Jordan Chandler Discussion Thread

[Petrarose]

la_cienega Glad you mentioned the fans working on vindicating Michael ^^ I am placing an ad in the New York Daily News where people are directed to a specific website for information of his innocence. I am looking at a package of 1 day on Sunday & 7 days online. I am waiting for a photo & should have it paid & set up by the end of today. This ad will come out in March, & I will try to do it once every month.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I find it funny that the media always made sure to say that they did not pay some people for interviews who talked trash about Michael as if that was supposed to prove they were telling the truth.

As respect and others have pointed out, it's just a fact that the media paid for interviews in the past. However sometimes the media, esp tv news programmes, in the light of this criticism, have used the practise of claiming truthfully that they don't pay for interviews but instead behind the scenes pay for 'expenses' like materials used during the interview like photos, film etc. I think they used this claim with latoya interviews after 25 june which allowed her to say she didn't get paid for giving an interview but they paid a ton of money for showing her private photos of mj, same with karen faye. I'm positive they'll be doing this with murray when he gets out - no media will want to admit to paying money for an interview, but they'll find a way of funnelling money for 'expenses'.

 

[la_cienega]

la_cienega Glad you mentioned the fans working on vindicating Michael ^^ I am placing an ad in the New York Daily News where people are directed to a specific website for information of his innocence. I am looking at a package of 1 day on Sunday & 7 days online. I am waiting for a photo & should have it paid & set up by the end of today. This ad will come out in March, & I will try to do it once every month.

If we do this we can't make it too public, if the haters learn about something like this they will just do the same thing.

I mean, we can't make big threads to talk about it or post it as big topics anywhere, the haters will try and counter it with their own website.

I would message the moderators of MichaelJacksonVindication and VMJ privately to tell them about it, and tell them not to post about it publicly.

We really need to set up a forum where we can all discuss these things privately.

 

[jamba]

If we do this we can't make it too public, if the haters learn about something like this they will just do the same thing.

I mean, we can't make big threads to talk about it or post it as big topics anywhere, the haters will try and counter it with their own website.

I would message the moderators of MichaelJacksonVindication and VMJ privately to tell them about it, and tell them not to post about it publicly.

We really need to set up a forum where we can all discuss these things privately.

I think you are right to point out the dangers here b/c frankly, no blog is perfect, and there will be always something that haters can find that will get them going and make a big deal out of something they find there that they disagree with. I think it's best to avoid a public statement re blogs (after thinking it over) and instead refer people to books like G. Hughes. A, Jones, etc., and to sites that mainly collect data rather than have commentary and comments.

I agree fans need privacy. I was on one blog where a hater appeared and totally disrupted the conversation topic, so it is always upsetting when that happens and that's probably what will happen if it is made easy for haters to find fan sites--look what happened with the NYT story re Sullivan's book and all the haters that went to Amazon with phony reviews full of hate.

 

[la_cienega]

I think you are right to point out the dangers here b/c frankly, no blog is perfect, and there will be always something that haters can find that will get them going and make a big deal out of something they find there that they disagree with. I think it's best to avoid a public statement re blogs (after thinking it over) and instead refer people to books like G. Hughes. A, Jones, etc., and to sites that mainly collect data rather than have commentary and comments.

I agree fans need privacy. I was on one blog where a hater appeared and totally disrupted the conversation topic, so it is always upsetting when that happens and that's probably what will happen if it is made easy for haters to find fan sites--look what happened with the NYT story re Sullivan's book and all the haters that went to Amazon with phony reviews full of hate.

I'm worried about haters taking out adverts about themselves.

I think we should consider some options, but we need to discuss it privately. If lurkers read it can ruin everything.

We can create a forum to do stuff like that and make it private, anyone got any good ideas for where? It's hard trying to get people off to another site, it's always easier using things like Facebook maybe.

 

[Petrarose]

Lacienega the owner already knows about it. In fact, she thought it was a good idea. We discussed this about 2 /3 weeks ago. Haters will be haters. They are not going to spend money to take out ads to do anything. Ads cost hundreds of dollars. They will post on the internet for free & the owners of the site in the ad always delete foolish comments anyway to keep the facts intact.

I thank you and Jamba for your input, but as you can see I am not going to be swayed by it. This is like advertising a Hughes book, or Aphrodite book. Haters will go and make negative comments about the books anyway, so are we going to tell all these types of authors not to advertise. If you want to do something good, you have to expect to meet opposition, and I am never one to be swayed by fear, but you wouldn't know that since we are all strangers on the board.

 

[la_cienega]

Lacienega the owner already knows about it. In fact, she thought it was a good idea. We discussed this about 2 /3 weeks ago. Haters will be haters. They are not going to spend money to take out ads to do anything. Ads cost hundreds of dollars. They will post on the internet for free & the owners of the site in the ad always delete foolish comments anyway to keep the facts intact.

They do spent a lot of money on this though. I know that for a fact.

I don't think VindicateMJ/MJVindication should brag about it anyway as the haters WILL counter strike, 100% certain. They monitor those websites obsessively, it's why no really good discussion is capable there because they will ruin everything. If they speak about it, do it on a Facebook, twitter, in another private group, if those two blogs brag about it it will blow back up on them. Do we want Desiree Ladonna's website for the public to read? Or MJFacts?

We need to discuss things in private - there are other investigations and things going on. I think fans who are prepared to be really involved need to organize together behind the scenes. I'm up for any messageboard.

 

[Petrarose]

Lacienza This is not about a discussion but individuals knowing where to go to get some information, so as long as the owner approves the idea I am ok with it. People have to learn when they should not respond to haters. I visit sites all the time to get information without commenting and joining in the discussion. This is my intent for the ad--a place where people know where to go for information. Again, I cannot be worried about what haters will & will not do at this point in my life. Also, I am not working with a group of people, but as an individual using my own assets, so I do not need to go somewhere and discuss anything with a group of fans in fear. All I need is the approval which has already been given.

When the civil rights activists marched for justice, they were spat on, ridiculed, hosed down with water from fire hydrants, beaten, etc., and they did it anyway. I don't want to hear any more stories about "oh no what will the haters do." They can do their worst as far as I am concerned. More people will look at a free online site with facts than go and take their money to buy 5 books about why Michael is innocent. Therefore, the online sites have to be exposed by casual browsers and those who would not come across it in their daily online activity.

It makes little sense to compile data that is useful for Michael's innocence, & then run and tell the people to be quiet in case people hear about it^^. The data is there so that as many people as possible get to read it--hater & nonhater, and that is the price you have to pay for gaining justice. There is an idea that the data is for fans only, but that is wrong. The majority of people who think Michael is a molester is not active in the fan community, so you cannot lock in the information for the "safe" fans who you feel will not retaliate. The good comes with the bad, and if there is more good to be gained, then it justifies the means. I hope I have not hurt your feelings because I value your intellect.

Another thing, sites with factual data, should be that only. You are worried about not being able to have a good discussion, so separate your factual data & put it on one site and then create a separate place for your discussions.

 

[jamba]

Lacienza This is not about a discussion but individuals knowing where to go to get some information, so as long as the owner approves the idea I am ok with it. People have to learn when they should not respond to haters. I visit sites all the time to get information without commenting and joining in the discussion. This is my intent for the ad--a place where people know where to go for information. Again, I cannot be worried about what haters will & will not do at this point in my life. Also, I am not working with a group of people, but as an individual using my own assets, so I do not need to go somewhere and discuss anything with a group of fans in fear. All I need is the approval which has already been given.

When the civil rights activists marched for justice, they were spat on, ridiculed, hosed down with water from fire hydrants, beaten, etc., and they did it anyway. I don't want to hear any more stories about "oh no what will the haters do." They can do their worst as far as I am concerned. More people will look at a free online site with facts than go and take their money to buy 5 books about why Michael is innocent. Therefore, the online sites have to be exposed by casual browsers and those who would not come across it in their daily online activity.

It makes little sense to compile data that is useful for Michael's innocence, & then run and tell the people to be quiet in case people hear about it^^. The data is there so that as many people as possible get to read it--hater & nonhater, and that is the price you have to pay for gaining justice. There is an idea that the data is for fans only, but that is wrong. The majority of people who think Michael is a molester is not active in the fan community, so you cannot lock in the information for the "safe" fans who you feel will not retaliate. The good comes with the bad, and if there is more good to be gained, then it justifies the means. I hope I have not hurt your feelings because I value your intellect.

Another thing, sites with factual data, should be that only. You are worried about not being able to have a good discussion, so separate your factual data & put it on one site and then create a separate place for your discussions.

So, just to be clear, you are going to set up a new website where people can go for facts/info/data on MJ? And VMJ and MJVindication2 are going to help with it?

 

[Petrarose]

So, just to be clear, you are going to set up a new website where people can go for facts/info/data on MJ? And VMJ and MJVindication2 are going to help with it?

NO that is not what is going to happen.

I have chosen a site that has facts about Michael's innocence. I approached the person in charge about 2 to 3 weeks ago about my intention of placing an ad in the paper that directs people to that site. Permission was granted. The ad will be out in March. It will show up 1 day in the physical paper & 7 days online. This will take place each month. It is a done deal. This is not being done by any group of people. I only mentioned this here because it is about the Chandler case, but I am not asking for people's thoughts about whether I should proceed or not. It is already done.

 

[jamba]

NO that is not what is going to happen.

I have chosen a site that has facts about Michael's innocence. I approached the person in charge about 2 to 3 weeks ago about my intention of placing an ad in the paper that directs people to that site. Permission was granted. The ad will be out in March. It will show up 1 day in the physical paper & 7 days online. This will take place each month. It is a done deal. This is not being done by any group of people. I only mentioned this here because it is about the Chandler case, but I am not asking for people's thoughts about whether I should proceed or not. It is already done.

Good luck with your project and please stop being so defensive.

 

[Petrarose]

Good luck with your project and please stop being so defensive.

I am not defensive, it is just that I just had 2 PMs from the same person telling me back the same thing that was said here. That type of thing makes me impatient, which is what is coming across in my response to you. I must apologize if I have offended you in any way.

 

[HIStory]

I agree with La Cienega, I don't find this a very good idea, it may backfire. No disrespect to VMJ, they are very useful, but if we are going to advertise something to the general public it has to be more professional than that blog. Unfortunately there are things on that blog that won't reflect well on our cause and on MJ if the general public reads it. For example, the homphobic views of the blog owner and other personal agendas she mixes with the whole thing (pushing her religious agendas, calling everyone who disagrees with her "a hater" - even if they aren't etc.). Also things those are not really facts but her own conspiracy theories. To be honest the general public will ridicule the site for it, especially journalists. I'm a fan and used to visit VMJ but even I, as a fan, did not like some things that are going on there. (And I know other fans with the same opinion. If fans have this opinion how will the general public view it?)

Of course, you can do what you want, Petrarose, but I don't find it a good idea to advertise VMJ in newspaper ads as if that's the best we can offer. I think first there needs to be a more professional website set up about the allegations and then you can direct the general public to that.To be honest, VMJ, while useful for fans, it is not the website I would direct the general public to.

If a bored journalist discovers it through the ads, I guarantee you that he will not focus on the facts those prove Michael's innocence but will use the blog owner's homophobic, religious and conspiracy-minded rants to discredit and ridicule the whole thing and once again to portray MJ fans as just crazy fanatics.

If we are going to put out something to the general public then it needs to be bullet proof - or near bullet proof, because it's a hostile environment and people will look for reasons to discredit it. Unfortunately VMJ is far from being bullet proof.

 

[bluetopez]

It wouldn't be that bad to have a place where non fans can go to get some good MJ info on the allegations. VMJ isn't that bad even though they may say things that might not help. But, they do help more then not from my experience there. And if those who are non MJ fans can go there and be smart about it and see documents that back up the truth of what they are saying that clear MJ, I see that as a good thing. Everything else like certain opinions on that site is up to them to believe or not.

Saying that though there should be a site that show documents and things without so much opinion, just the facts, better to get to the point. But, as of now I see that a place like VMJ is all we have? NO?! I believe Reflection of the dance was another...with issues too! But, all in all it wasn't that bad? They talked about MJ Vitiligo on that site I remember too.

Besides these sites are not private ones, anyone can find them. Haters and non haters alike! So the real issue really is are people open minded enough to except the truth? Sadly some are not, no matter how good the info is. And we see that all the time when it comes to MJ, so there always will be battle!

 

[jamba]

I agree that Petra can do what she chooses as an individual and I recognize that her intentions are excellent--to see Michael's name vindicated and cleared. But I do see what respect77 is saying too. This could backfire if the general public goes to VMJ or other websites, which really are for fans the way they are written, or at least people with an open mind, b/c the writers are steeped in all the facts and also have their own directions to add to the evidence and the documents, some of which we don't have or don't have the complete version of. What I am trying to say is that there's a lot of 'fill in the gaps' going on and we all have our theories, such as who hired Gardener to interview Jordan (just as an example).

Basically, I think we need to emphasize that the evidence, such as it was or was not, was totally examined by 2 DA's in 2 counties, that millions of dollars were spent, and many people questioned (400), 100 search warrants, FBI investigation, and 2 Grand Juries who refused to indict, and one GJ that did, and a 5 month trial which included prior acts, and that the result of all this exhaustive investigation was 14 not guilty verdicts and an inability in 1993 to indict b/c of lack of evidence. To me, this says it all. They tried exhaustively with huge budgets and they violated MJ's rights in the process but they still could not find enough evidence to bring to trial or when brought to trial to convict.

So that is what needs to be emphasized IMO. The the court system came up with not enough evidence, so how is some person on the internet going to prove that MJ was guilty now? Not going to happen. They are just talking, spinning theories, but the people who had the evidence (the DA's and FBI) could not charge in 93 (or any other time) or convict in 05.

The media has created so much confusion here with their bs but what goes in the media and what is evidence in a courtroom or in an investigation are 2 widely different things and people need to know that the media is not a courtroom (just a court of OPINION in which many uninformed people mouth their ignorance). We have had enough commentary from the media and I think it's better not to get all tangled up in it but just refer to the fact that the legal system chewed up everything they could get their hands on, with the media as their willing helpers, and they could not convict, so if they couldn't do it--that means MJ was simply not guilty! In fact, I sometimes wonder why we are still taking about it--well, I guess b/c the media has lit so many fires. But maybe they will eventually die out on their own if they are not fed. Look at the Sullivan mess--it has died down and his book is still not selling. Maybe we should go after the media? Document their role in the whole mess from Day One.

The other major point is to educate people about the difference between a criminal and civil court and how settling in a civil suit does not prevent a criminal case from occurring and is not an indication of guilt.I think people afe confused on this and don't understand the 2 different court systems. For example, Feldman is a civil lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, so when Chandlers and Arvizos went to him that means they want to file a civil suit for $$$$, as opposed to jail time.

Petra, I wish you well in your project, sincerely, but I am just raising some points since you shared with us your plan. I don't mean to offend you at all. Thanks for your comment above.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

I agree with La Cienega, I don't find this a very good idea, it may backfire. No disrespect to VMJ, they are very useful, but if we are going to advertise something to the general public it has to be more professional than that blog.

I agree with you about vmj - for a fan that has a year or 2 to spend on reading it, it's v interesting but for anyone else, it's a rabbit warren. However, i got the impression from petrarose's post it wasn't vmj she was promoting in the advert but some other site (i could be wrong).

 

[HIStory]

However, i got the impression from petrarose's post it wasn't vmj she was promoting in the advert but some other site (i could be wrong).

If it's so then apologies to her. I hope it's a good, factual site.

 

[Petrarose]

I had asked a question some pages up that seem to have been overlooked about whether anyone knew what Ray got from this deal. He seems to be ever present, so was there any evidence that he was paid by his brother or Jordan?

 

[bluetopez]

^I think any payment Ray has gotten over the yrs have been by being a mouth piece for his brother and nephew by writing the ATG book and being on talk shows selling lies. That's where his cut comes from IMO. That's why he such a willing participant.

 

[Aquarius]

What a good idea to have a site where people can be refer to get information about the allegations. The sad thing is that there will always be people who will come with their own opinions about Michael & say atrocities but the best thing is that may be people who really want to know the true & might change their opinion about Michael.

However if the owner of VMJ is kind of homophobic, I think it will repel people. Wouldn't it be nice if there's a website with only facts & no feelings involved? Not even towards Michael, only facts & with links to court documents & to sites that have back up information.

Michael deserves his name to be cleaned. His family is not doing on the contrary whenever they open their mouths to talk about the allegations they only make it worst. Either they're not well informed or they don't care how Michael looks after they talk.

Petra, you have a beautiful intention. This is kind of a battle and of course there will always be people attacking Michael and after the ad they might come in full force, but if nothing is done people will keep believing that Michael did those horrible things.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that I wish people know the true about Michael, it only takes to have the information available for all who want to read it and be ready to fight with facts against those who don't want to believe in Michael's innocence.

 

[Petrarose]

^I think any payment Ray has gotten over the yrs have been by being a mouth piece for his brother and nephew by writing the ATG book and being on talk shows selling lies. That's where his cut comes from IMO. That's why he such a willing participant.

Good point, although I always wondered if there was a plan for him to get some of the settlement as well.

 

[jamba]

What a good idea to have a site where people can be refer to get information about the allegations. The sad thing is that there will always be people who will come with their own opinions about Michael & say atrocities but the best thing is that may be people who really want to know the true & might change their opinion about Michael.

However if the owner of VMJ is kind of homophobic, I think it will repel people. Wouldn't it be nice if there's a website with only facts & no feelings involved? Not even towards Michael, only facts & with links to court documents & to sites that have back up information.

Michael deserves his name to be cleaned. His family is not doing on the contrary whenever they open their mouths to talk about the allegations they only make it worst. Either they're not well informed or they don't care how Michael looks after they talk.

Petra, you have a beautiful intention. This is kind of a battle and of course there will always be people attacking Michael and after the ad they might come in full force, but if nothing is done people will keep believing that Michael did those horrible things.

I think I speak for everyone here when I say that I wish people know the true about Michael, it only takes to have the information available for all who want to read it and be ready to fight with facts against those who don't want to believe in Michael's innocence.

It would be good to have a website with facts and links such as court docs (and no comments allowed). And it would also be good to have another website with info re the horrible media trash published against MJ--the attacks, slander, etc, with links (and no comments). All this stuffis to some extent already available but it is scattered and it would be good--but a big task--to collect it all.

 

[jrsfan]

Good point, although I always wondered if there was a plan for him to get some of the settlement as well.

Has anyone heard who Evan's estate (unless none) went to?? Did he have a will?

 

[Aquarius]

It would be good to have a website with facts and links such as court docs (and no comments allowed). And it would also be good to have another website with info re the horrible media trash published against MJ--the attacks, slander, etc, with links (and no comments). All this stuffis to some extent already available but it is scattered and it would be good--but a big task--to collect it all.

Exactly, because the information is all over is better to have a site with all the information in one place. It's a huge task & it'll take a lot of time but there are so many fans who are so well informed about the cases that i think it can be possible.

 

[shelly_webster]

This is just wrong. I've seen this claim before and it's just one of the fan conspiracies that get's passed around and repeated. It arose from janet arvizo visiting a lawyer apparently in 2000 on some matter who just happened to be called feldman. People put 2 and 2 together and made out that it was larry feldman and it meant janet was planning on entrapping mj before she even met him. It was all discussed i think in a pre-trial hearing in 03 where sneddon made it crystal clear in a redirect that it was just some random lawyer janet was seeing called feldman and it was nothing to do with mj.

It appears during the trial. The police had her sign a déclaration on that.

I believe you were talking about that.

http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...us-lawyers-before-meeting-jackson-mb-204.html

 

[Petrarose]

Has anyone heard who Evan's estate (unless none) went to?? Did he have a will?

Now that is a good question, but did he have anything of substance to leave at the time of his death?

 

[bluetopez]

^About Evan estate and who got some of that blood money...? Hmm let's go ask Diane...JUST KIDDIN! :bugeyed lol But, I'm sure this noisy witch would know!

Anyway, not sure what Evan had left. But, according to Ray didn't he say that Jordan invested his money from the settlement in a business or something like that? Who knows if this is true or not coming from Ray but, he for sure is gettin money from all of this whether Jordan helped with that or not? But, his silence regardless doesn't help the situation and basically not stopping his uncle from talkin til this day, is paying his uncle in a way.

 

[la_cienega]

It appears during the trial. The police had her sign a déclaration on that.

I believe you were talking about that.

http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet...us-lawyers-before-meeting-jackson-mb-204.html

I was confused by this, was this in 2003 that she had a lawyer retroactively do this even though she'd asked them to do dates on which they hadn't met him yet, or did she really hire a lawyer in 2000?

TOM MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael?
ACCUSER’S MOTHER: August 2000.
MESEREAU: According to this official statement/sworn declaration that you gave to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department and district attorney, you retained an attorney and investigator in January 2000 for the sole purpose of finding out information about Michael Jackson and settling with him. You discussed a settlement concerning Michael Jackson before you even knew him?
ACCUSER’S MOTHER:
PROSECUTORS: Objection! Irrelevant.
JUDGE MELVILLE: Sustained.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Thanks shelly webster for the quote. What i've read is sneddon's redirect to a motion re this issue of larry feldman, i don't think it was the trial proper but in 04. I'll try and find it but i definitely remember that it was confirmed it was not THE larry feldman.

You can check on the trial transcript as larry feldman is one of the pros witnesses and i'm sure he explains on oath and under xexam by tmez exactly when he met the arvizos and it would be 2003. The arvizos are opportunists not machiavelian masterminds.

 

[jamba]

Thanks shelly webster for the quote. What i've read is sneddon's redirect to a motion re this issue of larry feldman, i don't think it was the trial proper but in 04. I'll try and find it but i definitely remember that it was confirmed it was not THE larry feldman.

You can check on the trial transcript as larry feldman is one of the pros witnesses and i'm sure he explains on oath and under xexam by tmez exactly when he met the arvizos and it would be 2003. The arvizos are opportunists not machiavelian masterminds.

The Arvizos may not be Machiavellian masterminds, but Larry Feldman just might fit the bill. For example, he could have talked to them on the phone and then felt fine with saying he never 'met' them til 2003, or he could have just lied--he is a total lowdown liar in my opinion.