Skip to content

Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 2 of 4

March 23, 2011

Here is another misnomer that they are trying to push on their readers: “reasonable doubt” that results in the acquittal of a defendant is tantamount to “getting off on a technicality” or “getting off due to celebrity status”.  They highlight a quote from Eric Dezenhall of Dezenhall Resources (a firm that specializes in public relations ): “the crisis-management objective was acquittal through reasonable doubt, and it was achieved. Restoring the iconic status of his name was never on the table.” Here is the legal definition of reasonable doubt:

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant’s liberty or in the defendant’s death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on “a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.”

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.

Let’s focus on the following excerpt:  “if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.” What this means is that it is not enough for jurors to have doubts about a defendant’s guilt, but they must be REASONABLE DOUBTS in order to acquit the defendant! Here is a short video with some attorneys who explain, in a simple way, how reasonable doubt is applied in court during the deliberation process.

Anyone who spends 5 minutes looking at the facts of the MJ trial will not only have “reasonable” doubts, but will have ABSOLUTE doubts!  For example, let’s look at the foundation of the trial; the testimony of Gavin! Here is a summary of his testimony from Day 11 of the trial:

On Day 11 of the Michael Jackson trial Attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. had to work very hard to get a straight answer out of the prosecution’s star witness, the 15 year old accuser, himself.   In a testimony which seemed to consist of numerous memory losses, restatements of events and many other incomplete sentences that seemed to be an avoidance of giving direct answers, the accuser presented his ‘side’ of the story under cross-examination.

Mr. Mesereau was compelled, on numerous occasions, to show the accuser transcripts of his previous statements to law enforcement and various cards and letters that were referenced in order to ‘refresh’ his often, what seemed to be, a very ‘sketchy’ memory.  The accuser used the non-committal phrases “I think…” and “I don’t know” over 90 times each, over the course of the day. Additionally, there were 15 “I don’t think so’s” and 40 ‘Not Really’s”.

The accuser was undaunted by the persistent questioning of the defense attorney, often giving answers verging on sarcasm and confrontation, especially when discussing his repeated disciplinary problems at school and many encounters with various teachers that were forced to report his bad behavior.

That pretty much sums up his testimony! Gavin was thoroughly obliterated, yet these haters act like MJ didn’t have a constitutional right to confront his accuser in court! Here is what they said:

We have a man who said “Children show me in their playful smiles the divine in everyone. This simple goodness shines straight from their hearts and only asks to be lived.” and “When I see children, I see the face of God. That’s why I love them so much.” – yet allowed his attorney to attack children on the stand during his trial.

Wow! So because MJ allowed Mesereau to “attack” Gavin, Star, and Davellin on the stand, that somehow negates his love for children? They were literally trying to kill him! What was he supposed to do?  Just roll over and play dead, and let their lies go unchallenged?

When evaluating that summary of Gavin’s testimony, at the very minimum reasonable doubt about the molestation allegations has ALREADY been met, based on that summary alone!  If anyone believes that the jury did not adequately consider his testimony during deliberations, then please read the following excerpt from this article:

The release of six handwritten notes from jurors in the Michael Jackson case show they reached their decision to acquit the pop star after careful consideration of evidence, including a total review of the accuser’s testimony.

A request from the jury foreman to Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville resulted in a court stenographer going to the jury room and reading back the boy’s entire testimony.

Based on the totality of all of the evidence in this case, a reasonable person would conclude that MJ was innocent.  The Arvizos were walking, talking contradictions who were caught in a countless number of lies, and they were enabled by a malicious prosecutor concerned only with putting his name on the map, who in turn was enabled by a malicious media who wanted a conviction to boost revenues. Nobody can accuse the jury of not carefully considering all of the evidence, especially the most important testimony of the trial; Gavin’s testimony!

Here is another example of a case where a reasonable person would conclude that the defendant was innocent: NFL Hall Of Fame wide receiver Michael Irvin’s sexual assault lawsuit!  I discussed it in great detail in this post, but here is a summary of the events.  After reading the summary below, do you think that a reasonable person would conclude that Irvin was guilty of sexual assault?

  1. Michael Irvin allegedly committed a sexual assault against a female acquaintance in July 2007. Instead of immediately notifying police, she waited 2 weeks to notify them, and then signed a waiver of prosecution. No physical evidence was found due to the lapse in time from the alleged assault to the time when police were notified, and criminal charges were never filed.
  2. More than 2 years later, prior to the start of Irvin’s stint on “Dancing With The Stars” in September 2009, the civil lawyer of the accuser told Irvin that if he didn’t pay her $1 million dollars, a civil lawsuit would be filed against him in February 2010, in order to coincide with the Super Bowl.  That demand was subsequently dropped to $800k, but further negotiations fell through, and the lawsuit was filed in February 2010.
  3. Irvin’s lawyers called the threat “civil extortion”, and filed a $100 million dollar countersuit against the accuser.
  4. In February 2011, Irvin settled his lawsuit with his accuser, and dropped his countersuit as a result of the settlement.  Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.  (For more info on Irvin’s case, as well as other celebrity settlements –including MJ’s – please read this post.)

Now, hypothetically speaking, it’s possible that Irvin has superhuman powers that allow him to detect when a woman can be sexually assaulted and won’t go to police, and perhaps he acted upon this premonition as soon as he was alone with his accuser. But a reasonable person would conclude that, based on the totality of the aforementioned evidence, that the accuser was a lover scorned who tried to – and ultimately did – extort money from Irvin. This case is a perfect example of reasonable doubt. There was no evidence to support criminal charges, and thus it would have been impossible to prove the assault in civil court, so a reasonable person would conclude that the accuser initiated negotiations –and ultimately threatened the lawsuit – with Irvin in order to force a settlement. Irvin did not negotiate with his accuser, or settler with her, because he was guilty; he settled to avoid further negative publicity, and to move on with his life!

Lastly, I want to address the following statement:

While Jones can’t be argued with as to the bizarreness of the woman – almost everybody agrees with that assessment – Jones tries to portray her as someone willing to do almost anything for money, someone who was salivating at the thought of cash payments coming her way, someone who merely accused Jackson so she could get a big payout. Jones’ portrayal falls down once we look at Janet Arvizo’s (and in fact, the whole Arvizo family’s) behavior since the trial. Not one of them has accepted any of the standing offers for huge amounts of money from the media to tell their story. They have kept a dignified silence and refused to accept any of that easy money. This stymies the way Jones has chosen to describe the mother and her family as money grubbing grifters and opportunists.

OK, so according to that logic, because the Arvizo’s haven’t given any interviews since the trial, therefore they must have been telling the truth, and therefore they are morally upstanding citizens. This is the same idiotic logic that Ron Zonen used during his presentation at the Frozen In Time seminar.

I spent time with him only a month ago. And he’s really doing remarkable well. He has never asked for or taken a penny from anybody about any of the activity of this case.  Never. There are standing offers from the press for his story for enough money that would cover his tuition, which is considerable, never mind that he’s on a 50% scholarship. But he has never taken a penny from anybody, and no intention of doing so. He’s accruing debt like college kids do today, but he’s doing just fine.

Gee, I guess we can also say that because Janet did not file a civil lawsuit against MJ after the trial, money must not have been a motivating factor for her? She must have truly wanted justice, right?   By the way, this video certainly explains why he won’t do any interviews: it’s because he’s a coward, he knows he lied, and he doesn’t want his lies to hang over his head the rest of his life! Since he didn’t extort millions of dollars from MJ the same way Jordan Chandler and Jason Francia did, he actually has to get a job and earn a living for himself.  While there may indeed be standing offers of money for an interview, it certainly wouldn’t be enough to justify exposing himself to the world and eroding whatever privacy he has.  Knowing that all of his lies were already exposed in court greatly diminishes his “market value”.

Well, that was another worthless post, which had a lot of quantity but no quality!  I’m still waiting for them to write a similar article that clearly explains how MJ “beat the system”?

Stay tuned for Part 3! I will thoroughly analyze and dissect a relatively unknown  “journalist” who is right up there with Diane Dimond, Maureen Orth, and Nancy Grace!

64 Comments leave one →
  1. May 30, 2011 7:12 pm

    I know that Brathman was hardly involved in MJ`s case. That is what is so idiotic that MJ is even mentioned when Brathman is on France24 TV in connection with the DSK-case.Good that they no longer run a clip
    of MJ exiting court with his umbrella.Just his name now.

  2. May 30, 2011 8:45 am

    @kaarin22 I wrote about it in detail in a previous comment. Brafman entered the scene in January 2004, joining the old team of lawyers and was dismissed in April 2004.

  3. lynande51 permalink*
    May 30, 2011 2:06 am

    Benjamin Brafman only represented Michael for the 2/13/2004 hearing . He applied for and got a Pro Hac Vice for the day they set the calendar for the preliminary hearing. He had to because Mark Geragos could not be Michael’s attorney anymore because he had become a witness in the case when Sneddon searched Brad Millers office. When a lawyer becomes a witness in the case they are working on they can no longer represent the defendant or be a prosecutor in that case. There really isn’t anything to get excited about with the whole Brafman thing it was one court appearance because Michael didn’t have lead counsel available.

  4. May 30, 2011 1:12 am

    Brathman was periferally and briefly involved ,I belive in 2004, during the switch from Geragos to Mesereau.He may have been partner with Geragos. Now Nareg Gourian who was on the case with Geragos is a defence lawyer for Murray.
    I am only making these posts as EVERYBODY with the slightest involment
    with Michel has to bring it out as if it was part of their credentials.Oprah did the sane.

  5. May 29, 2011 4:02 pm

    @kaarin22 They need to digest the fact that Benjamin Brafman had nothing to do with the 2005 trial.

  6. May 29, 2011 11:33 am

    The DSK-case has picked up again in the France24 news ,including the fact that Brathman is the defence lawyer, and no surprise, Michael´s name is always mentioned in context with this man.”A mafia lawyer and to some stars as MJ.”

  7. visitor permalink
    March 27, 2011 11:44 am


    “jackson was rightfully acquitted on the basis that this boy was not credible and neither was his crazy mother.”

    Michael was acquitted for this and for many other reasons too.The lack of credibility regarding the Arvizos was only a drop in the ocean.The sad thing is that people are still so misinformed about this case because no one has ever presented the facts about the trial. Only Aphrodite Jones and Charles Thompos have presented the facts. But the mass media have never examined the facts of Michael’s acquittal because if they do, then they have to admit their guilt for twisting facts,evidence and their biased attitude toward Michael and the 2005 case which led the majority of people into thinking that Michael was guilty.

  8. stacey2 permalink
    March 27, 2011 10:27 am

    I have faith in our justice system and i believe the jury did the right thing..these people were caught in so many lies and misstatements to the point where you couldnt help but wonder why these charges were even filed to begin with.. jackson was rightfully acquitted on the basis that this boy was not credible and neither was his crazy mother..people need to get over it and deal with it.

  9. Maral permalink
    March 26, 2011 7:15 pm

    oh gmab Zonen, Gavin was not naive. few months ago i showed my former caregiver the police interview talking to gavin and when he said he didn’t know what a masturbation was my caregiver JUMPED out of her chair. she is far from a MJ fan. and the fact that he was on the football team, but yet claimed to not knowing made her jump higher. he’s a lier and TMez proved it.


  1. WHAT WERE HIS THOUGHTS LIKE? The final evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence « Vindicating Michael

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: