Jump to content

SHOULD MJ’s music now be boycotted?


Selz

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

Just because he was announced innocent in two cases doesn't mean he was innocent with these two men who are now speaking. Just because he didn't molest all boys doesn't mean he didn't do it to some.

It was one case. He payed that first family off... or someone did on his behalf.. that’s guil— that speaks loudly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

That's true, I forgot about that. It does speak loudly. I guess he just wanted to silence the discussion like he did to the families of these boys by writing checks, buying houses etc. And people still keep defending him after all of this... smh

The Wackos will defend this behavior like a lawyer by saying something like “he didn’t want a long drawn out trial”

Many rich people will use their money to escape a persecution... it happens every day in this country 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

It was one case. He payed that first family off... or someone did on his behalf.. that’s guil— that speaks loudly

Nah it speaks louder that after he did that the boy emancipated himself, it's come out years later that the father was physically abusing the boy, and it's come out that the father was threatening to blackmail Michael for a meeting with Spielberg until he did come to an amount.....that speaks loudly to the entire situation. Like Janet elaborated on it's the mindset of "Let me give you what you really want, to get you out of my life faster". That's

Him buying kids gifts & families houses would be so much more incriminating if he didn't do the same for damn near everybody in his life he was cool with :lmao: . But nah, y'all gotta let your imaginations make it suspicious, vs. it wasn't for the FBI, the judge or jury.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jarrylf said:

Nah it speaks louder that after he did that the boy emancipated himself, it's come out years later that the father was physically abusing the boy, and it's come out that the father was threatening to blackmail Michael for a meeting with Spielberg until he did come to an amount.....that speaks loudly to the entire situation. Like Janet elaborated on it's the mindset of "Let me give you what you really want, to get you out of my life faster". That's

Him buying kids gifts & families houses would be so much more incriminating if he didn't do the same for damn near everybody in his life he was cool with :lmao: . But nah, y'all gotta let your imaginations make it suspicious, vs. it wasn't for the FBI, the judge or jury.

 

You have proof of any of that or is that bullshit :umm:  (Not the Emancipation.. that’s the only thing true in your statement) 

Threatening someone for money is a crime (extortion). Michael didn’t countersue 🤔

I rate your post: 8 Wackos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

You have proof of any of that or is that bullshit :umm: 

Always, I can't fathom making accusations about someone without proof to back it up. :coffee:
 

… Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson’s 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson’s legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan – who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name – had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson’s innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months before Jackson’s insurance carrier negotiated a settlement, Michael Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged with any crime.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. The aforementioned tape-recorded telephone conversation heard him dismiss the boy’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’ and claim that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth. – Award-winning journalist, Charles Thomson, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

 

 

.............................................................................*whispers* this is why I say there's 4 cases and only 3 accusors...... soooo telling....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Game For Now said:

It was one case. He payed that first family off... or someone did on his behalf.. that’s guil— that speaks loudly

That '93 settlement with the Chandlers is always removed from its whole context. It's important to note that the settlement was very clear there was no wrongdoing. While you could view this as just Mj saving face, what's even more important is the fact that the settlement didn't stop the criminal investigation from continuing. So no, that settlement didn't just make everything go away. The Chandler family was suing MJ and they wanted the civil case to go before the criminal one. That would be unfair to MJ because a civil case would bias a jury in the event of a criminal one. I'm not sure if you know this, but after the '93 settlement the laws changed so that the civil case could not precede the criminal case.

Also, the settlement didn't stop the Chandlers from testifying against MJ or coming after him again. In fact, Evan Chandler tried to sue MJ again later on in the 90s, although this suit was dismissed, to my knowledge.

What should be of the utmost importance here is that MJ faced 2 Grand Juries in '93 and neither indicted him. There was no evidence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VelvetKnowledge1814 said:

That '93 settlement with the Chandlers is always removed from its whole context. It's important to note that the settlement was very clear there was no wrongdoing. While you could view this as just Mj saving face, what's even more important is the fact that the settlement didn't stop the criminal investigation from continuing. So no, that settlement didn't just make everything go away. The Chandler family was suing MJ and they wanted the civil case to go before the criminal one. That would be unfair to MJ because a civil case would bias a jury in the event of a criminal one. I'm not sure if you know this, but after the '93 settlement the laws changed so that the civil case could not precede the criminal case.

Also, the settlement didn't stop the Chandlers from testifying against MJ or coming after him again. In fact, Evan Chandler tried to sue MJ again later on in the 90s, although this suit was dismissed, to my knowledge.

What should be of the utmost importance here is that MJ faced 2 Grand Juries in '93 and neither indicted him. There was no evidence.

Yes.. I know how the settlement worked. All parties agreed on the settlement. So everyone is happy yet an abuser gets off scotch free due to his fame and $$$

Fun fact

Yes Evan did and it was dismissed.. most frivolous lawsuits were dismissed or Jackson won. Doesn’t mean he didn’t touch little boys 

Child molestation is very difficult to prove to begin with as putting that up against the most powerful person in that County... I’m not surprised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

I will not take a blog’s word for it 

Can you please provide a valid link with credibility to the table. Not some fan’s blog

Also the link to the blog isn’t valid 

Also a journalist who isn’t a Wacko would be nice too. Unbiased. I found his blog and it’s basically an MJ fan page

The word of an award-winning investigative journalist for Huffington Post, who's profiled many black legends including MJ is more credible than anyone & anything on your side.....so yea, not exactly a blog post from someone who's just "some fan". Nice try tho, if he weren't an award-winning journalist you'd have a point, but he is, so you don't. Prove his words wrong. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that there's literally not a single accuser who has been able to tell a consistent story (unlike cases with real victims) speaks more to the likelihood that nothing happened, than the assumption & imagining that it takes to say something did. 

"he coulda" ain't cuttin it and isn't concrete enough. Alot of people coulda done alot of things unless there's evidence & air-tight testimony he probably didn't. :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jarrylf said:

The word of an award-winning investigative journalist for Huffington Post, who's profiled many black legends including MJ is more credible than anyone & anything on your side.....so yea, not exactly a blog post from someone who's just "some fan". Nice try tho, if he weren't an award-winning journalist you'd have a point, but he is, so you don't. Prove his words wrong. 

:umm: 

He’s literally a stan. That’s like me being a journalist and writing articles about how Janet didn’t murder every one’s career. It’s biased af period. I don’t care how many journalist awards he won... its biased

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jarrylf said:

(unlike cases with real victims) 

No. I don’t think you understand that or you wouldn’t say that.

Many victims get timelines wrong, events, even places after so many years have past (Justice Kavanuage and his accuser). The tiniest details doesn’t matter especially when the abuse is obviously happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

:umm: 

He’s literally a stan. That’s like me being a journalist and writing articles about how Janet didn’t murder every one’s career. It’s biased af period. I don’t care how many journalist awards he won... its biased

He's literally cited and respected for his ability to break down court docs and report on them. Another case of facts being FACTS no matter who's reporting them, and credible reporting being credible. But again, you'd have a point if his blog was a hobby and he wasn't a respected journalist :coffee:

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

No. I don’t think you understand that or you wouldn’t say that.

Many victims get timelines wrong, events, even places after so many years have past (Justice Kavanuage and his accuser). The tiniest details doesn’t matter especially when the abuse is obviously happened

Nah....it's being abundantly clear you don't get it (and probably haven't read a single thing that proves any MJ accuser is lying) or you wouldn't be referring to "tiniest details".....which nobody is referring to, we're talking entire stories being proven to be made up.....and you're treating like they forgot if it was in a Wednesday of 88 or a Friday of 90....no you're mistaken.

What's become very clear in the more I look into things, when you said the other day "I'm too close"....that's kind of the thing.... judges &, jurors & journalists, when anyone gets close to all the details, more often than not, it points to my side (and if it doesn't it keeps people in the middle), I'm "too close" because I'm looking at everything thoroughly. It's lazy and easy to go "oh he spends time with kids and lets them sleep in his bed, pedophile" than it is to actually look at all the testimony and all the files and all the history in depth. Getting a date or 2 wrong isn't the same as coming up with an entire story that didn't happen, having a history of extortion attempts & abuse claims, having a history of hiding information, and being caught on tape gloating about how accusing someone will help your career.....that's not the same (and every 1 of those examples is from their claims, not digging into the past of stealing or lying about taxes or something), the big lies make the little lies count more than they would without them. If it's so obvious.....abuse happened he would've gotten a charge, in your imagination it's obvious. In the details it's obvious the accusers are fucked up and trying to manipulate the public and the system, they lied about SO much they didn't even have to lie about, that's not comparable to anyone guilty :lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao:........... then you'll just stay wrong.....OK.....the credentials are enough, you just don't like the facts... :coffee:

 

Eh you know what on 2nd thought, since you seem to actually want to read through the details, here you go. You got alot of reading to do :D 

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/atgbook.net/GQFinal.html 

https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson/Michael Jackson Part 07 of 07/view

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a0422-05-opn.html

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/court-transcripts.zip

I will admit I didn't know Jordan was an adult when his dad attacked and almost killed him with weights, I thought it was when he was a kid :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Game For Now said:

Yes.. I know how the settlement worked. All parties agreed on the settlement. So everyone is happy yet an abuser gets off scotch free due to his fame and $$$

Fun fact

Yes Evan did and it was dismissed.. most frivolous lawsuits were dismissed or Jackson won. Doesn’t mean he didn’t touch little boys 

Child molestation is very difficult to prove to begin with as putting that up against the most powerful person in that County... I’m not surprised

A good way to prove something untoward happened between MJ and Jordan Chandler would be if Jordan could describe MJ's private parts. He was asked to draw them and they were compared to MJ's photos during the Grand Juries (they didn't match). If they had matched, MJ would have been arrested/indicted on the spot.

I really don't think MJ would have been powerful enough to avoid an indictment in '93 if those photos had matched. There would have been no way out of an indictment if those photos matched Chandler's description.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, VelvetKnowledge1814 said:

A good way to prove something untoward happened between MJ and Jordan Chandler would be if Jordan could describe MJ's private parts. He was asked to draw them and they were compared to MJ's photos during the Grand Juries (they didn't match). If they had matched, MJ would have been arrested/indicted on the spot.

I really don't think MJ would have been powerful enough to avoid an indictment in '93 if those photos had matched. There would have been no way out of an indictment if those photos matched Chandler's description.

BINGO, that's a big piece there, and the hilariousness is lazy fools who find out "he had to describe" don't even know he FAILED (he said MJ was circumcized when he wasn't, which was proven by the police pics of every inch of his body).

RIght, and no settling out of court either, that would've taken things to a whole other level that it never remotely got close to. But folks like to imagine things differently:lmao:

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Game For Now said:

I will not take a blog’s word for it 

Can you please provide a valid link with credibility to the table. Not some fan’s blog

Also the link to the blog isn’t valid 

Also a journalist who isn’t a Wacko would be nice too. Unbiased. I found his blog and it’s basically an MJ fan page

Ohhh helllll naw I know this dude aint asking for credibility now :blink:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jarrylf said:

:lmao:........... then you'll just stay wrong.....OK.....the credentials are enough, you just don't like the facts... :coffee:

 

Eh you know what on 2nd thought, since you seem to actually want to read through the details, here you go. You got alot of reading to do :D 

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208010747/atgbook.net/GQFinal.html 

https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson/Michael Jackson Part 07 of 07/view

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a0422-05-opn.html

https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/court-transcripts.zip

I will admit I didn't know Jordan was an adult when his dad attacked and almost killed him with weights, I thought it was when he was a kid :coffee:

1) the FBI doc you submitted literally is about Jordy not wanting to testify in MJ’s trial and that he would do everything in his legal power not to

2) The restraining order case was dropped making it null & void

3) I was reading that long ass GQ article yesterday. That link you provided goes against her article.. calling Mary Fisher’s original “sloppy” and “manipulated”

4) Wordpress = blog = entertainment and it’s a zip file and I’m on my iPhone 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bailey said:

Ohhh helllll naw I know this dude aint asking for credibility now :blink:

Yes. When it comes to journalists or any profession, I hold them to a high ethical standard :blink: I know that’s hard for you, a simpleton, to do.

You can’t be a journalist and give your unequivocal opinion on a subject you see blindly.

If a “journalist” from Breitbart argued for a Wall on the southern boarder.. I’m going to question his or her articles on Trump, this nation, and all in-between. 

You can be a victim of child molestation with no credibility. That doesn’t take away the fact that they were abused. A victim could be a dirty stripper but does that mean he or she wasn’t raped? No. You can’t use credibility when discussing victimful crime. “Bill Cosby couldn’t do that to those women! He’s too credible!” - says every Bill Cosby fan and denier of his actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Game For Now said:

1) the FBI doc you submitted literally is about Jordy not wanting to testify in MJ’s trial and that he would do everything in his legal power not to

2) The restraining order case was dropped making it null & void

3) I was reading that long ass GQ article yesterday. That link you provided goes against her article.. calling Mary Fisher’s original “sloppy” and “manipulated”

4) Wordpress = blog = entertainment and it’s a zip file and I’m on my iPhone 

1. Tom Mesereau gives the whole breakdown, under oath 

2. Yet he still was able to get one because his sick twisted father who he emancipated himself from nearly killed him.......point remains, his father was sick and twisted and the one who ruined that kids life.

3. Point remains, Evan Chandler was a psycho. 1 of the things he wanted out of suing Michael was to release an album called "EvansStory"..........and he's credible?!?! :lmao:

4. :lmao: The zip file that you avoided is Chandler's mother's testimony about how Joran emancipated himself from both parents thus proving his dad was a psycho who ruined his life.

3 hours ago, Game For Now said:

 

You can be a victim of child molestation with no credibility. That doesn’t take away the fact that they were abused. A victim could be a dirty stripper but does that mean he or she wasn’t raped? No. You can’t use credibility when discussing victimful crime. “Bill Cosby couldn’t do that to those women! He’s too credible!” - says every Bill Cosby fan and denier of his actions

1

Yea no, Breitbart isn't Huffington Post though,:lmao: He's credible, he's respected, he's an expert, and he's right.

Can't use credibility? Do you hear what you're saying.....how crazy that is? You're advocating, anyone should be able to accuse anyone of sexual abuse and their story not mattering but their accusations do....in a world where lying isn't a thing that'd work, but in the real world it doesn't. Simple as can be, what kind of person you are doesn't matter about the accusations (literally anybody is saying it does), how you treat your own accusations is what we're talking about. On the subject of rape, Cosby was NEVER credible,:lmao: he was about as credible as a Jackson accuser really. You can't make up entire details that are easily proven to be not true and be credible on the subject, lying about conversations, lying about circumstances, lying about things involving this that you didn't need to lie about, makes it look like you can lie about EVERYTHING, and you're advising that we still believe their every new edit, no. :coffee:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/14/2019 at 8:35 PM, SpringBird84 said:

I too am pretty sure there will soon come out new accusers. It would be a good thing. We need to support the victims instead of blaming them. People say the victims are only after money but so is the other party, it's about money for them too. I don't understand why people are so fanatically defending MJ. Yes, no one can never know what really happened in the rooms but it can't be denied that even if he didn't touch the kids that way, he emotionally abused them and used them for his own purposes in inappropriate ways. Since when is it ok to hold hands and share beds with little boys. Make hours long phone calls with 7-years olds, marry them in a secret ceremony, give them rings, promise them the moon and the sky and then just disappear. People should question his overall behaviour, not just that no evidence was found. I'm pretty sure MJ was smart enough to get rid of any possible evidence in time be it underwear or pictures. I hope every one who was a victim of MJ has the courage to get help and speak out if they want to. But I understand if they want to remain silent looking at the shitstorm all the victims received. 😥

After the way his base have treated precious accusers? Don’t think so 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...