Proof That Jordan Chandler Accurately...

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#108 Jul 2, 2013
Hugo A-Go-Go wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a lot of people don't know that Michael Jackson plead the 5th, rather than open up and explain why he felt the need to sleep with young boys. That he didn't clearly indicates he had things to hide or he thought no matter what he could say it could never justify his actions of sleeping with other people's children for the amount of time that he actually did. Was Michael Jackson a pedophile? Probably, and if he wasn't, he was one seriously screwed up individual whose behavior should never be defended.
Shoot, a warning sign would be "I don't see no problem sharing a bed with someone who's not my child." Even if it didn't involve molestation, there's still a lot of things wrong with that. You can't even justify that even if you dig his music.
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#109 Jul 2, 2013
Hugo A-Go-Go wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a lot of people don't know that Michael Jackson plead the 5th, rather than open up and explain why he felt the need to sleep with young boys. That he didn't clearly indicates he had things to hide or he thought no matter what he could say it could never justify his actions of sleeping with other people's children for the amount of time that he actually did. Was Michael Jackson a pedophile? Probably, and if he wasn't, he was one seriously screwed up individual whose behavior should never be defended.
Of course we know he didn't take the stand; if he had, we'd probably still be talking about it.

Considering the uproar which followed the Bashir documentary in which people (wrongly, in my opinion) sexualized his comments about sharing a bed, and even sexualized something as innocuous as hand-holding, it's no wonder he didn't take the stand.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#110 Jul 2, 2013
Hugo A-Go-Go wrote:
<quoted text>
I think a lot of people don't know that Michael Jackson plead the 5th, rather than open up and explain why he felt the need to sleep with young boys. That he didn't clearly indicates he had things to hide or he thought no matter what he could say it could never justify his actions of sleeping with other people's children for the amount of time that he actually did. Was Michael Jackson a pedophile? Probably, and if he wasn't, he was one seriously screwed up individual whose behavior should never be defended.
If you tell f'loons Michael pled the 5th Amendment they scoff it with excuses like, "Every American is entitle to use it. It doesn't suggest they're guilty" or "Michael's attorneys advised him to invoke it". They'll never consider Jackson invoking it because he's got stuff to hide. F'loons are absolute brainwashed sheeps.
LloydBraun

Adelaide, Australia

#111 Jul 2, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Of course we know he didn't take the stand; if he had, we'd probably still be talking about it.
Considering the uproar which followed the Bashir documentary in which people (wrongly, in my opinion) sexualized his comments about sharing a bed, and even sexualized something as innocuous as hand-holding, it's no wonder he didn't take the stand.
persephone, I never feel the need to address people like this, but I know you are an ugly, miserable, lonely person with delusions of grandeur. I know you have no meaningful relationships in your life, and that you hate having to live with yourself, your failures, and your mediocre at best life. I don't hate or dislike you, I pity you. You have been here since at least 2010 and have up to 20,000 posts, most of them anti-child and sexual abuse victims. I clearly see this takes up a sizable part of your time. It must be painful to think of how you could have used those hours bettering yourself, your career, and your relationships, but I see letting those "haters" know who's boss and taking vindicatemj and other Jackson fan sites as gospel is some kind of escapism for you.

If I were a miserable person like yourself I would take pleasure in knowing just how much of your lonely life you dedicate to the thing that obviously upsets you the most--children. I don't know how old you're--if you're no longer a teenager your behavior is especially embarrassing--and I hope you get over your pettiness and hate before you think about having meaningful relationship.

I don't know if you're mentally disabled in some way, or if you suffer from chronic depression, but please for your own sake try improve your life. I don't know if you believe in God or not, but to come to the end of this life and look back on what you've done, what kind of legacy you've left behind, I couldn't think of anything more heartbreaking than to know my life was spent wasted as a bitter loser.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#112 Jul 2, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. You know what also got at me in that "statement" he gave in 1993 is the fact he said "don't treat me like a criminal because I'm innocent", not "I wouldn't do such a thing! This is some b.s.! They set me up." Notice he didn't mention anything about exoneration but he claimed he was "humiliated" from being given a search warrant to photograph him nude to confirm what Jordan had told him. This was someone who was more worried about his image and reputation than his innocence. He wasn't innocent, he was guilty. Period.
I found it peculiar he would go on public television and make such a statement, after the photos of his splotchy Thang were taken. I did take notice he never said he didn't touch the child. I also found it insulting the family wasn't allowed to make a statement of their own. Then again, perhaps they had too much style to go in front of the camera and make a private matter public business. Or perhaps, they were in the middle of negotiations.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#113 Jul 2, 2013
LloydBraun wrote:
<quoted text>
persephone, I never feel the need to address people like this, but I know you are an ugly, miserable, lonely person with delusions of grandeur. I know you have no meaningful relationships in your life, and that you hate having to live with yourself, your failures, and your mediocre at best life. I don't hate or dislike you, I pity you. You have been here since at least 2010 and have up to 20,000 posts, most of them anti-child and sexual abuse victims. I clearly see this takes up a sizable part of your time. It must be painful to think of how you could have used those hours bettering yourself, your career, and your relationships, but I see letting those "haters" know who's boss and taking vindicatemj and other Jackson fan sites as gospel is some kind of escapism for you.
If I were a miserable person like yourself I would take pleasure in knowing just how much of your lonely life you dedicate to the thing that obviously upsets you the most--children. I don't know how old you're--if you're no longer a teenager your behavior is especially embarrassing--and I hope you get over your pettiness and hate before you think about having meaningful relationship.
I don't know if you're mentally disabled in some way, or if you suffer from chronic depression, but please for your own sake try improve your life. I don't know if you believe in God or not, but to come to the end of this life and look back on what you've done, what kind of legacy you've left behind, I couldn't think of anything more heartbreaking than to know my life was spent wasted as a bitter loser.
I think Pedophone has had personal experience with these matters and is still burned up at getting caught - or his/her father/uncle/brother getting caught.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#114 Jul 2, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I found it peculiar he would go on public television and make such a statement, after the photos of his splotchy Thang were taken. I did take notice he never said he didn't touch the child. I also found it insulting the family wasn't allowed to make a statement of their own. Then again, perhaps they had too much style to go in front of the camera and make a private matter public business. Or perhaps, they were in the middle of negotiations.
I honestly believe it was the former. The negotiations didn't start until cops confirmed that Michael's privates matched Jordan's description. Besides, judging from "The Boy That Michael Paid Off" documentary, Jordan and his father were in hiding from the press, neighbors and supposed trespassers (allegedly MJ fans who easily found their location).

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#115 Jul 2, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
I honestly believe it was the former. The negotiations didn't start until cops confirmed that Michael's privates matched Jordan's description. Besides, judging from "The Boy That Michael Paid Off" documentary, Jordan and his father were in hiding from the press, neighbors and supposed trespassers (allegedly MJ fans who easily found their location).
Didn't somebody in a car try to run over Jordan and somebody he was with? Then back up and try to hit them, again, when the pair didn't get hit, with the first try?

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#116 Jul 2, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't somebody in a car try to run over Jordan and somebody he was with? Then back up and try to hit them, again, when the pair didn't get hit, with the first try?
I believe so... don't know if it was Evan or Jordan but yeah that did happen.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#117 Jul 3, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't somebody in a car try to run over Jordan and somebody he was with? Then back up and try to hit them, again, when the pair didn't get hit, with the first try?
Yes, that occurred in September 1993 to Jordan. Evan's dental practice was had windows shattered and f'loons would leave threatening notes for him.
rosalinda de la quatch

UK

#118 Jul 3, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Of course we know he didn't take the stand; if he had, we'd probably still be talking about it.
Considering the uproar which followed the Bashir documentary in which people (wrongly, in my opinion) sexualized his comments about sharing a bed, and even sexualized something as innocuous as hand-holding, it's no wonder he didn't take the stand.
How is this making any sense from yourself ? During my reading of this forum I have seen you repeatedly attack Jordi for not taking to the stand in court correct? But MJ the celebrity that you worship is once again given a free pass from yourself correct? What does it matter if we were talking about it years later ? This was MJ's opportunity to explain to the world what was so important for himself to have young boys in his bed correct? It was his chance to finally explain and convince the world he wasn't a pedophile but a screwed up individual who was obsessed with boys in a nonsexual way correct?

And why do you believe people wrongly in your opinion sexualized his behavior on the television program ? Are you telling me that you believe it's natural for a 40 something-year-old man to hang around unrelated 10 and 12 year old boys and even hold their hands ? Do you like to hang around young boys like MJ ? Do you like to hold the hands of young boys like MJ ? I think you do correct? Nevertheless it's ridiculous to give MJ a free pass just because the television program didn't go down too well amongst the vast majority of sane people who do not worship celebrities correct? MJ still had a duty to explain to the world what was so great about sleeping with young boys correct? And why he did it when he had the responsibility of looking after 3 children that he lied about being the father of correct?

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#119 Jul 3, 2013
Jordan not wanting to testify in 2005 was way more understanding than Michael REFUSING to testify not only in 1993 but in 2005 as well. But I guess celebrity pedophiles get a pass...smh
rosalinda de la quatch

UK

#120 Jul 3, 2013
Virtually every single celebrity worshiping MJ fan will conveniently overlook the fact that Jordi could describe black spotted spots on Michael Jackson's penis and testicles correct? Not even perverted men like Jerry Sandusky from the United States or Jimmy Savile from Great Britain had those kind of things identified on their bodies correct? There is rarely ever any DNA evidence left in sex abuse cases correct? That's why you have to rely on the character of the person involved correct? If a man or woman has an interest in children that seems too good to be true then it probably is correct? Of course they are individuals who love to work with children but the key word there is "work" they do not want to take these children back to their private home in private bedroom correct? Men like Jerry Michael and Jimmy all had an obsessive interest in children correct? And all 3 men were accused of being pedophiles correct? One of them is now behind bars and the other 2 are dead correct? But it doesn't matter that individuals like Michael and Jimmy are dead it is still important to find out the truth and expose them for the real perverts they were correct?

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#121 Jul 3, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Of course we know he didn't take the stand; if he had, we'd probably still be talking about it.
Considering the uproar which followed the Bashir documentary in which people (wrongly, in my opinion) sexualized his comments about sharing a bed, and even sexualized something as innocuous as hand-holding, it's no wonder he didn't take the stand.
The problem is Michael Jackson attempted to normalize the abnormal. The uproar from the Bashir documentary should not have been a huge surprise to a man with a sound mind. But Michael Jackson believed he had the whole world at his feet willing to kiss them. Michael Jackson didn't change one bit from 1993 to 2003, except in aging. His obsession with man/boy bed sharing was obvious, even though he was a father of 3 children himself. You would think being a father would change his ways. If Jackson had any intelligence he would have cleaned up his act after the Chandler sex scandal.
Cujo

North Brunswick, NJ

#122 Jul 3, 2013
It's a good thing Wacko never tried to defend having sex with Bubbles the chimp. I'm sorry the drugged-out pervert didn't try. I blame Bashir for not asking about it.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#123 Jul 3, 2013
TripleH1976 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is Michael Jackson attempted to normalize the abnormal. The uproar from the Bashir documentary should not have been a huge surprise to a man with a sound mind. But Michael Jackson believed he had the whole world at his feet willing to kiss them. Michael Jackson didn't change one bit from 1993 to 2003, except in aging. His obsession with man/boy bed sharing was obvious, even though he was a father of 3 children himself. You would think being a father would change his ways. If Jackson had any intelligence he would have cleaned up his act after the Chandler sex scandal.
I just think Michael was too stubborn as time went on. He thought Bashir would just "take him for who he is" and make a fluff piece. But instead he asked the tough questions and showcased Michael's bizarre behavior for all to see. Like I said, even if I didn't believe in the molestation story, he put his legacy in grave danger with that special. That special really put the nail in his coffin.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#124 Jul 3, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
Jordan not wanting to testify in 2005 was way more understanding than Michael REFUSING to testify not only in 1993 but in 2005 as well. But I guess celebrity pedophiles get a pass...smh
In his letter to the D.A., Vaccaro mentioned the willingness of the family to testify, but they were concerned about witness protection.

But you are right. Michael's refusal to testify in 1993 AND 2005 speaks greater volumes, since he was the accused. Anytime discussion about the nature of his "relationship" with underage children took place, during the lawsuits, he always took the 5th Amendment. Only a person with something to hide would do that.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#125 Jul 3, 2013
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just think Michael was too stubborn as time went on. He thought Bashir would just "take him for who he is" and make a fluff piece. But instead he asked the tough questions and showcased Michael's bizarre behavior for all to see. Like I said, even if I didn't believe in the molestation story, he put his legacy in grave danger with that special. That special really put the nail in his coffin.
I think you're right. The Footage You Were Never Meant to See only made Michael look worse. I think the final nail in his coffin was the interview with Ed Bradley. Once again, he tried to make his sleepovers look normal, and one again, he made himself look as bad as he was.

Ed's face had the same expression on it as Martin's did when the latter asked Michael the same type of questions.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#126 Jul 3, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
In his letter to the D.A., Vaccaro mentioned the willingness of the family to testify, but they were concerned about witness protection.
But you are right. Michael's refusal to testify in 1993 AND 2005 speaks greater volumes, since he was the accused. Anytime discussion about the nature of his "relationship" with underage children took place, during the lawsuits, he always took the 5th Amendment. Only a person with something to hide would do that.
Exactly. Innocent men wouldn't not tell anyone in court about anything to prove their innocence. Being quiet and refusing to discuss anything doesn't help matters if you're trying to prove your innocence.

Since: Jun 13

Durham, NC

#127 Jul 3, 2013
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you're right. The Footage You Were Never Meant to See only made Michael look worse. I think the final nail in his coffin was the interview with Ed Bradley. Once again, he tried to make his sleepovers look normal, and one again, he made himself look as bad as he was.
Ed's face had the same expression on it as Martin's did when the latter asked Michael the same type of questions.
Right. Kept saying "of course" to Ed's questions. Ed did look perplexed at MJ for saying what he said. He tried to convince everyone (besides his fans) that he was "innocent" with his 1970 MJ type of attitude. Seems like every interview he did he never left 1970 in terms of how he would respond to questions. Really embarrassing. A grown man still speaking like a 12-year-old smh

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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 Molestation claim against Michael Jackson's est... 12 hr Octopus 66
News La Toya Jackson -- I Believe That's Michael Jac... 12 hr Octopus 5
Was MJ Molested/Raped during the Motown years? (Nov '14) 12 hr Octopus 22
News Paterson rapper Fetty Wap rising to the top of ... 13 hr Octopus 11
News Blanket Jackson changes name: Bullied at 13 for... Fri BadMan84 6
The Blackness Beyond The Cemetery Gates Jul 2 Octopus 1
The Crickets Chirp On The Dead Michael Jackson ... Jul 1 Octopus 4
More from around the web