Skip to content

Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities, Part 2 of 2

September 29, 2010

Ok guys, here is part 2, as promised! I address the other celebrities who have settled serious lawsuits, and I expose Janet Arvizo’s scam of JC Penney! But the part that brought me the most joy was when I totally dismantled notorious MJ haters Bill O’Reilly and Congressman Peter King! You guys are going to feel like throwing your computer out of the window when you view to those clips of O’Reilly and his cronies, but fortunately I included the ultimate antidote: a rebuttal by comedienne Steve Harvey, a true friend of MJ! – D.E.

Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities, Part 2

Now, let me segue into other high profile individuals who have settled multi-million dollar lawsuits out of court, and have been “forgiven” by the media.  The first is two-time Superbowl Champion quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, followed by Hall of Fame NFL wide receiver Michael Irvin, NBA superstar Kobe Bryant, political commentator Bill O’Reilly, and college basketball coach Rick Pitino. Afterwards, I will end with our most under-reported settlement scam artist, Janet Arvizo!

Ben Roethlisberger

On July 17th, 2009 Roethlisberger was hit was a civil lawsuit that was filed by a woman named Andrea McNulty, who worked at a Harrah’s hotel in Lake Tahoe, Nevada.  She claimed that she was sexually assaulted on July 11th, 2008 inside of Roethlisberger’s room after he requested that she fix his broken television.  The police were never notified, and physical evidence was not collected. (A huge red flag should be waving over your head right now!)  She asked for monetary damages of $440k. The civil suit also names eight Harrah’s officials as defendants, alleging they orchestrated a “cover-up” of the incident. The suit says she suffered depression, was hospitalized, and forced to take leave from her job in the year after the incident. Roethlisberger denied all accusations, countersued her for extortion, and vowed not to give in to her demands.

Now, hold up! Wait a minute! Let’s look at those dates: she was allegedly assaulted in July 2008, and made no attempt to notify authorities to seek justice, but she filed a civil lawsuit in July 2009? Based on those facts alone, do you think Ben is guilty? I sure don’t! (Although I’m not too sure about that second accusation!) What kind of rape victim puts money ahead of justice?

Now, here’s where things get suspicious: in September 2009, McNulty made Roethlisberger a settlement offer that she thought he couldn’t refuse: she would drop the civil suit if he admits to raping her, apologizes, and gives $100,000 to the Committee to Aid Abused Women, which is a non-profit agency in Reno that helps victims of domestic violence. (That’s not a typo!  I’m not kidding around!  She really made that offer to him!)

Needless to say, Roethlisberger flatly rejected her offer!

Now, fast forward to March 2010, and Roethlisberger is charged with another sexual assault.  He was bar-hopping with friends and bodyguards when he invited some young ladies into the VIP section of a bar, and somehow he ended up alone in a bathroom stall with one of them (who was drunk), and the next thing you know he’s facing another allegation.  After several weeks of investigation, the district attorney decided that he would not prosecute Roethlisberger due to his lack of faith in his ability to prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  He could not find any probable cause against Roethlisberger, and as a result no arrest was made. (Gee, does that sound familiar? Kinda like how Sneddon couldn’t arrest MJ due to lack of probable cause!)

In his press conference, he alluded to the fact that a few weeks prior to his decision not to press charges, the accuser had a change of heart, and decided not to continue cooperating with police, and that has led some to speculate that she and Roethlisberger negotiated an out of court civil settlement.  This is very similar to both Blanca Francia and Kobe Bryant (coming up next!), because in all three of these cases, the criminal case first collapsed (or in the case of Jason Francia, it never existed in the first place), and subsequently a potential civil suit was settled out of court. This article talks about this in more detail, and the author compared Roethlisberger to MJ by saying that these types of settlements create a suspicion of guilt. (In my opinion, out of court settlements only create “suspicion” to people who are too lazy to do any research, and who pre-judged the defendants as being guilty anyway!)

Now, let’s get back to the first accuser.  Obviously, after seeing this current chain of events, she flip flopped and rescinded her settlement offer to Roethlisberger because he’s now viewed as “vulnerable”. Her initial demand was to have the $100k donated to charity, but I think that now she wants to continue with the lawsuit so that he settles and pays her the money instead! And with all of the negative publicity that he has been through over the last year, nobody could blame him for just settling and moving on with his life. I’m sure I would do the same if I was in his position because I wouldn’t want the media spotlight hanging over my civil trial, and having my dirty laundry aired in public, etc.  But if Roethlisberger decides to fight the suit, then good for him!  At least he doesn’t have to worry about a criminal trial!

Personally, Andrea McNulty reminds me a lot about Evan Chandler. They both made outrageous demands that they couldn’t have possibly thought would have ever been met. (Andrea wanted Roethlisberger to publicly admit wrongdoing, and Evan wanted to record a rebuttal album! Are you kidding me?) And they both had no intentions of ever seeking justice through a criminal trial (and Evan only reluctantly told his shrink to notify the authorities when he learned that June Chandler regained custody of Jordie).  In fact, here is Evan’s recollection of the “gut-wrenching” decision that he had to make, from “All That Glitters”, pages 119-121:

In a phone conversation the night before Freeman’s request was to be heard in court, Barry counseled Evan that unless he was willing to walk into the courtroom and accuse Michael of molesting Jordie, he didn’t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.

“How long will I have?” Evan asked.

“One, maybe two days.”

“What if I refuse to give him back?”

“If you don’t give him back the sheriff will come take him.  And he may arrest you, too.”

Accusing Michael of molestation was a can of worms Evan did not want to open.  He doubted anyone would take Jordie’s word over Michael’s, especially If June took Michael’s side. And she’d have to; otherwise she’d be implicating herself.  But it was Jordie’s fears over the prospect of going to court that weighted heaviest on Evan’s mind.

At the same time, Evan knew that as soon as June had Jordie back in her clutches she’d be on a plane to join Michael, who was already out of the country.  Evan believed with absolute certainty that if Jordie went on tour with Michael he’d suffer severe psychological damage.

“I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t,” Evan lamented to Barry.  “What if I take him out of California and hide for a while?  Maybe that’ll buy you some time to come up with the necessary appeals.”

“Appeals!” the attorney exclaimed.  “Are you nuts!  You’ll be a fugitive in the eyes of the law.  You’ll end up in jail and guarantee June permanent custody.  You can forget about any appeals.”

Confused and saddened, Evan thanked Barry for all his help and hung up.

“What’s the matter, Pops?” Jordie asked.  He’d been standing next to his father while he talked to Barry.

“They’re going to make you go back tomorrow, Jordie. Barry says we have no choice.”

Uh-uh! No way!  I’ll run away first.”

Buoyed by his son’s feistiness, Evan made him a promise.  “If that’s the way you feel, then I’m with you.  But we’ve got one move left.  If it doesn’t work, then we’ll go.”

For the past six weeks the two sides had gone back and forth, each trying to outmaneuver the other in what Evan called “the chess game from hell.” Now he found himself checkmated. “They left me no choice.  The only move I had left was to kick over the table before they took the king.”

Evan dialed the number.  “Do you remember me?” he asked.  “I’m the one who came to your office and told you about my son.”

“Yes,” Dr. Abrams replied.  “I remember very well.”

It was the one thing Evan had tried so desperately to avoid.  Once he supplied the names, the psychiatrist would have no choice but to file a report with the authorities, who would then assume full control.

“The thought of placing Jordie in the hands of a government agency was frightening,” Evan commented. “Almost as frightening as returning him to June and Michael.”

Evan took a few seconds to think before embarking into the unknown; then he took a deep breath.  “My name is Evan Chandler.  My son’s name is Jordie Chandler.  The adult male is Michael Jackson.  Can you help me? Please!”

Other than the knowledge that Michael had touched Jordie’s penis, Evan had never asked his son about the sex.  But Dr. Abrams would, and Evan hoped he would be convinced of the truth and be willing to appear at the court hearing the following morning as an expert witness. “I’m sorry,” Dr. Abrams said.  “I can’t see him today.  But don’t worry; bring him in first thing in the morning.”

Despite the DA’s tacit admission that Roethlisberger’s actions were not entirely wholesome on the fateful night, the media has pretty much let the story die down. You don’t see ESPN’s legal analysts publicly calling him a “rapist” or “predator”, and once he serves his four game suspension and starts winning games again, nobody will even remember this dark episode of his life.

UPDATE!! January 22nd, 2012

Ben Roethlisberger settled out of court with Andrea McNulty! Although he was innocent (based on all of the aforementioned facts), settling was the right thing to do because it spares him the embarrassment of being dragged through a civil trial and having his personal life splattered on the front pages of newspapers all over the country! It’s very possible that the civil trial may have taken place this summer during training camp, or even during the regular season! Also, Roethlisberger married his long time girlfriend last year, and this settlement spares his wife the humiliation of seeing her husband trashed in the media again.  As a result, Roethlisberger can now concentrate on preparing for the upcoming football season.

Settling out of court was the right thing to do!

Michael Irvin

NFL Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin faced a similar situation earlier this year as well.  In February 2010, he was hit with a $1 million dollar civil lawsuit from a woman who claimed that he raped her in July 2007.  Yes, that’s right, July 2007! Unlike the Roethlisberger case, the police were notified, but not until two weeks after the alleged assault, and the accuser signed a “waiver of prosecution,” which basically means that the accuser wanted to “put it behind her and not have it be splashed all over the newspapers.”

Irvin was approached by the accuser’s lawyer shortly before he was to appear on last season’s “Dancing With The Stars”competition. Irvin was told he must pay the woman $1 million, or a lawsuit would be filed to coincide with the SuperBowl, which was being played Feb. 7, 2010 in Miami. Irvin’s lawyer called the lawsuit “civil extortion,” saying the woman’s entire story is false.

Irvin has filed a $100 million dollar countersuit against the woman after her lawsuit was made public, claiming, among other things, civil extortion and defamation. It’s obvious that Irvin refused her demand outright, but he did attempt to “negotiate” with her in order to avoid the negative publicity, which is something that he couldn’t afford after numerous arrests during his career. The accuser first asked for the $1 million that she originally demanded, then dropped it to 800k. If you’re wondering why Irvin would even attempt to “negotiate” with someone who is obviously extorting him, look no further than this:  as a result of the negative publicity stemming from the civil lawsuit when it was filed (combined with his checkered past), Irvin was FIRED from his ESPN Radio job! Irvin felt that it was tangibly cheaper to pay a settlement, and by doing so it would have saved his reputation (whose worth is intangible!) from being further sullied!

On a positive note, Irvin will not face criminal charges due to the fact that the accuser waited so long to report the alleged assault that no physical evidence could be found.

It seems like this accuser used the Blanca Francia “playbook” by threatening a civil lawsuit against Irvin right before the Super Bowl, the same way Francia threatened MJ with her lawsuit right before HIStory was released.  The difference is that MJ’s negotiations with Blanca were successful, and as a result the lawsuit was never filed, but Irvin’s negotiations failed. As of now, the lawsuit is still pending, and I have yet to hear Irvin publicly called a rapist by any media pundits!

Kobe Bryant

On the night of June 30th, 2003, Bryant checked himself into a hotel room in Eagle, Colorado.  He met a young female employee, who gave him a tour of the hotel, and later that night they had a sexual encounter.  To make a long story short, she felt that she was raped, while Bryant felt it was consensual, and you know how that goes!  On September 1st, 2004, after over a year of investigating, the District Attorney was forced to drop the case after the accuser refused to testify.  Ironically, she filed a civil lawsuit against Bryant BEFORE the police had completed their investigation. (Wow, does that sound familiar?) Here is attorney Jonna Spilbor’s take on it:

Another development in the case is that, as noted above, the accuser has sued Bryant for sexual assault. She is seeking monetary damages – including punitive damages.

The fact of the suit is not surprising – especially since Bryant is a high-profile, deep-pockets defendant. But the timing of the suit is surprising indeed, especially since the statute of limitations on the civil suit is nowhere close to running out.

Generally, victims wait until a criminal conviction before suing. There are several reasons why. A guilty verdict in the criminal matter – where the burden of proof is far greater – makes a civil case much easier to prove. Indeed, once convicted, a defendant will often capitulate, paying a large settlement because he knows he won’t win the civil case.

So why is this an exception to the rule? Why did the accuser jump the gun on the civil suit? Unfortunately, none of the explanations is good for either the prosecution or the accuser.

The accuser and/or the prosecution may have wanted to get her story out there — to taint the jury pool, and provide some much needed counter-spin. Or she may anticipate a loss at trial, or a dismissal – and she may understand that an acquittal might destroy her civil case, and even a dismissal might hamstring the case.

Let’s be blunt: If the accuser expected a conviction, she’d have waited to sue. And if even the alleged victim herself doesn’t expect a conviction, how likely is it that a jury will vote unanimously for one?

For the prosecution, the filing of the civil suit is more bad news. The defense has argued, and intends to keep arguing, that the accuser is lying to make money.

And the theory has some legs. Already, the accuser has received nearly $20,000, the maximum amount allowed to a crime victim in Colorado, from the state’s victims’ compensation fund. Doubtless, the defense attorneys will make much of this fact at trial.

Now that the victim has sued to get even more money, jurors may wonder: How much money does she want? And how much role is her claim for cash playing in this case?

On March 2nd, 2005 Bryant and his accuser settled their civil lawsuit out of court. Andrew Cohen, another “unsung hero” of the legal community, gave his analysis on the settlement. Notice how he references MJ’s case as well:

The immediate catalyst for the deal was Bryant’s scheduled pre-trial deposition, which was supposed to take place last Friday but which was mysteriously postponed at the last minute. As soon as the deposition was scheduled, as soon as a date for it was fixed, this settlement was a cinch; as sure a thing as Jack Nicholson sitting courtside at the Staples Center. Bryant’s attorneys and handlers never were going to permit him to face questions, under oath, about any other “relationships” or “encounters” or “hookups” or whatever he may have had with any other young women while traveling on the road for the Los Angeles Lakers.

Naturally, I have no idea whether Bryant engaged in any such dalliances. During the criminal trial, there were strong hints, from media reports and otherwise, that perhaps there were other women who might have been able to talk about a pattern of behavior on the part of Bryant that might have been relevant in that case. Now we will never know. But what we do know is that Camp Kobe understood that the star’s already tattered reputation would get even shakier were he to be deposed in the civil case.

That’s because no one believes that Bryant’s testimony, whatever it would have been, would have remained private and sealed and closed to public scrutiny for long. In the Michael Jackson case, grand jury transcripts that never should have seen the light of day were posted on the Internet long before the King of Pop’s trial. Does anyone believe it would have been different with Bryant’s deposition transcript? I bet we would have seen details emerge within days or even hours of the end of Bryant’s testimony. And I’m sure that Bryant’s attorneys would not have taken that bet.

If anything, there would have been more pressure, and more incentive, to leak portions of the Bryant transcript than there was to leak the Jackson grand jury material. Virtually everyone knew before the transcripts were posted what the Jackson case was about; virtually no one knows what Bryant would have said when asked about other hotel stays, in other towns, at other times. And once that information was released publicly, once it was leaked the way it seems always to be leaked these days, the damage to Bryant’s reputation would have been cemented into place no matter how the civil case turned out.

Cohen is trying to make the argument that regardless of the outcome of the case, it was in Kobe’s best interest to settle.  He couldn’t afford to have his personal life splattered all over the tabloids by being asked under oath about his other mistresses, the same way MJ’s lawyers didn’t want him being asked about his habit of sharing his bed with children who are not his own.  By settling, Kobe was able to just put the ugly episode behind him once and for all, the accuser was paid millions of dollars, and in retrospect both parties made the right decision. Since settling the case in 2005, Kobe has led the Lakers to three consecutive NBA Finals appearances, winning the last two. He signed a seven year, $136 million dollar contract to remain with the Lakers, and – as a result of avoiding the negative publicity that a civil trial would have brought – he was able to regain his endorsements with Nike, Coca-Cola, etc.  In fact, in a recent poll, Kobe moved up into a tie with Tiger Woods as America’s favorite athlete. (Or, you could argue that Tiger Woods moved down in that poll into a tie with Kobe, based on his recent sex-capades!)

As a result of the civil settlement, and with the media’s complete compliance, Kobe was able to regain his reputation and his popularity! He is now officially considered the most marketable player in the NBA, especially with LeBron James leaving the Cleveland Cavaliers in such a shameless display of selfishness! When was the last time you heard a sports columnist refer to Kobe as a “rapist”? When was the last time you heard a legal analyst say that Kobe “bought the silence” of his accuser? Kobe’s story is a prime example of what Sony and MJ’s insurance carrier were hoping for when it settled, but as we all know the media never stopped spinning it as a sign of guilt. In a way, you could make the argument that the accuser “legally extorted” the money from Kobe, but obviously Kobe was all too willing to pay. It would have been too costly to prove his innocence!

Bill O’Reilly and Rick Pitino:

O’Reilly, who has the #1 rated show on cable news, was hit with a sexual harassment lawsuit by a female employee in October 2004.  The accuser, Andrea Mackris, claims that O’Reilly engaged her in sexually explicit conversations over dinner and during phone calls after work, which she recorded. (And we know that they were recorded because the accuser listed some of his quotes in the lawsuit, which are very embarrassing to someone who tries to act like the sheriff of the morality police on his show.) She described the conversations as “lewd, lascivious, vile, and threatening”.

O’Reilly filed an extortion lawsuit against her, and issued the following statement:

“As a public figure, I have received many threats,” he said. “But enough is enough … The threats stop now. I will not give in to extortion.”

Here is Jonna Spilbor’s analysis of the case:

Mackris says that, beginning in 2002, her boss regularly regaled her with sordid sexual tales — at times over dinner, but most often over the phone. Her complaint reveals it as the kind of dirty talk for which some lonely hearts might pay $3.99 per minute.

Mackris’s complaint details O’Reilly’s alleged soliloquies – complete with “ums” and pauses. It seems likely, for this reason, that Mackris must have somehow recorded O’Reilly’s ramblings. And these recordings, if they occurred in New York, may have been perfectly legal: New York is a “one party consent” state when it comes to recording — which means that although wiretaps remain illegal, one party to a conversation can legally tape the other without his knowledge.

These facts suggest the strong probability that O’Reilly really did make the comments Mackris ascribes to him. If so, O’Reilly’s public image will doubtless be harmed: The notorious conservative will seem hypocritical, for he is the married father of two small children. If he used his producer as a soundboard for his own sexual fantasies, that not only wasn’t part of her job – it was decidedly contrary to his image and beliefs. But was it, under the law, sexual harassment?

On October 29th, 2004, a few weeks after the lawsuits were filed, both parties agreed to settle out of court.  Here is O’Reilly’s statement about the settlement on his show.

When you watch that video, listen how O’Reilly implores his viewers to “not believe everything they hear and read”. (Hmmm, kinda sounds like MJ’s song “Tabloid Junkie”, huh?) In this article, he plays the victim by saying that “this matter has caused enormous pain, but I had to protect my family and I did. Some of the media hammered me relentlessly because, as you know, I am a huge target, as is Fox News.”

O’Reilly was put in the same situation as Kobe.  He couldn’t afford to defend himself in civil court because his reputation would be ruined once his dirty laundry – in this case, those taped phone conversations that would make a prostitute blush – was aired.  Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Reilly was having an affair with Mackris, and that this is a case of a lover scorned. As Jonna Spilbor alluded to in her analysis, Andrea Mackris wouldn’t have recorded all of those explicit phone conversations unless she was having a consensual relationship.  If she was truly offended, then she would have immediately reported the harassment to the management of Fox News. And it also wouldn’t surprise me if Fox News “suggested” to O’Reilly that he settle the case, because –just as Sony depended on MJ to earn millions in profits – Fox depends on O’Reilly for the high ratings and revenues that he earns for the network.  It was in Fox’s best interest that he settle the case, the same way it was in the Lakers & the NBA’s best interest that Kobe settled his case, and it was in Sony’s best interest that MJ settled his case.

Recently, Louisville University head basketball coach Rick Pitino pressed charges against a former fling who tried to extort millions of dollars from him in exchange for her not publicly admitting that they had a consensual sexual encounter in 2003. (Pitino was married at the time.)  She became pregnant, and Pitino paid for her abortion. This incident was swept under the rug for six years, until she tried to extort $10 million dollars from him in August 2009. After he accused her of extortion, she tried to claim that she had been raped, but law enforcement declined to press charges due to lack of credibility. He didn’t give in, and the case went to trial, and she was convicted and faces a maximum prison term of 26 years.

Unfortunately, Pitino won the battle but lost the war, because he had to acknowledge the affair that he had, and if he wasn’t one of the greatest college coaches of all time, he surely would have lost his job. This is the negative publicity that MJ’s insurance company, Kobe Bryant, and Bill O’Reilly wanted to avoid by settling their lawsuits. Pitino discusses the aftermath of his trial in this interview.

Now, back to O’Reilly: in July 2009, when he interviewed Congressman Peter King about his disrespectful comments about MJ, he was careful to remind him that settling a civil lawsuit is not an admission of guilt. Peter King played the “he sleeps with little boys” card, which is what MJ haters typically do because they haven’t researched the facts, so they have to use scare tactics to get people to agree with their point of view.

King also felt that since he (and Sen. John McCain) lobbied to get boxer Jack Johnson pardoned by President Obama for the crime of marrying a white woman, that he can’t be a racist. (Personally, I don’t think King’s attack was motivated by racial prejudice, just his perceived “weirdness” of MJ.) But the good news is that he will not be running for the U.S. Senate, so the publicity that he earned last year with his tirade, which he thought would help him in his campaign, was all in vain!

In a 2005 interview with Jesse Jackson, MJ compared his trial to that of Jack Johnson, who was prosecuted under the Mann Act. Watch the video below for more comparisons!

Jack Johnson was the first black man to win the heavyweight championship in boxing in 1908, and he was known to openly date white women, which was a severe violation of social norms back then. In the FBI Files that were released to the public in December 2009, it was revealed that the LAPD wanted to use the Mann Act against MJ, but the FBI refused. The Mann Act was enacted with the intentions of using it to bring down Jack Johnson, the same way that California Evidence Code §1108 was enacted by Garcetti and Sneddon to bring down MJ. Charles Thomson wrote an excellent article on this topic last year.

While we’re on the subject of Peter King, let’s take a peek into his background!  The fact that he said such cruel things about MJ while the nation mourned him should come as no surprise, as this man is also a religious bigot who feels that there are “too many mosques” in America, and who has shown support for the Irish Republican Army, a paramilitary terrorist group “dedicated to removing British forces from Northern Ireland”! He only withdrew his support for them when they refused to support the war in Iraq in 2003! With his checkered past, no wonder King is considered by some to be America’s Worst Congressman! (In this article, the author sarcastically asks King to present the evidence that he has that MJ was guilty, considering he surely didn’t say it in his youtube video!)

OK, back to O’Reilly! Maybe it took getting sued to make him realize that settling a civil lawsuit isn’t an admission of guilt, because in February 2004 (long before he was sued) he interviewed Geraldine Hughes, and he was very sympathetic to Evan Chandler.  Judging by the length of the interview transcript, it’s safe to assume that the interview was around five minutes long, and he probably squeezed her in at the end of the show.  O’Reilly exhibited a “guilty until proven innocent” mentality, and Geraldine did the best she could, but the 1993 case cannot be explained in a sound bite!  Here is an excerpt of the interview where O’Reilly regurgitates the crap about Jordie’s description matching.

HUGHES:  Well, okay — well, basically, it’s — my contention is that it was an elaborate — elaborate, meaning it was multifaceted.  Multifaceted means I can throw you one thing and it’s really not going to matter until you pull it all together.  Minus physical evidence, you have to look at the whole picture.  You can’t just — one thing is not going to do it for you.

O’REILLY:  All right.

HUGHES:  But I will say this.  I will say this.  We have the finest police, law enforcement agency in the nation.  There were four police agencies that went looking for evidence to corroborate with the little boy, and they found nothing. That really should be your biggest thing right there.

O’REILLY:  Well, here’s what swayed me to disagree with you, and maybe you can put this in perspective for us.  During the settlement hearings…

HUGHES:  Okay.

O’REILLY:  The father, Dr. Chandler, all right, and your boss presented a scenario whereby the 13-year-old boy would identify marks on Michael Jackson’s body that nobody would have known about unless they had seen his intimate parts.

HUGHES:  Right.  Yes, okay.

O’REILLY:  Now what say you, Madame?

HUGHES:  I said did they bring him — did they arrest him based on their findings?  Because had he accurately described parts that only someone could have described if they had seen it, that would have been — that was really what they were looking for, the mere fact that they didn’t bring him up on charges after that.  And Michael even said the only reason why…

O’REILLY:  The boy — after the $20 million changed hands, the boy then wouldn’t testify.  And that’s how it went.

If you watch his interview with Aphrodite Jones from 2007, you’ll see him condescendingly ask her if she’d leave her kids alone with MJ, and of course he had to remind people that “not guilty doesn’t mean innocent”. And he has the audacity to call his show “the no-spin zone”! Based off the “phone sex” he had with his female employee, would you let your wife or girlfriend talk on the phone with him? I wouldn’t!

Before you feel any sympathy for O’Reilly, listen to MJ’s statement before his trial, and you’ll see how MJ also complains about the way his family has been hurt. And then think of all the times O’Reilly had Aphrodite Jones come on his show during the trial and peddle lies about MJ being guilty. Remember, she was told by Fox News to only report the dirt!

In fact, here is a collection of O’Reilly’s “opinions” on MJ:

In this first video, O’Reilly questions how MJ could possibly be a black hero, because he “bleached his skin”, “had white babies”, and had “plastic surgery”. He said that MJ “was just an entertainer, but THAT’S IT”, thus ignoring his humanitarian work (which is described in further detail later on in this piece). If we apply his logic to other entertainers, then U2’s Bono is also “just a rock star”, right? And Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt is also “just an actor”, right?

Here is Columbia Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill’s response to O’Reilly’s tirade. He calls him out for his hypocrisy by bringing up a statement he said about another high profile death, and he corrects O’Reilly when he tries to play the “he sleeps with little boys” card.

I’ll give O’Reilly credit where it’s deserved:  he acknowledged that MJ was acquitted, and he said he would respect the jury’s decision.  He claimed that he never publicly proclaimed that MJ was guilty, unlike many of his peers, and for that I give him kudos.  But his rationale is flawed because when he says that he believes MJ is innocent merely because the jury says he’s innocent, then that opens up a line of attack that MJ haters love to use, and we’ve all heard it a million times: “Well, OJ Simpson was acquitted too!” And think about this: what if Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook had actually released that “tell-all” book proclaiming that MJ was guilty? What would O’Reilly say then? “Well, those two jurors now say MJ is guilty, therefore he really was guilty!” This is why MJ fans need to know all of the facts of the case, and not rely solely on the fact that he was acquitted.

But Dr. Hill’s rebuttal was mild compared to comedian Steve Harvey’s rebuttal!  Harvey was a close friend and staunch supporter of MJ, and he didn’t hold back in his criticisms of O’Reilly! Here’s part 1:

Here’s part 2, where he blasts O’Reilly for bashing liberals and defending hypocrite conservatives who also have problems in their personal lives. I’m sure he would have reminded everyone of O’Reilly’s sexual harassment lawsuit if it had crossed his mind!

Here’s part one of the “real deal” on MJ, according to O’Reilly and his cronies, including one of MJ’s former financial advisors. The point of this segment was to paint the picture of MJ as being an out of control spending freak (similar to what Bashir did in his documentary) who couldn’t take care of himself or his kids.  To top it off, the lady implies that Katherine Jackson was a bad mother will instill the same “values” in his three kids as she instilled in MJ.

Of course O’Reilly didn’t bother to mention all of MJ’s philanthropic efforts, which are compiled here for your convenience!

And while we’re on the topic of MJ’s finances, everyone loves to talk about how much debt he was in.  But regardless of his financial issues, one thing that MJ can proudly boast about is the fact that he was NEVER investigated by the IRS for tax evasion or fraud!  MJ always made sure his taxes were squared away!  This is a rarity for someone with so much money, since there are so many wealthy people who deliberately cheat on their taxes, like Wesley Snipes (who co-starred with MJ in the “Bad” video). He was recently sentenced to three years in prison for failure to pay taxes for several years.

Here’s part two, where his “Culture Warriors” debate the media coverage.  The behavior and condescending attitude of the “journalists” in this segment is despicable.  One of them, Juliet Huddy, said that the media is being too nice to MJ’s legacy and should be more objective, but then she goes on to call him a freak who was “addicted to plastic surgery”! How you can you be “fair and balanced” when you’re mocking the person that you’re reporting on??!  I bet if she had been alive when slaves (and subsequently, freed blacks) afflicted with vitiligo were advertised as “freaks” in circuses for the public’s entertainment, she would have been there front and center laughing at them too! Here is a video that further compares the horrendous treatment of vitiligo afflicted slaves & free blacks to MJ:

It’s disappointing that O’reilly didn’t chastise her for using the term “freak” because, as someone who lobbies for stiffer sentences for child molesters, he should know firsthand that one’s appearance is IRRELEVANT in determining their thereat to children! And of course, Huddy played the “he sleeps with little boys” card, which is the Ace of Spades for MJ haters everywhere! She also added in the most overused and worthless legal analogy every made: “OJ Simpson was acquitted too!” (For an intriguing analysis of the prejudice that permeates the people who make this ridiculous argument, please read this article!) The other journalist, Gretchen Carlson, had to remind everyone of the 1994 settlement and use it as a sign of guilt, and that idiotic comment is one of my motivations for writing this piece in the first place! I just don’t understand MJ haters! They say he paid the settlement to avoid the civil trial because he was guilty, yet when he goes to criminal trial and is acquitted, his celebrity got him off. MJ can’t catch a break with these people!

Surprisingly, one thing that Huddy didn’t bring up is MJ’s marriages.  I’m sure if she was asked, she would have gleefully said that they were both shams.  Well, here’s some dirt on Huddy: she’s in the process of divorcing her third husband after only four months of marriage!! I wonder if her “marriages” were shams?

Geoffrey Fieger & Gloria Allred

The point that I was trying to make in this article (and I hope you guys believe that I have made this point!) is that the media has continually spread the lie that MJ’s settlement was a sign of guilt, and MJ was never able to recover. Throughout the trial, and even after it, legal pundits with an agenda have misled their viewers into believing that trash about MJ, while ignoring the settlements of other celebrities.

As I promised in the very beginning of this article, here is “attorney” Geoffrey Fieger. (And I know this article is so long that you probably forgot that I said earlier that I would mention him!) In this clip, he’s sparring with – guess who?- Jonna Spilbor about the §1108 witnesses, and he lowers himself to pond scum by implying that Jordie Chandler won’t testify due to the settlement he received (which of course is contradicted by the fact that Debbie Rowe, June Chandler, Blanca Francia, and Jason Francia all testified, despite the settlements they received.  Remember, Debbie Rowe received a settlement after her divorce to stop her from selling stories to the media.) We now know that Jordie Chandler wasn’t “silenced” by MJ’s settlement because he threatened legal action to avoid testifying in court (per the FBI Files), the same way his cowardly uncle Raymond Chandler also successfully took legal action to avoid testifying, which is discussed in detail in this post.

I really can’t say that I’m surprised at Fieger’s lack of legalistic integrity.  After all, this is the same lawyer who once said that “rabbis are closer to Nazis than they think“! Fieger’s “analysis” starts at 4:00. (I tried to embed this video into this post, but it wouldn’t let me because I believe that I have exceeded the limit already.)

Speaking of sleazy lawyers, according to Gloria Allred, MJ wouldn’t have paid the settlement if there wasn’t at least some guilt on his part.  Let’s see how she spins it:

He did fit the profile of a sexual predator of children. Neverland had a lot of things that would attract children: a merry-go-round, animals, all kinds of games, ice cream. He was obviously acquitted in the trial, but he reportedly paid millions to the first child, which is not usually done unless there is some basis to the claims. It was a confidential settlement, but there are reports that he was paid 20 million. I briefly represented that child in the beginning, but did not represent him in the settlement.

Personally, I think she’s still bitter because she didn’t get a cut of MJ’s settlement in 1994. It must have been humiliating to be told she was being fired for wanting to seek justice! Not only does she use the settlement as a sign of guilt, but she takes a cheap shot by using an ad hominem technique to insinuate the MJ was a pedophile by using the “Neverland was a trap for young boys” talking point. (Ad hominem means to “appeal to people’s emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think.”) These types of sustained attacks over the years have led the misinformed general public to believe that MJ was guilty, and many use this “ad populum” argument as a substitute for tangible, thorough research.

Ok, ok, I’m sure you guys are probably asking yourself “What does ad populum mean?” since this is my fist time using that term in an article. An ad populum argument is a fallacious argument which concludes that a proposition must be true because a majority of people believe it. Here are some examples from Charles Thomson’s article where the media used this type of argument to imply MJ was guilty:

A poll conducted by Gallup in the hours after the verdict showed that 54% of White Americans and 48% of the overall population disagreed with the jury’s decision of ‘not guilty’. The poll also found that 62% of people felt Jackson’s celebrity status was instrumental in the verdicts. 34% said they were ‘saddened’ by the verdict and 24% said they were ‘outraged’. In a Fox News poll 37% of voters said the verdict was ‘wrong’ while an additional 25% said ‘celebrities buy justice’. A poll byPeople Weeklyfound that a staggering 88% of readers disagreed with the jury’s decision”.

MJ haters use this type of logic all of the time! (By the way, why does the media ALWAYS have to divide us by bringing up race? Why do they need to remind us that a higher percentage of whites thought he was guilty, thus implying that whites are either smarter or prejudiced?) Here is an example of Bill O’Reilly being criticized for using both of these techniques against one of his primetime competitors.

When Allred couldn’t use Jordie Chandler to get a multimillion dollar settlement, she found another “phantom victim” that she thought would force MJ into another civil settlement.  His name is Daniel Kapon, and in April 2004 he claimed to have been molested by MJ for several years, beginning in the 1980’s.  Not only was he molested, but MJ also forced him to get plastic surgery, held him hostage, and (the most insulting accusation of all) MJ stole his songs that he wrote and used them for his albums!

He allegedly “forgot” about his abuse until quack psychologist and notorious MJ hater Dr. Carole Lieberman “uncovered” his repressed memories, and notified the cops.  On June 2nd, 2004 the LAPD dropped their criminal investigation like a hot potato once they realized there was no basis to his claims whatsoever.

In fact, Diane Dimond wrote about Daniel Kapon in her book “Be Careful Who You Love”. (She refers to him as “Donny”.)  From pages 199-201:

Standing next to the DA at the news conference that day was the newly installed sheriff of Santa Barbara, Jim Anderson.  He made a public appeal for anyone with any other complaints against Michael Jackson to call his office.  He gave out a special phone number.

Sources at the sheriff’s office revealed that there were literally hundreds of “leads” phoned in that they were obligated to follow up.  Calls came in to the district attorney’s office as well.  It took countless man-hours to deal with them all.  In the end, most if not all of the complaints went nowhere.

One such cold call was from an L.A.-based psychiatrist whose website says she is “recognized as the preeminent authority on the psychology of showbiz and the psychological influence of the media.”  On a Sunday in late winter 2003, she telephoned authorities in Santa Barbara and dramatically told them they had to come to her Beverly Hills office immediately, as she had with her an eighteen-year-old boy who was claiming to have been repeatedly molested by Michael Jackson.  A pair of law enforcement types quickly took the bait – how could they not check it out?

Once in the doctor’s office, they found a small, scared-looking young man I’ll call “Donny”.  His story was not only dramatic but graphic.  In a nutshell, he told them over the course of several years, when he was between the ages of ten and fourteen, his father had repeatedly driven him to Neverland Ranch and left him there for days at a time.  Jackson, he said, had bought is father a new car to make sure he always had a reliable way to get to Neverland from his suburban L.A. home.  At first he and Jackson just had fun at the ranch playing with all the games and riding the amusement park rides.  But then over time, he said, Jackson gave him alcohol served in soda cans and drugs that made him “zone out”.

Donny told the investigators it got to the point where he didn’t mind because that way he could be “out of his body and not care what was really happening.”  Asked to describe exactly what had happened, he told them about various sex acts, including penetration, that were performed upon him by the star.  He claimed his mother had pictures of him with Michael Jackson and close-up photos of bite marks left on various parts of his body, inflicted by the King of Pop.

The Santa Barbara investigators listened intently.  And then Donny’s mother entered the room.  She was reported as having presented herself as confused and barely believable.  She told of being attacked in a parking lot by a Jackson goon with a baseball bat who warned her to keep her mouth shut.  She was sure they’d been sent by a private investigator Anthony Pellicano, apparently unaware that Pellicano hadn’t word for Jackson for years.  She had no photographs of her son and Jackson to show the authorities, and when asked why it had taken her son so long to come forward with is story, the psychiatrist interjected, “Because this is a case of repressed memory.”

In cop shops across America those two words, “repressed memory,” cause eyes to roll.  For the Santa Barbara team listening to the doctor, it was no different.  Nonetheless, it was decided that Donny would travel back to Santa Barbara to undergo official forensic interrogation the next day. The U.S. Justice Department offers special training to only a handful of child abuse investigators.  It’s an intense course on how best to deal with children who have suffered at the hands of deviant adults.  Santa Barbara called in one of those specially equipped people to speak to young Donny, and after several hours it was determined that “there is nothing correct about this….it is bogus.”

The interrogator reported that the young man’s story kept changing.  His original claim, that he’d been between ten and fourteen years old at the time of the molestation, switched in mid-interview.  No, Donny said, he’s actually been three to seven years of age. Then later he reportedly said the sex abuse occurred when he was fifteen years old.  There were other discrepancies, too.  But Santa Barbara authorities didn’t leave it there.  They traced the mother’s claim of being attacked in the parking lot and found it to be nothing more than an altercation between two neighbors, fighting over some perceived slight.  They found the boy’s father and learned much more.

Donny’s dad told investigators he had never met Michael Jackson and certainly had never taken his son to Neverland – ever.  He called his ex-wife “a certifiable psycho” who’d actually lost custody of Donny when he was just three years old.  The father had raised the boy himself and the mother had no contact with him until his eighteenth birthday.  She’d apparently hired a private detective to track down her son at his college and reentered his life.

Donny’s tale was described by insiders as “a tragedy, pure and simple.”  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.

Asked later what he thought of the Donny story, Santa Barbara district attorney Thomas Sneddon told me, “The story was pure voodoo.  But that poor, poor kid.”

Wow! The fact that even Sneddon was unimpressed with his story should have been enough to make any competent attorney think twicebefore representing Kapon, right? But that didn’t stop Allred from filing a frivolous civil lawsuit on behalf of Kapon in January 2006!  She hoped that MJ would settle out of court in order to avoid the additional negative publicity, but MJ and his legal team weren’t going to give in.  And, unlike the 1993 case, there was no impending criminal case, and MJ didn’t have to worry about jeopardizing his legal defense strategy. On January 15th, 2008 the case was dropped when Kapon didn’t show up to court.  Once Kapon and Allred realized that MJ wouldn’t settle, they had no choice but to either put up or shut up, AND THEY CHOSE TO SHUT UP!! The photo on the right is pretty illustrative of this!

Well, now that MJ is dead, maybe Allred can focus her undivided attention on representing all 18 of Tiger Woods’ mistresses! (And I think 18 is a conservative estimate!)

On a positive note, the Chandlers had some very kind things to say about Allred! They were really impressed with her passion for justice, but it just didn’t fit in with their goals of getting money. Oh well. From “All That Glitters”, page 169:

Allred meant well; no one doubted her sincerity and concern.  And had the defendant been other than Michael Jackson, her strategy might have been more appealing.  But Larry and Bob’s insights made a lot of sense.  Getting a conviction against Michael would be near impossible without a second victim.

It may be said that Gloria was more concerned with the larger issue of child abuse, and that bringing the truth to light via a criminal trial was a nobler goal than getting a lot of money and sweeping the entire affair under the rug.  But as Evan commented months later, “The overriding consideration in every decision had to be what was best for Jordie, and Larry’s way was more consistent with that goal.  Doing anything that might bring additional fear and anxiety was the last thing Jordie needed.  Or any of us.”

Eliminating the horror of worldwide exposure from a protracted trial was not only the best thing for Jordie, it was best for Michael as well.  The money it would cost him to settle with his accuser was incidental.  Keeping his career intact was what really mattered.  Shapiro knew all this from the start.  By steering Evan and June toward Larry Feldman and away from Gloria Allred, he was doing everyone a mitzvah, including Michael Jackson.

Could the Chandlers be any more blunt?  They have no shame in admitting that all they wanted was money, and were more than willing to “cover up” the molestation if MJ had given in to their demand.  And that’s very ironic, because their book is subtitled “The Crime and the Cover-Up”, but usually it’s the perpetrator who tries to cover up a crime! Accusers usually don’t demand money to cover up a crime that was committed against them!

But you have to admit, they are probably the nicest people in the whole wide world! Even though they claim that MJ molested Jordie, they were still concerned about his career and his well being!  Not only were the Chandlers thinking of what was best for MJ, but so was Robert Shapiro!

Here is another sign of how hospitable the Chandlers really are! This quote is from Ray Chandler in a 1995 Entertainment Weekly cover story on MJ:

Charmatz says his brother and nephew bear Jackson no ill will:”They all loved him — that was why it was so hard to come to grips with what was going on. It’s too bad to see his career take the hit it did and we all hope he gets it back. They don’t hold any malice in their hearts toward Michael. I think they understand what’s happened in his life and how he’s an even bigger victim of abuse.”

Now let’s compare the actions of the Chandlers with the actions of the Dubois’ and the Kings’, who are REAL victims of crime!  They each had a daughter who was murdered by John Gardner, and they were instrumental in getting him sentenced to life in prison by voicing their opinions to him in front of the judge and jury during his sentencing.

Unfortunately this article about the effect of Victim Impact Statements that crime victims make to their perpetrators was written by Diane Dimond, and I hate to use her as a reference, but I found the story of those two families to be too compelling to pass up because they are the antithesis of the Chandlers.

She was present at the sentencing of John Gardner, who was recently convicted of killing two teenage girls in California.  She talks about how brave the families were to give those statements (which they were, and I’m not arguing about that), and she wonders if she would have had the courage to do the same if she was in that same situation.

True crime victims will stop at nothing to seek justice against their perpetrators, and would eagerly travel from the other side of the Earth to be in court to give their Victim Impact Statement.

But as I read this article, I couldn’t help but think about Jordie, Evan, and Ray Chandler.  Their lack of cooperation in prosecuting MJ in 1993 & 2005, and their threatening and/or taking legal action to quash their subpoenas doesn’t only speak volumes, but it SCREAMS volumes!

It’s just ironic that Diane rightfully praises the families in this article, but over the years she has continually DEFENDED Evan and Jordie’s lack of cooperation by saying they “wanted to avoid the media circus”, or some crap like that.  She has never called them out for the cowards that they really are. What a hypocrite!

Janet Arvizo

In closing, here is one last settlement for us to analyze: in 1998, Janet Arvizo sued JC Penney, claiming that their security guards “sexually assaulted” her by twisting her nipples “10 to 20 times”, and she sued the store for $3 million.  This is the story according to David Arvizo, Janet’s ex-husband, who witnessed and tried to stop Gavin from shoplifting:

After they arrived at the shopping mall, Janet went inside of Oshman’s Sporting Goods to fill out paperwork and take a drug test, as she had recently been hired by the store.  David, Star, and Gavin were inside JC Penney, and Gavin grabbed several articles of clothing and ran out the store into the parking lot.  David grabbed Star and they both followed Gavin with the intention of returning the stolen clothes to the store, but they were swarmed by security and apprehended for shoplifting.

While they were being questioned in the parking lot, Janet was exiting Oshman’s and was unaware of what was happening. She saw David getting restrained by security and attempted to intervene, and as a result a scuffle ensued between her and security, and she was arrested.  David was escorted back inside of the store, where he explained to security that Gavin stole the clothing on his own initiative, and he and Star were merely attempting to stop him, and as a result no charges were filed against them.

Janet was arrested and taken into police custody, and released shortly thereafter.  Upon her return home, Janet ordered David, Gavin, & Star to write down their version of events, and upon completion she altered them to fit what she wanted them to say. The revised versions were returned to the boys and they were ordered to read and memorize their script on a daily basis.  It would be a year before they were deposed for the $3 million dollar civil lawsuit that Janet subsequently filed on July 22nd, 1999, claiming “battery, false imprisonment, and infliction of emotional distress”.  However, on June 29th, 2000 Janet amended the complaint to allege that she was “sexually assaulted” by the guards in the parking lot, who “fondled her breasts”, “squeezed her nipples 10 to 20 times”, “punched in the face with a closed fist”, “molested in her vaginal area, and “called her racial slurs”.

During the period of time between the filing of the lawsuit and the depositions, Janet became friendly with Mary Holzer, who worked as a paralegal for Feldman & Rothstein, the law firm that represented Janet. (Open this link and scroll down to “Day 59” for a summary of her testimony.) Ms. Holzer drove the Arvizos to multiple appointments with their lawyers because they didn’t have a car, talked to the family on an almost daily basis, and while doing so she got to know the family pretty well.  So well that Janet decided it was OK to tell Ms. Holzer her deepest, darkest secrets!

For example, after being dropped off for a medical appointment, Janet threw herself down on the driveway of the medical center and started kicking and screaming, and saying that the doctors and nurses were “the devil, and the they were out to get her.” (This behavior is consistent with the conclusions of a psychiatrist that was hired by JC Penney to evaluate Janet, who declared her to be “schizophrenic, delusional, and severely depressed.”) Here are some brief excerpts of her testimony:

MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo do in the driveway when she was there for that examination?

HOLZER: She threw herself down on the ground, started kicking and screaming, carrying on that the doctor was the devil, and the nurses were the devil, and they were all out to get her. And I explained to her that they were only asking her standard questions that they ask in an Independent Medical Examination; that — the history of her injuries and how she obtained the injuries. And she was very defensive. And they asked us to leave because she was so irate.

MESEREAU: Did you leave?

HOLZER: Yes, I took her out

Ms. Holzer had every intention of keeping their relationship as “strictly business”, but she succumbed to the effusive nature of Janet and her children, who routinely claimed that they “loved her”.

HOLZER: They would come into the office. Usually they would pop in every once in a while and the children would come in my office, and sit on my lap, and draw me pictures, tell me how much they loved me, and write little notes and post it on my pin board, and say how great I was, and that I was helping their family.

MESEREAU: Would Janet tell you how great you were?
HOLZER: Yes.

Janet revealed that she prepped her kids on what to say during their medical examinations and depositions, and she enrolled them in acting classes because “she wanted them to be good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave.” Wow! Janet truly is a delusional nutcase!!

MR. MESEREAU: What did Janet Arvizo tell you about her children learning to act?
HOLZER: She said she wanted them to become good actors so she could tell them what to say and how to behave.

MESEREAU: Did she ever say anything to you about Gavin getting his stories straight in the J.C. Penney case?
HOLZER: Yes.

MESEREAU: What did she say?
HOLZER: She said she wasn’t worried. This was at the Independent Medical Examination for psychiatric of all three, Gavin, Star and Janet. And when we were at the doctor’s office, she was very concerned about them completing general forms, you know, like, “Generally do you feel happy?” “Generally do you feel sad?” You know, “What kind of days” — “How do you feel when you wake up?” Those kind of forms. And she refused to have the children fill them out. And then she wanted to participate in the medical examinations with the doctor and the children. And I asked her, you know, I said, you know, “It doesn’t work that way.” You know, “The doctor sees the children on their own.” You know, “You can’t go in there.” And she said, “Well, I’m pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight, but I’m not sure Star will remember what we practiced and what I told him to say.”

Isn’t that something? Janet was “pretty sure Gavin will get the story straight”! If she had that much confidence in Gavin’s ability to lie in 2000, then how much more confidence did she have when he lied to the cops in 2003, when he was older and even more believable? By that time, Gavin was already well-trained; having had those acting lessons and having talked to at least two attorneys and psychologist Stan Katz. And there’s no telling how many times she rehearsed Gavin for his latest role as the victimized and molested recovering cancer patient!

Holzer also testified that Janet told her that David Arvizo was the one who beat her up, not the JC Penney security guards!  This was a stunning development because Sneddon showed jurors the photos of Janet’s injuries, depicting dark purple-and-black welts from head to toe on her legs, arms and face. The photos weren’t taken until at least a week after the JC Penney altercation! If the guards had truly beaten her like that, then her injuries would have surely subsided after a week! And although David did indeed beat Janet, he definitely did not molest Davellin or falsely imprison the family, as Janet falsely claimed to police in November 2001.

MESEREAU: Did you ever have a chance to discuss with Janet Arvizo those photographs?
HOLZER: Yes.

MESEREAU: And what did she tell you about those photographs while that lawsuit was going on?
HOLZER: She told me that the bruises that were on her body were inflicted by David that night after the altercation at J.C. Penney’s.

MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever see the booking photos at the jail which were taken when Janet Arvizo was arrested the day of the J.C. Penney events? They don’t show any injuries, do they?
HOLZER: No.

MESEREAU: Do you recall ever asking her, “When did you take the photograph that shows the injuries?” that Prosecutor Zonen just described?
HOLZER: No, I never asked her.

MESEREAU: And just to clarify, how long after the J.C. Penney incident did your law firm get involved with the Arvizos, if you know?
HOLZER: I would say nine months maybe.

If Janet told this to Holzer, that would certainly explain why, in the mug shot taken directly after the altercation, there are no bruises, no busted nose, no split lip, no redness or swelling anywhere on her. Oddly enough, there wasn’t a hair out of place and she even appears to have a very slight smile on her face in that mug shot! Holzer later testified she told Janet that she needed to retract the allegation to talk to Mr. Rothstein, the partner of the law firm. From the transcript:

MESEREAU: And what was your response to her telling you that?
HOLZER: Well, it scared me.

MESEREAU: Why?
HOLZER: Well, I represent my law firm, and when a client admits to fraud, it’s kind of scary.

MESEREAU: And did you say anything to Mrs. Arvizo in response?
HOLZER: Yes, I did.

MESEREAU: What did you say to Ms. Arvizo about that?
HOLZER: I told her that she couldn’t do that, that that was wrong, and that, you know, she needed to retract that, and that she needed to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it.

MESEREAU: Did you tell her that was fraudulent?
HOLZER: I don’t know whether I used that word. I told her it was wrong; that “You can’t do that.”

MESEREAU: And –
HOLZER: I was very upset.
(19-28 | 1-9 (pg 11757))

One has to assume that JC Penney couldn’t press charges for fraud against this family after all of this came to light in 2004, because perhaps the statue of limitations had already expired by then? And if they could have pressed charges but refused to do so, it could have been that they did not want to be bothered anymore with the Arvizos. Who knows?
Holzer also said that she and her 9-year old daughter were threatened in a round-about way; not directly by Janet. According to Holzer, the scheming mother told her David Arvizo’s brother was in the Mexican mafia and knew where Holzer lived. I kid you not! From the transcript:

MESEREAU: Did she threaten you?
HOLZER: Yes, she did.

MESEREAU: How?
HOLZER: She told me that David’s brother Ray is in the Mexican mafia and runs drugs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, and that she knows where I live, because she had been to my house on several occasions, and they would come and kill me and my nine-year-old daughter.

MESEREAU: Did this terrify you?
HOLZER: Yes.

MESEREAU: Did you ever tell anyone at the law firm about what Janet had told you?
HOLZER: No, I did not.

MESEREAU: Or, let me rephrase it. Did you ever have any further discussions with her about the fake claims against J.C. Penney?
HOLZER: I did. I tried to get her to speak to Mr. Rothstein about it. I asked her if I could speak to Mr. Rothstein about it, because we run a clean law firm, and I really didn’t feel that we should be involved in something like that. And she proceeded to call me daily and tell me she had told David, and David was raging mad, and that he was going to come after me, and that I better watch my back.

MESEREAU: How many times do you think Janet Arvizo threatened you and your daughter?
HOLZER: I’d say about eight, nine times.

Finally, in an attempt to enhance her chances of getting a settlement from JC Penney, Janet never worked a day at Oshman’s after she was hired, claiming that that she was unable to work due to the “injuries” sustained during her “assault” by the guards, and hence a loss of earnings claim was added to the lawsuit. And to show that Janet’s lies and manipulations knew no boundaries, she had Gavin deposed by attorneys representing JC Penney while he was in his hospital bed during the peak of his illness!  She did this in order to earn sympathy from potential jurors, and to force JC Penney to settling out of court.  This plan obviously worked, because just before the lawsuit was settled, a mediator was brought in and offered Janet $300k, which wasn’t good enough for Janet, because she demanded $500k, and that her kids get placed in a JC Penney television commercial! Obviously Janet’s demands were not met, and she had to “settle” for a measly $152,500. (Pun intended!)

Does anyone think that JC Penney settled because they believed that their guards were guilty of assaulting Janet Arvizo?

I don’t think so!

UPDATE October 8th, 2010

Here is a video from September 1993. CNN interviews a bodyguard who describes how celebrities are oftentimes the target of extortion from greedy fans and associates!  CNN wanted to put MJ’s situation into context by showing viewers that these types of situations happen all of the time! They even mention a lady named “Bille Jean Jackson” who claimed that MJ fathered her child, and they also mention the LAPD’s “Threat Management Division” who deal with celebrity threats.

Notice how Det. Greg Boles says that most of the perpetrators are “disordered people“, which is very foretelling because Evan Chandler was bi-polar, Janet Arvizo was schizophrenic, and Daniel Kapon’s mom was a “certifiable psycho”!

140 Comments leave one →
  1. Mariam permalink
    April 2, 2014 9:41 pm

    Helena, you remind me Stacy Brown who is miserable in his life and start to make money by dirtying MJ and his family.

    Now, this person he seems middle age man but he sounds immature 12years old. Paul who could not even keep fold his own life and who is probably losing it bit by bit, and trying to do this kind of dirty job in order to make money, is sad and I am sorry for him.

    If you notice or observe some people’s character changed time to time not being consistent, when you see that, just check their life and their mental state, and their life could be on loosing stage or already gone. Then they will be all over the place. They lose control of their life and their emotion and their mouse, so don’t take him serious, and not waste your time.
    In general, peoples who do lies, cheating and stealing for living and who is living with a cost of someone pain and life is the lowest and wicked people. The worst thing is they feed their kids that blood money, who cannot able to say, no or choose what is right or wrong.

    All I can say to Poul is “money, earn it with dignity”

    Helena, your blog is annoying the haters this week; it is fact, truth is painful to swallow sometimes. Thank you for your hard work, if it is not you (VMJ), I may not know the whole truth about MJ.

    Like

  2. April 2, 2014 2:47 pm

    “They’ll say anything that suits their agenda, and that is for the most money.” -newrodrigo

    Newrodrigo, since I’ve started refreshing my data on Barresi my overall feeling is that he is someone like Scott Thorson, episode 2.

    The person who played this dirty joke here has actually done a big disservice to real Barresi. Previously he looked to me like a sort of a crook with a code of ethics of his own. Very specific ethics but still some kind of ethics. But from what I’ve read now it looks that all his ethics boils down to who pays more.

    If Barresi is pressed for money like Scott Thorson he will say anything just for money sake. He already did it with those fictional FBI files suddenly broke on us during the AEG trial, and we can easily expect another outbreak of the same in the future. I’ve read that he is having big financial difficulties now. And whatever licence he had it is revoked.

    Like

  3. April 2, 2014 2:31 pm

    “Paul just where is the evidence of that? April Fools:)” – lynande51

    Lynande, aaah, I see, it was an April fools joke! And I already started collecting a file on Barresi in full seriousness. Learned some interesting facts about his modus operandi. Will write about it if I have a chance.

    Like

  4. lynande51 permalink
    April 2, 2014 10:15 am

    Paul just where is the evidence of that? April Fools:)

    Like

  5. newrodrigo permalink
    April 2, 2014 8:03 am

    I guess that’s it, Helena.
    If someone as “credible” as Paul Barresi says that about Michael, then it must unfortunately be true.

    They’ll say anything that suits their agenda, and that is for the most money.
    You get nothing from telling the truth and get a lot for lying, as evidenced by any proven lying Tom, Dick or Harry in Michael’s life.

    Like

  6. April 2, 2014 12:34 am

    “Jackson: Serial child predator– period.” – Paul Barresi

    Short of money again, dear?

    * * *

    Here is a quote from Paul Parresi’s previous version:

    “The first time I heard the story about Jackson his hand was outside the kid’s pants. They were asking a hundred grand. As soon as their price went up to five hundred grand the hand went INSIDE the pants. So, come on… [rolling his eyes]”

    Like

  7. Amaya permalink
    April 1, 2014 10:29 pm

    Shut the **** up, Paul.

    Like

  8. April 1, 2014 7:45 pm

    Jackson: Serial child predator– period.

    Like

  9. sanemjfan permalink
    January 23, 2012 1:05 am

    Guess what? Ben Roethlisberger settled out of court with the first woman who accused of him of rape! It was the best thing for him to do, and I explain why in the post above. Go to the section on Roethlisberger to see the link and my analysis of this breaking news!

    Like

  10. January 1, 2012 3:05 am

    “poor Michael was put on display like a slave on the auction block. No wonder he got outraged and hysterical. Then they actually wanted to go back and do some more photos!! But MJ’s lawyers refused. How could this happen in 21st century USA? HOW??? How could they even get a judge to ok that? Why believe that horrible ‘child’? I don’t consider a 13 or 14 year old a ‘child’ either–but b/c he was legally ‘a child’ it gave him huge legal advantages”

    Aldebaran, in addition to the horrible strip search you’ve described, I’ve recently found information that the civil trial in 1994 was also meant to be turned into a show. It was to be televised!

    This article was read and reread several times and I am surprised that we hadn’t noticed it before:

    “Despite the settlement, Jackson’s attorneys said their client stands by his assertions of innocence and agreed to the deal so that he could get on with his life.
    “The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson,” said attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of two lawyers representing Jackson in the matter. “In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumors and innuendo.”
    As part of the settlement, however, Jackson publicly recanted his charge that he was the victim of an extortion attempt by the boy’s father. That claim, long advanced by Jackson’s advisers and by the entertainer, has been the mainstay of his defense since the first days of the case, which erupted in August.
    The settlement of the civil case resolves Jackson’s most immediate legal troubles and may effectively put an end to a criminal investigation. The boy’s lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial in March. In preparation for that, a judge had scheduled Jackson to be deposed this week.
    Jackson previously had resisted giving a deposition, and had the case not been settled he might have been forced to choose between answering questions and refusing to respond based on his right to not incriminate himself–a common legal maneuver but one that could have had grave public relations implications for the superstar.

    Now, those immediate problems have been lifted, and he will avoid the spectacle of a nationally televised civil trial probing the most intimate aspects of his personal life.

    But the civil case was only a part of Jackson’s legal woes. The longer-term question that the end of the lawsuit raises is whether Jackson might still be prosecuted.
    .. In a statement released by his office, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said the criminal investigation will go forward.
    “The criminal investigation of singer Michael Jackson is ongoing and will not be affected by the announcement of the civil case settlement,” Garcetti said. “The district attorney’s office is taking Mr. Feldman at his word that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.”
    Santa Barbara County prosecutors, who also are weighing the possibility of criminal charges against the entertainer, declined to comment on Tuesday’s developments.
    Although the terms of the settlement were not made public, nothing in the document is likely to prevent the child from cooperating with authorities, lawyers said, because the law prevents anyone from conspiring to obstruct the work of police and prosecutors as they investigate a possible crime. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

    Now, if the civil suit was to be televised then Michael had not other way but settle the case! If I were in his place I would have paid ANY money to avoid that kind of a show. And it could have lasted for months! It seems that Michael’s lawyers were right when they said that it was better to let the case go. In the circumstances when they lost the possibility of the criminal trial going first it was the only way out.

    Like

  11. January 1, 2012 3:05 am

    “poor Michael was put on display like a slave on the auction block. No wonder he got outraged and hysterical. Then they actually wanted to go back and do some more photos!! But MJ’s lawyers refused. How could this happen in 21st century USA? HOW??? How could they even get a judge to ok that? Why believe that horrible ‘child’? I don’t consider a 13 or 14 year old a ‘child’ either–but b/c he was legally ‘a child’ it gave him huge legal advantages”

    Aldebaran, in addition to the horrible strip search you’ve described, I’ve recently found information that the civil trial in 1994 was also meant to be turned into a show. It was to be televised!

    This article was read and reread several times and I am surprised we hadn’t noticed it before:

    “Despite the settlement, Jackson’s attorneys said their client stands by his assertions of innocence and agreed to the deal so that he could get on with his life.
    “The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson,” said attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., one of two lawyers representing Jackson in the matter. “In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumors and innuendo.”
    As part of the settlement, however, Jackson publicly recanted his charge that he was the victim of an extortion attempt by the boy’s father. That claim, long advanced by Jackson’s advisers and by the entertainer, has been the mainstay of his defense since the first days of the case, which erupted in August.
    The settlement of the civil case resolves Jackson’s most immediate legal troubles and may effectively put an end to a criminal investigation. The boy’s lawsuit was scheduled to go to trial in March. In preparation for that, a judge had scheduled Jackson to be deposed this week.
    Jackson previously had resisted giving a deposition, and had the case not been settled he might have been forced to choose between answering questions and refusing to respond based on his right to not incriminate himself–a common legal maneuver but one that could have had grave public relations implications for the superstar.

    Now, those immediate problems have been lifted, and he will avoid the spectacle of a nationally televised civil trial probing the most intimate aspects of his personal life.

    But the civil case was only a part of Jackson’s legal woes. The longer-term question that the end of the lawsuit raises is whether Jackson might still be prosecuted.
    .. In a statement released by his office, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said the criminal investigation will go forward.
    “The criminal investigation of singer Michael Jackson is ongoing and will not be affected by the announcement of the civil case settlement,” Garcetti said. “The district attorney’s office is taking Mr. Feldman at his word that the alleged victim will be allowed to testify and that there has been no agreement in the civil matter that will affect cooperation in the criminal investigation.”

    Although the terms of the settlement were not made public, nothing in the document is likely to prevent the child from cooperating with authorities, lawyers said, because the law prevents anyone from conspiring to obstruct the work of police and prosecutors as they investigate a possible crime. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

    Now, if the civil suit was to be televised then Michael had not other way but settle the case!

    If I were in his place I would have paid ANY money to avoid that kind of a show. And it could have lasted for months and would have been totally impossible! It would have ruined him even if he had been fully acquitted! Though full acquittal in a civil suit where the plaintiff is after money only is impossible in principle – Michael would have been penalized by some fine anyway, even if it was nothing but negligence or some “moral damage”.

    It seems that Michael’s lawyers were right when they said that it was better to let the case go. In the circumstances when they lost the possibility of the criminal trial going first it was the only way out.

    Like

  12. aldebaran permalink
    December 30, 2011 10:27 am

    I hate Bill O’Reilly–how can anyone watch him at all?? I do not get it. The video of the ‘white negro’ is so sad–seeing the photos of the blacks with vitiligo put on display–the info in that video is amazing–it really shows the ‘white’ fascination with the ‘white negro’ and especially the sexual organs–the penis–wow–and then poor Michael was put on display like a slave on the auction block. No wonder he got outraged and hysterical. Then they actually wanted to go back and do some more photos!! But MJ’s lawyers refused. How could this happen in 21st century USA? HOW??? How could they even get a judge to ok that? Why believe that horrible ‘child’? I don’t consider a 13 or 14 year old a ‘child’ either–but b/c he was legally ‘a child’ it gave him huge legal advantages–like an ‘expedited trial’–Geraldine Hughes goes into this in her book–how MJ’s team was given only a few months to prepare for the ‘expedited trial’ b/c as a ‘child’ Jordan might ‘forget’ what happened. Too weird. The US legal system is really full of holes. And then Bill Moron has to say MJ is not worthy of being a black icon–it is so sick and disgusting–how can he even handle his massive contradictions and lack of thought–MJ was way too intelligent and aware for the USA media and even many of the populace. Thanks for this great post–you are doing tremendous work. What happened to MJ will always mean the USA will live in infamy and shame–the treatment of MJ is one of USA’s darkest hours. The rest of the world can see what this country is capable of in terms of racism and hatred and lies–and corruption.

    Like

  13. December 20, 2011 7:40 pm

    “So I guess we know whose idea the settlement was”.

    Lynette, of course we know it – it was solely the idea of Johnny Cohran and his team. The first Michael’s lawyer Bert Fields wanted a criminal trial and wanted to cross-examine Jordan Chandler, but after Bert Fields was refused the opportunity to take the criminal case before the civil trial, he was fired and Michael Jackson’s family looked for a lawyer who could handle the civil case. Lisa Campbell says:

    “Following the settlement, many law experts questioned why it took so long. Insiders said it was due to the advice Michael receiving from Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano. Colleagues said Fields was against negotiating a settlement because it would be seen as in indication of guilt. He also wanted the opportunity to cross-examine the boy.

    Johnnie Cochran, seen as being shrewder about limiting the amount of damage done, did not oppose a settlement. As soon as Cochran took over for Fields, he began negotiating the settlement.”

    “When they talk about the settlement they should be aware that it the Plaintiff in this case the Chandler’s that decide whether or not to settle. If he did not want to he was the one with the power not to.”

    Exactly. It was Jordan Chandler who decided to settle in January 1994. Lisa Campbell describes it as follows:

    On January 25, 1994, the rumblings in the press that a settlement was in the works for the civil suit were proven correct The day before, Feldman filed court documents stating the boy’s parents had resigned as guardians over the boy’s affairs. A retired Appellate Court Judge, Justice Jack Goertzen, had been named as the boy’s new guardian. This is standard procedure in this type of situation and helped to confirm that a settlement had indeed been reached. Chandler had agreed to drop the civil suit in return in for an undisclosed sum of money.

    Now we know that the undisclosed sum of money was $15,3mln. instead of the initial $30mln. asked by Larry Feldman on September 14, 1993. Jordan Chandler suddenly agreed to half the sum.

    Like

  14. December 20, 2011 7:26 pm

    “Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to contribute to the multimillion dollar payout to the teen-ager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported Friday.”

    Shelly, Lisa Campbell’s book of 1994 also says that first the lawyers reached an agreement and then the insurance company was approached to cover the sum. The order in which it was made does not make any difference to me. I know that Michael did not want the settlement, and even Johnny Cohran’s wife that her husband had to persuade him to do it, and all the rest was just a technical matter.

    Lisa Campbell gives all the details about the end of 1993\beginning of 1994. Michael was pressed from every possible side, and since he wasn’t touring he was also sued for breach of the tour agreement and has to pay $20mln. there. If the civil trial had started the losses would have been much bigger:


    Meanwhile, legal problems continued to mount for Michael. On December 28,1993, concert promoter Marcel Avram filed a breach of contract complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court against Michael Jackson, TTC Touring Corp., and MJJ Enterprises. The suit, asking for $20 million in damages plus punitive damages, charged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary dutyregarding Michael’s contract with Avram’s Mama Concerts to finance and promote the 1993 Dangerous World Tour.

    MJJ Enterprises president Stephen Chabre had engaged in settlement negotiations with the tour promoter since the end of the tour in an attempt to solve it amicably. Lloyds of London had provided $20 million of insurance to the promoters. Lloyds’ spokesman, Matt Huber, commented that if the promoters had a valid claim, that the tour was cancelled due to Michael Jackson’s drug addiction, the claim would be paid.

    The Children’s Peace Foundation was also jumping on the sue Michael Jackson bandwagon, suing him for breach of contract fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition. The foundation claimed Michael Jackson used them to make lucrative merchandising deals and then cut them out of the profits.

    Feldman filed a motion in Superior Court on December 30, to compel Michael to answer a list of questions for the civil suit. The over one hundred written questions asked for information about each person under the age of eighteen that Michael has entertained since January 1, 1983. With his refusal to supply any of this information, Feldman accused him of stonewalling. Stonewall Jackson had previously only provided the answers to three of the questions, his name, birthdate, and where he lives.

    The January issue of Vanity Fair claimed to provide “the definitive account of Jackson’s fall”. The article, “Nightmare In Neverland” by Maureen Orth, gave an account of the whole story from the time Michael first met the boy to the makingof the allegations, the filing of the civil suit and the following media explosion. The article was based on information from attorneys and investigators from both sides, but still seemed to give a bit more undue credibility to the boy’s side.

    In promoting the issue of the magazine, Orth was a guest on Larry King Live. She gave a rather detailed overview of the boy’s side of the story taken from court documents, but barley mentioned the possible extortion plot, mentioning only that it too is detailed in the article. Little, if any, time on the program was spent on this part of the story.

    Following Michael’s live statement and the resulting dramatic swing of public opinion in his favor, Feldman had to somehow even the score. A statement taken from the boy on December 28 was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on January 10 which detailed, again, the specific acts which the boy said he and Michael engaged in. Howard Weitzman explained the new court document, which contained nothing that hadn’t already been detailed in August, was simply a counter punch by Feldman following Michael’s very public statement.

    He very much needed to keep the allegations in the mind of the public, and especially potential jurors, “Because it’s clearly this kid’s story against Jackson’s story. So the motion was really filed to generate more publicity to get out there these allegations to attempt to make Michael look bad so you’ll ask me the type of questions you’re asking me, and to generate amongst potential jurors a negative image of Michael. That’s what that motion was all about.”

    The statement was filed by Feldman as part of a request for Michael’s detailed financial records. He figured he would need such information in assessing a proper amount of damages should he actually win the case. One more in a long line of indications that Chandler was very interested in money from the case and nothing more.

    Beginning January 11, Michael Jackson’s accuser would no longer be referred to by the media as “the thirteen year old boy”. Jordy Chandler turned fourteen.

    It was being reported around this time that Michael had added three new investigators to his team. Michael’s attorneys, anxious to have the criminal investigation completed before the civil trial began, said that Michael may not show up for his scheduled deposition unless the criminal investigation was completed.

    On January 25, 1994, the rumblings in the press that a settlement was in the works for the civil suit were proven correct The day before, Feldman filed court documents stating the boy’s parents had resigned as guardians over the boy’s affairs. A retired Appellate Court Judge, Justice Jack Goertzen, had been named as the boy’s new guardian. This is standard procedure in this type of situation and helped to confirm that a settlement had indeed been reached. Chandler had agreed to drop the civil suit in return in for an undisclosed sum of money.

    It later became known that the settlement may not have to be paid by Michael Jackson at all. A claim had been filed with Transamerica Insurance, suppliers of Michael Jackson’s personal liability insurance. A spokesperson for the insurance company said the claim would be reviewed, and if found to be valid, it would pay.

    Like

  15. shelly permalink
    December 20, 2011 6:09 am

    Just another point, you can have an engagement ceremony, which is not a marriage, but it’s the same thing.

    For the vitiligo, in all honesty, it does’nt explain the demerol in the blood.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    December 20, 2011 4:28 am

    @ Shelly yes in Santa Barbara County California all of the marriages are confidential and apply the same rule about disclosure to the public. Neverland is in Santa Barbara County. There is no way for someone to find out about a marriage that took place unless they get permission from the person themselves. As for the injectable medication for vitiligo/ discoid lupus here in the US it is called Plaquenil. An anitmalarial used to reduce flares of autoimmune disorders like discoid lupus and vitiligo. If you look at some of the photos of Michael in late 2001 and early 2002 he looks kind of puffy which is another side effect of Plaquenil. Plaquenil also causes increased bleeding time and possible hematuria or scant amounts of blood in the urine.Here is an excerpt from People Magazine from 1994 in an article about Johnnie Cochran.

    Next Cochran used his clout to arrange for the city’s black clergy to hold a press conference, condemning what they called the D.A.’s persecution of Jackson. At the same time, he was negotiating with Larry Feldman, the 13-year-old boy’s attorney, a courthouse colleague. In the end, he and Feldman hammered out a settlement in which the boy received an undisclosed sum and Jackson did not admit any guilt. “It was the only way to get the case off the front pages,” says Cochran. “I wanted Michael to be able to go on with his career.”

    So I guess we know whose idea the settlement was. When they talk about the settlement they should be aware that it the Plaintiff in this case the Chandler’s that decide whether or not to settle. If he did not want to he was the one with the power not to. The only one. No one forced Jordan to settle. Feldman asked for a Guardian Ad Litem Jack Goertzen to represent Jordan because he could not legally sign that settlement. He went with what Jordan wanted. He was asked to replace Evan and June because in all minor settlements they want it so the parents can’t get the money. Michael gave them each 1.5 million because their side knew about the book he was planning and they wanted him restricted by the settlement.

    .
    http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108331,00.html

    Like

  17. December 19, 2011 5:16 am

    For the alleged Safechuck marriage, there are 2 types of marriage in California, one of them is confidential. This is what is protected by a confidential license

    “How does a confidential marriage license vs. a regular marriage license benefit you? One great benefit of a confidential marriage license is that you will not be inundated with telemarketers and spammers who can get your personal information from public records. Also, if you are a celebrity, the media will not be able to research the public record to find out when, who or where you did get married. If you are someone who may someday be in the public eye, this type of marriage license is highly recommended”

    .
    http://www.losangelesmarriagelicense.com/how-to-obtain-a-marriage-license.html

    Unless, you got a court order, you don’t know if it happened or not.

    For the vitligo, there is no injection really?

    http://www.emirates247.com/news/women-using-vitiligo-injection-for-fairness-2011-01-12-1.341191

    Like

  18. December 19, 2011 4:58 am

    I just read an article from the MJfacts info blog and I’d like to thank them to show the rest of the world how stupid they are.
    They posted an AP article which said MJ was covered by his insurance for “bodily injury” and claimed that the settlement could not have been paid by his insurance because he settle for negligence. In fact, the document settlement clearly said it was for “bodily injuries resulting from negligence”

    This is the AP article

    “January 29, 1994
    Section: MAIN NEWS
    Edition: AM
    Page: A2
    Associated Press
    Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to contribute to the multimillion dollar payout to the teen-ager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported Friday.

    The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illinois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy didn’t cover sex allegations.
    Despite the company’s position that Jackson wasn’t covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on Jan. 13 to resolve the claim – but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper.

    Today said negotiations were continuing.

    “Our client relationship precludes us from discussing it,” said Cheryl Friedling, spokeswoman for what is now known as TIG Holdings Inc. of Woodland Hills.

    Jackson’s lawyers announced an out-of-court settlement this week with a 14-year-old boy who had filed a civil suit accusing the pop star of molesting him during a five-month campaign of seduction.

    Today, which reported Jackson’s plans to pay off the boy last week, on Friday published fragments from the alleged exchange of letters between Jackson’s lawyers and the insurance company.

    Transamerica’s claims analyst Russ Wardrip sent a registered letter to Jackson’s lawyer Howard Weitzman on Jan. 13 saying Jackson’s personal liability policy covered him for accidental “bodily injury,” Today reported.

    The paper quoted Wardrip as saying “acts of sexual activity do not constitute” an accident and therefore Transamerica would not pay any damages”

    Like

  19. lcpledwards permalink
    June 18, 2011 8:21 pm

    Hey guys, I’m calling on a national boycott of Best Buy, the largest electronics store in the United States. They are a racist and sexist organization, and we must send them a message that their corrupt practices will not be tolerated.

    How do I know they’re racist and sexist, you ask? Simple. The company recently settled a multi-million dollar class-action racial and gender discrimination lawsuit, agreeing to pay the plaintiffs $200k, after spending $10 million dollars in legal fees since the case was filed in 2005. I think this is a fair proposal,don’t you? After all, according to MJ haters, settling a lawsuit is a sign of guilt, so therefore Best Buy admitted their guilt by not only settling the lawsuit, but promising to implement measures to increase racial and gender diversity at the company. And while we’re at it, let’s boycott JC Penney as well, because they admitted their guilt in Janet Arvizo’s lawsuit by settling with her (read the post for details.)

    Best Buy Co agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the largest U.S. electronics retailer of job discrimination, paying a total of $200,000 to the nine named plaintiffs plus as much as $10 million for legal fees and costs.

    The lawsuit was filed in 2005 in the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, by eight current and former employees and one job applicant. They accused Best Buy of infractions such as denying desirable job assignments and promotions and transfers to African-American, Latino and female employees.

    Best Buy agreed to a four-year consent decree, during which it would implement “comprehensive affirmative relief addressing the hiring, assignment, promotion and exempt compensation claims.”

    It agreed to name someone to oversee the implementation of processes designed to improve diversity in management and to post its non-discrimination, anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies on an internal company website.

    The terms provide “extensive injunctive relief that will materially advance the goal of equal employment opportunity for African Americans, Latinos, and women at Best Buy,” James Finberg, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, wrote.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/best-buy-settles-class-ac_n_879585.html

    And let’s get ready to boycott Apple, as they have also recently been sued for engaging in “shopping while black” discrimination at their stores, and if there’s a possibility that they could settle too. http://www.blackmediascoop.com/2011/05/26/apple-worker-told-black-men-i-dont-want-your-kind-here/

    Now of course I’m being sarcastic, but I wanted to show you what happens when you apply the MJ hater’s logic to other situations. This puts it all in perspective, doesn’t it? 🙂

    Like

  20. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 7:56 pm

    Mesreau said that about the settlement in March 2005

    Where is the justice in this case of

    21 allowing parents to come in who collected lots of

    22 money because Mr. Jackson wanted to get this case

    23 behind him and pursue his music career? And indeed,

    24 all kinds of advisors were telling him to do that.

    25 You have parents playing each other off with the

    26 child and pursuing collateral litigation, all of

    27 that will obviously have to be explored, because the

    28 potential for financial interest, financial bias

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502436/1

    Like

  21. Suzy permalink
    June 7, 2011 4:54 am

    @ Teva

    “I would also like to add that I don’t believe for a nanosecond that Michael Jackson ever admitted in the Chandler agreement of sexually M Jordan.”

    He did not.

    “This Confidential Settlement shall not be constructed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, (blocked out) or (blocked out), or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, (blocked out) or (blocked out) have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor, (blocked out) or ( blocked out) or any other persons.”

    (Page 4)

    http://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1993civilsettlementagreement.pdf

    Like

  22. lynande51 permalink
    June 7, 2011 3:36 am

    Shelley, It was never in the document that it would be more. This is a structured settlement. If you type that into your search you will find a bunch of examples of how they are laid out say for minors and it will tell you more. What it means is that a judge had not approved if the terms yet. The terms that are missing are in paragraph three the missing eight pages. A structured settlement is an insurance settlement term. when it says total it means total an insurance company would not have allowed it to be anything else. The retainer that we have, I think you have it, is how the Chandlers paid Larry Feldman and that is always subtracted from the settlement amount if additional fees were paid they would have had to be included in the total. When someone implies that the amount was somehow greater than the amount listed as the total they are saying that Johnny Cochran ( Carl Douglas) did not do his job the way it was supposed to be done.

    A strutured settlement sets up a trust account ( a special account set up to earn money until it’s maturity) where the judgement amount is to be deposited. Then the terms come in. They should tell you that a check should arrive on a specified date and in a specified amount spread out over a specified number of years to be held in a trust account. It should tell you who will be depositing the money, the insurance company that issued it, the account it will be issued to and the attorneys of record who are handeling the trust acount. In the case of a minor, which is what Jordan was a guardian ad litem had to come in to determine the settlement in the best interest of the child. This can not be the minors parents they are the legal guardians. The courts do that so the parents don’t squander all of the childs money and because a person under the age of 18 can not sign a legal document it would not be a binding agreement. In Jordans case it was retired Judge Jack Goertzen I found his name in an article in the Washington Post I don’t know if you can see the one deposit slip or if you can blow it up to read it but Jordan’s bank account had a little over 3 million dollars in it which tells you that it was much less than the 15 million total and that was following his emancipation. He asked for emancipation in 1995 there are letters to that effect in the book to.
    I also agree with you that it is not easier to read without paragraph three. I have said it time and time again if it were true that the terms included more money and showed that Michael paid it out of pocket Diane Dimond would never have held it back. It would be stupid for anyone to think that it was leaked from the second lawsuit that Evan had against Michael. If Lisa Marie’s lawyer needed it he would have needed the whole thing especially the terms of the settlement to see if there had been a breech of the settlement. Her double talk doesn’t make any sense. Have you ever read how she tried to explain and incorporate the original charges into the settlement and make it make some sense? It doesn’t, negligence is what he settled for and the Chandler’s accepted it.

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 2:06 am

    @redblackjack

    My question was about the amount. The text said that MJ had to deliver confessions of judgment in the total amount on 15 millions. If I am not wrong a confession oj judgment is a kind of agreement which allows a lawyer to take your belongings in case you don’t pay your debt. If the settlement was more than 15 millions, why did they say the total amount was 15 millions?

    Like

  24. June 7, 2011 1:50 am

    @ Shelly

    I may be wrong but i believe it means this :

    -Referring to the settlement, the Chandlers’ attorney Larry Feldman stated, “nobody’s bought anybody’s silence.” Under the terms of the agreement, the parties were to seek Court approval of the document. In fact, the settlement was not binding until the Court approved of the document. Since it is unlawful to obstruct justice by requiring another’s silence of a crime, the Court could not have permitted a settlement that required Jordie Chandler to refuse to testify or in essence, obstruct justice.-

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 1:08 am

    “It even “explains” on page 4 or five that they left out 8 pages that show how the money was distributed and how it was divided up. When she edited it she said it was to make it easier to read.”

    The settlement isn’t easier to read because of that.

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    June 7, 2011 12:49 am

    Can someone explain that to me

    Like

  27. Teva permalink
    June 6, 2011 11:13 pm

    I would also like to add that I don’t believe for a nanosecond that Michael Jackson ever admitted in the Chandler agreement of sexually M Jordan.

    Can some one tell me who won the motion to allow/bar the settlement agreement, the prosecution or the defense?

    Like

  28. Teva permalink
    June 6, 2011 11:01 pm

    @Shelly

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/012405pltrspdmlersa.pdf
    Thank you that was a very fascinating document. I only read it once, but it is worthy of reading at least 3 times. If I am not mistaken, Sneddon and company never saw the the seal settlement agreement.

    “The court’s file is sealed at defendant’s request; nevertheless, a copy of the lawsuit has been made
    available on the Internet. More to the point here, defendant, as the party defendant in that
    lawsuit, has had access to all of the documents filed in that case since its inception. Indccd, his
    efforts to deny the public access to the court’s file will make admissible an authenticated but
    uncertified copy of the lawsuit and settlement agreement”

    It is also strange that the prosecution is using words like “if” so frequently that is telling me of their uncertainty about the contents of the sealed settlement. “If the lawsuit allege sexual misconduct”, “if that lawsuit was settled by defendant for in excess of $20,000,000”, – Why don’t they know? If they had permission to open the court ordered sealed agreement they would use more precise wording. Sneddon admitted he got it from the internet.

    This is just a counter motion to Mez’s object to have the settlement barred. The part about the settlement being a tacit admission of guilt is foolish because they don’t even know what Michael Jackson admitted to.

    Like

  29. June 6, 2011 8:07 pm

    David, since you posted D’s full letter let me also post my short reply to her. I really think that while she/he adheres to this type of language and expresses so insulting ideas it is better not to notice her/him at all:

    Desiree, Jessica or whatever your real name is,

    I was utterly disgusted by the things you say to the members of my team. Sustaining any dialog in such circumstances would be simply ridiculous – that is why I strongly recommended my team members not to get involved in any conversation with you.

    I hope very much indeed that they will follow my advice.

    My dear, something is really wrong with you. Why don’t you cry on our shoulder and say frankly what it is?
    I would really want to help you if I could.

    Helena

    Like

  30. June 6, 2011 7:03 pm

    “It reminds me of when I watch cop shows how the serial killer sends letters to the police mocking them always with – you will never catch me because I am better/smarter the you. For Desiree this is a game.’

    Teva, yes, it is a game for D. and your analogy with a “serial killer” mocking the cops is very much pertinent here. But I am not going to follow her game – starting a conversation with her\him is losing the battle from the start (she/he leads – we follow). NO, we need to do what needs to be done for Michael and shouldn’t look back at D.

    I don’t want to belittle her/his abilities and am not going to humiliate her. She/he will probably understand one day that we are not playing games here and are really looking for the truth. In my opinion it is a much more fascinating task and if you manage to find some grain of the truth you feel that you have really done something important in life (besides the usual earthly things all of us do). Truth is something worth living for, while lies – no matter how intricate ones – are shallow and don’t give you this immense feeling of happiness and satisfaction.

    In short I hope that one day she/he will turn her abilities into another direction and this is when the process of her recovery will start. God works wonders, you know…

    Like

  31. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 4:43 pm

    Actually, the settlement clearly said the total amount is 15 millions.

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    June 6, 2011 4:02 pm

    Shelly , She might try to use that document but when you read the document read the part that says the prosecution got their copy of the settlement from the internet. They do not have paragraph three when they are writing their brief. Paragrah three was deliberatly left out of the leaked document that was originally leaked by Diane Dimond on Court TV. Here is a link of that document complete with watermark and the way it was leaked. It even “explains” on page 4 or five that they left out 8 pages that show how the money was distributed and how it was divided up. When she edited it she said it was to make it easier to read.
    https://acrobat.com/#d=evut2wjUl1OKk2yu7vDs9A
    When it was edited it was edited to benefit the prosecution to make Michael appear more guilty. If the world had found out that Michael’s insurance company paid it and if you do the math and subtract the retainer fee and how much his parents got it comes out closer to 6 million and change

    Like

  33. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 12:00 pm

    I think she’ll use that document

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/012405pltrspdmlersa.pdf

    Like

  34. shelly permalink
    June 6, 2011 7:39 am

    I don’t know sometimes I think she has different personalities. I mean it’s from her own articles (not someone else comments) on her blog about the paternity

    Now recently on the Pfeiffer blog

    Like

  35. June 6, 2011 6:03 am

    I believe this sums her up to a tee:

    http://www.suite101.com/content/empathy-a11170

    That’s why I think she clings to websites like “statement analysis” etc, they do what she is incapable of, reading and relating to other human beings.

    Like

  36. Suzy permalink
    June 6, 2011 3:36 am

    @ Teva

    That’s spot on. And regarding what Visitor posted: this is exactly why she changed sides. She realized it will get her more attention if she’s being THE major hater instead of “just” one of the people who is trying to tell the world MJ was innocent.

    Like

  37. visitor permalink
    June 6, 2011 2:41 am

    Desiree on November 21, 2009 at 10:42 pm said:

    what i dont understand is that there are people, corporate entities, etc. that want to believe that children have been molested! when the verdict in 05 was read, they should have rejoiced in the fact that no child was going to grow up confused about their own sexuality which comes about by having been abused.

    certainly, the media does not view Michael Jackson’s troubles as “sensitive” with regards to the youths that had been involved. they view it as similarly as they would a paris hilton sex tape, which is disgusting and pathetic…

    i felt sorry for jordie chandler a while ago but i can no longer feel sorry for him now. he’ll be 30 in january–he’s a grown man. he needs to be honorable and come out for the sake of his own conscience and to soothe the pain that Michael Jackson’s family have been experiencing for the longest time.

    if he doesn’t do that, then, well, i guess there really is no hope for humanity. such a simple thing to do and no one does it? damn…

    wonderful piece.

    (gavin arvizo aka anton needs to get his ass out and tell the truth, too. it’s. not. cool.)

    Desiree on November 30, 2009 at 12:51 am said:

    you know what?

    i’m being honest. jordie chandler is a grown ass man and he deserves no sympathy. he was never sexually abused. yes, i do believe jordie was emotionally neglected and that is abusive. but he also got millions of dollars. yes, money doesn’t buy happiness but you are smoking crystal if you think he deserves even a fraction of pity that MJ deserved! ha!

    jordie has more than any child starving in 3rd world countries, children put in foster care and abused, or children who live on the streets. he does not deserve my sympathy because he has had it better than many people, INCLUDING Michael Jackson! he went to college, he has nice homes, he goes fucking skiing…

    i am just being REAL! the majority of MJ fans agree but they don’t want to look nuts or whatever (rolls eyes)…

    yes, nothing is easy when you lack an inward moral compass. in 2005, he probably was going to sing like a canary before his father busted him in the head. And? evan is no longer around and a REAL MAN would step forward and clear a FRIEND’s name.

    so excuse me if i don’t cry in my soup about a 30 year old MAN’s moral dilemma…

    Desiree on November 22, 2009 at 9:54 pm said:

    ian halperin is a nut, but i encourage everyone here to read his book, the first 8 chapters and the appendix.

    he is a louse for sure but he has interesting information regarding the 93-94 case within his book. the appendix is of the interview with a psychologist called Richard Gardner (who believed jordie’s story but also killed himself in the early 2000′s, go figure…) and jordie chandler.

    the interesting thing about the appendix ESPECIALLY is that jordie chandler is so totally rehearsed! for example, jordie is asked how he would be if he was still with Michael Jackson and jordie answers, “i’d be like a vegetable.” gardner asks him to explain and he is so confused, just stumped! its pretty sad because that child was so painfully coached. he had no idea what being a vegetable was and i know for SURE that evan chandler got that idea from “wanna be startin something”… ridiculous!

    don’t give halperin a dime but check this out at your library; that interview in the appendix is just more evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence…he never hurt that boy. poor thing was abused by his FATHER!

    (shoot, i wonder if evan chandler even was jordie’s real father; jordie looks too black to be half white, a quarter chinese, and a JUST quarter black…hmmm…but that’s just a conspiracy theory)

    Like i have said before attention is all that she wants. If by diminishing and insulting Michael Jackson she will achieve it, then that is what she will do. BUT SHE KNOWS THAT MICHAEL was innocent, right Desiree? You know it, you wrote it. The above comments are yours. Read them because that is your real opinion about the cases. You are not so smart after all Desiree because we have all figure you out. Silly little girl.

    Like

  38. Teva permalink
    June 6, 2011 1:33 am

    @Ares

    It is the Desiree show, it is all about how bright, talented and clever she is while everyone else is simple. Completely narcissistic and self-absorbed. This is a personality that hates to be ignored. She was practically having an erection at the idea of writing a piece on the settlement to elicit a response from the VMJ team. It is a contest to see who is the better storyteller, like a debating high school challenge. Listen to the way she scoffs at David and Lynette’s research and analysis, she is saying you are no match for me, she want’s to debate you (VMJ). This girl had the gall to proclaim that if she was prosecuting the 2005 case the verdict would have been guilty, again narcissistic.

    Thank you VMJ administrators and contributors for the tireless and non-compensated work you do.

    Like

  39. ares permalink
    June 6, 2011 12:34 am

    @Teva

    Amazing comments and on the spot. Of course she doesn’t care for those who she keeps refering as victims. Who on earth would call someone who they believe that was molested, with such derogatory names?

    Like

  40. Teva permalink
    June 6, 2011 12:00 am

    @VindicateMJ Team

    Your self-styled “adversary” is not concerned about any victims, just self-aggrandizement! Tell me what kind of person would belittle, and mock someone that they claim is a victim of years of sexual abuse, and refer to them as “Butt Barnes”? The callous. Where is the concern here – MIA. You have someone with no appreciation for the feelings of other people. I think someone had posted that she wanted MJ’s children one day to come across her putrid website. I typically do not comment on anything regarding Desiree because I see her for what she is, but she has gone completely over the over the top to the point that she doesn’t even try to disguise it anymore.

    Like

  41. Teva permalink
    June 5, 2011 8:43 pm

    @VindicateMJ Team

    From the letter David posted from Desiree it seems to me her hit pieces are written for VindicateMj administrators. Personally I think her argument about informing “………. people unfamiliar with Jacko ……….” is just garbage. That MAYBE her secondary goal, but her first is to get into a sparing match with you, a sort of battle of wits.

    I read the letter and she comes across as someone who is narcissistic. Desiree constantly refers to herself in all her communications as someone with suprerior intellect, and is usually condescending towards us here. I think she needs this site, she enjoys the taunting, and the battle a little too much if you know what I mean. It reminds me of when I watch cop shows how the serial killer sends letters to the police mocking them always with – you will never catch me because I am better/smarter the you. For Desiree this is a game.

    Like

  42. Carm permalink
    June 5, 2011 4:46 pm

    I learned something new today: Lynette is a “geriatric simpleton”!! Desiree is a complete mental case. Fortunately truth stands on its own so she really is not a threat. Although I think it’s really important, David, that you continue rebutting her “arguments” since she has the power to influence the less informed. What goes around comes around. It is just a matter of time before all of her nonsense comes back to bite her. She won’t last.

    Like

  43. appleh permalink
    June 5, 2011 10:47 am

    OMG what a dumbass this Desiree is. Don´t know if I should laugh at her or fell compassion for this poor and stupid human flesh !!!

    Like

  44. shelly permalink
    June 5, 2011 9:34 am

    As for Barnes, Gutierrez contract himself in the book.

    Like

  45. shelly permalink
    June 5, 2011 8:24 am

    I love her part on slander. What she failed to realised is she is on Internet and the law is the one used for the media. If you are defame in the National Enquire you can sue them in the US and in England because it’s published in the 2 countries. If Barnes decides to sue her, it will be in Australian court and certainly not in the US.
    There are lots of articles available on Internet about that.

    Like

  46. lcpledwards permalink
    June 5, 2011 2:13 am

    Hey guys, I’ve meaning to post this for a while. This is an email that our adversary wrote to me and Lynette a few weeks ago. After a few months of inactivity, she’s back with a vengeance! She’s updated her blog with so-called new “information” about MJ’s relationship with Brett Barnes, but fortunately we will post a rebuttal in the next few days, which centers around the Neverland 5’s testimony, which contradicts what they told Victor Gutierrez for his MJWML book.

    Anyway, our adversary is going to write an article about how MJ’s settlement was a sign of guilt, and I personally can’t wait to see what she says! I won’t need to write a rebuttal, because this 2 part series ALREADY rebuts what she will write! LOL!

    Here’s her email to us, sent on May 19th. Notice how she refers to be as “Blaine”, a gay character from the comedy show “In Living Color”.

    Lynette and Blaine:

    I am so pleased I possessed the foresight to encode my web counting device on my blog. Besides registering my site with Google and Technorati so people could find it, enabling that little counter was the best thing I’ve ever did for my website. Well, besides reaching an epiphany about Jacko.

    So, because of that little counter, I know when both of you come onto my site. Bemidji, MN, is it, Lynette? And Houston, TX for you, Blaine?

    Well, nevertheless, I see Lynette spying all the time, so naturally, you people will learn of upcoming posts of mine and shit talk at your homebase; thank you for linking me. Yes, Blaine, I intend to write a post on the reality of those settlements; just in two parts, very simple and straightforward with none of the sophistry you like to employ.

    Because, Blaine, the settlement is quite simple. It is very simple. Jacko was not forced to settle, never was. Do you know how much a grand total of $25M (yes, $25M, not $15.3) is in today’s money? Well, it is a lot of cheese. That amount of money was a tenth of Jacko’s net worth; do you really think he would part with a tenth of his net worth because of what some liars said?

    Well, of course, he wouldn’t.

    I would discuss this more at length, Blaine, but why spoil the fun of surprises?

    What I find odd, Blaine, is that you assume that you can outsmart me? Oh, Blaine, that just will not happen. You misjudge me; we are not on opposing sides but essentially equivalent. That is just not true. I don’t come onto Vindicate MJ and read those torturous screeds so I can ‘keep up’ (well I did read those settlement pieces of yours at the All4Love blog; they were, in a word, pathetic). Why would I? Why would I need to keep up with stock fan mumbo-jumbo? I could just as easily predict your argument.

    You see, Blaine and Lynette, because I have broken away from the Jacko fan apologetics, you believe me to be unscrupulous. Well, that is also untrue. I am simply a girl with a moderately (maybe minimally) popular Michael Jackson blog. My goal is to be there when people unfamiliar with Jacko or those who are questioning or those who are open-minded are looking for answers to those tough questions.

    That is why I am here.

    Lynette, I noticed that you wrote my readers do not read the actual court documents or transcripts and this is why they believe me. Are you so inexplicably stupid to make such a broad and sweeping statement? Yes, you are; as they say, young fools turn into old fools. You happen to be the stupidest person I have ever encountered. And I spar for pure pleasure, Lynette, and have encountered hundreds of idiots, but you have to be the stupidest one I have ever had the displeasure to run into. I mean, Blaine is stupid, as well, but no one touches you. Wear your crown proudly, girl!

    I mean, only an idiot would think that semen stains were saliva stains, and from Jacko’s ‘sons’, to boot. No, they were semen. What goes on in your head to transform something as clear and straightforward as ‘semen’ in a court doc to ‘saliva’? You must be orbiting Pluto! Do you think a veteran prosecutor would lie in a document? You are aware, Lynette, that the judge knows all the evidence, including what is found and it’s accompanying DNA reports, and a DA cannot lie to him about it, especially in a court-sworn document, signed under penalty of perjury. Please, explain to me, also, why the defense did not bother to undergo their own forensic testing, when the DA allowed them to use the evidence that was found? Why not clear Michael of that icky semen from other males that was on his mattress and in bedsheets and underwear kept with his own dirty underwear?

    Why not tell the WORLD it was the ‘saliva’ from his two ‘biological’ sons? They could’ve done that, Lynette, but they chose not to; they chose not to argue with the merit and accuracy of the DA’s findings. I noticed there were readers of you and Blaine’s site that didn’t agree with your half-baked analysis. Smart ones, they are. I can understand the Jacko’s bedroom = Motel 6 idea, although it’s complete bullshit, given what I know off the record, but at least they are not making shit up.

    Anyway, Lynette, my readers absolutely read court documents! Hell, they sometimes give me links to documents, although, I must say, the breadth of documents on DSSL are found by Yours Truly. Again, because of the web counting device on my blog, I know they read documents. They click the exit link–which is to a document–and don’t return to the same exit page for 20-30 minutes. Also, of course, there is the emails I get where I give links to documents to people.

    The snippets used on my website are used to highlight important areas and they are accompanied by a link to the source doc, which they all click. Interestingly enough, the commenters who don’t agree with my findings, for example, the explosive Jacko was gay post, are the ones who never click the document links. It is these people who then leave comments saying that the ‘DNA’ could be anything. I know this, again, because of my web counter. And I say to them, “Well, if you click all the doc links and actually read them, you’ll find your answer, and the answer agrees with me.”

    I always provide the links to the original; I want people to realize I am not talking out of my ass.

    As for slander/libel, Lynette, you geriatric simpleton, you confuse US laws with British ones. The burden of proof is always on the person alleging they have been slandered/libeled, not the person allegedly doing the slandering/libeling. So, if the Robsons or Brett (or Butt) Barnes want to take me to court, they will lose. I imagine it would be very uncomfortable for Butt to have to disprove that Jacko gave him blowjobs…

    As we know, Jacko never sued Gutierrez for his book, only for his lie about the videotape.

    I will say no more, lest I reveal my game plan. This should be exciting.

    ~ Desiree

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    May 17, 2011 12:08 am

    I don’t understand that part

    “Despite the company’s position that Jackson was not covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on Jan. 13 to resolve the claim — but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper.”

    If he wasn’t covered, why did they make an offer to settle the claim?

    Like

  48. Teva permalink
    May 16, 2011 11:38 pm

    Great find Shelly.

    Like

  49. shelly permalink
    May 16, 2011 10:43 pm

    JACKSON SEEKS INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PAYOUT TO BOY FIRM SAYS POLICY DOESN’T COVER SEX ALLEGATIONS
    Associated Press

    Michael Jackson asked his insurance company to contribute to the multimillion- dollar payout to the teen-ager who filed a child molestation suit against the pop star, it was reported Friday.

    The newspaper Today said it has documents showing that the Illinois-based Transamerica Insurance Group was astounded by Jackson’s demand and told Jackson his personal liability policy did not cover sex allegations.
    Despite the company’s position that Jackson was not covered, Transamerica attorney Jordan Harriman made “a one-time only” offer to Jackson on Jan. 13 to resolve the claim — but Jackson rejected it, according to the paper.

    Today said negotiations were continuing.

    ”Our client relationship precludes us from discussing it,” said Cheryl Friedling, spokeswoman for what is now known as TIG Holdings Inc. in the Los Angeles suburb of Woodland Hills.

    Jackson’s lawyers announced an out-of-court settlement this week with a 14- year-old boy who had filed a civil suit accusing the pop star of molesting him during a five-month campaign of seduction.

    None of the lawyers involved would disclose financial terms of the settlement, but a source close to the case told the Associated Press that Jackson was paying $15 million to the teen-ager.

    Based on the boy’s allegations, prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties began criminal investigations, which are still under way.

    Today, which reported Jackson’s plans to pay off the boy last week, Friday published fragments from the alleged exchange of letters between Jackson’s lawyers and the insurance company.

    Transamerica claims analyst Russ Wardrip sent a registered letter to Jackson’s lawyer Howard Weitzman on Jan. 13 saying Jackson’s personal liability policy covered him for accidental “bodily injury,” Today reported.

    The paper quoted Wardrip as saying “acts of sexual activity do not constitute” an accident and therefore Transamerica would not pay any damages.

    ”Further, acts of sexual activity, especially those against a minor, are inherently intentional, wrongful and harmful. Coverage for such acts is precluded by (the) California Insurance Code,” the paper quoted Wardrip as saying.

    In a Jan. 13 letter to Transamerica, another Jackson lawyer, Johnnie Cochran Jr., said the entertainer had suffered “personal grief” and “substantial financial losses” and said it was imperative that the claim be settled immediately.

    ”In the event that this matter is settled without any participation by Transamerica, please be advised that Mr. Jackson will pursue all civil remedies available to him against Transamerica for a host of claims including failure to pay defense costs, failure to contribute to settlement costs . . . and-or punitive damages for bad faith,” Cochran reportedly wrote.

    Jackson’s business manager, Marshal Gelfand, would not take telephone calls, referring callers to Cochran and Weitzman; Cochran was out of the office until Monday and Weitzman didn’t immediately return telephone calls.

    Like

  50. shelly permalink
    May 16, 2011 10:36 pm

    That part

    “Details of the $26 million out-of-court settlement that silenced Jackson’s accuser and how the star tried to get Transamerica, his insurance company, to pay for it.”

    Like

  51. shelly permalink
    May 16, 2011 10:35 pm

    She’ll use probably that

    “Now that After Michael Jackson has gotten married and kissed his new wife, Lisa Marie Presley, on MTV, can he put the child molestation charges that nearly ruined his career and made his life a horror show behind him?

    Not a chance.

    Not if Christopher Andersen’s startling biography, “Michael Jackson Unauthorized” (Simon & Schuster, $23), has any credibility.

    “Do we suspend all common sense here?” wonders Andersen, a senior editor at People magazine for 12 years and the author of best-selling “Unauthorized” biographies on Madonna and Mick Jagger.

    “He’s 36 years old and he’s created his weirdness as his suit of armor, his protection against other human beings.”

    But Andersen says flatly, “The evidence is overwhelming. If this were anyone other than Michael Jackson, he would be tried and indicted for these charges.”

    On their wedding night, he reveals, Jackson and Presley slept in separate villas five miles apart.

    “It’s a sham,” says Andersen of the Dominican Republic marriage which was preceded by a pre-nuptial agreement specifying their respective fortunes would remain separate.

    Andersen cites Jackson’s need for “an instant family image that his advisers want” to promote his upcoming album, which will determine how much the scandal has damaged his career.

    “Michael Jackson Unauthorized” arrives in bookstores this week to reveal:

    Jackson’s obsession with Princess Diana caused him to erect a mannequin which he dressed, complete with tiara in his private playroom. He would have lengthy conversations with the dummy.

    Jackson’s tormented childhood under his strict, allegedly abusive father, Joe, and how he was sexually molested as a child by a relative.

    Michael’s rejection of Bubbles (“after Cheetah the world’s most famous chimpanzee”) when he got older. “Just like Michael’s boys,” notes Andersen, “he was discarded as he aged.”

    Details of the humiliating strip search and video and photo documentation of his groin and genitals Jackson endured – including a rumored Winnie the Pooh tattoo – under court order.

    “Michael is white from the waist up and black down. You never see his legs for that reason,” says the author.

    Details of the $26 million out-of-court settlement that silenced Jackson’s accuser and how the star tried to get Transamerica, his insurance company, to pay for it.

    Jackson’s taking the Fifth Amendment 17 times in a deposition related to a lawsuit by his bodyguards.

    Jackson’s pattern over the last decade of traveling and sleeping with young boys, showering gifts on them as well as taking showers with them.

    Among those who frolicked with Jackson were Macaulay Culkin (whose father threatened the police with a harassment lawsuit if they continued to question his superstar son), Sean Lennon (“He spent a month at Neverland”) and child star Emmanuel Lewis.

    Andersen says he interviewed more than 300 sources for his expose, including partisans on both sides. Of the Jackson family, only La Toya would speak to him.

    GQ magazine’s current cover story asks, “Was Michael Jackson framed?” and answers yes.

    “Astounded” by the story, Andersen says, scoffing, “There are so many half-truths there, you’d think this writer was sleeping the last 18 months.”

    The young boy whose charges ignited the scandal, he points out, “was believed by experts on both sides. There is no doubt he was telling the truth.”

    The author believes Jackson “Is dead in terms of endorsements but he will always be a musical force. His hard-core audience is very loyal and refuses to believe this, much like Elizabeth Taylor who is blindly loyal.

    “But there are limits,” he said.

    Like

  52. May 16, 2011 8:27 pm

    “I am afraid that desiree is really the person she claims she is. A twenty years old Black woman who when Michael died she became a fan for a while, just to get some attention.When she realized that by smearing Michael’s name would get her even more attention, she decided to do just that. I have already send you the comments that this girl made to a pro Jackson blog before she change her tune. She is really a disturbed person and i don’t think you should value her or her posts much.She doesn’t worth it.”

    Visitor, I absolutely don’t value her posts and never go to her site. I am extremely surprised that anyone can fall for her lies at all – she has been found to tell lies on so many occasions that believing her is equivalent to simply having no respect for oneself – people shouldn’t allow others to fool themselves so easily!

    As regards her sex she may say that she is a “girl” but many men with a distorted mind will claim the same. I will never forget the relish with which “she” invented the alleged sexual (and graphic) offence of Brett Barnes – there were so many disgusting details there which only the pathological mind of a perverted man is capable of imagining. In short I doubt that she is really “she” – at least in the conventional meaning of this word.

    However “she” is really not worth discussing “her” for so long.

    Like

  53. May 16, 2011 7:49 pm

    The settlement was perfectly legal. Any statement to the contrary only shows lack of knowledge regarding the case and lack of knowledge in general about civil disputes.

    Like

  54. Alison permalink
    May 16, 2011 7:44 pm

    @ Shelly

    Well if she goes to Abe Books for it there are 29 copies available ranging from £67 to £684 !

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    May 16, 2011 7:23 pm

    I think someone said here her or his father had one of those books. Maybe he or she could write something about it.

    Like

  56. shelly permalink
    May 16, 2011 7:20 pm

    I think she is going to buy those books and she already said she thinks the settlement was illegal.

    Like

  57. Alison permalink
    May 16, 2011 7:18 pm

    “Students STUDY and sometimes take exams while this D. seems to have lots of free time. Sounds more like a pensioner to me.”

    Pensioner ! LOL !!! thats hilarious! – its brought tears to my eyes!

    and you are also right and its coming up to exam time now isn’t it.

    Like

  58. visitor permalink
    May 16, 2011 6:58 pm

    @vindicatemj
    I am afraid that desiree is really the person she claims she is. A twenty years old Black woman who when Michael died she became a fan for a while, just to get some attention.When she realized that by smearing Michael’s name would get her even more attention, she decided to do just that. I have already send you the comments that this girl made to a pro Jackson blog before she change her tune. She is really a disturbed person and i don’t think you should value her or her posts much.She doesn’t worth it.

    Like

  59. May 16, 2011 6:44 pm

    “Desiree is planning on doing a 2 part series on MJ’s settlements to use them as signs of his guilt! I can’t WAIT to see what she has to say, so I can utterly annihilate her!”

    David, I hope none of us doubt any longer that this person is no student as this person claims. Students STUDY and sometimes take exams while this D. seems to have lots of free time. Sounds more like a pensioner to me.

    Like

  60. lynande51 permalink
    May 16, 2011 5:07 pm

    I wonder how she is going to do a complete analysis of the Settlement without the paragraph three that has been edited out by Diane Dimond for ease of our little minds reading ability? When she does an analysis of the book The Boy: A Photographic Essay, is she going to use the very same book with the inscription on it that says ” to Michael from your fan Rhonda XXXOOOXXX”, which indicates to me and the rest of the world that Michael Jackson didn’t purchase the book but that it was a gift from a fan in 1978.Not to mention it couldn’t have been used for any purpose by Michael Jackson since the book has been in the custody of the SBSD since August of 1993. No wonder Bob Sanger called them moldy! If she needs a photo of it she can get one from Aphrodite Jones’ book. Also when she analizes the testimony and documents about Wade Robson , Joy Robson, and Brett Barnes she does realize that they are still alive and very much able to sue for slander and the burden of proof is on her. If they sued her for potential loss of earnings due to her slanderous blog I think she might be in trouble because they have a much larger earning potential than she obviously knows. She might want to Google “can I be sued for slander for what I write in my blog” and see what comes up. Then of course there is the potential of someone seeing the photos that she intends to display and thinking the same thing about her that the prosecution tried to pull off with Michael in 2005. If Tom Sneddon couldn’t do it in 2005 what makes this silly child think she can?She uses her favorite tabloid writers and mixes them together with a snippet of a document here and a snippet of a document there when she knows her readers are all too lazy to actually read it so of course they agree with her, they don’t know anybetter.

    Like

  61. Alison permalink
    May 16, 2011 6:46 am

    @ David
    “An entry on Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes’ relationship, with document links and other analyses;”
    i can’t wait either, especially to see your rebuttal!
    Where is Brett now? lets hope he gets to see it and will respond.

    Like

  62. lcpledwards permalink
    May 16, 2011 12:22 am

    Hey, guess what? Desiree is planning on doing a 2 part series on MJ’s settlements to use them as signs of his guilt! I can’t WAIT to see what she has to say, so I can utterly annihilate her! Here’s what she said on her blog:

    http://desireespeakssolisten.blogspot.com/2011/05/note-on-comments-and-future-of-desiree.html

    I will, however, make the effort to finish what I have left, as long as interest remains. And it is as follows:

    An entry on Michael Jackson and Brett Barnes’ relationship, with document links and other analyses;

    An entry on Michael Jackson’s books, including a pictorial of The Boy: a photographic essay;

    A two-part entry discussing the meaning of Michael Jackson’s 1994 settlement;

    An entry on Jason Pfeiffer (although Jason now has his own site and perhaps would be better at discussing his point-of-view than I would);

    An entry discussing Joy Robson’s 2005 testimony, which seemed to lend more than enough reasonable suspicion that Wade Robson was a intimate ‘special friend’

    I may have to write a rebuttal to Desiree’s posts, but I’m sure that this series will already rebut her trash, but I’ll be ready to write another post on this, just in case!

    Like

  63. March 10, 2011 10:44 pm

    Michael Jackson Fans Want Anti-Defamation Law For Deceased
    Posted Mon Mar 7, 2011 4:40pm PST by Billy Johnson, Jr.

    A group of Michael Jackson fans have created the California Anti-Defamation Law petition in hopes of getting a law passed that would make it illegal to slander the dead.

    Mary Brookins, 57, and half-a-dozen other Jackson supporters who met in an online Jackson fan group, is upset by the negative coverage the “Thriller” singer has received since his passing.

    The group is angered by articles that referrer to Jackson as “Wacko Jacko,” suggest he was the victim of a self-inflicted drug overdose, or is guilty of child molestation charges for which he was tried and found not guilty in 2005.

    “To us it’s got out of hand,” said Brookins, who lives in Lake Jackson, Texas. “It’s bad enough how he was treated when he was living, but he was here to speak up for himself.”

    An early version of the petition launched in September 2010 received more than 2,000 signatures, including those from Jackson collaborators, producer Teddy Riley and guitarist Jennifer Batten, who has toured with the King Of Pop.

    The group recently moved the petition to Change.com.

    The group is hoping to gain the interest of a senator or assembly member who would author the proposed bill. One of the group members met with former Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau and received feedback on the petition’s language.

    One of their main obstacles is opposing the California Constitution’s freedom of speech declaration. Section 2 of the Declaration Of Rights states, “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.”

    John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the President, wrote about the need for protection from defamation for the dead when coverage of Jackson’s death was criticized by New York Republican Congressman Peter King. King allegedly referred to Jackson as a pedophile and child molester unworthy of such exposure.

    Dean notes that numerous family members and business associates of the deceased who have been defamed have not been able to get the law changed despite their losses. “Judges are typically sympathetic in these cases, but they cannot get around the longstanding common law rule prohibiting such lawsuits, so they often recommend that legislative remedies be developed to address situations where real harm has occurred,” he said.

    But Brookins said she and the members of her group are not discouraged. “I am not willing to let it go because of [Jackson],” she said. “This law is not just about Michael Jackson but defaming the character of any deceased person. I think they have a right to have their legacy protected.”

    http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/hiphopmediatraining/364977/michael-jackson-fans-want-anti-defamation-law-for-deceased/;_ylt=AvKxsP6d2JBIRfPv3dGDf3nKwSUv

    Those of you who haven’t signed yet, can do it here:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-and-preserve-the-legacy-of-those-deceased-those-left-behind-can-still-be-hurt#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=t

    Like

  64. March 10, 2011 10:27 pm

    ‘Thriller’ Portraitist Dick Zimmerman: ‘Michael Jackson Had Tears In His Eyes’

    By Matthew Shepatin Posted Mar 10th 2011

    He told me about all his frustrations. He had just done an interview with Diane Sawyer where he took her on a tour of his Neverland Ranch. He said he was as honest with her as anybody could possibly be, and the next day the press jumped on him. He had tears in his eyes. He said, “I don’t know what to do anymore.”

    He was very misunderstood. They talk about him being a pedophile. I can tell you that didn’t happen. He was very childlike. I thought he was like a gentle butterfly. All he talked about was future generations of children, the environment, air quality. His problem was that he had too many bodyguards around him. Too many people pushing him in all different directions, and with ulterior motives.

    http://www.popeater.com/2011/03/10/thriller-portrait-michael-jackson/

    Like

  65. March 9, 2011 4:12 am

    @lcpledwards

    Don’t hold back David. Tell us what you think. LOL

    Like

  66. lcpledwards permalink
    March 9, 2011 2:51 am

    @ helena
    Thanks for that video! I didn’t know it was on YouTube; I had only seen it in that Chilean article.

    By the way, I was merely being sarcastic when I said that “I can hardly wait” to read Latoya’s book! I’m going to read it, but I’m not anticipating it because she is so untrustworthy, and she contradicts herself everytime she opens her mouth, and she is becoming more and more like a minstrel and bimbo everytime she makes a public appearance on an interview or reality TV show!

    Like

  67. March 8, 2011 7:53 pm

    “A black Mercedes Benz drives out the gate and the window rolls down, and it’s Michael. I’m by myself; this is a regular day and he looks at me and says, “Hey, why aren’t you in school?” And I thought oh no, that’s the worst thing he could say to me. I mean this is like ten o’clock in the morning on a school day, and I’m a 13 year-old.

    Anyway, I said, “Well, I wanted to meet you. That’s why I’m here.” And he said, “Well don’t ditch. Don’t ditch school; that’s not a good thing, but I got something for you. If you stay in school and do your work, and do all good things; if you meet me this Saturday at Balboa Park, I’m going to give you an autograph. I’m not going to give it you now. I’m going to give it to you Saturday, so meet me there.”

    Thesis, what a wonderful story! It seems that Michael was a no-nonsense guy – despite everyone saying that he liked “hanging around” he regarded school and education as top serious matters. And he even knew how to discipline children…

    By the way anyone would have driven past that boy without paying attention and Michael stopped the car and talked to him because he really cared! Amazing.

    Like

  68. March 8, 2011 7:26 pm

    “…she will be releasing another “tell all” book later this year! This will be, according to the publisher, an “explosive tell-all that will reveal the inner workings of the Jackson family, and Michael’s tortured soul”. Wow, I can hardly wait!”

    David, I’ve just returned from the country and am here for a couple of hours. You’ve mentioned LaToya and that you can’t wait for her book. I am actually appalled by the prospect of a book from her – this doll is such a terrible shallow fool that she can do nothing but harm. Here is a small fragment of her embracing Victor Gutierrez (which you’ve probably seen) – direct from GutierrezNews:

    Like

  69. March 7, 2011 12:04 pm

    @gigi This is another indication, out of the many out there, that he acted like a concerned parent with kids around him

    Like

  70. March 7, 2011 3:32 am

    Thetis7,

    That was a great interview with Mengesha.

    Just to piggyback on the quotes you highlighted. This part also stood out to me when Mengesha was asked about his impression of Michael when he meet him.

    Mengesha: He was very out-spoken; he was very stern because I was a 13 year-old sitting outside his house instead of being in school, so he wasn’t soft-spoken to me. He was very direct, and more concerned about me being outside of his house instead of in school. He was like a concerned parent.

    Like

  71. March 6, 2011 10:26 pm

    This is an interesting part of Mengesha “Mystro” Francis’ interview in which he describes how he first met Michael. Pay attention to Michael’s reaction:

    I told you the last time I saw Michael, but the very first time I saw him I was about thirteen. And I hate to tell the truth, but…well I’ll say it like this, I left school early; I ditched. I left school early and went to Hollywood. They have these guys on street corners who sell these maps to the Star’s homes. So I bought one because I was determined to find out where Michael lived. I was such a fan, and I had to know. I looked on the map and I saw 4641 Hayvenhurst Drive, so I asked the bus driver how to get to Hayvenhurst. He said, “Hayvenhurst is way out in Encino, that’s a two hour ride.” So I said okay, I guess I ought to do it.

    So I get on the bus; it’s a two hour ride all the way to Encino. I go down the street and see this large gate. Finally I found 4641, and I thought this is it? I was expecting Neverland stuff. But it’s a nice big house and I’m sitting there doing my homework thinking, I don’t see Michael Jackson and it’s been thirty minutes…finally the gate opens. A black Mercedes Benz drives out the gate and the window rolls down, and it’s Michael. I’m by myself; this is a regular day and he looks at me and says, “Hey, why aren’t you in school?” And I thought oh no, that’s the worst thing he could say to me. I mean this is like ten o’clock in the morning on a school day, and I’m a 13 year-old.

    Anyway, I said, “Well, I wanted to meet you. That’s why I’m here.” And he said, “Well don’t ditch. Don’t ditch school; that’s not a good thing, but I got something for you. If you stay in school and do your work, and do all good things; if you meet me this Saturday at Balboa Park, I’m going to give you an autograph. I’m not going to give it you now. I’m going to give it to you Saturday, so meet me there. My brothers will be there because we play baseball every Saturday.” So I said, “Where is Balboa Park?” And he said, “Its right around the corner.”

    So Saturday came along. I got up early, and went all the way back down and found Balboa Park. Sure enough, the Jackson’s were warming up. I saw Jackie, Tito; all of them were there, and the 3T’s were little babies and Marlon Jr was a little baby. I saw this guy on the other side; on the opposite team’s side with a hat and sunglasses waving at me. It was Michael. He was in disguise with a moustache and a hat on. So I walked up to him and he said, “Don’t tell anybody I’m here. My brothers are going to give you the jacket from the Victory Tour, and we’re going to give you the program.” So I asked for an extra one for my mother, and he said, “Okay, we’ll give you two.”

    Finally, after the game was over, Jackie and Marlon came up to me and gave me the Victory Tour book. They signed it and Michael signed it too, and then I got the Victory jacket.

    That was the first time I met Michael Jackson, and when I went back to school nobody believed me! I’m saying I met Michael Jackson and mind you, this is 1984-’85; this is the height of his career. I told my teacher and he said no way! I told him I was serious, that Michael lived in Hayvenhurst, I went to a baseball game, and they were like, “Yeah right!” So eventually I started taking pictures at some of the baseball games.

    http://mjtpmagazine.presspublisher.us/issue/beyond-the-dream/article/interview-with-mengesha-mystro-francis

    Like

  72. kezza permalink
    March 6, 2011 7:18 pm

    If she releases a book, I’ll read it. Like I said, I”m still wondering about that one, but It seems interesting, and hopefully she has more positive memories of her brother to tell the reader. And cute little stories.

    Like

  73. kezza permalink
    March 6, 2011 7:12 pm

    @David,

    I’m glad I’m not the on one who felt unsettled during the Not-so-Joyful-Interview.
    I was very….How should I say this?…Pissed that she would even compliment this woman, when all the time that her show has been on the air, and Michael’s name would come up during any subject, she would mock him, and I’d get very frustrated. I don’t think Latoya saying “I love your show, I watch it all the time”, doesn’t help anything. She should have really ripped on Joy right than and there, but rather keep things at a neutral level because she’s promoting a show. I understand that and all, but Joy has contempt towards her brother. She has for a while now, and I think Joy is nasty, I would have put her back in her place. I also find “The fall guy” term a little weird. Just say that he was responsible and stop with this whole “There is more than one person responsible, not JUST Murray”. I don’t share that same belief at all. When I do think that there are people out there who are just as responsible for not helping Michael in the long run, they weren’t the same people who was suppose to be in the room with his patient, but on the phone with an EX talking about whatever.
    I like Latoya and everything, but she should get it together when it comes to talking to the press. Talk more about How Michael was a humanitarian, talk about the press conference in Israel, about How irresponsible Conrad was with his patient, Etc.
    And as far as the book goes…..I’m still wondering about that one myself…

    Like

  74. March 6, 2011 4:15 pm

    @David
    “The only revelation from this interview is that she will be releasing another “tell all” book later this year! This will be, according to the publisher, an “explosive tell-all that will reveal the inner workings of the Jackson family, and Michael’s tortured soul”. Wow, I can hardly wait!”

    Moi aussi, I am buying it- I really mean it. I find Latoya fascinating when unplugged. I read her first book and it was a page turner. You are not sure what to believe, when to believe, or where to believe.

    Like

  75. lcpledwards permalink
    March 6, 2011 11:07 am

    Here is Latoya’s interview on The Today Show. It’s just the usual crap about Murray being the “fall guy”, and her perpetuating the dumb bimbo stereotype that she’s known for. The only revelation from this interview is that she will be releasing another “tell all” book later this year! This will be, according to the publisher, an “explosive tell-all that will reveal the inner workings of the Jackson family, and Michael’s tortured soul”. Wow, I can hardly wait!

    http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/41904725#41904725

    Here is Latoya on the Joy Behar show:

    I swear, this is so DEMORALIZING having to watch Latoya literally kiss up to Joy! It would be such a morale boost to see her defend her brother for once! She could truly make up for that 1993 press conference by defending him, but there’s probably a better chance of her releasing a platinum album than her presenting facts to support her brother’s innocence!

    And the irony of that interview with Joy is that in 2009, Joy openly mocked MJ’s death and his children!

    BEHAR: We`re back looking at some of the biggest stories of the past year. And joining me to do that are CBS Sunday morning contributor Mo Rocca. Actress and singer and funny woman Sandra Bernhard. And comedian Dave Attell. Let`s start with the death of Michael Jackson. Okay, was that the biggest —

    SANDRA BERNHARD, COMEDIAN: He`s not dead.

    BEHAR: He`s not?

    BERNHARD: He is not dead! He calls me. He`s fine. He`s tired of it. He wanted a break.

    MO ROCCA, COMMENTATOR: Oh the M.J. deniers are the worst. It`s terrible.

    BEHAR: What do you think, David, is he dead?

    DAVE ATTELL, COMEDIAN: I have to say this, I just recently heard the FBI was tracking him. No wonder the Al Qaeda got through, get right?

    BEHAR: Yes.

    ATTELL: Wasting their resources on Michael Jackson.

    BEHAR: Wasting their resources. But didn`t people sort of cannonize him after he did die? He`s dead.

    ROCCA: Do you think that the death brought us all together in a way. Like high, low, media, it brought us all together but it`s unfortunate that it can only happen once-in-a-lifetime.

    BERNHARD: It alienated me from you, personally, as you know. It broke my heart in a thousand pieces.

    BEHAR: I don`t feel that it united us at all.

    BERNHARD: It didn`t. BEHAR: Oh, contraire. It was people who still thought he was a child molester as opposed to people who thought he wasn`t.

    ATTELL: What?

    ROCCA: Is that Jesus juice you are drinking?

    BEHAR: I mean –

    ATTELL: I don`t believe this.

    BEHAR: The new report that came out today, I just remembered that in `93 he was accused of molestation and the kid was paid off $20 million big ones.

    BERNHARD: He paid him off over the 20-year period as well. So the kid would never come out later, that`s what they do now —

    BEHAR: Yes.

    BERNHARD: That`s the trick.

    BEHAR: And then that`s –

    ROCCA: The actress out –

    BEHAR: Yes I think they still do.

    ROCCA: It`s like they do it in a lump sum.

    BERNHARD: It`s like winning the lottery. It`s like winning the lottery.

    BEHAR: Right.

    BERNHARD: You take a little at a time or –

    ROCCA: Exactly.

    BERNHARD: You take the whole lump sum. I`ll take the lump sum.

    BEHAR: Let`s say the kid was in fact, allegedly he was, let`s say he was molested.

    BERNHARD: Yes.

    BEHAR: Wouldn`t you — If it was your kid, wouldn`t you take the money, and you`d be angry, put the kid in therapy, and take the money, right, I would. Rather than tell the FBI. I would have to say I would do that for $20 million.

    BERNHARD: It`s a hard one to call right now, Joy. Now that, you know, we`re out of touch, Michael and I.

    BEHAR: Apparently not since you think he`s still alive.

    BERNHARD: I`m traumatized. He didn`t give me any money.

    ROCCA: I`m a Glenn Beck fan. I would have taken it in gold.

    BEHAR: What do you think about — have you observed the father, Joe Jackson, what do you think about him?

    BERNHARD: Well Joe is cold. He brought those kids out from the Midwest, it was all planned. He abused all of them and you can see it in their faces.

    BEHAR: Allegedly. Allegedly.

    ATTELL: You`re being too kind.

    BEHAR: You have to say allegedly or they sue you.

    BERNHARD: Allegedly, allegedly.

    ATTELL: He`s a freakish nightmare out of “avatar.”

    ROCCA: But you know what, he was pushing blu-ray after Michael`s death and blu-ray is an amazing format.

    ATTELL: Uh-huh.

    BEHAR: Don`t you feel bad for the kid, a little bit? You don`t feel a bit for the kid – they are orphans.

    BERNHARD: It`s hard to call them kids at this point. Oh, Michael`s kids. I thought you meant Jermaine.

    (CROSSTALK)

    BEHAR: No, no, not that. BERNHARD: I feel bad for those kids. So I`m still there with them, my heart goes out –

    BEHAR: I know but what about the next generation, the new kids? The little blanky.

    BERNHARD: Who do they really belong to?

    BEHAR: Yes.

    BERNHARD: This is the bottom line, you know. Now they`ve been thrown into the mother`s arms.

    ROCCA: Well it`s clear –

    BEHAR: Their mother doesn`t want them. But what about blanket?

    ROCCA: Well Blanket`s Jackson`s father is clearly is Tiger Woods. That way you bring it all together.

    Like

  76. ares permalink
    March 3, 2011 10:32 pm

    Latoya is Joe Jackson’s daughter so like her daddy she doesn’t give a ish about her brother.She is an idiot obsessed with the media and she would do anything, even take her clothes of or betray her own brother, in order to gain 15 minutes of fame.I don’t expect anything from her when it comes to MJ and maybe it’s better this way. I just would wish she could stop using MJ’s name. She has done her part in her brother’s down foal. I think that now is better for her to shut up.

    Like

  77. March 3, 2011 10:11 pm

    “She’s gonna go on there and act like a complete airhead and promote her appearance on yet ANOTHER reality TV show, which is pretty much all she does nowadays.”

    David, I am utterly disgusted by LaToya. She is using Michael’s death for making a career for herself.

    She thoroughly enjoys seeing herself on TV and will do and say anything to stay there for as long as she can. Each of the events concerning Michael – even pretrial hearings – is like a podium to her and a chance to show off what a beauty she is. It is evident that she is terribly preoccupied with her looks.

    By the way her light complexion makes me think that it was she who was using the bleaching creams found in Vaccaro’s collection. Michael’s skin is porcelain white and you cannot reach this effect with any bleaching cream in the world – it is vitiligo alright. With LaToya it is different – and though I don’t have anything against anyone bleaching his/her skin (same as suntanning it) – the fact that those creams are attributed to Michael, while they could be used by LaToya, who will never admit it, makes me terribly annoyed with her.

    Like

  78. lcpledwards permalink
    March 3, 2011 9:46 pm

    @ Susan
    Thanks for the heads up! It’s disappointing to me to see certain members of the Jackson family “fraternizing with the enemy”. Back in January, when Rabbi Boteach was on her show to promote his new book, she the following: “He paid off that first family!“, “A grown man sleeps in the same bed as an unrelated child is guilty!“, and my personal favorite “Where there’s smoke,there’s fire!

    It will be interesting to see if Latoya stands up for MJ and thoroughly corrects Joy, but we all know it ain’t gonna happen! If she couldn’t stand up for MJ against Jack Gordon’s demands to do that press conference (which she claims she was “forced” to do), than why would she defend MJ against anyone else?

    She’s gonna go on there and act like a complete airhead and promote her appearance on yet ANOTHER reality TV show, which is pretty much all she does nowadays. We can’t have high expectations for her; after all, this is the same person who HUGGED Victor “freaking” Gutierrez!

    It was just as disappointing to see Jackie go on his “date” with Oprah last fall. I’m sure they had a jolly good time! Way to go, Jackie! This woman has publicly maligned your brother on numerous occasions, and you agree to wine and dine her!

    Here is the transcript of Joy’s interview with Rabbi Boteach:
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1101/18/joy.01.html

    Like

  79. Susan permalink
    March 3, 2011 8:52 pm

    Hi everyone:

    HLN – tomorrow night, March 4th – 10:00 pm Eastern Time – Joy Behar has LaToya on her show, discussing why she thinks Michael was murdered. Behar has a well-known anti-Michael bias. I have a feeling this is more self-promotion for LaToya before she appears on “Celebrity Apprentice” on Sunday night.

    Like

  80. lcpledwards permalink
    February 15, 2011 9:39 pm

    Here is a post that MJJ Justice Project did on MJ’s settlements: http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/1993-payout-plain-and-simple/

    Like

  81. Olga permalink
    October 16, 2010 9:01 pm

    @ David maybe we should e-mail her the link to this site. I saw the haters’ comments under the article. They are so ridicilus and the always start “I am MJ’s fan but bla bla bla”. In their stupidity they probably think they sound more believable in that way

    Like

  82. Olga permalink
    October 16, 2010 6:43 pm

    HIS NAME WAS UNCOVERED YESTERDAY IN THE SCHOOL AUDITORIUM

    Like

  83. October 16, 2010 6:23 pm

    “I don’t think I’ve EVER seen someone apologize and retract something negative that was written about MJ!! There is hope after all! But unfortunately they still refer to him as a plastic surgery “victim”, as if someone put a gun to his head and held him down while they chopped up his nose! That is what they imply when they use the term “victim”.”

    Great news, David – the process has started.

    As to Michael being a plastic surgery victim, he probably didn’t really do that much with his face. The first operation was due to his broken nose, the second one was correcting the mistakes of the first as he couldn’t properly breathe and it was only the third one which was actually the plastic nose surgery as such. All the rest of the problems with his nose could very well be the effect of lupus, so that the nose lost its cartilage and required some reconstruction again. Plastic surgery is NOT recommended for lupus patients which Michael was. See this information:

    A few years ago I attended a lupus seminar for health care professionals and learned cosmetic surgery is not a good idea for those diagnosed with discoid lupus. MJ, unfortunately, had cosmetic surgery performed on his nose, chin (the dimple) and possibly other areas of his face. According to one of the doctors who spoke at the seminar, she did not advise her patients to seek out plastic surgery unless their discoid lupus was in remission. I don’t know if MJ was prescribed this drug or not but anti-malarial drugs like Placquenil are typically prescribed to keep discoid lupus at bay. Patients on this drug can have successful results from plastic surgery but, there is no guarantee. If he was on an antimalarial drug he needed to protect his eyes and skin from sunlight and, unfortunately, these drugs can cause damage to your retinas and blindness which coincides with a more recent rumor that MJ was losing vision in either one or both eyes.

    In the aforementioned seminar, a good deal of emphasis was placed on the dangers of plastic surgery for individuals diagnosed with discoid lupus. I was surprised to hear this and thought about MJ during the discussion because they said plastic surgery could exacerbate the condition and could cause further scaring and/or difficult or slow healing.

    In fairness to plastic surgeons, not all of them are well versed in autoimmune diseases, particularly if the patient never mentions it. Some will not bother viewing your health records either. That said, since Lupus DLE, SLE and SCLE (subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus) are hard to diagnose and many go undiagnosed for years, it is not uncommon for a plastic surgeon to proceed knowing nothing about the patient’s lupus or what effects the surgery will have on their skin. Many simply don’t know. Those who do know will defer surgery until such time the patient is in remission. Now ask yourself, what doctor is going to pass up that much money?

    Note, MJ walked around with a hat, facial coverings, and an umbrella to shield his body from UV light. That is a must with discoid lupus.

    Lupus is very difficult to diagnose and it was only Klein who made the necessary tests and discovered it. By then some plastic surgery could have already taken place and all the harm already done.

    We really need to make a post about Michael’s health and the immeasurable sufferings he had to go through because of his illnesses. I’ll probably do it next thing even before going on with the despicable Victor Gutierrez.

    Like

  84. lcpledwards permalink
    October 16, 2010 2:05 am

    Hey guys, I have some great news! This article called “Patents of the Rich and Famous” is about MJ’s patented shoes that were used when he performed “Smooth Criminal” live, and in the beginning of the article the author lists the things that MJ is “known for”, and ” alleged child abuser” was included!

    Needless to say, there were dozens of comments blasting the author for her lack of research, and guess what? The editor of the website APOLOGIZED and removed it from the story! Here’s her comment:

    Hello. Alexis Madrigal, technology channel editor here. I want to offer my personal apology for the misstatement of Michael Jackson’s history here. We understand that Jackson was cleared of wrongdoing by a California court and therefore should not be described in the way that we did. We have corrected the post and offer our sincere regret for the error. If you’d like to discuss the situation further, please email me at amadrigal@theatlantic.com.

    Wow! That’s a major victory for us! I don’t think I’ve EVER seen someone apologize and retract something negative that was written about MJ!! There is hope after all!

    But unfortunately they still refer to him as a plastic surgery “victim”, as if someone put a gun to his head and held him down while they chopped up his nose! That is what they imply when they use the term “victim”.

    But I guess I’m just nitpicking. Overall, it’s a victory for the fans!
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/celebrity-invention-michael-jacksons-gravity-defying-shoes/64588/

    Like

  85. October 15, 2010 8:36 pm

    Hello, David – I’ve just read it after you reminded me and can only sigh with sadness at the craziness of it all. This Arvizo woman is highly neurotic and is probably schizophrenic – so what could have been expected of her?

    What really amazes me is that someone could believe their story in the first place. When the investigation and trial were in progress lots of people believed their lunatic story, didn’t they? Though from the way they were changing it it was already clear that it was something terribly fishy?

    Now that we know the absurdity of it all it is really necessary to make a serious comparison between the case itself and the powerful way the media presented it – to show how they can take a mosquito and turn it into an elephant in front of the dazzled public.

    PEOPLE SHOULD LEARN THEIR LESSON! If anything like that is said again by the same media outlets people should know what to do with these stories – divide them by a thousand if they are told by an unknown reporter (just because he speaks for this paper), divide it by a million if it is told by someone like Diane Dimond or discard altogether if it is told by guys like Victor Gutierrez. In fact if Victor Gutierrez told me to trust this or that fact it would be a direct clue for me to do exactly the opposite.

    Frankly the story about Kapon is even more impressive than the one about Janet Arvizo because despite never meeting Michael Jackson he was able to tell the police a graphic story of their relations complete with alcohol served in soda cans, drugs, photos and even the father repeatedly driving his son to the ranch and leaving him there for several days running! Does it sound familiar to anyone here?

    And then we find out from this same father that he has never met Michael Jackson and certainly has never taken his son to Neverland – ever.

    Oh, my God…

    P.S. As my own contribution to Janet’s Arvizo’s story here is what her sister Davellin told to the court in 2005 (http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/delayed-court-doc-reveals-startling-info-hot-doc-/-minibullet-20.html) :

    A court document not released until June 2 2005, but stamped April 20 2005, reveals starting information about the accuser’s sister, Davellin Arvizo. I guess this doc just so happened to get delayed……..for months by the court…..until after the trial was over. The defense motion is in relation to Manuel Ramirez, who was Davellin Arvizo’s boyfriend at the time in the summer of 2003, and Carol Lemere. According to the court doc, Arvizo moved into Ramirez’s house and had a shared bank account with him in the summer of 2003; right around the time they started making allegations against Jackson. The defense wanted Ramirez to testify concerning vital information he had about the Arvizo family. Also according to the doc, Davellin Arvizo told Carol Lemere some very interesting and damaging things about Janet Arvizo. Excerpt from the court doc:

    Davellin told Ms. Lemere that:
    (1) Janet Arvizo physically abused the Arvizo children;
    (2) Janet Arvizo taught the Arvizo children to shoplift and this is what took place during the J.C. Penney incident; and
    (3) she did not get along with her mother. (An interview of Carol Lemere by defense investigator, Scott Ross, is attached as Exhibit A.) The defense investigation has demonstrated that Davellin Arvizo made exculpatory statements to Angel Vivanco, a Neverland employee with whom Davellin maintained a relationship with during and after her time at Neverland. This relationship occurred during February through April of 2003, just prior to her relationship with Mr. Ramirez.

    Davellin told Mr. Vivanco that:
    (1) she did not get along with her mother; and
    (2) her mother was planning “something big” with regard to Mr. Jackson and that she did not wish to participate in these plans. We have reason to believe that Davellin Arvizo made similar exculpatory statements to Manuel Ramirez. We have further reason to believe that Davellin Arvizo moved out of her mother’s residence, and into Mr. Ramirez’s home, due to her initial unwillingness to participate in her mother’s plan to make false allegations against Mr. Jackson. (pg 2-3)

    Wow. Well this isn’t the first time we’ve heard the allegation of the mother abusing the children. This family has a history with the Dept of Children and Family Services. According to a report from NBC(MSNBC), years ago Gavin Arvizo broke down and told one of his teachers that his mother was beating him. The teacher — teachers being mandatory child abuse reporters — contacted the DCFS. They began an investigation and the boy recanted his abuse allegations (see Accuser has history of changing his story).

    This is the not the first allegation of abuse leveled concerning this family. During their divorce, the mother once accused the father of sexually abusing one of the children. And the mother tacked on a sexual abuse allegation over a year after her initial filing of a lawsuit against JC Penney. So not only does this family have a history of leveling abuse allegations all over the place, but if Lemere is to be believed, there may have been something to that original physical abuse allegation against Janet Arvizo after all.

    The interview done by the defense investigator with Carol Lemere was done Nov 12 2004. Lemere met the family through a tap school owned by Arlene Kennedy. According to Lemere (and Brett Ratner in a previous interview with Fox), the mother was rarely there when Gavin Arvizo was in the hospital because she was seen as “disruptive”. We’ve even had testimony in this trial from the paralegal Mary Holzer who once talked about an episode where Janet Arvizo threw herself down on the floor, kicking and screaming, and calling the doctors “the devil” when she was taken to get check out medically for that JC Penney civil case.

    In that interview with a defense investigator, Lemere says Arvizo was seeing another guy when she was still married to ex-husband David Arvizo. She says Davellin Arvizo started living with her at one point. Also according to Lemere, Davellin A. relayed how Janet A. would beat her with a cord sometimes in the middle of the night. And unlike what Arvizo would later claim, according to the sister, it was Janet A. who would go after the biological father; hitting him:

    She would tell stories about being awakened at 2:00 in the morning by Janet; being beaten with a cord by their mother; and being forced to clean the house. [Davellin] also would tell how Janet would hit their father, David. Ms. Lemere said that [Davellin] would cry constantly and indicated that Janet would hit the children, all three of them. She was concerned about the behavior displayed by Star, indicating Star would flirt with grown women in an “unnatural manner.”

    Each time Davellin appeared at the house, she would have new stories about Janet and at one point in the summer of 2000 said that they were going to get a big house in the Hollywood Hills. She had no idea what that meant.

    A house in the Hollywood Hills? Could that be with the money they were initially expecting to get from JC Penney? Or the money they were systematically scamming out of a number of celebrities who were donating for non-existent medical bills?

    Also, according to Lemere, Janet A. would also tell Gavin A. how he was “going to die” and that she actually “started to make preparations for his funeral” (pg 9). Lemere says it was David, the biological father, who would repeatedly tell him he would be fine. Lemere says Davellin would be “very upset about Janet trying to bury Gavin before he was dead” (pg 9). Janet A. also, according to Lemere, claimed she was jumped by “a black guy” and proceeded to describe the assault with the same allegations she used against the JC Penney guards. Coincidence? Of course not. From the doc:

    With respect to the JC Penney incident she believes that this was a coordinated shoplifting attempt that went bad and Janet saw an opportunity to turn into a money making venture.

    Lemere also says Gavin A. was already very computer literate and would already know how to surf the internet before they met Jackson. At trial, the accuser and his brother claimed Jackson and Frank Tyson showed them how to use the computer and how to access porn sites. They also testified under oath that they didn’t know how to use computers until they were shown by Tyson and Jackson.

    Lemere called the kids “trained con-artists” because they had all flipped the stories now to say that it was the father abusing them; that it was the father who had molested the children. Remember in a pre-trial hearing the mother, during her testimony, pointed a finger at someone in the audience claiming they were “bothering her”? Well she was referring to Lemere because Lemere was in the courtroom during that testimony; although the only thing “bothering” her was simply Lemere’s presence. And there’s more.

    Just read through the court document. You can download it in pdf form here: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/042005mjoppdaqshramirez.pdf

    Like

  86. lcpledwards permalink
    October 15, 2010 6:55 pm

    Helena, just wanted to know if you ever got a chance to finish reading this post? I was awaiting your opinion on Janet Arvizo’s shakedown of JC Penney!

    Like

  87. ares permalink
    October 9, 2010 1:01 am

    @Helena and David,
    Thank you so much. With so many information i some times tend to forget things.I will have to read those posts again. But all i know is that, if i don’t see an official document of Jordies descripion or at least some credible document, i will not consider to even hear what guys like Tom Sneddon or his debuties have to say about the match or mismatch of the description .After all weren’t these guys the same ones who tried to frame MJ on the 2005 trial by allowing Gavin to hold those magazines without gloves on, and then taking them for fingerprint analysis? So maybe this wasn’t the first time that Sneddon and his buddies tried to “plant” evidence against MJ?

    Like

  88. lcpledwards permalink
    October 9, 2010 12:14 am

    @ Ares The following links address Jordie’s actual description of MJ’s private parts:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/was-it-match-or-mismatch/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    Like

  89. October 8, 2010 10:58 pm

    “my question is this : Ιs there an official document of Jordie Chandler’s descripion of Michael’s private parts.”

    Ares, I’ve searched the internet for it, but haven’t been able to find it yet. The closest I came to it was the so-called Linden report made by a police woman Deborah Linden and mentioned by the Smoking gun. However the Linden report is nowhere to be found and the article mentioning it in the Smoking Gun has mysteriously disappeared (though the rest of their archive is intact).

    This makes me think that someone doesn’t terribly want us to see what Jordan really said in an interview with this Linden woman.

    Some scraps of information about the report can be found here – in the Smoking Gun article which we fortunately saved in our own computers (Michael’s detractors cannot even imagine what pains we take to save their most hateful materials!):

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/the-story-of-one-telltale-splotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/

    Like

  90. ares permalink
    October 8, 2010 9:43 pm

    I have a question to ask ( if you have mention it in one of the articles or i have not noticed then am sorry but i am not a native speaker so there are things that i can not fully understand).\

    So my question is this : Ιs there an official document of Jordie Chandler’s descripion of Michael’s private parts. I am not refering to what Sneddon or the others have written or stated. I mean an actual / official document where Jordie sais that Michael looked like this or he did this or that?

    Like

  91. October 8, 2010 9:22 pm

    “Let us know when you finish reading the rest of the article!”

    David, I’m going very slowly with it – firstly, because there are so many distractions with this Gutierrez business and secondly, because almost each piece of this of your posts makes me stop and think. I find the video showing blacks with vitiligo as circus freaks and comparing the humiliating atmosphere of such an exhibition to Michael’s strip search – with everybody’s keen interest in his penis – as depressive, harsh and very much true.

    I can easily imagine Michael’s tragic feeling of helplessness at being humiliated that much and the pain and indignation which such unfair and sick treatment must have raised in his soul. Only convicted criminals are subjected to a procedure like that when they are examined by prison officers before being jailed… So when some “experts” say that Michael’s voice trembled and sounded untrue and not convincing when he was making his statement via a satellite from Neverland two days after the strip search I wish they could imagine the horror of that scene and had the decency to at least keep silent in the face of such ultimate humiliation of a human being.

    However though the video brings about a storm of emotions unfortunately it doesn’t state the plain fact that the vitiligo which was meant to condemn Michael has turned out to be a factor fully exonerating him of any misbehavior.

    I wish they had mentioned it that Jordan Chandler spoke of “a white splotch which was the color of his face” (so he thought Michael to be predominantly black in his private parts) while in reality the photos taken only a couple months later showed him to be predominantly white in that area of his body with a marked dark splotch to be “at a relatively same location” described by the boy.

    A discrepancy like that is absolute and fundemental and coupled with the fact that Jordan said that Michael was circumcised (while he was not) it amounts to full exoneration of Michael of any guilt or even any suspicion of it in the Chandler case.

    What I mean is that too heavy an emotion may help to reconstruct the atmosphere of the horror and dehumanization Michael had to go through but it is not in the least helpful when it comes to proving his innocence. I really wish the video hadn’t been so emotionally charged but had been more to the point in terms of the description. Emotions help to understand some things and remember them but they are often detrimental to clear thinking…

    This is just a side note, David, as I am still reading your post.

    Like

  92. lcpledwards permalink
    October 7, 2010 11:51 pm

    @ Ja
    Thanks for those videos! They’re hilarious! Actually, the tapes didn’t leak at all. The excerpts they quoted are from the lawsuit that was filed, which certainly scared O’Reilly into settling because he never knew he was being recorded! It’s good for him!

    Like

  93. October 7, 2010 8:28 pm

    Suzy, thank you very much for the translation!!! I hope Lynette has also seen it by now as we have common and equal access to the email. I’d like to publish your article the way you presented it (if you don’t mind) for everyone to see.

    The news about VG reporting for NAMBLA and Gore Vidal supporting this movement is very enlightening – so p-lia has a foothold in the American establishement as well as I always suspected (if you remember those posts about the ‘professors’ who recommended Carl Tom’s book). Unfortunately the process has been going on for a really long time already and is very diverse and deep rooted. They are very powerful.

    What a can of worms we have opened here!

    Like

  94. October 7, 2010 8:08 pm

    @ lcpledwards

    The the tape of O’reilly did leak out. Well some of it anyway. Here’s Opie & Anthony reading the tape transcripts and making fun of Bill.

    And Here’s a VH1 show discussing it.

    Like

  95. Suzy permalink
    October 7, 2010 7:07 pm

    @ Lynette

    Credit for finding it goes to Louise! I only did the translation from German to English. Of course, I can send it to you. I will ask Helena for your e-mail. But I already sent her the English translation, so you can also ask her to send it to you.

    Like

  96. lynande51 permalink
    October 7, 2010 6:46 pm

    Suzy could you email me the article I would like to read it or if you could give me the link. Were you able to translate it to English? I just sat here for about a minute and said ” I knew it, something that would hang this guy had to be out there somewhere.” Thank you so much for finding it, you are a godsend. You could just post it in the comments section and I could see if there are supporting documents to attach to a post.

    Like

  97. lcpledwards permalink
    October 7, 2010 6:43 pm

    @ Helena,
    Yes, I’m glad that you’re back from vacation and you’re finally getting a chance to read this piece. I know it’s very long and may take a while, but it’ll be worth it because you’ll learn so much about our American justice system, and how corrupt and hypocritical the media is. The purpose of using those celebrities is because each of them, in one way or another, has a resemblance to MJ’s cases. Whether they were guilty or not, they were either sued, threatened to be sued, or extorted. In my opinion, Michael Irvin & Rick Pitino were innocent, Ben Rothleiburger was innocent the first time and possibly guilty the second time, and Bill O’Hyprocrite was definitely guilty!

    I wanted to attack him and Peter King sooooooo badly! What you saw in those videos is TYPICAL of what his attitude towards MJ has been. He has done everything EXCEPT call him guilty, and I think the reason he holds back from doing so is because of his own sex scandal. Unfortunately, we’ll never get to hear exactly what he said on those recorded phone calls, because if his lawyers are smart (and trust me, they are!), they certainly included a clause in the settlement that specifically states that if the tapes are ever leaked, then Andrea Mackris will have to return ALL of the millions of dollars she was paid to settle the case. That’s the reason why O’Reilly was advised (and probably wanted) to settle, because if the case made it to court, the content of the tapes would certainly be made public, whether they were leaked or not, because the media would report on what was said in court. Fox News was in the same position as Sony; trying to extinguish a small flame before it turned into a forest fire!

    Many of the people who have judged MJ have skeletons in her closet! It’s absolutely amazing that Nancy Grace has a TV show, given her numerous examples of prosecutorial misconduct, for which she has been reprimanded! But they still get to go on TV, deliver a soundbite here and a snippet there, mix in some ad hominem techniques (like calling him a p. or c.m.) that will surely inflame people’s emotions, and there you go! Public opinion is officially turned against MJ!

    Let us know when you finish reading the rest of the article! Pay close attention to Sneddon’s treatment of Daniel Kapon!

    Like

  98. Suzy permalink
    October 7, 2010 6:07 pm

    And Lynette!

    You were right all along about Gutierrez and that it was ALL his doing and ALL a master plan of NAMBLA! I wasn’t convinced before but reading this article, there is absolutely no doubt about this any more!

    Like

  99. October 7, 2010 3:50 pm

    David, you’ve done a great job with this post. It is so huge that I decided to share some views with you and the readers even though I am not yet through with the whole text.

    1) First I must admit to you that some of the people you mentioned don’t look too innocent to me (especially the first guy and O’Reilly). But irrespective of their guilt or no guilt the cases you described make it clear that as soon as the ‘victim’ chooses to sue instead of going to police this factor alone makes his story highly dubious – it immediately becomes too smelly of a desire to make easy money out of thin air.

    It seems that the main idea of a civil court is to deal in matters which do not involve physical offense (those are taken care of by criminal court). Civil courts settle disputes or minor claims where no one is supposed to go to prison in principle and it is only damages which the other side is seeking.

    (I am referring everyone to your part ONE which is very enlightening in this respect – https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media%E2%80%99s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson%E2%80%99s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/).

    So when a civil suit is filed for an alleged physical offense, especially if it comes before a criminal trial or there is no criminal trial at all, it does look very much like an extortion attempt – just because the two sides of this equation are not compatible with each other (I mean the crime and form of punishment for it). Suing somebody for a physical offense is as absurd as making financial negotiations with a killer for the murder committed.

    Will a true victim ever take money from his abuser if he can 1) go to a criminal court and punish his offender by putting him in jail first 2) and also receive compensation as a result of a civil suit following the criminal trial (which is a very easy thing to do if the offender is convicted)? And please don’t tell me that some people just don’t believe in the American judicial system – I see with my own eyes that it is effective!

    But if the case of an alleged physical offense limits itself to a civil suit only and it is filed against a celebrity and the accuser is strongly against going to a criminal court (as Evan Chandler was according to his brother’s book), it becomes clear that the primary driving force of the case is money and the accuser’s main lever is to threaten the celebrity with a scandal which all of them are equally afraid of even if there is no guilt on their part.

    The media easily shrugged off the cases you described despite the fact that the accused guys made their settlements out of court and that some incidents looked serious enough. Rape cases are generally difficult to prove as all the evidence should be collected immediately after the crime and it is also very difficult to differentiate between consensual sex and a rape as one can start with one thing and end with another.

    However, in cases of alleged child molestation things are much clearer than that – if the “victim” is there and claims he has all the “proof” of the crime (like identification marks, for example) and with the public opinion being overwhelmingly on the side of the “victim” of such a horrendous crime there may be no other choice for him but go to a criminal court and ask for the damages afterwards when the justice is done.

    And again – if the accusers are terribly unwilling to go to court (like Evan and Jordan Chandler were) and the criminal investigation opened by the police fails to uncover any evidence of a crime and can’t bring an indictment from two grand juries, and the identification marks are not matching, all this can mean only one thing – there was NO victim, NO evidence, NO proof of crime, and all this for a very simple reason – there was NO CRIME in the first place. The only thing present there was an attempt to make millions based on suspicion only (which Evan Chandler admitted to the police according to Victor Gutierrez) – an attempt which turned out to be successful for the Chandlers because a celebrity like Michael Jackson was an extremely easy target due to his magnitude, lifestyle and very special harassment treatment he received from the media.

    2) It seems that O’Reilly’s case is standing out of all the others as the most substantial one of all. His employee had a recorded tape of verbal sex abuse on her hands which is a proven fact that cannot be disputed. The only reason for doubt can spring from a possibility of her being his ex-lover who decided to take a revenge on him. It was also quite logical to settle the case in a civil court for her as a sex conversation is probably not regarded as a physical offense. What is clear too in respect of O’Reilly is that he was never turned into a media target and was easily excused by his fellow journalists – evidently it was only Michael Jackson for whom they reserved their special beastly treatment.

    But the most important point in his case is that O’Reilly is one of the key figures on Fox TV who presents himself as a respectable professional and a decent married guy with two small children and it is a respectable man like that who turned out to be so dirty-minded that he openly harassed his employee with words of sex which “would make a prostitute blush”.

    So this is what Michael Jackson’s judges are like? And a cynical and lying hypocrite like that dares open his foul mouth to say something about Michael who was one of the purest men we’ve ever seen?

    WHAT judgment can cynicism pass on purity? WHAT does cynicism know about innocence to ever make comments on it? WHAT can cynicism see in other people’s behavior except its dear ugly self?

    Is it Michael Jackson or him, O’Reilly and his foul language which we hear and see in his comments like “Jackson’s incredible selfishness, spending hundreds of millions on himself while singing “We are the world”, should make any clear-thinking American nauseous“, or “America is fed up with all the adulation which is pathetic in the extreme”, or that “Jackson’s interaction with children was unacceptable for any adult” or that it was “enough for this phony platitude”?

    Now that David explained to us what O’Reilly really is like are we supposed to believe that it is him – with all his perversion and dirty language – who is actually a “clear-thinking American”? Or that his obscene-language interaction with people is actually a norm contrasted to Michael Jackson’s? And that it is not a nauseous lie to call a man who spent some $400 mln. on charity “incredibly selfish”?

    Was it JUDGES like O’Reilly who passed their judgment on Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion?
    And if this is the case, then what is the worth of their VERDICT then?
    Isn’t it something that befits THEM much more than Michael Jackson they never knew or understood?

    DO THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE HIM AT ALL?

    Like

  100. Suzy permalink
    October 7, 2010 1:04 pm

    I just want to say the German article that Louise found on Gutierrez is THE bombshell we needed on him! I’m halfway through it and it’s shocking. He really does look like an advocate of NAMBLA and p-ia! And it really looks like he is the origin of all this dirt on Michael. It all really looks like a p-le plot!!!!!! In 1986 VG attended a congress of NAMBLA and soon after that he started his “investigation” on Michael. I suspected it for a while, but to see some of these things there, coming right from Gutierrez’s mouth. Wow!

    Like

  101. Suzy permalink
    October 6, 2010 8:54 pm

    I asked Helena about this.

    Like

  102. October 6, 2010 11:14 am

    Suzy, how can I write to you? Can you ask my email from the host?

    Like

  103. Suzy permalink
    October 4, 2010 5:42 am

    Louise

    I can help with German.

    Like

  104. Louise permalink
    October 3, 2010 6:46 pm

    @Eloise,
    You read Spanish don’t you? Can you help with 2 articles in Spanish?

    Is there here anyone reading German and can help with articles?

    Like

  105. lcpledwards permalink
    October 3, 2010 2:40 am

    @ Ares

    Thanks for the compliments! I really appreciate it. They’ll be more articles like this coming in the next few weeks.

    Like

  106. ares permalink
    October 3, 2010 1:02 am

    This post is just amazing.Congratulation On your work. I had a friend of mine reading this and she was amazed by the information and the length of your research. Personally, even when i was doing my university reports, i had never written something this long.( Well maybe i have and i don’t remember) Anyway, keep up the good work.Me and my friend are thanking you

    Like

  107. Eloise permalink
    October 1, 2010 4:55 pm

    I found this article on a Spanish forum, it is very interesting. Unfortunately no longer available in English, but get references that once existed in this article active.
    ————————–

    Code of Dishonor:

    Within the sheriff’s departments and police in Santa Barbara

    Many people outside the scope of elite policy of Santa Barbara, have been scratching your head wondering how a privileged few have been able to master almost any subject of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. The Cutting Edge has decided to shed some light on the situation. In our last issue, we gave readers a glimpse of the political infrastructure of a city that will dominate the headlines until the case of Michael Jackson is history. We thought it important to establish a foundation that leave bare the ideological and socio-political pillars of a city for which the cronyism and corruption is nothing new. Having taken that step, let’s look at the men (and few women) that make up the department.

    Throughout the investigation against Michael Jackson, have come and gone allegations that the community of law enforcement in Santa Barbara County and the District Attorney’s office, have used abusive tactics, coercive, and blatantly illegal to collect their “evidence” against Mr. Jackson and give substance to the allegations of child abuse against him there. But what we have learned, Jackson is not the first victim (and sadly not be the last) of such unethical practices.

    Police Brutality

    We firmly believe that a family of police brutality exercising together, stay together. This maximum is well suited disturbing when it comes to the Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office Santa Barbara County, the two departments that have made the brutality an art form.

    Take for example the incident in June 2002, when two plainclothes sheriffs allegedly assaulted a restaurant owner, his wife and another man, after he attracted the attention of two police officers overstep with several unidentified women. Not only one eye left to the owner during the altercation, but had the nerve to press charges of resisting arrest against marriage and the other gentleman. Though one may be tempted to congratulate these sheriffs for being so professional to terminate their dark activities to enforce “the law”, his crusade for justice was abruptly interrupted when Santa Barbara officials discovered that the restaurant’s surveillance cameras had recorded the incident on video. It is not surprising that the charges against the couple were removed and the County reached a settlement of nearly a million dollars to the three concerned.

    While some North County had wanted to reject the complaints as a matter of stupid thugs who want to make money fast, consider the encounter he had a professor at the University of the County with law enforcement. Here is the letter I wrote the Daily Nexus in relation to the incident on March 10, 2001:

    On Saturday March 10th, I walked west on State Street along a mile or two, when I sat down at the entrance to a store to get some rest. It was up to the 4144 State Street, and it was about 8:30 or 9 in the evening.

    Shortly after sitting, I was approached by police officers (two or three, I think) and forced me to do a breathalyzer test and various tests, various circus tricks for them. I spent some of them quite well, so I decided to get things more difficult. Before I make a particular movement, one of them said something like “You’re a teacher.’re So smart. Do you know how much is 30 seconds?” The thing is that for the next test, I would not say how much time passed.

    Say zero in the control of alcohol (something that bothered), but one of those Sherlock Holmes accused me of, somehow, make my breath out from the sides of the tube, to deceive.

    Soon after came another patrol, and there we were, I’d say five or six officers around me, telling me if I wanted to cache. I said no, and one of them intervened, leaving it clear that unless he cooperated, I would have to carry with them.

    In response to questions, told them I was a professor of astronomy in the faculty of physics at UCSB (University of Santa Barbara County). I guess that did not seem believable (even after my insurance card to teach the university). One officer decided to see if it was true what he said, testing my knowledge of astronomy. I asked what new discovery was made in relation to Venus. I could tell a lot about the latest missions to Venus, but I thought that was what he had in mind, so basically I told them they would find it boring. So full of pride, I asked said “They think maybe it was not actually a planet …” Then I realized that maybe I had seen the news about Pluto, so I tried to explain that he was referring to another planet, and that there are actually several planets, each with its name. “Venus” does not refer to them all.

    As the test had gone halfway, the next Einstein came up with another idea: They wanted to know if I could tell you the number of my classroom. I said it was the classroom, “Broida 1610”, to which he replied triumphantly that there was room!

    It was clear that things were getting me no good. One officer said he did it for my own good. I told them at this point it seemed that they were doing to hang. So one particularly ugly, put his face close to mine, and said “Am I smiling?” […]

    Another officer said some of these were new, and the others were teaching them new techniques works with the police. I felt uncomfortable, which was a mistake. One of them said he was behaving like someone would act drunk or laid. It was not true, stating that he was not. Anyway, they told me at the station or in court, could say what they wanted, and others confirm the honesty of their peers. I think it is a safe method to judge the safety and effectiveness of police work.

    Fooling around with me for half an hour or so trying to react in a way that does deserve to be arrested. Finally they stopped playing me, or I got rid of them. The reason why I was spared is that I was able at last to show, even those idiots, I’m a “prominent member of the community.”

    All I did was sit quietly on a curb. Even if someone in my position had anything to drink, not even be talking about drunk driving. It would have been a matter of sitting down drunk, drinking or walking as much.

    This is what I’ve got it clear: I think any person who is not able to demonstrate that it is “a prominent member of the community, or anyone who might have less endurance, would have ended much worse than me.

    To conclude, I have fear of reprisals for writing this letter. Say what you want, and support each other. Or they can follow me and get me marijuana in his pocket. I hope you do not send me a death squad! If one day suddenly disappear, you know what you should do: Call the police. ”

    Frightening. Unfortunately, fears of a good teacher to have been heard throughout the communities of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. Some have been too afraid to denounce.

    Equal opportunity of becoming a victim

    But for anyone to feel discriminated against, the police and the sheriffs of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria also choose some of theirs. For example, being gay outside the cabinet and acting as agent of the law are incompatible things in Santa Barbara. Perhaps this is why the ex-cop Ruben Lino that city filed a complaint against the body, accusing it of harassment and discrimination. As readers will see in future articles, judges are not welcome homosexuals (*).

    —–
    (*) Note: In the mid 90’s, Tom Sneddon tried to imprison a man. When the judge, who is a lesbian and had a secret is knowing how the minds of his neighbors, he pleaded not guilty, Sneddon took it out of the closet publicly and was in charge of making life a living hell.
    —–

    When a group of police officers and sheriffs were not busy cursing their fellow gays and lesbians, found time for sexually assaulting, harassing and intimidating employees, allegedly, in the summer of 2002:

    SANTA BARBARA (Associated Press) – The Santa Barbara County has agreed to pay $ 325,000 to two secretaries of the Sheriff’s Department to settle out of court a sexual harassment claim against an agent. Angela Sanders and Julie Glass claimed in June 2002 Clayton Turner the officer assaulted, beaten and harassed while on duty in the office of Lompoc, and that the department retaliated against them after filing the complaint. Turner has not been located for comment. Sheriff Jim Anderson and assistant county manager, Steve Underwood, have declared that Tuesday’s settlement is not an admission of guilt but a business decision. Cost less to reach this agreement to go to trial, they said. “There is no doubt that his behavior was inappropriate “(*), explains Anderson. Turner was a disciplined officer, but the sheriff says he can not give details about personal matters confidential.

    —–
    (*) Note: Notice how Anderson says that the payment does not constitute an admission of guilt, and immediately recognizes that the police behavior “was inappropriate” …
    —–

    Worthwhile to comment on this incident and the financial arrangement. First, how is that not mentioned that Mr. Turner did not come to be investigated? It seems as if, once again, a police officer had the freedom to abuse and rape who have loved and have the good Anderson and Underwood to cover the backs. Moreover, one can not ignore the hypocrisy of their statements regarding the financial arrangement. How can these two idiots say that the agreement was not an admission of guilt, when Anderson and his superiors have tried to use against Michael Jackson that was settled out of court in 1993? Does it mean that the decision of Mr. Jackson to pay the Chandler family liar what they wanted, can not also be considered a business matter, especially knowing the enormous investment that Sony Music had done in Jackson, and knowing the insistence of the record was reached in a settlement to protect their interests?

    Any session that “discipline” an employee at Turner is accused not only should be investigated, but dissolved. Is anyone safe in Santa Barbara, where those who swear to protect you, raped you, you are harassed, attacked and ARRAS will you?

    We think not.

    Abuse of authority

    But it occurs to you to make smart ass with them or you planteéis encararos. Bill Wegener learned that lesson the hard way. Wegener, a rebel from all walks of the area, was arrested in Santa Maria for a parole violation to be submitted for public office. Wegener has been accused of corruption to some agents in a while. So when he decided to stand as a candidate, was arrested on charges of violating parole. Of course not reached the office, so I dropped the charges, but the message was clear: Do not get clever with the establishment.

    Christopher A. Brown knows this very well. In 1997, he was involved in a dispute over custody of their children, and eventually faced with the judges. Feeling powerless against what he saw as a judicial decision against him, Brown accused the District Attorney’s office [ie, Tom Sneddon and Company] of CONSPIRACY! Go shock, right? Not really. More ridiculous still is what Brown said he had been made after a session in court:

    Immediately after the hearing, I went to the courthouse and drove for about two miles, when I realized that I was following researchers from the District Attorney’s office, I asked the driver’s license as I left my car. They called the Santa Barbara police and told them he was driving without a license, so I took my car crane. The presence of these researchers makes it clear that the judge had made a decision on my request to review the case, informed the prosecutor and he agreed with the invesgigadores to follow me. ”

    Will be thinking: “Brave filthy rotten shame” …

    Frankly, we just tired to compile all the unethical and illegal activities of the Santa Barbara Police and Sheriff’s office. From mobile pinched in public universities, to threaten any neighbor, one begins to understand why no protest here. Furthermore, it is now clear that Jackson’s allegations of mistreatment by police are far more credible than Sneddon and her friend Diane Dimond would have us believe. But that is only a small part of the corruption that lives in the Twin Cities Tyranny of Terror. Unfortunately.

    Sources:

    http://mjhideout.com/forum/opinion-y-debate/43151-codigo-de-des-honor-de-policia-de-sba-que-sneddon-no-quiere-que-sepais.html

    http://breakofdawn.webs.com/Fanclubs.html

    Like

  108. October 1, 2010 3:47 am

    I just realized I probably should clarify my last comment to mean that it’s almost unthinkable that he could have LITERALLY become a circus show freak in an earlier time. But as we all know, and which is the point of the video, he did become just that. He simply became a sideshow attraction in a different way-an exhibition for the media and the legal analysts.

    Like

  109. October 1, 2010 3:40 am

    David, you’ve outdone yourself with this second half. “The Racist Freakshow of Wacko Jacko” video was especially enlighteneing. That was a great find! I daresay it helped even me to see the ’93 strip search in a whole new light that I had not previously really thought about, although of course I knew how humiliating that strip search was for him.

    I really feel for those people whose photographs were used. To think that these were all men and women suffering from the same disease as Michael is both eye opening and heart wrenching. To realize that, had Michael had the mosfortune of being born in an earlier time and place and had had this disease, that he could have ended up just like any of those people-a freak in a circus show, even more heartwrenching.

    Like

  110. Suzy permalink
    September 30, 2010 4:22 am

    It’s obvious that Desiree is NOT willing to engage in any meaningful conversation, noö matter what she says. If her interest in the questions she asked would be genuine, she would just read the articles posted here – since ALL of her questions are already answered there a million times. But I don’t think genuine interest in those answers is the reason why she keeps coming back here….

    Oh, she just admitted she likes trolling just for the sake of it….

    Like

  111. pez permalink
    September 30, 2010 2:54 am

    Great post. I found an interesting interview with 2 former $ONY (Music Industry Enron) executives. They discussed the hypocritical and unfair treatment of Michael by the industry and media. Much of what they say is valid. However, the former executives fail to discuss is the unethical sabotage attempts made by $ONY on Michael’s career for over 2 decades.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzpptd4BBVU&p=5E603DE694D9C2A0&playnext=1&index=7
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78nZTqpYvgQ&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu9NPz9xZB0&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noWE-gTMYXk&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeKZYyfpYIk&feature=related
    hwww.youtube.com/watch?v=G7GlKZAOcN4&feature=related

    Like

  112. Denise permalink
    September 30, 2010 12:37 am

    @The usual posting Hater…..

    It’s not the fact that you don’t like Michael Jackson is why we are on the offensive. It’s just that no matter how much is posted, how much is proven, or how much is brought up to doubting eyes, we’ll never get though to you people. Haters are so hard-headed and stubborn and they have the nerve to call us “zealous”. Well as you should know, fans has lot’s brains. More so than you think, or wanna think.

    “Michael jackson was innocent” seems to be a very tough nut to crack for the doubters.

    I’m sorry you all have been fooled by the VG”S or Marin Bashir’s of the world.

    I mean what the hell would it take? A miracle?

    Like

  113. ares permalink
    September 30, 2010 12:36 am

    @Claire
    You are not going to change your mind about those acusation no matter how many evidence someone provides to you.After all you are in a site full of them but you “will read the rest of the post later”. Read the posts now and then maybe, who knows maybe your questions may be answered.

    Like

  114. lcpledwards permalink
    September 30, 2010 12:06 am

    @ Claire, Desire, Veronique, or whatever alias you’re using today, I’m going to keep this short and sweet

    1. I haven’t read “Redemption” yet because it’s unavailable at a decent price, and I want to wait until GH republishes it after Dr. Murray’s trial. I don’t know what context she meant when she said that, but in my opinion it doesn’t take away from the overall message of the book: MJ was innocent!

    2. I’m not going to discuss MJ’s settlements any further. I just posted a 63-freakin’ page report analyzing MJ’s settlements, and my research speaks for itself. If you still want to believe that the settlements were signs of guilt, then that is your opinion. (Why not wait until you finish the report before making a decision?) I will never “debate” anyone EVER about the settlements anymore; I’ll just refer that person to this article. (You guys should do the same thing!)

    As for your other points, they have all been addressed in other posts on this blog. If you believe that MJ is guilty, then that is your opinion. At this point, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. We aren’t going to change each other’s minds!

    Like

  115. jazzy permalink
    September 29, 2010 11:03 pm

    One (of MANY) questions MJ haters refuse to acknowledge is the mediaLOID’s willful disregard for the past child-sexual scandals of celebrities like Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley (who moved 14 year old Priscilla into Graceland), Rob Lowe, Woody Allen, Pee Wee Herman, R. Kelly, and the latest perpetrator Mr. Roman Polanski.

    Roman is supported and honored by the Hollywood community. He had petitions signed by fellow directors and actors to prevent his extradition. All of this despite the fact he pled GUILTY to drugging and sodomizing an under aged girl, then fled America to escape serving jail time. Oh, Roman is now a free man, even with a GUILTY verdict. Where are all the complaints from the media & public??

    http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/polanski-back-on-top-with-san-sebastian-honour_1166971

    http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b146499_woody_allen_martin_scorsese_free_roman.html

    Meanwhile, Evan the Extortionist was portrayed as a martyr by the press and Michael was thrown under the bus & practically run over by media/hollywood/the music industry.
    Evan is DEAD now too. No member of his family attended his wake. There is some justice in this world.

    Like

  116. September 29, 2010 10:51 pm

    Question, why did Claire sign her signature in the post with “~D” ? Is that Desiree too?

    Like

  117. jess permalink
    September 29, 2010 10:34 pm

    My how times have changed. Bill O’Racist is another mediaLOID talking head peddling fear and hatred for profit. A totally brainless, spineless piece of human waste.

    Here’s Bill discussing Michael during his Inside Edition days before his inexplicably successful show on the nutty CON-servative network FOX

    On a lighter happier note, here are some words of wisdom on Michael from the legendary comedian George Carlin😀

    Like

  118. Claire permalink
    September 29, 2010 10:22 pm

    I have two questions:

    1. You quoted an interview with Geraldine Hughes. I want to know if you guys believe what she’d written in her book ‘Redemption’, that she’d heard a plot to extort? I was reading her book over the weekend and she claimed to have met Jordie Chandler two times at Rothman’s office but then called him a little white boy; Jordie was blacker (in skintone) than Michael Jackson (she was using a racial blah blah blah angle, if I were to keep it in context).

    2. Have you ever fathomed that you could be wrong about Michael’s innocence, given such large payouts to Jordie and Jason; anecdotes of Michael’s odd behavior from employees like the Quindoys and Lemarques years before the 93 scandal; his refusal to abandon the sleepovers with boys; the nude boy books and the nudist magazines and art books featuring naked children, all legal, yes, but considered child erotica by the experts; La Toya Jackson saying she’d seen a check for a million dollars to Jimmy Safechuck’s dad (something Jack Gordon could not have seen, so he could not have forced her to ‘lie’ about it)…? Is it completely impossible?

    I think both are non-inflammatory questions and I do truly hope that someone provides an answer. This is not about me; I would like to here your answers and I am trying to tread lightly so this can be a legitimate dialogue…

    I will admit I do troll (another site comes to mind–not Jacko-related) from time to time but I will forgo ‘personal attacks’ if we can engage in discussion. I don’t understand the adoration for Michael given what I have researched, read, and who I have spoken to but I am curious…

    I will read the rest of this post later…

    ~D.

    Like

  119. Suzy permalink
    September 29, 2010 7:11 am

    Thank you, David!

    Like

  120. lcpledwards permalink
    September 29, 2010 6:31 am

    A few more notes for you guys:

    1. I updated part 1 with an additional excerpt from “Unmasked” where Halperin lists an interview with 2 former Neverland maids who blasted Blanca Francia for her lies, and defended MJ. The 2 maids were FORMER employees of Neverland who had no incentive to LIE to protect MJ! They were telling the truth! https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

    2. Did you guys notice how the U.S. Justice Department interviewed Daniel Kapon and discredited his story? One has to wonder if Sneddon also had them interview Jason Francia, Jordie Chandler, and Gavin Arvizo? If they did, then obviously they aren’t as infallible as their title would warrant!!

    3. Did you guys check out the new pro-MJ documentary that I added to the bottom of this post?
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/fact-checking-the-documentary-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-by-jacques-peretti/

    Like

  121. lynande51 permalink
    September 29, 2010 5:22 am

    I found an article from the LATimes from January 28th ,1994. It’s a great satire but sums Diane Dimond up beautifully. I think at one point the rest of the media did sort of think of her as lesser than them.

    On Wednesday night’s “Hard Copy,” you could see the sorrow and disappointment in the eyes of Diane Dimond’s, eyes that previously had danced with excitement at each mention of Michael Jackson, at each alleged deviant fusion of him with his accuser and other young boys.
    Her relentless reporting for “Hard Copy” had made her Michael’s tabloid Boswell, so renowned for insider poop that at one point she was interviewed about the case on “CBS This Morning.”
    But this time, all she had for inquiring minds was a measly brief update, the usual money talk, an unsatisfying few words that hung in the air like a somber obituary for a story that she and her like-minded media lizards had slaved and slithered so hard to distort and hyperbolize. No wonder she seemed deflated.

    Here is a link to the whole article
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-28/entertainment/ca-16370_1_michael-jackson

    Like

  122. September 29, 2010 5:16 am

    Wow! David this research as a wealth of information. Job well done! We all appreciate the work, time and dedication to presenting the truth you bring to the public.

    O’Reilly bulldog antics really gets on my nerves. His a real classic hypocrite. I tried to watch the YT clip of him and Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill, but Jerk’Reilly just simply got on my nerves with his psycho-babble. I’m so glad I didn’t see him running his mouth on the day of Michael’s memorial, cause I seriously would have thrown my tv out the window. Listening to those two clips from Steve Harvey was the perfect antidote! See all those talking heads talking smack, never met Michael a day in their lives. Steve knew Michael personally and he don’t play for real, he will set people straight right quick. I just love how Steve defends Michael.

    ‘Last but not least, Janet physically and sexually abused a female cousin!’

    If I recall, I think it was a teacher who testified in 2005. That Gavin had accused his mother Janet of abusing him.

    Like

  123. September 29, 2010 5:05 am

    Hi David,

    You take your work seriously and you put alot of effort into your research, so kudos to you.

    There is a reason why Michael Jackson was not “forgiven” like Ben Roethlisberger, Michael Irvin, Kobe Bryant, O’Reilly & Rick Pitino by the media: Diane Dimond. Long after the civil and criminal trials had been dropped DD kept up her attack, and was later joined by cohort Maureen Orth. However, I give Mrs. Dimond the most props her relentless persecution of Michael Jackson was a corner stone not just in public opinion, but in media as well. It seems to me that her peers have dubbed her the Michael Jackson Expert, and are unwilling or unable to call her out on BS reporting. All the talk show hosts seem to pander to her, and whatever she says about Michael Jackson is taken as the gospel truth. Even if they were movers and shakers behind the scene Dimond was primarily responsible for keeping MJ is a P alive in the hearts and minds of the public.

    Like

  124. lynande51 permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:59 am

    David, I’m Speechless this is amazing about Janet Ventura Arvizo Jackson. Great piece of work.

    Like

  125. lcpledwards permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:20 am

    Whew! I’m glad that I’m finally finished with this post! At 63 pages, this is much longer than ANYTHING I ever did in graduate school! Here are some final thoughts:

    1. I was able to find a boatload of information about Janet Arvizo from doing a search of all of the official court documents that are listed here: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/. Just go to “court events”, and you’ll see all of the documents listed in chronological order. Do a search under “documents”, and you’ll be able to download it. I will definitely be putting this database to good use for future articles!

    2. Janet was diagnosed as schizophrenic by the pscychiatrist hired by JC Penney, Daniel Kapon’s father said that his mother is a “certifiable psycho”, and Evan Chandler was bi-polar. Do you guys think it’s a coincidence that the parents of the accusers (except for Blanca Francia) all had some type of mental problems?

    3. Some additional info on Janet Arvizo, from David Arvizo’s interview: she once held a knife to her daughter Davellin’s throat and threatened to kill her, & she lied to a previous employer and said that she didn’t have any kids (thinking that would increase her chances of being hired). While at that job, she had an affair with a cop, and he was later convicted of CHILD MOLESTATION! Janet was interviewed by the prosecution in that case, although David said he didn’t know if his kids were victims. Last but not least, Janet physically and sexually abused a female cousin!

    4. And despite that terrible background, she was STILL able to secure a $100k book deal before the trial, which vaporized upon MJ’s acquittal!

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. The Blog Wars | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. “Hollywood Tonight” (2) | Nonlocal Universe
  3. March 4th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Direct and Cross Examination of Davellin Arvizo, Part 2 of 2 « Vindicating Michael
  4. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 7 of 7: Judging Michael « Vindicating Michael
  5. Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 2 of 4 « Vindicating Michael
  6. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  7. PHANTOM ‘VICTIMS’ of Michael Jackson « Vindicating Michael
  8. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  9. Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005 « Vindicating Michael
  10. When It Comes To Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are Poles Apart! « Vindicating Michael
  11. The Allegations « Michael…the Man
  12. 1993 Payout Plain And Simple | mjjjusticeproject
  13. Moonwalking: The True Story Of Michael Jackson | AllForLoveBlog
  14. Analyzing the Media’s Hypocrisy in Reporting on Michael Jackson’s Settlements vs. The Settlements of Other Celebrities, Part 2 « redblackghost

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: