Skip to content

The Arvizo NONSENSE case

November 21, 2009

There is no need to focus much on the Arvizos ‘molestation’ case as it is so much NONSENSE that normal people should not be giving it a second thought.

To think that Gavin Arvizo  could be molested AFTER the whole world started looking at Neverland in horror and amazement is the quintessence of INSANITY, and one can only wonder how the case could go as far as the trial at all. All it shows is total desperation on the part of the prosecution – evidently they had nothing else to present to the world but this theatre of the absurd which we know now by the name of the 2005 Michael Jackson trial.

However in case you are dealing with an especially dedicated hater of Michael Jackson and a complete idiot at that, here is an excellent article I would recommend to everyone for doing away with the Arvizos once and for all.

The article was written when the 2005 case was not yet over – which makes it clear that sane people could see through its falsity from the very beginning. The Arvizo case would have indeed be hilarious if it had not been terribly sad and even tragic for Michael Jackson and wouldn’t have shortened his life.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

“READ CAREFULLY.  Most people think that the alleged order of events is as follows: (1) Michael molested Gavin Arvizo, a 12-year-old cancer survivor, (2) the Bashir documentary aired, (3) local authorities began an investigation into his relationship with the boy, and then, finally, (4) he imprisoned the family until he could coerce them into denying, on camera, that anything ever happened.

They would be wrong.

According to the prosecution’s own version, here’s the correct order:   (1) the Bashir documentary aired, (2) local authorities began an investigation, (3) Michael imprisoned the family, and then — after all this — (4) he began molesting the boy.

That’s right. The first alleged instance of molestation took place AFTER Michael Jackson was being investigated for molestation.

Rolling Stone magazine, one of the few mainstream publications that devoted a serious article to this case, brilliantly boiled down the prosecution’s case as follows:

“In a panic over negative publicity, Jackson conspires to kidnap a boy and force him to deny acts of molestation that in fact never happened, and then he gets over his panic just long enough to actually molest the child at the very moment when the whole world is watching.”

Most incredibly, during the period of alleged imprisonment, the Arvizo family repeatedly returned to Neverland, after having plenty of opportunities to call for help (but never doing so).

Hell, I would love to be “falsely imprisoned” if it means I get a complementary outlet shopping spree for new clothes worth over a thousand dollars, a free Will Ferrell movie, a $175 steak dinner for me and my co-captives at Black Angus, a manicure, a wax, and my capturer picking up the tab for the removal of my son’s braces.  OK, maybe I won’t love the wax job.

If it sounds like I’m saying that the Arvizo family is a conniving troupe of con-artist hell-bound miscreants, then your hearing needs to be checked, because I’m not talking out loud.

But you would be correct, in my opinion, to conclude that this family is predatory, scheming, and capable of exploiting Gavin’s illness to dig gold from countless celebrities like Chris Tucker (who got suckered into paying for plane tickets to Florida) and George Lopez.

Most Americans believed the King of Pop was guilty before the trial even began. This is evidenced by the fact that the media, as well as we the people, decided not to treat his trial as an actual legal proceeding to determine his guilt, but rather, a celebrity freak-show carnival.

Meanwhile, the jurors clearly have no chance of remaining objective. This USA Today article reveals that jurors watched Jay Leno’s Tonight Show on the night that he openly made countless jokes about Jackson’s pedophilia — and the judge doesn’t care. Regardless of whether they’ve been following the rules of avoiding news coverage, any juror with a mental capacity above vegetative has heard enough to conclude that Michael Jackson is a pedophile.

But based on what I do know — the conflicting testimony, the questionable credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of any DNA evidence, and the overwhelming evidence of the Arvizos’ ulterior motives — I submit that there is very reasonable doubt as to MJ’s guilt.

Which is to say, Michael Jackson deserves to walk free.  Or, perhaps, moonwalk free.

Full story:  http://poplicks.com/2005/06/on-jesus-juice-crucifixion-of-king-of.html

56 Comments leave one →
  1. July 22, 2011 4:25 pm

    Teva, it is established that murray lied about the Propofol.Also his multiple telephone calls and texting that morning is suspicious.
    Gross negligence many times over =manslaughter. He did not have the equipment there for an eventual emergency.As a “cardiologist” it is the least he could have done.And was he there all night?He could have done the texting before 6.25 am.It is not 1 accident ,but accident after accident..And he had ordered gallons of Propofol.-I know that much can be done through legal wrangling, but this is so gross.

    Like

  2. Teva permalink
    July 22, 2011 2:00 am

    @kaarin22
    If the defense agrees the circumstances surrounding the manner of death suggest homicide you can best believe they will point the finger at someone else – anyone other than Murray.

    If they do not believe homicide what else remaining from the 4 can they raise reasonable doubt with the jurors? They are not pleading guilty so they have to pick one.

    Like

  3. July 21, 2011 11:30 pm

    Teva, I don´t know how Accidental will play.Murray was specifically hired to monitor Michael which he did not do. He had no monitoring equipment, or what he had he placed on the fingers after death.
    A weak pulse seems to be his specialty weather on planes or on land.
    Then the delay in calling 911, wcich he refused to do himself.Not disclosing the use of Propofol to the ER physicians.Plus more that is known.All this can not add up to an ,and never to 1 accident.It is pretty clrear from autopsy+toxicology when and how much Propofol went in iv.

    Like

  4. shelly permalink
    July 21, 2011 10:57 pm

    I don’t know if it was already posted but someone wrote that and I think it’s good

    http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_67/8578000/8578870/1/print/8578870.pdf

    Like

  5. July 19, 2011 2:35 pm

    I saw some time ago another old post where Randy Phillips talks about
    Micaels death in an almost deadpan manner. He mentions accident and seems to think this is a sure thing.This was only a few days after 6/25,
    I think the toxicology was already known.For accident the insurance will cover.Ofcourse there were other matters that the insurance wanted
    and was not provided by AEG or MJ LLC. Thome Thome was on AEG´s payroll all along for 100.000/month and should have seen to above matters.
    Althopugh T-T was fired he immediately shoved up at the hospital.

    Like

  6. lynande51 permalink
    July 19, 2011 8:31 am

    Actually the homicide was determined by the coroner. The legal definition of homicide is death at the hands of another it is just the type of homicide that differs. They can’t really get around that just because of Murrays original statement. Michael did not administer the propofol, or any of the other drugs found in his system. They were administered per Murray and he says so in his statement to the police.
    You are right though they are going after the manner of death with all of the nonsense that they tried to present during the preliminary. They tried to insinuate that it was accidental or suicide by saying that Michael either drank it or gave himself more than what he says. If you read my comment below you will see that was not possible. They then tried to implicate an unknown other with “the broken syringe” story. Well if it really had an unknown fingerprint on it everyone in the house that day should be fingerprinted. However if someone snuck into the room and administered it wouldn’t that blow his story of not leaving Michael’s side except for 2 minutes while he went to the bathroom? I mean did he stand there and let someone else do that? Their defense doesn’t make any more sense than the Arvizo timeline.

    Like

  7. Teva permalink
    July 19, 2011 6:54 am

    Latoya will be on HLN’s Dr. Drew tonight to talk about Michael’s death.

    Like

  8. Teva permalink
    July 19, 2011 4:08 am

    Another thing I learnt from the Anthony trial that could be applied to Murray’s: Cause of death vs Manner of death. We know the cause of death was propofol intoxification because of the autopsy results, but the defense will try to bring in their own forensic anthropologist to challenge this, and confuse the issue.

    The manner of death to me is the most intriguing, because they are only 4/5 kinds: Homicide, accidental, suicide, natural and undertermine. The defense will eliminate homicide which leaves 4, I am not sure if they can create reasonable doubt with suicide which leave 3. We know Michael Jackson did not die of natural causes because the autopsy said he was in good health which leaves 2 – accidental and undertermine. Murray’s attorneys will probably use these.

    Their goal will be to distance the cause of death and the manner of death as far away from Murray as legally possible.

    Like

  9. July 18, 2011 5:32 pm

    Thanks to Teva´s recent post I hit on this older line of posts
    Alison, on June 14:th 2011 at 9:46 am struck me. You described in your own words and expierience what in psychodynamics is called :projective
    identification.It means that you project psychological qualities you have, that are unacceptable to you, onto somebody else and then punish this other person for them.This is an unconscious process.Naturally I can´t say for sure if this was what drove Sneddon .It would explain the intensity of his pursuit.
    Now to the Murray trial.It is really simple if you understand the autopsy and the toxicology findings + the forensic science that puts it all together.Murray already requested that 2 specialist witnesses be struck, but the judge did not allow it.Always when science is involved it is easy to confuse a jury.Bad news that Nancy Grace will be invoved.

    Like

  10. Teva permalink
    July 18, 2011 7:19 am

    @lcpledwards,

    Yes I knew what HLN will be up to, and I have been saying it for weeks. I followed the Anthony trial, and I have to say having cameras in the court room did not make any difference. You would have had to be watching all the witness testimony to get a full picture because when it came time of journalists commentary the prosecution was heavily praised. I personally believed she murder the little girl, but there was nothing balance in the reportage.

    Like

  11. lcpledwards permalink
    July 18, 2011 7:08 am

    I can’t believe that I forgot to include the link to the column that I quoted from earlier, about how HLN plans on exploiting the Dr. Murray trial in much the same way that they exploited the Casey Anthony trial!

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/business/media/13hln.html?scp=1&sq=HLN%20michael%20jackson&st=cse

    By the way, did you guys know that at Caylee Anthony’s funeral in 2009, they played “Gone Too Soon”, and included a video montage of her?

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    June 19, 2011 8:37 pm

    Janet Arvizo and JC Penney, she was crazy

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/022405ntctestproswit.pdf

    Like

  13. lcpledwards permalink
    June 19, 2011 5:57 pm

    @ helena
    Yes, Nancy Grace has tons of MJ photos on her FB page! In fact, 5 of the 10 photo albums she has posted are dedicated to MJ! https://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=56641053286

    And let’s not forget Diane Dimond’s framed photos of MJ in her home or office! (look behind her). http://www.justice4mj.com/diane-dimond/

    Like

  14. Julie permalink
    June 15, 2011 9:42 pm

    Thank you vindicating mj for removing posts from people that are on here spewing hate. It angers me to see those types of people come on here do that.

    Like

  15. nan permalink
    June 15, 2011 6:21 pm

    i think this is a good interview with geraldo rivera speaking about mj upcoming trial and the press giving tom sneddon a pass..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XfL5ssQ9Sw

    Like

  16. nan permalink
    June 15, 2011 3:33 am

    I just watched the bing video of Nancy Grace interviewing Brian Oxman…..thank you for that….She took that opportunity for covering her behind…… even right after his shocking death, to remember to negate the not guilty verdicts……, because she was embarrassed by those verdicts, she did after all ,make her career on destroying MJ during trial ………..,for her own ego and for her viewers sake,,,,, she was right and the jury was wrong 14 times…that is the impression she was trying to get across…….all the while pretending to have compassion……………..notice how quickly she moved on from that statement.,,,,.Brian Oxman…..we all know now that he and his wife are suspended from practicing law…..stealing money from clients.,,,certainly not the caliber of person to represent Michael in any way , and yet Mj or rather his family…kept him on , i guess thinking he was a loyal friend….sad………..Is the general public that stupid or are they just used to being treated like idiots that she slipped that by……….,..I dont think anyone on here is going to call Mr Oxman a great atty, or even intelligent for that matter……..I think I could do better then half the losers that were supposed to be there representing Michael Jackson in some capacity…………You might think that if you have been somewhat expecting such a tragedy, as he alludes to , you would have, been more prepared, particularly since you positioned yourself outside the hospital immediately…to speak to the media……….. with the innuendo he was putting out there…Frankly , I am surprised he didnt have an 800 number for his office running in the banner……….I think he had other issues with the Jackson family to be out there shooting his mouth off….
    .. Ms Grace had asked Tom Mesereau to be on her show after verdict and he declined,,He is not desperate for face time in front of the camera ..and he doesnt have to put up with someone going for the his clients jugular , ,just to get on a tv show ………b.tw TM was a prosecutor at one time too.He just isnt a fame whore..Small wonder Mr Mesereau shit canned Oxman if he doesnt have the sense to stay off her show while( supposedly) distraught…..Nancy Grace also uses the murder of her fiance to cry crocodile tears when she needs to ..this is supposedly to enforce the reason why she is such a law and order gal…..pathetic..and obvious imo.

    Like

  17. June 14, 2011 10:30 pm

    “I don’t disagree that she’s a fan, as she has lots of photos from his memorial service on her FB page!”

    David, Nancy Grace is MJ’s fan too??? The more I hear of Michael’s haters the more incredible they get! When people are really disgusted by someone they try to be as far as possible from the object of their disgust. Just as an example imagine some horrible serial murderer you have read in newspapers about – will any of us want to buy a hat belonging to him (like Diane Dimond did) and put it on our heads? Or will the mere idea of it make you shudder?

    Will you have your picture taken with an impersonator of a criminal whom you think guilty of abominable crimes (like Victor Gutierrez did with MJ?) Well, I don’t know about others, but I – when thinking about one terrible killer – am disgusted to even look him in the face not to mention a possible joint photo with his impersonator. And a murderer is by the way universally considered not as bad as a ped-le. So if a murderer is so avoided how much more aversion is felt for a man who is considered guilty of crimes against children?

    The only explanation for their specific kind of “love” for MJ is that their activity is just a make-belief game – they sound and look resentful but in the very deep of their soul and mind they don’t believe what they are saying. Those who are in very much doubt often shout the loudest because they want to prove it to themselves in the first place that they were right in their accusations.

    Like

  18. stacy2 permalink
    June 14, 2011 10:36 am

    Sneddon was obsessed with Micheal Jackson the same way Diane Dimond is. He saw big oppurtunities going after him and he made it his life goal to get him. He wanted to take down the biggest star in the world and make a name for himself and he went through all hell to make it happen even if that meant getting laws changed, falsifying evidence, and spending his own money to travel around the world looking for “victims”.

    Like

  19. Alison permalink
    June 14, 2011 9:46 am

    when i was being bullied at work one of the tactics was accusing me of an agenda i absolutely didn’t have, it was ridiculous – but i began to realise that the other person most definitely did have that agenda and was covering their tracks by accusing and proclaiming that i did and they were the victim, while all the while working to get rid of me.

    is it off the wall and ridiculous to wonder what sneddon and his friends were up to that they didn’t want exposed? clearly Michael was a threat to him in some way and perhaps it wasn’t any of the obvious reasons. is it possible s could himself be a p”le?? i don’t doubt i will be shot down by someone again for having an opinion, but i thought it was worth putting out there as a possibility. there has to be some reason s was so emotionally obsessed to destroy him.
    if not p;;lia, maybe some other crime that maybe Michael knew about?

    Like

  20. Teva permalink
    June 14, 2011 8:32 am

    If HLN uses the Murray trial like it is doing to the Casey Anthony it will be a 24×7 onslaught. What will be interesting is HLN ALWAYS sides with the prosecution, so how they handle this case.

    @Ares
    Journalists should present both sides, but lately that is not the case with cable tv anchors it is now popular to give an opinion.

    @David
    Yes, I think Nancy dis-Grace is being emotional and not legal. There is definetely an emotional element to child molestation that bypasses logic. You just hear the words and you are ready to punch someone out. I don’t think she is evil, but I do think she is a cyclops and dangerous.

    Like

  21. Suzy permalink
    June 14, 2011 7:42 am

    @ Alison

    It must have been horrible for Michael. Imagine saying bye to your kids not knowing if you will come back. And what it was like for the kids? Were they told daddy may or may not come back? Even if you know you are innocent, even if the case was non-existent, you never know how a jury decides. Whether they are swayed by media pressure or something.

    I can’t even imagine how horrible this situation must have been for Michael. Sneddon truly should be in jail for putting him through all that.

    Like

  22. Alison permalink
    June 14, 2011 7:30 am

    I just watched all the videos Suzie just posted. very interesting and well put together – and i loved the ending where NG says you can all have the last laugh and theres alll those kids giggling! fantastic!
    But it was difficult not knowing who they all were unless they were named on screen. all those who said positive and supportive things, did they continue to do well in their careers? their words were obviously phased out of the ongoing dialogue, were they phased out too or could they continue to develop their careers? i am in UK, don’t have these programmes.
    my heart was breaking watching the cavalcade going to the court tp hear the verdicts, what could Michael have been thinking and feeling? its so painful to think about. i truly hate sneddon. and he stands in front of camera trying to make people believe it wasn’t personal to him ! – he was oozing LIE out of every pore. having seen that i now see for myself that he was TOTALLY obsessed with Michael Jackson and “Getting him”. it just oozes out of him in those videos. he was so obsessed he had lost perspective on his own actions and had blinded himself to reality, and the ridiculousness of the ‘case’, it didn;t occur to him that normal people would see through it because he was so obsessed and emotionally involved.

    i wonder when it all started for sneddon,was it that 93 made him obsessed because he could see his political advancement in it? (or if he believed it all because he saw himself as the bringer of justice) or was he obsessed before that? all those involved in making 93 happen, did they know they could count on sneddon? 0r was it a lucky chance for them?

    Like

  23. lcpledwards permalink
    June 14, 2011 4:02 am

    Oh, and speaking of Nancy Grace…………if you thought that she was gonna sit out during the Conrad Murray trial, think again! Here is an excerpt from an article about the jump in ratings for her show and network due to the Caylee Anthony murder trial:

    That is thanks in part to Ms. Grace, the 8 p.m. host on HLN and a former prosecutor who evinces little doubt that Ms. Anthony is guilty. (Her viewers — at least those passionate enough to call in or e-mail her — mostly share her view.) Ms. Grace was among the first to cover Caylee’s disappearance three years ago. Since then she has devoted hundreds of segments to the case.

    Ms. Grace’s devotion has been spread across almost all the hours of the day on HLN. In anticipation of two big trials this spring — Ms. Anthony’s and that of Dr. Conrad Murray, charged with involuntary manslaughter in Michael Jackson’s death — Mr. Safon added a 5 p.m. show, “Special Report,” hosted by Vinnie Politan, a former lawyer and Court TV anchor. And he directed prime-time hosts like Dr. Drew Pinsky, who is on at 9, and Joy Behar, on at 10, to “play out your curiosity about what’s going on in the courtroom that day.”

    Mr. Safon said HLN would not be turning into the next Court TV. But he noted that Dr. Murray’s trial, having been postponed, is to start in September. “I want to replicate this when the Conrad Murray trial starts,” he said.

    Like

  24. lcpledwards permalink
    June 14, 2011 1:21 am

    @ Stacy2
    You’re kidding me, right? You actually believe that Grace turned on MJ merely out of emotions, based on her career as a prosecutor? She deliberately LIED to the public to generate ratings, and I can prove it! Last year I wrote a rebuttal to both Grace and her partner in crime Sunny Hostin, and I included a video of Grace in March 2007 STILL saying that MJ was guilty, and she said that the book by the 2 jurors “proved it”, despite the fact that it was never released!

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/refuting-the-legal-analysts/

    I don’t disagree that she’s a fan, as she has lots of photos from his memorial service on her FB page! And no, she did not make a huge “turnaround” after his death; she merely stopped publicly bashing him because it was no longer profitable to do so! Did you hear what she said on the day he died? Or what she told Brian Oxman (of all people!) a few days later? http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/michael-jackson-attorney-drugs-led-to-death-breaking-news/9766c3c5615a96982ffb9766c3c5615a96982ffb-845616316741?q=nancy+grace+michael+jacksokn&FROM=LKVR5&GT1=LKVR5&FORM=LKVR37

    Please read the entire post and let us know if you still think that Grace wasn’t deliberate in her media slaughter of MJ!

    And on a side note, while I’m on the subject of refuting MJ haters, stay tuned! Later this week I will post my rebuttal to conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart! If you don’t already know who he is, you’ll learn plenty about him after you read my post! 🙂

    Oh, and one last thing on Grace: she SETTLED her wrongful death lawsuit with the family of Melinda Duckett! So according to her logic, that automatically makes her guilty! (Read my comment about this in that post.)

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    June 13, 2011 11:00 pm

    She is a former DA, she should know better than anyone else that you are innocent until proven guilty and that she shouldn’t use public opinion to condemn someone. She is very dangerous, in my opinion.

    Like

  26. ares permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:46 pm

    But especially because the sensitive nature of child molestation allegations, shouldn’t journalists and people who work on reporting those kid of things be extra careful , study and review the facts again and again before they present them to the public and when present them do it in the most object and accurate way possible? We all know that allegations that consern child abuse of any type and especially sexual, are considered the worse crime made by a human being. In our society to be labeled a child molester is like having received the death penalty. So again, those people who worked on examining and presenting the 2005 case and trial to the public failed miserably. Their own bias, their own hatred and their own personal opinion blinded them and they condemned a man who was in fact innocent, even before the trial beggin.

    Like

  27. Teva permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:19 pm

    I think part of the problem also is the nature of the crime alleged. It is hard to look at child molestation strictly from evidence, it is an emotional allegation. Nancy dis-Grace knows this and being a tv star she plays to the emotions of her audience like a puppet master. She does not have to adhere to the rules of proper conduct like in a court, she can be as inflamatory as she wants. I did hear another comment of hers on Michael after his death, and once someone tried to work his “getting off” as a rich celebrity to prove a another case, and she cut them off saying he is dead don’t bring him into this (which was semi-decent even for her).

    Like

  28. Anna permalink
    June 13, 2011 9:22 pm

    I know alot of people who were fans of Michael and still thought he might be guilty in the beginning of the trial. They would all say they were “fans of his music” that was safer than saying they were Michael Jackson fans I guess. Some followed the coverage of the trial and really didn’t know what to believe. It’s the fans that have done independent research that have been able to see the truth about the trial. However, people like Nancy Grace used the “I’m a fan too”,or “I loved Thriller” tactics to try and win credibility when being a fan has nothing to do with the facts of case.

    Like

  29. Truth Prevail permalink
    June 13, 2011 7:29 pm

    @Stacy2 Nancy Grace Is Bullshit all about her saying shes a fan is a front she jus didnt like him simple as that how the hell is the so called evidence strong i would have belived that if i didnt know the facts but i hve seen the whole case myself and there was no strong evidence shes a bullshitter!!

    Like

  30. ares permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:18 pm

    So Grace stated that she was fan of MJ but she didn’t hesitate to lynch him? Hmmm, so if she wasn’t a fan what would she do. Take a gun, go to the court and kill him? I don’t care if she was his fan or not, her job was to present the facts about that trial, something that she didn’t do. You don’t have to be a fan of MJ to know that the man was innocent. For me she is partially resposible for what happened to MJ and many others – see Melinda Duckett. That despicable human being should have never a job in the media because her views are dangerous and represent the worst kind of human being.

    Like

  31. appleh permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:06 pm

    Thank you Suzy, it was great to see how Nancy Grace was put to ground. The joke with the crow sandwich was to funny !
    Last year when I was in the US I had the “honor” to watch Nancy Grace at it´s best, don´t know anymore, which TV station it was. There was a case where a little boy was missing and the stepmother was investigated by the police, because she was last seen with the child. It was the same like in the MJ Case, she acted, as it was allready proven that the stepmother was guilty and so were her insane comments about this woman. I don´t know how it ended, because after leaving the states I could not follow this case anymore !

    Like

  32. Suzy permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:28 pm

    @ stacy2

    I think you are being a little naive about Nancy Grace. Almost every hater starts with “I used to be a fan, but….”

    It’s as if they think it will give more credibility or weight to their opinion.

    Michael was such a bright star that most people can claim that they liked a song or two from him at one point in their lives. So they can claim they used to be “fans”.

    I don’t think she felt the evidence was strong against Michael. If she felt it was strong she should have pointed out to us what that strong evidence was. Instead she was spouting garbage against him and she was totally unfair to him. Also Nancy Grace was a prosecutor in the past and it ALWAYS makes her biased for the prosecution no matter what the evidence is. I don’t know how someone as biased as her can be on TV presenting cases. It’s predictable that in 99% of each and every case she will side with the prosecution, no matter what.

    Like

  33. stacy2 permalink
    June 13, 2011 3:09 pm

    The thing about Nancy Grace is that she’s always been a fan of Michael Jackson. She mentioned in an interview sortyly after the verdict that when she was a little girl, she would always watch soul train and try to imitate him. She turned against him so viciously because she cared for children and has tried many sex abuse cases and had no tolerance for child molesters and pedophiles and felt that the evidence against Michael was strong. Yes Nancy Grace was very horrible to Michael but I admit that she did make a huge turn around after he passed away. She stated that she still believed the allegations, but out of respect for his family, she will no longer speak on it and that whatever he did or didnt do was now between him and god, and that she would let him rest in peace.

    Like

  34. Suzy permalink
    June 13, 2011 2:18 pm

    @ Appleh

    Watch part 5 from 3:30 – I love how Debra Opri calls Nancy Grace out. LOL!

    Like

  35. appleh permalink
    June 13, 2011 2:00 pm

    @ Suzy, thank you for the videos

    Is that Nancy Grace in Part one who always predicted a guilty ? Around 6:50 she says : ” I will eat crow , if they don´t get this guy on something…” Well I hope somebody took her words serious, LOL !!!

    Like

  36. Suzy permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:54 am

    It’s actually a 5 part series. It’s worth watching starting here with part one:

    There was indeed support for Michael in the media as well, however those who were against him were always the loudest and most visible.

    Like

  37. Alison permalink
    June 13, 2011 10:42 am

    Thanks Suzy for posting that.
    you know seeing it like that, and i know it was short clips only, i felt that on that day there were media who were also pleased with the verdict and agreed with it, as well as those who clearly wanted to rubbish it such as that Dan Abrams character. maybe it was the individual reporters who were on rather than their channels’ organised reports , but there did sound to be some support there. so something happened afterwards to push them all the other way and/ or silence those who were supportive.
    who was the guy from Court TV who looked a bit like Christopher Reeve?

    Like

  38. Suzy permalink
    June 13, 2011 4:27 am

    It’s June 13th. Today six years ago was the day of Michael’s acquittal:

    Like

  39. March 23, 2011 12:18 pm

    “How does a DA have a PR Firm when he is under a Gag Order not to talk publicly about the case”? That should have been a headline. http://www.signonsan…aeljackson.html http://www.signonsan…aeljackson.html “ – Dialdancer

    Dear friends, I am amazed at the accuracy of the research all of you are doing and the great contributions you are making.

    I always wondered how Tom Sneddon could be speaking so freely about the Arvizo case. If you remember in a Q&A Harvard post made by David prosecutor Martha Coakley said that they were not allowed to comment on the case during the trial:

    “…in a trial, child abuse cases in particular, people bring a lot of baggage about child abuse , and who does it, and who doesn’t, and “where’s the forensics, and the CSI people?”, and all of that stuff. But as a prosecutor, we’re prohibited from commenting, especially during a trial. We don’t really want anyone else doing it.”

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/transcript-of-the-2005-harvard-law-seminar-on-race-and-justice-part-4-q-a-session/

    Like

  40. Dialdancer permalink
    March 21, 2011 6:30 am

    While organizing files I came across an article all but forgotten. It is an Associated Press release for distribution. “PR expert explains free work for Jackson prosecutor”

    I’ve asked the question several times and never got a satisfactory answer. How could Sneddon have a PR Firm pro-bono or not representing him once they were under a Gag Order? It was reported that one of the Firm’s jobs was to answer questions about the case Sneddon was too busy to deal with. In order for the firm to have been effective that would have meant the DA’s Office sharing information which may have been under seal, but more importantly under a Gag Order.

    Putting out information had to be the Firm’s primary job, there were no promotional Media of Sneddon strolling in the park or going to the local store and shaking hands, all the things a PR Firm is used for when taken on to correct a negative personal image.

    “Tellem said the prosecutor held a second press conference at her suggestion after he filed charges against Jackson and “Mr. Sneddon did a fabulous job and even changed public opinion.”

    It is like the entire collective Media lost all ability to see even the most obvious. That must be what happen, because other than the initial question about the Firm and being brushed off with the “we are under a Gag Order” bit no one saw fit to look at this critically and report on it. “How does a DA have a PR Firm when he is under a Gag Order not to talk publicly about the case”? That should have been a headline.

    http://www.signonsan…aeljackson.html

    Like

  41. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 10:27 pm

    @Suzy

    Have you read the book and agree with Michael’s analysis of children?

    Like

  42. Suzy permalink
    March 20, 2011 9:52 pm

    I have read that earlier. Poor, poor Michael.

    And after the trial he still could remain a good man and not to lose love for all of mankind. Incredible.

    Like

  43. shelly permalink
    March 20, 2011 8:02 pm

    It’s terrible and very sad.

    Like

  44. Teva permalink
    March 20, 2011 7:19 pm

    I have been reading Rabbi Shmuley’s new book on Michael Jackson: Honoring the Child Spirit, and I couldn’t resist making this post. Here is what Michael said about Gavin Arvizo, somewhere around 2000.

    “They are the light. I was telling Frank the other day, in my
    opinion Gavin represents the white light we see before we
    die, that hope that comes. Don’t be afraid, he’s like an angel. How could
    he not be sweet and kind in his soul? There is a message
    there somewhere, the kids have it.”

    Like

  45. Dialdancer permalink
    July 29, 2010 7:33 am

    Military officers are like Politicians. It is best career wise if senior Officers are married and married to someone who has a fairly unsullied background. Why would US. Army Major who is sure to require a security clearance (this is done by the FBI) marry this crazy woman with some serious baggage in her background? How is it both Gavin & Star ended up attending Georgia Military College with their record?

    Except From: http://www.hewasinnocent.com/ArvizoFamily.html

    “Janet Arvizo — after her marriage to major Jay Jackson now ironically called Janet Jackson — was convicted for welfare fraud in February 2006. She had to serve 150 hours of community service and to pay US $ 8,600 in restitution.” The Major gets promoted to LTCol” Take it from a retired Military person with Officers in the family. This does not happen without strings being pulled.

    Like

  46. Dialdancer permalink
    July 28, 2010 10:37 pm

    Helena,

    I do give him props for writing what must have been an unpopular piece for the times. I have a bias against the News Reporting community which goes back further than Michael’s trials. A personal experience which due to a lack of reported information could have placed a loved ones’ life in danger.

    Like

  47. July 28, 2010 7:40 pm

    Dear Dialdancer, please remember that the hilarious article about Arvizos was written before the trial or at the very beginning of it – so the outcome of it was not yet known to the author, which explains why he was somewhat indefinite in his statements about Michael’s innocence. He really DID NOT KNOW all the circumstances of the case and was analysing only the information available at the time.

    What is top important is that he was able to see through all those lies at the very beginning of the case and tried to appeal to other people’s common sense when the whole world was all agog at the prosecutor’s revelations. Given that some people are doubtful even NOW – after the trial is over and Michael was proven innocent – the conclusions made by this author at THAT time were truly remarkable.

    Like

  48. Dialdancer permalink
    July 28, 2010 6:28 pm

    I’ve become quite critical of the printed word and of the trained professionals who write it.

    The Rolling Stones article could be seen as objective and up to a point that would be correct, except for two things. The reiteration of “I don’t know if Michael Jackson is guilty.” No the author does not know if Michael is guilty, but should done his homework. This is what has become known as “Copy & Paste Journalism”. He told a fairly positive story, but no work was done by him.

    In this statement he makes his readers “feel”. “I don’t know what goes through the mind of a sexual predator, nor do I know the pain of being one of his victims.” (His words here make his readers feel.)

    He omitted to say that when an innocent person accused, they are the victim and very much damaged. (He failed to make his readers feel what it like to wear those shoes.)

    Yes, the author did bash the Avirzos for their past background and for the sloppiness of the attempted extortion and the DA’s case, but there is left a sense that Michael may have done this, it is just because of poor planning on the part of the DA and the blackmailers, that Michael got away with child molestation

    Like

  49. David permalink
    June 18, 2010 7:03 am

    Hey everybody, I found an EXCELLENT website for those of you who want to THOROUGHLY research the 2005 trial. This site has DAY BY DAY trial coverage, and provides summaries of the tesitimonies of all of the witnesses from the Opening Statements through Verdict Day.

    I truly wish I would have found this site a lot earlier! It would have made my research soooooooo much easier!!

    http://www.mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSource.htm

    Like

  50. Suzy permalink
    June 17, 2010 5:40 pm

    Larry Nimmer: The Untold Story of Neverland (a must see for all skeptics):

    Like

  51. Lynette permalink
    June 14, 2010 6:49 pm

    Here is a link to how common celebrity extortion is and the expplaination of how they deal with it. The funny thing is the media seems to know a lot of people like the salacious stories. The tabloid sales must have been astronomical for Michael. I really didn’t think that there were that many gullible out there but I was wrong. I remember looking at some of the cover stories and think “how stupid, who is going to believe this”. I just read Charles Tomsons Huffington Post article and he listed the poll numbers after the trial and I was astonished at the results.
    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3354065&page=1

    Like

  52. David permalink
    June 13, 2010 2:45 pm

    Hey, this is a great post on the 2005 witch hunt! There is a topic that I thought you should know about, and that is the fact that two Jurors accepted book deals to say that MJ was really guilty. Their names were Ray Hultman & Eleanor Cook. In the first link, they are interviewed by MSNBC in August 2005 to announce their upcoming books.
    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8894410/

    In the second link, Ray Hultman announces in September 2005 that he’s going to file a lawsuit to get out of the book deal he signed, because his co-author Stacey Brown (who also co-wrote “The Man Behind The Mask” with MJ’s former publicist Bob Jones) plagiarized one of Maureen Orth’s slanderous articles on MJ in Vanity Fair.
    http://www.santamariatimes.com/news/local/article_b90a9be6-5773-57e0-bf53-0c8c4ad82ad9.html

    This next article is from January 2006. It states how Ray Hultman settled his lawsuit after he was “pressured to sensationalize his story”. (The same way Bob Jones was pressured to lie and say he saw MJ licking Jordie’s head during a flight in his book!!) As far as Eleanor Cooke, she tried to shop her book, but it was “difficult” shopping her book, so she tried to “reposition” her book as an “indictment of the American justice system” (which definitely deserved to be indicted after what it did to MJ!). Her publicist stated that the chances of the book ever being released at “less than 50/50”, and as we now know, it was never released.

    Surprisingly, jury foreman Paul Rodriguez was also supposed to get a book deal, but never got one. He has been one of MJ’s staunchest supporters after the trial, and even defended him in Aphrodite Jones’ MJ documentary. I’m sure he lost his book deal for refusing to lie and say that MJ was guilty!

    http://www.santamariatimes.com/news/local/article_ebc35f04-03a5-5780-a972-f23145f54d40.html?mode=story

    In the last link, I included a press release for Aphrodite Jones’ book “MJ Conspiracy”, where she mentions how other jurors were ALSO offered book deals to lie and say MJ was guilty, but they turned them down due to their integrity. They called Ray and Eleanor “traitors”.
    http://www.themjifc.com/forum/innocent/12547-aphrodite-jones-thomas-mesereau-michaels-attorney.html

    I think this is some info that would be valuable to MJ fans, because I’ve seen MJ haters (who don’t adequately do their research) use Ray & Eleanor’s MSNBC interview as an excuse to say that MJ “got away with it just like OJ Simpson”. To be honest, while doing research on MJ after he died, I got a little scared when I found that interview, but was absolutely relieved to know those books didn’t come out, and that coward Ray Hultman had to sue to get out of writing it.

    Thanks again for your wonderful blog!

    Like

  53. Lynette permalink
    June 13, 2010 12:44 am

    Yeah I believe that Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson was severly traumatized by the body.. NO Wait! the Leg wax completely altering her sense of reality.

    Like

  54. Suzy permalink
    June 12, 2010 3:21 pm

    Maureen Orth: “He will never be able to live a normal life.”

    Guess what, Maureen? Michael couldn’t have a normal life either after he was falsely accused by Jordan…….

    Like

  55. Lex permalink
    June 12, 2010 3:08 pm

    Apparently the Arvizo kid denies it now. I just had to laugh when he said “everybody thinks Michael Jackson molested me” ….hmmm I wonder why they think that!!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: