Latest on MJJC

Is there a good source (video) proving JC's description was inaccurate, and LaToya?

Staffordshire Bullterrier

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,603
Points
113
So I'm on this forum, a gaming forum and a thread is about Moonwalker. Of course there had to be a few jokes by losers and also idiots saying he was a p.

I've been posting there too, I gave the square one and everything. Now this dude claims that the description Jordan drew of MJ's parts matched. We all know it's BS, but I don't have a source that explains this short, but sweet. I can give the VindicateMJ website but that's A LOT of reading and people won't bother.

And also LaToya, dude is bringing up the story that LaToya said MJ had paid off many families. He also seems to defend the Chandlers because he claims MJ fans shot up their house, sigh. This is his comment



It's a shame because I was doing well with getting people to see the light and be on MJ's side, but now at least one is starting to have doubts. Of course I can explain what is really the deal with LaToya, but he will want to see proof.

He says a lot more. Thing is, I'm not super great with words, best to let a short but strong factual article or video do its job.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if it mentions the description of Michael's privates specifically as I haven't gotten around to listening to it (yet), but the Case for Innocence podcast might be a good thing to direct them to?

The VindicateMJ site might be the only good thing, but I don't know how convincing it would be. That site does mention articles from USA Today and Reuters that say the description didn't match (specifically on this post), but I don't know if there's a way to still access such articles.
 
Amaya said:
Don't know if it mentions the description of Michael's privates specifically as I haven't gotten around to listening to it (yet), but the Case for Innocence podcast might be a good thing to direct them to?

The VindicateMJ site might be the only good thing, but I don't know how convincing it would be. That site does mention articles from USA Today and Reuters that say the description didn't match (specifically on this post), but I don't know if there's a way to still access such articles.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much. I also remembered I had the MJ Allegations website bookmarked, it's a good one.

So I spent easily an hour or more writing a big reply to that person, with the actual facts and just using common sense and logic and you can guess what the reply was.....

Crickets.

So predictable, so goddamned tiresome these people are.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Thanks so much. I also remembered I had the MJ Allegations website bookmarked, it's a good one.

So I spent easily an hour or more writing a big reply to that person, with the actual facts and just using common sense and logic and you can guess what the reply was.....

Crickets.

So predictable, so goddamned tiresome these people are.
Click to expand...
Doh... sorry you're getting crickets. Either they'll stay quiet or they'll come back with some other argument. Maybe it's best to just leave it be?
 
SoS said:
Just adding the obvious for the record, that, one proof is in the fact that Michael was free. He would not have been let free had there been a match.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Haters try to say the description matched but if that were true MJ would of been in prison. They think the settlement somehow made it all magically go away lol. They have no idea how the law works. Ignorance is bliss.
 
SoS said:
Just adding the obvious for the record, that, one proof is in the fact that Michael was free. He would not have been let free had there been a match.
Click to expand...

Not how it works. Jordie didn't file a criminal lawsuit after the civil case was settled, so MJ was never arrested. The accuracy of his description was meaningless without his testimony.
 
Spaceship said:
Not how it works. Jordie didn't file a criminal lawsuit after the civil case was settled, so MJ was never arrested. The accuracy of his description was meaningless without his testimony.
Click to expand...
You’re 100% inaccurate.

The police went into Michael’s ranch on CRIMINAL accusations against him and they were seeking ANY coroberating evidence to support Chandler’s story and found zeeeero in his house or on his body.

Had they found anything ANYWHERE Michael would’ve been arrested on the spot and they would have thrown him under the jail which was exactly that malicious district attorney’s fantasy.

KEY FACTS: 1993 ALLEGATIONS – MJinnocent

www.mjinnocent.com www.mjinnocent.com
 
Last edited:
SoS said:
You’re 100% inaccurate.
Click to expand...

100% accurate, actually

SoS said:
The police went into Michael’s ranch on CRIMINAL charges against him
Click to expand...
There were no criminal charges. They were looking for evidence to make a criminal charge and without the Chandlers filing criminal charges, nothing was gonna get MJ charged save for video or photo proof of him in the act, which they were never gonna find

SoS said:
Had they found anything ANYWHERE Michael would’ve been arrested on the spot and they would have thrown him under the jail which was exactly that malicious district attorney’s fantasy.
Click to expand...

Learn how the legal system works homie
 
Spaceship said:
100% accurate, actually


There were no criminal charges. They were looking for evidence to make a criminal charge and without the Chandlers filing criminal charges, nothing was gonna get MJ charged save for video or photo proof of him in the act, which they were never gonna find



Learn how the legal system works homie
Click to expand...
You have it backwards… there were somewhere between 60-80+ officers searching Michael’s homes including his body for corroberating evidence to use to criminally charge Michael. They left without any such evidence.

Your buddy Chandler then went forward with a civil suit which his allegedly “molested” son would not participate in because he knew his father was a lying criminal trying to extort MJ.

Chandler went away happy because ALL he wanted was money in the FIRST place.
 
SoS said:
You have it backwards… there were somewhere between 60-80+ officers searching Michael’s homes including his body for corroberating evidence to use to criminally charge Michael. They left without any such evidence.
Click to expand...
They were looking to criminally charge MJ because the Chandlers hadn't already done so.
 
SoS said:
The Chandlers had not done so because there was zero evidence of which for them to do so.
Click to expand...

By that logic the Arvizos had evidence because they pressed charges and got MJ arrested

The Chandlers may or may not have just wanted money but if they felt like it they could have filed criminal charges and gotten MJ arrested
 
Spaceship said:
By that logic the Arvizos had evidence because they pressed charges and got MJ arrested

The Chandlers may or may not have just wanted money but if they felt like it they could have filed criminal charges and gotten MJ arrested
Click to expand...
Michael was arrested in the Arvizo case because charges were brought by the malicious District Attorney Tom Sneddon.

There was no evidence in either case.
 
SoS said:
Michael was arrested in the Arvizo case because charges were brought by the malicious District Attorney Tom Sneddon.
Click to expand...

He was arrested because the Arvizos themselves filed criminal charges whereas the Chandlers only filed civil charges
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
So I'm on this forum, a gaming forum and a thread is about Moonwalker. Of course there had to be a few jokes by losers and also idiots saying he was a p.

I've been posting there too, I gave the square one and everything. Now this dude claims that the description Jordan drew of MJ's parts matched. We all know it's BS, but I don't have a source that explains this short, but sweet. I can give the VindicateMJ website but that's A LOT of reading and people won't bother.

And also LaToya, dude is bringing up the story that LaToya said MJ had paid off many families. He also seems to defend the Chandlers because he claims MJ fans shot up their house, sigh. This is his comment



It's a shame because I was doing well with getting people to see the light and be on MJ's side, but now at least one is starting to have doubts. Of course I can explain what is really the deal with LaToya, but he will want to see proof.

He says a lot more. Thing is, I'm not super great with words, best to let a short but strong factual article or video do its job.
Click to expand...
Spaceship said:
He was arrested because the Arvizos themselves filed criminal charges whereas the Chandlers only filed civil charges
Click to expand...
Tom Sneddon ran the entire operation as an abuse of power. It was a complete conspiracy to publicly humiliate Michael Jackson.

Michael bonded out and was once again let free due to LACK of evidence.

Sneddon’s multi-count charges against Michael Jackson:

Jackson Prosecutor Tells of Abuse and Conspiracy

SANTA MARIA, Calif., Feb. 28 - The prosecution opened its case against Michael Jackson on Monday, telling a jury that he used alcohol and pornography to seduce and ultimately molest a young boy who w…
www.heraldtribune.com www.heraldtribune.com

ALL of which were proven bogus.
 
Last edited:
Back to the original question;

How can you prove to people the description didn’t match:

Because they did not arrest Michael Jackson. Had there been a match they would have enough probable cause to take him away……just like if I told the police you stole my teddy bear and they found your fingerprints all over my house.
 
Not to mention Chandler took advantage of the stupid law that allowed the civil trial to take place before the criminal one. This made the extortion plot much easier. Jordans description was circumcized. MJ wasnt. Case closed.

As for Latoya, she was abused by her then husband who forced her to make those comments against MJ. She had a black eye during some of those interviews (covered by her glasses). He made her do playboy as well.
 
Spaceship said:
Not how it works. Jordie didn't file a criminal lawsuit after the civil case was settled, so MJ was never arrested. The accuracy of his description was meaningless without his testimony.
Click to expand...
If the DA would have had anything on MJ they could have brought the criminal suit against him (without the Chandlers). The only thing they had were the claims Jordan made and without that they had nothing.
 
Here is an interview where you can see La Toya is getting instructions on what to say over headphones:
 
www.quora.com

Was Michael Jackson circumcised?

Debra Nicholson's answer: No he wasn't, Check out the Autopsy report it's in there along with his Vitiligo. He was not. This was one of the most critical factors in Jordan Chandler's incorrect description of Michael Jackson's penis back in 1993. Jordie Chandler provided both an affidavit describ...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Here's the literal photographic documented proof.
 
Spaceship said:
By that logic the Arvizos had evidence because they pressed charges and got MJ arrested

The Chandlers may or may not have just wanted money but if they felt like it they could have filed criminal charges and gotten MJ arrested
Click to expand...
He is right, acrually. The settlement did not preclude them having the freedom to go forward with a criminal charge. They were not paid "hush money" to go away. Doesn't mean they would've had a case to go off of.
 
You can also look up the pretty impressive stash of adult heterosexual porn found at MJ house. I must admit that I myself was unsure about MJ’s heterosexuality before I saw that. Edit: Just mentioning this because the guy on your forum is talking about this one art book “boy’s will be boys” found among thousands of other books.
 
Last edited:
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
He is right, acrually. The settlement did not preclude them having the freedom to go forward with a criminal charge. They were not paid "hush money" to go away. Doesn't mean they would've had a case to go off of.
Click to expand...
By the time the Arvizos came into the picture the law had changed and it was not possible to bring on a civil case before a criminal one (and rightly so!). I’m sure they would have loved to do that (due to $$$ and low burden of proof etc.). In this case the only “evidence” were the allegations the Arvizos made and we all know how that turned out. If the situation would have been the same in 1993 and there had been a criminal case, I’m sure the outcome would had turned out just like with the Arvizos and no more money grabbers would have surfaced again in the future.
 
Last edited:
librariangirl:) said:
Please do some research.
Click to expand...
You should.
librariangirl:) said:
Here is one of many articles on criminal cases without the victims cooperation (just a short google search) https://www.bsbsolicitors.co.uk/blog/prosecuting-without-a-victim/
Click to expand...

If a witness will not cooperate, the prosecution has the option to apply for a witness summons to force that witness to court.

It was a week after the settlement in 1994 that the law was changed to allow this for sexual assault victims.

The prosecution may be able to rely on the witness’s evidence by making an application under the hearsay rules; this procedure is often used if the witness is too frightened to give evidence or cannot be found. The rules here are particularly complex, and all our solicitors are well versed in their proper application.

The prosecution may be able to proceed without the witness’s evidence, relying on other witnesses or sources of evidence.

"May be able to" =/= always able to.

It's rare to try someone for a crime without a witness.
 
Spaceship said:
You should.


If a witness will not cooperate, the prosecution has the option to apply for a witness summons to force that witness to court.

It was a week after the settlement in 1994 that the law was changed to allow this for sexual assault victims.

The prosecution may be able to rely on the witness’s evidence by making an application under the hearsay rules; this procedure is often used if the witness is too frightened to give evidence or cannot be found. The rules here are particularly complex, and all our solicitors are well versed in their proper application.

The prosecution may be able to proceed without the witness’s evidence, relying on other witnesses or sources of evidence.

"May be able to" =/= always able to.

It's rare to try someone for a crime without a witness.
Click to expand...
Yes it's rare, but if there is evidence that a person is a threat to children the DA will go forward with it. But I'm done discussing this topic with you - its just going in circles. Have a good day! Edit: let's just hope that if the WR and JS case goes to court there won't be jurors like you.
 
Last edited:
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
www.quora.com

Was Michael Jackson circumcised?

Debra Nicholson's answer: No he wasn't, Check out the Autopsy report it's in there along with his Vitiligo. He was not. This was one of the most critical factors in Jordan Chandler's incorrect description of Michael Jackson's penis back in 1993. Jordie Chandler provided both an affidavit describ...
www.quora.com www.quora.com

Here's the literal photographic documented proof.
Click to expand...
Spaceship said:
Not proven.
Click to expand...
Proof is right there. We already knew it didnt match. Autopsy report is the smoking gun.

I asked GPT to explain this :

"In many legal systems, the decision to file criminal charges does not solely depend on whether the alleged victim wants to press charges. While the wishes of the alleged victim can be an important factor, the decision to pursue criminal charges is ultimately made by the state or the prosecuting authority (such as the district attorney or prosecutor's office).

If law enforcement or prosecutors find sufficient evidence of criminal activity, they can choose to file charges against the accused even if the alleged victim does not want to press charges. This is because criminal cases are considered offenses against the state or society as a whole, not just against the individual victim. Prosecutors have a responsibility to uphold the law and seek justice, which may involve pursuing charges to protect the community or society at large.

However, the cooperation and testimony of the alleged victim can be crucial in building a strong case, and in some cases, prosecutors may be less likely to pursue charges if the victim is uncooperative or unwilling to testify. Nevertheless, prosecutors have the authority to proceed with a case if they believe they have sufficient evidence to prove the accused's guilt, even without the victim's cooperation.

It's worth noting that the specific laws and procedures can vary from one jurisdiction to another, and some jurisdictions may have policies or guidelines that affect how cases are handled when a victim is uncooperative. Additionally, in cases of domestic violence or other sensitive situations, prosecutors may have special protocols to consider the safety and well-being of the victim."

While having the alleged victim co operate may help the case it isnt necessary. Especially if they had any evidence whatsoever. Had the description matched they would have filed criminal charges regardless. Sneddon wanted to nail MJ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top