Micky Jackson in trouble again

KikiLaRue wrote: »

While I understand this point of view, this is used to get rapists off the hook all the time. Basically it puts the victim on trial.

So a barrister defends a rapist by attacking a victim's credibility:

- Why was she dressed like that?
- How much had she drank?
- Why was she even at that party?
- What was she wearing?
- What sort of underwear did she have on?

And by gradually undermining every aspect of the victim's choices, a good lawyer is able to create little bit of doubt in the jury's mind, reasonable doubt.

And the rapist walks free.

We've seen it time and again.

I understand all that but it's the world we live in - otherwise anyone could accuse anyone of sexual assault and they would immediately go to jail?

If there's no evidence all there is is an accuser's credibility - that's all we have. Otherwise it is better to let a guilty person go rather than put an innocent person in jail.

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Those are not the only two options. We can reform the justice system as I outlined in my post above, and in many other ways.

It's not that black and white.

Yes they are and have been foundations for most societies for hundreds of years.

That fundamental principle cannot be changed, but yes you can amend the justice system to help true victims get justice I agree.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Sorry what evidence exactly that he raped boys?!

Being seen on camera with boys?
His lies?! what lies exactly?

His face?! So if he had plastic surgery he raped boys WTF?

The description of his penis was wrong which is why he was never prosecuted.

His bedside reading material, what exactly is this?! Nothing like this was found.

You need to get your facts straight and put down The Sun.

Once again, Jordy Chandler accurately described his penis. Thats why they paid him off. No matter how many times I post this, none of the MJ defenders address it.

One more try.

One of Jackson's lawyers said afterwards

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”[1]

The lead investigator said

Dworin: “We had served a search warrant to photograph Michael Jackson. Those photographs corroborated the description that the boy gave us regarding Michael Jackson’s genitals.”

Mankiewicz: “The boy was able to describe discolorations of Jackson’s skin?”

Dworin: “Yes.”

Mankiewicz: “On his genitals, accurately.”

Dworin: “Very much so.”

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Once again, Jordy Chandler accurately described his penis. Thats why they paid him off. No matter how many times I post this, none of the MJ defenders address it.

This is the same Jordy Chandler that later wrote an open letter admitting it was all a lie and that MJ hadn't touched him?

The same Jordy Chandler whose father also admitted it was all false accusations before killing himself?

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Also, if you accept he lied under oath then you accept that the opposite did in fact happen.

No I don't accept that at all - he has told 2 different opposing stories therefore he is a proven liar.

That is fact.

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that, link please?

Also I'm not saying 100% of what they said are lies, I'm sure there are some truths within the 4 hour documentary

I already posted it but here it is again, a longer version. I think the one I posted yesterday mentions it being a wedding ring he was looking at and speculated it was for Cheryl crow haha.

https://youtu.be/l3DyN8Jvnz4

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

This is the same Jordy Chandler that later wrote an open letter admitting it was all a lie and that MJ hadn't touched him?

The same Jordy Chandler whose father also admitted it was all false accusations before killing himself?

Yeah no, none of that happened. Its been debunked for years now

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

There's a good thread on the TV forum that has this info.

Jackson had a library of 1m+ books, which included art books which included some of these images - books available still on Amazon.

They were not pornographic.

Which is why he was so easily acquitted in the 2005 trial.

Totally normal for a grown man to have naked images of children. The fact that he was also accused of being a child molester means nothing. Jesus, how gullible are people

Boggles wrote: »

No he didn't. He wasn't even close.

Evan Chandlers brother wrote in his book that Evan had drugged Jackson at his home and knew what condition he had.

He went on to drug his son and coerce a false confession from him.

Before that he was caught on tape saying how he was going to get money out of Jackson and destroy him long before Jordan had made any allegations (before he was drugged).

So why did one of Jackson's lawyers say

There had been an occasion where Michael Jackson was examined, and his genitalia was recorded, which was part of an investigation. And that was part of the 300 pound gorilla in the mediation room. We wanted to do all that we could to avoid the possibility that there would be a criminal filing against Michael Jackson, and the reality was we were hopeful that if we were able to “silence” the accuser, that would obviate the need for any concern about the criminal side, so from our perspective there was a great deal of trust, not only with Johnnie and Larry because they had a twenty year prior friendship, there was a tremendous trust with Johnnie and the three judges being recommended. And we were facing the purple gorilla in the room of “If we don’t get this case settled before March, there is a criminal investigation looming, and no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson”[1]

And the lead investigator say that there was a match. And Tom sneddon in the court filings here

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Boggles wrote: »

No he didn't. He wasn't even close.

Evan Chandlers brother wrote in his book that Evan had drugged Jackson at his home and knew what condition he had.

He went on to drug his son and coerce a false confession from him.

Before that he was caught on tape saying how he was going to get money out of Jackson and destroy him long before Jordan had made any allegations (before he was drugged).

Evan Chandlers brother must have made a tidy profit from that book!

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So why did one of Jackson's lawyers say

What exactly did he say? Did he say they matched? Did he say he saw the drawing. No he didn't, did he?

That quote is taken out of long conversion from a documentary made in 2010. It's out there, you should watch it.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

Sneddons lead investigator? :pac:

The doctor that took photographs of Jackson's genitals was never shown the crude picture Evan Chandler told his Son to draw.

You imagine you would have shown the Doctor and asked his opinion on it, wouldn't you?

Either way the Grand Jury thought it was baloney back then and the judge refused to allow it as evidence in 2005 trial.

I can't believe people who have even a passing interest in case, would believe anything Evan Chandler did, he was an unhinged psychopath, who his son had to get away from legally twice.

Like I said before if there was one good thing about the pay off it was Chandler was able to get away from his father before he murdered him, something of course he later tried, with a dumbell and can of mace. :eek:

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Absolutely, I think particularly in rape trials (and perhaps in others) that the principal of "presumption of innocence" should be replaced with "a presumption of fairness" i.e. that both parties have rights, the defendant has the right to a fair trial and the prosecution has a right to seek justice within the confines of the law.

Here's why: In a rape trial if you presume the defendant is innocent, you must logically presume the accuser is lying. That's a bad place to start. I think at the beginning of the trial we shouldn't be presuming anything about anyone, but we should commit to vindicating the rights of all those involved.

So we don't say, "we're going to presume you're innocent" because we have nothing to base that assumption on. Instead we say "you are entitled to a fair trial, and we will vindicate that right".

If you remove the "presumption of innocence" from any trial, that means the defendant has to prove themselves innocent, if the defendant proves themselves innocent then you are right back to your (flawed) logical conclusion that the alleged victim is a liar.