THE STORY of how Michael Jackson allegedly ‘paid out $200 million in hush money to 20 sex abuse victims’
The fake news goes as far as page 6 of Google search results and spreads further on too
Updated and corrected on 04/08/15
Page after page the Google search results show the extent of the disease spreading on the Internet and claiming that the Robson/Safechuck legal team says that Michael Jackson allegedly paid “$200 million in hush money to silence 20 sex abuse victims”.
The screenshot on the right is page 6 out of ten or more Google pages reproducing the above story by all sorts of media outlets. Considering that each page has standard ten listings on it, at least 100 media sources are involved in spreading the fabricated story, not to mention the various TV channels also retelling the lie.
If I’m not mistaken the first to introduce it were the “Mirror” (a UK tabloid with some reputation dragging behind it) and the good old Stacy Brown who reminds us of himself each time some hearing is supposed to take place in the Robson/Safechuck case.
The Mirror calls Michael Jackson “Jacko” and claims that “a wealth of evidence was excluded from the criminal proceedings against Jackson in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases”:
“Wade Robson and James Safechuck claim they were both sexually abused by Jacko and are seeking unspecified amounts in punitive damages.
The pair brought their legal actions in 2013 and 2014 – after the statutory deadline – but hope Judge Mitchell Beckloff will allow them to proceed. However, any payout would be dwarfed by the £134million lawyers claim that Jackson, who died in 2009, allegedly shelled out in order to keep silence.
Crucially, if Judge Beckloff finds in the pair’s favour, they would be able introduce a wealth of evidence excluded from the criminal proceedings against him in 2005 due to discovery rules in civil cases. It would include graphic details of the alleged abuse but also how much each was paid to keep quiet”, said the Mirror.
From the same story we find out that the news is reported not by the lawyers themselves but by a “source close to the legal team”:
“A source close to their legal team said: “The judge during Jackson’s criminal case ruled much of the prosecution evidence could not be heard.
“They thought it was pivotal to the case and was crucial in Jackson receiving a not guilty verdict. The team thinks if Judge Beckloff allows their cases to proceed it will allow the evidence to be heard and prove beyond doubt he was guilty.”
And finally we learn that the big disclosure and ensuing discussion were to take place on Tuesday, April 7, 2015:
Los Angeles Superior Court is expected to rule on Tuesday whether two alleged victims cases can bring claims against the Thriller star’s estate.
If the judge agrees, damning evidence barred from the King of Pop’s original child sex abuse trial could be heard for the first time.”
QUESTIONS
Well, all of it is very interesting of course, only I wonder why no journalist asked a number of questions crossing the mind of an average concerned reader. For example:
– How come the lead prosecutors in the 2005 case Tom Sneddon and Ron Zonen hid this ‘wealth of evidence’ from public view and never leaked a single piece of it to the press?
We could understand their silence if they hadn’t known, but according to this news they knew everything all right and presented all the evidence to the judge, were rebuffed for some reason and still kept silent, so untypically for themselves. The prosecutors, investigators and policemen never mentioned it at any of their numerous press-conferences and interviews, so are we supposed to think now that “mad dog” Tom Sneddon (the unofficial nickname for the Santa Barbara District Attorney) was protecting the good name of Michael Jackson by keeping silent about some “$200mln paid out to 20 victims”?
– And what about the press? Where were they, same as the vigilant FBI, Department of Children and Family Services or the veteran investigative reporter like Diane Dimond? How could all of them make so terrible an oversight and overlook the judge’s ruling that should have been listed on the open official page of the court?
– And why did the judge allow the testimony of June Chandler and Blanca Francia (whose son reportedly received $2mln for two incidents of tickling) but simultaneously ruled against the testimony of 20 victims whose abuse must have been much worse if it really paid them $10mln each?
– And where on the LA Superior Court official site is there the ruling of the judge who took so horrible a decision that made it impossible to hear all this damning prosecution evidence at the 2005 trial? Can we have the date of the ruling and a direct link to it, please?
We as researchers of false allegations against Michael Jackson know the true worth of all these “20 victims” stories (it is zero), but all others should have these questions asked and answered or otherwise the fooling and cheating process will never end. The public wants to know and we should be the first to demand the answers!
HEARING ON “APRIL 7”
The only April hearing is set for April 10, 2015. No mention of “Tuesday” April 7 hearing is made on the official site of the LA Superior Court
Another thing which would be necessary to clarify is why the Mirror and everybody else referred to a hearing at the LA Superior Court on Tuesday April 7, however the official page for the respective case does not list the date.
The only April hearing indicated there is April 10, so it is absolutely unclear what April 7th hearing the Mirror had in mind when they made their story and whether it was meant to take place at all.
Whatever the case APP (the Australian Associated Press news agency) has already obtained information that the above ‘hearing’ brought about a new delay in the case.
Now the Estate will have to wait until May when the judge is going to look into the reply of Robson/Safechuck legal team to the Motion for Summary Judgment made by the Estate sometime at the end of March.
Note on SUMMARY JUDGMENT:
- It is a procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a Matter of Law.
- Any party may move for summary judgment; it is not uncommon for both parties to seek it.
- A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious.
- A party may also move for summary judgment in order to demonstrate to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there is nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial?
The APP news agency presents the delay as if it were Robson and Safechuck who would “have to” wait now, while in reality the postponement is needed by their lawyers who want more time to get themselves ready to oppose the Estate’s Motion for Summary Judgment:
Aussie’s Michael Jackson case delayed
PETER MITCHELL AAP
APRIL 08, 2015 4:01AM
AUSTRALIAN dance choreographer Wade Robson will have to wait a few more months to find out if he can pursue a slice of alleged sexual abuser Michael Jackson’s $US1.5 billion ($A2.0 billion) estate.
LEGAL teams for Robson, another alleged Jackson victim, James Safechuck, and the late King of Pop’s estate were scheduled to appear before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff on Tuesday.
However, the court date was pushed back to May.
Robson and Safechuck missed a statutory deadline when they filed their claims more than a year after Jackson’s 2009 death and Judge Beckloff will rule if their cases can proceed.
Robson, 32, and Safechuck, 36, both allege Jackson abused them when they were children.
A lawyer for Jackson’s estate, Howard Weitzman, has labelled Robson’s delayed allegations as “outrageous and pathetic”.
In addition to Radar Online and several media outlets which in August 2014 published Robson’s court documents and claimed that his lawsuit was worth $1.62 billion, the one and a half billion demand was also reported by Examiner.com which as it turns out is property of no other than Philip Anschutz-owned AEG (it was acquired by the company in early 2014).
I hope you will agree that Philip Anschutz must value his reputation too much to let his media report some unverified news and sums, and this makes the $1.62 billion wanted by Robson all the more credible to us:
Michael Jackson rape and molestation case: Wade Robson seeks $1.62 billion
From the vehement denials of Wade Robson’s supporters that “it’s preposterous to even imagine that they would be claiming the entire worth of the estate” I get the impression that Robson’s lawyers realized that they had asked for too much and are now trying to sweep the original sums demanded by their claimants somewhat under the rug.
However I suggest we operate in exactly these very original sums – they were reported alongside the salacious details of the 111 pages of certain Robson documentation seen by the same “sources”, so we either have to believe all or none of it.
The APP source explains to us that $1.6 US billion dollars is roughly equivalent to $2 billion Australian dollars. In Australian dollars the sum is much easier to remember, so now none of us will forget that each of the guys wants a billion of Australian dollars – which incidentally amounts to everything the Estate has.
WHAT THE ESTATE SAYS
In reply to the Stacy-Brown-and-Mirror story spreading in the media like a pandemia of flu the Estate made the following statement:
We have received a number of inquiries from the community regarding the most recent Stacy Brown story. As many of you are aware, the Estate generally prefers not to legitimatize the lies and rumors spread in the media or expand the coverage by other media of those stories. However, the Estate has asked that we share with you the following statement that was issued by Howard Weitzman, attorney for the Estate of Michael Jackson, in a response to a request for comment yesterday:
“We are aware of recent false “reports” regarding Michael Jackson having, among other things, paid over $200 million to 20 “victims.” There is not a shred of evidence to support these ludicrous “reports.” It is unfortunate that, even in death, Michael cannot be free of these types of allegations, but we are confident that the truth will prevail in the end, just as it did in 2005 when a jury fully exonerated him.”
The Estate is steadfast in its defense of Michael in courts and that will not change regardless of what lies and rumors are spread by journalists with their own agendas.
WHAT THE COUSIN SAYS
As a final touch to the above news let me also recall that in October 2013 James Safechuck’s unsuspecting cousin Tony shared with the Twitter audience the following tweet:
-
“my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened”
A tweet made by Jimmy Safechuck’s cousin Tony on October 16, 2013 https://twitter.com/SHOWTIME16/status/390562076542119936
After introducing some grammar into the above sentence it would read as follows:
-
“My cousin and I were two of the kids that used to hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened.”
I think all of us should remember this remarkable evidence from Tony Safechuck. Its main beauty is its spontaneity as no one asked Tony Safechuck to express his views on the subject and he wrote it as a spontaneous reaction to Robson’s allegations. Mind you, all spontaneous statements are extremely valued in the investigation of sex abuse cases, whether they are in favour of the accused or against him.
And the next valuable point about Tony Safechuck’s tweet is its date – it is October 16, 2013. This was the time when James Safechuck was only thinking of joining Robson’s lawsuit, and the tweet makes it clear that at that moment Jimmy’s cousin Tony was still unaware of his bullshit, sorry, plans.
James Safechuck disclosed his plans in May 2014 (this date is also easy to remember as it was several days prior to releasing the Xscape album) and ever since then Tony Safechuck has been keeping mum about the way he and Jimmy hang out together with Michael Jackson, and what a Great person he was, and that all of it was ‘bullshit’, and that no settlements ever happened.
Of course, if Tony Safechuck is summoned to court he will have to explain his little tweet but while he is keeping silence we can reflect on the power of money and what it does to some people – especially if the sum at stake is a billion Australian dollars.
Vindicating Michael 
Reblogged this on teammichaeljackson.
LikeLike
Jolie, I’ve now posted in vulcan’s comment the full links to the same sources and now they should open. I also repeat them here:
1) Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner: https://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/j-chandler-gardner-interview.pdf
2) The foreskin of a non-circumcised male in masturbation (sorry we have to post things like that, it is extremely graphic, be ready for a shock and please don’t tell me that I haven’t warned you, sorry again): https://michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=11315
LikeLike
vulcan: I dont know if it is just my computer, but your links dont work.
LikeLike
Vulcan, thank you very much for your answers to szilvia09 – you’ve done a marvellous job. I no longer have any patience with MJ’s detractors, especially because I don’t believe that they themselves believe what they are saying – and therefore withdraw not to waste time on them. So thank you again for being so patient and explaining it all for an umpteenth time.
As regards your point about “circumcision/masturbation” I need to emphasize one more thing here:
Some people tend to look at Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner as something formidable – “He said this! He said that!” and since the subject is big we ourselves mostly focus on the fact whether Dr. Gardner believed Jordan or not (he didn’t, but this is not the point at the moment).
I think we need to focus on something different – the fact that Jordan made that huge blunder with “circumcision” means that he lied to Dr. Gardner about “masturbation” too and this huge lie makes Jordan’s interview with the psychiatrist worthless.
If Jordan lied so light-heartedly about “masturbating MJ about ten times” he could lie as easily about everything else.
And it is not even that important whether Dr. Gardner believed him or not – what is important is that this interview contains one big central lie which nullifies all the rest said by Jordan to Dr. Gardner.
So Jordan told Dr. Gardnera lie about “masturbation”. IF it had been true, he would have described MJ correctly, but he did not, so in its turn the “masturbation” thing was also a lie. And if the interview contains a big lie like that, the chances that the rest of it is also a lie are practically 100%.
And what does it matter what Dr. Gardner possibly thought or didn’t think about it? He didn’t know that Michael was not circumcised, because it became known to the public only after Michael’s death. But now we know it and may be sure that if Dr. Gardner had known it at that time, he wouldn’t have even listened to Jordan any further.
LikeLike
@szilvia09
If Jordan Chandler had testified this alone would have killed his credibility:
1.Chandler claimed MJ was circumcised.
2.Chandler told Dr. Garner that he mastrubated MJ about 10 times:
But he had me masturbate him.”
“On how many occasions?”
“About ten.
Click to access j-chandler-gardner-interview.pdf
3. Chandler was Jewish and he admitted that he mastrubated on his own. So he knew how a circumcised penis looked and FELT during mastrubation.
4. The foreskin moves during mastrubation like this:
It’s simply impossible to miss it!
5. The strip search revealed MJ was not circumcised.
6. The mastrubation part disappears from the post-strip search declaration on Dec 28!
This along with other medical proof is irrefutable evidence that Chandler lied.
There is no way to go around it.
LikeLike
@szilvia09
The 1993 case didn’t go to trial because MJ couldn’t even be charged there was absolutely no evidence that Chandler was telling the truth.
Sneddon and Garcetti investigated him for 13 months even before the civil settlement, which by the way did not prevent criminal prosecution, they had plenty of time to arrest MJ.
They could have done it right after the strip search!
If Chandler had given an accurate description but he didn’t so MJ was not arrested and not charged.
In your world if someone is accused he is not innocent because his case didn’t go to trial?
Let’s assume that the 1993 case had been fully explored in 2005.
Then Evan Chandler, Barry Rothman, Mark Torbiner, Jordan Chandler, Frank Cascio, Eddie Cascio even Ryan White’s mother would have testified, Ray Chandler’s book would have been fully on display with all the parts that prove they never wanted a criminal trial, they wanted a “highly profitable settlement”, all their plan to get 20 million from MJ would have been revealed, the photos would have been introduced along with Chandler’s drawing and it would have proven than Chandler in fact didn’t know how MJ looked he simply knew that he had vitiligo and therefore a splotchy skin.
Jordan Chandler would also have been cross-examined about his claims to Dr. Richard Garner and he couldn’t have explained why he was parotting his father’s exact thoughts about MJ if he was not coached by him!
G. Hughes would have been a witness as well and Chandler would have had a hard time to explain what he was doing in Rotham’s office for HOURS if he was not coached.
The Chandler-Schwarz phone call would have been in evidence too revealing the contradictions in Chandler’s claims and how he plotted against MJ BEFORE Jordan made any kind of accusations.
So including the 1993 case in the 2005 trial wouldn’t have changed the verdict. There was more than enough reasonable doubt there too.
In fact the Chandlers didn’t testify in 2005 because they NEVER wanted to go to court NEVER wanted to be cross-examined because they knew their story was bogus.
LikeLike
Actually June Chandler did testify and so did Ralph Cachon who claimed to witness MJ molest Jordan.
Of course Cachon was exposed the liar he was under cross-examination and we know that the scenes he described didn’t even appear in Chandler’s own story!
As for June Chandler she testified
The prior acts evidence was all third party witnesses who like Cachon were all demolished under cross-examination because 1. they changed their story 2. they sued MJ 3. they were countersued by MJ and lost 4. they sold crap to tabloids 5. they didn’t remember details about the alleged molestation 5. the idea that all these people indeed saw molestation and did nothing but was suddenly ready to talk to tabloids for money makes their claims less then believable especially since 6. the boys themselves DENIED being molested (Robson, Barnes, Culkin) 7.the claims contradicted the prosecution’s narrative where MJ was so careful not to get caught that he had the locks and the alarm specifically for that purpose
You simply can’t have it both ways.
The only prior act witness was Jason Francia and his performance was such a joke some jurors laughed at him and the foreman compared him to Janet Arvizo, who was a complete nutjob. Francia was not molested and he tried way too hard to ACT like a victim only to reveal that he was a rather bad actor. His mother was also caught in contradictions and as usual the only common theme with these prior act witnesses was MONEY.
Every single person who ever accused MJ of anything had an ulterior motive!
And you cannot go around that fact.
MJ never had a single “clean” accuser.
And considering that he had dozens of kids who were close to him and hundreds of people who worked in Neverland there is in fact no pattern of behavior as a child molester at all, the whole thing is ridiculously random.
Why Chandler but not Brett Barnes?
Why Robson but not Culkin?
Why Safechuck but not Feldman?
Why Francia but not Bryton McClure?
Why Arvizo but not Omer Batthi?
And those are just five kids who have been adamant that MJ was a good guy.
Here’s a longer list:
Brett Barnes, Sean Lennon, Omar Batthi, Mark Ronson, Kelly Parker, Corey Feldman, Michael Jacobshagen, Derek Emerson, Ryan Folsey, Bobby Newt, Mac Culkin, Kirean Culkin, Dakota Culkin, Quinn Culkin, Bryton McClure, Dave Dave, Emmanuel Lewis, Alexandra Martin, Princess Elizabeth and Prince Albert von Thurn und Taxis, Billy Ramirez, Karlee Barnes, Simone Jackson, Rashida Jones, Kidada Jones, Michael Gibb, Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Ahmad Etabad, Perly and Morly Qi Zhen, Paris Hilton, Nicky Hilton, Marie Tourelle, Tracy Dyer, Harriet Lester, Amy Agajanian, David Agajanian, JC Agajanian, Sage Galesi, Lala Romero, Nisha Kataria, Roman Barett, Natalia Barrett, Brock Goldstein, Rhonda Ross, Chudney Ross, Nicole Grierson, Damon Stein, Megan Stein, Amanda Porter, Pudence Brando, Richard Matsura, Soleil Moon Frye , Ryan White, Austin Brown, Anthony Jackson, Taj Jackson, Taryll Jackson, Donte Jackson, Randy Jackson Jr, Mason van Valin, Bianca van Valin, Brian Romero, Bobbi Kristina Brown, Ryan White, Andrea White, Mallory Cyr, Deja Riley, Tamil and Lana Ramirez, Sky Ferreira, Evan Ross, Laura Chaplin. Shane Brando, Lucy Lester, Jo Jo Elatab
It’s their words against the words of those five proven liars.
Which group do you believe?
LikeLike
No you are wrong about that.
Jason Francia NEVER spent time in his bed and he didn’t accuse him of anything until it became a good opportunity to get MJ’s millions.
Had it not been for his illegal immigrant loser mother, a tabloid whore who sized the opportunity after the Chandler thing broke to make money Jason Francia wouldn’t have accused MJ of anything.
Same thing with Chandler. It was Evan Chandler not Jordan Chandler who first accused MJ of molestation as it is evidence from the Chandler-Schwarz phone conversation and the Chandler’s own book!
Jordan Chandler didn’t accuse MJ of anything until Evan Chandler took custody of him and told him not to lie to him otherwise he will destroy MJ. Of course what he meant by “lie” was to deny that MJ did anything to him.
Gavin Arvizo never shared a bed with MJ, MJ slept on the floor while Gavin and Star Arvizo slept on the bed. And just like with Evan Chandler a mentally ill greedy parent is in the picture: Janet Arvizo who previously falsely accused Jc Penny guards of sexual abuse to get a nice settlement.
Coincidence? Gavin and Star Arvizo admitted to lie under oath to support his mother’s false claims against JC Penny.
They were accustomed to false accusations and perjuries. They did it before.
And belive it or not but the ugly fat Star Arvizo also accused MJ of molestation — initially.
He claimed that MJ touched him in a gold cart. This element of their story, like many others however changed later on, and suddenly Star was not molested.
Those whole case was ridiculous with contradictory, inconcistent elements, ranging from MJ giving a sleeping pill then not givin a sleeping pill to Gavin and Star not being in MJ’s room while he wasn’t even in Neverland to actually being there.
As for sleeping in a bed you don’t need a bed to molest someone and you certainly don’t sleep while you molest someone.
Plenty of people slept in MJ’s room over the years, men, women, boys girls.
For someone like him who slept with adults and his brothers as a kid routinely sleeping with anyone did not have any kind of sexual connotation.
Mac Culkin, Corey Feldman, Frank Cascio, Eddie Cascio, Nicole Richie, Brandi Jackson, Simone Jackson, Rijo Jackson, Brett Barnes all shared a room or even a bed with him.
None of them was molested.
Why should we believe that Chandler or Robson or Arvizo were?
Because they used this aspect of MJ’s life to get his money?
They wanted to sleep in his room, MJ never invited any kid to stay with him.
So if you have a problem with that go and ask them why the heck did they asked him to let them stay with him.
LikeLike
Something different, but something to enjoy:
“It turns out that fans in the U.S. and Puerto Rico have caught onto it and embraced “Unity: The Latin Tribute to Michael Jackson” so much so that it has debuted as No. 1 in sales. The album is so fierce that it also nabbed the No. 1 spot on Billboard’s Top Tropical Albums chart.”
Quotes Tony Succar:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/49457/20150424/unity-the-latin-tribute-to-michael-jackson-latin-tribute-to-michael-jackson-tony-succar-jon-secada-puerto-rico-salsa-the-king-of-pop-jackson-thriller-billie-jean-smooth-criminal.htm
LikeLike
Susanne, haters indeed involve themselves in hairsplitting and twisting facts. Look at this statement, for example:
We’ve also heard that pictures containing nudity may be used by some for grooming the young, but the book Corey Feldman saw on a table in Michael’s room was not on nudity – it was about venereal diseases and nothing could be further from grooming than those pictures. I’ve looked up some myself and the impression they produce is exactly the opposite – it makes a person wary and fearful of a simple kiss.
However a hater suggests we disregard everything Corey Feldman about MJ’s innocence and normalcy, and consider him guilty because of a book with pictures of human swollen skin covered with rash, pus, etc. which Michael didn’t snatch from Corey’s hands? What’s so inappropriate about it? Corey was growing up neglected by his own parents and had no one to turn to in this respect, so Michael could probably even want Corey to see that book – to warn him about the dangers of early and unprotected sex.
Here is a picture of herpes which may be contracted through a kiss, which was surely part of that book:
So does disregarding everything Corey said about MJ’s innocence and blowing that book out of all proportion make a person a truth-seeker? Absolutely not. Vice versa, it clearly points to a hater or someone with a huge bias.
Or look at another hater’s statement:
First of all none of us even talk that much about Evan’s greediness – it was he himself who was so engrossed by the subject that he constantly denied extortion (even when no one mentioned it). And secondly, the proof that the child was not molested was a mismatch between Jordan‘s description and Michael’s private parts. This mismatch is the core of the problem. It really proves that there wasn’t any sexual abuse and that Jordan lied, and this in its turn makes all talk about the settlement totally redundant.
You were absolutely right that Michael was afraid that his photos, though fully exonerating him, would be shown in court, and considering that the civil trial was also planned to be televised, it turned into a big terror for Michael (he spoke about it with Bashir). But haters deliberately focus their attention on all these secondary considerations, thoroughly avoiding the basic and fundamental fact – Jordan made a wrong description and never saw MJ’s genitalia (despite claims of masturbating him), so he is a liar, and there is nothing else to discuss here.
Any discussion of “why he settled” may start only on the premise that Jordan lied and only then can we look into the secondary reasons why the settlement took place.
And once we keep in mind the fundamental fact that Jordan made a wrong description and lied about MJ, all other haters’ questions become purely theoretical:
Yes, we do and it is indeed hard. Though in a civil trial Jordan was also supposed to testify and judging by the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers Jordan was ready for it, wasn’t he?
But the same can be equally explained by his unwillingness to have anything else to do with the dirty game he was involved in (probably despite his will). He even said to the policemen that he had “done his part”.
Similarly, I can assert that he refused to testify twice because he didn’t know how to explain his dramatic mistake in describing MJ’s private parts and was afraid of having to admit his lies during a cross-examination. Jordan even said to Dr. Gardner that the only thing he was afraid of was a cross-examination.
First of all, there was no “matching” description. But if there had been a match it would have been enough to put MJ into jail then and there. Tom Sneddon was present during the strip search exactly for this reason.
There is no need to “assume” anything as the photos didn’t match, and that’s it.
LikeLike
@szilvia09
1.Both Wade and James are asking for punitive damages or “punishment damages”. These are never specified because they are determined by the jury so the amount they are “asking” for is undetermined. What they are expecting might be something else altogether couldn’t it.
2. Yes Carl Douglas used the word “silence” and he did use a quotation gesture when he said it in the Frozen in Time seminar. What is also clear is that Cochran and Feldman liked each other, were friends prior to the case and also knew the three judge panel. At no time did it sound like Michael Jackson was in the room when any of these negotiations were going on and it doesn’t even sound like any of it was Michael’s idea. Carl also said that the ruling about the civil trial going in 120 day was lost and it was that factor that drove the settlement, You will figure out why when I talk about Larry Feldman
3. Larry Feldman said that the problem came from the timing of Michael’s deposition which is at least closer to the truth. Because he was scheduled to be deposed in the civil trial and the Prosecution from both counties were given access to the civil case discovery they would have had that testimony to use as impeachment in criminal trial if charges were ever brought in the case.
You cannot legally exercise your Fifth Amendment Privilege in a civil trial. California law prohibits it unless you get a specific order from a court permitting you to do that. No criminal defense attorney in their right mind would allow an opportunity for a prosecutor to have access to their clients unprotected testimony.
What actually settled the case was when Feldman was granted the Motion to have the civil trial proceed unless there was a criminal filing. That was lost by Fields and it was also misinterpreted by the press. He did not ask for it to be extended for six years he asked for it to be delayed until after the criminal investigation was complete. it was only the case law that he cited that stated six years.
The “300 pound gorilla” that all of you cling to was nothing about the evidence in the search warrant it was simply the simultaneous criminal investigation. That particular part was in the question and answer portion of the seminar and he didn’t initially answer a question but was expanding on Feldman’s answer.
4. It is not normal for victims of sexual abuse to seek money rather than criminal cases but it is becoming much more common for people to make false accusations when there is money to be gained in these kind of accusations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/archive/1031559.stm
5. You are right molestation does not occur in front of other people except in the case of Michael Jackson then it would seem that a minimum of at least 15 adults were witness to that very thing and did nothing until they sold their stories and sued Michael Jackson for money .Is that just a coincidence or is it circumstantial evidence of fraud?
LikeLike
@szilvia09
So the same old tired evidence is what convinced you that Michael was guilty? This is the same evidence that was seen in the court room in 2005? That does include the evidence given for the prior bad acts.
I wonder what it is about this that makes you think it should work a second time or in the case of the 1108 testimony a 3rd and sometimes 4th testimony. What makes Robson’s supporters so sure that it will work now/
LikeLike
This discussion about terms is hairsplitting from MJ’s haters because they have no real arguments. Whoever doesn’t accept the verdict of a trial in a democracy I guess also doesn’t accept the judicial system of his/her country. It must be a farce to them. And they must live in a permanent state of fear because they must regard any acquitted murder suspect as a potential killer walking around them. – Or does this not accepting a verdict only apply to Michael Jackson?
If someone is acquitted of all 14 counts, more exoneration is not possible in a court. If this is not accepted by the society as someone’s innocence, you don’t need a trial anymore. Just throw any suspect in jail – and hope it doesn’t happen to you, hope that nobody accuses you of something.
Of course the 1993 case was included in the 2005 case, because the prosecutors themselves included it when they wanted Jordan Chandler as a witness. But he refused to testify and so closed his case himself with this decision. He was given every chance in 2005 to tell his story, but then the prosecutors had to use second-hand witnesses. They used everything they could from 1993, but because of non-existing evidence this case had to be closed together with the Arvizo case. Tom Mesereau said this numerous times.
LikeLike
“not guilty” can be the same as innocent if the evidence clearly shows that you did not commit the crime. For example: I am accused of robbing a liquor store but my work schedule shows that I was at work during the time of the robbery, or I am accused of rape, but my DNA doesn’t match the DNA that is in the victim’s underwear and actually belongs to the serial rapist that lives down the street.
LikeLike
“Not guilty” may not be the full equivalent of “innocent”, but it is important not to turn it into the opposite – if “innocence” can’t be proven (for example, because the accused is dead) the person is considered “guilty”. And with Michael Jackson this dangerous drift is taking place.
By creating frenzy around Michael the media and his harassers are preparing the public for a different principle of law, which is known as “guilty until proven innocent”.
Legal dictionary warns against this dangerous trend saying that “The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.”
Ammianus Marcellinus relates an anecdote of the Emperor Julius Cæsar which illustrates the enforcement of this principle in the Roman law. Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial before the Emperor. He denied his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Cæsar! if it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julius Cæsar replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”
Rerum Gestarum, L. XVIII, c. 1.
Indeed, if it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?
LikeLike
To those who keep arguing that a ruling of “not guilty” does not mean a person is innocent: there are only two options a jury or judge has in ruling on a criminal defendant in the U.S. legal system:
1. Guilty
2. Not Guilty
All rulings of “not guilty” in the U.S. judicial system are determined on the basis of “reasonable doubt.” There is no such ruling or legal declaration in the U.S. judicial system or any state therein of:
“not guilty without a doubt”
“acquitted without a doubt”
“innocent without a doubt”
“proved innocent without a doubt”
or even simply “proved innocent”
So keep that in mind when casting aspersions on Michael Jackson (or other persons) regarding his being found “not guilty” of any charges with which he was accused of. No criminal defendant found “not guilty” in a U.S. court of law, is, in legal language, declared “innocent.” Not guilty means acknowledgement by the court of the innocence of the defendant.
” Not guilty” (also known as “acquitted” ) is as good as it gets.
LikeLike
szilvia09
You said “The boys who spent time in his bed that accused him of molesting them.” This is absurd. Gavin Ariviso was never in bed with Michael Jackson. This was revealed during the 2005 trial. The accusations originated from the parents (not one child!) and then the kids were coached and they obediently towed the line. As far as Robson and Safechuck are concerned they are copycatting the 1993 accusation because the Chandlers got rich with that one and they are hoping the same will happen to them. Also, Michael Jackson wasn’t accused because he was in the same bed with a kid, he was accused because THE PARENTS WANTED MONEY. That was true in 1993 and 2003, and now Robson and Safechuck, who are adults, also WANT MONEY. What part of all this do you not understand?
LikeLike
“silencing the accuser as said by Carl Douglas“? What else is there to discuss with you if you interpret his words this way?
Of course you are. You’ve proven it yourself.
You can believe whatever you like.
Anyone is innocent until proven guilty. You are violating the principle of presumption of innocence law is based on.
Evidently the presumption of innocence is for everyone in the US except Michael Jackson as he is being constantly harassed and forced to prove his innocence – even when he is dead.
The United Nations incorporated the principle in its Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The maxim also found a place in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in 1953 and was incorporated into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
LikeLike
Sussanerb – Michael Jackson wasn’t fully exonerated in 2005. The USA justice system cannot exonerate anyone. The not guilty verdict means that guilt couldn’t be proven; as in there wasn’t enough evidence to prove beyond doubt that the person committed the crime that he or she was accused of. Acquittal means that the accused is legally free of charges. Nowhere does it say that the person is innocent. Nobody is found innocent.
The 1993 case wasn’t included in that trial. June Chandler and other people appeared as witnesses for “prior bad acts”, or acts that could convince the jury that Michael had a pattern of behavior that pertained to child molesters. He was never tried in relation to Jordan’s accusations. He was never tried in relation to Jason’s accusations. He only went to trial once, and, as I said, not guilty doesn’t mean innocent, so people are free to speculate. I never accused Michael Jackson of anything. The boys who spent time in his bed that accused him of molesting them.
LikeLike
szilvia09: The reason why YOU have to prove your claims is very simple: Michael Jackson was fully exonerated and acquitted in a regular court of law in 2005. This means the CASE IS CLOSED – and not only the 2005 case, but also the 1993 case because it was included in that case. So there is no need for Michael to prove his innocence anymore. You say it yourself: no further proof necessary. But if you claim something else, you have to prove it.
As for the new accusers it’s the same: They have to prove their allegations, and as long as they don’t, the benefit of the doubt is the rule.
This is a silly argument because the need for us to still vindicate and defend him is not because Michael was a wonderful human being (he already proved that himself throughout his life), but because of people like you who cannot stop to deny the result of this trial and who continue to accuse him. There would be no need to still defend him if it were not for people who cannot stop with their campaigns against him and who still try to extort money from him.
And what does this part say? Nothing! Carl Douglas presented himself as a money-hungry lawyer without any loyalty to his former client in the Frozen in Time seminar in LA, but he doesn’t say anything of what the MJ haters read into his statement. He just says they wanted to avoid a criminal trial because “no one wanted to consider the implications of that as it affected Michael Jackson, the King of Pop”, and Stillwater’s article explains very well why they wanted to avoid it.
Seriously, if you base your opinions on the postings of these MJ haters, you are not a convincing truth-seeker. They show alone with their choice of words and expressions about MJ that they are not serious researchers.
LikeLike
With all due respect, I don’t think I must prove you anything. All the facts and evidence are out there for people to interpret logically or illogically, depending on one’s standpoint. Evidence in itself is proof, no further proof necessary. Furthermore, everything negative that is being said about Michael will be argued against, so I don’t see a point in trying to prove my points, as they will be disregarded. If a person doesn’t want to admit something, then they will continue denying it. If MJ would have really been such a wonderful human being, then there would be no need to vindicate, defend, and justify him and his actions.
MJs defendants like to find alternative explanations to things that point to his guilt. I don’t believe for a moment that he paid 15 million dollars to prevent the photos from going public. Still up to his day, the pictures and the description are locked away safely. Any paparazzi or magazine that would have obtained them and published them without MJs consent would have been sued immediately by him. Moreover, you simply can’t do that to criminal evidence. And that version doesn’t explain the part about silencing the accuser and preventing criminal charges, as said by Carl Douglas.
And as much as you try to render me as a troll and a hater, I am merely a truth seeker. I believed for many years that Michael was innocent. All I can say is that truth and justice will win in the end. That’s it from me.
LikeLike
Undoubtedly, I’m a liar. Everyone who says anything bad about Michael Jackson is a liar, right? Didn’t we already establish that? I know that Corey has always said that he believes Michael is innocent and that he was like a brother to him. And I believe him. I don’t think Corey was ever molested by him. I was only saying that a grown man showing a 13 old boy pictures containing nudity isn’t appropriate behavior.
I know that Even Chandler went to lawyers first and that he only wanted money. Maybe he was greedy, I can agree with that. However that doesn’t prove that his son wasn’t sexually abused. It simply doesn’t. Maybe the father’s a greedy bastard and the mother’s a nutcase. And yet that doesn’t prove that their child wasn’t molested. People like to say that, because Jordan didn’t testify, it means that nothing happened. Don’t you ever think how hard it is for a 13 year old to go to trial and speak about being abused? Or that the Chandler family was swarmed by stalkers, photographers, and people sending them death threats? That they would rather take the money as punitive damages and avoid the stress of a criminal trial and the continuing worldwide attention?
Jordan didn’t testify in 2005 because he had spent years regaining normalcy and trying to lead an ordinary existence. He had successfully escaped the people who continued to hound him. Nobody even knew how he looked like as a young man. He didn’t want to get sucked into the hysteria once again. Also, doesn’t the fact that he refused to testify twice kind of proves that Jackson’s money had guaranteed Jordan’s silence?
Genitalia photos and a matching description isn’t enough to have a successful criminal trial against someone and prove that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sneddon knew this, as any other prosecutor would. If we assume that the photos did match, then that still is only circumstantial evidence. What does it prove? It proves that this boy Jordan had seen MJ naked, perhaps in an aroused state. It doesn’t prove that MJ sexually abused him.
LikeLike
szilvia09: You definitely interpret everything you can find about Michael to your convenience and, like Helena said, completely ignore facts that contradict your opinions. You pretend you want to discuss in a civil manner, but you come here to provoke and embroil us in meaningless debates about facts we had cleared up in this blog long ago. You just need to read all the posts on this blog and you have the answers. So why do you unfold all these things again in new debates when all the answers are already in all of Helena’s posts?
I repeat: We as representatives of Michael don’t have to prove anything, YOU have to prove your claims – and with every argument you come up with here you fail to prove anything. But you simply don’t want to give up, right? I wonder why…
P.S.
The “3-hundred pound gorilla” Douglas was talking about could very well mean that there was a great danger these photos could go public when they would be used in a trial. It was Michael’s biggest fear and he wanted to prevent by all means that these photos could emerge somewhere in the media. This was indeed a 3-hundred pound gorilla for him and it was a justified fear. It was one of the main reasons Michael settled this case – not because of a match, but because the photos of his genitalia could spread uncontrollably worldwide.
Read this article of Dr. Willa Stillwater: http://www.popular-musicology-online.com/issues/02/stillwater.html
She explains exactly this:
LikeLike
And you know very well that neither Jordan, nor Evan Chandler ever wanted a criminal trial at all, let alone testifying there. This was perfectly described by Ray Chandler in his book where Evan Chandler was simply abhorred by the idea. And Ray Chandler openly said that if they had received the money at once it would have never gone that far.
You also know that Jordan refused to testify twice (at the 2005 trial too), and even threatened to sue the police if they insisted.
And you also know that even before the 2005 trial due to the changes in the legislation in the 90s Tom Sneddon could reopen the criminal case IN THE ABSENCE of the witness – the only two things he needed for it were 1) a confession from a child witness and 2) other evidence. A confession he did have but “other evidence” he didn’t BECAUSE THE PHOTOS DIDN’T CONFIRM JORDAN’S STORY.
There are some details of it in the ABC facts of Michael’s innocence post https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-abc-facts-of-michael-jacksons-innocence/:
Sneddon’s February 6, 2003 press release opened with the status of the 1993 investigation. Sneddon said he was still waiting for credible evidence against Jackson. This means that prior to that moment he had nothing credible to rely on.
Sneddon:
The Status of the Prior Investigation. A number of years ago at a press conference in Los Angeles with the then L.A. County District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, we described the investigation as “open, but inactive.” It was stated that the case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed. The investigation remains “open, but inactive.”
In point 5 of the same press-release Sneddon explained why he couldn’t act against Jackson on the basis of Jordan’s declaration of December 1993. It was because the California Law didn’t allow him to go forward if he had only a confession of a claimant, but didn’t have a witness OR other evidence:
5. California Law and a Child/Victim’s Right to Refuse to Testify and Cooperate in Investigations. Under California law a child/victim must voluntarily cooperate with law enforcement. Neither testimony nor an appearance in court can be mandated. Therefore, an investigation without a cooperative victim or a percipient witness to establish the corpus for a crime is not prosecutable. While it may seem strange that even if a person made an admission or a confession, under California law without a witness or other evidence to establish the corpus there is no case. See CALJIC Instruction 2.72.
In short in addition to the confession Tom Sneddon needed either a witness or credible evidence, but he had neither and this is why the case was not reopened.
And if there was no evidence, it means there was no match.
NO EVIDENCE = NO MATCH.
Understand?
That settles the matter of Carl Douglas’s innuendoes. I don’t know what he meant but I do know that with dumb, unprofessional and sleazy lawyers like Douglas Michael had no chance against Larry Feldman and the Chandlers.
LikeLike
You are a liar. You know perfectly well that Corey Feldman always spoke of Michael’s innocence and that the episode with a book about venereal diseases was the only thing Bashir could squeeze from him (through leading questions and clever manipulation) and twist suiting his agenda. Though the story itself is absolutely innocent.
Liars and trolls coming here always select one piece which they can more or less adjust to their case against Michael and disregard the wealth of facts contradicting it. This is what you are doing in respect of Corey Feldman because you talk of one (dubious) speck of dust but disregard a ton of evidence which doesn’t suit your story.
So here are some more quotes from Corey Feldman. This is what he wrote in his blog about that episode with Bashir:
This is what he said in a conversation with Larry King:
This is what he recently said when speaking about pedophilia in Hollywood:
In his 1993 police interview he said he racked his brains trying to recall something inappropriate but he couldn’t, not a single instance of it (he was 22 at that time):
LikeLike
Yeah, OK, I get your stance. Everyone who says anything unfavorable about Michael Jackson, anything that you don’t want to hear is a liar. Michael Jackson himself, the man who said that he only had two plastic surgeries in his lifetime, and that his children were biologically his, and that he didn’t know that skin bleaching products existed, was the quintessence of honesty. Vindicate MJ indeed.
Carl Douglas isn’t saying that the criminal proceedings could be stopped. He’s saying that once the photographs of genitalia had been taken, it became a real possibility that he’s client could go to jail. Hence they needed to quote on quote silence the accuser and prevent him from testifying at a criminal trial, because that could get Jackson behind bars. Douglas was a lawyer for Jackson, not for Chandlers, and so claiming that he meant the “300 pound gorilla” comment in relation to Chandlers and not to his client is, I think, rather illogical. Douglas saying that Cochran and Feldman were friends mainly points to that they were able to settle matters civilly and cordially. Larry Feldman never demanded barring the photos from being used as evidence in the civil trial. Only law enforcement officials had seen the photos. Feldman requested them, but was denied. So he requested that Jackson should provide copies of the police photos, do a reshoot for the civil trial, or that the photos are not used as evidence at the trial. That is, if he, the claimant’s lawyer, didn’t have them, then they shouldn’t be used as evidence at all. You know very well that Jordan Chandler didn’t want to testify at the criminal trial after he had been paid all that money. The accuser was silenced, and the case fell apart.
I would think that, as a grownup person, you would realize that it’s inappropriate for an unrelated adult male to show a 13 year old boy a book containing nudity and sexual diseases and there sit there and discuss what’s seen in the book. However, I take it that you don’t trust my judgement about it. So, here is what Corey himself said about the occurrence not long before Michael went to trial for the second accusations:
“I was kind of grossed out by it. I didn’t think of it as a big deal. And for all these years, I probably never thought twice about it … But in light of recent evidence … I have to say that if my son was 14 years old — 13 years old, and went to a man’s apartment that was 35, and I knew that they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass.”
So, maybe you don’t think that there was anything wrong with that, but Corey, adult Corey imagining his son doing that with another man, did. He also said that he doubted Michael’s innocence:
“Looking at each piece of information … and with that came this sickening realization that there have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that have created a question of doubt.”
LikeLike
@szilviao9
I watched the video you provided twice and I did not hear Michael’s lawyer ever admit that JC description of his genitalia was a match. IMO Mr Douglas was not the best person to speak on this issue considering his appearance from the ‘Frozen In Time’ presentation where he showed he was less concerned about his client’s innocence and more interested in the money he received for his sad efforts.
There are 2 source you should check-out. May I suggest you read Mary A. Fisher’s GQ article concerning the ’93 civil suit extortion attempt. She interviewed Mark Torbiner concerning the sodium amytal he administered to JC for the removal of a tooth by EC. His response to the question was, “if I used it, it was for dental purposes’ instead of just responding ‘No, I did not use that chemical’.
Now concerning the so called match you can read a post here ‘ABC Facts of MJs Innocence’ where JC/ECs lawyer Larry Feldman makes a multiple choice request concerning the said photographs. Mr Feldman filed the following motion, 1 provide copies of the police photos, 2 allow for a 2nd search or 3 bar the photos from the civil trial as evidence. When your lawyer submits this type of motion it appears to me that he was sure his client’s description was correct. So much for any proof of a match.
LikeLike
Carl Douglas? First of all, he is blatantly lying about a settlement making it possible to avoid “a criminal filing” – the criminal case was running parallel to the civil one and there was no way to “avoid” it. It went on for another half a year after the settlement and Jordan cooperated with the prosecution.
Douglas is either mad or completely unprofessional for not “knowing” it, and having a lawyer like that was the worst possible option MJ could ever have. This choice actually explains why they handled MJ’s case so poorly.
Secondly, even this rogue attorney for the defense does not say that it was a match. He says that “it was a 3-hundred pound gorilla in the mediation room” leaving people to do guesswork and jump to conclusions. In a way he is right – the gorilla was there, only it wasn’t implicating Michael Jackson, but the Chandlers, otherwise the person sitting next to Carl Douglas (Larry Feldman) would not have demanded barring the photos of those genitalia from a civil trial.
And thirdly, this video is extremely helpful in another way – at about 1:00 mark Carl Douglas admits that Johnny Cohran and Larry Feldman had a TWENTY YEAR FRIENDSHIP prior to that case.
My God, how was it even possible to hire a lawyer for MJ who was a buddy of the opposite side? This is the final explanation why that settlement took place at all.
P.S. I repeat my question to you which you didn’t answer:
LikeLike
As for Jordan’s descriptions not being a match…
Isn’t this Jackson’s own lawyers saying that it matched and that they decided to settle the civil case and make a payment to avoid the possibility of there being a criminal case?
LikeLike
The full quote is available in my post about Dr. Katz a link to which I’ve already provided, but I will repeat (https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-who-is-dr-katz-part-5/)
So I perfectly know what Dr. Katz said and what kind of a person he is.
Both in 1993 and 2003 he was a helping hand of Larry Feldman and conducted a series of interviews with the Arvizos to make some more or less plausible story out of their drivel. This was not easy – Dr. Katz had to push on Gavin the idea that he would receive money if he filed a civil suit, but Gavin was still not very much willing and at some point even refused to attend an interview saying that he “couldn’t do it”.
So Dr. Katz was so zealous that he crossed the boundaries of a doctor’s duties by a very wide margin.
The fact that he was the chief trainer for interviewers at McMartin school which is a proverbial case of false accusations also proves his zeal in accusing the innocent and his ability to do so.
An “expert” like that could be expected to label Michael a ped-le offhand, but even he said that he didn’t fit the profile. He repeated some of those stories by the accusers (about masturbation, for example) but it doesn’t mean that those stories were true. Lynette’s recent post about Jordan shows very well that Jordan lied to Dr. Gardner about “masturbating” (which makes the whole of his interview worthless).
What’s important is that even despite partially believing those fantasies Dr. Katz still didn’t label MJ a p-le. He simply couldn’t, and if he couldn’t, no one could, because Dr. Katz was the most biased expert Larry Feldman could find – he was a colleague of Larry Feldman’s wife.
LikeLike
Thank you for including that quote from Stanley Katz. It was originally an opinion given to Detective Paul Zelis. The full quote was:
“Michael Jackson is a guy that’s like a 10-year-old child. And, you know, he’s doing what a 10-year-old would do with his little buddies. You know, they’re gonna jack off, watch movies, drink wine, you know. And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
So it shows that Michael would not have even thought what he was doing was wrong, he was totally innocent and naive.
LikeLike
Lynette, by the way your post about the mismatch between Jordan’s description and MJ’s private parts is very impressive:
The story about “masturbation” told by Jordan to Dr. Gardner makes the whole of his interview totally worthless.
LikeLike
Lynette, you know, when I was reading it I had a very strong impression that I was reading about Maureen Orth and not Michael Jackson. When you read what she said it is like looking right into her petty and dirty soul. Her words about him are the best description of her own self:
LikeLike
Dear szilvia09, you probably think that we have never heard or read about it? We have, so what’s the point of reminding us of Bashir’s doctored and staged interview where he made a tempest in a thimble?
So Corey came into the room and saw a book about veneral diseases, and instead of snatching that book from the teenager Michael gave him a lecture on those diseases, warning him of their danger. What is so terrible about it?
I demand an answer – what’s so terrible about it?
LikeLike
Here’s Corey talking about the incident with the venereal diseases book.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/64159/corey-feldman-subpoenaed-in-jackson-case
LikeLike
FBI provided some assistance during Jackson’s 1993 and 2005 accusations. One person who worked for FBI is Jim Clemente. He is a retired FBI profiler who investigated serial violent and sexual crimes. He is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of child sexual victimization and child abduction with years of experience. He found Jordan and Gavin credible, and said that they’re stories were very similar, even though they had never met. He agrees that Jackson fits the profile of a child molester. He still covers Jackson and has said that new victims are expected to come forward, because it takes such a long time for male victims of sexual abuse to come out.
It’s funny that you chose a Corey Feldman quote to show how innocent and saintly MJ was. Corey admitted that his relationship with Jackson wasn’t entirely appropriate. Corey said that when he was 13 years old, Michael showed him a book of veneral diseases that contained pictures of nude men and women. This adds Corey to the list of boys that MJ has allegedly been inappropriate with.
I haven’t been reading any Victor Gutirrez. The accounts of Jordan’s relationship with Jackson come from Jordan’s parents and his uncle.
LikeLike
I will leave a brief comment and link to a story written in 2009 a month after Michael died.It contains just some of the quotes of Maureen Orth on the night of and the morning after Michael died. The video of it has been removed by MSNBC to save Orth’s family ( the memory of Tim Russert) the embarrassment of her comments. That was just one.If you do a short search you will find many videos of Diane Dimond making the rounds on various talk shows saying similar things. And last but not least let’s not forget some local politician making a name for himself by publicly calling Michael a pedophile. His name was Peter King but then I bet you already know that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/maureen-orth-recounts-mic_n_221334.html
LikeLike
Susanne, indeed, why do these people spend so much time reading all those MJ haters but never bother to look at the truth we so painstakingly find for them? With every new coming day I realize that it is their choice to believe lies about Jackson.
LikeLike
The example with Jesus was meant to show that what we think of a situation primarily depends on us and on our own way of thinking. What we think of others is a mirror of ourselves.
Someone set on thinking that men travel with each other and sleep together only for sex may also claim that Jesus “had an opportunity to have sex with his companions”. But even if some individuals think that way, it doesn’t mean that 1) ideas like that are in everyone’s mind and that 2) anything like that could ever happen.
So if you think that Michael could have sex with a boy it doesn’t mean that it ever entered Michael’s mind. From Michael’s stare and helpless shock on his face when he heard those allegations about himself and from what other people said about him, anyone unbiased can see that his mind was squeaky clean – he couldn’t even imagine it and couldn’t make himself speak about it.
Corey Feldman also said about it:
“He was a guy who was so innocent, so kind of sheltered, you couldn’t even swear around him. You couldn’t talk about drugs, you couldn’t talk about nude women, you couldn’t talk about sex. You couldn’t talk about anything, because he was a very religious man for much of the early stages of his life and career.”
Oh, I see that you’ve been reading too much of Gutierrez. In his zeal Gutierrez even described how Michael did Jordan’s laundry “while the boy’s parents went to work”. Well, before believing what Gutierrez (and those who repeat him) says you could probably first try to find out who he is.
LikeLike
Oh my God, what a bunch of lies.
1) The public read about Jordan’s description – it was published in the Smoking Gun and all over the press (only now these pieces are archived and not easy to find). But even without it we know it, because if the public had not read it people would not have known that Jordan called Michael “circumcised”. And people knew about it. Even I, on the opposite part of the world, heard of this rumor.
2) A lot of people saw the photos (including journalist Geraldo) but none of them had a chance to compare them with the drawing Jordan made. Some saw one thing, others saw the other thing. How can you compare if you saw only one part and only heard of the other?
3) Dr. Strick (the one who was assigned by the government to make that determination) said that “he was told that it was a match”. Jim Thomas, a sheriff said that “he heard that it was a match”. And it was only Tom Sneddon who said in his declaration (of 2005) that he had compared both and admitted that the determination was his.
Sneddon’s declaration vaguely referred to some “dark spot” (while Jordan mentioned “a light splotch which is the color of his face”) “at a relatively same place” and fully omitted the circumcision issue. If this is a match, then please consider me Pope Paul the Second.
Oh no! Tom Sneddon KNEW that he would never be allowed to present them because according to the Sixth Amendment of the US Constitution any evidence concerning a certain witness can be presented only in case this witness personally testifies – and Jordan was NOT testifying. In September 2004 he refused point blank to do it (and threatened to sue them if they insisted).
So Tom Sneddon knew all along that he could not show those photos in court but still referred to them in an attempt to impress the public (which he did).
Really? Just half a year before that Michael said to Oprah that he was suffering from vitiligo and anyone could look up the internet and see what it is. But Jordan didn’t have to – when Michael was in his father’s house he suffered from a terrible headache (from skin-stretching procedures on his scalp) and Evan Chandler gave him a shot of Toradol in his buttocks.
And if you read Maureen Orth she describes how Jordan once said to Pellicano that Michael had shown him his vitiligo when he once raised his shirt.
Isn’t it enough to assume that in his private parts Michael would also have some spots? By the way Ray Chandler is writing that Jordan and Larry Feldman worked on that description for two hours, and Feldman later said to Evan that whichever it was with Michael’s vitiligo it would be accurate anyway (as at least some spot would be found there).
Actually it was a sheer miracle that despite all their effort they didn’t manage to make an accurate description – Michael turned out to be the overall opposite color in his private parts and he was not circumcised.
LikeLike
First of all, essentially you claim that the fact of a trial itself is equal to the evidence of guilt. But this is absurd. Following your logic all people who have been tried and acquitted should be considered guilty.
An accusation, even if it goes as far as the trial, is absolutely not equal to guilt. The fact that a person was accused – twice or whatever times – does not mean that he is guilty. If it were the case our opposition guy Alexey Navalny who is being relentlessly harassed by the Russian regime should qualify as a hard-core criminal, because he is constantly being accused of something and has been tried at least three times by our great court and each time was found guilty (though he is actually innocent – I’ve studied those documents too).
Secondly, what you say can be interpreted in exactly the opposite way – yes, Michael was investigated by every possible institution in the US and was even tried, but nothing was found – the 1993 investigation brought nothing and in 2005 he was acquitted on all counts. Figuratively speaking Michael was examined inside out, and even stripped naked and still found squeaky clean. Compare it with others who were never even examined (even despite complaints against them) and awarded the highest honors by Queen (like Savile, for example), but still had a lot of dirty acts they were guilty of.
Following your logic the fact that Jimmy Savile was never seriously examined and tried during his lifetime should be proof that he was innocent?
A link, please.
First of all, where did you take it from that Dr. Richard Gardner “put it into phases”? It was his general method but there is no document available to us explaining how he conducted the interview with Jordan and what conclusions Dr. Gardner came to.
Moreover, considering that the video of the interview (yes, there was a video of it) was passed over to Dr. Katz is an indirect indication that Larry Feldman was dissatisfied with Dr. Gardner’s expert opinion. If he had had a confirmation from Dr. Gardner as the leading expert he wouldn’t have sought another, a less esteemed doctor – there simply wouldn’t have been any need for it.
But the most interesting part of it is that we have evidence that Dr. Katz did NOT consider Jordan credible. In his interview with a police investigator Zelis, taped by the investigator himself, he admitted that Michael didn’t fit the profile of a ped-le:
– And, you know, he doesn’t even really qualify as a pedophile. He’s really just this regressed 10-year-old.”
– “Yeah, yeah, I agree,” replied Zelis.
So Dr. Katz, even after examining that video with Chandler and everything he had about Arviso still didn’t think Michael to be a ped-le. The conversation was in 2003 and therefore he was sharing his impression of Michael from both cases he had looked into – Arvizo and Chandler.
More about it here: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/reading-between-the-lines-of-larry-feldmans-speech-who-is-dr-katz-part-5/
LikeLike
You’re right – reading about Michael Jackson can sure get exhausting, lol.
Like many people, I simply want to know the truth about the allegations. Don’t you think it’s childish to label certain people as haters? We all are grownups, why resort to teenage speak? I don’t particularly want to comment, but this person wrote to me saying that sodium amytal was used on Jordan. I had to correct him and say that there is no proof of that.
LikeLike
So why do you come here? And why all these comments?
And why then do you take so much time to read all the information Michael’s detractors are spreading, books like Diane Dimond’s, Gutierrez’ and Stacy Brown/Bob Jones’, and apparently the haters websites?
LikeLike
I don’t actually like believing stories about Michael. I don’t really care much about him. And quite frankly, I’d rather not believe that any person is or could be a child molester. But it’s not a matter of believing or disbelieving.
The claim that there was no evidence whatsoever is not the reality. If there would have been no evidence, the cases, civil and criminal, wouldn’t have gone as far as they did. And pieces of evidence and witnesses from the 1993 case wouldn’t have been part of the 2005 case.
I’ve never heard of anyone finding Jordan not credible. Well, maybe there were such people, I obviously don’t know absolutely everything, and people may form different attitudes about someone’s testimony – that’s entirely normal.
From what I know, the people who spoke to Jordan thought that he was believable, including people from FBI who helped with the case. Jordan was also interviewed by Dr. Richard Gardner, the country’s leading psychologist on false claims of child abuse. He conducted various tests and he reconstructed Jordan’s relationship with Michael as it had happened accordingly to what the boy said. He put it into phases – meeting, grooming, seduction, physical contact, increasing physical contact, molestation. From what I can tell, Gardner believed him, too.
The public hasn’t seen the photos or read Jordan’s description. Only law enforcement officials have seen them. And everyone working for law enforcement authorities said they matched. Tom Sneddon, Bill Dworin, and so on. They stayed locked away for ten years, but Tom Sneddon wanted to present them at the 2005 trial as evidence for the prosecution. He wasn’t allowed to, but he wouldn’t have wanted to present them, if they didn’t match the description. The very fact that Jordan knew that Jackson’s private parts were splotched already proves, in my opinion leastways, that he had seen Jackson naked. Because when clothed, MJ appeared to be completely white.
I don’t know about Jesus and his 12 young men, but when there are sexual abuse allegations, and an adult and a minor have slept in one room and stayed alone for periods of time, then it counts as circumstantial evidence. It means that the defendant had the chance to sexually abuse the plaintiff, while no one was watching. The opportunity was there. Also, according to accounts from the Chandler family, MJ went to extraordinary lengths to stay alone with Jordan. He cried when June got angry about him sleeping in one bed with Jordan and later gave her an expensive bracelet, so that she would allow them to sleep together. In Monaco, he gave June a credit card and sent her shopping, so that he could be alone with Jordan in the suit. It’s not direct evidence, but in a court room it would have amassed to persuasive circumstantial evidence against MJ.
LikeLike
MJJJustice Project, thank you very much for the video of Rush Limbaugh and the transcript. The above statement sounds like a maxim now. I mean, non believing what the sensation oriented media says about MJ should be a maxim for all of us. I was once again reminded of it today when I came across this photo:
The headline of the article says: “Michael Jackson and young actor Macaulay Culkin. Taking his new friend on a dream holiday to Bermuda”.
The media sensation here is that Michael has a “new” friend (who evidently replaced his previous young friends) and whom he immediately took on a “dream holiday” to Bermuda. So the media was making innuendoes about Michael as early as 1991 when this photo was taken. By the way Culkin wasn’t Michael’s “new” friend – by that time they had known each other at least for a year.
And the truth of the story is that it wasn’t Michael who “took Macaulay on a dream holiday to Bermuda”, but vice versa, it was Macaulay who invited Michael to join him on a trip to Bermuda. He was travelling there with the Goldstein family and his friend Brock Goldstein. In this picture Brock Goldstein is also sitting at the table (on the right), so Michael was spending time there not only with Macaulay but with the whole gang.
This is how far the serious content of the story is from the media “sensations”.
LikeLike
“What everyone was thinking” is something that doesn’t matter at all. People can be led into thinking and believing the most absurd and ridiculous things. All that matters is the evidence – and a statement you made in this connection (“in the 1993 case there was circumstantial evidence”) is simply not true. There was no evidence whatsoever.
There was NO MATCH between Jordan’s description and MJ’s private parts.
Tom Sneddon said (implied) that it was different? Well, to put it plainly, he lied, and if you take the trouble to really look, you will make sure of it. You don’t want to look? Well, then it is your choice. Be honest at least with yourself and admit that you simply like believing all those stories about Michael.
The police and child protection services found him credible? This is another of those lies. Some investigators, like Bill Dworin did consider him credible (it’s their job to believe in what they collect about the accused), but Lauren Weiss, the deputy District Attorney in LA did not believe him – she was the one who conducted the case against MJ in LA and examined every speck of dust in it, however had to close it for lack of anything credible among the materials investigators like Bill Dworin provided her with.
You can read about it in “What the public did not hear” post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/jackson-case-what-the-public-didnt-hear/
And this is considered “evidence”? Jesus Christ travelled with 12 young men following him, he slept in one place with them and even washed their feet, so should it be now considered “evidence” that he had sex with them?
LikeLike
Naturally Jordan Chandler is entitled to privacy. He’s not an actor, or a singer, or any type of public figure who choose to be famous.
In many child sexual abuse cases there will be no direct proof that the abuse happened. Molestation doesn’t happen in front of other people. If an adult touches a child inappropriately when they’re alone, what proof can there be? It’s only the child’s word against the adult’s.
In the 1993 case, there was circumstantial evidence instead. Jordan and Michael slept in one room. They stayed in a hotel room alone. They were alone together for substantial amounts of time. The police and child protection services who interviewed Jordan about the alleged molestation found him credible. Accordingly to officials, his description of Jackson’s private parts was a match.
There is no evidence that sodium amytal was used in dentist’s office to implant memories in Jordan’s head. The purchases of sodium amytal requires the filling of specific DEA forms. No such forms were located. And apparently, it is difficult to obtain sodium amytal illegally. And the anesthesiologist’s report showed that Jordan was given robinul and vistaril. So, no proof of sodium amytal being used.
I don’t know what the press was writing at the time and I’m not particularly interested. But I heard that someone ran a headline saying about Jackson – “Peter Pan or Pervert?” I think that pretty much sums up what everyone was thinking.
LikeLike
this really set off an uncontrollable fit of giggles… Accusers must have their privacy protected but Michael Jackson should be under a microscope?
Rush Limbaugh who is NO fan of Michael Jackson by any means succinctly put it .. way back in 1993 it’s on video –
-–”For the whole year since this thing came up the American people have assumed that Michael Jackson is guilty – because the press has assumed he’s guilty – Remember all the people we had talking.. We had chauffeurs, We had bodyguards, We had cooks, who ostensibly worked for him saying “oh, I saw him in compromising situations” “ oh,He loved to sleep with little boys,” oh yes and we had this young accuser and his dentist father. And everybody was saying .. “kids don’t lie” ya know that’s one of the things I hear liberals say – psychologist .. “kids don’t know enough to make it up”….
Limbaugh plays excerpt of announcement:
GIL GARCETTI- “Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.”
Limbaugh then continues:
They got NO evidence.. there is NO corroborating evidence – they empanelled a Grand Jury in Santa Barbara.. Now a Grand Jury can indict this remote control unit if it wants to – you don’t hardly need anything to indict, they can indict a ham sandwich for crying out loud.
There was NO evidence but all the press reports were that there were countless people who saw and witnessed and could testify that Michael Jackson had committed the dastardly deed.
This kid, guess what … this kid was given sodium amytal – So now people are speculating that Michael Jackson was set up, by the dentist who used the kid as a tool.
But how many of you were believing Michael Jackson was guilty because the press had all these people? saying all these things?
It’s an accusation which there is no defense- the minute the accusation is leveled- you are guilty – the press has all these people saying all these things.
It’s an accusation, which there is no defense.
There’s a great lesson here folks, about not believing — this a sensation oriented lazy press who cared more about the highlights and pizzazz of the story itself rather than the serious content of the story –
The great thing to keep in mind when you watch other fabulous court cases is……. the nature of the evidence is what matters. NOT the seriousness of the allegations-
Until then.
You shouldn’t believe a darn thing because you don’t know .. and neither did the press .. always a wise lesson to illustrate that the press doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Anytime we can illustrate that, cuz it’s most of the time.. we’ll do it ”
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dkrKWvDDINg
LikeLike
Yes there is a Statute of Limitations on Perjury in California it is 6 years after the perjury has been discovered. However this is not a case of perjury but a case of fraud. Wade Robson didn’t perjure himself in 2005 when he took the witness stand in favor of and defense of Michael. He did not lie then but he is knowingly and willfully lying now. You can tell it just by the things that he claims happen. Both he and Safechuck are telling stories contrived to shock people and do damage to Michael’s legacy and the Estate. It’s obvious when you hear that wedding story and the stories he now tells about anal rape. Even more ridiculous is the initial claim that Safechuck said he was suffering anxiety because he was afraid he might have P******* urges or thoughts. You just have to ask where they were getting their information from on those things.
LikeLike
Is it true that there is a term limit on perjury.
LikeLike
@”Rehiring Marc Schaffel to video his kids even after he knew he was a gay pornographer”
—
When was Schaffel ever hired to photograph or video MJ’S Children??
You multi nic trolls have no bounds nor have you ever had any scruples.
Hamid Moslehi was his official photographer: He also filmed and taped Martin Bashir’s ‘hit piece’ on MJ which showed Bashirs agenda and what he really said and felt as he related to MJ on said shit piece.
http://hamidmoslehi.com/michael-jackson
LikeLike
Rehiring Marc Schaffel to video his kids even after he knew he was a gay pornographer?
LikeLike
How about reneging on the Millenium concerts?
LikeLike
@Jurgen Schmidt
I meant MJ was not a perfect man. He was human just like the rest of us and was capable of making mistakes. Haters seem to think that his fans are people who see him as some kind of flawless god.
LikeLike
@nancyphillips you really need to answer this.
What wrongdoings are you talking about here? Because I couldn’t think of one.
LikeLike
This is a morass of lies and other falsehoods passed on to the press and who knows where else.The perv. Victor Guitirrez´s ugly persona has popped up AGAIN.I cant believe t his could be taken seriously By any judge. Let him read all about V:G and his influence.
Helena, you are a wonder, working hard to sort out the thruth.
LikeLike
Szilvia09,
Please stop pretending that those who harass Michael and call him a “ped-phile” (by the way the word isn’t allowed here according to the blog rules) are nice and fluffy little kittens. They are not. And the recent situation when a dedicated hater of Michael Jackson made up a fake “document” about Jimmy Safechuck is the best proof of it.
Michael’s defenders never allow themselves dirty tricks like that. We are seeking the truth and do not preoccupy ourselves with forgeries, slander, impersonating others and other vile things of the same kind.
As to Michael’s fans I don’t know. Some of them really get furious enough to call MJ’s haters names and wish them certain unpleasant things. Some of them may be true MJ fans and some of them may be MJ haters impersonating Michael’s “fans”. This is quite possible too, judging by the countless times this very blog and several others speaking for Michael have been faked and impersonated by MJ haters.
I repeat – none of us engage in activities like that.
We are simply truth seekers and searching for the truth is akin to scientific research or investigation. No time for calling people names, stalking others, wishing them death and sending them threats – none of it will help to reach for the truth and all of it is only distracting from the research process.
Calling us “fans” would be a misnomer – I for one doubted Michael’s innocence for many years and it was only after his death that I started looking into the accusations and compare them with facts. And the facts convinced me that all allegations against him were false. We wanted to know the truth and this is why looked into every little detail of the accusations we could find. Yes, we sought out the documents accusing Michael ourselves and analyzed them of our own free will – just because we wanted to know the truth.
So when you came here to express your views on how “horrible the fans are” you have simply come to a wrong place. We have neither time nor desire for the activites you ascribe to us, so there is indeed little point in discussing it any further.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@szilvia09
While it’s true that some fans send comments that are abusive, it’s nothing compared to the venom thrown at Michael Jackson and his supporters. Fans are sick and tired of all the crap. If you actually take the time and do the research you will discover the extent to which it was a modern day witch hunt. People like Diane Dimond and Wade Robson should pay for what they have done to an innocent man–yet in a free society they get away with it. Why don’t you read about how Dimond collaborated with Victor Guittierez. They were both sued for a false story they created about the existence of a videotape showing molestation. Guittierez fled the country, Dimond claimed being naive and was spared. Gutierrez wrote a fictional pedophilia book entitled “Michael Jackson was my Lover.” In it there were graphic depictions of man/boy sex. Needless to say the book was banned in the U.S.
These are they types of people you are defending. Get a grip on reality and start doing your homework before you comment any further.
LikeLike
@szilvia09
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but It’s very unfair to say that all MJ fans act like that. I certainly do not stalk Jordan Chandler or any accuser, nor was I out celebrating Tom Sneddon’s death.
LikeLike
MJs fan base are known for being overzealous and devoted in the defending of their idol. Read the hateful comments under videos and articles that paint MJ negatively. See the comments under Wade Robson’s video, where he talks about MJ abusing him. Try to tell me they’re not terrible and full of venom and call out Wade as being a money hungry liar.
MJs fans have sent death threats to people, Jordie Chandler and Diane Dimond included. They are still to this day stalking Jordan, clearly unable to understand the concept of privacy that this person is entitled to. They were celebrating Tom Sneddon’s death, saying that they wish he’ll be rotting in hell from now on. Even the comments on this site say it. I’ve had plenty of aggressive exchanges with MJs fans myself. Don’t say that these things aren’t true, you know they are.
That’s why I see little point in trying to have a reasoned, calm discussion with a person who is his fan and, even after so much evidence coming to light, refuses to even allow the thought that he was indeed a ped-le.
********
VMJ: The word “ped-le” has been redacted according to the blog rules.
LikeLike
I was going to ask that very same thing Helena.
LikeLike
Dear, who is attacking you here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, since Michael’s advocates are always called biased because we never met him personally (and BTW his haters also never met him personally and don’t even give him the benefit of the doubt) – no problem, let those speak who knew him personally. There ARE people who knew him personally very well and were around him for years 24 hours a day, like Kerry Anderson. Thank you to Jolie who sent us the link to the latest interview of Kerry, and I recommend everyone to listen to it. Here is a quote from it:
“One thing that I hate is that he is so misrepresented, that’s another issue with the book. I want to tell the truth about Michael Jackson, the man, the father, the philanthropist, the nice guy, the shy guy, that guy that is kind of afraid to ask a girl out on a date, kind of that thing, even in 2005, that kind of thing.
And I also want to share with you how he was raised with his morals, scruples and values. He respected law enforcement. Michael wouldn’t hurt a fly. You know, I told one person in some interview I was doing, how, you know, he wouldn’t allow us to have weapons, you know, at Neverland, or he didn’t want weapons around him. A very law-abiding person. Each and every one of us have imperfections in life, we all do, but as it relates to his morals, his scruples and his values, and the values and morals and scruples that his family, his parents instilled in him, Michael Jackson as well as his family members are law-abiding productive members of society.”
I am glad Kerry plans to publish a book in June and I am very much looking forward to it.
If someone feels attacked just by being confronted with facts that’s his/her problem!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@szilvia09
Well, in fairness, MJ has dealt with a lot of liars, extortionists, opportunists, and con artists in his life, so don’t act surprised when fans attack anyone who doesn’t have the same views as they do. Do we think Jackson was a flawless man who was incapable of any wrongdoing? of course not. He was human just like the rest of us. When certain things doesn’t add up, or if there is reasonable doubt, people are going to rightfully be skeptical about something.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see little point in arguing with MJs supporters. Every time someone expresses an opinion that doesn’t concede with their warped, limited, and biased ideas about him, they go crazy and start attacking that person, while justifying MJs every action. In their minds, MJ was a saintly individual who was surrounded by evil people. The man himself somehow held no responsibility for whatever bad things happened in his life, it was always the others. In the mind of Michael Jackson fan, everyone who says anything bad about him is a liar, an extortionist, a fame-hungry individual, a con artist. Well, what can I say? If you want to so badly vindicate the actions of a dead person you’ve never met and his highly questionable relationships with children – then there’s nothing I can do. So I don’t see much meaning in trying to answer your questions, because everything I say will be confronted by angry comments that ‘prove’ Michael’s innocence. If MJ would have really been such a wonderful, innocent human being, there would be no need to try to defend and vindicate him and his grossly inappropriate way of life.
LikeLike
Let’s try this one.If it doesn’t work delete it and I will try to figure out a different way to add the right one in.
LikeLike
Okay that was the whole channel but it is on there I just don’t know which number. Has lots of Lisa with Michael though.
LikeLike
I found this a long time ago.It was different excerpts from 1993 in a video and it has the entire news conference about the announcement of the settlement. It even has Miko Brando Katherine Jackson and Norma Staikos.The funny part about the video of Norma is you can here Diane Dimond asking her why she said something and guess where she got that information.
LikeLike
Interview of Kerry Anderson, MJ bodyguard during 2005 trial & afterward in Bahrain.
http://www.themjcast.com/?p=130
LikeLike
https://twitter.com/Ivy_4MJ/status/586626573597544448
LikeLike
Tom Mesereau appeared on The LipTV and talked about the new Michael Jackson Accusations. Click YouTube video at 27:57.
LikeLike
I better make myself more clear. DSSL put up a story about Jimmy Safechuck not getting married at Neverland. It got mentioned as a source by Randal Sullivan in his book so she was flattered. The comments that she inspired with the Safechuck piece were more or less that Tom Mesereau lied about it. I have a screen shot of her discussing with a reader all the things that they believe he lied about and fans could no longer use it as proof that Safechuck wasn’t abused.
Now is a good time to put out the truth I guess as good as any:
1. Kiki Fournier was testifying for the prosecution.Tom Mesereau did the cross examination.
Unknown to many fan and hater is that there has to be a reason to ask a question in a court case especially during cross examination. Tom Mesereau had to ask questions based on what the prosecution asked. He couldn’t just off and ask about something that wasn’t asked by Gordon Auchincloss during his direct.
2. Gordon Auchicloss introduced Jimmy’s name into her testimony by asking questions about him and other friends of Michael’s that were part of the Prior bad acts or 1108 evidence.
3. Kiki’s testimony was on March 17th 2005. There was a court order about the 1108 evidence and that was that until the judge heard the arguments in the 1108 evidence it was not even supposed to be brought up in court. Auchincloss violated that court order when he asked about it because the hearing was not until the next day.
4. Tom Mesereau was not expecting to have to question anyone about Jimmy Safechuck or any of the other boys named by Jordan Chandler in 1993. He may have just misspoken and too many people made too much about it.
Click to access 031805memomistrial.pdf
It was only made important enough by them and their not understanding how a court trial is supposed to be run. By the way I think the judge did Sneddon and his associates a huge favor by having the 1108 hearing the next day. It was not scheduled but it got them off the hook for violating the court order on the 1108 evidence.
The whole fake wedding story is probably the most obvious part of who helped these guys make up their stories.
LikeLike
Oh by the way she did that because I showed the emancipation letter from VG’s book. The argument they were having is that he was never emancipated and Tom Mesereau lied about it. To them it is very important to prove Tom lied about everything. That is why that wedding story is so important to them.
LikeLike
Okay Lynette, now I see what you mean – the so-called letter to James Safechuck was simply MADE UP by the mj “facts” and then the fake was disproved by its author who said that it was made up to show “how easy it is to forge documents”.
So for half a year the letter polluted the internet with its dirt and after having all the fun the author bragged about the simplicity of the task.
What a fantastic world we live in! Michael’s haters openly forge documents and then laugh at those who buy their lies, but it is still the liars whom the public believes and not those who tell the truth about Michael.
Well, here is the story in its development. Enjoy!
1) In November 2013 the author pretended to have found something sensational about James Safechuck and said:
“OMG CURT DID YOU SEE WHAT I FOUND??? Proof MJ paid off Jimmy!! WOW!!”:
2) Half a year later, in May 2014 the same author admitted that unfortunately it was only a lie:
“Gosh, this could even be close to the real thing! Very prescient of me…”
3) The admission was followed by a nice discussion. It sounds like faking news about Michael Jackson is something routine for them:
– Where is this from?
– I made it up to show Curt how easy it is to fake documents after he posted a supposed emancipation letter related to Jordan C
– Isn’t this the one you said was a fake last year when you put it up?
– But it was all part of the same package wasn’t it.
In moments like these one is simply left speechless.
LikeLike
Here is the latest news from Radar Online. I’ll provide the full story so that you needn’t go there:
Let me make a few quick points:
1) Zonen did not provide any information about the so-called 20 “victims” and the story about them is added here just to create deliberate confusion. Zonen does not have anything to confirm the media screams about the so-called 20 victims – if he had this report would be different.
2) Charli Michaels is a former female guard at Neverland who provided some documents for a suit filed by other former 5 bodyguards. The bodyguards said they never saw anything inappropriate done by MJ. However for Hard Copy several shows conducted by Diane Dimond Charli Michaels said that she saw MJ “groping” a young boy in a dance studio and that the boy was allegedly Wade Robson. During his testimony Robson categorically denied that he had ever been groped or touched – even accidentally during a dance.
3) The hearing on April 15th is indeed on the list of hearings at the LA Superior Court but since there are many probate cases handled by the Estate there is no evidence that the April 15th hearing will be about Robson’s case.
4) “A trial scheduled to last 15 days” is a strange figure of speech which is not understood even by Radar Online. They themselves earlier reported that the next hearing will be in May and it will decide whether Robson can proceed with his claim on formal reasons. So the Zonen papers they are currently clamoring about have nothing to do with the May hearings. The sole intention of these papers is bad publicity for MJ. The method is used when the case is difficult to win in the court of law, so it is trying to compensate for it by smearing the name of the defendant.
5) The papers provided by Zonen to Robson’s lawyers are the ones that were seen by two grand juries in 1993 and were most probably also compared with their personal statements. At the time two grand juries were not impressed by their answers.
LikeLike
Lynande, the fact that mj “facts” presented one and the same letter first as fake and then as true didn’t surprise me in the least, so I didn’t even pay attention to it. This is their usual modus operandi and is not actually the worst of what they are capable of.
As to the letter I was wondering about its source. It was not in the package of Paul Barresi’s papers which were presented by the UK tabloids as the so-called FBI “secret file”. I myself looked into every document in the package, commented on each of them and found that one of the papers mentioned Howard Wiezman though he was not even working for Michael at the time.
There were two posts about it (as far as I remember the papers are analyzed in part 2):
But this letter is something new to me, so I really want to know the source (naturally not the mj “facts’ who could simply make it up). I mean the original source, even if it is a tabloid or anyone. So should someone know it, I would be very grateful if they provided it to me.
Look, the source was surely Gutierrez, but this is not the point. The point is that everything Gutierrez gathered was looked into by the LA police as he was the first person they talked to after the allegations in 1993 broke out (you yourself found a LA Times article confirming it).
But in spite of the fact that the police spoke to him for 2 days, all his information was discarded as complete trash. Gutierrez himself complained after that that he was a “poor Latino” who was “nobody” for the police – though in another source he bragged that he was an undercover agent working exactly for that very police (for whom he was “nobody” under a different version).
If Wade Robson presents to us this information from Gutierrez we are in for a huge collection of the worst kind of gossip – very dirty, very salacious and very pedophilia-like in the usual Gutierrez’s style, but with absolutely no truth behind it.
LikeLike
But the good news from the other screen shot it that Stacy finally got to write his $200 million dollar story.
LikeLike
Okay I can’t add pictures but because you have read only a portion of a conversation I see the confusion.
The letter attached to this one is from MJ Facts Twitter. She put it up first as a fake then after Safechuck came forward said it was true.
That letter doesn’t black out a name only the Safechuck address.
The Lawyers name is at the bottom. and it is the name of a lawyer that never represented Michael.
If you have read the version of how the story was “scooped” by Diane Dimond you will understand why I think all this documentation is what VG collected and because we know it isn’t true he faked them.
Here is her version from Page 20 of Be Careful Who You Love;
As much as I couldn’t accept the premise that Jackson was a child molester my experience was telling me that extortion attempts work only if police are kept out of the situation. The previous evening, during our meeting with the “cold call” source I had heard and seen things I never would have imagined.
Just after 7:00 PM.,at a dimly lit Italian restaurant in Santa Monica, Steven Doran and I met with an individual carrying a file full of papers. The person began telling us about a friend who worked within the state’s vast Department of Children’s and Family Services ( DCFS).system. I wondered if the person sitting in front of us did too.
“There’s only one thing both of us want you to promise,” the person said still nervously clutching the sheaf of documents. “We want you to promise that this won’t get covered up again this time.”
This time? What did that mean? had there been other complaints filed against Michael Jackson ? If so who suppressed them and why? I told the person if we could determine the papers were bona fide we would do all we could to report the truth. I was then motioned outside to a phone booth where my new source dropped some coins into a phone and dialed a number. The source handed the receiver to me.
As I grabbed the handset I suddenly realized that I was dealing with two sources, the one who stood at my side and a second individual who was now on the other end of the phone line.
It was obvious to both Steve and me that the person with the documents was edgy, and U quickly surmised that they individual on the other end of the phone was scared to death. I asked countless questions about the authenticity of the documents. What had motivated ,them to take such risks__ risks that could cost them a job or worse? And about the claim that this wasn’t the first time the DCFS had gotten a complaint about Michael Jackson .
“Listen” the voice on the phone finally said ” enough is enough. He’s got to stop getting away with this”. No more details than that ___ just that cryptic statement and then the voice asked that the go between with the documents be put back on the line. They whispered to each other for just a minute, and then the individual at my side motioned me back inside the restaurant.”
So we know that there was a pile of “documents” back then that said that Michael had done it before. Anyone want to guess who it might have been that was her source.I can think of one team…Rodney Allen and Victor Gutierrez.
LikeLike
And last but not least to szilva09 LaToya has on several occasions explained that Jack Gordon forced her under threat of violence to say those things. About 6 months before the statement she was beaten by Jack Gordon with a chair leg. She was hospitalized for several days. Yes I believe that is the reason that she said what she did and she now says it was all a lie.
A question though, considering that she did go through that and now says it wasn’t true why do people still attempt to include her in this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But the other screen shot that I sent does show how long Stacy has been waiting to write that story. The date on that was November of 2013.
LikeLike
I sent links to the origin of that document which is not a document just a demonstration of how the people with opposing opinions will use something or do something one way one time then it means something different the next time.I think the links that I sent you are sort of self explanatory.
The original captions on the original story by The Sunday People June 30th 2013 named Howard Weitzman. You can no longer link to the original story or find it through the archives of the Sunday People.I would imagine that it is because a complaint was lodged against the article.
LikeLike
Okay, but what does it have to do with Michael Jackson?
They could have started it long ago (if they had wanted to). Ample opportunity.
Michael said nothing about the accuser and spoke of his innocence instead. The photos didn’t match and the media did not cover this point at all, except for one little piece in the USA Today. Lisa Marie Presley even demonstrated how tiny the piece of news was – she said: “It was printed this big”
0:40 in this video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L33VBSPsUE
The settlement agreement didn’t preclude MJ from speaking about his innocence. But Evan Chandler wanted more money – $60 million as the $15mln they got was not enough for all of them. He lost his share to his wife in a divorce, and Jordan was getting it in portions until end of 90s. And Evan Chandler wanted to live big way and not beg his son for money (which he had to until the end of his life).
The family was forbidden to go the media with their story, but were allowed to testify in court – and out of all of them it was only June Chandler who exercised this right. All the rest hid in the bushes. Why not take the chance and speak up at last? (Especially since the money had been paid out by then)
Same reason as why the J.C. Penney store from which the Arvizos stole some goods had to pay to them a 6-digit sum. The store was not to blame for anything and was actually a victim, but it was easier to give money to those scumbugs and make them go away than deal with them any longer. Same with Michael and Francia.
It does, but only in case they face an opposition, when no one believes them and their every attempt to complain is suppressed by the media and public. They are forced to keep silence, and sometimes by their own shame. But not in cases when the whole world is looking at them as victims anyway and is expecting them to testify and will applaud to them for their “courage to speak out”. In this case it takes people extra courage to stand up for the truth and defend an innocent person because the innocent truth is absolutely unwelcome and is completely resisted by the public and media. Opposite case.
Even if true, knowing Michael’s generosity I wouldn’t be surprised if he wanted to get the family out of their dismal condition. Could be pure charity on his part and we know numerous examples when it was that way. Actually now it is very easy to represent every act of MJ’s charity as a “payout”. What makes it worse (for Michael) is that he as a true believer in God preferred to help in silence, so that no one knew of his charitable acts.
Oscar Wilde made a joke: “No good deed goes unpunished” and this is unfortunately true for this dirty world of ours where everything is upside down, and it’s the innocent who have to pay for all the good they did to others.
LikeLike
Susanne, good point about the judge. The judge in 2005 never did anything in favor of the defense and often took pro-prosecution decisions which are unheard of in legal practice. I remember Thomas Mesereau talking about the judge allowing the third party to tell their stories about those who didn’t testify themselves (for example, Jordan Chandler). This is actually never done – if there is no witness no third party should be allowed to talk for him or about him. It is the worst case of hearsay, however the judge did allow it.
If the media take the allegations about these “20 victims” seriously and really want to know the truth, they should stop their pretentious game and should invite the judge and ask him point blank – why didn’t you allow those materials (if they really existed)? Or even ask Ron Zonen. I hope that despite being a prosecutor in the case he is still honest enough to admit that no such documents ever existed and none of them were even considered during the preliminary hearings.
And I am also absolutely adamant that MJ harassers provide a link to the alleged “ruling” of the judge concerning those “20 victims”. We need to see the document and only then any discussion can take place at all. We’ve never shied away from analyzing the most “damning” evidence against MJ and are always ready to look. But if they don’t provide it, the only answer to them should be SHUT UP.
And the media should also be told – STOP THE GAME! Because what you are doing is a game and a dirty one at that, and by playing it you are dishonoring journalism as a profession and undermining our trust in everything else you say.
Yes, and I absolutely insist that the rules of the game should be reversed. No more explanations on our side, no more appealing to their reason and common sense – GIVE THE PROOF or go to hell.
LikeLike
@szilvia09
Unless the motive is financial, or the accuser is mentally ill and is a major attention whore, or is just a child being used as a puppet by an immoral adult, or is just seeking revenge, then there is no reason why a heterosexual man or boy would falsely accuse a man of sexually abusing them. So yes, the FBI statistic that 95% of boys who claim that were molested by men are telling the truth is indeed true. The only reason a male would lie would be because of one or more of the 4 things I’ve mentioned.
As for Latoya Jackson, I still have yet to see any evidence of this $1 million check that has been floating around for decades. It certainly wasn’t “hush money” like some people insist. Like I’ve stated before, If MJ really did write the boy’s father a check for $1 million, it could have been for any reason. For all we know, the dad probably asked MJ for the money as a loan to pay off a debt or start a new business or something. If the Safechucks had that kind of money ($1 million in 1988 is equivalent to $3 million today) then certainly James wouldn’t have needed MJ’s financial assistance to help him with college and other things. We don’t know what the money was for or if it was even for $1 million, or if Latoya really did see a check, so all we can do is speculate..
LikeLike
Lynette, regarding the letter allegedly addressing James Safechuck’s father (dated 1990) you’ve posted:
Am I right to understand that the name blacked out in the letter is that of Howard Weizman? And since Howard Wiezman was hired only in 1993 this makes the letter a fake?
Indeed, if the name is that of Howard Wiezman then the letter is a clear forgery. But to prove that we also need the full version of the letter (with Howard Weizman’s name on it). Could you give a link to it please?
LikeLike
1. It’s normal for victims of sexual abuse to receive money as compensation to cover therapy and to rehabilitate. MJ is deceased, they cannot start a criminal trial anyhow.
2. Chandlers sued MJ again, because MJ breached the contract that they had with him. He was not supposed to publicly speak about the case, but he did, during his interview with Diane Sawyer. Ray Chandler released a book, because he was one member of the family that didn’t have a gag order placed on him. The family was forbidden from speaking about it, but they were allowed to testify in court.
3. Why did MJ pay Blanca Francia millions, if he never did anything to her son? And again, the payment didn’t forbid him or her from testifying at the Arvizo trial.
4. It takes many years for male victims of sexual abuse to admit that it happened and come out and say it.
5. La Toya Jackson claimed that she had seen a check for 1 million dollars written to the father of one of Michael’s boys. The father was a garbage collector. The recipient was James Safechuck’s father, who still works in waste management today.
LikeLike
I agree with Helena, we have to ask all the questions that spring to our mind and that are so obviously unanswered.
Ironically I mentioned in my comment of March 27 in my March 25 blog post that Safechuck talks nowhere in his statement of a financial settlement Michael offered to him (because of the fact that the family decided not to testify in 2005). A few days later tabloid articles claimed exactly this – that Safechuck’s parents were paid “hush money”. It seems we often can foresee the tricks of the media. But it is important to point out again that neither Robson nor Safechuck claimed in their court papers that they received or were offered money to be silent.
When this is claimed in articles, I want to ask these writers and those who believe them: Where is the proof? Show me the documents! Show me where Safechuck or his parents claimed this!
I also want to ask them why a judge would exclude “a wealth of evidence” against MJ in 2005 “with graphic details of the alleged abuse but also how much each was paid to keep quiet”. Not only we want to see the proof of it (which court document says it? – and we have all of them!), but we also want to have an explanation why a judge, who obviously tended to side with the prosecution oftentimes, would exclude evidence which would be essential for the outcome, a judge that was always respected and called fair by the accusers?
And where is this “wealth of evidence”? And in which form does it exist? And where are the 20 or more victims? Who are they and where are their statements?
And why do the haters only harass Brett Barnes? Why don’t they do it to the Cascio boys or Omer Bhatti?
It’s clear WE don’t need to prove anything, THEY have to present evidence for their claims. As long as they don’t show us this evidence they have no right according to legal standards to talk about any criminal behavior of MJ.
I would like to remind at this point of Barbara Kaufmann’s article she wrote in 2013 on Stacy Brown and the likes. It’s worth reading:
http://www.innermichael.com/2013/10/the-creatures-of-the-night-return/
LikeLike
One final thing here. I bought the transcript to the hearing on 1/28/2005 just a day before the jury was chosen.The judge allowed in every bit of adult material that they found so I don’t know what could possibly be left.
I honestly believe that the supporters group got hold of the stuff that Gutierrez said was a first draft of his book and are taking that as actual evidence.
https://twitter.com/Tige234/status/573232152898215936
LikeLike
The teller of the story about Michael paying $200 ,million is important.Stacy Brown has been a media rep for the group of supporters since June of 2013, It isn’t the first time they tried to get the story going.
https://twitter.com/Tige234/status/585597792481083394
LikeLike
Someone mentioned that Wade and Jimmy’s lawsuit isn’t about money and that it’s about seeking justice..But exactly what justice are they seeking? MJ is dead and gone. If they really wanted justice then wouldn’t they had came forward in 2005 when the man was on trial?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I totally agree. This all goes back to all those supposed “victims” who claimed that Catholic priests molested them, and made claims with the Catholic Church with it’s enormous wealth, instead of going to the police and having those priests arrested and convicted. It was easy money, and those poor “victims” getting compensation after whining about “abuse” that happened decades before has given Wade and Jimmie the hope that they can do the same with the now wealthy Estate.
Those “victims” of unconvicted Catholic priest “molesters” should never have gotten a big windfall just for a boo hoo story and neither should anybody who wants to make a claim from Michael’s estate. Go away!!
LikeLike
I caught the end of a t v doc.about sign language.There was a line in great letters:In the world of sign languge Michael Jackson is the man.In fact he translated Thriller to signlanguage and used signing in several of his songs. Really I would say he used bodylanguage in his performances.-This is sidestepping the present discussion, .Helena not only is the media compromised By the anti MJ -camp, but the whole civilasation is failing to see the depth of Michael Jackson.There was a note on 26.6 2009 that he had asked for a choir of sign-language children of a variety of ethnic backgrouns for his upcoming performances. That was 1 week and 6 days before his death.
Many of his performances include signing, esp. Will You be There. One of his most beautiful and deep songs.Maybe someone with more knowledge can elaborate on this aspect of MJ´s productions.
LikeLike
Vulcan, exactly. Both points are true and very important. The first is the fact that Robson and Safechuck want money, and their claims arose right at the time when the Estate came out of the red and began making profit. Apparently, this alone became a good incentive for the two guys to “seek therapy” and suddenly “realize” things they never remembered or realized before. The simple money logic here is so obvious that it is even disgusting.
And the settlements with Chandler and Francia were of course, never “hush money”. These people could freely talk and did so – both before and after the settlements, so how could it be called “silence”? It is ridiculous to even think that way!
And another interesting question is who has been paying his legal bills since the year 2013. It is almost two years now.
LikeLike
Susanne, these people don’t even understand to what extent they compromise western media as a whole and how much ammunition they give to our propagandists who can absolutely safely claim now that “there is no whole truth anywhere” and that in the US they tell “even worse lies”.
I’m amazed that no one in the US seems to understand that by this horrible bias and non-stop lie campaigns against Jackson they undermine credibility of their media with their own hands.
As the very least they are also propagating the idea that “money can buy and sell anything here”. What a weapon for our moralists who hypocritically claim that they have better morals and life values!
Yes, and now we have proof of it.
LikeLike
GREAT observation! And if you look at the time when the article was published by APP even more questions will arise. The time of publication (local time) was 4 in the morning:
As the difference in time zones between Los Angeles and Australia is 17 hours the article was published by APP when it was the 7th of April, 1 p.m. on Los Angeles. Considering that some time was also needed to write the news release it means that the Australian news agency got the news when it was around noon in Los Angeles.
The court site says that most hearings start at 8:30 or 10:10 in the morning. So as the very least the WR/JS lawyers indeed keep the Australian press in the loop as it took them just a couple of hours 1) to have the hearing and 2) inform the Australian press of the outcome.
And the other option is that there was no hearing at all that day, and the whole thing was just an invention to create some fuss around the case. An interesting version too.
LikeLike
A very good song and video, and we do need to fight – only the word “war” in the lyrics is just not quite right. I have an aversion for war even as a concept. As a very minimum war means fury and aggression, and to a certain extent Michael’s haters (same as the general public) even want Michael’s supporters to go crazy over the whole thing and prove themselves to be “rabid fans” who are also “in denial”. This is why let us try and not even step on the path of war. And I’m sure that Michael wouldn’t want it either.
Probably a better word would be a mobilization of everyone in a fight for Michael’s good name. But the big question is how to fight?
1) Up till now we’ve only tried to refute their lies and constantly found ourselves in a defensive position. But a position like is already losing half the battle – they repeatedly send us to disprove this and that, and to be frank one feels like being constantly sent on errands by these liars. I think by now we’ve reached a stage when the rules can be changed.
For example, they claim that MJ paid out some $200 mln to some 20 “sex abuse victims”. Okay. Let us be calm and ask for the proof. Give us the names, the testimonies, the sums paid out, when and under what circumstances it happened. When/if we get their proof we will check it up – and agree or disagree. But until then all of it is just idle talk and nothing else but talk.
The problem is that anyone can say anything, and until it is proven to have something behind it it is simply nothing.
For example, I can also claim that Stacy Brown is a pervert (or at least the co-author of his book was), or that the Mirror is actually covering up for real pedophiles and instead of exposing perverts among some high-ranking UK personalities they prefer to make up stories about innocent MJ (who can’t even defend himself now).
If I claim that their immediate reaction will be – provide the proof or otherwise you are a horrible liar.
So why don’t we do the same? PROVIDE THE PROOF or SHUT UP!
2) Another thing we need to do is ask questions and make those who believe these stories answer them. If someone is sitting on the fence in the process of answering they themselves will understand how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Indeed, if 200 million were paid out to 20 victims why didn’t even Gutierrez write about it? Why didn’t Tom Sneddon ever speak about it? If it was the judge who allegedly decided against admitting that evidence in court where is the judge’s ruling and where can we see it?
Let it be the other way round and let it be us who will send on errands those who read this nonsense and believe it, and let them work for the truth – probably once in a lifetime. Let them answer our questions and if they can’t (or don’t want to look) let them please shut up. We have the right to demand it.
The very least our questions will do is make them stop for a second and think. So before even answering them just ASK QUESTIONS!
LikeLike
Thanks for the latest update Helena. I must say this week has been a complete onslaught of lies and sensationalism. Someone wrote on Facebook that Michael only lived for 4 more years after the trial and as startling as that was to read, I don’t think he would have survived this further round of assassination of his character.
We need to carry on defending him with as much force as we are having to deal with and keep on publishing rebuttal web pages like this one.
Keep up the good work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
szilvia09
It doesn’t matter whether they are asking for 1.6 billion or 300 million or 10 million.
The bottom line is that they are doing this for money despite Robson’s claim that he is not doing this for money.
At the same time there is not a shred of evidence that MJ ever paid hush money to anyone.
Not even the Chandlers and the Francias since neither of them shut up, the Chandlers sued MJ again in 1995 and released a book in 2004 and June Chandler testified and of course Blanca F. and Jason testified too.
So nobody’s silence was bought!
MJ simply eliminated the civil trial with the settlement. And since the Chandlers never wanted any trial whatsoever there was no criminal trial either. But if they had wanted to testify there is no a thing MJ could have done to prevent them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
This story is ballooning exponentially.I feel bad,sad for Brett,the real one, who is being hounded just because he does not want to be part of this ####.Also wonder how much poor wounded WR is making while waiting for further legal action..
LikeLike
HOW does the AAP (Australian Assoc Press) know the hearing date was April 7th and NOT April 10th even though the CA court stie listed April 10th? Seems like the attorneys for WR/JS are keeping the Australian press in the loop with information faster than the court system can upload the case hearing dates- – if this doesn’t prove they are using the media to try their feeble case, then what does?
LikeLike
The Easter weekend seemed to be a good time for “them” to spread new lies and start a new campaign before new hearings take place in the Robson/Safechuck cases. This is so clearly pure propaganda and it reminds me of the political information war we can see in other parts of the world.
We know and the accusers know exactly that these “news” are lies, but perhaps the average person out there doesn’t know for sure or may have new doubts. And this is their goal – to confuse and to produce new doubts.
What is also conspicuous is that meanwhile Australian tabloids are among the first who spread this kind of news about MJ before they arrive in other countries.
But let me also note that I heard a lot of radio over the Easter weekend, different channels – and EVERY SINGLE day I heard Michael’s music on the radio, sometimes several times a day, also today just minutes ago! These were also good days for the Estate because it earned quite some money on our radio channels – and apparently these tabloid “news” so far didn’t affect Michael’s popularity on radio.
And I believe there are still enough rational people out there who recognize the ludicrousness and incredibility of these “news” and who ask themselves some of the questions Helena put above.
LikeLike
You are right, this particular article has indeed been misread, so I will correct this point now.
But simultaneously I will add to the post a different article – for example from Examiner.com which is run by no other than Philip Anschutz owned AEG. And this article also reports that Robson wants $1.62 billion. I think that Philip Anschutz should know and he values his reputation too much to have wrong sums published by his media.
http://www.examiner.com/article/michael-jackson-rape-and-molestation-case-wade-robson-seeks-1-62-billion
So thank you for the correction. I will now amend the text.
LikeLike
Wade and James are NOT asking for two billion Australian dollars. It’s clearly written in the article that it’s how much the estate is worth – $US1.5 billion or $A2.0 billion. It’s preposterous to even imagine that they would be claiming the entire worth of the estate in their lawsuits. The matters of how much their claiming are undisclosed and not known to the public. Your entry disputes the unconfirmed information about the money that Jackson paid out to accusers, but it wrongly states the amounts that current accusers are asking for.
LikeLike