I need these questions answering

[Azza3100]

First off, i dont want any bullsh*t posts, its not worth me reading them and I won't respond to them either.
A bullsh*t post goes along the lines of: H'e innocent blah blah blah *whip smiley* Weepy smiley* and that also includes personal bias.

In the 93 case Jordie Chandler was able to give an EXACT account of what Michaels genitalia looked like. I Quote

It took 7 hours to provide a description that Larry Feldman (Jordies lawyer) could understand. There were numerous discolourations and markings on Michaels privates, and it was difficult for the boy to to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, an what shape they took. The problem was not Jordies memory: he had seen michaels genitalia from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. the problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and eventually arrived at a description that turned out to be an accuratematch to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara police.

On a footnote it says this:

After michael denied to match in a 1995 interview wth Diane Sawyer, Santa Barabara DA Thomas Sneddon told Vanity Fair that michaels 'statement on TV was untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in this case'
(Maureen Orth, 'The Jackson Jive,' Vanity Fair 1995, 116)

Also the money asked for by Evan Chandler was not for him but for Jordies wellfair later in life.
They went for a civil trial because in a criminal trial all it takes is one jury member to say 'i have a doubt' and 'he gets off scot free'. Their case would be over and michael would have gotten away with molesting a young boy. Thats the motivation of the Chandlers.
Michael also wanted to take the 5th amendment in event of a criminal trial.
Tons of guilty parties use the 5th, if you really are innocent then you have no need to change your story, its consistency that the 5th ammendment is key too, like if a liar wanted to take to the stand it would mean sticking to a story, when he is being proven wrong and having to change it, it proves they lied under oath, thats why guilty parties stick to the 5th.

Thats all im writing for now, I've had this on my chest for a while now. Now I desperatley need someone to come out with hard evidence that proves to me that michael is not a paedophile. Please convince me.

[Chris]

Read 'Redemption'

[Azza3100]

Originally Posted by HUGE_MJ_FAN

Read 'Redemption'

whats redemption? Are you talking about an actual book or article?

[P.Y.T1982]

Originally Posted by Azza3100

whats redemption? Are you talking about an actual book or article?

Redemption by Geraldine Hughes. It is a book, and explains it better than I can. But I might try anyway later on.
It is a very good book, all facts and most of them never made the headlines. Geraldine was the secretary of Barry Rothman, he was Chandlers attorney.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by P.Y.T1982

Redemption by Geraldine Hughes. It is a book, and explains it better than I can. But I might try anyway later on.
It is a very good book, all facts and most of them never made the headlines. Geraldine was the secretary of Barry Rothman, he was Chandlers attorney.

She also had audio tapes of the boys father saying he had a plan

Here's a little snip of it and if your still not convinced after this go ask Chris(iLLigit).. He knows alot about it..
file only about 400kb..you need realplayer..

http://www.uploading.com/?get=3O4DJ17F

[Chris]

http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

[Azza3100]

Thanks Guys

[James]

Aaron, the following should help to dissipate your fears.

According to MJEOL:

http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/...p?storyid=1897

"Appearing at a conference at Harvard University’s Austin Hall to talk about the Jackson trial, Mesereau was asked a question from an audience member about alleged “prior bad acts” and if it was possible to make the first 1993 accuser testify at the past trial.

"On the issue of the 1993 accuser who received the settlement, Mesereau said if Chandler came to court, he was prepared to call witnesses who would reveal the fact that Chandler admitted Jackson didn’t touch him. "

See also:

http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/...p?storyid=1903

"Further, these witnesses say that Chandler was so angry at what his parents made him do, he said he would never speak to them again."

"On top of that was the fact that he filed for legal emancipation from his parents."

You can watch Thomas Meserau speaking about this on Video (this is a must see):

http://site2.mjeol.com/modules/news/...p?storyid=1897

[James]

Here's an article which appeared in USA Today in 1994.

Photos may contradict Michael's accuser
USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: Jan 28, 1994. pg. 02.D

Section: LIFE
ISSN/ISBN: 07347456
Text Word Count 106


Abstract:
The boy's civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy's lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.

Full Text:
Copyright USA Today Information Network Jan 28, 1994

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.

If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling.

The boy's civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy's lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will.

Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday...el%27s+accuser

[Andrew]

The drawing Jordie Chandler gave of Michael's genetalia with the marks was released to the public. I've remember seeing it and it looked more like a sketch of a mushroom than anything else. It didn't look anything at all.