Skip to content

Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 3 of 4

March 25, 2011

Now, unto their next set of lies! This by far the most appalling and most egregious set of lies and distortions that I have ever seen!  This MJ hater website stumbled upon what is purported to be an email interview between two of the jurors (Ray Hultman and foreman Paul Rodriguez) and media hack Larry Harriet. They (both the MJ hater site AND Larry Harriet) deliberately twisted their words in order to fit his notion that MJ’s celebrity “got him off”.  He describes himself as the following:

Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.

Executive Investigative Editor and Chief Reporter of Under Private Investigation, Inc., a company that Harriet founded himself. The company focuses on being the online website resource of record for reporting on the hottest legal news. People know that when legal news breaks, Larry Harriet’s websites are always on top, reporting first and reporting right, with the biggest stories and the biggest interviews that break primetime news in the legal world.

Larry’s newest venture is the creation of CourtNet, a website that focuses on the biggest legal stories of the time. Larry runs and operates the website completely himself, writing all the news reports, and maintaining the website himself. Larry uses the website to pursue a goal of bringing missing people home, one person at a time. The website focuses on a handful of high-profile missing people cases and invites visitors to help solve them.

Larry Harriet has won legions of fans that flock to the website everyday to find out about the next big story. Harriet, a long time fan of Court TV, knows his true passion is working to help crime victims, and has hopes of one day becoming a prosecutor.


Larry Harriet believes that all journalism should be real journalism.  Journalism that is fair, balanced, and unbiased.  Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.

Whoa! Did you guys read that last paragraph!  Larry “does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles…” and is a “statement of opinion” based on research that “may or may not be accurate”.  Well, that pretty much sums up his credibility, or lack thereof!  I was going to destroy it, but he already beat me to it!  But I appreciate his honesty!

On October 8th, 2005 he posted what he claims is an “exclusive” email interview with jury foreman Paul Rodriguez.  Here are a few excerpts, which I will analyze:

1. Did it all come down to “reasonable doubt” for you, take us through the counts.

Yes, it really did we started out on Count #1, which we felt the defense proved not guilty, because of the mother leaving the ranch and not asking for help. So, we felt that Mr. Jackson was INNOCENT of that charge. On the molestation, we couldn’t convict based on testimony of past acts. We couldn’t convict on the boy’s testimony because of reasonable doubt. We did not feel that Jackson gave them alcohol at all, let alone with the intent of molestation, and if he did it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt.


Count 1 was the conspiracy charge, and there was ABSOLUTE doubt with that one, which he specifically stated (hence his use of the word “innocent”)! He acknowledges that he couldn’t legally convict based on the 1108 evidence (but even if he could have, he didn’t believe Jason Francia so it wouldn’t have mattered. He told Nancy Grace that he wasn’t a credible witness.), and that the jurors didn’t believe that MJ served them alcohol.

 2. Now, we know that Katarina Carls, Ellie Cook, and Ray Hultman thought he was guilty, what happend in the jury room with them?

 Well the 3 of them, kept making statements on the way there heart felt, what they thought, their huntch. And I told them we could not convict based on what they believe because of reasonable doubt.


Carls, Cook, and Hultman wanted to convict on prejudice, which (theoretically) is illegal.  But their belief that MJ was guilty in the past was NOT due to any credible evidence (especially in light of the fact that all of the facts of 1993 were not presented in court), but instead was due to their “hunch” or their “feelings” or their “suspicions”.  They could have held fast and voted Guilty, which would have resulted in a hung jury and a retrial, but fortunately they didn’t give in to their desires.

Here is Hultman trying to rationalize his belief that MJ was guilty:


“I can’t feel that Michael Jackson could sleep in the same bedroom for 365 straight days with a boy and not do something more than just watch television and eat popcorn. I mean, that doesn’t make sense to me.”


Wow, such compelling evidence, wouldn’t you agree? So because it “doesn’t make sense” to him, therefore MJ was guilty.

3. What was your impression of Thomas Sneddon?

He was a redneck.


The term “redneck” is a derogatory reference to poor, white farmers from the South, and is similar to “cracker”, “hillbilly”, and “white trash”.  In recent years, the term expanded its meaning to mean bigoted, loutish, and opposed to modern ways, and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and segregationists.  I think it fairly describes Sneddon!  The fact that he had the audacity to call Chris Tucker a “boy” proves it!

1. Are you planning on writing a book?

You know what, I have talked to some people, nothing set in stone but I have considered it, and might do it.


Rodriguez signed a book deal with Vigliano and Associates, but of course he never had the chance to publish it, most likely because he refused lie and say MJ was guilty.  It’s also interesting to note Ray Hultman’s claims in that article regarding his lawsuit to get out of his book deal that would “prove” that MJ was guilty: that he was a “novice” who was “suckered” into signing a book deal, and then “pressured” into sensationalizing it.  He called it a “bad experience” for him, but what do you think the experience would have been like for MJ had that book been released? Lucky for him, he was able to reach an out of court settlement with the book publisher, and no money changed hands at all; he was merely cleared of his obligation to write the book.

 2. What do you think of Ray Hultman and Ellie Cook writing their books?

 I’m not mad, but disappointed. I saw their interview and read their press statements, and I was really disappointed. I was a juror who FOLLED THE LAW of REASONABLE DOUBT and they twisted the things I said in order to sell books, when what I said, was the LAW of reasonable doubt. You have to look at the EVIDENCE and what you believe about something doesn’t matter.


That is a good answer!  Here in the USA, we convict on evidence, not emotions!  They certainly did twist Rodriguez’s statements for their own gain, such as the following:

Eleanor Cook: [During the deliberations] I said he was guilty and I said it in a big way. They came up after me with a vengeance. I really got attacked.

Rita Cosby: How so?

Cook: ‘I didn’t understand’, ‘I didn’t know’, ‘I was too old’…

R. Cosby: How did the foreman [Paul Rodriguez] threaten you?

Cook: If I don’t change my mind, or go with the group, or be more understanding, he’ll have to notify the bailiff, the bailiff will notify the judge, and the judge will have me removed….

3. What happened with the juror who brought in the court tv episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond?

We never saw it, we couldn’t get the VCR to work.


Eleanor Cooke successfully snuck in an episode of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond’s closing arguments coverage from Court TV, with the hope that it would prejudice the other jurors, but the VCR didn’t work, so they were unable to view the tape. I don’t think it was a coincidence; I think it was Divine Intervention!  And even IF they would have watched the tape, it would have been grounds for disciplinary action against the jury for their misconduct, and Mesereau would have surely based his appeal on it.  Here is an excerpt from this article:


Bringing the Court TV video and the medical book into deliberations were violations of court rules because only trial evidence is allowed in deliberations and jurors are barred from considering outside materials, especially media reports.

5. How do you take the criticism of people like Wendy Murphy who claims you of having “dumb-juror” syndrome?

I disagree. I’m a smart person, who followed the evidence, and it just wasn’t there.


This is what these so-called legal “pundits” do: instead of taking responsibility for their irresponsible and faulty analysis, they simply blame the jury!  Wendy Murphy is a proven liar, and has no credibility whatsoever!  She is the one who referred to MJ as the “Teflon Molester” (a reference to mob boss John Gotti, who was nicknamed  the “Teflon Don”, because criminal charges against him could never “stick” and result in a conviction. Teflon is non-stick chemical used in cookware that is manufactured the DuPont company ).

6. How do you think jury’s convict people of child molestation/rape cases?

I think that if they convict they must convict beyond a reasonable doubt, there has to be a smoking gun, like a video, semen, you know… SOMETHING of substance. Not just


Now, I’m not an expert in child abuse cases, but I will say this: there are cases when testimony is all that is needed to convict someone, and there are cases when more than just testimony is needed.  You have to look at it on a case by case basis.  But in THIS CASE, if there was any truth to the allegations, then there would have been physical evidence!!!  However, when you look at the totality of the testimony, you’ll see that this case was a complete joke!  The MJ Haters site and Larry Harriet tried to spin this answer by saying that this was “proof” that Rodriguez was a “dumb juror” who didn’t understand how to apply the law of reasonable doubt:


If we look at the trial verdict through the lens of Rodriguez’s reasoning, it all becomes clear why Jackson was found not guilty by the jury. Rodriguez’s insistence on a “smoking gun”, a “smoking gun” which was never presented by the prosecution and is rare in cases of molestation of this type, virtually guaranteed Jackson’s freedom.


As I said earlier, I’m still waiting for them to write a convincing, cogent post that explains exactly why MJ should have been convicted!  Something tells me that I’ll be waiting for a long, long time!

8. The mother, being a troublesome witness, did the mother directly affect your position?

I will say yes, she did, I looked for patterns in the way she talked and her sons talked and it all seemed programmed, they sounded alike.


Ironically Eleanor Cook felt the same way!, here’s what Eleanor Cooke told Larry King about her opinion of Janet Arvizo:


“She was just downright rude to us, as far as I’m concerned. And I think she set her son up, and I think she’s probably the poorest excuse for a mother that I’ve ever known.”

9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?

Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has molested boys in the past, and probably molested this boy, but as I said, what we believe doesn’t matter… the EVIDENCE has to PROVE IT.

This is what makes me seriously question the authenticity of this so-called email interview. Was part or all of it doctored? We’ll never know.

Rodriguez has defended MJ since the acquittal in every interview he has given, so why would he all of a sudden say that he thinks MJ is guilty.  He has NEVER said anything to indicate that he thought MJ was ever guilty!  His actions have always spoken louder than his words! In fact, look at the date of this interview:  October 8th, 2005.  This was around the time when he was eligible to profit from a book deal (remember, according to California Law, juries must wait 90 days before writing a book).  He signed with the aforementioned publisher, yet his book was never published.  Gee, why do you think his book wasn’t published? Anybody want to take a guess?

11. Did you ever make racist comments to the asian juror, Katarina Carls?


Katarina Carls was the third juror to sell out and say that she thought MJ was guilty, not only in 1993, but in the 2005 trial as well!  But her timing is very suspicious: she didn’t come forward with these beliefs until AFTER Hultman and Cook announced their book deal!  Could it be that she was also trying to secure a book deal for herself? I would surely bet on it!

I don’t know if she was on Larry King with the other jurors, and if she was she is not identified in the transcripts, so I don’t know what she said in the first post-trial interviews (if she granted any interviews at all).  But here is what she said to Rita Cosby:


CARLS: Yes. It was very hard for me because I believed the boy and I believed that Michael is a child molester. And so I spent the whole weekend thinking about it, and I still cannot get past the reasonable doubt. There is (INAUDIBLE) reasonable doubt there, so I have to vote not guilty.

COSBY: But you just said to me that you believe Michael Jackson is a child molester, is that correct?
CARLS: That’s right.

COSBY: But you let him walk, based on the law, is what you’re saying.
CARLS: Well, I have to – I have to follow the law, yes, and the jury instruction.

COSBY: And you’re just saying that there just wasn’t enough evidence, based on what you looked at in the law?
CARLS: I – well, there – it’s just the family background. I kept asking myself, how – is there any slight possibility that this boy might lie at all? And my answer was yes. So I have to vote not guilty, even if there is a slight possibility.

COSBY: But still in your heart of hearts, you’re telling me that you believe Michael Jackson is a child molester.
CARLS: Yes. Yes, I do.


The fact that Carls thinks that MJ could have been guilty in the Arvizo case totally destroys what little credibility she had!  And I also think that Rita Cosby is a HORRIBLE interviewer! She should have brought with her a summary of the trial, and DIRECTLY CHALLENGED Carls, Hultman, and Cook, instead of giving them a platform to trick an already misinformed public into thinking that MJ merely “got off”!!! She could have asked them about the August 2003 issue of Barely Legal that Star claimed MJ showed him in March 2003, the shopping sprees they went on while being held “hostage” at Neverland, Star claiming to see a third instance of abuse (when he originally claimed two instances), the rebuttal video, Gavin saying “I don’t know” over 90 times, and many other material inconsistencies. For more analysis on Rita Cosby, read this post from MJEOL.

By the way, it’s funny how Rita Cosby and the other media hacks fell all over themselves to interview Carls, Hultman, and Cook because they said MJ was guilty, yet NOBODY gave the time of day to juror Susan Drake! She said the following to Larry King:

KING: Was there a chance you would have convicted anything guilty, Susan, on one of the minor counts?
DRAKE: Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity. Because I really believe in doing what is right. And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way it was laid out.

And here is Drake’s quote to NY Post “columnist” Andrea Peyser, who wrote the disgusting “Freak of the Week” article earlier this year, which I won’t even link to because it’s a waste of time for you to read it! Unfortunately, I had to use Diane Dimond’s book as a source for this quote.  From page 313:

Drake would later tell New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser that she had been totally convinced that Michael Jackson was blameless. “I’m adamant,” she was quoted as saying, “I think he’s not guilty and I think he’s innocent.”

12. If you could tell Mr. Tom Stendon one thing, what would that be?

I would tell him that during the trial, it clearly came through to us that you had an agenda, to take down a man, a human being, and it didn’t work.

Yes, Tom Sneddon truly had an agenda to down a man, a human being, and it did not work! And I’m glad that Rodriguez took the time to remind Harriet that Michael Jackson is, above all else, a HUMAN BEING!

This post is a summary of the zeal and vindictiveness that motivated Sneddon, and despite throwing everything including the kitchen sink at MJ, he was still acquitted. For all new “phantom victims” out there, please Do Not Disturb!  Sneddon did the best job he could do and still failed miserably, and nobody can say it was due to a lack of effort!

14. Do you regret your decision to acquit Michael Jackson?

Based on the evidence presented to us, no. If there was say a video, semen, or something that was a smoking gun on the molestation, I would of have voted GUILTY.

The MJ haters are absolutely love that quote because they think that the quote is “proof” that the “dumb jurors” let MJ off the hook due to their misunderstanding of the law, but when you look at what he’s saying, he did what any reasonable person would do: acquit MJ! The only “evidence” offered was the testimony of the accusers, and the only witness to the abuse was Star, who couldn’t remember if he saw MJ abuse Gavin twice or three times, so based on the evidence presented, the jury made the right decision!

15. What did you think of “The Boy,” Michael Jackson’s collection of child porn?

Didn’t want to look at it, didn’t want it to influence my decision.


In my opinion, Judge Melville’s decision to allow Sneddon to use those “The Boy: A Photographic Essay” and “Boys Will Be Boys” as evidence against MJ was the worst decision he made during the trial. Those two books were confiscated in 1993, and had been literally collecting dust for 10 years, and they had no probative value whatsoever to the 2005 case.  (For more information on MJ’s art collection, read this post.) Sneddon’s only use for them was to humiliate MJ and prejudice the jury into thinking that MJ must be gay if he had those books in his possession, and therefore if he’s gay he must be a child molester!  That was the ultimate ad hominem technique that Sneddon had in his arsenal, and the media let him go unchallenged!  What’s disappointing is that openly lesbian MJ hater Jane Velez Mitchell never used her platform to criticize this strategy, which was an insult to gays and lesbians all over the world!  (In this press release for her new book, she called MJ the “King of Poppers”!)

Oh, and did you guys notice how Harriet asked a “loaded question”, which is a question which contains a pre-conceived assumption? Harriet referred to the book as “child porn”, but don’t you think if MJ had any child porn, he would have been arrested on the spot?  That’s a perfect example of how Sneddon had the media do his dirty work for him. People like Harriet, Ray Chandler, Grace, Dimond, etc. repeatedly referred to those two books as “child porn” in order to elicit a negative emotional reaction from their viewers.

I’m truly glad that Rodriguez and the other jurors didn’t fall for Sneddon’s tricks, and they were brave enough to just ignore it.

16. Well you say, that you didn’t want it to influence your decision, it was entered into evidence, so, why not look at it?
No comment.


Good answer, Paul! You don’t owe Harriet or anyone else an explanation!

18. All of the people who are mad at you the jury, because they felt Jackson was guilty, what would you say to them?

I studied the evidence, based on reasonable doubt, I voted Not Guilty.


Once again, good answer Paul!  You didn’t fall for Harriet’s mind games!

19. Did you want evidence that proved the case beyond reasonable doubt or all doubt?

Well, I’d say reasonable doubt, I mean the bar was set high and the evidence just didn’t hold up.


Here is Harriet, once again, trying to trip up Rodriguez by confusing him with legal jargon.  Whether the standard of proof is reasonable doubt or all doubt, the case was a freaking joke, and the media knew it, yet they wanted to try to abuse the “reasonable doubt” doctrine and conflate it with “he got off on a technicality”.  Nice try Harriet. Nice try.

Here is the “exclusive interview” that Harriet had with Ray Hultman on October 10th, 2005:

1.  Mr. Hultman, first of all, thank you for doing this interview for us, I really appreciate it.  Okay, I want to ask you specifically about the jury, what happened in the jury room, were you surprised at their jump to vote not guilty?  Explain.

yes i was suprised to see that the jury wanted to vote not guilty it was about 3 of us out of the 12 that wanted to vote guilty and i was shocked to see that the rest of the jury was ready to vote not guilty after hearing all of this testimony by people that sounded credible to me

Credible? Are you kidding me? Were either Hultman, Cook, or Carls paying attention at all during the trial? I’m not going to spend too much time on this, except to say that his answer is absolutely laughable.

3.  When I interviewed Paul, he was really disappointed that you and Ellie would “twist what he said,” he felt that you were twisting his statements to sell books, your reaction?

well he did make rude comments that is the truth and me writing my book is not about money its about the truth

Well Ray, if your book is about “the truth” then why did Stacey Brown have to plagiarize Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair column? And why wasn’t this book ever released? Why did you have to SUE to get out of the book deal, claiming that you had been taken advantage of?

4.  What is happening with the book, I’ve heard that you were filing a lawsuit about it?

i don’t have an answer for you with that i can’t comment

You couldn’t  comment because your cowardly lawsuit was still pending!

5.  What is your definition of reasonable doubt?

proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable

Well, Ray is absolutely correct.  Reasonable doubt is the amount of doubt that a REASONABLE person would have went present with all of the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.  And as I’ve said before, anyone who studies this case will have absolute doubt!

6.  In reviewing my tapes from the Jackson trial, I saw the interviews you gave to Diane Dimond, Court TV, Nancy Grace, CNN, Fox, etc. and you pretend that nothing went wrong in that jury room, now we know because of your statements that there was massive things going down in that jury room that were wrong, why did you pretend that everything was all right, that you saw smoke but couldn’t find fire?

we all agreed we did not want the public to think anything went wrong it was just so we all agreed

Let’s end this crap once and for all.  Hultman and Cook claimed that they were “bullied” and “coerced” into voting “Not Guilty”, but they spent 6 days deliberating, and Cook even snuck in contraband in an attempt to get a guilty verdict, but alas they voted to acquit MJ, and defended their acquittals in subsequent interviews to Good Morning America and Larry King.

9.  If you had to do it all over agian, would you, If you were able to go back in time and not sign the papers, not vote not guilty but guilty would you?


yes in a second

Oh, really? Well Ray, you seem pretty convinced that MJ should have convicted, but not only did you sue to get out of your book deal, but let’s look at the kind and compassionate comments that you made when you found out that MJ died:

“I offer my sympathies to Michael Jackson’s family and hope God will give them strength during this time. Michael Jackson was undeniably a great entertainer and it’s sad that much of his talents and energy in later life was consumed by having to defend some poor personal choices.”

Gee, I wonder if John Wayne Gacy, a real child molester who murdered 33 boys, received those types of comments when he died in prison?


10.  If the victim is reading this right now what would you want to say to him?

As you can see, Hultman wasn’t in a mood to answer this question.  The real question is this: what would the “victim” want to say to the jurors, who because of his lies, had to waste 5 months of their lives?

11.  Do you hope the mother and the victim file a civil suit?

yes i do very much so at least jackson won’t get off scott free

Well, they had their chance, but there wasn’t a lawyer in America who, after OBJECTIVELY looking at the facts of the criminal trial, would even consider suing MJ! Even with the lesser standard of guilt by a preponderance of the evidence, they would STILL lose!  And I’m sure Gavin’s new buddies Sneddon and Zonen convinced him and his mother not to sue or talk to the media, in exchange for them “helping” them with the criminal trial.

12.  Do the other 9 jurors being so ready to vote not guilty tell you anything about the American Justice System, about the power of celebrity?

yes it does because with the testimony presented to us i believe that if it wasn’t michael jackson and it was joe smo he would of been found guilty automatically

Whatever! That answer isn’t even worth my analysis.

15.  What happened with the juror who snuck in the court tv video of Nancy Grace and Diane Dimond analyzing the Jackson case?  Did you want to see it?

in a way i did because with the jury being so just stubron i wanted them to

As I stated earlier, the rules excluded the inclusion of outside media during deliberations, and had they watched the video, they could have been removed from the jury due to misconduct.

18.  Did you believe the states witness the youth minister?

yes i did believe him from what i remember we never reviewed his testimony in the jury room but from what i remember he was telling the truth

Noticed how he said “from what I remember, we never reviewed his testimony”.  Well Ray, why didn’t you review his testimony?  Why are you the only saying that you believed him? Why were some of the other jurors laughing at him during their break?


21.  What would you say to Thomas Stendon?

i would say sorry because you did put up a good case and i believe jackson is guilty of these charges

This is further confirmation that Sneddon did all he could to maliciously persecute, not prosecute, MJ, and all new “victims” need not apply!


There are other topics on the MJ hater site that I could easily refute, but it would be redundant because it has all been refuted already on various MJ websites, there’s no need to rehash all of that info again here.

However, I’d like to finish this part by taking a closer look at “investigative journalist” Larry Harriet. Here is his blog, which hasn’t been updated since March 2008.  I will briefly discuss several of his posts:

What I Like About Diane Dimond”:  You’ve got to be kidding me, right? Well, this pretty much sums up the totality of Larry Harriet.

What I’m Working On”: This is arguably the most laughable, most pathetic piece of science fiction ever written!  In this post, Harriet claimed that he was working on an “explosive” series about the MJ trial that would be titled “Dumb Juror Syndrome: Inside the Michael Jackson Jury.” (This is the cover artwork.) Here is only a short summary of what he claimed he would expose:

  • how the jury ignored and did not look at crucial prosecution evidence that pointed to Michael Jackson’s guilt (I’m sure he’s referring to the two books from 1993)
  • how the jury had the intention of profiting off their position as jurors and thought that a “not guilty” verdict would put them in the best position to do so (Are you kidding me? There was no money to be made by a “not guilty” verdict! NOBODY received book deals unless they promised to lie! Even Mesereau lost his book deal!)
  • I will expose how the jurors made inconsistent statements during their press conference and in interviews they gave to the media (Yeah, like how Eleanor Cook said to Larry King that she thought that Janet “set up” her sons to lie, and then two months later told Rita Cosby that she was “forced” acquit MJ!)
  • I will expose and lay out the facts and truth about the slanderous and derogatory statements Tom Mesereau made to the jury about the accuser and his family… statements which have proven to be untrue. For example, Mesereau alleged to the jury that the family was just in this for money and they were going to file a civil suit immediately following the verdict. Almost 3 years have passed and this statement has been proven untrue (The reason that statement has been proven “untrue” is because MJ was acquitted and they knew they had no case! Had he been falsely convicted, they would have sued him in a heartbeat!)
  • I will expose how law enforcement and authorities have failed in their job to protect the integrity of criminal trials by not prosecuting members of this jury for the rampant juror misconduct that occurred during and after the trial (Yeah, you’re right Larry! Eleanor Cook should have been prosecuted for sneaking in the videotape of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace! And while you’re at it, explain to us why Sneddon didn’t prosecute all of his lying witnesses!)
  • I will expose how the judge showed bias and favor for the defense by not putting Michael Jackson in jail the day of pajama day (How did he show bias? He gave MJ an hour to get to court, and he arrived on time!)
  • I will explain why and how the accuser and his family could succeed in a civil suit against Michael Jackson if they so choose to bring one (Yes, please do! We’d love to hear it!)

Well, guess what? It’s been over four years, and this “explosive series” has yet to materialize! We’re still waiting, Larry!

Oh, and if you think that’s funny, wait until you read his mailbag! On February 21st, 2008, Harriet answered a series of questions from readers about the trial.   I’ll highlight a few here.

Millicent, Washington:
What did you think of the accusers testimony?

I thought he was telling the truth.  I don’t buy into the defense spin that this family was lying because if that we true why didn’t the accuser say he was abused 30 times, 40 times and in a more invasive way?  If your gonna create a story, lets make it grand!  Lets get as much money as we can possibly get out of this.  But he said that he was abused 2 times that he could recall and I think that goes to the credibility of his testimony.

Mary, Maine:
What do you say to people like me who think Michael Jackson is not guilty?

Do some research and take a look at the things former Neverland maids testified as to what they saw.

Earl, Pangea:
Do you think the prosecution could of won if they would have left out the conspiracy charge?

No.  I honestly believe much of this jury were Jackson fans and the others were blinded by celebrity.  I don’t think it would of made a difference.  The prosecution believed that Michael Jackson was guilty of conspiracy, and so do I.  So, I absolutely think he should of been charged and convicted of it.  Authorities found videotaped survailance of this family, Jackson did everything in his power to falsely imprison them and keep them at Neverland, and made up a story that there were killers out to get them. I don’t buy into the defense spin that just because the mother went to get her wax on and her wax off so to speak that Jackson is not guilty of conspiracy.  The reality is that it doesn’t matter what the mother did, Jackson committed a conspiracy.  And its just that simple.  It is so clear cut.  I did however think that maybe because the conspiracy charge was so complicated and included 28 overt circumstances, maybe the jury wouldn’t be able to figure it out and find him not guilty just because of that reason.

Briteny, Louisiana:

What did you think of the reporting during the trial?

Thorough.  There was too much daily scoreboarding and I think it was very biased in favor the defense.  I was just absolutely stunned at some the post-verdict interviews with jurors where these alleged all star world class A1 journalists just bought in their story wholesale and did not question them about hearing not one, not two, not three, but four little boys abused by Jackson during the trial. It was just stunning.  Court TV got a bad wrap.  I watched Court TV as my source for the trial updates during the day because they had Diane Dimond who knows more about Michael Jackson than just about anybody in the world.  I must say and I believe I can say because I actually watched every minute of Court TV’s coverage that they were very fair and trying to seek the truth.  I was very impressed with Diane Dimond.  She never once gave an opinion, she had amazing sources, and made us all feel like we were all on the front row seat of that courtroom despite their not being a camera in the courtroom. Savannah Guthree, Fred Graham, Jack Ford, Vinnie Politain, and Catherine Crier went out of their way to be fair to Jackson. They invited at least one defense attorney on during every show and most of them expressed their belief that Jackson was innocent.  And Court TV’s Jami Floyd reported for the Jackson camp for 2 hours everyday on Court TV air.  She expressed that she thought the jury should find Jackson not guilty and the case was not proven by the prosecution.

I wouldn’t have believed that someone could say those things if I didn’t read it myself with my own eyes! Truly pathetic! And just to show you how pathetic Harriet really is, in addition to this sad attempt of analyzing the MJ trial in this post, he showed his true colors by saying that the Duke lacrosse players were guilty in this post from October 2006!  (They would go on to be found factually innocent in April 2007 when the Attorney General of North Carolina dropped all of the charges.)

Here is a press release that Harriet issued in December 2006 that represents the totality of Harriet’s incompetence!  He falsely reported that Nancy Grace would quit her top rated TV show, for which she is paid millions of dollars annually, in order to join his small time blog!  That’s the equivalent to saying that Nancy Grace is going to quit her show to flip burgers at McDonalds! Here is the text of the press release:

December 22, 2006 – 10:36AM PT

On December 10, 2006 the “Larry Harriet News Center” issued a false press release stating that Nancy Grace of television fame would be quitting her television duties in favor of joining the “Larry Harriet News

Nancy Grace is not joining the “Larry Harriet News Center”, although we would be happy to make a position available to her if she ever wished to join us.

Nobody at the “Larry Harriet News Center” has ever had any contact with Nancy Grace, and we apologize for the inaccurate press release on December 10, 2006.

Larry Harriet

Editor at Large, The Larry Harriet News Center

In closing, I’d like to highlight some good news that should be a morale boost to MJ advocates around the world.  This story from July 5th, 2009, (which was referenced by the MJ hater site) talks about MJ’s relationship with two prominent firms located in Washington D.C.  One of the firmsthat he worked with was The Polling Company, a nationally-regarded primary research and consulting firm which conducted surveys to test the public’s impression of him in the months leading up to the trial.  The reason MJ’s defense requested this service was to help them anticipate potential lines of media inquiry and craft strategies to deflect media attacks.  Kellyanne Conway, the president and CEO of The Polling Company, revealed the results of her surveys, and I think that we ALL will be pleasantly surprised!

Kellyanne Conway, president and CEO of The Polling Company, says she never became an insider in the Jackson camp, and never met the star himself. But she says her work on the case gave her new insights into how the public responded to the conflicting portraits painted of Jackson the man, and Jackson the singer.

Conway says her poll results found – surprisingly – that the lurid allegations made during the child-molestation trial were barely denting the public’s impression of a star who had been a national celebrity from the time he was five years old.

“Top-of-mind associations for him – even after the trial – wasn’t ‘pedophile,’ ” said Conway. Instead, when asked for a word to describe Michael Jackson people offered the name of a specific song, the name of his ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley, or his famous dance move, the Moonwalk.

“People were acutely aware that he was constantly surrounded by hangers-on and gold-diggers,” recalled Conway. “There was a certain sympathy for a private, private man who would never have peace or privacy.”

She appears frequently on television as a commentator and analyst, but she has not disclosed her work for Michael Jackson before.

In her work for Jackson, Conway says, she saw many of the sentiments play out that are evident in the wake of the singer’s sudden death June 25.

We found a real appreciation for the man and his music,” Conway said. “And a certain pity for his predicament.”

Wow! Doesn’t that just melt your heart! Despite the years of media attacks, the general public was smart enough to see through it all, and prove that they aren’t as gullible as the media makes them out to be!  When you think about it, it shouldn’t surprise, as the overwhelming response to MJ’s death was grief and compassion, and those feelings wouldn’t be there if people truly believed all of the lies.

In Part 4, I will go head to head with our chief adversary, and destroy all of her arguments, once and for all!!

38 Comments leave one →
  1. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 2:27 am

    I think you should go further than that with that Larry Harriet.

    He had that blog

    In March the 14th, he claimed a personal source told him that MJ wasn’t going to sell Neverland, but the story was in the press a day earlier.

    Each time he claimed a personal source told him something, the story was in the media before he published it.

    You also noticed that he never said for which newspaper he worked before. Someone who claimed that “Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.” would include on his website where he studied, what articles he wrote… There is nothing like that on his website. My opinion is he is a total fraud and he made up the interviews.


  2. March 25, 2011 3:51 am

    Great analysis David. I busted out laughing when I saw Larry Harriet’s “What I Like about Diane Dimond” and mercy those his answers to that Q&A.

    And, wow the information on Kellyanne Conway, the president and CEO of The Polling Company. That is very interesting. Despite everything the media tried to push. Its good to know that on a large scale all these haters and misinformed folks are the minority. When you have folks like DD, Grace, Orth etc. who clear have deeep issues and are so transparent in their bias. I’m amazed that anyone would take what they say seriously.


  3. hana permalink
    March 25, 2011 4:30 am

    Mark Geragos mentioned during an interview that he knew for a fact that the allegations were false because MJ had an “iron-clad alibi” for all the dates on the prosecution’s timeline. This was also mentioned by Tom Mesearu during his opening statement, as well as Roger Friedman who released an article about Michael’s scedule:,2933,155329,00.html

    So the obvious question is, how could he have been in his bedroom abusing this poor innocent cancer victim when he wasn’t even around him? The fact that Michael had an alibi for all the dates on the prosecution’s timeline proves that the jury’s verdict was correct and that he was indeed innocent of all those heinous accusations, and it also explains why Gavin kept on changing his story and why he couldn’t nail down specific dates.


  4. Suzy permalink
    March 25, 2011 4:30 am

    Thar Larry Harriet guy is as much a reporter as I am the president of the USA. He is only someone who watches too much TV, has a crush on Diane Dimond and as a result is trying to mimic her in the blogsphere. It’s like when children play and mimic adults. It’s really pathetic that haters need someone like him and his clearly made-up, fantasy interviews as a source….


  5. March 25, 2011 4:35 am

    Googling “Larry Harriet” reveals his love and worship for Nancy Grace and Diamond Dimond and his love for right wing news stations and their notorious pundits, famous for their truthiness. His myspace, alas, reveals that he is still single. Run, don’t walk, Nancy Grace.

    You can even see a transcript from CNN of him calling Nancy Grace to speak in 2007. She puts him through right away.

    He also coincidentally enough claims to have interviewed a David Schwartz who isn’t the one the one married to June but another criminal defense lawyer who told him he believed MJ was innocent and it was a vendetta by Sneddon. He claims to have “sources” from inside the Phil Spector case and says the jury there were starry eyed too. The person discussing that with him said his sources were idiots, heh.

    Also here:

    People in discussion of another court case question a supposed interview he is supposed to have done.

    Originally posted by MATTHEWsevenone…dnt+have+a+dad

    This was a post that some poster named MHayguard whom I guess is in reality a man by the name of Larry Harriet. This man it is alleged in this thread to have his own website and he came to CourtTV and posted this interview he supposedly di with LG.

    So the fundamental questions are WHO THE HECK IS LARRY HARRIET and what sort of journalistic creditials does he have? Is he creditible? Did this interview appear outside cyberspace? Is he connected to anyone in this case and why did he feel compelled to come to CTV site and prerelease his interview?

    I don’t know, has anyone done any research on this guy?

    Just curious.

    He was banned from the forum;

    01-09-2007, 02:15 PM

    mhayguard a/k/a alwaysharriet a/k/a bunting is the ‘journalist’ in California who got the “exclusive” scoop from AG and LG and kept promising so much more scoop to come…but it never did. He’s apparently been banned or removed or erased or something.

    Oh gosh here we go again…. didn’t this MHayguard ask these questions once before??? Didn’t he already do an interview with Anita once before but actually never came up with that interview?? IMO this is not a very reliable person and he puts things on the boards, promisses and idea’s but he never follows up on them so I wouldn’t put much stock into this also. I’ll bet we will never see the actual interview because he simply doesn’t do one, why he states these things I don’t know, maybe he likes to be in the spotlight or he has his own secret agenda but people please, don’t get your hopes up to much for this one.
    There are many many good people here, honest people who want the truth and Tara to be found, no matter in what shape she might be in, but this MHayguard isn’t one of them…

    Or also known as “the pervert who kept pushing the porn theory”:

    Quote Originally Posted by Merrick View Post

    I don’t believe Larry Harriet’s credibility as an investigative journalist has been established by anyone other than himself, IMO. I have my doubts about whether or not he actually ever spoke to or interviewed LG or AG. On his own board he posted both of these “supposed” interviews. JMHO.

    O/T- Larry Harriet was posting on Natalee Holloway II as alwaysHarriet, the pervert that kept advancing the porn theory, remember him? I believe he’s been banned. So much for credible journalism, JMHO.

    😆 LOL how could I forget him! I posted a few choice words of my own on the NH thread regarding his crediability.

    But he was also trying to start a petition to weirdly enough get rid of Nancy Grace:

    Originally posted by concernedperson

    mhayguard is busy now trying to get Nancy Grace ousted for being mean to Melinda Duckett He had a petition floating around yesterday but it got merged with the other topic already in existence.

    It seems he likes lost causes.

    Some of his posts claiming things will happen that then never do:

    02-06-2006, 04:19 AM
    Rumors have been flying, even sources of mine are telling me that there is evidence that could link Marcus Harper and Sean Fletcher to the car.

    I am calling Anita today to do an exclusive interview for my website, CourtNet, and I will pass EVERYTHING by her to verify things that my sources have said.

    As soon as I get this interview, I will immediately post a transcript on this message board, and on CourtNet.


    Anyway. Yes, I think it’s very very very very very likely that interview is faked.

    Not that it matters much, but it’s fun really exposing liars.


  6. Suzy permalink
    March 25, 2011 4:37 am

    BTW, if he is such a popular reporter and gets so many questions from all over the world, how come noone comments on his blog?

    Clearly everything he says is made up. The interviews, the “fan mail”, everything. He is just someone playing Diane Dimond on the internet. He is even trying to borrow her style, LOL. It’s so childish, I can’t believe haters fell for him, LOL.


  7. lcpledwards permalink
    March 25, 2011 4:44 am

    Did you notice that the “fan mail” that he received about the MJ trial was dated Feb. 21, 2008, almost 3 years after the trial! By then, the trial was yesterday’s news, so why on earth would people STILL be talking about it, considering his site definitely was NOT an MJ fan site? Why would the “general public” STILL have those questions?

    Also, that date is significant, because it was an election year here in America, and then candidates Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were the top story, so why would he receive that many questions on the trial from the general public, who had LONG since moved on from the trial? My guess is that ALL of those questions were fabricated, and those interviews were probably fakes too!


  8. March 25, 2011 10:52 am

    “Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.”

    David, as you said, the man did the job for you.

    Paul Rodriguez was also interviewed for Jones’ and Nimmer’s documentaries.


  9. shelly permalink
    March 25, 2011 11:00 am

    “Larry Harriet does not make any claims as to the accuracy of his articles, columns, newsletters, blogs, posts, or any other body of work produced. Larry’s work is a statement of opinion based on extensive research that may or may not be accurate at the time of printing.”

    He is just covering his ass in case someone would decide to sue him for lying.


  10. lcpledwards permalink
    March 25, 2011 1:46 pm

    Another thing to think about is this: if he had all of that “bombshell” evidence against MJ, then why didn’t he publish it in right after the trial? It was in 2008 when he”promised” his series that would “prove” that MJ was guilty, yet it never materialized……………………wouldn’t he have moved on by 2008? Nobody in the media was talking about MJ in 2008 because of the election, and other pressing matters! MJ was totally out of the spotlight by then. I seriously question the authenticity of those questions he received, and those interviews he allegedly did.

    Larry Harriet is a total joke.


  11. March 25, 2011 1:58 pm

    Tom Sneddon was never able to find and produce any “bombshell” evidence, yet this Larry Harriet was? I can’t believe there were actually people who bought that and passed it around as “argument”. They must be really desperate.

    David you are right, he is a joke. He made me laugh.


  12. Maral permalink
    March 25, 2011 2:06 pm

    9. Some of the jury thought there was smoke but no fire, did you see smoke?

    Yes, I did, I thought that Michael Jackson has mol-sted boys in the past, and probably mol-sted this boy,

    why would he say this? as i understand if they had any doubt they could have a hung.


  13. Suzy permalink
    March 25, 2011 2:32 pm

    @ Maral

    Rodriguez didn’t say this. The interview is made-up by this Larry Harriet.

    Larry Harriet is just a fanboy with a crush on Diane Dimond and a fascination for this branch of television where legal matters are made out to be shows (you know, the Court TV type), and he is just trying to create a fantasy world on his websites where he is an “investigative reporter” like he thinks Dimond is. That’s all. It’s just someone fantasizing.

    The only reason is why David had to address this matter is that haters apparently take him seriously and refer to him and his “interview” as a source. Which in itself is very telling about their desperation.


  14. Dialdancer permalink
    March 25, 2011 9:24 pm

    It is easy to see Harriet is a devotee of Dimond and her style of “reporting”. They both use that “I have explosive insider information, but”…… “my dog ate it or I was threatened if I use it” routine. Rodriguez was being offered BIG money for an interview with MAJOR Networks and Publications if he told it they way they wanted or hinted that the jury was wrong he turns them down, but he decides to give an EMAIL interview to a nobody……Get the hell out of here. Even if I had though MJ guilty I would not have believe this poseur.

    During trial several of a similar type of blog popped up, created by Covet Agent/PI wanna be’s or persons pretending to be Black Females who wanted to denounce Michael or expose his alleged guilt using diction that is an insult to Blacks everywhere, or laced with TV type super secret agent language. When you have to work that hard to tell the lie it only shows you know the truth.


  15. lynande51 permalink
    March 26, 2011 12:48 am

    I could write ” an e mail interview” with any person out there too. I think we should look to see if he says this is a “hypothetical” interview. This guy is a joke. Did you read his theory on who killed Jon Benet? He first writes all these possibilities and then under exculpatory evidence he writes Cleared By the Boulder Police or Were Never suspects. LOL. Using him as a reference shows the extremes that haters use to get their point across. Their points are pointless. When someone has an in person interview with Paul Rodriguez then I will believe it is him. Oh guess who has one! Larry Nimmer.


  16. shelly permalink
    March 26, 2011 12:58 am


    You said in one of your post that you have the original Schaffel Lawsuit. Is it possible for you to post it, I really like to read it. Where did you find it?


  17. lynande51 permalink
    March 26, 2011 3:01 am

    I have to convert it to PDF format otherwise it was scanned in so I have to post all of the pages seperately. I will do that tomorrow so I can just post a link.


  18. shelly permalink
    March 26, 2011 9:22 am


    Thank you, where did you get it?


  19. March 26, 2011 11:59 am

    “- What is your definition of reasonable doubt?
    – Proven beyond a reasonable doubt with a empasis on reasonable”.

    David, thank you so much for the incredibly thorough and patient work you are doing on refuting every allegation some crazy people make about the crazy Arvizo case. You know my attitude to it, so no matter what this Larry Harriet (or anyone) says about the jury overlooking something there or still being doubtful I can’t take it seriously because from the very start the case was ABSURD in its most ultimate form!

    It is simply LAUGHABLE to think that someone would be foolish enough to start molesting someone AFTER the scandal broke out and the case became the center of attention of prosecution and the media.

    The whole thing is just a plot for a comedy and not a drama Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth and their admirer Larry Harriet are trying to turn it into. Those who still believe the Arvizos after all we’ve learned about them should be complete and total imbeciles. It would be fun to use this case as a routine question in some questionnaire for checking someone’s mental health or intellectual level (for example, during an interview with an applicant for a job).

    I see the 2005 trial as a beautiful chance for examining 1) the whole range of dirty tricks employed by the prosecution to convict Michael Jackson “no matter what” and 2) as a great source of information about the 1993 case because ALL earlier “witnesses” who were ready to speak against Jackson were brought into the case (so it is indeed too late now to bring anyone “new” into the picture).

    The 2005 case is also valuable as we can make interesting comparisons about stories told by some witnesses in 1993 and in 2005. Since we don’t have access to the Grand Juries transcripts of that period (due to no indictment) getting familiar with them through cross-examinations by Thomas Mesereau (who quoted those transcripts) is probably our second best chance to see what they said in the past and how they distorted the picture in 2005.

    This makes the 2005 trial a sort of a reconstruction of how a trial in 1993 could look like, if it weren’t for the Chandlers’ unwillingness to go to court. And this makes the 2005 acquittal verdict cover all earlier cases too – the Chandlers, Jason Francia and the rest of those phantom victims brought by Tom Sneddon into that trial.

    This fact seems to me the reason why haters cannot enjoy a moment of quiet after the 2005 case – it isn’t so much because of the Arvizos, but because EVERYTHING they had against MJ was brought into that trial but it nevertheless didn’t work and the man was still found not guilty!

    This is why they meddle with this “beyond reasonable doubt” concept and try to assure people that the jury did have some doubts – they want to create the impression that is some small “unknown” detail had been added the same jury would have passed a different verdict. And this is why they constantly throw in some new “facts” – a tendency which I am afraid will continue in the future.

    However let us make it clear once and for all:

    1) the prosecution, FBI and media examined Michael Jackson’s life under a microscope for more than 20 years and ALL there was to find about him was brought into the 2005 trial – so let us forget even about a theoretical possibility of finding something “new” after that scrutiny which lasted for so long.

    2) the “beyond a reasonable doubt” concept laying the basis for Michael’s acquittal in 2005 has the HIGHEST value of certainty which is possible in a criminal trial at all. It is difficult to evaluate it in numbers but lawyers say that the minimum of it amounts to at least 85% certainty of the jury in the defendant’s innocence.

    It is very different from a civil standard which is called “preponderance of the evidence” which is (officially) only 50,1 %. Lawyers say that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a much stronger standard because in criminal cases the jury has to do with people’s liberty and life – and not money only as in civil cases.

    This is by the way one of the reasons why Larry Feldman and the Chandlers wanted the civil lawsuit to go before a criminal trial in 1993 – it was much easier to get the jury’s “guilty” verdict in a civil case, especially since a simple fact of the defendant using his 5th amendment right is considered in civil litigation as proof of someone’s guilt – while in criminal court it is a totally normal thing to do …

    I’ve found a video which explains the “beyond a reasonable doubt” point in more detail:

    (David, could you introduce it into part 2 of your post please?)


  20. lcpledwards permalink
    March 26, 2011 2:31 pm

    I have added that video to Part 2, as you requested. I also added juror Susan Drake’s post trial comments to this part as well.


  21. hana permalink
    March 26, 2011 3:05 pm

    Wasn’t Katrina Carls the asian juror who Aprodiate Jones mentioned in her book as in tears when the defense played Michael’s outtakes of the bashir documentary, which should him in a sympathetic light?


  22. Teva permalink
    March 26, 2011 5:10 pm

    “Investigative reporter, legal analyst, crime reporter, and website news reporter, Larry Harriet has earned a sterling reputation as one of the nation’s most caring and loving investigative reporter in the world of legal news today. A dynamic and versatile reporter, Harriet has found success in multiple fields, including newspaper reporting, website reporting, and founder of many legal news websites.”

    If he is so highly acclaimed why can’t I find him on Wikipedia?


  23. shelly permalink
    March 26, 2011 5:54 pm

    If he is so famous, why didn’t he give links to his astonishing works?


  24. March 26, 2011 6:27 pm

    “caring and loving investigative reporter”


    He is so much of an investigative reporter that he describes himself as a nanny. Seriously, have you ever read these adjectives for a reporter? I am cracking up.


  25. Maral permalink
    March 26, 2011 6:43 pm

    “caring and loving investigative reporter”
    wow what a nutjobb! and i thought DD was delusional


  26. Teva permalink
    March 26, 2011 6:44 pm

    This guy is a blogger. He is a not so cleverly fabricated legal analyst & investigative reporter with big dreams. Case in point:

    December 22, 2006 – 10:36AM PT

    On December 10, 2006 the “Larry Harriet News Center” issued a false
    press release stating that Nancy Grace of television fame would be
    quitting her television duties in favor of joining the “Larry Harriet News
    Center.” Nancy Grace is not joining the “Larry Harriet News Center”, although we would be happy to make a position available to her if she ever wished to join us. Nobody at the “Larry Harriet News Center” has ever had any contact with Nancy Grace, and we apologize for the inaccurate press release on December 10, 2006.”

    There is no “we” just “him”. His articles exist only on his administrated websites, and those foolishly enough to fall for the scam.


  27. lcpledwards permalink
    March 26, 2011 6:46 pm

    @ Teva
    Thanks for that press release on Nancy Grace! I remember reading it, and I meant to include it in the post, but I forgot! I will add it in right now!


  28. Suzy permalink
    March 26, 2011 7:53 pm

    LOL @ “most caring and loving investigative reporter of the world”. I guess that comes from the notion that his idols are always “pro-victim” (not realizing that sometimes the “victim” is not the victim, the defendant is – like in MJ’s case) and thus their fans may think of them as “loving and caring”. Anyway, Larry is just childish.


  29. Nikki permalink
    April 8, 2011 4:18 am

    Wow, I cannot believe some of the things I read like about the juror sneaking in the tape. We already know, as a public mass, the media hardly gets anything right. Be it about Michael Jackson, “weapons of mass destruction”, political analysis, etc. etc. I guess this juror thought she could “prove” her feelings with some good ol’ Nancy Grace. She not only wrongly-convicted Michael but has done it numerous times to others like Richard Ricci (Elizabeth Smart case). She gives great “proof”, right? Wrong.

    I cannot believe people would say that they did not believe Gavin, et al BUT assume Michael had molested previous children. Seriously? We know Jordan was a liar, Jason, too. No one who ever appeared truthful ever came forward. What were these people basing their FEELINGS on? They had no proof of anything. I think most people know that a molester will molest multiple victims, not just one, two or even ten. It is an obsession, a compulsion. No one ever got Michael on camera, on audio, there was never a “group” of children who came forward. Not one of the few liars ever gave any proof that would be able to even hint that this kids saw Michael nude, even. I’d say hey, someone like Jordan should have undergone a physical examination but whoops, none of this children ever claimed rape, did they? Only “touching”. How many molesters just “touch”? I would think none, if they have an opportunity they seize it. Michael had the chance and did not seize it because he was NOT a molester or ped-ile.

    I think the biggest problem for people is they cannot place themselves in Michael’s shoes. Yeah, it is a bit odd to think of children sleeping over at a grown man’s house. But, Michael was not ever really alone with this children, he was not an average Joe, he was really never average from the get-go, he never experienced “normal”. That does not mean he was a deviant or committing crimes. He liked being a kid, he liked to escape adulthood by being around children. He wanted to make children feel loved and be happy–two things I think he lacked as a child. He could still relate to children, many adults cannot do that. It was a gift used against him. He did not hide anything he did because he did not do anything wrong. It is a shame how people can seriously destroy another person’s life like Michael’s life and career was destroyed. So what if people still recall the “Moonwalk”, he does not deserve to be ever thought of as something he was not. Michael Jackson was not a child mol-ster.


  30. Maral permalink
    April 8, 2011 2:36 pm

    i’ve been wondering about something for some time. Jordan claimed (or someone in the chandler camp) that there was oral sex involved. if that was true wouldn’t it show? i would think so.


  31. lcpledwards permalink
    April 8, 2011 6:46 pm

    @ Maral
    Yes, Jordan claimed that MJ performed oral sex on him, and that’s a very easy claim to make because it doesn’t leave any permanent marks or scars (unless you bite, LOL!). He also claimed that MJ masturbated him, and that they took baths together. Nobody ever claimed to have been penetrated by MJ, and they knew better because that would require a medical examination, which would refute their claims.

    Claims of masturbation, touching, fondling, kissing, licking, etc. are very easy to make and very difficult to defend because they don’t leave any permanent evidence.

    You can read Jordan’s declaration and his interview with Dr. Gardner to get the full details of what he claimed happened to him:


  32. December 28, 2011 11:43 am

    Larry Harriet is totally crazy


  33. MosquitoSmasher permalink
    March 25, 2019 7:10 pm

    Good lord, absolute insanity. I decided to search for Cook because Radar Online is now bringing this as new news, or perhaps Cook really has opened her trap again and this time to RO.

    I’m shocked about all this, I never knew there actually were three jurors that basically did this backstab on MJ. I do recall a tabloid story years ago and never believed it but turns out these three jurors are filth. Well damn.


  34. MosquitoSmasher permalink
    March 25, 2019 7:42 pm

    Oh and Cook, now in her 90s apparently told Radar Online that she definitely believes MJ molested Wade and Mac. For some reason she excludes James, lol. You’d think that at such a age you just give up and don’t bother anymore with spewing such trash. Sigh.


  35. March 26, 2019 3:40 pm

    Oh and Cook, now in her 90s apparently told Radar Online that she definitely believes MJ molested Wade and Mac.” – MosquitoSmasher

    Why does she and everybody think that it is her business to pass judgment on Robson and Macaulay Culkin? She was a juror at the 2005 trial in the Gavin Arvizo case, listened to the two guys’ very convincing testimonies and fulfilled her duty, and that’s it. Did she later carry out an investigation of Robson and Culkin or what? And what does her opinion matter?

    I have a post about Eleanor Cook made in 2010:



  1. When It Comes To Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are Poles Apart! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance
  3. 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: