|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Dec 30, 2017 8:42:28 GMT
She's now made some, um, well, let's say interesting new arguments... "Evan may have been a nutcase( does not mean his child could never have been preyed upon) He also was in a late stage disease process that not only messes with the body (excruciating pain) but also the mind..Before the end of his life he more than likely had tumbled into mental illness as a side effect of his disease. That is why Jordan stopped contact...Apparently Jordan is talking to June and his siblings again these days" "The fact that Cochran was a brilliant lawyer who I feel knew much more than what has ever been or ever will be revealed..He was hands down one of the best criminal trial attorneys in the country, yet from what he was able to gather from all said evidence he knew MJ could not win..IF MJ could win he would never have settled. Never, as that was a death warrant for his rep." "The Chandlers weighed what was going to be possible and let Jordan choose his path in the matter directly . I do not care if MJ got on the dope to ease his "pain" That has nothing to do with it in the end if he harmed a kid or not... He damn well knew what settling meant and so did his advisers. There may have been some darker evidence that they had seen or at the very least they knew MJ would be hard pressed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he was innocent...." "As far as the penis pics of MJ not matching well. Why would SBDA try to get an non matching photo into evidence? As far as Spence and his photo why did the SBDA request that in evidence as well if it "never existed'? Who am I going to believe. LMP and MJ and a blurb in AP or Bill Dworken Head Det in 93 (plus the fact again the DA wanted it in evidence)" "June under oath said "MJ spent 30-40 mins crying, sobbing, shaking and begging her to let Jordan in his bed, when she was opposed to it the first night...He continued with "we are family why do you not trust me nothing is going on" PLEASE June!....What in the world was MJ doing if not BEGGING June and emotionally manipulating(mj specialty) her to let Jordan is his bed? MJ asked Jimmy's mother time and again for her to allow Jimmy in his bed and he got a flat out NO...That is until the Bad tour." "I never understood why the Avisos had to go to a lawyer first but buried deep in the court docs it was clear..MJ and team had their passports furniture, (in a locked garage) and clothing taken out of their apt...I wonder why MJ had his peeps do that...Do you know why?" Wow so much bullshit
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 30, 2017 14:55:53 GMT
"Evan may have been a nutcase( does not mean his child could never have been preyed upon) He also was in a late stage disease process that not only messes with the body (excruciating pain) but also the mind..Before the end of his life he more than likely had tumbled into mental illness as a side effect of his disease. That is why Jordan stopped contact...Apparently Jordan is talking to June and his siblings again these days"
Jordan stopped contact because Evan tried to kill him. Evan also tried to go after the trust fund money.
"The fact that Cochran was a brilliant lawyer who I feel knew much more than what has ever been or ever will be revealed..He was hands down one of the best criminal trial attorneys in the country, yet from what he was able to gather from all said evidence he knew MJ could not win..IF MJ could win he would never have settled. Never, as that was a death warrant for his rep."
The civil settlement had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings. 93% of civil lawsuits at the time were settled out of court. The law encourages it! The reason there was a civil settlement was, not only due to those reasons, but because MJ lost all four court motions. When Cochran came into the case he didn't immediately settle the case. Cochran filed for a protective motion stopping the prosecution in the criminal proceedings from accessing discovery. If this wasn't successful then Cochran wanted a stay of the civil proceedings (civil trial to be delayed). Both were unsuccessful. That meant MJ had to lay out his defence strategy in the civil trial and so Sneddon and co would of gained full access to it which would have put MJ at a huge disadvantage. It would have enabled the prosecution to eradicate any flaws in their case. That has always reminded me of the 2005 case where the prosecution kept changing the dates of alleged molestation as MJ wasn't at Neverland during the dates they first claimed MJ had abused Gavin.
"The Chandlers weighed what was going to be possible and let Jordan choose his path in the matter directly . I do not care if MJ got on the dope to ease his "pain" That has nothing to do with it in the end if he harmed a kid or not... He damn well knew what settling meant and so did his advisers. There may have been some darker evidence that they had seen or at the very least they knew MJ would be hard pressed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he was innocent...."
LOL. They didn't let Jordan choose his path directly. In the Chandler's book they claim they asked Jordan in September if he preferred a settlement and Jordan supposedly said yes. Yet, if it was Jordan's decision, then why back in August after Jordan supposedly confessed, did Evan immediately arrange a meeting with MJ and have his then lawyer demand $20 million?
The Chandlers also like to claim that they were willing to testify but due to a request to be placed in a witness protection program being denied, they didn't. So, which is it? Also, just on that witness protection claim, the Chandlers loved publicity. Ray was wanting to publish a book days after the settlement, Evan was selling stories to the media, Ray appeared on TV in 2004 to promote his book and so forth.
As for the other nonsense, the whole not caring about MJ's painkillers addiction, I don't what the context is of her saying that, but it was relevant in his decision to settle. The rest, well, as stated prior, he lost four court motions. She doesn't understand anything about the case.
"As far as the penis pics of MJ not matching well. Why would SBDA try to get an non matching photo into evidence?''
There was never any chance of the photos being admitted into court. Sneddon decided, after the defence had rested its case, that he wanted to bring in the photos and of MJ's genitalia. First of all, why wait until the defence had rested its case?
Sneddon knew two things. 1. That MJ wouldn't want his genitalia shown in a court room. Haters run with this as 'well there's proof it matched, otherwise bringing in the photos would exonerate him in the 1993 case'. So, a man who doesn't want his genitalia shown in a court room must mean he's guilty? It's ridiculous. He probably hoped the media or jury would 2. Sneddon knew the judge wouldn't allow it to be admitted as it would breach MJ's sixth amendment rights (the right to face the witness and ask questions).
It was basically a way to try and prejudice the jury.
Also, in an earlier motion, which was 60 pages long, they listed evidence they wanted to introduce... the photographs weren't a part of it.
As far as Spence and his photo why did the SBDA request that in evidence as well if it "never existed'? Who am I going to believe. LMP and MJ and a blurb in AP or Bill Dworken Head Det in 93 (plus the fact again the DA wanted it in evidence)"
There was a photograph. What they requested was a photograph of Jonathan Spence to be introduced. The prosecution claimed it was Jonathan Spence, but they didn't know for sure. Spence has always denied any wrongdoing. Nobody seems to truly know who the photograph was of. It could have been a picture of a fan's child and they sent it. Who knows? Now, I can see why some may find such a thing suspicious. However, are we to believe that MJ took just one photograph of whomever that child is if he gained sexual gratification from such a thing?
She means Bill Dworin, not Dworken by the way.
"June under oath said "MJ spent 30-40 mins crying, sobbing, shaking and begging her to let Jordan in his bed, when she was opposed to it the first night...He continued with "we are family why do you not trust me nothing is going on" PLEASE June!....What in the world was MJ doing if not BEGGING June and emotionally manipulating(mj specialty) her to let Jordan is his bed? MJ asked Jimmy's mother time and again for her to allow Jimmy in his bed and he got a flat out NO...That is until the Bad tour."
The 'under oath' part is surely a way to make out 'she must not be lying then'. Which is just laughable. For example, Bashir lied under oath when asked if anybody in England had ever claimed he#d falsified signatures, he responded with 'incorrect'. When had actually been accused of doing so. There's no way he couldn't have knowledge of such an accusation, especially when it involved Princess Diana.
Anyway, back to June. June claiming MJ cried is only one side of the story. We don't know the other. Also the '30-40 minutes' was a supposed discussion. Not '30-40 minutes' spent crying etc. There's also a discrepancy. In Jordan's interview with Dr. Gardner he claimed June found out that Jordan and slept in MJ's bed and confronted MJ about it. He then began to cry etc. However, in June's 2005 testimony, she says MJ cried before Jordan had ever slept in his bed.
On Safechuck, the story goes that, MJ asked Safechuck's Mother if Jimmy could sleep in MJ's bedroom. She said no. Then he asked another time and she said no again. Then Safechuck claims that MJ stayed at his parents house and slept in his bedroom. Then came a trip to the The Phantom Of The Opera and MJ, Jimmy and Jimmy's Mother stayed in a hotel. Again, MJ asked if Jimmy could sleep in his room. His Mother, for a third time, said no. Sometime later Jimmy and his Mother went on the Bad tour. Jimmy then began sleeping in MJ's room during this tour. So, basically, the claim is, MJ kept asking Jimmy's Mother for her son to sleep in his room. She continously said no. Then, on the Bad tour, she allowed it. Why wasn't his Mother questioning why MJ kept asking for her son to sleep in his room? Add to this, Jimmy is like Wade, he wants to blame MJ's companies for the abuse. Yet, just like with Wade, if abuse occurred, it was all his Mother's fault. Once again though, like with Wade, the Mother is excused and the companies are blamed. Suing the companies could result in being rich for life.
"I never understood why the Avisos had to go to a lawyer first but buried deep in the court docs it was clear..MJ and team had their passports furniture, (in a locked garage) and clothing taken out of their apt...I wonder why MJ had his peeps do that...Do you know why?"
During Mark Geragos's testimony (MJ's former lawyer) he stated that the family's belongings were in storage as they were moving. There was then disagreements over where the storage would go and who'd pay for the rent for the storage. The Arvizo's first lawyer, William Dickerman, claimed that he referred them to Larry Feldman as he was an 'expert' on MJ. However, at that stage Gavin hadn't made allegations of sexual abuse. So, Dickerman's job, on behalf of the Arvizo's was to get their belongings back, write to the media regarding using footage from the Bashir documentary and supposed harrassment by MJ employees. On the 'harassment', Dickerman had no proof of it. The Arvizos told him that was happening. One interesting claim of 'harassment' was in MJ supposedly eavesdropping on the Arvizo's phone calls.
Mesereau questioning. Dickerman testifying.
How can MJ eavesdrop on conversations when the family weren't living at Neverland?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 30, 2017 15:34:05 GMT
It is pretty clear at this point that this chick is just looking for any lame excuse to believe MJ was guilty. Her arguments are ridiculous and refuted a million times.
And in typical hater fashion, she clings on phantom evidence. "Chocran must have known something we don't know." "The Chandlers must have had evidence we don't know about." LOL, I always find this line of hater arguments amusing because it shows how little evidence they actually have.
And then taking statments by people who are invested in lying at face value. Surely, June Chandler's and James Safechuck's claims are the Bible. LOL.
And LOL at her best argument for the Arvizos being the storage locker. LMAO, that's priceless.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 30, 2017 16:34:03 GMT
Let me clarify something regarding the supposed picture of a nude boy.
In a court motion the prosecution said they wanted to introduce a picture of a nude boy they believed to be Jonathan Spence. The defence responded in a behind closed doors proceeding involving the prosecution and the judge which involved introducing material into court:
This was a part of the defence speaking on what the prosecution wanted to introduce:
In the hearing no photos were actually shown (Mesereau said in a recent podcast he never saw such a photo). This hearing was for the defence to react to what the prosecution claims. At the time the Judge dismissed the introduction of evidence from1993 evidence at the time because he had not yet ruled on the admissibility of "prior bad acts" evidence. When he eventually did in March 2005 the prosecution never introduced these alleged photos, only three books.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 30, 2017 19:14:49 GMT
The civil settlement had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings. 93% of civil lawsuits at the time were settled out of court. The law encourages it! The reason there was a civil settlement was, not only due to those reasons, but because MJ lost all four court motions. When Cochran came into the case he didn't immediately settle the case. Cochran filed for a protective motion stopping the prosecution in the criminal proceedings from accessing discovery. If this wasn't successful then Cochran wanted a stay of the civil proceedings (civil trial to be delayed). Both were unsuccessful. That meant MJ had to lay out his defence strategy in the civil trial and so Sneddon and co would of gained full access to it which would have put MJ at a huge disadvantage. It would have enabled the prosecution to eradicate any flaws in their case. That has always reminded me of the 2005 case where the prosecution kept changing the dates of alleged molestation as MJ wasn't at Neverland during the dates they first claimed MJ had abused Gavin. Yes. This was addressed a million times, yet haters still want to go on about their fallacious arguments as if they don't know the difference between a criminal case and a civil case and don't know which one was settled and that it was extremely unfair to MJ to push the civil case ahead of the criminal and that is why the settlement happened. They conveniently ignore the fact that the Chandlers themselves admit in their book that they played the game of delaying the criminal trial so that they could push the civil ahead of it. What kind of family of an alleged victim does that? What kind of family of an alleged victim would not want to see the perpetrator in jail? And how that would not be their main priority? Again, someone does not know the difference between a criminal and a civil case. There is no proving something "beyond a shadow of doubt" in a civil case. These haters keep mixing up the two processes and their requirements. I don't know if deliberately or because they are dumb. Moreover, it is not MJ who has the burden of proof to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he is innocent. As that is almost impossible, in every fair law system it is the accuser who has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal case. In a civil case the burden of proof is much more lax. And again the hope for "some darker evidence" - and with this basically acknowledging that the existing real evidence is just not sufficient. All that "darker evidence" that these haters hope for, yet in 25 years no one was able to present it, despite of MJ being on a criminal trial in 2005, despite of him being for almost constant media scrutiny. Yet, somehow this "darker evidence" always remained elusive. LOL. My suspicion is that she does not even want to. She does not come across as open minded to me. She has her preconcieved idea that MJ was guilty and she is looking for excuses to justify that belief. Moreover, Sneddon's alleged "match" doesn't actually correspond with what we know about what Jordan drew. The Chandlers in their book speak about several marks that Jordan drew, yet in this motion Sneddon talks only about one as being on a "matching" location -relatively and "about". Whatever happened to the rest of the markings Jordan described? Why none of that is mentioned in Sneddon's motion? And why isn't his wrong guess about whether MJ was circumcised mentioned? Also, how come that initial police sources said that there was no match - and it was only after Sneddon claimed in an interview in 1995 this claim of a "match" came about. It seems to me that Sneddon just wanted it hard to be a "match" and he was looking for elements that he could twist into a "match" - that one mark's location, relatively and "about" - and totally ignored everything else that could not be twisted into a match. The Chandlers also cynically relied on the fact that vitilgo markings were subject to changes. Let's not forget that the alleged abuse took place around May/June and MJ's genitalia was photographed in December. That's half a year. themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/The whole description thing is extremely manipulative. Why the Chandler's joy over the fact that vitiligo is changing if they were telling the truth? LOL, as if those prosecution people weren't heavily biased against MJ. Guess what? The prosecution did provably lie in court documents and also in the media. So it is not like these people were a bastion of truthfulness. And one more "guess what?" The DA actually wanted and had things in evidence that eventually exonerated MJ. Why would the DA want someone like that stewardess as a prosecution witness when all she did was exonerate MJ and say incriminating stuff about the Arvizos? Same with many other prosecution witnesses, BTW. A lot of them actually turned out to be good for MJ and bad for the prosecution. Why would the DA want so called "alleged victims" in evidence who themselves went on the stand and refuted him saying they weren't victims? The prosecution also went on and on about MJ's adult magazines for days, but the jury said they found it pointless because anyone could have such magazines and it doesn't prove the charge. So this argument by haters about how Sneddon "surely" would not want to introduce evidence if it wasn't great for the prosecution is refuted by the fact that he DID actually introduce a lot of evidence that turned out to be better for MJ than for the prosecution. I addressed the rest already.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Dec 30, 2017 21:41:39 GMT
I'm just gonna copy and paste what thriller and respect said... ![](https://media.giphy.com/media/HufOeXwDOInlK/giphy.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Dec 30, 2017 22:26:16 GMT
HA, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that woman needs to see a therapist with urgency.
I can't bring myself to read the whole thread on MaxJax. I can't stand the tons of bullshit she spews and how disturbing her scenarios are without wanting to bang my head on the wall or wanting to slap her. She should be banished from all the fan sites, she keeps ignoring fact after fact and using ad hominem attacks to whoever challenges and refutes her with the truth, she's not interested to know the truth rather than keep feeding and transferring her twisted fantasies onto the human being.
|
|
|
Post by kaeleah on Dec 30, 2017 23:03:09 GMT
It's turned into a real trainwreck indeed...
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 31, 2017 5:43:22 GMT
HA, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that woman needs to see a therapist with urgency. I can't bring myself to read the whole thread on MaxJax. I can't stand the tons of bullshit she spews and how disturbing her scenarios are without wanting to bang my head on the wall or wanting to slap her. She should be banished from all the fan sites, she keeps ignoring fact after fact and using ad hominem attacks to whoever challenges and refutes her with the truth, she's not interested to know the truth rather than keep feeding and transferring her twisted fantasies onto the human being. It is even more disturbing to me why would someone be a fan of someone who she thinks was a child molester. For all the "seperate the artist and the art" crap - sorry, I don't think it makes sense in MJ's case. Maybe you can do that with a movie director whose person is not so much reflected in the movies he does, but MJ's music reflects who he is. Half of his catalog is either hypocritical or creepy if you think he was a child molester. How are you listening to him singing a love song and not be disturbed by the thought that he might have written it with a child in mind - if that's what you think he was? How are you going to listen to his "make it a better world" songs and not scream in your mind "hypocrite!" - if that's what you think he was? Plus, she does not "just" think MJ is guilty, but she goes out of her way to constantly discuss it. On MJ boards, that is. Sorry, but that sounds like deliberate trolling. And it is not like she discusses it with an open mind. She cherry pics small details, blows them out of proportion (much like haters on MJFacts do) and goes on about them in circles, ignoring the bigger picture. How ridiculous is it to say that the Arvizo's stuff in the storage locker somehow proves their case and makes MJ look guilty (don't ask me how), while ignoring the totality of the case where you have a million things proving that the Arvizos made the whole thing up and they were con artists. Sorry, but this is extremely contrived and lame and it just shows her intent with this.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Dec 31, 2017 8:52:02 GMT
HA, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks that woman needs to see a therapist with urgency. I can't bring myself to read the whole thread on MaxJax. I can't stand the tons of bullshit she spews and how disturbing her scenarios are without wanting to bang my head on the wall or wanting to slap her. She should be banished from all the fan sites, she keeps ignoring fact after fact and using ad hominem attacks to whoever challenges and refutes her with the truth, she's not interested to know the truth rather than keep feeding and transferring her twisted fantasies onto the human being. It is even more disturbing to me why would someone be a fan of someone who she thinks was a child molester. For all the "seperate the artist and the art" crap - sorry, I don't think it makes sense in MJ's case. Maybe you can do that with a movie director whose person is not so much reflected in the movies he does, but MJ's music reflects who he is. Half of his catalog is either hypocritical or creepy if you think he was a child molester. How are you listening to him singing a love song and not be disturbed by the thought that he might have written it with a child in mind - if that's what you think he was? How are you going to listen to his "make it a better world" songs and not scream in your mind "hypocrite!" - if that's what you think he was? Plus, she does not "just" think MJ is guilty, but she goes out of her way to constantly discuss it. On MJ boards, that is. Sorry, but that sounds like deliberate trolling. And it is not like she discusses it with an open mind. She cherry pics small details, blows them out of proportion (much like haters on MJFacts do) and goes on about them in circles, ignoring the bigger picture. How ridiculous is it to say that the Arvizo's stuff in the storage locker somehow proves their case and makes MJ look guilty (don't ask me how), while ignoring the totality of the case where you have a million things proving that the Arvizos made the whole thing up and they were con artists. Sorry, but this is extremely contrived and lame and it just shows her intent with this. Exactly. Have a music discussion and she'll either A)disappear or B)make it about her dislike for his music that's not on OTW, Thriller or Bad (She's said many times she close to hates his work after 1988 and thinks HIStory for example was horrible) In the time I've seen her post, she's said: 1. The Quincy lawsuit was because Michael was ripping off and mistreating Q (yet the lawsuit, Quincy's legal team, the Estate's legal team and Sony all stated Michael paid Q properly as well as a giving him more) 2. Michael mistreated people who worked for him 3. He was mentally ill 4. The charitable efforts were all for show 5. He didn't raise the kids because he was too doped up on drugs and Grace probably raised them 6. He was a habitual liar and cheater 7. He was doing drugs even before the Pepsi accident (She thinks he was doing drugs during the '76-83 years) and points to him always wearing shades back then. 8. He ripped off his brothers money wise for the MSG shows
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 31, 2017 10:17:35 GMT
MJ attracts the weirdest people. He's the most obsessed over celebrity ever. An unfortunate byproduct of being the most famous man to ever walk the earth.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Dec 31, 2017 10:50:32 GMT
In the time I've seen her post, she's said: 1. The Quincy lawsuit was because Michael was ripping off and mistreating Q (yet the lawsuit, Quincy's legal team, the Estate's legal team and Sony all stated Michael paid Q properly as well as a giving him more) 2. Michael mistreated people who worked for him 3. He was mentally ill 4. The charitable efforts were all for show 5. He didn't raise the kids because he was too doped up on drugs and Grace probably raised them 6. He was a habitual liar and cheater 7. He was doing drugs even before the Pepsi accident (She thinks he was doing drugs during the '76-83 years) and points to him always wearing shades back then. 8. He ripped off his brothers money wise for the MSG shows Yeah, she totally does not have a transparent agenda. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Dec 31, 2017 20:51:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 31, 2017 21:05:53 GMT
A long post with little substance. Not that I read it all properly. No need. From a browse you can see it's going on and on.
What I particularly love is the $25 million settlement amount. Anyone who claims to have read as much as she says she has should know the settlement wasn't for $25 million. Seeing that figure immediately reminds me of Diane Dimond. She liked to say it was that amount, which it wasn't. The irony of that being she was the very person who released the settlement document.
'MJ was never the type to listen to anyone'. *Sigh* More MJ bashing. As if the man wouldn't listen to what his lawyers say. At the August meeting between MJ and Evan Pellicano was present. MJ refused to meet without him being present according to the Chandlers. Now, if he 'was never the type to listen to anyone' why have Pellicano with him?
If MJ was so guilty he'd of paid Evan the money he wanted in August before it became public knowledge.
Anywho, I don't really get why people are bothering to go back and forth with her. She clearly loves anything bad she can read about MJ. It's sad to be so obsessed with a man you think is a child molester.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 31, 2017 21:12:50 GMT
Also, her posts are hard to even want to read. Not just because of the content, but because there is no actual cohesion to the posts. It's one paragraph of going off on a tangent, then another paragraph of going off on a tangent about something else.
The posts are so needlessly long winded that all I can do is give them a quick browse and then just not bother to browse any further.
|
|