The Chandler kid knew about specific markings on Jackson. But wouldn't all it take is someone - family member, doctor, boyfriend - knowing about those markings and feeding that info to the kid.

The more incriminating aspect of the Chandler case is the fact that Jackson was negotiating back and forth with the Chandler father (his opening offer was 1 million). The fuck are you negotiating (secretively) for if you are innocent? (And he settled with another kid a few years earlier)

Because he isn't innocent. An innocent person wouldn't be covering up their disgusting actions by paying off someone to ignore it.

Barbra Streisand had to backtrack and apologize for her remarks she said in an interview about Leaving Neverland.

The people accusing him seem very uncreditable, and the back-n-forth between the cases, taking money, backtracking, etc... just seems very strange.

The only real damning thing is the fact that MJ continued to pay out "hush money" to all these people.

If people accused me of something so terrible, I certainly wouldn't pay them to hush up. I'd sue them for slander and fight it.

He used the excuse of "avoiding something drawn out", but shit it really makes it seem like there is some legitimacy to the claims when you're forking out cash every time a claim is made.

Of course people see dollar signs and likely made false claims to seek money from him too after they heard he was actually paying out to silence them.

Michael Jackson never paid "hush money". "Hush money" is when someone is paid off to keep their allegations OUT OF THE NEWS as well as out of the courts. Both settlements were after the allegations had already been covered in the news. It was his business interests that wanted to settle, not Michael Jackson, but he agreed to go along with it. That decision turned out to be very shortsighted because it just opened up pandora's box for anyone hoping for a multimillion dollar settlement.

One fact that cannot be stressed enough is how the accusers all wanted a monetary payout first and foremost. That is a strong incentive that cannot be discounted. Even Wade Robson initially filed his case against the Michael Jackson Estate "Under Seal" - what that means is it was a private lawsuit, not a public one, so only he, the lawyers, a judge, and the estate even knew about the lawsuit when he first filed it. He did this because he was hoping for the estate to settle. When they failed to do that is when he changed it to a public lawsuit because he was hoping a lot of other accusers would come out the woodworks to sign on - this is because the more people join in, the better chance he has of either winning the case or getting a settlement. Yet despite all the hundred of people who spent time at Neverland and could've signed onto the lawsuit in the hopes of making millions of dollars if there was a settlement, the only person who joined in was Safechuck. Wade Robson was loudly ringing the dinner bell for anyone who was willing to claim Michael Jackson molested them with the promise of possibly becoming a millionaire at the end, and he only found ONE person to join in. Just think about that for a moment.

And the mere fact of knowing that Robson initially wanted to get a private settlement shows that he is lying now when he claims that the reason he came forward to make these allegations is so his "truth" can be known to the world. This started as being about the benjamins and, given the many appeals and amendments to the lawsuits by Robson and Safechuck to keep them going after every time they're dismissed, it's still about the benjamins.

"In the report, which aired Friday night, a retired Santa Barbara County sheriff explained how his office uncovered a 1990 payoff to the 12-year-old son of a Neverland Ranch employee while investigating a 1993 molestation case."

That 1990 payoff was exactly hush money. Nobody knew about the settlement until the Santa Barbara police discovered it looking into the 1993 case.

Michael Jackson Admits He Paid Off Accuser - MTV

This is an example of why I say it's important to do your research.

That story is about Jason Francia, son of Blanca Francia, a former maid who worked at Neverland Ranch, and who afterwards went to the tabloids for instant paychecks. Jason Francia claimed that Michael Jackson tickled him three times and that he was traumatized by this. In 1995 (not 1990), his record company was releasing Michael Jackson's new album "HIStory" and didn't want bad press adversely affecting album sales so they settled with the Francias for $2.4 million. The album "HIStory" went on to sell 20 million copies worldwide which makes it one of the best selling albums of all time and makes the settlement look like a drop in the bucket.

However... that's not the end of the Francia story in regards to Michael Jackson...

Because during the 2005 trial in which the DA office was throwing everything they had at Michael Jackson, a 24-year-old Jason Francia testified as a witness for the prosecution. But under cross-examination by the defense, his allegations fell apart as he contradicted himself multiple times and was found not at all credible by the jury. And Blanca Francia has many depositions with her own allegations, but she keeps changing her story each time, making her seem not very credible either.

If you're going to use the accusers wanting a payout as proof they're lying, then you have to use MJ's settlement payment as proof he's trying to get away with his criminal actions.

"They wanted a payout - so obviously they made the whole thing up"
"MJ paid them off - so obviously he wanted to avoid punishment for what he did"

The thing is, MJ was filthy rich and had access to the best lawyers money can buy. He would've been fully exonerated if he went to trial - especially if he was truly innocent.
Instead, he was willing to pay extreme amounts of money and keep the suspicions alive. And he still fucking continued to sleep with boys!

You do NOT do these things if you are innocent.

The amount of the payout tells me he wanted them to go away forever. It wasn't a measly amount just to stop bugging him.

Just wondering, what are your thoughts on OJ Simpson? Do you think he's the one who killed Ron and Nichole, or are the real killer or killers still out there?

I believe we have a Strangers on a Train situation here.

I agree with you almost. I think if you have a tunnel-visioned prosecutor, you can still be innocent and get fucked in the court room. However, to your statement about MJ still sleeping with boys...exactly. That right there shows his guilt. Normal people don't do that and would never do that. And since he's willing to do that and think it's ok...what's so difficult about him thinking touching young kids is ok, too.

Also, did MJ ever hang out with older people? I don't seem to recall him doing that at all. He was ALWAYS around younger children.

Impressive, seems you are one of the few here who did research and knows what they are talking about.

I haven't watched the documentary and obviously we don't know have access to the pictures but this one piece of evidence would certainly be damning enough.

I wonder if any of that "impressive research" involved watching all four hours of this documentary. Because he never said that he did, and if he didn't (and I do understand why he didn't want to), then his opinion about the case in relation to this story is kind of irrelevant to this thread.. And anyone who had watched the whole thing would have a hard time accepting that, even if James and Wade both were lying about everything beyond having a social relationship with Jackson as young boys (which seems very unlikely), that James' mother, wife and Wade's sister, mother, brother, grandmother and wife were also all lying as well. That's a pretty big conspiracy with a lot of well coordinated and well-corroborated stories to concoct an perform...and to what end? The case was thrown out - not on merit, but due to statues of limitations.

Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building.

https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/exc...ncy-1833782839

WTF is up with this new forum software.....

I watch all 4 hours of the "documentary". I even watched Razorfist's Periscope commentary on it, so have seen it twice (once as-is, and a second time with commentary) - links for that commentary are found in the description of this video:

I also watched the Oprah Winfrey special in which the 2 accusers sweated so profusely that pit stains were showing at the end. (Yeah, flop sweat alone doesn't necessarily mean someone is lying, but it doesn't help their case either.)

In addition, I watched this - have you?




And now that the train station story has fallen apart, to continue to believe James Safechuck means believing that his claims were off by over 2 years.

Here's a good summary of why the train station story is untrue:

1. James Safechuck was at Neverland both before and after the construction of the train station there. The two still photos of the station shown in #leavingneverland were in fact taken by James, who is very clear that he was abused by Jackson in multiple places over many years.

— Dan Reed (@danreed1000) April 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

2. #leavingneverland also makes clear that sexual contact between James and #MichaelJackson continued until James Safechuck was in his teenage years. The station at Neverland is just one of the many locations where James remembers sexual activity taking place.

— Dan Reed (@danreed1000) April 4, 2019

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


Look, I don't know exactly what is true and what isn't. Neither do you. But the fact that James took those pictures at the Train Station at Neverland Ranch are enough to convince me he was there with Jackson. So maybe his timing is wrong, maybe he is lying, but that in no way invalidates the entire documentary in my mind, or even his claims of sexual abuse at the hands of Jackson.

Did Safechuck say abuse only happened at this train station or was just one of the locations it happened.

Big difference.

As an aside, what a fantastic dream it would be to own a large piece of property (a couple of hundred acres would suffice) and design and build a small-railroad circuit on it! However, I would not want to live - and have this train setup - in the California desert.

My wife's BFF got married at her grandfather's house in Pasadena. Her grandfather was one of Walt Disney's original "Nine Old Med". He had a working Lahina Sugar Cane steam train on his property and a train station that Walt gave him from some old movie. When her friend got married, we the guests waited at the station, the groom's party rode in on one of those hand-pumped rail car thingies, then the Bridal party took the train to the station with this famous Animator in the back, blowing a bugle. It was something to witness.
There is a train at Disneyland named after him.

That James Safechuck and his mother continued to associate with Michael Jackson after 1992 isn't what's called into question.

That's James Safechuck holding the umbrella in this 1995 photo



And people invited to Neverland Ranch continued to visit even when Michael Jackson wasn't there. It's on record that the Robson family visited Neverland Ranch more than a dozen times but Michael Jackson was only there about 4 of those times. So having picture from inside the train station mean nothing if Michael Jackson isn't in the photos.

What is in question is Safechuck's claim that he was sexually molested only between the years 1988-1992 including in a train station that didn't exist until 1994. His court documents in his lawsuit specifically list the 1988-1992 as the exact years of abuse. So it's not "maybe he's lying" - He *is* lying.


Once again, I say this: DO ACTUAL RESEARCH! The real information is out there.

Sounds like memorable experience. I'd love to have a train circuit running through deep woods and across streams somewhere around here. It's one of those unattainable childhood fantasies that survives into adulthood.

One thing that's been uncovered is the deceptive editing of "Leaving Neverland"

An interview in it of James Safechuck was shot in a rented condo

Original photo:


So they filmed in it once. but then after Safechuck "miraculously" found some rings, they rented it again over 5 months later (and maybe even longer) to shoot footage of that to cut in. However, the condo owners had redecorated in the meantime and replaced the furniture. That didn't deter them and they had Safechuck wear the same clothes for the new footage and intercut it with the old footage and hoped no one noticed.



It's odd that they tried to edit the footage together as if it all happened at the same time instead of shooting the new footage at a different location to avoid the obvious visual differences. That's some very sloppy filmmaking, almost as bad as the endless drone shots.