Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

I suppose some people dislike having to face what clearly is the truth.

I’ve seen that clip, but I don’t think it really changes much. Lawyers tend to talk pretty loosely in hindsight, especially in seminars, and it’s not the same as evidence or findings in court.

Even if something was seen as an “elephant in the room,” that just means it was a big talking point in the background — it doesn’t prove it was key evidence or anything like that. Civil cases are basically all about managing risk and avoiding a long, messy public trial.

So I still think the main point stands: civil settlements are about resolving a private dispute, and they’re separate from any criminal process. A lawyer’s retrospective comment doesn’t really change how that works legally.

@kkloo So you’re assuming she was referring to books featuring nude children or something equally nefarious, is that it? But it could be legitimate porn, could be drugs. Maybe nothing at all. What do you think?

Also, yes it’s possible Gordon told her to say this - look at the other crap he put her through over the years. He forced her to marry him, for crying out loud.

That was just one clip, I could share lots more but is there any point when you'll just stick to what you believe anyway?

As for your last paragraph, I wasn't responding to what you said about civil settlements, I was responding to you saying that Michael was intent on taking the case to a criminal court and how there was detailed accounts of this, there's just as many if not more showing that that is not true.

No, you're the one trying to make out that part was included in the book as some sort of agenda.

I'm simply saying that she said that MJ himself said you can find out who a person is by what's in their bedroom drawers.

And then look what was found in his bedroom!!

What do you think about Josephines story now that I've pointed out the glaring issues with it? Do you still think it's so believable and credible?

I get what you’re saying, but I’m not really trying to build this on “belief” or competing clips. My point is more about what’s actually documented in legal terms rather than interpreting intent from later commentary.

As for seminar clips or later interviews, I don’t doubt there are plenty of different takes out there. My point is just that those are retrospective interpretations, not court-tested findings or official legal conclusions. So I don’t really see them as changing the underlying structure of how civil vs criminal processes work.

Happy to stick to what’s actually on record rather than trying to weigh up which side has more clips though, otherwise it just becomes endless back-and-forth.

These things in isolation such as his sister saying something once would not be significant but it’s the sheer volume of evidence combined with compellingly similar victims testimonies.

You and others focus on one minor point at a time which you try to discredit without admitting to yourself that the bigger picture with many, many facets points to him being a pedophile. It’s sad but it cannot be denied. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Ok but you're on here stating as fact that Michael was intent on taking the case to a criminal court.
If you state things in such a way then of course that will be rebutted.

Again I wasn't referring to your points re civil vs criminal processes.

Scrambling

Focusing on unimportant details and ignoring huge fully fledged findings

From what I've read re the settlement, the Chandlers agreed to drop all claims except for the seventh, that of negligence.
However that claim still referenced that Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with Jordan Chandler which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.

You started your post with your comment the book was written before the raid, so the implication was (pretty much) clear to me.

Even if Gordon had nothing against the Jackson's, it's totally credible he told her say something controversial as a way to sell the book.

Are you sure? If it was truly based on the settlement terms themselves, they wouldn’t be able to state it so specifically, because those terms were confidential.

So regarding Josephine, she comes across in Square One as credible, intelligent, articulate in a general way but I agree the circumstances of what Jordan allegedly told her were perhaps INcredible.

I may watch it again - the music was distracting me the first time.

No I did not.

This was my comment
"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 then responded with "Wasn’t this written when she was experiencing an abusive marriage to Jack Gordon, associate of everyone’s favourite Hollywood dentist, Evan Chandler."

And then I said it was written before the raid, because it was, and I thought it was a ridiculous suggestion by you that someone would tell her to include that little comment, even though there hadn't even been any allegations at that point.

I don't think it was anything other than a comment about MJ saying how nosy he was and how he liked to snoop. You're just intent on twisting it for whatever reason.

And Josephine? Do you have any response to that?

What I read said they were dropping all claims except for negligence at the time they signed, but with the caveat that they would not pursue the claim then once they received the money.

Sorry I did not see this response.

Yes when you listen carefully and think about it, it would be incredibly unlikely that it happened. it sounds completely unbelievable for several reasons.

What's the source @kkloo ? I'm not disputing that you read the info. I'd just surprised if ithe info is out there

The settlement was confidential, so we don’t actually know the exact clause-by-clause breakdown like that.

X

https://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/16/michael.jackson/

The link to the civil complaint is posted here. https://mjnotinnocent.net/articles/1994-michael-jackson-chandler-settlement

I could find more but just wanted to post something quickly in case the thread closes.

Also in the 1998 claim filed by Jordan Chandler it mentions he had accused Michael Jackson of sexual molestation and that it had been settled at the request of MJ.

I think there’s some confusion here between different documents. The CNN link and similar pages are reporting about the case, not publishing the actual settlement agreement. The civil complaint is also a separate document again — that’s just the original set of allegations before anything was resolved.

The settlement itself was confidential, so the actual terms were never fully made public in any official court filing. That’s why different sites and summaries often conflict or mix up the complaint, reporting, and later references.

So I don’t think we can treat any of those as “the final settlement wording” — the only solid fact is that the civil case was settled privately and dismissed without a court ruling on the claim

I didn't say that it was the final settlement wording, I said what I read, so sorry if it didn't satisfy yourself and chatgpt.

And then I said it was written before the raid, because it was, and I thought it was a ridiculous suggestion by you that someone would tell her to include that little comment, even though there hadn't even been any allegations at that point.

@kkloo Not ridiculous at all he would force Latoya to say something controversial. You know what he was capable of.

The second link isn’t the actual settlement document either — it’s a commentary/compilation site that mixes together parts of the civil complaint, media reporting, and later references.

The settlement itself was confidential, so its exact wording and terms aren’t publicly available there.

Proper speedy research though. Me and chatgpt are impressed 😉 x

From what I've read re the settlement, the Chandlers agreed to drop all claims except for the seventh, that of negligence.

@kkloo So you didn't read any of the settlement, you read stuff on Reddit or somewhere similar about the settlement.

I think it is and either way I just shared an anecdote from the book, it's certainly not an unusual belief that if you search someones private belongings you'll see who they truly are, more weird to root through their stuff but that wasn't the point of my comment.
You've just decided to talk in riddles and then attribute implications to me that I did not make.
If I was trying to imply something I would have no issue just saying it straight out.

Thread is now closed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Michael_Jackson