Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 4 of 4
Finally, in this last part, I will show you that if you want to beat an MJ hater, you must know how they think! So here is an email that our adversary sent to me on February 13, 2011, which included a comment that she tried to post, but fortunately it was blocked by our trusty spam blocker! The email was in response to Mesereau’s presentation at the 2005 Harvard Law seminar. She called him a “black apologist” who only believes that MJ is innocent due to his “former skin color”. What ridiculousness!
Notice how she insists on referring to me as “Blaine”, a gay character from the 1990’s comedy show “In Living Color”!
I see your website is blocking comments again. Tres tragique. That is a pathetic way to go about life, Blaine, only wanting cheerleaders instead of critics. I love a critic. A critic makes one work harder. Enjoy this, Blaine, for you certainly need it.
Well, I’d left a comment and, as suspected, it was deleted. Thank God you forwarded Charles Thomson my email because I now possess every important fan email address I need, just in case I ever want to leave a comment and am not allowed to do so. See, I do not frequent your site because, well, I feel it is a waste of time because my belief is this, Dear Blaine, a fan cannot refute and, thus, vindicate, an individual when they were not present for their alleged crimes.
This is simply life. It is immutable. I think you’d do well to understand this. I feel in my moral heart and in my rational brain that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But, of course, I cannot prove it because I (a) was not there, and (b) do not have any access to any documents and evidence and witnesses. But, I believe very strongly that Michael Jackson would have been put in jail had I been prosecutor. Or at least, smeared beyond recognition and his next Demerol injection would have ended the charade for Michael Jackson, as you say, ‘once and for all!!!’.
He has molested boys. I believe your anger at detractors is proof you know, be it in the most minute fashion but it is there, that Michael’s sleeping in the bed with boys is odd. Also, I think you know that he was gay, as the evidence of semen in his bed mattress and in these mystery underwear and sheets proves this. There were never any women around him, Blaine, we both know this, but he had no problem parading around beautiful boys even after his scandals. Because Michael Jackson loved these boys, Blaine. He was a criminal. He inscribed his naked boy book Boys Will Be Boys with tender sympathies. He didn’t even say childhood, Blaine; he said boyhood. This is typical language of the boylovers to whom I have studied since learning Michael Jackson was guilty.
I am not going to say your IQ is up to speed, Blaine, but I do believe you are capable of rational thought. You know Michael Jackson was a pedophile. He fellated these boys, masturbated them, and enjoyed himself. In turn, these boys’ minds were forever imprinted with love and affection and possession for Michael Jackson. Because it felt good. You know this, Blaine, you are a man. Masturbation and fellatio are the top sex acts of males. My ex-boyfriend, a very intelligent Jewish writer (Michael would’ve hated that), loved to masturbate. I offered to buy him a sex toy for Christmas and he told me that he would only use his hands.
Also, Blaine, I believe–scratch that–know Michael Jackson anally penetrated Brett Barnes and I know Brett Barnes, by virtue of his continued sleeping with Jacko, enjoyed being anally penetrated by Michael. Brett Barnes’ anus was scarred so much so he had to be shellacked with Vaseline in order to shit. This is natural, as Michael Jackson was a man and Brett a boy. I don’t believe that Michael jackson had a large penis but his special friends were sometimes small. Thank God he never got to penetrate Manny Lewis. It would be like a bear fucking a mouse!
I have so many pictures of Michael and his boys Spence and Safechuck. It’s so obvious he loved these boys. He was a pedophile; you can see it in his eyes. Everyone in the industry knew it…. As you know, I have a source with a connection to the PR man of a huge musician. And these people are always itching to gossip. But this is how I know Omer Bhatti was Michael’s boy lover. And, of course, his parents were pimps. As Joy Robson showed herself to be one, too, on the stand, my dear Blaine…
I won’t go on any further because a reader, and hence, a source, of my blog, informed me of a conversation with Ron Zonen she had had. Zonen said there was no evidence whatsoever of any female in Michael’s life upon the raid. However, she stated Zonen was adamant in there having been lots and lots of semen stains on Michael’s bed mattress. Remember, amongst the litany of Michael’s fluids, they discovered two other semen stains from males. But he stated Michael was very much into ‘self-love’, Blaine. I did not reference this information in my pieces on the semen but it definitely shows that michael Jackson’s 3 mystery semen samples from other males were from masturbation of these males. Or, of course, a mutual masturbation session. Either way, it is proof he was a gay male.
My belief, Blaine, is that those stains are from Omer Bhatti, maybe Brett Barnes, and Frank Casio. Who knows who’s splooge is in the sheets and underwear but it from an away trip so Michael was boinking some guy (or boy) away from Neverland.
Anyway Blaine, my comment and accompanying questions…
Here is the comment that she tried to post here a few weeks ago, but was blocked!
Actually, Blaine, there are some things I believe you need to recognize regarding Tom Mesereau:
1. He is not telling the truth regarding the 1994 Grand juries. This has two parts:
(a) I’d suggest you brush up on your statement analysis techniques for recognizing deception. He introduces this mystery LA grand juror out of nowhere and then never goes into a complete and coherent story regarding this juror. There are two possibilities (i) he’s never talked to a 1994 grand juror, or (ii) he is fabricating the conversation between a 1994 grand juror, who never broached the subject to which he claims they did.
Buy McClish’s book. It’s brilliant. I know you probably don’t read as much as you claim, Blaine (for the longest you’d pretended you knew things about Michael Jackson was my lover, which was a farce, Blaine), but it’s a good book. McClish has worked with law enforcement and believes Michael Jackson was a CM because of Michael’s statements. I’d have to agree… I’d sent him a snippet of Brett Barnes testimony and he believes him to be ‘less than truthful’ regarding why he stopped, at 19, after all of those years, sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson. It was obvious Michael and Brett were lovers, wrong or right, but they were. At that point, they were just gay lovers…
(b) Mesereau knows FULL WELL the grand juries convened in 1994 were never- I repeat, never-looking at evidence for an indictment. They were investigating grand juries, not indicting grand juries, and, thus, would never have the power to issue an indictment. It is odd to me that he would even lie about something like that, for he knows the truth and was reprimanded numerous times in court papers. This just shows a lack of integrity on Mesereau’s part, which is strange, because most of you feel he’s worthy of having his feet kissed.
He’s read the court papers; why he’s continued to lie repeatedly is something I’d have to chalk up to his being a defense attorney and, of course, to Michael being ‘black’.
2. Mesereau is a black apologist. He feels black people are closer to God than whites and will spend the rest of his life blindly believing ALL BLACKS are worthy of the highest standard of defense because they are black. Every black is innocent in his book. I believe 100 percent he believes Michael Jackson is innocent. But it is not based upon evidence; it is based upon Michael Jackson’s former(?) skin color.
Because Mesereau has read the evidence, the documents, everything. As such, there would have to be some other reason why he emphatically believes in this guy’s innocence.
As we know, there were several jurors in the case who believed very strongly Michael Jackson was a CM, and probably even molested Gavin Arvizo. So, the case was not dead in the water for the People from the start, and Mesereau knows this.
I am sure he is a brilliant defense lawyer but a run through the transcripts shows he employed typical ‘trip up the Prosecution witness’ tactics during questioning: a staccato; ending his questions with ‘right?’ or ‘correct?’ or ‘true?’; making assumptions… June Chandler withstood his questioning because either out of ignorance or laziness or blind faith belief in Michael Jackson’s innocence, he knew nothing about the 1993 case.
He’s a typical lawyer. A well-organized and pit bullish Prosecutor could have, at the very least, got a hung jury in that 2005 trial. Because the jurors wanted more. Three of them thought Michael Jackson was guilty of those charges, the foreman, Paul Rodriguez–who is an idiot for believing smoking gun evidence would come about in a molestation case wherein the place of the alleged molestation was raided 8 months following the alleged crime–believed Michael was a CM, as well.
This case was winnable for the People! They screwed up. Had it been myself, Michael would have, at the very least, been ruined in the public. Again, a reading of the transcripts reveals much about his proclivities for boys…
Sneddon may have had a vendetta, but it was because he believed, after having seen the breadth of evidence in the first case and talked to God-knows-who witnesses, Michael Jackson was prolific in his alleged crimes. That sort of ‘vendetta’ is only natural for a former cop and a married, church-going father of 9.
Mesereau is an unscrupulous bastard and I strongly believe he relishes in his contact with the famous ‘black’ man. He will defend him to the death, like the fans, because there is the blind faith aspect of his belief in Michael’s innocence. Of course, I think he is lucid, unlike the fans, so good evidence to the contrary may be able to sway him but Mesereau gets off on black people. He loves us. That alone makes me question his objectivity.
He got Mike Tyson off of rape, for Pete’s Sake. And Tyson has a history of violence towards women. I’m sure, Blaine, Mesereau would’ve fought on behalf of Michael Vick had he had the opportunity! Vick is very dark-skinned. And we all know Vick was and still is scum.
Outside of Mesereau, Blaine, please tell me:
(a) Do you believe Michael Jackson was sexually abused as a child?
(b) What do you think of Brett Barnes sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson until he was 19?
(c) You never stated what you thought of Jolie Levine calling Michael Jackson a chickenhawk, and that Mary Coller (also referenced on the Bad album) stated Michael Jackson separated children into two groups: kids who were his (special) friends, and kids with problems (ie. photo ops).
(d) What do you think about Johnnie Cochran not wanting to defend Michael in court in 1993 but went on to defend obviously guilty OJ Simpson? Do you think it was because he believed the latter was easier to defend than the former?
(e) Are you black?
Thanks, Blaine. Great work on this transcript. This shows Mesereau’s true colors: a blind faith admirer of a rich ‘black’ man (color is so important, as he hates being white and probably feels like he is uniting with God when he has sex with the myriad black women he dates and only dates), who has not a shred of integrity to tell the truth about the simplest facts in his former client’s case.
Oh, and also: Mesereau was knowingly lying (not a surprise) about having witnesses to ‘refute’ Jordie Chandler. It was so simple for him to lie about this when not in a court of law where he could perjure himself. Via statement analysis, you know he was not telling the truth. He should have brought them in to refute June Chandler, the best witness for the People. He bombed during his questioning of her. Or they could have refuted the Neverland 5 or the other witnesses.
He never had anyone. He was not telling the truth–once again – because Michael Jackson was black. He loves black people. I bet he couldn’t wait to stop defending Robert Blake.
T-Mez will always amuse….
I hope you hazard a response. Forgive the html; it had been a comment on your blog.
That has got to be the worst piece of smut ever written about Michael Jackson! It boggles the mind that that piece of filth allegedly comes from the mind of a “twenty something black girl with things on her mind”, who is also allegedly a full time microbiology major in college. She had the nerve to ask me if I was black, as if it matters! (And just for the record, I am!)
Did you notice how she refutes what Mesereau said about 2 grand juries in 1994 refusing to indict MJ by saying that they were “investigating” grand juries, and not indicting grand juries (thus implying that those 2 grand juries could not have indicted MJ even if they had compelling evidence as a result of their investigation). So according to her logic, even though she says that Jordan’s description matched, Sneddon did not arrest MJ, but instead he and Gil Garcetti each convene a grand jury for the sole purpose of merely continuing their “investigation” of MJ (ending in September 1994), knowing that they could not indict MJ upon the completion of the investigation? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, right?
She is trying to justify what Sneddon said in his in his rebuttal to Mesereau’s objection to the admission of 1108 evidence. In his motion titled “Opposition To District Attorney’s Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses”, Mesereau stated the following, beginning on Page 3:
The Proposed Testimony Has No Probative Value Because It Is False
This is not the first time that the prosecution has sought to introduce this evidence in a judicial proceeding. This is the same “evidence” that left two separate grand juries so unimpressed with the prosecution’s “case” that they did not return indictments. In each of the occasions in which a grand jury or civil jury has had the opportunity to listen to witnesses like Ralph Chacon or Adrian McManus, the jurors have found the witnesses to be incredible. In the civil trial, the jury went as far as to find that Mr. Chacon and Ms. McManus not only lied about Mr. Jackson, but that they stole from him as well. The only thing probative about the proposed testimony of these witnesses is that it will demonstrate to the jury that the District Attorney maintains the same fact checking standards as Hard Copy and the National Enquirer.
Predictably, the prosecution’s papers merely gloss over the issue of whether or not there is any reason to believe that the alleged prior acts actually occurred. The prosecution’s 63 page motion devotes a single paragraph to the “degree of certainty of defendant’s commission of the prior offenses.” The District Attorney makes a general argument that a conviction is not required for evidence of a prior offense to be admissible and points out that such offenses are often not reported. The prosecution neglects to mention that the testimony in question in the cases cited by them, is the testimony of prior victims with no opportunity or motivation to lie about the prior offense conduct. The prosecution’s treatment of this issue implies that the evidence they are seeking to admit is of the kind that is typical in sexual abuse cases. This is not the case. There are no published cases in which a trial court has allowed prior offense testimony of this nature.
The “Similarity ” Of The Prosecution’s Evidence Does Not Overcome The Witnesses Total Lack Of Credibility
The evidence in all of the cases cited by the prosecution is distinguishable from the evidence in present case because in all of those cases the evidence as of a much higher quality. For example, in Dancer, the evidence of prior offenses was the defendant’s actual conviction for the prior child molestation. In Falsetta, the evidence was also that the defendant was convicted and there plead guilty in two prior rape cases. In Soto, the evidence was testimony from the actual two prior alleged victims. Unlike the cases cited by the prosecution, there is no credible evidence that the conduct even occurred, so it is unnecessary to even get to the question of whether the conduct is similar to the charged conduct.
In Sneddon’s rebuttal, titled “Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Evidence Code §1108 Motion”, he stated the following:
As defendant well knows, the two grand juries that considered evidence against him in 1994 (a standing grand jury in Los Angeles County; a specially-convened grand jury in Santa Barbara County) were functioning as investigative grand juries. They were not asked to return indictments or to make “findings.” Jordan Chandler refused to testify before them following his multi-million dollar settlement with defendant in early 1994. That essentially put the investigation on “hold,” and the Santa Barbara grand jury was discharged. The grand juries did not “reject” the testimony of any witness.
Well, let’s knock out this “investigative” grand jury crap once and for all! Let’s look at what was said by in these two articles from 1994. In this first article (copied below), just from the headline alone you can see how Sneddon tried to imply that MJ was gay, which he would surely exploit and use to convince the grand jurors that MJ was a child molester, because many people who are prejudiced against homosexuals believe that to be true! (Sneddon was a master of using ad hominem techniques during his persecution of MJ!) Allegations of being gay have haunted MJ since the 70’s! In this JET magazine article from September 22nd, 1977, MJ emphatically denies not only being gay, but also having a sex change operation and swimming nude with Tatum O’Neal! (In the 70’s, interracial dating and marriage was still taboo, although by the time he married Lisa Marie in 1994 that stigma was much less prevalent.)
Jackson Case Panel Asks About Sexual Orientation : Grand jury: An employee of the singer says he was questioned about the star and about himself. The witness’s lawyer calls the inquiries improper; some experts dispute him.
March 31, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Prosecutors investigating allegations that Michael Jackson sexually molested a 13-year-old boy asked a witness to tell a grand jury about Jackson’s sexual orientation and to testify about his own sexual orientation as well, according to sources familiar with that witness’s testimony.
The witness, an employee of Jackson who appeared before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recently, told his lawyer about the questions, and that attorney fired off an angry letter to the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County district attorney’s offices in response.
In his letter, lawyer Richard M. Steingard accused prosecutors of exceeding the proper limits of grand jury questioning. Steingard wrote that grand jury questions must be limited to evidence that would be admissible in court–a contention that legal experts disputed even as some expressed reservations about inquiring into a witness’ sexual orientation.
“One would think that prosecutors of your stature would, at a minimum, know this to be the law and attempt in your questioning of witnesses to comply with this rule,” Steingard wrote. “Based on the above, you apparently believe that the questioning of a witness has no limits or boundaries and that anything, even a witness’ sexual preference, is fair game.”
Steingard’s letter is the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara who are investigating the allegations against Jackson. The entertainer’s lawyers have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry, which was launched last summer, while ministers, civil rights activists and other Jackson supporters have added their criticisms as well.
Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said officials there could not comment on the allegations raised in Steingard’s letter. Prosecutors are prohibited by law from discussing any matters that are before a grand jury–even to confirm that a grand jury probe is under way.
Legal experts, meanwhile, disputed Steingard’s reading of the law about the limits of grand jury inquiries.
“The grand jury is given powers that we do not give police or prosecutors . . . and it may ask a broad range of questions whose relevancy might not be clear until other evidence is gathered,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who has extensively researched issues related to grand juries. “For the most part, the grand jury can ask whatever it wants.”
During grand jury inquiries, prosecutors generally question witnesses, but jurors also can ask questions.
Several experienced lawyers said they considered it highly unusual for prosecutors to inquire about a witness’ sexual orientation. One area of particular concern, they noted, is that state grand jury transcripts become public documents if the subject of the inquiry is indicted. As a result, the information about the witness’ sexual orientation could become public if Jackson were indicted.
Steingard’s letter indicates that his client was asked about three topics he considered objectionable: the sexual orientation of Jackson, the sexual orientation of Jackson associates and the witness’s own sexual orientation.
“The grand jury can ask questions that are relevant to the inquiry,” said Donald M. Re, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. “Given the nature of this case, the first two questions may be proper. . . . The third question, ‘Are you yourself gay?’ gets a lot closer to the line.”
Harland W. Braun, another defense attorney who also is a former prosecutor, agreed, saying he believes the district attorney could explore the topic of Jackson’s sexual orientation.
As to the question about the witness’s orientation, Braun called it “close to the edge.”
Under most circumstances, asking a witness about his or her sexual orientation would almost certainly be irrelevant during a trial, legal experts agreed. But even in that context, a witness’s own statements might make it relevant. For example, if a witness described impressions of Jackson’s conduct or conversations about homosexuality, the witness’s own perspective on that topic might be deemed relevant in court.
Steingard declined to comment Wednesday on the questions that were posed to his client during his grand jury appearance. But Steingard confirmed he had sent the letter to the district attorney’s office and said he stood by the statements in it.
“In general, to ask questions of grand jury witnesses about sexual orientation I think is outrageous,” he said. “I cannot fathom any circumstance in which that would be proper.”
Howard Weitzman, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said prosecutors have “spent considerable time, money and energy to construct a case that does not exist.” Although the lawyer said he did not know whether a witness had been questioned about Jackson’s sexual orientation or his own, Weitzman added: “If what (Steingard) claims in that letter is true and the investigation is now down to that level, it is a real sad commentary on the prosecution in this case.”
The case has been under investigation since last summer, and an array of witnesses, including Jackson’s mother, have been forced to appear before grand juries meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Authorities in the two counties are conducting investigations because Jackson allegedly molested the boy in both jurisdictions.
At a meeting with the courthouse press corps March 15, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said he expected the Jackson investigation to be concluded within a month or so. Sources familiar with the case now say they expect it to conclude by the end of April.
As you can see, Sneddon left no stone unturned in his efforts to get an indictment, and his tactics in 1994 were a prelude to what he would do in 2005 (for example, using those two art books that were confiscated in 1993). Now, did you notice that twice it was mentioned “if Jackson were indicted”? If there was no possibility that he could be indicted, this article would have said so! It would have SPECIFICALLY said that these grand juries were for “investigation purposes only”, with no possibility of indictment!
In this second article, MJ’s Constitutional Right to plead the 5th in his civil trial against the Hayvenhurst 5 was scrutinized, as the media did everything they could to spin it into a sign of having something to hide (as you can see from the sensationalist headline), when in fact he simply did not want to reveal his defense strategy while criminal charges were still possible. His legal counsel advised him to plead the 5th, and for once they actually gave him good advice!
Judge Lets Jackson Plead 5th : Courts: The singer avoids answering questions in civil case about whether he molested children. His lawyers say they advised the legal move even though he is innocent.
September 16, 1994|NICHOLAS RICCARDI | TIMES STAFF WRITER
A Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that pop superstar Michael Jackson can plead the 5th Amendment in a civil case, enabling him to avoid answering questions under oath about whether he sexually abused children.
Attorney Charles Mathews, representing five former Jackson security guards who have filed suit against Jackson claiming that he fired them to conceal his child molestation, said Jackson is hiding behind the 5th Amendment.
“Michael Jackson had the opportunity today to come into court and say he is innocent,” Mathews said after the hearing. Instead, Matthews said, Jackson “gets up and says, ‘Sorry, I want to take the 5th because my answer could incriminate me.’ “
Jackson’s attorneys said the singer wanted to testify that he was innocent, but given that he may face criminal charges, his defense team advised Jackson to stay silent.
Jackson “maintains that he is innocent,” said Carl Douglas, his attorney, accusing Mathews of grandstanding. “As an experienced criminal attorney, (Mathews) knows full well the obligations of one’s counsel when they are facing serious charges.”
Jackson has not been charged with a crime. A grand jury disbanded in July without indicting the singer, but the statute of limitations on child molestation charges runs six years, and the district attorney’s office has not said Jackson is in the clear.
Mathews, who had wanted Superior Court Judge Richard C. Neal to force Jackson to admit or deny firing the guards as part of a cover-up, complained that this was the first time a defendant had used the 5th Amendment in not answering allegations in a civil suit.
“I found not even one (similar civil) case,” Mathews said, “and the 5th Amendment has been around for a long time.”
Neal said he had to “fall back on basic principles, and the basic principle is a fairly simple one, that we don’t use our judicial process to make someone incriminate themselves.”
The guards, all fired Feb. 1, 1993, sued Jackson in November. In the suit, they said they had seen boys between the ages of 9 and 14 going into Jackson’s private quarters in his Hayvenhurst Avenue estate in Encino and not emerging until the next morning.
The suit also alleges that one guard, Leroy A. Thomas, was ordered to retrieve a Polaroid photo of a naked boy from Jackson’s private bathroom and destroy it.
Mathews said the guards had cooperated with the district attorney’s office and filed the suit, which is scheduled for trial in April, after they became convinced that charges would not be lodged against Jackson. Mathews called his clients “good men, moral men.”
Another of Jackson’s attorneys, Zia Modabber, has another view. “They want money,” he said Thursday. “They don’t want (Jackson) to admit or deny anything for any real purpose.”
Did you notice how it said the grand jury “disbanded in July WITHOUT INDICITING THE SINGER”, which means that they had the possibility of doing so they felt it was necessary, but chose not to! If there was no possibility that MJ could have been indicted, then this article would not have mentioned the grand jury’s non-indictment! (Oh, and as for the Hayvenhurst 5’s frivolous lawsuit, I will discuss it in further detail in a future article, as well as the Neverland 5’s frivolous lawsuit.)
In this final article, which is a transcript from the May 2, 1994 episode of CNN’s Showbiz Today, they quote one of the grand jurors, who said that “no damaging evidence was heard”. This grand juror had no reason to lie, and if there was any evidence good enough to secure an indictment, then that grand juror would have said so. MJ’s attorney Howard Weitzman said that he “didn’t’ believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all”. That comment once again illustrates the fact that Sneddon and Garcetti had the option to ask for an indictment, but were obviously too embarrassed to do so.
Weitzman went on to say that “I think, it’s a guess, this district attorney in Santa Barbara County could definitely impanel another grand jury for reasons unbeknownst to me, and this grand jury in Los Angeles could continue to try and call witnesses”. So let’s assume that, hypothetically, Sneddon subsequently stumbled onto some very incriminating evidence against MJ that he didn’t have prior to the disbanding of his first grand jury in May 1994. Don’t you think he would have impaneled another grand jury, just as Weitzman stated? Of course he would have! But the fact that he did NOT impanel another grand jury speaks volumes! And did you notice how Weitzman said that Sneddon could impanel another grand jury “for reasons unbeknownst to him”? That should stand out because it’s an indication of his total belief in MJ’s innocence! Weitzman could not imagine a single reason why Sneddon would impanel another grand jury, since he couldn’t get an indictment from his first grand jury using whatever flimsy evidence he had!
Here’s another crazy argument that they try to make in favor of the Chandlers: in this post, the try to justify Ray Chander’s cowardly act of fighting his subpoena by stating that there really wasn’t any reason for him to testify in the first place, since the defense already had access to the public documents used in his book and website! Fortunately, we exposed Ray’s spineless actions in this series of posts from last year. And look at this RIDICULOUS logic that they use to defend Evan Chandler:
He also points out that Jackson withdrew his claims of extortion in January 1994 (thus negating fan claims that “extortion” was involved).
So because MJ withdrew his claims of extortion, that means the extortion didn’t take place? Since MJ didn’t fight tooth and nail to keep the extortion charge, he must have been lying about it? That’s what they’re saying!
Well, let me remind them that Evan Chandler withdrew the molestation claims, thus negating HATER’S claims that molestation was involved! See what happens when you argue with hater’s by using their own flawed logic to defeat them!
Well, let’s end this series on a positive note. Here is a video that I recently found, and it’ll surely put a smile on your face. Remember earlier when I mentioned Robert Sanger, one of MJ’s lawyers during the trial? Here is an extremely rare interview that he did last year about his relationship with MJ! Listen to how he describes the “duet” that he sung with MJ!
And, most importantly, listen to how he describes how MJ was exonerated in 1994 and 2005, and rhetorically asks “How many times does somebody have to be exonerated to be exonerated?”