsheets when it comes to MJ prob next to the times. you cant fight them so u might aswell ignore them. what argument do u have when mjs own family sells stories to them. all u can do is hope chandler grows some balls and comes out.but even then it will be twisted.

madonna had a house in the uk for years while she was married. for the most part the uk press has always kissed her ass

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

the guardian are one of the worst broadsheets when it comes to MJ prob next to the times. you cant fight them so u might aswell ignore them. what argument do u have when mjs own family sells stories to them. all u can do is hope chandler grows some balls and comes out.but even then it will be twisted.

madonna had a house in the uk for years while she was married. for the most part the uk press has always kissed her ass
yup, and its true about madonna too

[Bo G]

Not sure how good a source this is, but this quotes her as saying to David Letterman about "Madge": "That's one of the reasons I left England, so I didn't have to hear that word anymore."

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/madonna-hates-nickname-madge_1117785

[elusive moonwalker]

hank you elusive moonwalker for the info. I read through this thread and have another quesition. This case should be closed as soon as the insurance company settled. But why they did it until the limitations had run? Is there any other else case like this? It looks strange to me.
Edit. Why Jordan left his father after this case?
statue of limitations are to do with the criminal side of the case. its a totally normal thing basically the vicitim has so many years to make a complaint to the police or testify.its the same in a civil case aswell. u have so long to take the person to court. it basically stops ppl having accusations kept over their head for years and years. so in thatsense its normal but what wasnt normal is that sneddon tried to get the limitations limit changed in mjs case. i think the law was 7 years at the time but he tried to get more added on so he had longer to go after mj.his argument was that mj was out of the country alot of the time so all the times mj was gone should be added on.i dont know if he ever did this because i would presume it would take many years to change laws but he threatned mj with it for a long time

jordan emancipated (divorced) both his parents after the case ended. no one knows why but it kinda looks pretty obvious ontop of the fact he told ppl he hated his parents for what they did.its thought one of the reasons his monther testfyed in 2005 was because it was the only way she could make contact and speak to him through the court testimony

[elusive moonwalker]

she left england cause she got divorced b4 that she divided her time. she had a huge house in the country and one in london

[terrell]

Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
Well, most of the people in the UNited States who are posting and talk think it is EVANS GUILT of destroying a man's life.:clapping:

[Bo G]

Well, most of the people in the UNited States who are posting and talk think it is EVANS GUILT of destroying a man's life.:clapping:

That's true... when I look at comments on most sites, they're pro-MJ. Good work, fans!!! :clapping:

What's up with you guys in the UK? Get going! :)

[Sophielo]

No one is talking about it anymore but when they did they made me so angry. They couldn't even get their facts about the god damn allegations right.

In all fairness though most of the comments in The Sun now on their website are pro MJ.

[Veromca]

I think this is a valid thread actually because this has confused me for a while. Regardless of who paid the Chandlers, how could Michael have signed the document agreeing to the settlement but been under protest about signing it? To me, it's either one or the other. If you are protesting, why sign? No one put a gun to his head? He himself even says he and his lawyers wanted to whole thing done with so he agreed to the settlement. That doesn't sound like someone under protest? Can anyone fill in the blanks here assuming I'm missing any?

Imho Michael was innocent and protested the settlement at first. BUT I do think we should put ourselves into MJ's shoes every time we think of him. He is a celebrity, he is not an individual to an extent, that is a CIRCLE or INTEREST GROUP. I don't think it could prove any senseful stuff even MJ himself signed it. I just can't be convinced by such imcomplete proof.

[Bo G]

No one is talking about it anymore but when they did they made me so angry. They couldn't even get their facts about the god damn allegations right.

In all fairness though most of the comments in The Sun now on their website are pro MJ.

That's awesome about the Sun, sloride. :cheers: Look at just how big this is: (from Wikipedia)

The Sun is a daily tabloid newspaper published in the United Kingdom and Ireland (where it is known as The Irish Sun) with the second highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world and the biggest circulation within the UK, standing at an average of 2,986,000 copies a day between January and June 2008 and with a daily readership of approximately 7,900,000, of which 56 percent are male and 44 percent female.[3] By circulation it is the tenth biggest newspaper in any language in the world,[4] four places behind its Sunday stablemate the News of the World, although their circulations are close and these places were briefly reversed during May 2008.[5] It reaches 2.9 million readers in the ABC1 demographic and 5.0 million in the C2DE demographic, compared to the 1.5 and 0.1 million respectively of its broadsheet stablemate The Times.[3] It is published by News Group Newspapers of News International, itself a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.[6][7]

The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!

[Beachlover]

The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!

I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video and I thought that was clear. Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this. This is what I clearly understood from what Michael himself said. He did it because he just wanted this to go away and not deal with it.

I can understand that totally and it did not mean more than that. He just didn't want it hanging out there in the open and no one could guarantee the outcome so he just said "get rid of it".

I see the news doing just as they always do as you say. Reporting so their story catches the eye and makes people buy the magazine or paper. I think most intelligent people have caught on to this though.

[elusive moonwalker]

Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this.
the court motion written by mez during the trial contridicts this

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....

[Bo G]

I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video

This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. I suspect MJ thought that it was impossible to try to explain, in a sound bite, the lesser allegation of negligence that was the basis of the settlement, rather than the original molestation allegation. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...

One thing that's clear to me is that MJ was not skilled or comfortable in talking with media, and made many mistakes like this. He spoke in a stilted, speechifying manner that skirted the issues, instead of being down-to-earth and tackling the facts head on. This was his way, I think, of coping with a problematic shyness. There was an interesting article somewhere by a colleague who urged MJ to speak more comfortably and intimately with fans as well, such as from the stage. MJ tried follow this advice, the man said, tried to just engage the audience in normal banter a bit, but got too shy and gave up. I think his shyness really harmed him in many ways in his life, and it's a terrible shame that such a perfectly harmless personality trait could cause so much trouble. It's the irony of the world's biggest superstar being shy...

[Beachlover]

This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...

I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.

[Bo G]

I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.

If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

What you say would be supported by the probability that this is what triggered him to begin using painkillers and sedatives for anxiety, to deal understandably with the horrible, horrible shock of these allegations. Perhaps if this were decision of his, as you say, it was not under the clearest thinking.

But yes, if it turns out this is absolutely what he wanted, that's completely understandable as well and should not reflect negatively on him.


UPDATE

Someone has kindly posted a thread entitled 1993 settlement documents (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=81887). We can move our discussion about the 1993 settlement there, and use that thread as a resource in this thread, to give us the "sound bites" we need to correct media inaccuracies. We do want to get this straight if at all possible. We're trying to do this in a quiet, factual way as it's very upsetting for many fans (including me)...

But jeez, moderators, aren't we kind of reinventing the wheel here? Hasn't this already been done by somebody...

[Bo G]

well many here have been talking about it rescently, and there appears to be a lot of confusion on the part of a lot of members here as to what the agreement was and who agreed to it.

a lot of members here do like to vidicate MJ and this way when they see rumours flying at other sites or nasty comments on you tube videos, now they have the link to offer proof.

Yes, we're trying actively to counteract any false facts about this now appearing widely in the media, so we NEED to have the facts boiled down accurately to a few correct sentences. Those of us trying to do this would be very grateful to a little time spent trying to do this. We don't want to spur anything upsetting, just a quiet summarizing of the facts. It's difficult, I know...

UPDATE

Here's the thread where we're needing this information, and would like to post some kind of "sound bite" on whatever we conclude here:
Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2392770#post2392770)

You can see it's a very active thread with a lot of interest in addressing this problem. I understand not all are emotionally up to this; they can just bypass these threads, but should not try to stop them, IMO. We have a window of opportunity right now to actively affect public opinion.

[ginvid]

Is the smoking gun tabloid? They have the agreement from 1994 and it says MJ had to pay, not the insurance co. Is there some other way to interpret this agreement?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0616041*****6.gif

[Bo G]

The only thing you're proving here is your lack of understanding regarding how insurance settlement agreements work.

This isn't helpful. Tell us how they do work then. And provide a link, if possible. The original poster is making a good faith effort to get this cleared up, and seems IMO to have earned respectful coopoeration.

[Beachlover]

If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02-11KZjA_w

[Bo G]

Here's the main excerpts from the other thread today on this. I'm trying to migrate that discussion here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo G View Post
The tabloids are TOTALLY driven by readership. If they get the idea the tide is turning from comments, I guarantee the spin will change. We may get through to Rupert Murdoch and his worldwide tabloids yet!

As for the mainstream media, here's my view, but I'd like to hear others' general impressions too. I saw at least some attempt at fairness, and Evan Chandler's attempted murder of his son was almost always mentioned, which I think is a huge piece of news that will shift public opinion.

The main fact that was consistently wrong was the source of the payment, saying it was MJ instead of the insurance company. Usually but not always, I thought they were trying to be better about not falsely claiming the payment prevented Chandler from filing criminal charges.

But again, great news about The Sun's readers!
I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video and I thought that was clear. Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this. This is what I clearly understood from what Michael himself said. He did it because he just wanted this to go away and not deal with it.

I can understand that totally and it did not mean more than that. He just didn't want it hanging out there in the open and no one could guarantee the outcome so he just said "get rid of it".

I see the news doing just as they always do as you say. Reporting so their story catches the eye and makes people buy the magazine or paper. I think most intelligent people have caught on to this though.
Beachlover is online now Add to Beachlover's Reputation Report Post Reply With Quote



Today, 10:54 AM #205
elusive moonwalker

Yes, the insurance company paid it but he ok'd this.
the court motion written by mez during the trial contridicts this

Hightlights: Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents
The following are excerpts from the court document:

Pg3 The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference.

…Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added).

…An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements.

Pg2 Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury.

Pg3 The speculative suggestion that Mr. Jackson somehow made an admission when an insurance company required a settlement, and in fact paid for the settlement, creates an impermissible inference to the jury that would deprive Mr. Jackson of due process of law.

Pg 4 It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute.

Pg9-10 Permitting evidence of settlement agreements or amounts would be speculative because there is no evidence Michael Jackson made the settlement. Settlements in civil suits many times are dictated by insurance companies who settle claims regardless of an individual's wishes.

Although Jordan Chandler was interviewed "thereafter" by detectives seeking evidence to offer in a child molestation prosecution of Michael Jackson, "no criminal charges were filed as a result of that interview."

This interview took place prior to the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Stogner v California, 539 U.S. 607, 613 (2003), holding California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations to be unconstitutional.

In other words, Jordan Chandler's statements were not sufficient even at that earlier time, to support child molestation charges against Michael Jackson, and to now permit the suggestion of a settlement agreement for some improper act is not only irrelevant, but also a speculative violation of the statute of limitations

After this motion, the judge ruled that the prosecution were not allowed to allude to or include any information or suggested allegation that MJ paid the Chandlers because he didn't the insurance paid over MJ's and his lawyers objections...

Another thing to note... when Evan was filing suit he included "negligence course of distress" knowing full well the insurance would pay for that which would pave way for the Chandlers to avoid the criminal trial. MJ and his team were pushing for the criminal trial, they filed a motion to stop the civil trial, put in on hold to wait for the criminal trial but they were denied that chance.....


Today, 11:07 AM #206
Bo G
Originally Posted by Beachlover View Post
I thought it was common knowledge that MJ wanted the case out of his face and thats why he agreed to settle. He did say so on video
This has confused me too. Yet I think it really was against his will and out of his hands from other evidence, including what elusivemoonwalker just posted and what I'm pretty sure recalling friends or family saying about it. You may be right, Beachlover, that he approved the settlement, but the evidence in my mind points against it. MJ said several things that aren't true in the Bashir interview, understandably just trying to keep things simple, to speak in sound bites. Unfortunately he had a tendency to exaggerate a bit, which worked against him. I think he felt it was hopeless to try to get people to believe a settlement could be made against his will. In most people's understanding of insurance, that does not compute. I suspect MJ thought that it was impossible to try to explain, in a sound bite, the lesser allegation of negligence that was the basis of the settlement, rather than the original molestation allegation. He did not go on the rampage publicly against the insurance company, so there was a kind of quiet resignation. To me, that's really what he was referring to in the video. I don't think he really meant he approved the settlement, but had kind of given up trying to get the public to understand that. But again, I'm not the expert on this as some people here are...

One thing that's clear to me is that MJ was not skilled or comfortable in talking with media, and made many mistakes like this. He spoke in a stilted, speechifying manner that skirted the issues, instead of being down-to-earth and tackling the facts head on. This was his way, I think, of coping with a problematic shyness. There was an interesting article somewhere by a colleague who urged MJ to speak more comfortably and intimately with fans as well, such as from the stage. MJ tried follow this advice, the man said, tried to just engage the audience in normal banter a bit, but got too shy and gave up. I think his shyness really harmed him in many ways in his life, and it's a terrible shame that such a perfectly harmless personality trait could cause so much trouble. It's the irony of the world's biggest superstar being shy...

Old Today, 11:17 AM #207
Beachlover

I did not get that impression from the Bashir interview. I got it from maybe his interview with Diane Sawyer? It sounded reasonable to me and from his own mouth, so he convinced ME that he did so out of frustration and not because he was guilty. He just realized that it was hanging over his head and just wanted it 'done'.

I see nothing wrong with that. Heck, if I had money and could pay some jerk off if they were harassing me I would do that too. As far as the amount, he did not say anything about that and I would have no idea if he knew it was going to be that much or not.

Somehow in my mind, if he knew it was that much money he would have thrown a hissy fit.


Today, 11:33 AM #208
Bo G

If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

What you say would be supported by the probability that this is what triggered him to begin using painkillers and sedatives for anxiety, to deal understandably with the horrible, horrible shock of these allegations. Perhaps if this were decision of his, as you say, it was not under the clearest thinking.

But yes, if it turns out this is absolutely what he wanted, that's completely understandable as well and should not reflect negatively on him.


UPDATE

Someone has kindly posted a thread entitled 1993 settlement documents. We can move our discussion about the 1993 settlement there, and use that thread as a resource in this thread, to give us the "sound bites" we need to correct media inaccuracies. We do want to get this straight if at all possible. We're trying to do this in a quiet, factual way as it's very upsetting for many fans (including me)...

But jeez, moderators, aren't we kind of reinventing the wheel here? Hasn't this already been done by somebody...

Today, 12:12 PM #209
ginvid

Is the smoking gun tabloid? They have the agreement from 1994 and it says MJ had to pay, not the insurance co. Is there some other way to interpret this agreement?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmo...6041*****6.gif
Last edited by ginvid; Today at 12:24 PM.

[Bo G]

Is the smoking gun tabloid? They have the agreement from 1994 and it says MJ had to pay, not the insurance co. Is there some other way to interpret this agreement?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****1.html

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0616041*****6.gif

It's not "mainstream media" to be analyzed in this thread, but it can be a good source of information. But we're moving this discussion to the other thread. I've copied this comment of yours there, ginvid, so we can carry on over there. See the link in my post above. Thanks very much for the links!

[Bo G]

Smoking Gun can be an acceptable source of info, where they clearly state where THEIR info came from.

[ginvid]

Smoking Gun can be an acceptable source of info, where they clearly state where THEIR info came from.

Well, I don't know how to take this since they got the redacted agreement from Diane Diamond. However, I am willing to take it at face value, even considering the source because I doubt she would make all of this up. I dunno.

[ginvid]

It's not "mainstream media" to be analyzed in this thread, but it can be a good source of information. But we're moving this discussion to the other thread. I've copied this comment of yours there, ginvid, so we can carry on over there. See the link in my post above. Thanks very much for the links!

Thank you very much. Headed over now.

[ginvid]

on page 3 it does it does refer to Michael Jackson as a "party to this agreement."

Page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

There you go.

I think it is important to discuss. People often speak of MJ fans as being irrational and deluded. The only way to have a chance to combat this is by having facts and being able to speak intelligently on a subject. I for one am interested in knowing what actually is the case in order to be able to speak on the subject at a later time if need be. So, Thanks.

[Beachlover]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo G View Post
If possible, I'd like to see what you're referring to. I do really want to know the truth on this, if that's at all possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02-11KZjA_w
__________________
Stranger at the Seaside

[Beachlover]

Am I missing the party? No one is posting on the other thread or did I not find the correct thread?

[Bo G]

Am I missing the party? No one is posting on the other thread or did I not find the correct thread?

I think those of us talking about on this thread ARE the party... so get your a** over there :) and post that last link of yours there. Hopefully DanceMaster and Butterflies will return. It will pick up steam, I suspect. It's a lot of material to sort through, and some may be taking their time. I know that the case for me. I haven't looked at most of it yet, including your stuff elusivemoonwalker. But some of us really need to, even though it's no fun and pretty upsetting at this point.

Back to the media here:

Did anyone find any reports in the BBC, the Guardian, or other major papers elsewhere in this big world?

[Gunjan]

There have been rumours about these documents swirling for years. Among the rumours

1. MJ paid the family not to testify in criminal court
2. MJ bribed the family into not pressing charges
3. Mj didn't actually settle. It was the insurance companies who settled.

as for the rumour that Mj never chose to settle, here is a quote from page 5

"The parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in action in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and his potential income."

So the insurance companies definetly didn't pay anything? Because I was confused as well when I people saying that it was the company that paid and not him.

[MattyJam]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1229622/Killed-curse-Michael-Jackson-What-drove-father-Jordy-Chandler-gun-head.html

Disgusting.

[Sophielo]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1229622/Killed-curse-Michael-Jackson-What-drove-father-Jordy-Chandler-gun-head.html

Disgusting.

The Daily Mail is a tabloid.

EDIT-I made the mistake of reading the article. This above needs to be referred to the Legacy project. There is no way we can let this article go. Its disgusting.

[crazychick!!!]

So the insurance companies definetly didn't pay anything? Because I was confused as well when I people saying that it was the company that paid and not him.

The insurance company did pay the settlement. It mentions it on page 3.

http://mjjr.net/downloads/documents/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

[Moonwalker.Fan]

The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of the civil settlement of the 1993 lawsuit through the testimony of Larry Feldman, attorney for the current complaining family and attorney for the plaintiff in the 1993 matter. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is general practice for an insurer to be entitled to control settlement negotiations and the insured is precluded from any interference. Shapero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 114 Cal. App.3d 433, 438 (1971); Ivy v. Pacific Automobile Ins. Co., 156 Cal. App.2d 652, 660 (1958)(the insured is precluded from interfering with settlement procedures). Under the majority of contracts for liability insurance, the absolute control of the defense of the matter is turned over to the insurance company and the insured is excluded from any interference in any negotiation for settlement or other legal proceedings (emphasis added). Merritt v. Reserve Ins. Co., 34 Cal. App.3d 858, 870 (1973). An insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance when it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements. 44 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, sec. 1392, at 326-27 (rev. ed 2002)

In Brown v. Guarantee Ins. Co., 155 Cal. App. 2d 679, 685 (1957), the court stated:

"It is generally understood that these are rights and privileges which it is necessary for the insurer to have in order to justify or enable it to assume obligations which it does in the contract of insurance. So long as recovery does not exceed the limits of the insurance, the question of whether the claim be compromised or settled, or the matter in which it shall be defended, is a matter of no concern to the insured."

The insurer's right to control the defense of any action against the insured includes the right to negotiate settlement, and to otherwise conduct defense of the action. The consent of the insured is usually superfluous. "Liability policies usually specifically prohibit the insured from settling or negotiating for a settlement or interfering in any manner with the defense except upon request of the insurer unless the insurer is in breach of contract. By accepting a liability insurance policy, the insured is bound by these terms." (Croskey, et. al, Cal. Practice Guide: Insurance Litigation 3, supra, section 12:207, p. 12B-2.) "For this reason, it is common practice for insurance counsel and an adjuster to handle the negotiation of insurance funded settlements with out the superfluous involvement of a fully protected insured." Fiege v. Cooke, __ Cal. App. 4th __ (2004).

It is unfair for an insurance company's settlement to be now held against Michael or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Michael Jackson's prior conduct or guilt. Michael Jackson could not control nor interfere with his insurance carrier's demand to settle the dispute. No admission against interest nor acknowledgment of criminality can be inferred regarding Jackson from the act of the insurance carrier in the settling the litigation.

It is worth mentioning that full details about the settlement negotiation and payment method(s) have not yet been disclosed to the public. Over the years, various other reasons and explanations have been given by Michael Jackson and his attorneys as to why the settlement was made, in addition to the insurance claim above. Sources close to the Chandler family, including Ray Chandler, told the press back in 1998 that the settlement was actually being paid out over a period of 40 years, and that payments first began in August-September of 1998 (there is no confirmation of this theory).

[sharon007]

Cant we just let this go. It is very old at this point.
i agree this happened 16 years ago do we need to re-hash it all over again.:smilerolleyes:

[MattyJam]

I know there are rules about posting tabloid stuff on here, but if you can't vent about the injustice of these articles with other fans then where are you supposed to do it?

This stuff is out there and people are reading it. What are we supposed to do? Just pretend it doesn't exist??

The frustrating thing is, all the same old shit from the same tired sleazy sources (Raymond Chandler, Diane Diamond etc) is coming up to the forefront just because Evan Chandler decided to shoot himself. Why is it all of a sudden more relevant and newsworthy than it was this time last week? I can't believe the tabloids are trying to paint Evan to be a victim in all of this. It's just sickening.

[Sophielo]

I know there are rules about posting tabloid stuff on here, but if you can't vent on here about the injustice of these articles then where are you supposed to do it?

This stuff is out there and people are reading it. What are we supposed to do? Just pretend it doesn't exist??

I posted the article on the Enough is Enough section. After reading it I need to vent too!

[Rockin.]

Oh my God :no:

That daily mail one..

Looks like they printed peoples comments from here too..

[Bo G]

I haven't clicked on it; can't bring myself to. I don't know what to say. Mods: any advice here? Someone, perhaps it was Trish, asked: Who is speaking for MJ? Is there no one from the estate who is speaking for MJ? Does anyone with MJJC know anyone connected to the estate that we can urge take a more proactive role? MJ's policy was to not respond to bad press usually, but perhaps the estate should take a different tack?

Another site has a forum for tabloid links... would that make sense here? There is a constructive purpose, as pointed out above. But a lot of us really need to be protected from tabloids, so it does seem best to separate them out.

[Rockin.]

I've posted it in the Legacy forum.. there are no mods online by the looks of it. This is terrible.

[Bo G]

I've posted it in the Legacy forum.. I"m glad you did, Rockin.

[Rockin.]

Theres nobody there though.. no staff or anything. oh myyy, i could cry

[Sophielo]

We can't let this article go. I wonder if they actually allowed my comment on there. I highly doubt it. Questioning their ability as journalists probably didn't help!

[Rockin.]

What can we do though? We complained to the PCC for the Guardian one but its still there.. nothing happened. The PCC told me its for the Jackson Family to complain if they want to, so maybe someone should contact the lawyers for the estate. The journalist is probably on here reading everything we say.

[Nivea]

I dunno if this has already been answered here.. but I didn't see any post about it (or perhaps I didn't search thoroughly enough) so.. here goes: I heard that chandler contacted mj and asked him to negotiate three scriptwriting deals on his behalf. If mj didn't agree, he said, he would accuse him of molesting his son. Mj didn't agree and so chandler went ahead with the accusations.
What I'm wondering about is; if this is true, why didn't mj just charge them with extortion?

[D.Electric]

i agree this happened 16 years ago do we need to re-hash it all over again.:smilerolleyes:

Yes, if there are people who want to discuss it, I dont see why they shouldnt. There are people on this forum who were perhaps too young 16 years ago who now want to research it... I do not mean ANY offence to you, or anyone who agrees with you, all with love as MJ would say... but if you dont want to be see or be involved in a discussion... just ignore the thread <3 :scared: eeee...i felt bad saying that but i think it had to be, im sorry!!

[Autumn II]

I've posted it in the Legacy forum.. there are no mods online by the looks of it. This is terrible.

This will be my first post after leaving staff, but I want to respond to this? (I'm doing my personal work, now, and can't be online that much. . . ) MJJC is a VERY large board. Check out the number of members at the bottom of the page? Some journalists troll here routinely, and have done so since the trial. What may seem like private conversations are actually extremely public, and anything said in any of the threads can migrate as far as CNN or Fox, or. . . tabloids. There is really not much to be done for it except for everyone who posts here to conduct him or herself with decorum as befitting Michael's legacy, and with the understanding that anything you say CAN go very, very public.

Carry on,

Vic

[Bo G]

I hate to ask this... I really don't intend to open that tabloid. But I do want to know what kind of comments from this site they're looking for, so we can be more aware of what kind of thing they're after. Rockin, would you be willing to paste just the parts here that may have been taken from fan sites?

[Bo G]

i agree this happened 16 years ago do we need to re-hash it all over again.

And you were forced to read this thread... how again???

Dannilee, that's very true. I was not following this in 1993, I had other things on my plate. All I really want are simple statements with documents to back them up so I can post corrections on the news stories everywhere right now (some of you are obviously not paying attention). And since this commenter and others who did follow this are not responding to our requests for this simple information (the most important reason for this site, IMO) and prefer to snipe at us... we're having to fend for ourselves and drag this out more than anyone would like.

[Autumn II]

I hate to ask this... I really don't intend to open that tabloid. But I do want to know what kind of comments from this site they're looking for, so we can be more aware of what kind of thing they're after. Rockin, would you be willing to paste just the parts here that may have been taken from fan sites?

Unfortunately, I did open it. I just skimmed it, but what I saw were some of the more. . . . raw? comments from "an Evan Chandler thread." Didn't see any quotes attributed, though. Tabloids are after the extreme, so probably won't quote the more reasonable remarks even if the reasonable, thoughtful, quotes are in the majority, here or at any fan-site.

[Sophielo]

I hate to ask this... I really don't intend to open that tabloid. But I do want to know what kind of comments from this site they're looking for, so we can be more aware of what kind of thing they're after. Rockin, would you be willing to paste just the parts here that may have been taken from fan sites?

He went on fansites and posted comments the very small minority of fans wrote celebrating Evan Chandler's death, throwing in the word 'karma' a lot. He also said we were 'blinded to the truth about Jackson.'

[Beachlover]

Here is what I saw:

Suddenly, the reason for his death became the subject of worldwide speculation, and the internet chat-rooms where Michael Jackson's hero-worshipping fans exchange gossip were deluged by an outpouring of schadenfreude. 'Good riddance, you piece of ****. Hope you rot in hell! Things that go around come around - karma is a bitch,' one hate-filled message read.

'He was a very, very evil man. He should have been punished. This seems the easy way,' another responded.

Among the Jackson faithful, Evan Chandler is the devil incarnate. For in 1993, it was he who first exposed the King of Pop as a common paedophile by revealing how Jackson had sexually abused his son, Jordan, then aged 13.

[Sophielo]

This is the quote that got me really angry:

"Even after 16 years, during which time many more children have told how Jackson inveigled them into his bed, many fans remain blinded to the truth."

[Beachlover]

Here is the whole opening saga:

Even after 16 years, during which time many more children have told how Jackson inveigled them into his bed, many fans remain blinded to the truth.

They prefer to believe that Mr Chandler, then a respectable and affluent Los Angeles dentist, invented a lurid story of sexual abuse (and persuaded his son to corroborate it) as part of a lucrative blackmail plot.

When it emerged that Jackson had bought the Chandlers' silence by paying Jordy a reported $20 million and his parents $1m each, this travesty only gained more credence.

It is still widely accepted by many Jackson fans, even though Jordan's harrowing police statement has since been published in full.

[bluetopez]

Media...tabloid whatever u wanna call it, their all the same to me, Responsible! Their afraid people will know the truth and expose their lying faces! How Pathetic! Their spinning hard what Evan only did to himself and it's so obvious and it's to funny! lol

[Rockin.]

This is the quote that got me really angry:

"Even after 16 years, during which time many more children have told how Jackson inveigled them into his bed, many fans remain blinded to the truth."

That and another sentence which I don't want to even write. Actually... there are a few.

[Autumn II]

Here's the thing. Tabloid trolls read here and at the other fan-sites. Of COURSE they do! They look for the lurid, the extreme, the "heat-of-the moment" remarks, and then take them out of context. Is that fair? Of course not, just as they were not fair to Michael.

It's very hard to tell, if not impossible, who might be a journo on this or other fan-boards. I'm sure they don't post, but just read and get lost in a sea of names. See how many people have read here in the past 24 hours? Listed at the bottom of the screen? It's a HUGE number, and if they don't post, there's really no way to know who they are. . . . . . fans? Journalists? No way to know.

[Beachlover]

These stories are nothing new and this is part of the reason Michael wrote "SCREAM" and other songs. Its frustrating to them and they have no control over what the papers write. Sometimes you can sue if you can prove it is wrong but with so many stories coming out rapid fire it is hard to shield yourself.

The thing of it is that they can quote the forum by saying what the fans said and it is actually 'true' to some extent but then they add their own nasty little snickering comments which just adds fuel to the fire.

Anyone with any writing talent can twist words and turn stories completely around and even using quotes can make someone look foolish. This is what Bashir did to Michael and it was wrong and we know it, but there is no conscience in these people. If it sells a story they write it.

The only way to prevent them from doing this is to not discuss things here. In any open forum like this, or Facebook, Twitter, etc....there is the possiblity of being quoted. They will look for the quotes that suit their purpose and take them out of context. Its extremely easy to do so if you have any writing skills.

They are pond slime.

[Soundmind]

Murdoch again , Murdoch has been Evan's attorney since 1993 . God forbid people ever question Evan's motives . or call him 'greedy'. Murdoch is a disease like no other .

[.Butterflies.]

I still don't understand if the insurance co. negotiated and paid it, why then are they not remotely mentioned in the contract on the smoking gun? Why is it Michael signing and not the insurance co? That's basically what my personal confusion boils down to. It really makes absolutely zero sense to me.

[bluetopez]

I think the smoking gun website is unfair because they have the redacted docs that Diane Dimond like to parade around! They blocked out the most Impotanrt parts....all I ask is why? I think u know though!? lol

But, anyways I don't get why it's so hard to understand that his insurance paid the out of court settlement it's LEGAL DOCUMENTS that speak LOUDER then any words that came out of others in the last 16yrs, including words that came out of MJ himself that some are hung up on!! lol

[Bo G]

Oh, please, don't post more here. I know you're trying to prod us into action, but...

Tabloids are not considered mainstream media because they're not "newspapers." They're not journalism, and don't claim to be. They're entertainment. Sick entertainment, but entertainment. Like dogfighting.

We should be angry at that site. But I do hope people keep the bigger perspective also in their hearts and emotions, and that is that MJ's reputation HAS IN FACT been restored to the world. MJ had a FINAL VICTORY. He left us with a TRIUMPH. And the world KNOWS IT. Some will snipe at the edges, hating that they were wrong all along, but they are now viewed as the foolish ones who still don't get it.

MJ has triumphed. Let's not ever forget that.

[Bo G]

Butterflies, I don't get it either. We're not getting much help, though, are we? We're getting a) documents without explanation, b) explanations without documents, and c) an attitude, as of there's something wrong with wanting to defend MJ armed with facts. I see you're on the Project Legacy Team, so you understand, no doubt, that you can't just send a complaining letter without a short, simple explanation with supporting documents.

Personally, I'm throwing in the towel on this one.

[MarielovesMJ]

Here's the thing. Tabloid trolls read here and at the other fan-sites. Of COURSE they do! They look for the lurid, the extreme, the "heat-of-the moment" remarks, and then take them out of context. Is that fair? Of course not, just as they were not fair to Michael.

It's very hard to tell, if not impossible, who might be a journo on this or other fan-boards. I'm sure they don't post, but just read and get lost in a sea of names. See how many people have read here in the past 24 hours? Listed at the bottom of the screen? It's a HUGE number, and if they don't post, there's really no way to know who they are. . . . . . fans? Journalists? No way to know.

They do this on every fansite in every fandom everytime there's a scandal when a fanbase is well known. It was about 2 years ago that I posted something doing a celeb scandal on a another celeb fanboard and was horrified that one of my quotes was on the news. I was so embarrassed and still am. They twisted it. :cry: I should have known that my quotes were not safe. There are plenty of journalist trolling the board looking for the , loud, reactionary, angry comments because calm reasonable comments are too boring for them.

[dancemasterman]

I actually did sit and read through almost the whole thing. I don't remember which page it says it, but it does say that MJ will be paying them.

I don't hold the settlement against Michael Jackson, I just prefer that when people talk about it they do so accurately.

[Bo G]

A fansite -- any site -- should only allow as many posters as it can moderate, so that it doesn't create problems.

[Bo G]

I actually did sit and read through almost the whole thing. I don't remember which page it says it, but it does say that MJ will be paying them.

I don't hold the settlement against Michael Jackson, I just prefer that when people talk about it they do so accurately.

Well, I've read countless times on this site that it was all against his will and he objected. If that's not true, and it sounds like it might not be, I've been posting wrong information on the "recent news coverage" thread, and misleading a lot of people, some of whom are using my information to write to newspapers. That pisses me off. I'm glad you drew my attention to this.

Until I get a clear, documented answer to this, I'm going to go put a caveat on the news thread that I withdraw my comments on this with apologies and don't have the answer.

[Trish]

Hey all,

I suggest that this offending article is posted in Enough is Enough. You can then organize a letter writing campaign to the editor. We've slayed many dragons by doing just that.

[AnnieRUOkay89]

Ugh, The media continues to disgust me, they're trying to make us seem stupid, and blinded by love. As if we're incapable of researching facts and finding out things ourselves.

[Bo G]

UPDATE

I've made some comments here about the media being wrong on the insurance settlement. I was following common wisdom routinely posted on this site without correction. It's been brought to my attention that this "wisdom" may be wrong. We're trying to get this sorted out on the "1993 documents" thread I linked to upthread. It remains unclear to me. Until it's more clear, I withdraw all comments I've made on this thread about media errors about whether MJ authorized the insurance settlement. I apologize.

Important -- either way, it does not reflect badly on MJ, to be clear. It was critical he get through the ordeal to be able to do his work.

UPDATE 2

It's also being discussed at I have some questions about the 1993 case (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80729) .

[Calotte12]

Allegations don't make an evidence. Jackson had 150 persons working daily on Neverland, something like 80 cameras in his house in all areas of it, and not a single evidence in 20 years?

Plus, Jackson had a total of 8 trials against him. He was proved innocent in all of them,including the trial of Chandler (yes, the trial happenned, just shows how people are misinformed). When he was supposed to have done the thing with Arvizo, he wasn't even in Neverland - He was in Miami. The trial was a joke, everyone who really followed real informations known he was going to be proved innocent easily, only medias I pretend he was going to go into jail to sell their newspapers.

Facts is, all those who launched those trials were people living thanks to money of Jackson, and accused him once he got bored of being robbed by them.

Sony forced him to the arrangment back in 1993, trials are public in the US and it would have been horrible for Sony who spend 2 years earlier a gigantic amount of dollars to get him to see their superstar judged on tv, even worst knowing police took pictures of him nude and such.
He was still judged, the difference being accusation wasn't Chandler family, it wasn't a civil trial and couldn't be aired on tv. Jackson was proved innocent in 1994 after 8 months of investigations and trial.

Oh & btw, on 1994 criminal trial authorities contacted several hundreds of other childrens who have been in Neverland, not a single of them had something to say against Jackson behaviour with them. Jordan Chandler himself refused to testify and after his previous accusations appeared to be more than doubful during investigations, the case fall appart and Jackson was recognized not guilty.

Next came the accusers -- Jackson's former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson' ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed. When their asking price was $100,000, they said " 'the hand was outside the kid's pants,' " Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. "As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on." The L.A. district attorney's office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.

Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy's Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was "pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all." But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because "they knew too much about Michael Jackson's strange relationship with young boys." In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler's son or any other child:

"So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?" one of Jackson's attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

"All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to."

"But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?"

"That's correct."

"Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?"

"No."

When asked by Jackson's attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: "Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."

"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"

"That's right, nothing."

(The guards' lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press.)

Note: The case was thrown out of court in July 1995.

Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented "The Bedroom Maid's Painful Secret." Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia's sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman's claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

To resume, in France there is an expression that says "there is no smoke without fire", people often use it to say that if Jackson was accused, then he was guilty. The expression is correct, but people never wondered what fire was - It wasn't a supposedly Jackson incorrect behaviour, but yes the fire here was Jackson's fortune.

[Beachlover]

I think it is important to discuss. People often speak of MJ fans as being irrational and deluded. The only way to have a chance to combat this is by having facts and being able to speak intelligently on a subject. I for one am interested in knowing what actually is the case in order to be able to speak on the subject at a later time if need be. So, Thanks.

This is so true. I think many fans mean well and feel they need to uphold his image but don't realize that in doing so they are, in fact, blinded by the truth. Michael WAS a good person and as I have said so many times, he was human. Humans make mistakes sometimes and humans are not perfect.

I never thought he did anything so terrible except there was one time I saw him on a show with his brothers and he was older and he was performing and I thought he actually looked silly but I don't hold that against him. I think it was more a question of feeling like a duck out of water performing with them again.

[Beachlover]

UPDATE

Important -- either way, it does not reflect badly on MJ, to be clear. It was critical he get through the ordeal to be able to do his work.

Exactly.

[smooth_criminal05]

Great to read, I have always known all these cases were a bunch of crap. MJ was too naive and didn't see what was happening to him. His love for children backfired against him and people need to see the truth.

[Bo G]

I just realized belatedly that you had two threads on this topic, dancemaster. Don't understand why no one mentioned this thread, when I kept asking questions...

[Bo G]

Well, I just discovered another thread on the 1993 settlement by the same poster which has more discussion going on. Not sure why no one mentioned it here.

I have some questions about the 1993 case (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80729)

So confusing...

[bluetopez]

I actually did sit and read through almost the whole thing. I don't remember which page it says it, but it does say that MJ will be paying them.

Where, because that's not what I read! lol

[LauraLovesMJ]

When asked by Jackson's attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: "Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."

"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"

"That's right, nothing."And there you have it! The double-speak of his accusers ONCE AGAIN. It was all through the various testimonies of those who took the stand for the prosecution in the 2003 trial.

I LOVED how Messeraeu pinned them down on the witness stand, and I WISH, WISH, WISH that Jordie Chandler had made an appearance, just so he could've been exposed too. His friends would've been called as rebuttal witnesses as well...the ones who said Chandler told them that Michael Jackson never did anything to him (Chandler).

[Bo G]

Where, because that's not what I read! lol

I'M right! lol

No, I'M right! lol

lol -- how about someone actually backing up something they say instead of this silliness, lol

[Soundmind]

Cochran was the reason MJ settled , and yes MJ went along with the settlement . the one who wrote the motion was Brian Oxman not Mez.

the insurance paid, the insurance negotiated , but mj eventually agreed . it was not against his wish .

MJ did not want to settle , else he would have given Evan what he wanted in July1993 , before anyone heard anything .

MJ wanted it to go to trial and Weizman advised him to do so, along with Bret Fields , only when Feldman's buddy joined MJ's team , MJ was told no one can guarantee him anything and he better pay and move on .cochran told him , white people hate him because of racism , black people hate him becuase he bleached his skin, and there is no defense against child molestation , "pay and move on , you'll probably be convicted ".

cochran got millions for doing absolutely nothing but destroying MJ's reputation , Feldman got $ 5 millions , jordan got $ 15 millions, June $ 1 million, Evan $1 million , MJ lost his deal with Pepsi, lost his reputation, and majority of the people who first believed he was innocent were left shocked and later switched to the other side , because frankly no one could defend or understand how come someone reward the family who accused him of the most heinous crime with $ 20 millions .

I know mj had no choice back then per his attorney's advise, but it was a very BAD advise, the settlements were the worst decisions mj ever made in his live .


look what happened in 2003, all the brainwashing from the media , " blue, red, white, blond" jury with alleged three victims did not convict , 9 of them were convinced he was completely innocent of everything in 1993 and 2003, the other three had other motives to feel he was guilty. one of them was an O'riley fan, so everything he said was gospel to her, he said he was guilty, so he was guilty .

the other two negotiated a book deal even when they were jurors , and eventually got it but later everything cancelled due to lack of interest .

my point is even when everything seemed very bad for mj , a good lawyer sorry AGREAT AND HONEST lawyer made mj a free man .

all mj needed in 1993 , someone like Mez .

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

That's true... when I look at comments on most sites, they're pro-MJ. Good work, fans!!! :clapping:

What's up with you guys in the UK? Get going! :)
Yes, but its not just fans, people are not that stupid, i mean i remember when i first started to discover Michael, the press would do anything to destroy him, but they could not fool me, and many people are like that too, they wont believe everything, specially when its SO obvious that on Michael Jackson matters they totally lose control and just write all wrong!, i mean they are like complete lunatics when they write about Michael is like they just, i dont know, its sad that they are so limited, and even jelous...

[Bo G]

Cochran was the reason MJ settled...
You're already participating in this debate in the two sites I've linked to upthread, where this is being sorted out. This is not the site for detailed analysis of this subject, as I've said. I don't want this thread to be used to short-circuit that debate. Lengthy opinions without links aren't helpful here. All we want here is the pithy short answer with citations.

[smooth_criminal05]

That article is disgusting. Stuff like this needs to stop being written, it's pure lies.

[Soundmind]

You're already participating in this debate in the two sites I've linked to upthread, where this is being sorted out. This is not the site for detailed analysis of this subject, as I've said. I don't want this thread to be used to short-circuit that debate. Lengthy opinions without links aren't helpful here. All we want here is the pithy short answer with citations.

what links ? what are you talking about ?:scratch:

[Bo G]

yes, but its not just fans, people are not that stupid, i mean i remember when i first started to discover michael, the press would do anything to destroy him, but they could not fool me, and many people are like that too, they wont believe everything, specially when its so obvious that on michael jackson matters they totally lose control and just write all wrong!, i mean they are like complete lunatics when they write about michael is like they just, i dont know, its sad that they are so limited, and even jelous...

?

...

[Bo G]

what links ? what are you talking about ?:scratch:

Don't worry about it ... you've just told me all I need to know.

[.Butterflies.]

Butterflies, I don't get it either. We're not getting much help, though, are we? We're getting a) documents without explanation, b) explanations without documents, and c) an attitude, as of there's something wrong with wanting to defend MJ armed with facts. I see you're on the Project Legacy Team, so you understand, no doubt, that you can't just send a complaining letter without a short, simple explanation with supporting documents.

Personally, I'm throwing in the towel on this one.

Nawww don't give in. I agree with your sentiments. It's really crucial that fans are able to tackle these questions with legitimate answers AND have the goods to back it up. The 93 settlement is really the main thing people use to determine Mike's guilt (ok that and the 'he shared his bed with kids' thing which i've been meaning to ask questions about). But at the moment it's the 93 case that is going to be thrusted into the spotlight again, so it's pivotal we as a fan base are fully informed about what REALLY went down and that means whether we like it or not. Evan Chandler's death may give us a platform to make a difference to public opinion

Spouting facts means nothing unless you are basing them on a credible source and have the source to direct people to. Without this, we are not going to help Michael, we are just going to be looked at as his nutty fan base who will twist things to make him appear more victimized than he was. It's important we don't stuff this chance up by doing that.

I think people get really defensive when some of us question if Michael in fact did pay the Chandlers. Remember though that suggesting or asking if Michael was willing to sign and settle himself, does NOT mean we inherently view this action as him being guilty and I think that's the prob. People are associating this suggestion with us thinking it's an action of guilt, hence the various 'BUT BUT the insurance co. paid not Michael!!!' responses. So what if they did? I want to understand why he signed and agreed to settle and not the insurance company then? We all need to understand this to defend him properly.

At the end of the day we have 2 very conflicting legal documents that both seem valid, but don't totally make sense as far as I'm concerened. Could t-mez have lied to make the 2005 trial easier? I don't know. I think the 'under protest' thing means something a bit different in legal terms than what we understand 'under protest' to mean in every day speech. ? ? ?

Oh and Bo G. If I get a straight answer, I will pm it to you if you decide to disappear :(

[bluetopez]

I dunno if this has already been answered here.. but I didn't see any post about it (or perhaps I didn't search thoroughly enough) so.. here goes: I heard that chandler contacted mj and asked him to negotiate three scriptwriting deals on his behalf. If mj didn't agree, he said, he would accuse him of molesting his son. Mj didn't agree and so chandler went ahead with the accusations.
What I'm wondering about is; if this is true, why didn't mj just charge them with extortion?

True, Chandler did do that! But, MJ wouldn't give him the money nor buy him a new house that he ask MJ for and MJ stop talking to him all together an din the tapes he says Mj didn't need to stop talking to him lol, and he was jealous of the relationship Jordan had with mike saying he was seduced by MJ's money and chandler didn't like that June (Jordan mom) told him to "F*Ck Off!" MJ only sued Chandler for extortion when chandler came of with the allegations about MJ to the public! That's why MJ's investigator had Jordan step-Father record Evan Chandler on tape talking about his "Plans", they knew he was up to something, but, I don't think they knew that he was gonna do this! His plan was to show them a piece of paper that was written by his lawyers to hand to MJ and June if he doesn't get what he wants he will them go public with some crap! He said they will have to think about it and then talk to him about it and if he get's another F*uck Off by June, then he will tell his lawyer to make a phone call and do what he has to do! Saying that after that it's out of his hands and it will be bigger then him and take on a life of it's own!

He said "THEY" will be "destroyed" forever on the tapes, he didn't just say MJ this man was after all of his family including MJ, all because he was annoying the shit out of them and ask for money so his ex- told him to "F*ck Off!" And he said he hated that she told him that! His son was Having attitude with him too and he didn't like that Jordan was treating him that way! This man was not in Jordan's life much only until MJ came into the picture! I have the transcripts of the Covo between Evan and David Shwartz the step-father, but, only part 1 to 3 I'm missing part 4, but, I have read the whole convo before and heard the audio yrs ago!

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

the daily mail is such a low site, i mean, they talk as if Michael did molested that kid, then they say Michael had SEX with the Arvizo kid, and that was not even the case, he said Michael touched him in a wrong way (which is easier to accuse), but having sex??? come on that was so stupid to say, and i hope the Arvizo kid one day realizes what he did, cause Michael helped him when he had cancer, Michael did help him, and the Arvizo kid was i mean , i dont know if hes the bad one, i blame his mother, not him, he knows Michael never did anything wrong and he knows, his mother knows it, but from this family, i mean, what can i hope?? nothing...

And why was nodody there when they creamted Evan Chandler, of course thats a point to discuss, i mean, why he and jordan fall apart.... it is strange, very strange, anyway, that article has more fiction then New Moon... i just laugh at that, i cant discuss when they lie so openly, dont even go to that site, thats promotion for them dont go there, its a waste of time

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

?

...
is not a critic, i was saying that people who are not fans also defend him, thats my point, of course there are haters there too

[Lorraine]

Merged all threads, Lets just have the one shall we?


Thanks..

[8701girl]

Omg we all stil on bout this case!...when will it end :(

[Trish]

Omg we all stil on bout this case!...when will it end :(

Well hun, there are people who are genuinely interested in the facts of the 1993 settlement. A lot of newer members are and I understand their interest.

However, a lot of us who were around at the time of both cases have been ready to move on from it for a long time now. Living this nightmare again is like ripping the scab of of a wound... it hurts.

I suggest that if you don't wish to read or participate, simply ignore it. I also request that the newer members stop spamming the forum with the 93 case (different threads, etc).

Thanks!

[Bo G]

The long "Recent News" thread on Evan Chandler's suicide, that I've been working so hard to keep on-topic so we could find all the links easily... has now been merged with analyses of 1993 documents? And those of us trying to quietly discuss the documents will be inundated with a batch of new "why are we rehashing this" comments...

Can this be undone?

[bluetopez]

I'M right! lol

No, I'M right! lol

lol -- how about someone actually backing up something they say instead of this silliness, lol

But, that's the thing here, people already provided links to the 93 settlement Docs so we can read the and the one from T-mez too! Legal docs that Two different Judges looked through and approved them....what more do yall want?

In the 93 docs it both says MJ insurance carrier paid the settlement as well as it says MJ elected to settle as well has it says the Chandlers excepted that and it was for distress and not molestation and can still proceed to a criminal case if they choose too!

So take it for what it says and that's it! There is nothing else to discuss when it's right there in writing! We are not lawyers to explain every detail that's in the documents because it sounds contradicting to some!

All I know and will repeat is that they are LEGAL Documents!

[8701girl]

W
Living this nightmare again is like ripping the scab of of a wound... it hurts

:hug: I understand excaty how u feel and ur right thats our it feels.

[Trish]

The head moderator felt that the threads were repeating the same information. Either they were going to be merged or one or more deleted. Sorry! Something had to be done.

[Bo G]

The head moderator felt that the threads were repeating the same information. Either they were going to be merged or one or more deleted. Sorry! Something had to be done.

Nothing will be findable anymore.

Goodnight.

[Trish]

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way but there were over 4 threads on the exact same topic. Now if you would like to ask MJJC to work on a project developing a complete timeline of the 1993 case and the 2003-2005 case, please leave a request in Ask Us, and Gary will get back to you. Otherwise the forum was getting very cluttered with the 1993 case.

Goodnight to you too.

[Lorraine]

The long "Recent News" thread on Evan Chandler's suicide, that I've been working so hard to keep on-topic so we could find all the links easily... has now been merged with analyses of 1993 documents? And those of us trying to quietly discuss the documents will be inundated with a batch of new "why are we rehashing this" comments...

Can this be undone?

No, Sorry. Any threads of the same nature get merged. This is no different..
I can't very well let yours run seperately and not others? That wouldn't be fair would it?
It's all the same discussion in the long run and best to be in one thread, It can be looked through and commented on. What you have posted if members read through won't get missed.

[.Butterflies.]

But, that's the thing here, people already provided links to the 93 settlement Docs so we can read the and the one from T-mez too! Legal docs that Two different Judges looked through and approved them....what more do yall want?

In the 93 docs it both says MJ insurance carrier paid the settlement as well as it says MJ elected to settle as well has it says the Chandlers excepted that and it was for distress and not molestation and can still proceed to a criminal case if they choose too!

So take it for what it says and that's it! There is nothing else to discuss when it's right there in writing! We are not lawyers to explain every detail that's in the documents because it sounds contradicting to some!

All I know and will repeat is that they are LEGAL Documents! Not being smart about this, but can you show me where on the smoking gun docs it mentions the insurance carrier? I couldn't see it anywhere unless I missed it. There are a lot of pages. This would clear things up big time but I didn't see it on there... just Michael and Michael alone agreeing to pay.

[mjlover1988]

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

Thank you!

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

"Cops swooped on Neverland seizing videos, photos, diaries, and rolls of film. They also found an album of nude boys."

What now? That I have never heard?



We are talking about the book that has been used as 'evidence' in the 2005
trial? The book that was given to Michael by a fan? It was actually signed by a fan.....so basically the media is ONCE again trying to make it look like something really disgusting was found in his house?

Why am i not surprised........oh lord.

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

Im tired of this thread, is like keeping on with that disgusting lie! Evan Chandler was a wannabe screenwriter (he did wrote some in fact) and he wrote the false case against MJ as well, he was smart, he was no stupid, he got his money, then he got the kid to control that money, then life made him pay with the suffer of that desease he had, he wrote an script, he masterminded the whole accusations, he was no stupid, all kind of crazy stuff and he CREATED A CASE, he had his son learning all these, he convinced that Jordan kid so hat he could get money, is that so difficult to understand, i mean i dont think so.


to the media saying he wanted justice, noone ever stopped him from going to testify in the 2005 trial, he didnt wanted to go (and no cameras were allowed in the room, so if he wanted to hide, he could have done it as the arvizo mother did, so stop the nonsense for once, you just need to think, the Jackson kids are suffering these stuff, STOP IT!, stop with this whole "he wanted justice" thing, reading that, i mean has that a meaning at all???, so he commited suicide cause he wanted justice??? come on!, really COME ON! and if he had surgery is cause he wanted to look better(i have seen that pic of him all smiling, partying, yes , i bet he was very sad there too wasnt he??? and it was a recent picture, end this fiction for once, end this, just think that you may pay some day, you may, this hurts not only Michaels family , and probably this hurted the Chandler kid as well, this hurts to the fans too, we are people who think, we investigate the facts, is not like we go blind and say, he never did it without saying facts that confirm what we say, stop painting us as that, there are some crazy fans yes, but thas not me, im a fan cause i know he was innocent, and i investigate the story very deeply, i know. Both accusations that were made with a distance of TEN years, what kind of pervert waits for so long!!! ten years???? that just the beginning of the stupid lack of common sense on these lies, just the beginning, STOP IT, you are confusing people, i know thats your purpose, but how long may the time pass until YOU pay?? how did Evan Chandler ended

[bluetopez]

Not being smart about this, but can you show me where on the smoking gun docs it mentions the insurance carrier? I couldn't see it anywhere unless I missed it. There are a lot of pages. This would clear things up big time but I didn't see it on there... just Michael and Michael alone agreeing to pay.

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!

[Soundmind]

that was it, the book they found in a locked drawer in MJ's bedroom and the one who had the key for that drawer was Blanca Francia who was fired three years before that search was conducted , yet the detectives knew she had the key to that particular drawer , and asked her to come and open it . WOW . what a scenario .

[8701girl]

that was it, the book they found in a locked drawer in MJ's bedroom and the one who had the key for that drawer was Blanca Francia who was fired three years before that search was conducted , yet the detectives knew she had the key to that particular drawer , and asked her to come and open it . WOW . what a scenario .


I know tell me bout it!

[Soundmind]

I also read them , even Dan Abrams during the trial said something to the effect " the insurance paying does not make him innocent "

it was everywhere back then , the media tried to downplay the insurance part, it was huge in the fans community because it was the first time we learned the insurance paid not mj , that was before Oxman wrote that motion . the insurance was mentioned in the settlement documents , i've read it myslef .

[8701girl]

I also read them , even Dan Abrams during the trial said something to the effect " the insurance paying does not make him innocent "




STUPID MEDIA! :angry:

[.Butterflies.]

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)

[MattyJam]

I can't wait for this whole thing just to die down.

I don't believe for one second that Jordy or Gavin will ever come forward and speak the truth. This whole nightmare has temporarily been resurrected because of Evan's suicide but will soon disappear again.

As a firm believer in Michael's innocence I have long felt powerless about articles like this. Writing to complain does nothing - it never gets printed. For the sake of my sanity I will be choosing to ignore such articles in the future. Let the ignorant write what they want to. They've been pushing their same sleazy agenda for 16 years now and they haven't swayed me. It isn't blind faith, it's just not accepting everything you read as gospel. It's called researching BOTH sides of the arguement with an open mind before making a judgement - something which that awful Daily Mail article didn't even pretend to do.

[bluetopez]

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it! <-----NOW THAT'S ANNOYING! LOL

But, all I can say again is the only thing to help or contradict the 93 docs is the one that T-Mez is on explaining that the insurance carrier paid and that the Judge in the 2005 case looked at it and approved it, so....until then their isn't much I or anyone can say really?...I suggest, to try and not wreck your brain over it anymore, sorry. :)

[Sophielo]

I can't wait for this whole thing just to die down.

I don't believe for one second that Jordy or Gavin will ever come forward and speak the truth. This whole nightmare has temporarily been resurrected because of Evan's suicide but will soon disappear again.

As a firm believer in Michael's innocence I have long felt powerless about articles like this. Writing to complain does nothing - it never gets printed. For the sake of my sanity I will be choosing to ignore such articles in the future. Let the ignorant write what they want to. They've been pushing their same sleazy agenda for 16 years now and they haven't swayed me. It isn't blind faith, it's just not accepting everything you read as gospel. It's called researching BOTH sides of the arguement with an open mind before making a judgement - something which that awful Daily Mail article didn't even pretend to do.

I agree, its so frustrating. The Daily Mail haven't printed a single one of our comments. I wrote a comment and a ton of other MJJC members wrote comments-not a single one has been published. I never read the Mail anyway-its extremely right wing and their views on homosexuality and immigration are just disgusting. If they want to call us 'hero worshipers', and 'blinded' then go ahead. We know the truth and we'll defend Michael's legacy forever. Some hack from a tabloid isn't going to change how I feel about Michael.

[.Butterflies.]

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it! <-----NOW THAT'S ANNOYING! LOL

But, all I can say again is the only thing to help or contradict the 93 docs is the one that T-Mez is on explaining that the insurance carrier paid and that the Judge in the 2005 case looked at it and approved it, so....until then their isn't much I or anyone can say really?...I suggest, to try and not wreck your brain over it anymore, sorry. :)

You're right. Thanks alot for your help. you've been awesome :D

[bouee]

Thanks.

so this part where it's blacked out SHOULD have details about the insurance carrier I presume.
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****5.html)

But the next page says; 'Upon approval of this Confidential Settlement. Jackson (not 'Whatever Jackson's insurance carrier is') will execute and deliver to the Minor's attorneys of record 'confessions of judgment, in forms to be approved by the attorneys of record for the minor prior to execution of this Confidential Settlement, in the total amount of $15,331,250, to be held in trust by the minor's attorney of record with no copies to be made or provided to any other person. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041*****6.html)

I'm not a lawyer but I presume that means the money is coming from mj to the chandlers. *shrug.* Or does the insurance pay mj first and then mj pays them or something? :mello:

Please don't get annoyed, I believe what you're saying, cause the smoking gun states the doc is 'heavily redacted', but I really would like to see this document without its edits if anyone should know of a copy available? :)

Hi Butterflies & Bo G,

thanks for your posts, and I agree, we should have one thread for just the facts (I mean legal facts and time line) about the 1993 case. I will check the "Ask Us section".

We all know and agree on the fact that Michael was sort of trapped in this case. It is mostly due to a wrong media coverage, that spread a misunderstanding over the settlement, instead of simply reporting the facts, and explaining their meaning in a legal way. Then it should be up to anyone to make up their own minds.

To me , just the legal facts and the timeline are enough to show that Michael was not guilty.

I mean, he was aquitted in 2005, and not even charged in 1993. In 1993, he was not even questionned. The case remained open until 1999 i think, and nothing happened.

There is no need to go into rumors, or talk about how evil Evan Chandler was. If some of us want to talk about it, that's fine with me, but it doesn't help because they are only rumors or opinions. Not facts. It should be on a different thread.

I am not a lawyer, and not really used to the American legal system. so it would be really interesting to have a lawyer's point of view here.
I am not surprised the insurance company is not mentionned in the settlement : the civil lawsuit was against Michael Jackson. So he signed the settlement.
Then whatever happened between his insurance company and him is a seperate fact. To me, that's why there is no reason why the insurance company should co sign the agreement. But this should be confirmed by a lawyer.

[bouee]

I'm not annoyed :) I understand and agree that I would like to find the doc without the block offs too! It just looks suspect that it's the only one out there that can be found so far and that Diane Dimond was the one to leak it! <-----NOW THAT'S ANNOYING! LOL

But, all I can say again is the only thing to help or contradict the 93 docs is the one that T-Mez is on explaining that the insurance carrier paid and that the Judge in the 2005 case looked at it and approved it, so....until then their isn't much I or anyone can say really?...I suggest, to try and not wreck your brain over it anymore, sorry. :)

Another opinion (well that's mine !):

Do we know why Judge Melville rejected Tom Sneddon's request to include the settlement as a piece of evidence against Michael ?

how would the 1993 settlement help in any way in 2005 ? It didn't help back in 1993 either.

The settlement is about negligence. Micheal specifically and clearly DENIES any form of abuse in it, and the Chandlers signed it.

So whoever paid for it, how could this have helped prove anything ?

It could be the reason why it was rejected as evidence, couldn't it ?

To me the question is : why "negligence" ? Just try to imagine what would have happened if the civil lawsuit had been for sexual abuse only.... Michael would not have been able to settle, it would have been held against him in a criminal trial. It would have been more difficult for a civil jury to grant compensation to the Chandlers, since these facts were so difficult to prove....and the criminal investigation was not over yet at that time.
To me, this is proved later : if there had been anything consistent, there would have been a criminal trial. Michael was not even charged.

Meaning, that, in my opinion, the civil case was weak from the start, the negligence notion was the only way to "corner" Michael, either into settling, or getting a jury to agree on some kind of compensation for the Chandlers.

Again, a lawyer's opinion would be very much welcome.

[bouee]

Again, I'm sorry you feel that way but there were over 4 threads on the exact same topic. Now if you would like to ask MJJC to work on a project developing a complete timeline of the 1993 case and the 2003-2005 case, please leave a request in Ask Us, and Gary will get back to you. Otherwise the forum was getting very cluttered with the 1993 case.

Goodnight to you too.

Sorry, this is off topic, but I can not PM you. Please feel free to move this post, if you think it's necessary. How do we leave a request in Ask Us ???? I can't find it ...

Thks for your help

[dancemasterman]

The Smoking Gun like I said in another post has the docs Heavily redacted and they were provided by Diane Dimond among all people and they even credit her on their page and wrongfully state that the settlement was for molestation which it wasn't it was for Negligence! If u noticed the part were it says settlement payment on the 93 docs it's redacted Blocked off with black marker on the Smoking Gun website! But, the T-mez Docs shows that it was the Insurance that paid the settlement and like I said the judged approved, he knew about them 93 settlement and knew what it said that's why T-mez was right!

I know that the 93 docs must be somewhere online underacted I know I read them without the INTERESTING Block offs somewhere!


they weren't heavily redacted. they just have a couple words blotched out. do you have links proving that diane diamond gave them to smoking gun? How did she get ahold of them?

I've known about these on smoking gun since they first appeared there because I was following the news so closely about the trial, and I never heard any mention of her having anything to do with them getting ahold of the contract.

If anything they were probably leaked by the lawyer Feldman.

[dancemasterman]

I remember when the contract first leaked Mj put out a statement saying he was upset because it was supposed to be confidential and that he personally questioned the timing of this leak.

When he talkled about the settlement in both the Bashir documentary and the interview with Diane Sawyer he said that he didn't want a drawn out trial like OJ's and he wanted to just end it and move on with his life. He made no mention of his insurance companies doing it for him or against his will.

[ginvid]

they weren't heavily redacted. they just have a couple words blotched out. do you have links proving that diane diamond gave them to smoking gun? How did she get ahold of them?

I've known about these on smoking gun since they first appeared there because I was following the news so closely about the trial, and I never heard any mention of her having anything to do with them getting ahold of the contract.

If anything they were probably leaked by the lawyer Feldman.

It says it on the smoking gun website that they got them from Diane Diamond. It also says eight pages besides the ones that had words blocked out were missing. It is the link I posted earlier in the thread from the smoking gun. Actually you posted the link as well earlier (Iwas on a different thread when I posted mine that was merged in to this one) in the first paragraph about DianE Dimond. Also, I think it is the 2nd paragraph, it says all 8 pages of the payment terms were no included, that is why they called it heavily redacted.

While saying this, I do want to note that although the terms of the repayment was redacted, it clearly leaves no doubt as to who was paying in the parts that were not, MJ.

[.Butterflies.]

I know we're all getting confused about the fact that Mj said he wanted to settle but docs claim it was under protest giving people the impression he DIDN'T want to settle. The 2 things are really conflicting. Like I've been saying all along the legal definition of under protest probably means something different to what we understand under protest to be.

Legal definitions of 'under protest'

1. under protest definition - legal
n
Complying with an obligation while asserting an objection to the obligation. For instance, when paying a disputed debt, the payor may note that it is being paid “under protest,” thereby preserving any claim he may have for subsequent repayment.Â

2. Law Dictionary: (http://www.answers.com/library/Law%20Dictionary-cid-10206702) Under Protest

Home (http://www.answers.com/) > Library (http://www.answers.com/main/what_content.jsp) > Law & Legal Issues (http://www.answers.com/main/legal.jsp) > Law Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/library/Law+Dictionary-cid-10206702)
The making of a payment or the doing of an act under an obligation while reserving the right to object to the obligation at a later date. Typically, a party will make the payment or perform the act, but will at the same time inform the other party in writing that the performance is under protest. The statement "under protest," "without prejudice," "with reservation of right," or the like will prevent an accord and satisfaction (http://www.answers.com/topic/accord-and-satisfaction-2). and will prevent prejudice to the rights reserved. U.C.C. §1-207.

So it might mean Mj wanted to settle like he said but still did it 'under protest'? Still not exactly sure about the exact meaning of the legal babble. Again, we need a lawyer to explain this all in lay terms.

Anyone able to decipher what 'under protest' trully means in a legal sense and explain it in dumbass terms for me? :hysterical:

[.Butterflies.]

I'm assuming it generally means like mj himself said, he wanted the ordeal over with and was willing to sign just to get it off his back, but at the same time resented that he was in the predicament and wanted that stated formally on the agreement.

It probably is that simple. 'Under protest' makes sense that way. It's when I look at it from a non legal perspective that it confuses me because under protest to me means to be completely against something to the point of refusal which doesn't really make sense when mj is saying he went ahead and signed because he wanted to make the prob disappear.

[bluetopez]

Another opinion (well that's mine !):

Do we know why Judge Melville rejected Tom Sneddon's request to include the settlement as a piece of evidence against Michael ?

how would the 1993 settlement help in any way in 2005 ? It didn't help back in 1993 either.

The settlement is about negligence. Micheal specifically and clearly DENIES any form of abuse in it, and the Chandlers signed it.

So whoever paid for it, how could this have helped prove anything ?

It could be the reason why it was rejected as evidence, couldn't it ?

You just answered your own question! :)

Plus, it's in the T-Mez motion docs that someone posted that shows what the Judge looked at including the part of the Insurance paying too! He had to look at what Sneedon wanted to do, which was to introduce the 93 settlement to the jurors, to paint Mj as guilty! But, The judge seen what the 93 Settlement was about, which was Negligence and not molestation and also who payed, and he denied Tom Sneedon and sided with the Defense. Because it would have been unfair to Michael to introduce in a molestation case a settlement that wasn't even for molestation but, for negligence!

And to dancemasterman, if u go to the Smoking Gun website you will see Diane Dimond named as the source of how the Settlement was leaked and how much it was redacted and how many pages too!

[bluetopez]

I know we're all getting confused about the fact that Mj said he wanted to settle but docs claim it was under protest giving people the impression he DIDN'T want to settle. The 2 things are really conflicting. Like I've been saying all along the legal definition of under protest probably means something different to what we understand under protest to be.

Legal definitions of 'under protest'

1. under protest definition - legal
n
Complying with an obligation while asserting an objection to the obligation. For instance, when paying a disputed debt, the payor may note that it is being paid “under protest,” thereby preserving any claim he may have for subsequent repayment.Â

2. Law Dictionary: (http://www.answers.com/library/Law%20Dictionary-cid-10206702) Under Protest

Home (http://www.answers.com/) > Library (http://www.answers.com/main/what_content.jsp) > Law & Legal Issues (http://www.answers.com/main/legal.jsp) > Law Dictionary (http://www.answers.com/library/Law+Dictionary-cid-10206702)
The making of a payment or the doing of an act under an obligation while reserving the right to object to the obligation at a later date. Typically, a party will make the payment or perform the act, but will at the same time inform the other party in writing that the performance is under protest. The statement "under protest," "without prejudice," "with reservation of right," or the like will prevent an accord and satisfaction (http://www.answers.com/topic/accord-and-satisfaction-2). and will prevent prejudice to the rights reserved. U.C.C. §1-207.

So it might mean Mj wanted to settle like he said but still did it 'under protest'? Still not exactly sure about the exact meaning of the legal babble. Again, we need a lawyer to explain this all in lay terms.

Anyone able to decipher what 'under protest' trully means in a legal sense and explain it in dumbass terms for me? :hysterical:

I see your still wrecking your brain here lol I also think u answered your own question here too! Good find! :)

[.Butterflies.]

Yeah, I just want to be 100% sure about what I preach!

[Beachlover]

Yeah, I just want to be 100% sure about what I preach!

Did you all watch the Diane Sawyer interview where he says plain out why he settled?

[noemike]

thanks for posting this, its a good read, but still I feel so sad.
I just cannot understand why people are so greedy? How far can somebody go to destroy another humans life?
I never could understand:no:

[Nivea]

Allegations don't make an evidence. Jackson had 150 persons working daily on Neverland, something like 80 cameras in his house in all areas of it, and not a single evidence in 20 years?

Plus, Jackson had a total of 8 trials against him. He was proved innocent in all of them,including the trial of Chandler (yes, the trial happenned, just shows how people are misinformed). When he was supposed to have done the thing with Arvizo, he wasn't even in Neverland - He was in Miami. The trial was a joke, everyone who really followed real informations known he was going to be proved innocent easily, only medias I pretend he was going to go into jail to sell their newspapers.

Facts is, all those who launched those trials were people living thanks to money of Jackson, and accused him once he got bored of being robbed by them.

Sony forced him to the arrangment back in 1993, trials are public in the US and it would have been horrible for Sony who spend 2 years earlier a gigantic amount of dollars to get him to see their superstar judged on tv, even worst knowing police took pictures of him nude and such.
He was still judged, the difference being accusation wasn't Chandler family, it wasn't a civil trial and couldn't be aired on tv. Jackson was proved innocent in 1994 after 8 months of investigations and trial.

Oh & btw, on 1994 criminal trial authorities contacted several hundreds of other childrens who have been in Neverland, not a single of them had something to say against Jackson behaviour with them. Jordan Chandler himself refused to testify and after his previous accusations appeared to be more than doubful during investigations, the case fall appart and Jackson was recognized not guilty.

Next came the accusers -- Jackson's former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson' ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed. When their asking price was $100,000, they said " 'the hand was outside the kid's pants,' " Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. "As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on." The L.A. district attorney's office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.

Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy's Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was "pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all." But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because "they knew too much about Michael Jackson's strange relationship with young boys." In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler's son or any other child:

"So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?" one of Jackson's attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

"All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to."

"But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?"

"That's correct."

"Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?"

"No."

When asked by Jackson's attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: "Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes."

"Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?"

"That's right, nothing."

(The guards' lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press.)

Note: The case was thrown out of court in July 1995.

Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented "The Bedroom Maid's Painful Secret." Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson -- an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia's sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman's claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

To resume, in France there is an expression that says "there is no smoke without fire", people often use it to say that if Jackson was accused, then he was guilty. The expression is correct, but people never wondered what fire was - It wasn't a supposedly Jackson incorrect behaviour, but yes the fire here was Jackson's fortune.




wow! thank you for taking the time to share all this! :D where did you find all this information if you don't mind me asking?

[StaceyMJ]

That's such a great comprehensive chunk of writing about it all. If only they'd print this in newspapers instead of the ish they come up with.

[.Butterflies.]

Did you all watch the Diane Sawyer interview where he says plain out why he settled? Hi yeah I saw it :)

[Sophielo]

That's such a great comprehensive chunk of writing about it all. If only they'd print this in newspapers instead of the ish they come up with.

Sadly Stacey the day the media prints something that exonerates Michael is the day that hell freezes over.

[devry]

If you look on page 8 of that smokinggun.com document you will find the words Qualified Funding Asset Premiums, this is the language used to describe an insurance settlement.
Also check the definition at this site: http://www.structuredpayments.org/taxonomy/term/35

[.Butterflies.]

If you look on page 8 of that smokinggun.com document you will find the words Qualified Funding Asset Premiums, this is the language used to describe an insurance settlement.
Also check the definition at this site: http://www.structuredpayments.org/taxonomy/term/35 Thanks for that :)

[bouee]

I was thinking about all this, and I have a question :

Does anyone know why Evan Chandler was not called to testify in 2005 ? June was called, Tom Sneddon wanted Jordan to testify, but Jordan didn't want to and couldn't be made to, but what is the reason why Evan Chandler was not called ?

He initiated the civil lawsuit and the criminal procedure in 1993, it would have been so interesting to hear what he had to say...Especially to Thomas Mesereau.

[FedoraHatGirl2058]

I was thinking about all this, and I have a question :

Does anyone know why Evan Chandler was not called to testify in 2005 ? June was called, Tom Sneddon wanted Jordan to testify, but Jordan didn't wnt to and couldn't be made to, but what is the reason why Evan Chandler was not called ?

He initiated the civil lawsuit and the criminal procedure in 1993, it would have been so interesting to hear what he had to say...Especially to Thomas Mesereau.
I always thought of that, he could have, but he didnt., i dont know if he was or not called, thats WEIRD and says a lot...

[bluetopez]

If you look on page 8 of that smokinggun.com document you will find the words Qualified Funding Asset Premiums, this is the language used to describe an insurance settlement.
Also check the definition at this site: http://www.structuredpayments.org/taxonomy/term/35

Thank you for this Information! I went to both websites and you are correct, great find and first post! I hope this clears things for people now?

[edena]

I was thinking about all this, and I have a question :

Does anyone know why Evan Chandler was not called to testify in 2005 ? June was called, Tom Sneddon wanted Jordan to testify, but Jordan didn't want to and couldn't be made to, but what is the reason why Evan Chandler was not called ?

He initiated the civil lawsuit and the criminal procedure in 1993, it would have been so interesting to hear what he had to say...Especially to Thomas Mesereau.

He didn't initiate the criminal procedure (i think i've read that in Geraldine hughes book) but Sneddon and Garcetti did. The chandler family only initiated the civil lawsuit (but off course it is never reported that way).

[Soundmind]

Evan was asked to testify but he also refused , he was on the prosecution witness list .

[bouee]

He didn't initiate the criminal procedure (i think i've read that in Geraldine hughes book) but Sneddon and Garcetti did. The chandler family only initiated the civil lawsuit (but off course it is never reported that way).

Yes, you are right he couldn't have. What I meant is that he initiated the criminal procedure by taking Jordan to a psychiatrist who is required by law to report this kind of allegations to the authorities, and that started the criminal investigation.

[Nivea]

I've got a question regarding the post 2005 trial if anyone can answer, I remember rumors going that two members from the jury were saying they now dissagreed with letting mj go and that they were even writing a book about it.... Is any of that true?

[Soso Deaf]

if anyone has any ?'s dont hesitate to ask

[bluetopez]

I've got a question regarding the post 2005 trial if anyone can answer, I remember rumors going that two members from the jury were saying they now dissagreed with letting mj go and that they were even writing a book about it.... Is any of that true?

Yes, Juror number #5 (the old lady), and Juror #1 a Male, did. The old lady was the one who said that they (the jurors) just looked at each other and pretty much knew in regards of the verdict (which was to acquit MJ). I was surprise to see her flip flop as well has juror #1! Juror number #1 was on Nancy Disgrace show talking shit after wards! All, I gotta say is these jurors had 7 days plus, they also had the chose to convict on the alcohol only if they wanted to and they didn't even do that. They had the nerve to say things like they were forced lol which was B.S if they had a problem all they needed to do was complain and it would have been dealt with.

What I believe happened was that some media heads got to them trying to make them feel bad about what they did and they fell for it. Plus good books don't sell has we know so how else would they sell one? Nancy disgrace had a alternate juror on her show saying if she was on she would had voted guilty, so as you can see the media was only interested with trying to get someone on their side, one other juror an Asian was saying that she was being talk to funny during deliberations because of her race and she thought he was guilty too, and BLAH BLAH BLAH LMAO these people told the truth in the court of law but, forgot the truth when they got face time on TV! AMAZING!

But, my respect goes to the ones who never flip flop and called out the jurors who did! At the end of all this the ones who flip flop were laughed at and no one got their book or books sold so that's good!

[Soundmind]

yeah there were three members of the jury who later 'regretted' the verdict , two of them were negotiating a book deal even before the verdict , members of MJJforum remember there were reports on the older woman's granddaughter negotiating a book deal , she even appeared on a morning show .

once the media realised the case was much weaker than they previously thought, they started contacting family members and relatives of the jurors and offered book deals , always suggesting a guilty verdict would guarantee them much more money .

three of the jurors voted guilty initially , one woman who admitted she's a huge fan and supporter of Bill O'Rielly , she said she believed mj molested Mac, wade and Brett also ( she's an O'Reilly fan , so no surprise at all, a typical ignorant as stupid as someone can be ) and the other two as I said before were negotiating book deals even before they heard the evidence , when these three jurors were asked by the other nine to present evidence why they should have convicted mj , they had nothing and they could not back up their claims .

by the way the older woman even brought a book on pedo personality and tried to convince the jurors mj fitted perfectly the profile , that book was not admitted as evidence during the trial and it was a huge violation of the jury's instructions and could have very well resulted in a mistrial , she had obviously an agenda and even with that book she could not convince anyone to change his/her mind .


eventually the three of them could not present any facts to support the arvizos and ended agreeing with the rest of the jurors , later the two with the book deal publicly regretted their decision when they started the promotion campaign and part of the commodities offered by them were T Shirts , they were that ridiculous , the Malaysian woman her husband was also a journalist , regretted the verdict because Oreilly thought mj was guilty and she believed everything O'Reilly said .


isn't it very telling the jurors who wanted to convict were motivated by money ? they saw nothing wrong with benefiting financially from molestation accusations , probably that's why they did not find the prosecution witnesses behaviour regarding money , tabloids and ever changing stories odd .

[Kane]

Something I've always wondered is, obviously Evan took the money but with a case like that, even if the accuser chooses to settle surely the state would have tried to take it to trial too? I'm not trying to say it should have gone to court or anything like that but was their an investigation after the Chandlers took the money and went? Or was it Michael handed over some money and that's it - case over?

[bluetopez]

Something I've always wondered is, obviously Evan took the money but with a case like that, even if the accuser chooses to settle surely the state would have tried to take it to trial too? I'm not trying to say it should have gone to court or anything like that but was their an investigation after the Chandlers took the money and went? Or was it Michael handed over some money and that's it - case over?

Not trying to be rude but, these questions were answered already in older post on this thread, if u go back a couple pages u will get a full answer.

But, I will make it short here real quick ;) even after the settlement (that was payed by MJ's insurance) not by him, there was still an investigation, yes, but, no hard evidence was found so no case. Plus, like I said before the statue of limitations on this case ran out in 1999 that was plenty of time to make a case, and it never happened!

[Kane]

Not trying to be rude but, these questions were answered already in older post on this thread, if u go back a couple pages u will get a full answer.

But, I will make it short here real quick ;) even after the settlement (that was payed by MJ's insurance) not by him, there was still an investigation, yes, but, no hard evidence was found so no case. Plus, like I said before the statue of limitations on this case ran out in 1999 that was plenty of time to make a case, and it never happened!

No, you're not being rude at all :) My mistake, I thought I'd read all of this thread :doh: Thanks alot for the answer.;)

[Nivea]

Yes, Juror number #5 (the old lady), and Juror #1 a Male, did. The old lady was the one who said that they (the jurors) just looked at each other and pretty much knew in regards of the verdict (which was to acquit MJ). I was surprise to see her flip flop as well has juror #1! Juror number #1 was on Nancy Disgrace show talking shit after wards! All, I gotta say is these jurors had 7 days plus, they also had the chose to convict on the alcohol only if they wanted to and they didn't even do that. They had the nerve to say things like they were forced lol which was B.S if they had a problem all they needed to do was complain and it would have been dealt with.

What I believe happened was that some media heads got to them trying to make them feel bad about what they did and they fell for it. Plus good books don't sell has we know so how else would they sell one? Nancy disgrace had a alternate juror on her show saying if she was on she would had voted guilty, so as you can see the media was only interested with trying to get someone on their side, one other juror an Asian was saying that she was being talk to funny during deliberations because of her race and she thought he was guilty too, and BLAH BLAH BLAH LMAO these people told the truth in the court of law but, forgot the truth when they got face time on TV! AMAZING!

But, my respect goes to the ones who never flip flop and called out the jurors who did! At the end of all this the ones who flip flop were laughed at and no one got their book or books sold so that's good!

So the other jurors spoke out against these who were trying to make money out of the case? That's good to know! :)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question!



yeah there were three members of the jury who later 'regretted' the verdict , two of them were negotiating a book deal even before the verdict , members of MJJforum remember there were reports on the older woman's granddaughter negotiating a book deal , she even appeared on a morning show .

once the media realised the case was much weaker than they previously thought, they started contacting family members and relatives of the jurors and offered book deals , always suggesting a guilty verdict would guarantee them much more money .

three of the jurors voted guilty initially , one woman who admitted she's a huge fan and supporter of Bill O'Rielly , she said she believed mj molested Mac, wade and Brett also ( she's an O'Reilly fan , so no surprise at all, a typical ignorant as stupid as someone can be ) and the other two as I said before were negotiating book deals even before they heard the evidence , when these three jurors were asked by the other nine to present evidence why they should have convicted mj , they had nothing and they could not back up their claims .

by the way the older woman even brought a book on pedo personality and tried to convince the jurors mj fitted perfectly the profile , that book was not admitted as evidence during the trial and it was a huge violation of the jury's instructions and could have very well resulted in a mistrial , she had obviously an agenda and even with that book she could not convince anyone to change his/her mind .


eventually the three of them could not present any facts to support the arvizos and ended agreeing with the rest of the jurors , later the two with the book deal publicly regretted their decision when they started the promotion campaign and part of the commodities offered by them were T Shirts , they were that ridiculous , the Malaysian woman her husband was also a journalist , regretted the verdict because Oreilly thought mj was guilty and she believed everything O'Reilly said .


isn't it very telling the jurors who wanted to convict were motivated by money ? they saw nothing wrong with benefiting financially from molestation accusations , probably that's why they did not find the prosecution witnesses behaviour regarding money , tabloids and ever changing stories odd .

They had a book deal before the verdict!!?? incredible!! they should have been removed from the jury.

man! how do you guys manage to find all this information anyway? and how do you know what's true and what's bs? cause there's soooo much stuff about mj that that could or coul not be true and I no longer know how to tell truth from fiction when it comes to these things.

[bluetopez]

So the other jurors spoke out against these who were trying to make money out of the case? That's good to know! :)
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question!




They had a book deal before the verdict!!?? incredible!! they should have been removed from the jury.

man! how do you guys manage to find all this information anyway? and how do you know what's true and what's bs? cause there's soooo much stuff about mj that that could or coul not be true and I no longer know how to tell truth from fiction when it comes to these things.


Yes, other jurors spoke out saying their liars, as well as MJ lawyer T-Mez + one of MJ's Brothers! How I found out about these things is because I was clued to the television when shit went down in 05 and after recording everything, I got a library lol I got those interviews from the jurors and everything in between! That's the only thing I could do, I didn't have the money to go to L.A to support Michael so I instead paid attention to what was said and not being said, reading transcripts and everything, because I knew it would come back and be ask and I like to have the facts! Same with the 93 case I started research on that case at 12yrs old!:D It Don't bother me though, my fave subject in school was reading anyways, and I'm a curious person by nature!;)

[ElleBella]

Quest from The Roots was tweeting last week about Evan Chandler. He felt as if this would of course bring up the story in the media. Which it did. Today, he posted this article by a self proclaimed "Mixhael Jackson know it all". With all the trash out there, I thought it was good to see an article that was based on what really happened.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

[Calotte12]

I red it 1 week ago. The best article about the 93 case so far.

a MUST read

[loveforever]

i think we need to stop the topic of 93 or 05 cases now, as fans we had known michael was innocent. he is the gentle, pure, kind, big heart human being. he doesn't need to prove anything. if Jordy Chandler confessed, that would be great! if he didn't, we have to accept that.

[Calotte12]

i think we need to stop the topic of 93 or 05 cases now, as fans we had known michael was innocent. he is the gentle, pure, kind, big heart human being. he doesn't need to prove anything. if Jordy Chandler confessed, that would be great! if he didn't, we have to accept that.

We know but the whole word don't. Thats the problem.

[aliana101]

That guy looks familiar...a forum member?

[Trish]

Merging with the 1993 case thread in MJDiscussion.

[Nivea]

alright, about the description jordan chandler gave. I've heard sooo many different versions of this one that I have no idea which one is right.
There are claims that it was totally correct, like the doctor on geraldo that did the exam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyRGJ1latc

then there are those who said it was totally incorrect, based on a picture that jordy supposedly drew. which is now said was a hoax and that jordy was never asked to draw a picture but rather Jordie was given a template, an outline of a penis and was required to fill in the blotches.

then there are those who claim it was a partial match.

So which is it? is there any way of really knowing?

[.Butterflies.]

The different claims are confusing, but thinking logically, no charges were ever brought about citing 'lack of evidence' which to me indicates the description did not match, as it was obviously unfit to be used as evidence. Something tells me had he been able to accurately describe the penis, this would have been explosive evidence and there's no chance he'd have walked away a free man. Would they even need Jordan to testify if this was accurate? Wouldn't that have been enough?

[Crisstti]

alright, about the description jordan chandler gave. I've heard sooo many different versions of this one that I have no idea which one is right.
There are claims that it was totally correct, like the doctor on geraldo that did the exam:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxyRGJ1latc

then there are those who said it was totally incorrect, based on a picture that jordy supposedly drew. which is now said was a hoax and that jordy was never asked to draw a picture but rather Jordie was given a template, an outline of a penis and was required to fill in the blotches.

then there are those who claim it was a partial match.

So which is it? is there any way of really knowing?

That is what I wonder as well!. I find it amazing that this isn't something that is clear. I mean, it either matched or didn't match. How is it that with all the information about Michael that is aroound this bit hasn't come out?.

I assumed it didn't match because he was not indicted, and because of the fact that he allowed the photographs to be takes in the first place. If he would have been guilty, he wouldn't have agreed to it, as he would have known it would be very likely that they'd match. He did have to agree to it, or am I wrong?.

But then that doctor on Geraldo. I read some comment that he wasn't the only doctor there.

But, if there was a match, why wasn't that "evidence" used by the prosecution in 2005?. I don't see how would they have not.

[Brittluvsmusic]

It's complete bs that there was a match. That doctor didn't even say it was a match...he said He was TOLD it was a match. LOL-Told by who? The same people who've been saying that crap. Ugh, so sick of the "It matched" crap that goes around. He absolutely would've been arrested.

[bluetopez]

It's complete bs that there was a match. That doctor didn't even say it was a match...he said He was TOLD it was a match. LOL-Told by who? The same people who've been saying that crap. Ugh, so sick of the "It matched" crap that goes around. He absolutely would've been arrested.

Yep, the guy talking to Geraldo said he was told...LOL But, don't really know the truth.....COME ON! Plus Geraldo said that this guys son is married to his daughter, so their in laws and because of it he won't question him but, doesn't really believe him. Plus, why does this guy think it's funny?

According to TMZ "Jordie was given a template, an outline of a penis and was required to fill in the blotches." Saying that they saw some Docs....and that's why I guess Arnold klein said that story about the peeing in a cup thing, when Harvey ask him? But Tmz also said on their show before that Arnold Klein took MJ to Mexico before the pics were taken to get his penis bleached...O_0 so the pics wouldn't match.....LMAO....RIGHT TMZ.....can't keep this story straight can u?

But, their is a picture that was supposedly drawn by Jordie too that looks like a five yr old drew! But, it had Evan Chandlers hand writing on it, that says "MY THEORY" on it! LOL

MJ said their was no match as well as Lisa Marie on Diane Sawyer interview. Plus, just because Jordan (MORE LIKE EVAN) says MJ had blotches on his penis doesn't mean that Jordan saw MJ's penis! One of the most affected areas that Vitiligo hits is the genital area so guess what?, anyone of us could have said this and been right! Another thing is that MJ was NOT circumcised and Jordan (MORE LIKE EVAN) said that MJ was + anyways the marks didn't match the description!

USA Today + Reuters in an article reported this back in 94 so it was reported on but, obviously not enough....I see!

And with so many different stories the media like to tell about this, makes it clear there was no match! Oh, yea and most importantly MJ was never Charged and the case went before two grand juries in two different counties and was never indicted.....I mean seriously!

PEACE!

[ivy]

True. it was a partial match. he said there was vitiligo spots - and there was so this was a match. He said he was circumcised - but he was not and this was not a match. so some people say it's a match some say it was not. In reality it was not a complete match and circumcision thing was the main reason the DA did not go with the description.( If you see a penis you know whether it is circumcised or not - you don't need to be a rocket scientist)





I researched during the trial extensively, and yes, this is the information I have, too, that Jordy was prepared to testify. If Mez had called Jordy, then absolutely EVERYTHING about the 1993 allegations would have been admissible in court. That was something Mez chose against, in his brilliant defense of Michael. If all that had come out they would have put others on the stand (his father and uncle) to try to discredit his. . .recantation. He was just a child when the accusations were made. Why Jordy doesn't come forward now, I don't know. Maybe he will?

Nope not true .. Jordy never agreed to testify - not for the DA and not for the T-Mez.
Listen here to Tom Mesereau . the part about jordy starts about 1:53

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8iO1wRHegY

" ... the one you talk about never showed up. He is the one who got a settlement in the early 90s. Now my understanding is prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldn't. If he had I had witnesses who would come in and say he told them it never happened and he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say and it appeared he had gone into court to seek legal emancipation from his parents..... "

[music65]

The different claims are confusing, but thinking logically, no charges were ever brought about citing 'lack of evidence' which to me indicates the description did not match, as it was obviously unfit to be used as evidence. Something tells me had he been able to accurately describe the penis, this would have been explosive evidence and there's no chance he'd have walked away a free man. Would they even need Jordan to testify if this was accurate? Wouldn't that have been enough?

Michael came out to the world and said he had vitiligo in 93', it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there would be brown bloches on the private area or somewhere. Why is this man acting like there was some great revellation?

[Moonwalker.Fan]

Quest from The Roots was tweeting last week about Evan Chandler. He felt as if this would of course bring up the story in the media. Which it did. Today, he posted this article by a self proclaimed "Mixhael Jackson know it all". With all the trash out there, I thought it was good to see an article that was based on what really happened.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

:doh:

As far as I know, this so-called journalist was banned from MJstar board because of his rude attitude towards Michael, his claims would be banned here too, in fact, he would never dare to write many BSs like he wrote on MJstar.com, his comments are there, so you can check this out.

So..., all of a sudden he is so positive?

:tease:

[bouee]

I assumed it didn't match because he was not indicted, and because of the fact that he allowed the photographs to be takes in the first place. If he would have been guilty, he wouldn't have agreed to it, as he would have known it would be very likely that they'd match. He did have to agree to it, or am I wrong?.
.

Hi Crisstti,

No, Michael didn't agree to it. He was served with a warrant, and was told that if he refused to comply, it would be used against him. So he had to allow it.
He explains that in the Neverland speech, a few days after the pictures were taken.

So I think that Tom Sneddon requested the pictures to be taken. He was not able to use them in 1993 (which says they didn't match), and tried to use them again in 2005 (the judged ruled against it).

[edena]

Michael came out to the world and said he had vitiligo in 93', it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there would be brown bloches on the private area or somewhere. Why is this man acting like there was some great revellation?

yes but it was not just "some blotches" the kid was apparently able to place correctly one blotch on Michael's penis. Sneddon said so in 2005 to the judge when he wanted to include the pictures. With all due respect and love for Michael we can wonder how that happens. I think the timeline is important because on the drawning made by Jordan (tho we can't be sure as it is Evan chandler who gave it to the authorities) he does not drawn any blotches so when did that come up? after the photos were taken??

And soso and vic I 'am sorry but you don't back up your facts with anything else but "we know, we were there and so on" i think that is a little too easy. Proove to me that Jordan wanted to testify for Michael for example don't say I know period.

[bluetopez]

yes but it was not just "some blotches" the kid was apparently able to place correctly one blotch on Michael's penis. Sneddon said so in 2005 to the judge when he wanted to include the pictures. With all due respect and love for Michael we can wonder how that happens. I think the timeline is important because on the drawning made by Jordan (tho we can't be sure as it is Evan chandler who gave it to the authorities) he does not drawn any blotches so when did that come up? after the photos were taken?!

One blotch?!....LOL yea I heard that too....How did it go from Jordan allegedly identifying "Markings" on his penis.... (Which means more then one) to just one that was allegedly correct? When a few yrs ago they said he identified a mark on MJ's left buttocks? Yet, Sneedon never mentions it! o_O

WOW, it keeps changing and changing.....I WONDER WHY?!.....

SERIOUSLY....COME ON! It's So Obvious!

And don't yall find it sad that the media only talks about MJ having Vitiligo as a fact when talking about the photos taken of him, it's only real to them when used against him I see!

[.Butterflies.]

I personally thought the whole thing was bizzare. i mean, really, what kid would be glaring at their victims genitalia, analyzing and remembering its details it in the midst of being molested anyway?

[Benzo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8iO1wRHegY

" ... the one you talk about never showed up. He is the one who got a settlement in the early 90s. Now my understanding is prosecutors tried to get him to show up and he wouldn't. If he had I had witnesses who would come in and say he told them it never happened and he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say and it appeared he had gone into court to seek legal emancipation from his parents..... "

Whow, thank you ! I've never seen this video before. It clears all.

[bouee]

yes but it was not just "some blotches" the kid was apparently able to place correctly one blotch on Michael's penis. Sneddon said so in 2005 to the judge when he wanted to include the pictures. With all due respect and love for Michael we can wonder how that happens. I think the timeline is important because on the drawning made by Jordan (tho we can't be sure as it is Evan chandler who gave it to the authorities) he does not drawn any blotches so when did that come up? after the photos were taken??

And soso and vic I 'am sorry but you don't back up your facts with anything else but "we know, we were there and so on" i think that is a little too easy. Proove to me that Jordan wanted to testify for Michael for example don't say I know period.

Hi Edena (or Bonjour, I am french too !)

I think you have a point . It's very difficult to get the facts right, since there was no trial in 1993. All we have are the partially leaked legal docs, and the 2005 docs and testimonies.
So we need to use our logic. To me it's important to stick to that, if we want to show Michael was innocent.

About Jordan's description : to me, we don't even know if there was a description. All we know is that prosecution was not able to use the pictures in 1993, and in 2005.

The only logical thing that comes from that : those pictures didn't prove anything.

There could be different reasons : there was no description, the origin of the description is too unclear, the description didn't match.

The fact that Tom Sneddon tried to use them again in 2005, when he knew they didn't prove anything since he could not use them in 1993, well, in my opinion, it just shows he wanted to humiliate Michael publicly. And that in 2005 he didn't have anything to prove that Michael was guilty.

About Jordan not testifying in 2005 : Soso is saying that he was not called. It could be true. Jordan can not talk publicly, that's part of the settlement. So he can not explain publicly why he refused to collaborate in 93 (according to the DAs in 94), and why he didn't testify in 2005. It could be that he didn't want to, or that he wasn't called.

After all, I still don't understand why Evan wasn't called in 2005. He was instrumental in 93, he started the civil lawsuit and initiated the criminal investigations. June was called in 2005, when her depositions didn't help the prosecution back in 93. She was such a weak witness for the prosecution, that she even said things against Evan Chandler. So why call her, and not him ?

Now let's use "if" : if Jordan wanted to testify in 2005, I suppose he could have made it clear ? Just like Macaulay Culkin did. I suppose he could have said "I want to testify but I wasn't called". If he wanted to defend Michael, he could have contacted Michael's defense. The settlement in 94 was about negligence and not talking publicly about the allegations, so he could have done that.

He didn't, so why ?

If he wanted to testify against Michael, we know that Thomas Mesereau said he had at least 4 witnesses who would have testified that Jordan told them that nothing had happened. We know that the doctor who supposedly gave or witnessed the Sodium Amytal story was on Michael's defense witness list.

If he wanted to defend Michael, then what would have happened ? What could have been the consequences for Jordan ? Such a testimony would certainly have exposed Evan Chandler (who was NOT called ...) , and his lawyers at the time.

So ???

[bouee]

Another question I have (maybe I am racking my brains too much over this) :

in 93, Evan Chandler acted as Jordan's legal guardian. Are there any legal consequences for Evan ?

Is it some kind of protection for him, in the sense that he was merely reporting what his son, minor at the time, supposedly said ? Meaning that he could have reported things that Jordan never said, without implicating himself ?

I mean, he didn't report the facts to the police himself, but sent Jordan to a psychiatrist, who, by law had to report this kind of allegations to the authorities.

I don't know, this could be pointless, but I have the feeling that in 93 things were done to ensure a civil lawsuit would be either won or settled, and at the same time, limiting the risks in case of a criminal trial.

[.Butterflies.]

:doh:

As far as I know, this so-called journalist was banned from MJstar board because of his rude attitude towards Michael, his claims would be banned here too, in fact, he would never dare to write many BSs like he wrote on MJstar.com, his comments are there, so you can check this out.

So..., all of a sudden he is so positive?

:tease: Better all of a sudden positive then forever negative:cheers:

[Soundmind]

yes but it was not just "some blotches" the kid was apparently able to place correctly one blotch on Michael's penis. Sneddon said so in 2005 to the judge when he wanted to include the pictures. With all due respect and love for Michael we can wonder how that happens. I think the timeline is important because on the drawning made by Jordan (tho we can't be sure as it is Evan chandler who gave it to the authorities) he does not drawn any blotches so when did that come up? after the photos were taken??

And soso and vic I 'am sorry but you don't back up your facts with anything else but "we know, we were there and so on" i think that is a little too easy. Proove to me that Jordan wanted to testify for Michael for example don't say I know period.

mj's penis went from completely dark to spotted to completely white over the years . certainly he had spots over his penis , and since jordan said there was a spot on the left side of his penis , sneddon's mission was only to locate one spot there and call it a match . but sneddon did not mention how many spots were there , what colours they were .

it did not need a rocket scientist to figure that mj's penis was spotted , THERE WERE MANY SPOTS OF DIFFERENT COLOURS there , jordan said ONE spot on the left side of his penis , when infact he had many there and sneddon chose one and claimed jordan's description matched .

sneddon did not mention whether it was circumcised, sneddon did not say whether the length or the width matched ,.

he only listed that ONE SPOT as an evidence it matched , that's an evidence everything beside that ONE SPOT did not match .

conclusion on a SPOTTED DICK they would have certainly found MANY spots on the left side and chose one of them . that does not mean at all jordan saw it . jordan could have said the spot was on the right side and they would have found one there, he could have said it was on the central and they would have found many there , he could have said his penis had spots all over it and that was completely true . none of that is evidence he saw anything , mj was turning white and his whole body was spotted , every inch of it had spots , to the left, to the right , everywhere . it did not mean anything and proved absolutely nothing .

[.Butterflies.]

lmao at the above and the 'spotted dick' comment. It's like drawing a single spot on an outline of a leopard and arguing that this is conclusive evidence you were in Africa and attacked by one.

[edena]

mj's penis went from completely dark to spotted to completely white over the years . certainly he had spots over his penis , and since jordan said there was a spot on the left side of his penis , sneddon's mission was only to locate one spot there and call it a match . but sneddon did not mention how many spots were there , what colours they were .

it did not need a rocket scientist to figure that mj's penis was spotted , THERE WERE MANY SPOTS OF DIFFERENT COLOURS there , jordan said ONE spot on the left side of his penis , when infact he had many there and sneddon chose one and claimed jordan's description matched .

sneddon did not mention whether it was circumcised, sneddon did not say whether the length or the width matched ,.

he only listed that ONE SPOT as an evidence it matched , that's an evidence everything beside that ONE SPOT did not match .

conclusion on a SPOTTED DICK they would have certainly found MANY spots on the left side and chose one of them . that does not mean at all jordan saw it . jordan could have said the spot was on the right side and they would have found one there, he could have said it was on the central and they would have found many there , he could have said his penis had spots all over it and that was completely true . none of that is evidence he saw anything , mj was turning white and his whole body was spotted , every inch of it had spots , to the left, to the right , everywhere . it did not mean anything and proved absolutely nothing .

thanks for your answer you make a lot of sense actually and the poster after as well.

I wanted to ask (it has nothing to do with the descritpion) Has anybody noticed in the testimony of Gavin in 2005 as some point (when he is interviewed by Sneddon) he says "Michael had a hard on" and Sneddon says "oh that's how young people are calling it this days? "and then Gavin says "well that 's how Stanley katz called it so..." and Sneddon cuts in with another question. I've always found this part weird by Sneddon reaction and the fact that a psychiatric would say "a hard on" to an alleged victim. What do you think?

[Soundmind]

lmao at the above and the 'spotted dick' comment. It's like drawing a single spot on an outline of a leopard and arguing that this is conclusive evidence you were in Africa and attacked by one.

thank you very much .:clapping:

as for Katz , this man was a member of the team who made hundres of children confess to sexual abuse in the McMartin case when infact there was no abuse whatever . enough said .

[bouee]

Evan was asked to testify but he also refused , he was on the prosecution witness list .

Oops, I hadn't seen this. I thought that if you were asked to testify, you couldn't refuse (except if you are under 14 in sexual matters). So my understanding was Jordan could refuse, but not Evan.

Or is it that he was on the list, but was not actually called by Sneddon ?

[Soundmind]

they contacted him , he declined , Evan on the stand would have been a Janet arviso on the stand , he had a lot of package and Mez would have destroyed their case completely if Evan dared and stepped a foot at that courtroom , Jordan could have avoided the trial in 1993 but laws changed in 2005 and if sneddon wanted him and was so sure of his testimony he could have forced him to come and testify , there was no law preventing sneddon from calling an alleged victim to testify in 2005 , HE CHOCE NOT TO DO SO .

yes there were many reports that Zonan went to New York to meet Jordan but Jordan refused to grant them any interview . they were no longer sure what that boy's position was back then , Evan was the worst scenario the prosecution could have faced , they could not survive another paranoid character testifying for them , janet killed their case , certainly they did not need Evan to highlight the believe that all the main characters were paranoid individuals with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ signs attached to them .

[Soundmind]

again as for katz he had an agreement with feldman even before the 1993 case , Feldman would send his clients to him and he would interview them write reports that support whatever Feldman wanted to do , and certainly the reports supported any civil action carried later by feldman . Katz pretty much admitted on the stand he had a business relationship with Feldman . he was one of the experts feldman used to support any legal action he did against anyone .

notice one thing katz was never asked about his professional opinion, he was jut a STAGE to file a lawsuit , another psychiatrist who said "he told me he was abused and I'm bound by law to report it to authorities " so the parents and feldman would legally avoid being held responsible in case the accusations were found to be untrue .

Katz was far from being considered a good psychiatrist , his involvement in the mcmartin case destroyed his credibility long time ago . tell any jury this man was part of a team who made 360 children confess to being sexually abused and see what they would have said about him , he was there to say i was the first one Gavin and his siblings talked to about any abuse , that was it.


Some of the accusations were described as "bizarre", overlapping with accusations that mirrored the just-starting satanic ritual abuse panic.It was alleged that, in addition to having been sexually abused, they saw witches fly, traveled in a hot-air balloon, and were taken through underground tunnels.When shown a series of photographs by Danny Davis, the McMartins' lawyer, one child identified actor Chuck Norris as one of the abusers

sound very familiar right ?

[bouee]

they contacted him , he declined , Evan on the stand would have been a Janet arviso on the stand , he had a lot of package and Mez would have destroyed their case completely if Evan dared and stepped a foot at that courtroom , Jordan could have avoided the trial in 1993 but laws changed in 2005 and if sneddon wanted him and was so sure of his testimony he could have forced him to come and testify , there was no law preventing sneddon from calling an alleged victim to testify in 2005 , HE CHOCE NOT TO DO SO .

yes there were many reports that Zonan went to New York to meet Jordan but Jordan refused to grant them any interview . they were no longer sure what that boy's position was back then , Evan was the worst scenario the prosecution could have faced , they could not survive another paranoid character testifying for them , janet killed their case , certainly they did not need Evan to highlight the believe that all the main characters were paranoid individuals with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ signs attached to them .

Thank you, it makes sense. I really like your posts, really logical. I was reading them, that's how I found out I had missed your answer.

I totally agree with you, that's how I understand the facts also. My point was to try and understand it from a legal point of view. I am not in the legal field, and I don't live in the US, so it's not always easy for me....

I didn't know that Jordan could have been "forced" to testify, I thought he could refuse, because the alleged "facts" "happened" when he was under 14, and at that time he could not be made to.

Well, if he and Evan could have been made to testify, but eventually were not.... makes things even clearer. I wonder if Tom Sneddon himself believed in his own case.

Do you (or anyone else) know if Jason Francia willingly came or had to ?

[Soundmind]

no Jason willingly came , jason CHANGED his story two months before the trial , THERE WAS a new set of allegations , which meant if mj was convicted , jason would have been able to file a new CIVIL SUIT , because he had JUST REMEMBERED things .

he came with the intentions to file a new lawsuit .

[bouee]

.... / ......

notice one thing katz was never asked about his professional opinion, he was jut a STAGE to file a lawsuit , another psychiatrist who said "he told me he was abused and I'm bound by law to report it to authorities " so the parents and feldman would legally avoid being held responsible in case the accusations were found to be untrue .

I am not sure I remember correctly Katz's testimony. What I think I remember is that he said he found the children "credible", but didn't know if what they said was true.... Pretty much what you are saying : "I had to report it so I did, but I have no idea if it's true or not". Which after all is the law : his job is to report, not to investigate.

And was he the one who said Michael didn't fit the description of a pedophile ? I can't remember exactly, I would have to read his testimony again.

The bolded part of your quote answers one of my previous questions. Technically, Evan was avoiding taking risks in case of a criminal trial. Or at least it can be understood this way.