Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 3 of 4
Now, unto their next set of lies! This by far the most appalling and most egregious set of lies and distortions that I have ever seen! This MJ hater website stumbled upon what is purported to be an email interview between two of the jurors (Ray Hultman and foreman Paul Rodriguez) and media hack Larry Harriet. They (both the MJ hater site AND Larry Harriet) deliberately twisted their words in order to fit his notion that MJ’s celebrity “got him off”. He describes himself as the following:
Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.
Executive Investigative Editor and Chief Reporter of Under Private Investigation, Inc., a company that Harriet founded himself. The company focuses on being the online website resource of record for reporting on the hottest legal news. People know that when legal news breaks, Larry Harriet’s websites are always on top, reporting first and reporting right, with the biggest stories and the biggest interviews that break primetime news in the legal world.
Larry’s newest venture is the creation of CourtNet, a website that focuses on the biggest legal stories of the time. Larry runs and operates the website completely himself, writing all the news reports, and maintaining the website himself. Larry uses the website to pursue a goal of bringing missing people home, one person at a time. The website focuses on a handful of high-profile missing people cases and invites visitors to help solve them.
Larry Harriet has won legions of fans that flock to the website everyday to find out about the next big story. Harriet, a long time fan of Court TV, knows his true passion is working to help crime victims, and has hopes of one day becoming a prosecutor.
Larry Harriet believes that all journalism should be real journalism. Journalism that is fair, balanced, and unbiased. Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.
Whoa! Did you guys read that last paragraph! Larry “does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles…” and is a “statement of opinion” based on research that “may or may not be accurate”. Well, that pretty much sums up his credibility, or lack thereof! I was going to destroy it, but he already beat me to it! But I appreciate his honesty!
On October 8th, 2005 he posted what he claims is an “exclusive” email interview with jury foreman Paul Rodriguez. Here are a few excerpts, which I will analyze:
1. Did it all come down to “reasonable doubt” for you, take us through the counts.
Yes, it really did we started out on Count #1, which we felt the defense proved not guilty, because of the mother leaving the ranch and not asking for help. So, we felt that Mr. Jackson was INNOCENT of that charge. On the molestation, we couldn’t convict based on testimony of past acts. We couldn’t convict on the boy’s testimony because of reasonable doubt. We did not feel that Jackson gave them alcohol at all, let alone with the intent of molestation, and if he did it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Count 1 was the conspiracy charge, and there was ABSOLUTE doubt with that one, which he specifically stated (hence his use of the word “innocent”)! He acknowledges that he couldn’t legally convict based on the 1108 evidence (but even if he could have, he didn’t believe Jason Francia so it wouldn’t have mattered. He told Nancy Grace that he wasn’t a credible witness.), and that the jurors didn’t believe that MJ served them alcohol.
2. Now, we know that Katarina Carls, Ellie Cook, and Ray Hultman thought he was guilty, what happend in the jury room with them?
Well the 3 of them, kept making statements on the way there heart felt, what they thought, their huntch. And I told them we could not convict based on what they believe because of reasonable doubt.
Carls, Cook, and Hultman wanted to convict on prejudice, which (theoretically) is illegal. But their belief that MJ was guilty in the past was NOT due to any credible evidence (especially in light of the fact that all of the facts of 1993 were not presented in court), but instead was due to their “hunch” or their “feelings” or their “suspicions”. They could have held fast and voted Guilty, which would have resulted in a hung jury and a retrial, but fortunately they didn’t give in to their desires.
Here is Hultman trying to rationalize his belief that MJ was guilty:
“I can’t feel that Michael Jackson could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days with a boy and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn’t make sense to me.”
Wow, such compelling evidence, wouldn’t you agree? So because it “doesn’t make sense” to him, therefore MJ was guilty.
3. What was your impression of Thomas Sneddon?He was a redneck.
The term “redneck” is a derogatory reference to poor, white farmers from the South, and is similar to “cracker”, “hillbilly”, and “white trash”. In recent years, the term expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways, and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and segregationists. I think it fairly describes Sneddon! The fact that he had the audacity to call Chris Tucker a “boy” proves it!
1. Are you planning on writing a book?
You know what, I have talked to some people, nothing set in stone but I have considered it, and might do it.
Rodriguez signed a book deal with Vigliano and Associates, but of course he never had the chance to publish it, most likely because he refused lie and say MJ was guilty. It’s also interesting to note Ray Hultman’s claims in that article regarding his lawsuit to get out of his book deal that would “prove” that MJ was guilty: that he was a “novice” who was “suckered” into signing a book deal, and then “pressured” into sensationalizing it. He called it a “bad experience” for him, but what do you think the experience would have been like for MJ had that book been released? Lucky for him, he was able to reach an out of court settlement with the book publisher, and no money changed hands at all; he was merely cleared of his obligation to write the book.
2. What do you think of Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook writing their books?
I’m not mad, but disappointed. I saw their interview and read their press statements, and I was really disappointed. I was a juror who FOLLED THE LAW of REASONABLE DOUBT and they twisted the things I said in order to sell books, when what I said, was the LAW of reasonable doubt. You have to look at the EVIDENCE and what you believe about something doesn’t matter.
That is a good answer! Here in the USA, we convict on evidence, not emotions! They certainly did twist Rodriguez’s statements for their own gain, such as the following:
Eleanor Cook: [During the deliberations] I said he was guilty and I said it in a big way. They came up after me with a vengeance. I really got attacked.
Rita Cosby: How so?
Cook: ‘I didn’t understand’, ‘I didn’t know’, ‘I was too old’…
R. Cosby: How did the foreman [Paul Rodriguez] threaten you?
Cook: If I don’t change my mind, or go with the group, or be more understanding, he’ll have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff will notify the judge, and the judge will have me removed….
3. What happened with the juror who brought in the court tv episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond?
We never saw it, we couldn’t get the VCR to work.
Eleanor Cooke successfully snuck in an episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond’s closing arguments coverage from Court TV, with the hope that it would prejudice the other jurors, but the VCR didn’t work, so they were unable to view the tape. I don’t think it was a coincidence; I think it was Divine Intervention! And even IF they would have watched the tape, it would have been grounds for disciplinary action against the jury for their misconduct, and Mesereau would have surely based his appeal on it. Here is an excerpt from this article:
Bringing the Court TV video and the medical book into deliberations were violations of court rules because only trial evidence is allowed in deliberations and jurors are barred from considering outside materials, especially media reports.
5. How do you take the criticism of people like Wendy Murphy who claims you of having “dumb-juror” syndrome?
I disagree. I’m a smart person, who followed the evidence, and it just wasn’t there.
This is what these so-called legal “pundits” do: instead of taking responsibility for their irresponsible and faulty analysis, they simply blame the jury! Wendy Murphy is a proven liar, and has no credibility whatsoever! She is the one who referred to MJ as the “Teflon Molester” (a reference to mob boss John Gotti, who was nicknamed the “Teflon Don”, because criminal charges against him could never “stick” and result in a conviction. Teflon is non-stick chemical used in cookware that is manufactured the DuPont company ).
6. How do you think jury’s convict people of child molestation/rape cases?
I think that if they convict they must convict beyond a reasonable doubt, there has to be a smoking gun, like a video, semen, you know… SOMETHING of substance. Not just
testimony.
Now, I’m not an expert in child abuse cases, but I will say this: there are cases when testimony is all that is needed to convict someone, and there are cases when more than just testimony is needed. You have to look at it on a case by case basis. But in THIS CASE, if there was any truth to the allegations, then there would have been physical evidence!!! However, when you look at the totality of the testimony, you’ll see that this case was a complete joke! The MJ Haters site and Larry Harriet tried to spin this answer by saying that this was “proof” that Rodriguez was a “dumb juror” who didn’t understand how to apply the law of reasonable doubt:
If we look at the trial verdict through the lens of Rodriguez’s reasoning, it all becomes clear why Jackson was found not guilty by the jury. Rodriguez’s insistence on a “smoking gun”, a “smoking gun” which was never presented by the prosecution and is rare in cases of molestation of this type, virtually guaranteed Jackson’s freedom.
As I said earlier, I’m still waiting for them to write a convincing, cogent post that explains exactly why MJ should have been convicted! Something tells me that I’ll be waiting for a long, long time!
8. The mother, being a troublesome witness, did the mother directly affect your position?
I will say yes, she did, I looked for patterns in the way she talked and her sons talked and it all seemed programmed, they sounded alike.
Ironically Eleanor Cook felt the same way!, here’s what Eleanor Cooke told Larry King about her opinion of Janet Arvizo:
“She was just downright rude to us, as far as I’m concerned. And I think she set her son up, and I think she’s probably the poorest excuse for a mother that I’ve ever known.”
9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?
Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, and probably molested this boy, but as I said, what we believe doesn’t matter… the EVIDENCE has to PROVE IT.
This is what makes me seriously question the authenticity of this so-called email interview. Was part or all of it doctored? We’ll never know.
Rodriguez has defended MJ since the acquittal in every interview he has given, so why would he all of a sudden say that he thinks MJ is guilty. He has NEVER said anything to indicate that he thought MJ was ever guilty! His actions have always spoken louder than his words! In fact, look at the date of this interview: October 8th, 2005. This was around the time when he was eligible to profit from a book deal (remember, according to California Law, juries must wait 90 days before writing a book). He signed with the aforementioned publisher, yet his book was never published. Gee, why do you think his book wasn’t published? Anybody want to take a guess?
11. Did you ever make racist comments to the asian juror, Katarina Carls?
No.
Katarina Carls was the third juror to sell out and say that she thought MJ was guilty, not only in 1993, but in the 2005 trial as well! But her timing is very suspicious: she didn’t come forward with these beliefs until AFTER Hultman and Cook announced their book deal! Could it be that she was also trying to secure a book deal for herself? I would surely bet on it!
I don’t know if she was on Larry King with the other jurors, and if she was she is not identified in the transcripts, so I don’t know what she said in the first post-trial interviews (if she granted any interviews at all). But here is what she said to Rita Cosby:
CARLS: Yes. It was very hard for me because I believed the boy and I believed that Michael is a child molester. And so I spent the whole weekend thinking about it, and I still cannot get past the reasonable doubt. There is (INAUDIBLE) reasonable doubt there, so I have to vote not guilty.
COSBY: But you just said to me that you believe Michael Jackson is a child molester, is that correct?
CARLS: That’s right.COSBY: But you let him walk, based on the law, is what you’re saying.
CARLS: Well, I have to – I have to follow the law, yes, and the jury instruction.COSBY: And you’re just saying that there just wasn’t enough evidence, based on what you looked at in the law?
CARLS: I – well, there – it’s just the family background. I kept asking myself, how – is there any slight possibility that this boy might lie at all? And my answer was yes. So I have to vote not guilty, even if there is a slight possibility.COSBY: But still in your heart of hearts, you’re telling me that you believe Michael Jackson is a child molester.
CARLS: Yes. Yes, I do.
The fact that Carls thinks that MJ could have been guilty in the Arvizo case totally destroys what little credibility she had! And I also think that Rita Cosby is a HORRIBLE interviewer! She should have brought with her a summary of the trial, and DIRECTLY CHALLENGED Carls, Hultman, and Cook, instead of giving them a platform to trick an already misinformed public into thinking that MJ merely “got off”!!! She could have asked them about the August 2003 issue of Barely Legal that Star claimed MJ showed him in March 2003, the shopping sprees they went on while being held “hostage” at Neverland, Star claiming to see a third instance of abuse (when he originally claimed two instances), the rebuttal video, Gavin saying “I don’t know” over 90 times, and many other material inconsistencies. For more analysis on Rita Cosby, read this post from MJEOL.
By the way, it’s funny how Rita Cosby and the other media hacks fell all over themselves to interview Carls, Hultman, and Cook because they said MJ was guilty, yet NOBODY gave the time of day to juror Susan Drake! She said the following to Larry King:
KING: Was there a chance you would have convicted anything guilty, Susan, on one of the minor counts?
DRAKE: Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity. Because I really believe in doing what is right. And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way it was laid out.
And here is Drake’s quote to NY Post “columnist” Andrea Peyser, who wrote the disgusting “Freak of the Week” article earlier this year, which I won’t even link to because it’s a waste of time for you to read it! Unfortunately, I had to use Diane Dimond’s book as a source for this quote. From page 313:
Drake would later tell New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser that she had been totally convinced that Michael Jackson was blameless. “I’m adamant,” she was quoted as saying, “I think he’s not guilty and I think he’s innocent.”
12. If you could tell Mr. Tom Stendon one thing, what would that be?
I would tell him that during the trial, it clearly came through to us that you had an agenda, to take down a man, a human being, and it didn’t work.
Yes, Tom Sneddon truly had an agenda to down a man, a human being, and it did not work! And I’m glad that Rodriguez took the time to remind Harriet that Michael Jackson is, above all else, a HUMAN BEING!
This post is a summary of the zeal and vindictiveness that motivated Sneddon, and despite throwing everything including the kitchen sink at MJ, he was still acquitted. For all new “phantom victims” out there, please Do Not Disturb! Sneddon did the best job he could do and still failed miserably, and nobody can say it was due to a lack of effort!
14. Do you regret your decision to acquit Michael Jackson?
Based on the evidence presented to us, no. If there was say a video, semen, or something that was a smoking gun on the molestation, I would of have voted GUILTY.
The MJ haters are absolutely love that quote because they think that the quote is “proof” that the “dumb jurors” let MJ off the hook due to their misunderstanding of the law, but when you look at what he’s saying, he did what any reasonable person would do: acquit MJ! The only “evidence” offered was the testimony of the accusers, and the only witness to the abuse was Star, who couldn’t remember if he saw MJ abuse Gavin twice or three times, so based on the evidence presented, the jury made the right decision!
15. What did you think of “The Boy,” Michael Jackson’s collection of child porn?
Didn’t want to look at it, didn’t want it to influence my decision.
In my opinion, Judge Melville’s decision to allow Sneddon to use those “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and “Boys Will Be Boys” as evidence against MJ was the worst decision he made during the trial. Those two books were confiscated in 1993, and had been literally collecting dust for 10 years, and they had no probative value whatsoever to the 2005 case. (For more information on MJ’s art collection, read this post.) Sneddon’s only use for them was to humiliate MJ and prejudice the jury into thinking that MJ must be gay if he had those books in his possession, and therefore if he’s gay he must be a child molester! That was the ultimate ad hominem technique that Sneddon had in his arsenal, and the media let him go unchallenged! What’s disappointing is that openly lesbian MJ hater Jane Velez Mitchell never used her platform to criticize this strategy, which was an insult to gays and lesbians all over the world! (In this press release for her new book, she called MJ the “King of Poppers”!)
Oh, and did you guys notice how Harriet asked a “loaded question”, which is a question which contains a pre-conceived assumption? Harriet referred to the book as “child porn”, but don’t you think if MJ had any child porn, he would have been arrested on the spot? That’s a perfect example of how Sneddon had the media do his dirty work for him. People like Harriet, Ray Chandler, Grace, Dimond, etc. repeatedly referred to those two books as “child porn” in order to elicit a negative emotional reaction from their viewers.
I’m truly glad that Rodriguez and the other jurors didn’t fall for Sneddon’s tricks, and they were brave enough to just ignore it.
16. Well you say, that you didn’t want it to influence your decision, it was entered into evidence, so, why not look at it?
No comment.
Good answer, Paul! You don’t owe Harriet or anyone else an explanation!
18. All of the people who are mad at you the jury, because they felt Jackson was guilty, what would you say to them?
I studied the evidence, based on reasonable doubt, I voted Not Guilty.
Once again, good answer Paul! You didn’t fall for Harriet’s mind games!
19. Did you want evidence that proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or all doubt?Well, I’d say reasonable doubt, I mean the bar was set high and the evidence just didn’t hold up.
Here is Harriet, once again, trying to trip up Rodriguez by confusing him with legal jargon. Whether the standard of proof is reasonable doubt or all doubt, the case was a freaking joke, and the media knew it, yet they wanted to try to abuse the “reasonable doubt” doctrine and conflate it with “he got off on a technicality”. Nice try Harriet. Nice try.
Here is the “exclusive interview” that Harriet had with Ray Hultman on October 10th, 2005:
1. Mr. Hultman, first of all, thank you for doing this interview for us, I really appreciate it. Okay, I want to ask you specifically about the jury, what happened in the jury room, were you surprised at their jump to vote not guilty? Explain.
yes i was suprised to see that the jury wanted to vote not guilty it was about 3 of us out of the 12 that wanted to vote guilty and i was shocked to see that the rest of the jury was ready to vote not guilty after hearing all of this testimony by people that sounded credible to me
Credible? Are you kidding me? Were either Hultman, Cook, or Carls paying attention at all during the trial? I’m not going to spend too much time on this, except to say that his answer is absolutely laughable.
3. When I interviewed Paul, he was really disappointed that you and Ellie would “twist what he said,” he felt that you were twisting his statements to sell books, your reaction?
well he did make rude comments that is the truth and me writing my book is not about money its about the truth
Well Ray, if your book is about “the truth” then why did Stacey Brown have to plagiarize Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair column? And why wasn’t this book ever released? Why did you have to SUE to get out of the book deal, claiming that you had been taken advantage of?
4. What is happening with the book, I’ve heard that you were filing a lawsuit about it?
i don’t have an answer for you with that i can’t comment
You couldn’t comment because your cowardly lawsuit was still pending!
5. What is your definition of reasonable doubt?
proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable
Well, Ray is absolutely correct. Reasonable doubt is the amount of doubt that a REASONABLE person would have went present with all of the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. And as I’ve said before, anyone who studies this case will have absolute doubt!
6. In reviewing my tapes from the Jackson trial, I saw the interviews you gave to Diane Dimond, Court TV, Nancy Grace, CNN, Fox, etc. and you pretend that nothing went wrong in that jury room, now we know because of your statements that there was massive things going down in that jury room that were wrong, why did you pretend that everything was all right, that you saw smoke but couldn’t find fire?
we all agreed we did not want the public to think anything went wrong it was just so we all agreed
Let’s end this crap once and for all. Hultman and Cook claimed that they were “bullied” and “coerced” into voting “Not Guilty”, but they spent 6 days deliberating, and Cook even snuck in contraband in an attempt to get a guilty verdict, but alas they voted to acquit MJ, and defended their acquittals in subsequent interviews to Good Morning America and Larry King.
9. If you had to do it all over agian, would you, If you were able to go back in time and not sign the papers, not vote not guilty but guilty would you?
yes in a second
Oh, really? Well Ray, you seem pretty convinced that MJ should have convicted, but not only did you sue to get out of your book deal, but let’s look at the kind and compassionate comments that you made when you found out that MJ died:
“I offer my sympathies to Michael Jackson’s family and hope God will give them strength during this time. Michael Jackson was undeniably a great entertainer and it’s sad that much of his talents and energy in later life was consumed by having to defend some poor personal choices.”
Gee, I wonder if John Wayne Gacy, a real child molester who murdered 33 boys, received those types of comments when he died in prison?
10. If the victim is reading this right now what would you want to say to him?
As you can see, Hultman wasn’t in a mood to answer this question. The real question is this: what would the “victim” want to say to the jurors, who because of his lies, had to waste 5 months of their lives?
11. Do you hope the mother and the victim file a civil suit?
yes i do very much so at least jackson won’t get off scott free
Well, they had their chance, but there wasn’t a lawyer in America who, after OBJECTIVELY looking at the facts of the criminal trial, would even consider suing MJ! Even with the lesser standard of guilt by a preponderance of the evidence, they would STILL lose! And I’m sure Gavin’s new buddies Sneddon and Zonen convinced him and his mother not to sue or talk to the media, in exchange for them “helping” them with the criminal trial.
12. Do the other 9 jurors being so ready to vote not guilty tell you anything about the American Justice System, about the power of celebrity?
yes it does because with the testimony presented to us i believe that if it wasn’t michael jackson and it was joe smo he would of been found guilty automatically
Whatever! That answer isn’t even worth my analysis.
15. What happened with the juror who snuck in the court tv video of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond analyzing the Jackson case? Did you want to see it?
in a way i did because with the jury being so just stubron i wanted them to
As I stated earlier, the rules excluded the inclusion of outside media during deliberations, and had they watched the video, they could have been removed from the jury due to misconduct.
18. Did you believe the states witness the youth minister?
yes i did believe him from what i remember we never reviewed his testimony in the jury room but from what i remember he was telling the truth
Noticed how he said “from what I remember, we never reviewed his testimony”. Well Ray, why didn’t you review his testimony? Why are you the only saying that you believed him? Why were some of the other jurors laughing at him during their break?
21. What would you say to Thomas Stendon?
i would say sorry because you did put up a good case and i believe jackson is guilty of these charges
This is further confirmation that Sneddon did all he could to maliciously persecute, not prosecute, MJ, and all new “victims” need not apply!
There are other topics on the MJ hater site that I could easily refute, but it would be redundant because it has all been refuted already on various MJ websites, there’s no need to rehash all of that info again here.
However, I’d like to finish this part by taking a closer look at “investigative journalist” Larry Harriet. Here is his blog, which hasn’t been updated since March 2008. I will briefly discuss several of his posts:
“What I Like About Diane Dimond”: You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Well, this pretty much sums up the totality of Larry Harriet.
“What I’m Working On”: This is arguably the most laughable, most pathetic piece of science fiction ever written! In this post, Harriet claimed that he was working on an “explosive” series about the MJ trial that would be titled “Dumb Juror Syndrome: Inside the Michael Jackson Jury.” (This is the cover artwork.) Here is only a short summary of what he claimed he would expose:
- how the jury ignored and did not look at crucial prosecution evidence that pointed to Michael Jackson’s guilt (I’m sure he’s referring to the two books from 1993)
- how the jury had the intention of profiting off their position as jurors and thought that a “not guilty” verdict would put them in the best position to do so (Are you kidding me? There was no money to be made by a “not guilty” verdict! NOBODY received book deals unless they promised to lie! Even Mesereau lost his book deal!)
- I will expose how the jurors made inconsistent statements during their press conference and in interviews they gave to the media (Yeah, like how Eleanor Cook said to Larry King that she thought that Janet “set up” her sons to lie, and then two months later told Rita Cosby that she was “forced” acquit MJ!)
- I will expose and lay out the facts and truth about the slanderous and derogatory statements Tom Mesereau made to the jury about the accuser and his family… statements which have proven to be untrue. For example, Mesereau alleged to the jury that the family was just in this for money and they were going to file a civil suit immediately following the verdict. Almost 3 years have passed and this statement has been proven untrue (The reason that statement has been proven “untrue” is because MJ was acquitted and they knew they had no case! Had he been falsely convicted, they would have sued him in a heartbeat!)
- I will expose how law enforcement and authorities have failed in their job to protect the integrity of criminal trials by not prosecuting members of this jury for the rampant juror misconduct that occurred during and after the trial (Yeah, you’re right Larry! Eleanor Cook should have been prosecuted for sneaking in the videotape of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace! And while you’re at it, explain to us why Sneddon didn’t prosecute all of his lying witnesses!)
- I will expose how the judge showed bias and favor for the defense by not putting Michael Jackson in jail the day of pajama day (How did he show bias? He gave MJ an hour to get to court, and he arrived on time!)
- I will explain why and how the accuser and his family could succeed in a civil suit against Michael Jackson if they so choose to bring one (Yes, please do! We’d love to hear it!)
Well, guess what? It’s been over four years, and this “explosive series” has yet to materialize! We’re still waiting, Larry!
Oh, and if you think that’s funny, wait until you read his mailbag! On February 21st, 2008, Harriet answered a series of questions from readers about the trial. I’ll highlight a few here.
Millicent, Washington:
What did you think of the accusers testimony?Larry:
I thought he was telling the truth. I don’t buy into the defense spin that this family was lying because if that we true why didn’t the accuser say he was abused 30 times, 40 times and in a more invasive way? If your gonna create a story, lets make it grand! Lets get as much money as we can possibly get out of this. But he said that he was abused 2 times that he could recall and I think that goes to the credibility of his testimony.Mary, Maine:
What do you say to people like me who think Michael Jackson is not guilty?Larry:
Do some research and take a look at the things former Neverland maids testified as to what they saw.Earl, Pangea:
Do you think the prosecution could of won if they would have left out the conspiracy charge?Larry:
No. I honestly believe much of this jury were Jackson fans and the others were blinded by celebrity. I don’t think it would of made a difference. The prosecution believed that Michael Jackson was guilty of conspiracy, and so do I. So, I absolutely think he should of been charged and convicted of it. Authorities found videotaped survailance of this family, Jackson did everything in his power to falsely imprison them and keep them at Neverland, and made up a story that there were killers out to get them. I don’t buy into the defense spin that just because the mother went to get her wax on and her wax off so to speak that Jackson is not guilty of conspiracy. The reality is that it doesn’t matter what the mother did, Jackson committed a conspiracy. And its just that simple. It is so clear cut. I did however think that maybe because the conspiracy charge was so complicated and included 28 overt circumstances, maybe the jury wouldn’t be able to figure it out and find him not guilty just because of that reason.Briteny, Louisiana:
What did you think of the reporting during the trial?
Thorough. There was too much daily scoreboarding and I think it was very biased in favor the defense. I was just absolutely stunned at some the post-verdict interviews with jurors where these alleged all star world class A1 journalists just bought in their story wholesale and did not question them about hearing not one, not two, not three, but four little boys abused by Jackson during the trial. It was just stunning. Court TV got a bad wrap. I watched Court TV as my source for the trial updates during the day because they had Diane Dimond who knows more about Michael Jackson than just about anybody in the world. I must say and I believe I can say because I actually watched every minute of Court TV’s coverage that they were very fair and trying to seek the truth. I was very impressed with Diane Dimond. She never once gave an opinion, she had amazing sources, and made us all feel like we were all on the front row seat of that courtroom despite their not being a camera in the courtroom. Savannah Guthree, Fred Graham, Jack Ford, Vinnie Politain, and Catherine Crier went out of their way to be fair to Jackson. They invited at least one defense attorney on during every show and most of them expressed their belief that Jackson was innocent. And Court TV’s Jami Floyd reported for the Jackson camp for 2 hours everyday on Court TV air. She expressed that she thought the jury should find Jackson not guilty and the case was not proven by the prosecution.
I wouldn’t have believed that someone could say those things if I didn’t read it myself with my own eyes! Truly pathetic! And just to show you how pathetic Harriet really is, in addition to this sad attempt of analyzing the MJ trial in this post, he showed his true colors by saying that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty in this post from October 2006! (They would go on to be found factually innocent in April 2007 when the Attorney General of North Carolina dropped all of the charges.)
Here is a press release that Harriet issued in December 2006 that represents the totality of Harriet’s incompetence! He falsely reported that Nancy Grace would quit her top rated TV show, for which she is paid millions of dollars annually, in order to join his small time blog! That’s the equivalent to saying that Nancy Grace is going to quit her show to flip burgers at McDonalds! Here is the text of the press release:
LARRY HARRIET NEWS CENTER ISSUES APPOLOGY
December 22, 2006 – 10:36AM PTOn December 10, 2006 the “Larry Harriet News Center” issued a false press release stating that Nancy Grace of television fame would be quitting her television duties in favor of joining the “Larry Harriet News
Center.”Nancy Grace is not joining the “Larry Harriet News Center”, although we would be happy to make a position available to her if she ever wished to join us.
Nobody at the “Larry Harriet News Center” has ever had any contact with Nancy Grace, and we apologize for the inaccurate press release on December 10, 2006.
Larry Harriet
Editor at Large, The Larry Harriet News Center
In closing, I’d like to highlight some good news that should be a morale boost to MJ advocates around the world. This story from July 5th, 2009, (which was referenced by the MJ hater site) talks about MJ’s relationship with two prominent firms located in Washington D.C. One of the firmsthat he worked with was The Polling Company, a nationally-regarded primary research and consulting firm which conducted surveys to test the public’s impression of him in the months leading up to the trial. The reason MJ’s defense requested this service was to help them anticipate potential lines of media inquiry and craft strategies to deflect media attacks. Kellyanne Conway, the president and CEO of The Polling Company, revealed the results of her surveys, and I think that we ALL will be pleasantly surprised!
Kellyanne Conway, president and CEO of The Polling Company, says she never became an insider in the Jackson camp, and never met the star himself. But she says her work on the case gave her new insights into how the public responded to the conflicting portraits painted of Jackson the man, and Jackson the singer.
Conway says her poll results found – surprisingly – that the lurid allegations made during the child-molestation trial were barely denting the public’s impression of a star who had been a national celebrity from the time he was five years old.
“Top-of-mind associations for him – even after the trial – wasn’t ‘pedophile,’ ” said Conway. Instead, when asked for a word to describe Michael Jackson people offered the name of a specific song, the name of his ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley, or his famous dance move, the Moonwalk.
“People were acutely aware that he was constantly surrounded by hangers-on and gold-diggers,” recalled Conway. “There was a certain sympathy for a private, private man who would never have peace or privacy.”
She appears frequently on television as a commentator and analyst, but she has not disclosed her work for Michael Jackson before.
In her work for Jackson, Conway says, she saw many of the sentiments play out that are evident in the wake of the singer’s sudden death June 25.
“We found a real appreciation for the man and his music,” Conway said. “And a certain pity for his predicament.”
Wow! Doesn’t that just melt your heart! Despite the years of media attacks, the general public was smart enough to see through it all, and prove that they aren’t as gullible as the media makes them out to be! When you think about it, it shouldn’t surprise, as the overwhelming response to MJ’s death was grief and compassion, and those feelings wouldn’t be there if people truly believed all of the lies.
In Part 4, I will go head to head with our chief adversary, and destroy all of her arguments, once and for all!!
Trackbacks
- WHAT WERE HIS THOUGHTS LIKE? The final evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence « Vindicating Michael
- Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance
- When It Comes To Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are Poles Apart! « Vindicating Michael
Vindicating Michael 
Yes, I realized it after initially trusting you. Even before you began coming here under all those different names.
I feel sorry for you.
LikeLike
Helena, you’re right, I AM a troll. Me and my “mom” tricked you, we were LYING all along. Thank you for exposing us two liars! 🙂
You can sue me if you want, block me from your website too!
LikeLike
The person who regularly comes here under three different names (ShootingStar101 aka Galaxy aka Madilyn) is a universal kind of a troll whose business is to advertise a haters’ site – one way or another. Is the situation of that site so bad that they have to stoop so low as to employ such tricks?
LikeLike
Helena, I wante to ask you, if you watched new film about Pellicano? I Heard that there are a lot of lies there, but I am ineterested to know, what Pellicano said himself? As I understand the film was made without him? Thank you for answer
LikeLike
@Helena
Hello there again. I know you have gotten quite annoyed with me and my questions, I do not have anything to do with the hater’s sites, in fact, I prefer to stay away from them. That comment I was talking about probably was a comment from a fake vindicatemj account.
I have been struggling with some questions lately, and I also have some thoughts to share.
Question 1. Does it really matter if the stories told by the ex employees at Neverland are also told by the accusers? Most of those stories are false though as logic and evidence proves that they are.
BTW. Did all of the stories by the ex employees originate from Gutierrez? McManus said Gutierrez was going to “help the Neverland 5 in their lawsuit”, so to me it sounds plausible that their stories came from this liar.
Question 2. Who were some of the boys that the LeMarques referred to in that taped interview? I know one of them was Macaulay Culkin (who has always defended M.J) but the rest were never specified. I have a good feeling that their story is made up, and possibly also influenced by Gutierrez (again). Like their claim that a random “staffer” would “deliver kids to M.J” (who also allegedly “witnessed abuse”) which is similar to a claim in Gutierrez’s book that Norma Staikos “delivered kids to M.J” (I think it was) as well as in Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits. I think it is very plausible to me that Wade and James knew about these earlier claims so they used them in their lawsuits to try and get money from the estate, since they couldn’t file a complaint against M.J.
Question 3. Do the two alleged accusers “Jane Doe” and that German woman who allegedly called Evan Chandler exist? Neither of them are credible, and their existence has been questioned.
Question 4. This is the one I’ve had quite the issue with. Did LaToya actually retract her claims? Something I read on YouTube said that she only chose to say nice things about M.J to make up for the bad things she did to her family, it also says she claimed (after she escaped the marriage) that kids would go into M.J’s bedroom and come out acting different. This story doesn’t quite add up for me, because from what I know, LaToya was banned from coming to Neverland after doing the PlayBoy photoshoot and writing the “tell all” book, so how could she have seen or known about this?
I am aware about your previous reply to me, I understand you probably won’t have the time to answer most (if not all) of my questions. Answering these questions is optional, you do not have to.
I also want to clarify that I am not trying to vilify M.J in any way, nor am I trying to convince you that he did any wrongdoing. I know that you know he was 100% innocent, and I know that you have done an excellent amount of research into these cases.
I hope you understand, thank you, goodbye, and stay safe! 🙂
Madilyn.
LikeLike
My dear Helena if you live another 69 years it won’t be enough to answer everything we read and hear about Michael it never ends and he had to live with it most of his life it’s sad really sad.
LikeLike
That’s very kind of you😊
I don’t know. And I don’t think that it matters.
His sister Janet didn’t know it either. Neither Quincy Jones, nor even Michael’s family knew of Michael’s vitiligo. His mother learned about it much later too, most probably together with all others who heard Michael disclose it to Oprah. He didn’t show his skin to anyone except his doctor, nurse and the closest of friends. It doesn’t mean that Michael didn’t have it. It’s crazy to even doubt it.
His doctor Arnold Klein diagnosed lupus by those rashes and the lesions on Michael’s scalp as well as the general condition of his skin which is described as follows: “It is characterised by persistent scaly plaques on the scalp, face, and ears which subsequently can progress to scarring, atrophy, dyspigmentation, and permanent hair loss in affected hair-bearing areas.”
Arnold Klein treated MJ for discoid lupus for decades, Dr. Richard Strick examined the medical records and didn’t doubt a thing, Dr. Sasaki who performed scalp surgery on Michael had to cope with his lupus too as a complication which didn’t let his scalp hearl. However some mysterious they say something different, so what? Why should I or anyone care?
Everyone these days knows better than the doctors who treated Michael, and the coroner.
You are making a big mistake here. Big mistake. I have never said that Wade gave any kind of description of MJ’s privates. I specifically followed him in this matter and never in my life made the respective comment you supposedly read from me about Robson or Murray. You’re probably following the people who only masquerade as “vindicatemj” and are in fact the worst liars about Michael.
Here are some (you have anything to do with them?)
I’ll have to disappoint you here. I have no time and opportunity to answer each of your questions, and especially “the best I can”. One of your questions did raise my interest, so I am looking into something now and if I gather enough information to report I’ll make a post about it. But I can’t really promise it, we are living through somewhat difficult times here at the moment.
LikeLike
@Helena
Hello there again, how are things going for you lately? I really hope nothing bad has happened.
I gave you a few days before asking any more questions.
Question 1. Gavin Arvizo was asked at the 2005 trial if he knew about patches on M.J’s body, he said he thought he was “all white.” My question is, did M.J have patches on his body during that time? I read the autopsy report, but didn’t see anything mentioning brown patches on M.J’s body, and besides, Gavin did claim he never saw M.J’s privates during the alleged “abuse.” I highly doubt M.J’s body was “all white” though, especially if he had vitiligo.
Question 2. Speaking of vitiligo, Quincy Jones said M.J didn’t have it, and I have seen a few people on YouTube claim there were people who knew he didn’t have it (there was a person who quoted someone, but didn’t say who) and people spreading rumours that M.J told Murray he didn’t have it (If that’s what Murray said, who cares?). I also watched two buzzard videos from “the detail.”, and they say things like the red rashes on M.J’s face were caused by a bleaching cream and NOT lupus, they show videos of M.J being splashed in the pool in 1984 (when his skin slowly started becoming noticeably lighter) and a clip of him being pushed into the pool by his cousins in 1991, to “prove” that he had no patches on his body (because none are present on his body in either video), and they also claim M.J was trying to be “racially ambiguous” (seriously?)
I have also read a comment by a reader on a post titled “Speaking of vitiligo…and the double standard in Michael Jackson’s case” claiming that M.J had been using a lightening cream called Hydroquinone since 1979 (where is the proof of that?) and that the reason Vitiligo was on the autopsy report was because the coroner didn’t know that he used this cream (hydroquinone was in the autopsy report) so it only “appeared to be vitiligo” (could the coroner tell the difference between vitiligo and “bleached” skin?) I’m basically asking if it is true that he did have vitiligo and lupus.
Question 3. Did any of the other accusers give descriptions of what M.J looked like? There was a comment I read by you that said Wade gave a “description of ‘what he saw’ of M.J’s privates and body” and Murray saying it “indeed looked that way”, did that actually happen? I highly doubt Murray would have ANY knowledge about M.J’s privates, and Murray is a proven liar.
I know that this is a lot of stuff to answer, but I hope you can answer the best you can! I would also appreciate if you could answer my previous questions (you don’t have to).
Thank you, and stay safe! 🙂
Madilyn.
LikeLike
Thank God, the worst didn’t happen last night. We will know only much later whether the danger was indeed prevented by leaking the information and reporting it online. No one will reveal anything now, so let us be patient and wait for the truth.
LikeLike
Madilyn, you are not bothering me. It is simply not the right time.
It’s 3:30 am here, but I’m watching a stream providing some crucial information. It is in Russian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35fuKoCgb6g and is called “Hang up! Return!” Urgent stream about combat readiness at air bases. Appeal to the pilots: “Do not bomb!”
The host and founder of the site is 100% credible. He is a proven defender of convicts who were tortured in Russian prisons and is against the war. After releasing a huge archive of videos of those tortures he fled from Russia to France.
Currently, he is in contact with the Russian pilots and mechanics at various airfields who seem to have received an order to bomb Ukraine. With tactical nuclear weapons. Two bombers and one more in reserve are supposed to take off in half an hour. The strike is supposed to be at 5:00 – 5:30 am.
Many pilots and mechanics are refusing to fulfill the order. The situation is a mess, their superiors are in shock that the information is leaking online and that they are facing some sabotage. The people who send him messages about what’s going on are taking tremendous risks.
I hope that the host of the site is just being trolled. But if he isn’t, PRAY THAT THE WORST DOES NOT HAPPEN.
LET US ALL PRAY
LikeLike
@Helena
I forgot to mention that the article alleged that Jordan said M.J had nicknames for certain things, like “Bright Lights, Big city” (I think) and “DuckButter”. They say James also said M.J used these nicknames, But aren’t these nicknames from Gutierrez’s book? Did Jordan actually say M.J (allegedly) used these nicknames?
Madilyn.
LikeLike
@Helena
Hello again. It seems you have taken a while to answer. I stumbled upon a readers comment, and it had a link that took my to a page that said “Was Michael Jackson Guilty? Probably.”
They go on to talk about something I can’t mention on the blog, some “questionable photos” and mention that Jordan was on M.J’s lap in Monaco (not from what I know, that was his sister). The biggest giveaway about this article was that the author gives thanks to MJFacts at the end. MJFacts is NOT a credible source for these claims.
I hope you can answer soon (I’m sorry if you think I’m bothering you).
Madilyn.
LikeLike
William, they will tell you that there is a distinction, but there is none – both are a pathology.
I’m writing again about it because I found a post made exactly about this subject 8 years ago. Actually, it is about the so-called new “allies” of Michael Jackson, who first trash him but then condescendinly allow Michael’s fans to love him for his music. And there is a lot more there than that:
LikeLike
@Helena
Sorry I took a while to answer you, but yes, you did answer my questions.
I don’t really think you fully understood one of my previous questions though. What I was referring to was that the police “misinterpreted” Jordan’s description and that the claim that he was circumcised (he wasn’t) and the colour of the splotch wasn’t what he actually claimed (which is what the haters at “MJFacts” want us to believe).
I DID find some interesting information about M.J through a comment on the MJJ Truth Now blog. The comment talks about the strongest evidence of M.J’s innocence.
They bring up M.J’s scalp surgery in March 1993 and how he had an inflated ballon under his scalp and had to wear a hat almost all the time (even when sleeping).
They also point out crucial details that Jordan left out of his description:
Scars from Opioid injections on his buttocks
A patch below M.J’s waistline
I found this information very helpful and compelling, so I decided to share it with you (you probably already know about all of this information though).
Madilyn.
LikeLike
Oh, there is no contradiction at all if you realize that each of them is doing their part of the job and both are working for one cause.
The sole goal of the media is to “prove” that MJ belonged to that class and cement this twisted idea in people’s minds. And the job of de-stigmatizing pedophilia is being done by the so-called ‘progressive’ science and its academics.
If you look a little deeper, you will notice that now the media no longer calls MJ a freak and a monster – time and again you may even notice a kind of a sigh on their part and even a note of sympathy towards him (he was beaten by his father, he was probably a victim of sexual abuse himself, his music was great and we should separate his genius from this drawbacks, etc.). Even in “Leaving Neverland” Robson and Safechuck produce the impression that “they were in love with him despite it all”, “they felt sorry for him” and the like.
The academics, on the other hand, are working on the idea that child sexual abusers “were born that way” and cannot help their condition, that the disorder is congenial or that it is another of those sexual orientations (even Anna Salter claims it now!) From this point on there is only one step left to start fighting for the “rights of these poor people”, especially if they don’t act on their sexual urges.
Now why does the work of these cynical people revolve around the name of the innocent Jackson, and not around Jeffrey Epstein, for example?
Because the mindset of a real pedophile, his perversion, his callous attitude towards his victims, his total indifference to their fate, his insatiable appetite for sex, his cynicism and the crooked smile on his face are indeed so abhorrent that it will make the job of ped-lia advocates much more difficult and will require a gigantic effort on their part to de-stigmatize all of it in the eyes of the general public – if they manage to do it at all.
But taking the innocent Jackson, defaming him and declaring him a p. is a much easier job, and if the media and progressive science create a strong mental link in people’s minds between the nice, kind and lovable Michael and the disorder he is supposed to represent, the job of ped-lia advocates will be immensely simplified – due to Michael’s charisma, talents and the history of his long suffering.
The way this orchestrated campaign around Michael Jackson is going, one day we will certainly reach a stage when the same media will shed a tear about Michael’s unbearable life due to his “sexual orientation”, that all of us should “understand” how much suffering it gave him and that we should therefore accept him for “what he was” as even a nice man like him could not “beat it”.
But the problem here is that Michael Jackson never had that problem.
He was INNOCENT and using him in this role is not only a big tragedy for him and his family, but is also a huge fraud of the public as to the nature of genuine perverts, which is real hell.
Michael Jackson was so big a magnet to children and was so likable and attractive to the adult public too exactly for the reason of his innocent nature, which people intrinsically felt and were drawn to. He exuded love, generosity, goodwill and kindness which perverts like Epstein are unable not only to show but even feel.
What I mean is that child abuse is a horrible pathology which comes together with a set of other extremely pathological and probably even sadistic traits, so there is no way the public will ever feel sympathy for real pedophiles because they are as fiendish, inhuman and disgusting as all sadists are.
So using a genuine pedophile for the dirty job of promoting pedophilia is virtually impossible as all they give you is a feeling of aversion, especially once they are exposed. A much more sure way is taking an innocent and charismatic man like Michael Jackson, smearing him all over and then presenting him to the public as a “typical p.”
This is what they essentially meant when that NAMBLA conference which Victor Gutierrez attended in 1986 decided to use Michael Jackson as their poster boy. Among their own ranks they couldn’t find a single person who could serve their purpose, and knowing that they chose a completely innocent guy.
LikeLike
The next comment by that soulburner also said: “It’s all explained clearly and broken down here.” [link deleted]
I delete links only when they take you to sites that proved themselves to be a collection of lies or half-truths about Michael Jackson. At that moment the biggest one was the so-called mjfacts site. So the link was to that site – initially I left all those links in the comments but later decided not to give the unnecessary promotion to those who lie about MJ.
The specifics of that site is that they don’t call MJ a monster but consistently work to potray him as a ped-le stretching the truth, omitting all sort of true facts about MJ and changing their story as new facts of Michael’s innocence are revealed. In my opinion it is run if not by pedophiles themselves, but by pedophilia advocates for sure.
As to them constantly changing their stories I even have a post about it called “Michael Jackson’s unpredictable past” where you will see examples of how they do it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/rewriting-history-or-michael-jacksons-unpredictable-past/
LikeLike
Well, from the overall mess of Kapon’s allegations it should be already clear that the story was made up. First he said one thing ( “he was between 10 and 14 when he was molested”), then he switched in mid-interview (“no, he was 3 to 7 years of age”), then he said it happened when he was 15, then he said he was 2, then he said that MJ had bought a car for his father and the father regularly took him to Neverland (“over the course of several years”), then he claimed that MJ had stolen his songs, then he said he was related to Rothschilds and MJ wanted his semen, etc. – in short, all these are the ravings of a lunatic mind.
But if you want to have some rational explanations for the story, let us sit down and think. Here is what comes to my mind just off-hand:
• The mother lost custody of her son when he was 3, so when the boy was 2 his father and mother were most probably still together and were probably fighting over that custody in court. So, at the very least, the father could know where his son had been all that time. He also knew that he himself had never taken his son to Neverland – whether at the age of 2, 3 or at any other time in the boy’s life.
• After all age variations in Kapon’s claims he finally settled on age 2 as the “time of molestation”. Why the age of two and not three? Because the father testified that when the boy was in his care (since the age of 3) he completely ruled out any molestation. Moreover, he and his son had never even visited Neverland, never met MJ, there was no car given to him, no regular visits there, no nothing.
• This left Kapon’s mother with only one chance – to claim that the boy was molested before that period (at age 2) and say that her son didn’t remember it (while she did) and she even had some photos of “bites” all over the boy’s body (only she couldn’t present them for some reason).
• Could Daniel Kapon remember what happened to him when he was two? He absolutely couldn’t. He just believed his mother who assured him that when he was a toddler he was taken to Neverland (by her? by a neighbor? by MJ himself?) and after that she saw the marks of those bites on his body.
Considering that biting people is something which even Michael Jackson was never accused of, the story sounds completely fantastic, but let us also note that the boy could indeed be bitten at the age of 2, say by a dog, and this could indeed leave some marks on his body. The mother will say, “See, this is where you were bitten by that predator” and the confused young man would not know what to think of it.
What if his beloved mother with whom he was parted for at least 15 years, was indeed telling the truth, and it was his father who was lying? What if he was indeed taken to Neverland at the age of 2, was molested there, only he himself doesn’t remember it and his mother who knows better?
The young man was so brainwashed that even the prosecutors had to admit that his case was “a tragedy, pure and simple”. The young man must have been around 20 when he made his claim but all they saw was a scared and confused little thing. This was a “lonely, impressionable boy who so longed for motherly love that he allowed himself to be virtually brainwashed into believing an unstable parent’s incredible story”.
Actually, Daniel Kapon was not a boy then, but a young man of around 20 or more since he met his mother when he was 18 and even since he first made his allegations four more years of litigation passed.
I am explaining all that for everyone to understand that it is very easy to brainwash people, especially if they trust someone dear to them, for example, their mother.
But answering your specific question how the father knew that the boy was not molested at the age of 2 – he was still part of that family at the time and knew that the boy had not been taken anywhere, not to mention Neverland, he also knew of the lies his former wife was capable of, he knew that she was a “certifiable psycho” and this is the reason why she lost custody of her son for life.
The judge must have had very valid reasons for not giving the mother even visitation rights. Her place was in a mental institution and not beside her son.
Did I answer your question?
LikeLike
Helena, I do think it has something to do with the biopic. They probably think they can use it to bring up the allegations and spread more nonsense. I don’t think their efforts will work, though.
Regarding the de-stigmatization of pedophilia, I notice it too. To be honest, I don’t fully understand the apparent contradiction: They want to normalize sexual desire for children but scapegoat Michael as a monster. Perhaps because they’re trying to make a distinction between child molesters/sex offenders and “virtuous” pedophiles?
LikeLike
@Helena
I have been reading some of your posts lately, and I came across this comment on a post titled “Wade Robson’s emails: ‘A master of deception’. The comment was by a person called “soulburner” and they allege the following:
“There’s a countless amount of evidence such as photographs, videos, witnesses on both sides of the debate, AND even an answering machine showing that Wade was very close to Jackson.”
“The relationship is indisputable, so try again.”
They also sent a link to a website that “breaks this down.” When you commented on this person’s post, it took you to some random website, and you didn’t take any further action.
I wonder what this person was referring to though. I know they were probably referring to the fax machine M.J had, but it kinda sounds like they are suggesting that there is evidence to support Robson’s claims.
Second, I know we already went over Kapon’s bizarre claims, but this is the part of his lawsuit I was referring to:
“In or about 1987, when Plaintiff was TWO years old, until December 21 1999, when Plaintiff was 14”
He’s talking about how long the “abuse” lasted. Kapon’s father said his mother lost custody of him when he was THREE, so I’m assuming she had custody of him at 2, and she makes claims such as having photos of her son with “bite marks all over his body” (which she never provided the police with). What I was referring to in this question is, how could his father say his son NEVER met M.J if he wasn’t in his custody at 2 (according to his lawsuit)?
I hope you will respond soon! 🙂
Madilyn.
LikeLike
William, as I’ve just said that the inability to understand why and how some people lie is almost incurable, and Michael Jackson’s case is the best example of it – even though he was accused of paranoia (for which he had every reason) he still believed and trusted people until his last day and didn’t seem to accept the fact that they could lie.
But the podcast you’ve mentioned is indeed excellent and is based on solid research which explains why people tend to believe lies. And Dan Reed’s “Leaving Neverland” is not just a lie but is a carefully crafted product made with the help of the latest findings in psychology, human perception, marketing and the Hollywood tricks of trade.
Today a new podcast also appeared there – it is the rebuttal of the New York Times “Sin Eater” about Anthony Pellicano: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7b40c10a/rebuttal-to-the-new-york-times-documentary-sin-eater
The podcast is very much worth listening to – besides the rightful criticism of this opus it also gives us the idea of what kind of a “documentary” it is. I could not even imagine that they would use Diane Dimond as a presenter! And they cherry-picked only some pieces from Gary Hearne’s depositions omitting the crucial details!
This is not a documentary – this is distortion of facts and defamation.
I hope that many more people will realize now that the New York Times is in the forefront of a malicious campaign against Michael Jackson and that the damage done by them is much bigger than that of tabloids, because in the eyes of readers around the world this is still a trustworthy and “quality” paper.
I also wonder about the timing of this documentary – there must be a reason why they’ve made it now.
Is it because of a biopic about Michael Jackson?
Is it because Pellicano refused to tell lies about Michael Jackson again?
Or is it because they are moving the Overton window further and prepare the public for accepting ped-lia by using MJ as a poster boy of that “movement”?
In case it seems too far-fetched to you, listen to what Anna Salter, who wrote several books on child abusers, sadists and other psychopaths says about it.
She is very much concerned with the latest tendencies among professionals – it turns out that they want to destigmatize pedophilia and the latest edition of DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders, fifth edition) published in 2013 even declassified pedophilia as a mental disorder.
On her site Anna Salter says, “I do not agree with professionals who want to “destigmatize” pedophilia… I do not agree with DSM-V, which has effectively declassified pedophilia as a mental disorder.”
What it means is that all the time while the media has obligingly made one film after another portraying Michael Jackson in a dubious light, medical professionals have been tirelessly working on destigmatizing the very same thing which the media pretends to be so horrified with by falsely accusing MJ of it.
I very much doubt that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Both of them are working in the same direction, only each is doing it in its own way. And they still need MJ as that “poster boy” and this is exactly the reason why they do not leave him alone.
LikeLike
Madilyn, if you are reading it, let me say that I am personally very happy to hear that you don’t understand why people lie. To me it means that you yourself are unable to lie and in this respect the two of us are like-minded people – I don’t understand either why others lie, especially when they do it for personal gain.
And everything I’ve read and heard about Michael Jackson makes me realize that he also suffered from the same “problem”.
Those quotation marks were intended to be a joke, but from my experience I know that this trait is indeed a very big problem. People who are physically unable to lie project onto others their own way of thinking and their first innate reaction is to believe everything they are told.
Generally they see only the good in others, give everyone the benefit of the doubt and are therefore too trusting of people. They may also produce the impression of fools and simpletons because they believe even those people who are obviously cheating and always tend to find excuses for them.
Michael Jackson’s mother Catherine used to tell him that he inherited her too trusting nature and was afraid that he would be too easily taken advantage of. And this is what indeed happened to Michael – since he himself never had any ill intentions towards others he became easy prey to all sorts of con-artists who were drawn to him like bees to honey.
Many people tend to be too trusting too, but extreme cases like Michael’s are rare, and these people find themselves at a decided disadvantage as compared with others, especially with cynical and deceitful people who see in others the mirror of their own malicious selves and who are therefore very well equipped against any form of cheat.
In short, the inability to lie and being too trusting as a reverse side of it, is indeed a malady which is virtually incurable, but once you realize that you have it, you can somewhat offset it by constant reminding yourself that first you should think it over and, if possible, double check and only then decide whether it might be true or not.
With time it turns into a habit and the constant thought process may even bring an unexpected result – you will begin to notice small signs of lies right on the spot, in the circumstances where people usually notice nothing, and register the dimmest red flags as if they were some barely heard radio signals and you were a fine-tuned radio receiver.
So let me give short advice to anyone who is too trusting by nature: a small exercise like the above will help you survive in the same way a defenseless antelope manages to survive among predators in the jungle – its ears and eyes are so sensitive that they spot the danger well before other animals do and by the time the lion is there the antelope is already long gone.
I’ve learned it a hard way but it works. At least in most cases 😊
LikeLike
@William73925226
Hello there, I am the daughter of the reader you have suggested this source to. I have already listened to every episode of that podcast (and am still waiting for answers from the producer of the podcast, which I sent to her via email).
But thank you for suggesting this source to my Mom anyway!
Madilyn 🙂
LikeLike
Melanie, if I can interject with a suggestion, this episode might help your daughter understand why and how some people can lie and get away with them: https://www.michaeljacksoncaseforinnocence.com/home-1/episode/7b9c45af/deception-science-lie-detection-and-bias
It focuses more on how difficult it is to detect deception (without looking at evidence) but it also touches on the traits of deceivers.
LikeLike
Madilyn is 15 and has knowledge of all kinds of the details of the accusations. I am
Not too worried about her hearing about those things. I know that Madilyn believes in his innocence, she just can’t seem to understand and accept that people lie and cheat for personal gain. She may come across rude, but she honestly doesn’t mean to. If you ever grow tired of answering all the questions or don’t want to answer any, feel free to let her know that!
Thanks so much again!
Melanie
LikeLike
Melanie, thank you for your message. To be frank, Madylin’s insistentence did seem unusual to me and somewhat reminded me of the modus operandi of Michael’s detractors, alas. But I am sorry to hear of her problems and will keep it in mind in the future.
In any case I am happy that she wants to know more about Michael’s innocence and I still encourage her to do her part of the research.
Now it is already 2am here, so I will try to answer her questions tomorrow, if something has remained unanswered.
P.S. Melanie, if your daughter is very young I don’t know whether I should go into that wholly indecent and embarrassing discussion about circumcision, etc. with her. What do you think?
LikeLike
Hi,
My daughter Madilyn has been writing to you and asking a lot of questions. 🙂
I just wanted to give you some background on her interest in Michael Jackson. Madilyn is diagnosed with autism and OCD. She is currently VERY obsessed with Michael and the quest to prove his innocence. I just wanted to tell you so you can understand why she asks what she does and why it sometimes comes across as unusual. If she reads something, she HAS to find out if it’s true. (No matter what I say 🙂)
We so much appreciate the time and effort you have put into answering her previous (and likely future) questions. Thanks so much! ❤️
LikeLike
You are mistaken here. I don’t simply believe that MJ was innocent. I know it.
But my views have undergone a strong evolution.
Initially I believed that he was guilty😢.
Then I began doing research and one lie after another began to fall apart, so I started wondering.
Then I entered a stage when I began believing that Michael was innocent and each time a new allegation arrived I was even slightly afraid that it would shatter my newly-found belief. This was the period when this blog was started. At that stage if the evidence of Michael’s guilt had been found I would have honestly reported it and closed this issue.
But I didn’t find any. In contrast to that, each new lie fell apart too, as if by some miracle, and my belief changed into a conviction that Michael was innocent and was simply framed up. And is being framed up even today.
And now I have reached a stage when I don’t give a damn what is being alleged about Michael because I know it in advance that it will be a LIE.
Now I know that the stories told by Michael’s detractors constantly morph into something different as new and new facts of his innocence are being revealed. For their lies to still fit their anti-Jackson agenda these people conveniently “forget” what they claimed before and declare in full seriousness that they “never said it”. Their constant trick is, “Prove it if you can” and this taught me to copy and save their allegations about MJ as if they were the holy grail.
What I also notice about MJ’s vilifiers is that they never answer my or other people’s questions. So a dispute with them is simply impossible – they ignore facts, keep silent about them and when these facts don’t suit their version of Michael Jackson, they simply change them and erase from the internet every mention of the documentary evidence that is not in line with their stories.
It looks like they are even on a sort of a fact-finding mission with Michael’s defenders, asking us to give them the evidence that proves Michael’s innocence so that it gives them a chance to adjust their case against MJ accordingly.
All this has taught me that the fight for Michael Jackson’s good name will be long because it is carried against the pure Evil which constantly morphs into something different and changes the rules midway through the game.
LikeLike
And I think that you didn’t understand my answer to you. Daniel was not in his mother’s custody. Daniel was in his father’s custody all that time, and his mother tracked her son down only when he was 18. After that this “certifiable psycho” brainwashed him and coached him to claim the craziest of things.
I also noticed that you demand answers from me as if it is must for me to answer everything everywhere and all at once.
Do your part of the job too and you will find out that there is plenty of evidence that the train station had NOT been built by the time Safechuck claimed that he was “molested” there.
And make yourself familiar with the ABC facts of Michael Jackson’s innocence, please. The link has been provided to you.
LikeLike
Here are all the answers: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-abc-facts-of-michael-jacksons-innocence/
Especially points 1-4, 10 and the update. Enjoy!
LikeLike
@Helena
I don’t really think you understood the question. I was asking how his father knew he never met M.J even though Daniel was probably in his mother’s custody at the time he claimed abuse (in one part of the lawsuit, he says it lasted from when he was 2 till he was 14).
I also noticed you didn’t answer my questions about the train station, whether Jordan’s description was misinterpreted, or if any evidence (if there was any) had been destroyed or hidden.
Madilyn.
LikeLike
It was. Michael Jackson and his children had been away from Neverland at least for three weeks (or more) as Michael was recording a new song in Las Vegas. He learned about the new allegations from TV.
And while Michael was away his friend Omer Bhatti, who was 19 at the time, stayed at Neverland with his two Norwegian friends. Initially they intended to stay for a week, but their holiday extended to “more than three weeks”. So who drank wine there and who leafed through what journals no one really knows or even asked.
Quite predictably, this Norwegian newspaper speaks about three “boys” visiting Neverland, though all of them must have been around 20 and Michael was not even present when they were at the ranch: https://www.nettavisen.no/three-norwegian-boys-at-neverland/s/12-95-156900
LikeLike
Because the father got custody of the boy when he was 3 and raised him alone, and testified that neither he, nor his son had ever been to Neverland.
For your convenience I’m repeating here the boy’s case the way it was described by Diane Dimond:
My favorite part in Daniel Kapon’s allegations is when he claimed that Michael Jackson “stole his song ideas”, “subjected him to unnecessary cosmetic surgery” and “impregnated his wife Debbie Rowe with his semen because he believed that he was one of the Rothschilds.”
And after making serious allegations like that he simply didn’t show up for the civil trial, 😂
Here is another excerpt from that post:
In short, speaking about Kapon or any similar cases in MJ’s life in full seriousnes would be sheer madness. Or trolling.
However now that we look at this madness again, what stands out to me is that it could easily serve as a blueprint for Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories.
LikeLike
@Helena
Hello there again. I know promised not to send any more questions, but I just thought of something:
Is it possible that Jordan’s description could’ve been misinterpreted? I’m talking about his claims that M.J was circumcised (he wasn’t) and the blotches he described. Speaking of blotches, what are those “pinky blotches” that are mentioned in his alleged drawing of what M.J’s privates looked like?
I’m sorry for asking you so many questions, especially about Jordan’s description (I certainly am sick of bringing it up over and over again). I am sure it must be very tiring for you to have to read and answer my questions (I don’t even know if any reader on this blog has ever asked this many questions before) but I promise not to send any more.
Goodbye.
Madilyn.
LikeLike
@Helena
Thank you for responding to my questions. I was just reading a post on this blog about Daniel Kapon and his bizarre claims, and I thought about something. I saw a page from his lawsuit, and it says the “abuse” occurred from when he was two till he was fourteen (originally it was from ages three to fourteen), and his father said his mother lost custody of him when he was 3. If Daniel claimed in his lawsuit the abuse lasted from when he was 2 till he was 14, how could his father (who I assume got custody of Daniel when he was 3) know that his son NEVER met M.J and NEVER visited Neverland OR Havenhurst (I can’t believe I’m even asking this…)?
I am also wondering, if there was ever any ACTUAL evidence against M.J (not saying there is), could it have been hidden or destroyed. I’m kinda referring to Safechuck’s claim in his lawsuit that M.J videotaped him and then threw away the tape, which I believe was inspired by the false sex tape story by Gutierrez. If the 1993 raid was a complete surprise, was the 2003 raid also a surprise?
Not too long ago, I saw some haters on Twitter (one of them was called “Vivid Vocal”) trying to prove that the train station was built BEFORE 1994. They were claiming that the train station was somehow “rebuilt” because it was “too close to the tracks”. Their “proof” of this is a photo of the train station while it was still under construction, and two photos of the train station that were taken years apart from each other. I don’t think we should trust these haters though, at this point they are literally DESPERATE to try and “prove” that M.J was guilty.
I’m sorry for asking you all of these bizarre questions (a lot of them have nothing to do with these posts I comment on). I know you are busy often and might not answer, but I’m not trying to upset you or give you reasons to believe M.J was guilty. I know that you believe that M.J was COMPLETELY innocent, and nothing can change your mind about that. I will try not to ask any more questions.
Madilyn.
LikeLike
Well, you’ve answered your question yourself. Of course it was the security camera footage from Neverland and it was only Larry’s choice of words that was inadequate.
Jordan was surely circumcised, and if he had really ever seen someone uncircumcised he would have had a shock and would have run to his father to wonder if his own genitalia were correct and why all the difference. As far as I know men are usually passionate about such issues and don’t leave them alone.
And as I earlier said the uncircumcised condition is like an accordion. It is simply impossible to take it for a piano that can’t be stretched no matter how you try.
You know, I am also tired of having to go over it again and again. In case you or someone are in doubt it is better to look at “the real thing” when an opportunity for it presents itself :))
Apparently, because Tom (Star called the District Attorney Thomas Sneddon simply “Tom”) told him not to lie too much not to make himself look too ridiculous. Sneddon had too many problems with their testimony even the way it was and was occasionally seen sitting with his head down and his hands on his face. The Arvizo case was a total farce from beginning to end.
Madilyn, I must admit that your questions somewhat baffle me. What is “faking an injury”? Thinking that your foot, leg or back hurt while in reality they do not? But Michael was a walking injury!
His back pain, for example, was permanent and severe since the time he fell into a pit from a bridge over the stage in Munchen. And those of us who suffer from back pain know that half an hour ago you may have been more or less OK, but all of a sudden you are a cripple and can hardly move. And if it comes to the worst you will be taken to hospital not only in your pyjamas but just in your underwear or even naked. Where have you seen people who put on their best suits in order to go to hospital when they lie on the bed crippled with severe pain?
And what should we care about what this or that paper said? During the trial 99% of them lied about Michael Jackson (and this is why the public was in so much shock when Michael was fully acquitted). And by the way, the New York Times and CNN lied about Michael Jackson no less than the tabloids, and probably even more.
Michael had no reason to lie about the bruises on his hands, and even presented some photos of them, if my memory serves me right, but the media would have reported that it was a “hoax” in any case.
A much more interesting question is why they needed to humiliate him so much by putting those handcuffs on him? MJ turned himself in of his own free will, so why create this theatrical show?
Another question is why the media didn’t notice that the whole Arvizo case was hoax?
Gavin claimed that he was “molested” after Martin Bashir’s film aired, after the LA police investigation started, after the DFCS officials interviewed the family and found nothing, and after the whole world started scrutinizing every single thing that took place at Neverland ever since then.
So was this alleged “molestation” a kind of a favor done by MJ to the media in order to give them more fodder for speculation and a reason for the prosecution to bring charges against him at last?
If people had applied a little logic to it they would have immediately seen that the whole Arvizo case was simply a giant hoax.
LikeLike
@Helena
Thank you for replying. What I was talking about was something the so called “investigative journalist” Larry Harriet said. He said, “Authorities found videotaped surveillance of the family.” As far as I know, there was not 1 piece of solid evidence found against M.J ever, I also thought it could’ve been the rebuttal interview, or just security camera footage from Neverland. I couldn’t image that the judge wouldn’t allow this to be shown in court, so this so called “surveillance footage” has to be fake.
I also have a few questions, I am aware that you might not be able to answer all of them though.
Question 1. I’m tired of having to go over this issue again, but have you ever thought about whether or not Jordan knew the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis? Since he was Jewish, and probably circumcised, I am sure he would’ve known the difference, but what do you think?
Question 2: I was reading a post on The Michael Jackson Allegations blog about the changing content of the allegations, and it talked about how certain stories that the Arvizos told changed over time (of course they did) I’m specifically talking about Star claiming he was touched inappropriately by M.J while driving a golf cart (which to me is an odd claim), Gavin and Star claiming M.J gave them sleeping pills, and other bizarre claims, such as M.J having simulated sex with a mannequin. What I’m wondering here is why did some of these claims disappear (Star never testified to being abused by M.J at trial, and the claims about the sleeping pills and the mannequin were never talked about at the trial)?
Question 3: This isn’t really about the allegations, but while I was looking at the Michael Jackson Vindication 2 website, there was some claim that M.J faked his injury at the Soul Train awards (where he preformed Remember The Time). I also saw one of your readers post a picture from the National Enquirer with a story about a “Gay Affair with M.J” (which is completely made up) and one of the things in that article was “M.J’s ‘police brutality’ bruises were a HOAX.” Of course we shouldn’t trust what the National Enquirer says, because it’s a tabloid newspaper. And what about the time he came to court in pyjamas? Some news outlets suspected it was a publicity stunt to “gain sympathy”, but Jermaine Jackson’s book “You Are Not Alone” says it was because M.J fell in the shower and had to be treated at the hospital. What I’m asking is, did M.J ever fake an injury? I don’t really believe so because why would he need to fake an injury for publicity if he was already the world’s biggest celebrity?
I’m sorry that these questions are so long, it may take a while to understand them.
Madilyn.
LikeLike
This post was written not by me but by David Edwards a century ago, and I had to look for the episode you’re talking about using the word search for “surveillance footage” … and I didn’t find it. So give me the exact quote, please.
But even in the absence of that quote I tried to use all my power of imagination asking myself how the alleged “surveillance footage of the Arvizo held captive” could look like.
Was it the footage of the family kept in a cellar with handcuffs on their hands, lol?
Or it could it be the family sitting in a presumably locked room, say, eating on the bed? But how could anyone prove that the door was locked, on the outside too and they were not just watching TV? And what if they locked the door themselves?
Or it could be just the Arizos showing a SOS sign on camera and crying for help?
AND even if this footage had ever existed how would we know that it was not a theatrical performance made, say, at a totally different location and presented as if it was shot at Neverland?
AND if at least one of the above variants had been presented to the jury, wouldn’t there have been a big public outcry over it? And wouldn’t have the defense surely examined that alleged footage for its veracity? And wouldn’t there have been a long procession of experts who would have discussed that footage?
But NONE OF IT HAPPENED and we never heard about anything like that. The reason? Because no such footage ever existed.
A short note for those who didn’t understand the irony if it – my suppositions about that those “captive situations” were made with the sole goal to show you and others that it is super easy to tell lies and fabricate things. SUPER EASY.
You can comment here whenever you like. The only problem is that I may be very busy at times and do not always have the possibility to answer everything people ask about. There are 300+ roses in my garden (besides everything else) and the amount of work there is endless. And I am nearly 70 years old.
LikeLike
@Helena
Okay, I’m sorry for my little outburst there, I just didn’t know what to think about this so called “evidence”. I am aware that you may or may not answer me or address this alleged surveillance footage, because this post is from a long time ago, and you said I need to do my own research and come to my OWN conclusion based on it.
Madilyn.
LikeLike
@Helena
I know I promised not to comment on this blog anymore, but I wasn’t aware that this kind of evidence existed. It’s really true that the authorities found surveillance footage of the Arvizos being held captive at Neverland? And the jury just turned a blind eye to this [ALLEGED] incriminating evidence?
Unbelievable 😱
LikeLike
Why does she and everybody think that it is her business to pass judgment on Robson and Macaulay Culkin? She was a juror at the 2005 trial in the Gavin Arvizo case, listened to the two guys’ very convincing testimonies and fulfilled her duty, and that’s it. Did she later carry out an investigation of Robson and Culkin or what? And what does her opinion matter?
I have a post about Eleanor Cook made in 2010:
LikeLike
Oh and Cook, now in her 90s apparently told Radar Online that she definitely believes MJ molested Wade and Mac. For some reason she excludes James, lol. You’d think that at such a age you just give up and don’t bother anymore with spewing such trash. Sigh.
LikeLike
Good lord, absolute insanity. I decided to search for Cook because Radar Online is now bringing this as new news, or perhaps Cook really has opened her trap again and this time to RO.
I’m shocked about all this, I never knew there actually were three jurors that basically did this backstab on MJ. I do recall a tabloid story years ago and never believed it but turns out these three jurors are filth. Well damn.
LikeLike
Larry Harriet is totally crazy
http://larryharrietlive.blogspot.com/2006/11/secret-journalist.html
LikeLike
@ Maral
Yes, Jordan claimed that MJ performed oral sex on him, and that’s a very easy claim to make because it doesn’t leave any permanent marks or scars (unless you bite, LOL!). He also claimed that MJ masturbated him, and that they took baths together. Nobody ever claimed to have been penetrated by MJ, and they knew better because that would require a medical examination, which would refute their claims.
Claims of masturbation, touching, fondling, kissing, licking, etc. are very easy to make and very difficult to defend because they don’t leave any permanent evidence.
You can read Jordan’s declaration and his interview with Dr. Gardner to get the full details of what he claimed happened to him:
http://www.mjfacts.info/jordie.php
LikeLike
i’ve been wondering about something for some time. Jordan claimed (or someone in the chandler camp) that there was oral sex involved. if that was true wouldn’t it show? i would think so.
LikeLike
Wow, I cannot believe some of the things I read like about the juror sneaking in the tape. We already know, as a public mass, the media hardly gets anything right. Be it about Michael Jackson, “weapons of mass destruction”, political analysis, etc. etc. I guess this juror thought she could “prove” her feelings with some good ol’ Nancy Grace. She not only wrongly-convicted Michael but has done it numerous times to others like Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart case). She gives great “proof”, right? Wrong.
I cannot believe people would say that they did not believe Gavin, et al BUT assume Michael had molested previous children. Seriously? We know Jordan was a liar, Jason, too. No one who ever appeared truthful ever came forward. What were these people basing their FEELINGS on? They had no proof of anything. I think most people know that a molester will molest multiple victims, not just one, two or even ten. It is an obsession, a compulsion. No one ever got Michael on camera, on audio, there was never a “group” of children who came forward. Not one of the few liars ever gave any proof that would be able to even hint that this kids saw Michael nude, even. I’d say hey, someone like Jordan should have undergone a physical examination but whoops, none of this children ever claimed rape, did they? Only “touching”. How many molesters just “touch”? I would think none, if they have an opportunity they seize it. Michael had the chance and did not seize it because he was NOT a molester or ped-ile.
I think the biggest problem for people is they cannot place themselves in Michael’s shoes. Yeah, it is a bit odd to think of children sleeping over at a grown man’s house. But, Michael was not ever really alone with this children, he was not an average Joe, he was really never average from the get-go, he never experienced “normal”. That does not mean he was a deviant or committing crimes. He liked being a kid, he liked to escape adulthood by being around children. He wanted to make children feel loved and be happy–two things I think he lacked as a child. He could still relate to children, many adults cannot do that. It was a gift used against him. He did not hide anything he did because he did not do anything wrong. It is a shame how people can seriously destroy another person’s life like Michael’s life and career was destroyed. So what if people still recall the “Moonwalk”, he does not deserve to be ever thought of as something he was not. Michael Jackson was not a child mol-ster.
LikeLike
LOL @ “most caring and loving investigative reporter of the world”. I guess that comes from the notion that his idols are always “pro-victim” (not realizing that sometimes the “victim” is not the victim, the defendant is – like in MJ’s case) and thus their fans may think of them as “loving and caring”. Anyway, Larry is just childish.
LikeLike
@ Teva
Thanks for that press release on Nancy Grace! I remember reading it, and I meant to include it in the post, but I forgot! I will add it in right now!
LikeLike
This guy is a blogger. He is a not so cleverly fabricated legal analyst & investigative reporter with big dreams. Case in point:
“LARRY HARRIET NEWS CENTER ISSUES APPOLOGY
December 22, 2006 – 10:36AM PT
On December 10, 2006 the “Larry Harriet News Center” issued a false
press release stating that Nancy Grace of television fame would be
quitting her television duties in favor of joining the “Larry Harriet News
Center.” Nancy Grace is not joining the “Larry Harriet News Center”, although we would be happy to make a position available to her if she ever wished to join us. Nobody at the “Larry Harriet News Center” has ever had any contact with Nancy Grace, and we apologize for the inaccurate press release on December 10, 2006.”
There is no “we” just “him”. His articles exist only on his administrated websites, and those foolishly enough to fall for the scam.
LikeLike
“caring and loving investigative reporter”
wow what a nutjobb! and i thought DD was delusional
LikeLike
“caring and loving investigative reporter”
??
He is so much of an investigative reporter that he describes himself as a nanny. Seriously, have you ever read these adjectives for a reporter? I am cracking up.
LikeLike
If he is so famous, why didn’t he give links to his astonishing works?
LikeLike
“Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.”
If he is so highly acclaimed why can’t I find him on Wikipedia?
LikeLike
Wasn’t Katrina Carls the asian juror who Aprodiate Jones mentioned in her book as in tears when the defense played Michael’s outtakes of the bashir documentary, which should him in a sympathetic light?
LikeLike
Helena,
I have added that video to Part 2, as you requested. I also added juror Susan Drake’s post trial comments to this part as well.
LikeLike
“- What is your definition of reasonable doubt?
– Proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable”.
David, thank you so much for the incredibly thorough and patient work you are doing on refuting every allegation some crazy people make about the crazy Arvizo case. You know my attitude to it, so no matter what this Larry Harriet (or anyone) says about the jury overlooking something there or still being doubtful I can’t take it seriously because from the very start the case was ABSURD in its most ultimate form!
It is simply LAUGHABLE to think that someone would be foolish enough to start molesting someone AFTER the scandal broke out and the case became the center of attention of prosecution and the media.
The whole thing is just a plot for a comedy and not a drama Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and their admirer Larry Harriet are trying to turn it into. Those who still believe the Arvizos after all we’ve learned about them should be complete and total imbeciles. It would be fun to use this case as a routine question in some questionnaire for checking someone’s mental health or intellectual level (for example, during an interview with an applicant for a job).
I see the 2005 trial as a beautiful chance for examining 1) the whole range of dirty tricks employed by the prosecution to convict Michael Jackson “no matter what” and 2) as a great source of information about the 1993 case because ALL earlier “witnesses” who were ready to speak against Jackson were brought into the case (so it is indeed too late now to bring anyone “new” into the picture).
The 2005 case is also valuable as we can make interesting comparisons about stories told by some witnesses in 1993 and in 2005. Since we don’t have access to the Grand Juries transcripts of that period (due to no indictment) getting familiar with them through cross-examinations by Thomas Mesereau (who quoted those transcripts) is probably our second best chance to see what they said in the past and how they distorted the picture in 2005.
This makes the 2005 trial a sort of a reconstruction of how a trial in 1993 could look like, if it weren’t for the Chandlers’ unwillingness to go to court. And this makes the 2005 acquittal verdict cover all earlier cases too – the Chandlers, Jason Francia and the rest of those phantom victims brought by Tom Sneddon into that trial.
This fact seems to me the reason why haters cannot enjoy a moment of quiet after the 2005 case – it isn’t so much because of the Arvizos, but because EVERYTHING they had against MJ was brought into that trial but it nevertheless didn’t work and the man was still found not guilty!
This is why they meddle with this “beyond reasonable doubt” concept and try to assure people that the jury did have some doubts – they want to create the impression that is some small “unknown” detail had been added the same jury would have passed a different verdict. And this is why they constantly throw in some new “facts” – a tendency which I am afraid will continue in the future.
However let us make it clear once and for all:
1) the prosecution, FBI and media examined Michael Jackson’s life under a microscope for more than 20 years and ALL there was to find about him was brought into the 2005 trial – so let us forget even about a theoretical possibility of finding something “new” after that scrutiny which lasted for so long.
2) the “beyond a reasonable doubt” concept laying the basis for Michael’s acquittal in 2005 has the HIGHEST value of certainty which is possible in a criminal trial at all. It is difficult to evaluate it in numbers but lawyers say that the minimum of it amounts to at least 85% certainty of the jury in the defendant’s innocence.
It is very different from a civil standard which is called “preponderance of the evidence” which is (officially) only 50,1 %. Lawyers say that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a much stronger standard because in criminal cases the jury has to do with people’s liberty and life – and not money only as in civil cases.
This is by the way one of the reasons why Larry Feldman and the Chandlers wanted the civil lawsuit to go before a criminal trial in 1993 – it was much easier to get the jury’s “guilty” verdict in a civil case, especially since a simple fact of the defendant using his 5th amendment right is considered in civil litigation as proof of someone’s guilt – while in criminal court it is a totally normal thing to do …
I’ve found a video which explains the “beyond a reasonable doubt” point in more detail: http://video.answers.com/legal-advice-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-34095285
(David, could you introduce it into part 2 of your post please?)
LikeLike
@lynande,
Thank you, where did you get it?
LikeLike
I have to convert it to PDF format otherwise it was scanned in so I have to post all of the pages seperately. I will do that tomorrow so I can just post a link.
LikeLike
@lynande
You said in one of your post that you have the original Schaffel Lawsuit. Is it possible for you to post it, I really like to read it. Where did you find it?
LikeLike
I could write ” an e mail interview” with any person out there too. I think we should look to see if he says this is a “hypothetical” interview. This guy is a joke. Did you read his theory on who killed Jon Benet? He first writes all these possibilities and then under exculpatory evidence he writes Cleared By the Boulder Police or Were Never suspects. LOL. Using him as a reference shows the extremes that haters use to get their point across. Their points are pointless. When someone has an in person interview with Paul Rodriguez then I will believe it is him. Oh guess who has one! Larry Nimmer.
LikeLike
It is easy to see Harriet is a devotee of Dimond and her style of “reporting”. They both use that “I have explosive insider information, but”…… “my dog ate it or I was threatened if I use it” routine. Rodriguez was being offered BIG money for an interview with MAJOR Networks and Publications if he told it they way they wanted or hinted that the jury was wrong he turns them down, but he decides to give an EMAIL interview to a nobody……Get the hell out of here. Even if I had though MJ guilty I would not have believe this poseur.
During trial several of a similar type of blog popped up, created by Covet Agent/PI wanna be’s or persons pretending to be Black Females who wanted to denounce Michael or expose his alleged guilt using diction that is an insult to Blacks everywhere, or laced with TV type super secret agent language. When you have to work that hard to tell the lie it only shows you know the truth.
LikeLike
@ Maral
Rodriguez didn’t say this. The interview is made-up by this Larry Harriet.
Larry Harriet is just a fanboy with a crush on Diane Dimond and a fascination for this branch of television where legal matters are made out to be shows (you know, the Court TV type), and he is just trying to create a fantasy world on his websites where he is an “investigative reporter” like he thinks Dimond is. That’s all. It’s just someone fantasizing.
The only reason is why David had to address this matter is that haters apparently take him seriously and refer to him and his “interview” as a source. Which in itself is very telling about their desperation.
LikeLike
9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?
Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has mol-sted boys in the past, and probably mol-sted this boy,
why would he say this? as i understand if they had any doubt they could have a hung.
LikeLike
Tom Sneddon was never able to find and produce any “bombshell” evidence, yet this Larry Harriet was? I can’t believe there were actually people who bought that and passed it around as “argument”. They must be really desperate.
David you are right, he is a joke. He made me laugh.
LikeLike
Another thing to think about is this: if he had all of that “bombshell” evidence against MJ, then why didn’t he publish it in right after the trial? It was in 2008 when he”promised” his series that would “prove” that MJ was guilty, yet it never materialized……………………wouldn’t he have moved on by 2008? Nobody in the media was talking about MJ in 2008 because of the election, and other pressing matters! MJ was totally out of the spotlight by then. I seriously question the authenticity of those questions he received, and those interviews he allegedly did.
Larry Harriet is a total joke.
LikeLike
“Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.”
He is just covering his ass in case someone would decide to sue him for lying.
LikeLike
“Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.”
David, as you said, the man did the job for you.
Paul Rodriguez was also interviewed for Jones’ and Nimmer’s documentaries.
LikeLike
Did you notice that the “fan mail” that he received about the MJ trial was dated Feb. 21, 2008, almost 3 years after the trial! By then, the trial was yesterday’s news, so why on earth would people STILL be talking about it, considering his site definitely was NOT an MJ fan site? Why would the “general public” STILL have those questions?
Also, that date is significant, because it was an election year here in America, and then candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top story, so why would he receive that many questions on the trial from the general public, who had LONG since moved on from the trial? My guess is that ALL of those questions were fabricated, and those interviews were probably fakes too!
LikeLike
BTW, if he is such a popular reporter and gets so many questions from all over the world, how come noone comments on his blog?
Clearly everything he says is made up. The interviews, the “fan mail”, everything. He is just someone playing Diane Dimond on the internet. He is even trying to borrow her style, LOL. It’s so childish, I can’t believe haters fell for him, LOL.
LikeLike
Googling “Larry Harriet” reveals his love and worship for Nancy Grace and Diamond Dimond and his love for right wing news stations and their notorious pundits, famous for their truthiness. His myspace, alas, reveals that he is still single. Run, don’t walk, Nancy Grace.
You can even see a transcript from CNN of him calling Nancy Grace to speak in 2007. She puts him through right away.
He also coincidentally enough claims to have interviewed a David Schwartz who isn’t the one the one married to June but another criminal defense lawyer who told him he believed MJ was innocent and it was a vendetta by Sneddon. He claims to have “sources” from inside the Phil Spector case and says the jury there were starry eyed too. The person discussing that with him said his sources were idiots, heh.
Also here:
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=254732&highlight=tara+didnt+have+a+dad
People in discussion of another court case question a supposed interview he is supposed to have done.
Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone
http://boards.courttv.com/showthread…dnt+have+a+dad
This was a post that some poster named MHayguard whom I guess is in reality a man by the name of Larry Harriet. This man it is alleged in this thread to have his own website and he came to CourtTV and posted this interview he supposedly di with LG.
So the fundamental questions are WHO THE HECK IS LARRY HARRIET and what sort of journalistic creditials does he have? Is he creditible? Did this interview appear outside cyberspace? Is he connected to anyone in this case and why did he feel compelled to come to CTV site and prerelease his interview?
I don’t know, has anyone done any research on this guy?
Just curious.
He was banned from the forum;
01-09-2007, 02:15 PM
mhayguard a/k/a alwaysharriet a/k/a bunting is the ‘journalist’ in California who got the “exclusive” scoop from AG and LG and kept promising so much more scoop to come…but it never did. He’s apparently been banned or removed or erased or something.
Oh gosh here we go again…. didn’t this MHayguard ask these questions once before??? Didn’t he already do an interview with Anita once before but actually never came up with that interview?? IMO this is not a very reliable person and he puts things on the boards, promisses and idea’s but he never follows up on them so I wouldn’t put much stock into this also. I’ll bet we will never see the actual interview because he simply doesn’t do one, why he states these things I don’t know, maybe he likes to be in the spotlight or he has his own secret agenda but people please, don’t get your hopes up to much for this one.
There are many many good people here, honest people who want the truth and Tara to be found, no matter in what shape she might be in, but this MHayguard isn’t one of them…
Or also known as “the pervert who kept pushing the porn theory”:
Quote Originally Posted by Merrick View Post
One2Snoop,
I don’t believe Larry Harriet’s credibility as an investigative journalist has been established by anyone other than himself, IMO. I have my doubts about whether or not he actually ever spoke to or interviewed LG or AG. On his own board he posted both of these “supposed” interviews. JMHO.
O/T- Larry Harriet was posting on Natalee Holloway II as alwaysHarriet, the pervert that kept advancing the porn theory, remember him? I believe he’s been banned. So much for credible journalism, JMHO.
😆 LOL how could I forget him! I posted a few choice words of my own on the NH thread regarding his crediability.
But he was also trying to start a petition to weirdly enough get rid of Nancy Grace:
Originally posted by concernedperson
mhayguard is busy now trying to get Nancy Grace ousted for being mean to Melinda Duckett He had a petition floating around yesterday but it got merged with the other topic already in existence.
It seems he likes lost causes.
Some of his posts claiming things will happen that then never do:
02-06-2006, 04:19 AM
Rumors have been flying, even sources of mine are telling me that there is evidence that could link Marcus Harper and Sean Fletcher to the car.
I am calling Anita today to do an exclusive interview for my website, CourtNet, and I will pass EVERYTHING by her to verify things that my sources have said.
As soon as I get this interview, I will immediately post a transcript on this message board, and on CourtNet.
larryHARRIET
Anyway. Yes, I think it’s very very very very very likely that interview is faked.
Not that it matters much, but it’s fun really exposing liars.
LikeLike
Thar Larry Harriet guy is as much a reporter as I am the president of the USA. He is only someone who watches too much TV, has a crush on Diane Dimond and as a result is trying to mimic her in the blogsphere. It’s like when children play and mimic adults. It’s really pathetic that haters need someone like him and his clearly made-up, fantasy interviews as a source….
LikeLike
Mark Geragos mentioned during an interview that he knew for a fact that the allegations were false because MJ had an “iron-clad alibi” for all the dates on the prosecution’s timeline. This was also mentioned by Tom Mesearu during his opening statement, as well as Roger Friedman who released an article about Michael’s scedule:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155329,00.html
So the obvious question is, how could he have been in his bedroom abusing this poor innocent cancer victim when he wasn’t even around him? The fact that Michael had an alibi for all the dates on the prosecution’s timeline proves that the jury’s verdict was correct and that he was indeed innocent of all those heinous accusations, and it also explains why Gavin kept on changing his story and why he couldn’t nail down specific dates.
LikeLike
Great analysis David. I busted out laughing when I saw Larry Harriet’s “What I Like about Diane Dimond” and mercy those his answers to that Q&A.
And, wow the information on Kellyanne Conway, the president and CEO of The Polling Company. That is very interesting. Despite everything the media tried to push. Its good to know that on a large scale all these haters and misinformed folks are the minority. When you have folks like DD, Grace, Orth etc. who clear have deeep issues and are so transparent in their bias. I’m amazed that anyone would take what they say seriously.
LikeLike
I think you should go further than that with that Larry Harriet.
He had that blog
http://larryharriet.blogsome.com
In March the 14th, he claimed a personal source told him that MJ wasn’t going to sell Neverland, but the story was in the press a day earlier.
Each time he claimed a personal source told him something, the story was in the media before he published it.
You also noticed that he never said for which newspaper he worked before. Someone who claimed that “Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.” would include on his website where he studied, what articles he wrote… There is nothing like that on his website. My opinion is he is a total fraud and he made up the interviews.
LikeLike