Debates with the public

[HIStory]

Does anyone know how Gavin Arvizo learned that MJ called wine Jesus Juice?

I know that Chris Carter knew it, Frank Cascio and the other Cascio kids knew it and they both interacted with Star and Gavin.
The staff probably knew it too. Star Arvizo discovered during the flight from Miami that MJ had wine in his can.
He might have asked the Cascio kids about it later.



Because this is one of the most often use ammunition against Mj I'd like to know for sure.

You already know the answer. If many people knew it it doesn't take a rocket scientist for anyone to find out. They could have overheard other people, friends, staff etc. mention it. Or MJ himself telling it to staff and they figured it was wine. For example, the Arvizo family had a dinner with Michael back in 2000. There are several ways to know about it. So if your debate partners use it as an ammunition against MJ they must be really desperate. LOL. The Arvizos knowing it proves nothing as so many other people knew.

 

[redfrog]

The Arvizos knowing it proves nothing as so many other people knew.

Yes I know I just wondered if there was a specific person who said that he or she mentioned MJ called wine Jesus Juice
while the Arvizos were present.

Did Arvizo mention this during his first police interview at all?

 

[HIStory]

Did Arvizo mention this during his first police interview at all?

I don't know nor do I care because it does not have any significance.

 

[redfrog]

I don't know nor do I care because it does not have any significance.

It would have if he had only mentioned it after they interviewed Chris Carter who testified to the grand jury
that he knew MJ called wine Jesus Juice.

Since it's a sure thing that Sneddon and co helped put together the Arvizo story this may be one element which
they inserted after they learned about it from someone other than the Arvizos.

 

[redfrog]

Does anyone know whether MJ's insurance company paid part of the Chandler settlement?
The language of the settlement agreement was aimed at getting some money for negligence claims.

So did any of that actually happen or it was all Mj's money?

Also, how many years did it take to pay the full amount?
I know most of the money went into a trust fund but which year was the last installment paid?
Everyone believes that MJ had to pay 20million instantly and I know that's not true but it would be good to know the details to shut
down idiots who think it was such a big deal for MJ to pay that much money.

 

[Bad7]

I don't have the jury instructions but it doesn't even make sense. How is "sharing bed with children for sexual gratification" different from molestation? I like it when people make up BS just to try "win" an argument. LOL. And how does sharing bed with someone necessarily involve sexual gratification?

The jury found MJ not guilty in all 14 charges brought against him. The charges were NOT "sharing bed for sexual gratification" but "lewd act upon a child", "attempt at lewd act upon a child" etc. The jury has to address the charges. They cannot just "ignore" a charge like your friend implied. LOL. That's such a stupid thing to say.

The reading of the verdict clearly stated what they decided about:

[video=youtube;Bi8HCUp_f5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi8HCUp_f5c[/video]

"Lewd act upon a child" - not guilty.
"Attempt at lewd act upon a child" - not guilty.
"Serving a child alcohol in order to attempt a lewd act upon him" - not guilty.

Etc.

If there were instructions towards them that they had to find that MJ shared bed with children for sexual gratification then they obviously did not find that. As simple as that. BTW, MJ and Arvizo probably did not even share a bed - ever. They once slept in the same room - on that one occasion in 2000 where Frank Cascio was also in the room. Arvizo claimed they did share a bed later, in 2003, but he was caught in many lies on the stand and the jury obviously did not believe him. Actually when you look at the timeline and the totality of the case I don't believe MJ ever slept in a bed with Gavin. MJ was running and hiding from that boy in 2003, not trying to be with him.

If he ignores any evidence or argument then I don't think it's worth dealing with him. He is obviously one of the people who WANTS MJ to be guilty no matter what and he will not let himself be bothered by the actual facts of the case. When someone is prejudiced and closed-minded to arguments you cannot do anything about it.

Last time I checked, which was a few days ago, I hadn't received a response back. He probably had nothing to say besides the sharing the bed stuff. I'd never heard the sexual gratification line anywhere before.

Does anyone know whether MJ's insurance company paid part of the Chandler settlement?
The language of the settlement agreement was aimed at getting some money for negligence claims.

So did any of that actually happen or it was all Mj's money?

Also, how many years did it take to pay the full amount?
I know most of the money went into a trust fund but which year was the last installment paid?
Everyone believes that MJ had to pay 20million instantly and I know that's not true but it would be good to know the details to shut
down idiots who think it was such a big deal for MJ to pay that much money.

The insurance line comes from Brian Oxman. And Brian Oxman only. He was a part of MJ's team in 2005 before later being let go. Aside from this there is nothing else to back it up. I believe Mesereau was asked at one point and said he had no recollection if an insurance agreement. In the leaked Chandler settlement Diane Dimond removed parts of it for 'ease of reading'. One part removed is 'paragraph 3' which was referred to in other parts of the settlement and covered how the money would be paid and by whom. That seemed suspicious from Diane. That said, I still doubt the insurance line as the likes of MJ himself and lawyers of his never mentioned an insurance company paid.

1999 was the year of the last settlement payment.

I've just discovered something I didn't know before. Apparently the language below, which was used in the settlement, is the common type used in insurance settlements. Googling also leads to it being insurance settlement language.

“by Jackson to Qualified Assignments, accompanied by receipt by each assignee from Jackson of the Qualified Funding Asset Premiums by the QFAP Funding Dates, the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice.”

Still, the only official source to mention an insurance carrier paid was Brian Oxman. He stated it was paid over the protests of MJ and his legal counsel. Which didn't make sense. Why would an insurance carrier pay out on something their client didn't want them to?

Also, if an insurance carrier paid why didn't MJ and his lawyers cite this. Thus putting an end to the 'he paid to stay out of jail' nonsense.

 

[Soundmind]

an insurance carrier would want to settle over the protest of their client because the cost of litigation and a possible unfavorable judgment would have been much higher. So I do understand why an insurance carrier would have preferred to settle and why from a legal stand point an insurer has a right to do so regardless whether the client agreed or not. I do believe an insurance company settled the case in 1993 but it was not really against MJ's wishes. My belief has always been that Cochran had no business in 1993 but to help his buddy Fieldman in any way possible, he probably used this argument "you won't pay a penny, the insurance will pay" to convince MJ to settle.

An insurer that is defending its policyholder has the right to control the defense and ultimately to settle the case. Liability insurance policies typically contain a provision that the insurer "may in [its] discretion . . . settle any claim or suit." See, e.g., Emcasco Ins. Co. v. American Intern. Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 438 F.3d 519, 521 (5th Cir. 2006). They also contain a provision that prohibits the policyholder from making "voluntary payments" toward the defense or settlement of any claim or suit. Belz v. Clarendon America Ins. Co., 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864, 871 (Ct. App. 2007) ("courts have applied a no-voluntary-payment provision to . . . the making of unapproved expenditures in response to a claim or suit, including the payment of a settlement"). Thus, the policyholder cannot settle a case without the consent of the insurer, and the insurer may choose not to settle, even when the policyholder believes that it is in its best interests to do so.

 

[HIStory]

The whole argument about the insurance IMO is much ado about nothing both on fans' and haters' side. No, it does not prove MJ was innocent if he did not pay the settlement from his own pocket. And no, it does not prove he was guilty if he did. The whole thing is just a fallacious argument on both sides, focusing on the wrong argument for either innocence or guilt.

Settlements can happen for a number of reasons even if the defendant is innocent. As we have seen in the JC Penney case. And in MJ's case we know the reasons very well (civil lawsuit being brought ahead of criminal proceedings, MJ's health, probably also pressure from business associates and a vested interest by some of his lawyers in a settlement etc.)

 

[Soundmind]

That's your opinion though. Many people in the street believe no innocent man pays $ 20 million settlement for something as heinous as molesting a child, it is as simple as that. The figure alone has many people making up their mind about MJ's guilt. A settlement paid by an insurance company significantly weakens this argument . Because people then start to give the real motives behind the settlement a chance (civil lawsuit being brought ahead of criminal proceedings and to manage the damage to his potential earnings). Putting everything into perspective, they would understand why it went that way.

That's why the haters go out of their way to disprove that it was paid by an insurance company not by MJ. and that's why Diamond removed that part of the settlement. If they believe it was 'fallacious' argument and had no impact on how less guilty MJ would look to the general public,Diamond would not have been that interested in hiding that part nor the haters would be that adamant in disproving the insurance claim.

It is true that Mez said he had no recollection of an insurance agreement.However,those who followed the trial in 2005, and I was one of them, remember that Mez did not address a lot of issues, he left some to Bob Sagner and some to Brian. Brian Oxman was the one who wrote that motion that does not mean he lied about anything there and I believe the lack of any response from the prosecutors lends more credibility to Oxman's motion.

One more thing, a settlement paid by the insurer would make the Chandlers much less credible and their claims much more questionable because this would be a very strong evidence that they knew MJ did not even fork a penny out of his pockets but they still opted not to go after him in a criminal trial.

 

[HIStory]

Well, just because haters go on and on about it it doesn't make it a great argument. They use a lot of fallacious arguments. It is an emotionally manipulative argument (the whole "why would an innocent man pay"), true, but logically it is not a great argument for his guilt, since it ignores a number of other factors that would also answer the "why would an innocent man pay" question. It is simply a hater tactic that they omit those factors from the representation of their case, therefore the general public believes there are no other factors. Haters are just relying on the ignorance of the general public but that doesn't make the whole insurance argument a great one.

For the record, I do not exclude the possibility that the insurance company paid. I just like to use arguments for that we have evidence. In any case whether they paid or not, to me it sounds quite nonsensical that they would pay against MJ's wishes. But we agree on that point.

 

[KOPV]

IT does make a difference if Michael paid vs. Insurance paid to the public for very understandable reasons.. NOT that it is a deciding factor, but I can understand the point.. The more you sacrifice (in anything) the more you show it has value.. IF someone else comes in (insurance) and fixes the issue, that more so shows you are getting the issue resolved.. For example you get in a car wreck and YOU pay $10,000 to fix the car that shows you REALLLY want THAT car, if insurance pays to fix the car - you are going with that because it is a cheaper and smarter resolution to a car problem.

Whatever the case - paying 20 mill in the big picture is NOT weigh that much ONCE all proof of Michaels innocence Is seen...

 

[analogue]

The case was settled after it was leaked to the media, and the general public knew about it. If Michael was really going to pay ''hush money'' then he would have done so before everything leaked to the general public.

 

[HIStory]

The more you sacrifice (in anything) the more you show it has value..

But the question is what was "it" in this case that was so valuable to MJ? And that's where the possibilities multiply. The valuable "it" in this case could be simply a right to a fair trial which would not have been granted to MJ if the civil case had preceeded the criminal case. This is even acknowledged in the fact that this law that allowed the Chandlers to play this game was later changed. So the valuable "it" could be several things in this case and that's why it is so fallacious to jump to the conclusion that the valuable "it" could only be "a guilty man buying his freedom", without presenting the circumstances of this case in their totality.

 

[barbee0715]

Well, just because haters go on and on about it it doesn't make it a great argument. They use a lot of fallacious arguments. It is an emotionally manipulative argument (the whole "why would an innocent man pay"), true, but logically it is not a great argument for his guilt, since it ignores a number of other factors that would also answer the "why would an innocent man pay" question. It is simply a hater tactic that they omit those factors from the representation of their case, therefore the general public believes there are no other factors. Haters are just relying on the ignorance of the general public but that doesn't make the whole insurance argument a great one.

For the record, I do not exclude the possibility that the insurance company paid. I just like to use arguments for that we have evidence. In any case whether they paid or not, to me it sounds quite nonsensical that they would pay against MJ's wishes. But we agree on that point.

I, for one, never gave much credibility to the insurance story until last year-when our homeowners' association was in the middle of a 2 year fight/lawsuit with a homeowner and all of the sudden, out of the blue, the insurance company settled. Over our wishes, over our direction, over our votes not to settle. Boom. I was absolutely flabbergasted, and then I immediately thought about the Chandler case.

I remember the day when the settlement was announced-everything changed-all of the sudden the sentiment for Michael went from 70-80% sympathy to 99% guilty. Innocent people don't settle=they fight it out. To this day, that's why he still has a black cloud hovering over him and an * by his name/legacy. And that settlement alone brought Arvizo, Robson and Safechuck. I'm talking about the general public and their opinion, and not haters here. Haters, to me, are guys sitting down in their basements on their computers, writing outrageous things to rile up and infuriate people for their own fun.

People didn't know all the particulars of this case-they didn't know about how long and hard Michael did fight it in court-they didn't know or understand the repercussions of the civil trial going before the criminal trial, especially the way it was spun. People didn't know that his very civil rights were being violated left and right by the actions of the courts/judge. None of that made the news. We had no idea that something like this could in reality stretch for many, many years, and by then, if it wasn't already, it would have been the death of Michael physically, mentally, and financially. At the time, I was more upset and worried about Michael personally-his health, his mental and physical well being, his financial means-as it was, he was being destroyed. In front of my very eyes.

I wasn't aware of any of this until about six/seven years ago-When I finally learned about the hard fight they did make in court, it just made me all the more heartsick and hurt for him even more.

I do think the insurance scenario is an important one, especially if they think it was made against his will, because it does make people think twice about the case, and maybe they'll look into the actual evidence like I did-which pretty much fell in my lap while looking up other things. I also think that in the general public's heart of hearts, they never believed Michael was guilty of this heinous crime in the first place, because we would not have seen such a huge outpouring of grief and mourning when he died.

 

[HIStory]

I, for one, never gave much credibility to the insurance story until last year-when our homeowners' association was in the middle of a 2 year fight/lawsuit with a homeowner and all of the sudden, out of the blue, the insurance company settled. Over our wishes, over our direction, over our votes not to settle. Boom. I was absolutely flabbergasted, and then I immediately thought about the Chandler case.

I do think the insurance scenario is an important one, especially if they think it was made against his will, because it does make people think twice about the case, and maybe they'll look into the actual evidence like I did-which pretty much fell in my lap while looking up other things. I also think that in the general public's heart of hearts, they never believed Michael was guilty of this heinous crime in the first place, because we would not have seen such a huge outpouring of grief and mourning when he died.

I don't believe the case was settled against MJ's wish. To me it's just not a good argument when there is no way of proving it happened. If someone comes up with evidence for it, then use it, alright, but so far the whole notion of the case being settled against MJ's wish is only based on a questionable motion by Brian Oxman. But no one ever confirmed it. In fact, people with better credibility than Oxman denied it. Mez said recently that the case was not settled against MJ's wish. Michael himself never claimed it was settled against his wish - and you have him talk about it on Diane Sawyer. Not one mention of it being settled against his wish, in fact, he indicates it was his decision based on his lawyers' advice. There is also that letter that Cochran wrote to the insurance company which actually says the insurance company did not want to pay for the settlement, he had to pressure them. I just don't like fans using arguments that have absolutely no evidence for them. It looks desperate when in fact, we do not need desperate arguments. We have better ones. It's haters who need desperate arguments.

Now, putting aside the "against his wish" thing, of course it is possible that the insurance company eventually paid a good portion of it, or even all of it. I find that absolutely possible. But again, we have no evidence for it. Yes, the fact Dimond/the Chandlers omitted a part of the settlement when they leaked it is suspicios. Obviously there is something there that is not favourable to the Chandlers or is against the narrative they wanted to keep up about the settlement. Redacted "for readers' convenience". LOL, yeah, right.

Anyway, my bigger point is that I like to stick to arguments that we have evidence for. I will not argue that MJ did not pay the settlement out of his pocket because factually I don't know if he did. No one knows. It is possible of course that he did not and the insurance company did, but we don't know for sure. If it turns out that MJ paid the settlement money from his own pocket and this was your main argument for his innocence in a debate then the whole thing will crumble and the person you debate with will look like the winner and people with no other information about the case will think that MJ's defense crumbled so he was guilty. And that would be a shame because we have better arguments and, like I said, who paid the settlement actually does NOT prove either innocence or guilt. It is a fallacy to make this point as imporant as it is made by some - on both sides.

And let me add one more thing: just because much of the general public thinks "an innocent man would not settle" is a great argument it does not mean it really is. People who are more familiar with legal cases will tell you that settlements can and do happen for all kind of reasons depending on the circumastances of the case. You have to look at the totality of the case to be able to decide what that settlement was about. And there are a lot of fallacious arguments that the general public thinks are great. You will see those shared by the million on FB in the form of stupid memes. For example, arguments against the theory of evolution that millions of people believe are great arguments and they are used over and over again, when in fact, when you look at it closely and you know the facts they are fallacious arguments. So an argument's popularity and general "acceptance" among the general public does not mean it is a great and logically sound argument.

 

[barbee0715]

I don't believe the case was settled against MJ's wish. To me it's just not a good argument when there is no way of proving it happened. If someone comes up with evidence for it, then use it, alright, but so far the whole notion of the case being settled against MJ's wish is only based on a questionable motion by Brian Oxman. But no one ever confirmed it. In fact, people with better credibility than Oxman denied it. Mez said recently that the case was not settled against MJ's wish. Michael himself never claimed it was settled against his wish - and you have him talk about it on Diane Sawyer. Not one mention of it being settled against his wish, in fact, he indicates it was his decision based on his lawyers' advice. There is also that letter that Cochran wrote to the insurance company which actually says the insurance company did not want to pay for the settlement, he had to pressure them. I just don't like fans using arguments that have absolutely no evidence for them. It looks desperate when in fact, we do not need desperate arguments. We have better ones. It's haters who need desperate arguments.

Now, putting aside the "against his wish" thing, of course it is possible that the insurance company eventually paid a good portion of it, or even all of it. I find that absolutely possible. But again, we have no evidence for it. Yes, the fact Dimond/the Chandlers omitted a part of the settlement when they leaked it is suspicios. Obviously there is something there that is not favourable to the Chandlers or is against the narrative they wanted to keep up about the settlement. Redacted "for readers' convenience". LOL, yeah, right.

Anyway, my bigger point is that I like to stick to arguments that we have evidence for. I will not argue that MJ did not pay the settlement out of his pocket because factually I don't know if he did. No one knows. It is possible of course that he did not and the insurance company did, but we don't know for sure. If it turns out that MJ paid the settlement money from his own pocket and this was your main argument for his innocence in a debate then the whole thing will crumble and the person you debate with will look like the winner and people with no other information about the case will think that MJ's defense crumbled so he was guilty. And that would be a shame because we have better arguments and, like I said, who paid the settlement actually does NOT prove either innocence or guilt. It is a fallacy to make this point as imporant as it is made by some - on both sides.

And let me add one more thing: just because much of the general public thinks "an innocent man would not settle" is a great argument it does not mean it really is. People who are more familiar with legal cases will tell you that settlements can and do happen for all kind of reasons depending on the circumastances of the case. You have to look at the totality of the case to be able to decide what that settlement was about.

I get it-I agree with you-there's no way to prove it, when there are plenty of other things that are proved.
The closest I ever got in this argument (and I personally have never used the insurance argument) was with somebody on Disqus who stated that "an innocent person wouldn't settle" and I responded with something about what happened pre-trial and if I had been Michael, I would have settled in a heartbeat and so would you"-and he ended up calling ME a pedophile. Oh, and sometimes, I get in it with people on YouTube and I need to stop doing that and go back and delete out my comments-it's just usually trollers or "haters" , as you all call them.
I do correct people when they use the argument that Jordan Chandler "confessed" because that was strictly internet rumour-and I see that one a lot.

I rarely have ever run across anyone with an open mind-actually, not ever.

 

[#MJforever57]

If Jordan every come out public and say that Michael never abuse him that will be a debate and i wonder how the ppls will feel would their still say Michael is guilty?

 

[barbee0715]

If Jordan every come out public and say that Michael never abuse him that will be a debate and i wonder how the ppls will feel would their still say Michael is guilty?

Personally, I think that one simple statement would change everything.

 

[MJresearcher]

I agree with respect77, it's more important to explain to people that MJ was trying to have the criminal trial brought forward when the Chandlers were doing the opposite. They admitted this in the ATG book which is very helpful for us, it shows that MJ actually was fighting this. People assume that he didn't fight this at all because the case was settled but when you can show them that even the family of the accusers admit that this isn't true it goes in MJ's favour. It also helps people to start questioning the family since it proves they were going after money first rather than going for the criminal trial first. I think some people forget that settling the civil case meant that the criminal proceedings would be brought closer, plus, when the accused wants the criminal proceeding to come quicker it goes in their favour. It's also important for people to understand how long civil trials actually take because that can be a factor in why a civil case will be settled. Look how long Robson's case against MJ's companies has been going, it's been a couple of years now and they've only recently come out of the first stage of the lawsuit. When people understand that it could have taken 3 or 4 years or so for the civil suit to be completed if it were to go through to trial then it's easier for them to understand the hesitation to do that, especially given the fact that criminal prosecution doesn't occur from civil cases. He would had to have waited years before the criminal case could proceed and then you have many more months to wait until all of that would be over.

The fact that it made things more difficult for MJ in the event of a criminal trial is an important factor, when the civil case was put ahead of the criminal case it violated MJ's right to a fair trial. Nobody could guarantee that he would win the civil case and since a jury would only have to be 51% sure that MJ did anything to vote in favour of the Chandlers, that could result in making his criminal trial even more difficult and unfair. Even if he'd won the civil case there would still be all the media speculation and reports which would have been going on for years already as it has with Robson and Safechuck.

Having to cancel tour dates was another problem in the middle of this situation. Tickets have to be refunded, then there's concert venues that have been paid for, stage/lighting/sound/instruments etc and MJ ended up being sued over tour dates not completed. On top of that was his health, he'd ended up in rehab over his demerol addiction. Rehab was successful but then he has to keep it that way and that's not likely to be easy. Stress makes it much more difficult not to slide back into former habits and it's clear that he was under a large amount of stress with everything that was happening.

His public image factors in, your reputation plays a big part in how your sales and career will go. Despite allegations against MJ his sales have stayed pretty good but he didn't know that would be the case at that time. He was facing the possibility of losing his career, losing everything he'd worked so hard for all his life, which would mean losing fans and loving what he loved to do most in life. Family and friends factor in too of course, this claim didn't only hurt MJ, family and friends come under stress and pressure about all of this too and they will suffer for it as long as he does. It's very easy for people to stand completely outside of this situation and say it was a bad move to settle. In the long run, yes it was, but when a person is under as much stress as MJ was with all of the things he had going on and all the pressure from so many different people it's not hard to see that settlement was what he felt was best for him at the time with everything he currently had to deal with. Unfortunately it's just not as simple as "You don't settle if you're innocent."

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

As much as I'd love Jordan coming out to tell the truth, he's a coward kunt (I mispelled it on purpose) who will naver dare to do so. I guess not losing that blood money and his economical stability is more important than doing the right thing. If he didn't tell the truth on June 25, he won't do it any other. I just can wish him a life of suffering and misery as long as he lives knowing that son of a bitch is primary responsible (along with CM) of Michael's death.

 

[barbee0715]

I agree with respect77, it's more important to explain to people that MJ was trying to have the criminal trial brought forward when the Chandlers were doing the opposite. They admitted this in the ATG book which is very helpful for us, it shows that MJ actually was fighting this. People assume that he didn't fight this at all because the case was settled but when you can show them that even the family of the accusers admit that this isn't true it goes in MJ's favour. It also helps people to start questioning the family since it proves they were going after money first rather than going for the criminal trial first. I think some people forget that settling the civil case meant that the criminal proceedings would be brought closer, plus, when the accused wants the criminal proceeding to come quicker it goes in their favour. It's also important for people to understand how long civil trials actually take because that can be a factor in why a civil case will be settled. Look how long Robson's case against MJ's companies has been going, it's been a couple of years now and they've only recently come out of the first stage of the lawsuit. When people understand that it could have taken 3 or 4 years or so for the civil suit to be completed if it were to go through to trial then it's easier for them to understand the hesitation to do that, especially given the fact that criminal prosecution doesn't occur from civil cases. He would had to have waited years before the criminal case could proceed and then you have many more months to wait until all of that would be over.

The fact that it made things more difficult for MJ in the event of a criminal trial is an important factor, when the civil case was put ahead of the criminal case it violated MJ's right to a fair trial. Nobody could guarantee that he would win the civil case and since a jury would only have to be 51% sure that MJ did anything to vote in favour of the Chandlers, that could result in making his criminal trial even more difficult and unfair. Even if he'd won the civil case there would still be all the media speculation and reports which would have been going on for years already as it has with Robson and Safechuck.

Having to cancel tour dates was another problem in the middle of this situation. Tickets have to be refunded, then there's concert venues that have been paid for, stage/lighting/sound/instruments etc and MJ ended up being sued over tour dates not completed. On top of that was his health, he'd ended up in rehab over his demerol addiction. Rehab was successful but then he has to keep it that way and that's not likely to be easy. Stress makes it much more difficult not to slide back into former habits and it's clear that he was under a large amount of stress with everything that was happening.

His public image factors in, your reputation plays a big part in how your sales and career will go. Despite allegations against MJ his sales have stayed pretty good but he didn't know that would be the case at that time. He was facing the possibility of losing his career, losing everything he'd worked so hard for all his life, which would mean losing fans and loving what he loved to do most in life. Family and friends factor in too of course, this claim didn't only hurt MJ, family and friends come under stress and pressure about all of this too and they will suffer for it as long as he does. It's very easy for people to stand completely outside of this situation and say it was a bad move to settle. In the long run, yes it was, but when a person is under as much stress as MJ was with all of the things he had going on and all the pressure from so many different people it's not hard to see that settlement was what he felt was best for him at the time with everything he currently had to deal with. Unfortunately it's just not as simple as "You don't settle if you're innocent."

EXCELLENT POST and I'm requoting it for anybody who might have missed it or skimmed it.
These are the arguments to make to somebody who is willing to logically and reasonably discuss it-these are the exact reasons for the settlement that I pointed out to the guy who ended up calling me names.

But-common sense here-anyone and everyone would have settled on one of these reasons alone. Ironic that ATG is the book that actually proved what was really going on and that Michael was innocent. This kind of post is like the ones I fell on around 2009 and 2010, while researching other things.

Like I said, I never doubted Michael for one second back then-but I was going on pure emotion and the fact that I felt like I knew him so well-that the whole Chandler thing was just ludicrous. I was flabbergasted at what was really happening at the time-and that's what eventually led me to this forum.

 

[MJresearcher]

This kind of post is like the ones I fell on around 2009 and 2010, while researching other things.

Seeing fans and trolls debate on the main MJ facebook discussion board when it still existed is how I started learning about the allegations too. That led me to the Vindicating Michael blog and then I ended up here and learned even more.

 

[#MJforever57]

The settlement i have always wonder why it happen and reading it more and more here i understand why Michael did what he had to do settling did not mean that Michael was guilty it was the only choice he had it was clear that the Chandler want the money.

 

[Bad7]

If Jordan every come out public and say that Michael never abuse him that will be a debate and i wonder how the ppls will feel would their still say Michael is guilty?

The average person who knows little about the cases and really isn't all that interested would probably change their mind. However, the haters who dedicate a whole website and bang on about MJ's supposed guilt won't change their mind. They'd cite some nonsense about 'MJ fans must of hounded him into it'. And just say 'there's four other victims'.

The settlement i have always wonder why it happen and reading it more and more here i understand why Michael did what he had to do settling did not mean that Michael was guilty it was the only choice he had it was clear that the Chandler want the money.

No, no, Evan was a caring father that cared deeply... so say the hater's lmao. A father that cared so deeply he met MJ to blackmail him, gave him a hug as if everything was okay (rather than knock his brains out), and then attempted to negotiate film deals in exchange for keeping silent about his son being molested.

No Father, who's son has been molested, negotiates a film deal in exchange for silence. It's just ridiculous.

 

[HIStory]

The average person who knows little about the cases and really isn't all that interested would probably change their mind. However, the haters who dedicate a whole website and bang on about MJ's supposed guilt won't change their mind. They'd cite some nonsense about 'MJ fans must of hounded him into it'. And just say 'there's four other victims'.

Obviously haters are people who just hate him and want an excuse to bash him no matter what so why should it be their opinions that matters? Who cares if they would still keep saying BS? To me they certainly do not matter. It's exactly the average person that matters, not a bunch of losers having nothing better to do than trolling the Internet from their mother's basement about a dead man.

Even if they can point to the other bandwagon jumpers as "four other victims" my opinion is that a Jordan confession would probably be the most important and would significantly weaken the cases of the other four as well in the eyes of the public. Jordan is the foundation for all other four. Just think of the fact for example how much Robson and Safechuck rely on Jordan's case. Hell, Safechuck even adapted things that Jordan claimed ("duck butter" etc.). If Jordan confessed it was a lie then it would also expose Safechuck as a liar and would also significantly weaken the othes cases. So it absolutely does matter whether Jordan confesses or not. Let's not excuse him of that responsibility. He started it, he has a large responsibility in setting the record straight. And if he doesn't that makes him part responsible in every other false allegation against MJ as well.

No, no, Evan was a caring father that cared deeply... so say the hater's lmao. A father that cared so deeply he met MJ to blackmail him, gave him a hug as if everything was okay (rather than knock his brains out), and then attempted to negotiate film deals in exchange for keeping silent about his son being molested.

Not only that. This caring father did not care about Jordan much until MJ came into the family's life. June complained on the stand in 2005 that Evan only cared about his movie scripts and neglected Jordan. He also did not pay child support. He suddenly became the "caring father" only when MJ appeared in his family's life and he saw an opportunity in using his son to extort him.

Then, after the allegations he did not care about his other two kids. He only cared about maintaining a relationship with the millionaire Jordan. His ex-wife even filed a lawsuit about that. Actually, even Ray Chandler admits in ATG that Evan neglected his family after the allegations. Then in 2005 he almost killed Jordan. Yeah, the epitome of a caring father. You know, if you are a caring father you aren't only interested in a son that has millions of dollars. So haters can shove that argument as well. BS like most of their other arguments.

 

[Bad7]

Obviously haters are people who just hate him and want an excuse to bash him no matter what so why should it be their opinions that matters? Who cares if they would still keep saying BS? To me they certainly do not matter. It's exactly the average person that matters, not a bunch of losers having nothing better to do than trolling the Internet from their mother's basement about a dead man.

Even if they can point to the other bandwagon jumpers as "four other victims" my opinion is that a Jordan confession would probably be the most important and would significantly weaken the cases of the other four as well in the eyes of the public. Jordan is the foundation for all other four. Just think of the fact for example how much Robson and Safechuck rely on Jordan's case. Hell, Safechuck even adapted things that Jordan claimed ("duck butter" etc.). If Jordan confessed it was a lie then it would also expose Safechuck as a liar and would also significantly weaken the othes cases. So it absolutely does matter whether Jordan confesses or not. Let's not excuse him of that responsibility. He started it, he has a large responsibility in setting the record straight. And if he doesn't that makes him part responsible in every other false allegation against MJ as well.



Not only that. This caring father did not care about Jordan much until MJ came into the family's life. June complained on the stand in 2005 that Evan only cared about his movie scripts and neglected Jordan. He also did not pay child support. He suddenly became the "caring father" only when MJ appeared in his family's life and he saw an opportunity in using his son to extort him.

Then, after the allegations he did not care about his other two kids. He only cared about maintaining a relationship with the millionaire Jordan. His ex-wife even filed a lawsuit about that. Actually, even Ray Chandler admits in ATG that Evan neglected his family after the allegations. Then in 2005 he almost killed Jordan. Yeah, the epitome of a caring father. You know, if you are a caring father you aren't only interested in a son that has millions of dollars. So haters can shove that argument as well. BS like most of their other arguments.

The thing is if Jordan confessed tomorrow you just know the media would barely report it. So therefore the average person probably wouldn't see it.

Evan was a piece of sh1t, tbh. He was a pathetic father. The other thing hater's ignore about Evan and this supposed father who cared so much, and managed to get Jordy away from the 'abuse', is in the Dr. Gardner interview Jordy thanks his Father and deems it the greatest thing to have ever happened in his life that Evan saved him from the supposed ordeal.

“What would you say is the best thing that ever happened to you in your whole life?”

“When I told my dad what Michael was doing to me.”

“Why do you say that?”

“Because once I told him, I knew that Michael would never be able to do that to me again. And when something horrible ends, it’s most likely the best thing in your life.”

So his Father saves him... and Jordy then emancipates from Evan. Yet he was the one who'd 'saved' him from it all. Makes sense! That just adds even more to the fact he was coached. Especially as in that interview what he says about MJ is exactly what Evan said about MJ to Dave Schwartz. It's also very convenient how we never got to see Gardner's conclusion.

There's so many flaws in the story it's unreal. Evan never once acted like a Father who's son had been abused.

And Evan wanting to make an album about his son's sexual abuse. uke: The man was filth.

 

[barbee0715]

I think if Jordan confessed, it would make the news. Michael is still the worlds most famous star and I think it would spread like wildfire. And yes, it would make all subsequent allegations fall apart like a house of cards.

I don't even think the trollers actually hate Michael. They're the type of people who just get a kick out of pushing people's buttons. Very sick.

 

[Soundmind]

I agree with respect77, it's more important to explain to people that MJ was trying to have the criminal trial brought forward when the Chandlers were doing the opposite. They admitted this in the ATG book which is very helpful for us, it shows that MJ actually was fighting this. People assume that he didn't fight this at all because the case was settled but when you can show them that even the family of the accusers admit that this isn't true it goes in MJ's favour. It also helps people to start questioning the family since it proves they were going after money first rather than going for the criminal trial first. I think some people forget that settling the civil case meant that the criminal proceedings would be brought closer, plus, when the accused wants the criminal proceeding to come quicker it goes in their favour. It's also important for people to understand how long civil trials actually take because that can be a factor in why a civil case will be settled. Look how long Robson's case against MJ's companies has been going, it's been a couple of years now and they've only recently come out of the first stage of the lawsuit. When people understand that it could have taken 3 or 4 years or so for the civil suit to be completed if it were to go through to trial then it's easier for them to understand the hesitation to do that, especially given the fact that criminal prosecution doesn't occur from civil cases. He would had to have waited years before the criminal case could proceed and then you have many more months to wait until all of that would be over.

The fact that it made things more difficult for MJ in the event of a criminal trial is an important factor, when the civil case was put ahead of the criminal case it violated MJ's right to a fair trial. Nobody could guarantee that he would win the civil case and since a jury would only have to be 51% sure that MJ did anything to vote in favour of the Chandlers, that could result in making his criminal trial even more difficult and unfair. Even if he'd won the civil case there would still be all the media speculation and reports which would have been going on for years already as it has with Robson and Safechuck.

Having to cancel tour dates was another problem in the middle of this situation. Tickets have to be refunded, then there's concert venues that have been paid for, stage/lighting/sound/instruments etc and MJ ended up being sued over tour dates not completed. On top of that was his health, he'd ended up in rehab over his demerol addiction. Rehab was successful but then he has to keep it that way and that's not likely to be easy. Stress makes it much more difficult not to slide back into former habits and it's clear that he was under a large amount of stress with everything that was happening.

His public image factors in, your reputation plays a big part in how your sales and career will go. Despite allegations against MJ his sales have stayed pretty good but he didn't know that would be the case at that time. He was facing the possibility of losing his career, losing everything he'd worked so hard for all his life, which would mean losing fans and loving what he loved to do most in life. Family and friends factor in too of course, this claim didn't only hurt MJ, family and friends come under stress and pressure about all of this too and they will suffer for it as long as he does. It's very easy for people to stand completely outside of this situation and say it was a bad move to settle. In the long run, yes it was, but when a person is under as much stress as MJ was with all of the things he had going on and all the pressure from so many different people it's not hard to see that settlement was what he felt was best for him at the time with everything he currently had to deal with. Unfortunately it's just not as simple as "You don't settle if you're innocent."

Let's be realistic here. The settlement ended up causing a much bigger damage to MJ than a civil trial could have done. Nothing was more damaging to MJ at the 2005 trial more than the 1993 settlement. It was so damaging that Mez fought tooth and nail not to allow the prosecutors to mention the true figure to the jurors. It has had a detrimental effect on his finance, reputation. We should be very glad than no one but Francia thought about trying her luck in 1993 because it seems MJ’s team were on a let's settle at all costs mood.

The chandler's settlement led to Francia claims and settlement, led to Evan second extortion attempt, led to the Neverlan employees lawsuit, led to the Arvisoz nightmare, to Wade and to Safef@ck. It was the worst decision he had ever made at the very ill advice of his incompetent lawyers.

The reason MJ settled was due to the incompetency of his lawyers who for whatever reasons put him into a corner and told him eventually that the best option was to settle.

I do not know how MJ's team expected the public to react in a different way. The public reaction was nothing but normal given the heinousness of the accusations and the astronomical amount MJ paid to settle them.

 

[barbee0715]

Let's be realistic here. The settlement ended up causing a much bigger damage to MJ than a civil trial could have done. Nothing was more damaging to MJ in the 2005 trial more than the 1993 settlement. It was so damaging that Mez fought tooth and nail not to allow the prosecutors to mention the true figure to the jurors. It has had a detrimental effect on his finance, reputation. We should be very glad than no one but Francia thought about trying her luck in 1993 because it seems MJ’s team were on a let's settle at all costs mood.

The chandler's settlement led to Francia claims and settlement, led to Evan second extortion attempt, led to the Neverlan employees lawsuit, led to the Arvisoz nightmare, to Wade and to Safef@ck. It was the worst decision he had ever made at the very ill advice of his incompetent lawyers.

The reason MJ settled was due to the incompetency of his lawyers who for whatever reasons put him into a corner and told him eventually that the best option was to settle.

I do not know how MJ's team expected the public to react in a different way. The public reaction was nothing but normal given the heinousness of the accusations and the astronomical amount MJ paid to settle them.

I get you, and I agree that the settlement changed and ruined everything. When I heard about it, it was a knife to the heart. And would you believe, after that, I never mentioned Michael to a single solitary person until 2009?

Not that I still didn't believe in him, or love him even more than ever, (actually, more and more every single day) but the hatefulness from people that would come with it just enraged me to the point where I didn't know what I would do-not that I'm in any way violent, but the anger I felt scared me-so I would just walk away if anyone talked about him.

I still think it was the reasons mjresearcher listed, though, not incompetent lawyers. Remember how badly Michael was doing taking the painkillers for his scalp to numb out the stress and anxiety he was going through-I just feel like they didn't have a choice. The courts put Michael's back against the wall.

 

[#MJforever57]

The one thing that is sticking in my head right now is the video i saw never saw it before my first time seeing it it was when he had learn about the allegations against him where Michael was saying the words to The Way You Make Me Feel and that moment he stop saying the words and you saw Michael with his head down a person was rubbing his back and right then and there i felt the pain Michael was going through. The one things that was so dear to Michael heart his love for the children was turn against him and his life was never the same.