Latest on MJJC

Debates with the public

MJresearcher said:
My post here talks about possible reasons for the settlement as well:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/133197-Debates-with-the-public?p=4124287&viewfull=1#post4124287

The funny thing is, many people seem to think that bringing up the settlement is a trump card that wins the argument because they don't know any other reasons why a person would settle in a case like this. It can wipe the arrogant smile right off their faces when you can give them multiple possible reasons apart from guilt. One of the biggest mistakes people make is thinking that because they don't know, neither does anyone else. I think a lot of people make an assumption that anyone who defends MJ doesn't know what they're talking about so it's very satisfying when you prove you do and tell them many things they didn't know.



It was respect77. This was the first time I'd seen or heard anything from Clemente and I was shaking my head a lot, I would have thought that a former FBI profiler wold know better than to think that MJ and Gavin "frolicking around Neverland" somehow proved sexual molestation. When someone who was that high up apparently doesn't understand what it actually takes to prove sexual abuse it's pretty scary. I also can't help but think that Clemente's own abuse clouds his judgement, along with the number of years he worked with abused children. The ironic thing is that he's quick to complain about fans being biased! When he's asked for evidence to prove MJ was guilty he can't give anything that is either accurate or provable, so then he does the equivalent of stomping his feet like a child and says that he's an expert. That's nice Clemente, but you're supposed to be proving MJ guilty, not giving fallacious arguments.

MJ's mother receiving a subpoena regarding the appearance of MJ's genitals never made sense to me, if you want that kind of information about an adult male wouldn't it make more sense to subpoena his doctor or dermatologist? How many adult males regularly show their genitals to their mothers?! In my opinion it seems they were trying to embarrass him.
Click to expand...

Maybe respect posted some prior, but I was referring to yours here - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ublic/page15?p=4080044&viewfull=1#post4080044 Post #215.

Clemente is such an arrogant tw@t, yet he spouts nonsense. His condescending responses as well. He acts as if he was deep in the case like Sneddon or Zonen, yet the nonsense he spouts has me wondering just how much of a role did he actually play. Especially given he got cancer and was no longer part of the case.
 
Bad7 said:
If you can, try to remember as much as you can about the settlement. As it's a pivotal part and goes far deeper than the usual media/average person spin of 'MJ was accused, he paid them off'.
Click to expand...

If you can, I'd just read Bad7's statement below over and over about the truth behind the settlement. The settlement alone was the one thing that changed 99% of people's minds about Michael-not the allegations-and that's because no one really knew the truth of what was behind the settlement and why-I agree with the being caught between a rock and a hard place-and sinking faster every second in every aspect of your life-what would YOU do.


Bad7 said:
The settlement is much deeper than a lot who say 'he paid them off'. There was no 'hush money' as some refer to it as. How do you 'hush' something the whole world knows about?

First of all, a little known fact to the average person is that MJ could of 'paid off' the Chandlers in August 1993 before any of it went public. It's worth noting to people that Evan never once went to law enforcement. He wanted money from the get go.

By the time the settlement came about in January 1994 a lot had happened. MJ's health had deteriorated dramatically. He'd checked into drug rehabilitation by this time. Also, by this time, a lot of things had gone against MJ in the case. His lawyers filed a motion asking for the civil case to be delayed until the criminal case was over, this was denied. If MJ wanted to 'pay off' the Chandlers he had still had the opportunity to do so yet wanted the criminal case to go first. When this motion was denied MJ's team then filed another motion asking for any evidence from the civil trial to not be included in the criminal case.

Had MJ gone ahead with the civil case he'd of had to lay his defence strategy on the table. This would of left him in a bad position in the criminal case given Sneddon could change parts of the story that didn't fit. Given Sneddon changed dates of alleged molestation in 2005, this was more than possible. The other factor to the civil going before the criminal trial is the verdict. In a civil trial a verdict doesn't have to be unanimous. You can lose a case 51-49 in favour of the other party. Losing the civil case would also of gone against him in the criminal trial.

In a sense, he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Everything was going in favour of the Chandlers in terms of motions.

The settlement never stopped the family from testifying in a court of law, they just never wanted to.

Another pivotal part to add is that at the time 95% of civil cases were settled out of court. The law ENCOURAGES people to settle out of court. Lisa Marie also encouraged him to settle.

Something I also found dodgy was the defence lawyers involved. Howard Weitzman came into the case and wanted a settlement from day one. Bert Fields, the other defence lawyer at the time, did not. He wanted to cross examine Jordy. Fields made an error and was subsequently fired sometime later. In came Johnnie Cochran who agree with Weitzman about a settlement being the best course of action. Cochran negotiated the settlement with the Chandlers' lawyer Larry Feldman. Cochran and Feldman just so happened to be friends and Feldman would work for Cochran in later years. Ironically, Feldman ended up with more money from the settlement than Jordy's parents did!

I forgot to add also, the media were a disgrace. Nightly programming about the supposed molestation yet they never actually had any evidence to make a program. It was all speculation. Also, the civil trial could of been televised. Court TV were looking to televise it if allowed to do so. Who'd want their personal life to be aired in public?

Another thing I just remembered is civil cases can drag on and on and this would of meant MJ couldn't work.
Click to expand...
 
MJresearcher said:
MJ's mother receiving a subpoena regarding the appearance of MJ's genitals never made sense to me, if you want that kind of information about an adult male wouldn't it make more sense to subpoena his doctor or dermatologist? How many adult males regularly show their genitals to their mothers?! In my opinion it seems they were trying to embarrass him.
Click to expand...

A mother would know about whether her son was circumcised. I think they probably asked her about whether as a baby MJ was circumcised. I think the reason for that might have been that in case Katherine had said he was then they could have claimed MJ did some sort of foreskin restoration surgery or something between the time of him molesting Jordan and the strip search (as if he knew he was to be strip searched? LOL). It's a desperate attempt, but they were that desperate. Since they just "forgot" about the elephant in the room then, ie. the circumcusion, it's safe to say MJ was not circumcised as a baby either and they could not claim a foreskin restoration surgery. LOL.

Yet another sign that Jordan got the circumcision issue wrong. Despite of haters trying to re-write history now and make false statements on their websites that Chandler never described MJ's penis as circumcised. Every evidence we have so far points to that he DID:

- The Linden affidavit.
- The drawing in Guiterrez's book.
- And Katherine being asked these things.

I also find it very telling that in VG's book the original drawing contains the statement about MJ being circumcised. When the same drawing was then circulated in the media in 2005 someone carefully removed that part (my guess is it was Ray Chandler who did that and who circulated the drawing on the internet in 2005, but I have no definite proof of it - but he was very active on the internet during the trial, he had a website etc). Very telling. LOL.

The original:

drawing-VG-book-447x1024.jpg


The redacted, 2005 version. LOL.

(Also removed are the salacious fantasies about Brett Barnes.)

drawing-reducted.jpg
 
Bad7 said:
Maybe respect posted some prior, but I was referring to yours here - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...ublic/page15?p=4080044&viewfull=1#post4080044 Post #215.

Clemente is such an arrogant tw@t, yet he spouts nonsense. His condescending responses as well. He acts as if he was deep in the case like Sneddon or Zonen, yet the nonsense he spouts has me wondering just how much of a role did he actually play. Especially given he got cancer and was no longer part of the case.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I forgot about those. I love how Clemente keeps saying it's a "fact" that MJ abused children. Facts are things you can prove, not things you think are true. He should know the difference.
 
What do people here make of the supposed Jonathan Spence photograph? Hater's love to run with that yet there is very little known about it.
 
If it was such a bombshell evidence as haters claim why did the prosecution not introduce it eventually? They did introduce the books, but not this alleged photo. Mez said in a podcast he has never seen any such photo. So all we have is one claim by Sneddon in a motion, but no one actually ever seeing such a pic.

Moreover, the reason why Spence could not be introduced as an alleged victim by the prosecution was because all they provided about him was "evidence of grooming" - ie. MJ buying him gifts. There was no one claiming to have seen anything inappropriate re. him. If the prosecution had a photograph like that about him in MJ's possession it would have been used as evidence to introduce Spence as an alleged victim. Yet, all they could offer about Spence was testimony of MJ buying him gifts. That was all they had about him when they tried to introduce him as an alleged victim. Not any photo.

Also remember that when MJ's home was searched in 1993 the police said they did not find anything that would warrant a criminal filing.

So in short, I believe this is yet another case of phantom evidence that haters so love to use. Funny how they always claim there was lots of evidence against MJ, yet they always need to rely on the ones that no one ever saw and about that the prosecution was able to muddy the water because of that. When then such things came into light it always turned out it was not what the prosecution claimed it to be. I think this is such a case. It's good for salacious speculations, but if it was really what it was claimed I am sure the prosecution would have had it introduced and then Spence could have been named as an alleged victim.

BTW, Spence never claimed to have been molested and his mother talked to a fan as recently as a couple of years ago and she praised MJ a lot.
 
Last edited:
I feel like the media to "make up" for all the negative perceptions after MJ's death they just have a "change of tune" but that's just dusting the floor over the skelotons beneath it...

We really should have a publicized documentary (or some form of project) that is released publically clearing his name...
 
^^The PBS Frontline documentary, The Tabloid Truth, would be a fine way to start it.
Excellent doc.
All we need is another hour on the rest of the story.
 
respect77 said:
If he does not have any major issues that he can point out, just a general "gut feeling" that MJ was guilty or some sort of "no smoke without fire" mentality then I'd first start with introducing him to the basics of the case, starting with the Chandlers. Who this family was, how they met with MJ, how their allegations emerged, Evan first making allegations himself, then Jordan conveniently backing him up, the Chandler's main goal always being money etc. etc. First he would need to familiarize himself with the players and basic story before you could get into the kind of deep specifics you wrote about, otherwise those may only be confusing to him. And my experience is that most people are not even familiar with that - they heard MJ was accused X times and that is enough for them to believe he must have been guilty; they may have imagined a story about it to themselves, but mostly it has nothing to do with the real story and they may be surprised when you tell them about how it really went down and how this family was clearly focused on money, how this boy did not come up with his allegations voluntarily, but he was threatened into it by a father who then used these allegations to try to extort money out of MJ, how this father and the whole family never did anything that you would expect from a family whose child was really molested, never wanted to see the alleged molester in jail, they were always focused on money etc. They may also be surprised to learn that contrary to popular belief MJ hardly even met Gavin Arvizo before the Bashir doc and when they did MJ actively avoided him and how Gavin's allegations are not about MJ molesting him before the Bashir doc, like so many people imagine this story (including uninformed prosecution fans like Jim Clemente, LOL) - not surprisingly because that's what would make more sense, but that MJ starts molesting Gavin while all eyes being on him and being investigated for the Bashir doc, does not make any sense. But the Arvizos had to allege that because they hardly even met MJ before that.
Click to expand...

If they bring up MJ being guilty they will also reveal why they think he is. I never met anyone who didn't. They mention the
"payoffs" the bedsharing, and OJ got away with it too, a few days ago I ran into a moron how said there was obvious jury tampering because a juror went to the MJ party following the verdict. People come up with the most insane crap.

Well if they are willing to listen to ALL this then they can sure listen to why Sneddon couldn't arrest MJ in Dec 1993 which is all about Chandler's bullshit description.

I think everyone knows about that strip search and everyone knows about the myth that Chandler got it right. It was mentioned more than enough by the media.
Sawyer brought it up and so did Bill O'Reilly when he interviewed Hughes. It's the best evidence of Mj's innocence because it can be backed up with a medical document. If you bring up how Evan Chandler invented the whole thing, and you have to talk about that, you also have to explain how and when he coached Jordan and what is the evidence that he was coached which leads us to the July 8 phone call, Jordan's interview with Gardner and the Chandler and Dimond books, both of which includes evidence that Evan imagined the very same sex acts which then ended up in Jordan's story. There is simply no other explanation for that other than Evan inventing the whole thing.


Bad7 said:
I didn't know Clemente thought molestation occurred before the Bashir documentary? I know he talks nonsense, but that'd really take the biscuit. Especially about the description Jordy gave and claiming Gavin gave one... when he never did. And both just so happened to describe him as circumcised he said. Also, his ignorance was astounding when he tried to make out that Jordy and Gavin lived miles apart and because they never met each other how did they form a similar story? 'Never read statements about the case' ... yet Jordy's declaration leaked. The whole world could of formed a similar story, ffs.
Click to expand...

My God this guy is unreal. He doesn't know that Chandler's declaration was leaked to the press right after the Bashir shit had aired and the Arvizos went to the same lawyer who represented Chandler and they had plenty of contact with Sneddon all of whom knew very well what the Chandlers claimed.
But the best part if that their story wasn't even similar at all!
Chandler didn't even mention alcohol or porn let alone that MJ used them to groom him. He talked about secret in a box and levitation and unconditioned people and duck butter and lights and a very very very gradual molestation and MJ crying and using the names of other boys to convince him to do what he wanted to do and telling him that he could end up in juvenile hall if he talks about it to anyone. He said that MJ told him he would never hurt him and he started with hugging and kissing then he out of the blue had an erection and then he took a bath with Jordan and then came the mastrubation.

Now compare that to what the Arvizos said: MJ taught him how to curse. Then gave him alcohol in soda can. In Miami, right after the Bashir doc had aired. The he licked Gavin's head. (Jordan never claimed such a thing) Then he showed him and Star porn. (Noone ever explain what the point of showing porn to fatass Star was if he wanted to groom Gavin but nevermind) Then he told him that if boys don't mastrubate they may rape women and he once saw a boy have sex with a dog. Then he "had sex" with a mannequin LOL. Then he just walked in the room naked. Then he made Arvizo drink more and showed more porn and then came the mastrubation.

How the **** are these two stories in any way similar? If anything the differences are so striking, the characters of the two abusers are so different it's obvious they were invented by different people and not committed by the same person.
 
Last edited:
FullLipsDotNose said:
I really hate double standards in these cases... Seriously, he was just nice to children around him. Many women do the same and no one bats an eyelid.
Click to expand...

Right. Rose Fine called MJ son and treated him like a son, she told him her door was always open and after the shows MJ ran to her room.
He said they had warm milk and read stories. The exact same things MJ talked about to Bashir.
Noone called Rose Fine a pedophile or that she was inappropriate because she spent nights with an unrelated boy.
It's blatant sexism and hypocrisy. Here's where MJ talks about Rose:
http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/tape/tape27.html
 
Why don't we make our own small documentary to showcase the facts? Something catchy and entertaining enough to keep non MJ fans interested enough and just post it to youtube... spread it around
 
KOPV said:
Why don't we make our own small documentary to showcase the facts? Something catchy and entertaining enough to keep non MJ fans interested enough and just post it to youtube... spread it around
Click to expand...

One documentary wouldn't suffice, lol. You could probably make five videos relating only to the Chandler case.
 
Bad7 said:
One documentary wouldn't suffice, lol. You could probably make five videos relating only to the Chandler case.
Click to expand...

There is no number of documentaries that would suffice my friend... But I'll say most documentaries I've watched to defend Michael are too slow for a non fan to watch...
 
One thing I can't stand from some people who think MJ is guilty, is when they start off their argument with ''Well, speaking as a parent''

No, just, no! Just because someone happens to be a parent that doesn't make them experts in these cases
 
^ very very annoying and true..... smh

Let like me being an Italian food expert cuz I eat Pizza! lol... kind of. I am having cravings and hungry obviously
 
I think people who are parents let their emotions get the better of them, and they imagine they're own children in horrible situations
 
analogue said:
One thing I can't stand from some people who think MJ is guilty, is when they start off their argument with ''Well, speaking as a parent''
Click to expand...

Ughhhhh, thankfully I've never heard that. Like honestly that's so bullshit hahaha. How the hell does being a parent give you some "exclusive insight" that those of us who aren't parents are incapable of seeing or understanding?
 
Being parents don't make people automatically chilldren experts, we've seen even people with with expertise in psychology and psychiatry are grossly biased againts the accused, *cough, cough McMartin false accusations; cough, cough Stan Katz.* Quoting James 'The Amazing' Randi, "no matter how smart or well-educated you are, you can be deceived" but f*cking hell, may people seem they're begging others to deceive them. The key is to be willing to learn and to be informed but the majority if not all the ones who think Michael was guilty don't do that.
 
I especially hate it when parents speak over their children.

I'm disabled and fed up with all those folks that say, "I am a parent, I know what's best for my child and no, I can't be ableist cause my child's disabled!!" STFU and get outta my zone.

So many parents misunderstand their children - and they don't need to be disabled actually.
 
analogue said:
One thing I can't stand from some people who think MJ is guilty, is when they start off their argument with ''Well, speaking as a parent''
Click to expand...


Well, you as a parent if your kid was molested would you hug the molester?
Would you tell him "I don't want you to get in trouble"?
Would you tell him if he gives you 1 million you won't go to the police?
Would you want to avoid a criminal trial?
Would you just take money and then try to take money again through civil claims but never show up in a criminal court
to testify against the molester?
Would you not call child services even if you just suspect that you kid is being molested?
Would you hire the nastiest son of a bitch trial lawyer instead of going to the police?
Would you demand money for yourself like you were some victim too?

Evan Chandler did ALL of those things. Blanca Francia too demanded money for herself instead of making sure that the
molester was charged and convicted in a criminal court.

As a parent if you saw a man molesting a boy would you just shut up and walk away and do nothing?
Would you then run to tabloids to sell molestation stories after the molester was publicly accused?
Blanca Francia, McManus, Abdool, Cachoon, LeMarque, Quindoy did just that!

As a parent would you keep taking your son back to the molester's ranch and give a sworn deposition that
he never did anything inappropriate with anyone and you would trust your son with him? That's what McManus and Abdool did and say.

These idiots who think MJ was guilty don't have a clue how ridiculous his accusers were and how none of them acted like
a parent whose kid was molested.
 
Another thing that annoys me is when some people say crap like ''He obviously had mental issues'' and ''He had psychological problems'' etc.

Why do so many people suddenly become armchair psychologists when it comes to Michael Jackson?
 
analogue said:
Another thing that annoys me is when some people say crap like ''He obviously had mental issues'' and ''He had psychological problems'' etc.

Why do so many people suddenly become armchair psychologists when it comes to Michael Jackson?
Click to expand...

Find me a person that has a never had a mental issue or a psychological problem :ninja:
 
FullLipsDotNose;4141657 said:
Find me a person that has a never had a mental issue or a psychological problem :ninja:
Click to expand...


That’s not the point. People who diss Michael aren’t saying “we all have our issues”, they’re saying clearly that “we are normal and Michael had issues”. To a point they would have had him locked away just for "having issues."
 
MidnightMoonwalk;4141829 said:
That’s not the point. People who diss Michael aren’t saying “we all have our issues”, they’re saying clearly that “we are normal and Michael had issues”. To a point they would have had him locked away just for "having issues."
Click to expand...

But that's what I'm trying to say... There's hardly anyone "normal".
 
 
Last edited:
It's very sad to see that ad hominems and baseless accusations thrown around without anything to back them up get 20+ likes but when you present facts it's 1-2 likes. It's very true unfortunately that most people don't know what is a sound and logical argument and what is just emotional manipulation and logical fallacies. It should be taught in schools.
 
respect77 said:
It's very sad to see that ad hominems and baseless accusations thrown around without anything to back them up get 20+ likes but when you present facts it's 1-2 likes. It's very true unfortunately that most people don't know what is a sound and logical argument and what is just emotional manipulation and logical fallacies. It should be taught in schools.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think some people didn't like it because they didn't bother to read it, given it was quite lengthly. They simply don't care enough and will continue to badmouth someone on something they haven't a single clue about. It's sad really.

At least that comment by Catherine had 20 likes, which is better than nothing (I imagine more people read it because it was only a paragraph).
 
HIStoric said:
Unfortunately I think some people didn't like it because they didn't bother to read it, given it was quite lengthly. They simply don't care enough and will continue to badmouth someone on something they haven't a single clue about. It's sad really.

At least that comment by Catherine had 20 likes, which is better than nothing (I imagine more people read it because it was only a paragraph).
Click to expand...

Yes, probably. But that's unfortunately our disadvantage. People today only read something if it's less than a pharagraph, but such a complex case cannot be explained and understood from short soundbites. Short soundbites are only good to make emotional and fallacious statements. Unfortunately too many people judge based on such. Not only in this case, but generally speaking.
 
If people aren't willing to do the proper research about these cases, then they have no business speaking as if they know everything about them. It's frustrating, because they care enough to comment, but they also don't care enough to do the proper research.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top