Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

The police who were handling Jordan Chandler’s case have said that his testimony was believable and that the information they collected at the time corroborated what he alleged.

I’m sure that is precisely why he was offered $25m to keep quiet. You just don’t do that to someone who has no evidence. I do believe MJ was advised to do this.

Michael Jackson then twisted it into this narrative of how every time someone accused him, they were after money. He did a good job. As can be seen on this thread by those repeatedly posting money emojis.

I think Jordan Chandler was less swayed than some of the other victims because he wasn’t as enamoured of MJ as were the likes of those who were telephoned and blackmailed to ‘help’ and lie on the stand in the Gavin Arvizo trial.

I don’t think you understand the point I was trying to make which is that even his family don’t consider the film to be anything more than fictional.

Paris gets hate for not mentioning his birthday. She doesn’t mention it because he himself didn’t celebrate it. But the deluded fans know better than his own family of course.

Ok understood. I'm addressing your semantics. She didn’t say his character had been “whitewashed” — that’s inaccurate and sounds a little loaded. She said she didn’t believe the film was accurate or honest, which she’s entitled to as an opinion. The “whitewashing” comment came from the director of Leaving Neverland. Meanwhile, in her most recent interview, Paris Jackson said that “my relationship with my father is in a beautiful place.”

Just one thing, Michael was intent on taking the case to a criminal court regardless. There's some quite detailed accounts of this

If he was intent on taking it to court then he would have done so. Actions speak louder than words.

$25 million is a lot of money to give away no matter how rich you are. And in the end, MJ was nearly bankrupt - another thing that points to a disordered person with a possible personality disorder when they have unimaginable riches and still end up bankrupt (another example of this is Fergie).

Maybe that was partly due to the numbers of children he was paying to keep quiet. Celebrities do this all the time, paying off sexual partners to keep quiet - but usually the people they pay off are not children.

Ironically, his estate is worth more money again now that he’s dead because the estate people have cashed in on his legacy.

One can argue the nitty gritty but the fact remains he paid out millions and the fact remains that his accusers prints were on his Barely Legal magazines, Jordan described his penis.

This morning I started a basic list above and other posters are helpfully adding to it

All the "but.....but.....buts" change none of the ugly basic facts

Well personally, I think that the fact MJ has at least 11 accusers that have made their accusations public is the most compelling evidence of all that he was a pedophile but delusional people say that they are all lying. They do mental gymnastics about it.

It's basically an intelligence test at this point.

Not quite. Not for a criminal court case anyway. Here's the legal background:

A financial settlement with Jordan Chandler’s family would not have prevented Michael Jackson from being taken to criminal court. Civil and criminal cases are separate legal processes. A civil settlement is an agreement between private parties (usually involving money), while a criminal case is brought by the government and can lead to charges, trial, and penalties.

In the 1993 case, Michael Jackson reached a civil settlement with the Chandler family in 1994, but that did not legally protect him from prosecution or stop investigators from continuing their work.

Prosecutors were still free to investigate and bring criminal charges if they believed there was enough evidence.

The reason the case did not go to criminal court was not because of the settlement itself.

Prosecutors continued investigating but ultimately did not file charges in relation to the Chandler allegations because they concluded they did not have enough evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof (“beyond a reasonable doubt”).

So the settlement resolved the civil lawsuit only — it did not prevent criminal prosecution. Prosecutors still had the option to proceed but chose not to file charges.

District attorney Sneddon and Lauren Weis, head of the county DA's Sex Crimes Unit, said that ending the investigation did not reflect any lack of faith in the alleged victim's credibility.

I am sure that the pay-off included a promise to drop the charges. It would be disingenuous to suppose otherwise.

Countless people have said that MJ would phone them up and lean on them to do something. He was known for it.

The police have said that Jordan Chandler dropped the charges after he was paid off.

I am sure that the pay-off included a promise to drop the charges.

That's what I thought. But apparently not. Prosecutors publicly stated the criminal investigation would continue despite the settlement.

It’s pretty telling people were paid off. Why would you pay someone off if you were innocent?

The Jordan Chandler case is a good example to answer this question.

In simple terms, civil cases like the Chandler lawsuit are about money and liability, not guilt or innocence in the criminal sense. Michael Jackson’s team settled the case because civil trials are unpredictable, expensive, and highly public, especially when dealing with allegations against a global celebrity. So the key difference is that civil cases often involve a much earlier and broader exchange of information between the parties, and can be easily leaked whereas criminal cases are typically kept more private until the prosecution formally proceeds. In the Chandler situation the civil court case would have gone ahead prior to any charges and related legal court case potentially influencing the latter.

A settlement doesn’t mean anyone is admitting wrongdoing — it usually means both sides agree to end the dispute rather than take the risk of a trial. For the defendant, that risk includes the possibility of a large jury award, years of public testimony, and sensitive allegations being examined in open court through discovery.

So the settlement was a legal and strategic decision to resolve a civil claim, not a “payment to avoid criminal charges.” Criminal investigations are handled separately by prosecutors and are not controlled by private settlements. In fact, prosecutors can still proceed regardless of any civil agreement — and in this case, they continued investigating but ultimately did not file charges.

His lawyers are literally on video saying that the penis description was the 300lb gorilla in the mediation room and how they wanted to do everything they could to avoid a criminal filing against MJ and that they hoped to silence the accuser.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/11h7as3/michael_jacksons_lawyerfrom_the_1994_cendler_case/

That sounds like AI to me @Huba

Jordan and his family stopped cooperating with criminal prosecutors and that is why the case was closed. End of story. The money was given, partly as an understanding that both the criminal investigations and the civil lawsuit would be dropped.

So stop trying to rewrite history. The prosecutors could have carried on with their investigations but would get nowhere without cooperation from Jordan’s family.

They stopped working with prosecutors.

The actual findings in his bedroom are all one needs to know surely if they have a squidgeon of common sense ?

Thanks Trivia, saved me a job! 👏

I can see why the supporters think the allegations were false but it's literally because you believe complete nonsense.

Many believe he wanted to fight it in court, despite much evidence showing otherwise.

Many supporters believe that that Jordan recanted.

Not true, apparently when he recanted there was just a teeny tiny little section in the newspaper which no one read because it was so small....ok then

Evan Chandler tried to sue for breach of contract in 1996, Jordan Chandler filed for the same thing in 1998, seperately but they used the same lawyer so they were definitely still on the same page and Jordan was 18 then

MJs mother also tried to claim that Jordan Chandler wanted to testify for MJs defence during the Arvizo trial but was told that if he did the insurance company would make him pay back the settlement, pure nonsense, MJ took out a loan to pay for most of that settlement, from what I've seen the insurance company either paid for none of it or only a tiny amount.

There's that woman in the square one documentary making up a nonsensical story about Jordan saying he didn't think MJ was a molester as they all discussed the Bashir documentary

People say Evan killed himself out of guilt and he couldn't live with himself, Evan was suffering from a degenerative neurological disease when he killed himself and there are also reports he was suffering from cancer.
He was estranged from Jordan at the time, but Jordan does appear to have made up with his mother and has been photographed with her as an adult.

People say Evan Chandler tried to extort him, basing it off a clip from a recording which says he wants to destroy MJ, which isn't even out of line with what someone would say if they found out their child was being abused anyway.....but either way the rest of the recording clearly shows he was deeply concerned that Jordan was being harmed by Jackson.

Also the Hollywood fixer who obtained that clip quit and said that MJ was doing worse than molesting boys.

AND the police investigated Evan for extortion and no charges were filed.

Latoya said in her book that MJ would always root through peoples drawers etc, and told her that 'if you want to really know somebody, look in the very bottom of their bedroom drawers, and then you'll know everything'!

You’d think so wouldn’t you? The hateful attitude towards victims of abuse makes me angry.

We haven’t even mentioned that Jackson was hosting wild parties with a group of teenage German boys during the time he was hiding out in a hotel room while they ( police) raided Neverland and that he smashed the hotel room up in a rage.

Its actually a very well known tactic when someone is scrambling

Throw out lots of details that make one look away from the ugly obvious stuff eh

Ive lost the link of the findings but when I read it it made me change my opinion of anyone knowing what was there and defending him anyway

Defending an obvious pedophile because he had the means to wriggle away from it is just simply crass in my opinion

Wasn’t this written when she was experiencing an abusive marriage to Jack Gordon, associate of everyone’s favourite Hollywood dentist, Evan Chandler.

That was a rhetorical question, btw.

The book was published in 1991 so even before his house was raided.

Not sure what point you think you're making dropping that as a rhetorical question, do you think that Jack Gordon and Evan Chandler told her to make up that little anecdote in advance for their master plan so that years later people would be like oooooh, he said it himself, what you find in the bedroom tells you who someone is.