Was Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's genitalia accurate?

[Len is Disgusted]

InDaHouse wrote:

<quoted text>
The Chandlers exposed Jackson for the pedophile he was in 1993. That parents allowed their children to sleep with Wacko after that shows that stupidity still abounds.

Do you have the link to the Chandler-Jackson settlement contract? I have it buried somewhere, but I can't find it, right now. What stuck out to me, at the time, was the requirement on the part of the Chandlers to give Michael Jackson at least a five-day notice, in the event of a subpeona.

Mjfacts posted the agreement, and that chilling requirement is in 11g. But I'd like a link to the actual document.

[Len is Disgusted]

InDaHouse wrote:

No problem
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michae...
Title is
Michael Joe Jackson;
BLANK (Minor)- Victim IINI - Travelers/Enticement
For a start, Jordan Chandler was not a minor in 2004 when this file was created (but he WAS a victim!).
Secondly, IINI stands for Innocent Images National Initiative, details of which are here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber...
Thirdly, Travelers/Enticement refers to
18 USC 2422(a)(Enticement) makes it a crime
to knowingly entice, or to attempt to entice, a
person to travel in interstate commerce for
sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a crime
18 USC 2423(b)(Travel) makes it a crime to
travel in interstate commerce for the purpose
of engaging in illicit sexual conduct with
another person

Thank you for the links.

[persephone]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
And why were they "unproven?" CUZ MJ SETTLED OUT OF COURT, THAT'S WHY!!
The way MJ panicked and caved in to EC's demands does the opposite of what you fans think it has. It hasn't discredited them by far! What it has done has cast permanent suspicion on MJ's innocence that will NOT go away now that both MJ and EC are dead.
In any other case, innocent men wouldn't pay to make evidence go away!! If that evidence was bogus, the defense should have fought to have entered in MJ's trial. It would've worked against the prosecution. Instead, they fought tooth and nail to get it thrown out!!
Another thing that is glaringly obvious to everyone except MJ fans is the way Judge Melville refused to allow the drawings Jordan drew of Jackson’s penis to be entered into evidence because they were old news but then allowed Mesereau all the leeway in the world to put Janet Arvizo’s unrelated past police records under a microscope, even though it wasn't clear what JA did years before she met MJ was supposed to prove!
These are things that will haunt MJ's legacy for all time!!

Why do so many haters have such a hard time comprehending that Judge Melville did not want the trial to deteriorate into what has been called 'a case within a case'? Furthermore, it is certainly interesting to note that the request to introduce those drawings was made at a relatively late date in the trial--a sure sign that Sneddon must have known just how badly his case was deteriorating.

I certainly consider it relevant information to know that the mother of the minor accuser had been involved in similiar sexual accusation cases before. It is no coincidence that the woman who made a sexual accusation against a security guard and received a nice little financial settlement, that the very same woman produced yet another sexual accusation in a custody battle involving her ex-spouse, just happens to be involved in yet ANOTHER sexual accusation case (this time involving her minor children).

And lest we all forget, the very first person she sought was a civil attorney--the very same one who had been involved with the civil settlement years ago. What a high tolerance haters have for truly amazing coincidences.

[persephone]

Len is Disgusted wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have the link to the Chandler-Jackson settlement contract? I have it buried somewhere, but I can't find it, right now. What stuck out to me, at the time, was the requirement on the part of the Chandlers to give Michael Jackson at least a five-day notice, in the event of a subpeona.
Mjfacts posted the agreement, and that chilling requirement is in 11g. But I'd like a link to the actual document.

No such contracts have any precedence over criminal prosecution.

[krackerjacks]

persephone wrote:

<quoted text> Why do so many haters have such a hard time comprehending that Judge Melville did not want the trial to deteriorate into what has been called 'a case within a case'? Furthermore, it is certainly interesting to note that the request to introduce those drawings was made at a relatively late date in the trial--a sure sign that Sneddon must have known just how badly his case was deteriorating.
I certainly consider it relevant information to know that the mother of the minor accuser had been involved in similiar sexual accusation cases before. It is no coincidence that the woman who made a sexual accusation against a security guard and received a nice little financial settlement, that the very same woman produced yet another sexual accusation in a custody battle involving her ex-spouse, just happens to be involved in yet ANOTHER sexual accusation case (this time involving her minor children).
And lest we all forget, the very first person she sought was a civil attorney--the very same one who had been involved with the civil settlement years ago. What a high tolerance haters have for truly amazing coincidences.

And what do you call how Messereau made the jury concentrate on Janet Arivizo's past police record, that wasn't "a case within a case?" I don’t know how much time was spent pouring over Janet Arvizo’s old police records but if I were a member of that jury, I would take a person’s past into account as well but I wouldn’t give it as much gravity as Mesereau did because on its own, it simply doesn’t prove anything!!! It’s a cheap courtroom tactic called “Defamation Of Character.”

Nevertheless, the ploy worked brilliantly. Mesereau successfully tripped Janet Arvizo up enough that she lost credibility with the jury. This was as good as gold to MJ enthusiasts! If you mention Janet Arvizo to them, you’re guaranteed to hear about what a lowlife crook she is. They’ll go on at length about how she sued JC Penny, extorted money from celebrities, lied to collect food stamps, etc. Some of this turned out to be true, some of it didn’t. Chris Tucker and George Lopez both testified that she hadn’t extorted money from them but it didn’t matter. Janet Arvizo was regarded as a scumbag after that and nothing anyone could say was going to make any difference in MJ fan’s closed minds.

Considering Janet Arvizo was found guilty of Welfare fraud in 2006 and ordered to repay $13,606, I’m not going to try to change their minds either. I feel sorry for those kids. I think this was a matter of a bunch of children surrounded by a bunch of adults behaving badly, Michael Jackson included! He swung the gates to Neverland open wide for anyone that was willing to hand their child over to him. Is it any wonder that “bad” people found their way inside?

[Len is Disgusted]

vindicatemjisahater wrote:

<quoted text>Earth to you mindless troll. You lost the contest as soon as you once again lied about not being a fan..you've been doing that for yrs. You lose every mo fo time. Under a rock until Sunday? That's the only way you don't have internet access. What an idiot. Thanks for the laughs at you losing the argument each and every time. Typical floony!

When anyone's post begins with "I'm not a fan", without fail they prove to be a f'loon. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen that sentence, only to quickly see the f'loon H.A.T.E. and outrageous fantasies spew forth.

[krackerjacks]

Isn't it interesting how MJ fans conveniently lump the children in with their hatred for their parents?

Even though Jordan refused to testify against MJ in his criminal trial, he's still a filthy scumbag cuz his dad was!

MJ use how Gavin and Star's testimony weren't identical as "proof" of how they were as evil as their mother.

This is odd cuz they swear their mother prepped those boys with lies in order to steal MJ's money.

If they were given a precise script to memorize, WHY DIDN'T THEIR TESTIMONIES MATCH??????

[persephone]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
And what do you call how Messereau made the jury concentrate on Janet Arivizo's past police record, that wasn't "a case within a case?" I don’t know how much time was spent pouring over Janet Arvizo’s old police records but if I were a member of that jury, I would take a person’s past into account as well but I wouldn’t give it as much gravity as Mesereau did because on its own, it simply doesn’t prove anything!!! It’s a cheap courtroom tactic called “Defamation Of Character.”
Nevertheless, the ploy worked brilliantly. Mesereau successfully tripped Janet Arvizo up enough that she lost credibility with the jury. This was as good as gold to MJ enthusiasts! If you mention Janet Arvizo to them, you’re guaranteed to hear about what a lowlife crook she is. They’ll go on at length about how she sued JC Penny, extorted money from celebrities, lied to collect food stamps, etc. Some of this turned out to be true, some of it didn’t. Chris Tucker and George Lopez both testified that she hadn’t extorted money from them but it didn’t matter. Janet Arvizo was regarded as a scumbag after that and nothing anyone could say was going to make any difference in MJ fan’s closed minds.
Considering Janet Arvizo was found guilty of Welfare fraud in 2006 and ordered to repay $13,606, I’m not going to try to change their minds either. I feel sorry for those kids. I think this was a matter of a bunch of children surrounded by a bunch of adults behaving badly, Michael Jackson included! He swung the gates to Neverland open wide for anyone that was willing to hand their child over to him. Is it any wonder that “bad” people found their way inside?

I wasn't talking about welfare fraud but the fact that she was financially rewarded for making sexual accusations which had no proof whatsoever. Accusations which conveniently lacked any physical evidence, just like the ones involving her sons.

Don't blame Mesereau for the fact that Janet Arvizo really was just a stupid lazy scumbag. And please don't insinuate that the jury was swayed merely by the mother and not the sons. Neither Gavin nor Star gave a convincing performance at that trial.

[krackerjacks]

MJ "fans" use how...

No, I don't enjoy trying to penetrate MJ fan's thick skulls, I just think it needs to be done.

I've posted that comment before and yet his fans still come back and repeat how Janet Arvizo suing a security guard proves what a lowdown crook she was.

I guess so long as they keep repeating themselves, I will too.

[krackerjacks]

persephone wrote:

<quoted text> I wasn't talking about welfare fraud but the fact that she was financially rewarded for making sexual accusations which had no proof whatsoever. Accusations which conveniently lacked any physical evidence, just like the ones involving her sons.
Don't blame Mesereau for the fact that Janet Arvizo really was just a stupid lazy scumbag. And please don't insinuate that the jury was swayed merely by the mother and not the sons. Neither Gavin nor Star gave a convincing performance at that trial.

Yes, she was convicted of welfare fraud AFTER the MJ criminal trial but you were talking about how she sued a JC Penny security guard.

If she had "no proof whatsoever" in that case, why was she awarded a settlement???

[krackerjacks]

MJ's lawyer didn't even bring up how she was sued for welfare fraud at Jacko's 2005 trial cuz she wasn't convicted until 2006!!

What you fans are basing your opinions about what a "stupid, lazy scumbag" she was stems from things like how she lied to collect food stamps she wasn't entitled to.

SHE DID THAT CUZ SHE WAS TRYING TO FEED HER FAMILY!!!!

What a monster!

[krackerjacks]

persephone wrote:

<quoted text> I wasn't talking about welfare fraud but the fact that she was financially rewarded for making sexual accusations which had no proof whatsoever. Accusations which conveniently lacked any physical evidence, just like the ones involving her sons.
Don't blame Mesereau for the fact that Janet Arvizo really was just a stupid lazy scumbag. And please don't insinuate that the jury was swayed merely by the mother and not the sons. Neither Gavin nor Star gave a convincing performance at that trial.

You've never lied or broken a law in you life??

I suppose if you got caught shoplifting when you were 18 and then got in trouble with the law again years later, the jury should just automatically throw the book at you cuz you have a police record, right???

[Jermaine 7]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
You've never lied or broken a law in you life??
I suppose if you got caught shoplifting when you were 18 and then got in trouble with the law again years later, the jury should just automatically throw the book at you cuz you have a police record, right???

The only reason you are sticking up for that women is cause you hare MJ. Bet you are a Peter King fan too.

[persephone]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
You've never lied or broken a law in you life??
I suppose if you got caught shoplifting when you were 18 and then got in trouble with the law again years later, the jury should just automatically throw the book at you cuz you have a police record, right???

We weren't talking about shoplifting but about claims that she was sexually groped in the crotch area by the security guard, yet said absolutely nothing about it at the time of the arrest, and the guard denied having touched her in that area.

[persephone]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, she was convicted of welfare fraud AFTER the MJ criminal trial but you were talking about how she sued a JC Penny security guard.
If she had "no proof whatsoever" in that case, why was she awarded a settlement???

For starters, I suggest you abandon the erroneous idea that only guilty people pay settlements. And for someone who's supposedly writing a book on MJ, I'm more than a little surprised you don't seem to know the story behind the JC Penneys fiasco.

JC Penney paid the settlement because they were advised to do by their attorneys since Gavin had developed cancer by that time and it was thought that it wouldn't look good for JC Penney to get a sick boy involved in the case.

[persephone]

krackerjacks wrote:

<quoted text>
You've never lied or broken a law in you life??
I suppose if you got caught shoplifting when you were 18 and then got in trouble with the law again years later, the jury should just automatically throw the book at you cuz you have a police record, right???

Also, Janet Arvizo was not 18 at the time, but a grown woman with three children. How can you not know that?

If that's an example of your knowledge of MJ and research skills, then your book is sure to be loaded with all sorts of mistakes and misinformation.

[InDaHouse]

Len is Disgusted wrote:

<quoted text>

P.S. Are there any photos that are definitely of Jordan? F'loons post photos they think are him, all the time. I'd like to see the real McCoy.

I don't care what he looks like. Let him live in peace. He did a wonderful job of coming forward and exposing a pedophile in spite of all the odds against him. F'loons dismiss him as a liar with a wave of a hand, they think it must be easy to fool trained professionals and to get a superstar to pay out tens of millions of dollars (which never happened before and has never happened since in ANY case of molestation allegations - shows how 'easy' it was)

[InDaHouse]

xJWx wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not here to serve you.

Translation: I read it on a f'loon site, but I'm not going to admit it.

*laughter*

[InDaHouse]

persephone wrote:

<quoted text> Why do so many haters have such a hard time comprehending that Judge Melville did not want the trial to deteriorate into what has been called 'a case within a case'?

and then...

persephone wrote:

<quoted text>
I certainly consider it relevant information to know that the mother of the minor accuser had been involved in similiar sexual accusation cases before. It is no coincidence that the woman who made a sexual accusation against a security guard and received a nice little financial settlement, that the very same woman produced yet another sexual accusation in a custody battle involving her ex-spouse, just happens to be involved in yet ANOTHER sexual accusation case (this time involving her minor children).
And lest we all forget, the very first person she sought was a civil attorney--the very same one who had been involved with the civil settlement years ago. What a high tolerance haters have for truly amazing coincidences.

What a hypocrite you are.

And you think it has no bearing on a molestation case when a former victim could accurately describe the perpetrator's genitals?

Not too big on the thinkin' department, are ya?

*laughter*

[InDaHouse]

persephone wrote:

<quoted text>Janet Arvizo really was just a stupid lazy scumbag.

I disagree. She got her kids away from Wacko as soon as she was aware of impropriety, unlike parents such as Joy Robson and Lisbeth Barnes. They are the real scumbags. Look at the way they responded to Wacko's booty calls at 1am in the morning - they delivered their sons to his bed.

http://www.mjfacts.info/booty_call.php