Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
Crux

Michael Jackson: Surviving Neverland documentary - harrowing new details

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Martin B. said:

You know, I really try not to partake in this obsessive discussion again, but posting a document and selling it as 'facts' when it was actually dismissed by the court, makes it hard not to react. If you would have actually taken time to check the veracity of this report, you would have found out that Chandler' description of Jackson's genitalia was largely wrong. Yes, he correctly stated his genitalia had blotches on the skin. He also described Jackson's penis as circumcised, it wasn't. He described it as scarred, it wasn't. He gave the wrong color, both of the skin and of the blotches he had apparently seen.

Jackson had openly disclosed in front of 100 million TV viewers he had a skin disease which causes blotches all over the body, it isn't hard to take a guess the same thing would apply to his genitalia. Which is why this document was never used as credible evidence against him. The prosecutor did try bringing this report into the 2005 trial, but was rejected for the same reason. Whoops.

Funnily, when the first news came out about the investigation in early 1994, law inforcement was cited that the pictures taken of Jackson's genitalia did NOT match Chandler's description. Something that this document also very conveniently fails to mention, of course.

For further information, check the sources on this site:

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/jordan-chandler-lied/

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

(Of course I know that you, or most people in this thread for that matter, will never read them. You will dismiss these websites already because of their name and ignore that these *shock* fan pages actually did their research, because *shock* fans are not just blind apologists)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kurt420 said:

Because the justice system shouldn't be based on emotional reaction and half-truth's. That's how innocent people get thrown in jail for the rest of their life.  Yes, we do know for certain that kids slept with him in the bed, the second "fact" about them seeing him naked is not definite though. 

And should we bring up how the parents of these accusers, the maids of MJ etc ALL went to the tabloids FIRST before going to the police. Yeah, it looks REAL BAD to have kids sleeping in your bed but it also looks REAL BAD when the parents of the accuser first run to the National Enquirer and Hard Copy to negotiate the proper amount they should be given for the big MJ scoop before going to the police. If we're going to talk about '93 let's discuss Jordan Chandler's father Evan.....that man was a piece of work. Look it up!

No Kurt, just let it go with the apologism! His behavior was inappropiate (yes), which is why he molested those kids, which is why he was a predator, which is why he should have gotten locked up. It goes like that! Why can't you just accept it?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The California courts, the same courts that let OJ get away with it, the same race card was played, bad witnesses whose behaviours allowed technicalities to get in the way of justice. Sham trials, and money money money along with deluded fans who would find excuses for the vilest behaviours. Shame

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nonoka said:

You know, I really try not to partake in this obsessive discussion again, but posting a document and selling it as 'facts' when it was actually dismissed by the court, makes it hard not to react. If you would have actually taken time to check the veracity of this report, you would have found out that Chandler' description of Jackson's genitalia was largely wrong. Yes, he correctly stated his genitalia had blotches on the skin. He also described Jackson's penis as circumcised, it wasn't. He described it as scarred, it wasn't. He gave the wrong color, both of the skin and of the blotches he had apparently seen.

Jackson had openly disclosed in front of 100 million TV viewers he had a skin disease which causes blotches all over the body, it isn't hard to take a guess the same thing would apply to his genitalia. Which is why this document was never used as credible evidence against him. The prosecutor did try bringing this report into the 2005 trial, but was rejected for the same reason. Whoops.

Funnily, when the first news came out about the investigation in early 1994, law inforcement was cited that the pictures taken of Jackson's genitalia did NOT match Chandler's description. Something that this document also very conveniently fails to mention, of course.

For further information, check the sources on this site:

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/jordan-chandler-lied/

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

(Of course I know that you, or most people in this thread for that matter, will never read them. You will dismiss these websites already because of their name and ignore that these *shock* fan pages actually did their research, because *shock* fans are not just blind apologists)

And has it never occurred to you that a child living a traumatic experience may not be able to remembers exactly where the discolored marks was? It never occurred to you that a child may not have seen other penises than his own at that age and that the chances of him being able to identify correctly a penis circumcised are thin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Martin B. said:

And has it never occurred to you that a child living a traumatic experience may not be able to remembers exactly where the discolored marks was? It never occurred to you that a child may not have seen other penises than his own in his life and that the chances of him being able to identify a penis circumcised or not are thin?

Well, for a child 'living a traumatic experience', he certainly made a VERY precise drawing and gave a VERY detailed description. Yet he gets something blatant like the skin colour wrong? Okay.

We could spin this further and further of course, point is, the kid's description did NOT match with Jackson's genitals, except one out of the 10+ characteristics he named. Using this as 'proof' that Jackson exposed himself naked in front of Chandler, is ridiculous.

In fact, what this report and its whole background story shows, is how those allegations had plenty of contradictions, which is why it's vital to look in the details before selling anything as a 'fact'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nonoka said:

No Kurt, just let it go with the apologism! His behavior was inappropiate (yes), which is why he molested those kids, which is why he was a predator, which is why he should have gotten locked up. It goes like that! Why can't you just accept it?!

My arguments are that the parents should never had allowed it and the behavior should never be considered acceptable. The only excuses for Michael are a) fame b) money c) "but he acts like he's 12". His fame and money allowed him to act like he was 12! This whole situation should have been investigated and shut down immediately, which is exactly what would have happened if it were your neighbor. Michael doesn't understand reality? That's his problem, not the kids!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nonoka said:

Well, for a child 'living a traumatic experience', he certainly made a VERY precise drawing and gave a VERY detailed description. Yet he gets something blatant like the skin colour wrong? Okay.

We could spin this further and further of course, point is, the kid's description did NOT match with Jackson's genitals, except one out of the 10+ characteristics he named. Using this as 'proof' that Jackson exposed himself naked in front of Chandler, is ridiculous.

In fact, what this report and its whole background story shows, is how those allegations had plenty of contradictions, which is why it's vital to look in the details before selling anything as a 'fact'.

Just that these kids were put in this position at all, Jesus Christ!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Supernatural said:

My arguments are that the parents should never had allowed it and the behavior should never be considered acceptable. The only excuses for Michael are a) fame b) money c) "but he acts like he's 12". His fame and money allowed him to act like he was 12! This whole situation should have been investigated and shut down immediately, which is exactly what would have happened if it were your neighbor. Michael doesn't understand reality? That's his problem, not the kids!

I do agree with you, except the bolded part. What more should they have investigated? They raided his entire ranch ffs, collected thousands of books, pics and video material, they sifted through all the personal connections Jackson had, called in dozens of kids for the trial etc. etc. If anything, Michael's fame was the reason why this investigation grew to such a large scale in the first place. They wouldn't have collected a warehouse of material just to find anything compromising, if the average Joe had been the subject of the allegations instead. Pretty sure about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nonoka said:

I do agree with you, except the bolded part. What more should they have investigated? They raided his entire ranch ffs, collected thousands of books, pics and video material, they sifted through all the personal connections Jackson had, called in dozens of kids for the trial etc. etc. If anything, Michael's fame was the reason why this investigation grew to such a large scale in the first place. They wouldn't have collected a warehouse of material just to find anything compromising, if the average Joe would have been subject of the allegations instead. Pretty sure about that.

Average Joe would have had the police called on him as soon as neighborhood parents caught wind of him trying to arrange for their kids to have a sleepover with him. He would be arrested, I assume, and investigated. If nothing found, I don't know, maybe placed in a mental health facility? That's how far any of this should have gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Supernatural said:

Average Joe would have had the police called on him as soon as neighborhood parents caught wind of him trying to arrange for their kids to have a sleepover with him. He would be arrested, I assume, and investigated. If nothing found, I don't know, maybe placed in a mental health facility? That's how far any of this should have gone.

Well, that's what they did lol. The second investigation was very closely connected to the sleepover statements he made on public TV just 6 months earlier, it fueled the allegations and the prosecutor's push for a trial (that eventually brought out nothing of substance).

You can place someone in a mental health facility just like that? With no judicial sentence against him? That would be new to me...(I'm actually curiously asking here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm I think they can file a charge and offer conditions for probation. I don't know in that case what the charge would be, if it can be considered a threat to children to be creepy with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, windsor67 said:

The California courts, the same courts that let OJ get away with it, the same race card was played, bad witnesses whose behaviours allowed technicalities to get in the way of justice. Sham trials, and money money money along with deluded fans who would find excuses for the vilest behaviours. Shame

When was the race card used in the MJ case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I'm over the bullshit. Didn't one of those kids accurately describe MJ's genital area? How the fuck would they know that kind of information unless they had seen it previously. What more evidence did they need.

He fondled those children and was a serial pedophile. END.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Barbie said:

Sorry but I'm over the bullshit. Didn't one of those kids accurately describe MJ's genital area? How the fuck would they know that kind of information unless they had seen it previously. What more evidence did they need.

He fondled those children and was a serial pedophile. END.

THIS !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Barbie said:

Sorry but I'm over the bullshit. Didn't one of those kids accurately describe MJ's genital area? How the fuck would they know that kind of information unless they had seen it previously. What more evidence did they need.

Good job skipping over the last couple of posts. 

If getting 9 out of 10 descriptions wrong is ‚accurate‘, well good for you. The court didn’t agree, which is why they rejected this piece of info for the trial.

Why did investigators collect thousands of stuff, interview hundreds of people etc. if they had their bombshell evidence right in front of them? If there really had been a matching description, why did they never use this as evidence against him in a year-long trial?

(Let me guess, the court was ‚paid off‘, MJ hushed them down, it‘s just apologism etc etc :abuse:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Martin B. said:

CAreful, Jordan Chandler explained in 2009 that he lied because his father made him to. He was battered by his father, who commited suicide that very year. 

I don't think victims are lying now, but truth is that many people still believe in Jackson's innocence because there's always been weird things about victims, either because they were extortionated by fear by Jackson's team (that's why John Doe's family said in 2005) or because they say and then don't say and then say again: Chandler and these two victims from the new docu, who testified in 2005 in favour of Michael and then talked against him in 2009. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that it is VERY EASY to delligitimate those families because, frankly, they were a mess. So Jackson's powerful lawyers only had to hire an investigator to find all kind of things about the parents and, magically, turn everything in his favour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, karbatal said:

The thing is that it is VERY EASY to delligitimate those families because, frankly, they were a mess. So Jackson's powerful lawyers only had to hire an investigator to find all kind of things about the parents and, magically, turn everything in his favour. 

Yep. That predator meticulously planned out every detail and knew exactly what he was doing.

Hopefully he's rotting away in Hell if there is one.

Imagem relacionada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MarcoMartins said:

Yep. That predator meticulously planned out every detail and knew exactly what he was doing.

Hopefully he's rotting away in Hell if there is one.

Imagem relacionada

The thing is they always know that they're doing. That's why it is so difficult for many victims to be believed! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Genevieve Vavance said:

no wonder he worked with R. Kelly

I believe I can lie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, horn said:

I believe I can lie

you are not alone (in my bed) :chuckle: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Genevieve Vavance said:

you are not alone (in my bed) :chuckle: 

:rotfl: 

I just can't stop fondling you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Nonoka said:

You know, I really try not to partake in this obsessive discussion again, but posting a document and selling it as 'facts' when it was actually dismissed by the court, makes it hard not to react. If you would have actually taken time to check the veracity of this report, you would have found out that Chandler' description of Jackson's genitalia was largely wrong. Yes, he correctly stated his genitalia had blotches on the skin. He also described Jackson's penis as circumcised, it wasn't. He described it as scarred, it wasn't. He gave the wrong color, both of the skin and of the blotches he had apparently seen.

Jackson had openly disclosed in front of 100 million TV viewers he had a skin disease which causes blotches all over the body, it isn't hard to take a guess the same thing would apply to his genitalia. Which is why this document was never used as credible evidence against him. The prosecutor did try bringing this report into the 2005 trial, but was rejected for the same reason. Whoops.

Funnily, when the first news came out about the investigation in early 1994, law inforcement was cited that the pictures taken of Jackson's genitalia did NOT match Chandler's description. Something that this document also very conveniently fails to mention, of course.

For further information, check the sources on this site:

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/did-jordan-chandlers-description-of-michael-jacksons-penis-match-the-photographs-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/jordan-chandler-lied/

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/was-michael-jackson-framed-the-defining-1994-gq-article-by-mary-a-fischer-that-set-the-record-straight-on-the-1993-allegations/

(Of course I know that you, or most people in this thread for that matter, will never read them. You will dismiss these websites already because of their name and ignore that these *shock* fan pages actually did their research, because *shock* fans are not just blind apologists)

Thank you for posting this. I wasn't sure what ever came of the "description" from Jordan. I thought I had remembered hearing that just like everything else, it was "wishy-washy" and wasn't admissible in court, so this confirms that. It's amazing what people take as outright fact.

This is where my problem lies.....nobody is consistent with their stories and it's blatantly OBVIOUS Sneddon's priority wasn't helping the children but humiliating and going after MJ for whatever personal vendetta he may have had against him. Way too many inconsistencies to throw a man in jail for the rest of his life.

At the end of the day though, MJ DID pay for this whether he was guilty or not. I firmly believe this played a huge part in leading him to his death. Things were never really the same again after '93. So, all those hoping he's burning in hell and those that are willing to throw someone on jail based on a "hunch".....sleep tight knowing he's dead and THIS was probably what killed him, guilty or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao: 

I mean let's be real, he was a laughing stock in the mid 90s. I remember kids in school scaring other kids with remarks that MJ's gonna get you and stuff, his reputation was completely ruined, he turned into the boogeyman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading that the biggest GASPS during the screenings of this documentary are when all the photographs of the pervy secret hideaways and rooms where he committed these atrocities are flashed up on screen one after the other  - and all the weird pervy faxes he sent to these kids about how much he loved them and how they need to keep making him "happy".

It's also a pity that all the kids he paid off with $$$ millions in out of court settlements are probably barred from talking about their experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, karbatal said:

CAreful, Jordan Chandler explained in 2009 that he lied because his father made him to. He was battered by his father, who commited suicide that very year. 

I don't think victims are lying now, but truth is that many people still believe in Jackson's innocence because there's always been weird things about victims, either because they were extortionated by fear by Jackson's team (that's why John Doe's family said in 2005) or because they say and then don't say and then say again: Chandler and these two victims from the new docu, who testified in 2005 in favour of Michael and then talked against him in 2009. 

Well, money heals everything apparently. The fact that ANY of the families of these accusers accepted $$$ over seeking justice speak volumes. Even Robson, funny how he didn't "remember" things until AFTER he was turned down as choreographer for MJ's Cirque De Soleil show that was organizing in '13. Everything was just fine up until then.....but no, not suspect in the least.

ROT IN HELL MJ! 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×