Talk:Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations/Archive 3

Strip Search
The very last line states this: ''Investigators made a probe into Jackson's history, including family interviews, to see if he had undergone procedures to alter his body's appearance, as the grand jury felt there was no clear match with Jordan's description.[61] '' I clicked the link provided and the article does NOT say that. First of all, Grand juries are held in secret and jurors are not allowed to comment on items of evidence they reviewed and their opinion on it. Secondly, the article provided does NOT say that. This is what the article says:

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 by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.

In my opinion, that entry needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewave90210 (talk • contribs) 11:54, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

Michael jackson is not guilty of any kind of sexual abuse

Semi-protect edit request
Since this page keeps getting constantly vandalized by random IP users (most recently in this case), I personally think that it should be semi-protected to prevent this from happening anymore. What do other people on here think about this? Pinging some other editors who have edited this article-,, , .Neateditor123 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * No objections to semi-protecting this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, but how do I actually do that? Or is that only an administrator's job, and if so, how do I let one know about this so they can do it?Neateditor123 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123
 * Article has been semi'ed for two weeks by CorbieVreccan. I agree, this is a good idea. aboideautalk 20:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What I did was ask for it at WP:Requests for page protection. Any user can file a request there unless blocked/banned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I also support a semi-protection policy because this topic is important and I believe these events need to be re-examined more thoroughly. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Smoking Gun
Hammelsmith, regarding this and this, like I stated, The Smoking Gun is a poor source to use. It matters not that other articles have used the source. See the prevuous discussions about it that took place at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I ask that you don't WP:Ping me to this page since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * No Smoking Gun sources, please. Popcornduff (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Additions
Hammelsmit, make sure that everything you are adding should actually be included. By this, I mean that not everything reported in the news needs to be included. Wikipedia articles are about summarizing the literature, not including every detail about everything. See WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also, it's best not to overuse blockquotes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Orth is not a good source.
She has written several sensationalist pieces on Michael Jackson. Partytemple (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Partytemple, I understand your position, but it would be nice if we could have definitive consensus on this.


 * Can we reasonably assume that J. Randy Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth may be considered reliable sources on this page?

May I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure what to say on the authors' works as a whole. It might be best to judge their uses on case-by-case basis. SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi SNUGGUMS, If the facts sourced in this page are undisputed, may they be considered reliable for the purposes of this article? Hammelsmith (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Her recent article after Leaving Neverland was released states "10 undeniable facts." Number 1 and 2 are misrepresented. Jackson has said that he shared his bedroom several times with both adults and kids. His bedroom is as large as a loft. Macaulay Culkin has said he shared a bed with Jackson but nothing untoward happened. Number 3 is disputed. Francia's settlement sum was never officially disclosed but some papers reported that figure for some reason. Number 4 is wrong. The drawing didn't match that's why Jackson was not arrested or indicted. Number 5 isn't very relevant to her argument, even if true. Number 6 is a distortion of facts. The FBI searched Jackson's home and found no evidence of child pornography but plenty of adult pornography. Number 7, like number 5, seems irrelevant to her argument. Are we suppose to be stupid enough to think that if no one (according to Orth) saw any woman visiting Jackson that must mean he's a pedophile? (In my own OR, I do believe Jackson had girlfriends, one of whom is incredibly famous. But this isn't necessary to see the absurdity in Orth's statements.) Number 8 and 9 are again irrelevant to proving or suggesting anything. Number 10 is the same distortion of 1 and 2. We can find alternative sources that frame the story and timeline far better than Orth. —Partytemple (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Partytemple, You also state that Taraborrelli is an unreliable source regarding Michael Jackson's first meeting with Lisa Marie Presley. Since the circumstances of their first meeting is verified by another source, may the tag by the Taraborrelli reference be removed?  Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The source has to be reputable. —Partytemple (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Partytemple, I understand. I'm referring to this source that I added a while ago? Hammelsmith (talk) 02:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Lisa Marie Presley story is a strange one. There are conflicting anecdotes regarding when they first met, and certain things don't add up to make their marriage plausible or legal. For example, they married less than three weeks after Presley's divorce was finalized, which is likely illegal. The source you cited says the same but seems fine for a Wikipedia article about the entertainment industry. I would just treat it like Entertainment Weekly or The Hollywood Reporter. —Partytemple (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I guess I haven't thought about the issue like that. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These authors are fine to use for claims that are also supported by other (trustworthy) sources, though I'd take caution with the Orth piece linked above per all of what Partytemple said. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright SNUGGUMS, that's fair enough. Could I just remove the unreliable tag by Taraborrelli's name since that bit of information is sourced as well as possible for the purposes of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammelsmith (talk • contribs)
 * I have no objections to it. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 03:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Maureen Orth is a very well respected, veteran journalist. I can't imagine calling her not qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 06:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * She has a history of lying and libel. In this interview for The Ringer she said, "It’s very important to understand that, given the huge amount of firepower these people had in terms of going after Vanity Fair and me legally, we were never, ever sued. We were extremely careful in fact-checking. We went through a very rigorous legal fact-checking process." Not true in the past or present. She is currently being sued for defamation for The Assassination of Gianni Versace, originally written by her. “Cassini Royale,” another article written by Orth, was the piece in question for the defamation lawsuit by Marianne Nestor-Cassini. Mohamed Al Fayed sued Orth, as well, reported by a writer who said, "Vanity Fair is basically People magazine for those who can read without moving their lips." Not to mention in the "10 undeniable facts" article above, she basically ignored all the counter-evidence against the allegations and even wrote some stuff contrary to police investigations reported by reputable news sources. —Partytemple (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello BudapestJoe & Partytemple, I'll be honest and say that I agree with BudapestJoe about Maureen Orth, but thank you to Partytemple for sharing those other articles. I've read a bit about Oleg Cassini's widow being accused of cheating her step-daughter out of her inheritance, but Orth wasn't the only one to write about that. I also know that Mohamed Al Fayed has never been shy when it comes to negative comments. I don't know much about the Versace suit, but I'll look into it. In the interest of fairness, I have accepted that Orth's articles be tagged with "unreliable source," because many people perceive her as biased or with some vendetta. I do not have that opinion, but I appreciate that others do. I just didn't want this article to be cluttered with "unreliable source" tags when that is not strictly necessary. I will say, as a general comment, that every published work, whether authored by Orth or Taraborrelli, must be fact-checked with verifiable sources before they are printed and distributed to the public. To my knowledge, Taraborrelli has always expressed his belief in Jackson's innocence. Maureen Orth clearly does not believe the same, but she did encounter people with real concerns about Michael Jackson's behaviour: a lady at the World Music Awards, police who spoke with June Chandler, "Thriller" dancer Eddie Reynoza, and Wade Robson's father. Perhaps the claims of these individuals were either false or exaggerated, perhaps not. Certainly irresponsible behaviour is not proof of any crime, but there must be integrity and accountability. Sorry for rambling so much, I only want to advocate fairness and observing all perspectives. Anyone has the right to disagree with me. Good faith, comrades. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ADVOCACY. I mean, if you want to maintain fairness as in WP:WEIGHT, you should only trust articles that practice that rule also. Orth's articles do not address the defendant side of the story and repeatedly cite other tabloid articles. Regardless of the result of her defamation suits, she still lied about not being sued, or in her words, "never ever sued." And she still insists that Jackson kept child pornography which is provably untrue. His FBI documents have been released for years proving he didn't have pedophilic tendencies, and she doesn't even bother to address it. It's no deep secret that Vanity Fair is close to the Hollywood media, which includes gossip columnists and publicists. They host the Oscar party every year. They don't have fact-checking rigor like WaPo or NYT. And Jackson's cases are so high profile and potentially criminal that reputable news sources reported on them. I think we can abandon Orth as a source, because she doesn't provide any better than the more trustworthy sources. —Partytemple (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

____

"Use of sedatives" section
Most of the section cites Fischer, who I assume is Mary Fischer the journalist who wrote "Was Michael Jackson Framed?" She thinks that sodium amytal was used on Jordan Chandler to "implant false memories." If a sedative was used, then his testimony would be inadmissible in investigations or courts. Is there a different source behind this rumor? Evan Chandler was the one who broke the story on May 1994 and this was a few months after the settlement, but the criminal investigation was still on going and Sneddon was still trying to get Jordan to testify. I suspect Evan Chandler broke this story to get out of testifying. Maybe we can find more sources behind this story. —Partytemple (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Partytemple, I think there would have to be proof that the sodium amytal claim did not happen before May 1994. I also think that Jordan Chandler would have had plenty of opportunity to make his accusations while not under the influence of a mind-altering drug, allegedly. It has been stated that the Chandlers definitively decided not to testify in July 1994. If I find anything to back your theory, I'll let you know. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sentences should be in article
I still think these sentences should be part of the article. The sources do not conflict.

"On August 17, 1993, Chandler took Jordan to a psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams. Over a three-hour session with Abrams, Jordan said he had had a sexual relationship with Jackson that went on for several months, and which included kissing, masturbation and oral sex. He repeated these allegations to police and gave a detailed description of what he alleged was Jackson's penis."

These sentences are supported by this source (pg 53), this source, and this source

I tried to explain to Partytemple that this is also outlined in Fischer from this text: "...without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a letter he stated 'reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.' ...On August 16, Freeman notified Rothman he would be filing papers the next morning...turn over the boy. Chandler took his son to Abrams."

And then this next sentence afterward, "Abrams noted in the Department of Children's Services report that he believed Jordan Chandler." (Fischer, pg 266-7) → link here

Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus?
 * Quite frankly, I don't trust the book sources very much. I've already fixed a few conflicting timeline issues with them, for example when Jordan first met Jackson. The AP source says the case file says February 1993. AP is more trustworthy than any of the books. Second, what you wrote is already partially explained in the introduction. What Jordan said to Abrams on August 17 seems irrelevant and unfitting for the section. Maybe it fits better in "Allegations." Abrams already wrote a letter apparently when he hasn't even met Jordan (?) I'm very dubious of how this happened. The generally accepted story is that Abrams reported it to the police and Jordan repeated what he alleged to the police. Sometime between July and August there were on-going negotiations between Chandler and Jackson about a settlement. When negotiations broke down, Chandler decided to go public with the story. This is already explained throughout the article. You should at least place some context so it's not misleading. —Partytemple (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Prior matter was resolved, but I still feel these sentences should be in the article:

"On December 28, 1993, Jordan Chandler submitted his official child abuse declaration. He described how Jackson allegedly evolved his physical contact with him: "The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me. The next...a brief kiss on the cheek." Chandler also alleged tongue kissing, nipple stimulation, and masturbation – stating that Jackson would cry if Chandler objected to receiving these acts."

I use this source for reference.

Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Flyer22 Reborn, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Hammelsmith (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it's important to include what he declared? I'm also skeptical of what that "official declaration" actually is. The caseworkers have all the important information regarding what Jordan alleged in August 1993, but they cannot release that because it's prohibited. If Jordan released a declaration in December 1993, two months into the investigation, it didn't make a single difference. Also, it's graphic, so the reason for adding it should be convincing. Partytemple (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what to say on the matter. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 20:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I know that it's unpalatable subject matter, there's no disputing that. I'm not asking for anyone's opinion on Jackson's innocence or guilt, or what their feelings are about child abuse. My question to the Wiki aether is,


 * Can these sentences be added?

"On December 28, 1993, Jordan Chandler submitted his official child abuse declaration. He described how Jackson allegedly evolved his physical contact with him: "The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me. The next...a brief kiss on the cheek." Chandler also alleged tongue kissing, nipple stimulation, and masturbation – stating that Jackson would cry if Chandler objected to receiving these acts."

I use this source for reference. Hammelsmith (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:RS. Again, why do you think it's important? Partytemple (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Hammelsmith, thank you for finding this secondary source, "Michael Jackson, the Icon," by Jors Borsboom. Borsboom introduces this section of the book saying, "The 'Smoking Gun' published official documents about the molesting case on the internet."  Then Borsboom, presumably, quotes from the document. The document is still online, it is a court submission by lawyers Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler and Klevens (sp?) and paragraph 15 includes the sentence,




 * It says "ear." I'm not sure if there is any significance in Borsboom summarizing the document and changing 'ear' to 'mouth.' If the document is important you could come up with a summary of your own which is more balanced than Borsboom's summary? Createangelos (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Partytemple & Createangelos. As always, I appreciate your dedication and passion. I'm just waiting for further consensus right now. Createangelos, to answer your question, I don't think we're allowed to use Smoking Gun, with Wayback Machine or otherwise. I do believe, the date and documents published in Borsboom's book are genuine because they would have at least been given a copy of a copy, and had to fact-check the dates and individual identities. Ah, the life of journalists. Partytemple, I note that you object to what you deem to be excessive graphic detail, but since the title of this article is *Child Sexual Abuse Accusations*, that's the turf we're on here. Such accusations, whether true or false, are always unpleasant to say the least. It is our responsibility to point out any suspicious conduct from both the Chandler and Jackson parties. I realize that Partytemple and I are devoted fighters for our wishes. When we headlock, we must ask for consensus, then carry on making this the best article possible, bringing enlightenment to the public. To all my fellow editors, my philosophy is "Good faith, my friends and comrades." Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, my problem isn't with the graphic details, but why you think it's important to include that sentence to the article. The graphic details are certainly something to be noted, and good reasons should be given before adding them otherwise they only serve as shock value. Partytemple (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Partytemple, Sorry about that last edit mistake. I am drinking too much coffee, that was my fault. I'm still waiting for further consensus, then we'll talk again. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I support having those sentences in the article. I think its important to characterize the Jordan Chandler accusations as thoroughly and accurately as we can and I don't see any suggestion that these sources are portraying them falsely. I should add that I appreciate the hard work of everyone above on this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 02:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What is an "official child abuse declaration?" WP:VAGUE. If it was declared in December 1993, it seemed to not have an actual function on anything. Jordan Chandler had already described his abuse in his original report to Abrams and the police. Do we have to hear it again, for no significant purpose at all, for the second time in an "official child abuse declaration" (whatever this is)? If we add it, it'll only add more shock value to the article. Partytemple (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I forced myself to read more of the source cited in spite of the unsettling details. It mentions a snippet from Gutierrez's book, which advocates pedophilia. Gutierrez was a possible member of NAMBLA who tried to frame Jackson as a pedophile. I'm really suspicious that the "official declaration" came from Gutierrez's creepy book, because the description in that declaration doesn't match the police report Jordan gave. In the police report, Jordan said some of the sexual acts happened when they bathed together. Nowhere in that section of the book mentions a bath. Partytemple (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I do not have time to give a 'yes' or 'no' about this 'dispute' and I have to confess I have not even looked at the article recently so this is just out of the blue... but I appreciate you asking for guidance and will give it with the proviso that it is meaningless guidance because of how ignorant I am now both about the sources and about the content of the article, but I do think a competent editor might ask you please work on the proposed sentence, Hammelsmith. I am not sure what Wikipedia policy to cite, but my intuition here is if Borsboom has substituted 'Mouth' for 'Ear' then 'oral sex' would be misleading and Wikipedia needs *your* summary of the Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler and Klevens document, *not* your summary of Borsboom's summary of what 'Smoking Gun' said about it. I do know that secondary sources can be really important to include to give a sense of consensus. How influential is Borsboom (more relevant, Smoking Gun)? Also it annoys me (not a Wikipedia issue) that Borsboom is so uncareful of his references, doesn't say what they are, but fortunately his sole reference, being the secondary source of the website 'Smoking Gun' does exist. Am example of what I'd like to see is along the lines of 'A book by Borsboon summarized a website known as 'Smoking Gun' which referred to a legal document by Fogel, Feldman, Ostrov, Ringler and Klevens and changing "put his tongue in Chandler's ear" to say "put his tongue in Chandler's mouth." NOW, this would tend to be not NPOV and wrong as it tends to suggest that the judge and jury made the right decision in clearing MJ, and that is not at all established in my mind. But it would be relevant to one side of the argument. I mean, I don't want to get abusive to take a notion like, "Oh, according to a book that summarizes a website which in turn summarizes a legal document, although misquoting it, several years of legal investigations and testimony and scrutiny by the judge and jury were mis-guided by some unknown factor such as Jackson's wealth" and establish the notion by failing to correct the misquote and no other deep contemplation of how the sources are related and what it all means. I would like to see facts, reports, evidence, reports of evidence, that might convince people that MJ is guilty, and I'd also like to understand, if he's innocent, where all the accusations came from. (edit: I'm starting to think that there is a method to your madness though.)Createangelos (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Partytemple, BudapestJoe, & Createangelos. Well, I suppose we're a few steps closer to consensus, although it could go either way. Thank you to BudapestJoe for complimenting Partytemple & I on the article's progress, there is still a ways to go. Thank you to Createangelos for your constructive input, I won't trouble you about this again. As a general comment, I just want to say that if there was ANY real proof about Michael Jackson's innocence or guilt, there would be no need to have discussions like this. Reported events, lawyers' statements, accusations and rebuttals can only take anyone so far. It would be nice if people could come to a Wiki article to gain the clearest possible sense of how things developed at certain times. I'm not here to write a position paper. Partytemple believes that I want to transcribe words solely for shock value. It's true that some words are shocking because that's part of the subject matter, but I don't think I'm being disgustingly graphic, just accurate. At the crux of this article are ugly things because there's obviously a level of deception somewhere (depending on your beliefs) that's just abhorrent. We can write as professionally as we can, but there's no escaping that abhorrent aspect. That's why I'm still hoping for consensus of some kind, before I decide what I want to do with my proposed sentences. I'm sincerely grateful for all the research, knowledge, and insight you're all giving. Good faith, comrades. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What I find disturbing is that you feel the need to mention the graphic details when you could've just summarized the declaration without doing so. In fact, you could've just mentioned "declaration" and nothing else. WP:EXCESSDETAIL. The source also looks incredibly dubious because it claims that the declaration was signed by Jordan Chandler but all I see is a typed out signature in the same font as the rest of the book. WP:RS. Also, no one here has explained what an "official child abuse declaration" is or whether it actually exists as a document or what not. WP:VAGUE. It could be entirely a forgery, if not sourced probably. And it makes no sense without context that Jordan Chandler submitted some kind of declaration in the middle of an on-going investigation. —Partytemple (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'd just like to say that I came to this article in good faith, having no strong opinion about Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence, no dog in this fight. When I first read the article, a few weeks ago, it was heavily slanted toward his innocence - clearly having been re-written by a Jackson fan to portray Sneddon as unethical, the accusers as untrustworthy and the media as biased. All of my edits have been in the interest in restoring balance without swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. I think you folks have done so as well and the article is now fairly balanced. The only exception is in the list of witnesses, who are still largely portrayed though the lens of Jackson's innocence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you're misinterpreting WP:IMPARTIAL. Wikipedia can only cite trustworthy sources, and all the sources portray Jackson as we cite it. It's not a matter of opinion what happened during these allegations or a "pendulum" for you to swing. Partytemple (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems as though this is the closest we'll come to a consensus. I'm working on finding other supporting sources about Jordan Chandler's declaration now. My mind has been swayed, I guess, and I concur with Partytemple that nothing implying graphic abuse should be written here. I still intend to work on this article as best I can and everyone is welcome to disagree, criticize, object to sourcing and so on. Good faith comrades. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

___

Can these sentences be added?
I would please like to add these sentences to the article? "On December 28, 1993, Jordan Chandler submitted his official child abuse declaration. He described how Jackson allegedly evolved his physical contact with him: "The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me. The next...a brief kiss on the cheek." He also stated that Jackson would cry if Chandler objected to receiving intimate acts."

I use this source, this source, and this source for references.

Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RS: The NBC News source does not corroborate the book source. Book source says declaration executed in December 1993. NBC source says a declaration was filed with the civil suit which was filed in September 1993. It doesn't make sense for Jordan to file a declaration when the civil suit and criminal investigation were already underway. Even if true, it's excess detail. It's like if Jordan repeated the allegations over a period of time, and we decided to write every piece of it along the way. We already explained the original report that started the criminal investigation. WP:ADVOCACY: This is the second ping on the same issue that was not addressed the first time, nor did it reach clear consensus. Hammelsmith also has a history of WP:TENDENTIOUS. Behavior has not seem to improve. Partytemple (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I could just write "in late 1993.." Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Such as "In late 1993, Jordan Chandler submitted his official child abuse declaration. He described how Jackson allegedly evolved his physical contact with him: "The first step was simply Michael Jackson hugging me. The next...a brief kiss on the cheek." He also stated that Jackson would cry if Chandler objected to receiving intimate acts."


 * In this case, I agree with Partytemple. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 23:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll accept this consensus from Partytemple & SNUGGUMS. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"it was Chandler who initiated the settlement with Jackson's insurer"
"According to a motion passed to Judge Melville in 2004, it was Chandler who initiated the settlement with Jackson's insurer."

from this source

I'm sorry, but I didn't read that anywhere. Can we discuss?

Please may I invite Partytemple, SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the insured client had no say in the settlement. It's argued throughout the memorandum that Jackson and his legal counsel disapproved of the settlement, hence he cannot be cross-examined for it and evidence from the settlement will violate due process. The negotiations took place primarily between Chandler and the insurance company. Partytemple (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That info is correct. Israell (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is some relevant material from that document: "Plaintiff (Arvizos) has subpoenaed a settlement document from a 1994 settlement in which Mr. Jackson compromised a civil claim filed against him by Evan Chandler, Guardian for Jordan Chandler. The settlement provides there is no admission of liability by any of the parties and that the settlement is designed to compromise negligence claims asserted against Mr. Jackson by the plaintiffs in a civil proceeding. Plaintiff seeks to obtain the settlement documents by way of subpoena for the purpose of introducing the document into evidence to establish some kind of admission against Mr. Jackson which not only does not exist, but also constitutes an impermissible inference of an admission against interest. Mr. Jackson was not liable for any of the claims compromised by the settlement agreement, and plaintiff cannot present evidence...Because insurance companies were the source of the settlement amounts, and the insurance companies make the payments based on their contractual rights to settle the proceeding without Mr. Jackson's permission, the settlement does not constitute an admission and cannot be used to create such an impermissible inference to the jury... The plaintiff (Arvizos) seeks to introduce evidence of the civil settlement of the 1993 lawsuit through the testimony of Larry Feldman, attorney for the current complaining family and attorney for the plaintiff in the 1993 matter. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson's insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel."

I think Partytemple honestly mistook the Arvizos for the Chandlers in "The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence" part, which is understandable. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it doesn't read that "The negotiations took place primarily between Chandler and the insurance company." Although I'm fine with adding the part about "The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel." Hammelsmith (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe I mixed them up. I think you're just swapping words that mean the same thing. "The negotiations took place primarily between Chandler and the insurance company" is about the same as "The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel."
 * But clarification: the sentence is worded strangely as if the Chandlers initiated the negotiations directly. But if you think about it, the Chandlers were the ones who filed the lawsuit, a civil case that will ultimately end up with some amount of money for damages if they won. A lawsuit sues for damages and liability. Like if I wrecked someone's car, they can sue me for damages and I would be ordered by the judge to pay money. But the plaintiff could also report me to the police for property crime. A criminal trial puts criminals, like pedophiles, behind bars, and no money is given out. The insurance company, Jackson's insurance in this case, decided it was expedient to just pay a settlement, and Jackson wouldn't have to deal with both a civil lawsuit and a potential criminal trial.
 * I'm unsure how much influence Jackson had over this settlement, and maybe the newspapers don't either. But Mesereau's memorandum gave a very strong argument that Jackson didn't have much say in it. Because if he did, he probably wouldn't have settled at all. The original sentence might be WP:VAGUE, but it makes sense within the context of the narrative. And I'm very certain that the Arvizos didn't file a lawsuit. Partytemple (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Partytemple, I can see how you've formed your theory, but the document just doesn't explicitly say that. The motion refers to the Arvizos' lawyers wanting to introduce evidence in the criminal trial, so the Arvizos are the plaintiffs. Hammelsmith (talk) 04:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a theory, and I don't think I'm the one who's having trouble seeing the difference between the Chandlers and Arvizos here. Be sure not to WP:LONGQUOTE, or it'll be reverted. Partytemple (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please give it a rest, Hammelsmith; you've been pinging people too often here and need to desist with any contentious changes. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The documents don't quite say that. Further, it defies credulity that the insurance company would settle this with the Chandlers with no input from their powerful, world-famous client, Michael Jackson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Partytemple and I are content to include quotations from the document. I think I've written before that the entire crux of this article is about where the credibility lies. I have struggled with that myself over the years. As ever, I am very grateful to all the people helping with research. Thank you so much for responding, BudapestJoe. Good faith, comrades. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 06:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with whatever you and Partytemple decide. There is no compelling evidence that the insurance company refused to listen to Michael Jackson in settling this lawsuit and its difficult to imagine such a scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this sentence is more than reasonable
I would please like to add this sentence:

"After five months of investigation, the crime unit DA said the evidence did not show an extortion crime."

I use this source for reference.

I think that it is at least reasonable to note that there was no evidence Evan Chandler actively tried to extort money from Michael Jackson, even if you believe that was his intention. Although I would have to agree with people who say that Evan Chandler squandered precious time and credibility trying to negotiate if he really believed his son had been molested. That was unbelievably stupid on his part, no matter what your beliefs. Regardless, I do think adding my proposed sentence is fair.

Please may I invite SNUGGUMS, Createangelos, BudapestJoe, Tataral, Octoberwoodland, Popcornduff, Moxy & Israell for consensus? Strictly voluntarily, of course. Regards, Hammelsmith (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not read the article carefully. Here's what it says:""We've declined to file today criminal charges of attempted extortion," said Michael J. Montagna, a deputy Los Angeles County district attorney who heads that office's organized crime unit. "The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed...." Montagna cited the Jackson camp's slowness to act on the extortion claim and its willingness to negotiate with the boy's father for several weeks as two reasons why prosecutors did not bring an extortion case."


 * We already explained this in the sentence before your addition. Montagna believed the tapes were about settling the lawsuit, but the tapes were recorded, if I remember correctly, before the lawsuit. Even if the tapes had nothing incriminating, there was another tape that was recorded in July 1993 that showed Chandler making threats. This is explained in the article. Partytemple (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, Jackson's camp hoped that the tapes would be evidence of extortion. Obviously no lawsuit had been filed yet. In early August, there were attempts made to reach an out-of-court settlement, which doesn't require a lawsuit being filed beforehand. As I understand it, the threats on the tape are not extortion threats. Hammelsmith (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. It doesn't matter what you think of the tapes (and I'm pretty sure you don't have them yourself, so you don't know what's in them). You tried adding a sentence that was redundant and misleading, because you don't read carefully. Partytemple (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But there was a 5-month investigation about an extortion claim, and there was no evidence of an extortion crime. I do find that relevant and I think adding that is fair. Hammelsmith (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Montagna specified the reasons for not proceeding with the extortion probe. It's already explained. "Five months of investigation" isn't up to you to decide what was in it. WP:IMPARTIAL Montagna explained his reasons. Partytemple (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You said "Montagna specified the reasons for not proceeding with the extortion probe." Yes, I agree. The reason was, "The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed" That's all I'm trying to say. Hammelsmith (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Filing a claim too late is evidence, and so is settling a suit out of court. Montagna cited those as his evidence. Again, it’s not up to you or anyone else to decide what they found or didn’t find. Partytemple (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I just wanted it known that there was a 5-month investigation afterwards. Attempts to settle out of court beforehand and filing too late can be discovered relatively fast. Isn't a 5-month investigation relevant? Hammelsmith (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You’re still speaking as if you know exactly what went on during the investigations. wp:or The time it took to reach the conclusion isn’t very relevant, when we don’t know what happened. The conclusion is enough. We can’t make assumptions like you are doing now. Partytemple (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the crime unit's conclusion that, "The evidence does not show that any crime has been committed", not my conclusion. I really do just think it is fair to include that in this article. Can't it be included that there was no evidence Evan Chandler committed extortion, not just that he wasn't charged with extortion because of timing and past negotiations? That reads like a lucky break for him, when a crime unit did explore the matter and find no evidence that Chandler was scamming Michael Jackson, or something of that nature. That's my final argument, in all earnestness. Hammelsmith (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They concluded they didn’t have enough evidence/reasons to prosecute because the extortion claim was filed too late and the suit was settled out of court. Lawsuits are typically advised to be settled hence the unlikelihood of an extortion. That is their reasoning; don’t make any more assumptions than this. “Five months” doesn’t necessary mean they went for an in-depth investigation. You don’t know that. And maybe Chandler did get a lucky break. The sentence you want to add doesn’t reflect the article any better than the sentence before it. Partytemple (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't help but disagree, but if that is the final consensus, I'll accept that. Maybe someone else will weigh in, but that seems unlikely. Thank you for talking it out with me. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, prosecutors don’t say they can determine with full confidence of whether a crime actually happened or not. They say they whether or not they have ‘’reasons to believe’’ a crime happened. So your sentence will still be misleading, because you make it sound like they knew no extortion happened with certainty. Partytemple (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh that's what you meant by misleading. Yes, that did confuse me. I still have my opinions, of course, but your arguments do make more sense to me now. Thank you for explaining. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Double jeopardy part can stay at beginning of section
Hi Partytemple,

For the Lawsuit section,

Here is what I think the first paragraph should be:

On September 14, 1993, Jordan Chandler and his parents filed a lawsuit[note 1] against Jackson.[100] The lawsuit claimed that Jackson had committed sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.[10][11] In November, Jackson's lawyers asked the case be put on hold for as long as six years or until the criminal case was concluded.[101][102] Concerns about a civil trial during an ongoing criminal investigation, and prosecutors' access to plaintiffs' civil trial information, stemmed from Jackson's Fifth Amendment rights.[103] The prosecution might have been able to form the elements of a case around the defense strategy in the trial, creating a situation akin to double jeopardy.

Here is what I think the last paragraph should be:

In February 1994, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury convened to assess whether criminal charges should be filed. The Los Angeles County Grand Jury began in March 1994.[48] Two grand juries deemed there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges. By 1994, California prosecution departments had spent $2 million for discovery evidence but Jordan Chandler's allegations could not be corroborated.[112]

I hope you approve. Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I prefer the original "double jeopardy" sentence, because it explains exactly why the defense wanted to delay the date of the civil trial. As for the addition on the last paragraph, it's gratuitous in the grand scheme of things, because it's already implied in the following sentence with "Jordan chandler's allegations could not be corroborated." They basically mean the same thing. Also, it's not that you need my approval exactly to make changes in this article, but it appears I'm the only one here watching your potentially disruptive edits. The fact that you tried to break up two sentences that go together shows you're still not reading carefully. Other users have already mentioned this issue on the admin noticeboard. The research and effort behind the bulk of this article belong to previous users. When I arrived here, this article was already rated as "Good Article." I intend to help maintain it this way. So when you make disruptive edits, you're not just wasting my time of reviewing each and every one of your edits but also destroying the research done by previous users. I hate to sound accusatory, but I think you need to know this. —Partytemple (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It was not a good article because it was heavily edited in favor of Jackson, to the point where it was no longer accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM. You're not here to improve this article, are you? Partytemple (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the only reason I'm here. To make this article better. And I'm not going away. You need to stop with the personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Since two grand juries had deemed there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges by January 1, the prosecution might have been.." → I made my edit because I checked the Taraborrelli source and the January 1 date is incorrect. This is what Taraborrelli wrote, "By 1 January 1994, nearly two million dollars had been spent by prosecutors and police departments in California jurisdictions on the investigation of Michael Jackson." The grand juries had not made their decision by that date as was previously written.

Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see how that's misleading. The user who wrote that misinterpreted Taraborrelli's sentence. I can fix this. Partytemple (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed. That's all I ask. You know I appreciate all the hard work you put into this article. It's been difficult for me too, but I think we can agree that it has improved. Regards & Best, Hammelsmith (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)