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!
As Michael Jackson fans, we have the unfortunate burden of constantly having to defend him from the vicious media attacks that have made a seemingly indelible stain on his musical and humanitarian legacy. We’re in a position of having to roll up our sleeves and scrub away the lies with a boatload of Pine-Sol disinfectant, one by one!
We’ve all been in situations where we’ve encountered people who, at one end of the spectrum, are highly skeptical of Michael’s complete innocence, and people who are on the other end of the spectrum that believe with 100% certainty that Michael was guilty. Through my own experience, the people who seem certain that Michael was guilty almost always share the following traits:
- They haven’t read the testimonies of the accusers from the 2005 trial, or their enablers. (The Arvizo family, the Francia family, the former Neverland employees, etc. I am working on summaries of the Arvizo family right now, but in the meantime you read summaries of Bob Jones & Stacy Brown, Blanca Francia, Jason Francia, and Martin Bashir.)
- They haven’t read any summaries of the trial from FAIR AND OBJECTIVE legal analysts like Jonna Spilbor and journalists like Charles Thomson. (They are included at the end of this post.)
- They haven’t read any books on Michael Jackson’s allegations (such as “Michael Jackson Conspiracy”, “Redemption”, “The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”, etc.)
- They haven’t watched any documentaries on Michael Jackson’s allegations (such as “The Untold Story of Neverland”, “The Trial and Triumph of the King of Pop”, “True Crime with Aphrodite Jones”, etc.)
- They haven’t read the FBI’s files on Michael, which were released to the public in December 2009 through a Freedom of Information Act request. (The FBI confirmed that in September 2004, Jordan Chandler threatened to take legal action to prevent himself from having to testify in court against Michael, and that he said it was because he had already “done his part”, among many other pieces of exculpatory information.)
- And many, many more acts of due diligence that people who “know” that Michael is guilty totally fail to engage in! As a matter of fact, in a few months I will publish a new series that is tentatively titled “21 Questions for Michael Jackson Haters”, and I will compile a list of basic research exercises that haters (and most skeptics) fail to initiate before jumping to their conclusions. Stay tuned!
I’ve been in many debates about Michael, and I’ve noticed that when you’re dealing with a closed-minded jerk who wants to ridicule you for proclaiming Michael’s innocence, instead of trying to prove to them that Michael was innocent, it’s better (and more entertaining!) to let THEM prove that Michael was guilty!
After thoroughly studying the allegations, I have compiled a list of questions that fans should ask to anyone who claims to “know” with absolute certainty that Michael was guilty. Here they are! Ask them to COGENTLY and DEFINITIVELY answer these questions! (Thank you Susan for your suggestions! I took your questions and rearranged the wording a little bit, and added them to questions 7-14!)
Questions about the 1993 allegations:
1. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation in 1993, why was he not arrested and charged with a crime?
2. If District Attorneys Sneddon and Garcetti had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why were they unable to secure an indictment from two independent grand juries, located in two different counties? (Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties.)
3. If Michael Jackson “paid off” the Chandlers, then why was he not arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?
4. If Michael Jackson was guilty, then why didn’t he capitulate into Evan Chandler’s demand of a $20 million dollar film deal on August 4th, 1993? He could have avoided the entire media circus had he done so!
5. Why did Michael Jackson fight to have the case tried in criminal court first (where Jackson could be sentenced to prison if convicted), while the Chandlers fought to have the case tried in civil court first (where Jackson could be ordered to pay millions if found liable)? Wouldn’t Jackson want to avoid criminal court at all costs? (See question #4.)
6. Why did Jackson’s legal team cite the case of “Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court” as legal precedent in their motion to get the civil trial delayed until after the pending criminal trial? (Pay attention to the last sentence in the second paragraph of Section IV, beginning with “To allow prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings…”.)
7. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler begin ghost writing “All That Glitters” in the fall of 1993, with the intention of having his brother Ray circumvent the confidentiality agreement and publishing it under his own name? Wouldn’t publishing a tell-all book about the allegations bring MORE media attention to his family? (In this series of posts, we discuss how Ray Chandler took legal action to quash his subpoena to testify against Jackson in September 2004.)
8. If the Chandlers didn’t pursue criminal charges because they were afraid of the media attention, then why did Evan Chandler sue Sony Music in 1996 for the right to record a “rebuttal album” to Jackson’s “HIStory” called “EVANstory”? Wouldn’t releasing an album bring even MORE media attention to him? (Read the article by journalist DeWayne Wickham, which I linked to near the end of this post.)
9. If Jackson was truly guilty, and Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” had so much inculpatory evidence against Jackson, then why didn’t Sneddon subpoena him? Why did Mesereau subpoena Ray Chandler? Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the prosecution to subpoena Ray instead of the defense? Wouldn’t Jackson’s defense want to do everything to prevent Ray from testifying?
10. And why didn’t Evan Chandler testify against the man who claimed abused his son? He could have been provided with enough security to rival the Secret Service if he was concerned about his safety!
11. Why did Evan Chandler tell Dave Schwartz “if I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out”? If Evan truly believed that his son was abused by Jackson, wouldn’t there be no if’s, and’s, or but’s about whether or not Evan would go straight to the authorities and bring Jackson to justice? Why would he be concerned with “winning or losing”? Why would he have to check his story “inside out”? (MJJ Justice project wrote a two part series that analyzed Evan’s recorded phone conversation with Dave Schwartz. Here is Part 1, and here is Part 2.)
12. Jordan Chandler admitted to Dr. Richard Gardner that his only fear was that he would be cross-examined by Jackson’s attorneys. Why was Jordan Chandler so afraid of being cross-examined? If he had truly been abused by Jackson, and was being honest, why would he be afraid have his story scrutinized? Was he afraid that he would be exposed for “doing his part”? (He told the FBI in September 2004 that he had “done his part” in 1993. Read this post by MJJ Justice Project to get a complete summary and analysis of Jordan’s purported interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993.)
13. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten to take legal action against Sneddon if he was subpoenaed to testify against Jackson in September 2004? Why didn’t Jordan perform his obligation to society and testify against Jackson to put him behind bars once and for all, so that Jackson couldn’t harm any other children?
14. If Jackson was a serial child abuser, and abused many other children, then why did the police have to bully Jason Francia into finally claiming to be abused by Jackson? Why did they attempt to abuse Corey Feldman and other children into claiming abuse by Jackson? (For more information, read my review of Jason Francia’s testimony, which I linked to earlier in this post.)
The questions about the 2005 case are far more complex:
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 allegations against Michael (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 (which Gavin Arvizo originally claimed happened to him BEFORE he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
- 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 (which Gavin Arvizo now claims happened to him AFTER he and his family were “forced” to shoot the rebuttal video on February 20th, 2003)
- 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
Based on those facts, here are the questions that you should ask:
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. Wouldn’t it had made sense for Sneddon to charge Jackson with conspiracy from the very beginning?
4. During their alleged imprisonment at Neverland, the Arvizo family went on numerous shopping sprees, purchased expensive designer clothes, received massages and leg waxes, ate at fancy restaurants, and ran up a tab of $3,312.05! Why didn’t the Arvizo family notify the police during their shopping sprees?
5. Why weren’t the 5 unindicted co-conspirators (Frank Cascio, Ronald Konitzer, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Vincent Amen) charged for their roles in keeping the Arvizos trapped at Neverland and planning their banishment to Brazil, even after they refused immunity for their testimony against Michael Jackson?
6. 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?
7. Why did the start date of the alleged crimes suddenly shift by almost 2 weeks, and the end date shift by 2 days?
8. 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?
9. 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?
Those questions will totally and absolutely SILENCE anyone who claims with absolute certainty that Michael was guilty. By asking them these questions, you’re essentially giving them their own rope and watching them hang themselves!
That’s all for now, but by no means is that list complete! I will continuously add questions to the list as I summarize and analyze everyone’s testimony from the trial. If you have any questions that you think should be included, please leave them in the comments section and I’ll add them to the post.
In the event that the hater or skeptic that you’re talking to suddenly has an epiphany and begins to entertain the possibility that Michael could be innocent, it’s important to use this opportunity to go for the jugular! Have them read these three summaries of the trial:
Charles Thomson – One Of The Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History
The story was over. There were no apologies and no retractions. There was no scrutiny – no inquiries or investigations. Nobody was held to account for what was done to Michael Jackson. The media was content to let people go on believing their heavily skewed and borderline fictitious account of the trial. That was that.
There is something that I want to point out from Thomson’s article; it’s the excerpt from Nancy Grace’s post trial comments in 2005:
Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on Court TV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson’s fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution’s only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.
“I’m having a crow sandwich right now,” she said. “It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart… Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.
“I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.”
After having a nice, healthy dose of crow sandwich shoved down her throat by way of 14 “not guilty” verdicts, Grace and her fellow bottom-feeders in the media immediately made Janet Arvizo the scapegoat for Jackson’s acquittal. With the help of our co-admin Lynette, I will prove that Janet Arvizo’s disastrous testimony was NOT a factor during the jury’s deliberations! (The jury – and everyone else for that matter – totally dismissed her testimony has hogwash as soon as she was finished!)
On June 6th, 10th, and 13th of 2005, the jury made several requests for information from Judge Melville, and they are all included in this Statement From The Jury form. This document truly indicates the level of attention to detail that the jurors took in evaluating all of the evidence that was presented in the case, despite the fact that they all voted to acquit Jackson in their initial vote on the first day of deliberations!
On June 6th, the jury requested that they be given the ENTIRE evidence log so that they could quickly determine where an exhibit is whenever the need to see a piece of evidence came up. (Page 4)
On June 10th, the jury requested a review of the verbiage of Count 4 of the Grand Jury Indictment (Lewd Act Upon A Child), and received a corrected verdict from Judge Melville. They also requested to know which child was referred to in Count 6 of the Grand Jury Indictment (Attempt To Commit A Lewd Act Upon A Child), and Judge Melville confirmed that the only child who is alleged to have been abused by Jackson in Counts 2 through 10 was Gavin Arvizo. (Pages 2 and 3)
On June 10th, the jury also requested that Gavin’s testimony be read back to them, and Judge Melville ordered the court reporter to read it back to them. He also ordered the jurors to not converse with the court reporter about the case. (Page 5)
On June 13th, the day that they reached their verdicts, they initially could not agree on the lesser counts of Seven and Eight (Administering An Intoxicating Agent To Assist In Commission Of A Felony for both counts). They had the option of convicting Jackson on misdemeanor charges if they felt that Jackson indeed plied Gavin with alcohol but did not abuse him. Less than an hour later, they asked Judge Melville to disregard their request for Counts 7 and 8.
Finally, after they reached their verdict, they released the following statement, proclaiming to the world that they meticulously studied all of the evidence and felt confident in their decision, so this should forever end the notion that the jurors didn’t take their duties seriously!
Jonna Spilbor – The Not Guilty Verdicts in the Michael Jackson Case: Was Justice Served, or Thwarted?
This case never should have been brought in the first place. But it was – and thankfully, this smart, thoughtful jury did the right thing. They didn’t do it lightly, either; those who disagree with their verdict should consider that – as we now know from their own interviews — they kept deliberating even though after their initial vote, in the minutes kicking off their deliberations, was a unanimous “not guilty.”
Andrew Cohen – Bad Evidence
You had to see how defense attorneys ran rings around prosecutors inside and out of court. You had to count how many times prosecution witnesses testified to facts that helped Jackson. You had to note how often both prosecution and defense witnesses told jurors that they had not been interviewed by law enforcement officials prior to the start of the case. You had to notice how many times Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon slumped down into his chair and pouted when a court ruling would go against him. And you had to notice how intently jurors were watching and listening to lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau when he delivered his closing argument last week.
And here are some summaries from the 1993 case:
Charles Thomson – Chandler Suicide Highlights Media Bias Against Jackson
As for the media, this latest incident cements once more the industry’s almost total unwillingness to report fairly or accurately on Michael Jackson, particularly on the bogus allegations of sexual abuse that were leveled against him. None of the aforementioned information and evidence was included in any article about Chandler’s suicide that I have read so far, despite the fact that I personally delivered it to at least one newspaper which has repeatedly paid me as a Jackson expert on other stories.
Exculpatory facts are overlooked in favor of salacious myths. A black humanitarian is tarred as a pedophile and his white extortionist is painted as a martyr.
DeWayne Wickham – Settlement Was Not Enough For Evan Chandler
How much? Chandler, who between root canals co-wrote the screenplay for the movie Robin Hood: Men in Tights, wants at least $60 million to settle his latest complaint against the pop music king. He also wants an album. Not a copy of HIStory, the Jackson album he cites in his suit. Chandler wants a court order “to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale” his own musical composition – something he calls “EVANstory.” And, yes, he wants to be taken seriously. Hmmmm.
But, of course, he blew his chance for that when he chose to press his child-abuse charge in a civil, rather than criminal, court. How many parents who really believe some guy was molesting their child would pass up the chance to put him in jail? Who would seek a financial payoff in lieu of a criminal prosecution?
Here’s an interview from November 2003 between Mary Fischer (author of the 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”) and Fox News host Greta Van Susteren:
For additional resources that can be used to prove Michael’s innocence to haters and skeptics, please read through this post titled “You Don’t Have To Be A Crazy, Rabid Fan To Know That Michael Jackson Was Innocent!”
I’ll end this post by posting photos of the 2 comments that I recently left on a blog post from 2010 titled “Michael Jackson is Dead and Children Around The World Are All A Little Safer” where the author claims that Jackson’s fans are “in denial” about his guilt. So I gave her a piece of my mind! Everyone should bookmark this post for future reference, and whenever you come across a negative article about Michael, just copy and paste those questions into the comments section!
Notice how I didn’t scream, yell, curse, type in ALL CAPS, or call her any mean names! I merely presented her with the same questions that I included in this post, and only time will tell if my comments are approved! If she does, I’ll also leave comments on this post of hers titled “Michael Jackson Declared Not Guilty by a Spineless Jury”.
I will close out with this post with a message that somebody said to me on Facebook, and when you look at what she says, and then contrast it with the vast amount of knowledge that is contained on this blog for the benefit of people who are willing to do the research, this person’s comment is utterly and absolutely PREPOSTEROUS!
This post proves just how relevant this blog really is!
Here’s an update on our dear old friend Althea: after she replied to my first 2 comments, she not only didn’t approve my third comment, but she disabled comments altogether on both of her aforementioned blog posts on Jackson! Fortunately I was wise enough to take screenshots of my third comment to her, and here it is:
Fortunately, not all surivors of child abuse grow up to believe each and every single allegtion that is hurled at someone! Raven Woods is the author of the MJ blog “All For Love Blog”, and in October 2010, she wrote a very powerful piece called “Why I Support Michael Jackson: From A Sexual Child Abuse Survivor“, and she bravely describes the abuse that she suffered as a child, and why she still loves and supports MJ, despite the false allegations. Check it out!
Vindicating Michael 
W, I like them very much too. This one is for you:
LikeLike
While Marvin Putnam is making his rounds lecturing law-students in the art of turning truth insideout, Michaels music is spreading round the globe.A mongolian string orchestra playing MJ`s music as well as a finnish female musician on the finnish Zither- an ancient musical instrument found in all corners of the world.
LikeLike
Thank you for the lovely pics of Michael with Joanelle Romanos daugher and also the 3 of them ( not shown here) ,my very favorite pics!
LikeLike
I wanted to post a picture of Michael with Lisa-Marie Presley’s kids but the first thing I found was this piece about Ben, Lisa’s son, going on a “4 day drinking bender” when Michael died:
This last picture is dated the year 1997.
LikeLike
Who told you, dear, that “she often worried he was guilty”? The boys from the mjfacts? This is another of their big pedophilia lies. This is why I ask you – no, I even insist that you provide the source where she allegedly said “she often worried”. She never said it, so the source and now please!
What she really said was this:
She speaks only about what she saw herself and following other people’s foolish tradition sometimes says that “only that kid and Michael know what happened in that room”.
Everyone keeps repeating this silly statement as if in order to know the truth it is necessary to “always be in that room”. As if the whole package of facts pointing to his innocence is not much more than the doubts people still have.
So what if the boy said something? How many people like spreading lies about another person and for their benefit too?
Someone thinks that your mother could have killed someone explaining it that at some point she was in that room and “only the two of them know what happened there” and you believe this passerby and not your mother who says that never in her life she would have done it? Especially if there is no evidence against her?
Doesn’t the character, ways, system of values, manner of thinking, temper and all behavior of your mother tell you more about “what happened” than some random passerby who voices his or her silly opinion?
If Lisa Marie is silly enough to repeat this “she wasn’t there” statement, in the place of Oprah and other interviewers I would ask her to recall how often she left her own children alone with Michael. Only they will never do that as they themselves know the answer.
Interesting what she would answer to that. It may finally make her realize the silliness of what she herself is saying. If she had ever doubted him she would have never allowed her children even to come up to Michael.
No, she never doubted him though Oprah and everyone else are pressing this crazy idea into her head. Actually Lisa-Marie already answered it: “If I’d had any reason to suspect that, I would have had nothing to do with the guy.”
P.S. Erin, you still owe me the source.
LikeLike
Lisa-Marie is quite the enigma.
Here’s a woman who was completely in love Michael. Continued to sleep with Michael even after they divorced.
Yet she says those things. That she wasn’t sure, that she knew for sure he was innocent, or says only Michael and the kid know what happened.
This was a woman scorned at the thought of being second best in Michael’s life. She’d often get angry with him and upset.
There’s a thin line between love and hate…Lisa demonstrated that beautifully.
But if she thought or knew he was guilty and didn’t want nothing to do with him, why go back to him?
Or better yet…why would an alleged homosexual p-le go back to an adult woman continuously for sex, which we know for fact occurred?
LikeLike
“Why can’t she seem to make up her mind? Better yet, how could she be so close to him for so long and not know if he was guilty or not? What do you think she really believes?
@ Erin, is this a rethorical question ?
How is one supposed to know what someone else really believes ?
All the questions you have for Oprah, Lisa and others , why not ask them directly and get an answer from the horses mouth.
What do YOU believe ?.
LikeLike
I have a question on Lisa Marie. She said in one interview she was sure Michael was innocent, but at another around the same time she said she often worried he was guilty. And of course there was the ambiguous Oprah answer that “only Michael and the kid know.” Why can’t she seem to make up her mind? Better yet, how could she be so close to him for so long and not know if he was guilty or not? What do you think she really believes?
LikeLike
Michael was “in love” with all children – boys and girls alike. Actually the number of photos of Michael embracing girls is much bigger.
Have Michael’s haters started telling stories about girls as well? Just an idea, guys.
LikeLike
That’s a theory in itself right there is not? to suggest Michael was deluded into believing he was doing no harm to children by the notion of love?
It’s a one worth asking if you’re sceptical of the situation.
Michael had a childlike imagination. A meek personality. This lead to innocent minded thoughts that he felt he could relate to Peter Pan. This lead to him enjoying magic tricks before his eyes. Many things it lead to in the essence of pure childlike innocence. It was dear to him, for it was a part of him. It was who he genuinely was.
But is it fair to stretch that into theories of crazy and sick DELUSIONS he most certainly never dreamed of, that he could harm kids by thinking it was in the innocence of love?
Michael’s proclaiming of love for people certainly gets taken too far in some minds!
You can have that theory, but I see no reason or justification for it’s existence except in the minds of odd people who choose to conjure up that said (sick) theory, project it onto Michael and believe it to be true, or at the least, comprehend it for a moment as just that.
LikeLike
I think it’s entirely possible that Jordie and Wade were “in love” with Michael, and were angry when that love was not reciprocated. (Gavin is just an ordinary grifter. No emotion in that lug of a kid.) You can sense the jealousy from Jordie in that photo where Michael is holding his little sister. And there’s real yearning in Wade’s voice when he talked about “our love” on the Today show. I believe that Michael was courting June Chandler, and I believe he was accepting sexual favors from Joy Robson. It’s telling that Joy couldn’t stand June, which makes sense because they were both gold diggers trying to work the same territory. Both camps have greatly exaggerated the time and attention they got from Michael.
LikeLike
ugh not another theory like this. 😦 i just discovered this website (you guys do a great job) but i’m always left with so many questions (unfortunately i have a doubting/skeptic nature on everything). regardless of that comment’s theory about wade’s story, is it possible michael thought he was truly in love with a few of those boys and didn’t think what he was doing was hurting them?
LikeLike
And I’d love to hear Wade Robson telling his own story himself. Fans can actually write whole fiction novels about “why would Wade Robson say it?” fantasizing about this and that, but all they are doing is providing Robson with more and more opportunities from which to choose.
He is reading all these ideas now and laughing – they are bringing the whole thing to me themselves. All I need is select which idea I like best.
Hollywood.
LikeLike
i hate to have to ask this, but it has plagued me for a long time. is it at all possible that michael just thought he was in love with jordie and/or wade (i still feel the arvizo story if pure bull) and they were in love with him too and that’s why they refused to talk for so long? (and perhaps why brett barnes still hasn’t said anything) and allegations aside, is it possible that michael really didn’t think he was “harming” the kids, hence why he would always say he wouldn’t “harm” them without using the real words (and why he supposedly told wade not to tell anyone as no one would accept their “love”)
LikeLike
I would. There was a detailed post about it in June 2010: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/what-happened-to-some-jurors-after-the-2005-trial/
Today I’ve updated it a bit adding this:
Three and a half years have passed but the public continues to fall into the same traps of Michael’s haters as before. The same questions are asked, and again and again you have to go over one and the same thing.
Okay, if Michael’s haters cannot stop and continue to rehash the old lies let us listen to the jurors of the 2005 trial once again and see what the same Eleonor Cook said soon after the trial.
Below is a Good Morning America video where the jurors are asked if there are any second thoughts and Eleonor Cook vigorously shakes her head like all others and says she doesn’t have any.
Watch it once again, look at her face, at her easiness and the way she laughs and agrees with everyone, and this will answer all your questions:
LikeLike
after all the extensive research i’ve done trying to understand this whole mess, would someone mind explaining the things the jurors have said after the trial? i’ve read statements from a few of them that say they were “pressured into finding him innocent” and “knew in their heart he was guilty but there wasn’t enough evidence.” are there any basis to these statements? were they completely made up by haters or are they valid?
LikeLike
“Is it true that the settlement only stopped the Chandlers from talking to the media but they were still alowed to take further action against Michael if they wanted to” – Truth Prevail
Goodness gracious, of course it allowed further action! Here is the link to the Smoking Gun redacted version of the agreement: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff?page=0
And here is a link to an old post where I retyped the agreement to enable people quoting it: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/mjagreement/
Even if you haven’t seen the text of the agreement you still know the fact that the Chandlers could testify because 12 years June Chandler had absolutely no problem doing it at the 2005 trial! Sneddon specifically asked her if it was okay for her to talk to him, and she said she checked it up with her lawyer (Larry Feldman) and he said it was:
Q. With regard to those conversations, the first conversation we had, do you recall the substance of that conversation?
A. That I would be subpoenaed and for — testifying.
Q. And did I indicate to you that I wanted to talk to you, to do an interview with you?
A. That we would be speaking later on, yes.
Q. Okay. And did you — did you have to check with somebody to make sure that was okay because of the confidentiality agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. And who was that?
A. Larry Feldman.
Q. So is that one of the phone calls that you had with Mr. Feldman, was to make sure –
A. Yes.
Q. — to make sure it was okay for you to talk to me?
A. Correct.
LikeLike
Can someone be so kind and send me a link to the 1993 settlement. Is it true that the settlement only stopped the Chandlers from talking to the media but they were still alowed to take further action against Michael if they wanted to.
LikeLike
haters always feel threatened by the truth… they hate it when fans shove the truth down there throats…
they cant handle the truth because the truth shuts them up and knocks them down and yet they
keep coming back with the same old questions. because they cant prove jack a crap… its sad how theses haters let these people control there thoughts about michael. and yet they arent smart enough to know its all lies.
and its sad and pathetic that they go and mess with his fans spewing hateful things towards them. these people are so hateful and mean spirited that i dont think the LORD can help release them from hate. they propabbly even hate the GOD… haters need to leave michael alone.
why cant they get throught their heads.
they need to listen to that song he made called leave me alone.
he got tried all the media lies and always bothering him….
LikeLike
I added an update at the bottom to Raven Woods’ article about why she still supports MJ, despite being a child abuse victim herself. It was very brave of her to write it, and it’s completely antithetical to Althea’s ramblings about MJ on her blog!
LikeLike
http://wn.com/Tom_SNEDDON_indicted
didnt quite know where to put this video from Wm Wgaener, but it was one that I hadnt seen before , video number. 10 has legal analysts taking questions from other people outside the courthouse like Wm and some other person asking intelligent answers..one woman is an ex conn.prosecutor and she is trying to spin for the d.a. and the other guy mentions how Sneddon lost hiscool with the witness and called her rude , because the wheels were coming off thier case..i thought it was pretty interesting one of Wm showing media bias becasue I dont recall seeing the pro MJ saying this on national tv..this stuff is just the feed..
LikeLike
@ Lynette
I understand your point, and those questions may indeed be too difficult for younger people to understand, but when you think about it, everything about the allegations is probably too difficult for young people to understand! Most young people don’t understand how the legal system works, or how a lawsuit is different from a criminal prosecution, or the legal significance of a deposition versus a declaration, etc.
Unfortunately, we can’t be all things to all people. This is an investigation and research site that is designed for older fans who are willing to do the hard work that it takes to understand all of the facts backwards and forwards. What separates us from other blogs and websites is that we cater to those who want more than just a rudimentary knowledge of the allegations, while most sites and blogs that I’ve seen cover only the bare minimum (if they cover the allegations at all!).
Eventually, I want to do an “Allegations 101” post, but that is on the backburner because I have other projects that I’m working on. If a young person was to email us or comment and ask us where to start when researching the facts, I would give them Charles Thomson’s summaries of Evan Chandler’s suicide and the 2005 trial for starters, and if they had more questions I would tell them to read “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour” (which is available for free download on Google Books), The Veritas Project, and “MJ Conspiracy”, and watch any of the many YouTube videos from LunaJo67 about the trial.
On a similar note, I’ve seen complaints that our posts are “too long”, but the way I see it is this: if a post is thoroughly and accurately researched, and is giving the reader valuable information that educates them, then how can it be too long? If someone doesn’t have time to read a post in one sitting, then they can read a little bit at a time until they finish (as I oftentimes do). In my opinion, anyone who complains that the posts are too long weren’t interested in doing substantive research in the first place!
I’m definitely not going to compromise the quality of my posts just to make them shorter! That’s why most of my posts are at least 2 parts long. If I made each part shorter, then I would have to extend the series, and people would complain that they have to read too many parts to read! (For example, my 7 part series on MJ’s faith would have been 30 parts if I had made them shorter!)
LikeLike
Disabling future comments is standard MO for haters. Even Diane Dimond does it (on her personal blog site). Ha! You’d think — as a self-described, seasoned journalist — the ol bird would welcome discourse since she’s putting her work in the marketplace for the public to read. But noooooooooooooooooooooooo. I think she’s growing paranoid, what with Jackson’s death and what she may perceive has ghost-inspired fans following her around cyberspace. Next step: booby hatch?
LikeLike
sanemjfan
April 25, 2012 6:33 pm
“That MJ hater refused to approve my third comment to her, and other comments from other MJ fans who told me that posted comments, and she disabled all future comments on her 2 posts, so I added the screenshots of my comment.”
There is a perfect case of indirectly admitting defeat. I’m not at all surprised that she couldn’t answer your questions, she doesn’t know anywhere near as much about this as she claims to. Epic fail 😀
LikeLike
David these are all really good questions to ask but for some of our younger readers they may be more difficult to understand. maybe we can get a simplified list of answers to the most common questions because our research is very advanced so are our answers. That makes it difficult for some of the younger people that weren’t olde enough to remember the 2005 trial or why people would say things like that about him. The reason that I say that is because I saw several kids commenting on a video on you tube that were born in 1998-1999 they weren’t even as old as Prince and Paris at the time of the trial and to educate them we have to bring it down to their level of learning.
LikeLike
Fans understand Michael. Thank God, we have a true picture of this wonderful man. Michael is in the hearts of fans. Media do not understand MJ, his fans. For example, Diane D. writes about MJ – Enigma. Fact, for journalists he is an Enigma, cipher, which they can not solve. It’s too difficult for them. Love.
It is so simple.
LikeLike
Thank you, yet again, for another great job compiling information certain to help many who really don’t know the story but who genuinely seek enlightenment.
Most of these haters lift laziness and sloth to a high art form. ‘Prove It, Prove It,’ they scream — which prompts us to respond with all the evidence, all the links, do all the legwork, and lay out everything for them, again, again, and again. They don’t care about the information, but delight in seeing others perform the exercise. Other haters are just willfully ignorant and wish to remain so — stubbornly clinging to their lopsided beliefs, sticking their fingers in their ears and going ‘la la la la la la la’. I resent the lazy ones more. They remind me of the smart-ass kid in high school who copies another student’s homework rather than do it himself.
If I detect that a person is misinformed but genuinely interested in learning more, I’ll gladly help them. But, I tell the game-playing sloths to get off their lazy posteriors and find the facts just like I did. After all, we don’t have to slog through snowdrifts, cross the Gobi desert, or walk 20 miles shoeless in the rain to the nearest library. With Google, average intelligence and few keystrokes, we can access information all over the world.
There is no help for the willfully ignorant, and the lazy will eventually sink in the cesspool of their own irrelevance.
LikeLike
So we know that her problem is that she says she watched every minute of every day of that trial. First the trial itself wasn’t televised only the coverage.That covereage only ever covered the prosecution side of the trial because the reporters had to go out and give their take in what was happening in the courtroom in the morning and then did not update their afternoon coverage. When it came time for the defense to present their case instead of covering what was going on in the courtroom they rehashed pajama day to death or started in on what jail cell Michael was going to reside in. Not a very good researcher is she.
LikeLike
That MJ hater refused to approve my third comment to her, and other comments from other MJ fans who told me that posted comments, and she disabled all future comments on her 2 posts, so I added the screenshots of my comment.
She couldn’t take the heat so she got out of the kitchen! This reminds me of the old saying “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink”. You can lead an MJ hater to the facts but you can’t make them accept them!
LikeLike
“I am not going to get into an MJ debate right now”
Let me translate that: “I CAN’T get into an MJ debate because you just kicked my ass with facts and I don’t have an answer to any of them because I’m a gullible ignorant sheep and I actually haven’t researched this properly at all, and now I’m very embarrassed but I won’t admit it, and I’ll put my head in the sand and hope it all just goes away”.
Does that sound about right? LOL.
LikeLike
@sanemjfan – I read through Alethea’s blog and I see that she took the easy route out of answering your questions by saying she didn’t have time, etc. I also see that she devoted not 1, but 2 entries in her blog to Michael Jackson. When she is questioned by anyone who is asking that she look at the facts objectively instead of subjectively, she then posts the same old tired statement of if he were any other 44 year old man, inviting children for sleepovers, blah, blah, blah. It appears that she is so jaded from her own abuse that it has warped her ability to fathom the possibility it might not be true!
LikeLike
@Rodrigo – it is because most of us come from a time (I was born in 1960) where the news used to be handled with honesty and integrity (i.e., Walter Cronkite, Huntley & Brinkley) and those gentlemen did not allow their personal opinions to become part of their reporting. Gone are those glory days and what it has been replaced with is truly a disgrace. When someone like Diane Dimond gets a job on Entertainment Tonight as the “Michael Jackson” commentator — I’m no longer going to watch that program ever again. When someone like Bashir can lie to the person’s face he is doing a story on for 8 months and then turn out a piece of trash like he did and still get a job in journalism — I have no use to watch any program his ugly mug is on. When someone who goes for ratings and sensationalism and gets both (i.e., O’Reilly and his gang), I have no use to ever listen to anything he or his coworker Hannity or the multitide of non true blondes on Fox have to say due to their lack of integrity and basically human decency. Same with Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters (what a flip-flopper she is), Oprah (another one who straddles the fence depending on who she’s interviewing). I guess I will just have to be in the dark about current events if that’s the best the media has to offer. The trouble is I actually took the time to research everything about Michael after he died and was completely horrified to find out that we are basically lied to on a daily basis. Most people are too lazy to do anything other than let the information seep into their brain and store it as if it is fact and then repeat it over and over until they truly believe it is factual. Look how many people, even after the autopsy results came out and even after the doctor who performed the autopsy testified at the Murray trial and said Michael had vitiligo — still say he bleached his skin and he didn’t want to be black. I’m sorry, but I never saw Michael die his hair and eyebrows a different color or don a blonde wig or get lighter colored contacts or anything of that sort.
LikeLike
WOW just read more comments from that blog she claimed to research and watched the 2005 trial in full yet she still thinks he was guilty someones lying i see. Even non MJ Fans who were not biased and who followed the trial also said the trial was bogus and MJ was getting set up.
LikeLike
Wow David i just read that idiots reply to you from that blog have to say its a typical haters response he/she says “don’t want to get in a MJ debate with you” but she can make a blog post about him but evidently can’t back it up. Keep at her its great to see a Hater who thinks they know everything FALL!
LikeLike
oh btw- @ saneMJfan – re: your comments to that MJ hater on that DISGUSTING article- yes, i kind of had to laugh at her reply- how she said “i am not going to get into an MJ debate right now” – that was pretty much the exact same response i got from a hater when i repeated YOUR questions to him while speaking to him ina bar – he went dead silent and said “ummmm … ahhhhhh… ummmm…. i dont want to discuss this right now” and backed right down …while his friend proceeded to start hurling all sorts of abuse at my friend when she informed him with some facts about the case , i love when you totally own haters, i only hope they reaiise deep down that they where completely wrong 🙂
LikeLike
when i wasa little girl and having friends over, my dad would always make sure my mom was in the house with him and us and not leave us alone, not cause my dad was a molester but because the world is so sick nowadays that people do indeed make up false allegations and my dad never wanted to risk being subjected to it. yes indeed i actually had another family member accused of sexual abuse all for financial gain, the accusers tried the same tactic as evan chandler did to Michael.
but enough about me, what i find perplexing is these paranoid folks who see something wrong in MJ sleeping in the same room (in the same bed or otherwise!) as unrelated kids would willingly send their children on boy scout camping trips,where they gona be in an even more enclosed space with a stranger whos not related to them!its ridiculous ! and it bothers me even more that MJ haters who really know me and how ethical i am believe i would support someone whom i thought for one minute to be a criminal… anyways… rant over! brilliant blog, keep up the good work! 🙂 x x
LikeLike
I added some additional questions to my set of questions about 1993. Thank you Susan for your suggestions!
Also, be sure to read Althea’s replies to my comments on her post “Michael Jackson is Dead and Children Around the World Are All a Little Safer”, which I linked to to at the end of this post.
Her replies are typical of how an MJ hater will react when presented with the facts! I left another comment, and once it’s approved I’ll let you guys know! I also took screenshots of it in case she doesn’t approve it.
Be sure to also read her reply to my friend Ana!
LikeLike
David, I thank you for the work you have put into this and wll continue to do. People need to learn and understand from a clear prospective not media bias.
LikeLike
@ Susan
Thanks! I will add them to the post and give you credit.
LikeLike
I also find it funny that Lisa Marie would call Michael manipulative when she was taking the pill at the same time she was telling him she’d have children with him. Think about that for a minute.
LikeLike
gc:
I suggest you read through the posts on this blog about the allegations against Michael THOROUGHLY. It’s very clear that you haven’t got a clue.
LikeLike
1.”The only people in the room was him(MJ) and the kid”. 2. He was a good manipulator 3. i realized his drug used before the divorce. 4. he died like Elvis 5 he wanted to die like elvis ~ LMP 2010 Oprah interview. (hmmm, coming from an Ex-wife own words,made sense) Thank you Michael Jackson Fans for supporting Elvis’ Princess. Oh don’t forget to Pre-order her album Storm and Grace and her single You aint seen nothing yet is already available in itunes. she loved and still LOVEs michael and you the fans. buy her album, thanks! Im also Mj fan and lisa fan 🙂
LikeLike
@ Rodrigo
“MICHAEL JACKSON MUST BE TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE HIM AROUND CHILDREN. SOMETHING ISN’T RIGHT. SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN ISN’T RIGHT. SO HE MUST BE UP TO SOMETHING SINISTER. BUT EVEN IF HE ISN’T, I’LL STILL SAY THAT HE IS BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE HIM AROUND KIDS ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT’S UNNATURAL.”
While I agree with Julie that Evan Chandler was simply a bad person who accused Michael just because he was jealous of him, plus because he wanted money, on the other hand I think you have a point here. When you read All That Glitters you realize that for Evan the alleged sexual abuse was not the issue (I don’t think he really believed it himself, though he was trying hard to convince himself of it).
Evan on August 4 when he makes his $20 million demand and two weeks AFTER the alleged “confession” of Jordan he says this:
“In the face of Michael’s denial, Evan began to read Dr. Abrams letter. “I wanted to show him that it wasn’t just me saying it, that a professional psychiatrist had come to the conclusion that sex or no sex Jordie was being harmed by their relationship.”
Considering that he claimed that Jordan already “confessed” to him he still seems pretty insecure about their allegations, doesn’t he? Sex was never the issue for him (because he knows there wasn’t sex). The issue for him was that his son looked up on Michael more than on him.
LikeLike
David the title says it ALL ,if you even sit and listen to people on “news shows” talk about Michael even today ,they riddle off on things about Michael that are just completely absurd, it IS UP to people to listen with objectivity , instead of believing all of these absurd things! I am glad you are doing this ! AS A SIDE NOTE : I think it’s extremely relevant! 😛
LikeLike
To me for the most part , when Mj is talking about sharing his bed with children and it is the most loving thing you can do ….I think he is talking about giving your bed to a stranger or a plate of food to a stranger , in a hospitable way ..a way of humbling himself , that he would give up his bed for another human being , who had nothing to offer in return..
When pressed on the subject, he would say…even if i did sleep in the bed nothing would ever happen..so i dont take it as him saying that there were a lot of kids sharing his bed..
He was just making the point that it would be nothing sexual….but he isnt saying he sleeps with a lot of children .
..
When he was talking to Bashir he was talking about all the culkin kids piling into bed with him..Again..nothing intimate about a bunch of people crfashing on a bed or a couch or whatever..
Everything was so slanted , everything taken out of context ., edited etc..
As far as kids going on tour with him , he says himself , thats the way he grew up..
These were not strangers kids that he had just met , these were families that considered him part of their family..
prosecutors were trying to act like he was looking for children , when ,these families actually came looking for him and considered him family.
LikeLike
@ Rodrigo
I don’t think haters really have any issues with that. Haters are internet bullies who just want to piss off fans. Haters who say MJ sharing bed with children was necessarily wrong have no problem supporting convicted p-les such as Carl Toms or p-le advocates such as Victor Gutierrez!
The same with the haters in the media. They keep parroting that sharing bed with children necessarily had to mean something more sinister, but they don’t have any problem parading Gutierrez around as some kind of MJ expert and apparently for no one in the media his book and his blatant p-lia advocacy raises a red flag.
I also think many in the media knew that MJ was innocent, but they needed a sensational story, they needed a scandal.
An unrelated adult sharing bed with children can be wrong or not wrong, that in itself doesn’t say anything. Those who are not haters, but are honest about their worries about that issue I’d tell:
Whichever way you feel about MJ’s sleepovers with kids what I am asking you to do is to consider also other facts surrounding both the Chandler and the Arvizo case to see whether these two accusers can be deemed trustworthy at all. Remember, these were the only two who ever claimed to have had sleepovers with MJ and claimed to have been molested by him (and Francia but he never claimed he shared a bed with MJ)! All other kids, and there were dozens interviewed by the police, said nothing ever happened. Should we believe these two (three) with a motive to lie, or all the dozens of others who did not have a motive to lie?
All three accusers have very problematic backgrounds, very, very strange stories and strange circumstances as of the timeline, how they came up with their allegations etc.
So if someone is honestly interested in the cases he really should look further into the cases than the superficial judgement about sharing bed.
LikeLike
@Julie
I definetly agree with you there. Evan Chandler exploited Michael’s love of children for money. Tom Sneddon exploited him to further his career. The media and (tacky) journalist’s exploited Michael for both those reasons too, money and careers.
But the ones who make up the lies, the haters on the web, they believe Michael’s love was far too strange.. They have issues with it, even Evan had his issues with it, which is one of the reason’s that pushed him to create his accusations.
But I’ve noticed a common trait, every hater is spurned by that feeling of eradicating Michael, because they can’t handle the idea of man sleeping with unrelated kids, it can’t happen in their views and in their views, it’s seen as a crime. They drop themselves in it constantly by bringing up that issue EVERY TIME.
You would think they would constantly mention the problem of him molesting the kids, and the problem of us supporting a child molester. No, I’ve seen them drop the ball by saying,
“It’s not right for a man sleeping with kids. Why do you worship a man who did that?”
So, their major issues with Michael’s actions, innocent as they were, lead them to think the worst of him and lead them to attack us. Because they can’t register an innocent man spending time with kids like that, they can’t register the supporters of Michael, because they see all of us as nothing more than scum and evil.
By preaching their beliefs of the evil that is Michael Jackson, and his supporters, they get rid of scum. The balance in ‘their’ world, would be restored.
You can show each and every one of them this site, and show them smack bang in the face that Michael was innocent, but it won’t work. Their beliefs, their opinions, lead them to think the worst.
LikeLike
Thank you for the info about the a Jones link..
Evan was such a slimeball , he seemed to be co operating on a book with VG and went to the national enquirer as well right after signing the confidentiality agreement..
If he was going to expose his child to this nightmare , and go around the confidentiality agreement with books and calling the enquirer ..
Why not walk into a criminal court while you are at it and put the guy away, especially if you really think he is capable of doing such a thing…..
He already had the money , he could have put MJ on trial too,, and kept the money..Instead he always goes civil after the Diane Sawyer thing too with the Evanstory..
It is so obvious…
it is just incredible how MJ was set up all around .
and no body in the press seemed to care at all , for all those years because they were making so much money:((
I am so happy to hear that students are looking at this blog and checking out the links..
You all do a terrific job.
LikeLike
Hi SaneMJFan;
I have a question to add to your list:
If MJ was guilty, why didn’t the Chandlers use the opportunity to testify at the 2005 trial against him. Why did Jordan Chandler threaten a lawsuit if subpoened to testify. Why did Evan not testify and why did Ray Chandler hide behind the Journalist Shield Law in order to protect his fantasy book, All That Glitters.
Another great post, by the way. Thank you!
LikeLike
@Lynette and Nan
A few months ago I compiled a bunch of Aphrodite Jones’ interviews from 2010, and I also included the complete episode of her documentary in this post as well: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/aphrodite-jones-vehement-defense-of-michael-jackson-in-2010/
LikeLike
Great questions. But I have a few more:
If Michael molested Jordan Chandler , why does not he molested any other children who lived and grew up near him? As Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin, Brett Barnes, Cascios brothers, Omer Bhatti?
Let us remember that the psychiatrist said that there isn’t a pedophile with just a single victim. Let us remember also that many people said that Michael used to play with their children, and travel with their children, such as Trump, Deepak Chopra, among others.
Why does not he molested all?
Pedophilia is a mental illness and the patient can not control, or get thinking: Oh, this one, I can molest, this another one, I can’t.
But, let’s try assume that Michael molested all of them. They would have remained beside him, even when they became adults? And gone to court to testify on his behalf?
We can even accept that a teenage suport sexual abuse without reacting (which, honestly, I think it’s very unlikely), and still silent as an adult, for shame. But we can assume that a person abused remain beside whom abused him/her? And they would go to court to testify on his behalf?
None of this makes sense. And it makes even less sense to imagine that they were abused without knowing “when they were asleep,” as the prosecution tried to convince the jury had happened.
LikeLike
Nice job, sanemjfan. The facts are stated very simply in the form of questions. Many times it can seem complicated to explain to people. This is awesome!!
LikeLike
Thank you for the link to the A Jones documentary…Heartbreaking to listen to…I noticed on the documentary they imply the money paid to settle the Chandler thing came from MJ and not an insurance company even though it is proven in court.
An intensely shy person doesnt go and have himself photographed from the waist down unless you know you can prove your innocence that way .. Which he did..
Sneddon knew that ..
How many times would he allow allegations and timelines to change, ignore the shady parents of these kids, ignore the civil atty they visited first and continued bringing their children around MJ…all so that he can piece together a half assed case.
.
Mj stayed in that town after 93 despite Sneddons mad dog tactics because he knew he was innocent.
He was innocent and proved it in 2005 , still he and his children were driven from their home due to this prosecutor..
And then they reward him with a plaque to sooth his ego..
Weitzman called it right when he said for Sneddon, it was a show of power ,He was going to prove to the whole world that he was top dog..
He didnt give a crap about the Arvizo kid or any other kids , especially not MJ s..
It was all about him ..
Randy Jackson said that he wanted Ms Yu because there was too much testosterone in the room..
He was right…
Personally , I hope Sneddon rots in hell..
.I never watch Glen Beck, but I know he is a conservative…
I know he is ranking on Bashir, about Romney, but he mentioned MJ. and how Bashir set him up…
How could anyone have watched Bashirs documentary back then and not have known what Bashir was doing..Because even through it all , MJ appeared sweet , and naive..
It was obvious then, but people overlooked it ..
..So why bring it up now…
The cynic in me wonders why he was saying he thought MJ was set up etc, since shows like that play to their base, tell them what they want to hear…. ..perhaps this guy realizes his base might be changing their mind about MJ , at least I hope so..
LikeLike
@Julie
“I have found sadly that the one thing that a lot of the ones who find him to be guilty do so for one reason only and it is because on the stupid Bashir documentary…”
You bring up a lot of great points.
When people bring up the Bashir interview I would let them know that anyone who uses it as a resource is in fact supporting the tabloid media, because that’s exactly what that “documentary” was. They need to be made aware that:
-Bashir was dishonest and tricked Michael into agreeing to do it.
-Bashir betrayed Michael by hurting his reputation instead of improving it as he said he would
-Michael was too trusting and didn’t always express himself very well. For example when he said “sharing a bed” he really meant giving his bed to his guests. A respectful interviewer would have left out any blunders which could be interpreted the wrong way–I’m sure that happens all the time in Hollywood.
-the interview was heavily edited. Make them aware that there was a second documentary showing the parts that Bashir purposely left out
-Bashir’s suggestive comments were meant to create a sinister tone and were added without Michael’s knowledge
-ask them why they are focussing on Michael when Bashir is the one who should be raked through the coals. Ask them if they think that Bashir should have been allowed to get away with what he did.
@sanemjfan
Congratulations for a fine, very informative interview yesterday on “A Place in your Heart” blogtalk radio show. I listened to it while doing my housework.
LikeLike
Julie Sneddon absolutely knew better. Take for instance the statues of kids that he was talking about being nude. There was one that was nude and it was actually a replica of number 7 on the list of the worlds most famous fountains called Manneken Pis that is in Brussels Belgium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis
http://www.fountainsinthecity.com/visit/famous_fountains.html
And here are the rest of Michael’s Statues.Now look at these and tell me who had the sick mind.Neverland always was nothing short of breathtakingly beautiful and there was only something sinister in Sneddon’s mind. I think another part of what Michael came to think of as violating is the fact that Sneddon can be seen just walking into his house the day of the raid when the cops were there. Steve Robel says something to him like you aren’t supposed to be here and Sneddon says I know I was just…. Imagine the unmitigated gall of that man thinking he had a right to just walk into Michael’s house that day almost like he was sizing it up for ownership.
LikeLike
@ jan
There must be something really topsy turvy with the world when I agree with anything that Glen Beck says but I do. Today must be that cold day in hell that I was always referring to!
LikeLike
Lynande I love your comment: “All I have to say about Sneddon is get his !@&^%#$# name off that courthouse!!! He is the last person in this world that could or should represent true justice in this country.”
Do you agree with Aphrodite that Sneddon truly felt that Michael was using Neverland to do sinister things with children? I don’t. I truly think Sneddon knew nothing was going on, but he was going to do his best to try to get a jury of 12 to think and eventually say that there was. I was a nicer in my previous comment that he deserved. He is truly a snake in the grass and furthermore, a prosecutor that allowed his power to go to his head and as such, he abused his power many times over. I see Zonen as no different!
LikeLike
I wrote in a comment about a week ago that the reason that Tom Sneddon went after Michael was his arrogance. It was an arrogance that ran through the entire of of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office. Someone else used the same words that I did to describe his attitude before I did. I said that the reason that Sneddon did what he did was because he thought HE WAS THE LAW in Santa Barbara County. I based my opinion on the court documents and the testimony from the trial.
I never really got to watch the Aphrodite Jones True Crime show that she did on Michael but I recorded it. I would start to watch it and then I would have to stop because of Frank Dileo’s words about the day that Michael died. It was before the Murray trial and I was just so angry that it was taking so long for the authorities and the public to understand just what that man did.
I just found the full program on you tube. Watch at 9:15 when Aphrodite Jones says exactly the same thing that I did. That remark is from someone that was there. Sneddon thought that he was the law in SB County.
All I have to say about Sneddon is get his !@&^%#$# name off that courthouse!!! He is the last person in this world that could or should represent true justice in this country.
LikeLike
have you seen this about bashir:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/04/20/msnbc%E2%80%99s-martin-bashir-has-a-god-complex-says-romney-will-suffer-%E2%80%98eternal-damnation%E2%80%99/
LikeLike
Rodrigo, I am going to have to disagree with you only because I think it is far more involved than just his love for children. I truly believe that Evan Chandler was a very bad person. From all accounts he didn’t give his son, Jordan, the time of day for the most part until Michael Jackson entered his life. He tried to use the relationship to his advantage (i.e., build an addition to the house, build me a new house, help me with a screenwriting deal, etc.). When Michael began to back away from Evan, and when Evan realized that Michael meant more to Jordan and June than Evan did and that they were listening to Michael over Evan, Evan wasn’t going to stand for it. In Evan’s own words, he set the wheels in motion to take Michael Jackson down. It was all a threat in the beginning and I really think he thought once the threat was made, Michael would pay up. When Michael didn’t, here came the civil lawsuit which tripped the criminal investigation.
I also believe Tom Sneddon is a very bad person. I don’t care that he has 52 children, coached little league, and what a great person he thinks he was for his community — the mere fact that he utilized very unethical methods to manipulate, control and destroy people that got in his way in his county says way more about him than his words ever will. He WANTED to take Michael Jackson down. To him it would have been an absolute career high for him. To be able to take down the most famous person on the planet would have made his entire career. Why else would he have gone to such great lengths and spent all of that money chasing down unsubstantiated leads all over the world in the first case and then the absolute great lengths he went to in order to fabricate the second case. When have you ever heard of any other prosecution team doing that? Never! Gil Carcetti didn’t do that. Gil Garcetti let it go when it was time to let it go (not that I’m giving Garcetti any kudos – he just behaved in a more professional manner than his counterpart Sneddon). Tom Sneddon didn’t let it go. I have no doubt that if Michael were still alive today and living at Neverland and Tom Sneddon hadn’t retired, he would still be trying to get Michael. If not him, then his old cronies, Zonen and Auchincloss. Go read about Zonen’s unethical behavior regarding the Alpha Dog case and how he used Hollywood to manipulate the outcome of his case. http://stolenboy.com/2008/09/02/discussion-points-regarding-jesse-james-hollywood/
It wasn’t just because Michael Jackson loved children. It was because they could use Michael’s Jackson’s love for children to tear his life apart and that’s precisely what they did!
LikeLike
The jury in fact did not consider Janet’s testimony much at all so it was not her fault that Gavin’s claims were found to be false it was his. Paul Rodrigez the jury foreman said the jury believed that the kids were taught to lie by their mother that was as far as her testimony went. It was Gaviin that hung himself with the multitude of lies he told while on the stand.
LikeLike
Julie you are absolutely 100% right on this. There are relatives out there that would abuse a child sleeping in the same bed or not. There is no way to stop a molester because it is a crime of oportunity, meaning it will occur wherever and whenever they have that opportunity and believe it or not most victims of sexual abuse will report that it never happened in a bed let alone the perpetrators bed. If Michael had truly been a p******* he would have taken advantage of the many vast opportunities that were available within his own family. His own nephews are a testiment that he wasn’t because a pedophile does not possess the impulse control to pass up any opportunity that comes along. I dare someone to say that to Taj, TJ and Tarryl, Jermajesty, Jermaine Jr, Jaimy,Jeremy, Jourdyn, Jaafar, Austin, Siggy, Marlon Jr., Donte and Randy Jr. I double dare em. They have always been his staunchest defenders and the best testiment to the truth.
LikeLike
My honest belief is that society saw fit to crucify Michael because they wanted, and still want to this day, to punish him for his love of children. People could not understand and didn’t like it.
Most haters I’ve talked to claim they thought Michael was a threat to kids before any allegations came to rise, the truth or a tactic, like the tactic that haters use by claiming they were once fans, but had their eyes opened, I don’t know.
But the fact is, forces like the media and the likes of the haters, Sneddon, even Evan Chandler, they did not like Michael’s friendships with children, they couldn’t understand them, they thought it was wrong and they tried to correct it in their own perfect view of how society should be…by doing all they could to paint Michael out as something he wasn’t, in order to take their own personal ISSUES out once and for all. By eradicating Michael, they eradicate the thing that keeps playing in their heads
“How can society worship a man who has a strange relationship with children?”
Michael’s hell was created by their views of paradise.
“MICHAEL JACKSON MUST BE TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE HIM AROUND CHILDREN. SOMETHING ISN’T RIGHT. SLEEPING WITH CHILDREN ISN’T RIGHT. SO HE MUST BE UP TO SOMETHING SINISTER. BUT EVEN IF HE ISN’T, I’LL STILL SAY THAT HE IS BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE HIM AROUND KIDS ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT’S UNNATURAL.”
LikeLike
David you are amazing lol
Those questions are wonderful! now if that person really is open minded they wont mind answering those questions or if they cant take they were wrong they will probably just curse at you.
LikeLike
@Lynette
Thanks! I’ll make the appropriate changes to the post.
LikeLike
Actually Sneddon and the police both knew about those crazy false imprisonment, child abduction and extortion claims by the Arvizo’s from the first time they interviewed Janet and the kids.Stan Katz told them about it! It says so right in the Statement of Probable Cause! Yet they didn’t bother with them until they needed them to explain away what they were doing to Michael which was railroading him with false charges.
LikeLike
This is excellent and you are right, the ones who believe in his guilt cannot answer those questions and will typically get angry when asked to try. I have found sadly that the one thing that a lot of the ones who find him to be guilty do so for one reason only and it is because on the stupid Bashir documentary, Michael said there was nothing wrong with sleeping in the same bed as a child. Of course, Michael meant there was nothing wrong if there is not abuse going on and went on to state it happened to him a lot of times when he was little with traveling and having bodyguards and other adults people who would sleep in the same room as him and his brothers. Ok, Michael was absolutely correct! There is nothing wrong with sleeping in the same bed as anyone if your intentions are pure and honorable as his were – but those same people who take that statement and make him out to be guilty based solely on that statement are the ones who listen to media commentators who repeatedly replay that statement and make it out to be creepy and sinister (i.e., Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity – just to name the two I know of right off the bat). Sadly, because there has been so much actual abuse that has happened, people want to make that out to be something it’s not and O’Reilly even went on to state that is was inappropriate with children other than his own! Of course, O’Reilly has no problem whatsoever thinking it was appropriate to describe his sexual preferences on numerous occasions to a younger, female subordinate and was sued accordingly. That young lady taped Mr. O’Reilly and therefore, he cannot refute the validity of it. There was never any damning evidence against Michael. However, the problem with that statement by O’Reilly and others who think the same way is that there are children who are sexually abused by their own parents and other members of their own families. So, if a person is going to be someone who sexually abuses children – it doesn’t matter if it is their own kin, it doesn’t matter if they are in a bed, a chair, a car or anywhere the abuser chooses to abuse.
That is the one argument I continually get into with most haters. I have even asked them, what happens if an adult is sleeping on a couch and a child that is not his or hers comes in and sits on the same couch and falls asleep? To me, it’s the same thing. A child is not going to think anything is wrong as long as there is nothing wrong. When I debate that same subject back and forth – I still get told that no matter what it is inappropriate to sleep in the same bed as a child that is not related. Some minds are so closed – there’s not opening them!
LikeLike