Jordan Chandler Discussion Thread

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

I wish Jordan would have showed up in court in 05. Even if it was to lie under oath. Because T-Mez would have killed him on Cross! And I hate that the 93 allegations gets the title of the most damaging to MJs rep by so many because it never went to court. People should see it differently actually. It was nothing but allegations that 2 grand Juries rejected. And the accusers preferred a civil settlement of a different allegation called negligence so they can just get paid. So really...the strongest? Pff That's just what the media have tricked everyone to think. SMH

I agree. I still find it odd that the media love to claim that the 1993 case was strong because after all of that hoopla, two grand juries did not find a reason to hand down an indictment against Michael. The media always says that they know of a whole bunch of evidence that proved Michael was guilty. To me, if there really was all of that evidence, an indictment could still have been issued. The media also love to blame the collapse of the case on the settlement because Jordan didn't want to talk. But was the settlement really even signed when the grand juries declined to issue an indictment? Personally, I doubt it. And Jordan still could have testified in a criminal trial even with the settlement in effect. So that excuse is no good either, in my opinion.

 

[HIStory]

^^ The settlement was before the Grand Juries, but you are right that they could have testified in the criminal court. A settlement in a civil case cannot prohibit anyone from testifying in a criminal case. The media plays on people's ignorance about what's the difference between a criminal and a civil case when they play this "he settled so he must be guilty" card. They rarely tell that you have to seperate the civil case and the criminal case. It was the civil case that was settled. You cannot settle a criminal case.

And Michael settled the civil case because the Chandlers pushed for it to go BEFORE the criminal which could have violated his right to a fair trial in the criminal case. This is because the prosecution in the criminal case could have monitored the civil trial and then adjust their claims accordingly in the criminal. According to precedent cases (from Geraldine Hughes' book):

"When both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved."

and

"Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson's favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson's attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant's constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman's trump card was, "a child's memory is developing," and their inability to, "remember like an adult." This law was designed to protect a small child's ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old.”

So this was the main reason of why Michael settled the civil case. The Chandlers were shamelessly pushing for it to get ahead of the criminal.

In Ray Chandler's book this conversation is quoted between Evan and their attorney (a civil attorney, not a criminal), Larry Feldman:

"Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. "Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don't want your deposition, or June's deposition. They don't want to preserve anything. If they're gonna make a deal they don't want anything on the record about Jackson."

No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess."

"Yeah, they ****ed this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I'm going forward. We're going to push on. So far there ain't a button I've missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don't want them going first."

Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.

"You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
"Yeah."
"Jesus Christ!"
"Right! So we don't want that."

Keep in mind that the civil trial is only about money. It cannot send the defendant to jail, it's all about money. It's the criminal trial that can send the defendant to jail. And there you have the Chandlers pushing for the civil and trying to get it ahead of the criminal...

I think it was a direct result of this case that the law got changed after this in Cali, so after this civil trials could not precede the criminal trial. This is why the Arvizos had to go through a criminal trial first before they could hope for a pay check in a civil trial.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

No he didn't get to far into it. But, the bits he did share were strong and to the point! Enough to get EVAN pissed off. MJ just said straight out that he would never do a thing like that to a child or children period. And the biggest blow to Evan Chandler and Sneedon was when MJ said the picture was no match and that's why he is sitting here today! So without gettin to far into detail, I think MJ hit his mark quite well.

Thats what i loved bout michael in that interview michael was strong but i just wish lmp supported michael a bit more in that interview cuz you could tell that she felt awkard during it.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.

"You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
"Yeah."
"Jesus Christ!"
"Right! So we don't want that."

Ha! you know its funny ray chandler that totally blew evan case by writing bout that conversation in his book

You totally outdid yourself ray!!! :lmao:

 

[HIStory]

Ha! you know its funny ray chandler that totally blew evan case by writing bout that conversation in his book

You totally outdid yourself ray!!! :lmao:

Oh, he exposes themselves a lot in that book. Like:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world's most famous entertainer, instead of the world's most infamous child molester.”

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

^^ The settlement was before the Grand Juries, but you are right that they could have testified in the criminal court. A settlement in a civil case cannot prohibit anyone from testifying in a criminal case. The media plays on people's ignorance about what's the difference between a criminal and a civil case when they play this "he settled so he must be guilty" card. They rarely tell that you have to seperate the civil case and the criminal case. It was the civil case that was settled. You cannot settle a criminal case.

And Michael settled the civil case because the Chandlers pushed for it to go BEFORE the criminal which could have violated his right to a fair trial in the criminal case. This is because the prosecution in the criminal case could have monitored the civil trial and then adjust their claims accordingly in the criminal. According to precedent cases (from Geraldine Hughes' book):
and

So this was the main reason of why Michael settled the civil case. The Chandlers were shamelessly pushing for it to get ahead of the criminal.

In Ray Chandler's book this conversation is quoted between Evan and their attorney (a civil attorney, not a criminal), Larry Feldman:

Keep in mind that the civil trial is only about money. It cannot send the defendant to jail, it's all about money. It's the criminal trial that can send the defendant to jail. And there you have the Chandlers pushing for the civil and trying to get it ahead of the criminal...

I think it was a direct result of this case that the law got changed after this in Cali, so after this civil trials could not precede the criminal trial. This is why the Arvizos had to go through a criminal trial first before they could hope for a pay check in a civil trial.

Thank you. So it sounds to me like Michael was forced into the settlement and then when the Chandlers got the money, they ran away with it. No decent parent would have done something like that, in my opinion. And alot of people put Michael on the hot seat because of the settlement while at the same time, they give the Chandlers a pass for not going through with a criminal trial. That does not sound right to me at all.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Oh, he exposes themselves a lot in that book. Like:

Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world's most famous entertainer, instead of the world's most infamous child molester.

Omg :doh: ray lol please give us more :lol:

 

[HIStory]

Thank you. So it sounds to me like Michael was forced into the settlement and then when the Chandlers got the money, they ran away with it. No decent parent would have done something like that, in my opinion. And it never made sense to me why so much of the public are okay with the Chandlers taking the money instead of going to court over a serious case like that.

I'm sure the media know a lot more damaging things about the Chandlers than they allow their audiences to know. Only that doesn't fit into their sensationalist agenda about Michael Jackson...

So of course, they will never ask the question: why do you settle if your child was molested? And even if you settle, why are you running scared from having to appear in a criminal court? Don't you want justice to be served? I'm sorry but when I see parents of kids on TV who have been molested, they want to lock up the molester so that he can never hurt another child. Not doing all kind of legal tricks to avoid a criminal trial... And they did it again in 2005 when they (Jordan and Ray) were called to testify at the trial. Jordan told the prosecutors that he would take legal action against them if they tried to force him to testify. That's how much he did not want to testify. Ray hid behind the journalist's shield law when Michael's defense (yes, it was Michael's defense!) attempted to get him on the stand! They were running scared once again.

The excuse for the Chandlers is always that they wanted to stay private and that they were afraid of angry MJ fans. Well, that's contradicted by what we hear on the tape that was made of the phone conversations between Evan and Dave Schwartz:

This attorney I found… I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can, and he's got a bad [tape irregularity]…

“MR. CHANDLER: It's unfortunately gonna be too late, then, and nothing's gonna matter at that point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Because the fact is so ****ing overwhelming --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?
MR. CHANDLER: -- that everybody's going to be destroyed in the process. The facts themselves are gonna – once this thing starts rolling –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: -- the facts themselves are gonna overwhelm. It's gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing's just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That's [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It's great.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Great, because --
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how you're --
MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy and Michael --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: -- have forced me to take it to the extreme --
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: -- to get their attention. How pitiful, piti****ingful they are to have done that.”

Wanting to keep it private, yeah right...

Not to mention Ray's book that they were ready to publish just few days after the settlement! Publisher, Judith Regan:

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?"

Actually Ray admitted to this story in a motion in 2004 when Michael's defense tried to get him on the stand. He was running scared citing the shield law which allows journalists to refuse to testify and reveal their sources. In order to prove that he acted as a "journalist" in this whole story Ray admitted to the above story. His own motion says!

"Within days after Jordan Chandler's civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public. Such intent on the part of Raymond Chandler is evidenced by an article that appeared in the New York Post revealing his contact with a publisher one day after it occurred."

Oh, but the Chandlers did not testify in a criminal court to avoid publicity and angry MJ fans. Give me a break! Ray also did not have a problem with appearing on TV in 2003-2005, but he had a big problem when he was called to testify.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Ha! you know its funny ray chandler that totally blew evan case by writing bout that conversation in his book

You totally outdid yourself ray!!! :lmao:

I know, it's hilarious because they actually had the gall to blame SNEDDON for the reason why MJ was never convicted and arrested and put behind bars. They said that Sneddon/DA had been unwilling to really work hard on putting MJ behind bars because he was a celebrity.

And nobody even bothers to bring up how in their own book they admit they were scared as crap of a criminal trial and how they had fired their first lawyer when she said Jordan would testify, and how they refused to let the criminal one go before the civil one, and of course ignoring all the craziness Sneddon did to try and get MJ behind bars, then their claim of hating PR and fearing for their lives when they were off immediately trying to sell a book about it - truly, they were cowering in fear.

Chandler's are proven liars and nobody ever questions them. It was so infuriating to read Sullivan's book where he completely opened the floor to Ray and never once addressed a single meaningful question at him, or held him to account for anything that happened. It was insulting. And nobody ever does. If that had been MJ lying about plastic surgery they'd have taken him through every coal possible, but the Chandler's are given the grace to remain the unchallenged extortionists.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Chandler's are proven liars and nobody ever questions them. It was so infuriating to read Sullivan's book where he completely opened the floor to Ray and never once addressed a single meaningful question at him, or held him to account for anything that happened. It was insulting. And nobody ever does. If that had been MJ lying about plastic surgery they'd have taken him through every coal possible, but the Chandler's are given the grace to remain the unchallenged extortionists.

It was the same in 2003-05. Ray goes on all those TV shows and NO ONE ever asks him any hardball questions. They just accept anything he says when he's a proven liar. It's just crazy.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Ok, if I understood it correctly it was and is a common practise that a criminal case always precedes a civil case. If that's true how on earth was Sneddon able to push the civil case before the criminal case in 1993?? Isn't a criminal case before a civil case something that a defendant has a right to and if so how come Michael's team wasn't able to demand his rights as far as this is concerned? Did it happen often before 1993 that a civil case happened before a criminal case?

 

[bouee]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Ok, if I understood it correctly it was and is a common practise that a criminal case always precedes a civil case. If that's true how on earth was Sneddon able to push the civil case before the criminal case in 1993?? Isn't a criminal case before a civil case something that a defendant has a right to and if so how come Michael's team wasn't able to demand his rights as far as this is concerned? Did it happen often before 1993 that a civil case happened before a criminal case?

.
it was legal at the time, and was not legal anymore in 03-05. I heard the law was changed in calif because of Michael's case, but I don't know if that's true.

the thing is the civil trial was technically brought by Jordan (actually by his father, in his name, as a guardian ad litem). As everybody else, Jordan was entitled to a speedy trial. When Michael's lawyers asked, I think they asked several times, that the civil trial be held after the criminal trial, which technically could have postponed the civil trial for years, the judge denied it because the he put a minor's rights first, before an adult's rights.

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

.
it was legal at the time, and was not legal anymore in 03-05. I heard the law was changed in calif because of Michael's case, but I don't know if that's true.

the thing is the civil trial was technically brought by Jordan (actually by his father, in his name, as a guardian ad litem). As everybody else, Jordan was entitled to a speedy trial. When Michael's lawyers asked, I think they asked several times, that the civil trial be held after the criminal trial, which technically could have postponed the civil trial for years, the judge denied it because the he put a minor's rights first, before an adult's rights.

Ok, I get it. So am I right to believe that in general it would be in the defendants best interest to have the criminal case happen before the civil case, but in Michael's case it didn't go through because the judge wouldn't allow it? How about in other cases? Did it happen often prior to 1993? I suppose if it happened in Michael's case it had to have happen in each other case involving a minor, or was it Michael that got a "special treatment" because he was Michael Jackson?

 

[bouee]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Ok, I get it. So am I right to believe that in general it would be in the defendants best interest to have the criminal case happen before the civil case, but in Michael's case it didn't go through because the judge wouldn't allow it? How about in other cases? Did it happen often prior to 1993? I suppose if it happened in Michael's case it had to have happen in each other case involving a minor, or was it Michael that got a "special treatment" because he was Michael Jackson?

I can't make general statements, I don't know what's better for a defendant. In Michael's case it was a case with no solid proof, Jordan could not have clearly proven what had supposedly happened, Michael could not have disproven it either, unless he proved Jordan was lying. It was his word against Jordan's word. So in that case, it was easy for the prosecution to sit down during the civil trial, listen to Michael's defense, and try to build a case from there. It's understandable that his lawyers stopped the civil trial , though not all lawyers agree. Mesereau said he would not have settled.
Polanski also settled a civil case , and the criminal charges are still pending, so I don't think it was Michael only at the time.

it was something about the law that the Chandlers lawyers knew and exploited to the maximum.

From my point of view, in Europe, in my country settlement don't officially exist, the allegations were not really the problem for Michael's image, I don't remember the media taking them too seriously, it's the fact that he settled that was highly misunderstood.

 

[bluetopez]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Sneddon admitted during a press conference about the 03 allegations that the law to allow Civil first before Criminal was changed specifically because of the 93 case. He of course didn't do this to help anyone but, to make sure he get MJ one day obviously. The man never stopped talking about 93, he felt humiliated that in his mind he didn't "get MJ." SMH The old fart should be pissed at the Chandlers for his suppose "missed opportunity."

 

[bouee]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Sneddon admitted during a press conference about the 03 allegations that the law to allow Civil first before Criminal was changed specifically because of the 93 case. He of course didn't do this to help anyone but, to make sure he get MJ one day obviously. The man never stopped talking about 93, he felt humiliated that in his mind he didn't "get MJ." SMH The old fart should be pissed at the Chandlers for his suppose "missed opportunity."

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

I can't make general statements, I don't know what's better for a defendant. In Michael's case it was a case with no solid proof, Jordan could not have clearly proven what had supposedly happened, Michael could not have disproven it either, unless he proved Jordan was lying. It was his word against Jordan's word. So in that case, it was easy for the prosecution to sit down during the civil trial, listen to Michael's defense, and try to build a case from there. It's understandable that his lawyers stopped the civil trial , though not all lawyers agree. Mesereau said he would not have settled.
Polanski also settled a civil case , and the criminal charges are still pending, so I don't think it was Michael only at the time.

it was something about the law that the Chandlers lawyers knew and exploited to the maximum.

From my point of view, in Europe, in my country settlement don't officially exist, the allegations were not really the problem for Michael's image, I don't remember the media taking them too seriously, it's the fact that he settled that was highly misunderstood.

Pardon me but it's the very opposite! The media took it very seriously in 1993! I remember the day it was announced on TV... I don't know if you were a fan back than and followed it but trust me, it hit the world like a bomb. You have to realise that up until then Michael had a clean image and it was the first ever criminal allegation in his life. And it was because of the allegations that he was forced to make that infamous video streaming from Neverland where he declared his innocence and how embarassing it had been for him having had pictures taken of his body. It also lead to him having problems with pain killers and therefore cancelling the DWT. If I remember correctly this all happened before the case was settled.
You stand correct though in saying the settlement was misunderstood. Even I didn't understand the whole story behind it at the time. In 1993 fans didn't have this huge source of information that is the internet.

Damn it, going through it once again makes me :mat: at Jordan and his father even more. I can't believe that he got away with it and that he let them destroy Michael's life.

 

[la_cienega]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Polanski also settled a civil case , and the criminal charges are still pending, so I don't think it was Michael only at the time.

He paid out because he plead guilty in the criminal case, and the civil lawsuit was after he'd fled the country.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Damn it, going through it once again makes me :mat: at Jordan and his father even more. I can't believe that he got away with it and that he let them destroy Michael's life.

That's why I don't freaking beleive in karma, the Chandler family got away with and they haven't got what they deserve! :mat:

Could any of the mods change the tittle of the thread into Jordan, please? Even when he was 13, it was annoying when people called him Jordy...

 

[ShipOfFools]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

I don't feel sorry for Jordy. He ruined Michael's life.

I definitely feel sorry that it happened, but I don't feel any need to feel sorry for that kid. He was a bad seed.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

That's why I don't freaking beleive in karma, the Chandler family got away with and they haven't got what they deserve! :mat:

Could any of the mods change the tittle of the thread into Jordan, please? Even when he was 13, it was annoying when people called him Jordy...

I agree. It's his family that calls him Jordie. He is an adult man, he is Jordan, we have no reasons to call him affectionate names.

 

[8701girl]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Pardon me but it's the very opposite! The media took it very seriously in 1993! I remember the day it was announced on TV... I don't know if you were a fan back than and followed it but trust me, it hit the world like a bomb. You have to realise that up until then Michael had a clean image and it was the first ever criminal allegation in his life. And it was because of the allegations that he was forced to make that infamous video streaming from Neverland where he declared his innocence and how embarassing it had been for him having had pictures taken of his body. It also lead to him having problems with pain killers and therefore cancelling the DWT. If I remember correctly this all happened before the case was settled.
You stand correct though in saying the settlement was misunderstood. Even I didn't understand the whole story behind it at the time. In 1993 fans didn't have this huge source of information that is the internet.

Damn it, going through it once again makes me :mat: at Jordan and his father even more. I can't believe that he got away with it and that he let them destroy Michael's life.

You are totally correct with this post


I remember when michael's statement was aired on tv and how sad & hurt he looked and the media got even worse when that statement was done. They were making fun of michael and really started to lay into him

 

[Billie Jean 78]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Oh believe me, I was more or less talking about the whole western media. They went crazy!


I think it's unappropriate to give this adult man who screw Michael's life such a nickname, regardless of what he's been called before. Remember that Michael's been called names as well. Would you also be this tolerant if people startet calling Murray Connie-Boy?

Calling him Jordie makes him sound to be an innocent little boy who can't be responsible of his own actions due to being a minor. He's not anymore, he's an grown..s man and should in my opinion be called by his full name, not by a nickname he had as a child.

Of course I didn't insult anyone, but I think that it's wrong to call him like that.

 

[bouee]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

Oh believe me, I was more or less talking about the whole western media. They went crazy!

I do believe you, well I knew about it. You totally missed my point. But that's OK, let's not dwell on it.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

I don't think this Jordie-Jordan thing is a big issue, but I too feel that when the media and people like Ray Chandler call him Jordie all the time, it's deliberate and it's somehow to project this "innocent little boy" image of him and remind people of him being "a little boy". Jordie is also an affectionate nickname and exactly because of that I usually call him Jordan - out of principle. He's an adult and I have no reason to call this guy who made Michael's life hell by an affectionate nickname. Like I said it's no big deal, so if the thread title remains like this it's OK, but I can see why several people don't like it when he's still called "Jordie" or "Jordy" all the time.

 

[bluetopez]

I'm confused.... when I see this thread before I click on it, it says Jordan. But when I'm in it it says Jordy? Anyways, I don't wanna give this dude that's older then me a nick name either. A name his family gave him and the Media uses to keep him a boy! GROSS! He's lucky I don't call him something else. lol :chained

 

[ivy]

Regardless of whether to call him Jordan or Jordie

- such requests has to be properly done to moderators. We aren't in your minds or robots. If you haven't asked for it or reported it, it's meaningless to complain about non action. If we don't know what you want, we can't act on it. It's that simple.

- such requests shouldn't be done in a form of threat, attack and mention of irrelevant stuff.

 

[Member Service]

Thread is cleaned. The Title has been changed to Jordan. All post before the name change carry the original title on their post. Posts after the name change have the new title on their posts. Our mods are NOT going to manually change over 100 posts titles to the name Jordan. Also any ultimatums/ threats posted in this thread toward the board and mods over this issue will be dealt with. The staff was never contacted and asked to change the name and didnt find out untill an ultimatum, a threat to break the rules if MJJC didn't do their bidding was reported in this thread. Next time respectfully PM a request. The name is changed now. That should appease everyone. Time to move on. If you have futher questions over this issue PM the Sr Admin account. Do not derail this thread with it.

 

[Petrarose]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

You are totally correct with this post


I remember when michael's statement was aired on tv and how sad & hurt he looked and the media got even worse when that statement was done. They were making fun of michael and really started to lay into him

True ^^ that is something I noticed with the media--the more Michael showed he felt hurt, the more he poured out his soul showing his feelings, the more he explained the innocence of his association with children is the more they took his same words and made fun out of it. Even comics did that. In contrast, you take any adult who explained their painful childhood and the impact it had on them, and you will see all the female talk show hosts and reporters saying and writing compassionate things. For Michael it was always different.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

Re: Jordy Chandler Discussion Thread

I know, it's hilarious because they actually had the gall to blame SNEDDON for the reason why MJ was never convicted and arrested and put behind bars. They said that Sneddon/DA had been unwilling to really work hard on putting MJ behind bars because he was a celebrity.

Thank you. The Chandlers totally refused to testify in a criminal court trial. But then they complained about Michael not being in jail. And they couldn't blame Sneddon because by everything I've heard, he was confident he could win a conviction if Jordan had taken the stand in a criminal trial. And it apparently upset Sneddon to the point where he became obsessed about "getting MJ" when the Chandlers took the settlement. Like someone on this board already said, Sneddon should have been mad at the Chandlers instead of the Chandlers being mad at him. Nobody but MJ fans wonders why the Chandlers really took the money. With the exception of Michael, everybody in the 1993 case (and the 2003 case also), no matter about the stupidity of their actions, gets the benefit of the doubt from much of the public. Michael always loses.