Skip to content

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

March 26, 2011

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”!

Blaine,

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.

statementanalysis.com

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.

~ Desiree

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:

pg 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

pg 4:

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?

212 Comments leave one →
  1. sanemjfan permalink
    January 25, 2012 12:32 am

    I added the video of MJ’s attorney Bob Sanger at the end of the post! Listen to him describe his “duet” with MJ!🙂

    Like

  2. May 28, 2011 10:40 am

    I don´t know the headline for these kind of news.It appears that anybody on TV-channel France24 who,lays claim to fame,just has to mention Michael Jackson. It happened for 1 week. q 1/2 hr when the
    DSK case was first broad- casted and was hot news.Then the other day in the news re Oprah it happened again,but was limited to a few times only. She was not that big news.Now that DSK has new digs,Michaels name came up again.Really this shows how important he is, but the context where his name comes up is wrong.–Brathman:Many celebrities..also known to be a mafia defender.

    Like

  3. May 26, 2011 8:42 pm

    Contrary to what most people assume about pedophiles, the overriding personality trait they demonstrate is not their interest in children – but their spectacular disinterest. They are unable to perceive a child as being anything more than something to be used and dispensed with. This disinterest cannot be masked, it is part of the intrinsic make-up of child predators’. – Stephen

    I fully agree with this statement. From what these people write about themselves it is clear that their “love” for children is pure demagogy. All they want is satisfaction for their monstrous animal instincts and indulging in their deepest depravity. They constantly come up with various “scientific” excuses to explain their behavior but all of it is nothing but callous demagogy without any content or feeling to it.

    In their “Wikepedia guide” ped-les give samples of answers suggested for a debate with their fighters. Please note that they distort a lot of concepts and do it very subtly. For example, first they put an equation mark between innocence and asexuality but then say that sex can be pure and innocent. And it is indeed so, with one reservation though – it is true FOR ADULTS ONLY. A grown-up person can be both sexual and innocent at heart turning sex with his spouse into something loving, tender and pure. Striving for purer relations between people does not mean that all of us should become asexual one day.

    But what is true for grown-ups IS NOT TRUE FOR CHILDREN! Children cannot have sex and remain innocent – exposing children to vice leads to their inevitable corruption and depravity and ruins their lives altogether. However ped-les advocate the latter point of view thus mixing things up and confusing the minds of their opponents. By the way the arguments ped-les are fighting are exactly the arguments which were always put forth by Michael Jackson.

    Quote from their guide (please note how terribly “scientific” everything looks here!):

    “There are many arguments related to childhood sexual innocence. Whilst innocence in its purest form (absence of sexuality in women and children, as supported by Victorian Puritanism) is rejected by most modern child advocates (antisexual feminism, victimology, public and charity work), the “safeguarding” of “children” and “childhood” from supposedly corrupting and politically undesirable forces is still alive and well. Nevertheless, the arguments addressed here are more likely to be found on American Christian bulletin boards than Science or Rationalism sites.

    Institutional argument
    “Childhood is a time to be pure, innocent and uncomplicated by adult emotions such as sexuality. Children do not understand the corruption of adulthood, and require moral protection, as does the institution of childhood”.

    Sexual contact (“theft”) argument
    “The theft of a child’s innocence (molestation) is an unforgivable crime”.

    This argument relies on the vague assumption that sex automatically leads to complicated emotional reactions in the first place. It is also based on the assertion that “innocence” and “purity” are somehow the opposites of sexual experience, assuming that sex cannot be “pure” or “innocent”. These are beliefs, and have no grounding in objective reality. Similar beliefs in relation to women have already been thoroughly discredited to the point of ridicule.”

    ISN’T IT A SPECTACULAR DISINTEREST IN CHILDREN AND THEIR FATE STEPHEN WAS SPEAKING OF?

    Like

  4. May 26, 2011 7:30 pm

    -“Media pundits who hate on MJ are reluctant to suggest this, yet in the same breath they believe he was a ped-le who preyed on every child who came his way. It’s a disgusting awful idea, but it’s just another facet in how much cognitive dissonance the media displays when it comes to MJ.” – Rockforeveron.
    -“Please explain what you meant by this because it’s very disturbing”.
    -Julie.

    Rockforeveron, I suggest we don’t give them “ideas”. The media has somewhat restrained itself in this respect (they probably still have some shreds of conscience left or think it would be really too much) but with these greedy, irresponsible and shameless people you never know.

    Like

  5. Julie permalink
    May 26, 2011 4:25 pm

    Ok, well I’m surprised it hasn’t been suggested. It is absolutely amazing to me that after hearing Paris speak at the Memorial, many in the media suddenly began saying what a wonderful father he was as if it was a shock. Also, they said and continue to say how “normal” the children seem, which is amazing as if the kids would be anything but normal.

    Like

  6. May 26, 2011 4:19 pm

    @Julie

    Please explain what you meant by this because it’s very disturbing.

    The idea of Michael mol-ting his son?

    Media pundits who hate on MJ are reluctant to suggest this, yet in the same breath they believe he was a ped-le who preyed on every child who came his way. It’s a disgusting awful idea, but it’s just another facet in how much cognitive dissonance the media displays when it comes to MJ.

    Molestation within families, the statistics vary but I’ve seen it reported as high as 90%

    http://www.healinghearts-families.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=37%3Afamilies&id=61%3Asexualabuseofmenandboys&Itemid=56

    Jordie Chandler is a dark skinned mixed race child, just as many of Michael’s family are. He looks like he could be Tito’s son, like Jaafar, like Michael’s cousins Elijah or Levon.

    Like

  7. Julie permalink
    May 26, 2011 1:51 pm

    Rockforeveron said: Not to mention that all the boys resemble Jordie Chandler and that around 85-90% of molestation occurs within families. So why does nobody ever look there? Why has nobody suggested Michael molest his own son, Prince, who was 12 when Michael died, the same age as both Jordie and Gavin?

    Please explain what you meant by this because it’s very disturbing.

    Like

  8. Maral permalink
    May 26, 2011 1:43 pm

    thank you everyone for your input. i appreciate it

    Like

  9. May 26, 2011 10:18 am

    “As for MJ fitting a “profile”, well, I’m a young black male, and if I walked outside with baggy jeans, a baseball cap cocked sideways, a doo-rag, a platinum necklace, Timberland boots, and a hoody, some people would say that I fit the description of a gang banger or drug dealer or criminal, but that doesn’t mean that I am a gang banger or drug dealer or criminal, right? “

    Exactly. There is no causative relationship in science regarding “profiles”. Media people should educate themselves before they become ridiculous and stop misinforming the public.

    Like

  10. May 26, 2011 10:16 am

    @Maral there is no such thing as a “classic profile” in science.

    Like

  11. Hana permalink
    May 26, 2011 9:40 am

    There’s no such thing as a classic pedophile. Anybody can be a pedophile. Have you guys ever seen the show ” to catch a predator” on NBC? The number of men that were caught in that sting were very astonishing to say the least. Many of them were doctors, ministers, counselors, etc. Definitely not the kind of people you would suspect had a sexual interest in children.

    Like

  12. Suzy permalink
    May 26, 2011 3:47 am

    @ Maral

    Like others said before me there is no really a “p-le profile” but there is one thing which is characteristic of p-les: they cannot stop! Especially if they have easy access to children like MJ had. How come that with the hundreds of children visiting him over the decades he only “m-ed” (according to the accusations) three and never touched other boys around him? And ALL of these three accuers are very problematic and have credibility issues as we know. BTW, even some haters admit that Gavin wasn’t credible, so that would leave them with only Jordan and perhaps Jason Francia (whose “m-ion” was some tickling). Which is, as rockforeveron, stated would be perfectly illogical for child m-ers to have only 1-2 victims in a lifetime. And (again, as rockforeveron pointed out) this is the reason haters desperately make up all kind of tales about how Michael m-ed people whom were on the stand or elsewhere and always maintained he never touched them. Haters know that without having more victims their whole case falls apart, because molesting one or two and then stopping is not what p-les do. They simply cannot do that!

    Like

  13. Carm permalink
    May 26, 2011 2:25 am

    @Maral
    People who say that Michael Jackson fit the profile of a p-d. don’t know what they are talking about. They either didn’t know Michael because they never met him or they really don’t know anything about p-ds.
    Here is a description of p-ds. coming from a psychologist, someone actually knowledgeable about the subject matter. It was posted on a blog. I got it from the Reflections on the Dance website.

    Author: Stephen

    Source: The Daily Beast blogs

    A more honest reappraisal would be that the crime of false accusation was committed against Michael Jackson. The man was virtually hounded to his death. And from what I can see from the largely rebutting responses on this post, it seems clear the true ‘fanatics’ as regards Michael Jackson – are his detractors.

    As a child pyschologist with over 20 years experience working in more crisis /abuse scenarios than I care to recall, I can assure you that simply participating in what amounted to ‘sleepovers’ is no evidence of pedophiliac behaviour. Contrary to what most people assume about pedophiles, the overriding personality trait they demonstrate is not their interest in children – but their spectacular disinterest.

    They are unable to perceive a child as being anything more than something to be used and dispensed with. This disinterest cannot be masked, it is part of the intrinsic make-up of child predators. There are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ with this. Mr Jackson, far from using children, clearly felt great affection and concern for them. He may have over-identified with them, but he did not present as a molester to any social worker or child specialist I have come across.

    There isn’t a pedophile in the world with a track record of public works that Jackson had. He also clearly lavished healthy love and affection on his own children. The lack of corroborating evidence in 1993 and again in 2005, the lack of incriminating evidence over a 10 year period from the FBI investigation casts serious – if not fatal doubts, on the authenticity of both the accusations and the accusers themselves. …

    It was a clear case of – “well he’s odd so he must be guilty.”

    Like

  14. May 26, 2011 2:06 am

    @Maral

    Profile for pedophiles? There is no standard or else no child would need to fear a pedophile because they would be easy to spot. Just as there are no profiles for rapists or killers or even domestic abusers.

    Shared traits though are opportunism and obsession. As you can see with the people rallying around underground in the scene, they’re obsessed with it. Michael had no pornography about children at all, they found no “love letters”, no keepsakes, no diary, no notation anywhere. Think about how many pedophiles are caught because they can’t resist the need to keep child pornography. To most people it would seem absurd to want to keep any of that around even if you were a pedophile, I mean rationally as an outsider it seems on the same level as keeping photos/momentos of your murder victims, but these people consistently do, they don’t care about being caught, it’s worth the risk to them. Think about Michael: openly saying he shares his bed with children on TV. That’s not the behaviour of anyone who believes they’re hiding anything. If Michael were a ped-le, not even the parents would’ve known about him sharing beds with kids. That would’ve been something Mike would’ve kept on the super DL, he had the power and money to.

    Again, opportunism: Michael met Gavin in 2000, Gavin claims Michael mol-ted him after the Bashir doc. If he wanted Gavin he could’ve had him back in 2000 when he was weak with cancer, threatened to not pay for his bills if he wouldn’t let him have his way.

    Opportunism: Michael’s entire family. There’s a disproportionate number of males in the Jackson gene pool, Tito had 3 sons, Jermaine had 6 sons, there were 4 other males split between the others and Donte, then cousins Elijah, Levon, Anthony, Rijo and others. Almost every member of the family has filed for bankruptcy, Jackie, Randy and Jermaine have been involved in domestic abuse, all of them except Marlon and Rebbie have had divorces and affairs. Should be ripe pickings for someone who supposedly seeks out dysfunctional families, right? Not to mention that all the boys resemble Jordie Chandler and that around 85-90% of molestation occurs within families. So why does nobody ever look there? Why has nobody suggested Michael mol-t his own son, Prince, who was 12 when Michael died, the same age as both Jordie and Gavin?

    Some real statistics on pedophiles:

    On average, a molester with pedophilia commits 70.8 molestation acts.

    The number of child victims and acts per molester depended on whether the molester targeted girls, boys or both. Those molesting only girls averaged 5.2 victims and 34.2 acts. Those molesting only boys averaged 10.7 victims and 52 acts. Those molesting both averaged 27.3 victims and 120.9 acts.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LO9orD77o98J:absolutezerounited.blogspot.com/2006/08/i-was-challenged-part-2.html+average+number+of+victims+pedophiles&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    This is why some people are now intent on making other men victims, they realize without them their case is utterly illogical. It’s rough for them because trying to make a case when no evidence turned up any other even teeny hints at molestation in any of those kids in both 1993 and 2005 means they gotta stick to making stuff up and, as always, ignoring evidence.

    Like

  15. lcpledwards permalink
    May 26, 2011 1:35 am

    @ Maral
    Read bullet point #17 at the bottom of this point to see what Kit Culkin, the father of Macaulay Culkin, had to say about those bedroom alarms: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/transcript-of-michael-jacksons-secret-world-by-martin-bashir/

    Also, read this post for some info on what Adrian McManus, one of the “Neverland 5” had to say in defense of the bedroom alarms, as well as Larry Nimmer’s test of the bedroom alarm that confirmed that helped exonerate MJ: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/fact-checking-the-documentary-michael-jackson-what-really-happened-by-jacques-peretti/

    As for MJ fitting a “profile”, well, I’m a young black male, and if I walked outside with baggy jeans, a baseball cap cocked sideways, a doo-rag, a platinum necklace, Timberland boots, and a hoody, some people would say that I fit the description of a gang banger or drug dealer or criminal, but that doesn’t mean that I am a gang banger or drug dealer or criminal, right? Same thing with MJ!! He may have had an unusual (by society’s standards) affinity for children, but he was NOT a p.!! Most p.’s don’t fit any “profile”; they appear to be normal, everyday, well-adjusted people, who are far from “weird”. Look at the registered sex offenders who live in your community (you can check your local database). I guarantee you, NONE OF THEM appear out of the ordinary, and that is why when they were arrested and convicted, there was a general state of shock! “Oh, I didn’t know he could be a child abuser! I’m so surprised!” That’s the reaction most child abusers get.

    Even the FBI stated that their list of identifiable traits is not infallible, and that most child abusers won’t fit any of them, and just because someone fits one or more of those traits, it doesn’t mean they are a p.

    Like

  16. Teva permalink
    May 25, 2011 10:12 pm

    @Maral

    I don’t know anything about beds, I know of one bed in the upstairs part of the duplex, so maybe more learned colleagues here can address that for you.

    Please, if I were doing something I ought not to an alarm would not be a necessity when I could simply lock the door. Mez made a great argument, if the alarm was to alert MJ that someone was approaching during his alleged indiscretions then how was Gavin’s brother able to witness so much?
    Surely he would have triggered the alarm. As a matter of fact how was the maid able to witness so much as well?

    Kit Cullen , McCaulay’s father said in his book that everyone knew about the alarm it was never meant to be secret you could see the wires. He said Michael had it installed after a fan broke into Neverland and got into the house, and Michael became spooked by that because he reminded himself that it was a fan that killed John Lennon.

    Like

  17. Maral permalink
    May 25, 2011 7:36 pm

    i just need to ask this since i’m going crazy. people say that MJ fit the profile of a p—le to a T. can anyone here tell me how that could be disputed. also i always wondered about the alarm in his room. how was that explained during the trial? also were there other beds in MJs room downstairs?

    Like

  18. May 25, 2011 6:59 pm

    Alyson,you are so right that police and other investigative proceedures matter.
    More bad news from France24 channel:Oprah Winfrey was given her 2-3 minutes time clip,repeated a couple of times.And guess which was the only name mentioned to boast her credentials.I trust you guess right.
    She either used to or will(missed abit) give 100.000 $ for every p-le
    found.Will she be the Judge, Jury and the Prosecution herself?
    Would it not be better to give the money to some well regarded organization,why not Childhelp USA or Childrena Defence?

    Like

  19. May 22, 2011 1:00 am

    Alison,I am sorry if I seemed harsh. Ofcourse we should be concerned about police proceedures. The DSK-case gets a lot of international attention, so much so that it could become a blog on it´s own.It is exactly this extreme attention that makes me worry over the wrong exposure of MJ on that channel.Michael also had to submit to some humiliating procedures as we know.

    Like

  20. Alison permalink
    May 21, 2011 11:26 pm

    ” The guilt or innocence
    of DSK is beyond the scope of this blog.”

    “I have no particular interest in DSK`s guilt or innocence.”

    Kaarin, you sound very angry and I feel distinctly told off. i only mentioned it because if anyone is set up and prosecuted falsely it should be important, and if anyone is taking the opportunity to use it to obscure murray’s trial for killing Michael then that concerns us doesn’t it? My comment was from the angle of what the police may or may not be doing rather than the guy himself.
    i do not live in America, and although i know our own police system is not perfect, – some very serious and tragic mistakes have been made and they are still working on eradicating racism, – but from the outside i feel from everything i have ever read that the entire USA law enforcement system is corrupt from top to bottom. So basically i am suspicious of anything the US police do.

    However I apologise for raising something that is beyond the scope of the blog and will not do so again.

    Like

  21. Hana permalink
    May 21, 2011 9:48 pm

    Poor Brett. I do hope he does something about the stuff that’s written about him.

    Like

  22. Elle permalink
    May 21, 2011 6:51 pm

    Does anyone know how to contact the administrators of Michael Jackson’s estate?

    Like

  23. shelly permalink
    May 21, 2011 5:23 pm

    Yes, the settlement has nothing to do with the DSK story but I am not even sure Brafman knows what the media are saying about him and if he does, he probably doesn’t have the time to correct the mystake.

    Like

  24. May 21, 2011 4:19 pm

    Shelley, you are probably right. Still I think the mistake should be corrected as it is bad for MJ`s image to be mentioned and shown in this manner.The Mj clips+comments:settlement-cm-charges-desperate situation do not belong to the programs on DSK.I have no particular interest in DSK`s guilt or innocence.The trial will no doubt get a huge international audience regardless.

    Like

  25. shelly permalink
    May 21, 2011 3:31 pm

    In all honesty, I don’t think it’s Brafman wjo is doing that. The media needs to introduce him and they don’t check their story. I don’t think he is like Orth or Dimond. He doesn’t need MJ.

    Like

  26. May 21, 2011 3:14 pm

    The Settlement between MJ and his accuser J.or E. Chandler was worked
    out by Johnnie L. Cochran Jr on MJ`s part and Larry Feldman for the accuser in Jan 1994.Bratman had nothing to do with this.So sorry for
    the mixup in prev. comment.

    Like

  27. May 21, 2011 2:12 pm

    Oops, sorry, disregard or strike the comment re OJ Simpson. A mistake,
    really sorry.

    Like

  28. May 21, 2011 1:56 pm

    Why not throw in pictures of OJ Simpson also? The guilt or innocence
    of DSK is beyond the scope of this blog.Be it whatever the trial will
    draw a huge international audience.

    Like

  29. May 21, 2011 1:38 pm

    What Murray did was reckless and for someone with a medical backgraound
    brainless.His main and only motive was MONEY.Not killing Michael.
    Just like a bankrobber, who is after money, if someone gets killed in the process it is regrettable for all parties.Wonder why his finances are off-limits in the trial.He was more than broke when he accepted the job as Michaels doctor and “someone to monitor me”.
    With the 150.000/month he would have pretty much been in the cler in one year.

    Like

  30. May 21, 2011 1:21 pm

    It is just infuriating that Brathman,with at best only a marginal involment in MJ´s defence,should throw in Michael into an
    intetnational channel broadcasting world wide,and include clips of Michael exiting the St.B.courthouse with his umbrella.It
    will start again on Sept 8th when the DSK-case goes to trial.
    Does he need to use MJ to bolster his credentials? For one week this spectacle was repeated once every half hour.Shame on Brathman.

    Like

  31. Teva permalink
    May 21, 2011 2:42 am

    @Shelly

    American media has him tried and convicted. How does the saying go? You are guilty until proven innocent.

    Like

  32. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 10:08 pm

    @Alison

    There is the french presidential elections next year. He was a candidate, or would have been a candidate for the socialist and according to the surveys he was the favorite.

    He had others scandals with women but never for rape.

    Like

  33. Alison permalink
    May 20, 2011 10:00 pm

    I am not really convinced the DSK case is not a set up also. womaniser? perhaps, if they say so, but i just can’t imagine him as a rapist, he doesn’t look as if he would have the energy and strength. and the other woman coming out of the woodwork after years? i just think it sounds fishy. and he looks more pissed off than guilty to me.
    so yes, setting the same trial date…..
    what is going on in europe where they would want him out of the way?

    Like

  34. May 20, 2011 9:33 pm

    “Benjamin Brafman had nothing to do with both cases…. It so obvious their bias and failing on reporting the facts about MJ that am really starting to believe in conspiracy theories.”

    Ares, the bias is undeniable and is unbelievable in its scale and unison of voices. Now I do not doubt for a second that Michael’s harassment was orchestrated by some media giants who stay in power for decades no matter what the current government is. They are the ones who shape public opinion and make or destroy other people’s lives, including those of top politicians.

    Have you noticed that they never publish news about themselves? Only about others. Considering how powerful and influential these people are this absence of information is extremely strange as one would expect a good media coverage of their success in life. However if you start looking for news about them there will be practically nothing.

    You know that some of my ‘favorite’ guys now are Randy Phillips and his boss, Philips Ancshutz of AEG. Isn’t Ancshutz too silent for a man whose main business is entertainment? Has anyone seen a photo of him at least once? And they laughed at Michael being reclusive…. Why don’t they mock at the incredible type of secrecy Anschutz maintains?

    What do we know about this entertainment mogul? NOTHING, though one would expect him to be attending every public forum due to the specifics of his business. It is such a stark contrast with poor Michael Jackson whose feelings, mind and body including its most intimate parts were thrown into full public view both during and after his death…

    It may be my impression only, but Michael’s harassment does look like a cruel game started by some Big bosses, who turned his life into a worldwide attraction and tossed it to the crowd for general entertainment, public humiliation and open ridicule – as if teaching him a lesson for something. I repeat – this is my impression only, but it is so vivid and clear that I simply cannot brush it away as a nonsense feeling. And the more we look the more proof of it we get.

    As to Benjamin Brafman he was indeed employed in the Arvizo case, but for a period prior to the indictment only. Here is the information about him from the LA Times:

    The change in lawyers was the biggest decision. Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman were viewed throughout the legal establishment as outstanding lawyers. But Geragos was dividing his time between Jackson and the Scott Peterson murder case. Brafman was based in New York [ ] and his involvement in the case has meant frequent cross-country trips.

    Huddling with Randy and two other advisors, Jackson settled on Mesereau, who projected a workhorse image, just what Jackson wanted”.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/07/local/me-image7

    Like

  35. May 20, 2011 8:35 pm

    “The DSK case is cooling as he got bail with house arrest,security guards & el.bracelet. However the trial date is set for Sept.8th, same as Murray´s”

    OMG, they set it for the same date! Have I begun to imagine things or did they arrange it on the same date to divert public attention from what might be happening at Murray’s trial?

    Like

  36. May 20, 2011 8:09 pm

    How does someone as broke and in debt as Murray can suddenly afford all this. When you defend someone in a criminal case of this magnitude it is very costly and that is from the minute it starts. Every motion and piece of evidence costs the defendent just to file it or to have the prosecution provide it to them. They also have to pay for their own experts. These things are not all added up and put on a bill for the end of the trial they have to pay for them as they go”.

    Lynette, I know of only one company which would be terribly interested in getting Murray out of all this so that he doesn’t tell the truth about Michael’s last few months.

    Like

  37. Anna permalink
    May 20, 2011 6:48 pm

    @Ares

    “No one can assure you about everything and there are always going to be people out there who will claim to know for certain that Mike was a ped-le and that they have irrefutable evidence to prove it. In that case you have to see those evidence, check the credibility of that person, check the other side of the story and make up your mind. This is the case and it’s not going to change unfortunatelly.”

    I totally agree with you Ares. Some of these liars lie with such conviction that they can get to people that’s why knowing all angles of the story is what’s best. However, since there are many angles to some of these stories there will always be some people who are on the fence. Once a lie or half-truth is out there it will sway some people in the wrong and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. That’s why I appreciate all the vindication sites like this one the bloggers and commenters are excellent at fact checking and fact finding. It will atleast offer the side of the story that sites like our adversary try to ignore.

    Like

  38. May 20, 2011 5:40 pm

    Correction, tha name is Brathman. Sorry.

    Like

  39. May 20, 2011 5:25 pm

    Tank you ares & thesis7. Re Mj and Benjamin Brathwaite,attn. for DSK in NYC.Reports on TV ,France24)).This is a worldwide news station in English,some brief interviews, Poltics;Arab uprisings,Obama speach, Japan,etc.Not bad and not tabloid.BUT,attn.B.B.; “people who come to me are usually in a desperate situation” ..”we have prevented more suicides than any psychiatrist”.It was reported that B.B. had worked for MJ and got him a settlement(!)Then repeated videoclips of MJ exiting St.B. courthouse with his umbrella. I do not know from where and by whom the incorrect statement re MJ came from. The DSK case is cooling as he got bail with house arrest,security guards & el.bracelet. HOwever the trial date is set for Sept.8th, same as Murray´s.This;”desperate-suicide-MJ settlement” asdsociation with videoclips will lead to automatic assumptions.Someone, pref. a lawyer
    ought to send a courteous letter to attn. B.B. office in NYC and ask for a correction of facts.This is important as it seems the trials will run concurrently in L.A. and NYC.

    Like

  40. Maral permalink
    May 20, 2011 3:24 pm

    @Julie as i stated before her “evidence” is laughable

    Like

  41. Maral permalink
    May 20, 2011 3:21 pm

    @stacy2 she lost me when she referred to barnes’ testimony where he says he enjoyed rides games and food at Neverland and that is what evan and jordi also claims.

    Like

  42. stacy2 permalink
    May 20, 2011 2:26 pm

    I just read her entry on Brett Barnes. The minute she mentioned the Neverland 5 as credible witnesses, I got off the computer.

    Like

  43. Julie permalink
    May 20, 2011 1:26 pm

    that being said i did try to read the entry and her “evidence” is laughable. and in one of her posts at Jason Pfeiffer blog (yeye i looked) she claim even Frank Cascio believes he was a pedo…… and that not even Brando trusted MJ with his kids. sometimes i want to contact these people and tell them about her claims but i don’t want to seem like a crazy fan

    Maral, you need to dismiss anything that ever comes out of her mouth. Frank Cascio was a kid that hung out with MJ and was with him into adulthood, evern being named an unindicted co-conspirator to the conspiracy charges against MJ in 2005. Marlon Brando was a friend to his death and Miko, Marlon’s son, was married at Neverland and with MJ a day or two before his death. He was on CNN stating how much his children loved MJ, etc. So take it with a grain of salt and throw it out. One has to wonder if Murray’s PR team isn’t behind her for the propoganda before the trial.

    Like

  44. ares permalink
    May 20, 2011 1:22 pm

    @Maral

    What did the nanny said and were she said it? I haven’t heard that story

    Like

  45. May 20, 2011 1:19 pm

    @Maral

    Grace has never implied anything about MJ with kids.

    Like

  46. Maral permalink
    May 20, 2011 1:14 pm

    @ ares
    thank for your response and i do see your point about the fact that there’s always going to be people clamming this and that. i guess what makes me go flip flop sometimes (not the majority of times) is when people like the nanny implying things. i start to wonder if she’s laying why did he kept her around for 17 years. but then i think again and have to wonder if he had something to hide he’d make sure she’d sign a confidential agreement. same goes for jones and he was proven to be a liar.

    Like

  47. ares permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:39 pm

    @Maral

    People on the MJ forums are mostly interested in Mike’s music and not his personal life. Moreover, the majority of them have either made up their mind about the accusations and they are sure that Mike was innocent or even if they have doupts, they simply don’t care.

    You can discuss here your thoughts about Mike concerning the allegations but you have also to think about yourself on some things that you read or hear. No one can assure you about everything and there are always going to be people out there who will claim to know for certain that Mike was a ped-le and that they have irrefutable evidence to prove it. In that case you have to see those evidence, check the credibility of that person, check the other side of the story and make up your mind. This is the case and it’s not going to change unfortunatelly.

    Like

  48. ares permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:18 pm

    @kaarin22

    Benjamin Bratman had nothing to do with both cases. But as always the media fail to do something important when it comes to MJ. Fact Checking. It so obvious their bias and failing on reporting the facts about MJ that am really starting to believe in conspiracy theories.

    Like

  49. Maral permalink
    May 20, 2011 11:39 am

    i just made a post on imdb. i’m sure many of you recognize my name. i’m always maral on each forum. i’m not going to lie, sometimes i hear stuff and wonder what if and it drives me crazy. because i have no one to discuss it with. i wish fan forum would allow new fans or on the fence people to come, talk, ask and have a discussion about the accusations. it would give people like D less power.

    that being said i did try to read the entry and her “evidence” is laughable. and in one of her posts at Jason Pfeiffer blog (yeye i looked) she claim even Frank Cascio believes he was a pedo…… and that not even Brando trusted MJ with his kids. sometimes i want to contact these people and tell them about her claims but i don’t want to seem like a crazy fan

    Like

  50. May 20, 2011 11:33 am

    Brafman belonged to the old Geragos team and he was in from January 2004 until April 2004. Then the team changed and he had nothing to do with the trial. Apparently, the stupid journalists messed up the 1994 settlement with Brafman.

    Like

  51. May 20, 2011 11:19 am

    I found Benjamin Bratman mentioned in “Frozen in..” He was the attorney during the transition from Gregaros to Mesereau.
    So what did he do ? Was on for hrs or a a few days? The DSK-news state he worked out a settlement for MJ.Does not sound correct.
    So now MJ&settlement is broadcast all over the world q 1/2 hr.

    Like

  52. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 10:56 am

    @hana

    Nothing, he wasn’t connected, si I am still waiting for an answer. He knows very well who she is, I send the link to Mesereau’s facebook. I think someone should try to contact the Estate about that. I don’t know if they can do something, but at one point someone has to take legal action against her. What she is doing is illegal.

    Like

  53. Hana permalink
    May 20, 2011 10:51 am

    @shelly

    What did Barnes say when you sent him the link?

    Like

  54. May 20, 2011 10:27 am

    Chris & @lyande, Murray owes much more, 1.25 mln to the federal goverment for overbilling.That case was up in Las Vegas 2010 and put on ice as he promised to pay it. Murray´s finances are off limits
    in the trial.Wonder why, as they seem a most significant factor.
    Another thing, now with Dominick Strauss-Kahn, there is a french news
    statiom, Fracce 24.com,that broad casts the DSK case almost every
    half hour. And never do they fail to get MJ`s name dragged in to it.
    Who is the attrn. Benjamin Brathman who acc. to the news was a lawyer for MJ. They even show brief clips of MJ.Never heard about B. Brathman, and does he need Michael´s name to bolster his credentials.
    Just had to get this off my chest.

    Like

  55. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 9:42 am

    @lynande51

    On imdb her name is not D but jessicatwin.

    Like

  56. Chris permalink
    May 20, 2011 9:38 am

    @ Lynande

    I have been wondering the same thing how is he paying attorney fees? He was reportedly $780,000 in debt. His attorney said in March he couldn’t afford it to be put back.
    I forgot the PR firm lol.
    It’s amazing how this goes unreported and anything MJ is thrown out there finances drugs whatever.
    Remind me who’s on trial again?
    I’m willing to bet my life on the fact he will not make it to a court room, I think he will be silenced.

    Like

  57. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 8:34 am

    @lynande

    It’s link

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/board/thread/182935780?d=182935780&p=1#182935780

    She just posted a link to her blog. She managed to pissed off everyone on the board.

    Like

  58. lynande51 permalink
    May 20, 2011 3:22 am

    Shelley can you leave me link to her IMDB postings I have never found them. Another person that you could contact is Brian Oxman if she is saying things about Grace, Frank and Bruce S. He is still very involved with the family and when she is posting these things to multiple sites it does influence the upcoming jury pool in Conrad Murray’s trial. That is why I think all of this resurgance of this kind of material is very coincidental and is probably fueled by Murrays PR firm. You know no one has ever answered who is paying this guys attorney fees and for his PR firm? How does someone as broke and in debt as Murray was suddenly afford all this. When you defend someone in a criminal case of this magnitude it is very costly and that is from the minute it starts. Every motion and piece of evidence costs the defendent just to file it or to have the prosecution provide it to them. They also have to pay for their own experts. These things are not all added up and put on a bill for the end of the trial they have to pay for them as they go.And last but not least D says she is from Las Vegas and that was where Murray had one of his offices, the one where he met Michael. Is it possible that there is a connection?

    Like

  59. shelly permalink
    May 20, 2011 1:19 am

    @lynande

    I know that but in fact she is on imdb with her article, fighting against everyone including people who thinks he might have been a CM, it’s how I know that. I send a link to her article to Barnes, I hope one day he’ll sue her.

    Like

  60. lynande51 permalink
    May 20, 2011 1:00 am

    Shelley, when you go to to her site it benefits her to have more readers. My suggestion is don’t go. She also tracks her readers IP addresses so she knows who you are do you like that idea because I don’t but it does show what kind of person she is doesn’t it.

    Like

  61. lynande51 permalink
    May 20, 2011 12:50 am

    In a criminal case you have to have a unanimous decision that means all members of the jury have to agree on a verdict. If one or two of them disagree on a verdict then it is considered a “hung jury’. If that happens the jury foreman goes to the judge and says we can’t reach a decision and the case is declared a mistrial due to the hung jury and the prosecution can decide to try the case again. Next time they tried the case it would have been with another jury so it would mean nothing to any of them they would not have had to come back for a second trial. So all that stuff about them being bullied and coerced into their not guilty verdict is just plain BS. No one in the public is ever allowed to know who voted which way in a criminal trial. They could have just said no I will not change my vote and it would have been over for all twelve of them.
    In the 2005 trial it was later found that one juror who it is believed was Elenor Cook brought in a video tape of program from Court TV that was very biased and commentary was very inflamatory. It was found in a VCR and was not rewound so it had been watched or at least partially.The Court TV ( Diane Dimond ) said that they had been viewing evidence when in fact all of the evidence was converted to CD or DVD so it did not contain evidence.The Court ( the Judge) called an In Camera ( in chambers) Conference because the defense could have had Elenor Cook recused and had a mistrial declared based on the Video tape being brought in to the jury room. It would have started the whole thing over again or any verdict found would have been immediate grounds for appeal and as long as a verdict had not been reached Michael would have remained on bail even pending an appeal. However Michael’s legal team decided that they would go with the jury they had and we now know the rest of the story, 14 not gulty verdicts. It was true and it was found during deliberations and I have the document from the Defense asking for clarification.

    Like

  62. shelly permalink
    May 19, 2011 11:58 pm

    Our friend D wrote a long blog entry about Barnes, she thinks he had romantic feelings for MJ!

    Like

  63. May 19, 2011 9:53 pm

    “At least two of the three jurors that did believe Gavin and his family say that they were forced to vote not guilty otherwise they would have been kicked out of the jury?”

    Tanja, I think that not a single member of the jury can kick any other member of the jury – they are equal in their rights, so the mere idea of “kicking someone out” is ridiculous in the very least.

    The only thing they can do is complain to the judge that some of them are breaking the rules, like Eleanor Cook about whom Julie wrote here – she tried to bring the tape of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace discussing the trial and this is something the judge would have very much frowned upon if the other jurors had brought it to his attention.

    Like

  64. Julie permalink
    May 18, 2011 1:33 pm

    Hi Tanya. It was 2 of the jurors that came out a few days after and claimed that they wanted to vote guilty but were forced to vote not guity. The other jurors stated that was absolutely not true. Those 2 jurors wanted to write negative books about Michael Jackson for money. Neither book came to fruition thankfully. I saw a William Wagener interview where he stated he had interviewed Eleanor Cook and she went into the trial wanting to vote guilty because she didn’t like Michael Jackson grabbing his crotch during his dances. She is also the one who wanted to bring a tape into the jury deliberations of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace discussing the trial. Ray Hultman said it was his belief that Michael Jackson probably molested someone in the past, but the evidence wasn’t there to support the claim in the Arvizo case. Both were in my view disgusting for their behavior after the trial. Vindicating MJ has done an excellent piece on the subject.

    Like

  65. Tanja permalink
    May 18, 2011 5:29 am

    Sorry english isn’t my first language so I have to ask if I got that right. At least two of the three jurors that did believe Gavin and his family say that they were forced to vote not guilty otherwise they would have been kicked out of the jury? Well…

    I mean, how stupid is this? If I am a juror and the defendant is supposed to be a child molester and I am absolutly positive about his guilt then nothing and noone could ever force me to vote not guilty. And if they would kick me out of the jury, ok.

    So it was more important for them to be a part of a jury from which they thought that they make a big mistake than to stay true to their own feelings and their own believe? Wow…

    Like

  66. shelly permalink
    April 4, 2011 5:02 pm

    @lcpledwards,

    Thanks for that, I forgot your older posts.

    Like

  67. Maral permalink
    April 4, 2011 12:57 pm

    i find it interesting that Ray Chandler practically vindicate MJ single handedly in his book. if his documents and information are even half true, as far as i have been informed by this blog, things he says is totally in MJs favor

    Like

  68. shelly permalink
    April 4, 2011 11:39 am

    @lynande,

    “In that meeting they go over what it would be like for Bert Fields or Howard Weitzman to cross examine him (Michael hadn’t hired Johnny Cochran yet).”

    Could you tell us what Ray Chandler said about that? Did he really said that Jordan could blow their case?

    Like

  69. Dialdancer permalink
    April 4, 2011 6:46 am

    “Sneddon went to Australia to interview but his parents refused to let him alone with law enforcement so they couldn’t interview him,”

    They could have interviewed the minor child with a parent present. The idea being promoted is Brett would not talk candidly in front of his parents or his parents would force him to lie that is a fallacy. Considering American Police can legally lie to potential witnesses and given the fact Sneddon continued using Brett, willfully applying the “victim” label, leaving the boy open to public speculation in order to increase his number of victims, they were right not to allow him to be left with Sneddon and Gang.

    This was legalized harassment and that “Could not” business was an excuse. I’d have called my attorney.

    Like

  70. lynande51 permalink
    April 4, 2011 12:37 am

    They only had Jordans word for that at the time. Brett had already said it was a lie and steadfastly denied that anything had happened even publicly on television. Wade issued one as well. It wasn’t until Chacon corraborated Jordan’s story with his ” eyewitness” account of what happened that they thought they could go after Brett again.

    Like

  71. hana permalink
    April 4, 2011 12:30 am

    “Sneddon went to Australia because one of the Neverland 5 testified that he saw MJ molested him”

    Ok I’m confused. I thought Sneddon flew to austraila and wanted to interview brett Barnes because of what jordie chandler mentioned in his statements? According to Jordie, Michael told him that he had many sexual encounters with Brett and that whenever he would want him to do something sexual with him, he would always bring up Brett’s name.

    Like

  72. lynande51 permalink
    April 4, 2011 12:11 am

    Jordan never had any intention of testifying or being cross examined. In the written transcripts of his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, Gardner asks Jordan if he is afraid now and Jordans reply is only of being cross examined. In ATG one of their first meeting with Feldman and Shapiro, Shapiro was Evans first attorney’s, Barry Rothman’s attorney that was defending him against the allegations of extortion. In that meeting they go over what it would be like for Bert Fields or Howard Weitzman to cross examine him (Michael hadn’t hired Johnny Cochran yet). The Chandlers decided they wouldn’t take the chance that Jordan would fail in a cross examination and blow their case. That meeting took place in September of 1993 and Jordan was sent to see Dr. Gardner in October. Once Jordan turned 14 in January he would have had to testify in open court in either a civil or a criminal court. Michael could have demanded it as was his right to confront his accuser in open court. The Chandlers had to settle when they did too because once Jordan turned 14 he could be held in contempt of court for perjury if he was found to be lying under oath. That is why that silly declaration had to be signed and filed with the court before January 11th 1994 Jordan’s 14th birthday.
    Next it was Ralph Chacon talking to Detective Russ Birchim and then Tom Sneddon on June 9th or 10th of 1994 that sent the DA’s from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara to Australia. It was not anything that was said by Brett. The Other boy in therapy was of course Jason Francia.That is why they thought that they could have all of these ex employees testify to the facts in the case because they were only allowed to talk to Brett one time at the ranch and in the company of his parents. By the way one more thing Bretts parents were still married when this was all happening. So much for that theory that he only went after kids without dads. As a matter of fact only two of the families had divorces. Wade Robsons and Jordan Chandlers.

    Like

  73. lcpledwards permalink
    April 3, 2011 5:22 pm

    @ Shelly, Teva, & Maral
    The Chandlers filed the lawsuit with the hope that MJ would settle, and that is why they pushed so hard for the civil case to go to court before the criminal case. Remember, in “All That Glitters” Evan’s attorney Robert Shapiro said that if the criminal case goes first, and MJ is acquitted, their chances of getting a civil settlement are almost impossible. If MJ had not been forced to settle, the case would have gone to court, and even if Jordan himself didn’t testify at the trial, he would have had to give a deposition, which would have been used in lieu of his testimony. Evan and June Chandler would have surely had to testify in the civil trial, since they were adults.

    Like

  74. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:46 pm

    “The question is with out the settlement would Jordan still have testified in the civil? I say not.”

    I am not sure about that. They wanted the money very badly.

    Like

  75. Teva permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:34 pm

    @Shelly

    They never had Jordan Chandler. From the word “GO” Jordan was nerver going to testify in civil, or criminal The question is with out the settlement would Jordan still have testified in the civil? I say not.

    Like

  76. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:29 pm

    Why Sneddon changed his story? Why did Garcetti said they had Jordan until July if the Santa Barbara grand jury was disbanded because of hordan refusal? Did they really had Jordan Chandler?

    Like

  77. Teva permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:22 pm

    Thanks Shelly!

    @Maral
    You took the thought right out my head. What was different in 2004 that allowed Michael to be arrested, but he wasn’t in 1993.

    Like

  78. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:17 pm

    so if they arrested him 6 months before the grand jury in 03 when the story had so many holes, i’m sure the could arrest him december 93 after the search IF they had the evidence sneddon claims he had aka a match.

    Like

  79. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:06 pm

    @Teva

    He was arrested in 2003, 6 months before the grand jury and the arraignment was on January. The Grand jury was around April.

    Like

  80. Teva permalink
    April 3, 2011 4:01 pm

    When Michael Jackson was arrested in 2004 was it before, or after the grand jury.

    Like

  81. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 3:12 pm

    shelly i agree about not spreading rumors. just wanted to check……

    Like

  82. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 2:44 pm

    I never read something like that and I don’t think we should spread rumor.

    Like

  83. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 2:39 pm

    i heard somewhere francia is sneddons son in-law…. anyone know if that’s true

    Like

  84. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 2:06 pm

    Brett Barnes was at Neverland when they raided the ranch and was on TV saying nothing happened. After that he spend one month in South America travelling with his family and MJ and went back to Australia.
    Sneddon went to Australia to interveiw but his parents refused to let him alone with law enforcement so they couldn’t interview him. Sneddon went to Australia because one of the Neverland 5 testified that he saw MJ molested him

    Like

  85. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 1:56 pm

    This is the original statement


    September 21, 1994

    During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.

    As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.[

    The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.

    Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.

    In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be reevaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.”

    Like

  86. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 1:29 pm

    are we sure it’s Barns? it’s says that he accused him later barns never did that. but then again if any he ment other then barns we would hear about it by now. could he been terry? you know, the english idiot.

    Like

  87. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 1:23 pm

    The 2 others kids were Francia and Barnes. Barnes never said anything.

    Like

  88. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 1:20 pm

    @shelly
    i’m reading the article you just posted and what Feldman says about the settlement not being the reason for Jordie refusal to testify. also it’s interesting how Garcetti claim there were TWO other accusers. but we know for a fact that is a lie.

    Like

  89. Maral permalink
    April 3, 2011 1:06 pm

    no matter how you look at it things are still in MJs favor. if the two grand jurors investigated the case and found NOTHING, as the LA polis department and sneddons team and FBI then it still prove there was nothing to find. and if the jury was there to look over the evidence to make a deception if there was enough evidence to take the case to the trial it STILL prove there were none, hence there were no match. if there was, i think it would be considered as hard evidence.

    Like

  90. shelly permalink
    April 3, 2011 12:25 pm

    Someone is lying, Sneddon said Jordan refused to testify before the Santa Barbara ggrand jury was discharged, which was around April or May 1994.

    “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.”

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JOZHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sewDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6540,3129646&dq=gil+garcetti+statement&hl=en

    Garcetti said,in 1994,Jordan told them in July 1994 that he refused to testify and never said anything about refusing to testify before July 1994.

    Like

  91. Maral permalink
    April 1, 2011 8:13 pm

    @Steph’s Wife THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!

    Like

  92. Anna permalink
    April 1, 2011 7:53 pm

    @Steph’s Wife

    Thanks for your contribution here! I totally agree!

    Like

  93. hana permalink
    April 1, 2011 2:56 pm

    @Steph’s Wife

    Great post!

    Like

  94. Steph's Wife permalink
    April 1, 2011 2:05 pm

    Forget everything that lunatic Desiree says. Even with her flawed logic, she truly believes that MJ was guilty, and will use every piece of lurid, unsubstantiated, disgusting, salacious detail she can find to prove her point. When reading her articles, it was hard NOT to double over from both nausea and uproarious laughter. Now, the claim is that the grand juries were for “investigational” purposes only? Yeah, right. And she claims this because of what Sneddon writes in his rebuttal to Mesereau? PLEASE!!!! We all know Sneddon and the truth don’t always go hand in hand. Remember how he claimed to have never given Jackson another thought after ’93 but there are numerous interviews, and articles to the contrary available on the internet from 1994 through the early part of the millenium. Yes! Sneddon tells the truth all of the time. *rolls eyes* She’s gonna need to put another spin to that line of rubbish because she means for us to believe that while the whole world was waiting for an indictment as a result of the grand juries, they were only “investigating” him. So using her logic, not only were TWO different law enforcement entities investigating MJ, but two grand juries were as well. And they STILL didn’t come up with enough to indict MJ! If Jackson were guilty, the end result of that dehumanzing strip-search would’ve been immediate arrest. So far, not even the most ardent Jackson-hater has come up with a LEGAL and VALID reason as to why he wasn’t arrested. Then, there’s Jordan’s description of a circumcised penis. For years, haters have been shoving down the throats of Jackson’s fans and supporters that his description matched (without answering why he wasn’t arrested on the spot if it did) but when the autopsy report came out showing an uncircumcised penis, thats when all hell broke lose on the Jackson-hater blogosphere! I’ve heard everything from an uncircumcised penis looks like a circumcised one when erect, to Jordan probably wasn’t even looking at it when he was masturbating Jackson. BULLSHIT! Jordan claimed to have bathed with Jackson on numerous occasions. I’m quite sure that he wasn’t in a constant state of arousal during that time, if it happened. Further, if he could point out exactly where the tell-tale splotches on MJ’s genitals were, why couldn’t he (being half-Jewish) indentify an uncircumcised penis?? Hello?!

    Even as far back as 1993, when the whole scandal broke, I can remember reading articles (and there weren’t that many) that questioned the tactics used by Sneddon, why Jackson wasn’t arrested if the photos matched Jordan’s description, why Jordan’s father didn’t immediately go to the police of he felt his son was being violated, etc. Yet, this bitch (excuse me) claims that the evidence was there in 1993, but because of the settlement, it didn’t go to trial. MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!! Again, using her logic, we should assume that every other person who has settled a civil lawsuit in regards to claims of neglience, whether physical or sexual, is guilty. LOL! I knew that blowhard, Bill O’Reilly, was guilty!

    Then, to add insult to injury, she tries to make Tom Mesereau seem like a self-hating groupie for the black race! This coming from the very person who claims on her website that she’d like to see black women become the “end-all, be-all” for the standard of beauty. (I’m not gonna lie; I would like to see that, too as a black woman myself) But this coming from a woman who dated a Jewish man?? That’s just like when Quincy Jones went on his tirade against Michael in an article where he claimed not to have known that Michael suffered from the skin disorder, Vitiligo, and that it was obvious that MJ “didn’t want to be black.” Quincy Jones has many children. And they are all every beautiful, especially his daughters. But not one, I repeat, not ONE is the result of a union with a black woman. So, Quincy, if you’re going to call someone out for not wanting to be black, you’d better be able to defend yourself when asked the same question.

    But the most important issue I have with Desiree is this: If she truly believes in heart that the research done on this website is full of inconsistencies, half-truths, lies, and is not salacious enough, why does she feel the need to frequent this site as much as she does? I’ve read through every article on her site. As a matter of fact, I did it in the span of one night (very avid reader, I am) and though some of her articles do raise good points, the majority of them read like well-researched tabloid junk. I call her the black Maureen Orth, since she places so much stock in every word written by Orth in regards to Jackson. (I wonder if she missed it when Jimmy Matasura and his father went on national t.v. to refute the claims written by Orth that he’d been molested by Jackson? Let me guess, she’ll probably say they were lying too, right? Sigh…..) Getting back to the subject at hand, if she feels that strongly in her own research about Jackson, why does she frequent sites dedicated to proving his innocence? She claims that Jackson fans can’t prove he didn’t molest children but in the same breath, claims that she can? How many of her comments have I read on this site where she goes out of her way to defend why those known to have a vendetta against Jackson were telling the truth, including those who were blatantly lying on the witness stand, sold stories to tabloids about witnessing molestation, but never reporting any of it to the police, calls Jackson fans all kinds of unnecessary names, etc. What’s the point of all that if you REALLY believe what you write is the truth?

    I often wonder how it feels for a person to carry so much hatred for a person that they will stop at nothing to tarnish them. Without regard for how their words (not matter how untrue and unsubstantiated they are) will affect this person’s children, their future. There are many people that I dislike (not to that degree) but their children have NOTHING to do with it. For example, does anyone remember Orth’s absurd, and HATEFUL diatribe against Jackson not even 16 hours after his death on Morning Joe? Even those who hated Jackson said she could’ve shown respect for his grieving family, in particular, his children. I wonder how she would’ve felt if Ariana Huffington had went on the same tirade after Tim Russert died.

    To the admins of this blog, I say this: Pay Desiree as much mind as dog crap on the sidewalk deserves. Stop over it, walk around it. But don’t step into it. When you pay attention to narcississtic(sp?) people such as herself, they feed off of it. They get off on it. Don’t give her the kind of power that she craves, as she already views herself as the foremost expert on Jackson anyway. Let her live in her fantasyland.

    Because, the end, that’s all she really has, and it’s truly pathetic.

    Like

  95. TatumMarie permalink
    March 29, 2011 5:28 am

    I can’t believe haters are still debating this topic. They are such idiots.

    Like

  96. March 28, 2011 4:42 pm

    “The grand jury indictment itself is usually drafted by the prosecutor and simply approved by the jury. If a grand jury fails to indict a suspect, a prosecutor may try to indict the suspect again, using a second grand jury, although this practice is uncommon.” http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-grand-jury-indictment.htm

    Ares, how very interesting! All information on the Grand jury there is so much to the point! The text says that trying to indict a suspect twice is uncommon but it was nevertheless done for Michael Jackson – though at different places (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara) and by two different prosecutors (Gil Garcetti and Tom Sneddon). This way they hoped they would squeeze the indictment from at least one of the Grand juries.

    I always said that each Michael’s supporter should be a bit of a legal expert!

    Like

  97. March 28, 2011 4:24 pm

    “Not only Chandler used May 1993 in his story as the onset of molestation but his first visit to Neverland was on February 1993. Chacon is not only a liar but a dumbhead. At the time (1993) I knew more than him about the story, it was all over the place with details. He could at least turn on his TV or read a newspaper to get his story straight.”

    Thetis, I agree. Ralph Chacon could have prepared for lying during his testimony better. The dates he gave for the alleged molestation of Jordan were in full contradiction with what Jordan had said about it.

    Well, it is the truth which is easy as you don’t have to adjust one thing to another and say it the way it is, and lying is difficult – so many things should be remembered right. No wonder discrepancies arise here and there…

    Stacy, yes, I remember that according to Jordan the whole thing started only in May 1993 – and this is the reason why I noticed that lie in Ralph Chacon’s testimony.

    Like

  98. stacy2 permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:58 pm

    I think it’s quite obvious that Sneddon had a very unhealthy obsession with Michael Jackson.

    Like

  99. ares permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:43 pm

    Can i make one question?
    So, we all know that appart from Jordie’s allegations Sneddon wasn’t able to find any other accuser. The thing is when Jordie and his family refused to cooperate with the authorities then why Sneddon kept looking and searching and then he send his finding to the Two Grand Juries? Why would he send them if he didn’t expect from them to do something with the things that he had found?

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-grand-jury-indictment.htm

    What Is a Grand Jury Indictment ?

    A grand jury indictment is a formal, written charge issued by a grand jury in a criminal case. Typically, the jury is charged with determining whether enough evidence exists to charge a suspect with a criminal offense. The jury usually consists of 12 average people who are randomly selected. The use of a grand jury indictment is intended to ensure that a prosecutor brings a case to trial only if there is probable cause to support the crime was committed by a suspect.

    Historically, a grand jury indictment was used for determining whether to bring criminal charges in a number of common law countries. For example, England, Australia, and Canada all used grand juries during the twentieth century. In modern times, grand jury indictments occur primarily in the United States. Only some of the states, however, still use these indictments in prosecuting crimes. Grand jury indictments are also used in the United States if federal charges are brought in a criminal case.

    By and large, grand juries decide whether enough evidence exists for a suspect to be taken to trial. Grand jury proceedings are usually required to be kept confidential. In most grand jury indictment proceedings, a prosecutor presents evidence in the form of witness testimony. As a general rule, the prosecutor can subpoena any potential witness to provide testimony without showing that the witness is likely to have relevant information about the crime. Certain types of witnesses, such as a spouse or the suspect’s criminal lawyer, can sometimes claim a specific privilege in order to avoid answering the prosecutor’s questions.

    Typically, the suspect and his or her criminal attorney are not present during the grand jury testimony. As a result, they usually do not have the opportunity to present any conflicting evidence. If a suspect wishes to testify, however, a prosecutor may permit the testimony.

    If the grand jury determines that the case may be brought to trial, they issue a “true bill” decision, and the suspect is formally charged with the alleged crime. A “no true bill” decision is issued when the jury decides insufficient evidence exists for a criminal trial. The grand jury indictment itself is usually drafted by the prosecutor and simply approved by the jury. If a grand jury fails to indict a suspect, a prosecutor may try to indict the suspect again, using a second grand jury, although this practice is uncommon.

    Like

  100. Stacy2 permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:37 pm

    According to Diane Dimond, Chacon passed 2 lie detector tests and told her that same story, as well as the Grand jury before the Neverland 5 lawsuit..LOL

    Why is she protecting these losers?

    Like

  101. March 28, 2011 3:34 pm

    @Maral, Sneddon knew Chacon was lying. His story was different than Jordan’s. He was worthless as a “witness” like all the rest.

    Like

  102. March 28, 2011 3:33 pm

    “Ralph Chacon claimed he saw MJ molest Jordie between late 1992 and early 1993”

    Not only Chandler used May 1993 in his story as the onset of molestation but his first visit to Neverland was on February 1993. Chacon is not only a liar but a dumbhead. I understand he needed some money so he had to come up with a story for the tabloids-the same old story-but this guy didn’t even know what he was talking about. At the time (1993) I knew more than him about the story, it was all over the place with details. He could at least turn on his TV or read a newspaper to get his story straight.

    Like

  103. Maral permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:31 pm

    The question is why MJ wasn’t arrested if they had an direct witness? Sneddon would jump on that opportunity 

    Like

  104. Stacy2 permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:25 pm

    @vindicatemj

    Ralph Chacon claimed he saw MJ molest Jordie between late 1992 and early 1993, but accoring to Jordie, molestation did not occur until May 1993, which totally contradicts Chacon’s testimony. You would think that if someone really saw something that horrific, they would be able to nail down the year of when it happened, but Chacon couldn’t do that. That’s the thing with these lying witnesses. They all had such clear memories of what they supposedly saw, yet couldn’t say when it happened.

    Like

  105. March 28, 2011 3:20 pm

    Thanks, David.

    A “grand” debunking in legal terms should put an end to this nonsensical delusion and propoganda of “if only Chandler testified, he would have gone to jail, but the pictures matched anyway…really”.

    May I tweak your headline to “Grand Jury-Prone to Indicting a Ham Sandwich-Refuses to Indict Michael Jackson”?

    Like

  106. shelly permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:12 pm

    There is a video on the Mjeol website with Spilbor and she said Sneddon could have ask for an indictment for what the Neverland 5 said because one of them said he was a direct witness of molestation.

    Like

  107. lcpledwards permalink
    March 28, 2011 2:39 pm

    @ MC
    I have asked Lisa the Lawyer to comment on this grand jury issue so that she can lend her expertise to the conversation, so we can all expect to hear from her soon. In the meantime, I’ll try my best to answer your question:

    I believe the government (i.e. the prosecution) could have have STILL asked for an indictment with our without the cooperation of the Chandlers, but they didn’t because they wanted to avoid the EMBARRASSING headline of “Grand Jury Refuses To Indict Michael Jackson”! That’s every prosecutor’s worst nightmare, especially in a high profile case, because it shows that your case is weak and unconvincing. Even if Jordan had testified, depending on how he performed under oath, and how believable he was, Sneddon still may not have asked for an indictment! Although that sounds unlikely, but who know?

    Even without the Chandler’s cooperation, if Sneddon and Garcetti thought that they had a chance to get an indictment, they would have asked for it! Their refusal to ASK for an indictment speaks volumes, and unfortunately for the last 17 years they’ve been able to use the settlement as an excuse for not getting an indictment.

    Like

  108. March 28, 2011 1:50 pm

    To put this persistent matter to rest, has anyone attempted to get the answer to the question of whether the government could proceed in seeking an indictment without the accuser’s cooperation before the grand jury? And, who calls for the disbandment of the grand jury?

    We know the grand jury’s duty is not to determine guilt but only if there is evidence of probable cause. According to the opposition, there were credible witnesses and ample documentation to support an indictment, if only they had been ASKED to consider one.

    It is clear that once the opposition parties are unable to discuss this failure on the DA’s part,
    they redirect and concentrate their efforts on demonizing Michael Jackson by pointing to all of his “weird” personality traits and abnormal “special interests”.

    How strange to think that people who KNOW he was “emotionally, physically, and sexually abused” as a child could have so much anger towards someone they feel sorry for, someone so “pathetic”. Why not let the anger go?? It’s healthy.

    Like

  109. March 28, 2011 11:09 am

    “i’ve always heard they were fired BEFORE jordi came into the picture”.

    @Maral, Ralph Chacon himself and all newspapers gave the date for those allegations as “late 1992 or early 1993”. Michael was on a Dangerous tour at that time and it was only after he came back in January 1993 that the Chandlers were invited to Neverland for the first time (according to Jordan’s declaration he went to Neverland some time in February 1993 and it was a totally innocent visit).

    Jordan then says that “things turned bad” only several months later when they allegedly took a bath together in Monaco in May 1993 when he “saw him naked for the first time”.

    So late 1992- early 1993 as the time of “molestation” mentioned by Ralph Chacon (and repeated by all newspapers) is simply out of the question as it was simply physically impossible. However playing the devil’s advocate I explained it to myself by Ralph Chacon remembering the dates incorrectly.

    BUT if it turns out that he was fired on February 1, 1993 then we have a hard and proven fact at our disposal that Ralph Chacon was telling a flat lie to the jury in 2005!

    This is what was reported about him “seeing” MJ and Jordan Chandler: http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-04-07-jackson-guard-testimony_x.htm

    “Jurors gaped at Jackson as the most lurid testimony so far in the 6-week-old trial came from a former security guard and a former maid at his Neverland Valley Ranch. They testified as the third and fourth of nine witnesses subpoenaed by prosecutors to allege that Jackson committed sex offenses years before he allegedly molested a 13-year-old boy in the current case.

    Jackson, 46, is charged with giving alcohol to the alleged victim, groping him four times at Neverland and conspiring to abduct and extort him and his family. Jackson says the family is lying to get money.

    Former guard Ralph Chacon testified that in late 1992 or early 1993 he saw Jackson naked with a boy of 9 or 10 in the toweling-off area of a shower room. Jackson was “caressing the boy’s hair,” Chacon said. He said Jackson “passionately” kissed the boy and performed oral sex, the witness said.

    That child’s parents sued Jackson in 1993, alleging molestation. Jackson settled the claim in 1994 for $20 million”.

    Like

  110. shelly permalink
    March 28, 2011 10:59 am

    @vindicate,

    I think you are mixing the Hayvenhurst 5, who were fired in February 1993, with the Neverland 5 who were fired in 1994. Chacon is one of the Neverland 5.

    Like

  111. lcpledwards permalink
    March 28, 2011 10:58 am

    @ Helena
    There were 2 sets of employees who filed lawsuits after claiming to be “wrongfully terminated”: The Hayvenhurst 5, and the Neverland 5.
    The Hayvenhurst 5 claimed to have been fired in Feb. 1993, but didn’t file their lawsuit until November 1993. The Neverland 5 claimed to be fired on August 1994, and they filed their lawsuit in December 1994.

    The Hayvenhurst 5 consist of Morris Williams, Leroy Thomas, Fred Hammond, Aaron White, and Donald Starkes. The Neverland 5 consist of Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Melanie Bagnall, Adrian McManus, and Sandy Domz.

    I will THOROUGHLY address these clowns in an upcoming post!

    Like

  112. Deborah Ffrench permalink
    March 28, 2011 10:56 am

    As concerning as so called haters irrationality is the apathy which exists in most of the public’s minds about Michael Jackson. People will argue with you point blank that Michael was an addict, and he was this or that. But direct them to this site and others, and they will say they are too busy to know more.

    Hate is dealable with, because it means the perpetrator of it is still invested. For me apathy, is by far the greater threat to vindication.

    Your work, however David, deserves commending, so thank you.

    Re: this question from Vindiatemj re the Hayvenhurst 5

    ” Lynette, the date when they were fired is top important. ”

    When Katherine Jackson and Jermaine appeared on Hardcopy in 1993, Katherine was already talking about the guards in the past tense so I think David’s link would be the date to go by.

    Like

  113. Maral permalink
    March 28, 2011 10:20 am

    i’ve always heard they were fired BEFORE jordi came into the picture

    Like

  114. Maral permalink
    March 28, 2011 10:13 am

    to be honest her letter sound like posts on youtube. you know haters spam on MJ videos.

    Like

  115. March 28, 2011 10:03 am

    “Oh and then they never get fired they all just stopped going to work on the same day August 31st 1994. They file for wrongful termination in December 1994.’

    Lynette, the date when they were fired is top important.
    Are you sure they were fired in August 1994? I am asking because the article provided by David says they were fired on February 1, 1993:

    “The guards, all fired Feb. 1, 1993, sued Jackson in November.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-09-16/local/me-39356_1_michael-jackson

    Ralph Chacon said in 2005 at a cross-examination that he worked at Neverland between 1991-1994, but this is what he said:
    3 Mr. Chacon, did you used to work at
    4 Neverland Valley Ranch?
    5 A. Yes, sir.
    6 Q. During what period of time?
    7 A. Between ‘91 and ‘94.

    We need to know for sure when he (and the rest) were fired from Neverland.

    If the Los Angeles Times get the date correctly and Ralph Chacon was indeed fired on February 1, 1993 then we have proof that he could never in his life see Jordan Chandler and Michael being in a shower together – because it was only in February 1993 that Jordan Chandler came to Neverland for the first time with his mother and sister Lily (and the “molestation” allegedly started many months later).

    How could Ralph Chacon see all those horrific pictures some time in January 1993 (before being fired) if Jordan wasn’t even there in January that year?

    Like

  116. shelly permalink
    March 28, 2011 9:59 am

    “He was right there with them at the Santa Maria Courthouse when they were talking to their lawyer.”

    When did that happened?

    Like

  117. March 28, 2011 9:29 am

    “All of Desiree’s fantasies come straight from that book. The book of a very stongly suspected P********. I guess that says it all right there for me. I have the book and until she comes up with something more than that or a tabloid story (which is her favorite reading) for a source her story is only a reflection of her. You do know that to write llike that she must first be able to think like that. Not a very pretty picture is it. I hope she doesn’t work around children or young people.”

    Lynette, EXACTLY!

    Like

  118. March 28, 2011 9:00 am

    “David can i ask you why did you include the first e-mail that she send you on the post? We know her thoughts on MJ, why do we have to read them also? I, as a person who don’t enjoy fantasizing or reading about a man having sex with a kid, like she obviously does, find it disgusting reading those kind of things man and i don’t see the need of it being on the post.” – Ares

    “The reason I included Desiree’s email, in all of it’s graphic form, is because I want people to see for themselves how she thinks and how she operates.” – David

    Ares, I know it is a shock to look into our adversary’s sick mind but agree with David that sometimes it might be a necessary thing to do. This person Desiree evidently didn’t expect his own e-mail to tell us more about him as a person than about Michael whom he is trying to smear beyond recognition (as he says he wants to).

    Why do I call Desiree him? Because after reading this e-mail I am sure that it is either a man or a woman with problems with her sexual identity. I don’t know a single woman in my surrounding who would ever think in terms of “penetration”, “anus scarred”, etc. especially in relations between man and boy – all this is totally beyond a normal woman’s scope of thinking!

    Seeing all this vocabulary repeated again and again – not with disgust but with evident relish – points not only to a man’s mentality but mentality of a pathological man who is utterly enjoying himself while talking about these things.

    From as much reading as I’ve done in the past year about ped-les (God bless my poor soul) I see that verbalization of all their fantasies is one of their means to satisfy their sexual desires. They cannot help talking about it – fantasizing and describing it outloud is the second best thing they enjoy after the “real thing”.

    This is why reading all those colorful details from D. makes me think that firstly, he is most probably a man, and secondly, that he is either sympathetic to boy lovers or a boy lover himself. By the way it is not at all unusual for people to unwittingly reveal their own true likings through what they say about others – this mechanism is called “self-identification” and is well-known among psychologists.

    Just imagine that simple reading all those words made you and everybody here SICK, while this person D. is writing them again and again everywhere he goes – so the whole boy lover thing is certainly an obsession with him and these words surely don’t hurt him the way they hurt us.

    I am horrified to learn that now this D. has started cultivating new forums and think we need to go there and explain to the shocked public who they are dealing with.

    Like

  119. March 28, 2011 4:50 am

    @Hana

    Not emancipated, but the details I have on him are that he’s not living with her and his name has legally been changed to Anton Jackson.

    Like

  120. hana permalink
    March 28, 2011 4:39 am

    Is it true that Gavin Arvizo emancipated himself from his mother?

    Like

  121. Suzy permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:34 am

    @ Lynette

    I think Blanca Francia was his source for the bit about Michael being circumcised.I think they thought that she would know because she cleaned Michaels room and they thought she would have walked in on him.

    Alternatively they might have just guessed. I have read the majority of American men are circumcised (regardless of they are Jewish or not), so it makes sense that if they would have to guess they’d say he was circumcised.

    Like

  122. nan permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:33 am

    Well frankly , i think there are some people who will argue the world is flat, no matter what the evidence is to the contrary..
    I loved the Bob Sanger clip…another person, on camera, attesting to what a kind decent person he was..
    There are so many youtube clips out there that show the true heart of the man…
    So much of his life is on tape…doing charity work etc…
    In all the years that people tried to say he was doing something wrong, set him up for cash etc, nobody ever had a taped phone conversation of him saying anything suspicious,( I did hear one where he was talking to Ryan White and he sounded like the sweetest and kindest person…)
    no pictures in the Enquirer of him doing anything wrong..( they had no problem tracking down John Edwards and his out of wedlock baby or O.J. Bruno Maglis or what ever..)
    The guards who supposedly watched these children be violated…but never once reported it to the police, or tried to stop what was happening…never thought to bring a camera but they thought to go to a tabloid.
    Imagine what a picture would have fetched of Mj out there cavorting with some child..
    Somebody tells you to get rid of a picture of a naked child , so you do ??
    Then you go and sell a story…??

    If these were people who were willing to enhance their stories to get more money from a tabloid , think what they could have done with a camera..But they didnt bring any evidence , just stories…
    When the F.B.I. investigated him for years , seems the only wrongdoing was on Mr Sneddons part.
    They wrote over and over on those file the word NOTHING..I dont think the agency is run by the MJ fan club…really…
    And J.Chandler did not expect his conversation with them to come out in the public light.
    There was no hysterics, no conversations saying ” how terrible he did this to someone else but I just cant get involved”
    you might think he would try and explain why he would not be willing to help bring a serial molestor who had moved on to cancer patients ….LOL
    but no , just that he did his part and would fight it all the way..( no doubt with the money he and his father scammed )…..because he knew if was someone else pulling the same scam..
    All they had was lurid fantasies , nothing more.
    Whoever this person is that keeps saying this stuff should either put up or shut up..
    Talk is cheap,
    I agree with Mr Sanders , that in a few years this garbage will all fall away, be but a footnote and Michael will be remembered for the truly generous man and musical genius he was.

    Like

  123. lynande51 permalink
    March 28, 2011 3:14 am

    Yes they were too afraid to go to the police because as we all know the NE can provide so much better protection. I forgot about him giving him money that’s hilarious.LOL. Birchim was supposedly (according to every book written about it)the one in the room that was poking and proding Michael with a ruler during the body search. Say what? What kind of person does that to another person? I mean what kind of person makes a Black man stand in the middle of a room and tells him to lift his penis and then goes at him with a ruler. It makes me want to puke. No wonder Michael referenced the KKK when he wrote that song about Sneddon.

    Like

  124. hana permalink
    March 28, 2011 2:57 am

    Who in the right mind would want to work for a man who they supposedly saw butt-naked in a bathroom giving oral sex to a little boy? I remember watching an interview with Roger Friedman where he said that Ralph Chacon was probably the most unbelievable witness he’s seen at the trial so far. He called his story “outrageous” and said that it sounded like something you would read in one of those cheap porn novels you buy at the grocery store. He talked about how Chacon quickly crumbled under cross examination and how jurors were seen rolling their eyes when he kept on saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember”. Isn’t it ironic how all these people have such clear memories of seeing MJ molest children, yet under cross examination, they suddenly develop a case of amnesia?

    As for Russ Birchim, He claimed on the witness stand that Chacon and Abdool told him in 1994 that they saw MJ have oral with Jordie Chandler but were too scared to come forward because they feared for their safety. I believe that’s a bunch of BS. They were too scared to go to the police, yet they were brave enough to go to the national enquirer? Birchmin has been a friend of Sneddon’s for over 30 years, and was one of the lead detectives for the 1993 case and has made no secret that he believes Michael Jackosn was a pedophile, so It would make sense why he would give testimony that would be hurtful to Jackson. It was also revealed during Chacon’s testimony, that Birchim had personally delivered money to him, which many people found quite odd. The guy was 100% pro-prosecution, which is why I don’t understand why the hell the defense called him as a witness. They should have known that he was going to blow up in their face.

    Like

  125. lcpledwards permalink
    March 28, 2011 2:13 am

    Wow! Part 4 has 85 comments in a little over 24 hours?!!! That must be a new record! I knew this part would really “touch a nerve” with people!! Ha ha ha!

    Like

  126. lynande51 permalink
    March 28, 2011 1:03 am

    Oh and then the really interesting part is that none of them say anything to the Grand Jury in April or May but Ralph Chacon meets with Detective Russ Birchim in June. This is when he says he saw Michael Perform o*** s** on Brett. That is when Sneddon and company immediately fly to Australia to “interview” Brett but because of his strong arm tactics the Barnes’ refuse. It is also here where that godforsaken nonsense about Michael Jackson fans and his personal security threatening everyones life if they talked, started.Oh and then they never get fired they all just stopped going to work on the same day August 31st 1994. They file for wrongful termination in December 1994. I don’t know about anyone else but if I suddenly stop going to work when I am supposed to they call that quitting not getting fired. The funny part abou that is that Michael married LMP May 24th 1994 in the Dominican Republic. They spent the first 3 months either at her house in Hollywood or their apartment in the Trump Tower in New York so how would Michael have even been aware of what was going on?

    Like

  127. lynande51 permalink
    March 28, 2011 12:51 am

    Yes that is true that people that read her blog and others like it try to distract and redirect what it is that we are writing about. For instance they don’t want anyone to know that in Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool’s testimony VG’s name comes up in all three. It seems he was right there with them in a room along with their lawyer and a man from Splash news by the name of Gary Smith. He was right there with them at the Santa Maria Courthouse when they were talking to their lawyer. Does that make any of their testimony truthful? Hell no it doesn’t.I would even question of they spelled their names correctly with those three and that man behind them.

    Like

  128. ares permalink
    March 27, 2011 11:34 pm

    @Teva
    I am not connecting any dot. For those who have read the facts from unbiased and sane sources the dots should’ve already been connected by now.MJ was innocent and those who claim othervise can go and … themselfs as far as i am conserned. Am just trying to point out through a rhetorical question the lies that those people have said that sometimes go unoticed and show,again, how much credible they are. That girl’s source is clearly Victor Gutieres so basically her whole “work” is based on lies and her twisted fantasy.

    Like

  129. Teva permalink
    March 27, 2011 11:02 pm

    @Ares,

    If the autopsy report said Michael Jackson was not circumcize then that is the definitive answer. What Jordan says, Guitterez says, or anybody else is inaccurate.

    I don’t really understand the dots you are connecting.

    Like

  130. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2011 10:51 pm

    I will do a post soon about that book and show people the connection between VG book and every salacious story out there. Yes it is in the book that Jordan says that they have to M********* differently because Brett is not circumcised and he and Michael were. We know where the lie came from and it came from VG. I think that he was helping and encouraging Evan Chandler to make the accusations in the first place. I think Blanca Francia was his source for the bit about Michael being circumcised.I think they thought that she would know because she cleaned Michaels room and they thought she would have walked in on him.Suffice it to say that if it had been a match of the description Sneddon could have and would have arrested Michael on the spot after the body search. He would not have needed any other evidence because that would have been the evidence right there.

    Like

  131. ares permalink
    March 27, 2011 10:05 pm

    @lynande51

    /The story of Brett comes directly out of the book MJWML. What he says happened was that Michael supposedly “confided ” in Jordan that he had also had sex with Brett.

    The interesting thing about it is that this is also where part of the description comes in because according to him Jordan said that Michaeltold him that Brett had to masturbate differently than THEY did because he was not circumcised. //

    Are these the exact words of the book? So according to Gutieres, Jordan told that he and MJ were both circumcised . According to VG Jordan knew what a cirumcised penis looked like since he was circucised. But then Victor how is it possible that both the police search and the forensics reseach after MJ death showed that Mike was not circumcised? Jordan knew how his circumcised penis looked like but how is it possible that he said that MJ’s thingi looked the same as his since Mike was not circumcised? Who is lying here? Victor, Jordie, both or i didn’t understand something right?

    Like

  132. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 10:00 pm

    i cant remember now bt if sum1 can clear it up for me it would be gd is it true the arvizos also tryed to extort michael right?

    Like

  133. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 8:23 pm

    i was just thinking. jodie said he like literally had sex with MJ right? i’m not an expert but wouldn’t they have been to prove THAT medically?

    Like

  134. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 7:44 pm

    @ Anna I totaly agree with u-

    Like

  135. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 7:19 pm

    I Actually think VG Is a peadofile just look at the way his imagination works it makes the reader feel as if the writer VG who wrote the book has had experience In Peadofile and peadofile tactics same with desiree she writes as if shes jolly abt what she says happend

    The Truth Of The Matter Is People Like D & VG Dont care about the so called victims or kids in general all they care about is making people belive michael is the bad guy monster by repeating false info and adding there sick imagination 2 it

    There is a pattern between Haters like D & VG And others They Always Make The Chandlers and other greedy families look like saints when the father evan didnt care about if he was molested or not just hw much buck he can make out of this dirty thought out of his head.

    Hmm i wondre what that says abt D & VG Defending people who says there kid got molested but were paid off they defend bad parents greedy parents. anyone whos looked in the past of evan and his family know jordie nor evan relationsip was never a loving well not after that whole scam in 93.

    Like

  136. Anna permalink
    March 27, 2011 7:12 pm

    @zeromarcy LOL, the game telephone comes to mind for some reason. I think our adversary is so gullible and desperate to find anything that will fit her agenda/beliefs that’s she’ll believe this friend of a friend of a friend.

    Like

  137. Anna permalink
    March 27, 2011 7:08 pm

    @lcpledwards

    I agree about not badgering Brett about this. He already came forward for the defense during the trial. He also defended Michael on television after the 93 accusations. There is really nothing more for him to say accept to continue denying it. There is always going to be someone like our adversary who doesn’t believe him, even wants it to be true that he was a victim or in D’s case a boy lover (which is really sick). It’s terribly frustrating and I get why everyone wants to put a stop to the madness. I think your way is best, to debunk the claims with the facts that are already on the record. That and expose D’s tactics which you have done. I really think this is the best way to handle it.

    Like

  138. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 6:55 pm

    @ares say what?

    Like

  139. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 6:54 pm

    a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend…..

    Like

  140. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 6:52 pm

    You should also use the posts she made here.

    Like

  141. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 6:50 pm

    I think you should post all the emails you have from her, if you have others. We really have to expose her.

    Like

  142. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2011 6:47 pm

    I don’t know if this will help but just in case anyone is wondering about it the things she says are anatomically impossible. Clearly she does not know anything about human anatomy. It just simply isn’t true unless you want me to describe in detail the workings of the human body can we just say that it is directly from the book MJWML more VG fantasy.

    Like

  143. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2011 5:51 pm

    The story of Brett comes directly out of the book MJWML. What he says happened was that Michael supposedly “confided ” in Jordan that he had also had sex with Brett. The interesting thing about it is that this is also where part of the description comes in because according to him Jordan said that Michaeltold him that Brett had to masturbate differently than THEY did because he was not circumcised. All of Desiree’s fantasies come straight from that book. The book of a very stongly suspected P********. I guess that says it all right there for me. I have the book and until she comes up with something more than that or a tabloid story (which is her favorite reading) for a source her story is only a reflection of her. You do know that to write llike that she must first be able to think like that. Not a very pretty picture is it. I hope she doesn’t work around children or young people.

    Like

  144. March 27, 2011 5:37 pm

    Ugh.

    In his statement Jordie wasn’t even sure if Michael or Brett/Wade was lying when he spoke about them. He claimed one of them was because Michael told him they also did sexual things, but he didn’t sound sure. But then he didn’t sound sure about a lot of things, anyone remember how many baths Jordie claimed they had together? ‘Cause Jordie didn’t.

    Exactly. Probably D’s “sources” don’t even exist, but even if they would it’s just ridiculous to think that some PR person of a musician who has allegedly worked with Michael at some point would know anything about his private life and who he was sleeping with.

    I know, I don’t even know why I’m bothering to debunk it. If someone told me this and said they had positive info that vindicated him from a “a sister’s friend’s PR of a musician”, I would also dismiss it.

    yet VG (and D.) likes to fantasize about it big time. What does that tell about THEM?

    That they were disappointed in the stories Jordie and Gavin told and needed to create even grander versions to satisfy their own desires.

    Like

  145. Suzy permalink
    March 27, 2011 5:29 pm

    @ rockonforever

    “Based on everything… if Michael was being so public about his sex life that even some musician (from a tour? studio?) knew which children he was having sex with… then the case would’ve been a walk in the park for Sneddon.”

    Exactly. Probably D’s “sources” don’t even exist, but even if they would it’s just ridiculous to think that some PR person of a musician who has allegedly worked with Michael at some point would know anything about his private life and who he was sleeping with.

    @ hana

    The interesting thing is that in neither of the cases there was a claim of penetration (of course, since that could have been more or less checkable in a medical way), yet VG (and D.) likes to fantasize about it big time. What does that tell about THEM?

    Like

  146. hana permalink
    March 27, 2011 5:20 pm

    @Truth Prevails

    VG mentions in his book that Brett had a threesome with both MJ and Jordie Chandler and that he and MJ had many sexual encounters together. He talked about the vaseline games they used to play with each other and how MJ would finger the boy and they would kiss on the mouth all the time..

    Like

  147. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 5:13 pm

    What did VG Actually say abt brett hope no1 minds tellin me i have seen sum expert from his crappy book and can tell its rubbish and false bt if sum1 can tell mre it would be appreciated.

    Like

  148. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 5:10 pm

    Plz lcpledwards Post the Conversation It Would Be Much Aprreciated lol desiree music freind might actually be simmons and he got debunked a while ago lol

    Like

  149. March 27, 2011 4:57 pm

    Based on everything… if Michael was being so public about his sex life that even some musician (from a tour? studio?) knew which children he was having sex with… then the case would’ve been a walk in the park for Sneddon.

    If he was a tour musician I wonder if he would explain the set up of hotels that the crew used on tour…

    Like

  150. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2011 4:39 pm

    I know that reading this is very disturbing to some people. I know I had difficulty with it when David first showed it to me. However once you get over the initial shock of what she says the blatant fabrications like her source read like six degrees of separation from Michael. She knows someone who knows someone that knew someone that doesn’t even say that they knew Michael just that they were in “the business”. The business of what gossip and innuendo? Please; most of the world is more intelligent than that. At least I know that we are, aren’t we?
    That said I can attack a couple of facts about the Grand Jury. One is that they do act as an investigative body only when they are investigating public officials for things like abuse of power. Second Sneddon called for an extension of the Grand Jury so it did continue and were asked to be available for recall if needed. When you are asked to sit on a Grand Jury you can be called at anytime in 18 months. Another interesting thing about a Grand Jury is that they do not go in every day. They may go in 1-2 days in a week and then be off for 2-3 weeks or so depending on the availability of the witnesses and evidence.
    I have never in all the things that I have read about Tom Sneddon thought that he was a stupid man that did not know how to do his job. He was in fact a very cunning, conniving and manipulative man with a definite agenda, that agenda being to bring down Michael Jackson. When you think of that remember how smart Tom Mesereau, Bob Sanger , Susan Yu and to begin with Brian Oxman were and how amazingly smart the jury was to see what was wrong with the prosecution’s evidence. It was not one thing it was the whole body of evidence that was rejected by them no matter what the hater would like to tell you. In the end they did not even consider Janet Arvizos testimony the only one they wanted read back was Gavin’s. What does that tell you?
    https://acrobat.com/#d=1NO79dHSB30Zz*jDtNIFdQ

    Like

  151. hana permalink
    March 27, 2011 4:30 pm

    @lcpledwards

    It would be nice if you could post the conversation. I would love to see Brett’s conversation. If not, than thats ok.

    Like

  152. Suzy permalink
    March 27, 2011 4:26 pm

    “A friend of a friend of a friend”

    Doesn’t that look trustworthy? LOL.

    Like

  153. March 27, 2011 4:13 pm

    “My sister is friends with a woman that knows the PR man of a musician that knew Michael”

    A friend of a friend of a friend

    lol many of us have better sources

    Like

  154. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 4:08 pm

    Interestingly, he also said that if Jordan Chandler were to die, he would NOT shed a tear! Interesting, but not surprising!

    very interesting. i feel sorry for these boys and in a way am proud of them. it could be so easy to say yes it’s true, but wade, brett, mac, omar and the others have had the integrity to stick with the truth.

    Like

  155. March 27, 2011 4:05 pm

    Don’t forget her sources!

    “My sister is friends with a woman that knows the PR man of a musician that knew Michael”

    I wish the sister’s friend who knows a PR man of a musician that knew Michael was available during the trial. Sneddon would have put her right through, most compelling witness of the lot.

    Coulda thrown in a seat for Gene Simmons too.

    Like

  156. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:50 pm

    Edwards,

    I think someone sjould try to at least contact Mesereau about that, I think he should kniw that.

    Like

  157. lcpledwards permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:40 pm

    @ Maral, Hana
    Yo, a frequent commenter on this blog, has already contacted Brett Barnes on FB, and he emailed me the conversation they had. As you would expect, Brett Barnes issued a blanket denial of everything that was said about him from VG and Desiree. It wasn’t a very substantive conversation because there wasn’t much for him to say! He gave the his best and most detailed interview to Mesereau when he was under direct examination for the defense, and that should suffice. There really isn’t a need to ask him further, because he will deny everything, as he should, because we already know they’re lying.

    As far as taking legal action, theoretically he could, but he probably figures it isn’t worth it. He knows that as MJ’s friend, he is always going to be talked about, and there will ALWAYS be people who want to say and believe that MJ abused him, and he can’t go around suing everyone that says so, the same way MJ couldn’t. (And we all know that MJ had much more money than the Barnes family!) When I read his replies, I could tell that he was used to those types of questions, and they didn’t phase him anymore.

    Interestingly, he also said that if Jordan Chandler were to die, he would NOT shed a tear! Interesting, but not surprising!

    Like

  158. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:36 pm

    Maybe we can ask Charles Thompson 2 do it he has managed to get interviews with alot of people

    Like

  159. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:28 pm

    hana can we plez contact them. i would do it but my english is crappy and can’t explain things. i believe he has to know.

    Like

  160. lcpledwards permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:26 pm

    Guys, I created a new category called “Fact Checking Michael Jacksons’s Haters”, and I included this series, and several others, so that it will be easy to find when doing a search of the blog.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/category/fact-checking-michael-jackson-haters/

    Like

  161. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:12 pm

    Lmao i would love it if she gave us a name because then CT Would jus investigate an expose his shit and expose desiree for the hack she is

    Like

  162. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:59 pm

    remember Gene Simmons also had a “source” but got busted by CT🙂

    Like

  163. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:52 pm

    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.

    Eww No1 asked abt your sex life keep that imaginary stuff in ure head GOSH!!!!

    And what she mean Michael would’ve hated that what she trying to apply

    And

    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.

    Give us a name She Cant because there is none just a imaginery Connection she wished she had.

    Like

  164. hana permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:51 pm

    Here’s Brett’s facebook:

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=538127306

    Here’s his sister Karlee’s facebook:

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/barnes.karlee

    Desiree is getting all these salacious tales about Brett from Jordie Chandler’s statements. She says that because Brett slept in the same bed with MJ at the age 19, that meant they were having gay sex, but what she failed to mention is that Michael’s 3 year old son Prince was also present in the room.

    Haters never cease to amaze me.

    Like

  165. lcpledwards permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:46 pm

    @ Maria
    Thank you for your comment. You’re welcome to comment on any post on this blog with whatever questions or comment that you have, but we politely ask that your question or comment be relevant to the particular post that it is being posted on. Your video “Michael Jackson With Children” would be more appropriate on the following post, which is about MJ’s love for children and his opposition to their sexual exploitation: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/michaels-clear-message-against-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/

    This particular post is about debunking the lunatics who say that MJ was guilty, and you’re comment is out of place here. If you like, you can repost your comment in that post above, and after you do so I’ll delete your comment here. Thanks!🙂

    Like

  166. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:45 pm

    @Maral it shoudnt really be that hard to get into contact with brett and even omair because this is serious claims she is making up abt them we will jus have to say there is sum1 going around that is claiming this and that abt u bt they myt jus shrugg it off cuz they prob hve busy schedules and dnt hve tym 2 respond to sum1 delusional that is making false claims abt them that is just upset that she ddint get the verdict she was hoping and is crying abt it 6 years later and to show shes a coward she did after he passed on very low human being.

    Like

  167. hana permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:41 pm

    Quote from Tom Mesaeru’s closing argument:

    “Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard a prosecutor get up and begin his closing argument with an attack on me. Whenever a prosecutor does that, you know they’re in trouble”

    Couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Like

  168. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:38 pm

    How did joy robson show she is a pimp on the stand plz sum1 respond?

    i think she meant by defending MJ on the stand. i find it funny that those who came and said NOTHING happend are being liars.

    And HOW THE HELL WOULD SHE KNOW BRETT USED VASELINE SHE IS FUCKED UP AND JUST MAKING UP WHAT SHE WISHED WAS GOING ON SO DISTURBING SUM1 SHULD GET INTO CONTACT WITH BRETT AND TELL HIM ABT THIS SLANDER

    i was thinking the same thing. i wish we could get Brett to make a comment about this

    Like

  169. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:21 pm

    And HOW THE HELL WOULD SHE KNOW BRETT USED VASELINE SHE IS F*CKED UP AND JUST MAKING UP WHAT SHE WISHED WAS GOING ON SO DISTURBING SUM1 SHULD GET INTO CONTACT WITH BRETT AND TELL HIM ABT THIS SLANDER

    Like

  170. March 27, 2011 2:19 pm

    OMG She is one discusting individual i got a sick feeling when i read this.

    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…

    How did joy robson show she is a pimp on the stand plz sum1 respond?

    Like

  171. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:17 pm

    @ Maral yes she is, and not only delusional …

    Like

  172. Maria permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:15 pm

    Michael Jackson was a gift from God. He was good, sweet and as the gentle as the angel. To see love:

    Like

  173. Truth Prevails permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:03 pm

    Hmm She Called Tom A Bastard and other profanity when she writes thats a big sign of someone lying because only a liar resorts to stuff like that especially when they are getting exposed sum1 who tells the truth doesent need 2 do that they be calm she claims she is not obsessed with michael yet she has dedacated so many posts abt him shes probaly a homo that has difficulty coming out and just accuses sum1 else cuz it makes her feel good inside shes indenial this is what i love cuz every hater lies and its always so easy to expose them the thing is desiree the more you lie and what u mke up in your sick head of yours the easier it is to debunk them.

    Like

  174. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:00 pm

    I wonder what she thinks of Feldman, because according to her the settlement was illegal. We have to believe that Feldman, the 3 retiref judges who help them to write the settlement, the judge who agreed woth it were in fact all working for MJ and Kris Kallman was talking out of his ass when he said it was legal. Kallman is Jason Francia’s lawyer.

    Like

  175. March 27, 2011 1:36 pm

    So there you have it: The prosecutor did not ask for an indictment to to make “findings” due Chandler’s refusal to testify.

    Why did they NEED his verbal testimony to ask for an indictment?

    Undoubtedly, putting the “victim” on the stand to testify is ideal for the prosecution, but WHAT would preclude them from asking for an indictment based on all of the entered “evidence” the grand jury presumably had to consider: Chandler’s declaration, psychiatic evaluations, “matching” genitalia photos, the father’s account of his son’s admission of sexual contact, witness testimony, etc.?

    Certainly, the prosecutors would offer the grand juries a very legitimate, reasonable explanation for the “victim’s” unwillingness to testify given the extremely sensitive, private “ordeal”.

    David,
    D’s shots at your IQ sound like veiled, silly intimidation tactics. I hope you’re laughing about it!

    Like

  176. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:35 pm

    @zeromarcy
    yeh …… well she seems to be.

    Like

  177. Maria permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:27 pm

    Michael Jackson loved children.

    Like

  178. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:21 pm

    @ Maral do u mean that we can say she is delusional ??

    Like

  179. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:01 pm

    @zeromarcy

    i hand to chuckle reading that. let see, she’s not a lawyer so she don’t know more then say…. sneddon the snake, has no witness or documents, wasn’t there. YET, SHE can do a better job the sneddon and zonen, says she have “sources” and brings up the semen crap? can we say delusional much?

    Like

  180. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:46 pm

    @ suzy omfg

    “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.”
    and then “He has molested boys.”
    1) she can not proves….but she sure he did….hahahahah please tell me she is a comic actress😀
    2)I think that even Sneddon would laugh so hard reading that she thinks she would do better than him hahahahah
    ———
    Desieree I KNOW u’ll read my comments….but i do not care😀

    Like

  181. Maral permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:44 pm

    i must say something. i am one of those who believed he was guilty. like this foolish girl i used to not think rationally. for example if i would have read about the pants and the semen two years ago i would taken her and all the other haters words as the bible. but that was because the other side was not presented to me. for example i never knew he settling civil case had NOTHING to do with the criminal. and i never knew that his bedroom was basically a suite. nor did i know about all the lies that were exposed during cross-examination. my point is a post like this, a blog like this is needed. i know there have to be people on the fence out there who are too young or naive to not fall for haters “evidence”.

    Like

  182. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:13 pm

    She wished he was her father.

    Like

  183. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 11:43 am

    @shelly Father of whom?

    btw she is crazy….and we can see that from the fact that she hates Michael but she wehemently talks about him everywhere-

    Like

  184. lcpledwards permalink
    March 27, 2011 9:23 am

    @ Ares
    That’s a good question, so let me answer it. The reason I included Desiree’s email, in all of it’s graphic form, is because I want people to see for themselves how she thinks and how she operates. There are less knowledgeable fans who have been duped by some of her posts, mainly the ones stating that MJ had gay lovers at Neverland, due to how she manipulated all of the facts by using 1+1=3 logic (i.e. jumping to erroneous conclusions). We received numerous emails from people asking if what she said was true, and asking us to write a rebuttal, and that is why Helena and Lynette wrote their rebuttals several weeks ago.

    I’m sorry that you were offended by what she wrote, but when you think about it, since it offended you so much, that should give Desiree even LESS credibility in your eyes, right? That’s the effect that I want her email to have on everybody! Hopefully, this will indeed be the last time that I have to address Desiree! I don’t plan on doing any more posts about her, the MJ Facts Info site, or any other hater’s site, because usually their “research” is so awful and laughable that it doesn’t even warrant a rebuttal! But after I read those updates that they added, and after receiving those emails complaining about Desiree, and seeing fans discuss her blog in forums, and now seeing Desiree herself posting links to her blog in forums, I wanted to do this post in order to destroy their credibility once and for all! Not only did she say those horrible things about MJ, but she had the audacity to call Mesereau a “black apologist”? Give me a break!

    Also, someone asked me about the appropriateness of posting her emails, but we have already warned Desiree that any email she sends is fair game, and there are no secrets here at Vindicate MJ. We can and will post anything that she sends us! And when you think about it, her email didn’t include anything that she hasn’t already said on her blog, so it’s not like I’m revealing some unknown info about her. Besides, her email included a comment of hers that was blocked, so by posting it I actually did her a favor!

    Like

  185. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 9:09 am

    @zero,

    Last year she even said she wished he was his father.

    Like

  186. zeromarcy permalink
    March 27, 2011 8:40 am

    This woman is “crazy”….she even thinks that she would do BETTER than sneddon??
    Than she sadi she believe he was…a p……e then she add she has no proofs and she still says he was a criminal…..
    How logical…..

    Like

  187. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 8:28 am

    By the way, did someone asked Lisa about the role of the grand jury?

    Like

  188. Anna permalink
    March 27, 2011 4:15 am

    Excellent work David. It’s interesting how our adversary calls Tom Mesereau a liar is she going to say all those media outlets were reporting incorrect information about why there was no indictment issued? Is she really implying that there wasn’t a possibility to issue an indictment eventually even after an ongoing investigation was completed? Wow!

    Like

  189. Anna permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:58 am

    @Suzy

    I agree it makes no sense. Since the police investigation of MJ ended without charges filed we can only determine that they could not establish probable cause that a crime had been committed. I don’t know all the details about what Sneddon presented to these grand juries but I can only guess that the purpose of them involved was to establish probable cause to either continue investigation or issue an indictment. Although I’m not sure if an indictment could be issued without a formal charge? I’m not a legal expert but I guessing the point of the grand juries was to keep the investigation ongoing. I tried finding a few sources on the matter. I wonder if Lisa the Lawyer could help make more sense of grand jury proceedings but from what I’m reading our adversary has even less of a clue about this than we do.

    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_issues_for_consumers/criminal_law/probablecause_whatis.html

    http://www.abanow.org/2010/03/faqs-about-the-grand-jury-system/

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.010

    Like

  190. hana permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:30 am

    @rockforeveron

    That’s the same thing Zonen mentioned in his closing argument. He said that MJ and Brett were in a sexual relationship and that Michael loved the boy like man would love his wife..These people are seriously sick in the head and need some serious mental evaluation.

    Like

  191. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 3:11 am

    “Heh. A timeline of all the events/what was said in 1993-1994 would be interesting.”

    Article about the Santa barbara Grand jury being disbanded

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=e0lWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KesDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2669,9502&dq=santa+barbara+grand+jury+disbanded&hl=en

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ONNRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ym8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6921,3979653&dq=michael+jackson&hl=en

    Like

  192. March 27, 2011 3:01 am

    I agree about exposing them. They front as if this is about Michael being a ped-ile and harming children, yet they write this? That brutally anally raping a child so badly they were scarred is “loving and affectionate” and “felt good” whilst discussing her own sex life and then cracking jokes about it? It is pathological, she places her own self and sex life into the same context. Beyond warped.

    I love that part. Sneddon was lying when he said in September 1994 that Jordan told them only in July that he refused to testify.
    The Santa Barbara Grand Jury was disbanded in May 1994

    Heh. A timeline of all the events/what was said in 1993-1994 would be interesting.

    Like

  193. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 2:56 am

    “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.”

    I love that part. Sneddon was lying when he said in September 1994 that Jordan told them only in July that he refused to testify.
    The Santa Barbara Grand Jury was disbanded in May 1994

    Like

  194. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:47 am

    @ares,

    I understand your point but she is poisoning others forum and her crazyness has to be exposed. I really believe that lcpledwards was right to do that.

    Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t try to contact Barnes, Mesereau and the others about that. It’s not someone who just believe MJ was guilty, she loved to write stuff about kids being molested and she is slandering them.

    @rockerforeveron.

    Most of the posters on Imdb are good people, it’s not a hater websiste like Topix. There are few nutcases, but most of them are only positive people.

    Like

  195. shelly permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:31 am

    Her user name is Jessicatwins

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/board/thread/175153516?p=24&d=180262645#180262645

    Like

  196. Carm permalink
    March 27, 2011 1:27 am

    I believe Desiree is pathological:
    “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!!!’.” Very scary.
    She also knows nothing of the trauma of child abuse and lacks empathy:
    ” 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.”
    She sounds obsessed to the point of having no perspective, filled with hate and dangerous. Be careful.

    Like

  197. Teva permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:34 am

    Hi David,

    I think D has a crush and fascination with you. I find it very victorian.

    Like

  198. ares permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:18 am

    David can i ask you why did you include the first e-mail that she send you on the post? We know her thoughts on MJ, why do we have to read them also? I, as a person who don’t enjoy fantasizing or reading about a man having sex with a kid, like she obviously does, find it disgusting reading those kind of things man and i don’t see the need of it being on the post.I think those kind of fiction should stay in her blod and should’t be posted in a MJ blog.Is it possible to remove it man and not post this kind of things again? They made me sick man.
    Secondly,you have refuted that bitch over and over and over again. She is going to believe that MJ was a child molester till the end of time. Her worthless opinion and biased sources are for people who believe that MJ was guilty so there is nothing we can do. Oh wait we can.Buy her that sex toy that her/his boyfriend didn’t use so she can f*ck herself with it because obviously even her/his boyfriend prefers his hand over him/her.That should tell us something.

    MJ has the truth with his side man.She is just a crazy bitch who only f*ck up people are going to take her seriously. Don’t give her so much attention,she doesn’t deserve it.

    Like

  199. lynande51 permalink
    March 27, 2011 12:05 am

    Where are her posts or comments on IMDB?

    Like

  200. March 26, 2011 11:52 pm

    It was the same source she claims told her about Omer and Frank.

    She originates from Topix, so IMDB is a good place for her, they all think the same over there. Obsessed with pedophilia, homosexuality and race. They repeat the same concepts back to each other back and forth.

    Like

  201. hana permalink
    March 26, 2011 11:49 pm

    When the Neverland 5 were questioned by the grand jury in 1994, they all stated that they never saw anything inapproriate at Neverland, which is wby no criminal charges were ever filed. It wasn’t until AFTER they were terminated that they all of sudden remembered seeing MJ molest children. Diane Dimond mentions in her book that both Ralph Chacon and Kassim Abdool took lie detector tests and passed with flying colors..We all know that’s BS because otherwise it would have definietly ben presented as evidence. She also mentioned that Chacon told the same story he told on the stand at the grand jury but that’s BS because Chacon admitted himself that he did not tell that story to the grand jury. Here’s part of his cross:

    ————————————————–

    MESAERU: Okay. By the way, when you went to the

    Santa Barbara Grand Jury, you didn’t tell them

    everything you said today, did you?

    CHACON: Yes, sir.

    MESAERU: Everything?

    CHACON: Yes, sir.

    MESERAU: Did you tell them everything you’ve told Mr.

    Sneddon?

    CHACON: Well, that one incident that I recalled I

    didn’t. I didn’t bring that up, no, sir.

    ——————————————————–

    It is also interesting to note that Mesaeru got Chacon to admit that he had recently met with Sneddon just 2 days before his testimony and told him that he had new inormation about MJ molesting boys that he forgot to mention in 1993:

    ——————————————-

    MESAERU: Would you agree that with each interview you do, you add more lurid facts about Mr. Jackson?

    CHACON: No sir

    MESAERU: But you would agree that your story about what you claim he did has changed through the years, has it not?

    CHACON: No sir

    MESAERU: Didn’t you just meet with Mr. Sneddon the other day?

    CHACON: Yes sir

    MESAERU: Didn’t you tell Mr. Sneddon that you had new facts about Mr. Jackson allegedly molesting young men?

    SNEDDON: Well wiat a minutes, I’m going to object to that question because it’s not in good faith as regards to the–I can’t do it without a speaking onjection, but if we can approach the bench because this is not right.

    JUDGE: Overruled. The question was, did you tell Mr. Sneddon that you had new facts?

    CHACON: Yes I did

    MESAERU: You told Mr. Sneddon that they’re were certain things that you forgot to say in 1993 about Mr. Jackson alledgly molesting young men, true?

    CHACON: Yes sir

    MESAERU: But now you remember them in 2005, right?

    CHACON: Vaguely yes.

    ——————————————–

    The “new” information Chacon told Sneddon was seeing MJ perforom oral sex on a young boy in a bathroom. A story he drafted from reading Victor Guiterezz’s book “Michael Jackson was my lover”.

    I think Al Sharpton said it best: “There wasn’t nothing strange about Michael Jackson. It was strange what he had to deal with”.

    Like

  202. Maral permalink
    March 26, 2011 11:48 pm

    Unfortunately, she started to post her crap on imdb.

    i wish we could shut her for good. for all we know all these hater sites could have one person behind them

    Like

  203. shelly permalink
    March 26, 2011 11:47 pm

    By the way didn’t she have a source who told her he was f*cking Grace?

    Like

  204. shelly permalink
    March 26, 2011 11:43 pm

    Unfortunately, she started to post her crap on imdb.

    Like

  205. Maral permalink
    March 26, 2011 11:40 pm

    haaaa what a delusional woman. that email was ……i better not say what i want to say.
    first of all how the hell would she know those stuff about Brett, Wade, Frank and Omar? you got to be retarded to think ALL of these young men are laying except the three “brave” boys gavin jordie and the young “pastor”. GMAFB!

    and TMez? she’s claiming a lawyer would risk getting sued by laying and “hiding or overseeing evidence”? sorry but her beloved church-going father of 9 was the one who falsified evidence. he was once busted having pore innocent gavin touch the magazine BEFORE a fingerprint test.

    Like

  206. March 26, 2011 11:18 pm

    I cannot believe she sent you this email in the belief that this would convince you about Michael’s perversions and not her own. This woman is sick. Her own sex life, the anal rape of children seen as something loving, collecting photos of a man she believes is a pedophile with his victims, her obsession with his penis, her obsession with him and homosexuality, referring to his molestation of children as them being “gay lovers“..

    All of it is just disgusting.

    I’m certain if you’d asked her the right questions she would have become even more and more explicit. This sounds exciting for her, like she just lives to share these details.

    And the smarmy way she constantly refers to you with the character of a gay man… this is fantasy fulfillment.

    About “Investigative” Grand Juries…

    or to make “findings.”

    This makes no sense. Aren’t they obliged to make findings?

    Like

  207. lynande51 permalink
    March 26, 2011 10:51 pm

    Quite possibly she says that Ron Zonen spoke to a reader and a source for her blog. The one way to find out if this were true would be to contact Ron Zonen and ask if he is talking about the Michael Jackson case to random people. He is still in the SBDA’s office so it will be easy to ask him.

    Like

  208. Suzy permalink
    March 26, 2011 10:25 pm

    What this hater claimed never made any sense. What would be the purpose of an investigative jury that couldn’t indict no matter what? Just to spend time and tax payer money? They didn’t indict because the prosecution didn’t ask them to. And the prosecution didn’t ask them to because even they knew they had no evidence.

    Like

  209. March 26, 2011 9:46 pm

    No comments for the projective e-mail

    In order for a settlement to be reached both parties have to withdraw claims.

    The 1994 grand jurors were interviewed again in 2005 for News Press and they said the same.

    Just for the record, I actually watched that CNN Showbiz show

    Like

Trackbacks

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: