can you explain why he pays victims off? besides Michael thinks he is above the law. ======================================= to save money and avoid being dragged through court... show me where he thinks he is above the law... please cite facts...

can you explain why he pays victims off? besides Michael thinks he is above the law. ======================================= to save money and avoid being dragged through court... show me where he thinks he is above the law... please cite facts... *************************************** to save money? you have got to be kidding, you Jackson supporters use no logic, just complete denial.

Absolutely! You hit the nail right on the head!!!

The innocent don't pay millions if they don't have anything to hide!

The innocent don't pay millions if they don't have anything to hide! =============================== The trial that just ended with Jackson being found innocent of the charges cost significantly more than the settlements.... That's why people and corporations settle, because it's better than the unknown of a jury... Are you willing to give up EVERYTHING that you have because you have nothing to hide? Do you truly believe that humans won't lie to make money?

I think he paid his 1st victim off to avoid the negative and embarrasing publicity of a molestation trial, and to avoid any chance of prison time. I am not a molester and if I was that high profile of a person with those resources I think I would pay off an accuser to guarantee that I was not sen't to jail. Do you think he is a molester just because he paid the 1st accuser off? Why do you think they accepted the money and kept quiet? Don't they want justice for their child? Are they that greedy that they will let a child molester roam free for a few bucks?

I think he paid his 1st victim off to avoid the negative and embarrasing publicity of a molestation trial, and to avoid any chance of prison time. I am not a molester and if I was that high profile of a person with those resources I think I would pay off an accuser to guarantee that I was not sen't to jail. Do you think he is a molester just because he paid the 1st accuser off? Why do you think they accepted the money and kept quiet? Don't they want justice for their child? Are they that greedy that they will let a child molester roam free for a few bucks? **************************************** they couldn't accept the money in the first place if it wasn't offered to them. why do you think he paid he paid tem off? I am including the one that was also paid 2.4 million. what are you going to do, keep paying people off all your life?

maybe they dont want to drag the child through it. i hear so many people call these people greedy( the first accusers)i dont know that i would put my child through it.it is a tough decision iam sure.i pray that i am never in that situation.

Lou525252 => "Why do you think they accepted the money and kept quiet? Don't they want justice for their child? Are they that greedy that they will let a child molester roam free for a few bucks?" Anybody high profile person who criticizes MJ is threatened with violence by many of his insane fans, some of whom are prominent posters on this board. You won't find many of their posts, since they're quickly deleted. Jordan Chandler, unlike the Arvizo's, was not offered police protection. Jordan's uncle said he would have testified if he was. With money and anonymity, you can protect yourself. Without it either, you can not. The MJ fans outside the courthouse were screaming violent threats. They had gathered stones that they were ready to throw at those they preceived critical of MJ. Who wants to put a child through that?

You're right, Calg. This is one possible reason that Jordie Chandler chose not to testify. The other possible reason is that his case had no merit. Since Jordie didn't testify, we will never know. Also, while it might explain why Jordie didn't testify in 1993, it doesn't explain why he didn't testify in 2005. No one through rocks at Jason Francia. No one threw rocks at the Neverland 5 (the disgruntled ex-employees who testified to the 1108 evidence). And no one threw rocks at Gavin Arvizo.

"Also, while it might explain why Jordie didn't testify in 1993, it doesn't explain why he didn't testify in 2005." Jordan Chandler may still have the same fears. I don't know if he's been given protection this time. Regardless, he must have made a decision in 1993 to drop the whole matter, permanently, with security being just one issue. "No one through rocks at Jason Francia. No one threw rocks at the Neverland 5 (the disgruntled ex-employees who testified to the 1108 evidence). And no one threw rocks at Gavin Arvizo." Well, the police quickly *found* the rocks. Some MJ fans wanted to throw them, but good police work stopped it. Also, the police have obviously been very careful, about managing how different people enter the court building. I'll bet you that the police are still monitoring some of the more insane fans quite closely. One more thing: MJ fans sacrificed massively to attend the trial. They weren't about to do something *before* a verdict, to loose their opportunity, to be present. If there had been a guilty verdict, then they would have felt they had nothing left to loose. Let's remember, those stones had messages attached to them, with names of individuals written on them. This wasn't just some stone pile. This was an organized plan to commit violence. Even if only a few fans gathered stones, others clearly accepted their presence.

Calg, I read your message and quickly caught the spelling error in mine. Did you have to quote that? ?:| I sure wish I could edit that post. It reminds me of your suggestions for these message boards. I think we should find the thread and email it to ABC. I think the police did a great job of protecting witnesses in this trial. My point was that if Jordie Chandler had chosen to testify *this time*, he would have been protected. I wasn't aware of the stones with messages on them. Do you have a link to an article that backs this up? You're right, the fans were unbalanced, to say it kindly. Violence is unacceptable, and there is no excuse. I hope the police are still monitoring these crazies. Now that you mention it, I wonder if the Arvizos are still getting police protection, or did it all evaporate with the verdict?

abbyr311, I can't find the stories about the stones, that I originally read. I also just read what contradicting accounts say, or just accounts by different people at different events. Hopefully, court actions related to restraining orders or uttering of threats will carry through, and we'll get more reliable details. I guesse this is one case where *maybe* I would be better off if I could watch this stuff live on Court TV (which I can't).

I guesse this is one case where *maybe* I would be better off if I could watch this stuff live on Court TV (which I can't). ****************************************************** Not really, Court TV was very biased. One more reason we need cameras in the Court Room. Actually I watched Dan Abraham toward the end of the case and found him to be more fair to both sides.

Many people bring money into lawsuit cases in order to get their lives back when false accusations are made. In a lawsuit, the defendant has no power, no right to a day in court, nothing. Some people suffer from being falsly accused. Others don't care but they are more likely to be at fault. If one can reduce the number of years one is forced to be silent withouit being able to defend oneslf, life can go on. It isn't the best thing...a speedy trial would be the best thing, but there is no such thing as a speedy trial for the defendant. So it becomes the second best thing. Put money in the mix and you get some power back. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, fault or no fault. This is a common myth. You can be falsely accused and never get the chance to defend yourself in any way.

can you explain why he pays victims off? besides Michael thinks he is above the law. Message: DUH, haven't you been paying attention. JC PENNY had to pay off ARVIZOs 152,000,000 because the ARVIZOs were caught shopt lifting shop lifted. JANET ARVIZO JACKSON INITIALLY SUED TO 3,000,000 AND THAT ALL THREE OF HER KIDS BE IN ANY JC PENNY TV OR PRINT AD. GEE, FOR a liar who said on in MJ trial she was not interested in money just an apology sure is credible.

He has to admit to sleeping with children because there are too many witnesses to it. The defense even had witnesses on the stand that said it. There's no denying that fact. Have you ever heard of n**a**m**b**l**a? ABC might censor the acronym but it is basically an organication of men who truly believe their actions of pedophilia is morally right.

this organization feels their views on pedophilia are ahead of the times and eventually we will all catch up with their forward thinking.

this organization feels their views on pedophilia are ahead of the times and eventually we will all catch up with their forward thinking. ---------------------------------------------------- And what exactly does this have to do with Jackson? Are you suggesting heis a member or is associated in any way? This reasoning is not only flawed, it is a symptom of the sickness of our society. (My mother would have said it was "Evil-mindedness.) There are laws against slander and libel, you know.

Well then, regarding the laws of slander and libel, there are many on this board who feel the need to bad-mouth and slander a 15 year old cancer victim. I did not say MJ was a member of this group. I was trying to show that there are men who almost admitt their actions without really admitting them. They justify their behavior. They don't see the wrong in their actions. I feel this is similar to Michael's behavior. My opinion....if it really bothers you then don't read it.