Skip to content

Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 2 of 4

March 23, 2011

Here is another misnomer that they are trying to push on their readers: “reasonable doubt” that results in the acquittal of a defendant is tantamount to “getting off on a technicality” or “getting off due to celebrity status”.  They highlight a quote from Eric Dezenhall of Dezenhall Resources (a firm that specializes in public relations ): “the crisis-management objective was acquittal through reasonable doubt, and it was achieved. Restoring the iconic status of his name was never on the table.” Here is the legal definition of reasonable doubt:

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant’s liberty or in the defendant’s death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on “a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.”

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.

Let’s focus on the following excerpt:  “if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.” What this means is that it is not enough for jurors to have doubts about a defendant’s guilt, but they must be REASONABLE DOUBTS in order to acquit the defendant! Here is a short video with some attorneys who explain, in a simple way, how reasonable doubt is applied in court during the deliberation process.

Anyone who spends 5 minutes looking at the facts of the MJ trial will not only have “reasonable” doubts, but will have ABSOLUTE doubts!  For example, let’s look at the foundation of the trial; the testimony of Gavin! Here is a summary of his testimony from Day 11 of the trial:

On Day 11 of the Michael Jackson trial Attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had to work very hard to get a straight answer out of the prosecution’s star witness, the 15 year old accuser, himself.   In a testimony which seemed to consist of numerous memory losses, restatements of events and many other incomplete sentences that seemed to be an avoidance of giving direct answers, the accuser presented his ‘side’ of the story under cross-examination.

Mr. Mesereau was compelled, on numerous occasions, to show the accuser transcripts of his previous statements to law enforcement and various cards and letters that were referenced in order to ‘refresh’ his often, what seemed to be, a very ‘sketchy’ memory.  The accuser used the non-committal phrases “I think…” and “I don’t know” over 90 times each, over the course of the day. Additionally, there were 15 “I don’t think so’s” and 40 ‘Not Really’s”.

The accuser was undaunted by the persistent questioning of the defense attorney, often giving answers verging on sarcasm and confrontation, especially when discussing his repeated disciplinary problems at school and many encounters with various teachers that were forced to report his bad behavior.

That pretty much sums up his testimony! Gavin was thoroughly obliterated, yet these haters act like MJ didn’t have a constitutional right to confront his accuser in court! Here is what they said:

We have a man who said “Children show me in their playful smiles the divine in everyone. This simple goodness shines straight from their hearts and only asks to be lived.” and “When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much.” – yet allowed his attorney to attack children on the stand during his trial.

Wow! So because MJ allowed Mesereau to “attack” Gavin, Star, and Davellin on the stand, that somehow negates his love for children? They were literally trying to kill him! What was he supposed to do?  Just roll over and play dead, and let their lies go unchallenged?

When evaluating that summary of Gavin’s testimony, at the very minimum reasonable doubt about the molestation allegations has ALREADY been met, based on that summary alone!  If anyone believes that the jury did not adequately consider his testimony during deliberations, then please read the following excerpt from this article:

The release of six handwritten notes from jurors in the Michael Jackson case show they reached their decision to acquit the pop star after careful consideration of evidence, including a total review of the accuser’s testimony.

A request from the jury foreman to Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville resulted in a court stenographer going to the jury room and reading back the boy’s entire testimony.

Based on the totality of all of the evidence in this case, a reasonable person would conclude that MJ was innocent.  The Arvizos were walking, talking contradictions who were caught in a countless number of lies, and they were enabled by a malicious prosecutor concerned only with putting his name on the map, who in turn was enabled by a malicious media who wanted a conviction to boost revenues. Nobody can accuse the jury of not carefully considering all of the evidence, especially the most important testimony of the trial; Gavin’s testimony!

Here is another example of a case where a reasonable person would conclude that the defendant was innocent: NFL Hall Of Fame wide receiver Michael Irvin’s sexual assault lawsuit!  I discussed it in great detail in this post, but here is a summary of the events.  After reading the summary below, do you think that a reasonable person would conclude that Irvin was guilty of sexual assault?

  1. Michael Irvin allegedly committed a sexual assault against a female acquaintance in July 2007. Instead of immediately notifying police, she waited 2 weeks to notify them, and then signed a waiver of prosecution. No physical evidence was found due to the lapse in time from the alleged assault to the time when police were notified, and criminal charges were never filed.
  2. More than 2 years later, prior to the start of Irvin’s stint on “Dancing With The Stars” in September 2009, the civil lawyer of the accuser told Irvin that if he didn’t pay her $1 million dollars, a civil lawsuit would be filed against him in February 2010, in order to coincide with the Super Bowl.  That demand was subsequently dropped to $800k, but further negotiations fell through, and the lawsuit was filed in February 2010.
  3. Irvin’s lawyers called the threat “civil extortion”, and filed a $100 million dollar countersuit against the accuser.
  4. In February 2011, Irvin settled his lawsuit with his accuser, and dropped his countersuit as a result of the settlement.  Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  (For more info on Irvin’s case, as well as other celebrity settlements –including MJ’s – please read this post.)

Now, hypothetically speaking, it’s possible that Irvin has superhuman powers that allow him to detect when a woman can be sexually assaulted and won’t go to police, and perhaps he acted upon this premonition as soon as he was alone with his accuser. But a reasonable person would conclude that, based on the totality of the aforementioned evidence, that the accuser was a lover scorned who tried to – and ultimately did – extort money from Irvin. This case is a perfect example of reasonable doubt. There was no evidence to support criminal charges, and thus it would have been impossible to prove the assault in civil court, so a reasonable person would conclude that the accuser initiated negotiations –and ultimately threatened the lawsuit – with Irvin in order to force a settlement. Irvin did not negotiate with his accuser, or settler with her, because he was guilty; he settled to avoid further negative publicity, and to move on with his life!

Lastly, I want to address the following statement:

While Jones can’t be argued with as to the bizarreness of the woman – almost everybody agrees with that assessment – Jones tries to portray her as someone willing to do almost anything for money, someone who was salivating at the thought of cash payments coming her way, someone who merely accused Jackson so she could get a big payout. Jones’ portrayal falls down once we look at Janet Arvizo’s (and in fact, the whole Arvizo family’s) behavior since the trial. Not one of them has accepted any of the standing offers for huge amounts of money from the media to tell their story. They have kept a dignified silence and refused to accept any of that easy money. This stymies the way Jones has chosen to describe the mother and her family as money grubbing grifters and opportunists.

OK, so according to that logic, because the Arvizo’s haven’t given any interviews since the trial, therefore they must have been telling the truth, and therefore they are morally upstanding citizens. This is the same idiotic logic that Ron Zonen used during his presentation at the Frozen In Time seminar.

I spent time with him only a month ago. And he’s really doing remarkable well. He has never asked for or taken a penny from anybody about any of the activity of this case.  Never. There are standing offers from the press for his story for enough money that would cover his tuition, which is considerable, never mind that he’s on a 50% scholarship. But he has never taken a penny from anybody, and no intention of doing so. He’s accruing debt like college kids do today, but he’s doing just fine.

Gee, I guess we can also say that because Janet did not file a civil lawsuit against MJ after the trial, money must not have been a motivating factor for her? She must have truly wanted justice, right?   By the way, this video certainly explains why he won’t do any interviews: it’s because he’s a coward, he knows he lied, and he doesn’t want his lies to hang over his head the rest of his life! Since he didn’t extort millions of dollars from MJ the same way Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia did, he actually has to get a job and earn a living for himself.  While there may indeed be standing offers of money for an interview, it certainly wouldn’t be enough to justify exposing himself to the world and eroding whatever privacy he has.  Knowing that all of his lies were already exposed in court greatly diminishes his “market value”.

Well, that was another worthless post, which had a lot of quantity but no quality!  I’m still waiting for them to write a similar article that clearly explains how MJ “beat the system”?

Stay tuned for Part 3! I will thoroughly analyze and dissect a relatively unknown  “journalist” who is right up there with Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, and Nancy Grace!

64 Comments leave one →
  1. March 23, 2011 10:44 am

    Laughable arguments by laughable people. Everyone has the constitutional right to confront his accuser in a court of law. By the way, they were teenagers not “children”.


  2. hana permalink
    March 23, 2011 11:32 am

    Zonen will forever defend the Arvizos and try to portray them as innocent lambs who were victims of the evil Michael Jackson, but what he fails to explain is why did they go to civil lawyers first, and waited 4 months before finally going to the police if they weren’t after money?


  3. Suzy permalink
    March 23, 2011 12:31 pm

    “We have a man who said “Children show me in their playful smiles the divine in everyone. This simple goodness shines straight from their hearts and only asks to be lived.” and “When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much.” – yet allowed his attorney to attack children on the stand during his trial.”

    This has to be the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard.

    “Not one of them has accepted any of the standing offers for huge amounts of money from the media to tell their story. They have kept a dignified silence and refused to accept any of that easy money. This stymies the way Jones has chosen to describe the mother and her family as money grubbing grifters and opportunists.”

    Cry me a river. Their history (JC Penny, anyone?) and just about everything around them isn’t sufficient enough to see them for what they are, which is indeed money grubbing gifters and opportunistst?

    Too bad for them Sneddon changed the law so that the criminal trial had to precede the civil trial this time.

    I also think Zonen keeps contact with them to keep an eye on them, so to speak. And I can well imagine he told them it’s unadvisable for them to go to the media….


  4. March 23, 2011 3:42 pm

    As to the Arvizo family “never intending to take a penny” (according to prosecutor Zonen) here is what Larry Feldman told Larry King in a confidential conversation in 2004 – he said that the mother was out for money and he never believed her!

    SANTA MARIA, Calif. — The judge in Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial ruled Thursday against allowing CNN host Larry King to testify for the defense, saying his statements would be irrelevant.

    Judge Rodney S. Melville ruled after listening to King’s account of a conversation with an attorney, Larry Feldman, who represented the accuser’s family.

    Without the jury present, King said that Feldman told him the accuser’s mother was out for money and referred to her as “wacko.

    Testifying earlier for the prosecution, Feldman denied making such statements about his clients, saying, “It is absolutely privileged, and if anybody tells you that, they are absolutely lying.”

    After listening to an account by King and another man who heard the conversation, the judge ruled them out on grounds they would not impeach Feldman’s testimony because neither could say the attorney directly quoted the accuser’s mother.

    On the stand and without jurors present, King said he spoke to Feldman at a Beverly Hills restaurant before the trial began. He said he and a producer were trying to get Feldman to appear on “Larry King Live.”

    He said Feldman told him he didn’t take the mother’s case because he didn’t find her credible and thought she was only after money.

    “The mother was a ’wacko’ was the term he used,” King said.

    He said he thinks she wants money. … He said ’wacko’ a couple of times and he said ’she’s in this for the money,”’ King told the judge.
    Jackson defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. asked King if he asked Feldman to clarify what he meant by “wacko.”

    “No, I think that’s self-explanatory,” King said.

    There had been speculation that King might try to avoid testifying by invoking a state shield law that protects journalists from testifying in many circumstances. But the matter was not raised before the testimony was ruled out.

    The judge also ruled against testimony by a publisher, Michael Viner, who was present during King’s meeting with Feldman.

    Without the jury present, Viner told the judge that Feldman said “he had met with them (the family) and felt that their statements, their case, didn’t hold up to scrutiny and he didn’t believe them.”


  5. Maral permalink
    March 23, 2011 3:56 pm

    i have often wondered why avisoz never tried to speak up after the trial. if a victim is unfairly judged they will not be silence. (that do NOT apply to chandlers. because they never wanted to go to court). look at the O.J case. the relatives of the victims were/ are vocal. nevertheless, we have a story with ALOT of holes, JCP lawsuit, and the fact that they went to a civil lawyer FIRST. in fact Sneddon contacted THEM. they did not go to the police and if i’m not wrong Janet DID try selling stories BEFORE the trial. their story simply doesn’t add up in ANY way. even if we say the lack of evidence and a not guilty verdict do not have to mean a crime didn’t accure.

    and what the HELL was MJ suppose to do? tell MEZ not to cross-examine his accuser and go to jail? ye right!


  6. March 23, 2011 5:28 pm

    It was interesting to read how perplexed the opponents are about Tom Mesereau’s staunch support and defense of Michael even after the trial. There is a contention that he was not being truthful when he stated he had witnesses prepared to testify against Chandler if he took the stand. Proof offered: they were never on the witness list.
    Does anyone know if the motion to call these witness WITHOUT Chandler’s testimony would have likely been denied or ruled as outside the scope of questioning?


  7. shelly permalink
    March 23, 2011 5:40 pm

    They did tryed to get money from their story. The mother and the stepdad tried to contact tabloids in 2003 or 2004.

    After his acquital, which tabloids would take the risk to publish their story? Did they really think about the amount of money a tabloid would have to pay once they lost their slander suit?


  8. lcpledwards permalink
    March 23, 2011 5:41 pm

    @ MC
    That’s a good question! It’s very plausible that they were outside the scope, but I don’t know for sure. I’ll ask Lisa the Lawyer, one of our co-admins, for her advice.

    If you read Part 1 of this series, at the very bottom you’ll see the video of Mesereau and William Waganer, and Mesereau said that the witnesses were calling his private investigator, not the other way around! I believe that many of them were Jordan’s college friends, who partied with him while he was in college, where he openly admitted his support for MJ and denied the allegations. Rockforeveron, one of our avid readers, can comment more about this.


  9. March 23, 2011 5:51 pm

    @MC the defense has to answer to the prosecution claims and refute them. They don’t do whatever they like. The prosecution never opened the door for 1993 so Mesereau did not need to bring anyone. Their names are in the defense’s witness list and some time ago I managed to find one of them and I posted the list where you could see her name


  10. Maral permalink
    March 23, 2011 6:15 pm

    MC, why would TMez need to lie? or go to the extreme to defend MJ even AFTER the trial and after Mikes passin? he had already won the case. and where is the vitness list that those people weren’t on?


  11. March 23, 2011 6:49 pm

    David, I am sorry I had to interfere a little with your highly informative series (we’ll get back to it) – I just couldn’t leave the very important news of Liz’s death unattended and made a small tribute to her.

    I think all of us have great respect for this courageous woman who showed all the others what real friendship is.


  12. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2011 6:58 pm

    What they didn’t do was offer any testimony from Jordan or about Jordan. the testimony of the Neverland Five was about Wade and Brett. Blanca Francia and Phillipe LeMarque was the testimony about Macauley Culkin. The men themselves came in to testify against those witnesses. The only thing they offered from Jordanwas the affadavit first without the photos for corraboration. Then the photos without the affadavit for corraboration. Sneddon offered his declaration that it was a match but he can not be properly cross examined on it because it would have been hearsay or in other words his interpretation of the photos.It was also not allowed because he did not build the foundation in his case in Chief meaning the first part of the trial. He didn’t offer it until the end of the trial as rebuttal evidence and it is not proper rebuttal if it is not introduced in the case in chief. As for not being on the witness list how do they know they weren’t there. The defense’s original witness list had 439 people on it most whose names no one has ever heard of how do they know who they are?


  13. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2011 7:11 pm

    My thoughts are now and have been since the first time I saw Larry Nimmers “The Untold Story of Neverland” that this case was actually orchestrated between a select group of people. Louise Palanker is a wealthy woman, her money is in broadcasting. She knew the Arvizos prior to Gavin having cancer. She now shares a satellite radio show with Diane Dimond called “Talk Back Radio”. She gave the Arvizos $20,000 when Gavin was sick. They wrote her letters, nearly identical to the letters they wrote Michael, calling her Mommy Wheezy among other things. This is important that they knew her prior to the cancer and meeting Michael Jackson. She knew exactly what this family was like yet she would visit Gavin in the hospital. She knew Diane Dimond and Diane Dimond had an idea in her head about the “type” of boy that supposedly appealed to Michael and Gavin fit the bill.
    Aphrodite Jones said in her book that Gavin had an “unknown” cancer. I am here to tell you that in the year 2000 there was no such thing. The “unknown “part came from Janet Arvizo. Why would she call it unknown when it would have clearly been fully explained to her by the oncologist and the nurses several times over while Gavin was in chemotherapy? Well because it sounds more ominous and life threatening than the reality. After watching her describe his cancer in Larry Nimmers documentary, and reading Gavin’s’ description during his testimony I can be 99% sure that what Gavin had was a Wilms Tumor. It is a rare tumor of the adrenal gland that grows very rapidly and to a very large size. This is 92% successfully treated with surgery to remove the kidney which is where the adrenal gland is located. In Gavin’s case the doctors removed his spleen probably to safely remove the tumor and surrounding lymph nodes for prophylactic purposes. A Wilms Tumor is totally encased, meaning that it does not metastasize to other organs unless it is ruptured during removal. They would have in any case given him aggressive chemotherapy prophylacticaly as this is standard treatment of a Wilms Tumor.
    That said that whole melodrama about them being told to prepare for Gavin’s funeral was just that, more fantastic melodrama from Momma Arvizo. Couple that with the fact that David Arvizo said that Janet did not go to the hospital because the hospital would not allow her there and Azja Pryor’s testimony that they would stay at the hospital with Gavin and did not meet Janet until after the split with David. You guys have nooooooooooo idea how bad a mother has to be to be barred from being with her son during chemotherapy treatment. I can only say the health care workers assigned to Gavin must have been terribly frightened by something she must have said or done to take that drastic of a measure. And if your son is truly dying of cancer you get in there no matter what. She must have known she went places that she should not have gone with something because she never even talked about why she didn’t go and never denied that she didn’t go. This speaks volumes to me because what could her threat have been? Was she willing to accuse some poor unsuspecting nurse or other health care worker of molestation? That would certainly get her kicked out of any hospital I have worked at, and every time a worker would have gone into her son’s room they would have gone in pairs for self protection.
    Then we start with all of the “donations” to the family from everyone they came In contact with solicited by Janet herself. A blood drive was not good enough; she wanted money, which is what she said to her own sister in law. She asked for another drive for monetary donations from a newspaper when the first one didn’t get them enough money. Two police officers from LA bring Christmas Gifts and Christmas dinner only to be told money would have been better. All of this is in the trial briefs and testimony.
    Next comes the Make A Wish Foundation that contacts Michael about Gavin’s “dying” wish to meet him. It was known in most circles that because of the aftermath of the 1993 allegation the only way a young boy got to spend time with Michael Jackson is if he was terminally ill. Michael had protected himself that much so he had “learned his lesson” contrary to the popular public opinion based on media reports from unnamed sources. It is also a little known fact that Michael wanted to live somewhere other than Neverland ever since the allegation in 1993 the media had changed the feeling of it for him. When he was married and living with Lisa the time they spent in California was spent at her home in the Hollywood Hills the rest of the time they had an apartment in The Trump Tower in New York. They also spent time at Mar-a-Largo Estate owned by Donald Trump in Florida. He did not want to make Neverland his home any longer.
    He wanted to turn Neverland into a place for children to go to, to have fun and he could go there to spend time with them on the days that groups went there. He just wanted to be a visitor to Neverland. In 2000-2001 he was looking at a beautiful house at 10451 Revuelta Way in Beverly Hills located just off Sunset Boulevard
    That part of F.Marc Schaffels story is true it’s just that the part about Michael not being able to afford the down payment was somewhat skewed as he had used the money to purchase his own home.
    Now it was becoming abundantly clear to those who wanted another victim of Michael Jackson that time was running out on the Statute of Limitations. The most this can be extended is 3 years and Sneddon got the extension based on the fact that Michael had not been living at Neverland much of the time since 1993. The push was on to find another victim and soon, one that “fit the bill”, and enter poor little Gavin Arvizo, the cancer stricken child that has an uncanny physical resemblance to a young Jason Francia. Why it is that no one else has ever questioned why this boy that wanted to meet nearly every comedian in Hollywood suddenly requests to meet a singer/dancer that is rich beyond most people’s dreams, and vulnerable to lawsuits of a certain nature? You can’t tell me that Janet Arvizo and those around her did not know of the 1993 allegations the very idea of that is preposterous. You would have thought that their friend Wheezy would have warned them against that if it had been a real concern or was it perhaps an intentional suggestion?
    Too much of the Arvizo story doesn’t add up and I don’t just mean the charges. It is how they met him and how the whole thing evolved. One of the most telling things in Gavin’s testimony is not that his account didn’t match from telling to telling but that the thing he was most emotional about is when he felt that Michael was pulling away from the family it made him angry. He was going to be let go and not allowed back into Michael Jacksons world. BY his own testimony he was there with his father in 2000 when he was undergoing chemotherapy and then did not go back to Neverland in 2001. In 2002 he went there with Chris Tucker and his family but Michael was not there at the time. The next time they see Michael is when he calls them at the urging of Martin Bashir to come do the interview Living With Michael Jackson. They stayed for a few days and it was this time that an order was found in the daily logs that the Arvizos were to leave immediately. My guess is that this is when the Arvizo boys started to show their true colors and Michael wanted them out of Neverland. Does this even sound like a P*** that went after a poor little cancer stricken child?
    It is my opinion that Diane Dimond, Louise Palanker and the District Attorney offered this boy’s mother a chance at riches. All she had to do was get him out to Neverland and spend time with Michael Jackson. When the whole thing backfired on them, when Michael didn’t spend time alone with Gavin they came up with this crazy story and Sneddon in his desperation grabbed it. The thing is the jury saw through Gavin’s acting job and acquitted Michael not just because of reasonable doubt but because it was an obvious fabrication. It is also my opinion that someone is still paying the Arvizos for their contribution to bringing down Michael Jackson and it would be my guess that it is Louise Palanker, Ron Zonen, Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond.Why? Because Janet Arvizo doesn’t do anything without monetary reward and that would be the only thing keeping her quiet.


  14. March 23, 2011 7:22 pm

    I don’t know why the opponents feel Tom Mesereau would be lying. They seem
    to have a problem accepting that a reputable, outstanding attorney would
    staunchly defend Michael Jackson, who is a “p” in their minds.
    IMO, Mesereau’s actions and statements demonstrate his unflappable belief in Michael’s innocence, and this really irks the opponents. He’s the “300 lb gorilla” of credibility!

    I think the contention is that the Defense did not make a motion to call those witnesses to testify. I thought I saw the witness list on the site and there did not appear to be anyone who fit the description of witnesses rebutting the potential testimony of JC.
    Nevertheless, your explanation regarding rebuttal evidence is very enlightening.


  15. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2011 7:47 pm

    It was actually Sneddon that filed a Motion to exclude testimony of many of their witnesses. What does that tell you?


  16. March 23, 2011 7:50 pm

    Years ago, I read that the defense has examined Gavin’s copmuter, something that the police should have done as well in my opinion. They found the 1993 declaration downloaded, which as we know was uploaded after the airing of Bashir’s “documentary” in US for that very purpose. To help a phantom “victim” create allegations. We should find more about this


  17. Suzy permalink
    March 23, 2011 8:08 pm

    @ MC

    There is a contention that he was not being truthful when he stated he had witnesses prepared to testify against Chandler if he took the stand. Proof offered: they were never on the witness list.

    Actually they were. One of them is a girl called Josephine Zohny. If you google her name, she’s on Twitter, she has blogs. She went to college with Jordan and she WAS on the defense’s witness list! She was one to whom Jordan told Michael never did anything to him.

    Click to access 021105mlimexcltw.pdf

    You can find her name at the very end.


  18. Suzy permalink
    March 23, 2011 8:37 pm

    @ Lynette

    Interesting theory. You usually have a good instinct about these things and I think it’s plausible. All those connections between people on the prosecution side are just too strange to be coincidental.

    “It is also my opinion that someone is still paying the Arvizos for their contribution to bringing down Michael Jackson and it would be my guess that it is Louise Palanker, Ron Zonen, Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond.Why? Because Janet Arvizo doesn’t do anything without monetary reward and that would be the only thing keeping her quiet.”

    I didn’t want to say it because I don’t have a proof for it, but I have this feeling too. That’s also why the Arvizos are not going to the media to cash-in. I believe there is some “compensation” they get from certain people and I don’t think Ron Zonen keeps contact with them for nothing. Does he keep a contact with everybody he ever represented?

    They could go to the media telling MJ did molest Gavin – but that wouldn’t make the prosecution look good either, since then they couldn’t say what Zonen said at “Frozen in time” that they never cashed in on it.

    Even worse, a lot worse for the prosecution, of course, if they’d tell the media nothing ever happened. Maybe they could also tell some incriminating information on Sneddon, Zonen and Co. I have the feeling it’s in a lot of people’s interest to keep them shut up. I can imagine Janet would even kind of blackmail them with this…. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they keep paying her in some form.


  19. lynande51 permalink
    March 23, 2011 10:48 pm

    Here is an interesting article that shows that Sneddon was thinking about Michael Jackson in all the time that he said he wasn’t.


  20. Teva permalink
    March 23, 2011 11:24 pm


    The connection you made between Palanker, Dimond and Zonen is startling. Firstly Dimond claims she was never given any favouritism treatment by the prosecution, that she was just a hard working reporter who happened to be in the right place at the right time – NOT. Now Dimond is best friends/business partner/employee with Palanker who is the fiance of Zonen. Seriously you can’t make this stuff up.


  21. lynande51 permalink
    March 24, 2011 2:18 am

    If you want to see what Diane Dimond is really like watch the Neverland Search video that Larry Nimmer has. In the beginning the Sheriff’s Officers that are first going in see something off to the side of the road and one says” wait what’s that” the reply by the one in the front ” that’s that film crew” response by the one in the back ” oh that’s where they are”. Does that indicate to you that they had prior knowledge that they would be there because it sure does to me. Diane Dimond owed Sneddon for getting her out of that sticky mess she got herself into with the VG video tape fiasco. He went out of his bounds of prosecutorial conduct and gave a declaration (after the fact) that he did indeed look for the tape.
    Also there are article out there and in court documents about the return of Henry Vaccaro’s property that was found in that storage locker. In that locker was a copy of the 1994 settlement. She was in that locker with him going through the things in there and must have found it. That was in February-March of 1994 just following the arrest but before the Grand Jury.
    The Grand Jury indicts Michael but in the mean time Michael sues Vaccaro for the return of his property which Vaccaro says he has already sold to a collector in England. Well it all has to be returned to Vaccaro at his expense and it gets back to the US sometime in May. June 16th 2004 is when the Settlement is leaked on Court TV with the all important paragraph 3 missing.
    It was edited out so it would be easier for all of us simple folk to read. I think she bought that from Vaccaro who was in dire need of cash. I think she used money fronted to her by Court TV and bought a copy and said it was leaked. That is her favorite thing to say is that someone “leaked it” when in fact it was purchased just like any good tabloid reporter would have done.
    Diane Dimond is a farce. She took that paragraph out of there so she could tell the world that it was more that it was so it would make Michael sound guiltier. If you read the bottom of that article you will see that according to her the settlement doesn’t say if it was paid by Michael or an insurance company. Well up until then did anyone even think it had been paid by an insurance company other than the extremely limited number of people that actually read Time or Jet magazine? No the world had thought that Michael had paid it out of pocket which made him look guilty. Then there is the amount once you do the math with the Retainer agreement you come up with a more reasonable figure of a little over 6 million.

    Leaked settlement documents first made public in June of 2004 revealed that the amount paid to the family included a $6 million annuity for the son, $1.5 million for each parent and $5 million in legal fees. Within the settlement agreement, Jackson “specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts” against Jordan Chandler and the Chandler family.


  22. March 24, 2011 2:28 am

    The defense’s original witness list had 439 people on it most whose names no one has ever heard of how do they know who they are?

    Precisely. They’re lying. They don’t believe people can check and they believe that simply making such a statement means it’s true (they seem to believe this works for everything).

    October 2004 Jordie Chandler tells an investigator he will not testify “against” Michael. January 2005 Geraldine Hughes reports that Jordie won’t testify against Mike and that he defends him to anyone who’ll say otherwise, TMez reports that he had witnesses lined up who Jordie had defended Mike to, we know of one who went to his college. There’s also the report from late April about Brian Oxman seeking Vinne Amen to get Jordie to sign a statement denying he’d been abused. I wonder when the PI met with people from Jordie’s college and this Brian Oxman thing happened, likely after. There’s no mention of him threatening anyone on MJ’s team. It’s just so interesting that Michael Jackson’s team were more interested in Jordie Chandler than Sneddon was. Maybe they could go through that on their next MJ-Fact update? Explain why Sneddon had no interest in Jordy?

    And again, I wish Zonen had explained why Gavin Arviso now goes legally by the name Anton Jackson and why he no longer lives with his mother.


  23. lynande51 permalink
    March 24, 2011 3:17 am

    You know if the tabloids wanted to hear from Janet all they would have to do is offer her a larger dollar figure than the people that are paying her to keep quiet. They must be paying her big time. She has no loyalty look at what she was willing to do to her own children for a chance at the golden egg.


  24. Suzy permalink
    March 24, 2011 7:19 am

    Apart from paying her, it could be the prosecutors also can blackmail her with something. Since she’s a professional cheater I don’t think it would be very difficult to find something in her life that could get her in jail, you know….


  25. hana permalink
    March 24, 2011 8:42 am

    I wonder how long Gavin is going to keep pretending to be a victim. He’s already been exposed by Azja Pryor.


  26. March 24, 2011 11:19 am

    “Now it was becoming abundantly clear to those who wanted another victim of Michael Jackson that time was running out on the Statute of Limitations. The most this can be extended is 3 years and Sneddon got the extension based on the fact that Michael had not been living at Neverland much of the time since 1993. The push was on to find another victim and soon, one that “fit the bill”, and enter poor little Gavin Arvizo”.

    Lynette, this is an excellent observation. Though I was approaching the matter from another direction (that of Larry Feldman) I also felt from their side a terrible urgency and even desperation at not being able to find another “victim”. You can almost see them shaking their heads in disbelief that they can’t find anyone better than the Arvizos to do the job.

    When you read Larry Feldman’s and Dr. Katz’ testimonies and see how many times they had to consult each other before finally making their report you can see how desperate they were. Just imagine – Feldman sent the family to Dr. Katz to check whether their story was credible (asking him not to go too deep into analysing them), then Dr. Katz consulted Feldman over the telephone, then they all met in Feldman’s office (including Feldman’s wife) and then Feldman sent the Arvizos to Dr. Katz again. All this doesn’t look like a routine psychological or medical check-up – it looks like working out a common strategy and squeezing out of the family the desirable “evidence” this or that way.

    But this is not all. After Katz and Feldman finally arrived at some agreement over the Arvizos they took their report to the DFCS department together. But their report was not accepted as the Arvizos had been previously interviewed by the DFCS experts and no wrong had been found.

    Then Feldman took the matter solely into his hands and called Tom Sneddon directly. This is when the case was reopened.

    An investigative officer called Katz and secretly taped their conversation where Katz said that Michael didn’t fit the profile of a p. and the whole story was “weird”. A little time later Larry Feldman talked to Larry King and also admitted to him that the mother of the boys was “wacko”, was out for money and that he didn’t believe her.

    Now the question is – why would they go into all this trouble of running around with a report if both of them thought the family “wacko”, “weird” and didn’t believe them? Only because there were no other, “better” victims that could fit their purpose.

    This leaves us with the main question – why were they so desperate to do this to Michael? To be fair to Feldman and Katz, it looks that half the country was helping Tom Sneddon, was sympathizing with “his noble cause” and was willing to contribute to it. When you read media reports of the time you get the impression that all sympathies were with Sneddon only and everyone wanted to partake in nailing down “the predator”.

    ….It is also my opinion that someone is still paying the Arvizos for their contribution to bringing down Michael Jackson and it would be my guess that it is Louise Palanker, Ron Zonen, Tom Sneddon and Diane Dimond. Why? Because Janet Arvizo doesn’t do anything without monetary reward and that would be the only thing keeping her quiet. “

    Naturally Janet Arvizo would not do anything without a money reward. But in my opinion the list of her ‘benefactors’ is not limited only to those you’ve mentioned above. None of them would probably waste their own money on all this hatred. As my son told me in disbelief at the situation – “such persistent hatred is possible only for really big money”. It is selfless love which can sustain people all their life – but selfless hating a person for more than 20 years on a regular basis is a very strange thing.


  27. hana permalink
    March 24, 2011 3:03 pm

    From Huffonpost:

    Following Michael Jackson’s death, reporter Martin Bashir hailed Michael as a great entertainer, claimed that only a small portion of his “Living with Michael Jackson” documentary contained a controversy, and stated that he’d never seen Michael Jackson do anything criminal. In truth, Bashir’s tabloid documentary fed fire to an already vengeful Tom Sneddon’s embarrassed career, and launched an insidious witch-hunt for a child molester at Neverland, a child molester that was just as nonexistent as Peter Pan. Martin Bashir, with his veiled accusations and insincere concerns for children near Michael Jackson, threw the final straw that broke the camel’s back, hurtling Michael Jackson into a humiliating trial that ultimately caused him to turn his back on Neverland and his charity toward children.

    When we last heard of Los Angeles DA Tom Sneddon, he was sitting somewhere wiping egg off his face after going to the appalling lengths of photographing Michael Jackson’s privates for comparison to a description given by Jordan Chandler, but Chandler’s description did not match, which forced Sneddon to concede. Sneddon and other Michael Jackson opponents were salivating at the chance to go at Michael Jackson again. Martin Bashir, trading Michael Jackson up in true Judas fashion, delivered it to them.


  28. March 24, 2011 7:03 pm

    @Hana any link?


  29. hana permalink
    March 24, 2011 9:31 pm


    Here’s the link:


  30. March 24, 2011 9:44 pm

    Regarding the Chandler-Schwartz tapes. According to the “Facts” site, the author accuses “fans” of misleading the public with their accusations of Chandler’s extortion attempt of Michael Jackson. He/she asserts that Evan is talking about his “plan” to win custody of his son, NOT an extortion jackpot based on false accusations.

    On the tapes Chandler concedes he does not know if anything sexual or abusive is taking place up at the time of the taped conversation, and he tells Schwartz he cannot talk about the “plan”. Is it correct that Chandler never mentions suspicions of a sexual relationship on the tapes? If that’s the case, the important question is why is he so confident that he will “win custody” in a big-time way and “ruin” Michael’s reputation if he is unsure there is criminal, immoral behavior taking place?

    If Chandler wants his son out from under his ex-wife’s control as well as Michael’s because he feels threatened or does not like the closeness in their relationship, he was undoubtedly advised that winning custody would require solid evidence proving his ex-wife was unfit to parent by virtue of exposing her son to a harmful relationship with an adult.

    It should be pretty obvious that “winning custody”, in the absence of proof, required a well-orchestrated scheme to extort money from the Bank of Jackson. Just think about how these actions have been rationalized by so many!

    The author does not seem to be dismissing all of the contents of the tape as bogus, even though he/she accuses Jackson team/PI of altering the tapes.

    Do we know if Schwartz ever disputed the contents of the tape?

    Finally, I am curious to know if Ray Chandler addressed in All That Glitters WHY Evan Chandler did not notify the police about his concerns and suspicions when his ex-wife and Michael had “shut him out”. Certainly, it presented the opportunity for him to go on record to say that he was fearful of losing/not seeing his son AND concerned about his son- a minor- being left alone with a much older man.

    I’ll bet the mere mention/threat of REPORTING it to the police, even in the absence of hard evidence, would have scared the heck out of someone who was either engaged in the act of child molestation or considering it.


  31. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 10:09 pm

    Yes, sure Evan was so concerned about his son

    “MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I — you

    2 ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked

    3 to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of

    4 this whole relationship, what I want [tape

    5 irregularity], okay, so he wouldn’t have to figure

    6 me out.”


  32. March 24, 2011 10:25 pm

    Hana thanks


  33. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 10:25 pm

    What did they do to destroy him
    MR. CHANDLER: — (simultaneous,

    3 inaudible) I’m only going there because of Monique,

    4 because, to tell you the truth, Dave, it would be a

    5 lot easier for me and a lot more satisfying —

    6 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    7 MR. CHANDLER: — to see everybody get

    8 destroyed —

    9 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    10 MR. CHANDLER: — like they’ve

    11 destroyed me, but it would be a lot easier.”


  34. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 10:38 pm

    “MR. SCHWARTZ: So why do you think he’s

    19 not nice?

    20 MR. CHANDLER: Why? Because he broke

    21 up the family, that’s why.

    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    23 MR. CHANDLER: And he was put on notice

    24 from the first sentence out of my mouth was,

    25 “Michael, I think you’re really a great guy.


    1 You’re welcome into the family, as long as you are

    2 who you seem to be, but don’t take anything [tape

    3 irregularity].” I mean, that to me was the worst

    4 thing anybody could do to me.

    5 MR. SCHWARTZ: And you think he did it?

    6 MR. CHANDLER: Well, Dave, if he wasn’t

    7 in the picture, everything would be as it was.

    8 I’m not —

    9 MR. SCHWARTZ: But that’s sort of —

    10 MR. CHANDLER: — saying that he did it

    11 premeditatively, and I’m not saying he did it on

    12 his own.

    13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

    14 MR. CHANDLER: I’m saying that he might

    15 have — it might have just evolved that way, and it

    16 might have evolved that [tape irregularity] desire,

    17 so I’m blaming all three of them, but when I come

    18 to that [tape irregularity], it really makes me

    19 hate June because the family was inviolate, [tape

    20 irregularity] felt about it. There was nothing I

    21 had.”


  35. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 10:43 pm

    ” I mean, you came in this family and

    23 made it better. It was great. Someone else comes

    24 along and breaks it up.

    25 You know how [tape irregularity].


    1 Okay. So do I [tape irregularity] coming into the

    2 family who’s going to do good things for the

    3 family.

    4 MR. SCHWARTZ: But, I mean —

    5 MR. CHANDLER: Michael divided and

    6 conquered, Dave.

    7 MR. SCHWARTZ: He what?

    8 MR. CHANDLER: He divided and

    9 conquered.


  36. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:01 pm

    ” MR. CHANDLER: — except in this time

    15 my looking the other way and my failing to deal

    16 with the issues have harmed my son greatly. I

    17 believe that.

    18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, are you talking

    19 about harmed him in the relationship with you?”


  37. Maral permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:07 pm

    as i remember, the transcripts were posted on another hater website. i read them, first i thought wow he IS concerned. but if you look closely he sound paranoid. and Dave ask him several times if he think MJ and jordi are having sex and says he don’t know. now that is interesting because in the same conversation he says he is going to bring him down……… and that was just, wait you say you don’t know but are sure you will bring him down?

    anyone know when these were taped?


  38. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:10 pm


    It was during the first week of July, I think the 8th.


  39. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:12 pm

    Evan spoke about evidence on tapes. 16 years later we are still waiting for them. Don’t forget he knew he was recorded or at least he knew he was at risk to be recorded.


  40. shelly permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:43 pm

    “18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, do you think

    19 that he’s fucking him?

    20 MR. CHANDLER: I don’t know. I have no

    21 idea.

    22 MR. SCHWARTZ: But harmed in — in just

    23 been spoiled?

    24 MR. CHANDLER: No.

    25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Just tell me —


    1 MR. CHANDLER: You know, you gotta

    2 forgive me for one thing, but I have been told by

    3 my lawyer that if I say one thing to anybody —

    4 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. Okay.

    5 MR. CHANDLER: — don’t bother calling

    6 him again. He said this case is so open [tape

    7 irregularity] “You open your mouth and you blow

    8 it,” he said, “just don’t come back to me.”


  41. March 24, 2011 11:47 pm

    “harmed him in the relationship with you?”

    Right, sure sounds like sexual abuse is the “harm” they’re both talking about, huh.

    “You open your mouth and you blow it.”

    There’s his concern over his son again.


  42. visitor permalink
    March 24, 2011 11:55 pm

    In All that g. Ray describes an incident where Michael is having a headache and Evan is giving him a pill that makes him dizzy and basically unable to function properly right? And then Evan asks Michael if he is gay and Michael says he is not but he knows lot of people in Hollywood who are? Now, if this is a real incident was the gay thing the only question that Evan asked Michael?I don’t remember if this is the same incident but somewhere in the book where Evan is giving Michael a injection in his buttocks right?Again, if this incident is real how much of Michael’s private parts did Evan see? What makes me wonder with Evan is that if he had suspicions about the relationship between Michael and Jordan why didn’t he try to frame Michael in some way? He could have wired the house, or the phone,Jordan’s room do something. He was a very creative person with great imagination and the movie script proves that.


  43. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 12:05 am

    On the tapes, he is speaking about experts, who are those people? The tape was made before he talked to Abrahms.


  44. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 12:25 am

    “January 2005 Geraldine Hughes reports that Jordie won’t testify against Mike and that he defends him to anyone who’ll say otherwise,”

    Rockforever, do you have alink for that?


  45. March 25, 2011 12:30 am

    Unfortunately the site that the message from Geraldine was posted no longer works, not in cache or on, but this was from the KOP member who repeated it on their board:


    Jan 13th 2005

    Geraldinne Hughes, author of Redemption has a post on MJJ Forum saying that not only is Jordan Chandler not coopperating with Sneddon, but that since 2003, he has been “defending Michael’s innocence to anyone that tries to say otherwise.” She thinks if he does testify it’ll be for the defense. I don’t know who her sources are…..<&lt;

    The quote from TMez: . “I had witnesses who were gonna come in and say he told them it never happened and that he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say.”

    People at the time dismissed it because it seemed too optimistic, but in light of the FBI Memo from October 2004, the PI that found witnesses who’d heard Jordie saying such things and the Brian Oxman thing I think that has credibility. Does Geraldine respond to questions on her facebook?


  46. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 1:04 am

    Do you have a link for the”the Brian Oxman thing”

    The only story I have is according to Orth, he was trying to buy Jordan’s silence, claiming that if Jordan refused to testify he could write his own check.


  47. March 25, 2011 1:10 am

    The only story I have is according to Orth, he was trying to buy Jordan’s silence, claiming that if Jordan refused to testify he could write his own check.

    Why would Jordie need more money? LOL And if this was true why wouldn’t Jordie also threaten Michael’s team with legal action? Lawsuit happy Chandler’s turning down an excuse to sue?

    Oxman to Exit Jackson Defense Team
    April 25, 2005

    Additionally, according to sheriff’s documents seen by “CelebrityJustice,” a prosecution witness, record producer Rudy Provincio, has talked about discussions between Oxman and alleged co-conspirator Vinnie Amen. In the documents, Provincio says Oxman was trying to convince Amen to get Jackson’s ’93 accuser to write a letter vindicating the superstar.

    Hollywood attorney Marci Koch told us that, if the discussions between Amen and Oxman did in fact take place, it could blow up in Jackson’s face. “If it’s true, it’s not the smartest thing in the world to contact a prosecution witness, let alone a key prosecution witness, to scheme with someone who claimed to be a victim of child molestation,” Koch observed.


  48. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 1:24 am

    “Why would Jordie need more money? LOL And if this was true why wouldn’t Jordie also threaten Michael’s team with legal action? Lawsuit happy Chandler’s turning down an excuse to sue?”

    I know, it’s dumb. She said police officers were investigating the claims but there was no lawsuit.


  49. visitor permalink
    March 25, 2011 1:58 am

    Orth is the typical hater. They can find an excuse for everything. I would like her to explain to me why in hell Michael’s team called Ray Chandler to testify but he also refused. Someone should really expose her for what she really is. A delusional individual whose hatred against Michael has no limits.Only recently she wrote an article about a police force unite and she randomly threw Michel’s name in her article when she was talking about a negative thing. The woman is no better that Dimond. Too bad that her husband’s name gives her so much credibility when in fact she doesn’t have one bit.


  50. Teva permalink
    March 25, 2011 2:28 am

    Orth was talking about the Peace Corp and threw in Michael’s name too.


  51. lcpledwards permalink
    March 25, 2011 3:43 am

    @ Visitor
    Can you give a link to Orth’s article you just mentioned, about the police force? Thanks.


  52. visitor permalink
    March 25, 2011 12:29 pm

    My mistake it was about Peace corp.
    I am sure you have already read the article but here is the link. orth mentioning Michael here shows how biased she is.,0,3388477.story


  53. Maral permalink
    March 25, 2011 1:03 pm

    Oxman may have done it on his own. and how come jordi told friends Michael didn’t do anything to him. we HAVE proof. on of them have a blog. i say it now i’m a sceptic, i trust few people regarding this issue. and i don’t trust Geraldine much since she speak so kindly of Joe……. but i trust TMez. he said he had witnesses, on have a blog, her name was on the list, she has NO connection to MJ. HENCE she is real.


  54. hana permalink
    March 26, 2011 7:01 pm

    Ron Zonen: “It is extremely painful to any victim when he or she is not believed. When Jackson was aqcuitted, we had to explain to Gavin what that meant”.

    Yeah, it meant that he’s a liar and the jury didn’t believe him or his family’s outrageous claims. It meant that he has to make money the legitimate way and not try to scam people out of their hard earned money.


  55. Maral permalink
    March 26, 2011 7:15 pm

    oh gmab Zonen, Gavin was not naive. few months ago i showed my former caregiver the police interview talking to gavin and when he said he didn’t know what a masturbation was my caregiver JUMPED out of her chair. she is far from a MJ fan. and the fact that he was on the football team, but yet claimed to not knowing made her jump higher. he’s a lier and TMez proved it.


  56. stacey2 permalink
    March 27, 2011 10:27 am

    I have faith in our justice system and i believe the jury did the right thing..these people were caught in so many lies and misstatements to the point where you couldnt help but wonder why these charges were even filed to begin with.. jackson was rightfully acquitted on the basis that this boy was not credible and neither was his crazy mother..people need to get over it and deal with it.


  57. visitor permalink
    March 27, 2011 11:44 am


    “jackson was rightfully acquitted on the basis that this boy was not credible and neither was his crazy mother.”

    Michael was acquitted for this and for many other reasons too.The lack of credibility regarding the Arvizos was only a drop in the ocean.The sad thing is that people are still so misinformed about this case because no one has ever presented the facts about the trial. Only Aphrodite Jones and Charles Thompos have presented the facts. But the mass media have never examined the facts of Michael’s acquittal because if they do, then they have to admit their guilt for twisting facts,evidence and their biased attitude toward Michael and the 2005 case which led the majority of people into thinking that Michael was guilty.


  58. May 29, 2011 11:33 am

    The DSK-case has picked up again in the France24 news ,including the fact that Brathman is the defence lawyer, and no surprise, Michael´s name is always mentioned in context with this man.”A mafia lawyer and to some stars as MJ.”


  59. May 29, 2011 4:02 pm

    @kaarin22 They need to digest the fact that Benjamin Brafman had nothing to do with the 2005 trial.


  60. May 30, 2011 1:12 am

    Brathman was periferally and briefly involved ,I belive in 2004, during the switch from Geragos to Mesereau.He may have been partner with Geragos. Now Nareg Gourian who was on the case with Geragos is a defence lawyer for Murray.
    I am only making these posts as EVERYBODY with the slightest involment
    with Michel has to bring it out as if it was part of their credentials.Oprah did the sane.


  61. lynande51 permalink
    May 30, 2011 2:06 am

    Benjamin Brafman only represented Michael for the 2/13/2004 hearing . He applied for and got a Pro Hac Vice for the day they set the calendar for the preliminary hearing. He had to because Mark Geragos could not be Michael’s attorney anymore because he had become a witness in the case when Sneddon searched Brad Millers office. When a lawyer becomes a witness in the case they are working on they can no longer represent the defendant or be a prosecutor in that case. There really isn’t anything to get excited about with the whole Brafman thing it was one court appearance because Michael didn’t have lead counsel available.

    Click to access 021304minuteorder.pdf

    Click to access 011504noticeprohacvice.pdf

    Click to access 011604orderprohacvice.pdf


  62. May 30, 2011 8:45 am

    @kaarin22 I wrote about it in detail in a previous comment. Brafman entered the scene in January 2004, joining the old team of lawyers and was dismissed in April 2004.


  63. May 30, 2011 7:12 pm

    I know that Brathman was hardly involved in MJ`s case. That is what is so idiotic that MJ is even mentioned when Brathman is on France24 TV in connection with the DSK-case.Good that they no longer run a clip
    of MJ exiting court with his umbrella.Just his name now.



  1. WHAT WERE HIS THOUGHTS LIKE? The final evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: