Skip to content

Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 4 of 7: So-Called “Christians” Who Have LIED Against Michael!

January 24, 2012

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Exodus 20:16

This post will focus on the “faith” of the people who have lied about Michael Jackson throughout the years. These people include “investigative reporters” Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond, MJ’s accusers Gavin and Star Arvizo, Martin Bashir, and former family friend Stacy Brown, just to name a few.

However, the bulk of my analysis will be dedicated to Jason Francia, the son of a former maid who was fired from Neverland (but lied and said she quit), and who was coerced by police into accusing MJ of molestation. The reason I want to focus so heavily on his testimony is because he was a former YOUTH MINISTER at his church! If there is anyone who should have confessed to lying, you would think it would have been him, right? I was going to include him in this post, but instead I will debunk his lies in Part 5!

First, let’s look at Diane Dimond! She is a former reporter of the now defunct celebrity tabloid gossip show “Hard Copy”. Here’s an overview of the show, and you can clearly see that they abandoned the good intentions that the show started with once they realized that sensationalized, tabloid reporting is where the ratings are at!


In the late 1980s, as investigative news shows and daytime talk shows were changing their formats and style, Hard Copy was created by Metromedia Television veterans Mark Monsky and John Parsons Peditto, who told original staffers that the idea was to “combine the stories of 20/20 with the production techniques of MTV.”[citation needed] This would be the show’s format at launch, but it was quickly abandoned due to ratings concerns. Monsky and Parsons Peditto would leave the series within the first season, and the show took on a hard tabloid format after their departure, with stories featuring outrageous content or titillation being featured much more than serious topics, along with graphics in bold and large fonts, and MTV-style camera work.

From 1990 through 1993, in its second, third and fourth seasons, the show was under the direction of executive producer and A Current Affair creator Peter Brennan and a team of Fox Television tabloid veterans that included producers Burt Kearns and Neal Travis and reporter Rafael Abramovitz. Under their control, Hard Copy evolved into the apotheosis of smart, witty and outrageous tabloid reportingHard Copy became such a staple of popular culture it was parodied on The Simpsons in the episode “Homer Badman” as Rock Bottom, a show which clearly misrepresents facts in order to create scandal. Meanwhile, the team broke news in the Cheyenne Brandothe Menendez BrothersWilliam Kennedy SmithClarence Thomas and the British Royal Family sagas, while pioneering the “mini movie” long-form story techniques in multi-episode reports on the Chappaquiddick incidentElvis Presley, and the death of Marilyn Monroe.

1996 celebrity boycott

In 1996, actor George Clooney began a public boycott of Hard Copy and its sister show Entertainment Tonight (both were produced by Paramount Television) after Hard Copy violated a six-month agreement not to air segments about Clooney by airing footage of Clooney and then-girlfriend Celine Balitran on the set of his film Batman & Robin. Other celebrities supported the boycott including Whoopi GoldbergMadonna, and Steven Spielberg.[2]

Paramount Television eventually agreed to change the way both shows obtained their news.[3] They also agreed not to air “unauthorized footage” of celebrities or “footage that is known to have been obtained illegally.”[2

Diane Dimond was one of the first reporters to break the 1993 child molestation case against MJ, and she has allowed the case to define her career ever since. She and her employers at Hard Copy were a literal thorn in MJ’s side during his darkest hour, as they repeatedly aired unsubstantiated stories from unreliable sources in order to convict MJ in the court of public opinion (and thus increase ratings), and they even paid former employees to lie on camera! (This will be discussed in more detail later on in this post.)

Although Hard Copy was cancelled in 1999, Dimond didn’t change her ways! She kept in touch with Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara (where MJ resided), numerous former employees of Neverland who lied and said they saw MJ abusing children, and many others who were connected to the case, and as a result she was tipped off that Neverland would be raided again in November 2003, and she was the ONLY reporter at Neverland during the raid! She was subsequently hired by Court TV, and she helped transform it from a respectable legal news outlet to just another celebrity tabloid show!

I cannot possibly document in this post each and every single devious lie that Dimond has peddled throughout the years, but I’ll gladly summarize a list of posts that go into her background in more detail (which will help those of you reading this who aren’t familiar with her):

1. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session”:  On September 16th, 2011 Dimond participated in a roundtable discussion with two of MJ’s closest confidants, and her lies were so outrageous that they warranted an immediate rebuttal! For example, she claimed to have interviewed with “many” families who were too afraid to press charges against MJ! (I recorded the entire program, and I’m in the process of getting it uploaded to YouTube!)

2. Fans United For Michael Jackson’s Legacy did a recent post titled “Turn Off, Tune Out, Shut Off Diane Dimond

3. A two-part dossier from MJJ-777 which compiles all of her dirty work. Here is part one and part two; part three is on the way!

4. The section of the Veritas Project aptly titled “Diane Dimond: Paragon of Deceit”.

5. MJJJustice Project’s post “Dimond – Duplicity is Thy Name”. Another excellent analysis of her clever, yet deceitful spin of the facts. In this post, they analyze her 1995 radio interview on “The Ken and Barkley Show”, which was transcribed in MJ’s lawsuit against Paramount Pictures Corporation (the company behind “Hard Copy”.)

6. Filthy Tabloid Trash’s Open Letter to TruTV, respectfully asking them to reconsider their decision to hire Diane Dimond to cover the upcoming trial. Obviously this letter fell on deaf ears!

7. The Edgy Matters blog post from June 25th, 2004, titled “C-O-N-SPIRACY”” where Dimond was sarcastically “charged” as the #1 co-conspirator in helping Sneddon violate the gag order by planting stories in the media to taint the jury pool and convict MJ in the court of public opinion!  And let’s not forget their June 23rd, 2005 post titled “Diane Dimond vs. Journalism Code of Ethics”, a must read!!

8. And of course, we here at Vindicate MJ blasted Dimond in this overview of MJ’s 1995 Lawsuit against her and Victor Gutierrez, and in Jacques Peretti’s “What Really Happened” crockumentary!

Now that we have a good idea of Dimond’s dishonest background, let’s look at who she claims is her moral compass! On July 8th, 2009 she published a post on her blog titled “A Word About Sources”, and a reader left the following comment, and try to keep a straight face as you read Dimond’s response!

Think of that comment as you watch this compilation of Dimond’s “greatest hits”!!

For those of you who were able to stomach all 1 hour and 7 minutes of Dimond’s endless spinning and slanting of the facts, pat yourself on the back!

Now, unto Maureen Orth, the investigative journalist for Vanity Fair who wrote five scathing, vicious, and dishonest tabloid articles on MJ that only had credibility because they were printed in Vanity Fair, when in actuality they belonged in The Sun or The National Enquirer! Here is her bio:

Maureen Orth has been a special correspondent for Vanity Fair since 1993. She started writing for the magazine in 1988 and became a contributing editor in 1989. Orth has interviewed Russian president Vladimir Putin and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, among other heads of state. She has written investigative pieces regarding the allegations of sexual abuse by Michael Jackson and child abuse by Woody Allen and profiled other controversial figures such as Denise and Marc Rich, Harrod’s Mohamed Al Fayed, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Gerry Adams, Karl Lagerfeld, and Madonna. Orth began her journalism career in 1973 at Newsweek, where she was the entertainment editor and the lifestyle editor and wrote seven cover stories. She went on to become a contributing editor at Vogue, a columnist for New York Woman, a network correspondent for NBC News, and a senior editor at New York and New West magazines. Orth was nominated for a National Magazine Award for Reporting for her article on Michael and Arianna Huffington, which appeared in the November 1994 issue of Vanity Fair. She is the author of Vulgar Favors (Delacorte Press, 1999), a book about murder suspect Andrew Cunanan, and The Importance of Being Famous (Henry Holt, 2002), a collection of her Vanity Fair articles with updates and commentary.

Orth graduated from college in 1964, and moved to Colombia to serve in the Peace Corps until 1966. While there, she founded the Marina Orth Foundation, and has since opened three schools that serve more than a thousand students. As a devout Roman Catholic, she and her late husband Tim Russert (who hosted NBC’s “Meet The Press”) have given generously to numerous causes and charities.

Ok, having said all of that, it makes you wonder how on earth she could write such vicious lies about MJ, who you would think would be a role model to her for all of the work he has done for underprivileged children! Let’s look at the some of the trash that she has written about MJ:

David Geffen, be gone! Steven Spielberg, be gone!” The witch doctor cursing Michael Jackson’s enemies and blessing the tarnished King of Pop himself in a voodoo ritual in Switzerland in the summer of 2000 had promised that the 25 people on Jackson’s enemies list, some of whom had worked with him for years, would soon expire. The voodoo man later assured one close observer of the scene that David Geffen, who headed the list, would die within the week. But Geffen’s demise did not come cheap. Jackson had ordered his then business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, a U.S.-educated Korean lawyer based in Seoul, to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali for a voodoo chief named Baba, who then had 42 cows ritually sacrificed for the ceremony.

Jackson had already undergone a blood bath. The pop star, who is said to be $240 million in debt, had paid six figures for a ritual cleansing using sheep blood to another voodoo doctor and a mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia, who came to him with a letter of greeting from a high-ranking Saudi prince, purportedly Nawaf Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, now the chief of intelligence of Saudi Arabia. She had taken an eager Jackson to her basement in Geneva, where, he later told associates, he saw with his own eyes piles of $100 bills which Samia said totaled $300 million. It was “free money,” she said; he could have it, and she could also get him a villa and a yacht. She arranged to have three men fly from Switzerland, at Jackson’s expense, to Neverland, his luxurious California ranch, to discuss further deals. When the hex delegation arrived at Neverland, Jackson asked Lee to authorize $1 million in cash to be brought to the ranch. Lee refused, but Jackson obtained the money by other means. Lee found out about it only when a $20,000 bill came for an armored truck.

Jackson, in turn, sent Lee to Geneva to check out yet another voodoo doctor, whose specialty was pulling money out of thin air. At the Hôtel d’Angleterre, the voodoo man produced a show of sound, lights, and pigeons before leading his visitors one at a time into the bathroom, where the tub was full of cash amounting, he claimed, to $50 million. When they asked where it had come from, he said, “The U.S. Federal Reserve.” There was just one catch: all this money would disappear unless Michael Jackson paid thousands of dollars for the blood of a number of fowl and small animals for yet another ritual. The sacrificial animals were already assembled at a location on the French-Swiss border, waiting to die to make Jackson’s wishes come true. Lee was horrified and left in disgust.

And she didn’t stop there! Here’s another excerpt:

Just the week before, Jackson had testified in a civil suit in a court in Santa Maria, California, near Neverland. He was monosyllabic, dazed, and disheveled, and the tip of his nose seemed to be missing, owing to exaggerated amounts of plastic surgery.

And now do you see why I said earlier that Orth’s brand of yellow journalism belongs in The Sun or National Enquirer? For her to rely solely on the uncorroborated word of a former business associate of MJ with an axe to grind (he was involved in a frivolous civil lawsuit at that time) is indicative of her style of journalism! Let’s contrast Orth to the late, great Ed Bradley, a real journalist who always put honesty, integrity, and objectivity into his work. In this interview with Larry King on February 2nd, 2004, he describes how he could not use unsubstantiated rumors or unreliable sources as a correspondent on 60 Minutes while lambasting the New York Times for printing a false story about him (something that MJ was all too familiar with!).

What’s absolutely ridiculous about Orth’s claim that MJ bathed in a bathtub filled with the blood of 42 dead cows is that a typical bathtub only holds 75 liters of water, while the typical cow has as much as 40 liters of blood! So when you multiply 42 cows by 40 liters of blood each, you get 420 liters, which is equivalent to 110.95 gallons of blood! That couldn’t possibly fit in ANY bathtub! Hell, MJ could take several SHOWERS with that much blood! (Thank you Helena for this information!)

Here’s the scoop on Orth’s source for that story, Myung-Ho Lee: he was one of MJ’s former managers, and in April 2002 he sued MJ for breach of contract for allegedly failing to pay him $13 million dollars. He claimed that MJ signed an IOU (which is a legally binding promise to pay) on September 14th, 2001 in Los Angeles. But MJ wasn’t even in Los Angeles on September 14th, 2001!

He was still on the road with his family, trying to get back to Los Angeles after being trapped in New York City, which was hit with the 9/11 terrorist attacks only three days prior! Here is an excerpt from an article on the lawsuit: (and please ignore the nonsense rumor that MJ, Elizabeth Taylor, and Marlon Brando rode together in a rented car! MJ and his entire family rode chartered buses back to L.A. Here is a story proving that it didn’t happen!)

According to court documents obtained by, Lee’s suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that Jackson agreed to pay the fee at a Sept. 14 meeting in L.A. Jackson, however, has filed a sworn affidavit saying that the signature on the IOU is not his, and that he was en route from New York to Los Angeles that day. (Having just performed his 30th anniversary self-tribute concerts in New York a few days before, he fled the city in a rented vehicle on Sept. 11, with pals Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor reportedly along for the drive.) Two others in Jackson’s camp also signed statements backing up his assertion that he was out of town, and that the signature in question does not resemble Jackson’s.

”I specifically looked at the signature that appears at the end of this document above my typed name,” Jackson’s statement read. ”This is not my signature. I did not sign this document and have never seen [it] until a few weeks ago. I would never knowingly sign a document that expressly required me to pay over $13 million to Mr. Lee or anyone else, alone in a room and without review and counsel by one or more of my attorneys.”

MJ countersued Lee and complained that Lee breached contracts and did not act in good faith while giving him bad advice.

Michael Jackson faces more legal woes

February 20 2003

The besieged King of Pop, Michael Jackson, yesterday faced fresh legal woes as he battled a $US13 million ($A22.1 million) lawsuit filed by a former business manager who claims he is owed massive back pay.

A judge in Los Angeles gave the pop icon a little good news yesterday, ruling that Jackson could pursue two complaints responding to the suit filed by his former manager, South Korean-born Myung-Ho Lee.

Jackson alleges Lee breached contracts and did not act in good faith in giving the singer business advice, while Lee claims that Jackson owes him millions in back pay.

Judge Andria Richey rejected Lee’s request to dismiss the 44-year-old entertainer’s claims, saying the allegations were strong enough for him to pursue them.

Lee and his Union Finance and Investment Corporation sued Jackson last April, alleging that the entertainer had reneged on a September 2001 promise to pay him more than $US13 million ($A22.1 million) in back wages.

But Jackson, in court papers filed on December 20, denied he owed the money, claiming that someone had forged his name on an agreement to repay Lee for business advice.

I did not sign this document,” stated an affidavit from Jackson, currently embroiled in yet another public battle, this time over a television interview in which he revealed that he shared beds with young boys.

According to the suit, Lee began working for Jackson in 1997, giving him business and career advice and arranging loans and setting up investments, after being introduced by another Korean businessman whom Jackson met following a failed charity concert in Seoul.

The lawsuit was settled on June 12th, 2003, and the terms were undisclosed. It was in MJ’s best interest to settle because the civil trial was scheduled to start on June 18th, 2003 and Court TV was trying their hardest to have it televised so that they could sensationalize their coverage for ratings by focusing on MJ’s plastic surgeries instead of the facts of the case!

The “voodoo curse” nonsense was the second worst lie that Lee told to Orth! The biggest lie was that he claimed he witnessed MJ giving alcohol to an then 12 year old boy named Richard Matsuurra  in 1998, while MJ was in Japan conducting business with the boy’s father! Orth was so delighted to hear this because it corroborated the Arvizo family’s allegations of MJ plying Gavin and Star Arvizo with “Jesus Juice”, and she printed Lee’s story without even bothering to contact the boy or his father!

The color of my highlight is 100% indicative of the type of journalism this article represents!

However, All references to MJ plying Richard Matsuura with alcohol have been removed from the online version of Orth’s 2004 article “Neverland’s Lost Boys”, but I have ordered from eBay the actual March 2004 issue of Vanity Fair (shown above). The following excerpt is from the online version of the article, which was only recently added to the Vanity Fair website after being taken down in 2009. Notice how the ENTIRE paragraph that I highlighted above is MISSING from the excerpt below!

Michael Jackson refers to white wine as “Jesus juice” and red wine as “Jesus blood.” He prefers the juice and usually drinks it out of soda cans so that nobody will know he is consuming alcohol. In and out of rehab over the years for addictions to Demerol and morphine, the King of Pop also habitually gulped down soda cans of wine, particularly when he was on airplanes. On a flight to Frankfurt in 1999, for example, his former business adviser Myung-Ho Lee, who was accompanying him, had to help the staggering Jackson stand up to get off the plane. “He was lying on the floor by the time we landed,” says Lee. “I told Security, ‘You can’t get drunk like that on white wine,’ and the security people said that it’s not only wine but that he takes pills with it.”

The incident may be telling, because in January, Michael Jackson was arraigned on seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an “intoxicating agent with intent to commit a felony” between February 7 and March 10 of last year at Neverland, his 2,700-acre ranch near Santa Barbara, which he has converted into a mini Disneyland for kids. The boy in question in the case—a cancer victim who was 13 at the time—alleges that Jackson gave him wine in Coke cans on a flight from Florida in February 2003, right under the nose of the boy’s unsuspecting mother. The boy knows Jackson’s names for white and red wine, which Lee says “only his inner people know,” adding that it “tells you that the boy spent ‘quality time’ with Michael.” The boy and his siblings, however, have said that “all the kids around Michael” knew about Jesus juice, and that he told them, “Jesus drank it, so it must be good.”

The trip the boy and his family made to Florida coincided with the airing of the British documentary on ABC last year in which Jackson, now 45, told interviewer Martin Bashir that there was nothing wrong with sharing his bed with little boys. It was a very brazen thing for Jackson to admit, given the fact that in Los Angeles in 1994 he had had to pay $25 million to Jordie Chandler and his family in order to settle a civil suit in which Jordie, then 13, charged that Jackson had masturbated and fellated him during their relationship, which ironically also included a trip to Florida. Similarities in Michael Jackson’s modus operandi between the latest bizarre scandal and the one that preceded it abound, right down to the tactics of intimidation and the controversial use of the Nation of Islam for security. In 1993 armed members of tough South-Central L.A. gangs, including the notorious Bloods, were transported to Neverland. The employment of these toughs was said to have sent a strong message to Neverland employees who might have considered cooperating in the Jordie Chandler investigation, not to mention the subliminal message it gave out to other boys and their families who might have been thinking of coming forward.

Here is the interview where Richard Matsuura categorically denied Orth’s and Lee’s allegations! (This debacle is discussed in greater detail in this MJEOL Bullet titled “Irresponsible Journalism Permeates News Coverage”)

So there you have it. That’s the background of Orth’s #1 “source”. The fact that he was “on the record” with his lies is absolutely irrelevant, and adds no credibility to his lies whatsoever, especially now that you know the facts. You know you’re lies are pretty bad and abhorrent when you have to REMOVE THEM after the person you lied about dies!

When you consider the fact that all of the “enemies” on MJ’s “hit list” are still alive, I wonder if MJ was able to get a refund of his money? I sure hope he had a money back guarantee written into his contract! If Orth had any shred of journalistic decency, she wouldn’t have included that voodoo nonsense without first travelling to Africa and contacting each and every voodoo doctor to get THEIR side of the story! That’s journalism 101!

Here is a compilation of interviews that she did in 2004-2005 to promote her trash, and to insinuate that MJ was acquitted due to Janet Arvizo!

Notice how Cynthia McFadden accurately described why so many people felt (and still feel) that MJ was guilty!

 “Right or wrong, a majority of Americans seem to feel that Michael Jackson may well have committed these crimes thanks to Maureen and others who have covered Michael Jackson for years and have reported on other allegations, I think a lot of people feel that Michael Jackson may, in fact, be a pedophile, and the question is not as mysterious as it was some of these other cases that we’ve followed.”

Now let’s look at another one of MJ’s media assassins, Nancy Grace! She is nothing but an entertainer disguised as a legal analyst, and her sloppy trial coverage shows it!  Let’s look at this laughable interview from March 2007:

I was so appalled by her false assertions that I wrote a rebuttal to her trash, which is aptly titled “Refuting The Legal Analysts Who Lied About Michael Jackson”. In this video taken after MJ was acquitted, look at what Joe Jackson had to say about her and Diane Dimond, beginning at 3:48:

“Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace were not good to us at all!” – Joe Jackson

In 2010, she practically admitted to being a shady, dishonest, and mean-spirited media hack by admitting that she’s been “pretty mean in the courtroom and out”, and now she’s trying to earn her way into Heaven! She announced on her show (of all places) that she would donate $25,000 dollars to a charity that helps disabled adults. Let’s look closely at her motivation for doing this:

We all know I’ve been pretty mean in the courtroom and out, so this may be my only ticket to heaven,” she said. “So please, I want you to accept this check. It’s for $25,000, it’s part of my proceeds, and God willing, there’s more coming to Wesley Glen.”

Grace needs to pay more attention in her Sunday School class, because she’s misconstruing one of the foundational tenets of Christianity! You cannot “earn” your way into Heaven by doing good works! Christ paid the price for your sins with his death on the cross!  All of our good works and righteousness are like filthy rags!

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Isaiah 64:6

Before I move on, take a look at the way Jon Stewart skewered her for trying to convict the Duke Lacrosse players of rape in the court of public opinion, and then taking the night off like a coward on the day they were declared innocent!

Here is the FB page of Stacey Brown, the author of the tabloid tell-all book “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”. I discussed his lies in Part 2 of this series, but take a close look at his religious affiliation, and try to reconcile that with his actions!

Brown and I recently had a heated exchange on Twitter, and as you can see from the screenshots below, he has NO REMOURSE for his actions!

When Martin Bashir left ABC’s Nightline in August 2010, he delivered this final message to his viewers:

Bashir references Hebrews 13:2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. What a hypocrite! MJ invited him into his home and his life because he thought Bashir was an angel who would be fair to him and shoot his documentary in an objective and honest manner, but instead Bashir lied and didn’t allow MJ to even edit it before he sold it to the highest bidder (ABC News) for $5 million dollars, and a new job! (I truly believe that his job at ABC News was part of a package deal that required him to be hired in order to air the MJ documentary.) MJ unknowingly entertained a DEVIL! Here is a post I did explaining exactly how Bashir was able to con MJ into doing the documentary, here is a fact-checking of Bashir’s SECOND hit-piece documentary of MJ, and here are Part 1 and Part 2 of my analysis of all of his lies from his testimony!

Here is the Facebook page of Adrian McManus, a former employee of Neverland who was fired for theft (among other reasons), sold numerous lies about MJ molesting children to the tabloids, and had to file bankruptcy after losing a frivolous wrongful termination lawsuit against MJ! In fact, in addition to owing MJ $1.4 million dollars in legal fees, she also owes her sister-in-law $30,584.89 dollars for “willfully and maliciously defrauding” her sister-in-law’s children after her husband died! (We discussed her and her cohorts’ laughable testimony in this post.)

Let’s look at some of the religious groups that she is in, according to her Facebook profile! (I highlighted them in yellow.) She’s a member of “Don’t Give Up On God Because He Never Gave Up On You“, “Jesus Christ“, “Godvine“, and “Farmville Needs A Church“!

Here is an excerpt from her testimony where she ADMITS TO LYING TO POLICE IN 1993!

Mesereau: “You’re saying you committed perjury in the Chandler deposition?”

McManus: “The whole time [I lied].”

Mesereau: “Knowing that it was a crime?”

McManus: “I didn’t think of it that way.”

Now let’s get to the Arvizos, the family who falsely accused MJ of child molestation in 2003. They consist of the mother Janet, daughter Davellin, and brothers Gavin (who MJ was accused of molesting) and Star (who MJ was also accused of molesting, but never charged!). I will highlight a few of their lies, despite their professions of having faith in God.

For example, Star Arvizo claimed that MJ showed him the pornographic magazine “Barely Legal” in March 2003, while he was “held hostage” at Neverland. Under direct examination by District Attorney Tom Sneddon, He identified the specific issue that he claimed MJ showed him, but there was one eennie weenie problem: the issue that he claimed that MJ showed him was actually published in August 2003! It wasn’t even in existence during his “kidnapping” at Neverland!

Here is an excerpt of his direct examination:

14 Q. All right. And then what happened.

15 A. Michael just started to show us magazines.

16 Q. You say “show” you. Tell us what he did.

17 A. He handed them to us.

18 Q. All right. And did you look at them.

19 A. Yes, with him.

20 Q. And did you look at them one at a time or

21 did everybody have a different one at a different

22 time. How did it happen. Tell us what happened.

23 A. We all looked at them one at a time.

And later on, he identifies the particular issue that he claimed MJ showed him as “People’s 86”:

26 Q. Do you remember the names of any of the

27 titles of the magazines that you saw.

28 A. “Barely Legal” and “Playboy.” 1156

1 Q. Were there others that you saw besides that,

2 or are those the only ones you saw.

3 A. Those are the only ones I remember.

4 Q. I’m going to show you a photograph marked as

5 People’s 86 for identification purposes.

6 And that’s — first of all, I’m going to

7 move that People’s 470 be admitted into evidence,

8 Your Honor.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; foundation.

10 THE COURT: We’ll take that up separately.

11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.

12 Do you recognize that.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it

15 represents.

16 A. Yes.

Now let’s watch Star crumble under Mesereau’s cross examination!

25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at

26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are 1279

1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael

4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that

7 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.

8 A. What.

9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that

10 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.

11 A. He did show us.

12 Q. He did.

13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the

15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.

16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that

17 one.

18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many

19 months before, never to return, correct.

20 A. That — I’m telling you that that wasn’t

21 exactly the one he showed us.

22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s

23 not what you said today, right.

Star told another huge lie when he claimed that he witnessed Gavin being molested by MJ after he secretly walked up the stairs to the second story of MJ’s bedroom and witnessed the act without MJ even noticing. But wait a minute! What about those infamous alarms that went off whenever someone approached the front door of his bedroom? According to the prosecution, their purpose was to alert MJ to someone’s presence outside his bedroom so that he would know to stop molesting kids! The prosecution tried to claim that, by sheer coincidence, the alarms were broken during the time period that the Arvizos were being “held hostage”! Here is Star’s description of the alarm:

8 Q. Do you recall the first time that you went

9 to Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. When was that.

12 A. That was probably the second visit.

13 Q. And do you recall about what time it was

14 when you went to his bedroom.

15 A. Nighttime.

16 Q. Tell us how you — how you got into the

17 bedroom. Tell us the way it is that you get into

18 Mr. Jackson’s bedroom.

19 A. First you walk through a hallway, and then

20 you come through a door, and then you continue

21 walking. You go through another door and you walk

22 up the stairs.

23 Q. Are there any kinds of alarms or bells or

24 anything that goes off.

25 A. Yes. There’s like a bell that goes off,

26 and — while you’re walking through the hallway.

Here is where Star describes watching MJ masturbate Gavin, who he claimed was passed out from being plied with alcohol by MJ:

6 Now, some night when you were at — at the

7 ranch – all right. – did you go up to Mr. Jackson’s

8 bedroom by yourself.

9 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.

10 THE COURT: Overruled.


12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Where had you been just

13 prior to that.

14 A. I was heading to the theater.

15 Q. Where.

16 A. I was heading to the theater.

17 Q. Why were you going to the theater.

18 A. To get some chocolate.

19 Q. How did you get down there.

20 A. The golf cart.

21 Q. Did you get some chocolate.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And what did you do when you came back.

24 A. I was heading to Michael’s room to go to

25 sleep.

26 Q. All right. Would you tell the ladies and

27 gentlemen of the jury what you did when you got to

28 the house. 1169

1 A. Um, I went through the door.

2 Q. Which door.

3 A. The first door. The first door. And then

4 the second door, it was kind of — I don’t know, it

5 was, like, kind of locked. And so I pushed on it

6 till it opened, and then —

7 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, Your Honor. Could

8 we have a time. Vague as to time.

9 THE COURT: Overruled.

10 Go ahead.

11 THE WITNESS: So I went upstairs, and —

12 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Let’s go back. You were at

13 the door, and the door what.

14 A. The door was kind of locked, so I pushed it,

15 and it opened. So I went halfway to where the

16 computer table used to be, and I saw directly into

17 the bed. And I stopped. And my brother was outside

18 of the covers. And I saw Michael’s left hand in my

19 brother’s underwears and I saw his right hand in his

20 underwears, so — so I —

21 Q. Let’s just stop there for a second –

22 okay. —

23 A. Okay.

24 Q. — and ask you some questions.

25 Why were you coming back to the room that

26 night, after you’d gone down to get the chocolate.

27 A. To go to sleep.

28 Q. When you got to the point on the stairs 1170

1 where you saw your brother and Mr. Jackson on the

2 bed – okay. – when you’re looking at the bed, just

3 like we saw it on the photograph here – what side of

4 the bed was the defendant on.

5 A. Left side.

6 Q. And what side was your brother on.

7 A. Right side.

8 Q. And what position was Mr. Jackson in.

9 A. On his back. On his back.

10 Q. And what position was your brother in.

11 A. He was curled up, looking to the left. He

12 was curled up facing left.

13 Q. Now, would that be looking towards Mr.

14 Jackson or away from Mr. Jackson.

15 A. Away.

16 Q. Now, at that time, could you see what the

17 defendant was wearing.

18 A. Socks, underwears and an undershirt.

19 Q. Now, could you tell what kind of underwear

20 it was.

21 A. No.

22 Q. I mean — I’m sorry.

23 A. No.

24 Q. With regard to your brother, what was he

25 wearing.

26 A. I can’t quite remember what he was wearing.

27 I’m not —

28 Q. Do you remember what you could see of him. 1171

1 Was there part of him that he didn’t have anything

2 on.

3 A. Yeah, I know he had a shirt and — he had

4 his socks. I think he had pants or underwears on.

5 I don’t remember.

6 Q. All right. Now, you said you saw “his

7 hand.” Whose hands are you talking about.

8 A. Michael’s.

9 Q. All right. And where were his hands.

10 A. Left hand was in my brother’s pants and

11 right hand was in his pants.

12 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; asked and

13 answered.

14 THE COURT: Overruled. You may proceed.

15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, when you say “in his

16 pants,” and who are you talking about.

17 A. Michael.

18 Q. All right. When you saw that, did you see

19 what, if anything, he was doing.

20 A. He was masturbating.

21 Q. What do you mean by that.

22 A. He was rubbing himself.

23 Q. And how could you tell that.

24 A. Because he had his hand in his pants. And

25 he was stroking up and down.

26 Q. Did you see anything else about the

27 defendant while he was doing that.

28 A. No. 1172

1 Q. What else did you see.

2 A. That’s all.

3 Q. Could you tell whether Mr. Jackson had his

4 eyes open or closed.

5 A. He had his eyes closed.

6 Q. Could you tell whether or not your brother

7 was asleep or not.

8 A. He was asleep.

9 Q. How do you know that.

10 A. Because he was kind of snoring.

11 Q. I can’t hear you. You’re going to have to

12 talk into that mike.

13 A. He was kind of snoring.

14 Q. Now, on this particular occasion, how long

15 did you stay there watching.

16 A. Couple seconds.

17 Q. Well, how long is that.

18 A. Four.

19 Q. What were the lighting conditions like in

20 the room.

21 A. The stairs were only lit, and the rest

22 was — nothing else was — had lights on. It was

23 just the stairs had lights.

Larry Nimmer, an expert if videography, was hired by the defense to film Neverland and narrate his footage to the jury because Judge Melville denied the defense’s motion that they take a tour of Neverland. During his filming, he conducted a test to disprove Star’s story about walking up the stairs and seeing MJ abuse his brother by filming a demonstration of how loud the alarms sound when they are triggered by someone coming near MJ’s bedroom! This completely blew the roof off of Star’s credibility, and helped sink the prosecution’s case!

Here it is!

And remember, all of this is from someone who says that God is someone who inspires him, according to his Facebook profile!

Look at who “inspires” him!

Let’s look at a huge lie that Gavin told while on the witness stand! During his initial police interviews, he told them that his grandmother taught him that if men don’t masturbate, they may rape a woman”. But during his direct examination, he told Sneddon that MJ told him that as well! Under cross-examination, he told Mesereau that MJ told it to him first, and then by sheer coincidence his grandmother told him the same thing when left Neverland!

1 Q. Okay. And you testified that Mr. Jackson

2 told you what masturbation is, right.

3 A. Uh-huh.

4 Q. Is that true.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you testified to the jury that Mr.

7 Jackson said that if men don’t masturbate, that they

8 can get to a level where they can — might rape a

9 girl. Remember that.

10 A. Uh-huh.

11 Q. Do you remember saying that.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the

14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on a number of

15 occasions.

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And do you remember who interviewed you.

18 A. Most likely Steve Robel or Paul Zelis.

19 Q. Do you remember being asked, “Before we get

20 started on the next set of questions, can you

21 describe to us what your opinion is, what you think

22 masturbation is.” Do you remember one of the

23 sheriffs asked you that during an interview.

24 A. I believe so.

25 Q. And you knew those interviews were being

26 recorded, right.

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. Remember you said, “My grandma explained it 1798

1 to me. She told me that — that your — the only

2 reason is because like if — if men don’t do it, men

3 might get to a point where they might go ahead and

4 rape a woman”. Do you remember saying that to the

5 sheriffs.

6 A. I believe so.

7 Q. Why did your story change between that

8 interview and your testimony last Thursday.

9 A. Well, what do you mean “changed”.

10 Q. Well, you told the police your grandmother

11 made that quote to you, and you came into court

12 under oath and told the jury Mr. Jackson made that

13 quote to you.

14 A. That didn’t change. Because Michael tried

15 to explain to me first. And I — he was more

16 pushing on me that men have to masturbate.

17 Now, later when I came back from Neverland,

18 I guess my grandmother saw that I was very confused

19 about sexuality and things like that. And my

20 grandmother explained to me a lot of things.

21 Q. So it just so happened that after Mr.

22 Jackson told you, “If a man doesn’t do it, they may

23 get to a point where they rape a woman,” your

24 grandmother made the almost identical quote to you.

25 Is that what you’re saying.

26 A. Not really. She didn’t make the same exact

27 thing that Michael said. But I’m not exactly sure

28 what my grandmother said. I know my grandmother 1799

1 explained a lot of things to me.

2 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show

3 you a transcript of your sheriff’s interview.

4 A. Probably.

5 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.


7 MR. MESEREAU: Whoops, I’m sorry.

8 Your Honor, I spilled a little water with my

9 notebook, so –

10 THE BAILIFF: How about you put that over

11 here.

12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Arvizo, have you had a

13 chance to look at that page of transcript.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

16 you told the sheriffs about what masturbation was.

17 THE COURT: Just a moment, Counsel.

18 THE WITNESS: It refreshes my –

19 THE COURT: Just a moment. Let’s take care

20 of one thing at a time.

21 You may start again on that.

22 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.

23 Q. Mr. Arvizo, have you had a chance to look at

24 that page of transcript of your sheriff’s interview.

25 A. Uh-huh.

26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what

27 you told the sheriffs your grandmother said.

28 A. It refreshes — I can recall what my 1800

1 grandmother was telling me. She was — she saw that

2 I was embarrassed about things like masturbation and

3 growing up, and my mother was telling me that it’s

4 okay to do it. And Michael was telling me that you

5 have to do it.

6 Q. Well, Mr. Arvizo, I understand your

7 position. But when the sheriffs asked you what

8 masturbation was, you didn’t say, “Mr. Jackson told

9 me if a man doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman.”

10 You said if — “My grandmother told me that if a man

11 doesn’t do it, he may rape a woman,” correct.

12 A. I believe so. That’s what you showed me.

Let me give you a visual representation of how laughable Gavin’s testimony was! I have his testimony in PDF format (in fact, I have EVERYONE’S testimony), and I did a search of certain phrases, and look what I found!

During his cross-examination, Gavin said “I don’t know” 137 times!

He said “I think” 120 times!

He said “I don’t remember” 52 times!

And he said “I guess” 30 times!

He doesn’t sound like someone who is very sure of himself, huh? By the way, in case anyone doubts the authenticity of those transcripts, I will show you email correspondence between myself and Michele McNeil, the Official Court Reporter who transcribed the testimony and has possession of the transcripts for sale. I bought someone’s testimony last year, and here is the email proof:

Here is her certification of the testimony that she transcribed:

When you look at the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo, who were the lynchpin of the prosecution’s case, it is easy to see that they are nothing but a bunch of lying, grifting, con-artists who were exploited by a malicious prosecution with a vendetta to seek a conviction, and not justice, in this ludicrous case! The Arvizo’s falsely accused MJ of abuse for money they falsely accused JC Penney’s security guards of abuse: MONEY!!! For more information on how Janet Arvizo was able to shakedown JC Penney, please read this post! And for more excerpts of Gavin and Star’s testimony, read this post. I will dedicate an entire series to summarizing and analyzing every single lie told by the Arvizos in the near future, so stay tuned! I cannot do it here because I have to save room for destroying Jason Francia’s testimony, which is coming later in this post!

I know that most of you probably believe in creation, but when you are finished reading my analysis of the Arvizo’s testimony, you’re gonna believe in evolution, because their lies just kept evolving and evolving and evolving!

To further show the hypocrisy of the Arvizo family, let’s read this open letter that was written to them by Azja Pryor, the ex-girlfriend of actor Chris Tucker, who testified for the defense during the trial. This was published on July 4th, 2009, a few weeks after MJ’s untimely death.


Subpoenaed by the defense in 2005, Azja Pryor writes open letter to Jacksonʼs 2nd accuser

Dear Gavin, Star, Davellin, and Janet:

After Michaelʼs tragic death last week, I have to say that all the negative feelings Iʼve had towards your family following the outrageous claims made by you Gavin and your mother Janet–against Michael–came back to me tenfold. The pain, disappointment, anger, and betrayal I feel towards you simply cannot be put into words. You have shown me that your greed, lies, and personal gain override any “morals” your family claims to have; and you have proven yourselves to be the kind of people capable of turning your back on the very person who came to your rescue when you were most desperate.

The fact that you falsely accused Michael of the most heinous of acts, and made his life a living hell in what would become his last years is unthinkable; and I am sure some would say, unforgivable. In your attempts to destroy him once again, you, Gavin, accused the man you called your “best friend” of the one thing that you (and everyone else) knew would completely turn his life inside out. You took the one thing we all know that Michael cared about most in life–children, especially children who are suffering, and you tried to turn it into a bad thing. You Janet, as a parent, allowed this, encouraged this, and went forward with the awful lies in an attempt to destroy Michael Jackson and swindle money from him.

Shame on you!

This man did nothing but help your family in their darkest hour. I know Michael was just like my family. We were all pulled into your woeful stories and shared your familyʼs plight as Gavin fought for his life during his battle with cancer. Gavin, you told me that Michaelʼs love helped cure you of cancer. Your entire family praised Michael privately to everyone who would listen, yet turned against him so viciously in public. I have remained silent for many years, but I can no longer do so. Right now I struggle to find the words to adequately write this letter, as I am so filled with anger towards you and pain for the Jackson family.

You call yourself Christians. If this is true I call on you, Gavin, and your mother Janet to finally do the right thing for Michael in death that you never did during his days here on earth. You need to completely exonerate Michaelʼs name and legacy from the awful, disgusting claims you made against him. Claims and allegations that you and I both know are completely false and utterly ridiculous. Whatever your motives at the time to create such accusations are now minute and unimportant.

It is much bigger than you.

We are speaking on this manʼs legacy; a man who positively touched lives around the world. A man who is arguably the greatest entertainer the world will ever know. Michael is someone who shared in your familyʼs pain; opened his home to you and included you in his very own family. He was a human being who never deserved any of this.

Gavin and Janet, you can change your identity and try to hide from the public scrutiny, but ultimately, you cannot hide from the wrath of Godʼs judgment. This is the right thing to do. It is the very least you can do for Michael, his children, and his legacy. Gavin you are now 19 years old, no longer an impressionable young boy under you motherʼs guidance, nor are you a pawn in this grand scheme to assassinate Michaelʼs character. I know your heart, and I know that you are capable of doing what is right. Clear Michaelʼs name of your ugly accusations once and for all. You owe it to him. You owe it to his family. And you owe it to God. Letʼs finally give Michael the ability to completely rest in peace.

Azja Pryor

July 4, 2009

It seems that Gavin has indeed found God in the last few years! Here is an excerpt of Assistant District Attorney Ron Zonen’s speech at the Frozen In Time legal seminar (held in September 2010), where he gives an update on Gavin’s status:

Where is he today?  He’s twenty years old.  He’s a 3rd year student at a very prominent university on the east coast.  I’m not going to mention the name of the school, but anyone who would like to know come see me, I’ll tell you. He’s an Honor student who has a 3.5 GPA, and a double major in Philosophy and History, and he’s planning on going to Law School! Some of you will agree with that, and some of you won’t.  He’s a deeply religious young man, in a relationship with a young woman, for about 2 years, the daughter of a minister.  He attends church on a regular basis.  He doesn’t drink, doesn’t do drugs.  He’s delightful in his presentation.  I spent time with him only a month ago. And he’s really doing remarkable well.  He has never asked for or taken a penny from anybody about any of the activity of this case.  Never. There are standing offers from the press for his story for enough money that would cover his tuition, which is considerable, never mind that he’s on a 50% scholarship. But he has never taken a penny from anybody, and no intention of doing so. He’s accruing debt like college kids do today, but he’s doing just fine.  I assume that we’ll have more questions coming up about jury selection, and the trial, and I’ll be happy to answer them at that time.

Here is an interview that Ron Zonen granted on April 27th, 2011, and as you can see he will NEVER admit that he was not only wrong, but that he deliberately ENABLED the Arvizo family in their scam!

Maybe if he truly is a Man of God now, then he’ll do the right thing and come forward to clear MJ’s name. Only time will tell. For more information on Gavin’s whereabouts, and to see how he and many of MJ’s enemies are literally one big happy family, read this post!

Here is a video of MJ, Gavin, and Star taken at Neverland in 2000. You can clearly see MJ giving a bald-headed Gavin a tour of Neverland, and providing friendship and comfort to him in his time of need. You can also see Star pushing Gavin around in his wheelchair, as Gavin’s health was in decline at that time, and hear him talk about how sad he is that Gavin is sick.

And to think that these two little devils would destroy MJ’s life after all that he did for them! Watching this video makes it even more appalling because you can see MJ’s kindness in action!

In part 5 of this series, I will fully summarize and analyze the ENTIRE testimony of the lies of former Youth Minister Jason Francia! Stay Tuned!

144 Comments leave one →
  1. January 24, 2012 3:45 pm

    I don’t think you should post the facebook account of people who are not in the media. The problem is their account shows where they live.


  2. Suzy permalink
    January 24, 2012 4:18 pm

    In the US being a Christian is a big sympathy card. You are automatically given more credibility and altogether are considered a better person than someone who is not a Christian (or not Christian enough, as MJ was considered not Christian enough by these people, because he wasn’t thumping his Bible at every chance).

    I just read an article about the Republican presidential campaign yesterday where it seems it will be between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. And there was a big upset last week about Gingrich beating Romney in one state by a big margin. And as I read the comments to the articles someone noted this is because Gingrich is a Christian and Romney is a Mormon. Apparently the Christian label gives you a free pass to many things and you are automatically assumed to be the good one. Gingrich committed adultery many times and altogether seems like a dishonest man and Romney is leading a scandal-free life, but apparently all that is matters is that Gingrich is a Christian and Romney is a Mormon…

    It’s pretty sad when people judge based on who has what religion, but they do, especially in the US. And I think many of the people you mentioned in this post could speak the language of Christian America and knew how to play the Christian card. I remember Gavin was asked on the stand about whether what Michael did for him helped him heal and he said something like: “No, it was Jesus who healed me.” That makes Christian hearts melt. How could this good, Christian boy lie, right?

    And how could a youth pastor lie, right? After Jason Francia was on the stand Nancy Grace and others mentioned his “youth pastor” title in just about every second sentence and actually many of those reporters acted as if that should give him automatic credibility. Again, an appeal to America’s emotions – this time in the form of religious feelings – instead of the content of his and his mother’s testimonies.


  3. January 24, 2012 4:28 pm

    If you’re referring to Adrian McManus, it’s fair game, because all I did was include information that is ALREADY public knowledge! If she doesn’t want that info out there, she should have made her page private! Same thing applies to the Arvizos!

    And let me ask you this: did you even bother to read the entire post before commenting? I made NUMEROUS salient points throughout this post, yet all you can mention is that I shouldn’t post McManus’s facebook account? What about all of the other information that I included? Isn’t THAT also worth mentioning?


  4. January 24, 2012 4:37 pm


    Yes, I read the rest of your post. I even read some of the link you posted and it’s why I asked question about Melville ruling on another post as you can see here


  5. Kim permalink
    January 24, 2012 6:16 pm

    @ Shelly,I don’t get your statement. You of all people have no problem w/ public information being scrutinized. I’m not sure where this “new” ethic is coming from. I agree w/ Dave; anything that is placed on the internet and made public is up for review. How did he find the information if it wasn’t out there?
    With regard to Christianity, unfortunately people have been hiding behind God & Religion for ages and they won’t stop now. The thing is just because it seems like they are living a “good” life doesn’t mean that they are happy. Being a liar is torment, you have to spend your whole life convincing people that you are something that you know that you are not and mental anguish is always reflected in the quality of life that is lead. I’m sure Diane Dimond, the Arvisos and Francia are living in their own personal hell


  6. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 24, 2012 6:31 pm

    David when is the post of the Priests apology to god for judging michael harshly gonna come?


  7. R.J permalink
    January 24, 2012 11:14 pm

    I honestly can’t tell you how appalled I feel right now; especially by Stacey Brown. I’m a JW and I try to live my life with honesty, morality and integrity. Stacey is not doing any of that at all! He’s done nothing but promote salacious lies against MJ and provide support to those who lied on him in the first place. He’s practically giving a bad name to JW’s everywhere; including myself.

    It’s truly pathetic and hypocritcal on Stacey’s part to be a JW; yet act an “offspring of vipers!”


  8. January 25, 2012 2:07 am

    I take it Ed Bradley was not a witness for the defense at the trial? If this respectable journalist had told the jury about meeting the Arvizos in Michael’s kitchen, and how they behaved, it would have exposed a lot of their lies and shut up the tabloid press.


  9. Tahlia permalink
    January 25, 2012 2:49 am

    Anyone who thinks that a person is automatically credible because they have the title of Youth Pastor is very naive. When I went to church I had a Youth Pastor who lied about something very serious, here’s a video about it:


  10. sanemjfan permalink
    January 25, 2012 3:08 am

    No, unfortunately he was never called as a witness. I wonder why? I’d like to ask Mesereau that one day.


  11. sanemjfan permalink
    January 25, 2012 3:10 am

    @Truth Prevail
    That will be in part 6, which I will likely post next week.

    Let me ask you this: did you read anything I wrote in this post? You didn’t say anything about all of the points I addressed in this post, but instead you’re asking about what I’ll write about in a future post?


  12. shelly permalink
    January 25, 2012 4:54 am


    I just have a problem with revealing on a public site where people are living because there are some crazy people on Internet, but it’s just my opinion and it’s not against Sanemjfan.
    Yes, I have no problem with public info being scrutinized. I just think it’s a different problem.

    Again, it’s just my opinion and I don’t want to start a fight.


  13. nan permalink
    January 25, 2012 5:22 am

    Hi as usual I love this site..I just want to mention something regarding fb pages and Adrian McManus and Stacey Brown..
    As I have said , I am on DD page .It is no secret I am a fan of Michaels and after looking at all the facts..I not only believe he was completely innocent, he was targeted and railroaded by a power crazed, ambitious D.A…It is no secret here and it is no secret on her page.

    That should be the story the American public didnt upsets me greatly ..
    That being said as far as FB pages and Adrian McManus ..
    I dont know if I have put this up here someplace before , but their was commentary regarding MJ on DD page..
    Ms McManus piped in about “knowing ” Michael…
    DD then piped in vouching for her character and saying she was “MJ private Maid ”
    Stacey Brown then comes outta nowhere and says “I thought I recognized that name and he then vouches for her knowing all the goods kinda thing..
    Then Ms Mcmanus comes back sounds as if she is going to start sharing some titillating info that only an insider would know…

    So I posted about how I didnt blame her for being upset with MJ since she and her fellow employees owed MJ millions for stealing, and she had been sited for fraud etc.
    Had said Mj never did anything wrong in her initial deposition , which actually lined up with June Chandler testimony..Then changed her story when she and the others decided to sue after the chandlers got money so they sold tabloid stories etc..
    She was found to have stolen a picture of Elvis Mj drew
    Stolen from a trust fund set up for children..
    And if I were her I would really hate Tom Mesereau because he annihilated her on cross examination..
    Long and short , she went bananas on me , and Diane stuck up for her.
    I said these court transcripts are all over the internet..

    That was the last I saw of her telling tales of mj on that page..
    These people absolutely love the attn..
    I cant help but feel that it was orchestrated to have DD vouch for her and then stacey brown come in like he concurs.
    Give these tabloid liars an inch and they will take a mile.
    after all they are nobodies except when affiliated , even in a despicable way , with MJ.
    I think the Arviso are the same way
    Btw at Christmas , I actually got some private messages from people I have met on her page saying that they really enjoyed my intelligent posts..that makes me happy because I only talk about mj..

    As for Jason Francia, I am not sure how long he was supposedly a “youth pastor” I recall him having been some kind of liason for the sheriffs and youth.
    I think that is how he got stuck showing up in court .
    I also think that is why he was hysterical at times.
    Imo, these 1108 witnesses never in a million years thought they would be going to court in this situation..because they knew they were all just scamming for money.
    None of it was true..
    the more I think of howard wietzman talking to geraldo, the more i think he was right ..
    That this was about Tom Sneddon showing how powerful he was not only to MJ , but the world , like a turf war.
    I have been trying to read about the religious people against MJ.
    I have read everything I can on this site , all the untrue grit and smut this man had to endure..
    But by far I am having the hardest time with this section..It is just devastating that people could be so cruel from a pulpit..very challenging because it just is so painful..I cant imagine how MJ kept his sanity and even his faith sometimes ..


  14. January 25, 2012 9:00 am

    I am not an official witness because I was never baptized nor became a publisher but I‘ve studied for years; this may be the case with Stacey Brown. Sometimes non-witnesses clarify themselves as witnesses when they really are not. Being a Jehovah’s Witness is a way of life it’s not a belief or title so it’s possible that Stacey Brown is not one of Jehovah’s Witness. There is behavior on a Christian’s part that is completely unacceptable and slander is one of them. Brown would not be able to remain in good standing by doing this unless he stopped doing this by repenting.


  15. nan permalink
    January 25, 2012 9:01 am

    sanemjfan..regarding Ed Bradley…I am not sure if it was common knowledge that Bradley made those statements on tv before the trial began or not..
    But my own opinion is that Meseresu would not have brought that in becasue it seemed pretty obvious MJ was somewhat medicated and didnt want to introduce that into the trial…

    I feel the same way about Frank Cascio and his family also..
    On the plane ride home to Ca….Davelyn ordered a rum and coke along with Cascio sister..I am under the impression from transcripts that the Casio girl had a fake id
    i dont know how old Franks sister was at the time..I am just saying ..and i believe she showed her id although mj was not in that area of the plane..but if so they would have blamed him..jmo,even though Janet Arviso , Danelyins.. mother was on the plane …..he might have gotten an issue because of the Casio girls parents not being on the plane..

    …the plane trip/alcohol was not part of the original case only came into play when Melville allowed it at the end of the trial which made no sense ..
    I happen to think Mesereau was very smart

    mac culkin said a number of times no way was he testifying..That emboldened the prosecution to bring all those liars in..then the men in question show up..brilliant imo
    I just think MJ was going down no matter what the true evidence was…and the fact that the jury took considerable time ..imo the case due to the 2 jurors with book deals change their minds
    We all remember the only book deals out there were negative..


  16. January 25, 2012 4:29 pm


    I don’t know for Marie Nicole, but it’s Davellin who had a fake ID.


  17. R.J permalink
    January 25, 2012 10:36 pm

    @TatumMarie That is a good point. Maybe Stacey Brown calls himself a witness; even though it isn’t official. However, if he ever wants to be considered a witness, he had better clean up his act and repent FAST!!!!

    I know for a fact that the organization of witnesses would not approve of what he is doing at all. In the organization; it is all about honesty and morality; not slandrous lies that drag a person’s name through the mud.

    Sorry about my earlier comment; I just feel so strongly about this. It’s just so hypocritcal on Stacey’s part to be writing, talking, and promoting such horrible lies yet identifying himself as a JW. It is just wrong on so many levels!


  18. January 26, 2012 12:29 am

    Anybody making their christianity to a selfserving major thing, almost like bragging about it, and being condemnatory to others , like that youthpastor Mike Gugglielmucci, is suspect.And he is not the only one.
    It is right out scary that that people like him can make a career about being a christian.


  19. January 26, 2012 1:33 am

    “Grace needs to pay more attention in her Sunday School class, because she’s misconstruing one of the foundational tenets of Christianity! You cannot “earn” your way into Heaven by doing good works! Christ paid the price for your sins with his death on the cross! All of our good works and righteousness are like filthy rags! “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away”. Isaiah 64:6

    David, this is probably no place for theological discussion, but I still need to say one thing.

    There are different interpretations of the value of good works among Christians. For many of us good works are everything.

    This was the fundamental principle Michael Jackson lived by and the most vivid manifestation of his belief in God.

    Your quote from Isaiah is speaking about us thinking that we are righteous, while in reality we are not. It is about our conceit, arrogance and justifying our evil actions by finding pretexts for ourselves. In fact this quote refers very well to people like Diane Dimond, Tom Sneddon or the priests you are writing about.

    Apostle Paul did say that only faith can save and not deeds – but he was writing about the deeds of the Law which for ancient Jews were a collection of strict rules and rituals, the major of which was circumcision. See here:

    All of Saint Paul’s teachings revealed in his Epistles, being a full reflection of his life, carry this very fundamental thought: man is justified by faith, independent of deeds of the law (Romans 3:28). However, it cannot be concluded from this that Apostle Paul rejects any significance of good deeds (See for example Gal. 6:4, Eph. 2:10 or 1 Tim 2:10 and others). According to his Epistles, the understanding of “works of the law” does not mean “good deeds” in general, but ritualistic observance of the Mosaic Law. It must be remembered that during the time of his evangelistic work, Paul needed to carry out a bitter struggle against the opposition of the Judaists and Judean Christians.

    Upon becoming Christians, many of the Judaists held the view that it too was necessary for Christians to strictly observe all the ceremonial instructions of Mosaic Law. They deluded themselves with conceited notions that Christ came to earth to save the Jews only, and therefore gentiles wanting to be saved, needed to undertake circumcision and observe all of the Jewish rituals. This delusion impeded the spread of Christianity among the gentiles so strongly, that the Apostles were obliged to convene in 51 AD the Jerusalem Council, which removed the requirements of the ceremonial decrees of the law of Moses for Christians. However, even after this Council, many Judean Christians continued to stubbornly hold to their former views and as a consequence, split from the Church by establishing their own heretical society. These heretics opposed Apostle Paul personally and injected disturbances into the life of any church, where Paul was absent. That’s why Saint Paul needed to continually underline in his Epistles that Christ was the Savior of all humanity – for Jews just as well as for gentiles – and that a person was not saved by fulfilling the ceremonial deeds of the law, but only through faith in Christ.”

    Apostle Paul said it himself that God will repay us according to what we have done. He calls for a way of life without self-seeking and lies, and wants us to follow the truth:

    6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.;

    A human being is the temple of God, and we cannot defile the temple either by dirty deeds or even dirty thoughts. We are God’s fellow workers and therefore need to create and do good:

    9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation withgold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is.14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. 16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.;

    And Jesus’s brother James says it directly that faith without deeds is dead. “Even the demons believe that there is one God, and shudder” – therefore it isn’t believing in His existence, but trusting Him, listening to Him and following His guidance in life which makes faith alive:

    14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
    18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
    20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
    25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.;

    All major religions speak of the same and I truly believe that Michael would want us to live by these maxims, because he lived by them himself!

    Good deeds are the manifestation of a healthy spiritual life. Good deeds create merit, improve one’s relationship with God, and are the best way to annul the effects of past evil deeds.

    Heaven is not attained without good deeds.
    1.Sikhism. Adi Granth, Ramkali-ki-Var, M.1, p. 952

    Many garlands can be made from a heap of flowers. Many good deeds should be done by one born a mortal.
    2.Buddhism. Dhammapada 53

    For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
    3.Christianity. Ephesians 2.10

    No one who does good deeds will ever come to a bad end, either here or in the world to come. When such people die, they go to other realms where the righteous live.
    4.Hinduism. Bhagavad Gita 6.40-41

    Be mindful of your duty [to God], and do good works; and again, be mindful of your duty, and believe; and once again: be mindful of your duty, and do right. God loves the doers of good.
    5.Islam. Qur’an 5.93

    Love covers a multitude of sins.
    6.Christianity. 1 Peter 4.8

    Good deeds annul evil deeds. This is a reminder for the mindful.
    7.Islam. Qur’an 11.114

    Whoever, by a good deed, covers the evil done, such a one illumines this world like the moon freed from clouds.
    8.Buddhism. Dhammapada 173

    I call heaven and earth to witness: whether Jew or Gentile, whether man or woman, whether servant or freeman, they are all equal in this: that the Holy Spirit rests upon them in accordance with their deeds!
    9.Judaism. Midrash, Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah 10

    Anything evil refrain from doing; all good deeds do! So will you be released forever from the influence of evil stars, and always be encompassed by good guardian angels.
    10.Taoism. Tract of the Quiet Way

    He who carries out one good deed acquires for himself one advocate in his own behalf, and he who commits one transgression acquires one accuser against himself. Repentance and good works are like a shield against calamity.
    11.Judaism. Mishnah, Abot 4.13 When the earth is shaken with her earthquake

    And the earth yields up her burdens,
    And man says, “What ails her?”
    That day she will relate her chronicles
    Because your Lord inspires her.
    That day mankind will issue forth in scattered groups to be shown their deeds.
    And whoever has done good, an atom’s weight will see it then,
    And whoever has done ill, an atom’s weight will see it then.
    12.Islam. Qur’an 99

    Realization of Truth is higher than all else; Higher still is truthful living.
    13.Sikhism. Adi Granth, Sri Ashtpadi, M.1, p. 62

    What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill- clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, without works, is dead.
    But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone…. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
    14. Christianity. James 2.14-26

    15. And the ancient religion of Zarathustra (approx.2000 BC) names good deeds, preceded by good words, preceded by good thoughts as the three steps to enter paradise:

    “Taking the first footstep with a good thought, the second with a good word, and the third with a good deed, I entered paradise.”
    “Doing good to others is not a duty, it is a joy, for it increases our own health and happiness.”
    “Owing to Best thought, word, and deed, inspired through righteousness the creator doth give unto us happiness, immortality (heaven), prosperity, and perfect-mindedness through Beneficent-spirit”.

    “Indeed such shall be the Saviors of the countries who follow the call of Duty by good thoughts
    Because of their deeds inspired by righteousness in accord with your command,
    O Mazda, they certainly have been marked out as smiters of wrath” (Y48.12)


  20. Maral permalink
    January 26, 2012 1:39 am

    ” In the organization; it is all about honesty and morality; not slandrous lies that drag a person’s name through the mud.” thanks R.J
    so basically it’s EVERYTHING Michael tried to be and lived by. why am i not surprised?


  21. sanemjfan permalink
    January 26, 2012 2:42 am

    I don’t want this to turn into a discussion on religion; I would like for us to discuss these hypocrites who have lied against MJ despite their “faith”. Let’s look at what Grace said:

    “We all know I’ve been pretty mean in the courtroom and out, so this may be my only ticket to heaven,” she said. “So please, I want you to accept this check. It’s for $25,000, it’s part of my proceeds, and God willing, there’s more coming to Wesley Glen.”

    Grace is saying that her little chump change donation to that charity “may be her ONLY ticket to heaven”. She is implying that her good works ALONE will make up for all of the wrong she has done in her life. What I was trying to say is that, according to the Bible, you must first accept Christ as Lord and Saviour, and THEN you do good works that are in accordance with the Gospel (like helping the less fortunate, etc.) Grace is trying to sidestep all of that and just rely exclusively on her good works to to be her “ticket to heaven”.

    Everything you said in your comment is right, but I think my intentions in saying what I said about Grace may have been misconstrued. I wasn’t trying to say that good works aren’t important, because they are, and it’s commendable that Grace gave that money to the charity. But look at her motives!

    Yes, MJ did live by the principle of doing good works, but he DID NOT DO IT TO “MAKE UP” FOR THE WRONGS HE DID IN LIFE! He did out of the goodness of his heart!

    I want to just drop this topic now because I think it’s beyond the scope of this blog, and let’s all just focus on the post itself. In fact, I have some new damning information on Stacy Brown and Maureen Orth that I just added to this post! It turns out that Stacy Brown has no remorse for his actions, and I busted Maureen Orth in a lie! She removed her lie about MJ plying the Japanese boy with alcohol from the online version of her article, but I posted a photo of the ORIGINAL magazine version! Thanks guys!


  22. ares permalink
    January 26, 2012 4:45 am

    David, you busted Orth? Looool, i can’t believe it that she actually took that part of her article.So apparently she is not so sure about her sources any more. I wish someone could shove this in her face.That pathetic excuse of human being, hiding behind her husband’s reputation in order to slander someone who she obviously hate. It’s so sad that those articles were published in that Vanity Fair magazine because it gives her tabloid stories value which don’t diverse what so ever.

    As for the rest of the bunch, do they really believe that if there is indeed a God out there, they are going to be forgiven for their actions in life just because they claim to be Christians or because they made few donations in order to ease their guilt for doing wrong to people?Do they really think that they can “buy a place in paradise” just because they claim to believe in God and things like that? Are they so damn delusional? And in what God do they believe in because even i who am not a religious person know that the things that those people have done, and keep doing, guarantee you a one way ticket to hell.


  23. lynande51 permalink
    January 26, 2012 7:09 am

    Here are some links to the court documents that spell out what was happening as far as the journalists that were going to be called as witnesses in 2005. In January of 2004 the court issued a gag order on the case meaning that any witnesses, court personnel, attorneys involved in the case, and others were subject to this gag order. In order to silence these people Tom Sneddon sent them letters telling them that they may be called as witnesses. The first one that felt this was Russell Halpern, David Arvizo’s attorney. Sneddon actually admitted to it a conference in Vancouver BC Canada. He then also went after Michael’s new website that was opened by Randy Jackson and it had to be shut down.

    Nothing really happened about that until the second program that Bashir made. He had his lawyers petition the court saying that he would be exempt from the gag order and asked that he not be made to testify. The court granted that he was exempt from the gag order so that was when we got the second hit piece that he did that aired in February just days before the beginning of the trial. Of course they got away with it because according to his attorney and the prosecution the jury had already been admonished not to watch anything on TV about the case.

    There are also several pleadings that pertain to his LWMJ piece and what they wanted to admit as evidence from it. According to court documents the only part that they wanted to admit for the truth was the part where they say Michael said he slept with young boys. He did not say he slept with boys. He said he slept with children. He even said that very few had been allowed in his room. Other than Omer the only additional kids that he said yes to were the Arvizo boys. He did that when they first went to Neverland and then after that he wasn’t even there. The night that they slept in the bed and Michael and Frank slept on the floor was the 2nd night of the first visit. That was the only time that they slept in the same room as Michael. The only time. No bunches of kids were allowed in there other than his relatives. Just that one time. That was it. Frank was there and the adults were on the floor. Michael did not say he slept with boys as so many would like to believe. After 1993 the only way that a child could even get close to Michael was through Make A Wish. The only way they got there is because they said Gavin was dying.

    Anyway that was what the prosecution said Michael said in Bashir’s hit piece. Then the defense asked to court to play The Footage piece that Michael had made. The interesting part about that is that the Arvizos did make that rebuttal, but because Janet wouldn’t sign the release for it until she got a percentage of the earnings, it never went into the final product. Jay Jackson’s and Janet haggled over what they would be compensated for making the film. They wanted more than a college education and a new house. That was Frank’s offer to them.Michael knew nothing about it. Hamid Moslehi never released it to Michael because Dieter and Ronald were jerking him around about his payment. That is why it was found at his house when they searched his house at the same time as Michael’s. A small part of some of Hamid’s footage is that rare video of Michael and Gavin at Neverland. Hamid Moslehi shot that for him and it was booked into evidence when Janet Arvizo gave her copy to Tom Sneddon behind the Federal Building in LA during a clandestine meeting they had.

    What is most interesting is that the Defense petitioned the court to have the Outtakes Footage admitted. The Outtakes Footage is actually 2 hours and 8 minutes long. That is the one that was made in conjunction with Bashir’s documentary when Michael was in Florida in a Hotel room. So when you watch LWMJ and you see the part that is in Florida how long is it? Maybe 15 minutes max if you take out the time for commercials. How much time and how much was said that was never seen by the public? It was seen in the courtroom. The jury had them as evidence. There is also a very long videotaped interview of Gavin by the police that was over 2 hours long. The jury saw it. No one has ever seen the Arvizo family in their entirety because that one was over an hour, but the jury saw it.

    There were several audio tapes of the Arvizo family that were played in court. They had tapes of Frank’s phone conversation with Janet, Brad Miller’s interview, The DCFS tapes in their entirety. The jury heard them all. Brad Miller also taped the move when he paid for the Arvizo family’s belongings to be put in storage. He taped the move. He paid for the move and he paid for the storage facility. The Jury saw them all. We never have because there were no cameras in the courtroom. I think if there had been there would be no one questioning Michael’s innocence, not a single person.

    Anyway the reason that Ed Bradley, Rita Crosby and Larry King could not talk about the case is because the court would not lift the gag order for them only for Bashir and Leno. That was Judge Melvilles conribution to fair and balanced media coverage.

    Click to access 011805motbashirgag.pdf

    Click to access 011805mambdoc402.pdf

    Click to access 012105oppdabashirdoc.pdf

    Click to access 012405pltrspmbmpopbrtwc.pdf

    Click to access 012405pltrepdftoppbashirdoc.pdf

    Click to access 012605mjoppmediambgo.pdf

    Click to access 012605reppltrespgagorder.pdf

    Click to access 012705repMJopp.pdf

    Click to access 021505mjapposccntmt.pdf

    Click to access 022404MotMBCounsel.pdf

    Click to access 030705pltoppdisindbashir.pdf

    Click to access 030905MJmemocntmptbashir.pdf

    Click to access 030905eposccntmptbashir.pdf

    Click to access 030905decloxmanoscbashir.pdf

    Click to access 031005respctrjtosccntmpt.pdf

    Click to access 022405proredmem.pdf

    Click to access 022305mjmotdisbdcstresp.pdf

    Click to access 022305decmotdis.pdf

    Click to access 022305PADismissMot.pdf

    Click to access 052505pltreqctclfy.pdf

    Click to access 060105brfouttakes.pdf

    Click to access 021705pltmotctrevfootage.pdf


  24. January 26, 2012 11:57 am

    “I don’t want this to turn into a discussion on religion; I would like for us to discuss these hypocrites who have lied against MJ despite their “faith” – sanemjfan

    Okay. I only wanted to say that people behave differently depending on what they consider faith – to some their “faith” allows to do outright evil because they think that Christ has shed his blood for them and that is why they are (automatically) saved, no matter what they do.

    Well, according to Gospel these nasty journalists should know that they will be judged by their deeds and not by the formal professing of their “faith”.

    Nancy Grace’s act is good, but she cannot make up for the wrong done in her courtroom reports by giving money to charity (especially announced in a show which somewhat nullifies it). If Nancy Grace was mean in the courtroom she can undo that harm only by apologizing to these people also in public and admitting that she was distorting the truth.

    If you ruined someone’s home you need to rebuild it first before you go and sacrifice money to the temple. Any wrong should be first undone to the people wronged and no matter how much good you do elsewhere the weight of the injustice done will still be heavy on your conscience and will be judged against you.

    These media people simply do not understand that the harm they are doing to Michael is the harm done to themselves in the first place. They derive profit by their lies but are gathering terrible retribution for themselves. Repentance is the only way out for them.

    Just imagine what Maureen Orth has done (that original article is a precious find!). She trumpeted her lies all over the world and for many years too, but when her lie about Matsuura was uncovered she just quietly and stealthily erased it for no one to see.

    Is this stealthy act undoing the harm she has done? ABSOLUTELY NOT! If she were honest and really God-abiding, she should have bravely admitted that it was a lie (okay, misinformation) she got from unreliable sources and readily published about MJ. And this refutation should be there, in the original article, in bold type for everyone to see – because undoing the harm should be done in the same public way it was done!

    If the journalists who told nasty lies about Michael were real believers in God, as they say they are, it would be absolutely not enough for them to do charity and other good works. They should first repent for the wrongs they personally did to Michael by admitting distortion of facts and telling outright lies, and only then go on with their lives. If they do not do it, it means they do not abide by God’s rules and don’t give a damn about what happens to their eternal souls.

    Christ told us directly what to do in case we wronged someone:

    “If you are offering your gift at the altar, and remember that you have wronged a brother, leave the gift there before the altar and go reconcile with your brother. Then come and offer the gift.” Matthew 5:24


  25. Truth Prevail permalink
    January 26, 2012 4:40 pm


    Yes i have read it the reason i didn’t discuss the points you made here is because it is nothing surprising to me just didn’t know stacy brown was a Jehovah’s witness.


  26. lynande51 permalink
    January 26, 2012 8:21 pm

    Here is one last link to a court document that is about Bashir.

    Click to access 030905ReplytoOpp.pdf


  27. January 26, 2012 9:45 pm

    “regarding Ed Bradley…I am not sure if it was common knowledge that Bradley made those statements on tv before the trial began or not..
    But my own opinion is that Meseresu would not have brought that in becasue it seemed pretty obvious MJ was somewhat medicated and didnt want to introduce that into the trial…”

    Nan, here is an article saying that Ed Bradley was on Thomas Mesereau’s witness list – same as Larry King, Nick and Aaron Carter, and Corey Feldman:

    Jackson’s witness list is a who’s who of stars
    By Steve Chawkins and Eric SlaterLos Angeles Times
    February 15, 2005
    SANTA MARIA, Calif.—
    They don’t call them “celebrity trials” for nothing.

    In fact, the defense witness list unveiled Monday at Michael Jackson’s child-molestation trial was loaded with stars nearly as famous as Jackson himself.
    Prospective jurors were given a tantalizing glimpse of a roster that reads like the guest list of a Hollywood benefit, with possible appearances by such show-biz luminaries as Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder, Diana Ross and Jay Leno, not to mention record producer Quincy Jones, actor Chris Tucker, basketball sensation Kobe Bryant and CNN interviewer Larry King.

    Additional witnesses include Ed Bradley of “60 Minutes,” talk show host Maury Povich, Backstreet Boys singer Nick Carter and his younger brother Aaron.

    Of course, not every witness on a courtroom list takes the stand. In fact, some legal experts interviewed on Monday predicted quite a few no-shows.

    Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville told the potential jurors to expect fewer people to actually testify, and a prosecutor suggested that the defense was merely attempting to dazzle them with star power.

    “Would the testimony of someone like an Elizabeth Taylor influence you disproportionately?” Deputy Dist. Atty. Ron Zonen asked potential jurors.

    No way, each of them replied.

    As if to underscore the point, a silver-haired 62-year-old man misidentified Deepak Chopra, one of Jackson’s possible witnesses, as a rap star. Chopra is a best-selling New Age author and physician.

    One woman said she had met quite a few celebrities through her uncle, a film editor in Los Angeles, and couldn’t quite understand all the fuss.

    “They’re people,” she said, “like anyone else.”

    On Monday, defense attorneys and prosecutors had their first chance to interview the people who may determine whether Jackson is guilty of molesting a 13-year-old cancer patient and conspiring to cover it up.

    The first 18 of about 250 prospective jurors sat in a packed courtroom for five hours answering questions about their views of the media, the legal system, Michael Jackson and the credibility of children.

    To find out whether any of them knew possible witnesses, Jackson’s attorney, Thomas A. Mesereau Jr., read approximately 350 names, including those of celebrities with no apparent connection to the case.

    One puzzling inclusion was actor Corey Feldman, 33, who, as a child star, was befriended by Jackson. Last week in an interview with ABC, Feldman said that when he was a teen, Jackson showed him nude photos of men and women in a book about venereal disease, a seemingly incriminating admission for someone on the defense witness list.

    Feldman reportedly has been subpoenaed to testify for the prosecution as well.

    For their part, prosecutors ran through a list that included dozens of law enforcement personnel, a young man who accused Jackson of molestation in 1993, and the singer’s ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, who is challenging him for custody of their children.

    Also on the list are a former maid at Jackson’s Neverland ranch and her son, who reportedly have accused Jackson in another molestation incident.

    If stars are being asked to vouch for Jackson’s character, defense attorneys may have a tough time persuading them to show up, according to some observers.,0,7704961.story


  28. January 26, 2012 11:34 pm

    I posted about how I didnt blame her [Ms McManus] for being upset with MJ since she and her fellow employees owed MJ millions for stealing, and she had been sited for fraud etc. Had said Mj never did anything wrong in her initial deposition, which actually lined up with June Chandler testimony..Then changed her story when she and the others decided to sue after the chandlers got money so they sold tabloid stories etc..
    She was found to have stolen a picture of Elvis Mj drew. Stolen from a trust fund set up for children.. And if I were her I would really hate Tom Mesereau because he annihilated her on cross examination..
    Long and short , she went bananas on me , and Diane stuck up for her.
    I said these court transcripts are all over the internet..
    That was the last I saw of her telling tales of mj on that page..

    Nan, great job. People like McManus are simply behind times – they think they can go on slandering Michael and the audience will be thrilled by their tales and believe each of their words. She could never imagine that thousands of people are studying those long transcripts of the 2005 trial in full earnest and really know the factual side of things. What a surprise it was for her to be reminded of her past misdeeds instead of people believing her lies.

    It is great you made her face the facts she hoped no one knew. It will teach others a lesson.


  29. nan permalink
    January 28, 2012 9:15 am

    thank you for putting up all those links ..I want to try and read them tonight.Melville certainly was a one sided judge..Poor MJ..he must have felt like he had a noose around his neck the entire time:((


  30. nan permalink
    January 28, 2012 10:57 am

    The Arvizo are just habitual liars ..I dont even trust that Gavin was getting a death sentence from his doctors..I never heard the prosecution call any of his doctors to the stand to say how detrimental giving alcohol to him would be.I would think Sneddon would have jumped at the chance to twist the knife alittle more.
    Only people who told what his diagnosis was , was the Arvizo themselves as I recall
    I think I remember reading that after his initial round of chemo , they were saying that he would survive it but would have to go through the full rounds of treatments.
    Then you have Davelinn in mj kitchen telling mj that the doctors told her parents to plan for his funeral..I just dont believe anything out of any one in that familys mouth


  31. January 29, 2012 3:20 am

    Diane Dimond, Nancy Grace, Maureen Orth are cowardly non entities as far as I’m concern. However, I will give them mention here. DD has been played the fool so many times by her ‘sources’ she pitiful. People are sick of her. I visited her blog before I commented here, she has but 3 comments on her latest post. All From Her! (just looked at the post, Police property room, didn’t read it). The adjectives I use for NG and MO goes applies to DD also!
    NGrace is so slimy, self absorbed, and narcissistic, she’ll do just about anything to feel important. For over 30 years she’s been lying about the circumstances of her fiance’s murder. All to put herself up front, and be more sympathetic. She’s still milking his sad death for all she can get out of it (links below). There’s no low she won’t go to capitalize on any situation, not matter who it hurts. Keith’s (her fiance) parents, other relatives and loved ones are, at the very least, disturbed by her making an industry out of his murder to gain, by any means necessary. Since she’ll do a low down thing like that, there probably no low she won’t go. She’s a soulless, greedy liar, never say you screwed up, no matter how big of a fool that’s make you’, is her motto.
    Ah yes, that esteemed Vanity Fair columnist MOrth, Tim Russet widow, what to say about her? First of all it’s pretty classless of Vanity Fair to not remove that entire article and apologize for publishing it. Period. She harbors a strange obsessive jealousy of Michael. She goes into all the voodoo crap that she must aspire to herself. She too was played by that, no doubt, paid ‘source’. I find that more odd on her part than anything else, Occult stuff. As all the other dribble she wrote, only proves her to be the idiot liar she is. She was MSNBC’s MoJo the day after MJ died, oh was she ever so viscous. The other host (Willie Giest) was throwing daggers at her (that video has since been removed from MSNBC and utube). As you say, all the ‘recipients’ of MJ’s voodoo curses are still kicking. enough said about her, such a sad creature she is.
    No words for Bashir, we all know how he betrayed Michael in the worse kind of way, and like many others in your piece, was rewarded for it. He spent years sucking and assuring Michael that it would be good for MJ to trust him, that he would be fair. Bashir was lot of things to Micheal (all bad), fair and trust worthy he certainly was not.
    The main losers in the surreal drama are the arvizos, no need to go into details about them. I know that case like the back on my hand. Shown for the sleazy, do anything for money grifters that they are, they must now stay joined at the hip with the DAs, DD and other cohorts in that failed frame-up. I know the arvizos are getting some kind of money from those low lifes that aided them in that ill fated shakedown of MJ. Must keep the arvizos from running to sell that story, the truth might slip out!. BTW no way is Gavin’s living the way God wants people to live!
    Stacy Brown is just a tabloid mouth piece for hire. He’ll say or write any dirty lie to get paid, he has zero integrity.
    When the trail was going on the only info we (public) got on Jason Francia from the press was that he was a ‘youth minster’, that he cried during his testimony, and needed years of therapy because of ‘ordeal’. After the trail I did my own research. I found this guy did a summer or something like that as religious helper for the cops. The press sure spun his myth.
    I could go on forever here, your post is really detailed. But I don’t want to my comment so long, folks won’t read it. LOL
    A big hat-tip to Ed Bradley, a REAL journalist.
    As for Azia’s letter, Lord it would have been so nice if she had written it to the grifters when Micheal was alive and could feel, would have meant the world to him! I know the press wasn’t into anything positive about Micheal back then, but she could have posted it on youtube, Facebook or other public sites on the web. I am glad she wrote it to though.

    Be sure to check the links below on NGrace!


  32. lynande51 permalink
    January 29, 2012 5:57 am

    @ Patricia I know the Arvizo case inside and out too. The last thing those people are is victims. The only victim I see in all of this is Michael.


  33. sanemjfan permalink
    January 29, 2012 8:21 am

    @Patricia Burks
    Thanks for your comment! Don’t worry about it being too long! The longer the better! Espcially when it’s very substantive and educational, as yours was!


  34. Suzy permalink
    January 29, 2012 10:08 am

    As for Maureen Orth and her voodoo crap. I wonder of all this was inspired by the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 1980s and early 90s in the US:


  35. Linda permalink
    January 29, 2012 10:26 am


    The Arvizo are just habitual liars ..I dont even trust that Gavin was getting a death sentence from his doctors.

    Interesting you said that. I’ve wondered about it too, and I’ve never seen any documentation. Why didn’t something come out in court about hospital records? Nothing that i saw from prosecution or defense that said he was really dying, or just a made up story to get Michael’s sympathy, or I just missed it.

    Same with his broken wrist in the J.C.Penny lawsuit, if I have that correct. There would have to be hospital records. I still have some questions with no answers


  36. January 29, 2012 4:16 pm

    “As for Maureen Orth and her voodoo crap. I wonder of all this was inspired by the satanic ritual abuse panic of the 1980s and early 90s in the US:

    This Wiki page extensively refers to the McMartin case. I think it is worth repeating here that the man in charge of training the interviewers (who implanted false ideas into children’s minds and forced them into slandering their teachers) in McMartin’s case was Dr. Katz.

    And Dr. Katz was involved in both Arvizo and Chandler cases – he was asked to evaluate the so-called Jordan’s interview with Dr. Richard Gardner and was the one to whom the Arvizo family allegedly disclosed the “molestation”.

    But it was this Dr. Katz who after interviewing the Arvizos said in 2003 in a secretly recorded police telephone conversation that Michael did not fit the profile of a p -le!

    Meaning that after reviewing the Chandler case he ALSO thought that way!

    So if even Dr.Katz says so, how can anyone doubt the words of the worst possible expert to evaluate Michael?


  37. Suzy permalink
    January 29, 2012 6:24 pm

    Yes, Dr. Katz.

    I wonder what’s these people’s obsession with hot air balloons…

    Remember, Janet Arvizo claimed Michael’s people tried to kidnap them in a hot air balloon or they were trying to escape Neverland in a hot air balloon, or both, I can’t remember exactly . Now, look at that Wiki article on SRA:

    “Specific allegations from the cases included:

    – Seeing witches fly; travel in a hot air balloon; abuse and travel through underground tunnels;[114″]

    – Ritual murder of babies; children taken out on boats and thrown overboard; trips in hot air balloons;[120]

    Also the secret tunnels and rooms. Remember, how Dimond and some other people in the media were trying to make a lot of the closets in Neverland, calling them “secret rooms” and acting as if sinister things were going on in them (even though no such allegation was ever made)?

    It looks like this too comes from the model of those SRA allegations in the 80s and 90s. And Orth’s animal sacrifice claims too.

    the mentally handicapped abuser who suffered from Noonan syndrome drank human blood in satanic rituals; abducted the children despite being unable to drive;[122] forced the children to eat urine and feces; abducted the children to secret rooms; committed violent sexual assaults and beatings; killed a giraffe, rabbit and elephant and drank their blood in front of the children;[123]

    I guess they figured it would be too ridiculous to accuse Michael in SRA in the 2000s, so they didn’t explicitely do that, but it seems they used some favorite elements of that American folklore…


  38. Maral permalink
    January 29, 2012 6:44 pm

    i know you all do a awesome job on researching. i’ve learnt so much from this blog. however i need to add wikipedia is the last source you’d want to refer to. it’s just not reliable.


  39. Suzy permalink
    January 29, 2012 7:16 pm

    @ Maral

    I know that Wikipedia needs to be treated with caution, however for the point I’m making here I think it’s sufficient enough, especially that, as you can see, they give sources for their claims. But if you dispute any specific claim cited here, please address it.


  40. Maral permalink
    January 29, 2012 7:59 pm

    i just meant in general. i have seen more and more fans refer to it


  41. January 30, 2012 12:08 am

    “Remember, how Dimond and some other people in the media were trying to make a lot of the closets in Neverland, calling them “secret rooms” and acting as if sinister things were going on in them (even though no such allegation was ever made)? It looks like this too comes from the model of those SRA allegations in the 80s and 90s. And Orth’s animal sacrifice claims too.
    I guess they figured it would be too ridiculous to accuse Michael in SRA in the 2000s, so they didn’t explicitely do that, but it seems they used some favorite elements of that American folklore…”

    Suzy, I never thought much of the “satanic” accusations against MJ or anyone at all because the whole thing looked totally delirious to me. But after reading the article you gave a link to I looked up some materials and now realize that all that satanism child abuse panic was for real! Some people seem to have extremely wild imagination!

    Here is a site which examines the “satanic abuse scare” syndrome in the 80s and early 90s in minute detail:

    The author is a serious researcher who distinguishes the satanic ritual abuse scare from real child abuse which she calls a genuine, serious, and widespread problem.

    She also says that the research done in the 90s discredited the “recovery memory” techniques and non-professional interviewing of children based on leading questions (for the McMartin school case this questioning technique was worked out by Dr. Katz!).

    Here is an introduction to her vast collection of information:

    The “Satanic Ritual Abuse” scare
    (and the larger child sex abuse panic)
    of the 1980’s and early 1990’s

    by Diane Vera
    Copyright © 2006 by Diane Vera. All rights reserved.

    Brief introduction
    Below are links to sites debunking the “Satanic Ritual Abuse” (SRA) scare of the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Most of the sites listed below are concerned, primarily, not with the SRA scare itself but with a larger child sexual abuse panic, of which the SRA scare was the most sensationalistic part.

    The SRA scare was exceedingly harmful to many, many innocent people. The harm was by no means limited to law-abiding Satanists or adherents of other nonmainstream religions that are sometimes confused with Satanism, such as Wicca. In fact, to a far greater extent, it harmed lots and lots of ordinary, mainstream folks who were accused of horrific crimes based on exceedingly flimsy evidence. The vast majority of the falsely accused, like most Americans in general, were Christians.

    Both the SRA scare itself and the larger larger child sex abuse witchhunt took three main forms:

    1) “Recovered memories” of horrific child abuse. In many cases the “memories” were “recovered” in psychotherapy using questionable techniques such as hypnotic regression.
    2) Many multiple-victim, multiple-offender child abuse cases where the “evidence” consisted primarily or exclusively of testimony by small children who had been coached inappropriately by therapists. Most of the alleged perpetrators were female daycare center workers.
    3) Accusations by divorcing parents in child custody disputes.

    By the mid-1990’s, both the SRA scare and the larger child sex abuse panic had been largely discredited. Unlike SRA, child sex abuse is a genuine, serious, and widespread problem. What was discredited was child abuse accusations based on “recovered memories” or on the testimonies of children who had been asked lots and lots of leading questions.

    Yet some of the accused still languish in prison due to lack of money for appeals. Others were never imprisoned but had to deal with the heartbreak of being shunned by their own adult children thanks to “recovered memories.”

    The SRA scare was also part of another larger panic: about “Satanism,” “occult crime,” and the occult in general. To this day, there are quite a few fundamentalists who warn about all sorts of popular children’s and young people’s activities (rock music, role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, and even reading Harry Potter books) allegedly leading kids into “Satanism” – which is, of course, allegedly criminal. And beliefs in SRA and Satanic conspiracies still flourish in the minds of a lot of uneducated people.

    Note: A listing on this page does not imply endorsement or affiliation. This page is intended only to be a fairly comprehensive listing of resources on the SRA scare and on the related larger child sex abuse panic of the 1980’s and early 1990’s.

    The issues covered by the article are:

    What was the SRA scare? Some introductory articles
    Information about specific alleged cases
    The “West Memphis Three” case
    “Recovered memory” retractors
    Some scholars and psychotherapists on “recovered memories” and child abuse accusations
    Some scholars and psychotherapists on Satanism scares and Satanism’s criminal fringe
    Other informative websites
    Legal resources for those accused
    Still-ongoing general cultural paranoia
    Commentary by the founders of Against Satanic Panics

    I cannot believe that people could fall in full earnest for all that satanism crap. But since so much attention was paid to it I think we need a post about McMartin’s case. After all Dr. Katz was a trainer of the main interrogator Kee McFarland who actually extracted all those incredible false memories from children.

    And it was also Dr. Katz who did the assessment whether those children were molested or not. His conclusion was that out of the 400 children interviewed 369 had been sexually abused, while in reality NONE of them were.


  42. nan permalink
    January 30, 2012 12:42 am

    Linda…I asked Randy T a long time ago if Gavins doctor testified about how detrimental alcohol could be to his illness and how he was so sick etc… or if any other medical personnel showed up to testify and he said he was there for every day of the trial and no…no medical people were called to testify regarding Gavins illness…
    We both thought it strange /unusual that Sneddon didnt call anyone in .
    my own personal beleif is that he would have had to of thought of it but rejected it becasue the mother might have been exaggerating the illness.
    I would think if he was dying, the staff would have contacted make a wish foundation but that never happened..
    I am sure Janet would have been happy to get something off anyone she could.Instead they go through comedy camp and dance/acting instructors..Why not make a wish ?
    To me it is just another affirmation that Tom Sneddon knew this fanily was completely full of it but he didnt care becasue he wanted to take mj down.
    I am pretty sure Gavin himself told Mesereau that the doctors said he would survive as long as he completed the rounds of chemo..
    Evidently they didnt tell MJ that part…


  43. lynande51 permalink
    January 30, 2012 1:18 am

    Actually Linda and Nan the question was not asked of Gavin by the prosecution because the police went to his MD in July after they interviewed the family and found that alcohol would have no more effect on Gavin than it would anyone else. That is in the court documents. It had to do with the “urine dumping” that Janet claimed took place. There was 90cc’s of urine in the container for what is called a 24 hour urine test which tests for creatinine clearance. Creatinine clearance shows the level of kidney function that is left after a nephrectomy. When you have one kidney removed the other begins to grow to accommodate the higher demand. This is called remodeling.
    When Janet describes what Gavin had I fully believe it was what is called a Wilm’s Tumor. These are a very large fully encased tumors of the kidney found most commonly in children most particularly boys between the ages of 6-10 years old. When they operate to remove the tumor they must remove the kidney which also has the adrenal gland attached to it. To remove it they must also remove the spleen to get to the kidney. This is 98 percent curable and a round of chemo therapy is of course recommended for 18 weeks.
    Now Janet is the one that started the he is going to die and get ready for his funeral story. No one in the hospital especially his doctors could have ever refuted what she said in public. It is also interesting that she was not at the hospital when Gavin was supposedly dying . That tells me that the hospital must have intervened to stop her because the reports were that when she was there it was chaos. I wonder did she accuse someone of some kind of impropriety with Gavin or herself . She had more than one instance of accusing someone of sexual improprieties toward her including someone at the Ranch.I think my guess would be either Ronald Konitzer or Dieter Weizner from the way she went after them in her story.
    As for the urine the police also found out that 10cc’s is plenty to do the test but Gavin refused his blood draw that goes with it. Then of course there is the fact that the night before was the day that Michael took everyone to Toys R Us including Joanna Thomae. His young cousin Rijo was along and he was the one that spent the night in Michael’s room on the floor so he did not have to be in the guest house with the Arvizo kids.


  44. nan permalink
    January 30, 2012 1:27 am


    thank you for all that information!!
    What you described sounds a lot like what Janet had described was wrong with Gavin..Wow these people are just horrible.
    So Sneddon would have had to have known the truth..and he still went forward with this thing despite all he knew before he even walked into court…unbelievable


  45. lynande51 permalink
    January 30, 2012 1:33 am

    Hi Nan here is a link to the timeline prior to the search of Neverland. There is another Document that includes the one that includes info from the interviews that the police did after the search. I think you’re going to get a real kick out of the description of Neverland beign taken by force if necessary and of course the information about all those “secret rooms”. If you want a good laugh you should try to find the video on you tube from part of the search where one of the deputies is asking Maria Gomez Michael’s maid where all the secret rooms are. She gives him a look like “what the H***”. Poor Maria didn’t know what to think of those guys.

    Click to access 081604rptfaildiscreqsancts.pdf


  46. lynande51 permalink
    January 30, 2012 2:00 am

    Then there is the other thing that is just ridiculous of you have any kind of medical knowledge. When Zonen starts to question Gavin he asks the court ot be aware that they may have to take more breaks because Gavin would have to use the restroom more often because he has one kidney. Baloney! It is your bladder capacity that would effect the use of the bathroom not having one kidney. If you have one kidney you have reduced urine output not more urine output so that would mean you actually go to the bathroom less. They were just playing on the sympathy of the jury with that one.
    As for Gavin and his cancer the fact that he is still alive and cancer free tells me that it was a Wilm’s Tumor and he was never going to die from it. He has been 12 years cancer free in June. That says alot about Janet’s prognosis.


  47. Tanja permalink
    February 3, 2012 7:41 am

    I really love this blog. And finally I got this thing with magazine Michael allegedly showed Star and Gavin while they were on Neverland. I mean I knew this little problem with the releasedate of the issue they identified in court. But when I read the testimony I first thought “Hmm he really didn’t say that it was exactly THIS issue”. To my defence I have to say that English is not my native language so it took me some time to realize that Sneddon asked him if this was an accurate dipiction and he said yes.


  48. nan permalink
    February 3, 2012 8:09 am


    thank you !! I am going to check out that new link you put up..Was it Zonen or Sneddon that was talking about Gavin having to take frequent restroom breaks….I thought it was Sneddon that was asking the questions because he always wanted to be the one asking the perverted questions..LOL..
    Yeah its a freaking miracle that kid joined the football team ..pfft
    the more you look at this stuff, the worse it gets…
    Mesereau must have known this ..I think he got Gavin to admit he would be better after his rounds of cancer.
    This group have no shame..


  49. sanemjfan permalink
    February 5, 2012 6:46 pm


    A friend of mine sent me a video of an interview with Ron Zonen, recorded on April 27th, 2011. It’s around 30 minutes long, but beginning at around 23:50 he begins to speak about MJ, and one of his interviewers had worked with the Jackson family before, and insisted on MJ’s innocence, and Zonen gave some BS politically correct answer of “Well, that’s your opinion, I don’t debate that with people, blah, blah blah”! He then goes on to talk about how Gavin is a conservative Chrisitan with strict values, who doesn’t drink or do drugs, and is a perfect little angel who has rejected six figure offers to sell his story. The same crap he spewed at the Frozen in Time seminar in 2010. He also said that both of MJ’s marriages were shams.

    Open the link and scroll to the bottom of the screen and press the “Play in new window” button, and a pop up window will open and play the video. I have already downloaded it, and I’m working on getting it uploaded to Youtube ASAP, and once it’s there I’ll embed it in the post.


  50. February 5, 2012 8:12 pm

    “He then goes on to talk about how Gavin is a conservative Chrisitan with strict values”

    It’s something that I never understood, since when being a conservative Christian with strict values who doesn’t drink or do drugs means that you are a good person?


  51. Teva permalink
    February 5, 2012 8:21 pm


    It is the belief that if you are a christian it translates into being good. That is why Zonen is focusing on it and the fact the Francia was a youth minister. It builds the credibility.


  52. February 5, 2012 8:44 pm


    I know that but it’s only a belief and lots of people know that. I also think it’s mostly an american belief. I come from an atheist country. The people american called liberals are the people we call conservative. What do you think american conservative christians are called?

    I am not saying it’s bad to be a Christian, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe but you should never use religion to prove that someone is a good person.


  53. February 5, 2012 10:48 pm

    if the books where inappropriate Sneddon would charged MJ in 93.

    I would imagine both books had been presented to the grand juries in 1994 too, right?

    Will those grand jury testimonies always be sealed?

    And I don’t believe Gavin doesn’t drink or party now. The same BS innocent act he was trying to pull then, still trying to pull it now.


  54. Maral permalink
    February 5, 2012 11:32 pm

    it says video cannot be found. wonder why zonen feel the need to talk about MJ? and who cares if gavin is christian? look at some of the priests…..
    everyone knows MJ LIVED his faith. i mean look at the work he did for those who needed help. having faith is not reading the holy books or stay away from alcohol. it’s to consider goodness in everything you do. Michael did that


  55. sanemjfan permalink
    February 5, 2012 11:48 pm

    Look at the instructions that I wrote in my previous comment on how to view the video. I will get it posted to Youtube ASAP in case it is removed from that site!


  56. nan permalink
    February 6, 2012 3:44 am

    Ron Zonen is just trying to save his own reputation..He is strapped to those two losers for life , because he doesnt want people to come to the conclusion that I have..They knew this was a B.S. case before they ever walked into the courtroom and went to extreme lengths to try and send MJ save face..
    Still trying to save face..
    They were just so carried away with themselves .LIke T Mesereau called it ..Hubris.
    All this garbage about Gavin turning down hundreds of thousands of dollars for interviews..
    He was interviewed under oath for days in a court of law .He said everything he is going to say other then he lied, which is obvious..
    Same as when Zonen says he is accruing debt like other college kids ..Why doesnt he use the money he bilked out of L C Penny to pay his bills ..
    These people are just so freaking transparent ..


  57. February 6, 2012 4:13 am

    What about his stepdad?


  58. nan permalink
    February 6, 2012 4:37 am

    I just watched the clip again and the bitterness that permeates from Zonen regarding the Jackson case is just so interesting to watch..I kinda feel like he is preparing during the entire interview for the MJ question ..He also was not quite truthful at the end about the Francia matter..He didnt get his settlement to avoid a criminal case ..He was supposedly a co operating witness..He has his remarks about Gavin down pat…
    So when asked what would he do differently , he says try the Jackson case different..LOL
    He lost 14 out of 14…These people will never admit they were wrong about the man..


  59. lynande51 permalink
    February 6, 2012 7:12 am

    So the when Ron Zonen calls Michael and Lisa Marie’s marriage a sham it is because of a Neverland employee that confirmed that she never spent a night in that room? That isn’t one of the same employee’s that sold that story to a tablid. You guys no the one it was Adrian McManus. What is most interesting about that is she quite before they ever moved back to Cailfornia. That’s right guys Michael and Llisa lived first for about a month at Maralargo in Florida as a guest of Donald Trump,then they rented an apartment in Trump Towers in New York and lived there while he worked on his next album. After that when they went back to California they lived together at her home in Hidden Hills because her daughter Riley was in school. So all of the time that he says that employee that he was talking about was still working there until July 31st of 1994 when all five of them stopped working at the same time Michael was living somewhere else with Lisa.
    Now considering the sources that he uses and the people that he keeps company with I think I will question his motives and his truthfullness wouldn’t you?
    And what did that bit about Gavin being a conservative Christian have ot do wit hhow he was when he lied about Michael. Are he and his brother really better people at this point in time? I seriously doubt that, I think that they are milking them for money for bringing the charges in the first place because in that family the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.


  60. nan permalink
    February 6, 2012 7:32 am

    Very good points about where MJ was living..He is just listening to tabloid people..When this video is secured for youtube , I will leave a polite comment about Mr Zonens inability to accept that his was wrong.
    I dont know why they would think that someone like MJ would just be tethered to Neverland when he travels all over the world anyway.
    How much fact checking could they have done if you are aware of MJ whereabouts and the prosecutors arent., ..they just believe everything these people say.
    How about what LMP says about her relationship with him? is she a liar ?From the torch she seems to be carrying for him , I would say she thought they had a real marriage..


  61. February 6, 2012 7:38 am

    They were fired July 1994 and she was the one who sold that story about them never sleeping together? LOL


  62. February 6, 2012 7:42 am

    How about what LMP says about her relationship with him? is she a liar ?From the torch she seems to be carrying for him , I would say she thought they had a real marriage..

    Obviously. Part of the deal was that she chase him around the world for 4 years and have a nervous breakdown over him. She really needed the money… umm…. she really needed the PR… hmm… I’m sure there’s a great reason she’d marry a guy with a tarnished rep and risk her children for no reason!

    Not to mention that they kept it a secret for 2 months, what’s the point of a sham marriage when you keep it a secret and date them in private before hand? Michael even said he never wanted to announce it, he wanted to let people think what they wanted. Lisa was the one who announced it.

    I’m sure Zonen knows why all of that happened, he should probably give Lisa a call now so that she can get over that fake relationship she’s been believing was real for 18 years.


  63. Suzy permalink
    February 6, 2012 9:29 am

    @ Shelly

    “what they want to believe but you should never use religion to prove that someone is a good person.”

    I completly agree with you Shelly, but the sad thing is that in the US it works! Just pull the magic words “I’m a devout Christian” and you will be given automatic credibility over anyone who is not thumping his Bible as much as you do. And this gives way to lots of witch hunts, mass manipulaion and the like in the US. The prosecution definitely pulled this religion sympathy card in Michael’s case.

    Regarding religious bigotry in the US, someone on a forum asked Americans jokingly: “How did you guys become a super power?” Indeed, how, one has to wonder…


  64. nan permalink
    February 6, 2012 10:15 am

    Everytime I look at that footage of MJ with those two little rats , I feel horrible.Here he is , so kindly walking them through the grounds , not realizing he is getting scammed..And that family was setting the trap…..And of course at a later time they would say MJ was pushing them into things to do……At the 2:20 mark while they were waiting for the train and Mj goes to direct Gavin into a particular seat and he just pulls away and MJ ends up sitting where this kids wants to sit…Clearly that kid was running the show,,
    I dont believe for a minute those kids have changed their grifter ways..
    Ron Zonen would look pretty bad if you set out to destroy the life of one of the worlds greatest humanitarians , as well as artists , over these two liars, and the end result was 3 by all accounts, wonderful children, orphaned thanks to a unfounded wonder RZ looks like he is getting a tick when mj name comes up…

    As far as that video of him being interviewed on the local station..I have to hand it to the elderly woman , telling him she believed MJ innocent….She had to have known , he wouldnt want to hear that..good for her..


  65. Suzy permalink
    February 6, 2012 12:55 pm

    So he says he would try the Jackson case differently? I wonder how. Like making up lies those are a little less obvious? I mean perhaps not claiming that the molestation occured after the Bashir interview and while the whole world was watching? LOL.

    Ron, when you don’t have a case then you can try it any way you want, you still won’t succeed. You were given every advantage imaginable: you could bring in 1108 “evidence”, when that very possibly violated Michael’s constitutional rights, you could bring in embittered ex-employees claiming to have witnessed molestation, without even asking the alleged victims (who then went up on that stand and said nothing ever happened), you could spend days with showing irrelevant material (books, magazines) in court, you could rely on tabloid gossip, you could raid Michael’s home as many times as you wanted (often without a search warrant), you could raid the home of a private investigator working for Michael’s side, taking confidential defense documents with you, you had a conservative jury with no black person, but with plenty of Hispanics (and the accuser was Hispanic), you could do anything and you had every advantage imaginable, Ron, and the verdict was still “Not Guilty” 14 times. Live with it!


  66. February 6, 2012 7:10 pm

    “Zonen should probably give Lisa a call now so that she can get over that fake relationship she’s been believing was real for 18 years.”

    What Zonen said about “sham marriages” is ridiculous. How on earth can he know the subject better than Lisa Marie Presley? Someone should tell him not to make such a terrible fool of himself and stop denying the obvios. Lisa was very open about it and even admitted that she followed Michael for 4 years after the divorce. It was a very brave statement on her part – women terribly dislike admitting things like that. But she nevertheless said it though no one forced her to. She was evidently really desperate about losing Michael.

    And as regards Debbie Rowe I know that Frank Cascio doubted they had sex. The only thing it means to me is that Frank saw that Michael was not in love with her which was absolutely true. But it doesn’t mean that they didn’t have a normal relationship. First of all Debbie was going out of her way to seduce Michael (and even had a nude photo session in Klein’s office leaving her photos somewhere there for MJ to see), and secondly, Michael himself said to Bashir that the children were made in the “natural way”. Klein also said they had sex life and the only source he could get it from was Debbie herself.

    If Frank did not see the outward signs of it, all it means is that Michael never talked about Debbie in his presence. He probably didn’t want to as it was a kind of a duty he was just fulfilling. But again knowing Michael’s grateful nature he simply could not leave his desperate second wife without attention. She was giving him children, so isn’t it enough reason to show his gratitude to her? Even if he wasn’t in love with her?


  67. February 6, 2012 7:37 pm

    What impressed me very much in Zonen’s words is his story about three women who sat in separate rooms identifying their rapist among several men. Though they didn’t consult each other all made one and the same mistake – they said they were absolutely certain that Man #3 was the criminal who had attacked them. But this man had a fool-proof alibi! He was in jail at the time and the real criminal was Man #2.

    This teaches us an interesting lesson.

    Even if three people say that they are absolutely “certain” about the identity of someone it still does not mean that it is the “right” person. If three victims – who have absolutely no reason to lie – can be so terribly mistaken, what can we expect of someone who travelled on a train and said they saw Michael Jackson in the compartment next to theirs? Do you remember those FBI files?

    That story always sounded fishy to me, simply because Michael could not be staying in a compartment adjoining that of some strangers. The couple claimed MJ and his bodyguards had four compartments, so why would Michael not stay in the middle but aside from all his bodyguards?

    If this couple is not lying, what most probably happened is that they saw someone looking like MJ who was travelling with a boy and was accompanied by his adult friends. By the way I recently found an article saying Michael Jackson’s impersonator used his image for seducing and molesting boys! How many people were fooled by that impersonator into thinking that it was real Michael?

    The Orlando Sentinel reported this in September 1994:

    Michael Jackson Mimic Faces Still More Charges

    September 21, 1994

    A Michael Jackson impersonator charged last month with molesting three Orange County boys to initiate them into a gang was charged Tuesday with molesting four more.

    Michael Johnson, 29, is charged with 18 counts of a lewd act on a child and is being held on $485,000 bail in the Orange County Jail.
    Investigators contend Johnson is the leader of a teen-age gang with about 50 members and used sex to build trust and loyalty.


  68. February 6, 2012 9:57 pm

    “Michael and Lisa lived first for about a month at Maralargo in Florida as a guest of Donald Trump, then they rented an apartment in Trump Towers in New York and lived there while he worked on his next album. After that when they went back to California they lived together at her home in Hidden Hills because her daughter Riley was in school.”

    Lynette, thank you for making this note. I also remember that Michael said in his tapes with Shmuley that Lisa-Marie never lived in Neverland – after they settled down the two of them stayed in her house and just made occasional visits to Neverland. So it is absolutely no wonder that people did not often see them together there.

    Here is an article about Michael living in Trump Towers in New York in June-July 1994:

    King of Pop reportedly living with Presley daughter in N.Y.C.
    July 15, 1994|By Newsday

    NEW YORK — Elvis . . . er, Michael Jackson has left the building.
    Or has he?
    A crowd of 350 people hoping to catch a glimpse of Jackson gathered yesterday outside Trump Tower, where the superstar apparently has been living for at least a month.
    The Trump Organization wasn’t commenting, but it was reported that Mr. Jackson is living in the Fifth Avenue building with Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of the late King, in a suite lent to the couple by Donald Trump.
    A spokesman for Mr. Jackson could not be reached.
    A judge from the Dominican Republic claims to have presided zTC over a ceremony in which the two were married.
    “Elvis would be turning in his grave,” said a Trump Tower security guard, who asked not to be identified. “Anything is possible.”
    Another security guard said Mr. Jackson has been living in the building for some time. He said that Mr. Jackson comes and goes via a blue van with tinted windows that picks the singer up in the basement.


  69. shelly permalink
    February 7, 2012 12:10 am

    I think the story told by Zonen is terrifying, because he said without the alibi a.d the DNA he would have filed charges against that guy.

    For the train story, I think it was Rodney Allen. At that time he was living near Toronto with his mother and he was obsessed by MJ.


  70. February 7, 2012 12:34 am

    Victor Gutierrez, Rodney Allen and Thomas O’Caroll… three pedophiles obsessed with MJ.


  71. February 7, 2012 1:08 am

    “Victor Gutierrez, Rodney Allen and Thomas O’Caroll… three pedophiles obsessed with MJ.”

    Rockforeveron, to be more exact two of these people are convicted pedophiles while Victor Gutierrez is only suspected by us of these inclinations – firstly, because in the heat of some discussion he didn’t notice himself telling his terrible secret (that he attended a NAMBLA conference which is impossible to attend if you are not a member of it) and secondly, because the enjoyment he derives from describing those revolting “molestation” scenes is very tale-telling.

    The fact that these people are so terribly obsessed with Michael Jackson is putting all of us on our guard. It is clear that they want to have MJ among their ranks (the invitation he vehemently declined) and are going to various extremes to paint him as one of them.

    The above three personalities are joined by several professors from US universities who recommended the book about MJ by a convicted pedophile O’Carroll for “family reading”. I would understand their stance if they were proving that MJ wasn’t a p. – but they are not! So by asking readers to reconsider their attitude towards Michael they actually ask them to change their views on ped-lia which they so wrongfully attribute to the poor man. In these circumstances their recommendation of the book for “family reading” can be regarded ONLY as an attempt to take down the barrier of resistance to the phenomenon as such and places these people somewhat on the same board as the above three.

    And in addition to that we also have numerous authors who outwardly display their outrage at Michael’s behavior and devote their lives to their hatred for him … but miraculously leave all issues concerning real pedophilia totally unattended. It is no use asking them to turn their anger at the pedophiles thriving in Hollywood (as Corey Feldman and other victims say) – no, it is only Michael Jackson they are after! The man is dead anyway so what do they need him for I wonder?

    In all haters’ sites I’ve visited one and the same idea is being voiced again and again: NAMBLA wants to use MJ as their poster boy. We know about this fact because we were forced (by the same haters) to make extensive research of this issue, but how do MJ’s haters know about the NAMBLA agenda I wonder?

    And what do they care about it? It is Michael’s supporters who should care, not them! The fact that someone wants to use someone else’s name for some dirty purposes is NO proof that the person is to blame for anything at all! It is only haters who want others to think that way. Why I wonder?


  72. February 7, 2012 1:59 am

    Rockforeveron, to be more exact two of these people are convicted pedophiles while Victor Gutierrez is only suspected by us of these inclinations

    I know, but I don’t feel like being coy about it, it’s obvious what Victor’s obsession is about. I feel comfortable saying he is a pedophile. I believe he has committed the acts, I believe if his places were ransacked they’d find more than enough evidence. I imagine what he would do is claim it was all “research” though, just as they all do. You see the haters we all know about claim they’re just “researching” and not relishing their own fantasies.

    So by asking readers to reconsider their attitude towards Michael they actually ask them to change their views on ped-lia which they so wrongfully attribute to the poor man


    Victor had connections in order to get on Diane Dimond’s radar, who else has he worked with?


  73. February 7, 2012 2:31 am

    I wonder what Zonen thinks of Ed Bradley?

    KING: Back to last February when you met the mother and the kid, what did you think when you heard it was that mother and that kid? BRADLEY: I was stunned because they were there to tell me that day what a great person he was. KING: Were you going to put them on camera? BRADLEY: We hadn’t gone that far. KING: Might you have? BRADLEY: I don’t know. I honestly don’t know. I don’t know. The kid was in the documentary that the BBC — not BBC, but the English program did. I forget his name now. KING: But you were shocked that the kid — that was the kid? BRADLEY: I was shocked that that was the kid because both the child and his mother were praising Michael and were sitting there in his kitchen eating and saying what a great person he was.


  74. February 7, 2012 2:38 am

    “I don’t feel like being coy about it, it’s obvious what Victor’s obsession is about. I feel comfortable saying he is a pedophile.”

    Rockforeveron, since everyone is innocent until proven guilty I think it would be more correct to say that he is suspected of pedophilia, though I admit that the term of “proof” is not quite clear to me. If the person says it himself that he attended the NAMBLA conference is it proof or no proof? Considering that his explanations why he was there are not valid? He couldn’t report from there as a journalist for obvious reasons and he wasn’t an FBI agent either – he himself said that the authorities paid no attention to his findings as he was only a “poor Latino”. So what other proof do we need?

    “Victor had connections in order to get on Diane Dimond’s radar, who else has he worked with?”

    After Bashir made his first (Living with Michael Jackson) documentary Victor Gutierrez joined him as a “researcher” or “consultant” and they worked together on the second “documentary” about Michael which was much worse than the first one. It was either not released by ABC and was somewhat hushed up by them as they evidently realized that it had nothing to do with reality.

    However it doesn’t prevent haters from spreading it all over Youtube.


  75. sanemjfan permalink
    February 7, 2012 3:07 am

    Actually, I don’t think VG worked with Bashir on his second documentary (although he could have). But he DID work on Dateline NBC’s September 2004 documentary for a whopping $25k a month,and the screenshot of him in the credits as a “consultant” is in the Veritas Project.


  76. February 7, 2012 4:01 am

    Do you know if someone testified about the Miami press conference or not?

    I think Friedman had a point in that article


  77. lynande51 permalink
    February 7, 2012 4:49 am

    yes Shelly if you would like I can tell you the reason that they called Rudy Provencio was to prove that there was a press conference planned but it did only turn out to be in Janet Arvizos’ mind. According to Provencio he said he overheard parts of a conversation between Michael and Marc Schaffel where he is suggesting a press conference and Michael replied “aw I hate those thing but if we do it I want to go somewhere fun”. That probably was the fabrication of someone that wanted to be part of the Michael Jackson trial like Kato Kaylin did the OJ Simpson trial. How could he have heard on the 1st of February a phone call that would not have been made yet because the Bashir program wasn’t even aired yet.
    Then the phone testimony proved that Michael was already in Miami at the Turnberry when all these calls were made by his staff to get the family rooms in the hotel. They also complained that they were not in the same area of the hotel as Michael. They started to feel like Michael was slipping away and used the threat of the media against his better judgement. Case in point would be that they had already not signed a contract but sold for $4000.00 an article to David Gardner of Londons Daily Mail. The Contract was for a television interview with Sky News. Read Jay Jacksons testimony.


  78. Suzy permalink
    February 7, 2012 8:54 am

    Even if we don’t have evidence for VG being a p-le, we have more than enough evidence for that he is a p-le advocate. Not much better either.


  79. February 7, 2012 11:24 am

    “Actually, I don’t think VG worked with Bashir on his second documentary (although he could have).”

    David, it is a proven fact that Gutierrez did work as Bashir’s consultant and there is a VERY high chance that he “advised” Bashir on his second documentary too. There are numerous articles about it in the Spanish language. One of them also says that Gutierrez “advised” Bashir on an interview with Corey Feldman where they manipulated with Feldman’s words. The boy only saw a book about veneral diseases on MJ’s table and Michael gave him a lecture about the dangers of veneral diseases showing some illustrations – but VG and Bashir turned it into pornography as usual.

    Here is the article about Gutierrez being Bashir’s consultant (in Google translation).

    March 19, 2005
    A security chief of the King of Pop threatened to kill him, too. But Gutierrez continued to investigate. In 1993 came the first sexual abuse case against Jackson, the child’s Chandler. Gutierrez began to be right. He managed to publish his book, and even American police used it as a document.

    In 2004, Chilean journalist went to work at NBC in the United States reports on the Jackson case. But in December of that year, another TV network, ABC, contacted him to advise the journalist who did his research that took Jackson to court: Martin Bashir. This was the British journalist who got Michael Jackson admitted that he had slept with children.

    Gutierrez, who uncovered the case here, “White Fang” on the re-articulation of the joint chiefs in 2002, since then was an official consulting producer for Bashir. In the offices of ABC in New York explained that the Chilean working with exclusive contract to the English journalist and one of his four direct reports.

    The Chilean also work with the famous ABC news program 20/20 and remains in the Jackson case, a scandal that he discovered more than 10 years.

    Martin Bashir is a witness in the case over Michael Jackson. Victor Gutierrez is his research advisor. Bashir and his team have already made two reports, one of them was the interview with actor Corey Feldman, who said Jackson had shown him a book of nudes. Feldman also be called to testify.

    The original:

    Sábado 19 de marzo de 2005
    Un jefe de seguridad del Rey del Pop lo amenazó de muerte, además. Pero Gutiérrez continuó investigando. En 1993 salió el primer caso de abuso sexual contra Jackson, el del menor Chandler. Gutiérrez comenzaba a tener razón. Logró publicar su libro, y hasta la policía estadounidense lo usó como documento.
    En 2004, el periodista chileno se fue a trabajar a la cadena NBC de Estados Unidos en reportajes sobre el caso Jackson. Pero en diciembre de ese año, otra cadena de TV, ABC, lo contactó para asesorar al periodista que logró con su investigación que Jackson llegara a tribunales: Martin Bashir. Este periodista británico fue el que consiguió que Michael Jackson le admitiera que había dormido con niños.
    Gutiérrez, que aquí destapó el caso “Colmillo Blanco” sobre la rearticulación del Comando Conjunto en 2002, oficia desde entonces como productor asesor para Bashir. En las oficinas de ABC en Nueva York explican que el chileno trabaja con contrato de exclusividad para el periodista inglés y es uno de sus cuatro colaboradores directos.
    El chileno además colaborará con el famoso programa de actualidad de ABC 20/20 y seguirá en el caso Jackson, un escándalo que él descubrió hace más de 10 años.
    Martin Bashir es un testigo más dentro del caso Michael Jackson. Víctor Gutiérrez es su asesor de investigación. Bashir y su equipo ya han hecho dos reportajes, uno de ellos fue la entrevista con el actor Corey Feldman, quien dijo que Jackson le había mostrado un libro de desnudos. Feldman también será citado a declarar.


  80. February 7, 2012 12:10 pm

    “Even if we don’t have evidence for VG being a p-le, we have more than enough evidence for that he is a p-le advocate. Not much better either.”



  81. February 8, 2012 1:09 am

    Vernee Johnson’s was a good defense testimony. Sneddon and Zonen chose to not cross examine her, I wonder why.

    ” Ms. Johnson, who met the children through her acting class in Los Angeles, told jurors the woman coached the kids to request sleepovers. “(The brother) would call, and I could hear (the mother) in the background saying, ‘Tell her you love her, tell her you love her.’ And then he’d ask to spend the night. I heard her telling (him) to ask me.” (see Actress wary of accuser’s mother)

    This could corroborate what the defense said about Gavin Arvizo being the one who requested to sleep in Jackson’s room back in 2000. Jackson, by the way, only allowed him to with his parent’s permission. David and Janet Arvizo were still married at the time they met Jackson and visited Neverland with the accuser and his siblings. The coaching on the telephone could corroborate what the obnoxious Jay Leno told to the Santa Barbara sheriff’s department. He says he got an unsolicited call from the accuser and he, too, could hear the mother coaching him about what to say in the background as well. She also testified that when they came to her house, they were very disruptive. She says they went through her things and jumped up and down on her son’s bed. Apparently they were so bad that she says she never invited or allowed them to come back. The actress testified that she had a “strong feeling the money would not be used for the purpose (it was intended)”, reports the Santa Barbara News Press. Johnson says that she would give the accuser’s mother money after the mother heavily hinting at how broke she was. She says she even called off a fundraiser she planned to hold for the family. From that Santa Barbara News-Press article:

    In response to lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau’s questions about why she felt that way, she said: “I didn’t trust her. I feel like if you’re going to raise money for someone and the person doing the fundraiser thinks the money should be in a separate account for your child and you tell me to put it into your account, then something is wrong.” (see “Actress Wary of Accuser’s Mother”)


  82. nan permalink
    February 8, 2012 4:42 am

    Thank you again for the Zonen interview….He really needs therapy over losing the MJ case….He just cant accept the verdicts..
    I noticed that when he refers to the settlements , he calls them judgements …to me a settlement is when two people agree to something..A judgement makes it sound like a judge decided someones responsibility for either a plaintiff or defendant ..I wonder if he does that on purpose .
    I also noticed regarding the person wrongfully identified in the lineup, Zonen says , even though he would have been the wrong person to be prosecuted, he believes he would have had the ability to convict him..He is a very good it is probably true.
    But if he has that much faith in his ability , I wonder what he thinks is the reason he could not even get a misdemeanor against MJ…



  83. lynande51 permalink
    February 8, 2012 5:58 am

    Nan you’re right there is a difference between a settlement and a judgement. A settlement is done through arbitration with JAMS in California. That is a panel of reitred judges and the lawyers in the case get together and hammer out the details of a settlement. A judgement would be if a jury would have found in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendent.
    In Jordan’s case it was done by a Guardian Ad Litem because he was not old enough to legally sign any documents and he could not be represented by his parent because the courts would not allow them control over the structured settlement. If you want to know more about this just Google Minors and Structured Settlements. Most of what you find would pertain to this settlement because the claim of negligence was settled for bodily injuries due to that negligence.The way it was set up was like one of these so that when it was filed with the court Johnny could turn it into the insurance company.
    When it is a settlement it is always the plaintiff that accepts the terms of the settlement not the defendent that offers them. A Guardian Ad Litem would have consulted with Jordan about his wishes about the settlement and he would have acted in his best interest in the arbitraiton.
    Also this is a good time to discuss again that in early November of 1993 Bert Fields lost the bid to have a stay on the civil case because of the criminal investigation. In hindsight I think he might have won that had he not asked for 6 years and asked for a stay until the criminal investigation was closed.
    Then in early December the DA and Police won the right to information gathered in the civil case when they petitioned the court for their discovery. Then Michael came back and submitted to the search and was scheduled for his deposition on January 18th,1994. Jordan the Chandler family were not scheduled until Feb. 2nd 1994. That would have meant that Michael would have testified under oath and that testimony could have been used by Sneddon or Garcetti in the criminal investigation. It would also mean that Larry Feldman would have been able to prepare Jordan and the rest of the Chandlers for their depositions with the information that he got from Michael’s because lawyers always prepare their witnesses in advance of any testimony even a civil deposition. It seems to me that Johnny Cochran probably did give the best legal advice he could under those circumstances because it is true that there is no way to tell which way a jury will go.
    That said Zonen was not shouting but you could certainly see he was having a difficult time masking his hostility toward Michael and he is supposed to be impartial in a prosecution. Like I said before about him stating without even knowing the facts that Michael and Lisa’s marriage was a sham is just a little bit of what he shows. He believed the wrong people and he needs to get over it. When they searched Neverland they found a tape called Zacca Lake. I think if you go to you tube you will find parts of the video with Michael and Omer parasailing. Then I have still photos of Lisa, Riley and Ben with Michael too.That was in 1998. Funny how the people that released that after the trial only showed such a small edited part or is that their agenda? If someone wants to tell me how to add photos to a comment I will because I don’t know how. I will also add the photos of Michael and Lisa caught outside her birthday party in 1999. They caused quite a stir because Michael was still married to Debbie at the time. I think they cause a bigger stir in the media than they did in his marriage but you never know. When Michael was married to Debbie he was on the HIStory tour and because he wanted to have a stable place for him and Prince he lived in Paris.Debbie would travel over there every couple of weeks or so to be with them. There was also another video leaked after Michael died where they showed he and Debbie holding Prince up to the window of their Paris Hotel room. I don’t know where Zonen got off listening to Adrian McManus and making such a statement as if it was fact. She was a proven perjurer and even said she said things just to say them when she was on the witness stand.


  84. shelly permalink
    February 8, 2012 6:18 am

    Just to be precise, it’s Chacon who said it.


  85. lynande51 permalink
    February 8, 2012 6:45 am

    The one that was quoted as saying that in the tabloids was Adrian McManus and the story was from a maid that said that they had never spent the night in their room at Neverland. That was her story too. Tom Mesereau kept questioning her about it during the cross examination so you can find the title of it in the cross examination. One of them and I think it was her told the police that he used to listen in on conversations the Lisa was having on the phone too. There is an origin for every story that has been out there and the important thing about it is to remember that Victor Gutierrez was in the same courthouse helping them sell their stories to Splash news. Once they were sold to Splash in the UK they were able to rewrite them several times using something called artistic license. That is what protects the tabloid because all they have to have is one person willing to yes that they spoke to them.
    I am adding a little bit more that I just found out. A long time ago I ordered that magazine the Star magazine here in the US and it says five former Neverland employees confirmed that Michael used to listen in on conversations and that Lisa was still in love with Danny Keogh her first husband. The date on the magazine is Feb 13th 1996 so they did talk to a tabloid broker. Of course the most important part is left out you know the part where they didn’t work there when Lisa and Michael were married. I read other stories that they say came from a friend and of course that is where the sham marriage started. Did Chacon consider himself Lisa’s friend or was he an Elvis fan because for some reason they really resented that marriage.


  86. nan permalink
    February 8, 2012 8:47 am

    lynande51…thank you so much for that information….Amazing how he could listen to people like Adrian and hear not guilty 14 times and still not question his own actions/motives….Looks like Ron Zonen is going to be retrying that case for the rest of his life..
    Since I am an optimist , I think his unhinged response must mean that progress regarding Michaels innocence is being made..
    I love the casual way the elderly woman states she believes MJ was innocent and he has that kinda hissy fit about LMP, and all the rest ..
    One look at that and it is obvious this was a very personal thing to him ..And going off about Gavin and admitting he speaks to him on a regular basis just makes it all the more invested in keeping this kid close…

    This interview was before Murrays trial where Michael was recorded for no doubt ,yet another future extortion attempt, by his own doctor, talking about building a hospital , something completely good and unselfish, then you have the positive books like Franks,,,bet he got that one on his kindle ,lol, I am sure he wasnt too happy to hear Frank talking about how he loved to let children pick out toys so they could enjoy them and he could gage what the next hot trend would be..and the Chandler/Arviso garbage..
    and of course Mesereau on all the national stations , doing a terrific job as usual ,speaking of MJ,while he is just on a local show like that…

    Tack on the recent Glee show, circ shows, and MJ glove and footprints at Graumans …he is probably losing clumps of hair this week


  87. February 9, 2012 11:18 am

    “In hindsight I think he might have won that had he not asked for 6 years and asked for a stay until the criminal investigation was closed.”

    Lynette, I am reviewing yesterday’s comments and see that you refer to 6 years as if this was something Michael’s defense asked for. I think the whole 6-year nonsense started with Larry Feldman who advocated a view that criminal proceedings could take too long – up to 6 years, and this is why the civil case should come first. It was the card Larry Feldman was playing and the press as usual misinterpreted the whole thing.

    This is what Larry Feldman said:

    Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.” Tue., Nov. 23, 1993


  88. February 9, 2012 11:35 am

    By the way, when I was looking up Larry Feldman’s words I found that at the Frozen in Time seminar he tried to create the impression that the key witnesses (and accusers) in the 1993 case had been deposed except Michael Jackson:

    “To put it into context, at the point this case settled, a lot of witnesses had been deposed, but Michael Jackson had not been deposed, and at some point in time Michael Jackson was going to have to decide whether he was going to take the Fifth Amendment, which he didn’t, or whether he was going to let us depose him.”

    But by now we know that Larry Feldman did not depose Jordan Chandler, he didn’t depose June and Evan Chandler, he didn’t depose Jason Francia! (he deposed only Blanca Francia)

    Moreover when Jonny Cochran of the defense said he wanted to depose Jason Francia his mother immediately approached lawyers and didn’t allow it to happen.

    And after that Larry Feldman insinuates that it was only Michael Jackson who didn’t want to be deposed for the civil trial! Not a single “key player” on the other side was deposed but they nevertheless wanted Michael only!

    Why do haters speak only about Michael’s unwillingness to do it? Why don’t they wonder why NO ONE on the other side wanted depositions in the civil trial either? After all they were accusers in the case, so what were they afraid of? The only difficulty they were facing was the cross-examination by Michael’s lawyers – but if they were telling the truth, what was there to be afraid of?

    Michael was the defendant and was fully entitled to his 5th Amendment right – he was only hesitant to use it because in civil cases unlike criminal cases it is considered to be a sign of guilt. So Michael had a lot to lose if he refused to give a deposition.

    But what were his accusers losing by not giving a deposition and not telling their “truth” there?


  89. sanemjfan permalink
    February 9, 2012 1:10 pm

    MJ’s attorneys requested that the civil trial be delayed until the end of the statute of limitations for the criminal trial, which was 6 years. Lisa the Lawyer once told me that it was a mistake to request it to be delayed THAT long, and they instead should have just requested that it be delayed until the end of the criminal trial. Here is an excerpt from her “M.O.N.E.Y.” article on the Reflections On The Dance website:

    The violation of Michael Jackson’s Constitutional rights was a second aspect motivating the Chandler settlement. The Fifth Amendment guarantees to every American the right not to testify against himself in a criminal matter; however, the District Attorney’s office set a course to deny Michael Jackson those rights. Soon after the Chandler civil action was commenced, Larry Feldman, Jordie’s attorney, made a motion seeking an expedited trial due to Jordie’s age. The would-be prosecutors from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara Counties supported the motion and sought any discovery obtained during that civil action. The discovery would have included a deposition of Michael, something the prosecutors were absolutely barred from obtaining in a criminal matter. In opposing the motion, Michael’s new counsel, Johnnie Cochran, sought to delay the civil action until the criminal statute of limitations expired as to all potential claims. This was a mistake.

    As an attorney, if you ask for too much, you’ll usually get nothing. (It’s of note that this same argument has been used to defend the Los Angeles District Attorney’s decision to charge Conrad Murray with only one count of involuntary manslaughter in the homicide of Michael Jackson.) The defense should have merely asked that criminal charges related to Jordie Chandler as complainant be prosecuted prior to the civil action. Such an argument would have also preserved Michael’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. However, this was not done.

    In fact, in discussing the tactic, Michael’s business attorney John Branca told Michael, “people here think you’re trying to delay the trial for six years.” Michael said, “[s]ix years? What are you talking about Branca? I don’t want to delay the trial, not even a day.” Michael criticized his defense attorneys for the move.


  90. February 9, 2012 1:47 pm

    “Moreover when Jonny Cochran of the defense said he wanted to depose Jason Francia his mother immediately approached lawyers and didn’t allow it to happen.”

    Do you have a link for that?


  91. February 9, 2012 2:01 pm

    “The discovery would have included a deposition of Michael, something the prosecutors were absolutely barred from obtaining in a criminal matter. In opposing the motion, Michael’s new counsel, Johnnie Cochran, sought to delay the civil action until the criminal statute of limitations expired as to all potential claims. This was a mistake.”

    David, OMG, there is so much to say here!

    – So the prosecutors were absolutely barred from obtaining Michael’s deposition in a criminal matter? But this makes the prosecution INTERESTED in letting the civil trial going first! And if they WANTED the civil trial to go forward, which was about money only, they knew that the chances of a settlement were very high! So all Sneddon’s complaints about the civil case standing in the way were sheer hypocrisy! He HIMSELF helped the civil trial to go forward by not trying to speed up the criminal proceedings and not fighting Larry Feldman! What a THEATER all these people played in the 1993 case!

    – Okay, the prosecutors could not depose Michael, but they could surely depose the accusers during criminal proceedings, couldn’t they? But despite that they DIDN’T do it? Their pretext was most probably that they could take it later, after the civil trial, and that they didn’t want to put the “victims” at a disadvantage – though this is complete nonsense of course. No one waits that long until the witnesses forget their facts. The REAL reason of course is that they didn’t want the accusers to be cross-examined by the other side! So this is the reason why none of the accusers were deposed!

    – However in a civil trial it was possible to obtain both Michael’s and the accusers depositions , right? But they still wanted only Michael’s deposition? Larry Feldman never deposed Jordan Chandler! And Johnny Cochran wanted to depose Jason Francia but Jason freaked out of it due to his mother’s interference?!

    – And it was Johnny Cochran who “made that mistake” of asking for a 6 year delay? (previously I thought everyone said it was Bert Fields). If he did, then the whole situation will acquire a totally different meaning. However I think it might be a mistake – when Cochran joined the case at the beginning of December, Larry Feldman had already managed to push the civil trial forward and Cochran had to deal with the consequences of it. So what was the point of asking for a 6 year delay at that point?

    Another reason why I doubt it was Johnny Cochran who made the mistake (if the mistake did indeed take place) is that Feldman talked about those 6 years before Cochran took over. Please look at the date:

    Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.” Tue., Nov. 23, 1993

    So all of the above still needs to be double checked. There is too much at stake to leave it without a clarification.


  92. February 9, 2012 2:27 pm

    “Moreover when Jonny Cochran of the defense said he wanted to depose Jason Francia his mother immediately approached lawyers and didn’t allow it to happen.”Do you have a link for that?

    It was in Blanca Francia’s testimony:

    11 Q. Okay. And was it after that deposition that
    12 you first spoke to an attorney named Terry Cannon?
    13 A. That was — that was after. After when Mr.
    14 Cochran told me that my son was going to be
    15 subpoenaed and I would have to bring him.
    16 Q. Okay. And then you went to hire an
    17 attorney, correct?
    18 A. Then I — yeah, then I talked to Terry.

    19 Q. Okay. And has he been your lawyer ever
    20 since?
    21 A. Yes.

    And we all know Jason Francia was NEVER deposed as he said it himself – either before Chandler’s settlement or after it. So the lawyer prevented it from happening.

    The settlement with Jason Francia himself came much-much later – when the criminal proceedings were over, so nothing was standing in the way for Sneddon and Cochran to depose Jason Francia in 1993 or 1994.

    All these small details are the reason why I think that David made his posts about both Jason and Blanca Francia too early. There is a LOT more to say about both of them than that.

    Now we will have to divide both testimonies into bits and pieces and scrutinize everything again.


  93. February 9, 2012 2:42 pm

    I just found that about the Chandler in Violet Silva testimony

    Q. Can you tell me about the Chandler family?

    A. Mother, young daughter at the time, I

    believe her name is Lily, and Jordie.

    Q. Okay. And did you — same questions I asked

    with regard to the other families. Did you see Mr.

    Jackson spend time with that family?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And sometimes he’d be on the property and

    wouldn’t be with the family?

    A. Yes.

    Q. And sometimes he would not be on the


    A. Yes.


  94. sanemjfan permalink
    February 9, 2012 3:00 pm

    Actually, Lisa the Lawyer was wrong, and it was Bert Fields and Howard Weitzman who initially requested the 6 year delay before Johnnie Cochran was even hired. Here is an excerpt from “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”:

    Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman, on November 23, denied a request filed by Michael’s attorneys to postpone the civil suit until the criminal proceedings were completed. The judge ruled that the boy’s right to a speedy trial prevailed over Michael Jackson’s request to delay the proceedings and set a court date for March 21,1994. In setting the court date, Rothman followed California’s 120 day speedy trial rule, that requires a trial date within 120 days when the alleged victim is under fourteen. In the judge’s view, this rule superseded Michael Jackson’s request to delay the civil suit until his name was cleared in the criminal investigation. Bert Fields stated that Michael wanted to testify and clear his name in the criminal proceedings before the civil trial. That would of course hurt the prosecution’s case in the civil suit.

    Rothman ordered Michael to give a deposition in the case by January 31, 1994. The request for the delay had been filed on October 29 by Bert Fields so they wouldn’t have the criminal investigation and the civil suit to contend with simultaneously. At the time of the request, the judge ordered that no interviews be conducted in connection with the civil case until after his decision on November 23. Again the press went off half cocked reporting that Michael’s attorneys wanted to delay the civil case for six years, at which time the statute of limitations on the criminal case would have run out. Actually they asked for it to be held until the criminal investigation was completed. (Which by the way it was going, appeared that it would take longer than six years!)

    As for your comment about the posts about Jason and Blanca Francia being made too early, I think the timing is right because I initially posted the Jason Francia post to coincide with my series on religion, since he was a “youth minister” and I wanted to showcase his hypocrisy. I then posted about Blanca Francia so that we could see what she had to say in conjunction with what Jason said, without having their posts spread too far apart. We can continue to analyze and scrutinize their testimonies, and make another post in the future about any additional discrepncies that we find.


  95. February 9, 2012 6:59 pm

    “Bert Fields stated that Michael wanted to testify and clear his name in the criminal proceedings before the civil trial. That would of course hurt the prosecution’s case in the civil suit… Again the press went off half cocked reporting that Michael’s attorneys wanted to delay the civil case for six years, at which time the statute of limitations on the criminal case would have run out. Actually they asked for it to be held until the criminal investigation was completed. (Which by the way it was going, appeared that it would take longer than six years!)”

    David, it is good that you quoted Lisa Campbell. It will remind everyone that it was Michael and his lawyer Bert Fields who wanted the criminal proceedings to go before the criminal matter – which is an extremely rare case in legal practice. Defendants generally DO NOT ASK to be tried in a criminal court!

    Here is a post about it: and another quote from Lisa Campbell:

    Superior Court Judge David M. Rothman, on November 23, 1993 denied a request filed by Michael’s attorneys to postpone the civil suit until the criminal proceedings were completed. …. Bert Fields stated that Michael wanted to testify and clear his name in the criminal proceedings before the civil trial. Rothman ordered Michael to give a deposition in the case by January 31, 1994.” (“The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, p.68”)

    But what Lisa Campbell says does not at all mean that Bert Fields was asking for the civil case to be postponed for six years!

    She says he just asked for the civil trial to be postponed until the criminal investigation was completed – that is all. And it was Larry Feldman who interpreted it in the way which suited him ! He claimed that the criminal investigation (theoretically) could last for six years and they could not wait that long – the boy had a “trauma”, he “wanted to forget” and all the rest of that soap opera. And he even added that there might be NO indictment at all (which shows how “sure” he was of the Chandler client). Let me repeat his words again:

    Larry Feldman, attorney for the 13-year-old boy, told the court that it could delay the civil case if the criminal case went forward. “I don’t know if there is even going to be an indictment,” Feldman said. “It may be an open file for six years.” Tue., Nov. 23, 1993

    The press however picked up the issue of “6 years” and ran with it saying that Michael wanted to postpone the trial! Meaning the criminal trial of course, though the case was exactly the opposite.

    After long twisting of his arms Michael finally agreed to be deposed (in a civil case) but until the very last moment he was hoping for the criminal proceedings to go first! And this was a wish which risked him to lose his freedom, and not just money! And nevertheless it was him who insisted on it!

    The LA Times of December 4, 1993 says:

    Michael Jackson has agreed to be deposed January 18 about allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, lawyers on both sides of the case said Friday.

    Jackson’s attorneys have said he is eager to tell his side of the story under oath, but they also have warned that they may oppose efforts to take Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] if criminal charges are filed against the entertainer or are still under consideration when the date for his deposition arrives.

    In a hearing last month, Superior Court Judge David Rothman ordered Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] scheduled before the end of January. But Rothman also noted that he might reconsider that order if Jackson is indicted on criminal charges.

    Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said Friday that the entertainer might request a change in the deposition date if there are significant changes in the status of the criminal investigation before the end of January. “If things change in the criminal case, we would reconsider the whole question of the civil case. We want the criminal case to go first.


  96. February 9, 2012 7:45 pm

    “As for your comment about the posts about Jason and Blanca Francia being made too early, I think the timing is right because I initially posted the Jason Francia post to coincide with my series on religion, since he was a “youth minister” and I wanted to showcase his hypocrisy. I then posted about Blanca Francia so that we could see what she had to say in conjunction with what Jason said, without having their posts spread too far apart. We can continue to analyze and scrutinize their testimonies, and make another post in the future about any additional discrepncies that we find.”

    Yes, I understand your logic but in my opinion we should do it in the reverse order. First each discrepancy is to be found and scrutinized (which will take several posts to do), and only then the choicest of them should be summarized with foolproof facts refuting each. As to the testimonies people can go and read them by themselves if they want to. I’d prefer not a summary of a testimony, but a summary of their lies (which will also make a long story!).

    Another factor is that the blog has become impossibly slow, and I don’t know how to solve this problem – except probably breaking the blog into several, which won’t be easy either. With long posts like the testimonies we might not have any space left for the rest. Anyway I think that handling the testimonies of hostile witnesses should be made at a much later stage when we know the subject well enough to make cross comparisons of several of them. Comparing them is a key to these people’s lies.

    Let us regard your posts about Jason and Blanca Francia as an introduction to the subject. Jason Francia is the next serious allegation we have from the 90s (the Arvizos’ seems to me so absurd that I suggest we shouldn’t waste much time on it). But Jason Francia needs further discussion.

    I think that not only the first episode of tickling was a flat lie as I earlier noted, but the remaining two were also completely fictional.

    David, since you’ve sent me on this road could you help me to find Blanca Francia’s Hard copy interview? I see you’ve found a photo of her which I couldn’t, so do you happen to have the video too? I really want to know what Diane Dimond turned the maid’s story into.


  97. February 9, 2012 8:36 pm

    I just found that about the Chandler in Violet Silva testimony

    Q. Did you see Mr. Jackson spend time with the [Chandler] family?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And sometimes he would not be on the property?
    A. Yes.

    Okay, so the above means that the Chandlers spent time in Neverland even in Michael’s absence. Interesting.

    I’ve also found an interesting piece though I don’t understand who it refers to – Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo. The comments to this article suggest that it was Jordan Chandler on whom the FBI Critical Incident Response Group wanted to do behavioral analysis, but the witness didn’t cooperate:

    By Dennis Romero Tue., Dec. 22 2009
    In 2004 the bureau was asked to help with another child-molestation case. It looked at computers and digital media seized from Jackson’s Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara. And its Critical Incident Response Group was asked to do behavioral analysis on a witness, but the witness didn’t cooperate. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005.

    If this piece is indeed about Jordan Chandler, could it be the reason why he wanted to sue them if they went on insisting on his testimony? He didn’t want any behavioral analysis? And the fact that they wanted to do it on him is also rather tale-telling, isn’t it?


  98. sanemjfan permalink
    February 9, 2012 9:29 pm

    As to the testimonies people can go and read them by themselves if they want to.

    Jason Francia is the next serious allegation we have from the 90s (the Arvizos’ seems to me so absurd that I suggest we shouldn’t waste much time on it).

    Not all of the testimonies are available online on the Dear Gavin Arvizo website. I have all of the testimonies, and the reason I want to summarize them is so that fans can use it for research purposes. It’s the same way you wrote summaries of everyone who testified during the Conrad Murray trial (despite not having the transcripts.) I want to be as thorough as possible, so that everyone will know who testified, when they testified, and what they said. And of course, I will refute any lies when I see them, so there’s no reason to think that I would let them go unchallenged.

    Another thing that we have to realize is that it’s easy for us to just dismiss the 2005 trial as a “joke” because we are very knowledgeable about the facts, but there are MANY, MANY fans who are NOT knowledgeable, and these summaries will help them greatly, especially fans who are in college or law school and want to write term papers and research reports on MJ’s trial. So for that reason, I don’t feel its a waste of time to thoroughly analyze the trial. You’d be surprised at the number of “hardcore fans” who cannot name ANY of the lies of the Arvizos, which weakens their ability to effectively defend MJ!

    It’s better for me to summarize the testimonies first, and then write subsequent posts that show their differences because I want to read and analyze them first, post them for everyone to see (there are still some fans who don’t have a clue what was said under oath!), and then we’ll all chip in and see how many differences we see in the testimonies of the Arvizos. I’m also going to compare their grand jury testimony to their court testimony as well.

    I don’t have the video of Blanca’s 1993 Hard Copy interview. That photo I posted is from a clip that was shown in 2005. The report on MSNBC about Blanca’s testimony included footage of her Hard Copy interview (only a few seconds worth), and did not include any audio of that footage. If I had that footage, I would have posted it a long time ago!

    I wrote an email to WordPress Tech Support to ask them how to reduce the amount of posts that are shown on the Home Page. As it is now, when you go to the home page, it shows the most recent posts in their entirety, and that is what is making it load slow (especially if you have a weaker, slower computer). I asked him if it’s possible to set it to where only a portion of the post is shown, and if so we’ll be able to help increase the speed at which the home page loads. As for future posts, I’ll try to post them in multiple parts if they get too large.


  99. February 9, 2012 11:05 pm

    “it’s easy for us to just dismiss the 2005 trial as a “joke” because we are very knowledgeable about the facts, but there are MANY, MANY fans who are NOT knowledgeable”

    David, as regards the Arvizo case I think that ALL Michael’s fans need to know is that Gavin was allegedly molested AFTER Bashir’s film and Neverland became the center of everyone’s attention. To believe that Gavid could be “molested” in such a situation is total CRAZINESS. Let us just spread this fact (probably they don’t know it?) and that will be it.

    However we surely need to tell the public how Sneddon was deceiving the jury with falsified evidence and focus on the testimonies of those who spoke about “prior offenses”. As to the Arvizos – OMG, I cannot even hear their names! Let them live in their filthy lies and let us recall them only when they arrange their get togethers with other conspirators in the case – Diane Dimond, Ron Zonen, Stacy Brown, etc. But repeating their lies? Frankly, I think it is doing them too much honor…

    So please, David, let us discuss it further and think of the best way to handle those testimonies, okay?

    In the meantime here is my contribution to your 2005 collection. It is a very interesting video concerning Sneddon’s fraudulent “tricks”.

    Everyone of course remembers that at the 2005 trial they spoke of a magazine where the Arvizo boy left his fingerprints. And later it was found out that the magazine was printed in October 2003 while the actual “scene of MJ showing an adult magazine to the innocent boys” allegedly took place in March 2003, right? But haters still think that they were simply talking of different issues of the same magazine and that it was a casual mistake, don’t they?

    Now see what this video by William Wagener says.

    Brian Oxman and the Defense team were given by the Prosecution a COPY OF THE PAGE WITH A FINGERPRINT ON IT. When this evidence was turned over to them, Brian Oxman decided to find the magazine where that page was coming from. He did find it and only after that he realized that it was an issue which was printed half a year after the alleged event!

    In this video Brian Oxman says at 3:50 (the sound is poor):

    “Nobody knew that I would get a copy of the magazine… When the evidence was turned over, all that was given to us [Defense] was the photograph of the page with a fingerprint on it. Unless I got the magazine itself you couldn’t tell there was a date discrepancy… It takes hard dog work to expose Fraud”.


  100. lynande51 permalink
    February 10, 2012 5:05 am

    Here is an article by Roger Friedman in 2005 that talks about Paul Barressi the man that was left Jim Miteager’s tapes.Paul Barressi was also in the Frontline Piece that is featured on MJ Truth Now blog. It is worth watching if you haven’t otherwise if I look I know I have the trascript and can add the into the comments though it is an hour long. In this article Roger writes that Blanca had a tabloid reporter with her when she was interviewed by police though Russ Birchim denies that. He does say that he talked to her but she was not the interptreter.,2933,151665,00.html


  101. February 10, 2012 3:08 pm

    Sanemjfan you mention that clip, shown in 2005, of a photo of Victor Gutierrez and Blanca, in your comment Feb.9th.I take it is the one shown in another post; about the lies of Blanca Francia.It intrigues
    me as V.g. looks very young, Ms Blanca is also rather formally dressed.It must be a photo taken many years ago.The conection of these 2 charachters have not come up so far as I know.


  102. sanemjfan permalink
    February 10, 2012 7:35 pm

    That photo of VG and Blanca Francia was probably taken in 1993 or 94. Blanca was a source for his piece of trash book “MJWML”.


  103. Suzy permalink
    February 11, 2012 8:48 am

    Who was a source of what is debatable. IMO it’s more likely that VG was the “source” of the stories Francia and the Neverland 5 and others told the tabloids and the police.


  104. nan permalink
    February 16, 2012 10:08 pm

    Regarding Nancy Grace and her wild is Dan Abrams calling her out this morning regarding her ridiculous rants regarding Ms Houstons death..Maybe things are changing a bit.I wish someone had done this regarding the MJ trial..


  105. February 21, 2012 9:11 am

    Nan, you beat me to the punch! LOL! I just came here to share the same exact link you shared below! Oh well, there is still something else I would like to say and that is that Nancy Grace killed me when she argued with Jon Stewart saying that she was not the court of public opinion! If she wasn’t then why does she have a show on HLN where their jobs there require them to give their opinions….publicly!!! LOL!!!!! This woman is a class act let me tell you!!! LOL!!!!


  106. February 21, 2012 10:02 am

    Yikes! I just realized I goofed and had to come back to vindicate myself! Hahaha! I stated that Nancy Grace argued with Jon Stewart when she wasn’t even talking to Jon Stewart! He was making fun of her on his own show, but they weren’t talking to each other! My bad! She does say in another video in this blog, though, that she’s not the court of public opinion so I’m not too far off! LOL! I’m embarrassed!


  107. ares permalink
    February 22, 2012 3:34 am

    Ah, Dan criticizing Nancy. Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.


  108. March 5, 2012 2:34 am

    Guys, I added the video of Ron Zonen to this post! It’s the interview he gave in April 2011!


  109. nan permalink
    March 5, 2012 10:40 am

    I notice Ron Zonen has just about the exact same speech about this kid but he kicked his grade point average up to 3.6
    He is stuck with trying to prop this kid up for the rest of his life, to save his own reputation…
    It is encouraging to me that he gets so annoyed and says other people comment to him about MJ innocence also…
    I am going to have to make an effort to comment on this couples show and ask them to interview Tom Mesereau about the Jackson case..


  110. stacy2 permalink
    March 5, 2012 3:32 pm

    Zonen is delusional. If MJ was so guilty, then why wasn’t he able to prove it? Why did an all white jury say “not guilty” all 14 times? Hell, they couldn’t get him on even a misdemeanor, so what does that tell you? As if MJ was so stupid that he would molest a child he’s known for over 2 years only after the airing of a documentary that practically accused him of being being a child molester.


  111. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2012 6:12 pm

    Zonen’s defense of his “case” is actually no better than those MJ fans’ who say Michael was not guilty because he’s such a nice guy. We always lash out at such a defense as ineffective. Saying that the Arvizos told the truth because Gavin is such a good, Christian boy with good grades at school is just as laughable. However fans have the excuse of ignorance about the facts of the trial, but you would expect better from the prosecutor of the case. Well, he never had a case in the first place, so it’s not surpsising this is all he can come up with.


  112. Suzy permalink
    March 5, 2012 6:21 pm

    Oh, and Zonen feels it important to empahsize Gavin is a registered Republican too! Certainly that means he told the truth. LOL. Laughable. And by the way this is very telling about the “value system” Zonen (and probably Sneddon too) has and where their bias against MJ is coming from.


  113. nan permalink
    March 5, 2012 7:25 pm

    Suzy..that is interesting he threw in the registered Republican stuff, since that is supposed to be a conservative town…
    The media might have fueled it, but it is the prosecutors who are left holding the bag.
    I dont know why Ron Zonen got up there at the frozen in time seminar and thought it a good idea to mention , the children of law enforcement officials nicknamed their headquarters H.O.P….House of Prosecution.
    Then come to find out they have wives driving witnesses around and I believe Ron Zonen Mother even went to court to hear his closing argument…
    It isnt normal for law enforcement/ district atty offices, to include their families in these thing..
    They were just all caught up in the excitement of the famous Michael Jackson…

    They should have realized by the questions the jury asked, that they had lost the case, ..
    but instead they have a victory party over the weekend and the verdicts come back on Monday , clean sweep for MJ…
    These people just made fools of themselves in front of their families and friends..
    That district atty should have been prosecuted himself for malicious prosecution.
    Now Zonen has to keep defending why they brought this case to court, in the first place..


  114. Julie permalink
    March 6, 2012 12:47 am

    Suzy I agree with you. I truly believe that Sneddon made monetary promises to Janet Arvizo and I am also willing to bet that they (SBDA) are funding college for those boys and that’s why Zonen knows all about what they’re doing. How many district attorneys keep in that close of contact with people they prosecuted on behalf of? I just really think that after Sneddon saw the Bashir garbage, he sought Janet out and promised her things to get her to go along with everything. He was so blind by his rage or whatever it was that fueled his desire to continue to go after MJ, that he didn’t use his head and realize what he was dealing with. It seems extremely odd to me that through disclosure Sneddon would have realized what dirt Mesereau had on the Arvizos and yet he chose to go through with the debacle. I guess he was just putting his hopes on an all white jury wanting to convict Jackson just because whether he was guilty or not.

    Doesn’t it make you sick how Zonen twists facts to support what they did? There’s a reason why those boys haven’t tried to capitalize off of their situation, if it is as Zonen claims, that Gavin has turned down small fortunes in prospective interviews about Jackson. I’m sure Zonen and his buds are afraid of what would happen if either of those boys were put in a position of having to answer questions and what they might say because the two of them couldn’t keep their stories straight for 2 days of testimony during the trial. Sneddon’s laying low since retirement and Zonen would do well if he would do the same thing. I truly wish there was a legal way for someone to go after Zonen. I had to turn it off after he was making the claim that both of Jackson’s marriages were shams – so I guess he’s calling Lisa Marie Presley an outright liar. He backs up his statement by saying that staff at Neverland said LMP never spent the night there. So, was he using the same staff members that had all been fired and had attempted to sell stories and unsuccessfully sue Jackson? We’re supposed to believe what they say? I guess in his mind we should believe what they say because he thinks people should believe that liar Gavin.


  115. March 6, 2012 3:50 am

    I have always thought that Zonen et al. sort of adopted the Arvizio kids
    as damage control.Left to their mother and father or stepfather anything
    may have happened in the future.Now they are being handheld all along.
    Masses of youngsters must have gone through that court for different reasons,are they all being provided with this kind of shepharding?
    Does anybody recall that Michael saved Jason´s life?


  116. nan permalink
    March 6, 2012 4:15 am

    I agree that Zonen is doing damage control for his own reputation..
    Makes me laugh when he says Gavin never got a penny.
    Not from MJ case because it was shot down by 14 not guilty verdicts , but he has money in trust from the J.C.Penny scam.
    There is no need for people to pay him to do interviews…..he testified for days , all for free, in the hopes of the civil settlement to come..
    All his B.S. is out there on line…
    .Supposedly he is accruing debt due to his college bills ,….again……I dont know why he cant use the JC Penney scam money to finance his education…….
    I wonder if Feldman ever went and sued the childrens services for releasing their names,as he had mentioned on the stand.

    It is almost like Zonen is now the one they are able to extort .
    He is stuck with them for life…Lucky him ..LOL


  117. lynande51 permalink
    March 6, 2012 4:43 am

    @ nan
    I actually think that the reason that these guys still have anything to do with the Arvizo boys is for damage control. Not because of their lies but I believe that his wife and Diane Dimond helped the Arvizo family come up with the whole scam to begin with.
    First you have to look at the fact that Gavin was asking to meet all these comediens. Why the sudden switch to Michael from say a comedien? Michael was a vulnerable target and this family knew it. They even went so far in one court document to say that Janet Arvizo was unaware of the 1993 charges so their story could not have been scripted. What planet do they think we live on when they try to get us to believe that? It was known to them from the outset that when Gavin spoke to Stan Katz he said ” Jordie Chadler couldn’t stop him”. That is a direct quote from Stan Katz to Paul Zellis in a taped phone conversation. How would he know that if he didn’t know about him? Plus the “declaration of Jordan Chandler was leaked on The Smoking Gun” website on February 6th, 2003. Now do I suddenly belive that the Arvizo family didn’t know just exactly what to say? No I don’t because I live on the planet Earth.
    Then there is the story that Vinnie told to Roger Friedman that they took that family home one day and Sneddon’s business card had been pushed under their door?
    They knew full well it was a crock and the way it looks to me is that they were part of helping fill that crock.
    Feldman did file a complaint against LA County DCFS for leaking the information that they had investingated and it said it was unfounded. Of course that kind of had to go south when Janet was prosecuted for welfare fraud.


  118. nan permalink
    March 6, 2012 5:25 am

    I thought about the connection with Gavin asking to meet Michael Jackson..why would he want to meet MJ..he is a kid…MJ isnt even his generation
    Surely Louise Palanker would have mentioned the 93 stuff to this mother, if they were so concerned about the welfare of this kid..
    And certainly everyone had heard of the Chandler crap from the 90s…
    I remember the thing with Sneddons card in the door too
    Perhaps Sneddon was threatening Janet with the welfare fraud stuff as well….
    There had to be a scam in the works from the get go,,,,
    Even asking to sleep in his room the first night they arrived…..Like Jay Leno said , they were looking for a mark.
    But Frank stayed it the room that night…so it wouldnt have worked..
    But then who in their right mind would believe Sneddon would find a way around that and threaten to indict Frank on charges as well…
    It is amazing how they just cleared the way for the Arvizo and Larry Feldman to set MJ up,,
    Really does make you wonder with how close Louise and Diane are and yet that kid is wandering around Neverland like that…

    I was reading the Rudy Provencher testimony last night..
    Was there anyone around him , other the a very few , who were not setting him up, taping him , screwing him..:((((..I felt like I needed a shower after just reading the testimony.I cant imagine how horrible it was for him to see this parade of scumballs all lining up with the prosecutors and getting their book deals in order..


  119. lynande51 permalink
    March 6, 2012 5:56 am

    The one thing that I have always wanted to know is how long have DD and Louise Palanker Zonen known each other? It was in the press that DD went to Henry Schleiff,the head of Court TV, months before the charges and said she was on a big story and needed funding and a crew to help her. She never told him what the story was but we know now don’t we.As a matter of fact she was so proud of it that she posts the article on her site.
    In the beginning of Larry Nimmers video he has the Sheriff’s arriving at Neverland and you can hear them talking to each other about her crew that was set up outside Neverland.
    They say ” what’s that over there” and another one says ” oh that’s that film crew” and the other one says ” oh that’s where they’re at”. Now does anyone believe that the cops didn’t know about her and inform her when to get out there? She was there before the police for heavens sake!
    I’m with you on that whole Palanker thing too. Like she wouldn’t have told Janet all about the allegations! Do they really think we were born yesterday? If it looks like a set up, and walks like a set up. and smells like a set up, it’s a set up.


  120. nan permalink
    March 6, 2012 6:59 am

    Although Louise got scammed out of 20 grand , I think also….And her taped recording with the sheriffs wasn’t so great for the Arviso family either..Maybe she met Zonen through the trial..
    Maybe that is what the reporter was talking about to Mesereau about……. who is sleeping with who in the prosecutors office..
    I dont know if DD would actually sleep with Sneddon , but I think she led him to believe she was enamored with him….egging this idiot on…..He looks so smitten during that press conference , it makes you want to puke….
    .It certainly is interesting that DD would need money a few months before the raid.
    I thought Sneddon directed Janet Arviso to the emergency welfare fund…
    But when I think about Feldman…and how he told Larry King the lady was a wacko etc, and he wasnt interested….
    then he changes his mind..
    So if he thinks she is a nut , and it cost him a lot of money up front for the Chandlers..
    that is what Mesereau said he said in grand jury………….
    It may follow that he was not really willing to do anything for the Arviso family, up front on a contingency basis,
    He is a very smart guy..I dont even think he would do much pro bono, he wasnt sure it would pan out on the other end.
    And yet they met several times…
    maybe DD and Hard copy paid for the legal advice and Katz interview…
    maybe that is why he changed his mind about not being a talking head on LKL
    Then Sneddon took over financially after that bringing the criminal case.Who knows??
    It certainly was a blood bath for Michael.I dont know how these people , any of them , can live with what they did…
    I was reading about how Leno refused to come in for the defense and his lawyer told Mesereau that, if called, Jay would not remember saying he thought this family was looking for a mark,,until Mesereau said he would impeach him on the stand with the taped interview the police did without Lenos eventually he came in….
    But in the meantime…… you have Leno on television with knowledge that this is BS, and Michael , is being falsely accused and is the sole parent of 3 small children facing 18 years in jail.And he doesnt want to come forward…He was rather crucify him everey night on tv…
    It is just disgusting, isnt it?

    BTW..why does Ron Zonen have to treat Gavin like a member of his family..What ever happened tp the upstanding Major Jay Jackson ??the one that was putting Janets welfare checks through his acct..pfft


  121. nan permalink
    March 6, 2012 7:20 am

    I was just looking around on google to see if there was a connection between michael schoen(DD husband ) and Louise or lee jay berman..
    this picture of prosecutor Zonen and louise as well as DD and her husband….I never realized that the other couple was Steve and Nancy Robel.
    Isnt steve robels wife the one that was driving the arviso family to secret meeting at the house of prosecution, as thye called it, during the trial…??.OMG .this is really crazy how tight all these people were and still are..


  122. Suzy permalink
    March 6, 2012 8:45 am

    @ Julie

    “So, was he using the same staff members that had all been fired and had attempted to sell stories and unsuccessfully sue Jackson? We’re supposed to believe what they say?”

    Yes, it’s one of the Neverland 5 that said that (not one that that testified, but another woman of them who was giving interviews to tabloid TV shows).

    It’s funny, because another witness of theirs, Bob Jones, wrote in his book that Michael and Lisa didn’t live in Neverland while they were married but in Lisa’s house in LA. Which is corroborated by what Lisa and Michael themselves said. So how would a Neverland employee know much about their marriage? Zonen and Sneddon put a little too much trust into unreliable and tabloid sources. This prosecution behaved totally unprofessional, using tabloid sources as “fact”. This remark of Michael’s marriage being a sham is just one of these. You cannot make such claims based on what some employee with an axe to grind said and totally ignore what the two people involved said. And then you cannot act in interviews like this as if you are telling facts. Plus even if it was true (which it isn’t) what would that have to do with Michael being or not being a child m-er? Again they try to play on people’s prejudices instead of dealing with the facts of the case.

    @ Nan

    “It is almost like Zonen is now the one they are able to extort .
    He is stuck with them for life…Lucky him ..LOL”

    I hope that is the case! They deserve each other! LOL.


  123. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 12:33 pm

    All these frauds, prosecutors and media “experts” (DD …) they destroyed and brought to Michael’s death. He was the biggest victim. But the victims is a lot more. The victims of these people is the mother of the victim and children.
    The victims are the fans around the world.
    They led to the suffering of so many people.


  124. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 1:40 pm

    They hate everyone who loves Michael. They do not want to hear that MJ was a good man. They are afraid of the truth. They hate him so much. Why?.


  125. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 3:34 pm

    Michael Jackson was innocent. They clog the ears when they hear the truth.


  126. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 10:44 pm

    They do not understand MJ. Sneddon and others – They do not understand because they never listened to MJ.


  127. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 10:52 pm

    If they wanted to hear.

    Sneddon, Zonen, ….


  128. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 11:01 pm

    If they wanted to hear.
    Sneddon, Zonen and others;
    Look at him.


  129. Maria permalink
    March 6, 2012 11:48 pm

    Process in 2005 was the last blow. It is all too painful. This is all very unfair. He was like an angel. He was so good. Such a man. My God.

    Mr. Mesereau knew and understood MJ.
    Sneddon, Zonen and others…
    Look at him. That’s it.
    I apologize for the errors and too many comments. It’s the last time. I do not understand such cruelty. I’m finished. Americans do not know who they lost. The world knows.
    We are the world!!!!!!!.


  130. May 27, 2012 4:38 pm

    I remember reading Frank Cascio’s book and feeling proud that someone from my country had actually worked for Michael. And now that I have learned about his relationship with Michael in detail from this, one of the numberless wonderful posts done by sanemjfan, I just feel very sad. It is not about feeling ashamed that Lee has ruined our image as a whole, or anything like that; I just feel unbearably sad that there were so many people who had used Michael, and that one of them was a South Korean. Michael certainly did not need another predator in his life, and I just feel so disheartened to know that a man from my very own country has contributed in tormenting Michael, something that he definitely did not deserve. It is really amazing that after going through all this, he still continued to love people of all races and shared his love, helping and touching the lives of so many people, regardless of their age, gender, nationality, etc. I remember that when I first started listening to Michael, I was a girl who wasn’t particularly fond of music and didn’t really know much about it either, and was only around 11 or 12 (which isn’t that long ago, I guess, as I still am a teenager), and yet I immediately fell in love with his music. He was the first pop singer (I didn’t listen to English songs before then) I really listened to, and his music, to this day, continues to inspire me and provides hope and happiness.


  131. sanemjfan permalink
    May 27, 2012 5:51 pm

    Thank you for your comment! Don’t worry, Lee doesn’t represent the entire South Korean population; he only represents himself! In general, the South Korean population loved and adored MJ, as evidenced by the reaction they gave him during his concert there in 1996 and 1999:


  132. sanemjfan permalink
    May 31, 2012 2:52 am

    Guys, I have added a new video that was put together by LunaJo67! It is a compilation of Maureen Orth interviews from 2004-05, where she promotes her Vanity Fair trash, and insinuates that MJ was acquitted due to Janet Arvizo’s testimony! The video is included in the section of the post where I showed how Orth lied about that young boy being plied with alcohol by MJ in 1998.


  133. Truth Prevail permalink
    May 31, 2012 7:50 pm

    Can someone please tell me where this interview was taken place and why and whom is doing the interview?


  134. nannorris permalink
    May 31, 2012 8:16 pm

    Maureen Orth looks like she is going to cry , she has so much both personally and professionally in a guilty verdict, she is absolutely devastated that there was no conviction ..It is pathetic
    As I recall , she spent every day in court sitting directly behind the prosecutors., according to Tom Mesereau…
    Funny thing is , I read in one of those MJ reports that his fan club would do that she and DD were just giddy when this trial began..
    Odd to be giddy if you really believe children were violated , and depressed when you find out the werent …


  135. nannorris permalink
    May 31, 2012 8:19 pm

    Truth prevail..I think that is a deposition in England, perhaps when he was in a lawsuit with weisner??after the trial


  136. Julie permalink
    June 1, 2012 6:18 am

    nanmorris – excellent point about the media being giddy for the wrong reasons!


  137. sanemjfan permalink
    June 4, 2012 1:20 am

    I have added parts 2 and 3 of me and LunaJo67’s series on Mauree Orth’s interviews from 2005!


  138. sanemjfan permalink
    June 5, 2012 1:01 am

    I’ve finally added the fourth and final part of the videos of Maureen Orth. Pay attention to Cynthia McFadden’s quote, which I highlighted under the video.



  1. Hip Hop is Not The Whole of It…. | mjjjusticeproject
  2. Summary and Analysis of the Testimonies of Stacy Brown and Bob Jones, the Authors of “Michael Jackson: The Man Behind The Mask”, Part 3 of 3 « Vindicating Michael
  3. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 7 of 7: Judging Michael « Vindicating Michael
  4. Recycled Lies Are Still Lies! | AllForLoveBlog
  5. Matt Fiddes Michael Jackson Lies Over Blanket’s Biology « Et Tu, Brutus?
  6. March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Martin Bashir and Anne Kite (Direct Examination) « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: