Bereft of life 'e is. He's dead.
Posted on 07/08/2009 10:06:06 AM PDT by vaper69
There is a vicious coordinated effort to slander Jordan Chandler by Michael Jackson fans. They are claiming he has admitted to lying about Jackson molesting him, and only did so over the guilt of his death. It is NOT true.
Do a Google search for “Jordan Chandler admits he lied” and see what you get. Page after page after page of posts rehashing the same exact story that Jordan Chandler has admitted that Michael Jackson was innocent, and never assaulted him as a child.
(Excerpt) Read more at needsofthemany.wordpress.com ...
So if a Jackson supporter says the pay-off didn’t mean he was guilty, then you have to ask why Jackson took the later case all the way to a court verdict.
If you’re innocent, you should take all court cases of that magnitude/importance to a verdict.
Not true. Settlements are often made to avoid the costs and publicity of going to trial. They are always made without any admission of guilt. I personally know of many of them.
There was only one Jackson case -- not two -- and Jackson was found not guilty. Evidence from the Chandler investigation was used in the trial and was found to be wrong.
I'm not a Michael Jackson fan and do not own any of his albums, but we Freepers need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of truth than, say, the posters at DailyKos.
Please get your facts straight. There is NO SUCH THING as an "innocent" verdict. If the LAPD came after you for being involved in the Charles Manson murders, the evidence against you would be ludicruous, of course. Still, you would not be declared innocent, but rather not guilty.
Thank you for bringing some sanity to these posts.
I KNOW there’s no such thing as being found “innocent.” I’m responding to the people saying he was found innocent. He wasn’t. He was found not guilty. My wording in the post in question is awkward because what I’m expressing is that if you prevail in a civil suit, it only means that you won by a preponderance of the evidence. There’s very little room for a jury to decide in favor of the plaintiff or defendant, yet have significant doubt about the verdict.
If you are found “not guilty”, it means the state didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — a much tougher standard that “preponderance of the evidence”, and a standard that leaves room for a whole lot of doubt as to whether somebody committed the act in question, but still permits you to find the criminal defendant not guilty.
I didn’t intend to imply that there could ever be a finding of “innocent” in a criminal trial. I was trying, awkwardly, to comment on the fact that criminal juries can BELIEVE that the defendant committed the crime, yet acquit the defendant because of reasonable doubt.
Thanks, Scoutmaster — we are both correct, but I misunderstood you. I agree with you that those who say Jackson was declared innocent are not correct. He was declared not guilty, but he may or may have not been innocent.
Strip searches? Doctors from the DA's office examined Jackson private parts & took photos. When he learned the results were to be compared to Jordan's description and drawing of the same, Jackson folded at a cost of millions and his reputation. There was no finding that Jordan's description was "way off", and Jackson dared not have it tested in court.
Bottom line, that was in 1993, why did Jackson continue to sleep with other people's 10-14 year old little boys? Could he not control himself - despite the then proven risk - and why not? Nothing sexual, just innocent? Ha....!
We have a winner!
You clearly misunderstood how justice works. After the strip-search, if there were conclusive match, the police would’ve gone ahead with the accusation regardless of the settlement. Keep in mind that Jordan Chandler didn’t even get basic facts such as whether MJ had circumcision or not right. So, use your brain before accusing MJ of anything that the even police didn’t have enough evidence.
What you said seems very far-fetched. For example, Michael Jackson’s wiki page didn’t mention anything about the settlement in 1990. Would you please provide some credible sources for your stories?
With all due respect, Michael Jackon’s wiki page is not something I would consider a ‘credible source”. I’ve got CNN and the London Telegraph with about 90 seconds minutes of Googling. As for the earlier settlement, I don’t know what you consider credible, but I’ll take CNN and the Telegraph. I know the maid was one of the eight key witnesses to be called in the last trial against Jackson. As for the settlement:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/06/content_431692.htm
This CNN story doesn’t mention the amount, just that Jackon settled:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/05/jackson.trial/index.html
Here’s another story giving the settlement date as later, from the London Telegraph:
And another:
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/1995/01/26/1995-01-26_boy__oh_boy__jackson_report_.html
What’s confusing is this may be another settlement entirely. Give me time and I can find the leaked grand jury testimony with the 1990 settlement date of another settlement that I first referenced. I’m not making the stuff up. Honestly. I don’t have any reason to make it up. You know, he may have simply been the target of lots of other money-hungry parents once he settled a couple of sexual abuse claims. He may also have paid a lot of claims with “non-disclosure” clauses because, well, he had the money and he just couldn’t help himself.
I don’t have a tape of the interview I heard with the prosecutor/police during round-the-clock all-Michael marathon when the prosecutor gave HIS OPINION that Jackson had paid $200-220 million in settlements. But like this maid settlement, it was there.
I don’t have any reason to make this stuff up.
You’ll notice the inconsistencies. Jackson supporters will say it’s because all of this stuff was being made up, even as far back as 1993. Others will say it’s because Jackson’s camp was paying people to be quiet, even as far back as 1993 and earlier.
I’ve read about story of this maid from the “not so credible” wiki, and I knew that she didn’t have a settlement with MJ in 1990. That’s why I questioned your post in the first place.
Some of the sources you mentioned can be considered reasonably credible. But when it comes to the accuracy of specific story, you have to consider it’s validity on an individual basis. For example, the alleged $2 million settlement was worded as “reportedly netted them $2 million”. Thus, the accuracy of this number relies on who and where it was reported. Since this is not even mentioned in the story, there’s no way of judging it, and I wouldn’t confidently say the settlement was there before I see credible direct source on it. As to the $200 million spent in settlement, first of all, you are yet to produce the source, second, it seems that the claim was from the prosecutor. I wonder if this person can be judged a reliable source when it comes to MJ. It wouldn’t surprise me if he exaggerate it “a little bit”. Keep in mind that this guy claimed to have an iron clad case against MJ in 2005, and he ended up losing it miserably. Finally, it is never mentioned what these settlements are about. Is it about sexual abuse or something else?
Actually, although some of the sources you cited are considered credible, they frequently recycle rumors from tabloids, such as TMZ. Just a few days ago CNN and scores of other “credible” sources had cited TMZ on the story about Debbie Rowe admitting in an interview that MJ’s children are not hers biologically. Debbie Rowe promptly denied such an interview ever took place. So, when it comes to accuracy of information, you can’t rely on second hand news medias, even “credible” ones, instead, you need to get to the direct source.
As to the inconsistency among MJ fans, I’m not sure what that proves about MJ. To me this is quite irrelevant. Those are MJ fans’ action, not MJs. The fans are not one single person or one coherent group of people. I would be surprised if there’s a high degree of consistency among them. So what’s the point of pointing out the inevitable?
The fact is that I don’t rely on the fans for my information.
On the first page of results, I found this 2004 article, combining a "Dateline" report and MTV: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1490772/20040904/jackson_michael.jhtml
"Responding to a "Dateline NBC" report that claimed he paid $2 million to silence a would-be accuser in 1990, Michael Jackson admitted Friday that 'years ago, I settled with certain individuals because I was concerned about my family and the media scrutiny that would have ensued if I fought the matter in court.'
In the report, which aired Friday night, a retired Santa Barbara County sheriff explained how his office uncovered a 1990 payoff to the 12-year-old son of a Neverland Ranch employee . . ."
This suggests the payoff to the maid was brought out in the 1993-94 case, but dated to 1990.
MSNBC covered this particular claim in more detail at http://www.redorbit.com/news/oddities/141206/witness_says_jackson_molested_him_in_1990/.
What's confusing here is that all of this sounds like a 1993-era settlement by MJ for actions around 1990, which would make your statement that there wasn't a 1990 "settlement" correct.
Contradicting this would be Michael's 1994 press statement that he had made a previous payment "years ago" to settle a claim. Who knows? I'm not trying to start an argument, but whom do you think MJ was talking about in 1994 when he says he settled with individuals "years ago"? The statement was given in response to the public uproar over Dateline's story of a 1990 settlement.
Can we just be friends, agree to disagree, agree that all of this is cloudy and will never be resolved, and move along? Let's face it, the media certainly can't agree on the details.
There are articles out there that Jackson paid a sexual abuse settlement in 1990 in addition to Dateline NBC. I know. I've read 'em -- that's what I remembered and why I knew to Google the 1990 settlement.
Did Jackson settle a claim in 1990? Don't know; I wasn't there.
But the fact that wikipedia doesn't mention a 1990 settlement doesn't mean that one didn't occur. Dateline NBC quoting a retired Santa Barbara County Sheriff (Jim Thomas) that a 1990 settlement was made doesn't mean that one did occur.
None of this will ever be settled by us.
Personally, however, I'll give the nod to retired Sheriff Jim Thomas. I'll bet there was a 1990 settlement. But I've been wrong before and me stating my opinion should not be construed as an effort on my part to convince you to adopt it.
Why do you think MJ admitted that he settled with someone years ago in 1994? The reference you give is clearly a story in 2004. I’m very confident in that MJ didn’t make the settlement in 1990. I don’t see anything cloudy here. So far even you fail to provide any reference that dates the settlement to 1990. Actually, this very maid didn’t even accuse MJ of molesting her son until after MJ settled with Chandler in 1994. Before this, the only thing she claimed was that she saw MJ taking shower with boys, and she sold her story to tabloid for $2,000. I have trouble understanding, if MJ really molested her son, why she didn’t bring it up then? Why after MJ’s 1994 settlement? The year of the settlement is important because a 1990 settlement will build a strong case of MJ as habituate offender, but a settlement after 1994 is very different. After the 1994 settlement, many people were motivated by money to file false accusation to MJ, and I believe that the maid is just one of them.
"In the report, which aired Friday night, a retired Santa Barbara County sheriff explained how his office uncovered a 1990 payoff to the 12-year-old son of a Neverland Ranch employee . . ."
What am I missing? Isn't that a reference to a 1990 date for the settlement? I'm not offering that as definitive proof that a settlement took place in 1990, but how can you say I fail to provide any reference that dates the settlement to 1990? What am I missing?
In 1993, the maid said that she “quit in disgust”. But it turned out that she was fired by MJ in 1990. Can you imagine that MJ had a settlement with this very maid in 1990 for molesting her son, and this maid still work for MJ until 1991 and only quit in disgust after she saw MJ taking shower with boys? It is very clear that there’s no 1990 settlement. As to the sheriff’s claim, very likely it meant payoff for the accused 1990 molestation, instead of a 1990 settlement. You should find more solid evidence than a passing reference to the year 1990 by a unnamed sheriff, especially when there were sources dating the settlement to a later year, and the 1990 date clearly makes no sense.
I’m really tired of people keep comparing MJ case to OJ Simpson’s. When we talk about the MJ 2005 case, we should not only take note of the fact that MJ was acquitted of all charges, but also why he was acquitted. Compared to OJ’s case, in which DNA evidence was presented, the MJ case had no evidence at all other than word of mouth. So, basically you implied that based on such a week case, no evidence at all other than word of mouth from very untrustworthy people, a man should serve terms in prison for up to 20 years? Otherwise it is justice not served?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.