|
|
Post by dangerousliaison on Mar 16, 2023 15:45:11 GMT
Hi all, I'm new to this forum so I apologize if this has been discussed before. Because this years marks the 30th anniversary of the 1993 allegations, I decided to revisit the case since it's been quite some time since I've researched it. I re-read the redacted settlement that was leaked and something jumped out to me that I've never seen mentioned before. One of the sections of the settlement says "The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by (name redacted), (name redacted) and (name redacted) 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" Now I am not a lawyer but I do think I am a bit more "legally savvy" than the average layman, but doesn't this suggest that the Chandlers would be acknowledging that they are receiving money to settle their claims of negligence and not their claims of sexual molestation? I know it has been discussed frequently that the settlement is not an admission of guilt but I have never seen it reported or discussed anywhere that this settlement was paid out to settle claims of negligence (probably Michael sharing a bed with Jordie) and not for claims of molestation? I think this is a very important part of the puzzle when discussing this case because the information that keeps being repeated is that he settled the case either to "keep them quiet" or because he knew he was guilty. Does anyone have any other info related to this detail? I can't imagine why two parents who felt their son was sexually abused would accept money on the basis that the money is for negligence and NOT for molestation. This is I think would also explain why they stopped cooperating with the criminal investigation and why they have remained in hiding all these years. (I attached a screenshot of this part of the document but I don't know how to post it as a regular image.) IMG_0825.heic (753.24 KB) |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Mar 16, 2023 17:14:16 GMT
Hello! welcome to the forum.
i never known any of this as well.
i'm confuse just like you are.
many people felt Michael should have never settle.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 16, 2023 17:18:31 GMT
Yes, I think the settlement was for negligence. Whoever leaked it (well, it was the Chandlers) left pages out of it, but even on Page 1 at the bottom you can see it's a negligence claim: "negligent infliction of emotional distress". I don't think you can sexually abuse someone out of negligence. That would be an intentional act.
And there is also this part of course where MJ specifically states that he doesn't admit any wrongful act against Jordan or his parents. Which of course once again raises the question that you have raised: if the Chandlers wanted the settlement to try to force MJ to reflect on his "crime" (as alleged in Ray Chandler's book) then why would they sign this statement where MJ specifically says he doesn't admit any wrongdoing?
|
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Mar 17, 2023 7:04:20 GMT
Hi all, I'm new to this forum so I apologize if this has been discussed before. Because this years marks the 30th anniversary of the 1993 allegations, I decided to revisit the case since it's been quite some time since I've researched it. I re-read the redacted settlement that was leaked and something jumped out to me that I've never seen mentioned before. One of the sections of the settlement says "The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by (name redacted), (name redacted) and (name redacted) 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" Now I am not a lawyer but I do think I am a bit more "legally savvy" than the average layman, but doesn't this suggest that the Chandlers would be acknowledging that they are receiving money to settle their claims of negligence and not their claims of sexual molestation? I know it has been discussed frequently that the settlement is not an admission of guilt but I have never seen it reported or discussed anywhere that this settlement was paid out to settle claims of negligence (probably Michael sharing a bed with Jordie) and not for claims of molestation? I think this is a very important part of the puzzle when discussing this case because the information that keeps being repeated is that he settled the case either to "keep them quiet" or because he knew he was guilty. Does anyone have any other info related to this detail? I can't imagine why two parents who felt their son was sexually abused would accept money on the basis that the money is for negligence and NOT for molestation. This is I think would also explain why they stopped cooperating with the criminal investigation and why they have remained in hiding all these years. (I attached a screenshot of this part of the document but I don't know how to post it as a regular image.) View AttachmentI dont think the exact wording of the settlemebt really means a lot. In the eyes of the sceptics and much of the public, MJ paid them money and they went away. That's the big takeaway from the settlement, certainly in the eyes of his detractors. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 17, 2023 7:05:40 GMT
Hi all, I'm new to this forum so I apologize if this has been discussed before. Because this years marks the 30th anniversary of the 1993 allegations, I decided to revisit the case since it's been quite some time since I've researched it. I re-read the redacted settlement that was leaked and something jumped out to me that I've never seen mentioned before. One of the sections of the settlement says "The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by (name redacted), (name redacted) and (name redacted) 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" Now I am not a lawyer but I do think I am a bit more "legally savvy" than the average layman, but doesn't this suggest that the Chandlers would be acknowledging that they are receiving money to settle their claims of negligence and not their claims of sexual molestation? I know it has been discussed frequently that the settlement is not an admission of guilt but I have never seen it reported or discussed anywhere that this settlement was paid out to settle claims of negligence (probably Michael sharing a bed with Jordie) and not for claims of molestation? I think this is a very important part of the puzzle when discussing this case because the information that keeps being repeated is that he settled the case either to "keep them quiet" or because he knew he was guilty. Does anyone have any other info related to this detail? I can't imagine why two parents who felt their son was sexually abused would accept money on the basis that the money is for negligence and NOT for molestation. This is I think would also explain why they stopped cooperating with the criminal investigation and why they have remained in hiding all these years. (I attached a screenshot of this part of the document but I don't know how to post it as a regular image.) View AttachmentI dont think the exact wording of the settlemebt really means a lot. In the eyes of the sceptics and much of the public, MJ paid them money and they went away. That's the big takeaway from the settlement, certainly in the eyes of his detractors. Just because detractors believe in fallacies that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter for those who actually seek it. |
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Mar 17, 2023 7:13:56 GMT
I dont think the exact wording of the settlemebt really means a lot. In the eyes of the sceptics and much of the public, MJ paid them money and they went away. That's the big takeaway from the settlement, certainly in the eyes of his detractors. Just because detractors believe in fallacies that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter for those who actually seek it. Well, are they wrong? I'm not defending the haters, but I believe the settlement was the worst decision MJ ever made and not at all in his best interests. Yes, there was nothing to stop them cooperating further with authorities, which is something that frustratingly gets left out of the conversation too much, but still, MJ and his team likely knew this was a shakedown and they did the one thing you never do in hostage situations; pay the ransom. I guess I just fail to see how the exact terminology of the settlement really matters when defending his innocence. No-one is going to be won over by that. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 17, 2023 11:20:42 GMT
Yes, they are very much wrong.
Just because people commonly think a settlement proves guilt it's still a fallacy and is untrue. What most people think or believe is not necessarily the truth. And even if you think the truth is ineffective in winning over people, it still needs to be told, because there might be people out there who are not falling for the fallacy. And well, because it's the truth. What's your alternative? Let's just hand over the narrative to haters 100%?
Once upon a time the truth of the Earth not being the center of the universe must have felt very ineffective too in the face of most people wanting to hold on to the belief of humankind's special status in the universe...
BTW, there's a whole lot more frustratingly left out of the conversation about the settlement than just that they still could have cooperated with the criminal investigation...
|
|
|
|
Post by dangerousliaison on Mar 17, 2023 13:56:25 GMT
I dont think the exact wording of the settlemebt really means a lot. In the eyes of the sceptics and much of the public, MJ paid them money and they went away. That's the big takeaway from the settlement, certainly in the eyes of his detractors. Just because detractors believe in fallacies that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter for those who actually seek it. I agree with you that the settlement overall was probably a bad decision but I think it was a bad decision only in hindsight. It’s very easy to forget that in 1993 when this broke, MJ was still at the height of his popularity and I truly don’t think most people believed this. I think if they had known that in the future there would be more accusers, their strategy would have been different. I didn’t even think there would be more accusers after Gavin since that case was just pure comedy at best. So when Wade started peddling his nonsense, I was actually very surprised. It is important to note though that it’s VERY common for innocent people to settle civil cases so it’s very frustrating that this settlement is always referenced as an admission of guilt. The reason I pointed out the exact wording is because I do think it’s an important detail when answering the question “why did he settle if he was innocent”? which is something guilters have been asking for 3 decades. I think taking everything else already stated, plus this fact that the settlement was not even for payment of claims of molestation but in fact payment for claims of NEGLIGENCE, it almost suggest that the Chandlers were going back on their claims and also explains why they refused to cooperate soon after. It may still not convince a “guilter” but I do think it’s an important piece of information that never gets discussed. Also sidenote, does anyone have any “new” info on the theory that MJ and June may have been romantically involved. I had never heard of this until very recently but it actually makes the story seem so much less bizarre and make so much more sense when you look at it from that lens. |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Mar 17, 2023 14:09:01 GMT
I agree with most people Michael shouldn't have ever settle. yes he was innocent but from the public eye it was a bad decision. it was something serious and he ignore it. it only made stuff worst at the end.
also i'm not sure whatever or not Michael and June had something going on romantically. but i heard something that Michael had a ring to propose to her.
if this true it really does make sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 17, 2023 15:21:05 GMT
Just because detractors believe in fallacies that doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter for those who actually seek it. I agree with you that the settlement overall was probably a bad decision but I think it was a bad decision only in hindsight. It’s very easy to forget that in 1993 when this broke, MJ was still at the height of his popularity and I truly don’t think most people believed this. I think if they had known that in the future there would be more accusers, their strategy would have been different. I didn’t even think there would be more accusers after Gavin since that case was just pure comedy at best. So when Wade started peddling his nonsense, I was actually very surprised. Yes, and it's just an assumption that had he not settled the public opinion would be better about him and more people would believe in his innocence. The public reaction to the 2005 verdict shows us that much. MJ won in court fair and square, the case actually crumbled real badly in court, but did people actually care about what went on in the courtroom? Look at the polls after the verdict! No, they didn't. They only cared about what the media, people like Diane Dimond or Nancy Grace told them on TV about the trial: that MJ got away due to "celebrity justice". And other fallacies like "OJ was acquitted too". Etc. When I think of that I'm really not sure if anything would be different reputation-wise had he fought in court and won in 1994. And that with the added danger of the legal jeopardy that this whole situation of bringing the civil trial ahead of the criminal put him in. From that aspect the settlement becomes very much understandable. Re. June. I personally don't believe in a romance between her and MJ. I think MJ simply attached himself to families because he's been missing that family atmosphere in his own. And I don't think the Chandlers were as special and exclusive in his life as they make it out to be. We know, for example, that there have been occasions when MJ hung out with them and the Cascios at the same time. Or with Brett. |
|
|
|
Post by dangerousliaison on Mar 18, 2023 17:24:04 GMT
I agree with you that the settlement overall was probably a bad decision but I think it was a bad decision only in hindsight. It’s very easy to forget that in 1993 when this broke, MJ was still at the height of his popularity and I truly don’t think most people believed this. I think if they had known that in the future there would be more accusers, their strategy would have been different. I didn’t even think there would be more accusers after Gavin since that case was just pure comedy at best. So when Wade started peddling his nonsense, I was actually very surprised. Re. June. I personally don't believe in a romance between her and MJ. I think MJ simply attached himself to families because he's been missing that family atmosphere in his own. And I don't think the Chandlers were as special and exclusive in his life as they make it out to be. We know, for example, that there have been occasions when MJ hung out with them and the Cascios at the same time. Or with Brett. Yes, this seems likely too. I felt that either MJ had a romantic interest in her OR, she had a romantic interest in him that was unrequited. After all, both of her husbands weren't exactly working class, she clearly enjoyed men with money. I also agree that it may have just been the "normal family" atmosphere. I def think that regardless of the nature of their relationship, it seems that Michael became leery of her after the Vegas trip when she claims he was sobbing and begging her to let him sleep with Jordie (and the fact that anyone believes that's why he was crying is hilarious). I think he was trying to do a good deed and help their family in a very naive way and ended up being turned on. I also am dying to know why June turned on him. Initially she denied any wrongdoing but shortly after her meeting with Evan and Rothman, she pivoted and teamed up with them. Tbh, I suspect it was because Evan and Rothman let her know that allowing Jordan to share a room (or bed) with MJ was "negligent" and any time a child claims abuse and the abuse came about due to the parent's negligence OR if any evidence of abuse is found, the child is removed and put into Child Protective Services. Since she is the one that facilitated the relationship with MJ, Evan and his lawyer probably threatened her and told her she could lose Jordan since she put him in that "situation". There was a custody battle going on so she probably was ready to say or do whatever just to not lose her son. But that's just me speculating. I have reading about this case for years and I just keep uncovering things, it's so fascinating how in depth this case is but there's very little info about it in the mainstream media. |
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Mar 18, 2023 17:36:21 GMT
Yes, I think June basically weighted her possibilities after Evan managed to get Jordan say what he wanted him to say. If she went with MJ, she could have ended up being a defendant along with MJ. On the other hand, if she went with Evan she could end up with millions of dollars. Not a difficult choice in case you are able to put aside what you truly believe about the case and your conscience. Because I don't think for a moment that she really believed MJ had molested Jordan. According to Ray's book before her turnaround she expressed towards them the opinion that Evan had coached Jordan. I don't think that belief suddenly disappeared, especially since she wasn't allowed by Evan to talk to Jordan one by one. That should only strengthen her suspicion. But once she saw she had better prospects by going with Evan and also saw that law enforcement was heavily biased for Evan, she made her calculated decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Mar 19, 2023 7:53:53 GMT
I believe Evan Chandler didn't like the fact Michael coming around his ex and son. some people see that as a threat whatever Michael and June was romantically or not.
it could be a chance Michael had interest in her. he was giving her things like jewelry and money and it's been said Michael only did that to women he liked it.
it seems to me Evan Chandler if it's true had serious mental health problems and blame it on June and Jordan.
Michael was such a gentle guy. i think wanted to help out because we all know how Michael was when it came to children, a family, or people in general.
sametime didn't realize it was gonna cause trouble.
poor guy. he still shouldn't have settled though.
|
|
