Skip to content

Transcript of the 2005 Harvard Law Seminar on Race and Justice, part 2. DAN ABRAMS

February 15, 2011

Dan Abrams: Professor, thank you for inviting me, it’s an honor to be here.  You know, I thought I was going to be so short, and have around 5 minutes, and then Tom attacks the media, so suddenly I have something to talk about.  First, before I talk about the Jackson case, and before I talk about media coverage of trials, etc., in terms of the Jackson case, I don’t think that Tom Mesereau is giving enough credit to Tom Mesereau. He’s talking about the evidence, and something about trial tactics, etc.  But Tom Mesereau is, and I’m going to attack him for something in a moment for some of the things he just said, he is one of the few lawyers in the country who puts his money where his mouth is.  He is a guy who doesn’t just talk about pro bono work, he doesn’t just talk about the community, this is someone whose face should not be known for the Michael Jackson case, but should be known for all of the work that he does pro bono, and in the communities, and for underprivileged defendants, etc.   That’s why Tom Mesereau should be the famous attorney that he is, and he deserves every bit of the attention and the compliments that he gets, and that’s not the case, I would not be saying that with many lawyers who would be sitting here.  I don’t feel any obligation to compliment Tom. I will say that the other person who I think deserves that sort of credit, who didn’t get it, who became known for something other than that sort of work is Johnnie Cochran, who in the early 90s and late 80s was doing all sorts of work, wonderful work, that I think, to a certain degree, became obscured by his work on the OJ Simpson case.  And I considered Johnnie a very close friend.  We co-hosted a show together, and I often felt that he too didn’t get sometimes enough credit for the amount of work he did for free, for causes that he cared about.

Let me speak broadly before I talk about the Michael Jackson case, and before I talk about some of the things that Tom was saying.  The question that I get asked most often is if I think celebrities get a different kind of justice in this country.  Put aside race for a moment.  Do juries tend to like celebrities, and as a result, treat them better?  Because people say “Oh, it seems like every time a celebrity is on trial, they’re getting off, from Robert Blake, to OJ, to Michael Jackson!” You name it, and people say “They seem to be walking free!”  And the answer that I give in response to that is that I don’t really think it’s as much about the jurors saying “Oh, there’s a celebrity! I’m not going to convict that person!” as I think that they actually evaluate the evidence more carefully than they do in an ordinary case.  In an ordinary, everyday murder case, where there isn’t a great attorney representing the person, where they don’t feel that they’re being scrutinized as closely, I don’t think that they really do apply the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.  I don’t think that they look at the evidence as critically as they do in high profile cases.  Now I think that Tom is right, to a certain degree, that it does become somewhat of a technicality when you say “Beyond a reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of the evidence, etc.” But when you look at it from a slightly broader perspective, I think that jurors in high-profile cases do examine the evidence more closely because they know that the world is watching.  And I think that you see verdicts that you might not ordinarily see in an everyday case. And depending on how you look at the system, it’s either a good or a bad thing. If you think that ten guilty people should go free in order to protect one innocent person, then that’s exactly what you’re seeing in high profile cases.  It just depends on your perspective on how you look at trials. In regard to the Jackson case specifically, let me talk about the media coverage.  Both the prosecution and defense in this case spent a lot of time attacking the media.  You’re hearing Tom talk about how horrible the media coverage was, and I will tell you as an observer that Michael Jackson got a fairer shake in the media than just about any other high profile defendant that I’ve seen. Geraldo Rivera is saying that he’s going to shave his mustache if Michael Jackson is convicted because “this is definitely a shakedown!”  You don’t generally get someone with Geraldo’s profile saying that he’s going to shave his mustache if a particular defendant is convicted because he’s that sure that the person is not guilty!  Now there is a difference, and I think it’s important to distinguish opinion-based programming and straight news casts.  And I’ve done both; I’m now doing an opinion based program. I admit it!  I tell people what I’m thinking each day.  I think there’s something refreshing and honest about people who do that.  Tom refers to people who do that as sort of non-professional, when I would say that it’s the most professional thing you can do, which is to come forward and say “Here’s what I’m thinking; you can now take that opinion and decide for yourself how I’m perceiving the case.”  I think it’s a lot more dangerous when people don’t admit how they fell about things up front, and there were certain people who covered this case who opposed Tom’s view who I think were dishonest about their views, and pretended to be fair and straight across, and never have an opinion one way or another.  “Oh, I’m just saying! I’m just telling you! Here’s what he said in court!” And they’re being dishonest! Because they’re not giving you the context! And I think that as long as you provide context, you can offer opinion based programming that can be professional, and can be honest.

Look, I started this case believing that Michael Jackson would not be convicted. I said it on my program.  I thought that this was a family with too many problems.  A jury just couldn’t believe beyond a reasonable doubt the testimony of this family. That’s how I came into the case, and I told my viewers that.  I said “Here’s what I’m seeing so far, but let’s see what we get as the case proceeds.”  And again, I think that Tom deserves a lot of credit for what he was able to do with the evidence.  But, with that said, I think that a lot of the evidence worked against Tom, and what I thought at the end of the case is that the jurors wouldn’t look just at the evidence in this case.   I thought that they would say “The evidence that Michael Jackson molested another boy, or other boys, was compelling enough that we can’t let him walk out the door.” That wouldn’t have been the proper way to look at it.  That wouldn’t have been applying the instructions that the judge gave them, but I, like Tom, also believe that you can’t just always assume that jurors are going to abide by each and every one of these technical instructions that they get on how they look at a case.  And so by the end of the case, and I’m not going to get as detailed into it as Tom did about the various pieces of evidence, etc., but I’ll just tell you by the end of the case, and I’ll read it to you because I brought a couple of statements that I made about the case, and the end of the case Tom’s right, and I got it wrong.  I said that “I’m starting to question whether Michael Jackson will be able to leave this courthouse a free man. Before this case started I predicted that he would likely be acquitted, or that there would be a hung jury, but now the evidence is in, and I’ve listened to the closing arguments, and I have to say that I’m leaning towards just the opposite outcome.  A hung jury or a conviction on at least one of the more serious charges against him. Why?  Because the prosecution has laid out a pretty compelling case that Michael Jackson molested another child, one of the other children.”  And I said “Regardless of the specific law, if these jurors think that Michael Jackson is a child molester, I think they’ll figure out a way to convict him.  The defense’s closing just glossed over the allegations from other boys, merely saying that Jackson may have been naïve or immature, and may have had problems with his personal life, that they didn’t specifically address those allegations.” I said that “That could be trouble. That Jackson says that his bedroom was just an innocent place for children to enjoy milk and cookies and bedtime stories, but the defense never explained why this innocent child-like man had all these porn magazines and books with naked boys in his bedroom.” “The prosecutors” I said, “were fairly convincing in pointing out that Jackson’s only long-term relationships were with children.  Children who often slept in his bed, and not just for a night or two, but one boy for a full year.  In a tape the prosecution played, the accuser first, after telling authorities about the alleged abuse”, which was pretty powerful, and I hadn’t seen it before, and “either that boy was reluctantly telling a difficult story about abuse, or he does have a bigger future in Hollywood than his mother thought.”  I said “this mother has major issues when it comes to her credibility, and if this case comes down to her Jackson will walk, period.  And that’s still a possibility.  The prosecutors were smart to point out that she was not the brightest bulb, but still could have pulled off this massive conspiracy to bring an international celebrity down without first asking for money.  I said that this is the closest call yet that I’ve seen in a high profile case, but it’s a stronger case than I thought.”  I have no problem admitting that I was wrong about that.  I did view this as a very close case going to trial. And I think that’s why the defense team deserves so much credit.  But in the end, do I think this was the right verdict? Yes. I believe that there was not enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Jackson molested this boy, and served him alcohol with the intent to molest him.  The conspiracy charge was based primarily on the boy’s mother, whose credibility was simply decimated.  But, I don’t think that it means that Jackson has been vindicated.  It doesn’t mean that he’s the gentle, terrific guy that Tom is portraying.  Misunderstood and targeted.  I think he’s spent far too many nights in bed with boys to believe that.  I think he’s paid too many millions of dollars to settle claims to accept that.  The stories of the boys was often too consistent.  The boys look similar.  His bedroom was filled with the sort of smut that a milk and cookies loving, Peter Pan-like figure would either ignore or abhor.  And I’m reading in part from something that I said at the end of the case, that I thought the jurors might dislike Jackson enough just to convict him. But they didn’t do that.  And it doesn’t mean that the result is a moral one, but it wasn’t the question the jurors were asked to answer. And I think on the specific questions the jurors were asked to answer, that they answered it in the only way that they could.  Let me make a final point about the media coverage of these cases. When I express an opinion, I’m not rooting for one side or another.  I don’t feel like I had a stake in the outcome.  I don’t mind.  If my reasoning is sound for offering up an opinion on what’s going to happen, I don’t feel ashamed to come and say, I didn’t have to bring in these statements of myself, admitting to you that I didn’t get it right. I’m perfectly comfortable, as long as I view my reasoning as sound, and my ability to relay the facts is accurate.  I did that throughout this case.  And again, when I was reporting strictly for the news cast, for example in the OJ Simpson case, I was not involved in an opinion based show.  I was strictly reporting what was in court, and despite the fact that we went to great lengths to be as objective as possible.  And I think in cases like the OJ Simpson case, objectivity can actually be a form of bias, in and of itself. I’ll talk about that if you have any questions later. But I think that certain times, certain pieces of evidence, there is a right and a wrong.  And as a reporter who wasn’t allowed to take a position, I couldn’t differentiate between the two.  I had to basically say this: “The prosecution says this, but keep in mind that the defense argues this, or the defense is saying this, whenever the prosecution argues that.” And even when we would do that –and of course OJ Simpson claimed again and again that the media coverage was unfair.  The problem that OJ Simpson had, in my opinion, was the evidence.  It wasn’t the way it was being reported, it was the fact that it was being reported! And it is such an easy scapegoat in all these cases, to blame the media.  At every single high profile trial, you will hear attorneys blaming the media, on both sides.  “Oh, it’s so unfair!”  And in the Jackson case it was almost humorous to hear both sides saying “It was the media’s fault!” And I would say, in response to Tom’s attack on the media, that the only people who I think should have less credibility than lawyers on TV are lawyers who are paid to take a position!  The notion that somehow, some member of the media, and let’s assume they have a bias, let’s assume that they’re too opinionated, that that person is less credible than someone who is being paid to advocate for someone?  It’s an absurdity! But I love Tom Mesereau!  I do!  This is the response that I believe applies in response, not specifically to Tom, but to attorneys who try to undermine the credibility of the media.  And let me say that Tom is right: we do have different goals than the legal system, and it does create a tension.  There’s no doubt about it.  Journalists have a different goal than the legal system, and it frustrates lawyers. That we can’t play by the legal rules.  For example, hearsay evidence.  We report it all the time.  Lawyers would love for us to just report what comes into evidence, and not report anything beyond what’s in evidence, because they’re concerned that it will unfairly impact their client’s right to a fair trial. Ok, I understand that. That’s generally what jury selection is for.  It’s for smart lawyers to be able to get up there and ascertain whether prospective jurors are telling them the truth or not.

But there are also instances, and the Supreme Court has ruled on this, and a number of the justices have written very interesting accounts, and particularly if you want a recommendation on this I would recommend Justice Brennan’s in the Nebraska Press Association case. He wrote a concurrence that I think really lays out why we can’t do that.  And why we shouldn’t do that.  For example, in this case where there’s this convicted sex offender in Florida, who has been arrested, confessed to committing a horrific crime on a little girl, and it turns out that it’s possible that his confession will get thrown out because at one point he asked for a lawyer.  He said “Maybe I should get a lawyer?”  They paused, and started questioning him again later.  You can’t do that.  And as a result, that confession may get thrown out, and there is a chance that the charges could get dropped.  Does the community not have a right to know that?  This wasn’t a coerced confession?  No one’s suggesting that he was sitting there feeling – and you could argue that anytime you mention the word “lawyer” that somehow it’s then coerced – but as a practical matter, there’s no argument that it was a coerced confession, and I think the community has a right to know that.  To know what’s really going on as opposed to the specific constraints that the legal system imposes.  The reason that there are rules in a courtroom is because the government has the power.  The government has the power to take away someone’s freedom.  That is an enormous power, and as a result we try to stack the case against them.  You could argue that the deck doesn’t wind up getting stacked against them anyway, but the reason we have a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, basically says that the government has this enormous power.  And if they’re going to take away someone’s freedom, to better darn well be able to prove it.  We don’t have that power in the media. I don’t buy the argument that “media pressures somehow leads to a particular conclusion.”  If that’s the case, and Tom’s right that the media was so awful and horrible to Michael Jackson, these jurors are saints if they were somehow able to avoid the insidious media coverage! And anytime these celebrities are found “Not Guilty”, “OJ Simpson! Oh the media coverage was so unfair against OJ!” He was found “Not Guilty”!  Robert Blake was found not guilty!”  It just doesn’t prove to be true.

I’m sure you guys probably have more questions, and would rather ask questions than hear me go on and on, so I will just say “Thank You”, and I really mean what I say about Tom. And Martha, I did see try a part of a case a long time ago, but I can’t say that I know.  And I also watched Tom in the Robert Blake case, where I think that he was single handedly responsible for getting some of the charges dropped against Blake in the preliminary part of the case, which he’s right, it was televised. And I remember he came on my show at that time and said “Well, you know it’s the evidence”, and this and that, but it was really the lawyering. And so I give him enormous credit for that.  And I always love having Martha on as a guest on my program.  And thank you professor for inviting me.

Charles Ogletree: Thank you Dan.  The final presentation, before we start taking questions, comes from Martha Coakley, who not only gives – let me also say this so that it’s clear.  I did invite the prosecutors in the Michael Jackson case twice (his emphasis!), and both times they refused. The second time they adamantly (his emphasis!) refused to come and be on the panel with Tom Mesereau. And we also invited Judge Melville, who thought about it, and very much was interested in coming, but decided that because there’s still some remaining legal issues in the case, that he would not come in, but maybe come in later.

Martha Coakley, who has other side, and many of the students here, and those practicing also, will be prosecutors, and here’s where race and justice also intertwine.  Here is a very impressionable and compelling white defendant.  A foreign defendant.  And where the community, and the press loved Louise Woodward! And it wasn’t that “she didn’t do it”, it was the view that “she couldn’t have done it! Look at her!” And what challenges that plays for prosecutors to try your present their evidence when the defendant in this case looks like everyone’s daughter, or granddaughter, and where, in this case, while people were looking at Louise Woodward, Martha Coakley was looking at the forensic evidence, trying to prove that she did do it, even if you didn’t believe that she couldn’t have done it.  And to share some reflections on that case, and on race and injustice, an in dealing with the media, please welcome Middlesex District Attorney Martha Coakley.

Analysis

1. “I don’t think that Tom Mesereau is giving enough credit to Tom Mesereau.” You’re right Dan, Mesereau should give himself more credit than he does, but unlike most lawyers who are hungry for fame and fortune (like Carl Douglas), Mesereau‘s first priority was defending his client Michael Jackson, both before, during, and especially after the trial.  He knows he needs to continually reinforce to the public that MJ wasn’t merely “not guilty”, but in fact he was innocent, and if he takes sole credit for the acquittal, it implies that MJ “bought his way out of it” by hiring high priced lawyers, which couldn’t be further from the truth!

2. “But when you look at it from a slightly broader perspective, I think that jurors in high-profile cases do examine the evidence more closely because they know that the world is watching.” This is an excellent point made by Dan.  We always hear about how celebrities “get away with it”, and I’m glad that Dan pointed out the fact that celebrity juries will more thoroughly evaluate the evidence in a case because they know the media will scrutinize their verdict to a greater degree than they will for a poor person who comes from a low income area. It’s funny how the media constantly undermines the acquittals of celebrities, but never questions the wrongful convictions of poor people!  When was the last time someone said “Hey, let’s hire convicted felons because maybe they were innocent but too poor to afford a good lawyer!” When was the last time you heard someone say “Hey, let’s allow ex-cons have their voting rights restored, because maybe they were maliciously prosecuted!”

3. “You’re hearing Tom talk about how horrible the media coverage was, and I will tell you as an observer that Michael Jackson got a fairer shake in the media than just about any other high profile defendant that I’ve seen.” Oh, please!  What a total joke!  I could easily wax poetic about the media’s biased coverage, but our good friend Charles Thomson has already addressed this issue thoroughly in his column that was published earlier this year to coincide with the 5th year anniversary of MJ’s acquittal.  In addition, here is a compilation of various media pundits leading up to the verdicts. Pay attention to Video #5, where at the beginning you see Eleanor Cook say that she thought that Janet set up Gavin to lie, which totally destroyed her credibility two months later when tried to say MJ was really guilty in order to sell her book!

And here is a compilation of these same so-called experts after the verdicts, with analysis provided by comedian John Stewart.


 

4. “….there were certain people who covered this case who opposed Tom’s view who I think were dishonest about their views, and pretended to be fair and straight across, and never have an opinion one way or another.  “Oh, I’m just saying! I’m just telling you! Here’s what he said in court!” And they’re being dishonest! Because they’re not giving you the context!” Well, let’s give Dan some credit.  As someone here at this seminar to defend the media, he could have completely whitewashed them, but I’m glad he had to courage to criticize his peers for their less than honest coverage of MJ.  And although he didn’t name names, we all know who he’s talking about!

5. “But, with that said, I think that a lot of the evidence worked against Tom, and what I thought at the end of the case is that the jurors wouldn’t look just at the evidence in this case.   I thought that they would say “The evidence that Michael Jackson molested another boy, or other boys, was compelling enough that we can’t let him walk out the door.” This is exactly why Sneddon fought so hard to use the 1108 witnesses, and why Mesereau fought so hard against using them!  This evidence is prejudicial by its very nature, and gives jurors the ability convict someone for a past crime that they could have committed, instead of convicting someone of a current crime that they are currently charged with. It was a very questionable move for Judge Melville to allow this evidence, and many pro-prosecution legal pundits said this would be the nail in the coffin for MJ’s innocence, but in retrospect this ruling helped vindicate MJ of the 1993 charges as well.  Can you imagine what this trial would have been like without the Neverland 5, or without Jason and Blanca Francia?  They provided a lot of much needed comic relief to the courtroom! So much so that some jurors actually laughed at Jason’s testimony during one of their breaks! (For more info on this incident, and on legal criticisms of the 1108 evidence, read this post.)

Recently, a reader asked the following question: “Should MJ have testified in court?”  In my humble opinion, based on what Abrams just said about the jurors possibly convicting him if they thought he had been guilty in the past (regardless of the current Arvizo case), I felt that it was best for MJ to not testify, because he had the POTENTIAL to shoot himself in the foot if he wilted under Sneddon or Zonen’s vigorous and vicious cross examination.  He had nothing to gain, and his FREEDOM to lose!  If he would have kept a calm, composed demeanor (as he did with his interview with Geraldo, which I reference later on), and reassured the jury by saying “I used bad judgment, and I will never put myself so vulnerable a position ever again”, then they would have still acquitted him.  But if he continued to show a lackadaisical attitude toward sharing his bed and bedroom with non-related children (something that they admitted made them uncomfortable), if he pointed his finger at Sneddon or Zonen the same way he pointed his finger at Bashir, and definitely if he said that anyone who questions him is “ignorant” or has a “dirty mind”, than its PLAUSIBLE they would not have trusted him, and COULD HAVE found a way to convict MJ, as Abrams said.  This phenomenon is called “jury nullification”, where juries convict or acquit based on their “feelings” or prejudices, regardless of the evidence (or lack thereof).

Also, here is a video of Abrams and a panel of lawyers from January 2005, right before MJ’s interview with Geraldo Rivera that was designed to refute the recent leak of Grand Jury testimony.  Abrams asked the panel if MJ was doing the right thing by giving an interview right before jury selection, and they unanimously said “NO!”, and not out of any malicious animosity towards MJ, but they all felt that MJ is not good at conveying what he means, and what he says is often misconstrued (especially when it comes to his love for children), and they would have taken the conservative approach of merely releasing a statement condemning the Grand Jury testimony leak. (Macauly Culkin also said that MJ is not good at explaining himself in this interview in 2004.)  However, they all unanimously agreed that because Geraldo was fair to MJ, that giving him the interview was the right decision.

Finally, here is yet another video of Abrams interviwing pro-prosecution legal analyst Susan Filan, who gleefully stated that she wished she could cross examine MJ! Now in this clip Abrams was very fair, and stated that MJ would deny any and all allegations on the stand, but nevertheless Filan made an excellent point: based on his demeanor from the Bashir documentary, he doesn’t look like the type of person who could withstand being cross examined!

6.But, I don’t think that it means that Jackson has been vindicated.  It doesn’t mean that he’s the gentle, terrific guy that Tom is portraying.  Misunderstood and targeted.  I think he’s spent far too many nights in bed with boys to believe that.  I think he’s paid too many millions of dollars to settle claims to accept that.  The stories of the boys was often too consistent.  The boys look similar.  His bedroom was filled with the sort of smut that a milk and cookies loving, Peter Pan-like figure would either ignore or abhor.” Sorry Dan, but MJ has been vindicated!  Every single accuser was thrashed under cross examination, and Jordie was so afraid to show up that he threatened legal action if he was subpoenaed!  And the issue of MJ’s settlements has thoroughly addressed in this post and this post, while the so-called “smut” that Dan refers to was analyzed in a series of posts, beginning here.

7. “I thought the jurors might dislike Jackson enough just to convict him. But they didn’t do that.  And it doesn’t mean that the result is a moral one, but it wasn’t the question the jurors were asked to answer.” Once again, Dan is referring to the fact that some jurors could have convicted MJ solely on their prejudice against him, but they couldn’t because the case was so bad!  But if MJ gave the same unconvincing answers on the witness stand that he gave during the 60 Minutes interview, at the very minimum there COULD HAVE been a hung jury!

8. “The problem that OJ Simpson had, in my opinion, was the evidence.  It wasn’t the way it was being reported, it was the fact that it was being reported!” Dan is absolutely correct! In the OJ Simpson case, there was so much inculpatory evidence that it was (justifiably) a foregone conclusion that he would be convicted. The media was inundated with evidence that proved his guilt, but in the MJ case it was the total opposite!  MJ wasn’t mad that evidence was reported, he was mad that it was NOT reported!  For example, the media would deliberately omit Mesereau’s cross examination from their reports, thus giving impressionable viewers the idea that MJ was losing!  In this promo video for her television series, Aphrodite Jones explains “what you didn’t hear” from the media during the trial

9. “The notion that somehow, some member of the media, and let’s assume they have a bias, let’s assume that they’re too opinionated, that that person is less credible than someone who is being paid to advocate for someone?  It’s an absurdity!” Here is where Dan contradicts himself!  He’s saying that you can’t trust either the defense or prosecution lawyers because they are automatically biased for or against the defendant, respectively, but in Bullet Point #4 he mentioned how there were certain reporters who were “dishonest”, and “pretended to be fair”! So what is it, Dan? Who should we trust?

Here is a perfect example of Dan contradicting himself!  He presents himself as being fair and balanced, yet after the trial he conducted this softball interview with Ron Zonen! Notice how he says that the jurors were “star struck”, and tried to blame the Arvizo’s questionable background for MJ’s acquittal.  He said his case was “credible, and Gavin’s accusations had a “ring of truth” to it (so much truth that he had to completely change the alleged dates of the molestation when MJ was indicted), and that it would have been “irresponsible” not to prosecute MJ.  He then goes on the give Janet “credit” for getting her kid out of Neverland the fastest, out of all of the mothers who had ever visited Neverland!  Afterwards, he goes on to praise Gavin as being an honor student, a football player with only one kidney, blah blah blah, and in a snide manner he says that Mesereau would never admit that!  He repeats the myth that the Chandler and Francia settlements were “pay offs”, and overall he said everything he could to garner sympathy from the general public. Absolutely no tough questions from Abrams at all! In fact, he said he saw “good lawyering” from the prosecution!

Well, after listening to Zonen’s crap for 10 minutes, I’m sure you guys need a morale boost, so here is Abrams’ interview with Mesereau!  No summary is needed from me! You already know what he’s going to say!

10. And let me say that Tom is right: we do have different goals than the legal system, and it does create a tension.  There’s no doubt about it.  Journalists have a different goal than the legal system, and it frustrates lawyers. That we can’t play by the legal rules.” Yes, this certainly is a confirmation of Mesereau’s comment from earlier: “Keep this in mind; the media’s priorities are completely different than those who participate in a trial.  They are not under oath. They have no responsibility for what happens to the defendant in court, or the victim, if there’s a victim, or the family of the victim, or the family of the defendant.  They are never going to blame themselves for whatever the outcome is.  There are very few court orders they have to follow.  There may be orders that they have to sit in a certain place, or park in a certain place, but that’s about it.  And the only things they care about are ratings and money.” Dan’s example of reporting on hearsay evidence is a perfect example of how sleazy and corrupt the media can be when it comes to reporting irrelevant information about a trial that is salacious, lurid, and prejudicial in the court of public opinion.   Case in point: when Sneddon tried to submit MJ’s photos as evidence at the trial (near the end of the trial, mind you, because at that point the case was lost and he needed one last bombshell to try to prejudice the jury), the media went ballistic, despite the fact that it wasn’t even admitted!  Yet the media did not report when Mesereau won his motion to not allow Sneddon to give the jury the details of the 1994 settlement, and by not reporting that with the same intensity as the photos, it allowed the “he paid them off” myth to continue fester in the minds of the public.

11. “If that’s the case, and Tom’s right that the media was so awful and horrible to Michael Jackson, these jurors are saints if they were somehow able to avoid the insidious media coverage!” What Mesereau is saying is that the jury didn’t acquit MJ because of the media but IN SPITE of the media! They were not sequestered (i.e. segregated from their families and outside media for the duration of the trial), so they had access to all of the pundits and their analysis, yet they chose to decide their verdict based on the facts without being swayed by outside forces.  Dan is trying to imply that the “Not Guilty” verdict is indicative of the media’s “fair” coverage, and that if the coverage was so unfair than MJ would have been acquitted.  But of course we all know that his so-called analysis couldn’t be further from the truth, and I confirmed this earlier in those five videos that I posted.

Next, in Part 3, we will hear the analysis of Martha Coakley, someone who has a checkered past of her own………..

42 Comments leave one →
  1. mjjyo permalink
    May 23, 2012 7:50 pm

    vindicatemj – L.O.V.E., thanks. cry…
    ***********************
    TOTAL BULLISM TO ALL HIS LIFE…….
    WHY?
    FOR WHAT?
    THE ALL VS.THE ONE ONLY MICHAEL JACKSON.
    RESEARCH OF ECONOMIC POWER VS.RESEARCH OF L.O.V.E. POWER.
    AMERICAN BUISINESS ON ENTIRE PLANET EARTH – CANNIBALISM.
    Yoshimi

    Like

  2. April 18, 2012 9:28 pm

    “Michael, You were the only truth like a dew pure…
    When I think of your suffering at that moment,
    when I feel the pain of your soul in those long days,
    my heart breaks.
    My soul trembles by a world without truth…” – Yoshimi

    Yoshimi, as time goes by Michael indeed gets increasingly associated with the word truth, while all the games played around him with the word lies. The lies suffocating Michael baffled him immensely as he often repeated in his songs “I don’t understand it”.

    It is awful that only a handful of people stood by the truth about Michael when he was alive and slandered all over (Tom Mesereau, and Michael’s little friends and their parents like the Culkins, Barnes and Robsons) while the rest of the world simply could not believe that all of them could be lying – the well-known Prosecutor, seasoned investigators, witnesses like that angel Star Arvzio who was inspired by his role of a brother of a “victim” and used the courtroom for showing his acting skills.

    We simply could not imagine that all the media could be lying too and that hordes of maids and bodyguards would be just trying to enrich themselves at the expense of bringing Michael down. Everyone lied – MJ’s PR man Bob Jones, queer personalities like Victor Gutierrez, the good old brothers Evan and Ray Chandler, “knowledgeable” Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Martin Bashir and the rest of the gang. Larry Feldman lied too – he admitted to Larry King that he thought Janet Arvizo was after money only, but nevertheless took their case directly to Tom Sneddon as if it were real molestation. Apparently it was also his office which released those documents about Jordan Chandler’s settlement on the net in 2003….

    Now it is a sort of a miracle that despite the many-years effort on the part of Lies we are finally beginning to see the process of Truth emerging. The division between the truth and lies is becoming so vivid, so clear, so dramatic that the whole world seems to be falling into two parts – those who value the truth (whatever it is) and a huge mass of those who are totally indifferent to it and are happy with their ignorance, deceit and illusions as this way they feel more comfortable.

    This reminds me of the Matrix movie where only a handful of people woke up to reality with all the rest of the people living in illusion but eventually following suit (I hope the finale of Michael’s saga will be the same).

    It is extremely sad that the process of the differentiation between lies and truth started on a mass scale only after Michael’s death, but the quality of the people who are now siding with the Truth is impressive. Shelly is right – we need to add to the list of honorable people standing up by Michael (Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu, David Walgren and Deborah Brazil, Dr. Steven Shafer and Dr. Alon Steinberg, Dr. Patrick Treacy and David Nordahl, Aphrodite Jones and Larry Nimmer) journalists like Linda Deutsch and Charles Thomson and truth seekers like Geraldine Hughes and William Wagener.

    Compare them with the Topix scum of the earth, for example, and you will see all the the difference in the world between the two of them.

    Like

  3. nakanoyoshimi permalink
    April 17, 2012 3:30 am

    Michael, at that time…You were the only truth like a dew pure and illuminated in dark fiction extended infinite.

    When I think of your suffering at that moment,
    when I feel the pain of your soul in those long days,
    my heart breaks.
    My soul trembles by a world without truth,
    in the infinite darkness where you consumed your blood, by a nothing … and then,
    in a fit of rage, mine, to the all those vermin … their.

    *******
    Michael … my sweet love …….
    Yoshimi

    Like

  4. sanemjfan permalink
    January 23, 2012 12:22 am

    Guys, in Bullet Point #3 I added a video of Jon Stewart criticizing the media for predicting that MJ would be convicted in 2005! It’s hilarious and sad at the same time, especially when you hear Shepard Smith of Fox News call MJ a “freak” TWICE!

    But of course he had nothing to say about the lies of the Arvizos!

    Like

  5. Dialdancer permalink
    February 26, 2011 11:34 pm

    What I got from Abrams during this video was a sense of contempt. Showed up late and his facial expression and body language read…..so what? What are you going to do about it? That he would sit there and lie about the terminology used by the Media “accuser” my eye to people who are saying they watched his and other shows of this kind speaks volumes.

    I found his attitude condescending and he untrustworthy even before the reports of the trial.

    Like

  6. February 18, 2011 7:49 pm

    When Michael’s trial begun I did watch Dan’s report more than other TV shows ,for sure he had pundits were extremely harsh and in my opinion they were malice in their approach of the case.
    Dan some how appeared like this “listen I’m on your side on this and on your side on this” he was contradicting himself all the time ,especially when Matt EGO Lauer “I call him that because he is very arrogant & obnoxious” interviewed Dan he asked him what do think of ZZZZZZonan closing argument? Dan answered it was 5 out of 10.
    When Dan interviewed ZZZZZZZonan he praised him with his so closing argument thinking it was great and very at the point,then I was thinking “Dude, come on”.
    However ,Dan was good at some points and clown dumb with other issues regarding the case but I praise him for having Mike Tiabbi someone is very professional guy .

    When I changed the channel to CNN,here she goes the honourable Nancy Disgrace barking infront of the TV screen that I had to back off a little bit from the screen because Nancy has some
    scary popping eyes and very loud voice.
    She was everywhere court TV CNN hosting instead of Larry King or appearing as a horrible guest along with Wendy Murphy the rude sly.
    One time they had Johnnie Cochran in CNN with Larry King,the charges were never made and they all having speculations over what could be happing ,Nancy was having her time to bark as usual because she lives for the camera,she said Michael Jackson looks or as her words were “if we add the freak factor on it” somehow her statement imply that appearance has to do with something, he looked strange so he must be guilty right!!!???
    And Johnnie Cochran answered to her” but that is not a crime” with respect to Mr Cochran he should of stayed home,he didn’t give much support to anything regarding the 1993 case,I mean uncle Ray Chandler was very very generous talking and providing the media with his so called court documents and facts.
    As for the woman who had the brightest smile or we could say “teeth” Susan Falen ,because she smiles wildly to her beloved camera and” Goodness” NOTHING truthful and honest comes from her mouth.

    Like

  7. shelly permalink
    February 17, 2011 12:23 am

    This is the original article for the unknown accuser.

    http://www.variety.com/article/VR110285?refCatId=22

    Like

  8. okunuga permalink
    February 17, 2011 12:15 am

    @supaflysista,welcome to the truth about MJ you can and should check other mj sites like mjj-777.com, allforloveblog.com,innermichael.com and so many other great sites you can link to from them too please help spread the truth about MJ any chance you get.good luck and God bless.

    Like

  9. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    February 16, 2011 6:24 pm

    Fantastic breakdown David. Thank you for your hard work.

    Yes, the verbal gymnastics Abrams employs are as vindicatemj rightly says, indicative of Abrams reluctance to clearly endorse the not guilty verdict.

    Similarly, the traditional insistence by many that the verdict in Michael’s trial in any way relates to or reflects some sort of a excusory pattern a la Simpson is, of course, bogus.

    But perception is everything.

    And until enough people are shown and know the extent and ways in which media ” analysis” at the time subtly and not so subtly manipulated the national conversation — Michael’s verdict, for many, remains effectively nullified.

    Like

  10. Suzy permalink
    February 16, 2011 5:09 pm

    Don’t forget Blanca Francia was also one of those employees of Michael whom Victor Gutierrez “tracked down” before the allegations (and whispered things into their ears). Lynette scanned in parts from that May 2006 article in the British GQ:

    “For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson’s current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped – it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson’s El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson’s employment in 1991, and the star’s Costa Rican PA, Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992.”

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/victor-“the-toad”-gutierrez-british-gq-another-nail-in-their-coffin/

    Like

  11. SupaFlySista permalink
    February 16, 2011 4:04 pm

    It all makes sense now!! Love what you have done on this site, it so enlightening reading this stuff, i’m gonna get all my friends to read this. I always thought there’s no way Mike would do this ish and it even better now I can back it up!

    That Blanca is nothing but a lil’ bitch – i bet she was bought by the national enquirer Mitteager just like how he tried to do with that Bobby Newt – but what kinda mother is she making her son say such things.

    All i kno is im happy that most people are decent – imagine how many other kid’s families that Mitteager approached?

    Keep up the good work people – cant believe i only came across this now.

    Like

  12. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 2:23 pm

    Greta Van Susteren said that in 1993

    “” GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, Trial Attorney: That’s absolutely right, Mary. When you’re a celebrity, when you’re a public figure, if anything is said about you, you must show not only that it was untrue, but also that it was said with malice, that it was said for a bad purpose, a bad reason. If you’re an ordinary person, something that’s said about you that’s untrue does give you something to go to court about. But if you’re a public figure, you must prove so much more, and it’s extremely difficult to show that it was done for a bad reason.”

    “VAN SUSTEREN: That’s right. That’s the tough thing about being a celebrity, is that people can say just about anything about you, including untruths, as long as they don’t do it for a bad purpose. But essentially it goes with the territory. When you become a celebrity in many ways you sort of lose some of your rights that maybe the ordinary citizen does, because you become of public interest, everybody wants to know about you. And the media has a right and perhaps an obligation to the people to talk about those who are in the public eye”

    http://community.mjeol.com/index.php?/topic/1781-cnn-company-flo-antho ny-dimond-1993

    Like

  13. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 1:30 pm

    @vindicatemj

    I don’t think Sneddon went to see that kid, they knew very quickly it was false. I think he probably spoke to Jimmy Safeschuck.

    Like

  14. February 16, 2011 1:18 pm

    “the story of the kid who ,remember, had NEVER EVER met Michael, was so believable that even Dimond rushed to report it, proves that when someone wants to hurt you with lies they can do it. And ones again the story of that Canadian kid proves that children CAN lie and sometimes with no remorse whatsoever”.

    Visitor, and don’t forget please that according to Thomas Mesereau (see part 1 of David’s Harvard post) Tom Sneddon went to Canada in search of a “victim” and it was most probably that very Canadian kid!
    Another interesting touch to that story is (someone mentioned here in the blog) that the man who coached the boy to say things about Michael was later arrested for pedophilia by the Canadian police.

    Like

  15. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 1:15 pm

    @visitor

    I know and if I remember well, her main sources for that story was arrested because he had child pornogrpahy at his home.

    Like

  16. visitor permalink
    February 16, 2011 1:09 pm

    How about that Canadian accuser . Dimond was so sure about his credibility that she flew all the way to Canada in order to investigate it and she pretty much became a fool of herself. But the fact that the story of the kid who ,remember, had NEVER EVER met Michael, was so believable that even Dimond rushed to report it, proves that when someone wants to hurt you with lies they can do it. And ones again the story of that Canadian kid proves that children CAN lie and sometimes with no remorse whatsoever.

    Like

  17. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 1:02 pm

    @vindicatemj

    I think Friedman is speaking about the same story but he explained more how the story was 100% created by tabloids. I think it’s a very interesting article.

    Like

  18. February 16, 2011 12:49 pm

    There is also that story with another unknown accuser
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151465,00.html

    Shelly, Lisa Campbell in her book also mentioned that unknown “accuser”. These guys went as far as faking a contract between that “accuser” and MJ and making it public through the media:

    p. 44

    “Meanwhile a new document surfaced which looked to be an agreement between the Michael Jackson Organization and another young boy and his mother by which Michael Jackson agreed to pay $600,000 for their silence. The authenticity of this agreement was in question because of some very big problems with it. The supposed contract dated 1992, was printed on plain paper, no letterhead, was titled “General Agreement”, and was not in legal terminology. Also, there is no such thing as the “Michael Jackson Organization”! But certainly if Michael were to enter into such an agreement his years of experience and his well acknowledged business acumen would certainly dictate he put just such an agreement in writing!

    The police said if the document was deemed to be authentic, a separate investigation would be opened to investigate it. No such investigation was ever opened. It does indicate however the lengths some were willing to go to for attention, and in most cases, money.”

    Like

  19. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 11:44 am

    I know it’s an old debunked story and the article is about how the story was created and who are the people who created it. Friedman is not saying there was another accuser. By the way I am ipiot.

    Like

  20. February 16, 2011 11:31 am

    @ipiot that’s an old debunked story created from tabloids in 1993. I write about it in a post that will be here soon.

    Like

  21. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 11:11 am

    Tom Sneddon victory party days before the verdict

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159140,00.html

    Like

  22. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 11:08 am

    More about Blanca Francia and the National Enquire, and how they try to buy Frank Dileo,

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151665,00.html

    Like

  23. ipiot permalink
    February 16, 2011 11:07 am

    There is also that story with another unknown accuser

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151465,00.html

    Like

  24. Suzy permalink
    February 16, 2011 9:28 am

    And here is the Newt story for those who are not familiar with it yet: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

    They were offered $200.000 to say Michael molested them as children.

    Like

  25. February 16, 2011 9:17 am

    “I have a contract in my files right now that was offered to a young man who came to see me whose family was struggling to get by,” Cochran says. “One of the national tabloids offered him $200,000 to say anything bad about Michael Jackson”.

    Rockforeveon, here are some more facts that people were offered money to say anything bad about Michael.
    Lisa Campbell in “The King of Pop’s darkest hour’, 1994 says:

    p.50
    – Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson.

    p. 67
    – Geraldo Rivera displayed perhaps the worst taste to date with a show devoted to putting on a mock trial of Michael Jackson…. The defence witnesses included Tim Whitehead, Michael’s cousin who is very close to Michael, who told the jury he had been offered $100,000 to say that Michael is gay. He refused and said he has never seen any behavior that could be construed as child abuse.

    p. 49 – some interesting information about the Phillipino couple, the Quindoys:

    – Mark and Faye Quindoy, a Filipino husband and wife had worked as a housekeeper and cook at Neverland from 1989 to 1991. He was a former lawyer. They left their employment at Neverland claiming they were owed $500,000 in overtime pay. If this is an indication of their pay scale, it certainly explains why he stopped practicing law to become a housekeeper! The Quindoys had filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for their overdue pay. Later, they claimed they quit because they couldn’t stand what they were observing at the ranch. They weren’t concerned enough to mention any of it to the authorities though.

    ….The Quindoys were discredited by their very own nephew. Glen Veneracion, a law student and nephew to the Quindoys, told interviewers his aunt and uncle were opportunists and they were an embarrassment, “I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment. It really is.” He described the Quindoys antics as a desperate attempt to make money, “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.”

    Veneracion went to Pellicano with his statement and established the lack of credibility of the Quindoys. He answered questions concerning the diary the Quindoys claimed to have kept, “I’m quite sure they wrote that diary to fit in with these allegations. He was gonna get it at any cost. And that’s what’s coming out now.” Veneracion was willing to testify in any court proceedings, “I’d be willing to step forward in a court of law and make these allegations.”

    Like

  26. February 16, 2011 8:20 am

    “Seven Bowie is doing a multipart series on Diane Dimond which compiles all of her lies and slanderous reporting. Here are the first 2 parts: http://www.mj-777.com/?p=7101 and http://www.mj-777.com/?p=7151
    More parts are on the way!”

    David, I am happy Seven is doing it – this is a top important dossier! You remember we also wanted to do it but never had time for it.
    All Dimond’s crimes should be recorded and filed piece by piece for all her shame to go down into history and never to be forgotten.

    Like

  27. Anna permalink
    February 16, 2011 3:12 am

    Thanks so much for your hard work on this David! Another excellent analysis! Dan Abrams makes good points about some things but then he’s way off about other things. It almost seems intentional like he’s trying to pull people in and then mislead them about certain things. I’ve always thought that about some of his coverage particularly with Michael’s trial.

    Like

  28. lcpledwards permalink
    February 16, 2011 2:44 am

    Just to back up what Dan Abrams said about certain people in the media being dishonest, for those of you who haven’t seen this series yet, Seven Bowie is doing a multipart series on Diane Dimond which compiles all of her lies and slanderous reporting. Here are the first 2 parts:

    http://www.mj-777.com/?p=7101

    http://www.mj-777.com/?p=7151

    More parts are on the way!

    Like

  29. shelly permalink
    February 16, 2011 1:27 am

    I think Cochran is speaking about the Ron Newt story. The articles by Friedman about Jim Mitteager tapes are very interesting.

    Like

  30. February 16, 2011 1:17 am

    I agree, what really rages me is the casual flippant throwaway lies that suggest MJ is guilty. It really reinforces the idea that something had to have happened, that it was all so sinister. It’s so manipulative and for some reason the casualness to it all bothers me the most – like it’s such a 100% fact that they don’t even need to bother going into any kind of details.

    BTW Vindicate, did you read this interview Cochran did with Ebony?


    April 1994 Ebony

    “Michael Jackson will speak out publicly as to the agony, torture and pain he has had to suffer.”

    When that time comes, presumably after the criminal investigation is concluded, Cochran says the public wil be stunned at the “huge sums of money” the tabloid press paid people who barely know Jackson to say anything negative about his client.

    “I have a contract in my files right now that was offered to a young man who came to see me whose family was struggling to get by,” he says. “One of the national tabloids offered him $200,000 to say anything bad about Michael Jackson. For all of us who are African Americans I think there’s a real lesson here. If they will try to do that to Michael Jackson, they will try to do it to anyone.”

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-8sDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112&dq=ebony+Johnnie+Cochran&hl=en&ei=GqNDTc7OKIuIhQeKirmEAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=ebony%20Johnnie%20Cochran&f=false

    Not much but interesting…

    Like

  31. February 16, 2011 12:01 am

    @ Ares you have to watch the video if you haven’t already. He acts like a clown while he is talking. All the other speakers have a normal and serious behavior and he is the only clown in the room.

    Like

  32. ares permalink
    February 15, 2011 11:50 pm

    Is this Abrams dude for real? I am just speechless

    Like

  33. Julie permalink
    February 15, 2011 10:16 pm

    It is apparent that Dan Abrams is very full of himself. He likes to hear himself talk! A majority of the media are so extremely biased against Michael Jackson and it is extremely apparent and it was with him also. He is arrogant and I’m sorry they invited him to participate. I wish they had at least gotten someone who had not shown such utter bias that Tom Mesereau stated were fair such as Mike Tiabbi.

    Like

  34. lcpledwards permalink
    February 15, 2011 9:22 pm

    @ Helena
    Thanks for changing the titles, as it makes it easier to know how is speaking in each part. In the future, whenever you change the title of a post, you must also change the permalink as well. Just edit the link by deleting the old link and copy and paste the new title into it.

    In the blogroll, we have a link to go to Megaupload, where the Harvard Law seminar file used to be available to download, but unfortunately the files has been removed, and can no longer be downloaded, so I will remove that link from the blogroll. Fortunately, I have multiple copies available on DVD, and hopefully when you’re healed you’ll be able to watch it.

    I assume that when this series is completed (I have 2 more parts left) that you want to add a new category to it at the top of the page? Can you clarify what you want me to do? Do you want it similar to the FIT seminar category that we have there already?

    Like

  35. February 15, 2011 8:05 pm

    Guys, I see that this Dan Abrams belongs to the same school of thought as Larry Feldman.

    The problem is you think he is praising the defense lawyer and the justice system, while all he is doing is cursing the lawyer who successfully defended his client and the justice system which allowed it to happen.

    When I was reading Dan Abrams I had a very clear view of what he was actually saying. Let me share some of my impressions:

    1) One of the most disturbing things that each Michael’s detractor (Larry Feldman, Carl Douglas, Dan Abrams) is doing is a constant comparison of Michael’s case with that of O.Simpson.

    This way or that way – but whenever a detractor mentions Michael Jackson you may be sure 100% that O.Simpson will come up in a few seconds too. Usually the link between the two is done via excessive praise of Johnnie Cochran.

    The goal of this constant comparison of the two via Cochran is the idea to convey to each and everyone that Michael Jackson’s case was so serious that even the great Johnnie Cochran who exonerated the obviously guilty Simpson couldn’t do anything for Michael.

    This has become so much a cliché that I simply cannot hear it any longer. This cliché is the worst stigma they are putting on Michael this way – and all because Cochran for some reason chose to never mention that accusations against Michael had no leg to stand on.

    Cochran could at least have mentioned how nervous Larry Feldman was when the photos of Michael’s genitalia didn’t match the description (so nervous that he wanted them barred from court), or that the worst thing the Chandlers feared was a criminal trial (each of them was horrified by this prospect as we all know from numerous sources including Ray Chandler’s book).

    Cochran could at least have said that the only outcome the civil suit Feldman so much insisted on was MONEY only – people don’t go to prison in civil suits, because the only thing they do there is PAY and nothing else, and it’s only “how much” which is at stake.

    Michael’s case was a civil suit and all Johnnie Cochran had to do is discuss the sum – THAT IS ALL! It was Michael Jackson who insisted on criminal proceedings and was willingly taking the risk of going into prison, but the accuser did his best to avoid it and wanted money only (see here for details: http://wp.me/pIuKO-Z4).

    The outcome of the case was Michael’s final agreement to pay – after his arms had been twisted for several months running – and it doesn’t even matter whether he paid the money himself or through the insurance company (though it was the insurance company after all). The only thing that matters is that the accuser wanted MONEY and half a year later their poor victim finally AGREED – THAT IS ALL.

    If it had been the other way round and it had been Michael who offered money (while they had thought whether to take it or not for half a year), then some suspicion of some “guilt” on his part could have lingered in our minds – but IT WASN’T THAT WAY and it was Michael who was thinking for half a year whether to surrender or not to their extortion demands and was ready to take the risk of going to prison in a criminal trial where he wanted to defend the truth!

    So what are we talking about here I simply don’t know! ALL JOHNNIE COCHRAN DID FOR MICHAEL was the discussion of a concrete sum – that is all he did for him and how it could be put on a par with his defense of O.Simpson I don’t really understand.

    2) The second disturbing factor in Dan Abrams’s speech is that all through the speech he says how unbiased his reporting is and how dishonest some reporters are, but he himself allots most of his time to the usual allegations against Michael.

    At least 60 lines are devoted to the enumeration of the allegations and only one (1) sentence says that the verdict was right.

    Here is this one line: “But in the end, do I think this was the right verdict? Yes”.

    It deserves to be singled out because after it comes the enumeration of all the allegations once again part of which are downright lies, for example:

    “the defense never explained why this innocent child-like man had all these porn magazines and books with naked boys in his bedroom” (there were no books with naked boys in his bedroom, I went through those books with a fine-tooth comb myself!)

    that Jackson had long-term relationships with children only (a blatant lie – when he did have a long term relationship it was with the whole family – the Cascios are the best example!)

    or that “one boy slept in his bed for a full year” (which is a distortion of what Brett Barnes’ sister said about her brother!)

    and that “he thinks he’s paid too many millions of dollars to settle claims” (I don’t give a damn what Dan Abrams thinks! The verdict was not guilty!).

    3) However when it comes to praising his “objectivity” there is nothing to stop Dan Abrams at praising himself:

    “When I express an opinion, I’m not rooting for one side or another. I don’t feel like I had a stake in the outcome. I don’t mind. If my reasoning is sound for offering up an opinion on what’s going to happen, I don’t feel ashamed to come and say, I didn’t have to bring in these statements of myself, admitting to you that I didn’t get it right. I’m perfectly comfortable, as long as I view my reasoning as sound, and my ability to relay the facts is accurate. I did that throughout this case.”

    Well, what a good journalist Dan Abrams is. So unbiased and objective. And so modest. And how very nice it is of him to say that:

    – “jurors in high-profile cases do examine the evidence more closely because they know that the world is watching. And depending on how you look at the system, it’s either a good or a bad thing. If you think that ten guilty people should go free in order to protect one innocent person, then that’s exactly what you’re seeing in high profile cases.”

    So this is how he sees the problem? That in high-profile cases the jury are so over-scrupulous and meticulous that they are ready to let go ten guilty people in order to protect one innocent person?

    Can anyone guess which part Michael Jackson belongs to in Abrams’ opinion? Despite that one sentence where he said that the verdict was right?

    Like

  36. February 15, 2011 5:06 pm

    David, I’m sorry for interfering into your post but I added a name to each of the parts (not to guess later who spoke in which part) and also made a new category “The 2005 Harvard law seminar”.

    Could you link to that category all other posts concerning Thomas Mesereau’s speech there? I remember we had a video of him talking, but my memory is failing me completely… And if I can’t find it, how can our readers be expected to find anything in our blog?

    Please help!

    Like

  37. February 15, 2011 4:27 pm

    David, thank you so much for part 2.

    This Dan Abrams is a reporter who mixes up truth and lies into one pile in such an intricate way that he is really dangerous. You’ve already shown the way Dan is twisting the truth when you made an absolutely brilliant observation in #11.

    I am rewording it a little:

    Abrams claims “If that’s the case, and Tom’s right that the media was so awful and horrible to Michael Jackson, these jurors are saints if they were somehow able to avoid the insidious media coverage”

    You explain that what Mesereau says is that the jury acquitted MJ not DUE to the media but IN SPITE of the media, while Dan implies that the “Not Guilty” verdict is indicative of the media’s “fair” coverage.

    What Dan is saying is what I call a “near-truth” – something which sounds like the truth but is actually no truth at all, only you can’t properly understand what is wrong with it.

    And the big lie is in the fact that he takes two totally different things, brings them together and says that one is the outcome of the other – which is wrong!

    What he is trying to say is THIS:

    – If the media had been horrible, only angels could have withstood it, but since the jury are no angels, then the media was not horrible at all.

    WRONG!

    – The media was horrible and the jury were not angels but they didn’t believe the horrible media because Michael’s lawyers showed the truth of the case and the truth outweighed the horrors of the media. The fact that the jury believed the Defense and said “not guilty” 14 times, proves only that the case presented by Prosecution was a zero case – but not the fact that the media was nice to Michael!

    It is so typical and so masterful a distortion of the truth that this alone should warn Dan Abrams’s viewers to be top careful when watching his program! Especially since he says it himself that he is not presenting facts as such but is offering his opinion.

    Let us always remember the English proverb: “When somebody deceives you once, shame on him, but if somebody deceives you twice, shame on you”.

    If Abrams deceives you once, shame on him, but if Abrams deceives you twice – shame on you, because you have already caught him red-handed once but this didn’t teach you a lesson and you’ve allowed him to do it to you again and again.

    So if you believe this liar you have no one but yourself to blame for it.

    Like

  38. lcpledwards permalink
    February 15, 2011 10:59 am

    Here is yet another blog that I found and added to the blogroll! This is designed to be a satirical spoof of what Gavin Arvizo would write if he had a blog and confessed to lying! It was written from January 2005 through January 2007. It’s very funny! http://antonjackson.blogspot.com/

    In case you missed it, I added 2 other blogs to the blogroll as well. The first is the youtube channel of LunaJo67, a staunch MJ supporter who has uploaded dozens of videos that support MJ’s innocence, mainly her “What Did Happen To Michael Jackson?” series, which chronicles the allegations, and is currently at video #78. http://www.youtube.com/user/LunaJo67

    This blog is an “undercover” MJ blog written by a fan who I assume is also a journalist. Her identity is anonymous, and she doesn’t have any photos of MJ on her site, or any links to other MJ sites. But from January 2004 through August 2005, she posted dozens of articles that accurately described the trial, and blasted the media and Sneddon. Although there isn’t much that she says that we don’t already know, is still refreshing to see a new perspective on the trial. http://edgymatters.blogspot.com/

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big Happy Family! | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. Summary and Analysis of Martin Bashir’s Testimony from the 2005 Trial, Part 2 of 2 « Vindicating Michael
  3. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big, Happy Family-Pt 2 | AllForLoveBlog
  4. Michael Jackson’s Enemies Are LITERALLY One Big Happy Family! « 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: