independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 18th Sep 2019 12:39pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Documentary DESTROYS Wade Robson's claims by using his own leaked deposition!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #210 posted 09/05/19 10:51am

IfItAintToy

Mikado said:

IfItAintToy said:

Weird how Mez was so confident about the pics he did everything in his power for them to remain a secret...even though that would mean MJ being vindicated in regard to the 93 case.

Weird how Sneddon (implicitly), Bill Dworin and Carl Douglas (MJ's own lawyer) said it matched.

Weird how MJ spent 5 months not particularly caring about Evan Chandler, throwing insignificant numbers at him (1M firstly and then 350000+ scripts later) but settled exactly three weeks after the strip search for 23M.

By the time the prosecution had made the request to include the pictures, June Chandler had already testified and Jordan obviously had no interest in showing up. Sneddon had made weird, equivocating remarks about whether they photos matched and referred to a mark as being "relatively close" to the Chandler description. More than anything, it was too late in the prosecution's case to be introducing new evidence without proper time for rebuttal. Of course Mesereau fought it - but it was up to Judge Melville to make the final call on whether to include the photos, and he decided not to. Nobody can possibly accuse the Judge of being in the pocket for the defense, yet it was the decision he made. As to the timeframe of the 1993 settlement, when Evan Chandler's lawyer (Larry Feldman) and the Jackson legal team were negotiating, the allegations hadn't gone public. Once they had, the pressure was on for a settlement to be reached so tours and promotion for the Dangerous album could continue. 3 weeks was a lifetime in the 24/7 news cycle, which were carrying non-stop coverage of the allegations. [Edited 9/5/19 10:16am]

The defense argued that, since Jordan was not going to testify- and be cross-examined- it would be unfair to use the pictures. True, but if they didn't match, why not? Why not vindicate Michael from the 93 accusations?

The allegations were made public while Evan and Jackson were negotiating, well before the settlement and nobody pressured Michael Jackson into doing absolutely anything. The Dangerous tour was done and dusted by the time a settlement was agreed.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #211 posted 09/05/19 12:18pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

IfItAintToy said:

The defense argued that, since Jordan was not going to testify- and be cross-examined- it would be unfair to use the pictures. True, but if they didn't match, why not? Why not vindicate Michael from the 93 accusations?

The allegations were made public while Evan and Jackson were negotiating, well before the settlement and nobody pressured Michael Jackson into doing absolutely anything. The Dangerous tour was done and dusted by the time a settlement was agreed.


You really are a special case, aren't you.

The settlement was made after the judge had overruled the four motions put forward by MJ's defense team to have the criminal trial ahead of the civil trial. The settlement didn't buy anyone's silence as the criminal investigation continued for several months after. Once the settlement was made the Chandler$ lost interest in the criminal proceedings and refused to cooperate. They had got what they had wanted all along. Not the prosecution of a supposed child molester but millions in the bank. The two grand juries involved in the criminal investigation both eventually declared that there were no grounds for the prosecution of Michael Jackson. They saw all the evidence. You didn't.

.

[Edited 9/5/19 12:22pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #212 posted 09/05/19 4:13pm

IfItAintToy

Cloudbuster said:

IfItAintToy said:

The defense argued that, since Jordan was not going to testify- and be cross-examined- it would be unfair to use the pictures. True, but if they didn't match, why not? Why not vindicate Michael from the 93 accusations?

The allegations were made public while Evan and Jackson were negotiating, well before the settlement and nobody pressured Michael Jackson into doing absolutely anything. The Dangerous tour was done and dusted by the time a settlement was agreed.


You really are a special case, aren't you.

The settlement was made after the judge had overruled the four motions put forward by MJ's defense team to have the criminal trial ahead of the civil trial. The settlement didn't buy anyone's silence as the criminal investigation continued for several months after. Once the settlement was made the Chandler$ lost interest in the criminal proceedings and refused to cooperate. They had got what they had wanted all along. Not the prosecution of a supposed child molester but millions in the bank. The two grand juries involved in the criminal investigation both eventually declared that there were no grounds for the prosecution of Michael Jackson. They saw all the evidence. You didn't.

.

[Edited 9/5/19 12:22pm]

I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case? The defense team was just trying to delay the civil trial in case more time for negotiations was needed. They were also horrified by the idea of MJ being interviewed by law enforcement which would be their ultimate downfall and even MJ said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ (=criminal trial). And no, no two grand juries "involved in the criminal investigation declared that there was no grounds for the prosecution". That's one of those things fans spew hoping to convince themselves of MJ's innocence just like the "the FBI investigated MJ for 10 years" bullcrap. Any and every investigation was stopped the moment Chandler received the money for the people needed to proceed were obviously not going to cooperate which is why MJ was not indicted. Besides, apart from half a dozen people, no one else saw the penis pics. And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence of MJ sleep compulsively with Jorda? Of MJ spending all his time with Jordan? Of MJ holding hands with Jordan whispering in his ear even in public? Of MJ spending dozens of hours on the phone with the boy? Of MJ giving June all sorts of gifts and unlimited shopping sprees? Is there any acquaintace child-molester characteristic MJ didn't have?

[Edited 9/5/19 16:26pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #213 posted 09/05/19 4:21pm

PatrickS77

avatar

IfItAintToy said:

I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case?

There is no guarantee. You can't legally buy silence in a criminal prosecution matter. It is against the law. Even the Chandler's attorney stated back then that this settlement doesn't prohibit them from taking part in any criminal prosecution if they so wish. So come again about the unicorn.

And you really show that you know nothing. No. The investigation was not stopped. Those 2 grand jury's were active for several months after the settlement. If I remember correctly it was August, when that finally was stopped.

[Edited 9/5/19 16:23pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #214 posted 09/05/19 4:32pm

IfItAintToy

PatrickS77 said:

IfItAintToy said:

I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case?

There is no guarantee. You can't legally buy silence in a criminal prosecution matter. It is against the law. Even the Chandler's attorney stated back then that this settlement doesn't prohibit them from taking part in any criminal prosecution if they so wish. So come again about the unicorn.

And you really show that you know nothing. No. The investigation was not stopped. Those 2 grand jury's were active for several months after the settlement. If I remember correctly it was August, when that finally was stopped.

[Edited 9/5/19 16:23pm]

There isn't a way of legally guaranteeing anything but let's not pretend there aren't under-the-table ways of making sure money means silence, particulary with such powerful lawyers like Johnnie Cochran, a great friend of Feldman's.

David Corbett worked 15 years as a San Francisco based PI with the firm Palladino & Sutherland. He was interviewed in 2009.

“We worked for the fourteen-year-old boy and his family in the child molestation case, and we tried the best we could to help the police, but we kept finding out from the sergeant who was out liaison at LAPD that they would assemble a witness list from our reports, pass it up the chain of command, and it would inevitably come back with certain key witnesses cross off. The suspicion was that, with Johnny Cochran at the helm of Jackson’s defense, he was pulling strings with old contacts in the DA’s office or with cops he knew. We could never prove this, and it was just a suspicion. But it all became moot when Cochran, fearing his investigators has been taped trying to tamper with witnesses – they’d been instructed by Cochran to go out and find ex-employees, tell them,”Michael loves you,” and offer them their jobs back at salaries they could hardly refuse – Cochran had a high-power conclave with his client and promptly pitched almost $20 million at the kid and his family. An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know.”

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #215 posted 09/05/19 4:36pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

IfItAintToy said:

I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case? The defense team was just trying to delay the civil trial in case more time for negotiations was needed. They were also horrified by the idea of MJ being interviewed by law enforcement which would be their ultimate downfall and even MJ said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ (=criminal trial). And no, no two grand juries "involved in the criminal investigation declared that there was no grounds for the prosecution". That's one of those things fans spew hoping to convince themselves of MJ's innocence just like the "the FBI investigated MJ for 10 years" bullcrap. Any and every investigation was stopped the moment Chandler received the money for the people needed to proceed were obviously not going to cooperate which is why MJ was not indicted. Besides, apart from half a dozen people, no one else saw the penis pics. And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence of MJ sleep compulsively with Jorda? Of MJ spending all his time with Jordan? Of MJ holding hands with Jordan whispering in his ear even in public? Of MJ spending dozens of hours on the phone with the boy? Of MJ giving June all sorts of gifts and unlimited shopping sprees? Is there any acquaintace child-molester characteristic MJ didn't have?

[Edited 9/5/19 16:26pm]


Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated in 1993/1994 and was neither arrested nor prosecuted.

Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated from 2003-2005, arrested, put on trial and walked free.

And you hate that don't you.

You really want him to be a paedophile don't you. You sick fuck.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #216 posted 09/05/19 4:44pm

PatrickS77

avatar

I don't care what anybody supposedly asssumes. Anybody can assume anything. Without evidence it's just bs. Proof it or shut the fuck up.

IfItAintToy said:

PatrickS77 said:

There isn't a way of legally guaranteeing anything but let's not pretend there aren't under-the-table ways of making sure money means silence, particulary with such powerful lawyers like Johnnie Cochran, a great friend of Feldman's.

David Corbett worked 15 years as a San Francisco based PI with the firm Palladino & Sutherland. He was interviewed in 2009.

“We worked for the fourteen-year-old boy and his family in the child molestation case, and we tried the best we could to help the police, but we kept finding out from the sergeant who was out liaison at LAPD that they would assemble a witness list from our reports, pass it up the chain of command, and it would inevitably come back with certain key witnesses cross off. The suspicion was that, with Johnny Cochran at the helm of Jackson’s defense, he was pulling strings with old contacts in the DA’s office or with cops he knew. We could never prove this, and it was just a suspicion. But it all became moot when Cochran, fearing his investigators has been taped trying to tamper with witnesses – they’d been instructed by Cochran to go out and find ex-employees, tell them,”Michael loves you,” and offer them their jobs back at salaries they could hardly refuse – Cochran had a high-power conclave with his client and promptly pitched almost $20 million at the kid and his family. An unwritten part of the agreement was that the boy would not testify before the grand jury. This is illegal, but who was going to prove it happened? Anyhoo, Michael slipped out of that one, as we all know.”

[Edited 9/5/19 16:44pm]

[Edited 9/5/19 16:46pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #217 posted 09/05/19 5:02pm

IfItAintToy

Cloudbuster said:

IfItAintToy said:

I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case? The defense team was just trying to delay the civil trial in case more time for negotiations was needed. They were also horrified by the idea of MJ being interviewed by law enforcement which would be their ultimate downfall and even MJ said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ (=criminal trial). And no, no two grand juries "involved in the criminal investigation declared that there was no grounds for the prosecution". That's one of those things fans spew hoping to convince themselves of MJ's innocence just like the "the FBI investigated MJ for 10 years" bullcrap. Any and every investigation was stopped the moment Chandler received the money for the people needed to proceed were obviously not going to cooperate which is why MJ was not indicted. Besides, apart from half a dozen people, no one else saw the penis pics. And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence of MJ sleep compulsively with Jorda? Of MJ spending all his time with Jordan? Of MJ holding hands with Jordan whispering in his ear even in public? Of MJ spending dozens of hours on the phone with the boy? Of MJ giving June all sorts of gifts and unlimited shopping sprees? Is there any acquaintace child-molester characteristic MJ didn't have?

[Edited 9/5/19 16:26pm]


Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated in 1993/1994 and was neither arrested nor prosecuted.

Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated from 2003-2005, arrested, put on trial and walked free.

And you hate that don't you.

You really want him to be a paedophile don't you. You sick fuck.

No, MJ was not "thoroughly investigated in 1993/94". That would only have happened if a criminal trial had taken place in which case he would have been prosecuted. MJ made sure that didn't happen with some cool 23M.

MJ walked free in 2005, true. But what if Wade had told the truth? If Jimmy had testified? If Jordan had come forward? More than anything, the jury didn't like the mother and rightfully so. Mez capitalized on that knowing no one would believe anything beyond a reasonable doubt with such a creature.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #218 posted 09/05/19 5:06pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

IfItAintToy said:

No, MJ was not "thoroughly investigated in 1993/94". That would only have happened if a criminal trial had taken place in which case he would have been prosecuted. MJ made sure that didn't happen with some cool 23M.

MJ walked free in 2005, true. But what if Wade had told the truth? If Jimmy had testified? If Jordan had come forward? More than anything, the jury didn't like the mother and rightfully so. Mez capitalized on that knowing no one would believe anything beyond a reasonable doubt with such a creature.


The settlement was made after the judge had overruled the four motions put forward by MJ's defense team to have the criminal trial ahead of the civil trial. The settlement didn't buy anyone's silence as the criminal investigation continued for several months after. Once the settlement was made the Chandler$ lost interest in the criminal proceedings and refused to cooperate. They had got what they had wanted all along. Not the prosecution of a supposed child molester but millions in the bank. The two grand juries involved in the criminal investigation both eventually declared that there were no grounds for the prosecution of Michael Jackson. They saw all the evidence. You didn't.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #219 posted 09/05/19 5:15pm

IfItAintToy

PatrickS77 said:

I don't care what anybody supposedly asssumes. Anybody can assume anything. Without evidence it's just bs. Proof it or shut the fuck up.

IfItAintToy said:

[Edited 9/5/19 16:44pm]

[Edited 9/5/19 16:46pm]

If there wasn't some sort of unspoken guarantee what would be the point of a settlement? MJ himself said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ", ie, he said himself he consciously avoided a criminal trial, that he didn't want one. It is beyond me how MJ said he didn't want a criminal trial in an interview and fans argue he was up and running for one.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #220 posted 09/05/19 5:20pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

Michael Jackson was barred from talking about the specifics of the case. This was mentioned in the Diane Sawyer interview.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #221 posted 09/05/19 5:26pm

PatrickS77

avatar

IfItAintToy said:



PatrickS77 said:


I don't care what anybody supposedly asssumes. Anybody can assume anything. Without evidence it's just bs. Proof it or shut the fuck up.





IfItAintToy said:





[Edited 9/5/19 16:44pm]


[Edited 9/5/19 16:46pm]



If there wasn't some sort of unspoken guarantee what would be the point of a settlement? MJ himself said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ", ie, he said himself he consciously avoided a criminal trial, that he didn't want one. It is beyond me how MJ said he didn't want a criminal trial in an interview and fans argue he was up and running for one.



The only guarantee he had was that they dropped the civil suit, And that was it. The civil suit MJ and his team wanted to fight after a criminal trial, but would have happened before.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #222 posted 09/05/19 5:31pm

PatrickS77

avatar

IfItAintToy said:



Cloudbuster said:




IfItAintToy said:


I see there are unicorns in Michael Jackson's enchanted Stanland. The settlement obviously silenced the Chandlers. Do you think MJ would shell out 23M bucks without some sort of a guarantee the Chandlers wouldn't go on with the case? The defense team was just trying to delay the civil trial in case more time for negotiations was needed. They were also horrified by the idea of MJ being interviewed by law enforcement which would be their ultimate downfall and even MJ said he "didn't want a drawn out thing like OJ (=criminal trial). And no, no two grand juries "involved in the criminal investigation declared that there was no grounds for the prosecution". That's one of those things fans spew hoping to convince themselves of MJ's innocence just like the "the FBI investigated MJ for 10 years" bullcrap. Any and every investigation was stopped the moment Chandler received the money for the people needed to proceed were obviously not going to cooperate which is why MJ was not indicted. Besides, apart from half a dozen people, no one else saw the penis pics. And what "evidence" are you talking about? Evidence of MJ sleep compulsively with Jorda? Of MJ spending all his time with Jordan? Of MJ holding hands with Jordan whispering in his ear even in public? Of MJ spending dozens of hours on the phone with the boy? Of MJ giving June all sorts of gifts and unlimited shopping sprees? Is there any acquaintace child-molester characteristic MJ didn't have?


[Edited 9/5/19 16:26pm]




Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated in 1993/1994 and was neither arrested nor prosecuted.


Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated from 2003-2005, arrested, put on trial and walked free.


And you hate that don't you.

You really want him to be a paedophile don't you. You sick fuck.



No, MJ was not "thoroughly investigated in 1993/94". That would only have happened if a criminal trial had taken place in which case he would have been prosecuted. MJ made sure that didn't happen with some cool 23M.


MJ walked free in 2005, true. But what if Wade had told the truth? If Jimmy had testified? If Jordan had come forward? More than anything, the jury didn't like the mother and rightfully so. Mez capitalized on that knowing no one would believe anything beyond a reasonable doubt with such a creature.


Geez. You are reslly dense. An investigation happens before a trial takes place. And since the prosecution still wanted to go after him, despite the settlement in the civil trial, they investigated him thoroughly. Seriously. You know nothing, but still think you are fit enough to have an opinion on whether he's guilty? You're laughable.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #223 posted 09/05/19 5:44pm

Cloudbuster

avatar

"During the month of April 1994, two Grand Juries (one from Santa Barbara, and one from Los Angeles) continued to hear testimonies, and were presented with the prosecutors outcomes of the criminal investigation. Some of the people who testified were Katherine Jackson, Miko Brando, Norma Staikos, Blanca Francia, Bob Jones, Anthony Pellicano, the rest of the “tell-all” tabloid witnesses, Janet Jackson’s ex-husband, and others that were not named in the press. While the two Grand Juries were in process, a source from the police investigation told Daily Variety that there was nothing that could incriminate Jackson. In the meantime it was reported that the prosecutors continued to meet with Jordan Chandler.

Both Grand Juries decided there was no case against Michael Jackson, and were disbanded in 1994 without issuing an indictment for the singer. One juror told CNN in May 1994 that he didn’t hear any damaging testimony and the only thing Michael Jackson could be found guilty of was bad judgement. The same was repeated in the Santa Barbara News Press in March 2004 when the paper interviewed members of the 1994 Santa Barbara Grand Jury who said that there were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment."



"On May 7, 1996, Evan Chandler proved again it was all about money. He sued Michael Jackson, his wife Lisa Marie, ABC, Sony, Diane Sawyer, Howard Stern and 300 John Does, including Mary Fischer for her 1994 GQ article (it was reported at the time that she was deposed and that she revealed her sources). He said Jackson breached the settlement’s confidentiality and the others helped him and he asked for $60 million. He also asked the court’s permission to sing about the 1993 allegations by releasing an album called EVANstory!


The three arbitrators of the settlement document (retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Bonnie Martin, retired state Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, and retired Fourth District Court of Appeal Justice John K. Trotter) determined that there was not a breach of the settlement agreement “because the complained-of activities involved Jackson’s own public image, his music and his new album, not the plaintiffs”. They also said that Jackson could not be deemed by the settlement agreement to be barred for proclaiming his innocence in a public forum such as a TV interview: “In the present case, the arbitrators’ finding of no wrongful conduct based on their interpretation of the agreement did not conflict with any explicit and mandatory term of the agreement”. Evan Chandler’s lawsuit was thrown out of court."


Absurd.

https://vindicatemj.wordp...ns-part-3/

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #224 posted 09/05/19 7:16pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Please continue the gone south topic over at michaeljackson.org



lock

Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Documentary DESTROYS Wade Robson's claims by using his own leaked deposition!