Skip to content

Dirty laundry in Michael’s home. IT WAS A SET-UP

January 21, 2011

As you know, a rabid hater has sent me a description of what was found in a laundry bag in Neverland during the November 18, 2003 police raid.  She thinks it to be proof of MJ being gay.

I shrugged off her arguments as fiction but was fool enough to believe that the police findings were the way they were described in the hater’s message. She gleefully wrote of semen stains from 2 people other than Michael found on the mattress,  semen-soiled sheets and semen-soiled underwear from Michael and some unknown male – all stored in the same laundry bag.

Knowing that Neverland was a place where hundreds of friends and relatives lived for weeks at a time and some even used Michael’s bed I wasn’t surprised by the ‘mattress’ – while the dirty laundry in the bag did surprise me, but only by the fact that it was kept in some closet and was stored instead of being washed.

At best it looked like terrible neglect on the part of the maids, and at worst it pointed to someone collecting dirty linen on purpose and storing it in a closet for the police to arrive and pick it up.

However my biggest surprise came when I finally made a thorough check-up of the documents. First, they showed that the hater’s enumeration of what was found by the police was far from truthful, but in addition to that the documents disclosed a carefully hidden police secret connected with a drug they found on the fabric of Michael’s underpants.

To tell you the secret and back up my conclusions I decided to type the documents and suggest that all of us see and check them up jointly.

*   *   *

Below is the list of 14 items which the Prosecution intended to submit to court and which the Defense wanted to be excluded. To rule out any suspicion regarding the rest of the items I decided to provide the list here in full, however you can skip the first twelve and proceed directly to items 13 and 14 which are the subject of our discussion here.

The dispute between Defense and Prosecution will be accompanied by some comment on my part.

1. The DEFENSE

January 18, 2005
Notice of Motion and Motion in Limine to Exclude Fourteen (14) items of irrelevant evidence (“Motion of Limine Group #1)

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf

”…. on January 28, 2005 … defendant  M.J.Jackson (Mr. Jackson) will move the Court for an order excluding any reference … to the following 14 irrelevant and extraneous evidence at trial:

1.   “Baby dangling”
2.   Cosmetic or plastic surgery
3.   Lyrics from Mr. Jackson’s songs
4.   Bankruptcy filed by M.Jackson’s family
5.   Al Malnik’s alleged ties to mobsters
6.   Brothel allegedly owned by Dieter Weisner
7.   Scott Peterson’s case
8.   Mark Geragos’s website
9.   Ray Chandler’s book entitled “All that Glitters”
10. Victor Gutierrez’s book entitled “Michael Jackson was my Lover”
11.  Attorney General’s Investigation of Mr. Jackson’s injury
12.  Items Seized by Henry Vaccaro
13.  DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson, and

14.  Underwear and Cocaine.

The preclusion of these items of evidence is based on the following two grounds,
First, they are irrelevant under Evidence Code Section 210 because they have no tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action.
Second, even if relevant, they nevertheless much be excluded under Evidence Code Section 352 because the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice, undue consumption of court time, and confusion of the jury. [ ]

Thomas Mesereau, Susan C.Yu, Robert M.Sanger, Brian Oxman
Attorneys for Mr. Michael Jackson

If the Prosecution decided to include all sort of tabloid trash in the Arvizo case – including the “baby dangling” incident – it seems that they were either regarding their case as completely hopeless or wanted to prejudice the jury not by facts but by all sorts of innuendos from the raging media.

Here are the shortened comments from the Defense on the quality of the above ‘evidence’ (the replies concerning items 13 and 14 are provided in full).

You will be surprised to learn that Ray Chandler was subpoenaed not only by the Defense but was included in the Prosecution witness list too, however judging by the fact that he never appeared in court the Prosecution attempt took them nowhere – Ray Chandler was frightened as hell by the need to tell his story in court and go under cross-examination there. Well, by now we know that none of the Chandlers believed their own stories…..

THE DEFENSE:

1. The so-called “baby dangling” incident has absolutely no relevance to any of the charged crimes.

2. Whether or not Mr. Jackson had such surgery is completely irrelevant to any of the charges crimes in this case. Indeed, this evidence has absolutely no probative value.

3. The lyrics have no bearing whatsoever on this case.

4. Within the last ten years, some of Mr. Jackson’s family members have filed for bankruptcy. Said bankruptcy, however, has not relevance to any of the alleged crimes in this case.

5. Al Malnik is an attorney with whom Mr. Jackson had brief contact. Mr. Malnik is not on the Prosecution’s or the Defense’s witness list.  The media have spread rumors that Mr. Malnik has ties to “mobsters”… It is anticipated that the Prosecution may mention these rumors for the purpose of inflaming the jurors.

6. The Prosecution’s discovery mentions “rumors” that Mr. Wiesner “ran brothels out of Germany”. The media, too, have picked up on and circulated such “rumors”. These rumors (whether true or not) have absolutely no tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact of consequence to the determination of the outcome of this case. Rather, they constitute nothing more than a highly inflammatory and extraneous factor, which Prosecution may attempt to use to influence the jurors to “prejudge” Mr. Jackson.

7. Attorney Mark Geragos was Mr. Jackson’s  attorney in the instant criminal case. Mr. Geragos is on the Prosecution”s and Defense’s witness list. The Prosecution has alleged in previously  filed pleadings before this Court that Mr. Geragos may be a co-conspirator in this case. ….In an effort to inflame the jurors, the Prosecution may attempt to mention the highly publicized Scott Peterson case, which Mr. Geragos handled.

8.Mr. Geragos’s website, too, has absolutely no relevance to this case.

9. Raymond Chandler is the uncle of Jordie Chandler, one of the alleged “prior acts victims” from 1993. Mr. Raymond Chandler, who is on the Prosecution’s witness list recently, i.e. just months ago, published a book entitled “All that Glitters”.

The timing of the publication of this book substantiates what the book is worth. Mr. Chandler’s book is, at best, a tabloid tool designed to fuel controversy and generate financial gains for Mr. Chandler  (so if the Prosecution wanted him testify, even they never succeeded to make him do it! Another proof that Ray Chandler preferred to tell his lies only in a fiction book and not in court)

10.   In approximately April 1998, a jury awarded Mr.Jackson $2,7 million in a slander suit against Victor Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez is believed to have fled to Chile after the verdict was reached against him. He is the author of a book called “Michael Jackson was my lover”. Mr. Gutierrez is not a witness for the Prosecution or the Defense in this case. However, the Prosecution may attempt to mention his book at trial, purely for the purpose of poisoning the jurors’ views. The book is wholly irrelevant (so while Ray Chandler was regarded by the Prosecution as a possible witness, even they were too embarrassed to summon Victor Gutierrez in that capacity?)

11.   Following his arrest in November 2003, Mr. Jackson injured his shoulder at the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. The investigation by the State Attorney General office ensured. The investigation has no bearing whatsoever on any of the charged crimes.

12.   Henry Vaccaro is supposedly a business who allegedly owns a storage facility in New Jersy. Mr. Vaccaro allegedly seized a storage cabinet containing items of personal soiled underwear and costumes allegedly belonging to Mr. Jackson. Absent speculation, conjecture and rumors, the Prosecution produced no reports, results, conclusions or any other discovery as to 1) who, if any, actually owns the underwear and costumes and 2) the relevance, if any, these personal property have on this case. The “seized” items allegedly in the possession of Mr. Vaccaro have absolutely no bearing on this case.

13.   DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson (full text)

There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo.
The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

These DNA reports have no relevance to any of the charged crimes, particularly the alleged molestation, in this case. There is no nexus between Mr. Jackson’s DNA and the alleged crimes. Thus any reference (direct or indirect and oral or written) to the DNA reports and the DNAs of other unknown males who are not the alleged victims in this case should be precluded as (1) irrelevant and (2) even if relevant, any probative value in may have is substantially outweighed by all of the risks enumerated in Section 352.

No “semen” is mentioned here – all the Defense says is that besides Michael’s two male DNAs were found on the mattress and none of them belonged to the Arvizo boys. However since it is the Defense speaking let us make a reservation that the neutral wording may be intentional.

It also doesn’t specify in what form came the DNA of the forth male found in the sheets. This is important as DNA can be taken from saliva, urine, tears, nose dripping, hair, etc.

14.   Underwear & Cocaine (full text)

Mr. Jackson’s underwear was found in a laundry bag, along with the bed sheets (discussed in section 13 above). This underwear had bloodstain and cocaine. A forensic lab for the Prosecution tested this underwear. No cocaine, however, was found in the blood.

Mr. Jackson has vitiligo. A medical injection he receives causes him to dispense blood. The underwear with the bloodstains reflects the fact.

It is unknown how and why the cocaine was found on the underwear. It may be evidence of contamination. In the alternative, someone may have brought cocaine during a fundraising party at Neverland in September 2003, where hundreds of people, including well-known celebrities, were present.

In short, neither the underwear nor the cocaine found on the underwear (and not in Mr. Jackson’s blood) has probative value to any of the charged crimes in this case.

Mentioning these items of irrelevant and extraneous factors will only inflame the jurors and prejudice Mr. Jackson’s rights to a fair trial. Thus, any reference (direct or indirect and oral or written) to the underwear or cocaine should be precluded under Sections 210 and 352”.

Cocaine !?

The test was made in a forensic lab of the Prosecution. If it was found only on the fabric but not in the blood the worst conclusion we can arrive at is that it was in MJ’s possession but he wasn’t taking it. He was never taking it as the traces of cocaine would remain in blood for a substantial period of time and once someone gets addicted to cocaine he has to take it regularly as it is awfully habit-forming.

Here is some scientific information about how cocaine is tested and found in the body: http://howto.dcrdetox.com/tips-to-find-how-long-cocaine-stays-in-your-system

Drug tests generally test for the presence of cocaine and also verify the presence of any metabolite of cocaine. Our human body produces benzoylecgonine as a result of cocaine intake and it’s a well known fact that benzoylecgonine gets retained in the human body for around a month after the intake. Understand that the drug testsverify the presence of benzoylecgonine in our system.

  • Cocaine is expected to be present in the body for 72 hours since its intake
  • Cocaine is expected to be detected in your urine for 1-3 days since its intake provided the intake is only once
  • Habituated use of cocaine results in traces of cocaine being detected in urine for up to 12 weeks.
  • Cocaine is said to be retained in your hair for a period of 3 months since its intake.
  • There are also reports available that suggest the presence of cocaine for a time frame of 25 years since its intake.

But if no cocaine was found in the blood, and it was located on the fabric only, it means that it was an alien element planted on Michael’s underwear by someone who was handling it, doesn’t it?

The lawyers for the Defense are delicate in expressing the same idea: “It might be evidence of contamination”, “It is unknown how and why the cocaine was found on the underwear”, the cocaine could have been brought there by “hundreds of people” who attended the fundraising party at Neverland in September 2003.

With full appreciation for the delicacy of the lawyers’ speech let me develop their ideas further:

  • I agree that the cocaine could have been brought to Neverland by some of the guests. But then they should have known where Michael’s underwear was kept and should have raked in it to put the cocaine stuff there.
  • However since the cocaine was found in the dirty laundry bag in some closet it is much more likely that it was only the house staff who could have had access to it.
  • The other alternative for the cocaine finding its way into the laundry bag was the police who searched the ranch in November 18, 2003 and could have also meddled with the contents of the bag.

Since nothing is clear yet, let us listen to what the Prosecution has to say on the subject. Their Opposition to the Defense’s Motion came on January 31, 2005. The Prosecution agreed to exclude eleven items out fourteen, but insisted on keeping the remaining three.

The two of them are already known to you but the third will surely take you by surprise. If you think it is either Ray Chandler’s or Victor Gutierrez’s book you are wrong.

Tom Sneddon found something much more valuable than that – the investigation of Michael’s complaint about injuries he received when being kept in the police department. So this is what the Prosecution considered more important than Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s revelations! Tom Sneddon’s readiness to discard both shows the real value  he attached to the “findings” of these authors!

2. THE PROSECUTION:

January 31, 2005

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion for an Order Excluding “Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence”, Memorandum of Points and Authorities

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

…Plaintiff’s tardily but respectfully-tendered Response (Exh.A) eliminates all but Items 11, 13 and 14 as evidentiary matter the People presently intend to present as part of their case in chief.

Item 11 (“Attorney General’s Investigation of Mr. Jackson’s injury”) is relevant as evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt and we presently intend to offer that evidence as part of Plaintiff’s case-in-chief.

Insofar as Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male other than Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys who figure in the pending prosecution, its relevance as evidence corroborating the complaining witness’s evidence that Defendant retained his soiled underwear rather than return it to him seems self-evident.

Item 14 is another pair of underwear containing traces of cocaine and evidence of Defendant’s own DNA, in a blood-spot also containing traces of Demerol. Plaintiff respectfully submits that the relevance of the evidence extracted from that undergarment, when considered together with the other evidence of Defendant’s apparent addiction to Demerol, is patently relevant.  The particular significance of Item 14 is that it tends to identify Defendant as the custodian of the label-less vial containing identifiable traces of Demerol, seized from the Arcade building. The traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves. And the jury should be allowed to ponder the fact that defendant evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male”.

Well, this seems to be a lot… Let’s do it one by one.

First please make a mental note again that Tom Sneddon did not insist on Ray Chandler’s and Victor Gutierrez’s books to be submitted as evidence in the case. The fact that he easily agreed to exclude them points to his total lack of confidence in both of these ‘knowledgeable’ sources.

Speaking of item 13 Tom Sneddon does not mention any sheets (so we still don’t know what was found there) or even the mattress, and speaks only of some male’s semen-stained underpants.

Tom Sneddon’s conclusion that the defendant “evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male” is utterly amazing – its absurdity surpasses anything I have ever heard before.  What this nonsense is supposed to mean I really don’t know – the theory that anyone would want to preserve the soiled underwear of his guests could originate only in a perverse mind and strongly suggests who the real freaks in this story are. A much more reasonable explanation would be that all dirty laundry was put into one bag to be later washed (but wasn’t for some reason).

While item 13 is simply laughable, item 14 in Sneddon’s presentation sounds really sinister. First he mentions the cocaine found on the underwear, then he speaks of Demerol in MJ’s blood.

A vial of Demerol is claimed to have been seized from the Arcade building – which does show that the cleaning staff in Neverland never did what was expected of them, especially when their master was away. Why would that empty vial lie in the Arcade for no one ever to pick it up?  Even if Michael did use Demerol as he admitted at a certain point in his life,  in October-November 2003 he was in Las Vegas working on his Number Ones album and a new video – so why didn’t anyone clean those things away for that long?

Therefore I fully agree with Tom Sneddon when he says about the traces of drugs found in the Arcade building, that “the traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves”. Certainly they didn’t – some people surely had something to do with it!

More details on all of the above are listed in the Prosecution’s Response to the Defense. It was filed on January 31, 2005 but is actually dated January 20, 2005. The time gap is explained by the fact one of the prosecutors forgot the paper on the desk and didn’t submit it to the judge in time.

3. THE PROSECUTION:

January 31, 2005 (originally written on January 20, 2005)

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s In Limine Motion for an Order Excluding “Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence”,

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

Item 11. Attorney General’s Investigation of Defendant’s “Injury”

Defendant’s false and well-publicized claims of injury, post-arrest, are relevant to the People’s case-in-chief. The detectives who participated in his arrest and booking are the investigators who will be giving evidence in this case. His ill-considered and unsupported public effort to accuse those officers of deliberate and malicious assaults against his person was plainly undertaken to throw doubt on their credibility. As part of his “They’re vindictively prosecuting an innocent man” public posture that defendant has consistently maintained, his “they injured me and threw me in a feces-spattered cell” is evidence of his own consciousness of guilt.

Oh, now I see why Tom Sneddon insisted on submitting to court the issue of the injuries Michael received at the police department – he wanted to defend their investigators and show them to be impeccable and unbiased….  However Tom Sneddon’s logic baffles me again – how can the injuries and Michael’s complaint about the police keeping him for 45 minutes in a feces-spattered toilet be “the evidence of his consciousness of guilt”? Am I misunderstanding something here?

What Tom Sneddon’s response clearly states though is that the same beasts who mistreated Michael in the police department were exactly the ones who were also giving evidence in the Arvizo case. This does show how terribly unbiased they were, doesn’t it? I wonder if they were also the ones who interviewed the boys…

Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant

Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People.

However the DNA in the underpants suggest that Jackson kept a pair of soiled underpants belonging to another male, just as he did with Gavin, thereby corroborating Gavin’s testimony. We do intend to introduce that pair of underpants and the DNA results.

The more they tell us of this dirty laundry the more confusing it gets. Only half a minute ago Tom Sneddon told us a blatant lie that the underpants could belong to one of the boys – and now he says that the sources are unidentified. He also adds that the DNA on the mattress “will not be referred by the People” for some reason.

No mention of the sheets is made again.

But the soiled underpants of some unknown male still remain Tom Sneddon’s fixed idea. The fact that they were found in the laundry bag is, in the opinion of Tom Sneddon, enough proof of Jackson’s habit of collecting other males’ soiled underwear. Besides the craziness of this theory I still miss the message of it – is he trying to portray Michael as a freak whose mind is distorted badly enough to turn someone else’s dirty underwear into a fetish? Or do I misunderstand something again? However let us move on:

Item 14. Underwear and Cocaine

One pair of underpants recovered from Jackson’s residence had a blood stain. The stain contained cocaine and Demerol. The DNA profile from that stain is in fact defendant’s. It is believed that Jackson has been a Demerol addict for many years and a significant amount of evidence supports that belief. That evidence includes a near-empty vial found on this property with the label torn off containing Demerol; a letter from a Fr. Farschian in Miami promising defendant help in curing him of his “D” addiction; a doctor who acknowledged having delivered him Demerol to this house and numerous witnesses who speak of his addiction. In addition defendant has publicly acknowledged in the past that he had become addicted to prescription medications, and that he required medical intervention for that addiction.

The Prosecution’s hypocrisy over this Demerol issue is simply astounding. Tom Sneddon speaks of Demerol as if it were big news. Michael never made it a secret that at a certain period of his life he did take Demerol and was doing his best to get rid of the habit. The first attempt was made in November 1993 – however the treatment had to be interrupted exactly due to Tom Sneddon who couldn’t wait another minute and demanded Michael’s immediate return to the US for a strip search (which didn’t contribute to his cure at all).

Dr. Klein openly spoke on TV about giving Michael Demerol and no one ever questioned the propriety of this doctor’s actions – while all the rage over Demerol was addressed only at Jackson. Michael consulted many doctors seeking effective treatment from Demerol which shows that he was eager to get rid of the addiction – however this fact is completely overlooked and is even considered part of his guilt, from the way Tom Sneddon presents it.

We don’t know exactly when, but Michael did manage to do the impossible and beat his addiction to Demerol as the autopsy of his body showed no trace of it or other drugs in his system (except that damned propofol which was taken solely for his incurable insomnia). Why Dr. Klein gave it to him during the cosmetic procedures is a question to Klein only as according to Klein’s own words Michael never asked for it.

The Prosecutors go on with their response:

“Defendant suggests the blood-spot on his underwear may have been the result of a “medical injection” he receives for “vitiligo”. We are reliably informed there is no injectible medication for vitiligo. And that explanation doesn’t account for the Demerol in the blood.”

It seems that I am much better informed than the Santa Barbara D.A. and his advisers about a possibility of injections for vitiligo – because my very first search in the internet brought me an article about some medicine generally used for vitiligo patients injected by some women for cosmetic purposes. So whatever the “reliable” sources say vitiligo treament can come in the form of injections: http://www.emirates247.com/news/women-using-vitiligo-injection-for-fairness-2011-01-12-1.341191

“We will also seek to introduce evidence of the presence of cocaine in his underpants. Cocaine was found on two locations on that garment; in the fabric sample contain(ing) the blood stain and on another sample of the fabric taken and examined as a reference sample. The most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”.

“How stoned was he when he crawled into bed with those two boys behind multiple locked doors?” may be a very relevant question. Should defendant testify, his chronic use of Schedule III drugs will be relevant on the issue of how well he recalls events and his state of awareness during those events”.

So this cocaine business comes up again. According to Tom Sneddon it was found on the fabric of the underpants and “in the fabric sample containing the blood stain”. The way it is worded it is unclear where the cocaine was found – on the fabric or in the blood which was on the fabric?

If the cocaine was on the fabric only it would be nothing much, but if it was in the blood stain on that fabric it could point to the one who wore that underwear really taking that drug. I wonder if Tom Sneddon is intentionally vague in what he is saying? I hope the Defense side will help to clear it up…

In the meantime Tom Sneddon is using his official “Plaintiff’s response” for making dramatic statements where not a single word is true or proven yet. Catchy phrases are presented as facts and include: “how stoned was he?”, “he crawled into bed with two boys” (Gavin never even said that he had been to one bed with Jackson!), “behind multiple locked doors”. which is again wrong as according to Kit Culkin, Macauley’s father, there was only one door to Michael’s bedroom with a lock the code of which was known to all the staff as well as the Arvizo boys.

The last piece in this dirty saga is the Reply made by the DEFENSE.  This Reply evidently put a stop to this underwear business as none of those 14 items were allowed for submission to court. You may be sure that the reasons provided by the Defense were top valid so I’ll shorten the text to save your time and focus on the main points.

4. THE DEFENSE

February 8, 2005

Opposition to Motion for an Order Excluding Fourteen Items of Irrelevant Evidence.

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020805repomoefievid.pdf

Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than The Defendant

The District Attorney’s search of Mr. Jackson’s person on December 3, 2004 failed to return any relevant evidence. The prosecution’s theory that the presence of DNA, belonging to a male other than Mr. Jackson, on underwear confirms that Mr. Jackson keeps underwear, and therefore corroborates the alleged victim’s claim that Mr. Jackson kept his underwear, is absurd.

The only thing the underwear confirms is that dirty clothes, perhaps belonging to a guest or other family member were found in a storage area in a large bag with other items of laundry.

So Tom Sneddon did make a personal search of Jackson? As far as I know they took a sample of the DNA from his mouth, however comparing it with their “evidence” naturally brought them a zero result.

As to the theory of Michael collecting someone else’s soiled underwear I am happy that Michael’s lawyers gave up their diplomatic language at last and called it absurd – and this is the first sane opinion I hear about this really dirty business.

Now let me have your attention please.

The next paragraph gives us exclusive information from the Defense about where and when the bag with dirty laundry was found:

“This bag of dirty laundry was found [in Nov.2003] at least eight months after the relevant time period [Feb-March 2003]. There is absolutely no foundation to establish that his laundry was accumulated during February or March of 2003. There is no foundation to establish that it was not accumulated, for instance, in September, October or November 2003, or, on the other hand, that it was not accumulated and thrown into the storage room in 2001 or 2002. The bag of laundry was seized in a storage area, located on the second floor of the arcade building with numerous boxes of books and other miscellaneous items”.

It is interesting that even Michael’s Defense is hinting at the fact that the laundry could be collected while Michael was away – their inclusion of October and November 2003 dates into their statement testifies to the effect…

Another surprising fact they reveal is that the bag was found in a place where it never belonged – “among books and other miscellaneous items”. Doesn’t this revelation make us wonder about how the cleaning and laundry process was organized in Neverland?

“First, none of the forensic testing by the government established that any of the laundry in the bag had anything to do with the complaining witnesses in this case. The prosecution’s forensic testing failed to result in any evidence that Mr. Jackson molested the complaining witness”.

This is a confirmation from the defense that the pair of underpants never belonged to the Arvizos and why someone’s underpants left to be washed with the other laundry should be talked so much by Tom Sneddon is beyond my understanding.

“Now, when faced with a total lack of relevant DNA evidence, the prosecution is seeking to introduce inflammatory and irrelevant DNA evidence to prejudice the jury against Mr. Jackson and undermine his right to a fair trial.

Second, there is nothing nefarious or illegal about having underwear belonging to another person in a storage area. The prosecution has not laid any foundation as to how the clothing was accumulated. Given the fact that Michael Jackson had many guests, including family members, at his large ranch, deprives this salacious innuendo from any evidentiary value, whatsoever. This “evidence” should be excluded.”

Let us make a mental note that “the prosecution has not laid any foundation as to how the clothing was accumulated”. This is very important because if the prosecution was unable to explain it at that time it would be totally incorrect to do it for the prosecution now (though our hater is trying to offer her version of the events).

However the main thing is yet to come.

Item 14.Underwear and Cocaine.

This is a child molestation and conspiracy case*. [*The prosecution apparently plans to argue the contradictory theories that Mr. Jackson is a drug addict, who is unable to control his behavior due to drug use, while at the same time, is a criminal mastermind who was micro-managing a conspiracy to falsely imprison, extort and abduct the Doe family].

The evidence seized by the prosecution is irrelevant to either of those charges. However, the prosecution is seeking to introduce evidence of drug use for the purpose of prejudicing the jury against Mr. Jackson. The blood evidence seized in November of 2003, eight months after the alleged events in question, is irrelevant. Whether or not Mr. Jackson was using prescribed Demerol at any point in his life has nothing to do with the allegations in February or March of 2003.

….The prosecution’s forensic evidence does not support the argument they wish to present to the jury. The prosecution claims that “the most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”. This explanation, however, is scientifically impossible.

The evidence, according to the prosecution’s forensic reports, is that actual cocaine was found on the fabric of the underwear and on the blood on the underwear, not that evidence of cocaine use (i.e. metabolites) were found on Mr. Jackson’s blood. This evidence does not demonstrate the use of cocaine by Mr. Jackson and is irrelevant even under the prosecution’s absurd theory.

It should be noted that the prosecution does not support their theory with a declaration or any legitimate scientific information. In fact, it would be impossible to lay the foundation that they boldly assert. We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

Now, guys, the fact that no metabolites of cocaine were found in Michael’s blood is TOP IMPORTANT.

The Defense said that the conclusion Prosecution made as regards cocaine in the blood was scientifically incorrect. They even used a different word and said that it was scientifically IMPOSSIBLE:

  • “The prosecution’s forensic evidence does not support the argument they wish to present to the jury. The prosecution claims that “the most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”. This explanation, however, is scientifically impossible.

They also noted that the Prosecution did not provide any LEGITIMATE scientific information:

  • “the prosecution does not support their theory with a declaration or any legitimate scientific information. In fact, it would be impossible to lay the foundation that they boldly assert. We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

In other words the Prosecution referred to the cocaine found ON the blood stain in the same way as if it were IN the blood, and this isn’t a LEGITIMATE scientific explanation.

Why isn’t it a legitimate scientific explanation?

Because only laymen would assume that a substance found on some surface is the same as the substance which makes part of that surface. The difference is the same as between oil spilled on the table and oil used for producing the material the table is made of.

The same thing here – the cocaine on the blood stain is not the same as the cocaine in the blood because it is found there in a totally different form – that of metabolites.

This is what the Defense meant when they said:

  • “The evidence, according to the prosecution’s forensic reports, is that actual cocaine was found on the fabric of the underwear and on the blood on the underwear, not that evidence of cocaine use (i.e. metabolites) were found on Mr. Jackson’s blood”.

The scientific method for forensic testing of cocaine in blood is looking for benzoylecgonine which is the marker for cocaine. This is what the site mentioned earlier says about it:

“Our human body produces benzoylecgonine as a result of cocaine intake and it’s a well known fact that benzoylecgonine gets retained in the human body for around a month after the intake. Understand that the drug tests verify the presence of benzoylecgonine in our system.

The above means that blood does not show cocaine as such – after it enters a human body it undergoes a chemical reaction splitting into some elements which serve as markers indicating that the cocaine was there before changing its form.

In other words after being absorbed into blood cocaine is metabolized and all the forensic experts can find in their tests is traces of cocaine in the form of its metabolites. And it is these metabolites that were never found in the blood stain on Michael’s underwear.

Instead the cocaine found on that blood stain was evidently in its pure form as the Defense speaks of lack of metabolites.

But if pure cocaine was found on the surface of the blood spot then it means…  it means that the cocaine was placed on top of that stain! Otherwise there would be no explanation how the cocaine found its way exactly onto the small stain of blood coming from some old injection.

Oh, I see your point – you think that someone took powder cocaine, mixed it with some solution (if it is possible at all?) and injected it thus leaving a little bit of powder cocaine on the surface? And this is how that blood spot came about? But this would be wrong again, because then the blood sample from that stain would show the cocaine in the blood – but it didn’t.

The Defense said it definitely – the forensic report didn’t prove the theory about the cocaine in the blood:

  • We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

If the police were really looking for cocaine in Michael’s body they surely made his blood tests to find traces of cocaine in the form of metabolites – however the test did not prove it. Therefore they mentioned cocaine somewhat in passing,  in connection with one blood stain on his underwear and never raised the subject again.

This alone shows that there was simply nothing to talk about. The cocaine was a totally alien matter which they once played with and dropped it when they found that this argument didn’t work (for comparison see how big a story Tom Sneddon is making about Demerol which was really found in Michael’s blood).

However if Tom Sneddon prefers to drop the subject altogether I prefer to continue with it.

How big can a blood stain resulting from a medical injection can be? Several millimeters at the most. So what are the chances that the cocaine would stick to that small spot of blood on its own? How many of you said practically none?

But if we agree on that point doesn’t it mean that someone put that piece of cocaine on the small stain of blood on purpose? Over here I totally agree with Tom Sneddon who said: “The traces of cocaine on that garment didn’t get there by themselves”.

The only way the cocaine could get there was either with the help of the maids or other house staff who accumulated, put all that dirty laundry in a bag and left it among books in wait for the police. Or the police who searched for that laundry and meddled with it when they found it…

My earlier conclusion was that it was strange for a well-run home full of maids to store dirty laundry and hide it in some closet.  But now it has been supplemented by another strange fact that some cocaine also accidentally worked its way into exactly the same laundry. Frankly, this looks to me too much of a coincidence. If you come to think of it even the lawyers used words like “impossible”, “non-scientific” and “not legitimate” all of which points to something really illegitimate taking place there…

It seems that though the lawyers are not saying it directly the essence of their words is that the cocaine and whole laundry business was A SET-UP.

It is no wonder that their final Reply in this dirty saga was uncharacteristically emotional for the usually neutral legal language.  Their note, found on page 2 of the Reply to Prosecutors’ Opposition, doesn’t refer directly to cocaine or dirty laundry but is a general reflection of how the Defense sees their overall situation with the Prosecution – and what we see here is nothing less than furyand rageat Tom Sneddon and his dirty tricks.

In fact the Defense’s anger had an effect even on their grammar. I understand their statement as follows:

  • … The prosecution wants the Court, and anyone else who will listen, to believe that. [The position of] Mr. Jackson’s defense is that the District Attorney knows for a fact that he is innocent, yet is still prosecuting him for vindictive reasons. This is a straw man argument.
  • In reality, Mr. Sneddon and his deputies are myopic in their zeal to convict Mr. Jackson. Whatever the cause of this, ordinary prosecutorial review of evidence and prosecutorial discretion is absent from this case”.

*  *  *

The conclusion about the cocaine and the whole dirty laundry business being a set-up is so mind-boggling that I completely forgot to tell you about “the soiled sheets”.

Actually there is nothing to tell. You’ve seen the documents yourselves and none of them refer to any semen-soiled sheets. There is not a single document which mentions semen on Michael’s underwear either.

All we have is 2 semen stains from some males on the mattress (which for some reason the Prosecution did not even want to to take to court, so probably they were not even semen) and someone’s semen-soiled underpants put into the laundry bag with the intention to frame Michael up – same as the cocaine which was rubbed into the fabric with his blood.

If the above is supposed to prove to someone that Michael was gay, their madness is incurable.

However I am happy that the rabid hater’s insistence on the gay issue helped us to uncover Tom Sneddon’s devilish plan to set up Michael Jackson by means of the cocaine placed in his underwear.

It also didn’t hurt to make sure that someone in Neverland was working against Michael, was ready to set him up and was doing it in full collaboration with the police.



118 Comments leave one →
  1. Nina permalink
    June 5, 2015 11:42 am

    I havent read any of the other comments here but Im doing another round of research right now and found it odd that noone cared about the cocaine anymore. Posession of cocaine is illegal in Claifornia. So Sneddon could have indicted Michael for that too. But he didnt. To me that means the cocaine was a set-up. He could have never proven his point.

    Like

  2. May 27, 2015 2:18 pm

    “You know about the gay material they found in his bedroom, right? Including Man: A Sexual Study of Man by Larry Stevens” – Charlie

    And you know that by the time his home was raided by police Michael Jackson had been in Las Vegas with his children for some three weeks working on “One more chance”? And that while he was away he had guests living in his house who had access to all the premises? Who can guarantee that whatever there was in his bedroom, bathroom, etc. really belonged to him? I remember reading that police found a bottle of wine with some glasses in his bedroom – did that also belong to Michael who was living in Las Vegas at that time? Or are we expected to believe that the maids didn’t clean his room for three weeks or so?

    “The hetero porn had a grand total of 9 Mike fingerprints on them, and 697 fingerprints belonging to other people, he owned it but he barely glanced at it.”

    Oh, this is very interesting indeed. Could I have a link to the source please? Only not “mjfacts”, please, but the original source where the above is stated?

    Like

  3. Charlie permalink
    May 24, 2015 5:59 pm

    …he didn’t buy gay magazines.

    You know about the gay material they found in his bedroom, right? Including Man: A Sexual Study of Man by Larry Stevens (author of the boysex book Boys Together http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413dgTkKrBL._SL500_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg) which featured photos, drawings and descriptions of how to do gay anal sex, fellatio, rimming and fingering. I’ve never met a straight guy who would want to look at that, let alone keep it in his bedroom loool. Why would Mike need to know what technique to use for anal sex with a guy? Oh, wait…

    There were many other gay and homoerotic books found in his bedroom (not in his library of tens of thousands of books – excuse me while I stifle my laughter here) for his enjoyment and for visitors to his bedroom to find. There’s no need to lie, Mike loved that stuff. The hetero porn had a grand total of 9 Mike fingerprints on them, and 697 fingerprints belonging to other people, he owned it but he barely glanced at it. He wasn’t interested in straight porn looool.

    Like

  4. vulcan permalink
    May 23, 2015 9:07 am

    @Carlos

    Or think about him dating girls at early adolescent. Gays usually know they are gays at age 12-13.
    MJ on the other hand showed absolutely no attraction to boys only girls.
    Like Joenelle Romero whom he asked to go steady in the 6th grade or Marsha Brady.

    Then consider all these people who knew him and saw how he reacted to women:

    Dr. Susan Etok

    SR: I want to ask you this question about Michael’s sexuality. There is this book that is probably making a lot of money in sales saying that Michael is gay.

    SE: Michael was not gay. He was just somebody who was brought up well, to respect women, and he was not a womanizer, he was a respectful man, a respectful person. He loved women and he respected them.

    SR: But you know, someone asks how do you know Michael was not gay? I mean has he propositioned you?

    SE: The reason that I know that he’s not gay is because when you’re around him you see the way he interacts with women. He will flirt, if he sees a beautiful woman he’ll get shy. He reacts like a normal heterosexual man to women. Now I know a lot of gay men. Gay men don’t respond to women. Michael will. If there’s a beautiful woman who walk into the room Michael will look.

    http://saharareporters.com/2009/09/25/susan-etok-speaks-saharareporters-me-and-michael-jackson

    Arnold Klein

    I was in the Four Season hotel in London and they had sex all night
    I heard it. I swear to God on my mother’s grave.
    Michael was totally straight and I never said he was gay.
    Jason Pfeiffer said he was gay.

    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/jordan-king/2015/02/09/king-jordan-radio-welcomes-michael-jacksons-former-doctor-arnold-klien-kjr

    Anthony Simmons, Night Security Guard 1988-9,

    “I can definitively say I was with Michael Jackson from ‘88 to ‘89. I was there primarily at night. I was the chief. And I never saw him do anything inappropriate, questionable, what have you,” says Simmons.

    He says Jackson could not have crossed the line. “Michael has had girlfriends and that’s all I can say about that,” says Simmons.

    Ryan Folsey, 1983

    Jackson revealed how discombobulated he had been by Ola Ray’s sexual allure after a dance rehearsal with her. “He started getting all nervous and stuff,” says Ryan. “He said, ‘She’s adorable, she’s adorable. She’s so hot!’” It was just so funny seeing him that way.”

    Dr Hoefflin, 1984

    “We would also spend time together over the years going through books and magazines. Michael would always look at magazines of pretty girls, never boys. Dr Hoefflin, 63, said: “Michael loved beautiful women. After Thriller came out he asked me to take him to the Playboy mansion to see the stunning girls. I was friends with Hugh Heffner, made those arrangements and was with him when he described how beautiful and desirable all the women were.
    All the time I was ever with him – whether it was on tour or off tour – he would always comment to me and others about pretty girls he would see.”

    Randy Taborelli

    Diana Ross, while filming The Wiz, was asked to Michael Jackson’s apartment in New York and stayed the night.
    One of Diana’s assistants said he had been trying to get hold of both of them all morning as they were late for filming. He said that he eventually got hold of them on the phone and was surprised to find they were in his apartment and that she had apparently spent the night there.
    When this assistant asked Michael if anything had happened between them, Michael said, “you’d have to ask her that,” and when he asked Diana, she told him he needed to ask Michael.
    Later on during the shoot Diana was apparently overheard talking to some girlfriends of hers and said to one of them, “well, I’ll tell you one thing, Michael definitely isn’t gay.”

    Michael’s Armenian Driver Gokor July 2010

    He said that when they were in London and a hot woman would pass by them Michael would use some Armenian words to talk about the woman with Gokor so that if his children were near him they couldn’t understand what they were talking about. He would say “lavna che Gokor,” which in English means “isn’t she hot Gokor” or he would call those hot women “pretty fish.” They spoke about the fact that Michael had a woman he loved very much and had been near him for many years. It wasn’t a secret but her identity was kept a secret.

    Schmuley Tapes, 2000/1

    SB: If a woman walks round with all her cleavage showing…
    MJ:Frank loves it.
    (Michael gestured to Frank Cascio, who was sitting right next to us. We all laughed.)
    MJ: Of course you want to look.

    Aaron Carter, 2003

    However, Carter insisted that he thought Jackson liked women.
    “He’ll see a girl and comment on her,” Carter said, “or want to touch her [bottom]. He likes girls.”

    Tim Whitehead 80s,

    He’s not gay; I really feel certain of that.” said his first cousin Tim Whitehead, who has toured with Michael as a roadie, ” Many times a good-looking girl would walk by and Mike would whisper, ‘ Hey, what do you think of her? She’s somethin else, isn’t she?”

    Pete Bennett, Promoter, 1974/5

    He had an eye for pretty girls. Often when I would be in his company, Michael would point a girl out and admire her looks or figure.”

    Michael Lovesmith, former fellow Motown recording artist, 70s

    Don’t believe the nonsense about Michael being gay and stuff. When there were girls around he’d talk about them to the guys and run around pinching their asses and then run away. He was a real funky street dude, know what I mean?”

    From Frank Cascio’s book My friend Michael:

    Sometimes Michael invited members of his fan clubs to Neverland, and he occasionally formed a special relationship with one of the women. One time I was driving Michael into town. Someone was next to me in the passenger seat of the Bentley, and Michael was in the backseat, kissing one of his fans.

    “Easy back there,” I said. “Relax, calm down.”

    “Just keep driving,” Michael said in a joking way. “Don’t worry about it, just keep driving.”

    Michael’s dalliances with fans were infrequent and discreet, but they were hardly unheard of. He tended to like tall, slender women whom I’d describe as nerdy in a sexy way. Once, in London [March 2001?], I was in his suite when he brought a friend he’d known for years into his bedroom. They were in there for about an hour, and when he emerged, his pants were unbuttoned. I smirked at him.

    “Shut up, Frank,” he said, smiling sheepishly. The woman, equally sheepish, said goodbye and left.

    Around this time, Michael had another friend – I’ll call her Emily – who visited the ranch regularly. She was a nice, cute girl, slender, with brown hair, in her early to midthirties. Emily didn’t want or need anything from Michael. They just liked spending time together – talking, walking around, hanging out in his bedroom. It was a romantic relationship, but as far as I know, he didn’t tell anyone about Emily but me. Michael kept her a secret – she didn’t stay in his room because he didn’t want her to be seen coming out in the morning – and even I didn’t see real evidence of the romance. That’s how I knew he was telling the truth. He wouldn’t have been so secretive if he hadn’t had something to hide. That was the longest relationship I saw Michael have: Emily was at the ranch frequently over the course of about a year.

    How much more evidence do you need?
    MJ had an eye for the ladies.
    However he was not much interested in sex probably because of his skin condition.
    This kind of behavior is not uncommon for vitiligo patients whose entire body is affected.
    He was also a Jehova Witness who have very strict rules regarding sex.
    Basically no sex is allowed outside of marriage, period.
    This clearly influenced his decision in the 80s before he disfellowshipped himself.
    And in the 90s his skin condition already affected him from head to toe.

    His kids are not adopted, never were adopted.
    He is listed as the father on all three birth certificates.
    Prince has vitiligo and Blanket looks just like little MJ so they are his kids, like it or not.

    Like

  5. vulcan permalink
    May 23, 2015 9:06 am

    @Carlos

    The DNA on the bed proves nothing. There were many males living in Neverland even while MJ wasn’t even there,
    his cousins, nephews, Omar and his friends and who knows who else. Female DNA if found would not be included in
    Sneddon’s motions for obvious reasons. You can be sure that there was female DNA on MJ’s bed since Paris regurlarly spent time in his room.

    Fact are facts that there is not a shred of evidence of MJ ever having any sexual relationship with any men.
    Noone ever saw him being intimate with any man, noone saw him in a gay bar.
    He didn’t visit gay websites, he didn’t buy gay magazines.
    Whenever he was asked about it he emphatically denied being gay.

    His mannerism was not gay at all! Watch the way he is sitting in the 1987 Ebony interview for example.
    That’s a straight guy sitting right there.
    Most of all look at how his body moved. Nothing gay about it at all. His dancing had the same strong punches
    like Baryshnikov.

    Now look at the evidence police found in his bedroom.
    Stuff he actually bought on a regular basis.
    Only hetero adult magazines, hetero DVDS and lesbian porn!
    Look at his hard drives. Only hetero adult pictures and pictures of naked women.
    They also found a naked photo of M. Monroe and a nude photo of Bo Derek.
    Why would a gay man look up hundreds of tits and vaginas on the net, why would he
    regularly buy pictures of naked women and only women?

    Take this report for example:
    “He also bought a bunch of old nude stuff-clipped out pictures from nudist magazines and old shots of posed nude women.”
    http://chuckprophet.com/blog/michael_jackson_visits_recycled_records_-_by_andrew_rush/

    Why would a gay guy check out hot girls like this:

    According to Karen Faye and Frank Cascio he did this “fishing” all the time.
    Karen Faye talking about it:

    women who knew him talk about him being a flirt:

    Aaron Carter talks about him picking up girls:

    his bodyguards talk about him making out with women in the backseat:

    Shana Mangatal one of his girlfriends talk about him:

    another bodyguard talks about his girlfriend in London:

    this is showing him flirting with a young blonde and asking for her phone number:

    this is an interview with the same blonde:

    Like

  6. nannorris permalink
    April 29, 2012 10:42 pm

    stacey2..
    I had heard that also but i dont think it is true,
    I think Francia, was married to a woman named Clarissa and is now currently divorced with one son..
    That is the conclusion I have come to poking around but I hate to put out info on these people because they really had nothing to do with the mj case..Just Mr Francia…..jmo..:))

    Like

  7. stacy2 permalink
    April 29, 2012 8:40 pm

    I don’t know if this is true or not, but I read somewhere that Jason Francia was married to Tom Sneddon’s daughter.

    Like

  8. April 29, 2012 12:11 pm

    “Todd Bridges and Corey Feldman want to pass a bill regarding child predators in the entertainment industry… http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/04/todd-bridges-corey-feldman-bill-protect-child-actors-sexual-predators

    Oh My God, Nannoris, what news! What great news it is that this process has at least started! I give these brave men all my heart in support for what they are doing! Let us keep our fingers crossed and help them with the most we can!

    Like

  9. Suzy permalink
    April 29, 2012 10:31 am

    @ Nan

    That’s great.

    But the media are disgusting with how they try to link Michael’s name to whenever child molestation is mentioned. I’m sure that gospel singer worked with many artists, not just Michael. (If he worked with Michael at all, since the article only says he CLAIMED that he worked with Michael.) The article even puts Michael’s name in bold and pink as if to emphasize it. Of course they won’t mention that Bridges has always talked about Michael with the utmost respect.

    Like

  10. nannorris permalink
    April 29, 2012 7:11 am

    Not quite sure if anyone would be interested in this because it is from Radaronline but it says Todd Bridges and Corey Feldman want to pass a bill regarding child predators in the entertainment industry..
    The author of the article finds a clever way to include MJ name as Mr Bridges says a man who claimed he was a gospel singer who had worked for Michael Jackson FAMILY,at one time, is the person that abused him.
    Doesnt say he worked for MJ or was associated with MJ..just his family..
    I am sure they have worked with tons of singers….
    .
    Feldman is talking about the man who abused him since he was 14 to 16..
    They both say these events led them to drug issues…

    I think it would be great if these two started talking about this dirty little secret..

    I also wonder if Feldman will mention that he already told police about this man , years ago but it wasnt the big fish that they were after,… so nobody cared..

    I hope Tom Sneddon or Ron Zonen happened upon this article ..
    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/04/todd-bridges-corey-feldman-bill-protect-child-actors-sexual-predators

    Like

  11. April 26, 2012 10:07 pm

    “Helena there still seems to be some confusion about the sources of the DNA. Item 510 were those two bags of miscellaneous clothing and bloodied bed linens that were found in the storage closet in the video arcade.’

    I think there is no confusion at all. The mattress was taken from Michael’s bedroom and was almost shred into pieces and those bags containing some odd socks and other trash were found on top of the Arcade building. One thing is absolutely not connected with the other and all this so-called “evidence” only shows how difficult a time Sneddon had with finding at least something in Michael’s home which he could tie one way or the other to this crazy Arvizo case.

    As to the documents you have sent them to me before and I included them in this very post (where we are writing now) and even retyped some of them. My earlier quotations come exactly from these documents. And I fully agree with what you have said. My post is also explaining the succession of motions from both parties and how the case developed, as it is based on the same documents.

    “They did it in response to an In Camera hearing in which Sneddon and his team Auchincloss and Zonen were threatening to say things in their opening statement where Sneddon would “tell the jury everything he knows about Michael Jackson”. This meeting was so bad that it was rumored around the courthouse that Auchincloss and Bob Sanger almost came to blows in the hallway of the courthouse. That was a rumor I don’t know if it was true.”

    It is very interesting! And it might even be true because in the final reply the Defense lawyers gave up all diplomatic language and were very direct in their opinion of Sneddon’s “team” and its dirty tricks:

    the District Attorney knows for a fact that he is innocent, yet is still prosecuting him for vindictive reasons. This is a straw man argument. In reality, Mr. Sneddon and his deputies are myopic in their zeal to convict Mr. Jackson. Whatever the cause of this, ordinary prosecutorial review of evidence and prosecutorial discretion is absent from this case”.

    The above made my thoughts run in a different direction. In comparison with the deadly fight between Thomas Mesereau’s team and the Prosecutors, the “nice” relationship between Larry Feldman and Johnny Cochran in the 1993 case looks absolutely revolting. After the settlement Johnny Cochran retained Feldman to take care of his civil suits and Feldman represented him forever after. Feldman even said they were friends.

    If Tom Mesereau and Sneddon had been civil lawyers and had been involved in the 1993 case is it possible to imagine that Tom Mesereau would have ever hired Sneddon to represent him in his personal business? This is all the proof we need to show how Johnny Cochran and that despicable Carl Douglas represented Michael’s interests! They didn’t give a damn!

    Like

  12. April 26, 2012 9:14 pm

    “I am very sorry, Helena. I didn’t mean to do that. I am a supporter for this site and Michael. I guess I’m just not a good one.”

    Rodrigo, you absolutely do not have to apologize for anything! If I was wrong about your intentions it is me who should apologize!

    Your words formed a certain impression, so at least now you know that your use for Michael of the words incompatible with his good name produces the impression of a shrewd – what was the word? – “concern troll”, or the one who declares that he is a supporter and under this cover calls Michael names and says ugly things about him.

    If this was not your intention I do apologize to you. In fact it has become a pattern of behavior between us – you say, I react, you apologize, I apologize, etc. Hopefully both of us will learn something from this experience.

    Like

  13. lynande51 permalink
    April 26, 2012 7:50 pm

    The documents state that besides Michael’s DNA there were only two more male DNA found there and one more was found on the bed sheets which came from a totally different building on the premises, an Arcade, where they found a bag with some dirty laundry stored in a closet.

    Is it much to speak about? Considering the number of guests who stayed there on a constant basis?
    Here is the respective excerpts from the documents discussing those stains (item 13 in the debated list of evidence to be submitted to court):

    The Defense: 13. DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson
    There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo.
    The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

    The Prosecution: Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant
    Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People

    Helena there still seems to be some confusion about the sources of the DNA. Item 510 were those two bags of miscellaneous clothing and bloodied bed linens that were found in the storage closet in the video arcade.
    What caused this to be taken out of context is why the defense team filed the motion that the prosectuion could not refer to the 14 items of irrelevent evidence in the first place.
    They did it in response to an In Camera hearing in which Sneddon and his team Auchincloss and Zonen were threatening to say things in their opening statement where Sneddon would “tell the jury everything he knows about Michael Jackson”. This meeting was so bad that it was rumored around the courthouse that Auchincloss and Bob Sanger almost came to blows in the hallway of the courthouse. That was a rumor I don’t know if it was true.
    So they filed several different pleadings in the case and this was one of them.Group one of the motions in limine. If you go through the list you can see just what it was that Sneddon thought might be relevent to their case. None of it is but it was certainly gone through with a fine tooth comb in the media.
    The the first motion came from the defense. The second one came from the Prosection in their reply. Then there is a reply to the prosecutions opposition. That is after the defense finally got forensic reports from the prosection. Until then they were relying on what was said in an argument.
    There were never any bedsheets or anything else from the bed. The bedsheets were found in those two bags, one in one bag and one in the other. They did not contain semen, they contained what the seizing officer thought were blood stains but they had been laundered. They were not what was found in Michael’s room. The prosecution did not even introduce anything from the bed and they even said they wouldn’t. They wanted to use a pair of underwear found in one of those bags that had a semen stain on it of someone elses to say that Michael kept other mens underwear llikeGavin had claimed. It was not Gavin’s underwear and I don’t know if anyone noticed or not, it was in the bag with Michael’s underwear. There were two pairs that were not his. Both bags appear to have come from a packing trip from Florida and New York or just New York if you go by the names of the Hotels on the bags.
    The Prosecution stated more than once that they would not be using anything from the bed. The only reason that they would not refer to the bed would be because it was exculpatory meaning it pointed to Michael’s innocence and not to his guilt. There are three documents in total, the defense original motion to the court, the Prosecutions oopposition and the defnses reply. I will add the links to all of them so everyone can see for themselves what the DNA was really from.
    There were two groups of the motions in limine that the Defense filed. One group pertained to this and then the responses came about a month later after the defense was given the forensic reports so they had something to go by when they were atuhore. I think the Motion In Limine TO Exclude 14 Item of Irrelevent Evidece was originally authored by Bob Sanger. The Reply to the Opposition was authored by Susan Yu after the forensic reports. When the original was authored by Bob Sanger all he had to go one was the Prosecutions version of what they were saying was evidence. You can see in their Opposition that they did not exactly refer to their evidence correctly. By the way a lawyer rarely gets in trouble for what they say in a brief or to the court because each side is going to say the opposite of the other. It would have to be a big lie but then Sneddon told some in this case just wait until I am able to show people.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/ctdocs.php
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020805repomoefievid.pdf

    Like

  14. nannorris permalink
    April 26, 2012 6:58 pm

    This stuff about people saying MJ was a great entertainer , but somehow a criminal just doesnt fly..
    I used to watch Woody Allen but since he made that statement regarding his illicit affair with Mia Farrows daughter with the remark” the heart wants, what the heart wants”..
    I cant and wont watch any Woody Allen stuff because it disturbs me..

    The same would go for MJ if I thought it was true..

    The real issue has nothing to do MJ singing and dancing.., it is the fact that he is admired for the kind of man he was ….
    people look up to him ..
    He used his talents for the betterment of the world , to give a voice to people who had none , and to be a great champion for children, because he was one..
    That is what is at the heart of the matter..
    He was one of the worlds greatest humanitarians..
    That was what he felt was his purpose in life and that is why some people dont want to hand him the respect he deserved for it ..They want to sully it because he had too many gifts..
    If someone is jealous of you , and they know you need love, they will never give it to you ..
    If they know you crave respect , they wont give it to you..
    If they know you feel you have a mission or purpose in life, and they dont..their mission becomes trying to prevent you from achieving yours..
    They used that garbage because people are universally repulsed by it , and people are hesitant to defend you because it is such a terrible thing to be accused of.
    But that is changing now and once the flood gates have opened we see even people like Justin Bieber admiring MJ.
    Do you think his people would let him do that , if they thought it would hurt him..It helps Bieber to be seen admiring MJ because so many do…..
    that is a whole new generation growing up respecting MJ…

    Mother Teresa is remembered, as a humanitarian, for her contributions to the poor.
    MJ used his talent as an opportunity to teach people about caring for the planet and each other..
    And because of this great talent , he reached millions and millions of people..
    To me it is like someone saying Mother Teresa had a foot fetish, because she washed the feet of the poor..LOL.
    And more and more people are seeing this , and are getting angry that they were deceived ….. because all you have to do is start looking for the truth , and you find this man was not only completely innocent , he was the victim of so much greed and ambition by others …
    They destroyed a great gift and resource to this world..

    This is a losing battle for these people ..How many people are on youtube watching clips of MJ interacting with children , his Oxford speech and all the rest..
    MJ in orphanages with children..
    His home movies
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6IzRz1pD6M..lots of hits….
    His true nature is shining through…
    not the tabloid garbage..

    this clip is the jury verdicts..
    I have watched it alot since MJ died..
    I have watched the hits go up on it and the thumbs up sign go through the roof dispute what a few trolls post under it…
    ..
    Now they have disabled the button BUT have put an advertisement in front of the clip , because big business, knows people want to see the clip of MJ being vindicated and exonerated..
    or they wouldnt be advertising on this clip..
    That is proof positive imo that
    they are definitely losing ground..

    Like

  15. Rodrigo permalink
    April 26, 2012 6:09 pm

    Helena, I do apologize. I assure you I am a strong supporter for Michael.

    It’s just when I start writing about that certain topic, I don’t think. I just become so bitter and angry when I think of them referring Michael as one. Honestly, when I think of him, and all the wonderful things he did for the less fortunate, then I see THEM saying all the terrible things about him, it really breaks my heart. It makes me angry and I write without thinking of the consequences.
    It’s why my comments never get published on The Sun website, or The Daily Mail one. I see something bad about Michael, I just explode.
    It irritates me that I can’t drill it into their thick heads that he was innocent.

    Again. I am very sorry, Helena. I didn’t mean to do that. I am a supporter for this site and Michael. I guess I’m just not a good one.
    In the future, I will avoid writing like that again and I will continue to help the site in any way I can.

    Like

  16. April 26, 2012 3:51 pm

    “They try to get you to admit to yourself that although Michael was a great singer and dancer, he was a pedo, and we should just admit it and move on, WHILST STILL BEING A FAN. It’s all done just to unravel our support for Michael in every way possible. They’re hoping that if agree on any level, the next time we either go to write on this blog about vindicating him, or we go to listen to one of his songs, we immediately think ‘PEDO’, and never have anything else to do with Michael ever again.”

    Rodrigo, from the way you like using the word “p-do” with Michael’s good name I gather that you are not his supporter at all. Since you evidently wonder why we never use this word beside Michael let me tell you this. We try to avoid it even in quotations from other sources because it is painful for us – yes, painful. And for you it isn’t.

    But though I know that you are not Michael’s supporter I am still thankful to you for the news about the “vindicatemj” mess on the Internet. You are probably not hopeless and miracles happen.

    Like

  17. April 26, 2012 3:17 pm

    “I was mocked for saying the possibility was very strong that the other 2 male DNA profiles found on the bed could have been from any of those other body fluids.They also totally disagree with the fact that after the trial when Mark Geragos was being interviewed on Larry King that he stated that they found saliva. The document that they take their information from even states that the prosecution will not be introducing any DNA from the bed? Why is that? Because the prosecution does not introduce exculpatory evidence, that’s why.”

    Lynette, it could very well be the saliva too because different sources refer differently to those stains, but even if it wasn’t saliva the matter of “stains” is still blown out of all proportion by Michael’s haters.

    The documents state that besides Michael’s DNA there were only two more male DNA found there and one more was found on the bed sheets which came from a totally different building on the premises, the Video Arcade, where they found a bag with some dirty laundry stored in a closet.

    Is it much to speak about? Considering the number of guests who stayed there on a constant basis?
    Here is the respective excerpts from the documents discussing those stains (item 13 in the debated list of evidence to be submitted to court):

    The Defense: 13. DNA of Anyone other than Mr. Jackson
    There are two DNA reports in this case. The first DNA report says 3 male DNA were found on Mr. Jackson’s mattress. Of these 3 males, one was identified as Mr. Jackson, aka “male 1”. The remaining 2 males were not identified. However, the report says that these 2 males are not the alleged victims in this case, i.e. Gavin Arvizo and Star Arvizo.
    The second DNA report says a fourth male DNA was found in bed sheets. The bed sheets presumably were found in a laundry bag, along with underwear. The fourth male is unknown, but is not the alleged victim, i.e. Gavin Arvizo or Star Arvizo.

    The Prosecution: Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant
    Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People.

    Some time ago you wrote that when Michael was away in Las Vegas (at least for a month!) Omer Bhatti and another guy had a party in Michael’s room – and just on the eve of the Neverland raid by Sneddon. They left glasses and bottles of wine near the bed and could have very well slept on the bed too.
    Now let us take the stains from those two males on the mattress and this will close the subject of the semen (or saliva) found, won’t? And it did close the subject for Tom Sneddon too because he himself said that those stains would not be referred by the Prosecution in court! Haters must indeed be desperate if they have to clutch at this straw.

    “I’m afraid that all that bed showed was that Michael needed a new mattress’

    Sure. With such a crowd of unreliable friends and guests residing in Neverland he probably had to change the mattress each time he came back home after staying away for long.

    “My vote for the top reason to create a sockpuppet is boredom. This kind of person just doesn’t know what else to do with their silly self”

    I agree. Why don’t they take a spade into their hands and go planting trees in the streets instead.

    Like

  18. Rodrigo permalink
    April 26, 2012 7:58 am

    It’s sheer trouble making from another hater. I’ve seen the tactics used by ‘Carlos The Sockpuppet’, plenty times before from others.
    They try to draw you in by saying they’re a fan. Then the BUT comes. They try to get you to admit to yourself that although Michael was a great singer and dancer, he was a pedo, and we should just admit it and move on, WHILST STILL BEING A FAN…
    Helena pointed it out on the MJLIES website. It’s all done just to unravel our support for Michael in every way possible. They’re hoping that if agree on any level, the next time we either go to write on this blog about vindicating him, or we go to listen to one of his songs, we immediately think ‘PEDO’, and never have anything else to do with Michael ever again.

    It is a dirty trick. One of many. Right now, this site, unfortunately, has got a fight on it’s hands, because they’re running out of good ideas and they’re stooping to new levels of low in order to eliminate everything here that helps vindicate Michael.

    Even typing in Vindicatemj on Google, is now a buildup of hater’s sites on page 1. It’s like the sites are now deliberately highlighting VINDICATEMJ a lot more. Whether it’s Google doing this or the haters themselves, like that May Jewel woman deliberately writing so many VINDICATEMJ’s on her blog, I don’t know.
    But I’m considering this a new tactic. Done to lead people astray.

    Like

  19. lynande51 permalink
    April 26, 2012 5:37 am

    @ Helena
    My vote for the top reason to create a sockpuppet is boredom. This kind of person just doesn’t know what else to do with their silly self.

    Like

  20. lynande51 permalink
    April 26, 2012 5:30 am

    @stacy2
    Yes that is true. Seminal fluid glows the same color under an ALS (Alternative Light Source) as urine, saliva,vaginal secretion, bleach and fabric softeners ( the liquid kind).
    I thought leaving the link to the article where I adress that might help but you never know with people like Carlo. I was mocked for saying the possibility was very strong that the other 2 male DNA profiles found on the bed could have been from any of those other body fluids.They also totally disagree with the fact that after the trial when Mark Geragos was being interviewed on Larry King that he stated that they found saliva.
    The document that they take their information from even states that the prosecution will not be introducing any DNA from the bed? Why is that? Because the prosecution does not introduce exculpatory evidence, that’s why. Their job is to make it look like Michael Jackson was guilty and use evidence of that guilt.
    Another argument that I have seen used is that they didn’t want to say that Michael was gay and use that as evidence. That is not true! In his closing statement Zonen tried to use the book Man: A Sexual Study of Man and those are his exact word is that Michael Jackson would only read that or have it in his possession because his interest was in males because he was a homosexual. He said it about that book and yet the prosecution did not want to introduce DNA from the bed that all haters want to say was proof that Michael was gay? See how distorted that thinking is.
    You also have to know that there is a certain terminology in forensics just like many other distinct disciplines. For instance when a DNA sample is identified it is confirmed through a saliva swab. When a DNA sample is unidentified that means that they have an idea who the secretor is but the do not have the confirming sample. When a sample is not tied to anything else it is called unknown.
    They took several DNA samples from guests that were at the ranch the day it was raided so who knows who did what in MJ’s bed when MJ wasn’t home, it’s as simple as that.
    I’m afraid that all that bed showed was that Michael needed a new mattress. As a matter of fact I am probably right because there was a foam cover over the mattress know as an eggcrate mattress for people that need a softer mattress or the old one is worn out.

    Like

  21. stacy2 permalink
    April 26, 2012 3:55 am

    Just because the police didn’t find any female dna doesn’t mean there wasn’t any women. Vaginal fluid is very hard to detect because it has a very weak fluorescence..

    Like

  22. April 26, 2012 1:44 am

    Oh and look at this http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sock_puppet It seems that sockpuppets may be illegal in the United States. Who Knew!!

    Lynette, then judging by the description provided by your link all those fake vindicatemj blogs impersonating us are illegal sockpuppets!

    “A sockpuppet, also known as a sock, is an account on a website, wiki, or forum run by someone who already has an account. Sockpuppetry may be illegal in the United States.

    Originally used as a term to describe second identities, it is now used for any account created exclusively to cause mischief or mayhem at a site without the original user being identified (IP recognition and blocking notwithstanding). The name has also led to sites that generate such users being referred to as a “sock drawer”. Clever, that. The reasons for sock puppetry can include:

    Rigging voting results
    Rigging discussions (creating a sockpuppet who “agrees” with your argument)
    Maintaining a separate identity for privacy reasons
    Boredom

    Like

  23. lynande51 permalink
    April 26, 2012 1:32 am

    Oh and look at this
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sock_puppet
    It seems that sockpuppets may be illegal in the United States. Who Knew!!

    Like

  24. lynande51 permalink
    April 26, 2012 1:11 am

    Yes if they were truthfull they could also read this.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/no-evidence-of-evidence/
    And of course our friend Carlos knows Michael so much better than his friends like Frank and family like Jermaine. Carlos must have spent all of it’s time with Michael to be so convinced by someone like D.That is where that story originated.

    Like

  25. Rodrigo permalink
    April 26, 2012 12:23 am

    Sockpuppets? lol
    I can think of worse names, but that’ll do.

    Like

  26. April 25, 2012 11:57 pm

    It’s known as “Concern Trolling” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_trollconcern troll

    Lacienegasmiles, thanks a lot for the right word and link. I have also found the following definition:

    “In an argument a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.”

    Why can’t people be just truthful? It could save so much of everyone’s energy and unnecessary words!

    Like

  27. April 25, 2012 11:40 pm

    “We need a bit of common sense here. If MJ was gay and never came out you got the reason right here. We fans dont love him enough to accept it.We keep trying to find ways to “vindicate” and prove he wasnt.Luckily this info didnt came out when he was alive cause it would ahve destroyed him”

    First of all, when Elton John admitted his homosexuality it didn’t destroy him but they held him in so much regard that he was made a Knight by the Queen as far as I remember. So if Michael had been gay there wouldn’t have been really much reason for him to keep silent about it. He had too good an example of Elton John before his eyes.

    This is an excerpt from Seth Silberman’s notes (the gay lecturer who arranges “academic conferences” on Michael Jackson at Yale University):

    “Norman explains that Michael’s upset by reports of his alleged homosexuality: “The fact that they say he’s gay is completely ridiculous. If little girls want to grow up and marry Michael, now they know they’ve got a chance.” Norman’s comments referred to hundreds of fan letters begging Michael to come out, heterosexually. Michael’s statement never mentions homosexuality directly. He starts with, “No! I’ve never taken hormones to maintain my high voice.” He denies he’s surgically altered either his eyes or cheekbones. There’s no mention of his nose. Finally, he proclaims, “I plan to get married and have a family. Any statements to the contrary are simply untrue.”

    Five years earlier, Michael confronted a reporter himself: “I am not homo. Not at all. … I’m not going to have a nervous breakdown because people think I like having sex with men. I don’t and that’s that. If I let this get to me, it will only show how cheap I am. I’m sure I must have fans who are gay, and I don’t mind that. That’s their life and this is mine. You can print that.”

    I understand gay men’s ardent desire to have Michael among their ranks but think that they should finally face reality and indeed use some common sense – despite the way Michael looked he was not gay. The looks are often misguiding – a macho may turn out to be gay while a thin, frail man with a lot of make-up on his face due to his skin diseases may turn out to be perfectly heterosexual. I think we should stop looking at the outward “signs” of his imaginable inclinations and look at the fact of their non-existence instead.

    Like

  28. April 25, 2012 11:24 pm

    It’s known as “Concern Trolling”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll

    Like

  29. April 25, 2012 11:17 pm

    “Think of his looks ,manerism,few female relationships over the years,adopted kids like Ricky Martin”

    Adopted kids like Ricky Martin? Carlos, please stop reading Victor Gutierrez’s filth and go and have some fresh air instead.

    “Im the biggest fan but facts are facts.He was either bi or gay”

    Why are all Michael’s detractors so boring? Why do all of them say that they are Michael’s “biggest fans” and then refer to some “facts” of which they have none? What some gay men thought about Michael is no proof of anything at all and Michael himself said that he wasn’t gay – he said it on numerous occasions in public and in interviews. He said it when he was half-conscious and sedated by Evan Chandler who questioned him about this matter. He said it when he was fully unconscious and put under hypnosis by Uri Geller – and each time he said that he wasn’t gay but was interested in women. And in this kind of state people are unable to lie by the way.

    What other facts do you need after all that?

    I don’t have anything against gay men, but facts show that Michael Jackson was not one of them, so I see no reason why we should stretch the truth only to make some gay men happier this way.

    Like

  30. Rodrigo permalink
    April 25, 2012 11:12 pm

    Yes, Carlos. Excellent points…………………not.

    This is typical behaviour of a hater. Them pretending to be fans in order to lower a real fan’s defences and then casting doubts on Michael’s innocence.

    That part on the MJfacts website, where they tell us to admit Michael was a pedo, but say we can still enjoy his music…

    Nice try though.

    Like

  31. Maria permalink
    April 25, 2012 11:07 pm

    Bi, gey?. Carlos can not decide. Sneddon was sure of his theory. P.. – it’s in his head. He was desperate to prove it. Judgment of the court was unequivocal.

    Like

  32. Maria permalink
    April 25, 2012 10:39 pm

    Carlos, you’re not a fan of MJ. Do not insult our intelligence.
    Michael was a heterosexual man. This is the truth. These are the facts.

    Like

  33. Carlos permalink
    April 25, 2012 10:03 pm

    And by the way this is not TMZ or daily mirror saying MJ was gay.Its a police evidence of several male DNA found in bed AND matress,and absolutely no female DNA.I love mJ like everybody else,the artist adn the man but I think we are all in denial when it was in front of our eyes all the time.Now for a minute step back and dont think of him as Michael Jackson,the singer you adore.Think of his looks ,manerism,few female relationships over the years,adopted kids like Ricky Martin.Everything looks in teh direction that he was a single father in the closet,and probably in denial himself for many years.I think that MJ was never ready to accept that and maybe thats one of the reasons why he held on to never grow up and face his adult reality.This was a guy that had girls throwin underwear at him since 13 years old and avoided girls,doesnt it make you wonder?I dont believe MJ was having gay affairs all his life.I do think it may be something he started very late in his life but the evidence is there.Im the biggest fan but facts are facts.He was either bi or gay

    Like

  34. April 25, 2012 9:57 pm

    They weren’t looking for female DNA. The night before the raid one of his cousins, Elijah/Marcel had logged in to one of the computers in Michael’s bedroom and logged into a porn website, that’s a matter of court record and not speculation. Other people stayed in Michael’s room when he wasn’t there.

    Like

  35. Carlos permalink
    April 25, 2012 9:53 pm

    Im sorry,I agree with your cocaine underwear or the bad,could be anybody elses,but the fact that male dna was found in MJ bed sheets and mattres,evidence 13 along with MJs and absolutely no female DNA is highly questionable for a 50 year old heterosexual man,just saying.I love MJ and I wish he not being gay,it snot that I hate gays but I never thought of him as a gay man and it breaks down the image i have of him.But we have to be honest here.MJ bedroom had security code,c´mon its Michael Jackson. He had a whole ranch,guest rooms but he had his private bedroom and its not 1 male DNA its more than one.So it snot an ocasional freind staying for a night in his absense masturbating in MJ bed.We need a bit of common sense here.If MJ was gay and never came out you got the reason right here. We fans dont love him enough to accept it.We keep trying to find ways to “vindicate” and prove he wasnt.Luckily this info didnt came out when he was alive cause it would ahve destroyed him

    Like

  36. Dialdancer permalink
    May 6, 2011 6:04 am

    I believe one or more of MJ’s staff was influenced or coherence into assisting with planting of evidence around the house. How do you explain the Mary Jane in a kitchen draw during the lunch hour with house guests roaming around? They may have slopped off for a day or two, but how would they be sure Michael or someone else would not pop back on to the ranch? I believe the same tactics were used on staff that were used on boys interviewed, but with better success. The DA’s office would have easier and more frequent access to Michael’s staff.

    Like

  37. shelly permalink
    May 2, 2011 9:22 pm

    I believe one of his employee, it’s either Salas, Fournier or Silva, testified that the staff worked less when he wasn’t there than he when he was at Neverland.

    Like

  38. May 2, 2011 7:44 pm

    “Sneddon doesn’t say the underpants could have belonged to either of the boys. He explicitly says the opposite:
    “Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male *OTHER THAN* Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys”.

    Charles, thank you for drawing my attention to the mistake. I’ve corrected it now.

    why on earth, in all that time, didn’t the cleaners process his laundry or clean the arcade? While the cat’s away, the mice will play, I suppose.

    Exactly!

    Like

  39. lynande51 permalink
    May 2, 2011 4:29 pm

    Hi Charles, This better explains where the underwear ws found and what was found on them. The article above is more editorial and the one I wrote actually tracks the evidence from start to finish. I do agree with you though that the clothing found was not planted just forgotten and overlooked for about 2 years before it was found. I intend to post an article today about the drugs found along with the clothing that will explain more indepth all of the nonsense that the prosecution and the media did with this information. In the meantime the cocain was found on the underwear not in Michaels blood as metabolites.
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/no-evidence-of-evidence/

    Like

  40. May 2, 2011 12:58 pm

    Sneddon doesn’t say the underpants could have belonged to either of the boys. He explicitly says the opposite:

    “Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male *OTHER THAN* Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys”.

    Also, it is routine for arresting officers to give evidence at trial. I sit in court about four or fives days a week on average and I have yet to see a trial where the arresting officers didn’t give evidence in one form or another.

    Otherwise, a good article. With Jackson out of town throughout October/November (definitely true – this was verified when I wrote my article about the One More Chance vide0), why on earth, in all that time, didn’t the cleaners process his laundry or clean the arcade? While the cat’s away, the mice will play, I suppose. Everybody else was riding the Jackson gravy train, so maybe the cleaners were lounging around getting paid to do nothing in his absence like so many others.

    Like

  41. Dialdancer permalink
    February 27, 2011 11:17 am

    ““Item 13 includes semen stains on one pair of underpants that, from DNA analysis of that stain, apparently was worn by a male other than Mr. Jackson or either of the two young sibling boys”. Was Tom Sneddon trying to deceive the judge this way?”

    I suspect Sneddon used the words and phrases he did for one reason to convey his message to the Media who were allowed to read the unsealed documents, to ensure the stories would be written the way he wanted. The Media attorneys may have advised if called to do so, but I believe their only job was to wrestle the documents and any evidence from the courts as soon a humanly possible. An example of Sneddon’s written manipulation was the use of the word victim instead of complaining witness. It was his intent to create a false picture. Because Sneddon wasn’t concerned with any punishment due to perjury and the Media did not challenge most of his words he and gang could lie without a care.

    Melville was not deceived, he was complicit in the unlawful acts.

    Like

  42. hana permalink
    February 9, 2011 3:23 am

    Adriane mcmanus and ralph chacon were both destroyed by mesaeru on cross examination. their testimonies were completley compromised by their motives, their actions, and their stories. not only did they want the jury to believe that they would watch a grown man molesting a child and not try to stop it, but they also wanted them to believe that after that same man fired them for stealing, that they were “wrongfully terminated”..so i guess they wanted to continue to work for someone who they claimed was a child molester. ridiculous!

    Like

  43. Dialdancer permalink
    January 28, 2011 6:52 am

    @ Suzy,

    “However if she is leading other people astray, like she does, because she is very effective in spreading around her lies all over the Internet, there has to be an answer because among those people whom she led astray there are good willed people, even fans, who would like to know the truth if they could. Not all of them has the time and ability to research, that’s why it’s so easy for her to lie to them and make them believe whatever she wants them believe. So I think it’s important to debunk her claims when she lies and operates with half-truths.”

    You are right in your understanding of the situation. I recently went to visit some MJ Fan sites. On two I saw the topic title “Desiree Says….” After reading one which happen to deal with the linen and some of the responding comments I started a new topic. I would not respond within the original. I have to admit I was very annoyed. Annoyed that there are still many who can quote any TMZ tabloid story, who could read this garbage posted by a “Fan” and have so few questions, not know where to go to test the information.

    So having it come here first is preferable. Like with the TMZ dentist story, that way more and correct information can be found and provided to those who do not have time to read, are not readers and those still Tabloid Junkies. We have to inform our own as well as the public.

    Like

  44. Suzy permalink
    January 25, 2011 5:29 am

    Thank you Helena for showing the McManus testimony. I was wondering about this claim of Desiree but of course I’m not surprised she lied once again. (Or let’s put it this way: she cherry-picked her mostly tabloid sources so that they would fit her agenda.)

    @ Shelly

    I hear you that we shouldn’t deal with her. For one I don’t care what’s in her sick mind and what she thinks about Michael. However if she is leading other people astray, like she does, because she is very effective in spreading around her lies all over the Internet, there has to be an answer because among those people whom she led astray there are good willed people, even fans, who would like to know the truth if they could. Not all of them has the time and ability to research, that’s why it’s so easy for her to lie to them and make them believe whatever she wants them believe. So I think it’s important to debunk her claims when she lies and operates with half-truths.

    Like

  45. January 25, 2011 12:16 am

    “have you read Seven’s 2 posts about Diane Dimond, very interesting”.

    Not yet. It is very, very late here, so this will have to be postponed until tomorrow.
    We surely need to handle D.Dimond and other similar media characters. As regards their tabloid methods Charles Thomson’s latest piece in his blog about Michael allegedly being “swarmed by little boys” during the shooting of “One more chance” is very enlightening. How could they get away with all those lies? They were absolutely confident that whatever they said would go unpunished…

    Like

  46. lcpledwards permalink
    January 24, 2011 11:18 pm

    @ Helena
    If you decide to do a post on Adrian McManus, don’t forget that I wrote about her in my fact check article on the Peretti documentary. While lying on MJ during her 1994 deposition, she defended his bedroom alarms!!!
    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/fact-checking-the-documentary-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-by-jacques-peretti/

    Like

  47. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 11:06 pm

    She testified on the 7th of Aprils just after Chacon and on the 8th

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/2/9455516/94502092/1

    http://www.box.net/shared/09zmi31anq#/shared/09zmi31anq/1/9455516/94502306/1

    Like

  48. Alison permalink
    January 24, 2011 10:53 pm

    I’m glad you are alright. i just had a feeling you are there but wasn’t sure. You are right, we must make the most of every day.
    Our News tonight is one bad thing after another, but in a minute there’s going to be a report about Rupert Murdoch and the phone hacking scandal by journalists – might be interesting, will tell you about it when it comes up. oh its now! – says its well known amongst journalists that phone hacking is widespread not just News International, Murdoch is going to sack any executives found to be involved and if there is evidence of hacking into MP’s and celebrities phones they will make settlements to avoid cost of going to court.
    do you know about this scandal – top politicians and celebrities like Elle McPherson and others – and Prince William and Harry too- had their cellphones hacked into by news of the world, and a top executive has been suspended – as if Murdoch didn;t know and want them to do it!! I’m sure he doesn’t want to go to court, he knows he’ll be found out and grilled about journalistic practises. will be interesting to follow as it unravels.

    anyway back to the topic, i remember reading that in JRT’s book ages ago – what sick disgusting imaginations they have.and yes, its really likely someone as private as Michael would have had video cameras set up to record this imagined sexual activity! I really can’t believe ANYONE would believe the guttierez rubbish in that extract, much less invite them to do TV shows! its so obviously rubbish. i haven’t read the book and i don’t want to but maybe i should, only thing is the book is still pricey even second hand.
    So glad Barnes, Robson and MacCulkin testified.

    have you read Seven’s 2 posts about Diane Dimind, very interesting.

    Like

  49. January 24, 2011 10:41 pm

    “I think we should really stop talking about her”.

    Of course we should, but we are not discussing her but a stable lie which is migrating from blog to blog about the “incriminating evidence” Adrian McManus and other employees allegedly took away from Neverland the day before the raid. I never had time to read McManus’s testimony and now am glad I did.

    If she says that none of them knew of the search in 1993 and never discussed it between themselves prior to it, all these embellishments about stained sheets hidden by them “the day before” fall off by themselves.

    This McManus woman is very interesting, by the way. I should make a post about her one day. The short of her story:

    1) in the first part of the testimony (with Prosecutor Zonen) she looks like a respectable and top honest lady of high morals
    2) in the second part (with Thomas Mesereau) we suddenly find out that she and her husband stole money from two children for whom this money had been put in trust. The children were in their custody. “So you dissipated those funds, violated their trust? Yes, we did”, she calmly says.

    1) in the first part of the testimony she recalls that Brett Barnes, Macauley Culkin and Jordan Chandler spent all their nights in Michael’s bed
    2) and in the second part of the testimony she admits that what she so vividly recalled in court she couldn’t recall 12 years before that, immediately after the 1993 events when she was deposed by Larry Feldman in December 1993. At that time she said that she had never seen them sleep not only in Michael’s bed, but even in his bedroom.

    Q. Okay. You were asked if you ever saw Jordie Chandler in Michael Jackson’s bedroom and you said,
    “No,” right?
    A. Correct, I believe.

    Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you said under oath about whether you knew where Mr. Barnes slept?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. And what did you say?
    A. I believe I said, “I don’t know.”

    Q. Do you remember you said under oath that you trust Mr. Jackson and you would leave your son alone with him?
    A. I don’t recall any of that. I don’t recall —
    Q. Might it refresh your recollection if I just show you that page?
    A. Sure.
    Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what you said in that deposition?
    A. Yes.
    Q. You said words to the effect, “I trust Mr. Jackson,” and you would leave your son alone with him, right?
    A. I believe so.

    Q.You told Prosecutor Zonen that you repeatedly lied under oath in that deposition, correct?
    A. Are you — what are you talking about?…

    P.S. I have the impression that her testimony was to be continued, so if someone finds the rest of it (if it exists at all) I would be grateful for the link.

    Like

  50. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 9:59 pm

    By the way, I think we should really stop talking about her.

    Like

  51. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 9:52 pm

    I know that bu you know the problem is Tarraborelli is a liar and I think he made up some quotes in his book.

    Like

  52. January 24, 2011 9:43 pm

    “The problem is that part is in the book on page 500 of the last edition”

    Then it is solely the problem of Randy Taraborrelli, because the REAL words of the maid are in her official testimony given under oath in 2005. You can check up the transcript. All the 101 pages of it.

    Taraborrelli must have been stealing from Victor Gutierrez.

    Like

  53. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 9:40 pm

    The problem is that part is in the book on page 500 of the last edition

    Like

  54. January 24, 2011 9:29 pm

    Regarding our hater’s lies about the way the Neverland employees behaved before the police search in August 1993:

    She quotes J. Randy Taraborrelli’s Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness, page 500:

    “On Saturday 21 August 1993 a search warrant was issued for the police to gain access to Michael Jackson’s Neverland Ranch at 5225 Figueroa Mountain Road in Los Olivos, Santa Barbara…. Moreover, the search warrant permitted the authorities to search Michael’s ‘hideout’ at 1101 Galaxy Way, #2247 in Century City, California, for evidence. Of course, anyone who thought the authorities would find anything incriminating during such searches would have been naive. Obviously, because of the chain of events that had led up to that day, Michael’s camp expected that a search warrant would be issued.
    Adrian McManus…recalled, ‘People were running all about the place, employees taking things off the property in boxes and crates, as if they couldn’t get the stuff out fast enough. They took sheets, pillows, bedspreads, towels, and wash clothes…. They took stacks of magazines. They took pictures. I remember that one person who worked for Michael held up a photograph and everyone else gathered around to ask, “Who is that? Who is that?” “Is this Macaulay Culkin in his underwear? It is!” Then, they would take the picture and put it in a box with a lot of other pictures of children in their underwear….
    ‘The next day, when the police came they looked around and one of them said, “Hmmm. Slim pickings, I see.” They knew. Of course, they knew.'”

    Now this is what Randy Taraborrelli really said:

    J. Randy Taraborrelli, a CBS news analyst and author of the book “Michael Jackson: The Magic and the Madness,” said that when he was researching his book 12 years ago, he interviewed many of the Neverland employees now testifying and decided not to quote them because they had financial motives to lie.
    http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-04-11-jackson-employees-testimony_x.htm

    And this is what Adrian McManus said in her 2005 testimony to Prosecutor Zonen:

    3 Q. Was there a search that was conducted at

    4 Neverland by Los Angeles Police Department?

    5 A. Yes.

    6 Q. Were you present at the time that happened?

    7 A. I — yes, but I — yes, but I had called in

    8 sick that day and I had to go back to the ranch.

    9 Q. You had called in sick that day?

    10 A. I was sick on that day.

    11 Q. By coincidence, or you knew there was going

    12 to be a search?

    13 A. No, I didn’t know. I did not know. I just

    14 was sick and I called in sick.

    15 Q. And had anybody heard of anything in advance

    16 of that search?

    17 A. No.

    18 Q. There had been no talk about that at all?

    19 A. No.

    20 Q. Fair to say there was probably considerable

    21 talk thereafter?

    22 A. Yes.

    http://deargavinarvizo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Adrian-McManus-Testimony1.txt

    And this is what hater D. is quoting from Victor Gutierrez:
    From page 127:

    “Adrian McManus, Jackson’s personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid…. “…I took sheets stained with dried semen and excrement most definitely from Jackson and Brett Barnes [the Australian boy]. They also hid suitcases with photos, videos and documents, video cameras, photo equipment and tripods. The guards took furniture and Michael’s spring mattress, which most definitely carried evidence of sexual activity.”
    Security guards also told of hiding evidence. “I was in charge of taking more private things like the bottle of Vaseline, pants and traces of excrement, not stains, but excrement that he put in a bag so that Adrian could wash it at another location,” said Ralph Chacon accusingly. “I also took bottles of alcohol from Michael’s bedroom, alcohol that was drunk by Brett and other boys that would come to visit.”

    Conclusion:
    Not only didn’t they run around with that ‘incriminating’ evidence the day before the raid, but they didn’t even know that the raid would take place.

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 9:29 pm

    By the way, if they knew the cops were coming why did they left the 3 books the prosecution used in 2005? In a child molestation case, you don’t left books with nude children even if they are art books.

    Like

  56. January 24, 2011 9:26 pm

    That “maids running around to pull off the sheets” thing is something printed in tabloids, it’s in an article Taraborrelli composed after MJ passed, that I remember anyway.

    But why would the maids need to get rid of the sheets, Jordie never alleged MJ had molested him at Neverland, right?

    Like

  57. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 9:13 pm

    I am glad you are ok helena.

    Like

  58. January 24, 2011 8:43 pm

    “I am not 100% sure what country you are in. Just hoping you and yours are OK.”

    Alison, I am in Moscow and I am fine. However the news is sad, innocent people were killed for nothing. Whoever did it had no regard for human life at all.***

    Actually I learned the news only an hour ago. I was deep in study of Adrian McManus’s testimony in 2005 and didn’t find a shred of what our hater is telling in her blog about “the maids running about pulling off sheets before the police search in 1993”. Even the Prosecution never heard of these events, so how Victor Gutierrez and our darling Desiree should know of them I can’t imagine.

    Moreover, McManus definitely said to Prosecutor Zonen that none of the employees knew of the upcoming search. Neither knew, nor discussed it – let alone run around with semen-stained sheets as Desiree claims.

    *** We should live each day as if it were our last. Because none of us knows WHEN. It is best to have your conscience clear to be ready.

    Like

  59. hana permalink
    January 24, 2011 8:37 pm

    I really love how people are so quick to jump to conclusions. Someone mentioned on imdb that the report clearly stated that there was only male DNA and not female DNA, so that means that MJ was 100% gay and was having sex with males in his bed..I rolled my eyes at that person. First of all, this case wasn’t about Michael Jackson molesting girls, so why would the lab mention female DNA in their report if they found any? And also, female vaginal fluids isnt exactly something thats easy to detect. The prosecution and its forensics were looking for semen and only semen because the case was about molesting boys.

    Like

  60. Alison permalink
    January 24, 2011 7:36 pm

    Helena,
    I am not 100% sure what country you are in. Just hoping you and yours are OK.
    Alison.

    Like

  61. shelly permalink
    January 24, 2011 5:01 pm

    I don’t think they did a blood test. They were looking for semen stains becausr Gavin said MJ masturbated him. Blood stains are not evidence of a sexual activity so they mean nothing.

    Like

  62. January 24, 2011 11:00 am

    “Do you remember where this information is about ruling the blood out?”

    Dial, you don’t need any special information on ruling the blood out. If you look up all the documents which were exchanged by the Prosecution and Defense on this matter (the links are in the text) you won’t see a single word about “blood stains”.

    This is why I am not even mentioning them. There are simply not discussed. It means they have ruled them out. Most probably they had female DNA, because if they had been Michael’s stains they would have surely turned it into some crazy story.

    Here are the links again for everyone to check (in case I missed something):

    Defense:
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805notmotexc14.pdf

    Prosecution:
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf

    Defense:
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/020805repomoefievid.pdf

    Like

  63. January 24, 2011 2:16 am

    Sorry no I don’t. Now I save links to everything I read but back in the early days I did not. You see I never expected to stay in Michael Jackson world as long as I have.

    Like

  64. Dialdancer permalink
    January 24, 2011 1:11 am

    Teva said:

    “I thought I read somewhere that the FBI has Michael’s DNA on file.”

    Do you remember where you read that? If this is true then there was no need to collect at second sample. The FBI & Calif Govt share the CODIS system. This is where MJ’s sample results would have been recorded and checked for evidence of like crimes.

    Like

  65. Dialdancer permalink
    January 24, 2011 1:02 am

    ““The blood stains on the linens that were also found in the 2 bags in the storage unit were ruled out by the prosecution and the defense in the very beginning too”

    Do you remember where this information is about ruling the blood out? Is it during trial testimony or in one of the court documents? It is important for other conversations. Those which print that the blood belonged to the boy(s). Showing evidence of the status or non status kill one more good lie.

    Like

  66. ares permalink
    January 23, 2011 5:30 pm

    I don’t know if this is already posted .It’s from Charles Thompson blog/

    http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/01/jackson-music-video-extra-tabloid-lies.html

    Jackson Music Video Extra: ‘Tabloid lies disturbed me’

    In November 2003, Ken Yesh was one of a few fortunate auditionees selected to appear in what would become Michael Jackson’s last ever music video, ‘One More Chance’. The video, designed to launch Jackson’s colossal, multi-platform comeback, shot for one day in Las Vegas before Jackson’s Neverland Ranch was raided, the video was abandoned and the comeback fell at the first hurdle.

    In October 2010, while researching for an in-depth article about the making of Jackson’s little-known final music video, I managed to track down and interview Ken Yesh as well as several other extras who took part in the production. During my interview with Ken we discussed the aftermath of the Neverland Raid, which ultimately didn’t fit into my final article. However, Ken told me one piece of information which I thought was so important that I needed to put it into the public domain somehow.

    Ken told me that in the weeks after the videoshoot he picked up a newspaper and was ‘disturbed’ to find a completely inaccurate report about the video shoot, quoting ‘sources’ claiming that Jackson had been swarmed by young boys on the set when in fact Yesh had been present all day and had not seen anybody under the age of 18.

    In this exclusive excerpt from my interview with Ken Yesh, he talks about his shock at reading the false report.

    Like

  67. January 23, 2011 3:43 am

    I thought I read somewhere that the FBI has Michael’s DNA on file.

    Like

  68. Dialdancer permalink
    January 23, 2011 3:21 am

    “I can’t believe they didn’t make any tests! We should check that. If they didn’t it will mean that they even didn’t need a suspect for making their accusations – they had their story ready-made and the suspect with his real DNA was a nuisance who was standing in the way of their “investigation”.

    Helena, it is an assumption, but one based upon reasoning. Police can request a DNA sample, get a court order/search warrant or collect it from anything which has your DNA on it found in a public place.

    Since we know DNA is more than just seminal fluid the number of items from which it can be collected is countless. The lotion/cream/sweat MJ had on his hands which touched an item; MJ used straws and on and on. If collected this way there was no need to hide the possession of his DNA. It would or may have been in the database already. So either both Police Depts, their criminal labs plus the FBI were all lazy & incompetent or…. there wasn’t evidence to warrant testing it against anything or they had Michael’s DNA and Dec 4, 2004 was just another hyped event like the day they announced Michael’s forthcoming arrest.

    I’d consider all of this extreme reaching if were anyone else expect Sneddon. With his propensity for theatrics, maniacal ineptitude and ability to get others to overlook his illegal conduct it is not so far reaching at all.

    Now just to add to the confusion there is Proposition 69 Nov 22, 2004.
    http://www.ag.ca.gov/bfs/prop69.php

    Or perhaps they were just waiting for the law to be enacted? To tidy up things?

    Like

  69. January 22, 2011 10:58 pm

    Guys, since one comment here (now deleted) has tried to develop the cocaine idea I made a closer study of this drug and erased the word cocaine from the name of the post as I don’t want search engines to pick up Michael’s good name in connection with it.

    Since they are going to use every pretext to accuse Michael on drug abuse here is a short SUMMARY on the cocaine issue.

    1) First I asked myself whether the cocaine could be injected in the buttocks. To do Tom Sneddon justice even he did not suggest an idea like that for the cocaine, though he strongly implied it for Demerol:

    “Defendant suggests the blood-spot on his underwear may have been the result of a “medical injection” he receives for “vitiligo”. We are reliably informed there is no injectible medication for vitiligo. And that explanation doesn’t account for the Demerol in the blood.”

    As to the Cocaine Tom Sneddon’s theory was that it was excreted from his blood or urine (which is the process opposite to injection):

    “Cocaine was found on two locations on that garment; in the fabric sample contain(ing) the blood stain and on another sample of the fabric taken and examined as a reference sample. The most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”.

    The idea of cocaine use was fully refuted by the Prosecution’s own forensic report about which the Defense said:

    “We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

    But I nevertheless looked up the possibility of the cocaine injected in the buttocks and found that cocaine is practically never injected in the muscles or under skin because it cause abscesses this way: :

    “Skin-popping cocaine, speed, pills and methadone will cause abscesses”.

    The usual way would be injecting it into vein or inhaling (which is a much easier way of course).

    2) The second thing I wondered about is how quickly cocaine metabolizes. Here is what I’ve found:

    “The body metabolizes cocaine quickly and just as quickly, the effects of cocaine disappear. Because the body quickly metabolizes cocaine, tolerance to the euphoric effects of the drug develops after the first injection or smoking session. Chronic users escalate their doses while chasing after the initial high. The more they use the less satisfying it becomes. Therefore, users continually seek the same intense rush of their first hit without ever achieving the same result.”

    So the metabolism is quick and due to that addiction to cocaine also develops very quickly with craving for it increasing with every administration – while the pleasure effect is quickly diminishing resulting in a moment when all the effect of cocaine is gone. Thus once a cocaine addict always a cocaine addict and taking cocaine for a prolonged period of time without going unnoticed is simply impossible:

    “The highs are no longer intense, and when the users “come down” they no longer return to a pre-cocaine state, but experience increasing levels of depression. This “crash” only increases the user’s desire for more cocaine in a futile attempt to return to “normal.” In all chronic users, a point is reached where cocaine no longer produces any pleasurable sensations. Cocaine use continues, however, in a futile attempt to capture that elusive high. At this point, nothing — not the drug or any of life’s ordinary pleasures — is rewarding because all of the brain’s neurotransmitters are gone.”

    3) Cocaine taking creates heavy problems with the coronary system as it results in calcium deposits in the blood vessels. The calcification narrows arterial opening and impedes blood flow which brings about heart attacks and death even with very young people.

    Michael had a strong and healthy heart and no atherosclerosis (or coronary calcification).

    4) Cocaine taking can bring about insomnia – but its effect is completely the opposite to what Michael was suffering of:

    “Chronic cocaine abusers may feel they are sleeping better and better during early abstinence, but objective measures show the opposite happens. For example, they had less total sleep time and took longer to fall asleep, but unlike most people with chronic insomnia, including alcoholics, cocaine abusers do not perceive sleep problems and may not ask clinicians for treatment to improve sleep,” says Dr. Malison.

    5) And the results of using cocaine can be found in a human brain even after death.
    (The examination of Michael’s brain did not reveal traces of any drugs):

    “Scientists have found differences in protein concentrations in the brain pleasure centers of 10 people who died from cocaine overdose as compared with 10 people who did not abuse the drug. Dr. Scott Hemby and colleagues at Wake Forest University and the University of Miami Schools of Medicine used mass spectrometry to measure more than 1,400 proteins in post-mortem tissue samples from the nucleus accumbens. Levels of roughly 50 proteins were found to be either higher or lower in the cocaine abusers. These proteins participate in basic neurobiological processes such as forming cellular structures, strengthening neuronal connections, sending chemical messages between cells, deriving energyfrom glucose, and protecting cells from injury.’

    Let us regard this small study of cocaine as a manual for every Michael’s supporter to help him handle Michael’s haters. Hopefully Lynette will add more to it.

    Like

  70. lcpledwards permalink
    January 22, 2011 9:25 pm

    @ okunuga
    Of course! Yes, please do post a link to our site on in the comments sections of those articles! Thanks!

    Like

  71. Alison permalink
    January 22, 2011 8:31 pm

    @ Helena
    i totally agree. however in the ‘freak stakes’ Michael triumphed over sssdon at the end of the day.
    I know there are issues, possibly very dark issues, about the ‘This is it’ film, but whatever else was or wasn’t going on, this film shows the whole world a man who was NOT a “broken freak” as you correctly say is what they wanted to make him out to be, it shows everyone a man who just isn’t what they tried to paint and it shows that in this sssdon ultimately FAILED !!. he failed because Michael Jackson was a far better man than he.
    He didn’t really get over all the trauma, it was too short a time to do so, and he seems not to have had the support and care he needed, and it took its toll physically and hastened his death and we will carry the pain and ache of what was done to him for the rest of our lives probably. But the world has a lasting 2 hour record that a freak he was not.

    So sssdon, go eat your own dirty pants! our Michael – who you KNEW was innocent – is at peace and safe and you can never get him now. but a time is coming when YOU will be exposed and humiliated for the liar that you are and Michael Jackson’s name will be vindicated.

    Like

  72. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2011 6:09 pm

    Helena there is no way that those lab reports could be confirmed to be true at this time. In order to prove that they may all turn out to be semen stains or saliva we would have to have testing redone on exactly the same physical pieces of evidence that the prosecution did.A person would need the same sheets, the same pieces of underwear, the same pieces of the mattress pad, the same pieces of the portions of the mattress etc. They do their testing on a very small piece of fabric not the whole garment or sheet or piece of fabric.Forensic testing in a criminal trial of this magnitude had to be extremely precise because of the lagality of it.
    When the trial was over the Defense asked for items of evidence to be returned to them and the court granted this. The only thing the Prosecution objected to were the photos from 1993 saying they might be needed if there were future charges against Michael. All of this evidence would have been returned to Michael or his legal team.

    Like

  73. Jan permalink
    January 22, 2011 5:46 pm

    charles thomson on blog talk radio:

    Part 4:

    part 3:

    part 2:

    I have just listened to this:

    Like

  74. January 22, 2011 5:27 pm

    “Well as Helena pointed about the blacklight we now have to wonder if all the stains on the bed in which DNA was extracted was really semen after all”.

    Anna, Lynette told me in advance that she was looking in that direction, so it wasn’t my idea. And she sent us a link to an article which said that semen and saliva glow the same color in the black light.

    However if it still turns out to be semen I would like to ask you not to pay any attention to it. There were so many people sleeping in Michael’s room and he was so often away from Neverland when his guests were staying there for weeks that it would be much more suspicious if his mattress were sterile. Then the Prosecution could have said that the old mattress (containing traces of terrible crimes) was burned, shred into pieces or got rid of in some way and a new mattress replaced it to destroy the evidence.

    When people want to slander someone they’ll surely find a way. And it doesn’t matter whether the mattress is stained or sterile. It is their agenda behind their words and actions that matters.

    Like

  75. Lynette permalink
    January 22, 2011 5:10 pm

    The only definitive proof would be the lab reports. The California Department of Justice did the lab analysis for the Prosecution’s investigation and no one knows the name of the independent lab company that the Defense would have used. If you read through the transcripts of the trial on the fingerprint evidence you will get a pretty good idea of what the Prosecution was looking for and what the defense had to do to litigate the trial. These reports would have been submitted to the court and entered into evidence only if they had been used and they were not. I think to get any of the Prosecution’s lab reports from The California Department if Justice we might need a court order and to get the Court Order we would need to show cause.I believe that would work the same for the Defense records.
    Of course there is the shortcut to getting information that isn’t quite as reliable as the court certified and authentic copy of any forensic lab reports. We could ask one of the Prosecution’s media leaks if he still had a copy for us and if he would loan it to us. That would be Retired Sheriff Jim Thomas the one that was asked numerous times throughout the trial for his commentary on MSNBC. One of his commentaries resulted in the Defense asking for an Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court against Tom Sneddon in September of 2004. The Defense argued that the information regarding the biologicals being discussed on a certain episode of Dan Abrams was due in large part to the very close personal association between Tom Sneddon and Jim Thomas. It is difficult to say exactly what transpired in the In Camera hearing or if Tom Sneddon was in fact held in contempt and Sanctioned or if the court let him remedy it when he made the Official Public Statement saying that no one in his office or the current Santa Barbara’s Sheriff Department were responsible for the leaks. But then if we asked Jim Thomas there would be no way to determine the subjectivity of the lab report or if it remained true to it’s original form.

    Like

  76. January 22, 2011 5:02 pm

    “The blood stains on the linens that were also found in the 2 bags in the storage unit were ruled out by the prosecution and the defence in the very beginning too. Why do we automatically think they were Michael’s sheets and they were soaked. Because someone else used those terms, and guess who it was.”

    Lynette, yes, the prosecution and media are masters in making stories out of thin air. Those sheets could belong, by the way, to women staying in Neverland. Women tend to leave blood stains much more often then men (during their period).

    It is noteworthy that Tom Sneddon didn’t speak of all those blood stains either on the sheets or the mattress – most probably they were not even male’s but female’s. Otherwise they would have surely thought of a way how to turn it into another of their sinister stories. Remember Maureen Orth with her blood baths?

    Like

  77. January 22, 2011 4:39 pm

    “is there a sheet with Michael’s and Gavin’s semen on that?”

    Alison, we don’t have anything even remotely close to it.

    All we have at the moment is:
    1) two stains of unknown origin on the mattress (which even Tom Sneddon didn’t want to discuss in court) and
    2) one pair of someone’s semen-soiled underwear kept in a laundry bag in a storage room of the Arcade building (which Tom Sneddon wanted to turn into a collectable item for Michael).

    Given the scarcity of the ‘evidence’ – if we can call it this way – it is amazing how big a story haters have made out of it. They are real professionals.

    “i wish we could get hold of ssdon’s dirty underwear and humiliate him with it. i bet he leaves lots of stains on it. oh hang on, it doesn’t actually have to BE his, just so long as its stained and we can say it is his.”

    A great joke, however it shows the pattern of what they did to Michael and how. If they couldn’t prove anything by demonstrating someone’s stained underwear on TV they knew they could infinitely humiliate him this way, add to his stress and make him break down – so that later they could accuse him of being a drunkard, drug-addict and a broken freak.

    Like

  78. January 22, 2011 3:49 pm

    “What is the number one DNA test done in the US. This test is so common you can buy a test kit at the corner Walgreens for $29.95. It is a paternity test. The way they knew from the beginning without any other confirmation that the saliva didn’t matter is because of the familial markers. Male 1 was daddy to male 2 and 3. In other words his kids drooled on the bed.”

    Lynette, if you manage to prove that those stains were from Michael’s children drooling on the bed it would be a sensation. I’m not even talking of semen turning out to be saliva – whethere saliva or semen it doesn’t matter much – but if the DNA of all of them did have common or “familial markers” it would mean that we have proof of Michael being their father.

    Again, not that it matters to us much, but it could come in handy when handling haters. By the way these haters don’t understand that when they claim that Michael’s children were not his they simultaneously prove that he could be trusted with anyone’s children and could make a perfect foster father.

    Like

  79. January 22, 2011 3:17 pm

    “if michael jackson had a fetish of collecting underwear from young men, he would have kept them in his closet, under his bed, or in his drawer”.

    Exactly. And then this collection would have been found during the very first raid. They didn’t have to arrange five of them for that.

    And one piece of someone’s underwear found in a bag thrown among books and “other miscellaneous things” in a storage room on the second floor of the Arcade building does not sound like a big collection which has any value to its owner.

    Like

  80. January 22, 2011 3:05 pm

    “There was according to a document filed by Mr. Mesereau a total of 5 searches on Neverland the fifth took place on Dec 3, 2004 the day prior to collecting his DNA.”

    Dialdancer, thank you for the clarification. I could never imagine they did it FIVE times. What could Michael have in Neverland which they hadn’t picked up during the previous 4 raids? It looks like deliberate and methodical harassment. They evidently wanted to keep him in a state of never-ending stress. And now they feign surprise at hearing that he couldn’t sleep.

    “Why do we assume the LA & SB Police Departments or FBI did not have a DNA sample from Michael prior to Dec 4, 2004? DNA Testing was available in 93.”

    I can’t believe they didn’t make any tests! We should check that. If they didn’t it will mean that they even didn’t need a suspect for making their accusations – they had their story ready-made and the suspect with his real DNA was a nuisance who was standing in the way of their “investigation”.

    Like

  81. Dialdancer permalink
    January 22, 2011 2:08 pm

    Helena,

    Congratulations to you and Lynette. I enjoyed reading both articles & comments. It was very educational. If there were only 100 sites like this in different countries think of how much more we Fans/Supporters of Michael Jackson would know. I’d like to thank Desiree for without whom the cocaine/blood information may have gone undiscovered longer.

    There was according to a document filed by Mr. Mesereau a total of 5 searches on Neverland the fifth took place on Dec 3, 2004 the day prior to collecting his DNA. It was meant to upset the families preparing for the holidays and to throw more trash on an already monumental heap collected by the SB DA to insure the Defense would require more time to prepare. In lieu of the doc.

    http://crime.about.com/b/2004/12/03/michael-jackson-ranch-raided-again.htm

    I have a question. Why do we assume the LA & SB Police Departments or FBI did not have a DNA sample from Michael prior to Dec 4, 2004? DNA Testing was available in 93. It plagues me that in neither the 93 nor 03 Police/FBI investigations no one seemed concerned with collecting a sample from Michael. It is customary to request this even when there are no physical signs. The raid on Michael in 93 would have made available hundreds of items from which DNA could be extracted. Items which would not have been missed when looking at the bigger picture. And if not from his home Michael did go out in public.

    Like

  82. okunuga permalink
    January 22, 2011 9:26 am

    I am curious to know if its possible to post some of articles on other reputable sites like huffington post and surfnews like charles thompson then paste the link of your site in the articles to generate more traffics to your own website for those who would like to know more about MJ`s vindication.thanks

    Like

  83. January 22, 2011 8:02 am

    “as for the blood and the cocaine thing, we can make only speculations.”

    Ares, this is absolutely no speculation!

    The Defense said that the conclusion the Prosecution made as regards cocaine in the blood was not scientifically correct. They even used a different word: It was scientifically IMPOSSIBLE:

    “The prosecution’s forensic evidence does not support the argument they wish to present to the jury. The prosecution claims that “the most likely reason the cocaine was detected on both samples is that defendant excreted it in both his blood and his urine”. This explanation, however, is scientifically impossible.”

    They also noted that the Prosecution did not provide any LEGITIMATE scientific information:

    “the prosecution does not support their theory with a declaration or any legitimate scientific information. In fact, it would be impossible to lay the foundation that they boldly assert. We have not been provided with any forensic reports that support their theory.”

    In other words the Prosecution referred to the cocaine found ON the blood stain in the same way as if it were IN the blood, and this isn’t a LEGITIMATE scientific explanation.

    If anybody thinks it is one and the same thing they are MISTAKEN. The difference is the same as between oil spilled on the table and oil which was used for producing the material the table is made of.

    The same thing here. The cocaine ON the blood stain is not the same as the cocaine IN the blood where it comes in a totally different form – that of metabolites.

    This is what the Defense meant when they said:

    “The evidence, according to the prosecution’s forensic reports, is that actual cocaine was found on the fabric of the underwear and on the blood on the underwear, not that evidence of cocaine use (i.e. metabolites) were found on Mr. Jackson’s blood”.

    And if the cocaine was put ON the surface of the blood stain there should have been SOMEONE who put it there. I agree that it is not necessarily Tom Sneddon, but it was surely someone who was one of his enablers.

    Someone should have spilled that oil on the table!

    P.S. Since my arguments in the post were evidently not convincing enough I’ve rewritten it now.

    Like

  84. Suzy permalink
    January 22, 2011 6:45 am

    Suzy, this is another of those vague statements from the prosecution. Michael’s underwear was soiled but it was soiled by blood and cocaine. If it had been soiled by semen it would have been repeated by the prosecution a dozen times. Evidently it was not.

    Good point, Helena! They never mention it was soiled with semen!

    See? I got tricked by Sneddon too now!

    @ Anna

    the language used is far too ambuiguos to make an accurate determination of what exactly was found on the bed

    I have the feeling the ambiguous language is deliberate – to mask that they basically have nothing.

    @ Lynette

    Lynette, you’re awesome, I can’t wait for your article!

    Like

  85. pauline86 permalink
    January 22, 2011 4:42 am

    I had a friend who had a weird fetish of collecting women’s bras and underwears..he kept them in a shoe box in his closet…if michael jackson had a fetish of collecting underwear from young men, he would have kept them in his closet, under his bed, or in his drawer..why would he keep it in a laundry bag in an arcade? that sounds more like something a lazy maid would do… gavin arvizo was the one who started the whole mj collecting underwear garbage and his buddy tom sneddon tried all he could to find any evidence that corrobarated his lies.. if no molestation occured then that means no soiled underwear was collected.

    Like

  86. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2011 1:59 am

    Would you like to know why I don’t believe anyone when they say Michael was gay? Because he said he wasn’t. He said he wasn’t so many times he quit saying it.Then thanks to Evan and Victor and their accounts of the allegations we have the story where Michael was given a drug became “loopy” for lack of a better word and Evan quizzed him on his sexuality and he again said no. Now given Mark Torbiner’s and Evan’s penchant for using Sodium Amytal why would I think it was Toradol? I give Toradol all the time and it doesn’t produce that effect. I think they gave him SA and then started quzzing him because they wanted to find something to blackmail him with from the beginning. If he said no then he wasn’t.I’m not reaching or grasping at straws I know the effects of these medications and you do not get loopy from Toradol but you do from SA.
    One more thing about the saliva. If the prosecution had no intention of using it from the beginning and I know this from a reply to a motion by the defense to hold the DA in contempt, why didn’t they? They didn’t get a sample from Gavin until November of 2004 (more treachery). So how did they know that male 2 and 3 weren’t him? They had a semen sample from the bed that they called male 1 so they were pretty sure it was his DNA on the cocaine underwear they just had to have it official and go get the swab to prove the drug thing. That was how they could call him Michael Jackson instead of male one, they couldn’t do it until it is positively confirmed. Now the second thing is the unknown male on underwear number 2 they just call him male 4 and he is unknown. They call number 2 and 3 unidentified meaning they haven’t gotten a swab to confirm who they are but they have sort of an idea who they are.Well how would they even have an idea with out getting a sample from anyone else? What is the number one DNA test done in the US. This test is so common you can buy a test kit at the corner Walgreens for $29.95. It is a paternity test. The way they knew from the beginning without any other confirmation that the saliva didn’t matter is because of the familial markers. Male 1 was daddy to male 2 and 3. In other words his kids drooled on the bed.
    And last but not least I do know something about invitro fetrtilization and artificial insemination. In 1996 and 1997 when a woman underwent one of these procedures she had to take fertility enhancing hormones to ensure the attempted pregnancy. When they implanted embryos they usually implanted 5 to ensure pregancy. Some of them would miscarry but most of them at least 95% resulted in multiple births. In other words back then Debbie would have had a good chance of at least twins if not triplets. The truth of the matter is that no one believed anything that Michael said about himself before the Bashir Documentary and the trial. Why was it that the media always painted him as the liar instead of the people that accused him? Why was it that they got to determine who was and who wasn’t believable?

    Like

  87. Alison permalink
    January 22, 2011 1:38 am

    I;m sorry I’ve got a bit lost and i’ve drunk a bottle of wine. is there a sheet withMichael’s and Gavin’s semen on that is the same age.? thats the only thing that could possibly suggest a likelihood of the alleged crime. and i don’t think that is there.
    ssssdon and the prosecution are completely insane.
    it was Michael’s bed, of course there were traces of him on it.
    even if gavin’s semen were on the mattress or a sheet does not mean there was any connection with Michael. Gavin enjoyed a bit of porn and masturbating – like lots of 13 year old boys do, that has nothing to do with Michael except he could well have used his bed – however he evidently didn’t produce this so called evidence because they would have said so and would have delighted in doing so.

    i wish we could get hold of ssdon’s dirty underwear and humiliate him with it. i bet he leaves lots of stains on it. oh hang on, it doesn’t actually have to BE his, just so long as its stained and we can say it is his.

    i’ve got a question i want to ask people about the Michael CD, where can i ask it? something is really bothering me, not a musical issue.

    Like

  88. ares permalink
    January 22, 2011 1:23 am

    Thank you for this post Helena. Very enlightening. Now as for the blood and the cocaine thing, we can make only speculations.We can not say for sure that Tom Sneddon put the cocaine there to fraime Michael.We don’t know that and we shouldn’t do the same thing that that girls is doing.Personally i think that the whole thing is nothing. The evidence showed yet again that the semen stain didn’t belong to the Arvizos, which was expected. I don’t care to who that semen belonged by the way. What MJ did in his bed, is non of my bussines. If some people want to believe that he was gay based on those semen,or blood or cocaine stain then let them believe it.But again they are speculating. What comes of from the evidence though is that MJ didn’t molest anyone. For me that’s the most important. Oh and by the way William Wagener mentioned that Neverland was RAIDED NOT ONES, NOT TWISE BUT MORE THAN 70 Times. So, from all those raides they only come up with some dirty underware and some semen stains? Well , i hope no one ever raides my room because they surrely are going to find more things that they did in MJ’s house. Again thank you for your dedication.

    Like

  89. shelly permalink
    January 22, 2011 1:16 am

    You know what Lynande, I think it was old semen stains. The stains were only found on both sides of the mattress but not on the mattress pad or the cover of the mattress pad

    Like

  90. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2011 1:01 am

    The results are in lab reports and they are not attached to a Motion and in this case if one is ever released it would be heavily redacted. Just suffice it to say that people that want to see it the prosecutions way they will.The blood stains on the linens that were also found in the 2 bags in the storage unit were ruled out by the prosecution and the defence in the very beginning too. In the post with the photos of semen urine and saliva shown under a black light remember how small they were? Why does anyone think that the proper adjectives that apply are semen encrusted and blood soaked linens and mattress. Because someone else used those adjectives. When they first found the linens they said they had been laundered. Why, when they are in a room in a place with small apartment, 60 yard from the main house, to sleep in, with many other males sleeping there( and this is backed up by the testimony of the daily logs by Brian Barron) do we automatically think they were Michael’s sheets and they were soaked.Because someone else used those terms, and guess who it was.Just look at the true size of some of the samples and see what they look like.Then remember that the mattress samples were a part cut out of the top and one out of the bottom and then pieces of the foam covering. How old is your mattress?Ask the prosecution what several is? Is it more than 2 more than 3? DNA doesn’t disappear it stays on a mattress for the life of the mattress.When did it get there?I mean how often do you turn your mattress and then when it is worn enough to put a foam eggcrate on top how old is the mattress. Michael wasn’t even home and hadn’t been for three weeks before the search he was in Las Vegas getting ready and shooting the video One More Chance.
    At first I thought I might stop the person that posted below with those drawings and you tubes. When they have to use those things for their corraboration of a story and not a real article and I don’t mean tabloid it tells me one thing, desperation. When someone gets that desperate it means we have struck a nerve. Someone is not happy when logic shows they are wrong. I knew they would be upset with the saliva, they sure want everybody to belive everything was covered in blood and semen and it happened the night before because that is the kind of fun they have. Those articles of hers are nothing more than a mean girl attitude. Gossip, and gossip is bullying in it’s purest form.

    Like

  91. shelly permalink
    January 22, 2011 12:24 am

    @lynande51

    I don’t know if your answer was for me but I know we don’t have the whole test. We don’t even to whom the blood stains on the mattress belong to. I think it was his blood but still we don’t have the results.

    Like

  92. lynande51 permalink
    January 22, 2011 12:10 am

    What we are going by are the Prosecutions Motions on these items of evidence. There would be no mention of exculpatory DNA in other words female DNA because they were trying to show the Judge why these things should be admitted into evidence.They were trying to show the judge that these articles showed that Michael Jackson sexually abused Gavin.When you remeber that and know that saliva was found and it is not mentioned you know that there story is going to say one thing. However when the Defence countered with a reply to a Motion they could not go outside that reference or in other words mentions any other body fluid found because then they too could be introduced as evidence. For instance if they were to say vaginal secretions were found then the Prosecution would have made them produce the female for testing and profiling. Using them for a reference is just like telling the same story that the prosecution tried to tell. The end result is that the DNA that they were trying to introduce was to prove that Michael saved underwear like Gavin said and the blood spots had Demerol in them to try to convince the judge that it was relevant to their “how high was this guy”. It also was irrelevant because they couldn’t prove that Michael removed the lable which is not a crime if he did it when it was empty. Once it was empty they want you to either black out the script numbers or remove the lable so no one else can use it to obtain the drug

    Like

  93. shelly permalink
    January 21, 2011 11:51 pm

    @rockforeveron

    “Vaginal secretion
    Vaginal fluid is very hard to detect at all times, as it has
    a very weak fluorescence”

    http://www.labino.com/pdf/Crime%20-%20UV%20and%20body%20fluids.pdf

    Like

  94. shelly permalink
    January 21, 2011 11:35 pm

    “Well as Helena pointed about the blacklight we now have to wonder if all the stains on the bed in which DNA was extracted was really semen afterall.”

    I don’t think we had to wonder that. They first used the black light but after that it was tested in a lab. There were semen stains on the mattress and probably other stains.

    Like

  95. January 21, 2011 11:32 pm

    Laundry detergent and soda water can also glow under black light. I think champagne too.

    And what about female bodily secretions?

    Like

  96. Olga permalink
    January 21, 2011 11:30 pm

    And you know all these from…? Crawl back to your hole troll and keep dreaming. That’s all you have.

    Like

  97. Anna permalink
    January 21, 2011 11:26 pm

    Great work Helena! I had come to a similar conclusion myself after reading about using the blacklight capability that would be used to determine semen stains. The Prosecution was looking for semen stains so that is how they woul classify it in the document however even the scientist in interview by the judge said they couldn’t determine that with absolute certainty.

    I think part of the document that is misleading to Desiree is this part.

    “Item 13. DNA of Anyone Other Than Defendant

    Several semen stains were recovered from defendant’s bed mattress and from a pair of underpants seized from his home, from which DNA was extracted. The profile identified as “male 1” is the defendant’s. The other profiles found on the bed and the underpants are not his. The sources are unidentified. The DNA on the bed will not be referred to by the People.”

    The first part of it references semen stains from the bed and the underwear, and that DNA was extracted. Well as Helena pointed about the blacklight we now have to wonder if all the stains on the bed in which DNA was extracted was really semen afterall. In any case even if it was, it’s doesn’t mean Michael was involved in the process of them getting there. We’ve already mentioned there are several people who could have slept in his bed.

    The language gets interesting though because it says the profile for male1 belongs to defendenet (Michael). Then is says all other profiles from the bed belongs to other people. One has to wonder if the profiles were just taken fromt the mattress or the bed sheets as well. The bed sheets could have contained hair and saliva in which case you’d think DNA would be tested on that too if they wanted to place Gavin at the scene you’d think they’d test all DNA. I forget when the alledged molesataion took place off he top of my head but I would think any DNA in addition to semen would be releveant if it was found from Gavin, which it wasn’t.

    So it is unsure from this statement if the other profiles is just DNA profiles or DNA specifically from the semen stains.

    Basically I’m kind of reiterating what alot of you are saying, the language used is far too ambuiguos to make an accurate determination of what exactly was found on the bed and there is no way to know for sure how it got there.

    Like

  98. lynande51 permalink
    January 21, 2011 11:04 pm

    I will make a post but I think I will start over writing it. It will make it simpler. Here is the thing about the injection for the vitiligo. There is not one specifically for vitiligo that Michael could have been taking but there is one used in the treatment of autoimmune disorders which is what Vitiligo is. Michael had primary Vitiligo meaning it was not caused by another medical condition but was a medical condition on its own. The injection to help stop the progression of the Vililgo was probably Plaquenil. Plaquenil is hydroquinilone which can be used in a topical ointment or oral medication or subcutaneus injection, meaning into the subcuteaneous tissue or the body fat. Anyone looking at Michael could see he didn’t have a lot of that so he had to go where he did to give himself this shot, his hip or his butt. Plaquenil is an antimalarial containing quinine which may cause blood thining and hematuria or blood in the urine. Quinine also glows the same color in a black light. It’s the base of tonic water.

    Like

  99. shelly permalink
    January 21, 2011 10:56 pm

    “I remember reading somewhere that the Prosecution used black light for checking up those stains.”

    It’s in that document, page 6

    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/120403irswnlr9a.pdf

    Like

  100. January 21, 2011 10:34 pm

    So, they never found Gavin’s underwear in MJ’s home at all, right?

    Someone told me that the Police found underwear that was that same size that Gavin wore in Paris’ bathroom. I have a pdf file of all the evidence found at the Ranch, and didn’t find that mentioned anywhere. When I pressed that person to tell me where they got that info from they couldn’t tell me. I have come to suspect that that person is either Desiree herself or someone who shares many of her views.

    Like

  101. January 21, 2011 10:04 pm

    http://www.ehow.com/facts_5045775_kind-stains-black-lights-detect.html
    That is a link to a site that answers a question for you. The following body fluids all glow the same color undera Black Light which is the Alternative Light Source used for tracing them in forensics.

    Lynette, I looked up that site and it says that saliva and semen both glow yellow in that light. I remember reading somewhere that the Prosecution used black light for checking up those stains. Could they have taken one for the other? However the forensic analysis is done not only by light alone?

    Actually all this “semen” business is completely irrelevant. The quote from the article you’ve provided shows that semen is found everywhere – even in the best hotels. With so many guests visiting Michael’s home his bedroom was no better than a room in a hotel.

    “Saliva and Semen
    # Semen and saliva stains also glow as a bright yellow or green-yellow color under ultraviolet light.

    Expert Insight
    # Using a black light, employees of the television show “ABC News Primetime” investigated 20 hotels in the United States for cleanliness. Results showed traces of semen or urine in every room they checked, even in expensive five-star hotels.

    P.S. Lynette, if you feel like making a post too, please don’t hesitate to do it.

    Like

  102. Olga permalink
    January 21, 2011 9:42 pm

    Sneddon and his cheerleaders tried to set up more than the phone records and fingerprints but the problem is that they are out of jail.

    As I said in a previous comment this hater has the right to dream and fantasize in order to feel better about himself. Oops I meant herself….

    Like

  103. Lynette permalink
    January 21, 2011 9:37 pm

    http://www.ehow.com/facts_5045775_kind-stains-black-lights-detect.html
    That is a link to a site that answers a question for you. The following body fluids all glow the same color undera Black Light which is the Alternative Light Source used for tracing them in forensics,semen,urine,vaginal secretions,and saliva. I found out that Mark Geragos who ws Michael’s first attorney was on an episode of Larry King 5 months after the trial ended her is a link to those transcripts and the pertinent information is below.

    KING: How did the prosecution, Mark, lose the Michael Jackson case?

    GERAGOS: I don’t know how that case is ever filed. Because I know that I — I went…

    (CROSSTALK)

    GERAGOS: I was there. You haven’t seen the reports.

    FULGINITI: Oh, Mark!

    GERAGOS: I saw those reports. I went up and met with Sneddon on two occasions and had lunch with him down here as well. (this became a big thing at the trial because of Sneddons search of Brad Miller’s office) And we talked. And I told him based on the reports that I’d seen, this would have been a DA reject. Meaning the DA would not have filed in most jurisdictions. That was my opinion then and that is my opinion now. I don’t think at any point, knowing what I knew about the accusers, that there was any chance.

    KING: Were forensics ever involved in that?

    GERAGOS: Yeah, there were all kind of forensics involved in that. And forensic searches that were done and then forensic evidence that they tried to develop. Everything ranging from fingerprints to DNA to saliva. KING: Mary.

    FULGINITI: Yeah, I disagree with you. I think those types of cases, child molestation cases, are inherently difficult to prove and to bring. But we have a law in California that does allow you to bring in other sexual acts or other sexual crimes.

    GERAGOS: Yeah, but the problem is when your other sexual acts are by people who are — when they march them into court say, no, it didn’t happen. You have to say to yourself, what kind of a prosecution is this?

    FULGINITI: Yeah, but those people didn’t say no, it didn’t happen.

    GERAGOS: Yeah, they did. They did. Three of the witnesses — they brought in the only other acts evidence that they brought in, with the exception of one gentleman, was of people who said, well, I saw this bathing suit, I saw these guys that were here, and what — the defense brought in the actual supposed people that were supposedly molested. They said, no, it never happened.

    http://edition2.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/29/lkl.01.html

    There is no mention of other body fluids that all glow the same color in a black light in any of the Prosecutions Motions.That is why they never from the very beginning never used the bed evidence because the other profiles were not in semen, they were in saliva.

    Another interesting point that both the Prosectutor and Mark Geragos agree on is the when there is no physical evidence in a case the prosecution has to work backward to build a case.
    I should tell you though that both pairs of underwear were found in the first search. The second search they went to get a swab from Michael , measure his whole house and outbuildings and asked for as built plans for the house. The underwear in question were both found in a Garden City bag and a Disneyland bag in the video arcade library which is 50-60 yard from the main house. The reason that they were trying to tie it in was to make Michael guilty of something or in other words this is where they start to build their case against him backwards. Watch how they preface their comment with the word semen then switch to DNA and profiles of unidentified males. Michaelwasn’t identified until he gave them a swab. In his testimony they found out that gavin did not give a swab until November of 2004. How did they know that he wasn’t either male 2 or 3 until then? Even if it was saliva wouldn’t they want to at least place him in the bed? How did they determine ahead of time that the profiles of male 2 or 3 were not Gavin?
    It was not semen found on Michael’s underwear. It was two blood spots in either side of the back of his underwear. It was the blood spots they were after because the blood contained Demerol which could link him to a crime because they found a vial with the lable torn off and here in the US it is illegal to take the label of a controlled substance. It is actually a Federal crime and you can go to federal prison for it. The other underwear could have belonged to any of a dozen people because Frank, Vinnie, Elijah and Levon were all logged in on the daily reports as having slept in the small apartment off the video library for several nights in a row during 2002 and 2003. Medications and the bottles show from the photos I got a long time ago on TMZ show, that according to the expiration date on the bottles that the last time Michael Jackson had contact with them was probably early July of 2002.Who knows where the cocaine came from? It was on the fabric of the underwear not metabolized in the blood.It was not evidence of a crime just a reach by the Prosecution to build a case out of nothing.

    Like

  104. January 21, 2011 9:24 pm

    “And the jury should be allowed to ponder the fact that defendant evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male”

    Suzy, this is another of those vague statements from the prosecution. Michael’s underwear was soiled but it was soiled by blood and cocaine. If it had been soiled by semen it would have been repeated by the prosecution a dozen times. Evidently it was not.

    Like

  105. Suzy permalink
    January 21, 2011 8:08 pm

    As to Michael’s semen in his underwear – I can’t believe we are discussing it – no matter how hard I studied the documents I couldn’t find any mention of it (not that it matters).

    “And the jury should be allowed to ponder the fact that defendant evidently desired to preserve, in the same container, both his own soiled underwear and underwear soiled with the semen of another male”

    But indeed it doesn’t matter much. It was in a container (laundry bag) together with other LAUNDRY, so what?

    Like I said context is everything and therefore this note by the defense is very remarkable: “The prosecution has not laid any foundation as to how the clothing was accumulated.”

    The prosecution indeed was often very vauge about how and where and in what context these items were accumulated. For example first they don’t mention that the soiled underwear belonging to other male was found in a laundry bag in the Arcade building. When I first read the prosecution’s document I thought it was found in Michael’s bedroom. And certainly this was the intention – to give this impression. Luckily the defense then calls them out on this and states very firmly where it was found and under which circumstances, which of course puts it into a whole different light. The prosecution was deliberately not clear about the context in which these items were found and it’s pretty obvious why.

    Like

  106. January 21, 2011 8:03 pm

    “it is so obvious the entire case was also a set up”

    Alison, I’m happy you agree with me. In fact Thomas Mesereau and other defense lawyers also saw it that way. Their final Motion in this case is uncharacteristically emotional – it is clear that Tom Sneddon has crossed the line and the Defense’s patience is exhausted. A note in their Motion reflects their fury with Tom Sneddon:

    “Mr.Jackson is being prosecuted for a crime he did not commit.

    The prosecution wants the Court, and anyone else who will listen, to believe that Mr. Jackson’s defense is that the District Attorney knows for a fact that he is innocent, yet is still prosecuting him for vindictive reasons. This is a straw man argument.

    In reality, Mr. Sneddon and his deputies are myopic in their zeal to convict Mr. Jackson. Whatever the cause of this, ordinary prosecutorial review of evidence and prosecutorial discretion is absent from this case”.

    Like

  107. January 21, 2011 7:42 pm

    “I’m asking this because if the dirty laundry (literally) – the soiled underwear belonging to another male – was accumulated in a house search carried out on December 3, 2004 (and not in the first raid on November 18, 2003) that makes it even more interesting.’

    Let us wait for Lynette’s post. She is very particular about the dates. I’m sure her information will give us more food for thought and new directions to follow.

    However Michael’s defense said it clearly – there was at least an 8-months difference in time between the alleged events in February-March 2003 and the time when the laundry was picked up. This brings us to November 2003.

    Like

  108. Suzy permalink
    January 21, 2011 7:37 pm

    What search took place on December 3, 2004?

    I’m asking this because if the dirty laundry (literally) – the soiled underwear belonging to another male – was accumulated in a house search carried out on December 3, 2004 (and not in the first raid on November 18, 2003) that makes it even more interesting. Or do they want us to believe that while under investigation and constant house searches Michael suddenly started to “collect” other males’s underwears? Something is very fishy here, indeed. And suddenly Brian Barron’s testimony comes to my mind in which he said he was approached by the cops to be an inside “informant”. Hmm…..

    Like

  109. January 21, 2011 7:28 pm

    Suzy, thank you for the corrections. I always forget that the trial was in 2005 though it all started in 2003 (just imagine Michael living for full two years in that nightmare).

    As to Michael’s semen in his underwear – I can’t believe we are discussing it – no matter how hard I studied the documents I couldn’t find any mention of it (not that it matters).

    The links to the documents are now in the post. If you find it there I’ll surely correct it.

    As to Michael’s body search – I think the Defense made a mistake in the date. I should have been December 2003. I hope Lynette will clarify. She says her post will be a detailed one.

    Like

  110. Alison permalink
    January 21, 2011 7:20 pm

    Well done Helena, fantastic job of analysing that. its so logical when you say it – and so obvious the entire case was also a set up. how any self respecting prosecutor could allow themselves to be knowingly so wrong with the whole thing – total corruption.

    and well done for wading through all that semen! its amazing Michael kept fighting for so long. what a man!

    i wonder why ssssdon didn’t charge him with “possession of pants with cocaine traces on” ! he must have known how ridiculous it was and as you say was just hoping to blind everyone.

    Like

  111. Suzy permalink
    January 21, 2011 7:16 pm

    I just realized you made it a seperate post, so I post my comments here as well:

    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 Malnik 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

Trackbacks

  1. February 28th – March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Summary of Sneddon and Mesereau’s Opening Statements « Vindicating Michael
  2. Slips et Coke – Procès et Showbiz « "Mon reflet dans le miroir… c’est toi" (Rumi)- Carma
  3. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5 « Fan Blog for MJ
  4. How to Recognize and Refute the Fallacies Used By Michael Jackson Haters, Part 4 of 5 « Vindicating Michael
  5. Michael Jackson had cocaine in his pants - Page 2 - The Michael Joseph Jackson Board
  6. Michael Jackson’s financial success would be the worst punishment for his haters « Vindicating Michael
  7. AN OPEN LETTER to haters about the “semen” subject, Stalinist regime and Michael Jackson’s problem in disciplining children « 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: