Debates with the public

[MJresearcher]

I can't say I'm surprised that mjfacts people fabricated a document. It sounds like they're trying to convince people that the legal documents about MJ on the internet that they don't like are fake and making their own to try to "prove" how easy it is to fake them but the fact that people recognised the problems with it so quickly tells me that it's probably not that easy, especially when you use language that's so casual. Along with that, I'm pretty sure it's not legal to try to make anyone sign any agreement saying they won't launch a civil lawsuit against another person. A "document" like this would likely never be legally binding in the first place lol. I don't go on the mjfacts website either and I rarely look at what they're doing on twitter unless they're harassing someone so I missed their confession about the document. That's a pity, I'd have taken a screenshot otherwise.

An update on the debate:

I'm not telling fibs about that, I lodged my Private Individual Security Licence application just the other day, that's the last step I have to go. The qualification is a certificate III in investigative services. What's funny here is that Daniel has underestimated my ability to find legitimate information. I don't really see the point though in him doing that, people's opinions on this usually come from the internet and media. Both can be full of garbage but that doesn't mean that facts are unobtainable if they come from anywhere on the internet. We've been getting updates on the Robson and Safechuck mess from the court's website since we have the case numbers, then we have Ivy getting the documents and publishing them online. Pretty sure the same can be done with documents from the criminal cases too, I don't see why not.

 

[MJresearcher]

I'm not sure when exactly he died, but I think towards the end of the 90s.




No. He was in jail for illegal wire-taping and illegal possession of weapons. (He still is in jail.) Also, he was not needed in 2005.




Me and two others (don't want to post who they without their permission).

You all do a fantastic job, you make he facts easy to find and cite sources properly. That's very helpful and it's something that not all sites do properly. The other thing I really like is that the story is shortened enough that it's not too long to read and not too short that it leaves out any details, it's just right and is exactly what's needed.

 

[MJresearcher]

Looking around on the MJ Facts twitter.

They've sucked Clemente into their bubble. No surprises there.

Now here's a massive lie from them and our favourite writer Diane Dimond:

When her article was first being discussed on another topic here I took screenshots of the article. I'm glad I did.

Diane's article was published on the 12th, James' lawsuit was filed on the 15th. The 12th is not 3 days after the 15th! :lmao:

This is why I like to screenshot and save things I come across, you never know how it will help in the future.

 

[HIStory]

LOL @ Clemente having the nerve to claim that fans use ad hominems against him because they do not have evidence and arguments. I'm still waiting for his answers to my posts to him on YouTube. LOL. They did not contain any ad hominems. They contained valid arguments and questions which exposed him for the quack "expert" that he is who jumps to biased conclusions about MJ while not even knowing basic 101 information about the case. Remember how he said on YT that the thing that convinced him about Gavin being molested by MJ was that scene in the Bashir interview? Maybe he should have read what the actual allegations were because his theory did not even fit with what the accuser said about when the molestation started. LOL. When presented with facts and evidence he simply pulled out of the debate and stopped replying. He's nothing but a quack "expert" who likes his ego being stroked by people who buy his BS, but once he is challenged HE restores to fallacies - like all he did in our debate was to keep going on about his degrees and how because of them he is automatically right. So I see instead of replying to challenging questions on YouTube he seeked out haters so that his ego can be stroked by them. LOL.

As for Safechuck. He filed on May 9 (Friday) and Dimond published her article on May 12 (Monday). There were additional docs they then filed on May 15, so I think that's why some fans think he filed three days after Dimond's article. I don't think it matters much though. Fact is Dimond had no way of knowing about his allegations and especially the contents of it if she had not been tipped off by someone from Safechuck's camp.

Like said, Safechuck filed on May 9 (Friday) and Dimond published an article about it on May 12 (Monday). We all see how slowly that court internet system reacts to things, not even the fact a filing happened would have shown up that quickly (especially that there is a weekend between the two dates) let alone details of the content. Also, as far as I know Safechuck did not actually file his complaint/lawsuit back then, but only a notice that he would file a complaint later and eventually he submitted the complaint in August.

This was an orchestrated game plan. Remember that Xscape was released on May 13. Even if Safechuck's complaint/lawsuit was still not ready (only by August), it seems they wanted to file a notice and get things out to the media through Dimond to interfere with the release of Xscape. It was pretty deliberate to try to hurt the Estate's project and thus force a settlement. In actuality, Dimond herself references "sources" close to Safechuck in her article. The kind of game they are playing is very evident.

Fortunately they miscalculated themselves because Xscape was a success nevertheless (according to also inner Sony docs which leaked recently due to the hacking scandal). I really think both Robson and Safechuck anticipated to create a similar scandal and atmosphere around MJ as in 1993 or 2005 and thus to blackmail the Estate into a settlement by bad publicity. What they forgot is that the public has less sympathy for people who said nothing or even defended MJ while he was here but when he is dead and can't defend himself they are turning around amongst monetary demands and all of a sudden they "realize" they "were molested". Many people see through that and others are just tired of it all and do not care either way. Most of the world have moved on. Only a small group of vicious and psychotic (although very loud and aggressive) haters care. And of course us fans, who need to defend him against such slander.

I also saw on Twitter last night in fan tweets that haters supposedly advised each other and other people not to go to TMZ but to RadarOnline and how you will get "more accurate info" from RO. And Wade's cousin, Jonathan, who died since, was also among those who said that. Just shows which media the Robson camp made a pact with and uses as a mouthpiece. I also suspect something must have happened between Robson's team and TMZ because when it first came out TMZ were all on the case and happy to report it but then later they kind of backed down and they even had a bit of a sarcastic tone in some of their articles when talking about Robson. So I wonder what happened, if Robson's team did something that made TMZ see through them and that's why they had to move on to RadarOnline instead.

 

[MJresearcher]

Some interesting things I found on Jim Clemente's twitter:

A light spot? Really? That's not what Sneddon said:

I wonder which documents Clemente read? Did he even notice there are two different colours being spoken about here?

So they only ever saw him erect? Interesting how he decided not to talk about that anymore...

 

[HIStory]

Clemente is an idiot, period. He just pulls things out of his a** - things which do not even correlate with the actual allegations.

LOL @ him saying Jordan accurately identified a light splotch on MJ's erect penis. That's funny because this light vs. dark splotch debate has been going on between fans and haters. This is what that infamous 2005 Smoking Gun article, that quoted Deborah Linden's 1993 affidavit, said (and the article mysteriously disappeared from the Smoking Gun website when MJ's autopsy came out stating he was not circumcised...):

“With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.”

That highlighted sentence has been a matter of debate between haters and fans. That is because, like you pointed out, in his motion Sneddon mentions a dark splotch, no light one. So that would mean he could not even find one splotch that matched either in color or relative location. LOL. Haters tried to defend this by saying that the sentence is meant that the penis is light, not the splotch. To me it seems it means the splotch, but since it's somewhat debatable I'm being generous to them and do not use this argument about light vs. dark splotch in my article here: http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/ . There are enough other arguments to show how this whole description argument is nothing but hocus-pocus game by the prosecution.

But now Clemente says they meant light splotch? Poor haters! That ruins all their arguments about the affidavit meaning that the penis was light not the splotch. LOL.

But you can tell Clemente just makes up things as he talks when you see that he claims that BOTH the 1993 and 2003 accusers identified the same splotch. Once again exposing his ignorance about these cases - and that he is simply a liar. Gavin never claimed to have seen MJ's penis. In fact he was not even aware that MJ's skin was splotchy (odd when he claims he's been molested by him):

Q. And you knew that that disease was causing certain patches of white and brown on his skin, right.

A. Yes. I guess.

Q. And –

A. I don’t know. It’s not like I was making fun of him yesterday, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.

Q. Well, you knew that his skin is vulnerable to sunlight, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s why you see him with an umbrella, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And you also knew, because of the patches that appear on his skin from that disease, he does sometimes put some makeup on, right.

A. I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white.

And the whole BS about MJ grooming Gavin. Again exposing his total ignorance about this case! Saying things like MJ only avoided the family, not Gavin. LOL. I guess he never heard Gavin's own testimony then.

Q. And on those occasions when Mr. Jackson was on the ranch, did you have any contact with him ?
A. Those two occasions, yeah. But, I mean, like, sometimes I would go up to the ranch and he would say that he ‘s not there, and then he would be there .
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. Like, when I would have cancer. I don‘t know what happened, but Michael, like, kind of stopped talking to me and stuff, right in the middle of my cancer. And, like, I would go up there, and I would see, like, Prince and Paris playing there, and I would think that Michael was there, and they would tell me that Michael wasn’t there. And then, like, I would see him somewhere, and — I don’t know.
Q. Was there one occasion when you actually ran into him by accident ?
A. Yeah.
Q. Tell the jury about that.
A. Well, I was playing with Prince and Paris outside, like in the back of the house near where the arcade was . And then we were walking into the — into the main house . And I knew the code, because they would give me the codes. And then I walked in the door with Prince in my hand and Paris in my other hand, and — we were holding hands. And then we walked into the house and there I saw Michael walking, like, toward me. But I guess he didn’t see me turn the corner. And then he acted as if , “Oh, crap,” you know what I mean? Like, he saw me. And then — then he just played it off and , like, acted like, “Oh, hi, Doo-Doo Head.” You know, at the time I — I was kind of hypnotized and, like, he ‘s my –
MR. MESEREAU: Objection; calls for a narrative and non responsive.
THE COURT : Sustained .
Q. BY MR . SNEDDON : Okay.
A. And then , like –
Q. That’s all right. I’ll give you a question. So in any case , you bumped into him ?
A. Yeah. And I was — because of –
Q. That’s okay . How much more contact did you have with him on that time when you bumped into him? How much time did the contact last?
A. I didn’t really see him through my cancer a lot.
Q. I mean, you told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury there was an occasion where you were there when you kind of bumped into him by accident ?
A. Yeah.
Q. When you actually made contact with him – okay? – how long did that last? Just — how long was the conversation between the two of you?
A. Maybe , like , five minutes. When — that time we bumped into each other, and then we just talked about — and stuff, and he said he had to go somewhere. [3]

​

Q. Can you look this jury in eye and tell them Michael Jackson did nothing for you when you had cancer?
A. I never said Michael did nothing for me.
Q. Did you say he did very little?
A. Yeah. He didn’t do as much as I felt, as my 11-year-old mind felt.
Q. He should.
A. No. He shouldn’t — it’s not his obligation to do anything.
Q. Well, are you telling the jury you deserved a lot more from Michael Jackson than you and your family got?
A. No.
Q. Is that what you’re saying?
A. No. I’m just saying that — see, when I have a friend, Michael, and you’re saying all these things that he did, but, you know, when my 11-year-old mind — and when I see my friend say that he’s not there, and he’s not at Neverland Ranch trying — and I see him walking and I see his car that he only drives going down at Neverland, you know, it felt like my heart broke right there.
Q. So by doing all of these things –
A. And I don’t remember George Lopez or Jamie Masada or Louise Palanker ever doing that to me. [4]
​

Q. And at some point you complained to the sheriffs that Mr. Jackson had changed his phone numbers after you visited the Hilton, right?
A. Well, that was the only phone number I left — or I called — well, I’m not sure. Because the only phone number that never changed was Evvy’s [Evvy Tavasci – Jackson’s secretary at the time] phone number. And I would call her and I would ask her sometimes where Michael was or something. And then — and I had the phone number to his hotel, so I think I called him at his hotel and asked him if I could go visit him. I think it was around — I’m not sure when exactly.
Q. When did you first get upset about your phone numbers for Michael Jackson not working?
A. Maybe around the third or fourth chemotherapy round I called his numbers and it would be, like, “This phone number is no longer in service.” Or sometimes it would just ring and it wouldn’t never — no one would ever pick up or something like that.
Q. Well, you’ve indicated that you were upset that the phone numbers you had for Mr. Jackson at some point didn’t work, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the phone numbers you had for Mr. Jackson began to not work after it appeared that your cancer was in remission, correct?
A. No, I said they stopped working after my third or fourth chemotherapy round.
Q. Okay. Before that, could you easily call him?
A. Yes.
Q. And before that, did you often call him?
A. Yes. And he would call me and stuff. We would talk — we talked a lot more before then.
Q. In fact, you called him at the Universal — Hilton Universal the day you visited, right?
A. I believe so. I’m not too sure how it came about. [5]
​

Q. Okay. Now, you complained to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs that, “After I was done with my cancer stuff,” you never saw Michael again, right?
A. No, not until the Martin Bashir thing.
Q. Okay. And you wanted to see him after you were in remission, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You wanted to visit Neverland after you were in remission, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt in some way that Michael had cut off the friendship, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You felt he had abandoned you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you felt he had abandoned your family, right?
A. Yes. [5]

​

Q. And approximately when do you think he wasn’t talking to you anymore?
A. Two months into my cancer.
Q. Excuse me?
A. Two months into my chemotherapy.
Q. Approximately when would that be?
A. August or September of 2000.
Q. Okay. So August or September of 2000, you and your family started sending nice letters and cards to Michael Jackson, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And those are the letters and cards that I showed you a little while ago, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And it was your understanding your mother used to send him cards and letters as well, right?
A. I think so.
Q. And she used to refer to him as “daddy,” didn’t she.
A. I don’t think she referred to him as “daddy.”
Q. You never heard her say that once.
A. Well, toward me, me saying that. Because, I mean, my dad had left. And I started calling him “daddy” after my dad left because I didn’t have a dad.
Q. And your mother approved of that, correct.
A. Yeah. [5]

​

So it's nice to read textbooks about child molesters, but when you talk about a real case it does not harm if your conlcusions are actually based on the actual facts of a case, rather than just some fictional story you made up in your mind to fit into your textbook examples.

 

[MJresearcher]

I was reading other day about Gavin saying he didn't know MJ had patches and thought he was all white. His own words kept showing his lies but I noticed in those twitter comments Clemente always comes up with an excuse for when that happens. For someone who claims to have studied these cases he sure screws up the facts often. He's probably just been reading things from mjfacts lol.

 

[MJresearcher]

But now Clemente says they meant light splotch? Poor haters! That ruins all their arguments about the affidavit meaning that the penis was light not the splotch. LOL.

Their brains must be doing backflips

 

[InvincibleMJ]

I think at this point Clemente has gotten addicted to the adernaline of trolling on the internet and fighting with MJ fans. He's very unproffesional - always has been, even when talking to TM on his show. I find it extremley infantile for someone with autorities like him is stuck on celebrity cases and their fans... Without knowing really what he's talking about. He's doing everything a profiler shouldn't do, and that's enough to discredit him without even going into the MJ case details. I read a lot about profiling and that's not what Clemente is doing.

 

[HIStory]

For someone who claims to have studied these cases he sure screws up the facts often. He's probably just been reading things from mjfacts lol.

Or tabloids. His so called "knowledge" of these cases do not seem any deeper than that and that's why I don't believe he was as deep in this case as he pretends to be. He would have been only called as a general "expert" on child molestation not as an expert about this particular case (which he is obviously not when he does not even know very basic facts about it).

I think at this point Clemente has gotten addicted to the adernaline of trolling on the internet and fighting with MJ fans. He's very unproffesional - always has been, even when talking to TM on his show. I find it extremley infantile for someone with autorities like him is stuck on celebrity cases and their fans... Without knowing really what he's talking about. He's doing everything a profiler shouldn't do, and that's enough to discredit him without even going into the MJ case details. I read a lot about profiling and that's not what Clemente is doing.

I find it scary if the FBI employs so utterly unprofessional people as him. I wonder how many people's life and freedom depended on this guy's "expertise".

I don't think it's about the trolling to him. It's more about his ego. I noticed how many times he loves to flaunt his credentials and so called "expertise" and when countered with facts he always resorts to this appeal to credentials fallacy instead of addressing arguments. Even in the above debate you can see that: "I am right because I am an expert. Period." While ignoring all the arguments highlighting the gaps in his knowlede about this particular case. Indeed, he is very childish and does not come accross as a professional at all.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Or tabloids. His so called "knowledge" of these cases do not seem any deeper than that and that's why I don't believe he was as deep in this case as he pretends to be. He would have been only called as a general "expert" on child molestation not as an expert about this particular case (which he is obviously not when he does not even know very basic facts about it).

He's supposed to tell the jury how a criminal behaves and lives, but he's trying to force a profile fit and you can't do that... a profile is to help you catch a criminal, not to frame a suspect or make him fit the crime. He's doing it backwards and it's not legit that way. He's no more credible than those doctors who talk about Michael's plastic surgeries on ET. Actually, he's a lot less.

I find it scary if the FBI employs so utterly unprofessional people as him. I wonder how many people's life and freedom depended on this guy's "expertise".

I hope not many. If a case relies on a person like him as expertise it's probably a very weak one. Now, if he was part of an investigation team that's even more disturbing because he's so fixated I wouldn't be surprised if he's responsible for some criminals walking free because they got the wrong guys.

I don't think it's about the trolling to him. It's more about his ego. I noticed how many times he loves to flaunt his credentials and so called "expertise" and when countered with facts he always resorts to this appeal to credentials fallacy instead of addressing arguments. Even in the above debate you can see that: "I am right because I am an expert. Period." While ignoring all the arguments highlighting the gaps in his knowlede about this particular case. Indeed, he is very childish and does not come accross as a professional at all.

Yes I agree, I used the term "trolling" because I feel he's obsessed with this subject ever since fans started to argue with him on Youtube after the TM interview. Not in a way that he goes to fan site to start a random fight. His way of getting the affirmation he so desperately needs is pissing fans off, that way he has people to tell he's the expert to. Classic narcissist.

 

[HIStory]

He's supposed to tell the jury how a criminal behaves and lives, but he's trying to force a profile fit and you can't do that... a profile is to help you catch a criminal, not to frame a suspect or make him fit the crime. He's doing it backwards and it's not legit that way. He's no more credible than those doctors who talk about Michael's plastic surgeries on ET. Actually, he's a lot less.

I agree.

he's obsessed with this subject ever since fans started to argue with him on Youtube after the TM interview.

Yet, instead of answering to the points and arguments raised there he just goes to haters to seek validation from them. LOL.

Classic narcissist.

He is.

 

[SarahJ]

What a moron. After his meager 5 minutes of fame (as he sees it) he'll probably crawl back under the rock he crawled out from. Years from now no-one will even know who these fools are.

 

[HIStory]

Oh and also this excuse that they keep parroting in defense of Jordan's failed description (for a "perfectly matching" description they sure need to make up a lot of excuses for why it did not match. LOL).: "Circumcusion is difficult for a boy to determine when the adult offender penis is erect". Again, before you say something it would not harm if you'd actually read what the allegations are. The Chandlers claim was not that Jordan only saw MJ with an erect penis:

Some pro-prosecution journalists tried to excuse Jordan’s failure to accurately describe Jackson’s penis by suggesting that perhaps Jordan did not notice the difference between a fully erect uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one. However, the allegations of Jordan Chandler describe not only one occasion of alleged molestation, but a very intense series of sexual contacts, including seeing each other naked in the bath, many masturbation sessions in front of each other and masturbating each other. Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler claims in his book, All That Glitters, that his nephew saw Jackson’s genitalia many times, “from every possible angle”:

“The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.” [9; page 210]​

If this was true, then Jordan certainly would have been able to tell that Jackson was uncircumcised, but he got the description wrong.

 

[SarahJ]

Children are also extremely observant, much more so than adults. And from personal experience let me just say I find it very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have noticed.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

They failed to give such an important detail and people still believe them. Unbelievable.

"Circumcusion is difficult for a boy to determine when the adult offender penis is erect" - Wasn't in the prosection's or the lawyers' excuse? I've read this before somewhere. They must think people are stupid. If it was the other way around they could use the same excuse, so what's the point of asking if they're gonna say there's no difference anyway :lol: Give me a break.

The fact Sneddon had the photos from 1993 all that time is very upsetting but I guess he didn't use them...

 

[HIStory]

Haters try many different strategies to explain away the fact why Jordan's description did not match. From this argument above to even denying that Jordan ever said MJ was circumcised. So they do know it's a big problem for their "it matched" claim. LOL. But of course the splotches issue too. Even putting aside the light vs. dark splotch issue. Notice how all Sneddon's motion mentions is one dark splotch that was supposedly "at about the same relative location" as where Jordan put something on his drawing. Supposedly - because this is all according to Sneddon's own assesment and we know how he opreated. There is nothing else mentioned in his motion. No more splotches, not the circumcision issue, nothing else. One dark splotch. That's all.

Now let's see what Jordan actually drew according to their own book:

It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took. The problem was not Jordie’s memory: he had seen Michael’s genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later.” [9; page 210]

So according to the Chandler book Jordan drew "numerous markings", yet Sneddon only mentions one as "relatively" matching. So whatever happened to the rest of the description? From all those numerous markings that Jordan drew Sneddon could take out only one and somehow make it a struggle-"match"?

It's also worth noting that Jordan actually gave two descriptions. One in September and one in December - just a couple of days before the strip search. They never explained why a second one was needed. However, we know that between those two dates, in November, the police searched the offices of MJ's doctors, Arnold Klein and Steve Hoefflin and took MJ's medical records. So why did Jordan have to give another description again? The whole thing is just shady.

And then:

The Chandlers only had to know that Jackson had vitiligo to assume that some kind of blemishes were probably on Jackson’s penis and also conclude, from Evan’s knowledge of how Jackson’s buttocks looked like (Evan injected MJ in the buttoks back in May), that there were discolorations on the lower parts of his body. In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“ “Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.” “No, that’s good for us!” ‘Why?” “Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!” “Ha!” “Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.” “That’s very good.” “Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]
​

(Emphasis added.)

(* The Lauren Weis, who is claimed to have told Larry Feldman that anything Jordan says about the blemishes is irrelevant because they are subject to changes, is the same Lauren Weis to whom Jordan gave his original description in September. She was the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney at the time. In All That Glitters she is also described as a good friend of Richard Hirsch, the attorney who represented Evan Chandler against the extortion charges filed by Jackson [9; page 165].)

In the chapter entitled “December 14” Ray Chandler writes:

“Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael’s penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael’s defense. And the poor beast was already swayback. On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie’s description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry’s case was solid as a rock and he didn’t need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.”[9; page 206]​

(Emphasis added.) As you can see, the Chandlers cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to change and they were preparing excuses for themselves to explain why their description did not match the photographs. However, both the Chandlers and Sneddon failed to acknowledge that if vitiligo markings were subject to change then they are inadequate to prove Jackson’s guilt, especially considering the fact the Chandlers got the circumcision issue completely wrong.

It seems that Sneddon, like the Chandlers, tried to have it both ways: if there was something in that drawing that remotely guessed a location of a marking right (at least according to Sneddon’s own assessment) it would have been used against Jackson, while everything else would have been ignored and/or explained away by the fact that vitiligo markings were subject to change. As Larry Feldman put it: “It’s a no-loser for us”.

As I said it was a big hocus-pocus excercise on the prosecution's part. And they knew it. If they had been so sure of the power of this evidence then it would have been the first that Sneddon had introduced once 1108 evidence was allowed. Instead he only tried to introduce it at the very end (when it did not have much chance any more to be let in) and after all his witnesses were torn apart on the stand.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

All of this from Ray's book? :blink:

 

[HIStory]

All of this from Ray's book? :blink:

Yes..

And look how corrupt these investigators were! Lauren Weis deputy DA told the Chandlers before the search that whatever Jordan says is irrelevant because vitiligo marks are subject to changes. So they knew it meant nothing but they still put Michael through a highly humiliating strip search! Just think about that aspect! They knew it did not matter one bit, yet they put him through it!

 

[InvincibleMJ]

This book is so sellf incriminating :wtf2

Yes..

And look how corrupt these investigators were! Lauren Weis deputy DA told the Chandlers before the search that whatever Jordan says is irrelevant because vitiligo marks are subject to changes. So they knew it meant nothing but they still put Michael through a highly humiliating strip search! Just think about that aspect! They knew it did not matter one bit, yet they put him through it!

but is it really the case? the marks change that fast?

 

[HIStory]

This book is so sellf incriminating :wtf2


but is it really the case? the marks change that fast?

Yes, they can change. They claimed the molestation happened in May-June, the strip search was in December. That's half a year. It's not like Jordan claimed he was molested one week and the next week MJ was strip searched. The search was 6-7 months after the alleged molestations.

And yes, their book is very self-incriminating. No wonder haters very rarely recommend it. LOL. Also no wonder Ray was running scared when Mez tried to subpoena him. Imagine all this being brought to the attention of the general public. The smartest thing the Chandlers did was to always avoid court.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Yes, they can change. They claimed the molestation happened in May-June, the strip search was in December. That's half a year.

I wonder how fast it really goes. Again Jordan and Gavin both got it wrong so Sneddon didn't use his knowledge and the medical information and photos he had in 2005 and for Jordan's second description - I understand it wasn't different than the first one?

And yes, their book is very self-incriminating. No wonder haters very rarely recommend it. LOL. Also no wonder Ray was running scared when Mez tried to subpoena him. Imagine all this being brought to the attention of the general public. The smartest thing the Chandlers did was to always avoid court.

The only thing that Chandlers had against Michael was the complaint\lawsuit itself... meaning the fact they filled a lawsuit. It wasn't even Jordan's words against Michael's because they didn't really have Jordan's word. This case doesn't really help haters prove anything. It makes sense Chandlers ran scared, they had nothing and they could have been torn to pieces in court. I'm shocked Ray bothered to write this book, did he not notice it's self incriminating while writing it? :lol:

 

[barbee0715]

^^I had never heard of Rays book until I joined the forum. Not that I would have bought it or read it.

I know you all just print excerpts here, but every time I read them, I'm astonished at how it makes Evan and Co. flat out extortionists.

 

[HIStory]

I wonder how fast it really goes. Again Jordan and Gavin both got it wrong so Sneddon didn't use his knowledge and the medical information and photos he had in 2005

Gavin was never asked to give a description. Clemente simply made that up about both Gavin and Jordan describing the same splotch on MJ's penis. That never happened. Gavin never even gave a description.

and for Jordan's second description - I understand it wasn't different than the first one?

No one knows what was the difference. But I think there has to be something if there was a need for a second one. Notice the dates in Chandlers' books!

In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:

“Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he’s got, vitiligo, that it’s capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease.“ “Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything.” “No, that’s good for us!” ‘Why?” “Because if he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation!” “Ha!” “Yeah, it’s a no-loser for us.” “That’s very good.” “Good? It’s terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I’m sticking’ with the law.” [9; page 202-203]
​

This is after the first description, but before the second. And they still talk about Jordan giving one in the future. So it seems for some reason there was a need for another one, but no one ever told why. Also that drawing that was circulated in Guiterrez's book first then on the Internet which looks like a brainstorming session by the Chandlers about what description to give - that is dated October, 1993. So again it seems despite of Jordan already giving a description in September, the prosecution was still pushing them for more - I assume the first one must have been very vague or something.

I'm shocked Ray bothered to write this book, did he not notice it's self incriminating while writing it? :lol:

Evan was bipolar and IMO because of that they could not help but boast in their book about how they beat the system. But that of course that also means that they expose themselves a lot or that they do not realize how bad they often look.

 

[SarahJ]

I think it's very telling that Gavin wasn't asked to give a description. Jordan gave one based on just his claims alone and yet Gavin who claims Michael sat on the bed naked (or stood beside the bed, whichever version of the story anyone chooses to go with since) would have seen it all. So why didn't they ask him to? They knew he couldn't give one since he'd never seen anything.

 

[HIStory]

^ Yes, but not that Jordan saw anything either. I think in Gavin's story the whole alcohol narrative was partly about having an excuse not to have to "remember" and be asked about any details. And that is a good point about that scene that Gavin and Star claimed about MJ once running up to his room while them being there and showing himself naked. Like on so many occasions however they contradicted each other on the details:

The Arvizo kids claimed they were hanging out upstairs in Jackson’s bedroom when the singer walked up naked with an erection to show himself to them then walked down again. Their details of the story, however, differed. Gavin claimed Jackson just ran up to get something and went back down again immediately without saying a word. Star on the other hand claimed Jackson sat down on the bed with them for about two minutes and told them it was natural.

Yet, Gavin later in his testimony said: "I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white."

Their story was all over the place - each and every detail of it.

And maybe Sneddon himself too was wary of asking for a description the second time around because despite of his media propaganda it did backfire the first time around.

 

[SarahJ]

No, Jordan didn't see anything. Hence the multiple attempts to give a description and also that MJ wasn't taken into custody either immediately or shortly afterwards. Especially since Sneddon was on the ranch during the photos just ready and waiting.

If as Ray Chandler claims, JC was up close and intimate with MJ as many times as he claims, one would think details shouldn't have been a problem.
I think your spot on re: the alcohol charges.

 

[MJresearcher]

Interesting how in the Chandler's book they say Sneddon was making a big deal over the markings. Clearly he did know that it was a major problem or he wouldn't have worried about it. I also very much agree about it being telling that Jordan drew a number of markings but that only one relatively fit. He should have been able to get more than that.

but is it really the case? the marks change that fast?

Markings can spread, so they can change shape or new white patches can show up in other places but you'll never have a time where a white patch will go back to being dark. This makes Clemente's claim about both Gavin and Jordan identifying the "same" "white" spot interesting because if the Chandlers were told that the markings were irrelevant because they were subject to change when they were only talking about a matter of months, then how can Clemente try to use the claim about the same patch being seen by two different teenagers 10 years apart? Oops...

 

[MJresearcher]

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Interesting how in the Chandler's book they say Sneddon was making a big deal over the markings. Clearly he did know that it was a major problem or he wouldn't have worried about it. I also very much agree about it being telling that Jordan drew a number of markings but that only one relatively fit. He should have been able to get more than that.



Markings can spread, so they can change shape or new white patches can show up in other places but you'll never have a time where a white patch will go back to being dark. This makes Clemente's claim about both Gavin and Jordan identifying the "same" "white" spot interesting because if the Chandlers were told that the markings were irrelevant because they were subject to change when they were only talking about a matter of months, then how can Clemente try to use the claim about the same patch being seen by two different teenagers 10 years apart? Oops...

Bolded part is what I thought but I suddenly was confused because of what they said... Thanks. The way they talked about it you would think the dark markings could move to different places when in fact they can only get smaller or disappear.

Clamente doesn't really know the facts so don't even try :lol: I think the only he says that could be relevant is the profiling part but sadly this part is irrelevant too because he's unproffesional and biased.

Yes Jordan should have been able to get more than that, it should have been close to a perfect match, instead he got everything wrong. The 0 things he got right are enough for those haters because they're blinded by their hate. He could have said it's green and they'd still find excuses for him.