Latest on MJJC

Michael Jackson v. Wade Robson, a new trial to be held

MJImpeccable said:
In the settlement it states both porties are not allowed to talk about the case. Dont know how that works for the 2005 trial if he was allowed to if he wanted, which he didnt because he got older and knows nothing happened.

Still hope either Jordan or gavin will eventually come out but as long as their parents are still alive I doubt it due to the consequences.
Click to expand...
They only weren't allowed to talk about it to the media, i.e. they couldn't write a book about it (although that didn't stop the uncle from eventually doing so). The settlement did not prevent Jordan Chandler from pursuing criminal charges, or from testifying against Michael later on. He simply chose not to do these things. He was also contacted in 2004 to testify for the Arvizo trial and he refused (this was shown in the FBI files).
 
MJImpeccable said:
In the settlement it states both porties are not allowed to talk about the case. Dont know how that works for the 2005 trial if he was allowed to if he wanted, which he didnt because he got older and knows nothing happened.

Still hope either Jordan or gavin will eventually come out but as long as their parents are still alive I doubt it due to the consequences.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this still applies (the secrecy agreement) now after MJ's passing...

I also don't think we will hear from Jordan or Gavin soon. But who knows what might happen in the future to this never-ending telenovela...
 
Amaya said:
They only weren't allowed to talk about it to the media, i.e. they couldn't write a book about it (although that didn't stop the uncle from eventually doing so). The settlement did not prevent Jordan Chandler from pursuing criminal charges, or from testifying against Michael later on. He simply chose not to do these things. He was also contacted in 2004 to testify for the Arvizo trial and he refused (this was shown in the FBI files).
Click to expand...
Thats right, I guess that really means he chose not testify.

Also to other, I dont know much about that 'all that glitters book'. I though there were some stories showing Evans true intentions. What do you guys think about that book?
 
Lightbringer said:
Buffalo did threaten to slap the shit out of one of our members today! A post that has been deleted. So I think he stepped over the line in that sense as well! Hiker said only Gaz can decide if to ban members, that needs to change for obvious cases like this!
Click to expand...
Banning by me only has been in place since I created this place 16 years ago and has worked ever since.

Thankfully, these instances are very far and few between, it's been a few years since I last needed to step in with my instant banning action, so we can all know this is a rarity and something that will not affect the overall enjoyment of the community I created for Michael.

With that said, keep Michaeling, keep visiting and posting.

Oh and please, keep this thread on topic, pretty sure my mods are a bit fed up with deleting posts about that utter cretin.
 
Last edited:
mjfanboy27 said:
It would be nice if one day Jordan and Gavin explain everything in a television interview that nothing ever happened no matter because of the consequences they owe it to Michael
Click to expand...

But I doubt it. Many seem to believe it was done against their will, but nothing stopped Gavin from just saying it was BS, same goes for Jordan. Children aren't always these innocent, well meaning people that many seem to believe they are.

I recall someone that worked at Neverland saying James was rude as hell and overall just horrible. Iirc he had even killed a squirrel by driving over it with a golf cart? It's been a while that I read this. The Arvizo children were said to be extremely rude too, just doing whatever tf they wanted when Michael was not around. And they had a history of that too with their mother and JCpennys.

And Wade and his family, well, I bet there's a reason Michael wasn't around them a whole lot.

They are adults now but I doubt they will have the heart, the decency to give Michael some much needed justice.
 
Some replies about the whole thing from Helena (VindicateMJ) , she also says she needs some time to catch up with all the information. Sounds like she will be doing a write up about it.

The problem is that those standing behind this decades-long anti-Michael campaign are perfectly aware that Michael was 100% innocent.

They know it even better than we do, but are dedicated to do away with Michael’s reputation, legacy, money, everything. This is their goal and I am afraid that it has to do with the domestic policy of some people, at least partially.

Brett is right in saying (in the 2nd part of the interview) that there is a whole machine working against Michael. Robson and Safechuck wouldn’t have been able to go as far as making one complaint after another and even applying to the Court of appeals, without the might of this machine behind their backs and the huge money that goes with it. The appellate court lawyers alone are very expensive.

So the problem is whether the public will be able to cope with the machine that is so determined to crash every Michael’s bone. Everything depends now on Michael’s true friends, witnesses and us – the researchers and truth seekers. It is time for everyone to show their worth.
Click to expand...

“I am extremely worried.” – Tarkan
Click to expand...
For some inexplicable reason I am not.
I know that the American justice system is currently not what it was only 20 years ago, and there is abundant information about very strange things happening in courts now.
And the media is still at it, throwing dirt at Michael Jackson as usual.
And there are certainly some behind-the-scene workings going on and strings being pulled by certain influencers.
And Robson is certainly being backed up by some powerful people, no doubt about it.

But even despite all that my heart and mind are still serene.
I don’t know why, probably because I believe in God and know 100% that Michael Jackson was innocent.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
And in my hour of darkness she is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom, let it be
And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be
For though they may be parted, there is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be
Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be
There will be an answer, let it be
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think the closest we are going to get is what we heard from the 93 doc. If that statement is true (Jordan admitted in private) that he didnt believe Mj would abuse anyone.

As for Gavin, I dont need a confession. He lost. His case should of never went to trial.

It all stands on 93. If Jordan ever came forward it would be nice, however he had 30 years to do so. Remember, a settlement is NOT an admition of guilt. People hear "settlement" and assume that person is guilty. That's not how the law works.
 
Problem is, people want to hear what they want to hear And do prejudice
 
Much more from Helena, I really appreciate her input. I wish I could directly insert images here. Ah well. Very worth reading it, makes me more at ease.

Here we go:


Well, I’ve read some information about the ruling of the appellate court about the possible resumption of Robson’s lawsuit and have a clear impression that things are not the way they look on the surface.

The first thing that draws attention is that the ruling is tentative, and can be even overruled after the hearings on July 26th. So it looks like this news was leaked by TMZ as a sort of a trial balloon to see the reaction of the Estate and the MJ fan community to a mere possibility of such a trial.

The idea is to see how “frightened” the Estate and fans will be, whether the fans will be intimidated by this news and demand that the Estate pays this guy off, for example, in order “to not let Michael’s legacy to be tarnished further” or «to get rid of the accuser once and for all”, both of which are illusions only.

In other words, the news was leaked to pressure the Estate into a settlement and the tentative status of it was needed for probing whether they would be ready for it or not.

In short, it is a kind of blackmail – see what we will do in case you don’t give us big money?
Click to expand...

And the answer to it should be brutal in its clarity: NO SETTLEMENT. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES. NEVER.

I hope very much that the Estate will NEVER agree to that and their first reaction sounds encouraging to me. The MJInnocentUK reported information from an anonymous source close to the Estate who says that the Estate will not settle.

The above is the best and only possible reaction to the situation.

I feel that the main goal of this whole appellate business was to not actually take the matter to court but to reach a settlement, which besides ridding the Estate of its money can also ruin Michael’s reputation forever because the public will certainly regard it as an admission of guilt.

This way they can kill two birds with one stone – Robson will be happy, Safechuck will probably follow, and those who mastermind the project can finally reach their goal of doing away with Michael, his legacy and even his Estate.

So the settlement is absolutely out of the question.

I also have a clear impression that Robson himself is mortally afraid of having to go to court and prove his lies there.

This is not the same as telling his story to the gullible public in a fiction movie on a big screen. Whether a civil or a criminal trial, it is still a trial, and the judge or the jury will require at least some proof of his allegations, while Robson not only doesn’t have any evidence, but he also testified to the opposite in 2005 (under oath), so either way he comes across as a liar, and this is something which he will certainly try to avoid.

And if he wants to avoid it and the settlement is out of the question …. the only other option is a big fight, and if it has to be done in court, so let it be.

Of course I would prefer it to be a criminal trial which will be also televised, but the message from MJInnocentUK says that the judges in California don’t favor cameras in court.

If you ask my opinion, if it ever comes to a trial, fans and the public should insist that the case should be televised, because everyone should see Robson twisting on that frying pan, wishing that he had never started it in the first place.

This is actually the only thing I really wish for.
Click to expand...

Here is the full tweet from MJInnocentUK:

*MJI Exclusive*
Dear all
The team at MJInnocent are in close contact with a Los Angeles attorney who has closely followed the case and is very familiar with the courts involved. Given everything that is going on, I know you will understand that our Source needs to remain anonymous. However, he has agreed to provide us with as much information as he is able to and to answer some questions we have.
Some key points that our Source has shared with us:
• It seems much more likely that the case will go to trial. There are three possible ways the case might not go to trial:
– We win oral arguments on 26th July (however, as we know, it is very difficult to have such decisions overturned)
– The Supreme Court hears the case and overturns (again, as we know, the SC only hears very, very few cases)
– The parties reach a settlement (but the Estate has consistently said they will not settle).
• They are as disappointed and surprised as we are with this ruling. However, they are confident that we have a strong case.
• Regarding cameras in court, it’s very difficult for our Source to comment because this is ultimately up to the judge so we will need to wait and see. However, our Source did say that it appears that most judges in California tend to favour NOT having cameras in court.
I hope you will all find the above information useful. We are very grateful to our Source for taking the time to speak to us and for supporting MJInnocent in this way.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
8701girl said:
sorry for sounding dumb but whos helena?
Click to expand...

vindicatemj.wordpress.com

Vindicating Michael

People Defend The Truth About Michael Jackson
vindicatemj.wordpress.com vindicatemj.wordpress.com

She's been doing years and years of research, incredibly thorough. You could say she's made it her life's work. This is where I started reading when the Arvizo allegations started. I was young back then, had not really concerned myself with the allegations. Just loved the music and highly appreciated the man. But I saw what MJJC back then was talking about and I clearly was out of the loop on it.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
vindicatemj.wordpress.com

Vindicating Michael

People Defend The Truth About Michael Jackson
vindicatemj.wordpress.com vindicatemj.wordpress.com

She's been doing years and years of research, incredibly thorough. You could say she's made it her life's work. This is where I started reading when the Arvizo allegations started. I was young back then, had not really concerned myself with the allegations. Just loved the music and highly appreciated the man. But I saw what MJJC back then was talking about and I clearly was out of the loop on it.
Click to expand...
ohhh ok
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Much more from Helena, I really appreciate her input. I wish I could directly insert images here. Ah well. Very worth reading it, makes me more at ease.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff from Helena although I don't agree with all of her points. There are quite a few people who believe that WR doesn't truly want a trial, that all of this activity is about getting a settlement. That makes sense. Where I disagree with Helena is her suggestion that the initial TMZ story was all about putting pressure on MJE to go for a settlement. If the estate was going to do that why wouldn't they have done it years ago? Having this legal action hanging over them isn't helpful for projects that they want to work on. And yet they haven't given any indication of being interested in settling.

I think TMZ probably leaked the story for a good old-fashioned reason - they wanted to get a scoop that their news rivals didn't have. Every early version of this story that I saw had no choice but to quote TMZ since that was the only source. And even now, the LA Times is getting quoted instead but, of course, their original source was TMZ. That's all it is, imo. TMZ got what they wanted. I don't think it means anything more than that.

The ruling from the California Court of Appeal was tentative bc that's how these things usually work, afaik. I don't think there's anything unusual about that, it's just standard legal procedure. It is a little surprising, perhaps, that the Appeal Court overturned the decision of the lower court but, again, these things do happen. It doesn't mean there is anything underhand going on. It's just the legal system doing its thing. Decisions get overturned all the time.

As for the Appeal Court ruling being interpreted as a kind of blackmail just bc it's tentative - that makes no sense to me. Firstly, it seems that these rulings are always issued as tentative rulings before the final ruling is issued. Secondly, this thing has been dragging on already for ten years, Finaldi has always made it clear that they would take their appeals all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. MJE knows perfectly well these guys are not going to give up. This Appeal Court ruling isn't going to 'frighten' them into any kind of rash decision.

I'm not having a go at Helena. She does good work and I'm sure some people agree with her thoughts. But I'm not persuaded.
 
Last edited:
BTW: Is it a coincidence that the estate is negotiating the sale of the catalogue at the same time as this comes up?
 
analogue said:
It's disturbing and sickening how so many people WANT Michael Jackson to be guilty. It's clear these people don't care about the well being of children because if they did they'd be supporting Michael's innocence because that would mean no kids have been hurt.

Not only do they want him to be guilty they take great pleasure in it.
Click to expand...
It's literally "tee hee MJ has a funny looking nose therefore he's guilty"
 
I'm so sick and ****** tired of people treating Michael Jackson like he's OJ Simpson and only got off on a technicality in 2005. No, the man was ****** PROVEN innocent. Tom Mesareau didn't have to rely on scummy lawyer tactics like distracting the jury with unrelated tangents about social issues not related to the case like one Mr. Johnnie Cochran did. It wasn't an issue of "Mark Fuhrman is racist, therefore OJ is innocent", Tom Mesareau got that not guilty verdict on nothing but stone cold facts. He straight up exposed those accusers as liars on the stand. All of Sneddon's star witnesses folded like a ****** lawn chair under cross exam. And with the "prior bad acts" law that blew up in Sneddon's face, the 2005 trial exonerated him of both instances of accusations.
 
fraroc04 said:
I'm so sick and ****** tired of people treating Michael Jackson like he's OJ Simpson and only got off on a technicality in 2005. No, the man was ****** PROVEN innocent. Tom Mesareau didn't have to rely on scummy lawyer tactics like distracting the jury with unrelated tangents about social issues not related to the case like one Mr. Johnnie Cochran did. It wasn't an issue of "Mark Fuhrman is racist, therefore OJ is innocent", Tom Mesareau got that not guilty verdict on nothing but stone cold facts. He straight up exposed those accusers as liars on the stand. All of Sneddon's star witnesses folded like a ****** lawn chair under cross exam. And with the "prior bad acts" law that blew up in Sneddon's face, the 2005 trial exonerated him of both instances of accusations.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in an interview Mesareau even stated that he made a point out of not turning this into a racial issue (especially due to the mostly white jury) by making sure that MJ distance himself from the Nation of Islam (I think Randy brought them in as his security in the beginning of the trial).
 
fraroc04 said:
I'm so sick and ****** tired of people treating Michael Jackson like he's OJ Simpson and only got off on a technicality in 2005. No, the man was ****** PROVEN innocent. Tom Mesareau didn't have to rely on scummy lawyer tactics like distracting the jury with unrelated tangents about social issues not related to the case like one Mr. Johnnie Cochran did. It wasn't an issue of "Mark Fuhrman is racist, therefore OJ is innocent", Tom Mesareau got that not guilty verdict on nothing but stone cold facts. He straight up exposed those accusers as liars on the stand. All of Sneddon's star witnesses folded like a ****** lawn chair under cross exam. And with the "prior bad acts" law that blew up in Sneddon's face, the 2005 trial exonerated him of both instances of accusations.
Click to expand...
Yes, but… mind the language, please.
 
Some people truly don't know what they are even talking about, well, not some, many. That's why I have decided a while ago to stop trying to show them the facts, letting them see the other side of the story, the only side.

Yesterday this clown claimed cp was found in MJ's home, but due to some change in the law this was filed under child erotica and not cp. Are these people for real? It's truly sick how badly people want him to have been this sick, twisted evil person. It says a lot about them.
 
zinniabooklover said:
Interesting stuff from Helena although I don't agree with all of her points. There are quite a few people who believe that WR doesn't truly want a trial, that all of this activity is about getting a settlement. That makes sense. Where I disagree with Helena is her suggestion that the initial TMZ story was all about putting pressure on MJE to go for a settlement. If the estate was going to do that why wouldn't they have done it years ago? Having this legal action hanging over them isn't helpful for projects that they want to work on. And yet they haven't given any indication of being interested in settling.

I think TMZ probably leaked the story for a good old-fashioned reason - they wanted to get a scoop that their news rivals didn't have. Every early version of this story that I saw had no choice but to quote TMZ since that was the only source. And even now, the LA Times is getting quoted instead but, of course, their original source was TMZ. That's all it is, imo. TMZ got what they wanted. I don't think it means anything more than that.

The ruling from the California Court of Appeal was tentative bc that's how these things usually work, afaik. I don't think there's anything unusual about that, it's just standard legal procedure. It is a little surprising, perhaps, that the Appeal Court overturned the decision of the lower court but, again, these things do happen. It doesn't mean there is anything underhand going on. It's just the legal system doing its thing. Decisions get overturned all the time.

As for the Appeal Court ruling being interpreted as a kind of blackmail just bc it's tentative - that makes no sense to me. Firstly, it seems that these rulings are always issued as tentative rulings before the final ruling is issued. Secondly, this thing has been dragging on already for ten years, Finaldi has always made it clear that they would take their appeals all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. MJE knows perfectly well these guys are not going to give up. This Appeal Court ruling isn't going to 'frighten' them into any kind of rash decision.

I'm not having a go at Helena. She does good work and I'm sure some people agree with her thoughts. But I'm not persuaded.
Click to expand...


On the whole I agree with your post. However, I think it's surprising that Wade seems to be successful with the appeal given the small percentage of appeals that are successful. It is probably still much more unlikely that a tendative ruling will be overturned again. Is there an percentage of when something like this ever happened in the past?
 
Annita said:
On the whole I agree with your post. However, I think it's surprising that Wade seems to be successful with the appeal given the small percentage of appeals that are successful.
Click to expand...
It is surprising. Shocking, even. I'm so frustrated by the whole thing.

Annita said:
It is probably still much more unlikely that a tendative ruling will be overturned again. Is there an percentage of when something like this ever happened in the past?
Click to expand...
Good question. I wish I had an answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top