Those who are inclined to see Michael Jackson as an innocent lover of children using his hard-earned millions to create a dream world where they can roam free of the world's stultifying rules and restrictions have had plenty of succor to cling to in trial testimony thus far.
Ralph Chacon said he watched Jackson perform a sex act on a young boy. He didn't interrupt or report this alleged crime at the time. Philip LeMarque, Jackson's former butler and cook, testified he saw Jackson's hand down Macaulay Culkin's pants. Adrian McManus, a former maid, said she saw Jackson molesting another boy. Former housekeeper Kiki Fournier said she saw boys running drunk and wild. None of these witnesses did anything about these appalling allegations. Surely this calls into question their motives and veracity now.
The mothers of Jordy Chandler — the '94 accuser who received a $20+ million settlement from Jackson — and Gavin Arviso, Jackson's current accuser, were even more negligent and despicable if what they said they saw or suspected actually happened between their sons and Jackson.
The kidnapping-related charges appear to have been a pointless, even vindictive stretch by the prosecution. And on Friday, the judge's rulings on various motions generally went Jackson's way: he denied a request by the prosecution to allow testimony from a domestic violence expert to explain why loopy Janet Arviso lied under oath; the judge excluded salacious details that were to be offered by former Jackson employee Kassim Abdool about bringing Vaseline to an "aroused" and "sweaty" Jackson who was in the presence of Chandler at the time.
So Jackson should be happy at this point in the trial, right? I wouldn't be if I were him. There is a numbing similarity to the testimony many of the prosecution's witnesses regarding Jackson's relationships with boys - can they ALL be lying about EVERYTHING?
I also sense a pattern developing among some of the trial's closest observers. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson wrote an extraordinarily thoughtful and sensible column yesterday looking at the accumulated testimony and why these enablers would behave that way:
- Even if you're a loyal fan ... you've got to wonder whether all these people can be making all this stuff up. Some witnesses may have a credibility problem, and some may have a pecuniary reason to lie
...But they're all telling basically the same story, and airtight conspiracies are rare outside spy novels and high school cliques.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - DrPat
Thanks, Eric! You've put words to the growing sense of creepy belief sneaking under the firm desire to remain neutral in these discussions.
2 - Dawn
Very nicely done - an indictment of facts, even if the jury acquits.
3 - Eric Olsen
thanks guys, much appreciated, been trying to boil down how I feel over the last few days
4 - Pete
No evidence. Full of people who owe Jackson millions and NEVER told police. BS. He is definitely going to be found Not Guilty.
5 - Eric Olsen
perhaps
6 - BNS
So far there are 9 people who have accused Jackson of inappropriate behavior.
Chandler
Francia (son)
Francia (mother)
McManus
LeMarque
Chacon
Arvizo (son)
Arvizo (son)
Arvizo (mother)
Of that 9, 5 are within 2 families and have a motive to support each other.
Of that 9, 6 have made money off of Michael.
Of that 9, 3 owe Jackson over a million dollars.
Of that 9, 2 have gotten judgments from a civil judge that they have stolen personal items from Jackson.
Finally, those 9 are of a number equalling several thousand who have come into personal contact with Jackson to serve him, befriend him, do business with him.
Can all of those 9 be lying? Personally, I think Jackson is lucky that there are only 9.
7 - Cristina
Not guilty! I found it funny how all the people that say they saw, heard & witnessed this & that, all have motives for lying!
8 - Joe
In my opinion, Mr. Jackson is completly innocent, The jury is watching everything goin' on, knowing about facts none of us would know, see proves and evidences, and what they rule at the end is the truth ... all reports leads to Mr. Jackson's innocence ...
but as it's always been, a Black man shouldn't be something in the U.S.A ... so bring him down!
Injustice.
9 - Mjs 1st
Could they all be lying? Yes. Of the 9 witnesses mentioned, all have an animosity/revenge or financial motive for either present or future redemption. The Arviso family with their lies and propensity to extort money from whatever source they can and the othrs with their respective agendas want to see harm come to Jackson due to the fame and fortune he's made.
Any unbiased observer can see that the timing of the supposed molestations has to be fabricated. The alleged acts occurred during the time of the uproar from which MJ was trying to protect himself.
Reasonable doubt exists regarding the alcohol because it has been shown that the kids partook of it on their own without MJ being present.
The conspiracy for false imprisonment speaks for itself.
I personally feel MJ is completely innocent but given the public sentiment in this country fear he will be found guilty.
10 - Jim
Hi Eric, It did wonder if it was all being made up, but the main point is that so far every time I take a better look, I find something that discredits the person making allegations. Most people don't want to be caught saying that it all could have been made up. They don't want to look stupid, LOL. Tt doesn't sound logical to think it's all made up because we are conditioned to believe that having them all be false is too unlikely. However we are conditioned by example of our own typical lives. In your blog, you are comparing the people in this trial to what it might be like if everyday people were in it. If you do that, you run the risk of reaching inaccurate conclusions. The common thought is for everyone to assume if there are that many "witnesses", the allegations must be true then. In the past 20 years I have only met a handful of people. In a typical persons life, they are bound to run into a few people than don't like them or even make enimies. I'd hate to imagine how many friends and enemies someone who is known world wide would make. A lot of the people taking the stand are bitter enimies of MJ. Also promoting charitable events, MJ would run into a lot of desperate families and a few are bound to have emotional or mental problems. After meeting thousands upon thousands of people, over 20 years!, meeting less than 10 people that might try to extort money is very plausible. It wouldn't be likely for you or me, but for someone that meets that many people I think it is.
So it's not all that unreasonable to think that a rich star will run into someone that will try to extort money eventually. It's easy to see how they could run into several over years. Hey, Jay Lenno also ran into the same Arvizo family and called police when he suspected they were trying to get money out of him too. Odd huh?.. If you were to suddenly find your self accepting what I've said to be even a little possible, you may wonder why the small handful of people are all claiming the same thing. It's well known that MJ's thing is charitible to children. Once one family decides to try extorting/lying/suing and gets a pay off so MJ can avoid bad publicity, what do you think all the rest of the grifters/extorshinists are going to try? They will all hear the same story in the news.. If they have a falling out with MJ or get into an argument, the few families that would decide to take advantage are going to use the same story. Why? Because if they really are going to try extortion the same story is more believable than making up a whole brand new story. There really are horrible people that do this. They are desperate. Take the woman who recently tried to sue Wendy's by claiming a human finger was in her chilly. Try to imagine the horror on her face when she found that!!! Just horrible, and it makes you feel sorry for her. They also recently found out that she planted it there in an effort to sue a multi-million dollar food chain and gain from it! She is that type of person! See it here: http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/45049.htm
BUT WAIT! "...But they're all telling basically the same story, and airtight conspiracies are rare outside spy novels and high school cliques.". you say! Well, it's no wonder. They are naturally going to seem very simliar because they are the same type of allegation. Now take into account the similarity of this case to the 1993 case and it seems like they are incredibly similar. Well, don't forget that Tom Sneddon was in the 1993 case! If you want to try and prove someone is a ped, you have to show they have a past pattern that resembles the current case. All Sneddon has to do is mold the current case to sound like the original case and coach the Arvizo kid a little. He's already quite a liar anyway, so this doesn't stretch far in my imagination. I'm not saying he changes everything the boy says. But it would be easy for him to keep certain details quiet, and greatly enhance anything that seems similar to the 1st case. Then he says, "You see your honor! There are resemblences to the first case!" and then implies that MJ is guilty. If the jurors are gullible enough to fall for this, then he wins the case. I actually suspected Sneddon would try this before he did, and then he did.
Parents went along with sleepovers, not because of money, but because MJ was catering to a cause for children. If in your obscure bachelor example, this bachelor made it a big part of his life to help children's causes and throw parties, some parents might allow it. Another part of that is a familiarity. Would the bachelor be widely and pubiclicaly known and trusted? In your example he is not widely known or providing charities to children. While most would not be allowed to do this, it doesn't mean it was done for purposes of child molestation.
As for pointing out how the mother never backed down, you are forgetting something. If she is a grifter driven to get money that decided to use MJ in her third grifting oppertunity (JcPenny's inlcluded), she is NOT going to back down. Once someone like this starts a case like this, they can not back down or they run the risk of being seen as a bigger liar than has already been demonstrated. Please pretend for a minute that she helped set this up, but now she wished she had not and wants out of the case. Well guess what? Not only is MJ trapped, but so is she. She can't say, "Um, sorry, none of this ever happened". When Sneddon calls past "witnesses", they would also be trapped. None of the accusing boys can now say, "Well, I was coached and at the time a little kid, and actually it never happened your honor". No, they are free, and some have money. Why would they jeperdize that? They are actually terrified that they might not look believable. Believe me, they don't want to take the stand. But they will do everything to make sure they are convincing, even if it means acting emotional. Because if they don't look believable, it's going to look very bad on them. So, I'm looking at it from the point that out of the tons of people MJ met, it's quite possible to meet 5 or 10 liars that want money (grifters). And that it could be they are following the same story. It's well known that a woman got scolded with hot coffee at McDonands. Others might try something like that too. I'm just trying to get you to see the other possibilities here.
Am I saying MJ is innocent Eric? NO, and I'm no fan of his, his looks, or music. But I do think that you may be going over the deep end in now assuming he's most probably guilty. Or it could be that like me you are also tired of the MJ stuff and wish to put it to rest, even if that means jumping to conclusions without all the evidence and facts. If you want be sure you have to take it all the way to the other extreme and shoot all the angles. And that is tiring and hard work, but that is the only way. What I do appreciate is that you took the time to read a lot of the MJ case. It's easy to get thrown in one direction or another. I myself have found my self thinking he was absolutely guilty, only to see more of the story and think that maybe he wasn't. Can they ALL be lying about everything!?? ALL is only less than 10 main players here and MJ knows so many. So yes, I think that buch could be, but I'm not 100% sure.. I hope you like some of what I wrote. take care. Jim
11 - Mjs 1st
Some further thoughts on whether all 9 witnesses could be lying. Yes.
Alluding to some of the comments made by Jim in the previous comment, the central figure encouraging these witnesses is Tom Sneddon. He certainly had a hardbitten revenge motive in not being able to prosecute MJ before.
It is easy to imagine him motivating Janet Arviso and her offspring to fabricate lies on MJ and using the 1993 case as inspiration. Her interest was financial because her
children were exploited in the documentary, Living with Michael Jackson.
I believe the 1993 case was a concoction of lies invented by Jordan Chandler's family and lawyers. Child molestation is almost impossible to prove beyond a reason of a doubt. All they would have to do is research previous cases and add their own enhancements to make a case. This was easy due to public sentiment already being negative toward MJ.
My prayers are with MJ and I hope his innocence prevails.
12 - trb
This is an immature article, the defense has yet to begin the case. It must be a weak case if you can see an acquittal even at this point. lol.
Read the transcripts... don't go by the media. Jason Francia couldn't remember anything he said 5 months ago in an interview. It went from 10 secs fondling to a cartoon and a half. Please.
A Santa Maria court found the Neverland five to be liars, acted on malice and fraud, and were thieves. The other prosecution witnesses were more like defense witnesses... including the latest police officer and his logs that conflict with the mother's testimony.
Get real.
13 - Lisa O
Who Eric Olsen really is. Part 1:. Someone who enjoys writing somethig to stir everyone up so he can then choose who to argue with. He enjoys it when you yell at him too. So hope you like this Eric. At the same time he only favors comments that agree with his viewpoint. If he does agree, it's with a weak point. Is this really worth reading people? I invite everyone to look at all posts by "Eric Olsen" at the top. Look for Jackson articles. He pretends they are "articles" with questions, but laces them with pathetic biased garbage that even a low life wouldn't attempt. Writing skills, B-. Convincing, logical arguments F-. Eric, I hope you never end up in a court. You couldn't reason your way through it to save your life. You are basically nothing more than a giant TROLL masquerading as a news writer wannabe.... Maybe we need a good ERIC OLSEN IS A TROLL BLOG.
14 - Eric Berlin
Lisa -- Are you making this crap up as you go along? Off the top of your cracked head, maybe?
Where's a shred of evidence for anything you're alleging?
I thought this was a balanced, well written, well reasoned piece. Pretty much par for the course for Eric Olsen... who, it might be said, has publishing credits up the ass.
So some people like his stuff, I guess.
15 - Lisa O
Ok Eric Berlin, here are some shreds of evidence. Look at this entire blog and notice how he only thanks those that agree with him.. Then go to this site http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/19/090516.php and you will find out what he finds to be funny. It says, "In a jaunty recreation of an Olsen twins film plot, LaToya Jackson showed up as the defendant at Michael Jackson's trial yesterday, injecting a little levity into the fourth day of Janet Arviso's stream-of-consciousness testimony and lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr's incessant witness badgering.".. .. Then at this site http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/15/181628.php he refers to MJ as an alien. Dayiaan, "Michael jackson has gone from black, to white, he has completely lost it. He is in neverland right now.", Eric Olsen, "you forgot "alien"". Or Pete's comment, "Eric Olsen, there is NO PROOF of giving alcohol to minors at all. You just want him convicted on something. Its pathetic." - See? I'm not the only one who feels this way. OR, this Eric gem, "there is testimony from a number of people that children drank alcohol in the presence of Jackson - again, the Jackophiles wish to dismiss anything ever sadi by anyone who is not a perfect human being when it suits their vision of reality.". Still has nothing to do with proving the main point, but that's all he can hold on to. And then he disses people who look at it logically as Jackophiles?!?!?! And another comment from that page, "ahhhh eric yet another weak comment with no proof," Sounds like Eric is toally one sided. News writer wannabies rope you in with questions like, "Is it possible?" but than bend it to one side. In this article it is, "Can They All Be Lying About Everything?" then clearly biases it to one side with poorly thought out logic. This is exactly the behavior of a troll in a news group. If he's not trolling, then he truly believes his logic is clean. That, I find sad. And if he has publishing credits as you put it, then it's as a sensationalist like Bashire is. Big deal! It takes a lot more sophistication to get popular and not use his seedy methods. Maybe he's a Bahire wannabie. Really.. I've taken some time here. Go up and read all his other articles you too will find your own shreds of evidence..
16 - Eric Berlin
Lisa -- So Eric is supposed to thank those who call him a troll?
And where is your evidence from this particular piece?
I'm not going to dig through the other references / dense block of text you present as, quite frankly, I don't have the time/energy and I must off to the Big Bad Voodoo Daddy concert.
17 - Lisa O
I presented something that is credible. It's not by fault if you say
"I'm not going to dig through the other references" after you ask for my evidence. I also don't know why you defend Eric (unless you are him?). I don't expect a thank you because I didn't write him anything nice in this blog.
I wrote what I did, because I noticed that some people take the time to write some pretty well thought out comments here and in other blogs. Eric chooses never to see those points.
Since you don't have the time to read through my reponse and are off to a BBVD concert, It takes a lot of nerve for you to imply I don't have evidence in what I said after I presented it to you.
18 - Eric Olsen
thanks for all the thoughts, including those that do not agree with my own. If I have not done that sufficiently in the past I apologize.
EB, thanks for the kind words and support.
Jim, thanks, you make many good points and I will think about them.
Lisa, um, thanks. I have written straight news on the Jackson case, I have written commentary, I have on a couple of occassions written satire, which has been clearly labeled as such. I have made it very clear when I was giving my own opinion.
I have followed Jackson for 35 years and was a great admirer until about ten years ago when the weirdness seemed to overwhelm the talent. I did not have an opinion on the merits of this particular case coming into it, and have followed the transcripts regularly. My opinion is my opinion - no one has to agree, but if, as Lisa seems to, you have read everything I have written so far, I think it is pretty obvious I have no agenda other than giving information and my thoughts on what I have observed.
I do not know if MJ has committed illegal acts of molestation, but as I have said over and over, I think the relationship he has had with a number of boys is improper, inappropriate, exploitative, manipulative, and has a devastating emotional impact on these children.
Those of you who look at his behavior only from a legalistic standpoint would do well to consider some of these issues.
Thanks for reading.
19 - RTD
The primary issue is - did MJ mollest Gavin Arvizo? Simple. It is obvious to all that all members of the family have lied under oath. If the accusation was true why would it be necessary for any of them to lie at all? They are far more likely to win their case if they simply told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. None of the other tetsimony is going to change that simple fact - the Arvizso family have lied under oath and several have actually admitted it. Are they hoping to get a criminal conviction and then sue for 20 000 000 dollars - now that is an incentive to lie. All the other witnesses and their testimony is distracting from the central issue. As for previoous witnesses attesting to the fact they (i.e., Jason) was/were molested? Even if they were molested, it doesn't mean Gavin Arvizo was molested. If McAulay (?sorry (spelling) Culkin was molested why does he say Jackson is his frined and why did he agree to become a god-father to one of his (MJs) children?? The prosecution is mudding the waters and confusing the issues. For them to put witnesses on the stand who have a known history of lying under oath (i.e., Janet Arvizo) leads me to ask: Just how fair and impartial is this kind of justice? The 1993/1994 lawyers for Jackson have stated that they advised Jackson not to go to trial then but pay out because of the damage being done to him. Perhaps that was true - just look at the damage done now. Even if he is found not guilty he will never recover and his career is ruined.
20 - Cate
Could they all be lying? maybe, though it is unlikely.
There is something wrong with a 46 year old man wanting to sleep with little boys... begging their parents to let them. (ok worse still is the fact that the parents consented). How can all the people claim he is definately 'innocent' not see something wrong with this behaviour?
And why give a family 20 million dollars not to take the matter to court? No-one gives away that type of money over bad press.
21 - Pete
Also if he were a Paedophile, where is all the child porn on his computers? They took dozens of computers from Neverland. They only found Adult porn websites, magazines. Where is the child porn of a Paedophile? Which Paedophile has Adult Porn and not child porn?
"He shows them adult porn" everyone cries...
Well in the Trial it was made evident that Jackson has magazines that were bought AFTER the supposed molestation. Now how can this be right? How can a paedophile buy adult porn months after he already commited his act of showing adult porn to a minor? What does he want with it? Errr maybe for his own pleasure. Maybe he isn't a paedophile after all?
Where are the 'victims' from 93-2003? This guy built a huge Neverland according to the prosecution to entice little boys. He spent some $350m+ to create this to satisfy his urges ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS? He built this mammoth Neverland which he only intended to use every ten years? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to go to one of those countries which have child sex slaves available seeing as he has the money? I mean, that would be a hell of a lot cheaper than going to all the trouble of building rides, cinemas, etc to entice these kids which takes a couple of years to entice them....
Also we are all led to believe there is some kind of pattern between 93 and 2003. Right... In 93 there was supposed to have been oral sex among other things. In this case there is supposed to have been fondling? Oh yeah how similar the two cases are eh?
"We don't want money we want Justice your honour".
Oh please sit down. You want justice yet you admit that you went to the same lawyer that settled for millions against Jackson in 93 before you ever went to the police. Now repeat your statement and ask any rational being to believe you.
"Hey my name's Joe Shmo. I saw Jackson give oral sex to a boy but didn't do anything".
Yeah thanks for that. You see a boy being sexually assaulted and you stand there and watch? You don't save the kid and at no time do you call the police? What's that you say? A court found you stole from Jackson and ordered to pay him over $1.5m? Come again? You were also made bankrupt from that ruling?
"You still believe me though right? I really did see those things"
Yes ofcourse we do... ofcourse
"Hey Mr Jackson asked me to bring him French Fries in the middle of the night. Well guess what I saw when I was delivering Fries? I saw him molesting McCauley Culkin. I almost dropped my fries"
Whoa. Hope you didn't make a mess there sir. So Jackson asks you to bring him fries in the middle of the night and then thinks 'oh yeah, imma start molesting this kid, my chef won't catch me. Besides I like living life on the edge'. Ok cool, so you saw the abuse. Did you beat Mr Jackson with a stick? No? Did you go save the kid? No? Ok what did you say to the police when you called them? You didn't call them? Why who did you call? Oh you were negotiating with a tabloid to sell your story for £500,000? Interesting. And what's that you say? They told you that you would get more if the hand went inside the pants instead of over the pants? Ohhh so that's why your story changed?
I don't think there is a need to go into all the rest. It would take too long. I think my point is out there. The jury will see this though, even if others choose not to.
22 - gerard
Does anyone know, how the mother of the accuser makes a living, that is other than the money she makes from nuisance lawsuites.
Mr. jackson is a cash cow, a perfect target for grifters. How ever he has brought this on himself. I see very little chance of getting an accuitance.
23 - DRS
BNS wrote:
>>>>>>
So far there are 9 people who have accused Jackson of inappropriate behavior.
Chandler
Francia (son)
Francia (mother)
McManus
LeMarque
Chacon
Arvizo (son)
Arvizo (son)
Arvizo (mother)
Of that 9, 5 are within 2 families and have a motive to support each other.
Of that 9, 6 have made money off of Michael.
Of that 9, 3 owe Jackson over a million dollars.
Of that 9, 2 have gotten judgments from a civil judge that they have stolen personal items from Jackson.
Finally, those 9 are of a number equalling several thousand who have come into personal contact with Jackson to serve him, befriend him, do business with him.
Can all of those 9 be lying? Personally, I think Jackson is lucky that there are only 9.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
It is obvious that anyone who doubts that all those people can all lie is prejudiced beyond rationality. I fact, whole case is about money, perjury, frauds, and inconsistences.
There is no any single credible, not money-driven witness of anything inappropriate from Jackson's part, period.
And I guarantee you that people of course will lie to get money or escape prosecution for perjury, conspiracy and all the other stuff they will be subject of if they admit they were lying before, accusing Jackson and selling their stories to tabloids.
24 - Dawn
So DRS, are you saying that it's perfectly normal for a 46 year-old-man to spend inordinate amounts of time with boys under the age of 13, occasionally sleeping in the same bed and whatnot?
Every single whackjob involved in this (with the exception of the minors) is culpable for being a moron, but let there be no doubt, MJ is a child-grooming pederast in the making, if he hasn't already committed some degree of molestation - he is going to.
Please, you people defending him are as star-struck as those accusing him. It's hard to figure out which group is worse; those that think it's okay to have this man around children, or those who supply the children for him?
25 - sydney
IS MJ innocent of this charge? yes.
Why do I say this? Because the people involved in this case have been caught in a number of lies and the courts will aquit MJ.
Does MJ act innapropriate with his young company? yes
Was he a great entertainor?: now so more than ever. I get a good laugh every time i see his picture in the papers.
Is he black? I think so, but why the fuck do people think this is some vast conspiracy to take down the black man.
Is he certifiably insane? not certifiably, but most definately insane.
Is it all a good barrel of laughs?: yes, it sure is.