Debates with the public

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.

I think he rather talked about himself and his testimony. He seems to overrate his importance in this case (he basically thinks he single handedly proves MJ's guilt by throwing out all that textbook stuff that he uses so badly and in such a twisted way) so I can imagine that when he said that he actually meant his own testimony and thinks that if he had testified it would have convinced the jury otherwise.

If he means the Chandler case then well, June did testify so it was mentioned and touched on. If Jordan and/or Evan had testified they would have been exposed just the same as the Arvizos. That's why they avoided it by any means.


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?

Anti-rich and anti-celebrity mantra. I think the media likes to feed this myth of powerful celebrities who can somehow twist law in their favour because it's easy to get people on board with that idea. People who are frustrated with their own lives and have a general jealousy for celebrities easily buy into such an idea.

Not saying it never happens, but like you said it's also unfair to suggest it always happens. Is a celebrity or a rich man not allowed to be truly, really innocent?

It definitely did not happen in MJ's case, we had Sneddon standing against him, for God's sake, MJ's obsessed arch enemy. And he also had the FBI investigating him who were no friends of his either, as people like Clemente clearly show.

Because of all these cases of Polanski, Woody Allan, Corey Feldman saying him and Corey Haim were molested in Hollywood, Michael Egan etc. now there is also a general notion on celebrity gossip forums that Hollywood and the celebrity world is full of pedophiles. According to them, if you were a child star you were certainly sexually abused by someone at one or another point of your career. If you are a big name director or any other big player in Hollywood you are considered suspect. Crazy.

I think cover-ups probably do happen, but in MJ's case there have never been any cover-ups. If there are cover-ups then that's probably about people who are well-connected. That's the important criteria for cover-ups to happen IMO, not wealth and fame in itself.
 
I think he rather talked about himself and his testimony. He seems to overrate his importance in this case (he basically thinks he single handedly proves MJ's guilt by throwing out all that textbook stuff that he uses so badly and in such a twisted way) so I can imagine that when he said that he actually meant his own testimony and thinks that if he had testified it would have convinced the jury otherwise.

Right. At one point Mesereau emphasized the fact Clemente was the as an eductaional expert and wasn't called to discuss the facts and details of the case. Clemente reluctantly agreed. Later in his comments to you he tried to refute it.

Anti-rich and anti-celebrity mantra. I think the media likes to feed this myth of powerful celebrities who can somehow twist law in their favour because it's easy to get people on board with that idea. People who are frustrated with their own lives and have a general jealousy for celebrities easily buy into such an idea.

Not saying it never happens, but like you said it's also unfair to suggest it always happens. Is a celebrity or a rich man not allowed to be truly, really innocent?

It definitely did not happen in MJ's case, we had Sneddon standing against him, for God's sake, MJ's obsessed arch enemy. And he also had the FBI investigating him who were no friends of his either, as people like Clemente clearly show.

Because of all these cases of Polanski, Woody Allan, Corey Feldman saying him and Corey Haim were molested in Hollywood, Michael Egan etc. now there is also a general notion on celebrity gossip forums that Hollywood and the celebrity world is full of pedophiles. According to them, if you were a child star you were certainly sexually abused by someone at one or another point of your career. If you are a big name director or any other big player in Hollywood you are considered suspect. Crazy.

I think cover-ups probably do happen, but in MJ's case there have never been any cover-ups. If there are cover-ups then that's probably about people who are well-connected. That's the important criteria for cover-ups to happen IMO, not wealth and fame in itself.


YES to this. I do believe people get away with their crimes, like the people you just listed, it's disgusting how some felons are listed among the most hailed and celebrated people in Hollywood. Sad thing the only convicted man in the long list is Polanski.

People who say someone was only aqquited because he's rich will have to come with evidences. At no point in this case Michael could have cleared his way with money or through connections. He had no one in the police and not in the DA offices. A jury bribe is laughable. So when exactly did it happen? I think even Diane Dimond won't dare to say that out loud. Although I do wonder how she explained the aqquital to herself.

Like you said, just because there are some criminals in Hollywood doesn't make all people in Hollywood potential criminals. It's basically saying "I think Michael Jackson is guilty because Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter and got away with it."

I doubt this is going to be a valid argument in any kind of debate but ironically the 1993 settlement can show Michael's lack of connections:

Diane: Why did you settle the case, and, and it looks to everyone as if you paid a huge amount of money...
Michael: That's...that's...most of that's folklore. I talked to my lawyers and I said, Can you guarantee me that justice will prevail? and they said, Michael we cannot guarantee you that a judge or a jury will do anything. And with that I was like catatonic. I was outraged...
Diane: How much money...
Michael: Totally outraged. So what I said...I have got to do something to get out from uinder this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies. So what I did - we got together again with my advisors and they advised me, it was hands down, a unanimous decision - resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years.
Diane:How much money was...
Michael: We said let's get it behind us.

I know that for haters interviews never prove anything but even if you think he was guilty and just "bought his freedom" in 2005, why didn't he just do the same in 1993?
 
I found some interesting things on the credibility and usefulness of FBI profiling yesterday. The first link gives an explanation of what it is.

Typological Offender Profiling

http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newResources/criminological/A2_AQB_crim_typoProfiling.pdf

The Personality Paradox in Offender Profiling

http://www.academia.edu/1101296/The_Personality_Paradox_in_Offender_Profiling

The Use Of Offender Profiling Evidence In Criminal Cases
Is Offender Profiling Sufficiently Reliable as to be Admissible? Pg 223
Conclusion pg 305

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=theses

The Criminal Profiling Illusion: What's Behind the Smoke and Mirrors?
The myth of profiling experts pg 10-11

http://www.sagepub.com/bartol3e/study/articles/Snook.pdf
 
Snnedon did everything in his power to try to convict Michael, he had the law enforcement and the media by his side and couldn't prove anything because he had nothing. The child services department concluded Michael didn't commit any crime, the FBI investigated him and couldn't anything incriminating to say he was a child molester.

Talking about the child services department, they investigated Woody Allen as well and concluded he didn't abuse his daughter. And for the way Dylan Farrow has talked, it seems people implanted on her false memories of child abuse.
 
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.

That's what I know too. Profiling is an investigative tool to catch or find unknown offenders. As far as I know profilers are not supposed to take a suspect they already know, profile him and then use their profile to prove he's guilty. They usually don't work with the offender himself, they profile an offender through his actions, victims, crime scenes etc.

It's not supposed to be like "well, this guy you have here fits the profile so he must be guilty." It doesn't work this way, it's not a solid proof in court and this is not why Clemente was on the witness list. I think the defense could have asked him to be dismissed if he'd talked on the stand the way he does on the video or in his comments to Respect77. Either that or just completely discredit him. He doesn't seem to know his own job. Or maybe he just has his own agendas... like others we know.
 
Snnedon did everything in his power to try to convict Michael, he had the law enforcement and the media by his side and couldn't prove anything because he had nothing. The child services department concluded Michael didn't commit any crime, the FBI investigated him and couldn't anything incriminating to say he was a child molester.

Talking about the child services department, they investigated Woody Allen as well and concluded he didn't abuse his daughter. And for the way Dylan Farrow has talked, it seems people implanted on her false memories of child abuse.
Thank you for that. I do wish that people would at least write "alleged" when talking about Woody Allen. It's not like he just walked away from all of this. He was investigated and not charged.
I realize he has a thing for young women-he's very "in your face" with it in his films. But many people use that argument against Michael as well.
I fight enough on Yahoo about the difference on allegations and actually being guilty. People forget that they were actually investigated.
People tend to lump everybody together with people like Polanski, who was guilty and pled guilty.
 
Last edited:
Like you said, just because there are some criminals in Hollywood doesn't make all people in Hollywood potential criminals. It's basically saying "I think Michael Jackson is guilty because Woody Allen abused his adopted daughter and got away with it."

Well, that's exactly the mindset Clemente's followers seem to have:


Mountain Mama
1 day ago

Did it occur to you that it's only shady families who sell their children to pedophiles? You seem at least reasonable & say you wouldn't excuse it if he had molested, how do you know you're right? Why did he pay that first kid 11 million dollars if he was innocent? He's dead. I could care less about him. It's your mindset that disturbs me. I suppose you think Stephen Collins & Bill Cosby are innocent too. How about Roman Polanski? Or are you only a fan of Jackson's? And please do explain why I should think a sane person would destroy their nose with plastic surgery? I want to hear this.?

I don't know what Stephen Collins or Bill Cosby (not to mention MJ's plastic surgery) has anything to do with wether MJ is guilty or not, but it seems these people tend to lump celebrities together in their mind and if one is or some are guilty then all others are. That's why I think to a lot of these people who follow celebrity cases and trials but think that all of them are guilty as accused is really about their own jealousy for celebrity or their own belief about celebrities getting away with things.

And I think for the sake of future generations schools should teach the basics of what is a logical argument and what is a totally illogical one...

I know that for haters interviews never prove anything but even if you think he was guilty and just "bought his freedom" in 2005, why didn't he just do the same in 1993?

In fact, we know from the Chandlers own book that they were willing to go away without going to authorities and the public if MJ had paid them just $1 million. He was not.


I agree about Woody Allan, it's not fair to treat him guilty. I'm also iffy about Michael Egan's allegations. I only referred to these cases as cases which were high profile Hollywood child abuse cases which make people believe that everyone in Hollywood is a pedophile. Doesn't mean all of these allegations are true, but unfortunately many people can't seem to tell the difference between an allegation and a proven fact.
 
This person would first have to prove that "only" shady families "sell" their children to pedophiles. That's a very generalized claim which is being passed off as something that's fact in all cases. They refer to the civil settlement as if it proves guilt because they're yet another person who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law and that paying a person to be silent would be a crime that you would not get away with. They also got the settlement amount wrong which shows me that they have no idea about this.

If they don't care about him because he's dead then why are they even asking you questions about it in the first place? They clearly care enough to do that. Their comment also should have said couldn't care less. People often get this one mixed up because they're using an expression but don't realise that they're using it wrong due to lack of actually considering the difference between could and couldn't and how it should be used in that sentence.

The other people they mentioned have nothing to do with the allegations against MJ. They seem to be taking the position that if you believe one is innocent you then have to think the same about the others. Why?! This is very bad logic which ignores the fact that each case has to be viewed based on the facts specific to that case and not ones that don't have anything to do with it. They don't seem to get that you're saying that you believe in MJ's innocence because of the evidence, not because you're giving him special treatment.

I also don't understand what his rhinoplasty surgery has to do with anything. They appear to be saying that you aren't sane if you have surgery like that, but what's the basis for this assumption? How does plastic surgery have anything to do with mental illness? Where's the correlation? His nose was not "destroyed" as far as I know. The shape had changed and there was scarring but that can hardly be considered as "destroyed". As far as I know his nose still performed the function a nose is supposed to but why does any of that matter? What's the preoccupation with surgery? It was his face and changing it had no ill effect on any other person, therefore, I don't see why it's an issue. It also of course doesn't relate to the allegations against him.
 
respect said:
I think cover-ups probably do happen, but in MJ's case there have never been any cover-ups. If there are cover-ups then that's probably about people who are well-connected. That's the important criteria for cover-ups to happen IMO, not wealth and fame in itself.
That's the important thing to hammer home re mj. His 'outsider' status - reviled by the media, him wearing coats saying burn the tabloids, his disrespecting of sneddon, the chief law enforcer, in his songs. I've got to say in the uk, the issue of cover ups of child abuse is everywhere - it's a huge huge story. Celebs, politicians, muslim gangs - they've all been covered up as abusers - which is why the mj/fbi file story just fed into this general cynicism. It won't get the publicity but the estate's responses to the robson case rogs and rfa's which specifically ask if there were any other mj settlements with anyone for negligence or emotional distress etc, not just 'sexual abuse', should be useful to categorically quash any of these cover up stories when we see them.

mjresearcher said:
I found some interesting things on the credibility and usefulness of FBI profiling yesterday
I think we can all agree that clemente is no clarice starling.
 
Last edited:
invincibletal said:
A jury bribe is laughable. So when exactly did it happen? I think even Diane Dimond won't dare to say that out loud. Although I do wonder how she explained the aqquital to herself.
I think her explanation was that the jury were star struck. Sneddon seemed aghast that the jury didn't feel the same way about mj as himself and convict - he said he believed the jury would only have convicted if they saw a video of mj molesting gavin, they didn't want reasonable doubt, just no doubt at all. He just seemed incapable of understanding that the accusers had credibility problems or else maybe he thought that wasn't overly important, mj's guilt was so deeply embedded in his own mind, he assumed it would be to others.
 
I think her explanation was that the jury were star struck. Sneddon seemed aghast that the jury didn't feel the same way about mj as himself and convict - he said he believed the jury would only have convicted if they saw a video of mj molesting gavin, they didn't want reasonable doubt, just no doubt at all. He just seemed incapable of understanding that the accusers had credibility problems or else maybe he thought that wasn't overly important, mj's guilt was so deeply embedded in his own mind, he assumed it would be to others.

Star struck is a slightly better argument then "bought his freedom". I don't know what can be said on this though. I don't believe a whole jury can be that star strucked plus Sneddon was there in the jury selection just like Tmez was so this excuse shouldn't make him look better among his followers. Yes, I believe Sneddon was convinced his case was good enough (more than enough) and ignored the problems easily.
 
Well, that's exactly the mindset Clemente's followers seem to have:

I don't know what Stephen Collins or Bill Cosby (not to mention MJ's plastic surgery) has anything to do with wether MJ is guilty or not, but it seems these people tend to lump celebrities together in their mind and if one is or some are guilty then all others are. That's why I think to a lot of these people who follow celebrity cases and trials but think that all of them are guilty as accused is really about their own jealousy for celebrity or their own belief about celebrities getting away with things.


Why does she bring up Roman Polanski? He was convicted, there were actual proofs against him, weren't there? it's not under the cover-up category, why should you support convicted X if you want to support unconvicted Y?

The bitterness of these people is blinding them so bad they can't even make sense.

The fact she mentions the plastic surgeries shows just how ignorant she is. What is it if it's not prejudice? Do nose jobs appear in Clemente's textbook pedophiles "profile"?


And I think for the sake of future generations schools should teach the basics of what is a logical argument and what is a totally illogical one...

THIS.

In fact, we know from the Chandlers own book that they were willing to go away without going to authorities and the public if MJ had paid them just $1 million. He was not.

Can you post more info about this please? and sorry but what do you mean "He was not"?:blushing:
 
InvincibleTal;4061235 said:
Star struck is a slightly better argument then "bought his freedom". I don't know what can be said on this though.

What can be said is to ask these people about what in their opinion should have convicted MJ at that trial? Forget fallacious arguments like the back and forth about the assumed and speculated motivations of the jury! Let's see the actual case and please point out to me why MJ should have been sent to prison based on what was said and shown at that trial! They will not be able to answer that because they do not know the case. As you have seen even someone like Clemente who was actually on the prosecution's witness list as an "expert" does not know even the basic facts of the case and thus makes erroneous assumptions about MJ and Gavin's relationship at the time of the Bashir doc and other conclusions which aren't even consistent with what the accuser alleged.


InvincibleTal;4061236 said:
Can you post more info about this please? and sorry but what do you mean "He was not"?:blushing:

Sure. Relevant part in red, but you have to read the full story to understand that it were the Chandlers who offered to go away for money and MJ turned down their demands. By "he was not" - I meant that MJ was not willing to pay to them.

I think this story in itself refutes all myths about MJ supposedly paying hush money to boys left and right. If that had been a routine to him then I'm sure he would have happily paid off the Chandlers for the case to never reach authorities or the public, but he refused to pay them.

The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands




The fact that Michael Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser in 1994 is often brought up against him as a sign of guilt. The settlement and the events leading to it is discussed in this article. The critics who bring up the settlement do not realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations (indirectly, by capitalizing on the rule that all psychiatrists must report allegations of abuse) was because they did not get the pay-off they desired. Before disclosing their allegations to a person mandated to report the alleged abuse, a psychiatrist, and going public with the allegations, Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler demanded money from Michael Jackson. In his book, All That Glitters, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler vehemently denies that the demand was an act of extortion and prefers to call it “negotiations”. Whatever you want to call it, this is how it went: [It is recommended that our articles entitled Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions” and How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge? be readas the following events’ antecedents and context. In the article Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”, you can learn more about Dr. Abrams’ letter that Evan Chandler used as a “negotiation” tool.] According to Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, with Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter in his hand, Evan attempted to “negotiate” with Michael Jackson and wanted to do so alone. In the chapter entitled “August 1” the book states:
“Although Evan was certain Michael’s actions toward Jordie were harmful, he still did not believe them to be intentional. As twisted as Michael was, Evan believed Michael genuinely cared about Jordie, and that if he could talk to Michael alone and explain his concerns, Michael would understand and together they could work out a solution, “without the damn lawyers.” [1; page 99]
Jackson, however, refused to negotiate with Evan “without the damn lawyers”. According to All That Glitters, Jordan’s step father, David Schwartz had already delivered the news of the Abrams’ letter to Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, so Jackson already could suspect that Evan was up to something. Additionally, Jackson had already listened to the secretly taped phone conversation between Evan and Schwartz, recorded on July 8, 1993. Nevertheless, Jackson agreed to meet with Evan but only in the presence of his lawyer, Bert Fields or Pellicano. The telephone conversation between Evan and Jackson is described as follows in All That Glitters:
“I just want to find out what’s going on between you two,” Evan explained. “You don’t need a lawyer. We can work this out ourselves.” Michael wouldn’t budge: Pellicano or Fields had to attend. “We may talk about some embarrassing things for both of you,” Evan cautioned. “Anything you say to me, you can say to Bert,” Michael insisted. “But I don’t think anyone else should hear these things. I don’t want you to get in trouble. I just…” Click. This phone call was a turning point for Evan. “I understood that a man in Michael’s position needed lawyers for everything, but this was not business, not to me. I really thought we could work it out if we could get all the lawyers out of the picture, and I thought Michael would want that too. If I wasn’t bringing a lawyer, why did he need one?” [1; page 100]
The meeting took place on August 4 at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Present were Michael Jackson, Anthony Pellicano and Evan and Jordan Chandler. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 GQ magazine article:
“On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.” [2]
The hug is mentioned in Ray Chandler’s book as well: “Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend.”[1; page 102] And then it is explained in a peculiar way:
“In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting, Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting.”If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.” Supposedly this means that because Evan didn’t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn’t believe the molestation occurred. Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing. But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn’t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael’s audio expert/private investigator present as a witness! That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn’t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.” [1; page 107]
How many parents would give the person whom they suspect to have molested their child a “happy-to-see-you hug” and would “pat him on the back like an old friend”? And how many parents would have to “pretend” to be angry with the alleged molester, instead of genuinely be angry? Another remarkable aspect of the above quoted text is Evan’s apparent attempt to refrain from the use of the term “molestation”.Remember, this meeting took place after Jordan allegedly already “confessed” to Evan. Jackson and his people understood that Jackson was being accused of child molestation, even if Evan was careful not to make that accusation himself. At the Westwood Marquis Hotel Evan had only read Dr. Abrams’ letter, he did not make any accusation in his own words. Apparently, Evan and his attorney Barry Rothman were trying to make sure that Evan could not be sued later if the allegations were proven to be false. Actually, according to Ray Chandler’s book, Rothman warned Pellicano on August 1, that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be untrue:
“But Barry was not intimidated. He informed Pellicano that Evan had made no public statements of defamatory remarks about Michael in any way. And further, that Evan, as a dentist, was a mandatory reporter governed by the same requirements as any licensed health professional. Not only was he required to report his suspicions to the proper authorities, but he could not be sued for doing so even if they turned out to be incorrect.” [1; page 100]
As for Mary A. Fischer’s claim about the reaction of Jordan when his father read the Abrams’ letter, it is brought up in an article that Ray Chandler wrote for his now defunct website in 2005 and the context tends to confirm Pellicano’s account: Ray Chandler uses it as a defense against the claim that Sodium Amytal was administered to Jordan. [Details about this and how it tends to support Pellicano’s account can be found in this article.] According to All That Glitters, a day after Rothaman warned Pellicano that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be false, allegedly Pellicano called Rothman and “announced he had a way of working everything out. Michael would help Jordie and Evan “reestablish their relationship” by assisting them in setting up a screenwriting career. That way they could spend lots of time together doing what they loved best.” [1; page 101] According to the book, this offer was the first thing that Evan brought up at the Westwood Marquis Hotel on August 4, but Pellicano denied making the offer and it became clear that he was not willing to offer him anything. According to All That Glitters, this made Evan “frustrated by Pellicano’s attitude, and Michael’s apparent condoning of it” [1; page 102-103] and Evan allegedly told the entertainer that he knew what he had done to Jordan and that the boy had confirmed it. The book claims “Evan then asked his son to confirm that he had, and the boy nodded affirmatively” [1; page 103], to which Jackson looked straight into Jordan’s eyes and said: “I didn’t do anything.”[1; page 103] Allegedly, for Evan this was “the defining moment”:
“For Evan, it was the defining moment. “I knew Michael was screwed up, but until that point I wasn’t sure where he was coming from. Part of me still believed he was genuinely in love with Jordie and was acting innocently out of a warped mind, without any forethought or cunning. “But his smile was chilling, like the smile you see on a serial killer or rapist who continually declares his innocence despite mountains of evidence against him. I knew it immediately; Michael Jackson was a child molester! It was suddenly so obvious, June had been fooled, Jordie had been fooled, and I had been fooled. The entire world had been fooled by this pitiful creature with a brilliant but criminal mind.” [1; page 103]
According to All That Glitters Jordan “confessed” to Evan on July 16, yet Ray Chandler describes this moment on August 4 as the defining moment; a moment in which Jackson looked into Jordan’s eyes and said he didn’t do anything. We are to believe that this is what convinced Evan that Jackson was a child molester? Not that his son had earlier “confessed” to him? Ray Chandler closes the account of the meeting by stating:
“Evan felt victorious. Not because he had won anything, but because he had finally solved the puzzle. Not only had there been sex between his son and Michael, but he now understood Michael’s true feelings. He had glimpse into the man’s heart, and it was not a pretty sight.” [1; page 104]
Jordan allegedly “confessed” to his father on July 16, but according to this storyline Evan “solved the puzzle” only on August 4, and does that by interpreting Jackson’s denial in a rather peculiar way. Evan’s new conviction, however, didn’t prevent him from continuing his “negotiations” with Jackson. After the Westwood Marquis Hotel meeting, Pellicano was invited to meet with Barry Rothman and Evan at Rothman’s office and that is when Evan and Rothman made their $20 million demand. Ray Chandler’s reasoning for that is:
“Evan had two goals. First and foremost was the welfare of his son. On the surface Jordie seemed fine, but this wasn’t surface stuff. Dr. Abrams had expressed deep concern for the boy and left Evan with the impression that serious damage might already have occurred. [Note: Dr. Abrams had not met Jordan yet at this point. Evan refers to Dr. Abrams’ letter here, which was in answer of the version of events that he and his lawyer presented to Abrams.] Evan hoped for the best but needed to prepare for the worst. If Jordie needed long-term counseling it could be expensive, and they would have to find a state that did not require psychotherapists to report child abuse to the authorities. That could mean relocating and closing his dental practice. How would he support his family? A worst case scenario to be sure, but possible. Soured by his experience with Pellicano and Michael — in particular, “Michael looking into Jordie’s eyes and denying their intimacy” — Evan’s second goal was to punish Michael. “I didn’t want him to get off scot-free. But a few million is chump change to him. I figured twenty million was definitely punishing amount. At the very least it would give him something to think about. If it turned out Jordie was okay and didn’t need a lot of counseling, so much the better*. He’d be set for life. He deserved it after what Michael did to him. “And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.” [1; page 108-109]
(*Not surprisingly, Jordan indeed did not need a lot of counseling.) Others have differing account about where the $20 million sum demanded by Evan (who was an aspiring screenwriter) came from. On August 28, 1993 the Los Angeles Times wrote: “Film industry sources have said that the boy’s father sought a $20-million movie production and financing deal with Jackson.” [4] A friend of Jackson, painter David Nordahl elaborated that in an interview he gave to the Reflections on the Dance website in 2010:
“I was working on sketches for his [Jackson’s] film production company, called Lost Boys Productions. Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boy’s dad (Evan Chandler), who considered himself to be show business material, because he had written part of a script. After that he considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and that’s where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted half of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion. Michael listened to his business advisors and they all told him to keep his mouth shut and to go on to Korea, go on with your tour, you’re in the middle of a tour. We’ll take care of it.” [5]
Back to Evan Chandler’s opinion that $20 million was “punishing amount”: why not leave punishment up to the proper authorities? The answer in All That Glitters is that Evan thought they would not believe them and he was concerned about the publicity that the allegations would bring. Ray Chandler writes about that concern:
“It wasn’t just after the fact that Evan made these claims. He expressed his fears about a public airing on Dave’s secret tape, six weeks before the affair became public. “It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight.” His son and himself included.” [1; page 109]
However, there’s a problem with this claim. In the taped phone conversation between Evan and David Schwartz, and in the context, that statement wasn’t an expression of concern. On the contrary.
“MR. CHANDLER: It’s unfortunately gonna be too late, then, and nothing’s gonna matter at that point. MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? MR. CHANDLER: Because the fact is so ****ing overwhelming – MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah? MR. CHANDLER: — that everybody’s going to be destroyed in the process. The facts themselves are gonna – once this thing starts rolling – MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. MR. CHANDLER: — the facts themselves are gonna overwhelm. It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That’s [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good? MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It’s great. MR. SCHWARTZ: Why? MR. CHANDLER: Great, because – MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how you’re – MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy and Michael – MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. MR. CHANDLER: — have forced me to take it to the extreme – MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. MR. CHANDLER: — to get their attention. How pitiful, piti****ingful they are to have done that.”[3]
(Towards the end of our article about the settlement you can read some more facts those go against the claim that the Chandlers settled for money and tried to avoid a criminal trial because they were wary of publicity.) According to All That Glitters, Rothman was convinced that Jackson would not pay $20 million, so he tried to talk Evan down to $5 million, but Evan was intractable because he believed “five million was a pay-off, not a punishment.” He wanted Michael punished for what he now believed was a blatant molestation.” [1; page 109] According to the book, on August 9 Pellicano came back with a counteroffer of $1 million to fund three screenplays written by Evan and Jordan. Pellicano later said the offer was a gesture on Jackson’s part that would allow father and son to work together and reestablish their relationship. Evan turned it down. Then on August 13 Pellicano’s next offer, which made it clear that Pellicano was rather mocking them and not seriously bargaining, shocked Rothman and Evan: $350,000.
“Barry couldn’t believe his ears. Pellicano was completely ignoring the rules of the game. Barry started at twenty million, Pellicano had countered with one million, surely the next number should be somewhere in between. And strange as it was that Pellicano had lowered his million dollar offer, it was even crazier that he refused to reinstate it when Barry told him that he had “busted [his] hump for three days…getting Evan to hopefully agree.” [1; page 117-118]
According to the book, on August 17 Pellicano called Rothman to find out if Evan accepted the offer.
“Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. “It’s never going to happen,” the investigator insisted.” [1; page 121]
The day before, on August 16, June Chandler’s attorney, Michael Freeman informed Rothman that they had filed a motion for a Court Order to have Jordan returned to his mother, June Chandler. In response to that and frustrated by Jackson’s refusal to pay him off, on August 17 Evan took Jordan to Dr. Abrams where the boy made his allegations against Michael Jackson, which inevitably involved the authorities and afforded Evan the ability to get custody of Jordan. According to All That Glitters:
“In a phone conversation the night before Freeman’s request was to be heard in court, Barry counseled Evan that unless he was willing to walk into the courtroom and accuse Michael of molesting Jordie, he didn’t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.” [1; page 119]
If one were to follow the above events, it is clear that Jackson had plenty of opportunities to pay off the Chandlers, had he really wanted to, before the case went public or to the authorities. He chose not to do so, which baffled Evan. Ray Chandler writes in his book:
“Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you’ve got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money’s no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn’t work, you can always come out swingin’ anyway.” [1; page 126]
and
“On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?” [1; page 138]
Whether you use the term extortion to describe the above events or not, Ray Chandler closes the chapter about the “negotiations” with a standalone paragraph, as if to summarize the chapter and emphasize:
“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.”[1; page 128]


Sources: [1] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004) [2] Mary A. Fischer: Was Michael Jackson Framed? (GQ, October 1994)
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html [3] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993)
schwartz_chandler [4] Charles P. Wallace and Jim Newton – Jackson Back on Stage; Inquiry Continues (Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson [5] Friendship & A Paintbrush – Interview with David Nordahl (2010)
Original source: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html – the audio clips those contained the conversation are no longer available. For a secondary source, see, for example: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/transcript-of-“frozen-in-time-a-riveting-behind-the-scenes-view-of-the-michael-jackson-cases”-part-3/
 
Last edited:
A bit off topic....

But I hate it when MJ haters say, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" because there wasn't any smoke to start off with.
 
A bit off topic....

But I hate it when MJ haters say, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" because there wasn't any smoke to start off with.

They're assuming that smoke means fire. Spin the wheels on a car or motorcycle and you'll get smoke but no fire. The assumption in the hater's premise is that only fire can cause smoke; they're saying there's only one possible option which is false.
 
What can be said is to ask these people about what in their opinion should have convicted MJ at that trial? Forget fallacious arguments like the back and forth about the assumed and speculated motivations of the jury! Let's see the actual case and please point out to me why MJ should have been sent to prison based on what was said and shown at that trial! They will not be able to answer that because they do not know the case. As you have seen even someone like Clemente who was actually on the prosecution's witness list as an "expert" does not know even the basic facts of the case and thus makes erroneous assumptions about MJ and Gavin's relationship at the time of the Bashir doc and other conclusions which aren't even consistent with what the accuser alleged..

If only they were willing to educate themselves instead of throwing silly catch phrases to the air. I'm sure that once people read the facts about this trial, read the transcripts and testimonies etc they will have the same conclusions we have. Great examples are Aphrodite Jones and Larry Nimmer (who wasn't on anyone's side at first). I know that AJ recently made an ignornant comments on Chandler's claims but that's precisely the point, she's a skeptical person, yet after making her research on 2005 case (and being inside the courthouse) she became an active MJ supporter. I don't know about supporters that became haters after their research. Maybe Stacy Brown is the only "once supporter now a hater" person I heard of but I don't think it's because of his great extanded research on the case.


A bit off topic....

But I hate it when MJ haters say, "Where there's smoke, there's fire" because there wasn't any smoke to start off with.

I hate it too. This idiom is either really stupid or it is wrongly used too often in wrong situations. Who needs courthouses if "where there's smoke, there's fire"?
 
I really wish that some fans would stop saying that Jordan Chandler confessed that Michael never touched him, because that never happened unfortunately. When some fans do that it only weakens their argument, because it looks like they gotta make up things to make Michael look innocent.
 
Remember my rant about an atheist group on fb I*m in? I*m arguing again, fortunately there are more people supporting Michael than haters, YAY! :dance: This time a fellow heathen asked what was our favorite Michael song bu you know there are dudes spewing shit and ruining the mood. Probably some are aware I can*t stand people telling unproved crap about Michael, YES, as much as it pains me to say even atheist have faulty "logic". So far some people think having sleepovers with children and paying money made him guilty. No matter how much evidence Michael has exonerating him, it seems the FBI investigating him over a decade founding nothing and the exoneration in a court if law doesn*t matter to some.
 
Remember my rant about an atheist group on fb I*m in? I*m arguing again, fortunately there are more people supporting Michael than haters, YAY! :dance: This time a fellow heathen asked what was our favorite Michael song bu you know there are dudes spewing shit and ruining the mood. Probably some are aware I can*t stand people telling unproved crap about Michael, YES, as much as it pains me to say even atheist have faulty "logic". So far some people think having sleepovers with children and paying money made him guilty. No matter how much evidence Michael has exonerating him, it seems the FBI investigating him over a decade founding nothing and the exoneration in a court if law doesn*t matter to some.

Some atheists logic

They don*t believe in god because there*s no evidence for god
But they believe that Michael is guilty even though there*s no evidence for it
 
I'm in that atheist group so I posted.

15281807283_9ca4cd5212.jpg

15875644476_2c03afc18b.jpg


Respect77, not sure if you'd like to join us but if you do, here's the link to the post:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152926701559903&set=gm.1021364744547401&type=1&theater
 
Last edited:
The issue I was debating some minutes ago is whether is right or wrong Michael had sleepeovers with minor children. I may be bias myself because there's plenty of evidence Michael never harmed or abused any child but since he wasn't that kind of criminal, I don't see the problem. What do you guys think?
 
It's not abuse in and of itself to sleep in the same bed as a child but but I can't advocate for doing that and it definitely wasn't a good idea for MJ to do it. I think he was naive about these things. I think I heard or read somewhere that he slept in beds with unrelated adult males when he was a child but I don't remember where I heard or read it. If that was true then it could help to explain why he appeared to have trouble understanding why people thought it was wrong.

I think it's probably best to agree with people that bed sharing with a child is a bad idea. That doesn't mean that you're saying it was MJ's fault that people made accusations though, I think people sometimes think that's what you're saying but I don't think that's accurate. I personally wouldn't ever share a bed with a child because of the danger of false accusation. If you were accused of something and you hadn't shared the same bed it would still be bad but if you admit to being in the same bed it doesn't look good.

I don't see people ever changing their stance on this, and you'd be fighting a battle you wouldn't win and end up being called a blind fan as the icing on the cake. I've found that a lot of people will refuse to listen to you or take you seriously if you try to argue that bed sharing is ok even if there isn't any abuse, people just aren't comfortable with it.

If we heard that an adult male we didn't know was bed sharing with kids people here probably wouldn't jump to the conclusion that something sinister must be happening but we couldn't really say that it would be unreasonable for people to at least have a concern. This is something we have to be really careful about if we want people to take us seriously unfortunately.

I think in some aspects MJ wasn't fully aware of social behaviour that is and is not considered acceptable by the majority because he didn't get much of a chance to be in a position where he could fully learn that. I think we take our normal lives for granted sometimes and I think because people haven't lived a life like MJ's it's hard to understand the difference in his social behaviour, attitudes and opinions. Emotions are something that we tackle with on this subject because it really stirs people up, sometimes emotions get in the way of people seeing things logically because of that.

I'm personally not convinced that it's possible for people to be completely unbiased about a subject like this, so I'm waiting for someone to throw the biased fan card out there but it'll be the pot calling the kettle black. That guy said that he's not saying it meant MJ was molesting the kids which is something at least.
 
I really understand what you're saying, I do but it bothers me some people think Michael abused children because of the sleepover. It's not the first time I argue with that guy about it.It seems he changed his mind because he didn't say he didn't think Michael molested children because of the bed sharing, he used to say the opposite. To be honest, it looks like societies dictate what is right and what is wrong but even if the majority thinks sharing bed with children is wrong, most people don't give a damn to know he never had a healthy upbringing and just assume him as a creep weirdo who had a twisted thing for children.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it's very frustrating. It's good to see that this guy may have changed his tune though, usually when people think abuse has happened because sleepovers happened they don't change their minds but maybe this guy thought about it some more. It's good to see other people defending MJ there too, it helps take the pressure off a bit when it's not just the two of us lol.
 
MJresearcher;4061788 said:
Respect77, not sure if you'd like to join us but if you do, here's the link to the post:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152926701559903&set=gm.1021364744547401&type=1&theater

No thanks. I had my share of debating with Clemente and Co. on YT this week. That's enough for me for now.


Snow White luvs Peter Pan;4061792 said:
The issue I was debating some minutes ago is whether is right or wrong Michael had sleepeovers with minor children. I may be bias myself because there's plenty of evidence Michael never harmed or abused any child but since he wasn't that kind of criminal, I don't see the problem. What do you guys think?

The sharing bed issue is like stucking in mud. People go around and around in circles about that one point while overlooking and refusing to discuss everything else about these cases. Sharing bed may feel wrong to people, but in itself it does not prove abuse. I agree with MJresearcher that it's futile to go into a mud-wrestling with people about that, it's better to tell them: "OK, to you that looks bad, but remember that in itself does not prove anything no matter what you personally feel about it being right or wrong. To have a more clear picture of these cases we will have to dig deeper in them and look into the actual details and allegations and the accusers etc." And then you can discuss the actual cases. Just do not let the conversation go in circles about this one point of sharing bed. It will never lead to anywhere.


MJresearcher;4061795 said:
I think I heard or read somewhere that he slept in beds with unrelated adult males when he was a child but I don't remember where I heard or read it

Bobby Taylor of the Vancouvers said he shared bed with MJ when MJ was a kid:

[video=youtube;xGcGsx3psZI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGcGsx3psZI[/video]

Re. that person who says that MJ did not say that he slept on the floor while the kids sleep in bed in the Bashir interview that Gavin himself made it clear in the interview that MJ slept on the floor while he slept on the bed. Moreover there were other circumstances of that sleepover which weren't mentioned in Bashir's docu, such as MJ specifically asking Frank Cascio to be there as well:

After the first round of Gavin’s chemotherapy the Arvizo family went to Neverland in August 2000. The family at the time consisted of Gavin, his older sister Davellin, his one year younger brother Star, their mother Janet Arvizo and their father David Arvizo. They all went on that Neverland visit.

On that first visit Gavin and Star slept in Jackson’s bedroom. This is the night that is referenced in the 2003 Bashir documentary that caused big public uproar, even though both Gavin and Jackson made it clear that while the kids slept on the bed, Jackson slept on the floor:

“Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, ‘Michael you can sleep in the bed’, and he was like ‘No, no, you sleep on the bed’, and I was like ‘No, no, no, you sleep on the bed’, and then he said ‘Look, if you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. I was like ‘Oh mannnn?” so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night.

Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag?

Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.” [1]

(Emphasis added.)

What is not mentioned in the documentary is the fact that not only Jackson did not sleep in the same bed as Gavin and Star, but he also insisted on his personal assistant, Frank Cascio (also called Frank Tyson sometimes) to sleep in the room as well. Jackson’s own children, 3-year-old Prince and 2-year old Paris (Blanket was not yet born), were there as well and slept on the bed with the Arvizo kids, while the two adult men, Jackson and Cascio, slept on the floor.

Cascio recalled the situation in his 2011 book, My Friend Michael:

“Then came the night when Gavin and his brother Star pleaded with Michael to allow them to sleep with him. “Can we sleep in your room tonight? Can we sleep in your bed tonight?” the boys begged. “My mother said it’s okay, if it’s okay with you,” Gavin added. Michael, who always had a hard time saying no to kids, replied, “Sure, no problem.” But then he came to me. “She’s pushing her kids onto me,” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange, uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.”

I went to the kids and said, “Michael has to sleep. I’m sorry, you can’t stay in his room.” Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo – the mother] said to Michael, “They really want to stay with you. It’s okay with me.” Michael relented. He didn’t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, “Frank, if they’re staying in my room, you’re staying with me. I don’t trust this mother. She’s ****ed up.” I was totally against it, but I said, “All right. We do what we have to do.” Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.” [2]

It was not disputed by even the Arvizos that Frank was there as well and MJ indeed slept on the floor while Gavin, Star and MJ's children slept on the bed, so it makes no sense by this person to try to dispute this.

If the point is that there were other times when MJ did sleep on the same bed with children, yes, that happened, but like said that alone does not prove anything.

BTW, Frank Cascio addressed the sharing bed issue in his book - and I think it's a good one:

“In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light. What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family. One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him. What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family. Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?
I’m quite sure that the answer is no. The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal. The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.” [3; Kindle Locations 3738-3771]

I also do not understand the differentiating betwen blood-relatives and unrelated children. According to the people you debate with it's alright to share a bed with kids who are your blood-relatives, but it's all wrong if they are not. Are they aware that most molestations happen within families? An uncle or father or grandfather molesting a son, a daughter, a niece or a nephew. So what makes it so different in case of blood-relatives and unrelated kids then?
 
Last edited:
Thanks respect77, that's good info. I don't blame you for not wanting to get into another debate, I find them quite stressful to be honest. When I get a notification that someone else has commented on the post I have a physical stress reaction because I know what kind of horrible things people say.
 
It seems the debate is over, I just put the quotes respect provided to make that guy to see his mistake on the bed offering. Yes, debates are stressful and tiring at some point. But the pressure is less heavy when most of the people involved point out some people's double standards regarding their use of faulty "logic" when it comes to Michael. Thanks info respect!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top