Key Fact - help pls asap!!

Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
434
Points
0
Hi all

I may have an opportunity to help set the record straight about 93 and 2003 (and even about Wade) and it potentially could be to a big audience. I'm not able to go into much detail about it now but a meeting got arranged at the last minute for this afternoon and I want to go in armed with the key facts of the cases that the public didn't know at the time. For example, Janet Arvizo meeting with a civil lawyer before even meeting Michael, Sneddon travelling all over the globe to try and find victims. I used to know this stuff inside out but to be honest have forgotten a lot of the detail since those days. I'd be really grateful if you guys could help me out and briefly list any important things that you think I should focus on. Basically, if you had 20 minutes to discuss the key facts of the cases to someone who didn't know anything other than media rubbish, what would you tell them? Sorry it's so rushed, if I had longer I'd look everything up again but because I don't I'm reaching out to you guys for help! Thanks in advance!!
 
Thanks Respect. I'll look at those sites.

If anyone has time and has the info at the top of their head:

Other than risking a long and protracted case and advice of lawyers, why settle?

Brief timeline of chandler allegations and issues with civil trial going ahead of criminal trial.

Thanks so much for the help - it's all happened so quick so just need the info asap!
 
There are key points that made great headlines and that the public remember.

Settlement:

The settlement was a tactical move.
Chandler, as a minor, had the right to a speedy trial (I forget the timescale). The civil case was launched before the criminal investigation and so the civil trial was guaranteed to go ahead of a criminal trial. MJ's lawyers argued this impacted MJ's right to a fair trial because to defence the civil case, MJ would need to expose his evidence, witness testimony etc ahead of the criminal trial, therefore providing the criminal prosecution lawyers an advantage. They wanted to delay the civil trial until after the criminal trial but the argument was rejected and the judge upheld Chandler's right to a speedy trial ahead of Jackson's right to a fair criminal trial. Therefore to protect MJ's criminal defence he was advised to settle the civil case, which could not put him behind bars. If he had list the civil case he would have had to pay out millions, but there would have been a major loss from a PR point of view. Although the burdon of proof is lower in a civil trial, the news around the world would have declared MJ's loss as a sign of his guilt. Then going into the criminal trial later, the jury could potentially have seen all the news and had a pre-conceived idea that MJ was guilty of the crime. As it happened, the news declared the settlement as a sign of guilt anyway.

The settlement document, which is available online, actually states that it did not prevent the Chandlers from cooperating in a legal investigation or trial. It only banned them from being involved in a future civil case against Jackson - a standard clause in a civil settlement. It was not a 'pay off' to silence them in criminal court. In fact the Chandlers had made attempts to blackmail Jackson before making their claim public, and in fact before they even made any claims of child abuse against him, but Jackson refused to pay. He had the opportunity to keep the Chandlers quiet and did not want to. If he'd wanted to buy their silence he could have done it.

After a lengthy criminal investigation, including a global hunt for victims, international helpline etc the DA put his case before a grand jury who would then decide whether it was credible to go to a trial. They rejected it. In an unusual move, the DA convened a second grand jury who also rejected it. In the end MJ did not go to criminal trial because the case against him was not considered strong enough, NOT because of the civil settlement. Therefore in hindsight the civil settlement was not necessary but MJ could not have known that at the time, nor could his advisors.



Jordy's description:

If anybody mentions the 'accurate' description provided by Chandler it might be useful to show them the drawing. LOL. It might be useful to mention that Chandler said MJ was circumsized but the coroner report proved he was not. It might be useful to mention that the police originally said the description did not match but that the DA later said publically that it did, but that it as NEVER entered into evidence! If it WAS good evidence why didn't they enter it into evidence? Not even in 2005. Simply because it wasn't good evidence.


Images:
If anybody mentions the indecent images of children widely reported to have been found at Neverland it's useful to point out that in 2004 (when the first round of false media reports were released) the judge in the case allowed T Mez to release a public statement saying no indecent images of children had been found at Neverland. Last year when those false reports resurfaced on RadarOnline Zonen (prosecution in 2003 - 5) confirmed none had been found. The killer point though is that MJ was NEVER charged with any crime of posessing indecent images of children! If he had, he would have been charged - it would have been an easy conviction if it were true.

Jesus Juice:
The prosecution accused MJ of getting kids drunk on 'Jesus Juice' in soda cans.
In fact there were witnesses who testified to the fact that MJ only called alcohol JJ because he DIDNT want to encourage kids to drink. He also drank it in soda cans because he didnt want to see him drinking it. His choise of language and receptical were for the opposite purpose to that reported by the media, though to be fair the media simply reported the prosecution's twisted claims. In fact nobody ever claimed to have witnessed MJ giving kids alcohol as far as I remember. The only time the Arvizo kid was known to have drunk was when he and his brother broke into MJ's cellar at Neverland while MJ wasn't even in the country.
 
Last edited:
The judge made a ruling which allowed the civil case to go before the criminal case it set a precedent and ment mj lost his right to a fair trial at a criminal level as all the prosecution had to do was sit in on the civil case and they would have heard mjs defence and then built thei criminal case around it .that on its own was enough to advise to settle the civil case.

The law was later changed to protect peoples right to a fair trial.to late for mj
 
Thanks guys, really useful stuff. Weren't there previous cases that the judge at the time could have followed which did stay the civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings were complete? And the judge in michael's case chose not to follow this?
 
Also keep in mind the timeline of the Arvizo invenstigation..

Feb 3 - LWMJ airs
Feb 6 - As controversy from that docunmentary starts, Chandler deposition leaks to Smoking Gun. (LWMJ airs in US same day)
Feb 7 - MJ cancels a press conference and leaves Florida due to the deposition leak. (prevent public questions about it)
Feb 8 - Ed Bradly arrives at Neverland for 60 min. interview and Michael cancels interview due to leak..
Feb 14 - Investigation begins

This is being mentioned because Michael obviously knew he was being looked at under a microscope..

1. the investigation began before the dates accused (This would mean Michael waited until he was being under investigation and while under the microscope after the Chandler document leak to start "abusing" Gavin) Logically does this make sense?

2. From the dates provided, Michael was not at Neverland (out of state) for majority of those days.

3. They tried making it out that the Arvizo family was trapped, yet they left the facility several times and were left alone (after dropped off at set locations)
4. They mentioned that they were had no idea what time/day it was yet there are clocks all over Neverland (literally embedded in the architecture) lets not forget that Janet had a Cell Phone (ie. time/date/calling records etc)
5. When she wanted to leave neverland with the children (for the last time) the driver did exactly do that upon her request... Which by the way was in the middle of the night. She asked to leave Neverland and be dropped off with her children at her mothers and THAT's exactly what MJ's staff did for her. Never returned!
 
The keys facts here is

if there was no civil trial there would be no settlement.

Another key facts Michael was never charge.


Respect77 awesome as always
 
The civil case was launched before the criminal investigation and so the civil trial was guaranteed to go ahead of a criminal trial.

This is not correct. The criminal investigation started right after Dr. Abrams reported the case to the DCFS and they reported
it to the LAPD. That was Aug 17 1993

The civil case started only after Larry Feldman filed a lawsuit in Sept 1993.

the civil trial was allowed to go ahead before the criminal case was concluded because Jordan was not yet 14
(he turned 14 in Jan 1994) and therefore had the right to have a trial within 120 days.
The criminal investigation was not closed because Sneddon and Garcetti were not interested in justice
(MJ hoped the photos would finally convince them that Chandler lied instead Sneddon tried to find out
whether MJ did something to his penis in body while he was away so that the photo would not match)

The civil deposition was scheduled for Jan 26 1994, MJ settled one day before that.
the obvious question why would a guilty person wait that long why didn't he pay before
the strip search could take place or even more so in Aug 1993 when Chandler first demanded money
to prevent a police investigation.
Clearly MJ was waiting for the criminal case to be closed. Nothing else explains why he would wait
until the very last day.

If anybody mentions the 'accurate' description provided by Chandler it might be useful to show them the drawing.

Especially since that is Evan Chandler's handwriting a key fact which proves that Evan was theorizing
about Mj's body. Why would he do that if Jordan knew exactly how he looked?


Feb 6 - As controversy from that docunmentary starts, Chandler deposition leaks to Smoking Gun.



It's not a deposition. It's just a declaration. The difference is important. Deposition is questions
answers with he other side's lawyer having the right to be present.
A declaration is simply a written document Chandler could sign if he signed it at all.
anything could be written there by Evan or Larry Feldman they had nothing to lose with it
and Chandler could not be prosecuted for perjury since he was not yet 14. It was easy.

When she wanted to leave neverland with the children (for the last time) the driver did exactly do that upon her request... Which by the way was in the middle of the night.


The first "escape" was in the middle of the night not the last. Jesus Salas, the house manager and Marie Nicole Cascio, the sister of one of the "conspirators" who kept them captive helped her "escape".
 
Last edited:
I know they changed CA law to have crimininal cases precede civil, but does that 120 day rule still apply to minors?
 
I wouldnt say laziness. Its all caculated. They know/knew exactly what they are doing in brainwashing the masses with their agenda against mj
 
redfrog - ur right.. I got two stories mixed up.. the last time they left Neverland March 12th, Janet called the Cascios to take the children to her parents house saying one or some of them were sick. At that point moved into her fiances apartment..

When you look at all the dates, she was planning to leave Neverland for a couple weeks while she was sucking up favors by him and his team. She got her apartment empties on March 1st put into storage (paid by Michael).. Gavin (with other kids) go on a shopping spree on Mar 9th.. March 10th Janet gets dropped off at her fiences while Gavin goes to neverland. on the 12th she dips with the kids..

She freaking had Michael pay for her storage facility planning her move to her fiances from her than current place..
 
Again, and again the media's laziness and ignorance about this case is annoying.

If it wasn't Linda Deutch I would say it's malice not laziness and ignorance.
That article is so full of shit. There could be a settlement in the CHandler case
because there was an actual civil lawsuit. The Arvizos did not file any lawsuit or even
talk about filing one so how the heck could MJ settle it?

The headline says that Chandler was paid off, he was not.
It implies that the civil settlement ended the criminal case, and it did not.
Then it says he stopped cooperating after he got the settlement. He did not. He cooperated
with the DAs for months after the settlement. Nothing prevented the DAs from arresting MJ
and filing charges against him they had plenty of time. They arrested him after 6 months
of first talking to the Arvizos why didn't they do it after 6 months after talking to the Chandlers?

And let's say Chandler does not tell Sneddon and Garcetti on July 6 1994 that he won't testify.
What difference would that have made?
What evidence did they have after July 6 which they didn't have before which would
have suddenly justified an arrest and charges? They never bothered to explain.


Both the DAs and the media made it sound like the only reason why MJ was not charged
was that Chandler refused to testify. That doesn't explain why he was not arrested and charged
between Aug 17 1993 and July 6 1994 especially since they had the photos, three raids, interviews
with 100s of people and a still cooperating accuser. They had the Chandlers' ever changing story
by July 6 1994 what were they waiting for? It's just so dishonest what they did, they knew
very well that every single boy the Chandlers dragged into their story
(Brett, Wade, Jimmy, Mack, Emmanuel) defended MJ and would have refuted Chandler in court.
They knew about Evan Chandler's monetary demands and the July 8 tape.
They knew that Jordan was not consistent at all. They knew the ex employees
were tabloid whores and were connected to Gutierrez. They knew the photos
contradicted Chandler and they still were not willing to admit that they were wrong
MJ was innocent. instead they had the gall to present Brett Barnes as victim
during their press conference (of course without naming him the cowards)
after the Barnes show them the door in Australia. If I had been the Barnes
I would have demanded an apology to say the least. How dared they use him
to justify their witch-hunt when he was not a victim at all?


I also never saw any explanation as to why Sneddon didn't subpoena Chandler
and Francia to testify in front of the grand juries. They can't even say
that Francia refused to testify because he was paid off. There was no money for
him in 1994 at all.
 
Last edited:
When you really look at it guys the settlement is the key fact here if Michael did not settled you would not have seen 2003 but because Michael settled you saw 2003 because the door was open for ppls like the Arvizos to do the same things. In ppls mind there was no doubt that Michael was guilty.
 
When you really look at it guys the settlement is the key fact here if Michael did not settled you would not have seen 2003 but because Michael settled you saw 2003 because the door was open for ppls like the Arvizos to do the same things.

I'm not sure that Janet Arvizo who liked accusing people of sex abuse and false imprisonment
wouldn't have tried to target him even if he had defeated the Chandlers in court.
She could have said well he got away with it the last time because he was famous
but he won't get away with it twice.

And if MJ had lost, because let's face it, innocent people can get screwed in court happened many time
to people who were falsely accused of child molestation in the 80s and 90s (see the Wenatchee witch hunt for example)
it would have opened the door for opportunists even more.

Frankly MJ was doomed if he did doomed if he didn't.

In ppls mind there was no doubt that Michael was guilty.

Which only shows how stupid people really are when it comes to MJ.
Didn't it occur to them if he had been guilty he wouldn't have fought
the Chandlers at all? Didn't it occur to them that a family which
clearly didn't want a criminal trial could have been paid off
easily before they would go public with the accusations?
Didn't it occur to them that if a 13 months long criminal investigation
couldn't find evidence to get even one indictment against a man
who spent an awful lot of time with boys for 10+ years then
maybe just maybe he is not interested in molesting boys?

I remember Rush Limbaugh of all people was the only person on TV
who pointed out that they cannot charge him because they don't have evidence
against him.
 
I would not put anything pass Janet Arvizo she knew what the Chandler had done.
 
^ Well using the same team the Chandlers did was not just by chance..
 
Back
Top