Skip to content

Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 1 of 3

August 8, 2011

A few weeks ago, I posted an article that refuted conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart’s ridiculous notion that the “liberal” media coddled Michael Jackson during his life, and that “real” conservatives shouldn’t like or support Michael Jackson. One of the best pieces of evidence to support my rebuttal was the overwhelming support for MJ given by Breitbart’s mentor, conservative commentator Matt Drudge!  How ironic!

In that post, I included several clips of four episodes of his then-weekly radio show, but in this post I have included the complete transcript and analysis for each episode, and you’re gonna jump out of your seat and do backflips when you hear the totality of what Drudge had to say!

The Matt Drudge Show: February 27th, 2005

The February 27th, 2005 episode starts at the beginning, and the March 6, 2005 episode begins at 5:34:

There’s a heck of a story coming out tomorrow, Day 1 of the Michael Jackson trial, and before you roll your eyes1, they may put this guy away for the rest of his life, and I know that’s funny, I know that’s clever, I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!2 What happens if this case turns out to be completely bogus? Completely! What do you then do to the prosecutor? What do you then do to all these reporters? These Diane Dimonds? What do you do to them? If they have been pushing false information out there to such a degree, to besmirch in such a way, we’ll take that once the case falls apart, if it falls apart, but there’s an interesting story here coming soon on the Smoking Gun, and you know they’re trouble, they’ve been releasing all these documents. There’s no document they haven’t seen. They are going to allege in the morning, I’ve been told, that Michael Jackson’s accuser, who’s 15 years old, claims he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does!

He told detectives that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson. I don’t know how it ever got to this point. We’re not even supposed to name him, right? Did I get the memo here at Clear Channel? That we’re not supposed to name him? OK, we’ll be good. I’ll name him on the Drudge Report, I’ve got no shame! If you’ve got enough courage to go out there and start pointing fingers, and you can say “Well Drudge, it’s not fair”, alright I’ve already shown a picture of the mother, who’s now calling herself “Janet Jackson” because she married a guy named Jackson, we’ve already shown her face, and this boy already gave this interview with Bashir on ABC that was beamed on Channel 4 in Britain and ABC here, and how many times has Bashir shown the clip? Bashir must go to bed reciting Michael Jackson lyrics. This Bashir is going to be the first witness for Sneddon as these opening arguments go tomorrow. But it turns out that this innocent lamb told detectives that he knew more about sex than Michael Jackson does! This surprising appraisal from the boy, who is now 15 years old, came during a January 2004 interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, and they recorded it. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.”3  At least that’s what the claim is. (At this point, Drudge starts laughing to himself.)

Oh, that testimony is going to be beautiful. That testimony is going to be something else. And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody. Not in some room with a little camera, Sneddon, but in front of the court, in front of the jury, in front of Michael Jackson himself! If you’re gonna put this guy away for the rest of his life, you’re accuser ought to have to face you. And that’s exactly what the judge has ordered here.4  Coming soon to an E! Channel reenactment near you. Have they done the casting on that? Maybe Corey Feldman could play the 15 year old abused boy. Corey needs work, right? Ridiculous, this whole thing. Well, it starts tomorrow, the curtain opens. Day 1 of the circus of the court, opening arguments, and they’re really going after this mother, how she said she wasn’t abused, and how she said she was abused  in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.5

But the prosecutors say “Well, what does this have to do with the boy being molested by Michael Jackson? You can say whatever you want about the mother, or the brother, or brother’s mother, or the sister, or the bank accounts, or the cancer, or the question mark.” And I will give it to Michael Jackson’s attorney Mesereau, he’s gonna get down there and he’s gonna ask for the blood cell counts of the boy! It’s gonna get that nasty! I guess there’s a fine line, and you can’t turn off the jury too much.  Maybe they’ll do nothing. Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.6  It’s gonna be fun to watch.  So The Smoking Gun, in an interview with the boy, who says that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does! How about that! I don’t know how they ever got to that point. That is very curious. You put it in here, you put it in there, and you do this, and you do that, the birds and the bees, up there at Neverland.

Analysis:

1. “Before you roll your eyes:  I think that the reason that Drudge starts off his commentary on MJ like this is because, as a conservative commentator, the vast majority of his target audience already had negative feelings towards MJ, and had prematurely convicted him based not only on the sensationalist media coverage, but on their own prejudices as well.  But I’m glad that Drudge decided to at least entertain the possibility that MJ could be innocent, which was something that many of his peers in talk radio obviously didn’t do.

As further proof of the fact that the vast majority of Drudge’s conservative audience thought MJ was guilty, here is Geraldo Rivera describing the amount of hate mail that he received for supporting Michael, and how it was second only to the hate mail that he received for supporting immigration reform!

I know this is totally off-topic, but if you want to see how passionate the argument over immigration can go, here is a heated argument that Geraldo had with Bill O’Reilly over Geraldo’s assertion that O’Reilly was covering a drunk driving case where there was a fatality strictly because it the driver was an illegal alien!

2. “I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!” Drudge is obviously alluding to the general public’s desire to want to see MJ go to jail, strictly for their own pleasure, and the media’s desire to play into this public desire.  Unfortunately, lynchings were a tragic component of life for Black Americans, primarily those that lived in the south.  Many black men were falsely accused of committing “immoral” crimes such as looking at a white woman, or talking back to a white man, and oftentimes their names and faces were posted in the local newspaper, which typically added fuel to the racial fire by sensationalizing the accusation, and lynch mobs would form and hunt down and kill their victim.

The media continues to do this to this day, although in a more high tech fashion.  For example, here is an article that was written on Feb. 20th, 2003, at the height of the Bashir documentary backlash against MJ.  It is titled “The Lynching of Michael Jackson”, and the author blasted Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. He states that O’reilly’s “vicious, nonstop attacks on Michael Jackson have come to fruition in the massively frenzied media lynching of the once-innocent, now-trampled persona of the little boy who led the Jackson Five”.  He then goes on to state that “Perhaps the networks should spend as much time documenting proven pedophiles instead of “suspected” ones. That way they would less apt to be accused, as I am accusing them, of being nothing better than the Hitlers or Milosevics of this world who piled those they hated into mass graves much as the broadcast industry kills the reputations of celebrities gone off beam.”

3. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.” Drudge is referring to one of the many blatant lies that the detectives enabled during the prosecution of MJ.  One of the funniest and most incredible (as in NOT credible!) lies that Gavin told was related to one of these “birds and the bees” talks that he claimed to have had with MJ.  Gavin said that MJ told him that if he didn’t masturbate, he would “get to a level where he might rape a girl”. The ironic thing about this lie is that Gavin first stated it while on the witness stand during his cross-examination! He never said this to the investigators or the grand jury, and Sgt. Robel was utterly STUNNED when he heard this claim! In fact, Gavin told Sgt. Robel that it was his GRANDMOTHER who said this to him, and when he was caught in his lie, he said that MJ also said it to him. Talk about a coincidence, eh?   For a more detailed look at this lie (and many others), read this post.

4. “And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody.” Sneddon, being the coward that he is, filed a motion (called “PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”) to have the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo closed to the public, meaning that an audio-only feed be provided to an overflow courtroom that is open to the public.  Here is an excerpt:

This motion requires little argument. It is unquestionable that this trial, perhaps more than any other in the annals of jurisprudence, justifies the closure of the courtroom to the public during the testimony of child witnesses. The harm presented to these children by public presentation of their trial testimony would be immeasurable. Even before trial has begun, these child witnesses have been forced to move their home twice, change schools and even change their names because of the adversity presented by media attention. They have been the subject of hounding and surveillance by reporters.  They have been publicly humiliated and defamed in the international press.

Cry me a freakin’ river! Sneddon wants to “protect their privacy”, but he had nooooooo problem having them testify in front of the grand jury!  Fortunately, the defense immediately submitted a rebuttal titled “OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTIONS’S MOTION TO CLOSE FROM THE PULIC THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES”. Here it is in its ENTIRETY!:

Mr. Jackson vigorously opposes this Motion for the following reasons:

First, the Prosecution seeks to deny Mr. Jackson of his right to a public trial in which he is entitled to confront his accusers through lawful cross-examination. This is wrong.

These accusers are not little children. They are in their mid-teens. They have testified previously on more than one occasion. Not only did they testify before the Grand Jury, but also testified under oath in depositions during the J.C. Penney case. In that civil case, the older teenage accuser, i.e., John Doe, was caught in a parking lot after shoplifting. After being caught, his mother falsely alleged that she was sexually abused by the store security guards. John Doe testified under oath that seeing his mother “abused” was worse than his cancer.

These two teenage accusers have received acting training in Los Angeles and performed in public. They are not the “innocent little lambs” the Prosecution portrays them to be.

Second, other teenagers will come before this Court and testify about the abominations committed by these accusers. Their testimony will demonstrate that these teenage accusers are neither fragile nor sensitive, but that, rather, they are seasoned perpetrators. With all of the teenagers who will be testifying before this Court, the act of singling out these accusers with their sorted background for special treatment is unfair.

Third, Mr. Jackson not only seeks an acquittal in this case, but also vindication in a public trial. Our federal and state Constitutions guarantee the accused of his due process right to a fair trial before the public.

The recent “leak” of the Grand Jury transcripts is evidence of this unfortunate reality. The Prosecution says that “the international media attention focused upon this case will reach historic proportions” and that this case may be “the most reported criminal trial to occur in our lifetimes.” This proclamation is instructive. The “leak” has unquestionably inflamed the international community and poisoned the jury pool.

The vast majority of the people in our local and. international communities still does not know how the grand jury proceeding in this case took place. They do not know that the Prosecution, in essence, had a “field day,” in that they were able to do whatever they wanted. There was no defense lawyer or judge. No independent body was present to monitor and control any irregularities in the proceeding. It was a purely one-sided and unfair proceeding in which Mr. Jackson was not able to confront and cross-examine his accusers.

With the power of the Prosecution, the power of the Police and the power of those affiliated with and operating under these governmental bodies, one must ask himself or herself whether Mr. Jackson can ever obtain a fair trial.

Fourth, the real victim in this case is Mr. Jackson.

Over the years, Mr. Jackson has had to suffer and endure the pain of being falsely accused of the crimes he did not commit. He has had to bear treacherous accusations and undergo the horror of the Government’s invasion of his privacy, dignity, and integrity. No one will ever understand and appreciate the gravity of the harm the Government has inflicted upon Mr. Jackson unless and until he, too, has been a victim of the Government’s domination, abomination, brutality and abuse of power.

Remarkably, the Prosecution now says the two teenage accusers must be “protected” from the public. The assumption is that these two accusers are ‘•vulnerable,” “delicate” and “sensitive.” The irony of this plea, however, is that the two accusers are, in fact, seasoned con-artists, well-trained by those more experienced at doing what they are best at doing, i.e., lying.

More interestingly, the plea is coupled with a suggestion that the public and media may hear the testimony of these accusers through an audio/ visual feed. One must only conclude that such a request is, at best, disingenuous. How is it possible to “protect” these teenage accusers from the public when the public will hear everything they will say? The Motion is utterly unmeritorious.

Mr. Jackson is entitled to a public trial under the United States Constitution and California Constitution. He is entitled to confront and cross-examine his accusers, teenagers and adults alike, as well as to be vindicated in a public trial. Anything to the contrary will result in a total miscarriage of justice.

Mr. Jackson respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and Order the testimony of these two teenage accusers take place in a public trial.

Way to go, Mesereau!  I couldn’t have said it better myself. He is 100% correct on everything he mentioned. I’m glad that he repeatedly invoked MJ’s constitutional rights, because those rights were designed to protect the accused from being railroaded to jail. The most pertinent right that is applicable to this situation is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.

In fact, Michael wanted to confront Gavin even BEFORE the trial! In an interview with journalist Charles Thomson, MJ’s former manager Dieter Wiesner said the following about MJ’s reaction to finding out his accuser was Gavin:

Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson decided to fight.

“You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”

I know you guys are probably asking yourselves “What did the media have to say about the possibility of Gavin testifying in private?” Well, it depends on which media entity you look at. The big networks (NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, USA Today, etc.) filed a motion to oppose Sneddon’s request based on their First Amendment “rights”, as well as the lack of any observable benefits to having them testify in private. Here’s an excerpt:

The District Attorney seeks to close the courtroom during the testimony of the alleged victim and his brother apparently to protect their anonymity and respective reputations. The District Attorney concedes, however, that the identities of both minors are widely known to the public. And the closure sought by the District Attorney would do nothing to mask either the identity or the substance of the witnesses’ testimony, given the District Attorney’s “suggestion that the interest of the media and the public can be served by an audio-only feed provided to an overflow courtroom during the testimony of these two witnesses.” There are no benefit created by eliminating the public’s ability to observe the proceedings, and thus the strict standards promoting openness under the First Amendment and California law dictate that the testimony of both of these witnesses must be held in open court.

One thing you’ll notice if you read the entire 13-page document is that there is no mention whatsoever of MJ’s rights to confront his accuser in court; its merely a regurgitation of their rights to cover the trial and report on it. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, considering that they tried desperately to have the trial televised!

Fortunately, there were some members of the media who were fair to MJ throughout the trial, and one of them is a true legal analyst who I have already praised in an earlier post named Jonna Spilbor.  She wrote an article titled “When The Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson”.  Here’s an excerpt:

As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some circumstances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.

Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness[‘s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.

First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)

Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.

Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.

Under the circumstances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.

The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.

I could have lied to you guys and told you that those were Mesereau’s words, and you guys would have believed me! That’s how strong and factual Spilbor’s support was for MJ in 2005. Her articles were amazing, and I compiled them in this post from last year which refutes the lies of Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin. Make sure you check it out when you get the chance!

5. “How she said she was abused  in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.”  The summary of how Janet conned JC Penney into settling her frivolous lawsuit is too long to be copied here, so I will suggest that you read the last section of this post to view that summary, which includes details about the $100k book deal that she was offered prior to the trial, her diagnosis of schizophrenia, her threats against the legal assistant to whom she confessed to lying about JC Penney, and how she made her kids memorize a script for their JC Penney deposition!

6. “Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.” This rarely seen article contains a photo of a very “goofy” Sneddon smiling for the camera, with his glasses hanging off of his head! On August 23rd, 2000, he and his buddy Sheriff Jim Thomas travelled with other Santa Barbara dignitaries to a mountain in the Canadian Artic.  Led by a veteran mountain climber, they scaled the mountain to raise money for charity.

It’s too bad that Sneddon and Thomas didn’t fall off of that mountain!

The Matt Drudge Show : March 6th, 2005

It’s gonna be interesting to see Diane Dimond, whose been covering the Jackson case so aggressively against Michael Jackson, she’s under book contract, right? What do you think the excuse is gonna be if he walks, and I think even at this point court watchers are wondering “What has Sneddon done with this case?” You’ve got the daughter, the sister of the accuser saying “yeah, she lied about the case1, and it looks very circumstantial at best, we’ll see, we’ll see, but if Jackson walks, and Jackson plays it big, and we’ve been reporting here at Drudge that if Jackson wins, he’s gonna play The World Cup, not play in the World Cup but perform at The World Cup next year, which is the biggest TV audience outside of The Super Bowl on planet Earth. Even more than you, Chris Rock, at the Oscars!

Now if he walks, and walks big, and it turns out the prosecution was full of hot air, and Sneddon lost his way somewhere at a Santa Ynez winery, how is Diane Dimond going to spin that in her book? She’s probably going to say that “well, it was his fame that got him off, or they couldn’t get a jury……”, and all the rest. But even she is now, I was reading her column in the New York Post, Dimond has been writing a weekly update. She was even talking about some court watchers were wondering if this family has it all together, this family that’s accusing, when everything that’s coming out, and they have this bombshell video that they showed in the courtroom, where they show the family was PRAISING Michael Jackson at the very time they said they were being held hostage and Jackson was molesting Gavin2. At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap.  Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!3 And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms.  But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!

And then you couple that with a media establishment that wants to see you fail! Who is mocking you because you are mockable, but still in cahoots, almost like a weird dynamic, a weird merger of government and media yet once again, and you can say “Well, this happens all the time”. I always get this feeling whenever I see Tim Russert of GE there on “Meet The Press”, standing next to the Pentagon secretary, or with Albright, Madeline Albright, he used to get the shivers because it’s the marriage of big media and big government. The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case4. Not necessarily because I care about Michael Jackson that much, although I probably do think he’s more talented than the average Joe out there, or Justin Timberlake, or Usher, or any of these new generation wannabes, they’re all living in the shadow of the Guinness Book of World Records holder, even Don Headley, even Fleetwood Mac, they’re all living in the shadow of his record, and I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to touch it. Maybe one day someone’s going to come along  and top it, and it may not be in our lifetime. So here he is, and then you’ve got the prosecutor, you have the government, who has the authority to tear your life upside down. Now I don’t understand why that question hasn’t been presented to prosecutor Sneddon: “Sir, will you prosecute the accusers if it turns out they were lying, and exaggerating, and misrepresenting. Will you prosecute THEM?”  And I would think the answer would probably be “No”, because then he’d have to look at the man in the mirror himself. Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?5  Did he ever consider the pros and the cons?  Did he ever do any of this? It doesn’t appear that he did. And that is what scares me, and what should scare you also is the finger pointing, and the accusations, and the whisper campaign, taken to a government level with authority from 100 search warrants and photography of your private parts! Because somebody said something.

And in the ‘93 case apparently the description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!6 That’s why that case was never brought. Don’t believe for a second it’s because the boy settled, don’t believe for a second. That was a private affair! What did that have to do with the government? He would have been compelled under law to testify! Sneddon could have called the ’93 boy accuser in there and say “Tell me what you know, you’re under oath, tell me what you know, tell me what he did to you!”, but he never did that because the penis didn’t match! I’m sorry to be so graphic, but Sneddon and that whole crowd up there has turned it into this! Do we have photos of Sneddon’s…………..and wait for this to leak on the Smoking Gun! We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.7 That’s what happens when the government gets your business, they leak it out. The government has no right to have photographs of your private areas. Because somebody said something, or somebody whispered something. Because somebody took a payoff. Or somebody wanted to look for a mark, as Jay Leno said, of this family. Of this “Janet Jackson” Latina. How dare Sneddon even………….why isn’t Sneddon the laughing stock of Santa Barbara right now? Why aren’t they turning on him?

Now honestly, if I really thought that if Michael Jackson was a danger to society, and he really was ripping people up to shreds, and he’s made a lot of mistakes here, the way he discards people along the way is frightening, I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup. At some point here, somebody’s gotta say that “Michael Jackson is not a danger, and where is the evidence?” And when they got the girl to admit, when Mesereau got the girl to admit, under oath, that “Yeah, I’ve lied about this case, and I didn’t always tell the full story because I’m young, but I didn’t know it was wine, I assumed it was wine, it was in the wineroom”. It could have been some of Madonna’s Kabbalah wine! Crazy! We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those! I’ve got a website that’s not owned by Warren Buffet! It’s Drudge on Sunday night.

Analysis:

1.” yeah, she lied about the case”:  The entire Arivizo family was a complete disaster for the prosecution, and their testimony was the most exculpatory of all of the evidence presented to the jury at trial!  Davellin’s testimony was no exception. It was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, and since I can’t possibly summarize all of her lies in this post, I’ll have to point you in the right direction to see the others posts that do.  For example, in this post I summarized how she claimed that she saw MJ giving her brothers alcohol while on the witness stand, but forgot to mention it to the investigators during her July 2003 interview with them! (Read bullet point #6 at the bottom.) Here is MJEOL’s summary, which is aptly titled “Sister Testimony Dismantled, Family Not Coerced on Video”.  And here is a short excerpt of her testimony, where she describes how she didn’t know she had been molested until her mother told her so!

17 Q. Do you recall your mother ever telling the

18 Los Angeles Police Department that David had

19 molested you.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you recall Gavin ever making any

22 allegations of molestation before.

23 A. Gavin never made any to David. What that

24 was, was that the Judge — the detective had asked

25 my mother, “Is there anything you want to get off

26 your chest.” And she said, “Well, one time when she

27 was younger,” and I know, because I was there when

28 the detective came. But that court proceeding had 870

1 nothing to do with this. The detective just asked

2 her, “If you wanted to get anything off your chest.”

3 Q. To your mother.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you recall Gavin making any allegations

6 before this case.

7 A. Never did.

8 Q. Did you ever hear anything about that.

9 A. He never did. He never has.

10 Q. Do you ever recall — did anyone ever tell

11 you that they had heard Gavin had made an allegation

12 against your mother.

13 A. He never has. He never has made any

14 allegations against anybody.

15 Q. Okay. Do you know if he‟s ever made them

16 with anyone with the Department of Children & Family

17 Services.

18 A. He never has.

19 Q. You‟re sure of that.

20 A. Yes, I‟m sure.

21 Q. Were you there when they interviewed him.

22 A. No, but I know him.

23 Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, you‟ve

24 never heard anything about Gavin ever making any

25 other allegation about molestation against anybody.

26 A. No.

27 Q. Okay. Never.

28 A. Against my parents, I‟ve never heard him say 871

1 any allegations.

2 Q. My question is this: Have you ever — has

3 anyone ever told you, regardless of whether you

4 think it‟s true or not, that Gavin ever made an

5 allegation against your mother before.

6 A. No. Never made an allegation against my

7 mother.

8 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking if you think he did it

9 or not. I‟m asking if anyone‟s ever told you they

10 had heard that he had.

11 A. No.

12 Q. You don‟t know anything about it.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Were you ever interviewed by the Department

15 of Children & Family Services during the 1990s.

16 A. One lady had came over to the East L.A.

17 apartment.

18 Q. Do you know approximately when that was.

19 A. No, I don‟t.

20 Q. Okay. Were you interviewed.

21 A. I don‟t remember if I was.

22 Q. Do you know if Gavin was interviewed.

23 A. I don‟t remember if any of us were. I know

24 she spoke to my mom; but I don‟t know if we were

25 interviewed. I don‟t remember.

26 Q. Did you ever talk to your mom about that

27 event.

28 A. No. 872

1 Q. Ever discussed it with your mom.

2 A. No.

3 Q. You don‟t know what happened.

4 A. I don‟t remember.

5 Q. Okay. Now, at some point you reported your

6 father to the Los Angeles police, right.

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with your mother

9 in advance what you were going to say to the police.

10 A. No, I didn‟t.

11 Q. Never talked about it at all with her.

12 A. I kept it to myself for a couple days,

13 because I was scared.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. Still scared of him. And then I told her

16 what happened. And then she told me we should tell

17 the police.

18 Q. Okay. And did you call the police.

19 A. She called the police, and then the

20 detective came over.

21 Q. Okay. You told the police that you were

22 being abused five times a week — five times a week,

23 right.

24 A. We were abused every day, more than once, by

25 my father.

26 Q. Okay. Were you there when your mother was

27 interviewed.

28 A. I — I don‟t remember if she was 873

1 interviewed. I just remember the detective coming

2 to the East L.A. apartment.

3 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

4 falsely imprisoning you.

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, did your

7 mother accuse your father of falsely imprisoning

8 her.

9 A. Not that I remember.

10 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

11 terrorist threats.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Did your mother accuse your father of

14 terrorist threats.

15 A. Not that I remember.

16 Q. All right. And you accused your father of

17 willful harm to a child, right.

18 A. I don‟t know what that is.

19 Q. Okay. Okay. But were you present when your

20 mother told the LAPD that your father had molested

21 you.

22 A. No, but I had heard when he had asked her,

23 “If you want to get anything off your chest,” and

24 she said, “Yes,” and that‟s when they went to the

25 kitchen area of the East L.A. apartment.

26 Q. But when you were interviewed by the police,

27 you never told them your father had molested you,

28 did you. 874

1 A. Because they weren‟t asking me about that,

2 and I didn‟t know. I was very young.

3 Q. Okay. Okay.

4 Have you ever discussed with your mother

5 what your father did to you.

6 A. They were both present that day.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. He had — she had said, “Well, I never told

9 Davellin that.” And he says, “Well” — he said,

10 “Well, she doesn‟t need to know anyways.”

11 It was just a horrible experience for me to

12 find out that he did that to me when I was young.

13 Q. And you found that out through your mother.

14 A. From both of them. Because he had agreed to

15 it when I was standing right there. Because they

16 were having an argument, and my mom screamed it out

17 at him.

18 Q. And your father agreed he had done that.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Do you want to take a second.

21 A. I‟m fine.

22 Q. Do you want to wait one second.

23 A. I‟m okay.

24 Q. Ready to go.

25 A. Yeah.

2. “Jackson was molesting Gavin.” Notice how in the first episode, he didn’t name by Gavin by name because he had to respect his privacy as an accuser,  but now he’s naming him with no hesitation! This is a clear indication that he has absolute doubt towards Gavin’s allegations! I guess Drudge was right; he has no shame!

3. “Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!” This is probably the most on-point message that he gave to his listeners throughout this trial. Many people just assume that what happened to MJ was an aberration, but malicious prosecutions take place all of the time in this country!  The prisons are filled with innocent people who were wrongly convicted because of crooked cops who plant evidence, disreputable prosecutors who allow perjury and falsified evidence, and who also fail to inform the jurors of all of the exculpatory evidence found in their investigations. (Fortunately, there is legislation that is being proposed that will help curb this wrongful practice.)  A perfect example of normal, everyday citizens who were unjustly prosecuted are the three Duke lacrosse players who were wrongfully accused of rape, but exonerated by the Attorney General of their state after a thorough investigation into the practices of the District Attorney.  (Their case was discussed in detail in this post that refutes the notion that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt. I used their case as an example of non-celebrities who are maliciously prosecuted.)

As you can see with this article, Sneddon isn’t the only malicious prosecutor in California! But can you blame prosecutors for putting convictions ahead of justice? There’s a certain former prosecutor who now has one of the highest rated shows on cable television, despite her past reprimands for misconduct, and you guys already know who I’m talking about!

4. “The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case.” Here is a quote from Malcom X, one of the greatest, yet most underrated civil rights activists of the 20th century:

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

He took the words right out of Drudge’s mouth! The media is so powerful, they can make you look guilty even before you’ve been accused of committing a crime!  For example, in this video a 4 year old black boy was interviewed by a news reporter while at the scene of a recent shooting in his neighborhood, and he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he wanted to be a cop when he gets older, and he wants to own a gun. But when his interview hit the airwaves, the reporter excluded his comment about wanting to be a cop, which gave viewers the impression that he’s going to grow up and emulate the violence he sees around him. “Oh great. Just what the world needs; another young thug. They’re getting younger and younger, eh?” This is a perfect example of how the media distorts quotes for their own purposes, especially when it comes to painting African-Americans in a negative light. Do you think this would have happened in a white upscale suburban community?

5. . “Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?” Are you kidding me? Sneddon, actually questioning any accusation of molestation against Michael Jackson? Are you insane? He probably jumped for joy and high-fived his assistants when Stan Katz reported the allegations to them in May 2003! Here’s a rundown of some of Sneddon’s shenanigans: he altered the dates of the allged molestations and added the conspiracy charge after realizing that his initial timeline conflicted with the DCFS investigation, he attempted to falsify evidence by having Gavin handle the girlie magazines without gloves at the grand jury hearing, he requested that Gavin be allowed to testify in private, solicited other “victims” to testify against Michael soon after his arrest, he changed the law to prevent future accusers from suing MJ in civil court before the disposition of a criminal case, he not only ignored Janet’s schizophrenia, but tried to suppress it from the jury and defense,  and the icing on the cake is when he claimed that he did an “excellent” job in his prosecution! (See the video below in bullet point #7.) I can go on and on and on, but I’ll stop there.

For those of you who would like to know more about how Janet’s schizophrenia was ignorded by the prosecution, please read my good friend Sean Chai’s “The Untold Story”. She is one of the foremost experts on the allegations in the world, and I enthusiastically recommend her new blog, appropriately titled “Smoke Without Fire”!!

6. “The description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!” Anyone with any common sense should know that those photos didn’t match! Even without the Linden report, or the January 1994 USA Today article, the mere fact that MJ wasn’t arrested and was allowed to make his videotaped statement a few days later should prove it didn’t’ match!  In order to arrest someone, you must have probably cause. The search warrant that Sneddon obtained was to establish the probable cause needed to arrest MJ, and since he walked away without his prized possession, that should tell you something. If you listen to hater’s speculation, they would have you think that somehow MJ paid off Sneddon, the same way he paid off the two grand juries who refused to indict him in 1994, the jury who acquitted him in 2005, and the FBI, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in over 10 years!

We have debunked that “Jordan’s description matched” nonsense numerous times on this blog, including in this post, and this post (which is the 1st of a 3 part series.)

7. “We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.” Well Drudge, it’s been 6 years, and you’re still waiting, huh? That’s because those photos are NOT going to leak, now or ever! According to Sneddon, neither he nor the Sheriff’s department has the photos in their possession, and you know what? I actually believe him! Because if he had them in his possession, they would have leaked before the trial! Sneddon was willing to do ANYTHING to dirty up MJ and convict him in the court of public opinion! The tabloids were offering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for those photos, and if someone had access to them, they would have taken the money for sure! If Sneddon and his team didn’t mind leaking the grand jury transcripts –which was totally illegal, by the way – then he surely would have leaked those photos, which would have been perfectly legal!

In this video, he talks about his “excellent” prosecution, how “great” and “courageous” Gavin was, his not having said a word about MJ in 10 years (which is total BS – here is a list of his comments, listed under the “Sneddon’s Obsession with Jackson” section), and how he needs 2 signatures to access the photos. If they haven’t leaked by now, they’ll never leak!

And did you guys notice the terrible, softball questions that Rita Crosby threw at him? I mean, come on! Asking him what he would say to MJ if he saw him walking down the street? As if ANY of us would ever see MJ “walking down the street”!  The summer interns at MSNBC could come up with better questions than that! She should have asked him about the conspiracy charge, the changing timeline, and specific quotes from the Arvizo family’s testimony!

8. “I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup.” July 2005, Feldman did an interview with the New York Times, and he describes how he was duped by a certain British journalist who is good at getting people to trust him:

Meanwhile, Mr. Feldman says he now tries to stay out of the tabloids, but it has not been easy. In February he made news in an interview with the British journalist Martin Bashir, in which he said that he had come to a sickening realization that the molestation charges against Mr. Jackson might be true. Mr. Feldman, who had a falling-out with Mr. Jackson in 2001, says that he was shocked by the verdict. But he sounds even more upset at Mr. Bashir. “Bashir approached me with doing a 20/20 retrospective about my career,” Mr. Feldman explained. “He said he would ask about Michael, but it would only be a small portion of the show. We shot 36 hours of footage, and it was a 20-minute Michael Jackson piece. Tricked again.”

“I’m gullible,” Mr. Feldman says. “The world needs a scapegoat, plain and simple. Somewhere, there was an electoral ballot, and I was nominated.”

That should put away any doubts about how conniving and deceptive Bashir really is, as if there was anyone reading this blog who still had any doubts! Gee, I wonder what Bashir did with the other 35 hours and 40 minutes of footage?

In part 2 and Part 3 of this series, I will analyze the final two Matt Drudge shows that I currently have in my possession.  I am also trying to get any additional episodes, including the post-acquittal episode!


113 Comments leave one →
  1. February 24, 2012 6:48 am

    It’s from Debra Opri, about the media after the trial.

    Epilogue: The Michael Jackson Trial – Truth & the Media

    by Debra Opri – Attorney and Legal Analyst

    I waited until the Michael Jackson verdict was in and for a sufficient time to have passed before writing this column. I did so because I wanted to see if those in the media would absolve themselves of the long calibrated mean spirited analysis of the trial, the evidence & testimony, and finally of the jury deliberations. I waited, albeit quietly, and I was hopeful that a humility would begin to evolve in the tone of the media’s evaluation of the acquittal of Michael Jackson. It never came. They never spoke of the reality before them – that Michael Jackson was found innocent of the charges. They only judged and provided yet more opinion as to why the verdict was the wrong verdict, and why the jurors just ‘didn’t get it.’
    I never heard anyone in the media say that, ‘the jury has spoken ..we must respect their decision and a job well done.’ Never did I see professionalism. Nor did I hear respect for this jury. What I did hear and see was the media’s disrespect of these twelve citizen jurors who had spent many hours and days sitting in court, listening to evidence, and ultimately coming to a decision of a man’s guilt or innocence under the rules of law. Their decision was sound, it was explainable, and it was reasonable under the law and the evidence they had been presented. We did not hear this. Rather, the media expressed complete disgust and anger for the outcome. I observed numerous media pundits questioning the jurors’ failure to use their personal bias in their deliberations, and why they didn’t use their ‘common sense’ in convicting Mr. Jackson for what was, these same pundits explained, a strong case with a lot of evidence that proved this man was a child molester. They tripped up on the ‘reasonable doubt’ legal standard, though why, I didn’t understand since many, if not all of these individuals in the media, had at one time been attorneys.
    I heard shocking ‘media’ deliberations of the same evidence the jury had ruled upon only hours before in acquitting Mr. Jackson on all ten counts. This time out, the media’s deliberations were pointed directly at a conviction on all counts. I was appalled, but I was not surprised. I saw firsthand a media that was intent on convicting Michael Jackson even though the jury did not ‘go along.’ I saw the tirade of a lynch mob being told to go home and leave the rope behind.
    It is with a heavy heart and a strong conviction for doing what is right, that I write this column. Being an attorney and a part of the media, I believe in and support the First Amendment right of free speech. I do not believe, however, in the media’s prolific propaganda which was long directed at convicting a man they had judged guilty long ago, using bias and a camera crew to judge not only the jury’s decision, but an overall assault on our fundamental right of a fair trial. Frankly, this is not what free speech should mean to us. It should not be all empowering and it is certainly not to be used as an enabler of a media’s locust mentality, which is to ravage all before you and then to move on to the next fertile field.
    There are those in the media who understand that they have, indeed, become locusts in their quest to ‘find’ – and in many instances, to ‘create’ – stories. During one of my many interviews on the day of the verdict, I was asked how the media could ‘reconcile’ it’s coverage of a trial under the First Amendment with an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial? It was a good and fair question, but again, the anchor who had asked it, and who had at one time practiced as an attorney, fell short, I felt, in her understanding of just what it was she had asked. The answer, I told her, was contained in the question she had just asked.’ ‘Just cover the trial,’ I told her, ‘and stop trying to create the news; stop trying to force your opinions of guilt or innocence down the throats of the public.’ ‘We the public really don’t care. We’re smart enough to figure it out for ourselves.’ [Incidentally, this same reporter left me a message a short time later that, in so many words, she had come to this job as a reporter wanting to honor these values, only to learn there was no interest in anything other than pushing an agenda].
    There is so much more I could write and so many more individuals I could reference by name as examples, with stories to back up what is so wrong with the media and how much they misuse their power over the masses and over the individual, specifically, in this instance, Michael Jackson. They know who they are. Each of them understands what their agenda is and was, and what it will be, no matter whether they go on to other news assignments, or whether these reporters get some book deals telling ‘their’ side of the story. Personally, I didn’t know that they had one, or that they should have one. After all, they’re reporters, aren’t they? As we close this story, here’s the only point we need to remember: in the end, the media’s agenda failed. They could not convict Michael Jackson. This media did not sway the jurors, although they sought to and did, overall, sway the public’s opinion of just who they think Michael Jackson is.
    In the end, I come away from the past year and a half of the criminal case against Michael Jackson with this understanding. I believe that long after the People vs. Michael Joseph Jackson is part of media history, much in the same guise of the O.J. Simpson trial; long after another trial takes center stage in the media, we will have finally learned to judge the media for what they really are – individuals who really don’t know any more than the rest of us, but who feed like locusts across our sensibilities with the agenda of ravaging our better sense of objectivity.
    It is with certainty that I believe the media has damaged it’s reputation and it’s believability in terms of it’s reporting of the Michael Jackson case. It is with hope that I look to better days when the media’s agenda is back in the realm of reporting the news rather than trying to make the news. This is not too much too ask, and what I say is not a new request. It was spoken a number of years ago by Walter Cronkite, a renowned reporter upon his retirement, as he explained why he could no longer work as the reporter he was always so proud to be in a media that had long ceased to be the object of his pride. I wonder how Mr. Cronkite would have reported the Michael Jackson case. Perhaps it would have been simply, ‘today a not guilty verdict was reached in the Michael Jackson case.’
    From the courtroom to your living room, this has been another edition of THE OPRI OPINION.

    http://www.debraopri.com/Opioion_Epilogue.htm

    Like

  2. October 17, 2011 2:58 pm

    “January 19th, 2004, that’s when the family
    15 was interviewed regarding the rebuttal tape.
    16 And then end of March through April of 2004,
    17 the grand jury”

    “.Q. And as of November 18th, you were not aware
    10 that there had actually been a film made of this
    11 family, which later became known as “the rebuttal
    12 film”; is that correct.
    13 A. I believe that — and I’m not — because I
    14 haven’t reviewed that statement, but I believe that
    15 Mrs. Arvizo was explaining to us in her interview
    16 that that had taken place.
    17 Q. Well, we weren’t talking about Mrs. Arvizo,
    18 because she hasn’t testified yet.
    19 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to
    20 object to that. He’s asking what the officer was
    21 aware of. This isn’t a segregation.
    22 MR. SANGER: No, this —
    23 MR. SNEDDON: I apologize.
    24 I object. Assumes facts not in evidence,
    25 And it’s argumentative.
    26 MR. SANGER: I apologize, because I said
    27 something, but I will withdraw the question. How’s
    28 that. 2206

    1 THE COURT: I’m looking for a break, but —
    2 rephrase your question.
    3 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.
    4 Q. That’s true, I am asking for your awareness,
    5 but I was trying to avoid — I don’t want to get
    6 into hearsay that’s not admissible because we
    7 haven’t had the people testify yet, okay.
    8 So it’s your belief that Janet Arvizo said
    9 something about doing a film.
    10 A. That is correct.
    11 Q. Before November 18th.
    12 A. That is correct.
    13 Q. Okay. None of the children mentioned doing
    14 the film before November 18th, though, correct.
    15 A. To the best of my knowledge, that is
    16 correct.”

    “Q. All right. We’ve established this timeline
    27 now — is that on. Yes.
    28 We’ve established the timeline, and let’s 2208

    1 just start with Davellin. The first time that
    2 Davellin said anything to you about the rebuttal
    3 video was in the January 19th, 2004, interview,
    4 correct.
    5 A. I believe that’s correct, yes.
    6 Q. Now, when you had these interviews, this was
    7 a pretty big event in the investigation, was it not,
    8 the interviews of January 19th.
    9 A. A big event in what respect.
    10 Q. Big event in the respect that you — you,
    11 meaning you and Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Zonen and
    12 perhaps other law enforcement officers, had seen the
    13 rebuttal video, and you were calling the family in
    14 to ask them how they could do that video.
    15 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I object. Assumes
    16 facts not in evidence.
    17 MR. SANGER: Well, it was compound probably.
    18 Let me break it down.
    19 Q. You had seen the video by January 19th,
    20 correct.
    21 A. That’s correct.”

    “Q. All right. Now, the reason for the meeting,
    27 as it were, was to ask this family how they could do
    28 a rebuttal video like that if they maintained these 2210

    1 allegations; is that correct.
    2 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that
    3 question as argumentative. It’s just — that’s like
    4 testifying.
    5 THE COURT: Overruled.
    6 MR. SANGER: Do you have the question in
    7 mind.
    8 THE WITNESS: Why don’t you repeat your
    9 question.
    10 THE COURT: I’ll have the court reporter do
    11 it.
    12 (Record read.)
    13 THE WITNESS: That is incorrect. It was to
    14 clarify regarding my previous interview with them,
    15 to clarify issues that they were saying on the tape”

    Like

  3. October 17, 2011 2:35 pm

    I wonder how much times did they spend to investigate their before they decided to arrest him

    “Q. Well, let’s do it — because we are going to
    19 go through this in more detail, but I want to get
    20 the big picture.
    21 There was a time that you were told, and you
    22 found from your investigation, that the Arvizo
    23 children and Janet Arvizo and Mr. Jackson and others
    24 returned to the Neverland Valley Ranch after being
    25 in Florida; is that right.
    26 A. That is correct.
    27 Q. And what was that date.
    28 A. I believe it was right around the 6th of 2189

    1 February.
    2 Q. 7th perhaps.
    3 A. 7th. Somewhere right in there.”

    Like

  4. September 24, 2011 11:10 pm

    FYI – Sneddon’s photo referred to in point 6 of this analysis forthe Druge 2/27/05 transcript, that appears in the Canadian mountain climbing article, seems to have been changed to a non-goofy pose.

    Like

  5. August 19, 2011 7:05 pm

    “my post on August 8 really was more for Matt Drudge’s piece where he implied that Michael had discarded Feldman, which was not true either.”

    Julie, I am sorry, but it is only now that I’m studying the comment dated August 8. Sometimes I am a very slow turtle.

    “of course anything having to do with someone saying Michael is innocent is paramount”

    Of course it is.

    Like

  6. Julie permalink
    August 19, 2011 6:17 pm

    @vindicatemj – of course anything having to do with someone saying Michael is innocent is paramount, but my post on August 8 really was more for Matt Drudge’s piece where he implied that Michael had discarded Feldman, which was not true either. I just wanted it known (just in case it wasn’t) that Drudge’s assertion was not the case.

    Like

  7. August 19, 2011 6:15 pm

    On another note in Newsweek there is an article about Anthony Pellicano that I read online this afternoon which really angered me. The piece is entitled Hollywood Hacker Breaks His Silence and it is written by Christine Pelisek.

    Julie, we’ve discussed Pellicano here a bit. What is interesting is that the same day The Daily Beast published that Pelisek’s story (August 7, 2011) they also published a chart of Pellicano connections and the one about Michael Jackson carried the following text:

    “Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

    So the same day they sent all of us wildly guessing what could be “worse than molestation” the same website said that Pellicano had found damning information about the Chandlers??? This made me sure that Pelisek’s article was a sheer provocation – especially since the journalist didn’t specify what Pellicano could mean. He was probably talking about Michael spoiling children with too many presents and that is all there is to it!

    Like

  8. August 19, 2011 6:12 pm

    This is very true Helena. Inevitably that fact is ignored by media. Yet if Feldman said otherwise it would be everywhere.

    Like

  9. August 19, 2011 6:04 pm

    Oh I had just seen it on this site http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/tempest-in-a-thimble-fmr.-da-says-feldman-testimony-worthless-mb-244.html.

    Julie, I am well aware of the fact that Corey Feldman had a fall out with Michael, but then his testimony about Michael’s innocence is all the more valuable to us. Even the disgruntled Corey Feldman couldn’t remember a single fact that could taint Michael’s innocence!

    Like

  10. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:57 am

    Guys, I just added the audio of the first 2 episodes of the Matt Drudge show to this post! LunaJo67 was nice enough to post them to youtube for me, and I will add the audio to parts 2 and 3 of this series as well, so you won’t have to torture yourself by reading the actual transcript. Listening is so much easier! Especially when you hear the emotion in his voice!

    Part 2 will be posted tomorrow, and Part 3 will be posted on Friday.

    Like

  11. August 14, 2011 2:36 pm

    @shelly oh sorry i misunderstood.

    Like

  12. August 14, 2011 2:24 am

    “Everything about Michael shouts innocence and its incomprehensible why people just can’t see it.”

    Alison, absolutely! It is indeed incomprehensible – something is definitely wrong with these people. In some strange way I even feel sorry for them – they are like invalids who are lacking something vital in life.

    Like

  13. August 14, 2011 1:29 am

    “Did you forget that Suzy wrote a post last November on “Do You Know Were Your Children Are?” Your memory must be slipping! LOL!”

    David, after a brain concussion last winter the situation with my memory has become a disaster, but I still remember Suzy’s post very well. I just couldn’t find it (honestly!). There are so many posts now that I sometimes get lost.
    Thank you for bringing it back to us. A person who wrote a song like that and put so much feeling into it cannot be a mol-r. You can feel the pain Michael was feeling when he wrote it. The fact alone that he was thinking about this problem can tell us a lot. How many more singers and songwriters think about the problem of ‘where your children are’? And write similar songs? Look at what Lady Gaga is singing about and see all the difference in the world between the two.

    Like

  14. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 7:22 am

    Thanks David – and Suzy. i think it was Suzy’s post where i heard of it. i just read that again. i hadn’t particularly retained that it was about sexual exploitation so i suppose its not the same issue exactly but its all about care of children. and he wrote it in 1990.

    i agree with Suzy’s comments on her post that no real p…le would write such a thing.
    also all the anger in his post 1993 work, some of History and so much of Blood on the Dancefloor, some of Invincible, could only exist in an innocent wronged man.

    Everything about Michael shouts innocence and its incomprehensible why people just can’t see it. they are so blinded.

    i just watched a late night tv programme i wouldn’t normally watch, fell asleep on sofa hours ago and was trying to wake myself up and mobilise myself to get up to go to bed by flicking thro the channels. anyway it was on the Yesterday channel and was about the secret history of pornography, talking about medieval church architecture and old hidden artworks and stuff. it was interesting to see how far back it goes and the history issues. anyway – apparently at the time of the French Revolution the production of leaflets and pornography produced for the masses as opposed to just in private castles, was fairly new. and it was used quite deliberately to destroy the reputations of the king and queen, by describing (fabricated) sexual activity by them each, calling him gay and her a lesbian and describing in detail sexual things they “did” – all made up. but it was a calculated and deliberate attempt to bring them down, first by reputation, then obviously physically too, and then the guillotine. the equivalent of the tabloid then was street hawkers, people who sold in the street and lured people to buy by reading the stuff to them as small crowds gathered to listen. i had no idea. i know so little history.
    the guy narrating the programme said nothing like that has ever been done since! …er, excuse me ……!!

    Like

  15. lcpledwards permalink
    August 13, 2011 5:23 am

    @ helena
    Did you forget that Suzy wrote a post last November on “Do You Know Were Your Children Are?” Your memory must be slipping! LOL! You could have just posted the link to it, instead of that external lyrics site you used! Just kidding.

    https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/michaels-clear-message-against-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/

    @ Susan62509
    Thank you! Parts 2 and 3 are coming next week! You won’t be disappointed! And I’ll have some good news regarding this series, but you’ll have to wait!

    Like

  16. Susan62509 permalink
    August 13, 2011 4:59 am

    David – Brilliant article. Thank you for your indepth research. I’m looking forward to Part 2 and Part 3.

    Like

  17. August 13, 2011 1:28 am

    “I cannot make out in what language the lyrics are.It would be nice to get the lyrics written in English”.

    Kaarin, here are the lyrics:

    (INTRO TO SONG)
    “You gotta ask yourself a question do i feel lucky well do ya punk”
    (cock of a gun an Gunshot sound) Beat drops horns sound
    (Over a loud speaker) Ladies and gentle man EAK (man)

    (VERSE ONE)
    Father comes home from work and he’s scared today
    Mother cries out again, it’s no charade
    Father runs to the table, he says what’s going on
    Mother cries just believe, our little baby’s gone

    (CHORUS 1)
    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    An just hope they’re not on the street
    Just imagine how scared they are
    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    An just hope they’re not on the street.
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    (VERSE 2)
    She wrote that she is tired of step-daddy using her
    Saying that he’ll buy her things, while sexually abusing her
    Just think that she’s alone somewhere out on the street
    How will this girl survive? She ain’t got nothing to eat!

    (CHORUS 2)
    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    Just hope they’re not on the street
    Just imagine how scared they are
    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    Just hope they’re not on the street.
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    http://lyricsmusicvideo.blogspot.com/2010/11/michael-jackson-do-you-know-where-your.html

    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    Just hope they’re not on the street.
    Just imagine how scared they are.

    Save Me (8x’s and adlibs) until guitar solo

    (Guitar Solo 20 seconds long)

    (VERSE 3)
    Now she on the move, she’s off to Hollywood
    She says she wantna be a star, she heard the money’s good
    She gets off from the train station, a man is waiting there
    I’ll show you where the money is, girl just let down your hair
    He’s taking her on the streets, of Sunset Boulevard
    She’s sell her body hot, girl that’s what i’m taking for
    Police come around the corner, somebody up there told
    He’s arresting this little girl, that’s only twelve years old

    (Last Chorus and adlibs in between)

    Do you know where your children are?
    Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
    Just hope they’re not on the street.
    Just imagine how scared they are. (REPEATS 6x’s until 4:33)

    (VERSE ONE REPEATS)
    Father comes home from work and he’s scared today
    Mother cries out again, it’s no charade
    Father runs to the table, he says what’s going on (Gunshot fires off)

    Read more: http://lyricsmusicvideo.blogspot.com/2010/11/michael-jackson-do-you-know-where-your.html#ixzz1Uqu3IlWE

    Like

  18. August 13, 2011 12:42 am

    VMJ, my comment to you got lost.I don´t think Pellicano meant anything that could hurt Michael,and he probably wanted to poke at the media with some ambiguous comment.That is if he made any comment at all. He would diss himself if he really did say something serious.
    Thank you Alyson and Suzy for getting “Do you know where your children are?” to this blog.That song should be playing all over in UK and
    elsewhere too. I cannot make out in what language the lyrics are.It would be nice to get the lyrics written in English.

    Like

  19. August 13, 2011 12:16 am

    VMJ, I don´t believe that Pellicano has said anything that serious,and he just wants to poke fun at the media,he has worked for Michael,why would he know speak ill of him?

    Like

  20. Alison permalink
    August 12, 2011 9:05 pm

    Thanks Suzy
    now i listened to it i have heard it before but can’t remember where, but i’m right that its unreleased aren’t i? probably because of the allegations, i’m going to try and write to the estate / sony and ask them to release it, its so important. its a catchy tune and if played on the radio it might make people think.
    i know my comment was sort of off topic but its connected because vindicating Michael will release his message more and releasing his message and showing the truth in it SHOULD help in vindicating him because surely its so relevant to current events,??

    Like

  21. Suzy permalink
    August 12, 2011 8:22 pm

    @ Alison

    Here is the song “Do you know where your children are”

    Like

  22. Alison permalink
    August 12, 2011 5:49 pm

    @ VMJ
    “they tasted what life of a millionaire was like and when they got back into their ordinary environment it was difficult for them to adapt back. In my opinion this is the ultimate reason why both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo agreed to play their accuser roles in the end.”

    I agree Helena. it seems that whilst some / most children did not react like this there were those whose expectations of what was “due” to them, what they SHOULD have, their greed, made them angry, inflamed also by the greed and “ought to have” attitude of their parents.
    i am sure you’ll have seen reports of the riots and looting over here but you may not have heard what some of the kids have said as to their reasons ( and its not all kids by the way, the ages range up to 40’s, all sections of society, though it is still just a small minority). one young girl said – actually i think its on youtube – that they were showing the police they can do what they like and “its because of the rich people, the people with businesses, we’re showing the rich people we can do what we like”. i hope nobody thinks this is all about racism just because a lot of the kids shown on tv are black, racism may play a part but there is so much more than that. there are plenty of white people involved. this is about our warped society with its consumerist values, its lack of respect for others, its lack of good parenting across the board, its “me first” culture, its culture of what should be given rather than working hard for it and its overall selfishness, in not considering other people and the images of violence and taking what you want that have been pervading our screens and our eyes for years.
    some of these kids are 8 years old – i don’t know why its flashed now in particular but its been steadily growing in our culture and western culture for decades – gavin was 13 and instead of being the “innocent child” the media tried to paint him, he was also a greedy hooligan. like most of my country i am angry and heartbroken about whats happening here, 3 young men were mown down by a car going 100 mph, just a mile and a half from where i live. i didn’t know them but i have lived and worked in this community for years and i feel grief for our community. i can’t believe it. some people seem to have been swept up into such a frenzy they have completely lost judgement, many are criminals anyway but others will soon find to their shock that what they have done will lose them their jobs, careers, university places as well as the more immediate and obvious consequences.
    what i am trying to say is that our society , just as Michael always said, needs to take more action and responsibility to protect and love the children and parent them well, so that they grow up healthy emotionally as well as physically. It IS a priority, and this week we have been seeing some of the results of this not happening for more than the current young generation but also their parents and grandparents as well.
    Most children in the world are innocent but surely nobody can say now that they all are just by virtue of their age, which is how they tried to sell gavin and jordan. if 8 and 9 year old children can riot in our streets, loot shops and set fire to buildings, where is that innocence? and how can parents let 8 year olds roam the streets anyway? love is also about disciplining children so that they learn boundaries and right and wrong – to prevent them getting into this sort of trouble.

    and children LIE. we must believe that children lie. especially if they have grown up to think thats ok. the false belief that all children are innocent and do not lie was used by the media to convict Michael. they MUST now acknowledge this lie.

    i am sorry for going on and on and its off topic, delete it if you want. its just that all week the title of a song i remember reading Michael wrote – ‘do you know where your children are’ – has kept running through my head. i don’t know the song i just remember hearing the title, i think it was not released or something – does anyone know it? i’m going to try to find it. and i want to find his Oxford speech and send it to some media and to the prime minister. Michael tried so hard to tell us, that we need to heal the world by healing the children, but no he had to be labelled a freak and a p..do instead. and now so many are surprised by what we have seen? it makes me so angry. they are having debates about why its happened, they could save some time and listen to Michael Jackson instead.

    Like

  23. lcpledwards permalink
    August 12, 2011 4:31 am

    Ok Helena, I’ll let you post first.

    Like

  24. August 12, 2011 1:31 am

    So true Deborah French! How come the IRS can keep track of evert $ a
    private citizen earns,but the judical system blinds itself to the money
    in the millions or billions that is in the very center of the present C.M.-MJ circus?

    Like

  25. August 12, 2011 1:00 am

    This farce has been running for over 20 years. In the wider sense it is concurrent with the entire history of the human race. The forces of Empire have been replaced by corporate ones. But the themes remain the same. Suppression of the truth, of true individuality, of the holistic impulse — by successive power elites.

    The highly successful character assassination of Michael Jackson, sanctioned by state and a federal Justice system and colluded with by a corrupt and encompassing media, even now seeks its denouement in the travesty of a trial that is not remotely seeking the truth behind his death.

    Sickened?

    I ran out of adjectives a long time ago.

    Like

  26. August 12, 2011 12:32 am

    “The media is already gearing up for the smear Michael Jackson campaign because on CNN there was a segment titled “Will Michael Jackson’s Alleged lover testify?”. What is the point on focusing on this Jason (fraud) character anyway?”

    For lack of desire to tell the real truth about Michael they seem to be taking much pleasure in simple repetition of allegations like “his lover”, etc. The fact that it is a lie doesn’t bother them in the least – it is a chance to repeat all those words which makes them ecstatic. It reminds them of the good old times when they poured dirt on Michael and everyone terribly enjoyed the process of it.

    I am utterly disgusted by the media. If they needed sensations they could come up with hundreds of sensational stories proving Michael’s innocence and showing how the world was tricked into believing lies about him – but no, they are playing their old tune as if they were a street organ (the musical instrument which plays only one tune when you revolve the handle of it).

    You know, it is not only disgusting. It is boring and predictable. I very much hope that if in the worst case scenario they try to repeat the old story again, this time it will no longer be a tragedy but will show itself to be a complete farce. So that people laugh at it or are disgusted with its vulgarity from the very start.

    Like

  27. August 12, 2011 12:11 am

    “I have so much information that I will have to make this a 3 part series! I hope to have part 2 ready this weekend.”

    David, I am sure the remaining two parts will be as great as the first one, so we are looking forward to that. Only please allow me to make one post before that. I am also planning it for this weekend or earlier. It will be a small distraction from Matt Drudge and then we will return to him, okay?

    Like

  28. August 11, 2011 2:54 pm

    Anybody need money? Go to the PR firm with a good idea and see what they will pay.They seem to have an unlimited budget.

    Like

  29. August 11, 2011 2:52 pm

    The PR firm´s task is to FREE MURRAY from all responsibility in Michaels death.Media works with them as it benefits both.Too bad and sad.

    Like

  30. Suzy permalink
    August 11, 2011 12:37 pm

    @ BJ

    I know…

    BTW, in his lawsuit he didn’t claim he was Michael’s lover any more (he didn’t totally backtrack yet either, though). Instead the description he made of their relationship sounded like a very formal, distant relationship (and probably that’s the truth). I mean he said he learnt from Klein in June that Michael had sleep problems. He said Michael asked him for an anesthesiologist on the phone (why on the phone if you are lovers and regularly meet?). He said Klein asked him to escort out a drugged up Michael, which he didn’t really like to do. All these claims are not consistent with the claim them being lovers. A lover would know from first-hand that Michael had sleep problems, a lover would not have a problem with having to escort Michael out, in fact he would naturally do that. Heck, a lover would have tried to help Michael if everything that Pfeiffer claims was happening in Klien’s office truly happened, instead of just passively standing by. One only has to read or watch Pfeiffer’s Extra interview to know the whole thing is a lie. The sad thing is that the media again will go for sensationalist headlines like the one you quoted, instead of the truth.

    Like

  31. August 11, 2011 10:44 am

    I dread the day the murray trial begins.The media is already gearing up for the smear Michael Jackson campaign because on CNN there was a segment titled “Will Michael Jackson’s Alleged lover testify?”. What is the point on focusing on this Jason (fraud) character anyway?

    Like

  32. lcpledwards permalink
    August 11, 2011 9:10 am

    Hey guys, I thought that I would be able to post part 2 of my series on Matt Drudge, but it will take me a few more days to get it completed because there are a lot of references that were made to specific pieces of testimony from the trial, and I want to include those excerpts in my analysis. I have so much information that I will have to make this a 3 part series! I hope to have part 2 ready this weekend.

    Don’t worry, it’ll be worth it, I promise you! Reading this testimony is like watching stand-up comedy! You won’t be able to keep a straight face! 🙂

    Like

  33. August 10, 2011 9:04 pm

    David, the post is outstanding. Thank you so much for making this material available to us. I never knew that this guy Matt Drudge was so good at proving Michael’s innocence. The only thing that astonishes me is that when people have journalists like that they still listen to Diane Dimonds!

    Good that now we have all this information put so neatly together. Whenever someone asks questions about that crazy Arvizo case they should be referred to this post.

    “We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those!” – Matt Drudge.

    I suggest it as a punishment for Tom Sneddon. No need to do anything else – just a photo of naked Sneddon all over the Internet and a detailed description of how he liked the procedure. It will suffice.

    Like

  34. Maral permalink
    August 10, 2011 4:57 pm

    i have thought a lot about this. i’m a “new fan” and although i LOVE Michael i’m objective. but don’t give me words. GIVE ME EVIDENCE.

    This guy had a chance to come forward in 03 but didn’t. he could turn over MJ to the police in 93 but didn’t…….. unless MJ was this huge Maffia boss why the hell didn’t all these “evidence” come out right then? makes no sense

    Like

  35. shelly permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:27 pm

    How do you know that? I was speaking about the article which said he found evidence against the Chandlers, not the interview.

    Like

  36. August 10, 2011 2:51 pm

    @shelly it’s Christine Pelisek

    Like

  37. shelly permalink
    August 10, 2011 12:46 pm

    Who is the author of the article Pellicano’s reach?

    Like

  38. Suzy permalink
    August 10, 2011 10:21 am

    @ Helena

    “Yes, I meant the same source – “The Daily Beast”. I don’t know whether it is only a website or a real paper.”

    “The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website founded and published by Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker as well as the short-lived Talk Magazine. The Daily Beast was launched on October 6, 2008, and is owned by IAC. Edward Felsenthal, a former Wall Street Journal editor, is the site’s executive editor, and Stephen Colvin is its president.

    The name of the site is derived from that of the fictional newspaper in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Scoop.[1]

    On November 12, 2010, The Daily Beast and Newsweek announced a merger deal, creating the combined company “The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.””

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Beast

    Like

  39. Linda permalink
    August 10, 2011 9:47 am

    OMG, I just read this article tonight when I got home from work. All of these stars names he mentions , saying nothing about them, being “professionally” tight lipped ,until he comes to Michael, who can no longer speak for himself, so he drops a bombshell. My guess is Anthony’s interest is in a book deal. Another, riding off of Michaels name for profit.
    Pellicano comes off as a caring person, so disturbed by what Michael was doing to these children that he had to quit working for the greatest entertainer in the world, but didn’t care enough for these children to report what Michael was doing to them? And, you’re right, what could be worse than sexually molesting children, besides murder, and this guy didn’t care enough to report this until now? This guy is in prison for how many counts, 70 something? Why would anybody even believe anything he has to say?

    Dr. Murrays trial is getting close. We’re going to see a lot of s**t about Michael. Better brace ourselves, It’s going to be a rough ride from here on out.

    Like

  40. August 10, 2011 8:36 am

    “It is on the same WEBSITE those comments are not attributed to the same JOURNALIST.”

    Yes, I meant the same source – “The Daily Beast”. I don’t know whether it is only a website or a real paper.

    Like

  41. August 10, 2011 5:12 am

    @Anna

    I agree. The journalists I have contacted — if they decide to — they will do it in the right way and use professional protocol.

    Like

  42. August 10, 2011 4:15 am

    @Anna i agree with u

    Like

  43. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:54 am

    My fear is that Pellicano will be bombarded with e-mails and letters because of the article and he’ll just refuse them all before reading them. I don’t know if the prison will notify me if he refuses the e-mail I asked them to forward. I’m kinda guessing they won’t but so far it’s only been two business days since I sent it. Either way it would be better if a journalist takes his statement and publishes it in an established publication. I’m just a member of the public so even if he did respond to me it would be unofficial.

    This whole situation is really frustating because no doubt some damage has already been done since the article was published.

    Like

  44. August 10, 2011 3:26 am

    @Teva Thank you for that info re Dr Drew.

    @Seanchai10 This is why I think it would be great to get some clarification from Pellicano if he is willing. I don’t know what his state of mind is or in what context he meant that remark, and it is awful how outlets how playing it. I sent you an email earlier about this. Thank you for the link to the other case.

    @Marcella No worries. I just wanted to be clear that I am making enquires only. I agree this is a fantastic site.

    On Twitter we are currently tweeting informational links in a polite fashion to Dr Drew. Lynette is leading the way.

    Like

  45. August 10, 2011 3:16 am

    @lynande51 Yes the tone was defiant, and I must say I found the invective of some of Sneddon’s motions very unsettling. I offered it to demonstrate just how determined he was to convict, even when his case had completely fallen apart and MJ had been acquitted. Even the manner in which he attempted to introduce the photos – as if being forced to allow someone to take photos of your genitals is somehow proof of indecency – was vindictive. The photos were indeed meaningless, if there had been even an approximate match MJ would have been arrested, and the fact that he was not arrested in 1993 speaks volumes.

    @Deborah I too believe Sneddon lost all sense of perspective in investigating the 2005 trial, and yes, his failure to even build a case in 1993 probably had a lot to do with it. However his behaviour is, unfortunately, not that unusual in cases involving false allegations; if you google Vladek Filler you’ll get lots of info on a very recent case which involves similar circumstances [you can find a history of the case at http://www.fillerfund.com/history.htm%5D. The Filler case has resulted in a campaign to have the assistant DA who brought the case disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. I’ve come across many cases where exculpatory evidence is ignored while undue weight is given to information which fits the notion that sexual abuse or assault has occurred. This problem is systemic and rarely down to one individual. However that does not in any excuse the behaviour of individuals who seek to convict while ignoring exculpatory evidence.

    I haven’t had a chance to read the full Pellicano interview, though it does seem like a throwaway remar. Predictably, many media outlets have picked up on his one sentence about MJ and have run with that. It does seem to be far removed from his previous comments, and I can’t help but wonder if the ‘he’ he refers to is actually MJ.

    @Teva, I noticed that too, no mention on the infographic page about finding damaging info about MJ, just about the Chandlers, which is why I wonder if the quote was even about MJ.

    Like

  46. August 10, 2011 3:15 am

    @bj http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html point seven.
    it was posted the same day of the other article

    Like

  47. Teva permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:12 am

    “We don’t even know whether he said it or not and what he could mean by it. Especially since the second article from the same source and printed on the same date said that Pellicano spoke about finding damning evidence against the Chandlers (and not MJ!).”

    It is on the same WEBSITE those comments are not attributed to the same JOURNALIST. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.

    Like

  48. Teva permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:07 am

    Dr. Drew would be interested in the Murray case because that is his area of expertise, he is an intervention specialist. When Latoya was on she said she felt sorry for Murray, and Dr. Drew sympatized; however, they were coming from different places. Layota meant Murray was the fall guy and Dr. D meant Murray found himself in a bad situation. The Murray trial, and Michael Jackson are being compared to Anna Nicole Smith. That is the direction it is taking in the media.

    HLN is an interesting channel because they will be covering the Murray trial 24/7 like the Casey Anthony.

    Like

  49. August 10, 2011 3:05 am

    “We don’t even know whether he said it or not and what he could mean by it. Especially since the second article from the same source and printed on the same date said that Pellicano spoke about finding damning evidence against the Chandlers (and not MJ!).”

    Can someone please post the link to the second article that was written? Thank You.

    Like

  50. Teva permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:00 am

    @Deborah Ffrench

    His guest last night were:

    1. Brian Oxman
    2. Deepak Chopra- who said MJ asked him if he heard about a drug that takes you to the valley of death and back. He did not say Michael asked for propofol, but implied he could have meant it.
    3. SDwight ? – Son of Dione Warwick. He said he was more a friend of Jermaine than Michael.

    Like

  51. August 10, 2011 2:50 am

    @deborah i know, but i appreciate it. Plus i want to say that i appreciate u all for this wonderful blog and articles.
    @lynande51 thank u i did not know pellicano was already in prison—this is really interesting… Regarding the Murray’s trial…i missed one point: what do u mean with discovery?

    Like

  52. August 10, 2011 12:26 am

    Lynande51 said:

    “When is the Untied States Justice system going to work in Michael’s favor?”

    Good question.

    We may have to engage with the media much more to make our voices heard. Dr Drew is tonight hosting another show on Michael. In his tweet about it today, he said he would be discussing the topic of Michael’s so-called ‘addictions’ with people who knew him. I don’t know who those guests are.

    Currently on Twitter many of us are tweeting politely worded, informational links to Dr Drew’s account. Of course who knows whether the show researchers will read them. I don’t know the format of this show, but if there is an opportunity for live caller interaction I hope people who understand the facts call in.

    Like

  53. August 10, 2011 12:14 am

    “Pellicano maybe noticed the mileaage Aaron got from the ambiguous statements regarding Michael, supposedly. Why not start some fun and games to pass the time”.

    Kaarin, there is a decided difference in the way we look at this problem. It is not him who is having fun and playing games with us – it is the media.

    For me the situation with Pellicano is the same as with Aaron. Lots of people blamed him for what he supposedly said about Michael – while I blamed that monster of a journalist, Daphne Barak, for meddling with the interview and presenting a twisted picture of what he said.

    Now you blame Pellicano for what he allegedly said about Michael – while I blame the journalist for using one phrase (which simply doesn’t make sense) for manipulating our minds. We don’t even know whether he said it or not and what he could mean by it. Especially since the second article from the same source and printed on the same date said that Pellicano spoke about finding damning evidence against the Chandlers (and not MJ!).

    Evidently your mistrust for the media is incomparable to mine. You believe again and again what they say while I have reached such a stage when they need to make a triple effort to prove to me that their story is true. If they can’t, let them sing and dance their lies – I am not paying attention.

    Out of the two sides – the media and Michael’s friends (or those who supported him or helped him when he was alive) – I choose friends because they have at least done something good for Michael white the media only spit dirt in his direction.

    Michael’s friends we more or less know because they have already proved their worth – as to the media we don’t know who these journalists are – or rather know them too well.

    In short I am NOT going to surrender Michael’s friends (or those who helped him) that easily – at least at the first signal from the media and especially if I see that their game is dishonest.

    Michael’s haters are constantly doing it to his friends – the Cascios were their first attempt. How much dirt was splashed on the Cascio brothers because of the posthumous album! People even said that they were some imposters as they heard their names for the first time!

    Aaron Carter was another one – with things attributed to him which he simply could not say (about Michael) because it would be a direct opposite to his own words before and this automatically makes him a liar either then or now. Is he that much fool to do it?

    And now Pellicano, who always – I repeat always – spoke of Michael very well, is suddenly said to be speaking of “things worse than molestation”. Allegedly speaking.

    And I simply do not believe it.

    Like

  54. lynande51 permalink
    August 10, 2011 12:07 am

    This is off the topic of Pellicano but here is the latest news on Murray. It seems that the defense has not complied with discovery. Let’s talk this over for a few minutes.
    The prosecution did this is 2005. The deadline for discovery was 12/10/2004 and they went and got another search warrant for the buccal swab for the DNA and to take measurements and other things from Neverland on 12/3/2004. I just have one question: when is the Untied States Justice system going to work in Michaels favor?Probably not until the media allows it.
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/09/california.conrad.murray.hearing/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

    Like

  55. lynande51 permalink
    August 9, 2011 11:19 pm

    I found out some interesting information about Pellicano that I did not know or did not pay attention to the first time that I read it. First he was already in prison on the explosives charges and others. He plead no contest to the first charges. That amounts to a guilty to the government and no appeal would have been available. They are not available on those types of pleas. Second in the 2006 case he represented himself as his own attorney. He was found guilty and sentenced. That is why they say that the person who represents himself has a fool as an attorney.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Pellicano
    I should also add that the thought is that the article is pretty much bogus and most people know this. After all why now and why is the article more about Murdoch than it is anyone else?
    http://patterico.com/2011/08/08/newsweek-breaks-out-the-pellicano-kneepads/#comments

    Like

  56. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 10:56 pm

    @ Lynette

    I think you might be onto something. Before anybody says it: for now, this is just another speculation, I know and I’m sure Lynette knows. We are just guessing at this stage, but I find it plausible. Also that, for example Pellicano said: “He did much worse than molesting boys” – meaning the settlement, which in his opinion was a very bad move on Michael’s part. And then comes the journalist and reconstructs the sentence a bit. Not too much, just a little bit. Like this: “He did much worse to those boys than molesting them”. And there you have your story.

    Let’s not forget what happened to Jordan as the result of this settlement: he got estranged from his parents, he hasn’t seen his parents for more than 10 years and when he tried to reunite with his father he almost killed him. So yeah, I think it’s possible to think the settlement was the worst thing that could happen, not only to Michael but also to the boy.

    From every earlier account Pellicano and Brett Fields seem to feel strongly about the settlement being wrong and that Michael should have fought because the truth was on their side.

    Like

  57. lynande51 permalink
    August 9, 2011 10:30 pm

    Yes some of the comments are speculation. We are working on it we don’t know if we will be successful or not yet. In the meantime let me say something else.
    The reason the allegations were made is because here in the USA there is nothing worse than M** a child. Just look at all the cases that were made public and the history of it and you will see, in the public eye nothing could be worse short of murdering that child. Pellicano knows this he is not stupid by anymeans.Has anyone even the media ever speculated that MJ did that? No they wouldn’t dare not that because for that there must be proof.
    That turns that statement around and turns it into Pellicano’s opinion. So in this case what could have been worse in his opinion? Looking back over the history of the case and his involvement, what we know about the allegations and how he felt about settling the case what would his opinion possibly be.

    Like

  58. August 9, 2011 10:03 pm

    VMJ:Sending us into wild speculatuion. Prison must be pretty boring.
    Pellicano maybe noticed the mileaage Aaron got from the ambiguous statements regarding Michael, supposedly.Why not start some fun and games to pass the time.-I can think of a hundred crimes worse than molestetion, but there is no point in listing them.

    Like

  59. lynande51 permalink
    August 9, 2011 10:01 pm

    I know that a couple of days ago I presented a Hypothesis on what could possible be meant by what Pellicano said or if he said it. There are articles out there that everyone has forgotten lately. In them Pellicano makes no qualms about not agreeing with the settlement. There is also another fact that you guys might have overlooked or are not aware of if you live in other countries.
    When Jordan agreed with his father and made the allegations public he was as guilty of extortion as his father was because he was the instrument that was used to extort the money, he perjured himself. Juvenile court is a little different.Pellicano went to the police with Weitzman to file a charge of extortion about 2 weeks after the “leaked allegations”. The police would have had to charge Jordan with it too since technically speaking it was his lie that was being used to commit legal extortion. Jordan was thirteen when the charges against his family and Rothman were filed. In California a person can not be held accountable for perjury resulting in extortion until they are 14. He was 13 when any and all papers were filed in the case so he could not be held accountable or found perjurous. The last ones that were filed were filed the day before his 14th birthday. After that everything was about the settlement.
    I think I am right when I say that Pellicano thought that settling was the worst part. It amounted to a lot of things.What happens when a young man of 13/14 makes these accusations. The media went nuts about it for one and that is apparent in the speech that Feldman and Cochran held after the settlement.Secondly it never does anyone any good to get away with something like that. What happens to their sense of morality?

    Like

  60. August 9, 2011 10:00 pm

    We have to confirm that these were really Pelicano’s statements. This could just be another rumor.

    Like

  61. August 9, 2011 9:24 pm

    I’m not doing anything. Just some emails and letters. Probably none will be acted on or even answered.

    Like

  62. August 9, 2011 9:06 pm

    @deborah thank u so much for what u are doing

    Like

  63. August 9, 2011 8:01 pm

    I have had no response from Daily Beast editorial as yet as to how this specific quote came to be presented in the form it did. But it wouldn’t be the first time manipulation of text happens, whether by emphasis or omission.

    I am also asking the few journalists I know about communicatiing with Pellicano. I know of others who wrote to him a while back. Their mail was returned.

    So we’ll see.

    Like

  64. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 7:44 pm

    @ Helena

    Great find! And this article is dated August 7, 2011 just like the the other article! Now I’m curious what Pellicano REALLY told that journalist…

    Like

  65. August 9, 2011 6:54 pm

    @vindicatemj: good point!


    ps:guys i suggest u to read this(and the comments): http://patterico.com/2011/08/08/newsweek-breaks-out-the-pellicano-kneepads/#comments

    Like

  66. August 9, 2011 6:06 pm

    “since Dimond works for the Daily Beast too, she might know more about this interview and what was really said there than we do.”

    Then she should know that another Daily beast article (of August 7, 2011) says the following:

    “Facing molestation charges, Michael Jackson reportedly used Pellicano, who claims he found damning information about the accuser’s family”

    Not about Michael, but about the Chandlers! And this sounds to me much more probable.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/pellicano-s-reach.html

    Like

  67. August 9, 2011 5:25 pm

    @Suzy exactly, but at this point i have another question: why didn’t diane dimond join anita busch on suing pellicano?
    I mean she wrote really a bad thing, better for her that pellicano do not see her comment , and /or that she has proofs of what she is saying,if she won’t be sued for defamation.

    Like

  68. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 5:15 pm

    @ Marcella Perillo

    And I found Dimond’s reaction interesting too. She wasn’t enthusiastic at all about Pellicano’s “change of heart”, but still hostile. I personally think that anything Pellicano might really have is probably exculpatory for Michael and damning to the Chandlers. Whether he chooses to reveal that or instead he goes down the route of media whoreness is another question.

    Also, since Dimond works for the Daily Beast too, she might know more about this interview and what was really said there than we do.

    Like

  69. ares permalink
    August 9, 2011 5:00 pm

    By the way David this post is awesome. I love how Matt Drudge is defending MJ and how he was able to see past the bullshit that apparently had blinded the common sence of the other “journalists”. The only thing that saddens me is that i wont be reading the second part any time soon. I hope i manage to get internet where am going.

    What a wonderful article it is and how many birds it is killing with one stone! Acquitting Murdoch of hacking, brushing off this “kid-stuff” which the British police is investigating now and slandering Michael on the way! So many good things all done in one package! – Helena.

    Exactly Helena. Exactly.

    Like

  70. August 9, 2011 4:58 pm

    4)Does he want another civil case?

    Like

  71. August 9, 2011 4:54 pm

    guys i’m suspicious on many things about this article:
    1) Pellicano went in prison in 2008, and he is hoping to be out on 2013. He has no books or something else to promote. Why did he wait 3 years to say these things? it was more logical to me if he waited to be out to say these things.
    2) who’s this journalist? why didn’t he allow a more “credited” Journalist instead of someone who’s unknown?
    The interview is of 2 hours and half, so SURE something was cut off, what?
    3)how in the hell suddnley diane dimond jumped to comment this article?

    Like

  72. ares permalink
    August 9, 2011 4:48 pm

    The FBI investigated MJ for 15 years and found nothing. Pelicano had always maintained in the past that MJ did nothing. Not only that but he had always defended him. Those are not speculations, those are facts.

    Now,if some of you want to believe that there is some truth in the vague and totally irrational comments made by a man now in prison, that is if he ever made those comments, then go ahead. I personaly will stick to the facts.

    Like

  73. August 9, 2011 4:26 pm

    Guys apart from what he said regarding michael, and the context, what is suspicious to me is that Pellicano is saying really bad things even regardin Schwarzenegger. Pellicano is risking the 31 civil case.

    Like

  74. August 9, 2011 4:21 pm

    “I really hope we’ll have an answer, because we are all speculating.”

    Sending us into wild speculation was exactly the idea of it. It keeps everyone busy and makes us invent the most horrendous stories about Michael ourselves. Great new technology of lying – you drop a hint and they invent lies themselves. A new word in journalism. Innovative technology.

    However if you don’t read the whole of the article you will miss the main point of it. And the point is whitewashing Rupert Murdoch! The same Pellicano who was so terribly unwilling to talk about “things worse than molestation” was extremely talkative about Rupert Murdoch – he said he ‘strongly’ believed Murdoch knew nothing of the hacking:

    “The way Pellicano sees it, the British phone-hacking scandal is kid stuff. “I was way ahead of my time,” he says. What’s the big deal about some tabloid hijacking Hugh Grant’s voicemails? “If Murdoch’s name wasn’t involved, would there be a story? If someone wiretapped Britney Spears, no one would care. The story is, did Murdoch know people were doing this? Did he condone it? I strongly believe he had no idea.”

    What a wonderful article it is and how many birds it is killing with one stone! Acquitting Murdoch of hacking, brushing off this “kid-stuff” which the British police is investigating now and slandering Michael on the way! So many good things all done in one package!

    See for yourselves: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/hollywood-phone-hacker-anthony-pellicano-breaks-his-silence.html

    Like

  75. August 9, 2011 4:13 pm

    @Seanchai10

    Yes, looking back though the evidence of the 2003/2005 case it’s difficult to comprehend how so many red flags were ignored by Sneddon’s prosecution. It is clear Sneddon did not build his case from an objective viewpoint. Yet the fact that it did have to be built, means that Sneddon or at least others around him must have been aware of the severe credibility issues afflicting the case.

    We know Sneddon was cognizant of the multiple places where the case was weak or non-existent, indeed we know that’s why the very timeline of the accusations changed.

    As unbelievable as it seems, I believe Sneddon was prepared to mentally overlook the fundamental ridiculousness of the Arviso case, because he truly believed Michael ‘got away’ with 1993 and his mind-set was such that he let that overrule morality, reason and perspective.

    What is also apparent is this: The Arviso case didn’t happen in 1705 with one corrupt sheriff running the show, no paper trail and no outside scrutiny. Evidence was massaged, manipulated and invented in order to bring an unjust prosecution in full view of others.

    It’s not possible for one person to have put together a case of that scale. It took collusion. Not just between the Arvisos, but also those within the Santa Barbara police department and the multitude of media outlets that profited from their coverage.

    I think it is that point I find most chilling about 2005.

    Like

  76. shelly permalink
    August 9, 2011 4:02 pm

    I really hope we’ll have an answer, because we are all speculating.

    Like

  77. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 3:48 pm

    @ Helena

    Exactly! As far as I’m concerned if someone claims something, especially as serious as accusing somebody of something, then he should make that statment clear. Making innuendo instead of making a clear statment is always suspicious of less than honest intentions (either on the person’s part who said it or on the journalist’s who interpreted it). And it’s an old trick of the media as well.

    Like

  78. August 9, 2011 3:43 pm

    “you don’t know if that was taken out of context”

    Of course I do.

    The way it is presented in the newspaper there is no context: “He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.” But he refuses to say anything more about it.”

    He refused to say anything more? For an inquisitive journalist it is no problem to find at least in what direction Pellicano was thinking – but no, she intentionally leaves this phrase without comment leaving us wildly guessing what it could be.

    Murder!? Grilling those boys’ heels on fire when the parents were not looking? Slowly poisoning them? What else? Whose imagination is wilder? Let us all of us speak up and let us arrange a competition of wild guesses all over the Internet while this journalist highly enjoys herself and the effect she produced!

    P.S.
    Oh, I know! It was alienating the “young boys” from their parents – this is what it was! And mind you – only young boys! What can be worse than depriving young boys of their parents? Even molestation is better than that!

    Like

  79. August 9, 2011 3:12 pm

    “I don’t think the author is speaking about drugs in that article.”

    That’s the point of it. When they drop a hint only it is our own imagination which starts working. Some of us started fantasizing about murders, some about “procuring children to NAMBLA” and I fantasized about drugs. But the flat fact is that Pellicano didn’t say anything like that! And he never mentioned any molestation either. All the innuendo came from the journalist whose task was to tease, hint, make our minds work and imagine the most horrendous things.

    Professionals.

    Like

  80. Maral permalink
    August 9, 2011 3:12 pm

    @ Suzy
    now YOUR explanation is far more convincing. i’m just saying that the fans need to maintain a sort of objectivity and when i see responses like vindicatemj gave i found it sad. the post had no logic or facts aside from what Pellicano has said in the past. he/she is just assuming what Pellicano meant.

    i’m not good at this but i’ll say it’ll be good if we could get in contact with Pellicano.

    Like

  81. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 2:56 pm

    @ Shelly

    I don’t think that’s worse than the molestation itself, but we can only speculate here. And Michael did not “accuse them of lying”. He defended himself against accusations of molestation. Of course that’s technically the same as saying the boys were lying, but Michael only defended himself. Plus he never blamed the kids. In fact he said – according to Pellicano himself in an earlier interview – that he didn’t blame Jordan, he knew it was his father’s doing.

    Like

  82. shelly permalink
    August 9, 2011 2:38 pm

    @suzy,

    The “worse than molestation” could be accusing them of lying.

    Like

  83. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 2:29 pm

    @ Maral

    Even if Pellicano really said this, does it make sense to you that he would tell the truth NOW and not before when he could have helped to put a predator in jail? Does it make sense to you that he told MJ he would “f-k him over” if he found something on him, but instead of “f-king him over” he kept defending him for years and decaces after his resignation? And all of a sudden now he remembers he found “something worse than molestation”? What makes you wonder that this now might be the truth instead of what he always said before? What makes this claim more credible in your eyes compared to what he said earlier?

    And we don’t even know yet what he’s claiming, by the way. To me only murder is “worse than molestation”, but I hope we can agree that such a claim would be ridiculous about MJ. What else could it be? And more importantly: where are all the victims of this alleged crime (if it’s a crime he’s talking about at all) that is “worse than molestation”? I hope we can agree that if someone accuses somebody of a serious crime, at least there should be victims. Why is it that anyone can go to the media, make any kind of claim about MJ without any foundation and it immediately makes people “wonder”? Even when all the previous actions of Pellicano contradict this claim and even when we don’t even have victims…

    This is why the media is able to manipulate the masses. Any salacious claim or innuendo sticks immediately, while we need to work hard for the truth and most people are not willing to do that.

    Like

  84. Maral permalink
    August 9, 2011 2:05 pm

    @vindicatemj
    i’m sorry but you don’t know if that was taken out of context. let me say this i LOVE MJ and i pray to god each night that i’m right about his innocents. but when someone like Pellicano say something like this i got to wonder. and when he says “something worse the molesting them” it does sound like something bad.

    Like

  85. shelly permalink
    August 9, 2011 1:56 pm

    @vindicate,

    I don’t think the author is speaking about drugs in that article.

    Like

  86. August 9, 2011 1:45 pm

    “Some organized harassment behind these attacks of late” or something to that effect, claimed by VMJ & lynande51. Yes, it looks like it. And it explaines the postponements of the trial at the defences request for the most ridiculous reasons.Murrays PR firm at work.
    As for Pellicano,difficult to say,maybe he is just fed up of prison and looks forward to action of some kind. I know he was tough,but I doubt he will start accusing Michael.What could be worse;well procuring children for NAMBLA. And I do not believe in that.The defence fell into their own trap asking for all those tapes of the rehearsal,to try to show that Michael was so sick and weak that he would die anyway.

    Like

  87. August 9, 2011 11:37 am

    “Pellicano makes no sense. if he knew the “truth” why would he let a p-do go free? and what the hell could be worse than molesting kids. and how the hell didn’t sneddon and FBI got hold of this information?”

    Maral, let us not make a mistake thinking that Pellicano said anything bad. Even IF the quote in the article is correct, it doesn’t mean anything. And that is why FBI and Sneddon couldn’t get hold of this information – there was simply nothing to get hold of.

    Instead of believing it let us analyze instead. Firstly, the innuendo spread by this article DOES NOT have anything to do with pedophilia, because the sentence itself is saying it: “He did things worse than molestation”. Nothing can be worse than molestation by the way (this crime in the public mind is worse than a murder), and it is absolutely NO molestation all of them are talking about , so let us not jump to conclusions which even that article is not aiming at – at least on the surface of it.

    The article aimed at saying that there was something else bad happening at Neverland – and in the context of Murray’s trial these PR guys are hinting at drugs. A hint is by the way always more effective than a flat statement, because firstly, this way you can never say that the journalist lied and secondly, a hint is just enough poison for the reader’s mind to start doing all the rest of the destructive work.

    You see it on your own example – they didn’t talk about ped-lia but your mind, fed by their lies for so long, immediately sprang to it (involuntarily, you didn’t mean it of course). This is how suspense movies work – nothing happens, they only just drop a hint that something terrible is going on behind that door and all the rest of the horror is done by a viewer’s mind.

    Given that Pellicano always spoke about Michael’s innocence – both before and after the 1993 settlement – he couldn’t be talking about molestation, so just forget about it, especially since even the article is not saying it.

    Neither did he ever talk about drugs for children in connection with MJ – if he as a father of 8 children had ever found anything like that he would have broken Michael’s every rib at learning it or he definitely wouldn’t have said a single good word about him both before or after the settlement.

    The article insinuates that Pellicano left in 1993 because he had “learned some truths” – but if he was enraged enough to quit (he did it in defiance to Bert Fields being fired by another Michael’s lawyer and the case steering into an agreement instead of a trial) why did he go on speaking well of Michael LATER?

    No one forced him to – he volunteered to speak well of Michael himself!

    The LA Times said:
    “In no way, shape or form does (my resignation) indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.” Pellicano insisted that he pulled out of the case because it was taking too much of his time and because his investigation was essentially complete. “The investigation has all been done and is now in the hands of the lawyers,” he said.

    Anthony Pellicano, an outspoken private investigator who worked for Jackson until resigning last month, said the settlement merely reaffirmed his belief that the boy and his family were after the singer’s money. “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”

    “People are always trying to extort him for all kinds of reasons because he’s a superstar,” Pellicano said. “I have worked for Michael Jackson for many years and have gone through many of these. “This one just happened to have gone too far. Michael is probably one of the most kind and decent men I’ve ever met, and this is horrible.

    MICHAEL WAS ONE OF THE MOST DECENT MEN HE HAD EVER MET!

    This statement does not correspond at all with the innuendo that MJ did to “boys” something “worse than molestation”. And Pellicano kept saying it both before and after the 1993 settlement – in fact he always said it about Michael!

    So let us not fall into the trap laid for us by that PR article – they took something out of context and attached to it a meaning which Pellicano himself never meant. This is a very well-known trick. If he ever said that phrase at all he definitely talked about the psychological effect association with Michael had on those children – they tasted what life of a millionaire was like and when they got back into their ordinary environment it was difficult for them to adapt back. In my opinion this is the ultimate reason why both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo agreed to play their accuser roles in the end.

    What that newspaper reporter did with Pellicano’s phrase snatched out of a context reminds me of catchy headlines in the Internet like “Actor X has only a few days to live!” and when you follow the link the story tells you that Actor X is just playing the role of a fatally ill patient who is to die in a new movie. Or a headline “The Earth is doomed!” actually means that scientists have calculated that in a trillion years the Sun will die and life on Earth will stop.

    Guys, instead of falling into every trap haters lay for us, let us pay attention to the fact that it is a concerted effort on the part of the media to slander MJ and affect the jury. First it was Daphne Barak (who also used separate phrases to make her own story out of the many-hours long Aaron Carter’s interview), now this woman with her insinuations at something which Pellicano did not say or at least mean. And Diane Dimond jumping on the bandwagon too.

    They are preparing us for the trial and trying their best to prove that Michael was an addict. This will be their main line of defense and in order to prove it they will now make a round of all those who ever said a good word about Michael and will snatch various phrases from their interviews which will all be cooked with one and the same sauce – drugs and addiction. An added ‘advantage’ of such a method is that this way all these people will also be compromised in the eyes of Michael’s fans.

    BEWARE, everybody – they are doing it on a mass and professional scale and the way they are doing it (through a PR firm!) shows that it is not Conrad Murray who is defending himself – it is a certain powerful group of people who are working against Michael. A PR firm from Sneddon (paid for by the tax-payers), a PR firm for Conrad Murray which he naturally cannot afford himself either – THIS IS A PATTERN, GUYS…

    What they are proving this way is that these people are organized and form a certain a body behind Michael’s harassment.

    Like

  88. lynande51 permalink
    August 9, 2011 9:36 am

    @ Sean I have read that pleading from the Prosecution after the trial and about the photos. They should have read the book ATG to find out how meaningless those photos were. The Chandlers were delighted to give that description knowing full well it meant nothing if the markings were not a match. They knew how much vitiligo can change in the course of 6 months. It was ludicrious to think it would have matched if he was not willing to acknowldge the circumcision issue. Not only thar but even in a devastating defeat they were defiant when you read the tone in their response. He just never gave up one would have to wonder what was wrong with him at that point

    Like

  89. shelly permalink
    August 9, 2011 6:48 am

    I hope you are right Vindicate, but I not so sure about that. I guess I am too paranoid.

    Like

  90. August 9, 2011 4:48 am

    Thanks for linking to my article and blog 🙂 I should point out, though, that Janet’s schizophrenia was not enough in itself to adequately demonstrate that the allegations against Jackson were false. However, the fact that she and her children also had a history making false allegations in other cases, including JC Penney and her legal battles with her former husband, should have raised concerns, particularly given Dr Hochman’s assertion in the JC Penney case that the allegations were a consequence of her illness. I probably don’t have to tell anyone here that a civil settlement should not be regarded as an indication of guilt – it would have been a PR nightmare for JC Penney to publicly fight allegations of sexual assault against the mother of a child with cancer.

    A history of false allegations, and major changes in the description of incidents of assault – also present in the Jackson case – are both key indicators that an allegation is false, and of course Janet’s claims of false imprisonment etc, which formed the basis of the conspiracy charge, should have raised a red flag. In fact, it was the conspiracy charge that first alerted me to her illness. It’s ridiculous that Sneddon et al would prosecute on a charge that included claims, for example, that Michael Jackson’s employees stole her shoes, altered receipts for waxing treatments, and filmed her eating in various restaurants for PR purposes.

    With regard to the photos of MJ’s genitals, these were among several items requested by the defense after the verdict. Sneddon attempted to retain possession of these items on the grounds that they would be relevant in the event of a future case against MJ.

    I notice you mentioned the Duke lacrosse case, which is also a good example that how the media reports a case can leave an indelible slant on how the events are perceived years later. I recently came across this article, ostensibly on the Casey Anthony verdict, which includes a discussion involving many misapprehensions on the Duke case – http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/05/symposium-the-casey-anthony-verdict/ – most of which apparently stem from the reportage of Nancy Grace.

    Like

  91. August 9, 2011 3:35 am

    “The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths…He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.” But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeleton.”

    Guys, I am sorry for being away for so long – I am currently out of town, had problems with the Internet and was working on a post. Now I see that even a few days’ absence is not acceptable when it comes to Michael Jackson as every new day brings new attacks from his haters. IMO the article about Pellicano is another episode in a series of provocations a la Daphne Barak’s. Even if that interview did take place I am sure that Pellicano could not say a single bad thing about Michael. He was so insistent on his innocence for so many years that there is absolutely no reason for him to change his attitude now.

    They claim he quit the case because he “found some truths about MJ” . This is a lie because back in 1994 AFTER the settlement had been signed he said that he always believed in his innocence (and no one really forced him to express that opinion):

    “Anthony Pellicano, an outspoken private investigator who worked for Jackson until resigning last month, said the settlement merely reaffirmed his belief that the boy and his family were after the singer’s money.
    “I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-26/news/mn-15478_1_michael-jackson

    As regards that phrase about “doing something worse than molestation” it is clearly taken out of context. He didn’t mean anything really bad by it.

    What it most probably means is: “Michael befriended those boys and took them from their usual environment into his millionare’s life. He showered them with attention, gifts and money spoiling them and giving them unfounded hopes that it would last forever in their lives. However not all friendships lasted that long and when they found themselves outside Michael’s life they grew embittered, disappointed and felt abandoned. That friendship was the best thing they ever had in their lives – and nothing in their future could ever match it. So it would probably be better if they had never known him at all”.

    This is the first thing which entered my mind when I read that article. And if Pellicano is really willing to talk we can ask him to. Is there anyone who is living nearby and would want to have a chat with him?

    Like

  92. Maral permalink
    August 8, 2011 11:11 pm

    Pellicano makes no sense. if he knew the “truth” why would he let a p-do go free? and what the hell could be worse than molesting kids. and how the hell didn’t sneddon and FBI got hold of this information????????

    Like

  93. August 8, 2011 10:03 am

    @ dcpledwards Thank you. Enjoying Matt Drudge’s take on the trial so far and your analysis. I fail to see how Sneddon and his cohorts did not see through the Arvizos. In fact, I don’t believe for one second that they did. Prosecutorial misconduct doesn’t seem to adequately describe what went on there.

    Like

  94. August 8, 2011 9:20 am

    What I noticed was the word “detective” used to set a mental picture officialdom of one whom the Media has constantly called “sleazy P.I. Or how about “slip” from a man the FBI could not crack. What I also noticed what DiD was the 3rd or 4th to post a response, which is outside her norm on articles written by others.

    I suspect it is too late to ask for a wait and see as the comments are highly dramatic and open ended. I imagine we will jump into the fray adding this to an alarmingly coincidental list of purported interviewee “slips”, “interpretations” and “misunderstandings” within the past 60 days.

    Like

  95. lynande51 permalink
    August 8, 2011 6:35 am

    Howard Weitzman was called by Pellicano shortly after the news broke in 1993. He was already on board when they filed the extortion charge.

    Like

  96. Teva permalink
    August 8, 2011 5:30 am

    I forgot Pellicano was the one who gave Geraldine Hughs the photo she used on her cover. He gave it to her back in 1993, he may respond to her letters, and having written a book she could be considered a journalist by the state.

    Like

  97. Teva permalink
    August 8, 2011 5:27 am

    “There are a ton of article in the LA Times that say how Howard Weitzman was called by Pellicano. ” – Lynette

    The Fischer article says Pellicano worked for Fields as his PI.

    I still say we should try to get a response from Pellicano directly. If he talked to this reporter maybe he would talk by letter to Geraldine Hughs. They have a history, we could ask her to contact him.

    Like

  98. lynande51 permalink
    August 8, 2011 4:43 am

    Johnnie Cochran and Howard Wietzman litigated the photos and the affadavit back in 1994. A judge was set to open the affadavit for the body search to the public in June and the team appealed it and won in July of 1994 so it was not leaked to the public until January 6th of 2004. It had to be opened when it was added to the November 13th 2003 until January 24th 2004 when Judge Melville sealed it again, from that information we can assume that the Linden Smoking Gun article is the most accurate to the description which has a light spot the color of his face. In all other reports from Detective Birchim in JRT book and DD and MJWML and Sneddon it is dark. So not even the blemish was the right color let alone the cut versus intact. The only thing I have ever questioned is this; is there really such a thing as long public hair? I mean how long does is hav to be to be considerd long? Just saying that is how crazy it was.
    In some of the discovery documents Susa Yu says that they have a faxed cover sheet to Johnny Cochran from Deborah Linden is mentioned from 1993. It does not have the accompaning pages.that was thr October 2004 discovery when they started sending the defense the stuff from the 1993 investigation. The thing is that when they came to do the search they have to present the search warrant and the sworn affadavit. Without it it is not a legal search. So the next question is why was it faxed to Cochran after the search.
    I don’t like to say anything about the article about Pellicano but in the FBI files an agent talks to someone who calls someone a cockroach and says it is extortion. Is or was that first someone Pellicano because it was around the date that he would have talked to them.I thought of something else to we might be able to talk to Bert Fields is he still alive? If so in reality Pellicano was working for Michael through Fields. There are a ton of article in the LA Times that say how Howard Weitzman was called by Pellicano. There is another person and he still handles Michael’s estate with Branca and McClain. The reason I don’t like this story is I don’t know that writer should we find out about her before we pay attention to it just so we know if she is credible in her other articles?

    Like

  99. August 8, 2011 3:30 am

    Yes, I read those D. It is this strangely open-ended question Pellicano introduces in that interview, that for me — is a point of interest.

    What on earth could Pelliano be attempting to conjure here? He has several appeals to fund. The ‘reeling in’ of Michael’s name –amongst others — is unfortunately likely intended by Pellicano to be heard by those outside ‘Big Spring’s’ walls.

    Like

  100. Julie permalink
    August 8, 2011 3:17 am

    And, I totally agree with you about Drudge’s comment regarding Feldman and Jackson. When Matt Drudge is speaking on Luna’s videos has to be my favorite to listen to because he is spot on and he is telling the truth unlike the others. I also love how he calls Diane Dimond and others out as well.

    Like

  101. Julie permalink
    August 8, 2011 3:15 am

    Oh I had just seen it on this site http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/tempest-in-a-thimble-fmr.-da-says-feldman-testimony-worthless-mb-244.html.

    “Consequently, the only person “delusional” here may be Feldman, because the story was widely reported. Now, if he wants to question the accuracy of the story, that’s one thing. But to call Jackson delusional when it was Jackson’s own family who helped him get out of New York seems bizarre.

    Did he not say this or has he forgotten he threw a temper tantrum and made that threat? His problems seem to be stuck around the 9/11 tragedy …even though he wasn’t “left to die” anywhere. He whines about not being allowed in a limo with Jackson during that time. Maybe he needs to get some psychological help to get over that issue? But what could be more insidious is the fact that he’s not telling the public the full story around that situation.

    The fact is that according to Jackie Jackson’s wife, Victoria, Feldman took a ride with the Jacksons on their family’s private bus out of New York around that time. Remember, the U.S. suspended all air travel. In a story reportedly aired June 6 2002 on Access Hollywood, Victoria tells what she says really happened between the Jacksons and Feldman. She says that, no, Jackson never abandoned Feldman in New York on Sept 11. She also says it was Feldman who made a nuisance of himself and upset Jackson’s then 71 year old mother, Katherine Jackson. From the report:

    Michael Jackson’s sister-in-law Victoria (wife of Jackie) has spoken out against former child actor Corey Feldman’s claims that Michael abandoned him in New York on September 11th.

    She claims Feldman invited himself onto the bus due to take the extended Jackson family out of New York. She said Feldman was making a nuisance of himself on the bus, and upsetting 71-year-old Katherine Jackson.

    Feldman wasn’t “left to die” in New York after 9/11. And it was Jackson’s family who helped him. Feldman later claimed Jackson said ‘if Corey’s on this bus, it doesn’t leave New York!’. Well apparently that was a crock too. So what the hell is he talking about? Jackie’s wife Victoria would have liked to know the answer to that question as well.

    From the Access Hollywood article:

    “So I guess we are still in New York,” commented Victoria, who went on to claim Feldman took a ride on the Jackson bus and was dropped off in Memphis.

    “He was thanking everyone so much for letting him go with us,” she said.

    “That’s another thing that threw me, he was so grateful, thanking everybody, and then he said that he was stuck in New York.”

    Feldman seems to be telling the opposite story in comparison to his real behavior during that time. Fat chance of getting Bashir to delve into this contradiction—only one among many – to any extent.

    What does Victoria think of Feldman’s whining? She says he’s “a little delusional” and that he acted like he was entitled to special treatment. More from her Access Hollywood interview:

    “Feldman is in my opinion, a little delusional because he thinks he’s supposed to get special treatment and have cars waiting to take him places. He was a child star, and he’s no longer a star, a child or any kind of star, and I think he’s dying to be in the place he once was, and he will go to any length to get there.”

    The interesting and possibly prophetic words from Victoria about Feldman going to “any length”. Could that be what he’s doing now? Could this be some asinine way of forcing Jackson to pay attention to him?

    I knew I had read it somewhere, not sure how accurate the information is. I doubt the interview can still be seen 9 years later.

    Like

  102. lcpledwards permalink
    August 8, 2011 3:01 am

    Deborah, I posted a rebuttal to Pelliano in my comments under the “About the blog” page. I posted excerpts from 2 MJ books that quoted Pellicano as quitting because he didn’t agree with settling with the Chandlers.

    Like

  103. August 8, 2011 2:27 am

    I agree re Hoefflin. Thanks for that clarification.

    An interview with Pellicano has surfaced.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/hollywood-phone-hacker-anthony-pellicano-breaks-his-silence.html

    ” Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. “I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’ ” The detective took the assignment, but says, “I quit because I found out some truths…He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.” But he refuses to say anything more about it. It’s as if Pellicano wants to send Hollywood a reminder: I know which closets hold the skeleton.”

    The mind boggles of course at that last remark. Pellicano appears to be deliberately setting out bait for those he knows will be paying attention. Even higher profile interviews, movies syncs, memoirs …?

    The big buck.

    Like

  104. lcpledwards permalink
    August 8, 2011 2:15 am

    @ Deborah
    Jordan claimed,, in the Linden Report, that he saw certain discolorations, and that MJ was circumcised, but I don’t think he mentioned a specific “distinctive mark”, i.e. a birthmark, scar, etc. If MJ had any birthmarks or scars down there, they would have been noted by Sneddon and his goons. Remember, MJ was uncircumcised and his penis was light with dark splotches, not light with dark splotches. You can read the posts that I referred to that refute the rumor that Jordan’s description matched. I personally wouldn’t use that article as “proof” of anything, because that sleazy doctor didn’t even know what Jordan’s description was,so he didn’t know exactly what to look for.

    Like

  105. lcpledwards permalink
    August 8, 2011 2:10 am

    @ Julie
    Yes, you’re right, Feldman had a falling out with MJ over the escape from NY after 9-11. But I think it’s because he could NOT go with them; I don’t think he travelled with them and complained all the way.

    Yes, he was someone who didn’t truly show support for MJ again until after he died. Here is his “Billie Jean” tribute, performed in June 2010:

    As for Drudge, yes he was wrong for implying that MJ “dumped” Feldman for getting too old for him, but I’m willing to give him a pass 🙂 after hearing all 4 of his shows, and hearing the passion in his voice against Sneddon, Grace, Dimond, and the media, even if that passion wasn’t necessarily for MJ (as he stated, but he did acknowledge his musical accomplishments).

    Like

  106. August 8, 2011 1:23 am

    A stunning post David. Thank you.

    “The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case.”

    Here is a quote from Malcom X, one of the greatest, yet most underrated civil rights activists of the 20th century:

    “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

    Yes. They do. The sheer noise of the media machine — which itself needs the tragedies of the rich, famous and infamous on which to gorge and profit — filled the space that contained the details that fundamentally tore apart the claims and charges in the Arviso case. But in order for the American public and world to have known and understand how these details — they first needed to hear them.

    I’ve always found it amazing that Drudge, a conservative commentator, who blatantly acknowledges Michael’s media given ‘freak’ persona, took such a strongly objective position regarding the 2005 trial. But he held nothing back.

    David, I don’t know if further substantiation of the non-presence of a damning mark on Michael’s intimate area can be extrapolated from this article tweeted by Klein very recently?

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/HOLLYWOOD+KNIVES;+Plastic+surgeon+%60molested+his+famous+clients‘.-a060428603

    From the article:

    According to Maywood, Hoefflin abused Jackson intimately as well as financially, exposing his manhood to see if stories of a distinctive mark on it were true.

    At the time, Jackson was under investigation for alleged child abuse. The alleged mark was a key to the case.

    Maywood said: “Mr Jackson demanded he remain fully clothed during all procedures. Dr Hoefflin formed a curiosity about the mark.

    “While the patient was under general anaesthetic during a facial procedure, Hoefflin undid his pants, exposed, manipulated and thoroughly scrutinised him.

    “After he satisfied himself no such mark existed, I was cavalierly ordered to `put him back together and get him ready for surgery’. Dr Hoefflin then left the operating room with a chuckle.

    Though this article dates as 1999, it is a later print of an earlier one. Knowing the date of this would be useful as it specifically time-frames its context as 1993.

    Like

  107. Julie permalink
    August 8, 2011 1:16 am

    Regarding Corey Feldman…I wanted to see if I could learn more about why he and Michael had a falling out. Even Drudge got it wrong when he said something to the effect that Michael dropped Feldman; however, Feldman was in New York when the 30th anniversary concerts were happening. I read a piece (and I can’t seem to find it now) quoting Jackie Jackson’s wife, Victoria, at the time and she stated that when the World Trade Center disaster was happening, Michael was trying to get his entire family out of NYC. He managed to get a bus to take them all out of harm’s way and Feldman wanted Michael to take care of him too except that Feldman was not Michael’s priority. Victoria stated that Feldman got on the bus and complained the entire time saying that Michael was going to leave him in NYC to get killed. That makes sense as to why Michael would quit talking to Feldman. I mean good grief.

    As far as Feldman’s interview with Bashir, he knew exactly what he was doing by saying the things he was saying. Sadly, no one would be interested in his career since he basically hadn’t done anyhing significant in the 10 years prior to their interview. He’s another one who I’m sure had a large amount of guilt after Michael died as evidenced by his behavior in dressing like Michael at the memorial service.

    On another note in Newsweek there is an article about Anthony Pellicano that I read online this afternoon which really angered me. The piece is entitled Hollywood Hacker Breaks His Silence and it is written by Christine Pelisek. In this piece Pellicano states that the reason he “dropped” Michael Jackson as a client is because he found out some truths about Jackson and that Michael had done worse things to children that molestation. First of all, if that were true, then why wouldn’t he have come forward at the time to take Michael Jackson down rather than allowing him to be out there doing these things to other children; and second, what could be worse than child molesation (unless it’s murder). I tried to respond to the piece to say these very things because you never know whether Pellicano actually said this or whether Pelisek it sensationalizing her story and using Michael to do it as most in the media have done, but couldn’t get a login to do so. When you pull up the article it is on the Daily Beast site which I know is home to Diane Dimond and her trash reporting.

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. It’s All Just A Little Bit Of HIStory Repeating- Anything For Money | mjjjusticeproject
  2. Exposing Media Bias in “The Trials of Michael Jackson” | mjjjusticeproject
  3. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  4. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  5. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael
  6. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance

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: