View Single Post
Old 11-04-2013, 17:51
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 80
THe first trial he settled out of court though didn't he? and the second he was found not guilty yes.

Jacko most likely was inappropriate with kids, too much evidence proves a lot of strange things went on with him and children.

But his fans will always defend him, he is like Jesus, reason, logic, evidence, doesnt matter as his fans will never accept it.

Not that it matters anyway, he is dead so nothing will happen.
So much ignorance on this thread that needs to be cleared up.

The story behind the first allegations is that the father of Jordy Chandler, Evan, was a failing screenwriter who was desperate to make it in Hollywood and saw his son's friendship with MJ as an opportunity to extort money to fund his amibtions. The boys father was manipulative and controlling (hence why he didn't even have custody of Jordy) and managed to coerce his son (by drugging him) into going along with these allegations, which he initially vehemently denied.

If MJ was innocent then why did he pay them loads of money, people ask?

First of all, when Evan Chandler convinced Jordy to make these accusations, he filed a civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson. So instead of reporting it to the police like any normal parent seeking justice would, he got the "nastiest son of a *****" lawyers (Evan's own words) he could and sued him for money. Now ask yourself, if you thought your child had been molested, would you call the police or a lawyer? This was inevitably leaked to the press and it became a media circus. The police obviously started their own investigations and began flying around the world interviewing countless different people that MJ knew to see the allegations were consistent with anyone else. Paedophiles rarely have just one victim after all.

After months of investigations, interviewing over 30 children connected to Jackson and convening two grand juries, the cops had so far found no evidence to even merit arresting Jackson, let alone charging him with a crime. So the civil trial (for money) was trundling closer and closer, while criminal charges were no where near fruition. If the civil trial went ahead it would've been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right not to self incriminate. In other words, by testifying in the civil trial, he would've exposed his entire defence strategy to prosecutors and allowed lawyers to form criminal charges around anything he said. He would risk not having a fair trial. The only way he could guarantee himself a completely fair trial in a criminal court would be to get rid of the lawsuit. (There was actually a change in California law to stop this happening again as a direct result of this case).

There were also other reasons for settling. Namely, MJ's health had seriously deteriorated because of a demerol addiction he'd acquired to deal with the stress and also the strong possibility of it harming his future earning power had the trials gone on for years.
In the end, court documents prove the following:

1. Jackson opposed settling and that it wasn't an admission of guilt.
2. The money was infact negotiated and paid by his insurance carrier.
3. The Chandlers were in no way prevented from testifying in any possible criminal trial.

The police eventually dropped the case through lack of evidence. They spent millions interviewing over 200 witnesses and none of them corroborated with the Chandler's claims. When Jordy Chandler was 16 he gained legal emancipation from his parents and never spoke to them again because of what they put him through.

So there was no 'pay off'.

But i guess you guys already knew all of this before comparing him to Jimmy Saville, right?
tomclarky is offline   Reply With Quote