New topic
PrintableEssence said: deeplove said: None of it is fact tho its all bull...no-one believes this lame shit!!!
Ahhh so enlightening are the words. Thanks for stopping by with this oh so well considered insight into "The $26m Jordan Chandler settlement". 
Shame you weren't MJ's lawyer, you would have saved him $26m. Little Jordy would be laughed away, head bowed in shame... Essence i know more about this case than you could EVER know, you are VERY wrong end of story! [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 15:48:37 PST 2003 by deeplove] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
deeplove said: Essence said: deeplove said: None of it is fact tho its all bull...no-one believes this lame shit!!!
Ahhh so enlightening are the words. Thanks for stopping by with this oh so well considered insight into "The $26m Jordan Chandler settlement".
Shame you weren't MJ's lawyer, you would have saved him $26m. Little Jordy would be laughed away, head bowed in shame... Essence i know more about this case than you could EVER know, you are VERY wrong end of story! [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 15:48:37 PST 2003 by deeplove] Well answer why his allegations were worth such a massive sum then, if you can't you actually know precisely NO more than I know about the case. Shouldn't you be tracking Jordan Chandler's whereabouts right now? That scum will surely pay for his sins! He was last sighted on Miami Beach, spread word to the MJ messageboards!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: deeplove said: Essence said: deeplove said: None of it is fact tho its all bull...no-one believes this lame shit!!!
Ahhh so enlightening are the words. Thanks for stopping by with this oh so well considered insight into "The $26m Jordan Chandler settlement".
Shame you weren't MJ's lawyer, you would have saved him $26m. Little Jordy would be laughed away, head bowed in shame... Essence i know more about this case than you could EVER know, you are VERY wrong end of story! [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 15:48:37 PST 2003 by deeplove] Well answer why his allegations were worth such a massive sum then, if you can't you actually know precisely NO more than I know about the case. His allegations were worth so much money because his was the only case with a father who wanted to extort Michael Jackson. Simple enough... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronUnlimited said: Essence said: deeplove said: Essence said: deeplove said: None of it is fact tho its all bull...no-one believes this lame shit!!!
Ahhh so enlightening are the words. Thanks for stopping by with this oh so well considered insight into "The $26m Jordan Chandler settlement".
Shame you weren't MJ's lawyer, you would have saved him $26m. Little Jordy would be laughed away, head bowed in shame... Essence i know more about this case than you could EVER know, you are VERY wrong end of story! [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 15:48:37 PST 2003 by deeplove] Well answer why his allegations were worth such a massive sum then, if you can't you actually know precisely NO more than I know about the case. His allegations were worth so much money because his was the only case with a father who wanted to extort Michael Jackson. Simple enough... That's crazy, it's common knowledge many accusations (without foundation) are received by Michael and his legal staff on the regular. Jordan's father is not the only greedy father in the world who went for Michael Jackson I'm afraid... there's no bigger target. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: AaronUnlimited said: Essence said: deeplove said: Essence said: deeplove said: None of it is fact tho its all bull...no-one believes this lame shit!!!
Ahhh so enlightening are the words. Thanks for stopping by with this oh so well considered insight into "The $26m Jordan Chandler settlement".
Shame you weren't MJ's lawyer, you would have saved him $26m. Little Jordy would be laughed away, head bowed in shame... Essence i know more about this case than you could EVER know, you are VERY wrong end of story! [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 15:48:37 PST 2003 by deeplove] Well answer why his allegations were worth such a massive sum then, if you can't you actually know precisely NO more than I know about the case. His allegations were worth so much money because his was the only case with a father who wanted to extort Michael Jackson. Simple enough... That's crazy, it's common knowledge many accusations (without foundation) are received by Michael and his legal staff on the regular. Jordan's father is not the only greedy father in the world who went for Michael Jackson I'm afraid... there's no bigger target. Not true. The prosecution dug and dug to find other children who would claim that they were abused by MJ and they turned up not a one. In fact, this one wouldn't either, until he was given a good brainwashing in the dentist chair. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: Essence said: Cloudbuster said: He was very articulate for a 13 year old.
Do you not get the impression that it was rehearsed? You didn't argue my point on Jordan's ability to describe Michael's naked body down the minutest detail? 
That's a major piece of evidence right there and leaves no room for discussion. There's no scenario in which a little boy should be seeing a full grown man naked while they're alone. The evidence didn't match Jordan's description. Also the criminal investigation was persued for a further year after the settlement of the civil case and the police still found no evidence. And if you're so convinced that MJ is a paedophile why do you consider yourself a fan and support him by buying his music? mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: The basic fact is this: If Michael had been found guilty then he would've gone to prison. Settlement or no settlement. Which is why (and I repeat) the criminal investigation was persued beyond the settlement. And they found NOTHING.
you make the Most Sense on the Subject Period.Clearly i consider myself a fan of Michael Jackson. You consider yourself a fan of a paedophile. [This message was edited Sun Feb 9 11:31:25 PST 2003 by Cloudbuster] mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Cloudbuster said: The basic fact is this: If Michael had been found guilty then he would've gone to prison. Settlement or no settlement. Which is why (and I repeat) the criminal investigation was persued beyond the settlement. And they found NOTHING!
I agree completely.There has never been a shred of evidence that Michael molested anybody.If you're gonna call someone a "child molester",you better have the proof to back it up.All you have are the un-proven accusations from *ONE* boy.People keep forgetting that there was a thorough year-long investigation that went on LONG AFTER the case was settled out of court.Michael's home was searched.His employees were interviewed.All of his child friends were interviewed.He allowed the cops to photograph his nude body.And after all this,not a single charge was filed! Believe me,if there was any evidence that MJ was molesting kids,even his money wouldn't have saved him.They STILL would have filed charges and made a case against him. In America,you are innocent until proven guilty.If Michael is a child molester,I challenge you to PROVE IT. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The fact of a $26m payoff could never be a conspiracy theory, this thread offered up the other side to a solely supportive GQ article. It's very unlikely anyone who isn't a fan and hence informed on the case would open this thread (doesn't even mention MJ in subjectline), thus there is also bias. Child abuse messageboards would take the factors altogether more suspiciously etc.
I hope all you MJ fans who believe him as totally innocent stay consistent and see OJ Simpson likewise, no criminal conviction there either, just a payout to the civil victims and corrupt prosecuting witnesses etc. It isn't my place to argue prosecution viewpoint just to put the other side up for the demonised Chandler family. Two sides to a story, one side won the payoff. So in short against Jackson is the fact he has and continues to obsessively share his bedroom with young boys and has paid $26m to settle on one claim of child abuse. In his favour... a GQ article and Jordan Chandler being allegedly the son of a bad man. Whichever way your senses (blind prejudices?) sway on it nobody really knows and will ever know due to silence contracts... the case is an eternal grey area. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: He was arrested and facing criminal trial had he not made the massive payoff bribe to stop proceedings. I ask again, if Jordan Chandler has no evidence then how come a $26m payoff? Wouldn't every boy and his brother be pressing false charges for such an easy and massive pay packet?
THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Errant nonsense. M.2.K
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
papaa said: Essence said: He was arrested and facing criminal trial had he not made the massive payoff bribe to stop proceedings. I ask again, if Jordan Chandler has no evidence then how come a $26m payoff? Wouldn't every boy and his brother be pressing false charges for such an easy and massive pay packet?
THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Errant nonsense. THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Having no new points to add to the discussion and having to quibble on semantics. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I've said it before and I will say it again...
There is not one shred of evidence that MJ molested Chandler or any other young child.All we have all the UN-PROVEN acccusations by one boy.That's the only "evidence" you have.A full investigation was launched by authorities.Michael's entire home was searched.All of his other children friends/associates were interviewed.He even allowed the cops to photograph his nude body.This investigation went on long after the case was settled out of court.And,after all that,there was not a single charge filed against Michael.Those are the facts! If MJ was molesting children,believe me,he would not have been able to buy his way out of it.They would have filed charges and made a case against him REGARDLESS of any out-of-court settlement.Remember,a person is always innocent until proven guilty. I totally understand why Michael chose to settle this matter out of court.It would have been a media circus (like the O.J. case a few years later),and the tabloids would have had a field day.The fact that MJ agreed to settle out of court is NOT an admission of guilt.The bigger question should be,why did Chandler and his parents accept a payout? If anyone molested MY kid,I would want to see that person behind bars asap.But,hey,I guess money talks,right? But,if you still insist that MJ is a child molester,I challenge you to PROVE IT.Otherwise,you're just spreading lies,rumors,gossip and hearsay.Put up or shut up! ... [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 4:46:57 PST 2003 by DavidEye] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: I've said it before and I will say it again...
There is not one shred of evidence that MJ molested Chandler or any other young child.All we have all the UN-PROVEN acccusations by one boy.That's the only "evidence" you have.A full investigation was launched by authorities.Michael's entire home was searched.All of his other children friends/associates were interviewed.He even allowed the cops to photograph his nude body.This investigation went on long after the case was settled out of court.And,after all that,there was not a single charge filed against Michael.Those are the facts! If MJ was molesting children,believe me,he would not have been able to buy his way out of it.They would have filed charges and made a case against him REGARDLESS of any out-of-court settlement.Remember,a person is always innocent until proven guilty. I totally understand why Michael chose to settle this matter out of court.It would have been a media circus (like the O.J. case a few years later),and the tabloids would have had a field day.The bigger question should be,why did Chandler and his parents accept a payout? If anyone molested MY kid,I would want to see that person behind bars asap.But,hey,I guess money talks,right? But,if you still insist that MJ is a child molester,I challenge you to PROVE IT. Like I said to Papaa we've been over all the ground now, answers to all the points can be found above. I don't insist MJ is child molestor, I supsect there's a great chance he is one, just as you can't assure me he's not. Without the witness/victim who you've bought to silence there's no possible chance of pursuing a criminal case. That's the purpose of settling out of court, you get what you pay for. Other alleged boyfriends of his don't even come into the equation... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I noticed that in your post you used terms like "I suspect" and "alleged".But when are you gonna present some hard,un-disputable proof that MJ molested any kid? You seem to be so sure that he is a child molester,I'd like to see some of your "evidence".
Actually,this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.I didn't believe this story in 1993 and I certainly don't believe it now.And if I DID think MJ was a child molester,I surely wouldn't waste my time listening to his music,the way you are doing. ... [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 5:07:48 PST 2003 by DavidEye] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: I noticed that in your post you used terms like "I suspect" and "alleged".But when are you gonna present some hard,un-disputable proof that MJ molested any kid? You seem to be so sure that he is a child molester,I'd like to see some of your "evidence".
Actually,this is a dead issue as far as I'm concerned.I didn't believe this story in 1993 and I certainly don't believe it now.And if I DID think MJ was a child molester,I surely wouldn't waste my time listening to his music,the way you are doing. ... [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 5:07:48 PST 2003 by DavidEye] I always admitted it's a grey area but there's enough information there for us to form our suspicions either way. Both sides of story need telling no? As for the tired "I wouldn't listen to a child molestor..." cliche, I hope you stay consistent in this anti-criminal stance? This means if Phil Spector is found guilty of murder you no longer listen to any of his wall of sound productions. That will limit your Beatles listening somewhat. It means you won't be checking for Rick James anymore: a convicted kidnapper amongst other offences. You can never listen to any song featuring Tupac (a convicted rapist), never subscribe for that Tyson fight (convicted rapist)... Also you have to accept OJ Simpson as innocent of any criminal act... if your not a hypocrite anyway... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
When you mentioned those other artists,you used the term "convicted".MJ was never convicted of any crime so your comparison is invalid. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: When you mentioned those other artists,you used the term "convicted".MJ was never convicted of any crime so your comparison is invalid.
Strange logic. My comparison in effect undercut your initial point as you said: "And if I DID think MJ was a child molester,I surely wouldn't waste my time listening to his music,the way you are doing." In this you judged my suspcions on his criminality as reason enough to cease listening. When I actually listed convicted criminals many of which you do listen to you dodged the issue entirely. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: papaa said: Essence said: He was arrested and facing criminal trial had he not made the massive payoff bribe to stop proceedings. I ask again, if Jordan Chandler has no evidence then how come a $26m payoff? Wouldn't every boy and his brother be pressing false charges for such an easy and massive pay packet?
THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Errant nonsense. THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Having no new points to add to the discussion and having to quibble on semantics. MY FRIEND, SEMANTICS ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE. Afterall, semantics pertains to the meaning in language or logic. No, what drew my attention was the following statement: "He [Michael] was arrested..." This is an unpardonable lie. To post crass and irreverant articles by the "esteemed" Victor Lewis-Smith is one thing, to indulge in blatant untruths is another matter entirely. Jackson was never placed under arrest during the year long investigation into child abuse allegations. For you to claim he was, is as I said, errant nonsense. Yes, I have no original points to add to this discussion. How this thread didn't die of natural causes is beyond me. But you've done well to keep this thread alive on nothing but a diet of hot air. M.2.K
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Yeah,this thread is filled with un-proven accusations,outright lies,tabloid sensationalism,and stupid rumors that would never stand up in a court of law.
And I am STILL waiting for someone to prove that MJ is a child molester. ... [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 6:56:29 PST 2003 by DavidEye] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: I've said it before and I will say it again...
There is not one shred of evidence that MJ molested Chandler or any other young child.All we have all the UN-PROVEN acccusations by one boy.That's the only "evidence" you have.A full investigation was launched by authorities.Michael's entire home was searched.All of his other children friends/associates were interviewed.He even allowed the cops to photograph his nude body.This investigation went on long after the case was settled out of court.And,after all that,there was not a single charge filed against Michael.Those are the facts! If MJ was molesting children,believe me,he would not have been able to buy his way out of it.They would have filed charges and made a case against him REGARDLESS of any out-of-court settlement.Remember,a person is always innocent until proven guilty. But,if you still insist that MJ is a child molester,I challenge you to PROVE IT.Otherwise,you're just spreading lies,rumors,gossip and hearsay.Put up or shut up! DAVIDEYE, I'M AFRAID YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT AWHILE... You ask, "When are you gonna present some hard,un-disputable proof that MJ molested any kid?" In all likelihood, he won't. I'd like him to produce any EVIDENCE, let alone PROOF that Jackson was involved in any wrong-doing. Those who insist Jackson is a child molester engage in nothing more than speculation and hearsay. Chandler's police report does not equate to Jackson's guilt. Neither does the Chandler's $20 million (circa) payout - "loose change" - as described by Jackson. Ultimately, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the accusers - not Jackson's. M.2.K
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
calldapplwondery83 said: I have read that the boy described the staines Michael Jackson has on his body, caused by his skin desease Vitiligo. I could say that, because everyone with this desease has those symptoms.
I don't know what to say... As a person having discovered that abuse had taken place in my family from "friendly outsiders", and meeting girl- friends who would later disclose to me details of sexual abuse from when they were children, I have spent many a day in outreach to try and help the world's children who are going through this LIFELONG nightmare to not be an enabler of this behavior, and ... I don't know, I'm absolutely MORTIFIED by what people are speculating about the child involved in this situation... I don't want to believe what I'm reading- I don't want to believe that the world can be so evil, so ill-intentoined toward our children, our resource for changing this world and our future... I think I' better let this one go... Peace out, y'all. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
papaa said: Essence said: papaa said: Essence said: He was arrested and facing criminal trial had he not made the massive payoff bribe to stop proceedings. I ask again, if Jordan Chandler has no evidence then how come a $26m payoff? Wouldn't every boy and his brother be pressing false charges for such an easy and massive pay packet?
THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Errant nonsense. THIS AMOUNTS TO NOTHING MORE THAN... Having no new points to add to the discussion and having to quibble on semantics. MY FRIEND, SEMANTICS ISN'T THE ISSUE HERE. Afterall, semantics pertains to the meaning in language or logic. No, what drew my attention was the following statement: "He [Michael] was arrested..." This is an unpardonable lie. To post crass and irreverant articles by the "esteemed" Victor Lewis-Smith is one thing, to indulge in blatant untruths is another matter entirely. Jackson was never placed under arrest during the year long investigation into child abuse allegations. For you to claim he was, is as I said, errant nonsense. Yes, I have no original points to add to this discussion. How this thread didn't die of natural causes is beyond me. But you've done well to keep this thread alive on nothing but a diet of hot air. Talk about swallowing your truths in Neverland size pieces, you really think Michael Jackson allowed himself to be photographed naked and examined without an arrest warrant being issued? Why would a thread have to "die" when it's sole function is a link to the official statement of the alleged child abuse's victim which led to a massive payoff? All very factual and worthy stuff. [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 12:24:10 PST 2003 by Essence] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Yeah,this thread is filled with un-proven accusations,outright lies,tabloid sensationalism,and stupid rumors that would never stand up in a court of law.
And I am STILL waiting for someone to prove that MJ is a child molester. ... [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 6:56:29 PST 2003 by DavidEye] Nobody is going to prove that MJ is a child molester, just that there's grounds to have realistic suspicions. I do notice the hypocrisy in you totally ignoring after the fact telling me I should boycott a man I suspect as a criminal when you listen to many convicted criminals though .  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ReeseStrongnight said: calldapplwondery83 said: I have read that the boy described the staines Michael Jackson has on his body, caused by his skin desease Vitiligo. I could say that, because everyone with this desease has those symptoms.
I don't know what to say... As a person having discovered that abuse had taken place in my family from "friendly outsiders", and meeting girl- friends who would later disclose to me details of sexual abuse from when they were children, I have spent many a day in outreach to try and help the world's children who are going through this LIFELONG nightmare to not be an enabler of this behavior, and ... I don't know, I'm absolutely MORTIFIED by what people are speculating about the child involved in this situation... I don't want to believe what I'm reading- I don't want to believe that the world can be so evil, so ill-intentoined toward our children, our resource for changing this world and our future... I think I' better let this one go... Peace out, y'all. Right, it goes without saying the blatant abuses aimed towards a thirteen year old victim enough to earn a freakishly large settlement are out of order. All because the alleged aggressor can do the moonwalk... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence to me u just have an adult "Dirty mind" find the child within. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Interesting...my friend (a HUGE fan of MJ) just sent me a bloody long email today containing the following letter written to some reporter by an MJ fan on one of the boards he visits. Personally, while I don't know if Michael Jackson is innocent, I certainly hope Michael Jackson is innocent. For the children's sake and no one else's.
Since there appears to be an interest in rehashing that OLD scam, I have decided to report a response to an editorial I sent to a LA columnist in 2000. What I find interesting, those who want to label Michael a child molestor, never ONCE questioned the father. And it makes you wonder WHY??? But here is what I wrote in 2000.
Editorial in reference to a sindicated column in the New York Post (30th September 1999) written by Greg Crosby ("an essayist in Los Angeles" titled "THE 'GETTING AWAY WITH IT DECADE." Dear Mr. Crosby: In the New York Post, you had Michael Jackson's name among those who "get away with it" in the 90's. You claimed Michael Jackson "got away" with "molesting boys." What "boys"? Are you referring to the ONE child whose father, Evan Chandler, filed a CIVIL lawsuit against Michael Jackson accusing him of molesting his son? Of course, you dare not mention the TWO Criminal Grand Juries who reviewed the case and the 40 or more children who testified on Michael Jackson's behalf. Of course this would not be included as part of your proof he "got away with it." In your essay, you had a list of those who, as you say "have all gotten away with stuff that a generation or two earlier they would have certainly been punished for." On your list you included: O.J. Simpson, William Kennedy Smith, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Webster Hubbell, Susan McDougal, and Johnny Chung. Out of all the names on your list of those who "got away with it," Michael Jackson is the ONLY name where charges were NEVER filed or the allegations NEVER proven. Yet, Michael "got away with it" for ONLY being ACCUSED? Mr. Crosby, can you explain exactly HOW did Michael Jackson "get away with it" when the criminal investigation was in the hands of Evan Chandler, the boy's father, not Michael Jackson? How could Michael "get away" with something he had no control over? Settling a CIVIL lawsuit does NOT settle criminal charges. The criminal charges rest with the District Attorney's Office, whom Evan Chandler decided NOT to cooperate with. How come? He could have cooperated in the criminal investigation to have charges filed and still got the money later. Instead of presenting the District Attorney's Office with evidence and cooperating in the investigation, Evan Chandler chose to pick Michael's Jackson's pocket for money. Of course, the tabloid and some legitimate press assisted Evan Chandler in his exhortion case by dragging unrelated issues and individuals before the media for their 15 minutes of fame. Remember all those FRAUDS that programs such as Hard Copy allowed to benefit financially although they had NOTHING to offer besides filing their own lawsuits for MONEY? Remember them Mr. Crosby? They all came with claims of being "fired." for "knowing too much." Only to lose their cases later and be forced to pay Michael Jackson's legal fees. The lawyer representing one of those frauds, was even reprimanded for lying. And it was also revealed that one of the frauds, by the name of Jerome, was actually fired for stealing. ALL of those frauds would lose their Civil cases, and how much attention was given to Michael for his victories? Small writes ups to ZERO. All those frauds who were given all that initial attention (which increased newspaper sales and program viewership) were given a small blip in news coverage after Michael won. Why? Because this kind of news does not generate sales and it is LESS sensational. And, it was not given attention because it SUPPORTED Michael. Did you, Mr. Crosby, cover any of Michael Jackson's legal victories? Had Michael lost, it would have made the FRONT PAGE, and made the TOP news story. But since he WON, it was SWEPT UNDER THE RUG. This is why it was NOT important for Michael to fight out a CIVIL case. Even if Michael had won the Chandler Civil lawsuit, which would have required his MANY children friends to be pushed into the spotlight to defend him, he still would not have been freed from the accusation, because writers, likes you, would have been the first to say he "got away with it because of his money." So, why was it so important for the media to see Michael battle in the Chandler Civil Case? It would have been used ONLY for sleazy writers like yourself to sell papers and to increase viewers for programs. His CIVIL victory would have meant NOTHING, just like all the many victories he has had since that lawsuit. This is why Michael didn't get away with anything. Michael only gave Evan Chandler what HE WANTED, MONEY. The all important CRIMINAL case rested with Evan Chandler, NOT Michael. In most CRIMINAL cases, a Civil lawsuit is used as a LAST resort for justice, not a first. You should be well aware of this, Mr. Crosby, since you included O.J. Simpson on your list. Real victims act like the Goldman family, not like the Chandlers. How many parents would SKIP the chance of putting the molester of their child in jail when the statue of limitations have NOT expired? NONE! No parent would be focusing on money in the middle of a criminal investigation involving their child. That is ridiculous. Those parents would be working so hard with the District Attorney to make sure justice prevails, not money prevailing. This doesn't take a lot of common sense to figure out. And some of you in the media have the nerve to give ALL of your support to the Chandlers like they represent what you would do. I am sure many of you have kids, and I am sure there is NO VALUE you can place on your child being molested. And if you read the script that Evan Chandler concocted (Evan Chandler being an experienced screen writer), NO WAY would you have excepted MONEY in lieu of criminal prosecution. How come so many of you in the media have given all your support to the Chandlers for what I call the Biggest Money Making SCAM of the 90's? Are you telling your readers MONEY is JUSTICE for a crime? If Evan Chandler was willing to push his son through a Civil trial for money, why would he skip over criminal prosecution? Both a Civil or a Criminal trial would have bought the same amount of attention. So, why was he focusing on a CIVIL case in the middle of a criminal investigation? Because it is a form of LEGAL EXHORTION! Some of you writers always seem to lack COMMON SENSE when it comes to Michael Jackson. Why? I believe it is done intentionally out of jealousy of his success and his popularity. Before that SCAM or HOAX, as I call it, Michael Jackson was the biggest attraction in the media, WAY ABOVE most on your list whom you claim "got away with it." Take for instance Michael's interview with Oprah on February 10, 1993, only 6 months before the SCAM. That interview was watched by 90 MILLION U.S. residents ALONE. No personality, celebrity or political, EVER came close to capturing those numbers for ONE network (ABC) for a simple sit-down interview. During that interview, Michael said the following: "There's so much GARBAGE and so much TRASH that's written about me it is so UNTRUE, they're complete LIES, and those are some of the things I wanted to talk about. The press has MADE UP so much ... God ... awful, horrifying stories it has made me realize the more often you hear a lie, I mean, you begin to believe it." So, what happened after this interview? The same LIES, GARBAGE, UNTRUTHS, AND TRASH. It didn't change. It got worst. The media became even more vicious with the lies, and I am sure, Mr. Crosby, you were among the pack. You in the media understood very well how much Michael Jackson's name SELLS. And I'm certain after the MOST watched interview in television history, you wanted to exploit this perfect opportunity to drag Michael Jackson's name through the mud and to tarnish his image. You all in the media must have been salivating over the accusation alone. I know what you all must have been thinking: "If 90 million people were interested in a simple sit-down interview, just imagine how many people would be interested in a scandal...We should be able to make a lot of money from this story even if it's not true." Isn't that what many in the media were thinking, Mr. Crosby? Isn't that what you were thinking and continue to think? MONEY above truth and justice. You all didn't care about JUSTICE. You only cared about sensationalizing a story to sell and to make money using the BIGGEST name, Michael Jackson. This is why E! Online and others still call it the biggest "scandal." It wasn't the biggest scandal, it was the BIGGEST NAME. Of course, the biggest name brings with it, MORE attention. Anything before the Scam involving Michael Jackson's name was magnified 10 times that is the cost of fame for him. But being the biggest name, doesn't make it the biggest "scandal." How could it be the biggest scandal when it was filled with so many lies? It was the media exploiting the name of Michael Jackson and taking advantage of him as usual. In the process, you RAPED him of his justice. You all particpated in the HOAX and taint the public perception of the case as you saw your sales and viewership increase. As time past, I am certain many of you realized, Michael was treated very unfairly with so many lies that aired publicly, so many they can't be counted. Those lies RAPED him of his justice and dignity. Now Six years after the hoax, many in the media can't allow their egos to admit they were wrong, and they did Michael Jackson wrong. So what do those like you do, Mr. Crosby, to pacify your damaged egos? Add MORE LIES to the story such as Michael Jackson "molesting boyS." "Yes, make it plural." Some of you in the media are so malicious, evil, and arrogant with your lies. Michael wasn't wrong on the Oprah interview when he said "the more often you hear a lie...the more you begin to believe it." Isn't that what the media's purpose was during this case? Convince the public, by any means necessary, that Michael Jackson is a child molester? And you, Mr. Crosby, continue to spread the lies. You have to add to the lie to make it more believable because you do understand Michael Jackson has been around so MANY children, why ONLY ONE CHILD? By adding "boyS", you attempt to give your lie LEGS. For SIX YEARS, the statue of limitations was available for ANY alledged victims to come forth. In August 1999, that statue of limitation EXPIRED with NO victims besides that ONE accusation. Where are your "boyS", Mr. Crosby?. And don't tell me EVERY PARENT got the alledge sum of $20 million or according to the National Enquirer, $40 million. Sure, you don't believe the lie that EVERY PARENT took the money after their child was molested? Is that what you are saying, Mr. Crosby? That Michael Jackson paid off all his accusers, of course the same amount because why would any of them want less when they can USE the media like Evan Chandler did and get just as much or more? What you are implying, Mr. Crosby, is that Michael Jackson gave EACH boy $20 million or $40 million to avoid prosecution. Exactly how many boys was that? Was it some of the 40 who spoke on his behalf before the CRIMINAL GRAND JURY? Think about how ridiculous this sounds. Michael has been around so MANY children and just think during that SIX year period, not ONE child attempted to exploit Michael Jackson like Evan Chandler and his son did. NOT ONE! The statue of limitations was open for SIX YEARS and NOT one made the accusation that came from Evan Chandler and his son. Isn't that odd? It would have been very easy to do especially since any child would have been given the full support of the media like Evan Chandler. Where are the "boyS" since you can prosecute in a criminal case and STILL get the MILLIONS? If I truly believed Michael Jackson molested my child I would want to prosecute him FIRST. I would do like the Goldmans' did O.J. Simpson, take him through the criminal process, and if that didn't work, make him feel his financial loss. What percentage of O.J. Simpson's net worth was awarded in the Goldman's victory? Over 100%. O.J. Simpson's networth was estimated at $10 million. The Goldman's were awarded $33.5 million in the wrongful death Civil Suit. This is what I would call a monetary punishment. But just like the Goldmans', NO WAY would I want money without FIRST attempting to criminally prosecute the molester of my child. I would NOT skip this process. This would be my PRIORITY. Even when the Goldmans' later prevailed in the Civil Case against O.J Simpson, what did they say? They indicated the MOST important victory was NOT the money, it was hearing a jury say "O.J. Simpson is responsible for the death of Ron Goldman." That's what the Goldmans' wanted to hear. That is what REAL victims want. JUSTICE!!! They could have cared less about the money. In fact, the Goldmans' have given their time to charity, fighting victims rights. What a stark contrast between the Goldmans and the Chandlers. And you all support the Chandlers like they represent real victims. Don't make me laugh. Ask the father of the little girl, Polly Klatz, whose daughter was molested and murdered, how REAL victims of REAL CRIMES relate. They aren't interested in money, they are interested in JUSTICE. Since Evan Chandler was NOT interested in Justice, and since he did not want to hear a jury say Michael Jackson is "guilty," or "responsible" what exactly was Evan Chandler's purpose or motive, Mr. Crosby? MONEY!!! And if you say what he did was okay, what exactly would you call a person who would want money instead of criminal prosecution for their child alledgedly being molested? There is a term for this that dates back ages. Evan Chandler would be called a A PIMP, prostituting his son for money. Of course, you, Mr. Crosby, would support a pimp since you too are in the prostitution business. You have the audacity to support this PIMP with so much confidence, arrogance, and certainty. Get real!! You don't believe it yourself. But you do believe in pimping and prostituting Michael Jackson's name in your article for the same reasons others have done for YEARS, TO SELL AND TO MAKE MONEY. There was NO reason for you to include his name in the "Getting away with it" crowd besides having your readers see the most popular name on the list, Michael Jackson. A name that gets IMMEDIATE attention for your lame article. No one would care about your article if Michael Jackson's name was not there You were attempting to reach some of that 90 million. Although you see the writing on the wall that Michael Jackson's doesn't fit in your article, you refuse to admit it as you hope it helps gain publicity for yourself and help sell papers one more time. You, like many, don't have the balls to tell your readers the truth that it was a HOAX. Because you feel, your credibility would be lost. But, I'm sure you already know the public has already lost credibility with the media because of writers like you. I have read countless articles in the USA Today and other publications that indicated America's trust of the media has declined drastically. Why is that? Because of the many untruths that have unraveled before their eyes. But, before I get to that issue, let me explain why instead of saying Michael Jackson "got away with it," you should be calling it the Biggest Money Making HOAX of the 90's supported by the media. Let me give you a SUMMARY of the events in this HOAX. Michael was accused by ONE child whose father led the campaign to get money. The father chose not to see the alledged abuser of his child face a criminal court case that could send him to JAIL. Instead, he chose to file a CIVIL lawsuit, before the criminal case is sought, with the hopes of getting rich, then refuse to testify in any criminal case, being satisfied with getting money from his childs abuser. Keep in mind Mr. Crosby, children are not forced to testify in criminal cases. Many child molestation cases have been sought, tried, and won without any victims testifying. So, why would Evan Chandler accept ONLY MONEY for an alledge crime? It is obvious Mr. Chandler intentions was ALWAYS: the MONEY. Most parents would want to see the man who abused their child punished! Are you telling your readers Money is a punishment? And if you claim, Evan Chandler took the money to avoid the publicity and to protect his child's name, that is far from the truth. What did Evan Chandler do after settling the Civil case? He would participate in writing a book with Victor Guiterrez called "Michael Jackson Was My Lover." What parent would refer to the molester of their son as a "lover" if that child was truly molested? I know of none, A MONSTER but not a lover. Michael would file a lawsuit against Victor Guiterrez for alledging he had a tape of Michael having "sex" with a boy. Michael would WIN his lawsuit against Victor Guiterrez and receive $2.7 million. Of course, Mr. Crosby, like many victories, Michael's victory against Victor Guiterrez was SWEPT UNDER THE RUG. Evan Chandler would then threaten to release an album called EvanStory. He was getting more RIDICULOUS every minute!! Does the media care about Evan Chandler's games, games that reveal his conman personality? NOT! Evan Chandler has and continues to used everyone possible to carve his lie and convince people his child was abused, EXCEPT THE CRIMINAL COURTS that HE controls, not Michael. And while Evan Chandler plays his games, the media pretends not to see them as they SWEEP his sleazy games UNDER THE RUG. Why? Because they fear the truth will be revealed and Michael Jackson vindicated. In fact, the media has SWEPT ALL of Michael's legal victories UNDER THE RUG, as if he never won. Why is that? Because those legal victories give credibility to Michael's innocence and that doesn't sell papers or increase viewers. Those victories are swept under the rug in an effort to keep the stigma of Michael Jackson as a "child molester" in your sick memories. This stigma of a "child molester" sells or at least that's what many of you believe. However, I believe times are changing. The winds of change is sweeping through the media as a result of the public backlash. People have learned to disect the lies. In the past the media carried more clout, but the public finally sees some of you as pathetic, worthless, and lying losers who can't be trusted. What a life you have paved for yourself. Did you, Mr. Crosby ever invision a career based on LIES? I know your parents are so proud of you. You are not perceived as reliable and neither is the media as a whole. When will the media learn that truth sell as well or better than lies? Why don't you try it and see what happens? In Michael's case, you can start by revealing some of the truth that has been SWEPT UNDER THE RUG. Many writers like yourself, should be ashame of participating in this type of journalism of distortion, manipulation, and lies, the kind you have played on Michael Jackson for YEARS. It didn't just began with the Scam. Michael Jackson's mistreatment goes back many years before that. But in the Scam case, you all magnified the LIE ten folds. Writers, like yourself, know the truth in the Scam case, but you do not want to admit YOU WERE WRONG. You rather continue to play the lie game to sell one more paper, to get 15 more minutes, and to boast your deflated egos. For journalist like yourself, I have my opinion of the 90's. The 90's should be called the era the public lost faith in the media. It should be called the period when so many lies were carried in the media as truths that the public began to distrust the media, the one's they so heavily relied on for decades to give them facts and truth. How disappointing as the 90's progressed that the public had to turn off their television sets and read less papers as they felt crushed, and hurt as they loss faith, intergrity, and honesty from the media. And, you Mr. Crosby continue to turn off the public with deception and untruths. I have a resolution for you, Mr. Crosby, for 2000. Meditate over the last decade, and try to find some peace of mind and truth to carry into the millenium. As the millenium approaches, destroy the lies and deceit filtering from you mind through your poisonous pen and keyboard. Provide your readers with truth; so that they can regain the trust in the media that was so sadly lost in the 90's. What a gift this would be to your readers, and what a gift this would be to your conscience. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
deeplove said: Essence to me u just have an adult "Dirty mind" find the child within.
Not sure what you mean on this, I don't care less about MJ's childlike ways, his weirdness and eccentricities, it's all good. Just supplying an opposing view regarding the child abuse claims and replying to points that try and discard them offhand because it's MJ and not some inconsequential "dirty old man" on a street corner. "Child within" is cool and all but no other forty-four year old man who takes young male bedfellows gets away unchecked... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Essence said: Talk about swallowing your truths in Neverland size pieces, you really think Michael Jackson allowed himself to be photographed naked and examined without an arrest warrant being issued? Why would a thread have to "die" when it's sole function is a link to the official statement of the alleged child abuse's victim which led to a massive payoff? All very factual and worthy stuff. [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 12:24:10 PST 2003 by Essence] FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT... Let me state the following once more: Jackson was never placed under arrest during the year long investigation into child abuse allegations. No matter how adroit you are in the art of squirming and twisting, to write: "He [Jackson] was arrested" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts...or good old fashioned nonsense.
Essence also wrote: "Men laying down in bed get erections, MJ lays down in bed with young boys." Are we expected to be compelled on account of your word alone? No way. If you have facts not hearsay, to back this position then present them so that one can be compelled. Without that, it is impossible to simply concur with you. We are still yet to see even the slightest, flimsiest piece of evidence to support your claim. So as David Milagro eloquently said: 'Put up or shut up'. If the best case you can make is based on "ground for realistic suspicion" then I can only laugh. My two euros
PS: To what do you refer as 'factual and worthy stuff'? Chandler's averment, perhaps? If so, I dare you to highlight a SINGLE sentence of what you describe as 'factual and worthy' evidence. PPS: The opening line, "I was born on January 11, 1980..." doesn't count. M.2.K
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
papaa said: Essence said: Talk about swallowing your truths in Neverland size pieces, you really think Michael Jackson allowed himself to be photographed naked and examined without an arrest warrant being issued? Why would a thread have to "die" when it's sole function is a link to the official statement of the alleged child abuse's victim which led to a massive payoff? All very factual and worthy stuff. [This message was edited Mon Feb 10 12:24:10 PST 2003 by Essence] FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT... Let me state the following once more: Jackson was never placed under arrest during the year long investigation into child abuse allegations. No matter how adroit you are in the art of squirming and twisting, to write: "He [Jackson] was arrested" is a gross misrepresentation of the facts...or good old fashioned nonsense.
Essence also wrote: "Men laying down in bed get erections, MJ lays down in bed with young boys." Are we expected to be compelled on account of your word alone? No way. If you have facts not hearsay, to back this position then present them so that one can be compelled. Without that, it is impossible to simply concur with you. We are still yet to see even the slightest, flimsiest piece of evidence to support your claim. So as David Milagro eloquently said: 'Put up or shut up'. If the best case you can make is based on "ground for realistic suspicion" then I can only laugh. My two euros
PS: To what do you refer as 'factual and worthy stuff'? Chandler's averment, perhaps? If so, I dare you to highlight a SINGLE sentence of what you describe as 'factual and worthy' evidence. PPS: The opening line, "I was born on January 11, 1980..." doesn't count. You have no factual evidence against the Chandler family to disprove the claims either. What is fact is the man shares his bed with boys. He admitted it in the recent documentary for one thing, you can't deny this. Well by virtue of all the lies he tells I guess the reverse could conceivably be true. hmmm What is fact is he paid $26m to stop Jordan Chandler speaking against him in court regarding child abuse claims, which are available at the link within this thread. Anything else we're just back and forthing and covering no new ground, just which way we personally interpret the information available... so laugh if you want but the topic isn't that funny really. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AND ONE LAST TIME FOR THE ROAD.
You have no factual evidence against the Chandler family to disprove the claims either.
As I wrote earlier, I don't have to prove or disprove anything. That particular requirement lies with you. What is fact is the man shares his bed with boys. He admitted it in the recent documentary for one thing, you can't deny this.
And in writing, "Men laying down in bed get erections, MJ lays down in bed with young boys", is the sexual association not implicit? An association which you are yet to establish. What is fact is he paid $26m to stop Jordan Chandler speaking against him in court regarding child abuse claims, which are available at the link within this thread.
Indeed we are going around in circles. [L]augh if you want but the topic isn't that funny really.
Not laughing at the topic - just your trifling argument on the "grounds of realistic suspicion". My two euros
PS: This discussion already done knackered itself a long time ago. Let's agree to stop flogging a dead horse?  M.2.K
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |