Was Jordan Chandler's description of ...
First Prev
of 62
Next Last
persephone

Sunnyvale, CA

#1254 Jun 14, 2012
Hunja wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,I'm pretty sure that the professional abilities of the prosecution was at least that good to differences between a match and not a match.It is better you give up your laughable stubbornness and work on a theory why Jordan was able to describe MJ's penis if he was not molested.Maybe Klein's theory is a option?
<quoted text>
It is based on your nonsense comments and I don't think that every fan is that dense like you are.
<quoted text>
That is pretty rich comming from the person who calls the opposite side Haters.
Again, if it was a match, then why do you suppose the grand juries refused to indict with Jordan's cooperation? Again, there is no one besides Sneddon who seems to have viewed both the drawings/description and the photographs and concluded that there was a match. Please do not offer up yet another example of hearsay.

And since you just referred to those who defend MJ as "brain damaged" I wouldn't exactly say that you are the model of tolerance and open-mindedness.

An NFL Fan

“Brevity is the soule of wit”

Since: May 09

USA

#1255 Jun 14, 2012
persephony wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if it was a match, then . Please do not offer up yet another example of hearsay.
.
'hearsay'

Thanks for the court ruling, Jugs Judy.

Since: Jul 10

Osnabrück, Germany

#1256 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Anti-MJ people are quite fond of ignoring facts, one of which is, for example, that if MJ had been found to possess anything which met the criteria of child pornography, he would have been charged. He was not, and that is not an example of any 'twisting' or 'excuses' being made by pro-MJ people, but something which is based upon fact. It is, however, an example of something that haters like to ignore.
The bed-sharing situation is yet another example of something which haters hyperventilate about, yet prefer to ignore the fact that, once again, it does not fall within the realms of criminal behavior in any jurisdiction at this point in time. Again we have an example of something based on fact which haters prefer to ignore.
Nobody ignores that and we are all quite aware of it but the fact that a adult man who shares the bed with underage boys,has books&pictures of naked boys,tolerates that underage boys have access to alcohol and pornography in his house,has a lack of serious adult relationship,paid off at least two boys who accused him of molesting instead of fighting for his "good" name and not to forget that a 13year old was able to describe his penis..well,seeing a big red flag is just logical consequence of it.
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Anti-MJ people are quite fond of ignoring facts, one of which is, for example, that if MJ had been found to possess anything which met the criteria of child pornography, he would have been charged. He was not, and that is not an example of any 'twisting' or 'excuses' being made by pro-MJ people, but something which is based upon fact. It is, however, an example of something that haters like to ignore.
The bed-sharing situation is yet another example of something which haters hyperventilate about, yet prefer to ignore the fact that, once again, it does not fall within the realms of criminal behavior in any jurisdiction at this point in time. Again we have an example of something based on fact which haters prefer to ignore.

Since: Jul 10

Osnabrück, Germany

#1257 Jun 14, 2012
Sorry for quoting Persephone two times.Once is already [email protected]"so-called" haters.

Since: Jul 10

Osnabrück, Germany

#1258 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if it was a match, then why do you suppose the grand juries refused to indict with Jordan's cooperation? Again, there is no one besides Sneddon who seems to have viewed both the drawings/description and the photographs and concluded that there was a match. Please do not offer up yet another example of hearsay.
And since you just referred to those who defend MJ as "brain damaged" I wouldn't exactly say that you are the model of tolerance and open-mindedness.
In fact,the jury diden't indict because the victim suddenly refused to testify.

Since: Jul 10

Osnabrück, Germany

#1259 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
And since you just referred to those who defend MJ as "brain damaged" I wouldn't exactly say that you are the model of tolerance and open-mindedness.
To notice your ignorance and idiocy means not necessarily that I'm not tolerant or open-minded.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#1260 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Anti-MJ people are quite fond of ignoring facts, one of which is, for example, that if MJ had been found to possess anything which met the criteria of child pornography, he would have been charged. He was not, and that is not an example of any 'twisting' or 'excuses' being made by pro-MJ people, but something which is based upon fact. It is, however, an example of something that haters like to ignore.
The bed-sharing situation is yet another example of something which haters hyperventilate about, yet prefer to ignore the fact that, once again, it does not fall within the realms of criminal behavior in any jurisdiction at this point in time. Again we have an example of something based on fact which haters prefer to ignore.
Once again, you have exihibited the tainted scent of a pedophile. Your words could have been uttered by TopRix or Michael, himself.

The others f'loons are just plain idiots. But you know the legal documents prove Michael was a pedophile, and you see nothing wrong with that.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#1261 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if it was a match, then why do you suppose the grand juries refused to indict with Jordan's cooperation? Again, there is no one besides Sneddon who seems to have viewed both the drawings/description and the photographs and concluded that there was a match. Please do not offer up yet another example of hearsay.
Persephone-the-Pedophile, you know full well other people in the legal world viewed the description, the drawing, and the photos. You know they matched. You know full well why Messereau fought to keep them out of the courtroom. Had they not matched, it would have been Michael's immediate ticket to walk freely.

But if you're so convinced they did not match, do you have a link to a legal document stating the didn't?

P.S. Jordan refused to testify, after Michael paid hush money, to keep himself out of prison.

InDaHouse

“New year, more f'loon denial”

Since: Jul 10

Dark Recesses, Your Mind

#1262 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
The bed-sharing situation is yet another example of something which haters hyperventilate about, yet prefer to ignore the fact that, once again, it does not fall within the realms of criminal behavior in any jurisdiction at this point in time. Again we have an example of something based on fact which haters prefer to ignore.
Another diversion from you - nobody has ever suggested sharing a bed is illegal apart from f'loons attempting to 'refute' the illegality of it. It is, however, behaviour that pedophiles love, as has been pointed out many times.

It is curious that f'loons always DO mention that it is illegal - as if they think that people think it should be. Hmmmmmm....

InDaHouse

“New year, more f'loon denial”

Since: Jul 10

Dark Recesses, Your Mind

#1263 Jun 14, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if it was a match, then why do you suppose the grand juries refused to indict with Jordan's cooperation?
Did you find a link that shows either grand jury saw the photos and description? Still waiting for that.

In any case, the two grand juries weren't asked for an indictment anyway, so don't keep pushing that lie.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#1264 Jun 15, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
The bed-sharing situation is yet another example of something which haters hyperventilate about, yet prefer to ignore the fact that, once again, it does not fall within the realms of criminal behavior in any jurisdiction at this point in time. Again we have an example of something based on fact which haters prefer to ignore.
Did you copy and paste that from the NAMBLA handbook?.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#1265 Jun 15, 2012
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Again, if it was a match, then why do you suppose the grand juries refused to indict with Jordan's cooperation? Again, there is no one besides Sneddon who seems to have viewed both the drawings/description and the photographs and concluded that there was a match. Please do not offer up yet another example of hearsay.
And since you just referred to those who defend MJ as "brain damaged" I wouldn't exactly say that you are the model of tolerance and open-mindedness.
It's been pointed out to you numerous times that Thomas Sneddon isn't the only person who viewed and said those photos and drawings cooperated. There's probably no point in me bringing up names as they will go straight through that sieve of a brain you have. The fact is, Jordan Chandler's drawings matched with the photographs taken of Michael Jackson's penis.
persephonoe

Sunnyvale, CA

#1266 Jun 15, 2012
In And Of Itself wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been pointed out to you numerous times that Thomas Sneddon isn't the only person who viewed and said those photos and drawings cooperated. There's probably no point in me bringing up names as they will go straight through that sieve of a brain you have. The fact is, Jordan Chandler's drawings matched with the photographs taken of Michael Jackson's penis.
What has been quoted numerous times are statements made by people such as Dr. Richard Strick, whose statement "I was told" clearly indicates that he did not view the drawings/description but was taking someone else's word for it. Hearsay in such a situation is not what I would call strong evidence of a match.
persephonoe

Sunnyvale, CA

#1267 Jun 15, 2012
InDaHouse wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you find a link that shows either grand jury saw the photos and description? Still waiting for that.
In any case, the two grand juries weren't asked for an indictment anyway, so don't keep pushing that lie.
Sneddon most definitely was trying for a criminal indictment. The grand juries' refusal to indict is a very strong indication that the photos/description did not match.
persephonoe

Sunnyvale, CA

#1268 Jun 15, 2012
An NFL Fan wrote:
<quoted text>
'hearsay'
Thanks for the court ruling, Jugs Judy.
And just how would you define a statement made such as "I was told" when asked if a description matched the photos? Dr. Strick was taking someone else's word that it matched.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#1269 Jun 15, 2012
persephonoe wrote:
<quoted text> What has been quoted numerous times are statements made by people such as Dr. Richard Strick, whose statement "I was told" clearly indicates that he did not view the drawings/description but was taking someone else's word for it. Hearsay in such a situation is not what I would call strong evidence of a match.
You know very well the lead investigator from the first case has reviewed the photos of Michael Jackson's penis and Jordan Chandler's drawings and has confirmed that they cooperated. Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's penis matched. That's a fact.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#1270 Jun 15, 2012
persephonoe wrote:
<quoted text> And just how would you define a statement made such as "I was told" when asked if a description matched the photos? Dr. Strick was taking someone else's word that it matched.
First, you have child pornography on the brain. Now you have Dr. Richard Strick, even though nobody has mentioned his name. Just what is going on inside that head of yours?.
Levelheaded Legal Counsel

United States

#1271 Sep 29, 2013
There is a reason he hides behind the name
Krackerjack.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 62
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dick Polman: An Ignorant America Endangers Demo... Sep 18 Trump is a joke 2
Only a famous singer & bad dancer named MJ got ... Sep 8 Spotted Wee 3
MJ fans and haters Sep 4 Spotted Wee 14
News Diana skipped memorial to avoid MJ's mom (Jul '09) Sep 4 Spotted Wee 14
Are all MJ fans illiterate, or just retarded? (Jul '09) Sep 1 Spotted Wee 4
The Crickets Chirp On The Dead Michael Jackson ... (Jun '15) Sep 1 Spotted Wee 92
News Cosby hires Michael Jackson's lawyer for sex as... Aug 29 Ex Senator Stillb... 6
More from around the web