Latest on MJJC

Debates with the public

"Wade already stated he doesn't expect to win because MJ can't defend himself"
Click to expand...

I must have missed where Wade said that.

"He just wants everyone to know he was abused."
Click to expand...

And that is why he initially wanted to file his complaint under seal citing the privacy interests of the accused? It only became about letting the world know after the media got wind of the case. But if for Wade - according to his own court documents - he would have kept the whole case hush-hush. He just wanted money of it, nothing else. And to let the world know you do not need a lenghthy lawsuit. It's enough to write an open letter like Woody Allen's daughter did. But Wade did just the opposite. He initially just wanted a silent pay-off. It was only after the media got wind of it that it suddenly became about speaking out to the world.
 
respect77 said:
I must have missed where Wade said that.
Click to expand...

I've never seen anything where he said that either, this guy was just pulling things out of thin air.

And that is why he initially wanted to file his complaint under seal citing the privacy interests of the accused? It only became about letting the world know after the media got wind of the case. But if for Wade - according to his own court documents - he would have kept the whole case hush-hush. He just wanted money of it, nothing else. And to let the world know you do not need a lenghthy lawsuit. It's enough to write an open letter like Woody Allen's daughter did. But Wade did just the opposite. He initially just wanted a silent pay-off. It was only after the media got wind of it that it suddenly became about speaking out to the world.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I have a copy of the document about filing under seal but I'd forgotten to save the link to it, I would have posted it there otherwise but I bet he wouldn't have read it. I'd posted other links and they've stayed there, looks like they just didn't like me posting a link to an article they've deleted from their site. After that I'd reposted without the link but still had some of what was written in that article and that was allowed to stay. It's both interesting and telling that Les wouldn't tell me what his sources were, he didn't want to admit it but I'm sure deep down he knew the information I gave was right.

Thanks for giving me the links to the MJ allegations website too, it's my new favourite site. It's refreshed my memory about a lot of things and I've been able to get documents from it that I didn't have before. You're awesome :)
 
Might not be a bad idea to edit the first post and update it from time to time with any important snippets/links/resources. That way if we get into a debate, we can quickly refer to the first post rather than crawl through pages and pages of information :)
 
Ok, I thought I'd put some info here rather than editing the first post or it'll be too long. I put together some "quick facts" about the cases I debated about and tried to keep it short. I've put links to more extensive info at the end of each case I speak about.

Blanca Francia

Admitted to receiving $20,000 for an interview on Hard Copy where she claimed she saw MJ and Wade Robson in the shower. Hard copy interview took place 2 years after she left MJ’s employment, she claims she quit in “disgust” but never went to the police or shared her story until selling it to Hard Copy after the ’93 allegations and in 2005 claimed she did nothing when she “saw” MJ and Wade in the shower. She had her own son Jason around MJ when she worked for him. The prosecution has Blanca’s story from page 21-23 of this document:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/121004pltmotadmprior.pdf

More info on Blanca:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/?s=Blanca+Francia&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Jason Francia

Claimed at the 2005 trial to have been inappropriately touched on 3 different occasions, all about a year and a half apart. He claimed in ’93 to have been molested after being interviewed by police who used incorrect questioning techniques. The same techniques were used on Corey Feldman who did not claim that MJ molested him. He claimed to have been molested by someone else, but the police were not interested. Hear some of the interview here:

[video=youtube;rdITa9Ulx2A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rdITa9Ulx2A[/video]
[video=youtube;3F0I7q94HEQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3F0I7q94HEQ[/video]

MJ’s defence outlined these problems in a document in 2005:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032505suppopp1108.pdf

Here’s an article on the fallibility of forensic interviewing which discusses improper questioning methods:

http://www.blackstonepolygraph.com/articles/Fallibility_of_Forensic_Interviewing.pdf

More info on Jason:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/?s=Jason+Francia&submit.x=0&submit.y=0

Jordan Chandler:

Claimed to have been molested after a lot of manipulation from his father. This can be read about in the book “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up” starting on page 90 and ending on page 92.

Facts about the civil settlement:

Claims settled were for negligence, not sexual abuse. See page 1.
The settlement was not to be viewed as an admission of guilt. See page 4.
Amount was $15,331,250. See page 6.

Click on the document of the left side on this article to see its contents:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150278307772959_2464574 0_10151067366697959#f2142f633c2ee4e

Chandler’s lawyer, DA Gil Garcetti and UCLA law professor Peter Arenella all stated that settlements of civil cases do not stop anybody from testifying in criminal court:

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

The American Bar Association confirms that settlement does not necessarily mean admitting to any wrongdoing and says nothing about settlements stopping or hindering criminal proceedings in any way:

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/cases_settling.html

On page 128 of “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up” the following is written:

“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.”

Money was demanded from him before the authorities got involved, this would have been the best time to hand money over if the goal was to “keep them quiet”. This book also show an admission that the Chandler’s brought money into it and demanded it, not the other way around. Page 201-202 of the same book tells how the Chandler’s wanted the civil case to be dealt with first while MJ was trying to push for the criminal case to be dealt with first.

Jordan’s description of MJ’s genitals did not match the photos taken when MJ was strip searched. In an article from the Smoking Gun it was claimed that Jordan said MJ had light coloured splotches on his buttocks and one on his penis. He also claimed MJ was circumcised:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100326035103/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html

In a document from Tom Sneddon it’s changed to a dark coloured splotch and this time Sneddon says Jordan was asked to give a description of MJ’s erect penis:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

MJ’s autopsy report states that MJ was not circumcised see first paragraph of page 18:

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson,%20michael_report.pdf

In Sneddon’s document I believe he avoided the inaccurate circumcision detail by saying Jordan was asked to describe MJ’s erect penis because an uncircumcised man looks very similar to a circumcised one when erect. Problem is, with the acts Jordan claims the two of them were engaged in it would still not have been possible to make a mistake with this detail.

More info on the 1993 case here:

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/michael-jacksons-first-accuser-meet-the-chandler-family/

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

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-timeline-of-the-1993-allegations-against-michael-jackson/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/how-did-the-allegations-of-the-chandlers-emerge/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/evan-chandlers-suspicions/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-use-of-sodium-amytal/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/taped-phone-conversations-between-evan-chandler-and-david-schwartz-on-july-8-1993/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-settlement/
 
Although Clemente did not respond to me ever since, but one another thought on that debate (continuing from the Wade Robson thread): I noticed that haters and anti-MJ journalists and people like Clemente who were on Team Prosecution always try to hint at some kind of hidden evidence, phantom evidence, phantom accusers etc. He tried it in this debate too and just look how one of his followers picked up on that notion and used it then as one of her arguments.

Clemente to me:

Jim Clemente2 days ago



The court case is a show for the jury or judge. It is not always the full story and it certainly wasn't in MJ's case. 
Click to expand...

Hinting at that the reason why there was no convincing evidence at the trial is because it was not the "full story". LOL. So what was the "full story" then? And why wasn't the full story presented by this over-zealous prosecution? Thing is the prosecution was given a chance to bring in even "prior bad acts", so what stopped them from presenting the "full story"? Instead they had to rely on testimonies by people with compromised credibility and some of their own witnesses even turned on them (eg. Bob Jones basically withdrawing his allegations on the stand, Debbie Rowe etc.). Why not present that incredibly strong phantom case Clemente hints at instead of the weak one that was presented at the trial?

Of course, there are no such phantom accusers, phantom evidence and phantom case. It's just their lame attempt to try to explain the outcome of the trial to their unsuspecting online followers. During the replies to another post under that YT video it shows how this notion of there being a "hidden" part of the case (which of course would be the part which would show MJ's guilt...) is picked up by his followers:

Karla Ortiz Gil1 day ago (edited)



+User Friendly I understand what you're saying, but why the word "LEGITIMATE" in caps? Do you think Mr. Clemente is making up his resume in order to appear on an internet show? I know there's a lot of information on every side of this issue, but I'm sure there are A LOT of things that are not published and only the investigators know, due to the fact that we're talking about minors. I believe this kind of information is what makes people like Mr. Clemente believe he did actually perpetrate the crimes. We have to remember that not everything comes into the trial, and that trials are a kind of show put up to convince the jury one way or another. If we had the same amount of info the investigators had on the issue, maybe we all would think differently. Just because we watched the trial and read about it doesn't make us experts, which is what those two guys in the video are: CERTIFIED experts in their fields. 
Click to expand...

So there you go these simpletons are already parroting Clemente's stupid notion about trials just being a "show" and hinting at some big hidden part of the case that would certainly prove MJ's guilt (in their dreams). If they knew anything about this case they would know how incredibly stupid that notion is - we are talking about Sneddon, for God's sake. The one thing Sneddon cannot be accused of is doing things in MJ's favour.
And no there was not evidence not shown because the accusers were minors - Gavin himself was up on the stand in open court talking about the allegations. No hidden case there.

My reply to her:

Suzy Suzy1 day ago



+Karla Ortiz Gil If there is sensitive info then there is a way to present that without public scrutiny, but they absolutely would present that because after all the goal of a prosecution is to get a conviction and not to do a "show". If a prosecution knowingly holds back evidence that would change the outcome of a trial then that prosecution is guilty of assisting a criminal. But that's not what happened here. This prosecution threw everything but the kitchen sink at MJ and their case was still weak. Not only that, but when you know about facts such as the timeline and its significant changes, the kids allegations and how and when they emerged and then how they changed when the initial ones did not work, then you would maybe see our point. It wasn't just a lack of evidence against MJ, but actually there was heavy evidence about this family lying through their theeth.
Click to expand...

Her:

Karla Ortiz Gil1 day ago



I see. I respect your opinion, and I believe this is a tough topic because people feel so strongly about Michael Jackson. I do agree with Mr. Clemente, and believe the guy is super guilty of molestation, but we will never know for sure, so let's agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Me:

Suzy Suzy1 day ago



OK, agree to disagree, but never forget that to have an informed opinion you actually have to be INFORMED. Clemente may have his degree and credentials which seems to be his main argument for why he is always right, but a lot of the things he said about this case in the video or here in the comment section is simply incorrect and very misleading. Facts are facts, independently from anyone's credentials.
Click to expand...

Then Clemente joined in:

Jim Clemente1 day ago



+Suzy Suzy Suzy, you heard Mesereau, I was scheduled to testify in this case but had cancer at the time and had to have a bone marrow transplant during the trial. I know the facts that I am talking about, I lived them. I did not watch them on TV or read about them. You are entitled to your opinion, I just thought you'd like to know from someone who actually studied and taught the subject. Lawyers call me, not Tom Meseareau when they want expert testimony. I was interviewing Tom for this segment. So, I let him make his points, challenged him on a few and went on. If he were interviewing me, I would have given much more detail about my basis of knowledge in the case. 
Click to expand...

Me:

Suzy Suzy1 day ago



+Jim Clemente I know you were supposed to be on a prosecution expert witness in this case. However testifying generally about child abuse does not necessarily mean you are aware of the detailed facts of the case and by some of your comments here and in the video my impression is that you are not. For example basing judgement on the Bashir video - when if you actually knew the case you would know that your conclusion about that scene is not consistent with even the accuser's own story! So there goes your "expertise" in judging scenes and situations by just looking at them! Also you said earlier that the 1993 and 2003 accusers had very similar stories about the grooming. As someone who knows a lot about both cases (by studying both sides' stories and arguments) I'm a bit puzzled by that statement:

1) Even if it was so, it would obviously be a no-brainer for Gavin and his family to make up similar stories as in the allegations of 1993. So that would not prove anything.

2) That is not even so. Jordan and his family were "friends" of Michael, while the Arvizos not so much. By Gavin's own testimony MJ kept avoiding him on purpose. So what is so similar in those so called "grooming" stories then?
Click to expand...

That's where our conversation is at so far. He did not reply to this.

I also realized this with haters that they always rely on evidence that was never presented in court and supposed phantom accusers that no one ever heard of. Once they have to talk about the actual case and evidence and accusers who were plain to see for anyone, they have a lost case and that's why they like to take it to a direction where they can muddy the water with hints at some shady "hidden" evidence and accusers. Notice how they never want to discuss the actual facts of these cases, they always want to take it to some muddy area instead. Evidence that no one ever saw, accusers that no one ever saw etc. Just logically thinking: this was a prosecution that was hell bent on convicting MJ to the point of obsession. There is no way they would neglect to present bombshell evidence that would have the potential of changing the outcome of the trial. So there is no way there is something out there that was important but was not presented.

A similar tactic by Diane Dimond. A fan blog recently posted a summary about Diane Dimond's activities. I almost forgot about it but it showed again an e-mail Dimond wrote to Susan Etok a couple of years ago:

Are you telling people that I now think Michael Jackson was completely innocent of the child molestation charges?
I keep getting these random e-mails informing me of such.
Please tell me it isn’t so. Because, Susan, I don’t believe that. It was nice meeting you and I know you love your departed friend but I’ve covered this story since 1993. I’ve sat with damaged children and crying parents too many times, parents too scared to press charges for fear of the media onslaught. I’ve talked with police officers and seen sworn statements they’ve gathered. I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson’s hand. Forget the outcome of the trial – where three jurors later said they were coerced into their acquittal vote and wish they could take it back. It cannot be that ALL these people are lying and Michael is just a victim of his own celebrity.

Please. Don’t speak for me on this very, very delicate and important issue. As you said – your friend was a drug addict. I’m here to tell you he was an addict for years. He was not a person in charge of his behavior. I know it’s hard to hear but he was also addicted to little boys – and that’s a fact – just as sure as he was addicted to alcohol and drugs.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors.
Diane Dimond
Click to expand...

How many lies can be in such a short e-mail?

Diane insinuating that there were "20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson’s hand".

I think it's deliberately worded in a sneaky way. She hopes that unsuspecting and uninformed people (in this case hoping that Etok would be uninformed enough to buy it) would take it as "there were over 20 young men" testifying tearfully against MJ about abuse, but in case she would get called out on that (because anyone knowing the trial would know that's a big lie) she can backtrack saying she just meant the ages of these young men. Even though it would be a lie nevertheless, because the only "20-something" young man testifying against MJ in 2005 was Jason Francia. Gavin was not 20-something and the rest of the 20-something young men testified FOR MJ and not against him, let alone tearfully.

And how funny that for these people we should always forget the outcome of the trial. LOL. These people always try to convince their followers that the big evidence, the army of accusers stayed hidden. Just shows how weak their case is when they have to build their whole argument on supposed "hidden" things.
 
Last edited:
It's really bizarre to me how people think there's all this suppressed evidence from the Chandler case. I was on IMDB and was looking up something on Law and Order. So I decided to look up the show they did in 2003 or 04 on Michael's case. (That's when I quit watching that show)
The writer of that show gave an interview at the time saying she personally read all this suppressed evidence avid testimony and put that stuff in the show. She also said that Michael was guilty and if America knew the REAL facts he'd be locked up for life.
This is a college educated, successful woman!
I noticed she was the lead writer on 'blue bloods' so I quit watching that show as of that minute.
20 damaged boys, crying parents?? Where? Diane has made this all up in her mind.
 
barbee0715 said:
It's really bizarre to me how people think there's all this suppressed evidence from the Chandler case. I was on IMDB and was looking up something on Law and Order. So I decided to look up the show they did in 2003 or 04 on Michael's case. (That's when I quit watching that show)
The writer of that show gave an interview at the time saying she personally read all this suppressed evidence avid testimony and put that stuff in the show. She also said that Michael was guilty and if America knew the REAL facts he'd be locked up for life.
This is a college educated, successful woman!
Click to expand...

And where is that "suppressed" evidence? And who suppressed it? Sneddon? LOL.

Sneddon had a PR firm, Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth working for him in the media, not to mention all the other anti-MJ journalists. So what prevented America from "knowing the real facts"?

I also realized that some of these people can't tell te difference between an allegation and a proven fact. That's why they think things like Jordan's declaration are evidence instead of just an allegation. Because those are the type of things these people are seeing.
 
Such a weak argument re hidden evidence. We all know that the 05 criminal court case has rules of evidence so not everything could get into court, but the allegations against mj have been played out in the tabloids and books for 20 odd years which acted with impunity as to whether the claims were true or not esp now he's dead and there's no defamation laws. However i can see it as an incredibly powerful manipulative argument - in the uk esp, and maybe now in usa with crosby, we learn that the rich and powerful had their crimes covered up. The fact mj was pilloried for decades, put on trial and was deemed to be a washed up bankrupt hasbeen etc just seems to be conveniently ignored for the purposes of this view.
 
Last edited:
barbee0715 said:
It's really bizarre to me how people think there's all this suppressed evidence from the Chandler case. I was on IMDB and was looking up something on Law and Order. So I decided to look up the show they did in 2003 or 04 on Michael's case. (That's when I quit watching that show)
The writer of that show gave an interview at the time saying she personally read all this suppressed evidence avid testimony and put that stuff in the show. She also said that Michael was guilty and if America knew the REAL facts he'd be locked up for life.
Click to expand...
I know the show you mean. Really - is that right?? That is just shocking. How you can get away with saying that in public about a man about to stand trial is something that i will never get over about america.
 
It makes cringe those haters treat the outcome of the trial like it doesn't matter, it's not important. Like it or not, Michael was exonerated by the law because an obsessed and incompetent DA couldn't proved ANYTHING of what he accused Michael. Tom ripped the Arvizos apparat actually proving how ridiculous and inconsistent their claims were. Chandler had his chance to "get justice" but was unwilling to cooperate with the prosecution. Where the hell Demon got the 20 young men? As far as I can remember, Sneddon encouraged anyone to "come forward" and he only got a sad dude who was grossly coerced to tell he was abused when he was a child. William Wagener interviewed Tom in 2010 for his show and told him he met Francia before he testified because his son brought him to his home because he was a youth pastor in his church or something like that. Francia told William his mother worked in Neverland, Michael was kind and generous to them and nothing ever happen. He was unsure to contact Tom about that revelation because he'd miss the trial if he was called to testify. I'll post that part of the interview if I find it.
 
Francia came to Wagener's house a year before the trial, around 6:30, he starts telling the story I just spoke about. I want to believe him but Wagener doesn't always came as credible. Anyway, thanks MJresearcher for telling me about this interview.

 
respect77 said:
And where is that "suppressed" evidence? And who suppressed it? Sneddon? LOL.

Sneddon had a PR firm, Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth working for him in the media, not to mention all the other anti-MJ journalists. So what prevented America from "knowing the real facts"?
Click to expand...

Yes. How could there be a treasure trove of so-called "evidence" that nobody knew about despite the fact that the media has spent years and years saying how the whole "truth" was going to come out and it would sink what was left of Michael's tattered reputation? Not to mention the two different investigations, (at least), where everything about Michael was turned upside down and dumped out in front of the entire world. What would really stop these investigators in their tracks since Michael was the most hated celebrity on the planet with the general public? I mean come on. All the investigations by the authorities and all the innuendo and there are still claims that a big piece of the story that could "prove" Michael's guilt for sure is missing? This is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
^ That's very interesting, thanks. Yeah, I'm not sure about Wegener either, so I probably would not use this info as "official info", but it sure is interesting and I hope it's true. The story does not sound too out there to me, it sounds plausible. He basically says his son Adam one day came home with this guy who was his youth pastor, who he later (during the trial) found out was the same guy who testified at MJ's trial against him, Jason Francia. And they were sitting in the living room, watching TV and Francia at one point started to brag about his connection to MJ, how his mother worked for him and he knew him and how MJ was always good to them etc. But then Wegener started to ask him questions and he shut up and said he can't talk about it. But Wegener says at one point he admitted MJ did nothing to him.

Well, even if this last point (him admitting nothing happened) was not true, sure the bragging, the bringing up of MJ as a positive memory etc. was also very telling because no guy who was molested by someone would do that.

ETA: And I think Francia is the type of guy who would really brag about it. I remember he mentioned in his testimony how until 1993 he was considered cool in school for knowing MJ and then it suddenly became uncool (because of the Chandler allegations). So it seems to me he really would be this kind of guy bragging about knowing MJ. He seemed to have done that in school.
 
Last edited:
Wegener is a conspiracy nut and a Birther. Not credible and I wish he wasn't involved. He's latched onto to MJ's case because of his own battles with Sneddon. Opportunist IMO.
 
krikzil said:
Wegener is a conspiracy nut and a Birther. Not credible and I wish he wasn't involved. He's latched onto to MJ's case because of his own battles with Sneddon. Opportunist IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that, but I'd like to know if this particular story is true. LOL.
 
^I never said I believe him, I question his credibility myself. Even if his story isn't truthful, Tom was right when he said Jason originally told nothing ever happened. He was coerced to "admit he was molested" by improper questioning technique to satisfy his interviewers.
 
If people have to resort to talking about evidence they think has been hidden but they can't prove that any such thing is true then I agree that their argument is in trouble. I think it's a way for them to justify the conclusions that have been made. People are also being quite sheep-like with Clemente. No matter how educated a person is, they were not at any time inside of another person's head and they're human like anyone else. All he's actually doing here is making a guess even though he doesn't know much about the details of the case. When people follow the word of an expert blindly they are not being rational.
 
How MJ haters see themselves
Monocle-Women-s-T-Shirts.jpg


What they're really like
herp_derp_idiot_rage_face_meme_posters-r38a97eb9693f4fa9a609e2fe1bd16b64_a21y_8byvr_512.jpg
 
I've been reading a bit on FBI profiling and so far it mostly seems to be about building the profile of an offender after a crime has been committed to aid in finding the person who perpetrated the crime. It looks like it's meant to be about crimes like murder, crimes that have been proven to have taken place rather than looking at a case that hasn't been proved and then trying to prove whether or not a crime was committed.
 
krikzil said:
Wegener is a conspiracy nut and a Birther. Not credible and I wish he wasn't involved. He's latched onto to MJ's case because of his own battles with Sneddon. Opportunist IMO.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't trust a single thing Wagener says. Many fans don't know it but he is or was polygamous with 4 wives and 7 children over the years in addition to his legal wife and 5 children. He got sued for child support, he got bail jumping and a conviction. Wagener in his normal fashion accused Sneddon for conspiracy against him but I personally think his conviction made him uneligible to run for political office. Sneddon is no angel but I don't think he conspired against Wagener. I think Wagener's case is simply a matter of "You can't really hide from a background check". anyway I won't out it past Wagener to make up stuff, after all he had been collecting money from fans to "indict sneddon" for years- when it was absolutely impossible to do so.
 
I'm friends with William on facebook, but I agree with what you said Ivy. I read about those things you mentioned just the other day when I was looking for information on him.
 
respect77 said:
Hinting at that the reason why there was no convincing evidence at the trial is because it was not the "full story". LOL. So what was the "full story" then? And why wasn't the full story presented by this over-zealous prosecution? Thing is the prosecution was given a chance to bring in even "prior bad acts", so what stopped them from presenting the "full story"? Instead they had to rely on testimonies by people with compromised credibility and some of their own witnesses even turned on them (eg. Bob Jones basically withdrawing his allegations on the stand, Debbie Rowe etc.). Why not present that incredibly strong phantom case Clemente hints at instead of the weak one that was presented at the trial?
Click to expand...


I suspect he's referring to what was in Jordan Chandler's deposition, which could not be presented in court because Jordan was not willing to show up and defend his own claims. That's basic Constitutional law, which requires a defendant be allowed to cross-examine witnesses against him, and unless he can do that, the deposition remains nothing but a lurid allegation. Clemente has his assumptions, but he doesn't truly know why Jordan refused to testify, and one is tempted to think that he over identifies it with his own failure to come forward as a molestation victim.
 
The "innocent until proven rich" argument is so unfair and unreasonable. It makes any rich man on trial more guilty than any poor man on trial just because they're rich. I don't understand this rich-hating on going mantra but I think when rich people get away with their crimes, it's more likely to be on the earlier stages, when it's still in the hands of the police or the DA, not in this stage of an over-publicized trial and much expected verdict. The media would have been thrilled to find any hint of bribery and I can only imagine how passionately everybody kept their eyes on the jury, the last thing you can say about this trial is that somebody, anybody, turned a blind eye on something, if anything - there were too many delusional eyes working overtime and the last thing you can accuse Tom Sneddon of is not doing anything in his power to get Michael Jackson in jail, so bribe is definitely off the list so what else they got?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top