Skip to content

Transcript of Matt Drudge’s vehement defense of Michael Jackson in 2005, part 1 of 3

August 8, 2011

A few weeks ago, I posted an article that refuted conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart’s ridiculous notion that the “liberal” media coddled Michael Jackson during his life, and that “real” conservatives shouldn’t like or support Michael Jackson. One of the best pieces of evidence to support my rebuttal was the overwhelming support for MJ given by Breitbart’s mentor, conservative commentator Matt Drudge!  How ironic!

In that post, I included several clips of four episodes of his then-weekly radio show, but in this post I have included the complete transcript and analysis for each episode, and you’re gonna jump out of your seat and do backflips when you hear the totality of what Drudge had to say!

The Matt Drudge Show: February 27th, 2005

The February 27th, 2005 episode starts at the beginning, and the March 6, 2005 episode begins at 5:34:

There’s a heck of a story coming out tomorrow, Day 1 of the Michael Jackson trial, and before you roll your eyes1, they may put this guy away for the rest of his life, and I know that’s funny, I know that’s clever, I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!2 What happens if this case turns out to be completely bogus? Completely! What do you then do to the prosecutor? What do you then do to all these reporters? These Diane Dimonds? What do you do to them? If they have been pushing false information out there to such a degree, to besmirch in such a way, we’ll take that once the case falls apart, if it falls apart, but there’s an interesting story here coming soon on the Smoking Gun, and you know they’re trouble, they’ve been releasing all these documents. There’s no document they haven’t seen. They are going to allege in the morning, I’ve been told, that Michael Jackson’s accuser, who’s 15 years old, claims he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does!

He told detectives that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson. I don’t know how it ever got to this point. We’re not even supposed to name him, right? Did I get the memo here at Clear Channel? That we’re not supposed to name him? OK, we’ll be good. I’ll name him on the Drudge Report, I’ve got no shame! If you’ve got enough courage to go out there and start pointing fingers, and you can say “Well Drudge, it’s not fair”, alright I’ve already shown a picture of the mother, who’s now calling herself “Janet Jackson” because she married a guy named Jackson, we’ve already shown her face, and this boy already gave this interview with Bashir on ABC that was beamed on Channel 4 in Britain and ABC here, and how many times has Bashir shown the clip? Bashir must go to bed reciting Michael Jackson lyrics. This Bashir is going to be the first witness for Sneddon as these opening arguments go tomorrow. But it turns out that this innocent lamb told detectives that he knew more about sex than Michael Jackson does! This surprising appraisal from the boy, who is now 15 years old, came during a January 2004 interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, and they recorded it. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.”3  At least that’s what the claim is. (At this point, Drudge starts laughing to himself.)

Oh, that testimony is going to be beautiful. That testimony is going to be something else. And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody. Not in some room with a little camera, Sneddon, but in front of the court, in front of the jury, in front of Michael Jackson himself! If you’re gonna put this guy away for the rest of his life, you’re accuser ought to have to face you. And that’s exactly what the judge has ordered here.4  Coming soon to an E! Channel reenactment near you. Have they done the casting on that? Maybe Corey Feldman could play the 15 year old abused boy. Corey needs work, right? Ridiculous, this whole thing. Well, it starts tomorrow, the curtain opens. Day 1 of the circus of the court, opening arguments, and they’re really going after this mother, how she said she wasn’t abused, and how she said she was abused  in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.5

But the prosecutors say “Well, what does this have to do with the boy being molested by Michael Jackson? You can say whatever you want about the mother, or the brother, or brother’s mother, or the sister, or the bank accounts, or the cancer, or the question mark.” And I will give it to Michael Jackson’s attorney Mesereau, he’s gonna get down there and he’s gonna ask for the blood cell counts of the boy! It’s gonna get that nasty! I guess there’s a fine line, and you can’t turn off the jury too much.  Maybe they’ll do nothing. Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.6  It’s gonna be fun to watch.  So The Smoking Gun, in an interview with the boy, who says that he knows more about sex than Michael Jackson does! How about that! I don’t know how they ever got to that point. That is very curious. You put it in here, you put it in there, and you do this, and you do that, the birds and the bees, up there at Neverland.


1. “Before you roll your eyes:  I think that the reason that Drudge starts off his commentary on MJ like this is because, as a conservative commentator, the vast majority of his target audience already had negative feelings towards MJ, and had prematurely convicted him based not only on the sensationalist media coverage, but on their own prejudices as well.  But I’m glad that Drudge decided to at least entertain the possibility that MJ could be innocent, which was something that many of his peers in talk radio obviously didn’t do.

As further proof of the fact that the vast majority of Drudge’s conservative audience thought MJ was guilty, here is Geraldo Rivera describing the amount of hate mail that he received for supporting Michael, and how it was second only to the hate mail that he received for supporting immigration reform! (Keep in mind, that the vast majority of the public, REGARDLESS of their political views, thought that Jackson was guilty and would be convicted, due in large part to the LIBERAL media’s slanted coverage. By no means am I implying here that all conservatives thought Jackson was guilty, or that only conservatives thought he was guilty.)

I know this is totally off-topic, but if you want to see how passionate the argument over immigration can go, here is a heated argument that Geraldo had with Bill O’Reilly over Geraldo’s assertion that O’Reilly was covering a drunk driving case where there was a fatality strictly because it the driver was an illegal alien!

2. “I know we like to hang our freaks right in the town square, but if this turns out to be a phony case, we’re gonna be doing a public lynching!” Drudge is obviously alluding to the general public’s desire to want to see MJ go to jail, strictly for their own pleasure, and the media’s desire to play into this public desire.  Unfortunately, lynchings were a tragic component of life for Black Americans, primarily those that lived in the south.  Many black men were falsely accused of committing “immoral” crimes such as looking at a white woman, or talking back to a white man, and oftentimes their names and faces were posted in the local newspaper, which typically added fuel to the racial fire by sensationalizing the accusation, and lynch mobs would form and hunt down and kill their victim.

The media continues to do this to this day, although in a more high tech fashion.  For example, here is an article that was written on Feb. 20th, 2003, at the height of the Bashir documentary backlash against MJ.  It is titled “The Lynching of Michael Jackson”, and the author blasted Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. He states that O’reilly’s “vicious, nonstop attacks on Michael Jackson have come to fruition in the massively frenzied media lynching of the once-innocent, now-trampled persona of the little boy who led the Jackson Five”.  He then goes on to state that “Perhaps the networks should spend as much time documenting proven pedophiles instead of “suspected” ones. That way they would less apt to be accused, as I am accusing them, of being nothing better than the Hitlers or Milosevics of this world who piled those they hated into mass graves much as the broadcast industry kills the reputations of celebrities gone off beam.”

3. The boy, who was 13 at the time, and who has alleged molestation, replied that “Michael would always try to give me advice about the birds and the bees, but he didn’t know much. I knew more than he did.” Drudge is referring to one of the many blatant lies that the detectives enabled during the prosecution of MJ.  One of the funniest and most incredible (as in NOT credible!) lies that Gavin told was related to one of these “birds and the bees” talks that he claimed to have had with MJ.  Gavin said that MJ told him that if he didn’t masturbate, he would “get to a level where he might rape a girl”. The ironic thing about this lie is that Gavin first stated it while on the witness stand during his cross-examination! He never said this to the investigators or the grand jury, and Sgt. Robel was utterly STUNNED when he heard this claim! In fact, Gavin told Sgt. Robel that it was his GRANDMOTHER who said this to him, and when he was caught in his lie, he said that MJ also said it to him. Talk about a coincidence, eh?   For a more detailed look at this lie (and many others), read this post.

4. “And to the judge’s credit, the judge is making this 15 year old innocent lamb go into the courtroom and testify in front of everybody.” Sneddon, being the coward that he is, filed a motion (called “PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC”) to have the testimony of Gavin and Star Arvizo closed to the public, meaning that an audio-only feed be provided to an overflow courtroom that is open to the public.  Here is an excerpt:

This motion requires little argument. It is unquestionable that this trial, perhaps more than any other in the annals of jurisprudence, justifies the closure of the courtroom to the public during the testimony of child witnesses. The harm presented to these children by public presentation of their trial testimony would be immeasurable. Even before trial has begun, these child witnesses have been forced to move their home twice, change schools and even change their names because of the adversity presented by media attention. They have been the subject of hounding and surveillance by reporters.  They have been publicly humiliated and defamed in the international press.

Cry me a freakin’ river! Sneddon wants to “protect their privacy”, but he had nooooooo problem having them testify in front of the grand jury!  Fortunately, the defense immediately submitted a rebuttal titled “OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTIONS’S MOTION TO CLOSE FROM THE PULIC THE TESTIMONY OF CHILD WITNESSES”. Here it is in its ENTIRETY!:

Mr. Jackson vigorously opposes this Motion for the following reasons:

First, the Prosecution seeks to deny Mr. Jackson of his right to a public trial in which he is entitled to confront his accusers through lawful cross-examination. This is wrong.

These accusers are not little children. They are in their mid-teens. They have testified previously on more than one occasion. Not only did they testify before the Grand Jury, but also testified under oath in depositions during the J.C. Penney case. In that civil case, the older teenage accuser, i.e., John Doe, was caught in a parking lot after shoplifting. After being caught, his mother falsely alleged that she was sexually abused by the store security guards. John Doe testified under oath that seeing his mother “abused” was worse than his cancer.

These two teenage accusers have received acting training in Los Angeles and performed in public. They are not the “innocent little lambs” the Prosecution portrays them to be.

Second, other teenagers will come before this Court and testify about the abominations committed by these accusers. Their testimony will demonstrate that these teenage accusers are neither fragile nor sensitive, but that, rather, they are seasoned perpetrators. With all of the teenagers who will be testifying before this Court, the act of singling out these accusers with their sorted background for special treatment is unfair.

Third, Mr. Jackson not only seeks an acquittal in this case, but also vindication in a public trial. Our federal and state Constitutions guarantee the accused of his due process right to a fair trial before the public.

The recent “leak” of the Grand Jury transcripts is evidence of this unfortunate reality. The Prosecution says that “the international media attention focused upon this case will reach historic proportions” and that this case may be “the most reported criminal trial to occur in our lifetimes.” This proclamation is instructive. The “leak” has unquestionably inflamed the international community and poisoned the jury pool.

The vast majority of the people in our local and. international communities still does not know how the grand jury proceeding in this case took place. They do not know that the Prosecution, in essence, had a “field day,” in that they were able to do whatever they wanted. There was no defense lawyer or judge. No independent body was present to monitor and control any irregularities in the proceeding. It was a purely one-sided and unfair proceeding in which Mr. Jackson was not able to confront and cross-examine his accusers.

With the power of the Prosecution, the power of the Police and the power of those affiliated with and operating under these governmental bodies, one must ask himself or herself whether Mr. Jackson can ever obtain a fair trial.

Fourth, the real victim in this case is Mr. Jackson.

Over the years, Mr. Jackson has had to suffer and endure the pain of being falsely accused of the crimes he did not commit. He has had to bear treacherous accusations and undergo the horror of the Government’s invasion of his privacy, dignity, and integrity. No one will ever understand and appreciate the gravity of the harm the Government has inflicted upon Mr. Jackson unless and until he, too, has been a victim of the Government’s domination, abomination, brutality and abuse of power.

Remarkably, the Prosecution now says the two teenage accusers must be “protected” from the public. The assumption is that these two accusers are ‘•vulnerable,” “delicate” and “sensitive.” The irony of this plea, however, is that the two accusers are, in fact, seasoned con-artists, well-trained by those more experienced at doing what they are best at doing, i.e., lying.

More interestingly, the plea is coupled with a suggestion that the public and media may hear the testimony of these accusers through an audio/ visual feed. One must only conclude that such a request is, at best, disingenuous. How is it possible to “protect” these teenage accusers from the public when the public will hear everything they will say? The Motion is utterly unmeritorious.

Mr. Jackson is entitled to a public trial under the United States Constitution and California Constitution. He is entitled to confront and cross-examine his accusers, teenagers and adults alike, as well as to be vindicated in a public trial. Anything to the contrary will result in a total miscarriage of justice.

Mr. Jackson respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion and Order the testimony of these two teenage accusers take place in a public trial.

Way to go, Mesereau!  I couldn’t have said it better myself. He is 100% correct on everything he mentioned. I’m glad that he repeatedly invoked MJ’s constitutional rights, because those rights were designed to protect the accused from being railroaded to jail. The most pertinent right that is applicable to this situation is the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the Unites States Constitution, which provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.

In fact, Michael wanted to confront Gavin even BEFORE the trial! In an interview with journalist Charles Thomson, MJ’s former manager Dieter Wiesner said the following about MJ’s reaction to finding out his accuser was Gavin:

Two days after the Neverland raid Jackson’s depression turned to anger. When it emerged that the boy behind the accusation was none other than Gavin Arvizo, the boy whose hand Jackson had held in the Martin Bashir documentary, Jackson decided to fight.

“You know, when it was clear that this allegation was because of the Arvizos, then he started to really fight the situation,” says Wiesner. “Michael told me, ‘Dieter, you know what, they should bring this young boy into a big place, invite all the press and he should look me in the eyes and tell me that I did this.’ So he was ready to fight.”

I know you guys are probably asking yourselves “What did the media have to say about the possibility of Gavin testifying in private?” Well, it depends on which media entity you look at. The big networks (NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, USA Today, etc.) filed a motion to oppose Sneddon’s request based on their First Amendment “rights”, as well as the lack of any observable benefits to having them testify in private. Here’s an excerpt:

The District Attorney seeks to close the courtroom during the testimony of the alleged victim and his brother apparently to protect their anonymity and respective reputations. The District Attorney concedes, however, that the identities of both minors are widely known to the public. And the closure sought by the District Attorney would do nothing to mask either the identity or the substance of the witnesses’ testimony, given the District Attorney’s “suggestion that the interest of the media and the public can be served by an audio-only feed provided to an overflow courtroom during the testimony of these two witnesses.” There are no benefit created by eliminating the public’s ability to observe the proceedings, and thus the strict standards promoting openness under the First Amendment and California law dictate that the testimony of both of these witnesses must be held in open court.

One thing you’ll notice if you read the entire 13-page document is that there is no mention whatsoever of MJ’s rights to confront his accuser in court; its merely a regurgitation of their rights to cover the trial and report on it. This shouldn’t surprise anyone, considering that they tried desperately to have the trial televised!

Fortunately, there were some members of the media who were fair to MJ throughout the trial, and one of them is a true legal analyst who I have already praised in an earlier post named Jonna Spilbor.  She wrote an article titled “When The Key Witness Is a Kid: Preparing Prospective Jurors in the Case Against Michael Jackson”.  Here’s an excerpt:

As noted in Jackson’s Opposition, Jackson – like every criminal defendant has a right, under the U.S. Constitution, and the California Constitution, to “confront” his accuser in a public trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that, under some circumstances, this right can be compromised when child sex abuse victims testify, on the ground that they may find it too traumatic and terrifying to face their accuser.

Accordingly, the California Penal Code provides that, in any criminal proceeding in which the defendant is charged with certain sex offenses against a minor under the age of 16 years, “the court shall, upon motion of the prosecuting attorney, conduct a hearing to determine whether the testimony of a minor shall be closed to the public…” And that is exactly what Judge Melville did.

Here, the prosecution said closure was necessary was to “preserve the witness[‘s] anonymity, and allow [him] to testify about sensitive sexual issues without a courtroom packed with reporters, sketch artists, and zealous fans of defendant.” But these arguments are not persuasive.

First, the accuser is no longer truly anonymous. His name can easily be found on the Internet, and through his mother, he agreed to appear in a 2003 documentary entitled “Living with Michael Jackson.” (There, he appeared quite comfortable, resting his head on Jackson’s shoulder, while residing at his Neverland Ranch.)

Second, the suggestion that the witness will be unacceptably traumatized by having to testify in front of strangers is not in line with the facts. He is a teenager, not a young child. And, as the Jackson defense has pointed out, he has testified previously and extensively, before the grand jury, and (also under oath) in depositions.

Moreover, the details of his grand jury testimony were leaked to ABC News and recently disclosed, in part, on a number of its news shows – meaning that the public already knows the essence of his story, and he knows that the public knows.

Under the circumstances, while it likely will still be somewhat traumatic for the accuser to testify in an open courtroom with the public present, the judge still made the right decision to require him to do so.

The accuser’s testimony, if believed beyond a reasonable doubt, will put Jackson in prison for years. Jackson is entitled to ask that the accuser believe in his own claims strongly enough to look Jackson in the eye, and state them publicly, for all the world to hear, and for the jury to consider.

I could have lied to you guys and told you that those were Mesereau’s words, and you guys would have believed me! That’s how strong and factual Spilbor’s support was for MJ in 2005. Her articles were amazing, and I compiled them in this post from last year which refutes the lies of Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin. Make sure you check it out when you get the chance!

5. “How she said she was abused  in the court papers, her divorce, and on and on and on, and that whole JC Penney shoplifting thing, and they touched her, and they didn’t touch her, oh, it’s crazy.”  The summary of how Janet conned JC Penney into settling her frivolous lawsuit is too long to be copied here, so I will suggest that you read the last section of this post to view that summary, which includes details about the $100k book deal that she was offered prior to the trial, her diagnosis of schizophrenia, her threats against the legal assistant to whom she confessed to lying about JC Penney, and how she made her kids memorize a script for their JC Penney deposition!

6. “Maybe they’ll let Sneddon just go on and on with his goofy self. Glasses hanging off his head and stuff. Crazy.” This rarely seen article contains a photo of a very “goofy” Sneddon smiling for the camera, with his glasses hanging off of his head! On August 23rd, 2000, he and his buddy Sheriff Jim Thomas travelled with other Santa Barbara dignitaries to a mountain in the Canadian Artic.  Led by a veteran mountain climber, they scaled the mountain to raise money for charity.

It’s too bad that Sneddon and Thomas didn’t fall off of that mountain!

The Matt Drudge Show : March 6th, 2005

It’s gonna be interesting to see Diane Dimond, whose been covering the Jackson case so aggressively against Michael Jackson, she’s under book contract, right? What do you think the excuse is gonna be if he walks, and I think even at this point court watchers are wondering “What has Sneddon done with this case?” You’ve got the daughter, the sister of the accuser saying “yeah, she lied about the case1, and it looks very circumstantial at best, we’ll see, we’ll see, but if Jackson walks, and Jackson plays it big, and we’ve been reporting here at Drudge that if Jackson wins, he’s gonna play The World Cup, not play in the World Cup but perform at The World Cup next year, which is the biggest TV audience outside of The Super Bowl on planet Earth. Even more than you, Chris Rock, at the Oscars!

Now if he walks, and walks big, and it turns out the prosecution was full of hot air, and Sneddon lost his way somewhere at a Santa Ynez winery, how is Diane Dimond going to spin that in her book? She’s probably going to say that “well, it was his fame that got him off, or they couldn’t get a jury……”, and all the rest. But even she is now, I was reading her column in the New York Post, Dimond has been writing a weekly update. She was even talking about some court watchers were wondering if this family has it all together, this family that’s accusing, when everything that’s coming out, and they have this bombshell video that they showed in the courtroom, where they show the family was PRAISING Michael Jackson at the very time they said they were being held hostage and Jackson was molesting Gavin2. At the very moment they’re making this wonderful video, and they said they were coached, the problem is the guy making the video was German, and he barely spoke English! How did he coach them for an hour and tape the whole thing? This is a disaster! Sneddon is a disaster, as far as I can tell. And you can say “Why do you care so much about this Drudge? What’s in it for me? Why should I be worried about Michael Jackson? Every time I see his face I get creeped out, the music sucks, maybe if he gets back with Quincy Jones we’ll listen again”, you know, that whole rap.  Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!3 And this is the story of the Michael Jackson case, in my opinion. 100 search warrants. Photos of his genitalia and his arse. And I know many of you don’t want to think of Michael Jackson in those terms.  But Sneddon photographed his privates! Sneddon did! And if he did it to Michael Jackson, he could do it to you! Think about that!

And then you couple that with a media establishment that wants to see you fail! Who is mocking you because you are mockable, but still in cahoots, almost like a weird dynamic, a weird merger of government and media yet once again, and you can say “Well, this happens all the time”. I always get this feeling whenever I see Tim Russert of GE there on “Meet The Press”, standing next to the Pentagon secretary, or with Albright, Madeline Albright, he used to get the shivers because it’s the marriage of big media and big government. The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case4. Not necessarily because I care about Michael Jackson that much, although I probably do think he’s more talented than the average Joe out there, or Justin Timberlake, or Usher, or any of these new generation wannabes, they’re all living in the shadow of the Guinness Book of World Records holder, even Don Headley, even Fleetwood Mac, they’re all living in the shadow of his record, and I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to touch it. Maybe one day someone’s going to come along  and top it, and it may not be in our lifetime. So here he is, and then you’ve got the prosecutor, you have the government, who has the authority to tear your life upside down. Now I don’t understand why that question hasn’t been presented to prosecutor Sneddon: “Sir, will you prosecute the accusers if it turns out they were lying, and exaggerating, and misrepresenting. Will you prosecute THEM?”  And I would think the answer would probably be “No”, because then he’d have to look at the man in the mirror himself. Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?5  Did he ever consider the pros and the cons?  Did he ever do any of this? It doesn’t appear that he did. And that is what scares me, and what should scare you also is the finger pointing, and the accusations, and the whisper campaign, taken to a government level with authority from 100 search warrants and photography of your private parts! Because somebody said something.

And in the ‘93 case apparently the description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!6 That’s why that case was never brought. Don’t believe for a second it’s because the boy settled, don’t believe for a second. That was a private affair! What did that have to do with the government? He would have been compelled under law to testify! Sneddon could have called the ’93 boy accuser in there and say “Tell me what you know, you’re under oath, tell me what you know, tell me what he did to you!”, but he never did that because the penis didn’t match! I’m sorry to be so graphic, but Sneddon and that whole crowd up there has turned it into this! Do we have photos of Sneddon’s…………..and wait for this to leak on the Smoking Gun! We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.7 That’s what happens when the government gets your business, they leak it out. The government has no right to have photographs of your private areas. Because somebody said something, or somebody whispered something. Because somebody took a payoff. Or somebody wanted to look for a mark, as Jay Leno said, of this family. Of this “Janet Jackson” Latina. How dare Sneddon even………….why isn’t Sneddon the laughing stock of Santa Barbara right now? Why aren’t they turning on him?

Now honestly, if I really thought that if Michael Jackson was a danger to society, and he really was ripping people up to shreds, and he’s made a lot of mistakes here, the way he discards people along the way is frightening, I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup. At some point here, somebody’s gotta say that “Michael Jackson is not a danger, and where is the evidence?” And when they got the girl to admit, when Mesereau got the girl to admit, under oath, that “Yeah, I’ve lied about this case, and I didn’t always tell the full story because I’m young, but I didn’t know it was wine, I assumed it was wine, it was in the wineroom”. It could have been some of Madonna’s Kabbalah wine! Crazy! We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those! I’ve got a website that’s not owned by Warren Buffet! It’s Drudge on Sunday night.


1.” yeah, she lied about the case”:  The entire Arivizo family was a complete disaster for the prosecution, and their testimony was the most exculpatory of all of the evidence presented to the jury at trial!  Davellin’s testimony was no exception. It was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, and since I can’t possibly summarize all of her lies in this post, I’ll have to point you in the right direction to see the others posts that do.  For example, in this post I summarized how she claimed that she saw MJ giving her brothers alcohol while on the witness stand, but forgot to mention it to the investigators during her July 2003 interview with them! (Read bullet point #6 at the bottom.) Here is MJEOL’s summary, which is aptly titled “Sister Testimony Dismantled, Family Not Coerced on Video”.  And here is a short excerpt of her testimony, where she describes how she didn’t know she had been molested until her mother told her so!

17 Q. Do you recall your mother ever telling the

18 Los Angeles Police Department that David had

19 molested you.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Do you recall Gavin ever making any

22 allegations of molestation before.

23 A. Gavin never made any to David. What that

24 was, was that the Judge — the detective had asked

25 my mother, “Is there anything you want to get off

26 your chest.” And she said, “Well, one time when she

27 was younger,” and I know, because I was there when

28 the detective came. But that court proceeding had 870

1 nothing to do with this. The detective just asked

2 her, “If you wanted to get anything off your chest.”

3 Q. To your mother.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Do you recall Gavin making any allegations

6 before this case.

7 A. Never did.

8 Q. Did you ever hear anything about that.

9 A. He never did. He never has.

10 Q. Do you ever recall — did anyone ever tell

11 you that they had heard Gavin had made an allegation

12 against your mother.

13 A. He never has. He never has made any

14 allegations against anybody.

15 Q. Okay. Do you know if he‟s ever made them

16 with anyone with the Department of Children & Family

17 Services.

18 A. He never has.

19 Q. You‟re sure of that.

20 A. Yes, I‟m sure.

21 Q. Were you there when they interviewed him.

22 A. No, but I know him.

23 Q. Okay. So as you sit here today, you‟ve

24 never heard anything about Gavin ever making any

25 other allegation about molestation against anybody.

26 A. No.

27 Q. Okay. Never.

28 A. Against my parents, I‟ve never heard him say 871

1 any allegations.

2 Q. My question is this: Have you ever — has

3 anyone ever told you, regardless of whether you

4 think it‟s true or not, that Gavin ever made an

5 allegation against your mother before.

6 A. No. Never made an allegation against my

7 mother.

8 Q. Okay. I‟m not asking if you think he did it

9 or not. I‟m asking if anyone‟s ever told you they

10 had heard that he had.

11 A. No.

12 Q. You don‟t know anything about it.

13 A. No.

14 Q. Were you ever interviewed by the Department

15 of Children & Family Services during the 1990s.

16 A. One lady had came over to the East L.A.

17 apartment.

18 Q. Do you know approximately when that was.

19 A. No, I don‟t.

20 Q. Okay. Were you interviewed.

21 A. I don‟t remember if I was.

22 Q. Do you know if Gavin was interviewed.

23 A. I don‟t remember if any of us were. I know

24 she spoke to my mom; but I don‟t know if we were

25 interviewed. I don‟t remember.

26 Q. Did you ever talk to your mom about that

27 event.

28 A. No. 872

1 Q. Ever discussed it with your mom.

2 A. No.

3 Q. You don‟t know what happened.

4 A. I don‟t remember.

5 Q. Okay. Now, at some point you reported your

6 father to the Los Angeles police, right.

7 A. Yes, I did.

8 Q. Okay. Did you ever discuss with your mother

9 in advance what you were going to say to the police.

10 A. No, I didn‟t.

11 Q. Never talked about it at all with her.

12 A. I kept it to myself for a couple days,

13 because I was scared.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. Still scared of him. And then I told her

16 what happened. And then she told me we should tell

17 the police.

18 Q. Okay. And did you call the police.

19 A. She called the police, and then the

20 detective came over.

21 Q. Okay. You told the police that you were

22 being abused five times a week — five times a week,

23 right.

24 A. We were abused every day, more than once, by

25 my father.

26 Q. Okay. Were you there when your mother was

27 interviewed.

28 A. I — I don‟t remember if she was 873

1 interviewed. I just remember the detective coming

2 to the East L.A. apartment.

3 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

4 falsely imprisoning you.

5 A. Yes, I did.

6 Q. Okay. And to your knowledge, did your

7 mother accuse your father of falsely imprisoning

8 her.

9 A. Not that I remember.

10 Q. Okay. And did you accuse your father of

11 terrorist threats.

12 A. Yes, I did.

13 Q. Did your mother accuse your father of

14 terrorist threats.

15 A. Not that I remember.

16 Q. All right. And you accused your father of

17 willful harm to a child, right.

18 A. I don‟t know what that is.

19 Q. Okay. Okay. But were you present when your

20 mother told the LAPD that your father had molested

21 you.

22 A. No, but I had heard when he had asked her,

23 “If you want to get anything off your chest,” and

24 she said, “Yes,” and that‟s when they went to the

25 kitchen area of the East L.A. apartment.

26 Q. But when you were interviewed by the police,

27 you never told them your father had molested you,

28 did you. 874

1 A. Because they weren‟t asking me about that,

2 and I didn‟t know. I was very young.

3 Q. Okay. Okay.

4 Have you ever discussed with your mother

5 what your father did to you.

6 A. They were both present that day.

7 Q. Okay.

8 A. He had — she had said, “Well, I never told

9 Davellin that.” And he says, “Well” — he said,

10 “Well, she doesn‟t need to know anyways.”

11 It was just a horrible experience for me to

12 find out that he did that to me when I was young.

13 Q. And you found that out through your mother.

14 A. From both of them. Because he had agreed to

15 it when I was standing right there. Because they

16 were having an argument, and my mom screamed it out

17 at him.

18 Q. And your father agreed he had done that.

19 A. Yeah.

20 Q. Do you want to take a second.

21 A. I‟m fine.

22 Q. Do you want to wait one second.

23 A. I‟m okay.

24 Q. Ready to go.

25 A. Yeah.

2. “Jackson was molesting Gavin.” Notice how in the first episode, he didn’t name by Gavin by name because he had to respect his privacy as an accuser,  but now he’s naming him with no hesitation! This is a clear indication that he has absolute doubt towards Gavin’s allegations! I guess Drudge was right; he has no shame!

3. “Because what can happen to an individual, when you have overzealous prosecutors in this country, is frightening!” This is probably the most on-point message that he gave to his listeners throughout this trial. Many people just assume that what happened to MJ was an aberration, but malicious prosecutions take place all of the time in this country!  The prisons are filled with innocent people who were wrongly convicted because of crooked cops who plant evidence, disreputable prosecutors who allow perjury and falsified evidence, and who also fail to inform the jurors of all of the exculpatory evidence found in their investigations. (Fortunately, there is legislation that is being proposed that will help curb this wrongful practice.)  A perfect example of normal, everyday citizens who were unjustly prosecuted are the three Duke lacrosse players who were wrongfully accused of rape, but exonerated by the Attorney General of their state after a thorough investigation into the practices of the District Attorney.  (Their case was discussed in detail in this post that refutes the notion that MJ’s settlements were signs of guilt. I used their case as an example of non-celebrities who are maliciously prosecuted.)

As you can see with this article, Sneddon isn’t the only malicious prosecutor in California! But can you blame prosecutors for putting convictions ahead of justice? There’s a certain former prosecutor who now has one of the highest rated shows on cable television, despite her past reprimands for misconduct, and you guys already know who I’m talking about!

4. “The media industrial complex is frightening. This is why I’ve been paying so much attention to this Michael Jackson case.” Here is a quote from Malcom X, one of the greatest, yet most underrated civil rights activists of the 20th century:

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

He took the words right out of Drudge’s mouth! The media is so powerful, they can make you look guilty even before you’ve been accused of committing a crime!  For example, in this video a 4 year old black boy was interviewed by a news reporter while at the scene of a recent shooting in his neighborhood, and he said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that he wanted to be a cop when he gets older, and he wants to own a gun. But when his interview hit the airwaves, the reporter excluded his comment about wanting to be a cop, which gave viewers the impression that he’s going to grow up and emulate the violence he sees around him. “Oh great. Just what the world needs; another young thug. They’re getting younger and younger, eh?” This is a perfect example of how the media distorts quotes for their own purposes, especially when it comes to painting African-Americans in a negative light. Do you think this would have happened in a white upscale suburban community?

5. . “Did Sneddon ever entertain any doubt on this case? Did he ever look at some of this and say “Well maybe the family is lying?” Did he ever consider this, as any decent prosecutor should?” Are you kidding me? Sneddon, actually questioning any accusation of molestation against Michael Jackson? Are you insane? He probably jumped for joy and high-fived his assistants when Stan Katz reported the allegations to them in May 2003! Here’s a rundown of some of Sneddon’s shenanigans: he altered the dates of the allged molestations and added the conspiracy charge after realizing that his initial timeline conflicted with the DCFS investigation, he attempted to falsify evidence by having Gavin handle the girlie magazines without gloves at the grand jury hearing, he requested that Gavin be allowed to testify in private, solicited other “victims” to testify against Michael soon after his arrest, he changed the law to prevent future accusers from suing MJ in civil court before the disposition of a criminal case, he not only ignored Janet’s schizophrenia, but tried to suppress it from the jury and defense,  and the icing on the cake is when he claimed that he did an “excellent” job in his prosecution! (See the video below in bullet point #7.) I can go on and on and on, but I’ll stop there.

For those of you who would like to know more about how Janet’s schizophrenia was ignorded by the prosecution, please read my good friend Sean Chai’s “The Untold Story”. She is one of the foremost experts on the allegations in the world, and I enthusiastically recommend her new blog, appropriately titled “Smoke Without Fire”!!

6. “The description of Michael Jackson’s private parts did not match the photos!” Anyone with any common sense should know that those photos didn’t match! Even without the Linden report, or the January 1994 USA Today article, the mere fact that MJ wasn’t arrested and was allowed to make his videotaped statement a few days later should prove it didn’t’ match!  In order to arrest someone, you must have probably cause. The search warrant that Sneddon obtained was to establish the probable cause needed to arrest MJ, and since he walked away without his prized possession, that should tell you something. If you listen to hater’s speculation, they would have you think that somehow MJ paid off Sneddon, the same way he paid off the two grand juries who refused to indict him in 1994, the jury who acquitted him in 2005, and the FBI, who found no evidence of wrongdoing in over 10 years!

We have debunked that “Jordan’s description matched” nonsense numerous times on this blog, including in this post, and this post (which is the 1st of a 3 part series.)

7. “We have been waiting here at Drudge to get Michael Jackson’s nude photos, because we know they’re gonna leak.” Well Drudge, it’s been 6 years, and you’re still waiting, huh? That’s because those photos are NOT going to leak, now or ever! According to Sneddon, neither he nor the Sheriff’s department has the photos in their possession, and you know what? I actually believe him! Because if he had them in his possession, they would have leaked before the trial! Sneddon was willing to do ANYTHING to dirty up MJ and convict him in the court of public opinion! The tabloids were offering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars for those photos, and if someone had access to them, they would have taken the money for sure! If Sneddon and his team didn’t mind leaking the grand jury transcripts –which was totally illegal, by the way – then he surely would have leaked those photos, which would have been perfectly legal!

In this video, he talks about his “excellent” prosecution, how “great” and “courageous” Gavin was, his not having said a word about MJ in 10 years (which is total BS – here is a list of his comments, listed under the “Sneddon’s Obsession with Jackson” section), and how he needs 2 signatures to access the photos. If they haven’t leaked by now, they’ll never leak!

And did you guys notice the terrible, softball questions that Rita Crosby threw at him? I mean, come on! Asking him what he would say to MJ if he saw him walking down the street? As if ANY of us would ever see MJ “walking down the street”!  The summer interns at MSNBC could come up with better questions than that! She should have asked him about the conspiracy charge, the changing timeline, and specific quotes from the Arvizo family’s testimony!

8. “I think this is why Corey Feldman was so angry with Bashir, another ABC journalistic coup.” July 2005, Feldman did an interview with the New York Times, and he describes how he was duped by a certain British journalist who is good at getting people to trust him:

Meanwhile, Mr. Feldman says he now tries to stay out of the tabloids, but it has not been easy. In February he made news in an interview with the British journalist Martin Bashir, in which he said that he had come to a sickening realization that the molestation charges against Mr. Jackson might be true. Mr. Feldman, who had a falling-out with Mr. Jackson in 2001, says that he was shocked by the verdict. But he sounds even more upset at Mr. Bashir. “Bashir approached me with doing a 20/20 retrospective about my career,” Mr. Feldman explained. “He said he would ask about Michael, but it would only be a small portion of the show. We shot 36 hours of footage, and it was a 20-minute Michael Jackson piece. Tricked again.”

“I’m gullible,” Mr. Feldman says. “The world needs a scapegoat, plain and simple. Somewhere, there was an electoral ballot, and I was nominated.”

That should put away any doubts about how conniving and deceptive Bashir really is, as if there was anyone reading this blog who still had any doubts! Gee, I wonder what Bashir did with the other 35 hours and 40 minutes of footage?

In part 2 and Part 3 of this series, I will analyze the final two Matt Drudge shows that I currently have in my possession.  I am also trying to get any additional episodes, including the post-acquittal episode!

118 Comments leave one →
  1. November 21, 2013 9:30 pm

    I just want to start out by saying i’m very impressed with everyone’s research for this blog and i think it is very inspiring, so i don’t want this to come off as an attack, (i’m just trying to get some clarification)
    But i’m kinda offended by this article.
    you see i consider myself a Conservative and i actually knew he was innocent all along. I frequent this blog for facts about mj’s life and for ammunition to use against the haters.

    i do understand pointing out his mentor was a conservative, but in my opinion i think some of the comments are unnecessary and hurtful. How is it fair; to point out that the majority of his audience were conservatives and thought he was guilty at the time when (unfortunately) most people it seems (at the time, at-least) thought he was guilty no matter if they were conservative or not and to imply conservatives are prejudice? Because to be honest In my opinion i think some of the statements in this article to be prejudice, but i know might not have meant it that way, so i think this clarification will be useful for me and other fans like me who might’ave taken this the wrong way.

    • sanemjfan permalink
      November 23, 2013 1:20 pm

      Hello cs
      I’m sorry if you were offended by this article; I certainly didn’t intend to offend any. I was only trying to point out that, to me at least, it seemed like many people in the conservative media were trying to paint MJ as a “Hollywood liberal” after his death, and they tried to do everything they could to make him look less sympathetic to their listeners and readers. Many of them were vicious in their condemnation of all things MJ, from the media’s coverage of his life and death, to mocking his skin disease, to flat out calling him a pervert and child molester (for example, Rep. Peter King from New York). This article summarizes much of the right’s reaction to MJ’s death:

      But you’re right, because it was the liberal media (primarily NBC) who profited the most from their salacious reporting. In fact, I also wrote a post refuting liberal Gloria Allred’s lies about MJ:

      Can you tell me the exact excerpts that offended you? I’ll edit them for you. Thanks.

      • November 24, 2013 11:11 pm

        1. “Before you roll your eyes”: I think that the reason that Drudge starts off his commentary on MJ like this is because, as a conservative commentator, the vast majority of his target audience already had negative feelings towards MJ, and had prematurely convicted him based not only on the sensationalist media coverage, but on their own prejudices as well

        the above is the only thing that offended me.

        i do agree with you on peter king and Gloria Allred (i call her Gorilla hothead ), lol. Thank you for understanding, keep up the good work!;)

        • sanemjfan permalink
          November 25, 2013 7:38 pm

          Hey, I added a disclaimer to that excerpt that you pointed out. Let me know what you think of it, and thanks for your respectful, constructive criticism!

      • November 28, 2013 3:48 pm

        you’re welcome.
        Thank you for; handling my response with dignity and for the disclaimer.

        I just wanted to give you a heads up that i asked a friend of cjbaxter’s to ask him if he would analysis the CM 60 mins video once it hits youtube and she said she will try,so i think that might help, if you decide to do a rebuttal of CM’s statements from the 60mins video.
        keep up the good work! 😉

        • Andrew permalink
          November 28, 2013 5:37 pm

          Craig Baxter is absolutely useless as a body language expert, nobody has ever tested him in a clinical setting.

  2. May 28, 2013 9:42 am

    I do find it totaly scary that the government can comme along and force you to submit to having your privates photograped, This is a point well taken. I live in Canada and I have never heard of a case here, where that has happened. Tom Seddon is a rediculous man, who deserves to be thrown in jail for his scheming, over zealous actions1 I am putting it mildly. Michael Jackson was clearly a victim of gross racism. What was done to Michael Jackson is hateful and shameful. Michael was the pioneer for every black artist in the country.He wanted to make things more equal, they hated him because he succeeded. What I do not understand is why the Tom Sneddons and the Diane Diamonds have little or no consequence for what they do. If it was not for the fans and other people speaking out . No one would know the truth. I praise the people who bring the truth, and I know it is hard, when the media has had the people so brainwashed.

  3. February 24, 2012 6:48 am

    It’s from Debra Opri, about the media after the trial.

    Epilogue: The Michael Jackson Trial – Truth & the Media

    by Debra Opri – Attorney and Legal Analyst

    I waited until the Michael Jackson verdict was in and for a sufficient time to have passed before writing this column. I did so because I wanted to see if those in the media would absolve themselves of the long calibrated mean spirited analysis of the trial, the evidence & testimony, and finally of the jury deliberations. I waited, albeit quietly, and I was hopeful that a humility would begin to evolve in the tone of the media’s evaluation of the acquittal of Michael Jackson. It never came. They never spoke of the reality before them – that Michael Jackson was found innocent of the charges. They only judged and provided yet more opinion as to why the verdict was the wrong verdict, and why the jurors just ‘didn’t get it.’
    I never heard anyone in the media say that, ‘the jury has spoken ..we must respect their decision and a job well done.’ Never did I see professionalism. Nor did I hear respect for this jury. What I did hear and see was the media’s disrespect of these twelve citizen jurors who had spent many hours and days sitting in court, listening to evidence, and ultimately coming to a decision of a man’s guilt or innocence under the rules of law. Their decision was sound, it was explainable, and it was reasonable under the law and the evidence they had been presented. We did not hear this. Rather, the media expressed complete disgust and anger for the outcome. I observed numerous media pundits questioning the jurors’ failure to use their personal bias in their deliberations, and why they didn’t use their ‘common sense’ in convicting Mr. Jackson for what was, these same pundits explained, a strong case with a lot of evidence that proved this man was a child molester. They tripped up on the ‘reasonable doubt’ legal standard, though why, I didn’t understand since many, if not all of these individuals in the media, had at one time been attorneys.
    I heard shocking ‘media’ deliberations of the same evidence the jury had ruled upon only hours before in acquitting Mr. Jackson on all ten counts. This time out, the media’s deliberations were pointed directly at a conviction on all counts. I was appalled, but I was not surprised. I saw firsthand a media that was intent on convicting Michael Jackson even though the jury did not ‘go along.’ I saw the tirade of a lynch mob being told to go home and leave the rope behind.
    It is with a heavy heart and a strong conviction for doing what is right, that I write this column. Being an attorney and a part of the media, I believe in and support the First Amendment right of free speech. I do not believe, however, in the media’s prolific propaganda which was long directed at convicting a man they had judged guilty long ago, using bias and a camera crew to judge not only the jury’s decision, but an overall assault on our fundamental right of a fair trial. Frankly, this is not what free speech should mean to us. It should not be all empowering and it is certainly not to be used as an enabler of a media’s locust mentality, which is to ravage all before you and then to move on to the next fertile field.
    There are those in the media who understand that they have, indeed, become locusts in their quest to ‘find’ – and in many instances, to ‘create’ – stories. During one of my many interviews on the day of the verdict, I was asked how the media could ‘reconcile’ it’s coverage of a trial under the First Amendment with an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial? It was a good and fair question, but again, the anchor who had asked it, and who had at one time practiced as an attorney, fell short, I felt, in her understanding of just what it was she had asked. The answer, I told her, was contained in the question she had just asked.’ ‘Just cover the trial,’ I told her, ‘and stop trying to create the news; stop trying to force your opinions of guilt or innocence down the throats of the public.’ ‘We the public really don’t care. We’re smart enough to figure it out for ourselves.’ [Incidentally, this same reporter left me a message a short time later that, in so many words, she had come to this job as a reporter wanting to honor these values, only to learn there was no interest in anything other than pushing an agenda].
    There is so much more I could write and so many more individuals I could reference by name as examples, with stories to back up what is so wrong with the media and how much they misuse their power over the masses and over the individual, specifically, in this instance, Michael Jackson. They know who they are. Each of them understands what their agenda is and was, and what it will be, no matter whether they go on to other news assignments, or whether these reporters get some book deals telling ‘their’ side of the story. Personally, I didn’t know that they had one, or that they should have one. After all, they’re reporters, aren’t they? As we close this story, here’s the only point we need to remember: in the end, the media’s agenda failed. They could not convict Michael Jackson. This media did not sway the jurors, although they sought to and did, overall, sway the public’s opinion of just who they think Michael Jackson is.
    In the end, I come away from the past year and a half of the criminal case against Michael Jackson with this understanding. I believe that long after the People vs. Michael Joseph Jackson is part of media history, much in the same guise of the O.J. Simpson trial; long after another trial takes center stage in the media, we will have finally learned to judge the media for what they really are – individuals who really don’t know any more than the rest of us, but who feed like locusts across our sensibilities with the agenda of ravaging our better sense of objectivity.
    It is with certainty that I believe the media has damaged it’s reputation and it’s believability in terms of it’s reporting of the Michael Jackson case. It is with hope that I look to better days when the media’s agenda is back in the realm of reporting the news rather than trying to make the news. This is not too much too ask, and what I say is not a new request. It was spoken a number of years ago by Walter Cronkite, a renowned reporter upon his retirement, as he explained why he could no longer work as the reporter he was always so proud to be in a media that had long ceased to be the object of his pride. I wonder how Mr. Cronkite would have reported the Michael Jackson case. Perhaps it would have been simply, ‘today a not guilty verdict was reached in the Michael Jackson case.’
    From the courtroom to your living room, this has been another edition of THE OPRI OPINION.

  4. October 17, 2011 2:58 pm

    “January 19th, 2004, that’s when the family
    15 was interviewed regarding the rebuttal tape.
    16 And then end of March through April of 2004,
    17 the grand jury”

    “.Q. And as of November 18th, you were not aware
    10 that there had actually been a film made of this
    11 family, which later became known as “the rebuttal
    12 film”; is that correct.
    13 A. I believe that — and I’m not — because I
    14 haven’t reviewed that statement, but I believe that
    15 Mrs. Arvizo was explaining to us in her interview
    16 that that had taken place.
    17 Q. Well, we weren’t talking about Mrs. Arvizo,
    18 because she hasn’t testified yet.
    19 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to
    20 object to that. He’s asking what the officer was
    21 aware of. This isn’t a segregation.
    22 MR. SANGER: No, this —
    23 MR. SNEDDON: I apologize.
    24 I object. Assumes facts not in evidence,
    25 And it’s argumentative.
    26 MR. SANGER: I apologize, because I said
    27 something, but I will withdraw the question. How’s
    28 that. 2206

    1 THE COURT: I’m looking for a break, but —
    2 rephrase your question.
    3 MR. SANGER: Yes, Your Honor.
    4 Q. That’s true, I am asking for your awareness,
    5 but I was trying to avoid — I don’t want to get
    6 into hearsay that’s not admissible because we
    7 haven’t had the people testify yet, okay.
    8 So it’s your belief that Janet Arvizo said
    9 something about doing a film.
    10 A. That is correct.
    11 Q. Before November 18th.
    12 A. That is correct.
    13 Q. Okay. None of the children mentioned doing
    14 the film before November 18th, though, correct.
    15 A. To the best of my knowledge, that is
    16 correct.”

    “Q. All right. We’ve established this timeline
    27 now — is that on. Yes.
    28 We’ve established the timeline, and let’s 2208

    1 just start with Davellin. The first time that
    2 Davellin said anything to you about the rebuttal
    3 video was in the January 19th, 2004, interview,
    4 correct.
    5 A. I believe that’s correct, yes.
    6 Q. Now, when you had these interviews, this was
    7 a pretty big event in the investigation, was it not,
    8 the interviews of January 19th.
    9 A. A big event in what respect.
    10 Q. Big event in the respect that you — you,
    11 meaning you and Mr. Sneddon and Mr. Zonen and
    12 perhaps other law enforcement officers, had seen the
    13 rebuttal video, and you were calling the family in
    14 to ask them how they could do that video.
    15 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I object. Assumes
    16 facts not in evidence.
    17 MR. SANGER: Well, it was compound probably.
    18 Let me break it down.
    19 Q. You had seen the video by January 19th,
    20 correct.
    21 A. That’s correct.”

    “Q. All right. Now, the reason for the meeting,
    27 as it were, was to ask this family how they could do
    28 a rebuttal video like that if they maintained these 2210

    1 allegations; is that correct.
    2 MR. SNEDDON: I’m going to object to that
    3 question as argumentative. It’s just — that’s like
    4 testifying.
    5 THE COURT: Overruled.
    6 MR. SANGER: Do you have the question in
    7 mind.
    8 THE WITNESS: Why don’t you repeat your
    9 question.
    10 THE COURT: I’ll have the court reporter do
    11 it.
    12 (Record read.)
    13 THE WITNESS: That is incorrect. It was to
    14 clarify regarding my previous interview with them,
    15 to clarify issues that they were saying on the tape”

  5. October 17, 2011 2:35 pm

    I wonder how much times did they spend to investigate their before they decided to arrest him

    “Q. Well, let’s do it — because we are going to
    19 go through this in more detail, but I want to get
    20 the big picture.
    21 There was a time that you were told, and you
    22 found from your investigation, that the Arvizo
    23 children and Janet Arvizo and Mr. Jackson and others
    24 returned to the Neverland Valley Ranch after being
    25 in Florida; is that right.
    26 A. That is correct.
    27 Q. And what was that date.
    28 A. I believe it was right around the 6th of 2189

    1 February.
    2 Q. 7th perhaps.
    3 A. 7th. Somewhere right in there.”

  6. September 24, 2011 11:10 pm

    FYI – Sneddon’s photo referred to in point 6 of this analysis forthe Druge 2/27/05 transcript, that appears in the Canadian mountain climbing article, seems to have been changed to a non-goofy pose.

  7. Julie permalink
    August 19, 2011 6:17 pm

    @vindicatemj – of course anything having to do with someone saying Michael is innocent is paramount, but my post on August 8 really was more for Matt Drudge’s piece where he implied that Michael had discarded Feldman, which was not true either. I just wanted it known (just in case it wasn’t) that Drudge’s assertion was not the case.

    • August 19, 2011 7:05 pm

      “my post on August 8 really was more for Matt Drudge’s piece where he implied that Michael had discarded Feldman, which was not true either.”

      Julie, I am sorry, but it is only now that I’m studying the comment dated August 8. Sometimes I am a very slow turtle.

      “of course anything having to do with someone saying Michael is innocent is paramount”

      Of course it is.

  8. August 19, 2011 6:12 pm

    This is very true Helena. Inevitably that fact is ignored by media. Yet if Feldman said otherwise it would be everywhere.

  9. lcpledwards permalink
    August 16, 2011 6:57 am

    Guys, I just added the audio of the first 2 episodes of the Matt Drudge show to this post! LunaJo67 was nice enough to post them to youtube for me, and I will add the audio to parts 2 and 3 of this series as well, so you won’t have to torture yourself by reading the actual transcript. Listening is so much easier! Especially when you hear the emotion in his voice!

    Part 2 will be posted tomorrow, and Part 3 will be posted on Friday.

  10. August 14, 2011 2:36 pm

    @shelly oh sorry i misunderstood.

  11. Alison permalink
    August 13, 2011 7:22 am

    Thanks David – and Suzy. i think it was Suzy’s post where i heard of it. i just read that again. i hadn’t particularly retained that it was about sexual exploitation so i suppose its not the same issue exactly but its all about care of children. and he wrote it in 1990.

    i agree with Suzy’s comments on her post that no real p…le would write such a thing.
    also all the anger in his post 1993 work, some of History and so much of Blood on the Dancefloor, some of Invincible, could only exist in an innocent wronged man.

    Everything about Michael shouts innocence and its incomprehensible why people just can’t see it. they are so blinded.

    i just watched a late night tv programme i wouldn’t normally watch, fell asleep on sofa hours ago and was trying to wake myself up and mobilise myself to get up to go to bed by flicking thro the channels. anyway it was on the Yesterday channel and was about the secret history of pornography, talking about medieval church architecture and old hidden artworks and stuff. it was interesting to see how far back it goes and the history issues. anyway – apparently at the time of the French Revolution the production of leaflets and pornography produced for the masses as opposed to just in private castles, was fairly new. and it was used quite deliberately to destroy the reputations of the king and queen, by describing (fabricated) sexual activity by them each, calling him gay and her a lesbian and describing in detail sexual things they “did” – all made up. but it was a calculated and deliberate attempt to bring them down, first by reputation, then obviously physically too, and then the guillotine. the equivalent of the tabloid then was street hawkers, people who sold in the street and lured people to buy by reading the stuff to them as small crowds gathered to listen. i had no idea. i know so little history.
    the guy narrating the programme said nothing like that has ever been done since! …er, excuse me ……!!

    • August 14, 2011 2:24 am

      “Everything about Michael shouts innocence and its incomprehensible why people just can’t see it.”

      Alison, absolutely! It is indeed incomprehensible – something is definitely wrong with these people. In some strange way I even feel sorry for them – they are like invalids who are lacking something vital in life.

  12. Susan62509 permalink
    August 13, 2011 4:59 am

    David – Brilliant article. Thank you for your indepth research. I’m looking forward to Part 2 and Part 3.

  13. August 13, 2011 12:42 am

    VMJ, my comment to you got lost.I don´t think Pellicano meant anything that could hurt Michael,and he probably wanted to poke at the media with some ambiguous comment.That is if he made any comment at all. He would diss himself if he really did say something serious.
    Thank you Alyson and Suzy for getting “Do you know where your children are?” to this blog.That song should be playing all over in UK and
    elsewhere too. I cannot make out in what language the lyrics are.It would be nice to get the lyrics written in English.

    • August 13, 2011 1:28 am

      “I cannot make out in what language the lyrics are.It would be nice to get the lyrics written in English”.

      Kaarin, here are the lyrics:

      “You gotta ask yourself a question do i feel lucky well do ya punk”
      (cock of a gun an Gunshot sound) Beat drops horns sound
      (Over a loud speaker) Ladies and gentle man EAK (man)

      (VERSE ONE)
      Father comes home from work and he’s scared today
      Mother cries out again, it’s no charade
      Father runs to the table, he says what’s going on
      Mother cries just believe, our little baby’s gone

      (CHORUS 1)
      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      An just hope they’re not on the street
      Just imagine how scared they are
      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      An just hope they’re not on the street.
      Just imagine how scared they are.

      (VERSE 2)
      She wrote that she is tired of step-daddy using her
      Saying that he’ll buy her things, while sexually abusing her
      Just think that she’s alone somewhere out on the street
      How will this girl survive? She ain’t got nothing to eat!

      (CHORUS 2)
      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      Just hope they’re not on the street
      Just imagine how scared they are
      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      Just hope they’re not on the street.
      Just imagine how scared they are.

      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      Just hope they’re not on the street.
      Just imagine how scared they are.

      Save Me (8x’s and adlibs) until guitar solo

      (Guitar Solo 20 seconds long)

      (VERSE 3)
      Now she on the move, she’s off to Hollywood
      She says she wantna be a star, she heard the money’s good
      She gets off from the train station, a man is waiting there
      I’ll show you where the money is, girl just let down your hair
      He’s taking her on the streets, of Sunset Boulevard
      She’s sell her body hot, girl that’s what i’m taking for
      Police come around the corner, somebody up there told
      He’s arresting this little girl, that’s only twelve years old

      (Last Chorus and adlibs in between)

      Do you know where your children are?
      Because it’s not 12 O’clock,
      Just hope they’re not on the street.
      Just imagine how scared they are. (REPEATS 6x’s until 4:33)

      Father comes home from work and he’s scared today
      Mother cries out again, it’s no charade
      Father runs to the table, he says what’s going on (Gunshot fires off)

      Read more:

      • lcpledwards permalink
        August 13, 2011 5:23 am

        @ helena
        Did you forget that Suzy wrote a post last November on “Do You Know Were Your Children Are?” Your memory must be slipping! LOL! You could have just posted the link to it, instead of that external lyrics site you used! Just kidding.

        @ Susan62509
        Thank you! Parts 2 and 3 are coming next week! You won’t be disappointed! And I’ll have some good news regarding this series, but you’ll have to wait!

        • August 14, 2011 1:29 am

          “Did you forget that Suzy wrote a post last November on “Do You Know Were Your Children Are?” Your memory must be slipping! LOL!”

          David, after a brain concussion last winter the situation with my memory has become a disaster, but I still remember Suzy’s post very well. I just couldn’t find it (honestly!). There are so many posts now that I sometimes get lost.
          Thank you for bringing it back to us. A person who wrote a song like that and put so much feeling into it cannot be a mol-r. You can feel the pain Michael was feeling when he wrote it. The fact alone that he was thinking about this problem can tell us a lot. How many more singers and songwriters think about the problem of ‘where your children are’? And write similar songs? Look at what Lady Gaga is singing about and see all the difference in the world between the two.

  14. August 13, 2011 12:16 am

    VMJ, I don´t believe that Pellicano has said anything that serious,and he just wants to poke fun at the media,he has worked for Michael,why would he know speak ill of him?

  15. Alison permalink
    August 12, 2011 9:05 pm

    Thanks Suzy
    now i listened to it i have heard it before but can’t remember where, but i’m right that its unreleased aren’t i? probably because of the allegations, i’m going to try and write to the estate / sony and ask them to release it, its so important. its a catchy tune and if played on the radio it might make people think.
    i know my comment was sort of off topic but its connected because vindicating Michael will release his message more and releasing his message and showing the truth in it SHOULD help in vindicating him because surely its so relevant to current events,??

  16. Suzy permalink
    August 12, 2011 8:22 pm

    @ Alison

    Here is the song “Do you know where your children are”

  17. Alison permalink
    August 12, 2011 5:49 pm

    @ VMJ
    “they tasted what life of a millionaire was like and when they got back into their ordinary environment it was difficult for them to adapt back. In my opinion this is the ultimate reason why both Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo agreed to play their accuser roles in the end.”

    I agree Helena. it seems that whilst some / most children did not react like this there were those whose expectations of what was “due” to them, what they SHOULD have, their greed, made them angry, inflamed also by the greed and “ought to have” attitude of their parents.
    i am sure you’ll have seen reports of the riots and looting over here but you may not have heard what some of the kids have said as to their reasons ( and its not all kids by the way, the ages range up to 40’s, all sections of society, though it is still just a small minority). one young girl said – actually i think its on youtube – that they were showing the police they can do what they like and “its because of the rich people, the people with businesses, we’re showing the rich people we can do what we like”. i hope nobody thinks this is all about racism just because a lot of the kids shown on tv are black, racism may play a part but there is so much more than that. there are plenty of white people involved. this is about our warped society with its consumerist values, its lack of respect for others, its lack of good parenting across the board, its “me first” culture, its culture of what should be given rather than working hard for it and its overall selfishness, in not considering other people and the images of violence and taking what you want that have been pervading our screens and our eyes for years.
    some of these kids are 8 years old – i don’t know why its flashed now in particular but its been steadily growing in our culture and western culture for decades – gavin was 13 and instead of being the “innocent child” the media tried to paint him, he was also a greedy hooligan. like most of my country i am angry and heartbroken about whats happening here, 3 young men were mown down by a car going 100 mph, just a mile and a half from where i live. i didn’t know them but i have lived and worked in this community for years and i feel grief for our community. i can’t believe it. some people seem to have been swept up into such a frenzy they have completely lost judgement, many are criminals anyway but others will soon find to their shock that what they have done will lose them their jobs, careers, university places as well as the more immediate and obvious consequences.
    what i am trying to say is that our society , just as Michael always said, needs to take more action and responsibility to protect and love the children and parent them well, so that they grow up healthy emotionally as well as physically. It IS a priority, and this week we have been seeing some of the results of this not happening for more than the current young generation but also their parents and grandparents as well.
    Most children in the world are innocent but surely nobody can say now that they all are just by virtue of their age, which is how they tried to sell gavin and jordan. if 8 and 9 year old children can riot in our streets, loot shops and set fire to buildings, where is that innocence? and how can parents let 8 year olds roam the streets anyway? love is also about disciplining children so that they learn boundaries and right and wrong – to prevent them getting into this sort of trouble.

    and children LIE. we must believe that children lie. especially if they have grown up to think thats ok. the false belief that all children are innocent and do not lie was used by the media to convict Michael. they MUST now acknowledge this lie.

    i am sorry for going on and on and its off topic, delete it if you want. its just that all week the title of a song i remember reading Michael wrote – ‘do you know where your children are’ – has kept running through my head. i don’t know the song i just remember hearing the title, i think it was not released or something – does anyone know it? i’m going to try to find it. and i want to find his Oxford speech and send it to some media and to the prime minister. Michael tried so hard to tell us, that we need to heal the world by healing the children, but no he had to be labelled a freak and a instead. and now so many are surprised by what we have seen? it makes me so angry. they are having debates about why its happened, they could save some time and listen to Michael Jackson instead.

  18. August 12, 2011 1:31 am

    So true Deborah French! How come the IRS can keep track of evert $ a
    private citizen earns,but the judical system blinds itself to the money
    in the millions or billions that is in the very center of the present C.M.-MJ circus?

  19. August 12, 2011 1:00 am

    This farce has been running for over 20 years. In the wider sense it is concurrent with the entire history of the human race. The forces of Empire have been replaced by corporate ones. But the themes remain the same. Suppression of the truth, of true individuality, of the holistic impulse — by successive power elites.

    The highly successful character assassination of Michael Jackson, sanctioned by state and a federal Justice system and colluded with by a corrupt and encompassing media, even now seeks its denouement in the travesty of a trial that is not remotely seeking the truth behind his death.


    I ran out of adjectives a long time ago.

  20. August 11, 2011 2:54 pm

    Anybody need money? Go to the PR firm with a good idea and see what they will pay.They seem to have an unlimited budget.

  21. August 11, 2011 2:52 pm

    The PR firm´s task is to FREE MURRAY from all responsibility in Michaels death.Media works with them as it benefits both.Too bad and sad.

  22. Suzy permalink
    August 11, 2011 12:37 pm

    @ BJ

    I know…

    BTW, in his lawsuit he didn’t claim he was Michael’s lover any more (he didn’t totally backtrack yet either, though). Instead the description he made of their relationship sounded like a very formal, distant relationship (and probably that’s the truth). I mean he said he learnt from Klein in June that Michael had sleep problems. He said Michael asked him for an anesthesiologist on the phone (why on the phone if you are lovers and regularly meet?). He said Klein asked him to escort out a drugged up Michael, which he didn’t really like to do. All these claims are not consistent with the claim them being lovers. A lover would know from first-hand that Michael had sleep problems, a lover would not have a problem with having to escort Michael out, in fact he would naturally do that. Heck, a lover would have tried to help Michael if everything that Pfeiffer claims was happening in Klien’s office truly happened, instead of just passively standing by. One only has to read or watch Pfeiffer’s Extra interview to know the whole thing is a lie. The sad thing is that the media again will go for sensationalist headlines like the one you quoted, instead of the truth.

  23. August 11, 2011 10:44 am

    I dread the day the murray trial begins.The media is already gearing up for the smear Michael Jackson campaign because on CNN there was a segment titled “Will Michael Jackson’s Alleged lover testify?”. What is the point on focusing on this Jason (fraud) character anyway?

    • August 12, 2011 12:32 am

      “The media is already gearing up for the smear Michael Jackson campaign because on CNN there was a segment titled “Will Michael Jackson’s Alleged lover testify?”. What is the point on focusing on this Jason (fraud) character anyway?”

      For lack of desire to tell the real truth about Michael they seem to be taking much pleasure in simple repetition of allegations like “his lover”, etc. The fact that it is a lie doesn’t bother them in the least – it is a chance to repeat all those words which makes them ecstatic. It reminds them of the good old times when they poured dirt on Michael and everyone terribly enjoyed the process of it.

      I am utterly disgusted by the media. If they needed sensations they could come up with hundreds of sensational stories proving Michael’s innocence and showing how the world was tricked into believing lies about him – but no, they are playing their old tune as if they were a street organ (the musical instrument which plays only one tune when you revolve the handle of it).

      You know, it is not only disgusting. It is boring and predictable. I very much hope that if in the worst case scenario they try to repeat the old story again, this time it will no longer be a tragedy but will show itself to be a complete farce. So that people laugh at it or are disgusted with its vulgarity from the very start.

  24. August 10, 2011 9:04 pm

    David, the post is outstanding. Thank you so much for making this material available to us. I never knew that this guy Matt Drudge was so good at proving Michael’s innocence. The only thing that astonishes me is that when people have journalists like that they still listen to Diane Dimonds!

    Good that now we have all this information put so neatly together. Whenever someone asks questions about that crazy Arvizo case they should be referred to this post.

    “We want Sneddon’s photographs of his peepee! I’ll post those!” – Matt Drudge.

    I suggest it as a punishment for Tom Sneddon. No need to do anything else – just a photo of naked Sneddon all over the Internet and a detailed description of how he liked the procedure. It will suffice.

    • lcpledwards permalink
      August 11, 2011 9:10 am

      Hey guys, I thought that I would be able to post part 2 of my series on Matt Drudge, but it will take me a few more days to get it completed because there are a lot of references that were made to specific pieces of testimony from the trial, and I want to include those excerpts in my analysis. I have so much information that I will have to make this a 3 part series! I hope to have part 2 ready this weekend.

      Don’t worry, it’ll be worth it, I promise you! Reading this testimony is like watching stand-up comedy! You won’t be able to keep a straight face! 🙂

      • August 12, 2011 12:11 am

        “I have so much information that I will have to make this a 3 part series! I hope to have part 2 ready this weekend.”

        David, I am sure the remaining two parts will be as great as the first one, so we are looking forward to that. Only please allow me to make one post before that. I am also planning it for this weekend or earlier. It will be a small distraction from Matt Drudge and then we will return to him, okay?

        • lcpledwards permalink
          August 12, 2011 4:31 am

          Ok Helena, I’ll let you post first.

  25. Maral permalink
    August 10, 2011 4:57 pm

    i have thought a lot about this. i’m a “new fan” and although i LOVE Michael i’m objective. but don’t give me words. GIVE ME EVIDENCE.

    This guy had a chance to come forward in 03 but didn’t. he could turn over MJ to the police in 93 but didn’t…….. unless MJ was this huge Maffia boss why the hell didn’t all these “evidence” come out right then? makes no sense

  26. shelly permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:27 pm

    How do you know that? I was speaking about the article which said he found evidence against the Chandlers, not the interview.

  27. August 10, 2011 2:51 pm

    @shelly it’s Christine Pelisek

  28. shelly permalink
    August 10, 2011 12:46 pm

    Who is the author of the article Pellicano’s reach?

  29. Suzy permalink
    August 10, 2011 10:21 am

    @ Helena

    “Yes, I meant the same source – “The Daily Beast”. I don’t know whether it is only a website or a real paper.”

    “The Daily Beast is an American news reporting and opinion website founded and published by Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair and The New Yorker as well as the short-lived Talk Magazine. The Daily Beast was launched on October 6, 2008, and is owned by IAC. Edward Felsenthal, a former Wall Street Journal editor, is the site’s executive editor, and Stephen Colvin is its president.

    The name of the site is derived from that of the fictional newspaper in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Scoop.[1]

    On November 12, 2010, The Daily Beast and Newsweek announced a merger deal, creating the combined company “The Newsweek Daily Beast Company.””

  30. Linda permalink
    August 10, 2011 9:47 am

    OMG, I just read this article tonight when I got home from work. All of these stars names he mentions , saying nothing about them, being “professionally” tight lipped ,until he comes to Michael, who can no longer speak for himself, so he drops a bombshell. My guess is Anthony’s interest is in a book deal. Another, riding off of Michaels name for profit.
    Pellicano comes off as a caring person, so disturbed by what Michael was doing to these children that he had to quit working for the greatest entertainer in the world, but didn’t care enough for these children to report what Michael was doing to them? And, you’re right, what could be worse than sexually molesting children, besides murder, and this guy didn’t care enough to report this until now? This guy is in prison for how many counts, 70 something? Why would anybody even believe anything he has to say?

    Dr. Murrays trial is getting close. We’re going to see a lot of s**t about Michael. Better brace ourselves, It’s going to be a rough ride from here on out.

  31. August 10, 2011 5:12 am


    I agree. The journalists I have contacted — if they decide to — they will do it in the right way and use professional protocol.

  32. August 10, 2011 4:15 am

    @Anna i agree with u

  33. Anna permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:54 am

    My fear is that Pellicano will be bombarded with e-mails and letters because of the article and he’ll just refuse them all before reading them. I don’t know if the prison will notify me if he refuses the e-mail I asked them to forward. I’m kinda guessing they won’t but so far it’s only been two business days since I sent it. Either way it would be better if a journalist takes his statement and publishes it in an established publication. I’m just a member of the public so even if he did respond to me it would be unofficial.

    This whole situation is really frustating because no doubt some damage has already been done since the article was published.

  34. August 10, 2011 3:26 am

    @Teva Thank you for that info re Dr Drew.

    @Seanchai10 This is why I think it would be great to get some clarification from Pellicano if he is willing. I don’t know what his state of mind is or in what context he meant that remark, and it is awful how outlets how playing it. I sent you an email earlier about this. Thank you for the link to the other case.

    @Marcella No worries. I just wanted to be clear that I am making enquires only. I agree this is a fantastic site.

    On Twitter we are currently tweeting informational links in a polite fashion to Dr Drew. Lynette is leading the way.

  35. August 10, 2011 3:16 am

    @lynande51 Yes the tone was defiant, and I must say I found the invective of some of Sneddon’s motions very unsettling. I offered it to demonstrate just how determined he was to convict, even when his case had completely fallen apart and MJ had been acquitted. Even the manner in which he attempted to introduce the photos – as if being forced to allow someone to take photos of your genitals is somehow proof of indecency – was vindictive. The photos were indeed meaningless, if there had been even an approximate match MJ would have been arrested, and the fact that he was not arrested in 1993 speaks volumes.

    @Deborah I too believe Sneddon lost all sense of perspective in investigating the 2005 trial, and yes, his failure to even build a case in 1993 probably had a lot to do with it. However his behaviour is, unfortunately, not that unusual in cases involving false allegations; if you google Vladek Filler you’ll get lots of info on a very recent case which involves similar circumstances [you can find a history of the case at The Filler case has resulted in a campaign to have the assistant DA who brought the case disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct. I’ve come across many cases where exculpatory evidence is ignored while undue weight is given to information which fits the notion that sexual abuse or assault has occurred. This problem is systemic and rarely down to one individual. However that does not in any excuse the behaviour of individuals who seek to convict while ignoring exculpatory evidence.

    I haven’t had a chance to read the full Pellicano interview, though it does seem like a throwaway remar. Predictably, many media outlets have picked up on his one sentence about MJ and have run with that. It does seem to be far removed from his previous comments, and I can’t help but wonder if the ‘he’ he refers to is actually MJ.

    @Teva, I noticed that too, no mention on the infographic page about finding damaging info about MJ, just about the Chandlers, which is why I wonder if the quote was even about MJ.

  36. August 10, 2011 3:15 am

    @bj point seven.
    it was posted the same day of the other article

  37. Teva permalink
    August 10, 2011 3:12 am

    “We don’t even know whether he said it or not and what he could mean by it. Especially since the second article from the same source and printed on the same date said that Pellicano spoke about finding damning evidence against the Chandlers (and not MJ!).”

    It is on the same WEBSITE those comments are not attributed to the same JOURNALIST. Can someone please correct me if I am wrong.

    • August 10, 2011 8:36 am

      “It is on the same WEBSITE those comments are not attributed to the same JOURNALIST.”

      Yes, I meant the same source – “The Daily Beast”. I don’t know whether it is only a website or a real paper.


  1. You Don’t Have To Be a “Crazy, Rabid Fan” To Know That Michael Jackson Was INNOCENT!! « Vindicating Michael
  2. Fact Checking Michael Jackson’s Christian Faith, Part 2 of 5: Michael Did NOT “Channel” Demon Spirits to Help Him Write Songs! « Vindicating Michael
  3. Fact Checking Diane Dimond’s Lies from TruTV’s “In Session” « Vindicating Michael
  4. Debunking the Demonic Deception…Michael Jackson and the Truth: Part 2 « Reflections on the Dance

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: