1993 - The Case Files Discussion **All Things Jordan and Evan Chandler Go Here**

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Don't know what they hope to find that they haven't already had the time to acquire. I guess Wade still has no evidence (real or imagined). What a surprise.

He is lying of course. They already had access to every damn document Sneddon ever saw and more. They just pretend that
there is somehow this treasure trove of evidence against MJ because they know people will believe it.
And he doesn't anticipate any trial he knows from the Safechuck ruling alone that Beckloff won't allow this shit through summary judgement.
It's just that they get money from the tabloids for each of these stories and so they want to drag it as much as possible.

I think they are fishing and hoping to find something.


AFTER already finding the shocking evidence ? :bored:

When is summary judgement? Right before the trial date or months before that?
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
late August 1993 – Barry Rothman quits representing the Chandlers after Jackson files extortion charges against him and Evan Chandler.


So there was no civil lawsuit for extortion just Mj's lawyers contacted the police and reported that MJ was a victim of extortion
which then triggered a criminal investigation?
What exactly was that process? Did they investigate Chandler at all in any way, like interviewing him, his lawyer, his lawyer's assistants? I know they didn't raid his home, but did they do anything at all?


respect77;4187425 said:
Campbell is right. How can you say these were just "settlement negotiations" when they preceded even the filing of the Chandler's civil suit?.

Yes and how can the Chandlers claim in their book that the 20 million dollar demand was just to settle Jordan's civil claims
not extortion when they also wrote this:

“On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?”


That is triggering a criminal investigation, nothing to do with the civil case.
They admitted if MJ had paid there wouldn't have been a criminal case either. And obviously if MJ had been guilty
why would he pay only to prevent a civil lawsuit? His primary goal would be to prevent a criminal investigation.
Chandlers think everyone is stupid. Problem is most people are indeed stupid and sees nothing wrong with this
with the Chandler's "logic".

BTW Jordan also admitted in his DCFS interview that they demanded money from him to avoid a court hearing:

In an Aug. 17 report detailing the allegations brought by the 13-year-old alleged sexual abuse victim, a county social worker wrote: "Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy's father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing."

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

They didn't want any court hearing at all. Not just for the civil case for the criminal case either.
 
Last edited:
E

elusive moonwalker

Guest
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Mj should have counter sued them for extortion. Standard practice nowadays. That audio recording makes chandler sound as guilty as hell. Sneddon and co were hand in glove with the chandlers the same as the arvizos.they were hardly gonna investigate and prosecute the very people they were working with to bring down mj
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Why don't you read what I wrote above?

I did, I just wanted to know whether there was more specific info like whether they did anything at all to investigate
like questioning Evan Chandler himself not just witnesses in general. They don't need a subpoena for a police interview.

They had to know about the July 8 tape it was played on TV. They knew about the Pellicano-Rothman tape and they
said that only proved that MJ negotiated with Chandler, so it was not extortion. What a joke.
How on earth could someone prove extortion if not by getting the extortionist to talk about money?
The very fact that Chandler wanted to negotiate should have been a red flag itself. Who negotiates with a molester?

And obviously of the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney releases an announcement about it then it was not a civil lawsuit.

Yes but I wanted to know whether there was a civil suit as well as usually countersue refers to that, a civil response to a civil lawsuit
like when MJ countersued the Neverland 5.

Yet, the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Michael Montagna reasoned their failure to properly investigate Chandler for extortion saying something like that is "encouraged by the law". You cannot make this up. LOL.

WTF??

Never heard of Montagna before. Do you have the source for this statement?

Mj should have counter sued them for extortion. Standard practice nowadays. That audio recording makes chandler sound as guilty as hell. Sneddon and co were hand in glove with the chandlers the same as the arvizos.they were hardly gonna investigate and prosecute the very people they were working with to bring down mj


Yes that's why I wonder why MJ didn't sue them while also reporting extortion to the police.
One doesn't rule out the other.

What makes this case particularly insane is that both sides claimed they were victims.
But there is no proof of molestation at all, just the words of the alleged victim.
While there is actual proof of extortion, the Chandler's own admission in their own book
combined with the July 8 tape and the Rotham-Pellicano tape. It's not just MJ's and Pellicano's words.

And still the one who is generally perceived to be the victim is Jordan Chandler.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
respect77;4187467 said:
Again, why don't you read more carefully before you ask questions? I provided the source. It's Lisa Campbell's book The King of Pop's Darkest Hour.

I meant the original source, Campbell didn't name it. I don't take her word for it. Unfortunately non fans don't accept Campbell as a credible source they just dismiss her as another fan so I don't refer to her book during arguments.
Anyway, thanks for the article.

Google shows articles but usually not sources like video or audio files of interviews or press conferences
like there are videos of Larry Feldman, Pellicano, Liz Taylor, Sneddon, Paul Baresi, the Quindoys and others involved in the case.
Those are the best sources to prove your points.

respect77;4187467 said:
That's a tricky thing because the Chandlers were very savvy legally and Evan and Rothman made sure not to straight up accuse MJ

And they had to know that MJ didn't want to negotiate at all after all he didn't pay, not even 1 million and
he threw in that ridiculous 350 000 dollar "offer" which was clearly proof that he was never serious about paying anything.
Montagna had to know that! He had to know that the whole "negotiation" was only about getting Rothman on tape
talking about money so MJ would have evidence that this was extortion.
No one in the media asked Montagna if this was not extortion but MJ was guilty and so he was willing to pay
to silence Chandler then why are we here talking about this case at all? Why didn't he pay to silence him?
No one asked him if this was not extortion why didn't Chandler go to the police before MJ refused to pay him?

Montagna also said the discussions between Jackson's representatives and Barry K. Rothman, the attorney for the boy's father at that time, appeared to be attempts to settle a possible civil case, not efforts to extort money.
"It's not a crime for attorneys to try to settle a civil action," Montagna said. "The law actually favors trying to settle actions without going to court."

And according to Montagna if MJ had paid this is how it would have gone down:

Chandler: Just so you know, even if you pay we will still go to the police and accuse you and ruin you.
MJ: OK but I least I won't have to deal with a civil lawsuit so I want to negotiate.

Makes no sense whatsoever.


respect77;4187467 said:
These prosecutors should be ashamed of themselves and their bias. They weren't even willing to properly investigate Michael's extortion claims.

And the rednecks at the LAPD and SBDS were just as biased. This is one of many signs:

The Goldsteins were questioned by investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department in 1993 when abuse allegations were first made against Jackson.

It was a short conversation. Lynn Goldstein told the Post, "They said, 'We have a victim, we believe him, and we're going to get [Jackson]. He fits the profile.' I didn't like that. I wanted to know what evidence they had."

Lynn Goldstein was adamant about their vacation and told the investigators that "nothing improper ever happened, the kids slept in their own room in the Goldstein suite on a separate floor from Jackson's, and Jackson never once tried to get the guys alone."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...dstein-0801-20130801-story.html#ixzz33YAEvlyL

Then there is Rush Birchim's and Linden's and Neglia's interview with Corey Feldman and Jason Francia,
then Jim Thomas' statement that they didn't find evidence because someone knew about the raid beforehand and eliminated
everything, Robel's and Zelis' interview with Arvizo, their trips to Australia and Canada.
Scott Ross was right MJ wasn't investigated he was targeted.

respect77;4187467 said:
Not only was he required to report his suspicions to the proper authorities, but he could not be sued for doing so even if they turned out to be incorrect.”

funny. He didn't report his suspicions to the proper authorities. That would have been calling child services like that school official did after the Bashir doc had aired. Instead Chandler demanded 20 million, then 1 million in exchange of not reporting anything to anyone!

respect77;4187467 said:
And further, that Evan, as a dentist, was a mandatory reporter governed by the same requirements as any licensed health professional.

So they say Evan broke the law when he failed to report Jordan's molestation after the July 16 "confession" and instead negotiated
with the molester?
 
Last edited:

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Funny how tabloids like Radar Online or the National Enquirer are good sources for "non fans" but an 1994 LA Times article that reported about the case in real time isn't. Now only video or audio files are good enough sources. Alright.
Sad. This is the story that I remember reading in the paper at the time-the one I referred to on the last page.
I didn't remember all the details, but I do remember them saying they weren't going to prosecute the extortion case. It seems unless the LA's DAs office felt like they had an iron clad case, they just wouldn't prosecute. I remember thinking that the tape could be read many different ways, although it always seemed like extortion from the get-go to me.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

What is an "iron-clad" case then? They prosecuted MJ based on the words of just one boy. They issued a great number of search warrants just based on the words of one boy (MJ's own premises, his family's premises in Encino, hotel in Las Vegas, Klein's and Hoefflin's offices - and then some dozens of search warrants in 2005). I wouldn't say any of those were "iron-clad" cases either. They were just based on the claims of one boy.

I know by law they have to prosecute a child abuse allegation and I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with their refusal to seriously prosecute Chandler for extorion. I wonder if they ever read the Chandlers' 2004 book then and if they felt dumb then because that clearly shows an extortion. And even if the tape "could be read in many different ways" they could have at least investigated.

What Montagna says is simply not true. How can it be just settlement negotiations when there wasn't even a civil suit filed when MJ filed for extortion charges? Since when attempts by the Chandlers to offer MJ money in exchange of them not going to criminal authorities can be in any way characterized as settlement talks that are encouraged by the law? No, they aren't. They are actually against the law. If it is a false allegation, as it is, then it IS extortion, period. If it would have been a true allegation then it would have been an attempt at corrupting justice. In no way would that be legal, let alone "encouraged by the law". That's BS and that law enforcement used this excuse to not prosecute Chander shows their bias in this case from the get go.

And BTW, those prosecutors were a bit too chummy with the Chandler side. The lawyer who defended Chandler against the extortion charges, Richard Hirsh was a good friend of Los Angeles Deputy DA, Lauren Weis - according to the Chandlers own book.
oh no, I agree 100% with you. I meant that the DA's office implied that the tape could be read many different ways and therefore couldn't be prosecuted.
Using Murray as an iron clad case-by his own taped story to the police and what they discovered from the people he talked to on the phone, the charges should have been 2nd degree murder. But they went with involuntary manslaughter bc they had a stronger case for a conviction. Now that I'm more aware of it, I see cases plead down or not charged.
However-
Michael's cases were all a travesty of justice and civil rights. The things I've only learned in the last 7 years (bc of gag orders and mainstream newspaper spin) have been nauseating. A witch hunt from the beginning that I don't understand unless they were so eager to attach themselves to his celebrity and therefore make a name for themselves in the process.
I think that's why I'm so extra angry at the cases now and question why Beckloff continues to give these guys repeated chances to amend, etc.
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Funny how tabloids like Radar Online or the National Enquirer are good sources for "non fans" but an 1994 LA Times article that reported about the case in real time isn't. Now only video or audio files are good enough sources. Alright.

Yes, people are so logical when it comes to MJ. They believe that disturbing child porn was found is historical fact because it's in some headline but when I show them the actual police report which stated 15 times that no child porn was found they say it's fake.

Once I confronted an idiot who cited a Daily Mail article about Pellicano supposedly finding evidence of MJ's guilt and telling MJ: if I find out you are guilty I will **** you over. I showed him an LA Times article which quoted Pellicano after he resigned in 1993 stating that MJ was innocent, so obviously he didn't **** him over. He totally disregarded it and kept believing the Daily Mail junk, like it made sense that MJ would hire Pellicano in the first place if he was guilty and would want him to interview the boys after he threatened to **** him over and it made sense that Pellicano has this smoking gun evidence but somehow noone else knows about it, not the LAPD, not Sneddon, not the media, not the FBI. :crazy

Even when I show video evidence, like Culkin's interview on Larry King where he
defended MJ they came up with excuses, like "an emotionally disturbed drug addict is not a good source".
But at least if I have video or audio they cannot deny that someone in fact said those things.

How can it be just settlement negotiations when there wasn't even a civil suit filed when MJ filed for extortion charges?

They could say it was like the Francia settlement. There was no lawsuit actually filed because MJ paid
following a threat to file a lawsuit.
But that doesn't matter because the Chandlers admitted if MJ had paid he would have prevented the criminal investigation
so they cannot claim that if MJ had paid they still would have gone to the police.


I remember thinking that the tape could be read many different ways, although it always seemed like extortion from the get-go to me.

Evan said those things on July 8 1993.
It's a fact that Jordan didn't accuse MJ of anything on or before July 8, in fact according to the Chandlers
themselves the first time was on July 16 after his father pressured him to make allegations.

So how did Evan want to "humiliate MJ beyond belief" when his son didn't even accuse him of anything?
How did he want to "torture" MJ and June?
When he said if I go through with THIS I win big time what did THIS mean?
When he said everything is going according to a certain plan that is not just mine there are other people
involved, what kind of plan was he talking about?

Imagine Evan Chandler on the stand , how do you think he would have answered those questions?

Doesn't matter whether he actually used the word molestation, it's clear to everyone that's what he
was referring to. Dave Schwarz knew it, Pellicano knew it, MJ knew it. That's why Jordan was
interviewed in MJ's condo on July 9 and was asked if MJ ever did anything sexual with him,
if he was ever naked in front of him etc.

The July 8 tape is proof that Evan invented the molestation allegations and he got help
from others to put together that story. We know one of them was Gutierrez and the police
had to know that too because they interviewed him within a few days after Dr. Abrams triggered
an investigation. Why did they interview him of all people? This obscure scribe from Chile , why did
they think he was relevant in any way? What did they do with the information he gave them?
You think it would have been so difficult to find out the connection between Chandler and Gutierrez?
Sneddon, Weiss, Garcetti all knew about this NAMBLA member creep and his efforts to convince
employees and parents to accuse MJ. They just ignored it.

Also, Evan admitted in his book that he imagined various sex acts between his son and MJ and
those very same sex acts were the ones Jordan later alleged. This book was ready to be published
in Feb 1994 (we know it from Judith Regan). The DA had to know about this book or should have known
about it and use it as evidence against Chandler. But they didn't even raid his home or office. Just a monstrous
injustice.
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

You need to stop wasting your time with some people as you cannot reason with stupidity.

Once I realize it's futile I forget about them but you can never know who is persuadable. Sometimes I ran into people who changed their mind once I showed the evidence. Sometimes I'm just curious what on earth they believe that makes them think MJ was guilty.
I met someone who believed MJ actually admitted molestation in the settlement document.
Someone who managed to discover an erection in MJ's home videos while he was playing with the Culkins.
Someone who said MJ was hiding an erection with a pillow on that photo where he and Emmanuel Lewis are on the bed.
(Phantom erection is solid proof!)
Someone who said they found child porn in Neverland AFTER MJ died.
Someone who said Riley saying she loved MJ means MJ molested her.
Someone who thought MJ went to Bahrain after 2005 because there child sex crimes are overlooked.
Someone who said MJ's nephews at that 3T photoshoot were 11 to 25 years old.
Someone who said of course they didn't show his child porn in the media! It's ILLEGAL! (Yes she used caps to emphasize that and still failed to realize that MJ was never charged for having this ILLEGAL stuff) :coockoo:

All kind of bullshit. If it wasn't tragic it would be funny.

It's not a civil lawsuit they threatened MJ with during those "negotiations".
This is not about a civil lawsuit:
Obviously any kind of complaint against MJ would include a criminal investigation. .

That's why I said they admitted by paying MJ would have prevented the investigation therefor the negotiations couldn't possibly be only about preventing a civil lawsuit. It's just there is no need to actually file a lawsuit to get a settlement so asking how could all that talk about money be about
settling the civil claims when there wasn't even a civil lawsuit at that time is not the proper question.

Regarding the criminal investigation being over, they said if Jordan changes his mind they may charge MJ.
However they never explained why they didn't arrest and charge MJ before June 1994 when Jordan was still cooperating.
They had no new evidence after June 1994, they already had Jordan's story what difference would it have made if Jordan had agreed to testify?
He agreed to testify for almost a year, what prevented them from charging MJ? (They knew they would lose in court but of course they refused to admit that.)

I also wonder what they would have done if after Sept 1994 Francia had told them I will testify in a criminal court.
They cannot use the payoff excuse with him, the Francias didn't get any money in 1994. They never bothered to explain why Francia didn't testify to those grand juries in Feb and March 1994. (Of course we know why he didn't, but their silence about this issue shows further bias.)

Nothing about the DAs actions and statements make sense unless one accepts that they just didn't have a case against MJ, despite
the raids, 400 interviews, strip search, grand juries, taxpayer founded trip to Australia.

12 more months to defame MJ in the online and tabloid press. Plus an opportunity to take the time period almost to 25 years (a whole quarter century) since Michael (and now his poor departed soul) started to be dragged through the mud for money.

Fortunately not everyone is buying his crap, look who is second on the US Itunes chart as we speak:

book2.jpg



Yuup another 12 months to make that $$$$$$$ while smearing his name....and then Plan B........ a slimy "tell-all book".

He already tried that and it didn't work. Why would he have more success with publishers after his case is dismissed?
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

So what are you actually arguing here for? That the prosecution was right not to properly investigate Chandler and just drop the extortion charges? Is that what you argue for?

Not at all. How did you reach that conclusion when I said the July 8 tape and the Chandlers' admission prove it was extortion?
The police knew about the July 8 tape, they knew about Jordan's admission to the DCFS:

"Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for (the boy's father) and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing."

He didn't say avoid a civil lawsuit or civil trial but avoid a court hearing. That is civil and criminal court.
The very fact that they didn't go to the police after the July 16 "confession" rather they wanted to negotiate with
the "molester" should have been enough of a red flag to investigate them for extortion since if the negotiations had been
only about getting damages without the hassle of a lawsuit one can do that after a criminal investigation started too.
But no, they first were only interested in getting money and only after MJ refused to pay did they go to the police (indirectly through Dr. Abrams that is).

The circumstances make it very clear that this was NOT a settlement negotiation that is encouraged by the law.

Yes, what I'm saying is that the lack of an actual lawsuit in Aug 1993 is not one of those circumstances therefore the question
"how could it be about settling the civil case when there wasn't even a civil lawsuit prepared yet" is a strawman
There is no need for a lawsuit to negotiate about money one should pay to prevent a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

This is why I still hold Jordan responsible for all this and he MUST CONFESS he LIED before he leave this earth and to save his soul. His LIE is what lead to MJ going down this path that finally help kill MJ. This is what LIES and that thing called a TONGUE do. Never say never to those who say Jordan will never did it, he MUST one day and he will never be at peace (look, his nonsense keep coming up even with Wade and others trying to bank off his lies). I will believe in God this will happen because I have seen it happen to others. And just recently, the woman who accused Emmitt Til of looking at her and whistling at her that caused this teenager to be MURDERED in the 1950's by white men who believed her and they were let go even though they admitted they killed Emmitt (whites were not convicted of killings blacks in that era) which also helped kicked of the civil rights has FINALLY ADMITTED SHE LIED after all of these years last year. Her words did damage and she is now 80 years old and her soul would not rest until she did it.
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
respect77;4187769 said:
Oh I know it it comes down to "only my arguments are great, everyone else's points suck", as usual.

Regarding this issue I do not consider that particular argument effective, that's it. Does one have to accept all of your arguments? I didn't ignore what you said about the Francia lawsuit I said it doesn't matter whether there is a prepared lawsuit or not, one can still negotiate to settle civil claims. Do you deny that?
Jordan's statement can mean BOTH civil and criminal court and that's precisely the point. It raises a red flag.
If he had said "to make a settlement to avoid a lawsuit" that could indicate the monetary demand was to get damages without the hassle of the civil proceedings but "to make a settlement AND avoid a court hearing" indicates they didn't want to go to any court at all. And it's not just this statement it's also the July 8 tape and the fact that they didn't go to the police until after they failed to get money from MJ but I made that clear before so why did you ignore it? It's a combination of factors which proves extortion not just one thing. Except the lack of an actual lawsuit is not one of those factors. It's irrelevant.

Actually there was talk about a civil lawsuit as Evan Chandler told Barry Rothman to file a complaint against MJ if the negotiations do not yield anything. It's in his Aug 5 letter to Rothman. Gutierrez published it in his book. It's the same handwriting as the "mushroom" document. It also includes a letter from Rothman to Pellicano on Aug 17 1993:

I appreciate your meeting with me in my offices at 12:35 p.m. on
Friday, August 13 1993 on behalf of your client Mr. Michael Jackson
whereby to settle and release all civil claims our clients have a right to
assert against your client
, you offered to our clients, Dr. Evan Chandler
and Jordan Chandler on behalf of your client the sum of $350 000
in respect to a development deal whereby our clients would author
a motion picture theatrical screenplay to be potentionally produced into
a motion picture.



respect77;4187769 said:
BTW, you don't seem to know what a strawman argument actually is ("an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument"). You may say it is an incomplete argument but a strawman argument it is not. Learn the meaning of a term before you use it.


A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent

We negotiated because we wanted to settle our civil claims.
But you didn't even have a civil complaint or even hire Feldman.
We never said we did. We said we negotiated to settle the civil claims so there would be no need for an actual lawsuit. And we already had Rotham.
But you didn't even hire Feldman yet and you didn't have a lawsuit prepared.

Typical straw man.

“His speech had emotional appeal, but it wasn't really convincing because he attacked a straw man rather than addressing the real issues.”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/strawman?s=t

Whether there was a lawsuit filed or ready to be filed in Aug 1993 is not the real issue, not the least because Evan did tell Rothman to file a complaint if MJ refuses to pay. As for settling civil claims without an actual complaint:

A settlement, as well as dealing with the dispute between the parties is a contract between those parties, and is one possible (and common) result when parties sue (or contemplate so doing) each other in civil proceedings.

The contract is based upon the bargain that a party forgoes its ability to sue (if it has not sued already),



respect77;4187775 said:
The letter is quoting Penal Codes and also notes a health practitioner's obligation to report this "to the required agency". None of this is civil lawsuit talk. They are talking about criminal penal codes, not a civil lawsuit settlement. The police did have this letter at the time, so there is no excuse for considering these as "civil lawsuit settlement" negotiations.

They knew about the July 8 tape too, they just didn't give a ****. Of course they knew it wasn't just about settling civil claims.
Citing the Abrams letter is a good argument because it supports the underlying question about Chandler's behavior which points to extortion: why didn't you report child abuse to the authorities , why did you go to the police only after MJ refused to pay?
 
Last edited:

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
respect77;4188162 said:
And I don't consider this any more very effective. In reality, anyone seeing that full quote will say "but Jordan is clearly talking about a settlement so this seems to be about a civil court hearing". But whatever Redfrog. If you think this is an awesome argument go ahead thinking that. After all you also thought claiming MJ was asexual (which is probably not even true) would be the way to defend him in court and that Mesereau was stupid for not using your awesome asexuality defense.

Sure, anyone can add "civil" and change "and" to "to" but that doesn't change what he actually said, which could mean both civil and criminal court therefore it's enough to question him: if MJ had paid you wouldn't have tried to put him in jail? You sound like I said this is the smoking gun evidence, it's not. It's just one piece which raises a red flag, unlike them not having a lawsuit in Aug 1993, which is irrelevant.

I didn't say Mez was stupid not to argue that MJ was asexual per se. I said he should have explained why MJ went without having an adult partner while sharing beds with boys for weeks or even months . IMHO that was because he had little interest in having sex with anyone, there could be other explanations, whatever it was should have been given to try to prevent this:

The jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez, said jurors were "very troubled" that Jackson, by his own admission, had overnight sleepovers with children in his bed.

But Rodriguez, a 63-year-old retired high school counselor from Santa Maria, said jurors were instructed by the judge to base their verdicts on the facts of the case, not "our beliefs or our own personal thoughts."

"We would hope ... that he doesn't sleep with children anymore," Rodriguez said on CNN. "He just has to be careful how he conducts himself around children."

Later, in an interview on "Larry King Live," Hultman said he believes Jackson "probably has molested boys."

"I can't believe that this man could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn," he said. "I mean that doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't make him guilty of the charges that were presented in this case and that's where we had to make our decision."

Rodriguez said jurors did find credible some of the testimony relating to past child molestation allegations against Jackson, which prosecutors were allowed to introduce to try to prove a pattern of behavior.

But he said that testimony wasn't enough to overcome the jury's doubts about the facts in current case.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/14/jackson.trial/

I can't believe you keep denying the elephant in the room.
The vast majority think that sharing a bed with an unrelated kid for weeks is sexual and the vast majority think that men want sex on a fairly regular basis. They add those two together and conclude MJ was a pedo. It's probably the most commonly used argument against him. You leave it unchallenged and you risk getting a hung jury and/or wishy washy post-trial statements by the jurors or in a civil court risk getting 9 liable verdicts. That's it.

And while you can have your fantasies about secret lovers the fact remains there's proof of only one sexual relationship and even she said this:

Lisa Marie Presley GQ interview

Q: Did you feel physically for him?

A: Of course, I wouldn't have married him at the time if I hadn't. It wasn't instinctive to me right off the bat. He needed to make that overture because I wasn't going to.

Q: He's a fairly unappealing guy physically.

A: He's somewhat asexual but he can be whatever he wants to be when he wants to be.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mich...presley-on-michael-gq-interview/434751559816/

So probably it is true.


respect77;4188162 said:
I am sure Rothman was careful to deliberately use these words in letters - because they wanted these extortion attempts to look like settlement talks. I would think the purpose of such letters was exactly that: to create paperwork to back-up the claim that these were supposedly settlement talks. Doesn't mean the police has to accept their one-sided claim for that (which they apparently did, ignoring every other factor).

I agree that both Evan and Rothman pretended it was about a civil settlement only but you said they didn't even talk about filing a complaint and it's just not true. You said Feldman wasn't even hired yet, when that doesn't matter at all. Rotham was already hired and could have filed a complaint. And Evan Chandler instructed Rothman to file a lawsuit if the negotiations go nowhere. From his Aug 5 letter:

I would like you to continue to negotiate with Mr. Pellicano, but if those negotiations are
not successful, then as your client I am instructing you to file a complaint against Michael
Jackson for the sexual assault against my son.


We don't disagree at all regarding the Abrams letter. The police had enough evidence to suspect extortion and the Abrams letter is among that evidence.

And yes that explanation is ridiculous indeed. And this whole "they were in love" stuff reeks of Gutierrez's influence. That or it just happens that Evan also considered molestation a consensual affair. I guess MJ brainwashed him too.
I don't know what it is with people constantly talking about these boys as somehow going along with molestation it's actually quite disturbing and shows who the real perverts are. This statement by that crooked Cook for example just blows my mind:

“No doubt in my mind whatsoever, that boy was molested, and I also think he enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson’s toy,” Cook said on MSNBC’s “Rita Cosby: Live and Direct.”
http://www.today.com/popculture/2-jurors-say-they-regret-jacksons-acquittal-wbna8880663

This sicko 80 year old bitch was sitting on MJ's jury. And people wonder why in 1994 he thought he would not get a fair trial.


ILoveHIStory;4188266 said:
Obviously you dont read Daily Fail, the Fun or other British tab mags.
Good luck.


Not even they bothered to report this new trial date story. I found four articles about it on Google and that's it.
And I checked the comments in one the one which got the most likes, 79 actually, said if I was found not guilty I would not want to be hounded for years after that especially not when I am dead.
Another one with 37 likes was "this case is going nowhere, the article itself says it will likely to die at summary judgement."
 
Last edited:

MJJCommunity

Staff
Joined
Jan 30, 2001
Messages
146
Points
18
All the facts, all the happenings - this thread is solely for discussion of the allegations of 1993.
 

redfrog

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
947
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

Based on this quote by Jordan there is nothing to say it weren't civil lawsuit settlement talks - in fact, he says exactly that they were. You have to actually look at other evidence to see how that is not true. So if anything is irrelevant proving that these weren's civil settlement talks then it is the quote by Jordan that you cited.

Yes there is as his words can mean if they had reached a civil settlement they wouldn't have gone to court at all and they also prove they only reported MJ to authorities after they failed to get money from him. The objective is to prove that contrary to what the Chandlers claimed they wouldn't have reported molestation if MJ had paid so negotiating about money was not merely to settle a civil claim. And Jordan's words clearly suggest: we are here now because he didn't pay. You think that's not a red flag?



Oh God, you don't want to go on and on and on about this BS all over again, do you? No, in my opinion the only two option isn't that he was either a child molester or asexual.

You started the BS again by claiming that I argued Tom Mez was wrong not to deploy the awesome asexual defense which is simply not true. I argued he was wrong not to explain what MJ's real sex life or lack thereof was. I believe he was asexual because the evidence adds up to that more than anything else but if he was not then that should have been explained.
You keep attacking a strawman, I didn't say that those are the only two options. I said repeatedly it's just one possible explanation.

You talk like I agree with those jurors I don't. But in a trial like that you anticipate the likely reaction of the jurors to a man sharing a bed with boys for months while not having adult companions will be that he is into boys and as a lawyer you should try everything to dispel that notion.

Not refuting that BS about the 365 days was another mistake Tom Mez made. Mj's schedule alone makes it clear
that was not possible. But MJ did share a bed with Brett countless times (his words) while he had no known adult partner.
You really think it was a good idea not to explain why MJ didn't consider sharing a bed with boys sexual, not to explain
why he could go for months in a row without having sex with anyone?

As for the porn yeah possibly they may not understand so let's not even try to convince them, right?
If you remember I was the one who pointed out that asexuality is not black or white it's a spectrum.
Bottom line : whatever MJ was should have been explained instead of leaving the jury with the impression: he sleeps with boys he has no adult partner r-go he is a pedo. I don't see why you would want any juror to go away with that on their mind.

LMP is talking about his physical appearance being asexual.

Lisa simply says she looked at him in a non-sexual way initially, not that MJ's sexual orientation was asexual.

Now that's certainly a speculative argument you supposedly don't favor.
She said he IS somewhat asexual (that's not initially which would refer to something that ended in the past) but he can be whatever he wants to be when he wants to be., clearly she is talking about MJ's behavior not how she became sexually attracted to him after his physical appearance was no longer asexual. What does that even mean? I never heard anyone's appearance being described as asexual. Did MJ's appearance supposedly flip-flop between asexual to sexual? His physical appearance was pretty much the same between 1992-1995 anyway.

You also talked about possible secret lovers and even prostitutes in the past which is totally speculative and not supported by any evidence and you said just because we don't know about other sexual relationships does not mean he didn't have any. Yeah possibly, but it's far too speculative while the actual available evidence clearly shows that he never had sexual relationship with anyone but Lisa.
 
Last edited:

InvincibleMJ

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
2,760
Points
48
Castor, I see after two years you once again can't control yourself so you discuss your weak asexual theory in three different threads now. Why can't you just let it go? Even MJ fans find many flaws in this theory yet you think it was going to work with the jury or with haters when there is no evidence to back this up and many ways to easily debunk it?

And of course your inconsistency once again showing in the other thread

So how come noone ever found anything where he expressed attraction toward boys
but there are several examples where he expressed attraction toward girls and women?

And your addition of "girls" to the last sentence is creepy but at least you have a winning argument :smilerolleyes:
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,935
Points
63
We don't have 'evidence' of him having sex with anyone.. Correct me if I am wrong, the only person that both parties indeed stated they 'consummated' was Michael and Debbie.. and that I am not 100% sure Debbie directly stated..

If we are going by people stating they had sex with Michael than the list grows... Of course I 100% believe that Lisa and Michael had a real sexual relationship..


Whatever the case, just because his sex life was ambiguous, that does not mean he did not have a hetero sexual adult thinking sex drive.. That simply means questions and interoperations are left open.. My view, when you read between the lines, it's obvious that Michael lusted women and had sexual relations with women... Someone's eyes have to be covered pretty well not to see it...
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,442
Points
83
respect77;4188574 said:
I could say the exact same thing about your statements. I didn't say what I said was the smoking gun evidence (I am only talking about things the police should have picked up on), but when you realize there wasn't even a civil complaint filed yet when MJ filed his extortion claim, you just have to pick up on that (far from it being "irrelevant" or a "strawman") and take a deeper look into what was actually going on with that. THEN it can lead you to all the other evidence about what those "negotiations" were actually all about. Your argument is actually weaker than that. Based on this quote by Jordan there is nothing to say it weren't civil lawsuit settlement talks - in fact, he says exactly that they were. You have to actually look at other evidence to see how that is not true. So if anything is irrelevant proving that these weren's civil settlement talks then it is the quote by Jordan that you cited.



Oh God, you don't want to go on and on and on about this BS all over again, do you? No, in my opinion the only two option isn't that he was either a child molester or asexual. You seem to agree with the jury about that fallacy the way you keep going on about this. (And they are even wrong about it being 365 days straight). People believe a lot of nonsense which isn't true. Jury members aren't immune to that either. For example, you have just quoted another jury member in your post about another nonsense about how boys "enjoyed to some degree being Michael Jackson’s toy".

And haters love to go on about these quotes by the jury members about the past allegations but it is actually not too relevant what the jury thought of past allegations because the only other case that was presented to them in its totality was Jason Francia - and they laughed him out too and Rodruguez said they didn't believe him either, in fact he compared Jason Francia to Janet Arvizo. So the two accusers that they heard about in detail (Arvizo, Francia) - they rejected them. They only heard about the Chandler case very minimally, just scratching the surface and no substantial stuff, so I don't care what they think about the Chandler case when they didn't know all the facts about that case, only very minimal stuff. Their opinion about that case is irrelevant then. The "365 nights straight" crap is about Brett but they cannot convict anyone for the alleged molestation of a person who says he wasn't molested at all.




LMP is talking about his physical appearance being asexual. That's what the question was about: MJ's physical appearance, not his sexual orientation. In fact, in the full context she is talking about how MJ had to be the initiator of sex between them (a very asexual thing to do) because she didn't have sexual feelings for him. Lisa simply says she looked at him in a non-sexual way initially, not that MJ's sexual orientation was asexual. But let's just ignore the context and grab one word out of it.

I am simply not in favour of using arguments for MJ which are far from being proven and are far too speculative - in this case that he was asexual. Such an argument might as well have backfired - with the Jury thinking it is desperate considering all the adult magazines found in his possession. Yes, I know you argue that asexuals can be interested in porn, but not everyone would find that convincing. The same people who think MJ sleeping in the same bed as kids means he certainly molested them can also have a problem with reconciling the porn magazines with a claim of asexuality.

Mind you, if we really want to get into this asexuality debate all over again, there is even a dispute whether there really is such a thing as asexuality and if there is what it is. Are all people who don't have sex asexual? Do you qualify as asexual if you don't have physical sex but you do have sexual fantasies, you watch porn to get aroused etc? Or are asexuals only the people who do not have any kind of sexual desire whatsoever? As far as I know the term asexual isn't even that clearly defined and there are debates about what it actually means.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Prevalence

So the use of the term way too subjective and shaky to build a defense on that.


For lisa to say that she didnt think michael who was her husband at the time was "not sexually attractive" makes her sound a little werid cuz that is usually why people get married in the place really..
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,935
Points
63
respect.. yes and no in my eyes.. Lisa also said when he doesn't like something to his face he changes it.. 'an artist' that's implying he did more than 2 nose jobs and a cleft.. Mike just went along with it!

I mean I totally believe he 'got it in' lol... but still ambiguous in admission
 

SarahJ

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
2,035
Points
0
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

That's not what she said. She didn't say MJ wasn't sexually attractive to her during their marriage. She said she didn't have an instant sexual attraction to him right off the bat. He had to initiate sex for the sexual attraction to happen on her part.Obviously by the time they got married it was there. She wouldn't have married him otherwise. She said that too.

I can't imagine Lisa Marie as the type to marry any man if she wasn't sexually attracted to him. And I defiantly don't think the man was asexual. The exact opposite actually. I think he "got it in" a lot more than we will ever know to be honest. He owed no-one a blueprint of his sex life and what woman he spelt with when. No-one has a window into MJ's life 24/7 so we really don't know. Just because they weren't made public, doesn't mean they weren't there. And with all the guessing about it from everyone I can see why he kept it so private.

My take on Lisa's statement re: her statement regarding his face as how he likes to change it, she didn't expand on that and we don't really know what she was thinking when she said it so for all we know she could have meant his changes in hair and makeup etc..

I have to admit though I've always wondered about June and whether she and MJ were just platonic or may have gone further. There is a slight whiff of something that I thought was there in the transcripts. I certainly think she was hoping she could get close to him.
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,442
Points
83
Re: [Discussion] Sexual abuse claims against MJ Estate (Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe)

My take on Lisa's statement re: her statement regarding his face as how he likes to change it, she didn't expand on that and we don't really know what she was thinking when she said it so for all we know she could have meant his changes in hair and makeup etc...


I think she got annoyed how everyone was constantly giving michael ish for getting plastic surgery i mean im sure she knows bit bout plastic surgery.... her mother got it but yet she not getting so much ish for it like michael did
 

SarahJ

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2014
Messages
2,035
Points
0
True. There are celebrities who have had far more than he ever did and yet he gets singled out.
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,935
Points
63
The way I took Lisa and her words in that interview was from a protective point of view.. Mind set of Michael does not stand up for himself tough enough, I'm jumping on this.. It was apparent they had a connection and she has an aggressive (not saying in a bad way) side that can be protective yet take people off guard..
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,442
Points
83
but what got me so confused tough at time though was how the media got so mad at lisa for standing up for michael in that interview and looking back on it noW im thinking its like "well duh he is her husband of course she gonna stick up for him!" . Then when she went on her little rampage against michael the media were like lierally begging egging her on to do so......i will never understand how the media has become so evil
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,935
Points
63
^ Society in general got more and more jaded these past couple decades.. It's all about feeding the social beast! It's about getting news at our fingers at all times, that means more news stories needed ie. they have to dig more.. come up with more.. we need news NOW at all times.. and it's harder to shock people so the stories become more and more outlandish
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Just referencing a new article here, to say that a) it is very long, b) it seems to be an excuse to print sections from various books and tabloid articles (the Editor’s Note references: biography by J. Randy Taraborelli, as well as reports by The Washington Post, BBC News, ABC News, New York Daily News, and quotes from Carrie Fisher. c) The article seems to aim to 'sit on the fence', in order to attract online responses. d) the writer seems neither well informed about the cases nor interested in MJ.)

The Unsolved Controversies of Michael Jackson: Decades later, the accusations against the King of Pop remain a mystery

It ends (to show up one obvious glaring inaccuracy...the 'best of this writer's research' is really not very good at all!):

'To the best of this writer’s research, that brings the total number of accusations to four: Jordie Chandler, Gavin Arizo, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, and in each case, the evidence is sparse, even contradictory. What are we to make of this mess?'


The facts of the case are consistent with Michael Jackson as a serial molester with good lawyers who successfully smeared his innocent victims. After all, he could surely purchase a smear campaign with the reported $5 million he spent on his 2003 trial alone. Even if you’re feeling generous, the best you can say of the pop star is that he behaved in an inappropriate manner with dozens of children over more than 10 years.

But with only four exceptions, those dozens of children have told a different story. To the police, to the press, and to the courts, only four of the many children who have shared a bed with Jackson claimed that they were molested. Evan Chandler’s behavior — involving lawyers before police, using the drug sodium Amytal, gloating about bringing Jackson down — undermines Jordie’s story. And the Arvizo family, with their previous lawsuit against J.C. Penney’s, and their decision to hire the same lawyer and psychiatrist that had won $20 million for the Chandlers, are even more problematic. With Safechuck and Robson, who can know after such a long time? The facts of the case are consistent with Jackson as a victim of blackmail.

So which is it? Innocent? Guilty? Somewhere in between? We’ll never know, and that’s why Michael Jackson’s story is important.

There is a tendency with true crime to want to play amateur detective; to pull out our magnifying glass, put on Sherlock’s hat, and reach our own conclusions. “Truth will out,” says the Bard, but that’s not actually true. Facts have a habit of slipping through the fingers. The media is inconsistent, and it is possible to be well-informed and still be wrong.

Michael Jackson is guilty. Michael Jackson is innocent. He’s both at the same time, an antidote to convictions and certainty. We must content ourselves with being stuck in the dark, tripping over unanswered questions, surrounded by all that we do not understand.

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/04/the-unsolved-controversies-of-michael-jackson/

There is a long 'correction' comment from 'CharlieM, who begins their comments:
This is a stange mish mash of facts, misinformation, innuendo and myths.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
myosotis;4193006 said:
The Unsolved Controversies of Michael Jackson

Decades later, the accusations against the King of Pop remain a mystery

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/04/the-unsolved-controversies-of-michael-jackson/

There is a long 'correction' comment from 'CharlieM, who begins their comments:
This is a stange mish mash of facts, misinformation, innuendo and myths.

exactly, we should comment this article, even its a mish mash of facts, its great to see videos of Chandler recording, Carrie Fisher memories, but the article missed another Fisher: The Defining 1994 GQ Article by Mary A. Fischer That Sets The Record Straight on the 1993 Allegations - https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2...-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

“After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Michael Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found.”

Newsday, 1993,

“No hard evidence had been gathered from the hundreds of papers, photographs and videotapes seized during the raids on Jackson’s Neverland home and Century City apartment.”

The Times, 1993

Having spent much of last week watching Jackson’s videotape collection, officers admitted they could not find no proof there of child sex abuse.”

The Times, 1993

“On Monday, police searched another property used by Jackson, a three-bedroom flat at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, but after 30 minutes the officers left empty-handed.”

The Times, 1993

“The Los Angeles Police Department raided his Neverland home in the Santa Ynez Valley, confiscating videos and photographs that Jackson has taken of children. The LAPD report that they have all turned out to be totally innocent. Many of the children that Jackson has befriended, including Home Alone star Macauley Culkin, have been questioned by police and have testified that their relationship was perfectly innocent. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of children have visited the star’s home. The allegations centre on the evidence of just one boy.”

The Daily Telegraph, 1993

“The source, who asked not to be identified said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of secually abusing him. “The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description, the source said.”

Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation, and there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case.

Reuters, 1994

<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/97008929" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lets comment the article! lets post links to the pics about the real conspirators...
 
Last edited:

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,442
Points
83
exactly, we should comment this article, even its a mish mash of facts, its great to see videos of Chandler recording, Carrie Fisher memories, but the article missed another Fisher: The Defining 1994 GQ Article by Mary A. Fischer That Sets The Record Straight on the 1993 Allegations - https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2...-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

















Lets comment the article! lets post links to the pics about the real conspirators...



Do you have another link i could use to watch that video? my computer is being an ahole!!!!!!!!
 
Top