To think it's tragic if Michael Jackson was indeed innocent

[pregahes]

It's a real shame for someone who created incredible music to have their legacy at risk. It’s just tragic, considering the impact his music had on so many. It's tragic either way, if he's guilty for the victims and if he's innocent for himself.

I'm a huge fan and at one point t thought he was guilty but kore recently change of heart. I think there would be more victims if he weee in fact guilty. Somethings doesnt add up.

It's tragic

Sincere apologies Dolly! I have seen my mistake 😞

He didn't need to use Epstein's island. He had Neverland.

I will try and find the jury interviews. Jurors in the UK aren’t allowed to give interviews about a trial they sat on, but they can in the US and in fact the OJ jurors ALL published books about the trial. But the MJ jurors (who BTW the defence team have a hand in selecting, they arent randomised people) were basically 12 superfan morons. They REALLY hated the mother of the victim and seemed to use that dislike in their decision making. Except for one bloke who said he believes Jackson DID molest boys.

Perspnally in a world that hates sex abuse victims I’d like juries to not apply to sex crime cases. The everyday man cannot be impartial it seems

Which suggests some element of understanding of the warpedness of his proclivities. Or was it in the hope of some bizarre manufacture of future young boys not of his loins that he could "legally" cuddle up with? Shudders

Saville was never even charged so also technically died an innocent man. I think it's more tragic that guilty people die without being punished than innocent people die unpunished.

No worries, I should have quoted then it would have been clearer. Was just trying to reply quickly on my phone ☺️

Yes there are videos of him on you tube where he uses his 'real voice. He has an adult deep voice.

I know very little about it, but I know a lot of people who covered the story, many in some depth, and no one had any doubts of his guilt

He didn't need to as Epstein didn't peddle the 'goods' that MJ was interested in

He probably paid the jury off.

I've read that before everything about him screams keep this weirdo away from kids

There’s a lot of jury interviews - all seem to be talking about how a v good expensive defence team created enough reasonable doubt.

One woman talked about how she had a crush on Jackson

Anther woman’s decision seemed to be centered around the fact the victim’s mother didn’t look very attractive.

This is why court cases are theatrical shows not means for justice. This is why I am sceptical about juries - any old biased idiot can ruin someone’s life

I would disagree seeing as a simple Google search of the word 'cherubs' bring up 1000s of pictures of essentially, from your perspective, indecent babies and children. Photography is a form of art. Not everyone who views the cartoon, paintings or even photographs of cherubs as arousing.

Big mouth on Netflix is a very good example of why your statement fails.

Should be:

Not every one who views the cartoon images, paintings or photographs would be aroused by them...

You’re missing the point. It’s not about the intent of the viewer. It’s about consent. Babies and children cant consent to having their naked pictures disseminated for public use.

s no dispute that, at age 34, Michael Jackson slept more than 30 nights in a row in the same bed with 13-year-old Jordie Chandler at the boy’s house with Chandler’s mother present. He also slept in the same bed with Jordie Chandler at Chandler’s father’s house. The parents were divorced.
2. So far, five boys Michael Jackson shared beds with have accused him of abuse: Jordie Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Wade Robson, and Jimmy Safechuck. Jackson had the same nickname for Chandler and Arvizo: “Rubba.” He called Robson “Little One” and Safechuck “Applehead.”

vanity fair mag decades wrote / about him/ article is to long to repost

OK, yes.

I concede there. Fair point, I still stand by how all images including 'cartoons' are sexual abuse and illegal. How else would Big Mouth be allowed to air?

Oh God 😔

Fortunately “I wasn’t aroused by it” is not a defence of you do possess indecent images of children

I have had a job in child protection. One of the CSA cops talked of a gross video doing the rounds amongst wannabe child sexual abusers. Basically a guide to grooming children - but - all in cartoons, all perfectly legal. Doesn’t make it ok, though, does it?

Unfortunately, whenever I think of cherubs now I picture Jacob Bresler, a peadophile sympathetiser who worked at Mermaids. He had a large tattoo of a young boy as a “cherub”.

I’ve just watched that clip upthread. I have seen the interview before but many years ago and had forgotten how utterly bonkers it is. Plain sight.

He says twice it’s ’not Jack the Ripper’, well blimey, I would hope not as he was a serial killer. (Like he has to think of something pretty fucking bad as an example of badness to make his badness less bad). Perhaps he didn’t realise there are other ways to harm children than killing them. Sadly not surprised to hear him say he’d let his kids sleep at other adults (non-family) homes. He’s so desperate to normalise it all. Absolutely sickening.

Jacob Breslow, sorry. Got the surname wrong.

At the time of his trial, the narrative was that MJ was in a peculiar state of arrested development due to his childhood, that meant he had never developed any sexual feelings. Thus it was implied that he was simply incapable of abusing any children, because he was still operating on the level of a pre-adolescent himself.. It was popularly supposed that he'd had children via surrogacy, using a sperm donor, because he was incapable of the sexual act, even to the point of providing a sperm sample.

The quantity of pornography found in his estate rather gives the lie to that narrative!

In retrospect, it's most odd that Jackson was simultaneously seen as too childish to be capable of sexual desire while also being viewed as fully entitled to have full financial control over his estate without outside interference. No-one ever proposed imposing a conservatorship on Jackson, did they?

I think it’s horrific now because we’re coming into it “cold” and seeing a middle aged man whose eyes light up at the thought of sharing a bed with children,

whereas, for those of us growing up in the 80s/90s we “knew” him as a child, then a young man who seemed immature and it wasn’t a stretch to accept that yes, he hung out with children because he was like a child himself. Then that became the narrative.

But looking at that clip cold, after some years, it’s so so obvious that he was a nasty paedophile. The public was also groomed, in a way

Not necessarily so. Settlements in the civil process do not axiomatically indicate guilt and other explanations are available for various types of settlements aka civil resolution.

Michael Jackson lost four crucial motions in court.

These court motions were:

Motion For Trial Preference (Civil Trial) by Chandler - GRANTED.

Motion To Compel Deposition by Michael Jackson - DISMISSED W/O PREJUDICE

Motion To Compel Mr Jackson's Deposition by Chandler - GRANTED.

Request To Stay Ruling by Michael Jackson - DENIED.

Key to understanding these four motions and their significance is in knowing what the Chandler's civil lawsuit was about.

1. sexual battery
2. battery
3. seduction
4. willful misconduct
5. intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. fraud
7. negligence

The civil lawsuit was filed whilst the criminal investigation was still ongoing.

Civil lawsuits allow hearsay and circumstantial evidence.

Criminal investigations do not allow these.

As a result, filing a civil lawsuit at the same time as a criminal investigation can lead to a defendant being prejudiced against or suffer self-incrimination.

So, on 14th September 1993, the Chandler's lawyer, Larry Feldman, filed their $30million lawsuit.

Michael Jackson's lawyer, Bertram Fields, filed Michael Jackson's answer to this lawsuit on 29th October 1993.

Discovery process can then start. This means:

1. Depositions are taken
2. Request for Production of Documents
3. Request for Admissions aka admit to certain facts
4. Form Interrogatories

A protective order can also be done which is blocking or limiting requests or limiting information requested.

At the same time as all of that going on, Bert Fields filed a Motion for Stay of Discovery and Trial on behalf of Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson wanted Discovery AND a Trial in the civil case to be imposed until the six year statute of limitations ran out.

That would have meant ZERO discovery and ZERO criminal trial until 1999.

By then, the outcome of the criminal investigation would have been known well before 1999.

If this motion was granted to Michael Jackson, the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara District Attorneys would NOT have been able to use the civil trial in order to build a criminal case against Michael Jackson.

People either forget or don't know the Chandler's refused to cooperate with the police.

This forced the police to want to take information from the civil trial in order to attempt to prosecute Michael Jackson.

Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti sought to change the law in order to compel Jordan Chandler to testify.

Why would he try to do that?

Simply because the Chandlers were not cooperating with law enforcement during the investigation.

So, we go on to the Motion To Compel Michael Jackson's Deposition.

The Chandler's lawyer, Mr L. Feldman, wanted to depose MJ and 11 other people including Anthony Pellicano, LaToya Jackson, Bianca Francia, Gayle Goforth, etc.

The discovery material they wanted from Michael Jackson was:

• Form interrogatories
• First Set of Special Interrogatories
• First Set of Request for Production of Documents
• Second Set of Request for Production of Documents
• Second Set of Special Interrogatories

Michael's legal team responded to all of this by asserting his Fifth Amendment Rights.

The Motion To Compel Michael Jackson's Deposition infringed Michael Jackson's constitutional rights due to his treatment for drug addiction. He needed to resolve his medical issues first.

The other reason given for the objection to Michael's deposition was that Michael Jackson should not be
deposed until the criminal investigation was concluded and any potential criminal prosecution disposed of.

When the Chandler's lawyer objected by pointing to Michael's Mexico deposition, Michael's attorney, Eve H. Wagner stated that MJ was glassy eyed, could hardly stay awake, had difficulty holding physical objects, slurred speech and could not focus on issues.

Therefore, Beechy Colcough issued a statement on 20th November confirming Michael had a drug problem requiring treatment.

"That Michael Jackson be given the same right to have his testimony heard for the first time at trial without fear that the prosecution will try to impeach his credibility.....the law enforcement agency has sought and gained access to all discovery in this action." - Johnnie Cochrane

Cochrane also opposed the Motion to Compel because some information sought by the Chandler's was irrelevant to the case, some was protected by Attorney-Client privilege and that it was too early to request Michael Jackson's financial information.

13th December 1993, Johnnie Cochrane takes the lead in Michael's case and issues a Motion For Protective Order.

He argued that Michael had a right to be protected from invasion of privacy, embarrassment and undue annoyance.

Same applies to the witnesses.

And that Michael Jackson had a right to receive a fair, impartial trial.

He argued that if this Motion For Protective Order was not granted, then Michael Jackson was entitled to a Stay of the Civil action because law enforcement were delaying their investigation in order to use any Civil Discovery against Michael Jackson.

All these motions were designed to protect Michael Jackson from violation of constitutional rights and self-incrimination.

The case Pacers v Superior Court was used to support this argument that it's unconstitutional not to stay the Civil action whilst a criminal investigation is pending.

Chandler's lawyer, unfortunately, argued that Jordan was entitled to a speedy trial because a child's memory is still developing.

Problem is that law they used to argue this was intended for young kids such as four year olds.

Anyway, Michael lost all four motions.

He couldn't take the depositions of Jordan, Evan and June Chandler or Dave Schwartz.

Since the motion for Trial Preference was granted to Chandler, the trial was to be held in March 1994.

Michael was handicapped in defending himself since he could not take their depositions.

Clear violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial, to defend himself and to question his accusers.

Unsurprisingly, all of this set the stage for the settlement itself.

In lieu of winning the motions Michael Jackson needed, reaching a settlement in the Chandler civil action was the SECOND BEST way for Michael Jackson to protect himself and his constitutional rights.

It meant, as a consequence, Michael Jackson could then focus on the criminal case and any potential criminal trial.

Finally, it is now NOT possible for any case involving felony charges to be resolved through a civil compromise aka settlement. Only misdemeanors can be resolved via settlements.

This change in State law vindicates Michael Jackson's legal team's argument for staying the civil case until 1999.

It's important to note that if a person receives reimbursement via a settlement, the District Attorney's Office could still attempt to pursue criminal charges against the defendant. Settlements do NOT end any criminal proceeding.