FeverPitch2
Superstar
Are you, doggie?...
50 Cent to Paris Jackson: "does anyone care about how the little boys butts feel?
- Thread starter Carlton Banks
- Start date
Aint like he was packing the boys up and taking the around the country
Dynamite James
The Main attraction
An MJ fan site debunking allegations in favor of MJ?
At least they take the time to learn what the hell was going on
FeverPitch2
Superstar
Doesn't matter, fakkit.pretty sure none of the teenagers were Picasso drawing cocks like u fakkits
The Santa Barbara DA was willing to bet his case on it.
Dynamite James
The Main attraction
pretty sure none of the teenagers were Picasso drawing cocks like u fakkits
The drawing of October 1993 was accompanied by notes in an adult’s handwriting. The drawing was made by the same adult.
The description made a couple of assumptions. The first one was that the accused was circumcised. The second one was that his manhood had a depigmentation patch on it associated with autoimmune disorder vitiligo.
Interestingly, the accused had been encouraged by his talent manager Sandy Gallin in November 1992 to disclose to the public his years-long struggle with the disorder, which had by now become very advanced. An interview was arranged with Oprah Winfrey, who had been recommended to the accused by Sandy’s friend David Geffen. Incidentally, it was Geffen who had introduced Sandy to the accused and encouraged the accused to hire him as his talent manager a few years earlier. The interview took place in February 1993 at the home of the accused.
Photographs were taken of the accused’s manhood in November 1993 by the police after an incident was alleged to have happened in May 1993. Both features the child was said to have described were incorrect. Michael was uncircumcised. There were discolourations, but none matched the description given of just one discoloration. There were a number of other distinctive features, none of which were mentioned in the description.
Also, it is far from clear as to whose the statement attributed to the child actually was. Circumstantial evidence points to intent to extort the accused. The child’s initial statement was that no alleged act happened. It was only after he spent some time with his father that the child agreed to align his own statement with his father's accusations. Once the settlement money was received by the Chandlers from the accused’s insurance company in January 1994, neither the child nor the father were interested in pursuing criminal prosecution, even though the terms of the settlement explicitly did not require them to abandon the prosecution route. The child’s father had wanted all of the settlement money to himself. It was the accused who insisted that, if a settlement was to be paid, it would be placed on trust for the benefit of the child until he was of certain age of maturity. So the father received a great deal less than he had been pitching for since May 1993.
Do you think a victim a boy victim is trying to visualize every detail about the mans penis who abused them........really
FeverPitch2
Superstar
I love talking to nikkas who are both loud and wrong.
shyt is hilarious.
Y'all be throwing down them inaccuracies like dominoes.
"MICHAEL TOOK THOSE BOYS ON TOUR!"
shyt is hilarious.
Y'all be throwing down them inaccuracies like dominoes.
"MICHAEL TOOK THOSE BOYS ON TOUR!"
random boys drawing accurate depictions of Michael Jackson's penis and you acting like that's normal
cool.
FeverPitch2
Superstar
Shut yo stupid ass up. LMAOOOOO
Dynamite James
The Main attraction
For civil settlements, I get it... cause you can get bogged down in trying to prove you really might be innocent and things can get cloudy...
... but criminal ones?
C'mon son
It was a civil trial dumb ass.
One month before the strip search even took place, a Reuters UK story by Ann Gerhart mused: “But it seems that any opportunist who could pronounce vitiligo, the mottling disease that Jackson divulged to Oprah Winfrey, could guess his penis also was affected and have a decent chance at being right.” [14]
Additionally, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler, in All That Glitters, describes an event on the weekend starting with May 28, 1993, when Jackson stayed in the house of Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler. Evan apparently drugged the singer [for details see the chapter Evan Chandler’s “Suspicions”]. In the story it is stated that Evan gave Jackson an injection into his gluteus [9; page 47], so Evan would have seen at least what Jackson’s buttocks looked like.
Among the documents which Victor Gutierrez presents in his book, entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover, and which documents apparently were given to him by either the Chandlers or by the Chandlers’ maid, Norma Salinas, there is a drawing which Gutierrez claims Jordan gave to his father [more about Gutierrez, his role in the allegations against Jackson and his possible connection with the Chandlers in the later chapter entitled Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson].
One of Jordan Chandler’s alleged descriptions of Jackson’s private parts from Victor Gutierrez’s book Michael Jackson Was My Lover [11]
The drawing is dated October 24, 1993, and is probably not the actual drawing and description Jordan
.......
oh now its about "feelings"
Two men killed themselves because they couldn't protect their sons from a potential pedophile and you're trying to say it was "the guilt of making fake claims"
They'd have been the first people to die of clout chasing
You're jumping from one argument to another trying to find anything... lol
You deflect your own arguments
Dynamite James
The Main attraction
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.
JLA FORUMS - REQUEST DENIED!
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.