Fact Checking the “Michael Jackson Facts Info” HATER’S website, Part 4 of 4
Finally, in this last part, I will show you that if you want to beat an MJ hater, you must know how they think! So here is an email that our adversary sent to me on February 13, 2011, which included a comment that she tried to post, but fortunately it was blocked by our trusty spam blocker! The email was in response to Mesereau’s presentation at the 2005 Harvard Law seminar. She called him a “black apologist” who only believes that MJ is innocent due to his “former skin color”. What ridiculousness!
Notice how she insists on referring to me as “Blaine”, a gay character from the 1990’s comedy show “In Living Color”!
Blaine,
I see your website is blocking comments again. Tres tragique. That is a pathetic way to go about life, Blaine, only wanting cheerleaders instead of critics. I love a critic. A critic makes one work harder. Enjoy this, Blaine, for you certainly need it.
Well, I’d left a comment and, as suspected, it was deleted. Thank God you forwarded Charles Thomson my email because I now possess every important fan email address I need, just in case I ever want to leave a comment and am not allowed to do so. See, I do not frequent your site because, well, I feel it is a waste of time because my belief is this, Dear Blaine, a fan cannot refute and, thus, vindicate, an individual when they were not present for their alleged crimes.
This is simply life. It is immutable. I think you’d do well to understand this. I feel in my moral heart and in my rational brain that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. But, of course, I cannot prove it because I (a) was not there, and (b) do not have any access to any documents and evidence and witnesses. But, I believe very strongly that Michael Jackson would have been put in jail had I been prosecutor. Or at least, smeared beyond recognition and his next Demerol injection would have ended the charade for Michael Jackson, as you say, ‘once and for all!!!’.
He has molested boys. I believe your anger at detractors is proof you know, be it in the most minute fashion but it is there, that Michael’s sleeping in the bed with boys is odd. Also, I think you know that he was gay, as the evidence of semen in his bed mattress and in these mystery underwear and sheets proves this. There were never any women around him, Blaine, we both know this, but he had no problem parading around beautiful boys even after his scandals. Because Michael Jackson loved these boys, Blaine. He was a criminal. He inscribed his naked boy book Boys Will Be Boys with tender sympathies. He didn’t even say childhood, Blaine; he said boyhood. This is typical language of the boylovers to whom I have studied since learning Michael Jackson was guilty.
I am not going to say your IQ is up to speed, Blaine, but I do believe you are capable of rational thought. You know Michael Jackson was a pedophile. He fellated these boys, masturbated them, and enjoyed himself. In turn, these boys’ minds were forever imprinted with love and affection and possession for Michael Jackson. Because it felt good. You know this, Blaine, you are a man. Masturbation and fellatio are the top sex acts of males. My ex-boyfriend, a very intelligent Jewish writer (Michael would’ve hated that), loved to masturbate. I offered to buy him a sex toy for Christmas and he told me that he would only use his hands.
Also, Blaine, I believe–scratch that–know Michael Jackson anally penetrated Brett Barnes and I know Brett Barnes, by virtue of his continued sleeping with Jacko, enjoyed being anally penetrated by Michael. Brett Barnes’ anus was scarred so much so he had to be shellacked with Vaseline in order to shit. This is natural, as Michael Jackson was a man and Brett a boy. I don’t believe that Michael jackson had a large penis but his special friends were sometimes small. Thank God he never got to penetrate Manny Lewis. It would be like a bear fucking a mouse!
I have so many pictures of Michael and his boys Spence and Safechuck. It’s so obvious he loved these boys. He was a pedophile; you can see it in his eyes. Everyone in the industry knew it…. As you know, I have a source with a connection to the PR man of a huge musician. And these people are always itching to gossip. But this is how I know Omer Bhatti was Michael’s boy lover. And, of course, his parents were pimps. As Joy Robson showed herself to be one, too, on the stand, my dear Blaine…
I won’t go on any further because a reader, and hence, a source, of my blog, informed me of a conversation with Ron Zonen she had had. Zonen said there was no evidence whatsoever of any female in Michael’s life upon the raid. However, she stated Zonen was adamant in there having been lots and lots of semen stains on Michael’s bed mattress. Remember, amongst the litany of Michael’s fluids, they discovered two other semen stains from males. But he stated Michael was very much into ‘self-love’, Blaine. I did not reference this information in my pieces on the semen but it definitely shows that michael Jackson’s 3 mystery semen samples from other males were from masturbation of these males. Or, of course, a mutual masturbation session. Either way, it is proof he was a gay male.
My belief, Blaine, is that those stains are from Omer Bhatti, maybe Brett Barnes, and Frank Casio. Who knows who’s splooge is in the sheets and underwear but it from an away trip so Michael was boinking some guy (or boy) away from Neverland.
Anyway Blaine, my comment and accompanying questions…
Here is the comment that she tried to post here a few weeks ago, but was blocked!
Actually, Blaine, there are some things I believe you need to recognize regarding Tom Mesereau:
1. He is not telling the truth regarding the 1994 Grand juries. This has two parts:
(a) I’d suggest you brush up on your statement analysis techniques for recognizing deception. He introduces this mystery LA grand juror out of nowhere and then never goes into a complete and coherent story regarding this juror. There are two possibilities (i) he’s never talked to a 1994 grand juror, or (ii) he is fabricating the conversation between a 1994 grand juror, who never broached the subject to which he claims they did.
Buy McClish’s book. It’s brilliant. I know you probably don’t read as much as you claim, Blaine (for the longest you’d pretended you knew things about Michael Jackson was my lover, which was a farce, Blaine), but it’s a good book. McClish has worked with law enforcement and believes Michael Jackson was a CM because of Michael’s statements. I’d have to agree… I’d sent him a snippet of Brett Barnes testimony and he believes him to be ‘less than truthful’ regarding why he stopped, at 19, after all of those years, sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson. It was obvious Michael and Brett were lovers, wrong or right, but they were. At that point, they were just gay lovers…
(b) Mesereau knows FULL WELL the grand juries convened in 1994 were never- I repeat, never-looking at evidence for an indictment. They were investigating grand juries, not indicting grand juries, and, thus, would never have the power to issue an indictment. It is odd to me that he would even lie about something like that, for he knows the truth and was reprimanded numerous times in court papers. This just shows a lack of integrity on Mesereau’s part, which is strange, because most of you feel he’s worthy of having his feet kissed.
He’s read the court papers; why he’s continued to lie repeatedly is something I’d have to chalk up to his being a defense attorney and, of course, to Michael being ‘black’.
2. Mesereau is a black apologist. He feels black people are closer to God than whites and will spend the rest of his life blindly believing ALL BLACKS are worthy of the highest standard of defense because they are black. Every black is innocent in his book. I believe 100 percent he believes Michael Jackson is innocent. But it is not based upon evidence; it is based upon Michael Jackson’s former(?) skin color.
Because Mesereau has read the evidence, the documents, everything. As such, there would have to be some other reason why he emphatically believes in this guy’s innocence.
As we know, there were several jurors in the case who believed very strongly Michael Jackson was a CM, and probably even molested Gavin Arvizo. So, the case was not dead in the water for the People from the start, and Mesereau knows this.
I am sure he is a brilliant defense lawyer but a run through the transcripts shows he employed typical ‘trip up the Prosecution witness’ tactics during questioning: a staccato; ending his questions with ‘right?’ or ‘correct?’ or ‘true?’; making assumptions… June Chandler withstood his questioning because either out of ignorance or laziness or blind faith belief in Michael Jackson’s innocence, he knew nothing about the 1993 case.
He’s a typical lawyer. A well-organized and pit bullish Prosecutor could have, at the very least, got a hung jury in that 2005 trial. Because the jurors wanted more. Three of them thought Michael Jackson was guilty of those charges, the foreman, Paul Rodriguez–who is an idiot for believing smoking gun evidence would come about in a molestation case wherein the place of the alleged molestation was raided 8 months following the alleged crime–believed Michael was a CM, as well.
This case was winnable for the People! They screwed up. Had it been myself, Michael would have, at the very least, been ruined in the public. Again, a reading of the transcripts reveals much about his proclivities for boys…
Sneddon may have had a vendetta, but it was because he believed, after having seen the breadth of evidence in the first case and talked to God-knows-who witnesses, Michael Jackson was prolific in his alleged crimes. That sort of ‘vendetta’ is only natural for a former cop and a married, church-going father of 9.
Mesereau is an unscrupulous bastard and I strongly believe he relishes in his contact with the famous ‘black’ man. He will defend him to the death, like the fans, because there is the blind faith aspect of his belief in Michael’s innocence. Of course, I think he is lucid, unlike the fans, so good evidence to the contrary may be able to sway him but Mesereau gets off on black people. He loves us. That alone makes me question his objectivity.
He got Mike Tyson off of rape, for Pete’s Sake. And Tyson has a history of violence towards women. I’m sure, Blaine, Mesereau would’ve fought on behalf of Michael Vick had he had the opportunity! Vick is very dark-skinned. And we all know Vick was and still is scum.
Outside of Mesereau, Blaine, please tell me:
(a) Do you believe Michael Jackson was sexually abused as a child?
(b) What do you think of Brett Barnes sleeping in the bed with Michael Jackson until he was 19?
(c) You never stated what you thought of Jolie Levine calling Michael Jackson a chickenhawk, and that Mary Coller (also referenced on the Bad album) stated Michael Jackson separated children into two groups: kids who were his (special) friends, and kids with problems (ie. photo ops).
(d) What do you think about Johnnie Cochran not wanting to defend Michael in court in 1993 but went on to defend obviously guilty OJ Simpson? Do you think it was because he believed the latter was easier to defend than the former?
(e) Are you black?
Thanks, Blaine. Great work on this transcript. This shows Mesereau’s true colors: a blind faith admirer of a rich ‘black’ man (color is so important, as he hates being white and probably feels like he is uniting with God when he has sex with the myriad black women he dates and only dates), who has not a shred of integrity to tell the truth about the simplest facts in his former client’s case.
Oh, and also: Mesereau was knowingly lying (not a surprise) about having witnesses to ‘refute’ Jordie Chandler. It was so simple for him to lie about this when not in a court of law where he could perjure himself. Via statement analysis, you know he was not telling the truth. He should have brought them in to refute June Chandler, the best witness for the People. He bombed during his questioning of her. Or they could have refuted the Neverland 5 or the other witnesses.
He never had anyone. He was not telling the truth–once again – because Michael Jackson was black. He loves black people. I bet he couldn’t wait to stop defending Robert Blake.
T-Mez will always amuse….
I hope you hazard a response. Forgive the html; it had been a comment on your blog.
~ Desiree
That has got to be the worst piece of smut ever written about Michael Jackson! It boggles the mind that that piece of filth allegedly comes from the mind of a “twenty something black girl with things on her mind”, who is also allegedly a full time microbiology major in college. She had the nerve to ask me if I was black, as if it matters! (And just for the record, I am!)
Did you notice how she refutes what Mesereau said about 2 grand juries in 1994 refusing to indict MJ by saying that they were “investigating” grand juries, and not indicting grand juries (thus implying that those 2 grand juries could not have indicted MJ even if they had compelling evidence as a result of their investigation). So according to her logic, even though she says that Jordan’s description matched, Sneddon did not arrest MJ, but instead he and Gil Garcetti each convene a grand jury for the sole purpose of merely continuing their “investigation” of MJ (ending in September 1994), knowing that they could not indict MJ upon the completion of the investigation? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, right?
She is trying to justify what Sneddon said in his in his rebuttal to Mesereau’s objection to the admission of 1108 evidence. In his motion titled “Opposition To District Attorney’s Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses”, Mesereau stated the following, beginning on Page 3:
pg 3:
The Proposed Testimony Has No Probative Value Because It Is False
This is not the first time that the prosecution has sought to introduce this evidence in a judicial proceeding. This is the same “evidence” that left two separate grand juries so unimpressed with the prosecution’s “case” that they did not return indictments. In each of the occasions in which a grand jury or civil jury has had the opportunity to listen to witnesses like Ralph Chacon or Adrian McManus, the jurors have found the witnesses to be incredible. In the civil trial, the jury went as far as to find that Mr. Chacon and Ms. McManus not only lied about Mr. Jackson, but that they stole from him as well. The only thing probative about the proposed testimony of these witnesses is that it will demonstrate to the jury that the District Attorney maintains the same fact checking standards as Hard Copy and the National Enquirer.
Predictably, the prosecution’s papers merely gloss over the issue of whether or not there is any reason to believe that the alleged prior acts actually occurred. The prosecution’s 63 page motion devotes a single paragraph to the “degree of certainty of defendant’s commission of the prior offenses.” The District Attorney makes a general argument that a conviction is not required for evidence of a prior offense to be admissible and points out that such offenses are often not reported. The prosecution neglects to mention that the testimony in question in the cases cited by them, is the testimony of prior victims with no opportunity or motivation to lie about the prior offense conduct. The prosecution’s treatment of this issue implies that the evidence they are seeking to admit is of the kind that is typical in sexual abuse cases. This is not the case. There are no published cases in which a trial court has allowed prior offense testimony of this nature.
The “Similarity ” Of The Prosecution’s Evidence Does Not Overcome The Witnesses Total Lack Of Credibility
pg 4:
The evidence in all of the cases cited by the prosecution is distinguishable from the evidence in present case because in all of those cases the evidence as of a much higher quality. For example, in Dancer, the evidence of prior offenses was the defendant’s actual conviction for the prior child molestation. In Falsetta, the evidence was also that the defendant was convicted and there plead guilty in two prior rape cases. In Soto, the evidence was testimony from the actual two prior alleged victims. Unlike the cases cited by the prosecution, there is no credible evidence that the conduct even occurred, so it is unnecessary to even get to the question of whether the conduct is similar to the charged conduct.
In Sneddon’s rebuttal, titled “Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Evidence Code §1108 Motion”, he stated the following:
As defendant well knows, the two grand juries that considered evidence against him in 1994 (a standing grand jury in Los Angeles County; a specially-convened grand jury in Santa Barbara County) were functioning as investigative grand juries. They were not asked to return indictments or to make “findings.” Jordan Chandler refused to testify before them following his multi-million dollar settlement with defendant in early 1994. That essentially put the investigation on “hold,” and the Santa Barbara grand jury was discharged. The grand juries did not “reject” the testimony of any witness.
Well, let’s knock out this “investigative” grand jury crap once and for all! Let’s look at what was said by in these two articles from 1994. In this first article (copied below), just from the headline alone you can see how Sneddon tried to imply that MJ was gay, which he would surely exploit and use to convince the grand jurors that MJ was a child molester, because many people who are prejudiced against homosexuals believe that to be true! (Sneddon was a master of using ad hominem techniques during his persecution of MJ!) Allegations of being gay have haunted MJ since the 70’s! In this JET magazine article from September 22nd, 1977, MJ emphatically denies not only being gay, but also having a sex change operation and swimming nude with Tatum O’Neal! (In the 70’s, interracial dating and marriage was still taboo, although by the time he married Lisa Marie in 1994 that stigma was much less prevalent.)
Jackson Case Panel Asks About Sexual Orientation : Grand jury: An employee of the singer says he was questioned about the star and about himself. The witness’s lawyer calls the inquiries improper; some experts dispute him.
March 31, 1994|JIM NEWTON | TIMES STAFF WRITER
Prosecutors investigating allegations that Michael Jackson sexually molested a 13-year-old boy asked a witness to tell a grand jury about Jackson’s sexual orientation and to testify about his own sexual orientation as well, according to sources familiar with that witness’s testimony.
The witness, an employee of Jackson who appeared before the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury recently, told his lawyer about the questions, and that attorney fired off an angry letter to the Santa Barbara County and Los Angeles County district attorney’s offices in response.
In his letter, lawyer Richard M. Steingard accused prosecutors of exceeding the proper limits of grand jury questioning. Steingard wrote that grand jury questions must be limited to evidence that would be admissible in court–a contention that legal experts disputed even as some expressed reservations about inquiring into a witness’ sexual orientation.
“One would think that prosecutors of your stature would, at a minimum, know this to be the law and attempt in your questioning of witnesses to comply with this rule,” Steingard wrote. “Based on the above, you apparently believe that the questioning of a witness has no limits or boundaries and that anything, even a witness’ sexual preference, is fair game.”
Steingard’s letter is the latest in a series of criticisms leveled at prosecutors in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara who are investigating the allegations against Jackson. The entertainer’s lawyers have regularly attacked the slow pace of the inquiry, which was launched last summer, while ministers, civil rights activists and other Jackson supporters have added their criticisms as well.
Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, said officials there could not comment on the allegations raised in Steingard’s letter. Prosecutors are prohibited by law from discussing any matters that are before a grand jury–even to confirm that a grand jury probe is under way.
Legal experts, meanwhile, disputed Steingard’s reading of the law about the limits of grand jury inquiries.
“The grand jury is given powers that we do not give police or prosecutors . . . and it may ask a broad range of questions whose relevancy might not be clear until other evidence is gathered,” said Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor who has extensively researched issues related to grand juries. “For the most part, the grand jury can ask whatever it wants.”
During grand jury inquiries, prosecutors generally question witnesses, but jurors also can ask questions.
Several experienced lawyers said they considered it highly unusual for prosecutors to inquire about a witness’ sexual orientation. One area of particular concern, they noted, is that state grand jury transcripts become public documents if the subject of the inquiry is indicted. As a result, the information about the witness’ sexual orientation could become public if Jackson were indicted.
Steingard’s letter indicates that his client was asked about three topics he considered objectionable: the sexual orientation of Jackson, the sexual orientation of Jackson associates and the witness’s own sexual orientation.
“The grand jury can ask questions that are relevant to the inquiry,” said Donald M. Re, an experienced criminal defense lawyer. “Given the nature of this case, the first two questions may be proper. . . . The third question, ‘Are you yourself gay?’ gets a lot closer to the line.”
Harland W. Braun, another defense attorney who also is a former prosecutor, agreed, saying he believes the district attorney could explore the topic of Jackson’s sexual orientation.
As to the question about the witness’s orientation, Braun called it “close to the edge.”
Under most circumstances, asking a witness about his or her sexual orientation would almost certainly be irrelevant during a trial, legal experts agreed. But even in that context, a witness’s own statements might make it relevant. For example, if a witness described impressions of Jackson’s conduct or conversations about homosexuality, the witness’s own perspective on that topic might be deemed relevant in court.
Steingard declined to comment Wednesday on the questions that were posed to his client during his grand jury appearance. But Steingard confirmed he had sent the letter to the district attorney’s office and said he stood by the statements in it.
“In general, to ask questions of grand jury witnesses about sexual orientation I think is outrageous,” he said. “I cannot fathom any circumstance in which that would be proper.”
Howard Weitzman, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said prosecutors have “spent considerable time, money and energy to construct a case that does not exist.” Although the lawyer said he did not know whether a witness had been questioned about Jackson’s sexual orientation or his own, Weitzman added: “If what (Steingard) claims in that letter is true and the investigation is now down to that level, it is a real sad commentary on the prosecution in this case.”
The case has been under investigation since last summer, and an array of witnesses, including Jackson’s mother, have been forced to appear before grand juries meeting in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara. Authorities in the two counties are conducting investigations because Jackson allegedly molested the boy in both jurisdictions.
At a meeting with the courthouse press corps March 15, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti said he expected the Jackson investigation to be concluded within a month or so. Sources familiar with the case now say they expect it to conclude by the end of April.
As you can see, Sneddon left no stone unturned in his efforts to get an indictment, and his tactics in 1994 were a prelude to what he would do in 2005 (for example, using those two art books that were confiscated in 1993). Now, did you notice that twice it was mentioned “if Jackson were indicted”? If there was no possibility that he could be indicted, this article would have said so! It would have SPECIFICALLY said that these grand juries were for “investigation purposes only”, with no possibility of indictment!
In this second article, MJ’s Constitutional Right to plead the 5th in his civil trial against the Hayvenhurst 5 was scrutinized, as the media did everything they could to spin it into a sign of having something to hide (as you can see from the sensationalist headline), when in fact he simply did not want to reveal his defense strategy while criminal charges were still possible. His legal counsel advised him to plead the 5th, and for once they actually gave him good advice!
Judge Lets Jackson Plead 5th : Courts: The singer avoids answering questions in civil case about whether he molested children. His lawyers say they advised the legal move even though he is innocent.
September 16, 1994|NICHOLAS RICCARDI | TIMES STAFF WRITER
A Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that pop superstar Michael Jackson can plead the 5th Amendment in a civil case, enabling him to avoid answering questions under oath about whether he sexually abused children.
Attorney Charles Mathews, representing five former Jackson security guards who have filed suit against Jackson claiming that he fired them to conceal his child molestation, said Jackson is hiding behind the 5th Amendment.
“Michael Jackson had the opportunity today to come into court and say he is innocent,” Mathews said after the hearing. Instead, Matthews said, Jackson “gets up and says, ‘Sorry, I want to take the 5th because my answer could incriminate me.’ “
Jackson’s attorneys said the singer wanted to testify that he was innocent, but given that he may face criminal charges, his defense team advised Jackson to stay silent.
Jackson “maintains that he is innocent,” said Carl Douglas, his attorney, accusing Mathews of grandstanding. “As an experienced criminal attorney, (Mathews) knows full well the obligations of one’s counsel when they are facing serious charges.”
Jackson has not been charged with a crime. A grand jury disbanded in July without indicting the singer, but the statute of limitations on child molestation charges runs six years, and the district attorney’s office has not said Jackson is in the clear.
Mathews, who had wanted Superior Court Judge Richard C. Neal to force Jackson to admit or deny firing the guards as part of a cover-up, complained that this was the first time a defendant had used the 5th Amendment in not answering allegations in a civil suit.
“I found not even one (similar civil) case,” Mathews said, “and the 5th Amendment has been around for a long time.”
Neal said he had to “fall back on basic principles, and the basic principle is a fairly simple one, that we don’t use our judicial process to make someone incriminate themselves.”
The guards, all fired Feb. 1, 1993, sued Jackson in November. In the suit, they said they had seen boys between the ages of 9 and 14 going into Jackson’s private quarters in his Hayvenhurst Avenue estate in Encino and not emerging until the next morning.
The suit also alleges that one guard, Leroy A. Thomas, was ordered to retrieve a Polaroid photo of a naked boy from Jackson’s private bathroom and destroy it.
Mathews said the guards had cooperated with the district attorney’s office and filed the suit, which is scheduled for trial in April, after they became convinced that charges would not be lodged against Jackson. Mathews called his clients “good men, moral men.”
Another of Jackson’s attorneys, Zia Modabber, has another view. “They want money,” he said Thursday. “They don’t want (Jackson) to admit or deny anything for any real purpose.”
Did you notice how it said the grand jury “disbanded in July WITHOUT INDICITING THE SINGER”, which means that they had the possibility of doing so they felt it was necessary, but chose not to! If there was no possibility that MJ could have been indicted, then this article would not have mentioned the grand jury’s non-indictment! (Oh, and as for the Hayvenhurst 5’s frivolous lawsuit, I will discuss it in further detail in a future article, as well as the Neverland 5’s frivolous lawsuit.)
In this final article, which is a transcript from the May 2, 1994 episode of CNN’s Showbiz Today, they quote one of the grand jurors, who said that “no damaging evidence was heard”. This grand juror had no reason to lie, and if there was any evidence good enough to secure an indictment, then that grand juror would have said so. MJ’s attorney Howard Weitzman said that he “didn’t’ believe the district attorney’s office in Santa Barbara County would ask this particular grand jury for an indictment, so we’re not surprised at all”. That comment once again illustrates the fact that Sneddon and Garcetti had the option to ask for an indictment, but were obviously too embarrassed to do so.
Weitzman went on to say that “I think, it’s a guess, this district attorney in Santa Barbara County could definitely impanel another grand jury for reasons unbeknownst to me, and this grand jury in Los Angeles could continue to try and call witnesses”. So let’s assume that, hypothetically, Sneddon subsequently stumbled onto some very incriminating evidence against MJ that he didn’t have prior to the disbanding of his first grand jury in May 1994. Don’t you think he would have impaneled another grand jury, just as Weitzman stated? Of course he would have! But the fact that he did NOT impanel another grand jury speaks volumes! And did you notice how Weitzman said that Sneddon could impanel another grand jury “for reasons unbeknownst to him”? That should stand out because it’s an indication of his total belief in MJ’s innocence! Weitzman could not imagine a single reason why Sneddon would impanel another grand jury, since he couldn’t get an indictment from his first grand jury using whatever flimsy evidence he had!
Here’s another crazy argument that they try to make in favor of the Chandlers: in this post, the try to justify Ray Chander’s cowardly act of fighting his subpoena by stating that there really wasn’t any reason for him to testify in the first place, since the defense already had access to the public documents used in his book and website! Fortunately, we exposed Ray’s spineless actions in this series of posts from last year. And look at this RIDICULOUS logic that they use to defend Evan Chandler:
He also points out that Jackson withdrew his claims of extortion in January 1994 (thus negating fan claims that “extortion” was involved).
So because MJ withdrew his claims of extortion, that means the extortion didn’t take place? Since MJ didn’t fight tooth and nail to keep the extortion charge, he must have been lying about it? That’s what they’re saying!
Well, let me remind them that Evan Chandler withdrew the molestation claims, thus negating HATER’S claims that molestation was involved! See what happens when you argue with hater’s by using their own flawed logic to defeat them!
Well, let’s end this series on a positive note. Here is a video that I recently found, and it’ll surely put a smile on your face. Remember earlier when I mentioned Robert Sanger, one of MJ’s lawyers during the trial? Here is an extremely rare interview that he did last year about his relationship with MJ! Listen to how he describes the “duet” that he sung with MJ!
And, most importantly, listen to how he describes how MJ was exonerated in 1994 and 2005, and rhetorically asks “How many times does somebody have to be exonerated to be exonerated?”
Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0 
@ ares
thank for your response and i do see your point about the fact that there’s always going to be people clamming this and that. i guess what makes me go flip flop sometimes (not the majority of times) is when people like the nanny implying things. i start to wonder if she’s laying why did he kept her around for 17 years. but then i think again and have to wonder if he had something to hide he’d make sure she’d sign a confidential agreement. same goes for jones and he was proven to be a liar.
@Maral
People on the MJ forums are mostly interested in Mike’s music and not his personal life. Moreover, the majority of them have either made up their mind about the accusations and they are sure that Mike was innocent or even if they have doupts, they simply don’t care.
You can discuss here your thoughts about Mike concerning the allegations but you have also to think about yourself on some things that you read or hear. No one can assure you about everything and there are always going to be people out there who will claim to know for certain that Mike was a ped-le and that they have irrefutable evidence to prove it. In that case you have to see those evidence, check the credibility of that person, check the other side of the story and make up your mind. This is the case and it’s not going to change unfortunatelly.
@kaarin22
Benjamin Bratman had nothing to do with both cases. But as always the media fail to do something important when it comes to MJ. Fact Checking. It so obvious their bias and failing on reporting the facts about MJ that am really starting to believe in conspiracy theories.
“Benjamin Brafman had nothing to do with both cases…. It so obvious their bias and failing on reporting the facts about MJ that am really starting to believe in conspiracy theories.”
Ares, the bias is undeniable and is unbelievable in its scale and unison of voices. Now I do not doubt for a second that Michael’s harassment was orchestrated by some media giants who stay in power for decades no matter what the current government is. They are the ones who shape public opinion and make or destroy other people’s lives, including those of top politicians.
Have you noticed that they never publish news about themselves? Only about others. Considering how powerful and influential these people are this absence of information is extremely strange as one would expect a good media coverage of their success in life. However if you start looking for news about them there will be practically nothing.
You know that some of my ‘favorite’ guys now are Randy Phillips and his boss, Philips Ancshutz of AEG. Isn’t Ancshutz too silent for a man whose main business is entertainment? Has anyone seen a photo of him at least once? And they laughed at Michael being reclusive…. Why don’t they mock at the incredible type of secrecy Anschutz maintains?
What do we know about this entertainment mogul? NOTHING, though one would expect him to be attending every public forum due to the specifics of his business. It is such a stark contrast with poor Michael Jackson whose feelings, mind and body including its most intimate parts were thrown into full public view both during and after his death…
It may be my impression only, but Michael’s harassment does look like a cruel game started by some Big bosses, who turned his life into a worldwide attraction and tossed it to the crowd for general entertainment, public humiliation and open ridicule – as if teaching him a lesson for something. I repeat – this is my impression only, but it is so vivid and clear that I simply cannot brush it away as a nonsense feeling. And the more we look the more proof of it we get.
As to Benjamin Brafman he was indeed employed in the Arvizo case, but for a period prior to the indictment only. Here is the information about him from the LA Times:
“The change in lawyers was the biggest decision. Mark Geragos and Benjamin Brafman were viewed throughout the legal establishment as outstanding lawyers. But Geragos was dividing his time between Jackson and the Scott Peterson murder case. Brafman was based in New York [ ] and his involvement in the case has meant frequent cross-country trips.
Huddling with Randy and two other advisors, Jackson settled on Mesereau, who projected a workhorse image, just what Jackson wanted”.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/07/local/me-image7
i just made a post on imdb. i’m sure many of you recognize my name. i’m always maral on each forum. i’m not going to lie, sometimes i hear stuff and wonder what if and it drives me crazy. because i have no one to discuss it with. i wish fan forum would allow new fans or on the fence people to come, talk, ask and have a discussion about the accusations. it would give people like D less power.
that being said i did try to read the entry and her “evidence” is laughable. and in one of her posts at Jason Pfeiffer blog (yeye i looked) she claim even Frank Cascio believes he was a pedo…… and that not even Brando trusted MJ with his kids. sometimes i want to contact these people and tell them about her claims but i don’t want to seem like a crazy fan
Brafman belonged to the old Geragos team and he was in from January 2004 until April 2004. Then the team changed and he had nothing to do with the trial. Apparently, the stupid journalists messed up the 1994 settlement with Brafman.
I found Benjamin Bratman mentioned in “Frozen in..” He was the attorney during the transition from Gregaros to Mesereau.
So what did he do ? Was on for hrs or a a few days? The DSK-news state he worked out a settlement for MJ.Does not sound correct.
So now MJ&settlement is broadcast all over the world q 1/2 hr.
@hana
Nothing, he wasn’t connected, si I am still waiting for an answer. He knows very well who she is, I send the link to Mesereau’s facebook. I think someone should try to contact the Estate about that. I don’t know if they can do something, but at one point someone has to take legal action against her. What she is doing is illegal.
@shelly
What did Barnes say when you sent him the link?
@kaarin22
He was in the first team of MJ’s lawyers in 2003-2004.
Click to access 011504noticeprohacvice.pdf
He resigned in 2004
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4830594/site/todayshow/ns/today-entertainment/t/jackson-says-he-terminated-lead-attorneys/
Chris & @lyande, Murray owes much more, 1.25 mln to the federal goverment for overbilling.That case was up in Las Vegas 2010 and put on ice as he promised to pay it. Murray´s finances are off limits
in the trial.Wonder why, as they seem a most significant factor.
Another thing, now with Dominick Strauss-Kahn, there is a french news
statiom, Fracce 24.com,that broad casts the DSK case almost every
half hour. And never do they fail to get MJ`s name dragged in to it.
Who is the attrn. Benjamin Brathman who acc. to the news was a lawyer for MJ. They even show brief clips of MJ.Never heard about B. Brathman, and does he need Michael´s name to bolster his credentials.
Just had to get this off my chest.
@lynande51
On imdb her name is not D but jessicatwin.
@ Lynande
I have been wondering the same thing how is he paying attorney fees? He was reportedly $780,000 in debt. His attorney said in March he couldn’t afford it to be put back.
I forgot the PR firm lol.
It’s amazing how this goes unreported and anything MJ is thrown out there finances drugs whatever.
Remind me who’s on trial again?
I’m willing to bet my life on the fact he will not make it to a court room, I think he will be silenced.
@lynande
It’s link
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001391/board/thread/182935780?d=182935780&p=1#182935780
She just posted a link to her blog. She managed to pissed off everyone on the board.
Shelley can you leave me link to her IMDB postings I have never found them. Another person that you could contact is Brian Oxman if she is saying things about Grace, Frank and Bruce S. He is still very involved with the family and when she is posting these things to multiple sites it does influence the upcoming jury pool in Conrad Murray’s trial. That is why I think all of this resurgance of this kind of material is very coincidental and is probably fueled by Murrays PR firm. You know no one has ever answered who is paying this guys attorney fees and for his PR firm? How does someone as broke and in debt as Murray was suddenly afford all this. When you defend someone in a criminal case of this magnitude it is very costly and that is from the minute it starts. Every motion and piece of evidence costs the defendent just to file it or to have the prosecution provide it to them. They also have to pay for their own experts. These things are not all added up and put on a bill for the end of the trial they have to pay for them as they go.And last but not least D says she is from Las Vegas and that was where Murray had one of his offices, the one where he met Michael. Is it possible that there is a connection?
“How does someone as broke and in debt as Murray can suddenly afford all this. When you defend someone in a criminal case of this magnitude it is very costly and that is from the minute it starts. Every motion and piece of evidence costs the defendent just to file it or to have the prosecution provide it to them. They also have to pay for their own experts. These things are not all added up and put on a bill for the end of the trial they have to pay for them as they go”.
Lynette, I know of only one company which would be terribly interested in getting Murray out of all this so that he doesn’t tell the truth about Michael’s last few months.
@lynande
I know that but in fact she is on imdb with her article, fighting against everyone including people who thinks he might have been a CM, it’s how I know that. I send a link to her article to Barnes, I hope one day he’ll sue her.
Shelley, when you go to to her site it benefits her to have more readers. My suggestion is don’t go. She also tracks her readers IP addresses so she knows who you are do you like that idea because I don’t but it does show what kind of person she is doesn’t it.
In a criminal case you have to have a unanimous decision that means all members of the jury have to agree on a verdict. If one or two of them disagree on a verdict then it is considered a “hung jury’. If that happens the jury foreman goes to the judge and says we can’t reach a decision and the case is declared a mistrial due to the hung jury and the prosecution can decide to try the case again. Next time they tried the case it would have been with another jury so it would mean nothing to any of them they would not have had to come back for a second trial. So all that stuff about them being bullied and coerced into their not guilty verdict is just plain BS. No one in the public is ever allowed to know who voted which way in a criminal trial. They could have just said no I will not change my vote and it would have been over for all twelve of them.
In the 2005 trial it was later found that one juror who it is believed was Elenor Cook brought in a video tape of program from Court TV that was very biased and commentary was very inflamatory. It was found in a VCR and was not rewound so it had been watched or at least partially.The Court TV ( Diane Dimond ) said that they had been viewing evidence when in fact all of the evidence was converted to CD or DVD so it did not contain evidence.The Court ( the Judge) called an In Camera ( in chambers) Conference because the defense could have had Elenor Cook recused and had a mistrial declared based on the Video tape being brought in to the jury room. It would have started the whole thing over again or any verdict found would have been immediate grounds for appeal and as long as a verdict had not been reached Michael would have remained on bail even pending an appeal. However Michael’s legal team decided that they would go with the jury they had and we now know the rest of the story, 14 not gulty verdicts. It was true and it was found during deliberations and I have the document from the Defense asking for clarification.
Our friend D wrote a long blog entry about Barnes, she thinks he had romantic feelings for MJ!
Hi Tanya. It was 2 of the jurors that came out a few days after and claimed that they wanted to vote guilty but were forced to vote not guity. The other jurors stated that was absolutely not true. Those 2 jurors wanted to write negative books about Michael Jackson for money. Neither book came to fruition thankfully. I saw a William Wagener interview where he stated he had interviewed Eleanor Cook and she went into the trial wanting to vote guilty because she didn’t like Michael Jackson grabbing his crotch during his dances. She is also the one who wanted to bring a tape into the jury deliberations of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace discussing the trial. Ray Hultman said it was his belief that Michael Jackson probably molested someone in the past, but the evidence wasn’t there to support the claim in the Arvizo case. Both were in my view disgusting for their behavior after the trial. Vindicating MJ has done an excellent piece on the subject.
Sorry english isn’t my first language so I have to ask if I got that right. At least two of the three jurors that did believe Gavin and his family say that they were forced to vote not guilty otherwise they would have been kicked out of the jury? Well…
I mean, how stupid is this? If I am a juror and the defendant is supposed to be a child molester and I am absolutly positive about his guilt then nothing and noone could ever force me to vote not guilty. And if they would kick me out of the jury, ok.
So it was more important for them to be a part of a jury from which they thought that they make a big mistake than to stay true to their own feelings and their own believe? Wow…
“At least two of the three jurors that did believe Gavin and his family say that they were forced to vote not guilty otherwise they would have been kicked out of the jury?”
Tanja, I think that not a single member of the jury can kick any other member of the jury – they are equal in their rights, so the mere idea of “kicking someone out” is ridiculous in the very least.
The only thing they can do is complain to the judge that some of them are breaking the rules, like Eleanor Cook about whom Julie wrote here – she tried to bring the tape of Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace discussing the trial and this is something the judge would have very much frowned upon if the other jurors had brought it to his attention.
@lcpledwards,
Thanks for that, I forgot your older posts.
i find it interesting that Ray Chandler practically vindicate MJ single handedly in his book. if his documents and information are even half true, as far as i have been informed by this blog, things he says is totally in MJs favor
@lynande,
“In that meeting they go over what it would be like for Bert Fields or Howard Weitzman to cross examine him (Michael hadn’t hired Johnny Cochran yet).”
Could you tell us what Ray Chandler said about that? Did he really said that Jordan could blow their case?
@ Shelly
To see what Ray and Evan Chandler said about Jordan not testifying, read these 2 posts, where I have included numerous excerpts from “All That Glitters”:
“Sneddon went to Australia to interview but his parents refused to let him alone with law enforcement so they couldn’t interview him,”
They could have interviewed the minor child with a parent present. The idea being promoted is Brett would not talk candidly in front of his parents or his parents would force him to lie that is a fallacy. Considering American Police can legally lie to potential witnesses and given the fact Sneddon continued using Brett, willfully applying the “victim” label, leaving the boy open to public speculation in order to increase his number of victims, they were right not to allow him to be left with Sneddon and Gang.
This was legalized harassment and that “Could not” business was an excuse. I’d have called my attorney.
They only had Jordans word for that at the time. Brett had already said it was a lie and steadfastly denied that anything had happened even publicly on television. Wade issued one as well. It wasn’t until Chacon corraborated Jordan’s story with his ” eyewitness” account of what happened that they thought they could go after Brett again.
“Sneddon went to Australia because one of the Neverland 5 testified that he saw MJ molested him”
Ok I’m confused. I thought Sneddon flew to austraila and wanted to interview brett Barnes because of what jordie chandler mentioned in his statements? According to Jordie, Michael told him that he had many sexual encounters with Brett and that whenever he would want him to do something sexual with him, he would always bring up Brett’s name.
Jordan never had any intention of testifying or being cross examined. In the written transcripts of his interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, Gardner asks Jordan if he is afraid now and Jordans reply is only of being cross examined. In ATG one of their first meeting with Feldman and Shapiro, Shapiro was Evans first attorney’s, Barry Rothman’s attorney that was defending him against the allegations of extortion. In that meeting they go over what it would be like for Bert Fields or Howard Weitzman to cross examine him (Michael hadn’t hired Johnny Cochran yet). The Chandlers decided they wouldn’t take the chance that Jordan would fail in a cross examination and blow their case. That meeting took place in September of 1993 and Jordan was sent to see Dr. Gardner in October. Once Jordan turned 14 in January he would have had to testify in open court in either a civil or a criminal court. Michael could have demanded it as was his right to confront his accuser in open court. The Chandlers had to settle when they did too because once Jordan turned 14 he could be held in contempt of court for perjury if he was found to be lying under oath. That is why that silly declaration had to be signed and filed with the court before January 11th 1994 Jordan’s 14th birthday.
Next it was Ralph Chacon talking to Detective Russ Birchim and then Tom Sneddon on June 9th or 10th of 1994 that sent the DA’s from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara to Australia. It was not anything that was said by Brett. The Other boy in therapy was of course Jason Francia.That is why they thought that they could have all of these ex employees testify to the facts in the case because they were only allowed to talk to Brett one time at the ranch and in the company of his parents. By the way one more thing Bretts parents were still married when this was all happening. So much for that theory that he only went after kids without dads. As a matter of fact only two of the families had divorces. Wade Robsons and Jordan Chandlers.
“The question is with out the settlement would Jordan still have testified in the civil? I say not.”
I am not sure about that. They wanted the money very badly.
@ Shelly, Teva, & Maral
The Chandlers filed the lawsuit with the hope that MJ would settle, and that is why they pushed so hard for the civil case to go to court before the criminal case. Remember, in “All That Glitters” Evan’s attorney Robert Shapiro said that if the criminal case goes first, and MJ is acquitted, their chances of getting a civil settlement are almost impossible. If MJ had not been forced to settle, the case would have gone to court, and even if Jordan himself didn’t testify at the trial, he would have had to give a deposition, which would have been used in lieu of his testimony. Evan and June Chandler would have surely had to testify in the civil trial, since they were adults.
@Shelly
They never had Jordan Chandler. From the word “GO” Jordan was nerver going to testify in civil, or criminal The question is with out the settlement would Jordan still have testified in the civil? I say not.
Why Sneddon changed his story? Why did Garcetti said they had Jordan until July if the Santa Barbara grand jury was disbanded because of hordan refusal? Did they really had Jordan Chandler?
Thanks Shelly!
@Maral
You took the thought right out my head. What was different in 2004 that allowed Michael to be arrested, but he wasn’t in 1993.
so if they arrested him 6 months before the grand jury in 03 when the story had so many holes, i’m sure the could arrest him december 93 after the search IF they had the evidence sneddon claims he had aka a match.
@Teva
He was arrested in 2003, 6 months before the grand jury and the arraignment was on January. The Grand jury was around April.
When Michael Jackson was arrested in 2004 was it before, or after the grand jury.
shelly i agree about not spreading rumors. just wanted to check……
I never read something like that and I don’t think we should spread rumor.
i heard somewhere francia is sneddons son in-law…. anyone know if that’s true
Brett Barnes was at Neverland when they raided the ranch and was on TV saying nothing happened. After that he spend one month in South America travelling with his family and MJ and went back to Australia.
Sneddon went to Australia to interveiw but his parents refused to let him alone with law enforcement so they couldn’t interview him. Sneddon went to Australia because one of the Neverland 5 testified that he saw MJ molested him
This is the original statement
”
September 21, 1994
During the last several months, investigatory efforts uncovered additional allegations of sexual molestation occurring between Mr. Jackson and a second boy. The particular events described occurred solely in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, any filing decision on those allegations would involve Santa Barbara.
As to those particular allegations, Santa Barbara County declines to file at this time, because of the inability of law enforcement to interview the alleged victim, because that child is beyond the reach of the court process, and because of the child’s prior general denial of any wrongdoing.[
The investigation also revealed the existence of a third alleged victim who has been in psychological therapy since his disclosure to police in early November of 1993. He has alleged that Michael Jackson molested him on three occasions. Two of those occasions allegedly occurred in Los Angeles County beyond the statute of limitations, and the third occasion, within the statute, allegedly occurred in Santa Barbara County. In light of the primary alleged victim’s decision not to testify, and because of the third alleged victim’s reluctance to testify and in consideration of his psychological well-being, no charges relating to the third alleged victim will be pursued at this time.
Another aspect of the investigation involved accounts from several witnesses who allegedly viewed Mr. Jackson inappropriately touching children other than the alleged victims mentioned above. At no time did any of the children named confirm that such conduct occurred, and the credibility of those third party accounts is compromised by the fact that some of the sources of these accounts profited monetarily by selling their stories to the media.
In conclusion, we decline to file charges relating to any of the alleged victims at this time because of the legal unavailability of the primary alleged victim. We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of victims. Should circumstances change or should new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be reevaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.”
are we sure it’s Barns? it’s says that he accused him later barns never did that. but then again if any he ment other then barns we would hear about it by now. could he been terry? you know, the english idiot.
The 2 others kids were Francia and Barnes. Barnes never said anything.
@shelly
i’m reading the article you just posted and what Feldman says about the settlement not being the reason for Jordie refusal to testify. also it’s interesting how Garcetti claim there were TWO other accusers. but we know for a fact that is a lie.
no matter how you look at it things are still in MJs favor. if the two grand jurors investigated the case and found NOTHING, as the LA polis department and sneddons team and FBI then it still prove there was nothing to find. and if the jury was there to look over the evidence to make a deception if there was enough evidence to take the case to the trial it STILL prove there were none, hence there were no match. if there was, i think it would be considered as hard evidence.
Someone is lying, Sneddon said Jordan refused to testify before the Santa Barbara ggrand jury was discharged, which was around April or May 1994.
“As defendant well knows, the two grand juries that considered evidence against him in 1994 (a standing grand jury in Los Angeles County; a specially-convened grand jury in Santa Barbara County) were functioning as investigative grand juries. They were not asked to return indictments or to make “findings.” Jordan Chandler refused to testify before them following his multi-million dollar settlement with defendant in early 1994. That essentially put the investigation on “hold,” and the Santa Barbara grand jury was discharged. The grand juries did not “reject” the testimony of any witness.”
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JOZHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sewDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6540,3129646&dq=gil+garcetti+statement&hl=en
Garcetti said,in 1994,Jordan told them in July 1994 that he refused to testify and never said anything about refusing to testify before July 1994.
@Steph’s Wife THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
@Steph’s Wife
Thanks for your contribution here! I totally agree!
@Steph’s Wife
Great post!
Forget everything that lunatic Desiree says. Even with her flawed logic, she truly believes that MJ was guilty, and will use every piece of lurid, unsubstantiated, disgusting, salacious detail she can find to prove her point. When reading her articles, it was hard NOT to double over from both nausea and uproarious laughter. Now, the claim is that the grand juries were for “investigational” purposes only? Yeah, right. And she claims this because of what Sneddon writes in his rebuttal to Mesereau? PLEASE!!!! We all know Sneddon and the truth don’t always go hand in hand. Remember how he claimed to have never given Jackson another thought after ’93 but there are numerous interviews, and articles to the contrary available on the internet from 1994 through the early part of the millenium. Yes! Sneddon tells the truth all of the time. *rolls eyes* She’s gonna need to put another spin to that line of rubbish because she means for us to believe that while the whole world was waiting for an indictment as a result of the grand juries, they were only “investigating” him. So using her logic, not only were TWO different law enforcement entities investigating MJ, but two grand juries were as well. And they STILL didn’t come up with enough to indict MJ! If Jackson were guilty, the end result of that dehumanzing strip-search would’ve been immediate arrest. So far, not even the most ardent Jackson-hater has come up with a LEGAL and VALID reason as to why he wasn’t arrested. Then, there’s Jordan’s description of a circumcised penis. For years, haters have been shoving down the throats of Jackson’s fans and supporters that his description matched (without answering why he wasn’t arrested on the spot if it did) but when the autopsy report came out showing an uncircumcised penis, thats when all hell broke lose on the Jackson-hater blogosphere! I’ve heard everything from an uncircumcised penis looks like a circumcised one when erect, to Jordan probably wasn’t even looking at it when he was masturbating Jackson. BULLSHIT! Jordan claimed to have bathed with Jackson on numerous occasions. I’m quite sure that he wasn’t in a constant state of arousal during that time, if it happened. Further, if he could point out exactly where the tell-tale splotches on MJ’s genitals were, why couldn’t he (being half-Jewish) indentify an uncircumcised penis?? Hello?!
Even as far back as 1993, when the whole scandal broke, I can remember reading articles (and there weren’t that many) that questioned the tactics used by Sneddon, why Jackson wasn’t arrested if the photos matched Jordan’s description, why Jordan’s father didn’t immediately go to the police of he felt his son was being violated, etc. Yet, this bitch (excuse me) claims that the evidence was there in 1993, but because of the settlement, it didn’t go to trial. MORE BULLSHIT!!!!!! Again, using her logic, we should assume that every other person who has settled a civil lawsuit in regards to claims of neglience, whether physical or sexual, is guilty. LOL! I knew that blowhard, Bill O’Reilly, was guilty!
Then, to add insult to injury, she tries to make Tom Mesereau seem like a self-hating groupie for the black race! This coming from the very person who claims on her website that she’d like to see black women become the “end-all, be-all” for the standard of beauty. (I’m not gonna lie; I would like to see that, too as a black woman myself) But this coming from a woman who dated a Jewish man?? That’s just like when Quincy Jones went on his tirade against Michael in an article where he claimed not to have known that Michael suffered from the skin disorder, Vitiligo, and that it was obvious that MJ “didn’t want to be black.” Quincy Jones has many children. And they are all every beautiful, especially his daughters. But not one, I repeat, not ONE is the result of a union with a black woman. So, Quincy, if you’re going to call someone out for not wanting to be black, you’d better be able to defend yourself when asked the same question.
But the most important issue I have with Desiree is this: If she truly believes in heart that the research done on this website is full of inconsistencies, half-truths, lies, and is not salacious enough, why does she feel the need to frequent this site as much as she does? I’ve read through every article on her site. As a matter of fact, I did it in the span of one night (very avid reader, I am) and though some of her articles do raise good points, the majority of them read like well-researched tabloid junk. I call her the black Maureen Orth, since she places so much stock in every word written by Orth in regards to Jackson. (I wonder if she missed it when Jimmy Matasura and his father went on national t.v. to refute the claims written by Orth that he’d been molested by Jackson? Let me guess, she’ll probably say they were lying too, right? Sigh…..) Getting back to the subject at hand, if she feels that strongly in her own research about Jackson, why does she frequent sites dedicated to proving his innocence? She claims that Jackson fans can’t prove he didn’t molest children but in the same breath, claims that she can? How many of her comments have I read on this site where she goes out of her way to defend why those known to have a vendetta against Jackson were telling the truth, including those who were blatantly lying on the witness stand, sold stories to tabloids about witnessing molestation, but never reporting any of it to the police, calls Jackson fans all kinds of unnecessary names, etc. What’s the point of all that if you REALLY believe what you write is the truth?
I often wonder how it feels for a person to carry so much hatred for a person that they will stop at nothing to tarnish them. Without regard for how their words (not matter how untrue and unsubstantiated they are) will affect this person’s children, their future. There are many people that I dislike (not to that degree) but their children have NOTHING to do with it. For example, does anyone remember Orth’s absurd, and HATEFUL diatribe against Jackson not even 16 hours after his death on Morning Joe? Even those who hated Jackson said she could’ve shown respect for his grieving family, in particular, his children. I wonder how she would’ve felt if Ariana Huffington had went on the same tirade after Tim Russert died.
To the admins of this blog, I say this: Pay Desiree as much mind as dog crap on the sidewalk deserves. Stop over it, walk around it. But don’t step into it. When you pay attention to narcississtic(sp?) people such as herself, they feed off of it. They get off on it. Don’t give her the kind of power that she craves, as she already views herself as the foremost expert on Jackson anyway. Let her live in her fantasyland.
Because, the end, that’s all she really has, and it’s truly pathetic.
I can’t believe haters are still debating this topic. They are such idiots.
I think it’s quite obvious that Sneddon had a very unhealthy obsession with Michael Jackson.