Skip to content

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

March 6, 2012
tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
by

There is a perception among some people that only Michael Jackson’s “crazy, rabid, deranged, and lunatic” fans think that he’s innocent of all of the child abuse charges that were hurled at him throughout his career. Anyone who tries to defend MJ is automatically pigeonholed with those aforementioned labels, and the sad thing is that there are so many “hardcore” fans who cannot cogently defend MJ that those labels are sometimes justified! (I recently wrote a series titled “How to Recognize and Refute The Fallacies Used by Michael Jackson Haters” in order to teach fans how to better defend MJ).

Unfortunately, that perception applies to MJ fan sites and blogs, and Vindicate MJ is no exception.  Although this blog is designed to be an investigation site geared towards people who want to do serious, substantive research (as opposed to your typical “fan adulation” site), there is still a stigma that we cannot overcome because we are all, at heart, huge fans of MJ, and that is the motivating factor behind the arduous work that we do to vindicate him.

So I decided to compile a list of journalists and legal analysts who were actually fair and objective to MJ during his trial (and yes, they do exist!), and they can give readers a different perspective of the allegations because they did not cover the trial necessarily due to their love and admiration for MJ, but rather because it was their JOB to cover it!

Another motivating factor in wanting to compile this list is because I have received emails from people in high school and college that are using this blog to help them research the allegations for their term papers and projects (see the photo below of an email I received a few months ago), and some teachers and professors do not allow their students to cite personal blogs as a source, the same way that Wikipedia isn’t allowed to be used as a source. So if there is anyone who cannot cite this blog, they can at least cite the following journalists and authors, as well as the videos, articles, and court documents and testimonies that we base our research upon!

I’ll start with journalist Aphrodite Jones, who is a New York Times bestselling author who specializes in writing about high profile crimes and trials. She was an analyst for Fox News in 2005, and sat in court every day of the trial, and readily admits that she was one of the media jackals that were out for MJ’s blood by intentionally slanting their coverage in the prosecution’s favor and giving the general public the impression that a conviction was inevitable. After the verdicts, she did a 180 degree turnaround, and wrote the excellent book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, despite the fact that she was turned down by every major book publisher due to the fact that the book was actually honest, and not the typical tabloid trash. Here is her YouTube channel, and here is her blog.

Here are some brief interviews that she did with Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly in 2007 to promote her book (notice how Geraldo forced Det. Mark Fuhrman to admit that Janet Arvizo lied!)

In 2010, Aphrodite did 3 radio interviews (each over an hour long), and I compiled them in this post titled “Aphrodite Jones’ Vehement Defense of Michael Jackson in 2010”.

She also aired a documentary on the Discover ID channel that was based on her book, and it can be seen in its entirety below:

Matt Taibbi is a journalist and writer for Rolling Stone, Men’s Journal, and other publications. He is the son of Mike Taibbi, a reporter or MSNBC who fairly reported on MJ throughout the trial. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree!

In October 2007, he released a book titled “Smells Like Dead Elephants: Dispatches from a Rotting Empire”. It is a collection of many of his articles from Rolling Stone and other sources, and the very first chapter – and the only one that is available in full on Google Books – is about his thoughts from the Michael Jackson trial! It was originally published on April 7th, 2005 (two months before the acquittal). Here it is in its entirety!

Jacko on Trial

Inside the strangest show on Earth

 

April 7, 2005

It is the first day of witness testimony in the Michael Jackson trial, and I am stuck in the overflow room of the Santa Barbara County Courthouse—a windowless trailer at the edge of the court compound, where fifty journalists are crouched around a closed-circuit broadcast of the trial, poised to catch the word masturbate should it fly out of the TV monitor.

The figures on the screen are tiny and barely recognizable. Jackson attorney Thomas Mesereau is the only one who is easy to spot, his mane of blow-dried white hair flowing back and forth across the screen like a cursor.

“Please to tell, veech von ees Jackson?” whispers a European reporter.

“He’s the little dot on the left,” snaps an American TV reporter, not averting his eyes from the monitor.

The screen goes dark District Attorney Tom Sneddon, a humorless creep whose public persona recalls the potbellied vice principal perched on the gym bleachers watching you slow-dance, has chosen to open proceedings with a screening of Living with Michael Jackson, the sensational documentary put out by Hobbit-like self-promoting British tabloid creature Martin Bashir—a smug; blob we can just make out sitting with folded hands in the witness dock.

It’s fitting that Bashir is the first witness in this case. The whole trial is peopled with the amoeboid life-forms one finds swimming in the sewer of the celebrity industry: publicists, personal assistants, B-list entertainment lawyers. The species Bashir represents is the pompous hack who peers through the bedroom windows of famous people and imagines he is curing cancer.

Bashir is so pretentious, he affects not to understand what Sneddon means when he uses the term “video documentaries” to describe his work, “I call them cultural-affairs programs,” Bashir says.

The theory of the prosecution, for those few who can follow it, is that the airing of this documentary in Britain in February 2003 set in motion a sinister conspiracy that ultimately led to Michael Jackson sticking his hands down a boy’s underpants. The prosecution presents the film as the dramatic opening chapter of a labyrinthine tale of moral decay; it follows that the darkening of the courtroom is intended to have symbolic import, a sign that we are entering a world of shadows.

But the effect is ruined when the film starts. As the camera pans across the gates of Jackson’s Neverland ranch, the audio track booms out the familiar bass groove of “Billie Jean”—and in the overflow room, the sea of aging reporters instantly begins bobbing cheerfully to the beat.

“I love this song,”the TV reporter whispers to me.

The Jackson trial is a goddamn zoo, a freak show from sunup to sundown. By six-thirty every morning, when the sheriffs deputies hold their lottery for public seating, a small vaude-ville act of pro-Jackson protesters has already assembled in front of the Santa Barbara County Courthouse, and every day they fight the press and each other for the cameras, from the opening bell straight through to the end of testimony.

Like snowflakes no two protesters are alike, or even similar.

About the only connection one can imagine them having is that each was the 95,000th caller on the eighties radio station in his hometown. A kindly young black woman who quit her job teaching kindergarten in Los Angeles to support her favorite artist, a fat white psychopath from Tennessee who thinks Jackson is Jesus, and a rotund Latino in a FREE MICHAEL T-shirt who lives in his mother’s basement a few miles from the courthouse—they’ve all joined hands, circling wagons against the press and against the equally weird self-appointed child-abuse victim advocates who occasionally show up to fuck up their action. Police apparently had to intervene one afternoon when the basement-dwelling Latino reportedly scuffled with a middle-aged blonde housewife carrying a sign that read HANDS OFF MY PRIVATE PARTS.

This small group, generally numbering not more than thirty, represents the sum total of public interest in the trial here. Though forty-five courtroom seats are reserved for the general public every day, on most days, California v. Jackson is outdrawn by the games of lawn bowling held for Santa Maria’s retired elderly on the Astroturf lot at the rear of the court compound.

The utter lack of buzz adds to the sordid, depressing feel of the whole trial. As public attractions go, it ranks somewhere below a bearded-lady tent and one of those mules in Tijuana painted to look like a zebra—pay a dollar to have a Polaroid taken. Only the media still take the trial seriously.

The courtroom routine is established early on. Jackson, usually dressed in an armband and a dazed smile, makes his way in at about 8: 15 AM most days. He comes with his parents and one of his brothers, embracing them as they take their seats, then glides over to the defense table to begin his pretrial rituals. He shakes hands with his lawyers, then drifts to the right-front corner of the courtroom, behind a small partition, and does a brief calisthenics routine, squatting up and down about five times as he faces the wall. By the time he is finished, the defense has laid out a bowl of peppermints for him; he walks up to the mints, slowly unwraps one and then another, sucks on them, then finally sits down in his seat and stares ahead impassively. Most days he sits like that, motionless, all day. He might be engaged in the case, he might be waiting for the spaceship to land. It’s impossible to tell.

Beginning with Bashir, the early days of testimony feature a parade of absurd lackeys and celebrity parasites. A typical Sneddon witness is the froglike Ann Gabriel, who had been employed as a Jackson publicist for about a week around the time the alleged crime took place. Sneddon brought her in to testify that one of Jackson’s lawyers had told her they could make the mother of Jackson’s accuser “look like a crack whore.”

During her brief testimony, Gabriel manages to plug her only other “celebrity” client, a Las Vegas magician and “noted self-hypnosis expert” named Marshall Sylver. Sylver, I would later find out, reached the peak of his fame when he gave a woman an orgasm on the Montel Williams Show by touching her knee. But in court, Gabriel speaks about him as though he is a candidate for pope. “That’s Marshall Sylver,” she repeats into the microphone. “S-y-l-v-e-r… .w You half-expect her to direct the jury to his Web site.

Jackson looks disengaged during this succession of clowns, hut when the real witnesses start appearing, he begins acting out. On the fourth day of the trial, while Mesereau is cross-examining the accuser’s big sister—who, among other things, testified that she saw the pop star repeatedly kiss her brother on the forehead—Jackson suddenly gets up and walks out of the courtroom.

The move momentarily staggers Mesereau, a hired killer of the first order, and he looks uncharacteristically sheepish as he chases after his client. He returns a minute later to inform eternally exhausted fudge Rodney Melville that “Mr. Jackson has to go to the bathroom, Your Honor.”

A week later, Jackson simply fails to show up in court on a day when his actual accuser is scheduled to testify, forcing a clearly rattled Mesereau to tell Judge Melville that his client has “severe back pains”; Jackson eventually arrives to court in pajamas. But for all of Jackson’s fabled eccentricity, he is, astonishingly, not the dominant personality at the trial. That honor belongs to District Attorney Sneddon, whose convoluted indictment is a Frankenstein‘s monster of incongruous parts every bit as luridly fascinating as the defendant’s surgically altered face.

The prosecution’s case, seldom satisfactorily explained in the mainstream media, goes as follows. On February 6, 2003, the Bashir documentary, in which Jackson is seen admitting that he sleeps in his bedroom with young boys, is shown on British TV. Among the children who appear in the video is his accuser in this case, a thirteen-year-old cancer survivor who had been introduced to Jackson during his chemotherapy treatments several years before.

According to the prosecution, Jackson had not molested the boy at the time the Bashir documentary aired, but he was sufficiently concerned that the boy might make such allegations that he and a band of Neverland courtiers entered into an elaborate conspiracy to “falsely imprison” the boy and his family for nearly five weeks (in luxury hotels, at Neverland ranch, and other places), during which time they coerced the family into denying, on camera, that anything untoward had ever happened between Jackson and the boy.

Jackson’s five alleged coconspirators—none of whom were indicted—seem to be the sort of people who show up full of ideas at the bedside of fading greatness: junior Nazis who get Hitler to sign off on a new T-shirt design during the last days in the bunker. “Business associate” Dieter Wiesner, for instance, owns sex clubs in Germany and sank gobs of the pop star’s money into a doomed Michael Jackson soft drink, to be marketed in Europe, called the MJ Mystery Drink. (Wiesner’s former partner, coconspirator Ronald Konitzer, has since been accused by Mesereau of stealing Jackson’s money.) Marc Schaffel came to Jackson after September 11 with plans to market an antiterror-theme “We Are the Worlds”-type charity single through the McDonald’s corporation; Schaffel later turned out to have been a former gay-porn producer. Rounding out the conspiracy are Vincent Amen and Frank Tyson, a pair of young Neverland gofers, who, until this case, appeared destined to star in a movie called Harold and Kumar Pick Up Michael Jackson’s Dry Cleaning.

At any rate, it was only after the filming of this so-called rebuttal video—which, incidentally, Jackson then sold to the Fox Network for $3 million—and after authorities had begun an investigation into Jackson’s relationship with the boy, that Jackson allegedly molested the child, in early March.

The prosecution’s case therefore boils down to this: in a panic over negative publicity, Jackson conspires to kidnap a boy and force him to deny acts of molestation that in fact never happened, and then he gets over his panic just long enough to actually molest the child at the very moment when the whole world is watching.

It is a fantastic argument, a bilious exercise in circular prosecutorial logic: conspiracy to commit conspiracy, false imprisonment for the sake of it, followed by a sudden act of utter self-destructive madness. And none of it makes sense, until you actually watch Sneddon operate in court.

Day six of the trial Sneddon, a splotchy-faced doughy man whose body could only look good on an autopsy table, is conducting his direct examination of the alleged victim’s younger brother. It is a crucial moment in the trial, with Sneddon drawing out the only eyewitness to the alleged molestation. The pudgy-cheeked boy claims to have twice entered Jackson’s bedroom late at night and seen the aging star fondling his brother and masturbating.

In a trial full of roundly unsympathetic characters, it is hard not to feel for this kid, A raspy-voiced fourteen-year-old with the sad eyes of a habitually ignored younger brother, this witness looks like every fat kid who’s ever had his milk money stolen or his underwear pulled over his head, Whatever he’s doing here, it’s sad.

If his story is true, he is recounting an immensely painful personal experience in front of the entire world. If it is false, then his appearance here is a tragedy, an overmatched adolescent mind coached to mutter a litany of sordid implausibilities in the service of an ugly confluence of low-rent adult ambitions: grown-ups pulling his underwear over his head.

Sneddon practically drools when the boy finally says what he saw Jackson doing; “He was, uh, masturbating.”

“Can you demonstrate that?” Sneddon says. “Can you show us what you saw?”

“What do you mean?” the boy whispers.

“Can you show us how he was masturbating?” Sneddon repeats.

The boy balks, but Sneddon presses. Finally the boy moves his hand up and down.

“Can you do it again?11  Sneddon asks.

The boy hesitates, then gives another fleeting demonstration. It’s still not enough for Sneddon.

“OK,” he snaps. “For the record, you’re moving your hand up and down, kind of opening and closing your palm.”1

Such episodes become increasingly common in the next few days of testimony, as the prosecution sinks further and further into a mushy mix of unapologetic crotch-sniffing and rhetorical hysterics. It is hard not to escape the impression that Sneddon hates Jackson. He clearly has not forgotten the debacle of 1993, when Jackson and the family of thirteen-year-old Jordan Chandler reached a $15.3 million settlement before Sneddon could bring Jackson to trial on molestation charges.

His key witnesses, meanwhile—the accuser and his family, whom we’ll call the Riveras—are an astounding bunch. Any sane prosecutor would drown himself before building a case around witnesses like these, but they were all Sneddon had. A single mom and her three kids, an older daughter and two boys. They’re poor but not ghetto poor—just poor like eighty percent of America is poor, making their way through life with a shabby cocktail of nowhere jobs, disability , Zoloft, Jesus, diets , and, one guesses, a vast collection of self-help hooks.

This family has been burdened first by an abusive father, then by a horrible cancer that struck the older boy: by the age of ten, he had a sixteen-pound tumor in his stomach. Through a series of charitable foundations and recovery programs, the boy’s terrible predicament put the family in touch with a number of celebrities; George Lopez, Chris Tucker, Jay Leno, and Michael Jackson, The Jackson fiasco did not really begin until the boy, hereafter referred to as Freddy, had miraculously recovered and the family returned to its mean pre-crisis existence, armed only with a suddenly impressive Rolodex.

One hates to be uncharitable, but this is the special ugliness of the Jackson case: Even the poor are undignified. Once they enter this world, the Riveras become just another subspecies of the Bashirs, Gabriels, and Wiesners: a Dickensian family adopted as a curiosity by the royals.

The mother—well call her Agnes Rivera—seems to be the key figure in the accuser’s camp. At this writing, she has only appeared in the trial via the rebuttal video, which Mesereau introduced as evidence during cross-examination. A plump, dewy-eyed woman with heavy makeup who looks like a Latina version of Bernadette Peters (only with a few more miles), she expresses herself almost exclusively in saccharine, retch-inducing platitudes of the sort one might hear on Oprah or at a motivational retreat for recovering glue addicts—using words like God and love and hope the way most normal people use connecting words like and and the.

The video is a low-tech production filmed in some dismal studio in West Hills; it’s a single tripod shot of the four family members bunched in front of a gray dropcloth. The prosecution claims that Agnes and the children were dragged to this ugly place by Wiesner and told exactly what to say. But in the outtakes shown in court, the jury sees Agnes clearly making her own enthusiastic directorial contributions.

During the period of “false imprisonment” in which this film was shot, Agnes was put up in the Calabasas Country Inn, where at Jackson’s expense she managed to fit in a full body wax and a shopping spree at, among other places, the Topanga Canyon Mall; she spent $454 on Jockey underwear at one stop, $415 at Banana Republic and another $450 at the leans Outlet. The family also got in a showing of Old School at a Calabasas movie theater and a $175 dinner at the Black Angus restaurant in Woodland Hills. Agnes also managed to avoid calling the police for the five hours she spent waiting in an orthodontist’s office in Solvang while Freddy’s braces were removed on Jackson’s tab.

If Agnes seemed to handle her false imprisonment with aplomb, it might be because she had plenty of experience with it. Twice in the past she filed lawsuits claiming false imprisonment: once against her ex-husband (whom she also accused of murdering the family’s pet ferret) and once against a pair of security guards at a JC Penney, who stopped her after finding Freddy in the store parking tot with unpaid merchandise. In the latter case, Agnes claimed that the guards not only falsely imprisoned her but brazenly fondled her breasts in front of the children; she won $150,000 in damages.

In any event, it is Sneddon’s contention that after her latest false imprisonment at the hands of Jackson in Calabasas, Agnes and the children voluntarily returned to Neverland for a two-week stay that would turn into yet another false imprisonment in which Agnes believed she and her children were being held against their will. Even though she supposedly spent this time trying to escape, for some reason she did not even ask where her children were sleeping at night.

Thus she was unaware that Freddy was spending his nights in Michael’s bedroom, engaging in mutual masturbation with the pop star not once but on two different occasions, both times in front of Freddy’s pudgy little brother—who happened to creep to the bedroom and open the locked door just long enough to witness the hideous act through the darkness without being detected by either Michael or his brother.

Pudge, in his testimony, is very specific about how long he watched both sex acts. The first time, he says, it was four seconds. The second time? “Three seconds—it was shorter,” he says.

You can dismiss Sneddon as a monomaniacal, headline-hungry bureaucrat and his witnesses as scheming, lying-ass gold diggers, but there’s no avoiding the fact that Michael Jackson is, undeniably, one seriously weird motherfucker. As implausible and suspicious as the prosecution timeline sounds, many details of the boys’ testimony about life at Jackson’s Neverland lair are just too strange and wildly improbable to be anything but true.

At one point during the trial, the jury is shown a picture of a frighteningly lifelike mannequin of a small black girl with braided hair. Recovered during one of the two searches of Neverland ordered by Sneddon, this mannequin apparently was fashioned in the image of a little cousin of Jackson’s. The accuser’s brother testifies that on their first night at Neverland, Jackson jumped on the mannequin and simulated sex with it. “He was, uh, having intercourse with it,” says Pudge.

Sneddon then leaves the picture of the mannequin onscreen for a few long moments. It looks exactly like a real girl. Nobody in the courtroom can take their eyes off the thing. My own heart skips a beat; I half-expect the picture to start steaming from the ears and speaking in tongues.

In scenes from the Bashir documentary shown to the jury, Jackson is depicted as the father of three utterly Caucasian “real” children who never see their mother. He insists he’s had only one small nose job; he says with a straight face that he is Peter Pan and that he will never die. And he thinks everybody understands when he says that sleeping in beds with kids is OK because there should be “more love in the world.” And it gets even more disturbing. He talks about the nicknames he gave the kids: “Blow Hole” for Pudge and “Doo Doo” or “Apple Head” for Freddy. Pudge testifies that Jackson called another boy who came to the ranch “Baby Rubber.”

If you buy this part of the story, and it’s pretty close to impossible not to, it doesn’t require a great leap of logic to connect the remaining dots. It is a short step from Doo Doo and Apple Head to a late-night hand down your underpants. This is the kind of thing that is running through the collective mind of the courtroom at the trial’s first decisive moment: when Freddy takes the stand.

No longer a frail cancer victim, Jackson’s accuser is now a strapping fifteen-year-old with a thick neck and a military-style buzz cut. But in his direct examination, he mumbles and hangs his head quite a lot and seems to grow smaller and more childlike on the stand as he is led through the tale of his terrible ordeal at Neverland.

It is a horrifying story, a tale of long nights of Jesus juice— Jackson’s name for the red wine he fed the boy—porn, and late-night groping in the dark room full of mannequins. In the pivotal moment, Jackson and the boy guzzle booze in the Neverland arcade, then retreat to Jackson’s bedroom, where the pop star asks the boy about masturbation, Jackson tells him that if he doesn’t know how, “he would do it for me.” He then masturbates the boy and himself as the two lie side by side.

“About a day later,” Freddy says, the scenario repeats itself; only this time, Jackson tries to place the boy’s hand on Jackson’s genitals. Freddy says he resisted this but that he still ejaculated in both incidents. He felt bad about this, but, he says, Jackson “comforted me.”

Through all this, Sneddon can’t resist a little of his trademark crotch-sniffing. The prosecutor seems disappointed both legally and libidinously when Freddy fails, after being prompted, to remember seeing Jackson walk into the bedroom with an erection while he and his brother were watching television. A visibly frustrated Sneddon ends up pulling out a transcript of the boy’s own grand-jury testimony and showing him the reference to Jackson’s erection, effectively shoving Jackson’s erection in the boy’s face.

When the kid refuses to comply—saying only: “Me and my brother were kind of like ‘Eww’ because we had never seen a grown man naked before”—Sneddon frowns, clearly pissed, and moves on.

Still, by the time Sneddon is finished with this witness, Jackson looks fucked. Reporters scramble outside to do “Prosecution Roars Back” stand-ups, and even the most skeptical members of the press corps concede that Sneddon might not have to lift a finger for the rest of the trial.

During this testimony, Jackson scarcely moves, Mesereau, for his part, simply bides his time and waits in a seething posture for his cross examination. His demolition of Sneddon’s star witness would prove to be one of the more merciless legal fraggings you’ll ever see in an American courtroom. He gets Freddy to admit that something he had testified Michael Jackson told him—that “if a man doesn’t masturbate, he can get to the point where he might rape a girl”—had actually been told to him by his grandmother.

He gets the boy to admit that he told the dean of his middle school, a Mr. Alpert, that “nothing had ever happened sexually with Mr. Jackson.”

Mesereau asks about the alleged period of false imprisonment at Calabasas and Neverland. Sneddon sinks in his chair when Freddy answers, “I never wanted to leave. I was having too much fun.”

Then there is the timeline of the actual abuse: Mesereau gets the boy to admit that he initially told investigators that the abuse had happened before the alleged false imprisonment and the rebuttal video, then later changed his story. “To this day,” Freddy says, “I don’t remember exactly when everything happened.”

Mesereau then does a cunning thing. He leads the boy through a history of all his disciplinary problems in middle school. Freddy, it appears, was a pain in the ass to almost every teacher in his junior high: talking back and being disruptive and generally disrespecting authority. Mesereau slyly assumes the role of an accusing teacher and manages to coax out on the stand the above-it-all classroom smartass who only a few days before played the part of the mute, helpless child ruthlessly taken advantage of by an adult sexual predator.

Every disagreement he had ever had with a teacher, Freddy contends, was the teacher’s fault. Mr. Geralt ran his class like a drill sergeant, which was why the boy had stood up in class and said that Mr. Geralt “had his balls in his mouth,” He brags about arguing in Mrs. Slaughter’s class (“A lot of the times, I would stand up to the teachers, and the kids would, like, congratulate me”).

“Did you have problems in Mr. Finklestein’s class?” Mesereau asks.

“Everyone had problems in Mr. Finklestetn’s class,” Freddy snaps.

“Did you have problems in Mr. Finklestein’s class?” Mesereau coldly repeats,

“If everyone had a problem,” the boy sneers, “then I’d be one of them, right?”

Later, Mesereau plays the entire rebuttal video for Freddy, stopping every few moments. Since it is the prosecution’s case that the family was told to lie in the video, Mesereau decides to get the boy to explain to the jury exactly where everyone was lying and where everyone was telling the truths—the obvious point being that it was very difficult to tell.

It’s a savage courtroom scene, and the boy withers visibly as it wears on. When the jury sees Freddy claiming on the video that “he used to pray that he would meet Michael Jackson,11 Mesereau stops the DVD and asks. “Were you lying here?”

“I didn’t actually pray to meet Michael Jackson,” the boy mutters.

It goes on like this for another forty minutes. Freddy’s performance is so atrocious that even Judge Melville wakes up. Until this point, Melville seldom looked anything but pained, apparently mourning the lost dignity of the legal profession. But during Freddy’s cross examination, Melville’s impatience with the prosecution is suddenly palpable. Usually, he takes ten quiet seconds before ruling on any objection, but after a few hours of this witness, his trigger finger gets very itchy, instantly blasting even the more reasonable of Sneddon’s occasional objections. At one point, Mesereau asks the boy about his history teacher; “She complained that you were defiant on a regular basis and disrespectful, is that correct?”

Even I expect an objection to this; Mesereau is asking and answering.

y Your Honor, objection,” Sneddon says, “Asked and answ—” “Overruled,” Melville snaps, glaring at the boy, “You may answer.”

By the end of the day, Sneddon is slumped so far in his seat that his shoulders are almost below the armrests. His humiliation is total when Mesereau asks the boy if it is true that he once wanted to be art actor, “Yes,” he says, “But now that I’ve seen cither careers, I want to be in law enforcement.”

By the time Freddy steps down, the trial is only twelve days old. It was impossible to say who was winning or losing; one forgets, after all, that these things are decided by a jury, which in this case looks mostly like a rowr of immobile elderly white women who might think they’re judging the Lindbergh kidnapper.

Or one hopes they think that, for their sake. The elderly should be spared spectacles like the Jackson trial. This case is the ultimate sizzling shit pile of American society; it is what our culture of gross celebrity worship looks like when it comes out the other end. A pop star gone sideways under the lights, maggots nibbling at his fortune, hourly underpants updates on cable, industry insiders trading phone numbers over drinks, and boy orgasms. And people like me writing about it all. We’re the worst America has to offer—and we’re all here.

And here is another excerpt of an article he wrote in Rolling Stone magazine:

Sneddon’s case against Michael Jackson was bullshit : Matt Taibbi – Rolling stones

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse. The early witnesses against Jackson included a bodyguard who missed court because he was in custody facing charges stemming from a series of armed robberies, including holding up a Jack in the Box at gunpoint; a former Neverland maid who’d stolen a sketch Jackson had made of Elvis Presley and sold it to the tabloids for thirty grand; another former employee who’d lost a wrongful-termination suit against Jackson and had to pay part of a $1.4 million settlement as a result.

And then there was the very key figure in the case, the accuser’s mother, who had to plead the Fifth Amendment on the first day of her testimony to avoid cross-examination on a welfare-fraud allegation – a witness so completely full of sh—t that Sneddon’s own assistants cringed openly throughout most of her five days of testimony. In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

Sneddon’s hard-on for Jackson was a faith-based vengeance grabs every bit as blind and desperate as George Bush’s “case” against Saddam Hussein. If Ahmad Chalabi had ever been to Neverland, Sneddon would have put him on the stand too.

His case was bullsh—t. California vs. Jackson turned out to be basically a tale of a family of low-rent grifters trying to lay a criminal-molestation charge on a rich celebrity as a prelude to a civil suit.

http://redblackghost.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/sneddons-case-against-michael-jackson-was-bullshit-matt-taibbi-rolling-stones/

Mary Fischer is an author/journalist who has written for GQ, O (Oprah’s magazine), the L.A. Times, Rolling Stone, and many other publications. In the Michael Jackson fan community, she is held in very high regards for her award-winning 1994 article titled “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” which thoroughly explains the intricate details of the 1993 Chandler family scandal.  In November 2003, after Michael was arrested following a second round of false allegations, Fischer granted an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, and she maintained her stance that Michael was innocent in 1993, and firmly defended her work (which debunks the myth that she had a “change of heart”).  That interview can be heard in the video below:

Charles Thomson is a freelance music critic and journalist whose specialty is African-American artists. He publishes his work on his blog, as well as CREDIBLE publications such as Sawf News (for example, here is 4 part series on the filming of MJ’s last music video “One More Chance”.)  While he may be a fair and objective journalist, he is by no means a “crazy, rabid fan”, and he let it be known in this blog post titled “A Final Word on the Lunacy” (which I absolutely agree with 100%, hence my nickname & Twitter handle @sanemjfan). You can learn more about him by reading this interview he conducted in March 2010 with Lorette Luzajic of the Extreme Michael Jackson blog. (It’s a five-part interview; Here is Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.).

Thomson also did a Q&A with fans on October 5th, 2010. And here is a radio interview he conducted with Blog Talk Radio in January 2011.

He has been an ardent defender of MJ since long before his death, and he has harshly criticized the media on numerous occasions since that fateful day in June 2009.  Here are a few of his articles on MJ’s innocence (you can search his archives for other topics regarding MJ):

Nicholas Stix is a journalist who has published in dozens of newspapers and magazines, and after MJ’s death he republished an article titled “Trying the Michael Jackson Trial” that he originally posted during the trial that blasted Sneddon for using the “prior bad acts” evidence because of its potentially unfair and prejudicial effect on the jurors. Here is an excerpt:

1. According to the law California Evidence Code §1108, enacted in 1995, testimony can be given charging a defendant with “prior bad acts” for which he has been neither convicted nor prosecuted, if such testimony helps establish a “pattern” or “propensity” to commit the crime with which he is presently being charged. This law guts the presumption of innocence, which is perhaps THE foundation of American criminal law. In practice, this means that if you hate somebody, and find out that he has been charged with a crime, you can announce that he has previously committed a similar crime against your person, and testify against him in his current trial for the previous “crime.” It’s legal double freebie. You get to testify to the jury, as if the defendant had already been convicted of an earlier crime, AND get to prejudice the jury regarding the crime he is currently charged with. (This is exactly what some women sought to do during the 1991 trial of Kennedy scion William Kennedy Smith, whom Patricia Bowman had charged with rape. Smith was acquitted.) And that is what has happened in the Michael Jackson trial, though Jackson’s million-dollar defense team was able to come up with witnesses who contradicted the charges of prior bad acts, regarding the attempted commission of lewd acts. Imagine the fate of defendants who can’t afford superstar defense counsel.

 Here is a three part transcript and analysis of Matt Drudge, a conservative political commentator who vehemently defended MJ in 2005, much to the chagrin of many of his listeners! Here is an excerpt from his radio shows that really sums everything up!

Matt Drudge: I think if you did a pulse poll, of people listening to these local talk shows, they would say 95% that Michael Jackson did all this. They would say that, because it’s based on the coverage! It’s based on the coverage!

Matt Drudge’s Vehement Defense of Michael Jackson, Part 1

Matt Drudge’s Vehement Defense of Michael Jackson, Part 2

Matt Drudge’s Vehement Defense of Michael Jackson, Part 3

The ironic thing about this is that one of his most famous protégés is the recently deceased Andrew Breitbart, who slandered MJ on many occasions both before and after his death. He wrote several articles, and even dedicated a chapter in his book to MJ, but fortunately I refuted all of it in the this post! Breitbart and Drudge’s opinions on MJ’s complete innocence are truly poles apart!

Roger Friedman is an entertainment gossip columnist who worked for Fox News during the trial, but now rights for Showbiz 411. He put aside his biases and gossip reporting about MJ in order to accurately report the FACTS from the trial, and his phone calls to Matt Drudge in the aforementioned links is proof of that!  Drudge referenced an article that Friedman wrote on April 16th, 2005 titled “Time To Stop The Madness!”, and here it is:

It’s now time to stop the madness and declare a mistrial in California vs. Jackson. What happened on Friday in the Santa Maria courthouse should not have happened at all. Whether or not Michael Jackson is guilty of child molestation is no longer the issue.

The Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office is now potentially guilty of exploiting a disturbed woman’s condition to get a conviction. It’s wrong, and it’s not going to achieve anything but tarnishing the reputations of their well-intentioned staff.

The testimony on Friday of Janet Arvizo, mother of Michael Jackson’s teenage accuser, was alternately maddening and heart breaking. She came across on the stand during her cross-examination by Thomas Mesereau as a compulsive and pathological liar, a shrewd manipulator and a real operator.

But she was also quite sad, and unable to control her emotions. At one point she declared in an aside, “I now know that Neverland is a place for booze, pornography, and sex with little boys.” The statement was immediately stricken from the record.

In fact, Arvizo may have really alienated an already shell-shocked jury. Mesereau played a video made by Jackson’s associates in February 2003 in which Arvizo and her three children sang the pop star’s praises as a father figure. Arvizo’s appearance in the video was in stark contrast to the woman on the stand. In the film she is glamorous, with a winning smile and laugh. She resembles a darker complected version of Meg Ryan.

But the woman on the stand now, who had to take questions every few minutes, is about 25 pounds heavier and stripped of her bubbly determination. Two years and two different people. It was startling.

Then again, neither of these two Janet Arvizos resembles the one on a police interview tape leaked to a TV show last winter. That makes three Janets, and there are probably more to come.

The Janet Arvizo who testified on Friday was close to the one described to me a year ago, and about whom I’ve been reporting on since then. She was feisty and obnoxious, manipulative and cunning.

She did not shrink from fights with Mesereau. She often addressed the jury directly instead of answering Mesereau’s questions, and didn’t seem to care how Judge Rodney Melville instructed her. Her hubris was her undoing, and it was magnificent and tragic.

She had sharp recollections of things that interested her and no memories of dates, times, or places that could undermine her case. She couldn’t recall, for example, how much money her children or ex-husband received in their settlement from JC Penney. She also could not remember how she met a Los Angeles police officer, how they became friends, or if he once gave her a ride in his car.

She couldn’t remember how many times she’d discussed the current case with her lawyer, Larry Feldman, the same man who secured a $20 million settlement for another Jackson accuser in 1993.

Building on a theme she started Thursday concerning Jackson’s group as “masters of choreography,” Arvizo nearly stopped court entirely when Mesereau brought up a visit she made to a Los Olivos salon while staying at Neverland.

First they tussled over whether she received a “body wax” or a “leg wax.” She insisted it was the latter, and also claimed she’d paid for it. That was a mistake. Mesereau, of course, had the receipt for $140, which showed multiple beauty treatments including leg, bikini and lip waxing, and a manicure. “Do you want to see the receipt?” Mesereau offered.

Arvizo refused, claiming that he’d somehow changed it. It was another example of what she termed the Jackson team’s masterful “choreography.”

“Who paid for it?” Mesereau demanded. Arvizo refused to answer several times, finally claiming: “I don’t know.” She also said it was all a plot to enhance Jackson’s P.R.

There was more. It seemed endless, and painful. Mesereau walked her through the “rebuttal video,” an interview with her and her three children that wasn’t finished in time to be included in a Jackson TV special. Even though all four members of the family seem relaxed and spontaneous, Arvizo insisted over and over again it was scripted.

When this position became ludicrous to maintain, she refused to back down. Instead, she embellished the story. “Dieter [Wiesner] worked with me on it ten times a day so I could memorize the lines. I was acting!” she declared continuously, speaking of Jackson’s former manager.

Wiesner, she said, wrote every word of it, despite the fact that he’s German, has a poor command of English, and had no contact with Arvizo — by her admission — after about a week.

There wasn’t a single person in the room who believed her.

The rebuttal video may also have proven her a liar. On it, she makes reference several times to the Martin Bashir special, “Living with Michael Jackson.”

In an outtake, she instructs the video director to “make it like in Bashir,” i.e. showing her clasping hands with her son: a very specific image. But Arvizo, her new husband and her kids have insisted in all their testimony thus far that she has never seen the documentary.

What was most striking, though, about Arvizo’s video performance was her incredible disloyalty to her then boyfriend, now husband, retired US Army Major Jay Jackson.

Even though Jackson was supporting her and her kids at the time of the rebuttal video, Arvizo pretended he didn’t exist. Over and over in the video she and her children praised Jackson as a father figure who’d completed their family.

Their compliments could not have been more effusive or sycophantic, and they were all the more creepy considering they had a real father figure at home. Never mind that their biological father was a convicted abuser whom the mother has accused of everything short of sinking the Andrea Doria.

The worst moment came right before court was recessed for the weekend. It was then that Arvizo, who’d shown us high and low moments of great extremes, finally burst into tears, though not because she thought her son had been molested by Michael Jackson. It was because she conceded that she did not accompany her husband to Army functions.

“I’m not smart enough to be with those people,” she said, and sobbed. Even Jackson and his mother, Katherine, must have felt for this woman. Abused, destroyed, mentally broken, there is nothing left to her. More cross-examination on Monday seems almost beside the point. She needs help.

And then there was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who sat not with the other prosecutors during this brutal performance, but on a bench behind them. In full view of the jury, Sneddon sat with his head often in his hands, looking askance at what he’s wrought. Sneddon has devoted the last twelve years to proving Jackson is a child molester, but he chose the wrong case and the wrong people to close his deal.

That was clearly conveyed to the jury on Friday. The whole thing is mind-boggling. But for Sneddon to continue the public torture of this battered soul would be worse than trying to finish the case. His one chance for redemption is to call a halt to this nightmare before it gets worse. That will ensure him a better legacy than the one he may have created for himself.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153655,00.html#ixzz1oK78PJoA

Joe Vogel is certainly no stranger to the MJ fan community, as he recently shot to fame with the release of his critically acclaimed book  about MJ’s musical legacy titled “Man InThe Music” (here is a video he recorded to promote it), and although it’s main focus is to meticulously detail MJ’s creative process when it came to his songwriting, composing, producing, and dancing, Vogel also vindicates him of the false allegations in his chapter on the HIStory album.  Vogel has also compiled a list of articles from journalists who were fair to MJ (including some who are not listed in this post), and you can read his compilation on his website.

I’d like to introduce you to a fellow MJ blogger – but not a lunatic fan! – named Sean Chai, who resides in Ireland. She is an amazing researcher, and we have helped each other on many occasions. Her blog is aptly titled “Smoke Without Fire”, and here is her “about me” section:

I began researching Michael Jackson’s trial, and the various allegations against him, in the days and weeks following his death in June 2009 in a bid to find the truth behind the rumors which prevailed about his relationships with children, even in the wake of his death. I began writing about my findings because of my long-held interest in psychology and mental health.

Jackson’s demise was almost immediately followed by a media onslaught of recycled claims of misconduct, resulting in a full-scale character assassination, similar to that in 2005, of a man who had a legal and moral right to a presumption of innocence. Why, I wondered, did so many journalists, and in particular those who had covered Jackson’s trial, remain adamant that he was guilty? Was there some damning piece of evidence that had been deemed inadmissible, or had not been reported, which colored their perspective on the trial? I set out to decide for myself, from the available evidence, whether there was any substance to the allegations. I never intended or expected to end up writing about it, but I simply could not ignore what I found.

Though the media’s vilification of Michael Jackson has now abated, I believe this story must still be told. There is still a perception that he was a child molester, and that the world has now decided to ignore this and focus on his career instead. Though it comes too late for him to benefit, Michael Jackson deserves to be vindicated. His family deserves to have his name cleared once and for all. His children have the right to grow up without the spectre of these false allegations hanging over his memory.

There are the thousands of other victims too. Michael Jackson is not the only man to have his life torn apart by false accusations of sexual abuse. Countless others have experienced, or are experiencing, or will experience the same trauma. Hopefully, by examining this one case, I can shed some light on this alarmingly common, but poorly understood phenomenon.

The Arvizos have rights too, and though I fully appreciate they will likely not want this story told, I will endeavor to respect those rights while telling it. They deserve to be exonerated of claims that they used this case as an attempt to extort money from Jackson. They should not to be vilified or ridiculed, and I have no intention of doing either. Nor will I intrude upon their privacy any more than is absolutely necessary to tell this story using information already in the public domain.

Janet Arvizo cannot be blamed for what happened. Ultimately, the Arvizo family was exploited by a prosecutor who, through ignorance or arrogance or both, ignored clear evidence of Janet Arvizo’s mental illness and bulldozed through an indictment and prosecution that was fundamentally flawed.

Nor, frankly, can Evan Chandler, who I firmly believe was in a delusional state when the 1993 allegations were made. This would certainly explain many anomalies in the case against Jackson, including Chandler’s claim that he continued to invite him to visit Jordie and encouraged them to share a room even after he suspected he was molesting the boy, why, in a taped phone conversation with the boy’s stepfather, he was more concerned that Jackson had stopped talking to him than with the substance of the allegations he was about to make, and why he sought, after the 1995 release of Jackson’s HIStory album, to publish his own album about the purported sexual abuse of his son, and call it EVANStory.

In the early days of my research, I was stunned that no one else appears to have explored the clear psychological causes of the allegations against Michael Jackson, but I now appreciate that most people simply do not understand the nature of serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. The majority of people with a serious mental illness never make false allegations of sexual assault, but when the few do, it is devastating for both the alleged victim and the accused.

Finally, this is not merely a story of what happens when mental health issues are ignored in a molestation case. Michael Jackson endured many injustices during the course of these investigations, and I hope to address all of them.

Sean Chai specializes in researching mental health illnesses (such as schizophrenia, which Janet Arvizo was diagnosed with prior to receiving her settlement from JC Penney), and their relation to false accusations of physical and sexual abuse. Her blog roll contains many links to other blogs and articles about false allegations and mental illness, as well as media ethics and reform. By leaps and bounds, her best work can be found in her summary of the allegations against MJ titled “The Untold Story”!

Lastly, Deborah Ffrench is a British writer. Primarily interested in media reform and the obligations and responsibilities that freedom of the press carries, it was after the death of Michael Jackson in June 2009 that Ms. Ffrench became aware of the profound and unprecedented abuses levied against Mr. Jackson by the mainstream media machine — quite apart from the false allegations — in the name of that freedom. Part 1 of the Making of a Myth is part of a long-term project Ms. Ffrench and a collaborator have embarked on, she has also written several other articles about Michael Jackson.

Now, let’s look at a few legal analysts who accurately reported on MJ during the trial, as opposed to the legal entertainers who did all that they could to convict MJ in the court of public opinion (such as Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin, who I exposed as liars in this post titled “Refuting The Legal Analysts Who Lied About Michael Jackson”):

Jonna Spilbor is a licensed attorney who regularly appears on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.  She wrote the following articles during the trial, which are all archived on the FindLaw legal research website:

Julie Hilden is a graduate of Harvard College, Yale Law School, and Cornell University’s M.F.A. program, and she wrote the following two columns during the trial:

Anne Bremner has been a trial attorney for 26 years and is a litigation shareholder in the law firm of Stafford Frey Cooper. She is also an on-air legal analyst for FOX News  Channel, MSNBC, CNN, CNN Headline News with Nancy Grace, CBS, ABC and TRUE-TV. On July 6th, 2009, she published a touching tribute to MJ titled “Michael Jackson – The Music and Me”:

For as long as I can remember, I have been a huge Michael Jackson fan. From “I want you Back” to “Ben” to “Thriller” to “History” I was behind his every dance step and every incarnation. We were, after all, the same age and shared the fads and changes of the ensuing decades. He led, we followed. He was the King of Pop, the most famous icon of our generation … in the world. During a lengthy career-hiatus (which ultimately became permanent despite his intentions to tour in the UK shortly before his death) the rest of us were busy building our lives, careers and families. My career path took me into the law and as an adjunct to that, into on-air analysis of topical legal issues.

My career came to national attention during another of this decade’s sensational (and bizarre) trials, the 9-1/2 week civil case of Vili Fualaau (Mary Kay Letourneau) in 2002 which captured the fascination of international and tabloid media. In successfully defending the City of Des Moines Police department, I caught the attention of producers including some great folks at Court TV who suggested that I try my hand at on-air legal analysis. Although I had done some local coverage of the OJ Simpson trial for KOMO TV, I was a neophyte when I headed off to New York Studio to try my hand on national TV. It seemed a natural fit–I had once considered a career in journalism over law. Over time I branched from Court TV to Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and CNN Headline News. I commented on everything from Scott Peterson, to Kobe Bryant, to Michael Jackson…….

In March of 2005 I was slated to appear as lead trial counsel for the Olympic Pipeline Company, defending a 500 Million Dollar Business Interruption lawsuit centered on one of this region’s worst disasters–the Olympic Pipeline explosion. A pretrial settlement left a gaping hole in my normally packed schedule, the timing of which just happened to coincide with the start of the trial State of California v. Michael Jackson. It isn’t often that high profile trial lawyers have the opportunity to step away from the counsel table and simply observe. As a full time lawyer, part-time TV legal analyst, I was possessed then, as I am now, of the strong belief that the only way to truly analyze a trial is to be in the courtroom, study the faces of the jurors, the witnesses. And so, in an unanticipated flip of panorama, I found myself sitting not at the counsel table in a Seattle courthouse, but in a courtroom in the tiny town of Santa Maria California, an unlikely setting for what would become one of the most sensational trials of our time. In March of 2005 I took up residence in the Marion Davies Room at the quaint Santa Maria Inn, rising at 3:00 am to do East Coast commentary on CNN American Morning before sitting as an observer in the courtroom. Throughout the day I would talk to the phalanx of media that eagerly devoured every sound bite-ready comment on the trial which captured the world’s attention for six months. It was always windy in Santa Maria, always dusty. Standing in a media tower, cold, dirty, windblown, I was a far cry from the coiffed, polished talking heads who offered their analysis from the comfort of East coast studios; across the continent from a courtroom they would never see. The experience was anomalous–as a practicing trial lawyer with a full caseload, it is unlikely that I will ever see another such opportunity.

I’m often asked if I thought Jackson was guilty or innocent. That isn’t my call. As a trial lawyer, I have a profound respect for juries. Following the trial, I summed up my observations of the trial and the reasons for the verdict of “not guilty.”

I do believe Jackson was a conflicted man, living in the neverland of the childhood he crafted to replace the one he missed as a young boy–a performer always, a child … never.

Now, with the death of Michael Jackson, I am asked to comment on his life–as if the six month portion I witnessed defined him. It didn’t. The figure I saw at that courthouse in Santa Maria was not “our” Michael Jackson, the musical prodigy who created the soundtrack to many of our young lives. In our media culture, we are fascinated with excess and eccentricity. The public loved the spectacle of lavishly ridiculous spending sprees, bizarre behavior and Jackson did not disappoint. Many people made their livelihood by enabling his eccentricities. Through the oxygen chamber, the morphing face, the chimp, the Presley marriage, the children, the rumors, there was a constant: The music. Always the music. As Jackson said following his trial “through my music I will live forever.”

It is an odd phenomenon to hear from so many people that are amazed at the sadness they feel over his death. It’s not that they forget his flaws or the allegations against him, but that they choose to remember the genius of his music. That, really, is all most of us knew of him–his music and the personal connection that music has to moments frozen in our memory. In his passing I have listened over and over to my favorite Michael Jackson song, “Music and Me.” Ultimately, for so many of us, that will be his epitaph. Our affection for Michael Jackson will always be simply that: “the Music and Me.”

Grab a song and come along

You can sing your own melody

In your mind you will find

A world of sweet harmony

The article that she referenced in her tribute can be found in the links below. It is titled “Lessons From The Michael Jackson Trial”, and it is divided into two parts:

Part 1: Why The Prosecution Lost (6 pages)

Part 2: Why The Defense Won – What They Did Right (3 pages)

Andrew Cohen  worked for CBS News during the trial (but is now with The Atlantic). The dates of each posts on the archive pages (beginning on Page 12) are correct, but for some reason when you open each article, the date is listed as July 6th, 2009, so I wrote the correct date next to each link below. Notice how Cohen didn’t write a single article during the defense’s case, but instead wrote a summary of their case, as opposed to the multiple articles he wrote each week during the prosecution’s case! I have my theory about this, which I will discuss later.

  •  Can Jackson Get A Fair Trial? (January 28th, 2005) Cohen writes about how different MJ’s trial will be from other celebrity trials of the past.
  • Jackson’s Celeb Witnesses List (February 18th, 2005) Cohen writes that many of the famous celebrities on MJ’s witness list probably will not be allowed to testify unless their testimony is truly relevant to the case.
  • Malice In Neverland (February 27th, 2005) Cohen writes about what the defense and prosecution have to prove in this case in order to achieve the victory they each desire.
  • Jackson Prosecutors Trip (March 6th, 2005) Cohen describes how the prosecution’s case got off to a terrible start, primarily with the testimony of Gavin’s sister Davellin, who was forced to admit that her mother lied before, and who couldn’t remember important details about the case.
  • High Noon in Pajamas (March 15th, 2005) Cohen describes “pajama day”, and Gavin’s performance under direct examination, and a grave error that the prosecution made in allowing time for Gavin to be cross-examined before the end of the day. (I will add my own summary and analysis of Gavin’s testimony soon!)
  • Jackson Accuser’s Poor Performance (March 15th, 2005) The title says it all! Cohen summarizes the abysmal and inconsistent testimony of Gavin, and begins to wonder why the case was even brought to trial in the first place!
  • Trial Turned Upside Down (March 29th, 2005) Cohen talks about what at the time was considered a devastating decision by Judge Melville to allow Sneddon to introduce “prior bad acts” evidence to the trial. However – as we all know by now – this decision helped vindicate MJ of the prior allegations from the early 1990’s! For example, Blanca Francia and her son Jason testified about witnessing and experiencing MJ’s abuse, respectively, but their claims were thoroughly dismissed by jurors. Here is an analysis of Blanca’s testimony, and here is an analysis of Jason’s testimony!
  • Jackson Lawyers Feud (April 26th, 2005) After being away from the courtroom for one month, Cohen returns and talks about the minimal effect that Brian Oxman’s firing by Tom Mesereau will have on the defense.
  • The Jackson Trial Ex Factor (April 27th, 2005) Cohen describes the effect that MJ’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe will have on the case, and how her testimony could hurt MJ’s defense against the conspiracy charge.
  • Jackson Catches Break From Ex (April 28th, 2005) Cohen summarizes Debbie Rowe’s direct examination, and describes what a disaster she was to Sneddon’s case.
  • Ex-Ray of Light for Jackson (April 29th, 2005) Cohen continues his assessment of Debbie Rowe being a savior for MJ and an embarrassment for the prosecution after hearing her cross-examination.
  • Prosecution Rests, Uneasily (May 5th, 2005) Cohen rates the prosecutions performance as they rest their case and the defense prepares to present their case.
  • Jackson Defense Kept It Simple (May 25th, 2005) Cohen summarizes the defense’s performance as they rest their case, and describes what each side must achieve during closing arguments in order to achieve victory.
  • Jackson Case: Go To The Video (May 30th, 2005) Cohen analyzes the prosecution’s decision to show jurors a videotape of Gavin’s first interview with police, and the defense’s decision to not recall Gavin and his family for further questioning after the videotape was shown in court.
  • Jackson, Predator Or Prey? (June 1st, 2005) Cohen discusses the fact that if jurors believe both Gavin AND Michael, and believe that MJ was both a “predator” of Gavin and a Gavin’s “prey”, then MJ could be convicted, absent a strong closing argument from Mesereau.
  • Down to the Wire in Jackson Case (June 1st, 2005) Cohen describes the difficulty in gauging who is truly winning or losing this case. (Personally, after reading his previous columns up to this point, I don’t know how he could have any difficulty!)
  • Last Shot At Jackson Jury (June 3rd, 2005) Cohen gives his mock closing arguments for both the prosecution and the defense.
  • Evil Is As Evil Does (June 3rd, 2005) Cohen summarizes the closing arguments of the prosecution and the defense.
  • Yes, There are Stupid Questions (June 7th, 2005) Cohen explains why it’s silly to ask certain questions about the jury’s performance during deliberations, such as “How long should it take to reach a verdict?”
  • Who’s Gagging Who? (June 9th, 2005) Cohen writes about how Mesereau told Rev. Jesse Jackson and MJ’s spokesperson Raymone Bain to stop speaking on behalf of MJ during the jury deliberations.
  • Two California Kingdoms (June 10th, 2005) In an obvious attempt to pass the time during the jury deliberations, Cohen compares MJ’s Neverland Ranch to the Hearst Castle, which was owned by publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, located in San Simeon, California.
  • Why Jackson Went Free (June 14th, 2005) Cohen explains why the prosecution lsot and why MJ was acquitted. In my opinion, this summary isn’t as good as the aforementioned summaries Charles Thomson and Jonna Spilbor because he insinuates that Sneddon “bungled the case” and MJ could have been convicted if not for Mesereau’s brilliance. It’s certainly not as strong and effective as I would like it to be.
  • Bad Evidence (June 14th, 2005) This is a much better summary of the trial, and the title speaks for itself! Here’s a short excerpt:

You had to see what a punk the alleged victim seemed like on the witness stand and how shaky the core of his testimony was. You had to see how delusional his mother seemed in court and how much her testimony lacked in credibility and candor. You had to see how futilely prosecutors tried to convince jurors that it is a crime for a famous person, a target, to undertake good public relations or swift damage control. You had to see the evidence that piled up proving that the accusing family had a history of setting up and then hitting celebrities for payoffs.

  • Advice For Michael Jackson (June 14th, 2005) Cohen offers some stern, yet fair advice for MJ on how to once again achieve success and avoid any further legal troubles now that he’s a free man.

Now, I must admit, after reading through all of Cohen’s summaries, I was disappointed at the unprofessionalism that he displayed at times. On a few occasions, he referred to MJ as the “so-called King of Pop”, the “King of Flake” (in the “Defense Kept It Simple” summary), a “freak”, and he gave an absolute BS description of Gavin’s videotaped interview with the police in the “Jackson Case: Go To The Video” article!

Waiting until the prosecution’s rebuttal case to unveil the most emotional piece of evidence of the whole trail, and gambling that the judge would in the end allow it before jurors, Sneddon showed the panel Friday a police videotape of an interview conducted with Jackson’s accuser soon after the young man’s family had reported a crime.  The tape was raw, powerful, and emotional. In it the young man displayed the sort of sympathy-inducing demeanor and tone that was notably absent from his repertoire when he testified in person a few months ago. In chilling detail, he described the alleged acts of molestation that are at the core of this case. In other words, he acted like a genuine victim and not, as he had in court, like a street-wise punk. 

Oh, give me a damn break! Let’s see what Aphrodite Jones had to say about that same interview! She gives her opinion on it beginning at 5:00:

And did you notice how he wrote at least one update each week during the prosecution’s portion of the case (except for his leave of absence, after which he resumed his multiple updates upon his return)? But once the prosecution rested, HE DIDN’T WRITE A SINGLE UPDATE FOR THE DEFENSE UNTIL THEY RESTED! He went twenty consecutive days (May 5th through May 25th) without an update! I don’t think this is a coincidence at all due to the biased and unconscionable behavior of CBS News (Cohen’s employer) during the trial! Let me explain:

A producer for CBS News named Bruce Rheins filed a trademark application in January 2004 for the name “Jesus Juice”, the name of the alcohol that the Arvizos lied about and said MJ served them. It was filed more than a year before the trial started, and this behavior showed how little regard this producer – who was in charge of CBS’s coverage of the MJ trial – had for both MJ and Gavin (assuming Gavin was telling the truth, which we all know he wasn’t, but this producer didn’t know it then, yet went along with it anyway.) Here is an excerpt from an MJEOL Bullet on this topic:

To know that in Jan 2004, over a year before the trial began, these two a–holes were clearly seeking to profit and/or make a mockery of the entire situation is totally repulsive. The hateful way in which they sought to ridicule Jackson and the trial is totally indicative of how much attention they would have given to a non-negative Jackson story. I can only wonder what damaging information about the prosecution or the Arvizo family came to their attention early on, which was ignored because they already thought Jackson was guilty.

After news organizations found out about this trademark, Rheins and his wife went into damage control mode and said that they already had a winery business, and they used MJ’s image as a practical joke on friends, but then decided to trademark it so that nobody else would be able to trademark it and profit from it. Seriously, that’s what they said! Here is a part of a statement that he gave to the media after the firestorm erupted:

I spoke to Rheins about it and he called the whole effort “a very bad attempt at a spoof.” Rheins said he and his wife make their own wine and intended to produce a small number of “Jesus Juice” bottles to give to friends, some of whom covered the Jackson trial alongside of Rheins. He said there was never an intention to profit in any way from the effort. When questioned about filing for the trademark, Rheins said the couple did so because “we didn’t want somebody to get hold of it” and make money off of it when they could be traced as the creators. When I asked about reports that they had tried to solicit wineries in a partnership, he told me that his wife had made a “joking reference” on her Web site about seeking partners but they have “never approached any wineries” and if any had contacted them (none did), they would have turned them down.

Rheins wanted to make clear that he understands this to be a sensitive and serious issue for many and that he intended this to be a private matter between himself, his wife and their friends. Calling it a “stupid, bad attempt” at humor, Rheins added, “I understand that people are truly offended and I sincerely apologize for that.”

Liar, liar, pants on fire!! He claims that there was no intention to profit, but the following excerpt proves otherwise!!

NewsBusters.org has information clearly showing that Rheins intended on making money from this image if he hasn’t done so already. They have caught Rheins with his pants down. They found out Rheins and Westlake had a cafepress.com virtual store selling merchandise with the blasphemous Jackson/Jesus image on it. It was archived and made available to their readers at the NewsBusters.org website. Rheins’ cafepress.com store, Ron de Cana Productions, was selling everything from wall clocks to t-shirts to coffee mugs with this image on it. And, from the archived information, Rheins and Westlake clearly played on the Jackson angle. For example, they were charging $15 for a wall clock with their “Jesus Juice” trademark image on it. In the description section for that clock was the following.

The clock is called the “Off the Wall Clock”! I mean, come on! It is in terrible taste to seek to benefit from a child molestation trial, especially when the person on trial was factually innocent and acquitted. On top of this is the fact that Rheins has apparently lied and sought to cover his tracks by having the items removed from the cafepress.com store bearing the Jackson-esque image. Further, NewsBusters.org, with the power of Google’s cache directory, also dug up info from Westlake’s online diary website. Her July 2005 entries are also disgustingly flippant in relation to Jackson and the trial. She admitted at the time that she and her husband, Rheins, purchased the “Jesus Juice” trademark. And nowhere does she mention that it was all a big joke. Reading through the vapid drivel at her site, we came upon some very telling information. She wrote that she went to Santa Ynez Valley on what she called the “Sideways-Jackson Molestation Tour”. Not a “molestation trial tour”, or a “Sideways Tour”. She specifically used that language. She reminisced about how the Santa Maria Courthouse parking lot would hold the “limo” at the ready to take Jackson to county jail had he been convicted. From the website at dawnwestlake.com:

“We went up to the Santa Ynez Valley! Wooo-hooo!!! We did the “Sideways-Jackson Molestation Tour!” YIPPPPEEEE!!! (And, I enjoyed every minute of it!) Since Bruce [Rheins] was up here for 5 months for the Jackson trial, the first stop was the Santa Maria Courthouse, its parking lot still painted with the official partitions of the photojournalists, and the “limo” at the ready which would have taken Jackson to county jail, if he’d been convicted. “It would have been quite a change from the lush life he leads behinds this gate at Neverland. And too soon, it was time to leave. But I’ll be back! Maybe if Jesus Juice takes off, to buy property!!”

Again, the mentality of these people is what disturbs me the most. What kind of sleaze bag would delight in reminiscing about such a time? Further, she clearly insinuates that “Jesus Juice” was supposed to be for-profit and wanted to buy property in Santa Ynez Valley after it “takes off”.

After this scandal hit the airwaves, the Rheins apologized ad nasuem, and filed a request for “express abandonment” of their trademark. But their apologies were worthless because their actions show their true intent. They wanted to make as much money as possible, so that they could try to buy Neverland and convert it into a winery.

Is it far-fetched to believe that with all of the shenanigans going on behind the scenes at CBS News that someone higher-up in the chain of command ordered Cohen to lay low during the defense’s portion of the case in order to not report how they proved MJ’s innocence? I personally feel that it’s very plausible!

But nevertheless, I felt that overall he was objective and did a good job of summarizing the trial, despite his unprofessionalism, and despite the fact that he wasn’t as detailed as he should have been in some areas (for example, he should have given more specific examples of all of the lies the prosecution’s witnesses were caught in!). And that’s why I chose to compile his articles in this post.

During the trial, the Associated Press wrote a daily summary of each day’s testimony, and it was posted on MJ’s now defunct MJJ Source website, which he established to keep fans informed of what was happening.  They are now compiled on the MJ Upbeat website, and the 66 days of court testimony and 7 days of jury deliberations are divided as follows:

Days 1-26

Days 27-45

Days 46-66 plus jury deliberations

Another place to get information from the site is the Remote Electronic Access for Extraordinary Criminal Cases website, which was set up by the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County as  way for the media and general public to be able download the official court transcripts and pleadings without bombarding the staff with requests, which would have been unprecedented due to the unusual amount of interest in the case.  Judge Rodney Melville discussed the formation of this website during the Frozen In Time seminar in September 2010, and here’s an excerpt:

On another level, we sought help from the judicial counsel. There were huge numbers of motions and declarations through the pretrial hearings. It totaled thousands of pages, and the clerk’s office couldn’t possibly handle the large demand for copies of everything that was filed. So we made application to the judicial counsel to have them amend the rule to already allow access to civil cases. We wanted that changed to allow electronic access to this criminal case and other unusual criminal cases. In a highly debated session, members of the judicial council voted 9-to-9 on this rule. This required the chief justice to break the tie, and he voted to allow us to have this new electronic rule allowing unusual criminal cases to be displayed electronically. Without this rule change, we would have required at least two or three more clerks, and certainly more sophisticated copying information, or support electronics. So to this day, whenever I see the Chief Justice I think him again for breaking that tie vote!

Here is a video that describes the creation of the website! Notice at the 5:35 mark, SBC Executive Officer Gary Blair mentions how the site prevents the media from sensationalizing documents that don’t even exist, and Richard Goldman, Dean of Santa Barbara College of Law, states that the site prevents the media from running rampant with speculation! (Although they still managed to do so anyway!)

Unfortunately, although all of the defense and prosecution’s court pleadings are still intact, the website no longer has the transcripts of the testimonies of each witness, but the transcripts of the most important witnesses can be found on the “Dear Gavin Arvizo” fan site.

Here are some other legal analysts who questioned the validity of the case early on, but unfortunately they didn’t cover the case extensively:

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviews Andrew Murr, Chris Darden (notice how he says the case kept him awake at night due to the inconsistencies!), and Gretchen Von Helmes, and Larry King interviews Mark Geragos:

Geraldo Rivera talks with Andrew Goldberg of The Smoking Gun website, Joe Tacopina (Frank Cascio’s lawyer), Howard King (Marc Schaffel’s lawyer), and Gloria Allred (who I rebutted in this post)

And here is Geraldo interviewing Howard Weitzman (MJ’s lawyer in 1993) and Stan Goldman (a professor of law). It’s truly disappointing to listen to Weitzman throw MJ under the bus by saying “he wasn’t there in 1993 and 2003”, but fortunately a snippet from Mesereau’s post trial interview shows exactly how a lawyer should defend his client!

 I can’t have a post about lawyers who have defended MJ without actually naming Thomas Mesereau! His conduct before, during, and after the trial has been nothing short of exemplary!

Here is a transcript and analysis of his speech at the Harvard Law Seminar in November 2005.

Here is a transcript and analysis of his speech at the Frozen in Time Seminar from September 2010.

Here is a post that lists examples of how he has continued to defend MJ, not only after his acquittal, but after his death too!

Here is link from his official website to articles he has written on the MJ case, article he has written on other legal issues, and videos of his media appearances! And here is an excerpt from a speech he gave in 2007 to the Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama! In this excerpt, Mesereau speaks about his cross-examination of Gavin Arvizo, and how he got him to ramble on about how MJ had “abandoned” his family INSTEAD of talking about the alleged molestation!

B. The Alleged Victim

There is a law professor in Los Angeles who is a good friend of mine. Her name is Laurie Levenson and she teaches at Loyola Law School. She is a frequent television commentator on legal issues and a former United States attorney. I am sure some of you have seen her.

Laurie is very highly respected in my city and I was recently privileged to address her criminal procedure class. When she introduced me, she commented on my cross-examination of the thirteen-year-old accuser in the Jackson case. She commented on my cross-examination question that she felt had won the case for the defense. That question was “why?”

I had studied this child accuser as he responded to the district attorney’s questions in direct examination. I thought I had a pretty good feel for this witness. To me, he was a thirteen-year-old boy “going on thirty.” In my opinion, this witness was clever, dishonest, deceitful, cool and with an obvious agenda. He had taken acting lessons and appeared to like being in the spotlight. I sensed this the moment he appeared in the witness box.

I believed that this child accuser was angry at Michael Jackson, but not because he had ever been molested. I believed he and his family had hustled celebrities like Chris Tucker, George Lopez and others and that his family thought they had “hit Lotto” when they met Michael Jackson. This was a low-income family whom Michael let move to Neverland at various periods. Because the thirteen-year-old boy suffered from cancer, Michael took them on trips, had a blood-drive and did all sorts of wonderful things for the family.

The accuser’s brother was one year older and wanted to be a producer. Michael helped him produce a video at Neverland and was constantly doing nice things to assist this family. But then, Michael got sick of them. He got tired of them leaning on him and began to pull away. The children started calling Michael “daddy.” The mother started calling him “daddy.” I believed that these false molestation claims began when the family realized they were on the way out.

As clever as this thirteen-year-old boy was, he was not smart enough. He had lied previously in a civil deposition where his mother made false claims that she was molested by security guards at JC Penny stores. In my cross-examination, I spent a lot of time trying to reveal to the jury who this thirteen-year-old really was. I could not have done so if I confined him to “yes” or “no” answers. You only learn who people really are when they talk and reveal themselves. I believed self-revelation was worth the price of relinquishing witness control.

I warmed up this witness for the key question. My questions went something like this:

“You and your family wanted to stay at Neverland, correct?”

“You wanted to take trips with Michael Jackson and did so, right?”

“You went on amusement rides with Michael Jackson, didn’t you?”

“Michael Jackson introduced you to people you could only dream about actually meeting, right?”

“And at some point you became very angry at Michael Jackson, didn’t you?”

“Why?”

This child accuser began to ramble about how Michael had abandoned him and his family. He never mentioned anything about child molestation!

Of course, I am not saying that any of you should copy this approach. Just think about it.

Shortly after the Bashir documentary aired in February 2003, the Department Of Children And Family Services conducted a thorough investigation into the relationship between MJ and the Arvizo family, and they absolutely cleared him! The Arvizo family willingly and vehemently defended MJ, and here are the results of the DSCF investigation:

For more information on the DCFS investigation of MJ, please read this post “The DCFS Says There Was No Evidence Against Michael Jackson. Give The Truth A Chance!”

After reading that, it’s easy to wonder why on earth would District Attorney Tom Sneddon even try to bring charges? Well, this article by K.C. Arceneaux  (published on May 12, 2004, just a few weeks after MJ was indicted) should help answer that question! Arceneux highlights several disturbing examples of Sneddon’s outrageous bias against his political enemies, which shows that he is perfectly capable of becoming myopic in his zeal to convict MJ (a sentiment that has been echoed by nearly every person who I have cited in this post), and here is a short excerpt:

On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA’s office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio. Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he operated.

Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram’s wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA’s office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

Sundaram’s allegations are not an isolated instance. There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA’s office. The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called “stacking charges.” In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004, Dunlap gave his opinion that “stacking charges” was a common practice of the DA’s office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.

Dunlap can be seen in the video below discussing his run-ins with Sneddon, and in this post you can see that Sneddon literally left no stone unturned in his vain attempts convict MJ!

Here is how Sneddon stacked charges against MJ:

In the Statement of Probable Cause, dated November 17th, 2003, Det. Paul Zelis described an interview he did with Star Arvizo, who claimed the following (on pages 15, 23, & 50):

When asked, Star said Michael Jackson touched him inappropriately. The incident occurred when they were in a golf cart. Star was driving the golf cart and Michael was next to him. Michael then reached over and touched Star’s “testicles and penis” over his clothes with Michael’s left hand. He did not say anything to Michael and continued driving the golf cart.

Yet, Michael Jackson was never charged with molesting Star. Instead, when Tom Sneddon filed his initial felony complaint against Michael Jackson on December 18th, 2003, it consisted of the following allegations by Gavin, which allegedly occurred from February 7th through March 10th, 2003:

  • 7 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 2 counts of administering an intoxicant

However, in the grand jury indictment that was filed on April 21st, 2004, the dates of the alleged offenses shifted to February 20th through March 12th, 2003, and the charges were materially altered as follows:

  • 4 counts of lewd acts upon a child
  • 1 count of an attempted lewd act upon a child
  • 4 counts of administering an intoxicant
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment, and extortion

Now it’s easy to see how desperate Sneddon was to get the MJ case to trial! He completely rearranged his case when he became knowledgeable of the fact that the Arvizo family recorded the rebuttal tape, so he came up with the conspiracy charge to explain how they were “forced” to shoot it and remain at Neverland! And God only knows why he never charged MJ with abusing Star Arvizo! Here are a list of questions that you should ask to anyone who is willing to engage you in intelligent debate over MJ’s innocence:

1. How do you explain the discrepancy in the alcohol and molestation charges between the initial felony complaint and the grand jury indictment?

2.   How do you explain the addition of the conspiracy charge, especially in light of the fact that the Arvizos went on numerous shopping sprees while at Neverland, and constantly asked to be returned to Neverland after leaving?

3.   Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with conspiracy in the initial complaint? Sneddon investigated Michael Jackson for almost 6 months before raiding Neverland in November 2003. Shouldn’t he have known then about the alleged conspiracy?

4.   Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators charged, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?

5.   Why wasn’t Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star, in addition to Gavin? In the statement of probable cause, he claimed to have been molested while riding a golf cart. Wouldn’t Sneddon want to use as many accusers as possible against Jackson?

6.   Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?

7.   Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star only AFTER the documentary aired? Why didn’t he molest them between 2000 and 2002?

8.   Why would Michael Jackson begin to molest Gavin and Star AFTER he hired Mark Geragos in early February 2003?  Why would he hire a lawyer to defend him for a crime that he had not committed yet?

William Wagener is also someone who is well known in the fan community for his advocacy work on behalf of MJ ever since 2005! He was one of the very few people in the media who truly bent over backwards to defend MJ, not so much out of a love of MJ (he admits in his comment below that he wasn’t a fan), but out of his antipathy for Sneddon! He knew Sneddon was maliciously prosecuting MJ, and he did everything he could to expose it.  Here is a video from his extensive YouTube playlist, followed by a comment that he left in the comments section (which I’m copy  here to bring it more exposure):

I attended the Michael Jackson so called trial, [ more like an inquisition ], of 5 months in 2005.  I missed only 3 days and usually sat behind Mrs. Katherine Jackson or Tito Jackson.

I can certify that the Jury got it Right.  More than any of the bias Media, inflecting innuendos, and the Sheriff who titlated the Media, with lies,

I can say without hestitation, Michael Jackson was innocent, 100%.  Judge Melville should have dismissed the case for lack of the elements of any of the 10 felonys and it was clear to me.

I did 12 TV weekly shows on the Jackson 2005 trial while it was on going.  They were only seen in Santa Maria, Lompoc and Solvang & Buelton, CA.  Now parts are on my YOU TUBE channels:  WilliamWagener, & WilliamJwagener

It was so obvious that the prosecutors were on a witch hunt, and that Sneddon wanted to go out of office as a “Hero” showing he slayed the pediophile, and had NO real evidence that Michael Jackson every harmed or violated a pubic hair on any child, ever.

Sneddon even persuaded his fellow BAR Assc. members in the State of California Legislature to change the LAW specifically so Sneddon could bring in the 1108 evidence to prejudice the Jury, which for Long Standing in USA and Common Law nations in general had not been allowed.  LAW changed just to Nail one innocent person.  That is a Witch hunt  and in this case the real witches were the WARLOCKS from the Santa Barbara District Atty.’s Office [ aka the snake pit , which has a long record of convicting innocent men, who later are proven innocent and released after decades in prison ].

He had only carefully crafted lies from a cancer ridden diseased mind of Gavin and his mother, the mother of all liars, in this case, Janet Arvizo, who finally married a Jackson man in the military, just to have the Jackson name.  How nutz is this woman?

So convinced was I after 5 weeks of lies and carefully crafted deception by Sneddon and Zonen  that I stated at the Santa Maria, Airport Hilton Rally for Michael, that Michael would walk free, and be found NOT guilty. because in fact Michael was NOT GUILTY.  The guilty people were the Prosecutors who committed three FELONYS in faking evidence to with: 1. the Fingerprint evidence, 2. the Phone conspiracy evidence [which Sneddon tried to withdraw from the JURY, after a policeman stated under oath to Mag Nicola, the 4th prosecutor, you got this all “Wrong”.,  and 3.  the conspiracy between the evil prosecutors to fake the evidence and make it appear to jive with the practice scripted coached lies that Gavin Arvizo was caught in.   I stood alone at that rally of 200 MJ fans, as the only Media person on TV weekly telling them,  Michael was not going to be convicted of any of these lies.  Aphrodite Jones was not there, but plenty of video was taken and its in part on my YOU TUBE channels.

Justice for Michael, is no longer possible.  But a slice of Justice would be for a Common Law  “WE THE PEOPLE of SANTA BARBARA COUNTY”  to form, pick a foreman from among the 23,  and INDICT all Four Prosecutors for at least the 3 name felonys listed above.

THIS simply MUST happen, or more similar crimes by a corrupted District Attys Office will continue.  Where there is such a blatant documented crime of Members of the Calfornia BAR assoc.  JUSTICE must , Justice does demand INDICTMENT, ARREST without bail, Conviction, and sentencing to LIFE in PRISON withOUT possiblity of parol, of these four “criminals in office”.   I do not state that as hyperbula or fantasy.  It must happen, there must be accountability, for JUSTICE’s sake, … and Michaels sake, even if you don’t like Michael.  It is about Justice.

Unfortunately, that has NOT happened, because the network or what I call the Nutwork’ media was a part of the lynching of Michael Jackson, and 99% of the MJ fans know that and still FEEL that, and the MJ fans are correct, in this case at least, even if they are fanatical.  Being Fanatical does NOT mean your always wrong.   Jesus was fanatical about Love and forgiveness.  He certainly was NOT wrong, even if they did crucify him illegally even under Roman Civil law.  Jesus was innocent, even admited “My kingdom is not of this world”.  They crucified him anyway after less than 5 days of mistreatment.   Michael Jackson endured 5 months of bashing and horrible lies.  His close friend, Majestic said to me, I was the only one who believed Michael Jackson would walk free.  That is sad but probably true.  For that reason I threw a Victory Celebration the day before the Jury verdict.  I funded it out of my pocket.  bringing Ernest Valentino from Germany first class,  THAT is how convinced I was that Michael Jackson would walk free from the Santa Maria Courthouse, vindicated of EVERY charge and lesser included offenses.   I did that to cheer up the fans.  Unfortunately most were inconsolable or did not understand, because they had not watched my 12 tv shows.

These Four Criminals in office,  Tom  Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Gordy Auchincloss,  & Mag Nicola deserve to be INDICTED, ARRESTED, CONVICTED and sentence to LIFE withOUT parol for High Treason.  the Treason is violating the Law, faking evidence with pre-meditated wanton intent to frame an innocent man.  I believe Sneddon knew he did not disserve to win any conviction, but believed with Ellie Cook on the Jury, an elderly former employee of a Judge, that he could possibly get his way even if the jury saw threw the faked evidence … which they clearly did.

To NOT indict them is to encourage more of the same calculated EVIL behavior by other District Attorneys.   I also should mention, there was one policeman on the witness stand the spoke the truth against the carefully constructed lies of the Prosecutors, and people should remember, that not all sheriffs were in cahoots with Tom Sneddon, and this one spoke truth, and the Jury did not miss that point.

In pushing these false charges, the Four Criminals from the S.B. DA office not only started the decline emotionally and psychologically of Michael Jackson, leading to his death 4 years later, the destroyed the greatest Humanitarian of my generation.  No one gave more of his OWN money to needy children around the world than Michael Jackson.

Not only did the Four Criminals in office destroy his name and reputation, and his life, they cheated his three children out of a father distracted wrongly for 2 years on this trial of non existent evidence, and 4 years later cheat the children of their father, cheat MJ siblings of a kind and generous brother, and Katherine and Joe of a son they dearly loved, and millions of MJ fans suffered to some degree with michael.  This was a global crime against people who loved MJ’s love of dance, kindness, joy and life itself.

For this the Criminals from the snake pit, deserve to sit in Prison along with others they put in prison, some guilty, and some not guilty.  THAT would be Justice for these criminal members of the California BAR Association.

I am the witness, who saw and connect the deceptive dots of the /Four criminals in office [ sneddon and cohorts]  during the 2005 trial.  I certify that the above crimes by the Prosecutors from the snake pit are REAL, and under Common Law, there is NO Statute of Limitations, and when the on going fraud of the Dist. Atty  office is so obvious, even under their code it is not run out, because the Fraud to this minute has not been officially made known.

Michael Jackson was innocent, the Jury got it right on June 13, 2005, regardless that  a  pair of them may have been paid to appear on TV and yield a contrary opinion, now that Michael is dead and can not defend  himself.   Though I stand alone, in the above assertion, I must do so, or not be worthy of the God who placed me at that time and place as a witness.  I was not a MJ fan at the time of the trial.  To this day, I have profited not a penny from the trial, and I state this without prejudice, and only that there be a clear record.  Michael Jackson was, is and now always will be innocent.   I can only state what I know to be true from my observations, and I have been saying it since early April 2005, without waivering.

If asked under oath to a Common Law Grand Jury, I would state the above.

Finally, I will end this post with a reference to attorney Michael C. Barnes, a managing member of DCBA Law & Policy. Prior to establishing DCBA in 2004, Mr. Barnes served as confidential counsel in the White House drug policy office, where he provided executive direction on policies aimed at reducing substance abuse. During the Conrad Murray trial, he started a blog called “Please Sit Back and Relax“, and here is his explanation of the name and the purpose of the blog:

“Please sit back and relax.”

–Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor

Michael Barnes analyzing the Conrad Murray trial, 9/19/11

As I watch the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray for the death of Michael Jackson, I like the way Judge Pastor tells each witness as he or she takes the stand, “Please sit back and relax.” Judge Pastor’s style is kind and sincere. His substance is serious. In this sense, more people should be like Judge Pastor.

I work in two overlapping fields: law and policy. Many of the other attorneys I encounter would be much more effective if they adopted a more congenial demeanor. Our federal decision makers are likable enough to get elected and sometimes re-elected, but too many of them favor shallow politicking over digging deep into the areas that urgently need reform.

I chose psbar as the abbreviated title for my blog for a couple of additional reasons.

On “ps”: The analysis you will find here will be a post script to the often-recycled commentary you encounter elsewhere. I say what few others are saying.

On “bar”: Like a favorite coffee, snack, or beer bar, I intend this blog to be a place where you will be among friends and will want to return. Cheers to healthy disagreements.

Here is what you can expect to read about in the psbar blog:

  • Legal headlines, starting with the Michael Jackson homocide trial
  • Policy issues, focusing on both style and substance:
    • Progress over politics
    • Drug policy (check my credentials)
    • The need for comprehensive reforms in federal spending, the tax code, Social Security, and government-funded health care programs

Thanks for your interest.

His analysis was desperately needed and thoroughly appreciated by the Michael Jackson fan community, as he was one of the few media pundits who went against the grain and railed against the “drug addict” caricature that the media – mainly HLN and TRU TV – pigeonholed MJ with. Here is an excerpt from one of the final updates he wrote about the trial:

The last time I called myself a fan of Michael Jackson was 1984, when I was in 4th grade.  Between then and last month, I only peripherally observed Jackson while I was in line at the grocery store, in the same disengaged way I follow any other popular figure.  I never even paid enough attention to form an opinion.

But I have an opinion now.  Here are the conclusions about Michael Jackson that I have drawn as a result of this case:

  • He surrounded himself with good people.  With one prominent exception, the members of Michael Jackson’s professional and domestic staff who took part in this trial were genuine people who had a veritable commitment to Jackson’s personal well-being and professional success.  Jackson’s fans include some extraordinarily faithful, compassionate, and intelligent individuals.  “Intelligent” is an adjective I use with due caution and circumspection.
  • He was a family man.  Michael Jackson wanted his children to see him perform at his best.  It was this motivation that drove the 50-year-old man to perform on the night before his death with the fitness and skill of a 25-year-old pop star.
  • He had a kind heart.  In his most uninhibited and vulnerable state of sedation, Michael Jackson described his deep-rooted desire to help children in need by establishing the Michael Jackson Children’s Hospital.
  • He was vulnerable.
    • Michael Jackson lamented that he did not have a typical, carefree childhood.  Jackson’s desire to help children feel the joy of youth that he missed out on made him exceptionally susceptible to misconstruals of his intentions.   He protected himself with complex privacy and security measures.
    • Michael Jackson had severe and inadequately treated anxiety and insomnia, which led him to create for himself a rudimentary treatment plan that incorporated the use of a powerful anesthetic that mimicked the effects of sleep.
  • He was exploited.  Dr. Conrad Murray took advantage of Michael Jackson’s vulnerabilities.  In exchange for the opportunity to introduce himself to women as Michael Jackson’s personal physician, and a fee of $150,000 per month, Murray threw caution to the wind and implemented Jackson’s self-designed treatment plan.   Jackson died as a result.

Compare that to the garbage that was spewed daily from Nancy Grace, “Dr.” Drew, Joy Behar, and many other HLN personalities! This is why his blog is so important to fans who need to research the Conrad Murray trial and defend MJ against the drug addict myth. There were 11 updates throughout the trial, so there’s no need for me to repost them here, but definintely add Barnes’ blog to your list of favortite MJ blogs! He’s already on our blogroll!

That concludes this post, and I hope that this will be a useful resource for serious researchers who need information from a professional and independent source who is “tainted” by being a fan!

from → FACT CHECKING Michael Jackson's haters, THE 1993 CASE, THE 2005 CASE, The MEDIA
69 Comments leave one →
  1. elizabeth pamela walker permalink
    April 14, 2020 6:03 am

    amen xxxx

    Like

  2. sanemjfan permalink
    November 23, 2013 1:56 pm

    Here’s my newest video with LunaJo67: we found this 1994 video of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh blasting the media for their salacious, lazy reporting during the Chandler scandal, and reminded his listeners to not believe everything they hear in the press!

    Also, we contrasted Limbaugh’s defense of MJ with Aphrodite Jones’ recent revelation that she “has questions” regarding 1993 due solely to her “emotions” after hearing June Chandler’s laughable testimony.

    This is yet another example of someone who isn’t necessarily a “fan” of MJ coming to his defense!

    Like

  3. Vindicatemj (Helena) permalink*
    October 11, 2012 11:15 pm

    “Charles Thomson recently conducted an extensive interview with the Dancing With The Elephant blog about the FBI files on MJ, so check it out!
    http://dancingwiththeelephant.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/inside-the-jackson-fbi-files-with-charles-thomson/“

    David, thank you, the interview is great. Charles Thomson speaks also about the 2005 trial. Here are just a couple of quotes:

    Charles: A lot was different about the Michael Jackson trial than other child abuse trials I have sat in on. Firstly, while I have sat in on some incompetent prosecutions in the past, I have never seen anything approaching the stupidity of the Michael Jackson prosecution. It was like the case had been put together by Mr. Bean. Every witness turned out to be useless. There was no evidence to support any of the charges. The prosecutors behaved like buffoons, sometimes attempting to re-write their entire case on the spot because witnesses hadn’t panned out as they’d hoped. It was hopeless. The Santa Barbara DA’s office should thank their lucky stars every night that Michael Jackson didn’t file a malicious prosecution lawsuit.

    As far as differences between the Michael Jackson case and other child abuse cases I’ve sat in on, nothing really married up. Michael Jackson did not fit the profile of a predatory paedophile in any sense. The victims in such cases are usually devastated, breaking down in tears on the stand as they recount the abuse they were subjected to, whereas Arvizzo was cracking jokes. They are usually traumatised by their abuse to the point that it’s like a flashbulb memory – their recollections are vivid and consistent – whereas the recollections in the Jackson case were entirely inconsistent.

    I also wrote a blog about how the files revealed that Tom Sneddon, the DA pursuing Jackson, tried to get the FBI to prosecute Jackson under the Mann Act. The Mann Act is an inherently racist law which was widely used after its introduction to punish black men who consorted with white women. The notion of interracial relationships was at that time considered ‘immoral’. As such, any black men caught traveling with white girlfriends could find themselves prosecuted under the Mann Act for ‘transporting a female over the state line for immoral purposes’.

    One of the authors of the blog summed up Michael Jackson’s case brilliantly:

    Willa: You know, it seems to me that if there’s one rock star we can safely say wasn’t a pedophile, it’s Michael Jackson. Who else has been vetted as thoroughly as he has?

    Like

  4. sanemjfan permalink
    October 11, 2012 1:51 pm

    In case you did already know about this, Charles Thomson recently conducted an extensive interview with the Dancing With The Elephant blog about the FBI files on MJ, so check it out!

    Inside the Jackson FBI Files with Charles Thomson

    Like

  5. nannorris permalink
    April 17, 2012 7:14 am

    shellywebstere

    the Linda Deutsch one is definitely a fair and accurate portrayal of the trial..Thanks for putting that one up .I had forgotten about that one..
    I remember reading in the I think , Defending the King, book that she had called MJ regarding a benefit song he was going to do and they had only a very short conversation and he had thanked her…Such a class act MJ was…
    I love Tom Mesereau but she makes some very good points as well..

    Like

  6. shellywebstere permalink
    April 17, 2012 2:42 am

    I think you should add Linda Deutsch, she was very fair during the trial and this is what she had to say about the trial in 2005

    Like

  7. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 25, 2012 11:15 pm

    During the course of looking into the above I got side tracked when I saw a post on the following blog: http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/profile-of-a-pedophile-michael-jackson/comments-page-2/#comments I have left some comments there under the name ‘The Facts’.

    Tahlia, the comments you left there are absolutely great – compact and precise as usual. I was disgusted that the author of the article and commenters do not know anything about Michael but freely allow themselves to call him a ped-le without bothering to prove anything! They simply state it as “fact” and go on with their pseudo-scientific theoretizing on the basis of their own fantasies about him. Thinking themselves so clever… while in reality it is absolutely disgusting and so ignorant! You’ve also written about it:

    I also find it interesting that this site is allowing comments which breech the comment policy to stay here. This is from the sites own policy:

    “We will edit/delete spam comments, duplicate comments, unsupported accusations, personal attacks of any kind, and terms offensive to groups when used in a pejorative manner.”

    Unsupported accusations…
    there are plenty of those from people RE MJ on and even IN this article but nothing has been done about it. When the authorities have cleared MJ of any wrong doing, this includes the police, FBI and child services, because the allegations against him have been PROVEN false, why is it that comments which breech the ‘we will edit/delete unsupported accusations’ rule still here?

    Tahlia, please go on with your valuable work! I am temporarily out as I am running a very high temperature and can barely think. Hope to be back in a couple of days.

    Like

  8. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 23, 2012 8:45 am

    Tahlia, I am sorry but I edited that word to “ped-le” as I don’t want it to be even mentioned in any context concerning MJ. As to the texts themselves I will study them when I am back (which will be much later today). While I am away I hope my co-admins will take care of the comments as now we should be on our guard more than ever.

    We didn’t know what to do with those two messages from a hater who was either “Caroline” himself or referred to her. At some point we deleted them, but now I restored them again after erasing all mention of a concrete person from the text (I hope my co-admins agree with this method).

    I had to put those messages back as otherwise it would not be clear what a bloody battle is going on here.

    This “Caroline” by the way is similar to “Rhonda” who also sent similar type of messages to MJ.
    The pattern is the same.

    It is them who harassed him and who are harassing us now.
    They are proving it themselves.

    Like

  9. Tahlia permalink
    March 23, 2012 3:14 am

    Originally posted by Rodrigo:

    And now if they can’t convince us with twisted one dimensional facts or lies or whatever, their resorting to comparing Michael with the traits of a pedophile, in what seems to be a half assed, last ditch effort.

    I read this document yesterday:

    Click to access Sexual_assault_abuse_children.pdf

    On page 10 it says

    “To date work with perpetrators and research studies has failed to typify offenders by class, profession, family status, religion, ethnic group or socioeconomic status. ‘Neither has a psychological profile of a ‘typical offender’ been able to be constructed.

    It’s also interesting that the term ped-le is used when haters describe MJ due to the fact that it’s the wrong term in the first place. Ped-lia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children which are under the age of 12. MJ’s accusers were over the age of 12. There is is different term for those who are attracted to those over 12.

    It’s also interesting that they try to say that MJ was a predator because he had some characteristics of one. I found this interesting:

    “Ped-les can be anyone — old or young, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, non-professional or professional, and of any race. However, pedophiles often demonstrate similar characteristics, but these are merely indicators and it should not be assumed that individuals with these characteristics are ped-les. But knowledge of these characteristics coupled with questionable behavior can be used as an alert that someone may be a ped-le.”

    http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

    Want the profile of a ped-le? We all do. As a group, ped-les have similar characteristics, but there are no rules about how they live into those.

    http://www.child-safety-for-parents.com/profile-of-a-pedophile.html

    During the course of looking into the above I got side tracked when I saw a post on the following blog:

    http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/profile-of-a-pedophile-michael-jackson/comments-page-2/#comments

    I have left some comments there under the name ‘The Facts’.

    Like

  10. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    March 20, 2012 7:42 pm

    @vindicatemj

    Thank you for your kind words, vindicatemj.
    Michael Jackson was successfully targeted, railroaded and condemned to a lingering social death long before he physical expired in 2009. And, it was accomplished not secretly in some dark alley but in broad daylight before our eyes — had we known what we were seeing. This should be a chilling reminder that The Law gone wrong + The Media corrupt and manipulative + The Public credulous and ill-informed = the trinity of threats against democracy and freedom. Jackson was famous, wealthy, acclaimed worldwide for his artistic genius and generosity, and it seems well-loved, too. Yet, the LIE repeated, revived, and recycled became an engineered TRUTH.

    Along with the rights and privileges of citizenship comes a heavy responsibility to hold our institutions and those who serve them to the highest standards, and to confront them and demand reform when they fail. If not, we will continue to be fooled, disrespected and endangered.

    Like

  11. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 19, 2012 1:45 am

    J.Mason, I am so impressed by what you have written in reply to Lynande’s words that all I can do is repeat your comment. Your diagnosis is perfect!

    @lynande51
    “The thing is that the public at large have no idea what lengths that Sneddon went to to reach his desired end result.”

    This is true and, worse, the public will never know “who did what to whom and why’ as there are no respected and influential ‘big guns’ coming forward to re-examine the 1993 and 2003 accusations against Michael Jackson. I refer not to another book or a cable program aired at midnight, or a fictional film, or newsmagazine segment, but a prime time network television program intended to be seen by more millions than the Bashir documentary was in its day. Why no interest? Is the topic boring? Of course not. Viewers would be fascinated and watch in droves, making millions for the network and sponsors, too.

    However, if done honestly and with total professional commitment, such a program must re-shine the spotlight on the entire cast of characters (alive or dead) — the Chandlers, the Arvisos, the attorneys, the police, the investigators, child services and its interviewers, the media, the paid informers, the tabloid proctologists like Dimond and Bashir, Michael’s staff of spokespeople and advisors (both loyal and traitorous), the music business, the negotiators, the doctors, etc. etc. etc. That means festering wounds reopened, jealousies and hatreds exposed, humiliating, shameful (and illegal) acts revisited.

    Admittedly, there are those who DO NOT want this to happen and will do all they can to prevent it. As it stands, time passes, the story recedes into history — but for short-lived eruptions in the press or what seems like the eternal bloody jousts between adversaries and advocates somewhere in cyberspace.

    Even so, this untold and misunderstood story still nags us — the loose end that we can’t seem to tie up or leave alone. It cries out to be demystified once and for all.

    Like

  12. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    March 16, 2012 12:57 am

    In fact, the Accusations Stories were mis-handled, mis-reported and, consequently, mis-understood by a public that now retains only a vague and lopsided memory of these events.

    Like

  13. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    March 16, 2012 12:44 am

    @lynande51
    “The thing is that the public at large have no idea what lengths that Sneddon went to to reach his desired end result.”

    This is true and, worse, the public will never know “who did what to whom and why’ as there are no respected and influential ‘big guns’ coming forward to re-examine the 1993 and 2003 accusations against Michael Jackson. I refer not to another book or a cable program aired at midnight, or a fictional film, or newsmagazine segment, but a prime time network television program intended to be seen by more millions than the Bashir documentary was in its day. Why no interest? Is the topic boring? Of course not. Viewers would be fascinated and watch in droves, making millions for the network and sponsors, too.

    However, if done honestly and with total professional commitment, such a program must re-shine the spotlight on the entire cast of characters (alive or dead) — the Chandlers, the Arvisos, the attorneys, the police, the investigators, child services and its interviewers, the media, the paid informers, the tabloid proctologists like Dimond and Bashir, Michael’s staff of spokespeople and advisors (both loyal and traitorous), the music business, the negotiators, the doctors, etc. etc. etc. That means festering wounds reopened, jealousies and hatreds exposed, humiliating, shameful (and illegal) acts revisited.

    Admittedly, there are those who DO NOT want this to happen and will do all they can to prevent it. As it stands, time passes, the story recedes into history — but for short-lived eruptions in the press or what seems like the eternal bloody jousts between adversaries and advocates somewhere in cyberspace.

    Even so, this untold and misunderstood story still nags us — the loose end that we can’t seem to tie up or leave alone. It cries out to be demystified once and for all.

    Like

  14. Rodrigo permalink
    March 15, 2012 8:36 am

    @ lynande51, laciengasmiles

    Definitely. The haters honestly aren’t worth spitting on. I TRIED to be civil on Topix, but all I got was abuse. Not that I cared, but they hated me from the start when I said Michael was innocent. They insulted me, called me worse than dirt. When I asked them, when I was being civil, why they resorted to abuse, all I got was more. They couldn’t even justify their behaviour.

    I asked them why they felt the need to pester and make death threats against Michael’s kids, and they justified that by saying, we fans make death threats against the Arvizo’s kids…those kids are the innocent ones, they had no connection to that or anything else, so it’s totally inexcusable. I’d make a threat against the Arvizo clan, for lying and contributing to Michael’s death, but I would never lower myself to their level of madness. Topix is like spending time in fricking madhouse as far as I’m concerned. They couldn’t get along with for me being sane, and I couldn’t get along with them for being insane.

    The trouble is, they misdiagnose Michael, listen to the media too much, overlook important pieces of evidence to completely vindicate Michael, assume any evidence of Michael’s innocence has been altered by “f’loons”, make up their own conclusions about everything and take it DANGEROUSLY too far. They cant see the media’s obvious bias towards Michael. They cant see that in this world there are corrupt people everywhere, Diamond, Sneddon, Bashir, so they cant see the obvious conspiracy that went on for years. In they’re perfect world – THE ACCUSER IS ALWAYS RIGHT- THE MEDIA TELL THE TRUTH ALL THE TIME – SNEDDON WORKED WITH THE POLICE SO MUST HAVE BEEN A GOOD GUY.

    And now if they can’t convince us with twisted one dimensional facts or lies or whatever, their resorting to comparing Michael with the traits of a pedophile, in what seems to be a half assed, last ditch effort…Of course some are gullible to eat up that crap, but if their that stupid to do so, let them I say. Cause IMO, you cant reason with an idiot. Michael could have the traits of a psychopath, but it doesn’t mean to say he is one.

    Remember. Just because it looks like a rat, moves like a rat, sounds like a rat, eats like a rat, smells like a rat…its a good chance it isnt a rat, get my meaning? 🙂 So they can compare Michael to a ped-le, but it doesn’t mean he was one. There are pedo’s who share absolutely no traits to what was described, so how can you honestly tell for sure? It seems to me, they took the police’s sloppy theory that was used to put the frightners on June Chandler, just glanced at bits of Michael’s personality and twisted it for the “classic profile of a pedophile” excuse that fits there ends…there is honestly no such thing. They should be admired for their persistence though.

    If Michael was guilty, he would have payed the first second. Why would he defend himself to the Evan Chandler, when he was allegedly paying “victims” and their parents all the time? Doesn’t make sense, right? But of course, the haters and the media, try to spin a different account of what happened. But why would the circumstances be any diiferent to the same inevitable outcome? Michael is accused, he pays up to silence them. Michael is accused, he pays to avoid trial. In the end they get payed…So why didn’t Michael avoid different circumstances and pay Evan at the beginning? We know Michael tried reasoning with him to make it go away, but if Michael and co were really that threatened, they would have payed Evan’s demands and not have tried to fob him off with anything less. To Michael, it was simply, “not this again…”.

    But even during the negotiation settlement meetings, it would have come out if Michael was guilty, and everything would have remained a secret. Cause Evan said, “pay me money and I wont tell the police”, just like other parents allegedly must have. Because if it were true, I seriously refuse to believe Michael didn’t come across ONE parent like Evan, who Michael would have been weary of admitting it to. So why were the tactics different? Because Michael had never officially dealt with a moneygrabber and accuser like Evan before, so that tells me this was the first time he had ever dealt with something like THAT before. Michael admitted to many people, including Evan, that he dealt with accusations for many things over the years, and he simply shrugged it off with money. So who thinks that put the idea in his head in the first place?

    Like

  15. lynande51 permalink
    March 15, 2012 5:49 am

    Sneddon used the power of his public office and the power of Law to legitimize the false allegations made by others against Michael Jackson. In my view, that makes his crime the more egregious (though I certainly DO NOT minimize the false witness originally committed by the so-called victims or their families). His obvious goal was to imprison Michael Jackson as a convicted felon where his name and memory would remain soiled for all time. But Sneddon’s underlying goal was to destroy and de-throne “this upstart” who presumed to achieve Kingship of the world in his chosen field, and reduce him, psychologically, to a frightened child hiding in a corner of that little house in Gary, Indiana. Sneddon lost in court, as we know, but the damage to Mr. Jackson’s mind, soul, and body (despite his amazing strength) was extensive — and ultimately lethal in my opinion. When the Law and its Officers are perverted, we are all in danger. Sneddon has much to answer for in this world, and certainly in the next.

    @ JMason
    The thing is that the public at large have no idea what lengths that Sneddon went to to reach his desired end result. When he searched the offices of Brad Miller was just the beginning. Everyone believes because Diane Dimond told them so that Mark Geragos was fired by Michael. That is not the case. Sneddon met with Mark in LA on December 14th, 2003 prior to the formal charge in court was made. During that meeting is when Mark Geragos told him that they had the Arvizo’s on an official legal statement that nothing happened to them. Sneddon went back and made a report about the conversation to Steve Robel or Paul Zellis and told them things saying Mark Geragos told him that Mark Geragos denied. It had to do with the Arvizo’s getting money from Michael in January prior to the airing of Bashir’s documentary. This statement was blatantly false and Mark denied it. Because of that search and his report is when they had to come up with a different reason for Janet Arvizo’s story hence was born that conspiracy charge. I am currently writing a long post to describe exactly what it was that Sneddon did, how many times he did it and what he hoped would be the outcome. The conspiracy charge was the worst one that Michael faced. It carried the longest sentence and special circumstances which I will get into in my post when I will hopefully find time to finish soon.Suffice it to say that it has much to do with Michael’s constitutional rights to trial, legal representation and the attorney of his choice.Because what you think you know now will pale in comparison to what he really did. When you read what I have spent the last 2 years researching and figuring out will turn your blood cold and that is not an exaggeration.

    Like

  16. lynande51 permalink
    March 15, 2012 5:26 am

    @rodrigo
    It is the way that they twist information to suit their agenda and believe me it is not against Michael it is about the Michael Jackson fan, hence the title of this post. They do it merely to get a rise out of people that defend Michael not because of how they feel about Michael but how they feel about other people in general. You could actually put anyones name in where they say what they say about Michael because they do it to anyone.
    They twist every fact to suit their own purposes. We don’t twist the facts here we just use them the way they were meant to be used, to tell the truth.

    Like

  17. lacienegasmiles permalink
    March 15, 2012 5:11 am

    @Rodrigo

    It’s only the hardcore haters who believe MJ molested anyone else before or after Jordan. Most people accept it when Brett Barnes, Wade Robson and Macaulay Culkin all deny being abused. They realize that to start saying they’re lying and that they were abused opens up way too many contradictions and things which just don’t make any sense and that it sounds ridiculous. The haters minds are so warped at this point that they don’t even realize what they say. They need those other children to have been abused, they don’t realize that this need they have exposes that they themselves don’t believe Jordan Chandler or Gavin Arvizo prove MJ was a ped-le. They also realize that Jordan saying all three were abused and all three denying it shows a huge hole in Jordan’s story.

    In saying that, another question: if Michael paid off other families before Evan, then why didn’t he pay Evan off straight away? Why did Michael tell his friends (Liza Minnelli, Macaulay Culkin’s family, Lisa Marie Presley, David Nordahl, off the top of my head – I believe he likely also told Brooke Shields who was at a grand jury deposition too) and also his lawyers about it? Why involve anyone else at all? If Mike was in the business of ALWAYS giving families so much money that not the police, FBI, friends, family, neighbours, girlfriends has ever said they had knowledge of them being molested, then why not have just paid Evan off the second he said anything as he apparently did all the time? They can’t have it both ways.

    Like

  18. Rodrigo permalink
    March 15, 2012 4:26 am

    Hi. I’ve been checking this site out for a while now, and I can’t stress enough how brilliant it is. The excellent work all you guys do is amazing, Michael would certainly be proud 🙂

    I used to go on Topix and fight the haters, liars, just downright schizo losers on there. But after realising I was screaming at a brick wall, I just decided to bugger them all. The old ‘f’loon’ name calling I used to get, miss those days XD. Even had a thread made about me, gotta love the haters. I remember sanemjfan, don’t know if she remembers me? 🙂

    Anyhow, I just took a stroll on the MJfacts website and seen the new tactics in their fight against Michael. As we’ve seen before, trying to compare him with a ped-le and the characteristics. Gotta love them for trying. IMO, it just comes down to them being unable to handle the truth about Michael, that he shared a bed with kids and was innocent the whole time. Yes, Michael had his wants and his needs, but none of it was due to him being a ped-le, thats the truth. They can put it any which they like, but we can all make the conclusion ,that whatever was up with Michael, it had nothing to do with p-ia. Hard as it might be for them to understand and accept, it’s the truth.

    I’m 21, and I love spending time with my mams friends granddaughter, she’s 2. Does it make me a ped-le for wanting to spend time with her? Does it make me a p. for wanting to play with her? Does it make me a p. that she sits on my knee and I read to her? Does it make me a p. that when she goes to sleep I lie beside her til she dozes off? Most of things Michael did with kids, does that make us p-les? I love that girl as if she were my own, as Michael loved every kid as if they were his own. But the haters would consider even THAT something sinister, because as I said, they simply can’t fathom the idea of innocence. Of course right there I’m encouraging the idea of innocence in my actions, so they can easily turn around and say I’m guilty of something sinister by claiming my innocence in ghe first place.

    I’ll leave with this question that they couldn’t answer.

    If Michael was guilty and Evan knew he was guilty, then why didn’t Michael just admit it? Because as we know there are claims that Michael paid many families before the Chandlers. And there are claims by haters that the families didn’t want to cooperate with police investigations because THEY KNEW Michael was guilty and because he paid them. So Michael MUST have admitted wrongdoing to all the families he allegedly paid off. So why didn’t he just admit it to Evan Chandler when the situation reached its head? Just like all the other parents he must have admitted to? Strange, eh? Why not admit it to the man who wanted to know and would have happily settled things with twenty million?

    PS. I showed this site to my cousin, and it totally changed his view on Michael 😀

    Like

  19. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 15, 2012 1:17 am

    “The entire case was a travesty of justice and should have never been allowed.”

    Julie, thank you for the explanation. Brian Oxman may have behaved unethically on some occasions but his offences are in my opinion absolutely incomparable to those of Sneddon and Co. This was one of the reasons why I wondered about Sneddon and sanctions against him. In short I am not surprised that Oxman had to answer, but I am totally amazed that Sneddon never had to for what he did to Michael Jackson. Sneddon was allowed to leave the D.A. office with honors and with the highest pension among the people of Santa Barbara.

    The other reason why I mentioned Oxman is that it was he who amended Joe Jackson’s suit against AEG. He prepared it in a more professional way than the lawyers for Katherine Jackson did. And the fact that Oxman was not allowed to practice surely delivered a blow to Joe Jackson’s case against AEG. Though Joseph has another lawyer now sanctions against Oxman affected Joseph’s suit negatively.

    Like

  20. Julie permalink
    March 14, 2012 8:56 pm

    Vindicatemj – if you don’t mind me answering the question you posed to J. Mason…attorneys in the United States are to adhere to certain standards in order to maintain their licenses in good standing. http://www.calbarxap.com/applications/CalBar/PDFs/code_section_6068.pdf,

    As such, an attorney must also pay all bar fees and complete a certain number of hours of continuing legal education (“CLE”) which includes ethics (I realize with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office – they don’t adhere to any ethical standards so seemingly ethics education is wasted on them). As far as Sneddon is concerned, it appears that he failed to comply with paying his fees and taking the required CLE in order to be in good standing with the California State Bar. Maybe because he is no longer practicing and has no desire to – he simply chose to let all of that go. I find it strange for someone to do that much as I would a retired medical doctor to fail to do what is required to maintain his medical license even though he is no longer practicing medicine. Sneddon may be ill, who knows? Of course, we would all love it if his law license was taken from him as I feel that is what he deserves for his extremely unethical practice of law.

    In Oxman’s case, he has had multiple dealings with the California State Bar for various violations over the years. This is why it totally amazes me given that the information is public that he chose to thrust himself on to talk shows or basically anywhere a microphone was available to blather on about Michael Jackson and claim to be the family lawyer. I personally feel that the fact that he showed up at the hospital the day of Michael’s death and making assertions and assumptions as to what was the cause of death before anyone could even get a grip on what was happening to be extremely unethical. I further feel that he is one that loves the limelight, which is why he continued to insert himself into family dealings and filings on behalf of Joe Jackson. He complained more than once that he never got paid for his services, so one has to wonder why he would continue to represent clients that did not pay timely or at all.

    In the case you referenced, it appears that he was making claims about a witness that were not true and the witness came forward and testified that what Oxman was alleging about him was not the truth and Oxman was sanctioned by the court as a result.

    “The court permitted one claim to go forward but warned Oxman of his obligations under Rule 11 and expressed its reservations regarding his motivation for the lawsuit. Oxman’s law partner eventually filed a dismissal and the opposing lawyer was awarded sanctions totaling almost $40,000. Oxman did not pay the sanction in a timely fashion.”

    Because Oxman failed to do what he was court ordered to do, he faced reprimand by the State Bar. I have also read that he was reprimanded for misdealings over an estate he was handling,

    In any event I have always been told that one has to tread very carefully when accusing a judge or governmental prosecutor of misconduct without concrete proof for fear of being sanctioned by the court himself. Again, I personally do not understand why on earth Sneddon and his group seem to be made of Teflon when each one of them blatantly violated just about every standard out there to try to convict Michael. Even Mesereau had Sneddon up on the witness stand regarding his unethical raiding of Brad Miller’s office and taking items that were of attorney/client privilege. Sneddon “claimed” under oath that he didn’t realize that Brad Miller was employed by Mark Geragos at the time of the raid, which I’m sorry is an outright lie in my opinion. Why on earth would he just randomly raid Miller’s office in the Michael Jackson case? The Judge ruled in Sneddon’s favor. Why? In my opinion because the only conspiracy that was going on in Santa Barbara was the one by the DA’s office to try to convict an innocent man and they had judicial help as well as law enforcement.

    The entire case was a travesty of justice and should have never been allowed. Zonen shouldn’t be allowed to continue to spout garbage out of his mouth and flat out lie as he has been doing, nor should people like Diane Dimond be allowed to continue to make statements alluding to Michael’s guilt when he was totally exonerated at the trial. It is something that I will never understand!

    Like

  21. kaarin22 permalink
    March 14, 2012 4:16 am

    Thank you VMJ for including Michael C. Barnes Attn. in your article.
    Now that Murray is busy with his appeal,though it probably will take some time,I hope Michael Barnes blog be active again.
    RE crazy fans- they come with the territory. Why otherwise do famous and important people have bodyguards? That was also why Michael had an insurance – just recall his “wife, Nona Ankehenhaum, who claimed he fathered x nr or all of her children and also wrote 3000 songs for him?”
    Another fan got herself into the compound and was found sitting by the pool. She was later committed to a psych.hospital. I have personally met a great fan of former Princess Margareth of UK. He almost managed to climb over the wall of Buckingham Palace. I saw many letters he had written to her and many drawings of her.

    Like

  22. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 13, 2012 9:29 pm

    “When the Law and its Officers are perverted, we are all in danger. Sneddon has much to answer for in this world, and certainly in the next”.

    J.Mason, do you happen to know if Prosecutors are disbarred in the same manner attorneys are? I am asking because I’ve found why Brian Oxman was made “not eligible to practice law”. To me it looks like no real offense (frankly I didn’t even understand what he did wrong) and in comparison with Tom Sneddon’s frauds all of it looks like an innocent joke. Was there a similar way to make Tom Sneddon answer?

    Here is Brian Oxman’s case:

    Status History
    Effective Date Status Change
    Present Not Eligible To Practice Law
    2/2/2012 Not Eligible To Practice Law
    7/28/1997 Active
    6/29/1997 Not Eligible To Practice Law
    12/22/1976 Admitted to The State Bar of California

    January 21, 2010
    RICKEY BRIAN OXMAN [#72172], 58, of Santa Fe Springs was suspended for two years, stayed, placed on two years of probation and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect Jan. 21, 2010.
    During a divorce case in which Oxman represented the wife, he filed a civil rights complaint against the opposing attorney and his client (the husband in the case), alleging that the lawyer threatened a witness with disciplinary action before the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, revocation of his license and harassment through the legal system. The witness, a marriage counselor, had not appeared as scheduled at trial. Oxman alleged that the husband and his lawyer conspired to deprive the wife of her equal protection rights because of her gender. He did not have any evidence to support the allegations although he believed they were true.
    The doctor eventually testified at trial and denied he’d been threatened. The attorney for the husband successfully had two claims dismissed. The court permitted one claim to go forward but warned Oxman of his obligations under Rule 11 and expressed its reservations regarding his motivation for the lawsuit. Oxman’s law partner eventually filed a dismissal and the opposing lawyer was awarded sanctions totaling almost $40,000. Oxman did not pay the sanction in a timely fashion.
    He stipulated that he disobeyed a court order and pursued an unjust action. http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/04-O-13344-2.pdf

    Like

  23. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    March 13, 2012 7:06 pm

    Sneddon used the power of his public office and the power of Law to legitimize the false allegations made by others against Michael Jackson. In my view, that makes his crime the more egregious (though I certainly DO NOT minimize the false witness originally committed by the so-called victims or their families). His obvious goal was to imprison Michael Jackson as a convicted felon where his name and memory would remain soiled for all time. But Sneddon’s underlying goal was to destroy and de-throne “this upstart” who presumed to achieve Kingship of the world in his chosen field, and reduce him, psychologically, to a frightened child hiding in a corner of that little house in Gary, Indiana. Sneddon lost in court, as we know, but the damage to Mr. Jackson’s mind, soul, and body (despite his amazing strength) was extensive — and ultimately lethal in my opinion. When the Law and its Officers are perverted, we are all in danger. Sneddon has much to answer for in this world, and certainly in the next.

    Like

  24. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 13, 2012 1:58 am

    A friend has just brought this to my attention: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/39406

    Jan, I think it is because in 2011 out of his huge pension Tom Sneddon stopped paying the fee required of all Bar Members. At least this site says so (though I would prefer the reason to be different).

    Like

  25. Mona permalink
    March 13, 2012 12:03 am

    Sanemjfan, i think maybe you might have inserted the wrong link, it doesn’t seem to be what you wrote about in your comment,
    However, yes, I know what you mean. My comment was directed rather at people who don’t yet know what to make of Michael’s fans and I wanted to point out a different connection to the label of ‘crazy and rabid’.
    You are right, just a few bad examples can put all fans in a very negative light, especially if that’s what the media wants to show. Let’s face it, Michael has so many fans all over the world that some of them are bound to be a bit looney, just because in a very large group of people you naturally have your percentage of looneys. He inspired a lot of intense emotions, no wonder this happened.

    Like

  26. Jan permalink
    March 12, 2012 10:55 pm

    A friend has just brought this to my attention:

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/39406

    Like

  27. sanemjfan permalink
    March 12, 2012 2:50 am

    @Mona
    Of course, just because someone defends MJ, it doesn’t mean that you’re “crazy, rabid”. But unfortunately there was a LOT of “crazy, rabid” behavior from a small percentage of fans during the trial. For example, the lady at 3:54 in this video who said that she is a “born again virgin” and saving herself for MJ! She kisses his photos everyday, and goes on and on about her love for MJ, but doesn’t provide any cogent explanations as to why she believed MJ was innocent (unlike some of the other fans in the video, like the lady who described the DCFS report!)

    It’s fans like her that give the fan community a bad name because those are the types of fans that the media promotes to the general public, and they make us all look looney!

    Like

  28. Mona permalink
    March 12, 2012 2:10 am

    Just a thought regarding the title… since when is seeking the truth regarded as crazy and rabid? Isn’t it rather the other way around? Isn’t hatred and meanness related to the concepts of crazy and rabid? Think about it. Those who don’t like something about themselves very often pinpoint it in others, whether it’s there or not…

    Peace

    Like

  29. Mona permalink
    March 12, 2012 1:29 am

    VMJ, I was speechless as well, these people bring out the worst in me, unfortunately. What a stupid article! Well, I left a comment in the LA Weekly site, I also copied it here.

    “‘Pamela Chelin, I wonder why you thought that such a poorly written and gratuitously mean article is worthy of being made public. I am sorry to say that you are a disgrace to your profession. If you have nothing to say it’s always better that you refrain from speaking, rather than make a complete mockery of yourself with such ludicrous attempts at writing. A shame!”‘

    I honestly feel kind of bad about it being so acid, but it was so ugly… Does the author really think this way or is this just her way of fitting in with the rest of the haters? What a shame…

    Like

  30. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 11, 2012 2:24 pm

    “Unfortunately it’s just a few, load-mouth crass individuals who manipulated their way to seeking attention when the fire was hot.
    That’s OK their day is on it’s way.”

    Cawobeth, I am afraid it is not just a few individuals, but the overwhelming majority of them. They call Michael’s supporters “crazy fans” because they are different from the rest of the people. To show you an example of an extremely unfair and biased article written only recently here is one about the Handprint ceremony which struck all of us by its poignance – while all it is to these people is that it was “incredibly strange”.

    This sarcasm and thinly veiled nastiness are absolutely uncalled for! Is it all they have to say about the ceremony?

    Incredibly Strange
    The Bizarre Michael Jackson Handprint Ceremony
    By Pamela Chelin Fri., Jan. 27 2012 at 4:00 AM
    Categories: Incredibly Strange

    See also:
    *Our preview of the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soliel Show
    *MJ Tribute Concert Rolls Toward Cancellation; Oh, And His Kids Are More Or Less Contractually Required To Attend

    There was a Michael-Jackson’s-kids sighting on Hollywood Blvd, yesterday, as his estate had his hand and footprint ceremony at the Grauman’s Chinese Theatre. Access Hollywood’s Billy Bush hosted the event, declaring it “Michael Jackson immortalized day in Los Angeles.” Sounds official!
    The best part were the stories; at one point Chris Tucker got onstage and said he once spilled hot chocolate in Michael’s Neverland study. Ever the gracious host…Michael told him not to worry about it and, instead, to just go play on a go kart. Glee’s Harry Shum Jr. got onstage and said that he, too, was at Neverland and that he ate ice cream. Basically what everyone was saying was that Michael served a hell of a lot of sugar at Neverland.

    Smokey Robinson wore a cream colored suit and red suede shoes. He was humble and gracious as he spoke of Michael. Smokey is the man. He has sunshine on a cloudy day. Quincy Jones noted that he didn’t think he had ever been awake that early before, despite that it was already 12:30 in the afternoon. He’s Quincy Jones. Does he really ever have to get out of bed?
    He told Jackson’s kids that Michael is looking down on them from heaven, “grinning like a fox eating sauerkraut.” Do foxes eat sauerkraut? Quincy certainly seems to think they do. He made that same strange reference in his 2002 autobiography, at a Recording Academy luncheon in 2004 when describing Earth, Wind and Fire and in a 2009 Esquire interview.

    The King of Pop’s three children, Paris, “Blanket,” and Prince were there to put Jackson’s footprints, sequined glove and name into cement. Paris carved her dad’s name and a heart. Then she used Jackson’s infamous sequined glove to make an impression.
    Prince was wearing a “The Jacksons” t-shirt, seemingly bought just before the ceremony at a Hollywood Boulevard souvenir shop. If it was a knock-off, and not official merchandise, the Jackson Estate will probably sue, so it’s a good thing the Estate’s lawyers John Branca and John McClain were at the event to monitor the situation.

    Also present was the matriarch of the Jackson clan, Katherine, and Jackson brothers Tito, Marlon and Jackie. No Jermaine though. No Rebbie. No Janet. And no La Toya. La Toya was probably off somewhere having an exorcism followed by a palm reading.

    The Biebs got onstage and sang The Jackson 5 hit “Rockin’ Robin” acapella. Though Biebs performed and spoke about Michael Jackson, he told the crowd that he never even met Michael. Poser.

    At one point, a bunch of dancers wearing vibrant colors hit the stage. It was the Los Angeles debut of The Immortal World Tour Cirque Du Soleil production, which premieres in Los Angeles Friday night. It is described on its official site as a show in which “the secrets of Michael’s world are unlocked,” including “his love of music and dance.”

    Wait a minute. Michael Jackson loved music and dance? What?!! No offense, Cirque, but I don’t think that was ever a secret.

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2012/01/michael_jackson_graumans_chinease_theatre_handprint.php?page=3

    If anyone wants to say anything about it please leave your comment in the LA Weekly. As to me I am simply speechless.

    Like

  31. cawobeth permalink
    March 11, 2012 12:56 pm

    Yes, quite a few notable people, reporters, physicians, historians have spoke & written about MJ’s innocence. In fact, they far out-number the negative few (not including their copycats). I’ll send you a few more noteworthy of mention.

    Unfortunately it’s just a few, load-mouth crass individuals who manipulated their way to seeking attention when the fire was hot.
    That’s OK their day is on it’s way.

    *William, thank you for contributing more valuable info. to this article.
    As always, thank you saneMJfan, you.

    Like

  32. Linda permalink
    March 11, 2012 10:11 am

    They must be following some “guidelines” from their editors who follow the guidelines of I don’t know who, and this is why their media shows itself to be a propaganda machine not much better than ours.

    Well, I’m an american and proud of it. I don’t know how the media reports in other countries, but I am totally ashamed of how Michael was treated by them here, and how they treat ALL celebrities. I don’t remember which journalist said it, but her, or his editor said, cover the trial and we don’t want anything positive, but report only the negative.

    Yes it was only to sell papers. I could never be successful at their job because I have a habit of looking for the good in all people. They would fire me, because I guess I would be a boring reporter? I think it’s fascinating that a man so great, popular and rich gave away as much as he kept, and he gave to all nations, not just his own.

    He loved all people all over the world. He was unique in every way, and not many people would have stayed so sweet and kind with all the bs said about him. Michael was a gift to the whole world. He gave all he had to give, and I thank God for all the people that received this gift and got his message. I have to admit I struggle with forgiveness to those people that bash him every chance they get. I think I have love and compassion for all people, but I’m not sure if I could be as forgiving as he was.

    America is a great country with many faults, but free speech has a price. Gossip is cheap, and every one will one day give an account and face responsibility. As for most journalist in America? I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes when that day comes. The public has lost faith in the media. Hopefully, they will see the error of their ways and get back to reporting the news. I won’t hold my breath, $$$, is the almighty to so many people.

    Like

  33. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 11, 2012 1:32 am

    Guys, please excuse us for the numerous links which have just been posted in these comments. I don’t know why they appeared – must be some malfunction, so I deleted them.

    Like

  34. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 10, 2012 11:51 pm

    “We speak about the Slavic soul. When I look at Michael, he is very close to us. His sensitivity, spirituality, we feel it. Pain, injustice, loneliness and misunderstanding – we know it well.”

    Maria, yes, Michael is indeed very close to us and we do feel his pain probably better than anyone else, because those who suffered themselves tend to be more compassionate towards others. But this is not a universal rule for the nation as a whole – when I look at some of my compatriots I often feel ashamed for their way of thinking and behavior and wonder whether they have any soul at all. And I myself could not boast any special sensitivity towards Michael before his death – I was just like everyone else, indifferent to what was going on and thinking that “there couldn’t be smoke without fire”. Michael’s death totally changed me, but the same miracle happened to thousands and probably millions of people the world over, so we are not in any way special here either.

    What is different though is that we generally do not speak of the dead in such a disreputable way, while the English-speaking media still remains exceptionally callous to Michael and has practically not changed its ruthless ways. The few improvements we notice are probably due to the financial success of various projects related to Michael which they are respectful of.

    However as regards the truth of his innocence the US and UK media is still solid like a concrete wall – not a single fact of lies against Michael has been confessed or reported. They are pretending there were no lies and that nothing outrageous towards him ever took place. And the fact that they blame Michael for his own death is also absolutely outrageous, though it is perfectly clear to every normal person that Conrad Murray is no better than a murderer.

    But I am not ready to explain it by the difference in our cultures – I am sure that there is some agenda behind all that. It is simply impossible for practically all journalists (with few exceptions) to think in an absolutely the same way. They must be following some “guidelines” from their editors who follow the guidelines of I don’t know who, and this is why their media shows itself to be a propaganda machine not much better than ours.

    It infinitely surprises me to see it happening in the US too, but as a sort of “experts” in this field you and I see it better than anyone else. All I can say is that this way the US media is doing a great disservice to their country. Whatever illusions we had we have lost them.

    And if the main driving force for publishing lies about Michael is money to “have the news sell”, it makes the whole thing all the more repulsive.

    Like

  35. Maria permalink
    March 10, 2012 9:55 pm

    Vindicatemj, the Slav nations strongly feel the whole tragedy of MJ. We speak about the Slavic soul. When I look at Michael, he is very close to us. His sensitivity, spirituality, we feel it. Pain, injustice, loneliness and misunderstanding – know it well. Our countries were victims of the Nazis and the Communists. The war had an impact on our countries. Brutal crimes so terrible that it’s hard to believe that really happened. The concentration camps, executions of civilians on the streets of our cities. The capital of my country has been razed to the ground. After the war was communism. So we know what suffering is.
    Michael is close to us. He met persecution, injustice and misunderstanding. We hope that it all made ​​sense. God gave him a huge talent, he preached the love around the world. His suffering, it showed how people can be cruel. He received blows, not indulged. Big character, courage and humility. Therefore prove something. It is a mirror that shows us our sins and weaknesses. He punishes us look at each other. Be a better man. Vindicatemj talks about feelings of depression. It’s true. The man thinks: The world got such a gift, such a beautiful gift.
    His suffering touched people around the world. Man can not to accept with what had happened. After the war was settled. Human rights have become very important, created the European Union. For this it was necessary to settle and forgiveness. Journalists in America and other countries need to honestly account for how they treated MJ. It could be the start of the media changes.

    Like

  36. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 10, 2012 7:29 pm

    “I come from Europe, of course, we were shown all the problems Michael had, but it was not media bashing. I admire fans in His country. I know that in every country are people good and bad. Americans can be fantastic and terrible. Just like everywhere. But I will not change opinions about the media in America. Big evil.”

    Maria, from your email I gather that you are from Poland. Since we share common history both of us know what a totalitarian regime is capable of doing to its people and how good it is in brainwashing their minds. Therefore neither of us expected that anything similar could be done by the media to people in countries like the US.

    I agree that it was indeed a shock to see the truth about Michael distorted in a totally shameful way and lies hammered into people’s minds in much the same way it was (or is) done by the Soviet-type media. The reason why the US or UK media does it is not that important – it is the fact that they are doing it which is such an awful revelation to both of us.

    You see, guys, we thought much better of your media and frankly, had a different idea of your people in general – we thought that at least they valued the truth more and would not easily bend to lies. Now we see that it is correct only for individual people but is not correct for the whole nation and is surely not correct for your media.

    My first depressive reaction to it was that “there is no truth on this planet anywhere“. However this unpleasant discovery also opened my eyes to another process taking place in the world now – people clearly divide into those who appreciate the truth and are ready to go to great lengths to know it, and those who are ready to lie and be satisfied with lies. The first ones are simply incapable of living in an environment of lies, while the others for some reason feel quite comfortable in it.

    It is either because they are no longer able to tell a lie from the truth, or don’t give a damn for what the truth is. They value other things in life – money, comfort, success, having a good social status, not going against the mainstream or having problems by disagreement with others, keeping to their “ideals” at the expense of the truth, whatever.

    However there are some (evidently a minority) for whom the truth has a separate value of its own. They will sacrifice their free time to find out what it is and vehemently stand up for it rather than relax and enjoy life as it is.

    Michael’s harassment was such a huge and grave case of injustice that it attracted honest people from all over the world. It even accelerated the process of division between lies and truth as people, facing the overwhelming evidence of Michael’s innocence, began siding either with one or the other. Michael’s name began attracting those who appreciate the truth and prefer to live by its rules.

    I think that the main feature of those who stand up for Michael is their honesty and therefore we feel much more comfortable with each other than with our own countrymen who are ready to bend to any lie. The truth is crossing all borders and is establishing an entity of its own.

    Like

  37. Linda permalink
    March 10, 2012 10:46 am

    Wonderful article with great info, and many very interesting comments. I do believe in free speech, but not bashing someone with no proof. That just turns into cheap gossip, which is what we get from most of the media today. It’s heartbreaking to see how they use their wonderful platform to mislead the public, instead of reporting the news.

    Must be a lot of pressure on them to try to come out with the first “breaking news” to have the most salacious story. It’s no longer about reporting the news. It’s a nasty war between journalists to get the biggest story first. I feel for their stress, but to compromise their integrity for a story is pretty sad. I’d say it’s time for a new profession, or try a new angle, like, take a lesson from their predecessors and just report the facts. I would love to hear how Walter Cronkite or Paul Harvey would have reported on this.

    Please don’t judge all of us Americans by the media. There are a few journalists that didn’t knuckle under pressure, and actually reported the truth about MJ and are still fighting for justice. Michael belongs to us, and the whole world, and we’re all proud of him and will continue to fight for his vindication until he gets it. Michael didn’t care about race, color or creed and neither should we. That’s the message that we all need to get, and just come together in love.

    That might be a pipe dream, but i guess we all have our dreams. World peace!

    Love to all.

    Like

  38. Mona permalink
    March 10, 2012 1:42 am

    Maria, people are just people anywhere on earth. The American society is not better or worse than others. We all have our faults. What the media did was indeed horrible, but it wasn’t just them. Martin Bashir was not an American journalist, for example. Let’s not forget that it’s Michael’s country and he was initially a product of the American culture. He was larger than life and rose above it, but the world owes the US for Michael Jackson.

    Like

  39. Maria permalink
    March 10, 2012 12:39 am

    I do not know, fans from other countries feel aversion to the United States of America. I, unfortunately, yes. Unfortunately I am writing because he sang Man in the mirror. I feel such a strong aversion to the media in America that bothers me even journalists who talk about the economy. This is the result of knowing what happened to Michael from his countrymen.
    Michael was very patient, gentle and loving. He loved all people, every nation. He “forced” to repair myself, and I criticize America. But I can not resist. Maybe because I really experienced culture shock when I met the American media and journalists. I was surprised by the scale of atrocities. In my country it was not.
    I come from Europe, of course, we were shown all the problems Michael had, but it was not media bashing. The former information. People do not know what to think about it. . When there are allegations of harassment, his music was not played on the radio. Process in 2005, live shows judgment. I remember that after each word innocent, the woman let go a dove.
    When Michael died suddenly reigned genuine sadness. People who met him when he was in my country- They spoke about MJ with respect. They also said how much he loved children. They had witnessed his reaction to the children. Now when I turn on the radio I often hear his music, today, for example, the song Bad.
    Michael is recognized again after death. Recently also been mentioned about him on television, the children danced in the style of MJ. The reporter asked what they can say about MJ. Children said: He was a great man, he loved people and children. Journalist. Yes, but that he had big problems. Silence in the studio. Now I know, MJ has a new generation of fans.
    I admire fans in His country. I agree with Kris. I know that in every country are people good and bad. Americans can be fantastic and terrible. Just like everywhere. But I will not change opinions about the media in America. Big evil.
    Media all over the world need to change for the better but the media in America especially. Clarification of the matter with MJ could be the beginning of good changes.
    MJ deserves total rehabilitation.
    For the good of all.

    Like

  40. nan permalink
    March 9, 2012 9:03 pm

    I am reading over Mesereau Random Thoughts regarding jury selection in the MJ case and I was just wondering if someone had a clearer understanding of the section..Regarding accepting the jury and the strategy of “running a table”
    from the article:
    ____________

    As you all know, a trial lawyer has a certain number of preemptory challenges with which to remove jurors. No reason need be given unless your removal is challenged on constitutional grounds. Other jurors can be removed “for cause” if the judge determines they cannot be fair and impartial. There is no limitation on removing jurors for cause, but you need the judge’s approval to do so.

    One exercises preemptory challenges with many factors in mind, including what you think the other side is trying to accomplish. In Jackson, the prosecution quickly began to “accept the panel,” meaning they were willing to utilize the jurors in the box as the trial jury. I believed they were doing this for strategic reasons. They thought that I would not accept the panel so early and they were, in effect, banking their challenges. They knew that a young African-American male was coming up through the ranks and could statistically make it to the final jury. In my opinion, they thought I was desperate to have a black juror and that I would do anything to see this happen. They hoped to bank their challenges and eventually “run a table” on me and remove many jurors that they probably did not care for.

    This conclusion was strictly intuitive. I looked to the other side and saw three white male prosecutors and their white male jury consultant. The jury consultant was named Varinsky. He had been a consultant for the prosecution in three high-profile trials where convictions were obtained: Timothy McVeigh (who received the death penalty), Martha Stewart and Scott Peterson (who also received the death penalty). I watched these prosecutors and their consultant as they huddled and conversed. I believed they thought this case was indefensible and that my only hope was a hung jury. They believed I would do anything to obtain a single black juror to hang the case. I believed they were engaged in stereotypical, simplistic thinking about race and were willing to temporarily accept jurors while they banked their challenges for the future. They thought I would never accept any panel if there was any potential for an African-American juror.

    I concluded they also believed that, even if I wanted to accept a panel before this black male appeared, the Jackson family would not permit it. Well, I shocked them when I accepted the panel with five preemptory challenges remaining. I saw their jaws drop. I believe the final jury had people they did not particularly want and that their strategy had backfired.

    Consider one juror: He was a young, white disabled man in a wheelchair. His attitude and politics appeared very conservative; but remember, they were viciously attacking Michael Jackson’s make-up, skin and other things about his appearance. Who knows discrimination better than a young disabled person? Who is more likely to dislike these kinds of personal attacks than someone who is disabled?

    During the trial, the prosecution schooled some of their witnesses to discuss Michael Jackson’s make-up and appearance. Michael Jackson suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo. This disease destroys skin pigment. One day Michael showed me his back by lifting his shirt. His skin is brown with white patches. He looks like a cow. He is very self-conscious of similar skin conditions on his face and this is why he applies make-up. You also see his security guards use an umbrella because his skin cannot accept sunlight.

    I knew that the prosecutors were going to exploit his appearance. I also believed a young disabled man would take considerable dislike to this. It is difficult for me to believe that they wanted this kind of person on the jury. I think their gamble backfired in the way they attempted to bank their preemptory challenges…
    —————————————————————–
    Is he saying that the prosecutors thought he would use all his preemptive challenges up in order to get one black person to hang the jury,,,
    and then he would be out of preemptive challenges and they would go back and use their own to remove the black juror and cherry pick through the ones that were already accepted?
    I was just wondering if in jury selection , when a potential juror gets up there..do both sides agree to accept the person at the same time and then they can go back and pull some out if the have these preemptive…
    Or does one side accept the jury before the other?and then the other side gets to sift through the group..?? that they could have taken off people Mesereau already accepted?
    Or if the defense accepts the jury , the prosecution doesnt get to use the challenges they left on the table?
    I hope I am not confusing people.I just want to be clear when I am talking to people about this stuff..

    Like

  41. nan permalink
    March 9, 2012 7:03 am

    I really always thought the accusation with Star was just to have on record for the later civil trial, so they could just tack it on and get more money for him too as well as Gavin..
    Kinda like the mother said Gavins arm was broken during the Penny thing and somehow Star got a cyst on his head from it….
    But Gavin was the Star witness in that thing too , wasnt he???.I also think he could have gotten some money for the distress of seeing his brother supposedly accosted, by Michael.Maybe the sister would have gotten something MJ supposedly giving her wine too..They were all lined up ..:(((

    The reason I thought that about Star …is because he strikes me as just plain stupid..Gavin is the one who was a lot better at keeping his lies in order.., Mesereau even said his mother said that to someone during the JC Penny stuff.
    SO I think they decided to let Gavin carry the case …JMO
    Of course in his cross examination, he is tripped up constantly …I read it again last night, and there were SEVERAL times where Mesereau accused him of making that garbage up because his family was on his way out..
    and he responded to the part about being abandoned, each time… ..Naturally anyone who actually was violated would have insisted the event happened rather then respond to the part about being abandoned…
    Thank you Tom Mesereau!!
    I am just appalled at what Sneddon did to this man ..Everytime I read about more of the injustice and false accusations Michael faced, I am just in awe of his strength….
    I dont know how he could deal with this garbage and have the resilience and good heart he had until the day he died..

    Like

  42. sanemjfan permalink
    March 9, 2012 5:57 am

    I’ve added Deborah Ffrench’s incredile articles to the post! I will add a few others soon!

    Like

  43. J. Mason, New York, NY permalink
    March 9, 2012 1:39 am

    Thank you for yet another fascinating post containing material we can all study closely and learn from.

    It is a testament to Michael Jackson’s good heart that he was drawn to help those with broken lives. I wish that heart had been wily enough to recognize that some broken lives can be lethal to everything they touch. The Chandlers, for example, were very damaged and very deadly — long before they met Michael Jackson. Mrs. Chandler was enamored of her own good looks and hungered for admiration and male attention. Evan Chandler resented confinement to the fringes (dentist to the stars) of the fame and recognition he coveted. Both were bitter and nursing a sense of unfulfilled entitlement, Michael Jackson must have seemed a dream come true falling in their laps. His presence meant entre to the fame, glamour and recognition to which they felt entitled but were unjustly denied. At the same time Michael inflamed their envy, covetousness, jealousy and resentment. Jordan was their ideal tool for manipulation (get close to Michael who loved children) and vengeance (destroy Michael when he pulled away and refused to be used).

    I believe that Jordan may have been molested in his early years by someone he knew — perhaps a family member — but in any case long before Michael Jackson entered the scene. I also believe that if Jackson had been another kind of person — a predator — the Chandlers in their greed would have pimped that child out no questions asked. Jordan carries a burden that far exceeds the lie he told long ago. How horrible for a child to realize that his parents don’t really love him at all but see him as a means to a selfish end. Yet, they are the only parents he knows.

    The Arvisos are serial scavengers — noses always testing the air for the scent of a fresh meal-in-the-making or the leavings of a dead carcass. Michael was certainly their meal-in the-making and they circled him like vultures.

    Like

  44. Susanne permalink
    March 8, 2012 4:06 pm

    Sorry, my name had a mistake

    Like

  45. Suanne permalink
    March 8, 2012 4:05 pm

    @Maria:
    I understand your feelings, but we really have to admit that not only the U.S. and British media bashed Michael. You may be right that the seed was sown there, but the worldwide media was eager to take over and continue the hunt. I come from Germany, and we had and still have many terrible and false reports about Michael here. The European media (and I think also of other continents) followed the footsteps of their colleagues in the US and GB, and they are guilty of not doing their own fact-checking. And now, as the American public starts to learn more and more the truth about MJ, we are very behind in our European countries; people don’t learn anything new about Michael through the media here because the case MJ is closed. People are no longer interested. This indifference is as terrible as the witch hunt.
    Media coverage today is never limited to only one country when something is of international interest; today this is always an international cooperation. And greed is the same everywhere. I wonder if you had only true reports about Michael in the country you come from.
    Sorry, but I wanted to put this in another perspective.

    Like

  46. BG permalink
    March 8, 2012 3:15 pm

    Thanks for this wonderful article and for the great comments too. Many thoughts and emotions from opposite ends of the spectrum after reading and watching everything. Thankfully there are good people like those mentioned who were and still are willing to stand up and call out the prosecution and the media for what they did.

    The prosecution and a large portion of the media acted so maliciously it’s impossible to accept that they have not been called to account for their actions and it’s shameful how low the prosecution and the sherriff’s office went to use two terribly dysfunctional families in order to ‘get’ Michael Jackson. The Chandlers and the Arvizos were extortionists, grifters, pretenders and liars but they were aided and abetted in their criminal behavior by those who were supposed to be there to seek truth and justice above all else. That was not the aim of Sneddon and his associates, and most of the media weren’t concerned about those things either. Using the law and the media to commit an injustice should not be condoned by anyone, whether you’re a fan or not. It is an offence against all of us.

    Also wanted to add that when you think about how rabid the media acted towards Michael Jackson, it’s laughable when accusations about “crazy” and “rabid” fans come from that direction!

    A number of other cases have been brought to light, including Gary Dunlap’s case, where there has been an abuse of the justice system by Sneddon and associates. Are indictments really still possible? Could there be an investigation into the abuses of the judicial system in Michael’s case and others during the Sneddon/Zonen era?

    Like

  47. Maria permalink
    March 8, 2012 1:04 pm

    @ Kris: Hatred is a bad word. I feel a strong aversion to the United States of America. I think that is what happened to MJ is a problem this country. He is a symbol. Destroyed most gentle and good with people in the most cruel. The seed was sown. The bad seed. I lost my sympathy. Of course I see a lot of good. I see a good many people in this country. people like Mr. Mesereau, Mr. Ortega, Judge Pastor. I see their wisdom, class, honesty and professionalism.
    Media – is a long subject. The American media is a great evil. Only the British tabloids are equally abhorrent. The media are to some extent a reflection of society. This whole media, almost all journalists took part in the hunt. Media led a massive attack on this man. Those were the years of lies, slanders. Completely distorted picture of MJ. I believe that human rights violated. No one suffered responsibility. More. No one feels responsible. Michael had a skin disease vitiligo. It is a fact. So for years the media cheated, laughed at the sick man. These were the years of persecution. It was a violation of human rights. Fundamental rights. Worse thing was to use children to destroy Michael. It was the height of cruelty. Michael helped children around the world. His genuine concern and love for the children been turned against him. The word pedophile (the most terrifying criminals of children). Fans also have children, they know whom they love. MJ did not hurt a fly. Process in 2005 was the final blow. The big humiliation in the eyes of the world. Of course Michael was acquitted of all charges, but the fact of the process is terrible. MJ was persecuted in 1993. These were the years persecution. The long years, the end was death. It was a tragic result of years of persecution. What happened next turned out?. After the death of MJ,The media in America have long since crossed all limits. Astonishing is the audacity of journalists. They who led to his death, now they blame the victim. He could not sleep. MJ complained of lack of sleep in 2003. In 2005, during the process could not sleep, could not eat. Michael died a long time. I wrote about bad seed that was planted. It’s true. Because there is still no justice. They still blame the victim for everything. United States of America have failed to settle. No. Nothing has been finished. Michael Jackson has been hurt by many people. I am not concerned about revenge. That’s not it. It’s about truth. The point is that the media has admitted to years of manipulation, lies. United States of America should account for what happened to MJ. It was a unique tragedy. I think this applies to the entire nation. This is a mirror of society.

    Like

  48. sanemjfan permalink
    March 8, 2012 10:38 am

    Guys, I’ve added more info on Joe Vogel, William Wagener, K.C. Arceneaux (who Helena recommended), and Gary Dunlap throughout the article!

    Like

  49. sanemjfan permalink
    March 8, 2012 5:52 am

    @ William Wagener
    Thank you! I will certainly add your comment to the post!

    Like

  50. lacienegasmiles permalink
    March 8, 2012 3:14 am

    Shelly posed this one recently too, lawyer Debra Opri:

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

    Epilogue: The Michael Jackson Trial – Truth & the Media

    by Debra Opri – Attorney and Legal Analyst

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

    Like

  51. Kris Heywood permalink
    March 7, 2012 8:29 pm

    @Maria: Yes, I am angry about the smear campaign and persecution of Michael Jackson. I am angry that this spirited, talented man was crushed. I am sad for his children and his parents and siblings and for everyone who loves music and film and books who won’t get to experience all the great things Michael still had to give us. There are reactionary elements in every country that want to punish those who are different. There are envious nasty people on every part of the globe who want to bring down those they cannot understand. But, Maria, you are incorrect if you think America belongs to those kinds of people. Most of the fans of this website are American. Countless Americans have a full collection of all of MJ’s songs and films and speak highly of him. This is not an evil empire. It is a country that allows people to speak their minds, even if what comes out is evil. Freedom isn’t just for people who think and feel as we do. If you took a class where the instructor asked you to write a term paper about all the good that happens in America, you’d have to change your focus enough so that you could let in evidence of such good. There are myriad wonderful people here in every walk of life. Terrible things have been done to Michael Jackson–by a hateful, very vocal minority. The sin of the rest of us was complicit silence and ignorance. That ignorance was and still is being fed by the media. America has always been a melting pot, a giant chaos of opinions and beliefs. From that chaos come many outstanding innovations and inventions. If you want to see the good people of America in action, watch what happens after a natural catastrophe anywhere in the world. We always chip in, big time.
    You can love Michael Jackson without hating America. He was and always will be one of our best.

    Like

  52. kaarin22 permalink
    March 7, 2012 7:35 pm

    Rockforeveron,you are so right. They are rabid ,hanging on with teeth and claws on and on out of hate.

    Like

  53. Maria permalink
    March 7, 2012 5:18 pm

    His personality is in this movie, His innocence, His absolute uniqueness. He was so innocent, sensitive, good.

    MJ with children

    MJ- His personality is in these photos, in his voice.

    Tom Sneddon, Zonen and others -therefore fans love him.

    Like

  54. William Wagener permalink
    March 7, 2012 2:02 pm

    I attended the Michael Jackson so called trial, [ more like an inquisition ], of 5 months in 2005. I missed only 3 days and usually sat behind Mrs. Katherine Jackson or Tito Jackson.

    I can certify that the Jury got it Right. More than any of the bias Media, inflecting innuendos, and the Sheriff who titlated the Media, with lies,

    I can say without hestitation, Michael Jackson was innocent, 100%. Judge Melville should have dismissed the case for lack of the elements of any of the 10 felonys and it was clear to me.

    I did 12 TV weekly shows on the Jackson 2005 trial while it was on going. They were only seen in Santa Maria, Lompoc and Solvang & Buelton, CA. Now parts are on my YOU TUBE channels: WilliamWagener,
    & WilliamJwagener

    It was so obvious that the prosecutors were on a witch hunt, and that Sneddon wanted to go out of office as a “Hero” showing he slayed the pediophile, and had NO real evidence that Michael Jackson every harmed or violated a pubic hair on any child, ever.

    Sneddon even persuaded his fellow BAR Assc. members in the State of California Legislature to change the LAW specifically so Sneddon could bring in the 1108 evidence to prejudice the Jury, which for Long Standing in USA and Common Law nations in general had not been allowed. LAW changed just to Nail one innocent person. That is a Witch hunt and in this case the real witches were the WARLOCKS from the Santa Barbara District Atty.’s Office [ aka the snake pit , which has a long record of convicting innocent men, who later are proven innocent and released after decades in prison ].

    He had only carefully crafted lies from a cancer ridden diseased mind of Gavin and his mother, the mother of all liars, in this case, Janet Arvizo, who finally married a Jackson man in the military, just to have the Jackson name. How nutz is this woman?

    So convinced was I after 5 weeks of lies and carefully crafted deception by Sneddon and Zonen that I state at the Santa Maria, Airport Hilton Rally for Michael, that Michael would walk free, and be found NOT guilty. because in fact Michael was NOT GUILTY. The guilty people were the Prosecutors who committed three FELONYS in faking evidence to wit:
    1. the Fingerprint evidence, 2. the Phone conspiracy evidence [which Sneddon tried to withdraw from the JURY, after a policeman stated under oath to Mag Nicola, the 4th prosecutor, you got this all “Wrong”., and 3. the conspiracy between the evil prosecutors to fake the evidence and make it appear to jive with the practice scripted coached lies that Gavin Arvizo was caught in. I stood alone at that rally of 200 MJ fans, as the only Media person on TV weekly telling them, Michael was not going to be convicted of any of these lies. Aphrodite Jones was not there, but plenty of video was taken and its in part on my YOU TUBE channels.

    Justice for Michael, is no longer possible. But a slice of Justice would be for a Common Law “WE THE PEOPLE of SANTA BARBARA COUNTY” to form, pick a foreman from among the 23, and INDICT all Four Prosecutors for at least the 3 name felonys listed above.

    THIS simply MUST happen, or more similar crimes by a corrupted District Attys Office will continue. Where there is such a blatant documented crime of Members of the Calfornia BAR assoc. JUSTICE must , Justice does demand INDICTMENT, ARREST without bail, Conviction, and sentencing to LIFE in PRISON withOUT possiblity of parol, of these four “criminals in office”. I do not state that as hyperbula or fantasy. It must happen, there must be accountability, for JUSTICE’s sake, … and Michaels sake, even if you don’t like Michael. It is about Justice.

    Unfortunately, that has NOT happened, because the network or what I call the Nutwork’
    media was a part of the lynching of Michael Jackson, and 99% of the MJ fans know that
    and still FEEL that, and the MJ fans are correct, in this case at least, even if they are fanatical. Being Fanatical does NOT mean your always wrong. Jesus was fanatical about Love and forgiveness. He certainly was NOT wrong, even if they did crucify him illegally even under Roman Civil law. Jesus was innocent, even admited “My kingdom is not of this world”. They crucified him anyway after less than 5 days of mistreatment. Michael Jackson endured 5 months of bashing and horrible lies. His close friend, Majestic said to me, I was the only one who believed Michael Jackson would walk free. That is sad but probably true. For that reason I threw a Victory Celebration the day before the Jury verdict. I funded it out of my pocket. bringing Ernest Valentino from Germany first class, THAT is how convinced I was that Michael Jackson would walk free from the Santa Maria Courthouse, vindicated of EVERY charge and lesser included offenses. I did that to cheer up the fans. Unfortunately most were inconsolable or did not understand, because they had not watched my 12 tv shows.

    These Four Criminals in office, Tom Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Gordy Auchincloss, & Mag Nicola deserve to be INDICTED, ARRESTED, CONVICTED and sentence to LIFE withOUT parol for High Treason. the Treason is violating the Law, faking evidence with pre-meditated wanton intent to frame an innocent man. I believe Sneddon knew he did not disserve to win any conviction, but believed with Ellie Cook on the Jury, an elderly
    former employee of a Judge, that he could possibly get his way even if the jury saw threw the faked evidence … which they clearly did.

    To NOT indict them is to encourage more of the same calculated EVIL behavior by other District Attorneys. I also should mention, there was one policeman on the witness stand the spoke the truth against the carefully constructed lies of the Prosecutors, and people should remember, that not all sheriffs were in cahoots with Tom Sneddon, and this one spoke truth, and the Jury did not miss that point.

    In pushing these false charges, the Four Criminals from the S.B. DA office not only started the decline emotionally and psychologically of Michael Jackson, leading to his death 4 years later, the destroyed the greatest Humanitarian of my generation. No one gave more of his OWN money to needy children around the world than Michael Jackson.

    Not only did the Four Criminals in office destroy his name and reputation, and his life, they cheated his three children out of a father distracted wrongly for 2 years on this trial of non existent evidence, and 4 years later cheat the children of their father, cheat MJ siblings of a kind and generous brother, and Katherine and Joe of a son they dearly loved, and millions of MJ fans suffered to some degree with michael. This was a global crime against people who loved MJ’s love of dance, kindness, joy and life itself.

    For this the Criminals from the snake pit, deserve to sit in Prison along with others they put in prison, some guilty, and some not guilty. THAT would be Justice for these criminal members of the California BAR Association.

    I am the witness, who saw and connect the deceptive dots of the /Four criminals in office [ sneddon and cohorts] during the 2005 trial. I certify that the above crimes by the Prosecutors from the snake pit are REAL, and under Common Law, there is NO Statute of Limitations, and when the on going fraud of the Dist. Atty office is so obvious, even under their code it is not run out, because the Fraud to this minute has not been officially made known.

    Michael Jackson was innocent, the Jury got it right on June 13, 2005, regardless that a pair of them may have been paid to appear on TV and yield a contrary opinion, now that Michael is dead and can not defend himself. Though I stand alone, in the above assertion, I must do so, or not be worthy of the God who placed me at that time and place as a witness. I was not a MJ fan at the time of the trial. To this day, I have profited not a penny from the trial, and I state this without prejudice, and only that there be a clear record. Michael Jackson was, is and now always will be innocent. I can only state what I know to be true from my observations, and I have been saying it since early April 2005, without waivering.

    If asked under oath to a Common Law Grand Jury, I would state the above.

    Like

  55. Maria permalink
    March 7, 2012 2:01 pm

    Americans broke human rights. It was unimaginable lynching, crucifixion of an innocent man. They bullied the sick man. Vitiligo is a fact. That does not in any civilized society. Americans broke all the rules in relation to Michael. They have hurt many people by the way. They hurt those who knew that he was innocent. Fans around the world suffer. They do not even know how much. It was torture to see how hurt, persecute, ridicule innocent man. They do not care. I do not believe in this country. This country scares me. Fans say now how they can sleep. But they can. No remorse. MJ could not sleep. They sleep well. Of course, in his country are noble people. United States of America is a huge power. The power of heartless. Use the children to fight with a man. Use vitiligo to fight the man. This is democracy?. This is justice?. This is tyranny.

    Like

  56. nan permalink
    March 7, 2012 7:46 am

    sanemjfan
    I love the idea that students are doing research on the Michael Jackson trial.
    I am not good with computers but I had thought of approaching Alan Dershowitz regarding this case.
    I had met him after the O.J.Trial and the Von Bulow case.. on the ferry from M. V, to Cape Cod..He is a person who also believes in aggressively going after the truth,but ,no offense to him…he likes the spotlight.
    It was pretty evident he welcomed the attn

    I would love it if students started studying the MJ case in law schools.
    You are very articulate..maybe you could suggest it to him.

    I would love to have Sneddon and company be a college class..:))
    Thank you for all you do ..
    .

    Like

  57. nan permalink
    March 7, 2012 7:19 am

    Somewhat off topic, but I am watching election results tonight and it occurred to me that a lot of times the press/media wants to dismiss MJ as just some eccentric pop star and yet they dissect him like he is a politician…
    He certainly had and still does command a lot of attn…..
    I will have to go back on my fb page and try to find a clip of MJ picture being revered in a Pakistani market along with Princess Diana and Osama Bin Laden., after his death, and of course during the U.S./Middle East contentious issues..very telling how beloved he was world wide
    I think his influence and ideas threatened some people..jmo

    Like

  58. sanemjfan permalink
    March 7, 2012 6:53 am

    @Nan
    You just reminded me to add a photo of an email that I received a few months ago from a reader who is using this site for a research project! I added it to the beginning of the post.

    Like

  59. nan permalink
    March 7, 2012 6:15 am

    Wow , that was really really a wonderful piece..I didnt realize students were reading this blog and doing pieces on the Michael Jackson case.
    I remember reading something where people were somewhat making fun of MJ becasue he said this was a case that would go down in history..The take being , that Michael Jackson thought he was such an important person…
    I realized later he meant the abuse of govt office intersecting with the media need for rating / revenue……..and the rights of a citizen being completely ignored..
    That is the bigger issue..
    It really was a modern day lynching
    I completely feel that the stalking of Michael Jackson, , was a civil rights issue, and if I am not mistaken I thought the F.B.I. warned Sneddon that he was very close to infringing on MJ civil rights , before he even brought this ridiculous trial…..
    I wish this case could be reviewed on a federal level regarding civil rights violations..,

    Like

  60. sanemjfan permalink
    March 7, 2012 5:42 am

    Thanks guys! I added the photo of the DCFS report which cleard MJ in 2003, and I’ll be adding more info soon (including your article, Helena.) Let me know if you know of anything else you think I should add!

    Like

  61. Lauren permalink
    March 7, 2012 3:25 am

    This is really terrific. Thank you.

    Like

  62. vindicatemj permalink*
    March 7, 2012 12:20 am

    David, what an encyclopedia of facts! We needed this summary very much indeed.

    I suggest you also include here the DCFS official statement that Michael was innocent (here is a link to the document, only it is the Smoking gun, so a screen shot will be better). http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/celebrity/early-probe-cleared-michael-jackson

    And here is an article I liked – it is by author K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D., a Pushcart nominee and winner of a Tara Fellowship from the Heekin Group. In this comment Kathleen C. Arcenaux says that law should be impartial towards everyone and that the MJ case was a civil rights issue:

    “I am of the opinion that the Jackson case is at heart a civil rights issue, and could prove to be a vanguard case for years to come. Our constitutional freedoms depend on the impartiality of the law, and whether or not a crime has been committed, rather than personal opinions about the accused. I am also of the opinion that there is enough history to civil rights abuse cases in Santa Barbara County, in addition to those detailed in the article, that the issue should be raised as to whether or not the DA should be removed from the case. ” (2004)

    And here is her article:

    New allegations against prosecutor of Michael Jackson
    By K.C. Arceneaux
    RAW STORY COLUMNIST

    On April 30, 2004, the indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him. Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.

    The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts. Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts.
    On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA’s office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio. Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he operated.
    Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram’s wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA’s office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.
    Sundaram’s allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA’s office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to “get Michael Jackson out of the county” were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.
    Sundaram’s allegations are not an isolated instance. There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA’s office. The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called “stacking charges.” In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004, Dunlap gave his opinion that “stacking charges” was a common practice of the DA’s office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.
    Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA’s office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations. Dunlap said, “. . . I mean, it’s one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.”
    The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of
    court, at tax-payer’s expense. There is the example of George Beeghly, whose case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.
    This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case. The extent of the law suits for false arrests, false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement. The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases.
    DA Tom Sneddon’s public relation’s firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.
    When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case. However, he went on to say, “. . . the very fact that he’s being prosecuted by Sneddon’s office does not cause me to have any reason to believe that he’s guilty in that, because of what I know about the district attorney’s office, I know that they do vindictive prosecutions on a routine basis.” If Dunlap’s allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA’s office might shed new light on the Jackson case.
    http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm

    Like

  63. rockforeveron permalink
    March 7, 2012 12:20 am

    Wow, a lot of good people.

    But I believe the only ones who really believe that “rabid crazy” fans are the ones who believe he is innocent seem to be the “rabid crazy” haters we’ve all come across.

    DCFS investigated him twice, there were two grand juries held for him in 1994, a court trial involving the Neverland 5/Hayvenhurst 3 where they alleged they knew about MJ being a pedophile and they lost, Evan’s $60 million dollar lost lawsuit against him, Gutierrez being sued, being investigated by the FBI for the crimes since 1993, having all that evidence brought against him in 2005 and being found not guilty there too… are the people who made all those judgements rabid crazy MJ fans?

    Like

  64. Dee P permalink
    March 6, 2012 10:07 pm

    Once again, an absolutely brilliant piece, full of information not just for those new to the heinous allegations and their impact on an innocent man’s life, but also fascinating for those who have followed this travesty of justice since the very beginning. Keep up the wonderful work – it is never, ever in vain. They tried to shape history, let us re-align it into the shape of truth and justice!

    Like

  65. Mona permalink
    March 6, 2012 5:58 pm

    I am a fan, I’ve been a fan for most of my life and I can pretty much say that my personality was so much shaped by Michael Jackson’s actions and message to the world that I’ll always recognize him as my mentor and guiding light. I started listening to his music and reading his books when I was 11. I am who I am today because of what he taught me and I’m proud of it. It’s been 20 years…

    Although I’ve never had any doubts about his innocence, I chose to follow this site and not another one for the very reason that you mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the article: I want to know facts. It is only through facts that we’ll ever be able to vindicate this wonderful man.

    However, at some point I think we all have to realize that some people will just choose to believe what suits them best DESPITE OF ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD. We will do our job to spread our knowledge, but sometimes people really don’t care about it, because it is not facts they need, but to feel a certain way: to feel more powerful than others and some can do that only by trashing them no matter what. Targets don’t even matter but notice how they chose the different, the weak, the ill?

    I believe in the end it’s all a matter of what category you fall into: are you on the love side or on the hate side? Sometimes it can be difficult to tell…

    Don’t go rabid and crazy, don’t turn into haters, don’t be like them… it’s a waste of energy and hatred is still hatred on this side of the fence also. Let’s use this energy for love, that’s what he would want us to do. Whenever in doubt, let’s think about his words: ‘love is at the heart of all creation’. If that’s not the principle guiding all your actions, then you are not creating, but destroying.

    Peace

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. February 28th – March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Summary of Sneddon and Mesereau’s Opening Statements | Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0
  2. February 28th – March 1st, 2005 Trial Analysis: Summary of Sneddon and Mesereau’s Opening Statements « Vindicating Michael
  3. It’s Not Up To Michael Jackson’s Fans To Prove That He Was Innocent; It’s Up To Michael Jackson’s HATERS To Prove That He Was GUILTY! « Vindicating Michael
  4. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 6 of 7: Christians Who Have DEFENDED Michael! « Vindicating Michael

Leave a comment