1993: Insurance company never forced ...

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#484 Aug 30, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
MIchael hired anthony pellicano and others to help him find out who was truly behind arvizos allegations. Michael held meetings at neverland,specifically addressing al malnicks possible involvment and even tommy matolla., he believed there was someone or several people who might have bebefited financially if he were to be locked away This is what michael believed.
Pellicano was a thug who now sits behind bars. He was hired to intimidate the Chandlers. Malnik is involved with the mafia and is suspected to have links to child-kidnapping and child-prostitution rings. What are you thinking? Oh, that's right. You're not because you have Celebrity Worship Syndrome.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#485 Aug 30, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TOPiSHPASH: With all this talk about jordys drawing matching michael Like persephone said, how come two grand juries wouldnt indict michael because of insufficient evidence? How come this "drawing" is so important on this forum but not to a grand jury?
Did the grand jury even view the description and photograph? I very much doubt it. I am still waiting for source regarding the grand juries comments.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#487 Aug 31, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TOPiSHPASH: With all this talk about jordys drawing matching michael Like persephone said, how come two grand juries wouldnt indict michael because of insufficient evidence? How come this "drawing" is so important on this forum but not to a grand jury? It has to be concluded that jordy chandler would not testify underoath in a court room 2 times. MY question : JOrdy wouldnt testify in 2005 - isnt it strange an "alleged victim" who was a 25 yr old man wouldnt "feel" for a 15 yr old fellow "victim" and therfore asist this child at this child,s trial? Michael may be surrounded in controversy but the same can be said for the chandlers , wade robson, the arvizos and tom sneddon and the neverland raid.
Because Jordan stopped cooperating and his testimony was crucial in regards to the sexual molestation and with the drawing. Other allege victims would make the case stronger and raise the likelihood of a conviction.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#488 Aug 31, 2013
If at 25 years old, Jordan Chandler, continued to feel bitter because of what he went through as a child in 1993. I can sympathize with him. It's unfair to expect a much older victim to come in and be the proverbial knight in shining armour. Each person is entitle to cope differently. I recall when the Sandusky trial was over the much older victims,#2-9 approached the youngest Sandusky Victim, who was identified as Aaron Fisher, and they apologized for not coming forward when Sandusky sexually abused them. If they had Fisher never would have met Jerry Sandusky. Fisher said in his book he told #2-9 it wasn't necessary to apologize. He said if they were too embarrassed, ashamed, or feeling guilty for what Sandusky did to them. He understands their difficulties and struggles with coming forward. The sick person was Jerry Sandusky.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#490 Aug 31, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TPTRIPLEH1976 :That 's my point exactly, the responsibility an older victim feels for a younger victim. O k forget jordy chandler, he has always in the past , stayed out of the limelight. However , wade robson has made himself a very visible "victim" my question: If robson's claim is true , wouldnt he feel even more responsibility and even more guilt for testifying against a young gavin arvizo? I would think a sexual abuse victim who has "lied" against another alleged "victim" and denied that "victim "justice" would feel a tremendous amount of guilt and remorse for not helping the younger "victim, for whatever reason.
Firstly, Wade did not initially make the case public. He did one TV interview and that's about it.

I am sure he does feel guilt for not saying the right things during Gavins trial, but its happened now. Clearly he felt a loyal bond with MJ and felt obliged to defend him.

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#491 Aug 31, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TPTRIPLEH1976 :That 's my point exactly, the responsibility an older victim feels for a younger victim. O k forget jordy chandler, he has always in the past , stayed out of the limelight. However , wade robson has made himself a very visible "victim" my question: If robson's claim is true , wouldnt he feel even more responsibility and even more guilt for testifying against a young gavin arvizo? I would think a sexual abuse victim who has "lied" against another alleged "victim" and denied that "victim "justice" would feel a tremendous amount of guilt and remorse for not helping the younger "victim, for whatever reason.
If Wade Robson feels remorse he's gotta express it to Gavin Arvizo. He doesn't need to express it to you, me, or the million of MJ's followers. If Wade Robson has reached out to Gavin they're entitle to keep that private. What MJ fans want is to view Wade Robson crawling on the floor and begging Gavin for forgiveness. Well, it's too such drama isn't going to be put on display for your sick enjoyment.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#493 Aug 31, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
TO LEN IS DISGUSTED: anthony pellicano will say anything behind bars for the right amount of money. He was hired by michael to find out who might be pushing these allegations by the arvizos and to find out if tommy mattola and malnick were up to something concerning his music catalogue. Michael was not getting along with mattola, when while in miami , and staying with the malniks , mattola called and had a conversation with malnik, there was talk about the music catalogue that michael didnt like. And made him suspicious that they were somehow trying to get it. This is when michael broke ties with the malniks. He flew back to neverland and hired pellicano to investigate mattola and a few others to see if they were tied to the arvizo allegations.
Thank you for giving new meaning to the word "idiot." You are currently moving into a slim first place, for that award. I say slim because you are still pretty much running neck-and-neck with Goodvibrations.

Pellicano was brought in, during the Chandler case. Mottola said the music label chose to stay out of Michael's little-boy problems. Michael's association with Malnik, it was on the list of 14 items Mesereau wanted kept out of the courtroom, during the 2005 case. It was number 5, on the list. You can read for yourself, on page 12, and I truly suggest you click on the link and read this document. You are making yourself look more and more like blithering fool.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/0...

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#494 Aug 31, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
PISHPASH : YOu keep saying wade robson only did one interview and tha's it , well, that inteview took place in the media capital of the world , new york city.. And was broadcast around the world. And he used the word , "pedophile" and "child-abuser" in one sentence. He didnt have to do anymore interviews because the goal was reached : To smear Michaels name..
He did the interview, after the news of the case hit the press. And yes, he used words "pedophile" and "child abuser", in describing Michael because that's what Pedo Pan was.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#496 Sep 1, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
Messereu wanted certain things left out of the trial because it had nothing to do with gavin arvizos case. To introduce malnic and other unrelated people or things would only prejudice the jury and create confusion. H E WANTED TO FOCUS ON the allegations made by gavin and the arvizos. This case was about whether or not if michael molested gavin , it had nothing to do with the kind of people michael hung with.
Are you really that naive in believing Messereus reasoning for wanting some evidence out of court was to focus on the allegations? His only concern was to win the case, just most lawyers out there...

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#497 Sep 1, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
Messereu wanted certain things left out of the trial because it had nothing to do with gavin arvizos case. To introduce malnic and other unrelated people or things would only prejudice the jury and create confusion. H E WANTED TO FOCUS ON the allegations made by gavin and the arvizos. This case was about whether or not if michael molested gavin , it had nothing to do with the kind of people michael hung with.
Not-so-brilliant one, it is the job of a defense attorney to keep as much incriminating evidence out of court so that his client can win. The company Michael kept was important to the case, since several of them were co-defendants, such as Dieter Weisner, Marc Schaffel, and Frank (Tyson) Cascio.

Let's hear your next excuse.
rosalinda de la quatch

Sweden

#498 Sep 4, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> "Heroes of my country"? What are you talking about?
You don't consider brave men and women who risk their lives on a daily basis by patrolling the streets of your dangerous country and arresting and prosecuting evil criminals who traumatize and ruin the lives of lawabiding people –?

Then again – I can believe that you do not look up to those brave men and women because they arrested the stupid dead celebrity that you worship – yes? Also – Michael Jackson himself brainwashed you into believing that police officers are evil people who dislocate people's shoulders – yes? Even though they absolutely did not dislocate Michael Jackson's shoulder – correct?
rosalinda de la quatch

Sweden

#499 Sep 4, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
No contract the Chandlers ever signed prevented them from cooperating with a criminal investigation. Instead they used Jordan's mental state as an excuse to avoid pursuing a criminal investigation. Two grand juries both determined that without his cooperation, there was insufficient evidence with which to hand down an indictment.
Again – you must be deluded to extraordinary levels to actually believe MJ was going to hand over such a large amount of money for –'negligence' if the chandlers had intended to proceed with sending him to jail – yes? Also – what do you mean by they were using Jordi's 'mental state' as an excuse to avoid criminal investigation –? Were you an insider inside Jordi's home –? No you weren't – correct? Therefore you are talking complete crap – correct?

Also – you make it quite clear that you have absolutely no sympathy towards possible victims of sex crimes – correct? Because you think a young child should be bamboozled in the court of law by an unethical lawyer working for millions of dollars – correct? You could not give a crap if a child was molested you just want them to be ripped apart and have their credibility tarnished – correct?

But you seem to forget that Jordi himself was unbelievably helpful regarding his allegations of abuse with the heroes of your country – correct? Every single police employee who sat down with him went thoroughly through his allegations and believed the boy was consistent and 100% credible with the allegations – correct? Even a man who was considered to be one of the finest child molestation experts in the whole wide world said Jordi's allegations were credible – correct? Jordi allegations did stand up to rigorous question in front of professionals – correct? But truth be told Michael Jackson did not as he did not comply with basic police procedures in basic questioning – yes? Nor did he face rigorous question in the court of law – despite finally having the opportunity to explain what was so great and why he continued to risk his entire reputation and life by inviting unrelated young children into his bed – correct?

Also – considering you have already proven you have falsified information regarding the 2 grand juries – yes? Like your claim they viewed Jordi's description and the photographs of MJ's penis – correct? That simply didn't happen and that was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead people into believing something that wasn't true just because you are a celebrity worshiper who cares more about the dead celebrity than possible victims – yes?

But you have the chance to redeem yourself and prove to this very small forum that you are not a liar or a celebrity worshiper by providing a link that validates your claims – yes? It really is as simple as that – correct? Provide the evidence of the grand juries – yes? And provided them in a nonhostile and friendly manner – yes?
rosalinda de la quatch

Sweden

#500 Sep 4, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text>
It really is amazing how, after all this time, haters continue to delude themselves that those supportiing MJ know nothing about the various cases. How many times do you need to keep going over and over and over the exact same issues and points of the various cases?
It really is amazing – after all this time – that haters like you will continue to claim you know all the facts regarding Michael Jackson and his multiple allegations which you claim were 'false'– yet you prove with your inconsistent statements like claiming MJ slept with boys because he was so used to it with his brothers – yes? Yet you can't explain why none of his brothers – especially Randy – who was only a tiny little bit older than MJ – managed to live a normal adult life – yes? Nor can you explain why MJ was continuing to invite unrelated young boys into his bed when he had not just 1 – not 2 – but 3 children of his own – yes?

Clearly your entire logic makes no sense and you have clearly proven you do not know the real facts surrounding MJ nor do you want to find out anything about what pedophiles are really about – yes? Because that would destroy your perfect image you have of MJ and ruin your entire celebrity worshiping life – yes?
rosalinda de la quatch

Sweden

#501 Sep 4, 2013
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> MJ was also out of the country when the accusations first surfaced, Neverland was searched, and yet he returned--not something you'd think a guilty person would do.
This is clearly contradicting your above statement in claiming that you know all the real facts surrounding MJ – yes? To actually insist MJ was 'innocent' based on the fact that he returned to his own country after the police had issued a warrant for his arrest is utterly ridiculous – correct?

Do you even know what country MJ was in –? Do you know if they shared a close relationship with the United States of North America –? If they did they clearly would have arrested MJ himself and sent him packing right back to his own country – correct?

MJ was in a foreign country without his multimillion dollar lawyer's or his bank account – so therefore he had little option but to return – correct?

If he had stayed and refused then he would've been confirming his guilt and his entire assets back in the United States of North America would have been frozen – yes?

The heroes of your country would've had absolute power to have frozen everything he owned including his bank account so he couldn't continue to live a life of crime in another country – correct?

Nor would another country unless they were seriously corrupt want a child molester roaming the streets of their country – yes?

So therefore your logic is utterly screwed up and only proves you are a ridiculous celebrity worshiper who will base MJ's 'innocence' on ridiculous things like him coming back to his own country – correct?

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#503 Sep 4, 2013
MJFRIEND wrote:
Folks, im getting bored with all this.
Id be pretty bored if I were you too. It must be tiresome having all your arguments debunked everytime

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#505 Sep 11, 2013
EmailRaven wrote:
<quoted text>
A loyal bond? There's never been a case of a victim who has defended their abuser. That is a fact.
Actually that is not a fact. Victims have defended their abusers in the past MANY TIMES.

http://drjoecarver.makeswebsites.com/clients/...

Try not to throw the word ''fact'' around to try and make your false claims sound remotely believable.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#506 Sep 11, 2013
EmailRaven wrote:
<quoted text>
A loyal bond? There's never been a case of a victim who has defended their abuser. That is a fact.
I suggest you read Kenneth Lanning's profile of acquaintance child molesters and how their victims react.

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications...

“Why can't you share your bed?”

Since: May 13

Canada

#507 Sep 11, 2013
EmailRaven wrote:
<quoted text>
A loyal bond? There's never been a case of a victim who has defended their abuser. That is a fact.
You haven't heard of Sam Manzie then. You should do a little research before speaking and coming across as ignorant.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Statements/sam_m...
Juggs Judy

AOL

#508 Jan 2, 2014
Yada wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the insurance carrier could not have forced Michael at any point. The nature of their indemnity was that they had the power to settle claims. They settled it in 93. What Michael may have wanted was irrelevant. It remained better for the carrier to settle than risk a bigger pay out later. Insurance carriers still do that today.
What was your point again? Rhetorical. Cheers!
Where's your proof? If an insurance carrier really made the settlement then I would have expected Mesereau to have produced hard physical evidence during June Chandler's testimony. If scumbag Jackson was powerless and had nothing to do with the settlement, then I'm sure proof would have been presented, yet all these years later nothing. What is your source of information that says an insurance carrier has complete power to make a settlement without giving the individual who it was made against a chance to prove their innocence? Merely claiming they have the power to do so is NOT significant evidence that they can.

It's interesting the way you stupid ignorant haters condemn a man for seeking compensation for his abuse son yet don't condemn Jackson for making the actual payment. I myself am quite skeptical about any grown who makes such a hefty financial settlement for allegedly not doing anything wrong.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#509 Jan 2, 2014
There's more news clippings saying MJ had settled, than an insurance company settling. In fact, what fans cling to is a clipping about the insurance company Transamerica and their refusal to do such a thing so MJ and his people settle for $20 million, $15 million alone went to Jordan Chandler while Evan and June had about $2.5 million respectively. Don't know why fans are still trying to find the needle in a haystack in proving an insurance company settling the case. Last I checked, also, insurance companies don't settle with sex abuse cases.

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 Who's the King, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley,... (Dec '09) 18 min RIP 7,217
zionist jew conspiracy against MJ Thu Pop Tart- 5
News Jackson's ex-doc details star's alleged attract... Jul 27 Jacko was a slime... 1
News Paul McCartney fights to get back his songs Jul 26 Pliez 200
MJ hater trolls Jul 25 Pop Tart- 2
One of MJ's "special friends" disclosed on MJ's... (Jul '13) Jul 12 Justice 125
Michael Jackson had semen stains from other mal... (Sep '12) Jul 7 Justice 1,877
More from around the web