Jump to content

Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Wrong word used?

What should be the word 'corroborate' appears as 'cooperate' in a couple of places. I did not change it because one instance happens inside of a quotation and I am not sure if it is accurate or not. Can someone please review and correct?67.193.87.232 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Introductory section

I have deleted the subordinate clause in the sentence saying what is on the Schwartz/Evan Chandler tape recording. The clause is ", the latter of which he believed to be allowing the alleged sexual abuse of his son to continue."

Reason for deleting it is that the tape recording does not actually contain any discussion about any suspicion of abuse. I don't know where that phrase comes from, may or may not be true that this is what E C was thinking about, but it was not what he was saying in that conversation.

Createangelos (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Orth report

"According to these sources..."

What sources? Orth's book is called 'importance of being famous.' What are the sources she is referring to in this 'detailed report.' How is it detailed if we don't know who the source is? 92.14.226.107 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

slight contradictions

These aren't too bad but here they are:

Section 0 says that(from Fisher article), and that the dcs report is based on a 2 page letter clarifying Dr. Abrams had not seen JC. Section 1 refers to a 3 hour meeting with EC, JC and Dr. Abrams. Would be good to factually clear up the dates: was the Abrams letter which was brought to DCS and others subsequent to the three hour assessment of JC?

Section 0 mentions the 2 drugs in the anaesthesiologist report in the Dimond book (not including Amytal), versus the Amytal in the other books. A later section just says according to the anaesthesiologist report in Dimond no Amytal was administered --maybe should clarify that all sources agree that something was administered but not agreeing what it was.


Now a bit repetitive

The article is more factual now, more including more neutral and checkable facts on both sides and less speculation, but it is a bit repetitive. That is not in itself terrible, but it is just slightly disorganized.Createangelos (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First section

"Jackson and Jordan had become friends in May 1992, to the father's disapproval and concern"

is this OK? I thought Evan Chandler had been supporting JC's friendship with Jackson up until a later time?

137.205.56.18 (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi, the first section is still a bit of a mess. What should be there is a careful chronology of the statements/accusations with better references and exact dates. There seems to be repetition of material from the Arvizo article and from later sections which could be referred to rather than repeated.

It would be good to have some proof one way or another about whether the Chandler drawing matched; eg if a copy has become available somewhere. It is too bad it wasn't introduced into evidence early enough by the prosecutor. Speculation about that seems to dominate this section for some reason.

It would also be good to find statements from some of the abuse victims now grown up, first-hand accounts of what happened to them.

In the meantime what exists out there (and should exist here) is the actual text of statements or accusations, who were they made to, who were they made by, and when and in what form (verbally, written, sworn etc).

Createangelos (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have managed to mess up the references. I deleted that long paragraph about the Arvizo trial (wrong accuser!) from the first section, now it says some references aren't used in the text. I am not sure how to fix this so I'll let someone else either revert my edit or finish it properly. Sorry! Createangelos (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


"It would also be good to find statements from some of the abuse victims now grown up, first-hand accounts of what happened to them".

You mean the ALLEGED abuse victims!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.84.104 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

POV problems

The point of view of this article is not very neutral. The writers, in particular, go out of their way to disparage the motives of everyone who criticized Jackson— even though he clearly was guilty of, at the very minimum, spectacularly poor judgement. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


Hi, just to say I agree with this, that it isn't neutral, but I think it the other way. Not based on careful history of what is known and proven, for example the quote by one of the jurors who said in his personal opinion MJ was guilty is repeated twice, and the article ends with the quote 'he'll do it again.'


Yes, that alleged quote was supposed to be by one of *two* jurors who appeared along with the other jurors on TV after the trial. They were talking about how they did not like Janet Arvizo in particular. Strangely enough, however, it turns out that not too long after that the same two had been in talks to write a book...All around the same time of this quote. However, the book deal plan ended all up in the air. Even Thomas Mesereau was disgusted that he had been offered a book deal...as long as he gave sensationalism /dirt on Michael Jackson. When he refused point blank, the book deals quickly went away. Sign of the *horrible* times we live in.


The article should really be written from the evidence more. Look also at http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/charles-thomson-the-2005-trial-media-coverage-was-one-of-the-most-shameful-episodes-in-journalistic-history/ giving an account of the media accounts in the later Arvizo trial compared to what was taking place.

It would be nice to have as many as possible things in this article be matters of established truth, not so much he-said she-said. The fact that one juror said he doesn't believe that a grown man can sleep 365 days yaer with young boys around, without something happenign, on general principles, is really strange and irrelevant to include, and even stranger to include twice. Maybe the general principle whether Jackson was affectionate to children in an intimate but not sexual way is a question to include but the jurists' speculation shouldn't be significant just because he happened to be a jurist who found him innocent of the charges based on the evidence.

Hope that's clear. This article is a terrible tit-for-tat of opinion as it is. 92.14.232.209 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


By the way also, with all those hundreds and hundreds of boys, all grown up now, why don't we get some quotes and descriptions day-by-day of all the abuse from back then. Why not all the eyewitness accounts, from all those years ago. Jackson isn't alive paying anyone off not to talk. Why don't we get some of those people's eyewitness accounts, and put references to them?

Or, if they don't exist, please less of the sleaze.

92.14.232.209 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It was not introduced early enough because they knew that without Jordan Chandler testifying they could not use it, they also couldn't just use Sneddon's "belief" that it matched either.

The drawing that Jordan gave has been printed in Victor Gutierrez's book, Victor had befriended Evan Chandler at some point in 1993. Victor had also sought out and spoken to Joy Robson, Wade Robson's mother in 1992, telling her that Michael was a pedophile. Joy contacted Michael to tell him about this, according to Jermaine Jackson's recent Michael biography, "You Are Not Alone." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntanapixies (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that quotes like this...Especially with no proof, are strange ones to use as they are of no real significance, considering it is something a member of the jury allegedly said - and which would have being nothing more than personal thoughts / feelings. Also, there were actually two jurors - one female, where is unproven story came from, and it was later revealed that they were having negotiations in regarding to writing a book. Sounded as familiar as some others who had done same regarding Michael Jackson!. However, it turned out that these two same juries took part with the other jurors in an ABC production - which can be viewed on YouTube - where they were acting the complete opposite, (pro-Jackson) when talking about the trial and the Arvizos. There was no more rumour/ talk about any of them publishing a book.

Also, Michael Jackson did not have children in his home and especially his bedroom quarters "365" days of any year. How on earth someone can make such a baseless statement is beyond comprehension. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.84.104 (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I Think You're The One With The POV Problem

To the person who wrote on the talk page that Michael Jackson was guilty. I think it sounds like you're the one with the POV problem here. Did you know Michael personally? Have you talked to him about his life? No. I don't think so.

You cannot judge a person like that without knowing who they are and talking to them. Michael was a caring and lovely person. He worked hard and obviously he became successful because of that hard work. Some people are jealous of people who work hard and are successful like Michael was. They are so jealous that they will do anything to take advantage of kind people. Maybe you should stop believing everything you read and hear and start thinking for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.204.30 (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

hahahaha amazing. MrBook (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

the photos and more information

The public is still missing many things on the case but it's hard to write them all to a comment. I will only mention a few things.

The boys description was about a splotch “which is a light color similar to the color of his face”. Later Sneddon mislead the public assuming that people have a bad memory. Sneddon talked about a dark blemish in the examination which make the description totally wrong without any similarity.

Members of grand jury (2 in Santa Barbara and 1 in LA)gave an interview to Larry King and they said no damaging evidence was heard that the prosecution didn't even asked them to vote for an indictment. The first 2 grand jury met and finished prior to the settlement.

Jackson's 5th Amendment right was violated. Plus he was the only one that asked for the civil trial to postpone and begin after the criminal trial would be over. He was the only one asking for justice. But he was never charged because there was no evidence.

The amount of the settlement was 15,331,250 not 22millions. The Chandlers could still testify in a criminal trial according to the settlement document. In fact the prosecution didn't even need Jordan Chandler because according to the 1991 law the alleged victims didn't need to testify. A relative could speak for them or a police officer that interviewed them. That was already done in the grand jury and they didn't find merit in it. Sneddon changed the law after this case.

/////

Spot on! However, the only correction to be made here is: The one to report the story to the police was the psychiatrist Dr. Abrams, who Evan Chandler - after further talks with his lawyer - had previously contacted in order to put forward a theoretical question regarding child abuse, while also asking for advice. It was out of this conversation that Abrams typed a the letter which Chandler used to take to the behind closed doors meeting he had demanded of Michael Jackson; he then used the letter as a form of blackmail while demanding money from Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson refused and Chandler stormed out shouting that he would ruin him, that he would never work again, etc.

It was later on, when the court ordered Chandler to return his son to his mother, that Evan Chandler quickly arranged to treat his son at his dental practice for a supposed dental procedure. After Jordan's alleged confession during this procedure, Chandler again contacts Dr. Abrams. It was Abrams who (as part of his moral obligation concerning his line of work )decided to contact the police. It was the police who then leaked it to the media.

Truth is, Evan Chandler walked straight to a Civil (Money) lawyer instead of the police and / or child protection services - then demanded to meet Michael Jackson behind closed doors to demand 20 million, or he will go to the *media* (Anything but the proper authorities),instead. He had NEVER contacted the relevant people along the way. He was STILL there, months later, fighting for money, while STILL avoiding going to the police /Child Protection Services OR media. It was Dr. Abrams who reported his concerns as part of his work ethic.

In the end, Dr. Abrams was the one to report the supposed abuse which Chandler - after further advice from his lawyer - had previously theorised to Abrams over the phone. This way, if things went awry, Chandler would not be held liable, as it was a third-party who contacted the police.

the settlement date

According to the actual settlement document the procedure took place on January 25th not on January 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.55.123 (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

POV Problems?

You cannot judge a person like that without knowing who they are and talking to them. Michael was a caring and lovely person.

Your first statement is a demand for someone else not to press their point of view. Your second line is completely your own personal point of view.

Black, Kettle, Pot, look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.211 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC) 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.89.89 (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually No

No actually saying that Michael was a caring and lovely person isn't just my point of view. You only have to hear him talk and look at him when he talks to know that he cared about the suffering in the world.

Final section appears to be vandalism?

The final section of this article, "Jackson Innocent Jordan Chandeler admit he lied", appears to be an uninformed and possibly vandalizing edit. At the very least is extremely poorly written and does not seem well informed. I suggest this section be removed until it can be reviewed for factual accuracy, re-written, and properly cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.9 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

filed motion reveals more details

A filed motion dated March 22 2005 for the defense, reveals that police interviewed Jordan Chandler both prior and after the settlement and as a result no criminal charges were brought. His statements could not support molestation charges against Michael Jackson page 10 paragraphs 25-27 & page 11 paragraphs 2-3.

http://www.mj-777.com/03_2005memo.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.83.31 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

the actual amount of settlement

The leaked document reveals the factual amount. It was 15,331,250. Not 22millions. It was taxed and the lawyers were paid from this amount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.83.31 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

SO ARE YOU SAYING EVANS KILLED HIMSELF OUT OF GUILT. GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! PAUL BARRESI

corrections and further info

1)The amount and date of settlement are wrong. It is 15,331,250 and January 25 accordingly.

2) There was a Frontline episode on tabloids "covering" the case aired on February 1994

http://mjtruthnow.com/2010/01/frontline-report-exposes-media-scandal/

3) Dimond who has been discredited more than she can even recall and count, lied (among countless things) about how she broke the story. Nobody called her to give her anything. Her own boss,Burt Kearns, discredited her in his book "Tabloid Baby" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.82.54 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This article has serious POV issues (as already mentioned)

We already know wikipedia has an issue with vandalism, etc. but to blatantly type an article that is nothing more than fan spin is absolutely outrageous.

Please try to make this article as neutral as possible. Many people believe differently about Michael Jackson and the goal for this page should be to provide facts and let the researcher figure it out themselves.

For example, I stumbled upon this page after Jackson died and it made me believe he was innocent. However, following my own tedious research, I have found otherwise, that he was guilty of at least two molestations.

Also, Evan Chandler never admitted that sodium amytal was used. That is a horrendous factual inaccuracy.

As for Jordie Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's penis, there should be discussion of why Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce the drawings and description into evidence if it was such a terrible and glowing mismatch. If the editors plan to say the description didn't match, there should be talk of why Sneddon wanted it in.

Michael Jackson fans should not be allowed to misstate evidence and write clear biased articles on Jackson just because they enjoy his music and dancing and think he's a "wonderful" person. Wikipedia shouldn't devolve into a fan site. 70.170.123.205 (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe he is guilty is your own personal POV which isn't permissible. You need copious evidence to back up such a belief if you want to express that sentiment in the article.
Not only did Dr. Chandler's partner Mark Torbriner admit to using some sort of chemical on Jordan, as documented in the article, the fact that DA Sneddon wanted pictures of Jackson's genitals is not damning evidence of guilt. He also wanted videos of Jackson dangling "Blanket" in Germany and brought in flaky witnesses from 1994 that the prosecution already knew back then couldn't be trusted. The reason some of this stuff was banned was because it was irrelevant and didn't count as evidence of molestation. If the pictures were so accurate it would have warranted an indictment or conviction back in 1994 and Judge Melville, a personal friend of Tom Sneddon, would have allowed it. Instead the Chandlers' lawyer Larry Feldman wanted the pictures of Jackson's genitals stricken from the 1994 trial. Apparently the plaintiff side wasn't so secure that the photos matched their descriptions and backed them up if they wanted the photos stricken from the trial, a fact I documented in the article. Also, the prosecution simply wanted the pictures presented but not Jordan's description or Jordan himself at the trial. Apparently they weren't too confident in the description or Jordan's testimony since they could say anything they want about the photos without a description or testimony to confirm it. If they wanted this irrelevant evidence admitted they could have simply subpoenaed Jordan to testify or used his description. This also borders on double jeopardy since there was already a trial in 1994 to judge if Jordan was drugged and told the truth or if Jackson's genitalia matched the contradicting descriptions. There is no reason to assume the juries in 1994 were any less competent than the one from 2005.
Facts like these have to be included as well. Not simply claims from the prosecution with an omission of any facts to the contrary.Full Shunyata (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? What Research Was That?

"However, following my own tedious research, I have found otherwise, that he was guilty of at least two molestations". What research did you look at? From looking up some websites you can prove that someone is guilty of molestation can you? That's a very serious thing to say without actual proof. You ain't a lawyer so you wouldn't know what information to look for. No website is going to be unbiased because it will be written by someone with a point of view that been formulated already so a website that suggests Michael was guilty is just as bias as one saying he's innocent. Just because the article is not what you want to hear doesn't mean that it has a POV problem.

If you want to know why Michael paid off these families who accused him of molesting their kids it wasn't because he was guilty. It was because these people obviously wanted money so Michael figured he'd give them what they wanted and they'd shut up which they did. Today Jordy Chandler is living it up off the money that Michael paid out to him and he's living under a fake name. If he didn't lie about Michael abusing him then what has he got to hide?

As for Gavin Arvizio. We first met him in Martin Bashir's documentary, Living With Michael Jackson. In the documentary Gavin actually said that he slept on the bed of Michael and Micahel himself slept on the floor. It was only after this documentary that the Arvizio family accused Michael of abusing their son. Suggests that perhaps all they wanted was their 15 minutes of fame?

If Michael really did molest these kids no amount of money would be able to fix what he did and obviously these families did put a price on what Michael "supposedly" did because once they got their millions from him that was it.

Michael was a caring and generous person who worked hard for what he had and some people tend to be jealous of it unfortunately so if they have an opportunity to exploit a person Michael they will. Perhaps if he wasn't so nice he would've seen it coming aye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.89.89 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No Proof Of Insurance Paying Settlement

Article has serious problems and one glaring problem has to do with the "insurance" payment. In fact, the statement at the head of the paragraph talking about the settlement cites a source (Smokinggun) but doesn't corroborate any evidence that an "insurance" paid the settlement.

This wikipedia article is heavily censored by people who want to make Michael Jackson into something he was not. It clearly needs a thorough re-write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.204.131 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

////////////// — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.77.148 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

"This wikipedia article is heavily censored by people who want to make Michael Jackson into something he was not. "


???? And what is the "something" you assume he is not???

//////////////


The presence of at least one insurer is mentioned here (http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf) and in this line from the settlement document: "Each of the aforementioned individuals agrees that they will not at any time disclose any information concerning the contents of this Confidential Settlement to anyone, including, without limitation any investigator (current or former), expert or consultant hired in connection with the Action, representative of any media, family members and friends; provided, however, that the Parties may make disclosures as may be necessary or required by law to tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or the consultant hired in connection with the Settlement Payment to the Minor as provided in paragraphs 3.а. (1}-(5) hereinabove."
It's a minor detail at best since whether or not an insurer was involved is not evidence of molestation since civil trials don't deal with crime and a civil settlement can't be used as evidence of criminal guilt. Civil trials deal with tort, debts, deeds, custody and property. Child molestation is a crime and can't be resolved out of court, nor was it in this case as the criminal case resumed in early 1994 after the Chandlers had it postponed at the end of 1993. Full Shunyata (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


It is people like you who have "serious problems" - and part of this is "glaringly" obvious - in that you didn't research enough to know that such a document EXPLAINING what you are denying actually exists. It is not about anyone “…trying to make Michael Jackson out to be something he is not”, as you put it. It is about facts that can be backed-up, such as here. You did not know because you did not do thorough research or, by the sounds of the rest of your comment, you probably did a biased/one-sided research. Either way, as the other poster had kindly pointed out to you via a link, such a LEGAL document DOES exist!

"the Parties may make disclosures as may be necessary or required by law to tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or the consultant" reads like legal boilerplate verbiage, not necessarily proof that any tax advisors, accountants, taxing authorities, insurers, or consultants were involved, just that they may be involved if necessary or required by law. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Friendship, tape recording, allegations and negotiations

I'd like to see more of the tape recording transcript as it has Evan Chandler talking to Jordy's stepfather, planning the accusation but not having decided what to accuse mj of.


(added June '11 : Hi, I'm pleased that someone responded to the above over the last several months, and that the article includes some relevant info now. An aspect of the Schartz-Chandler conversation that is relevant to this article is that E. Chandler made non-sexual allegations first, and these changed over time, for example chronologically at least after lawyers got involved. 89.241.45.95 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC))


I don't know why the spam websites are around falseley saying jordan chandler has recanted, at the same time it seems clear that the allegations had been planned before they were made and can't have made sense. Too bad there is so much spin and disinformation on both sides. 92.14.232.209 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the full transcript of Evan Chandler speaking with David Schwartz (http://mjtruthnow.com/2011/02/transcript-of-david-schwartz-and-evan-chandler-taped-conversation/)
There is no evidence that Jordan has recanted publicly but according to Jackson's lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jordan has recanted to his friends. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0) We don't know this for certain as a fact but it seemed the prosecution didn't want to touch the issue since they refused to subpoena Jordan to testify in 2005.Full Shunyata (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent developments

There should be something at the top about Jordan admitting he lied publicly 3 hours after Micheals death. It should also be noted that Evan himself underwent several plastic surgeries to hide from angry MJ fans. He basically ruined everyones lives including his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allusernamesalreadyinuse (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no valid reference for the story that JC made a public statement, and the other coments aren't about the article. Createangelos (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an urban myth that Jordy recanted his allegations. No blogs stating this have any sources what-so-ever. If there was even a possibility that the molestation never took place, the Jackson family would certainly have taken legal action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.106.93 (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree - though I do NOT believe Michael Jackson molested anyone and support this in various ways, I have to agree, there is NO evidence of Jordan Chandler recanting anything of the sort and I wish some Michael Jackson fans, (to which I am one) would stop repeating this. Maybe one day, who knows, but at present, it is NOT true!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.104.181 (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Introductory Section, Schwarz recording

I have moved my comment earlier in the article, and deleted the clause which is quoted as being on the tape recording but is not on the tape recording. No POV problem, if Evan Chandler said that, put it in the section about that other conversation. Createangelos (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Description of Michael's genitals; other information

One key piece of information about the strip search that is being left out of the article (not on purpose, I'm sure): Jordy Chandler specifically stated that Michael was circumcised. The strip search revealed that Michael was NOT circumcised. (The main/major inaccuracy in Jordy's description). This inaccuracy is documented in Taraborrelli's book. Michael's 2009 autopsy (which was also released online) also confirms that he was uncircumcised.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminoth187 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also be noted that Evan Chandler and his son were both Jewish, and so therefore were both circumcised. Considering a note about how a 13 year old wouldn't be able to tell the difference, I think it should be noted that it would have almost certainly contrasted his own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntanapixies (talk • contribs) 18:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have personally viewed any of the parties involved genitals, your comment is merely speculation which does not belong on this talk page.173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary of this time period in main article on Michael Jackson

I came to his article to find out, I came to this article believing he did. There's a reportedly early on I missed, but it's very one sided. The talk page there archives every comment after a month without replies, so I thought this would be better. Consensus may be impossible but while it's worked out here, can we have 2 opposing probable stories, or colour coded, or alternating opposing statements? What's relevant wiki policy on the number of allegedlys and who we can trust? If confession was from a kid on drugs that's important, which drug(s?) important, dodgy status of dentist known to aggressive lawyer. etc. As it stands, the non-paedo evidence in the summary is a phone call proving at least that for $20m Chandler will let someone he says is a paedo continue to sleep in the same bed as children. Which could be true of lots of people. And a lot on how nice he is, which is all over this talk page as well and isn't relevant. One side knows, the other doesn't care. The debate is on how mental he was. Also, Chandler's death 5 months after Michael's (that happened, right? It was only one sentence.) is surely relevant. A pdf note is probably too much to hope for, but was he hounded by fans during that time, with his son at all during the time, taking anything?

Just to clarify my level of bias: Not a fan, just bored of media truth I'd never seen the evidence of.

2001:630:E4:423D:8000:2BF0:9B16:5F4C (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Jordy Chandler

Jordy Chandler redirects here, but nothing is mentioned about Jordy. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordan "Jordy" Chandler is mentioned. --Naaman Brown (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wade Robson and James Safechuck allegations

Do you think the Robson and Safechuck allegations should be separated into a separate article? Both this and the Trial of Michael Jackson articles mention their cases. Sega31098 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, per WP:Due weight. The reports are not notable enough for their own articles, and there is not enough material on them to validate having separate articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Presentation

This article has poor presentation and seems a mess. Can someone make sections and subchapters to make it easier to read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:6D7A:A70A:B7B7:7EC2 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Recently added material

I removed the text that Ryan1783 (talk · contribs) recently added. Ryan1783, see WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources; that is what we are supposed to go by for such content. WP:Due weight too. Do not re-add unsourced material or any more WP:Hidden notes asking or telling editors not to remove the unsourced material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations/Archive_2&oldid=1236011914"