Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 1 of 4
I first became aware of the site http://www.mjfacts.info/ last June when I stumbled unto it while doing a Google search on the Chandlers. I was stunned at the poorly researched garbage that I found on this site! It came with a disclaimer that said that the site’s goal was to disprove the “extortion” attempts made against Michael Jackson in 1993, and judging from the original entries, many of us were under the impression that Ray Chandler was covertly running the site. The original entries included so-called rebuttals to Mary Fischer’s GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” and to “Redemption” by Geraldine Hughes, the transcript of the interview between Jordan Chandler and Dr. Gardner, the transcript of Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, a quote from a private investigator regarding the Chandler settlement, and the FBI’s behavioral analysis of pedophiles. Because everything was pro-Chandler, and specifically because there were so many references to “All That Glitters”, it was reasonable to conclude that Ray Chandler could be behind this. We did a post on the possible origins of the site, as well as the flimsy rebuttals that were offered.
However, events in recent weeks have completely refuted our assumption that Ray Chandler was the mastermind of this site! On January 6th, 2011 our adversary sent us the following email boasting about how she could “prove” that journalist and MJ advocate Charles Thomson was running the site by claiming that the admins of the site replied from his email address:
I realize that we differ on our views on Michael Jackson but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up.
I remember your site doing a post about the site Wacko Facts and that you guys believed it to be ran by Ray Chandler. But that’s not true.
The site is ran by Michael Jackson ‘defender’ Charles Thomson.
I found this out from my team emailing him about the site and how to expand it with more information on about Michael being a pedophile. When he responded, I found out his email address was the same on his blog, except that it’s a different mail carrier. When a member of my team asked if he was *that* Charles Thomson, he avoided the question.
I just thought you should know because I think it’s really shady to pretend and deceive Michael’s fans and his skeptics. I think he just wants popularity. I had heard he used to believe Michael was guilty.
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to but if you pretend to be someone with info on Michael–salacious info–you’ll get to see his email address as proof he is Charles Thomson.
Best,
Desiree
To make a long story short, I alerted Thomson, and he not only alerted Yola Abuse Team, but he also threatened legal action against our adversary if he was further slandered by her! The admins of the site deliberately copied Thomson’s email address (but used a Gmail account instead of a Hotmail account), and as a result Yola permanently suspended the site! (To see all of the correspondence between myself, our adversary, Thomson, and Yola, please read the update at the bottom of this post).
One thing that really got my attention is that when I read the emails between our adversary and the admins of the hater’s site is that our adversary initiated the contact with them by offering to share her “research” with them, so obviously she is attracted to like-minded people who she feels she can begin a mutually beneficial relationship with. She legitimately thought that Thomson was running the site (based on the phony email address they used), and she also sent them our post on their site, to which they emphatically denied being affiliated with Ray Chandler, so that pretty much ends that speculation. (I feel that they probably purchased some of that info from Ray’s “All That Glitters” website years ago.)
Here are the emails that she sent to the hater’s site:
Well, since MJ haters are like cockroaches who mysteriously return after you thought that you have killed them all, the admins of the site were able to reestablish their site with a new host, and with plenty of new information, so it’s obvious that our adversary’s wish to give them research and ideas came to fruition. They have since added posts that impugn Aphrodite Jones’ journalistic integrity, take the quotes of some of the jurors out of context to prove that MJ “beat the system”, take the quotes of attorney Carl Douglas’ Frozen In Time speech out of context to imply that Jordan Chandler’s description matched, rationalize Ray Chandler’s successful attempt to quash his subpoena, and cherry pick the FBI files to use baseless allegations as proof of guilt.
I can say unequivocally that each and every one of these posts are utterly worthless! The owners of this site absolutely cannot write a COGENT, LUCID, and COHERANT argument for MJ’s guilt, so they must suppress all exculpatory evidence and instead rely on the usual tabloid sources, speculation, conjecture, and fallacious arguments. No corroborative evidence is ever offered, and no criticism or skepticism of the accusers is displayed!
I want to take the opportunity to refute some of the statements on this site because this site is growing like a cancer and it must be stopped, so I will be the chemotherapy! Here is an example of how they twist the facts and suppress the truth in order to discredit Aphrodite Jones:
Jones then goes on to do exactly as Jackson’s defence did during the trial – rather than discredit the evidence against Jackson, she attempts to discredit the family making the claims against Jackson. These chapters don’t stand up well to scrutiny. They are filled with impressions, opinions, and twisting of the testimony. For instance, she uses the example of defence attorney Tom Mesereau flourishing a copy of a pornographic ‘Barely Legal’ magazine and asking the accuser’s brother if this was what Jackson showed the boys – the boy, thinking he meant a ‘Barely Legal’ magazine, answered in the affirmative – Mesereau then announced this was an issue which came out after the boys had been at Neverland. Jones presents this as proof that the boy was lying, ignoring his protestations that he didn’t mean that exact copy. When Mesereau points out that the accuser’s grandmother told the accuser “..if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman” rather than Jackson, Mesereau refuses to accept that both Jackson andthe grandmother said it. Mesereau pulls out one of the accuser’s interviews where he only mentions the grandmother’s quote, and ignores another interview where the boy said that it was also Jackson’s quote. Jones lauds this slick lawyering against a young boy. In fact, Jones makes the family sound so horrible, bad mannered, ill behaved, manipulative and conniving that one is left with the thought ‘Why on Earth did Jackson befriend these people?’.
Are you freakin’ kidding me?!! They have the nerve to say that Aphrodite is twisting the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo? Let me put an end to this nonsense. To our adversary, and to the admin of that site, pay attention! This is how you do research!
Here is Sneddon’s direct examination of Star Arvizo, where he asks him about a particular issue of Barely Legal that he claimed that MJ showed him.
27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was with you when you
28 saw that suitcase for the first time. 1153
1 A. Me, my brother, Aldo, and Michael.
2 Q. The defendant.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who — how was it that you were actually
5 shown that suitcase.
6 A. Uhh –
7 Q. Tell us what happened.
8 A. Just walked in the room and it was open. It
9 was — there used to be a couch right there.
10 Q. Yeah.
11 A. And — well, it wasn’t really a couch. It
12 was like a chair. And it was on there, and it was
13 open.
14 Q. All right. And then what happened.
15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.
16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.
17 A. He handed them to us.
18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.
19 A. Yes, with him.
20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or
21 did everybody have a different one at a different
22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.
23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.
24 Q. Did anybody make any comments about
25 anything.
26 A. No.
27 Q. Do you remember how many of them you saw.
28 A. A couple. 1154
1 Q. How long was it that you were there going
2 through them.
3 A. I don’t know. Probably ten minutes.
4 Q. Now, when did that take place, when you saw
5 these for the first — that suitcase for the first
6 time.
7 A. When.
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. I think after the Calabasas hotel.
10 Q. Now, I have one other exhibit that is No. 86
11 marked for identification purposes.
12 Now, I’m going to show you this in just a
13 second, but I want to talk to you a little bit more.
14 Did you ever see that black suitcase that’s
15 been marked as People’s 470 before. After that,
16 after the time that you discussed –
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where.
19 A. It was upstairs in his bed area.
20 Q. Where.
21 A. In his — where his bed was.
22 Q. And where in his bedroom.
23 A. Near the T.V.
24 Q. All right. And where were you.
25 A. What do you mean.
26 Q. Where were you in the bedroom.
27 A. On the bed.
28 Q. All right. Who was with you. 1155
1 A. Aldo, my brother and Michael.
2 Q. And where was the suitcase located. I mean,
3 how did — did you ever look at the suitcase, inside
4 of it.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What happened.
7 A. There was adult material in there.
8 Q. All right. But how did it get opened.
9 A. Michael pulled it out.
10 Q. All right. Tell us what he did.
11 A. He picked it up, sat on the bed and opened
12 it.
13 Q. And then what.
14 A. He pulled the magazine out and started
15 showing us.
16 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw that
17 time.
18 A. Four. Three. I don’t know.
19 Q. Did you look through the entire magazines.
20 A. No. It was probably a section or something
21 like that.
22 Q. What did you see in the magazines.
23 A. Nude females.
24 Q. What.
25 A. Nude females.
26 Q. Do you remember the names of any of the
27 titles of the magazines that you saw.
28 A. “Barely Legal” and “Playboy.” 1156
1 Q. Were there others that you saw besides that,
2 or are those the only ones you saw.
3 A. Those are the only ones I remember.
4 Q. I’m going to show you a photograph marked as
5 People’s 86 for identification purposes.
6 And that’s — first of all, I’m going to
7 move that People’s 470 be admitted into evidence,
8 Your Honor.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
10 THE COURT: We’ll take that up separately.
11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.
12 Do you recognize that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it
15 represents.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you some
18 questions about People’s 86.
19 And put it on the board, Your Honor. I move
20 it be admitted into evidence.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; and
22 authenticity and relevance.
23 THE COURT: On 86.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I asked him and he said
25 it accurately depicted the materials.
26 THE COURT: I’m not sure. I haven’t seen
27 the –
28 MR. SNEDDON: In your book, it’s No. 86, 1157
1 Your Honor –
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. SNEDDON: — in your photographs.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Also 352, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: I don’t think that’s an adequate
6 foundation for that particular photograph, that it
7 accurately depicts what it is. You need a further
8 foundation.
9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the materials that
10 are depicted in that photograph, People’s 86, do you
11 see those.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you recognize any of those.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Where do you recognize them from.
16 A. The black suitcase.
17 Q. And which time.
18 A. The first and second time.
19 Q. Does that photograph represent the items
20 that you saw with the defendant, Michael Jackson.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In his bedroom and in his Jacuzzi, or in his
23 bathroom.
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. SNEDDON: I move it be admitted, Your
26 Honor.
27 THE COURT: All right. That is an adequate
28 foundation. 1158
1 Your 352 was on what basis, Counsel.
2 MR. MESEREAU: He didn’t identify some of
3 what’s in that photograph, Your Honor, at all.
4 THE COURT: I found that the foundation is
5 adequate now. You had a 352 objection.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
7 THE COURT: What was that.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Well, basically because he
9 didn’t identify it, and because after describing
10 what he said was there, and then looking at the
11 photo and saying it accurately depicts it, he didn’t
12 identify everything, I think basically it’s
13 prejudicial and irrelevant.
14 THE COURT: All right. The probative value
15 exceeds the prejudicial –
16 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear.
17 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
18 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear you.
19 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, it’s a little hard
20 for Mr. Jackson to hear you.
21 THE DEFENDANT: Please speak up.
22 THE COURT: Yes. The probative value of
23 Exhibit 86 exceeds any prejudicial effects, and so
24 it’s admitted.
25 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
26 THE COURT: Sorry.
27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the exhibit that we
28 have on the board up there, the suitcase, and it’s 1159
1 open and displayed, are those among the items that
2 you saw with Mr. Jackson.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do they represent the things that you saw
5 with him when he took the magazines out.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. On the occasion that you saw the
8 materials from this suitcase that are depicted in
9 this photograph – okay. – who else was present.
10 A. My brother and Aldo, me, and Michael.
11 Q. Do you recall how many — how much time
12 elapsed between the first time you saw the materials
13 downstairs till the time you saw them upstairs.
14 A. A few days.
15 Q. And did you see how the suitcase got from
16 downstairs to upstairs.
17 A. No.
18 Q. When you saw the suitcase in the bedroom,
19 upstairs, on the second occasion, was it open or was
20 it closed.
21 A. It was open.
22 Q. And where was it on the floor, or where was
23 it in the room.
24 A. On the floor.
25 Q. And where.
26 A. Right next to the T.V.
27 Q. So when you say “it’s open,” tell me what
28 you mean by “it’s open.” 1160
1 A. It was cracked.
2 Q. What do you mean by that.
3 A. It was cracked open.
4 Q. Do you see the briefcase in the exhibit as
5 we see it in the courtroom.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Was it open in that condition.
8 A. No. No.
9 Q. Was the lid up or down when you saw it in
10 the bedroom.
11 A. It was — it was like this, standing up.
12 And it was cracked open.
13 Q. Oh, the briefcase.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Oh, I see. So it wasn’t in the same
16 position that it’s shown in this photograph.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Now, how about when you saw it downstairs.
19 A. It was like that, but it was closed.
20 Q. Like what.
21 A. Standing straight up, but it was closed,
22 leaning up against something.
23 Q. In the bathroom area.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And how did it get opened.
26 A. What do you mean.
27 Q. Well, you said it was closed. You looked at
28 the material — 1161
1 A. The first time it was closed. The second
2 time it was cracked open.
3 Q. Okay. We can take that down.
Notice how Star explicitly states that MJ showed him item No. 86, which is the photograph of the August 2003 issue of Barely Legal. He was adamant and unwavering in his statements, and there isn’t any ambiguity in his answers. Now, let’s watch him get caught in his own lie under Mesereau’s cross-examination!
4 Q. Okay. Now, referring to Exhibit 86 –
5 May I approach the witness, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
8 Q. Star, I’m showing you a photograph that you
9 identified yesterday. The number is 86. Do you see
10 that.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that’s a briefcase with some girlie
13 magazines, right.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you told the jury yesterday, they’re the
16 magazines you saw at Neverland, right.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And before you testified about these
19 magazines –
20 May I show the jury this, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
23 Shall I just hand it to them.
24 THE COURT: If that’s what you would like.
25 MR. SANGER: Tom, do you want to put it up
26 on the screen.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.
28 MR. SANGER: I’ve turned this on. 1278
1 THE BAILIFF: It would be “Input 4.”
2 THE COURT: It would be “4”.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, do you see that
4 briefcase, Star.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what you’re looking at is Exhibit 86,
7 right.
8 A. I don’t see the number.
9 Q. Okay. Just — what you’re looking at is
10 a — appears to be a black briefcase with some
11 girlie magazines, right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the first one says “Barely Legal” on it;
14 do you see that.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman lifting
17 up her shirt, correct.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman who’s
20 exposing her breasts, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And she appears to be wearing a dark pair of
23 shorts, right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at
26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are 1279
1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael
4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
7 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
8 A. What.
9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
10 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
11 A. He did show us.
12 Q. He did.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the
15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.
16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that
17 one.
18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many
19 months before, never to return, correct.
20 A. That — I’m telling you that that wasn’t
21 exactly the one he showed us.
22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s
23 not what you said today, right.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, that’s
25 argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you told the jury
28 yesterday that Michael Jackson showed you the 1280
1 magazine “Barely Legal,” you were not telling the
2 truth, right.
3 A. Um, I said that he did show us Barely Legal.
4 I didn’t say that he showed us that exact one. He
5 showed us those magazines.
6 Q. You told the jury yesterday that Michael
7 showed you the particular magazine depicted in the
8 photograph, didn’t you.
9 A. No. I said that he showed us those type of
10 magazines.
11 Q. You’re saying it now because you just found
12 out what the date is, right.
13 A. I never said those were exactly the ones.
14 Q. Okay. Okay. Did you discuss this issue
15 with Prosecutor Sneddon this morning.
16 A. No.
17 Q. Have you ever discussed this issue with any
18 prosecutor.
19 A. Never.
20 Q. Ever discussed this issue with any Santa
21 Barbara Sheriff’s officer.
22 A. Never.
23 Q. Okay. You testified yesterday to the jury
24 that you found that briefcase cracked open, correct.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. In fact, you and your brother were caught
27 trying to get into that briefcase, weren’t you.
28 A. No. 1281
1 Q. You deny that anyone at Neverland ever
2 caught you trying to get into the briefcase.
3 A. Yes.
As you can see, Star’s “protestations” to Mesereau were completely contradicted by what he said to Sneddon! And of course the haters didn’t show any of his testimony to corroborate what they insinuated! (They only used the testimony of June Chandler , because only she said anything that even remotely backs up what they claimed.)
As for Gavin’s allegation that MJ told him that “men must masturbate in order to not rape women”, let’s look at this exchange between defense attorney Bob Sanger and Sergeant Robel on March 17th, 2005 (Day 12 of the trial). Sgt. Robel interviewed Gavin numerous times in 2003, prior to the raid at Neverland, and during these interviews Gavin said that his grandmother told him that “if men don’t masturbate, they get to a level where they can – might rape a girl.” However, when Sgt. Robel sat in the courtroom during Gavin’s testimony, he was stunned to hear Gavin tell Mesereau that MJ told him that!
MR. SANGER: .This pertains to the story or the claims about masturbation. You were sitting here when Gavin Arvizo testified on the stand during this trial, correct?
SERGEANT ROBEL: Correct.
MR. SANGER: And he said that Michael Jackson told him, “If men don’t masturbate, they get to a level where they can — might rape a girl.” Do you remember that?
SERGEANT ROBEL: I do.
MR. SANGER: Okay. That was the first time you ever heard Gavin Arvizo attribute that statement to Michael Jackson, was it not, sir?
SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe so.
MR. SANGER: And, in fact, Gavin Arvizo told you on August 13, 2003, that it was his grandmother who told him, “If men don’t do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman.” Is that correct? Page 28, if you want to take a look at it.
SERGEANT ROBEL: I’d like to do that.
MR. SANGER: August 13th.
SERGEANT ROBEL: Is that 28 you said?
MR. SANGER: Yes. 28, line 4, starts, “My grandma explained it to me.”
SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.
MR. SANGER: And you remember him saying that because, in fact, you testified before the grand jury on April 14th that — of 2004, that Gavin, in fact, told you that his grandmother said that; is that correct, sir?
SERGEANT ROBEL: That’s correct.MR. SANGER: And, in fact, in the August 13, 2003, interview, Gavin said, “My grandma explained it to me. She told me that — that you’re — the only reason — because like if — if men don’t do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman. So instead of having to do that, so they don’t — so they don’t get wanting to go do that.” Did he say that?
SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.
Let’s look at exactly what Gavin told Sneddon under direct examination regarding this masturbation nonsense (and pay attention to his lies about MJ abusing him, too):
25 Q. All right. Tell the jury how it came about
26 that you and Mr. Jackson were in bed together and
27 what you were doing.
28 A. Well, we were — well, we just had come back 1680
1 from drinking a lot in the arcade, and it was –
2 Q. Doing what.
3 A. Drinking in the arcade.
4 Q. Can you pull that down just a little bit.
5 There. Okay. Go ahead.
6 A. We just came back from drinking in the
7 arcade, and then we went up to his room. And then
8 we were sitting there for a while, and Michael
9 started talking to me about masturbation.
10 Q. So you were in the room for a while and the
11 defendant started talking to you about masturbation.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What did he say to you.
14 A. He — he told me — he said that if men
15 don’t masturbate, that they can get to a level where
16 they can — might rape a girl or they might be,
17 like, kind of unstable. So he was telling me that
18 guys have to masturbate.
19 And he told me a story that –
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.
21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. We’ll stop
22 right there.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. What else did he say to you.
25 A. He told me a story of he saw a boy one
26 time – he was looking over a balcony or something -
27 and he saw a boy who didn’t masturbate and he had
28 sex with a dog. 1681
1 Q. Did he tell you anything else during this
2 conversation.
3 A. That particular section. Or –
4 Q. Yeah. I mean, did he tell you anything
5 else.
6 A. He told me that boys had to masturbate, or
7 males have to masturbate.
8 Q. Okay.
9 THE BAILIFF: They cannot hear.
10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: They couldn’t hear what you
11 had to say, Gavin. I know it’s hard. Lean right
12 into it.
13 A. He told me that males have to masturbate.
14 Q. All right. Now, when he said that, what, if
15 anything, did he do or say after that.
16 A. He said that if I masturbated; and I told
17 him that I didn’t. And then he said if I didn’t
18 know how, that he would do it for me.
19 Q. And what did you say.
20 A. And I said I didn’t really want to.
21 Q. All right. And then what happened.
22 A. And then he said it was okay, that it was
23 natural, and that it’s natural for boys to do it.
24 Q. All right. What happened after that.
25 A. And then so he — we were under the covers,
26 and I had his pajamas on, because he had this big
27 thing of pajamas and he gave me his pajamas.
28 Q. Okay. 1682
1 A. And so I was under his covers, and then
2 that’s when he put his hand in my pants and then he
3 started masturbating me.
4 Q. Could you see Mr. Jackson while he was doing
5 that to you.
6 A. Not really. I wasn’t really looking at him.
7 Q. Could you tell whether or not he was moving.
8 A. Well, he was — he was himself.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I wasn’t really looking at him. All I
11 could — I could kind of feel him moving, but, I
12 mean, I never really saw him moving.
13 Q. Do you know approximately how long Mr.
14 Jackson masturbated you.
15 A. Maybe five minutes, I guess.
16 Q. Did — do you know what an “ejaculation” is.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you have an ejaculation.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did Mr. Jackson say anything to you
21 afterwards.
22 A. I kind of felt weird. I was embarrassed
23 about it. And then he said it was okay; that it was
24 natural.
25 Q. Did anything else happen that evening
26 between you and Mr. Jackson.
27 A. No. We just — after that, we just — he
28 tried to say that it was okay and that — kind of 1683
1 like to comfort me, because I felt weird. I felt
2 weird about it. And then after a while, we just
3 went to sleep.
Here is Mesereau’s cross-examination of Gavin. According to the haters who run that site, Mesereau “refuses to accept that both Jackson and the grandmother said it. Mesereau pulls out one of the accuser’s interviews where he only mentions the grandmother’s quote, and ignores another interview where the boy said that it was also Jackson’s quote”. They tried to accuse Mesereau of not accepting the possibility that, just by sheer coincidence, Gavin’s grandmother told him the exact same advice that MJ told him! What would be the chances that his grandmother would say literally the exact same phrase, on her own initiative, to Gavin? They also claimed that Gavin told cops in another interview that MJ did indeed tell him that story, but Sgt. Robel’s testimony debunks that because he said he had never heard it before! And if Gavin told another officer that MJ said that, don’t you think Sgt. Robel would have known, since he interviewed Gavin multiple times before the raid, and knew every aspect of his story backwards and forwards? Don’t you think he would have told the Grand Jury about this in April 2004? And why didn’t the haters provide a transcript of Gavin’s interview? Because it doesn’t fit their story! He didn’t tell any cops that MJ told him that story! Mesereau was the first person that he told!
Try to keep your laughter to a minimum while reading this exchange!
1 Q. Okay. And you testified that Mr. Jackson
2 told you what masturbation is, right.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Is that true.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you testified to the jury that Mr.
7 Jackson said that if men don’t masturbate, that they
8 can get to a level where they can — might rape a
9 girl. Remember that.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you remember saying that.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the
14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on a number of
15 occasions.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you remember who interviewed you.
18 A. Most likely Steve Robel or Paul Zelis.
19 Q. Do you remember being asked, “Before we get
20 started on the next set of questions, can you
21 describe to us what your opinion is, what you think
22 masturbation is.” Do you remember one of the
23 sheriffs asked you that during an interview.
24 A. I believe so.
25 Q. And you knew those interviews were being
26 recorded, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Remember you said, “My grandma explained it 1798
1 to me. She told me that — that your — the only
2 reason is because like if — if men don’t do it, men
3 might get to a point where they might go ahead and
4 rape a woman”. Do you remember saying that to the
5 sheriffs.
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Why did your story change between that
8 interview and your testimony last Thursday.
9 A. Well, what do you mean “changed”.
10 Q. Well, you told the police your grandmother
11 made that quote to you, and you came into court
12 under oath and told the jury Mr. Jackson made that
13 quote to you.
14 A. That didn’t change. Because Michael tried
15 to explain to me first. And I — he was more
16 pushing on me that men have to masturbate.
17 Now, later when I came back from Neverland,
18 I guess my grandmother saw that I was very confused
19 about sexuality and things like that. And my
20 grandmother explained to me a lot of things.
21 Q. So it just so happened that after Mr.
22 Jackson told you, “If a man doesn’t do it, they may
23 get to a point where they rape a woman,” your
24 grandmother made the almost identical quote to you.
25 Is that what you’re saying.
26 A. Not really. She didn’t make the same exact
27 thing that Michael said. But I’m not exactly sure
28 what my grandmother said. I know my grandmother 1799
1 explained a lot of things to me.
2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
3 you a transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
4 A. Probably.
5 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Whoops, I’m sorry.
8 Your Honor, I spilled a little water with my
9 notebook, so –
10 THE BAILIFF: How about you put that over
11 here.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, have you had a
13 chance to look at that page of transcript.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
16 you told the sheriffs about what masturbation was.
17 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.
18 THE WITNESS: It refreshes my –
19 THE COURT: Just a moment. Let’s take care
20 of one thing at a time.
21 You may start again on that.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
23 Q. Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to look at
24 that page of transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
27 you told the sheriffs your grandmother said.
28 A. It refreshes — I can recall what my 1800
1 grandmother was telling me. She was — she saw that
2 I was embarrassed about things like masturbation and
3 growing up, and my mother was telling me that it’s
4 okay to do it. And Michael was telling me that you
5 have to do it.
6 Q. Well, Mr. Arvizo, I understand your
7 position. But when the sheriffs asked you what
8 masturbation was, you didn’t say, “Mr. Jackson told
9 me if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman.”
10 You said if — “My grandmother told me that if a man
11 doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman,” correct.
12 A. I believe so. That’s what you showed me.
13 But –
14 Q. And between the time of that interview –
15 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me.
16 Your Honor, he was about to say something
17 when he got cut off by counsel.
18 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, I apologize. I had no
19 idea.
20 THE WITNESS: But –
21 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me. Go ahead.
22 THE WITNESS: But that still doesn’t mean
23 that Michael did not tell me.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But what you’re telling
25 the jury is it was sort of a coincidence that both
26 your grandmother and Michael used almost the
27 identical phrase about raping a woman.
28 A. Both my grandmother and Michael were trying 1801
1 to talk to me about the — pretty much the birds and
2 the bees story.
3 Q. Okay. And they pretty much said the
4 identical thing, is that what you’re telling me.
5 A. Not exactly.
6 Q. Not exactly.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Well, the quotes are almost identical,
9 aren’t they.
10 A. You see, Michael was trying to tell me that
11 I have to masturbate. My mom — my grandmother was
12 actually telling me — giving me the talk. Michael
13 was just talking about masturbation.
14 Q. But your grandmother said to you, “If men
15 don’t do it, men might get to a point where they
16 might go ahead and rape a woman,” correct.
17 A. Michael also told me that.
18 Q. Well — so you’re saying they basically said
19 the same thing.
20 A. My grandmother said it’s okay to do it,
21 because sometimes, some men, they can’t control
22 themselves and might do that.
23 Q. But in that police interview, you never
24 mentioned that Michael Jackson had said that to you,
25 did you.
26 A. I’m sure in one of the other transcript I
27 mentioned about Michael.
28 Q. Not in that interview, correct. 1802
1 A. But I’m sure in another one I did.
Here is another manipulation of the facts by these haters. They accuse Aphrodite of dismissing the testimony of Jason Francia and downplaying his abuse as “tickling”.
Later, Jones espouses on the testimony from past victims. Sadly, one witness, a son of one of Jackson’s former maids, who testified that he had been molested by Jackson as a boy was dismissed by Jones as merely having been ‘tickled’ by Jackson. ‘Tickling’ that involved tears from the witness and 5 years of therapy. Jordie Chandler’s allegations were dismissed by Jones as ‘financially motivated’ – the 20 million dollar settlement was characterized as a ‘drop in the bucket’ for Jackson. Rather than focus on the principle of the matter, that Jackson paid the money to make the problem go away rather than defend his reputation, Jones in rather typical fashion makes Jackson out to be the victim. She cares not one whit for molestation victims, rather strangely she prefers to be on the side of a multi-millionaire with lawyers and PR people on tap – just because he is famous. Whilst she criticizes the families for accepting money instead of taking on a powerful celebrity, Jones seems oblivious to the impropriety of someone that is accused of molesting boys paying a settlement instead of standing and facing his accusers. To most people, these payments made Jackson look shifty, morally unaccountable and to some people, guilty.
Apparently they believed the crocodile tears that Jason cried on the witness stand, and his claims of going to therapy for 5 years, yet they did NOT show their readers any of his “compelling” testimony! And on top of that, they resort to the same Catch-22 argument that haters absolutely love to use: “MJ bought his way out of jail in 1993, yet his celebrity got him off in 2005!” That logic exactly explains why MJ was forced to settle: even though he surely would have been acquitted in civil court, haters would undermine his acquittal regardless, so it wasn’t worth tarnishing the Jackson brand to go through the trial.
I’ve already slaughtered both Jason and Blanca Francia in this post about MJ’s settlements, and for additional insight into Jason’s lies, let’s listen to what William Wagener had to say of a brief encounter he had with him before the trial.
That’s all for now, but before I go, let’s focus on something that the haters said in the excerpt above:
Rather than focus on the principle of the matter, that Jackson paid the money to make the problem go away rather than defend his reputation, Jones in rather typical fashion makes Jackson out to be the victim.
They’re saying that MJ must have been guilty because he wouldn’t “defend his reputation”, but in Part 2 of this series, I will dissect how they try to undermine MJ’s acquittal by saying his celebrity status got him off! It’s the same Catch 22 that haters use ALL OF THE TIME!!
Vindicatemj
Deborah
thetis7
lisathelawyer
sara101mj
lacienegasmiles
Mona
Guys, wait a minute please. Let me try and understand what’s ebor is trying to tell us and what Lynette is trying to translate into Bulgarian via Google. I don’t know Bulgarian but it is very close to Russian and the alphabet is the same, so evidently Lynette says that it will be better if Ebor writes in Bulgarian, so that we understand him better.
If this is the case, Ebor, please write the same in Bulgarian and I will try to translate for you.
Ebor, пожалуйста, пишите по болгарски.
Ebor там е на друг език, който знаете, че освен български. Ако пишете в руски VMJ могат да превеждат вместо вас.
When this blog site be exposed the anti-D blog site no more comment be permitted on anti-D blog site. My expectation is being anti-D blog site is setting up by D as vindicatemj be writing to us on selection subject. Please forgiving bad English it not being my language so must translating I know a short amount.
“I know Sneddon was trying to imply that MJ had the alleged crime scene cleaned up..lol, because he had a household staff that went about their cleaning jobs, but the pictures from the raid show 2 open bottles of alcohol , Jack daniels and a wine bottle in his room , when MJ was not even home, he was working in Vegas…”
OMG, this is another crazy detail to Sneddon’s crazy story! As far as I remember Michael had been in Las Vegas for at least two weeks or even more by the time they raided Neverland! And despite that they claimed that the bottles were Michael’s!
Of course this is the reason why they never did a fingerprint analysis of the bottles. In fact the probably did, only when finding that they were not Michael’s, they could have flushed the results down the toilet and pretend they simply didn’t know. This way there was at least some chance they could pass those bottles for Michael’s.
The Arvizo case will never cease to surprise us by its nonsense. How could they ever take it to a trial?
“When it was paid by insurance that made the insurance company essentially the defendant in the case and they don’t like people to know that they can get away with frivolous lawsuits.”
Lynette, I also thought that the insurance company was negotiating this thing behind closed doors while putting up a public show that they were not. They do it not to encourage people to think they are so easy to deal with.
As to Thomas Mesereau there is simply no way that his information about the insurance payment could not be true. For an attorney it would have been a suicide, especially in a situation like that. The other side could easily check up on him, and his case would have been lost before its start.
So it WAS the insurance company which paid.
However I agree that the question whether the insurance forced Michael to pay or not can be disputed. They probably didn’t, though you never know what they said in those negotiations.
But all this simply DOES NOT MATTER.
The crucial thing is that there was NO MATCH and Jordan’s description of MJ’s genitals was a complete OPPOSITE of the photos in every possible way – even in their color, which is a totally unusual thing and could happen only in Michael’s case due to his unique vitiligo disease.
And since there was no match it means that the whole thing was a BIG LIE – and everything else is in the field of human psychology.
Yes, Michael didn’t want to see himself being trashed for months on end at a civil trial which could end in some penalty anyway. Yes, he didn’t want it to be televised (!) and we can easily understand that. Yes, he wanted the media to stop. Yes, he hoped his lawyers would help him but they said they could not guarantee anything. Yes, he probably even thought of Jordan’s good. Yes, he wanted to resume his work. Yes, he wanted to get married, have children and be happy at last.
All this is natural to feel and cannot be used against Michael. Any of us would have settled if we were in his place – especially if the money came from the insurance company.
@Miky
” i also read a so called fan saying she/he is ashamed of thinking mj was innocent and that she compared mjs defense to others cm and that they used the same defence( thats a new one on me) this person also believes in the “hush money” says he/she has read court documents provided to her through topix that prove jackson was a cm!! and heres the BIG one. sites his/her source mjfacts hater site and also provid es that article from 2004 by maureen orth about kids in hotel rooms this person also claims that her/his only defence of mj was that he was found innocent (Yea Says Alot I Know) and that those mysterious kids wont come forward because of crazy fans!!”
I am the one who wrote that here on this site a while back i was telling MJ fans how Haters are disguising them selfles as fans. and what a so called fan said on topix.
“I just told my hairdresser to check your site out today”
Oh Nan, thanks! We are trying to vindicate Michael for the general public and not for haters, who are evidently beyond hope. However they are also human beings and miracle do sometimes happen.
When I think of these people’s sick minds I always remember that they were innocent babies once – so what happened to them? Why did they turn into who they are now? How do innocent babies turn into monsters? Who did it to them?
Maria, sorry for not answering you (or anyone). There has been suddenly a huge pile of work to do after the holidays, so I do not have a single minute to spare, but hope to get back to the blog at the first opportunity. I want to leave a couple of comments about the D. and anti-D. subject you’ve mentioned.
@ Nan
I agree with you, there were lots of people coming and going into Michael’s room when he wasn’t there. In fact it was stated in several testimonies during the trial. Remember, Michael often was away for long, long weeks. So people could do whatever they wanted at Neverland.
lynande51
thank you for the info…
I wonder how much time a lot of people spent in MJ bedroom suite , even when MJ was no where around..I would bet quite a lot of his guests were in and out of there…
@lynande,
I think they broke the settlement agreement with the Gutierrez book.
They did take those alcohol bottles into evidence however they did not do a DNA or figerprint analysis of them. That is in Paul Zellis’s testimony I think. They were dropped from the evidence list because they were not evidence of any crime.
I think that everyone has to remember that Omer and two friends of his were at Neverland the day of that raid. Omer and his buddies were 18 years old at the time. That is legal drinking age in Norway but not in the United States. Here it is 21 years old. I once found an article from one of the parents of one of the boys and they said that they were far more afraid of the SBSD than they were Michael Jackson, considering he wasn’t even there.
@ Suzy
Here is Ray Chandler’s quote after MJ’s death: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/06/uncle-alleged-molestation-victim-responds-jackson-death
Notice that ridiculous estimate of the settlement being between $2 and $50 million dollars!
And here is his quote in 1995, right before the release of HIStory: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297591,00.html
Suzy and lynande51
Those are very interesting points…
Insurance company dont like to be robbed..
Maybe somebody should tell Jordan the insurance company is now defunct..
I always thought it was possible he thought that Sneddon might turn on his father out of embarrassment if he showed up at court.and bring him up on charges..
After all we have learned , I find it almost incredulous that the prosecutors did not realize MJ was innocent when they started that trial..
I think that is why Zonen always fights so hard about it stiill, because he has to defend why they even brought that case for the Arvizo and Larry Feldman.., in the first place..
I have no explanation for some of the remarks Ray Chandler makes ..He might have mental issues too..lol
I was thinking about that raid the other day..I am going to have to check back and see if Gavin initially said he had been drinking alcohol I dont remember if they fingerprinted bottles but I will have to check..
I know Sneddon was trying to imply that MJ had the alleged crime scene cleaned up..lol, because he had a household staff that went about their cleaning jobs, but the pictures from the raid show 2 open bottles of alcohol , Jack daniels and a wine bottle in his room , when MJ was not even home, he was working in Vegas…I would think his staff would put the tops on.., if they were trying to clean a crime scene up.
@ Nan and Shelly, There is nothing in the settlement agreement at this time that prohibits Jordan from speaking out. It clearly says that the payment is absolute whether the confidentiality terms are breached or not. That paper silenced no one but Michael speaking out in his own defence, go read it again. In the beginning is a clause called a Confession of Judgement that means that if Michael doesn’t pay for real or imagined breaches of the confidentiality,they can take the original settlement into court and not have to file another lawsuit to get the rest of the money.
Michael on the other hand if he found that they broke the confidentiality agreement would have to take them back to court. Well we all know convienently when they broke that, it was in the middle of the trial when Ray Chandler finally released the book that was written before they ever even started. After the trial Michael just wanted the hell out of this country. Jordan can speak out because the information is already in the public domaine he has no need not to other than his own choice or if he was worried that an insurance company would come after him for repayment of the money because they are more likely to than the defendant. When it was paid by insurance that made the insurance company essentially the defendant in the case and they don’t like people to know that they can get away with frivolous lawsuits. The company that did pay is now defunct meaning it doesn’t exist. Maybe Jordan needs to know that.
@ Nan
Actually I think Ray Chandler did say something after Michael’s death. If I remember correctly it was something like “I hope he’s in a better place now” or “I hope he rests in peace” or something like this. I don’t know what it was exactly but I do remember thinking I was like “WTF? Is that you say upon the death of a man who allegedly molested your nephew?” It was yet another odd reaction on the Chandlers’s part.
And about the prosecution’s interview with Jordan in 2004: I wonder if the prosecution could have subpoenaed him against his will, if they wanted? Because if they could have it’s rather odd that they didn’t and left him alone. I’m pretty sure this conversation didn’t go like: “Hi, we are the prosecution, would you please testify against Michael Jackson?”, “No, I would not, I did my part and if you try to force me I will take legal steps. Now be gone. Bye”. I’m sure it was much longer and a lot of things we don’t know and that aren’t in the files were said. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall because I’m sure, for example, if Jordan told them nothing ever happened then they would not include that in their report, instead they would report some vauge reason why he chose not to testify, such as “I did my part”…
Shelly I agree..
The prosecution was trying to establish a pattern of behavior.A certain type..
That is why Tom Mesereau brought up that Mac looked nothing like Jordan.
This entire inquisition was based on tabloid gossip.
I always found it interesting that people like Diane Dimond try to spin it like Evan blew his brains out due to illness.
I have always thought it was because the F.B.I. files were coming out and of course , he knew what was in them……., what we all know now..
They stalked the man for a decade and they told the prosecutor there was nothing.And that Jordan would not testify.
“I did my part ”
Everyone knows the next logical question is “your part in what?”
I would think that if you were Evan and you had spent the last decade trying to smear MJ, you might give one last recorded interview saying what a horrible person MJ was .Especially since he was getting adulation at that time..
Stick around to refute what was in those files…
If he had planned on killing himself , he had nothing to lose .you cant take money to the grave ..
But then you might have to answer some questions yourself…
Seems he didnt want to take any questions anymore.
I think that is the real reason he blew his brians out ..
..I noticed Ray Chandler wasnt on tv commenting on those files either….
Havent seen that guy on tv since the court case , where he refused to testify…
At any rate , I always thought the closest we would get to the family admitting the truth was the fact that no one in that family had one kind word to say about the man,after he died…,A dedicated father,LOL, who supposedly protected his son from a predator and obtained generational wealth from an insurance company ..You might think they would have said SOMETHING on his behalf…
Not one word of faint praise ???NADA, … ZIP
All they said is he was a mental case and no one bothered with him for years, wouldnt even attend his funeral , nothing..
So that to me is their way of blaming Evan for the whole thing, playing his victims also..
Frank Cascio said in his book that Jordan said Evan was very jealous of MJ,( no doubt because MJ was becoming his father figure) and that his father was a violent person..
We know he tried to kill his own son later in life.
I wonder if Jordan might..? just come out and speak the truth , if he could still hold onto the cash..I know Frank has implied he is going to try and get Jordan to come forward.
lynande51
LOL..
Whats next? Mother Teresa had a foot fetish because she used to wash the feet of the poor? What a pervert LOL
I am with Tom Mesereau on this one ,,I dont know how they brought that case with a straight face..
“Where did that question stem from??
Public rumor??”
I think it’s because the DA tried o convince the jurors that MJ had a preference for a certain type of boys.
Nan I am sure some that some of his witnesses were wondering what he was thinking with some of those questions especially the ones about the lions. Do you think he ever felt a little silly when he had to do that? It sure is a good thing he didn’t have to question Abdool about that vaseline crap. LOL. How do you suppose he would have gone about that? Do you think it could be done with a straight face? Or worse yet the dead baby bones!!!And God forbid if he had to question Adrian McManus about her MJ tampon collection!!!
We should do a parody on that one! Can I be Tom Mesereau?
BTW Mesereau also asked June Chandler if MacCauly Culkin bore any resemblance to her son Jordan..
Where did that question stem from??
Public rumor??
He knew the answer to that one too..
She said no and that negated yet another rumor out in the public arena that MJ had a certain type boy that he befriended..
I fail to see how some of Mesereau questions can be construed as being anything other than an astute defense lawyer
Lets not forget that the judge seemed to rule in favor of the prosecution for everything , particularly on controversial motions..
If he was doing anything underhanded or out of pocket ,,I feel Mellvile would have been more then happy to call him out on it…..
I was just reading comments and noticed the conversation regarding Mesereau supposedly lying about Jimmy Safechuck and whether he had been married at Neverland…
I am afraid I must be missing the point…
Although I dont know if Safechuck was married there or not,… Mesereau did not state that he was..
His client is sitting right next to him..so Mesereau knows the answer….
The prosecution and media had been spinning rumors for a very long time.
Safechuck and others were interviewed and said “No Way” that MJ did anything to them in 93, and yet the prosecutors leave that stuff unspoken hanging in the air, in the media because it is to their advantage….more rumors….Same with some of the other VG stuff..the lamp. the lion story that Zonen was trying to put out
Because Zonen was counting on people knowing these details ..wasnt he ?
And the police /Da KNOW Safechuck and others were defending mj back then……
That is why the prosecutors didnt bring these children, now adults in, and didnt bring their names up……. although from what I understand Safechuck wanted to testify on MJ behalf…
He couldnt be brought in for rebuttal because the prosecutors didnt bring his name up..
So Mesereau brought his name up in a different context.
That is just smart lawyering.
I fail to see how that makes him a liar.
The prosecutors are the ones that changed time lines , left out exculpatory evidence,brought in people who had testified under oath and then changed their testimony when offered huge sums of money from tabloids …etc
As far as Meserau is concerned..I have found that he has consistently told the truth..he said J chandler refused to testify ..we find out that is true from fbi files , the prosecution led people to believe he would testify when they knew he wouldnt…..prosecutors implied mj had kiddie porn on computers..he didnt and they did not inform the defense of fbi findings..
That my friends is something they are bound to pass along to the defense,…
It goes on and on.
I understand that on some boards having to do with imdb or something ..there is debate over this stuff..
but I dont do those boards .
I am talking to actual people , in my everyday life….and there is most definitely a shift in MJ favor.
As I said before I noticed the positive thumbs up hits on MJ acquittal stuff on youtube after a period of time..
There are lots of positive things going on and they all help MJ legacy.
I have always approached MJ almost like a political campaign..
I notice that an opponent will get particularly hateful and desperate when they are losing ground.
remember the swift boat campaign against john kerry?
Kerry was not bright and chose to ignore it
this is the same thing to me.
We just need to refute the garbage and stay on message..
You only need the majority to win ..
And from the success of mj memorabilia, circe de solil stuff, calendars ,his music , short films videos , computer dance games , positive videos on youtube , Michael is winning
this site has a lot to do with informing the public about the truth ..
I just told my hairdresser to check your site out today …
HELENA: “I am terribly sorry, but I have an impression that both desiree and anti-desiree bloggers are one and the same person, who just likes playing games with unsuspecting MJ fans.
Why do I think so? Because this daughter “anti”desiree site does everything to popularize and promote the “parent” blog. Extensive quotes, respectful calling desiree by “her” full name “Desiree Ladonna Hill”, making the name a recognizable internet brand, etc. If you count the number of times desiree’s name is cited it will be no less than a dozen in each post.
Don’t people realize that it is possible to promote someone by negating this person which is even more effective than promoting the original brand?”
*******************************
Helena, respectfully, you’re wrong. The blog is hardly promoting Desiree when they’ve published quotes showing that she promotes pedophilia, not to mention the homophobic/racist rants that she posted online, a history that you guys were completely unaware of. Let’s not forget the many sock puppets they’ve revealed she’s used in the past which show that she’s a liar. Drawing attention to the way that she is criminally stalking the people here at VMJ and others is hardly promotion. Did you really look at the site?
Some times things are really just what they have presented themselves to be; not everything is a conspiracy. This is what the person who runs the blog has said.
“Listen, not everyone will agree with the method behind this blog.
Not everyone understands how search engines work.
Poking fun at how Desiree always states a person’s first and last name in a condescending way was just part of the game.
“The Great Pretender” title was chosen to mock her; that’s who we say she is.
Last but not least, I said it before, you can’t critique a person without bringing attention to them or mentioning them.
The blogs which critique Diane Diamond, Victor Gutierrez, Maureen Orth, are they bringing attention to those people and making them more popular or are they calling attention to the behavior they want to criticize?
It’s obviously the latter.
Besides, we could hardly manufacture comments by Ms. Hill herself, could we?
I don’t think the person who made that comment has read the blog (she probably just skimmed through it) or the comments Desiree and Jessica left here and have made in other places about this place.
If she did, she would see very clearly that Desiree didn’t create this blog but it’s an interesting concept.
Desiree is clever and crazy but I honestly don’t think she’s smart enough to pull that off.”