rsw22
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 760
- Points
- 0
Re: Recent news reporting on 1993 allegation
This is the biggest misconception
A settlement cannot stop a criminal trial. If that was the case, people accussed of criminal acts, celebrities etc, could settle so as not to go to trial.
This is what the settlement did.
The DAs of LA and SB had no case. So what did they do? Go back to 1993, they decided to go to the civil case judge and ask for all documents being used for the civil case. (Documents that Diane Dimond then began leaking from Sneddon in 2003 starting with the affidavit on CourtTV where she was working, then Bianca's affidavit, then Jordy's psychaitry report in 2004).
A civil case lets in anything and everything and they had depositioned people paid by tabloids, like Bianca.
MJ's lawyers oppossed it but the judge gave the DAs access to depositions. Feldman representing teh Chandlers wanted to deposition Latoya and other people being paid by tabloids to slander Michael.
He also wanted to deposition Michael which would compromise the defence before a criminal trial as your words can be twisted and used against you, the wasy Sneddon tried to use Bashir's slanderously edited doc in 2005 against MJ where words were taken out of context and innuendo added.
Any good criminal lawyer knows the value of the 5th amendment regardless of guilt of innocence
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
As one commentator said before MJ's trial, a skilled prosecutor can make an innocent man look guilty. The reason is, your words can be twisted.
That is why ultimately Mesereau decided not to let MJ testify because the prosecution were planning to keep MJ on the stand as long as they possibly could, even several days, till they tripped him up to which Larry King on one show said a judge would have to stop it at some point.
Back to 1993/94. At the same time, two grand juries were being convened, one in LA, one in SB. And LA police closed the case investigating Chandler befor ethe settlement. MJ's lawyers knew before then that police were not doing much to investigate him.
To take take the wind from the sail, MJ's lawyers knew that if they settled the civil case, the DAs could not make a case becaus etehy had none to start with.
- They had failed to find any evidence against MJ, including photos that did not match, otherwise Jordy testimony plus matching evidence of a most private nature, charges would have been filed in Decemeber 1993, no need to convene a grand jury
- They were now trying to use hearsay from civil case to present to a grand jury
- The LA DA was talking about seeking a new law to file charges without evidence which then became 288a in 1995.
Do you see a similarity with 2003. Sneddon filed charges using the new law that doesn't require evidence.
In January when the video tape countering Arvizos was discovered, he then went to a grand jury as he had no case and needed to change the story.
Once there was no civil case in 1994, there was no place for the DAs to go, no source of hearsay since there was no eveidence to support the allegations.
2 grand juries into criminal matter carried on well after the settlement, and they could not indict.
Another lie is because Jordy Chandler did not appear that is why they did not indict, but the grand juries heard from the two officers who interviewed Jordy and they recited everything he said. But no evidence to support.
So, did they want Jordy to appear to sway the grand jury emotionally because he was a child then?
The two grand juries heard everything, no case could be made.
Even Jason Bianca whom Sneddon used in 2005 could have been broughout before them as MJ hadn't settled with him then, but then Sneddon was still busy trying to get the psychiatrist to tamper with his head, which came out in 2005 when Mez asked Jason about Sneddon meeting the psychiatrist before a session with Jason of which many sessions were to follow.
But the media and DAs decided to reverse and hide under the "settlement".
If you look at the settlement and also US laws, it's unlawful to pay anyone so that they do not testify in a criminal proceeding. It's called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
The settlement clearly makes it known that the Chandlers are not prohibited from being summoned when required by law enforcement.
All it did was to stop the civil lawsuit, which MJ's lawyers had asked the Judge to delay in the first place till criminal proceedings were over and he refused despite legal precedents to do so.
But that information never suited the media and DAs disinformation of the general public.
This is the biggest misconception
A settlement cannot stop a criminal trial. If that was the case, people accussed of criminal acts, celebrities etc, could settle so as not to go to trial.
This is what the settlement did.
The DAs of LA and SB had no case. So what did they do? Go back to 1993, they decided to go to the civil case judge and ask for all documents being used for the civil case. (Documents that Diane Dimond then began leaking from Sneddon in 2003 starting with the affidavit on CourtTV where she was working, then Bianca's affidavit, then Jordy's psychaitry report in 2004).
A civil case lets in anything and everything and they had depositioned people paid by tabloids, like Bianca.
MJ's lawyers oppossed it but the judge gave the DAs access to depositions. Feldman representing teh Chandlers wanted to deposition Latoya and other people being paid by tabloids to slander Michael.
He also wanted to deposition Michael which would compromise the defence before a criminal trial as your words can be twisted and used against you, the wasy Sneddon tried to use Bashir's slanderously edited doc in 2005 against MJ where words were taken out of context and innuendo added.
Any good criminal lawyer knows the value of the 5th amendment regardless of guilt of innocence
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury"
As one commentator said before MJ's trial, a skilled prosecutor can make an innocent man look guilty. The reason is, your words can be twisted.
That is why ultimately Mesereau decided not to let MJ testify because the prosecution were planning to keep MJ on the stand as long as they possibly could, even several days, till they tripped him up to which Larry King on one show said a judge would have to stop it at some point.
Back to 1993/94. At the same time, two grand juries were being convened, one in LA, one in SB. And LA police closed the case investigating Chandler befor ethe settlement. MJ's lawyers knew before then that police were not doing much to investigate him.
To take take the wind from the sail, MJ's lawyers knew that if they settled the civil case, the DAs could not make a case becaus etehy had none to start with.
- They had failed to find any evidence against MJ, including photos that did not match, otherwise Jordy testimony plus matching evidence of a most private nature, charges would have been filed in Decemeber 1993, no need to convene a grand jury
- They were now trying to use hearsay from civil case to present to a grand jury
- The LA DA was talking about seeking a new law to file charges without evidence which then became 288a in 1995.
Do you see a similarity with 2003. Sneddon filed charges using the new law that doesn't require evidence.
In January when the video tape countering Arvizos was discovered, he then went to a grand jury as he had no case and needed to change the story.
Once there was no civil case in 1994, there was no place for the DAs to go, no source of hearsay since there was no eveidence to support the allegations.
2 grand juries into criminal matter carried on well after the settlement, and they could not indict.
Another lie is because Jordy Chandler did not appear that is why they did not indict, but the grand juries heard from the two officers who interviewed Jordy and they recited everything he said. But no evidence to support.
So, did they want Jordy to appear to sway the grand jury emotionally because he was a child then?
The two grand juries heard everything, no case could be made.
Even Jason Bianca whom Sneddon used in 2005 could have been broughout before them as MJ hadn't settled with him then, but then Sneddon was still busy trying to get the psychiatrist to tamper with his head, which came out in 2005 when Mez asked Jason about Sneddon meeting the psychiatrist before a session with Jason of which many sessions were to follow.
But the media and DAs decided to reverse and hide under the "settlement".
If you look at the settlement and also US laws, it's unlawful to pay anyone so that they do not testify in a criminal proceeding. It's called OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
The settlement clearly makes it known that the Chandlers are not prohibited from being summoned when required by law enforcement.
All it did was to stop the civil lawsuit, which MJ's lawyers had asked the Judge to delay in the first place till criminal proceedings were over and he refused despite legal precedents to do so.
But that information never suited the media and DAs disinformation of the general public.
Last edited:
