voyevoda said:

Your afraid to answer the question i brought up last weeek which was outside of Lisa Marie which as we all know was a cover up to the 93 allegations who has MJ realy been with when it comes to a grown ass women.

1. Brookie Shields - She called MJ asexal. I wonder why.

2. Tatiana - She kissed him on stage and next thing you know she's kicked off the tour. Umm MJ is in charge here so if he was really feelin her he could have over ruled his manager Frank Dileo. Be realistic when a male entertainer wants a female he's going to get her BUT MJ didn't want her.


Bottom line is MJ would rather be sleeping in bed with Jordie Chandler than spend time with a grown ass women. You don't even need 100% proof he was guilty. Just adding up the length a 35 year old man is spending with 13 year olds in the same bed and compare it to the amont of time he is with a grown ass women should should tell you what his preference is.

On tour and he brings Jordie Chandler and his mother BUT instead of sleeping in bed with Jordie's mother who was very attrative he's sleeping in bed with Jordie. Just plain WEIRD...

If the 1992 version of Halle Barry from the Boomerang movie had a 12 year old son and they were tight with MJ and MJ had 2 choices

1. Spend quality time with Halle meaning she's feeling him romantically

2. Choose to spend more time with her son and sleep in same bed.

MJ would choose 2. Now it doesn't prove your a pedophile but it does bring in question what is this man's preference.

BabyBeMine said:

It means one thing: Michael Jackson had an arrested development. It means he was as interested in women or sex as a 10 years old. It means he was as interested in cars as a ten years old. Sex didn't enter MJ's little world. He didn't have any social skills. He never knew social norms. He was not normal. Why? Because he entered the mad world of showbusiness when he was 4. He was sheltered since he was 4. He was isolated from the world since he was 4.


You posted that I was "explaining away too much". You are the one who is "explaining away too much". I have some secret (lol) documents that I'd love to show to you, if you still think the guy was a paedophile. If you think Sneddon worshipps the devil, you are wrong. The devil worshipps Sneddon! BTW, Macauly Culkin had a really good testimony. Ever read? What about Janet Arvizo's initial plan? Ever hear about it?
[Edited 9/9/09 6:13am]

Ask Donald Trump or Monica Pastelle if they think that the Lisa Marie Presley marriage was a "cover up".
Ask HIStory tour's musicians if they think that the Lisa Marie Presley marriage was a "cover up".

BabyBeMine said:

Bottom line is MJ never had emotional structure to have adult relationships. Bottom line is he would rather be with kids, boys or girls, who don't judge him and don't ask for money/fame, than with adults who constantly betrayed him.
Another thing is that he also loved to be in the company of old women. Old women won't ask for sex/money/fame.


"Just plain WEIRD..."- REALLY? MJ was weird? OMG!!! ARE YOU SURE? *sarcasm mode on*

BabyBeMine said:

Wanna talk about high budget attorneys? What about Tom Sneddon and his team? What about the 90 police officers who raided Neverland? What about the 5 lawyers Sneddon had in his team? What about the money spent? Did you know that MJ's trial was the most expensive in History? Did you know that it was the first time the prosecution spent sooooo many millions in tge history of mankinf? Do you know how many people Sneddon hired, including psychiatrist, journalists, 11 personal investigators?

So...your argument isn't valid.

For the 100th time: stop with the OJ comparisons. There was DNA evidence in his case.
You keep making suppositions. GIVE IT UP.

MOL

said:BabyBeMine said:

Wanna talk about high budget attorneys? What about Tom Sneddon and his team? What about the 90 police officers who raided Neverland? What about the 5 lawyers Sneddon had in his team? What about the money T.S. spent? Did you know that MJ's trial was the most expensive in History? Did you know that it was the first time the prosecution spent sooooo many millions in the history of mankind? Do you know how many people Sneddon hired, including psychiatrists, journalists, 11 personal investigators?

Did you know that Sneddon had 22 years experience as a District Attorney and 35 years experience in prosecution?

So...your argument isn't valid.

For the 100th time: stop with the OJ comparisons. There was DNA evidence in his case.
You keep making suppositions. GIVE IT UP.
[Edited 9/9/09 6:32am]

MOL said:[quote]"stuff"[quote]


What did Nicole Ritchie say??

Enquiring minds want to know.

prodigalfan said:[quote]MOL said:[quote]"stuff"

Nicole Ritchie said she had been seduced by Michael to sleep in his bed. While she was in his bed, he put his hand on one of her boobs. Jackson started groping her boob and, while doing that, "gently licked" her neck. Ashtonished and shocked, Ritchie screamed "stop!" and jumped out of the bed. She tried to get out of the big evil nasty pedophile's room but the door was locked. An appalled Ricthie punched Michael while he screamed "More more...I think I'm going to cum". Ritchie then stopped "watching Michael Jackson masturbating heavily". According to her, his mouth was open and he dropped his head back feeling (she supposes) the pleasure." He moaned and screamed. He was feeling "it". "You wanna try?" he asked her. Nicole, in a shy manner, said "no!". "But you will have to. C'mon. Try. If you love me, then you will try doing what I am doing." But Nicole wouldn't have it and refused once again. He then told her in a seductive yet sinfull manner "C'mon. Look at it. It's getting out.". "No!" Nicole replied once again. But he was too determined; an angry Jackson slowly walked in Nicole's direction, softly lifted her scared face and, with a disgusting face, he ordered: "Blow it! NOW!"

*Takes Dirty Mind out of the stereo*


She said: "“You know, a group of us would all sleep in the same room. It was like, absolutely nothing more than just…an adult kind of wanting to be a kid again. Just, you know, enjoying the company of children. I grew up with him. I have spent many evenings there and many days there." "He is such a pure hearted person. I love him. He is the most fascinating and inspirational person I've ever met. His heart is pure." she added.

Are you happy, inquiring mind? =P
[Edited 9/9/09 14:03pm]
[Edited 9/9/09 14:06pm]
[Edited 9/9/09 14:08pm]

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Websites, blogs and chatrooms pulsed with garish cracks about it. Legions of commentators and news reporters snuck it in every chance they got. More than a few of Michael Jackson’s fervent admirers and supporters made a dismissive reference to it. Even President Barack Obama in a cautious acknowledgement of Jackson’s towering contributions to American music and artistry still made reference to the “tragedy” in Jackson’s life which was a subtle nod to it. And New York Congressman Pete King skipped the niceties and flatly said it.

The “it” is the never ending myth of Jackson the child molester. It still hangs as a damning indictment that feeds the gossip mills and gives an arsenal of ammunition to Jackson detractors. This is not a small point. In the coming weeks, there will be a push to bestow official commemorative monuments, honors on and a national stamp for Jackson. The taint of scandal could doom these efforts to permanently memorialize Jackson.

The child molester myth doesn’t rest on Jackson’s trial and clean acquittal on multiple child abuse charges in a Santa Maria courthouse in June 2005. Only the most rabid Jackson loathers still finger point to that to taint Jackson. The myth of Jackson as child abuser rests squarely on the charge by a 13 year old boy a decade before the trial and the multi-million dollar settlement out of court. The settlement, then and now, feeds the suspicion that Jackson must have done something unsavory and probably criminal, or else why settle?

16 years later, though, the facts remain unchanged. The charge that Jackson molested the boy was brought by the boy’s father. In interviews the boy repeatedly denied the charges. This changed only after he was administered sodium amytal, an invasive, mind altering drug that medical experts have frowned on and courts have disregarded in witness testimony. Prosecutors, police departments and investigators in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara spent millions of dollars, convened two grand juries and probed nearly 200 witnesses that included 70 children, who knew Jackson to try to substantiate the charge. Not a single corroborating witness was found. Nonetheless, a motley group of disgruntled Jackson’s former housekeepers, attendants and bodyguards still peddled the story to any media outlet willing to shell out the cash that Jackson had engaged in child sexual wrongdoing. Not one of the charges was confirmed. Typical was this exchange between one of Jackson’s attorneys and one of the accusing bodyguards under oath:

“So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”

“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”

“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”

“That’s correct.”

“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”

“No.”

“Where did you get your impressions about Jackson’s behavior?”

“Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.”

“Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”

“That’s right, nothing.”

When asked at the time about the charges against Jackson, child behavior experts and psychiatrists nearly all agreed that he did not fit the profile of a pedophile. They agreed that the disorder is progressive and there are generally not one but a trail of victims.

The myth of Jackson as child molester never hinged on evidence or testimony to substantiate it, but solely on the settlement. Why then did Jackson agree to it?

No charge stirs more disgust, revulsion, and pricks more emotional hot buttons than the charge of child molestation. The accusation stamps the Scarlet letter of doubt, suspicion, shame and guilt on the accused. The accused can never fully expunge it. There is simply no defense against it. Under the hyper intense media glare and spotlight that Jackson remained under, the allegation no mater how bogus would have been endless fodder for the public gossip mill. This would have wreaked irreparable damage on Jackson’s ever shifting musical career and personal life.

A trial in Los Angeles in the racially charged backdrop of the Rodney King beating, the L.A. riots, and pulsating racial tensions in the mid-1990s would have been risky business. A trial in staid, upscale, and majority white, Santa Barbara County would have been even more risky.

Jackson and his attorneys knew that when it came to the charge of child molestation the presumption of innocence, or even actual innocence, is tossed out the window. Though Jackson did nothing wrong, a trial would have left him, his reputation and his career in shambles. The settlement was the only pragmatic, logical and legal way to end the sordid issue.

The settlement under extreme duress must not sully his name and place as an honored American icon. The myth of Jackson as child molester must finally be buried.

MOL said:

LOL....You need to replace Dave Chappelle on Comedy Central cause you funny.

Do you honestly believe that? A man is born with a shimidudop down there and something gets it going at some point. Your saying MJ in his early 20's to mid 30's never got horny? There is no such thing as that as long its working down there and you have no health problems with can cause a problem there.

Maybe it's women that didn't turn him on. It would be interesting to see if they did a test and gave MJ 2 books

1. a book with boys
2. a book with grown women

And see which turned him on. Just sit there and look at his shimidudop in the 1993 raide of his house when they made his strip to take pictures of him.

MOL said:

I figured it was something like that but I never knew that Ritchie was that close to the Jacksons and spent time with MJ.

BabyBeMine said:

"Your saying MJ in his early 20's to mid 30's never got horny? "- No! I'm saying Michael Jackson in his early 20's to mid 30's had a sexual partner: his hand. He was too afraid of sex or an intimate relationship. That's all I'm saying. I don't blame him though: hands are the best sexual partners in the world. And you know it.=P

"Maybe it's women that didn't turn him on. "- Explain to me; why did Jackson had 70 Hustler and Playboy magazines in his room? Explain to me; why was Jackson seen, by fans, buying a Playboy magazine? Explain to me the fact that some friends say he flirted with women [or, if you're not satisfied read what ueen Latifah and Tommy Mottola's wife have to say about that]. WOMEN TURNED HIM ON. But the guy was too shy/sociopath to have an intimate relationship (LMP is the exception).


""And see which turned him on. Just sit there and look at his shimidudop in the 1993 raide of his house when they made his strip to take pictures of him."- First: what is a "shimidudop"? According to court transcripts and the Wade Robson interrogatory, the only "suspicion" thing found at Neverland, in '93, were three books, including one with two twins naked or semi-naked hugging. JUST THAT! NOTHING ELSE WAS FOUND IN JACKSON'S HOME! SO STOP INSISTING! The jury didn't accept it as evidence (guess why? Because there was nothing wrong with the books!)
Anyway; read this [don't remember the EXACT dialogue]:

Zonen (prosecutor): [Wade Robson] Did you sleep in the same bed as Mr. Joseph Jackson?
Robson (witness): Yes.
Zonen (prosecutor): Don't you think there is somthing wrong with a 35 years old man sleeping in the same bed as a 13 years old?
Robson: No!
Zonen: And if that man had pornographic content in his room?
Robson: In that case, yes [it would be wrong for a 13 y.o. to sleep with a 35 y.o. grown ass man].
Zonen: And if that man had these books (shows the books found in '93)?
Robson: (analyzes the books for 15 minutes)Those books don't have pornographic content.
Zonen: [Visibly shaken and angry] Jason and Blanca Francia testified that you had bath with Mr.Joseph Jackson. Don't you think it's wrong for a 13 y.o. boy to be having baths with 35 y.o.?
Robson: I never had baths with Michael. Our relationship was innocent.
Zonen: But they [Francia family] testified that they saw you having bath with Mr. Joseph Jackson.
Robson: But that didn't happen. Michael would never ask to have baths with me and I would never have baths with him.


ONE MORE IMPORTANT THING: "They" didn't "make him strip" in order to take pictures of you-know-what. Jackson agreed to participate in a strip-investigation. He could have refused.

Next time, auntie MOL will show you some things about Thom Sneddon, OK?
[Edited 9/10/09 7:09am]
[Edited 9/10/09 7:11am]
[Edited 9/10/09 7:16am]

prodigalfan said:

Confess it: you believed in my first answer (the X rated one), while reading it! XD
[Edited 9/10/09 7:20am]

I am sooo fuckin glad they laid this man to rest! May he rest in peace finally!!!

MOL

This is seperate but you do know that just because MJ's relationship with Wade Robson and Culkin were innocent that doesn't mean it was innocent with Jordie Chandler. You know that right.

MJ isn't stupid. Im sure he carefully picked out a kid he felt wouldn't tell anyone and knew certain kids he wouldn't get away with it. because they would be lkike HOLD UP...WTF u doin. This is one of the reasons he wasn't molesting a lot more kids cause he was careful in picking out that kid that he knew he could control.

MOL said:

Wrong...MJ did not volunteer to strip. They gave him a chance to come down to the station on his own and they wanted him to strip to see if Jordie's description was correct. They ended up going down to neverland and told him if you don't do it we will make you. That's when he stripped.

He would have been physically forced had he not finally cooperated. He had no choice.

Jordie gave a description of a particular blotch that can only be seen when MJ was aroused.

Also why are fans so upset with Tom Snedden. If i was district attorney of a county and i knew of a 35 year old man have a never neverland with kids there all the time and knowing he slept in the same bed a lot im keeping a close eye on that man. Michael Jackson or anyone else. That aint normal.

BabyBeMine said:

Wow...you almost sound like an expert who's had practise...


.

BabyBeMine said:

WRONG. Pedophiles can't control their actions. They act compulsively and, the average pedophile, has 240-280 victims, It's impossible that a pedophile would only have 2 victims in 10 years. MJ dealed with thousands of kids in Neverland. If he was a pedophile, he would have raped hundreds of boys.

Failure to Control Impulses - One of the most defining factors of a true pedophile is their failure to control their actions. As described above, the pedophile will act willingly and purposefully on their fantasies, without regard for others safety, welfare, or consent. They are never satisfied and, after "successfuly" raping a child for the first time, they stop "picking/choosing" children.
Sometimes recognizes that he/she is acting inappropriately and understands the severity of it, but is unable to stop him/herself because it is a compulsion. Compulsion includes raping many children.

More:
" Im sure he carefully picked out a kid he felt wouldn't tell anyone and knew certain kids he wouldn't get away with it"- NOPE. Pedophiles don't "trust" children. They share "secrets" with children. However, those "secrets" are not related to sexual activities. They subsequently lead to sexual activities, but THEY ARE NOT related to sexual activities.
The pedophile's weapon is the following: they blame the child.
Case 1: The pedophile argues that the child "deserved it" or "asked for it".
Case 2: The pedophile argues that the child is using an "alleged abuse" in order to get away with things the child did wrong so that parents will forget what the child did wrong.= THOSE ARE THE PAEDOPHILE'S EXCUSES and main criteria for a possible choice.

So, once again BabyBeMine, your explanation isn't correct. I've exposed the Jordan Chandler's case and I've answered all your questions and doubts. I've exposed all the witnesses and what they said. I've given you all the evidence about this case but you insist on keeping making suppositions while ignoring the fact that I have presented you with a specific case and dissected it. You keep saying, in a vague manner, that a pedophile would do this and that without addressing what I say or th case itself. "A pedophile is smart and that's why MJ got away with it" or "MJ intimidated the kid because that's what pedos do". Can you start addressing the EVIDENCE?

BTW: have you heard about E. Chandler's lawyer's secretary book? The secretary witnessed "fake accusations in he making". Read it.


PS- Do you know what June Chandler's ex-lawyer said? Freeman said some interesting stuff.
[Edited 9/10/09 15:18pm]

BabyBeMine said:

NOPE. Unless you are on a trial, no one can obligate you to enter a strip-search. It's the non-formally accused's choice. MJ could have refused. In fact, Jackson was the one who wanted the strip search to be in Neverland as he felt more confortable there. Funnily enough, Sneddon stopped caring about those accusations after the strip search. Hummmmm.....interesting.


"He would have been physically forced had he not finally cooperated."- In what country are you living, honey? Jackson wasn't charged with a crime, so he could choose between striping and not striping.

"Jordie gave a description of a particular blotch that can only be seen when MJ was aroused."-??? Nope. Chandler said Jackson had a blotch in his ass. What you said is untrue.

"Also why are fans so upset with Tom Sneddon. If i was district attorney of a county and i knew of a 35 year old man have a never neverland with kids there all the time and knowing he slept in the same bed a lot im keeping a close eye on that man. Michael Jackson or anyone else. That aint normal."- Sneddon wanted Jackson. He had flied to Australia and talked to a person begging him to accuse Jackson of pedophilia. That person said: "Take a hike. Get out of here." He was THAT desperate. But there's more.

Come on Baby: you are giving vague explanations. I've given you all the evidence and you tell me that "I'm explaining away too much".

I've given you all the facts possible and I've answered every doubt you had with factual texts. Ever wondered that Jackson may be innocent? Think about that. Give the guy a chance, after all the evidence I've given you. Read all my posts again and rethink what you think of MJ.

I've posted things that will make any blind hater think twice. C'mon: why do you think that guys like Aphrodite Jones and Ian Halperin, who were convinced that Jackson was a pedophile, after hours and hours of investigations reached one conclusion: Jackson never raped children.

WHY do you think that Jones and Halperin reached that conclusion (that MJ never raped kids)?

35 year old man with a neverland ranch for kids and sleeps in same bed as them. The district attorney, law enforcement, deputies should all keep a close eye on that man. PERIOD

This is planet EARTH

Not planet Michael Jackson. If he wants to have a planet of his own where he makes all the decisions then he should have gotten on the NASA team and figured a way how to do it

MOL stop arguing with this idiot.

voyevoda said:

Question? If a guy by the name of Jonathen Butler 35 years old was livng next door to you and his house said Neverland house where boys never grow up. You find out he has many kids over and sometimes they sleep in his bed.

Would you be upset if the police department was keeping a eye on him?

voyevoda said:

I will.

After all the evidence, after I've answered all his/her doubts, he/she keeps insisting that Michael was a pedophile because he lived in Neverland Ranch.

BabyBeMine said:

I don't give a fuck man. I don't care if MJ was a pedo or a freak. You keep talking about this shit like it matter anymore. The guy been dead for 3 months MOVE ON if you hate him so much.
[Edited 9/10/09 16:33pm]

ABCNews has obtained documented evidence showing that the current district attorney of Santa Barbara, Tom Sneddon, is involved up to his eyeballs in not only the prosecution of the case, but also in the investigation of Michael Jackson. So much so that, depending on what he learned, he could be a witness in the case. A memo, written by Sneddon, provides some startling details of his questionable (at best) activities in the case.

Reporter Jessica Yellin broke the news on Good Morning America yesterday (April 29). This memo wasn’t the only document viewed by ABCNews. The memo, however, was dated for Nov 2003 and says that Sneddon personally investigated aspect of the case against Jackson, by himself. The memo also details a secret meeting with the mother of the accuser:

According to the memo, Sneddon drove to Los Angeles and met alone with the mother of Jackson’s alleged victim in a parking lot behind a federal building.

These secret meetings, where he was alone with the accuser’s mother, are suspicious beyond belief for a number of reasons. ABC also reports that Sneddon himself took pictures of the offices of one of the defense private investigators working on the case. Most legal experts agree that this is completely unusual. There is also some question as to whether this was the same P.I.’s office that was later raided by Sneddon and the police. Legal expert Linda Fairstein told ABCNews:

It’s way too personal. It’s way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in this caseIt also let’s these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury, and explain that it’s not his [Sneddon's] place to do that. He created trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role.

Remember, according to a Fox news report, Sneddon sought contact with this family now accusing Jackson as far back as Feb 16 2003. This is months before a second investigation was launched by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department, after the first, 2 month long investigation by them was closed citing no criminal activity on Jackson’s part:

In fact, I am told, [Frank] Tyson and [Vincent] Amen will recount how, when they returned the family to their own apartment in East Los Angeles on February 16, 2003, a business card belonging to Sneddon had already been slipped under the door of their apartment. The mother fresh from the uproar 10 days earlier of her two sons being featured in the Martin Bashir special “Living with Michael Jackson” , picked up the card and called Sneddon, they will say. And that could suggest that Sneddon, long before there was any accusation against Jackson of child molestation, was already looking for a case that might develop into something more. (see MJ Accuser’s Testimony Shaky)

Why was he trying to contact this family since Feb 2003? He has already publicly stated via a press release then that he would not investigate Jackson because admitting to sharing a bed (letting a child sleep in your bed while you sleep on the floor) with a child in and of itself is not criminal conduct. So just why was Sneddon so eager to contact this family? Why was he meeting alone with the accuser’s mother in a parking lot behind a federal building? Did he not want anyone from his office or the police to find out he was meeting with her? Was this a benign meeting or was this secrecy used to solicit an allegation of abuse from her child? As expected, yesterday(April 29) on the Abrams Report, both prosecution mouthpiece Jim Thomas and Gloria Allred were unsuccessfully attempting to explain-away the incredible seriousness of this and what it means to this case. I’m just going to say it because people are still trying to ignore this information: There’s no way in hell this isn’t a problem and helps add to the shady activities that have gone on thus far in this case. This is yet another layer of questionable actions by the prosecutors. And one of the guests on the Abrams Report, Mercedes Colwin, was completely right about this being very problematic. Colwin says that as a prosecutor, you have to have a dispassionate interest. That means you cannot be gathering evidence yourself from star witnesses in the case in some parking lot behind a federal building. She continues:

You can’t be so personally involved that you’re gathering evidence. As a defense attorney, he [Sneddon] would be the first witness I would call. He’s gathering evidence. He’s talking to witnesses. He has no one present in the room. This is a very sensitive case and involves a child. And certainly, that child can be very impressionable.

Colwin, who has worked in a prosecutor’s office before, says that she would never have gone to talk with a witness by herself. She says:

“what can happen at the time of the trial is suddenly this witness is testifying to something entirely different than what they told me. Extraordinarily problematic”

What may also be highly challenging is the chain of custody of this alleged evidence Sneddon collected from the mother, by himself with no witnesses in a parking lot behind a federal building, is the chain of custody.

certainly, gathering evidenceas you [Abrams] had stated earlier is he’s collecting documentation. Where’s the chain of custody? You have to show where that evidence was from beginning to end. Who else is going to be able to testify?

Where did that evidence go when I took it from this witness?

Someone who has access of older information from the 1993 case is not someone who should be allowed to handle and handle it alone anything new coming into this case. It would reek of corruption and suspicion immediately. Many people are indeed questioning the motives behind this prosecution and the prosecution’s tactics thus far. Colwin says that this gathering of evidence, as reported by MSNBC, is concerned by the personal involvement with this information gathered by the prosecution:

My concern is this: That this person has been following Michael Jackson—the surveillance is extraordinarily problematic. Since 1993, he’s been trying to prosecute Michael Jackson. And if they if he continues and he’s gathering this evidence, and he’s trying to collect this information, I think it’s extraordinarily problematic. First of all, I have represented prosecutors that have done less than what Sneddon has done, and suddenly you have a due process issue when individuals have been wrongfully convicted for evidence gathered by these prosecutors.

Colwin asked the same questions many people who heard the news yesterday have been asking since. So far, no one has been able to satisfactorily answer the question: Why in the world couldn’t Sneddon have taken someone else with him or allowed some other parties to meet with the accuser’s mother. Colwin explains:

What would have been the problem, though, if Sneddon had gone with someone else? And that’s what I think defines why this is problematic. What—because you, look at the situation. Now he is and Dan [Abrams], you’re exactly right he has placed himself in this vulnerable position. He has been a district attorney for a very long time. He’s a seasoned lawyer. Why would he place himself in this situation? Why not bring someone else with him? He’s got a large office. He’s got many attorneys that work for him. Bring them along. Bring an investigator along. I find that problematic.

One could also ask questions as to why Sneddon would tell jokes and appear overly jocular at the first very first press conference; why he would answer over 100 questions at another press conference; why he would hold off initially filing charges against Jackson to get a media website ready; why he would then run to Judge Melville whining that a gag order should be placed on the parties in the case; why he would then crawl to a grand jury to get an indictment for fear of having his witnesses’ stories torn apart by defense attorneys in a preliminary hearing. This is by far not the first weird happening in this case. It is just another one of those things that make absolutely no sense at all. It also could be extremely detrimental to a case that is already riding on fumes towards a jury trial.

The civil portion of the Chandler case against Jackson was mutually settled with the payment of an undisclosed amount of money. In a legal court document filed in court on March 22, 2005, it was stated that Jackson’s insurance carrier ultimately negotiated and paid the full settlement amount[2]. The court document states that “the 1993 civil settlement was made by Mr. Jackson’s insurance company and was not within Mr. Jackson’s control… The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel.”

In 2005, according to Raymond Chandler, Jordan left the country to avoid testifying in the trial against Jackson; Ray states that Jordan does not like the media attention and has moved three times since the case began. His mother, June Chandler, has not seen her son in 11 years either, and Ray is also estranged from her.

In 2006, Jordan Chandler accused his father of abuse. The accuser, now 26, says his ex-dentist dad Evan Chandler “struck him on the head from behind with … (dumbbell) weight … sprayed his eyes with Mace or pepper spray, and tried to choke him” last year, according to court documents filed in New Jersey.

As some of you know, the man in the picture is Jordan Chandler, the person who accused Michael Jackson of molesting him in 1993. Well, as you can see Jordan has grown up. Jordan lives in NY/NJ with the money he obtained from the settlement in the 1993 case. Many people like Diane *big trunk* Dimond want you to think Jordan’s life is going great…in reality Jordan is a legal fight with his father, Evan Chandler. Jordan sued his father because in mid 2005 (now his father is suing him as well) his father tried to KILL HIM. How do I know this? COURT PAPERS. Jordan Chandler accuses his father of hitting him over the head with a 12-pound weight, spraying his eyes with mace and trying to choke him.

Why isn’t this information all over TMZ? Why isn’t Diane Dimond all over this one? If Diane can find out what underwear Tom Sneddon is wearing, why can’t she find out about this case? Perhaps because she may be afraid to know why EVAN CHANDLER would do something like that to his own SON. Perhaps she fears what she will find out. I would think that Evan Chandler trying to take out his son would be ALL OVER THE NEWS. I’m wrong. These folks don’t care about Jordan Chandler and what happens to him if it not related to Michael Jackson. But, who says it isn’t? Some alleged Evan and Jordan dispute is over money! You know that money they got from Michael Jackson’s insurance. I wonder, if Evan Chandler was capable of causing such injuries to his own son over what some allege is money, then why wouldn’t he be capable of falsely accusing a rich celebrity to get that money. It seems nothing stands in the way of Evan Chandler. Not even Jordan Chandler.