MJ defenders like to quote this part from jordan chandler’s psych interview with the dr. gardner
Gardner: "What about fears? Any fears of any kind?"
Jordan: "No."
Gardner: "Sometimes people, after experiences of this kind, develop different kinds of fears. You have no fears?"
Jordan: "Maybe of cross-examination but that's all. I mean I have nothing to hide, it's just the thought of it."
https://mjnotinnocent.net/articles/1993-jordan-chandler-gardner-transcript
the issue is that MJ defenders refuse to acknowledge that cross-examination is a brutal experience.
The brutal experience of cross-examination
Cross-examination by defence counsel aims to discredit the witness, reveal evidential inconsistencies or weaknesses, and suggest alternative explanations to the witness’ account. This can be difficult for anyone, but for traumatised sexual assault complainants, it can be particularly distressing. The intense focus on credibility can ‘mimic’ the experience of powerlessness in sexual assault,11 risking retraumatisation and exacerbating symptoms, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’), anxiety and dissociation.12Other factors that can contribute to the potential for retraumatisation include the deeply private subject matter, the extent of the trauma, that the complainant often has a prior relationship with the accused, and that sexual assault cross-examinations often last longer than in assault trials.13
In 1980, in The Politics of Rape – A Feminist Perspective, Marjorie Levis opined: ‘It should be of major concern to us to change the situation for the individual rape victim and hopefully to end such statements as “I felt I had been raped all over again by the court”; “... if I had known, I wouldn't have reported it”; “... the trial was worse than the rape …”’.14Yet, by 1996, little had changed. The Heroines of Fortitude study exposed the deeply concerning level of complainant retraumatisation during cross-examination: 65 per cent of sexual assault trials were stopped due to distress, as ‘complainants dry-retched, claimed to feel nauseous in the witness box, were unable to answer questions or had to take regular breaks.’15
Fast forward to the 2020s, and multiple state and territory reports continue to describe cross-examination as ‘unnecessarily hostile’,16‘brutal and apparently irrelevant’ or ‘badgering and intimidating’,17 using ‘misconceptions about sexual violence’,18 and using questions to ‘confuse or “shake” a complainant’s account’.19 Indeed, one study of child sexual abuse trials shows that cross-examination today is ‘much worse’ than questioning during cross-examination in the 1950s.20
source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1037969X251359080
Have you seen something a defender posted that made you #facepalm or #headdesk?
Had a bad interaction with a defender and need to vent? This is the place to do it.
Post text, images, or gif reactions and please follow the rules:
Don't break the sub rules. Harassment and trolling will not be tolerated.
Delete any personal information from tweets or comments. Attack the ideas, not the person.
The dangerous fake news phenomenon
Circular Reporting is a situation when a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source. This is often the way in which fake news in spread.
What exactly happens ?
It can occur when, for example, publication A puts out a piece of false information and publication B reprints it. Publication A then cites B as the source of the original information. It is also considered to be a form of circular reporting when multiple publications all report from the same piece of false information. This information then appears, to another author, to be verified by multiple authors. This can make the tracing of sources nearly impossible. Satirical articles are also mistakenly picked up and published as factual.
Example
‘A man told me that the village headman keeps gold under his car shed’ is a completely different prospect than ‘Seven different sources indicate that the village headman keeps gold under his car shed’.
So far so simple, right? But what happens if six of those people only ‘know’ this information because they were told by the seventh? That, in a nutshell is the problem known as circular reporting.
Who does circular reporting affect?
Every individual is directly or indirectly affected from circular reporting as these reporting make up the news and thats what keep us update about the nearby happenings. But namely people related to professions like journalists, media houses, information consumers, investors, and even governments.
Why is it so Dangerous in Modern Era ?
As time changes today most of news broadcasting company are reducing foreign and national correspondents as they relay on technology and allies for information on news. The same activities are shown by most of the news broadcasting company gradually it comes to happen that most of them are actually relying on the same source. For instance if source A publishes a news and it comes to source B & C. B publishes the same information then for source C information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source. Which is a big reason to worry as in today’s world is connected and even a false news can lead to big problems for governments, trade and business.
“Lastly Globalisation is in Increase but news correspondents at Redundant”
https://youtu.be/cSKGa\_7XJkg?si=k5-vl2i8YbxZyWeN
the article: https://gavishpoddar.medium.com/circular-repoting-20c80c5d1071
Have you seen something a defender posted that made you #facepalm or #headdesk?
Had a bad interaction with a defender and need to vent? This is the place to do it.
Post text, images, or gif reactions and please follow the rules:
Don't break the sub rules. Harassment and trolling will not be tolerated.
Delete any personal information from tweets or comments. Attack the ideas, not the person.
John: “People always go, ‘Oh, poor Michael Jackson, he had no childhood.’ But you know who else didn’t? Anyone born before 1910”
“And they didn’t marry children with a giraffe as a witness... it’s a pretty sacred cow in comedy to not go after it”
Conan: “We now know why John was not asked to give the eulogy at Michael Jackson’s funeral”
John: “I had a nice version. I was perfectly willing to call an audible and switch it on the fly”
it is from the Team Coco podcast. can’t find the full interview.
The Hollywood Reporter just published an article revealing the man who sexually abused then 40 year old Mark Curry.
„The former child actress Raquel Lee has sued The Walt Disney Co. for negligence, alleging an unidentified “middle-aged, male employee who was involved in the filming of” the 2001 Disney Channel original movie The Poof Point sexually abused and assaulted her. At the time, she was 14 years old.
The Hollywood Reporter has separately learned that Lee reached a confidential settlement agreement with actor Mark Curry in 2015. He played her father in The Poof Point. Gloria Allred, known for representing accusers against prominent individuals in sexual misconduct claims, represented Lee in the private resolution.“
He can rot in hell.
the instagram post: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DcRUhRFxV27/cWxnejN3ZTJzZ2Nm
A federal judge says the allegations, while "horrific," belong in confidential arbitration.
Four siblings who claim they were abused by Michael Jackson have hit a roadblock in their child sex trafficking lawsuit against the King of Pop’s estate.
In a Wednesday (Aug. 12) ruling, first obtained and reported by Billboard, Judge Hernán D. Vera booted the claims brought by Edward, Dominic, Marie-Nicole and Aldo Cascio out of a public courtroom. The federal judge said that under the clear terms of a 2019 settlement between the family and the Jackson estate, all related disputes must be handled in confidential arbitration.
“Although the allegations are horrific, the court is without discretion to do aught but enforce the language of the arbitration clause,” wrote Judge Vera.
The Cascio siblings grew up with Jackson and once referred to themselves as his “second family.” While previously staunch defenders of the star against pedophilia claims, the family members alleged in a February lawsuit that Jackson raped and molested them as children over the course of more than a decade.
The Jackson estate strongly denies these claims, which the Cascios first raised in 2019 after the release of the explosive HBO documentary Leaving Neverland. The four siblings, along with their fifth brother Frank, claimed privately at the time that this documentary “deprogrammed” them. The estate paid them a $3.5 million settlement without admitting any wrongdoing.
The Cascios now say that settlement is void and unenforceable because they were coerced into signing it. Judge Vera ruled on Wednesday that those arguments, “while serious”, clearly do not belong in a public courtroom under the terms of the settlement.
“While plaintiffs are fully within their rights to raise questions about unconscionability, those challenges must be presented later before an arbitrator,” wrote the judge.
The ruling echoes another decision reached in March by a different judge in California state court, who oversaw a related legal proceeding over Frank’s sexual assault claims. In that case, the judge ruled that Frank’s signature on the same settlement agreement required arbitration of all further disputes.
A lawyer for the Cascio siblings, Howard King, told Billboard on Wednesday, “It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the decision on whether the Cascios were duped into signing an unconscionable agreement with an arbitration clause will be made by an arbitrator rather than a jury of peers.”
“The family had hoped the court would allow for a public trial over the decades-long molestations of the Cascio siblings by Michael Jackson and the ensuing cover-up by his advisors,” added King. “Instead, the family will seek justice from the dark confines of a private conference room.”
Reps for the Jackson estate did not immediately comment on the decision.
The estate has previously characterized the claims as a “desperate money grab,” pointing out that the Cascios “spent decades defending and affirming Michael’s innocence” before changing their tune. The siblings stated during a 2010 appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show, for example, that Jackson was “never” inappropriate with them, and Frank wrote in a 2011 memoir, “Michael’s love for children was innocent, and it was profoundly misunderstood.”
Jackson, who died in 2009, was never convicted or held legally liable for any accusation of child sex abuse during his lifetime; he settled a civil claim in 1994 without admitting any wrongdoing, and he was acquitted at a criminal trial in 2005. But such allegations have continued to dog his legacy, most notably when Leaving Neverland amplified claims from two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, in disturbing detail.
The Jackson estate vehemently denies all claims of sexual misconduct, and it called Leaving Neverland a “one-sided hit job”in litigation that ended with the documentary being removed from HBO. Robson and Safechuck are continuing to litigate civil abuse claims against the estate.
https://www.billboard.com/pro/michael-jackson-child-sex-trafficking-lawsuit-tossed-court/
this is the live where he made that statement:
ETA: this link has the whole reel.
he has been rightfully dragged on social media for his comment.
She said her friendship with MJ was 'a lot of fun' but she doesn't like talking about it publicly. She attempted to counter the claims of the prosecution that it was only boys who shared MJ’s bed.
Have you seen something a defender posted that made you #facepalm or #headdesk?
Had a bad interaction with a defender and need to vent? This is the place to do it.
Post text, images, or gif reactions and please follow the rules:
Don't break the sub rules. Harassment and trolling will not be tolerated.
Delete any personal information from tweets or comments. Attack the ideas, not the person.