Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 1 of 4
I first became aware of the site http://www.mjfacts.info/ last June when I stumbled unto it while doing a Google search on the Chandlers. I was stunned at the poorly researched garbage that I found on this site! It came with a disclaimer that said that the site’s goal was to disprove the “extortion” attempts made against Michael Jackson in 1993, and judging from the original entries, many of us were under the impression that Ray Chandler was covertly running the site. The original entries included so-called rebuttals to Mary Fischer’s GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” and to “Redemption” by Geraldine Hughes, the transcript of the interview between Jordan Chandler and Dr. Gardner, the transcript of Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, a quote from a private investigator regarding the Chandler settlement, and the FBI’s behavioral analysis of pedophiles. Because everything was pro-Chandler, and specifically because there were so many references to “All That Glitters”, it was reasonable to conclude that Ray Chandler could be behind this. We did a post on the possible origins of the site, as well as the flimsy rebuttals that were offered.
However, events in recent weeks have completely refuted our assumption that Ray Chandler was the mastermind of this site! On January 6th, 2011 our adversary sent us the following email boasting about how she could “prove” that journalist and MJ advocate Charles Thomson was running the site by claiming that the admins of the site replied from his email address:
I realize that we differ on our views on Michael Jackson but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up.
I remember your site doing a post about the site Wacko Facts and that you guys believed it to be ran by Ray Chandler. But that’s not true.
The site is ran by Michael Jackson ‘defender’ Charles Thomson.
I found this out from my team emailing him about the site and how to expand it with more information on about Michael being a pedophile. When he responded, I found out his email address was the same on his blog, except that it’s a different mail carrier. When a member of my team asked if he was *that* Charles Thomson, he avoided the question.
I just thought you should know because I think it’s really shady to pretend and deceive Michael’s fans and his skeptics. I think he just wants popularity. I had heard he used to believe Michael was guilty.
You don’t have to believe me if you don’t want to but if you pretend to be someone with info on Michael–salacious info–you’ll get to see his email address as proof he is Charles Thomson.
Best,
Desiree
To make a long story short, I alerted Thomson, and he not only alerted Yola Abuse Team, but he also threatened legal action against our adversary if he was further slandered by her! The admins of the site deliberately copied Thomson’s email address (but used a Gmail account instead of a Hotmail account), and as a result Yola permanently suspended the site! (To see all of the correspondence between myself, our adversary, Thomson, and Yola, please read the update at the bottom of this post).
One thing that really got my attention is that when I read the emails between our adversary and the admins of the hater’s site is that our adversary initiated the contact with them by offering to share her “research” with them, so obviously she is attracted to like-minded people who she feels she can begin a mutually beneficial relationship with. She legitimately thought that Thomson was running the site (based on the phony email address they used), and she also sent them our post on their site, to which they emphatically denied being affiliated with Ray Chandler, so that pretty much ends that speculation. (I feel that they probably purchased some of that info from Ray’s “All That Glitters” website years ago.)
Here are the emails that she sent to the hater’s site:
Well, since MJ haters are like cockroaches who mysteriously return after you thought that you have killed them all, the admins of the site were able to reestablish their site with a new host, and with plenty of new information, so it’s obvious that our adversary’s wish to give them research and ideas came to fruition. They have since added posts that impugn Aphrodite Jones’ journalistic integrity, take the quotes of some of the jurors out of context to prove that MJ “beat the system”, take the quotes of attorney Carl Douglas’ Frozen In Time speech out of context to imply that Jordan Chandler’s description matched, rationalize Ray Chandler’s successful attempt to quash his subpoena, and cherry pick the FBI files to use baseless allegations as proof of guilt.
I can say unequivocally that each and every one of these posts are utterly worthless! The owners of this site absolutely cannot write a COGENT, LUCID, and COHERANT argument for MJ’s guilt, so they must suppress all exculpatory evidence and instead rely on the usual tabloid sources, speculation, conjecture, and fallacious arguments. No corroborative evidence is ever offered, and no criticism or skepticism of the accusers is displayed!
I want to take the opportunity to refute some of the statements on this site because this site is growing like a cancer and it must be stopped, so I will be the chemotherapy! Here is an example of how they twist the facts and suppress the truth in order to discredit Aphrodite Jones:
Jones then goes on to do exactly as Jackson’s defence did during the trial – rather than discredit the evidence against Jackson, she attempts to discredit the family making the claims against Jackson. These chapters don’t stand up well to scrutiny. They are filled with impressions, opinions, and twisting of the testimony. For instance, she uses the example of defence attorney Tom Mesereau flourishing a copy of a pornographic ‘Barely Legal’ magazine and asking the accuser’s brother if this was what Jackson showed the boys – the boy, thinking he meant a ‘Barely Legal’ magazine, answered in the affirmative – Mesereau then announced this was an issue which came out after the boys had been at Neverland. Jones presents this as proof that the boy was lying, ignoring his protestations that he didn’t mean that exact copy. When Mesereau points out that the accuser’s grandmother told the accuser “..if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman” rather than Jackson, Mesereau refuses to accept that both Jackson andthe grandmother said it. Mesereau pulls out one of the accuser’s interviews where he only mentions the grandmother’s quote, and ignores another interview where the boy said that it was also Jackson’s quote. Jones lauds this slick lawyering against a young boy. In fact, Jones makes the family sound so horrible, bad mannered, ill behaved, manipulative and conniving that one is left with the thought ‘Why on Earth did Jackson befriend these people?’.
Are you freakin’ kidding me?!! They have the nerve to say that Aphrodite is twisting the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo? Let me put an end to this nonsense. To our adversary, and to the admin of that site, pay attention! This is how you do research!
Here is Sneddon’s direct examination of Star Arvizo, where he asks him about a particular issue of Barely Legal that he claimed that MJ showed him.
27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Who was with you when you
28 saw that suitcase for the first time. 1153
1 A. Me, my brother, Aldo, and Michael.
2 Q. The defendant.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And who — how was it that you were actually
5 shown that suitcase.
6 A. Uhh —
7 Q. Tell us what happened.
8 A. Just walked in the room and it was open. It
9 was — there used to be a couch right there.
10 Q. Yeah.
11 A. And — well, it wasn’t really a couch. It
12 was like a chair. And it was on there, and it was
13 open.
14 Q. All right. And then what happened.
15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.
16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.
17 A. He handed them to us.
18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.
19 A. Yes, with him.
20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or
21 did everybody have a different one at a different
22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.
23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.
24 Q. Did anybody make any comments about
25 anything.
26 A. No.
27 Q. Do you remember how many of them you saw.
28 A. A couple. 1154
1 Q. How long was it that you were there going
2 through them.
3 A. I don’t know. Probably ten minutes.
4 Q. Now, when did that take place, when you saw
5 these for the first — that suitcase for the first
6 time.
7 A. When.
8 Q. Yeah.
9 A. I think after the Calabasas hotel.
10 Q. Now, I have one other exhibit that is No. 86
11 marked for identification purposes.
12 Now, I’m going to show you this in just a
13 second, but I want to talk to you a little bit more.
14 Did you ever see that black suitcase that’s
15 been marked as People’s 470 before. After that,
16 after the time that you discussed —
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where.
19 A. It was upstairs in his bed area.
20 Q. Where.
21 A. In his — where his bed was.
22 Q. And where in his bedroom.
23 A. Near the T.V.
24 Q. All right. And where were you.
25 A. What do you mean.
26 Q. Where were you in the bedroom.
27 A. On the bed.
28 Q. All right. Who was with you. 1155
1 A. Aldo, my brother and Michael.
2 Q. And where was the suitcase located. I mean,
3 how did — did you ever look at the suitcase, inside
4 of it.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What happened.
7 A. There was adult material in there.
8 Q. All right. But how did it get opened.
9 A. Michael pulled it out.
10 Q. All right. Tell us what he did.
11 A. He picked it up, sat on the bed and opened
12 it.
13 Q. And then what.
14 A. He pulled the magazine out and started
15 showing us.
16 Q. How many magazines do you think you saw that
17 time.
18 A. Four. Three. I don’t know.
19 Q. Did you look through the entire magazines.
20 A. No. It was probably a section or something
21 like that.
22 Q. What did you see in the magazines.
23 A. Nude females.
24 Q. What.
25 A. Nude females.
26 Q. Do you remember the names of any of the
27 titles of the magazines that you saw.
28 A. “Barely Legal” and “Playboy.” 1156
1 Q. Were there others that you saw besides that,
2 or are those the only ones you saw.
3 A. Those are the only ones I remember.
4 Q. I’m going to show you a photograph marked as
5 People’s 86 for identification purposes.
6 And that’s — first of all, I’m going to
7 move that People’s 470 be admitted into evidence,
8 Your Honor.
9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.
10 THE COURT: We’ll take that up separately.
11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.
12 Do you recognize that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it
15 represents.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you some
18 questions about People’s 86.
19 And put it on the board, Your Honor. I move
20 it be admitted into evidence.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; and
22 authenticity and relevance.
23 THE COURT: On 86.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I asked him and he said
25 it accurately depicted the materials.
26 THE COURT: I’m not sure. I haven’t seen
27 the —
28 MR. SNEDDON: In your book, it’s No. 86, 1157
1 Your Honor —
2 THE COURT: Okay.
3 MR. SNEDDON: — in your photographs.
4 MR. MESEREAU: Also 352, Your Honor.
5 THE COURT: I don’t think that’s an adequate
6 foundation for that particular photograph, that it
7 accurately depicts what it is. You need a further
8 foundation.
9 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the materials that
10 are depicted in that photograph, People’s 86, do you
11 see those.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you recognize any of those.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Where do you recognize them from.
16 A. The black suitcase.
17 Q. And which time.
18 A. The first and second time.
19 Q. Does that photograph represent the items
20 that you saw with the defendant, Michael Jackson.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In his bedroom and in his Jacuzzi, or in his
23 bathroom.
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. SNEDDON: I move it be admitted, Your
26 Honor.
27 THE COURT: All right. That is an adequate
28 foundation. 1158
1 Your 352 was on what basis, Counsel.
2 MR. MESEREAU: He didn’t identify some of
3 what’s in that photograph, Your Honor, at all.
4 THE COURT: I found that the foundation is
5 adequate now. You had a 352 objection.
6 MR. MESEREAU: Yes.
7 THE COURT: What was that.
8 MR. MESEREAU: Well, basically because he
9 didn’t identify it, and because after describing
10 what he said was there, and then looking at the
11 photo and saying it accurately depicts it, he didn’t
12 identify everything, I think basically it’s
13 prejudicial and irrelevant.
14 THE COURT: All right. The probative value
15 exceeds the prejudicial —
16 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear.
17 THE COURT: It’s admitted.
18 THE DEFENDANT: I can’t hear you.
19 MR. SANGER: Your Honor, it’s a little hard
20 for Mr. Jackson to hear you.
21 THE DEFENDANT: Please speak up.
22 THE COURT: Yes. The probative value of
23 Exhibit 86 exceeds any prejudicial effects, and so
24 it’s admitted.
25 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.
26 THE COURT: Sorry.
27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Star, the exhibit that we
28 have on the board up there, the suitcase, and it’s 1159
1 open and displayed, are those among the items that
2 you saw with Mr. Jackson.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do they represent the things that you saw
5 with him when he took the magazines out.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. On the occasion that you saw the
8 materials from this suitcase that are depicted in
9 this photograph – okay. – who else was present.
10 A. My brother and Aldo, me, and Michael.
11 Q. Do you recall how many — how much time
12 elapsed between the first time you saw the materials
13 downstairs till the time you saw them upstairs.
14 A. A few days.
15 Q. And did you see how the suitcase got from
16 downstairs to upstairs.
17 A. No.
18 Q. When you saw the suitcase in the bedroom,
19 upstairs, on the second occasion, was it open or was
20 it closed.
21 A. It was open.
22 Q. And where was it on the floor, or where was
23 it in the room.
24 A. On the floor.
25 Q. And where.
26 A. Right next to the T.V.
27 Q. So when you say “it’s open,” tell me what
28 you mean by “it’s open.” 1160
1 A. It was cracked.
2 Q. What do you mean by that.
3 A. It was cracked open.
4 Q. Do you see the briefcase in the exhibit as
5 we see it in the courtroom.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Was it open in that condition.
8 A. No. No.
9 Q. Was the lid up or down when you saw it in
10 the bedroom.
11 A. It was — it was like this, standing up.
12 And it was cracked open.
13 Q. Oh, the briefcase.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Oh, I see. So it wasn’t in the same
16 position that it’s shown in this photograph.
17 A. No.
18 Q. Now, how about when you saw it downstairs.
19 A. It was like that, but it was closed.
20 Q. Like what.
21 A. Standing straight up, but it was closed,
22 leaning up against something.
23 Q. In the bathroom area.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And how did it get opened.
26 A. What do you mean.
27 Q. Well, you said it was closed. You looked at
28 the material — 1161
1 A. The first time it was closed. The second
2 time it was cracked open.
3 Q. Okay. We can take that down.
Notice how Star explicitly states that MJ showed him item No. 86, which is the photograph of the August 2003 issue of Barely Legal. He was adamant and unwavering in his statements, and there isn’t any ambiguity in his answers. Now, let’s watch him get caught in his own lie under Mesereau’s cross-examination!
4 Q. Okay. Now, referring to Exhibit 86 —
5 May I approach the witness, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
8 Q. Star, I’m showing you a photograph that you
9 identified yesterday. The number is 86. Do you see
10 that.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that’s a briefcase with some girlie
13 magazines, right.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you told the jury yesterday, they’re the
16 magazines you saw at Neverland, right.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And before you testified about these
19 magazines —
20 May I show the jury this, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
23 Shall I just hand it to them.
24 THE COURT: If that’s what you would like.
25 MR. SANGER: Tom, do you want to put it up
26 on the screen.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.
28 MR. SANGER: I’ve turned this on. 1278
1 THE BAILIFF: It would be “Input 4.”
2 THE COURT: It would be “4”.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, do you see that
4 briefcase, Star.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what you’re looking at is Exhibit 86,
7 right.
8 A. I don’t see the number.
9 Q. Okay. Just — what you’re looking at is
10 a — appears to be a black briefcase with some
11 girlie magazines, right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the first one says “Barely Legal” on it;
14 do you see that.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman lifting
17 up her shirt, correct.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman who’s
20 exposing her breasts, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And she appears to be wearing a dark pair of
23 shorts, right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at
26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are 1279
1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael
4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
7 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
8 A. What.
9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
10 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
11 A. He did show us.
12 Q. He did.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the
15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.
16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that
17 one.
18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many
19 months before, never to return, correct.
20 A. That — I’m telling you that that wasn’t
21 exactly the one he showed us.
22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s
23 not what you said today, right.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, that’s
25 argumentative.
26 THE COURT: Sustained.
27 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When you told the jury
28 yesterday that Michael Jackson showed you the 1280
1 magazine “Barely Legal,” you were not telling the
2 truth, right.
3 A. Um, I said that he did show us Barely Legal.
4 I didn’t say that he showed us that exact one. He
5 showed us those magazines.
6 Q. You told the jury yesterday that Michael
7 showed you the particular magazine depicted in the
8 photograph, didn’t you.
9 A. No. I said that he showed us those type of
10 magazines.
11 Q. You’re saying it now because you just found
12 out what the date is, right.
13 A. I never said those were exactly the ones.
14 Q. Okay. Okay. Did you discuss this issue
15 with Prosecutor Sneddon this morning.
16 A. No.
17 Q. Have you ever discussed this issue with any
18 prosecutor.
19 A. Never.
20 Q. Ever discussed this issue with any Santa
21 Barbara Sheriff’s officer.
22 A. Never.
23 Q. Okay. You testified yesterday to the jury
24 that you found that briefcase cracked open, correct.
25 A. Yes.
26 Q. In fact, you and your brother were caught
27 trying to get into that briefcase, weren’t you.
28 A. No. 1281
1 Q. You deny that anyone at Neverland ever
2 caught you trying to get into the briefcase.
3 A. Yes.
As you can see, Star’s “protestations” to Mesereau were completely contradicted by what he said to Sneddon! And of course the haters didn’t show any of his testimony to corroborate what they insinuated! (They only used the testimony of June Chandler , because only she said anything that even remotely backs up what they claimed.)
As for Gavin’s allegation that MJ told him that “men must masturbate in order to not rape women”, let’s look at this exchange between defense attorney Bob Sanger and Sergeant Robel on March 17th, 2005 (Day 12 of the trial). Sgt. Robel interviewed Gavin numerous times in 2003, prior to the raid at Neverland, and during these interviews Gavin said that his grandmother told him that “if men don’t masturbate, they get to a level where they can – might rape a girl.” However, when Sgt. Robel sat in the courtroom during Gavin’s testimony, he was stunned to hear Gavin tell Mesereau that MJ told him that!
MR. SANGER: .This pertains to the story or the claims about masturbation. You were sitting here when Gavin Arvizo testified on the stand during this trial, correct?
SERGEANT ROBEL: Correct.
MR. SANGER: And he said that Michael Jackson told him, “If men don’t masturbate, they get to a level where they can — might rape a girl.” Do you remember that?
SERGEANT ROBEL: I do.
MR. SANGER: Okay. That was the first time you ever heard Gavin Arvizo attribute that statement to Michael Jackson, was it not, sir?
SERGEANT ROBEL: I believe so.
MR. SANGER: And, in fact, Gavin Arvizo told you on August 13, 2003, that it was his grandmother who told him, “If men don’t do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman.” Is that correct? Page 28, if you want to take a look at it.
SERGEANT ROBEL: I’d like to do that.
MR. SANGER: August 13th.
SERGEANT ROBEL: Is that 28 you said?
MR. SANGER: Yes. 28, line 4, starts, “My grandma explained it to me.”
SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.
MR. SANGER: And you remember him saying that because, in fact, you testified before the grand jury on April 14th that — of 2004, that Gavin, in fact, told you that his grandmother said that; is that correct, sir?
SERGEANT ROBEL: That’s correct.MR. SANGER: And, in fact, in the August 13, 2003, interview, Gavin said, “My grandma explained it to me. She told me that — that you’re — the only reason — because like if — if men don’t do it, men might get to a point where they might go ahead and rape a woman. So instead of having to do that, so they don’t — so they don’t get wanting to go do that.” Did he say that?
SERGEANT ROBEL: Yes.
Let’s look at exactly what Gavin told Sneddon under direct examination regarding this masturbation nonsense (and pay attention to his lies about MJ abusing him, too):
25 Q. All right. Tell the jury how it came about
26 that you and Mr. Jackson were in bed together and
27 what you were doing.
28 A. Well, we were — well, we just had come back 1680
1 from drinking a lot in the arcade, and it was —
2 Q. Doing what.
3 A. Drinking in the arcade.
4 Q. Can you pull that down just a little bit.
5 There. Okay. Go ahead.
6 A. We just came back from drinking in the
7 arcade, and then we went up to his room. And then
8 we were sitting there for a while, and Michael
9 started talking to me about masturbation.
10 Q. So you were in the room for a while and the
11 defendant started talking to you about masturbation.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What did he say to you.
14 A. He — he told me — he said that if men
15 don’t masturbate, that they can get to a level where
16 they can — might rape a girl or they might be,
17 like, kind of unstable. So he was telling me that
18 guys have to masturbate.
19 And he told me a story that —
20 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; nonresponsive.
21 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. We’ll stop
22 right there.
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. What else did he say to you.
25 A. He told me a story of he saw a boy one
26 time – he was looking over a balcony or something –
27 and he saw a boy who didn’t masturbate and he had
28 sex with a dog. 1681
1 Q. Did he tell you anything else during this
2 conversation.
3 A. That particular section. Or —
4 Q. Yeah. I mean, did he tell you anything
5 else.
6 A. He told me that boys had to masturbate, or
7 males have to masturbate.
8 Q. Okay.
9 THE BAILIFF: They cannot hear.
10 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: They couldn’t hear what you
11 had to say, Gavin. I know it’s hard. Lean right
12 into it.
13 A. He told me that males have to masturbate.
14 Q. All right. Now, when he said that, what, if
15 anything, did he do or say after that.
16 A. He said that if I masturbated; and I told
17 him that I didn’t. And then he said if I didn’t
18 know how, that he would do it for me.
19 Q. And what did you say.
20 A. And I said I didn’t really want to.
21 Q. All right. And then what happened.
22 A. And then he said it was okay, that it was
23 natural, and that it’s natural for boys to do it.
24 Q. All right. What happened after that.
25 A. And then so he — we were under the covers,
26 and I had his pajamas on, because he had this big
27 thing of pajamas and he gave me his pajamas.
28 Q. Okay. 1682
1 A. And so I was under his covers, and then
2 that’s when he put his hand in my pants and then he
3 started masturbating me.
4 Q. Could you see Mr. Jackson while he was doing
5 that to you.
6 A. Not really. I wasn’t really looking at him.
7 Q. Could you tell whether or not he was moving.
8 A. Well, he was — he was himself.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. I wasn’t really looking at him. All I
11 could — I could kind of feel him moving, but, I
12 mean, I never really saw him moving.
13 Q. Do you know approximately how long Mr.
14 Jackson masturbated you.
15 A. Maybe five minutes, I guess.
16 Q. Did — do you know what an “ejaculation” is.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you have an ejaculation.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did Mr. Jackson say anything to you
21 afterwards.
22 A. I kind of felt weird. I was embarrassed
23 about it. And then he said it was okay; that it was
24 natural.
25 Q. Did anything else happen that evening
26 between you and Mr. Jackson.
27 A. No. We just — after that, we just — he
28 tried to say that it was okay and that — kind of 1683
1 like to comfort me, because I felt weird. I felt
2 weird about it. And then after a while, we just
3 went to sleep.
Here is Mesereau’s cross-examination of Gavin. According to the haters who run that site, Mesereau “refuses to accept that both Jackson and the grandmother said it. Mesereau pulls out one of the accuser’s interviews where he only mentions the grandmother’s quote, and ignores another interview where the boy said that it was also Jackson’s quote”. They tried to accuse Mesereau of not accepting the possibility that, just by sheer coincidence, Gavin’s grandmother told him the exact same advice that MJ told him! What would be the chances that his grandmother would say literally the exact same phrase, on her own initiative, to Gavin? They also claimed that Gavin told cops in another interview that MJ did indeed tell him that story, but Sgt. Robel’s testimony debunks that because he said he had never heard it before! And if Gavin told another officer that MJ said that, don’t you think Sgt. Robel would have known, since he interviewed Gavin multiple times before the raid, and knew every aspect of his story backwards and forwards? Don’t you think he would have told the Grand Jury about this in April 2004? And why didn’t the haters provide a transcript of Gavin’s interview? Because it doesn’t fit their story! He didn’t tell any cops that MJ told him that story! Mesereau was the first person that he told!
Try to keep your laughter to a minimum while reading this exchange!
1 Q. Okay. And you testified that Mr. Jackson
2 told you what masturbation is, right.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. Is that true.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And you testified to the jury that Mr.
7 Jackson said that if men don’t masturbate, that they
8 can get to a level where they can — might rape a
9 girl. Remember that.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you remember saying that.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the
14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on a number of
15 occasions.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you remember who interviewed you.
18 A. Most likely Steve Robel or Paul Zelis.
19 Q. Do you remember being asked, “Before we get
20 started on the next set of questions, can you
21 describe to us what your opinion is, what you think
22 masturbation is.” Do you remember one of the
23 sheriffs asked you that during an interview.
24 A. I believe so.
25 Q. And you knew those interviews were being
26 recorded, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Remember you said, “My grandma explained it 1798
1 to me. She told me that — that your — the only
2 reason is because like if — if men don’t do it, men
3 might get to a point where they might go ahead and
4 rape a woman”. Do you remember saying that to the
5 sheriffs.
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Why did your story change between that
8 interview and your testimony last Thursday.
9 A. Well, what do you mean “changed”.
10 Q. Well, you told the police your grandmother
11 made that quote to you, and you came into court
12 under oath and told the jury Mr. Jackson made that
13 quote to you.
14 A. That didn’t change. Because Michael tried
15 to explain to me first. And I — he was more
16 pushing on me that men have to masturbate.
17 Now, later when I came back from Neverland,
18 I guess my grandmother saw that I was very confused
19 about sexuality and things like that. And my
20 grandmother explained to me a lot of things.
21 Q. So it just so happened that after Mr.
22 Jackson told you, “If a man doesn’t do it, they may
23 get to a point where they rape a woman,” your
24 grandmother made the almost identical quote to you.
25 Is that what you’re saying.
26 A. Not really. She didn’t make the same exact
27 thing that Michael said. But I’m not exactly sure
28 what my grandmother said. I know my grandmother 1799
1 explained a lot of things to me.
2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
3 you a transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
4 A. Probably.
5 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Whoops, I’m sorry.
8 Your Honor, I spilled a little water with my
9 notebook, so —
10 THE BAILIFF: How about you put that over
11 here.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, have you had a
13 chance to look at that page of transcript.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
16 you told the sheriffs about what masturbation was.
17 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.
18 THE WITNESS: It refreshes my —
19 THE COURT: Just a moment. Let’s take care
20 of one thing at a time.
21 You may start again on that.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
23 Q. Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to look at
24 that page of transcript of your sheriff’s interview.
25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what
27 you told the sheriffs your grandmother said.
28 A. It refreshes — I can recall what my 1800
1 grandmother was telling me. She was — she saw that
2 I was embarrassed about things like masturbation and
3 growing up, and my mother was telling me that it’s
4 okay to do it. And Michael was telling me that you
5 have to do it.
6 Q. Well, Mr. Arvizo, I understand your
7 position. But when the sheriffs asked you what
8 masturbation was, you didn’t say, “Mr. Jackson told
9 me if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman.”
10 You said if — “My grandmother told me that if a man
11 doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman,” correct.
12 A. I believe so. That’s what you showed me.
13 But —
14 Q. And between the time of that interview —
15 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me.
16 Your Honor, he was about to say something
17 when he got cut off by counsel.
18 MR. MESEREAU: Oh, I apologize. I had no
19 idea.
20 THE WITNESS: But —
21 MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me. Go ahead.
22 THE WITNESS: But that still doesn’t mean
23 that Michael did not tell me.
24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: But what you’re telling
25 the jury is it was sort of a coincidence that both
26 your grandmother and Michael used almost the
27 identical phrase about raping a woman.
28 A. Both my grandmother and Michael were trying 1801
1 to talk to me about the — pretty much the birds and
2 the bees story.
3 Q. Okay. And they pretty much said the
4 identical thing, is that what you’re telling me.
5 A. Not exactly.
6 Q. Not exactly.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Well, the quotes are almost identical,
9 aren’t they.
10 A. You see, Michael was trying to tell me that
11 I have to masturbate. My mom — my grandmother was
12 actually telling me — giving me the talk. Michael
13 was just talking about masturbation.
14 Q. But your grandmother said to you, “If men
15 don’t do it, men might get to a point where they
16 might go ahead and rape a woman,” correct.
17 A. Michael also told me that.
18 Q. Well — so you’re saying they basically said
19 the same thing.
20 A. My grandmother said it’s okay to do it,
21 because sometimes, some men, they can’t control
22 themselves and might do that.
23 Q. But in that police interview, you never
24 mentioned that Michael Jackson had said that to you,
25 did you.
26 A. I’m sure in one of the other transcript I
27 mentioned about Michael.
28 Q. Not in that interview, correct. 1802
1 A. But I’m sure in another one I did.
Here is another manipulation of the facts by these haters. They accuse Aphrodite of dismissing the testimony of Jason Francia and downplaying his abuse as “tickling”.
Later, Jones espouses on the testimony from past victims. Sadly, one witness, a son of one of Jackson’s former maids, who testified that he had been molested by Jackson as a boy was dismissed by Jones as merely having been ‘tickled’ by Jackson. ‘Tickling’ that involved tears from the witness and 5 years of therapy. Jordie Chandler’s allegations were dismissed by Jones as ‘financially motivated’ – the 20 million dollar settlement was characterized as a ‘drop in the bucket’ for Jackson. Rather than focus on the principle of the matter, that Jackson paid the money to make the problem go away rather than defend his reputation, Jones in rather typical fashion makes Jackson out to be the victim. She cares not one whit for molestation victims, rather strangely she prefers to be on the side of a multi-millionaire with lawyers and PR people on tap – just because he is famous. Whilst she criticizes the families for accepting money instead of taking on a powerful celebrity, Jones seems oblivious to the impropriety of someone that is accused of molesting boys paying a settlement instead of standing and facing his accusers. To most people, these payments made Jackson look shifty, morally unaccountable and to some people, guilty.
Apparently they believed the crocodile tears that Jason cried on the witness stand, and his claims of going to therapy for 5 years, yet they did NOT show their readers any of his “compelling” testimony! And on top of that, they resort to the same Catch-22 argument that haters absolutely love to use: “MJ bought his way out of jail in 1993, yet his celebrity got him off in 2005!” That logic exactly explains why MJ was forced to settle: even though he surely would have been acquitted in civil court, haters would undermine his acquittal regardless, so it wasn’t worth tarnishing the Jackson brand to go through the trial.
I’ve already slaughtered both Jason and Blanca Francia in this post about MJ’s settlements, and for additional insight into Jason’s lies, let’s listen to what William Wagener had to say of a brief encounter he had with him before the trial.
That’s all for now, but before I go, let’s focus on something that the haters said in the excerpt above:
Rather than focus on the principle of the matter, that Jackson paid the money to make the problem go away rather than defend his reputation, Jones in rather typical fashion makes Jackson out to be the victim.
They’re saying that MJ must have been guilty because he wouldn’t “defend his reputation”, but in Part 2 of this series, I will dissect how they try to undermine MJ’s acquittal by saying his celebrity status got him off! It’s the same Catch 22 that haters use ALL OF THE TIME!!
Vindicating Michael 
Wait so Charles Thompson, the same person who defends Michael, is also the person who runs MJFacts???
LikeLike
Guys, does anyone have a transcript of Thomas Mesereau’s latest talk on King Jordan’s program?
I would like to comment on a few things but the program was so big that transcribing it by myself would take a month.
If someone has at least parts of the program transcribed please send it here, if you can.
LikeLike
Everything is fitting in now.
Branca was rehired by Michael just prior to the 1993 settlement because Michael needed money for the settlement and for his lawyers (Cochran and his team cost $100,000 a week). This we know from Carl Douglas’s later bragging about his lucrative job and from the LA Times of December 22, 1993:
To raise cash for the two possible trials – civil and criminal (or a settlement) Michael’s advisors suggested that he should sell part of his catalog at around $75 million. Instead of the sale the newly brought-in Branca suggested a deal with Sony merging the ATV catalog with whatever music publishing rights Sony had. The deal brought twice as much money, but part of it went to cover the lawyers’ fees, litigation costs and the settlement. Branca also asked for a percent of the profits from the ATV/Sony catalog.
Cochran never wanted to fight, insisted on the settlement and promised to Michael that the money would be returned by the insurance company. The insurance company did indeed promise to look into the claim but did not pay.
The Chandlers wanted $30 million but got half of it, with the fee to Larry Feldman possibly added to it. So in the long run all the lawyers involved gained from the deal, while the only one who sustained really severe damage was Michael.
This was evidently the reason why Michael was displeased with his new team of lawyers, Branca included. He didn’t make much difference between who was playing which part – the only thing he realized was that they let him down.
LikeLike
As to who forced whom to settle it was Johnny Cochran and Michael’s then team who forced him to settle. Bert Fields and Pellicano were absolutely against it. Bert Fields was fired by Howard Wiezman, Pellicano left on his own completely outraged by the new course taken by the new team of lawyers.
Thomas Mesereau said that Michael’s criminal lawyer Weizman and Branca, the general counsel at the time, named Johnny Cochran as the initiator of the settlement. Quite possible, considering that Johnny Cochran was on very friendly terms with Larry Feldman, the Chandlers’ lawyer. Later on Feldman became Johnny Cochran’s personal lawyer and represented him in all his lawsuits.
I understand Thomas Mesereau’s worry that Wiezman and Branca can choose the same mode of behavior as before and settle with Robson, which will be a complete disaster. Well, all of us should work together not to allow them to do it.
However a separate problem will be to find a good civil lawyer to handle the case (if it comes to a trial). Thomas Mesereau will not be able to handle it as he is a criminal lawyer. Finding someone equal to his excellence will be problematic. We cannot afford to lose the case due to some technicalities as it happened at the AEG trial.
LikeLike
In her book of 1994 Lisa Campbell wrote that Michael’s lawyers hoped the money would be compensated for by the insurance company. Thomas Mesereau added that the lawyers worked on the conditions of the settlement so that it could be covered by the insurance. However the insurers evidently chose not to.
Lisa Campbell:
If it did not pay I personally do not care. Michael had a hundred reasons to settle the case without any insurance.
Some of them are in this post – WHAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT HEAR: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/jackson-case-what-the-public-didnt-hear/
LikeLike
“As to Thomas Mesereau there is simply no way that his information about the insurance payment could not be true. For an attorney it would have been a suicide, especially in a situation like that.”
In the King Jordan interview T-Mez said that an insurance company DIDN’T force Mike to settle, and he also said he was well aware of the Brian Oxman motion.
LikeLike
Guys, wait a minute please. Let me try and understand what’s ebor is trying to tell us and what Lynette is trying to translate into Bulgarian via Google. I don’t know Bulgarian but it is very close to Russian and the alphabet is the same, so evidently Lynette says that it will be better if Ebor writes in Bulgarian, so that we understand him better.
If this is the case, Ebor, please write the same in Bulgarian and I will try to translate for you.
Ebor, пожалуйста, пишите по болгарски.
LikeLike
Ebor там е на друг език, който знаете, че освен български. Ако пишете в руски VMJ могат да превеждат вместо вас.
LikeLike
When this blog site be exposed the anti-D blog site no more comment be permitted on anti-D blog site. My expectation is being anti-D blog site is setting up by D as vindicatemj be writing to us on selection subject. Please forgiving bad English it not being my language so must translating I know a short amount.
LikeLike
“I know Sneddon was trying to imply that MJ had the alleged crime scene cleaned up..lol, because he had a household staff that went about their cleaning jobs, but the pictures from the raid show 2 open bottles of alcohol , Jack daniels and a wine bottle in his room , when MJ was not even home, he was working in Vegas…”
OMG, this is another crazy detail to Sneddon’s crazy story! As far as I remember Michael had been in Las Vegas for at least two weeks or even more by the time they raided Neverland! And despite that they claimed that the bottles were Michael’s!
Of course this is the reason why they never did a fingerprint analysis of the bottles. In fact the probably did, only when finding that they were not Michael’s, they could have flushed the results down the toilet and pretend they simply didn’t know. This way there was at least some chance they could pass those bottles for Michael’s.
The Arvizo case will never cease to surprise us by its nonsense. How could they ever take it to a trial?
LikeLike
“When it was paid by insurance that made the insurance company essentially the defendant in the case and they don’t like people to know that they can get away with frivolous lawsuits.”
Lynette, I also thought that the insurance company was negotiating this thing behind closed doors while putting up a public show that they were not. They do it not to encourage people to think they are so easy to deal with.
As to Thomas Mesereau there is simply no way that his information about the insurance payment could not be true. For an attorney it would have been a suicide, especially in a situation like that. The other side could easily check up on him, and his case would have been lost before its start.
So it WAS the insurance company which paid.
However I agree that the question whether the insurance forced Michael to pay or not can be disputed. They probably didn’t, though you never know what they said in those negotiations.
But all this simply DOES NOT MATTER.
The crucial thing is that there was NO MATCH and Jordan’s description of MJ’s genitals was a complete OPPOSITE of the photos in every possible way – even in their color, which is a totally unusual thing and could happen only in Michael’s case due to his unique vitiligo disease.
And since there was no match it means that the whole thing was a BIG LIE – and everything else is in the field of human psychology.
Yes, Michael didn’t want to see himself being trashed for months on end at a civil trial which could end in some penalty anyway. Yes, he didn’t want it to be televised (!) and we can easily understand that. Yes, he wanted the media to stop. Yes, he hoped his lawyers would help him but they said they could not guarantee anything. Yes, he probably even thought of Jordan’s good. Yes, he wanted to resume his work. Yes, he wanted to get married, have children and be happy at last.
All this is natural to feel and cannot be used against Michael. Any of us would have settled if we were in his place – especially if the money came from the insurance company.
LikeLike
@Miky
” i also read a so called fan saying she/he is ashamed of thinking mj was innocent and that she compared mjs defense to others cm and that they used the same defence( thats a new one on me) this person also believes in the “hush money” says he/she has read court documents provided to her through topix that prove jackson was a cm!! and heres the BIG one. sites his/her source mjfacts hater site and also provid es that article from 2004 by maureen orth about kids in hotel rooms this person also claims that her/his only defence of mj was that he was found innocent (Yea Says Alot I Know) and that those mysterious kids wont come forward because of crazy fans!!”
I am the one who wrote that here on this site a while back i was telling MJ fans how Haters are disguising them selfles as fans. and what a so called fan said on topix.
LikeLike
“I just told my hairdresser to check your site out today”
Oh Nan, thanks! We are trying to vindicate Michael for the general public and not for haters, who are evidently beyond hope. However they are also human beings and miracle do sometimes happen.
When I think of these people’s sick minds I always remember that they were innocent babies once – so what happened to them? Why did they turn into who they are now? How do innocent babies turn into monsters? Who did it to them?
LikeLike
Maria, sorry for not answering you (or anyone). There has been suddenly a huge pile of work to do after the holidays, so I do not have a single minute to spare, but hope to get back to the blog at the first opportunity. I want to leave a couple of comments about the D. and anti-D. subject you’ve mentioned.
LikeLike
@ Nan
I agree with you, there were lots of people coming and going into Michael’s room when he wasn’t there. In fact it was stated in several testimonies during the trial. Remember, Michael often was away for long, long weeks. So people could do whatever they wanted at Neverland.
LikeLike
lynande51
thank you for the info…
I wonder how much time a lot of people spent in MJ bedroom suite , even when MJ was no where around..I would bet quite a lot of his guests were in and out of there…
LikeLike
@lynande,
I think they broke the settlement agreement with the Gutierrez book.
LikeLike
They did take those alcohol bottles into evidence however they did not do a DNA or figerprint analysis of them. That is in Paul Zellis’s testimony I think. They were dropped from the evidence list because they were not evidence of any crime.
I think that everyone has to remember that Omer and two friends of his were at Neverland the day of that raid. Omer and his buddies were 18 years old at the time. That is legal drinking age in Norway but not in the United States. Here it is 21 years old. I once found an article from one of the parents of one of the boys and they said that they were far more afraid of the SBSD than they were Michael Jackson, considering he wasn’t even there.
LikeLike
@ Suzy
Here is Ray Chandler’s quote after MJ’s death: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2009/06/uncle-alleged-molestation-victim-responds-jackson-death
Notice that ridiculous estimate of the settlement being between $2 and $50 million dollars!
And here is his quote in 1995, right before the release of HIStory: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,297591,00.html
LikeLike
Suzy and lynande51
Those are very interesting points…
Insurance company dont like to be robbed..
Maybe somebody should tell Jordan the insurance company is now defunct..
I always thought it was possible he thought that Sneddon might turn on his father out of embarrassment if he showed up at court.and bring him up on charges..
After all we have learned , I find it almost incredulous that the prosecutors did not realize MJ was innocent when they started that trial..
I think that is why Zonen always fights so hard about it stiill, because he has to defend why they even brought that case for the Arvizo and Larry Feldman.., in the first place..
I have no explanation for some of the remarks Ray Chandler makes ..He might have mental issues too..lol
I was thinking about that raid the other day..I am going to have to check back and see if Gavin initially said he had been drinking alcohol I dont remember if they fingerprinted bottles but I will have to check..
I know Sneddon was trying to imply that MJ had the alleged crime scene cleaned up..lol, because he had a household staff that went about their cleaning jobs, but the pictures from the raid show 2 open bottles of alcohol , Jack daniels and a wine bottle in his room , when MJ was not even home, he was working in Vegas…I would think his staff would put the tops on.., if they were trying to clean a crime scene up.
LikeLike
@ Nan and Shelly, There is nothing in the settlement agreement at this time that prohibits Jordan from speaking out. It clearly says that the payment is absolute whether the confidentiality terms are breached or not. That paper silenced no one but Michael speaking out in his own defence, go read it again. In the beginning is a clause called a Confession of Judgement that means that if Michael doesn’t pay for real or imagined breaches of the confidentiality,they can take the original settlement into court and not have to file another lawsuit to get the rest of the money.
Michael on the other hand if he found that they broke the confidentiality agreement would have to take them back to court. Well we all know convienently when they broke that, it was in the middle of the trial when Ray Chandler finally released the book that was written before they ever even started. After the trial Michael just wanted the hell out of this country. Jordan can speak out because the information is already in the public domaine he has no need not to other than his own choice or if he was worried that an insurance company would come after him for repayment of the money because they are more likely to than the defendant. When it was paid by insurance that made the insurance company essentially the defendant in the case and they don’t like people to know that they can get away with frivolous lawsuits. The company that did pay is now defunct meaning it doesn’t exist. Maybe Jordan needs to know that.
LikeLike
@ Nan
Actually I think Ray Chandler did say something after Michael’s death. If I remember correctly it was something like “I hope he’s in a better place now” or “I hope he rests in peace” or something like this. I don’t know what it was exactly but I do remember thinking I was like “WTF? Is that you say upon the death of a man who allegedly molested your nephew?” It was yet another odd reaction on the Chandlers’s part.
And about the prosecution’s interview with Jordan in 2004: I wonder if the prosecution could have subpoenaed him against his will, if they wanted? Because if they could have it’s rather odd that they didn’t and left him alone. I’m pretty sure this conversation didn’t go like: “Hi, we are the prosecution, would you please testify against Michael Jackson?”, “No, I would not, I did my part and if you try to force me I will take legal steps. Now be gone. Bye”. I’m sure it was much longer and a lot of things we don’t know and that aren’t in the files were said. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall because I’m sure, for example, if Jordan told them nothing ever happened then they would not include that in their report, instead they would report some vauge reason why he chose not to testify, such as “I did my part”…
LikeLike
Shelly I agree..
The prosecution was trying to establish a pattern of behavior.A certain type..
That is why Tom Mesereau brought up that Mac looked nothing like Jordan.
This entire inquisition was based on tabloid gossip.
I always found it interesting that people like Diane Dimond try to spin it like Evan blew his brains out due to illness.
I have always thought it was because the F.B.I. files were coming out and of course , he knew what was in them……., what we all know now..
They stalked the man for a decade and they told the prosecutor there was nothing.And that Jordan would not testify.
“I did my part ”
Everyone knows the next logical question is “your part in what?”
I would think that if you were Evan and you had spent the last decade trying to smear MJ, you might give one last recorded interview saying what a horrible person MJ was .Especially since he was getting adulation at that time..
Stick around to refute what was in those files…
If he had planned on killing himself , he had nothing to lose .you cant take money to the grave ..
But then you might have to answer some questions yourself…
Seems he didnt want to take any questions anymore.
I think that is the real reason he blew his brians out ..
..I noticed Ray Chandler wasnt on tv commenting on those files either….
Havent seen that guy on tv since the court case , where he refused to testify…
At any rate , I always thought the closest we would get to the family admitting the truth was the fact that no one in that family had one kind word to say about the man,after he died…,A dedicated father,LOL, who supposedly protected his son from a predator and obtained generational wealth from an insurance company ..You might think they would have said SOMETHING on his behalf…
Not one word of faint praise ???NADA, … ZIP
All they said is he was a mental case and no one bothered with him for years, wouldnt even attend his funeral , nothing..
So that to me is their way of blaming Evan for the whole thing, playing his victims also..
Frank Cascio said in his book that Jordan said Evan was very jealous of MJ,( no doubt because MJ was becoming his father figure) and that his father was a violent person..
We know he tried to kill his own son later in life.
I wonder if Jordan might..? just come out and speak the truth , if he could still hold onto the cash..I know Frank has implied he is going to try and get Jordan to come forward.
LikeLike
lynande51
LOL..
Whats next? Mother Teresa had a foot fetish because she used to wash the feet of the poor? What a pervert LOL
I am with Tom Mesereau on this one ,,I dont know how they brought that case with a straight face..
LikeLike
“Where did that question stem from??
Public rumor??”
I think it’s because the DA tried o convince the jurors that MJ had a preference for a certain type of boys.
LikeLike
Nan I am sure some that some of his witnesses were wondering what he was thinking with some of those questions especially the ones about the lions. Do you think he ever felt a little silly when he had to do that? It sure is a good thing he didn’t have to question Abdool about that vaseline crap. LOL. How do you suppose he would have gone about that? Do you think it could be done with a straight face? Or worse yet the dead baby bones!!!And God forbid if he had to question Adrian McManus about her MJ tampon collection!!!
We should do a parody on that one! Can I be Tom Mesereau?
LikeLike
BTW Mesereau also asked June Chandler if MacCauly Culkin bore any resemblance to her son Jordan..
Where did that question stem from??
Public rumor??
He knew the answer to that one too..
She said no and that negated yet another rumor out in the public arena that MJ had a certain type boy that he befriended..
I fail to see how some of Mesereau questions can be construed as being anything other than an astute defense lawyer
Lets not forget that the judge seemed to rule in favor of the prosecution for everything , particularly on controversial motions..
If he was doing anything underhanded or out of pocket ,,I feel Mellvile would have been more then happy to call him out on it…..
LikeLike
I was just reading comments and noticed the conversation regarding Mesereau supposedly lying about Jimmy Safechuck and whether he had been married at Neverland…
I am afraid I must be missing the point…
Although I dont know if Safechuck was married there or not,… Mesereau did not state that he was..
His client is sitting right next to him..so Mesereau knows the answer….
The prosecution and media had been spinning rumors for a very long time.
Safechuck and others were interviewed and said “No Way” that MJ did anything to them in 93, and yet the prosecutors leave that stuff unspoken hanging in the air, in the media because it is to their advantage….more rumors….Same with some of the other VG stuff..the lamp. the lion story that Zonen was trying to put out
Because Zonen was counting on people knowing these details ..wasnt he ?
And the police /Da KNOW Safechuck and others were defending mj back then……
That is why the prosecutors didnt bring these children, now adults in, and didnt bring their names up……. although from what I understand Safechuck wanted to testify on MJ behalf…
He couldnt be brought in for rebuttal because the prosecutors didnt bring his name up..
So Mesereau brought his name up in a different context.
That is just smart lawyering.
I fail to see how that makes him a liar.
The prosecutors are the ones that changed time lines , left out exculpatory evidence,brought in people who had testified under oath and then changed their testimony when offered huge sums of money from tabloids …etc
As far as Meserau is concerned..I have found that he has consistently told the truth..he said J chandler refused to testify ..we find out that is true from fbi files , the prosecution led people to believe he would testify when they knew he wouldnt…..prosecutors implied mj had kiddie porn on computers..he didnt and they did not inform the defense of fbi findings..
That my friends is something they are bound to pass along to the defense,…
It goes on and on.
I understand that on some boards having to do with imdb or something ..there is debate over this stuff..
but I dont do those boards .
I am talking to actual people , in my everyday life….and there is most definitely a shift in MJ favor.
As I said before I noticed the positive thumbs up hits on MJ acquittal stuff on youtube after a period of time..
There are lots of positive things going on and they all help MJ legacy.
I have always approached MJ almost like a political campaign..
I notice that an opponent will get particularly hateful and desperate when they are losing ground.
remember the swift boat campaign against john kerry?
Kerry was not bright and chose to ignore it
this is the same thing to me.
We just need to refute the garbage and stay on message..
You only need the majority to win ..
And from the success of mj memorabilia, circe de solil stuff, calendars ,his music , short films videos , computer dance games , positive videos on youtube , Michael is winning
this site has a lot to do with informing the public about the truth ..
I just told my hairdresser to check your site out today …
LikeLike
HELENA: “I am terribly sorry, but I have an impression that both desiree and anti-desiree bloggers are one and the same person, who just likes playing games with unsuspecting MJ fans.
Why do I think so? Because this daughter “anti”desiree site does everything to popularize and promote the “parent” blog. Extensive quotes, respectful calling desiree by “her” full name “Desiree Ladonna Hill”, making the name a recognizable internet brand, etc. If you count the number of times desiree’s name is cited it will be no less than a dozen in each post.
Don’t people realize that it is possible to promote someone by negating this person which is even more effective than promoting the original brand?”
*******************************
Helena, respectfully, you’re wrong. The blog is hardly promoting Desiree when they’ve published quotes showing that she promotes pedophilia, not to mention the homophobic/racist rants that she posted online, a history that you guys were completely unaware of. Let’s not forget the many sock puppets they’ve revealed she’s used in the past which show that she’s a liar. Drawing attention to the way that she is criminally stalking the people here at VMJ and others is hardly promotion. Did you really look at the site?
Some times things are really just what they have presented themselves to be; not everything is a conspiracy. This is what the person who runs the blog has said.
“Listen, not everyone will agree with the method behind this blog.
Not everyone understands how search engines work.
Poking fun at how Desiree always states a person’s first and last name in a condescending way was just part of the game.
“The Great Pretender” title was chosen to mock her; that’s who we say she is.
Last but not least, I said it before, you can’t critique a person without bringing attention to them or mentioning them.
The blogs which critique Diane Diamond, Victor Gutierrez, Maureen Orth, are they bringing attention to those people and making them more popular or are they calling attention to the behavior they want to criticize?
It’s obviously the latter.
Besides, we could hardly manufacture comments by Ms. Hill herself, could we?
I don’t think the person who made that comment has read the blog (she probably just skimmed through it) or the comments Desiree and Jessica left here and have made in other places about this place.
If she did, she would see very clearly that Desiree didn’t create this blog but it’s an interesting concept.
Desiree is clever and crazy but I honestly don’t think she’s smart enough to pull that off.”
LikeLike
@ Shelly I do not want to make this about her.It would be very wrong for me to contact her or a family member. I am dealing with it by reporting it to the appropriate authorities and documenting each incident that I find on the forums that they are using. I report the violation at the comment and that is all I am doing. I just finished reporting some on TMZ and have written to TMZ informing them of the situation. This is defamation and slander but more importantly it is criminal behavior and should be treated as such and that is what I am doing. I prefer not to comment further on this topic and would ask that everyone else do the same. If anyone feels the need to help when you go to the other forums report the abuse and ask that the comment be removed. Topix is moving more quickly on that and for that I am grateful.
LikeLike
@lynande,
Maybe you should try to contact her mother. She is a 22 years old who lives with her mother, maybe it will help.
LikeLike
“The thing is that all comments made on these boards are not about Michael but more about smearing Michael Jackson fans. It is all about doing that. They have decided that the best way to do that is by calling us here at VMJ P**** sympathsists because we support Michael and they have declared him as one. No one else has; just them. That is the newest along with threats to turn us and countless others into the police in Los Angeles for “stalking” the Arvizo family.”
Lynette, since I am totally lost on this subject could you provide me with some links please? In private if possible, not to give publicity to these guys. It seems I need to catch up with things and make myself familiar with what haters are up to now.
We must be really someone important if they are preoccupied with us so much.
“They make incindiary remarks, get others from other countries that may not understand the dynamics of the boards and this in turn has even lead to death threats against me. She is the cause of it and she knows it.”
Things done by these people are incredible. I know that it is a terrible for you, but this way they are showing that they have no other arguments but bullying.
LikeLike
why would he ask her that and open THAT dore if he wasn’t sure? tmez is not dumb…..
LikeLike
@ Maral
It was during the questioning of Kiki Fournier (a maid):
2 Q. Okay. Now, the prosecutor for the
3 government asked you some questions about other
4 young boys, as he put it, that Mr. Jackson knew
5 through the years, right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And would you agree that, like most people,
8 Mr. Jackson sometimes became a closer friend of some
9 families rather than others, correct.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the so-called “young boys” the
12 prosecutor referred to would come with their
13 families, correct.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In fact, Jimmy Safechuck was married at
16 Neverland, wasn’t he. Do you remember that.
17 A. I didn’t even know he was married.
LikeLike
@ Suzy I believe if you read her entire testimony he was trying to get a better timeline built around what she was saying. It turned out actually that even though she had worked there since 1988 it was very off and on and sounded more off than on. So she wasn’t there everyday but she was there for the prosecution to say that one time some kids had appeared drunk to her and at that it wasn’t even the Arvizo kids. I’m not even sure if he did drink that was part of their story so people think he did. If he did he did it of his own initiative not because someone gave it to him.
LikeLike
i don’t remember. who did T Mez ask?
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I wanted to address it to Lynette.
LikeLike
@ Maral
Funny how someone who came to this blog pretending to be several persons, calls someone like Mesereau a “liar”.
I’m pretty sure Mesereau had a reason to ask that question. Why would he have asked it if he knew the answer would be definitely “no”? IMO there was probably a wedding or an engagement or something that he heard or knew about. But it wasn’t an important question at the end of the day since Michael was not accused of molesting Jimmy Safechuck and Jimmy never accused Michael either. So it’s a pretty irrelevant detail in my opinion. It’s not because of something Mesereau said why Michael was acquitted. The evidence and testimonies speak for themselves.
LikeLike
i admit i wanted to see the proof…. went there read it and laughed my as* off. and she still hangs on to “3 different DNA on the bed”….. i’ll admit it’s good to not blindly accept info from the fans or a hater. but i can’t understand why people spend time MAKING THINGS UP!
LikeLike
@ Suzy I believe that she uses that information in an attempt to discredit Tom Mesereau. She calls him a liar and says that the Jimmy Safechuck question to Kiki Fournier proves it. Therefore in her world he lies about everything. More desperate reaching on her part.
LikeLike
The thing is that all comments made on these boards are not about Michael but more about smearing Michael Jackson fans. It is all about doing that. They have decided that the best way to do that is by calling us here at VMJ P**** sympathsists because we support Michael and they have declared him as one. No one else has; just them. That is the newest along with threats to turn us and countless others into the police in Los Angeles for “stalking” the Arvizo family. They make incindiary remarks, get others from other countries that may not understand the dynamics of the boards and this in turn has even lead to death threats against me. She is the cause of it and she knows it.
That’s right I was fully aware of them, I saved them all and I turned them into the authorities long ago when she first started in September announcing my name on the internet and calling out all her followers to slander and defame and yes threaten me. Desiree is a sick person. All of the information, remarks and examples of her stalking and threatening have been turned into the FBI since September and again in December. They are aware and have turned the information into the proper local authorities. I have the emails that they have sent while building my file( if anyone here needs confirmation) that tell me I should alert my friends and family to this situation to help insure my safety. This is me telling my friends. I will ask that if you find remarks about me anywhere including her blog to copy them and send them to me here.
This is me telling her to cease and desist. If she continues to harass me on her blog, on Topix or anyother forum I will seek legal action. I have issued this once before this time it is public.
She knows full well just how many times she has done this and I have each and every one included in that file since the very first.
I urge anyone that she has harassed to do the same. That includes using your name to post infalmmatory remarks and stealing screen names. Go to the FBI ICD3 site and turn in the information.
LikeLike
@ Maral
Really? Is this how much they need to grasp at straws? Trying to “prove” that Jimmy Safechuck didn’t marry at Neverland? As if that would automatically mean MJ molested him! Since Jimmy never claimed Michael molested him there’s nothing really to talk about there. It’s a fantasy hater story, like the other ones they make up about people who never claimed MJ molested them – or even explicitly said he did not (see their slander of Brett Barnes). But haters never liked to be bothered by facts.
LikeLike
she who shall not be named clames she got proof that Jimmy Safechuck didn’t married at Neverland……
LikeLike
For people who don’t know what happened on IMDB, it’s here http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/board/thread/193237199 – Shelly
Shelly, I am not quite in the know. Could you make a short summary of what you are talking about?
I’ve looked at the first few comments and saw this:
I am terribly sorry, but I have an impression that both desiree and anti-desiree bloggers are one and the same person, who just likes playing games with unsuspecting MJ fans.
Why do I think so? Because this daughter “anti”desiree site does everything to popularize and promote the “parent” blog. Extensive quotes, respectful calling desiree by “her” full name “Desiree Ladonna Hill”, making the name a recognizable internet brand, etc. If you count the number of times desiree’s name is cited it will be no less than a dozen in each post.
Don’t people realize that it is possible to promote someone by negating this person which is even more effective than promoting the original brand? Here are some quotes showing how it is done:
and so many more of them in each post…
Desiree this, Desiree that and eventually people start wondering – why is this Desiree so important that special anti-desiree blogs are created to attack her?
And I am not even talking of the NAME of the admin of the anti-desiree blog!
It is THE GREAT PRETENDER!
No wonder D. thinks she/he/it possesses a superior intellect. It is one person who is capable of speaking for any side and be equally convincing and passionate in what she/he/it says. In short it is someone who is all about perverse intellectual games.
LikeLike
MARAL,this post is on TOPIX ,, i think i was wrong. “The person who wrote this is a hater.He claimed that he is a fan from Romania, but I’m from Romania and I realized he does not know ROMANIAN LANGUAGE … he used the pseudonym of a MJ fan, goodperson, from Timisoara, Romania.
This fan googperson, denied that there. I’ll look for a link to show you
These people are obsessed and do whatever it to draw attention
” i also read a so called fan saying she/he is ashamed of thinking mj was innocent and that she compared mjs defense to others cm and that they used the same defence( thats a new one on me) this person also believes in the “hush money” says he/she has read court documents provided to her through topix that prove jackson was a cm!! and heres the BIG one. sites his/her source mjfacts hater site and also provid es that article from 2004 by maureen orth about kids in hotel rooms this person also claims that her/his only defence of mj was that he was found innocent (Yea Says Alot I Know) and that those mysterious kids wont come forward because of crazy fans!!”
LikeLike
I also wanted to say that because of what happened to Desiree on IMDB, she and probably the people from MJfacts are on topix trashing every fans whom they know the name. It could include anyone of us.
For people who don’t know what happened on IMDB, it’s here
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/board/thread/193237199
LikeLike
@lynande,
Yes they are the same people
http://whois.domaintools.com/mjfacts.info
LikeLike
Shelly I know that you found an article about the insurance company and statements made to the now Defunct British Tabloid “Today”. One thing we have to remember about the tabloid in the UK is that they use something called “artistic license” meaning they can expand on a story with unsubstantiated information. This was the article right?
Well I was going through a bunch of my articles in preparation of our VMJ Scribd Library and I found this.
There seems to be a discrepancy in there doesn’t it. This article says that it was once based in Woodland Hills and the TIG Holdings that was Michael’s insurance company was separated from the one in Woodland Hills California. They became two separate companies and the Today story was just another one of those tabloid stories. Did you read Tabloid Baby about how they get quotes for their unnamed sources? That is where they ask someone what they are going to write and if the person says yes that sounds like it could be true they have their unnamed source. Remember what Michael said ” ah don’t read those things, they’re garbage”.
LikeLike
First off I get so much info from this site , and reading comments etc..
That Arviso thing was just so ridiculous, it would be almost laughable if it hadn’t damaged Michael s heart and soul so much.
But one thing I noticed is also how the Arvizo boys were on a first name basis with the prosecutors, evidently forming a bond close enough to attend Zonens wedding..But if Mesereau referred to MJ as Michael , prosecutors would object, no doubt they didnt want people on the jury to think of him as just a man , too humanizing .so it was either Michael Jackson or Mr Jackson.
Also I was posting something on TMZ regarding Murray a few minutes ago and some nut starting going crazy on me about being one of the posters of this site ( i wont mention the name but I was very flattered..lol)
Whatever is going on , they are on a tear about this site , talking about topix and imdb ,and petitions which I dont go on….so someone is feeling very threatened ..
LikeLike
I think the point that Shelly was making is that the MJ facts is still the same person that had the original one. Right.
LikeLike
I just wanted to say that they are trashing us again. Their queen is under severe attack on IMDB and it’s why they are trashing the people on that site.
LikeLike
Shelly, why did you post that comment? What was the purpose? I already posted the email from the Yola abuse team in the post, so why post their attacks on us?
LikeLike
LikeLike
To back up what email just said, read the update.
https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/welcome-to-the-main-hater %E2%80%99s-site
Screenshots are here
https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/fact-checking-the-%e2%80%9 cmichael-jackson-facts-info%e2%80%9d-hater%e2%80%99s-website-part-1
You can also contact Charles Thomson on his blog, he has a few things to say about that.
Dear Charles,
Thank you for your email. In response to your report we have suspended the site.
If you ever wish to report an abuse of our services in the future please don’t hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
The Yola Abuse Team
What a bunch of liars! I checked and that website hasn’t been suspended, it’s still up http://michael-jackson-facts.yolasite.com/
Looks like a scam just to discredit Desiree. The lengths some people will go through – dirty tricks just to get rid of someone voicing an alternative view of MJ’s sleepovers with a succession of young boys and pedophile books.
Think carefully before you trust any crap written on a fan website.
LikeLike
Gavins case was a joke. any fool can see that. i haven’t read all the transcripts but read enough to know how stupid that trial was. and as i write this today i believe 99.9 % that MJ was innocent and in no way a cm. however i can see why some have huge doubts about it. and i think some of the problem some fans (not all) attitude when asked about it.
LikeLike
@Maral – Mesereau stated that when Gavin was being interviewed by police and they asked him to make a phone call to Jackson to discuss molestation where they could hear and Gavin refused to do so.
Look at the ones who did the accusing? Jordan Chandler refused to testify in 1993 and again in 2005 when as an adult he could have, but he went so far as to threaten to leave the country to avoid testifying. Jason Francia’s claim about tickling was the best he could come up with and that was years after he had received a payout as did his mother. If the jury laughed about his testimony – that tells you all you need to know. All of these individuals went for money. Other than that not one other child around Michael Jackson ever accused him of absolutely anything.
LikeLike
@Maral As I Wrote I Also Went into the search for the truth with an open mind! and have came to the conclusion that i have not found anything that proves any guilt of any mis conduct on mjs part from the 2003 or 2005 specially with what they were alleging my point with showing what the hater was saying and she/he used her source as mjfacts :O it normal to first feel skeptic about it when you first hear something like that! but this so called fan says that the 2005 court transripts prove mj was guilty i mean whats with that so i think what rockforeveron said is right we have haters that disguise themselfs as fans and try to manupilate true fans yea i know its sad but then again all the haters on topix are just that SAD! among other things.
LikeLike
I am a fan who want to know the truth. in the past 2 years i have gone back and forth in my believe. on one hand you can’t stereotype an CM saying he doesn’t fit or fit. last night i read somewhere that CMs can befriend kids and only abuse few. but we have the tape from the Murray trial. if Murray could record him ANYBODY could. all FBI had to do was to bugg his home and BAM they would get something on the guy IF there was anything going on.
” i also read a so called fan saying she/he is ashamed of thinking mj was innocent and that she compared mjs defense to others cm and that they used the same defence( thats a new one on me) this person also believes in the “hush money” says he/she has read court documents provided to her through topix that prove jackson was a cm!! and heres the BIG one. sites his/her source mjfacts hater site and also provid es that article from 2004 by maureen orth about kids in hotel rooms this person also claims that her/his only defence of mj was that he was found innocent (Yea Says Alot I Know) and that those mysterious kids wont come forward because of crazy fans!!”
i have got to say i’ve been thinking this way. but still MJs case is not that similare to other cases. remember, we had a star whose every aspect of his life was mediatized and put under microscope, you had a DA who investigated this for YEARS! Tom Mez did not just discredit Gavin and his mother. the defense showed through evidence that Sneddon had NO credible evidence.
when everything is said and done it is Murrays recording of a drugged helpless MJ that have the last word in this case. he was in a state that he had no control of what he was saying. if you believe MJ was manipulative than the recording should prove you wrong. because in that state he was open about his love in the purest way.
LikeLike
Myung-Ho Lee said it was in Suncity and he worked for MJ from 1998 to 2001. I just went through the Cascio’s book and Frank and his family were with him.
LikeLike
wait am pretty sure diane DEMON said she talked to other “victims” And orth said sumthing similar
LikeLike
ah the story came from a third party but orth tryed to make it the gospel
LikeLike
He was MJ’s accountant.
LikeLike
It’s not the family who talked to Orth it’s Myung-Ho Lee, the guy who told her the voodoo story.
LikeLike
oh and about that 2004 bs article by maureen orth if orth and haters alike say that the kids never made the allegations public because there scared of mike and his fans! well what about now!! eh see simple things like that always prove haters to be false they know there wrong and cant take it! plus if they were so scared why would they tell anyone especially Quack Journalists like diane DEMON! & Orth!
LikeLike
@jm51 Haha tell me about it! i know exactly how immature and stupid they are on that site while i was on topix i saw a haters tryin to start shit with mj fans and when a mj fan responded to one of the haters his/her reply was simply ” NA-NA-NA I Cant Here You”
Yes Very Stupid And Immature! another myth haters like to spin is that mjs wealth and fame “got him off” and how maseraue they say used janet arvizos past to win the case and that they say there was overwhelming evidence and using the one about an employee seeying mj do stuff to kids through a window!
@rockforeveron I Believe you are right i think these trolls make more than 1 account because some of their wording is similar and the way they type HOW PATHETIC!
LikeLike
@Truth Prevail – TOPIX is absolutely the worst site you can go on. Right after Michael died and I was searching everywhere for anything I could find about him and came upon that site and it made me sick. It’s not just that the posters are haters, but they are the most immature individuals as well with childish name calling, etc. That is why this site was so wonderful. I can usually tell when someone from TOPIX is posting on any site because they call MJ fans “floons.”
LikeLike
@Truth Prevail
A lot of those people were never fans to begin with, they just say that because they hope it gives their opinion credibility. The same way people always say “I still love his music” or compliment him as a father or whatever and still believe he’s a ped-phile.
LikeLike
i Jus saw something on topix and belive me the haters on that site are beyond mental and really have issues not only they spend there time talking about making lies about someone whom they belive was a CM! loathe (as usuall there comments Of Low Intelect) i also read a so called fan saying she/he is ashamed of thinking mj was innocent and that she compared mjs defense to others cm and that they used the same defence( thats a new one on me) this person also believes in the “hush money” says he/she has read court documents provided to her through topix that prove jackson was a cm!! and heres the BIG one. sites his/her source mjfacts hater site and also provides that article from 2004 by maureen orth about kids in hotel rooms this person also claims that her/his only defence of mj was that he was found innocent (Yea Says Alot I Know) and that those mysterious kids wont come forward because of crazy fans!!! WELL I SAY GOOD RIDDANCE TO THE ONES THAT ARE LIKE THAT IN THE FAN COMMUNTIY ACTUALLY IN ANY COMMUNITY SOMEONE THAT BELIEVES ANYTHING THEY READ SPECIALLY FROM MJFACTS. and he/she uses the i can separate the art from the artist and that he was a sick drug addict peadofile!!!
I Have researched everywhere to find if there is any truth to the cm accusations ever since i became a die hard fan i said to myself am going into this if i find overwhelming evidence that shows mj was a cm that i would take it like a man and indeed separate the man from the art. but as i type here i can happyly say i have nothing that proves that mj was a cm or found anything and trust Me i dont sugar coat anything if i found the smallest of evidence that proved/showed mj was a cm I WOULD BE THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY IT!
LikeLike
In the portion where Jordan speaks about Michael- it is possible that he was trying to tell people that Michael didnt harm or touch him in anyway but they were telling him that he did. This is possiblly a mixture of the truth and a lie by Gutierrez.
LikeLike
@lynande51
Can you imagine the kind of betrayal Michael must have felt? This kid, whom he helped in his darkest hour and showed nothing but love and support when he almost lost his life to cancer, could then turn around and befriend his enemy and work against him.
LikeLike
@ aresI have thought the very same thing about TS and the other prosecutors distancing themselves. It gave me the creeps to here Gavin refer to them by their first names when he was testifying. Don’t they know the next step is calling him Daddy Tom and from there it is all downhill.
LikeLike
@hana
Frank Cascio was also a childhood friend who liked nothing like Jordan, and didn’t come from a broken home.
I don’t know about Jordan coming from a broken home either. Weren’t both his parents happily remarried, and Evan and Ray went out of their way to say how wonderful the 2 families got along?
LikeLike
He admits to giving them money? Does anyone have the quote?
But if he did give the Arviso’s money… doesn’t that mean that Zonen/the prosecution molested them? Heh.
LikeLike
If i was Zonan ,i would distance myself from the Arvizos out of fear of ending up in a court room being accused of molesting one of them. I mean, they have a history on falsely accusing people of abusing them. On the other ,i would really like seening that happen to Zonan so he would finally come to his sences and admit that his bias and prejudice against MJ blocked his rational way of thinking.That is if he ever had one.
LikeLike
@ Hana
Did he really say he paid the Arvizos? Wow, I never knew he admitted it. I have always suspected it though, but I also think it’s not out of selfless altruism. I think it’s the interest of Zonen and Sneddon to keep the Arvizos shut, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they paid them.
LikeLike
I agree. I’m surprised Michael didn’t file slander and defamation of character lawsuits against these people. Zonen also mentioned in an article that Star and Gavin were very brave soldiers and that the public should be more sensitive towards them because these boys have been through alot. He also called Janet Arvizo a very moraled and amazing mother for getting her children out of the “ordeal” that is neverland..He also mentioned that him and his office had gave money to the family as well as helping Gavin pay his school fees..He really admires these people and sees them as martyrs..
LikeLike
Ron Zonen is an idiot. Even in his closing argument he spouted lies such as Michael molested Brett Barnes and he lived with him like a man lives with a wife, despite of Brett being on the stand and clearly stating that wasn’t true. I don’t even understand what these people were thinking when saying things like these in front of a court that heard the alleged victim saying it wasn’t true. Talk about desperation of the prosecution.
LikeLike
@hana
Zonen is no better that the people who run those hater mjsites. He truly believes that Michael was guilty so he will always support his views using every idiotic argument that there is out there.So don’t give his words much attention. He is hater and not a very smart one.
LikeLike
Ron Zonen mentioned during his closing argument that Jackson was a predator who only went after boys that came from broken homes without father figures..He noted that Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, and Brett Barnes strongly resembled Jordie Chandler, but what about Macaulay culkin, Wade Robson, Jimmy Safechuck, and Jonathan Spence? They don’t look anything like Jordie Chandler. Aren’t they also “victims” of Michael Jackson? It seems like Zonen just cherry picked the kids that looked like Jordie Chandler in order to make his argument seem strong. Talk about a bunch of prejudical propaganda.
LikeLike
David, you do such intensive investigative research work to verify facts about
what we already know to be facts. You always goes above and beyond to prove what
has contributed to the destruction of MJ’s image. I so appreciate what you do because you work serves as valuable reference for the rest of us who work to stand up for a MJ legacy of honor.
It is so disheartening to see how far haters will go. Some are ruthless like
Dimond & Orth. If only these hateful people would see the light and re-direct
their extreme efforts to speaking truth. What a better world it would be.
LikeLike
Could you at least delete their post. Having a link to a pedophile forum is really sick.
LikeLike
Hey guys, I attempted to go to the websites that LMAO and Boychat used when they made their comments, but on the public computer that I used the parental controls software blocked both of them due to their pornographic content, so even if those are not legitimate sites, the fact that a general search on those terms would bring up pornographic content was enough to trigger the parental controls to block them.
They are both from England, based on their IP addresses, and I believe that they belong to the same group that is currently impersonating the MJJ Justice Project on youtube, and on the internet. They wrote a blog about it, and what they’re doing to fight it: http://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/mjno-com-vs-mjno-net/
LikeLike
Hana did you get the link i sent you?
LikeLike
“And meanwhile your very important Post about AEG is being overlooked because they have come to disrupt and redirect our focus. Why is it that? What was said in it that they don’t want people to pay attention to?”
Lynette, they don’t want people to see that the agreement with AEG was a FRAUD from the very start it.
AEG with the help of Dr. Tohme and a certian Dennis Hawk (legal attorney?) trapped Michael by making him sign an innocent letter which later turned out to be an “agreement” – which I am not even sure that Michael did sign judging by the signature which doesn’t look like Michael’s at all.
I hope people will have the patience to read the post carefully. I am not making any dramatic exclamations there as a lot is still to be verified – but what has been discovered already does show that it was a fraud. Not only did they lure him into signing the document in a fraudulent way but it looks like all the decisions (under this paper) were made solely by Tohme Tohme and Dennis Hawk. No wonder Michael never knew what was going on with his own tour.
The post has now been renamed into a fraud it really was. I hope to continue with it in a couple of days.
LikeLike
And meanwhile your very important Post about AEG is being overlooked because they have come to disrupt and redirect our focus. Why is it that? What was said in it that they don’t want people to pay attention to?
LikeLike
QUOTE:
boychat.org
david.edwards@boychat.org
95.154.230.191
You can’t delete the web addresses?
In that case, let’s get some link building going so people can see the REAL intent of this website!
*laughter*
You are getting more and more insolent. Making David look like he belongs to those despicable people is not only criminal – it is a sign of your despair. Since civil talk with you is evidently impossible I am disclosing your ID for everyone to see.
I never expected our enemies to be so reckless in exposing their methods.
I CAN DELETE YOU ALTOGETHER and David will show me how to delete web addresses only. But my policy is to give you all the rope to hang yourself with. So go ahead and tell us more about who you are.
Probably this way we will get to the truth about what you did to Michael much easier.
LikeLike
WTH what is going on here!
LikeLike
Boychats name is a link to a site that to me seems like a pedophile chat room or forum.
LikeLike
Uh, you’re exposing yourself, not anyone else and definitely not anyone who runs this blog. See, if I post a comment about loving pedophilia on say, a government run website, that doesn’t mean the government loves or endorses pedophilia or that any sane person would believe that, they’d only think you did. See how that works?
I’m beginning to think we were grossly over estimating them when we decided to psycho-analyze their obsession. Maybe they’re just perverts and incredibly stupid.
LikeLike
@ Helena
I stand corrected; we CAN delete the URL included in Boychat and LMAO’s names! Just “edit” the comment and delete the URL!
And guys, I’m obviously starting to have an effect on these haters, because now, in addition to using Charles Thomson’s name in their email, they’re using MY name in their email as well!
@ Boychat
Is that the best you can do? Can you guys offer a coherent, cogent argument for MJ’s guilt? Or do you just come here and troll like a little 3rd grader!
LikeLike
You can’t delete the web addresses?
In that case, let’s get some link building going so people can see the REAL intent of this website!
*laughter*
LikeLike
@ Helena and Shelly
There is a distinction between his email address and his website. When you make a comment, you are required to include an email address,which is NOT made public with your comment. LMAO’s email address is from a website that I am afraid to do a search on! I wouldn’t want to stumble upon a child porn site! (Which that site could very well be!) Only the co-admin can see his email address. That address is real, and I will have to go to a public computer to check out that site. There’s no way I will look at that site from my personal laptop! If it’s a legitimate site, I will save copies of it and send it to you so you can look at it without actually visiting the site.
His website is what is made public, and the link is included in his name, and that we could not delete even if we wanted to. There really isn’t a reason to delete it anyway, since I have it linked in my post.
When I suggested deleting their future comments, I meant if LMAO or his cohorts start trolling and distracting us into getting into a debate with them. But just leaving a harmless comment as he did is a good indication of his lack of intelligence and integrity, and it should stay there.
LikeLike
“We’ll delete any additional comments that he may leave”.
David, not until we turn them into a pdf document – or otherwise no one will believe us (in case it comes to it). Can you turn that beautiful address into one? And can you confirm here please that what I see is not a phantom? I hope you do see the email address?
LMAO, please don’t worry – we are not going to disclose your address to anyone and violate your privacy this way – I am just grateful to you for the hint what your haters’ site is all about.
LikeLike
“I think you should remove the link to that website, if you can.”
Shelly, I think I cannot do it (don’t know how to) – but even if it stays it will make a fantastic document. I wish you could see the email too, but you can believe me that it definitely says “pedophilesupporters” as part of the email address.
This practically puts an equal mark between that site and the above people.
I hope David doesn’t pay attention to LMAO’s comment – their opinion is nothing for us – but the possibility to find out the true essence of that site is PRECIOUS!
A complete present from Heavens for our small research and investigation unit……..
LikeLike
@ Helena
Let’s leave that comment, and ONLY that comment, because it validates what I’ve said all along: they cannot make a convincing argument about MJ’s guilt, nor can they offer a decent rebuttal to my rebuttal! He just says that I “failed”??!! After everything that I wrote, that’s the best he can do?
We’ll delete any additional comments that he may leave.
LikeLike
@vindicate,
I think you should remove the link to that website, if you can.
LikeLike
LMAO, you are providing us (admins) with very interesting information about you.
WordPress requires everyone to register with their emails and your email information not only says you are connected to “mjfacts. info” site but that you are one of the “pedophile supporters” as these words actually make part of your email address (?)
Are you sending us a message that we were right in guessing that Michael’s detractors are pedophiles and their sympathizers?
Do you also mean to say that “mjfacts.info” is connected with these people?
LikeLike
FAIL
*laughter*
LikeLike
Brilliant work David. This site, which we all remember from the Yola site days is most definitely run by a group of person or group of people with an agenda to obfuscate the truth. They are also awareness of how to fudge facts and use language to do that.
Unfortunately, at present, only those looking closely can see the extent of the deception.
Thank you David for this amazing work.
Regardless of the lies — the truth will stand.
LikeLike
@ rockonforever
Two more pics of Michael’s vitiligo. Tel Aviv, September 1993:
LikeLike
@visitor
I made a timeline of MJ vitiligo photos
http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/category/vitiligo-photos/
@Vindicate
Their sense of reality is so distorted they likely believe that what they said there was true.
LikeLike
One more thing about that haters’ site.
Now they have the cheek to say that “Attempts by sneaky and unscrupulous Michael Jackson fans using despicable and underhanded tactics to shut down this website have been unsuccessful.”!!! And this statement is the first thing that greets each new visitor who comes to their site!
So – after all their schemes to pretend they were speaking in Charles Thomson’s name which let to their forced run from the yola site – now it is MJ’s fans who turn out to be unscrupulous and sneaky??? And they say it is us who used despicable and underhanded tactics to shut down their site???
I wish there was a way to attach an automatic LIE banner to each of their statements which would pop up each time they tell their unscrupulous and despicable stories.
LikeLike
David, I’ve finally got down to reading part 1 of your post and want to say I’m happy you’ve done it.
Firstly, it is great you are keeping an eye on the haters’ blog. I never knew they were that active! And it seems they are using your transcripts to quote that little rogue and coward Carl Douglas and his despicable lies about the 1993 case!
Secondly, thank you for reminding us once again about the trap these haters laid for Charles Thomson. It is such an incredibly dirty trick that this alone demonstrates who these people and what they methods of “research” are.
I hope everyone understands that it is impossible to be a dirty trickster in one case and then all of a sudden turn pure, honest and truthful in another case. No, liars don’t change their methods that fundamentally – the only thing that changes is the subtlety of their lies, that’s all.
And thirdly, your summary of Arvizos’ behavior is exhaustive and there is nothing to add here. The only thing I want to stress is the amazing audacity, confidence and speed with which Gavin and Star kept changing their testimony in front of a big audience.
They were doing it without batting an eyelid and the easiness with which they told those ever-changing lies is only adding to their characters and showing what actors Michael had to deal with. Such a family is capable of playing any role and may have truly convinced Michael of their sincere love for him…
LikeLike
@rockforeveron
” And if it was just her, why did the prosecution not also push through Star’s allegations of molestation too? He also claimed to have been “tickled” in his groin. Sneddon didn’t seek to use that in court. Why not?”
Maybe because Gavin being sick would have made a more sympathetic witness and so the prosecutor’s team would eventually have the favor of the jury and the court? I was also wandering why Sneddon didn’t include Star as a “victim” since Star claim the same thing that Francia did.
“You can see white markings on his fingertips when he was around 12-14, then around 16-18 it’s under his eye and on his hand, then at 21 he’s wearing the white glove to cover it”
Is there a link with this pictures?
LikeLike
This is crazy! So they wanted to pass themselves off as Charles Thomson in an attempt to undermine him, because he is a credible journalist and none of their stories will ever make the news. That just goes to show how absolutely batshit these people are. They have no foundation and no evidence so they need to go through all these bizzaro – and yes – utterly mentally ill leaps. They call Michael pathological and they behave like this? What kind of reasoning is that? Is the truth so hard for them? Is having to use their own names and stick up their own theories so hard?
Also in his Grand Jury statement Gavin Arviso claimed he knew more about the “birds and the bees” than Michael did.
But then he suddenly says this:
28 A. Both my grandmother and Michael were trying 1801
1 to talk to me about the — pretty much the birds and
2 the bees story.
When before he claimed he had been the teacher.
And LOL! I’d always heard about the grandmother masturbation thing but I had no idea that he tried to then play it off as his grandmother suddenly wanting to teach him the same things his sex abuser was. Damn, that granny and MJ are quite a team.
@hana
Haters also say that jackson was acquitted because janet arvizo was a wacko and ruined the whole case, as if the whole family weren’t a complete disaster..
Right. And if it was just her, why did the prosecution not also push through Star’s allegations of molestation too? He also claimed to have been “tickled” in his groin. Sneddon didn’t seek to use that in court. Why not? Why did they try and push through all the other crazy allegations, kidnapping, hot air balloons, why did they put so many terrible prosecution witnesses on the stand if their case was so solid? Air stewardesses who didn’t say what they wanted them to say, Debbie who didn’t say what they wanted them to say. They risked it because their case was so flimsy all they could do was take the risk and hope that MJ’s celebrity would lend itself to them, they wanted the jury to only think about the sordid things they’d heard and then put them together with MJ’s weirdness and freakishness and all the other craziness associated with him.
@ Truth Prevails
You can see white markings on his fingertips when he was around 12-14, then around 16-18 it’s under his eye and on his hand, then at 21 he’s wearing the white glove to cover it. When LaToya was on her bombshell dropping mission in 1991 and was trying to reveal truths about the Jacksons and Mike, she revealed that MJ had lupus and that he had been diagnosed 12 years earlier and that this was the reason for his skin changing.
LikeLike
To Siu. I understand where you’re coming from. It makes no sense that even after Michael’s death these people have entire web sites set up just to trash him. Seems like one heck of a conspiracy, or vendetta, but why?
It’s like an obsession with these people. All I can come up with is Michael was sent here from God. We all have a ministry if we’re willing to accept and fulfill it. He was , and if you’re willing to fulfill your ministry the devil will fight to bring you down. This whole thing is totally unnatural. I believe it is spiritual warfare.
Michael sought to do God’s will all his life, and he gave God credit for everything in his life. He hated even putting his name on the songs he wrote, because they fell into his lap from God. He refused to take credit for anything or any talent, because it all came from God.
He was a great example of a Godly man as described in the Bible. Feed the hungry, visit the sick and don’t advertise your good deeds to the world. He hid a lot of his good deeds because he didn’t want man’s glory, but God’s, and I believe he got that. He had a beautiful, pure heart, and I’m impressed with the number of people that are slowly proving that. It’s going to take some time, but we’re getting there. Michael really loved his fans and they loved him. I don’t think there is any other entertainer that ever had such loyal fans as he does. He will prevail with God’s help. “I will avenge” saith the Lord.
LikeLike
I have the VG and ATG versions of that photo and they are mine to do what Iwant with them so anybody can have them.I intend todo a post about that book very soon. The VG version is in his book it is not copyrighted in the US and the US does not have a copyright treaty with Chile. I have always wondered who it was that added that writing? It is my thought that it was not actually the description or drawing given to the police but notes taken by someone , I’m thinking Evan when I compare other samples of his writing to that. The funny thing about that is why would you need to take notes if your son had actually seen it? All that is picture is is more incriminating evidence in Michaels favor. Dialdancer did you ever get the download of MJWML to work? If you go back and look at VG’s version and read it you can see that it looks like someone is taking notes during a conversation. Wh ywould you say be selective or Orietta. who we know is not Orietta Bleach it is Orietta Murdock a former Michael jackson employee who sued him and lost. How man ypeople worked for Michael that didn’t try to sue him?
LikeLike
Helena,
I meant to tell you about the bogus drawing you removed because Desiree claimed ownership of it. Unless she is J. Chandler then she is not the owner. The drawing you posted was altered from what is still found on Smoking Gun. That altered drawing is a V.G. creation by adding content to the original. But V.G. is not the owner nor is Desiree and any editing of the supposedly original makes it doubly a fake.
There is software available that takes regular text documents and photos turning them into a PDF format document; it will even allow you to add watermarks. If you ever want to re-post that drawing let me know I have a source that has a copy. The copy came from a site which at one time offered their hate material for anyone who wanted to copy it.
LikeLike
@Maral exactly she doesent know a thing abt michael she claims to be 22 or younger and dosent know anyfin abt him in the 90’s or any other time.
Btw have u seen the picture of mike and david pack and quincy at the dinner table clearly u can see mikes face was light but his hands where thriller era dark.
LikeLike
she also claims michaels skin colour changed in 1991
she must be blind. just look at pictures after Thriller…….or even before.
LikeLike
This Desiree is really pathetic and the site mjfacts clearly that site has no facts jus twisted words from the original content in order to make the chandlers look like lambs its really sad what is happening in the world like japan libya etc… yet people like desiree and mj-notfacts spend there time tarnishing a good mans ame ad here she uses victorz book as good source is that right? and she insits that brett ratner was molested by michael and she also claims michaels skin colour changed in 1991 she really doesent know her stuff the thing with haters is that they lie and put stories that fits there perverted minds thats why its soo easy for vindicatemj to debunk the trash they will report false info and vindicate will be here to show the truth desiree also has an obsession with omair bhatti she claims omair and michael where lovers i have noticed she enjoys talking about molestation just read the words when she talks to you about it its in delight she is a low class wannabe writer and the only people who would hire her is probely diane diamond the queen of false info she is jus trying to get her 5mins of fame and still hasnt written a piece on why michael was guiltyof molestation jus what she belives was his sex apprently if your gay (NOT SAYING MICHAEL WAS) then you molest children shes a piece of trash and will get her share or more from the almighty
And Vindicatemj i have visited this site in recent times and have to say you report facts and are NOT Biased desiree and that trash site will get theres from the almighty. KEEP UP THE GOOD FACT CHECKING REPORTING 🙂
LikeLike
The strange thing is only Star mentioned Aldo was there. Gavin in his testimony claimed it was only him, Star and Michael. (Yet another contradiction in their testimonies.)
Aldo was on the witness list of the defense, but it seems Mesereau didn’t think it was necessary for him to testify.
LikeLike
wow at Gavins joke…… just wow
Aldo is Frank Cascio’s youngest brother.
how old was he at the time and why didn’t he testify? it’s funny, they clame Michael was this cleaver pedo who shut all “victims” from talking and so on. but why would such a guy have a third party in the room? it makes no sens.
LikeLike
Here is a link to a page from the Grand Jury testimony of Gavin on4/25/2004. It sure is interesting how readily lies roll off his tongue. But after all he was just joking. Imagine that poor abused boy still being able to joke when he is testifying.
https://acrobat.com/#d=dxnLmM1KYnLltCjURA9*5Q
Of course they were disappointed after the verdict. No guilty no slam dunk civil suit no money. It was just their kind of disappointment.
LikeLike
According to Sneddon, shortly after the verdicts were read, he spoke to Gavin on the phone and Gavin was very down and couldn’t understand why the jury didn’t believe him. He felt very discouraged and hurt..
LikeLike
Aldo is Frank Cascio’s youngest brother.
LikeLike
Who is Aldo?
LikeLike
2) Why is Charles Thomson, of all fans, being a victim of so many conspiracies and false accusations? What did he do to people?
because Charles doesn’t claim to be a fan. he’s objective and they can’t claim he is a “delusional fan”.
LikeLike
Great work David! Proving as usual that when the haters arguments are dissected and challenged with actual facts we discover they don’t have a leg to stand on. I look forward to part two!
LikeLike
Two things I cannot comprehend:
1) Why do people waste so much time trying to prove MJ guilty? It’s one thing to have doubts. I could even understand it if someone had a personal vendetta on him… But these are (I assume) people who had never met him in real life, so why are they on a mission to slander him?
2) Why is Charles Thomson, of all fans, being a victim of so many conspiracies and false accusations? What did he do to people?
LikeLike
do they relies Gavins story doesn’t add up? it wasn’t just Janet or the magazine thing. the whole thing was bizarre.
LikeLike
LMAO MJ haters are so pathetic. Who takes the time to create an entire website for someone who they claim they don’t like? Hell, I can’t stand Kanye West but does that mean I’m going to waste my time creating an entire blog/website dedicated to him? And they call us crazy and say we need help..Look who’s talking!
LikeLike
CEThomson is being attacked by many people saying he is a closet MJ hater. By using a email that very closely resembled his e-mail that person cast doubt on Thomson and we find that disgusting. WE currently have a similar MJhater on our tail.. he currently uses mjnewsonline.net to propagate his sickening MJ hate and he recently attached http://www.mjjjusticeproject.com to HIS filthy site. He used this .com to gain access to our legitimate yahoo email account. We are currently fighting with yahoo because their security allowed him to change our codes and he has usurped our account. Lord only knows what kind of havoc he plans to reek on us.. We totally understand what happened to Charles Thomson and he has our complete support. WE use this site as our Bible to fight hate and we circulate it wherever we post commentds…it’s very important that we arm ourselves with the facts so that we can perpetuate the truth. WE glorify this vindicatemj site and any other like it.
Let’s all stand together and push the MJ truth… It will be told.
Twitter – @Budsgirl11954 aka @MJJJusticeprjct
LikeLike
@ Maral
Does CT know about these accusations?
Yes, of course he knows! I was the one who emailed him about it, and he threatened legal action against the Yola site, and they shut down their account! Read the update at the bottom of the “Welcome To The Main Hater’s Site” post to see all of the correspondence between me, Charles, Yola, and our adversary!
LikeLike
Haters also say that jackson was acquitted because janet arvizo was a wacko and ruined the whole case, as if the whole family weren’t a complete disaster..these people were all caught in so many lies and mistatements to the point where it was just pathetic..you couldnt help but roll your eyes and wonder why these charges were even filed to begin with..i have never seen a case where nearly every single prosecution witness backfired on cross examination…now that is indeed a record!
LikeLike
Ok i must admit sometimes i’m skeptical too. But to say Aphrodite is bias is absurd. And why would CT “pretend” defending MJ openly and hate him secretly? Makes NO sense at all. Does CT know about these accusations?
LikeLike
you can’t win stupidity and prejudice and hate . all those people know that mIchael was innocent but their mission is to slander forever his name so they wont let facts and evidence stand in their way.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why the haters spend so much time creating or recreating lies again. It kills a lot of cells to keep the hatred to yourself and for so many years. Michael was/is innocent. He had a big heart, he reached a high level that most people do not understand. How long it will take them to correct themselves. Obviously the haters circle is also keeping a close eye on Michael’s case. What is the benefit of spreading hate when Michael is gone. From Hong Kong
LikeLike
Gavin would have become a great actor.He is such a natural talend.
LikeLike