Chandler and Schwartz convo (Redemption) - TRANSCRIPT

shelly

New member
crazychick!!!;235327 said:
Die hard MJ fans already believe that the allegations are false. They don't need Jordan to come forward. Him coming forward is for everybody else.

But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.:)

I think there are some die hard fans who will probably try to hurt him because in their mind he killed him. I think Geraldine Hugues speak about that. She said her office received threats during the allegation and Jordan probably remembers that.
 

annelise

New member
sorry to bring this old topic back but can't let this thing go.

What evan is saying there :MR. CHANDLER: -- they were gonna come

8 live with me. They were gonna pack up, leave

9 June's house, and come here.

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

11 MR. CHANDLER: That's what they were

12 going to do, because they were getting more

13 resistance from her than they were getting from me.

14 You cannot tell this stuff -- you cannot -- I'm

15 confiding in you, okay, Dave?

that would corroborate June's testimony in 2005 that Michael tried to make her sign a paper to give Jordan's custody to Evan. You know when she said "he was frantic" telling her she had to sign. what do you think? 
 

oldschoolfan

New member
I can understand that it is hard to let go of sometimes, there are so many different stories that it's hard to believe no matter what side you are on sometimes.
I just think that Michael is innocent because things in his life can be easily twisted to look bad. And there is a lot of evidence that proves his innocent (the circumcision claim and admissions of lying in court for example), but there is nothing that proves his guilt, just claims. It's all words and no physical proof for the prosecution. One the defense it was the opposite.
 

annelise

New member
i disagree that there is nothing at all to prove Michael is guilty, there are things that can be doubted in Michael's behaviour. The website the conversations are one rebut Mary fisher articles and redemption and he/she have some good points. And what was the underwear with blood that was found in Michael's house?! 
 

oldschoolfan

New member
Although those things can raise questions, they don't actually PROVE anything in particular. My point was that there are things like the autopsy report that PROVE Jordan's description was wrong, The cross examination in regards to the magazine with the fingerprints PROVED that story was wrong (the date on the magazine was August of 2003 after they were long gone from Michael's house, and the person who fingerprinted the magazine had to admit they had done it after a time that Gavin could have handled the magazine), etc., etc..
But for the most part of proving Michael guilty, there isn't quite so much to prove any particular part of his guilt.
The phone conversation can be looked at as suss yes, but it doesn't PROVE anything. The underwear, bizarre, but it doesn't PROVE anything.
 

annelise

New member
yes but nothing itself would prove Michael's inocence or guilt. It is a matter of common sense and deduction. And this conversation that I read about Chandler talking to schwartz made me listen to a man that was concerned for his son and not a greedy person like i always believed, and that made me unconfortable because he saw jordan and Michael together and we didn't. June said the same saying that Jordan and Michael didn't want to be separate and that is strange, Michael was different around Jordan than say Brett and Wade or mac (given their testimonies and interviews) so why their relationship was so special?
I don't belive Michael was a pedophile but they are things that are blurry concerning this relationship and this is why i'll never get past it and it is driving me insane cause we'll never know for sure. :(
 

OneMoreChance

New member
[quote name="annelise"]
yes but nothing itself would prove Michael's inocence or guilt. It is a matter of common sense and deduction. And this conversation that I read about Chandler talking to schwartz made me listen to a man that was concerned for his son and not a greedy person like i always believed, and that made me unconfortable because he saw jordan and Michael together and we didn't. June said the same saying that Jordan and Michael didn't want to be separate and that is strange, Michael was different around Jordan than say Brett and Wade or mac (given their testimonies and interviews) so why their relationship was so special?
I don't belive Michael was a pedophile but they are things that are blurry concerning this relationship and this is why i'll never get past it and it is driving me insane cause we'll never know for sure. :(

[/quote]

I'm a little confused.....what conversation are you talking about? The one were Evan is talking about them coming to live with him? Exactly what does this conversation prove? I see nothing that shows that Evan is concerned about his son. I see someone who is trying to work a situation to his advantage. If Evan could get Jordy to live with him and Michael to be staying at his house on a regular basis then his claim of molestation holds more merit because then he could claim that it happened in his house. This conversation proves nothing. The conversations that do prove something are the ones where Evan is talking about ruining Michael's life and career and "winning big time". When Shwartz asks Evan how this helps Jordy he replies that it is "irrelevant to him".

There is proof that tons of people have lied about these molestation allegation and not a single shred of evidence that proves that Michael did any of this. Taking that into consideration with the person that Michael was proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael was innocent.
 

shelly

New member
[quote name="annelise"]
yes but nothing itself would prove Michael's inocence or guilt. It is a matter of common sense and deduction. And this conversation that I read about Chandler talking to schwartz made me listen to a man that was concerned for his son and not a greedy person like i always believed, and that made me unconfortable because he saw jordan and Michael together and we didn't. June said the same saying that Jordan and Michael didn't want to be separate and that is strange, Michael was different around Jordan than say Brett and Wade or mac (given their testimonies and interviews) so why their relationship was so special?
I don't belive Michael was a pedophile but they are things that are blurry concerning this relationship and this is why i'll never get past it and it is driving me insane cause we'll never know for sure. :(

[/quote]

I think you should remember Evan Chandler wanted to record an album about the molestation of his son. I don't think someone who is concerned about his son well being would do that and he knew he was being recorded. June Chandler said she saw him beat Dave and we all know what he did to Jordan a few years later but he did nothing but when he saw MJ in the same bed as his son with his hanbd on Jordan's genitals.

I don't think MJ was different with Brett and Wade. According to Wade's mother he asked to be with her son at one o'clock in the morning and they slept together. I don't understand why she was ok with that.
 

shelly

New member
[quote name="shelly"]
I think you should remember Evan Chandler wanted to record an album about the molestation of his son. I don't think someone who is concerned about his son well being would do that and he knew he was being recorded. He knew Pellicano was working on this case and he knew who Pellicano was. In August 1993, Pellicano said he was working on this case for 4 months. June Chandler said she saw him beat Dave and we all know what he did to Jordan a few years later but he did nothing but when he saw MJ in the same bed as his son with his hanbd on Jordan's genitals.

I don't think MJ was different with Brett and Wade. According to Wade's mother he asked to be with her son at one o'clock in the morning and they slept together. I don't understand why she was ok with that.
[/quote]
 

Teva

New member
[quote name="shelly"]
I think you should remember Evan Chandler wanted to record an album about the molestation of his son. I don't think someone who is concerned about his son well being would do that and he knew he was being recorded. June Chandler said she saw him beat Dave and we all know what he did to Jordan a few years later but he did nothing but when he saw MJ in the same bed as his son with his hanbd on Jordan's genitals.

I don't think MJ was different with Brett and Wade. According to Wade's mother he asked to be with her son at one o'clock in the morning and they slept together. I don't understand why she was ok with that.
[/quote]

I think it would have served Michael Jackson, the Chandlers, Prince, Paris, Blanket, the fans and THE WHOLE WORLD better if this case had gone to trial.  Something this serious has no business in civil court, and far worse settling. 
 

shelly

New member
[quote name="Teva"]
I think it would have served Michael Jackson, the Chandlers, Prince, Paris, Blanket, the fans and THE WHOLE WORLD better if this case had gone to trial.  Something this serious has no business in civil court, and far worse settling. 
[/quote]

I agree with you, something like that doesn't belong to a civil court.
 

crazychick!!!

New member
[quote name="shelly"]
I agree with you, something like that doesn't belong to a civil court.
[/quote]
Yea. The judge really screwed him on that one. He should have let the criminal investigation be completed before he set a date for the civil trial. That was best for MJ AND Jordan Chandler. And not to mention a little thing call double jeopardy. MJ's constitutional rights were totally overlooked when the judge ruled in the Chandler's favor, instead of Michael's.
 

Teva

New member
@ Annelise,

You say you can't get past the 1993 case and that is quite understandable.  None of us know for sure what happened.  That's why we have trials, and a beautiful thing called cross examination.

I always flip flop when it comes to this case for the simple reason I mentioned above.  However, history hates mysteries, and take heart that this will be solved.  Jordan is 30 now, and one day he may have a child, and that could force him out in public to speak about what happened.  Also someone will get to the bottom of the sodium amytal mystery.  When the judge allowed previous testimony from the 1993 case into the 2005 that caused Messereau to investigate that allegation.  Even if the things I read make Michael look guilty I still cannot shake, "what does Messereau know that I don't feeling."  He would have had to prepare a cross examination for Jordan had he showed up, and why feverently defend MJ even after death, to me that doesn't make sense.  So much has been written about this case, yet so much is unknown.
 

OneMoreChance

New member
[quote name="Teva"]
@ Annelise,

You say you can't get past the 1993 case and that is quite understandable.  None of us know for sure what happened.  That's why we have trials, and a beautiful thing called cross examination.

I always flip flop when it comes to this case for the simple reason I mentioned above.  However, history hates mysteries, and take heart that this will be solved.  Jordan is 30 now, and one day he may have a child, and that could force him out in public to speak about what happened.  Also someone will get to the bottom of the sodium amytal mystery.  When the judge allowed previous testimony from the 1993 case into the 2005 that caused Messereau to investigate that allegation.  Even if the things I read make Michael look guilty I still cannot shake, "what does Messereau know that I don't feeling."  He would have had to prepare a cross examination for Jordan had he showed up, and why feverently defend MJ even after death, to me that doesn't make sense.  So much has been written about this case, yet so much is unknown.
[/quote]

Messereau had people ready to testify to the fact that Jordan was lying
 

shelly

New member
[quote name="Teva"]
@ Annelise,

You say you can't get past the 1993 case and that is quite understandable.  None of us know for sure what happened.  That's why we have trials, and a beautiful thing called cross examination.

I always flip flop when it comes to this case for the simple reason I mentioned above.  However, history hates mysteries, and take heart that this will be solved.  Jordan is 30 now, and one day he may have a child, and that could force him out in public to speak about what happened.  Also someone will get to the bottom of the sodium amytal mystery.  When the judge allowed previous testimony from the 1993 case into the 2005 that caused Messereau to investigate that allegation.  Even if the things I read make Michael look guilty I still cannot shake, "what does Messereau know that I don't feeling."  He would have had to prepare a cross examination for Jordan had he showed up, and why feverently defend MJ even after death, to me that doesn't make sense.  So much has been written about this case, yet so much is unknown.
[/quote]

I think, you should remember it was just an allegation. The psychiatric interview is very dramatic but all false allegations have these kind of psychiatric interview because the parents are behind them . You just never read them. I think Mesereau  knows probably much more about false allegation than we do.
In France, a few years ago we had the Outreau case. Kids all said they were raped and tortured by 15 adults. There stories were found credible by psychiatrist and their interviews were very dramatic but all the kids were lying.
 

Teva

New member
Digression. 

I think between the years 1993-1997 Michael saw the writing on the wall and knew that things would have ended the way they did for him.  I believe on some deeper level he knew he would not be able to get past professionally what happened in 1993 that is why he was pressuring Lisa Marie Presley (LMP) for a child.  He knew that fans, family, and friends could abandon, but the love from his children would be something to ground him. I could see Prince becoming a famous film director and making a documentary about his dad some day.

Back to the point.
Yes, Shelly you are right.  I am sure if we had the view the pychiatrist report from Gavin it would be very convincing as well.  It is extremely difficult not to side with a child in a molestation case.
 

shelly

New member
[quote name="Teva"]
Back to the point.
Yes, Shelly you are right.  I am sure if we had the view the pychiatrist report from Gavin it would be very convincing as well.  It is extremely difficult not to side with a child in a molestation case.
[/quote]

I know and I agree with that.
 

crazychick!!!

New member
Gavin's testimony on direct might sound convincing, but his cross-examination is not in the least. Also, I'm sure if you read the transcript of Gavin's interview with detectives, it would seem pretty convincing. However, when you look at the actual video tape of the interview you see how nonchalant and unemotional he is. And how he is being lead by detectives.

Jordan Chandler telling of the allegations aren't proof that they happened. It's just proof that he made an allegation. In my opinion, Jordan's interview with the psychologist is not convincing at all to me. It's completely devoid of any emotion. It reminded me of his mother's testimony. When I read it I didn't get the feeling that he was sad, angry, or scared at all. It's like he's telling about something that happened to somebody else.
[quote name="annelise"]And what was the underwear with blood that was found in Michael's house?! 
[/quote]
And what underwear are you talking about. :confused: Is that from a tabloid?
 
Top