Skip to content

About the blog


“Father, Forgive Them; They Don’t Know What They Are Doing…”

The musical piece provided here is by Johann Sebastian Bach and is called “Air”. It is accompanied by a picture of  Moses who is desperate with his people who started praying to a Golden Calf while he was away carrying God’s commandments to them. The picture and music are dedicated to all those who also pray to the Golden Calf and are ready to lie about an innocent human being like Michael Jackson for money, fame, career or other reasons. 

November 21, 2009

It is a complete shame I hadn’t been among Michael Jackson’s supporters before he died. When all those awful allegations against him reached my part of the world in mid-90s I couldn’t withstand the general wave of mistrust towards Michael and half-believed the horrible rumors about him saying to myself that “there couldn’t be smoke without fire” and “if so many people think that way they can’t be all wrong about it”.

However the thought of a nice guy like that being probably involved in such a terrible crime was so uneasy and disquieting that I preferred to thrust it into the very back of my mind and forget about the whole thing until after he died.

The news of Michael’s death brought a sudden feeling of sadness and a renewed interest in his personality while the strange circumstances of his tragic demise made me read and watch whatever there was to read and watch about him at the time. The result of this little research was quite unexpected – the more Michael’s videos I saw and the more of his speeches and interviews I read, the surer was a terrible guess creeping into my mind – he was completely innocent…. to an extent we can’t even imagine…. how could we be that wrong …. what a shame on all our heads…. it’s almost like some 2000 years ago with that old story repeating itself……nothing changed, nothing learned…. is there a way to make up for it?

The feeling of guilt, remorse and a terrible harm which cannot be undone has gripped me every since and is unbearable to live with. So now you know the reason for this blog – these posts are just a humble attempt to repent and make up for all the injustice I personally did to Michael Jackson by half-believing those nonstop lies about him told by the bloodthirsty, money-craving, small-minded and completely delirious media about the man whom they did not take the trouble to really know and whose little finger they are not worthy of.

Besides the attempt to dissect lies about Michael and clear his name of all the dirt thrown at him in such a ruthless and shameless way this blog is also a kind of Michael’s memorabilia with all sorts of facts, evidences, testimonies, observations and opinions about him collected from various sources and provided by different people many of whom have come to appreciate this pure and innocent guy only after his untimely death.

The man we learned to admire and miss so late in our lives.

Vindicatemj (Helena), Russia



Besides my posts you will find here contributions from several other authors who come from various countries and wrote here at different periods of time:                          

  • Deborah Ffrench (UK)
  • Lacienegasmiles   (US)       
  • Lisa (US)
  • Lynande51  (US)                                                                    
  • Markoftheancients, MOA  (Sweden)               
  • Mona  (Romania)    
  • Sanemjfan   (US)    
  • Sara101mj  (US)     
  • Susannerb   (Germany)          
  • Thetis7  (Greece)       

March 14, 2014 update

A short announcement:

Susannerb (Germany) is now my co-administrator of this blog. She is very much welcome to write for it, but my main request to her is to serve as a sort of a custodian of the blog just in case I am unable to write here any more.

I am sure that she is very much capable of running the blog following the principles of justice, search for the truth and selflessness which have been guiding us all along.


1,072 Comments leave one →
  1. December 18, 2011 1:23 am

    “I don’t know if you guys have been monitoring the MJ Facts Info hater’s site, but they have added a substantial amount of information over the last few months”

    David, thanks for the update but may I suggest you don’t post links to their site here any more? It is only giving them unnecessary promotion. I also doubt that they post links to our blog on their site, so it will be only fair if we didn’t.

    Please send the links to the researchers only, while it would be just enough to inform readers about what this pedophilia lobby is doing to Michael. If any of the readers want to go to that site they are welcome to look for it themselves.

    Why I think that those writing there are a pedophilia lobby? Because I cannot imagine anyone else to be so persistent in their lies against Michael Jackson – no, these people are fighting for their own rights! And they still hope to have him among their ranks, this is why it is so crucial for them to prove that he was what he actually wasn’t.

    There are other reasons why I think these people have a special interest in Michael but I will not voice them at the moment as they are definitely reading us.

    As could be easily predicted now these people claim that no one really remembers Jordan Chandler saying that Michael was circumcised.


    Remember I warned you they would? And this is why they were erasing all traces of Jordan’s words from the media? And the fact that they have a chance to erase all mention of Jordan’s words shows how powerful these people are?

    Now they even ridicule us for using the Smoking Gun as the only source where this information is still contained, saying “what can you expect of those who believe tabloids?”

    No, my dear liars, it is very unfortunate news for you but the source you so much rely on, Victor Gutierrez, ALSO says that Jordan described Michael as circumcised.

    I haven’t read Ray Chandler’s book but it is highly probable that he mentioned it too. David, I think you’ve read it – could you inform us whether Ray Chandler quotes Jordan as saying that?

    But the thing that surprises me most about this site is that these people are so much dedicated to lying about Michael. They KNOW that Jordan said Michael was circumcised (everyone knows that because we simply remember the media screams), but they are ready to deny even the obvious.

    WHY SO?

    P.S. These people claim that we are selective in using tabloids’ information and say that if we believe some of the Smoking Gun lies we should believe the rest too. However the article used by us in this post is a very SPECIAL thing.

    It is the article which was first published but later disappeared from the Smoking Gun. So what was actually used by us was a retrieved ghost of it, which is now a totally unwelcome guest on its pages.

  2. shelly permalink
    December 18, 2011 1:17 am

    The smoking gun articles were based on the grand jury transcript, so yes they were factuals, everything they said was in the transcript and by the way Bill Bastone was very fair to MJ during the trial.

  3. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 10:46 pm

    I would like to add something else as a thought. If Sneddon knew that they were a match as the one site suggests why did he added the special disclaimer “except those based on information and belief”. Like I said before and it is not mere speculation, the SBSD asked for a search and arrest warrant on Michael prior to the photos. They would have had to have an arrest warrant attached when they stipulated that if he refused the photos and video of his private parts he would be arrested. I am not sure why no one gets that! In order for the search to be legal it would have had to include an arrest warrant because the Police in this case above all others would not be able to make empty threats to Michael and his lawyers present were Johnny Cochran and Howard Weitzman, they would have insisted on it being completely legal. Now if he refused he was to be arrested and if it was a definitive match he would have been arrested as the evidence would have proved the allegations. Why is it that no one understands that?

    If they come out now and say that there was no arrest warrant attached to that search they are saying that they in fact violated Michael’s Miranda rights by forcing him to an unnecessary and humiliating search of his naked body. If they obtained those photos illegally they would not have been admissible evidence in any trial ever. Do they want to go there? No one should forget that Sneddon himself was in that house on that day, that is proof that he was there to charge Michael if the photos were a match. If someone doubts that Michael was forced to do that search they should ask themselves why he did it if he did not have to. If the photos would have been a definitive match, he would have been arrested because they would have had their evidence. If he refused he would have been arrested because his refusal was to be considered a consciousness of guilt.

    There has been plenty said about the spots which did not matter then and they sure don’t matter now. What kept Michael out of jail was the fact that not only did the spots not match but neither did the “form” or the fact that he was not circumcised. Now suddenly the haters want to bring it back to a spot when they think Sneddon’s word means something. Ask them then why he wasn’t willing to back that up by really putting himself in jeopardy of perjury? I read what the other site posted and there was a Grand Canyon size chasm of omitted information in that post.

    One question or statement on the other site says that those that ask why Michael was not arrested do not understand the rules of evidence. Their statement that the detectives and photographers would have had to testify to the chain of evidence is correct, but only at trial, not during the gathering of evidence for an arrest. This was still an investigation not a trial. The rules of evidence only apply when the evidence is used at trial not when they arrest someone. If I were to give evidence that this is true just look at the list of things, including a used tissue retrieved from a waste paper basket that they collected from Neverland. Are they going to tell me that someone blew their nose and that was somehow supposed to mean something? No the police collect all kinds of things in an investigation and then they go through it to see if it is evidence of the alleged crime. It is this person that does not understand.

    This person’s second talking point is Larry Feldman requesting a second set of photos. They say that it means nothing because it was a civil trial and this was a criminal investigation. That is not true. The judge granted the police access to whatever evidence and depositions were gathered in the civil trial. If he wanted them brought in as evidence all he would have had to do was petition the court for those to be brought in not left out.

    Their attempt at showing that the drawing included in the Victor Gutierrez book was not effective either considering they have not included the entire version that does have notes in the header and sidelines and footer. They used the one that does not show that someone was taking notes about how to describe Michael in the first place. The drawing or description that clearly states that Michael is circumcised and Brett is not. Now who is using trickery and omission to elude an unsuspecting public?

    Then I guess that someone just made a mistake at The Smoking Gun and that is why that site has the description as a light spot according to affidavit instead of a dark spot like Sneddon said that around about in the right place. They also hit in the fact that Michael’s lawyers wanted them returned in July of 1994 when they had the affidavit for the search warrant sealed. Of course that was not granted because the investigation did not end until September of 1994. They were still investigating the case for another 3 months because they did not inform Michael’s lawyers that Jordan told them he would not testify on July 6th 1994. Up until then they were holding them. The reason that they were sealed by a judge is because one of the DA’s in question wanted to use them if Jordan ever changed his mind. Does anyone wonder which DA it is that I am talking about?

    IN 2004, when Sneddon was faced with the possibility that he was in trouble for abuse of power for searching Brad Millers office himself, he petitioned the court for an order not to allow the search warrants to be given over in discovery to the defense. He said that it was still an ongoing investigation and if the affadavit was released to the defense attorney’s they would be given priviledged information. Some of the privildged information the cited was the 1993 affadavit so it had been opened and was open from at least November 16th 2003 until it was resealsed on January 24th, 2004. To this day the defense has not seen that affadavit. Why is that so important to the prosecution that no one know what is in that affadavit besides them? It isn’t like they were ever concerned for Michael’s right to a fair trial, because they had already leaked enough information for the jury pool to have a skewed view.

    I say it is because that affadavit says exactly what the article said in The Case of the Telltale Splotch and it is not a match. They knew it. It was just Sneddon hell bent on revenge that said differently. Apparently they do not know what a driving need for revenge can do to someone. I guess I will have to put all of these points together and just do a proper post in it so they can get the point one last time. I expect that it will be done sometime tomorrow.

  4. sanemjfan permalink
    December 17, 2011 9:51 pm

    Guys, it looks like we’ll have to do a post on Sneddon’s desire to get MJ’s photos admitted as evidence at the end of the trial! I don’t know if you guys have been monitoring the MJ Facts Info hater’s site, but they have added a substantial amount of information over the last few months, including a new post that “proves” that the Jordan’s description matched! I can tell that they’re reading our site and trying to debunk our theories and facts, as they practically use our talking points against us! (Without directly naming us.)

    Here is their post:

    Not only that, but in this article a professor wrote an essay on MJ that will be released next year, and she wrongly asserted that the photos were shown at the trial as well! So this is starting to get out of hand, and we need to debunk this ASAP. I will start posting my series that refutes attacks on MJ from the religious community beginning on Dec. 25th, and it’ll be a 4 or 5 part series that will be finished by mid-January, so we have plenty of time to work on it.

    You can read the article on that professor, and my thoughts on that article, under this post:

  5. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 9:13 pm

    That is right. I personally believe that Sneddon over the years had taken a lot of heat over getting those photos. It was unprecedented and unnecessary to have done that to begin with. After that was when they started all the lies and innuendos about Michael’s behavior during the search in an effort to imply that he was guilty because, according to them he “threw a fit” so they did not get the pictures they needed. If that is the case the photos have no value whatsoever. Well they had an arrest warrant in the event he refused how do they explain that? It was Russell Birchim that said he saw the spot and he and Sneddon were/are friends outside of work. Then Birchim says in reality that he “thinks he saw” a dark spot. The photos should have been returned to Michael after that trial but Sneddon is going to have a very difficult time convincing me that he did not have a vendetta against Michael when he would not return them after the trial saying that they should keep them in case there is another case. That right there tells me that there is something seriously wrong with that man.
    I could give a very good argument as to why they should be and should have been returned at that time due to the fact they are of Michael Jackson’s person and therefore fall under his image copyrights. If they are ever released whoever does it should have to pay the Estate of Michael Jackson. If they do not they would be violating the copyright that they have to his image and likeness. That is another thing that has eluded the minds of some of the detractors out there. Michael Jackson was a commodity, a product. I know that sounds strange but he knew that. When they state that he in fact is something that he was proven not to be that is slander. How is that? Because he lives on in his marketability or his image. When they slander and defame him it still has current financial effects on his marketability.
    The photos should by all purposes at this point in time be taken to Katherine for destruction. The only purpose for the description was humiliation by Evan Chandler and not one but two law enforcement agencies went along with it. I think Tom Messereau should petition the court for the release of these photos and the destruction of the description. They are not going to have another case to hear so they might as well just get rid of them and leave Michael to rest in peace on this matter. They never did it in life, it is the least that they could do now. Evan Chandler is dead, Michael is dead, and still Sneddon will not release those photos. That is absurd. The photos only depict a certain time frame because of the always changing Vitiligo they would have meant nothing in 2005 and they sure don’t mean anything now.

  6. December 17, 2011 4:47 pm

    Shelly, thank you for the document and the transcript – they will be helpful for studying things while I have limited access to Internet (if any at all) in the next few days. This will be a sort of homework for me.

    My first impression of Mr. Sanger’s words is that Sneddon not only violated Michael’s constitutional rights by trying to introduce those photos (without giving a chance to cross examine Jordan Chandler), but that it was also a totally illegal trick meant for emotional effect only.

    It was not on the 1108 list of “evidence” of “prior bad acts” and was to be sneaked into the 2005 trial under the pretext of showing Michael to be modest and shy – which he was – but what does it have to do with Sneddon bringing in the photos?

    When Sanger talked about a “moving” target they were forced to deal with, it again reminded me of Conrad Murray’s trial and the tactics used by Chernoff and Flanagan. It was the mirror image of the Arvizo case – Murray had the same slippery, chameleon and jelly-like case which was changing in the process of the trial as his defense was grasping at various straws that would occasionally stick out here and there.

    It is a method which does not even suppose that there is some truth lying in the basis of the case – it is just a combination of lies which are shuffled and reshuffled depending on how the events turn out.

    The same thing happened in 2005, only in reverse. There was no case – ‘molestation’ had to happen after the news about it was announced the worldwide; then a conspiracy charge emerged from nowhere aiming to explain the initial molestation nonsense; and when all that flopped, some highly dubious characters from the past were introduced to share their hearsay.

    And at the very end of it came the turn of some meaningless photos which do not explain anything because no one knows who said what about Michael’s genitalia before (how is it possible to compare things with something you know nothing of?) And all this is done in total disrespect for Law, in a stealthy manner and under some false pretexts that they are talking about Michael “being shy”.

    It is just the theatre of the absurd. Or a bad circus where a conjurer tries to pull a rabbit out of his hat at the last moment, but fails to do so because there is no rabbit, no hat and no knowledge how to do it.

    It is clear that Sneddon wanted those photos just to shock the jury by disclosing them Michael’s anatomy and humiliate Michael beyond any limit. And this failed drama gesture made for effect only is all Michael’s detractors have to produce to us as “proof” of their allegations.

  7. December 17, 2011 3:53 pm

    It’s from the judge

    ” THE COURT: I’m going to deny the request to

    19 bring in the evidence of the blemished penis. This

    20 is the reason: It’s twofold, really. And under a

    21 352 analysis, the Court agrees with the defense,

    22 that shyness really was not an issue of any

    23 proportion. I think you’ve reminded me — I knew

    24 there had been some statement somewhere in the trial

    25 about shyness, but the — I think you’ve reviewed

    26 that with me, and I think I agree with — my

    27 recollection now has been refreshed to exactly what

    28 that was. But I knew it was only a small thing to 12182

    1 start with, if anything. And you’re saying it was

    2 actually nothing.

    3 But the analysis there would be, even if

    4 shyness had been raised as an issue, the prejudicial

    5 effect would far outweigh the probative value of the

    6 shyness issue. And secondly, I think — even though

    7 your analysis is I think correct, I keep going

    8 through it, but I think it is not hearsay. I still

    9 think Crawford would apply to the ability to

    10 cross-examine the boy — or the — you know, Mr.

    11 Chandler. He’s not a boy anymore — on that issue,

    12 and that’s definitely not available, so that would

    13 be my reasoning for excluding that evidence.”

  8. December 17, 2011 3:50 pm

    This is from Zonen

    “24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and

    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates

    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.

    27 So you would have a violation of a federal

    28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180

    1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.

    2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you

    3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,

    4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under

    5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that

    6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and

    7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally

    8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if

    9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral

    10 matter.

    11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about

    12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I

    13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.

    14 THE COURT: Mr. Zonen?

    15 MR. ZONEN: Just briefly with regards to

    16 Crawford. This is not hearsay at all. It’s not an

    17 exception to hearsay. It’s not hearsay.

    18 The issue is whether or not this child had

    19 knowledge of the existence of that particular spot.

    20 And the evidence of his knowledge, certainly his

    21 ability to draw that picture, would be

    22 circumstantial evidence that he knew about it. It

    23 would be the equivalent of a child being able to say

    24 that a room was green. And he would only know that

    25 if he had been in the room. It’s not for the truth
    of the matter that the room is green. We can show

    27 that independently with the photograph as can we

    28 show the spot with the photograph. But the fact 12181

    1 that a child would know that the room was green

    2 would only be knowledge that the child would have

    3 circumstantially because he was there or because

    4 somebody told him.

    5 In this particular case, it’s the type of

    6 information that was not commonly available at the

    7 time, and circumstantially it would be relevant for

    8 the fact that he must have seen that particular

    9 spot, and therefore it’s not testimonial. It’s not

    10 communication in that regard. It would not fit

    11 within Crawford. It’s simply not hearsay.

    12 MR. SANGER: And if I may make just one

    13 comment on that — I know we shouldn’t go back and

    14 forth but —

    15 THE COURT: I’d really like you not to do

    16 that.

    17 MR. SANGER: Very well, Your Honor

  9. December 17, 2011 3:48 pm

    This is from the defense

    “MR. SANGER: I, once again, tried to keep

    25 the brief brief. I hope the Court —

    26 THE COURT: I appreciate you keeping your

    27 briefs brief.

    28 MR. SANGER: Yes. I don’t want a lack of 12176

    1 volume to suggest that this didn’t take well into

    2 the night to get done here. And I don’t want to

    3 repeat everything, but I think because it is such an

    4 important issue, we’re right at the end of the case,

    5 I feel compelled to speak about it just briefly, if

    6 I may.

    7 First of all, this seems to come directly

    8 within the California Supreme Court’s discussion in

    9 the Carter case, which basically says it’s not

    10 proper to bring in evidence that magnifies evidence

    11 that the opposition has not had a chance to meet

    12 squarely during the case-in-chief, which we haven’t,

    13 because this was not offered, it was not hinted at.

    14 It was not even in the original 1108 motion from

    15 which the Court made a cut and reduced what they had

    16 presented originally. So it wasn’t even in there.

    17 I mean, we had no notice to deal with these

    18 issues — with this issue at all. So there is

    19 certainly unfair surprise, as stated directly in the

    20 Carter case.
    21 And Carter also says that the Court is

    22 supposed to avoid dramatic evidence introduced late

    23 in the trial that’s going to have an undue effect.

    24 Now, as we pointed out, this was not

    25 offered. I mean, this is really a stretch to even

    26 come up with any kind of an argument as to why this

    27 should — why they could even ask to bring this in.

    28 And they’re not asking to bring it in as 1108 12177

    1 evidence. They’re asking to bring it in as 1101(b)

    2 evidence.

    3 And the idea is, I think they’ve said in

    4 their pleadings, that this goes to the issue of

    5 whether or not Mr. Jackson was shy or modest. Now,

    6 that’s not what Mr. Zonen just said when he got up

    7 here and argued. I think he shifted the argument a

    8 bit, if I’m not mistaken, and talked about things

    9 happening in the bedroom.

    10 They didn’t offer — I mean, we can’t just

    11 keep having a moving target here. They didn’t offer

    12 it in their moving papers. They didn’t offer it for

    13 that purpose. They offered it on the shy and modest

    14 purpose. So it would be 1101(b) evidence on kind of

    15 a collateral matter, if it ever happened. But it

    16 didn’t happen in this case in the defense.

    17 We went through and did a word search on the

    18 entire transcript, several different words, “shy,”

    19 “modest,” all sorts of things. We found one

    20 question that used the word “shy,” not even in this

    21 context. It had to do with whether or not a maid
    2 saw Mr. Jackson change his shirt. And the objection

    23 was sustained to that question. So it was never

    24 answered. So it didn’t happen.

    25 We also went through and — just to be sure,

    26 and read — we read all the testimony from the key

    27 witnesses in the defense who might have said

    28 something like that if anybody said it. And the 12178

    1 only thing we can come up with is an investigative

    2 report where the word — I think “shy” — it was

    3 either “shy” or “modest,” one of the two was used.

    4 We quoted it in there. And it turns out that that

    5 was never brought out from that witness on the

    6 stand.

    7 So it seemed to me that, when I was looking

    8 at this, this was a pocket brief the District

    9 Attorney had originally prepared in case somebody

    10 did this. It didn’t happen. Now they’re trying to

    11 bring it in by way of rebuttal, and it would just be

    12 absolutely inappropriate as 1101, because it doesn’t

    13 rebut anything, okay?

    14 What really they’re trying to do, and I

    15 think that’s what I heard Mr. Zonen just argue, is

    16 they’re trying to argue this is 1108. And it

    17 doesn’t meet the criteria for 1108. It doesn’t meet

    18 the criteria the Court set down that it would be

    19 somebody directly observing something. So it would

    20 have the prejudicial effect of the jury considering

    21 it, obviously, for 1108 purposes. Because it would

    22 be very shocking to see pictures of — anatomical
    23 pictures and all that sort of thing.

    24 So just from that standpoint, they’ve made

    25 no — show no basis. There’s no foundation to admit

    26 this as rebuttal, because there’s — they haven’t

    27 shown what they’re rebutting under 1101(b). And

    28 obviously, if they did that, the prejudice would be 12179

    1 so overwhelming, because it would go to the 1108 and

    2 it shouldn’t come in for that reason.

    3 And as we said before, 1108 — as the Court

    4 is well aware, 1108 is a very delicate kind of an

    5 issue. The jury is given tremendously prejudicial

    6 evidence, that is, prejudicial in the sense that it

    7 is propensity evidence, and that propensity

    8 evidence — under this weird law we have in

    9 California that doesn’t exist most other places,

    10 propensity evidence is allowed to come in, but the

    11 Court has to exercise discretion in limiting it, so

    12 it doesn’t overwhelm the trial. And the Court made

    13 those rulings. And to bring this in at this point

    14 and emphasize 1108 in rebuttal with something that

    15 isn’t even really 1108 evidence would be

    16 tremendously prejudicial.

    17 But when you get right down to it, the main

    18 reason that it has to stay out is it violates

    19 Crawford and the confrontation clause. It’s not

    20 admissible hearsay. It is testimonial directly

    21 under Crawford. This is the kind of stuff that

    22 Crawford is talking about, when police officers do

    23 interviews, and they get information and they write
    24 it down in reports, and then they preserve that and

    25 the prosecution wants to bring it in, that violates

    26 the confrontation clause. You cannot do that.

    27 So you would have a violation of a federal

    28 constitutional right were this allowed in, in any 12180

    1 event, and so the Court can start at either end.

    2 Either just decide it on that and it’s over, or you

    3 look at the other end. It’s not proper rebuttal,

    4 because there was no evidence to rebut. And under

    5 the Carter case, it’s simply dramatic evidence that

    6 would be overwhelming at the end of the trial and

    7 really, in my opinion, and as we briefed, totally

    8 meaningless. There is no probative value. But if

    9 there was, by a stretch, it would be on a collateral

    10 matter.

    11 And so I think — I feel very strongly about

    12 this that this is absolutely inappropriate. And I

    13 will submit it, Your Honor. Thank you.

  10. December 17, 2011 3:12 pm

    It’s about the US Supreme Court decision, it’s called Crawford vs Washington

    Melville said even though, it was not hearsay, he still totally agree wih the defense analysis.

  11. December 17, 2011 2:47 pm

    Guys, I’ve been sent this link and signed it too:

    Please join – what if it helps? It would be crazy just not to try!

    And we also have William Waneger’s documentary about Sneddon’s crimes towards Michael still to be made by the MJ Innocent Forever Foundation:

    It is a cause worthy of spending a couple of dollars on!

  12. December 17, 2011 1:31 pm

    “In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.”-VMJ
    “He knew he coudln’t do that, there was a decision from the US Supreme Court taken a few months earlier which said that judges shouldn’t allow that because it would be a violation of the US constitution – Shelly

    Shelly, could you provide more detail about that decision from the US Supreme Court, please? A link to that decision and the essence of it, if possible? In simple language for those of us who are not very well versed on the subject?

    Oh, I see now that Lynette provided the Motion from Michael’s defense team explaining this point. I’ve only just started reading it, but the main idea there seems to be the notion of EX PARTE. The legal dictionary explains it as

    • A proceeding brought before a court by one party only, without notice to or challenge by the other side.

    So the essence of it is introducing something into court which the other side cannot challenge – not because it is “irrefutable” evidence, but because they are deprived of a chance to verify its credibility.

    And in this case the photos were not even a piece of evidence but what Tom Sneddon personally ‘believed’ about them. And there was no chance to cross-examine Jordan Chandler on the subject as Jordan flatly refused to testify in court and said he would even sue the authorities if they tried to force him to!

  13. December 17, 2011 1:25 pm

    Lynette, thank you very much for the detailed explanation and the documents! I need to study everything before summarizing at least the basic things about this subject. There is a very big need for such a summary.

  14. Suzy permalink
    December 17, 2011 10:42 am

    If the photos were such a match Sneddon would have wanted to use them as his Nr 1 and main evidence in the 1108 part of the trial. But he only tried to introduce them at the very end after all his witnesses have been destroyed on stand, as a desperate last attempt to prejudice the jury. And like Lynette said he would have used them with his own commentary of “believing” and “being told” they were a match, not with the description. It’s indeed interesting that whoever talked about those photos from the prosecution side they all said they were “told” they were a match. The doctor, Sneddon etc. So why did nobody knew anything definite? Why did they all have to be “told”? Didn’t they see both the photos and Jordan’s description? They surely did. The only explanation for using this type of language (being “told”, to “believe” etc.) is what Lynette gave that it would protect them from perjury.

    I can also imagine Sneddon knew well the judge wouldn’t allow him to bring in the photos in the last moment, but he did this request to throw in yet another innuendo about Michael in the last moment.

  15. lynande51 permalink
    December 17, 2011 5:05 am

    What Sneddon wanted to do was introduce the photos without the affadavit and accompanying description or the affadavit without the photos. He did not want to introduce both of them. He wanted to be able to qualify the photos with his own statement that they were a match. He did not want the description to qualify the photos. Then in the same statement he qualifies it by using the legal term “based on information and belief”. So basically what that means is that he does not have first hand knowledge but he has been told what he says and he believes it. If you look up the term “information and belief in the legal dictionary it is just another way to say it is so because someone told me and I believe them. It wipes out the possibilty of perjury with that term because he is saying he believes what he is told, he is not saying it is the truth. If he was wrong he would just be considered stupid or gullible for believing it which is not a crime in a court of law. If you look at all of the Prosecutions filings you will find that term in many of them.

    information and belief n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect, he/she says: “I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe it.” This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise), and protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or perjury. The typical phraseology is: “Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges that defendant diverted the funds to his own use.”
    And Sneddon did ask the court on 9/2/04 if he could examine photos that were in the custody of Los Angeles Police. I don’t know if that was granted or not. That was before Auchincloss and Zonen went to NYC to talk to Jordan, it was 9/26/04 when he met with them and told them no. The interesting thing about him seeing the photos in September nine months before he made this statement is he would have known which color mark to say he saw but with out the affadavit to prove it the jury would have had to take his word for it that they were a match unless Michael allowed himself to be examined in court to prove otherwise. And guess what else, before he could unseal the affadavit or the defense to unseal it they would have had to have the Chandler’s approval or someone that represented them. When he said that it took 2 signature that would have been one from either side.
    However there was a window of opportunity for the affadavit from the body search to be leaked to the press. Jeff Klapakis had it attached to the November 18th 2003 search of Neverland to use it to bolster their probable cause for the search warrant. That portion was not redacted and return to seal until January 24th 2004. So there was a window of time for the Smoking Gun to get it and write The Story of the Telltale Splotch. It is entirely possible the truth is that Jordan said it was light and the spot Sneddon said he saw was dark. Suffice it to say that it was wrong either way. The Chandler’s didn’t care so much about it because they say that it could have changed in the few months that Michael was away anyway.Funny thing about their book is no one wants to go into detail about it yet they sure are willing to let the world know that there was this detail? The thing that exhonerated Michael was his foreskin. If they had a search warrant that did not allow him to refuse under threat of arrest that is an arrest warrant. That is why Sneddon was there when the search took place to get his picture taken when he arrested him, like a hunter with their kill. The truth is it probably did look like his arms which would not have been one spot but many spots.

  16. December 17, 2011 4:10 am

    “In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.”

    He knew he coudln’t do that, there was a decision from the US Supreme Court taken a few months earlier which said that judges shouldn’t allow that because it would be a violation of the US constitution.

  17. December 17, 2011 3:45 am

    Here is a petition that I would like our readers to read and sign. It is a petition to stop the online bullying that occurs on Topix. It is time to make the CEO of Topix accountable for what he has allowed to go on for far too long. Here is a link to the petition.

    Lynette, I don’t know whether it will help but I’ve signed it. Surprisingly I’ve spent some time on Topix today studying what else they say about the photographs of Michael’s genitalia.

    Now they consider the fact that Sneddon wanted to introduce those photos into the 2005 trial as proof that Michael’s photos “matched the description” (earlier they did not and therefore didn’t convince two grand juries, and now all of a sudden they turn into a match?)

    To me it is only proves that Tom Sneddon was playing a very cunning game – by the year 2005 no one could clearly remember what Jordan had described 12 (!) years earlier. No traces were left in the media of his concrete words about “circumcision” and “the light splotch the color of his face”. Everyone by then had been talking only about how a boy could make such a “detailed” description, “that it was erect” and that Jordan “identified” a certain splotch.

    Actually it would be really surprising that after seeing the photos of Michael in ‘They don’t care about us’ made in the 90s, some of us would be unable to say that Michael was spotted in that part of his body too. So what prevented Jordan from saying that Michael was mottled in his genitalia? Nothing at all. And which spot out a dozen or probably hundred did Jordan allegedly identify? And why didn’t he notice the foreskin though he was supposed to be involved in masturbation?

    It is clear that 12 years later no one really remembered what Jordan originally said – his initial description would have been effectively erased from the public mind and new lies would have been substituted for it.

    An added advantage for Tom Sneddon was that if someone had asked for the original words Tom Sneddon would have provided some interviews without actually summoning Jordan to the witness stand.

    If we compare it with Murray’s trial it would be the same as introducing Murray’s lies from the documentary into the courtroom instead of his direct testimony to the jury, and disseminating Murray’s lies there without a chance for the other side to cross examine him.

    In other words Tom Sneddon wanted to introduce Jordan Chandler into the picture without him being present in court.

    Even from Sneddon’s own declaration we know that there was no match – there was no circumcision, the white splotch suddenly turned into a dark one (so the background turned its color to the opposite too) and the ‘exact’ location turned into a ‘relative’ one only.

    But Sneddon’s ultimate goal was to shock, confuse and bring in a wave of negative emotion from the past allegations. And it could have worked, if that false Murray’s documentary – sorry, those true photos of Michael’s genitalia – had indeed been introduced into the trial.

    Lynette, I remember you saying that Sneddon knew that the pictures could not be introduced at the 2005 trial, and that it was a mere provocation and a huge bluff on his part. Could you remind us what you said then, please?

    P.S. By the picture of Michael Jackson in the 90s I mean this one – can ANY of us imagine Michael being like that all over his body?

  18. lynande51 permalink
    December 16, 2011 8:38 pm

    Here is a petition that I would like our readers to read and sign. It is a petition to stop the online bullying that occurs on Topix. We all know that there are many comments that are beyond ugly about Michael on there but there are also innocent non celebrity people that are harrassed on there daily. If you read through the comments you will find that entire communities have been effected by what is posted there. It is time to make the CEO of Topix accountable for what he has allowed to go on for far too long. Here is a link to the petition.

  19. November 28, 2011 2:59 pm

    Hey guys, this is the press release for a new book called “New Beginnings” which shows the parallels between MJ and President Obama! Here is an excerpt:

    In this book, readers will explore the journey of two icons and how history contributed to their success. Barack Hussein Obama, the first black president of the United States, and the life and death of Michael Jackson, undisputedly the best entertainer of all time.

    Readers will explore how the three C’s — Contradictions, Cycles and Choices — of their stories, paved a road map with hopes that they will inspire others to seek and achieve their true purpose in life.

    If readers find this information enriching and mentally stimulating, they are asked to please share it with others. If, in addition, readers would like to share their American history and have it included in the next book as a result of being inspired during this historic period, please feel free to email the information to

    285 pages in length, New Beginnings: The First Year in Office, The Parallel of Two Icons, Barack Obama and Michael Jackson is being aggressively promoted to appropriate markets with a focus on the 21st century history category. With U.S. wholesale distribution through Ingram and Baker & Taylor, and pervasive online availability through Amazon, Barnes & Noble and elsewhere, New Beginnings meets consumer demand through both retail and library markets with a suggested retail price of $17.95.

  20. November 24, 2011 7:28 am


    Thanks for the Gonzague Saint Bris video on Michael. It lead me on a quest for his book, which is only in French, but I have hopes of finding an E-reader that can translate into English. The book “Au paradis avec Michael Jackson” description found on the Amazon France site is intriguing.

  21. November 24, 2011 1:42 am

    Why it good to remember the internet is not our living room and to illustrate how easy it is for the Media and others to pick up on stories, investigations, strategy and gossip.

  22. sanemjfan permalink
    November 20, 2011 8:02 am

    Guys, I recently joined twitter, and I added my account and Helena’s account to the blogroll, and to our descriptions above! I’m sure I’ll be tweeting more than Helena, so I’ll probably be the public spokesperson for the blog on Twitter.

  23. lcpledwards permalink
    October 19, 2011 11:11 pm

    More good news! Raven is almost finished bringing back her “All For Love’ blog back to it’s original state! Here is a post from her FB page:

    Semi-good news to pass along! You can once again access! A coupe of things to keep in mind, though; it is not-yet-a completely functional, 100% operating site again. I cannot add new content yet. You may be able to comment, but I cannot moderate/approve your comments (yet). But if you just want to browse the old articles, it’s al there and online.

    Now I can go back and finish reading her amazing 2 part series on MJ vs. Prince! LOL!

    And here’s a great post on MJ’s Native American ancestry!

  24. October 11, 2011 7:52 pm

    Good news! All For Love blog is back! Raven moved it to WordPress and she will have new posts coming soon.

    David, thanks! Good news indeed.
    Raven, welcome back!

  25. lcpledwards permalink
    October 11, 2011 6:52 pm

    Good news! All For Love blog is back! Raven moved it to WordPress, and right now it’s still a work in progress. Eventually, the entire blog (starting from October 2009 through it’s haitus in February 2011) will be transferred, and she will have new posts coming soon.

  26. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 11:17 pm

    I don’t think Sneddon wanted Evan testifying. He would muddy the waters too much.

  27. September 25, 2011 10:31 pm

    “Sneddon never believed the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony. Legally he knew if he had proceeded with a criminal case against MJ the Chandlers could never use the confidentiality of the settlement as a reason for not testifying”.

    Of course Sneddon never believed that the settlement was standing in the way to the Chandlers’ testifying – it was just the media version meant for the general public. Sneddon wanted the Chandlers to testify at the 2005 trial but they were so “eager” to do it that he managed to get only June Chandler out of the whole gang.

  28. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 4:22 pm

    I watch the show and it was not that bad, it could have been far worse. It was nowhere near the calibre of a Jaques Perretti, or the VG – NBC special. Nancy Grace did the intro for the various clips, but she didn’t have much to say, nor was she nasty. It was a collection of the thoughts of the various people that have their own show on HLN, and clips from some others:

    Ryan Smith
    Jane Valez-Mitchell
    Vinnie Politan
    Dr. Drew
    Joy Bahar
    AJ Hammer
    Robin Mead
    T Mez
    Randy Phillips

    What I liked about it was everyone pretty much agreed that the molestation cases hastened MJ’s death.

    Personally the worse of the lot was Joy Bahar, the woman is intentionally clueless and beyond repair. Followed by Jane Valez-Mitchell, who does know as much as she thinks she does.

  29. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 7:59 am

    HLN devoted a whole show called The Death Of Michael Jackson with all of the people that were listed in the other article. Just on the eve of the trial they produce a show for their ratings and the sole purpose of it is to make Michael Jackson look guilty.

  30. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 6:44 am

    I also think Sneddon rushed to get the law passed because he expected more accusers, but they never materialized. I don’t think he expected the 10 year wait.

  31. shelly permalink
    September 25, 2011 3:09 am

    I think they knew very well that they no way to win a trial with the Francia story.

  32. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 1:36 am

    I think I may have left this link here before but just incase it was missed I will leave it again. It is to the SBSD from back in 2003-2005 where they have their press releases. If you click on the links to the press releases there are a couple that explain the 288 law and others. The first one is that the one from the Bashir documentary and the second one is where he explains his fiasco press conference. The Lewd Acts law 288 requires that certain criteria be met in regard to charging someone with that crime and it explains a lot . Oh and yes the Sheriff and Sneddon did have an open casting call out for more “victims”. We should copy them just in case that becomes an “urban myth” like the DD/VG case has.

  33. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 1:15 am

    It was actually Jason Francia’s decision not to testify and it was their decision not to file a separate case against MJ. Here is an interview with Jim Thomas where he talks about the JF case (when he wasn’t supposed to) and in it he says that the charges were not as “harsh”. Even Paula Zahn was asking what he meant by that. I mean if you can charge someone with something in regard to this why not charge them. How bad does it have to be before you charge someone with a crime if one was committed? Do you only charge a person with the felonies and let the misdemeanor offenders go?
    And as for the peculiarities of the trust it is just that a peculiarity that makes no sense.

  34. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:58 am

    About Jason Francia. I think his settlement was in 1995/6, and Sneddon’s law would apply IF there was going to a criminal case. To the best of my knowledge I see no evidence that Sneddon intended on charging Michael with a crime against JF. He was using Francia’s testimony to bolster Chandler’s accusations, and correct me if I am wrong, but he never intended to file a separate case for Francia.

    Sneddon never believed the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony. Legally he knew if he had proceeded with a criminal case against MJ the Chandlers could never use the confidentiality of the settlement as a reason for not testifying. However, I think after he realized they had no intention of cooperating with the police after May he cited the settlement as a cause because they took the money. If a civil could only occur after a criminal trial then accusers would have no choice, but to go through the process before the civil. I believe that was part of his thinking.

    I don’t know the peculiarities surrounding a trust that makes it different from any other kind of settlement. Maybe it more difficult to get a law passed regarding it. IDK.

  35. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:29 am

    Or better yet why didn’t he use this for the Francia settlement? Because he could have used it for that one couldn’t he? Was it only the price tag he was concerned about? Nothing he did made any sense including this law and then only using it when he wanted to which is a perfect example of his vendetta. Did anyone else in the state even use this thing? Oh, I forgot, Jason Francia would have been misdemeanor charges.

  36. lynande51 permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:15 am

    Right but you have remember too that they had another young man that they thought would testify if Jordan did right up until he found out that he wouldn’t. Jason Francia.He was still sure that they would get someone else to come forward in that time frame.
    The whole thing comes down to why he believed for so many years that the settlement prohibited Jordan’s testimony.
    So why did he allow for a settlement just like the Chandler’s settlement to be excluded from consideration even in future lawsuits?That is the point I was making? It doesn’t make sense to exclude the very thing that you want to stop. Why did they add subsection c because that is exactly the kind of settlement it was? It was set up in a nonrevocable trust and Michael had nothing to say over it. So why exclude what he wanted to stop.

  37. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:11 am

    It would be unconstitutional of Sneddon to apply his new law to the Chandler-Jackson settlement regardless of if the final payment was to be made in 1999 because at the time of the contract no such law existed. The law is not retroactive.

  38. Teva permalink
    September 25, 2011 12:02 am


    Yes, I read section (a) and (c), but as I understand it, and the law it can only be enforce to prohibit potential settlements between plaintiff and defendant after September 1994. Example if an agreement were to made between 2 parties in October 1994 before criminal proceedings in September 1995 Sneddon would have reserved the right to make that contract void even though it was signed a year prior.

  39. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:55 pm

    It was written to be retroactive for up to one year if he chose to use it.It does not say that a settlement made in the last year could not be considered under this new law. In case someone else came forward in the first year after the settlement he could have asked for an injunction to stop future payments until the criminal trial was over to get Jordan to testify. Basically it was because he never closed the case and the settlement was not considered concluded until it was paid in full.I think you have misunderstood the point I was making. the point was that Sneddon specifically excluded the Chandler type of settlement when he had the thing written. That is that Sneddon had this law changed to stop a future settlement by anyone else but it clearly excludes the type of Settlement that the Chandler’s entered in January. He could use it in the future to have Jordan testify of another child came forward. The problem he had in 2003 was that the Statute of limitation had run out by the time the second case was filed. It ran out in August of 2003. Sneddon had asked for the maximum extension on the Statute of limitations for the case saying that it was because Michael had spent so much time out of the country.

  40. Suzy permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:47 pm

    Yes, Lynette, but when the settlement was made this law did not exist yet. So to apply this law to the settlement would be retroactive, like Teva said.

  41. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:43 pm

    a)Any contract for the payment of money or other consideration to a minor who has been alleged to be the victim of an unlawful sex act, or to his or her legal representative, by the alleged perpetrator of that unlawful sex act, or his or her legal representative, entered into on or after the time of the alleged unlawful sex act, and providing for any payments to be made more than one year after the date of the execution of the contract, is void as contrary to public policy. A district attorney may bring an action or intervene in any action to enjoin enforcement of any contract which is in violation of this section.
    Because the payments were not complete until 1999.

  42. Teva permalink
    September 24, 2011 11:32 pm


    I do not understand how he could void the Chandler settlement, the law is not retroactive. The settlement was concluded and signed by both parties in February 1994. According to your research Sneddon’s law came to be in September after the Chandler-Jackson settlement; hence, it would not be applicable to past transactions only going forward. Example you cannot serve time for a crime of 2 years, then the law changes and the same crime has a mandatory sentence of 4 years, the person(s) cannot be hauled back to jail to make up the remaining 2 years, only if the defendant recommitts would the new terms be enforced.

  43. lynande51 permalink
    September 24, 2011 7:50 pm

    The Prosecution knew in late September of 2004 that Jordan would not testify according to the FBI files. Then they deliberately held back the discovery on the 1993 case until October. They did not file to allow that case until December of 2004 substituting the testimony of Jordan with the Neverland Five, Blanca Francia, and Phillipe LeMarque for Jordan’s. We can now read in the Peoples Motion to Admit 1108 that they also say that they do not yet know if Jordan Chandler will be testifying when they file it in December.
    Another thing that I looked up is the law that Sneddon had changed in 1994 that prohibits a settlement in a child molest case here it is with a link. He spoke of having the law changed so he could intervene in a civil suit to keep Michael Jackson from settling money in the future. I looked up the date of this law being passed and it was in the First Extraordinary Session of the California Assembly Calendar which occurred on September 9th 1994. If you read the law it almost reads that Sneddon or Garcetti could have had the Settlement voided at that time in subsection a. However the law that Sneddon had written excludes the Chandler Settlement according to subsection c. So Sneddon could have had the law changed to not exclude the Chandler settlement and yet he didn’t. He could have gone in and said on September 10th ,1994 that the contract was illegal and demand that the Chandler’s submit to the criminal trial and leave the monies recovered from that civil suit pending except for subsection c. Considering that he was the one that asked for the law to be changed why would he do that? There is also the fact that the nonrevocable trust was opened in 1995 when Jordan filed for emancipation. Sneddon could have intervened then but he did not.
    Subsection b is also interesting because it allows for monetary compensation following the final judgement in a criminal case. So once the Chandler’s had testified theycould then have had all the money from the settlement recovered once the criminal case was concluded.

    You are here: California / Civil Code – CIV / TITLE 4. UNLAWFUL CONTRACTS [1667. – 1670.7.] / Section 1669.5.

    Section 1669.5. (Added by Stats. 1994, 1st Ex. Sess., Ch. 54, Sec. 1.)
    Cite as: Cal. Civil Code §1669.5.
    (a)Any contract for the payment of money or other consideration to a minor who has been alleged to be the victim of an unlawful sex act, or to his or her legal representative, by the alleged perpetrator of that unlawful sex act, or his or her legal representative, entered into on or after the time of the alleged unlawful sex act, and providing for any payments to be made more than one year after the date of the execution of the contract, is void as contrary to public policy. A district attorney may bring an action or intervene in any action to enjoin enforcement of any contract which is in violation of this section.
    (b)This section does not apply after the date of the final judgment in a criminal case against the alleged perpetrator for the unlawful sex act described in subdivision (a).
    (c)This section does not apply to a contract for the payment of money or other consideration made from a nonrevocable trust established for the benefit of the minor if the alleged perpetrator has no direct or indirect access to, or control over, the trust.
    (d)This section does not apply to an alleged perpetrator of an unlawful sex act against a minor to the extent he or she agrees to pay, or is required by court order to pay, child support for that minor upon a dissolution or legal separation.
    (e)For purposes of this section, “unlawful sex act,” means a felony sex offense committed against a minor.
    (f)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any contract declared void as contrary to public policy under this section may still be enforced by a district attorney against the payor, and the proceeds thereof shall be deposited in the State Children’s Trust Fund pursuant to Section 18969 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

  44. September 24, 2011 2:23 pm

    Thanks Shelly. I wasn’t sure if it was about Raymond’s thing.

  45. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2011 1:24 pm

    Prosecutors only seem to want to invoke the 1993 investigation when it’s convenient to them. They actually alleged in court during one of the pretrial hearings that they weren’t sure if they were going to use the ’93 investigation. And called it “irrelevant” when defense attorneys asked the judge to force prosecutors to hand-over discovery (information) from the ’93 investigation! We learned from court documents that the defense is hot on the prosecution’s tail in trying to get them to hand-over documents from the ’93 investigation every since Mark Geragos was Jackson’s attorney.

  46. shelly permalink
    September 24, 2011 1:05 pm

    “At first, during the course of this case followed closely by some “case” observers who have shared their opinions with MJEOL, the prosecution backed away from using the 1993 investigation. One point, prosecutors stood up in court and called the 1993 investigation “irrelevant” after the defense filed a Motion to Compel to force prosecutors to hand-over documents from that investigation.”

    Where did you got that?

  47. September 24, 2011 12:37 pm

    Does anyone know the specifics on this:

    At first, during the course of this case followed closely by some “case” observers who have shared their opinions with MJEOL, the prosecution backed away from using the 1993 investigation. One point, prosecutors stood up in court and called the 1993 investigation “irrelevant” after the defense filed a Motion to Compel to force prosecutors to hand-over documents from that investigation.

  48. ares permalink
    September 24, 2011 4:00 am

    Fans work to protect Jackson’s name on trial’s eve

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — Inside the compact, wood-paneled courtroom that will soon host the trial of Michael Jackson’s personal physician, many of the tabloid-worthy elements of the singer’s life will go unspoken.

    Outside, however, many Jackson fans say they expect a media free-for-all that will dredge up discredited allegations and salacious story lines, once again tarnishing the singer’s legacy.

    Jackson, they fear, will once again be on trial.

    Around the globe, the King of Pop’s supporters are already scanning headlines and airwaves for stories that contain inaccuracies about the singer’s life, brand him a pedophile or describe him by the dismissive moniker “Jacko.”

    The items quickly result in calls to editors, reporters, producers and a flurry of Facebook and Twitter posts to press for changes. In some instances, the references are removed.

    As the trial of Dr. Conrad Murray draws closer — jury selection resumes on Friday and opening statements are scheduled for Sept. 27 — concerns about Jackson’s portrayal are growing.

    “We don’t want Michael Jackson to be put up on a pedestal like he never made any mistakes,” said Erin Jacobs, a founder of the Southern California-based group Justice4MJ.

    But she said the focus should remain on Murray, who is charged with involuntary manslaughter and who authorities allege gave Jackson a lethal dose of the anesthetic propofol and other sedatives. The Houston-based cardiologist has pleaded not guilty.

    Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor has already limited what information Murray’s defense attorneys can introduce about Jackson during the trial, excluding any details from the singer’s 2005 child molestation trial, which ended in acquittal, his financial troubles, and witnesses who might describe the singer as a drug addict.

    The rulings have drawn praise from fans and court watchers alike, but may have limited effect in the era of blogs and social media.

    “For some salacious news organizations and the blogosphere, there won’t be a check on fairness,” said Ben Holden, director of the Reynolds National Center for the Courts and Media.

    Editors and producers have long acted similar to judges by deciding what details are necessary or irrelevant for news coverage, said Holden, a former Wall Street Journal reporter and attorney who attended Murray’s preliminary hearing.

    Blogs and social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, which are now news sources, present new challenges.

    “It has always been the case that the juror’s neighbors had information that the juror didn’t have,” Holden said. Yet nowadays, the neighbor “doesn’t just get Walter Cronkite, he also gets Nancy Grace and TMZ.”

    Potentially skewed posts from fans also have to be considered, Holden said.

    Many fan groups have active Twitter profiles and Facebook pages, including those aimed at providing explanatory content on the trial.

    One such site,, has a forum focused on the Murray case and other aspects of Jackson’s death that has nearly 9,500 posts. Moderator Lynn Mathis said the site has become an international destination for updates on the case.

    “We have members all over the world,” Mathis said. “This trial will not be covered there the way it is here.”

    Similar to the efforts by U.S.-based fans, international groups are closely watching their domestic media for stories they feel treat the singer unfairly. One such group, MJ4Justice, has founders from three nations: the U.S., Ireland and Canada.

    Grace, who has been criticized for comments advocating the conviction of Florida mother Casey Anthony in her recent murder trial, is one of the television pundits Jackson fans say they are concerned about.

    A jury acquitted Anthony of killing her 2-year-old daughter earlier this year and Murray’s attorneys have cited Grace’s commentary as a primary reason jurors in Murray’s case should be sequestered. Pastor refused.

    HLN, which airs Grace’s show, is already offering significant coverage of the Jackson manslaughter trial. The network also airs a show hosted by commentator Dr. Drew Pinsky, who has devoted several segments to the trial and who Jacobs and other fans criticized for focusing on sensational aspects of Jackson’s life.

    “We don’t feel that it’s relevant that these talking heads like Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew get on every night and further degrade a dead man’s legacy,” Jacobs said.

    Pinsky addressed the fan reaction on a recent show: “Please, guys. I don’t have a strong feeling about this. I’m not trying to protect anybody. I’m just trying to make sense of it so we can all understand this case as we go through it.”

    The group Team Michael has distributed a press release calling for coverage of the Murray case that does not malign the pop superstar. “It is NOT Wacko Jacko, It is MICHAEL JACKSON!” the release reads in part. “It is NOT Pedophile, It is Humanitarian!”

    Taaj Malik, who helped coordinate the release, said the point is to keep the media focused on what’s happening in Pastor’s courtroom. “It’s not Michael on trial, it’s Conrad Murray,” she said.

    In addition to fans wanting to protect Jackson’s memory, also potentially at stake is the image behind continued success of the singer’s posthumous marketability, which has generated more than $310 million since his death.

    Manny Medrano, an attorney and former television reporter who regularly comments on high-profile cases, said he expects most of the media overall to report Murray’s trial fairly. Despite the issues the Anthony case raised with punditry shaping public opinion of a trial, Murray’s case won’t be a repeat, he said.

    “This case is not of that level,” Medrano said, noting that prosecutors aren’t seeking a murder conviction against Murray and that despite Jackson’s international stardom, the singer is a different type of victim than young Caylee Anthony.

    Pastor’s rulings have limited Murray’s defense, but Medrano said that won’t mean that the portrait that emerges of Jackson is pristine. “There is negative evidence about this pop star that the jury is going to hear,” he said.

    A former federal prosecutor, Medrano now practices criminal defense and said the physician’s attorneys have an ethical obligation to raise any viable theory that may exonerate Murray. “They’re doing their job,” he said.

    That won’t make it any easier on Jackson’s supporters, or his family, who are expected to attend most of the proceedings.

    Jermaine Jackson told The Associated Press that he expects Murray’s attorney to try to smear his brother. “They are going to try that,” he said, adding that he penned his new book “You Are Not Alone” in part as a rebuttal to defense arguments that his brother was weakened by an addiction to the painkiller Demerol.

    “There may have been dependency on Demerol, which was for pain, but that’s not what killed Michael,” Jermaine Jackson said.

    Jackson fans have a similar mission, one they expect will lead to long hours of fact-checking reports in the coming weeks.

    “Michael’s not here to defend himself,” said Millie Freeman, the New York-based co-founder of the group MJ4Justice. “It’s up to his family and up to his fans.

    “This is a matter of the man’s legacy at this point,” she said. “It needs to be respected.”

  49. Teva permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:53 am

    If Conrad Murray is convicted they will most likely say that MJ fans were on the jury. That maybe one of the reasons for the “lunatic” fan angle.

  50. Teva permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:13 am

    yesterday JVM had Erin Jacobs from J4MJ on her show, and she sounded sane to me.

  51. Teva permalink
    September 23, 2011 5:08 am

    She was talking about the conspiracy theories out there, and the “lunatic” fan gave one of them. I don’t think she is a certifiable loon, just a bit out of touch with reality. Latoya also gave her theory which was also reported on television.

    Jane will also have Seth Rigs on her show on Monday.

  52. lcpledwards permalink
    September 23, 2011 4:55 am

    @ Gigi
    I recorded it, and it’s a slap in the face that we can’t get Aphrodite Jones and Dr. Treacy to give their analysis on HLN nonstop, but JVM let that lunatic go on and make MJ fans look like idiots! JVM also showed a youtube clip of what she said was MJ escaping from the ambulance at the hospital! What garbage!

  53. September 23, 2011 4:45 am

    I didn’t know where to place this comment, but…

    I just saw some tweets on twitter that HLN put some nutjob beLIEver on the Jane Valez Mitchell, saying that MJ was kidnapped via a zombi drug. O_o I mean seriously come on now. This is how the devil’s game works his tool is the parasite media. All these evil mistresses that spawned from CourtTV aka TruTV with tv platforms have lost what little mind they had left. They love nothing more to bypass the intelligent folks that support and represent MJ. Out all the millions of professional intelligent people they constantly go to the minority of the insane folks, to try and paint us all with a broad brush to keep dumbing down public that know no matter.

  54. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 1:13 am

    He said MJ wanted to be alone in the Chapel because of his huge passion he had for Michelangelo. He said after libreville they went to the Ogoue river and to the Fang Forest where they saw the pygmy who knew who MJ was. He said they stayed in a hotel and they started speaking about painting about Poussin, Degas and MJ told him that Diana Ross introduce him to painting.

    He said that MJ was fun and asked lots of questions, like Is it true that louis XIV lost all his hair when he was 20. Gonzagues answered yyes but ho do you know that? He said that MJ loved the french culture and wanted to buy a french castle when Prince was born.

  55. shelly permalink
    September 20, 2011 1:03 am

    I don’t where to post that video.

    It’s in french the author is Gonzague St Bris, a journalist and a writer (he wrote books about Henry IV, Lafayette, Da Vinci) and he wrote the book Au paradis avec Michael.

    In that video he explained that he met MJ in Africa in 1992 when MJ wanted to make a movie called Back To Africa back to Eden

    MJ wanted to meet him in Libreville because he saw him in Good morning America speaking about Lafayette. They started speaking about Michel Angelo and Da Vinci. He saoid that MJ asked the Pope if he could be
    could stayed toalone in the Sistine CChapel

  56. lynande51 permalink
    September 16, 2011 12:50 am

    I already have signed individually.

  57. September 16, 2011 12:10 am

    Guys, let me bring to your attention this “Open Letter On Behalf of Michael Jackson Fans to the Mainstream Media” from MJJJusticeProject and Justice4some. Our blog fully supports it and would also like to be added to the list!

    Posted on September 15, 2011 by MJJJusticeProject
    For 20+ years, Michael Jackson has been constantly assaulted by the media. They have labeled him with a multitude of names, none of which, correctly indentified the person that existed in reality. The upcoming trial of Murray has seemed to heightened the need of some in even the mainstream media to denigrade and dehumanize and diminish Michael Jackson by utilizing the tabloid word “Jacko” – A prominent Michael Jackson vindication warrior has penned an Open Letter to Media and she is requesting Logos from organized groups to be added to the letter. If you are tired of bully tactics by the media to present Michael, who is the victim in a manslaughter trial, as something less than human,then we URGE you to demonstrate your suppport. – MJJJP Inc.

    From- AndJustice4Some

    Hi everyone,

    Here is an updated alphabetical list of all the FAN SITES and BLOGGERS who are willing to post their name and logo to the Open Letter on Behalf of Michael Jackson Fans to the Worldwide Media. If you are an individual, we ask that you sign your name on the petition, link is HERE. Fan groups, bloggers, please do the following:

    1. Help promote by spreading the petition site to all your members/followers.

    2. If you are in contact with other fan sites, bloggers, PLEASE ASK THEM TO ADD THEIR NAME TO THE COMMENTS BELOW. I can usually find a logo.


    Below is a list of MJ fan sites/bloggers, I have ALL logos:

    • Arrest Conrad Murray Campaign
    • Cali MJ Fan
    • Dr. Patrick Treacy
    • Fans United for Michael Jackson’s Legacy
    • In Defense of a King
    • Insanity X Lives
    • It’s All For Love Forum
    • Joe Vogel
    • Love Survives
    • Major Love Prayer
    • Michael Jackson Fans Ireland
    • Michael Jackson Fans of Canada
    • Michael Jackson Fans of New York City
    • Michael Jackson Stranger in Moscow Forum
    • Michael Jackson Tribute Portrait
    • Michael Jackson: And Justice For Some
    • MJ Invincible Campaign
    • MJ4Justice
    • MJJ Justice Project
    • MJJC
    • MJ’s Blog of Shadows
    • MJ’s Soldiers of Love
    • MuzikFactoryTwo
    • The Applehead House
    • The Michael Jackson Cafe
    • The Michael Jackson Fan Club
    • The Sisterhood of Michael Jackson
    • Tributo MJ

    UPDATE: Newly added are ClearMJ’sName,, Matt Semino, journalist for Huffington Post and attorney, Truth4MJ and A Place in Your Heart.

    If you know of other sites who want their logo added to the open letter, please have them send a logo or their site link to Thank you to EVERYONE….the response has been INCREDIBLE!!

    * * *

    There is no question we should join in if it helps to bring the media to their senses. They don’t even understand how low they have fallen. Let us do everything to help them wake up and detoxify themselves.

    Please remember to sign it individually:

  58. claudia permalink
    September 15, 2011 2:15 pm

    old question:

    “On page 14 it says the police were called back in to re-search the house after the family had alerted them that tar heroin had been found.“

    but it ISN’T the final document stating that it was found there! Am I missing something here?


    on page 10 you can found it.

    but I don’t think they are mj’s
    I don’t even think family members called

    on page 14 said:
    “During the course of the investigation family member notified los angeles county coroner’s assistance chief winter……”

    according to autopsy report: chief winter arrived 1910 hours and 2020 hours returned.

    but,I remembered latoya is the first into mj’s home at about 2300 hours even later

    and In latoya new book also said, we were not allowed to go to the house until the detectives said it was okey. at about 11:30 pm Randy, Jeffre, I and Ron boyd, a police officer and a family friend arrived at the Carolwood house.

    so from 1910 hours to 2020 who called it?

    and there is a police with them,why the “family member” called chief winter ,and chief winter reported PLAD?

    In fact I don’t think family member called.

    this is only they(PLAD) need a reason to searched MJ’s bedroom!

  59. September 9, 2011 9:43 pm

    David, thank you for adding “Dancing with the elephants” to our blog roll:

    Firstly, the name is great, and secondly, they discuss serious matters in an easy, novel and fantastic way. Here is an excerpt from one of their posts for everyone to enjoy:

    “I have a White college friend who grew up with a Black housekeeper. One day the housekeeper was working in the kitchen and cut her hand, and my friend, who was just a child at the time, was shocked to see that her blood was red. Before that, she had assumed her blood was dark – as dark as her skin. My friend told me this story several times, generally with a laugh at how silly she’d been. But despite her laughter, I could tell this story was very important to her. It was one of those rare “Ah ha!” moments when your perceptions flip upside down and you’re suddenly forced to question things you thought you knew to be true.

    When Michael Jackson’s skin changed from dark to light, I think he created an “Ah ha!” moment like that on a global scale. He had told us repeatedly through his music and his videos that we are all one people, regardless of skin color, and now he had a chance to prove it artistically. He could prove in a way that cannot be denied that our bodies are essentially the same, and he could do it in a way that even a child could understand.”

    He created an “Ah ha!” moment like that on a global scale! Yes, absolutely! Many of us will agree that we have also experienced the same sensation – a momentary leap in time and space into some new reality and new perception of things and people around us.

  60. September 9, 2011 4:17 pm

    Here is a new MJ blog that I recently discovered, and it’s excellent! I added it to the blog roll. It is authored by Willa Stillwater, Ph.D., an English professor who wrote the eBook “M Poetica: Michael Jackson’s Art of Connection and Defiance”, and Joie Collins, one of the founding members of the Michael Jackson Fan Club!”

    Good! We need professors speaking up for Michael.

  61. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 3:10 pm

    I am just reading the Montgomery testimony and I found that, it’s cross examination

    Q. To your knowledge, has Mr. Schaffel been

    23 involved in any efforts to sell that videotape or

    24 audiotape?

    25 A. Not to my knowledge.

    26 Mr. Mesereau, I don’t believe there’s audio.

  62. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 2:30 pm

    I aslo found that lawsuit, it’s about the plane story, when MJ flew from Vegas to California in 2003

  63. shelly permalink
    September 9, 2011 12:09 pm

    “Frye Recalls Magical Jacuzzi Day With Jackson

    Actress Soleil Moon Frye once shared a jacuzzi with Michael Jackson when she was eight.

    The former Punky Brewster star grew up with the Jacksons and spent one magical afternoon and evening at Michael’s home in California after her parents asked him if he could babysit their daughter.

    Frye can still vividly remember the magical day she spent with Michael.

    She tells Access Hollywood Live, “I had gone to this awesome concert with him, a Bruce Springsteen concert… and then he invited us over to the house and so my mum came over and then I stayed with the family there and then they wound up having to leave and I wound up staying. It was awesome.

    “It was before Neverland, he had a place in the (California) Valley… We watched Willy Wonka (& The Chocolate Factory) and we did wind up in a jacuzzi… It was actually a really fun highlight in my life. Nothing weird happened; he was totally sweet.

    “He had all these animals; he had, like, a llama.”

    She obviously meant nothing bad with her jacuzzi comment.

  64. lcpledwards permalink
    September 9, 2011 4:59 am

    Here is a new MJ blog that I recently discovered, and it’s excellent! I added it to the blog roll. It is authored by Willa Stillwater, Ph.D., an English professor who wrote the eBook “M Poetica: Michael Jackson’s Art of Connection and Defiance”, and Joie Collins, one of the founding members of the Michael Jackson Fan Club!

    There is a lot of amazing and critical analysis of MJ’s music and art, and his impact on pop culture, so check it out! Make sure you read the post “Re-reading Michael Jackson” and check out the chronological facial analysis that she used to PROVE that he didn’t “destroy his face” with plastic surgery!

  65. September 7, 2011 1:12 pm

    This one case which haunts me. It highlights how our system can be manipulated according to whim. A Judge who says recanting witnesses are not credible to review this case and another who allows recanting witnesses to make a case in 2005. I spoke of Troy Davis earlier this year. He was sentenced to die on Jun 23, 2011, but the outcry stayed the hand of the execution, because the courts could not bear the glare of the public eye…….THEN

    “We’ve just received terrible news: The state of Georgia has set Troy Davis’s execution date for midnight on September 21st, just two weeks from today.

    This is our justice system at its very worst, and we are alive to witness it. There is just too much doubt.

    Even though seven out of nine witnesses have recanted their statements, a judge labeled his own ruling as “not ironclad” and the original prosecutor has voiced reservations about Davis’s guilt, the state of Georgia is set to execute Troy anyway.

    Time is running out, and this is truly Troy’s last chance for life.

    But through the frustration and the tears, there is one thing to remain focused on: We are now Troy Davis’s only hope. And I know we won’t let him down.

    There are three steps you can take to help Troy:

    1. Send a message of support to Troy as he fights for justice on what may be the final days of his life:

    2. Sign the name wall, if you haven’t already. And if you have, send it to your friends and family. Each name means a more united front for justice:

    3. Make sure everyone knows about this injustice. Spread the word on Facebook and Twitter (using the hashtag #TooMuchDoubt) so that Troy Davis’s story can be heard. We still have a chance to save his life, but only if people are willing to speak out against injustice.

    Today, the state of Georgia has declared their intention to execute a man even though the majority of the people who put him on the row now say he is innocent and many implicate one of the other witnesses as the actual killer. Now that a date has been set, we cannot relent. We must redouble our efforts.

    Thank you. Please act quickly and forward this message to all who believe the justice system defeats itself when it allows a man to be executed amid so much doubt.”


    Benjamin Todd Jealous
    President and CEO

  66. Chris permalink
    September 5, 2011 11:24 pm

    Can any of the admins translate Polish?

    I found a news video of MJ visiting in 1996 going to toy shop talking to fans. Looks god but it needs subtitles.
    Oh and Michael is performing TWYMMF in the gold pants doing his pelvic hip roll. LOL. Well that’s what i’ll call it. Not quite a thrust more rhytmic roll of hips.

  67. August 31, 2011 8:54 am

    After using “Breaking News” story titles like “the Jackson Trial” the Media is now moving towards the Judge’s sentiment which is the accused is Murray not Michael. The Judge is saying this trial will not be about anything other than Murray’s involvement in the death of Michael. I am afraid to believe in this man, in the past two plus years I’ve discovered so many who say one thing and do something else when the trial comes.

    I am especially grateful Mr. Mesereau will be around to provide factual and knowledgeable information on the attorney’s motions and judge’s decisions.

  68. August 31, 2011 8:30 am

    “My whole world changed upside down after June 25 when like you”

    Giselamj, it seems that many of us underwent the same changes. It is good that it happened, but is awful that Michael had to die for our eyes to open at last.

    Some visitors to this blog think that we’ve been die-hard fans for Michael for decades – unfortunately we weren’t! Only two years ago everything was different and the desire to vindicate Michael arose when we began studying facts. And when we did look in, the whole new world of Michael Jackson opened to us.

    I am very happy to be part of it now. Welcome to the MJ family, giselamj.

  69. August 31, 2011 6:20 am

    Hello Helena: first of all let me tell you that for me the story was very similar..
    being here in Venezuela where I had really no news almost or the wrong one about Michael for many years.. I was living like in other world.. I really didnt knew so much about him except for his music.Going back in time.. when I heard about the alegations even not knowing so much about , my first thought was: “he can maybe be different.. but no way he could have done a harm to any child”.. and that was all I knew.. The years passed and I had no more further information about him. My whole world changed upside down after June 25 when like you , I started to see and read all that came across about the man, I was interested to know more about him.. and the more I knew and learned the sadder I became thinking : why ? why I wasnt there before? how is that possible that I never knew all this facts about him? .. I felt the shame and the impotence for not being aware of his existence before June 25th. So I can tell you I feel so related to you in this feeling. Thanks again for all the important and deep information you all provide at this blog. Excuse my english I try to express myself the best I can. Sincerely.Gisela

  70. August 29, 2011 9:59 pm

    Good news:

    MJJCommunity Special Announcement – MJJC Conrad Murray Trial Coverage – Exclusive Partnership with Larry Nimmer

    Friday, 26 August 2011 22:50

    In our quest to bring most current news and commentary from the Conrad Murray trial, MJJC is proud to announce an exclusive partnership with Larry Nimmer. This partnership aims to bring daily videos from the court as well interviews ranging from legal experts including Thomas Mesereau to fans. Watch MJJC for further announcements and details.

  71. August 26, 2011 10:28 pm

    From what I gather at this point in time is that in the trial they will go for DRUGS.Then it is of utmost importance to remind the jury that the LAST DRUG given to Michael was PROPOFOL by Dr MURRAY and that he concealed this fact to the paramedics,the emergency room physicians and (?)to the police.

  72. August 24, 2011 9:12 pm

    I meant;You know what that dr D.P. is. see my post aug at 2:12 pm below.

  73. August 24, 2011 9:05 pm

    Deborah, yes the insurance will pay for ACCIDENT only.Lets see if they will manipulate the show so cause of death will be accident.Also they wanted murray´s medical notes on Michael since 2006, Michael wasn´t even in US that year, only the last week and then he attended a funereral.
    And it was no accident, murray committed gross
    malpractice and negligence over and over.Also they have already manipulated the jurors by giving misleading information about Propofol.Claiming it is a prescription drug.Just go and ask your doctor for a prescription and he/she will think you may be contemplating murder.It has been used for murder, and I am not speaking about Michael.
    That dr Drew Pinski has been active now that the trial is coming. He calls it ;The Michael Jackson case!.You that dr D.P. and what he is, will do anything for money.

  74. lynande51 permalink
    August 19, 2011 2:27 am

    Yes he did act freely. This was very commonplace in Michael’s world. F.Marc Schaffel did it from 2001-2004. He continued to write checks on an account that Michael had funded for the What More Can I Give project and 2 other corporations that were set up by him. It was true that someone had forged his signature on those documents.It was part of Rudy Provencio’s and David LeGrands testimony and went to the heart of that conspiracy charge
    .Dr. Myong Ho Lee of the MO “blood bath” article fame did the very same thing saying that Michael had signed the contract in Los Angeles on September 14th 2001. Michael had been in NYC on 9/11/01 following his 30th Anniversary special. There was no airfllight to be had anywhere in the US in the following three- four days after the Twin Towers Attack. Yet he tried. He took it to court where a settlement was reached in which he got nothing and was probably threatened with forgery if he continued to pursue it. It is not that hard to believe that they would be able to forge his signature. He was/is one of the most famous people on the planet so how many autographs of his are out there for an example of his handwriting.

  75. August 19, 2011 1:54 am

    Thome-Thome is extremely evil and obscure. He was in the hospital almost immediately if not before Michael died.He has been out of the limelight, has not given interviews. On 26/6 2009 or there about was the last video where he spoke of how much he LOVES Michael and so on.
    Still he allegedly said he did not believe Michael would do even one concert.
    There was something very odd re his office address.More was said about him when the discussion was about the contract. Thome-Thome and Randy Phillips were in constant contact re the concerts.Phone calls, later made up to written communications with faxed and false signatures of Michael. I thought Lloyds of LondoN was suing AEG and not the other way round.-He continued to act freely after Michael had fired him.

  76. Chris permalink
    August 19, 2011 12:50 am

    @ Kaarin yeah i meant i was so tired that i made the mistake.

    @ Lynande Did you know that TT international was set up in California 6 days before january 26th contract. They must have changed that contract in those last few days otherwise surely it couldn’t of been put on as it wasn’t legally registered.

    My initial point was I heard i think Latoya say Tohme had fired every1 at the house and replace security before they got to the house. How did he manage that and Why? Then again it is Latoya so I would like a 2nd confirmation.

    You also said Tohme found Murray. Could you explain? According to Joe Jackson’s suit (which is full of mistakes must be said) Paul Gongaware gave Dileo Murrays number. I find it interesting considering what Dileo was saying in part 4 of his Raffles youtube interview. Lie after Lie after Lie.

  77. August 18, 2011 11:35 pm

    The Estate is taking Michael’s insurance company Lloyd’s to court to demand a $17.5 million payment. Lloyd’s insists the policy “was restricted to losses resulting from accident only” and point out Michael’s official cause of death is listed as “homicide”.

    Please note the term “accident” relates to its usage in insurance terms:

    “Accidental death is one that’s is NOT designed or anticipated by the insured.”

    It’s a reference to CA insurance law, itself based on ‘Health and Accident Insurance law.’

  78. August 18, 2011 9:01 pm


    So am I. Tohme did everything he could not to be called as a witness in this trial, and for some reason whenever one picks up the trail of auctions, documents apparently signed against Michael’s will — all roads invariably lead to Tohme.

  79. lynande51 permalink
    August 18, 2011 8:47 pm

    @kaarin and chris: I know that feeling of writing when you are that tired lol. I have worked 12 hour shifts for the last 12 days. But you do raise a good question about Tohme. Isn’t he from Las Vegas? How did he get there so fast as to be at the hospital with Jermaine? And why was he even called about it when he had been fired 6 weeks before June 25th? Why would the family invite him to speak about it?I have seen the letter online somewhere where Michael fires him and I believe it was early May. So why was he even in LA? I am more suspicious of his involvement than almost anyone elses. Especially since he was the one that set up the deal with AEG and found Murray for Michael.

  80. August 18, 2011 8:23 pm

    “Here is where my years of Military service comes in handy. I can tell you unequivocally that Heroine/Hash business is BS, especially if one is a chronic user = addict, as stated by Brown. In the early 90′s blood tests would detect narcotics use up to 8 months back then. I helped process many who claimed a one time use out of service. The testing has become more sophisticated and in-depth, and with the advent of DNA testing from hair follicles for substance abuse almost impossible to avoid detection.”

    Dial, you are more than right! Of course the hair shows it all – how could I forget? And I have no doubt that the forensic experts tested and retested Michael’s hair several times over and didn’t find any traces of narcotic drugs there (otherwise they would have stated it in the autopsy report – remember how long we waited for it?). And this proves again and again that his system was clear of narcotics.

    Here are a few quotes about such hair tests – hair “records’ information and how far back you can look depends on the length of the hair:

    “Hair follicles are the only place where cocaine tends to stay even for years. Usually cocaine can be detected in your hair strands for a period of 90 days since intake. However, unusually and rarely, the drug has been detected in hair strands of human beings even after 25 years since consumption.”

    I see that science has made so much progress that it is possible now to make a hair test for some narcotics even at home:

    “The HairConfirm™ personal forensic hair analysis drug of abuse testing service is the only at home drug testing kit that provides a *history (up to several months) of current or previous drug use for the five most abused illicit drugs and drug categories: Methamphetamines including Ecstasy , Marijuana, Opiates, Cocaine and Phencyclidines (PCP) without the need for urine specimen collection. The only sample required is a small lock of the test subject’s hair (approximately the size of a shoelace tip) taken at the scalp line. Confidential and non-invasive, The HairConfirm™ drug test provides a qualitative determination of past drug use over a period of approximately three (3) months using forensic laboratory analysis. Online Sample tracking and report download direct from the Laboratory. The HairConfirm™ hair test is FDA cleared for professional and personal home use”.

  81. August 18, 2011 5:54 pm

    Chris, you asked wasn´t Sneddon there before the family.Check below.
    And that he fired everyone.

  82. Chris permalink
    August 18, 2011 2:17 pm

    lol i was definately tired after 11 12 hour shifts in 12 days. I meant Tohme.. Where the hell did sneddon come from lol.

    Sorry Kaarin.

  83. August 18, 2011 1:40 pm

    Chris, I don´t really know.But what business would it have been for
    Sneddon going into Michaels home after his death.The place was not declared a crimescene even, thanks to murrays lies.Can the DA go to anyones home who just has died? I don´t think so.But then ofcourse Sneddon has done pretty much what he feels like when it comes to Michael.

  84. Suzy permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:21 pm

    She was there in the courtroom too:

    “During breaks at the courthouse, reporters would pour into an area at the back to file stories and grab something to eat. One time I overheard two of them criticizing the prosecution team and calling the case a farce. Those same reporters went on TV that night praising the prosecution case and saying a conviction seemed inevitable. The same thing happened repeatedly as news gave way to biased and false opinion that sought to satisfy a perceived appetite for sensationalism at the expense of all else.

    In May I spoke with a young female reporter from a British newspaper. She told me she’d been busy filing stories during the first part of the trial (when the prosecution presents their case) but had nothing to do now because the newspaper’s editor was interested only in scandal and controversy – and not in reporting the evidence being presented that proved Michael’s innocence. I said, isn’t that very unethical? She shrugged and said, yes, it probably was.

    One day in June the lead prosecutor made a racist remark towards a celebrity defense witness. Everyone in the courtroom gasped. I expected this to be headline news the next day. It wasn’t even mentioned. Had it been a defense lawyer who’d made the remark (not that that would ever have happened), you can bet every reporter in the country would have been up in arms.

    Twist and turn

    We seem to live in a 1984-type society (referring to George Orwell’s book of that name), where you can rewrite history on a daily basis, contradicting things you’ve said in the past and ignoring cold hard facts. Just because somebody says something doesn’t make it true. But that doesn’t stop the media printing empty claims (even those that are exposed a moment later as the ranting of a lunatic and a fraudster) as headlines, giving them a weight they don’t warrant.

    The truth is immutable, constant and consistent. Lies are fluid. They twist and turn, changing as needs be. There was only one truth presented at the trial, which was proven beyond doubt. There were a million lies, many given a false sense of credibility by the media while being exposed in the courtroom as utterly baseless.

    Those who spread lies would do well to remember that ANYbody’s life can be destroyed by the word of a liar. It happened to him. It could happen to you or to anyone you love. Once an accusation has been made, the damage is done. No matter how vehemently you deny it or what evidence you present in your defense, the seed of doubt has been planted. Lies destroy lives.”

  85. Suzy permalink
    August 18, 2011 11:54 am

    This is a new webiste by a fan called Thalita, who met Michael several times (he invited her to his home, limo etc.). She has some nice stories of Michael:

    For example:

    On the night of 5 September 2008, Michael called me and we spoke for a long time. While speaking about the trial, he said (as I wrote it down the next day):

    “What I went through, it just showed me that there’s so much evil in the world but there’s also so much beauty. You were there for me. I wrote a song about you, the fans, how you were there for me in my darkest hour, in my deepest despair…”

    He went on to say:

    “My mother always told me, Katherine always told me that. She used to look at me across the room and say, ‘You’re just like me. You’re going to get hurt. You’re going to get used. There are people who are going to use you.’ I didn’t know there were people in the world like that, so evil. I thought that was just in the movies. I didn’t know they existed in real life. I trust people. I always see the best in people. I can be so naïve. So during the trial, there were evil people but there were also so many beautiful people that came out, beautiful people like you.”

  86. Chris permalink
    August 17, 2011 11:01 am

    @Kaarin Didn’t Sneddon fire everyone first and was there b4 family? Something I would like clarified.

  87. lynande51 permalink
    August 17, 2011 10:00 am

    If marijuana had been found it would have been listed as marijuana in the Search Warrant return. It was not. I think it was LaToya that identified it as tar heroin and really old marijuana does not look like tar heroin it looks the same as marijuana just old and dry ( I confiscate the stuff as contraband everyday). Is the media rehashing this old story. It died about a week after Michael why is it being brought up again? Good old LaToya she sure does get a lot of exercise jumping to all those conclusions she jumps to.Right now there is an empty cup on my table that is smarter than she is.

  88. August 17, 2011 1:35 am

    The family was very quick sending trucks and moving vans to empty the house of Michaels belongings.They were desperate to find the money ,1mln?,that Michael allegedly kept hidden in the house.That was not found.Did they think that police doing a more careful search (for drugs as cover) would have found it.It is difficult to understand their eagerness for drugs.Are they so unable to admit that they may have been wrong?If they are not sure about the matter they should just keep their mouths shut.
    A bit off topic;murray benefitted enormously from his lies to police.That way there was a delay cordoning the place off as crime scene.

  89. August 17, 2011 1:25 am

    I should add of course that in a house the size of the one Michael was living in — with a full household — that one cannot say definitively who the marijuana belonged to.

  90. August 17, 2011 1:03 am

    “I did briefly read some of Leonard Rowe’s book on Jetzi and it stated that marijuana was found in Michael’s room”

    Julie, I see that all these people are capable of saying anything about MJ – but did the official document enumerating the medicines found in the house confirm it?

    And if some marijuana was indeed found as this LA Times article says: “The marijuana was found later in an unspecified area of the house” why should it necessarily belong to MJ? There were guards there and other numerous staff – so why only him?

    Especially if it was found in an unspecified area of the house? And was it found AT ALL?

    The same article says that the “the search warrant claimed that the “heroin” was found in his bedroom, an area that authorities said in the court papers was off-limits to anyone but Jackson and his children”.

    And later on two sources said that NONE WAS FOUND?

    How is it possible? How is it possible for some official document to say one thing and other official documents to say the opposite? The only way I can explain this discrepancy is that a search warrant states a probable cause for making a search, but does not state what was actually found. Otherwise we would have to say that out of the two documents one is a fake.

  91. August 17, 2011 12:49 am

    “And the point is Bob, I will not sit here for six months as I feed everybody else really good stuff. I won’t do it.”

    This is all the difference in the world between Oxman and real lawyers like Thomas Mesereau.
    Mesereau would have sat there as long as it was necessary. And not just “sat” but worked half the night before each new trial day.

  92. August 17, 2011 12:35 am

    “Here is another link:
    Just as the Klein story that he was the children’s father was massaged into life by media repetition and their deliberate misinterpretation of the King interview, so too were the stories of what was found at Holmby Hills.”

    Deborah, thanks. Of course this misinterpretation of facts is absolutely deliberate. Even though the article ultimately says: “two sources familiar with the investigation told The Times that authorities tested the substance believed to be heroin and the tests came back negative” the result of such piece of “information” is still not positive for Michael.

    This is what I’ve been saying all along – when a certain word is repeated together with someone’s name they finally fuse together and it no longer matters that the substance was not actually found. What is important is that the word is regularly repeated with this name and even the particle “not” does not change anything. Michael and this, Michael and that – and here you are, a stable association is formed between the two.

    We have a sad joke about a similar thing – a woman leaves an opera theater with a scandal, her fur coat was stolen and everyone gossips: “What happened?” “Don’t know for sure, either her fur coat was stolen or she stole it.”. If you repeat it a dozen times – she and theft, theft and she – here you are, the victim starts looking like a criminal as a result.

    Let me repeat, such an effect is produced by a mere repetition of some words together with someone’s name. That is why I insist that words like p-le, m-r and now heroin should never be used in connection with Michael. MICHAEL IS INNOCENT – this is the new association we need to form.

  93. Julie permalink
    August 17, 2011 12:34 am

    @rockforeveron – don’t you think that Oxman was the person Mesereau was referring to when he stated that there were people who were trying to undermine him and get to Michael just to keep Michael stirred up? I think that’s exactly who he meant and I think that’s exactly why Mesereau fired Oxman. I think Oxman is the biggest buffoon on the planet and it should be embarrassing for Joe Jackson to associate with this man. But Joe has always surrounded himself with shady people and Michael would have to clean up the mess. Look at the Mexico depositions Michael gave in the 90’s — the people suing Michael were brought around by Joe. LaToya’s husband was brought into her life by Joe. I remember reading Michael being upset during the Victory tour that he was upset because Joe hired Don King to manage the tour.

  94. August 17, 2011 12:21 am

    Brian Oxman was taped during the trial claiming that Michael had told him that he wanted TMez fired, some of the transcript of that tape:

    “Michael wanted to can [INAUDIBLE] a week before the opening statement. He said, “Brian, please, I want to fire him.”

    “This is going to get intolerable. There is going to be harmony, or there is going to be shi*t.”

    “Make your choice. Which is it? Bottom line, he will be fired; I will make sure of it.”

    “People treat one another with respect. I have no alliances; I want to be treated with respect. You can tell him that Brian is very upset. I didn’t yell at him.”

    “Susan Yu told me I wasn’t important enough to have a place to sleep. No one is going to pay for anything anymore, I guess.”

    “Is that how it works? It means that somebody has to pay the bills here. [INAUDIBLE] You know what I think? I’ll just go home. You figure out how to pay the bills.”

    “And the point is Bob, I will not sit here for six months as I feed everybody else really good stuff. I won’t do it.”

  95. Julie permalink
    August 17, 2011 12:17 am

    @vindicatemj — I see what you’re saying. I haven’t read the lawsuit filed on behalf of good ole Joe by Oxman. I did briefly read some of Leonard Rowe’s book on Jetzi and it stated that marijuana was found in Michael’s room; however, Rowe’s is a question mark to me as are most of the people surrounding Joe. What Imeant by the highlighted statement is that I had never heard any of the family members say anything about Michael using cocaine or heroin or anything of that magnatude.

  96. August 17, 2011 12:11 am

    “I would absolutely hate to believe and can’t find any articles that even hint that Joe, LaToya or any other family member said anything about Michael’s use of any type of street drug or that they confided the same to Brian Oxman.”

    Julie, unfortunately that madman Joe Jackson states in his suit against Murray that they found marijuana there. He and Brian Oxman speak of it as if it were a fact, not fiction – but I doubt its presence there as otherwise it would have been mentioned in the police documents. They enumerate it together with Nystatin (a usual anti-fungal medicine accompanying antibiotics – I have it in my collection too) and Triamcinolone “which is a topical steroid used to treat skin inflammation” (must be for Michael’s lupus). But marijuana? Never heard of it.

  97. Alison permalink
    August 17, 2011 12:09 am

    I think its important that it was a rented house – whatever the stuff was, if it was there at all, could have been left there by a long gone tenant and most probably was. i know nothing about marijuana but i would imagine it would last a while?? in which case Michael hadn’t been at the house all that long and if it had been his at one time – which i don’t believe, he wouldn’t have used that because of the kids, – then he wouldn’t have packed it up and taken it to the new house.

    i think its weird the family told the police. i;’m a law abiding person and have no wish to obstruct the police, but i’m not sure i’d have told them it was there if it was my family and i thought he’d been uing it! i might have told them but i might have just let them find it or not but i don’t THINK i’d point it out. it is after all illegal, heroin as they thought it was, and there was no point, it was too late for knowledge to help treat him and the tests would have shown if they needed to look for that in the house. its almost like they wanted him to be labelled a drug addict.

    “Somewhere there is an article where he and a family member tried to convince Michael Tom was not working in his best interest and to fire him.” – can you remember who the family member was? and what they thought was not in his best interests?

  98. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:58 pm

    @vindicatemj — when the family was searching the home they found the baggy with the “sticky” substance in it and couldn’t determine what it was — so because of its appearance to whichever family member brought it to the police’s attention, it was stated they suspected it was black tar heroin only it was determined to be the really old marijuana. I didn’t see anything that indicated any family member continuously requested the LAPD to search for heroin unless I’m mssing something!

  99. August 16, 2011 11:52 pm

    “I mean why to press Klein on the paternity issue? Why do the media think they are owed an explanation about that very private matter?”

    All of them were drunk and even Larry King took a sip or two.

  100. August 16, 2011 11:52 pm

    Here is another link:

    Just as the Klein story that he was the children’s father was massaged into life by media repetition and their deliberate misinterpretation of the King interview, so too were the stories of what was found at Holmby Hills.

    There was no heroin found in then house so it is amazing it was listed on the original warrant. And as we all know marijuana is a standard substance used for ameliorative care for all kinds of conditions and certainly those Michael suffered from.

  101. August 16, 2011 11:49 pm

    “On page 14 it says the police were called back in to re-search the house after the family had alerted them that tar heroin had been found.

    But it is still ONLY a search warrant based on the repeated requests of the family (who evidently wanted very much to have heroin or other narcotics found in Michael’s home) – but it ISN’T the final document stating that it was found there! Am I missing something here?

    They evidently gave their affidavits and stated that they “thought” it was there and kept sending the police to look for it. They evidently couldn’t believe that it wasn’t there.

    You know with such relatives I am not surprised Michael didn’t want to see the majority of them.

  102. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:45 pm

    @rockforeveron – ok, so that’s the bag that was found and the family member thought that’s what it was but it turned out to be the rotting marijuana.

  103. August 16, 2011 11:41 pm

    On page 14 it says the police were called back in to re-search the house after the family had alerted them that tar heroin had been found.

  104. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:33 pm

    @rockforeveron – thank you for the link to the search warrant. I may have missed it, but the only thing I saw was that the family indicated there may be other medications and/or narcotics to be found. I didn’t see anything about heroin. Did I miss it?

  105. Suzy permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:32 pm

    @ Helena

    Larry King is considered a respectable journalist, but it seems even he loses his sense of boundaries when it comes to Michael. I mean why to press Klein on the paternity issue? Why do the media think they are owed an explanation about that very private matter?

  106. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 11:27 pm

    @vindicatemj – of course you are making an excellent point! Once again, just because it is in print does not make the story true!

    I do remember back when the story came out in 2009 about the supposed black tar heroin being found in the home and then the next story that came out saying it was rotting or rancid marijuana. Doesn’t make it true by any means especially if it is not inventoried on any of the investigative documents.

    I would absolutely hate to believe and can’t find any articles that even hint that Joe, LaToya or any other family member said anything about Michael’s use of any type of street drug or that they confided the same to Brian Oxman. I personally feel that Oxman just pulls that garbage out on his own so that he can be called as some sort of family friend and/or expert.

    In researching the statement about Stacy Brown saying Michael was had a heroin addiction, I didn’t see anything (so far) that indicated he got the information from anyone. Stacy Brown is a liar. A link sent me to musikfactory’s site and there is some post about an interview that was conducted with Brown in more recent times where he attempts to shift the blame for everything that he said to some family member of his and then he throws Rebbie’s husband under the bus, etc. Once again, he could be making all of this crap up for his own gain without truly getting the information from anyone. If he’s talking, he’s lying — just like Diane Dimond and others of that same type.

    As I stated previously, the family stories are very conflicting about interventions, etc. Janet, Katherine and Rebbie eluded that there were more than one attempted family interventions. LaToya, in her book, recalled the one back in 2002 which concluded that Michael was fine. Jermaine has only stated that he knew Michael had sleeping issues and that he was taking medications for that and also stated that he never witnessed Michael acting as though he was on anything. I have not read or seen any statements by Jackie, Tito, Marlon or Randy regarding Michael having any type of issue with any type of drugs.

  107. August 16, 2011 11:15 pm

    “Dr.Klein is not, though someties he has opened his mouth too much’.

    Kaarin, Dr. Klein has indeed opened his mouth too much, but when I read his interview with Larry King I experienced a kind of shock – there was practically nothing of what was attributed to him by the media there. He even didn’t claim his parentage though each of us heard about those allegations. Probably in some other interviews he said something different but over here NO – all he said is that he donated his sperm, and not even to Michael but to a sperm bank! And as far as he could judge he said he was no father to them. See for yourself:

    KING: Now, the Debbie Rowe part of the story. She was your nurse, right?

    KLEIN: Yes.

    KING: They met, I guess, in your office?

    KLEIN: Yes.

    KING: Was that a real love affair?

    KLEIN: I don’t know what love is in that sense of the imagination. I think that she loves him very much. She admired him very much. But if you think they’re riding off in a horse-drawn carriage, I mean we have to put — what is a normal relationship? We have to go back to Marie Bonaparte, who once said to Danny Kaye (ph) when he went to say, what do you have to tell me that’s different? And she didn’t even know who Danny Kaye was. She’s the first woman of royal heritage to undergo analysis. She said to Danny Kaye, the normal (inaudible) have to be found and be found cured. Which means, who of us are normal? What is normal? So I’m telling you, was that a love affair, you want to know. I think she really cared about his welfare.

    KING: It was not a sexual relationship?

    KLEIN: I think they did have sex.

    KING: You do?

    KLEIN: Yes, I really do, and I can’t guarantee that. I think they did have sex in their relationship.

    KING: You think Michael ever had sex to father the children?

    KLEIN: I don’t know that answer, because I would that that it’s possible that he did. You can’t guarantee that. You can only guarantee things you see. I don’t want to make any suppositions about anything in this interview, because I want this to be as truthful as possible.

    KING: Now, what about all the rumors about you and the fathering of those children?

    KLEIN: Here’s the most important thing. Michael loved those children as a father. Those children loved him as a father. As far as I am concerned, that’s the most important grouping that is.

    KING: That’s not answering the question.

    KLEIN: No, because I’m not going to answer it the way you want me to answer it, because…

    KING: Well, you can say no.

    KLEIN: I can say no, then. I will say no if that’s what you want to hear.

    KING: No, I want to hear what you know.

    KLEIN: What I will tell you is I think what’s most important thing about this whole thing, to end this thing, is that the most important thing in who the father is who the father is — who the children want their father to be.

    And I will tell you this, I will say no, because the most important person to these children is how Michael loved them and how he loved his children and how they loved him. Because they would never pass him without saying, I love you, daddy. He would say I love you. I’ve never seen such emotional care…


    KING: Earlier today, you said you couldn’t answer that one way or the other.

    KLEIN: I still can’t answer it absolutely one way or another.

    KING: So that means you donated sperm?

    KLEIN: I once donated sperm. I don’t know that you have to know…

    KING: You donated to him.

    KLEIN: No, absolutely not.

    KING: Oh, you donated sperm to a sperm bank.

    KLEIN: Once, to a sperm bank. But I don’t think I should go over my legal affairs, because I think to the best of my knowledge, I’m not the father. I want to tell you that this discussion, however, is between Michael, his children and this person. It’s not to be discussed who the father is over national television.

    KING: Or, it’s nobody’s business.

    KLEIN: It’s no one’s business.

    KING: Except it’s become the public’s business. Isn’t that a fact of life?

    KLEIN: Let me tell you something, there’s something called private lives. Noel Coward wrote about that. So can’t we leave this alone? Can’t we leave these children alone? These are brilliant, talented children. And forget this, and understand, this man loved these children. These children loved him.

    KING: You don’t feel you have to take a DNA test to prove anything?

    KLEIN: if they want me to take a DNA test, they can have my DNA. I don’t care at this point.

    KING: Your concern is the kids.

    KLEIN: My concern is his kids because I’ve never met children like this. These are the brightest children I’ve ever met, the best behaved children I’ve ever met. They come over my house, they behave wonderfully. I know how deeply he loved them and how deeply they loved him.

    KING: That’s obvious.

    KLEIN: I don’t want to destroy this relationship in any way, shape or form. I’ll tell you this, no matter what, I will protect these children.

    ….KING: The gut-wrenching moment at the memorial yesterday came at the end when Michael’s 11-year-old daughter Paris talked through her tears. We’ve seen it many times. We want to get Arnie’s reaction, watch.


    PARIS JACKSON, DAUGHTER OF MICHAEL JACKSON: Ever since I was born, daddy has been the best father you could ever imagine. And I just wanted to say I love him so much.


    KING: What do you feel when you look at that?

    KLEIN: I can’t, it’s difficult to look at that because here’s a man who changed the world. He enabled black people to do things they’ve never done before. We have the black caucus, we have a black president. He enabled so many things to do. He gave so many gifts to the world. He’s the finest entertainer we ever had. But that’s not unlike what they did to this poor Sarah Bernhardt. She died painless, except they had a big funeral for her. But now everybody wants all the gossip. The real gossip is, we’ve lost a greater entertainer of our life. We lost one of the greatest people, who was more generous of himself and of his heart than anybody I’ve ever known. And he’s produced three incredible children and this is the thing.

    How did the story, you think, surface about you and fatherhood? Where did that come from?

    KLEIN: I don’t have any idea whether it came from Debbie Rowe, I have no idea.

    KING: Could it have come from Debbie Rowe?

    KLEIN: Absolutely because I phoned her as soon as Michael passed away. My greatest concern was what was going to happen to the children. I told her that I didn’t want to see in three years, the children doing the next version of the Jackson 3, their intelligence dancing away because these children are bright. They’ve gone to film school.

    KING: Do you think she said something about it?

    KLEIN: I don’t know that, but all I told her was this. I want you to get active and be the mother, if she is the mother, of these children.

    KING: Do you think she should get custody?

    KLEIN: I don’t know if she should get custody. I’m very worried that the custody may go into a situation that is incorrect. I think the most important thing is there’s this woman Grace who was their nanny, who is incredible. She should remain their nanny and help raise the children. I worry about the Jackson family only because I worry slightly about the father from what Michael told me about that father.

    KING: In what way?

    KLEIN: That he was very difficult to deal with Michael. They announced his new record label at the memorial. And he seems more and more interested in making money than dealing with the —

    KING: What do you think of the rest of the family?

    KLEIN: I think Janet is wonderful who I happen to know. I know Randy. He seems nice to me. But I think they’re going to go on and put a performance on again because they want to do is they want to perform.

    KING: They’re performers.

    KLEIN: Yeah, they’re performers. But you heard some speeches yesterday from very controversial speakers. I think the most wonderful speech was the person I thought would be the least was Al Sharpton when he talked about Michael at his studio. Because Michael was having fights with Tommy Mottola, it’s not how he spoke, but he spoke really eloquently yesterday. So I just want to assure that Debbie Rowe or someone take good care of these kids.

    KING: Was Katherine the stronghold of the family?

    KLEIN: I think she is but she’s, how would old she now?

    KING: 79.

    KLEIN: Do you think it’s difficult for a 79-year-old to raise adolescent children? That would be my question. Also, Debbie Rowe has gained her rights back to the children. Now, you may not think she’s the best person in the world, but having worked with her for 25 years as a nurse, she can be a very loving person. So if she’s combined with Grace, it could be a wonderful combination. But you know what, I can’t make these decisions nor do I want to.

  108. August 16, 2011 10:59 pm


    I posted the search warrant a few posts down, you can see the police’s comments that it was the family who had asked them to come in to look for certain things.

  109. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 10:58 pm

    @vindicatemj –

    Source: ‘Tar Heroin’ Listed in Jackson Warrant Not Heroin | discovered: Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:37:00 PM | published: Thursday, August 27, 2009 5:13:00 PM

    A source tells ET that the “tar heroin” found in Michael Jackson ‘s rented home, as listed in a search warrant, was not heroin — but was rancid marijuana. One newly unsealed warrant reports that “they had located a quantity of tar heroin in a bag i …

    It’s such an old story that it will no longer pull up.

  110. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 10:53 pm

    @ vindicatemj – I was responding to rockforeveron’s post which stated, “Oxman takes his cue from the Jacksons. Toya asked the police to look for any traces of heroin or any equipment to use heroin after Michael’s death. Randy got his friend Romonica Harris to shop Grace, saying she received drugs in the mail from someone. The Jacksons were so distant from Michael at the time of his death that I think they embraced every story on drug use, in fact I believe Randy and possibly Joe had been the sources of stories about it before when they had been trying to separate Michael from Grace, Evvy, Raymone. So when Mike died they wanted to seem as though they were informed and so they fully embraced the drug storyline.”

    I was just stating that I never saw one thing that said anything about the family asking for authorities to look for traces of heroin. I just wanted to make it clear that that was not the case and what the real story was regarding the bag found in Michael’s home. Once again, just because the bag was found does not mean it was Michael’s.

  111. August 16, 2011 10:52 pm

    Sorry my reason for posting about the heroin thing wasn’t to ever suggest MJ was ever on it, the whole thing reveals how out of touch anyone who could ever believe that was – just to show that it isn’t Oxman acting alone. The drug storyline has been fueled by his own family as a way to defend their own behaviour.

  112. August 16, 2011 10:50 pm

    “it turned out to be rancid marijuana”

    Julie, is it stated in any documents?

  113. August 16, 2011 10:48 pm

    @ rockforeveron,

    Here is where my years of Military service comes in handy. I can tell you unequivocally that Heroine/Hash business is BS, especially if one is a chronic user = addict, as stated by Brown. In the early 90’s blood tests would detect narcotics use up to 8 months back then. I helped process many who claimed a one time use out of service. The testing has become more sophisticated and in-depth, and with the advent of DNA testing from hair follicles for substance abuse almost impossible to avoid detection.

    Know someone who is a lab analyst at a testing facility. Checking for current information on testing for types of substances and length of possible detection.

    As for Oxman, his nose is out of joint and he is broke, can’t practice law and couldn’t make money off the European Fans with his planned round of talks on MJ. The US Fans hipped them to what he had said during the days/weeks after MJ died. Don’t think he ever forgave MJ for allowing T. Mes to fire him during the trial. Somewhere there is an article where he and a family member tried to convince Michael Tom was not working in his best interest and to fire him. Probably scared if Michael went to jail he would try and appoint Tom to oversee the Estate instead of them. It is no secret Mr. Mesereau does not hold some who were close to Michael in high esteem.

  114. August 16, 2011 10:48 pm

    “Why would Toya think that there was tar heroin in the house? If I found a weird bag, I’d just hand it to the cops, my mind wouldn’t immediately leap to the conclusion of heroin. Toya’s did.”

    It is the effect of recognition or thinking that you recognize it. Normal people would not recognize heroin because they have never seen it.

  115. August 16, 2011 10:35 pm

    “Here is just one source.

    Why all this talk about heroin and marijuana, guys? Are all these people crazy? No matter what some mad members of the family say, if those things had been found, they would have been stated as the major points in the list of drugs found in Michael’s home. That list was so detailed – up to a broken empty vial lying about in some closet and no mention was made their of marijuana or anything. And over here they speak of heroin!

    If this is something that is being said by Joe Jackson all it means that he is the same old abuser of his son as he was before. He didn’t know a thing about his son for several years and probably attributed Michael’s unwillingness to see his father to him ‘being a drug addict”. He needs a reason to explain why Michael didn’t want to see him – and here you are. Heroin!

    If this is what Joe Jackson is indeed saying he must be completely senile. Or a bastard who is ready to think the worst of his son. Some parents are like that – they are the ones who are the worst enemies to their children.

    The article to which you provided a link goes undated for some reason – so that you don’t know to what point in time it refers to – and says:

    “LOS ANGELES — Police who searched Michael Jackson’s home the day after he died were acting on information from family members who said they’d found a bag of heroin in his bedroom, but a person with knowledge of subsequent test results on the substance said it turned out not to be the drug.

    The search did, however, turn up a number of other drugs including marijuana, the generic form of Valium and other sedatives. [PROOF PLEASE!]

    A detective also indicated Jackson’s body showed signs of injections. [EVEN KLEIN SAYS THERE WERE NO SIGNS OF INJECTIONS – HE MADE A SPECIAL POINT OF IT IN HIS INTERVIEW WITH LARRY KING]

    The disclosure came in an affidavit [AN AFFIDAVIT IS ONLY A STATEMENT MADE TO POLICE BY SOME CRAZY GUY LIKE JOE JACKSON] supporting a search warrant that was executed June 26, three days earlier than any previously reported search of Jackson’s rented mansion in Bel-Air.

    Two warrants came to light Thursday after several media outlets including The Associated Press asked to unseal four search warrants Los Angeles police detectives served in the early days of the Jackson death probe. The judge ordered two of the documents to remain sealed. [A WARRANT ONLY AUTHORIZES A SEARCH BUT IS NOT THE LIST OF WHAT IS FOUND].

    The unsealed warrants provide a glimpse into how police were directing their investigation immediately after Jackson’s death. The warrant served at his rented Bel-Air mansion the day after he died lists “PC 187,” the California penal code for murder, in the box labeled “probable crime.”

    That warrant states family members told a coroner’s official “they had located a quantity of tar heroin in a bag in the decedent’s bedroom,” though the person with knowledge of tests on the substance said heroin was quickly ruled out. [THE WARRANT CAN SAY WHATEVER CRAZY SUSPICIONS SOME CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE, BUT IT IS NOT THE FINAL DOCUMENT] .

    The person was not authorized to speak to the media and asked for anonymity”.

  116. August 16, 2011 4:44 am

    Here is more from Tom. Mesereau. The Podcast is only 8.5mbs & approx 35 minutes it is worth listening to if you haven’t already.

  117. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 1:24 am

    Exactly kaarin – there was no proof whatsoever that it was specifically Michael Jackson’s. It was just found at his house. I was just trying to get clarification regarding LaToya, Brian Oxman and heroin. I just couldn’t find anything to support that, but did find the article that the family had found what they suspected to be heroin and it turned out to be old marijuana.

  118. August 16, 2011 1:11 am

    Just forget about any marihuana.It is detectable 6 weeks after use.
    Certainly the autopsy that took samples of various tissues, blood and urine would have detected it.Some guests of his may just have left some a long time ago at Michaels if it really was found there.

  119. Julie permalink
    August 16, 2011 1:03 am

    Please everyone go to and vote for Michael Jackson as the greatest performance at the VMAs. Currently, Bon Jovi is winning and there is no way they are better than Michael Jackson!

  120. August 15, 2011 10:24 pm

    Obviously I don’t believe MJ was on heroin or any drugs, but the Jacksons seemed to think so. Oxman is just repeating things they’ve said themselves.

  121. Julie permalink
    August 15, 2011 10:20 pm

    Here is just one source.

    It doesn’t specify anything about LaToya finding it — just says family members.

    As far as Stacy Brown goes — he’s a liar and he will always be a liar. It would be the same as Diane Dimond calling Michael a cocaine addict because of the trace found in his underwear.

  122. August 15, 2011 10:18 pm

    In the search warrant:

  123. shelly permalink
    August 15, 2011 10:14 pm

    Where did you read that story about Latoya.

  124. August 15, 2011 10:11 pm


    Why would Toya think that there was tar heroin in the house? If I found a weird bag, I’d just hand it to the cops, my mind wouldn’t immediately leap to the conclusion of heroin. Toya’s did.

    Interesting also that Stacy Brown told journalists that Michael was a known heroin addict after his death too.

  125. Julie permalink
    August 15, 2011 10:07 pm

    @rockforeveron – where did you hear or read that about the family and heroin? The only thing I ever saw was that the family found a bag at the house that they suspected was black tar heroin, but it turned out to be rancid marijuana.

    I think Oxman forces himself on the Jackson family to try and stay in the spotlight and only because he files things pro bono for Joe, does he keep himself useful to the family. Randy came out after Michael’s death and stated that Oxman did not represent him; although to hear Oxman tell it, Randy called him the minute he got the news about Michael to come to the hospital. That was very suspect to me because when the coverage first began and Oxman’s face was on the screen 10 seconds after Michael was pronounced dead, he was already spouting about drug overdose. Yet, when one of the news stations he was speaking to asked what the family had to say — Oxman stated that he didn’t know anything yet, but they were all crying. What kind of an attorney would do that – get on TV and make speculations without knowing any facts? The kind that can’t keep his license from getting suspended!

  126. August 15, 2011 9:13 pm


    Oxman takes his cue from the Jacksons. Toya asked the police to look for any traces of heroin or any equipment to use heroin after Michael’s death. Randy got his friend Romonica Harris to shop Grace, saying she received drugs in the mail from someone. The Jacksons were so distant from Michael at the time of his death that I think they embraced every story on drug use, in fact I believe Randy and possibly Joe had been the sources of stories about it before when they had been trying to separate Michael from Grace, Evvy, Raymone. So when Mike died they wanted to seem as though they were informed and so they fully embraced the drug storyline.

  127. August 15, 2011 2:26 pm

    This Dr. Drew Pinski is one of them-p–tes, Dr.Klein is not,though someties he has opened his mouth too much.He lacks that self-advertaising quality.

  128. August 15, 2011 2:12 pm

    Generally doctors who make themselves TV-personalities-doctors are considered kind of prostitutes.That does of course not include some who give appropriate serious opinions, but those who mostly advertice themselves in the process.

  129. August 15, 2011 12:05 am


    As far as Drew is concerned what do you expect from a man who makes a living out of turning the pain of an illness into entertainment, uses those who once had a type of public standing and are obviously broke enough to go along with such a barbaric act? On another thread I used the word “pimp”, when describing this man. Pimp is a word I am careful about using, because in my culture it is more than just a flesh peddler.

    I have yet to hear of anyone who says they were able to watch this program and come away with something positive they could use for themselves or another.

    Drew was brought in for one reason only. CNN is in a ratings decline, it needed a purveyor with credentials to give their sensationalizing believability.

    It is like taking a doorman from The Dorchester and attempting to pass him off as the Duke Windsor. He may be male and British, be able to mimic speech and mannerisms, but he is not the real deal.

    On Oxman, I still hold him responsible for law enforcement not initially taking proper action. Due to his mouthing on TV “he knew” MJ would O.D. within hours of his death it is my belief they took their cue from this no longer “insider” and failed to do their jobs properly. He is shitty when speaking of MJ with the Media and loving with the Fans.

  130. August 14, 2011 10:44 pm


    I agree it is wonderful news. Tom Mesereau is the one person who was apart of Michael’s life I totally believe in. Along with being a Criminal Defense Attorney, he is fair and honest. He will not give out false hope and will not give out false information concerning evidence and witnesses.

    I think it is because of his incredulous anger at what he witnessed done to Michael and experienced at the hands of the SB legal system and Media that he still is such a staunch defender of Michael’s innocence today. You can read it, almost feel it in his later 2004 and 2005 court documents. With all he’d seen defending the poor, minorities and wrongly accused I think Michael’s trial was a life altering event.

  131. August 14, 2011 7:21 pm

    *Special Announcement* PositivelyMichael Partners with Tom Mesereau

    “The staff of PositivelyMichael is pleased to announce that we will be partnering with Thomas Mesereau during Conrad Murray’s involuntary manslaughter trial. Tom was Michael Jackson’s lead defense attorney for the 2005 trial, and his vast knowledge of legal discourse and trial activities will be an amazing resource to help MJ fans and the greater community better understand the ins and outs of the coming legal proceedings.

    As fans, it is very important that we can all stand together in unity and raise our voices in support of Michael with accuracy and authority during the trial. With Tom’s help, we will all have an easier time fully understanding everything that is going on and hopefully limit the amount of mis-information that will undoubtedly be spread in the coming weeks.”

    Read the rest at:


    PositivelyMichael should be added to our blogroll.

  132. August 14, 2011 6:28 pm

    I forgot to mention Physics to the difficulties Desiree would encounter in premed.A major subject of study and requires good knowledge of math.
    Forget about your dreams for the future, mr desiree.

  133. August 14, 2011 5:58 pm

    Just checked on this Desiree´s blog.She/he claims to be a student or a major of microbiology.I have my doubts.He/she may be an agent or a front for murray´s firm for spreading lies and slander.Thinks she really should to be in premed.,says she is terrible in math and hates chemistry, but has an IQ of 135.Wants to be a psychiatrist when she grows up.Well she will never be.Already in premed she has to know math,knowledge of statistics is a must. Also inorganic chemistry,organic chemistry and pharmacology. Seems to have her head in the clouds.A very suspicious case.-And that is only premed.

  134. August 14, 2011 1:39 pm

    Dialdancer,Great, at last something good and optimistic re the upcoming trial!It has been mostly bad news so far,no doubt a result of the workings of the murray firm for spread of lies and slander.

  135. August 14, 2011 7:05 am

    *Special Announcement* PositivelyMichael Partners with Tom Mesereau

    “The staff of PositivelyMichael is pleased to announce that we will be partnering with Thomas Mesereau during Conrad Murray’s involuntary manslaughter trial. Tom was Michael Jackson’s lead defense attorney for the 2005 trial, and his vast knowledge of legal discourse and trial activities will be an amazing resource to help MJ fans and the greater community better understand the ins and outs of the coming legal proceedings.

    As fans, it is very important that we can all stand together in unity and raise our voices in support of Michael with accuracy and authority during the trial. With Tom’s help, we will all have an easier time fully understanding everything that is going on and hopefully limit the amount of mis-information that will undoubtedly be spread in the coming weeks.”

    Read the rest at:

  136. August 14, 2011 3:10 am

    “And it is not even he who needs it – it is us who need it most, because his vindication is simultaneously a recovery for all of us.”

    No truer words.

  137. August 14, 2011 3:02 am

    “Debbie Kunesh has migrated her Reflections on the Dance blog from Blogger to WordPress, and here is her new site!

    This is very welcome news, David. The blog is fantastic. I see that you’ve already added it to our blogroll. I’ve just been there and would like to repeat Michael’s words the blog is starting with:

    “Know, in the end, I’ll be vindicated, I pray, because I know the truth. I am an innocent person and I believe in God and love God.”

    For some reason I also know that Michael will be vindicated. It will take time but he will. And it is not even he who needs it – it is us who need it most, because his vindication is simultaneously a recovery for all of us.

  138. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 7:06 pm

    David, Thanks for that link, i’ve been over there reading the article which is amazing. and i’m looking forwards to more. am also more angry than ever! who do these people think they are to say such disgusting things!? They are saying them as if they speak for God himself! They have clearly missed the part about GOD being the judge – OF ALL MEN and that includes themselves!
    when will you be posting your post?
    I’ve not read my Bible in a while but i’m gonna look out some references about judging other people and anything else that comes to mind. I am so mad!

  139. lcpledwards permalink
    August 13, 2011 9:49 am

    Hey guys, Debbie Kunesh has migrated her Reflections on the Dance blog from Blogger to WordPress, and here is her new site!

    Please check out the series “Debunking the Demonic Deception: The Story of Michael Jackson and The Truth”. This will be a 5 part series debunking many rumors and falsehoods about MJ, including the criticism from some religious leaders that he “worshipped Satan” or “channelled evil spirits”, among others. I helped her a lot with my research, and this is a prelude to my own post “Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith”, which is coming later this year.

  140. Chris permalink
    August 12, 2011 2:12 am

    @ Shelly
    Wooo. Thats very good to hear. Her timing couldn’t be better.

  141. shelly permalink
    August 12, 2011 1:12 am

    According to Raven, her blog will be back at the end of the month.

  142. August 9, 2011 3:08 pm

    Guys nothing more regarding Pellicano?
    ps:I’m writing with my facebook acount, but just to be clear I’m zeromarcy

  143. Suzy permalink
    August 9, 2011 7:27 am

    The coroner at the pre-trial too said he was healthy for his age. Of course, he had small problems here and there, but none of those were life threatening.

  144. Teva permalink
    August 9, 2011 5:51 am

    Dr. Drew said he read the autopsy report and Michael Jackson was not a healthy person. I think Dr. Drew read the tabloid report DD was quoting from because the real report said he was healthy.

  145. August 9, 2011 5:38 am


    Yes, probably not!

    Thanks for watching and recording Drew David. It’s kind of you.

  146. lcpledwards permalink
    August 9, 2011 3:51 am

    @ Deborah
    I will record the Dr. Drew show tonight, and if the transcript is posted tonight I’ll send it to you.

    I wonder if Dr. Drew will disclose to his viewers that Oxman and his wife were recently disbarred from practicing law due to their misconduct? Probably not!

  147. August 8, 2011 11:28 pm

    The ever talkative Brian Oxman will be a guest on the Dr. Drew Show tonight to discuss the Murray trial.

    We don’t get this show in the UK. If anyone in the US watches this, I would very much like to know what he says. Oxman has a knack for making things worse.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,271 other followers

%d bloggers like this: