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?
Latest on MJJC
The 1993 case. [Threads merged, All discussion in this one thread]
- Thread starter MichaelMySoul
- Start date
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
Proud Member
Re: An article based on FACTS of the 93' trials.
: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:
: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:
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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).
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
Proud Member
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!
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.
Proud Member
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
Proud Member
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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 ???
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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.
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.
Proud Member
Re: An article based on FACTS of the 93' trials.
Better all of a sudden positive then forever negative:cheers:
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
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.
Proud Member
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.
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
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
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
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
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 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ signs attached to them .
yes there were many reports that Zonan went to New York to meet Jordan but Jordan refused to grant them any interview . they were no longer sure what that boy's position was back then , Evan was the worst scenario the prosecution could have faced , they could not survive another paranoid character testifying for them , janet killed their case , certainly they did not need Evan to highlight the believe that all the main characters were paranoid individuals with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ signs attached to them .
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
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.
sound very familiar right ?
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.
sound very familiar right ?
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
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 .
he came with the intentions to file a new lawsuit .
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
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.
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
yeah he was the one who said mj did not fit the pedo profile , he was just a regressed man who loved to masturbate with his 11 ,12, 13 years old friends .
sure Katz said the kids were credible, I already said his mission was always to support whatever Feldman wanted legally to do . he would not have said " not credible" when Feldman sent them to him inorder to use his testimony later in a CIVIL lawsuit .
on the stand he was not asked whether they were credible or not , he was not called as an expert, he was there to lay the timeline , when and where and who first knew about the 'molestation' .
sneddon in a motion wrote that katz said in his report they were credible . katz told the grand jury they were credible and mj was a regressed man not the jury , later the judge limited his testimony before the jurors at the trial .
Stanley Katz, the psychologist who examined jordan , Jason and Gavin, was an executive of the firm that helped conduct the McMartin interviews, interviews that made 360 children confess to being abused eventhough later everyone knew
there was no abuse whatever .
sure Katz said the kids were credible, I already said his mission was always to support whatever Feldman wanted legally to do . he would not have said " not credible" when Feldman sent them to him inorder to use his testimony later in a CIVIL lawsuit .
on the stand he was not asked whether they were credible or not , he was not called as an expert, he was there to lay the timeline , when and where and who first knew about the 'molestation' .
sneddon in a motion wrote that katz said in his report they were credible . katz told the grand jury they were credible and mj was a regressed man not the jury , later the judge limited his testimony before the jurors at the trial .
Stanley Katz, the psychologist who examined jordan , Jason and Gavin, was an executive of the firm that helped conduct the McMartin interviews, interviews that made 360 children confess to being abused eventhough later everyone knew
there was no abuse whatever .
Last edited:
i've heard about that on a forum but i google mc martin case his name doesn't appear
edit; Katz said "he doesn't qualify as a pedophile really he is more like a regressed 10 y.o"
Last edited:
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
Katz did admit on the stand during a hearing before the trial started , when they questioned Jay Jackson that he was part of the team who made 340 children confess they were being sexually abused .
it is not just a rumour on fan's forums and communities, it is FACT mentioned in court documents .
it is not just a rumour on fan's forums and communities, it is FACT mentioned in court documents .
bouee
Proud Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,369
- Points
- 0
You're both right : Katz WAS part of that team.
But I don't remember him accusing MJ of anything. He did say MJ was more like a regressed 10 year old, but I don't remember him saying anything else, or accusing MJ of anything.
He basically reported the allegations, saying he thought they were credible, but sounded like he didn't want to be involved further, if I remember correctly.
Am I being paranoid, or with everything done the way it was, it was like ensuring there would be no criminal trial ?
Now, say we know the whole thing was a set up, who would we go after and why ? I still mean from a legal point of view.
Just trying to figure out why Jordan wouldn't testify in 2005, if there could have been consequences for him if he had said that nothing ever happened.
I'm confused...
But I don't remember him accusing MJ of anything. He did say MJ was more like a regressed 10 year old, but I don't remember him saying anything else, or accusing MJ of anything.
He basically reported the allegations, saying he thought they were credible, but sounded like he didn't want to be involved further, if I remember correctly.
Am I being paranoid, or with everything done the way it was, it was like ensuring there would be no criminal trial ?
Now, say we know the whole thing was a set up, who would we go after and why ? I still mean from a legal point of view.
Just trying to figure out why Jordan wouldn't testify in 2005, if there could have been consequences for him if he had said that nothing ever happened.
I'm confused...
but does Jordan knows nothing really happens? you know i mean look at Jason francia testimony he was 11 when he was interviewed and I believe the cops made him believe what he said at the trial happened (you know the kid probably said at the time "oh we were watching tv while my mother cleaned" ) and then they made him believe the rest. I really believe this is possible.
There was a woman who accused her father of molesting her when it was not true she was given sodium amytal (like Jordan) and he was 13 she was an adult.
There was a woman who accused her father of molesting her when it was not true she was given sodium amytal (like Jordan) and he was 13 she was an adult.
FedoraHatGirl2058
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,794
- Points
- 0
:agree: exactly right, but Evan was much smarter than Janet Arvizo in making the boy lie well
uke:, he was like a coucher, i mean he wanted to be a scrennwriter in fact he was (at a time), but he was kinda crazy to make such a lie run well, that was quite great in a bad way, but he got what he wanted, the money, he got what he wanted the bast..rd, sorry to speak like this about a dead man like Evan, but he was, and its sad he ruined everything.... but he was smart in making the boy lie well, he was smart, but yes he would have been a disaster on court, and he didnt even wanted to go...he wouldnt want to ruin all he worked for.... i mean he was no stupid, not at allSoundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
the simple fact that jordan abandoned his mom all these years because she first refused to support him when he started the whole mess with his father and only became friendly with her after she took the stand against mj tells me the guy did not feel sorry at all , and may very well believed mj used and abused him not sexually but like Gavin mj owed him alot , you know the feeling he is owed everything under the sun , he expected his mother to stand by him and when she hesitated first he hated her . he believed he was a 'good boy' and did not want anyone near him who would suggest he actually helped destroy a friend . he saw his mom as this someone who was not going to allow him to escape this idea . jackson did not owe him anything yet he destroyed him .
did you read the interview jordan gave to psychiatric from new york ? the one who later committed suicide , those statements made me 100% sure jordan was very willing to help his father bring mj down .
jordan was going from a doctor to another telling them his story, evan was not with him , he was meeting expert after expert repeating those disgusting details .he was part of everything believe it or not , jordan was an EVIL person . he was very jealous of the other kids , his father abandoned him for years , when mj came into his life , his father wanted him back and jordan wanted his father to love him and selling mj out was the price for getting his father back and he did it , he willingly participated in everything . he knew mj would go to jail , he knew mj's life would be destroyed , he was not upset , all he wanted was his father and the money that was going to make his father love him and stay with him .
when he recognized that money was the only thing his father cared about , he wanted to punish him, he divorced him and did not allow him to touch the money again . but still he lived with him , stayed with him . his relationship with evan was like mj and joe relationship . love hate relationship . he did everything willingly to please his father , yet his father was not grateful . jordan was upset his father did not love him , he was not upset he destroyed mj's life . maybe that's why he chose to abandon evan after the trial , evan might very well refreshed his memory by implying he was not alone and he JORDAN willingly participated and he still did not want to say the truth because he wanted the money too , so he went to his mother who had finally got it and testified in a court of law that jackson done something wrong to her child and she believed him . he wanted people who 'believed' him and did not question him . jordan is more troubled than many here believe .
Last edited:
I don't know. Didn't Jordan said to Anthony Pellicano that all he was doing with his father was sit down in front of the computer to write script? Pelicano make it seems like he was annoyed by it, could be his interpretation tho..
And how do you know Jordan became friendly with his mother again after her testimony? didn't she testified at the grand jury hearing in 94 against Michael as well? so why now it is sure??
Also i didn't read the interview jordan gave to the psychiatric? do you know how many specialists he saw?? so stanley katz wasn't the only one? who was the one that gave the letter to Evan chandler that said it is possible child abuse happened? (the one talked about in MAry Fisher article?
Soundmind
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,667
- Points
- 0
for him to live all these years watching mj's reputation and life be ruined like that , jordan must have created some kind of justification for himself , he must have created things in his head and believed them " yes he did not sexually molest me but he molested jason , yes he did not sexually molest me but he was not ok in the head and he was better off , yes he did not sexually molest me but he was a freak , yes he did not molest me but he was cheap did not give my father what he wanted, he could have given us the money , nothing would have happened to him and nothing would have happened to me but he refused DAMN him he deserved everything happened to him "
noway jordan has been able to live like that without justifying what he did to himself at least .
noway jordan has been able to live like that without justifying what he did to himself at least .
Last edited: