http://www.thesmokinggun....jdec1.html

In light of the creepy new Michael Jackson documentary, below you'll find the bombshell court document that first raised allegations that the singer was involved in inappropriate behavior with a young boy. The September 1993 declaration was sworn by a 13-year-old California boy who sued Jackson for, among other things, sexual battery, willful misconduct, and emotional distress. The child's declaration includes a graphic account of alleged sexual encounters with Jackson at the performer's Neverland Ranch and various hotels. Four months after the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit was filed, the two sides announced that the matter had been settled, though terms were not disclosed. News reports have estimated that Jackson paid north of $15 million to settle the tawdry action. No criminal charges were ever filed in connection with the teenager's charges. In the new documentary, Jackson says, "I have slept in a bed with many children," but notes that, "When you say 'bed,' you're thinking sexual. It's not sexual, we're going to sleep. I tuck them in...It's very charming, it's very sweet." (4 pages)

ESSENCE, I ADMIRE YOUR ZEAL BUT...

What is the point in producing this report - other than to add to the ever growing list of MJ threads?

The GQ article circulating this forum has already mentioned Chandler's declaration and placed the veracity of it's content in doubt.

The GQ article critiqued the court statement yet it still stood and in effect was worth $26m in settlement fees.

If I chose to accuse MJ of abuse when I was a child, I'd be laughed out of court because it would be false and have no foundation.

This is because Jordy Chandler was able to describe Michael Jackson's naked body down to intimate details, hence self pitying tears when MJ was photographed by police.

The account is not sensationalist alleging intercourse, it simply tells a plasuible account of a paedophile with all the usual actions, crying to make the victim feel guilt saying "If you loved me you'd let me put my tongue in your mouth. My other little boys do... you don't love me as much!". Men laying down in bed get erections, MJ lays down in bed with young boys.

These allegations weren't some falsified rubbish laughed away or given a little payoff for silence, they were of great foundation and hence got a "name your price" payoff.

Denying the validity of an allegedly abused child's claims is disgraceful and the damage remains no matter how much money they were bribed with to stop proceedings. Constantly berating the Chandler family makes you no better than the MJ fan freakazoids who have left Jordan living life on the run under different idenities in fear from death threats...

He was very articulate for a 13 year old.
Do you not get the impression that it was rehearsed?

Essence said:

I've heard (although I don't know how true it is) that Jordan doesn't even speak to his father anymore because of what he put him through.
If it is true then what does that tell you?

Cloudbuster said:

Abused children get screwed up in so many ways and nobody is saying the Chandler's are some wonderful, loving family. Simply that they had enough evidence of paedophilic abuse to get offered $26m to stop a criminal case (MJ doesn't strike as the sort who'd survive jailtime). That ain't no joke whichever way you try to play it...

I've read accounts of past employees speaking of big cheques paid out to other parents of his young bedfellows as well as his little male playmates talking of having phonesex with MJ as far back as the Off The Wall days. There's a whole lot of dirt there and you can rest assured it'll all come around again one day which is sad because the guy could always of searched out help for his issues...

Cloudbuster said:

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.

Court statements are always polished and made more articulate by prosecuting officers for clarities sake.

"Mikey stroked my pee pee" wouldn't really cut it.

Essence said:

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?

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.

calldapplwondery83 said:

We're talking more about MJ's genitals. And Jordan described them as being much smaller than they really are.

Cloudbuster said:

Officially Micheal's body was described to a tee, but you refute that so no further to say. Please tell me where the $26m of guilt lay then, without some lame "Just wanted it to go away" or "It wouldn't look right" argument?

I can discuss his music and dug his dynamic dancemoves and as much as the next fan but by virtue of this I'm supposed to automatically think him innocent of being a paedophile? Of course not, my respect for his music ability doesn't blind me to the damning evidence against him in this regard. Like I said before there's no other grown man in the world who would get a "Sleep with boys free" card. Because you also shared bed with men as a child doesn't make it right. MJ freakazoids leaping to his defence on every little issue simply because of who he is is pathetically sheep-like and damning the alleged abused victims verges on sickening.

By yor reckoning every Phil Spector production would have to be thrown away when/if he's convicted of murder, every 2pac record burnt because he's a convicted rapist etc... music for the ears, crimes for the courts.

I'm also an R. Kelly fan but I think he's likely to be indulging in criminal acts too. Is it just by chance or cruel irony that he wrote a song with the title "You Are Not Alone" for Michael Jackson?

Essence said:

MJ wanted to go to court but his lawyers advised against it because it was possible the jury would already be biased against him due to his apparant odd behaviour.

And the 18 month criminal investigation turned up nothing. These are the facts. And also, Tom Sneddon (who is the inspiration for the song DS) has recently said something like "You need victims before you can prosecute. And we don't have any victims. As far as I'm aware there is no law against children merely sleeping in the same room as an adult."

And what kind of caring parent would reach a settlement anyway. It stinks of extortion. Where are all the other victims? I don't buy the "He paid them off" arguement because if MJ really did have a history of paedophilia then i think it would have surfaced long before 1993. If people really did see things that they claimed they did then why didn't they report it at the time. "Because we didn't want to lose our jobs" is the lamest fucking excuse I've ever heard.

Essence said:[quote]

Cloudbuster said:

Officially Micheal's body was described to a tee, but you refute that so no further to say. Please tell me where the $26m of guilt lay then, without some lame "Just wanted it to go away" or "It wouldn't look right" argument?

quote]

you use the word 'officially' like you know something the rest of the world doesn't .Please prove this indeed fact, and i will withdraw all support for the man immediately.otherwise

i remember someone (tom sneddon?) saying Jordan had given an 'accurate description' of Michaels body.I also seem to remember this was never established as fact as the subsequent photos taken of Michael were never to see the light of day and were never spoken about by the authorities, for one reason or another (perhaps not that accurate after all?).

Nobody ever said 'You know what, Jordan Chandler was spot on with his description.let's go arrest Michael right now!"

somehow i think that would have happened if Jordan was right in his description.

Marrk said:[quote]

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?

Cloudbuster said:

Eariler you said his testomony seemed overly articulate for a thirteen year old but now he's supposed to describe genital size down to the closest metric measurement?

Cloudbuster said:

Again if MJ is so determined not to go to court that he'll settle $26m, then every boy who's ever met him would file suit, his "apparent odd behaviour" will always apply.

As I said before once the damage is done and the child is abused, a $26m bribe safe in knowledge it will never happen again is very attractive deal. Without evidence for a court case I'm sure the alleging party would settle for far less if they hadn't already been laughed away with nothing.

No word leaking out prior to 93 is tesimony to the tight ship MJ runs and his impermeable fortress at Neverland. I'm sure I don't need to go over the further allegations which have slipped by the wayside, they exist in many books on the man.

Again I do like his music yet I have the ability to remain objective, seems to me the only ones who are actually informed on the case and proceedings yet still have his back are the more obsessive fans, be it here on a Prince website, a GQ journalist, paid off employees/associates or comedian Steve Harvey.

Where are the objective supporters in his defence who offer evidence rather than emotional rhetoric?

Essence said:

A 13 year old knows the difference between big and small.

Essence said:[quote]

Marrk said:

The civil suit and the criminal investigation were independant of one another. Which is why after the settlement the criminal investigation was continued.

Essence said:

Books on the man seeking tabloid sensationalism.

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.

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]

Cloudbuster said:

How many male genitals is a 13yo supposed to have viewed to judge against some poll's national average?

Essence said:

Clutching at straws, eh?

Cloudbuster said:

Opposed to books/articles on the man sullied by fanatic inobjectivity?

Cloudbuster said:

Clutching at straws how? I know that aged 13 I couldn't tell you difference between a "big" or a "small" penis as I hadn't seen many. Don't judge all by your own experiences.

Cloudbuster said:

I consider myself a "fan" in the casual, musical sense of following a paedophile's music. You seem a literal "fan" as in fanatical blinded to any and everything remotely implying "The King Of Pop's" failings.

Cloudbuster said:

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.

As DavidEye has said on another thread "If Michael is guilty of commiting crimes, then prove it and lock him up."

He's a free man.

However, if it turns out that MJ is indeed a paedophile then I'll be the first to say that I got it wrong. Until then I'll believe he's innocent.

Essence said:

your statement is plainly ridiculous not to mention false, slanderous and bang out of order.

Essence said:

If as a thirteen year old you couldn't tell the difference between a big penis and a small one then your vision must be severley impaired.