Skip to content

DIRTY LINEN in Michael’s home and common UNDERSTANDING of the need to find it there

January 19, 2011

Despite many people thinking that greed was the main motive for people’s outrageous behavior towards Michael my opinion is that narrowing it down to money only would be underestimating the problem. Money does explain many of the instances, but not all.

For example, it doesn’t explain why Larry Feldman was so insistent on taking the Arvizo case to the authorities – he personally called Tom Sneddon when the DCFS rejected Dr. Katz’ report as ungrounded and took the case to the D.A. despite the fact that he completely disbelieved the Arvizos’ story.

He said so himself as he confided in Larry King and his assistant that the family was ‘wacko’, was only after money and he didn’t want to represent them – but the fact that he knew the truth didn’t stop him from taking the case to Tom Sneddon with a view to have it started against Jackson all over again.

You can argue that Feldman was interested in making millions out of a new civil case. He might be – but handling a case against Michael Jackson was not the only opportunity for him to make huge money. After his tremendous success in 1993 Larry Feldman was litigating for numerous corporations and could have earned a good deal of money from them alone. So why go into all this trouble with the Arvizos by sending them back and forth to psychologist Katz and then reporting his scarce findings personally to Tom Sneddon?

If you think that he was after money then why did this top-earning lawyer do pro bono work for Janet Arvizo’s parents when Thomas Mesereau wanted to get access to their account where Janet was hiding her funds?

Why did he – a professional lawyer  – leak in 2003 the so-called “Jordan’s declaration” made in his law office ten years earlier though he was supposed to observe Jordan’s privacy and spare his client’s feelings in the first place? Why was that paper leaked on the same day Bashir’s film aired? To deliver Michael a double blow, encourage some new accusers to speak up and prompt them the right words in order to create the impression of a “pattern of abuse”?

The declaration could not have been leaked by anyone else but Feldman because Feldman was a sort of a custodian of the documents and was supposed to fully observe the confidentiality of the agreement. The agreement closed the case and it is general practice for every business agreement that the documents prior to signing it become null and void and should be naturally never opened to the  public.

Though these and other similar facts may look too small to you I regard them as top important and am still seeking for an answer to explain them, otherwise it will be impossible to put this jigsaw puzzle together and see the picture the way it really is. Every person’s motive should be understood and the more I think the less I agree that all those people were motivated by greed alone.

What I see behind these random but important facts is a kind of a tacit understanding between all the parties involved – a sort of a common concept or goal connecting the main players in the game. This common goal seems to do a lot with “morals” and what is considered “acceptable” and “not acceptable” in the society.

When you listen to Michael’s detractors many of them are of the opinion that even if he was not guilty of anything, “sleeping with children” was still unacceptable, “he should have known better” and he “deserved it”. Their zeal in harassing Michael cannot be explained by anything else but their conviction that they are right in what they are doing – they think they are defending “morals” this way and are pursuing a “noble” cause.

Unfortunately it is awfully typical for the people driven by some “higher” motives not to see that they are committing atrocities – they think they are doing it for a good purpose and their goal justifies their nasty means.

This shouldn’t make us believe that these people are necesarily in a conspiracy with each other – they may be or may be not – but it explains the powerful driving force which is uniting them in their animal hatred towards their poor innocent victim.

This phenomenon was standing behind the Holy Inquisition with all its witch hunts when people of the Christian church (!) tortured others at a mere suspicion of practising witchcraft. This went on and on because people were fooled enough to believe the system to be “holy” and were even ready to “help” by uncovering those who were “in contact with the devil”.

The same thing happened during our darkest times of Stalinist regime when people were terrorized by a search for “internal enemies” in every family and numerous collaborators thought it necessary to report those who dared show even minimal dissent – they must have indeed thought them to be a danger to the society. Add to it that in support of those nasty campaigns the media would be bombarding the public with highly exaggerated fictional stories and you’ll understand why even the brainiest could be lost in doubt in the situation and would not know what to think.

Classical signs of the above ‘ideological’ harassment are easily recognizable in the devilish slander campaign arranged against Michael Jackson.  Calling it a conspiracy would be probably an exaggeration but saying that it wasn’t organized at all would be a definite understatement.

To give a note of  organization to the whole thing it would probably be enough for someone, who has the major media channels in his hands,  to give a nod to his employees that “this guy should be stopped” – and the rest of the people will gleefully oblige.

Humans are a little bit of beasts in their nature and it is only our inner moral code and social rules which prevent us from showing ourselves at our worst. So when someone releases people of their moral and social stoppers many do not withstand the temptation and loosen their worst instincts. It is especially dangerous when people think they are doing it for the “common good”. The road to hell – as you know – is indeed paved with good intentions.

This is probably how the whole thing started with Michael Jackson. Some resented that a poor boy got to the very top and had more than they could ever dream of. Some were envious of his talent. Some were racists who didn’t want to share the same neighborhood with him. Some wanted to make a political career out of putting him in jail and some saw it as an opportunity to make money off him.

And some were willingly cooperating with the authorities who were bent on “showing him his place”. They could be very well guided by some “high moral principles” the way they understood them and could be always ready to help the police with planting some “evidence” in his home – and all this in the name of the noble cause of defending the society from a “predator”.

What was common for all these different people was their preconceived notion that he was guilty and “it” should be stopped. Cases like that do not require evidence as such – your confidence in someone’s guilt replaces the need to prove it and when you have a goal to stigmatize someone as a criminal the reality will stretch itself well enough to fit the goal set – especially when there are so many “well-wishers’ around. You can’t imagine what extremes these well-meaning collaborators can go to when they feel that the authorities are encouraging them in their efforts…

Only this type of mass ‘understanding’ of the common good can explain the easiness with which the doors of many homes (including the Chandlers’) were open to characters like Victor Gutierrez. If he was starting a conversation with statements like “Everyone knows that he is a p-le” (and this is what Victor Gutierrez did indeed state as he admitted in his book) and continued it with something like “Will you help me to collect the necessary evidence to rid our society of this criminal?”,  I’m sure many parents would gasp in horror and immediately recall the “suspicious” episodes which they completely “overlooked” before. Is it awfully typical of people to suddenly remember some non-existent evidence if they work themselves up into dread and fear and are told by someone what to look for.

What I am trying to say is that this harassment campaign would have been impossible without a massive support from the people in general – be it top professionals like Larry Feldman or Stan Katz or ordinary guys like those who ran to the FBI after seeing someone resembling Michael with a child on a train.

Everyone was affected by this hysteria and witch hunt for one person – even Michael’s maids who were generously paid for their services, given bonuses and gifts, and were never mistreated by their employer.

I am mentioning his maids because I’ve been told that our opponent is making a great fuss over some dirty linen (in the literal meaning of the word) found in the closet of a video arcade during the police raid of Neverland in November 2003 when some other male semen was found on Michael’s mattress.***** Michael’s haters are running around with this dirty linen all over internet screaming that it is proof of him being gay (even if this is the case, gay is not a p-le, so I don’t see the point of all this celebration).

Well, firstly,

– Michael never made it a secret that he often gave his bed to other people, so them leaving something on his mattress would be no problem

– there must have been lots of males who would ejaculate their semen in sleep, as it happens (I hear) to males starting with adolescence

– if some adolescents dozed off in Michael’s bed during their slumber parties it was quite possible that they left their DNA on Michael’s bed (the documents presented by Tom Sneddon mentioned the DNA which could come from hair, saliva, urine and other liquids and not only semen from their wet dreams).

– the dirty laundry was found stored in a bag somewhere in a closet and at a time when Michael was away from Neverland. He was in Las Vegas and the funny thing is that he stayed there for three weeks or so working on a new song and video to it – which should have been exactly the time when that bag was put into the closet.

When I heard of all this fuss the first thing I wondered about is why his maids thought it necessary to store some dirty linen while all they were supposed to do was to immediately wash it?

And why did they keep it there for several weeks before Tom Sneddon finally raided Neverland?

The fact that the maids hid some dirty linen for Tom Sneddon’s officers to come and pick it up is a sign in and of itself of at least an ‘understanding’ between the parties that some dirty evidence should be found at the ranch – otherwise I cannot explain such a terrible neglect of duty on the part of the maids.

If such an ‘understanding’ between the authorities and Michael’s domestic staff was there then the reason for all those findings could have been much graver – the maids were the colloborators and no one can guarantee that they did not use one and the same linen for some male guests after giving it to Jackson (or vice virsa) and then store this tremendously valuable evidence in the closet.

If such an ‘understanding’ was reached between the authorities and Arvizos too then it would explain why Gavin and his brother insisted that the guard allowed them into Michael’s room while he was away. They could be sent on an errand to plant a couple of things there. Only God (and the boys) know what they could have left in that bedroom….

The police also found an odd piece of someone’s semen-soiled underwear  (in the same bag if I remember it right) and though the underpants didn’t belong to any of the Arvizos Tom Sneddon nevertheless asked the boy at a cross-examination whether the hadn’t lost any underwear in Neverland (which he probably did). This loss and find is evidently supposed to be someting meanful in their opinion – while to me it speaks only to a desperate and awkward attempt to set Michael up.

With so much ‘understanding’ displayed by all the participants of this performance I wonder why – besides that hidden bag – the police didn’t find there tons of soiled underwear, used condoms, broken syringes, heavy drugs, child porn and lots of other valuable things which my imagination is not even able to suggest. From the open-door policy in Michael’s home one would expect the police to find there truckloads of the above precious stuff.

But all they found was someone’s pair of dirty underwear conveniently stuck into a closet and kept there when the owner of the house was away, waiting for the police to arrive and get it….

Not much even with the enormity of all the  ‘understanding’ the authorities could summon from all the parties involved.

UPDATED on January 20, 2011

***** The story of the “semen” found in that dirty linen was told to me by my long-time opponent and I was naive enough to believe that the information  she said she found in the documents was indeed there.

In order to check some details I went to her site – which I usually never do –  and had a closer look at the documents she is referring to. To my surprise I did not find any mention of “semen-soiled sheets there! What they do mention is only the DNA which may be found in urine, saliva and any other body fluids….

Still thinking that no sensible person will lie in such a blatant way (knowing that we can check) I believe that I may have overlooked something or didn’t see it all.

In any case it means that now I am doomed to rake through all that dirty linen in full earnest. I hope to be able to present my findings in the near future.

276 Comments leave one →
  1. Alison permalink
    February 28, 2011 7:19 pm

    Dialdancer – thats unbelievable, i feel so upset for the Dad just reading it, what a stupid f***ing bi***.
    Respect and admiration to your friend for her integrity and standing up to be counted.

    Like

  2. Dialdancer permalink
    February 28, 2011 6:15 am

    rockforeveron

    I saw your story about the man taking his son’s picture. It is off topic as well, but appropriate. Several months before I decided to work for myself I and a friend ate lunch at a local restaurant with a sports bar atmosphere. Next to us were 4 females also lunching at a table that accommodates 6. In comes a family group of 5 Mom, dad and kids the youngest maybe 7 yrs . The only table open has 4 chairs. The four older sit down and the little girls turns to the father with arms raised. He seats her in his lap. We are eating when I hear one of the women from the other table making the most horrendous comments about the child sitting on his lap. The people in the bar became uncomfortable and some even began to look at the father as if he was having his way with child right then and there. The Dad became so unsettled that left paying for food they had not eaten. I believe I saw tears in his eyes. My friend who is all of 5ft nothing and looks like a Dairymaid waited a couple of minutes then she stood up and address the entire restaurant. She accused the woman of being a fool and a filthy minded trouble maker she pointed out if it bothered them to see the child sitting on her father’s lap then they should have offered to exchange tables. She ripped up all the lookie loo’s for good measure. Vigilance must be tempered with justice and common sense.

    Like

  3. Dialdancer permalink
    February 28, 2011 5:24 am

    @ Teva,

    That’s ok it will come up again, she is really the addict. Hooked on Michael she cannot help herself besides she needs the public face time not just her blah….blah…blogs.

    I will get another turn I have two pages of some of her more memorable lies to ask her about.

    Like

  4. February 27, 2011 4:25 pm

    DID *** REPORTER BRIEF DA?
    BY LLOYD GROVE WITH HUDSON MORGAN

    Tuesday, March 15th 2005, 6:48AM

    Has Court TV’s Diane Dimond helped prosecutors gather evidence in the Michael Jackson case?

    New Jersey businessman Henry Vaccaro Sr. claims that’s exactly what she did last March, vowing to alert Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon after discovering a pair of soiled Calvin Klein briefs – presumably Jackson’s – among the items in Vaccaro’s extensive collection of Jackson family memorabilia in a warehouse in Asbury Park.

    The morning after Dimond’s visit, Vaccaro told me yesterday, Sneddon personally phoned Vaccaro, said that Dimond had informed his office about the underwear and other potential evidence, and asked to borrow the items for use in the investigation.

    But Dimond, through a Court TV spokeswoman, insisted yesterday that she simply had sought comment from Sneddon’s office “on some evidence that might be of interest to the prosecution.”

    Yesterday, journalistic ethics expert Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center for Excellence in Journalist, told me: “The standard is that journalists should try to avoid becoming an extension of law enforcement or any government agency.”

    If Dimond did so, “that would be very unusual,” Rosenstiel added.

    In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.”

    Dimond, who has tangled with Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, is known to many close observers of the trial for coverage that seems to favor the prosecution in her reports on Court TV, as an analyst for other television outlets and in a newspaper column.

    Dimond’s behind-the-scenes contact with Sneddon’s office was revealed in just-unsealed court papers involving litigation between Vaccaro and the Jacksons concerning who rightly owns the collection (which Vaccaro seized through a previous federal court judgment).

    In a Jan. 13, 2005, letter to Sneddon, requesting the return of the items, Vaccaro writes: “I was contacted by your office after Diane Dimond of Court TV informed you that there were various items of potential interest to you among the contents of a warehouse in Asbury Park, N.J.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2005/03/15/2005-03-15_did_jax_reporter_brief_da_.html

    Like

  5. February 27, 2011 4:22 pm

    “I must remember to ask Diane this question the next time she publishes anything about Michael or about Journalistic ethics. ” – Dialdancer

    Several fans beat you to it.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/inside-michael-jacksons-future-plans/

    DianeMDimond
    you are incorrect. I never stated on Larry King Live or any other program that Michael Jackson was a Pedophile. I never went on a media junket “carrying a pair of underwear in a plastic bag.”
    Just because Jackson fans spread mountains of misinformation about what I’ve said or written about doesn’t make it true.
    Have a good time in your idolatry … Facts are my business.

    SeptSpirit
    Lies are your business.
    In case you’ve forgotten what you said on LKL?
    DIMOND: … Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge…
    PIXLEY: You said they play it…
    DIMOND: … should go to court.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/24/lkl.00.html

    In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.” http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2005/03/15/2005-03-15_did_jax_re porter_brief_da_.html
    When I relocate the video, I’ll be back to post it.

    JackGat
    That’s not true. You were on Court TV when you held up dirty underwear insinuating it belonged to Michael Jackson. It’s on video. Don’t you remember Mr. Vaccaro from New Jersey.

    Like

  6. Dialdancer permalink
    February 27, 2011 10:01 am

    “DIMOND: … in the wardrobe closet, I have to admit, it wasn`t my most shining moment as an investigative reporter, but I did note the underwear. And the Santa Barbara D.A.`s office did come and get it during the criminal trial, and I believe they did test it. They were Michael`s.”

    Now why is it that the court document of the lawyer for Vaccaro and associates says the Police seized the evidence, in fact they came twice on the 3rd and 17th of Mar 04 so if that is the case how could Dimond have been given the underwear unless it was given to her by the Police or DA? At the time reports about the underwear first came up was prior to Michael’s DNA swab so how could she know? As of Jan 31, 05 the DA still hadn’t given the Defense the results of the underwear and avoid any mention of test results.

    In another court document Vaccaro is requesting the return of his property, he goes on to say that it was he who alerted the DA’s office he does not mention Dimond in his court document. So did the SB DA have a reporter along during the raid and allow her to search? Or she just a braggart like Tom Sneddon? Just who is lying here?

    I must remember to ask Diane this question the next time she publishes anything about Michael or about Journalistic ethics.

    @ Rockford
    “why was it so important they discuss unwashed underwear belonging to Mike? Why did they need to DNA test items from that warehouse?”

    Because there is an article out there which has a comment from Dimond. She implies the underwear if not MJ’s belongs to a boy which bolsters of Sneddon’s theory MJ collects, she also implies the family hid them in the storage. (Remember it does not have to be true just sound like you know what you are talking about as the leading MJ expert)

    Michael Jackson expert my foot we should rename her Wrong-Way Dimond. Woman never met a lie she did not like.

    Like

  7. February 25, 2011 10:38 am

    “There seem to be some confusion. I never said or implied that the Neverland auction and the Vacarro items were one in the same.”

    Oh Teva, I never said you said it! The impression of them mixing up one thing with the other is the impression one gets when watching that video with its horrible voiceover – and all its lies and mockery at Michael which smacks so much of satisfaction of him being “needy” now!

    Over here we discuss lies made by Michael’s haters but not the messengers who bring these lies to our attention! The more you do it the better it is… I am really thankful to you for providing that video!

    Like

  8. lynande51 permalink
    February 25, 2011 4:53 am

    Actually it is the Vaccarro junk that became the Jackson Secret Vault that Katherine and Howard Mann are in together. I can certainly understand why she would go in withhim though considering the Master tapes that were in there.

    Like

  9. February 25, 2011 12:47 am

    “Well, a little Internet search and here we are with information on the Neverland auction being a completely different thing from Henry Vaccaro’s “junk” collection!” – VindicateMJ

    There seem to be some confusion. I never said or implied that the Neverland auction and the Vacarro items were one in the same. The reason I posted this video is because the discussion was about what vacarro said and didn’t say, and I wanted the blog reader to hear and see him in his own words. That is why I specifically said from 4:00. Everything else is irrelevant to the discussion.

    Like

  10. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 5:39 pm

    I don’t know if it’s the document Lynande was talking about but I found it vey interesting

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/010705peoprespdefmotcompel06.pdf

    On page 19 we learn that the defense was still waiting for the DNA result on January the 2nd.

    Like

  11. shelly permalink
    February 24, 2011 4:29 pm

    It’s from Violet Silva testimony

    “BY MR. SANGER: Was there a time when Mr.

    3 Cascio threw a big party?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. And did that result in the depletion of

    6 ranch resources?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. Okay. Did that cause a problem between Mr.

    9 Cascio and Mr. Jackson?

    10 A. Yes.”

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94511800/1

    Like

  12. February 24, 2011 1:19 pm

    Well, a little Internet search and here we are with information on the Neverland auction being a completely different thing from Henry Vaccaro’s “junk” collection!

    Compare the half an hour it took me with the time they spent on making that video and you will know that such lies can be only DELIBERATE and the only word we can call the mocking and cheating voiceover in the video is OUTRAGEOUS! I can’t believe that I see them lying so flatly and thinking their viewers to be so complete fools. They are really pulling our legs there and enjoying themselves greatly at that!

    The truth of the matter is:

    – The Neverland items exhibition was supposed to be organized in Dublin, Ireland and moved to Beverly Hillls later for an auction to which Michael initially gave his permission. However later he withdrew his permission and even sued the organizers saying, as it was reported, that he wasn’t shown the catalog of what they were selling there (I readily believe it – they didn’t show him the warrant for his own body search in 1993, so no surprise that there was some fraudulent scheme here too)

    – When the legal advisors of both teams met they settled the case to “mutual satisfaction”, so that the auction turned into an exhibition which lasted until April 25, 2009 and Michael was to receive all his items back.

    – All those pieces were from the now shuttered Neverland ranch and have nothing to do with the Vaccaro junk collection.

    Here are the details – first from an equally ugly Australian article which says there was a “trickle” of visitors (while the exhibition was in fact a tremendous success):

    April 14, 2009,
    4:44 pm
    Fans View the Michael Jackson Memorabilia Auction
    By BEN SISARIO
    Monica Almeida/The New York Times
    BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — The auction of memorabilia from Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch is so big that it has been installed in a former department store here, but the crowds that turned out for its public viewing this morning were less than gigantic. A trickle of fans and passers by made their way through the 1,390-lot installation in the opening hour of the exhibition, drawn by curiosity and the possibility of owning one of Mr. Jackson’s E.T. statues or makeup-smeared stage costumes. Nearly 1,400 lots of items are set to be auctioned from Mr. Jackson’s Neverland Valley Ranch.

    Mr. Jackson’s intentions in conducting the sale are unclear. After Neverland — his 2,800-acre estate 125 miles northwest of Los Angeles — escaped foreclosure last year, Mr. Jackson’s company, MJJ Productions, hired Julien’s Auctions to organize the sale. But a month ago MJJ Productions sued to prevent the sale, saying that Mr. Jackson was not given an opportunity to review the catalog.

    For the two dozen or so people who browsed through the installation this morning, however, the legalities were much less interesting than the simple opportunity to ogle the former contents of Neverland.
    Rhonda Glover, 22, was scouting the sale for her boss, the actress Charlayne Woodard. “She said, ‘Rhonda, go see if they got some good stuff,’” Ms. Glover said. “I’m like, ‘It’s Michael Jackson. I’m sure everything’s good stuff.’”

    Abby Marie, a former paralegal who lives in downtown Los Angeles, said she felt conflicted over poking through the contested property of her hero. “I’m a huge, huge, huge fan — when I was little I used to dream that I would date him some day,” she said, standing near a collection of Mr. Jackson’s record-sale awards from Austria. “I feel horrible that this is even here. I’m a vulture for looking at this stuff that he doesn’t want on display.”

    Ms. Alvarez, watching a video of Mr. Jackson performing, and standing by a collection of his glittering outfits and an oversize crimson throne, turned analytical. “It’s easy to see why he had a God complex, surrounded by all these paintings of himself,” she said, then spotted something sparkling across the room. “Ooh!” she exclaimed. “What is this?”
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/fans-view-the-michael-jackson-memorabilia-auction/

    * * *
    The second piece gives details of the settlement reached by the lawyers for both parties:

    BEVERLY HILLS — A huge auction of Michael Jackson memorabilia scheduled for next week was cancelled on Tuesday and auctioneers agreed to return all the items to the singer.

    Auctioneer Darren Julien told Reuters the cancellation of the planned April 22-25 sale was the result of an agreement with Jackson, who had filed a lawsuit in March demanding the return of certain items.
    A public exhibit of the 1,400 lots which opened on Tuesday in Beverly Hills will continue until April 25.
    “The auction isn’t going to take place. We wanted to reach an agreement (with Jackson) and we have reached one today that is mutually acceptable and beneficial,” Julien said.

    Julien said all the items — including a single crystal white glove worn in the singer’s “Billie Jean” performances and the gates to his Neverland Ranch in California — would be returned to Jackson when the exhibit closes.
    Jackson’s spokesman, Tohme R. Tohme, said in a joint statement with Julien the two groups “are pleased” with the agreement and that it “allows Michael Jackson to retain ownership of the Collection of Michael Jackson.”

    Julien signed agreements with Tohme and removed hundreds of items from Jackson’s shuttered and sold Neverland Ranch for the sale, which was expected to fetch about $10 million.
    It would have been the largest authorized auction of items associated with the self-styled King of Pop, who has been a virtual recluse since his 2005 acquittal on charges of molesting a young boy at Neverland.

    But on March 4, Tohme and Jackson’s production company filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles seeking the return of unspecified items. Although a Los Angeles judge ruled earlier this month the auction could proceed, the two sides continued talks to settle the dispute.

    Julien said earlier this month he had spent some $2 million preparing the sale and the exhibit.
    He did not say how much Jackson had agreed to pay under Tuesday’s settlement but added; “We are very happy. We are happy because he is happy.”

    Tuesday’s statement suggested the items would find a permanent public home in the future but gave no details.
    “There was so much interest from so many of Jackson’s fans that instead of putting the items in the hands of private collectors, Dr. Tohme and Julien’s Auction House have made arrangements that will allow the collection to be shared with and enjoyed by Jackson’s fans for many years to come,” the statement said.

    The 30,000 square-foot (2,787 sq meter) exhibit includes Jackson’s red, gilded throne, his Rolls-Royce stretch limo, sequined costumes, portraits of Jackson, pictures of Peter Pan, and toys from the Neverland ranch.
    Abby Marie, a Jackson fan visiting on Tuesday, told Reuters earlier it would be a pity to see the items sold off to separate bidders. “I hope one person buys it all and puts it in a museum,” she said.

    Jackson adopted a low-profile after his 2005 molestation trial, but in March he announced a run of 50 comeback concerts in London starting in July that sold out within hours.
    http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/Michael+Jackson+cancels+auction+personal+memorabilia/1496680/story.html

    * * *
    However it turns out that the same auctioneers were planning (I don’t know whether they fulfilled their plans) to arrange an auction ONCE AGAIN, and on the anniversary of Michael Jackson’s death, on June 25, 2010. Randy Jackson was vehemently against it and tried to stop the move of Michael’s personal items from Neverland…

    MJ Auction — Distasteful or Good Business?
    6/11/2010 12:12 AM PDT by TMZ Staff
    ________________________________________
    Randy Jackson has been fighting like crazy to stop a flood of Michael Jackson memorabilia from hitting the auction block on the anniversary of MJ’s death — but the auction house is going full steam ahead.

    Randy has been on Twitter attack, calling the auction at Planet Hollywood in Vegas “distasteful.”

    Darren Julien from Julien’s Auctions claims it’s pure coincidence the auction falls on June 25 — “We have the same summer auction [of pop star memorabilia] at the same time every year.”

    Julien says the auction date can’t be moved. So there.
    http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/11/michael-jackson-juliens-auction-memorabilia-las-vegas-sale-photos-gallery/

    Like

  13. February 24, 2011 10:55 am

    Teva, this video is so very interesting in so many ways that I will have to leave several comments on it. I think that the Vaccaro collection, the Neverland auction and the Beatles catalog are completely separate issues.

    The comment on the Beatles will be in the latest post. And over here – just some information about the Vaccaro collection.

    Jackson family memorabilia sold
    Friday, March 5, 2004 Posted: 0852 GMT ( 4:52 PM HKT)

    NEW YORK (CNN) — A large collection of Jackson family memorabilia, including costumes, gold records, photographs and documents has been sold to a European collector.
    The man who sold the collection, Henry Vaccaro, Sr., said it was the biggest Jackson collection ever amassed.
    “This is the largest collection in the world,” Vaccaro told CNN. “Because they (the Jackson family) were collecting it internally.”
    Vaccaro said the Jackson family had gathered the memorabilia for years to decorate a chain of Jackson-themed restaurants, a venture that never materialized.
    The items which once belonged to Michael Jackson and other family members were recently shipped to the new owner after spending 18 months in an Asbury Park, New Jersey warehouse.
    Vaccaro, 63, of Asbury Park, told CNN he acquired the collection after a 9-year legal battle with the Jackson family. Vaccaro said a company formed by the Jackson family defaulted on $1.4 million in payments to buy his company, Kramer Guitar Company.
    Vaccaro says he paid $65,000 in storage and shipping fees owed by the Jackson family to an Oxnard, California storage facility to eventually acquire the collection.
    “I have the intimate divorce papers of Tito, his wife Dee Dee, notes, sketches, gold records,” Vaccaro said.
    Michael Jackson, the most famous member of the family, pleaded not guilty January 16 to seven felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of giving the child an “intoxicating agent.” The charges involve incidents alleged to have occurred in February and March 2003, when the child was 12. [look how they introduce this information everywhere though it absolutely doesn’t belong here!]
    Vaccaro says he had two different experts — one from Sotheby’s and one from Odyssey Auction — authenticate the collection.
    Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman said he could not comment on the collection’s authenticity or how Vaccaro came to acquire it.
    He did tell CNN the collection belongs to Taj, Taryll and TJ Jackson, Tito Jackson’s children.
    “I should not make any comment,” Oxman said. His client, the Jackson family is “going to handle this the best they know.”
    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/05/jackson.memorabilia.sold/

    And the second piece is the infamous TV show aired two years later, in May 2007, where Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond were dangling some semen or urine soiled underwear in the studio, claimed it was from Vaccaro collection and were talking about another of Vaccaro auctions being held in Vegas at the time.

    Jackson’s attorney Brian Oxman was also invited to the studio and this is what they discussed then:

    DIANE DIMOND, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Briefly, Nancy, there was a man who won the contents of some storage closets from the Jackson family, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, actually. It`s a long drawn-out court affair. His name was Henry Vaccaro. He finally sold his whole collection that he had gotten from the Jackson family, and that`s what we see on auction out there in Vegas today and tomorrow.

    GRACE: But how did he get it originally, Diane?

    DIMOND: Well, again, it`s an eight-year-long battle, but I`ll make it brief. He had a beef with the Jacksons. He sued them. It took a long, long time. You know Brian Oxman. He was the attorney for the Jackson family at the time.

    And as I understand it, it came down to the fact where, if Brian Oxman had come to court with a check, he could have had the contents of those storage closets, but he failed to do that, so the judge in the case awarded them to Henry Vaccaro for recompense for all of his years of trying to fight the Jacksons. He told me — Henry Vaccaro told me, “I opened the closets. I thought, you know, maybe I`ll have some dusty old clothes or something.” He said he couldn`t believe the amount of items in there. I`ve seen them all. It is an amazing collection.

    GRACE: What are some of the items that went on the block today, Diane?

    DIMOND: Well, it`s today and tomorrow, so I`m not sure which days, but there`s a bulletproof vest that Michael Jackson wore in the Victory tour. There are rows and rows of platinum and gold records under glass. There`s wardrobe, wardrobe chests full of specialty items. There`s that big head of E.T. Michael Jackson took a looking to it, and he bought it, and it was in the collection. I saw the big bicycle that was in the video that he made with Paul McCartney, “Say Say Say,” the bicycle with the big front wheel.

    And lots of personal correspondence in Michael Jackson`s own hand. The thing that was most compelling to me was a little note that he had written to his sister-in-law warning her to watch out for child molesters. He was worried about his three nephews. [no mention of any uncles, by the way]

    GRACE: Also, joining us today, the Jackson family attorney. You know him well, veteran trial lawyer Brian Oxman.

    Brian, thank you for being with us. Will Michael Jackson see any of this money?

    BRIAN OXMAN, JACKSON FAMILY ATTORNEY: Nancy, we don`t think so. There has been a lawsuit that Michael filed, where he wanted to get back all of his personal items which were confidential, things such as bank statements and personal letters. He settled that lawsuit with these individuals.

    The materials which are left there, Nancy, I have to tell you, are junk. There has been a sale of a Cleveland City Council resolution. It went for the great big price of $100. Randy`s bongo drums, which would sell in the store for at least $1,200 or $1,500, $550 at this auction.

    I`m sorry. Diane is absolutely correct. We could have bought this for $25,000. All the family had to do was ante up. They said, “No way, it`s junk.”

    ALTOMARE: Yes, of course, there are. And I do know that the first few hours of this auction have exceeded $400,000, or $500,000. So with all due respect to Mr. Oxman, I guess everyone has a different definition of junk.

    I don`t know Mr. Oxman. We`ve never, you know, met. But I don`t know if this is the same Mr. Oxman that was sanctioned by the state of California for filing false reports on behalf of the Jackson family. It may not be the same.

    GRACE: Well, obviously, that`s the same name, but in an entirely different matter. Back to you, Brian Oxman, to defend yourself?

    OXMAN: You bet, Nancy. This family has been put through the wringer on this. We have things in this auction which never were in this storage cabinet. I have photographs of the storage cabinet. I`ve personally inspected it. The result is, is that things are being auctioned which we`ve never seen before.

    The fedora hat, that was never in the storage cabinet. Supposedly Janet`s dancing shoes, excuse me, it was never in the storage cabinet. You can look through these photographs, which I have, and most of this material was never there.

    The whole of the filth from Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond is here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/30/ng.01.html

    I hope the above makes it clear that no paintings, sculptures or Michael’s costumes they show in this video could ever be – even theoretically – in Vaccaro’s possession.

    Like

  14. Alison permalink
    February 23, 2011 6:00 pm

    @ visitor
    “Either that or there are some pretty stupid people working on TV.” – No, impossible!! LOL!

    i agree with your comments tho, it is all deliberate twisting, tho some people may in fact be stupid. and they think everyone else is stupid and will believe what they say.

    Like

  15. visitor permalink
    February 23, 2011 12:01 pm

    I don’t think they misinterpreted that letter either.I believe that they deliberately twisted the content of it to make Michael look bad again. It’s so obvious the bias of those people that it’s shoking actually. Either that or there are some pretty stupid people working on TV.

    Like

  16. Suzy permalink
    February 23, 2011 5:27 am

    I don’t get the obsession with that letter to DeeDee either. Let alone the fact, Vaccaro in his motion deliberately misinterprets it. He says Michael wrote there could be a CM in the family. He didn’t write that! He wrote that he read an article about CMs and that CMs are sometimes uncles and aunts and that DeeDee should read the article for her sons.

    If anything it makes MJ look good and not bad. I mean what CM would want to make his family read articles about CMs?

    Like

  17. February 23, 2011 2:32 am

    He didn’t say he got the items from Neverland. This is part one of a 3 part series on Youtube. The series was to explain what happened to Michael’s money and how his items ended up on the aution block. It was made for some TV channel just before Michael died. Parts 2 & 3 has Taraborelli, David Nordahl, Michael Lavine, Stuart Backerman, pyschologists, art dealers, art buyers etc all giving interviews.

    Like

  18. lynande51 permalink
    February 23, 2011 2:06 am

    They were not used in the trial. They had been confiscated from Havenhurst by US Marshalls in 1998 for Henry Vaccarro because the Jacksons defaulted on their loan. He doesn’t quite explain it right. It was another 2-3 years before he won the rights to the items. That is why they were in New Jersey in the first place. He tries to say that he hired a detective to find out if the Jacksons had any assessts and according to him his detective sent out phony rebate checks to get the Jackson family to respond to them. They were for $50.00 and Katherine took hers down and deposited it in her bank account. Some of the other family members did too. That is how he got their bank account numbers. As for what was in there the only thing that troubles me are the master tapes of the J5 and Michael Jackson recordings. What a rip off artist that guy was.No wonder Katherine had to join forces with Howard Mann to get the stuff back.And that video has it all wrong too. the Neverland Auction was separate from the Henry Vaccarro items. If he did get the things from Neverland he is guilty of diversion. If I were him I wouldn’t go around bragging that the way I got them is because Michael didn’t pay his lawyer.

    Like

  19. February 23, 2011 12:29 am

    Here is Henry Vaccaro tale of how things unfolded. It starts at 4:00.

    Like

  20. visitor permalink
    February 23, 2011 12:06 am

    Like i have already said blood,sex and drugs sell .Bring those three subject in a discussion on TV and see you ratings explode. I don’t thing those underwears had nothing to do with the trial or the allegations. They just liked to discuss those kind of things and present them in a sinister so that people would thing that everything Michael did was perverted. And when there are allegations running, what better way to enhance even more the negative opinion that already exist about a man and his life style .They did the same with his amousment park , the mannequins dolls that he had in his house and so on. I think that those underweare were an additional way to tarnish Michael’s public image. Ι don’t think they would ever use them as an evidence in the trial. That would have been ridiculous.

    Like

  21. February 22, 2011 11:40 pm

    (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Well, covering the case for us tonight, 360 Legal Analyst Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom, good to see you again. All right, let’s talk about this underwear not in too much detail because I really don’t want to get into all the gory details of it but I mean is this thing ever going to end up in court?

    KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM, 360 LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it has the potential, right, because if it a viable source of DNA, keep in mind it has not been determined it is, in fact, Michael Jackson’s, but my prediction this pair of Calvin Klein’s is never going to see a day in court.

    I think basically there’s other ways for them to get a source of DNA from Michael Jackson. They can petition the court and get a search warrant and have him provide a sample.

    COOPER: Because, I mean, who knows how many people have touched this thing or, you know, where it’s been.

    GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM: Quite a few people have so that really interrupts the chain of evidence in terms of it being introduced as a viable piece of evidence if so many different people have handled it. And, again, we still don’t know that it is, in fact, his. We know some of the items that it was found with are Michael Jackson’s.

    COOPER: Searching this warehouse, I mean does it seem like a little bit of a fishing expedition to you?

    GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM: Well, it seems to me that the prosecution has cast a very wide net in this case from the beginning, you know, putting up the phone line to call in if anyone has had any contact with Michael Jackson, looking for other victims, going back ten years, et cetera. So, this is not surprising in that sense and there were some other items found in there as well.

    COOPER: Right. There was a letter that Michael Jackson allegedly wrote to the wife of Tito Jackson, I guess she has passed away, warning her about child molesters.

    GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM: Sure and now, of course, the prosecution is going to say that this could be some kind of consciousness of guilt or some kind of admission or it takes one to know one. Why would he be advising or warning her about that?

    COOPER: In fact, he says in the letter like it could be an uncle. It could be an aunt.

    GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM: It could be (unintelligible) relative, et cetera. So, the prosecution would love to put this into evidence. If they can authenticate that it is, in fact, Michael Jackson that penned it, maybe it could have some relevance in the case.

    Of course, the defense is going to say, look, this has no meaning whatsoever except that Michael Jackson loves children and looks out for his family and his family’s children.

    COOPER: All right, Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsom thanks very much.

    GUILFOYLE-NEWSOM: Thanks, Anderson.

    http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/03/acd.00.html

    Like

  22. February 22, 2011 11:27 pm

    Jodi Gomes tells a funny story about his unwashed stage clothes and how he handled the cleaning…

    I was a young TV producer recording/mixing Voice-over for an animated Nickelodeon series in the early 90’s. We booked a room weeks in advance, but the day of our session were told a client rented the entire facility. Of course, lil miss ambitious, I was beside myself. I pleaded with the management to let us use one room for just an hour, because it was a nightmare rescheduling the child actors. He reluctantly asked the client – and to my surprise the client obliged with two caveats: (1) I had to describe the characters that the kids were voicing – and – I happily did (inaccurately of course because I thought a competitor was in the other room stealing my idea! After all, this is Hollywood!); and (2) we would have to record in the smallest room, of which, the client had equipment and items stored, which we could not touch.

    At the end of my rope, I agreed, and got to work. BUT… the room had a smell that we’ll just say, “had the funk of 40,000 years”. There were damp, sweaty, musty, funky, moldy T-shirts & clothes hidden behind a couch in the room. Piled high. Well – this was just too much! I carried on like a fool with the manager, who snickered with laughter. I went on & on about hygiene, “we’re a paying customer too” type stuff – and “you have the nerve to have a large client’s equipment stored in here with this nasty sh*t”.

    GOD’S INTERVENTION: Bruce Swedien walks by. Then Michael Jackson walks by during my rant – of course I shut the heck up and showed respect because I was clearly enamored. We’d met previously and he recognized my face, gave me a huge flirtatious hug and mischievous smile. We exchanged a “where do I know you from” story and had a big laugh about something I can barely remember now.

    SIDE NOTE: MJ had a way of making you feel like you knew him for 100 years, and eased your nerves about how HUGE he was.
    He said, “so you’re the one recording the animation project?” I said yes and exchanged, “so you’re the big client keeping me out of this joint”. Again, we laughed. He was soooo curious about the animation project and voice over. With the ice broken, I called myself giving the King of Pop a heads up. I informed him that there were DISGUSTING, STANKY clothes in the room where he was storing equipment. He was shocked. He was embarrassed. He wanted to see it.

    Again, the management smiled a funny smirk and led us to the room. I was being over dramatic covering my nose, preparing for the stench, and of course still carrying on. MJ kept teasing me & laughing, “oh girl stop, it’s can’t be that bad”… and before I could show him where the clothes were hidden, he went right over to the pile!!! He pulled them out and instructed manager to take HIS clothes away! Apparently, Michael liked to dance his little skinny butt off in between recording, and be drenched with sweat. He’d change clothes, and go back to recording…this went on for days! There was no equipment stored in the room – just his clothing. After complete embarrassment and a million apologies from me, he burst out with this huge laugh and said, “my brothers and I used to say, if it don’t stink – it aint funky”. He gave me a big hug and whispered to me, just don’t tell my Mother. I think that album went on to be “Dangerous” – and it definitely was funky!

    But I don’t get it – like someone else said, why was it so important they discuss unwashed underwear belonging to Mike? Why did they need to DNA test items from that warehouse? Hoping they’d find the DNA of numerous males on each piece? Just ridiculous.

    Like

  23. February 22, 2011 11:19 pm

    CALLER: OK. My question is, has there been or could there be any DNA testing on the soiled clothing or any of the costumes?

    GRACE: You smart, smart girl. I`ve got just the person to answer that question. She asked it first, Diane Dimond.

    DIMOND: … in the wardrobe closet, I have to admit, it wasn`t my most shining moment as an investigative reporter, but I did note the underwear. And the Santa Barbara D.A.`s office did come and get it during the criminal trial, and I believe they did test it. They were Michael`s.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/30/ng.01.html
    * * *
    According to Taraborelli the Jackson’s after a concert just took off all their clothes and put them in a pile to be laundered. They had special people that did that. I don’t think the locker was owned by Michael but by Joe.

    Like

  24. Suzy permalink
    February 22, 2011 1:57 pm

    @ rockonforever

    I didn’t know it was written by that crazy woman. Thanks. Maybe she sent it to Encino, that’s why it was there. Because I think the majority of that stuff in the storehouse came from Encino.

    That story about the guy being accused of maybe being a p. just because he took a photo of his son, is crazy.

    Like

  25. February 22, 2011 1:06 pm

    BTW, I also think Vaccaro falsified some items. I mean I have seen a letter, for example, or a note, supposedly written by Michael to Lisa Marie – something about the Presley family not respecing him and that he would break up with LMP and go back to his “Muslim wife”.

    That was a letter written by Nona Paris Lola Ankhesenamun Jackson (the crazy woman) as if it was written by Michael, but it isn’t. I don’t know why Vaccaro had it.

    Vaccaro contacted Diane Dimond first, who then contacted her buddy Sneddon.

    Off Topic, but I just read this and it just rang in my mind how big the “every man who spends time with a child is a predator pedophile” culture is in America:

    A man who took a picture of his son while they were out shopping was accused of being a paedophile and threatened with arrest

    Kevin Geraghty-Shewan had taken four-year-old Ben to the Bridges Shopping Centre in Sunderland to spend £10 the boy had been given as a treat.

    He told Sky News: “Ben spotted a children’s ride which had a train on it and wanted to have a go because he’s obsessed with trains.

    “When he got on my wife suggested we take a picture of him.

    “I took the picture on my phone and suddenly this security guard came up and told me it wasn’t allowed because I could be a paedophile.

    “I told him Ben was my own son. But he said I couldn’t prove it. He said there is a real problem with paedophiles and that if I didn’t like it, he’d call the manager.

    http://www.epicweird.com/dad-branded-a-paedophile-over-pic-of-son

    Like

  26. shelly permalink
    February 22, 2011 7:52 am

    “Why weren’t the underwear important enough to use as evidence? ”

    Why would they used a 20 years old underwear?

    Like

  27. Suzy permalink
    February 22, 2011 7:09 am

    @ Dialdancer

    I think Vaccaro is a shameless opportunist and a liar.

    Why weren’t the underwear important enough to use as evidence?

    Why would they be important? As far as I know all these stuff didn’t belong to just Michael, they belonged to the family. Some were Michael’s – as obvious from handwriting or drawing style – but many were his siblings’s, nephews and nieces, sister-in-laws etc. – so people’s who lived in the Encino house.

    As for the underwear, if they found DNA on it they probably could identify if it was Michael’s or not, but why would that matter? (It was probably a very old item from the 80s or early 90s.) I really don’t understand the prosecution’s obsession with Michael’s underwears… Isn’t he allowed to wear underwears or – God forbid – soil them with urine or semen?

    So I’m not surprised Sneddon couldn’t use these items for anything and at the end he passed them down to Dimond (yet another example of unprofessional behaviour by the prosecution) so that she could run around with this underwear on CNN. For what purpose exactly? Does she have a fetish for MJ underwears?

    BTW, I also think Vaccaro falsified some items. I mean I have seen a letter, for example, or a note, supposedly written by Michael to Lisa Marie – something about the Presley family not respecing him and that he would break up with LMP and go back to his “Muslim wife”. It didn’t make much sense. Of course, that it didn’t make sense to us, doesn’t mean it couldn’t for those concerned, maybe he had a Muslim girlfirend or something, I would accept that. But what made me extremely suspicious was that it wasn’t Michael’s handwriting at all! So Vaccaro has items those pretend to be written by Michael, yet they are not his handwriting. It makes me question whether everything he has is authentic or he also added some falsified items. And if yes, for what purpose?

    Like

  28. Dialdancer permalink
    February 22, 2011 5:11 am

    Hi Helena,

    Welcome back. Earlier this week I saw an article on the Michael Jackson Blog that came back to me when I saw a link for a court doc about Herny Vaccaro and the memorobilia. The Admin Lesliemjhu had interviewed Henry and there were some comments on his conduct then and now. A person who says he is Henry responded and the one thing which he told these Michael Jackson Fans was he was contacted by the SB DA, but Dimond said on her show he contacted her who in turned contacted Sneddon.

    “After word got out about my collection I received a visit from the Prosecutors office with subpoena. I complied. Items taken were items of MJ’s clothing, personal notes and photos”

    http://lesliemjhu.blogspot.com/2011/02/interview-with-henry-vaccaro.html

    Henry’s above statement is not true according to the below document there were no warrants issued he went to Sneddon. There are all sorts of questions here. Heck who knows they all seem to lie so effortlessly have no problem with perjury.

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/021505motretpersnlprp.pdf

    1) How did Dimond get a hold of the underwear if they were indeed the pair found in the storage room by police and why was she given them? Why weren’t the underwear important enough to use as evidence?

    2) Why did Vaccaro think that whining to the DA about the seized/given material would get him sole custody upon their release?

    I posted a comment to Vaccaro I hope Lesliemjhu approves it.

    Like

  29. lcpledwards permalink
    February 21, 2011 9:02 pm

    @ Jan
    Thank you for all of your contributions to the comments on this blog! We know that you had a good heart. Technically, ACEH was correct in that Dimond’s quote was taken out of context. Although she didn’t explicitly say MJ was a p., her biased reporting was tantamount to calling him one!

    It’s obvious that ACEH’s goal was merely to distract us, and mission accomplished! How much time did we WASTE on that stupid magazine! She never thanked us or complimented us for our research, instead she just nitpicked and criticized, all the while claiming that he/she couldn’t “find” the testimony where Star admitted to seeing the magazine, and then having the audacity to say that he didn’t claim to see a magazine, but “Exhibit 86” (WHICH INCLUDED THAT MAGAZINE!).

    She hasn’t posted here since, and neither has Charlie nor Gustave, and that shows their true colors! Don’t let them get you down! In the future, we’ll all have to be more suspicious of new people who come here demanding that we provide info to them that they could easily find themselves.

    Like

  30. February 21, 2011 6:47 pm

    “What I posted on here was in good faith, but some people not in the spirit of michael jackson decide to pick on others which is very disappointing. It was purely to highlight diane dimond changing her stories to suit herself regarding her views on michael jackson since the linen was being discussed I believed it to be relevant.
    I think people can correct others without becoming personal.”

    Jan, though I was responding our new “innocent little hater” when writing about Diane Dimond I still have a feeling that you attributed my answer to yourself. If this is so, please forgive me for not really understanding who wrote what. Those innocent little lambs made such a mountain out of a molehill (as usual) that at some point I lost all patience with them and cut them short without even reading their nonsense in full.

    And you know that I sometimes allow myself a little fun at haters’ expense – however they know what they can expect here if they pull our legs and take us for complete imbeciles.

    Like

  31. Alison permalink
    February 20, 2011 3:37 pm

    @ hana
    “but according to his medical records, Gavin had one kidney removed because of his cancer treatment, and drinking that much alcohol most certainly would have damaged him deeply, but there was no evidence of anything being wrong with him because otherwise the prosecution would have definietly called his doctor to the stand or entered his medical records into evidence as proof that the boy was given wine..

    This proves that the alcohol allegations were bogus.”

    Hana its a good point about showing Star the mags, it sort of takes away the secrecy of mol..n doesn’t it.
    But i am not sure about this bit, can i ask you, how do you know about gavin’s medical records? i still don’t feel fully convinced about gavin’s medical issues, not that he didn’t have any at all necessarily because hopefully the medics would have exposed the fraud otherwise, but the extent of them. Its a very good point that gavin’s records were not used as evidence because in the dvds interview on Larry Nimmer’s dvds the detectives specifically task about the alcohol and gavin’s condition, so wouldn’t they have needed to use the records to back up their alcohol charges? so why didn’t they?? did they even bring his doctor as a witness as to the effects alcohol would have had on gavin to show how serious what MJ “did” was?, i don’t think they did.

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    February 20, 2011 1:03 pm

    @Jan

    Don’t worry, it happens.

    Like

  33. Jan permalink
    February 20, 2011 11:52 am

    What I posted on here was in good faith, but some people not in the spirit of michael jackson decide to pick on others which is very disappointing. It was purely to highlight diane dimond changing her stories to suit herself regarding her views on michael jackson since the linen was being discussed I believed it to be relevant.
    I think people can correct others without becoming personal.

    Like

  34. hana permalink
    February 19, 2011 1:19 am

    The prosecution claimed that Michael gave Gavin wine and girlie magazines to assist with the molestation, but the thing is, if Gavin was Michael’s target, and if Gavin was the one he was planning to molest, then it wouldn’t really make much sense why he would also show Star girlie magazines and give him alcohol..

    And another thing is, Gavin claimed he was given alcohol by Michael Jackson every night, and that him and his brother would be in his bedroom getting drunk, but according to his medical records, Gavin had one kidney removed because of his cancer treatment, and drinking that much alcohol most certainly would have damaged him deeply, but there was no evidence of anything being wrong with him because otherwise the prosecution would have definietly called his doctor to the stand or entered his medical records into evidence as proof that the boy was given wine..

    This proves that the alcohol allegations were bogus.

    Like

  35. February 18, 2011 8:25 pm

    @Suzy yes

    Like

  36. lynande51 permalink
    February 18, 2011 7:09 pm

    MR. SNEDDON: Yes, sir.
    6 THE COURT: If I don’t say it, I intended to
    7 have those heard at the same time as this motion.
    8 MR. SNEDDON: I don’t know if you wanted me
    9 to address anything Mr. Sanger said. If you do,
    10 I’ll answer the question. Otherwise, I’ll just
    11 submit it to the Court.
    12 THE COURT: No, you don’t need to.
    13 MR. SNEDDON: Thank you.
    14 THE COURT: Without ruling on that, because
    15 I’m not quite ready — I haven’t quite made up my
    16 mind. But rather than spend the time now thinking
    17 about it, let’s hear some argument on the other
    18 issues.
    19 Let’s see, the objection to calling the
    20 grand jury witness.
    21 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, we’ve briefed the
    22 matter and so I don’t want to go over —
    23 THE COURT: Yes, I read that again this
    24 morning.
    25 MR. SANGER: — each one of the points.
    26 But what I did want to do is briefly augment
    27 it with reference to the grand jury transcript. And
    28 we did cite the transcript in our papers in an 2723
    1 effort to keep things short. You know, we didn’t
    2 quote things at length and make a big deal out of
    3 it. We tried to follow the concept that this was a
    4 brief and, for a change, make it brief.
    5 THE COURT: I appreciate that.
    6 MR. SANGER: Okay. But looking at the
    7 actual transcripts of the grand jury, our position,
    8 as you know, is that if it’s not in the transcript,
    9 that’s too bad. The People are there to make their
    10 record and they know how to make a record. And
    11 we’re not there. There’s nobody there to object.
    12 If they wanted to have somebody put on gloves and
    13 look at things, they could say, “We’re putting on
    14 gloves,” and so on.
    15 And, in fact, as the record shows, when you
    16 look at the actual transcript of the grand jury, and
    17 you look at the testimony of Timothy Sutcliffe, he
    18 talks about having gloves on. There’s a question as
    19 to whether or not he had gloves on, and he had
    20 gloves on at one point when he was handling some
    21 moldy — what appeared to be moldy schoolbooks.
    22 When it comes to the end of the — of his
    23 testimony, and you look at page 1245 — and I have a
    24 clean copy. I’m sure the Court has the whole
    25 transcript, but I have a clean copy, if it would
    26 help.
    27 THE COURT: They’re here. 1245.
    28 MR. SANGER: 1245. 2724
    1 THE COURT: What volume would that be.
    2 MR. SANGER: That’s a good question. I’m
    3 sorry, Your Honor, I just have the excerpt here.
    4 THE COURT: I can find it. That’s all
    5 right.
    6 MR. SANGER: OKAY.
    7 THE COURT: Volume 5, I think.
    8 1245 did you say.
    9 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir, 1245.
    10 THE COURT: Yes. Okay.
    11 MR. SANGER: Okay. I just realized I didn’t
    12 turn my cell phone off, so I’m going to do that real
    13 quick. It didn’t ring, but —
    14 THE COURT: I’ve done that. It’s been
    15 embarrassing. I’ve been sitting in court and my
    16 cell phone has gone off, and I have to act like,
    17 “Whose cell phone is that.”
    18 MR. SANGER: “Get that cell phone.”
    19 MR. MESEREAU: Must be Mr. Sneddon, Your
    20 Honor.
    21 THE COURT: Yeah.
    22 MR. SANGER: If you look at 1245, this is
    23 sort of our smoking gun conversation here. And I
    24 know that the prosecution has some other version of
    25 it. But starting at line 14 — does the Court have
    26 that in front of you.
    27 THE COURT: Yes, I do.
    28 MR. SANGER: Since you have it in front of 2725
    1 you, I’ll just paraphrase and quote from the
    2 relevant source. But it’s a grand juror who asked
    3 about the black suitcase, which was Item 317. And
    4 it was admitted in evidence here as some other
    5 exhibit number, which I don’t remember right now,
    6 but the black briefcase. And it had all the
    7 materials inside. And the picture, you recall, had
    8 the magazine on the top that had a date later than
    9 the relevant time period.
    10 And Mr. Auchincloss asked a question that
    11 the grand juror had proposed and said, “Did some —
    12 a forensic examination of some pornography in this
    13 case” — I’m sorry, “You did some — a forensic
    14 examination of some pornography in this case,
    15 correct.”
    16 He says, “Correct.”
    17 Now the question is, “Did you find any —
    18 did you find any fingerprints on that
    19 pornography, usable fingerprints.”
    20 Now, that’s not a question asked by a
    21 District Attorney who knows that there was no
    22 fingerprint analysis done. That’s a question of a
    23 District Attorney who is asking a witness, “Well,
    24 did you find any fingerprints, usable fingerprints.
    25 And the answer is, “Well, we’re doing all
    26 this stuff” – I’m paraphrasing – “We used an ALS,”
    27 alternate light source. They did a fluorescent
    28 check to see if there was any stains, and then they 2726
    1 could do DNA, and they found no stains and no DNA.
    2 So the question is, “So they haven’t been
    3 examined for fingerprints.”
    4 “A. No, not at this time.”
    5 And then they go on to explain the
    6 alternative light source thing.
    7 Now, at the end of the grand jury
    8 proceeding, there is a — when the jurors are about
    9 to deliberate, there’s a part of the transcript
    10 where they show Detective, I believe it was Zelis,
    11 has been instructed to wear gloves, and, “You’re not
    12 to deliberate while he’s in there, but he’s going to
    13 take these things out and show them to you.” Okay.
    14 So by the end of the grand jury, clearly
    15 someone’s wearing gloves and showing the grand
    16 jurors.
    17 Now, that doesn’t — and I’ll represent to
    18 the Court, we have a witness from the clerk’s office
    19 who says that after the grand jury returned the
    20 exhibits, they went through without gloves and they
    21 were tabulating and making sure all the pages were
    22 there, and they didn’t know there was a problem.
    23 But, aside from that, the most important
    24 thing here is that if you then go back to page
    25 421 — and I’m guessing that would be in Volume 2.
    26 Okay.
    27 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
    28 MR. SANGER: I’m sorry, I’ll get the volume 2727
    1 number next time I quote the transcript.
    2 But if you go to 421, starting at line 23 —
    3 I’m sorry, line 25, you have the questioner, one of
    4 the district attorneys saying, “Now, I want you
    5 to — I broke — we’re going to break the seal on
    6 this exhibit.”
    7 And they’re talking at this point about the
    8 black briefcase.
    9 “I’m going to ask you to look very briefly,
    10 young man, at the stuff that’s in there. All
    11 right. Take a look at the stuff.
    12 “Now, there’s some magazines, correct.
    13 “Yes.
    14 “Then there’s some sheets that are
    15 individual and not in magazines as if they’ve
    16 been torn out, correct.
    17 “Yes.
    18 “Now, can you tell me whether or not that
    19 was the kind of materials that was in the
    20 suitcase that was shown to you.
    21 “A. Yes, that was the kind of materials.
    22 “Q. Does that look like some of the stuff
    23 that was shown to you.
    24 “Yes.”
    25 And it goes on beyond that.
    26 The point is, if — realistically, if this
    27 was a point in the proceedings where somebody was
    28 wearing gloves and saying, “Don’t touch it, I’m 2728
    1 going to show it to you,” that would be on the
    2 record.
    3 What’s on the record is, “We’re breaking the
    4 seal. We’re opening it. Now, young man, look at
    5 this.”
    6 And as you saw from the exhibit, the
    7 photograph, the way it was seized and the way it was
    8 sealed, all these things are stacked up. So the
    9 only way to see if there’s other magazines and to
    10 see if there’s separate pages is for somebody to
    11 look through them, for a person to look through
    12 them. There’s no evidence that the District
    13 Attorney is looking through them. There’s no
    14 evidence anybody put on gloves.
    15 And so the clear record on this appears to
    16 be that the District Attorney at that time,
    17 remembering this occurred on 3-30, and the Sutcliffe
    18 occurred on 4-8. In other words, it wasn’t until
    19 4-8, it appears, that somebody said, “You mean you
    20 didn’t even look for fingerprints. We knew you
    21 didn’t get any usable prints, but you didn’t look
    22 for them.” And then they go in and make a big deal
    23 about gloves in the deliberations.
    24 So on 3-30, when they’re showing it to Gavin
    25 Arvizo, it looks, to me, from the record, pretty
    26 clearly that nobody was wearing gloves, and there
    27 was no effort to do anything to avoid contaminating
    28 this evidence by the fingerprints of Gavin Arvizo. 2729
    1 Okay. So, having said that, that’s our
    2 position.
    3 Now, does that give the District Attorney
    4 the right to call a grand juror. And we take the
    5 position, no, because the code says you can only
    6 call them with regard to testimony. And as we
    7 pointed out, that’s pretty much obsolete these days
    8 because the recent case law — I cited Cummiskey,
    9 but I believe there’s other ones, like Moucharaub
    10 also talked about it. The courts have said we’re
    11 entitled to a full transcript of the testimony, so
    12 it should pretty much negate the need to call in a
    13 grand juror. There may be other ways to do it. A
    14 District Attorney could take the stand and say what
    15 he wants to say.
    16 But we have the further problem that we were
    17 given the name of the foreperson of the grand jury
    18 for the first time two days ago. No address, no
    19 phone number.
    20 The prosecutor had a proceeding in which
    21 they had full access to these people. They know all
    22 their names. We’ve never been allowed to know their
    23 names. There was an objection when we asked to get
    24 their names. The Court ordered that numbers be used
    25 instead of names. That was done in the transcripts.
    26 They come up and say, “Well, here, we have a name.
    27 No statement. Except we’re going to tell you this
    28 witness is going to come and say we did everything 2730
    1 right.”
    2 Furthermore, there were 18 other grand
    3 jurors there. We’ve never been given their names.
    4 We have no ability to interview them. So we have
    5 that major problem with calling grand jurors.
    6 And do we really think it’s appropriate to
    7 disclose all the names of all the grand jurors and
    8 have them all interviewed with regard to whether
    9 there were gloves or not, or whatever, about
    10 something in the middle of the process.
    11 And that leads me backwards to the first
    12 point I made – or the first or second in writing –
    13 and I’ll conclude with this – is that this whole
    14 thing, even if the Court were to say, “Well, okay,
    15 we’ll even the playing field. We’ll give you all
    16 the names and addresses and phone numbers. You can
    17 have your investigators go talk to all of them, and
    18 then you all can call in competing grand jurors,”
    19 okay.
    20 Even if we did that, and even if that
    21 survived a 352 analysis on consumption of time and
    22 undue confusion to the jury, the prejudicial effect
    23 of bringing in people from a body that made a
    24 determination — a quasi-judicial determination
    25 under California law and an administrative
    26 determination under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, in
    27 other words, part of the prosecution, if that — if
    28 they’re allowed to do that, that is going be 2731
    1 extremely prejudicial, because you’ve got jurors who
    2 are trying to hear the case. They’re now listening
    3 to a juror who has a vested interest in upholding
    4 the process that they went through, the best they
    5 could as laypeople, to return an Indictment. That
    6 kind of evidence to this jury is going to be — is
    7 going to be very prejudicial.
    8 THE COURT: You know, the interesting thing
    9 in your argument, though, is that, through excellent
    10 cross-examining skills, you, the defense, have put
    11 into issue whether or not the children touched the
    12 magazines during the grand jury proceeding.
    13 So at this point, the state of the evidence
    14 is most favorable to you that the inference is
    15 strong that they must have touched those magazines.
    16 Now, having skillfully done that — and this
    17 is not meant to be anything but a compliment.
    18 MR. SANGER: I’m always worried when I get
    19 complimented by the Court.
    20 THE COURT: Yeah, I can see you starting to
    21 worry. No, I really mean that. Credit where
    22 credit’s due.
    23 But then you say, having skillfully raised
    24 this inference, “The District Attorney should be
    25 barred from rebutting that, and that’s it.” And
    26 that’s — that’s what I find interesting about your
    27 argument, is that.
    28 Now, let me ask you a question. 2732
    1 MR. SANGER: Yes.
    2 THE COURT: You don’t have to defend your
    3 excellent skills at getting to this position.
    4 MR. SANGER: I do have an answer to that,
    5 but —
    6 THE COURT: You have an answer to that.
    7 And I would say, if you had been doing the
    8 grand jury, I think that that would have been
    9 covered, but the transcript would have been 4600
    10 pages instead of 1800, which I found overwhelming.
    11 MR. SANGER: The trial would be shorter.
    12 (Laughter.)
    13 THE COURT: I doubt that.
    14 What was I saying. How can I lose it like
    15 that.
    16 MR. SANGER: Could I respond a little bit.
    17 And I’m sure that will cause the Court to remember.
    18 THE COURT: Yes.
    19 MR. SANGER: I appreciate what the Court
    20 said and — but I think the —
    21 THE COURT: Oh, I know. I know what I was
    22 going to say.
    23 MR. SANGER: I knew if I started talking,
    24 that would help.
    25 THE COURT: You did it. You helped me.
    26 There’s a couple of possibilities that I see
    27 here. One is that you’re only asking — as well as
    28 you did, you know, it’s just an inference that they 2733
    1 touched. There is no evidence that they touched.
    2 We don’t know if they touched or didn’t touch at
    3 this point. But the inference is strong by your
    4 examination, the defense examination, that they did.
    5 There’s a couple of ways we could handle
    6 that. One is you could stipulate that they didn’t
    7 touch it. That would get rid of any prejudice of
    8 calling a grand juror, foreperson of the grand jury
    9 to — and any resulting prejudice.
    10 You know, I can see from the look on your
    11 face, that’s not going to happen.
    12 MR. SANGER: Right.
    13 THE COURT: But — is that right.
    14 MR. SANGER: That’s correct.
    15 THE COURT: You’re not willing to stipulate
    16 to that.
    17 MR. SANGER: We actually believe he touched
    18 it. I honestly believe that, for what it’s worth.
    19 THE COURT: That being the case, the question
    20 then becomes, you know, what is a fair way, if there
    21 are witnesses in — that saw this.
    22 And one of the things that we could do would
    23 be to call that witness, but not identify them as a
    24 grand juror or foreperson of the grand jury, but
    25 simply say they were in the grand jury room and they
    26 observed whatever they observed, so that you don’t
    27 have the prejudice that you’re so much afraid of,
    28 you know, this formidable person being called. 2734
    1 What do you think of that.
    2 MR. SANGER: Well, I think there’s yet
    3 another possibility. So in answer to the Court’s
    4 question what I think about that, I think this:
    5 Another possibility is there are other people in the
    6 grand jury room: The prosecution; I believe there
    7 was a police officer there, or a sheriff there most
    8 of the time.
    9 Did I just hear somebody say no, there
    10 wasn’t. I don’t want to waste time talking about it
    11 if there wasn’t a police officer in the room at that
    12 time.
    13 But that would be a possibility. Certainly
    14 the District Attorney, whoever — whichever one or
    15 two or three were there at the time, could testify.
    16 I would assume if they’re taking the position that
    17 something else happened, we’re going to hear that.
    18 The third possibility is to allow us to have
    19 the names and addresses of all the grand jurors. It
    20 seems clear — and the reason I say this — well,
    21 there’s the obvious reason, but there’s a more
    22 subtle reason as well.
    23 It seems clear from the transcript of the
    24 grand jury that there was — there were several
    25 grand jurors who asked a lot of questions. There
    26 was one grand juror, for instance, who was
    27 particularly interested in this fingerprint issue.
    28 I don’t know who it is, because we only have a 2735
    1 number. The prosecution knows who it is, so we’re
    2 not on even ground here.
    3 But one way to do this would be to allow us
    4 to have the names of the grand jurors so that we can
    5 adequately investigate this and see what they all
    6 have to say.
    7 In other words, in response to the Court’s
    8 question, I certainly wouldn’t want to stipulate the
    9 foreperson can just come up here and not be
    10 identified and say, “I was in the room when I saw
    11 this,” because that’s just the problem. The
    12 foreperson has — and I don’t mean to fault him or
    13 her.
    14 THE COURT: I think you made a very good
    15 point; that other people may have seen something the
    16 foreperson didn’t, or — you know, it’s a good
    17 point.
    18 MR. SANGER: But my first position on this,
    19 again, is that the government should be, in a way,
    20 bound by the transcript, because they’re the ones
    21 that are making it. That’s what the Supreme Court
    22 has been saying over the last few years. Last, you
    23 know, 25, 30 years, it’s been increasingly adamant
    24 about the fact that there’s — there’s a record
    25 before the grand jury. The prosecution is the only
    26 side in there. They’re the only lawyers in there.
    27 They have the obligation to make sure that that
    28 transcript is complete so it can be reviewed. 2736
    1 And if we’re going to have a grand jury
    2 process where things can be done in secret, where
    3 the defense can’t be there, the accused isn’t there,
    4 there’s — there’s not a Judge, if we’re going to do
    5 this, the only protection is to make sure that the
    6 prosecution makes a complete record. So the — the
    7 original position that we’re taking — I’m going
    8 full circle on all this.
    9 THE COURT: No, I understand.
    10 MR. SANGER: — is that when you look at it,
    11 the transcript is the transcript. And the inference
    12 from the transcript, as I just read it to the Court,
    13 is an inference, and the jury should be allowed to
    14 hear this testimony or have this read to them.
    15 They can consider that along with what other
    16 evidence has been put on to determine whether or not
    17 the chain of custody on this material was such that
    18 when fingerprint analysis was later done after it
    19 was released and they allegedly find a fingerprint
    20 of Gavin Arvizo, that the jury can say, “Yeah, we’re
    21 sure that fingerprint came from February or March of
    22 2003.”
    23 THE COURT: I guess I have — you have an
    24 advantage that I don’t have, too. And maybe you can
    25 help me. I haven’t heard the evidence on the
    26 fingerprint on the magazine or more than one
    27 magazine. I don’t know. You know, I know from
    28 points and authorities something, but I don’t know 2737
    1 the picture. I don’t know if there’s a palm print
    2 or a —
    3 MR. SANGER: There’s a fingerprint.
    4 THE COURT: Just one fingerprint.
    5 MR. SANGER: Well, here’s the problem right
    6 now. And before we discuss this and go into too
    7 much detail, I’m always conscious that whatever
    8 we’re going to say is just going to be in the press.
    9 THE COURT: You can be circumspect. You
    10 don’t even have to answer that. I was just going to
    11 say that I don’t know that information.
    12 MR. SANGER: Let me tell the Court this in
    13 general terms, is that we don’t know that
    14 information either, because there have been reports
    15 that were given to us showing that there was a
    16 fingerprint. Well, showing that there was, in this
    17 context, a fingerprint, one fingerprint that we’re
    18 concerned about.
    19 THE COURT: Okay.
    20 MR. SANGER: There were others that were
    21 determined not to have sufficient data to make —
    22 make a positive identification. There are others
    23 where they’re absolutely negative. They were
    24 excluded. Okay.
    25 THE COURT: All right.
    26 MR. SANGER: What has happened very
    27 recently, in the last couple, three weeks, is we’ve
    28 gotten reports that there have been a meeting of 2738
    1 various fingerprint people who have now decided that
    2 some of these determinations should be changed.
    3 And they go both ways. They go — they
    4 go — in the sense that they had a fingerprint they
    5 positively identified, they’re saying, “No, we don’t
    6 think we can say that.” And then they said, “We’ve
    7 found some others that we said were not conclusive
    8 and now we think are conclusive.” So we’re in flux
    9 on this.
    10 But the essence of it is that, if this is
    11 true, that Gavin Arvizo had a chance to go through
    12 these papers so he could see the sheets and he could
    13 see the magazines, and he picked them up to do that,
    14 if that’s true, this would be a very significant
    15 piece of evidence with regard — this inference that
    16 we have is very significant with regard to
    17 fingerprints that are done later.
    18 And understand, and I’m sure that — and I
    19 don’t mean to just offend the government here, but
    20 it is —
    21 THE COURT: Do you mean you intend to offend
    22 more than just the government.
    23 MR. SANGER: No. Whenever anybody says
    24 that, that means we’re really going to offend the
    25 government.
    26 But — I really don’t want to be rude, but,
    27 I mean, the fact is, if you look at any case that
    28 you have in the ordinary course of criminal law, 2739
    1 when do you have a situation where something is
    2 referred for forensic analysis very shortly — I
    3 don’t have the exact dates here, but very shortly
    4 after it is seized it’s sent over for forensic
    5 analysis – it was seized November 18th, and I think
    6 it was sent for forensic analysis in November – and
    7 they do their analysis. They do an alternate light
    8 source.
    9 And we will show from — we started to get
    10 into it, and then the officer wasn’t clear on what
    11 317 was. But the officer on the stand wrote a
    12 report saying, “Please” — and these were the words:
    13 “Please do a fingerprint analysis.” And he sent the
    14 material back with the reports saying, “Please do a
    15 fingerprint analysis.” And it sat there until March
    16 and April of 2004.
    17 In March of 2004, now, whatever that is, six
    18 months after it was seized, it’s opened, it’s shown
    19 to the grand jury, it’s booked into evidence, it’s
    20 handled by the clerk.
    21 And then sometime in the summer of 2004, it
    22 is taken out of the grand jury, and then it’s sent
    23 for fingerprint analysis.
    24 Now, that isn’t the way it should have gone.
    25 And I don’t know if anybody’s going to argue, “This
    26 is the way we do things,” but I’ve never seen it. I
    27 mean, if there’s going to be fingerprints, you take
    28 them before you book it into evidence. 2740
    1 THE COURT: Let’s let the District Attorney
    2 respond.
    3 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you.
    4 MR. ZONEN: After we seized the magazines
    5 from Neverland – and there were many, many, many
    6 magazines that were seized at that time – there were
    7 lengthy discussions about how to handle this, these
    8 magazines, and how to process them.
    9 It was exactly the opposite of what Mr.
    10 Sanger said, that we were suddenly in the middle of
    11 the grand jury hearing and we’re embarrassed because
    12 somebody thought for the first time to do
    13 fingerprinting.
    14 The reality was quite the opposite of that.
    15 The question was, do we proceed with fingerprinting
    16 first, or do we proceed with a search for biological
    17 evidence.
    18 The problem is, is that the process that you
    19 use for either the search for fingerprinting or the
    20 search for biological evidence could have the
    21 consequence of negating our ability to find the
    22 opposite. Whichever you go first with could have
    23 the problem of destroying the evidence as to the
    24 opposite.
    25 We had a lot of deliberations, a lot of
    26 discussions over many weeks, with a number of
    27 people, from the Department of Justice as to how to
    28 proceed on these issues, and very cautiously 2741
    1 proceeded with each individual magazine and each
    2 individual page by initially using alternative light
    3 sources that would suggest the presence of
    4 biological material, either semen or perspiration or
    5 some form of human contact with it that would leave
    6 biological evidence behind.
    7 There were some cuttings that were then
    8 taken, in an effort to minimize the destruction to
    9 the magazines, and as a consequence be able to
    10 preserve the possibility of finding fingerprints.
    11 The actual fingerprint process didn’t begin
    12 until after the grand jury hearings, partly because
    13 the evidence was before the grand jury, at least
    14 that portion of it. The evidence that was
    15 introduced were the magazines only in that one
    16 suitcase. It was not as to the balance of the
    17 magazines that came through.
    18 There were 19 prints that we were able to
    19 identify as belonging to the victims and to — to
    20 Star and to Gavin, and to the defendant. At the
    21 moment, I can’t tell you over how many magazines.
    22 I don’t have that information right in front of us.
    23 Counsel was wrong, of course. There are no
    24 police officers who are in the grand jury room
    25 unless they’re giving testimony. The rules are
    26 different from a regular court. We’re not entitled
    27 to have an investigating officer present.
    28 So when counsel asked Detective Zelis, 2742
    1 “Isn’t it true you handed those magazines to Gavin
    2 Arvizo.” the answer is, he wasn’t in the room when
    3 Gavin Arvizo was on the witness stand. We’re not
    4 allowed to do that.
    5 The only time that we had an officer in the
    6 room with the evidence was at the time that the
    7 jurors were allowed to view the actual magazines.
    8 And that was Detective Zelis. And he — he was the
    9 one who handled the magazines and showed them to the
    10 jurors. They didn’t touch them. And he, of course,
    11 wore gloves, as was consistent with his testimony.
    12 During the presentation of evidence of the
    13 two boys, yes, we did not put on the record that
    14 nobody was going to be touching the magazines,
    15 although there’s plenty of references to the fact
    16 that we were maintaining strict control,
    17 specifically at the time that the jury viewed the
    18 material. You’ll see that in the record, that they
    19 weren’t allowed to touch the magazines at that time.
    20 We have asked the foreperson of the jury to
    21 come forward and testify to this, because she was
    22 the person sitting closest to the witness. And she
    23 was the person responsible for taking control of the
    24 proceedings and making sure that the secretary had
    25 each of the items and that they were marked
    26 appropriately, that the witness is admonished, and
    27 of course she was in the best position to be able to
    28 see what was going on. 2743
    1 And she is prepared to come in and testify
    2 that the children never touched any of those
    3 magazines; that they stayed in the suitcase. And of
    4 course if you look to other references to other
    5 material being handed witnesses throughout the
    6 course of the 12 days that we were in session and
    7 the 45-plus witnesses who testified, when they were
    8 handed an item, we said so. “I’m now handing you
    9 exhibit number so and so.”
    10 So it’s pretty clear that the descriptives
    11 that are being used in the presentation of this
    12 suitcase is very different from how we presented
    13 other evidence where we really did hand it to them
    14 and they were able to take it.
    15 But the question is, are we bound by a
    16 transcript as to this particular issue. We’re not
    17 talking about legal matters presented before the
    18 grand jury. We’re talking about an accusation by
    19 the defense that we handed material to a witness,
    20 and that that witness then put their fingerprints on
    21 it, and that we then presented the fingerprints that
    22 we found as having come from Neverland as opposed to
    23 from a grand jury.
    24 Now, that’s an accusation that was raised
    25 first by the defense, and in his opening statement,
    26 Mr. Mesereau, and then by Mr. Sanger specifically in
    27 his questioning of Detective Zelis.
    28 “You did hand this magazine to Gavin, didn’t 2744
    1 you.”
    2 And he said, “No.”
    3 In fact, he wasn’t even in the room when it
    4 was handed. It was not he who presented that
    5 information. It was, in fact, Mr. Sneddon who
    6 showed the material, and it was in the presence of
    7 19 grand jurors, myself, and Mr. Auchincloss.
    8 We believe that it’s appropriate for that
    9 witness to testify. And we believe it’s appropriate
    10 for that witness to identify herself as the
    11 foreperson, because that is, in fact, the piece of
    12 information that makes her the most observant.
    13 It is her responsibility, above and beyond
    14 the other 18 members of that grand jury, to be
    15 attentive to what’s going on and attentive to
    16 protocol and making sure that these exhibits get to
    17 the secretary and get marked properly, and get
    18 stored appropriately as well.
    19 And I think that extra responsibility on her
    20 part, which she took very seriously, which you’ll
    21 see if and when she testifies, is the indicia of
    22 credibility that is necessary to be able to resolve
    23 this issue. It’s an important issue. And we
    24 need —
    25 THE COURT: What about the request that you
    26 reveal the names of the other grand jurors so that
    27 they can see if any of the other grand jurors saw
    28 something different. 2745
    1 MR. ZONEN: Well, they are percipient
    2 witnesses to this event. And if the Court feels
    3 that’s appropriate, do it. But our position is it’s
    4 overkill. That’s why she is the foreperson of the
    5 grand jury. But again, that’s for the Court to
    6 resolve.
    7 THE COURT: So you think in this courtroom
    8 that the Judge is a better witness of what’s
    9 happening at the witness stand than the jurors.
    10 MR. ZONEN: I think that — I would always
    11 think that the Judge is a better witness than
    12 anybody else in the courtroom as to what’s happening
    13 in the courtroom.
    14 THE COURT: The reason I raise that is that,
    15 you know, I’m looking at — I’m doing all sorts of
    16 things. And I see a lot. I hope I see a lot. But
    17 I know at times I don’t. I mean, I’m distracted by
    18 this or that.
    19 MR. ZONEN: Well, it may be appropriate to
    20 do an in-camera examination of other jurors, if the
    21 Court feels that’s appropriate, rather than reveal
    22 all of their identities publicly. That certainly is
    23 an option as well.
    24 Ultimately, I think it’s the Court’s call on
    25 this matter. But I don’t believe that we should be
    26 barred from being able to present evidence to
    27 contradict an event that they say took place that
    28 didn’t take place for which we do have witnesses. 2746
    1 And we are witnesses, for that matter. It’s a
    2 suggestion for which they have no basis of belief
    3 and have no basis of belief now.
    4 THE COURT: Anything else.
    5 MR. ZONEN: No. Thank you.
    6 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, the — let’s put it
    7 this way: It may be a multi-stage process. It
    8 seems to me that, for whatever reason, the state of
    9 the record is the state of the record because it was
    10 handled the way it was handled.
    11 We didn’t have anything to do with that. We
    12 made representations based on our analysis of the
    13 grand jury transcript, which we made, I believe,
    14 early on as part of the 995, and there’s certainly
    15 no secret it was made as a part of Mr. Mesereau’s
    16 opening statement. There’s no secret that we had a
    17 concern about these items being handled in the grand
    18 jury. And I think when Mr. Zonen says there’s no
    19 good-faith basis, if you read the transcript, I
    20 mean, how much more clear could it be.
    21 Now, that’s that part. And I think we’re
    22 entitled to go ahead with whatever inference we
    23 have.
    24 We strongly disagree with the calling of the
    25 foreperson of the grand jury. If the Court is
    26 thinking about doing that, we would like to have the
    27 opportunity to interview the other witnesses. I
    28 think that’s only fair. 2747
    1 Particularly, but — not limited to, but
    2 particularly the person that asks these questions
    3 about fingerprints, because obviously he or she was
    4 very concerned.
    5 So I think it’s a process that if the
    6 Court — and the Court could say — or it’s a
    7 multi-step process. The Court could say, “I agree,
    8 they’re stuck with the record. Let’s move on,” and
    9 that would take care of it.
    10 The Court could say, “Well, I may let you
    11 call Mr. Sneddon to the stand, and we can
    12 cross-examine him about it, and we’ll move on.”
    13 The Court could say, “Well, I’ll let you —
    14 we’ll consider whether or not you can call a grand
    15 juror,” which we strongly object to for other
    16 reasons, but if the Court were going to go there,
    17 then we’d want to have a chance to interview
    18 everybody. And then, after we interview everybody,
    19 have a chance to come back to the Court before they
    20 call a grand juror, because we can see that it’s a
    21 very prejudicial, very difficult matter.
    22 I mean, you have people — I’m sure the
    23 Court’s been aware that when trial jurors, for
    24 instance, are interviewed after a verdict, there’s a
    25 strong inclination on the part of jurors to argue
    26 that what they did was fair. And of course they
    27 want to be fair. Most people want to believe that
    28 they’re fair. 2748
    1 THE COURT: I understand that feeling.
    2 MR. SANGER: Yes. Judges as well, I’m sure.
    3 But with jurors who are laypeople, quite
    4 often when they’re interviewed, you know, will say,
    5 “Well, yes” — the first thing they’ll say, “We were
    6 very fair. We evaluated the evidence. We followed
    7 the Judge’s instruction.” Of course, like anybody
    8 else, they have a vested interest in what they did.
    9 And I think there’s a real danger of putting
    10 somebody up here who’s a layperson who will have a
    11 vested interest.
    12 So, what I’m saying is, if you get past
    13 stage one, stage one, we eliminate — that’s it.
    14 The record is the record. The inference is an
    15 inference. And we can argue it.
    16 Stage two, a witness such as Mr. Sneddon, if
    17 he wants to testify he was there, we’ll
    18 cross-examine him.
    19 Stage three, if you’re considering jurors,
    20 let us interview first and determine where we are,
    21 because we may say, after that, that it is so
    22 prejudicial to put anybody on, that we just — we
    23 want to forego that, forego the calling of a grand
    24 juror at all.
    25 But we’d like to at least have an
    26 opportunity to talk to the others, if the Court’s
    27 going to get to that level.
    28 Does that make sense. 2749
    1 THE COURT: Yeah, I understand your argument,
    2 your approach.
    3 MR. SANGER: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
    4 THE COURT: I don’t think that the law is at
    5 the state that the record is the only evidence of
    6 what happened at the grand jury proceeding. I mean,
    7 I could picture a situation where the — somebody
    8 challenged the reporter’s transcript of what was
    9 said and the Court had to have a hearing as to the
    10 accuracy of the transcript. And the Court would
    11 have to take testimony from people in the grand jury
    12 room of what was said.
    13 That doesn’t happen very often, but it’s —
    14 in my career it happened at least once, that — you
    15 know, and it turned out that the Court ruled that
    16 the transcript was not accurate on that point.
    17 So you can’t say that the transcript is the
    18 only way that anyone can ever determine what happens
    19 in a courtroom or a grand jury room.
    20 The next thing that the Court considers is
    21 the — it’s certainly not fair to allow the District
    22 Attorney to choose one grand juror, albeit, the
    23 foreperson, and have that person be the only one
    24 that testifies.
    25 I don’t think that the Court should be
    26 involved in investigating the case. In some
    27 countries, that’s what happens. The Judge
    28 investigates the case, brings the Indictment, and — 2750
    1 not here. That’s not what we do here. I don’t
    2 investigate. So the only time we have in-camera
    3 hearings is when there’s issues of privacy or
    4 privilege at stake that have to be predetermined
    5 before, to determine whether or not they outweigh
    6 the other interests.
    7 So I’m not interested in myself conducting
    8 an in-camera hearing trying to examine witnesses.
    9 Not only that, you know, I think that that would be
    10 your job.
    11 The only thing that I can really see as a
    12 fair situation here would be to order that the names
    13 of the grand jurors be given to the defense, and
    14 with a protective order that they cannot reveal the
    15 grand jurors’ names to anyone other than their
    16 investigator, who would be bound by the same
    17 protective order, and that they be allowed to
    18 question those — or to approach them.
    19 I mean, it’s up to the jurors whether they
    20 talk to them or not. It’s — it’s not ordering
    21 people to talk to them, but they need to have that
    22 opportunity.
    23 It seems also that I would — well, I don’t
    24 think I should make — I have some other orders that
    25 I might make, but I think — I probably shouldn’t
    26 make those until we find out where we are after that
    27 point.
    28 MR. SANGER: I understand. Could I — with 2751
    1 regard to the protective order, we were given the
    2 name of the foreperson by the prosecution two days
    3 ago. We weren’t given an address, but we did locate
    4 the foreperson.
    5 And my understanding is that the foreperson
    6 said, “I’ve” — “I’ve talked to the District
    7 Attorney, and I’m not going to talk to you,” in
    8 essence. I don’t — that’s not a quote, but
    9 that’s —
    10 THE COURT: They didn’t want to talk to you.
    11 MR. SANGER: They didn’t want to talk to us.
    12 And they made it clear that they had talked to the
    13 District Attorney. So there seems to be some
    14 allegiance there, which one can understand for
    15 someone being in the room with the District Attorney
    16 for however long that was.
    17 THE COURT: You think that causes allegiance.
    18 MR. SANGER: It could cause allegiance or
    19 could cause irritation.
    20 THE COURT: But that’s the problem that you
    21 have with all witnesses. It depends on how things
    22 go.
    23 MR. SANGER: I think more so here, simply
    24 because — because you do have this — you know,
    25 there — as we outlined in the grand jury, we had
    26 Lieutenant Klapakis apparently marshaling grand
    27 jurors around, and he was a witness. And you had
    28 the district attorneys in there. And there was a 2752
    1 lot of camaraderie, and — you know, that happens.
    2 Anyway — and they came to a conclusion, and
    3 they’re in the international spotlight for having
    4 come to that conclusion, I suppose.
    5 I would just ask in the protective order
    6 that — that perhaps it could be phrased in a way,
    7 and perhaps we could submit a proposed order to the
    8 Court, a written order, that would allow us — that
    9 would indicate that the Court is specifically
    10 authorizing our representative to talk to them about
    11 this particular subject matter, the handling of
    12 evidence, something general so we don’t prejudice
    13 the viewpoint. And that they’re not — they’re not
    14 obligated to talk to anybody, but the Court would
    15 appreciate their cooperation with both sides.
    16 And we would like to have an opportunity
    17 to — I don’t know how many grand jurors have been
    18 interviewed by the prosecution so far. We haven’t
    19 gotten reports. And I think that we’d be entitled
    20 to them, quite frankly.
    21 But if they haven’t interviewed grand
    22 jurors, to at least give us the first shot at this
    23 point so we have a fair chance to really find out
    24 what happened. We just want to know what happened.
    25 So I’d request those additions to the
    26 protective order. And then depending on what
    27 happens, we can come back and address the Court as
    28 to what should happen with regard to actually 2753
    1 calling witnesses.
    2 THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that.
    3 And you can also respond to what I was saying, if
    4 you want.
    5 MR. ZONEN: Our response is that — our
    6 preference is that each of the grand jurors be
    7 interviewed in the presence of both sides at the
    8 same time to avoid needless inconvenience to them
    9 and needless intrusion into their time; that there
    10 certainly be a protective order that keeps their
    11 identity secret and not public; and that there be a
    12 restriction on the extent of the examination of the
    13 witnesses, and limited only to the issue of whether
    14 or not these boys touched the magazines, and not any
    15 other issue that may have come up in the 12 days of
    16 grand jury testimony.
    17 THE COURT: Yeah, I definitely would put that
    18 restriction on. I don’t want the grand jurors
    19 examined on any issue other than this issue.
    20 MR. SANGER: Could we though — could we,
    21 say, limit it to, say, handling of evidence. I just
    22 worry about telegraphing this particular issue.
    23 It’s probably going to be telegraphed in the press
    24 anyway. But we really should have an opportunity to
    25 just talk in general about handling of evidence, and
    26 obviously this is the focus of it.
    27 THE COURT: Well, I think we could, as long
    28 as you understand – and you understand – that while 2754
    1 the statement is rather broad, that the mission is
    2 limited.
    3 MR. SANGER: Yes, sir. Believe me, we have
    4 enough to do. We’re not looking for wild goose
    5 chases here. We’re trying to focus on this issue,
    6 so —
    7 MR. ZONEN: You’re still looking at me. Is
    8 there something you wish me to add or answer.
    9 THE COURT: No, I’m just trying to think.
    10 It’s a difficult problem.
    11 MR. ZONEN: It is.
    12 THE COURT: I was reflecting, actually, on a
    13 statement I made yesterday, I think, that we just
    14 had a couple of simple things to look at. I took it
    15 back right away, but what was I thinking.
    16 Let me — let me — I want to sit down with
    17 my research team and see if we can ourselves
    18 structure an order that will be appropriate as
    19 opposed to asking for one from either of you. So
    20 I’ll — let me do that.
    21 MR. SANGER: Thank you, Your Honor.
    22 THE COURT: Then the next item — is it
    23 break time yet.
    24 The next item —
    25 MR. SANGER: No, Your Honor, you have three
    26 minutes.
    27 THE COURT: I’ll use it, too.

    This is a partial transcript of the Court Proceedings on 3/18/05. The prosecution and defense were arguing their pleadings for the 1108/1101 and other pleadings for the admission of testimony of the Grand Jurors, The Defendents Financial Records and others. If you would liketo read the entire court transcript for 3/18 /05 to find out the results of those pleadings.As you can see even the Court (the Judge) complimented the defense Attorney Robert Sanger with his cross examination skill and agreed that it did infer that the magazines in question may have been touched during the Grand Jury proceedings. It was part of the Grand Jury transcripts that showed that Gavin and Star may have touched them during their testimonies. As for all covers looking the same I would have to disagree. The models on the covers all look different or are you saying the faces and hair color are the same on all of the woman. They are legal adult materials. If you want to argue what age group should be allowed to look at them talk to Larry Flynt the owner and publisher of Hustler and Barely Legal. If it is a problem for you that he looked at those magazines at all I can’t help you with that it is in fact only your opinion and you are entitled to it. what is apparent though is that you are trying to argue points that are not argueable according to the rule of law, due process and the fact that all evidence must be linked to THE crime even the circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial Evidence includes things like balistics, trace evidence , forensics such as fingerprints and DNA found in body fluid. If you need those things explained to you Google due process and the rule of law. You can’t rewrite the rule of law or due process and allowable evidence. All your questions are clearly evidence of doubt but it is not up to us to prove that your are wrong it is up to you to prove that you are right. The BURDEN of PROOF is ALWAYS on the Prosecution in every criminal case. It is the job of the Defense to produce resonable doubt in that evidence and since I have a unique perspective in pondering evidence having been called to jury duty 8 times 2 of those were Grand Juries one of those was in fact a Federal Grand Jury I can tell you that the defense showed that there was a resonable doubt as to the origin of the fingerprints on those magazine and as you can see Judge Melville agreed.

    Like

  37. Suzy permalink
    February 18, 2011 2:20 pm

    @ thetis7

    Are the August 2003 issue of Barely Legal and the magazine with Gavin’s fingerprint on it (the one that Sneddon gave Gavin to handle in front of the grand jury) the same? I’m not sure of that.

    Like

  38. February 18, 2011 2:09 pm

    There was a big issue in the trial about that particular magazine because it had fingerprints on it and the fingerprints were there because Sneddon gave the magazine to him during the grand jury proceedings. A grand juror mentioned that he should be wearing gloves and Mesereau picked that up during the cross examination. The forensic who tested it testified that they performed the test AFTER the grand jury hearings and Sneddon asked form the court to dismiss that particular magazine form the trial but Mesereau said it has to stay in because the jurors heard about it. Mesereau won that and the falsified “evidence” was not removed. They were talking about that specific magazine not about other issues in general under that title. End of story.

    Like

  39. visitor permalink
    February 18, 2011 2:01 pm

    @ lcpledwards

    “Aceh, since we’ve given you so much info, can you do us a favor? Can you please provide us the link to that forum and thread so that we can see what he’s saying?”

    Thank you. I have been asking for that forum link for quite some days now and she/he hasn’t provided it to me.Maybe she is working the questions and answers so she can present us one?I have already stated my opinion about this person. I strongly believe that it is that Desire caracter or someone from her/his blog. What i don’t understand is why he/she is persisting on those magazines and on the 2005 trial at all since SHE/HE ALREADY ADMITTED THAT SHE/HE DOESN’T ΒΕLIEVE THAT Michael was GUILTY in 2005. And that coming from desire is very telling. So i agree with you that we should all move on since the 2003/05 case was a bogus

    Like

  40. lcpledwards permalink
    February 18, 2011 12:38 pm

    Guys, we have answered Aceh’s questions regarding the magazine. I want to give him/her the benefit of the doubt, but I’m sorry he/she’s acting very suspicious, as if you’re trying to distract us by contstantly nitpicking this trivial issue.

    For example Aceh, I initially gave you Star’s cross examination, but then you said you couldn’t find where Star initially identified the magazine, but common sense should have told you that it was in his direct examination the day before. Nevertheless, we gave you his direct examination, and then you said that Star did not identify the magazine, when in fact he did. Sneddon didn’t specifically refer to it as a “magazine”, but it was contained in that exhibit, along with the other magazines, and the suitcase. Star would have explicitly excluded that magazine if he had been telling the truth, but he wasn’t paying attention and Mesereau caught him in his lie. And even IF Star was telling the truth about MJ not showing him that particular magazine, he was caught in numerous other lies, like when he claimed that he saw MJ molest Gavin 3 times, despite the fact that he told the police that he saw MJ molest gavin 2 times. (He said this during all of his police interviews, and during his grand jury testimony.)

    The reason some of us are suspicious of you Aceh is because this MJ hater website tried in vain to discredit Aphrodite Jones as being “star struck”, and had the nerve to accuse her of being dishonest in her book! They accused her of “ignoring” Star’s explanation about the magazine, but of course they don’t provide his direct examination testimony where he confirmed what books he saw. This site has sent people here in the past to distract us and harass us, and I truly hope you’re not one of them, but you surely are acting like one……………

    http://www.mjfacts.info/conspiracy.php
    Jones then goes on to do exactly as Jackson’s defence did during the trial – rather than discredit the evidence against Jackson, she attempts to discredit the family making the claims against Jackson. These chapters don’t stand up well to scrutiny. They are filled with impressions, opinions, and twisting of the testimony. For instance, she uses the example of defence attorney Tom Mesereau flourishing a copy of a pornographic ‘Barely Legal’ magazine and asking the accuser’s brother if this was what Jackson showed the boys – the boy, thinking he meant a ‘Barely Legal’ magazine, answered in the affirmative – Mesereau then announced this was an issue which came out after the boys had been at Neverland. Jones presents this as proof that the boy was lying, ignoring his protestations that he didn’t mean that exact copy.

    Like I said, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you didn’t have any malicious intent. We don’t mind answering questions, but it has to be within reason, and you became unreasonable by constantly doubting what we were saying AFTER WE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE INFORMATION YOU REQUESTED! I will respectfully ask that we move on from this issue. Me and the other people on here have given you more than enough info to debate that hater that you claimed you were arguing with in the fan forum. Just show him the summaries that we gave you.

    Aceh, since we’ve given you so much info, can you do us a favor? Can you please provide us the link to that forum and thread so that we can see what he’s saying?

    Like

  41. Suzy permalink
    February 18, 2011 11:47 am

    And for your information, Aceh: this particular conversation between Dimond and Pixley has been quoted IN CONTEXT on this blog before: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/veritas-project/

    See? We have nothing to hide, nothing to falsify. That Jan took it out of context here in the COMMENT SECTION, again is not something that matters much. Looking at the big picture, do you think Diane Dimond never did anything to indicate, to suggest, to make the impression that Michael Jackson was a p-le? Isn’t her whole career built upon making MJ look like a p-le?

    Like

  42. Suzy permalink
    February 18, 2011 11:21 am

    I have to say Aceh’s attitude is rather strange. I agree that we should be better than haters and not take things out of context or make up things. And I don’t think that’s what happens on this blog either. We don’t need that. Sometimes there is a comment made that is not backed up by facts and we make the mistake of maybe not making a total background check on that info before we post answers to it – like it happened with this info on Zonen saying Michael got that magazine 5 months in advance. If the person who posted this info got it wrong, it’s OK to point that out. However to me it seems Aceh’s here just to cherry pick on such small and irrelevant mistakes and make a huge deal out of them.

    If Zonen didn’t say this, does it mean that Michael was guilty? Does it mean that Star told the truth about the magazine? No. Frankly, I don’t think it’s important if Zonen really made that comment or not. So I can’t see why should we harp on this subject for days – unless the goal of Aceh is to distract.

    As for whether Star meant that particular magazine or he didn’t: fact is he did not make it clear on the stand he didn’t mean that particular magazine (until Mesereau didn’t point out the date of the magazine for him, of couerse). That’s the fact. You can try and defend him and say MAYBE he didn’t mean that particular magazine – and yes, it’s a possibility – however he did not make it clear, so to say he didn’t mean that particular magazine is just speculation. It’s possible, but still it’s just speculation. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter much. This wasn’t the only thing why his testimony wasn’t reliable and this wasn’t the only thing why Michael Jackson was acquitted.

    This attitude by Aceh could be deemed an honest intent to correct wrongs, however when someone’s only contribution is to seek out and cherry pick on comments with mistakes, and “pull people’s legs” on irrelevan details then that becomes suspect of someone playing less than honest games.

    Like

  43. February 18, 2011 10:43 am

    “DIMOND: … Michael Jackson is a ped-le. This charge…
    PIXLEY: You said they play it…
    DIMOND: … should go to court.
    We shouldn’t be spreading lies on this blog, it will only make us look bad. Give criticism where it is due and show no quarter if justified, but don’t make things up and always be intelligent about it.”

    Aceh, right, we shouldn’t be spreading lies on this blog, that is why it is absolutely no place for opinions from Diane Dimond with her proven history of lies like “love letters” and “incriminating video” from Michael’s home. We also believe that things shouldn’t be made up – so this makes DD all the more a pariah here. This is the most “intelligent” way I can explain it to you.

    Like

  44. aceh permalink
    February 18, 2011 5:42 am

    @jan

    Someone is pulling your leg jan.

    The entire quote in context:

    DIMOND: First of all, Chris, I…

    PIXLEY: We found out over the past 10 months…

    DIMOND: … do know about them, and I know about them from high law enforcement sources. But I have always said, I don’t know if…

    PIXLEY: The DA that’s playing it close to the chest?

    DIMOND: … Michael Jackson is a ped-le. This charge…

    PIXLEY: You said they play it…

    DIMOND: … should go to court.

    We shouldn’t be spreading lies on this blog, it will only make us look bad. Give criticism where it is due and show no quarter if justified, but don’t make things up and always be intelligent about it.

    Like

  45. stacey2 permalink
    February 17, 2011 3:39 pm

    Michael Jackson has publicy admitted to sharing his bed with various people, so why would it be surpising that other people’s DNA would be found on his mattress? Yes it could mean he was having sex with men, but to automatically jump to the conclusion that that is the ONLY reason why the semen was there is a little absurd..

    Like

  46. Jan permalink
    February 6, 2011 9:16 pm

    take a look at comments regarding dd and the fact that she makes out she never went on larry king live and called mj a peadophile or went on a media blitz with so called soiled pants, sept spirit put her in her place:

    thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/inside-michael-jacksons-future-plans/full/full/

    DianeMDimond

    you are incorrect. I never stated on Larry King Live or any other program that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. I never went on a media junket “carrying a pair of underwear in a plastic bag.”
    Just because Jackson fans spread mountains of misinformation about what I’ve said or written about doesn’t make it true.
    Have a good time in your idolatry … Facts are my business.
    Flag It|Permalink|Reply|(9) Show Replies

    SeptSpirit

    Lies are your business.
    In case you’ve forgotten what you said on LKL?
    DIMOND: … Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge…
    PIXLEY: You said they play it…
    DIMOND: … should go to court.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/24/lkl.00.html

    In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.” http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2005/03/15/2005-03-15_did_jax_re porter_brief_da_.html

    When I relocate the video, I’ll be back to post it.

    Like

  47. Jan permalink
    February 6, 2011 9:10 pm

    Take a look at the comments regarding dd article this isn’t it in the daily beast she denies calling MJ a peadophile on larry king and that she went to the media with dirty underwear in a bag, sept spirit provided the information and links:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/inside-michael-jacksons-future-plans/full/full/

    DianeMDimond

    “you are incorrect. I never stated on Larry King Live or any other program that Michael Jackson was a Pedophile. I never went on a media junket “carrying a pair of underwear in a plastic bag.”
    Just because Jackson fans spread mountains of misinformation about what I’ve said or written about doesn’t make it true.
    Have a good time in your idolatry … Facts are my business”.

    SeptSpirit

    “Lies are your business.
    In case you’ve forgotten what you said on LKL?
    DIMOND: … Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge…
    PIXLEY: You said they play it…
    DIMOND: … should go to court.
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/24/lkl.00.html

    In her Court TV report last March on Vaccaro’s collection, Dimond is shown daintily lifting the soiled briefs and speculating that they might contain “DNA evidence.” When the camera was turned off, Vaccaro recalled, “she told me she was going to call the prosecutor about this.” http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2005/03/15/2005-03-15_did_jax_re porter_brief_da_.html

    When I relocate the video, I’ll be back to post it”.

    Like

  48. Alison permalink
    February 6, 2011 11:15 am

    @ Suzy,
    You are right in what you say, it was just something about the language and the way it was written that reminded me. I am going to reserve judgment for now.

    Like

  49. Suzy permalink
    February 6, 2011 8:47 am

    I don’t think so, Helena. You know, DD doesn’t believe Michael was gay. She said that herself. And she was there during the raid and she probably saw all evidence (including the mattress etc.) per her friend, Tom Sneddon. Yet she said she never saw anything indicating MJ was gay. At least she was honest about this one.

    Like

  50. February 6, 2011 8:22 am

    “Reading Desiree’s last comment, especially the first half, was like reading some of DD’s responses to emails to her, apart from the reference to being a student.”

    Interesting idea. With so much vacant time now that her “enemy” is gone Diane Dimond can easily engage herself in a new game of spreading poison all over Internet.

    Like

  51. visitor permalink
    February 6, 2011 1:07 am

    @desire
    Oh yes, it’s all about attention.It has nothing to do with Michael Jackson or child abuse or whatever. It’s about you and the pleasure that you get by the “dramma” that you create through your fiction writing.You enjoy the attention and you know that only through controversy you will have the bigger one.Those who hate Jackson will praise you because you are justifying and consolidating their unreasonable and beyond any logic and limit hate, and Jackson fans will come to provide the facts that you “forget” to mention when you are writing you fairytales.And you love and enjoy that attention to the core.Because that makes you feel important and it gives a meaning to your life.
    I have to acknowledge you this though.You have a talent in writing. And that is one of the main reasons that makes your fairytales believable. Your blogs are eloquent but with no substance, few facts and truths mixed with lots of lies, speculations and innuendos.And there you have it. People tend to believe or at least consider something that is well written and especially when contain some facts in it. Common tactic that people use when doing propaganda.
    I have noticed something in your comments,if I bother to read them. You are masticating over and over again the same baseless and sometimes totally stupid arguments (Jolie Levine would call Michael Jackson a chickenhawk. Are you serious? If you really think that this is a proof of guilt, then I feel sorry for thinking even for a second that you might in fact be an intelligent person) as if you trying to convince yourself that they are true. Can this possibly be your way of easing you conscience for what you are doing? Ie convince yourself that Jackson was guilty so that you can freely continue to use him and his name in order to achieve that attention that you so much crave without feeling guilt for slandering an innocent man that has done nothing to you? Is it possible that you may have indeed some conscience and sometimes it disturbs you?
    Closing, I insist in what I said in my previous comment.I think that you really have some mentally issues and I think you should really seek professional help. Then you can finally devote to your true love : Fiction Writing!?!? Hm, but aren’t you doing it already?
    p.s Regarding that Fiction writing thing, I think that you should mention that in your blog in a very prominent position so everyone knows with what they are dealing with. A fiction blog.

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    February 5, 2011 11:48 pm

    I think we should all move on. He had semen stains on his mattress, so what? Whatever he was, gay, bi, straight with b fling has nothing to do with the allegations. We are all giving more importance to that story than the prosecution did.

    Like

  53. Alison permalink
    February 5, 2011 11:26 pm

    Reading Desiree’s last comment, especially the first half, was like reading some of DD’s responses to emails to her, apart from the reference to being a student.

    Like

  54. Jules permalink
    February 5, 2011 9:35 pm

    Desiree you said it yourself — your favorite thing is fiction writing and that to me personally is exactly what your blog is. You should truly stay off this site and quit trying to defend your position. The thing you don’t realize is that the prosection used whatever tactics it could to try to convict Michael and it didn’t work. So your speculation and everything else you dredge up that regurgitates what the prosecution tried to spin to make him look guilty to a jury is really just conjecture. If you SOOOOO sick of talking about Michael Jackson and you are not obsessed as you say you are not — then let it all go and go on with your life and your “fiction writing.” No one forces you to do what you are doing!

    Like

  55. February 5, 2011 7:33 pm

    I say don’t feed the troll.Don’t give her value. She is not important.Without her stupid blog in which she is slandering Michael, she realy is a nobody.A person without a life and i am pretty sure, a mentally sick individual.

    *laughs*

    This is really infantile projection. You are basically assuming I am the opposite of you: someone who has no life and may be off-kilter mentally. This is a pathetic ad hominem attack because you cannot rebut substance.

    Michael Jackson is only a topic, as he is dead. If Michael Jackson was innocent, and I found proof of this, I would say it. [VMJ: I bet you would] I am not heavily invested in his guilt or his innocence, if it existed. I simply blog on what I’ve found since June 2010 and, as such, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt he was guilty of the crimes in which he’d been accused.

    This is not about attention-seeking. What a ridiculous accusation to levy. If I wanted attention, I’d have a Youtube channel where I’m talking on helium or I’d facebook or twitter. None of the above I do because that is not who I am.

    Actually the Jacko blog is taking up the time I could devote to my true love: fiction writing. [VMJ: I thought you were a student and still had several years to study] I am awaiting the day I have left no stones unturned regarding Michael and I can return to my craft. But I have readers and they’ve come to the blog looking for information. I’d feel guilty if I didn’t relate to them all I know and suspect, because they enjoy my content and my writing.

    I cannot stand to discuss Michael Jackson sometimes. I get tons of emails asking me about this and that I sometimes take forever to reply because it is annoying to discuss a deceased man. I am not obsessed with Michael and I have a life: I am a student and, as such, I am frequently busy. I can squeeze in comments on other blogs to break up the monotony of studying because comments don’t require much brain power. Writing blog posts do.

    In sum, you people are so quick to demean someone who thinks the man was a CM. You don’t even know us. [VMJ: We’ve known people like you for some twenty years now] I am pretty sure Jacko fans are the nastiest bunch of individuals most people would encounter [VMJ: Why do you keep coming to this blog then, so often too and under various names and with different IP adresses? Are you in love with these “nasty” people?], that is, if you–oh no!–think he was guilty! Or gay! Rabidity will do this; fanaticism is not the choice of rationally-minded individuals. Michael is definitely not a good ‘idol’ to worship.

    When I’m done with my blog, I’ll be done. Sad to say, I think you people will never get over him. Talk about Sisyphean torture.

    Like

  56. Suzy permalink
    February 5, 2011 4:28 pm

    Welcome back, Helena!

    @ Visitor

    Well, i think it has nothing to do with Michael. This is the way of this person to attract attention on her. It’s all about her. She wants people to concern themeself with what she is doing,is writing, is thinking. If she could draw more attention by writing blog praising Michael, then she would do exactly that. But she know that bad and controversial things are those that interest people.

    A spot-on analysis!

    Like

  57. February 5, 2011 3:11 pm

    “Helena welcome back. I hope you are well.”

    Visitor, thank you. I am afraid that I am far from well now and will take long to get better. Brain concussions with a memory loss are very umpleasant – my fingers are still shaking and the nausea wouldn’t go away. I’m not supposed to read or write or do any computer – but I cannot beat my curiosity and take a look at the blog from time to time, and as a result was rewarded by some great comments from youtoobrutus and LisaMJ1111 (I went as far as them only – it is several days ago).

    Thanks to all of you for your words of support. I hope to pull through this but it will take time.

    Like

  58. February 5, 2011 1:10 pm

    “The latest game involves posting on any MJ article claiming MJ Supporter are attacking them.”

    Very interesting. Must be a new method of haters – “playing the victim” game. Like Charles Thomson, for example, attacking fan XXXX or Aphrodite Jones going after fan ZZZZ – both of which are impossible in principle. Firstly, they are too busy doing the real job of advocating Michael and secondly, they don’t employ primitive and simplistic methods like that.

    People go after someone personally when they have no facts to prove their point. It is like “You are wrong because you are, you are … fat!” Personal attacks usually tell us more about the so-called “victim” than about the “attacker”.

    Like

  59. visitor permalink
    February 5, 2011 1:09 pm

    Helena welcome back.I hope you are well.
    You said this : “Giving one’s precious time away to defend an innocent person is at least understandable, but wasting your life away for deliberate slandering somebody? I simply can not understand it.”

    Well, i think it has nothing to do with Michael. This is the way of this person to attract attention on her. It’s all about her. She wants people to concern themeself with what she is doing,is writing, is thinking. If she could draw more attention by writing blog praising Michael, then she would do exactly that. But she know that bad and controversial things are those that interest people.
    I say don’t feed the troll.Don’t give her value. She is not important.Without her stupid blog in which she is slandering Michael, she realy is a nobody.A person without a life and i am pretty sure, a mentally sick individual.

    Like

  60. February 5, 2011 12:48 pm

    “I have never communicated with D by email or on her blog. She posted links to the articles YOU posted about her findings but I have no clue how she got them. Just wanted to clarify that.
    It seems that someone is trolling this blog and sending articles back to her.”

    Lezlie, sorry for this misunderstanding. In fact D. does not need any trolls in this blog (though I never doubt that haters are present here) – she can come here on her own, read whatever she likes and then make her “rebuttals” in her blog. What I am curious about is whether there will be a time when she is sick and tired of her own lies and wants to have a breath of fresh air of the truth at last. Giving one’s precious time away to defend an innocent person is at least understandable, but wasting your life away for deliberate slandering somebody? I simply can not understand it.

    Like

  61. shelly permalink
    February 5, 2011 11:57 am

    Sorry, I just thought the document could be used in one of your post. They thought to have the book admitted as evidence of a same sex sexual relationship but they agreed with the defense about the semen. it doesn’t make sense anyway.

    Like

  62. shelly permalink
    February 5, 2011 11:53 am

    Ok, this is the document I am talking about

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/012605mjrepsmlebmpcidad.pdf

    There is the Vaccaro document, there was nothing incriminating in those documents

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/021505motretpersnlprp.pdf

    Like

  63. February 5, 2011 11:43 am

    “In the document I send to you in an email, they said they wanted to use the book Man a sexual study to prove that he was gay and the same day they said they didn’t want to use the semen stains.”

    Shelly, I am beginning to slowly read the comments which have built up while I was in hospital. You refer to some document you sent me by e-mail which I naturally don’t remember but remember making a reply to you about it. Now that you mention it in a somewhat secretive matter it creates an impression it was something “incriminating”.

    It wasn’t.

    That is why I see no reason why any documents should be sent by e-mail to us – whatever you or other people need to post please post it here in the blog. We have nothing to hide and want it to be as transparent as it is humanly possible.

    Our rules are – no secrets and a fair game.

    Like

  64. Suzy permalink
    February 4, 2011 5:47 pm

    @ Visitor

    I love the song “Money”. It’s totally about the Chandlers IMO. 100%!

    “Are you infected with the same disease
    Of lust, gluttoney and greed?
    Then watch the ones
    With the biggest smiles
    The idle jabbers…Cuz they’re the backstabbers”

    Also I noticed this part:

    “Insurance?
    Where do your loyalties lie?”

    A clue perhaps to what led to the settlement….

    Like

  65. visitor permalink
    February 4, 2011 5:25 pm

    For me that Jordan’s interview was very much similar to that of Gavin’s that we have seen in the documentary by Lary Niman.

    I cite here the lyrics of the song Money.

    I have always wondered why a supposedly guilty man write a song about being blackmailed and falsely accused? Why provoce? In fact, as far as i know, someone who is guilty of something and has not been punished for it, simply wants to put the whole thing behind them and forget it so that people forget it also. But writing songs about the accusations and calling your accusers liars is like stiring the whole situation, and provoking the other side to come with proofs of your are guilt. This how i interpret this song.I may be wrong, i don’t know. But what i know is that Michael spoke better through his songs.

    Lie for it
    Spy for it
    Kill for it
    Die for it
    So you call it trust
    But I say it’s just
    In the devil’s game
    Of greed and lust
    They don’t care
    They’d do me for the money
    They don’t care
    They use me for the money
    So you go to church
    Read the Holy word
    In the scheme of life
    It’s all absurd
    They don’t care
    They’d kill for the money
    Do or dare
    The thrill for the money
    You’re saluting the flag
    Your country trusts you
    Now you’re wearing a badge
    You’re called the “Just Few”
    And you’re fighting the wars
    A soldier must do
    I’ll never betray or deceive you my friend but…
    If you show me the cash
    Then I will take it
    If you tell me to cry
    Then I will fake it
    If you give me a hand
    Then I will shake it
    You’ll do anything for money…
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Insurance?
    Where do your loyalties lie?
    Is that your alibi?
    I don’t think so
    You don’t care
    You’d do her for the money
    Say it’s fair
    You sue her for the money
    Want your pot of gold
    Need the Midas touch
    Bet you sell your soul
    Cuz your God is such
    You don’t care
    You kill for the money
    Do or dareThe thrill for the money
    Are you infected with the same disease
    Of lust, gluttoney and greed?
    Then watch the ones
    With the biggest smiles
    The idle jabbers…Cuz they’re the backstabbers
    If you know it’s a lie
    Then you will swear it
    If you give it with guilt
    Then you will bear it
    If it’s taking a chance
    Then you will dare it
    You’ll do anything for money…
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    You say you wouldn’t do it
    For all the money in the world
    I don’t think soIf you show me the man
    Then I will sell him
    If you ask me to lie
    Then I will tell him
    If you’re dealing with God
    Then you will hell him
    You’ll do anything for money
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil

    Like

  66. February 4, 2011 2:13 pm

    @ Anna nothing can come out of the session without the patient’s written approval. Ray obviously got the tape from Larry Feldman because we know Feldman brought Dr. Katz for a second evaluation. Feldman must have followed the procedure to obtain the tape from Dr. Gardner, otherwise it would be illegal.

    Like

  67. Anna permalink
    February 4, 2011 1:07 pm

    @ David

    Okay, thanks!

    Like

  68. Suzy permalink
    February 4, 2011 7:34 am

    @ Anna

    Yes, I agree. By the way Jordan talks he was either very rehearsed or he was a kid who was well ahead his age in maturity and IQ. But then he acts as if he didn’t know what was happening to him when Michael allegedly did those things to him. Like he didn’t know a thing about sexuality. Gimme a break! Any average 13 year old would know, let alone a very intelligent and mature one. And let’s not forget a couple of years before he helped his father write the script for the movie “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” which is a movie with full of sexual innuendoes and jokes. So much about Jordan’s innocence and cluelessness about sexuality.

    Also Jordan says Michael told him things like he would love other boys more if he didn’t do the things with him he wanted him to do. C’mon now! You can maybe blackmail a 5 year old by telling him something like that but not an intelligent 13 year old!

    And if he had really been molested by Michael he would have been traumatized, period. There’s not a sign of trauma in that conversation with Gardner! Actually I haven’t seen the sign of any trauma in his behaviour ever. (Even Ray Chandler said once he “got over it” very easily….)

    BTW, neither Jordan or Gavin were the kind of kids who could have been easily victimized by a CM! Jordan was apparently very intelligent and mature and Gavin was someone who talked back to teachers in the school when he felt offended. Those are not the type of boys who would just let MJ molest them.

    Like

  69. David permalink
    February 4, 2011 5:23 am

    @ Anna and Olga
    In Martin Bashir’s 2005 hit piece “MJ’s Secret World”, he interviews Ray Chandler extensively, asking him the usual softball questions and not challenging him on anything he says. Ray somehow obtained the audio tape of Jordie’s interview with Dr. Gardner, and transcribed it.

    During his interview with Bashir, he played some of the tape, and you can actually HEAR Jordie and Dr. Gardner, but unfortunately it’s only a very small clip. I will post the transcript of this so-called documentary in a few weeks!

    Like

  70. Anna permalink
    February 4, 2011 5:04 am

    @Ares

    It’s nice to know that someone else picked up on that too.

    I have to take exams on a regular basis, so, I understand being pressed for time.

    @thetis7

    To hear the actual tape would be interesting wouldn’t it? It would also show just how authentic the transcript is. I believe this book was released after Dr. Gardner’s suicide which is also interesting. I wonder if he would have approved of the transript release had he still been alive the book came out. I guess it must have been property of Jordan Chandler or something.

    I think there is a post on here about this subject, I should revisit that.

    Like

  71. February 4, 2011 2:07 am

    @Ares it was on October 1993. And yes it’s a very strange interview from an alleged victim of that age. I would love to see the tape and then I could make a professional report on it but unfortunately we don’t have it

    Like

  72. ares permalink
    February 4, 2011 12:35 am

    @Anna
    On the the one hand during the interview he seems very mature and articulate for boy his age. Some of things he said almost seemed scripted to, (obviously I can speculating about that) but he seemed very particular and well spokent in some of his statements. Then on the other hand you look at the context of this interview being done in 93, the same year of the alleged molestation. By the way he speaks about certain details of the alleged events it reflects a naivete that seems inconsistant with the maturity he demonstrates in other parts of the interview. It also seems to be a naivete inconsistant with a boy his age, I not sure what his exact age was during the interview 13 or 14 but this interview was not that long after the alleged molestations.

    I don’t have much time to answer as i have to study for me exams but i totally agree with what you are saying here. I noticed those things also when i read that interview of his. Very strange.

    Like

  73. Anna permalink
    February 4, 2011 12:10 am

    @Suzy and Alison

    Yeah, there were alot of things that just seemed to be inconsistant and contradictory in so many different ways. I think if I went through the entire transcript I would find atleast a double digit number of things that didn’t seem to make sense for various reasons. The point I mentioned is just one glaring example (in my opinion) and what Suzy mentioned was another glaring example that I noticed as well. Other things were a bit more subtle.

    If I comment on it everything it could turn into a several page article rather than a comment. Perhaps, I will put that on my lists of things to do as a project when I have more time, lol.

    One general thing I can point out is that Jordan seemed to almost have two personalities/identies. On the the one hand during the interview he seems very mature and articulate for boy his age. Some of things he said almost seemed scripted to, (obviously I can speculating about that) but he seemed very particular and well spokent in some of his statements. Then on the other hand you look at the context of this interview being done in 93, the same year of the alleged molestation. By the way he speaks about certain details of the alleged events it reflects a naivete that seems inconsistant with the maturity he demonstrates in other parts of the interview. It also seems to be a naivete inconsistant with a boy his age, I not sure what his exact age was during the interview 13 or 14 but this interview was not that long after the alleged molestations.

    Not sure if either you picked up on that as well?

    Like

  74. Alison permalink
    February 3, 2011 11:46 pm

    @ Anna, that is such a good point about Jordan’s jump from being indignant about lesser stuff to not bothering about more serious stuff. it is extremely telling – that it is all a lie.
    I also would like to hear your other thoughts.

    Like

  75. Suzy permalink
    February 3, 2011 11:23 am

    There were other things he said in that transcript that made me doubt him even further than I already did, but I don’t want this comment to get too long so I’ll refrain froms sharing.

    I’d be interested what you think of Jordan’s interview.

    Like

  76. Anna permalink
    February 3, 2011 10:23 am

    err…for HIS Father’s sake…*this is my cue to finnally go to bed* lol.

    Like

  77. Anna permalink
    February 3, 2011 10:17 am

    @Suzy

    “Look at Jordan’s conversation with Dr. Richard Gardner. It’s very odd that he basically says he only started to think it was wrong when his father told him it was wrong. Sorry, but this is BS! This is not the reaction of a molestation victim. They don’t enjoy molestation! They will have very strong, traumatic feelings about it. They won’t need a parent to point out for them it’s wrong! ”

    I agree that part of the transcript was very telling. Especially since earlier in the transcript Jordan talks about being all indignant that Michael tried to kiss him and touch his butt. (Something all those lines.) How does a kid go from being indiginant with these less graphic and intrusive offenses to then being okay with the more graphic molestation that happened later. There isn’t even much evidence in his testimoney of grooming other than him saying Michael told him “only other people think it’s wrong” or whatever. Even if Michael told him that it seems he would have needed more time than what was alleged to actually convince Jordan to be okay with it since Jordan was so indignant about the (alleged) lesser stuff earlier on.

    It just seems like such a huge jump from his earlier statements, and one more thing that didn’t add up.

    There were other things he said in that transcript that made me doubt him even further than I already did, but I don’t want this comment to get too long so I’ll refrain froms sharing.

    I’ll just say it is my opinion that Jordan felt the need to keep the lie going for Father’s sake.

    Like

  78. Suzy permalink
    February 3, 2011 9:38 am

    @ Dialdancer

    I agree. This BS about children “enjoying” molestation, calling them “lovers” etc. is p-le propaganda. Anyone who is echoing this, is supporting p-les!

    This idea came from Gutierrez, who is a NAMBLA advocate. From Ray Chandler’s book and the way the Chandlers presented their case you can clearly see Gutierrez’s influence on them.

    Look at Jordan’s conversation with Dr. Richard Gardner. It’s very odd that he basically says he only started to think it was wrong when his father told him it was wrong. Sorry, but this is BS! This is not the reaction of a molestation victim. They don’t enjoy molestation! They will have very strong, traumatic feelings about it. They won’t need a parent to point out for them it’s wrong!

    From this you can conclude two things: 1) Jordan was never molested, 2) they got their ideas from how a molestation victim should feel and behave from Gutierrez. And of course Gutierrez’s view of the subject is flawed – it’s that of a p-le propagandist. He’s on the record saying in interviews that the only thing that is wrong about man-boy “relationships” is that backward society makes it feel wrong and that maybe in 100 years it will be accepted! (That’s how you know where he is coming from.)

    He wrote his book along this line, making it look like a “legit romance”, “consensual love” etc. which was only ruined by the greedy parents and a backward society. This is p-le propaganda!

    To say all these boys only say nothing ever happened to cover for Michael because they kind of “enjoyed” the molestation or were “in love with him” is nothing but spouting this p-le propaganda! In real life molestation won’t be taken that light-heartedly by any real victim!

    Like

  79. Dialdancer permalink
    February 3, 2011 7:48 am

    rockforeveron said:

    “They would have seen Omer going in and out of Mike’s bedroom, they would have gotten wind of this grand love affair she’s concocted between them.”

    You know what really disturbs me? Not that adult males can’t be in love, physically attracted to one another, but substituting the word love, romance or honeymoon for the word sex btw a man and a minor child. This is a very constant theme with her and VG. The context in which these words are used is almost voyeuristic. Reminds me of my reaction to a suspected “P” that haunted a MJ site and whenever he wrote of MJ and Jordan.

    In order to keep the “P” lie going they have to make someone a victim otherwise it will not work. No child molester is going take a victim once every 5 or 10 years unless they are incarcerated.

    Like

  80. Alison permalink
    February 1, 2011 1:33 am

    @ Suzy

    “It’s interesting how vehemently the prosecution objects to these questions…”

    exactly what i was thinking as i was reading – rabid prosecution. Thank God for the jury and T Mez. The verdict was fair but the trial…totally unfair and corrupt prosecution.they totally wanted to annihilate him whatever it took.

    Like

  81. shelly permalink
    January 31, 2011 8:25 pm

    It’s Jesus Salas testimony.

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/1/9455516/94502138/1

    Like

  82. Suzy permalink
    January 31, 2011 8:18 pm

    It’s interesting how vehemently the prosecution objects to these questions…

    Like

  83. shelly permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:50 pm

    I also found that

    When you saw him appearing intoxicated, you

    8 don’t know what the cause was, correct?

    9 A. That is correct, yes.

    10 Q. You knew he had suffered severe burns on his

    11 body, didn’t you?

    12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;

    13 relevance.

    14 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.

    15 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know whether or

    16 not, during one entertainment event, Mr. Jackson

    17 suffered severe burns all over his body?

    18 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Ob — I’ll —

    19 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    20 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know he was being

    21 treated for that?

    22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to

    23 time.

    24 THE COURT: Sustained.

    25 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you know whether or

    26 not Mr. Jackson was being treated by physicians with

    27 medication because he’d been badly burned?

    28 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; vague as to 4762

    1 time.

    2 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At any time?

    3 A. Yes.

    4 Q. That was common knowledge at Neverland, was

    5 it not?

    6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object and move to

    7 strike the last answer. Still vague as to time.

    8 THE COURT: Stricken.

    9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the year 2002, were

    10 you aware — excuse me. During the year 2002, do

    11 you know whether or not Michael Jackson was being

    12 treated by various physicians for health problems?

    13 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Vague as to

    14 “health problems.”

    15 THE COURT: Overruled.

    16 You may answer.

    17 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’ll object as to

    18 foundation.

    19 THE COURT: The answer — the question calls

    20 for a “yes” or “no” answer. You may answer.

    21 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    22 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And during the year 2002,

    23 were you aware that Mr. Jackson —

    24 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection to the form of

    25 the question. “Were you aware” assumes facts.

    26 THE COURT: You have to let him finish the

    27 question.

    28 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the year 2002, were 4763

    1 you aware — excuse me. During the year 2002, did

    2 you know whether or not Mr. Jackson was taking

    3 medications for a broken leg?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. During the year 2002, did you know whether

    6 or not Mr. Jackson was taking medications for a foot

    7 problem?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And during the year 2002, did you know

    10 whether or not Mr. Jackson had recurring problems

    11 because he had been badly burned?

    12 A. Yes.

    13 Q. During the year 2002, did you know whether

    14 or not Mr. Jackson had back problems?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: I’m going to object as to

    17 foundation.

    18 THE COURT: Sustained.

    19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the year 2003, did

    20 you know whether or not Mr. Jackson was taking

    21 prescription drugs for a leg problem?

    22 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

    23 THE COURT: Sustained.

    24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not

    25 Mr. Jackson took prescription drugs in the year 2003

    26 while you were working there?

    27 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

    28 THE COURT: Overruled. 4764

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:47 pm

    According to the transcript, Franck was telling everyone he was Michael’s friends and he brings girls at Neverland. It’s obviously something that he did for a long time.

    Like

  85. January 31, 2011 7:45 pm

    Thanks Shelly! Just like we thought.

    And TMez really wanted to make the point that Frank was in there when Mike was away, huh? LOL And the prosecution really didn’t want anyone to know this…

    Like

  86. Suzy permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:41 pm

    Great find, Shelly!

    So it seems, kids, as well as Frank Cascio, and others frequently went into Michael’s room while he wasn’t there….

    Since Desiree quotes a short part from Salas’s testimony (the part where he says “Pretty much when Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, nobody was allowed to go into his room”) to “prove” nobody but Michael could go into the room, I have to assume she is perfectly aware that other parts of Salas’s testimony (as well as Star Arvizo’s or Azja Pryor’s testimony) very clearly show that many people DID go into Michael’s room while he wasn’t there! So once again she deliberately and dishonestly took things out of context to support her agenda.

    Like

  87. shelly permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:24 pm

    And he would entertain people in the lower 4727

    1 portion of his bedroom, correct?

    2 A. That is correct, yes.

    3 Q. People would get served food there, correct?

    4 A. That is correct, yes.

    5 Q. People would get served drinks there, right?

    6 A. That is correct.

    7 Q. And you say there’s a fireplace?

    8 A. There’s a fireplace there.

    9 Q. People would sit around the fireplace and

    10 chat, correct?

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And sometimes they did it when Mr. Jackson

    13 was there, and sometimes they did it when he wasn’t

    14 there, right?

    15 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Foundation;

    16 assumes facts.

    17 THE COURT: Overruled.

    18 You may answer. Do you want the question

    19 read back?

    20 MR. MESEREAU: Do you want — I’m sorry.

    21 THE WITNESS: Answer it?

    22 THE COURT: Yes. Do you want the question

    23 read back?

    24 THE WITNESS: No, I understood the question.

    25 Pretty much when Mr. Jackson wasn’t there,

    26 nobody was allowed to go into his room.

    27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: There were times when he

    28 let people in, weren’t there? 4728

    1 A. Yes, there was.

    2 Q. And they would have some fun when Mr.

    3 Jackson wasn’t even there, right?

    4 A. That is correct, yes.

    Like

  88. shelly permalink
    January 31, 2011 7:22 pm

    I found that in Jesus Salas testimony

    ” A. My time there, we changed it about a couple

    16 times.

    17 Q. Okay. Do you remember it being changed

    18 because too many people seemed to have it?

    19 A. We noticed there was so many kids going into

    20 the room, so we figured we change the combination,

    21 yes.

    22 Q. [b]Do you remember Michael Jackson complaining

    23 that Frank was going into his bedroom when Michael

    24 was out of town?[/b]

    25 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; hearsay.

    26 THE COURT: Sustained.

    27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it your understanding

    28 that Frank could get into that room on occasion? 4726

    1 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

    2 THE COURT: Sustained.

    3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you know whether or not

    4 Frank seemed like he could get into Michael’s

    5 bedroom from time to time?

    6 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection; foundation.

    7 THE COURT: Sustained.

    8 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Did you ever observe Frank

    9 in Michael Jackson’s bedroom?

    Like

  89. January 31, 2011 1:12 am

    She’s an absolute idiot.

    If Michael was the grand molestor she makes him out to be, then the children would be the ones schooling HER on him being a molestor, not the other way around.

    She claims Frank and Omer and several of Michael’s nephews were the victims of Mike – if this is true, the children would know this. They would have seen Omer going in and out of Mike’s bedroom, they would have gotten wind of this grand love affair she’s concocted between them. If Mike was that chronically abusive, he would have targeted his own children. This porn she claims was only used for kids, they would have obviously been privvy to it, why wouldn’t they be?

    She’s truly beyond question just pathological. Nothing she says makes sense. Her universe doesn’t exist within the confines of logic and rational, but is a place where she gets to set the context and parameters and gets to write the child abuse backstories for people who do not claim to be victims or to need her help.

    I wonder what happened in her life to make her this way, so many people seem to project their dysfunction onto him, but that kind of level of disorder, where you project sexual that hasn’t even been told by anyone else, is beyond anything I can imagine.

    Like

  90. Lezlie permalink
    January 31, 2011 12:46 am

    @Raven

    I guess I was right in my assumption of D. She views herself as a messenger of sorts. To further slander Michael more than he already is based on her interpretations of the “evidence” that she has “uncovered”. LOL!

    But, her comment regarding Michael’s children is indicative of her state of mind; she’s a wack job. Even if Michael was a “manipulative child molesting scum” those children had NOTHING to do with it. For her to even post something like that, and then call Jackson’s supporters “crazy”, is really like the pot calling the kettle black.

    I also agree that she was never a Jackson fan. A true fan does NOT do a total 360 in only a matter of months; she always believed him guilty. And that is her right. But what she doesn’t have a right to do is attack his children based on some unhealthy hatred that she has for their father. Basically, what she is saying in that comment is that her hatred is too burdensome to carry alone and she’d like others to carry it with her.

    How sad is that.

    Like

  91. shelly permalink
    January 29, 2011 11:53 am

    @Raven

    She isn’t a fan and never was. By the way, I don’t think the stains were made few weeks before the raid, I think they were old.

    Like

  92. Suzy permalink
    January 29, 2011 6:31 am

    LOL, yeah well that helps to spell out how delusional she really is.

    Not just how delusional she is, but also how heartless and, yes, I will say it, evil she is. She is an evil person, no question about it. OK, she wants to bash Michael, because for whatever reason she hates him. Or she wants to piss off Michael’s fans (I remember she also wrote once on her blog that her hobby is to provocate people – if somebody finds her fun in deliberately provocating people that’s a sign of an unhealthy mind too). But why does she want to hurt Michael’s children DELIBERATELY? Whatever her opinion is about what Michael did or didn’t do, this is just pure evil.

    Like

  93. Anna permalink
    January 29, 2011 6:03 am

    @Raven

    Wow, why I am I not suprised D said that about Michael’s children stumbling across her blog. Is sick as that is I find it hilarious that she thinks they would believe her garbage much less give her the time needed to read it in the first place. The only thing original in her blogs is her own opinions, everything is regurgitated from tabloids and smear books. Does she honestly think Michael’s kids who know their father would reach sudden revelations about him after reading her blog of regurgitated rumors, lies and speculation? LOL, yeah well that helps to spell out how delusional she really is.

    Like

  94. Raven permalink
    January 29, 2011 5:49 am

    @Lezlie

    In regard to this excerpt from your comment:

    I also have to wonder about how these nasty speculative articles are going to effect Jackson’s children, who are sure to read this vitriol some day. Whatever Jackson did or didn’t do, his children had no part of it and I can’t understand why these people would want to diminish their father in their eyes. Do they think about how their words will affect them when they get older? It is obvious that those children, especially Paris, loved Michael a great deal. Even if I thought Jackson to be gay or guilty or whatever, I could have no part in ruining what he was to them. Maybe Jackson’s detractors will think about Paris’s words and subsequent tears at her father’s memorial the next time they type another scathing word against him.

    Let me just paste right here something that Desiree commented on my own blog awhile back. I think you will find that this comment says all you need to know about her or her MO:

    “But you are right: I do want to show very badly what a disgusting human being W***o J***o was and I do hope one day his children will stumble upon my blog and read everything I write, be so pissing mad, and sick to their stomachs due to my explosive revelations showing their father as the manipulative child molesting scum that he was.”

    Straight from the horse’s mouth! The only thing lacking is a twirl of the mustache and a dastardly laugh.

    I’m also highly skeptical of the fact that as recently as last July, she was claiming to be a fan and writing positive (or semi-positive, at least) articles on his children’s paternity and vitiligo. I can buy that over time a fan might become disillusioned and might even cross to the other side of the fence. But I’m sorry, I don’t buy that it could happen in a few months’ time. However, if you look at the number of comments she has for her “positive” articles, they are very few. Most have none at all. Compare that to the number of comments and followers she gained once she switched tactics and sides, and you see something very interesting-BINGO! All of a sudden she’s found her niche. (It’s also possible she “pretended” to be a fan in order to lure fans in; that, too, seems to be her MO). And for a blog that gives the impression that it’s supposed to be just a blog of general topics where she discusses whatever is on her mind, is it not curious that almost the entire blog is dedicated to Michael Jackson? Gee. You would think a “college student” would have many other interesting and relevant things to write about. But apparently not. And it’s interesting how overboard she is going now in trying to convince everyone she’s a real student, after her actual identity was brought into question.

    As for this so called “smoking gun” the very worst case scenario it “proves” is that at some point in the weeks prior to the November 2003 raid, there were other males in Michael’s bed. It is circumstantial at best but even if one makes a case for it as evidence of sexual activity, the most it can prove is that at some point in the weeks prior to November 2003, there were men who engaged in sexual activity on that bed. We still don’t know who they were, how old they were, or anything else about them. It could have been grown men (guests) engaging in perfectly legal relations. Or kids sneaking in and jerking to porn, for all we know (which Gavin and Star were caught doing). And even if every last bit of it traced back to concrete evidence that Michael himself was engaging in sex with men on his bed, it STILL tells us only one thing-that it was evidence from one night; one occasion. It is still not evidence that he was routinely sleeping with men throughout his whole life and career; it also, by no means, is evidence that he wasn’t also sleeping with women (female DNA would have been totally irrelevent to the case because they were searching for evidence of boys who had been molested). It is also, most importantly, no proof that he was engaging in criminal activity. The bottom line: It really doesn’t mean anything at all that can be proven.

    And really, think about this logically. If Michael was engaging in sex with men- or, worse, boys- on his bed, the last thing he would have done would have been to be careless enough to leave that kind of evidence behind-IF there was reason to believe it was incriminating. Michael knew he was under the gun, especially in 2003 after the Bashir documentary. Michael was no idiot. In fact, he got to the position he obtained in life by one simple method-by always being the best he did. At everything. And I guarantee you, if Michael had actually been a child molestor, he would have been the best at it there ever was. NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVER SUSPECTED A THING. Think on that for just a minute. Michael would have been way too clever for that. And you bet your bottom dollar, he would have had those sheets tossed and that mattress thrown out faster than you could say Jack. The man was a multi-millionaire; it wasn’t as if he couldn’t afford to buy new sheets and bedding! And any “evidence” of gay sex he would have gotten rid of asap as well, since the last thing he would have wanted would have been for any such evidence to be found and potentially leaked to the public. You can’t tell me he didn’t know exactly the situation he was up against, with a houseful of employees only too willing to swipe anything in his possession or to sell a story to the tabloids. If Michael was having gay sex in any shape, form, or fashion, he would have moved hell and high water to make sure those sheets and mattresses were disposed of immediatly. THAT, as Desiree puts it, is 1+1=3 thinking.

    The fact that any such ‘evidence” was found at all really speaks of only two possibilities-that it was either planted, or else Michael simply felt he had no reason to fear its discovery. We have to remember, Michael was in Las Vegas throughout most of November 2003. I find it hard to believe that he would have had himself a whoop-de-do gay ol’ time and then just left his “dirty evidence” behind for anyone and everyone to find. Like I said, the one thing Michael was not, was stupid.

    Like

  95. Dialdancer permalink
    January 29, 2011 12:07 am

    @ youtoobrutus,

    Your analysis on the Klien/Pfeiffer and Field’s stories was excellent. I paid so little attention to this contrived mess that I missed all the conflicting stories which disproved themselves. I added your post to my collection just in case.

    Thank you,

    Like

  96. Alison permalink
    January 28, 2011 10:26 pm

    Thats amazing Rockforeveron! i had no idea about all this, i just saw a picture in a book! there’s loads to read there, will be back with more when i have! need to zoom into those pics more tho, eyesight not as good as it used to be!

    Like

  97. January 28, 2011 2:28 pm

    @ Alison

    The girl on the right was a top model at the time, here are some more photos and a little background:

    http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/1977-amina-warsuma/

    Interestingly, MJ bought those Plumpers magazines the very same months that Debbie got pregnant…

    And I believe you’re right, that it’s about power and control, a lot like rape.

    Like

  98. Alison permalink
    January 28, 2011 11:16 am

    @rockforeveron
    Yes, thats the picture, thanks. its a bit clearer in the book and cos it shows the 2 girls you get more a flavour of whats going on! Michael’s expression is a bit more visible. i guess scanning it isn’t going to come out much better but i will try when i get a minute.
    you know what – that pic is from a party for The Wiz in 1977, there must have been loads more pictures taken at that time, where are they? he didn’t have the confidentiality stuff then did he?

    @youtoobrutus

    really, those were some of his magazines?, i’m not familiar but i can guess. and all this time here was me assuming he wouldn’t have been interested in me for being a little overweight
    .
    i want to say something here which is a very sensitive painful thing for me.you can believe that i absolutly believe this to the core of me – unless someone can provide concrete evidence otherwise, fancying bigger women to the extent of enjoying porn about them is totally incompatible with being a p..le. i BELIEVE that p..lia must be to a large extent about control, power and the p..le needing to feel they are bigger than the other, and that they own them because they are ‘the first’. i suppose i don’t know this for fact but its what i believe and this is why:
    some years ago i went out with a guy who hurt me enormously because he had a lot of problems, it was an emotionally abusive relationship that i got trapped in for a while. i was 11 stone, size 18, at the time. this guy told me so in many ways at many times, he said he didn’t find women over 20 attractive (and actually he was being generous with that age limit) and he informed me of the specific body details he liked in young thin girls that were different to me. he was constantly comparing me with the young girls around us, we would go somewhere and he would fancy a girl and have an emotional crisis about it. what he said to me was that he liked thin because you ‘could get your hands right round her waist’ and when they were thin like that he felt he just wanted ‘ to get in there’. it was definitely linked with a feeling of power and that he would somehow feel more like a proper man, because he had a low self esteem. some of the girls he liked were very young, he had a major crush for a long time on a girl who was about 16, he was about 29 when i met him and he still liked her. i must stress tho he didn’t act on this, he just fantasised. he wasn’t a p..le, but the continuum of feelings was clear.
    i felt a deep feeling of horror when he said the thing about getting ‘in there’, and you know i was glad i was not thin then because i felt sick at the thought he might have thought about me in that mechanistic, use and cast away way, if i had been. i tried my best to talk sense into him and i know that because he was fond of me he found that his thinking was challenged for the first time.
    because of all that i have thought about the issues a lot as you can imagine. the interesting thing is this guy was so honest, too honest for my feelings and my mental health but it gives an insight into his mind you might not ordinarily get.
    this guy felt that an older woman or an overweight woman was a threat to his self esteem, he couldn’t find them attractive because he didn’t feel he could be in charge and he couldn’t ‘just get in there’. he liked porn too, i never saw his porn i didn’t want the image in my head but i know it was all the waif like look stuff, at best, because i know how some films and certain actresses affected him.
    i do not believe for a minute that a p..le would get porn about real women, big boobs or about larger women.

    i also am at a loss as to how adult hetero porn could be used for the grooming sneddon claimed – how would that make the kid interested in doing things to MJ, it would surely just make him go into his own fantasy world focused on the woman not be thinking about other people’s penises! – and he would switch off from MJ. so how would that help? its total rubbish.

    Like

  99. January 28, 2011 8:03 am

    I agree that the haters don’t really believe what they’re saying.

    It reminds me of a quote by Pirsig

    “You are never dedicated to something that you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

    The reason the fans are interested in this is obvious: vindication.

    The haters on the other hand are constantly seeking “smoking guns.”

    It reminds me of Raymond Chandler cutting out clippings and saving pieces of info about about MJ in the hopes that he’d find something valuable amongst it all.

    It also reminds me of several other conspiracy theorists like 9/11 etc – these people never have a unified theory the way we do where A follows B follows C, instead they try and explain each piece of evidence individually and create unique scenarios for each piece.

    So even though they’re zealous about him being a homosexual and a p-ile for some reason some of them now also believe he slept with Grace. It doesn’t matter if this doesn’t make sense overall, so long as it explains one isolated event that they wish to explain.

    They say Omer was his secret lover – they don’t choose to explain why Omer didn’t see MJ from 2007-2009 and could therefore have had ample opportunity to confess to someone now that he was “free”, or that he has since left Hayvenhurst and is working cruise ships so could obviously do with some money.

    They say his Lisa Marie relationship was a fake to deflect attention from Jordie, they don’t explain why there’s plenty of evidence that MJ/Lisa were communicating and dating before the allegations or why Lisa Marie continued seeing Michael up until 1999. Or even why most of the songs on all her albums are about Michael, if he was just a scheme gone wrong.

    They say Jordie was a scared victim and this is why he didn’t go to trial, they don’t explain why his own mother was not afraid to take the stand, or why Gavin wasn’t afraid to take the stand, or things like Evan almost killing his son after the trial and how nobody attended Evan’s funeral after his suicide.

    They say he used pornography to groom kids, they don’t explain his Plumpers, Juggs, 44 Plus, Over 50 magazines, his G spots articles, or why no other child has ever claimed to have seen his pornography or why MJ continued purchasing pornography after Gavin Arviso left Neverland and after exhaustive events no other victims had been found after that time period or why MJ didn’t keep this one homoerotic book amongst the rest of his pornography or in any convenient location in his bedroom.

    They don’t explain how these semen stains prove he’s gay and yet not a single other bit of evidence exists to prove that he’s gay.

    It’s all isolated events to them.

    It reminds me of Matt Fiddes and Jason Pfeiffer/Arnold Klein – they kept saying things which didn’t add up so they had to make up even more things to justify why the first thing didn’t add up. Like Arnold Klein had said that MJ/Debbie did have sex, yet later on he’s telling people MJ was gay, so to get out of that, he says MJ was bisexual. He says MJ was open about this, yet nobody other than him has ever heard this info. He says MJ was openly bisexual and yet he and Jason claim that Jaon’s relationship with MJ was his first relationship with a man. The first interview said they’d been dating for a year, but when the bodyguards came out and spoke about girlfriends, the next interview he gave he said they only dated for 2 months before his death, when those BG weren’t around.

    The sad thing is nobody checks them for their lies, so long as they continue to tell a story people wish to hear.

    Like

  100. Dialdancer permalink
    January 28, 2011 7:59 am

    @ Chris,

    There is more than one game a foot. Comments from various MJ sites like this are finding their way to other locations. When possible the comments will be used to make a statement of calm and reasonable vs. insulting and unreasonable. The latest game involves posting on any MJ article claiming MJ Supporter are attacking them. It makes no difference if the article is related it is happening. This sometimes bring fire from those who aren’t aware of what is going on and just helps to build their case. I am sure you can see where I am coming from.

    Like

  101. Dialdancer permalink
    January 28, 2011 7:18 am

    Dear Helena,

    Thank you for the work you do here. As I said in my email sent to you today. If you have to create, alter documents and photos, invent people and situations then you have to know the truth. They know the truth. In my almost 15 months of reading from this site I have yet to see anyone bring evidence of the one thing which matters most as far as I am concerned. There is no evidence that Michael Joe Jackson was a child molester. All the projecting, suppositions, false claims attached to false information does not change that fact.

    Like

  102. January 28, 2011 5:36 am

    @Alison

    You mean this photo?

    I wish MJ had let people see who he really was, people seem to have this idea that he was sexually insecure in some way and use this to launch their “gay/asexual/pedophile” stuff. But he was much different in private… how Lisa Marie Presley described him, that’s how he really was…

    He was very quick to, the first time I met him, sit me down and go, ‘listen, I’m not gay, I know you think this and I know you think that. And he started cursing, and he started being a real person. And I thought ‘wow’. I was always saying, ‘People wouldn’t think I was so crazy if they saw who the hell you really are: that you sit around and you drink and you curse and you’re fucking funny, and you have a bad mouth, and you don’t have that high voice all the time.’
    – Lisa Marie

    He’s not stupid, he didn’t get where he was because he’s stupid. It’s unfortunate that not a lot of people know who he really is. He doesn’t let anybody see it. And he has some idea about how he should represent himself in the public, that he thinks works for him, which is the sort-of meek victim, meek-quiet thing that he does, which is not like how he really is. So, he doesn’t let a lot of people see that.
    – Lisa Marie

    Like

  103. lcpledwards permalink
    January 28, 2011 2:42 am

    @ Lezlie
    Thanks for your excellent article! LOL! To call it a comment would be a huge understatement! You summarized everything so clearly and succinctly!

    @ Suzy
    Yes, you’re right! I did indeed challenge Desiree to write an article proving who MJ abused, and how he did it. Specifically, I wanted her to use “All That Glitters” as her main source, because if you believe that MJ was guilty in 1993, then you must believe every word printed in that book! Period! No exceptions! Of course, she never did, and instead she has gone all over the place, writing about this and that, instead of telling everyone, point blank, how MJ “got away with it”.

    And since I know you’re probably reading these comments Desiree, I’ll challenge you again, right here: PLEASE WRITE A POST EXPLAINING WHO MJ ABUSED, AND HOW HE GOT AWAY WITH IT! Include all of your references (including “All That Glitters”), and use only cogent arguments. No ad hominem or ad populum arguments! No insinuations! No jumping to conclusions! No “1+1=3” logic! Just give us the cold, hard facts. Use that “team” of yours to help you out with your research! Put them to work!

    Here are two examples of the type of the type of report I expect to see from you, if you decide to accept my challenge. Lisa & Christy wrote “M.O.N.E.Y.”, and Deborah Ffrench wrote “The Making Of A Myth”, and both thoroughly and accurately exonerated MJ of the 1993 scandal. Read these two articles, because this is what you’ll have to debunk, and this is the quality writing and research that I expect to see from you.

    I’ll be honest, I don’t expect you to accept my challenge. Instead, you’ll make up some excuse to not write it, or you’ll write it using the deceptive techniques that I described earlier.

    http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/TheExtortionofMichaelJackson.html

    http://www.stereoboard.com/content/view/97709/44

    Put up or shut up!

    Like

  104. Lezlie permalink
    January 28, 2011 12:53 am

    “Secondly, I need to warn you against repeating the mistake you’ve made – I mean communicating with D. and sending her links to these posts. It is not only unwise but it is harmful too.”

    @Vindicate:

    When I made the comment about being sorry for sending the link to the articles, I meant sending them to YOU by personal email, not Desiree. I have never communicated with D by email or on her blog. She posted links to the articles YOU posted about her findings but I have no clue how she got them. Just wanted to clarify that.

    It seems that someone is trolling this blog and sending articles back to her.

    I just didn’t want you thinking it was me.

    Like

  105. Alison permalink
    January 28, 2011 12:23 am

    @ Helena, thanks for your comment to me about why its important to rebutt these stupid gay stories – can’t paste your comment its in the older comments bit. I now see what you mean! OMG! and you are quite right, i hadn’t thought about it in relation to what they are ultimately looking to “prove”.
    In my opinion if any fan says Michael was gay they are effectively calling him a liar as he said so many times he wasn’t.
    on the video on youtube and on a dvd you can buy on amazon, where he is being deposed mid nineties about something, not sure which lawsuit it was, the vid where he is asked if he molested MacCauley and he can’t believe the suggestion – he is asked to read a list out he had written and on it it says “I’m not gay” – he says this again as he is reading it – he is clearly telling the truth and he is sick to the back teeth of the questioning of his sexuality.

    i have also found a picture in a book of Michael having the time of his life dancing with 2 half naked women and gawping at one’s bottom! i tell you its not the gawp of a gay man! he loves it and he wants to get much closer to it! if i can manage to scan it and email it to Helena i will but not promising cos i’m not very good at that. its in “Michael! The Michael Jackson story” by Mark Bego, published 1983, on page 41. which also is a very nice book with lots of lovely positive comments about Michael and some early explanations of aspects of him such as the whole childhood thing – 1983, way before he bought Neverland.

    It makes no difference if he was gay or straight – except calling him something he is not is changing the man’s identity.
    I will never believe he was gay, i can see nothing gay about him or in any of the ways he behaved or moved or related to people.
    its also weird that out of all The Jacksons it was Michael who was picked out to be called gay – when you watch them, eg Victory Tour, Michael looks the least gay of all of them! Sorry Jacksons! its the costumes!

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:07 pm

    I said we don’t know to whom the blood belongs and we don’t know what was on thr cever of the mattress pad, could be female DNA or his own sweat. The fact is we have only a part of what was on that bed and I think the stains were old.

    Like

  107. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:34 pm

    @ Shelly

    Maybe that’s because, in contrary what haters think, even the prosecution didn’t think those semen stains proved MJ was gay, let alone a CM….

    They saw those stains, how they were located, how big they were, they know how they were accumulated and examined etc. They certainly know more about them than we do…. They also knew that it could get there dozens of ways, especially that it was a known fact other people used Michael’s bed whether he was there or not.

    Also, wasn’t it you who pointed out that other type of stains (not semen) were on those sheets/mattresses about which the prosecution didn’t say anything regarding whether they checked them for DNA and what they found? Can it be a sign that it was female DNA? If it was imagine the defense when Sneddon introduced the mattress “evidence” to court: they would have simply made the expert who analyzed the DNA admit there was also female DNA there. Of course, it’s just speculation on my part, however it’s very telling about the “strenght” of Desiree’s “smoking gun” that even the prosecution didn’t think it was very strong.

    If you consider that they threw everything on Michael, including VERY weak and ridiculous “evidence”, and they even claimed Michael molested people who then came in and told it never happened – so if even this prosecution found this “evidence” weak then it must have been REALLY week!

    Like

  108. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:14 pm

    @vindicate

    To be honest, there is something that I don’t get. In the document I send to you in an email, they said they wanted to use the book Man a sexual study to prove that he was gay and the same day they said they didn’t want to use the semen stains. It’s maybe because in case they chose to sue the stains they would have had to explain why Gavin’s DNA wasn’t on the bed, but anyway it’s strange.

    Like

  109. January 27, 2011 2:57 pm

    “I’m almost sorry that I sent a link to this article a few weeks back”.
    “Don’t give that chick anymore power than she is already feels she has”

    Lezlie, this will be a short comment as I have too little time at the moment.
    First I’d like to thank you for your great summary, conclusions and impressive knowledge of the facts.
    Secondly, I need to warn you against repeating the mistake you’ve made – I mean communicating with D. and sending her links to these posts. It is not only unwise but it is harmful too.
    I’ll try to explain as short as I can.

    You regard her as a partner in the discussion in which you will be able to convince her that she i wrong.
    This is impossible because D. KNOWS that she is wrong. YES, she does.
    She is part of that media system which slandered Michael though they knew perfectly well they had nothing “criminal” to report.
    It was pure spin from beginning to end. The motto was “not to allow facts to stand in the way of the story”.

    Mesereau said that they were making good money that way and when they lost in the trial they lost billions.
    But it wasn’t only money. That laundry thing showed it was also a set up.

    Now they defend their old lies and don’t want us to get to the bottom of the matter.
    Previously they mostly worked with the subconscious of the people repeating mantras like – he was this.. he was that… he was this again.. with an occasional introduction of a lie or half-lie.

    Now they’ve noticed that we started doing research and employ a new tactic – they imitate it too. Post links, refer to “sources”, analyze pictures they themselves draw, etc.

    But if they are doing all that they KNOW that they are lying.
    I don’t believe for a second that D. really believes what she is saying.
    That is why there is not point in discussing anything with her and trying to make her change her opinion.

    The ONLY people we need to talk to are Michael’s fans who were poisoned by D and people like her.
    Talk to them, post the links in their forums, show what a liar D. is – and then we can at least hope that we will undo a little of the damage she has done.

    If we speak to D. instead it will be an ENORMOUS waste of time and helping her to fulfil her goals.
    Her only goal is to distract us from what we are doing and involve us in a petty discussion over this and that.
    Don’t waste your time on her and stay vigilant as to the comments and posts she makes in other places.

    The posts made here are SOLELY for fans who wish to help spread the truth about Michael and ordinary people who are still in doubt.
    They are definitely not for professional haters.
    Because these people are just doing a job of lying.

    Like

  110. Julie permalink
    January 27, 2011 2:29 pm

    Thank you for collecting and decifering the information. I, for one, do not care what Desiree or anyone else of her type thinks, I choose to believe that Michael was what he said he was and he said he was “NOT GAY!” So for all the examining and going over and over it, it has become futile and can be argued to death. For the posters who want to make something of the fact that Michael had a large assortment of porn in his possession and saying that it goes against religion, etc., Michael was in fact a single man in his 40’s and sadly found it difficult to be in relationships so it is not shocking that he would possess this material. The ground is level at the cross so therefore, even though it goes against what we are taught in the Bible, no one is without sin and that would include Michael. It is sad that his personal business has to be hashed and rehashed and analyzed to death. Michael Jackson was a wonderful human being and faced things that none of us in our lifetimes will ever have to face. My heart continues to break for him that he was not given any peace, especially the last 16 or so years of his life and was not allowed to just be a human being. One of his song lyrics on the album Michael refers to the fact that people couldn’t believe he could fall in love.

    We can analyze that to death as well. I truly believe that as a young man he fell in love with Diana Ross and that relationship was never to be on her end of things, which breaks my heart. John Travolta has been married to Kelly Preston for 20 years and people are still ranting that he is gay, same with Tom Cruise. Frankly, it’s none of our business but whatever is happening in their personal relationships is their business. I see no evidence that either one of these men do anything to truly give that impression, yet it is continually discussed.

    This site is about vindicating his name and that is why I come here and like to read the posts. I get so unbelievably tired when you read anything pertaining to him that people who clearly cannot stand him have to write the same old tired comments over and over and I really don’t understand why, if they hate him so much, care enough to post a comment. His poor children, who are now under the same microscope their father was, cannot have anything written about them that people are not hateful about their appearance and there are always several comments that Michael was not their father. Michael Jackson was the father of those children period!

    Like

  111. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 9:11 am

    BTW, once David challenged Desiree to PROVE Michael molested children. Based on facts, and not on tabloid sources and conjecture. She still hasn’t done it…. Of course, because she can’t. Instead she made it her mission now to “prove” MJ was gay. LOL.

    Like

  112. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 8:40 am

    @ Anna

    Desiree referring to her find as “explosive proof” or “smoking gun” is just another tabloid tactic on her part. It’s neither explosive or a proof (not even a proof of MJ being gay, let alone a p-le). But it’s a catchy soundbite into that her tabloid loving audience can buy into. It includes semen, blood, drugs – and the name Michael Jackson. What more would a tabloid writer, such as Desiree, need?

    For those who really think it’s “explosive proof” or a “smoking gun”, the question is very simple: if it’s so explosive and such a proof, how come even the prosecution didn’t really intend to introduce it to court? It’s there in their motion, that they didn’t intend to use the mattress as evidence….

    So much about Desiree’s “explosive proof”. LOL! Unfortunately many tabloid readers just won’t use their brains, they will just follow the first person with enough talent for salacious speculations….

    Like

  113. Anna permalink
    January 27, 2011 8:29 am

    @Suzy

    I agree totally with both of your posts!

    Like

  114. Anna permalink
    January 27, 2011 8:25 am

    @Lezlie

    Okay now that I’m on my third study break for the night I had time to read your whole comment. Excellent summary analysis of the events of the trial btw! Wouldn’t it be nice if more people took the time the read through the court transcripts, then they would know how the media distorted the facts or even omitted facts. Just to reiterate my stance about the gay thing is that I agree that you’re right, that shouldn’t matter. It only matters in the case of our adversary because she is trying to link it to P-lia. Obviously we are all intelligent enough to know that by trying to make that link only proves their ignorance further. However, I think what bothered me is this notion that her findings were “explosive proof”, even more than what this “explosive proof” was supposed to prove. I don’t know if that makes sense. The idea of taking any loose bit of speculation and blowing it up literally into explosive proof is more than a mere annoyance to me, and I’m sure others too since that is was what the tabloids and media did at every turn during the trial.

    So whether Michael was gay, bi, straight or assexual is irrelevent to me really, but it seems in this case our adversary is trying to use A (gay claims) to prove B (p-lia). Atleast I’m getting that impression from reading her comments. If we can debunk A even if A isn’t a bad thing (in my opinion anyway), it means A cannot be used to prove B in this particular argument. However, even if A could be proven somehow (which I doubt), there is still plenty of other ways to debunk B. That is why I love this site so much, because that is exactly what they are doing.

    I hope I’ve made my stance clear anyway. I certainly don’t want anyone to get the impression that myself and most others commenting here are homophobic.

    Like

  115. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 7:55 am

    As for the claim about homophobia among Michael’s fans. Michael has many type of fans. He has fans who would feel uncomfortable with a gay Michael Jackson, he also has gay fans who would be happy about it, but there are many who couldn’t care less about what he did in his bed and with whom as long as it wasn’t criminal activity – and the case for Michael NEVER molesting anyone is VERY strong. Desiree simply cannot get around this fact, so now she is using all type of innuendo and conjecture for the “case” MJ was gay. That’s all she has, that’s why she is running around with this “semen information” like a mad dog.

    To accuse MJ fans of homophobia is quite hypocritic coming from her and her gang though, since they obviously feel homosexuality is something inferior, something to be ashamed of, and when they claim MJ was gay they very obviously do that as an insult. So if they think calling someone gay can be used as an insult, that means they are homophobic themselves.

    If they wouldn’t be homophobic, they wouldn’t care so much about these semen samples as they prove nothing about whether MJ ever molested children. And obviosuly even the prosecution thought so, since they didn’t intend to introduce this “evidence”!

    Like

  116. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 7:31 am

    @ Lezlie

    I agree with everything you wrote and also with what Anna wrote.

    I just want to address the part about Michael’s children now: you ask, can’t these people at least think of them when they do what they do?

    No, these people couldn’t care less about his children – and in fact, these type of people couldn’t care less about Michael’s alleged “victims” either! How can somebody claim she is concerned about children when she makes up detailed fantasy stories (much in the mould of Victor Gutierrez) about how, in her opinion, Michael molested Brett Barnes, for example? When Brett Barnes himself always denied Michael molested him.

    What they are doing is not only humiliating to Michael, but also humiliating to the alleged “victims”. For God’s sake, Desiree claims things like some of the “victims” enjoyed the molestation! How is that a concern for children?

    So don’t expect any empathy from these people towards children, whether Michael’s own or the alleged “victims”. They don’t have any empathy. They are doing it “for fun” – as on of our latest guests, “Me” was nice enough to point that out about her own motivation.

    I personally think Desiree is someone with mental and emotional problems, who now found her “mission” on the Internet in bashing Michael Jackson. Since Michael Jackson is always a hot topic, and especially bashing him is a very convenient and popular position, it gained now some online popularity for Desiree among haters and a tabloid loving audience.

    There will always be haters and there will always be people who just can’t get enough of tabloid and salacious stories, whether they are true or not. Many don’t even care much if they are true, they just want to have their “fun” with having their paws in everybody’s pants. It’s not accidental that tabloids are the best selling papers of the world, not serious newspapers. Desiree is just feeding that plebeian instinct.

    Like Anna said, we probably cannot change the minds of those type of people. Tabloids will always be popular, no matter what. But we need to put Desiree’s claims into a context and a perspective for those who are really searching for the truth and not just for some tabloid entertainment.

    Like

  117. Anna permalink
    January 27, 2011 6:26 am

    @Lezlie

    Sorry I didn’t read your whole comment yet, only the first part of it. I’m not suprised our adversary would rebutt what this site posted and your right the fact that’s she’s going on and on is telling. It seems she’s just reiterating what’s she’s said before but worded it in a different way. When people hear a lie (or speculation) often enough they will begin to believe it or in this case of her readers they will just believe more than they did before.

    I think the point many of us here are trying to make is that we know we’re not going to change the minds of our adversary, her readers or haters that frequent forums such a Topix. However, this site as the adminstrator noted felt a responsibilty to MJ fans and supporters of this site to address this issue of “explosive proof” from our adversary as it was being discussed on many MJ fan forums.

    This sites posts and the comments in my opinion have more then debunked her claims. Our adversary and her readers might try to invaldiate our arguments, mostly likely with insults rather than facts or so it seems from skimming the comments section, lol.

    However the posts here give another perspective to her claims of “explosive proof”.

    If people choose to follow our adversary and her arguments than that is their choice, but atleast this site and it’s supporters can feel confident knowing they took a stand and offered another perspective for the MJ fans and supporters out there who were originally bothered by this.

    When I have more time I’ll read the rest of your comment🙂

    Like

  118. Lezlie permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:51 am

    Hello All,

    I really love this blog and it seems to be the most factually accurate of most of the pro-Jackson blog sites that I’ve been to.

    Just to let you guys know, it seems our “favorite” adversary has posted a rebuttal to your rebuttal of her findings regarding Michael being gay. I’m almost sorry that I sent a link to this article a few weeks back. It seems Jackson fans are now considered homophobic, among other things. I love all people, gay, straight, lesbian or bi. White, black (as I am myself) yellow, purple….it don’t matter! I just refuse to believe Jackson was gay because he had stated many times that he was not gay. Even if he was gay, was it any of anyone’s business? Luther Vandross, whose music is probably responsible for many births in the 80’s and 9o’s, was always accompanied by a male companion at all of his appearances and concerts but none of this was ever questioned by the media or his fans. Of course, Vandross’s personal and professional life was never wrought with the same kind of scandal that Jackson’s was.

    They call us “rabid-fans”. I guess we could be considered such because our inclination isn’t to believe that which is disgusting and salacious in nature. But, in the same breath, wouldn’t they be considered rabid haters?

    Michael’s sexuality wasn’t on trial; whether he molested young boys was! Obviously, there was a reason that the judge never included any of this “evidence” in the trial. Even if he did, I believe the result would’ve still been the same…NOT GUILTY. Can you imagine the prosecution trying to explain why the accusers’ DNA wasn’t found on the bed sheets, mattress cover, underwear, and mattress? Hell, even after he won the trial, Aphrodite Jones, who believed he was guilty as sin at first, researched every piece of evidence (even that which wasn’t included in the trial) and came to the conclusion that Jackson was innocent. What did she have to gain by lying? Her book was self-published and she wasn’t, contrary to many Jackson detractors who claimed the book to be a “whitewash” of the trial (without having actually even read the book) paid to write it. This just shows people are going to seek out things that actually confirms what they already believe. This is what I believe motivatates Desiree and those of her ilk: They truly believe Jackson was a drug addled child molesting p_le. And they stop at nothing to try and “prove” it.

    There is a saying that came to mind when Jackson was arrested in 2003: “What’s done in the dark will come to the light.” As much as I loved his music, I remember thinking: There might be some truth to the stories surrounding him and his “obsession” with young boys.

    But as I heard the evidence surrounding case, and much later, read the trial transcripts, I knew the jury made the right decision, and something was definitely wrong with that family. For example, the mother claimed that she was thinking about trying to escape Neverland by hot air balloon?! Are you serious?! At a residence with no fences?? When I read this I almost had an asthma attack (and I don’t even have asthma!), I laughed so hard. And the alledged witnesses! Star Arvizo claimed to have ‘witnessed” acts of molestation but neither the boy or his brother could get their stories straight when cross examined. I wish I could’ve looked Star in the eye so that I could tell if he was lying or not. I was 4 years old when I witnessed my sister being molested, and I can tell you now, at 28 years old, that that is something you NEVER forget. It’s etched in your memory. You have nightmares about it. You wake up and puke from it. You cry when you think about. in a lot of ways, being a witness to something like that makes you a victim, too. I blamed myself for the longest time.

    Furthermore, how is the prosecution going to claim five boys had been molested when 3 came in and gave testimony to the contrary, one refused and threatened legal action against Sneddon, and the one that did testify seemed to only remember that which was convenient for him to remember. He claimed he didn’t know his mother was paid 2 mln by Jackson in an out of court settlement for HIS alleged molestation, that he had only recently found out that she recieved $20,000 from Hard Copy in exchange for her story, he couldn’t remember telling investigators that Jackson had never touched him, and that he’d said he felt like hitting them because they were either making him angry or questioning him too aggressively. To sum it up, he remembered molestation, couldn’t remember if any money was gotten on his behalf, and he didn’t recall his own words when he defended Jackson in the 90’s. Bullshit!

    Families held against their will don’t go on shopping sprees, vacations, and the like at their captors expense. They certainly don’t tell an investigative body like Child Protective Services that nothing happened. They don’t defend their captor to anyone who would listen. They don’t refer to him as “Daddy”. They don’t call Chris Tucker to help them find Jackson so they could go be with him. They don’t return to the very place where they claim they are being held hostage after being given an out many times. They don’t ask to sleep in their alledged molester/captor’s room(i.e. the scene of the crime) while he isn’t there.

    District Attorney’s don’t put themselves in the position of being a witness. They don’t change the original complaint to one that makes more sense when the media questions the validity of the accusing families complaints. And they sure as hell don’t hire P.R. firms, open websites urging ‘victim’s” to come forward, travel to locations out of the scope of their investigation to interview “potiential witnesses or victims”, issue over 100 search warrants with more than 72 investigators; more I understand than any murder investigation in American history. Wasn’t Sneddon the one who claimed to have never given Jackson another passing thought after the 93 allegations resulted in a settlement but gave NUMEROUS interviews to the contrary in the mid-to late 90’s into the early millenium? Doesn’t anyone remember the euphoria and zeal on Sneddon and Thomas’s faces at the press conference in 2003 where he referred Michael as “Wacko Jacko” and claimed “we got him”? Such was his desperation to get a conviction against Jackson that he even wanted to include the drawings that he claimed corroborated Jordan Chandler’s description of Jackson’s wang to the jury in the 2005 case. Since his death it has been confirmed by the autopsy report (which was performed by a doctor who had no vested interest in anything connected with Jackson but still his detractors even try refute this FACTUAL report as well) that Jackson had been uncircumcised. Oh, boy! Did the spin police really go on patrol when this became public knowledge! Over the years (and from Jackson’s detractors, no less) I’ve heard that the boy described Jackson’s genitals as being circumcised. Never once did I hear that this accuser described it as uncircumcised. Now, I hear everything from: Oh, well maybe he didn’t really get a good look at it..to….an uncircumcised penis looks circumsized when aroused (which, depending on many variables might be true for some men but not all.) But, here and now, in light of the fact that we know from Jordan’s script…I mean…declaration that he claimed to have bathed with Jackson, we’re supposed to believe that he was able to tell exactly what splotch was placed where on Jackson’s genitalia but he couldn’t (don’t mean to be graphic) point out the fact that he had skin on the tip of his wang?! I mean, seriously, if there is a man out there that can keep it up under water, then I’m marrying the WRONG man this April. (just kidding!)

    Getting back to the detractor, I don’t know what motivates her postings against Jackson. But I can tell you, from viewing her rebuttal to our rebuttal, she and her lackies view us quite the same as we view them: They are right. WE are wrong. And she relishes the attention she’s getting from us. That, to me, says a lot about her in and of itself. Just so you know, she’s provided links to the articles that are posted here critiquing her work. One thing that came to mind when I was reading her rebuttal-rebuttal is: If you feel that strongly about your “evidence”, then why all the need to further explain? It’s obvious that none of her worshippers even took the time to read the articles judging from the comments. Their minds are made up! They believe he was a pedophile. They believe he had same sex-sex with men. They believe Jackson got rid of evidence that could’ve been used to prove his guilty many times over. They believe that the marriage between LMP and MJ was a fluke. They believe he “paid-off” accusers in an effort to thwart criminal prosecution. They believe the jury was comprised of a bunch of rabid-Jackson fans who let a guilty man walk free because of his celebrity (the same jury they would’ve praised had they actually found him guilty). This list could go on and on…and on and on…but the end result is still the same. If the negativity is connected to Michael Jackson, they’ll believe it and run circles like a dog chasing his tail trying to prove why it’s the truth. As with any information you recieve about someone, you have to consider the source. Her sources range anywhere from Diane Dimond to Bob Jones to Maureen Orth to….even tabloid magaines! Mix up a bit of the truth with 6 ounces of drama and when it comes to a crumbly mixture, add 5 cups of innuendo and salaciousness, and you have a winner! Don’t get me started on Diane Dimond! That woman and the words “objective” and “credible” don’t belong in the same sentence! But did she ever stop to consider that readers might consider Orth’s account of the events surronding Jackson’s life and relationships with young boys to be the truth because of her-late husband, Tim Russert? Personally, Orth lost all credibility with me when Jimmy Matasura guested on the Abrahm’s Report denying her slanderous article against Jackson in which she claimed that Matasura had been molested by Jackson. The boy and his father both vehemently denied that Jackson had ever done anything to the boy at all. When Orth got wind of this, she claimed to stand stoically behind her source. What good writer wouldn’t stand by their source when their claims of innuendo and salaciousness are denied?? Ask Diane Dimond. She ought to be an expert on this subject.

    It is my opinion that Jackson never molested anyone in his life. The reason for my opinion is very simple…my opinion is based on facts from the case, not innuendo or media speculation. For example, if Jordan Chandler’s father truly believed Jackson was doing the unspeakable to his son, what was all the secrecy and negotiations for? You don’t negotiate with a man you claim was f*ing your son! You don’t consult a lawyer on how to report molestation without liability to the parent. You don’t accept a multi-million dollar settlement before his alleged crimes are tried in criminal court! You beat his motherfucking ass and sit in jail the next day happily telling the story to anyone willing to listen! Evan Chandler NEEDED June to believe his lies otherwise his case wouldn’t have made sense! It doesn’t matter that Jackson opted not to go to CIVIL trial against his accuser. Had Jackson lost (and the odds were not in his favor) the end result would’ve been the same: money! That is the only thing that could’ve come from Jackson being found guilty in the civil case. I also believe that if Jackson had actually went to trial in the civil case and lost, that would’ve been a reason for the grand jury to indict him. Which is what I think Sneddon was hoping for all along. If Jackson had paid off the accusers father before the media had gotten wind of the allegations, then I’d be a glorified member of Team Desiree. But he didn’t do that. In all the stories that I’d heard about Jackson all of my life, and their has been a lot, I’ve never heard anything about him being a child molester before 1993, although she and her followers seemed to have “uncovered” allegations that supposedly date back to the 80’s with regard to his relationship with young boys. So many witnesses to untoward behavior but none of them, not a damn one, ever going to the police to report any of it! Smdh! The best they can do is talk to “investigative” reporters whose account of the events in question are parlayed into the blogosphere for detractors to make their own conclusions.

    Look, my point is this: People are going to believe what they want to believe. Don’t give that chick anymore power than she is already feels she has. I’ll be the first to admit that her articles mad me angry at first but when I read through them a second time, I saw them for what they truly are: a good tabloid read. I was hoping I’d find an article from her about why Jordan Chandler never showed up at the 2005 trial but the only thing I found was some commenting to the effect of the cases not being the same, and Jordan wanting to get on with his life…blah..blah..blah. Can you believe that nonsense? So, it’s okay to accept money from a man you claim did the unspeakable to you but when it comes time to give your account in a court of law, you get a pass because from Jackson’s most ardent detractors (not just Desiree) because your case isn’t “like” the Arvizo’s? Thats hogwash!

    I also have to wonder about how these nasty speculative articles are going to effect Jackson’s children, who are sure to read this vitriol some day. Whatever Jackson did or didn’t do, his children had no part of it and I can’t understand why these people would want to diminish their father in their eyes. Do they think about how their words will affect them when they get older? It is obvious that those children, especially Paris, loved Michael a great deal. Even if I thought Jackson to be gay or guilty or whatever, I could have no part in ruining what he was to them. Maybe Jackson’s detractors will think about Paris’s words and subsequent tears at her father’s memorial the next time they type another scathing word against him.

    Alas, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just think you guys should see Desiree for who she actually is: a highly opinionated individual who uses a lot of big words (Yes! For once, a “smart” detractor!) to prove her point. Continue defending Jackson’s legacy by doing the research that you do, and writing articles that make sense. She relishes the power that her followers claim we are giving her….making their opinions the truth.

    And that is the last thing we want to appear to be doing.

    Like

  119. January 27, 2011 5:40 am

    “I do not know if he was after the Jehovah Witness exit ever affiliated with another organized religion”.

    Teva, I didn’t make myself clear enough though understand what you are talking about. The fact is I see a clear distinction between the terms “organized religion”, “church”, “creed” with all their sets of rules and rituals – and true belief in God. Probably a better word for that would be spirituality, though this is not precise either.

    It always grows from some creed and never grows from atheism because its basic principle is full acceptance of the fact that there is a higher power you depend on (you may not wake up tomorrow as you have no power over life and death matters even if you are in the best health) and are fully answerable to this power for everything you do.

    This type of belief in God is the highest form of responsibility and discipline which you take upon your shoulders absolutely willingly because every minute of your life you feel you are answering directly to Him.

    From Michael’s behavior – his enormous charity, exceptional selflessness, the easy way he loved, accepted and embraced almost everybody and even his incredible stamina despite his seeming frailness and toughness with which he endured all those tortures – all this gives reasons to believe that Michael had this type of belief in God. He was answering directly to Him.

    I am not talking of anything supernatural – there have been human beings in life history who showed this type of dedication to God. Jeanne of Arc – a young virgin who led the French army in liberating her country – was probably this type. She was burnt alive by Inquisition as you remember.

    Michael was of this type too and was also burnt by Inquisition. It is impossible to compare him with an ordinary citizen who goes to church every Sunday, observes the basic set of rules and thinks he is okay this way.

    Like

  120. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:30 am

    @suzy

    Good point.

    Like

  121. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:19 am

    @ Shelly

    The same can be said about “Sexual Study of Man”. Having that doesn’t prove the person had sex with children. Yet, it was introduced.

    Like

  122. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:15 am

    Having semen stains on your mattres could be seen as evidence that you had same sex relationship but it’s not evidence of sexual relationship with kids. No judge who wants to be fair would allow that in a child molestation trial and Sneddon knew it.

    Like

  123. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:14 am

    BTW, how is something like “Sexual Study of Man” is related to the Arvizos? They never claimed Michael showed them that. Yet, the prosecution did introduce that – apparently in an attempt to “show” Michael was gay. So I guess the prosecution would have fought for those semen samples a bit more too if they thought they “prove” MJ was gay. I think they were totally in clear about the many ways it could got there – without MJ having to participte in gay sex. It only seems to be a “smoking gun” for our amateur haters….

    Like

  124. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:10 am

    @ Shelly

    So what?

    Like

  125. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 5:04 am

    @suzy

    ““Important evidence”? Apparently even Sneddon didn’t think it was important, since they said they didn’t really want even to introduce it to court.”

    It was because it wasn’t related to the case. The semen stains were not from the Arvizos, so they had no reason to introduce it to court.

    Like

  126. January 27, 2011 4:49 am

    “this is a site where we should find evidence supporting mj’s innocence. That means dealing with whatever evidence appears. I think we can all agree that if one finds a legal document stating that semen stains were found on MJ’s mattress one might infer he may have had same-sex sexual encounters. Of course that’s not the only possibility, but it is, I believe, important evidence that I imagined could be discussed here…”

    Silvester, it is far from being the only possibility. The importance of this evidence is equal to a few blond hairs found in your comb in the bathroom if one of your guests used it for combing her hair.

    Those who analyze this evidence will have to face lots of opportunities – that she was your lover, one of your friends, a chance guest, whatever.

    If Michael’s lifestyle had been different and he hadn’t been giving access to his room to every friend, relative, bodyguard, etc. those stains could be looked upon as something important, but since he allowed into his room practically everyone (even when he was away), the evidence of those two stains is minimal.

    Any “evidence” should be balanced against the chances of how it could get there. If the chances are big the value of the evidence diminishes greatly.

    P.S. By the way the value of that hair in your comb will also be different depending on your lifestyle. If you don’t entertain guests and are a reclusive type its value will be high, but if you arrange parties every day and have an open door policy its value will be nothing.

    Like

  127. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:46 am

    @ shelly

    It’s ONE possibility. Of the many…. I don’t even think it’s the most likely one.
    People went to his room and possibly found his porn (like the Arvizos found it) or laptops with Internet connection.

    Like

  128. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:41 am

    @ silvester

    “Important evidence”? Apparently even Sneddon didn’t think it was important, since they said they didn’t really want even to introduce it to court. Just because Desiree says something is a “smoking gun” doesn’t make it so, you know….

    Like

  129. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:37 am

    “Or it doesn’t mean sexual encounter at all. ”

    Yes, but I think it’s a real possibility, but seriously who cares, he didn’t rape people. It’s the only thing which matters, the rest was his personal life and I think we should respect that.

    Like

  130. Suzy permalink
    January 27, 2011 4:32 am

    @ shelly

    Or it doesn’t mean sexual encounter at all. We know that other people slept in Michael’s bed all the time, also when he wasn’t there. This is supported by several sources. So it requires a big and quick jump to conclusions to say those semen samples mean he had a sexual relationships with men. Haters want to have this conclusion, so let them have it if that somehow makes them more happy with their own lives. I always found it interesting psychologically why somebody finds his/her “fun” in hating someone (“Me” said she does it because she has “fun” with it). I guess it might be related to the bullying mentality. They like to upset fans and that’s their “fun”. This whole “gay story” tells more about them than about MJ.

    Like

  131. shelly permalink
    January 27, 2011 1:16 am

    @sylvester

    Semen stains might indicate that he had same sex relationship. I don’t think it really means he was gay. He could have been straight with b fling or bi sexual. Sexuality is very complex.

    Like

  132. January 27, 2011 12:46 am

    Unless there is irrefutable evidence out there that the semen stains belonged to Jordan, Jason or Gavin what is the damn point no one else said Michael molested them. Are we vindicating homosexuality and bisexuality along with P..lia?

    Like

  133. January 27, 2011 12:37 am

    @Shelly & Helena,

    I can say from first hand knowledge that porn & homosexually do not go hand in hand with christian beliefs and specifically Jehovah Witnesses. Helena you are right as a JW & deeply religious person Michael would have abstain from premarital sex, and that would explain why he didn’t try to put it on Tatum and Brooke. While he was with these two women he was still in the religion. However, that is myopic you have to look at his whole life – the way he did not want to be like his father or the way he resented how his brothers treated women and his whole socialization from a child. Just listen to his songs. Michael breath the religion more than his other brothers. There is a clip on youtube where he says he cried when Elizabeth Taylor brought Christmas to Neverland because he felt guilty. Jehovah Witnesses also do not celebrate Christmas or Birthdays. However, I think he change after 1993.

    Shelly you are right there is no reconciliation for pornography and christianity. However, Michael was not as deeply religious as the nineties progressed. IMO I think he bended the rules. I do not know if he was after the Jehovah Witness exit ever affiliated with another organized religion. Shelly, yes they are homosexuals that are christians and some denominations accept it, but as a rule the two do not mix.

    Like

  134. silvester permalink
    January 27, 2011 12:35 am

    @tweety

    As I said before, I think desiree is too passionate about the subject of MJ, which makes her objectivity at least questionable.

    Still, this is a site where we should find evidence supporting mj’s innocence. That means dealing with whatever evidence appears. I think we can all agree that if one finds a legal document stating that semen stains were found on MJ’s mattress one might infer he may have had same-sex sexual encounters. Of course that’s not the only possibility, but it is, I believe, important evidence that I imagined could be discussed here…

    I know you meant it as a joke, I have sense of humour (only well hidden :)).

    Like

  135. January 27, 2011 12:14 am

    Sneddon did many things that had no intention to refer to people or knew they could not be granted. He tried anything to lynch him inside and outside the court. He was frantic and desperate.

    Like

  136. tweety permalink
    January 27, 2011 12:11 am

    @silvester
    Now that we finally found about Michael’s sexuality and we are 100% sure that he was gay, can you please ask from desire to find out if Prince was gay ? I always wanted to know.

    Like

  137. silvester permalink
    January 26, 2011 11:56 pm

    thanks for the reply.

    But what was the logic of planting semen stains on MJ’s mattress, (which they did not intend to refer to the people)?

    Like

  138. January 26, 2011 11:49 pm

    He could not plant anything belonging to Gavin because he was out of Neverland long time before the raidings and it’s easy to find in a lab “how old” an item is

    Like

  139. silvester permalink
    January 26, 2011 11:44 pm

    Guys, re your remark from the 20th of Jan, re semen on the sheets – proof or no proof on Desiree’s site – don’t you think that’s a bit of spliting hairs, really? I mean Desiree linked a doc of the Prosecution saying that different semen specimens, including Michael’s, were found on the mattress: isn’t that enough evidence for the point she is trying to make, albeit (a tad) too passionately?

    Also, re Sneddon planting evidence. If he truely wanted to plant evidence, don’t you think planting some underwear soiled with Gavin’s semen would have been more relevant? You can’t seriously believed he planted various semen stains on the mattress, but not Gavin’s…that does not make much sense…

    Like

  140. lcpledwards permalink
    January 26, 2011 9:38 pm

    @ Chris
    We normally don’t seek out to directly refute each and every nonsense story that haters throw out, but with the whole “MJ is gay” crap being spewed on another blog, we had to take action. We received numerous emails asking us was there any truth to it, and to refute it, and so we have. We still have another article coming soon from Lynette that should end this nonsense once and for all. When fans are debating this in fan forums, it has gotten out of hand! Our adversary did a good job of writing a long and meticulously researched piece, but quantity does NOT equal quality! All that glitters isn’t gold! (As Jordie Chandler said to Dr. Gardner, which Ray subsequently titled his book.)

    I understand your frustration, but I assure you this will come to an end soon. Personally, I have 4 or 5 projects that I’m working on, and I will begin posting them in a few weeks once this gay business dies down, and after the trial, and whatever else happens in the meantime.

    Like

  141. January 26, 2011 9:36 pm

    “Or this website will turn into a haters vs supporters match which I thought the title of this site is VINDIcating MJ, so why has the focus changed? Refute there claims but don’t continue talking to them because that is what they want. WAKE UP!”

    Chris, I am afraid that at the moment it is inevitable. Haters have noticed us. There was a period when we worked here in relative seclusion without anyone bothering us. Now they have changed their tactics. They come, look and observe. They pretend to be this and that. They constantly test you. They take you away with “innocent” questions. They look for your weak points and are trying to get you. They are monitoring you and want to catch you unawares. They want to prove that you are lying. They send spam which the system is blocking but its flow is increasing. They tell lies behind your back while all you are trying to do is go on working. In short you are getting the same of what they did to Michael – only the scale of it is incomparable.

    Evidently this is the only goal they are living their life for. I don’t know what’s wrong with these people and why they are so consistent in their hatred. I hope they will tell us one day. Probably it will help them to recover.

    Like

  142. January 26, 2011 9:23 pm

    “VindicateMJ, I’m afraid your English is BAD – I didn’t say or imply that MJ was a p-le.”

    Then I must have misinterpreted your Russian. You should have expressed your ideas in your perfect English yourself then.

    Like

  143. January 26, 2011 8:31 pm

    VindicateMJ, I’m afraid your English is BAD – I didn’t say or imply that MJ was a p-le.
    Bye finally.

    Like

  144. Chris permalink
    January 26, 2011 7:53 pm

    I do hold this site in high regard but am getting increasingly frustrated by everyone falling for these haters game.

    As ME said she /he wasn’t interested in reading just comments let alone articles, which therefore these people have no interest in seeing Michael as innocent.

    Their game is simple. Distract you guys from continuing research by wasting time trying to justitfy their ignorance. They aren’t interested in your opinions. They just admitted it. These ppl will always kee[p playing the same tune forever!

    Please every1 stop wasting time with these morons and don’t dignify them with a response. Or this website will turn into a haters vs supporters match which I thought the title of this site is VINDIcating MJ, so why has the focus changed? Refute there claims but don’t continue talking to them because that is what they want. WAKE UP!

    Like

  145. January 26, 2011 7:24 pm

    “Вау, количество написанного в комментах потрясает!.. Сколько усилий чтобы доказать ложность истины. Все не прочла – ниасилила. Кстати: E pur si muove! (Галлилей (С)) Засим прощаюсь, извините, в переводе идиоматических выражений, жаргонизмов и крылатых фраз не помогу”.

    This Russian woman says she is impressed by so many comments and so much effort to prove “the falsity of the truth”. She couldn’t manage reading all our comments and is leaving now. As a farewell she says “E pur si muove!” which she refuses to help me to translate. However I can manage by myself as Wikipedia gives the following interpetation:

    “Eppur si muove” ([epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is an Italian phrase meaning “And yet it moves” purportedly uttered by the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei after being forced to recant, under threat of physical torture, in 1633, before the Inquisition, his belief that the Earth moves around the Sun.

    Evidently our “ME” visitor thinks she is the Galileo who had to recant under threat of physical torture from the readers and administrator of this blog who must be the Inquisition(!). And since the Earth still moves around the Sun this allegory probably means that Michael is in her opinion still guilty of what he was accused of (!).

    Well, dear professor, you weren’t patient enough to read only some of our comments while we were patient enough to make our research for a year and a half by now, studying hundreds of pages of court documents, drawing conclusions from their comparison with the media and other materials and relaying these conclusions in hundreds of posts. Even this small comparison of your and our imput into the problem shows the amount of your and our knowledge about the Michael Jackson case.

    Well, “ignoramus et ignorabimus” which is the Latin for “we don’t know and will never know”.

    This is about you, I am afraid.

    Like

  146. shelly permalink
    January 26, 2011 6:53 pm

    I wonder what did we state which aren’t true. You can’t know someone else sexuality even if he had nude pictures. The book Man a sexual study could be a sign but the others, please, they were,in museum.

    Like

  147. ares permalink
    January 26, 2011 6:39 pm

    She basically sais that she was impresed by the amount of the comments trying to convince her but what we are stating have nothing to do with the truth. And since she salute as i am guessing that she is not going to visit this blog again.

    Like

  148. shelly permalink
    January 26, 2011 6:25 pm

    @me

    Could you write in english please?

    Like

  149. January 26, 2011 6:22 pm

    Вау, количество написанного в комментах потрясает!.. Сколько усилий чтобы доказать ложность истины. Все не прочла – ниасилила.
    Кстати: E pur si muove! (Галлилей (С))
    Засим прощаюсь, извините, в переводе идиоматических выражений, жаргонизмов и крылатых фраз не помогу.

    Like

  150. January 26, 2011 3:14 pm

    There a lot of noise about an issue Michael Jackson has answered many times in his life.

    MJ to J. Randy Taraborelli in 1979:
    “No I am not gay” Michael snapped. “I am not a homo. People make up stories about me being gay because they have nothing else to do. I am not letting it get to me. I am not going to have a nervous breakdown because people think I like having sex with men. I don’t and that’s that”, he said, his sentences pouring out. “If I let this get to me it will only show how cheap I am. I am sure I must have a lot of fans who are gay and I don’t mind that” he continued speaking faster. “That’s their life and this is mine. You can print that” he said thrusting his index finger at me. “What is it about me that makes people think I am gay? Why do people think I am gay?” I didn’t think I should anser his question. He was already upset. (from Magic and the Madness)

    To Lisa Robinson in 1977 for Vanity Fair “I am not one of those”

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/08/michael-jackson-lisa-robinson.html

    He even had Frank Dileo make a press conference mentioning this too in the ’80s

    He angrily talked about it in his speech against Sony and he did it in the outtakes of Living with Michael Jackson.

    In fact it’s old news.

    Olga

    Like

  151. January 26, 2011 2:37 pm

    “During an Interview In 1970, Aged 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6bXMvrkAqg @ 6:48′

    Rochforeveron, what a wonderful find and what a nice little boy Michael was! So natural, lively and so normal. The way he shuffles through the Playboy magazine one would imagine it is his favorite pastime. By the way if we are to believe stories that gay people feel that way since their early childhood than this should be another proof that Michael was straight (only I don’t believe in those gay-since-baby stories).

    And this video is a kind of an explanation how Michael’s strict religious beliefs went together with looking at magazines like Playboy – he got used to it while being on tours, when his elder brothers also looked and there was no mother to snatch things away from his hands. He grew up in a typically male surrounding and acquired all the habits associated with it.

    They are probably on a tour even in this video. Is it their teacher Rose Fine who is accompanying them?

    P.S. And the collection in http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/love-sex-and-playboy/ is marvellous. So engrossing that it’s a serious challenge to work.

    Like

  152. January 26, 2011 12:42 pm

    @Vindicate

    Thanks for figuring that out for me! I was trying to figure out why Sanger wanted to point that Steven Spielberg letter out. The defence were very pointed and meaningful in things they would ask the witnesses – asking if they knew if anyone else slept in Mike’s room, bringing up how often and what June Chandler would be doing in Mike’s room, asking if Wade thought of MJ as asexual, asking if the maid remembered Jimmy Safechuck’s wedding, etc, so I knew that there had to be a reason why they asked about Steven’s letter.

    Like

  153. January 26, 2011 12:38 pm

    @Suzy

    I think his internet pornography was revealing too. They couldn’t even find anything homosexual there and these were computers that had caches stored all the way back to 1998 (it seems Michael was a packrat where ever he went). If someone is so repressed with their sexuality in real life (everyone he knows talking about how he ‘s straight in private, his girlfriends talking about their sex life, so he was keeping the charade up well) then it seems that they should seek out avenues to explore that elsewhere, he didn’t do it with his magazines, and presented with something which is essentially anonymous and which he obviously knew where to look for pornography, he didn’t seek to fulfil this out there either.

    His enjoyment of certain magazines is consistent throughout all his life too…

    During an Interview In 1970, Aged 12:

    @ 6:48

    MJ: (gets up and browses through magazines on a table, picks one up and goes to sit back down)
    Jermaine: Michael, please. No, he got the Playboy. He got the Playboy. (tries to snatch it away from him)
    MJ: (fighting his brother off) No, sit down. (to interviewer): Now, I would like to tell you all the people on (Inaudible TV) (flicking through it) one of my favourite things…
    Brother: (Inaudible)
    Michael: … in The Playboy magazine.
    Jermaine: Michael, they filming you.
    MJ: (looking like he’s been caught, looks up at camera and smiles)
    (Continues interview flicking through magazine) @ 8:56
    MJ: This is a big butt.

    LOL

    More here….

    http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/love-sex-and-playboy/

    Like

  154. January 26, 2011 12:34 pm

    You say it was in the last few years? It means that despite all the harm people had done to him Michael still stubbornly believed in the better sides of human nature and preferred to trust people rather than mistrust them.

    That was exactly my reaction🙂 Imagine just giving your key to a bodyguard and telling them to come go as they wished in his absence, even after so many other people had turned against him, especially employees.

    This was 2007-2009 sometime at his Vegas place. She described it like this “He was generous, would let his staff chill out at his place whenever they wanted, eat his food, hang out.” But this guy he specifically gave the key to. This is why I believe it’s just factual that he let other people stay in his room at Neverland, what’s more revealing about how highly you think of a friendship or person than to open up your room and house for them whenever they needed it?

    I do know that he had become paranoid though, for example, he wouldn’t leave voice mails because he was worried people would leak them.

    Like

  155. January 26, 2011 10:17 am

    “Being religious just means that you won’t act on your sexual preference but it doesn’t make you straight.”

    Not acting on one’s sexual preference would be just enough in our case.

    “By the way, I don’t think religion allow you to have tons of porn and he had it”.

    A good point. I’ll think it over.

    Like

  156. Anna permalink
    January 26, 2011 10:07 am

    @vindicatemj

    Yeah, I sure will. It’s been a few weeks since I came across those threads but if I can find them again I will post links to these posts.

    Like

  157. shelly permalink
    January 26, 2011 10:01 am

    @vindicate

    I think that you can be very religious and be gay or bisexual at the same time. Being religious just means that you won’t act on your sexual preference but it doesn’t make you straight.
    By the way, I don’t think religion allow you to have tons of porn and he had it.

    Like

  158. January 26, 2011 7:11 am

    “Normally I ignore our adversary but I could see that her blog arguments had begun to seep into the MJ fan world such as forums like Lipstick Alley (the MJ fan threads anyway)”

    Anna, since I have little time to go anywhere could you and other Michael’s supporters go to those places where you saw our adversary’s activity and leave a couple of comments there? If we don’t debunk their myths there whatever findings we make here, in our research lab, will not become common knowledge. And they should!

    Like

  159. January 26, 2011 7:00 am

    @ rockonforever. Thanks for that information about where these art books were actually found.

    For those who don’t know Michael slept upstairs of his bedroom area. So this was basically another room. That full quarter is often referred to as his “bedroom”, but it’s more like a quarter or a flat, because it has several rooms and it has two storeys.

    I know his porn, the real porn (heterosexual, adult porn) was found near his bed, in the upstairs room where he slept. The magazines were under his bed in a suitcase. The laptops were near his bed as well. Some other magazines were in his locked bathroom.

    So it’s good that you pointed out this so called “homoerotic material” wasn’t found there. They were in fact in a separate room – downstairs, while Michael’s actual bedroom was upstairs. They were also boxed. So from this it’s obvious, that while he frequently “used” his heterosexual porn, and kept them close to his bed, he did not use the “homoerotic art” as they were boxed, together with hundreds of other art books(!), in a separate room. If they were kept together with other art books it’s also clear he considered them art and erotica, and kept them for their artistic value.”

    * * *
    Suzy, very informative and convincing, thank you. It seems that Michael’s fans should learn by heart the layout of Michael’s quarters and which book was found where – to be ready for haters’ most intricate questions. These haters are so crazy and demanding that we constantly have to take exams with them.

    Like

  160. Anna permalink
    January 26, 2011 6:39 am

    @Vindicate

    Yes, I agree that is what they are doing. When I was reading the comments of adversary’s blog I could see that this is where they were headed with this, it was clear that they were trying to make that link. Normally I ignore our adversary but I could see that her blog arguments had begun to seep into the MJ fan world such as forums like Lipstick Alley (the MJ fan threads anyway). I came to many of the same conclusions that you and Lynette came too so I’m glad both of you decided to address it. Obviously these MJ haters are ignorant but I still think it was important to debunk the notion that anything our adversary found was “Explosive Proof” to prove her argument because in this case it clearly wasn’t.

    Like

  161. January 26, 2011 6:35 am

    Q.”Let’s start with 596, “Man, A Sexual Study of Man.” Where was that the first time you saw it?
    A. This was inside one of the boxes.
    Q. .. for people who are not oriented already, the boxes of books that you referred to under the arrow are to the right of a television, large screen T.V. console; is that correct?
    A. Yes, it is.

    Rockforeveron, a very interesting find! So it was in a common room attended by lots of people, the book was stored somewhere in a box, and probably even had no proof it was his…

    Making conclusions about Michael’s sexuality on the basis of one book which could have been brought by anyone into the sitting room is really too far-fetched. Haters must be really desperate if this book, two stains on the mattress and a pair of someone’s soiled underwear (which could be his relative’s) in a laundry bag is all they can muster to prove their case. Damning evidence I should say.

    One thing in this conversation attracted my attention. Mr. Sanger asks a question and Tom Sneddon immediately interferes:

    11 Okay. By the way, on the piano, was there a
    12 letter from Steven Spielberg sitting there?
    13 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial, Your
    14 Honor.
    15 THE COURT: Overruled.
    16 You may answer.
    17 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember.

    Can you guess why one is asking and the other immediately interferes? Let me remind you of Maureen Orth’s article then where she claimed Michael took a blood bath according to a vodoo ritual. Do you remember the idea of the blood bath? According to Maureen Orth the aim was to use witchcraft against the enemy – Steven Spielberg – and make him die.

    But if Mr. Sanger wondered if the witness recalled a letter from Speilberg on the piano it means the letter was there and it was cherished by Michael and he had no bad feeling towards Spielberg at all.

    Tom Sneddon wanted to stop the question so he knew what Maureen Orth was writing. In fact he must have read too much of her.

    Like

  162. January 26, 2011 5:32 am

    “I don’t personally believe MJ was gay, but regardless if he was it makes no difference to the allegations because gay is not a crime and it does not equal p..lia so its a debate that goes nowhere and only serves to distract.”

    Yes, Alison, it does serve only to distract. But the fact that haters in the topix forum are going out of their way to prove that Michael was gay shows that they do see it as a way to prove his alleged ped-lia.

    I can bet anything that this is only a preliminary step in their program. Later they will agree that he didn’t associate with grown-up gays and will link it to his love for children instead. Then they will scream there were no girls among those children and link Michael to boys only, thus achieving the desired goal (God forbids that it ever happens).

    Like

  163. January 26, 2011 5:10 am

    “I made a better thing, I searched all of them on Amazon. I prefer to judge for myself.’

    @ME, I also prefer to judge for myself and I also searched all of them on Amazon and long ago too.

    Here are the links (Suzy, thanks for collecting them in one place – this way it is easier):
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-inat-michael-jacksons-home/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/porn-found-at-michael-jacksons-home-2/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-4/

    I have plenty of books at home (several thousands) – but no homoerotic photography at all… Hmm…

    I don’t either. And even if we look for homoerotic photography in our bookshops I suspect we won’t find any either in St. Petersburg or Moscow.

    Internet is a different thing and it offers much more opportunities. I never knew that one day I would be searching it for sites regarding homosexuality (we had a discussion here so I wanted to sound more professional). Now some links are stored in my computer too, though usually it is not my cup of tea. So what if I do have them?

    Same with Michael. We have no way of knowing how he came to possess that book. It could be a present, a rare collector’s item or could be put into his library by a “well-wisher”. If a bag with dirty laundry was found among books I see no reason why the book with gay photos could not be put into a drawer with his underwear.

    And I am really surprised they didn’t find any child porn in his home in circumstances like that.

    Like

  164. Suzy permalink
    January 26, 2011 5:02 am

    In the last sentence I wanted to say: “it’s also clear he considered them art and NOT erotica, and kept them for their artistic value.”

    Like

  165. Suzy permalink
    January 26, 2011 5:00 am

    @ rockonforever

    Thanks for that information about where these art books were actually found. For those who don’t know Michael slept upstairs of his bedroom area. So this was basically another room. That full quarter is often referred to as his “bedroom”, but it’s more like a quarter or a flat, because it has several rooms and it has two storeys.

    I know his porn, the real porn (heterosexual, adult porn) was found near his bed, in the upstairs room where he slept. The magazines were under his bed in a suitcase. The laptops were near his bed as well. Some other magazines were in his locked bathroom.

    So it’s good that you pointed out this so called “homoerotic material” wasn’t found there. They were in fact in a separate room – downstairs, while Michael’s actual bedroom was upstairs. They were also boxed. So from this it’s obvious, that while he frequently “used” his heterosexual porn, and kept them close to his bed, he did not use the “homoerotic art” as they were boxed, together with hundreds of other art books(!), in a separate room. If they were kept together with other art books it’s also clear he considered them art and erotica, and kept them for their artistic value.

    Like

  166. January 26, 2011 4:45 am

    “I’ve heard a lot of times that although he wasn’t homophobic, he was old school and he was uncomfortable with guys hitting on him.”

    Rockforeveron, what a wonderful way to say it – Michael was definitely “old school”.

    Like

  167. January 26, 2011 4:42 am

    “I know a friend who knew one of his bodyguards in the last few years. Michael had an apartment in Las Vegas and when he wasn’t there he gave this bodyguard the key and told him to come over whenever he wanted. That’s just how Michael was. The alarm thing was to ensure that while he was home if someone intruded he would know about it, not to keep his real proper friends from staying there.”

    Rockforeveron, this is amazing. You say it was in the last few years? It means that despite all the harm people had done to him Michael still stubbornly believed in the better sides of human nature and preferred to trust people rather than mistrust them. It was a conscious decison on his part – he WANTED to believe people and expected them to show themselves at their best even at a possible risk to his own well-being.

    Like

  168. January 26, 2011 4:27 am

    “What makes you think that they didn’t test the whole bed?”

    @ME, the fact that there were not ten but SEVENTY officers to raid Neverland – this is what makes me think that they tested EVERYTHING. When you arrange a military operation like that with helicopters fying over the ranch and the raid lasting from 8:30 until late in the evening it means the investigation is no joke.

    And if it was no joke they wouldn’t have lost the opportunity to test ALL those stains in hope to see what they could bring them to. If it wasn’t semen blood could be even better as it could be twisted into something even worse than simple molestation – for example, into sexual abuse meaning penetration. Oh my God..)

    WE MAY BE SURE THAT THEY DID TEST ALL THE STAINS. Michael said it himself that his whole mattress was ripped open and this is why he didn’t want to return to Neverland. After the raid his bedroom was a disgusting sight.

    And since none of those documents mentioned whose blood it was we can be equally sure that IT WAS NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF TOM SNEDDON TO MENTION THOSE RESULTS. This alone can easily suggest that they contained female DNA, because even Michael’s blood stains could have been twisted into a nasty story.

    Women know how often they leave blood stains on their sheets during their period.

    Like

  169. January 26, 2011 4:06 am

    “I tend to think that he was bisexual”

    Shelly, I appreciate very much your staunch support of Michael but over here I think you are mistaken. Michael was decidedly different from all the people you enumerated – Marlon Brando, Ricky Martin and Rock Hudson. None of them were making rounds of ordinary people’s home with religious leaflets, especially when they were in a star status. And Michael was putting on disguise and knocking on people’s doors with those booklets even when he was thirty and was already an international superstar.

    This alone shows how enormous a place religion took in his life. Even if he wasn’t going to church God was constantly on his mind – when he was sitting on his favourite tree, walking in the woods or swimming in water. His belief in God did not limit itself to a couple of hours spent in church once a week – it was a state of his mind and his way of life. I don’t understand why very few of Michael’s fans realize that.

    People like Michael are constantly checking their behavior with what Heavens expect of them. Even if one feels an inclination for ‘something’ they keep themselves in a habitual restraint which in fact is very easy for them. They know that some things are just NOT DONE and that’s it. And God rewards them for that with fewer temptations.

    This doesn’t concern homosexuality only. It is also the reason why young Michael didn’t surrender to Tatum in that notable incident when she tried to seduce him. He knew it wasn’t just right and that’s it. When you know something is not right you just don’t want it.

    Like

  170. January 26, 2011 3:46 am

    “I’m quite sure MJ’s relatives have their own computers to browse internet for porn and their own bedrooms to masturbate in…”

    @ME, having a home for that does not rule out the possibility of them doing the same when they are staying as guests in another person’s home.

    “By the way, there were not only heterosexual porn, there were books with homoerotic art found in MJ’s bedroom as well.”

    Yes, one book out of 10.000 others he had in the library. SO WHAT?

    And as far as I remember the books in the police list were not necessary found in his bedroom. Let us not twist things.

    P.S. I would be appalled if someone had to check my computer. With all these studies of allegations against Michael I have links to: ped-lia issues, psychiatric journals, gay discussions, nudist forums. My latest study concerned cocaine, so you can imagine what new links have been added…

    Like

  171. January 26, 2011 3:32 am

    “OF COURSE there were people who could enter MJ’s bedroom if they really wanted. But masturbating or having sex there?.. What’s for?”

    For the same reason why Tom Sneddon was faking Arvizo’s fingerprints in front of the Grand jury trying to set Michael up and why someone in his house was accumulating dirty linen and underwear in his home instead of washing it.

    For the same reason why these people stored the bag with dirty laundry among books and kept it there at least for three weeks before the police arrived.

    Now I know for a fact that Michael and his children had stayed in Las Vegas for about three weeks before police arranged their raid on November 18, 2003. All newspapers of that period were writing about it.

    They wanted to set him up and someone in the house staff was involved in it.

    Otherwise I cannot explain how the bag with dirty laundry could find its way into the storage of books and “other miscellaneous things” on the second floor of the Arcade building. Even in less organized homes people don’t leave their laundry among books.

    Like

  172. January 26, 2011 3:23 am

    It’s a fact people slept in Michael’s room when he wasn’t even there. This is from Star Arvizo’s testimony:

    1 Q. You and your brother were caught in that
    2 room when Michael Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland,
    3 weren’t you.

    4 A. To sleep, yeah.

    5 Q. You and your brother used to go into that
    6 room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.

    7 A. Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we
    8 could sleep there while he was gone.

    As for the codes. They were four digit codes – not to hard to memorize them for people when they saw someone enter the room. Star memorized them too – even recalled them on trial (he recalled two codes – one for Michael’s bedroom and the master code which opened each and every door in Neverland – including the rooms of Michael’s children):

    22 Q. And what is the master code.

    23 A. 1849.

    24 Q. And what does it do.

    25 A. It gets you into all the doors in Neverland.

    26 Q. Is that every door at Neverland.

    27 A. Yes.

    28 Q. Is that every door in every room. 1201

    1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. And would that master code get you into
    3 Michael’s children’s bedroom.

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. You’ve been in that bedroom, correct.

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. You’ve been in both of them, right.

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. You’ve been in both of his children’s
    10 bedrooms many times, right.

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And you’ve been in other rooms in the main
    13 house, correct.

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. You’ve been into what other rooms in the
    16 main house.

    17 A. His room, Michael’s room. Prince and
    18 Paris’s room. I think that — I think those are the
    19 doors — oh, and then the two doors to enter the
    20 main house.

    Now, how the Arvizo boys really got to those codes is up to discussion, because Star contradicts himself in his testimony. Here he says Michael gave it to them, at another place in his testimony he says a security guard “just gave it to them”. Doesn’t really matter. If it was possible for them to go into Michael’s room and sleep there while he wasn’t there, it was certainly possible for other as well – teenagers and adults, guests and employees, with or without Michael’s consent.
    —————————————

    SUZY, GREAT JOB!

    Like

  173. January 26, 2011 3:20 am

    @Suzy

    My absolute favourite was when someone said that he kept the hetero/lesbian porn because it had monetary value. As if he was keeping stocks in Plumpers, 44 Plus and Juggs. His Playboys were just for the educational material of course, and who knows what kind of anatomical research he was getting into with his G Spot and The Second G Spot articles…

    I think the “monetary value” actually came out because it was actually a lot of his art books that had monetary value (Man: Sexual Study of Man is from 1961 and seems impossible to get hold of), and his nudist magazines were all worth money too. But of course the media turned this around so that they tried to make it seem like his Hustlers were what he was saving for a rainy day…

    Also, it’s interesting to note where these books were found vs where his pornography was found.

    His porn was in his bedside drawer, underneath his bed, in his locked bathroom (with his liquor), and in a suitcase. As in, easy access and clearly for himself.

    These homoerotic books that gave him more pleasure than over 70 magazines and 1600 computer images, were found in boxes in a “sitting room” location, a place with many boxes filled with thousands of books, where he had a fireplace, etc. And they couldn’t tell if they’d been openned before or looked at.

    17 Q. And in particular, were you at one point in
    18 time assigned to search the downstairs area of Mr.
    19 Jackson’s bedroom suite?
    20 A. Yes.
    21 Q. And in that area, did you find some items
    22 that you seized?
    23 A. Yes.
    24 Q. And could you just generally describe the
    25 area that you took these items from?
    26 A. The area appeared to be similar to a sitting
    27 room. It had a piano, large screen televisions and
    28 chairs, and some books. Fireplace. That kind of 6949
    1 area.

    5 Q. All right. Let’s start with 596, “Man, A
    6 Sexual Study of Man.” Where was that the first time
    7 you saw it?
    8 A. This was inside one of the boxes.
    9 Q. And the same location as the other item?
    10 A. Yes.

    But just so we’re oriented, for people
    23 who are not oriented already, the boxes of books
    24 that you referred to under the arrow are to the
    25 right of a television, large screen T.V. console; is
    26 that correct?
    27 A. Yes, it is.
    28 Q. All right. And there’s additional — an 6975
    1 additional part of the room to the left on this
    2 picture that you can’t see in the picture; is that
    3 correct?
    4 A. Yes.
    5 Q. And did you search that entire area?
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. Behind the piano — in fact, do you have the
    8 pointer there still?
    9 Okay. Would you be kind enough to point to
    10 the piano?
    11 Okay. By the way, on the piano, was there a
    12 letter from Steven Spielberg sitting there?
    13 MR. SNEDDON: Object as immaterial, Your
    14 Honor.
    15 THE COURT: Overruled.
    16 You may answer.
    17 THE WITNESS: I don’t remember.
    18 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Behind the piano
    19 that you just pointed to is an alcove area; is that
    20 correct?
    21 A. Yes.
    22 Q. Can you point to that?
    23 And there are quite a number of books in
    24 that area as well, correct?
    25 A. Yes.
    26 Q. And that’s where you found 838; is that
    27 right?
    28 A. Yes. 6976
    1 Q. Most of the books in that area are art
    2 books; is that correct? Or art and entertainment
    3 kind of books?
    4 A. I believe so. I don’t remember exactly, but
    5 I believe there were quite a number of those.

    6 Q. All right. And then on the — where you’ve
    7 drawn the other arrow to the boxes, and you
    8 indicated you found the other exhibits that you’ve
    9 talked about today, there are — there were a number
    10 of boxes there; is that correct?
    11 A. Yes.
    12 Q. You don’t know whether those boxes were
    13 coming or going or had been sitting there, do you?
    14 A. Correct.
    15 Q. You don’t know whether or not Mr. Jackson
    16 had even looked inside those boxes, do you?
    17 A. Correct.

    18 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Jackson is an artist;
    19 is that correct? A performer?
    20 A. He’s a performer, yes.
    21 Q. And he’s an artist. He writes and composes
    22 music and choreographs dance, that sort of thing; is
    23 that correct?
    28 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Is that correct? 6977
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. And you saw a tremendous number of books
    3 that pertained to that sort of thing, art and dance
    4 and entertainment, music, correct?
    5 A. I remember seeing books of that nature, yes.
    6 Q. Do you know if people send books to Mr.
    7 Jackson?
    13 THE WITNESS: I don’t know if people send him
    14 books.

    18 Q. BY MR. SANGER: Now, in the part of Mr.
    19 Jackson’s house that you searched, do you know how
    20 many books were there total?
    21 A. No, I do not.
    22 Q. Were there thousands?
    23 A. There were many books.
    24 Q. Okay. At least hundreds?
    25 A. Yes.

    26 Q. All right. And you went to some other
    27 places in the residence other than that particular
    28 room, did you not? 6980
    1 A. Yes.
    2 Q. What other places did you go to?
    3 A. The second story, a pantry-like room, a
    4 large room with multiple games and toys, and two
    5 bedrooms.
    6 Q. All right. And you saw books elsewhere in
    7 the house besides where you were searching here in
    8 this room; is that correct?
    9 A. Some books.
    10 Q.
    Did you — in order get to that room, you
    11 had to walk down a hallway, right?
    12 A. To the den area. Is that what you’re
    13 talking about?
    14 Q. Yes.
    15 A. Yes.
    16 Q. And that hallway was lined, floor to
    17 ceiling, with bookshelves filled with books; is that
    18 correct?

    19 A. I don’t remember.

    The point being if Mike wanted these books to groom kids with he’d have surely left them in these places were children had access, like his son’s bedroom which had thousands of kid books.

    Not to mention that he kept stuff like this…


    1 Q. All right. And the last item, which is 599,
    2 did you follow the same procedure with regard to
    3 that particular book?
    4 A. Yes, I did.
    25 Q. BY MR. SANGER: I’m going to show you 599.
    11 Were you aware that that particular author,
    12 that photographer, was prosecuted and acquitted
    13 during the Nazi regime prior to World War II for
    14 those very photographs?

    Like

  174. January 26, 2011 3:19 am

    “Vindicatemj, what makes you think that MJ’s guests used to stay in his bedroom when he wasn’t there?”

    Oh, I see that I missed a lot here while I was away.

    @ME, What makes me thinks the guests stayed there? Firstly, when Michael was in Neverland he liked his friends being around him as he slept much better in the commotion of it. His dermatologist said that when they were on a tour his whole office had to sleep with Michael in the same room as it made him sleep easier.

    If anything like that was going on in Neverland Michael was such a gentleman (he really was) that he would naturally offer his bed to others. Corey Feldman was a similar situation with him and said exactly the same: “Michael was the gentleman to give me his bed and took a sofa himself”.

    As to how his guests behaved in Neverland while Michael was away we know from the example of the Arvizo boys who demanded they should be allowed into Michael’s bedroom for some reason. This wish alone is just enough for me to think that they could do there whatever they liked.

    And if the Arvizos’ semen had been found in his bed I would have thought that they did masturbate there. Only it wasn’t found – so they had something different on their mind.

    “you think that Diane Dimond is a reliable source of information, huh”

    Neither. I am only saying that if a HATER has to admit that something never happened I don’t see why fans should doubt her point of view.

    Like

  175. January 26, 2011 2:41 am

    “It’s because they are linking that to pedophilia.”

    Haters are starting from afar. First they need to prove he was gay and they they’ll say he had a special kind of homosexuality with attachment to little boys only. They are going step by step.

    Like

  176. Alison permalink
    January 26, 2011 12:43 am

    LOL! Lord of the Flies??!
    we did that in shcool, i hated it. its about bullying and very primitive instincts with abscence of love, i found it horrific.

    Like

  177. Alison permalink
    January 26, 2011 12:05 am

    @ Ares
    “So whay do you keep the conversation man? I don’t understand it. Those stains didn’t belong to those Arvizo boys so the whole stain thing is pointless. He didn’t do anything to those boys regardless the semen or the absence of it. The whole thing was a set up. Now, as i said and you kindly agreed being gay is not a crime. So why some of you feel the need to put on trial MJ’s sexuality? Would you like someone to do the same on you?”

    Thank you Ares!
    I don’t personally believe MJ was gay, but regardless if he was it makes no difference to the allegations because gay is not a crime and it does not equal p..lia so its a debate that goes nowhere and only serves to distract.
    I’m not sure where ‘Me’ is coming from, its a bit confusing.

    Like

  178. visitor permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:47 pm

    No, i don’t own it. It’s in my father’s library.Yes, the book from the lord of the flies.

    Like

  179. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:34 pm

    Did you have the book Lord of the Flies or the MJ’s book?

    Like

  180. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:34 pm

    I just said that because you said you had the same book. I know the film is very very famous.

    Like

  181. visitor permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:26 pm

    Yes, but the photos were taken from the film.

    Like

  182. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:21 pm

    It wasn’t Lord of the flies but “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” which has pictures taken from the movie.

    Like

  183. visitor permalink
    January 25, 2011 10:08 pm

    @Me
    Excuse me but are you seriously compering Michael, the way that he grew up and his whole life in general with your life and that of your father? By the way i have already said this.My parent is a photographer. One of the book that was found in Michael’s house, we have it in our house for quite a few years now. “Lord of the flies”.When i first heard that they tried to stigmatize Michael as a pedophile based on art books, i was shoked and amazed.

    I am quoting Tom Mesereau’s words “The effort to try Mr. Jackson for having one of the largest private libraries in the world is alarming. Not since the dark day of almost three quarters of a century ago has anyone witnessed a prosecution which claimed that the possession of books by well known artists were evidence of a crime against the state.”

    Like

  184. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:50 pm

    @ Me

    Suzy, sharing your room with your mother/sister has to do almost everything with financial status.

    Huh? We were talking about Neverland and I gave you examples of why some of those people would choose to sleep in Michael’s bedroom rather than in their own rooms at Neverland.

    There were several books with pictures of naked men – let’s put it this way.

    Like there were several books with naked women as well. And all of his real pornography was heterosexual. Let’s put it this way.

    Some men wouldn’t agree with you, perhaps.

    And some would. Especially those with artistic interests.

    It’s also interesting to note that almost all of those books are vintage books from the 30s, 50s, 60s, 70s. To me it’s more likely that Michael was simply interested in this classic photography and photographs than anything else.

    Like

  185. January 25, 2011 9:40 pm

    Suzy, sharing your room with your mother/sister has to do almost everything with financial status.
    There were several books with pictures of naked men – let’s put it this way. They could be interpreted as anyone wants to interpret it. If you think that a book depicting gay couple is simply art and nothing more – let it be. Some men wouldn’t agree with you, perhaps.
    I don’t feel uncomfortable looking at naked men, I’m a heterosexual woman btw. I simply don’t have books like that, my open-minded father who collects books doesn’t posess them either.

    Like

  186. January 25, 2011 9:33 pm

    @Suzy

    Bruce also photographed Michael back in the 70s.

    Like

  187. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:30 pm

    “Suzy, do you think that MJ’s relatives are so poor that they have to share their rooms with others? Hmm. Everything is possible, of course.”

    I don’t know exactly what you meant by that, but I don’t think it has to do with whether you are rich or not.You will probably do it if you were brought that way.

    “As for books with homoerotic art – I made a better thing, I searched all of them on Amazon. I prefer to judge for myself. I didn’t say there were gay porn – but there were homoerotic art.”

    Most of his authors are very famous for their work and had their pictures in museum. Does that mean all the people who likes their work are gay? No but I agree that some of them are.

    By the way, lots of photography books include nude picture men or women.

    Like

  188. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:28 pm

    @ Me

    Suzy, do you think that MJ’s relatives are so poor that they have to share their rooms with others?

    Sorry, but you don’t make any sense here. What does it have to do with the financial status of anybody?

    There were more than just ONE book, by the way.

    There was only ONE book with homosexual action. What you call “homoerotic art” is homoerotica for some, and just art for others. Some even consider the David statue “homoerotica” – depends on who watches it and why.
    There were also art picture books about naked women – but according to haters MJ was only interested in those for artistic reasons. Why wasn’t he only interested in those with men in it for artistic reasons too then?

    (Especially when we consider that his real porn was all hetero….)

    I have plenty of books at home (several thousands) – but no homoerotic photography at all… Hmm…

    Some people are more open-minded than that and would watch photo art books with naked men or by gay photographers without feeling uncomfortable in their skin even if they are heterosexual men.

    Also let’s not forget that many of those books were gifts. Did you know, for example, that Bruce Weber (the photographer of Chop Suey Club) is a friend of Elizabeth Taylor? He also worked with other artists (such as Chis Isaac and the Pet Shop Boys) on music videos. I went to his website and he is a fantastically talented photographer. I can see how anybody who is interested in photography would be impressed with his work.

    Like

  189. January 25, 2011 9:18 pm

    Ares, I’m not man, I’m a woman. Why I keep conversation?.. Actually just for fun. I didn’t put MJ’s sexuality on trial.

    Like

  190. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:16 pm

    Let me also quote a post by Dialdancer under one of those articles on Michael’s books – because it’s very enlightening (I hope she doesn’t mind):

    I went book shopping today. A favorite past time of mine. While there a man and lady were inquiring about a book called “Underworld” by Kelly Klein at the customer service desk. The name rang a bell but I could not remember from where. I almost turned away to browse more aisles, but something nagged me. I approached the lady asking about the book saying it sounded familiar. The man answered. He said it was one of the most wonderful representations he’d seen and it reminded him of old Hollywood, like Monroe’s movie “Diamonds are a girl’s best friend”, sexy but not vulgar.

    The lady said that it was one of the books that was used against Michael Jackson. BINGO…. She went on to say that the people in California must not read or not as literate as they pretend. She said half the books the police had published in the newspapers had incorrect depictions and many could be found in any city library.

    They began talking to each other about the size of MJ’s library and seemed to approve of his literary tastes. He asked me if I was interested in photography. I stood there grinning like some kind of fool. I said I was interested in Michael Jackson. I spoke of this site and about the Media, and its’ treatment of Michael. The book was not available, but they were given some places to look for it. The lady turned out to be a retired psychology professor and she spoke of the witch trial mentality being something different than the mob mentality. She explained why some people join in to falsely accuse . (looking that up is on my to-do list)

    Fact is, in absence of real evidence the prosecution tried to throw everything but the kitchen sink on Michael. Basically they confiscated everything with a naked person in it. But these were art books – really beautiful art books and everybody with a little sense about art and photography could see why someone like Michael – who was always interested in art, especially photography – would be interested in them, without that interest having to be of sexual nature.

    Like

  191. January 25, 2011 9:11 pm

    Suzy, do you think that MJ’s relatives are so poor that they have to share their rooms with others? Hmm. Everything is possible, of course.
    As for books with homoerotic art – I made a better thing, I searched all of them on Amazon. I prefer to judge for myself. I didn’t say there were gay porn – but there were homoerotic art.
    I have plenty of books at home (several thousands) – but no homoerotic photography at all… Hmm…
    There were more than just ONE book, by the way.
    I don’t have any need to believe or not to believe in anything.

    Like

  192. ares permalink
    January 25, 2011 9:06 pm

    @Me <>
    ………………………………………………………
    So whay do you keep the conversation man? I don’t understand it. Those stains didn’t belong to those Arvizo boys so the whole stain thing is pointless. He didn’t do anything to those boys regardless the semen or the absence of it. The whole thing was a set up. Now, as i said and you kindly agreed being gay is not a crime. So why some of you feel the need to put on trial MJ’s sexuality? Would you like someone to do the same on you?

    Like

  193. January 25, 2011 9:04 pm

    This bodyguard btw wasn’t told “don’t come in here” “don’t sleep in there” he was just given the key and told to come whenever he wanted, use it for whatever. This guy never made use of this offer, but he could’ve done with no problems. And this was just a bodyguard, not a good friend, he even still has the key…

    I personally don’t think MJ was gay, and not because I don’t want to, but simply because that just wouldn’t add up to me. I don’t even think he was bisexual

    I’ve heard a lot of times that although he wasn’t homophobic, he was old school and he was uncomfortable with guys hitting on him. You can even see this in some videos.

    Like

  194. January 25, 2011 8:57 pm

    By the way, there were not only heterosexual porn, there were books with homoerotic art found in MJ’s bedroom as well.

    Only 1 art book about male sexuality with any homoerotic material published in 1961…

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-4/

    Wasn’t it confiscated from 1993 too? I guess Mike didn’t realize you could find more up to date gay porn anywhere else…

    No pornography involving anything homosexual… other than lots and lots of lesbians?

    BTW about his friends sleeping in his room without him there, I know a friend who knew one of his bodyguards in the last few years. Michael had an apartment in Las Vegas and when he wasn’t there he gave this bodyguard the key and told him to come over whenever he wanted. That’s just how Michael was. The alarm thing was to ensure that while he was home if someone intruded he would know about it, not to keep his real proper friends from staying there.

    Like

  195. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:56 pm

    @me

    There were articles about that and it’s in the search warrant.

    Like

  196. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:54 pm

    Unfortunately the system blocked my post because it contained more than one links. Until an admin of the site approves it, a shorter summary of it without the links:

    @ Me

    Are you “quite sure”? Why are you so sure? You cannot be sure if they didn’t share their own bedroom with a mother or a sister which would make such actions in their own room more difficult. I can also imagine it was some kind of bravado among those boys to get to Michael’s rooms. The Arvizo boys too had their own bedrooms, yet they wanted to sleep in Michael’s….

    I know about the books. We already covered this here (and I gave links to the articles on this blog which decribed those books: they are titled “Porn” found in Michael Jackson’s home, part 1-4. You can see those books in the articles).

    Again the context is important. Michael Jackson had at least 10 000 books in Neverland. Among them a lot of photography art books – of all natures.
    And this is all the prosecution could come up with. The only book that comes close to something that could be described as “gay porn” was “Sexual Study of Man”. Now, what do you think is likely? Michael was gay, yet he kept a hundred of heterosexual magazines, he only visited heterosexual websites on the Internet, but this one book (or the odd art photography book with some naked or semi-naked men in it – of course, there were as many art books with naked women as well…..) is what REALLY a reflection on his sexual orientation? If you want to believe so then believe so, but I personally don’t believe that.
    Michael was a curious person. I remember when Diane Sawyer asked him about a Nazi book and whether he read that. To which Michael replied: “I read everything….” That he was curious about the homosexual action and had ONE book about that, doesn’t mean he was gay. Especially if we consider that his real pornography that he bought, watched and downloaded frequently was heterosexual….

    I personally don’t think MJ was gay, and not because I don’t want to, but simply because that just wouldn’t add up to me. I don’t even think he was bisexual. If he was that wouldn’t make me love or respect him any less, but I just don’t think so.

    Like

  197. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:47 pm

    In the document I linked they said they cut out portion of the top and the bottom side of the mattress. Why would they say “cut out portion of top and bottom sides of mattress” if they took the whole mattress.

    There were articles about that

    “Police also searched Jackson’s estate in November 2003. Authorities seized computers and notes, and cut the top off a mattress. In September, authorities raided the home of one of Jackson’s personal assistants.”

    http://articles.cnn.com/2004-12-03/justice/jackson_1_child-molestation-michael-jackson-s-neverland-new-search?_s=PM:LAW

    “Police last searched Jackson’s estate in November 2003, when they seized a variety of items — including computers, files and notes, and part of a mattress.”

    http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/05/michael.jackson/

    By the way if you look at that search warrant

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/120403swnlr.pdf

    They were only looking for semen stains not for DNA. He was sleeping in that bed so I am sure there was at least his own sweat on the bed and it’s nowhere in the documents.

    Like

  198. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:40 pm

    @ Me

    Are you “quite sure”? Why are you so sure? You cannot be sure if they didn’t share their own bedroom with a mother or a sister which would make such actions in their own room more difficult. I can also imagine it was some kind of bravado among those boys to get to Michael’s rooms. The Arvizo boys too had their own bedrooms, yet they wanted to sleep in Michael’s….

    If you WANT to believe MJ was gay (as it seems you want to believe that) there’s nothing I can do about that. If that makes you feel better or happier for some reason, I can’t help that.

    I know about the books. We already covered this here in these articles:

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/porn-found-inat-michael-jacksons-home/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/porn-found-at-michael-jacksons-home-2/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/porn-found-in-michael-jacksons-home-4/

    Again the context is important. Michael Jackson had at least 10 000 books in Neverland. Among them a lot of photography art books – of all natures.
    And this is all the prosecution could come up with. The only book that comes close to something that could be described as “gay porn” was “Sexual Study of Man”. Now, what do you think is likely? Michael was gay, yet he kept a hundred of heterosexual magazines, he only visited heterosexual websites on the Internet, but this one book (or the odd art photography book with some naked or semi-naked men in it) is what REALLY a reflection on his sexual orientation? If you want to believe so then believe so, but I personally don’t believe that.
    Michael was a curious person. I remember when Diane Sawyer asked him about a Nazi book and whether he read that. To which Michael replied: “I read everything….” That he was curious about the homosexual action and had ONE book about that, doesn’t mean he was gay. Especially if we consider that his real pornography that he bought, watched and downloaded frequently was heterosexual….

    I find it extremely funny how haters say he only kept hetero porn for “aristic reasons” (yeah, I already heard them say that), while the art photography books (which are really artistic!) are what really show his sexual orientation. Yes. And the sky is green, and the grass is blue.

    As for the “grooming theory” (ie.: “He kept hetero porn to groom young boys”) it doesn’t make much sense either, since noone ever, except Gavin and Star, claimed MJ showed them porn – not even Chandler or Francia.

    In fact here is Mark Ronson’s account on what was Michael’s reaction when they found a porn channel on TV: http://www.nowmagazine.co.uk/celebrity-news/261375/mark-ronson-i-made-michael-jackson-watch-porn/1/

    He told them to stop. So much about the grooming theory.

    Like

  199. January 25, 2011 8:33 pm

    Shelly, I didn’t understand what do you mean. What makes you think that they didn’t test the whole bed? I didn’t see ALL the documents I believe, I didn’t see results of tests (actually I wonder who was blood stains “owner”).
    I didn’t say that semen on the mattress is irrefutable proof of sexuality and of course I didn’t say that sexuality is “black and white”.

    Like

  200. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:21 pm

    @me

    It’s in the search warrant and it’s very precise

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/120403irswnlr9a.pdf

    On page 5 you learn that he had a mattress pad and they found something that looked like semen stains on the cover of the mattress pad but the prosecution document never talk about that.

    On page 7, we learn that they found semen stains and blood stains on both sides of the mattress. We don’t have the results for the blood stains. What we have is only a small part of what was on the bed.

    I am not saying there were female DNA on the bed, I am just saying that they didn’t test the whole bed.

    I don’t claim to know what he was. I tend to think that he was bisexual so I wouldn’t be surprise if he had sex with men. I just wanted to say that having semen stains on your mattress is not a proof of your sexuality.
    Marlon Brando was straight but he said himself he had sexual relationships with men, Ricky Martin is gay but had sexual relationship with women, Rock Hudson was gay but according to his last boyfriend he liked women very much. Sexuality is not a black and white thing.

    Like

  201. January 25, 2011 8:14 pm

    Suzy, I’m quite sure MJ’s relatives have their own computers to browse internet for porn and their own bedrooms to masturbate in…
    By the way, there were not only heterosexual porn, there were books with homoerotic art found in MJ’s bedroom as well.

    Like

  202. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 8:02 pm

    @ Me

    What for? Maybe because there were a lot of teenagers running around Neverland all the time. Teenagers are not always angels. And probably not only the Arvizo boys weren’t angels, although noone else went as far as falsely accusing MJ. We know the Arvizo boys found out about Michael’s porn collection which was under his bed in a suitcase (heterosexual porn BTW, odd from a “gay man”). Can it be that other guys found out about that too and that’s why they went to his room? Or there are the laptops found in Michael’s room and the porn found on them. Here is an article about that:

    http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20050323/jackson_porn_050323?hub=CP24Sports

    What I found interesting in this article is this:

    “It’s heterosexual material and it is not directly related to the case,” Sanger said. “The issue of who accessed the material is totally unresolved.”

    “One of the online names was “Marcel Jackson,” which prosecutors suggested was an alias of Jackson.

    Sanger noted that Jackson has a cousin who sometimes goes by the name Marcel, although the attorney noted that he wasn’t saying the cousin downloaded the material.”

    He wasn’t saying it, but he raised it as a possibility.

    Note that this wasn’t brought up in a discussion about the semen stains but about whether the Internet pornography (adult, heterosexual porn) found on Michael’s laptops should be introduced to court or not. That’s why Sager mentioned some of the user names might not even belong to Michael. (Not that there was anything incriminating on those computers – as we know the FBI came back with nothing after checking the hard drives.)

    Why I link this to our discussion is because from this it seems to be a perfectly plausible scenario that a guy, say Marcel or some other young man, would go into Michael’s bedroom to watch porn on Michael’s laptop while he isn’t there. Then of course it wouldn’t be all too surprising either if he left his semen on Michael’s bed.

    Like

  203. January 25, 2011 8:01 pm

    Shelly, there were no information about size and location of semen stains on the mattress in the documents. At least I didn’t find it.

    Like

  204. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:53 pm

    To impress the person you are with, to be in the best room. I know it take lots of guts to do that but that happened. You know, it’s not like they found semen stains all over the bed. What did they find on the cover of the mattress pad?

    Like

  205. January 25, 2011 7:43 pm

    Suzy and Shelly, Gavin and Star Arvizo were two ill-bred boys, no surprise that they found their way to MJ’s room despite all codes.
    OF COURSE there were people who could enter MJ’s bedroom if they really wanted. But masturbating or having sex there?.. What’s for?..

    Like

  206. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:23 pm

    @ Me

    It’s a fact people slept in Michael’s room when he wasn’t even there. This is from Star Arvizo’s testimony:

    1 Q. You and your brother were caught in that
    2 room when Michael Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland,
    3 weren’t you.

    4 A. To sleep, yeah.

    5 Q. You and your brother used to go into that
    6 room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.

    7 A. Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we
    8 could sleep there while he was gone.

    As for the codes. They were four digit codes – not to hard to memorize them for people when they saw someone enter the room. Star memorized them too – even recalled them on trial (he recalled two codes – one for Michael’s bedroom and the master code which opened each and every door in Neverland – including the rooms of Michael’s children):

    22 Q. And what is the master code.

    23 A. 1849.

    24 Q. And what does it do.

    25 A. It gets you into all the doors in Neverland.

    26 Q. Is that every door at Neverland.

    27 A. Yes.

    28 Q. Is that every door in every room. 1201

    1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. And would that master code get you into
    3 Michael’s children’s bedroom.

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. You’ve been in that bedroom, correct.

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. You’ve been in both of them, right.

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. You’ve been in both of his children’s
    10 bedrooms many times, right.

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And you’ve been in other rooms in the main
    13 house, correct.

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. You’ve been into what other rooms in the
    16 main house.

    17 A. His room, Michael’s room. Prince and
    18 Paris’s room. I think that — I think those are the
    19 doors — oh, and then the two doors to enter the
    20 main house.

    Now, how the Arvizo boys really got to those codes is up to discussion, because Star contradicts himself in his testimony. Here he says Michael gave it to them, at another place in his testimony he says a security guard “just gave it to them”. Doesn’t really matter. If it was possible for them to go into Michael’s room and sleep there while he wasn’t there, it was certainly possible for other as well – teenagers and adults, guests and employees, with or without Michael’s consent.

    Like

  207. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:11 pm

    “Vindicatemj, what makes you think that MJ’s guests used to stay in his bedroom when he wasn’t there? There were guest houses in Neverland – plenty of beds to sleep in. MJ had lockpad and alarm system in his bedroom – I don’t think that someone would install all this if he or she would allow everybody to do whatever they want in that bedroom”

    It’s in Star and Gavin Arvizo. They admitted they had the code and stayed in his bedroom when he wasn’t there. His maids had the code and I am sure people like the Cascio had the code too. I don’t know what happened but the fact that there were other people in his bedroom when he wasn’t there is in the trial transcript.

    “As for young boys who could sleep in MJ’s bed and have wet dreams”

    I don’t know what happened and I am not a man and I don’t have kids but from what I understand sometimes there are lots of sperm and I guess it’s also depends of the pajame himself.

    Like

  208. January 25, 2011 6:38 pm

    Ok, I’ll write in English. Хотя лень.
    First of all, ares, you’re right: being gay isn’t crime. At least in USA. It isn’t crime in Russia nowadys too. Being gay isn’t the same as being pedophile – at least to those who posess thinking abilities. Everyone has a right to have sex with whoever they want if that person is aduld and consent to it. Even Michael Jackson – despite his fans’ opinion.
    Vindicatemj, what makes you think that MJ’s guests used to stay in his bedroom when he wasn’t there? There were guest houses in Neverland – plenty of beds to sleep in. MJ had lockpad and alarm system in his bedroom – I don’t think that someone would install all this if he or she would allow everybody to do whatever they want in that bedroom… That’s just my opinion, of course, but I try to look at the situation from practical and logical point of view. Of course semen stains on the mattress do not prove that MJ had sex with men – that’s not an irrefutable proof, though it could be circumstantial evidence. Well, I can imagine a fetishist (in this case it would be two fetishists…) sneaking into MJ’s bedroom and masturbating on his bed… It’s too funny when I see it in my mind’s eye!..
    As for young boys who could sleep in MJ’s bed and have wet dreams… I guess they used to sleep there in their pyjamas, it seriously lessens possibility of penetration of their semen into mattress fabric.
    Vindictmj, you think that Diane Dimond is a reliable source of information, huh?..
    Or you think that I consider her as a reliable source of info?.. That’s even funnier.

    Like

  209. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 6:18 pm

    I know who are those people on topix and I think Desiree is one of them. I don’t understand them, why spend so much time on someone you hate.

    Like

  210. Julie permalink
    January 25, 2011 3:34 pm

    Topix is predominately a haters site and yes, they call anyone who has anything positive to say about MJ a floon. Not to mention, the haters become extremely childish in their responses, resorting to name calling and using verygrade school type comebacks if they are challenged. People who know the truth and love Michael Jackson need to stay off sites such as that one. Some of those same haters post on TMZ as well and you can spot them very quickly. However, after the “molar” story posted on the TMZ site, I refuse to go to that site as well.

    Like

  211. ares permalink
    January 25, 2011 3:18 pm

    @shelly
    isn’t toxip a hatred site that is calling everyone who present some facts about MJ’s innocence with the term floon? Charles Thompson, Aphrodite Jones etc. etc??Regarging those documents/evidence , Tom Sneddon did almost anything to put MJ in prison, even went so far as to tamper evidence but for some reason he didn’t used the most strong evidences? For some reason he left out of court those documents that proved MJ’s guilty? Shelly, Topix and derise and all the haters will always scream that MJ is guilty, no matter what. Even if Jordie confessed that MJ didn’t hurt him, they wouldn’t believe him. It’s the same thing with them not believing all those people who said that Mj never touched them and even went to court to defend him. Haters gonna hate. You can not change their mind, i can not change their mind, no amount of evidence can change their mind. But they can not change my mind either. Because bassed on all of the things that i have read, all the evidence, testimonies etc i am totally convinced that MJ is innocent regarding Jordie.I don’t even count the Arvizos. As bad as it might sound i think that the allegations are always going to be part of MJ’s legacy.Lot’s of people are always going to believe the worst for him. It will need something very powerful to change things. I remember, i read somewhere that during the 90′ there was a survey in the US that asked people to say which celebrity they wanted to die soon. First it was OJ Simpson. Second,Michael Jackson….

    Like

  212. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:46 am

    Seems like the people at Topix are sheeps without the ability to think for themselves then. If it’s such a big proof of MJ molesting children how come the prosecution didn’t even intended to use that “evidence”? Aren’t the Topix forums the home of haters anyway?

    BTW, it’s really interesting how much hatered is generated towards Michael even in his death. It’s like his physical death is not enough for these people. Odd. I don’t even think these people are honest, only misled people, who are genuinely concerned about p-lia. I mean they couldn’t care less about Victor Gutierrez’s or Tom O’Caroll’s ties to NAMBLA and their activties (instead they almost celebrate these guys as their heroes for what they wrote about Michael). That’s telling. It’s all about hating Michael, nothing else. They don’t hate proven p-les, like O’Caroll, but they hate Michael Jackson. So where does this hatred come from and why? It would be an interesting area for any psychologist to analyze….

    Like

  213. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 7:17 am

    @ares

    I hope you understand that it’s not my opinion but look at the Topix website, they were all screaming that document proved he had sex with children.

    Like

  214. ares permalink
    January 25, 2011 2:07 am

    @shelly
    Really? I didn’t know homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand. Wow, if it is so, then somebody should take the children of those famous gay celebrities away. Apparently, they are in great danger.

    Like

  215. Dialdancer permalink
    January 25, 2011 1:47 am

    A visitor said:

    “The Arvizo case was such a joke that i can not believe how people actually believe it and how this case even went to court”

    It was and I believe if the LA DA had been in charge it would not have gone to another Grand Jury if anything there would have been a preliminary which was Michael’s right.

    Like

  216. January 25, 2011 1:11 am

    They’re a little late with that campaign, they’ve been trying to say MJ was gay since at least 1977.

    Like

  217. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2011 12:24 am

    @ares

    It’s because they are linking that to pedophilia.

    Like

  218. ares permalink
    January 25, 2011 12:18 am

    Helena, i learned about the incident in Moscow. Here in my country they say that it was a terrorist attack. I hope you are ok and i am so sorry about the people that died.

    /Now, i have the feeling that some people have beggin a campain with the purpose of finding if MJ was gay . I wonder, if MJ was indeed gay, which i don’t believe he was but anyway, what would these people gain? I didn’t know that being gay is a crime. I wonder, there are so many gay entertainers out there. Why no one gives a damn about them but they are so obsessed in finding what MJ did in his bed?

    Like

  219. January 24, 2011 11:30 pm

    “И все-таки на матрасе была именно сперма. Прочтите вот этот документ, особенно внимательно стр. 14: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf Дезире конечно сильно преувеличивает глубины и широты своего IQ, но кое в чем она все-таки права.”

    I see that some more Russians are joining us.
    Dear “Me”, since you are able to read Desiree and the court documents in English, may I ask you to speak English here too? Because now I’ll have to translate what you’ve written:

    “Those stains on the mattress were semen. Read this document carefully, p.14. Desiree is of course overestimating her IQ, but she is still making some valid points”.

    I’ve always said that it is doesn’t make any difference whether there was or wasn’t any other semen there. Michael’s home was practically a hotel where his friends and relatives stayed whenever they wanted. Some of them could have abused his hospitality and taken advantage of his kindness. And he never made it a secret that he gave his bed to others – so there are numerous reasons for those stains to appear on his bed.

    The whole problem is blown out of proportion and making conclusions that he was gay on the basis of 2 stains on his mattress is complete nonsense.

    Even Diane Dimond said that there was no evidence of him being gay. And if she said so, it means this theory does not stand a chance.

    Like

  220. January 24, 2011 9:25 pm

    И все-таки на матрасе была именно сперма.
    Прочтите вот этот документ, особенно внимательно стр. 14: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf
    Дезире конечно сильно преувеличивает глубины и широты своего IQ, но кое в чем она все-таки права.

    Like

  221. visitor permalink
    January 21, 2011 10:22 pm

    The Arvizo case was such a joke that i can not believe how people actually believe it and how this case even went to court. It was simply a farce, a joke. The fact that the Arvizos and Sneddon continue to live their life as though nothing ever happened,without facing any kind of punishment for what they did, is just astonishing.

    Like

  222. Olga permalink
    January 21, 2011 9:36 pm

    @hana the Arvizo case was the most laughable of all. There was never any evidence or reliable testimony that MJ molested anyone. On the contrary the evidence of him being framed are overwhelming.

    Like

  223. hana permalink
    January 21, 2011 7:26 pm

    If Gavin was indeed never molested, then that means that the whole story of Michael collecting his underwear after sexual activities was fabricated.

    Like

  224. Suzy permalink
    January 21, 2011 7:02 pm

    Context is everything!

    We always have to view any information in its context. Desiree likes to drag things out of their context and present them as “shocking relevations”, yet when you view them in their context – whether it’s the context in a document or text or the context of how and where certain items were found and located – it turns out they are not shocking and not relevations at all.

    For example Desiree suggested on her site the blood stain was a sign of homosexual activity by Michael (she seems to be obsessed with this theme) – coming from anal sex. She suggests this when even from the prosecution document it’s clear this is not what the prosecution claims or suggests about it. They think it came from a Demerol injection, because of the Demerol samples in the blood. That’s definitely the most probable explanation too. But whether Michael had a problem with Demerol (and he never made a secret out of this problem) is irrelevant from this case’s point of view as the defense pointed out.

    The context also tells us that Sneddon was ready to throw everything but the kitchen sink on Michael. These are totally irrelevant matters from the case’s point of view and they know it. Whether Al Manik had ties to mobsters, whether Dieter Wiesner ran a borthel, how many plastic surgeries Michael had etc. etc. If they were ready to bring this up, along with the underwears and mattresses on court, it just shows how desperate they were and how lacking they were of real evidence!

    Just a couple of small corrections, Helena:

    He also tells a flat lie that the underwear might belong to one of the boys – he knows for sure that it doesn’t, as it was him who ordered the necessary tests which proved it was not theirs.

    Sneddon didn’t say it belonged to the Arvizo boys. He said “worn by a male OTHER THAN Mr. Jackson OR either of the two young sibling boys”.

    More details on all of the above are listed in the Prosecution’s Response to the Defense. It was filed on January 31, 2003 but is actually dated January 20, 2003.

    You meant 2005, not 2003.

    There is not a single document which mentions semen on Michael’s underwear either.

    There is a mention of semen on one of Michael’s underwears, but it was his own underwear with his own semen. It was also found in a laundry bag.

    I also have a question:

    The District Attorney’s search of Mr. Jackson’s person on December 3, 2004 failed to return any relevant evidence.

    What search took place on December 3, 2004? Was it another house search? More than a year after the first raid and only a month before the trial?

    Like

  225. January 21, 2011 6:55 pm

    Guys, I am sorry, but I’ve changed it all over again and turned the information into a separate post. You will see that it is more about the cocaine found in Michael’s underwear than about the dirty laundry.

    The discussion of drugs is top important now in view of the coming Murray’s trial and I want you to know that Tom Sneddon used cocaine in an attempt to frame Michael up.

    Please have some patience with the documents – it is only when reading the whole thing attentively that you are able to notice numerous discrepancies. And as to the crucial information on the cocaine I think I paid attention to only because I was typing the text. Otherwise it could have gone unnoticed.

    Lynette will also be posting soon.

    Like

  226. January 21, 2011 5:41 pm

    Well, Lynette has replied to me that she is going to make two posts about the Laundry issue today. Since we are practically standing in a queque to express our opinion on this burning issue I’ve decided to post an addition to my present post called Dirty Linen.

    The news I want to disclose to you is that the whole dirty laundry business WAS A SET-UP.

    The addition to the present post is long as it is based on the documents and if you decide to skip the first part please make sure you read the end of it!

    Like

  227. January 21, 2011 1:17 pm

    Guys, sorry for being away. I was working on all those motions and oppositions to them about the dirty laundry and it naturally turned into a new post which I am almost ready to make. However Lynette promised hers – so I am waiting for the information whether she is ready with it as I don’t want to be in the way.

    Lynette, it must be early morning in the US so I hope you look up the email.

    Like

  228. Alison permalink
    January 20, 2011 10:53 pm

    As far as these pants go, I have a hard time believing Michael would ever have left any substantial amounts of semen around for other people to wash, wouldn’t he have been too embarrassed? shy, private and aware that some people stole from him, it was even possible it would have ended up on ebay!

    this Desiree person sounds totally obsessed with Michael’s semen!! weird! she definitely needs to get out more! or take up a hobby, I’ve heard Zumba is good.

    Like

  229. Suzy permalink
    January 20, 2011 6:09 pm

    @ Olga

    Well, I don’t know for whom Michael asked Joanna’s number for. It could have been for himself. Anyway, if you watch the videos Frank was with him and they were laughing together as Michael was hitting on Joanna. Let’s put it this way: one of those guys liked that girl, and whether it was Michael or Frank (or both, LOL) Desiree’s theory, as usual, doesn’t make sense. That’s the point.

    @ Julie

    Anyone who titles their blog the way this Desiree person does is obviously extremely narcissistic.

    Oh, absolutely.

    Like

  230. Julie permalink
    January 20, 2011 5:45 pm

    Anyone who titles their blog the way this Desiree person does is obviously extremely narcissistic. Like TMZ, we shouldn’t even waste our time on someone who wants to go to extreme lengths just to try to spit on his grave for whatever ridiculous reason she chooses to do so. I agree with Olga that Michael was trying to get Joanna’s number for himself at the record signing in New York. I just think and it’s just my opinion that Frank liked being in Michael’s inner circle and used it to his advantage (I’m not saying that he didn’t care for Michael because he obviously did). If Frank was inviting girls to Michael’s ranch when Michael wasn’t there — what’s to say he wasn’t taking full advantage of the entire house or anyone else there for that matter. I mean look at all of the help that stole from Michael repeatedly that had access to his room and things. If they were so blatant to do that — why not use his bed too!

    Like

  231. Olga permalink
    January 20, 2011 5:26 pm

    @Suzy in the video from Virgin where he signs the cd’s you can see him asking for her number and after one hour he asks again his bodyguards if they wrote it down. After that there are the pics of her and Michael going out and Karen Faye, who was always jealous of other women around him, wrote in her FB page that Joanna used her looks to seduce Michael. What makes you think he was helping Frank?

    Like

  232. shelly permalink
    January 20, 2011 5:08 pm

    I think we should remember that the search warrant was only for semen stains and we don’t have the whole results of the search. What happened to the cover of the mattress pad? And they only tested portions of the mattress.

    Like

  233. Suzy permalink
    January 20, 2011 4:38 pm

    @ Julie

    That’s absolute possible. I remember the story that Desiree cites on her blog about Frank and Joanna Thomae being caught having sex in the jacuzzi. Of course, Desiree puts her own spin on it, speculating that Michael was angry with Frank not because it was inappropriate for them to have sex in the jacuzzi, oh no! According to Desiree Michael was angry because Frank was his lover. LOL. Can’t believe how wrapped up she is in her own fantasy world. Never mind that Michael helped Frank get Joanna’s phone number and get her to Neverland so that Frank could date her.

    Anyway, if Frank (or other friends of Michael) had sex in the jacuzzi, it’s certainly possible that at times they’d go in Michael’s bedroom as well when he wasn’t there. There are dozens of possibilities!

    Another one: there were several user names on Michael’s bedroom laptops. One of them was “Marcel Jackson”. Everybody assumes it’s a pseudonym of Michael but one of Michael’s attorneys, Robert Sanger pointed out: not necessarily.

    “It’s heterosexual material and it is not directly related to the case,” Sanger said. “The issue of who accessed the material is totally unresolved.”

    “One of the online names was “Marcel Jackson,” which prosecutors suggested was an alias of Jackson.

    Sanger noted that Jackson has a cousin who sometimes goes by the name Marcel, although the attorney noted that he wasn’t saying the cousin downloaded the material.”

    http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20050323/jackson_porn_050323?hub=CP24Sports

    He wasn’t saying it, but he raised it as a possibility.

    Note that this wasn’t brought up in a discussion about the semen stains but about whether the Internet pornography (adult, heterosexual porn) found on Michael’s laptops should be introduced to court or not. That’s why Sager mentioned some of the user names might not even belong to Michael. (Not that there was anything incriminating on those computers – as we know the FBI came back with nothing after checking the hard drives.)

    Why I link this to our “case” is because from this it seems to be a perfectly plausible scenario that a guy, say Marcel or some other young man, would go into Michael’s bedroom to watch porn on Michael’s laptop while he isn’t there. Then of course it wouldn’t be all too surprising either if he left his semen on Michael’s bed.

    Of course, it’s just another possibility of the many more.

    Like

  234. Julie permalink
    January 20, 2011 3:21 pm

    Guys there was also some mention in the trial transcripts about Michael being upset that Frank Tyson was inviting guests to the ranch without his knowledge. I can’t remember which witness said it…but if Frank was having female guests there don’t you imagine he would be using Michael’s bed to entertain them?

    Like

  235. January 20, 2011 11:28 am

    “Helena, did you get the e-mail I sent you yesterday?”

    Yes, Suzy, now I did. But no matter how much I look at those documents I see that things are not adding up there.

    For example, they mention sheets with some DNA not specifying that it came from semen – so the source for the DNA was something different, otherwise they would have stated it clearly. Then they speak about the mattress and say there are some semen stains there. This makes sheets unrelated to the mattress as different stains appeared there at different times (Just imagine what we have to discuss here due to this rabid Desiree! She is not only a hater – she is completely SICK too).

    I hope Lynette’s post will clarify this terrible enigma – I mean which sheet came from which mattress (if people are interested in the subject).

    In the meantime I will insert into my post all the relevant pieces (from the Prosecution-Defense motions you’ve sent to me) for all of us to know the facts of this really dirty business – I’ll try to type them as soon as possible. Then Lynette will hopefully analyze the whole thing.

    I very much believe that honesty is the best policy, so am not going to hide anything from anyone’s view. We should handle this thing with our eyes open to anything we might find in haters’ documents.

    And let the Heavens help us in overcoming all this hate.

    Like

  236. Suzy permalink
    January 20, 2011 9:49 am

    Helena, did you get the e-mail I sent you yesterday?

    Like

  237. January 20, 2011 9:11 am

    “This prosecution document clearly says “semen stains” on page 14”

    Shelly, the prosecution said it was found only on some male’s stained piece of underwear but not on the sheets – which is decidedly different from what Desiree wrote to me about. It is no doubt that some guests could have left there whatever they liked, so finding someone’s dirty underwear in the dirty laundry is NO sensation. Numerous people were staying in Neverland and they surely used the services of the maids to have their things washed.

    If you want to know what Desiree wrote me about it here it is:

    ………”In 2003, when his Neverland was raided they found–ON HIS MATTRESS–semen stains of 2 unknown men, as well as Michael’s semen. That’s 3 stains showing three different DNA. They were all scientifically proven through DNA testing.

    Another DNA test found a 3rd unknown man’s semen in the bed sheets and a pair of underwear. These semen-soiled sheets and semen-soiled underwear from another man were found in a laundry bag along with Michael’s semen-soiled underwear.

    So that is a total of at least 3 men Michael had had sex with. I imagine Michael had a GREAT time with these men and enjoyed himself. Now, I also imagine the spin regarding this scientifically proven evidence but denial does not erase truth. I’d provide links to the documents but I think I’d prefer that you come to my site or get one of your lackeys to come for the links. Michael was gay… I guess that explains the phony marriages (he and Lisa’s union was awfully suspect, you’d have to admit that much, right?), the lack of women, etc.”

    The only thing which I answered her at the time was:

    “………… The way you are describing it shows that you are derive enormous pleasure from what you are saying – which makes me think that something is not quite right with YOU, not Michael. The problem is that unbiased researchers (those whose personal feelings are not involved ) don’t behave like that.

    The fact that Michael had some men’s semen in his bed may be explained in a HUNDRED ways which I am not going to tell you now for lack of time and a possible reservation that I might make an official post about it. At the moment there are other urgent matters to be attended to, so let me reserve an asnwer to you for a later time.”

    Now I am sorry I disregarded Desiree’s totally rabid statements at the time. Even if I was fool enough to believe her lies about semen-stained sheets IT PROVED NOTHING TO ME – that is why I didn’t feel the need to really look into the matter. The fact that the linen and underwear was not washed and STORED told me more about the situation than all that dirty underwear taken together.

    This is actually the reason why I made my post about that dirty linen – it wasn’t so much about the linen but about numerous collaborators helping Tom Sneddon – beginning with Larry Feldman and finishing up with the maids.

    This situation could have arisen ONLY IF somebody inside the house was working against Michael. And this is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than any dirty linen – because if this was the case these people could plant ANYTHING there.

    Like

  238. January 20, 2011 8:38 am

    “Helena my article on the dirty laundry and DNA evidence will be up tomorrow.”

    Lynette, dear, I am looking forward to it. Poor girl – you’ve done a lot of sanitation work to clear up this dirt.

    However this rabid Desiree, who seems to have too much spare time on her hands for a university student, is aiming not only at proving those “gay issues”. I find that she is telling a lot of other lies on the way.

    I’ve finally looked up her blog and see she quotes Maureen Orth who says Michael’s driver had picked up a certain suitcase from Michael’s Hideout apartment BEFORE the police was there – and “who knows what was inside it?”

    Saying that he took away the suitcase BEFORE the arrival of the police IS A RABID LIE.

    It was picked up but only AFTER the police had searched the place inside out.

    Actually Pellicano learned about the search of the Hideout POSTFACTUM – after the policemen had raided the apartment. So if the police didn’t get interested in the contents of the suitcase it means there was NOTHING incriminating there – Pellicano was just picking up the documents for them not to lie scattered there after the search.

    I made a post about earlier and this is why I know it for sure. Here is the story and link to it:
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-the-story-of-gloria-allred-part-2/

    “A chauffeur for Michael Jackson has said in a sworn deposition that the entertainer instructed him to take a suitcase and briefcase from Jackson’s Century City apartment on the same day that investigators searched the property for evidence of sexual molestation, sources close to the case said Wednesday.

    The chauffeur, Gary Hearne, was questioned by lawyers for more than five hours Tuesday, and some details of his statement were relayed to investigators Wednesday. The statement was videotaped, and a court reporter transcribed the session. Hearne, sources said, told the attorneys that he ran the errand to Jackson’s Century City apartment late in the day, suggesting that he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence. Nevertheless, the sources said investigators were following up the chauffeur’s statements to determine whether anyone interfered with the serving of the warrants.
    Larry R. Feldman, the lawyer for a 13-year-old … took the deposition from Hearne on Tuesday. Feldman refused to comment Wednesday” http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-02/local/me-63136_1_michael-jackson

    So “he picked up the material after police had completed their search of the residence”? No wonder that Larry Feldman refused to comment the next day – the police had already gone through all the documents at Michael’s place and there was absolutely nothing unusual in the fact that Michael’s attorneys requested some documents (probably financial) after the search.

    The driver is also lying in his official deposition that the “entertainer instructed him to take that suitcase” – Michael had nothing to do with that the driver’s errand, he was on a tour at that time, did not know of the raid and it was someone from his team who later asked for the papers.
    The LA Times of September 3, 1993 tries to squeeze a sensation out of the story, however the only thing it proves is that the police search came first, Michael’s assistants learned about it postfactum and the driver’s errand came only after that:

    “The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-03/news/mn-31256_1_michael-jackson

    LYNETTE, IT SEEMS THAT WE NEED TO REALLY HANDLE DESIREE.

    SHE IS A RABID HATER AND IS NO STUDENT. STUDENTS STUDY AND SHE DOESN’T.

    SHE IS A PROFESSIONAL – PROBABLY EVEN HIRED FOR THE JOB – OR IS AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE COLLOBORATORS I WAS WRITING ABOUT IN MY POST.

    Like

  239. Anna permalink
    January 20, 2011 7:56 am

    Hi Alison, lol, that’s good to know. I kind of think I wouldn’t put it past Sneddon or his office to plant evidence either. After the whole fingerprint scam with Gavin and the girle magazines and all.

    I’m really looking foward to lynande51’s post. I just read her update and followed up on the same info. I’m fairly certain she’s going to expose how easy is it for someone to distort the facts. It’s going to be great I can’t wait!

    Like

  240. Alison permalink
    January 20, 2011 7:37 am

    Hi,

    Before anyone thinks the Alison you,ve mentioned is me, just to say its not. i haven’t commented over there.

    it does sound that the laundry could well have been planted but as you say there are other possibilities too. but the prosecution should have investigated all possibilities for any evidence like this. it just underlines even more how totally biased – at best – and malicious / corrupt at worst , the prosecution was. the only other option is the department is totally incompetent, which it cannot be, so therefore they were biased and/or corrupt.

    Like

  241. lynande51 permalink
    January 20, 2011 3:05 am

    I will add a little preview.
    1. the semen specimen that was finally disputed was not Michael’s it belonged to another adult male found on underwear found in number 510 2 bags from the video arcade library under eave storage area.
    2. The prosecution from the beginning did not want to admit evidence from the mattress.I will give you a very logical and resonable explaination as to why. Can anyone guess what that was.
    3. The DNA evidence they wanted admitted from Michael came from a pair of underwear with 2 small blood spots that were on either side of the back of the underwear. this blood contained Demerol and the underwear had cocaine on them.
    4. Brian Barron’s testimony placed at least 2 other men sleeping in the video arcade area and none of that means they were gay either.

    5. This all comes down to mixing one document with another when you do a partial post of a document this is what can happen
    6 This has taken considerable time for me to complete because of missing documents and all of the reading that was required. I had to have some of them hard copied to me. I also have to get all of these documents and supporting documents together with my narration.
    it may be more than one post to break it down because this starts at the beginning of the Arvizo case not in the middle whichis where the trial was.

    Like

  242. January 20, 2011 2:53 am

    Her “smoking gun” is a non-issue, really, but unfortunately she is zealous enough to spread her lies everywhere on the Internet, on YouTube, and she managed to shock a lot of (uninformed) fans. That’s why fans need to educate themselves about the trial because otherwise they can fall victim of such hater campaigns. And this is only why we need to respond to her claims.

    Yes, she’s been very zealous with this information recently. I’ve had people PMing me about it in different forums asking if I’d heard about it and what did I think etc… sigh.

    Desiree does not have a source. How would Mike have an affair with Omer but only this random musician person would know? Nobody in the court case knew, not even when everyone was selling every secret they could about MJ? But this person kept mum? So they’re complicit in pedophilia? Hmm, nice source there. She should also know some things about why Omer left the Hayvenhurst house that she obviously doesn’t.

    Like

  243. Anna permalink
    January 20, 2011 2:50 am

    “she managed to shock a lot of (uninformed) fans. That’s why fans need to educate themselves about the trial because otherwise they can fall victim of such hater campaigns. And this is only why we need to respond to her claims. Otherwise it would be better to ignore her and return to the real issues of the case”

    I feel the same way Suzy. It would better to ignore her but she has already shocked some uninformed fans. In fact I first heard about the dirty laundry/DNA/gay post over at lipstick alley. Some of the fans there started thinking maybe she had a point and were fretting about it. I think VindicateMJ had no choice but to challenge her argument with a post in a similar way other MJ fans were going over there to argue with her and point out the how weak her argument really was.

    Like

  244. lynande51 permalink
    January 20, 2011 2:43 am

    Helena my article on the dirty laundry and DNA evidence will be up tomorrow.

    Like

  245. January 20, 2011 2:17 am

    Rockforeveron, good idea. We should be on the lookout for that information. Frankly, I didn’t focus much on the 2005 trial as I always considered that case a complete joke. The Arvizo case seems to me a monument to the prosecution’s desperation because of total lack of evidence against Jackson and their forced need to make dirty tricks, stretch the truth and make mountains out of a molehill in order to incriminate Michael.

    I asked because I remember once on my MJ googling I managed to find a really poorly written “book” (maybe about a dozen pages) from an ex employee of Neverland that was written around 2004/5 and in it they were using it as an excuse to go off on MJ about how bad an employer he was (I can’t remember what they said but I remember thinking it sounded like someone who just wanted any excuse to vent for having to work for a living) and although they said they’d never witnessed or heard about anything inappropriate, they said that there was a Neverland Log that he had to check over every night to see where everyone was sleeping so that in the event of a fire or earthquake or any emergency they would know where everyone was and he used this to say that he knew MJ had kids in his room (gasp). It was really poorly written and I didn’t think it was interesting enough to save it but I can always try scouting around again for it…

    Anyway, after reading that I’ve always wondered why nobody ever brought that log up during the trial. Discussing Debbie Rowe with someone who actually stayed at Neverland and also knew an employee who worked there they said it was funny that anyone could deny they were sleeping together or that she did spend time there because the logs showed that as a fact.

    So I’ve always wondered about them…

    Like

  246. Dialdancer permalink
    January 20, 2011 12:43 am

    ares said;

    “I find it very sad that this girl has made us pawns in her game”

    I see your point, but there is a larger picture to been seen here. This is the site I refer others to for answers to their own questions. Where those who haven’t read the documents do not have time or know how to investigate to come when they find themselves confronted with the same idiocy. Better it is here than to have Fans going out unarmed making up improbable excuses when there are rational answers. That mean some times you have to address the lame.

    Like

  247. ares permalink
    January 20, 2011 12:32 am

    No Shelly, I was talking in general. I even felt the need to go in her blog. I didn’t. How in hell those stains prove that MJ was a pedophile is beyond me. But i guess this girl uses the Diane Dimond tactic. Blood and sex create shock and people tend to believe that something terribly sinister is going on. To hell with her. They call MJ’s fans delusional. They haven’t seen his haters.

    Like

  248. Dialdancer permalink
    January 20, 2011 12:28 am

    Has anyone seen a list of items seized in 93? Geraldine Hughes says in her book that all the items seized were kept by the SB Count. Neither Michael nor his attorneys were given a list nor inventory of the items. My books are packed up so I cannot refer you to that paragraph in her book. I have not found a list of specific items from 93 in the court documents.

    Like

  249. shelly permalink
    January 20, 2011 12:18 am

    Ares, I hope it wasn’t pointed at me because I don’t think the semen stains prove something. The only thing that matter is they don’t belong to the Arvizo. MJ could have been gay, bi, straight or straight with bi fling, I can care less about that. It’s not linked to pedophilia.

    Like

  250. ares permalink
    January 20, 2011 12:13 am

    I find it very sad that this girl has made us pawns in her game. Really. This is the same person who wrotte at David that letter that clearly showed that she is a nutjob. Why do you continue play her games, i don’t understand it. So there was found semen in MJ’s bed and underware. So what?If those stains belonged at Gavin or his brother, Michael would have been in prison. I don’t care if MJ was bysexual or homosexual.But based on the evidence, he was not a child molester. So, if this girl has a problem with MJ’s sexual preferences, then she is the one who has a problem.I can’t believe that in 21 century we have to defend MJ’s sexuality because a nutjob has a problem with the idea of him being gay./
    Well, i think a lot of people would have a problem with her too because she is clearly a homophobe. Please, can you stop arguing with her? She is CRAZY guys. She believes the worst for MJ and nothing can change her mind. There are a lot of people like her out there. You can not stop her/them. Just ignore them.Because this girl clearly wants attention. Stop offering her that.She doesn’t deserve it./
    Oh, and can you please stop visiting her blog and increasing her traffic?

    Like

  251. shelly permalink
    January 19, 2011 11:29 pm

    This prosecution document clearly says “semen stains” on page 14

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

    Like

  252. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 10:43 pm

    @ Anna

    She’s all over the place, completely obsessed in her mission to spread hate about Michael.

    I know.

    I have no doubts in my mind that Desiree is a liar. Or her “source” is fooling her big time. It’s the same source that she claimed told her that Michael and Omer Bhatti were lovers. LOL. Now this source claims Michael and Grace Rwaramba were lovers. This Alison, who is bisexual herself (she said that) politely and patiently pointed out to her that this would mean MJ was bisexual and not gay (she also pointed out to her about her misinformations about homosexuality). To which Desiree replied with some angry rant. LOL. So she wouldn’t even want Michael to be bisexual, she wants him to be totally gay.
    Yet, she claims – citing her “source” – that MJ and Grace were lovers. It’s like she doesn’t even know what she’s talking about, she is contradicting herself all the time.

    For the record, I don’t believe she has any kind of “source” to Michael’s private life. No matter how famous she claims her musician friend is. Why would any musician know anything about who Michael slept with? That somebody is a musician doesn’t make him an authority on MJ’s private life. That Desiree thinks a claim of a famous musician friend would somehow give credibility to her claims is utterly ridiculous and it only shows what kind of confused “logic” she has.

    It’s too bad were all giving this disturbed individual more publicity.

    I agree. Her “smoking gun” is a non-issue, really, but unfortunately she is zealous enough to spread her lies everywhere on the Internet, on YouTube, and she managed to shock a lot of (uninformed) fans. That’s why fans need to educate themselves about the trial because otherwise they can fall victim of such hater campaigns. And this is only why we need to respond to her claims. Otherwise it would be better to ignore her and return to the real issues of the case. She is a distraction but unfortunately a very effective one.

    Like

  253. January 19, 2011 10:07 pm

    “I’m sure if they had been admitted to court and got further examined and explained they would look totally harmless.”

    Suzy, even the way it is now it is also totally harmless.

    There is absolutely nothing in finding somebody’s soiled linen in anybody’s home. If you had guests and then their bed linen were put into a laundry basket or a washing machine waiting to be washed, it would mean nothing if somebody found it.

    Over here she is exaggerating the point of Michael’s and somebody else’s DNA being on the same sheet. So what? What do we know of the way his staff maintained his home? Numerous people slept in his bed or in his home when he was away and who knows what linen was given to them? It all depends on how honest and reliable his employees were, and from what we already know it seems that not all his staff was completely trustworthy.

    Like

  254. Anna permalink
    January 19, 2011 9:58 pm

    “Frankly, there are too many unknowns and there’s just too much room for speculation ”

    I agree Suzy, but do you notice how the hardcore MJ haters whether they be people in the media or people in the public run with speculation. They’ll find something, anything suggestable in the weakest piece of evidence or in this case evidence that was never introduced in court and decide that it’s a smoking gun and the proof they’ve been looking for when there is so many unknowns about it. They are just so determined to believe Michael is guilty that they will cling onto any speculation at al no matter how weak it is. Desiree doesn’t know anything. I was even laughing at how quickly her story about Michael’s sexuality changes when so outspoken commentater challenge her on her ideas. I’m assuming they are MJ fans. She responded to one kind of outspoken and a bit outragous fan who suggested Michael was bisexual by saing this. I found it hilarious how she used bisexuality in her argument with this commenter. She really doesn’t have a firm grasp on anything does, all suspicion and speculation.

    Part of her comment to Alison

    “I cannot disclose my source of information, unfortunately, but it’s not Diane Dimond, if that’s what you think. It’s not a dumpster out back, either. It is a reliable source with a connection to the music industry and a famous musician in particular, that’s all.

    From this source, they say Michael and Grace Rwaramba were together although he was verbally and emotionally abusive. Initially there was contact sexually, but he became drug addicted and she became a keeper.”

    Really so this source this connection to the music industry was in Michael house and bed room. Ha, not very reliable source if you ask me, just being in a musician>

    The other comment was this.

    “This is my opinion, Alison: he was a self-hating black man who wanted to be white; he was gay, dabbling in bisexuality as a way to fix himself; his marriages were shams and phony; he was a pedophile; he was guilty of molesting probably all of his special friends, regardless of what they’ve said on the stand; he was a hardcore drug addict.”

    Does anyone else find that part of the comment hilarious (and sick), so she’s saying that Michael tried use bisexuality as a way to fix himself from being a pedofile, so now she doesn’t think he’s gay, or atleast in the comment. She’s all over the place, completely obsessed in her mission to spread hate about Michael. It’s too bad that there are readers out there falling for it, if that is the case.

    It’s too bad were all giving this disturbed individual more publicity.

    Maybe this post we’ll be the last we have to discuss her.

    P.S.

    I don’t suggest anyone visit the comments section unless you want to be completely disgusted by the comments. I happen to notice that particular post of hers had 200 some comments so I was curious to what was up. Many of those commenters were fans challenging her arguments. She was pretty rude I though, and her supporters say some really vile and disgusting things about MJ fans. I won’t be going back there anytime soon.

    Like

  255. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 9:08 pm

    “MJJJusticeProject, our opponent claims that there is only male DNA there.”

    I think what MJJJusticeProject said is possible. One possibility of the many.

    As Michael was accused of molesting male children, obviously they would focus on finding semen. Even if they would find female body fluids, I doubt they would mention it, since MJ wasn’t accused of raping women (and since that could maybe somehow weaken their case). That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, just that they perhaps didn’t check the sheets for it. Perhaps intentionally. Of course it can be also that there simply wasn’t female fluid, but that still doesn’t mean what MJJJusticProject suggested isn’t a possibility. It’s perfectly plausible for a man and a woman to have sex on MJ’s bed and only the man’s semen be found after that, since there’s a lot more chance of that leaving a “mark” there during a sexual intercourse than the female “fluid” (sorry to be a bit gross, but I can’t find the proper English term). So again, Desiree is assuming things without knowing all the facts.

    of course, we can only make assumptions too because these were never admitted to court and as such they were never examined and discussed in detail – and the defense never gave their version on it. That’s why she has such a field day with this “information”, since she knows there are too many unknowns about them and everybody can fill in the gaps as she likes (or as she suggests them to fill in). This is all she has, she still couldn’t show any serious evidence about MJ being a child molester, so she plays the tabloid game now: insinuations and suggestions, cojecture and innuendo based on “evidence” that wasn’t even admitted to court. And she calls that a “smoking gun”, LOL. But this is after all a person who is spreading lies about Michael having molested people who all claimed he never did that! You get the idea….

    Of course, homosexual sex can be a reason of other semen found on the sheets, but it’s just one of the MANY possible reasons. I personally don’t think it’s the most likely reason and I have already explained earlier why. We talk about a bedroom and a bed in which admittedly many people slept whether MJ was there or not. We can’t even be sure if all those sheets came off from the same bed. Frankly, there are too many unknowns and there’s just too much room for speculation and that’s the only reason Desiree can have a field day with it. I’m sure if they had been admitted to court and got further examined and explained they would look totally harmless. After all there must be a reason why the judge didn’t allow them in and why not even the prosecution fought for them so much (at least not for the sheets and mattresses).

    Like

  256. January 19, 2011 8:13 pm

    “For all we know, a maid and a guard were sleeping together. The sheet was soiled, and she hid it…..knowing that Michael would know what happened and clearly not approve.”

    MJJJusticeProject, our opponent claims that there is only male DNA there. She wrote me a letter saying that the semen of three males was found in the sheets. I didn’t pay attention because I knew that anyone could use Michael’s bed and let it go, never knowing the story would be blown out of every proportion.

    Now
    in order to check up once again what she said and see what documents she is quoting I had to go to her site – though I promised myself I wouldn’t.

    And you know what?

    The very first thing I noticed is that there is no mention of any “semen” on the sheets in those documents! They found only some DNA which may be found in urine, saliva, tears, running nose or any other liquid in a human body I forgot to mention.

    Now I understand why Olga said in her comment that there was only DNA there.

    Oh my God, this Desiree has fooled me completely by telling stories about what she found in those documents! And I was naive enough to believe that what she said was found there was indeed there.

    Guys, I am sorry. It seems I’ll have to make another post with all those things discussed in detail.

    You can’t imagine how terribly unwilling I am to rake in all that dirty linen, and how much I wanted to avoid it, but it seems that now I will have to.

    Like

  257. January 19, 2011 7:03 pm

    Well done, vindicatemj. Loved your take on how things could have happened. I’m convinced you’re correct, too. Everyone who posted comments were right on time, also. MJ fans are better than the FBI and the CIA. I especially loved this part; it leaves you with deep thoughts:

    This is probably how the whole thing started with Michael Jackson. Some resented that a poor boy got to the very top and had more than any of them could ever dream of. Some were envious of his talent. Some were racists who didn’t want to share the same neighborhood with him. Some wanted to make a political career out of putting him in jail and some saw it as an opportunity to make money off him.

    “And some were willingly cooperating with the authorities who were bent on “showing him his place”. They could be very well guided by some “high moral principles” the way they understood them and could be always ready to help the police with planting some “evidence” in his home – and all this in the name of the noble cause of defending the society from a “predator”.

    GREAT BLOGGING

    Like

  258. January 19, 2011 6:56 pm

    “I have been wondering about it too why the laundry still wasn’t washed, when Michael was away for at least a week as the raid happened.”

    It wasn’t only unwashed but it was in a place where it was not supposed to be. If it had been found in some laundry basket near a washing machine we could think that the maids were just lazy and didn’t do their job when their employer was away. But storing those things together with clean laundry? This could have been done only on purpose.

    As to the period of Michael being away, we know that on October 25 – 28 he was in Las Vegas as he took part in various ceremonies there. When the search of Neverland was made on November 18, 2003 he was still there. The period in between was most probably spent in Las Vegas too as he was working on the album, recording “One more chance” and had started on making a video for this song. I haven’t been able to find information to cover the full period from end of October to Nov.18 yet, but judging by the amount of work they were doing there he must have been staying there all this time. Hopefully we will find some more facts confirming it.

    But even if he was away for two or three days only it doesn’t change anything for us – the linen should have been washed at once and it definitely should not have been put into a bag in the closet of the video archage together with clean laundry. Just imagine such a bag in any neat and tidy place and you will realize how terribly alien this element would look there.

    Like

  259. January 19, 2011 6:33 pm

    “If Michael had a fetish for collecting other males’s dirty underwears he would have kept it under his pillow, not in the laundry in the arcades.”

    Exactly. What Desiree thinks to be proof of MJ’s homosexuality is actually the proof of other people’s intentional malice against Michael. Keeping some soiled linen and underwear unwashed and hidden in a closet is a highly suspicious thing in a well-run home like his.

    But whether MJ was straight, bisexual or gay is not really an issue…. so even if he was [gay], who cares? I personally think he was definitely not gay.”

    Nobody cares. And I also personally think that Michael wasn’t gay. He was brought up in a very strict religion which makes no bones about this issue and God was Michael’s only support at a time when people turned their back on him. Even in his songs he constantly referred to Father – “Father, please have mercy”.

    We are underestimating the power of his belief in God – it was Michael’s backbone and his only hope for escape from other people’s hate, cruelty and deceit. This type of belief makes the spirit exceptionally strong which enables the man to overcome any wanted or unwanted physical attractions (if he had them). These people easily check their instincts and monitor their feelings very well.

    Like

  260. ares permalink
    January 19, 2011 5:57 pm

    I didn’t understand this post. Can somebody tell me what exactly did the officers find in MJ’s house and where? Sorry but sometimes i am a bit slow

    Like

  261. January 19, 2011 5:37 pm

    “BTW do you know if the Neverland logs were ever used during the trial? I always felt it strange that they were never brought up, I would have assumed the prosecution would’ve wanted them out there… unless they clearly showed things that didn’t give him any advantage”

    Rockforeveron, good idea. We should be on the lookout for that information. Frankly, I didn’t focus much on the 2005 trial as I always considered that case a complete joke. The Arvizo case seems to me a monument to the prosecution’s desperation because of total lack of evidence against Jackson and their forced need to make dirty tricks, stretch the truth and make mountains out of a molehill in order to incriminate Michael.

    The Arvizo case is so impressively artificial that it will probably disclose to us many more such instances. However if it hadn’t been for Thomas Mesereau and his assistants the prosecution could have got away with their lies. If you remember Larry Feldman was giving advice at the Frozen in Time seminar how the case should have been handled to be a success – the mother should not have been called to testify, etc. You could feel how terribly disappointed Feldman was with the outcome of the case, which is one of those innumerable small facts which make me think that he was among those many ‘volunteers’ who were working against Jackson.

    Like

  262. January 19, 2011 4:01 pm

    “after MJ was arrested, Sneddon tried to plant a security guard to work at Neverland as an informant, and to see what kind of “dirt” he could get on MJ, but the cop refused to do so!”

    David, aha, so placing informants there is not only a supposition but an established fact. Thank you so much for it! If Sneddon approached Brian Barron there is no reason to doubt that he approached others as well.

    I’ll add this fact to the post.

    Like

  263. lcpledwards permalink
    January 19, 2011 4:00 pm

    Here is Nikki Allygator’s take on the whole “MJ is gay” debacle! She wrote the following post to refute Dr. Klein and Jason Pfeiffer’s nonsense!

    http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/05/jackson-was-not-gay-facts.html

    And for anyone who hasn’t read these posts yet, here is what she wrote to refute the “MJ was a drug addict” myth!

    http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/08/michael-jackson-did-not-administer.html

    http://gatorgirl277.blogspot.com/2010/06/was-michael-jackson-addict.html

    Like

  264. January 19, 2011 3:56 pm

    “Now if there was just one or two among them who were illegal, that’s certainly an opportunity for Sneddon to blackmail them or to offer them a deal: I help you get citizenship if you cooperate. Or even if they were already legalized, they were probably eager to show the US law enforcement that they were “good citizens”, doing what the authorities ordered them to do.”

    Guys, sorry for joining you only now. Suzy, your supposition is hitting the nail on the head. If some of them were illegal of course it would be a perfect reason for their cooperation! Jason Francia’s mother could not even speak English and needed a translator when giving her testimony. I don’t know whether this can be a sign of her working there illegally, though.

    Like

  265. January 19, 2011 9:00 am

    I do wonder why no one has considered the maids. For all we know, a maid and a guard were sleeping together. The sheet was soiled, and she hid it…..knowing that Michael would know what happened and clearly not approve. It is very possible that the maid was looking for an opportunity to get the linen cleaned without getting into trouble.

    It is ludicrous to even think that Michael was the only one in the house who was capable of sex. There have been office affairs forever. This may well have been like that… I can actually imagine them sleeping in his bed while he was away. Go forbid that anyone should come up to me and present such a story. I would trash them on the spot.
    Cate

    Like

  266. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 8:55 am

    As for Scott Thorson being MJ’s male lover. He said that once to a tabloid – obviously for money, but talking to Larry King in 2002 he basically admitted it was a lie! 12 August 2002, Larry King live. Thorson talks about his relationship with Liberace:

    “When asked about his breakup with Liberace, Thorson replied, “And he started fooling around with one of the young men there, which I was just — I couldn’t believe it… [I became] Jealous, angry, because someone else was stepping in, but because I would not allow myself to have sex with him.” King: “Did you ever have other homosexual relationships?” Thorson: “No.”

    Like

  267. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 8:33 am

    “which they are succeeding at, unfortunately, based on the comments I’ve seen in some fan forums”

    Sad. Fans should know better by now how tabloids operate (innuendo, conjecture) – and Desiree’s just taken a leaf out of their book. It’s a shame people don’t see through it. I guess you have to be rather knowledgable about the case and court documents to be able to see that she is nothing but tabloid.

    Like

  268. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 8:19 am

    Here’s a thought: many of Michael’s employees had very Spanish sounding names. I was wondering how many of these people might have been illegal immigrants. (Wasn’t Blanca Francia illegal while she was working for Michael? And she only later got citizenship?)

    Now if there was just one or two among them who were illegal, that’s certainly an opportunity for Sneddon to blackmail them or to offer them a deal: I help you get citizenship if you cooperate. Or even if they were already legalized, they were probably eager to show the US law enforcement that they were “good citizens”, doing what the authorities ordered them to do.

    Like

  269. lcpledwards permalink
    January 19, 2011 8:04 am

    Here’s what Diane Dimond had to say about the gay rumors in July 2009, when Ian Halperin’s “Unmasked” was released:

    “Here’s what I think,” Diane says. “Over all the years that I have been looking into his life, I have found no evidence that Michael Jackson was gay. I have never spoken to any men who have claimed and proven they were Michael’s lovers.”

    Ironically, Halperin claimed that MJ “dressed up as a woman” in order to meet his adult male lovers at cheap, run-down motels, but our adversary claims that MJ invited his adult male lovers to Neverland! I think Dimond’s comment should totally eradicate both theories, because if SHE says there’s no proof of adult homosexual lovers, than to me that settles it once and for all!! If either she, Orth, Bashir, or any other media hack would have found any evidence of gay lovers, they would have ran with that story like a track star with a baton!

    Unfortunately, because Dimond still peddles the theory that MJ was a molester, in a way she’s saying that he was gay, but was attracted to boys instead of men, so I don’t give her too much credit for debunking the adult male lovers’ theories!

    To me, this is just another lame attempt by haters to impugn MJ’s character and image, and they’ll try to do anything to sully his reputation. If they can get people to think he’s gay (which they are succeeding at, unfortunately, based on the comments I’ve seen in some fan forums), then they’re one step closer to convincing people he was a p-ile!!!

    http://www.etonline.com/news/76381_Diane_Dimond_on_Michael_Jackson_s_Sexuality/index.html

    Like

  270. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 7:58 am

    Helena raises a good point about the maids and how they have done their job. I have been wondering about it too why the laundry still wasn’t washed, when Michael was away for at least a week as the raid happened. Either his maids were not at all on the top of their game, or indeed there was some conspiracy going on between one or some of them and the prosecution.

    Although there’s no evidence for this but I wouldn’t put that past Sneddon, knowing how he tried to plant evidence against Michael (the fingerprint fiasco). We also know how some employees of Michael collaborated with Michael’s enemies. Such as Blanca Francia with Victor Gutierrez, for example. So while we don’t have evidence for this but it certainly is possible. Especially in the light of what Brian Barron testified! That’s such a great and enlightening find, David!

    Like

  271. Suzy permalink
    January 19, 2011 7:26 am

    Knowing that other people, admittedly, slept in Michael’s bed all the time – even if we allow the “evidence” wasn’t planted (though there’s a strong possibility it was, see David’s post) -, the semen from other men doesn’t have to mean a homosexual activity between MJ and other men. We know that many teenagers slept in his bed while he slept on the floor or on another couch. We also know that people DID sleep in his bedroom and in his bed while he wasn’t even there. Desiree quotes Jesus Salas’s testimony to debunk this possibility when Salas was asked if other people slept in his bedroom while Michael was gone and he answers “not to my knowledge”. Well, it’s a typical example of the cherry-picking of information that she likes to engage in her posts. That Salas didn’t know about other people sleeping in Michael’s bedroom while he was gone, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In fact, we don’t have to look any further than another testimony from the trial, namely Star Arvizo’s!

    1 Q. You and your brother were caught in that
    2 room when Michael Jackson wasn’t even at Neverland,
    3 weren’t you.

    4 A. To sleep, yeah.

    5 Q. You and your brother used to go into that
    6 room when Michael wasn’t even at Neverland, right.

    7 A. Yes, Michael opened his room up to us so we
    8 could sleep there while he was gone.

    Star Arvizo even recalled the two four-digit codes during his testimony (one for Michael’s bedroom, the other a master code with that they could enter each and every room in Neverland, including the rooms of Michael’s children!)!

    22 Q. And what is the master code.

    23 A. 1849.

    24 Q. And what does it do.

    25 A. It gets you into all the doors in Neverland.

    26 Q. Is that every door at Neverland.

    27 A. Yes.

    28 Q. Is that every door in every room. 1201

    1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. And would that master code get you into
    3 Michael’s children’s bedroom.

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. You’ve been in that bedroom, correct.

    6 A. Yes.

    7 Q. You’ve been in both of them, right.

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. You’ve been in both of his children’s
    10 bedrooms many times, right.

    11 A. Yes.

    12 Q. And you’ve been in other rooms in the main
    13 house, correct.

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. You’ve been into what other rooms in the
    16 main house.

    17 A. His room, Michael’s room. Prince and
    18 Paris’s room. I think that — I think those are the
    19 doors — oh, and then the two doors to enter the
    20 main house.

    Now, how the Arvizo boys really got to those codes is up to discussion, because Star contradicts himself in his testimony. Here he says Michael gave it to them, at another place in his testimony he says a security guard “just gave it to them”. I personally think they probably spied on employees when they entered those rooms and that’s how they got the codes. (Though this post of Helena and David’s about Brian Barron makes one wonder, if there weren’t also guards indeed intentionally letting kids in Michael’s room while he wasn’t there….) But for our discussion here it’s not really important now how they got the codes. The point is other people did sleep in Michael’s bedroom while he was gone and if it was possible for the Arvizo boys to enter and sleep in Michael’s bedroom when he was not even there, it was certainly possible for other people (teenagers or adults) as well – whether with or without Michael’s consent!

    Also Salas left his job at Neverland in June or July 2003, while the raid was in November 2003. He obviously wouldn’t have any information about whom Michael maybe let to sleep in his bedroom between June and November or who slept there without Michael’s consent, while he was gone.

    If we assume that those 3 semen samples came from homosexual activity that Michael had with other men that wouldn’t just mean he was gay (or bisexual) but also that he was pretty promiscuous! That he didn’t just have one partner but many partners at once or in quick succession. I find that a lot less likely than other people going in his bedroom and using his bed while he wasn’t there. Or teenage boys simply having wet dreems while sleeping on Michael’s bed, while Michael slept on the floor or on another couch. (Or even planted “evidence” – knowing Sneddon’s ways.)
    If Michael had lived that kind of promiscuous lifestyle with many lovers at once or in quick succession, there’s no way that wouldn’t have come out long, long time ago! We are talking about Michael “Freaking” Jackson here, about whom every snippet of information (especially when it comes to his private life) is worth gold for the media! It’s possible to hide one long time lover, however it’s impossible to hide a promiscuous lifestyle for so long.

    I find the underwear stuff even more ridiculous. No wonder the judge ruled out those “evidences”. (So much for the “smoking gun”.) It was interesting though how at first the prosecution didn’t mention where they found that underwear (making the impression it was in Michael’s bedroom). That about shows us the slick ways of prosecution innuendo. Only when the defense realized and pointed out in their protest where it was actually found (in the arcades together with other LAUNDRY!) it became clear how desperate the prosecution was. If Michael had a fetish for collecting other males’s dirty underwears he would have kept it under his pillow, not in the laundry in the arcades.

    But whether MJ was straight, bisexual or gay is not really an issue. Everybody can have his/her opinion on it, but only MJ would know the true answer. We are in the 21st century and in the 21st century it’s not a crime to be gay or bisexual, so even if he was, who cares? I personally think he was definitely not gay, and I even have a hard time believing he was bisexual, but if I’d be wrong about this, that wouldn’t shake my love and admiration for him. The point is he never molested any child. That’s very clear from all the facts we have.

    It’s very telling that all Desiree has this dirty linien and she calls an “evidence” smoking gun that wasn’t even allowed to court. Yes, Michael’s defense didn’t want to get this “evidence” allowed, just like they didn’t want his adult heterosexual porn to be allowed in either. It doesn’t mean it was especially damning or damaging – if it had been the judge would have allowed it in.

    In fact, even the prosecution didn’t really fight for those sheets and mattresses to be allowed in – they tried once, but they said ‘ok, we don’t really want to show them either’ right after the first protest of the defense. So much about the “smoking gun”. They fought a little more for the underwear found in the laundry, but that was ridiculous as well. Even the rather pro-prosecution judge agreed with it by not allowing them in.

    Like

  272. Dialdancer permalink
    January 19, 2011 2:15 am

    Helena,

    Excellent. I have repeatably asked among other advocates why would there be dirty and mixed up laundry, soiled bed linen in the home of a man whose staff admitted he was very particular about such things. Some implied tyrannical about household chores. It is like the drugs found in the main kitchen utensil drawer. It does not fit.

    I think some of the answers to the unexplained will come in time. There are documents still to be found or released and compared. Changes in laws about accessibility and death will release more. As it was prior to the release of Michael’s FBI File, autopsy and the relocating of the SB court docs it was once believe all to be seen was available.

    Like

  273. lcpledwards permalink
    January 19, 2011 2:13 am

    @ Helena: Just to help reinforce what you said about a tacit agreement between Sneddon and some of the maids, here is some info that you may not have known about: after MJ was arrested, Sneddon tried to plant a security guard to work at Neverland as an informant, and to see what kind of “dirt” he could get on MJ, but the cop refused to do so!

    Brian Barron was a cop who moonlighted at Neverland and was there during the time that the Arvizos were held “hostage” there, hurt the prosecution’s conspiracy charge by testifying that when children wre dropped off at Neverland without their parents, they were NOT allowed to leave by themselves without supervision! Sneddon tried to take the rule and use it against MJ by twisting it to make it seem like it was newly enacted and applied only to the Arvizos, when in fact it applied to everyone! He also refuted the prosecution’s timeline by verifying the visitor’s logs.

    Barron followed the advice of his supervisor and quit his job at Neverland after it was raided. When cross examined by Robert Sanger, he reiterated he quit because of the advice of his boss, and NOT because he saw anything improper there! In fact, he said that if he had seen anything improper, he would have been obligated as a police officer to report it to authorities, and NOT to TMZ or The National Enquirer!

    After the raid, he was asked to return to work at Neverland as an informant by the Sheriff’s Dept. (and certainly with Sneddon’s approval), but refused. Who knows how many other security guards or cops were asked to work as informants? If a cop was asked to do so, then certainly a maid could have been given that same offer as well, right? It it far fetched to believe that some of them could have been bribed to gather “dirt” on MJ, or to plant evidence (like the dirty laundry)?

    Here is the portion of Barron’s testimony where he describes being asked to become an informant:

    5 Q. BY MR. SANGER: All right. Now, let me ask

    6 you one other thing before we get to the gate logs

    7 and some of the other documents you identified.

    8 You were actually asked — let me put it a

    9 different way. You were contacted by the Santa

    10 Barbara County Sheriff’s Office in December of 2003;

    11 is that correct?

    12 A. That’s correct.

    13 Q. And in particular, Detective Bonner of the

    14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department contacted you; is

    15 that correct?

    16 A. Correct.

    17 Q. And he did an interview of you to determine

    18 if you’d seen anything unlawful and so on; is that

    19 correct?

    20 A. That’s correct.

    21 Q. But then he asked that you work as an

    22 informant; is that correct?

    23 A. Yes.

    24 Q. And you were at that time a sworn peace

    25 officer of the Guadalupe Police Department, correct?

    26 A. That’s correct.

    27 Q. And he basically wanted you to go back to

    28 work for Mr. Jackson in December of 2003 to be an 7064

    1 informant, correct?

    2 A. That’s correct.

    3 Q. And at that time, you know that the raid had

    4 already occurred on Mr. Jackson’s house, correct?

    5 A. Correct.

    6 Q. You knew Mr. Jackson had a lawyer, had

    7 counsel, right?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. And you were being asked to go in as a law

    10 enforcement informant into his ranch, at his home,

    11 and inform for the sheriff; is that correct?

    12 MR. AUCHINCLOSS: Objection. Asked and

    13 answered.

    14 THE COURT: Overruled.

    15 You may answer.

    16 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    17 Q. BY MR. SANGER: And you refused to do that;

    18 is that right?

    19 A. Yes.

    For more info on Bonner, read the summary from Days 36 and 37 in this link:

    http://mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSourcePG2.htm

    Like

  274. January 19, 2011 12:42 am

    Unfortunately it is awfully typical for the people driven by some “higher” motives not to see that they are committing atrocities – they think they are doing it for a good purpose and their noble goal justifies their nasty means.

    Great post.

    Yes, Desiree has been making these sheets and the other male underwear found at Neverland the crux of her case against Michael now. She’s lost out in all other ways so using evidence that couldn’t even be admitted into the trial is all she has.

    It’s no secret that Mike let other people use his bed, ex. on the Glenda tapes you can hear Glenda at one point talking to him about how she’s staying in a room/bed that he once stayed in (we don’t know where, could be anywhere, one of his condos – he would give friends keys to these places for them to use whenever, Neverland, etc, he wasn’t frugal with his property, strange considering all the sordid deeds he was supposedly committing there but anyway).

    And yeah… DNA means everything. I think in that hamper they also found MJ’s underwear with his semen – shocking evidence there.

    BTW do you know if the Neverland logs were ever used during the trial? I always felt it strange that they were never brought up, I would have assumed the prosecution would’ve wanted them out there… unless they clearly showed things that didn’t give him any advantage (groups of kids sleeping there, female kids, MJ’s wives and girlfriends, random friends of MJ’s staying there without him etc). Gavin made sure to say he’d only stayed one night in MJ’s room when MJ had stayed on the floor, as if he knew this was something that could be proven.

    Like

  275. Olga permalink
    January 19, 2011 12:22 am

    The report says DNA not semen and as you pointed out DNA comes from the parts you mentioned plus many more and we are talking about a bedroom that anyone could come in and it was tested only for MJ and Gavin. DNA only shows the person’s sex and nothing more (not age and race). Michael’s sons were there as well and dozen of people for that matter.

    The circumstances are highly suspicious with the maids, the timing and the police and we already know that Sneddon tried to falsify evidence twice in the trial. The sociopaths, who can only prove they are dump, take something they don’t understand and run with it like tabloid reporters, only to find themselves humiliated later. Wishful thinking will never end for them. That’s ok, dreams are free and it’s the only thing they have to feel better about themselves and their choices.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. February 28th – March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Summary of Sneddon and Mesereau’s Opening Statements « Vindicating Michael

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: