Debates with the public

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Girl -

What does morality have to do with what songs you enjoy and don't enjoy? I have no control over that. I don't choose to like or dislike a song. I either like it or I don't.

Show business is full of all sorts of scumbags. If you choose to vote with your dollar and not financially support someone you believe is a scumbag, I have no issue with that. For me personally, I buy a CD because I want to listen to the music on that CD, not because I approve of every action of every person involved in the making of that CD.

If you choose to view songs a autobiographical, that is fine with me. For me personally, I view songs as stories that may or may not be autobiographical and whether they are or not has no impact on my enjoyment. I am just now becoming familiar with the HIStory album and it's quickly becoming one of my favorite Michael Jackson albums. The angry and aggressive nature of a lot of the material is more in line with the kind of music I typically listen to.

Countless gay artists sang songs about hetero love because most people are hetero and most artists want their music to appeal to most people. I don't know if Michael was gay or not, but if he was, I would understand him choosing to sing about hetero love.

I have no issue with you or anyone defending anything they choose. This is a discussion forum and there's no reason why intelligent adults can't have a civil discussion about controversial topics. I don't feel cornered and I think everyone has been very pleasant and has kept things classy.

It's possible Michael was a monster. It's possible Michael was a saint. I think it makes the situation very interesting. Because while you are absolutely convinced he was innocent and I tend to lean towards thinking he was guilty, as the situation stands he was either one of the most innocent and giving people that ever lived or he was a gigantic monster that had the entire world fooled and used his fame and fortune to rape children.

That is a pretty wild dichotomy and while it can be debated until the end of time, I don't think the public will ever really know for sure which of the two was the truth and I find that fascinating.



Respect -

I have seen the Bashir documentary and I have seen the rebuttal film. Honestly, the first time I saw Michael and Gavin stumbling through their explanation of the sleeping arrangements, it appeared to me that Gavin had been coached and they were lying through their teeth. MJ came across as someone with something to hide. If that's not the reaction you had, that's cool. That was my reaction. You're obviously free to believe what you wish. Personally, before Gavin ever made any accusations, watching that footage when it first aired, I got the impression that MJ was interested in the boy sexually.

Not saying he definitely was. Not saying it could be proved that he was. Just saying that's how it came across to ME. Not saying anyone else should feel that way.

Since the settlements were confidential, I don't know that the exact amounts will ever be known for sure. I realize some documents have leaked and there have been various reports. I'm under the impression 15 million was set aside for the child as well as millions more for the attorneys and parents for a total over 20 million. It's been reported there have been other families and the total is 35 million. If you believe it's really 20 million or 25 million, that's fine. Obviously when there are reports from anonymous sources or information leaks, everyone is free to choose what to believe and what not to believe.

I'm well aware that you can't settle a criminal process, but if a victim refuses to cooperate due to a civil settlement, the criminal case will often be crippled.

The whole point of the civil settlement is to shut the victim up. If they are subpoenaed, they could be forced to testify, but you can prevent them from volunteering information in any other circumstance, a civil settlement can stipulate that the victim not report a crime and a civil settlement can stipulate that a victim support a dismissal.

It would be unethical for a settlement to stipulate that a victim refuse to testify in a future incident, but it still happens and you can't prove it because of the associated NDA provisions.

If all of the allegations against Michael were copycat allegations based on the '93 allegations, it wouldn't explain the suspicions and allegations previous to that.

You said it's not rare to make false allegations when there is a monetary motive. What monetary motive would there be if the person isn't rich or famous? There are plenty of rich and famous people. Whether the accusers are underage or overage. Whether the accusers are the same sex or a different sex. Where are all of these celebrities that have had at least five people accuse them of sex crimes?

It doesn't seem that common to me. You seem to feel differently. So I'm just wondering who are all of these celebrities that have dealt with so many false allegations in your opinion?

You've plainly stated that you would cease listening to Michael Jackson if you thought he was guilty. You seem to be a big fan of his. You seem very emotionally invested in his art and in his life. I would imagine it would be very upsetting for you to never listen to his music again and to have something you enjoy so much ruined for you.

So can you really look at the situation objectively if one determination allows you to continue to enjoy something you love so much and the other determination would ruin all of that for you?

Michael's guilt or innocence has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so when I look at the situation, there is no emotional incentive for me to believe one thing over another. For those that would have something ruined that they love so much, I can understand searching for reasons to believe one thing over another.



Bonnie Blue -

How do you know it was a lie?

There wouldn't be a court record of every private agreement MJ made.

15.3 million was paid to Chandler, but millions more were paid to his parents and attorneys. So I'm not sure why you're only counting the money that specifically went to the kid when the overall package appears to have been over 20 million.



Tinny -

Michael is dead. How am I financially supporting him?

Whether you realize it or not, you've most likely purchased music by serial rapists and murderers. If you knew someone was a serial rapist or murderer and that made you not want to purchase their music, more power to you. Everybody should buy whatever they want to buy.

Good music doesn't make illegal activity irrelevant. But a crime doesn't change how a song sounds. The song is a song. If it influences whether you enjoy a song, that's fine. For me, either I enjoy a song or I don't. If the person who made the song is a bad person, hopefully they end up in jail, but it doesn't suddenly make it a bad song.

It's a terrible thing that you were abused. Imagine if your abuser was a giant star and people didn't want to believe you because doing so would ruin the art they enjoy. So instead they have to find a way to not believe you so that the art won't be ruined for them.

I don't see how anyone that's been abused would so easily believe that at least five different people made up allegations about the same person.



Lil -

Yes it's very understandable why Michael's development could have been stunted, causing him to relate to children the most. Feel connected to children the most. His love for children being a result of his upbringing and experiences.

I don't think that's nonsense at all.

But I also don't think it's nonsense that somebody in that situation could end up in a psychological state where the people they connect with and fall in love with are underage.

If someone is attracted to 13 year old boys, of course there are going to be things from their upbringing that contributed to their psychological condition.



Researcher -

I have read through the website that was posted and find a lot of the thinking to be illogical and the writing to be from someone looking to support a pre-determined conclusion, as opposed to analyzing the evidence with no stake in the race.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

The jurors analyzed the evidence and sent Jackson home. Only three of them wanted to vote guilty , reportedly two with monetary motive , as their own families were already negotiating a book deal while they were setting deliberating Jackson's fate. The third one was the ardent Bill Oriely's fan.

You keep repeating that he had paid many others. It is in court documents that he settled only twice. You keep saying the settlement were to keep the so called victims silent. While one of the two who got a settlement took the stand and testified against Jackson. Reportedly, he lied so much , told a different story than the one he got the money for ( probably having in mind a new set of allegations meant he could sue again and collect more millions) . He came very unsympathetic to the jurors , they not only did not believe him, they were laughing and giggling while he was on the stand according to media reports. Jordan Chandler REFUSED to collaborate with the police, the prosecutors paid him a visit in New York, he refused to participate and threatened of taking legal action against them if they forced him to testify. He did not say I am not able to testify due to the settlement , he REFUSED WILLINGLY to take the stand. His uncle Ray Chandler who was constantly appearing on many TV shows advocating for his nephew also REFUSED to testify. The defense tried to put Ray on the stand but he fought them adamantly. WHY if the truth is on their side ? why would they want to speak to the media but not in a criminal case? Why did the Chandlers refuse to participate in a criminal case in 1993 ? Why were they willing to take Jackson again to civil court for a second time in 1996 but not to participate in a criminal case? WHY? out of concern for him? !!! Why it's Jackson's fault that they did not want to face him in a criminal court not their own choice from the very beginning?

You keep saying he paid the Chandlers to silence them. The Chandlers were threatening Jackson with the allegations and demanding he SILENCE them with his money months before they accused him of the molestation. The allegations materialized only because Jackson REFUSED to pay them any cent. How does that go with your theory of silencing victims by paying them to vanish ?

If you know anything about law, you would have known that it is a constitutional right not to be tried twice for the same allegation. If a person is facing a civil claim and a possible criminal charge for the same acts ,it is that person's constitutional right everywhere around the world to hold the civil proceedings until after the criminal one is completed. EXCEPT IN MICHAEL JACKSON'S CASE, due to a TECHNICAL ISSUE upon which the Chandler's lawyers relied, the judge ordered that Jackson face them in a civil trial first, not only that, he denied Jackson's lawyers' request not to allow the prosecutors to attend the possible civil trial . In other words, against the shared notions of justice and fairness, Jackson was forced to defend himself in a civil trial first with the prosecution in attendance , Jackson was expected to expose everything he has, show all his cards, especially since the burden of proof is very low in a civil trial, and be at the mercy of the prosecution who had the upper hand of hearing the evidence and building their case around what Jackson would have presented . This is fundamentally against "the right of the defendant to a fair trial" . That's the real reason why later they came up with "the Michael Jackson's Law" which says a civil trial will be stopped until the criminal one is completed. This law contrary to what the media claimed was in Jackson's best interests and it was what stopped the Arvizos and their lawyers from doing what the Chandlers did in 1993. Jackson had no option but to settle in 1993, if he wanted to preserve his chances in the criminal case and had a fair trial. The settlement was the result of the judicial system's failure to protect Jackson's constitutional rights. He did not settle in 2003. He fought and won eventhough he faced THREE accusers in that case along with people who had made a career of accusing him and selling stories to the media for a decade. I believe a similar result would have been achieved in 1993 if the jurors heard the story of Evan and Jordan. Jordan and Evan who hugged and greeted MJ when they came to visit him the very first time they hinted they were going to accuse him!!! That's how a typical family of an abused boy acts.

It was revealed in court documents that the last payment of the Chandlers' the settlement was paid in 1999. For someone as rich as Jackson was , paying $ 15 millions or $ 20 million over a period of 6 years was nothing compared to the millions he lost from the sponsors and the fact that he had no other option if he wanted to protect his right to a civil trial.

Gavin Arviso: you keep saying you felt when you saw him on TV that Jackson had sexual interest in him. Gavin Arviso himself testified that Jackson was running away from him and his family for the two years he had known him before the documentary was aired. He first said as you would expect that he was molested before the Bashir interview, but after the defense submitted evidence to the Santa Barbara prosecutors , Gavin changed his story and said the abuse started 1) AFTER the documentary was aired, not only that, 2 ) but he only started to molest him after Jackson was officially under investigation by the police and 3) after a lawyer for the Arvisos started sending threatening letters to Jackson demanding "things" and 4) after his own mother asked Jackson for something in return if he would like her son to appear in the rebuttal video to say that Jackson did not molest him.

He had not have yet molested him according to the Arvisoz own story, still the family refused to appear on camera to defend him unless he paid them money, this is the Arvisos' story. But according to you he was paying millions to keep families silent , right ?

 

[HIStory]

MSL

This is starting to be very awkward, because you clearly refuse to have an open mind about anything anyone says here.


There are things that are simply not a matter of opinions or feelings, but simple FACTS. Just because you refuse to learn about them they remain facts. Go learn something about the court case before you judge because with every post you make you just keep giving away how uninformed you are about this case.

Honestly, the first time I saw Michael and Gavin stumbling through their explanation of the sleeping arrangements, it appeared to me that Gavin had been coached and they were lying through their teeth. MJ came across as someone with something to hide. If that's not the reaction you had, that's cool. That was my reaction. You're obviously free to believe what you wish.

Fact is, this story has not changed even as Gavin turned on Michael and made his allegations. Frank Cascio really did sleep in the room, Michael and Frank really did sleep on the floor while the Arvizo kids slept on the bed, Gavin and Star both admitted on the stand in 2005 that Michael did sleep on the floor while they slept on the bed that night. This was not disputed even in 2005 at the trial. So what is it exactly that is a matter of "feelings" and "impressions" and "beliefs" (clearly, because such subjectivities is all you have in this discussion) about the truthfulness of this account about the sleeping arrangements that night?

Personally, before Gavin ever made any accusations, watching that footage when it first aired, I got the impression that MJ was interested in the boy sexually.

I am sure the narration and the whole editing of the doc, plus your own prejudices about Michael helped to feel you that way. Fact is however, that Michael hardly had any contact with that boy before the Bashir documentary and even after. He had not any kind of interest in him, let alone sexual. He actually kept running from him about which Gavin complained on the stand. You claim you read the linked articles but it is very clear you do not since you continue to repeat falsehoods about the case - things that are simply not true even if we go by the accuser's own story. You want to make everything a matter of "impressions" and "feelings" even about matters that are clearly defined when you know the case. Once again, here you can read about the Arvizo case:


http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-2005-allegations/

It's been reported there have been other families and the total is 35 million.

Bonnie Blue -


How do you know it was a lie?


There wouldn't be a court record of every private agreement MJ made.

So Bonnie Blue was right and you are basically talking about that tabloid article about never seen phantom victims? They do not exist. It may be futile to keep posting receipts at this point, seeing your totally closed mind on the case, but nevertheless here is the story behind that tabloid article: http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...o-silence-them-after-he-sexually-abused-them/

Obviously when there are reports from anonymous sources or information leaks, everyone is free to choose what to believe and what not to believe.

And obviously you always choose to believe the worst even when it's just some shady tabloid claiming it with no evidence whatsoever, all the while refusing to read about the actual court case.

I'm well aware that you can't settle a criminal process, but if a victim refuses to cooperate due to a civil settlement, the criminal case will often be crippled.

What does that tell about the "victim" though? If his only interest is money? If he filed his civil lawsuit with a "highly profitable settlement" in mind? Once again, I already posted a link to an article about the circumstances of the settlement that you apparently did not read. This was a very complicated situation in terms of civil vs. criminal process. The Chandlers were pushing for the civil case to get ahead of the criminal because their only interest in this was money. Michael's side however wanted the criminal case go ahead of the civil. That is because it is very unfair to a defendant for various reasons (it gives major advantages to the accusing side/prosecutors) if in the same matter a civil case goes ahead of a criminal. It's a high risk, no matter if the defendant is innocent or guilty. This is basically ackowledged in precedent cases and also in the fact that the law since was changed and now a civil case cannot go ahead of the criminal in the same matter. According to Sneddon the law was changed exactly because of what happened in the Chandler case. But that change was too late for Michael. At the time the civil lawsuit could go ahead of the criminal giving major disadvantages to the defendant. When the Judge gave the Chandlers the go ahead and the civil trial was brought ahead of the criminal that is when the civil case was settled. If you read the Chandler's book they played on this factor absolutely deliberately to force a settlement. They NEVER wanted a criminal trial. They were actually scared of the prospect of a criminal trial. From their book:

“Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. “Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don’t want your deposition, or June’s deposition. They don’t want to preserve anything. If they’re gonna make a deal they don’t want anything on the record about Jackson.”


No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess.”


“Yeah, they ****ed this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I’m going forward. We’re going to push on. So far there ain’t a button I’ve missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don’t want them going first.”


Larry had said it before, but it hadn’t registered in Evan’s brain till now.


“You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?”
“Yeah.”
“Jesus Christ!”
“Right! So we don’t want that.” [3; page 201-202]

Their eyes were always on a settlement. They NEVER ever wanted a criminal trial. NEVER. Not even before the settlement.


And once again meanwhile you should not forget that the same parent who was pushing so vehemently for a settlement was the same parent who was pushing Jordan to make allegations against MJ in the first place.


The civil settlement shuts up an accuser in one way: because of the NDA usually attached to it, they cannot talk to the media any more which is IMO fair enough because as a celebrity you are almost defenseless against a media smear campaign. Not that the Chandlers did not find their way around the NDA, but that's another story.


No matter how you slice it, the fact is that the settlement did not shut up anyone. It had nothing to do with "not reporting a crime" because when it happened the allegations were already reported. All the world knew about them. As Francia's example shows you can go and testify even with a settlement, so no one can blame Jordan's refusal to ever testify on the settlement. He and his family simply NEVER wanted to testify at a crimimal trial.
Francia's example also shows that just because you got a settlement it does not mean you had a strong case.

If all of the allegations against Michael were copycat allegations based on the '93 allegations, it wouldn't explain the suspicions and allegations previous to that.

The so called "suspicions" came simply from his hanging out with kids and people always seeing him with kids and starting to speculate. Actually probably that's what inspired Evan Chandler to have this idea and to accuse MJ of it in the first place.

You said it's not rare to make false allegations when there is a monetary motive. What monetary motive would there be if the person isn't rich or famous?

I did not say it can only be a monetary motive. In the video I linked there was a totally different motive, not monetary. The point is simply that false allegations do happen and they are not that rare when there is a motive. Motives can be different, but money is a big motive for people to make up lies. Heck some people even kill for $100. So to ignore the clear monetary motive of the accusers is ignoring a main factor in these cases.

There are plenty of rich and famous people. Whether the accusers are underage or overage. Whether the accusers are the same sex or a different sex. Where are all of these celebrities that have had at least five people accuse them of sex crimes?


It doesn't seem that common to me. You seem to feel differently. So I'm just wondering who are all of these celebrities that have dealt with so many false allegations in your opinion?

I am not sure how many times I will have to repeat this: obviously everyone gets accused of what he or she is personally vulnerable to. Michael was vulnerable to this type of allegations because he openly hang out with kids, openly walked hand-in-hand with them, was not seen with women, people already perceived him to be weird, people were wondering about his sexuality and of course he was rich. That mix made him very vulnerable to this allegation.


Forget other celebrities then and let's focus on Michael: I did give you the facts about three guys trying to sue him for sexual abuse about whom later turned out they never even met him. So just in his life it happened at least three times even if you want to believe all the other 5 accusers. So that alone clearly refutes the notion that men rarely make false allegations of child abuse, when alone to Michael it happened at least 3 times (in my opinion actually 8 times).

You've plainly stated that you would cease listening to Michael Jackson if you thought he was guilty. You seem to be a big fan of his. You seem very emotionally invested in his art and in his life. I would imagine it would be very upsetting for you to never listen to his music again and to have something you enjoy so much ruined for you.


So can you really look at the situation objectively if one determination allows you to continue to enjoy something you love so much and the other determination would ruin all of that for you?


Michael's guilt or innocence has no bearing on my life whatsoever, so when I look at the situation, there is no emotional incentive for me to believe one thing over another. For those that would have something ruined that they love so much, I can understand searching for reasons to believe one thing over another.

Sorry, but you will get nowhere here with trying to discredit us like this. I like his music but I am not so "emotionally invested" in it that I turn a blind eye if I found out he was guilty. The reason why I researched these cases was exactly because I wanted to see what is true and what isn't. I like Michael but I like truth more. It is funny that you accuse us of this when it's you who is juding without being aware of even basic facts in this case - hence why you keep repeating falsehoods even to the contrary of what the accusers actually alleged. So please try to stick to the discussion of the actual matters at hand rather that trying to find ways of discrediting your debate partner. That is a fallacy.

Researcher -


I have read through the website that was posted and find a lot of the thinking to be illogical and the writing to be from someone looking to support a pre-determined conclusion, as opposed to analyzing the evidence with no stake in the race.

I doubt you read through it because if you did you would not say some of the things you still keep repeating. It's one thing if you feel the author is biased. That's your right. However, when you keep making claims contrary to court transcripts by the accuser himself that are posted on that website, it makes me question your intellectual honesty.


BTW, just because you say you have no stake in believing one way or another, doesn't make it so. Often that stake is pride - ie. that people simply do not want to be wrong about their previously held beliefs and they do not want a debate partner to be right over them. That is an investment as well in wanting to hold on to a certain belief. I have discussed these cases with lots of people from fans to haters and also neutral people, so I can tell that your stance is very, very far from being fair, neutral and open-minded.

For example, you dismiss the linked website altogether as "biased" (even though it has lots of factual information regardless of the auhtor's personal beliefs - and you can follow the links to its sources), yet you embrace tabloid articles with no sources or evidence given. That is, for example, a very clearly detectable bias in your stance.

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

THis uncle Ray Chandler who was constantly appearing on many TV shows advocating for his nephew also REFUSED to testify. The defense tried to put Ray on the stand but he fought them adamantly. WHY if the truth is on their side ? why would they want to speak to the media but not in a criminal case?

Oh yeah, that's another thing. The defense tried to subpoena Ray Chandler in 2004 against which he fought tooth and nail. They had no problem with touring the media bashing Michael, but when it came to go to court they were running scared. The Chandlers found a way around the NDA in the settlement by making Ray Chandler, the uncle write a book (who was not bound by the settlement). So the whole notion of the Chandlers being silenced because of the settlement is simply nonsense. They could have talked in court both in their own trial in 1994 or in someone else's trial in 2005, instead they were running scared from it. They vehemently fought it! Ray Chandler hid behind the Shield Law to fight off the subpoena.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Oh yeah, that's another thing. The defense tried to subpoena Ray Chandler in 2004 against which he fought tooth and nail. They had no problem with touring the media bashing Michael, but when it came to go to court they were running scared. The Chandlers found a way around the NDA in the settlement by making Ray Chandler, the uncle write a book (who was not bound by the settlement). So the whole notion of the Chandlers being silenced because of the settlement is simply nonsense. They could have talked in court both in their own trial in 1994 or in someone else's trial in 2005, instead they were running scared from it. They vehemently fought it! Ray Chandler hid behind the Shield Law to fight off the subpoena.

I know, it is not out of love for the accused, or out of concern to him, or because they sympathized with him. Actually, their actions speak of the hatred and ill feelings they had for him. There was no short of bad feelings on their side toward him. The settlement did not prevent them from using the media to destroy Jackson. They found their ways. They did everything they could to kill Jackson's character in the eye of public opinion. sold stories, leaked documents, filed two civil suits filled with all kind of salacious details...etc. but when it came to the criminal case, when it came to real justice, when it came to putting the "monster" in jail , to protect other children , that was the only thing they wanted nothing to do with. But that's all because Jackson refused to pay them to keep silent from the very beginning and forced them to go this route to get the money. :smilerolleyes:

They were not afraid of Jackson's fans, when it came to making money, their privacy concerns were of little importance.they have never even used alias. Never failed to insert themselves in every controversy Jackson faced. Sued him a second time for "breaching the settlement provision by publicly defending himself" still did not feel that this guy did not get it the first time that's why we should participate in the still ONGOING criminal investigation to put him behind bars for good ,for still having the nerve to claim his innocence. No , nothing of that sort happened, they were chasing every opportunity to make money while running away from every opportunity to participate in a criminal procedure . Notice the difference between Jackson's reaction after the settlement and that of Cosby , Oriely and Letterman. Cosby, Oriely and Letterman kept silent after they settled , Jackson was the only one who was still saying "I am innocent" .

The settlement should have kept them from talking to the media still they did just that. The only thing that Jackson wanted them to do was to face him in a criminal trial and that was the only thing they vehemently fought not to do. This is the behavior of a typical predator and a typical abused boy !

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

The only thing that Jackson wanted them to do was to face him in a criminal trial and that was the only thing they vehemently fought not to do. This is the behavior of typical predator and typical abused boy !

Exactly!

In 1993 Michael's legal team tried to have the criminal case ahead of the civil case. Had that happened then of course there would not have been any reason for a settlement. There would have been a criminal trial first and a criminal case cannot be settled. And Michael's team wanted the criminal to get ahead of the civil.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Soundmind -

Jackson going home means the jury wasn't absolutely certain he was guilty. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. Doesn't mean they didn't think he was guilty. Just means there was doubt they considered reasonable.

I'm not absolutely certain he was guilty. I have doubts. I think it's more likely than not that he was attracted to young boys and encouraged sexual interactions, but I'm not certain. I'm not 100% convinced. I would have sent him home too.

A court would have no way of knowing how many private agreements had been struck.

I know a bit about the law. Both of my parents are attorneys. My sister is an attorney. My grandfather was an attorney and a member of parliament. My great grandfather was an attorney and the prime minister.

If you don't think Michael paid the Chandlers to be quiet, what exactly was he paying them for? Other than their silence, what was Michael getting out of the transaction? There has to be considerations for both parties for a contract to be enforceable. The Chandlers got money. Jackson got silence. Pretty simple.



Respect -

None of us know for sure if Jackson was attracted to boys or not. All we have is our opinions and feelings based on the facts we believe. I'm not refusing to learn about anything. I'm reading everything that's being posted. Even though it's not a subject I'm particularly interested in. If you change my mind, nothing changes in my life. If I change your mind, you have to quit the site and never listen to Michael Jackson ever again. So which of us really do you think is more likely to actually have an open mind about this?

Michael slept on the floor THAT NIGHT after being uncomfortably interrogated by a major broadcaster about the sleeping arrangements earlier that day. The floor vs bed debate is kind of silly when Michael has admitted many times to bringing many many boys into his bed. How does him sleeping on the floor certain times change anything if we know it was common for him to sleep with strange boys in his bed?

You state as fact that Michael had no sexual interest in Gavin. There is absolutely positively no way for you to know that. You have no idea what was going through Michael's mind. You can have your opinion just as I can have my opinion, but for you to state as fact what Michael's interest was is ridiculous.

You state as fact that the "phantom" victims do not exist. Again, there is absolutely positively no way for you to know that. You can have your opinion about whether those reports were true or not, but for you to state as fact that they do not exist is ridiculous.

We have no idea what the alleged victim was interested in. We know his father wanted a financial settlement. What does it say about the father? It could say a lot of things. It could say that he didn't want to put is son through the torment and humiliation of a trial. It could say that he wanted to make sure the son would have access to the best medical and psychological care. It could say that he wanted to make sure his son would be ensured a comfortable lifestyle. It could say a lot of things.

If I was the parent, my eyes would be on a settlement too. I wouldn't have wanted a criminal trial either. Why the hell would I put my kid through that? And why wouldn't I want to make sure he was taken care of as well as possible? You're trying to use a parent looking out for his son as proof it was some sort of scam. I don't see it as proof of that as all.

You say the settlement didn't shut anyone up, but the settlement requires Jordan to never speak publicly about it for the rest of his life . . . which, uh, would be shutting him up.

If Michael was very vulnerable to the accusation of hebephilia due to him so perfectly fitting the profile of a hebephile . . . maybe, um, he was a hebephile? I'm not convinced that he was, but if his behavior made him so susceptible to the accusation, why is it so far fetched to think that maybe it was true?

Would you mind listing the claims I made that were contrary to the court transcripts of the accuser himself?

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I would like to know if the Chandlers were not extortionists, what else they could have done besides what they have known to have done that would convince people they were? Be caught on tape ? they were .lol

I am sure there are many people who are willing to accuse someone of child molestation to make money. Look at statics in divorce cases and you will know how much women are willing to go that route during nasty divorce to get a favorable result from the courts. When there is a motive , people are willing to do the unthinkable.

I do not believe that you will find one similar family of an abused kid who did what the Chandlers' have done. What had the Chandlers done exceeded by far what the Arvizos had done still one female juror , who was raising two nieces victims of sexual abuse by a relative, said she acquitted Jackson because she knew how real victims act and the "accusers" were everything but "victims". They media were puzzled by Jackson's attorney seeking and selecting such jurors to decide this case. The media was saying the jurors were pro prosecutors , they were not Jackson's "peers". The answer was very interesting by the lawyer, when the jurors compare these allegations and the behavior of those accusers with experiences of real victims they will reach the right verdict, NOT GUILT.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Soundmind -

Jackson going home means the jury wasn't absolutely certain he was guilty. Doesn't mean he wasn't guilty. Doesn't mean they didn't think he was guilty. Just means there was doubt they considered reasonable.

I'm not absolutely certain he was guilty. I have doubts. I think it's more likely than not that he was attracted to young boys and encouraged sexual interactions, but I'm not certain. I'm not 100% convinced. I would have sent him home too.

A court would have no way of knowing how many private agreements had been struck.

I know a bit about the law. Both of my parents are attorneys. My sister is an attorney. My grandfather was an attorney and a member of parliament. My great grandfather was an attorney and the prime minister.

If you don't think Michael paid the Chandlers to be quiet, what exactly was he paying them for? Other than their silence, what was Michael getting out of the transaction? There has to be considerations for both parties for a contract to be enforceable. The Chandlers got money. Jackson got silence. Pretty simple.

He certainly did not get any silence from them. The mother testified against him in 2005. They destroyed him in the media , they leaked the documents to the media, they sued him again in 1996...etc. Moreover, the settlement provisions said that even in the event Jordan Chandler spoke with the media, even in the event Jordan Chandler violated the provisions of that agreement, Jackson has no right whatsoever to stop paying any due payments to him as Jackson's commitment to that agreement was absolute regardless of the other parties actions. So no he did not buy their silence, and there was no guarantee they would keep silent and on top of that the settlement provisions themself did not allow him to stop paying if the Chandler's broke their silence.

He got from that settlement his constitutional right to a fair criminal trial . A right of supreme importance to every human being that the judicial system at the time failed to protect. Something you don't understand. It is beyond obvious now that you are not willing to understand what we are saying. You are not posting any facts. Just talking in general and claiming that there were more settlements when there was nothing but the two brought up by the prosecutors in the 2005 case. Stop claiming the prosecutors did not have any means of knowing. If that was possible, why did they have any idea about the other boy Jason Francia and the settlement to him? !

We have no idea what the alleged victim was interested in. We know his father wanted aFINANCIAL settlement. What does it say about the father? It could say a lot of things. It could say that he didn't want to put is son through the torment and humiliation of a trial. It could say that he wanted to make sure the son would have access to the best medical and psychological care. It could say that he wanted to make sure his son would be ensured a comfortable lifestyle. It could say a lot of things.

If I was the parent, my eyes would be on a settlement too. I wouldn't have wanted a criminal trial either. Why the hell would I put my kid through that? And why wouldn't I want to make sure he was taken care of as well as possible? You're trying to use a parent looking out for his son as proof it was some sort of scam. I don't see it as proof of that as all.

You say the settlement didn't shut anyone up, but the settlement requires Jordan to never speak publicly about it for the rest of his life . . . which, uh, would be shutting him up.

ah , the torment and humiliation of a criminal trial is less than that of a civil trial? that what your lawyer parents have told you? the father was accused by his son of attempt murder because he wanted his son to have access to the best medical and psychological care ? the boy filed for emancipation when he reached 16 years old because his father was looking after him? The boy never got a dime in child support from his dentist father for years , he was not even that much into his life before he knew jackson was his friend but he cared about his son? So Jackson should have given Jordan the millions but if he was really innocent he would have allowed him to speak to the media as he wishes trashing Jackson ...etc is that what you are saying? Speaking to the media is important after receiving millions that may or may not have been rightfully his , but speaking to jurors and trying to protect others is of less importance, is this your argument ?! . A much more plausible and simple explanation to that family behavior is that they were and are extortionists. The extortionist theory will explain everything they did perfectly instead of trying to assume things that were in fact PROVEN UNTRUE in their case.

Do you believe have the rubbish you post? I hope some day you will be accused of this crime. Take the invaluable advice of your lawyer parents , keep telling the jurors , you smart asses have no way of knowing for sure whether I did not or not , because there were only I and the victim there. Please use your argument of " I don't share my bed with kids thus I am not a predator, only predators share bed with kids". like those who have been convicted of sexual abused share their beds with children; priests, teachers, coaches.. even relatives. I bet unlike Jackson, the money motive in your case will be of no issue. Even if its of issue, please stay true to yourself, and don't use the "no one accuses someone of molestation for money" argument. You might say you will never get accused . Well, that's exactly what Letterman and Oriely said when they were judging Michael Jackson day and night. They settled when they were accused in a heartbeat. Unlike Jackson, the settlements they paid silenced them for good , while Jackson kept proclaiming his innocence.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

MSL , I do really hope you or a loved one face a similar accusation. This is the only way you will understand this is not a game you enjoy playing on websites. what you seem to do here is playing smart while a man's life was ruined for something he did not do. Yes , we are 100% confident he was innocent, because not only his accusers act like TYPICAL extortionists do but also because we knew everything about those cases, besides he was long enough in the public eye for us to know how he exactly behaved behind closed doors.

I am one who is much more interested in Jackson the individual than the artist. Unlike you, people ( ignorant, haters or indifferent) ability not to figure for sure whether he was or was not guilty does not fascinate me. What fascinates me his ability to give and help unconditionally. What fascinates me about his story, the level of good and evil people exhibits. The more details I know about the allegations he faced the more I feel troubled by the level of evilness some people possesses. You coming here to speak of your fascination with the misery of someone else , only speaks of the person you really are.

 

[HIStory]

Soundmind -


If you don't think Michael paid the Chandlers to be quiet, what exactly was he paying them for? Other than their silence, what was Michael getting out of the transaction? There has to be considerations for both parties for a contract to be enforceable. The Chandlers got money. Jackson got silence. Pretty simple.

It's starting to feel like talking to a wall. Both Soundmind and me explained to you several times what was Michael was getting out of the settlement: that there wasn't a civil case getting ahead of a criminal, which would have been a big disadvantage for him in a criminal trial. That this was a major factor in the settlement is discussed and admitted in several books including basically the Chandlers' own or a book by Geraldine Hughes (a former secretary of one of the Chandler lawyers).

I'm not refusing to learn about anything. I'm reading everything that's being posted.

Really? Maybe you are not careful enough then about what you read.

If I change your mind, you have to quit the site and never listen to Michael Jackson ever again. So which of us really do you think is more likely to actually have an open mind about this?

Just because you say you have no stake in believing one way or another, doesn't make it so. Often that stake is pride. People simply do not want to be wrong about their previously held beliefs and they do not want a debate partner to be right over them. That is an investment as well in wanting to hold on to a certain belief.


For example, you dismiss the linked website altogether as "biased" (even though it has lots of factual information regardless of the author's personal beliefs - and you can follow the links to its sources, and many of those sources are actually the accusers themselves, eg. their book, court testimonies etc.), yet you embrace tabloid articles with no sources or evidence given. That is, for example, a very clearly detectable bias in your stance. I have discussed these cases with lots of people from fans to haters and also neutral people, so I can tell that your stance is very, very far from being fair, neutral and open-minded.

Michael slept on the floor THAT NIGHT after being uncomfortably interrogated by a major broadcaster about the sleeping arrangements earlier that day.

*Sigh*

I'm not sure why you keep insisting you read everything when you clearly have not. This is not what happened AT ALL. You do not even know the basic timeline of the events, do you?

The floor vs bed debate is kind of silly when Michael has admitted many times to bringing many many boys into his bed. How does him sleeping on the floor certain times change anything if we know it was common for him to sleep with strange boys in his bed?

The bed vs. floor issue was brought up specifically in relation to that scene in the Bashir interview. So we are simply talking about that scene. At that point, when the Bashir interview was done, this was the only ever occasion that Gavin slept in Michael's room in Michael's bed with Michael being present. Whether there were any other occasions after this can be a matter of whether you believe the allegations or not, but at this point by all accounts, by all sides of the case this was the only ever occasion. With Gavin on the bed and Michael on the floor and with Frank Cascio and Michael's children also being in the room. And this happened 3 years before the Bashir interview, NOT "after being uncomfortably interrogated by a major broadcaster about the sleeping arrangements earlier that day"! Between that one occasion and the Bashir interview Michael never slept in the same room with Gavin again, in fact they hardly even met. Gavin actually complained on the stand that Michael was actively avoiding him and did not take his phone calls, did not want to meet him and when they accidentaly bumped into each other at NL on one occasion Michael quickly told him he had something else to do and left. Some "grooming"! After the Bashir interview (once again based on Gavin's own testimony) Michael left again and they have not heard about him again until February 2003 when all hell broke lose because of the bad publicity resulting from the Bashir interview. That's when Michael's team contacted again the Arvizos to do the rebuttal video etc. The alleged abuse happened after all this according to the Arvizo's story. So well AFTER the Bashir interview (which was shot in the autumn of 2002). The alleged abuse happened (according to the latest version of the Arvizos's story because it changes during the process...) between February 20 and March 12, 2003. However when we take a closer look at that period it turns out even during this period there were hardly a couple of days when both Michael and Gavin were at NL at the same time. In any case, at the time the police and the child protection services were BOTH investigating because of the Bashir interview. So the allegation is that the abuse started not only after Bashir and while the whole world, the tabloid media etc. was in a frenzy because of the Bashir interview but also WHILE the police and CPS were investigating! So the police started to investigate earlier than the alleged abuse happened. And Michael decided to start molesting Gavin in the middle of that circus and WHILE the police was investigating. I guess he just thought "I am not going to let these good guys investigate in vain, I am going to start molesting him now, even though I have not molested him for three years." The Arvizos had to come up with this timeline simply because there was no other time when Michael and Gavin even stayed in the same place at the same time.

You state as fact that the "phantom" victims do not exist. Again, there is absolutely positively no way for you to know that. You can have your opinion about whether those reports were true or not, but for you to state as fact that they do not exist is ridiculous.

I hope you realize the burden of proof is on someone who makes a positive claim. So in case someone makes the claim there were phantom victims the burden is on them to prove it. The tabloid provided no proof. Not only that, but there is proof that many of the claims in that article are simply untrue. Also, the article claims this information comes from FBI files that were obtained in the early 2000s. But the prosecution, that worked closely together with the FBI, never provided any such evidence during the trial in 2005. Of course, you can still opt to believe their claims. You can also opt to believe in pink unicorns. There is no way to prove they do not exist, right? It's just not rational.

We have no idea what the alleged victim was interested in.

We have a pretty good idea that he was not interested in testifying in a criminal court. The statutes of limitations were extended for him by two years. Prosecutors personally went to him to ask him to testify. He threatened them that he would legally fight if they tried to force him.

We know his father wanted a financial settlement. What does it say about the father? It could say a lot of things. It could say that he didn't want to put is son through the torment and humiliation of a trial.

So it would have been OK to put him through a torment and humiliation of a civil trial, but not OK if it was a criminal trial? It was OK to shop a book about the alleged abuse just days after the settlement, but a criminal trial was not OK? It was OK to leak salacious stories to tabloids, but a criminal trial was not OK? It was OK to file another civil lawsuit against Michael in 1996 (now for $60 million) but a criminal trial was not OK?

It could say that he wanted to make sure the son would have access to the best medical and psychological care.

Except he did not need therapy. According to their own book Jordan was "the least affected" by the whole thing.

It could say that he wanted to make sure his son would be ensured a comfortable lifestyle. It could say a lot of things.

I think his own comfortable lifestyle was more on his mind. And sure they lived a luxury life ever since the settlement! Except for the occasional conflicts between father and son over the money.

On July 6, 2005 – less then three weeks after Michael Jackson’s acquittal in the Arvizo trial – Evan Chandler “struck [Jordan] on the head from behind with a twelve and one-half pound weight and then sprayed his eyes with mace or pepper spray and tried to choke him” [7]. A judge later “found that the weight could have caused serious bodily injury or death” [7]. On August 5, 2005 Jordan obtained a temporary restraining order against his father. Though the judge in this case declared he saw no proof that the defendant (Evan Chandler) displayed “a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior” [7], and with that dismissed Jordan’s request for a final restraining order, the incidents cited above, considered together, do indeed constitute a pattern.
This was not the end of Evan and Jordan Chandler’s legal disputes. On July 24, 2005 Evan Chandler filed a lawsuit against Jordan which had to do with Jordan’s trust fund. The case was dismissed in 2007.

The father commmitted suicide in 2009, four months after Michael's death.

On November 5, 2009, four months after Michael Jackson’s death, Evan Chandler committed suicide. He did not leave a suicide note. Reportedly, he died as a lonely man, stricken with serious and painful diseases. In his Will Evan ordered that none of his family members be advised of his death until well after his funeral. He also stated that he did not wish to leave anything to any of his three children (including Jordan): “For reasons best known between us, I purposefully make no provision in this, my Last Will and Testament, for any of my children or their issue.” [10]

Remember this was the father who made Jordan make allegations against MJ in the first place!

You're trying to use a parent looking out for his son as proof it was some sort of scam. I don't see it as proof of that as all.

Sure by all accounts he was just "looking out for his son". If he was that much of a caring father how come that after the settlement he did not want anything to do with his other two children, only with millionaire Jordan? Here is an extract from a lawsuit that Evan's second wife filed against him complaining that after the settlement Evan (and also Jordan) abandoned his other two children.

You say the settlement didn't shut anyone up, but the settlement requires Jordan to never speak publicly about it for the rest of his life . . . which, uh, would be shutting him up.

Jordan had all the opportunities in the world to tell his story. In courts several times (that he refused) and actually his family even published a book in 2004. So I am asking you again and again: how exactly was he silenced? I also do not really care about what someone has to tell a tabloid under circumstances where his claims will not be challenged and cross examined. Not in a serious matter like this. So if he could not speak to tabloids because of the settlement I will not cry for him about that. He could have spoken out in courts any time he wanted - as a child or as an adult, as an alleged victim being the main subject of a trial or as a supporting witness for another alleged victim. He refused. If he did not speak it was voluntary, not because he was silenced.

If Michael was very vulnerable to the accusation of hebephilia due to him so perfectly fitting the profile of a hebephile . . . maybe, um, he was a hebephile? I'm not convinced that he was, but if his behavior made him so susceptible to the accusation, why is it so far fetched to think that maybe it was true?

Just because people assume something it doesn't make it so. Millions and billions of people believe things that are not true.

Would you mind listing the claims I made that were contrary to the court transcripts of the accuser himself?

I listed them regarding the Gavin Arvizo allegations. You made up assumptions about the case and then treated them as facts instead of checking out what exactly the allegations were.

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Soundmind -

Jordan Chandler has said nothing. Jordan Chandler will never say anything. Because Michael Jackson paid him 15 million dollars to never speak about what happened. Does that automatically mean Michael was guilty? No. But those of you denying that he was paying for silence have a big problem . . . if that isn't what he was paying for, what WAS he paying for? You don't seem to have an answer for that.

Michael was sued in '96 for violating the confidentiality agreement. How does that change that Jordan was paid to remain quiet?

Why would I stop claiming that a court would have no way of knowing of all of Michael's private agreements when that is the truth? Do you understand what a private agreement is? If nobody talks, nobody is going to know, including a court.

I was responding to someone who said the goal was a civil settlement, not a civil trial. I was explaining why a parent might prefer a civil settlement over a trial.

When did Jordan speak to the media about the case after receiving his settlement?

There was no extortion. Extortion is illegal. You don't know the meaning of the words that you're using.

If you hope that I will someday be falsely accused of a terrible crime because I have a different opinion than you do, you may have some serious mental issues. That is a very disturbing thing for you to say.

I wish you the best and I'm sorry that our difference of opinion has caused you to wish such horrible things for me. Take care.

 

[analogue]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Is MSL a troll?

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Soundmind -

Jordan Chandler has said nothing. Jordan Chandler will never say anything. Because Michael Jackson paid him 15 million dollars to never speak about what happened. Does that automatically mean Michael was guilty? No. But those of you denying that he was paying for silence have a big problem . . . if that isn't what he was paying for, what WAS he paying for? You don't seem to have an answer for that.

Michael was sued in '96 for violating the confidentiality agreement. How does that change that Jordan was paid to remain quiet?

Why would I stop claiming that a court would have no way of knowing of all of Michael's private agreements when that is the truth? Do you understand what a private agreement is? If nobody talks, nobody is going to know, including a court.

I was responding to someone who said the goal was a civil settlement, not a civil trial. I was explaining why a parent might prefer a civil settlement over a trial.

When did Jordan speak to the media about the case after receiving his settlement?

There was no extortion. Extortion is illegal. You don't know the meaning of the words that you're using.

If you hope that I will someday be falsely accused of a terrible crime because I have a different opinion than you do, you may have some serious mental issues. That is a very disturbing thing for you to say.

I wish you the best and I'm sorry that our difference of opinion has caused you to wish such horrible things for me. Take care.

I thought that such horrible things fascinate you, so allow us to be fascinated by your misery when it happens. Please let us know when you are caught in trouble with the legal system. so we can all play the "we will never know for sure" game which you seem to enjoy.

I believe in justice, I believe that we should be held accountable to what we say about others. Just because you have an opinion , should not mean you should have the right to twist the facts and assume things that are proven untrue and continue to express it freely , knowing fully well how those opinions of you and others destroyed a man's life and reputation. Bullies have opinion and they express them freely all the time , resulting in people taking their own lives for the verbal assassination they are projected to. Racists also hide behind the freedom of expression and the right to express their sick opinions whenever they spread hate. You are no different.

Justice says "you sow what you reap" and I wish you are subject to everything bad you assume others did without being 100% sure they did it.

 

[MJresearcher]

A quote from the book the first accuser's father and uncle wrote:

“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.” All That Glitters page 128.

Definition of extortion:

The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.

The accuser's father made demands for money before the allegation was public. If MJ had paid him then it wouldn't have gone public. He refused to pay at that time. You talk about possible reasons the family might not want to go through a whole civil trial or through a criminal trial but keep insisting that silence is the reason MJ settled the civil case. He had only a few months beforehand come out of rehab for Demerol addiction plus there was all the negative publicity and the matter of MJ being sued for cancelling concerts.

The Chandlers admitted that MJ was wanting the criminal case to be dealt with first. So here we have a guy who had a chance to pay a man a lot of money, and that man would have kept quiet, but instead MJ refused to give him money which meant the father of the accuser went to the media and the police, FBI and DCFS got involved. He could have avoided that if he'd paid when Evan demanded him to. Then you have MJ petitioning for the criminal trial that had the potential to bring about a prison sentence to come first rather than agreeing with the Chandler's about having the civil case first which would have given him stalling time. It's not unreasonable to think that a guilty person probably wouldn't do those things. Not making a fact claim, simply saying it doesn't make sense. Your own bias with all of this can't be denied at this point, so you might as well own it.

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Soundmind -

Jordan Chandler has said nothing. Jordan Chandler will never say anything. Because Michael Jackson paid him 15 million dollars to never speak about what happened. Does that automatically mean Michael was guilty? No. But those of you denying that he was paying for silence have a big problem . . . if that isn't what he was paying for, what WAS he paying for? You don't seem to have an answer for that.

It was answered. Over and over again by two of us.

Are you deliberately being obtuse now?

 

[analogue]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Alright, I'm convinced. MSL is a troll

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

Just because I don't agree with everything that you're posting doesn't mean I'm not reading it.

I have no pride at stake. I'm the only one in this discussion that hasn't taken an absolute position. I stated my opinion that I thought it was more likely than not that Michael was attracted to boys. If he wasn't, that would be lovely. Why would that upset me?

I read the website that was posted and article after article was littered with logical fallacies and methods of propaganda. The techniques that were used made it hard to take the site seriously. If you enjoy the site, that is great. You should enjoy whatever you enjoy.

Jordan got 15 million and never had to testify. Whoever was looking out for his interests did a great job. Doesn't matter who shopped a book later. Who testified later. Who sued later. Jordan got his money and got to move on with his life. The interests of the child were protected. No amount of attacking the family changes that.

You believe it was all a giant conspiracy and the boy was coerced into lying. You're entitled to believe that. I'm not telling you what to believe. I personally don't believe that. No biggie. I don't need everyone to agree with me.

It's interesting though that you list all of the opportunities that Jordan had to talk, correctly point out that he never did, yet somehow don't see the irony in arguing that he wasn't paid to shut up.

He got paid. He shut up. Shutting up ensured there would be no criminal trial. Shutting up ensured the world would never hear his side of the story from his mouth. It was a business decision. Life goes on.

Your position seems to be:

"If you studied this subject as much as I have and knew as much about the case as I do, your opinion would be different."

And you know what, maybe you're right!

There's one problem though. I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

You say you know more about the subject than I do and I say okay. I'm not telling you what to believe. I was asked why I believe what I do and I've explained why. You've explained why you believe what you believe. I think that's lovely. What else is there that you want?



Analogue -

Why would I be a troll? People started questioning my thoughts, so I explained myself. I've discussed the matter in good faith and tried to answer as many people as I could.

I'm new here, so I don't want to be disrespectful and ignore anyone. I'm sorry that you feel I'm being insincere.

 

[Dianne]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

There's one problem though. I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

Oh the irony

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

Just because I don't agree with everything that you're posting doesn't mean I'm not reading it.

I have no pride at stake. I'm the only one in this discussion that hasn't taken an absolute position. I stated my opinion that I thought it was more likely than not that Michael was attracted to boys. If he wasn't, that would be lovely. Why would that upset me?

I read the website that was posted and article after article was littered with logical fallacies and methods of propaganda. The techniques that were used made it hard to take the site seriously. If you enjoy the site, that is great. You should enjoy whatever you enjoy.

Jordan got 15 million and never had to testify. Whoever was looking out for his interests did a great job. Doesn't matter who shopped a book later. Who testified later. Who sued later. Jordan got his money and got to move on with his life. The interests of the child were protected. No amount of attacking the family changes that.

You believe it was all a giant conspiracy and the boy was coerced into lying. You're entitled to believe that. I'm not telling you what to believe. I personally don't believe that. No biggie. I don't need everyone to agree with me.

It's interesting though that you list all of the opportunities that Jordan had to talk, correctly point out that he never did, yet somehow don't see the irony in arguing that he wasn't paid to shut up.

He got paid. He shut up. Shutting up ensured there would be no criminal trial. Shutting up ensured the world would never hear his side of the story from his mouth. It was a business decision. Life goes on.

Your position seems to be:

"If you studied this subject as much as I have and knew as much about the case as I do, your opinion would be different."

And you know what, maybe you're right!

There's one problem though. I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

You say you know more about the subject than I do and I say okay. I'm not telling you what to believe. I was asked why I believe what I do and I've explained why. You've explained why you believe what you believe. I think that's lovely. What else is there that you want?



Analogue -

Why would I be a troll? People started questioning my thoughts, so I explained myself. I've discussed the matter in good faith and tried to answer as many people as I could.

I'm new here, so I don't want to be disrespectful and ignore anyone. I'm sorry that you feel I'm being insincere.

Why we are bothering with this twisted person any more? How many times have it been said that no one could ever stop the criminal investigation , not Jackson himself of course !! Jordan told his story multiple times. His exact words to the psychiatric were released. What you fails to say, is that it was Jackson who never had the opportunity to question Jordan Chandler on what he claimed to those police officers and psychiatrics. Jordan Chandler WILLINGLY AND VEHEMENTLY DENIED JACKSON HIS RIGHT TO FACE HIM IN A CRIMINAL COURT.

At this point, I don't believe this troll believes Jackson did anything. He is interested in making us believe Jackson did something. Child molestation is no entertainment , but what can we say to someone who is fascinated by such thing!

 

[MJresearcher]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

That right there is why your opinions aren't being taken very seriously. Why should they be when you've repeatedly got documented facts wrong after claiming you'd read about them? You can't expect to argue about a subject very well or be taken very seriously if you refuse to gain adequate knowledge about it. More than that, you're sticking your head in the sand about facts we've given you and since that's how you've chosen to play it, your credibility on this subject has been lost.

 

[Lil]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Yes it's very understandable why Michael's development could have been stunted, causing him to relate to children the most. Feel connected to children the most. His love for children being a result of his upbringing and experiences.

I don't think that's nonsense at all.

But I also don't think it's nonsense that somebody in that situation could end up in a psychological state where the people they connect with and fall in love with are underage.

If someone is attracted to 13 year old boys, of course there are going to be things from their upbringing that contributed to their psychological condition.

I didn't say I think his development was stunted, I said that I understand why Michael came to love children and being around children so much.

Not only is that a bit of a stretch (this would mean that anyone who can relate to children and spends a lot of time with them, might 'fall in love' with them..?) but that is also not how pedophilia works. And even if it was, there is a difference between pedophiles and child molesters.

There's one problem though. I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

couldn't you have said that a little earlier

 

[MSL]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Researcher -

I did not ask anybody to take my opinions seriously nor does it bother me if you don't. I was asked to explain why I feel the way I feel, so I did. I was asked to read numerous articles, so I did. If your position is, "dedicate your life to becoming an expert on this subject and your opinion may change," no thank you. I understand why those who would have their fandom ruined if they believed he was guilty would go to great lengths to convince themselves that he's innocent. I get it. And if you don't think Michael was attracted to boys, I think that's great. I did not come here to convince anyone of anything.

Some people seemed to want to know why I thought it was more likely than not that Michael was attracted to boys and I explained why I believe that. I believe that because boys were his primary companion. Boys are who he slept with at night. Boys are who he wined and dined. At least five of those boys claim Michael was interested in them sexually. Michael's behavior and lifestyle matched that of someone who was seeking romance with underage boys.

There's a chance that despite all of the circumstantial evidence and common sense that perhaps Michael was the exception to the rule and there was no romantic element. I believe there is a more likely chance that he wasn't the exception to the rule.

You don't. And that's cool. Hope we can still be pals.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

You sum up everything wrong with our societies these days. Zero values, zero consideration for other's lives and reputations, everything is entertainment, everything is a game, everything is allowed and welcomed. You can do what ever and say whatever you want ,it is cool he was a molester , it is cool they took money, it is cool you support a molester, it is cool he was into little kids, it is cool we care less about the facts , everything is cool , we can still be pals. I cant believe it.

 

[HIStory]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Respect -

Just because I don't agree with everything that you're posting doesn't mean I'm not reading it.

Then can you tell me why did you post this, for example?

Michael slept on the floor THAT NIGHT after being uncomfortably interrogated by a major broadcaster about the sleeping arrangements earlier that day.

I read the website that was posted and article after article was littered with logical fallacies and methods of propaganda. The techniques that were used made it hard to take the site seriously.

Like I said, you do not have to take the author seriously, but there are court transcripts, testimonies, quotes from the accuser's book there. You keep ignoring all those as well. Heck, you ignore the Arvizos own allegations in favour of making up your own assumptions about the case. If you were truly open-minded, intellectually honest and truly not invested in holding on to your opinion about MJ, you would not have to do that. BTW, if you want raw court transcripts without any kind of commentary here they are: http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/full-court-transcripts-of-michael-jacksons-2005-trial/

It's interesting though that you list all of the opportunities that Jordan had to talk, correctly point out that he never did, yet somehow don't see the irony in arguing that he wasn't paid to shut up.

Jason Francia too got a settlement yet he testified in 2005. Which shows settlements do not stop anyone from testifying at a criminal trial, but as a child of lawyers you know that very well, I am sure.

There's one problem though. I don't care that much about the subject and have no interest in studiously researching it to the extent that you have simply because it may cause me to feel differently about a case.

At least this is honest now. It comes across that you are just one of the people who wants to hold on to his preconcieved opinion, no matter what, and who does not want to know about anything that might change it. You can take that position, but then why did you even feel the need to come here and start this BS?

I'm sorry that you feel I'm being insincere.

It's difficult not to feel so. You are new here. You did a couple of posts elsewhere then at around your 20th post you came here to trash Michael about a subject you supposedly do not care about and admittedly do not know much about and do not even want to know much about. When people gave you the benefit of doubt and gave you information, you ignored and dismissed everything that went against your preconcieved notion. I get it that opinions can be different, but you also ignored or dismissed facts, not just opinions.
I can totally understand if someone finds this behaviour suspicious.

 

[MJresearcher]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

Researcher -

I did not ask anybody to take my opinions seriously nor does it bother me if you don't. I was asked to explain why I feel the way I feel, so I did. I was asked to read numerous articles, so I did. If your position is, "dedicate your life to becoming an expert on this subject and your opinion may change," no thank you.

Except you didn't just explain what you think and why, you started debating about it despite your lack of knowledge. My position is study things properly before attempting to debate them and don't pretend facts aren't facts. My "fandom" wouldn't be ruined if it turned out that MJ had done things wrong, it's not something my life depends on and it wouldn't stop me from listening to any of his music either. We don't go to great lengths to convince ourselves, we accept the fact that claims were not proved and that there's a lot wrong with all of this. It was the job of the prosecution to do the convincing since they were making the positive claims and they failed. Have fun with the rest of the conversation and have a nice day.

 

[MSL]

Respect -

I posted that because you specifically said that he slept on the floor THAT NIGHT. I was simply pointing out that whether he slept on the floor on a specific night is a moot point when Michael has admitted that he sees no problem with sleeping in the same bed as a young male fan and had done so many times.

It is unethical to stipulate in a settlement that somebody can't testify if subpoenaed, but you can stipulate that they cease cooperating, which will typically lead to the case being dropped.

I've been honest this entire time and would have no reason to not be honest. I've read everything you've posted. Nothing you've posted has changed my mind about the following:

• Instead of spending his life with women (or even men) as his companions, he spent his life with young boys as his companions.

• When he went on tour, his companion would always be a young boy. When he went on vacation, his companion would always be a young boy. These young boys were sleeping in his bed with him.

• At least five of those boys have claimed there was sexual misconduct.

If it seems unreasonable to you for me to assume he might have been attracted to boys, that's fine. I'm not asking you to agree with me. I know that if you did agree with me, you'd have to quit this site and cease listening to his music. I'm not looking to cause that. I just stated my opinion. You stated yours. I respect your view.

I have not trashed anybody. Michael's behavior combined with the allegations lead me to believe he was likely attracted to boys. Period. You've presented your position. I've read it. I still think he likely was attracted to boys. If you want to continue presenting information, I will continue reading it and if I ever begin to believe it is likely he was attracted to women, I will let you know.

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I cant but talk about Wade Robson filing his civil claim under seal siting "privacy concerns of the defendant", only for his plan to be blown away once TMZ got hold of the news by their inside court plants. MJ should not have ever cared about silencing his victims . They and their families, all were willing to be silenced , it was his cheap ways that forced them to go to the authorities. The Chandlers asked before they accused him, the Arvisos asked, Wade filed on the eve of a very big estate's project " The One " in Vegas, with a strategy to keep his accusation secret , in an "act of goodwill" encouraging the estate to settle with him sooner than later and let him disappear. It is the magic of being molested by Michael Jackson, they still cared enough about him, wanted to protect him to the max, approached him first before going to authorities, begged him for paying them and their families. When he refused, they went chasing their chances with official filings. These are facts not opinion. This is exactly what his accusers did.

 

[Dianne]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

I would point out all the girls and all those adult men and women who stated he shared his bed with them too. But it's obvious now that it's a moot point, so why bother

 

[Soundmind]

Re: People trying to shame you for defending Michael

There were tens of other boys who slept in his room and said nothing ever happened. The difference with them was like Sean Lennon said, they were not interested in his money. You can keep twisting the facts but it will not change what have been disclosed by evidence on record. The accusers demanded money before they accused Jackson and he turned each one of them away. That goes against the theory of shutting people up.