Skip to content

When “VALUES” are more important than THE TRUTH

August 23, 2012

Some fans say that the matter of Sneddon has nothing to do with Michael Jackson’s vindication and that “Michael was vindicated at the 2005 trial”.

Yes, he was, only the general public does not know about it.

My hair stands on end when I read some people’s comments on the trial – “the jury was starstruck”, “Sneddon screwed it up”, “it was only due to Mesereau’s skill that he got away with it”, etc…  There is so much prejudice in these words, so much malice, so much ignorance about the most elementary things that I am surprised that Michael’s fans are not using the unique opportunity of William Wagener’s affidavit to dispel the cloud of misconception about Jackson by finally thundering the truth.

Sneddon had NO CASE against Michael. He simply concocted it from beginning to end. The case is a plain piece of fiction, where “witnesses” were invented or nominated for the job, and tacitly coached to say the right thing and where the dates of fictional crime constantly changed depending on the documents the prosecution illegally seized from the other side.

The soap opera about alleged molestation was created like a Hollywood scenario and was avidly swallowed by the public as any blockbuster is. Every piece of dirt that came Sneddon’s way was immediately leaked to the media where both journalists and the public welcomed it with their arms open. The laws the country is so proud of were abused on every corner – however no one minded it, and do not mind it even now.

To be fair to Sneddon it wasn’t only him. The whole nation took part in the hunting game and wanted to see Jackson punished for a couple of sincere words he dared say on TV. He wasn’t very articulate and didn’t know how to explain – he simply resented the outrageous things people thought about him and said straight in his face.

He himself was also outraged that people defied all rules of acceptable behavior by asking him whether he was a virgin, whether he had sex with his wife, and whether he would allow children into his room and give his bed to them. Questions like that were answered with the same degree of defiance – “Yes I will, so what? I will sleep on the floor. And this is not what you think!”

Only few sober minds realized that real child abusers don’t need a bed for what they do, and that all this talk about a “bed” was hugely exaggerated to say the very least. He tried to explain that people should not be hypocrites and stop lying to themselves, because each of us realizes very well that no real pedophile will ever speak about such matters openly.

He hoped that people would understand that he had nothing to do with criminals. They will hide, pretend, keep silent, feign disinterest, assure others that they are like everyone else and do their best to keep up appearances and play by the rules of the game.  No one will ever know and will learn by a mere chance, some 20 years later when a flock of victims suddenly comes and grown-up people cry like babies about  the molestation which terrorizes them even from the distant past (like in the real case of S. that recently shattered everyone’s nerves).

Michael Jackson asked people not to be simplistic and not to think in black and white only. He asked them to stop being hypocrites and learn to see through the formal signs of ‘proper behavior’ into the true rottenness of people which may be very well covered by a whitewashed facade.

He also asked people to start thinking at last. He desperately wanted them to understand him and his strange childhood where there was no place for games, joy and behaving foolishly but there was only work, brutality and the need to earn money. By associating with children in his adult life he tried to live anew the childhood that he missed so much and thought that others would understand.

However for others “values” were more important.

Sneddon, Zonen and Co. arranged that trial to “stand up for proper values” and the majority of people sided with them and not Michael Jackson.

This is why the media and whole nation took so active a part in the circus created by the Prosecution and refuse to see anything bad about their actions even now. The public allowed Sneddon to break the law in full view of everyone and regretted only some blunders that looked so noticeable the way Sneddon performed them.  Apart from those blunders there was little complaint.

The general feeling was that sometimes even the law and truth have to be bent if the sanctity of “values” is at stake. There is no such injustice which will be too little for those who defy the rules of common behavior – even though they didn’t harm anyone and are innocent of any crime. So what if they are innocent? Let them go to jail anyway – they should have known better when they did not keep up the appearances!

If you come to think of it, Michael’s case is very similar to the one which has recently taken place in the place I live in. Three girls sang a song in an ‘improper’ place wearing ‘inappropriate’ clothing and insulting by their performance the religious feeling of people with ‘proper’ manners. The core of the matter was different of course, but the pretext of ‘impropriety’ was in the forefront and was presented as the crucial one. The moral damage to the ‘victims’ (those who sustained damage by listening to 40 seconds of the song) was so grave that they cannot get over it even half a year later, poor things….

Funny how history repeats itself in a totally different place and with totally different people. When you come to think of it, Michael Jackson also sang ‘improper’ or ‘inconvenient’ songs and did it at places where people were supposed to be entertained only and never listen to angry or critical kind of lyrics. And angry they were – “Leave me alone”, “Why you wanna trip on me?”, “Don Sheldon is a cold man”…

Yes, same as in the girls’ case, one of the songs was also dedicated to a high-ranking authority, the District Attorney of a county, who also decided to show the singer his place and punish him by 20 years in jail for making a daring song like that.

Funny that the system is different but the method is the same. A circus is created at the pretext of standing up for the “values” of the society.  The laws are broken in so open a manner that many wince at what they see and wish that someone less blunt and more sophisticated were doing the job. Imagine how much more exquisite and refined the picture would have been if the abuse of power had been made by Larry Feldman, for example.

The only difference between the two cases is the end-result – one defendant was fully acquitted, while the three others were sentenced for two years each. The difference in the outcome is due to the difference in the social system and the skill and dedication to the truth of Defense attorney Thomas Mesereau. But wait, had it been not for Thomas Mesereau, even the system would have not worked – because almost the whole of the nation except Mesereau and his team were clearly on the other side.

And you can even say why. It is because the “values” are much more important to them than the law, justice and the truth.

22 Comments leave one →
  1. August 23, 2012 3:43 am

    you speak the truth


  2. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 23, 2012 6:30 am

    “Sneddon had NO CASE against Michael. He simply concocted it from beginning to end. The case is a plain piece of fiction, where “witnesses” were invented or nominated for the job, and tacitly coached to say the right thing and where the dates of fictional crime constantly changed depending on the documents the prosecution illegally seized from the other side.”

    You are absolutely right!! And let’s not forget that Sneddon might have known this too–which is why he went straight to the Grand Jury so as not not face the Preliminary Hearing, where MJ’s defense team could have shot a 1000 holes in his ‘case.’

    To be fair to the public, they have have been brainwashed by decades of smears and attacks and mockery in the media, which continues to a lesser extent even now. Until websites such as this one and others appeared, there was little way to know the truth. Aphrodite Jones could not even find a publisher for her book! Look at Orth’s disgusting lies that were printed in Vanity Fair (she wrote 5 damning attacks on MJ), not to mention the tabloids and tabloid TV, like N. Grace and DD. The liars had a field day and until recently did not have to face people standing up to them and insisting that the truth be known. They did not have to face informed people, like yourself.

    There are other lies besides the molestation lies. For example, sometimes people say MJ would not have been famous without Quincy Jones, even though Q. did not want Billy Jean on Thriller and wanted to shorten it when MJ went to the president of CBS. Yet BJ became MJ’s signature song, one of the masterpieces of his oevre, and of course an instant hit.

    Another lie, in my view, is that MJ would not have been MJ without the Jacksons–specifically his father and brothers–the musical family. When the brothers formed their band and MJ was not in it, he performed in his school at the age of 5–he sang “Climb Every Mountain” and got a standing ovation. So he started out musically on his own–I am sure his teachers gave him encouragement. (MJ wanted to be in the band but his brothers didn’t want him in it til they heard him sing at school.)

    It seems people have only started to recognize both his genius and what the SB powers that be did to him. It is important also to see the big tie-ins between Orth, DD, tabloids, etc, and the long-lasting efforts to convict MJ. For example, Orth attended trials in Santa Maria concerning Marcel Avram. She was tight with Sneddon, just as DD was. There was a ‘feed’ of info between the law and the media from 93 on.

    And as we saw in the 05 trial, the first ‘evidence’ presented to the jury was LWMJ!!!!

    Thank you, Helena.


  3. August 23, 2012 6:30 am

    @Helena… Very Well Said* and Interesting….. Thank You!


  4. August 23, 2012 7:01 am

    @aldebaranredstar~~~ “Another lie, in my view, is that MJ would not have been MJ without the Jacksons–specifically his father and brothers–the musical family.”

    I fully agree with that sentiment. I do not believe MJ would have been unable to make it without his strict father. From an early age, Michael was driven from within because music and dance were his happiness. But I do believe the Jackson 5 without Michael’s soaring voice and his choreography and his passion wouldn’t have reached the heights.

    @Vindicating Michael~~~ It’s a shame that when people come together in a large group they become sheep following any forceful leader. They just abdicate their own sense of judgment and give up thinking. You can see it with our current election cycle. It’s totally astounding to me what hype and hateful nonsense people are willing to believe without the slightest independent examination. Obviously, the one thing schools seem to be unable to teach is critical thinking, and as far as I’m concerned it is THE most important lesson for any student to learn.


  5. August 23, 2012 8:44 am

    My narrative when reading this: “Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Oh my God, YES! YOU GOT IT! WHOO!” I love how common sense looks in writing: a little exasperated, a touch vehement, but honest and to the point. It was excellent citing the Pussy Riot arrests…makes people realize that MJ was singing about an injustice that’s all too real. And being damned in a country that advocates, protects and loves free speech! What has this world come to?!


  6. August 24, 2012 12:32 am

    Helena, you are so right, as usual. I haven’t been here in quite some time but it is so great to first read such a common-sense and to the point article that just seems to summarize everything that has been said so far, an abstract of this entire site.
    Yes, unfortunately Michael was not vindicated although he was proven not guilty, because in most cases, and also this one, the truth is not important. The important thing is what the media want us to believe. They wanted the world to believe that the big rich weird star got away with it and that’s the way they presented it. And it wasn’t very difficult to do that, either, because it fits exactly to what the public are looking for: the preservation of their ‘values’, no matter how crooked they are, no matter how hypocritical, no matter how wrong. If someone is different, it must be crushed and Michael was, oh, so different than anything the world has ever seen.
    Honestly, the outcome of Michael’s life does not surprise me at all, because that’s what people would do out of ignorance. It doesn’t surprise me, but it saddens me… And at the same time, through it all, Michael was still a lesson of humanity and honesty. I’m sure he knew it would hurt him to tell the truth about sleeping in the same room with the kids, I think he was a very smart man. But he chose to tell it anyway. Because it was the right thing to do! And for that he will have my everlasting respect and love.


  7. Alison permalink
    August 24, 2012 12:55 am

    All very true.

    so many interviews et.c of people say thing like, ” is he going to stop now” or “even if he didn’t do anything wrong its just not acceptable” (kind of thing, not exact words) and i’ve been left wondering really where they are coming from because they ARE saying, ‘it doesn’t matter if he’s innocent we are still damning him because its not what society says is usual.

    Who in their right mind would say of a real p….le, “is he going to stop now” ?
    you would say something along the lines of ‘ has he admitted it’ or ‘ has he expressed any remorse or concern for his victims’, but not ‘ is he going to stop now?’, thats a ridiculous thing to say to or of a guilty person and it says the person asking the question must surely know its not true.

    to bang on about that Guardian article again, i had a reply from them. now bear in mind that the only issues i mentioned were facts in the public record, such as the fingerprint stuff, and i clarified this when i emailed to ask why they deleted the comment, their reply was the moderator had thought it was “legally risky”. from this response i am thinking:
    a) they didn’t say “we don’t support p…les”, they were saying they don’t want to be sued for suggesting sneddon committed crime.
    b) they actually don’t know the facts themselves.
    so i wrote a not very short reply back, not heard from them and don’t expect to, but i informed them about the affidavit and invited the articles author to contact me if he wanted more info to be ahead of the game, i said there is now so much research been done and so much real information available that the only ones now looking silly were those who weren’t bothering to read it and still sticking to the narrative.

    you are so right that we need to use the opportunity the affidavit presents — because its a fact that its been presented, its not like saying ‘ fans believe such and such’, so they can report that and reporting about that can lead to the issues being looked at.


  8. August 24, 2012 12:56 am

    “you speak the truth” – Sandra

    Guys, your words are the best reward for me. I really try very hard to reach for the truth – lies suffocate me.

    Today I’ve come home very late, so won’t be able to answer anyone, sorry. The only thing I need to explain before getting a little sleep is that the word values in this post was put in quotes for a reason. Values and “values” are totally different things and are of the opposite origin. One has to do with honesty and truth, while “values” are all about lies, hypocrisy and pretense.

    And I am not against values as someone could have thought – I am very much for them!


  9. Mona permalink
    August 24, 2012 1:38 am

    Actually what hit me the first time i seriously thought about MJ and the charges was how non logical it all is/was. I am comming from a family of artists in Sweden and I am quite familiar with the way MJ spoke about children. It could have been a copy of my grandfather. He loved children and they where all around him always. I lived very close to him so I know for a fact he was not a pedofhile. But he truly saw children as divine or sacred and would talk about them in that way.(I loved him very dearly but it made me really bored as a child. For my it was only children not blessed at all.)

    Of course Michael Jackson could have been a ped-le I dont know him.
    But If. It is only two explanations.
    MJ lived openly as a p. for around 20-30 years.
    MJ was extremly stupid so he told the world that he sleeps with minors in order to have sex with them.

    I think it is easier for people to belive that “strange” people like artists or whatever are doing evil things. Thats why they always get so suprised when it turns out to be the “nice normal guy” next door. Human projection perhaps.
    Sorry for bad english just had to respond.
    I do belive that those allegations killed MJ on many levels. He identified very strongly with suffering and in particular with suffering children. To be accused of actually hurting/molesting children must have been the worst possible scenario.


  10. Mona permalink
    August 24, 2012 4:55 am

    Excuse me some last thoughts

    You are all insiders and have a tremendous knowledge about Michael Jacksons life. I am not. I dont belong to any community, fanclub etc.
    I am indeed an outsider how just happend to see this blog.
    (very good one and sometimes amusing)
    All this nonense about MJ being a ped-le boils down to one simple
    point. And you dont need to be an insider to see that.

    Michael Jackson could not have been a p. because a p. can not behave like him. They would immediately get caught.P-les HIDE for obvious reason the fact that they are ped-les.

    MJ could be weird, god, bad or an alien from Mars. But not a p.
    I think it is obvius for any grown up person without getting in to details.

    So why was he punished? And for what? A society projects itself very strongly in to talented megastars like MJ. And it is something so vicious in the trashing of him which really puzzles me. It is telling a story but not about Michael Jackson. A story about something else I do not understand.


  11. August 24, 2012 4:03 pm

    Mona, I think you might be right about Michael being an alien from Mars :))), because honest to God, no human being would have been able to take everything he was through and still remain so beautiful on the inside.


  12. August 25, 2012 12:27 am

    “Obviously, the one thing schools seem to be unable to teach is critical thinking, and as far as I’m concerned it is THE most important lesson for any student to learn” -krisheywood

    Oh, critical thinking is indeed the most important lesson to learn. In my opinion students should learn how to learn and how to think, and should not be simply stuffed with useless facts about which ancient army stood on which bank of the river. But if everyone learns how to learn and think on his own, will it suit the governments?

    In the place I live in critical thinking has never been encouraged and the best way to survive was pretending to be a fool. However looking at your tabloids one also has a feeling that people are intentionally brought down to a very low level. No one wants to think any more – everyone wants to be entertained only. Or live a simple, easy, pleasant kind of life with good old family values and problems associated with it being the only issue at hand. Our media by the way has also learned how to brainwash everyone in an extremely pleasant way.

    But you know what? Sometimes those who do not possess critical thinking make me even envious – their life is so much easier and so less painful, that I often wish I could be like them. Seeing things as they are is often too painful a sight.

    Sorry for this rambling. My own case of the nerves being terribly on edge is probably the best illustration of how far critical thinking can take you.


  13. August 25, 2012 12:52 am

    “MJ was singing about an injustice that’s all too real” – SemiRefinedJunkie

    SRJ, since the time I made these notes about the “values” and truth, and about the vehement way Michael was fighting for the truth, I recalled that he also sang such songs like “They don’t care about us”, “We’ve had enough”, “Heal the world”, “Cry” and others. And the videos accompanying those songs were bringing his point home to people in a very powerful way too.

    All this preoccupation with social issues and by a very popular artist who drew millions to his side must have been very irritating for the establishment. An entertainer should entertain and what did Jackson start doing? He got into the field where entertainers ‘do not belong’. That is why I think that Michael’s harassment was not only for personal reasons, or racial ones, or fulfilling the goals of only one particular ped-le group – no, it seems that Michael was looked upon as a threat or challenge to too many people of various beliefs, and this is why so many of them harassed him so enthusiastically.


  14. August 25, 2012 2:24 am

    “And it wasn’t very difficult to do that, either, because it fits exactly to what the public are looking for: the preservation of their ‘values’, no matter how crooked they are, no matter how hypocritical, no matter how wrong. If someone is different, it must be crushed and Michael was, oh, so different than anything the world has ever seen. I’m sure he knew it would hurt him to tell the truth about sleeping in the same room with the kids, I think he was a very smart man. But he chose to tell it anyway.” – Mona

    Mona, happy to hear from you again. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately what people call “values” now are a list of formalities which should be adhered to superficially only – no one cares whether people really keep to all the good things they proclaim about themselves or teach others. The most important thing is that they say the right words . Hence so much totally unbearable hypocrisy in so many people’s words and deeds. And so many lies thinly veiled by the truth. And so much pretense in pretending to be good Christians (for example) and true believers in God.

    It was Michael who was a true believer in God. Not only did he say it, but his behavior is the best proof of it. The feeling of standing before God at every moment of your life influences the behavior of a person very much indeed. What most people thought about Michael – that he intentionally challenged traditional “values” and flaunted public opinion and didn’t give a damn for what the public thought – all of if was not true.

    No, the reason for his openness was different – he simply could not lie. He knew that it would harm him, but when answering before God you do not lie. You don’t want to insult your Father by being untruthful, because he sees your every thought anyway, and you truthfully speak your mind as this is what He expects of you. Even when Michael knew that the answer would do terrible damage to him, he still could not lie. In my opinion this is the highest form of belief in God – this way a person entrusts his whole self into His hands saying something like “I do my best to live by your rules and have nothing to fear – my life is all yours, you know better what to do with it and how to protect it”.

    In our age when sincere talk about God is regarded as weird, improper and politically incorrect, and is reserved for ministers only, Michael spoke about God in almost all his interviews. His words were regarded as another instance of his ‘weirdness’, ‘eccentricity’ or ‘pretense’. But Michael was simply sincere and truthful – he really lived by God’s rules and did not think it necessary to hide it from the people.

    If no one had asked him about children in his room he would not have volunteered the information himself – but since he was constantly asked he constantly replied, and told everyone the whole truth – that his room was always flocked with children who sought him themselves. But in the crooked world of ours Michael’s honest answers were looked upon as ‘he persisted’, ‘was stubborn’, ‘would not give it up’, “things would still go on in Neverland’, etc.

    My nation has a very good example of a similar kind of behavior. It was Count Leo Tolstoy who wrote “War and Peace”. He was an absolute believer in God (I read his piece called Confession)and in the later years of his life tried to live by all His rules – up to giving most of his money to the poor and living in extreme modesty himself. And what happened to him as a result? He was accused exactly of the thing most sensitive to him. He was thrown out of the offical church for disrespect for Christ, improper behavior, defying tradition, not following the rituals, etc.

    Sorry again for all this rambling. People’s hypocrisy is getting so much on my nerves that I keep talking about the same thing again and again. I mean the difference between real values and “values”.


  15. August 25, 2012 7:06 am

    @Mona, you said “actually what hit me the first time I read about … the charges was how non logical it all was”. What hit me when I really dug into the transcripts, listened to interviews, heard and read Michael’s own words, was: What judge in his right mind let the case get as far as it did? It was fiction from beginning to end; I lived in California at the time and followed it through the slanted media as well as I could, never for a minute believing the charges against Michael. I only really delved seriously into the injustice of it all after Michael’s death and could not believe the transcripts as I was reading them! The only conclusion I can draw is that the judge was as brainwashed by the media as those members of the public who, to this day, do not accept Michael’s innocence.


  16. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 25, 2012 11:31 am

    @krisheywood–“But I do believe the Jackson 5 without Michael’s soaring voice and his choreography and his passion wouldn’t have reached the heights.”

    Wow–you just made the light bulb go off in my brain–of course!! Thanks for putting it so well and so clearly.


  17. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 25, 2012 11:33 am

    According to the charges, the molestation started Feb. 20th–the revised dates. But Michael was not at Neverland on the 20th–so why did they start the charges on that date? Did this ever come out in the trial?


  18. August 25, 2012 4:45 pm

    “According to the charges, the molestation started Feb. 20th–the revised dates. But Michael was not at Neverland on the 20th–so why did they start the charges on that date? Did this ever come out in the trial?” – aldeberanredstar

    Yes, the fact that Michael most probably was not at Neverland on February 20 was found out during the trial only. It was found out by chance when analyzing the phone records. However Sneddon made his accusations very vague and evidently did it on purpose. The text of the Grand Jury indictment says: “on and about and between February 20, 2003 and March 12, 2003 he willfully…,” etc.

    In addition to the absurdity of Michael simply not being present on the scene of the crime on February 20, 2003 we have another absurdity – the very day which the prosecution proclaimed as a start of molestation business the Arvizos gave an interview to the Department for Family and Children’s Services and said an emphatic NO to all their questions!

    The DFCS experts kept contact with the Arvizos for quite some time after that but there were still no complaints. One of the experts later came across Janet Arvizo in a shop and asked her about the children, and she said everything was fine. Things changed only several months later when the Arvizos went to Larry Feldman…

    Here is Roger Friedman’s article about how the phone records absurdity was found out:


    Friedman – (Jackson) Prosecution’s Timeline Doesn’t Jibe

    From Roger Friedman’s column on May 3, 2005:

    Michael Jackson was not at his Neverland Ranch on March 6, 7 and 8 in 2003, and possibly not on March 9 either. That was news yesterday that the prosecution inadvertently admitted into evidence in the Jackson child molestation trial while they were busy analyzing phone records of all the case’s main players.

    And those three days, and also possibly Feb. 20, 2003, continue to narrow the time Jackson allegedly committed any crimes.

    Thanks to a rather boring review of phone records in yesterday’s court session, we did learn a couple of small things that may have great significance later.

    While Jackson was away from Neverland, his teen accuser was at the ranch with his family. The boy, now 15, has said in his grand jury testimony and in court that his molestation took place “toward the end” of his stay at Neverland on March 12, 2003.

    Jackson, as we accidentally learned in court, was staying at the Beverly Hilton for several days at that time under the name Kenneth Morgan. Phone records introduced by the prosecution show that he was there and calling his assistant Evvy Tavasci night and day. The phone records from the hotel were entered as evidence by the prosecution. So were the room bills, which show that Jackson was in an $850 suite.

    Phone records also indicate Jackson may have been away from Neverland on Feb. 20, 2003. That’s the day the district attorney said in his indictment that Jackson began his molestation and conspiracy. But those phone records show that Jackson may have been in Miami on that date, staying at Turnberry Isle Inn, the same place where he stayed earlier that month for $3,700 a night. And you wonder why he has no money.

    Since the district attorney placed all of Jackson’s indictable actions between Feb. 20 and March 10, 2003, it would seem that his window of opportunity to molest is getting smaller and smaller.

    It’s already been established that the family was away from Neverland between Feb. 25 and March 2, 2003. Scratch that week off the schedule. Now cross off those three or four days in late March plus Feb. 20 and possibly Feb. 21 and 22.

    Other items in yesterday’s testimony didn’t jibe with what the jury has already heard. For one thing, the accuser’s mother, Janet Arvizo, was vehement during her own testimony that she’d missed celebrating Valentine’s Day with her then-boyfriend because of Jackson and his associates. But phone records show that she made seven calls that day to her friend, Azja Pryor, the fiancée of comedian Chris Tucker. She also had several phone conversations with Jackson associate Frank Tyson that day. The last call of the day, placed by Arvizo to Pryor, was at 11:40 p.m. The defense could say that if she missed Valentine’s Day, it was Arvizo’s own fault.

    Santa Barbara police detective Sgt. Craig Bonner — a nice enough fellow who’d worked on getting all the phone records together for all the parties to this case — conceded during cross-examination by Robert Sanger that he had omitted calls for Feb. 4, 2003, during his presentation under direct questioning. He also said that the phone records hadn’t been finalized until late Sunday night — after over a one-year run-up to the trial.

    The Arvizos’ records included two calls to Chris Tucker’s home on Feb. 4 within minutes of each other.

    Under cross-examination during what seemed like a brutally dull day in court, the defense began to set the stage for a story we reported in this column exclusively last Friday. That’s the story that has the Arvizos asked to be sent to Miami to see Michael Jackson on Feb. 6, 2003. I told you that sources say Chris Tucker will relate how the Miami trip was his idea, not Jackson’s.

    The calls to Tucker, the defense will argue if its case ever begins, are important. They will show that after the family was made an offer by British tabloid reporters for their story, they picked up the phone and called Tucker for access to Jackson. Tucker then flew the family to Miami on a plane he had rented, on his way to Orlando, Atlanta and the NBA All Star Game.

    Mother Made Friends at Neverland

    The last time anyone heard the name Angel Vivanco in court was when Janet Arvizo said she didn’t know him. That was on a day of cross-examination when Thomas Mesereau craftily ran off a list of Neverland workers and asked Arvizo to identify them.

    “I don’t know anybody except Jesus Salas and Evvy,” she said refering to Jackson’s assistant.

    She also said she had never heard of Violet Silva, the longtime head of security at Neverland.

    But now it seems that Arvizo does in fact know Vivanco and may yet again be confronting her own lies. Phone records show that she called Vivanco at home and often, especially after she “escaped” from the Neverland ranch for the third and final time. Vivanco received a call from Arvizo at home in Guadalupe, Calif., on March 12, another one on March 13, three calls on March 19, two on March 20 and another on March 21.

    Vivanco’s number was on phone bills subpoenaed by the prosecution, but the district attorney’s office didn’t bother to see whose number it was. Defense attorney Sanger revealed during cross-examination that the defense supplied the opposition with this information. It’s still not clear why the district attorney wouldn’t have been interested in whom Janet Arvizo might have been calling in Guadalupe, a town near Neverland but far from her own home.

    Similarly, Arvizo made lots of other calls to Neverland employees after her third “escape.” She made several calls to another Neverland staffer, Maria Aceves, and to Jorgen and Adele Staal, owners of a local self-storage company in nearby Santa Ynez. Aceves was on the prosecution’s list of potential witnesses, but was never called. The Staals are not on any lists from either side. Vivanco and his brother Jorge are on the defense list.

    Source: MJFC / Fox News / Roger Friedman used with special permission.


  19. Rodrigo permalink
    August 25, 2012 5:54 pm

    Good stuff, Helena.

    Mona. I’ve seen that theory what you’ve mentioned before, that Michael did what he did because he was a celeb in order to get away with being a p-le. Like he was a cunning criminal mastermind or something.

    It’s bull. He did what he did because he thought he was following what he learned in the bible. He built Neverland to reflect on his lost childhood. It was built as a sanctuary for those who were like him.

    But ultimately, Neverland was HIS home. It reflected Michael, and him alone. He didn’t do it to lure children to his bedroom. He did it out of his childhood pain and determination to make others out there feel good and happy.

    None of us can truly know what went on in Michael’s head. None of us want to know what pain he felt in his life, and there was a LOT of it. I can’t imagine what a lost childhood would do to me…but Michael knew it firsthand. The pain he felt drove him to do good in the world. He wanted to appeal to others out there to give children the best time of their lives, because in Michael’s mind, no child should suffer the pain and anguish he felt, that other children are feeling to this day.

    Michael Jackson did what he did out of the goodness and kindness of his heart, and from the pain and suffering he endured as a child. His mission was to make the world a better place, for himself and for everyone else. He believed that love would help us, the love that God and Jesus taught him, the love that many of us ignore and laugh nowadays.

    And because the world didn’t understand Michael, they murdered him.


  20. August 25, 2012 11:32 pm

    “Michael Jackson could not have been a p. because a p. can not behave like him.”

    Mona, I absolutely agree with you, but according to our rules we do not use this dirty word with the clean name of Michael Jackson. It creates an unnecessary association link which we try to avoid. That is why I had to correct all your comments, replacing the word you used so often into a simple p.


  21. aldebaranredstar permalink
    August 26, 2012 12:49 am

    Thanks, Helena. Was there any effort made to identify the dates that the molestation actually occurred on at the trial? I mean were the dates ever established or were they just left so vague that none knows to this day when it supposedly happened?

    I wish all this was public knowledge and that people knew how full of holes the ‘case’ was. In fact, I think the judge may be culpable too in letting this go on and not dismissing the charges.

    Such a small window–and, as we have said, why would anyone molest, of all people, the very person you are accused of molesting but have not yet molested? It just flies in the face of all reason and logic.


  22. August 28, 2012 6:06 pm

    Wow, interesting read. I always love your updates. It’s so hard going back to read all of this sometimes but, it’s good to know that Michael has somewhat been vindicated finally in the public eye.

    Rest in Peace, MJ.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: