Debates with the public

[barbee0715]

I'm glad nobody copies over YouTube because I've been in a few ridiculous fights myself there.

Speaking of, for the last two weeks I've had this troll going after me on Discus.
Every other day I get some wierd message from him on posts I made over 6 months ago. He thinks he's tracked me down and posted somebody else's information. He's either really sick in the head, or a 14 year old boy.

 

[HIStory]

I'm glad nobody copies over YouTube because I've been in a few ridiculous fights myself there.

Speaking of, for the last two weeks I've had this troll going after me on Discus.
Every other day I get some wierd message from him on posts I made over 6 months ago. He thinks he's tracked me down and posted somebody else's information. He's either really sick in the head, or a 14 year old boy.

Sounds like those MJfacts/Twitter haters. Those are the types that are doing psycho things like that.

 

[HIStoric]

Speaking of, for the last two weeks I've had this troll going after me on Discus.
Every other day I get some wierd message from him on posts I made over 6 months ago. He thinks he's tracked me down and posted somebody else's information. He's either really sick in the head, or a 14 year old boy.

Seriously... some people actually need to get a life. Personally I'd try to ignore comments on YouTube, their comment section is considered a joke for a reason.

 

[MidnightMoonwalk]

^ It's just crazy how these people are even more fanatical than people who call themselves fans. That's why I usually mark them down (or click thumbs down or whatever), flag their comment and move on. On occassion, I say a thing or two, but mostly I prefer not to reward them with my attention.

 

[barbee0715]

Seriously... some people actually need to get a life. Personally I'd try to ignore comments on YouTube, their comment section is considered a joke for a reason.

it's pretty wierd. I haven't been able to always refrain on some of the news articles about the ATV sale(Michael outbidding Paul junk).

And sometimes someone will ask a seemingly innocent question on YouTube. I'll answer and then get attacked so I was set up.
The thing that bothers me is that I used to really learn things from comments-and I figure there are a ton of people not commenting, but just reading-and that forms their opinion of Michael. That's how I came across MJJC. It's hard to let some misconceptions go, unless they're just worded in an obviously baiting way in the first place.

 

[HIStoric]

^ It's just crazy how these people are even more fanatical than people who call themselves fans.

I know right!! I was thinking that earlier. You think I would be the one who was more interested in these allegations, given I'm actually a fan of the guy... but nope.

it's pretty wierd. I haven't been able to always refrain on some of the news articles about the ATV sale(Michael outbidding Paul junk).

And sometimes someone will ask a seemingly innocent question on YouTube. I'll answer and then get attacked so I was set up.
The thing that bothers me is that I used to really learn things from comments-and I figure there are a ton of people not commenting, but just reading-and that forms their opinion of Michael. That's how I came across MJJC. It's hard to let some misconceptions go, unless they're just worded in an obviously baiting way in the first place.

Yeah. Honestly I just gave up arguing with the public like... 5 years ago? Like MidnightMoonwalk said, if I can, I'll upvote/downvote but otherwise, I'll move on.

It might be different if someone I know irl posts about it on Facebook but no-one ever posts about him, if there is one, it's never anything negative (one time though someone was like "Why does Michael Jackson sing about it not mattering if you're black or white, but then goes on to bleach his skin to go white?", I answered the guy and briefly explained he had vitiligo, used makeup at first, got too much so he took stuff to get rid of the pigmentation properly, that his son has it too. Guy was actually being genuine and thanked me, so that was good).

 

[barbee0715]

^^Thats the thing. There are people out there asking genuine questions. And I've learned many things on YouTube regarding concerts, etc.
I just try to avoid allegation talk unless I just dispute something obviously untrue. I get enough trash talking about Michael in my real life for the past 25 years.

 

[Bad7]

*Sigh* The whole 'no innocent person pays money' line is so ignorant. There are quite a few reasons for a settlement as we know, but a huge thing ignored by the general public is if Joe Bloggs is accused of a crime the world doesn't care... yet if a celebrity is accused it's very, very different. They have their reputation to think of as well as sponsors and companies they work for.

For example if Tom Cruise had a new film out early next month, and somebody accused him of a serious crime not long before the premiere, and threatened to go to the media, then what is his likely course of action? It's to settle, provided the amount isn't something ridiculous. It would totally overshadow the premiere and there is no way in a million years the film company, let's say Warner Bros, if they found out, would allow this to become public.

Another example is if somebody tried to extort him of say $2 million, that isn't a huge amount to him. In 2012 Tom Cruise earned $75 million. He's likely to settle isn't he? Reputation, legal fees and the possibility of going to prison for a crime he didn't commit isn't worth all the hassle for such an amount.

Celebrities are hugely vulnerable to extortion. There will be tons and tons of celebrities who have reached civil settlements and been innocent for many different reasons.

The other thing which a lot of these 'nobody pays out' people don't know is the law ENCOURAGES civil suits to be settled out of court. At the time MJ settled his civil suit 95% of all civil suits were settled out of court.


I must add, I can see how somebody could see a settlement as a sign of guilt if they haven't read into the case. People who don't have any interest in MJ have likely read, continuously for years in the media, 'Michael Jackson silenced his 1993 accuser with a pay off'.

The other thing is some don't want to admit 'I was wrong' so will continue to believe their preset notion.

 

[analogue]

I must add, I can see how somebody could see a settlement as a sign of guilt if they haven't read into the case. People who don't have any interest in MJ have likely read, continuously for years in the media, 'Michael Jackson silenced his 1993 accuser with a pay off'.

Which is funny, because the case was settled after news about the accusation leaked into the media. If Michael really was guilty, and wanted to silence The Chandlers, he would have paid them before anything got out into the media.

 

[Bad7]

Which is funny, because the case was settled after news about the accusation leaked into the media. If Michael really was guilty, and wanted to silence The Chandlers, he would have paid them before anything got out into the media.

Indeed. The media don't repeat this (shock horror). It's one of the many faulty points in the Chandlers' case.

 

[Psychoniff]

it's pretty wierd. I haven't been able to always refrain on some of the news articles about the ATV sale(Michael outbidding Paul junk).

And sometimes someone will ask a seemingly innocent question on YouTube. I'll answer and then get attacked so I was set up.
The thing that bothers me is that I used to really learn things from comments-and I figure there are a ton of people not commenting, but just reading-and that forms their opinion of Michael. That's how I came across MJJC. It's hard to let some misconceptions go, unless they're just worded in an obviously baiting way in the first place.

Hey Barbee, you weight in on the heated debate about MJ's music. It will be interesting to hear your opinion.

 

[HIStoric]

Which is funny, because the case was settled after news about the accusation leaked into the media. If Michael really was guilty, and wanted to silence The Chandlers, he would have paid them before anything got out into the media.

Indeed. The media don't repeat this (shock horror). It's one of the many faulty points in the Chandlers' case.

Yeah and generally a settlement is to "silence" someone so nobody in the general public knows about the case... and yet these allegations are amongst the most well-known cases of the '90s.

 

[MJresearcher]

Usually the first thing I'll prove to people is the Evan demanded money from MJ before these claims went public and MJ didn't pay then. If the whole point is to keep someone quiet you will pay before the public find out, not after and the gag order was regarding speaking to the media, not law enforcement. The words from the family in the book are a powerful tool, not only the admission from them about MJ not paying when demanded to but also their admission about MJ trying to get the criminal case dealt with first and the Chandler's doing the opposite. When you can give people doubt from the accusers family it can really make them think unless you're dealing with a bigot. Nothing can help people who will only tolerate one view point.

 

[MJresearcher]

 

[redfrog]

Does anyone know what the source of this is?

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showth...pedophile!?p=26535856&viewfull=1#post26535856

If this was indeed in the DSFC report then this is a giant contradiction in Chandler's story:

When Jackson took the family to Monaco* minor says things “got out of hand.” Minor says MJ
“coerced” him into the bath saying, “This is going to be great, this will be wonderful.”
Minor says MJ orally copulated him there before an awards show.

1. Nowhere in the Gardner interview did he say that MJ told him “This is going to be great, this will be wonderful.”
He actually was quite uncertain:

“In Monaco, he and I both had colds so we couldn't go out on the town or whatever and see
the sights. We had to stay in and that's pretty much when the bad stuff happened."
"What happened?"
"I don't know. I think when he convinced me to take a bath with him or something.

2. Nowhere did he mention any oral sex in Monaco. That shit is in Gutierrez's book, just another sign that Gutierrez helped write that whole
story. But to Gardner Chandler said that MJ masturbated him in Monaco he didn't talk about oral sex before or after the show or at any time
In fact he claimed that the oral sex started only at his father's house which was after Monaco.


3. If you watch the WMA footage and pay attention to Chandler's demeanor he was totally at ease with MJ, he was singing
and smiling and that supposedly right after that "disgusting thing he was not into" was forced upon him? Ridiculous.


It boils my blood that despite all the obvious inconsistencies in the Chandlers's claims the police kept telling the media that
the boy was credible and believable. They either didn't bother to compare all the statements he and his father and mother made
or they did just didn't care because they wanted to get MJ no matter what.

 

[HIStory]

^ I think that is from the hater website, everything in that thread is. But I don't know what their source is. Possibly one of their fave books, like Dimond.

In any case, people thinking allegation = proof is stupid.

or they did just didn't care because they wanted to get MJ no matter what.

I think it was simply this. They did not care even about contradictions within their own documents. Eg. in the Arvizo case in their Statement of Probable Cause the prosecution gives two totally contradictory, different versions about how Janet Arvizo learnt about the alleged abuse of her son. They were fools to not even see that huge contradiction in their own damn document. They just didn't care. IMO they just hoped to get a jury that would convict MJ on an emotional basis. They themselves were obviously operating on an emotional (hate for MJ) basis.

 

[redfrog]

You guessed it right it's from Dimond's book. Verbatim.

These idiot haters don't realize that their sources regularly contradict each other.
For example the meeting with Orietta Murdoch's and what he supposedly told the Chandlers are totally contradicted by Dimond's own
interview with Murdoch.

In any case, people thinking allegation = proof is stupid.

Especially when the allegations are full of contradictions. On this site
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/
there's a good list of the Arvizo contradictions but there is no similar list of the Chandler contradictions.

Dimond said that he got access to the DCFS report so if that's the source indeed that alone kills
Chandler's story. He told a totally different story about Monaco to the DCFS and to Gardner.
And the fact that the Monaco oral sex version can be found in Gutierrez's book
is just another coincidence, I guess. :smilerolleyes:
I would like to read all the transcripts of Chandler's interviews with Abrams, the police the DAs.
Don't you know whom he talked to? Gardner, Abrams, Linden, Lauren Weiss, Ferrufino, DCFS?
Was he interviewed by the LAPD and the SBSD too?

 

[HIStory]

I would like to read all the transcripts of Chandler's interviews with Abrams, the police the DAs.
Don't you know whom he talked to? Gardner, Abrams, Linden, Lauren Weiss, Ferrufino, DCFS?

As far as I know Jordan talked to Abrams (August 17), then DCFS (not sure about this one but I think he did). Then there was a interview with him in September by LA DA Lauren Weiss in September where he gave the first version of his descreption of MJ's privates. (Note: There were two descriptions. He gave another in December shortly before the search. No one ever said why a second one was needed.) Then Gardner in October. I don't what others there were if any. But yes, it would be interesting to compare them. Of course, the prosecution would claim that he was consistent, but we know already what that means. They said the Arvizos were consistent too when they changed the timeline and basically the whole story. But that's consistency to this prosecution. LOL.

Was he interviewed by the LAPD and the SBSD too?

Lauren Weiss was the Los Angeles Deputy DA.

These idiot haters don't realize that their sources regularly contradict each other.

I doubt they care about being logical and consistent. They only care about manipulating their readers. Unfortunately you have to be well versed in the allegations to see through the lies and falsehoods on that website, so a lot of people who don't know any better may be mislead by them. And that's all they care about, not forming a logically sound, fallacy-free argument.

They still use Gutierrez's book as if it's the Bible when even the Chandlers said it was trash. Actually, during the MJ vs. VG civil trial VG tried to drag Jordan into the case by claiming he would be able to confirm certain claims he made in his book. Jordan refused to endorse it and said he never said any of those things, never talked to any of those employees VG quotes on him and doesn't know anything about those claims. Yet, haters still act like what is in it is the truth. Even if you are pro-prosecution, you should have at least a little honesty to not uncritically quote a book and present it as the truth when even the accuser rejected it. But their naive readers won't know that.

Basically the whole hater website is just one-sidedly quoting MJ's accusers, prosecution documents, trashy tabloids and those tabloid-paid shady prosecution "witnesses". There is no representation of the cases in their entirety. There is no presentation of the other side at all. They are doing the same as media in 2005 - ie. presenting one side of the case (the accuser's side) and then act like it's definitely the truth. No critical thinking whatsoever, but of course an honest analysis of the case was never their goal either.

 

[Bad7]

Delete.

 

[MJresearcher]

I doubt they care about being logical and consistent. They only care about manipulating their readers. Unfortunately you have to be well versed in the allegations to see through the lies and falsehoods on that website, so a lot of people who don't know any better may be mislead by them. And that's all they care about, not forming a logically sound, fallacy-free argument.

They still use Gutierrez's book as if it's the Bible when even the Chandlers said it was trash. Actually, during the MJ vs. VG civil trial VG tried to drag Jordan into the case by claiming he would be able to confirm certain claims he made in his book. Jordan refused to endorse it and said he never said any of those things, never talked to any of those employees VG quotes on him and doesn't know anything about those claims. Yet, haters still act like what is in it is the truth. Even if you are pro-prosecution, you should have at least a little honesty to not uncritically quote a book and present it as the truth when even the accuser rejected it. But their naive readers won't know that.

That's what I find so disturbing that site, you'd think they wouldn't want to contradict the accuser because that's not good for them but they clearly don't care. They're also smart enough to realise that many people won't know enough about this to think there's something wrong with what they're saying and because they cherry pick pieces out of documents it'll be very easy for them to convince people without those people having any clue that they haven't exactly been given all the relevant information. One thing everyone should know is that if both sides of a story aren't being told properly you're dealing with a bias problem and even if it seems very convincing the facts you're missing can be the ones that change things. I see this as them taking advantage of other people. When I debate with people and use documents I like to give the person a link to the entire document so they can read all the information I'm speaking about in its entirety. If you give someone information and leave anything out they'll think you're doing it deliberately and that you're trying to hide things. I'll tell people what I think about it, but ultimately they can read all the relevant information themselves and decide what they think about it rather than having someone present them with pieces of things and then tell them what to think about it.

 

[redfrog]

Of course, the prosecution would claim that he was consistent, but we know already what that means. They said the Arvizos were consistent too when they changed the timeline and basically the whole story. But that's consistency to this prosecution. LOL

How is it consistent that first he said very specifically he was molested orally before the WMA show
then he said oral sex started weeks after Monaco in his father's house?
You can't even explain that with faulty memory. He was very specific when and where the alledged oral sex
happened first.

How is it consistent that to the DSFC he said his mother looked the other way to Gardner he said
that his mother didn't know because he was under Mj's spell? So which one?

How is it consistent that he expressed repulsion to the very idea of sex with MJ when his father asked him
but them to Gardner he said that he saw nothing wrong with MJ mastrubating him because it felt good?

How is it consistent that he told Gardner that at once he tried to tell his mother but she didn't listen
but then he told his father on July 16 that he didn't want anyone to know and then Evan explained
why he didn't want June to talk to the boy and question him because he didn't want to betray the
boy's trust?

How is it consistent that he could stop MJ doing the French kissing, butt grabbing, ear licking by simply telling
him that he didn't like those things but then he said that it was hard to stop the masturbation and oral sex
because he was powerful and overwhelming and he started to cry?

How is it consistent that he said he was not in awe of him because he was just like a regular person
but then he said he was powerful and overwhelming? He said he couldn't stop MJ because he was an adult
and powerful but then he agreed that he functioned like a child and even believed he was a child.
So he was a powerful, famous, overwhelming regular person who believed he was a child and functioned like a child?

How is it consistent that he said sharing a bed with MJ was just like a regular slumber party but then he said he
considers sharing a bed sexual?

How is it consistent that he told the DCFS that they cuddled in bed in Las Vegas but to Gardner he said there was
no physical contact at all?

"When you slept in the same bed was there any physical contact?"
"No."
"Was it a big bed?"
"Yeah, I think so."
“So there was no physical contact.

The movie The Exorcist was on cable TV and the boy got scared—they cuddled.
That marked the first time they spent the night in the same bed.

How is it consistent that June Chandler said they spent two or three nights in Las Vegas whereas Jordan said about a week.
June said the first night they all slept in the same room and the second night MJ and Jordan went to see a CdS show
then came back and cried because she didn't let Jordan sleep with him.
But Jordan said that first they watched the Exorcist then he slept with MJ and then the crying scene happened.
How is that possible when the CdS show started at 11.00

22 Q. Do you remember how long you stayed in Las
23 Vegas on this occasion?
24 A. Two or three nights.

1 And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?
3 A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.
4 Q. All in the same room?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, did those arrangements change at any point in time?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And when did they change?
10 A. The second night things changed.

17 The second night, they were going to see a performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.
19 Q. “They” meaning who?
20 A. Jordie and Michael --

9 A. Well, I think the performance started at 11:00, and I would say Jordan and Michael showed up around 11:30.

This also made absolutely no sense. June testified that he told Jordan go to your own bed not to MJ's bed
when you come back. And Jordan told her "I want to be there" -- meaning MJ's bedroom.

14 A. “Jordie, when you come home, go to your bed.
15 Go to your own bed. Come to our bed, not to
16 Michael’s bed.”
17 He said, “Mom, I want to stay there.” And I
18 was very upset about that.

She also testified that Jordan told her in Neverland earlier that he wanted to sleep in MJ's room
because the other kids were there too so why can't he?

3 Q. When was the first time your son Jordan
4 asked if he could sleep with Michael Jackson?
5 A. I would say starting the third visit to
6 Neverland, second or third visit to Neverland,
7 because there were always boys around and staying in
8 his bedroom, and why couldn’t he? And that’s when
9 he started asking.

So after that she supposedly told this to MJ when MJ supposedly asked her why Jordan cannot stay with
him in his room:

10 A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” --
11 “This is not anything that I want. This is not
12 right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to
13 do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants
14 to sleep.

Jordie already made it clear repeatedly that he wanted to sleep in MJ's room so what the **** did she mean
by "this is not right Jordie should be abale to do what he want to do? Sleep where he wants to sleep."

Also this footage shows MJ with Jordan in Las Vegas at night. He didn't seem to be upset at all to say the least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DXpBw5KW8A

This whole story from Las Vegas makes no sense. Why would MJ want to watch the Exorcist when he was afraid of horror
films?I bet it was Jordan who wanted to see it and MJ as usual couldn't say no. And after that he was probably even more
scared than Jordan. But when all this happened was never clarified.
Not the first night. The second night after they came back from the CdS? The third night?

Also, this never made sense to me either. Why would CdS contact June Chandler of all people and tell her
that MJ was not there? How did they even know that he was in Vegas with the Chandlers?
How did they know that they stayed in the Mirage? Why did they want to talk to June Chandler instead
of MJ's assistant or bodyguards if they really wanted to know where he was?

22 A. -- and Lily and I. It was around 11 p.m. at
23 night, and I got a call from somebody at Cirque du
24 Soleil saying, “Where is Michael?” And I said, “He
25 should be there with my son.” They said, “He’s not
26 here.”
27 A little while later, another call, he still
28 didn’t show up. They still did not show up.

 

[KOPV]

Debates with the public..

It's funny to me how SURE they are about Michael when they know that is US that actually give enough sh!ts to be knowledgeable about Michael.. And they try to be dismissive to US!!


That's like a couch potato telling a nutritionist that they are wrong about dieting because they watched an episode of 'Dr Oz'..

 

[Galactus123]

Someone on other forum said that the pics the police took from Michael's genitalia matched with the description. Does anyone have any good link that says that it didn't? I remember reading that it didn't match.

 

[KOPV]

^ Jordan said he was circumcised.. he wasn't! Autopsy!

That should b enough

 

[HIStory]

Someone on other forum said that the pics the police took from Michael's genitalia matched with the description. Does anyone have any good link that says that it didn't? I remember reading that it didn't match.

http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

 

[Galactus123]

http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

Should I post the link? I have a feeling that he says that it's written by MJ fans so he won't believe it.

 

[Bad7]

Should I post the link? I have a feeling that he says that it's written by MJ fans so he won't believe it.

The link respect77 posted may well be written by an MJ fan, however it contains information from the Chandlers!

According to Sneddon Jordan described ONE! 'dark marking' at 'about the same relative location' on MJ's body. Yet Ray Chandler, Jordan's uncle, states that (and this is in the link respect provided as well) it took Jordan 'HOURS' to describe the 'numerous distinctive markings and discolourations'. This goes totally against what Sneddon said. This is also backed up by the man who took the photographs for the police.

The man who took the photographs was supposed to be the one to determine a match, yet Sneddon never allowed him to. The photographer said 'he was told it matched'. Why didn't Sneddon want the expert to determine a match?

Edit: I should add that some people are dead set that MJ is guilty, irrelevant of what you tell them. So your efforts could well be in vain.

 

[HIStory]

Should I post the link? I have a feeling that he says that it's written by MJ fans so he won't believe it.

Read it and try to argue with your own words then. If you are going to debate with people about the allegations it is inevitable that you somewhat educate yourself on them first, otherwise you may not easily see through hater lies and fallacies.

And why does it matter who wrote it if the information in it is correct? The myth that the "description was a match" doesn't come from unbiased sources either. It comes from Sneddon and hater websites.

 

[MJresearcher]

it took Jordan 'HOURS' to describe the 'numerous distinctive markings and discolourations'.

I've always found this interesting, why should it have taken him hours to describe the body of someone he'd supposedly seen naked multiple times in an intimate setting? What about all the other markings he described, why weren't they mentioned again? Did they not match? I suspect that the vague statement about Jordan describing a marking that was 'about the same relative location' as the pictures showed was meant to be vague because technically it could have been true. If any of us on here were to make guesses about markings on MJ's penis I'll bet we'd be able to do the same thing and also guess the position of a marking at 'about the same relative location' also. It doesn't prove anything happened with him and MJ because it's something can can also be guessed, therefore it was certainly not the only way to get this result. People would also have to believe that Jordan only ever saw MJ in an erect state and also did not physically feel a difference regarding foreskin. Then of course there's the fact that the authorities aren't in a agreement about what colour this marking even was. All of these things are perfectly valid reasons to dismiss the claim that this was somehow a perfect match as haters so often love to claim.

Respect77 made a great point about people's complaints about bias too, they don't seem to even think about the fact that information coming from the prosecution could possibly be biased but don't have any issue with saying the defense or any fans are biased. Just because authorities are meant to do the right thing that does not mean that they will and placing blind faith in anyone or anything is not something I would recommend. People are showing their own biases in that situation and they're incorrectly assuming that you can't get factual information from any source that has bias. That's not necessarily true and if a person knows what questions to ask and how to think and read information for themselves then it shouldn't really be that much of a problem to begin with.

 

[HIStory]

^ Sneddon was definitely a biased prosecutor, that's not even debatable. Even the media mentioned his vendetta against MJ. So any information coming from him is definitely suspect of bias. And this "it was a match" claim comes from him. Before his 1995 interview with Maureen Orth, where it was first claimed by Sneddon that it was a match, actually every article that cited sources close to the police said it was NOT a match. Katherine was even called to testify in front of the Grand Jury regarding the matter.

On March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote:

“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.” [5]​

IMO Sneddon simply tried to manipulate people into thinking it was a match. The circumcision issue in itself means it was NOT a match and it shows Sneddon's willingness for manipulation that in his motion in 2005 he never mentions anything about the circumcision. Nor does it mention any other markings that Jordan described, so it seems in all of Jordan's description Sneddon basically could find only one splotch about that he somehow could claim that it is "relatively" and "at about" the same location where Jordan put something in his drawing. It's extremely lame, when you think about it. Like MJResearcher said, if we were asked to put some splotches on a drawing of MJ's penis and we did I guarantee you that - just by pure chance - some, or at least one, would be on the same "relative location" as on the photos in most of our drawings - especially when the reader in his bias (ie. Sneddon) would very much want to see them to be on "the same relative location".

Also consider the fact that vitiligo splotches are constantly changing. The alleged molestations allegedly happened in April-May, 1993. MJ was strip searched more than half a year later, in December. In fact, the Chandlers used that as their safety net and as an excuse for why Jordan's description would not match, according to their own book!

In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“
“Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.”
“No, that’s good for us!”
‘Why?”
“Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!”
“Ha!”
“Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.”
“That’s very good.”
“Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]
​

(Lauren Weis was the Los Angeles Deputy DA.)

and

On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. [9; page 206]

From the MichaelJacksonAllegations website:

As you can see, the Chandlers cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to change and they were preparing excuses for themselves to explain why their description did not match the photographs. However, both the Chandlers and Sneddon failed to acknowledge that if vitiligo markings were subject to change then they are inadequate to prove Jackson’s guilt, especially considering the fact the Chandlers got the circumcision issue completely wrong.

It seems that Sneddon, like the Chandlers, tried to have it both ways: if there was something in that drawing that remotely guessed a location of a marking right (at least according to Sneddon’s own assessment) it would have been used against Jackson, while everything else would have been ignored and/or explained away by the fact that vitiligo markings were subject to change. As Larry Feldman put it: “It’s a no-loser for us”.

I actually find it extremely disturbing and possibly a violation of MJ's constitutional rights that the prosecution knew in advance that the markings would not prove anything (after all Lauren Weis told that to the Chandlers one month before the strip search that "anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease&#8220, yet they pressed for a search warrant on MJ's body. I though search warrants (and especially such an invasive one as a body search) are only issued when there is a good probative value in it. They knew there wasn't here and they still pushed for a warrant! So what was really the purpose? MJ's humiliation? That if by chance anything would "match" then they would use it but if not the would simply say the vitiligo markings shifted? It seems that the whole thing was set up to be very manipulative from the very beginning.


Oh, and BTW, Evan Chandler saw MJ's buttocks once when he injected him with some pain killer on one occasion. That's also in their book.

Evan rattled off a list of drugs to see if he could find out what Michael's doctor used. When he mentioned Demerol, Michael said that sounded familiar. Evan did not use Demerol in his practice, so he called Mark Torbiner for advice. The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan's office and bring it to his house.

Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael's gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.