I'm surprised, following so many MJ threads about anything from a fart to a photo, that a major documentry has gone mostly unmentioned?

Channel 4 broadcast a very detailed documentry into MJ's financial and peodophilia interests and no one mentions it here??

Cinnamon234 said:

That just seems a fan thread tossing aside the truth of the topic.

Cinnamon234 said:

Thats just a fan thread trying to rubbish a major networks research. No one on here seems interested in discussing the "facts".

Well there were some like myself and others who were trying to have a serious discussion. Also there weren't only fans in that thread, there were some haters in there too but I have already discussed this topic at nauseum and will not be contributing to any more threads about Michael and his personal life (for now) as I am sick of talking about it and not to mention the fact that these discussions lead to nowhere. I have tried to talk about the facts but most people don't wanna hear it. It's just always the same fans & haters going back and forth.

Have fun discussing this tho but I am so over it.

I don't even understand what we did to get the thread locked.

SquirrelMeat said:

Where can that be found, I never heard of it airing. Certainly sounds to me like it would be worth a discussion.

SquirrelMeat said:

Haha you're determined to rile the "I LOOOOVE YOU MICHAEL!" brigade. I came out of that thread none the wiser. I don't get the crazy hysterical need to defend this suspect popstar and I have all his CDs.

SpecialEd said:

I'm a huge fan of his music, so I'm not trying to set anyone up. I just find it strange that we get 1000 threads about a rumoured new album, but virtually nothing about his obvious problems now.

The new channel 4 programme should not be shoved under the carpet. The guy is obviously a paedo. He needs help, not slagging off.

SquirrelMeat said:

Lets be honest though, it was a terrible lazy documentary. The presenter was a bumbling buffoon who seemed to have no understanding of anything he reported on.

That said Mr Jackson's taste for little boys still stands strong and proud like his Stalinesque statue...

SquirrelMeat said:

we've discusses this documentary in 2 threads and the documentary is basically full of inconsistant stories and lies.

And just because there's not 100 threads on this documentary on the org doesn't mean it's NOT being discussed
[Edited 10/26/07 21:28pm]

SquirrelMeat said:

you must've not seen all the American TV specials that were being aired from 2003 to 2005

Let me guess: The documentary featured people by the names of Diane Dimond, Bob Jones, J. Randy Tarobelli, and others, right?

bboy87 said:

You can't call everything a lie. The sleepovers were fact, it's main the reason why he is so suspect and so were the out of court settlements. Everything else though is open to speculation. The trial unfortunately didn't really bring anything new except for his drinks quite alot and he has a lot of adult porn.It's really not surprising he was found not guilty.

I didn't watch the documentary but once you see the usual so-called MJ experts you know exactly where the programme is heading, it would be interesting if they got a different set of so-called experts who were neither pro or anti MJ and see what kind of documentary manifests.

Quite frankly I think him being found Not Guilty has meant the documentaries about him will be forever more lurid and salacious. I get a feeling if he was convicted either the documentaries would be more fair and balance (there would probably be a documentary about how he was unjustly convicted) or such documentaries will stop althogether. Now it seems these documentaries are made with an underlining message; although he was found Not guilty he still really is a Pedo.

i never ever seen a commercial or anything. its not highly advertimented

paisleypark4 said:

Yeh, it's not a very big budget documentary. Just something made by the out-of-work people who are very loosely related to MJ. Like they met him one time or some shit. I find it funny. Some people are so pathetic.

whatsgoingon said:

When you lay in bed the blood rushes to your mid section, thats scientific fact. Its a very awkward situation to be in when your sexdrive is occuring while little boys share your bed. What other outlet does an MJ have?

P.s. The term "duck butter" was by far the most disturbing revelation in the documentary. Jesus Juice has nothing on that beauty.

SpecialEd said:

Now your username makes sense.

DarlingDiana said:

Gurrlll don't even get me started on morning erections. There it is, there he is... etc... etc...

DarlingDiana said:

SpecialEd said:

First molestation case....2 grand juries.....no indictment.
Second molsestation case.....Not guilty. Yet you won't even give the man the benefit of the doubt.

SpecialEd said:

Seriously, don't you think Michael has any self control? Maybe your so horny you jump on anything that's "there". But it's not like Michael's going to molest a kid because he's "there". He's not into children sexually, so therefore he wont molest a kid, even if he is horny and the kid is "there".

I'd also like to comment on the term "sharing your bed". Michael said a number of times in the LWMJ that he shares his bed with kids. But what does "sharing" actually mean? The sentence "Billy shared his toys with Bobby" has two different meanings. It could mean they played with the toys together, at the same time. Or it could mean Billy let Bobby use his toys, but not at the same time.

The same thing goes with Michael Jackson and him saying he shares his bed with kids. That could mean he's in the bed at the same time as the kids or it could also mean he lets them sleep in his bed, but not at the same time. I think what he meant was that he lets them sleep in his bed, but not at the same time as he is sleeping in the bed.

I think this because after the documentary and when Michael was arrested, his friends like Elizabeth Taylor spoke out. Liz said Michael shares his bed with kids, but he doesn't sleep in the bed with them. She said he lets them have the bed and he sleeps on the floor or in another room or on the second story of his bedroom (some people don't realise his bedroom is 2 stories).

However, Michael did admit to sleeping in his bed with two kids. Macauley Kulkin and his brother. But that's it. Apart from those brothers who have said Michael never molested them, Michael has never slept in a bed with kids.

DarlingDiana said:

This is where the fans have their blinkers on and become as selective as those trashy documentaries as well as the tabloids. Michael has said he has shared his bed with "many children many times" in the LWMJ doc. They were his actual words. Even during the trial all the boys that were even testifying on his behalf said the same thing. Let's not pretend this kind of thing happen a couple of times, it happened on numerous occassions that's why it looks so bad. And that's the most damning evidence they have against him. You take that away they really had zero evidence against him.

DarlingDiana said:

The fact laying horizontally making the blood run to genitals is the only reason MJ faces more scorn for going to bed with kids than say sitting on a couch or going on a walk with them. The sharing of a bed implicit unavoidable element that will provide sexual desires.

Maybe he resists the first time and the second but when children are your sole bedmates how long does he control it? He's only animal, as we all are.

SquirrelMeat said:

If you actually read the thread you'll see there are plenty of anti-MJ comments in there. The very first post (written by yours truly) basically says Michael is sexually attracted to little boys. But I'm a balanced person so I've also pointed out how disgusting the program was in the shameless lies it told. According to those fools J R Taraborelli is a lifelong friend of Mike's. Yep, that's what they said. The program marked a new low in broadcasting for me, but that doesn't mean that some valid points weren't made here and there.

P.S. The reason you obviously hadn't seen the thread is cos it plummeted down the org charts after the mods locked it.

First of all.....what is "duck butter " ?

I´m not a Michael Jackson fan and I find it idiotic of him to even allow so many children to his place after he almost ended up in prison during the first trial in the early 90s but....what makes me really skeptical about the accusations is the fact that he is or was enormously rich, therefore people will use any means to get some of his money, and , most of all , that so many of his celebrity friends, including Prince, still support him, ( Will.I.Am, Liz Taylor, his sister Janet and many more. ) I really doubt these people would publicly support him if they had the slightest doubt about him.

A 50 year old man DOES NOT HANG OUT WITH KIDS THAT ARE NOT OF HIS.

that is not normal.

something weird is going on with MJ.

KoolEaze said:

There was no trial in the early 90s.

I'm just going to repeat something I had read a long time ago.



For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser’s family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several interesting facts:

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.

3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: “Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.” It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the “negligence” allegation was redefined:

“Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the “infliction of emotional distress”; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?

OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.”



Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy’s allegations are true.

“The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”

Sorry Diane.

THE PAYMENT:

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond’s copy of the settlement but according to Jackson’s current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson’s insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:

“Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending.”

“Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments… the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice.”

The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.

WAS IT HUSH MONEY?

Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler , and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases, except as may be required by law.”

The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.

“In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually… receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson… they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request.”

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson’s attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family’s own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.

Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?

One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.

For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a “pay off” but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson “buy” when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it “hush money” when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it “hush money” when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it “hush money” when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?

Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler’s initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

If it is still your contention that Jackson’s plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to “bribe” the boy into not testifying. Jackson’s actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler’s silence.

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the justice system was not working in his favor and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could have either gone through with the civil trial and risked a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settled the civil lawsuit and risked people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit.

Once the civil lawsuit was settled, Michael Jackson still had the criminal investigation to contend with.

- Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.

- On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.

- Up until that point, the alleged victim’s mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz’s divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned. “The whole thing was such a mess,” he explained. “I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

- The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

- The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson’s constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant’s defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.

- Jackson’s attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, “when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved.” Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.

- Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy’s “fragile state” was more important than Jackson’s 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy’s favour.

- Jackson’s attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.

- If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.

- Let’s pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson’s most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.

- During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.

- As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson’s decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:

1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.

2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.

3) In civil trials the jury’s verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.

4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person’s property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson’s medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.

5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.

6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?

7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson’s insurance company to force him to settle the case. “I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation,” Oxman explained. “That means that the homeowners’ insurance policy takes over and a homeowners’ insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, ‘I will not settle that case,’ and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it.”

For the above reasons, Michael Jackson reluctantly settled the civil lawsuit that had been filed against him.

If you pull the skin back, that's the white stuff that has formed under the dick head of someone who hasn't kept their dick clean. If you ever see that, that's a cheesy dick. Throw that one back and look for another one.

ewwwww! gross!

vainandy said:

Vainandy always comes through