Skip to content

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

August 21, 2011

Here is the final part of this 3 part series of my transcription and analysis of the Matt Drudge show.  (Here are the links to Part 1, Part 2, and my rebuttal to Drudge’s protege Andrew Breitbart).

Pay close attention to bullet point #6 to see the foundation of Sneddon’s baseless case against MJ, and how he was able to railroad MJ into getting an indictment from the grand jury!

The Matt Drudge Show: April 17th, 2005

Matt Drudge: Michael Jackson is being charged with all sorts of charges, where he could spend the rest of his adult life in prison. They’ve announced at the California level that he will spend it in the prison where Charlie Manson resides. That’s how serious the crimes are that they’ve accused him of.  But the case has been falling apart, week by week by week, and now we even get the harem of women who have been leading the charges, the Nancy Grace, and Diane Dimond now has come around and said “You know what? The case is falling apart!” And for Diane Dimond, who has been out there basically carrying the water for prosecutor Sneddon, and we’re all wondering what is going to happen to Sneddon after all of this once the jury comes out and says “You know what? Why was this case even brought?  This looks strange.” Diane Dimond has even turned. But a gentleman who has been very clear from the beginning, because he has been looking at the evidence, not in the public perceptions, not in the slanting of what has been happening, he works for Fox News, and he first reported last week that Michael Jackson has an offer on the table to sell the Beatles catalogue to get some money, honey, and he joins us tonight live from the coast. Thanks again Roger!

Roger Friedman:  You’re welcome, Matt.

Matt Drudge:  We’re pretty wound up here tonight.

Roger Friedman:  I see that. Out here in California we’re very laid back.

Matt Drudge:  How? If you’ve seen what has happened in that courtroom, and you actually wrote a column this weekend saying “This trial must end! Stop this! This is ridiculous! These charges are not to be taken seriously!” Why did you did you feel the need to write that column on that Fox News spot?

Roger Friedman:  Well, I have to say that on Friday….Thursday was bad enough, but on Friday the cross-examination of the mother of this accuser in this case was so devastating, and not just because she lied a lot, and admitted to it, she admitted to a lot of lying on the stand on Friday, but it’s pretty clear that she’s mentally ill in some way. Maybe she’s schizophrenic, she’s been hospitalized at a couple of mental hospitals1, we don’t know what the reasons were, but it seems clear  that there must have been a reason, and she may be more than just paranoid and schizophrenic, we started to see two and three different versions of her at the same time, and it was kinda telling when they played the rebuttal video, this is the video that was made of her and her three children back in February 2003 to support Michael Jackson, saying “Yeah, he’s a great guy”……

Matt Drudge:  What she said was scripted by the German, right? She said the German guy who could barely speak English was scripting every word down to the hand holding…..

Roger Friedman:  She changed her story. Originally, she said that they had supplied her with sort of the bones of the script, but now she’s saying that they gave her a word for word script that she and her children all memorized ten times a day, with the German managers of Michael Jackson coaching her. This is very funny, for one thing I know the German managers, and their command of English isn’t that good, they certainly didn’t write a word for word script of anything, and certainly there was no time for her to spend ten times a day with them to learn it, so……..

Matt Drudge:  Mesereau, in cross, asked her “How long did it take you to learn the script of a twenty, thirty minute video? How long did it take you?” And she said she didn’t have an answer!

Roger Friedman:  She didn’t have an answer. Well, there’s a lot of things she’ didn’t have an answer to because she’s making up things off the top of her head now! He also said that it’s a completely different version of any story that you’ve told to a grand jury or to an investigator. What seems clear to us in the courtroom is that when she firsts starts testifying, she’s very sedate, and as time goes by, and possibly medication wears off, she becomes crazier and crazier, and you can hear people in the courtroom saying “here it comes”, where she sort of slips after a couple of hours and loses control, and becomes very emotional.

Matt Drudge:  Well now hold on for a second  Roger, the Jacko haters will say this is the very type of family he would abuse and take advantage of go for the crazy ones2, the problem is it’s not consistent in the stories that she’s telling, and it looks much more like she’s falling apart on the cross, and as if she’s been making things up. I want to ask you point blank, Roger Friedman, is there talk out there of charging her with perjury?

Are charges possibly looming of Michael Jackson getting HIS day in court against this family, against this prosecutor, against these witnesses who come in here and possibly perjured themselves?3

Roger Friedman:  So far we haven’t heard any talk of perjury. This is going to be interesting on the part of the district attorney. Is he going to turn around and prosecute his own witnesses for lying on the stand?

Matt Drudge:  This is a very important question, be the way, that’s a very key question.

Roger Friedman:  And we’ve had a lot of that. We’ve had a lot of people admit……… woman who used to work at Neverland actually said on the stand “Well OK, I lied about everything….

Matt Drudge:  There’s no consequence now in the California Judicial System if you get caught lying or perjuring yourself in proceedings? There’s no consequence whatsoever?!!

Roger Friedman:  Well, of course there is. But we’re not even allowed to ask any questions, because of the gag order that’s in place, we’re not allowed to ask any questions. You know, this is a very peculiar case. I’ve never …

Matt Drudge:  And of course the media being what it is, nobody dared asked Sneddon before that “Are you prepared to charge the family if they’re lying?4

Roger Friedman:  Right.

Matt Drudge:  Even before the proceedings. So anyone looking these papers when they were filed, it was very suspicious from the get-go.

Roger Friedman:  It certainly……the minute the gag order is lifted, which presumable will happen when the case is over, that’ll probably be the first question that’s asked. But it’s a very peculiar case because you can’t ask any questions, and you can’t interview anybody. It seems like some people do have an inside track.5

Matt Drudge:  Roger, you have taken some heat out there, I’ve been on the receiving end of some of your emails, you’ve been out there questioning the case from the beginning, when it wasn’t popular to question it. You’ve raised all sorts of questions about this family when it seemed like they were so innocent and Michael Jackson was the freak. Do you feel a little vindication now as we get towards the finish line, Lord help us, if Sneddon finally wraps up his case before there’s no case at all left to be wrapped up?

Roger Friedman:  I do, because I feel…………around a year and a half ago, I was told the entire story, by people who really knew it. And I have to say that I’ve not been surprised once. Every single person has come through exactly as described. Which makes me really think that there is no case, more than ever. Do I know if Michael Jackson has molested children in the past? I have no idea. Is it possible? Sure. But in this particular case, with this particular family, I feel that a real mistake was made. You know, the Santa Barbara district attorney has been waiting since 1993 to bring someone in here that they can use to convict Michael Jackson.6 And I think this was the wrong group of people to do it with. 

Matt Drudge:  Also, you have to wonder what is the repercussions of a judicial system where you can have a prosecutor going through a grand jury, bringing these charges, dragging his name, Michael Jackson, through the mud like this, the ridicule of an entire media industrial complex , as it’s been for month after month after month, people assuming he did it, people saying “well, if somebody in court is saying it, it must be true”, where does he go to get his good name back? Or is he just now such damaged goods that he’s forever just going to be playing the E.U.? How much longer, where is Sneddon now? What is he promising? I guess she’s still on the cross on Monday? Is he going to just keep splashing away at her, and try to get her to, I don’t know, roll on the floor? What else can you do to her? She’s literally helpless up there.  Like you said, showing different personalities. Even Diane Dimond, writing in the New York Post today, “You know what? This mother is not happening in the courtroom7”. And if she’s saying that she has turned on Sneddon to save her face, everybody’s now saving face out there in the courtroom.

Roger Friedman:  Well, Sneddon says, Sneddon took a position on Friday in the court, where he sat behind the other prosecutors during her questioning, and had his head in his hands, and in very full view of the jury, looked disgusted. And that was a very bad sign because this was his witness! This is the person that he brought this whole case on.  And now it looks like he’s backing away from her. Very bad.

Matt Drudge:  Well she’s probably deviated from the script.

Roger Friedman:  If there was a script! She can’t memorize a script! That was a great moment when she said “I’m not a good actress!”, and Mesereau said “You’re a fine actress!”.

Matt Drudge:  She said she was acting like the Catwoman Halle Berry, she’s really sassy. You were in the courtroom, was she actually like addressing the jury the jury at one point, and then addressing Mesreau? She had been addressing the judge, she had like full command, this was her little circus!

Roger Friedman:  Well, she almost never addresses Mesereau in response to a question. When he asks her a question, she turns to the jury and then proceeds to give a long, digressive answer. Which no one objects to! Which is very strange, because with every other witness they’ve objected to any long answer, but here it just goes on and on. The jury stares at her in disbelief as she tells a long answer  which has very little to do with what was asked of her. Sometimes, she’s actually address us, the press, in the back of the room, where she’ll say things like “You’re good guys, I know that!”, and we can’t respond to this, but it’s a complete show, and it doesn’t make any sense, and it’s not…………… know, we laugh about it, and

Matt Drudge:  No, it’s scary because they’re very serious charges, and there’s nothing worse in this country than being accused of molesting young boys8, and what they have done here is very serious Roger, and I think Sneddon knew the case was weak going into it, I swear I think he did, and I hope the jury gives him hell on that verdict day when they come out and say “Why was this case brought?” Roger Friedman will be one of the good guys on that day. We’ve gotta cut, we’re on a time break, but I do appreciate you coming in!

Roger Friedman:  Matt, thank you!

Matt Drudge:  We’ll continue to link up over at the Drudge Report, because you were there ahead of the pack, and they’re all following you now! Diane Dimond is racing around the corner trying to catch up! Thanks again, roger Friedman!

Roger Friedman:  Thank you.

Matt Drudge:  “Time to end the Jacko trial” he writes. You heard that here a year ago.

If it can happen to him, it can happen to any of us. If you’ve got a prosecutor who wants you and wants you bad. Prosecutorial abuse right now should be a major issue. I even think that if they were really smart, the White House would get involved in this case9. You can laugh at me, but it’s so egregious, the missteps, the false claims, the perjuries out there. It is a court gone crazy! And I’m very concerned that this is going to continue. Clinton started it. You can in and say anything in court. I give you permission now to perjure yourself and lie and point fingers and mock and there’s no consequence at all!10 Why not? Have a circus of it! If they’re gonna do that us, if they’re gonna do that to citizens of this country, we should do it back at them. That is what’s at stake here! And I don’t know why other people are not jumping all over this! The integrity of the court system  at stake with this! What is going to be done to those who have perjured themselves in this case? What is going to be done out there, California? Wake up! It’s horrifying to think what is going to happen to judicial system if you can go in there and lie, and point fingers, and say all these terrible things, and it didn’t happen! When you’re joking, and you’re laughing, and you’re plotting when you’re shopping, getting your legs waxed11 .


1. “Maybe she’s schizophrenic, she’s been hospitalized at a couple of mental hospitals”.  She certainly IS schizophrenic!  Janet was diagnosed with this mental disorder by a psychiatrist who was hired by JC Penney to evaluate her after she filed her frivolous lawsuit in 1999, first claiming that she had been battered, falsely imprisoned, and subject to emotional distress, and subsequently amending the lawsuit in 2000 to claim that she had been sexually assaulted, punched in her face, and molested in her genital areas!

For the complete story of her shakedown of JC Penney, please scroll to the bottom of this post.

2. Also, many MJ haters at that time defended Sneddon’s ludicrous and ever-changing timeline by saying that the period right after the airing of the documentary is exactly the time that he would choose to abuse Gavin, because nobody would believe that he would have the gall to abuse him while he was under so much scrutiny. Let’s look at what notorious MJ hater Wendy Murphy had to say in Martin Bashir’s second hit piece “Michael Jackson’s Secret World”:

To some extent I believe that this is the weakness of the prosecution’s case.  On the other hand, this is probably why Michael Jackson chose that period of time to molest the child. He knew he would be insulated from prosecution, because what law enforcement official would ever take on a case where the child who’s accusing him was, only 2 weeks earlier, in a video claiming Michael Jackson had never touched him and was the best guy on the planet?

This is typical of the type of “analysis” that was provided throughout the trial, and when you consider the fact that it comes from someone with an extensive history of lying, and gleefully predicted that the Duke Lacrosse players would be convicted, it really shouldn’t surprise you. Try to keep a straight face as you watch her defend the disgraced and now disbarred former DA Mike Nifong, who maliciously prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse players.

3. “Are charges possibly looming of Michael Jackson getting HIS day in court against this family, against this prosecutor, against these witnesses who come in here and possibly perjured themselves?” Many people have wondered why Michael didn’t try to sue Sneddon or the Arvizos, but in all likelihood it is because he was both physically, mentally, and financially exhausted from his 5 month trial.  Sure, in the court of public opinion it would have looked good (as most people would say “if someone falsely accused me of child molestation I would sue the pants off them!!”), but even if MJ had sued, the damage was done. His name and reputation were shattered, and he needed time to recover. Leaving for Bahrain was one of the best decisions he ever made, as it gave him the peace and sanctity he so desperately needed.

4. “Nobody dared asked Sneddon before that “Are you prepared to charge the family if they’re lying? You can see for yourself the softball questions that were lobbed at Sneddon at his November 18th, 2003 press conference on the MJ Truth Now website. Its 40 minutes of unprofessionalism, arrogance, and outright lies! Nobody even entertained the thought that MJ could be innocent! My favorite question was when one of the reporters asked why MJ was being allowed to keep custody of his kids, and Sheriff Jim Anderson said it’s because he’s innocent until proven guilty!

And here is Dan Abrahm’s softball interview with Ron Zonen after the trial! I’m sure they went out and had drinks afterwards, judging by their “chemistry”!

5. “It seems like some people do have an inside track.” Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the allegations and media bias against MJ already knows who Drudge is referring to!  Here is Part 1 and Part 2 of a detailed and extensive dossier of her “journalism”!

6. “You know, the Santa Barbara district attorney has been waiting since 1993 to bring someone in here that they can use to convict Michael Jackson”  Let’s focus on the last the last part of this quote: “bring someone in here that they can USE to convict Michael Jackson.”  As a prosecutor, your job is to seek justice, not a conviction! Your job is to use professional skepticism when evaluating the merits of an allegation. Your job is to respect the constitutional rights of the accused to a quick, speedy, and fair trial in front of a jury of his peers. It’s not to “use” people to convict someone that you don’t like! It’s not to exploit and enable their lies by falsifying fingerprint evidence, lying to grand jurors about the meaning of a “conspiracy”, changing the dates of the alleged molestations upon the discovery of exculpatory evidence, asking your deputies to become paid informants for you at Neverland, selectively leaking grand jury transcripts, and numerous other egregious examples of misconduct from top to bottom!

Let me take this chance to briefly describe the changing of the dates and the addition of the conspiracy charge out of thin air!

In the initial felony complaint that was filed on December 18th, 2003, MJ was charged with 7 counts of “lewd acts” upon a child and 2 counts of administering an intoxicant between February 7th and March 10th, 2003, but in the grand jury indictment filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates changed to February 20th and March 12th, 2003, the number of lewd acts decreased to only 4 counts, an “attempted lewd act” charge was added, the counts of administration of an intoxicant increased to 4, and all of a sudden there was a charge of conspiracy to engage in child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion, with five “co-conspirators” unindicted, despite their refusal of full immunity in exchange for their testimony against MJ! From the “Jackson Charged with Conspiracy to Kidnap” section of the Veritas Project:

Another problem with the conspiracy allegation is that although five of Jackson’s associates were allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the family, Jackson is the only one who has been charged with a crime. The five alleged co-conspirators remain un-indicted and have all been offered immunity if they agree to testify against Jackson.

Joe Tacopina, an attorney for one of the accused co-conspirators, insists that his client has rejected Sneddon’s offer of immunity and maintains that the Arvizo family’s claims are ludicrous.

Here is the defense’s motion to have Janet Arvizo subjected to a mental examination, where they described the aforementioned discrepancies between the initial complaint and indictment. From pages 9 through 11 (much of it was redacted, as this motion was attached to a prosecution motion to oppose it):


Mr. Michael Jackson submits this Memorandum in support of his Motion for Mental Examination of Complaining Witnesses. Mr. Jackson’s motion is based on the following grounds:

(1) The prosecution opened the door to permit a mental examination of the complaining witnesses by offering its own mental examination end expert testimony concerning their mental condition, and the complaining witnesses have waived the provisions of Penal Code section 1112 by employing an expert psychologist to examine the witnesses’ mental status and provide expert testimony of mental condition;

(2) Mr. Jackson cannot effectively cross-examine and confront prosecution expert witness Psychologist Stanley Katz unless he is permitted equal access to the subject matter of the expert’s mental examination, which are the complaining witnesses, and precluding equal access to the witnesses for examination deprives Mr. Jackson of Ins Sixth .Amendment rights to confront and a cross-examine expert witnesses against him.

A. Statement of the Case

1. Plaintiff7’s Complaint.

Plaintiff filed this action on December 18, 2003, charging Mr. Jackson with seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a and two (2) counts of administration an intoxicant to a minor in violation of Penal Code section 222. The Complaint was based on interviews from three (3) complaining witnesses: Janet Arvizo, then age 35, who is the mother of the two (2) minor complaining witnesses, Star Arvizo, then age 14, and Gavin Arvizo, then age 13.

The complaint was based on more than seven (7) interviews conducted with the complaining witnesses by Psychologist Stanley Katz. Stanley Katz detailed the alleged conduct that formed the basis of the complaint, and the complaint mirrored his interviews and reports to law enforcement.  In addition, law enforcement conducted more than two (2) dozen interviews with the complaining witnesses, and more than a hundred separate interviews with other witnesses.

Mr. Jackson voluntarily surrendered to the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office on November 20, 2003, and was arraigned on the original charges on January 16, 2004. Mr. Jackson pleaded not guilty. However, the prosecution soon abandoned the December 18, 2003, Complaint and convened a Grand Jury to return an Indictment against Mr. Jackson. Without the benefit of witness cross-examination, the Grand Jury issued an indictment on April 26, 2004, consisting of one (1) count of conspiracy with five (5) other-unindicted individuals in violation of Penal Code section 1S2, four (4) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code section 288a, one (1) count of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 288a, and four (4) counts of Administration an Intoxicant Ln the Commission of a Felony in violation of Penal Code section 222.

2. The witnesses changed the dates and facts for the indictment

The Indictment was markedly different from the December 18, 2003, Complaint. The Complaint contained seven (7) counts of Lewd Acts Upon a Child, where the Indictment contained only four (4), plus one of Attempted Lewd Act Upon a Child. Somewhere, the perception of the facts in this case was significantly altered, and the Indictment no longer followed the details and chronology recounted by Psychologist Katz.

In addition, the Complaint alleged two (2) counts of Administration of an Intoxicant, where the Indictment alleged four (4). In view of repeated interviews and witness statements, the change in facts, counts, and dates has created an irreconcilable inconsistency with no explanation.

The dates of the alleged crimes also changed. The Complaint said five (5) of the seven (7) “lewd acts” allegedly occurred “on or between February 7, 2003 and March 10, 2003,” and all the other counts occurred between February 20 and March 10, 2003. But the Indictment now says that all but the new conspiracy charges occurred between February 20, and March 12. 2003. Now it is a conspiracy starting February 7, but no lewd act until February 20. This was not just a narrowing of the time period, but it was also a lengthening of the time period. Suddenly, something happened on March 12 that was not included in the Complaint.

In the Indictment, Mr. Jackson was charged with conspiracy to engage in Child Abduction, False Imprisonment, and Extortion. He was not indicted on the actual objects of the conspiracy itself, nor were these acts charged as stand-alone crimes or attempted crimes. Not even the alleged co-conspirators arc charged with the crimes.

This is a perfect example of why I think that the Michael Jackson trial should be studied in each and every law school in the country! If the American justice system doesn’t learn from its past mistakes, then it’s doomed to repeat them!

Here is Mesereau’s explanation of the reason that Sneddon used the conspiracy charge.  From the “Frozen In Time” seminar:

The prosecution was out to get him in the best way that they could, and I understand that, but I think the person they chose as the victim, as the accuser, and particularly that person’s family, were really a disaster for them.  They brought a conspiracy charge that Michael Jackson  had masterminded a criminal conspiracy to abduct children, commit extortion, and falsely imprison a family.    Michael Jackson couldn’t even imagine such behavior, let alone orchestrate it.  And what that charge did for them, and I can’t get in the minds of the prosecutors, but here’s what I think they were doing, is that allowed the mother, who was really the lynchpin of that a lot of the case, to bring in co-conspirator hearsay under the exception.  It allowed them to intimidate witnesses who were at Neverland because they would too fearful they would be indicted as conspirators.  Great conspiracy here! The only person they charged was Michael Jackson.  Everyone else was unindicted.  She brings hearsay testimony in, the witnesses that can refute it are terrified to come to court for fear that they’ll be indicted, so they lawyer up. And plus, it makes Michael Jackson look like this “Mafioso-type” guru, which he’s not even capable of being.

7. “You know what? This mother is not happening in the courtroom.” Here is the “expert analysis” that Drudge is referring to: Dimond’s column “Ma’s Blab Backfires” from April 17th, 2005.  Pure garbage, hands down.

8. “No, it’s scary because they’re very serious charges, and there’s nothing worse in this country than being accused of molesting young boys.” Actually Drudge, there is something that is worse than molesting young boys, according to MJ’s former private investigator Anthony Pellicano. While currently serving time in federal prison for wiretapping conspiracy charges, he recently gave an interview to Christine Pelisek of The Daily Beast website, and in it he left an indelible stain on his legacy of defending MJ’s innocence, even after he resigned from the 1993 case due to disagreements with MJ’s new lawyers.  Here is the quote that has forever sullied his relationship with fans:

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 skeletons.

If Pelisek had an ounce of journalist integrity, she would have either demanded that Pellicano specify his comment, or not include the comment at all! For her to leave an insinuation in her interview and not challenge or clarify it, is utterly bush league of her. Even college interns would know to ask a follow question!

Just to show you the amount of disdain that even prisoners have for child molesters, let’s look at the special slang word that is used to identify them: chomo!  Child molesters are referred to as “chomos” in prison and are routinely segregated from the general population. Let’s look at this article to get a sense of how they are treated:

Tattoo in prison makes molester a marked man
CARLISLE, Ind. — An inmate serving life in prison for molesting and killing 10-year-old Katie Collman is now the subject of an investigation into how he ended up with the tattoo “Katie’s Revenge” emblazoned across his forehead.

The Indiana Department of Correction placed Anthony Ray Stockelman, 39, in protective custody away from the general inmate population last weekend after authorities discovered the tattoo, said Rich Larsen, a spokesman for the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. It is about 30 miles south of Terre Haute.
An internal investigation is under way to determine how the tattoo, which covers Stockelman’s entire forehead, got there, Larsen said Wednesday. He refused to comment on what Stockelman has said about it or what investigators have learned.

9. “I even think that if they were really smart, the White House would get involved in this case.” I must admit, I was very taken aback by this comment! For him to say that then-President Bush should get involved is something that I would NEVER expect one of the top conservative voices in the country to even fathom, much less actually say to his millions of devoted listeners! He acknowledged that some will laugh at him (which I’m sure they did!), but it was very brave and noble of him to say this. I get the impression that it wasn’t so much that the White House should get involved to save Michael Jackson the celebrity, but to save Michael Jackson the father, the son, the brother, and the American citizen!  Just as he said in an earlier episode, if this can happen to him, and can happen to any of us!

10. “I give you permission now to perjure yourself and lie and point fingers and mock and there’s no consequence at all!”  Wanna see something that’s totally hilarious?  On July 25th, 2011, Diane Dimond published an article on her blog titled “Perjury Should Be Punished – Always”, in response to the alleged lies that were told by Casey Anthony’s mother during her murder trial (specifically, her searches for chloroform on the family computer).  How ironic, huh? She witnessed lie after lie after lie told by the Arvizo family, the Neverland 5, and numerous other witnesses during the Michael Jackson trial, and would repeatedly ignore them while giving her “analysis” to viewers on MSNBC, and to readers of the New York Post!  Here is a compilation of her reporting:





Here’s a funny quote from her article:

I don’t know about you but my parents instilled in me a sense of honesty that makes me get the shakes at the mere thought of telling a lie after taking a sworn oath. I don’t think I could do it.

Ok, ok, whenever you’re done laughing, let’s look at an objective analysis of her reporting by the author of this EXCELLENT article “Michael Jackson May Be Paying For OJ’s Acquittal”:

Another great huddle for Michael Jackson is the Media. This huddle, by my estimation, is not unrelated to the OJ shadow. And I say this because the American media is generally owned and controlled by white Americans. There’s a strong desire within this demography to convict Jackson and the reporting evidences it. Among others, CNN has sunk to an all-time low. Opinionating has taken the place of reporting. You would see a newscaster and a guest in what is supposed to be an interview. The newscaster carefully lays down his opinions and then bounces them off the guest occasionally. It is not uncommon to see reporters such as Court TV’s Diane Dimond tell open face lies as to what actually happened in court. She has even helped the prosecution by supplying them material she hoped could be used as evidence against Jackson. She has also forecasted Michael Jackson’s death. I’ve heard reporters ask Jackson defenders if they would let their children sleep in Jackson’s bedroom? I’m yet to hear them ask one person if he would open his home to the Arvizo family.

Seems that Dimond has a severe case of amnesia! When it comes to reporting on Michael Jackson, she totally forgets what she claims her parents taught her!

On another note: since that article also highlights the media’s treatment of Kobe Bryant, let’s look at how sympathetic Dimond was to his crazy accuser in this piece she recently did titled “When Rapists Get A Pass” (which insinuates that Kobe Bryant is a rapist):

Remember the 19 year old hotel staffer who charged NBA superstar Kobe Bryant with rape? She had her sanity questioned, her reputation destroyed and her life turned upside down by Bryant’s high paid investigators. Despite her injuries she ultimately refused to testify at trial and accepted an undisclosed sum in a civil suit payoff.

There she goes again! Using the term “payoff” to imply that Kobe bought his freedom! Does that sound familiar!  There’s a reason why both the accuser and prosecutor decided not seek a criminal trial! For that reason, you can read this article by Andrew Cohen, one of the few journalists who reported honestly on MJ’s trial!

11. “When you’re joking, and you’re laughing, and you’re plotting when you’re shopping, getting your legs waxed.”  This is a direct reference to the laughable testimony of Janet Arvizo, who had to “correct” Mesereau when he asked her, under cross-examination, if she had received a body wax, and she replied that she had only received a leg wax, as if that makes a big difference!  Here is the excerpt:

14 Q. All right. Now, during that period of time

15 that you were at Neverland before you left with

16 Jesus, did you go anyplace out of Neverland?

17 A. Yes, I did.

18 Q. Where did you go?

19 A. Ronald and Dieter said, like I told you

20 about Michael’s positive PR, and they wanted to show

21 that he’s doing things for the mother and the kids.

22 And, you know, so — they had me so wrapped up. I

23 believed everything they said.

24 Q. Miss Arvizo?

25 A. Yes.

26 Q. Where did you go?

27 A. Okay. I went to, like, a beauty place.

28 And, oh, but get this. 6097

1 Q. Miss Arvizo?

2 A. I’m paying for it.

3 Q. Miss Arvizo?

4 A. That’s right.

5 Q. Where did you go?

6 A. Okay. I went and got my legs waxed.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. And the key thing there —

9 Q. Hold on, hold on.

10 A. — I’ll pay for it, because it was in

11 replacement of my things.

12 Q. All right. I want you only to answer the

13 question that’s asked of you.

14 A. Okay.

15 Q. I want you to listen to the question that’s

16 asked. Would you do that?

17 A. Sure.

18 Q. Okay. You went to a beauty salon of some

19 nature; is that right?

20 A. Yes. Yes.

21 Q. Did you have a body wax?

22 A. No.

23 Q. All right. You had your legs waxed?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. What else?

26 A. That’s it.

I guess we can give her credit for showing some restraint and saving MJ a few bucks by not getting the full body wax!


Even if you don’t necessarily agree with Drudge’s political views, anyone who likes Michael Jackson has to give Drudge his due respect for standing up in the face of intense criticism to tell the truth about the trial. As a talk radio host, he is, for all intents and purposes, an entertainer; he’s not a journalist, and he had no ethical obligation to tell it how it really was in 2005.  For that, he should be commended for his bravery! He was definintely the exception, and not the norm, among his conservative talk radio peers.

For an example of what most talk radio shows hosts were like towards MJ, look no further than what Curtis Sliwa said a few weeks after MJ’s memorial:

As you can see, there was no attempt whatsoever to educate his listeners about the facts of the case; he merely wanted to entertain them! It’s disappointing that he said those things, considering the positive effect he has had on crime-ridden, inner city communities with is Guardian Angels group.

Based on these 4 radio shows (and any others that I may obtain in the future), it’s easy to see why I said that, when it comes to Michael Jackson, Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge are POLES APART!!!

55 Comments leave one →
  1. lynande51 permalink
    August 21, 2011 4:46 am

    David great post. One thing though, the receipt did show a full body wax,(lip,brows,bikini area and legs) and the next day Mom and Daughter mani’s and pedi’s 🙂 🙂 🙂


  2. lynande51 permalink
    August 21, 2011 5:06 am

    All while staying at the Calabasas Country Inn and Suites.Where they dined at Outback on at least three occasions and one other time at The Black Angus Steakhouse. Not to mention the clothing at Anchor Blue, Jockey, Banana Republic and Wilsons, and a new set of luggage was forced upon Janet Arvizo for their abduction to Brazil. They treated them to snacks and movies galore. A five day stay bankrolled by the unindicted co-conspirators Frank and Vinnie. Due to the insistance of Neverland Staff that those kids were too rambunctious and needed to be elsewhere.They were getting to be a handful,being disrespectful to staff,pullinga knife on one, demanding alcohol from one, stealing alcohol out of the kitchen and wine cellar, driving the trucks, golf carts, injuring Marlon Brando’s grand daughter Prudence with the golf cart. It was Miko Brando that told Frank and Vinnie they had to get them out of there because Michael was in Florida at Al Malniks for Blankets birthday.And still Janet Arvizo could not figure out how to climb a four foot split rail fence and was opting for a hot air balloon escape. Oddly enough I hear stories like this every day the thing is they are in a psych hospital so I can medicate them enough for them to figure out how to at least climb the fence.


  3. Maria permalink
    August 21, 2011 3:15 pm

    America is a sick country. Very sick. America destroyed and killed an innocent man. It was unimaginable cruelty.


  4. Maria permalink
    August 21, 2011 3:30 pm

    Americans, Your media and your journalists – a picture of your sick population.


  5. Alison permalink
    August 21, 2011 6:37 pm

    in the video of gloria allred, – that smile!!every time she opened her mouth i expected to see pointy teeth with blood dripping off them!


  6. meigadas permalink
    August 21, 2011 9:16 pm

    @Maria, “America” as you call it ( I prefer USA , because America includes a lot of differents countries) is not the one and only with this problem, here in Spain we have a growing problem with the media (and I do not think that ALL the Spanish population is sick, they might be “asleep”, but not sick…I hope!!!), they are becoming more partisan and it´s very hard to find today a paper or TV channel that do not work under the rules of a planned agenda; and it is so because is a business. I think what we are experiencing in recent weeks with the scandal of News of the world exemplified it quite well.
    To think that this problem only occurs in the U.S. is quite naive, in my opinion.
    The press has been manipulated for various purposes since it exists , it was until recently the only available way to create opinion. If your country has not yet been tainted by the misrepresentations of certain media. Please tell me what it is and then I emigrate!


  7. August 21, 2011 10:45 pm

    David, you’ve done a fantastic job. The black page of Michael Jackson’s unjust prosecution should be well documented so that the present and future generations study it and draw lessons from it. And you are helping it a lot by providing this transcript and analyzing it.

    Unlike Maria I believe in the American judicial system and the fact that despite all the pressure from the prosecution Michael Jackson was acquitted on all counts is the best proof that the system is healthy. It gives all of us hope that one day honest Americans will make Tom Sneddon answer for his malicious persecution of an innocent man which he did in front of everyone’s eyes by falsifying evidence, telling outright lies and forcing his witnesses into perjuring themselves.

    One of these honest Americans is William Wagener who is set on making a documentary to expose Tom Sneddon’s lies – and I sincerely hope that he manages to collect the money for it (not only from Michael’s fans but from all honest people who want their judicial system to survive). Tom Sneddon shouldn’t be receiving the $224 thousand pension a year but should be serving a sentence in prison for making a successful attempt of turning the American court system into a complete joke.

    Your post has made me think about several things. This one is extremely important:

    – Are charges possibly looming of Michael Jackson getting HIS day in court against this family, against this prosecutor, against these witnesses who come in here and possibly perjured themselves?3
    Roger Friedman: So far we haven’t heard any talk of perjury. This is going to be interesting on the part of the district attorney. Is he going to turn around and prosecute his own witnesses for lying on the stand?
    – This is a very important question, be the way, that’s a very key question.
    – And we’ve had a lot of that. We’ve had a lot of people admit……… woman who used to work at Neverland actually said on the stand “Well OK, I lied about everything….”
    Matt Drudge: There’s no consequence now in the California Judicial System if you get caught lying or perjuring yourself in proceedings? There’s no consequence whatsoever?!!

    If people are allowed to perjure themselves and there are no consequences for that it opens the gate to slander and lies pouring into that gate. In Michael’s case the perjury was obvious – and not only on the part of the Arvizos but other false witnesses like Adrian McManus. And no one answered for that?!

    Should it be left only to the victim of slander to seek revenge and justice in court? And what if this victim lost all his health and money trying to clear his good name and is physically totally unfit to go through another strenuous trial (like Michael)? Shouldn’t there be a legal mechanism safeguarding people against such malicious lies in the first place?

    Another important conclusion is the realization of the fact that the Arvizos will be sticking to their story like mad now. Knowing that they broke the law by perjury it is absolutely impossible for them to admit their lies now – because the first thing to happen will be Tom Sneddon and his followers making big eyes at them, faking astonishment at their revelation and demanding that they should answer for it. Everyone knows that it was Tom Sneddon who was the real culprit here, but Sneddon is enjoying a very comfortable life of a pensioner as we see now – while the Arvizos, if they admit their perjury, will have to answer in full for what they did.

    This makes me think that the Arvizos will stick to their story until their deathbed – unless Tom Sneddon and his ways are exposed. If we want this family to ever tell the truth (if they are willing to of course) first Tom Sneddon should find himself on the court bench. Otherwise all of them will go on slandering Michael as they are simply unable to say anything different. Of course it is only them who are to blame for it – but my point is that even Gavin Arvizo is having some pangs of conscience it is useless to expect him to come with the revelation. He simply doesn’t want to go to prison for perjuring himself and that’s it.

    “…that allowed the mother to bring in co-conspirator hearsay under the exception. It allowed them to intimidate witnesses who were at Neverland because they would too fearful they would be indicted as conspirators. Great conspiracy here! The only person they charged was Michael Jackson. Everyone else was unindicted. She brings hearsay testimony in, the witnesses that can refute it are terrified to come to court for fear that they’ll be indicted, so they lawyer up. And plus, it makes Michael Jackson look like this “Mafioso-type” guru, which he’s not even capable of being.” – Thomas Mesereau

    Another problem with the conspiracy allegation is that although five of Jackson’s associates were allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the family, Jackson is the only one who has been charged with a crime. The five alleged co-conspirators remain un-indicted and have all been offered immunity if they agree to testify against Jackson. Joe Tacopina, an attorney for one of the accused co-conspirators, insists that his client has rejected Sneddon’s offer of immunity and maintains that the Arvizo family’s claims are ludicrous. – Veritas Project

    This is a great point. Most of us wondered why on earth this crazy conspiracy was brought into the Arvizo case at all. INTIMIDATION is the answer. Intimidation of those who could support Michael Jackson. Tom Sneddon named all them conspirators and if they had opened their mouth they could have been indicted. This is how they neutralized Frank Cascio – who was as far as I know that very adult who always in Michael’s room when there were any children there. It was a precautionary measure to protect Michael from unfounded allegations if someone dared throw mud at him. However Frank Cascio couldn’t speak up as otherwise he would have found himself on the court bench too – Sneddon simply intimidated him into silence!

    But if these people are “conspirators” let them answer for it! Why give them “immunity” if they agree to testify against Jackson or keep silent in the case? The fact that Tom Sneddon offered them “immunity” makes things even worse! It looks like twisting someone’s arms or even blackmail to me.

    This point is only adding to the long list of Sneddon’s abuse of power aimed at putting an innocent person in jail. I hope William Wagener speaks about all of this in his documentary. Actually there are so many facts against Sneddon that it should be a series of documentaries, and not just one.

    And this point drives the last nail into Sneddon’s coffin:

    “many MJ haters at that time defended Sneddon’s ludicrous and ever-changing timeline by saying that the period right after the airing of the documentary is exactly the time that he would choose to abuse Gavin”

    The fact that the prosecution claimed that Michael Jackson chose the time to “molest” Gavin AFTER the scandal started makes me really wonder about the sanity of some people’s minds. Critics say that it is the “weak point” of the prosecution case. But it isn’t just a weak point – it is burying the case altogether and even before its start!

    How could anyone believe a fiction story like that??? I was of much better opinion of Americans…..


  8. lynande51 permalink
    August 21, 2011 11:20 pm

    Of course Tom Sneddon would not have charged the Arvizo’s, Blanca Francia or the three Neverland Five that testified with perjury. This all occured during the prosecutions presentation of the case. It was his case. If he were to charge them with perjury he would have had to recuse himself from the case and be charged for prosecutorial misconduct.
    As for Michael sueing him later it depends on harmless versus reversible error. A reversible error is one where certain testimony or evidence was instrumental in a jury’s decision.Let me give you an example. If the jury had found Michael guilty on any of the lewd acts charges based on the testimony of Ralph Chacon but not on the evidence itself that would be reversible error because that was not the law. A harmless error is one where the outcome was the best that could have been expected, in this case 14 not guilty verdicts.If you are a defendant and you are aquitted on all counts you can not expect better than that. Sneddon got a get out of jail free card with those verdicts as well because no matter what kind of prosecutorial misconduct occured during the case Michael was found not guilty.
    As for the Arvizo’s the media likes to make it sound like it was Janet Arvizo’s testimony that blew the case for them but it was not, it was Gavins. The last thing that the jury watched was the tape of Gavin with Deputies Steve Robel and Paul Zellis when he was being “questioned” for the first time. The only testimony that the jury wanted to have read to them for review during deliberations was Gavin’s. It was Gavin’s testimony and lies that they based their verdict on.


  9. August 21, 2011 11:32 pm

    There are many wonderful people in the US, then there is T.S. ,and his supporters.You know who they are.In this country , in contrast ,the state of California, or the city(?)of St. Barbara would have had to pay Mesereau´s fee and all the other defence costs.So you will have to give more thought weather to bring a case to trial or not.


  10. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 12:37 am

    Frank, If Gavin’s allegations had been true should have been charged with a Lewd act for showing the Arivzo boys “internet porn” the first night they were in his room. He was not so that shows you how singularly focused Sneddon and his investigators were and then also tells you how much they actually believed the story.


  11. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 12:43 am

    I read that on the Chacon’s testimony, it’s under cross examination

    ” Didn’t you tell Mr. Sneddon on direct

    24 examination that you were subpoenaed to a grand jury

    25 in Los Angeles?

    26 A. Oh, yes, sir. But I didn’t go.

    27 Q. You didn’t go. But you went down to be

    28 interviewed under oath instead of going, true? 5248

    1 A. Yes, sir.

    2 Q. And as a result of your interview under

    3 oath, no charges were ever brought in Los Angeles,

    4 right?

    5 A. No, sir.”

    Does it mean that he never testified in front of a grand jury in 1994?


  12. August 22, 2011 12:45 am

    Guys, the situation with the Arvizos and their crazy allegations no one wanted to have a headache about reminds me of the question haters usually ask about why Michael “paid off” his accuser in 1993 if he was innocent?”.



  13. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 12:46 am

    I find that patt of his testimony interesting

    “Q. Do you remember testifying how upset you

    7 were at Neverland when you learned that other

    8 employees got raises and you didn’t?

    9 A. Yes, I believe there was one time.

    10 Q. And tell the jury what that was all about.

    11 A. Probably they had hired two or three

    12 security, and they — I believe they paid them $12

    13 an hour, and we were only getting $9 an hour.

    14 Q. And did you complain about it to somebody?

    15 A. Oh, yes, I did.

    16 Q. Who?

    17 A. Probably the lieutenant.

    18 Q. And what happened?

    19 A. Nothing ever happened.

    20 Q. Was Mr. Abdool upset about that also, to

    21 your knowledge?

    22 A. I believe so, yes, sir.”


  14. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 12:54 am

    When did Chacon stop working for MJ?

    “When you left Neverland, you just stopped

    4 showing up for work, right?

    5 A. Yes, sir.

    6 Q. You stopped showing up for work after you

    7 met with Attorney Ring, correct?

    8 A. Probably so, yes, sir.

    9 Q. You were disappointed that you weren’t

    10 getting more money from tabloids, weren’t you?

    11 A. No, sir.

    12 Q. Never complained to anybody about that?

    13 A. No, sir.


  15. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 12:55 am

    They were already seeing an attorney before they left their job.


  16. August 22, 2011 12:58 am

    What is the role of the US Supreme Court Justices?


  17. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:05 am

    One of the best part of his testimony

    10 Q. Do you remember saying you thought Mr.

    11 Jackson should compensate you for the rest of your

    12 life?

    13 A. No, sir.

    14 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to show

    15 you your deposition transcript?

    16 A. Yes, sir.

    17 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach?

    18 THE COURT: Yes.

    19 THE WITNESS: Where is the beginning?

    20 Oh, I must have, sir.

    21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to

    22 look at that page in your deposition?

    23 A. Yes, sir.

    24 Q. Does it refresh your recollection that you

    25 testified under oath that you thought Mr. Jackson

    26 should compensate you for the rest of your life?

    27 A. I must have said that, yes, sir, because

    28 it’s on there. 5266″


  18. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:10 am

    He left in July

    “. And you worked at the ranch, Neverland

    25 Valley Ranch, for a while before you left there,

    26 correct?

    27 A. Probably a month or so, or two. I’m not

    28 positive. 5271

    1 Q. Was it at that point that you became

    2 involved in the lawsuit with Mr. Ring?

    3 A. Yes, sir.”


  19. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:13 am

    In his redirect examination, he said that about Gutierrez

    “Mr. Mesereau mentioned something about an

    23 individual called Victor Gutierrez. Do you remember

    24 that?

    25 A. Yes, sir.

    26 Q. Were you ever paid any money by Mr.

    27 Gutierrez?

    28 A. No, sir. 5277

    1 Q. Did you ever give him a statement at all?

    2 A. No, sir.”


  20. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:14 am

    “Q. Did you legit — did you feel, yourself, 5278

    1 that you were entitled to some money from Mr.

    2 Jackson because of the way you were treated on the

    3 ranch?

    4 A. Yes, sir.

    5 Q. Do you still feel that way?

    6 A. Yes, sir.”


  21. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:24 am

    Under recross

    ” You also claimed at the time $16 million

    25 wasn’t enough for you, right?

    26 A. I probably did, sir. Yes, sir.

    27 Q. The prosecutor just asked you if you knew

    28 anything about the amounts you were seeking, and of 5280

    1 course you did, right?

    2 A. Yes, sir.

    Under cross examination

    “Does it refresh your recollection that you

    28 admitted you knew your lawyer had asked for $16 5208

    1 million?

    2 A. No, sir.

    3 Q. In fact, you said you didn’t think 16

    4 million was enough, correct?

    5 A. No, sir.

    6 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I just

    7 show you your deposition?

    8 A. Yes, sir.”


  22. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:31 am

    “. How much did he want, Mr. Chacon?

    8 A. There wasn’t an amount, sir.

    9 Q. After a six-month trial, your lawyer didn’t

    10 ask the jury to award an amount for you, sir?

    11 A. You’ll have to ask Mr. Ring.

    12 Q. You were sitting there, weren’t you?

    13 A. Yes, sir.

    14 Q. Did you hear him give a closing argument to

    15 the jury?

    16 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to

    17 object; argumentative.

    18 THE COURT: Sustained.

    19 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you telling this jury

    20 today, under oath, you don’t know how much your

    21 lawyer asked for in that six-month trial?

    22 A. I saw it earlier when you showed –“


  23. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:36 am

    “All right. Do you recall speaking to a book

    6 author named Gutierrez?

    7 A. Yes, sir.

    8 Q. And approximately when did you speak to a

    9 book author named Gutierrez?

    10 A. I believe that was before we went to Star,

    11 and — but I don’t remember the — I don’t remember

    12 the date or the time.”


  24. Maral permalink
    August 22, 2011 1:41 am

    Does it mean that he never testified in front of a grand jury in 1994?
    @shelly, i want to know too……. but it doesn’t really matter. it’s actually funny that he was willing to shout it at to the world by selling his story to tabloid but when it came to going and telling it to a grand jury to put a molester behind bars he chicken out.! i wonder what sneddon promised him the second time around. it’s also odd that they saw all these things yet Michael payed them so poorly…. now if i had done this things and you saw it, i’d give you a raise to keep you shut or “get rid of you” = have you killed!

    and oh boy @janets testimony…… just WOW

    and DD with the stuff about jermains book………….. that woman is crazy…..


  25. hana permalink
    August 22, 2011 2:33 am

    According to Aprodiate Jones, what convinced her of Michael Jackson’s innocence was watching Gavin’s police interview. She found it odd that Gavin, a 13 year old boy, told police that he didn’t know what an ejaculation or an erection was. He also told the police that he was scared of being at neverland, yet on the witness stand he told the jury that he was very happy to be there. He also told the police, “Please don’t tell my mom, I haven’t told her any of this”, yet his mom was outside waiting for him and this was AFTER they met with various civil lawyers.

    If somebody really molested you, then why lie about little things like that? If your really a victim, and if your telling the truth about being molested, then what’s there to lie about? This convinced Aprodiate that the boy on the videotape was not a victim of molestation, but was someone who was trying to ACT like a victim of molestation.


  26. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 2:33 am

    Shelly I covered the fact that Chacon never testified in front of a Grand Jury just gave his sworn statement to Sneddon and Russ Birchim in my piece about the connection between the Neverland Five and Victor Gutierrez. He never did go in front of the Grand Jury because the Grand Jury asks questions. All he ever did was give a statement. As a matter of fact here is how it worked. Kasim Abdool was deposed by Michael’s legal team for the criminal case in January. That is where he said he did not see anything wrong going on between Michael and the kids. Then they received subpoena’s to go the the LA Grand Jury in late April of 1994. The SB Grand Jury disbanded on May 2nd 1994. On May 9th Abdool contacted Russ Birchim and told him that he knew of someone that had seen something and that someone was Ralph Chacon. That is when they told the story about Brett. It had to be Brett because if it had been Jordan they could have prosecuted Michael without Jordans testimony or at least tried. Then that is when Sneddon went to Mebourne to talk to Brett and was turned away by his parents saying that Brett still denied anything llike that has happened. Sometime between being deposed and meeting with Sneddon and Birchim they met with Attorney Ring and in his office met Victor Gutierrez and Gary Morgan or Kevin Smith of Splash News. Then they meet again and sell their stories to the tabloid to fund their lawsuit. It was not actually filed until 1995 when they got anough money selling stories to pay for their lawyer to start the case.


  27. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 3:12 am


    I know that you covered that fact, but in his redirect examination, Chacon claimed he testified in front of jurors.


  28. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 4:21 am

    He obviously couldn’t keep his story straight.One of them couldn’t keep their story straight from morning to afternoon in the Neverland Five trial. Judge Zel Cantor got so mad about it he ordered who ever it was off the stand and sanctioned them.


  29. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 4:53 am

    Did he have a wage increase or not. In his cross examination, he said he didn’t and he told Sneddon he did.


  30. nan permalink
    August 22, 2011 5:00 am

    this is the response i received from william wagener regarding sneddons pension..
    Yes, I was aware that Sneddon was at the top of the pig out Trough,

    and I knew Jim Thomas as near the top

    but was unaware of the other exact amount.

    THIS is for the rest of their liVES, they are OVER PAID PENSIONS and it IS the precise
    reason they have to close courts early every day, and half day a week to save money to PAY these outrageous pensions..
    it really is incredible how these people run that town..

    i also have the frozen in time dvd and just the fact that zonen, stays in touch with gavin, visits him etc ,makes me firmly believe he knows that kids was lying…. he has befriended any of the other people involved in cases he has prosecuted?….actually visits them in another part of the country etc? i think in some way he stays close to him and feigns concern for him so the kid will ignore whatever pangs of conscience he might have regarding the destruction his lies caused ……i think zonen is going to be stuck with this kids for life to try to save his own reputation……he then goes on to say that gavin is considering law school so i bet he either ends up working with zonen or zonen arranges to get him a job..i noticed he didnt mention how starr is doing ,,,,maybe he is in jail…..

    this dredge analysis is wonderful ….thanks for putting this up


  31. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 5:43 am

    I don’t know exactly why Zonen is friend with Gavin, but he is Louise Palanker’s boyfriend and Palanker is a friend of the Arvizos.


  32. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 6:00 am

    Hi nan here is a link to the blog talk radio show when Larry Nimmer was on it. He talks about a chance encounter with Louise palanker and what she said about Gavin and Janet Arvizo before she knew who he was. Send it to William Wagner. When I was reading the Arvizos testimony I said those guys ( the deputies and sneddon and Zonen) had to be careful because once this family starts calling you by your first name you are in trouble.Wait until I show you the real story about “wheesy you little hottie,big sis,Mommy wheezy”.


  33. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 6:05 am


    What did he say about her, where is it on the tape?


  34. lynande51 permalink
    August 22, 2011 6:13 am

    It’s right at the beginning. She told him that Gavin says he feels like MJ immasculated him and that crazy Momma Arvizo is still going to the Sheriffs department looking for help from them. Money help I bet.


  35. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 7:23 am

    When did she told him that? And what happened after she found out who he was?


  36. nan permalink
    August 22, 2011 8:12 am

    i dont know if zonen and louise met before or during the trial or , but they are living together and supposedly engaged.
    i would love for the nimmer thing to be on tv , but he needs the estate to sign off on it ,and in it he mentions the chandlers .i think the settlement agreement included mj/chandler heirs as well, so i dont think the estate can sign off on it or , they might be able to sue..i am not sure if i am right about that though.
    i did notice that gavin and starr were on a first name basis with the district atty and sheriffs……that is funny how they cozy up to their next victims…they wanted to be comedians when they were scamming comedians, then they wanted to be in law enforcement when they scamming them , and now gavin wants to be a, maybe zonen will be his next


  37. hana permalink
    August 22, 2011 8:46 am

    I wonder how long Gavin is going to keep pretending to be a victim.


  38. August 22, 2011 11:16 am

    Would you like to know what a DA with a history of Prosecutorial Misconduct, Malicious Prosecution and the law suits to go along with it gets for destroying lives?


    And there are those in Law Enforcement who have the nerve to label me a Cultist because I don’t buy their coverup stories for this man and they cannot come up with one good reason why he was not criminally charged with lying to Federal Officers along with a host of other offenses.


  39. August 22, 2011 11:28 am

    Sneddon acted with impunity, falsified timeline etc.That is why I asked about the role of US Supreme Court Justices. Thanks to Mesereau he did not succeed. But despite this, that trial almost destroyed Michael.
    Is there no instance to keep corrupt attorneys in line?


  40. August 22, 2011 12:16 pm

    “I wonder how long Gavin is going to keep pretending to be a victim.”

    I am afraid it will be really long as he doesn’t want his former “friends” turning on him and accusing him of perjury. He feels much more secure siding with them now.

    There was one detail in this Arvizo saga which is still intriguing me a lot. Psychologist Katz who had several long interviews with the Arvizos and who eventually reported the whole thing to Larry Feldman and the DCFS, said that once Janet Arvizo called him and said that “they couldn’t do it” refusing to come to one of the interviews. Katz doesn’t really explain it but his implication is that Gavin didn’t want bad publicity.

    Thinking that way would be totally wrong. Gavin had already had a lot of bad publicity by then – when the documentary aired several months earlier his classmates mocked him and the story was in all newspapers – so coming up with a “revelation” in that situation was not that big news any more.

    Gavin’s reaction and his mother saying “they couldn’t do it” looks like something totally different. It is like the D.A. asking them to go to a trial (and evidently promising support in winning the case and a civil suit bringing in millions after that) but Gavin still being in doubt whether he should and could do it. When Katz said he would get millions Gavin suddenly …. started crying which is a totally untypical reaction. Those were the pangs of conscience – which were so big that even Janet Arvizo said “they couldn’t do it”.

    Kats is talking to Detective Paul Zelis on the phone (and is being secretly recorded by him):

    8 I sat down with Gavin, I said Gavin look, if you go ahead with the civil lawsuit,
    9 your family will get money if you win.
    10 PZ: Mmhm
    11 SK: I want you to understand that, but you also will be, your identity may be
    12 known.
    13 PZ: Right
    14 SK: And he sat there and started crying. So…I….I don’t feel like ya know, from
    15 Gavin’s point of view at all this is something he wants to do.

    16 PZ: Right
    17 SK: I think he feels really caught.
    18 PZ: Right right….well, my concern is….it’s not so much the kids wanting
    19 because like you said, they….they….they may not even know, ya know, the ins
    20 and outs of ya know, suing and getting’ money and all that, but urn, ya know, my
    21 thoughts would be,.well, is…is mom, ya know,
    22 SK:. Is she doing something
    23 PZ: Leading them
    24 SK: Ya know….I….I get…I don’t think so. I….I….because mother’s been very
    25 ambivalent about it from the beginning

    26 PZ: Mmhm
    27 SK: And ya know, she’d call me back one day and canceled interview and said
    28 we can’t do it. Like just feel it’s too much, ya know. We just can’t do this.

    29 PZ: Right


  41. August 22, 2011 2:36 pm

    We can only speculate,but my guess is that Gavin may have felt he did not want to do wrong to someone who had saved his life.Gavin knew about his very unusual bloodgroup,and that they had not found a donor until Michael did “the blood drive”,I think these were the very words Gavin had used on some occasion.He may have had moments when his conscience raised it´s voice.


  42. Susanne permalink
    August 22, 2011 3:29 pm

    David, great job again. I also very often thought about the perjury and why it didn’t have any consequences. While I understand that MJ had no strength left to sue all of them – and I agree with you that it was the best to leave the country -, I wonder why nobody else could charge the Arvizos and the other liars with perjury. But I also think that no prosecutor dared do that because Santa Barbara County was still controlled by Sneddon. He was the boss.
    A lot of what Drudge said also William Wagener is saying, about prosecutorial abuse etc. I really would like to have WW’s project realized, and I would like to encourage everybody to support him.


  43. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 4:29 pm

    What were the excuse from the Neverland 5 people to not report what they allegedly saw

    “12.What will happen to me if I make a report?
    Anyone who reports known or suspected child abuse is protected by law from civil or criminal liability unless it can be proven that the report was false and that the person who made the report knew it was false. Any person, except a mandated reporter who reports child abuse may remain anonymous. Mandated reporters are required to give their names. However, it is helpful to give your name and telephone number to the worker taking the report in the event he or she needs to obtain more information later.”



  44. Maral permalink
    August 22, 2011 5:58 pm

    so if we take the approach of a nonefan thinking logically there should be at least 10 anonymous reports if this allegations (any of them) were true. even from before 93…… to the POLIS that is. but there are none.

    i once read a very disturbing passage in DDs book where she tells a story of a deceased worker at neverland who in the 80s saw Michael doing things to boys in the car……… i don’t remember his name but when i read that i was on the fence. however the story sounded off……i mean a molester who is sooooo cleaver to lure children into his ranch and pay the parents off and blablabla……… as these people are trying to paint MJ as….. this person would not do anything in public, in the car with the driver sitting next to him.

    also, i sat and watched LWMJ the other day. and somewhere bashir mention that he was in MJ’s bedroom…….and i was thinking if i had anything to hide i would not let an journalist in my bedroom aka the crime scene…… nevertheless, bashir also got to meat the children and that totally disput carters claim that no one was allowed to spend time with PPB.


  45. shelly permalink
    August 22, 2011 6:19 pm

    ” once read a very disturbing passage in DDs book where she tells a story of a deceased worker at neverland who in the 80s saw Michael doing things to boys in the car……… ”

    Where is it in the book?


  46. Maral permalink
    August 22, 2011 6:28 pm

    sorry i don’t recall where is was.


  47. August 25, 2011 12:54 am

    Received a challenge about some information I posted on another site concerning Michael’s FBI File. I’d forgotten about it until today. I was able to prove the source or page link to each except one.

    Changes made to the FBI Website. Changes made to page introducing Michael’s file.
    No longer do they tell of the 90 FBI agents involved in investigating and analyzing during 2003-2005. I wonder what happened to this important piece of information.


  48. Maral permalink
    August 25, 2011 11:11 pm

    i don’t know where to post this but thought it should be read. this proves he didn’t just invite boys to be with him


  49. shelly permalink
    August 26, 2011 2:20 am


    I like that story, it’s a positive one.


  50. mjjyo permalink
    May 9, 2012 8:58 pm

    vindicatemj – L.O.V.E., thank You and love You.


  51. dorito permalink
    March 3, 2017 9:18 pm

    ok hold on there, I do not for one minute believe that pellicano EVER said that michael did something worse than molest boys, it completely condradicts what he said right above it, that he would f*** michael over if he ever found he was guilty! so I think that whoever that reporter is, said that just to make pellicano and especially michael look bad…because really what reporter would hear that and not want pellicano to elaborate or ask him what he means?? please these guys are looking for dirt on MJ, so either he asked but didn’t get the answer he wanted or pellicano never said that and they lied! pellicano always defended him, hell he even went out of his way to determine that michael was innocent BEFORE he took the case, even geraldine hughes who spoke with him said that he would never help michael if he thought that he did this, and also that they put him in jail on purpose to not help michael!! even when he backed out of the case he still defended him…come on guys I’m shocked that you would actually believe pellicano ever said that, we’re not the haters here 😛


  52. March 8, 2017 2:07 pm

    Dorito, Pellicano has always been and is still completely sure of Michael Jackson’s innocence. As to what he said or didn’t say here is a special post about it – the latest so-called ‘interview’ with Pellicano was a clear media manipulation:

    P.S. Guys, sorry for my getting a little distracted from this blog by some other matters. Will try to catch up.

    Liked by 1 person

  53. dorito permalink
    March 24, 2017 1:57 pm

    thank you for that helena!! you know these past few days I’ve been seeing all kinds of comments that the haters make and I cannot even comprehend how these people think, it’s sick! I literally get a headache everytime I see their comments!!there is one in particular that strikes me as so ridiculous and so unlike michael, is that “p-dlies never think that what they’re doing is wrong or harming so that’s why michael said he would never harm a child because he didn’t think that it was wrong” and I’m like WHAT??!!! have they even seen the interview he did after he was arrested where michael specifically said that sex with a child is wrong and that he would never do anything sexual to a child??!! he knew that molestation is wrong and sick and that is why he always said that he would never hurt a child because he knows that molestation is hurting them! for a man who always went on and on about the innocence of children and how important childhood is, how can they think that he would do something as sick as molesting them which would essentially rob them of their childhood and innocence and corrupt them beyond belief?? something that michael never wanted children to experience…it doesn’t sound like him at all! he never saw children in a sexual way, he cared about them too much to hurt them like that, why would someone who literally dedicated so much of his life to try to help them and save them, then go to ruin their lives by molesting them? it makes absolutely no sense at all…


  54. Pamela and pete permalink
    May 12, 2020 5:41 am

    Amen x



  1. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: