Debates with the public

sometimes the silent ones are paying the most attention. That's one of the reasons why I debate, I don't go looking for it but if a friend tags me in a discussion (which is what happened here) or someone posts on this thread I'll start talking.
.

That makes sense. Doing it for the lurkers who may be on the fence or at least open minded to hear both sides of the story. The anti-MJ folks are hopeless. They seem to get great pleasure in mocking and condemning MJ and his fans. They even have a name for those who are very actively pro MJ.."f'loons" as in "f***ing loons". It's great to find folks so well versed on all the salient points like yourself. I know quite a bit but not enough to be an apologist like you. Keep it up.
 
Ah yes, I've seen the "f'loons" thing, but only on the mjfacts site so far. Yet another one of their demonstrations f their intellectual and emotional maturity. LOL!!!
 
I've noticed that people who think MJ is guilty always end up resorting to childish name calling
 
I find there to be too many moving parts of this equation to get into all the details with people who have no real interest in truth and who didn't follow the case ..

when they say how could a 45 y/o man be in bed with a child and not molest them I tell them that it sounds like they are in effect saying it is more natural to molest a child when you are in the same bed with them and leave them with, 'that's your ish, not Michael Jackson's" .

2Timothy shows its the value system of the world.

If not for MJ I would not have ever learned that scriptural significance to how people think being that he set a good example in tryin his best to live it.

And I like T-Mez approach too - stayi calm, say I believe_______ and fil in the blanks with a few enlightening truths
 
Last edited:
I understand people having suspicions about adults being in the same bed as children but suspicion and conclusion are two very different things, some people seem to think that there isn't any reason besides sexual activity that a child would be in bed with an unrelated adult. People usually don't seem to have a problem with a parent and their child being in the same bed but in reality many children who are molested are in fact molested by their own parent.

I'm not sure why people think it isn't possible for an adult to share a bed with an unrelated child without it being sexual, I know of people who do this with the children of their close friends with no problem, and I think it's probably more common than we think, but I doubt many people would admit to it for fear of being labeled a predator. In reality, what people are arguing is personal incredulity. They don't know or understand a reason apart from sex as to why bed sharing would occur so they conclude that there mustn't be one.

This is a flawed concept because they're only thinking of it from their own perspective. Just because they can't think of any other reason, that does not mean that there isn't one. A major mistake people make when talking about this is that they project what they think onto it, but this isn't about them and what they think of it, the question was around what Michael thought about it since he was the one accused, therefore, it's his opinion and intentions that are important, not other people's.

People often say that it's not "normal" for adults and kids to share the same bed when they're unrelated and while I can agree that it's not the best idea, it seems to have been normal for Michael growing up. First he was sharing his bed with his brothers, then with people like Bobby Taylor. When a person has grown up like this it's not unlikely that this is what they'll consider normal because that's how things were for years of their life while they were growing up. I also think it's unrealistic for people to except social normality from a person who's social life and life in general was quite different to that of a person who didn't ever live the same way and had a normal life. Again, it seems to be a case of people looking at things only from their own perspective.
 
The thing too is that its also about perspective. MJ was on national tv in an obvious context that was pretty clear to all who saw it. There was not any form of 'public outcry' that caused the firestorm that ensued.

It wasn't like all the tv stations got thousands of letters in response to seeing MJ holding hands and having that conversation because the truth and fact is, there was no question about it.

The actions of MJ therefore are not truly the question, and the public is not all that confused.

They are doing the herd mentality thing, crowd hysteria thing, the sheep -herd following thing as Sneddon knew they would.

To answer the thread question, I tell them first it was never a child molestation case, It was proven in court it was failed extortion attempt. = INNOCENT - NOT - NOT GUILTY.
 
Last edited:
Share - To allow someone to use or enjoy something that one possesses.

It is what got Michael into trouble. Michael says to Martin Bashir that he did this, with Gavin Arvizo present. Gavin didn't think it was odd, because Michael was sharing what he possessed, an expensive home and the fine furnishings. Gavin and his family enjoyed Michael's hospitality, but because of the word "share" Michael was busted for being inappropriate with a minor. It just proves how sinister people are. It seems to me that covetousness is what people became and didn't want to use or enjoy what Michael possessed, but to take what they didn't earn.

So the guilty parties are the Arvizo's, the Chandler's and now Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Being covetous is condemned in the Holy Bible. But...sharing what one possesses is not. "There is more happiness in giving than in receiving."
 
^ well when using the word, 'busted' I know what u mean although it connotes to mean, 'caught doing something wrong or inappropriate' and so in answer to the thread question, Tom Sneddon was busted during court proceedings, caught in the act of perpetrating a malicious prosecution, wasting the court's and the peoples' time and a boat load of tax payer dollars. He had too much clout it seems to have been prosecuted for it but he still reaped what he sowed..

The biggest problem MJ has/had at this point is that TS used the words, Child M********** in the same sentence with the words, Michael Jackson and he did it for a purpose/agenda that keeps being served by those of us (due respect) everytime we let them bog us down into the details of something after they've shown a low level of interest, awareness and understanding of, and all because of the 'follower' mentality which Sned was counting on.. As soon as mass consciouness shifts, so will their opinions because we are dealing with those who have to be told what to think by opinion polls..

That's why sit-coms are written on a 4th grade level.So the masses can be easily entertained. They imho don't deserve all the energy. Half them may just be perpetrators themselves throwing off on MJ - why - because its easy - sort of like how empty headed people spend their energy making bad 'blonde' or 'Polish' jokes.. Most of them are not worth the time to explain a concept called intelligence.

The world/press/fans/public need to call that thing exactly what it really was and stop calling it what it wasn't, furthering and fulfilling Sned & Co.'s desire to keep Michael's name in a class with a bad name.

More accurately if it has to be brought up, it is more accurately imho, The Michael Jackson Failed Malicious Prosecution Attempt Case or The Michael Jackson Failed Extortion Attempt Case.

NOT the Michael Jackson Child M********** Case because that is NOT what it was. Never was about that. Never will be. These new deceitful perpetrators already know.

That's what I wish you would tell them because it sure is what I tell them, with as few words as possible.
 
Last edited:
One thing I learned is that if you're gonna debate with people is to never say that you're a fan. For some reason not saying you're a fan gives you more credibility
 
I agree, I never say that I'm a fan, all that appears to do is give people a reason not to listen to you. I think it's funny though,I've seen some people write off anyone who is a fan as biased people who shouldn't be listened to, but then they listen to people who are biased from the other side. Realistically I'm not convinced that it's possible for people to be completely unbiased, to do so you'd have to remove emotion and any other biased patterns of thinking which I don't think is completely possible.

Even is a person who is presenting information is biased, it doesn't really matter that much as long as you know how to think critically and check information for yourself. It's possible for biased people to present correct information, and at the end of the day it's the information presented that needs to be considered. I see a lot of people post things on social media about a variety of topics and the information is false. Some people believe things too easily and I think at least one reason for that is because they don't know how to analyze the information.

First of all, getting information from a primary source is important. As information is passed along, from second to third hand and more details can be added or lost, either on purpose or accidentally, someone may not have properly understood information they were given and when they passed it along they explained it in a way that they understood which may not have been accurate. Others may have an agenda with information and change parts of it to fit with what they want and then pass it off as fact. It's like when you get 10 people in a room to stand in a line next to each other and pass along something that was said to them to them to the next person. By the time the message gets to the end it can be very different to what it originally was. Primary sources aren't immune from having bias or inaccurate information either, everything should be checked for accuracy. A good example is Sneddon when he wrote up documents for court, like the one where he claimed Chandler's description of MJ's genitals was correct. It was not, but Sneddon had an agenda, the information was gathered for the purpose of building a case against MJ and to have him sent to prison.

It's easy for people to get confused when reading legal documents about this because it can be written in a way that can be difficult for people to understand because they're a layperson. This is where researching legal definitions of words needs to be done (sometimes the legal definition of a word is different from the dictionary definition) and different laws and codes mentioned in documents also need to be looked at so people may understand what exactly is being spoken about. Understanding the legal process and how it works and why is very important, or it can be all too easy for people to misunderstand or misinterpret something that happened. The Chandler settlement is a great example of the public's lack of understanding of how law does and does not work.

One thing people get tripped up on is the word evidence. Many people seem to misunderstand what it means. For example, when MJ's ranch was raided, everything taken from there was considered to be evidence. It looks like some people took that to mean that this meant that there was "proof" of wrongdoing, but that's not accurate. For example, the heterosexual porn found there was considered evidence, but a man having that kind of thing does not prove that he is a child molester. Evidence in this case can be something that could have relevance to an allegation, but relevance and proof of wrongdoing aren't the same. Evidence that can support a conclusion is what people need to look at, and they can get confused there too because they mix speculation and assumptions into it. Those need to be kept out of it, those things are not facts.

Omission of information is another problem. Many times we've seen articles about the Chandler settlement but the fact that civil settlements don't stop anyone from participating in criminal investigations or testifying in a criminal trial is omitted from the articles which gives people a very different view of the settlement. Doing some homework on the difference between civil and criminal cases, and then looking up legal information about witness tampering and obstruction of justice will inform a person of how these things really work.

Consistency is very important when considering information, if you run into a lot of inconsistent details it's usually because something is very wrong with what you're being presented. The reputation of the person the info is coming from is very important. Do they keep accurate records? Do they have an agenda? Are they known for being honest or are they known to lie? In media like tabloids, their purpose is to make money, they're a business. The most interesting looking headlines and juicy sounding stories are what sell the most, and since there is plenty of competing businesses doing the same, they're more likely to spice things up to grab the attention of their audiences. The way articles are worded is something to pay attention to, words like allegedly are used when describing a claim by a person, using this word covers them because they aren't trying to state for a fact that this event or allegation happened, when they do they're open to being sued. The language, demeanor and attitude of a person presenting info can have a big influence on what people think about something and they may not even consciously realise it.

Sometimes when multiple news outlets report the same thing people think this means that the info being passed on has been corroborated which is not always true. Having info corroborated by different sources can be helpful in determining the accuracy of the info, but we must be careful of this too. Multiple children in the McMartin Preschool case told stories about satanic rituals and underground tunnels and none of that was true. This proves that it is in fact possible for multiple sources to say the same thing and still be wrong. Manipulation and bad interviewing techniques can lead to this happening.
 

This sharing of Michael's bed with other's was totally taken out of context of the whole discussion of Michael sharing his bed with those who are less fortunate than he is. When you watch the segment of Michael and Gavin Arvizo, you watch a most sinister human being, Martin Bashir, be the master manipulator. Michael didn't want to be judged for being this kind of an individual, but that's exactly what happened to him. Michael is a kind man always looking out for children and their individual rights!
 
@MJresearcher

Yes, and those are the typical fallacies haters rely on. Taking things out of context and relying on people's ignorance about legal matters and about the facts of these cases. For example, they love to use prosecution motions as if they are facts and when they post them on various Internet forums, well, they are official court papers, so people erroneously think that whatever is written in them is an established, proven fact. When it's just the biased claims, theories and opinions of one of the parties. People just do not know how to read court docs and that includes even journalists - see Alan Duke claiming that the Estate tried to "silence the victim" when they just said they did not want to answer a long list of questions about topics they have already answered elsewhere. Of course, in journalists' case this could be a case of deliberate misinterpretation for the sake of sensationalism, and I think in most cases it probably is. Just like on haters' part, but some other people believe these things because they have been shown some court motion and they do not know how to read it and what it means and that court motions are just the biased claims of one of the parties, not proven, established facts. And people are also lazy. For example, that whole FBI files crap. The Mirror provided documents as "proof" but if people had actually clicked on those docs and read them (and didn't just read the article itself) they could have seen that those docs did not prove anything the article claimed... Of course, it would have also helped if they knew the story behind those docs and how they came from Paul Barresi rather than the FBI etc, but even if they had just clicked on them without any knowlede and they had read them they should have wondered: "Wait! And how does this prove what is claimed in the article? Where is the FBI stating that MJ paid off 24 boys?" But most people aren't even doing that. Journalists do that damn well and they rely on such tactics.
 
I took a screenshot from one of the documents where the judge says he has to take the claims as being true at this stage of the lawsuit to determine whether or not it has a legal basis to go forward because I knew people would misunderstand what's happening with it, that way nobody can claim that it's being taken as "fact" because there's any truth in it. Lack of understanding is a major problem that leads people to make incorrect conclusions and once they do they can be very reluctant to let them go. It's infuriatingly easy for court papers to be misrepresented by media and then people believe it blindly because they still naively trust the press. Ironically, these are often the same people who refer to fans as "sheep".

I think sometimes when people see an article that has a document attached they just assume that the article accurately sums the document up, and some people think that the press wouldn't be dishonest about a a document when it's directly linked to an article but all that does is create a blind trust and then people don't even read the document because of that logic. Sadly a lot of people can't be bothered reading an entire document and most probably wouldn't understand it anyway and making an effort to do so it just too hard so we have to do the work for them and present it in a way they'll understand. This is why I like animals more than I like people lol.
 
2qx6ntc.jpg
 
Hi guys!

I've been thinking about this story on how Jordan Chandler told his father he was abused only after he was medicated by him. Now, I've seen fans using it in debates to show it took drugs for Jordan to cooperate with his father and that his father planted those sudden "memories" in his head - meaning this argument is supposed to clear Michael's name. On the other hand, the story came from the Chandlers and I don't see how or why they'd put in a story that clears Michael's name. So what was the purpose of this story. really? Jordan never repeated the things he said when he was allegedly medicated, right? Does this story really show Michael's innocence?
 
InvincibleTal;4068394 said:
Hi guys!

I've been thinking about this story on how Jordan Chandler told his father he was abused only after he was medicated by him. Now, I've seen fans using it in debates to show it took drugs for Jordan to cooperate with his father and that his father planted those sudden "memories" in his head - meaning this argument is supposed to clear Michael's name. On the other hand, the story came from the Chandlers and I don't see how or why they'd put in a story that clears Michael's name. So what was the purpose of this story. really? Jordan never repeated the things he said when he was allegedly medicated, right? Does this story really show Michael's innocence?

That Evan medicated Jordan was admitted by the Chandlers. They only denied the Sodium Amytal. At least in the hindsight. At the time IMO that story came from them. And why? Here is what I think:

[h=1]The Use of Sodium Amytal?[/h]By Michael Jackson Allegations on <abbr class="date time published" title="2014-01-21T13:40:22+0000">January 21, 2014</abbr> in Site Content
Mary A. Fischer, in her October, 1994 GQ Magazine article writes that when Jordan was sedated in his father&#8217;s office on July 16th, 1993, allegedly, he was administered the controversial drug Sodium Amytal, which studies have shown can make the human mind suggestible. Fischer wrote that through the use of Sodium Amytal false memories might have been implanted in Jordan&#8217;s mind. However, according to Anthony Pellicano about two weeks later, on August 4, 1993 (the day the Chandlers made their demand for $20 million of Michael Jackson [details in this article]) while Evan read passages from Dr. Mathis Abrams&#8217; letter to Jackson and his people, when he arrived at the parts about child molestation &#8220;the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say &#8220;I didn&#8217;t say that.&#8221; [1] Jordan&#8217;s uncle Ray Chandler himself uses this defense against the Sodium Amytal story in an article he has written for his now defunct website (atgbook.net) in 2005:
&#8220;Ironically, the person who best refutes Fischer&#8217;s drug fairytale is none other than Anthony Pellicano. In December of 1993 Pellicano described Jordie&#8217;s behavior at the August 4 Westwood Marquis meeting as follows: The father began to read the psychiatrists letter, which cited the criminal statutes that applied to child abuse. &#8220;Jordie was looking down,&#8221; [Pellicano said] &#8220;and he pops his head up and looks at Michael like, &#8216;I didn&#8217;t say that.'&#8221; According to Pellicano, just two weeks after the alleged brainwashing Jordie wasn&#8217;t brainwashed at all! He was acting embarrassed and guilty about the accusations his father had made.&#8221; [2]
&#8220;Ironically&#8221;, with this defense against the Sodium Amytal story Chandler acknowledges the credibility of Pellicano&#8217;s account. If Chandler brings up Pellicano&#8217;s account as a defense against the Sodium Amytal claim then logically that means he acknowledges it as accurate. Pellicano&#8217;s account supports the theory that Jordan&#8217;s memory was not altered. Jackson&#8217;s 2005 attorney, Thomas Mesereau said he had witnesses who, if Jordan testified against Jackson at the 2005 trial, would tell the jury that Jordan privately confided in them that Jackson never molested him. If this is true then this too supports that Jordan&#8217;s memory was not altered. Ray Chandler in his book and article admits that Jordan was sedated on July 16 for a minor dental procedure (pulling a baby tooth), but he denies that Sodium Amytal was used. In his 2005 article Ray Chandler speculatively tries to attribute the origination of the Sodium Amytal story to Jackson&#8217;s camp, but Fischer cites her sources for the story, none of whom belong to the Jackson camp. One of her sources was a report by &#8220;a newsman at KCBS-TV&#8221;. We know from Ray Chandler&#8217;s 2005 article that the newsman was Harvey Levin (since then known as the founder of celebrity gossip website TMZ). Fischer wrote in 1994:
&#8220;A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son&#8217;s tooth and that while under the drug&#8217;s influence, the boy came out with allegations.&#8221; [1]
From the wording (&#8220;the dentist claimed&#8221; and the emphasis on that it was used &#8220;only to pull his son&#8217;s tooth&#8221;) it seems that the source of Levin&#8217;s information was Evan Chandler himself or someone on his side, but Ray Chandler in his article denies this. Mary Fischer herself asked Mark Torbiner, Evan&#8217;s Anesthesiologist, the person who supposedly sedated Jordan, and he answered somewhat ambiguously: &#8220;If I used it, it was for dental purposes&#8221; [1]. Ray Chandler in 2005 cannot get a flat-out denial from Torbiner either. In the footnotes to his article he writes:
&#8220;Fischer claimed that she spoke to Torbiner and that he told her &#8220;If I used it [the drug], it was for dental purposes.&#8221; Dr. Torbiner would not respond to inquiries about what, if anything, he told Fischer. His attorney stated that Torbiner was bound by the doctor-patient privilege and could not discuss the issue without written consent from his patient.&#8221; [2]
We don&#8217;t know Levin&#8217;s sources for his claim, but we do know that Fischer&#8217;s source, Mark Torbiner was a member of the Chandler camp, not the Jackson camp. Though he did not directly claim he used Sodium Amytal on Jordan, but he made an ambiguous statement about it. In the spring of 1994, when this story first appeared through Harvey Levin, there was a high profile child abuse trial featured in the American media with the protaginist Sodium Amytal. In that case a 23-year-old woman, Holly Ramona accused her father of raping her when she was a child. However, her father counter-sued Holly&#8217;s therapist for implanting false memories in her mind with hypnosis and with the use of Sodium Amytal. In that trial, evidence revealed that the drug was unreliable. [3] At the time the prosecution in the Jackson case were still pursuing the Chandlers to testify against the entertainer in a criminal case. Los Angeles district attorney, Gil Garcetti said right after the Chandler settlement in January 1994:
&#8220;The criminal investigation of singer Michael Jackson is ongoing and will not be affected by the announcement of the civil case settlement,&#8221; Garcetti said. &#8220;The district attorney&#8217;s office is taking Mr. [Larry] Feldman [the Chandlers&#8217; attorney] at his word that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.&#8221; [4]
A claim that Sodium Amytal was used on Jordan would be a good way for the Chandlers to impeach him and allege that his memories are unreliable and thus get the prosecution off their back. Remember, the Chandlers already had their money from the settlement and never wanted to testify in a criminal court [for details see our article about The Settlement]. However, whether Sodium Amytal was used or not is not pivotal in this case at all. As you can read in this article, the Chandlers&#8217; version of how Jordan came up with the allegations is very problematic in itself, even without the introduction of Sodium Amytal into the story.

And here is the story by the Chandlers about how Evan got Jordan to say he was molested. But reading the Chandler book I do not believe Jordan actually claimed anything that day. Why? Here:

[h=1]How Did The Allegations of the Chandlers Emerge?[/h]By Michael Jackson Allegations on <abbr class="date time published" title="2014-01-21T13:19:10+0000">January 21, 2014</abbr> in Site Content
On July 11, 1993 Jordan Chandler, who was residing with his mother June Chandler, went to visit his father for a week but at the end of the week Evan Chandler refused to return the boy to his mother. This was the week when Jordan&#8217;s allegations against Michael Jackson began to take shape. The Chandlers claimed that the boy&#8217;s confessions of abuse were made after Evan sedated him for a minor dental procedure (pulling a baby tooth) with the help of his Anesthesiologist and friend, Mark Torbiner on July 16, just one day before Evan was scheduled to return his son to his ex-wife. According to the Chandlers&#8217; story, as presented in Ray Chandler&#8217;s 2004 book All That Glitters, after Jordan emerged from the sedation Evan pressured him to &#8220;confess&#8221; and corroborate his suspicions that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him. The boy refused. Then Evan started to blackmail him with lies and threats against his friend, Michael Jackson. First Evan claimed he had bugged Jordan&#8217;s bedroom (admittedly a lie).
&#8220;When Jordie came strolling back from the kitchen, Evan went on the attack. &#8220;Have a seat, and listen very carefully to what I&#8217;m about to say. Do you remember when you came over to the house I told you that if you lie to me I was going to destroy Michael?&#8221; Jordie nodded that he did. &#8220;Good. Keep that in mind, because I&#8217;m going to ask you a question. Do you care about Michael?&#8221; &#8220;Yes,&#8221; the boy answered. &#8216;You could say you love him, right?&#8221; &#8220;Yes.&#8221; &#8220;And you wouldn&#8217;t want to hurt him?&#8221; &#8220;No.&#8221; &#8220;Okay then, let me remind you of something. Remember I told you I bugged your bedroom?&#8221; Jordie nodded. &#8220;Well, I know everything you guys did, so you might as well admit it.&#8221; [1; page 90]
But Jordan remained &#8220;silent, seemingly unimpressed&#8221;[1; page 90] and &#8220;sensing this, Evan quickly changed tack&#8221; [1; page 90]. Then hetried to cajole Jordan by telling him that being bisexual was not only OK but was &#8220;sorta cool, in a way&#8221;[1; page 91]. That didn&#8217;t work either, Jordan still would not say that Jackson molested him. Then Evan&#8217;s threats against Jackson became more direct and more aggressive:
&#8220;I&#8217;m going to give you one last chance to save Michael. If you lie to me, then I&#8217;m going to take him down in front of the whole world, and it&#8217;ll be all your fault because you&#8217;re the one person who could have saved him. [1; page 91]&#8221;
and
&#8220;I know about the kissing and the jerking off, so you&#8217;re not telling me anything I don&#8217;t already know,&#8221; Evan lied. &#8220;This isn&#8217;t about me finding anything out. It&#8217;s about lying. And you know what&#8217;s going to happen if you lie. So I&#8217;m going to make it very easy for you. I&#8217;m going to ask you one question. All you have to do is say yes, or no. That&#8217;s it. Lie and Michael goes down. Tell me the truth and you save him. [1; page 91]&#8221;
Jordan by this time, of course, knew what his father would consider &#8220;the truth&#8221; and what would he consider a &#8220;lie&#8221;, since Evan made that very clear. Ray Chandler writes in his book: &#8220;In his heart, Evan already knew the truth; he didn&#8217;t need Jordie to confirm it.&#8221; [1; page 91] In other words Evan had a fixed, preconceived idea that Jackson had molested his son and he would only accept confirmation from Jordan as &#8220;the truth&#8221;. Everything else would be considered a &#8220;lie&#8221; and would result in Evan acting to &#8220;taking down&#8221; the entertainer. And this is when Jordan, after pleading his father not to hurt Jackson, allegedly, gave in:
&#8220;Okay. What&#8217;s the question?&#8221; &#8220;Did Michael touch your penis?&#8221; Jordie hesitated. Then, almost inaudibly, he whispered &#8220;Yes.&#8221; Evan would press no further. He had heard all he needed to hear. He reached out and hugged his son, and Jordie hugged back, tight. &#8220;We never talked about it again,&#8221; Evan later told the L.A. district attorney. To Evan, the details didn&#8217;t matter. &#8220;The prison walls had cracked and I was confident the rest would take care of itself.&#8221; [1; page 91-92]
After all these threats and blackmailing Jordan &#8220;confesses&#8221; with an almost inaudible &#8220;yes&#8221; and we are to believe that Evan doesn&#8217;t have any further questions? Supposedly his son has just confessed he has been molested but his father is not interested in details, such as when, where, how, how many times and exactly what happened, under what circumstancis was his son&#8217;s penis touched by another man? In actuality, Evan later tells the Los Angeles DA that &#8220;we never talked about it again&#8221;. It would only make sense if Evan knew there were no details to be told. It also seems to be an attempt on Evan&#8217;s part to distance himself from the allegations, so that he could not be accused of coaching his son. All the &#8220;details&#8221; would later coalesce when we hear about the masturbation, mutual masturbation and oral sex claims but these &#8220;details&#8221; only surface after Jordan spends more time in his father&#8217;s care and in the office of Evan&#8217;s attorney, Barry Rothman, a person that Evan himself described in his taped phone conversation with David Schwartz as the &#8220;nastiest son of a bitch&#8221; [2]. It must be emphasized that the above described story of Jordan&#8217;s alleged &#8220;confession&#8221; about the abuse is based solely on Ray Chandler&#8217;s account in All That Glitters and we do not know how much of it is true. Even if it is completely true, the way Jordan was coerced and threatened into a &#8220;confession&#8221; would make these allegations very problematic. However, there are reasons to doubt the claim that Jordan &#8220;confessed&#8221; anything at all on July 16. In All That Glitters it is claimed that on July 20 Jordan&#8217;s mother, June Chandler and her then husband, David Schwartz met Evan&#8217;s attorney, Barry Rothman in his office. During that meeting Dr. Mathis Abrams&#8217; letter (a letter that Dr. Abrams wrote without having even met Jordan [More about Abrams&#8217; letter in our article about Evan Chandler&#8217;s &#8220;Suspicions&#8221;.]) was shown to them and it was demanded that they sign a document that would transfer custody of Jordan from June to Evan. Although Rothman and Evan Chandler wanted to convince June Chandler and David Schwartz that Jordan had been molested by Jackson &#8211; and as a tool for that they used Dr. Abrams&#8217; letter &#8211; Jordan&#8217;s alleged confession was not mentioned to them during that meeting. In All That Glitters it is claimed that it was because Evan did not tell Rothman about Jordan&#8217;s alleged &#8220;confession&#8221;. The reason given is that Evan did not want to betray the boy&#8217;s trust. On August 4 Evan and Jordan met with Jackson and his private investigator, Anthony Pellicano at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Evan read Dr. Abrams&#8217; letter to them and after the meeting Evan and Rothman invited Pellicano to Rothman&#8217;s office where they made a $20 million demand to not to go public with allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson. [Details about that meeting in our article about The Chandlers&#8217; Monetary Demands.]
However, according to Ray Chandler&#8217;s book, on August 6 Jordan was still unwilling to tell his mother, June Chandler that Jackson had allegedly molested him. Ray Chandler claims it was because the boy was &#8220;too ashamed&#8221;[1; page 111]. This could be possible, of course, however Evan himself still did not mention Jordan&#8217;s alleged &#8220;confession&#8221; to his ex-wife either, although he is described as being desperate to convince June that their son had been molested by Jackson. The explanation given in the book is once again that Evan did not want to betray the boy&#8217;s trust.Evan is quoted in the book as saying: &#8220;It shouldn&#8217;t have mattered, anyway,&#8221; Evan believed. &#8220;I am his father and if I&#8217;m telling her our child has been molested, that should be enough.&#8221; [1; page 112] The book describes a peculiar sequence of events on August 9-11. June took Jordan to the movies, but Evan only allowed it &#8220;on the condition that she not badger Jordie with questions&#8221; [1; page 115]. Keep in mind that meanwhile Evan is desperate to convince June that their son had been molested by Jackson, yet he does not allow June, the boy&#8217;s mother, to personally ask Jordan about it. According to the book, the next day June again took out Jordan to lunch and she and her then-husband, David Schwartz started to ask him questions: &#8220;What&#8217;s your dad up to? How much money did he ask for? Did Rothman file for custody?&#8221; [1; page 116] The book claims that this made Jordan threaten them that he would call the &#8220;cops&#8221; if they did not take him back to his father, so June took him back to Evan. The book describes this as a dramatic &#8220;abduction&#8221; attempt by June [1; page 116] which makes little sense because June had legal custody over the boy, so the &#8220;cops&#8221; could not have done anything to force her to return Jordan to Evan if she had not voluntarily wanted to. Keep in mind that this version of the events is just Ray and Evan Chandler&#8217;s version and it does not mean it is the truth, but this is their story. The story in the book goes on:
&#8220;When they arrived, June told her son that if Evan were telling the truth she would join forces with them to see Michael punished. Safely inside his father&#8217;s house, Jordie told Evan what had occurred, and about June&#8217;s offer to help if she could be convinced. Evan knew the only chance of accomplishing this was for Jordie to tell June everything, which the boy was still reluctant to do. &#8220;I realized for the first time I was going to have break my promise to Jordie and tell June he admitted to being touched. Things were totally out of control and it was the only way to end the insanity.&#8221; [1; page 116]
It is very ironic that Evan talks about an &#8220;insanity&#8221; when it was his behaviour that was bizarre. Why all the drama, secrecy and complications when he could have simply told June immediately after July 16 that Jordan had confessed to him that he was inappropriately touched by Michael Jackson? Are we to believe that while Evan is described as desperate to convince June that Jackson molested their son, for almost a month he would not mention to her the single most important &#8220;evidence&#8221;, Jordan&#8217;s own confession? The explanation that Evan did not mention it because he did not want to betray Jordan&#8217;s trust is hard to believe considering the fact that he did not have a problem with betraying his son or lying to him on other occasions. Additionally, Evan had already claimed to other people, including June, that Jackson had allegedly molested Jordan, basing his claim on Dr. Abrams&#8217; letter. Why would telling Jordan&#8217;s mother about the alleged &#8220;confession&#8221; of the boy be a bigger &#8220;betrayal&#8221;? Even on August 10, when June told Jordan that she would help them punish Jackson if Jordan confirmed his father&#8217;s claims, the boy was still reluctant to do so. The confirmation would finally come the next morning, according to the book, when Jordan called his mother and told her about his allegations on the phone &#8211; with Evan standing next to him. June then requested to talk to the boy alone, but Evan refused to let them. Evan&#8217;s reasoning in the book was that he did not trust June after her &#8220;attempt to abduct&#8221; Jordan, and that June and David Schwartz expressed to him their suspicion that Evan had coerced Jordan into making allegations against Jackson. With the above described events June did have a good reason to suspect that and Evan not letting the boy talk to her alone certainly would not be the way to dispel that suspicion. Nor would the fact that during this period Evan and his lawyer, Barry Rothman continued to demand money from Jackson which is discussed in detail in this article. On August 16, June Chandler&#8217;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&#8217;s refusal to pay him off, on August 17 Evan took Jordan to Dr. Abrams where the boy first made his detailed allegations against Michael Jackson, which inevitably involved the authorities, made the allegations public and afforded Evan the ability to get custody of Jordan. In Ray Chandler&#8217;s book we read:
&#8220;In a phone conversation the night before Freeman&#8217;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&#8217;t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.&#8221; [1; page 119]
Consider the fact that Evan should have returned Jordan to his mother on July 16. To claim in the hindsight that Jordan &#8220;confessed&#8221; to him that day about having allegedly been molested by Michael Jackson, would be a good way for Evan to justify why he did not. However, the events which took place between July 16 and August 17, as described above, make that claim dubious at least.
 
Thank you for these 2 articles - So the Chandlers planted the medication story so they can later find a way out of the criminal lawsuit, know it will turn up against them (or against their claims)? And then they denied it?

I didn't know Harvey Levin had a direct contact with the Chandlers at the time...
 
InvincibleTal;4068404 said:
Thank you for these 2 articles - So the Chandlers planted the medication story so they can later find a way out of the criminal lawsuit, know it will turn up against them (or against their claims)? And then they denied it?

Well, that's my theory. I do not think that claim came from MJ's camp. The whole way that report by Levin was worded suggests it came from the Chandler camp and also Torbiner's ambigious answer to Mary Fischer. If it's not something the Chandlers wanted to be out there at the time then he would have flat out denied it IMO.

Anyway, IMO sometimes fans and haters alike are being lead astray by red herrings. IMO the Sodium Amytal stuff is such a red herring (and IMO it was planted by the Chandlers) even though Mary Fischer who reported on it meant well (and I think her article is useful for many other aspects). It's actually not important whether Jordan was given SA or not because as you can see the whole emergence of his allegations is problematic in itself, even without SA.

There was definitely something shady going on in that dental office with the sedation though. I have never heard about a kid being sedated for a baby tooth being pulled. IMO Evan did try something but it did not work. And even if Jordan really was given SA I do not think it worked. Ray Chandler is actually right in that argument that it does not make sense to say that Jordan had an altered memory when two weeks later according to Pellicano's story he behaved ashamed and guilty about what his father had alleged. We cannot have it both ways. Of course, the Chandlers cannot have it both ways either - that's why it's nice for us that with that argument Ray Chandler actually acknowledged the credibility of Pellicano's account. LOL.

And BTW, I also wonder if Evan and Torbiner tried something shady on MJ as well earlier. I always found this story in their book very strange:

The singer was walking in circles, holding his head. "I didn't sleep all night," he complained. "I've got a bad headache. I get them all the time.'
"Do you know what causes them?" Evan asked.
"Yeah, I've had them ever since my hair caught fire. They said it's from the surgery."
Evan offered the standard remedies, aspirin and Tylenol, but Michael insisted they had no effect on him and that his doctor usually gave him a shot of something, he didn't know what. When Evan suggested that he call his doctor, Michael refused. He didn't want to bother the man on a holiday weekend. Instead, he asked Evan if he could give him something stronger.
Evan rattled off a list of drugs to see if he could find out what Michael's doctor used. When he mentioned Demerol, Michael said that sounded familiar. Evan did not use Demerol in his practice, so he called Mark Torbiner for advice. The anesthesiologist suggested an injection of Toradol, a non-narcotic equivalent to Demerol, and offered to pick some up at Evan's office and bring it to his house.
Evan injected 30 mg, half the maximum dose, into Michael's gluteus. But one hour later the star claimed he was still in a lot of pain, so Evan administered the remaining half and instructed him to lie down and try to relax.
"Keep an eye on him," Evan told Jordie. "It'll take a few minutes to kick in. I'll be right hack.
"When I went back to check on him, maybe ten minutes later," Evan recalled," he was acting weird, babbling incoherently and slurring his speech. Toradol is a pretty safe drug, and I thought that either he was having a rare reaction or had taken another drug and was having a combination reaction."
Other than the drunk-like symptoms, Michael's pulse and respirations were normal and he appeared to be in no real danger. So Evan took no further action.
But Jordie was scared. He had seen his friend "acting strange" before, but never like this.
Don t worry," Evan assured his son, "Right now Michael's the happiest person in the world. All we need to do is keep him awake and talking until the drug wears off."
our hours and a serious case of cottonmouth later, Michael began to sober up While Jordie was downstairs fetching water, Evan decided to take advance of Michael's still uninhibited but somewhat coherent condition. "Hey, Mike, I was just wondering ... I mean, I don't care either way, hut I know some of your closest people are gay, and I was wondering if you're gay too.
"You'd be surprised about a lot of people in this town," Michael mumbled, as he rattled off the names of a few prominent Hollywood players who were still in the closet.
Evan tried to get back on track before Jordie returned. He stroked Michael's hair and reassured him, "I don't care if you're gay, Mike. I just want you to know you can tell me if you are."
"Uh-uh," Michael slurred. "Not me."
Given Michael's willingness to talk openly about everyone else's sexuality, his consistent denial about being gay reinforced Evan's belief that the singer was asexual.

That's just an extremely weird story and I wonder what they really gave to Michael and for what purpose...
Did they give Michael SA hoping to get things out of him? Who knows...

Also keep in mind that according to Carrie Fisher's autobiography Evan and Torbiner were those shady Hollywood docs. This is from her book:

&#8220;But getting back to the special medical access I mentioned earlier, I had this dentist at the time, a Dr. Evan Chandler, who was a very strange character. He was what would be referred to as the Dentist to the Stars! And as one of the people who would have unnecessary dental work just for the morphine, this man was one of those people who could arrange such a welcome service. He referred his patients to a mobile anesthesiologist who would come into the office to put you out for the dental work. And as if that wasn&#8217;t glorious enough, this anesthesiologist could also be easily and financially persuaded to come to your house to administer the morphine for your subsequent luxury pain relief. And I would extend my arms, veins akimbo, and say to this man&#8212;&#8220;Send me away, but don&#8217;t send me all the way.&#8221;
 
Last edited:
I agree it didn't come from Michael's camp, why would they spread rumors about Jordan saying he was molested under any circumstances? So, anyway, this argument isn't really that good in debates - if we want to keep it factual. But why did the Chandlers bother to deny it? To clear Evan's name (since he drugged his son)?

It almost feels like after they got their money the Chandlers didn't care if their story sounds reliable or not. Though Evan did try to sue Michael again when he did PTL and all that.

That Ray Chandler book isn't good for them either...

BTW - Do I undestand correctly? Both Jordan and Michael were at the same lawyers meeting?
 
When I see videos like this, I think that the majority of people don't believe any of these allegations
If the majority of people believed it, there's no way they'd be doing something like this
 
I agree it didn't come from Michael's camp, why would they spread rumors about Jordan saying he was molested under any circumstances? So, anyway, this argument isn't really that good in debates - if we want to keep it factual. But why did the Chandlers bother to deny it? To clear Evan's name (since he drugged his son)?

To use Sodium Amytal (which is a potent psychiatric drug) supposedly to pull your son's baby tooth would be ethically questionable at the very least, so when they did not need the SA story any more (10 years later when Ray published his book and the article quoted in the above article) they denied it and acted like they had nothing to do with it. At the time when the story was put out in 1994, however Sneddon and Co. still pressured them to get them testify and the mention of SA would be a good way to get the prosecution off their back, I guess. It's just a theory and I obviously cannot tell for sure what was on their mind. What I know for sure is that the SA story is not pivotal for our argument at all, in fact I feel it's a bit of a red herring.

Maybe Evan did try something on Jordan that day in the dental office (like I said the whole sedation thing sounds shady), maybe he even tried that with SA, I just do not think it had the desired effect. Maybe they even tried SA on MJ (see the story above) but that too did not have the desired effect. To give someone SA is one thing, but you need experience as a psychiatrist/therapist to be able to plant false memories with the help of SA and Evan did not have that kind of experience. So IF SA was used IMO it was a failed attempt at something. There is no reason to believe Jordan was given false memories (see Pellicano's account, see Tom Mesereau saying Jordan told people around him that nothing happened). After a while he knowingly went along with his father's lies.

BTW - Do I undestand correctly? Both Jordan and Michael were at the same lawyers meeting?

What do you mean?
 
Last edited:
Oh. OK so the first denial came only ten years later. It makes more sense now.

What I mean -
However, according to Anthony Pellicano about two weeks later, on August 4, 1993 (the day the Chandlers made their demand for $20 million of Michael Jackson [details in this article]) while Evan read passages from Dr. Mathis Abrams&#8217; letter to Jackson and his people, when he arrived at the parts about child molestation &#8220;the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say &#8220;I didn&#8217;t say that.&#8221; [1]

Meaning Jordan sat across the table and looked at Michael in surprise while Evan was reading stuff, correct?
 
InvincibleTal;4068421 said:
Oh. OK so the first denial came only ten years later. It makes more sense now.

What I mean -


Meaning Jordan sat across the table and looked at Michael in surprise while Evan was reading stuff, correct?

It was not a lawyers meeting. It was MJ and Pellicano meeting with Jordan and Evan at the West Marquies Hotel on August 4. That was when they blackmailed him.

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&#8217;s 1994 GQ magazine article:
&#8220;On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist&#8217;s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams&#8217;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 &#8220;I didn&#8217;t say that.&#8221; As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned &#8220;I&#8217;m going to ruin you.&#8221; [2]
The hug is mentioned in Ray Chandler&#8217;s book as well: &#8220;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.&#8221;[1; page 102] And then it is explained in a peculiar way:
&#8220;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.&#8221;If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I&#8217;d be on death row right now.&#8221; Supposedly this means that because Evan didn&#8217;t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn&#8217;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&#8217;t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael&#8217;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&#8217;t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy &#8212; that a &#8220;molestation&#8221; had occurred &#8212; did not originate in Evan&#8217;s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.&#8221; [1; page 107]
How many parents would give the person whom they suspect to have molested their child a &#8220;happy-to-see-you hug&#8221; and would &#8220;pat him on the back like an old friend&#8221;? And how many parents would have to &#8220;pretend&#8221; to be angry with the alleged molester, instead of genuinely be angry? Another remarkable aspect of the above quoted text is Evan&#8217;s apparent attempt to refrain from the use of the term &#8220;molestation&#8221;.Remember, this meeting took place after Jordan allegedly already &#8220;confessed&#8221; 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&#8217; 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&#8217;s book, Rothman warned Pellicano on August 1, that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be untrue:
&#8220;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.&#8221; [1; page 100]
As for Mary A. Fischer&#8217;s claim about the reaction of Jordan when his father read the Abrams&#8217; 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&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8220;announced he had a way of working everything out. Michael would help Jordie and Evan &#8220;reestablish their relationship&#8221; by assisting them in setting up a screenwriting career. That way they could spend lots of time together doing what they loved best.&#8221; [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 &#8220;frustrated by Pellicano&#8217;s attitude, and Michael&#8217;s apparent condoning of it&#8221; [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 &#8220;Evan then asked his son to confirm that he had, and the boy nodded affirmatively&#8221; [1; page 103], to which Jackson looked straight into Jordan&#8217;s eyes and said: &#8220;I didn&#8217;t do anything.&#8221;[1; page 103] Allegedly, for Evan this was &#8220;the defining moment&#8221;:
&#8220;For Evan, it was the defining moment. &#8220;I knew Michael was screwed up, but until that point I wasn&#8217;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. &#8220;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.&#8221; [1; page 103]
According to All That Glitters Jordan &#8220;confessed&#8221; 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&#8217;s eyes and said he didn&#8217;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 &#8220;confessed&#8221; to him? Ray Chandler closes the account of the meeting by stating:
&#8220;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&#8217;s true feelings. He had glimpse into the man&#8217;s heart, and it was not a pretty sight.&#8221; [1; page 104]
Jordan allegedly &#8220;confessed&#8221; to his father on July 16, but according to this storyline Evan &#8220;solved the puzzle&#8221; only on August 4, and does that by interpreting Jackson&#8217;s denial in a rather peculiar way. Evan&#8217;s new conviction, however, didn&#8217;t prevent him from continuing his &#8220;negotiations&#8221; with Jackson. After the Westwood Marquis Hotel meeting, Pellicano was invited to meet with Barry Rothman and Evan at Rothman&#8217;s office and that is when Evan and Rothman made their $20 million demand.
 
^ Something like that... I guess I can try to figure the timeline (or the holes in it) but I will never be able to figure\to get what the hell was Evan thinking. Considering he was bipolar I guess it's not really possible to understand.


This made me laugh:

&#8220;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.&#8221;If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I&#8217;d be on death row right now.&#8221; Supposedly this means that because Evan didn&#8217;t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn&#8217;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&#8217;t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael&#8217;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&#8217;t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy &#8212; that a &#8220;molestation&#8221; had occurred &#8212; did not originate in Evan&#8217;s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.&#8221; [1; page 107]

Exactly. why would he? Since Ray acknowledges both the hug and the confrontation that came after, it's stupid that he acts like there's some logic explanation to this hug - "a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn&#8217;t done anything intentional to hurt him." - Is that so? Evan was going to confront Michael with a letter that said his son was molested by him and he still started the meeting with a good friendly hug? Since when parents give a shit why the predators hurt their children? intentionally or unintentionally?
 
InvincibleTal;4068485 said:
^ Something like that... I guess I can try to figure the timeline (or the holes in it) but I will never be able to figure\to get what the hell was Evan thinking. Considering he was bipolar I guess it's not really possible to understand.


This made me laugh:



Exactly. why would he? Since Ray acknowledges both the hug and the confrontation that came after, it's stupid that he acts like there's some logic explanation to this hug - "a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn&#8217;t done anything intentional to hurt him." - Is that so? Evan was going to confront Michael with a letter that said his son was molested by him and he still started the meeting with a good friendly hug? Since when parents give a shit why the predators hurt their children? intentionally or unintentionally?

Their story is that Jordan confessed to Evan about having been molested on July 16. This meeting is on August 4. So what Ray/Evan says here does not make any sense. Notice also how they put the word "molestation" in quotation marks and it's like they are trying to distance themselves from being the originators of the allegations:

After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy &#8212; that a &#8220;molestation&#8221; had occurred &#8212; did not originate in Evan&#8217;s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.&#8221;

Trying to blame it on Pellicano and Fields to have first come up with the idea of molestation, huh? (Of course, after Evan read Abrams letter to them they would be perfectly aware that MJ was accused of child molestation. How could they have not been?) Why would you distance yourself from using the term "molestation" and from accusing MJ of harming your son AFTER your son had already allegedly confessed to you about being molested? It doesn't make any sense. The whole story is just a mess.
 
It's certain that both sides knew exactly what's going on - with Chandler either knowing he's going to blackmail Michael with false accusations, or going to confront Michael for molesting his child (just for the sake of argument) - either way, the hug is inappropriate in my opinion but even more so if you want to think Evan actually believed his son was molested. The fact he was reading Dr. Abrams letter and that according to Chandlers Jordan already told Evan Michael molested him, show there's no way in hell this friendly act "corroborates" Evan thought "Michael cared for Jordie and didn't mean to hurt him". I agree with Pellicano's point and I believe any sane person would agree with that. Actually, I don't think he should've brought Jordan with him but that's a different point.

About the "molestation" in quotation marks part, again I fail to see what they were trying to achieve. So, what's their point? that they don't consider it molestation?
 
About the "molestation" in quotation marks part, again I fail to see what they were trying to achieve. So, what's their point? that they don't consider it molestation?

Their point is to distance themselves from being the originators of the molestation allegation. Which is ridiculous, considering the Abrams letter, but you cannot expect a lie to be totally consistent and making sense.
 
Back
Top