Skip to content

Haters’ real agenda and new strategy against Michael Jackson’s fans

December 20, 2011

Updated March 17, 2012

Guys, you remember that it was quite by chance that we got familiar with the updates on the haters’ site which claims that it provides its readers with true information about Michael Jackson.

It was after reading their “Home” section that I realized that in addition to their total misinformation about Michael, haters have also now developed a new strategy against Michael’s fans.

This was the text of their home page before I wrote this post

1. THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST US

Here is their full text for your independent study:

There are plenty of websites out there that want to continue Michael Jackson’s PR team’s work even after he has died. I have to admit, that MJ’s PR teams did great work, and there are a substantial number of people who really, truly believe that everything the PR teams said and disseminated about MJ was true. I can’t criticise people like that, in all honesty they probably are great fans of MJ’s music and probably aren’t interested in anything else.

Then again, there are websites out there with a far more sinister agenda. They want to make MJ out to be something he isn’t. Now, I don’t know about you, but I would never compromise myself by accepting that it’s OK, in our society, for a grown man to sleep with children in the way Michael Jackson did. I don’t care who they are! There are no special exemptions, even if you missed out on a childhood, you are famous, or even the man insists repeatedly that it is “innocent”. No way!

Yet, sadly, there are people who do.

In fact, there are entire websites set up to take each of Michael Jackson’s misdeeds and make an excuse for each and every one! From his collection of child erotica, to his sleepovers with boys, to his payments to boys to make accusations go away, his huge collection of porn kept where his young guests had access to it, even his heavy drug use, to his wooing of parents of his “special friends”, there are excuses for each and every one.

The obvious logic is – you wouldn’t need a vindication website if MJ did anything wrong. Any accusations would be laughed off with an “It’s ridiculous that Mike would ever do anything like that” and be forgotten. That can’t be the case, however. The people running those websites know that MJ’s behaviour looks bad to the average person. It can’t be laughed off. It needs to be explained, excused, normalised, justified. They fail. It is not normal to have a  succession of young boy friends. It is not normal to have booze, porn and drugs at a supposedly child friendly place like Neverland. It is not normal for a grown man to sleep with boys when he also collects books like MJ had. In short, these websites are defending the indefensible.

It’s time rational fans stood up and said, “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”. If fans can be honest with themselves and others, MJ’s musical legacy will endure, if they can’t then his legacy will die out because too many people will be turned off.

Attempts to cover Michael Jackson’s actions with obfuscation will not work.

Want to learn the truth behind alleged “extortion” attempts against Michael Jackson? Or how he fits the profile of a pedophile? Look no further. Use the links at left.

So what is new in the haters’ approach to Michael Jackson except the usual distortion of truth, downright lies and huge ommissions of facts?

Now haters “understand” fans who preserve Michael Jackson’s legacy – but while doing so they also support (and even encourage) the fans’ division from Michael’s advocates who are proving the man’s innocence. The above text makes it clear that their main target is this particular site.

They now agree that Michael was a great entertainer and welcome those who are “not interested in anything else” except Michael Jackson’s musical legacy. However when they see Michael’s advocates who prove that he never molested anyone they suggest that we have a “sinister agenda”. The noble reason cited is that finding Michael’s innocent will allegedly promote the concept of “grown-up men sleeping with children in the way Michael did”.

The crucial point around which their whole story is revolving is the issue of “sleep” which is gravely distorted and blown out of every proportion.  But if the building is founded on a crooked foundation the whole structure of it will be crooked too.

Everyone knows that Michael did talk of readily sharing his bedroom with others – but what he never talked of (or meant) was taking anyone into his bed to “cuddle up with” there.

Michael wasn’t very articulate when he tried to explain himself on the “sleep” subject (and this goes for other subjects as well), but with the help of people like Frank Cascio, Macaulay Culkin, Kit Culkin, JC Agajanian and even Corey Feldman who were participants in the process we have found out that Michael spoke of ordinary slumber parties in which both children and parents took part.

He gave his bed to others, often slept on the floor or some couch or even on a different storey, and the worst thing which ever happened in that bedroom was letting children fall asleep on his bed while watching TV or playing games.

Even if a child did crawl into Michael’s bed as Brett Barnes did, this child would later testify that Michael was always at the far end from him and would never – God forbid – touch him. Considering that this was most probably taking place in the presence of other people in the same bedroom, all this testimony amounts to is just another instance of those slumber parties again.

However the issue of having children in the same room is a sensitive subject and over this point Michael’s advocates are not at one.  All of us have our own reservations about it, but the central fact which embraces us is that despite our own differences of opinion on those slumber parties, all of us know that Michael was nevertheless innocent of the horrendous crimes he was suspected of.

His innocence is an established fact because Michael’s advocates have made double effort to look into the factual side of things. It may surprise Michael’s haters but the reason for this double scrutiny was that we were also apprehensive of his lifestyle, asked the same questions and therefore made a thorough, detailed and no-nonsense research into every instance of every allegation ever made.

The research showed that each time we had to step on a new minefield to check up those allegations, not knowing what facts would be undisclosed, it turned out to our big relief that Michael was completely innocent again  – independent of the “sleep” issue and the opinion each of us had about him sharing his bedroom with children and other people.

How and why this happened I don’t know. I mean I don’t know why he had a full chance to molest children but nevertheless never did it – probably because he was made of some other stuff than those who think dirty of him? But on the other hand will these people take advantage of a similar situation and molest someone else’s children if they had a chance to sleep beside them in a youth camp or when going on a hike?

No, they definitely won’t? So it means that most people are also made of the same kind of stuff as Michael was and they know first-hand that a totally innocent scenario is also possible?

And even if they were extremely popular with some children and they besieged them with their attention and imposed themselves on the adults in the same way they forced themselves on Michael, these people would still never overstep the line? Simply because the idea would never even enter our mind? And if someone suggested it we would vomit with repulsion at the mere thought of it?

  • So does it mean that under certain circumstances we can envisage slumber parties or the behavior similar to Michael’s even for ourselves? Yes, it does.
  • Does our agreement with the possibility that a slumber party may be a totally innocent event imply that we recommend such parties to the general public? No, it doesn’t.
  • What shall we say if someone claims that since we had a slumber party with some children this automatically turns us into pedophiles? The answer depends on the temper of the one who gives the answer – as to me I will probably drive these people down the stairs in reply to their statements.

We will react so  because we know for sure – either from our own first-hand experience or general feelings about the subject – that it is possible to have those slumber parties and still remain innocent and do no harm, don’t we? Yes, we do.

And this is the crucial part of it all.

No matter whether we like or dislike Michael’s lifestyle, he still didn’t commit a single misdeed towards a child as our own independent research proved it. The core point is that no matter what we think of him he didn’t do it.

Everyone thought bad of him because he had every opportunity to do so, but he nevertheless didn’t do it and this “baffling” fact is what is laying the basis for the attitude of Michael’s advocates towards the man.

Let us leave the job of explaining Michael’s lifestyle to those who knew him personally – the Cascios, Culkins or Mr. Agajanian, for example – while we can simply satisfy ourselves with the conclusion that Michael never committed any crimes against children and that’s it.

By the way, since they will be doing the explanation, let them also explain ( if they can, of course) some other things which we would not do either –  for example, why Michael allowed the people he barely knew to freely rake through his personal things in the closet, or why he let people live at his expense in his house for as long as they liked even when he was away from it?

Or why he paid for the burial of penniless singers when they died in obscurity or why he insisted on going to a Jacuzzi with a boy ill with AIDS when all others shunned the boy like the plague?

Or why he made friends with a severely burnt child and turned him into a regular visitor to his home though his face should have been a terrible sight for his then wife and members of the household?  (By the way the list of Michael’s so-called “dangerous liaisons” in the haters’ site should be supplemented with Ryan White, the boy ill with AIDS and Dave Dave, the burn victim.  I didn’t notice their names among the “liaisons”, which is a deplorable ommision – some chance people are in the list while the key players are not).

I’ve mentioned all these things in Michael’s behavior as they are also totally unusual for average people and if we are able to understand Michael’s ways this will surely bring us closer to understanding the unique phenomenon Michael Jackson was.

Now Michael’s haters call for “rational” fans to stand up and say: “MJ entertained us, but his behaviour was way out of line”.

Okay, I will agree to a similar statement but only in my wording if I may – Michael Jackson indeed entertained us greatly and his behavior was really unusual. But though his habits were different from ours there was still nothing criminal about them. His lifestyle was unique as he was a unique human being, placed into unique circumstances, who faced unique challenges and made unique life achievements – so repeating his style unless we are the same unique people is totally artificial, unnecessary, impossible and should not be even tried.

And asserting Michael’s innocence is absolutely not the same as promoting his lifestyle as a norm in present-day society.

It would probably be only for the better if all of us were like Michael Jackson as human beings, but the sad fact is that we are far from being anything like him. As a human entity we are not yet ready for his level of childlike innocence,  playfulness and strict inner law prohibiting any wrongdoing – so let’s forget the idea of “copying” his lifestyle, at least for the present moment.

Michael’s slumber parties may look strange, unusual and probably shocking to some of us, but he was nevertheless innocent despite all our attempts at their dirty interpretation. And since he was innocent, it means that he didn’t deserve the murderous harassment by the public, media and prosecution to which he was subjected for more than 20 years during his life and after it.

Hence the need to explain to the world the situation we all found ourselves in – we killed an innocent man whose only guilt was essentially in the fact that WE thought bad of him.

At the very least it was an extreme over-reaction on the part of the public, however if we are honest with each other we’ll have to admit that it was our cruelty, ignorance, hypocrisy and our own dirty thinking which led to a grave crime committed against a very pure person who could not hurt a fly.

*  *  *

2. OUR AGRUMENTS AGAINST HATERS

But if we disagree with haters’ assertions that  proving Michael’s innocence is a danger to the society, shall we agree to their other statement that it is okay to admire the man for his talent and silently accept or tolerate the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children?

By asking this question I refer to the haters’ idea that they “can’t criticize people who are great fans of Michael’s music but aren’t interested in anything else”.

In contrast to haters, I as an advocate of Michael’s innocence, find myself at great odds with people who say they admire Michael’s music, but are indifferent to how he behaved with children. When I ask myself whether I would ever support Michael Jackson or ever listen to his music if he turned out to be an animal instead of a human being, I say to myself a definite NO.

Never in my life would I support the man if I were doubtful of his innocence. In fact I have already gone through the doubt stage when I didn’t even want to think of Michael Jackson, however this period ended when my eyes finally opened to the facts of a huge set-up,  false accusations and the unjust and horrendous way this innocent man was treated.

So like all normal people whenever I thought of Michael Jackson I looked into two options only – either the man is a villain and his music and talent are non-existent for me, or he is innocent and this opens the road for my admiring his genius at last.

However the compromise variant of admiring the talent but closing my eyes to “everything else” is something which has never, ever entered my mind – because for a normal human being this compromise can never be an option.

I bet that the carefully worded haters’ call to Michael Jackson’s fans to like their idol but be indifferent to “everything else”  did not initially strike you as offensive until you have probably realized just now what is standing behind it.

If this isn’t a stealthy way to make people tolerant to someone’s perverse behavior (or the potential possibility of it) at the pretext of him being a talent, genius, Nobel prize winner, etc, I don’t know what else this attempt might be.

And as such it may be a very roundabout way of using the innocent name of Michael Jackson for making people gradually accept the concept of ped-lia, which is the thing Michael staunchly fought until his dying day and which he himself never had any bearing on.

If you think that the above haters’ idea is totally impossible, abstract and unrealistic to implement to, it shows that  you have not been to some hugely provocative “fan” sites where the idea of “even if he enjoyed himself that way, so what?” is being promoted in full earnest.

By hissing that “he is probably a villain but a very talented one, so it is okay to like him “the way he was” these snakes are actually eroding the natural barrier in every normal human being which is built in there by God or nature for the protection of our children. This barrier says that no matter how talented a person is, if he molests children he is an anti-human who is taking you on the road to hell.

But now we see that someone wants to break this natural barrier by offering a colossal number of Michael’s fans a sweet venom in the cup called “let us throw the man into a bad class, but it will still be okay to love him that way, because it is only his genius that matters”.

Michael’s vindicators prove that he wasn’t that way (however this is found unacceptable by Michael’s haters and is even proclaimed dangerous to the society) – while the same haters will perfectly understand if huge numbers of people admiring Michael will get tolerant to the potential possibility of him being a predator (and this will not be considered dangerous to the society).

So proving the  man’s innocence is dangerous to the society morals, while admiring him without paying attention to whether he did or didn’t commit any wrongdoing to children is not?  

OMG,  why do I have a terrible premonition that eroding the last bastion of  human ethics is what these people are actually aiming at?

I would disbelieve my eyes and doubt my own conclusions if the haters didn’t try to so blatantly make a differentiation betwen Michael’s “ordinary” fans and his advocates, splashing dirt at us and naming our intention to vindicate Michael “a sinister agenda”.

What is a really sinister agenda is making Michael’s fans believe that they can be his true fans and still play with the idea that he could have possibly committed crimes against children.

These two things are totally incompatible, because a “fan” who admires Michael but thinks ugly thoughts about him is actually his hater,  as he is attributing to him the extreme evil to fighting which Michael devoted his whole life.

Another sinister aspect of the same ideology is that by complying with the idea that “he could possibly do it” and liking the man anyway, the person is showing his inner readiness to accept the possibility of finding any ped-le (which Michael wasn’t!) attractive and even adorable.

This readiness to ‘accept’ is the erosion of the  inner moral law inside each of us which is exactly what Michael’s haters are aiming at.

Our attitude towards Michael is directly the opposite of the dirty compromise suggested to the public by Michael’s haters. Our position is clear, pure and simple – we have done our research and made sure that he was innocent and that is why we support him both as a human being and a great performer. Otherwise we never would.

If we thought him to be a criminal we would never even listen to his music.

By sharing the same clean and pure ideals which Michael Jackon adhered to, we find ourselves in a direct opposition to the pedophile lobby which is still willing to use Michael’s innocent name for crashing the last barriers of people’s morals. Using millions of Michael’s fans will be a very convenient and easy way for them to reach the desired target if they manage to implant their poisonous ideas into the young fans’ minds.

And this is why they find us dangerous — we are standing in the way to their plans.

It was this blog which drew our readers’ attention to the several professors who recommended the book by a convicted pedophile Tom O’Carroll “for family reading” .

It was also this blog which found that one of the worst Michael’s haters, Victor Gutierrez had an unaccounted for attendance of a NAMBLA conference in Los Angeles in 1986 about which he bragged himself –  though even FBI agents have a huge difficulty to infiltrate this mafia-like organization, not to mention a foreign journalist like Gutierrez. His first explantion of that visit was that he attended a NAMBLA conference as a journalist which later changed into an ‘agent working undercover’, only no one paid attention to the findings of the “poor Latino” as he himself said. His going from one extreme to another makes us doubt both variants of the story and suggest our own explanation for his visit there – most probably he went there simply as a member….

It is this blog which brought to people’s attention the story of Aaron and Nick Carter and their manager Lou Pearlman who was a huge authority in producing musical bands but was heavily suspected of pedophilia and whom the boys pushed out of their lives with the words “what goes round comes round” (when Lou Pearlman went into prison for another crime).

Of course these guys see us as a menace to their comfortable life because we wrote about Corey Feldman’s outcry to the general public  telling them of the horrible pedophilia crimes widely taking place in Hollywood. Feldman’s friend and co-star was abused as a boy and consequently committed suicide. Feldman was also abused and said so to the police when they were questioning him about Michael Jackson. He even gave them the name of his abuser, only no one paid attention to it as the only person they were after was Michael Jackson, whom Corey did not find any fault with, except that  Michael once warned him against early sex by showing him the book  on veneral diseases.

And it is our blog which found totally revolting information on the way the great sexologist of the 20th century Alfred Kinsey made his scientific research of the “sexuality” of children.  He did it with the help of pedophiles who did things even to infants, God bless their poor souls…

Why do sites like the haters’ one – where people present themselves as fighters for the “common good”  – always talk about Michael Jackson only, though he was the man who was found innocent of all charges?

Why aren’t they handling real crimes which are happening all over the place, only no one is paying attention to them?

I really wonder why the instances of real abuse do not concern those who claim they are defending public morals and why the only person they select is Michael Jackson who is actually a totally innocent man?

Why does it have to be the site of Michael Jackson’s advocates to persistenly show that the lobby of real pedophiles is extremely powerful and their crimes are going on and on, and remain totally unpunishable?

Why indeed does it have to be us to bring up the subject again and again, though all we are doing is the research of Michael Jackson’s innocence and while handling  the respective literature we are totally aghast to find out the scope and openness of real pedophiles’ activities?

Is it because the future of our children is a matter of concern of the followers of Michael Jackson – because he was probably the only one who really stood up for children’s rights?

And doesn’t it show that it is exactly Michael Jackson’s haters who don’t give a damn for the children’s rights, their present and future?

This is the Haters’new page home devised after I asked all the above questions. They DO follow us closely, don’t they?

UPDATED MARCH 17, 2012

After this post was made the Haters’ site changed their home page, arguing with us behind our back.

They say they don’t pull any punches and “call things as they are”. Unfortunately this is not the whole truth, or rather, no truth at all.

The site you see on the left is full of carefully collected lies or at best, unsubstantiated allegations which innumerable con-artists or simple physopaths made about Michael Jackson – either for money, due to their unstable mental condition or following the agenda similar to that of Tom Sneddon’s.

While selecting lies for their purposes these haters meticulously ingore and discriminate the truth about Michael Jackson. And when all their lies are disproved and they have nothing else to say they claim that “nobody will ever know whether Jackson was innocent unless they were there in the room with him”.

Following this logic any of us can also claim that these people, whose minds are so terribly bent on ped-lia, are doing terrible things to children when no one is looking. Reason why we claim that? Because we have never been in one room with these people and do not have a chance to check whether their interaction with children is innocent or not.

Never mind that the children who know them say that they are perfectly normal guys, and that there are no facts testifying to the opposite – we still cannot rule out such a possibility, can we?  Because we haven’t been there!!!

The overwhelming facts of Michael Jackson’s innocence proven during his life and discovered after his death give his supporters the full right to call him an innocent man.  Contrary to that, irresponsible allegations and blatant lies about the same man do not give haters the right to accuse him of horrendous crimes.

This is due to one of the main principles which has been governing human society since time immemorial  – EVERY PERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And it is not up to Michael Jackson’s haters now to revoke this fundemental principle of law.

Sometimes suspects are not proven guilty because no one bothers to really look. However this is definitely not the case of Michael Jackson. He was scrutinized from every angle possible for the major part of his life – by two Sheriff’s departments in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, two District Attorney Departments in the same counties and two Grand Juries in the period of 1993-94.

His “case” was investigated by Santa Barbara law enforcement bodies for three years in 2003-2005 which ended in a shameful (for the Prosecution) trial as a result of which Michael was fully acquitted on all counts.

He was examined by the Departments of Children and Family Services in both 1993 and 2003 and on top of all that was looked after by the FBI who kept an eye on him for the whole period. They even tried to help the prosecution and get the “first victim” again – only he vehemently refused to testify against Jackson  same as twelve years before that . He said a mysterious phrase that he had “done his part” and added he would sue them if they insisted!

The two Grand Juries in 1993/94  listened t0 400 witnesses including those cited by Michael’s haters in their blog, and the 2005 trial lasted for four months because they listened to all those people all over again.

Tom Sneddon earned the nickname of a “mad dog”  from his own colleagues not just for nothing – it was for his tenacity and zeal in prosecuting people (even innocent ones), so none of us can now pretend that he was “slack” in his work. If Tom Sneddon was unable to prove a single fact of lies against Michael Jackson nobody else could –  this we may be sure of!

But all was in vain. The few allegations they had proved to be unfounded and the only “victim” who testified against Jackson said he was molested after the news of “molestation” hit the world, poor guy…

But if there is nothing to talk of why don’t haters shut up? Why don’t they do something useful instead? If they are so ardent supporters of children’s well-being why don’t you use their blog to fight real pedophiles?

Why do they suggest that we help the Innocence Project? We are helping them already by uncovering numerous cases of real crimes against children, and if the Innocence Project people accept our whole-hearted support we will be only too happy to contribute!

But why doesn’t the Haters’ site do the same? Wouldn’t it be “far more fulfilling” for them to defend children instead of trashing the name of a dead star who was found innocent despite all effort to prove otherwise? He is dead anyway, so why are they so preoccupied with him?

If they ask us why we keep standing up for Michael Jackson I will say the following.

Restoring the good name of an innocent person is a worthy cause which may take years or even decades, and this is why we are doing it for the sake of JUSTICE.

But this has nothing to do with some people’s desire to restore, resume and refresh LIES.

Every new day brings new evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence. The final evidence came from the least expected premises which are totally beyond human control. Being in a half-conscious condition and falling asleep in the hands of death doctor Conrad Murray Michael Jackson revealed the impossible – he told us what he was THINKING OF!

And what was he thinking of? He was dreaming of giving away his hard-earned money to sick children. He was saying it to Murray for the upteenth time that he wanted to build a hospital for them because he took their pain as if it were his own! And he said that it was God who wanted him to do it.

On his death bed Michael Jackson was speaking about GOD!

So now that haters know what Michael Jackson was thinking of, will they shut up please? Life, Heavens or God himself are disproving their lies!

64 Comments leave one →
  1. September 15, 2017 4:59 am

    Michael Jackson is still thought of by some people in my country(I’m from India) as a plastic surgery freak. They claim that because Michael didn’t want to be black, he did plastic surgery to change the colour of his face.

    As absurd as that sounds, I hope these very people have never heard of the allegations that came up against Michael. If they do, he will lose the reputation he already has in India- famous, poular, emulated, and respected.

    I’ve seen several home videos of Michael(because a home video shows us a person as he truly is), and the impression I got is a guy who is a kid at heart, and loves having fun and enjoying himself, in spite of all the attention and fame he is getting for his talent and hard work. He also made a great father- I always see him talking with his kids, trying to get them to learn new things, and(surprisingly) he instilled a sense of morality in them. Prince is a very mature young man, who contributes, I think, the most to his father’s humanitarian legacy.

    Prince may not have an article on Wikipedia, but his efforts to make the world a better place are worth commending. Paris, however, I am not exactly sure about, because 1)I don’t agree with some things she believes, 2)I think it’s unhealthy that she bleached her hair and got tattoos(but it’s her body, so I can’t really make her change her mind anyway), and 3)her speeches are often criticized for being addressed at minor issues(supposedly- I’m not well-informed regarding politics in America). If I like/care about Paris, it’s because she’s Michael’s daughter.

    As for Blanket/Bigi, God be with him. I honestly wish his daddy were there. Or at least his mommy would come out and be with him. A teenage boy needs a parental figure in his life to keep him on the right way.

    Like

  2. July 23, 2013 3:16 pm

    Himadri Nandi said:

    “There is too much hype surrounding MJ’s haters.
    Just asking them to “Get Lost” would be enough”

    Ah, if only that simple. They come in all sizes. Some are persistent, but provide an incentive to expand research and acquire new information. Then you have those who are able to cause a malicious altering of legitimate facts. Those “Haters” defame Michael and others, and cheat people out of knowledge.

    Like

  3. Himadri Nandi permalink
    July 23, 2013 9:13 am

    There is too much hype surrounding MJ’s haters.
    Just asking them to “Get Lost” would be enough

    Like

  4. Truth Prevail permalink
    October 24, 2012 1:28 am

    What do you guys think of the new book by Randall Sullivan?

    I know it is not released but so far i have NOT heard good news about it.

    Like

  5. Rodrigo permalink
    October 23, 2012 2:53 am

    Because they’re very disturbed. They have no real sense of what or why they hate. It just happens to be aimed at Michael Jackson and his supporters.

    It’s certainly not over children that’s for sure.

    Like

  6. October 23, 2012 2:03 am

    Because they don´t know how to love.

    Like

  7. October 23, 2012 1:55 am

    send me more info.. ok.. i want to know why they hate……

    Like

  8. Suzy permalink
    December 24, 2011 10:20 am

    Tom Sneddon too had double standards when it came to real pedophiles:

    “GOLETA, Calif. — For more than two decades, Roman Catholic priests sexually abused boys aged 7 -to 16 at a boarding school in a Santa Barbara seminary, a panel organized by a Franciscan order concluded. A board of inquiry for the St. Barbara Province of the Francis­can Order said Monday that 12 priests engaged in nude games, fondling and other sex acts with students at St. Anthony’s Semi­nary from 1964 to 1987, when it closed because of financial prob­lems. So far, 34 boys, mostly teenag­ers, have been identified as vic­tims.

    “The abuse perpetrated by our own brothers on the victims and their families is truly horrific,” said the Rev. Joseph Chinnici, minister of the Oakland-based Province of St. Barbara and leader of Franciscans in seven Western states. “We totally abhor what has occurred,” Chinnici said.

    At a news conference Monday night, the chairman of the order’s panel said they were stunned by the results of their investigation. “We found that in the years in question, a serious problem of sexual abuse of minors by friars existed at the seminary,” Geoffrey Stearns said. He said the investigation would continue and that the panel ex­pects other alleged victims to come forward.

    A message left after business hours Monday at District Attorney Thomas Sneddon’s office was not immediately returned. Lt. John Thayer, a police spokesman, said prosecutions of the priests were unlikely because of the statute of limitations, which is six years on child molestation cases in Califor­nia. Of the 12 priests, whose names weren’t disclosed in a 72-page report, eight were being treated by therapists. One left the order, one died and another priest’s case was being investigated by the panel. The other priest served six months in jail after pleading no contest in 1989 to oral copulation of a minor at the seminary. After the case, the order sent out letters to former students asking if they had been abused. When some of them came forward the order decided to investigate. The panel, organized in 1992, included an attorney, three psy­chotherapists, a member of the order and a victim’s parent.

    The Phoenix Gazette, Section A, Tues November 30, 1993

    http://www.skeptically.org/onreligion/id10.html

    Sneddon may rightly cite the statue of limitations, but he still seems pretty passive and uninterested here. Remember, how he changed and extended the statue of limitations in Michael’s case! The article dates at November, 1993. I guess he was too busy chasing Michael instead of dealing with real pedophiles.

    Like

  9. lynande51 permalink
    December 24, 2011 1:33 am

    That is what I have been saying all along. A real P*** knows that what they have done is wrong. Years ago they hatched the “I would never harm a child” statement to confuse the public. They know that when they did that it took away any statement made in someones defense useless. The whole thing is is that the public at large don’t hear the rest of that story or statement of they did they would know what monsters they really are. The rest of that statement is what I have heard from every single one that I have ever assessed. We are not harming children. Children are not innocent, they want what we do, the child actually seduces the adult in their scenario. They have planned and connived for years to get the sentencing and charges dropped for what they do. Here is Sandusky crying and saying he knew he wouldn’t be forgiven. Here is Sandusky with up to what now a possible 12 victims or more. What else is different here. Sandusky said he would stop showering naked with these kids and yet 4-5 years later someone actually hears and sees him in the shower again. The next thing your’e gonna hear out of his mouth is that the boys liked it and seduced him because that is what they all say.
    If you want an answer to what else was going on in the world of child sexual abuse at the time of Michael’s 2005 trial look no futher than the Catholic Church scandal here in the United States. It was coming to the climax right around the time that Michael was on trial.

    Like

  10. December 24, 2011 1:04 am

    And how do you like the case (from the same Los Angeles Times records) of Richard Turley who was a Program Director of a Boyscouts of America camp?

    He worked there for three years, and at the end of the second year was accused of molestation of three boys, did not deny it, immediately packed his things and went home to Canada – only to return the next year? And again no one cared? And no one did anything about it? They just let him go!

    So how wide-spread and how well covered-up is the system? My earlier conclusion that Michael’s harassment was a way to distract attention from real abusers seems to be finding proof now!
    http://documents.latimes.com/boy-scout-americas-perversion-file-turley/

    Richard Turley

    Like

  11. December 23, 2011 9:32 pm

    “I’d like to know what are those documents.”- Shelly

    It is California public records started by the Los Angeles Times. They don’t have much yet but I found a summary of Murray’s case in a probation report: http://documents.latimes.com/conrad-murrays-probation-report/

    Transcript of Murray’s interview with the police – we could do without it of course, but it is important to know his lies: http://documents.latimes.com/transcript-recorded-interview-dr-conrad-murray/

    Michael Jackson’s autopsy report of August 25, 2009: http://documents.latimes.com/michael-jackson-autopsy/

    I also found interesting some outside cases like:

    A L.A. psychiatrist was disciplined for prescribing nearly a dozen psychotropic, mood-altering drugs to a 6-year-old during a two-year period without keeping adequate medical records: http://documents.latimes.com/la-psychiatrist-discipline-6yo/

    And new sex abuse charges against Jerry Sandusky – more and more people are coming in. I don’t know what the outcome of the trial will be, but the fact that it is a sort of an avalanche is typical of real abuse. And all these boys said they felt awkward, unconfortable and discontinued their relations with Sandusky themselves:

    – the Grand jury report: http://documents.latimes.com/grand-jury-report-suspected-penn-state-sex-abuse/
    – new charges in addition to the report: http://documents.latimes.com/new-jerry-sandusky-charges/

    Please pay attention to the fact that Sandusky knows he is guilty – he said he knew he was wrong and wished “he were dead”.

    And after that the only thing the detective advised was “not to shower with boys any more”.

    Advised! Instead of prosecuting him! So this is how they were treating people heavily suspected of ped-lia (who even confessed their guilt) – they let them go and “advised” them not to shower! Shower naked by the way…

    And all this time they were harassing a totally innocent person. It is the contrast in the way they treated Michael Jackson and real, confessed abusers, which makes it so astonishing:
    I wish I were dead

    Like

  12. lynande51 permalink
    December 23, 2011 8:53 pm

    Shelly exactly but the thing that really happened was the media sensation of the Pinochio’s Pleasure Island which is all they talked about for days. That was one of the highlights of the tiral according to that nobody’s friend Diaine Dimond. They never said anything at all about any of the cross examination.
    According to them the kids were allowed to run free with no guidance at all and she was just stating how hard that was on the employee’s because not even the kids parents would discipline them when they were there.
    I find that kind of funny when you think about it. Has anybody with kids ever taken their kids to the amusement park where everything was free for them to have as much as they wanted. Well even if you have to buy someof those things think of how “wild” kids get at something like that even a County Fair. It isn’t that they ge twild so much as they are so excited that are hard to hold back. That is after all the whole point behind all amusement parks and fairs for heavens sake. What were these people thinking when they took the jobs that they had at Neverland? That they were just going to have a regualr workday. It would be a regular workday if they worked at Disneyland or other places like that. I think her whole line of thinking was that she was advocating for more staff to work there and she used that as a n example as to why they were needed because her biggest worry was that a child would wander away and fall into the lake that was on the property
    .Now I have to agree with her that there should have been special staff that were there just to supervise the kids but to employ the needed numbers of staff Michael would have had to start charging admission and he did not want to do that, from him it all had to be free.
    I noticed too that Auchincloss didn’t really want to talk about the busloads of kids from the innercity that went there. He only wanted to talk about the “boys” on that list he had. He was the one that coined the media phrase “special friends” and they have been using that ridiculous account ever since. The way he was questioning her about it, it was like Michael Jackson had no right to have family or friends like the rest of the world does. That is the kind of thinking that makes me say “and they called him weird”. He was more like the rest of us than they are that’s for sure.

    Like

  13. shelly permalink
    December 23, 2011 8:26 pm

    @lynande,

    I think Fournier was more a defense witness than a prosecution: she laughed at the idea of being held hostage at Neverland, said he was sometimes too nice to people, she spoke about 10 kids who were closed to him but stayed at Neverland only a week each year, acknowledge that he had health problems.

    Like

  14. shelly permalink
    December 23, 2011 7:23 pm

    I’d like to know what are those documents.

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    December 23, 2011 6:39 pm

    I was reading through Kiki Fournier’s testimony yesterday and did a comparison to what she said in direct, cross and then the media reports of the day. She did not say that she saw children drinking. She said she saw a time when everyone was sitting at the dining room table and the kids acted drunk. Then the media reports were all about the Pinochios Pleasure Island statement. She was refering to behaviior of all children when they went to Neverland. She even said that the busloads of kids that came to visit did the same thing. She said that they had too much candy and were allowed too much freedom. But what did the media say. Pinochio’s Pleasure Island and kids were drunk just the first part of the questioning by Auchincloss was reported not her cross examination.

    Like

  16. December 23, 2011 5:07 pm

    I went through the same thing. The first allegation, then the second and all the media comments, I was suspicious, and I thought he was kind of weird because of what I read and the photo shopped pics they showed. It wasn’t til after his death that I was driven to do some research. After going through much searching and reading the court transcripts of the 2005 trial, I realized he was totally innocent. I felt so guilty for judging someone that I knew absolutely nothing about.

    Linda, I think many of us went through the same process. When the second allegations struck we felt like, “Again? No, this is just too much!” and most of us probably even did not look into the details of the case. The mere fact of it coming up again was the last straw.

    And many of us, including me, could never even imagine that all this could be a set up and done to Michael intentionally. Why, indeed, would anyone do this to somebody on purpose?

    It was only after Michael died that many of us finally started looking and from almost the very start I was amazed to see that the facts of Michael’s innocence were lying on the surface – you just need to compare a couple of dates and here you are, staring in total amazement at the fact that Gavin Arvizo was allegedly molested AFTER the whole thing was announced to the world (and before that he was simply not there).

    And they had a trial over it??

    As someone who is not used to having all documents laid out so openly for everyone’s view (knowing our inquisitive minds our authorities keep everything secret), I was amazed to see that Michael’s innocence was so obvious and so easily proved, and thought that the public just overlooked it.

    I was sure that as soon as people put two and two together the blinds would fall off their eyes immediately and Michael’s vindication would be easy. However when we did put two and two together, the majority were still unconvinced and said something like “there was porn there”.

    Okay, we did look into that too and found that it was mostly erotic material sold on every newsstand (Thomas Mesereau insisted on the word “adult” – “porn” was used by Sneddon until the judge made him watch his vocabulary). There was nothing there which could be even remotely connected to children’s porn (for the possession of which people immediately go to jail).

    Over this issue the situation was even more ridiculous – since it was clear that if Michael was NOT taken into jail for possessing those materials, it means that all of them were perfectly legal. The fact that Michael had them surprised me, but favorably I admit, as I realized he was an earthly being and not someone ephemeral.

    But when we looked into those materials the public said, “if he was as innocent as you say he was, why did he have those materials at all?” Well, I don’t know why – probably because after all he had the sin of being interested in women? There was only one book on gay issues among a great many about women, but even if someone thinks this means anything, homosexuality is a norm now in your part of the world – so what’s the point?

    And again, what does it have to do with “molestation” issues?

    It seems that Michael is a sort of a moving target for the public – if we find him innocent on the main issue, they start picking at something else, as if making a new pretext to explain why they feel so much hatred towards him.

    The more I look into it the more I realize that Michael Jackson is simply a way to justify these people’s ignorance, laziness and hatred which are evidently the usual state of these people’s minds.

    In short my disillusionment is connected with the society in general – and as regards this I don’t know what to do. Only people themselves can get out of this downward spiral, but in order to do it, it should be on their wish list (and it isn’t).

    Now I’ve downloaded every song, video and interview I could find. All my bookmarks are MJ sites. I suppose some people might think I’m obsessed, but I think my eyes are open now. I see how the media totally blinded me to the truth and lead me wherever they wanted to.

    Haters will surely consider us obsessed while all we want is draw fresh water from the clean spring of Michael Jackson’s spirit. When there are so many zombies around you, Michael Jackson is a shelter.

    Funny, a lot of people I talk to believe the press fabricates, but the next thing out of their mouth is something they read in the papers, tabloids and they state it as a fact. Sad to say, main stream news and tabloids are the same thing now.

    This is part of their zombie-like state. Firstly, they see no difference between honest and dishonest journalists and throw them into one pile, thus discouraging honest journalists from seeking for the truth, and secondly, they can only repeat what they are told as they have long forgotten how to analyse facts on their own. You can try and teach them how to, only they get easily bored and want to be entertained instead. I see this kind of people not only in connection with Michael Jackson, but all around me.

    Please don’t ever get discouraged or feel like you’re fighting a losing battle. We are winning, but It’s just to take some time.

    We have already won (in terms of learning the truth), but ignorance is still happily marching the parade. I truly think that teaching these people a lesson is in God’s hands only. However for routine work God has no other hands but ours, so whatever our mood is we still need to work and do our duty to one of His messengers.

    Like

  17. December 23, 2011 12:11 pm

    “Admin check your email.”

    Dialdancer, thanks a lot! Documents, documents… great documents….

    Like

  18. Linda permalink
    December 23, 2011 11:16 am

    I still remember very well my stone-wall attitude to his music. A mere suspicion of such a crime was just enough for me to totally lose interest in anything connected with him.

    I went through the same thing. The first allegation, then the second and all the media comments, I was suspicious, and I thought he was kind of weird because of what I read and the photo shopped pics they showed. It wasn’t til after his death that I was driven to do some research. After going through much searching and reading the court transcripts of the 2005 trial, I realized he was totally innocent. I felt so guilty for judging someone that I knew absolutely nothing about.

    Now I’ve downloaded every song, video and interview I could find. All my bookmarks are MJ sites. I suppose some people might think I’m obsessed, but I think my eyes are open now. I see how the media totally blinded me to the truth and lead me wherever they wanted to.

    Because of my research and all the lies that I found about the media, I don’t believe anything I read anymore in the news. That’s scary, because if you’re a christian and believe in the bible, the end times are coming, and I believe it will be the media that will convince the whole world that christian’s are a threat. People seem to believe anything the press says. The press IS very powerful.

    Funny, a lot of people I talk to believe the press fabricates, but the next thing out of their mouth is something they read in the papers, tabloids and they state it as a fact. Sad to say, main stream news and tabloids are the same thing now.

    All the crap the media put Michael through could happen to any one of us. Anybody could be accused of child abuse, but it’s only an accusation, not proven. Luckily, I was never accused, even tho I’ve slept with kids, related and not related to me.

    You guys are doing a great job. Please don’t ever get discouraged or feel like you’re fighting a losing battle. We are winning, but It’s just to take some time.

    Like

  19. Suzy permalink
    December 23, 2011 10:51 am

    @ Lynette

    Schmuley is playing a double game, like a lot of those “sycophants” in Michael’s life. In the foreword of his first book he says at one point:

    “Two divorces,estrangements from brothers and sisters, and extremely questionable and perhaps even criminal sexual activities.”

    He admits he never saw anything that would have alarmed him about Michael’s sexuality. He also admits he doesn’t believe the Arvizo family, whom he too met. So why the need to make such remarks? Don’t these people realize that accusing someone of this crime is a very serious thing, it can ruin lifes – as it did Michael’s – and so unless he has evidence of such criminal activities he should refrain from making such comments.

    BTW, to add to your list, I have heard Prince (the singer) during the trial banned everybody from his official forum who said bad things about Michael. And this pic of Brad Pitt was taken during the trial:

    Like

  20. December 23, 2011 9:37 am

    Admin check your email.

    Like

  21. lynande51 permalink
    December 23, 2011 6:12 am

    This is slightly off topic but I was inspired today after reading articles saying that none of Michael’s famous friends supported him or spoke out for him during the trial so here are just some of the quotes that they made. Funny thing about that is not one of those sycophants like Schmuley are anywhere near this list.

    Nelson Mandela“Michael Jackson is a constant
    source of inspiration to me.”
    Muhammad Ali“When people ask me where I get
    my strength from, I tell them that I
    look at the man Michael Jackson
    looks at when he looks at the man
    in the mirror.”
    Harry Belafonte“Michael Jackson is innocent until
    proven guilty by the court of
    law…I cannot charge my colleague
    on the basis of media reports and
    television programs, no single
    individual has had influence in the
    world like Jackson.”
    Mariah CareyMariah dedicated ‘Through the
    Rain’ to Michael in the concert she
    gave in Manila in 2003.
    Billy Connolly“I think it’s nightmarish, and I
    don’t know how you’re supposed
    to be innocent until proven guilty.
    My heart bleeds for the guy.
    They’ve all got him guilty and I
    don’t buy it personally.”
    P.Diddy“Michael Jackson has been a positive
    influence in my life. The way
    the media is stalking him, I think
    it’s wrong.”
    Frank Dileo“He’s a very, very charitable person
    that wouldn’t harm anybody!”
    Missy Elliot“He’s my biggest influence so
    that’s why I’m very defensive.
    Berry Gordy“I love Michael and I think
    Michael is one of the greatest
    entertainers of all time…I’m just
    waiting and hoping that this will
    just all go away.”
    Phil Collins“I really feel for the guy”
    Steve Harvey
    “I’m a friend of Michael Jackson’s.
    I do not believe for one moment
    that Michael Jackson has the capability
    of harming a child.”
    Alicia Keys“I really think he deserves much
    more respect than he’s getting
    right now…I hope this settles
    over…I believe that the truth is
    gonna come to light.”
    Stephen King“What I’m asking is whether this is
    a country where a peculiar person
    such as Michael Jackson can get a
    fair shake and be considered innocent
    until proven guilty.”
    Kate Lawler“Think what you want but I’ll still
    wear the t-shirt because I’m a fan.”
    LL Cool J“The media is super
    powerful…until I see evidence,
    I’m not going to be
    convinced…I’m not going to be
    brainwashed.”
    Brian May“My God – What has happened to
    the world? Where did our civilisation
    go? Innocent until proven
    guilty and this vindictive woman
    wants to take a man’s children
    away from Michael Jackson
    before the trial has even started? I
    feel desperately sad for Michael
    Jackson. It’s certainly hard for me
    to believe this boy has a single bad
    bone in his body.”
    Liza Minnelli“I just don’t believe it. There are
    certain people out there trying to
    hurt him. Michael did nothing
    wrong. I am sure of that.”
    Donny Osmond“Michael is a sweet and gentle
    man.”
    Arnold Schwarzenegger
    “I know that Michael is innocent
    and therefore I pronounce my full
    trust in him.”
    Dame Elizabeth Taylor“I thought the law was innocent
    until proven guilty. I know he is
    innocent and I hope they all eat
    crow.”
    Louis Theroux“The allegations have not changed
    my mind that Michael is innocent.”
    Donald Trump“I think they’re trying to make
    money off Michael and it’s a
    shame. I know him very well and
    I don’t believe it. I’m going to stick
    up for him”
    Dionne Warwick“I wouldn’t even consider believing
    the claims.” “To Michael:
    Cousin Jeaffrey and Marsha:“To Michael: Please keep the
    faith!”

    This is a list of a few of Michael’s supporters in 2005. I for one am far more impressed by these peoples opinion than I am of our adversaries. These are classy people, just like MJ. Who would I want in my corner more, Nelson Mandela or Arnold Schwartzengger the Governor of California at the time who came right out and said he knew Michael was innocent.

    Like

  22. December 23, 2011 1:12 am

    “You need to really know that Michael is innocent to be able to return to this music and start liking it again”.- Helena
    “I don’t agree with this though, at least when it comes to me”. – Ares

    Ares, I don’t believe that you would be capable of listening to Michael’s music or watching his videos if you thought that he was a p-le. What you say now actually shows that you never thought that way. And since you didn’t, you cannot even imagine how disgusted one might be at such a thought.

    And I did half-believe those lies in contrast to you, and though fortunately I can no longer experience those feelings I still remember very well my stone-wall attitude to his music. A mere suspicion of such a crime was just enough for me to totally lose interest in anything connected with him.

    And now that I’ve learned of his innocence it is the direct opposite of it. Now I want to know everything about Michael Jackson and hear him every day of my life. When I switch some music TV channels I wait and wait for his videos. In fact the only reason I watch those music channels is to see and hear him – otherwise they are a pathetic sight, and it is from long watching them is why I know that they are.

    Unfortunately they show very little of Michael Jackson (we must do something about it), but when they do I almost cry with joy.

    What surprises me most is how I could live without him perfectly well for so many years, and why I am so terribly missing him now. This is probably why I am still doing this blog despite all the fatigue and a feeling that I have had my say – having a possibility to talk with Michael’s supporters is like catching small glimpses of Michael himself.

    I am sorry I’ve come today for a minute only – there is so much snow here that I had to go to the country after work to clear away tons of it. Dead tired. But as soon as I have a chance (and after David and Lynette make their posts) I still hope to say a couple of tender words about our adversaries.

    Like

  23. lynande51 permalink
    December 23, 2011 12:21 am

    ” The obvious logic is – you wouldn’t need a vindication website if MJ did anything wrong. Any accusations would be laughed off with an “It’s ridiculous that Mike would ever do anything like that” and be forgotten.”

    Don’t they mean if MJ did nothing wrong? Also it is never forgotten in the press is it? My case in point that Murray’s lawyers even wanted that out there. They got it too didn’t they. Now they are telling me how to react to them and others like them by saying if I was rational I would see what they see. Well that is just another one of their tactics. They even have a mantra as to how not to be too rational because being rational will not win their debate.
    They twist facts saying that Sneddon was telling the truth and yet if you read the papers that they are refering to and read that disclaimer at the bottom it will tell you that not even Sneddon knew that it was absolutely true. He just believed but didn’t want to get in trouble if he wasn’t right. How’s that for conviction guys?
    Sneddon wanted them introduced at the end of the trial not for the truth asserted but mostly because he knew that the rational people were asking what is wrong with this DA? so he wanted to sensationalize that trial even more by introducing those photos? Don’t worry too much about that one folks there are people out there that were not even connected to Michael that know that there was no match.Dr. Richard Strick the governments own witness would not sign off on that one.

    Like

  24. December 22, 2011 10:06 pm

    Obviously you guys are doing a great job here or these people wouldn’t be so worried. They have been squirming and seething a long time because they know this site dares to expose the truth about them and their agenda. Accept it as a badge of honor!

    Like

  25. December 22, 2011 2:24 pm

    The first thing which stood out was: “in all honesty they probably are great fans of MJ’s music and probably aren’t interested in anything else.” This is the same play on words Gutierrez used in his book when talking of a body vest, gun & knife which Michael supposedly had for Jordan to protect him from the Fans in the event the Fans found out about the alleged molestation and attacked the alleged victim. Telling people we would physically harm a child because we were willing to allow the alleged molestation to place. Speaking of that vest I’ve meaning to talk about it for a while.

    1) Body vests, body armor or bulletproof vests all have one thing in common. They must fit the wearer in order to be effective.

    2) They must fit the height, weight and waist length of the wearer.

    3) Upper body protection is designed to stop just slightly ABOVE the bend of the waist. Too long and it restricts movement. If it hampers movement it is just as bad as no protection at all.

    a) Here is Jordan, he looks to be 5.3″ maybe 5.4″, but doubtful

    https://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/jordiebrett7.jpg?w=300&h=200

    b) Here is the supposed protection kept in the house for Jordan, make sure you check out the arm holes, shoulders and actual length

    https://acrobat.com/#d=oR28WxQlNajYMXhFigB6eA (P.53)

    c) Here is an example of the length of a vest for a child approximately 5.3″
    Note: This is an equestrian vest for a child

    http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/crazyhorse_2190_410976471

    d) Last is a measurement chart and a photo of an adult male in vest.

    http://ts4.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1437700786363&id=a494af1a615ffb0763cabf181356a143

    http://www.crazyhorsetack.com/bodprotvessi.html

    Like

  26. Suzy permalink
    December 22, 2011 9:25 am

    @ Helena

    Thanks, that’s what I remembered. Judging from the behaviour of Sneddon, his desperation of looking for signs that Michael altered the appareance of his genitalia, is yet another strong indication that Jordan’s description did NOT match! Not only the foreskin but the spots neither.

    As for the ripoff that Deborah Linden’s pension is, I’m not surprised. These people made sure to be the highest paid pensioners in Santa Barbara. Here is a list about who the highest paid pensioners in Santa Barbara. So many familiar names in the top 15…

    1. Tom Sneddon, $224,672.64

    2. Ken Shemwell, $206,803

    3. Jim Anderson, $206,448.12

    4. Jim Thomas, $190,045.32

    5. Norman Horsley, $189,666.24

    6. Patrick McKinley, $189,497.76

    7. Kenneth Pettit, $186,071.52

    8. Thomas Martinez, $185,062.32

    9. Jim Laponis, $184,982.88

    10. R. Scott DeuPree, $183,598.32

    11. Tom Franklin, $178,773

    12. Joseph Smith, $171,805.80

    13. Malvin Parr, $167,856

    14. Frederick Olguin, $167,335.44 (Sneddon’s deputy chief)

    15. Russell Birchim, $164,575.08

    http://independent.com/news/2011/aug/19/which-pensioners-get-most-green/

    P.S. from VMJ
    – and now number 16 will be Deborah Linden with $160,000.00 (the then deputy sheriff for Santa Barbara County).

    It would be interesting to learn how much Ron Zonen is getting as he recently retired too – just to make the picture complete.

    Like

  27. nan permalink
    December 22, 2011 4:40 am

    From Vindicatemj
    Besides being greedy Carl Douglas turned out to be a terrible liar. The lies he told at that Frozen in time seminar are even embarassing to listen to. Looking at him one can’t help wondering about his partner Johnny Cohran too and how well they were defending Michael’s interests in 1994. Now Carl Douglas produces the impression of a person who is licking Larry Feldman’s ass (sorry for the language).

    LOL..actually I think he was so far up Feldmans behind , he couldnt see daylight…I wrote him a nice letter and told him so..
    At any rate , when I first saw Douglas, I was just appalled , but in hindsight ,I am glad we have him on tape showing his true colors , because it is obvious to me , that these lawyers from 94, were all pals , Feldman getting his contingency fees, and MJ defense team , wacking him out on hourly fees, after all , isnt that how Douglas got that nice ride….pfft.
    Next thing you know , Feldman is representing Johnny Cochrane…

    Compare Mesereau and his defense of his client to the cocktail banter of this moron , at this event, and I think it is plain as day , these lawyers were thinking of their own face time in front of the camera and how much they would make in the future.
    And now it is out there for all to see on youtube..

    Like

  28. December 22, 2011 2:27 am

    Today, on December 21, 2011 Deborah Linden is retiring from her job of the Chief of police at San Luis Obispo, California:

    ” San Luis Obispo City Police Chief Deborah Linden announced today her plans to retire from her public safety career in December 2011. Linden has served the city of San Luis Obispo as its chief of police since January 2003.
    During her tenure, she led the department through many major criminal investigations and significant events, such as the Mardi Gras riots. Linden has also helped with collaborative problem solving policies within the community.
    She plans to stay in the area after retirement and continue her service with local community organizations. A national recruitment for the next SLO chief of police will begin soon”.
    http://www.slo-business.com/e-insider/slo-police-chief-to-retire-at-end-of-2011.html

    In this article Michael Jackson is mentioned in connection with Deborah Linden, but in neutral terms. We learn that Deborah Linden’s husband worked in the Santa Barbara Sheriff department – evidently under Jim Thomas who was the third party investigating the 1993 case (in addition to Tom Sneddon in Santa Barbara and Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles):

    “I’m been blessed with some amazing, amazing opportunities,” she added.
    Among the memories that stand out for her was investigating the late superstar Michael Jackson for child molestation allegations in the early 1990s, although the case was never prosecuted.
    Now, having spent almost 28 years as a law enforcement officer, Linden is ready to hang up the badge and call it a career.
    “I plan to take some time off and slow down,” Linden said, but noted that she will continue her work with community groups and would like to go back to teaching. She is also looking forward to having more time with her husband, who is retired from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.”
    http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/slo-police-chief-hanging-up-her-badge/article_1d9f3da4-bcd6-11e0-91c0-001cc4c002e0.html

    This article says she will be one of the highest paid pensioners as she is turning 50:

    Chief of Police Deborah Linden Deborah – Total RIPOFF! She is retiring and getting $160,000.00 a year for life ripping off San Luis Obispo taxpayers to pay her only 9 year term!

    Deborah Linden, the San Luis Obispo police chief will retire in December after nine years on the job. Linden, 49,
    She earns $160,394 in salary and an additional $73,821 in benefits, such as retirement and health care. Wow that is amazing to make that kind of money on a town that is broke.

    She is leaving just in the middle of meassure A & B to repeal on mandatory binding arbitration and pension reform. Yet $160,000.00 a year for life and she is only 49 years old. That’s nothing, how many people are making minimum wage that are over 70 years old with no pension that can’t even think about retiring at all? Take a guess Doborah.

    Mandatory binding arbitration is unfair and wrecking the city’s budget and chief Deborah Linden leaving and wanting her pension as if she was not already making $233,883.00 a year, didn’t she save her money and to walk away with $160,000.00 a year. Her she drove around all the trailer parks in San Luis Obispo and seen how many people are living on low fix incomes? Probably not but so, do you think she cares if an older couple making $15,000.00 a year pension on an old trailer without a single dollar more in their 70’s? The recession crisis is bad from these people stealing Cities and the State of California with their greedy pensions and it is terrible as many leave the State or leave the Cities paying their pension contributing nothing back. Se didn’t even liv ein San Luis Obispo anyway, so what good it is to pay her pension?

    An outside arbitrator — someone who doesn’t live here, doesn’t know us and is not accountable to SLO voters — has arbitrarily decided SLO police officers should be given a 30% pay raise. It’s costing $2.5 million annually that the city doesn’t have, forcing the City Council to cut vital services.

    This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 7/31/2011 5:20:42 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/city-governments/chief-of-police-debo/chief-of-police-deborah-linden-0673a.htm.

    Like

  29. December 22, 2011 2:12 am

    In 2003 (or well after the 1993 events) Maureen Orth wrote her article “Losing his grip” where she mentioned Linden’s Affidavit. Whatever description Deborah Linden made previously, NONE of it is reproduced in the 2003 Vanity Fair article.

    Orth also lies that Linden did not receive Michael’s medical records.

    The story about Michael trying Benoquin just once on his genitals may be true, only it burned him so heavily that Klein had to treat him for the burn. And it dates back to April or May 1993 anyway which is the time when no allegations were made yet and Michael had no reason to “bleach” any splotches “not to match the photos” which would be made only in December 1993:

    “Graphic details of what allegedly went on sexually between Jackson and Jordie Chandler are also described in an affidavit I found in the records of the Santa Maria courthouse complex, given by Sergeant Deborah Linden, then a deputy sheriff for Santa Barbara County, now the police chief of San Luis Obispo, California. She specialized in sex crimes and cited interviews with both Jordie and his father:

    “Jordan stated that Jackson told him that if Jordan ever told anyone about the molests, Jordan would be placed in Juvenile Hall and both Jordan and Jackson would be in trouble. Jordan said that Jackson told him he did this with other boys; however, Jackson said that ‘he didn’t go as far with them.'”

    The affidavit also provides many details about Michael Jackson’s skin condition and confirms what Gutierrez says the maid Blanca Francia told him. According to the affidavit, “Jackson told Ms. Francia that he bleaches his skin because he does not like being black and he feels that blacks are not liked as much as people of other races.” Others told me that Jackson had special names for blacks, including “spabooks.”

    According to the affidavit, Jackson used a powerful bleaching cream, Benoquin. Referring to Francia, it goes on: “Jackson also used tape to peel loose skin off his face and he would apply baby oil to his skin… . Ms. Francia was not aware of Jackson having a skin disease.”

    Authorities were searching for evidence to match Jordie Chandler’s description of Jackson’s genitals. Sergeant Linden served search warrants on Jackson’s celebrity dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein, and his controversial plastic surgeon, Dr. Steven Hoefflin—known for doing Playboy Playmates’ breasts—to secure Jackson’s medical records. Linden found, however, that the records had recently been removed, and neither the doctors nor Klein’s attorney would reveal where they were.

    As a result, Klein was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in Santa Barbara County. Subsequently he did make himself and his assistant available for depositions. Klein’s assistant, it turns out, was Debbie Rowe, Jackson’s future wife and the woman who carried his two oldest children. At the time, according to sources formerly close to Jackson, Rowe was known mostly as a “biker babe.”

    Rowe told authorities that she and Klein flew around the world to minister to Jackson. She gave him massages and rubdowns and was familiar with his body, so she could identify any markings on his buttocks (the descriptions of which have been deleted in the copy of the affidavit I found). Jackson’s scalp had been badly burned when his hair caught on fire during the filming of a Pepsi commercial in 1984.

    According to the affidavit, “A biopsy of Jackson’s scalp revealed that Jackson has Lupus, an auto-immune disease which causes hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation (darkening or lightening) of the skin.”

    At the time Jackson’s hair caught fire, he began using painkillers, which have led to his having to go through detox more than once. “I had always been told he was just so medicated,” a former Sony employee told me. “Half the time you don’t know where what he says is coming from.”

    Dr. Klein also diagnosed Jackson as having vitiligo and acne. Beginning in 1990 he prescribed “skin lightening cremes, Solaquin Forte, Retin A and Benoquin.” Klein’s deposition also describes Jackson’s lupus as causing darkening of the skin and dark skin blotches. “Dr. Klein diagnosed Michael Jackson as having Discoid Lupus on his face and scalp and as a result, Jackson must avoid all sun exposure.”

    Again according to the affidavit, in April or May of 1993 (early in Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler), “Jackson told Dr. Klein that he had gotten Benoquin on his genitals and it burned. Dr. Klein told Jackson not to put Benoquin on his genitals.” Jackson was already wearing a prosthesis on his nose, owing to a lack of cartilage caused by extensive plastic surgery.”

    Like

  30. December 22, 2011 1:10 am

    So Katherine was not asked about that or we don’t know it she was?

    Lisa Campbell is writing about it in her 1994 book. From the questions the Grand jury asked Katherine it becomes clear that everyone thought Michael had altered his appearance “so it wouldn’t match the description” – so if they were looking for reasons why it did not match, it means that that there was NO match:

    “Meanwhile the criminal investigation continued. Katherine Jackson, having been subpoenaed two days earlier, testified before the grand jury in Los Angeles on March 17. She was accompanied by Randy.

    She was reportedly questioned about Michael’s appearance in an attempt to determine if Michael had altered his appearance so it wouldn’t match the description his accuser had given to police. When finished with her testimony, which took over an hour, she refused questions from reporters but did issue one statement, “I’d just like to say that before I went I was sure of my son’s innocence, now that I have finished my testimony, I still feel the same.”

    Also where was it said that in Dr. Klein’s medical archives Sneddon was searching for signs of Michael getting his foreskin restored?

    Lisa Campbell says that after the strip search Tom Sneddon wanted to compare the new photos with the earlier ones as he hoped he would be able to prove that Michael had undergone some surgery while he was away from the US – evidently for restoring his foreskin. The records were provided but Sneddon did not find anything there. (This is probably when Dr. Strick of the Prosecution reviewed Klein’s records and saw that the follow-up Michael’s nose jobs were for handling complications from lupus, as he said to Geraldo):

    “Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, later filed a motion in court to obtain Michael Jackson’s medical records from his dermatologist. He wanted to compare earlier photos of Michael with the more recent ones taken during the body search. It seemed they were still clinging to the possibility that Michael had undergone cosmetic surgery while he was out of the country for four weeks in late 1993.

    …On the legal front, Michael’s lawyers fought for the return of Michael’s medical records. Investigators had evidently not found whatever they had been looking for in the records, no more evidence of anything was uncovered. Cochran claimed Michael agreed to hand over the records only temporarily. Prosecutors claimed the waiver of rights was indefinite”.

    Like

  31. Suzy permalink
    December 21, 2011 11:42 pm

    @ Lynette

    I know that it’s absurd to suggest that Michael had his foreskin restored in such a short period of time. The point of my question was if Sneddon ever suggested such a thing anywhere, in any form, because I vaguely remember such things – that Sneddon suggested it – and I asked if anyone else remembers this or it’s just my memory doesn’t serve me right. IF he ever suggested such a thing that would be another indication of the fact that Jordan did say Michael was circumsized, otherwise Sneddon would not have come up with ridiculous suggestions about MJ restoring his foreskin. That’s all why I asked this.

    Like

  32. lynande51 permalink
    December 21, 2011 8:18 pm

    Suzy restoring forekin takes a minimumof one year by any means that is avaialbe. At that it does not have the elastice type ring around the end of it so it is not possible that Michael had it restored in the time that they think he had which was while he was in rehab in England. Dr. Strick says in his interview on Geraldo that he reviewed Dr. Kleins records for the government at that time and his quote is “I was told they were a match” so he did not compare them to the photos or did he have a copy given him of that description that Jordan gave. He was in the room also but suffice it to say that Sneddon was at Neverland that day to call in for an arrest warrant in the event that Michael refused or they were a match. The story that Michael “threw a tantrum” so the could not finish taking that all important photo of the one spot that was so neccessary comes directly from law enforcement, in this case Sneddon when he gave his interview to Maureen Orth and others after the fact. I don’t know about anyone else but Diane Dimond has quoted text from Gary Speigel the police photographer in her version and I will include that with my post on it. So somehow out of 23 photos they just happened to not get the right picture of the right spot. I ask anyone to tell me that to say there was a match is a reasonable conclusion. If you would really like to know for sure I have named the two people from Michael’s side that were in the room that day and if you like you could try to contact one of them for me to see if they will tell you about the day of the body search.

    Like

  33. Suzy permalink
    December 21, 2011 8:06 pm

    Thanks, Lynette.

    So Katherine was not asked about that or we don’t know it she was?

    Also where was it said that in Dr. Klein’s medical archives Sneddon was searching for signs of Michael getting his foreskin restored?

    Were these true stories true or not true then?

    The point of my questions is: if Sneddon was looking for information about these things and he was desperate to assume that Michael was formerly circumcised, only got his foreskin restored, then it’s safe to say Jordan told them Michael was circumscized.

    Not that I have any doubts about it anyway, just Sneddon’s behaviour would be additional evidence of it.

    Like

  34. lynande51 permalink
    December 21, 2011 7:08 pm

    Suzy, Katherine did not appear in front to the Santa Barbara Grand Jury she appeared in front of the Los Angeles Grand Jury. She was questioned for 2 hours about a few things. One of them was Michael’s appearance and the others included La Toya’s statement to the press that Katherine had shown her checks made out to families,who had stayed at Havenhurst with Michael and others. Dr. Klein did turn his records over to authorities and Dr. Strick did review them. However Dr. Strick was never asked to make a comparison from the photos or his findings but was told that they were a match to Jordan’s description. Commonly in a Grand Jury it is the foreman that questions the person giving evidence not the DA. The way it was done in 2005 with the DA’s office being there and sort of running the show is very unusual as a matter of fact rarely if ever done.
    There is one person from Michael’s team that could still come out and speak about the day of the body search and he still works for Michael. The description and the photos would not be included in the settlement agreement if there were concerns about that because he is bound by it. They were supposedly taken as part of the police investigation. That man is Howard Weitzman. I don’t know how he feels about it though because in one interview I found with Johnnie Cochran he said it was the worst day of his life as an attorney so I would imagine that Howard pretty much feels the same.
    I can’t say for sure why Johnnie felt that way. I think some of the accounts that were later written about with Michael becoming so upset are true. Michael became angry and enraged as anyone would if someone were holding a centimeter wound measurement up to them while they took 23 photos of you, 2 of your face while sitting waiting a 21 others of your genitalia. The thing is that Sneddon was the one that got a Judge to agree to an order for Michael to have the photos taken or be arrested. Johnnie Cochran and Howard Wetizman were not expecting that and I suppose Michael’s reaction to being forced to do it under the threat of arrest and the humiliation of it were very emotional for eveyone there. Dr. Klein was in the room that day too and Dr. Strick said he was instrumental in getting Michael to calm down.
    However every and all accounts available in books and articles state that Jordan said he was circumcised even the one from The Smoking Gun and another from Gawker that says that they too reviewed the documents regarding the body search. I have been called in to work the last few days so I have not been able to finish my post about the description. I will include all the accounts out there in the public domain so we can compare them. I am trying to get more added to it now but will not be able to work on it until I get home. They all vary on how upset Michael was but you can tell that the ones that come from the law enforcement sources after the fact state that Jordan said a light spot and then law enforcement said they saw a dark spot. The documents that they are talking about is the original search affadavit for Neverland when Jeff Klapakis attched the 1993 affadavit to his statement of probable cause in support of the search warrant. It was taken out of seal and attached on November 16th 2003 and returned to seal on January 24th 2004.Those pages are now redacted but they were available for a limited time. You will find the paragraph regarding the 1993 information on the bottom of page 64. ONe last thought on the search that is available in the affadavit is on page 69. Tom Senddon called that search consensual. I don’t know about anyone else but I have a hard time believing it was consensual if it was preformed under the threat of arrest. that could be why Sneddon wanted to get them introduced in 2005 at the end of the trial because what occured that day was nothing less than abuse of power on his part.It is not legal to force someone to a search under the threat of arrest when it comes to giving evidence against themselve and that is what those photos would be (think about “you have the right to remain silent”). I for one would love to have someone explain just what Sneddon did to Michael that day either Howard or Dr. Klein would work for me.
    http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/111703stmtpc.pdf
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100122083115/http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jacksonsplotch.html
    http://gawker.com/029031/michael-jackson-and-the-telltale-splotch

    Like

  35. Suzy permalink
    December 21, 2011 11:01 am

    On the issue of circumscison and whether or not Jordan claimed MJ was circumsized:

    I remember it was said that in front of the Grand Jury Sneddon asked Katherine about whether Michael was originally circumsized. Is that true? Were there such questions asked from Katherine? Because if there were that’s another evidence that indeed Jordan said Michael was circumsized and he was not.

    Like

  36. December 21, 2011 1:06 am

    “Michael is passed for more than 2 years but even that is a threat to them. Why? Because of the fans who came forth with studies and facts and showed the truth behind all these accusations and allegations. Obviously the haters hope to divide Michael’s fans; in their hopes and dreams, they see two categories, first the tame one that respects the boundaries and then the rebel one that put their noses everywhere. Well, divide and conquer is an oldie, isn’t it!”

    MOA, I think you are absolutely right about Michael’s fans who are now regarded as a threat. For some reason (which we do not yet know) they wanted Michael to be eliminated and when he died they hoped that the matter was settled. Fans were considered a minor problem which would be sorted out through the usual package of media lies, portraying fans as crazy fanatics, etc.

    However Michael’s supporters evidently surprised them in some way – either by their persistence in searching for the truth or their inexplicable unity even despite thousands of provocations from every side and angle, or by their general lack of hatred and desire to do good, or something else.

    I think that same as we don’t understand how they are capable of hating Michael for so long and for nothing at all, they don’t understand how we can love Michael despite the torrents of lies they’ve always poured on him. The lies were many and the man was practically eliminated by them.

    After all, this was only ONE human being, and who is not even alive now – and to their amazement they see they cannot keep the situation under their control! Given that the media thinks itself to be the ultimate power, our resistance to their lies is regarded as a sort of a rebellion against them.

    Of course all their efforts will be channelled into dividing Michael’s fans now. The usual way they do it is screaming over who said what and how dare you support this person. Fans divide and start a squabble, while those who triggered it off applaud themselves for the success.

    Like

  37. December 21, 2011 12:36 am

    “The astonishing thing is not that Michael’s fans want to keep his legacy going, it is that the haters feel the need to keep on hating this icon two and a half years after he died. Why are they so heavily invested in hating a man they never knew?”

    I would really love them to explain that if they are capable to be honest at least once in their lives.

    Like

  38. December 21, 2011 12:32 am

    “People who hate Michael, do not understand that fans love not only the artist but primarily the man.”

    Absolutely! His music and dance were fantastic, but had he been a different human being it wouldn’t have been the same.

    I’ve suddenly thought how much all of us would have missed if he hadn’t graced the world.

    Like

  39. December 21, 2011 12:18 am

    Disgusting lies did start the killing.Even though it seems he is “loved obsessively” by real p-files.There are haters, who for different reasons have joined them in their propaganda of hate.They go on and on unperturbed by truth , court documents and other findings.
    A somewhat strange phenomenon. But then he was so famous that anybody, like Douglas has to mention his name, just to shine for 1.5 seconds in his expensive car he was able to buy after the Chandler settlement.

    Like

  40. MOA permalink
    December 21, 2011 12:13 am

    Strong post VMJ! Thank you for that.

    VMJ: Is it because the future of our children is a matter of concern of the followers of Michael Jackson because he was probably the only one who really stood up for children’s rights?

    Michael always stood up for children’s right. He never gave up and never sold the children to their abusers. That is why they wanted to destroy him. And we know what they did to ruin him.

    Michael is passed for more than 2 years but even that is a threat to them. Why? Because of the fans who came forth with studies and facts and showed the truth behind all these accusations and allegations. They showed the prosecutor’s dirty agenda, the media’s treachery, the ped-les double-sided deceit. And all they have done so far is called now a “sinister agenda”!

    Obviously the haters hope to divide Michael’s fans; in their hopes and dreams, they see two categories, first the tame one that respects the boundaries and then the rebel one that put their noses everywhere. Well, divide and conquer is an oldie, isn’t it!

    Like

  41. Maria permalink
    December 20, 2011 11:45 pm

    Sometimes I think the devil had sent all the forces against Michael. So many people were involved in the destruction of Michael. Evil is afraid to love. God gave MJ huge talent. Michael had a mission on earth, he preached love through his music and to help children. Cruel people covered the whole truth of their filth and lies. Truth and love is stronger than lies and hatred.

    Like

  42. December 20, 2011 10:56 pm

    “It’s a dirty mind that makes something sinister of it, something is wrong in society. I think Dr. Patrick Treacy said in an interview something like that: It’s incredible how within one generation the relationship between adults and children changed so that you have to be afraid if you do more than smile at children because people can get a wrong impression.”

    Yes, something is wrong. I hear that now in connection with Sandusky case (which does sound horrifying) they want to make it a rule that an adult never stays alone in one room with a child. And though I understand that it might help, there is still a feeling that there is a dead end at the end of the road.

    Because if there are two adults in a room with a child, the next possible step will be wrong accusations and extortions from one of those adults for allegedly seeing something which the other one did. It will wholly depend on the conscience of these people and if one of the two turns out to be greedy, corrupt or vindictive, for example, there will be more and more possibilities for unjust accusations which will take all that hysteria into a new upward spiral. There will be no stop to it unless human beings consciously put a stop to it themselves.

    I personally feel a great need for the inner ethical law inside each person to be revived. I mean conscience and the responsibility for what you are doing on earth while you are still alive. In its essence it is belief in God of course, and the feeling that at each moment of your life you are answering to Him and Him only for each of your actions and even thoughts.

    I think that Michael was constantly living in that state, and to be frank, it is the only really worthy state to be worth living in.

    Like

  43. Maria permalink
    December 20, 2011 10:20 pm

    People who destroyed Michael- Sneddon, media…. They did it in the cruelest way. Sneddon, journalists and others they do not see the truth and love. It was enough to look, watch to see that Michael never hurt a child. When he was among the children could see his sincerity. It was the biggest absurdity in the world to do with Michael’s monster children. For him, it was a death sentence. He did so much good in the world. Stupid, evil people destroyed everything. People who hate Michael, say that was a good artist. They can not hear what he sang.His music is concerned the fundamental values​​, it was music with a big message: Heal the World, We Are the World, Man in the Mirror, The lost children, Earth song, Jam, Cry, They do not care abort us, Be not always … . Fans know that Michael was the real as an artist and as a man. On stage and in life was real. He wanted to heal the world.

    Like

  44. December 20, 2011 9:51 pm

    “What I don’t see in most of them is an HONEST interest in facts. They cherry-pick, they twist information, they omit important facts from their presentations, they appeal to people’s prejudices instead of having to deal with facts. They even use dirty tricks of deception like impersonating journalists (Charles Thomson) and when said individual makes a complaint about that, the haters whine on their website about how they are persecuted by MJ fans (again, of course not disclosing to their readers the real reasons of why their site was banned from its old server). Then they come here under multiple user names and identities pretend they are several people when they are just one. Why the need for constant lying and deception if their intentions are honest and true?”

    Oh, absolutely! Their total inability to accept a single fact of Michael’s innocence is staggering. Previously I thought we were dealing with simply ignorant people who didn’t know the facts and once they learn them they will at least start thinking together with us. But now I see that whatever facts you find and present they totally disregard them and avoid at all costs.

    It is like talking to a stone and this makes you really wonder. If they agreed at least with the fact that, for example, Gavin Arvizo was lying when he said he was molested after the scandal broke out (which is an obvious lie), we could at least see that these people are real, human and are not mechanical robots who can utter only what’s written in their program.

    But they do produce the impression of being robot-like. However we know that they are human and from the way they write we see that they are not totally stupid either – so what options does it leave us with? Only with the option of them closing their eyes at facts intentionally.

    They don’t want Michael to be innocent.

    Why?

    Like

  45. ares permalink
    December 20, 2011 9:38 pm

    Very interesting topic.

    You need to really know that Michael is innocent to be able to return to it and start liking it again.- Helena

    I don’t agree with this though, at least when it comes to me.

    Like

  46. December 20, 2011 9:26 pm

    “Why do people waste their time on somebody they dont like, especially when he was not convicted of anything ever in his entire life, they should go after those ones that really did something wrong.”

    Jovana, this is the biggest question out of all other questions we have to these people.

    Like

  47. December 20, 2011 9:19 pm

    “There’s no way anyone can enjoy his music, or be a fan and believe he was guilty of molesting children. That would be like relishing love poems written by Hitler or Charles Manson.”

    Or like relishing the poetry or songs of the cannibal portrayed by Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.

    “You can’t say, he was a great entertainer, great song writer, and a monster in the same sentence. I’m sure the haters know that. They’re playing a losing game. The real fans know the truth, and Michael has the greatest fans that are willing to take the time to research and have an answer to all those lies that are still being spread daily.”

    Right! And since we know for sure that enjoying the music of a monster is impossible (at least for normal people), we are also learning to understand what those so-called “fan” sites doubting Michael’s innocence are all about. This is a splendid test for checking up who these people are.

    They are haters, because this kind of “fan” sites cannot be run by people who really understand, appreciate and love Michael Jackson. Something must be terribly wrong with these sites.

    Like

  48. December 20, 2011 9:00 pm

    “frankly since his music is autobiographical ….if I thought he was guilty of anything , I wouldnt like his music because it wouldnt resonate with me….”

    Nan, I think that the aversion to music of a person suspected of child molestation is the only possible reaction of normal people. Now I don’t even remember what feelings Michael evoked in me only three years ago, when I still suspected him of wrongdoing, but what I do remember is that I didn’t even want to listen to him.

    Music has much more power over a listener than a word over a reader – even a small child can understand music though he doesn’t yet know how to talk or read. But when beautiful music clashes with the images you have in your mind of a possible monster who composed it, it becomes unbearable to listen to it. This is what Michael’s haters knew and used in order to bring his downfall. It was just enough to throw a suspicion to get rid of him as a performer and music composer – because even a mere suspicion in such a crime can poison all the pleasure from his music.

    You need to really know that Michael is innocent to be able to return to it and start liking it again.

    “Douglas is so enamored with his past adversary that he is nodding in agreement every time the man opens his mouth..It is hard to differentiate which side he is representing!!!’

    Besides being greedy Carl Douglas turned out to be a terrible liar. The lies he told at that Frozen in time seminar are even embarassing to listen to. Looking at him one can’t help wondering about his partner Johnny Cohran too and how well they were defending Michael’s interests in 1994. Now Carl Douglas produces the impression of a person who is licking Larry Feldman’s ass (sorry for the language).

    “The best thing for me about that circ de solil thing is how they have incorporated MJ Oxford speech into his “Childhood ” song. It is very moving and the honesty in which Mj shares his feelings on children being cheated out of their childhood and how he truly believes in the goodness of children”

    Oh, this is great! The Oxford speech was my own turning point in understanding Michael. But the final proof of Michael’s honesty and sincerety in his innocent love for children is the tape made by Murray. While falling asleep under some sedative Michael had absolutely no control over his mind and words, and he nevertheless spoke about children’s pain hurting him a lot and he spoke about God!

    Can you imagine what a ped-le would have said if he had been in his place?

    Like

  49. lynande51 permalink
    December 20, 2011 8:10 pm

    The thing that these haters don’t seem to get is that whether or not you are related or not related to a child, we know the difference between right and wrong and know one important fact. Children are children. We know what that means just like Michael did. That is, that it is you that advocates for the sexualization of children at the hands of an adult and your kind are so easily recognizable.
    Yes this site is definitely written by someone that wants a big lie attached to Michael. That he was of the same mind as them, the mind of a pedo***, Just like the book Dangerous Liasons. No suprises there. The man that wrote that book and his friends/followers were livid at Michael Jackson’s fans because we stopped the publication of his book. A book with the very same agenda that they are propagating now. It is all right to accept him but I say he did this no matter what you think. Therefore it is true. What they should put out there front and center is that they think that way so they should know. That is the argument they should really be making. They should come completely out from under that rock they live under and show themselves for what they really are.Let the sun shine on you so the world knows what you are.
    For everything they do and say there is reason and that reason is almost always personal. To fight the people that fight for Michael against all of this is exactly what they are taking so personally that is because it is a fight for the truth,and the truth is not on their side.
    Do not ever let anyone tell you that there are similarities between Michael and the profile of a ped***ile without first reminding them that Tom Sneddon ( In no way is this man one of them he is alot of things but not one of them he was motivated with the promise of glory) also fits that vague profile as do at least 100 members of their own community.Members that work with children and families that need help and guidance. These members reach out with love for their fellow man that is their only motivation. It is people like this person that shun that behavior because people like Michael protect and prohibt people like them from using their age old tactics that they use to hunt their prey.

    Like

  50. December 20, 2011 7:12 pm

    They’re trying to suggest they are impartial by saying they like his music or whatever Trying not to come across as antagonistic or hateful, the way they normally do.

    It’s weird, why the new PR ploy?

    The logical fallacy in their basic argument – that fans feeling the need to defend Michael must mean he’s actually guilty is ridiculous. I had no idea people could even think in such a basic backwards way. It’s like saying the fact that they felt the need to create that website and engage in their new PR drive reveals that Michael must be innocent.

    They don’t just hate Michael, they hate his fans. It’s very strange.

    Like

  51. December 20, 2011 7:06 pm

    The astonishing thing is not that Michael’s fans want to keep his legacy going, it is that the haters feel the need to keep on hating this icon two and a half years after he died. Why are they so heavily invested in hating a man they never knew? Is it because it’s themselves they hate, themselves they cannot get away from, especially when they look in a mirror? What lurks in the dark dungeons of their minds and hearts that makes them so determined to twist the goodness that was Michael? That’s the real questions they should be asking themselves and the people who are attracted to their sites.

    Like

  52. Truth Prevail permalink
    December 20, 2011 6:30 pm

    i know for a fact that site in NOT in good intentions and i know the people or person running it is not pure this is proven by the fact they delibritely replocated charles thomsons email just with a different email carrier the reason they chose charles is because he is very credible.

    BOTTOM LINE: THEY ARE PATHETIC AND HAVE A SINISTER AGENDA!

    Like

  53. Maria permalink
    December 20, 2011 5:39 pm

    People who hate Michael’s afraid of the truth. Afraid to look in the mirror and see own vileness and sin. They searched sin in a man so good, noble, innocent. They say he was a good artist, but as a man … .. Just as the man was a wonderful, worthy of admiration and respect. They do not understand, do not see the love they can not see the truth. You have to show the truth by the the good. I appreciate page MJJ-777. It shows the goodness and truth. This page focuses on showing people these terrible dirt. Goal can be the same. Evil and dirt belong to these terrible people. Good is better because it belongs to Michael.

    Like

  54. Maria permalink
    December 20, 2011 5:01 pm

    People who hate Michael, do not understand that fans love not only the artist but primarily a man. They do not see how good was Michael. He was the victim of wicked people who were looking for dirt in pure and innocent heart. They are bad people, have a dirty mind diseased, can not see love. Michael Jackson lived for the children. It was his mission.

    Like

  55. December 20, 2011 4:38 pm

    This is why is is important:
    Michael Jackson: “I will never be sad if I leave this world, because I know I will be in a better place. The only thing I care about is that people stop thinking that I did something wrong. I love the kids, and disgusting lies almost killed me. When I die, all [the] money I have will go to my children and other children of the world.”

    And this is why Frank Cascio’s testimony is important: ‎
    ‎”The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.”

    Like

  56. Susanne permalink*
    December 20, 2011 4:22 pm

    Helena, I agree with everything you write. There would be no way for me to listen to and celebrate Michaels musical genius if I knew he could be a p…le. I couldn’t separate that.
    The goal of these haters is not to prove something (because they can’t), but just to slander Michael – for reasons they must know themselves. Their focus is on him solely, not on any noble interests or subjects they want to promote.
    It doesn’t also make sense to claim any wrongdoing by Michael when there are enough first-hand witnesses who were there and explain what was really going on in Michael’s suite. Frank explains it several times in his book, also that Michael was haunted by these allegations since 1993 and never was the same again, and that he never again slept with a child alone in his room.
    I myself have no issue at all with Michael’s slumber parties. I experienced such sleeping arrangements myself when I was a kid, and there was never a thought about it being not normal. It’s a dirty mind that makes something sinister of it, something is wrong in society. I think Dr. Patrick Treacy said in an interview something like that: It’s incredible how within one generation the relationship between adults and children changed so that you have to be afraid if you do more than smile at children because people can get a wrong impression.

    Like

  57. lenell permalink
    December 20, 2011 2:10 pm

    I appreciate this site very much, the undeniable effort given to tireless research in searching for and revealing the truth about Michael Jackson.
    The word ‘normal’ or ‘not normal’ is used quite frequently when discussing Michael. Normal-The ordinary or usual condition, degree, or the like; average; mean. Michael exceeded the definition of normal….me, too.
    As far as doubting Michael….NEVER, EVER. His beautiful spirit revealed to me long ago who he was, knew from day one of the accusations he was not capable or could phatom such ugliness.(perhaps the haters are, since that’s their main focus.) The more they try and drag him down in their hell…the more his light shines. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was discovered diane d. is the culprit responsible for much of the hate that’s spread. My feelings only.

    Like

  58. Suzy permalink
    December 20, 2011 11:43 am

    Same old, tired crap on the side of haters. Appeal to people’s prejudices, cherry-picking of information, instead of dealing with the real and FULL facts of the cases.

    If there’s one thing why these hater websites are good, it’s because they actually prove that apart from innuendo and conjecture there’s nothing they have against MJ. They avoid discussing the trial, the timeline, the people involved like plague. Instead they go around in circles with appealing to people’s prejudices about subjects like sleeping in a bed.

    When MJ was accused the second time I had my very serious doubts about his innocence, just because of – how do they say? – “there’s no smoke without fire” and this was the second time he was accused of such a thing. (This “there’s no smoke without fire” saying has to be one of the stupidest sayings ever, BTW.) But this was before I knew anything of the details of the accusations. So I actually started to follow the trial with a VERY open mind – which means I was even leaning a bit towards “guilty”!

    But then as I learnt the details of the case, as facts started to come out one afther another, I realized what it was: false accusations. The trial was also good in the sense that we learnt more about the 1993 allegations as well, since Sneddon brought in the “prior bad acts” evidence. That case also got destroyed in court. All the previous innuendo in books, newspaper articles about Michael molesting this and that boy, about employees witnessing such things was utterly, totally destroyed in court as well as the credibility of all those “witnesses”! Anyone with a half brain and with no bias could see that.

    Also since we have the Internet and we have access to material we didn’t have before, I had a chance to study documents, claims, evidence about both cases and now I’m 100% sure that Michael Jackson was NOT a child molester and not a p-le!

    It’s interesting indeed that haters suggest that we should keep celebrating Michael’s legacy as a great artist but “accept” he was a p-le. It’s interesting indeed that someone can suggest this. I, for one, could never celebrate anyone’s legacy as an artist if I thought he was a child molester. I totally agree with Helena on this, it seems odd that many haters suggest exactly this and it makes me wonder about their true agenda.

    I think one part of these haters are advocates for p-lia who want to use MJ’s likeness to promote their case. Indeed we have seen a lot of signs of that. The same people who write these blogs and websites, praise people like Victor Gutierrez (about whom they admit and agree with us that he may be a p-le and he’s certainly a p-lia advocate) and Carl Toms (who admits to be a p-le and p-le advocate). There are comments made by them those are shockingly supportive and understanding of the case these people promote!

    Another part may be people who were molested as children and instead of dealing with their trauma in a healthy way they take out their anger on a famous man who was accused of the same crime, but who was innocent (instead of having to take out their anger on people who molested them, like perhaps fathers, uncles etc.). Others may be simply racists or have mental problems, like narcissism.

    There are probably a mixture of reasons for these people to behave the way they behave.

    What I don’t see in most of them is an HONEST interest in facts. They cherry-pick, they twist information, they omit important facts from their presentations, they appeal to people’s prejudices instead of having to deal with facts. They even use dirty tricks of deception like impersonating journalists (Charles Thomson) and when said individual makes a complaint about that, the haters whine on their website about how they are persecuted by MJ fans (again, of course not disclosing to their readers the real reasons of why their site was banned from its old server). Then they come here under multiple user names and identities pretend they are several people when they are just one.

    Why the need for constant lying and deception if their intentions are honest and true?

    Like

  59. Jovana permalink
    December 20, 2011 10:38 am

    Thank you once again for this great post. This haters make me sick in every single way posible. Michael did not sleep with children he shared his home with children and their parents, Michael was not drug addict, Michael did not posses child porn, he did not collect books of children those two books he had since year 93 were art books that were sent to him by fans. There is nothing wrong or unusual with Michael’s behaviour , what worries me more is when people see an adult with a child would they automatically think of something dirty? Why do people have these thoughts in their mind, i mean this really is something to be worried about. Lastly, Michael’s fans are not out to excuse his behaviour or justify his actions because there is nothing to excuse, they are out to share the truth about attacks that Michael faced throughout his life regarding his skin color, false accusations, extortion charge and so on.
    Why do people waste their time on somebody they dont like, especially when he was not convicted of anything ever in his entire life, they should go after those ones that really did something wrong.
    Michael was not even capable of thinking about those things let alone doing them.

    Like

  60. Linda permalink
    December 20, 2011 10:36 am

    WOW, just got off work and this is almost to much to digest. I’ve said it before, I’ve slept in the bed with children related to me and not related. No difference. I still don’t see anything unusual with how Michael was with children. Apparently I’m as weird as he was. What does a bed have to do with sex anyway?

    I guess if I thought he was a ped, I would not enjoy any of his music. I couldn’t listen to it. He would totally disgust me. I don’t know if you remember, but my daughter was molested by her father, so this is a real sore point with me. I’ve also researched because someone asked me a question about him and I gave a gut answer that he was innocent . Later I decided I needed to have a reason for what I believed. That’s what brought me to this site, and you led me to many other sites. The more I searched, the more answers I had to prove his innocence.

    There’s no way anyone can enjoy his music, or be a fan and believe he was guilty of molesting children. That would be like relishing love poems written by Hitler or Charles Manson. You can’t say, he was a great entertainer, great song writer, and a monster in the same sentence. I’m sure the haters know that. They’re playing a losing game. The real fans know the truth, and Michael has the greatest fans that are willing to take the time to research and have an answer to all those lies that are still being spread daily.

    You guy’s, as usual, are doing a great job, and you ALL have helped me a lot. You’re my fav website.

    Like

  61. nan permalink
    December 20, 2011 10:34 am

    This is a very important piece that you have written..

    There are lots of people who would just like to bury the truth….media .prosecutors , civil attys,. accusers , VG,DD.NAMBLA people who could be big in the entertainment business as Corey Feldman said it is the biggest open secret out there ..It is in their best interest..

    I had no opinion on him or the accusations …..I considered the 2005 trial of a celebrity a distraction for the public from the war..couldnt believe the coverage…

    But since his death, I had looked into these accusations on my own, before I found this site ..

    Not only was he innocent , he was the victim ..and frankly since his music is autobiographical ….if I thought he was guilty of anything , I wouldnt like his music because it wouldnt resonate with me….

    …It was HIS civil rights that were violated for years….

    The fact that they brought this man to actually stand trial on that flimsy garbage is a mockery…and nobody seemed to care one bit because it was pulling in ratings for the media and revenue for the town…

    IMO , his own lawyers in 93/94 were far too cozy with Feldman . In the frozen in time seminar , Douglas is so enamored with his past adversary that he is nodding in agreement every time the man opens his mouth..It is hard to differentiate which side he is representing!!!
    All the lawyers were just delighted with their fees from that settlement .So when Tom Mesereau talks about lawyers looking out for their own interests , , I think of Carl Douglas and that is why he was so defensive toward Mesereau at the end of the seminar..

    If I was a rich eccentric , I would be more careful , then he was with trusting people , but the Chandler/ Arviso came looking for him and Jason Francia was essentially laughed at while testifying according to court transcripts , Mike Tiabbi and a very outraged Maureen Orth in her piece for Vanity Fair..

    These are his accusers and they are all a joke..

    It isnt likely some terminal child is going to want to hang out with me as a dying wish , like Gavin supposedly did , but this happened to MJ hundreds of times..

    And we all know the supposedly dying child asked to stay in his room, with his brother MJ and Frank..it was the terminal illness that got Mj to agree to it..

    The phone calls he made to the boy were no doubt like the ones he made of countless others …like this one to Ryan White, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVvtEbR3DCQ

    I think you people are making excellent progress with this site ,,
    It has nothing to do with emotion and someone giving permission to like someone music but hate their personal life..
    That sounds like desperation on their part and I just wont settle for that ..
    The best thing for me about that circ de solil thing is how they have incorporated MJ Oxford speech into his “Childhood ” song ..It is very moving and the honesty in which Mj shares his feelings on children being cheated out of their childhood and how he truly believes in the goodness of children…is going to give people who had no opinion , insight into MJ the humanitarian ..more positive press for MJ and his personal legacy..

    Like

  62. December 20, 2011 9:30 am

    I think this is the same cynical argument they have been using about his “drug use.” They want to sell him, his music, his dance moves, his image, but they don’t want to bother with getting into substantive issues – ya know, people would have to think. So, instead of teaching people the truth they use “buts” “ifs” “possibilities.” And they say, “We’re not going to argue with you about whether or not something was true; we CAN AGREE that he was a great entertainer! Will that be debit or credit?

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. WHAT WERE HIS THOUGHTS LIKE? The final evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence « Vindicating Michael
  2. Separating The Artist From The Man: Is It Possible? | AllForLoveBlog

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: