Latest on MJJC

The 1993 case. [Threads merged, All discussion in this one thread]

Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

So it appears the Chandler news has subsided, at least for now. I don't find where it made into the larger papers, though I expected that once it hit CNN. I was also surprised that I couldn't even find it yesterday on the main Fox News site, only on some local channels.

Interesting... not sure if I think it's good or bad. I know many have weighed in already here and on the previous, related thread on the merits of press coverage on Chandler's death. I was surprised that even that got too heated here (are you happy NOW?!!! :wild: as if our wanting/not wanting press coverage makes much difference :) )

Let me know if I missed any major media (not tabloids) ... thanks.
 
Last edited:
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

PrettyYoungThang said:
The spin that is being put on this now in many reports is that the suicide was due to evans torment over what Michael did to his son - they are making evan a poor victim of Michael the monster. It makes me sick!
Click to expand...

That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count. I doubt Michelle Obama has lost much sleep reading in the latest tabloids that her husband is dying of lung disease because he coughed recently.

If you're aware of mainstream news that had this spin, do give the link. If you're not sure if something's a tabloid or not, give us the name and we can look it up, or just check on Wikipedia.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

MJJ:G.O.A.T said:
Yeah I know. But blogs/internet only media are getting much more notice now (even though tons of people have one). Just look at the Huffington Post to see what I mean. Ariana Huffington; the owner, is called to give commentary on certain issues by CNN and MSNBC.

Still I agree with you. I wish these articles were in a newspaper or mainstream media.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. There are blogs that approach newspapers in influence, yet can't be fairly considered tabloids. Huffington Post and Politico are the two main examples. Huffington Post vacillates on being a tabloid, but I'm still quoting it (when I like it :) ) I think it's reasonable to include at least them.

It's still interesting to see what smaller blogs have to say, and I think it's great to give good ones lots of hits by linking to them from here. That's how little blogs become big blogs!

Really, I think we need to count our blessings and give a sigh of relief... we don't want to be LOOKING for reasons to get mad, we've got plenty enough reasons :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Superstition said:
Maybe if they had reported these facts back then like they are now (using the words "alleged", mentioning the insurance company and the fact that Jackson volunteered to be photographed) the public might have a different perception of this whole ordeal.

To many, they have the perception Jackson pulled out a checkbook, wrote a check and the charges disappeared, and that really couldn't be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

yeah, totally, and thats what they should have done, but, is too late now...

Bo G said:
That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count. I doubt Michelle Obama has lost much sleep reading in the latest tabloids that her husband is dying of lung disease because he coughed recently.

If you're aware of mainstream news that had this spin, do give the link. If you're not sure if something's a tabloid or not, give us the name and we can look it up, or just check on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
i hope you-re right
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Yeah things could be changing for MJ. We need to ensure that they do. The media however seems to be turning just a little towards supporting Michael.
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

dancemasterman said:
Anybody who wants to read the settlement contracts can do so here. I'm not reading the entire thing, but it does appear as if his insurance company was invovled but it also proves once and for all that MJ and his lawyers along with the Chandler's and their lawyers agreed to this. In fact those are the only people that signed the agreement.

Michael admits no wrong doing in the documents. It is understandable why an innocent man in his position would agree to settle. In fact most celebrities prefer to settle to get the news talking about something else as fast as possible. Even Kobe Bryant settled with his accuser, and they literally 100% proved he was innocent. I do not blame MJ for settling at all.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html
Click to expand...

You seem to really be hung up on this one issue - what does it matter anyway?
Even if he was the one that wanted to settle in the first place (which I don't believe) it may have been for other reasons ( like his image being hurt if he went through lengthy trials - as it turned out the settlement backfired as well but that was a risk they took), it doesn't prove he was guilty.
If you really want it spelled out I for one think he didn't want to settle but they convinced him - the insurance company, his PR team, his record company - everyone would have probably lost more if it had gone to trial.
So of course he had to agree and sign his name.

And about Jordan's statements to his high-school colleagues or whatever they were - that's just a rumor right? Seems strange that he would talk about that so 'carelessly' when he kept his silence for so long ( that's assuming that what's been said about him getting into trouble with the law if he made such statements is true).
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

Angel said:
And about Jordan's statements to his high-school colleagues or whatever they were - that's just a rumor right? Seems strange that he would talk about that so 'carelessly' when he kept his silence for so long ( that's assuming that what's been said about him getting into trouble with the law if he made such statements is true).
Click to expand...

NO, it's not a rumor T-mez MJ's lawyer for the 2005 trial said he had Jordan friends ready to testify against him if he had chosen to take the stand!
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

bluetopez said:
NO, it's not a rumor T-mez MJ's lawyer for the 2005 trial said he had Jordan friends ready to testify against him if he had chosen to take the stand!
Click to expand...

Wow, I must have missed that, thanks!
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

dancemasterman said:
I'll follow the rules, but I want to know if it goes both ways. Does this rule only apply to people who doubt they are his or does it apply to people who insist they are his children?

I could care less. I could give two craps if they are related to him. It just gets sickening how people here lie so much, and they do it knowingly. I just got a Pm telling me MJ never said what I claim he said. I was just about to post a link showing him saying it, but I wont.

You should probably make a sticky notifying members of the new rule, because most members here will not notice this post in this thread.
Click to expand...

No, the rule applies as a whole, it is not to be discussed in any way.
This is written in the forum rules, which you can read here - http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1890587#post1890587
Under point number 2.

The first rule on the list is respect, please show some to your fellow members. That goes for everyone!
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

I think this is a valid thread actually because this has confused me for a while. Regardless of who paid the Chandlers, how could Michael have signed the document agreeing to the settlement but been under protest about signing it? To me, it's either one or the other. If you are protesting, why sign? No one put a gun to his head? He himself even says he and his lawyers wanted to whole thing done with so he agreed to the settlement. That doesn't sound like someone under protest? Can anyone fill in the blanks here assuming I'm missing any?
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Unless 'under protest' has it's own legal meaning that I may be missing
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

*MissChanel* said:
Amazing not ONE single paper in Australia has reported on this cause it will make Evan's credibility go out the window! Sickening!

The media make me feel ill.
Click to expand...

I'd rather they ignore it here to be honest. It just brings up 1993 again and doesn't report the full story yet again.

Bo G said:
That is not the spin that's been documented here in the mainstream press at all, unless I've missed something. Now if you're talking tabloids, that's another matter... they don't count.
Click to expand...

Tabloids are what everyone reads though..so they are mainstream media. At least in the UK.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

Ok, dictionary.com.

Protest definitions

1.Law.
a. (upon one's payment of a tax or other state or city exaction) a formal statement disputing the legality of the demand.

2. Law
b. formal statement drawn up by a notary for a creditor declaring that the debtor has refused to accept or honor a bill.

:ermm: Erm, so does that mean mj HIMSELF initially paid them and then put in a 'formal statement disputing the legality of the demand' after having done so, and so his money was returned and the insurance co. picked up the bill?

Or does it mean he signed to pay but THEN 'refused to accept or honor the bill' so the insurance company stepped in basically saying 'Dear Chandlers. We regret to inform you that Mj has now decided you can all get stuffed despite signing. Here is your money from us. Please piss off now.'

Anyone here study law? I'm even more confused now. lol

(Assuming I'm interpreting the definitions right) could it be that Mj DID agree to settle like he says in interviews, even to the extent that he signed to (and maybe even went ahead and paid the chandlers from his own pocket). Hence the docs on the smoking gun. But could it be that he THEN had second thoughts about letting them get away with it, so he put in 'a formal statement disputing the legality of the bill'. and the insurance co picked it up for some reason I still don't entirely understand?

??
 
Last edited:
Re: 1993 settlement documents

I don't think we should move along just yet. I have many questions and misunderstandings regarding this case and i want to know the truth.. we will move on but not yet.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

*MissChanel* said:
Amazing not ONE single paper in Australia has reported on this cause it will make Evan's credibility go out the window! Sickening!

The media make me feel ill.
Click to expand...

Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

I see it is actually now out of main stream media and has been taken over by "Oprah Leaving her Show" and news about Janet and its dying away. So that's a good thing.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

sloride said:
Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
Click to expand...

Same here. I don't see any comments there, mine aren't approved. 'michael jackson sex case dad evan chandler wanted justice'...and they say Jordy started the allegations which he didn't it was Evan. It also said that MJ had 'an album of nude boys' which I assume they mean the art book that was given to him by a fan. They also talked about removing other items including rolls of film. They don't actually state that there was nothing incriminating.

They won't let us have our say by just posting a comment, its so frustrating.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

sloride said:
Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
Click to expand...
oh my God, that was so ridiculous...
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

Rockin. said:
I'd rather they ignore it here to be honest. It just brings up 1993 again and doesn't report the full story yet again.



Tabloids are what everyone reads though..so they are mainstream media. At least in the UK.
Click to expand...

I know they dominate there, and read somewhere that this alone was why Madonna wouldn't live there. (I haven't verified that). My understanding from a moderator upthread is that the no-tabloids rule is a site rule set by Gaz. He's UK-based, so he's aware of the situation. The "tabloid" definition does not come from its number of readers, but from whether it's journalism-based with at least the GOAL of being fact-based, vs sensationalism-driven with no concern for facts.

Frustrating, I know. I've seen the same thing happen on CNN's comment page. One thing I know, though, is these sites get thousands of comments, and a staffer randomly picking those to post may not actually be finding your comment. Statistically, you could get lost in the mob. So it may not be intentional. Or it may be -- hard to say...

But people who read tabloids have some sense that it's entertainment more than news -- look at the gossip about the other celebrities as well; they're getting soundly thrashed, and I do think there's a decent percentage of people who understand it should be taken with a grain of salt. That's why 's best not to let it get under your skin too much. I'd hoped the Guardian and BBC would have come out with good stories, but better to have none than bad, which is what we have there.
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

I'd hoped the Guardian
Click to expand...
the guardian are one of the worst broadsheets when it comes to MJ prob next to the times. you cant fight them so u might aswell ignore them. what argument do u have when mjs own family sells stories to them. all u can do is hope chandler grows some balls and comes out.but even then it will be twisted.

madonna had a house in the uk for years while she was married. for the most part the uk press has always kissed her ass
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

elusive moonwalker said:
the guardian are one of the worst broadsheets when it comes to MJ prob next to the times. you cant fight them so u might aswell ignore them. what argument do u have when mjs own family sells stories to them. all u can do is hope chandler grows some balls and comes out.but even then it will be twisted.

madonna had a house in the uk for years while she was married. for the most part the uk press has always kissed her ass
Click to expand...
yup, and its true about madonna too
 
Re: I have some questions about the 1993 case.

hank you elusive moonwalker for the info. I read through this thread and have another quesition. This case should be closed as soon as the insurance company settled. But why they did it until the limitations had run? Is there any other else case like this? It looks strange to me.
Edit. Why Jordan left his father after this case?
Click to expand...
statue of limitations are to do with the criminal side of the case. its a totally normal thing basically the vicitim has so many years to make a complaint to the police or testify.its the same in a civil case aswell. u have so long to take the person to court. it basically stops ppl having accusations kept over their head for years and years. so in thatsense its normal but what wasnt normal is that sneddon tried to get the limitations limit changed in mjs case. i think the law was 7 years at the time but he tried to get more added on so he had longer to go after mj.his argument was that mj was out of the country alot of the time so all the times mj was gone should be added on.i dont know if he ever did this because i would presume it would take many years to change laws but he threatned mj with it for a long time

jordan emancipated (divorced) both his parents after the case ended. no one knows why but it kinda looks pretty obvious ontop of the fact he told ppl he hated his parents for what they did.its thought one of the reasons his monther testfyed in 2005 was because it was the only way she could make contact and speak to him through the court testimony
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

she left england cause she got divorced b4 that she divided her time. she had a huge house in the country and one in london
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

sloride said:
Believe me I'd rather have that then the headline I saw in The Mirror about Evan Chandler a few days ago. They were actually making out in the headline that Evan Chandler was destroyed in his quest for 'justice.' I posted a comment on the website saying if Evan Chandler wanted justice why did he refuse to testify after he got his settlement. The only thing Evan Chandler wanted was money. Went back a few hours later to see if anyone responded and my comment had actually been removed! Apparently the freedom of speech we have in the UK doesn't apply if your a tabloid and people make pro-Jackson comments.
Click to expand...
Well, most of the people in the UNited States who are posting and talk think it is EVANS GUILT of destroying a man's life.:clapping:
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

terrell said:
Well, most of the people in the UNited States who are posting and talk think it is EVANS GUILT of destroying a man's life.:clapping:
Click to expand...

That's true... when I look at comments on most sites, they're pro-MJ. Good work, fans!!! :clapping:

What's up with you guys in the UK? Get going! :)
 
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation

No one is talking about it anymore but when they did they made me so angry. They couldn't even get their facts about the god damn allegations right.

In all fairness though most of the comments in The Sun now on their website are pro MJ.
 
Re: 1993 settlement documents

.Butterflies. said:
I think this is a valid thread actually because this has confused me for a while. Regardless of who paid the Chandlers, how could Michael have signed the document agreeing to the settlement but been under protest about signing it? To me, it's either one or the other. If you are protesting, why sign? No one put a gun to his head? He himself even says he and his lawyers wanted to whole thing done with so he agreed to the settlement. That doesn't sound like someone under protest? Can anyone fill in the blanks here assuming I'm missing any?
Click to expand...

Imho Michael was innocent and protested the settlement at first. BUT I do think we should put ourselves into MJ's shoes every time we think of him. He is a celebrity, he is not an individual to an extent, that is a CIRCLE or INTEREST GROUP. I don't think it could prove any senseful stuff even MJ himself signed it. I just can't be convinced by such imcomplete proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top