1/14 REGARDING CARL DOUGLAS’ STATEMENT: #MJFam if a detractor shares this video again, please show them the thread I’m about to share because I’m so over the “Dan Reed Level of deception” being administered by #guilters in hopes to sway the minds of the naive and misinformed.

2/14 Firstly, MJ detractors, or anyone for the matter, must be a fool to think that Carl Douglas coerced/silenced the accuser and confidently confessed this while BOTH the *prosecution* and *presiding judge* for the 2005 case were all in the same room...

3/14 (which if you watch the entire video, they are all in the same room... )

4/14 If we are to believe this, then detractors ought to be mad at EVERYONE in that room for being extremely content after the “confession”—not to mention permitting *duress* (which is a crime) in a court case...

5/14 But that obviously wasn’t the case! Carl’s statement wasn’t literal. THREAD WITH CONTEXT: Carl’s statement was in *addition* to the previous commentator (Larry Feldman, who was the lawyer of the plaintiff, Jordan Chandler)

6/14 who mentioned that Michael Jackson was about to be DEPOSED in the CIVIL CASE—either that or he could use his 5th amendment right—but what good would that be for Michael in context of the civil case??

7/14 Let me explain: presenting a deposition in a civil case when criminal proceedings are subsequent is detriminental to the defense as testimony or submitting evidence (in this case, the photos of Michael’s genitalia, aka the “purple gorilla,”)

8/14 can be used against him thereafter which violates the defendants right to a fair trial. In other words, the prosecution can alter their testimonies based on what the defendant had previously testified in the civil case and/or the evidence the defence had submitted.

9/14 But had MJ used his 5th amendment right to avoid giving a testimony in the *civil case,* that would not only look suspicious in the eyes of the jury but the eyes of the public as well as he is *refusing to testify.*

10/14 So again, to clarify what Carl was implying is that there was a criminal trial that was to take place subsequently after the civil trial and had they not have settled, Michael Jackson’s rights would be violated,

11/14 hence Carl’s statement, “no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael...” *that* being the above mentioned. It was a very well played move by the prosecution in hopes to help their case but very understandable for the defence to agree to settle.

12/14 Also, the settlement as many of you know was a unanimous decision on both sides: the defence and the prosecution. As Larry Feldman—Jordan Chandler’s lawyer—had stated, the lawyers on *both sides* had a lot of convincing to do in terms of settling the case,

13/14 the values of settling, and what would be in their best interest had they settled. Moreover, the civil case settlement clearly states that it was not in regards to claims of child molestation but rather *alleged* personal injuries ARISING out of *claims* of “*NEGLIGENCE*”

14/14 It also stated that the settlement was not an admission of guilt but *both parities* acknowledged that due to the impact that the process would have on Michael’s career in terms of earnings, Michael agreed to settle.