Latest on MJJC

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

Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

MichaelMySoul said:
Oh god I read through the article about where he was given treatment.. Such a sweet and tragic story.. Im happy he put on weight and slept better and became happier during his visit.
Click to expand...

yes it's sad to read isn't it? I think everyone should read those articles to see what MJ went through

this is not about the case itself but it's a picture taken during one of his concerts when the allegations broke out, and here he's looking at the crowd and he's crying...I saw it a year ago and it stuck in my mind
http://i36.tinypic.com/2j18prc.jpg
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

snowhite said:
yes it's sad to read isn't it? I think everyone should read those articles to see what MJ went through

this is not about the case itself but it's a picture taken during one of his concerts when the allegations broke out, and here he's looking at the crowd and he's crying...I saw it a year ago and it stuck in my mind
http://i36.tinypic.com/2j18prc.jpg
Click to expand...

Oh my god Im heartbroken, I wish I knew then what he went through during the Dangerous tour, I never knew this went on during the concerts, I thought everything was alright and that the alligations started the day he returned back to USA. :cry: How come I never checked my info more correctly? Ive been living in denial for years. From now on I will look differently on the Dangerous tour

I can clearly see that pic he had been crying. He hid it well... Oh my god I feel more pain now when I look back on how his life was, I had no idea! :cry:

Thank you SO SO much for sharing this with me. I feel that this is important to know especially for my closure.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

elmari said:
I also want to point out that the settlement was NOT PAID OUT BY MICHAEL. It was actually paid out by Michael's insurance company. Michael did not know what to do and all of his advisors and Lisa Marie Presley (whom he was dating at the time) told him to settle the case to put it behind him. He just wanted the problem to go away.

FYI, I know that I am leaving out some important details that led to these decisions but I can't remember them off the top of my head. From what I remember reading, I think at first Michael wanted to go to trial to clear his name, but then his advisors told him that they didn't know how a jury in Southern California would judge him during this time (1993). This was only a few years after the Rodney King stuff that happened and Michael's team was worried about racism.

There is a thread that I frequent at another MJ forum where it's really 'no holds barred' and the members there are very analytical and knowledgeable. I've learned a lot of stuff there, but the thread is not specifically about the 1993 allegations.
Click to expand...

Yes, the money was paid from his insurance company, I believe this case was far more complicated than it seemed on the outside, the headlines all said ''Michael paid accusor millions in a settlement to hush hush what happend'' but no one ever talks about the fact that his insurance company paid the father and that Michael didnt really want to do it but they had no other choise. We need more articles on the fact that Chandler the father wanted to run a record lable or whatever it was and was craving for money before the alligations started.

Thank you for the information.

bouee said:
I'm glad it helps ! It's important to try and get objective information about this case, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about this.

You can search the forum here, and here are a few links for you :

http://floacist.wordpress.com/ that's an interesting blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ5LixzZbak explanations by Thomas Mesereau

I don't think Michael was traumatised with touring because of that. He already said that he didn't want to tour anymore after the Bad tour.

But it must have been incredubly difficult to be on tour at that time.

I think he just didn't expect the 93 allegations to go that far. It's easy to accuse someone of anything.... proving it is another story.
In my opinion, he expected to be able to prove his innocence publicly. Which he couldn't do, because he was forced to settle the civil lawsuit and eventually there was no criminal trial.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely correct. And Im glad I was taught a little lesson here, to not be so harsh on the boy. I think it all comes down to the father and Michael knew this from the getgo, this has nothing to do with children, Michael always knew the children he was involved with were innocent and loving, its their parents who forced them to say and do these things and its disgusting how the media twist things around to make Michael look guilty.

If this wouldnt have been blown up Michael could have easily continued with his career and have this case locked up and forgotten, it was just an accusation, no proof was made, no testimonies were made. Yet it destroyed so much. I had been hoping years ago that this case would clear up, but because Michaels insurance company paid the family in their settlement Michael hasnt been allowed to discuss the matter, what truly happened, nor the Chandler family. Both of them knew the truth but neither one was able to share.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Michael wanted to go to trial but where money is concerned his advisors thought it was better to pay up and continue to make money, rather be bogged down with a 2 or 3 yr trial. Greed at the end of the day. I do not believe that Michael was involved with June. He was too much of a gentleman.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

snowhite said:
you can read about the period when he got treatment for drug abuse on this page, towards the bottom of the page there are a few old articles
http://www.the-michael-jackson-archives.com/historynews.html

and here's a GQ article from 1994 that explains the details
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/gq/gq03.html
Click to expand...

Aaamazing articles. Made me really really sad to see what he went through. I never read any articles on him, i was very young during those times. But it really makes me sad. Thanks for sharing. I am not yet done with reading..taking article by article.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

:wub:
crazy4umjackson said:
Aaamazing articles. Made me really really sad to see what he went through. I never read any articles on him, i was very young during those times. But it really makes me sad. Thanks for sharing. I am not yet done with reading..taking article by article.
Click to expand...

We both learned something new today! Im still reading too.. Im glad I made this thread, it started off as a 1993 case but now Im learning new things about Michaels life after that. Its one thing to say ''I know the 93' case hurt him'', I mean just listen to HIstory album.. But its another to read articles and hear from people how it was and how it changed him.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

If you really want to know a lot about the 93 case read "Redemption" by Geraldine Hughes. Here is a site you can read the book at. Well that's where I read it anyways. Very informative though. Also makes me extremely angry!! I'm just getting angry thinking about the things these sick people did to Michael ;(

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books2/red/red1zc.html
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

bouee said:
I'm glad it helps ! It's important to try and get objective information about this case, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about this.

You can search the forum here, and here are a few links for you :

http://floacist.wordpress.com/ that's an interesting blog
Click to expand...

Floacist is a phenomenal blog. Anyone who hasn't checked it out needs to. It gives you everything you ever wanted to know about both cases and the author gives some insider knowledge as well - Be sure to read through all of the comments too, because there's a lot of information there as well.


BillieJean84 said:
The question is .. it involves what the kid testified to ; something about knowing the way MJs private part looked. Some ppl are really sick and if that kid somehow knew - he testified to knowing- that kid is really sick
Click to expand...

Well, firstly, Jordan got one pivotal thing wrong from the start: Circumcised or uncircumcised, (I won't go into detail for the sake of Michael's privacy) but Jordan was wrong. He was just a few months shy of his fourteenth birthday, c'mon, now... [Just like thirteen-year-old Gavin, who was caught stealing booze and porn, didn't know what an ejaculation was...]

And well, - if the above wasn't proof enough - this should answer that question...
LMAO...

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/his-description-was-accurate/
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

If he was abroad, when did Michael return back to America for questioning?
Click to expand...
he was never questioned. he came back the usa in december and gave the speech from neverland on i think the 22nd .
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Michael wanted to go to trial but where money is concerned his advisors thought it was better to pay up and continue to make money, rather be bogged down with a 2 or 3 yr trial. Greed at the end of the day. I do not believe that Michael was involved with June. He was too much of a gentleman.
Click to expand...

the insurance company settled the negligence part of the case. mj did not want this to happen.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

We need more articles on the fact that Chandler the father wanted to run a record lable or whatever it was and was craving for money before the alligations started.
Click to expand...
evan chandler tried to sue mj again in 1995. he filed against mj lisa marie and sony. maybe some others. he claimed that mj had broken the confidentiality clause in the settlement by writing songs on the history album. he asked a judge to give him permission to record and release his own album where he would sing songs about his son being abused!! he even gave song titles in the lawsuit. (not very pretty) the judge through the case out but it went on for a while as they do. evan basically spent all his money he got in the settlement trying to after mj a second time. last we heard was that jordan has got a retraining order out against evan cause evan had atacked jordan with a large weight.jordan said evan had tried to kiill him. this happened around 05.court papers were available but we never heard anything afterwards.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

elusive moonwalker said:
evan chandler tried to sue mj again in 1995. he filed against mj lisa marie and sony. maybe some others. he claimed that mj had broken the confidentiality clause in the settlement by writing songs on the history album. he asked a judge to give him permission to record and release his own album where he would sing songs about his son being abused!! he even gave song titles in the lawsuit. (not very pretty) the judge through the case out but it went on for a while as they do. evan basically spent all his money he got in the settlement trying to after mj a second time. last we heard was that jordan has got a retraining order out against evan cause evan had atacked jordan with a large weight.jordan said evan had tried to kiill him. this happened around 05.court papers were available but we never heard anything afterwards.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this information, its so important. If this had been printed out in papers along with the accusation articles, more people would have a better understanding of who Evan Chandler was and what was really going on. That is bizarre..

By the way I was looking at the drawing Jordan made and is that really how you do investgations on alleged childmolestation? You draw photos from the private area and then take photos of Michaels parts and see if they match? Ive never heard of such method before. Not only was it pointless but I think that was the most humiliating thing that happened to Michael. He was already suffering low selfesteem with his face, and now he had to strip and let people photograph places most people cant even look at. Its so disturbing and sad.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I do know that Michael was planning on touring the US in early 1994 with his dangerous tour. Such a shame that never happened!
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Everybody was still extremely supportive of Michael when the allegations came out and through the time, I still remember hearing on the news about how it was just extortion etc. It wasn't until they settled the case that people started to turn against him and start making jokes etc.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Yazman said:
Everybody was still extremely supportive of Michael when the allegations came out and through the time, I still remember hearing on the news about how it was just extortion etc. It wasn't until they settled the case that people started to turn against him and start making jokes etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's true, but when the second allegations came up, a lot of people joined those "jokers." I remember hating kids in school who made fun of him during the 2005 trial...
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

I remember the 1993 allegations I was only 11 but I remember feeling so sad. I agree -People didn't make that many jokes from what I remember until the settlement.

Am I correct in thinking that it was the concern for Michael's wellbeing (I think mainly from Liz Taylor) with the drug addiction etc that he was to pay the Chandler's?
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Yeah. Even though there was no evidence against him, the fact that they chose to settle it meant that some people became suspicious and began to turn against him. Then in 2005 when Neverland got raided it was reinforced in the public's eye.

I wish that they had of just gone to the damn trial in 1993 sometimes, then everything would have been totally different.

Suzie_B: Yes I believe you are correct. Michael himself did not approve of a settlement and wanted to go to trial, but Lisa Marie and Liz Taylor were very concerned for his health and didn't think he would make it through a trial.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

^^ I know how you feel, that thought often crosses my mind - but then if Michael was in a really bad way, he would have got worse in a trial and then all what we are sufferinf with now could have been then, who knows? Just wish to God that things could have been different. Michael was always kicked down when he was at the top. ALWAYS.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Jadentheman said:
Didn't he at first want to do the trial to prove to everyone he was innocent? Somehow I just wished he went through the trial and been proven innocent rather than paying it would had a better outcome on his rep.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. At the end of the day, a settlement was the only guaranteed way for Michael to come out of this with his freedom. Read this for a better understanding http://surftofind.com/settle
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

elusive moonwalker said:
evan chandler tried to sue mj again in 1995. he filed against mj lisa marie and sony. maybe some others. he claimed that mj had broken the confidentiality clause in the settlement by writing songs on the history album. he asked a judge to give him permission to record and release his own album where he would sing songs about his son being abused!! he even gave song titles in the lawsuit. (not very pretty) the judge through the case out but it went on for a while as they do. evan basically spent all his money he got in the settlement trying to after mj a second time. last we heard was that jordan has got a retraining order out against evan cause evan had atacked jordan with a large weight.jordan said evan had tried to kiill him. this happened around 05.court papers were available but we never heard anything afterwards.
Click to expand...

This is new information to me. Thanks for sharing.
So it was not enough money, the question was actually destroying MJ somehow ...
It makes me think that it is not just an isolated case but reported to someone ¨ ¨ ... this seems to link all the other facts.

From time to time one attacks destroy MJ. But never did. This is everything ...

Sorry, the English is not my first language and overcome with emotion (pain) may not be able to make me understand.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Yazman said:
Yeah. Even though there was no evidence against him, the fact that they chose to settle it meant that some people became suspicious and began to turn against him. Then in 2005 when Neverland got raided it was reinforced in the public's eye.

I wish that they had of just gone to the damn trial in 1993 sometimes, then everything would have been totally different.

Suzie_B: Yes I believe you are correct. Michael himself did not approve of a settlement and wanted to go to trial, but Lisa Marie and Liz Taylor were very concerned for his health and didn't think he would make it through a trial.
Click to expand...

mj never settled the case. the case of negligence was settled by the insurance company. mj didnt not want this to happen below is the motion from the 05 trial where it is talked about. this is something the media have never mentioned because it goes against the agenda they have

http://www.mjj2005.com/kopboard/index.php?...ost&id=3874
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.....
Click to expand...
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

ppl need to know aswell that at the time motions were filed with the court to stop any civil case coming to trial before a criminal case could be heard. this is very important because basically what it means is that if a civil case happens b4 the crim one all sneddon had to do was sit in the courtroom and listen to mjs defence and then build a criminal case around it. if this had happened it would have been very dangerous for mj. of course the judge refused to stop the civil case from happening. years later the law was actually changed where a D,A can have a civil case stopped until the crim case is over. why do u think the arvizos didnt file a suit. because according to reports sneddon had warned them not to because he would have it stopped. of course they blamed mj for this law change when infact he had been asking for it all along. they used mj as the reason saying he stopped a crim case from happening by paying off the kid. which is of course totoally the opposite of what mj wanted
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

DanceLikeMJ said:
I do know that Michael was planning on touring the US in early 1994 with his dangerous tour. Such a shame that never happened!
Click to expand...

fans have mentioned this but tbh ive never seen any evidence of that. no tickets for USA concerts were ever on sale.no dates had ever been anounced at that stage. which they would have been if he were doing shows there.the Oz leg of the tour got cancelled
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

elusive moonwalker said:
evan chandler tried to sue mj again in 1995. he filed against mj lisa marie and sony. maybe some others. he claimed that mj had broken the confidentiality clause in the settlement by writing songs on the history album. he asked a judge to give him permission to record and release his own album where he would sing songs about his son being abused!! he even gave song titles in the lawsuit. (not very pretty) the judge through the case out but it went on for a while as they do. evan basically spent all his money he got in the settlement trying to after mj a second time. last we heard was that jordan has got a retraining order out against evan cause evan had atacked jordan with a large weight.jordan said evan had tried to kiill him. this happened around 05.court papers were available but we never heard anything afterwards.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. I truly believe that Evan Chandler is mentally unstable. I heard that he got some disease or is sick and immobile, like he moves in a wheelchair. Also heard that he lives with Jordan (supposedly) because he can't take care of himself.

Elusive, thank you for posting that motion from the 2005 trial. That's what I was trying to reference in one of my posts but didn't have all the details off the top of my head.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Pez said:
good god i remember being 8 or 9 years old when michael made that statement on tv with the red shirt and i remember crying saying "this is not true" "leave him alone"
Click to expand...

the same here... I remember seeing it on tv and not believing in any of it. I was about 9-10 y/o. And I rememeber my parents being unintentionally cruel telling me he might have done it and all the BLA BLABLA stuff :no:
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

In 2006, Evan was accused by Jordan of attempting to kill him. Apparently, Evan tried to kill Jordan because he wanted complete access to "some money". I've already read the court document. It was signed in 2006, in New Jersey. If you don't mind killing your son for money...why wouldn't you accuse a rich celebrity of a heinous crime? Read the evidence: Michael was totally innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top