KOPV;4134976 said:
my question to you is - If you had this opportunity what facts would you want to make sure to NOT leave out.. he's a smart guy so I am hoping he'll be open
The best evidence of MJ's innocence is the autopsy report, Chandler's claim that MJ was circumcised,
the contradictory reports about what he said about Mj's body and what the photos showed all coming from MJ's worst enemies
and the fact that Sneddon didn't arrest him after that strip search.
It's my experience that haters simply don't know how to handle this evidence so they either say that Chandler didn't say he was circumcised (multiple anti-Jackson sources reported that he did say it)
or that it doesn't matter because he only saw his erect penis (nonsense if you consider what Chandler actually said) or that it doesn't matter because he correctly described the dark spot (problem is that if you listen to Dr. Strict or read the Chandler's own book he had more than one dark spot all over his body).
Dimond even tried to make the case that Chandler was "confused" whether MJ was circumcised, absolutely impossible if one knows what Chandler claimed he did with MJ. Clemente tweeted that Chandler couldn't tell the difference between erection and circumcision (nonsense in light of what Chandler actually said)
1. Tell him that Chandler gave an interview to Dr. Gardner on Oct 6 1993 where he claimed that he not only saw MJ naked multiple times including while taking baths but that he also mastrubated him about 10 times. Ray Chandler wrote in his book that Jordan had a "clear memory" of Mj's genitalia and saw it "from every possible angle".
Chandler was also Jewish and admitted to Gardner that he mastrubated on his own so he had to know how a circumcised penis looked during the whole thing.
Chandler did tell the police that MJ was circumcised, this was reported by Smoking Gun, Randy Taraborelli, Gutierrez and confirmed by Dimond and Jim Clemente all MJ haters who would not lie for him. In addition Arnold Klein the doctor who was present during the strip search also said in a radio interview with King Jordan that Jordan said MJ was circumcised but he was not. Klein called the Chandler case a hoax, by the way.
It's also very telling the Sneddon doesn't even mention the circumcision issue in his 2005 declaration, if Chandler had got it right
that MJ was uncircumcised Sneddon would have used that to boost his claim that Chandler's description was accurate. The Chandler's book also omits the circumcision issue, again very telling. They knew they got it wrong and they want everyone to just forget about it.
So ask him: if Chandler indeed saw MJ naked many times, if he indeed mastrubated him 10 times if he indeed had a clear memory of his genitalia and saw it from every possible angle how is it that he still didn't notice that he had a foreskin?
2. Sneddon, Spiegel (as quoted by Dimond), Dimond herself and Ray Chandler told four different tales about what the photos actually showed and what Chandler described. So anyone who says that the description was accurate should first decide exactly which of these was the accurate one?
Spiegel version: one dark spot on the lower left side - exactly where Chandler put it
or
Dimond version: pinkish splotches on the underside
or
Sneddon version: one dark blemish on the right side - at about the same relative location where Chandler put it
or
Ray Chandler version: numerous distinctive markings and discolorations
Sources:
Diane Dimond: Be careful who you love quoting police photographer Gary Spiegel:
"While I was on Mr. Jackson's left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis. Mr. Jackson questioned why he had to do that, but he did comply with the request. When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick's request to lift his penis, I observed A DARK spot on the LOWER LEFT side of Mr. Jackson's penis.
Law enforcement sources as well as Chandler family sources said that the dark patch on Jackson's genitals was found exactly where
young Jordan Chandler said they could find such a mark."
Diane Dimond's blog, dianedimond.net:
In the opening chapter of my book I describe the day police went to serve a "body search warrant" on Mr. Jackson. They were looking to see if the boy's description of Jackson's erect penis as having PINKISH SPLOTCHES on it were correct.
Jordie was claiming to have seen the splotches on the side of Jackson's penis that was exposed only when he was in a sexually aroused state.
Tom Sneddon's declaration 2005:
I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino's request and the photographs taken of Defendant's genitalia. The photographs reveal A MARK on the RIGHT SIDE of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as THE DARK blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis.
Ray Chandler: All that Glitters, page 210:
"It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were NUMEROUS distinctive MARKINGS and discolorations on Michael's privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took."
They can't have it four ways but they are having it four ways because in reality MJ had many many brown spots on his body
in the early 90s, in fact he was brown and white from head to toe just like this photo which was taken around 1995
shows and Chandler didn't even come close to describe this reality:
If Chandler indeed just drew ONE dark mark on an otherwise fully white penis and said nothing else about MJ's skin
that alone proves that he was clueless about how he really looked.
MJ was a black man with a black penis who was losing melanin randomly. He was not a white man with a white penis with only one dark blemish on it. BTW it's ridiculous to call his original color blemish, too. If a white person would turn brown due to some skin disease would he call the white areas of his skin "blemishes" and "markings"? These idiots were talking about MJ as if he had been a white man with a mole.
3. Sneddon went to Neverland making it clear to MJ that if he doesn't cooperate they will take him. So he cooperated and they didn't take him. Ask him: If he was not arrested does that indicate that Sneddon got the evidence of his guilt he wanted?
The strip search was in Dec 20 1993. More than a month before the civil settlement. Even if someone argued that Sneddon didn't arrest him because Chandler was paid off (which would be ridiculous since the criminal investigation continued long after the civil settlement and chandler didn't tell Sneddon and Garcetti that he won't testify before June 6 1994) Sneddon still had plenty of time to arrest MJ in Dec and Jan (not to mention between Aug 17 1993 and Dec 1993) and he still didn't.
Ask him: what was the point of taking the photos if after the have them and they prove that MJ molested Chandler they don't arrest him at all?
4. Sneddon's 2005 declaration end with him chickening out in case the judge would allow the photos to be seen by the jury:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.
If Sneddon had been 100% confident that the photos matched the description he wouldn't have used this language.
Of course he knew the photos won't be allowed because Chandler was not there to be cross-examined and the whole argument of using the photos to rebut that MJ was "shy and modest" was bogus since no defense witness argued that MJ was shy and modest -- even though he was. There was nothing to rebut. Sneddon's bluff at the end of the trial was just that, he wanted to prejudice the jury without having to prove his claims.
Ask him: if the photos were the smoking gun evidence why didn't Sneddon try to introduce them as 1108 evidence?
Why wait until the end of the trial and try to introduce them on a bogus premise?
5. Reuters reported it in Jan 1994 that the photos did not match. The rest of the media ignored it for obvious reasons but repeated over and over again Sneddon's lie that the photos did match. Sneddon had a vested interest to plant this idea on the public's mind and he sure would not admit that he was dead wrong about the man he hated and wanted to put behind bars.
Especially not since he strip searched an African American icon, basically treating him like a slave.
But ask him: if the photos did match how is it that the very doctor who was hired by the government to do the strip search
was never shown the description and it was not him who made the determination whether they matched or not?
Remind him that that doctor Dr. Strict told FOX news in 2005 that he was TOLD that they matched which means he never
saw Chandler's description. If Sneddon was so sure why wouldn't he want his own expert to confirm it? Why would he hide
the description from him or all people?
6. Ask him if Chandler indeed saw MJ's naked body many times how come he didn't say anything about how his skin looked on his legs, torso, arms, back? How come he didn't say anything about the size and shape or ratio of the penis and scrotum, something that's instantly visible on a naked man obviously.
Tell him that it's obvious that the Chandlers merely speculated about MJ's body knowing that he had vitilgo, that his skin was
splotchy, that Evan Chandler even saw his buttocks when he injected some painkillers while MJ was in his house, that they assume he had little pubic hair because he was not a hairy guy and they assumed that he was circumcised because most American guys are but that's it. Those few things are not enough to ACCURATELY describe a male body especially not someone whose skin had brown and white areas all over his body.
7. Ask him why Victor Gutierrez wrote in his book that MJ was circumcised. Where the hell did he get that misinformation.
If he didn't cooperate with the Chandlers how come that he too speculated about it and was dead wrong?
And if he did cooperate with the Chandlers how come that a supposed molestation victims and his parents would work with
a NAMBLA supported pedophilia advocate?
In Gutierrez's book that description states that Mike circumcised and shows that the Chandlers, or Gutierrez himself
theorized about how MJ's body looked. In the middle of that page they wrote "My theory".
Why did they need a theory if Chandler knew exactly how MJ looked?
In addition to the photos there is irrefutable evidence that Jordan was coached and not just the fact that he was in Evan's custody for more than a month before they went public with the allegations.
The Chandlers book and Dimond's book both describe how Evan made Jordan "confess".
When Jordie came out of the sedation I asked him to tell me about Michael and him. I (falsely told) him
that I had bugged his bedroom and I knew everything anyway and that I just wanted to hear it from him.
I told him not to be embarrassed….”I know about the kissing and the jerking off and the blow jobs.”
This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying – If you lie then I’m going to take him (Jackson) down.
Diane Dimond Be Careful Who You Love, page 60
“I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you’re not telling me anything I don’t already know,” Evan lied.
“This isn’t about me finding anything out. It’s about lying. And you know what’s going to happen if you lie.
So I’m going to make it very easy for you. I’m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no.
That’s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him.
Ray Chandler: All that Glitters; page 91
So Evan only imagined those things in fact Jordan told Dr. Gardner that his father never saw any molestation.
How come Evan imagined kissing and then kissing is prominently featured in Jordan's story?
How come Evan imagined mastrubation and then mastrubation is prominently featured in Jordan's story?
How come Evan imagined oral sex and then oral sex is prominently featured in Jordan's story?
This cannot be a coincidence. The only logical explanation is that the whole molestation story was invented by Evan
and then Jordan was told to memorize that story.
The fact that there was indeed a script written by Evan ready to be published right after the settlement, pages of that script
being in Gutierrez's book and Dimond's own book being eerily similar to the Chandler's book all point to a fabricated story
which Evan and Jordan put together in July and Aug with the help of Barry Rotham and most likely Gutierrez.
Not only the acts are the same but Jordan's actual words about MJ are also the same as Evan's ideas were while talking to Dave
Schwarz on July 8 1993. How come Jordan parrotted his father's words if he was not coached?
The fact that Jordan was incapable of emotionally connecting to the whole molestation story and didn't even know how it could hurt him,
- his "exuberant and whimsical" behavior right after talking to Dr. Abrams,
- him contradicting his father's story about whether he wanted to tell his mother or not,
- him contradicting himself about his attitude toward anything sexual with MJ (he told his father that "it was disgusting I'm not into that" but then told Gardner that he didn't stop MJ because "it felt good" -- so which one? )
- his contradictory description of MJ himself, first telling Gardner that he was functioning like a child and that's what he believed he was then telling him that he was overwhelming and powerful,
- first telling Gardner that he was not in awe of him because he was just a regular person then telling him that he and his mother were under his spell
- his interview being full of "I don't know" and "or something"
all indicate that he was coached and was just doing his best to recite a story rather than talk about what really happened to him.
If he brings up the settlement remind him that the first time Chandler demanded money was in Aug 1993 before the world even heard of them and MJ had an excellent opportunity to pay them off but didn't. He wasn't even willing to pay 1 million to silence the Chandlers which would have been nothing for him. Remind him that the Chandlers admitted in their own book in 2004 that if MJ had paid the 20 million demanded of him they wouldn't have accused him. And remind him that Sneddon claimed that by that time Aug 1993 he had molested 7 boys! if that had been the case he sure would have tried to prevent a police investigation and the media attention. He didn't pay because he was innocent and because he was innocent he was the one who wanted the criminal case go first, the Chandlers wanted to avoid a criminal indictement and they admitted that too in their book. They only wanted money.
If he asks why he would then settle at all tell him that you settle if
- you don't believe you would get a fair trial
by Jan 1994 because of the media's behavior, Sneddon's zealotry and bias, and the judge's decision to allow the civil case go before the criminal case MJ had absolutely no reason to believe that he would get a fair trial. Not to mention thanks to years of slander in the media and being and African American who looked white he had every reason to believe that the jury would be
biased from the get go. That's exactly what happened to two jurors in 2005 who wanted to profit from a guilty verdict and ruin him at the same time ignoring all the evidence that his accusers were liars. Without the other jurors forcing them to look at all the evidence they would have convicted him.
- you settle if you would lose even more money with a trial even if you win
How much did he lose because of the 2003 trial? Much more than 20 million. Because of the legal cost and because of the
horrible media coverage his reputation was destroyed no matter the verdict and with that his earning capability was significantly affected. That's what would have happened in 1994 too even if he had won in court. Why would he want that when he can
prevent it by paying a few million per year (he paid the Chandlers annually not at once)
- you settle if you are pressured by those who had a business interest to avoid a circus like the one in 2005
Sony obviously was losing money when MJ was not working and they didn't want to lose their goose that laid the golden eggs.
Branca advised MJ to settle for that reason.
- you settle if you simply don't want to go through the horror of a trial where every aspect of your personal life
would be exposed in the most intrusive way.
Again, that's exactly what happened in 2005 and someone as private as MJ it was extremely hard to take.
- you settle if you think a trial would destroy your health
That's what happened in 2005 where MJ was almost literally dead by verdict day. In 1993 he became dependent on opioids
had a lot of physical and emotional pain and after months of fighting the Chandlers, the media, the police and the judge
he had enough.
- you settle if you don't think the public would be informed about the truth even if you win in court
Again, that's what happened in 2005. He won on all counts and it didn't matter because Nancy Grace then goes on TV and tells everyone that he got away with hit because he is celebrity.
Anyone who says that he was guilty because he settled in 1994 should explain why he should have had a trial at all when
he couldn't clear his name even by winning on all counts? Why have a trial at all when the public doesn't care about the verdict?
Remind him that the Francias are good example that just because someone gets money does not mean they are telling the truth.
They too demanded money from MJ in 1994 like the Chandlers and threatened him to sue him if he doesn't pay so MJ did
since he already paid to get rid of the Chandler case and certainly didn't want more bad publicity and a trial.
But the Francias testified in 2005 and the jurors didn't believe them because they were so obviously opportunist phonies who used fake allegations to make millions.
