MovieChat Forums > Michael Jackson Discussion > If it Quacks Like a Duck...

If it Quacks Like a Duck...

posted 5 years ago by cyberbob (3488)
38 replies | jump to latest

Yeah, no, come on. I like his music as much as anybody. I think he was a good dancer and was a cool part of the 80s and all that, but...

You have what are CLEARLY sham marriages and sham hetero relationships. You are spending all day with young boys. You are spoiling them in the way that any rich hetero celebrity spoils hot young women. You are sleeping in a bed with multiple young boys. There are multiple young boys claiming you fucked them

He fucked little boys. If you deny this then you are a quacking duck with its head in the sand, or however that metaphor goes

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

Well if the Earth looks flat, and it feels flat, than it must be flat. Oh wait uh...Well if it looks like water and it smells like water, than it can't be vodka. Oh no uhh. If air looks empty and it smells empty, than obviously the science agree...well maybe not. Actually let's put our ego aside and stop putting faith in our limited senses. Alright? K? Cool.

Your second paragraph is more of the same crap that's been debunked ad nauseum. Circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence based on subjective culture, circumstantial evidence, bullshit media narrative but even if it were true still circumstantial, and all of those were lies and proven extortion attempts.

I guess I have to say this for the 1234th time. EVIDENCE. If something is supposedly a fact, show me the evidence. Do that and I'll animate his corpse just to hang him, until than, the fact that you irrationally jumped to conclusions is no one else's problem but your own.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Oh really? What's been debunked about this?

"You have what are CLEARLY sham marriages and sham hetero relationships. You are spending all day with young boys. You are spoiling them in the way that any rich hetero celebrity spoils hot young women. You are sleeping in a bed with multiple young boys. There are multiple young boys claiming you fucked them"

These are all facts. Sorry you don't like them, but they are facts.

Child molestation, in fact all sexual abuse cases, are notoriously difficult to get hard evidence for, since it happens in private, with only the perpetrators and victims being present. There's not a thing wrong with circumstantial evidence. In fact, it's more reliable than eyewitness accounts evidence.

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

I didn't say they weren't true statements. I said they're not solid evidence in and of themselves to conclude Michael Jackson is a pedophile. And pedophiles leave tons of evidence. It's way too powerful an addiction to hide. They'd have ample quantities of kiddie porn on their computer that'd be nearly impossible to delete without a trace, they'd have drawings and magazines in their house, they'd have victims going to the police. They'de be caught in public loooming at kids sexually. But none of that's been found and all of the victims were proven to be liars. But apparently, even Cory Feldman, a man who was literally a free meal for pedophile celebrities his whole child-hood said Michael Jackson didn't even lay a hand on him even though he had every chance to.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

You are generalizing about the pathology of pedophiles down to the last behavioral-detail, which you criticize his detractors of doing. You sent me a reply just like this a day ago. .

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Actually, that is what you said: "Your second paragraph is more of the same crap that's been debunked ad nauseum." Bunk = lies, untruths, BS. You can't debunk something that's true.

If what you meant was there wasn't enough evidence to convict MJ in court, beyond a reasonable doubt, well he wasn't convicted, so legally you're on solid ground there.

There may not be enough evidence to convince you he was a pedophile, but for many others there is. Pedophiles do not always leave tons of evidence, and when you're talking about an extremely wealthy international superstar, it's a lot easier to hide evidence, and to be protected by the fame as well. You can buy witnesses and victims off, intimidate, threaten, and easily discredit them, because they don't have power. The wealth and fame are an additional motive to hide or scuttle any evidence, because the stakes are far higher if the truth is exposed.

Pedophiles choose their victims carefully, and groom them as well as the kids' parents. They are very patient criminals in that regard. If you think they're going to be caught in public, leering at every child they see, you're wrong and need to learn more about how pedophiles operate.

All of the victims may have lied initially, but that's very common amongst victims of child molestation. For that matter, MJ is also a proven liar.

I believe Cory Feldman that MJ didn't molest him. I think he'd say so if he had. Who knows why MJ didn't target him. We'll never know.

[–] Heisenberg (6313) 5 years ago

I hate to be playing devil's advocate for MJ.
I don't know for certain he's innocent. He certainly looks guilty, but so f'in what?
TheReccher is right people, lots of things don't look like they really are, and there is a final word to this: WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Heisenberg (32
In that case every pedophile serving time has been wrongly incarcerated because we never saw them having sex with their accusers with our own eyes. The fact that the boy sketched a picture of his genitals is evidence, but I don't hear that being mentioned. That wasn't a case of the boy being "lucky"
The bigger picture is that fans will use selective reasoning due to the fact that the suspect was an admired famous singer ( therefore, in your words "but so f'in what??)

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

I'm no saying I need to see the man rape a kid. That would count, but there's other forms of evidence. Like an ample number of accusers whose stories check out, or child porn on his computer, or magazines in his house, or at least video taped evidence of him eye fondling a kid. Those men were in jail because there was legal evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of the doubt. There was nothing to convict Michael after decades.

And are you trying trying to paint rational skeptics like they're the ones spouting fallacies? If you're the one twisting logic and arguments and coming up with assumptions to keep your conclusions cemented, it's not the people on the other side of the argument being stubborn.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

What about the sketch of Jackson's genitals? I have not seen them, nor know how detailed the drawing is, but if the kid drew something that matched his genitals that was very distinct, and against the odds of the kid knowing, that would be evidence to some degree. Has that been revealed to the public?

And why did MJ pay 20 million, for what? I don't want to make it complicated-- so in simple terms, he paid them for a certain reason. That said, I do not remotely feel it was worth 20 million. I cannot fathom why it would need to be that much, when you consider other cases of payouts and the specific alleged harm that was done.(and it doesn't matter if he could afford it, since that's not the point). So, I am being rational and looking at it from both sides.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I've tried, and failed, to find that sketch. All I know is it supposedly correctly identified some of the blotches on his genitals from the vitiligo, and that it was drawn as circumcised, while MJ was uncircumcised. Did the kid draw it that way because he and other boys/men he knew were circumcised? Just how accurate were the blotches in his drawing?

I don't know the answers.

He paid the $20M to get rid of the civil law suit, no matter how you look at it.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

oh..I wondered if it was a portrait-tattoo of Liz Taylor, or something.

At any rate, TheReccher is angry about the accusation, but hasn't' addressed the genital-matter that I know of. And 20M was Jackson's noose; people don't pay 20M for hearsay, or even to settle a civil suit. That amount is above and beyond reason. (or his lawyer suggesting that amount is odd). A settlement is not for the purpose of setting the accuser for a lifetime of luxury.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"oh..I wondered if it was a portrait-tattoo of Liz Taylor, or something."

😄 You have a sense of humour! Good to know.

TheReccher is very angry about the accusations, and rarely addresses points that are brought up so I expect that.

According to MJ, he paid out that money on the advice of his attorneys who said it'd end up costing more than the settlement amount and eat up years' worth of time on top of it. I don't know who came up with that figure, but obviously at some point his attorneys came to agree with it, if they didn't suggest it themselves.

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

The circumcision part, and visual proof on other males, got a friend of mine kicked off of IMDb. She'd warned people voluminously that she was linking to graphic material, but that's the way MJ fans roll -- she came on that board saying she believed he was guilty, given the evidence, and that was enough to have them gunning for her.

I didn't look at what she linked to, but it was pictures of erect penises that were and were not circumcised. She linked to them to show that a child could have been confused by the two. The blotches, according to investigators who worked on the case, were dead on. It was the confusion between circumcised and uncircumcised that the defense attacked, apparently successfully.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Seems weird she got kicked off of IMDb for posting that with all the warnings, but then IMDb moderating was crap, and as you pointed out there isn't a lack of lunatic MJ fans out there.

I've now read what you're talking about and that she linked to. Something about the underside looking the same or similar enough to explain the drawing.

I found this video on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=panosN01Hrk

And then I found this series of videos came up about Jordan Chandler, which you'll find interesting if you haven't already seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ90tNeBrE0

I'd already searched YouTube for videos on Jordan and MJ, and strangely this one never came up in the search results, even though it was uploaded in 2012. Hmm.

I was thinking about you earlier tonight became I came across a post on Reddit that spelled out almost exactly what I think, and why. The only difference is I don't come down so hard on the parents. (Not surprisingly, MJ fanatics call this person a troll or doing a parody because it's pretty even-handed, LOL.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverland/comments/bkmg8m/i_watched_leaving_neverland_and_convinced_myself/

There are quite a few links in there that I intend to read, both in the OP and in the replies. Thought you'd be interested :)

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Aha, here's an extensive article about it. Finally, the straight dope!

https://www.mjfacts.com/the_telltale_splotch/

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

Those were really helpful articles, especially the last one. It answered a lot of the questions that kept coming up. I hadn’t seen that documentary before. Poor Jordy! His parents were creeps, and no amount of money is going to make that kind of pain go away.

As for IMDb, we all knew the creep who’d reported that woman — he went around bragging about it. She, like you, was calm, quiet, and dealt in logic and facts. I think that bugged this one obsessive fan more than anything — he knew that her approach would convert those fence-sitters who were lurking, and he was going to get her anyway he could. It was then that I learned the sagacity of having a backup screen name handy. She just switched to her other one and picked right up at the same old stand. She used to be an admin on another site. 😉

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Yes, that last one answered a lot of questions I've had too. Now I know why I couldn't find the sketch, and it makes sense.

I do feel badly for Jorden. His life has been destroyed. I'm not so quick to judge his parents, because I read things that make them both look bad, and then finally locate the full context, and their actions are reasonably understandable. There's a whole LOT of disinformation out there! One reason why that last article was so refreshing.

The creep doubtless rounded up other MJ fanatics and reported the cr*p out of her post. Most of IMDb's moderating was automated and a posse could get a totally tame and mundane post deleted that way. If they ganged up on your friend, she'd have been gone as a result.

You know, it never occurred to me to have a backup account there. Or anywhere. Good for her for having had the forethought, and picking up where she left off without missing a beat 😄

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

We always figured that the creep --MJcology, I think was his unpretentious name -- had more than one account for reporting purposes. Having a fall-back account or two for positive purposes just made sense over there, though. On one board I posted on, the fans would gang up and have every single post I made deleted. The thing was, they couldn't argue against them, so they just kept having them deleted. They wanted to get my account itself deleted, but I deleted it myself for a number of reasons, one being it was just too pointless to try to post against those odds.

Then, you won't believe it, but one of the people who sicced his posse on me changed his name and came back posting the same arguments I'd been posting! He didn't like the idea that I was getting so much attention! He wanted it all! Of course, he couldn't get the arguments right because he didn't believe in them. That's the real definition of a troll -- a guy who is only trolling for attention.

Do you remember "makesmewanttoholler"? Wow! There were some nuts over there! She stood up for Cosby, because it was all about racism. We were there trying to say that, no, being a predator isn't a race thing, it's a predator thing. Wow. They've got an even worse clone of that place which I visited today. A lot of the same trolls. I didn't think there could be a worse sewer than IMDb, but they managed it.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

It's likely he had a number of accounts so he could get rid of posts and posters he didn't like. It's also likely, given the behaviour of a large number of MJ fans, he banded together with others to do the same.

"On one board I posted on, the fans would gang up and have every single post I made deleted. The thing was, they couldn't argue against them, so they just kept having them deleted."

🙄 That was the problem with their automated moderation. Too easy for the trolls to game it.

"Then, you won't believe it, but one of the people who sicced his posse on me changed his name and came back posting the same arguments I'd been posting! He didn't like the idea that I was getting so much attention! He wanted it all! Of course, he couldn't get the arguments right because he didn't believe in them."

😂 That's all I can say about that one! 😂 Talk about desperate for attention.

Oh yeah, I remember Holler. It was impossible to reason with her. What a nut.

I know the board you're talking about. IMDb had pockets of sewers, but that one's all sewer, all the time.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Give this a read:

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/plugin-schwartz_chandler.pdf

It'll give you a different take on Evan Chandler.

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

That puts things into perspective. It wasn't quite as they portrayed on that video. Still, Evan Chandler seemed to be most ticked off that he'd been sidelined. He was so angry at what they did to him, he didn't care what happened to Jordy. He couldn't see that Jordan would be angry at him for trying to blow up all the rest of the adults in the picture. He wanted to take Michael down, he wanted to take his ex-wife down, and he figured if he didn't he'd lose Jordy anyway. But he was so angry at being dismissed that he couldn't see he'd be blowing up any bridge he might have back to his son. And when Schwartz tried to explain it to him, Chandler said he didn't care. He's pretty impulsive, to say the least.

Poor Jordy. With that kind of guy as a father, he didn't have any stability in his life. It's pretty easy to take things out of control, then, and for the child to think that's just what adults do -- they keep doing things that don't make any sense and telling him that "it's all right."

Now I can see why Jackson always picked kids who were from homes like that to be his "special friends." The poor kids were used to insanity as normal, and Jackson's behavior would just be a different kind of insanity.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

You've finished it already?? I'm still slogging through it. There's the first conversation between Schwartz and EC, then a bunch of calls from Schwartz's business that have nothing to do with this, then two more long conversations between S and EC.

I haven't yet come to any conclusion other than EC has been demonized. To what degree, I don't yet know. This is bringing up more questions for me almost than answers.

I know S was EC's ex-wife's husband (seemingly estranged when these were recorded) and Jordan's stepfather. I don't know why he recorded these conversations. Apparently S admitted he was a negligent stepfather to Jordan and negligent father to his own kid(s?), but have no idea what that was about.

I also want to know the dates of these recordings so I can figure out WTH they're talking about, when. That makes a big difference. Did EC know MJ had sexually abused his son during the first conversation, or not? It's not clear.

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

I didn't finish, but I did read enough to get a good look at Chandler's mental processes at the time. Since there were all those other conversations included, apparently Schwartz recorded conversations routinely. But then there's this point where Chandler's asking about beeping, and asks, "Are you recording this?" and Schwartz denies it.

I'm pretty sure I don't like Schwartz.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I'm pretty sure I don't like Schwartz either, but I would like to know when these were recorded, and why. I'm having trouble getting context 😬

I'm halfway or so through the 3rd conversation. What I'm getting is EC actually was very concerned about Jordan's well being, that he (rightly) thought MJ was driving a wedge between his and his son and breaking up the family. Although he and June had gotten divorced, it appears he thought Schwartz was fine as a stepfather, and that he liked and trusted him.

But Schwartz bailed on Jordan and June (apparently he had a habit of doing this, and regretted it), which allowed MJ an in.

EC is saying he doesn't care if Jordan resents him in the short term (by doing whatever he has to do to get MJ away from Jordan), because he feels it's very important to get him away from MJ, for his mental health in the long term. He believes that down the line, Jordan will see this and know someone stood up for him.

[–] Destinata (2600) 5 years ago

I noticed he said he expected his son would eventually see who was the good guy. It's that horrible blurting out that he didn't care about the short term, and that he had nothing to lose. Maybe if I could hear more of his tone of voice -- we got a bit of it in those videos -- I might know better. And I may be reading too much of myself into it. Back in my bad old days I was sounding like that about a matter, and I was ready to burn everything to the ground "if I don't get what I want" -- Chandler's exact phrase. I'd like to think I'd have had a different idea if there had been a child involved. See, that's kind of sticky, at that point.

And how in thunder did he wind up trying to do a negotiation for a film deal? Didn't Chandler's brother say it was MJ that brought that up? At that point Evan should have yelled, "What? You think I can be bought with some flashy jewelry, like June? I'm not that kind of guy. See you in the papers!"

How does someone go from wanting to burn it all down to being bought off? Maybe like Lisa Marie said, MJ was always calculating, always manipulating, and he found an in so perfect it would make someone that angry stop and think twice.

In the end, all we can say for sure is, "What a mess!"

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

You've got to read the rest. I'm getting close to the end now, but just came across this:

"12 MR. CHANDLER: I'm telling you this:
13 That as bad as my life is, I'm willing to let it
14 get a lot worse --
15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
16 MR. CHANDLER: -- and sacrifice
17 whatever it is -- and I don't even consider it a
18 sacrifice -- give up whatever it is so that my son
19 won't be damaged."

Yes, tone of voice would help, knowing *when* these conversations happened, and exactly what EC knew at these points. What, exactly, is he talking about? He has *something* on MJ, that's clear, but what? And *what* is it he wants that he eludes to?? Does he not know about the molestation? Doesn't sound like it. Does he just want MJ to leave his son alone? What??

I can't come to any conclusions without knowing the answers to these questions.

Yes, EC's brother said the film deal was MJ's idea. Did he offer a film deal in exchange for not having to get out of Jordan's life? Too many unanswered questions. Maybe someone on Reddit will have the answers.

Amen on "What a mess!"

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

This has been explained already. Michael is a deeply non-contronfrontational person, almost to the point of mental illness. He literally cowers if you so much as disagree with him. A man like that is not going to pound his chest and take you to civil court over it. Especially if it means possibly airing his genitals out in public. He paid an amount of mmoney he could literally make back in a few hours and sweep it under the rug and be done with it as quitely and quickly as possible, an admittedly dumb and gutless decision that backfired on him sure. A better question would be, why would the parents take the money, and why would they bring this to civil court if they wanted justice?

The fucking genitals argument is heresay at this point. Jordan Chandler is about as credible as a taxi driver in a neckbrace, and the person who confirmed the accuracy of the drawing might as well be John Doe because he hasn't shown his face.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"This has been explained already. Michael is a deeply non-contronfrontational person, almost to the point of mental illness. He literally cowers if you so much as disagree with him. A man like that is not going to pound his chest and take you to civil court over it. Especially if it means possibly airing his genitals out in public."

Why are you speaking about MJ in the present tense when he's been dead for 10 years? Strange.

No, you made that claim, and provided no proof for it. For someone who demands solid proof for anything that isn't pro-MJ, you make many claims that either I or others have disproved with facts, or you provide none.

If he was so pathologically non-confrontational, why did he accuse Evan Chandler of extortion, and yet oddly file no charges for it with the police -- until after the LA Times pointed out no complaint had been filed?

BTW, Chandler was investigated by LA county DA Michael Montagna as a result, for over 5 months, and found no evidence extortion had been committed.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-25-me-15027-story.html

Why did he sue the auction company he himself hired to auction off 1000-2000 of his items, involve himself in the design and copy of the auction catalog, and then turn around and sue them?

"He paid an amount of mmoney he could literally make back in a few hours and sweep it under the rug"

More hyperbole, which casts everything you say in doubt. According to Forbes, as well as other reliable sources, MJ made $500 million over his lifetime. In 1993 his income was estimated as $34 million. In 1994, the year he paid the Chandlers, $19 million -- that's $3 million more he paid them than he made in that entire year.

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

You haven't disproven a damn thing I said with any sort of facts, and you continue to try and paint this imaginary double standard, like I'm only saying we should always jump to conclusions except for Michael Jackson.

And I'm not saying that Michael Jackson is pathologically incapable of fighting back. I'm just saying, it's going to be a little difficult for him, but if push comes to shove he'll get his lawyers and they'll sue the extortionists for libel after being called a kiddy diddler, what innocent man wouldn't. Practically everyone who knew the man from Feldman, to his nieces and nephews to every celebrity who met him confirmed he had a childish and timid personality.

My claim on his income is not hyperbole. The man was was considered a musical legend at his time and was constantly. Thriller alone got him 175 million dollars. Forbes probably calculated that from the amount of DEBT he was in, but Michael, like all stinking rich celebrities, was loose and irresponsible with his money.

Good for Mister Montagna that he didn't see the obvious extortion attempt. Jordie and his pops were still extortionists.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

You're the one who's got the double standard. I'm just pointing it out, since you appear to be blind to it.

"And I'm not saying that Michael Jackson is pathologically incapable of fighting back. I'm just saying, it's going to be a little difficult for him"

Uh yes, you did say almost that same thing.

""Michael is a deeply non-contronfrontational person, almost to the point of mental illness. He literally cowers if you so much as disagree with him. A man like that is not going to pound his chest and take "you to civil court over it."

And yet, he accused E Chandler of extortion and (eventually, after the Times pointed out he hadn't) filed charges against him for it. And, bizarrely, sued the auction company, the auction company he himself hired to sell his things!

Lisa Presley, his wife, paints a very different picture of him, calling him very manipulative and saying that what he showed the world, that shy naif, was not who he actually was but the persona he deliberately invented.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

The year-by-year Forbes did on Jackson had nothing to do with the debt he accumulated later in his life.

You said "He paid an amount of mmoney [$25 million] he could literally make back in a few hours" and you're claiming that *wasn't* hyperbole? 😂 Okay then, you prove that he could have made that back in a few hours. I'll wait.

"Good for Mister Montagna that he didn't see the obvious extortion attempt. Jordie and his pops were still extortionists."

Right, so he was investigated for over 5 months for extortion by the LAPD, as per MJ (the cowering deeply non-confrontational guy), and was cleared of it (i.e., MJ lost), but to you, still an extortionist because reasons.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"the person who confirmed the accuracy of the drawing might as well be John Doe because he hasn't shown his face."

Yet again, wrong. Meet John Doe, AKA Bill Dworin. He was a senior detective and one of the lead investigators on the 1993 investigation. He saw the photos and the drawings Jordan drew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=panosN01Hrk

Jordan is very credible. You just don't want to think so because for some strange reason you're irrationally blinded by your MJ fandom -- someone you've never met, never will meet, never knew, and never will know. Why, I haven't a clue.

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

The first man to bring this comparison up was a doctor at the scene of the strip search, and he admitted that he didn't confirm it himself but needed a 'friend' to do it. A man we haven't seen. At this point it's nothing but heresay until I see the damn photos. Every anti-Jackson report on the so called similarity has been inconsistent, and several of Chandler's claims were demonstrably wrong. Looks like al the kid got was his vitiligo, which you don't need to look at his penis to know, and a lucky guess that there was a black spot somewhere. Why did Jackson agree to it if he was guilty and why didn't they arrest him if a crude children's drawing really matched the description to a tee?

Jordan is not credible. Every sign points to him lying for money.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Uh, no 😄

During an investigation interview by the LAPD Jordan described the coloration and markings below Michael Jackson’s waistline and above his knees including his penis, and drew a picture of Michael Jackson’s erect penis. Because of this, a warrant was obtained to take photos of Michael Jackson to corroborate or rebut the Jordan's description. Same as would happen in any investigation of any potential evidence on any case.

Several LEOs saw both the description, drawing, and photos. You can't seriously believe that the lead detective on a case wouldn't have seen this, and that his saying they match is hearsay. That's absurd. (I assume that's the word you were aiming for. Heresay isn't a word, and I doubt you meant heresy, although given your highly emotional responses on this whole MJ thing, maybe ;)

MJ had no choice but to subject himself to the examination and photos.

He wasn't arrested because there's such a thing as rules of evidence. Testimony would have had to be first given witnesses called, THEN evidence can be introduced.

I'd be willing to bet a lot that even if the "crude" drawing were released with the photos and were an exact match, you'd still deny it. Because it'd be a drawing from memory by a 13-year-old, and not a photographic-quality drawing.

Right, a 13-year-old boy went through all of that, lying just for money 🙄

[–] TheReccher (343) 5 years ago

My point is that without seeing the picture itself, their testimony as to whether it's a 'perfect match,' is heresay. Especially considering two things. One, it was never used in a court of law, neither the 1993 case or the 2005 case, and two seperate jurries didn't find him guilty after the fact. Many of these men didn't even come forward to confirm UNDER OATH that it's a match. None of them. Even though his defense attorney begged for it, the prosecutor refused. Inconsistencies and vagueries have been found in literally almost all testimonies. Jim Thomas literally said it was confirmed by a friend of a friend of his. "Tiny spot" was stated in one, "almost accurate" blemish in another. The only substantive thing in Sneddon's testimony was the blemish. He went on about "detailed descriptions" from Chandler but never divulged past that. Which anyone could have guessed he had because Michael already anounced to the world he had vitiligo. Jordan Chandler drew a circumsized penis, which Michael doesn't have.

If you still believe this phallic portrait narrative holds any water, I have no words.

Your last sentence is ridiculous too. I've long since railed against adults who think children can't lie. I was a child once. Believe me they do. They can, and they know adults are stupid enough to think they can't and that's why they get away with it. A 13 y/o is old enough to know the value of a dollar at least to a rudimentary degree and should certainly know the value of the money he demanded in court.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

No one, literally no one, has said it's a "perfect match," so why you say that, in quotes as though anyone has said it, is beyond me. Except it's in character with your continual misleading and sometimes outright dishonest posts.

HEARsay, there is no such word as heresay.

Not just anyone said it matched, it was the lead detective in the investigation = NOT hearsay.

There were no two juries. (So much for your claims of having done extensive research.) The 1993 civil case MJ settled out of court. The photos and drawing would have been used in the criminal case, but that case was dependent on Jordan's testimony as the main witness, and he did not want to testify after having been threatened and maligned by MJ's "army" of nutcase fans, as well as being hounded by the press.

So there was no trial for anyone to testify in, under oath, about the drawing and photos. MJ's defence lawyers fought to keep the photos and drawing out of the 2005 case. WHY would they do that if that evidence would exonerate him? They should have wanted to introduce it themselves, not fight to keep it out.

What does the knowledge of his having vitiligo have to do with anything? What, Jordan made a wild guess that just happened to be correct, because he thought it'd be so much fun to go through all of this, a conspiracy against MJ because as a 13-year-old boy he plotted to extort him? 😂

"If you still believe this phallic portrait narrative holds any water, I have no words."

You mean the portrait you've never seen? That one?

When did I say children can't lie? Right, I didn't. But this one wasn't lying, and sure as hell wasn't trying to extort his friend and hero, The King of Pop.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 5 years ago

Notice when a female is the accuser, the burden of proof is much lower and her word is her evidence.

[–] liscarkat (16496) 5 years ago

This freak buggered little boys. That has been shown beyond reasonable doubt. There are many who doubt it, but remember--most people are stupid. His "music" sucked, too, but I don't suppose that's a crime.