Johnny Drama Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Can Rolf Harris not walk or something that he has to walk everywhere in lines of 5 wide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshitNot true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first. That is not true. The civil charges were dropped due to the settlement, but the criminal investigation in 1993 was dropped because the boy was unwilling to cooperate with authorities. If there had been sufficient evidence pointing towards MJ's guilt then they could still have taken MJ to trial in 1993 regardless of the civil settlement.As it stood they had no evidence and an alleged victim unwilling to take the stand. Basically the Chandlers took the money and ran. And fifteen years later, as an adult in his mid-twenties, Jordy Chandler STILL refused to take the stand during MJ's 2005 trial. Speaks volumes if you ask me. Also, if Jordy's description of MJ's penis was that accurate, then that would've been enough evidence to secure an arrest at the very least. There's a reason Sneddon and the prosecution didn't want these photos to be seen during his 2005 trial. Wow, so you're telling me that the accusers no longer cooperated after they were paid off? As if accepting the money might produce a situation of quid pro quo? While some might believe in coincidence; others might see a little cause and effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towelie Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 after so many years and with FBI finding nothing the story is really bullshitNot true. The first accuser in the early 90s was bought off. It's why they changed the law in the state of California. Now if you want to press civil charges regarding a criminal case, the criminal case must occur first. That is not true. The civil charges were dropped due to the settlement, but the criminal investigation in 1993 was dropped because the boy was unwilling to cooperate with authorities. If there had been sufficient evidence pointing towards MJ's guilt then they could still have taken MJ to trial in 1993 regardless of the civil settlement.As it stood they had no evidence and an alleged victim unwilling to take the stand. Basically the Chandlers took the money and ran. And fifteen years later, as an adult in his mid-twenties, Jordy Chandler STILL refused to take the stand during MJ's 2005 trial. Speaks volumes if you ask me. Also, if Jordy's description of MJ's penis was that accurate, then that would've been enough evidence to secure an arrest at the very least. There's a reason Sneddon and the prosecution didn't want these photos to be seen during his 2005 trial. Wow, so you're telling me that the accusers no longer cooperated after they were paid off? As if accepting the money might produce a situation of quid pro quo? While some might believe in coincidence; others might see a little cause and effect.The Chandlers were uncooperative with the police throughout the entire investigation, long before the settlement of the civil case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.