Latest on MJJC

Authorities: There's Never Been Evidence Michael Jackson Was A Pedophile!

Transcript from the Michael Jackson/Chandler settlement press conference as taped from satellite on 1-26-94, unedited.



Larry Feldman's statement-Attorney for Plaintiff:
"We wish to jointly announce a mutual resolution of this lawsuit. As you are aware the plaintiff has alleged certain acts of impropriety by Mr. Jackson and from the inception of those allegations Mr. Jackson has always maintained his innocence. However the emotional trauma and strain on the respective parties have caused both parties to reflect on the wisdom of continuing with the litigation. The plaintiff has agreed that the lawsuit should be resolved and it will be dismissed in the near future. Mr. Jackson continues to maintain his innocence and withdraws any previous allegations of extortion. This will allow the parties to get on with their lives in a more positive and productive manner. Much of the suffering these parties have been put through has been caused by the publicity surrounding this case. We jointly request that members of the press allow the parties to close this chapter in their lives with dignity so that the healing process may begin."



Johnnie Cockran's statement-Attorney for Defendant [Michael Jackson]:
"In the past ten days the rumors and speculation surrounding this case have reached a fever pitch and by-and-large have been false and outrageous. As Mr. Feldman has correctly indicated Michael Jackson has maintained his innocence from the beginning of this matter and now, as this matter will soon be concluded, he still maintains that innocence. The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumor and innuendo. Throughout this ordeal he has been subjected to an unprecedented media feeding frenzy; especially by the tabloid press. The tabloid press has shown an insatiable thirst for anything negative and have paid huge sums of money to people who have little or no information and who barely knew Michael Jackson. So today the time has come for Michael Jackson to move on to new business, to get on with his life, to start the healing process and to move his career forward to even greater heights. This he intends to do. At the appropriate time Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture, and pain he has had to suffer during the past six months. Thank you very much. "


+

About the 1993 Michael Jackson case settlement by T-Mesereau - 2005 trial
- complete memorandum
about_setlement_1993.pdf - 0.70MB

 
Last edited:
But didn't Michael sign the settlement and thereby expressed his approval? :unsure:
Click to expand...
doesnt matter whether he did or not. he had no say over it so it was just for show. u cant stop an insurance company from settleing if they want to
 
"Insurance?, where do your loyalties lie?, is that your alibi?, i don't think so, you don't care, you'd do her for the money, Say it's fair
You sue her for the money"
 
lucilla said:
"Insurance?, where do your loyalties lie?, is that your alibi?, i don't think so, you don't care, you'd do her for the money, Say it's fair
You sue her for the money"
Click to expand...

Oh, i was just about to post those lyrics from "Money" Yeah, Mike spoke better through his songs.
 
elusive moonwalker said:
doesnt matter whether he did or not. he had no say over it so it was just for show. u cant stop an insurance company from settleing if they want to
Click to expand...

But in that case, why did Michael sign it? He didn't have to, right? Wouldn't the settlement still be valid even without his signature?

From what I understand, Michael initially did not want to settle but his legal advisors pursuaded him that it was the wisest thing to do, as there was no guarantee that justice would prevail.

I got together with my advisors and they told me - it was hands down a unanimous decision - "resolve the case, this could be something that could go on for seven years".
Click to expand...

Michael's own statements do not imply that the case was settled against his wishes.
 
Last edited:
I think Cochran was too chummy with Feldman and he advised MJ against his own best interests. There were also people in Michael's personal life telling him to listen to his lawyers and settle.
 
yaazgurl said:
I think Cochran was too chummy with Feldman and he advised MJ against his own best interests. There were also people in Michael's personal life telling him to listen to his lawyers and settle.
Click to expand...

That's what I think too. I do not believe Michael was against the settlement at the time it was made. I recall someone close to Michael (don't remember who but you're probably familiar with this) saying that he/she talked to Michael on the phone when the allegations first came out and he/she told Michael not to settle, and Michael promised that he wouldn't. Thus, he may have protested the settlement in the beginning but according to his own statements, he was later pursuaded to settle as there was no guarantee that justice would prevail.

I'm just trying to get this cleared up because I have been asked this question before ("why did he sign the settlement and defended it in public if he didn't agree with it?") and I couldn't really answer it.
 
LindavG said:
But in that case, why did Michael sign it? He didn't have to, right? Wouldn't the settlement still be valid even without his signature?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but I think that was pretty simple: the insurance company just put Michael against the wall. You, dear Mr. Jackson, settle now or you are on your own. We, the insurance, will not pay for your defense. Settlement or else. Plus, the civil law suite was allowed to go forward before possible criminal trial. Thus, is Michael would not settle, he would give Sneddon his defense strategy on a gold plate.
 
justnat said:
I may be wrong, but I think that was pretty simple: the insurance company just put Michael against the wall. You, dear Mr. Jackson, settle now or you are on your own. We, the insurance, will not pay for your defense.
Click to expand...

I don't think Michael would have settled against his will for financial reasons. He had plenty of money at that point to pay for his own defense if neccessary. Still, according to the aforementioned court document, an insurance company does not need the permission of its client to settle a case. In other words, Michael's signature was not necessary for the settlement to take place so there was no need to "put Michael against the wall".

Plus, the civil law suite was allowed to go forward before possible criminal trial. Thus, is Michael would not settle, he would give Sneddon his defense strategy on a gold plate.
Click to expand...

I think this is part of the reason Michael's legal advisors told him to settle.
 
^^ The insurance may have carried the settlement ie give the money to the family but Mike had to known and agree with the terms of the settlement. So yeah his signature and approval was necessary. But Mike was indeed put against the wall because the whole situation was damaging for him either way.
 
kasi said:
^^ The insurance may have carried the settlement ie give the money to the family but Mike had to known and agree with the terms of the settlement. So yeah his signature and approval was necessary. But Mike was indeed put against the wall because the whole situation was damaging for him either way.
Click to expand...

Which confirms my belief that Michael approved of the settlement at the time he signed it.
 
I think he did what he was advised to do even though he really didn't want the settlement. You don't want to give anybody money that is lying about you. I think his lawyers and everyone wanted it to go away but for Michael it always haunted him. It makes me mad that he was put in that position in the first place. I am mad at the people who did that to him.
 
I think at the time of 1993 michael may have felt there was no choice but to settle. With all the false crap that was going round within the media at that time it seemed like ppl had already made up their minds bout michael and didnt care bout the truth.
 
marebear
Re: Authorities: There's Never Been Evidence Michael Jackson Was A Pedophile!

I think he did what he was advised to do even though he really didn't want the settlement. You don't want to give anybody money that is lying about you. I think his lawyers and everyone wanted it to go away but for Michael it always haunted him. It makes me mad that he was put in that position in the first place. I am mad at the people who did that to him.
Click to expand...



8701girl
Re: Authorities: There's Never Been Evidence Michael Jackson Was A Pedophile!

I think at the time of 1993 michael may have felt there was no choice but to settle. With all the false crap that was going round within the media at that time it seemed like ppl had already made up their minds bout michael and didnt care bout the truth.
Click to expand...
I think that you are both right. I don't think that Michael wanted to settle, but he was convinced that it was the best thing to do by his advisors. Michael's back was really against the wall with the civil lawsuit being able to take place before a criminal trial. Sneddon would have known his defense plan, and IMO Sneddon wasn't above manafacturing evidence to make it fit. Look at how he changed the dates of the supposed molestation when he found out that Michael had an alibi for the dates that Gavin originally said.
 
Resa said:
I think that you are both right. I don't think that Michael wanted to settle, but he was convinced that it was the best thing to do by his advisors. Michael's back was really against the wall with the civil lawsuit being able to take place before a criminal trial. Sneddon would have known his defense plan, and IMO Sneddon wasn't above manafacturing evidence to make it fit. Look at how he changed the dates of the supposed molestation when he found out that Michael had an alibi for the dates that Gavin originally said.
Click to expand...


The way sneddon kept changing the dates just shows how stupid the case was
 
I'll post this again.

Reasons that lead to the settled:

1. Once the molestation charges were filed, MJ filed charges against Chandler for EXTORTION.
2. The L.A. District Attorney’s office decided that it would not investigate Chandler’s alleged criminal EXTORTION attempts of Michael Jackson. (The reason for this decision is clear: it would be absurd for a District Attorney to build a case for molestation against a defendant while simultaneously bringing charges against the complainant for extortion)
3. Evan Chandler filed charges for a Civil case instead of a criminal case when he included the word “negligence” in the lawsuit instead of ”molestation”, avoiding the chance for a criminal trial.
4. MJ’s Insurance Carrier enters in the scene wanting to settle the dispute for “negligence” (it’s what an Insurance Company does in all “negligence” suing)
5. Other MJ’s advisers: People who intended to earn millions of dollars from his records and music promotions. They did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits.

According to the Memo in Support of Objection to Subpoena for Settlement Documents:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course it was against his wishes. Michael saw himself against the wall and Of course he and his personal legal counsel protested. Because the law back then permitted a civil trial before a criminal trial.

In a civil case of “Negligence” anyone can win because there’s no need for factual proves like in an criminal trial. And the trial can go on for even 10 years. You don't want 10 years to waste millions of money, your time, and the stress when you don't even know if the justice will prevail. That's the problem with a civil trial.
 
Authorities: There's Never Been Evidence Michael Jackson Was A Pedophile! yes and the 1st Acuser comes clean after the fact that the Man is gone along with his father who died after Michael did. Well I remember him saying after he paid off the 1st acuser that he was ill advised,The PR people told him to get it over with because the case would drag on for years.And Now After this and The Other Acuser who put him in court and That Damn interview with Bashir in which if it wasn't for the interview with Michael, he wouldn't had crossed the pond to get a major News gig in the states, Now Michael is gone.I hope the media and the people who caused this is very proud of themselves. :(
 
I don't understand why people stuck with the isnurance company issue. We all have the right to settle a civil dispute and it's legal. It has nothing to do with admission of guilt and it's the most common advice lawyers give to avoid time and expenses. It's the advice judges give to save the state from expenses. The arguing parties have scheduled meetings in the court in order to settle and if they can't, then a trial date is set. What people seem to forget is that not only was MJ scrutinized by the tabloid press and his future income was in danger, but there was an ongoing criminal investigation and Michael's lawyers lost the most important motion. To have him deposed for the criminal proceedings first. In order for him to secure his Fifth Amendment right, settling the civil case was the only option. I explain everything in detail here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-2/
 
Last edited:
A couple of notes regarding the settlement.

1) The media like to hold it against Michael as a sign of his guilt. However people and companies settle all the time, even if they are not guilty. It's a common practice and it isn't necessarily because the person or the company who is paying is guilty. They know this but for Michael, as usual, there are different standards.
For example, JC Penny settled with the Arvizos when we know by know they were lying about their guards molesting and beating Janet. (It was proven during the MJ trial that they lied in the JC Penny case.) But JC Penny didn't want to get involved in a scandal with the family of a cancer stricken boy, so they paid instead.

2) If Michael had something to hide he would have been happy to pay the first time the Chandlers asked for money. It was in August BEFORE the scandal broke! This is right from Ray Chandler's (Jordan's uncle) book "All that glitters":

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”
Click to expand...

So what does it mean? 1) The Chandlers were asking for money from day one. What family of a molested child does that instead of wanting to see the molester in jail? 2) Michael refused to pay initially, although he could have avoided the whole scandal by doing so! Someone who was guilty would have gladly taken this offer and paid. Michael didn't. He wanted to fight.

He then settled next January after he got addicted to drugs and his health deteriorated because of the scandal. Some say he settled because of Jordan's description matched the photos made of his private parts. That's a BS media myth! The photos didn't match the description! If they had Michael would have been arrested on the spot! We know for example that Jordan claimed Michael was circumcized and he wasn't.

3) The settlement couldn't and did not stop any criminal investigation! You cannot settle criminal investigations only civil lawsuits and that is exactly what happened here! The criminal investigation went on! Sneddon and the LA DA Gil Garcetti brought the case in front of two Grand Juries (this was all after the settlement). Both Grand Juries concluded that they didn't see any evidence that suggests Michael molested anyone and so the case didn't even go to trial. Despite of the settlement it could have if they had evidence. They didn't.
 
And here is the settlement between Michael and the Chandlers: http://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1993civilsettlementagreement.pdf

On page 4 and 6 it states that Michael does NOT admit any wrongdoing and he does NOT pay because of sexual molestation.

And the Chandlers signed this. Again: what parents of a molested child would sign an agreement in which the molester doesn't admit his guilt? What parents of a molested child would not want justice before money?

On page 15 it also talks about what if the Chandlers receive a subpoena in any investigation against Michael: "they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson's attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request information, to the extent of permitted by the law."

So that's it! This settlement didn't prevent the Chandlers from going and testifying against Michael in a criminal case (it wouldn't even be allowed by law)! They only had to notify Michael's lawyers about that.
 
Last edited:
LindavG said:
But in that case, why did Michael sign it? He didn't have to, right? Wouldn't the settlement still be valid even without his signature?

From what I understand, Michael initially did not want to settle but his legal advisors pursuaded him that it was the wisest thing to do, as there was no guarantee that justice would prevail.



Michael's own statements do not imply that the case was settled against his wishes.[/
QUOTE]

just going by mez motion in the trial.i doubt he would commit perjury.i presume mj had to sign it as that was the actual agreement not to talk about the settlement etc.which included not saying it was an insurance payout. Not signing to actually settle the case as that was taken out of his hands
Click to expand...
 
Curiously enough, radar shut down its comments area on the article:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusiv...day-show-child-molester-pedophile-los-angeles

More outlets picked up the story. Please add your comments, it is very important to boost their ratings for finally bringing the truth forward.
Remember not to use fan names and not to get engaged in arguments.

http://celebritynewsandstyle.com/au...son’s-children-no-evidence-of-pedophilia-112/

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mich...r&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter_web
 
olga30100 said:
I don't understand why people stuck with the isnurance company issue. We all have the right to settle a civil dispute and it's legal. It has nothing to do with admission of guilt and it's the most common advice lawyers give to avoid time and expenses. It's the advice judges give to save the state from expenses. The arguing parties have scheduled meetings in the court in order to settle and if they can then a trial date is set. What people seem to forget is that not only was MJ scrutinized by the tabloid press and his future income was in danger, but there was an ongoing criminal investigation and Michael's lawyers lost the most important motion. To have him deposed for the criminal proceedings first. In order for him to secure his Fifth Amendment right, settling the civil case was the only option. I explain everything in detail here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-2/
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post.
 
So... guys, many of you, especially younger fans, now can have, see and know the facts, so lets discuss it, or defend MJ and give our commentaries on the articles on the net!

Oh, and dont forget, dont post lies about Jordy and his nevermade confession... like some guys do... it reduces the credibility of MJ fans!!!
 
Last edited:
It's tiring to read all this shit.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BECAUSE MIKE WAS NOT A PEDOPHILE THA'T IT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top