I'm not particularly upset but I really didn't expect Michael Jackson to die so suddenly. Someone told me last night and I wasn't sure whether to believe them or not.
(UPDATE) King of Pop Michael Jackson Dies
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
I'm somewhat surprised at the amount of people who take his death with 'ehhh whatever' attitude and then criticise those who have been moved by his death. If your going to say 'You wouldn't act this way for a normal person' while you write him off as insignificant it speaks to me as if you are just saying that to be 'cool'. You know, the sort of cool where your a tough nut to crack, nothing upsets you and you are rarely affected by emotions. Something I would have expected to be absent from a gaming forum as we are (lets be honest here) not the cool kids. I think those saying that his death is 'not important' (or whatever choice of words you use) have to step back and realise they aren't impressing anyone. It doesn't matter if you werent a fan of hims music, you could have hated it, but letting everyone know that you don't care... just makes you look really small.
As for my response, well I never was a big fan, me being more of a rock fan, but some his music (especially Thriller and Smooth Criminal) I really enjoy. He was a great musician and he certainly shaped modern music. Some might argue that he can't be compared to Back, Beethoven and Mozart and other great composers, but I feel that contribution he made to music and music videos leaves him in the same tier of greatness as those other men.
R.I.P is all that's left to say, I suppose. He'll be missed by a great number of people.
As for my response, well I never was a big fan, me being more of a rock fan, but some his music (especially Thriller and Smooth Criminal) I really enjoy. He was a great musician and he certainly shaped modern music. Some might argue that he can't be compared to Back, Beethoven and Mozart and other great composers, but I feel that contribution he made to music and music videos leaves him in the same tier of greatness as those other men.
R.I.P is all that's left to say, I suppose. He'll be missed by a great number of people.
Heh, and here I was about to jump in and pretty much say what you just said.Fire Daemon said:
It's exactly what's going on. Posting 'I don't care' is just you trying to be purposely non-conformist. If you don't care about a thread, don't post. Every death is a bad thing, if there is a car crash, it's bad, it's not just 'oh well people die every day'. There is not respect for the dead any more, and I'm still positive that if Metallica, Paul McCartney or Pink Floyd all died in a plane crash, you would be plastering 'R.I.P to great legends' all over the place.
I saw more respect in a thread about someone who had just lost their dog, than I have here, and it's sickening. He was a cultural icon either way, his death will be news, just like other people dying tends to be news. You might not like him, but at the very least show some respect for the dead. Get over yourselves and stop the piss poor attempt at being cool.
Anything I would have to say has already been said before, and probably better than I could put it. People who claim that they don't care - have some goddamn respect. The man's dead. He had a messed up life and a bad childhood. It doesn't matter if he went a touch nutty towards the end, he was a massive influence in the world. He was third most famous person ever, behind Jesus and Elvis. No matter whether the courts were right, or whether random speculation is right, he's dead. Let him have a little dignity, and show some respect for the fact that he died at fifty.
Personally? I don't have a wave of emotion at his death. I do not giggle with glee and yell "Good riddance" either. But it does affect me, because a major part of the world is dead. R.I.P.
Personally? I don't have a wave of emotion at his death. I do not giggle with glee and yell "Good riddance" either. But it does affect me, because a major part of the world is dead. R.I.P.
If he had died right after Thriller, I would have gone "Oh..." in a deflated way. I wouldn't have been upset, but I would have felt that the world had lost a decent musician.CudaSpawn said:
Now, I'm kinda glad for him that he died when he did. He had been spiriling downwards into his own messed-up little world, and the music had stopped LONG ago.
Michael Jackson died long ago, this is just what was left dying too
Situations like this tend to make the majority feel alienated by the minority. The media put out headlines like; "World mourns pop legend Jackson" [link]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8120606.stm[/link]
I didn't know him, I assume you didn't either, I never had any emotional connection with him, only a nostalgic connection with some of his music. So I don't mourn his passing, I'm not happy he died by any means, I feel sympathy towards his family and friends but I have no reason to be in anguish over his loss.
However, the way the media portray the feeling of the 'public' towards his passing suggests that if you don't feel the same then you are either at best inconsiderate and at worst amoral. Neither of which is likely true, unless you actually are. You are simply a person who doesn't subscribe to hysteria over the life events of the rich and famous.
It's time we stood up to this bizarre behaviour and challenged people on it, we are the majority, not the minority. If you care about people dying where were your cries at the massive loss of life during the genocides in Africa? Where are your cries over the thousands of people murdered each day through war, terrorism, state violence and so on. Where were your cries over the needless deaths through disease and starvation in the third world. Showing compassion for one man while ignoring the world does not a moral person make, put things into perspective.
I didn't know him, I assume you didn't either, I never had any emotional connection with him, only a nostalgic connection with some of his music. So I don't mourn his passing, I'm not happy he died by any means, I feel sympathy towards his family and friends but I have no reason to be in anguish over his loss.
However, the way the media portray the feeling of the 'public' towards his passing suggests that if you don't feel the same then you are either at best inconsiderate and at worst amoral. Neither of which is likely true, unless you actually are. You are simply a person who doesn't subscribe to hysteria over the life events of the rich and famous.
It's time we stood up to this bizarre behaviour and challenged people on it, we are the majority, not the minority. If you care about people dying where were your cries at the massive loss of life during the genocides in Africa? Where are your cries over the thousands of people murdered each day through war, terrorism, state violence and so on. Where were your cries over the needless deaths through disease and starvation in the third world. Showing compassion for one man while ignoring the world does not a moral person make, put things into perspective.
It's such a shame he died this way. I think he wouldn't have wanted it to be this way (not that he would have wanted to die anyway...)
On November 18th, 2003, news broke that Mr. Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch was being searched by the Santa Barbara Police. Apparently, a 12-year-old boy had accused the singer of sexual abuse. To many, it appeared that Michael Jackson must be guilty; this was, afterall, the second set of sexual abuse allegations made against him. It is also a widely known fact that Michael Jackson settled a civil lawsuit with his first accuser in 1993. There are many facts, however, that have been widely ignored by the media when discussing these allegations. Read on to learn the truth about the Michael Jackson Case.
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Hasn't this happened before?
2. If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
3. Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
4. Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
5. Who is making the new allegations?
6. Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
7. Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
8. Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
9. How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
10. Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
11. Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
12. Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
13. Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anybody before?
14. Who is Diane Dimond and is she involved in this case?
15. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
16. Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
17. Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
18. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
19. Although Chandler was only after money, isn't it possible that Michael was guilty?
20. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
21. Where am I getting this stuff from?
After reading this information, it should become blatantly obvious to even the most biased person that these allegations are all about extortion and revenge.
Hasn't this happened before?
Yes. In 1993, a young boy made similar allegations against Michael Jackson but it was clearly an extortion attempt. Please refer to the article from GQ Magazine entitled "Was Michael Jackson Framed" because it provides an in depth look at the motives behind the first allegations.
- There is a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler (the alleged victim's father) and Dave Schwartz (the allged victim's stepfather) where Chandler says, "Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine... and if I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]... and Michael's career will be over." This tape was played all over news networks and also on the Prime Time Live interview with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley in 1994. It seems, however, that the media has conveniently forgotten about it.
- Evan hired lawyer Barry Rothman who had recently handled a divorce case involving sexual molestation allegations. He found out from Rothman how to report child abuse without liability to the parent. Keep in mind that this was all taking place in the midst of a bitter custody battle between Chandler and his ex-wife June Chandler Schwartz.
- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler phoned therapist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation. Dr. Abrams wrote back saying that under the circumstances, "reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred." Abrams had never met Jackson or the boy; he was merely responding to Chandler's hypothetical situation (presumably the sleepovers).
- Using this report, Chandler tried to blackmail Jackson. He made a demand for $20 million but was turned away by the Jackson camp. Remember, if Michael Jackson had paid him at this point, the entire investigation would have been avoided.
- By this point, the boy had not actually made any allegations. That all changed when his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. Under the influence of this drug, people are said to be extremely impressionable. Chandler claimed he only used the drug for dental purposes and while under its influence, the boy came out with the allegations. Most medical experts agree that this is unlikely.
- In August, the boy's mother threw Evan Chandler a curveball- she filed a court order demanding that the boy be returned to her. Coincidentally, on the same day that the judge ruled for the boy to be returned to his mother (which would have ruined Chandler's entire plan), Evan Chandler brought his son to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse allegations and Abrams reported the allegations to the police.
- The case fell apart after the boy refused to testify.
- For more info on the 1993 allegations, please read the book "Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations" by Geraldine Hughes.
If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
First of all, let's get one thing straight. There were two cases against Michael Jackson in 1993- the criminal case and the civil case. Michael settled the civil case, reportedly paying the Chandlers $20 million. Many people say that he "paid off" his accuser but this assumption does not make sense if you take into consideration the following facts:
1) The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.
2) If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?
3) Even if we illogically dismiss the first two points, it still doesn't make sense to say that Michael bought Jordan Chandler's silence. If Michael's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to prevent the boy from cooperating with authorities in the criminal trial, wouldn't it have been beneficial to him if the civil trial occurred first? So why did Michael Jackson file a motion asking for the criminal trial to take place first if his whole plan was to pay the boy off? If the criminal trial was first, Michael wouldn't have had an opportunity to buy Jordan's silence. His actions (asking for the criminal trial to precede the civil trial) are contradictory of his alleged motives (settling the civil suit to prevent the boy from testifying against him).
So why did Michael Jackson settle, you ask?
It appeared that the judicial system was not on his side. When civil and criminal proceedings arise over the same allegation, the defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. In Michael Jackson's case, the civil trial was scheduled to occur before the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Jackson's attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, tried to get the civil trial postponed until after the criminal trial but was not granted his request. He also filed a motion blocking the District Attorney's office from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings; again, he was not granted his request. If the civil trial had occurred, the prosecution would have been privy to Michael's entire defense strategy. This would have given them time in between the civil and criminal trials to come up with a way to counter Michael's defense. By settling, Michael did not have to go to court in the civil case and reveal his defense strategy to the prosecution.
Other reasons include the fact that the civil trial could have taken 8-9 months, which would have cost Michael millions of dollars in legal fees. Add to that the possibility of losing in court and one can see that paying the Chandlers $20 million might have actually been the cheaper alternative. Keep in mind that civil trials are very different from criminal trials in that the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only 51% of the jury would have to rule against Michael and he would have lost the civil trial. This could have later been used against him in the criminal trial as well. When you look at the case from a legal standpoint, Michael's decision to settle makes a lot of sense. Once the civil trial was settled, the criminal trial continued and there was not enough evidence to charge Michael.
Perhaps a more telling question is why would you accept money from someone who allegedly molested your child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?
Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
Jordan only made allegations after his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. According to Dr. Resnick, a Cleveland psychiatrist, "It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact. People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue." He goes on to say, "It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened."
Sodium amytal has been a factor in other child molestation cases, one of which occurred in Napa County, California. After undergoing many therapy sessions, and being administered the sodium amytal drug, a 20-year-old woman accused her father of molesting her as a child. Her father denied the charges and sued the therapist and the psychiatrist. The jury sided with the father, believing that the memory had been implanted in the woman's mind as a result of being given the drug. Sadly, it seems that Jordan Chandler was merely a pawn in his father's sick scam to extort money.
Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
No. After Jordan refused to testify, the District Attorney's case fell apart. The authorities literally tried everything to find evidence that would corroborate Jordan's story. They contacted hundreds of children who had stayed at Neverland and could not find another "victim." Even though authorities used aggressive interrogation techniques, not one child said anything bad about Michael. They also searched his house from top to bottom and took photographs of Michael's naked body. The case was brought in front of TWO grand juries but no charges were ever filed due to lack of evidence. There might be the odd tabloid rumour about what investigators found but let's put it this way- if there was any evidence that even remotely supported Michael Jackson being a pedophile, charges would have been brought against him. As Michael Jackson said in his interview with Diane Sawyer, "They found nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing! To this day, nothing. Still, nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing." Amen.
Who is making the new allegations?
Out of the hundreds of kids who have stayed at Neverland, the new accuser just happens to be the one boy who was prominently featured in the infamous "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary. The 12 year old admitted to having sleepovers with Michael Jackson which led to a huge media shitstorm. He also credited Michael with helping him get through cancer.
Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
Yes. Prompted by what he or she saw on the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary, a school official contacted the Department of Children and Family Services in February. From February 14th to February 27th, the DCFS investigated claims of sexual abuse on Michael Jackson's part and claims of neglect on the alleged victim's mother's part. These allegations were concluded to be unfounded. Investigators interviewed the mother and her three children, including the boy who is now making allegations against Jackson. They all stated that nothing inappropriate ever occurred. The mother also said that the children were never left alone with Jackson. To read the full report, click here
At a press conference on December 18th, 2003, District Attorney Tom Sneddon dismissed the DCFS report by saying, "L.A. is just a big place. And they have a lot of problems down there. And that particular department has a lot of problems. Anybody who lives in L.A. knows that."
NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, however, discovered that two weeks after "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department launched their own investigation into Michael Jackson's alleged activities. The investigation lasted from February until April 16th and was closed with "no further action required." So far, Mr. Sneddon has not made any statements regarding the competency of his own department.
The SBCSD report cites interviews that were conducted with the accusing family by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged victim: "Michael is like a father to me, he's never done anything to me sexually." He added that he "never slept in bed with Michael," and that his mother is "always aware of what goes on in Neverland."
The mother said, "Michael is like a father to my children, he loves them and I trust my children with him." She added that her children were never left alone with Michael and that they'd never shared a bed with him. Of Michael, she said he had "never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing." The boy's sister was teary eyed while being interviewed and defended Michael, saying "Michael is so kind and loving."
In June, after civil lawyer Larry Feldman (who won Michael's first accuser a reported $20 million in 1993) entered the picture, the entire family changed their story. The boy alleged to psychiatrist Dr. Stan Katz that while at Neverland he "drank alcohol every night and got buzzed." When he told Michael his head hurt, Michael allegedly said "keep drinking, it will make it feel better." (A 13-year-old boy believed that?) The boy's younger brother said that he and his brother "constantly sleep in Michael's room with Michael and (the alleged victim) in Michael's bed." He claims to have witnessed at least two incidents of inappropriate touching on Michael's part. (Right, so Michael molested this kid with a third party present?)The sister also claims to have seen questionable behaviour on Michael's part. Keep in mind that all three of these kids gave a drastically different story to social workers months before. It was only after getting involved with the civil lawyer from the 1993 case that the family made allegations of sexual abuse.
Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
No. The charging documents filed on December 18th state that the alleged abuse took place from February 7th-March 10th. Let's travel back in time to when the alleged abuse supposedly began. The "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary had just aired on February 6th. There was a lot of controversy surrounding Michael's statements that he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom. The 1993 allegations were constantly being brought up and Jordan Chandler's script- sorry, I mean affidavit- was leaked onto the Internet.
Many people were also speculating about Michael's relationship with the boy featured on the documentary. We're expected to believe that Michael knew this boy for two years and only decided to molest him while in the midst of a huge controversy surrounding him and sexual abuse allegations? Either these allegations are false or Michael is the dumbest criminal alive.
Even if you assume the latter, the timeline still doesn't make sense. For two weeks of the five week abuse period, the Department of Children and Family Services were investigating claims of sexual abuse. A school official phoned them after viewing the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary and expressed concern about what was shown. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department also conducted an investigation from February 18th to April 16th and also closed the case. It would be impossible for Michael to molest this boy while simultaneously being investigated for it by two separate departments.
Furthermore, Michael Jackson hired his attorney Mark Geragos in early February. Why would he hire a laywer and then commit the crime? It doesn't make any sense. There are also eyewitness accounts of the boy being back at Neverland on March 12th.
Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
Yes. In 2001, child welfare services were called to the mother's home following a familial disturbance. The mother was not home so the children were interviewed on their own. The children did not allude to any physical abuse on the father's part during the first investigation. The mother returned home after the social workers had left and she was angry that the children were interviewed without her there. She called investigators back and suddenly, the children changed their story. They said they had witnessed the father abusing their mother and the daughter also said that she too was abused by the father. Their stories drastically changed when they were in the presence of their mother.
In the same report, the mother admitted to having psychological problems in the past. She talked about her relationships with celebrities like Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson, saying she'd met them on the street. She said she'd found ways to get things for her kids.
In 1998, the mother also sued J.C Penney, claiming that her sons were beaten and that she was sexually assaulted by security guards while leaving the mall. The incident apparently happened after security guards confronted them about stolen clothing. The family settled out of court and it has been said that the children were given scripts written by the mother to help them with their testimony.
How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until AFTER the criminal trial was complete. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. Let's keep in mind that there is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.
In addition to that, if Michael is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse. This is the same mother who finds ways to get things for her kids.
Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
Larry Feldman is the civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers in the 1993 case and got them about $20 million. After denying abuse over and over again, Michael Jackson's new accuser changed his story when Mr. Feldman entered the picture. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that...
Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
Yes. His attorney Mark Geragos was hired at the beginning of February because somebody within his camp suspected there was something wrong with the family who is now making accusations.
Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
Tom Sneddon was the prosecutor in the 1993 case and he is also the prosecutor involved with the current allegations. After spending millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, Sneddon came up empty handed. He brought his evidence (or lack thereof) in front of two grand juries and could not get an indictment. After that, he claims to have never given Michael Jackson another passing thought.
On the contrary, over the past ten years Sneddon has spoken to the New York Times, Showbiz Today, The Chattanooga Times, The New York Beacon, The Advertiser, Daily News, Broadcast News, the Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and Vanity Fair Magazine about the 1993 case.
In 1995, Michael Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon called "D.S." In order to prevent a lawsuit, the lyrics say "Dom Sheldon is a cold man" but it is obvious who Michael is referring to. In the song he says, "He's out to shock in every single way/ He'll stop at nothing just to get his political fame/ He think he hot cause he BS DA/ I'll bet he never had a social life anyway/ You think he brotha with the KKK/ I bet his mother never taught him right anyway/ He want your vote just to remain DA/ He don't do half what he say."
The feud between Michael Jackson and Tom Sneddon intensified when Mr. Sneddon changed the law as a result of the 1993 investigation. The law was changed so that if a civil lawsuit was filed, Sneddon would be able to put it on hold until after the criminal trial. Sneddon has made numerous statements over the past decade referring to the Jackson case as "open but inactive." According to him, all they needed was a cooperative victim and the investigation would be re-opened.
Fast forward to February 2003. After "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, Sneddon was bombarded with media inquiries about the Michael Jackson case. In a press statement, Sneddon said, "After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff's Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed."
Regarding Jackson's comments that he shared a room with children, Sneddon replied by saying it was, "unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously" but "Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." Then, in typical Sneddon style, he urged any victims to come forward. A few days later, somebody within the District Attorney's office leaked Jordan Chandler's affidavit from 1993 onto the Internet. On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to trashy tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.
Basically, after being made a fool of in 1993, Sneddon changed the law so that if any more victims came forward, they would be more inclined to cooperate in a criminal trial. This behavior alone shows that Sneddon was eager to convict Michael Jackson. Isn't it a bit suspicious that the new victim just happens to be the one boy from a documentary that Sneddon admitted to watching? And that as soon as that boy appeared on television, the allegations from 10 years ago and the main players involved with them resurfaced?
Regardless of whether or not Sneddon had something to do with this boy coming forward, he was clearly happy about being able to reopen the Michael Jackson case. This was evident at a press conference held by the Santa Barbara Police Department on November 19th, 2003 where Mr. Sneddon laughed and made jokes.
Since arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon's actions have been questionable at best. Here is a chronological list of the stupid things Sneddon has said and done:
- During the press conference, Sneddon acknowledged that Michael was investigated in February but said "don't assume it's the same family." He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?
- At the press conference, he invited more victims to come forward.
- He acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn't take action until November because of Halloween. Yes, we wouldn't want to upset anyone's trick-or-treating experience, so let's let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.
- Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal matter was resolved.
- Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.
- He gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael "Jacko Wacko."
- Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
- He delayed filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.
- He hired a PR firm to help him deal with media inquiries (and slander Michael's name in the press).
- He dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an "interview" and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS.
- He said that if Michael Jackson's claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge him with making a false complaint even though Michael did not actually make a formal complaint. The SBPD, however, said they considered what he said on "60 Minutes" to be a formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the law.
- The alleged victim's parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the district attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he's no longer under the influence of his mother.
- Sneddon requested a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing. Keep in mind that grand juries are usually convened before charges are filed. It seems that Sneddon is worried about what might happen if Mark Geragos gets a chance to speak with the alleged victim during the prelims. Perhaps he also doesn't want any evidence pointing to Michael's inncoence to be made public, which explains why he wants a grand jury (where the proceedings would be kept private if there was no indictment).
And this is just the beginning...
Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anyone before?
Yes. Lawyer Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon in November 2003. In June of that year, Dunlap was acquitted of 6 charges brought against him by Sneddon. In a 102 page complaint, Dunlap accuses Sneddon of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiring against him and maliciously prosecuting him. The complaint also alleges that Sneddon violated Dunlap's civil rights by conducting illegal searches of his property. In an interview with MJJForum Radio, Dunlap talks about Sneddon stacking charges in order to convict him on at least one count. He discusses Sneddon's frequent abuse of power and claims that there are other lawyers who have seen this.
Here are some interesting quotes from Mr. Dunlap regarding the SBPD:
"It's a very bad situation here in the north county, and the general public is very unaware of it because Tom Sneddon and his assistant up here have pretty much dominated the justice system in Santa Barbara County for several years."
"His office is very powerful and public officials are intimidated by them, court personnel are intimidated by them, I mean, they just have had it their own way, and they pretty much do whatever they want. And the problem with it is, they do not take any kind of a leadership role with regard to law enforcement in the sense of protecting the public interests against excessive force. Rather, they promote excessive force by the various law enforcement agencies, by their attitude of protection and prosecution of cases that are clearly inappropriate."
"The very fact that [Michael Jackson is] being prosecuted by Sneddon's office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he's guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney's office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis. And I know that Sneddon has been, you know, chafing at the bit because he wasn't able to prosecute him ten years ago. And so I don't think that there's any question that he's being over targeted."
Dunlap is not the only person who has taken legal action against Sneddon. In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal suit against Santa Barbara prosecutors, accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit accuses Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution for withholding evidence favorable to the defense. Mr. Cruz spent four years in prison after being convicted of murder in 1997. According to the lawsuit, prosecutors had evidence favorable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real shooter was caught on tape confessing to the crime but unaccountable, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction.
In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Sneddon for threatining the police officers' right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney's office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, "It's confusing. He's an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don't know why he did this." Future blackmail material perhaps?
Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice or is he merely a bully with a badge trying to get a celebrity conviction? For more insight into the answer to this question, let's take a look at another molestation case that Mr. Sneddon completely ignored. In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl.
According to an article written by Santa Maria Times columnist Steve Corbett, "Danielson came home after a night of drinking and crawled into his wife's bed where the child, who was a guest in the home, was sleeping." HOLD UP! A child sleeping in an unrelated adult's bed? The outrage! Why didn't Sneddon release a press statement condemning this behaviour as "unusual at best?" Why didn't he vow to take the matter "very seriously?" Why didn't he beg victims to come forward? Ahem. Moving on...
Apparently thinking the girl was his wife, Danielson "accidentally" molested her. Basically, this man admitted to touching this girl inappropriately but Sneddon closed the investigation stating that "subsequent investigation into the girl's claims did not provide the required evidence necessary to file a formal charge and prepare for court." Right. When there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordan Chandler's story in 1993, did Sneddon close the investigation? Nope. He spent the next ten years of his life whining about not getting to prosecute that case. Well, Sneddon you had your chance to lock up an alleged sex offender and you let it slip. I guess it's okay to molest young girls in Santa Barbara. Hell, you can even admit to it as long as you use the "I molested her by accident" defense.
Sneddon has been accused of witness tampering, malicious prosecution, enforcing corrupt policies and negligence. He obviously has a vendetta against Michael Jackson so what makes people think he would not resort to his old dirty tricks to get a conviction? Why anybody trusts this guy to seek the truth is beyond me.
Who is Diane Dimond?
Diane Dimond is the former host of "Hard Copy" who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson Case. She's obviously very close with the District Attorney but she is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:
- In 1993, Diane did a segment with two of Michael's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Michael's relationships with young boys. Diane swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted they made the whole thing up.
- That same year, Michael's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Michael naked in a Jacuzzi with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she was full of shit.
- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael having sex with a young boy. Diane later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Michael filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Diane was dismissed from the lawsuit because of some crap regarding journalistic integrity (which shouldn't even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Michael $2.7 million.
- In 1995, Diane found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police where they questioned him for hours. Diane was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he made it all up. Since Diane had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's blatantly obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson? Wouldn't the police be a more logical alternative?
- Diane admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.
- In November, Diane reported that police found love letters addressed to the boy in Michael's home. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.
Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations. 90% of what she says is a lie. This will be revealed in due time. Until then, refer to the second verse in Michael Jackson's song 2Bad. It is not necessarily written about Diane Dimond, but it certainly applies to her.
Head all up in Hollywood
Saying that she got it good
Creepin' from a dusty hole
Tell 'em what somebody told
What do you want from me?
What do you want from me?
Tired of you hunting me yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
You got blood lust for me
But too bad, too bad
Look who got slapped in the face
It's dead and stuffy in the place
I'm right back where I wanna be
I'm standing though you're kickin' me
Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.
Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest which people seem to have forgotten about.
So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Michael's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about sharing his bed with a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise. If you disagree with his statements, that's your own opinion but ask yourself why you feel this way? Is it because you have logical reason to believe that it's morally wrong or it or is it because society says it's wrong? If you have reason to feel the way you do, please let me know because I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't, let me just remind you that society has been wrong about a lot of things.
Personally, if I had children, I wouldn't let them sleep with another adult. That's just my own belief. I don't have a reason to feel this way, I would just feel uncomfortable with it. If Michael feels differently, that's his business. It does not affect me personally. This is one of those issues that has to do with how you were raised and what you were brought up to believe. No amount of logical reasoning will change anyone's opinion on the matter so do not condemn Michael for having a different belief than you. Moreover, I believe it is the parents that allow their children to sleep at Michael Jackson's home, who deserve all the blame.
Moreover, I'd like to point out that if anything inappropriate was going on at those sleepovers, why would Michael draw attention to them by talking about them so openly on national television? That right there is a sign of innocence if you ask me. Also, if he really wanted to molest kids, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious? Why do it at sleepovers where people would be more likely to scrutinize his behavior? Ask yourself these questions before you try to use Michael's honesty against him.
Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
No. In January 1994, USA Today printed an article confirming that, "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Some tabloid reports may indicate otherwise but keep in mind that the District Attorney brought his "evidence" in front of two grand juries and charges were not filed. If the photos matched the boy's description, the case would have probably gone to trial.
Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
Yes, in fact, most of his 1995 album "HIStory" deals with what he went through during the first allegations. The songs Scream, They Don't Care About Us, Stranger in Moscow, This Time Around, D.S, Money, Childhood, Tabloid Junkie and 2Bad all seem to be written about the first allegations. Here are some lyrics from the album:
Scream
Tired of injustice
Tired of the schemes
Your lies are disgusting
But what does it mean, dirty
Kickin' me down
I've got to get up
As jacked as it sounds
The whole system sucks, dirty
They Don't Care About Us
Now tell me what has become of my rights
Am I invisible cause you ignore me
Your proclamation promised me free liberty
I'm tired of being the victim of shame
You're throwin' me in a class with a bad name
I can't believe this is the land from which I came
Stranger in Moscow
I was wanderin' in the rain
Cast of life feeling insane
Swift and sudden fall from grace
Happy days seem far away
Kremlin's shadow belittlin' me
Stalin's tomb won't let me be
On and on and on it came
Wish the rain would just let me be
This Time Around
Somebody's out
Somebody's out to use me
They really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
But this time around
They'll take it like spit
No you really can't control me
D.S
They wanna get my ass dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me down by surprise
I'll bet he missioned with the CIA
He don't do half what he say
Cause Tom Sneddon is a cold man
Money
If you show me the cash then I will take it
If you ask me to cry then I will fake it
If you give me your hand then I will shake it
You'll do anything for money
Childhood
No one understands me
They view it as such strange eccentricities
Cause I keep kidding around
Like a child, but pardon me
People say I'm not okay
Cause I love such elementary things
It's been my fate to compensate
For the childhood I've never known
[/b]Tabloid Junkie[/b]
It's slander with the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it
And they won't justify it
To read it sanctifies it
Then why do we keep fooling ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on a TV screen don't make it factual
But everybody wants to read all about it
2Bad
Told me that you're doing wrong
Word out shocking all alone
Cryin' wolf ain't like a man
Throwin' rocks to hide your hands
You ain't done enough for me
You ain't done enough for me
You are disgusting me, yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
Just want your cut from me but too bad, too bad
Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Michael violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Michael's 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Michael did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. That's right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.
Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn't it possible that Michael was still guilty?
No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler had the letter from Dr. Abrams saying sexual abuse might have occured and if the boy admitted to it, he would be forced to report it to child welfare services. Chandler used this letter to try to blackmail Michael in the very beginning and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested this boy, why didn't he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.
It's undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn't Michael just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him if the allegations had never been made public. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn't pay off Evan Chandler is because he was INNOCENT and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.
Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have stayed at Neverland, you expect me to believe that Michael only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven't they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their poor molested children? Bullshit.
Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael's eccentric behavior is "not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are 'normal' people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird." In response to people who think Michael's image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, "There's no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error." He says Jackson is an easy target because "misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."
Sources:
Abramsam, Mark. "Dunlap Sues Over Arrest." The Lompoc Record. 5 Dec. 2003.
Ayscue, Osborne Jr. "Key Distinctions in the U.S Court System." USIS. 1999. Issues of Democracy. 7 Mar. 2004. (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0999/ijde/ayscue.htm).
Bauder, David. "Diane Dimond's reporting has put Court TV at forefront of Jackson story." The Standard Times. 5 Jan. 2004: Pg. B1.
Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. "Leak of Jackson Memo Criticized." LA Times 8 Jan. 2004.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Jen Winings. 21 Dec. 2003.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Geraldine Hughes. 1 Jan. 2004.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. 2 Jan. 2004.
"Civil and Criminal Trials." Cambodia Human Rights. 2003. Asian Human Rights Commission. 7 Mar. 2004. (http://cambodia.ahrchk.net/index.php).
CMJFC. "Toronto Street Kid Falsely Accuses MJ in 1995." Online posting. 16 Dec 2003. MJJForum. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19721&hl).
Corbett, Steve. "All the little voices deserve equal attention." Santa Maria Times. 17 Jan. 2004.
"Current Events and Press Releases." Michael Jackson Case Information. 5 Feb. 2003. County of Santa Barbara. 9 Jan. 2004.(http://www.countyofsb.org/da/press.asp).
Fischer, Mary A. "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" GQ Magazine Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.
Hughes, Geraldine. Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. Radford: Branch and Vine Publishers, LLC. 2004.
"Interview with Mark Geragos and Jermaine Jackson." Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Dec. 2003.
"Interview with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley." Prime Time Live. ABC. 28 Jan. 1994.
"Jacko's Accuser Connected to Kobe?" Celebrity Justice. 6 Jan. 2004. TTT West Coast Inc. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/04/01/06a.html).
Jackson, Michael. HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book 1. Sony, 1995.
"Jackson's Accuser has Long History of Legal Woes." LA Daily News 25 Nov. 2003.
"Michael Jackson Bombshell." The Smoking Gun. 9 Dec. 2003. Courtroom Television Network. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html).
Moeenziai, Ladan. "Police File Lawsuit to Protect Privacy" The Daily Nexus. 23 Apr. 2002.
"New Details in Jackson Molestation Case." The Today Show. NBC. 12 Mar. 2004.
"Restitution/Compensation/Reparation." About.Com. 1998. About Inc. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://incestabuse.about.com/cs/restitution).
Robb, David. "$2.7 Million to Jackson for Free-Lancer's Sex-Tape Lie." Hollywood Reporter. 13 Apr. 1998.
Standler, Ronald B. "Differences Between Civil and Criminal Law." Miscellaneous Essays On Law. Dr. R. Standler's Professional Homepage. 7 Mar 2004. (http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm).
"The DA in the Michael Jackson Case." TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. 2003. CrimeLynx. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004935.html004935).
Vigoda, Arlene. "Photos May Contradict Michael Jackson's Accuser." USA Today 28 Jan. 1994: Pg. 2.
Wickham, DeWayne. "Michael Jackson Sequel: Settlement Not Enough." USA Today. 24 Jun. 1996: Pg. 14A.
Wilson, Tracy. "Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Prosecutors." LA Times. 13 Dec. 2001.
Quoted from: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=195549926&blogId=415819112
See also: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/settlement-not-enough/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Chandler#Media_reaction_and_settlement
Frequently Asked Questions:
1. Hasn't this happened before?
2. If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
3. Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
4. Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
5. Who is making the new allegations?
6. Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
7. Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
8. Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
9. How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
10. Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
11. Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
12. Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
13. Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anybody before?
14. Who is Diane Dimond and is she involved in this case?
15. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
16. Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
17. Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
18. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
19. Although Chandler was only after money, isn't it possible that Michael was guilty?
20. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
21. Where am I getting this stuff from?
After reading this information, it should become blatantly obvious to even the most biased person that these allegations are all about extortion and revenge.
Hasn't this happened before?
Yes. In 1993, a young boy made similar allegations against Michael Jackson but it was clearly an extortion attempt. Please refer to the article from GQ Magazine entitled "Was Michael Jackson Framed" because it provides an in depth look at the motives behind the first allegations.
- There is a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler (the alleged victim's father) and Dave Schwartz (the allged victim's stepfather) where Chandler says, "Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine... and if I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]... and Michael's career will be over." This tape was played all over news networks and also on the Prime Time Live interview with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley in 1994. It seems, however, that the media has conveniently forgotten about it.
- Evan hired lawyer Barry Rothman who had recently handled a divorce case involving sexual molestation allegations. He found out from Rothman how to report child abuse without liability to the parent. Keep in mind that this was all taking place in the midst of a bitter custody battle between Chandler and his ex-wife June Chandler Schwartz.
- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler phoned therapist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation. Dr. Abrams wrote back saying that under the circumstances, "reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred." Abrams had never met Jackson or the boy; he was merely responding to Chandler's hypothetical situation (presumably the sleepovers).
- Using this report, Chandler tried to blackmail Jackson. He made a demand for $20 million but was turned away by the Jackson camp. Remember, if Michael Jackson had paid him at this point, the entire investigation would have been avoided.
- By this point, the boy had not actually made any allegations. That all changed when his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. Under the influence of this drug, people are said to be extremely impressionable. Chandler claimed he only used the drug for dental purposes and while under its influence, the boy came out with the allegations. Most medical experts agree that this is unlikely.
- In August, the boy's mother threw Evan Chandler a curveball- she filed a court order demanding that the boy be returned to her. Coincidentally, on the same day that the judge ruled for the boy to be returned to his mother (which would have ruined Chandler's entire plan), Evan Chandler brought his son to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse allegations and Abrams reported the allegations to the police.
- The case fell apart after the boy refused to testify.
- For more info on the 1993 allegations, please read the book "Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations" by Geraldine Hughes.
If Michael was innocent, why did he "pay off" his accuser in 1993?
First of all, let's get one thing straight. There were two cases against Michael Jackson in 1993- the criminal case and the civil case. Michael settled the civil case, reportedly paying the Chandlers $20 million. Many people say that he "paid off" his accuser but this assumption does not make sense if you take into consideration the following facts:
1) The settlement did NOT prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. It makes no sense to say that Michael bought his silence. It was Jordan's own decision not to testify.
2) If Michael wanted to pay off his accuser, why didn't he do it at the very beginning? Evan Chandler made a demand for $20 million before authorities knew about the alleged abuse. If Michael wanted to buy their silence, like many people claim he did, why didn't he do it right then? Before the police trashed his home, before he was publicly humiliated, before he was subjected to a dehumanizing search of his private parts? He could have bought their silence right from the get go and avoided the whole ordeal. Instead he rejected Evan Chandler's initial demand for money. Why would a guilty man do that?
3) Even if we illogically dismiss the first two points, it still doesn't make sense to say that Michael bought Jordan Chandler's silence. If Michael's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to prevent the boy from cooperating with authorities in the criminal trial, wouldn't it have been beneficial to him if the civil trial occurred first? So why did Michael Jackson file a motion asking for the criminal trial to take place first if his whole plan was to pay the boy off? If the criminal trial was first, Michael wouldn't have had an opportunity to buy Jordan's silence. His actions (asking for the criminal trial to precede the civil trial) are contradictory of his alleged motives (settling the civil suit to prevent the boy from testifying against him).
So why did Michael Jackson settle, you ask?
It appeared that the judicial system was not on his side. When civil and criminal proceedings arise over the same allegation, the defendant is entitled to a stay of discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter is resolved. In Michael Jackson's case, the civil trial was scheduled to occur before the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Jackson's attorney, Johnnie Cochrane, tried to get the civil trial postponed until after the criminal trial but was not granted his request. He also filed a motion blocking the District Attorney's office from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings; again, he was not granted his request. If the civil trial had occurred, the prosecution would have been privy to Michael's entire defense strategy. This would have given them time in between the civil and criminal trials to come up with a way to counter Michael's defense. By settling, Michael did not have to go to court in the civil case and reveal his defense strategy to the prosecution.
Other reasons include the fact that the civil trial could have taken 8-9 months, which would have cost Michael millions of dollars in legal fees. Add to that the possibility of losing in court and one can see that paying the Chandlers $20 million might have actually been the cheaper alternative. Keep in mind that civil trials are very different from criminal trials in that the jury's verdict does not have to be unanimous. Only 51% of the jury would have to rule against Michael and he would have lost the civil trial. This could have later been used against him in the criminal trial as well. When you look at the case from a legal standpoint, Michael's decision to settle makes a lot of sense. Once the civil trial was settled, the criminal trial continued and there was not enough evidence to charge Michael.
Perhaps a more telling question is why would you accept money from someone who allegedly molested your child instead of fighting to put them behind bars?
Why did Jordan Chandler make allegations against Michael?
Jordan only made allegations after his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. According to Dr. Resnick, a Cleveland psychiatrist, "It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact. People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue." He goes on to say, "It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened."
Sodium amytal has been a factor in other child molestation cases, one of which occurred in Napa County, California. After undergoing many therapy sessions, and being administered the sodium amytal drug, a 20-year-old woman accused her father of molesting her as a child. Her father denied the charges and sued the therapist and the psychiatrist. The jury sided with the father, believing that the memory had been implanted in the woman's mind as a result of being given the drug. Sadly, it seems that Jordan Chandler was merely a pawn in his father's sick scam to extort money.
Were charges ever brought against Michael in 1993?
No. After Jordan refused to testify, the District Attorney's case fell apart. The authorities literally tried everything to find evidence that would corroborate Jordan's story. They contacted hundreds of children who had stayed at Neverland and could not find another "victim." Even though authorities used aggressive interrogation techniques, not one child said anything bad about Michael. They also searched his house from top to bottom and took photographs of Michael's naked body. The case was brought in front of TWO grand juries but no charges were ever filed due to lack of evidence. There might be the odd tabloid rumour about what investigators found but let's put it this way- if there was any evidence that even remotely supported Michael Jackson being a pedophile, charges would have been brought against him. As Michael Jackson said in his interview with Diane Sawyer, "They found nothing, nothing, nothing that could say Michael Jackson did this. Nothing! To this day, nothing. Still, nothing. Nothing, nothing, nothing." Amen.
Who is making the new allegations?
Out of the hundreds of kids who have stayed at Neverland, the new accuser just happens to be the one boy who was prominently featured in the infamous "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary. The 12 year old admitted to having sleepovers with Michael Jackson which led to a huge media shitstorm. He also credited Michael with helping him get through cancer.
Weren't these allegations previously deemed unfounded in February?
Yes. Prompted by what he or she saw on the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary, a school official contacted the Department of Children and Family Services in February. From February 14th to February 27th, the DCFS investigated claims of sexual abuse on Michael Jackson's part and claims of neglect on the alleged victim's mother's part. These allegations were concluded to be unfounded. Investigators interviewed the mother and her three children, including the boy who is now making allegations against Jackson. They all stated that nothing inappropriate ever occurred. The mother also said that the children were never left alone with Jackson. To read the full report, click here
At a press conference on December 18th, 2003, District Attorney Tom Sneddon dismissed the DCFS report by saying, "L.A. is just a big place. And they have a lot of problems down there. And that particular department has a lot of problems. Anybody who lives in L.A. knows that."
NBC News correspondent Mike Taibbi, however, discovered that two weeks after "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department launched their own investigation into Michael Jackson's alleged activities. The investigation lasted from February until April 16th and was closed with "no further action required." So far, Mr. Sneddon has not made any statements regarding the competency of his own department.
The SBCSD report cites interviews that were conducted with the accusing family by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged victim: "Michael is like a father to me, he's never done anything to me sexually." He added that he "never slept in bed with Michael," and that his mother is "always aware of what goes on in Neverland."
The mother said, "Michael is like a father to my children, he loves them and I trust my children with him." She added that her children were never left alone with Michael and that they'd never shared a bed with him. Of Michael, she said he had "never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing." The boy's sister was teary eyed while being interviewed and defended Michael, saying "Michael is so kind and loving."
In June, after civil lawyer Larry Feldman (who won Michael's first accuser a reported $20 million in 1993) entered the picture, the entire family changed their story. The boy alleged to psychiatrist Dr. Stan Katz that while at Neverland he "drank alcohol every night and got buzzed." When he told Michael his head hurt, Michael allegedly said "keep drinking, it will make it feel better." (A 13-year-old boy believed that?) The boy's younger brother said that he and his brother "constantly sleep in Michael's room with Michael and (the alleged victim) in Michael's bed." He claims to have witnessed at least two incidents of inappropriate touching on Michael's part. (Right, so Michael molested this kid with a third party present?)The sister also claims to have seen questionable behaviour on Michael's part. Keep in mind that all three of these kids gave a drastically different story to social workers months before. It was only after getting involved with the civil lawyer from the 1993 case that the family made allegations of sexual abuse.
Does the timeline for the new allegations make any sense?
No. The charging documents filed on December 18th state that the alleged abuse took place from February 7th-March 10th. Let's travel back in time to when the alleged abuse supposedly began. The "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary had just aired on February 6th. There was a lot of controversy surrounding Michael's statements that he allowed children to sleep in his bedroom. The 1993 allegations were constantly being brought up and Jordan Chandler's script- sorry, I mean affidavit- was leaked onto the Internet.
Many people were also speculating about Michael's relationship with the boy featured on the documentary. We're expected to believe that Michael knew this boy for two years and only decided to molest him while in the midst of a huge controversy surrounding him and sexual abuse allegations? Either these allegations are false or Michael is the dumbest criminal alive.
Even if you assume the latter, the timeline still doesn't make sense. For two weeks of the five week abuse period, the Department of Children and Family Services were investigating claims of sexual abuse. A school official phoned them after viewing the "Living with Michael Jackson" documentary and expressed concern about what was shown. The Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department also conducted an investigation from February 18th to April 16th and also closed the case. It would be impossible for Michael to molest this boy while simultaneously being investigated for it by two separate departments.
Furthermore, Michael Jackson hired his attorney Mark Geragos in early February. Why would he hire a laywer and then commit the crime? It doesn't make any sense. There are also eyewitness accounts of the boy being back at Neverland on March 12th.
Does the alleged victim's mother have a questionable background?
Yes. In 2001, child welfare services were called to the mother's home following a familial disturbance. The mother was not home so the children were interviewed on their own. The children did not allude to any physical abuse on the father's part during the first investigation. The mother returned home after the social workers had left and she was angry that the children were interviewed without her there. She called investigators back and suddenly, the children changed their story. They said they had witnessed the father abusing their mother and the daughter also said that she too was abused by the father. Their stories drastically changed when they were in the presence of their mother.
In the same report, the mother admitted to having psychological problems in the past. She talked about her relationships with celebrities like Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson, saying she'd met them on the street. She said she'd found ways to get things for her kids.
In 1998, the mother also sued J.C Penney, claiming that her sons were beaten and that she was sexually assaulted by security guards while leaving the mall. The incident apparently happened after security guards confronted them about stolen clothing. The family settled out of court and it has been said that the children were given scripts written by the mother to help them with their testimony.
How is this an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?
Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until AFTER the criminal trial was complete. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. Let's keep in mind that there is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.
In addition to that, if Michael is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse. This is the same mother who finds ways to get things for her kids.
Who is Larry Feldman and how is he significant to both cases?
Larry Feldman is the civil lawyer who represented the Chandlers in the 1993 case and got them about $20 million. After denying abuse over and over again, Michael Jackson's new accuser changed his story when Mr. Feldman entered the picture. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about that...
Did Michael know in advance that these allegations would be brought against him?
Yes. His attorney Mark Geragos was hired at the beginning of February because somebody within his camp suspected there was something wrong with the family who is now making accusations.
Who is Tom Sneddon and what does he have against Michael Jackson?
Tom Sneddon was the prosecutor in the 1993 case and he is also the prosecutor involved with the current allegations. After spending millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, Sneddon came up empty handed. He brought his evidence (or lack thereof) in front of two grand juries and could not get an indictment. After that, he claims to have never given Michael Jackson another passing thought.
On the contrary, over the past ten years Sneddon has spoken to the New York Times, Showbiz Today, The Chattanooga Times, The New York Beacon, The Advertiser, Daily News, Broadcast News, the Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph and Vanity Fair Magazine about the 1993 case.
In 1995, Michael Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon called "D.S." In order to prevent a lawsuit, the lyrics say "Dom Sheldon is a cold man" but it is obvious who Michael is referring to. In the song he says, "He's out to shock in every single way/ He'll stop at nothing just to get his political fame/ He think he hot cause he BS DA/ I'll bet he never had a social life anyway/ You think he brotha with the KKK/ I bet his mother never taught him right anyway/ He want your vote just to remain DA/ He don't do half what he say."
The feud between Michael Jackson and Tom Sneddon intensified when Mr. Sneddon changed the law as a result of the 1993 investigation. The law was changed so that if a civil lawsuit was filed, Sneddon would be able to put it on hold until after the criminal trial. Sneddon has made numerous statements over the past decade referring to the Jackson case as "open but inactive." According to him, all they needed was a cooperative victim and the investigation would be re-opened.
Fast forward to February 2003. After "Living with Michael Jackson" aired, Sneddon was bombarded with media inquiries about the Michael Jackson case. In a press statement, Sneddon said, "After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff's Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed."
Regarding Jackson's comments that he shared a room with children, Sneddon replied by saying it was, "unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously" but "Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." Then, in typical Sneddon style, he urged any victims to come forward. A few days later, somebody within the District Attorney's office leaked Jordan Chandler's affidavit from 1993 onto the Internet. On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to trashy tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.
Basically, after being made a fool of in 1993, Sneddon changed the law so that if any more victims came forward, they would be more inclined to cooperate in a criminal trial. This behavior alone shows that Sneddon was eager to convict Michael Jackson. Isn't it a bit suspicious that the new victim just happens to be the one boy from a documentary that Sneddon admitted to watching? And that as soon as that boy appeared on television, the allegations from 10 years ago and the main players involved with them resurfaced?
Regardless of whether or not Sneddon had something to do with this boy coming forward, he was clearly happy about being able to reopen the Michael Jackson case. This was evident at a press conference held by the Santa Barbara Police Department on November 19th, 2003 where Mr. Sneddon laughed and made jokes.
Since arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon's actions have been questionable at best. Here is a chronological list of the stupid things Sneddon has said and done:
- During the press conference, Sneddon acknowledged that Michael was investigated in February but said "don't assume it's the same family." He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?
- At the press conference, he invited more victims to come forward.
- He acknowledged that he knew about these allegations since June but didn't take action until November because of Halloween. Yes, we wouldn't want to upset anyone's trick-or-treating experience, so let's let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.
- Sneddon said that the law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal matter was resolved.
- Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.
- He gave yet another interview to Diane Dimond where he called Michael "Jacko Wacko."
- Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
- He delayed filing charges until December so that the SBPD could set up a website for members of the press.
- He hired a PR firm to help him deal with media inquiries (and slander Michael's name in the press).
- He dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an "interview" and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same ruling as the DCFS.
- He said that if Michael Jackson's claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge him with making a false complaint even though Michael did not actually make a formal complaint. The SBPD, however, said they considered what he said on "60 Minutes" to be a formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the law.
- The alleged victim's parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the district attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he's no longer under the influence of his mother.
- Sneddon requested a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing. Keep in mind that grand juries are usually convened before charges are filed. It seems that Sneddon is worried about what might happen if Mark Geragos gets a chance to speak with the alleged victim during the prelims. Perhaps he also doesn't want any evidence pointing to Michael's inncoence to be made public, which explains why he wants a grand jury (where the proceedings would be kept private if there was no indictment).
And this is just the beginning...
Has Tom Sneddon ever maliciously prosecuted anyone before?
Yes. Lawyer Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon in November 2003. In June of that year, Dunlap was acquitted of 6 charges brought against him by Sneddon. In a 102 page complaint, Dunlap accuses Sneddon of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiring against him and maliciously prosecuting him. The complaint also alleges that Sneddon violated Dunlap's civil rights by conducting illegal searches of his property. In an interview with MJJForum Radio, Dunlap talks about Sneddon stacking charges in order to convict him on at least one count. He discusses Sneddon's frequent abuse of power and claims that there are other lawyers who have seen this.
Here are some interesting quotes from Mr. Dunlap regarding the SBPD:
"It's a very bad situation here in the north county, and the general public is very unaware of it because Tom Sneddon and his assistant up here have pretty much dominated the justice system in Santa Barbara County for several years."
"His office is very powerful and public officials are intimidated by them, court personnel are intimidated by them, I mean, they just have had it their own way, and they pretty much do whatever they want. And the problem with it is, they do not take any kind of a leadership role with regard to law enforcement in the sense of protecting the public interests against excessive force. Rather, they promote excessive force by the various law enforcement agencies, by their attitude of protection and prosecution of cases that are clearly inappropriate."
"The very fact that [Michael Jackson is] being prosecuted by Sneddon's office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he's guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney's office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis. And I know that Sneddon has been, you know, chafing at the bit because he wasn't able to prosecute him ten years ago. And so I don't think that there's any question that he's being over targeted."
Dunlap is not the only person who has taken legal action against Sneddon. In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal suit against Santa Barbara prosecutors, accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit accuses Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution for withholding evidence favorable to the defense. Mr. Cruz spent four years in prison after being convicted of murder in 1997. According to the lawsuit, prosecutors had evidence favorable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real shooter was caught on tape confessing to the crime but unaccountable, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction.
In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Sneddon for threatining the police officers' right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney's office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, "It's confusing. He's an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don't know why he did this." Future blackmail material perhaps?
Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice or is he merely a bully with a badge trying to get a celebrity conviction? For more insight into the answer to this question, let's take a look at another molestation case that Mr. Sneddon completely ignored. In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl.
According to an article written by Santa Maria Times columnist Steve Corbett, "Danielson came home after a night of drinking and crawled into his wife's bed where the child, who was a guest in the home, was sleeping." HOLD UP! A child sleeping in an unrelated adult's bed? The outrage! Why didn't Sneddon release a press statement condemning this behaviour as "unusual at best?" Why didn't he vow to take the matter "very seriously?" Why didn't he beg victims to come forward? Ahem. Moving on...
Apparently thinking the girl was his wife, Danielson "accidentally" molested her. Basically, this man admitted to touching this girl inappropriately but Sneddon closed the investigation stating that "subsequent investigation into the girl's claims did not provide the required evidence necessary to file a formal charge and prepare for court." Right. When there was no corroborating evidence to support Jordan Chandler's story in 1993, did Sneddon close the investigation? Nope. He spent the next ten years of his life whining about not getting to prosecute that case. Well, Sneddon you had your chance to lock up an alleged sex offender and you let it slip. I guess it's okay to molest young girls in Santa Barbara. Hell, you can even admit to it as long as you use the "I molested her by accident" defense.
Sneddon has been accused of witness tampering, malicious prosecution, enforcing corrupt policies and negligence. He obviously has a vendetta against Michael Jackson so what makes people think he would not resort to his old dirty tricks to get a conviction? Why anybody trusts this guy to seek the truth is beyond me.
Who is Diane Dimond?
Diane Dimond is the former host of "Hard Copy" who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson Case. She's obviously very close with the District Attorney but she is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:
- In 1993, Diane did a segment with two of Michael's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Michael's relationships with young boys. Diane swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted they made the whole thing up.
- That same year, Michael's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Michael naked in a Jacuzzi with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she was full of shit.
- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael having sex with a young boy. Diane later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Michael filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Diane was dismissed from the lawsuit because of some crap regarding journalistic integrity (which shouldn't even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Michael $2.7 million.
- In 1995, Diane found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police where they questioned him for hours. Diane was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he made it all up. Since Diane had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's blatantly obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson? Wouldn't the police be a more logical alternative?
- Diane admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.
- In November, Diane reported that police found love letters addressed to the boy in Michael's home. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.
Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations. 90% of what she says is a lie. This will be revealed in due time. Until then, refer to the second verse in Michael Jackson's song 2Bad. It is not necessarily written about Diane Dimond, but it certainly applies to her.
Head all up in Hollywood
Saying that she got it good
Creepin' from a dusty hole
Tell 'em what somebody told
What do you want from me?
What do you want from me?
Tired of you hunting me yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
You got blood lust for me
But too bad, too bad
Look who got slapped in the face
It's dead and stuffy in the place
I'm right back where I wanna be
I'm standing though you're kickin' me
Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?
Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.
Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they're related is irrelevant because there's something called incest which people seem to have forgotten about.
So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It's Michael's personal belief that there's nothing inappropriate about sharing his bed with a child and there's no logical reason that proves otherwise. If you disagree with his statements, that's your own opinion but ask yourself why you feel this way? Is it because you have logical reason to believe that it's morally wrong or it or is it because society says it's wrong? If you have reason to feel the way you do, please let me know because I'd be interested to hear it. If you don't, let me just remind you that society has been wrong about a lot of things.
Personally, if I had children, I wouldn't let them sleep with another adult. That's just my own belief. I don't have a reason to feel this way, I would just feel uncomfortable with it. If Michael feels differently, that's his business. It does not affect me personally. This is one of those issues that has to do with how you were raised and what you were brought up to believe. No amount of logical reasoning will change anyone's opinion on the matter so do not condemn Michael for having a different belief than you. Moreover, I believe it is the parents that allow their children to sleep at Michael Jackson's home, who deserve all the blame.
Moreover, I'd like to point out that if anything inappropriate was going on at those sleepovers, why would Michael draw attention to them by talking about them so openly on national television? That right there is a sign of innocence if you ask me. Also, if he really wanted to molest kids, why wouldn't he do it somewhere that wouldn't look suspicious? Why do it at sleepovers where people would be more likely to scrutinize his behavior? Ask yourself these questions before you try to use Michael's honesty against him.
Is it true that Jordan Chandler accurately described Michael's genitalia?
No. In January 1994, USA Today printed an article confirming that, "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Some tabloid reports may indicate otherwise but keep in mind that the District Attorney brought his "evidence" in front of two grand juries and charges were not filed. If the photos matched the boy's description, the case would have probably gone to trial.
Has Michael written any songs about the 1993 allegations?
Yes, in fact, most of his 1995 album "HIStory" deals with what he went through during the first allegations. The songs Scream, They Don't Care About Us, Stranger in Moscow, This Time Around, D.S, Money, Childhood, Tabloid Junkie and 2Bad all seem to be written about the first allegations. Here are some lyrics from the album:
Scream
Tired of injustice
Tired of the schemes
Your lies are disgusting
But what does it mean, dirty
Kickin' me down
I've got to get up
As jacked as it sounds
The whole system sucks, dirty
They Don't Care About Us
Now tell me what has become of my rights
Am I invisible cause you ignore me
Your proclamation promised me free liberty
I'm tired of being the victim of shame
You're throwin' me in a class with a bad name
I can't believe this is the land from which I came
Stranger in Moscow
I was wanderin' in the rain
Cast of life feeling insane
Swift and sudden fall from grace
Happy days seem far away
Kremlin's shadow belittlin' me
Stalin's tomb won't let me be
On and on and on it came
Wish the rain would just let me be
This Time Around
Somebody's out
Somebody's out to use me
They really want to use me
And then falsely accuse me
But this time around
They'll take it like spit
No you really can't control me
D.S
They wanna get my ass dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me down by surprise
I'll bet he missioned with the CIA
He don't do half what he say
Cause Tom Sneddon is a cold man
Money
If you show me the cash then I will take it
If you ask me to cry then I will fake it
If you give me your hand then I will shake it
You'll do anything for money
Childhood
No one understands me
They view it as such strange eccentricities
Cause I keep kidding around
Like a child, but pardon me
People say I'm not okay
Cause I love such elementary things
It's been my fate to compensate
For the childhood I've never known
[/b]Tabloid Junkie[/b]
It's slander with the words you use
You're a parasite in black and white
Do anything for news
And you don't go and buy it
And they won't justify it
To read it sanctifies it
Then why do we keep fooling ourselves
Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on a TV screen don't make it factual
But everybody wants to read all about it
2Bad
Told me that you're doing wrong
Word out shocking all alone
Cryin' wolf ain't like a man
Throwin' rocks to hide your hands
You ain't done enough for me
You ain't done enough for me
You are disgusting me, yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
Just want your cut from me but too bad, too bad
Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?
Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Michael violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Michael's 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Michael did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. That's right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.
Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn't it possible that Michael was still guilty?
No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler had the letter from Dr. Abrams saying sexual abuse might have occured and if the boy admitted to it, he would be forced to report it to child welfare services. Chandler used this letter to try to blackmail Michael in the very beginning and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested this boy, why didn't he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.
It's undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn't Michael just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him if the allegations had never been made public. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn't pay off Evan Chandler is because he was INNOCENT and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.
Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have stayed at Neverland, you expect me to believe that Michael only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven't they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their poor molested children? Bullshit.
Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?
No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael's eccentric behavior is "not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are 'normal' people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird." In response to people who think Michael's image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, "There's no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error." He says Jackson is an easy target because "misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria."
Sources:
Abramsam, Mark. "Dunlap Sues Over Arrest." The Lompoc Record. 5 Dec. 2003.
Ayscue, Osborne Jr. "Key Distinctions in the U.S Court System." USIS. 1999. Issues of Democracy. 7 Mar. 2004. (http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itdhr/0999/ijde/ayscue.htm).
Bauder, David. "Diane Dimond's reporting has put Court TV at forefront of Jackson story." The Standard Times. 5 Jan. 2004: Pg. B1.
Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. "Leak of Jackson Memo Criticized." LA Times 8 Jan. 2004.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Jen Winings. 21 Dec. 2003.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Geraldine Hughes. 1 Jan. 2004.
Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. 2 Jan. 2004.
"Civil and Criminal Trials." Cambodia Human Rights. 2003. Asian Human Rights Commission. 7 Mar. 2004. (http://cambodia.ahrchk.net/index.php).
CMJFC. "Toronto Street Kid Falsely Accuses MJ in 1995." Online posting. 16 Dec 2003. MJJForum. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19721&hl).
Corbett, Steve. "All the little voices deserve equal attention." Santa Maria Times. 17 Jan. 2004.
"Current Events and Press Releases." Michael Jackson Case Information. 5 Feb. 2003. County of Santa Barbara. 9 Jan. 2004.(http://www.countyofsb.org/da/press.asp).
Fischer, Mary A. "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" GQ Magazine Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.
Hughes, Geraldine. Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. Radford: Branch and Vine Publishers, LLC. 2004.
"Interview with Mark Geragos and Jermaine Jackson." Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Dec. 2003.
"Interview with Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley." Prime Time Live. ABC. 28 Jan. 1994.
"Jacko's Accuser Connected to Kobe?" Celebrity Justice. 6 Jan. 2004. TTT West Coast Inc. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/04/01/06a.html).
Jackson, Michael. HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book 1. Sony, 1995.
"Jackson's Accuser has Long History of Legal Woes." LA Daily News 25 Nov. 2003.
"Michael Jackson Bombshell." The Smoking Gun. 9 Dec. 2003. Courtroom Television Network. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html).
Moeenziai, Ladan. "Police File Lawsuit to Protect Privacy" The Daily Nexus. 23 Apr. 2002.
"New Details in Jackson Molestation Case." The Today Show. NBC. 12 Mar. 2004.
"Restitution/Compensation/Reparation." About.Com. 1998. About Inc. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://incestabuse.about.com/cs/restitution).
Robb, David. "$2.7 Million to Jackson for Free-Lancer's Sex-Tape Lie." Hollywood Reporter. 13 Apr. 1998.
Standler, Ronald B. "Differences Between Civil and Criminal Law." Miscellaneous Essays On Law. Dr. R. Standler's Professional Homepage. 7 Mar 2004. (http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm).
"The DA in the Michael Jackson Case." TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. 2003. CrimeLynx. 9 Jan. 2004. (http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004935.html004935).
Vigoda, Arlene. "Photos May Contradict Michael Jackson's Accuser." USA Today 28 Jan. 1994: Pg. 2.
Wickham, DeWayne. "Michael Jackson Sequel: Settlement Not Enough." USA Today. 24 Jun. 1996: Pg. 14A.
Wilson, Tracy. "Man Wrongly Convicted of Murder Sues Prosecutors." LA Times. 13 Dec. 2001.
Quoted from: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=195549926&blogId=415819112
See also: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/settlement-not-enough/
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Chandler#Media_reaction_and_settlement
Why should these people care? They didn't know him. Who are you to assume that because they don't subscribe to public hysteria that they are somehow glad he's dead?Octorok said:
Also, where did you get the idea that he was the third most famous person ever? What about Jesus, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jnr and so on. In any case it's irrelevant. Does the widespread knowledge of a person someone make their life more worthwhile than the lives of others? It's not like he did anything significant to further mankind. From what I saw he made a lot of money and spent it mostly on himself and his pursuit to maintain a perpetual childhood. He didn't lead a people from repression, he didn't save lives through political activism, not in a way that the great people named above did.
Why do you think he is a major part of the world? Perhaps he was a major part of your world. His best years were well behind him. Yes he was a fantastic performer, I don't doubt that for a second. Does this mean his life is worth more than the thousands of other people who die everyday? No.
I feel sympathy for his family, and it's sad that he had what seemed to be a largely miserable life but I didn't know him and I'm not going to pretend that it has a big affect on my life. Does this mean I lack compassion? No, I'm more concerned with people who live under poverty and oppression, these are the things that the media should address, not the personal matters of the Jackson family.
Perhaps it is non-conformity but is it right to expect me to feel the loss for a man I never even met that I would have for someone I care about?ChromeAlchemist said:
I would probably mourn the passing of someone like Nelson Mandela or Mark Thomas, Shami Chakrabati because to me their loss would result in a darker world.
It's not that people had more respect over the death of a dog but the fact that they were giving their sympathies for a fellow Escapist. If one of Michael Jackson's family or friends written a post about his passing then we would mostly all be giving our deepest sympathies to that person. However, none of us knew him so other than personal sympathy for him and his family there's not much point in us expressing a pseudo-emotional attachment.
