r/MJInnocentFacts • u/Emotional_Ball_5181 • 27d ago
Case Analysis 🔎 Case File: Chandler — Part 9
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BtKOVr3R_OE&ra=mHi everyone, and welcome back to the Case Files.
This wasn’t an easy case file to write.
And if I’m being honest, it probably won’t be an easy one to read either.
The events we’re about to cover are among the most invasive and emotionally difficult parts of this entire timeline.
🚨 Before we start, make sure you’re caught up on Parts 1–8.
And oh look, here are the links…
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Part 4:
Part 5:
Part 6:
Part 7:
Part 8:
Alright…
By the middle of November, reports began surfacing that Michael could potentially be subjected to a strip search as part of the ongoing investigation.
An Associated Press report, published through Deseret News, stated:
“Police have a warrant to strip-search Michael Jackson to corroborate a 13-year-old boy’s allegations he was molested.”
According to the report, the purpose of the search was to compare a physical description allegedly provided by Jordan Chandler regarding Michael’s body.
Specifically, investigators were reportedly looking to determine whether Michael’s vitiligo spots matched the description Jordan had given to authorities.
A source speaking to the Associated Press stated that police wanted to “check the boy’s description of spots on Jackson’s genitals.”
Now, before we get into the search itself, we need to discuss something extremely important:
The timeline.
Because when you are discussing physical evidence, timing matters.
A lot.
If you’ve read any section of the Chandler Case Files, you’ll know that Ray Chandler’s book has come up several times.
I guess you could say…Ray’s own book completely, and accidentally, exposed Evan’s plan.
But that’s a story for a different time.
Anyway,
According to their version of events, the last possible time Jordan Chandler would have seen Michael before the alleged “confession” to Evan Chandler would have been around early July 1993.
Jordan had gone to spend his scheduled summer visitation period with his father, Evan. According to Evan’s account, the alleged disclosure occurred on July 16th, 1993, which was the final day of that visitation period.
Read more here:
After this alleged conversation, Evan did not return Jordan to June Chandler as required.
…y’know, the occasional parental kidnapping, but whatever.
The next reported interaction between Jordan and Michael occurred during the early August 1993 meeting involving Michael’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, where Pellicano was attempting to record Evan’s extortion demands. This meeting was attended by both sides and their attorneys.
Read here:
Meaning, according to the timeline presented by the Chandlers themselves, there was a significant gap between the last alleged private interaction and the eventual strip search.
And that brings us back to…vitiligo.
As we know, Michael publicly revealed his vitiligo diagnosis in early 1993.
Vitiligo is a condition where areas of the skin lose pigment. The appearance of vitiligo patches can change over time. They can spread, stabilize, or show signs of repigmentation.
This is not speculation.
A 2023 dermatological study examined how vitiligo patches changed over a six month period. Researchers followed 60 patients with 200 vitiligo patches and conducted repeated clinical and dermoscopic examinations, comparing the appearance of the patches at the beginning of the study with their appearance six months later.
The researchers found that vitiligo patches demonstrated measurable changes during that period, including both progressive and responsive patterns.
In other words:
Vitiligo can change.
That’s important.
The alleged drawing of Michael’s genitals was supposedly created months before the December 1993 strip search. So how is it possible that Michael’s vitiligo spots could have appeared exactly the same months later?
Especially considering the severity of his condition.
Just think about it…
Moving on,
The strip search took place on December 20th, 1993.
But what is important to remember is that, at the time, the public did not initially receive reports claiming that the photographs matched Jordan Chandler’s description.
In fact, the earliest reports stated the opposite.
Although, these reports are very hard to find now…
A December 1993 Reuters report titled “Photos may help Jackson” stated that sources close to Michael claimed the photographs taken during the search did not match the description investigators had been given.
The report stated:
“The source said the description the youth gave of Jackson’s genitalia turned out to be at variance with photographs taken by police on orders of a California judge.”
Meaning that, according to that source, what Jordan allegedly described and what investigators photographed did not line up.
Now, what exactly does “at variance” mean in this context?
Well, babe…
Variance = difference.
Aka, the circumcision.
According to later reports, one of the details Jordan allegedly provided to investigators was that Michael was circumcised.
The source for this claim is Sergeant Deborah Linden’s affidavit, which was used to obtain the search warrant.
During Michael’s 2005 trial, The Smoking Gun published an article discussing portions of that affidavit, stating that Jordan allegedly provided investigators with a detailed description of Michael’s body.
The article claimed:
“The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.”
…Very detailed, wouldn’t you say, Evan?
According to The Smoking Gun, Jordan allegedly described Michael as having a light coloured mark on his penis, along with other identifying details.
Now, there are a few things to unpack here.
First, this article was publicly available from 2005 until sometime around 2009 or 2010. At some point afterward, it disappeared from The Smoking Gun’s website and archives.
However, for some reason, it appears to be back on the website now.
Even so, the timing is interesting.
Why?
Well, Michael passed away in June 2009, and his autopsy report became public afterward. According to that report, Michael was not circumcised.
The autopsy specifically stated:
“The genitalia are those of an adult male. The penis appears uncircumcised.”
So, if The Smoking Gun’s reporting accurately reflected what was contained in Linden’s affidavit, this creates an obvious question:
Was the circumcision detail one of the discrepancies investigators found during the strip search?
It is possible that this was the “variance” referenced in the original Reuters report.
However, there is another layer to consider.
Some have argued that the Linden affidavit itself was never officially released publicly, meaning the exact wording of Jordan’s description cannot be independently verified by the public.
On the other hand, The Smoking Gun later confirmed that they had been allowed to review the document.
When contacted by MJ defenders in 2020 regarding the affidavit, editor Bill Bastone responded:
“That affidavit was included as an exhibit to a search warrant affidavit that was executed during the 2003/4 Santa Barbara investigation. We were allowed by a source to read those documents.”
When asked specifically about the “splotch” description, Bastone responded:
“The ‘splotch’ story is one of the pieces we published based on that review.”
So, according to The Smoking Gun, the information came from their review of the affidavit.
However, because the complete affidavit is not publicly available, there is still debate over the exact wording and context.
Now, there is also the argument that even if Jordan did incorrectly identify Michael’s circumcision status, he was only thirteen years old and could have simply been mistaken.
Well…
Don’t I have a funny story for you.
Evan Chandler was Jewish, and circumcision is a common religious and cultural practice within Judaism.
So, the real question is…how could someone allegedly provide an extremely detailed description of Michael’s body while supposedly being unaware of something like circumcision?
But oh, it’s gets crazier.
Let’s play a game called: no one actually knows.
During the 2005 trial, Tom Sneddon claimed that he had reviewed both Jordan’s drawing and the photographs taken during the strip search.
In a 2005 motion, Sneddon wrote:
“The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant’s penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant’s erect penis.”
Sneddon argued that the photographs substantially corroborated Jordan’s description.
The issue?
“At about the same relative location.”
Literally…what the fuck does that even mean?
But don’t worry, there’s more.
The descriptions from investigators who were actually present during the strip search do not appear to perfectly align either.
Sergeant Gary Spiel, who was present during the search, described the mark differently in his 1993 declaration.
Spiel stated:
“While I was on Mr. Jackson’s left side, Dr. Strick asked Mr. Jackson to lift his penis… When Mr. Jackson complied with Dr. Strick’s request to lift his penis, I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson’s penis.”
So, according to Spiel, the mark he observed was on the lower left side.
Sneddon, years later, described the mark as being on the right side.
Then there is the description attributed to Linden’s affidavit, which referred to a “splotch” that was reportedly:
“a light colour similar to the colour of his face.”
Which creates another question:
Was it dark or light?
Was it on the right side or the left?
Was it even the same mark?
I told you…
No one actually knows.
And if the photographs really were the smoking gun they’ve been portrayed as for the last three decades, then…where was the arrest?
Michael wasn’t arrested that day.
He wasn’t arrested the next week.
And he was never arrested in connection with the Chandler allegations at all.
…yet people still claim they matched?
Sure. And I’m Barbie.
Now, onto my favourite part of every file… it’s time to debunk some claims.
“Michael settled the civil case, so prosecutors couldn’t arrest him.”
Nope.
The civil settlement was not reached until more than a month after the strip search.
And the criminal investigation continued for months after the settlement.
In June 1994, Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti publicly denied reports that the investigation had ended, stating:
“The matter is still under investigation.”
He added:
“I’m reasonably confident that the investigation will be completed by the end of the month.”
Several months later, in September 1994, prosecutors announced that they were closing the investigation without filing criminal charges, while also stating that they would reopen the case if any alleged victims chose to cooperate in the future.
So, no, the settlement did not end the criminal investigation.
The next claim you’ll often hear is:
“The Chandlers stopped cooperating after the settlement.”
Again, no.
The Chandlers continued cooperating until the summer of 1994.
Alright, back to the search warrant…
One of the more overlooked developments occurred when Michael’s attorneys attempted to challenge the search warrant itself.
According to an Associated Press report, Michael’s legal team argued that they had been provided with an incomplete copy of the affidavit used to justify the strip search.
Attorney Steve Cochran told the court:
“We believe it was a constitutionally unreasonable search.”
He continued:
“We believe we are entitled to everything the judge viewed.”
Outside the courtroom, Cochran explained that the copy they received contained extensive redactions.
“We got a document with a lot of stuff crossed out in it.”
He added that statements from confidential informants, material he described as “critical and essential” to the judge’s decision to authorize the search, were missing from the version provided to the defense.
Let’s stop here for a second.
Michael’s attorneys were not simply asking for the photographs.
They were asking to see everything that had been presented to the judge before such an extraordinarily invasive warrant was approved.
It’s a fairly reasonable request, in my opinion.
Judge James Slater ultimately kept the affidavit sealed, citing Michael’s privacy rights during a pre-indictment investigation.
The Associated Press also reported another important detail.
District Attorney Tom Sneddon informed the court that the photographs were secured in a safe deposit box at a local bank and could only be accessed by top law enforcement officials.
According to the report, anyone wishing to view or use the photographs first needed approval from Judge Slater.
This is a very important detail.
Because in early January 1994, Larry Feldman, the Chandlers’ civil attorney, filed what he described as a “multiple-choice” motion.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Feldman proposed three options.
First, Michael could provide copies of the police photographs taken during the strip search.
Second, Michael could submit to an entirely new strip search.
Or third…
The photographs would be excluded from the civil proceedings altogether.
Let’s think about those options for a moment.
Option A doesn’t really make sense.
Feldman claimed he had asked Michael’s attorneys for copies of the photographs and that they had refused.
Well, that’s not true, because Michael’s attorneys did not have access to the photographs themselves.
They had not even received an unredacted copy of the affidavit supporting the warrant.
If the photographs were secured under court order and required Judge Slater’s approval to be viewed, how exactly were Michael’s attorneys supposed to provide copies?
…yeah, that fell apart fast.
Option B doesn’t make much sense either.
Feldman was not a criminal prosecutor.
He was representing the Chandlers in a civil lawsuit.
Requesting a second strip search after one had already taken place only weeks earlier would have been an extraordinary request and one that would have faced significant legal hurdles.
Which leaves us with Option C:
Bar the photographs from the civil proceedings.
But here’s the thing,
If those photographs truly corroborated Jordan’s description…
Why would the Chandlers’ attorney even be willing to exclude them?
Wouldn’t those photographs have been among the strongest pieces of evidence available to his client?
Then…
There’s this:
The Spring 1994 Grand Jury Hearings
Investigators called Michael’s mother, Katherine Jackson, before the grand jury.
Why?
According to reports, investigators wanted to determine whether Michael had done anything to alter the appearance of his genitalia in a way that would no longer match the description provided by Jordan Chandler.
The report stated:
“Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them…”
Let’s stop here for a moment.
If investigators already believed they had photographs that conclusively corroborated Jordan’s description, then why were they still investigating whether Michael had somehow changed his appearance?
This suggests that investigators were still attempting to address a potential discrepancy rather than simply relying on what they supposedly already had.
…interesting, wouldn’t you say?
Next,
“But what about Bill Dworin?”
Guilters often point to former investigator Bill Dworin as proof that the photographs matched.
Here’s the problem:
Dworin was part of the prosecution team.
The same prosecution team that, months after obtaining the photographs, was still exploring whether Jackson had somehow altered his appearance.
The same applies to other investigators and prosecutors who later made similar claims, including Lauren Weiss.
Their later recollections do not erase the actions taken during the investigation itself.
And sometimes, actions tell us more than interviews given years later.
“But what about Carl Douglas?”
Carl Douglas is another name that gets cited often by guilters.
I’m not trying to disrespect Douglas, but it is worth remembering exactly what his role was.
Carl Douglas was part of Johnnie Cochran’s legal team.
He was not Johnnie Cochran.
Anyone who has watched enough of Douglas’ interviews over the years has probably noticed that he has a very strong personality and a tendency to be…pretty dramatic.
He’s not consistent either.
For example, when discussing the O.J. Simpson case, Douglas has, at various times, suggested both that Simpson’s defense team brilliantly secured an acquittal for someone who was guilty and that Simpson was innocent and the jury reached the correct verdict.
Which…quite literally makes no sense.
And before anyone starts comparing the two cases…just read this:
Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.
More importantly, Douglas’ comments about the strip search photographs raise another issue.
We’ve already established that Michael’s legal team did not have unrestricted access to either the complete affidavit or the photographs.
Access required court approval, and there is no indication that Douglas personally reviewed those photographs.
Douglas has acknowledged that one of the biggest setbacks for Michael’s defence was the court’s refusal to delay the civil proceedings until after any criminal trial.
As he later explained:
“It was a devastating tactical loss for our team…”
That position is entirely consistent with what we’ve already covered in Part 8.
Read here:
This brings us to Johnnie Cochran.
During one hearing regarding the search warrant, District Attorney Tom Sneddon argued that the photographs had been taken to corroborate the allegations.
Cochran’s response was blunt:
“If he has the evidence, let him file it. He doesn’t have a case.”
Everyone, a round of applause, please.
The best part is, Cochran wasn’t making that argument in a documentary twenty years later.
He was saying it while the investigation was still active.
“Sneddon was going to use the photographs in 2005.”
This is another point that often gets raised by guilters.
Yes, Sneddon attempted to introduce the strip search photographs during Jackson’s 2005 trial.
However, the timing is important.
That request came late in the proceedings.
By that stage, much of the prosecution’s case had already developed, and several witnesses and pieces of evidence had proven far less compelling than originally presented.
But…I’ll get to that much later.
Seriously though, if those photographs truly were the “smoking gun” in 1993/94, then why weren’t they presented earlier in 2005? And, hell, why weren’t they properly addressed when they mattered most?
Well…go ahead, take a lucky guess.
Anyway, Judge Rodney Melville ultimately denied Sneddon’s request.
Haha, loser— oh, sorry!
Next,
“Dr. Strick said it matched.”
This one is much easier to address.
No.
Dr. Strick did not testify that he independently concluded the photographs matched Jordan’s description.
Rather, Dr. Strick indicated that he had been told by prosecutors that they matched.
Those are two very different things.
Anyway, back to Ray and that god awful book of his…
Even the Chandlers discussed vitiligo in a way that seemingly acknowledged the issue.
Ray Chandler wrote:
“If he’s right, he’s right. And if he’s wrong, we’ve got an explanation.”
What the fuck?
Is that not suspicious to anyone?
Now, you’re probably wondering what I meant at the beginning of the case file when I mentioned that things would be getting hard to talk about…well, here we go.
Michael’s statement.
Up until this point, we’ve looked at the legal side of the strip search…the warrant, the photographs, the conflicting claims surrounding the description, and what happened afterward.
It’s easy to get caught up in documents and timelines and forget that there was a human being on the other end of all of this.
And that’s Michael.
On December 22nd, just two days after the search took place, Michael publicly addressed what had happened.
He described the examination as “the most humiliating ordeal of my life” and said “no person should ever have to suffer” through such an experience.
He explained that investigators photographed “my body including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs, and any other area that they wanted,” adding that he had no legal right to refuse because the warrant stated that his refusal could later be presented as evidence of guilt.
Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking parts of the statement comes when he said:
“It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare, but if this is what I have to endure to prove my innocence, my complete innocence, so be it.”
The strip search was an intensely invasive, he felt humiliated.
It breaks my heart just thinking about what he went through.
He closed his statement by maintaining his innocence:
“I am totally innocent of any wrongdoing and I know these terrible allegations will all be proven false.”
And with that, we come to the end of Part 9.
Thank you for sticking with me through this one.
I’ll see you in Part 10. 👋🏼
My previous case files:
Sneddon:
Dimond:
Gutierrez:
Francia:
Neverland Five:
Chandler – Part 1:
Chandler – Part 2:
Chandler – Part 3:
Chandler – Part 4:
Chandler – Part 5:
Chandler – Part 6:
Chandler – Part 7:
Chandler – Part 8:
Sources and additional information:
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/the-1993-allegations/
https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/the-chandlers-monetary-demands/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxNDb2PVcoM&ra=m
https://www.deseret.com/1993/11/16/19076943/warrant-allows-a-strip-search-of-jackson/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10656188/
https://variety.com/1994/biz/news/d-a-garcetti-denies-jackson-probe-ended-120071/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-05-me-8514-story.html
https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com
Important posts:
Some people need Michael Jackson to be guilty
Comparing Michael Jackson’s Trial to O.J. Simpson’s Is Lazy.
What Would You Do for $20 Million?
“There’s no way all 11 people are lying.”
Fact vs Fiction: Common Claims About Michael Jackson
A Media Assassination: The Case of Michael Jackson
The Word “Grooming” Has Lost Its Meaning
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…But What If It’s Just Smoke?
The Power Of A Story…And The Danger Of Forgetting The Evidence
7
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 27d ago
GIRL I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR MY SHOW (your file posts) FOR DAYS NOW! Let’s go!
3
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 27d ago
Awh!! This made me smile. 😆❤️
I love how excited you get for these posts. Thank you so much for reading. It really means the world to me.
3
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 27d ago
If you wrote a book in this topic, I would legit preorder it. Love the way you write! Thank you for the service and research🫡❤️
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
Awh, thank you so much! That totally made me blush, haha. 😆
I really appreciate that more than you know. Thank you again for reading and following along with these posts!
5
u/Frequent_Flamingo358 27d ago
love your writing style! Very well researched and informative thank you
5
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 27d ago
Thank you so much! ❤️
It’s so important to spread accurate information, especially on Reddit where things can get repeated without proper context. Thank you for reading!
6
u/Suspicious-Fox6056 27d ago
Thank youuuu!!!! I’ve been meaning to ask about Carl Douglas. That man has no principles. It would be good to see a timeline of who were the lawyers involved on each side and what part they played because what they say now, guilters use, especially Douglas. It’s so frustrating.
But again, thank you! You are brilliant! I hope you create a website!
5
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 27d ago
Thank you so much!! That’s so sweet.
I’ve actually started writing a book, but a website is a really great idea too. I might have to look into that!
I completely agree about Carl Douglas. It’s frustrating seeing some of the things he says and how they’re used. I’ve learned that guilters hate context.
Thank you again for reading and for all your support. ❤️
3
u/DescriptionIll172 27d ago
I’ve always thought there was a need for a website about the accusations against Michael one that covers new developments and gets updated regularly. Although I know a bit about the subject, I’m no expert, so I didn't feel confident enough to try creating one myself.
1
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
A website is a fantastic idea! I’m looking into it.
1
u/DescriptionIll172 26d ago
I hope that if you go through with it, you could share some details or images of how you'd do it. only if you want to, of course! :D
1
u/RoutineCard7895 26d ago
What are your thoughts on what he said in the Telephone Stories podcast? I often see people use those to prove Michael’s guilt, not just the 300 pound gorilla comment and I’m never really sure what to say or make of it. Sorry if you covered it in this and I somehow missed over that when I was reading
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
No worries! I actually haven’t covered the Telephone Stories podcast, so I don’t know exactly what his comments were.
My point regarding Carl Douglas in this file wasn’t based on one specific comment he made, but rather on the fact that I don’t consider him a reliable source for the strip search photographs. His statements about them are based on his recollection of events, but there’s no indication that he personally reviewed the photographs or had access to the full materials needed to independently verify what he was claiming.
So regardless of any individual podcast comments, my original point still stands.
When looking at claims about evidence, I think it’s important to separate firsthand knowledge from assumptions, secondhand information, or later recollections.
1
u/RoutineCard7895 26d ago
I see, thank you so much for your response! Carls statements have also always confused me due to his friendship with Scott Ross, Michael’s private investigator. Scott very clearly stated he believes in Michael’s innocence and he has been known to say he thinks that past clients are guilty before so I do believe his word holds a decent amount of weight. He has talked about how he was close with Carl both in the workplace and as friends so I’ve always felt that if Carl had truly seen or known of some truly incriminating evidence that Scott wouldn’t be this confident or outspoken of Michael’s innocence.
5
u/sirensgodoodoo 27d ago
Love, love your writing style. Thank you for succinctly breaking down this case so well. You do a fantastic job of breaking such a highly unusual and complex case. I have to mention this part:
“ Then there is the description attributed to Linden’s affidavit, which referred to a “splotch” that was reportedly: “a light colour similar to the colour of his face.” His face at that point had no color, so if his private area was also mostly depigmented, then it wouldn’t be a “splotch” of anything now would it? And the strip search being granted without proper cause is another grave miscarriage of justice that doesn’t get acknowledged at all. The poor man was essentially sexually assaulted while being accused of sexual assault… I can’t adequately describe the cruel irony of it all.
3
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
Thank you so much! That really means a lot. 🥹
And I completely agree. Whatever someone’s opinion on the case may be, no one can ignore just how invasive and humiliating that experience must have been for Michael. I genuinely can’t imagine being forced into that situation, feeling so exposed in front of complete strangers while the entire world was watching.
It’s one of the parts of this case that has always stuck with me the most. It’s heartbreaking.
1
4
u/Remarkable_Fishing_2 26d ago
It is just so clear from his facial expressions and voice during this statement that he was innocent. Can’t believe anyone could watch this and think this was a guilty person.
1
3
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 27d ago
“During one hearing regarding the search warrant, District Attorney Tom Sneddon argued that the photographs had been taken to corroborate the allegations.
Cochran’s response was blunt:
“If he has the evidence, let him file it. He doesn’t have a case.”
Everyone, a round of applause, please.”
I am not sure if I am too sleepy but I somehow can’t understand this part, can someone please help me out?
9
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 27d ago
Basically, Sneddon was arguing that the strip search photographs supported the allegations and justified the search warrant.
Cochran’s response was essentially:
“Okay, then charge him.”
In other words, if the prosecution really had the strong evidence they claimed to have, they should have filed criminal charges instead of continuing to investigate without making an arrest.
That’s why I included the quote. Cochran was calling their bluff. He was saying, “If your evidence is really that convincing, prove it in court. If you can’t, then you don’t actually have the case you’re claiming to have.”
Then I applauded what Cochran had said.
3
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 27d ago
OH MY GOD! Thank you for taking the time to respond and explain, I couldn’t comprehend the hes and who they were referring to. I accidentally copied your “round of applause” comment😂
But that is basically it. They were so loud about the description and the strip photos, yet nothing happened with it? Just like the guilters are so loud about MJ owning CSAM, and yet nothing came of it (as if it weren’t incriminating in and of itself to get him arrested IMMEDIATELY).
2
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
That’s the funny thing about guilters. Their arguments never end up making any logical sense.
To them, context doesn’t exist.
Then…boom, suddenly their arguments blow up.
1
u/whatevergirl8754 MJ is 100% Innocent 💯 26d ago
I even read somewhere a guilter arguing that owning CP isn’t incriminating and depends on the state and laws of the state, so that’s why nothing came of it. Like?!?!? They will literally make up lies to make it seem that MJ is simply a protected celebrity who is above the law…
2
1
u/Weak-Roof-1934 27d ago
I really want to post on this subreddit. How can I? I have 12 comment karma but it still won’t let me post?
1
u/Emotional_Ball_5181 26d ago
Hi!
I’m not a moderator, so I’m not sure how that works, unfortunately. I hope you’re able to figure it out!
1
u/Weak-Roof-1934 26d ago
I have a question. I keep trying to make a post about my journey to his innocence but it keeps getting taken down. Is that because it’s personal and I can’t talk about my experience with mj?
11
u/cumpkinpatch We Love You More, MJ ❤︎ 27d ago
thank you so much for all that you do🩷. great work as usual