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

I was hardly expecting you to agree 😂

Non response from you is just dandy, I speak for others not just merely myself.

"Bollocks", you say?

The settlement itself makes it clear that it is global negligence that's being settled. Nothing else.

I see you've gone straight to referring to the 1996 lawsuit now. That can wait for a bit as well as there's a few posts I plan to respond to first.

I can’t bare to hear his songs.
He was disgusting. How anyone can defend him, I don’t know.

I thought you weren’t responding to me?

The settlement itself makes it clear that it is global negligence that's being settled. Nothing else.

Of course it does - MJ’s lawyers were very careful.

Anyway I’m going to bed.

It’s quite simple: don’t be a pedophile apologist if you don’t wanna be called a pedophile apologist. It’s like me making racist remarks then getting huffy for being called racist.

@Mirabai is very much adding to the debate - you just don’t like that she is outsmarting you

What a surprise another grainy screenshot with no context.

It’s genuinely hysterical that your “gotcha” is apparently “haha wrong lawsuit” - do you never stop and think why your idol HAS so many lawsuits in the first place?! What are you even trying to prove?

You claim Michael Jackson was "silencing his victim" yet Chandler's own lawyer, Larry Feldman publicly stated that "Nobody bought anybody's silence.”

Larry Feldman was, of course, correct especially as the text of the settlement itself makes it clear that it wasn't settling sexual abuse allegations. Furthermore, Feldman knew that the criminal investigation was still proceeding and had not closed.

From the settlement document:

"The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation."

You might prefer to think it "doesn’t matter what the legal papers say", but the reality is it does.

So, you've gone from "Bollocks" to accepting that is what the document itself states. Glad we got there in the end.

If you were reading closely, I used the word "likely". So, I hadn't ruled out responding. 🤷‍♂️

Lol do you think he was defending Jackson? The context of that comment was to say it doesn’t mean Jordan Chandler couldn’t pursue criminal charges.

Larry Feldman was, of course, correct especially as the text of the settlement itself makes it clear that it wasn't settling sexual abuse allegations. Furthermore, Feldman knew that the criminal investigation was still proceeding and had not closed.

Of course they did. As @Mirabai saod his layers weren’t dumb they knew exactly what he was doing. He still sexually abused Jordan Chandler. Why are you pretending that wasn’t the claim?

Did it turn back time to ensure he wasn’t raping children? No. Semantics does not make The Nonce innocent. HOW can you be so blind?! Do you think his music is that good?!

You might prefer to think it "doesn’t matter what the legal papers say", but the reality is it does.

To his lawyers yea - to normal non nonce lovers, it doesn’t matter a joy because he’s a pedophile.

Why won’t you answer any of my questions about the naked images, or if it was Barry from Asda, or if you would let your children (my god your poor kids) sleep in the nonce’s bed?

"Wrong lawsuit"?

I suggest you take the time to read more carefully as that isn't what I said. I'm really suggesting that the 1996 lawsuit doesn't help your argument out.

But I'll get around to it. Eventually. 👍

No idea what you’re banging on about?

Why do you think your favourite pedophile had so many lawsuits and not say any other pop star or millionaire? Go on, have a crack at an answer.

Just post links to evidence, rather than screen shots, @DownNative.

It would help your ‘cause’.

Look @DownNative its fine to separate the art from the artist. No one will give your grief if you continue to enjoy Jackson’s music. But defending the indefensible, calling raped little boys liars and shitting all over anyone who was ever abused as a child - not cool. And actually embarrassingly stupid.

If you do plan to answer questions can you tell me why Jackson behaved so very much like a pedophile if he wasn’t a pedophile?

She can’t do that it’s harder to use doctored links

Of course, Chandler COULD pursue criminal charges by cooperating with the police even after receiving the settlement money.

And there would be nothing Michael Jackson could have done about that since settlements cannot legally bar a person from cooperating with law enforcement.

It's unusual for a District Attorney to apply to the court to compel an alleged victim to testify and/or cooperate.

The Chandlers wanted the civil case in order to get money. As soon as they got that, they shut down and disappeared.

Like I said earlier, Californian law was later changed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. That's why the Arvizos couldn't do the exact same thing the Chandlers did.

Like I said, the settlement document makes it clear that allegations of sexual molestation was not being settled.

The legal motions I explained previously makes it clear Michael Jackson wanted the criminal case to proceed. All his legal team was trying to do was to prevent the civil case going first.

The law has since changed which vindicates Michael Jackson's legal team's argument. That's the point.

The Chandlers actively avoided cooperating with law enforcement and certainly didn't want the criminal trial to happen. Their behaviour much later on is interesting in this regard.

That's your problem there - you think this is "shitting all over anyone who was ever abused as a child".

But that is a logical fallacy as it can be true that some people were abused and some people were falsely accused.

Logically, this isn't impossible.

However, some people such as yourself have a difficult time accepting both statements can be true.

It's certainly problematic to accept any and every allegation of any description as true without looking into them more closely.

If your logic holds, that means the allegations made in the documentary "Death On The Rock" should be regarded as true unquestionly.

Yet those allegations were not true.

You might not like this, but there we are.

If you like, I can simply post 22 pages of the 1993 settlement that is available online?

Do let me know and I'll get round to it. 👍

Knock yourself out.

@nolongersurprised I have just read that you used to work in child protection. How would a case like this be handled by them? So for example if you had reports of some random man displaying the behaviours similar to MJ, would there be swift action?

I’m not a police officer.

But - there needs to be a disclosure. Then - forensic interview/exam with the child although exam findings usually negative (doesn't mean historical abuse didn’t happen). Then a surprise interview with alleged accuser, hoping for a shocked confession.

But most of the time the allegations don’t go very far, usually because children are terrible historians, especially traumatised and young children.

I do think MJ got away with it because of money, fame and power and if Mike-down-the-road who behaved the same, had the same materials found at his house and the same accusations wouldn’t get away with it.

It should have been sufficient, IMO, that an accused noted that MJ had depigmentary changes on his penis - vitiligo is quite rare and the average Joe doesn’t have white patches on their penis. It’s unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a traumatised child to describe this perfectly, esp as the condition is progressive and MJ’s fans who say this “exonerates” him are deluded. But, that’s what expensive lawyers do, successfully sow doubt around the specifics so the big picture is missed.

Nope. The lawsuit accused MJ of “repeated sexual battery” - also seduction, misconduct, emotional distress and fraud and negligence. It summarised the nature of the alleged sexual acts by MJ. It alleged that MJ had told boy the acts were ”normal, usual and customary acts in a relationship between friends.” And alleged that these sexual acts caused the boy “great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering and emotional distress”.

When his lawyers agreed to settle the case, they were very careful to negotiate the settlement on the basis of “negligence” to protect his reputation.

And, it should also be said, it was specifically worded to deny any admission of wrongdoing or liability:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully<> “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor”.