Michael Jackson married his nanny!

[Grimmlok]

I love how you ripped an entire article and didn't even have the decency to put the source.

Let me do it for you.

Poplicks.com: ON JESUS JUICE & THE CRUCIFIXION OF THE KING OF POP

[VenusInFauxFurs]

Michael Jackson is a creepy fucker and I don't know anybody sane who would let their kids near him.

[CherryDarling]

So....what's your point by posting that article? That "Tom Sneddon is an evil man?"--isn't that what Jacko sang in one of his craptacular songs?

How many children have to come forward and say they were molested/touched/fondled by Jacko before people open their eyes?? When there's smoke, there's fire...

[Gen X EJC]

Awww the nanny's on here personally. Hi Mrs. Jackson! Tell those boys to brush their teeth before they go to bed with Michael, he likes em clean!! Err, I mean, the teeth! He likes the teeth clean! And the fun... he likes... good clean fun! Yeah! That's it. Heh.

[litupgirl]

You go Grimm!! I'm not skilled like you are so here's my contribution to what you've said. I think you speak for all of us non Jacko fantards.

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by Gen X EJC

Awww the nanny's on here personally. Hi Mrs. Jackson! Tell those boys to brush their teeth before they go to bed with Michael, he likes em clean!! Err, I mean, the teeth! He likes the teeth clean! And the fun... he likes... good clean fun! Yeah! That's it. Heh.

And after they brush their teeth, they can have their nightly Jesus Juice before bedtime.

[bychance]

Oh yes, Thomas Sneddon...he still has photos of his [Michael's] genitalia "just in case more victims come forward". Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

I love how you ripped an entire article and didn't even have the decency to put the source.

Let me do it for you.

Poplicks.com: ON JESUS JUICE & THE CRUCIFIXION OF THE KING OF POP

I'm well aware of where I got that excerpt from. I copy pasted all the articles and sources that I've found over the past months into one paragraph, with the rest of my post. If you want the rest, I'll post them here too.

Why didn't you re: to the rest of what I said? You skipped the whole thing. The least you could of done was gave me some sort of feedback.

Originally Posted by CherryDarling

So....what's your point by posting that article? That "Tom Sneddon is an evil man?"--isn't that what Jacko sang in one of his craptacular songs?

How many children have to come forward and say they were molested/touched/fondled by Jacko before people open their eyes?? When there's smoke, there's fire...

You actually believe all of that?

Let me go over this again.

2005 - Gavin Arvizo (13 years old) - Lied under oath repeatedly and saw not 1 but TWO civil attorneys before and after he left Neverland and BEFORE any allegations magically appeared.

1996 - Jason Francia (10 years old) - claimed he couldn’t remember anything once Jackson’s attorney started asking questions. He jury foreman admitted to Nancy Grace that Francia’s testimony wasn’t believable because he was leaving too many ‘loopholes’ in his story.

1994 - Unidentified Child (14 years old) - Incorrect information. There was no other child who received a 15 M settlement. All of this came out in court. Read the official courtroom transcripts.

1993 - Jordan Chandler (13 years old) - Evan Chandler got his money and ran. Jordan has never been cross-examined under oath. Filed for legal emancipation from his parents, as we all later found out from research.

1984 - Joseph Bartucci (18 years old) - Allegation was a totally false. Has never even met Michael Jackson. His case was dismissed by a judge in Louisiana. His ex-fiance appeared on the TV Show Celebrity Justice and totally dropped a dime on him for making the false claims.

Talk about SMOKE! Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire. Only that saying doesn’t work when there are people behind the curtain running a fog machine and trying to convince the public that it’s “smoke”.

If you actually believe or worse, have sympathy to these "victims" you've been suckered in. Michael Jackson tickled me? lol Did you know that Alfonso Ribeiro (remember, he was featured as the kid in the 1984 Pepsi commercial, and who later played Carlton on the ‘Fresh Prince of Bel Air’) and his family were offered money to accuse Michael Jackson of child molestation? You failed to mention that last year in July, Evan Chandler struck his son with a dumbbell and basically tried to murder him.

a0422-05.opn.html


What a great father. Not only that, he wrote a book about his son’s rape. “Michael Jackson Was My Lover-The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler”. Even his brother chipped in. Raymond Chandler, author of book “All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover Up” which deals with the alleged sexual abuse of his nephew Jordan by Michael Jackson. Team effort! How considerate. That book was written by Victor Guiteriez, he also said that there was a videotape of Michael molesting one of Jermaine’s sons. Michael sued him about the book AND Hard Copy (they ran the story about the fake videotape) and Michael won the suit, but Victor left the country.




You also forgot the part where Evan Chandler was caught on tape speaking about his extortion plans on the telephone.

YouTube Video

And thats only a clip of it. I have the whole transcript. I'll post it here if you're interested.

[Grimmlok]

I'm at work, I'll dissect the insanity when I get home.

Thing is, you totally skipped all that pedo stuff I put up after I asked you directly to point out which part did NOT pertain to Jacko.

Funny that.

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

I'm at work, I'll dissect the insanity when I get home.

I second that.

[bychance]

Originally Posted by Grimmlok

Thing is, you totally skipped all that pedo stuff I put up after I asked you directly to point out which part did NOT pertain to Jacko.

Funny that.

I don't know any pedophiles who have enough money to do all aforementioned tasks but [so-called] child molester Michael Jackson. An average pedophile can lure their prey with candy or of course work somewhere children are in abundance, thats a given. Why would so-called pedophile Michael Jackson not hide what hes doing, if hes indeed guilty?

Am I saying Michael Jackson is not an eccentric, or at the least weird? OBVIOUSLY he is. But I do not think he is a child molester.

If you think he is a pedophile, when exactly do you think he suddenly became interested in children [sexually]? Or were you always suspect that he had an unhealthy interest in young kids, even when he was younger? I don't recall anyone being suspicious of the possibility of connecting Jackson with pedophilia back in Off The Wall, or Thriller, etc. Its only after 1993 that people bothered with those thoughts, even though they already knew about him and his personality. I have interviews as old as Jet/Ebony from 1979 where he talks about children and what not. Theres interviews (the few that hes made) back in circa Thriller where he speaks about the samething. His personality didn't change, so I never got how people may make remarks like "before he went crazy". Did anyone read those articles or watch said interviews and go, my GOD, this man is a pedophile!

Somehow, I cant imagine a teenage boy Gavin's age would just lay there, take it, and not say anything. Gavin isn't some sort of 5 year old, he was 13 years old. If it was the former, I could consider the possibility that he was abused. And its already been stated & documented that Gavin has had sexual knowledge with girls his age as well, so he isn't naive or lack of experience.

In the original charges, it was just Gavin who was abused sexually. But during the testimony, they included Star as well. Where did that come from?

If you want to argue or have a debate with me, at least call [Michael Jackson] by his government name instead of "Jacko" or saying dumb things like 'fantard' or whatever. Is that a necessity to make your point?

[alcohol the honey]

Originally Posted by DontMindMe

x2

[CherryDarling]

Originally Posted by bychance

I don't know any pedophiles who have enough money to do all aforementioned tasks but [so-called] child molester Michael Jackson. An average pedophile can lure their prey with candy or of course work somewhere children are in abundance, thats a given. Why would so-called pedophile Michael Jackson not hide what hes doing, if hes indeed guilty?

He (lamely) tried hiding it--there were too many kids who came forward and exposed his revolting behavior. Pedophiles come in all different shapes, sizes and forms...and they also have an abundant amount of ways to lure their prey--where should we start with Jacko? Hmmm...Jesus Juice, free trips/vacations/etc., and let's not forget the almighty $$$$. He BOUGHT his victims.

Originally Posted by bychance

Am I saying Michael Jackson is not an eccentric, or at the least weird? OBVIOUSLY he is. But I do not think he is a child molester.

Well I happen to think he is a pedo and has been for a long time. Nothing will change my mind. We can agree to disagree on that one.

Originally Posted by bychance

If you think he is a pedophile, when exactly do you think he suddenly became interested in children [sexually]?

I think he's always been interested in children sexually...he was just able to hide it better when he was in held in higher regard in the public eye.

Originally Posted by bychance

Or were you always suspect that he had an unhealthy interest in young kids, even when he was younger? I don't recall anyone being suspicious of the possibility of connecting Jackson with pedophilia back in Off The Wall, or Thriller, etc. Its only after 1993 that people bothered with those thoughts, even though they already knew about him and his personality. I have interviews as old as Jet/Ebony from 1979 where he talks about children and what not. Theres interviews (the few that hes made) back in circa Thriller where he speaks about the samething. His personality didn't change, so I never got how people may make remarks like "before he went crazy". Did anyone read those articles or watch said interviews and go, my GOD, this man is a pedophile!

I don't recall the exact date/year/location I was when I came to the conclusion that Jacko was a pedophile. I don't have that much time on my hands. I just know the overwhelming amount of hard evidence, mainly the exorbitant amounts of hush money he paid his victims, made my mind up a long time ago. You don't just hand someone (approx.) $14 million dollars if you're innocent in my eyes. I may be wrong on my numbers, but that is the earliest memory I have.

Originally Posted by bychance

Somehow, I cant imagine a teenage boy Gavin's age would just lay there, take it, and not say anything. Gavin isn't some sort of 5 year old, he was 13 years old.

Are you KIDDING me? Age 13 is one of the most impressionable and awkward ages of the teenage years. You’re still a baby at that age.

Originally Posted by bychance

If it was the former, I could consider the possibility that he was abused.

Are you trying to say that just because Gavin was 13 instead of 5, somehow it was okay?

Are you familiar with sexual abuse at all? Pedos/predators will tell their victims that the sexual acts are done “out of love” and also they are told to “keep things a secret”…they prey on kids vulnerability and will often start the abuse innocently and then gradually guilt their victims into sexual acts. It usually takes victims years, even DECADES, IF EVER to reveal the abuse.
It has been reported that Jacko would “cry” if he didn’t get what he wanted from these poor kids and would tell them “if you don’t kiss me, you just don’t love me enough.” Check out this: The Smoking Gun: Archive That speaks volumes to me.

Originally Posted by bychance

And its already been stated & documented that Gavin has had sexual knowledge with girls his age as well, so he isn't naive or lack of experience.

I’m failing to see your point here. Again, it seems to me that you’re hinting because Gavin was 13 years old, somehow he should have the same coping mechanisms as an experienced adult to handle a sexual situation with a 35+ year old "man". A "man" that was supposed to be his "friend". Sick.

Originally Posted by bychance

In the original charges, it was just Gavin who was abused sexually. But during the testimony, they included Star as well. Where did that come from?

Who knows? I’m sure there are FAR more boys that Jacko molested that we don’t even know about.

Originally Posted by bychance

If you want to argue or have a debate with me, at least call [Michael Jackson] by his government name instead of "Jacko" or saying dumb things like 'fantard' or whatever. Is that a necessity to make your point?

No. I will call him whatever the fuck I want to call him. This is Gossip Rocks, not Michael Jackson Rocks. Wacko Jacko sickfuck is what I normally call him and that's when I'm being nice. And I never said the word ‘fantard’, but whatever.

[bychance]

You totally misinterpreted what I said. I said that the possibility of a teenage boy who knows about sex (one of the 'profile of a pedophile' lists that a victim is most likely naive about sex) and is interested in typical things boys his age are, that he would be than, the least likely to be able to be abused by someone who is much younger and impressionable. I've already read the Smoking Gun archives. Those are from the prosecution's testimonies. They weren't facts, they aren't evidence and they were all proven false. But ah yes, the almighty $$$ that "buys" victims. I wasn't aware victims were available for purchase. A better question is, why take money to forget you were molested? People often use this as "proof" and "hard evidence" that Michael Jackson is guilty -- Why do people ask why did Michael Jackson pay? [if he was innocent] -- Why did they want money? They weren't offered money. They requested it. How can you “pay” the silence of victims? So if Jackson had in fact, payed his victims off in attempt for them to keep quiet, what exactly would that have solved? They A) Already made the accusations B) How can/does payment prevent said persons, or make them, silent? They [and the family] are no longer able to speak because now they now possess large sums of money?

I'm going to repost some various excerpts I have read in an article a few years ago that I want to share, instead of paraphrasing. I know, this is going to be a LONG read. But do with what you will with it.






For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser’s family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several facts:

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.

3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: “Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.”

It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the “negligence” allegation was redefined:

“Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the “infliction of emotional distress”; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?

OTHER EXCERPTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.”

Heres a quick screen shot I made from the Smoking Gun.



Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence, while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy’s allegations are true.

“The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”


THE PAYMENT

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond’s copy of the settlement but according to Jackson’s current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson’s insurance company to step in and settle the case for him.

This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behavior.


DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:

“Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending.”
“Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments… the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejudice.”

The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.

Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler , and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases, except as may be required by law.”

The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.

“In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually… receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson… they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request.”

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson’s attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family’s own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.
Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers obviously did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities.

I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify? One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.

What exactly did Michael Jackson “buy” when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it “hush money” when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it “hush money” when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it “hush money” when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit? Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler’s initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

If it is still your contention that Jackson’s plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to “bribe” the boy into not testifying. Jackson’s actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler’s silence.

- When the boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993 refused to cooperate with authorities, the police investigation fell apart.

- Police obtained Jackson’s telephone books and contacted about thirty children and their families. Although investigators allegedly used aggressive interrogation techniques to scare the children into making accusations against Jackson, they still could not find another accuser. All of the children questioned maintained that Jackson had never sexually abused them.

- In an attempt to find corroborating evidence, the Santa Barbara Police Department subjected Jackson to a strip search to see if the description the accuser provided of Jackson’s genitalia was accurate. According to an article from USA Today: “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”

- By February 1994, police still did not have a witness who was willing to testify against Jackson. Investigators consequently turned to the tabloids for leads, contacting several of Jackson’s former employees who had sold their stories to the media. For example, investigators flew to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys, a couple who had told the tabloids that they’d seen Jackson act inappropriately with a child. Police decided that their story was not credible based on the fact that the more money they received, the more salacious their story became.

- Police also got in contact with Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid who had sold her story to Hard Copy for $20,000. On December 15 1993, Francia told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson showering with young boys and that she had also seen him act inappropriately with her own son. Francia repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit. While under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, however, Francia admitted that she had 'exaggerated' details during her Hard Copy interview and that the producers had paid her for her story.

- In the mid 90s, Francia threatened to accuse Jackson of molesting her son unless she received money from the Jackson camp. To avoid the negative publicity that would have inevitably resulted from a second child abuse allegation, Jackson’s associates advised him to quietly settle the case. After receiving $2 million from Jackson, Francia did not go forward with the civil lawsuit.

- While Francia seemed more than willing to make accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, she did not have anything incriminating to reveal when authorities questioned her during the criminal investigation in 1994. Contrary to what she had previously claimed (and to what she would claim in the future in 2003), Francia told investigators that her son had repeatedly denied being sexually abused by Jackson. Here is an excerpt from a USA Today article t