Today on Blogcritics
Home » Michael Jackson Trial: Can They All Be Lying About Everything?

Michael Jackson Trial: Can They All Be Lying About Everything?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

    …There’s not a chance, I’ll bet, that the parents of the boy who is the subject of the current allegations, or the parents of the boy who accused Jackson of molesting him in 1993 (before Jackson paid the family more than $20 million and the boy clammed up), or any of the other parents would have let their boys romp and cuddle with Jackson if he had been, say, just an obscure bachelor living alone in a suburban split-level on an insurance adjuster’s salary.

    Money was a part of it, but only a part. Even if it had been an obscure bachelor who owned the insurance company, I doubt the parents would have gone along so readily. The mother of the boy at the heart of the current case was intoxicated with all the attention she received when the boy got cancer and celebrities began paying him the mercy visits they routinely perform as a kind of community service. The woman’s “ready for my close-up” histrionics on the witness stand speak for themselves.

    …The people around Michael Jackson — the members of his paid retinue as well as the families he invited to the ranch — had in common the overwhelming desire to be a part of his life.

    …Elizabeth Taylor is a part of Jackson’s life. The salaried enablers who worked for him and the starry-eyed fools who gave him their young sons could never be.

Steve Corbett, who has been in the courtroom everyday as a columnist for the hometown Santa Maria Times wrote this on Thursday:

    After eight weeks of listening to prosecution witnesses, most members of the press and people who digest their reports, seem to be harshly critical of the prosecution’s case.

    If jurors are getting the same vibe, Jackson might one day take off from Neverland for that magic hot air balloon ride to wherever his heart desires – without worrying about sheriff’s department choppers threatening to shoot him over the rainbow.

    Personally, though, I wouldn’t want to be Michael.

    And I wouldn’t bet on the trial outcome even if I were a betting man.

    Call me delusional – the way some of my associates ruthlessly label the mother of Jackson’s alleged victim – but I believe that the prosecution has made a significant case against the 46-year-old celebrity superstar defendant.

    Even the worst witnesses brought a little something to a case that is built on legitimate circumstantial arguments that point to a pattern of molestation that highlights Jackson’s guilt.

    For that reason, I won’t be surprised if Jackson is convicted on at least one of the 10 felonies with which he is charged. But a hung jury on all or most counts won’t surprise me, either. Neither will a total acquittal.

    …Pro-defense apologists, of which a grand array is obvious in and out of the courtroom, expect Mesereau to quickly destroy what’s left of a crumbled prosecution.

    But how much can aging movie idol Elizabeth Taylor do to help friend Michael by appearing as a creaky character witness? Michael’s own brothers and sisters don’t even show up for the trial anymore.

    Mesereau failed to trash the prosecution, anyway.

    Most of Sneddon’s most significant witnesses are believable, even when they admit to lying in the past. And although Mesereau has done a dandy job of planting seeds of doubt, he never landed any knockout punch.

    Even the mother of the alleged victim – kooky as she came across – never backed down and refused to allow Mesereau to put words in her mouth.

And Peter Bowes wrote this last Tuesday for the BBC:

    therein lies the great tragedy of the trial. It is the sick product of a celebrity-obsessed world and we all carry some guilt for just being here.

    No one was laughing the day Gavin Arvizo talked about the abuse he believes he suffered at the hands of Michael Jackson.

    Some of the jurors dabbed their eyes as the teenager recounted the story of his miraculous recovery from cancer.

    The most heart-wrenching moment came when another alleged victim, Jason Francia, almost broke down on the witness stand.

    He appeared to be genuinely haunted by the memory of something awful happening. It is, of course, for the jury to decide whether he was just acting.

Of course, but Bowes made it pretty clear how he feels about the key testimony. If Gavin Arviso and Jason Francia are believable, then the rest of the testimony is just there to support their claims. And there is an awful lot of it. Jackson may well still get off, but he also may well not.

Powered by

About Eric Olsen

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com 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.

  • Dawn

    Very nicely done – an indictment of facts, even if the jury acquits.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks guys, much appreciated, been trying to boil down how I feel over the last few days

  • Pete

    No evidence. Full of people who owe Jackson millions and NEVER told police. BS. He is definitely going to be found Not Guilty.

  • Eric Olsen

    perhaps

  • 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.

  • Cristina

    Not guilty! I found it funny how all the people that say they saw, heard & witnessed this & that, all have motives for lying!

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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..

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Infinite Wisdom

    Wow, thanks to everyone who wrote exquisitely to put this Eric and all the likes of him in their place!!!

    From the Brilliant Mind of JOHNNY COCHRANE: “Truth pressed down to the earth, will always rise up”!!

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, I am now in my place – I still think he did it

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    I wonder how some of these people are situated on the OJ trial…

  • Pete

    Dawn you are one of those who only look at the basic facts without digging deeper than what the media tell you.

    Yes he is a fruit loop who likes spending time with kids. Noone denies that fact. Look at him for crying out loud. He has serious issues from childhood and fame. Some of you need more empathy with others.

    All the accusers have serious financial motives and the witnesses are laughable at best.

    Those of us who choose to look at the facts of the case rather than the

    “Oh my God he shared his bed with kids”

    should be applauded. Stop thinking in 2D and start thinking in 3D. Not everything in this world is black and white.

    Noone has EVER found child porn and there is a 10 year gap with NO accusers. Paedophiles don’t go on 10 year fasts and then reoffend after their sleeping habits are brought into question after a Sensational TV documentary.

    The fanily are LIARS who have lied in PREVIOUS sexual law suits.

    The Mothers accused her HUSBAND of sexually abusing his daughter – No charges filed. She accused her husband of holding them against their will – No charges filed. Her son also accused his own Mother of abusing him. The Mother said she was sexually abused by Security Guards after they caughter her son shoplifting – She accused them TWO YEARS LATER.

    The defence I am sure will have more bombshells. However it is sad when people decide not to look at the facts of the case and instead look at sensational UNFOUNDED/UNPROVEN rubbish.

  • Pete

    “I wonder how some of these people are situated on the OJ trial…”

    What has OJ got to do with anything on here? Does it comfort you to resort to one other high profile case in which (mostly) everyone thinks the defendent was Guilty instead of arguing the facts of this case? Do you not argue the facts of this case because you don’t know them? Sad.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    I was just curious. Thanks for responding.

  • DRS

    ***Eric***: “yes, I am now in my place – I still think he did it”

    You think “he did” on WHAT CONCRETE EVIDENCE?

    Since there is no credible, not money-driven evidence, then this is simply insinuation and prejudice.

    I can say that Eric Olsen “did it”, even though I have no any evidence about this — that is the same, all right?

  • graeme

    is there a possibility that mj.didnt mean for this to happen.and maybe he just got too attatched to the boys.or even fell in love with their cuteness and youth.after all he is a very lonely and shy person amoungst older people.but he feels like he is still a boy.and gets along with kids better than adults.also everyone else in this world who wants to do good by kids and have the money.would do it under supervision and have overseers.and register the charity or whatever.i really think that this guy is guilty.but only in the way that he got too attatched to the children and got carried away with feelings for them and really couldnt see what he was doing .but now that he has done this for a very long time now he wont stop he will always continue to love kids in the wrong way.i really think now he should be casterated.and i can partly blame the authorities for not putting him on the right track many years ago.they should have stepped in and told him that if he wants to help kids he would have to do it on their terms and under supervision.you know the old saying about convicted pedophiles once they have had the taste for young boys they always will.to hear people say that he set up neverland to prey on kids is wrong to say. at first he probally meant well but as i said i really think he fell into a trap of getting too attatched to the kids.now the only way to stop him is to take away his rights to have kids around him.and to put him on the sex offenders register..

  • Pete

    Graeme he hired a lawyer in February 2003 after the Bashir documentary that shocked the world. He feared the family would make allegations of something as she was saying so to people at Neverland. He got the family to say nothing happened via his lawyer to preempt any legal action. IT’S RIGHT AFTER THAT he decided to ‘abuse’ the kid. Yeah right. He was annoyed with this family and tried to get them off Neverland because he was afraid of allegations they may make and they did AFTER he got them to say nothing happened.

    … Oh and Eric Berlin, thanks for proving my point. You know nothing about the facts of this case apart from what the sensationalised media tell you.

  • Eric Olsen

    Graeme, I think you make a lot of sense – I don’t think he planned Neverland as a nefarious trap for young boys, but I do think someting like the scenario you suggest happened and he hasn’t been able to stop this behavior, despite every reason in the world to do so, for 15 years.

  • http://dumpsterbust.blogspot.com Eric Berlin

    Pete: I have not made a statement about this case one way or the other (at least not on this thread).

    So if you’d like to take someone to ask for making assumptions, try starting with yourself.

  • adis

    Eric Olsen. I thought you were being objectively speculative in your article but after reading your later responses, I have no choice but to admit you are BIASED. Your mind is made up that he is guilty and you need not hide that. It is sad I have responded to you thereby giving you the attention you so much desire by being outrageous as someone pointed out.

    Look at the facts, history of witnesses, their perfomances and the lies they have been so used to telling in other circumstance. Will it not be fair to give MJ the sort of consideration you give to these witnesses by thinking there may be a truth in what they say. There may also be a genuine love of children that is in no way evil as is constructed by the very currupt minds of much of our contemporary society.

  • sydney

    I think we should all get off ERic’s back. my god, its as if we’re all being objective about this trial, except ERic. I don’t think any of us have the facts and few of us have as many as ERic olson.

    That being said, I think that MJ likely acted in an sexually inapropriate manner to this boy and several others. However, i think this boys family is exagerating the circumstances inorder to exhort money.

    Oe thing should be clear. Micheal jackson is not acting in a sane manner. If he were sane he would have cut out the sleeping with childeren bit years ago, or at the very least had the children’s parents sign waivers or somthing. Clearly he was addicted to the closeness of these relationships and the intimacy, despite knowing how potential damaging they could be to both the childeren and himself.

    Instead, of takeing the natural and obvious plan of action years back, MJ continues to conduct himself inappropriately.

    These relationships are the extent of the intimacy in his life. HE’s fucked, and you can thank his dad for that. Still, its MJ responisbility now to change.

    I just hate hearing people justify mj as a victim who merely loved too much. Christ, the guy is messed in the head.

  • adis

    sydney! do not make the mistake of thinking we do not know the facts (as what has so far been presented) of this case. I have been following this case from day one every day.That is how i ended up in this thread.
    You make conclusions as if you live with MJ. You probably have never met him before. you know very little apart from what the sentimental media has to tell us. Even at that, I do not see any substance yet worthy as a basis for your conclusion. It is at best as impassioned as Sneddons. By law, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

  • sydney

    I dont know him personally but I think that based on what he has told us with regards to his relations with childeren, he is not right in the head.

    Morever, how he has delt with everything since the first accusation points to his head problems as well.

    The man is beyond being different, or eccentric, he is does not deal with childeren in a proper manner. He may not have malicious intent but based on what he has told us, he is a danger to the emotional well being of the childeren around him.

    Now there is an opinion htere on my behalf, but what little I know of psychology (from my univerity studies) suggests to me that a grown man, mega celbrity, sleeping in a bed with other 14 year old boys is not a healthy enviroment for the children.

    Adis, I have a question for you. Would you invite your neighbour’s childeren over and have them sleep in your bed? Would you be surprised that everyone thought this was controversial? Would you countinue to do it after having many people tell you it was wrong?

  • adis

    Sydney

    No i would not. This is not because i think it is wrong but because I do not feel the need. On the other hand,if i relate to children inappropriately, I would not come to announce it to the whole world on TV. MJ did told the world how he related to children.

    Do not forget the cultural context as well. In my culture it is okay for males to sleep together since sexual attraction is inscribed and internalised as between men and women.

    Do give a thought also to why MJ sleeps with boys and reads heterosexual adult magazines. May be this cultural specificty that i cite is acted out in an individualised manner by MJ though in a cultural location that accepts HM-sex almost equally as HT-sex.

    I am only speculating and so is every one – till the juducial system in which the case is laid takes its ultimate decision.

  • Dawn

    Could just one defender of MJ please use grammar, do some spell checking and permit a little punctuation in your comments.

    I find it utterly hilarious that the most unequipped people to make a sound argument on ANYTHING, are always the ones to do so on matters such as this.

    You do a great disservice to those you defend, by consistently portraying yourselves as completely moronic and lacking the basic fundamentals needed to present a reasonable case.

    And this from someone who barely passed grammar class.

  • Tristan

    I think dawn has an incisive point:

    It shames the entire american education system when a person who “claims” to have a “University education” spells horribly and uses such abyssmal grammar.

  • Jim

    I’m glad you liked my points in my GIGANTIC, post above, LOL. I apologize for the typos. I typed fast and proof read way too fast. I’m am still unable to pin guilt or innocence. If it had resembled a straight forward, normal looking case, maybe I could avoid feeling bad in assuming guilt. I’ve already come to the conclusion that some of the people that hate him have already lied in some of what they said he did…..

    I already have my long post above, but will say that it makes it very hard for me to assume guilt when I am not seeing truly good evidence. If he gets put away for 20 years, I will always wonder unless I see something big to blow the case open. Now if he didn’t have all these obvious haters/liars with agenda’s and secondary motives I would have believed them a little more easily.

    But again, still no major proof. Just a lot of angry people, fighting for their lives. Coming to court each day in their best suits and thier biggest smiles. Each side hoping to tell the very best story to convince the jury. Maybe a smile or a tear on either side will convince the jury they are sincere. Because now that’s what they are mostly going by. That and stories that may, or may not be true. In what is supposed to be a serious case, I find the lacking evidence sad. When I try to be completely honest and fair it’s hard to take sides. I try to imagine how hard it would be to be a real judge… And as I think about that, It’s just like you can keep getting stuck with the creepy feeling, deep down, that something else is going on. For me, it seems to eat away at the very notion of what justice should be. It’s like have you ever had something stick in your mind and it just won’t go? And every time you turned away, it’s like it was back again? And any little thing, like walking into a room, or even flipping on a light switch had you suddenly remembering what you thought you’d forget? The more I think about it,.. there may be more beneath the surface than any of us ever imagined. I have time to make up my mind and am comfortable with that.

  • Amanda

    To Dawn and Tristan, “Could just one defender of MJ please use grammar, do some spell checking and permit a little punctuation in your comments.”. I have found that some of the dumbest comments, across many forums, come from those with perfect grammer and spelling skills. I have read some of the most brilliant insights from people who not only can’t spell well, but are some times from other countries. I often find that people who refer to other people’s bad spelling and/or grammer as a basis to knock down their arguments while attempting to support their own, usually have weak arguments to begin with. I’ll also point out that more than one person against MJ has already had trouble with grammer and spelling. Tristan, I think it shames the entire thread when you make things up. No one here claimed to have a “University education”. Even if they did, I only read through the good points made and not just those with the best clerical skills. Remember. Spelling doesn’t equal thinking. I’ll take someone with a great point over someone that can spell anyday.

  • adis

    Dawn!
    I guess your caring so much about the grammer rather than the information one tries to communicate and your assumption that we all went to university or american university shows how much you think beyond the US borders. How well can you write in French, Mandarin, or Igbo? Good grammer or spelling is not the yardstick to measure how articulate one is. I guess narrow minded people could do it.

  • Pete

    Dawn, once again the people who think he is Guilty would like to switch from the facts to another side issue which is completely irrelevent to the actual point of discussion.

    I don’t know if you were reffering to me with your ‘snidey’ comments, however I think I can speak for most of us when I say a typo isn’t a big deal. We are not writing an essay to submit to our tutors etc. Many of us want to get our point across and get on with it – obviously those of us with actual POINTS pertaining to the case. Please don’t star taking the moral high ground as if you are better than someone else because of their spelling. That is not of your concern at all.

    If you don’t know anything about the case and dislike Jackson for who he is, say so, in which case we can ignore your ignorant and prejudicial comments.

  • lorna

    i think mj is innocent.the only thing that i think that they have proven so far is that mj likes to look at naked females.the other witnesses have all been rpoven liars.they have only been looking for money. also in the 93 case the mother says that jackson begged her to let her son sleep with him. i dont believe that story for a minute. what mother would give in to that no matter who the person is. too many holes in all their stories.he does seem to like the company of young boys but that does not prove that he is molesting them every 10 yrs.

  • Mihos

    Slippery slope

    Vaseline jelly has a variety of uses. Now it is even being used to smear Michael Jackson

    John Sutherland
    Monday April 25, 2005
    The Guardian

    The Jackson trial pollutes everything it touches: Peter Pan, motherhood, circus elephants – above all, American justice. One presumes the man (man?) is innocent. But does anyone think that even if guilty, and the convicted monster of Neverland spends the rest of his days banged up in a cell with a tattooed biker, any child in southern California will be safer?
    Now even the household jar of Vaseline has been defiled. The “smear” was spewed out on their websites last Thursday by those two reverse sewage spigots, Matt Drudge and Smoking Gun.

    Article continues

    ——————————————————————————–

    ——————————————————————————–

    For the “grand finale” of the state’s case, Drudge breathlessly reported, the prosecution “hopes to present a shocking story of Vaseline and alleged sex abuse”. In 1993 a former Neverland security guard, Abdool (everything about this trial is surreal), was instructed by an “aroused King of Pop” to bring some Vaseline from the glove compartment of the star’s SUV to the bedroom where he was hanging out (“wearing only his pajama bottoms”) with a kid who Abdool “believed was Jordie”.
    Once it had been leaked from supposedly sealed court documents, news agencies were duty-bound, sanctimoniously holding their noses, to put the Vaseline story into the public domain.

    The PR people at Unilever must have groaned. The multinational company bought the brand name in 1987. They have put millions into burnishing Vaseline’s image – particularly with schoolchildren.

    Unilever did not invent Vaseline. That credit goes to Robert Chesebrough, an English chemist who emigrated to the US in the 1850s. Young Chesebrough went into the kerosene business and was quick to see that the future of the fuel that lit and warmed America was in Pennsylvania, where the first American oil fields were being drilled.

    When he went there, Chesebrough noticed that roughnecks who worked the rigs were maddened by a gelatinous black gunk that clogged up their drills. They called it “rod wax” and were constantly having to wipe the stuff away. But these same working Joes, Chesebrough was interested to see, slapped “rod wax” on their cuts to help them heal faster.

    Chesebrough took some jelly to his lab and tested its healing property on himself. It worked. He soon had a fleet of wagons trundling around the country distributing “Vaseline” (a barbarous combination of the German “wasser”, and the Greek “elaion”: “water-oil”).

    Chesebrough was an evangelist. In front of rapt audiences he would burn his skin with acid and then anoint the wounds with his wonder-jelly, pointing to earlier scars Vaseline had healed. Next day, every druggist in town would have bought a wagonload.

    Chesebrough’s patented jelly was translucent. Unlike vegetable or animal oils, it didn’t go rancid or smell, except faintly of hospitals. It had that quality which all pharmaceutical products aspire to – purity. Vaseline was so pure it was virtually Platonic.

    The distinctive property of Vaseline is its resistance to water. It will weatherproof footwear, safeguard wounds, and soothe chapped lips. It has innumerable household uses. It is the base ingredient in a vast range of cosmetics and pomades (Jackson must have used vats of the stuff in his Jeri-Curl days).

    Beauty queens dab Vaseline on their teeth for that flashing smile. Bulls in the Spanish corrida have Vaseline smeared on their eyes, to make them charge wildly (bull’s eye-smearer must be one of the less desirable offerings at the Madrid jobcentre). Cross-channel swimmers slather themselves with it. Japesters daub it on lavatory seats (you wipe it on, they can’t wipe it off). Photographers get artistic effects with Vaseline on the lens. Chesebrough, a man who believed in his product, swallowed a spoonful of it every day. He lived to be 96.

    Notoriously, it has less salubrious usages. But “rod wax” is the one thing Vaseline shouldn’t be used for. It does bad things to latex condoms and has other disadvantages as an intimate lubricant. It’s not, as Talking Heads naughtily implied, the sand in the Vaseline that does the damage. It’s the Vaseline in the Vaseline.

    Would a man as morbidly nervous as Jackson about things medical not know that? Would someone as pampered as Jackson remember what one of his chauffeurs had stuffed into the glove compartment of one of his cars?

    If Abdool is the best the prosecution has for its “grand finale”, the show’s over.

  • Eric Olsen

    the judge disallowed the Vaseline testimony – that’s good enough for me. I have not made an issue of it, nor will I.

  • Dawn

    I disagree whole-heartedly with those claiming that a lack of command of the basics of any language, does not also impugn one’s cognitive abilities.

    If you don’t care enough to present your argument in the best possible light, well then, your argument isn’t worth presenting.

    Trust me, I have learned the difference by having it pointed out in my own writing. This has made me hyper-aware of how incredibly ill-formed your thoughts appear when you don’t take the time to present them well.

    We can all use more editing. It’s not typos either, it’s just using poor grammar and being too lazy to do it right – or just not knowing the difference.

  • Eric Olsen

    the occasional typo is no big deal and normal in the course of rapid typing and heated discussion, but a large number of misspellings from native English speakers (non-native speakers are an entirely different matter), poor grammar, etc, are absolutely a reflection on the way a person’s mind works

  • chello

    Hello all.
    Eric, like all of us, has the right to his opinion.
    I restate my position that the MJ case is far more complicated then meets the eye. I take my position to be quite objective it has not been fueled by the media frenzy that follow this exposé. I, in fact started following the MJ saga after his falling out with Tony Matolla of Sony Entertainment Company after the lukewarm launch of his ‘Invincible’ album (for the first time in history MJ releases an album with literally no support and 1 single release – this was history in its own right).
    What makes him such a viable subject for such a media ‘lynching’ as some have put is imprinted in his own formula for fame… Michael has a unique positioning in the music industry and pop culture in general. He is the most famous living personality on planet earth (after the death of the pope). He is one of the most significant entertainers, if not, the most achieved in terms of monetary gains, fame, artistry, and general pop culture influence. He is nor black or white – no racial identity. He is nor male nor female – no gender identity. He nor adult, youth or child – no age identity. He is the image created by his amazing art form (through audio, video and live performance) and the media that we all have grown to rely on.
    As a result of his ‘non-identity’, he provides an ideal target. In actual fact what we are seeing now is an outright social assault on his persona resulting from it being ‘ok’ to ridicule and dehumanize him for he doesn’t really fit the characteristics of a human being…
    We are all racist in a way but are too embarrassed by it to profess it beyond our mental set up and with-hold from expressing ourselves freely about people of the opposite race in fear of looking so… Michael presents us with a unique opportunity to be ourselves – racist and get away with it.
    Imagine if Eminem had pulled off his vomiting stunt (in the anchor lead track video) on a ‘black’ man irrespective of how he felt about him, it would have been totally unacceptable… When Stevie Wonder stood up for MJ by saying logically that’s its not fair to kick someone when they are down, the media had a hard time reporting the facts for fear of playing the race card.
    Michael is probably the first real megastar – out of touch from human hands, admired from a distance. He created an image that was meant to please all his legions of followers across the globe… a feat far too steep for anyone except God maybe and we can’t even visualize him.
    MJ is guilty of being too famous and too successful. He established himself as the modern day conqueror of entertainment after the likes of the Beatle and Elvis then had the audacity to buy their music… What point was he trying to prove? His fame created just as many opportunities as it did threats, and they are currently all at work in what is sometimes termed to be the ultimate ‘meltdown’ of one of the greatest stars in history… Maybe it’s a mixture of both… His fame and fortune superseded efforts to capitalize on the opportunity created in 1993 to bring him down. It is apparent that even Sony felt that he could not rise to the ranks after 1993 and were compelled to honor their contract with him nevertheless. The media is just as lost in this as we all are. They are capitalizing on the intrigue and fortune presented by MJs unusual personality to generate headlines and sell more media.
    MJ will most likely survive this for the same reasons that brought this all onto him. I am glad he took this case to court so that the world can be exposed to the extent of corruption that has befallen humanity even in the world leading economy. Media has chosen to judge MJ prematurely and wrongly, and as a result because of diminishing interest in depth beyond our backyards we rely on shallow media snippets to form opinions that could costs people their lives. I beg to make reference to the Middle East disgrace of an assault on Saddam. If you hate someone because of their race or what they stand for say it and beat them down as a result but don’t conceal your hate and insecurities in tales of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and cause carnage for a whole society as a result. Western culture has reached challenging time, where we know too much of something’s and little of everything else.
    Eric is a reflection of how people can construe facts to suit their personal needs. We made case with him earlier and I wish not to delve into that today. I commend the MJ apologists because they take the time to examine fact and rational and not juicy headings spiced up media eccentricities…
    MJ does not need any of our support like a human being facing serious allegation needs our respect of the system in question. We will be judged by future generation for our lack of depth and substance on matters of such.

  • Eric Olsen

    that’s for sure

  • Adis

    Chello!
    That was a very good angle. Thanks men.

  • james mclaffrety

    Wow chello that was intense and very eye opening BRILLIANT:-)

  • sydney

    Adis,

    I support your claims of grammar having little to do with with the level of one’s education.

    Dawn may have perfect grammar but I rarely find her comments to be well articulated or intelligent.

    Moreover, she’s a rude.

  • Eric Olsen

    I agree chello makes some interesting points, however, it all appears to be working backwards from the assumption of innocence. How is this any less biased than I am accused of being?

    As far as star power goes: only outside of the US. His power began dimming here 15 years ago and nothing has happened to arrest the slide. The media here is NOT going crazy with this story because not that many people care. Most of the country is disgusted by the whole thing and have stayed away in droves.

    And an analogy with the invasion of Iraq? Um, I vote no.

  • james mclaffrety

    Bad spelling and grammar in post’s can be down to many situations i would of thought, like tiredness, typing without glasses.And come to that have you ever seen a doctors handwriting it’s mostly ineligible at the best of times and i don’t think they’re unintelligent.Oh and of course there are probably people from all over the world typing on here so it would be understandable.Any way this isn’t a forum about grammar it’s about a much more serious matter.

  • james mclafferty

    Oh my god(laughing),i just mistyped my last name,(still laughing)

  • Pete

    It’s funny how Dawn has STILL stuck to her ‘grammar and spelling’ idiocy instead of talking about the actual case. Speak up Dawn or shut up it would seem. You don’t have anything intelligent to say in relation to this case. Just another media sheep who thinks they are oh so above the rest.

    Let’s hear your intelligent, articulate, grammar obsessed facts of the case in order to find whether Jackson may be Innocent or Guilty. Otherwise why are you here?

  • DRS

    ***Eric***:”I agree chello makes some interesting points, however, it all appears to be working backwards from the assumption of innocence. How is this any less biased than I am accused of being?”

    It is less, because there is constitution and moral, ethic and religious principle that tells that one is innocent until proven guilty.

    So when you insinuate that Jackson is guilty, even with no credible, not money-driven evidence, then You, Eric, break principles constitution, ethics, religious morals. The more so concrete evidence shows that most probably Jackson is being railroaded for money, revenge, jalousy and hate.

    By the way, having pure sleepovers with children, when they ask and their parents’ agree, does not break any ethics, common humanistic or religious morals.

    It is only sick, dirty, perverted minds of paedophilia-fixated and paranoidal society can turn anything into sinister.

  • DRS

    ***Eric and others***:

    Please read carefully Jackson’s writing “Wise Little Girl”, which is provided below. Here You can see Jackson’s actual attitude and philosophy about innocence and purity and wisdom and happinness he gets from communicating with children, as well as from animals.

    ***
    Wise Little Girl (from “Dancing The Dream”; 1992)
    By Michael Jackson
    ***

    I know a wise little girl who cannot walk.

    She is confined to a wheelchair, and she may spend the rest of her life there, since her doctors hold out almost no hope of ever making her paralyzed legs better.

    When I first met this little girl, she flashed me a smile that burned me with its blazing happiness.
    How open she was!
    She wasn’t hiding out from self-pity or asking for approval or protecting herself from a sense of shame.
    She felt completely innocent about not being able to walk, like a puppy that has no idea if it is a mongrel or champion of the breed.
    She made no judgment about herself.
    That was her wisdom.

    I have seen the same wise look in other children, “poor” children as society sees them, because they lack food, money, secure homes, or healthy bodies.
    By the time they reach a certain age, many of these children grasp just how bad their situation is.
    The way that adults look at their lives robs them of that first innocence that is so precious and rare.
    They begin to believe that they should feel bad about themselves; that this is “right.”

    But this wise little girl, being only four, floated above pity and shame like a carefree sparrow.
    She took my heart in her hands and made it as weightless as a cotton puff, so that it was impossible for me to even think, “What a terrible thing.”
    All I saw was light and love.
    In their innocence, very young children know themselves to be light and love.

    If we will allow them, they can teach us to see ourselves the same way.
    One sparrow from a little girl’s gaze contains the same knowledge that Nature implants at the heart of every life-form.
    It is life’s silent secret, not to be put into words.
    It just knows.
    It knows peace and how not to hurt.
    It knows that even the least breath is a gesture of gratitude to the Creator.
    It smiles to be alive, waiting patiently for ages of ignorance and sorrow to pass away like a mirage.
    I see this knowledge showing itself in the eyes of children more and more, which makes me think that their innocence is growing stronger.
    They are going to disarm us adults, and that will be enough to disarm the world.
    They feel no reason to spoil the environment, and so the environment will be cleaned up without a quarrel.
    A wise little girl told me the future when she looked at me, so full of peace and contentment.
    I rejoice in trusting her above all the experts.

    As light and love drive away our guilt and shame, her prophecy must come true.

  • chello

    Eric, you are a victim of your own fate… but arent we all ;-) Your opinion still respected, I beg to ponder on it first but I will make an effort to respond to some of your more pointed assertions and restran from addressing the underlying cues:
    1 – michael ‘loosing his power’in the states… so? (could have ended there but that’s not my style). understand the following of the music industry in the states: very few artists survive their first album and most don’t last more than 2 years after having a hit, let alone churning out more than 6 multiplatinun internationally successful albums in a span of four decades (this is a record in its own right… 40yrs eric come on now). if you think michaels got it bad then talk to Madonna (20yrs in the bizz) who’s got no mollestation charges on her back.. he outsold her in the states last year apart from her launching an album and staging a successful tour (The Reinvention Tour).
    2 – the Media is not going crazy with story… brilliant; this is a legal proceeding, why the media was so invested in it is beyond me…
    3 – an analogy with invading iraq… very clever if you ask me. Invading iraq is one thing and and misleading the world to do it is another thing… the rational here is that the media has the power to shape public opinion based on all the wrong reasons.
    My opinions and views on this case are governed by ‘my’ research and analysis of the facts. Comment number 1 posed by eric is definitive of another rumour construed by pundits to qualify the success of MJ. The MTV era (that MJ consolidated with other video savvy artists like Madonna) has reduced the ‘real’ star power of any artist to a fraction of what MJ enjoyed during his prime (1984 – 1991). it is evident even with ‘the entertainer’ usher (who is follower MJism) is the biggest thing now but pales in comparison. It’s not the artist as much as it is the culture that has changed. fanatism has dwindled to primarily ‘teenagers’ who’s loyalty quickly sways with adolescence and a quest for self identity. the type of adoration that MJ enjoyed and continues to enjoy in many countries (outside the states eric) is very much a rarity altogether; more so in america than other countries though (MJs Number ones hit number 1 in the UK and several non-american countries and has earned him more 8million in sales even amidst these lurid allegations).
    Talk is cheap, as has been proved by these criminally proceedings where people can literally say anything and get away with it courtesy of our almighty media and internet…
    at the end of the day, justice is the daughter of time…

  • mjdude

    Michael Jackson – Why You Wanna Trip On Me Lyrics

    They say I’m different
    They don’t understand
    But there’s a bigger problem
    That’s much more in demand
    You got world hunger
    Not enough to eat
    So there’s really no time
    To be trippin’ on me

    You got school teachers
    Who don’t wanna teach
    You got grown people
    Who can’t write or read
    You got strange diseases
    Ah but there’s no cure
    You got many doctors
    That aren’t so sure
    So tell me

    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Stop trippin’

    We’ve got more problems
    Than we’ll ever need
    You got gang violence
    And bloodshed on the street
    You got homeless people
    With no food to eat
    With no clothes on their back
    And no shoes for their feet

    We’ve got drug addiction
    In the minds of the weak
    We’ve got so much corruption
    Police brutality
    We’ve got streetwalkers
    Walkin’ into darkness
    Tell me
    Why are you doing
    to try to stop this

    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Stop trippin’
    Yeah stop trippin’
    Eberybody just stop trippin’

    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Stop trippin’

    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Why you wanna trip on me
    Ooh stop trippin’
    Yeah stop trippin’
    Everybody just stop trippin’

  • Eric Olsen

    chello, yes, as I said you make some good points and I did not question the level of his stardom, and I was a very big fan at least through Bad. But I do nto agree that the media has cast him in a bad light – he has cast himself in the light in which most now view him. His image is of his own making

  • sydney

    YA agreed, MJ made the bed he sleeps in. He chose to make it up of little boys. I don’t think he should expect any reaction other than the one he got.

    I find it interesting how some people are so insistent that he is beyond reproach. I mean, sure he talks quietly, and speaks of love and he cares for his boy friends, but that has little to do with what’s right and wrong.

    Many loving parents have fucked up their children. Isn’t it possible that MJ’s love has taking on a destructive form? To me, the undisputed facts (forget the disputed ones for now) suggest he treats children inappropriately. His own children included. Can you imagine their childhood?

  • Mihos

    Lyrics are a logical place to begin when deconstructing the mind or character of a writer.
    I’d never heard of these examples but am a bit taken back.

    Be Not Always circa 1984
    Always be not always and if always, bow our heads in shame.
    Always, please be not always.
    And if always, bow our heads in blame.
    ‘Cause time has made promises, just promises.
    Faces, did you see their faces?
    Did they touch you?
    Have you felt such pain?
    To have nothing, to dream something, then lose hoping.
    Is not life but lame?
    But time has made promises, just promises.
    Mothers cry, babies die helplessly in arms while rockets fly and research lies in progress to become.
    But what of men our flesh and blood?
    We turn our backs on life.
    How can we claim to stand for peace when the race is armed in strife, destroying life?
    Always, be not always.
    But if always, bow our heads in shame.
    Always, please, be not always.
    ‘Cause if always, bow our heads in blame.
    ‘Cause time has made promises, just promises.
    Death promises.
    That was written at the summit of Jackson’s success, the first recording after Thriller.

    This is a bit more damning and is post 1993 hubris
    “Money”

    Money.
    Money…
    Lie for it
    Spy for it
    Kill for it
    Die for it
    So you call it trust
    But I say it’s just
    In the devil’s game
    Of greed and lust
    They don’t care
    They’d do me for the money
    They don’t care
    They use me for the money
    So you go to church
    Read the Holy word
    In the scheme of life
    It’s all absurd
    They don’t care
    They’d kill for the money
    Do or dare
    The thrill for the money
    You’re saluting the flag
    Your country trusts you
    Now you’re wearing a badge
    You’re called the “Just Few”
    And you’re fighting the wars
    A soldier must do
    I’ll never betray or deceive you my friend but…
    If you show me the cash
    Then I will take it
    If you tell me to cry
    Then I will fake it
    If you give me a hand
    Then I will shake it
    You’ll do anything for money…
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Insurance?
    Where do your loyalties lie?
    Is that your alibi?
    I don’t think so
    You don’t care
    You’d do her for the money
    Say it’s fair
    You sue her for the money
    Want your pot of gold
    Need the Midas touch
    Bet you sell your soul
    Cuz your God is such
    You don’t care
    You kill for the money
    Do or dareThe thrill for the money
    Are you infected with the same disease
    Of lust, gluttoney and greed?
    Then watch the ones
    With the biggest smiles
    The idle jabbers…Cuz they’re the backstabbers
    If you know it’s a lie
    Then you will swear it
    If you give it with guilt
    Then you will bear it
    If it’s taking a chance
    Then you will dare it
    You’ll do anything for money…
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    You say you wouldn’t do it
    For all the money in the world
    I don’t think soIf you show me the man
    Then I will sell him
    If you ask me to lie
    Then I will tell him
    If you’re dealing with God
    Then you will hell him
    You’ll do anything for money
    Anything
    Anything
    Anything for money
    Would lie for you
    Would die for you
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil
    Even sell my soul to the devil

  • sydney

    These lyrics leave a lot open for interpretaion. Why don’t you give us your interpretation so we can debate what they mean. Untill then these lyrics can suggest nearly anything.

    I question the “voice” its author uses.

  • Dawn

    Informative and pointed? Yes. Rude? No.

    So you want some on-topic commentary, okay. Stop attacking me and my very specific comments about the style of writing (or lack of) of those who are defending MJ and instead point out what on earth would cause you to think for a second that it is normal for Michael Jackson, or anyone for that matter, to have a consistent pattern of inappropriate relationships with vunerable pre-pubescent boys.

    Are you advocating child molestation, or do you just think it’s okay for children to be mistreated?

    Because when I read your comments about how “special” and “unique” Michael Jackson is and how he is being treated unfairly what I hear is: “It’s okay to abuse these children because it’s Michael Jackson.” Or, “It’s okay to abuse these children because their parents suck.”

    It is NEVER, EVER OKAY to molest children. Got it? Good.

    Now if that’s rude, then so be it, but if you don’t get the basic gist that abusing children is wrong – then you are truly dumber than dirt.

  • sydney

    Who was advocating child molestation?

    The debate is about whether MJ did molest childeren or didn’t?

    I’m suggesting that whether or not he molested them, he relates to them in an inapproriate manner. I’m also saying that hes a crazy bat, and that he is not suitable to raise childeren. I believe all this, irregardless of his guilt in the molestation charges.

  • Dawn
      Dawn may have perfect grammar but I rarely find her comments to be well articulated or intelligent.

    Please show me the comments sydney that are neither well articulated or intelligent?

    You may not agree with what I say, but I expect you to substantiate those baseless and FUCKING RUDE assertions.

    Oh and I rarely have perfect grammar, just ask Eric.

  • adis

    Dawn!
    You have just proved us right with you new postings. Good grammer is neighter a proof of intelligence, articulate thought or sophistication. As I read your last postings, I saw an ignorant, narrow minded, bigoted and in some way disgruntled woman (not lady) The fact of your text is indicative of an anger or frustration from a source different from MJ or this forum but which you find this forum an unguarded avenue to unleash those frustrations. Articulate? That is something you have not shown in your text. Critical? your text sounds more like a working class single mother exchanging words with her next door neighbour. Grammer? Yes you are able to construct sentenses and spell correctly but within the level of simplistic random oratory that has no sophistication worthy of envy.

    Some people here are too engrossed with critical thinking to bother with the mundane.

    Critical thinking is hardly a respite from frustration so it may not be for you after all.

    My advice: try taking a walk, singing a song, listening to some Jazz or Mortzart or popular music as suits your taste. A shag may also ease your frustration. I believe you will may see and think more clearly then. See you!

  • Eric Olsen

    I don’t agree with any of the other accusations, but you better believe Dawn is disgruntled right now: she has chicken pox

  • Dawn
      Some people here are too engrossed with critical thinking to bother with the mundane.

    Perhaps, but you aren’t one of them.

    I am definitely working and a mother, but I am pretty sure that I am not single.

    Really, the only reason I mentioned these things wasn’t to be snotty – but people who lack good judgment in this case, also seem to lack good writing skills. It’s a noteworthy trend.

    How does that make me bigoted?

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    This thread seems to be running in a direction that I hold close to my heart. I prefer people putting their thoughts in simple words as opposed to pompous buffoons who twist and turn the language just to show how many words they know from the dictionary.

    Some of the most eloquent works are simply written. Take Salman Rushdie for example- eloquence in simplicity.

    And a chicken pox ridden mommy is a force to be reckoned with especially when she rightfully admonishes people to mind their grammar if not P’s and Q’s.

  • jc

    Guilty? YES! Hell,he admited that he let little boys sleep in his bed with him! For what reasons? It’s not like his room is the only room in his house.

  • Eric Olsen

    I think, ultimately, the utter lack of judgment, the lack of understanding of boundaries, the arrogant insularity demonstrated in the Bashir video is the essence of how this all could have happened, and in fact, why it did

  • Dawn

    SP, thanks for understanding me and not assuming that I am some elite writing snob – which couldn’t be further from the truth. I have just had to listen to years of Eric correcting me that it has made me super-aware of verbal and writing faux paux.

    He isn’t as generous with my lack of editing skills as he is WITH EVERYONE ELSE :)

  • Eric Olsen

    but look how well you have learned, and it isn’t just me anyway – you have had a number of “instructors” since you began blogging

  • Dawn

    “Instructors?”

    If you mean supercilious, over-bearing and condescending busy-bodies telling me that my writing and grammar sucks?

    Yeah, I have had my fair share of those kinds. Thankfully most of them I have had the good fortune of telling to piss off – at least with you, there’s some goodwill involved!

  • Eric Olsen

    I’m glad you think so

  • sydney

    Dawn says;

    “Instructors?”
    If you mean supercilious, over-bearing and condescending busy-bodies telling me that my writing and grammar sucks?

    — What started all of this arguing, Dawn, was the fact that you told some guy off for writing poorly. Moreover, his name suggested that he may not have had English as his first language.

    Anyway that was why we all got on your back. I said your writing was neither intelligent nor articulate, but I was just making a stab at you because I didn’t see how you were in a position to tell the guy off.

    Anyway.. thats all for me on this one.

  • Dawn

    sydney –

    ESL individuals are not my intended target, I imagine that the people I refer to are those who over simplify a very complex case and attacked Eric for being biased, while they themselves were being biased.

    Eric may have his own opinion in this case, but he tends to present the facts in a fair and balanced way.

    I am hardly a pretentious person or writer, but having a husband like Eric who writes for a living, makes one really aware of how important it is to make a strong argument if you want to be taken seriously, and sadly, we are judged on our verbal skills.

    That was really my point, but I may have been a bit cranky about making it.

  • sydney

    Fair enough… we’re on the level again…. (for now!)

  • Eric Olsen

    yeah, get it right or pay the price!

  • Jamie Thorn

    “ESL individuals are not my intended target, I imagine that the people I refer to are those who over simplify a very complex case and attacked Eric for being biased, while they themselves were being biased.”

    Right… Those who simplify a simple case. You mean like those who have not contributed anything pertaining to the facts and have rambled on with ‘he slept with kids in his bed’? You are such a hypocrite.

  • Mjs 1st

    Let me say that I have enjoyed reading many of the comments posted on this blog. This is my first blog, although not my first forum. I have learned some interesting point from both sides of the issue regarding MJ.

    I will not call myself unbiased as my life experiences lead me to support him, even though I am not a music fan.

    First hand experiences have taught me that people will lie on a witness stand to support their underlying motives/objectives. My point here “Is it possible to imagine that the Arvisos are cooperating with a power structure who has promised them money for participating in this spectacle?”

    Because Mj is black, I have heard many white persons downing him without the slightest knowledge of what they were talking about.

    My next query or observation is why is this accuser being referred to as a child? A twelve year old is not a child in my opinion. At that age, most of them know much more about life than any adult can tell them. It would be different if we were talking about 7 or 8 year olds here but we’re not.

    Phil Specter and Robert Blake have been accused of murder. Isn’t this worse than child molestation? Atleast these kids still have their lives whether Mj is guilty or innocent. Comparing the bail amounts and the amount of public sentiment focused on this case, you’d think it’s more acceptable to be a murderer.

    I have especially enjoyed and learned from several of the comments posted here. I particularly like Petes comments. The insight was excellent.

  • Jim

    Mjs 1st,
    I wanted to say thank you for taking the time to read and comment my post way up there. I don’t know how many people read the longer posts, but you took the time to, and I apprecate any one with a thorough approach. I’m not neccissarily biased towards either side. If anything I am slightly biased towards his support, but I will carefully watch anything that goes against it in the news. The way I work it is to find something that really convinces me in either direction, then run with it in the other direction and try to find something to counter it.

    Sometimes it requires waiting for a newer story to come out that reveals more detailed information that was never shown before. To answer you, I think it’s possible to imagine the Arvizos’ cooperating with a power structure as you said.. I’ve even imagined the possibility that Sneddon and the Arvizos’ might have worked together to help set it up. I don’t mean to say I really believe that, but it occured to me. Also you have to wonder about Martin Bashire, but that’s more far fetched. Bashire seems to simply be a selfish documentary maker who shamelessly uses unfair editing, along with methods of hypnosis to boost dramatic tension, and thus his career.

    You know how the best films have you on the edge of your seat? This can be done in the realm of wording/phrasing/timing, but also audio/lighting cues with special music that can direct the unconcious mind into accepting a filmed situation into being something it isn’t. He would suggest something bad had happened with MJ, but wouldn’t say it directly. But then all the hollywood magic would imply it’s all there to be discovered. The gosspic and rumor hungry will devour it like a treat. It’s an abuse of power. Following MJ with a camera for months, allowed him the freedom to edit the finished product into conveying any message that pleased him. Before the release, only he knew what the plans were…

  • John

    A Michael Jackson fan from way back… Hoping to redeem my money on any of his CD’s if he is acquitted.

    1. MJ and his accuser are the only ones to know the truth about what happened. Given his history with other boys I would tend to believe the accuser. MJ has the upper hand on this. He is over 40 and has alot of experience. Star struck mothers and star struck children. He knows that people view him as this innocent child-like individual. He exploits that.

    2. MJ would not have child porn. His enticement to the kids would be – let me show you what your parents won’t. A classic move of a pedophile.

    3. Alot seems to be said about the people lying and not having the best reputation. The only thing that matters is did MJ touch the accuser inappropriately. That is what matters.

    4. Trying to convince a world of MJ’s secret takes a world of testimony. A world so enamored with MJ’s child-like antics, his fame, his money and his music.

    5. If this were a plot to extort money from MJ. It would have been well planned. The brothers would have studied dates, exact times etc. etc. Can you imagine being at Neverland as a 13 year old. All the rides, food, games you want. Days turn to weeks, weeks to months. It would be highly intoxicating in and of itself. Who is going to remember the dates? I would be more suspicious if they had exact times and dates down to the minute. I won’t even mention the haphazard recollections of the mom. If she is such an expert grifter don’t you think she would have crafted a tigher story?

    Those are my two cents worth on MJ. He is guilty. If he had come out as a gay man during his 20’s he may not have had to rely on innocent children for his gratification.

    MJ has asked his fans to pray for the TRUTH and their prayers have been answered. Please continue to pray so that MJ is given the just sentence he deserves!

  • Jim

    You said, “MJ and his accuser are the only ones to know the truth about what happened”, but on #2 expain that “MJ would not have child porn” and then say he’d say “let me show you what your parents won’t. A classic move of a pedophile.”.. I think that line #1 contradicts line #2 because if only MJ and the accuser know, then you wouldn’t know how MJ would do it, or if he really would.

    I’m not defending MJ, because I don’t like to blindly assume he’s guilty or innocent. You are assuming that he’s guilty with the basis of contradicting “facts”. I agree with #3, but people that are lying could have a lot ot do with wether they say MJ did something, which could bias the jury, and thus the outcome even though the bottom line should be, “did he” or “didn’t he”.

    In #5, the assumtion is that a plan to extort money would have been well planned. Not neccissarily so. The Arvizo family already pretty much extorted money from JCPenny’s without any major planning. They got caught shoplifting and ran with the oppertunities. In any crime, for example a bank robber, a person can do much planning and still not anticipate everything that might go wrong later. However liars have been known not to be able to keep facts such as time straght. It’s also not so much the exact time, but listing events that happened at times that contratict what is possible. Besides, there was much more to damange their credibility other than their time keeping abilities. So far, you are the only one that has mentioned that she need be an expert grifter in order to carry out deciet.

    Your arguments seem majory based assumptions. For that reason, I have a hard time buying into it.

  • anon

    i would just like to say that i was abused, i am certain of it. in a sleepover situation. several times.

    i cannot give you exact dates and times, but i can tell you what happened.

    i woke up to find my father taking my underwear down. he said that he was making sure that i didnt get “itchy”.

    i woke up to find several other times that my underwear was down.

    i used to sleep in his bed.

    when me and my sister were babies he used to bath us. my mom left when we were very young, and it seemed normal for him to cary on doing this. he used to ask us to wash him. i’ve realised as an adult that he was “hard” when we did.

    he carried on bathing us for an absurdly long time. i started to grow breasts at 8, he was still washing me then. he would pay special care to my private areas, breasts, in particular between my legs, to make sure i didnt get “itchy”

    i had an accident that involved me falling off something and landing, legs akimbo, on a plank of wood. i ended up bleeding from my vagina. i was about 9 or 10 at the time. we went to the hospital, and he was terrified, pacing up and down, asking if i would still be a virgin. at the time ithought nothing of it, thinking he was being a bit of an idiot. now i realise what he was afraid of. they would realise what he’d been doing while i slept.

    i cannot tell you dates or times for any of this. but i know that it happened. if it had gone to court this man would have denied it all, would i have suffered the same fate as children with no proof all over the world? would it have been thrown out of court?

    this man tried to strangle me when i was 15 because my handwriting was untidy. i escaped and ran away. he found me and he had neatened his hair up, and denied the whole thing.

    the people in the dock can be liars too you know, not just witnesses.

  • Eric Olsen

    thanks for the input all, very sad for you anon, sounds very much like you need to talk to someone about it

  • anon

    no, to be honest i’m ok now. i talked and talked about it previously, and i have no anger or sadness about it anymore. it wasnt my fault was it?

    i think that at some point he will be arrested for something minor, like petty theft, and when they swab him and cross reference his DNA with other crime scenes then he will finally pay for all his crimes. I have a feeling i’m not alone.

    life is now good, which is a wonderful feeling.

    besides, i think he has a lot of stolen goods, and if i can just get a good enough case to take to the police, he’s history! hurrah!

  • Eric Olsen

    sounds like a very bad egg and he will get his eventually – best wishes to you

  • Alias

    I am a product of sexual abuse. Maybe you have to be the one who was abused to under-stan just what seems to be going on with MJ. Abusers have to lure you into their trust. He used Neverland as someone who would lure with candy. He is big time to these kids a god if you will, to them. There is a fear and intemidation towards someone like MJ. Who would believe them anyway? There is even mixed love. That’s how it was with my father (the abuser). How could I say anything. I am in my 50s now and it was just like yesterdy. It isn’t as cut and dried as it seems to some people. I can’t say much anout the parents who allowed their children to sleep with him, but I’m looking through the eyes of the children. It’s a whole lot different from there! There is so much to be looked at with MJ but people have to keep their eyes and ears open to what these kids had to say. So what if the parents might be money hungry, what does that have to do with what happened to the kids? When you have been sexually abused, you can see the signs in other people and Culkin kid had it written all over him. He may never admit it, even to himself. One of my brothers can’t do it to this day. Michael Jacksons’ first mistake was to say that he was more popular than God. If by some chance he is innocent, so be it. If he isn’t, I hope he gets the worst sentence possible because we carry the life sentence. What is fair here?

  • james Mclafferty

    This may please the mj haters
    Poll: Jackson Won’t Beat Rap

    photo
    They may not be jurors in the case, they may have only heard a small part of the evidence, but Americans have spoken: Michael Jackson is guilty as charged.

    Gallup reported yesterday (April 26) that 70% of Americans “say that the charges against Jackson are probably or definitely true. Just 15% believe they are probably or definitely not true.”

    Jackson is accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy in early 2003, plying him with alcohol and conspiring to hold his family captive to get them to participate in a video designed to rebut a documentary in which the pop star said he allowed children to sleep in his bed, asserting at the time that it was non-sexual.

    Belief in Jackson’s guilt in the child molestation case has actually declined a bit since February, when it hit 75%.

    Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief, commented: “The average American is not exposed to the testimony on a day-in and day-out basis, so public opinion is based purely on the [often lurid] details of the trial reported in the news. Still, it’s interesting to note that if the American public were voting on the guilt or innocence of the pop star, Jackson would be convicted.”

    — Editorandpublisher.com Staff Report

  • John

    Let me take this a point at a time

    First your statement

    Jim:
    You said, “MJ and his accuser are the only ones to know the truth about what happened”, but on #2 expain that “MJ would not have child porn” and then say he’d say “let me show you what your parents won’t. A classic move of a pedophile.”.. I think that line #1 contradicts line #2 because if only MJ and the accuser know, then you wouldn’t know how MJ would do it, or if he really would.

    Only MJ and the accuser would know of the ACTUAL ACT otherwise it would be a moot point. Part of the grooming process is gaining the trust of the adult. Involving the adult in this case the mothers trust is the very first step. There is no contradiction there.

    The reason MJ purchased adult porn is much like the reason he married Lisa Marie Presley. Trying to give his Greatness some sort of normalcy. All smoke and mirrors and a test for the kids he was entrapping.

    I think the stories of the children (Alias and Anon included) that have acutally been through those nightmares are what speak the truth.

  • ihateoreilly

    Um..whoever compared Michael Jackson to Madonna is a JOKE. Madonna’s “American Life,” considered a flop, outsold Michael Jackson’s Invincible worldwide..and I don’t see Michael Jackson selling out stadiums charging $300 a ticket. In terms of talent, Michael was once, by far, more talented than all stars put together. His talent has gone way downhill. I would rather see Britney perform than him. Oh..and yes, he’s guilty. By the way, look how Madonna handled fame compared to Michael. I think that she has done pretty well. She has decided not to become a “victim” of her own fame.

  • Jim

    My point is that you are saying things as if that are already proven facts when they are not. You are completely right about what the grooming process might be, but you are pre-supposing that it’s already happened and taken place. When you state “why” MJ purchased adult port you are also making assumtions. You don’t know why he bought what he bought. He never needed to give himself a sense of normalicy as you suggest. Most people believe they are normal. Even I think I am normal, LOL. I feel sorry for children that have been abused, but as for stories of children. They only speak the truth, when they are not lies. So the cases you mention speak the truth about those cases only. Not another case like this one.

    I think I know what might be happening. Sites like the smoking gun and others, have a tendency to print news and act like it’s already happened. Martin Bashire does this too. The reason for that is that by making a person look already guilty, it’s much more exciting and makes them a lot more money. When they printed the smoking gun transcript, those are the prosecutions accusations, not the news. The news is that there are accusations that MJ “allegedely” molested a boy. Not that he had molested a boy. There is a big difference.

    It’s not like he’s my hero, or I’m sticking up for him. A lot people assume that only a big fan would stick up for him. I liked thriller/bad, but for me those days are long gone. So the only thing that would really really bug me is if he got the 20 years, but there was never anything that was really solid in the evidence. If he goes to jail, I would feel a lot better if it were proven the right way. For this reason, I usually don’t jump into news groups and say thngs like, “He’s guilty!!” like you did in your paragraphs. I find it better to look at all the clues and avoid jumping to rapid conclusions. Take care.

  • Jim

    Anon, if you are reading, you might feel better to get someone to talk to about what happened to you. I know only you can decide that and it’s your personal decision, and perhaps you did.

    I also agree with you that yes indeed, it’s not just one side that could be lying. That’s what makes the case so complex and interesting. And also why I try to keep an open mind, even if that bores some who look for the instant gratification of assuming one thing or another.

    Hopefully they will determine that correctly in court.

  • anon

    thank you for thinking of me, but i really dont need to see anyone. i already have, and to be honest it didnt really help.
    i’ve since worked things out on my own, and with the help of my boyfriend, and i can honestly say i feel a whole lot better.

    as i said before, it really wasnt my fault, he was just a very sick man.

    i hope that Mr Jackson has not given any children the nightmares that i used to have.

  • John

    Jim your assumptions are highly emotional – I guess you think that OJ was innocent because the glove did not fit and because he was acquitted.

    I also had an open mind for MJ. If this was the very first time MJ had been accused of such behavior well then yes you wait for all the facts to come down the pike. However his behavior has been hiding behind the facade of Neverland and his sleepover escapades for more than 20 years.

    If it walks like a duck, “talks” like a duck………

    Also give us a little bit more credit than just reading Smoking Gun and watching some TV specials. The TV specials are mutually beneficial for the reporter, the broadcasting company and the artist. The ones caught in the middle (in this particular case) are the children.

    Furthermore – And this has been stated in various ways.

    Any other individual 40 years of age. Single. Sharing his/her bed with 10-13 year old boys and admitting to it is wrong. Did you see Michael’s demeanor as he told Gavin he Loved him? That was not Martin Brashir coaching MJ to gush over his little friend to make him look guilty.

    It is very hard for me to see these kids have to answer questions from an Attornery who can twist and turn every word they say in a New York minute. He unlike them has had many years of practice and has rehearsed these scenes over and over.

    Why do you and others protect MJ so much as if he were your God. You say he is not your hero but it would bother you if he got 20 years? How come? What if it were your child?

    As Anon stated correctly it was not her fault. Unfortunately there already have been victims who have been harmed by MJ.

    On a lighter note – My normalcy comment was not that anyone can define themselves as normal. It just seemed to me that it was an attempt to portray behaviour of a typical 40 year old male. i.e.;
    Kicking back with a beer and some porn.

    please forgive and ignore any subtle or not so subtle grammatical/spelling/phrasing errors….

  • Rich

    Imagine this was a death sentence case. Putting personal prejudices and suspicions aside, is there anybody out there who genuinely believes there has been sufficient evidence presented with which to fry MJ? If you were on the jury could you honestly say you had seen and heard enough to put the man to death?
    The way I see it, the answer to that can only be: NO. And if you wouldn’t put him to death on this evidence, surely you wouldn’t send him to jail on it, either?
    Let’s look at the “facts”.
    Two kids say they were molested. No proof, just their word.
    Various people, including ex-employees, have said they saw things such as MJ and a boy in towels together (not illegal), in a spa together (not illegal), and MJ’s and a child’s swimwear on the bathroom floor (which proves nothing).
    That’s pretty much the prosecution case.
    (And almost all the witnesses had reason to hold a grudge against the man).
    Surely the only people who would string up a man on this “evidence” would be the Taleban?

  • John

    Rich – WOW!!!

    First – How can you prove that someone touched your private parts??? Unfortunately there is no test DNA or otherwise to prove that someone else touched you inappropriately.

    Also your comparison to this being a death sentence is an illogical comparison. In a death case you have a dead body.

    It seems you want some physical evidence. In these cases of child abuse the proof is prior behavior and that is the reason prior victims have been called to testify. Showing a pattern of abuse. I guess Gavin could have taped the incident – imagine that.

  • Eric Olsen

    there have been many interesting and well thought out points presented from all directions here. I have learned a lot, thanks!

  • DRS

    ***Ihaveoreilly***:

    Jackson’s Invicible wholesold 11 million worldwide, and overall Michael sold more than 25 million albums in 2001-2004 years.

    Madonna’s figures are pathetic comparing to this.

    By the way, mass-media and ignorant haters promised that Jackson is “finished” after 1993 scandal, yet he managed to sell 80 million records in 1994-2004 years and break multiple absolute worldwide records in the music and entertainment industry.

  • Eric Olsen

    the world is a funny place – I think it needs us to run it

  • John

    Ok – I am done with this MJ trial seriously…..I do not care what happens to MJ……he is in the hands of some capable jurors….that is final….who cares…..let him fly away in a multi-colored air balloon ….far far away….hehe….don’t forget Debbie Rowe

    I have more important and constructive topics to talk about…..asking all responsible citizens of this great earth we live in ……recycle and reuse as much as possible.

    Americans use 100 billion plastic bags each year
    We use 10 billion paper bags each year

    Consider buying a canvas bag to take with you to the grocery store….

    Best to all!!!

  • Jim

    John. I think you are basically taking me the wrong way. You say my “assumptions are highly emotional”, then you say, “I guess you think that OJ was innocent because the glove did not fit” which would also be an assumption. I haven’t done this to you. I only said that your argument was hard to buy into because you made bold statments like, “He’s guilty”. I chose to call that an assumption because there are many things wrong with this trial, and it’s not over yet. I was trying to understand why you were taking that stance because I’m trying to determine innocense or guilt myself.. Never once in this entire blog have I stated that I thought he was innocent, yet you seem to be accusing me of that. I don’t know why. At most, I was interested in the concept that it’s possible that the prosecution could be dishonest. And that is certainly a reasonable thought. I’m also interested in facts that show the defense could be dishonest as I demonstrated in this blog already.

    “Also give us a little bit more credit”? Who’s “Us”? I thought I was only chatting with you. No one here is trying to hurt you John, so I see no reason for the paranoia on your part. You took the “smoking gun” comment all to heart, but if you notice, I said, “I think I know what *might* be happening”. I didn’t say it *was*. I’ll also tell you why I said that. Because I my self went to the site and bought it hook, line and sinker for about an hour or so. The stuff on there is pretty sick because they try to make it seem as if it’s already happened. Yet it’s simply the transcripts of allegations. If it could happen to me, it shouldn’t be an insult that I thought that *maybe* it could happen to you. So what if not everyone will support your view that he’s completely guilty. Is it worth having a stroke over? I don’t think so. I also don’t care if people don’t agree with me either.

    You asked, “Why do you and others protect MJ so much as if he were your God.”.. Huh? I actually really don’t like MJ, John. I don’t like the way he behaves, or what he’s done to his face. You are talking to someone who played “Escape from Neverland”. I also tend to ignore posts from fanatic fans that blindly believe he is innocent. Why? Because they will not give me any insight as to wether he is or isn’t. I would like to see a fair trial that I can believe in. I don’t see that as a bad thing. When you talk about how Mesereau can twist words, I can appreciate what you are saying fully. It’s possible if MJ is guilty that he is. However, you are not mentioning how Sneddon is also capible of twisting words. I’ve been collecting articles for weeks, for and against either side. I can appreciate what you have said about Messereau, but I would feel biased and one-sided to simply notice only what one attorney says and ignore the other. I also didn’t fail to notice that some of MJ’s behavior makes him look guilty in some senses, but the Arvizo’s behavior makes them appear dishonest as well. Not to mention actual testomony with admissions and evidence to support that. Did it sway me into being sure MJ is innocent? No, I’m still unsure. Also if you look at my response to Anon you will already see that I said that either side could be lying.

    I am starting to tire of the case, but am truly interested in knowing the truth about the case (if that’s even possible anymore). When somone says he’s guilty, I ususally only pay attention to the parts that point to information or possible evidence. I tend to skip over the, “I have a gut feeling he’s guilty, so I’m telling Ya, he’s guilty!” sort of sentiments because they count for only a little and are obviously presumptive.

    As for the normalicy topic, I was actually trying to joke around with you. I said, “Most people believe they are normal. Even I think I am normal, LOL.” I think if you look at the paragraphs again, you will see that it wasn’t as unfriendly as you took it. I don’t think there’s a need to be that uptight. I think you can relax a bit now.

  • http://geekgirl2.com/musingsandephemera/2005/04/blogcriticsorg-female-blogs-by-natalie.html geekgirl2

    My take on the whole thing is that they are all lying in one way or another. The interesting question is will the jury punish MJ just because he is so weird now?

  • Eric Olsen

    in other words, is he so weird will the jury choose to believe the accuser?

  • nick

    being weird and being a liar are two different things
    being weird doesn’t make you a criminal…yet. Otherwise the mother would have been behind bars for ages !!

  • Eric Olsen

    yes but MJ is exceptionally weird and a liar as well as discussed here

  • nick

    On whose standards ?

  • nick

    I kind of despise the ideas of normality, weirdness, freakiness etc
    Who decides what is normal and what is not ?
    Is it normal to go to work 8 hours a day for $ 5.00 an hour ? No, but many people do it. Are they weird ?

  • Eric Olsen

    society decides what its boundaries are – that is the point here: has MJ exceeded them?

  • nick

    Well in spite of the very strong opinions we come across, very few people have the answer to that.
    I am an advocate for the benefit of the doubt, or the innocent until proven guilty stance. It has the advantage not to judge or put labels on people unfairly.

  • Eric Olsen

    Nick, I agree, but I think the reason polls show 70% of Americans think he is guilty because the same themes have been coming up for over 15 years.

  • nick

    oh please ! What does the American people know about the case. We have already been there with the responsibility of the media.

  • DRS

    ***Eric***: ” I think the reason polls show 70% of Americans think he is guilty because the same themes have been coming up for over 15 years.”

    First of all, they think so because they know NOTHING about the case. Most of those people are not fully sure, and simply informing the about facts can make big difference.

    But mass-media mostly not intersted in reporting fact; they interested in bashing because it brings more money.

  • nick

    And can you also remind me what is the percentage of American people who think that Irak was linked to 9/11 ?

  • Eric Olsen

    I was telling you WHY 70% feel that way, because the same themes keep coming up

  • nick

    I get it now.
    How much money do you think the tabloids have made exploiting this theme ?
    As i have said before it is not about truth it is about economics.

  • Eric Olsen

    it is rather pointless, and I think disingenuous, to include the tabloids in the greater media: the tabloids ALWAYS exploit whatever they can and obviously Jacko is an easy target. Who reads the tabloids anyway?

  • nick

    well if nobody read them they wouldn’t be around anymore…

  • Eric Olsen

    only idiots read them and take them seriously

  • nick

    what do you thnk is the input of the idiots in the 70% you were referring to then ?

  • Eric Olsen

    not much

  • Helen Willis

    ‘Not much’? Based on what evidence is ‘not much’? Have you seen the statistics of the tabloid readers who voted?

    Fox is one of the most watched cable news shows. They are tabloid to the extreme and call him Jacko when describing his trial. I mean, show some respect. If you can’t even give a man’s name properly and respectfuly, then what other rubbish do you spew? I think we all know the answer to that RE: Fox.

    It isn’t just tabloids misrepresenting the facts. It is also a great deal of the mainstream media. If you fail to see this, there can be no other argument.

  • Eric Olsen

    what “facts”? What we are really talking about here is what the various media outlets choose to emphasize. There are very few undisputed “facts” in this case. That’s a big part of the problem.

  • nick

    It is indeed and even more so since the coverage is not balanced at all.
    As you said there are few undisputed facts, but the only ones that we here about are the ones put forward by the prosecution’s dodgy witnesses…

  • Eric Olsen

    look at ANY news outlet today: ALL of them say Rowe’s testimony was a “blow” to the prosecution, etc. I see no general bias on this case one way or another

  • nick

    It is quite difficult to deny the obvious. Yet if you look carefully you’ll see that most articles will say that they met through MJ plastic surgeon, when she was actually employed by his dermatologist.
    Isn’t it a bias ? It is about saying “The freaky plastic surgeon addict even met his wife there”
    When they can’t slag him off through witnesses’ testimony they do it in more subtle ways. I am telling you the media are out to get him. It has been the case for 20 years and he is still standing. He deserves our respect.

  • Helen Willis

    Oh Please. I have read articles that have spun the Debbie Rowe testimony even though it seems impossible. Every other piece of evidence has been spun to astronomical proportions. I actually laugh at some of them.

    Also Eric I was referring to your assumption that ‘not much’ of the 70% of voters who think he is Guilty would be tabloid readers. I was asking you based on what facts did you come to the conclusion ‘not much’?

  • DRS

    ***Eric***: “look at ANY news outlet today: ALL of them say Rowe’s testimony was a “blow” to the prosecution, etc. I see no general bias on this case one way or another”

    Are You naive?

    Mass-media turns to tell truth and fair things about this case only when it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to spin anything in the courtroom in favour of prosecution.

    Also, with Deborah, mass-media expoited the drama that Sneddon to them provided, giving “whishful thinking” promised in opening statements (probably what Provencio and/or Schaffel speculated to him).

    If not Sneddon’s claims, Deborah testimony would be greeted calmly, if not ignored. She always said about Jackson only good, never otherwise. So only Sneddon gave to the media expectaions that she will destroy Michael Jackson.

    It was the second best day for Diane Dimond and Nancy Grace after they advertised love letters that never existed.

  • John

    Jim

    Thanks for the clarifications – No hard feelings whatsoever – A good discussion is always good for the mind….

    hehehe

  • Jim

    Sure thing John. :-)

  • Mihos

    Chris Tucker in Jacko’s Mess
    Friday, April 29, 2005
    By Roger Friedman

    Jacko: Defense Blockbuster In The Works

    Debbie Rowe, Hamid Moslehi, Cynthia Ann Bell, Janet Arvizo. Especially Janet Arvizo. They’re just a few of the witnesses who’ve backfired for the prosecution in their case against Michael Jackson. Rarely have so many state’s witnesses turned out to be bonuses for the defense.

    Now comes word that the defense has a blockbuster revelation for the jury in Santa Maria that should really kick the props out from underneath the district attorney’s wobbly case: The idea to have the Arvizo family to fly to Miami in February 2003 was not Michael Jackson’s at all. It was comedian Chris Tucker’s.

    Whoops.

    For a year and a half now, we’ve heard the same story over and over: Michael Jackson summoned the Arvizo family to Miami for a press conference on Feb. 6, 2003. The family said they were picked up by Jackson’s limo driver, Gary Hearne, for a commercial flight to Miami. Then they were told at the last minute that a change had been made, and that they would fly with Tucker on a private plane. The family has claimed that they were supposed to take part in a press conference when they arrived.

    So far no one has asked why Tucker was involved, who rented the plane, or whose idea any of this was. Also unexplained is what happened to the press conference: Why didn’t it happen? Why did no one mention it again? If Janet Arvizo was right, and she had to memorize lines for a video, why wasn’t she given a script or any information about the press conference once she arrived in Miami? How did this whole misadventure in February, 2003 between Michael Jackson and the Arvizo family begin?

    Here are some of the answers that will be spilling out as Jackson’s team prepares to launch a defense in the next week.

    According to my sources, the trip to Miami was not Jackson’s idea at all. It was Tucker’s. Here’s what went down, from what we can piece together: Tucker — who’d met the Arvizos through Jamie Masada’s comedy camp — will testify that the Arvizos called him on or around Feb. 5, 2003, frantic to find Jackson.

    According to the testimony of Janet Arvizo’s husband, Jay Jackson, two British tabloid reporters turned up in their apartment building on Feb. 4, the morning after “Living with Michael Jackson” aired in Britain. Jay Jackson testified to negotiating with the reporters for a fee.

    In the end, however, the reporters will say that when they returned with a contract for Jackson and the Arvizos, the family was gone. What happened?

    We can surmise at this point that Jay Jackson or Janet Arvizo placed a call to Tucker, thinking he could connect them with Michael. This was perhaps to have their silence bought. Arvizo told Tucker that she was desperate to get in touch with Jackson.

    The family had had no contact with him since the one day documentary shoot in September 2002. Jackson had even changed his phone numbers. In short order, Tucker called Jackson in Miami. “You’ll never guess who’s here,” he said.

    Tucker will testify that he had already booked a private plane to Orlando, where he has a home. He was on his way to the NBA All-Star game in Atlanta, where he has yet another residence. His brother was set to meet him there.

    But all of a sudden things changed. Tucker, stuck now with the Arvizos, suggested to Jackson that he could bring the family to Miami and leave them there. And that’s what he did.

    On the stand, Janet Arvizo complained that Tucker was put in a different part of the Turnberry Isle Hotel when they all arrived the next day. That may have been because Tucker hadn’t planned on spending the night in Miami at all.

    After Tucker hung up the phone, Jackson’s people scrambled to get the family and Tucker rooms in the hotel. It was all, I am told, incredibly unplanned, unscripted, and off the cuff.

    Much of this can be underscored, I am told, by notes kept by Jackson’s top aide Evvy Tavasci. Contrary to Janet Arvizo’s statements, Tavasci never made travel arrangements for the family to go to Miami or even to be picked up by Hearne.

    So much for the theory that Jackson and his managers masterminded a plot to bring the family to Florida. And the press conference? No one — not Tucker, his friend Brett Ratner, Jackson’s staff — has ever had any idea where that came from.

    There was no press conference ever scheduled,” says my source. “It may have just been something in Janet Arvizo’s mind.”

    That is less strange than it sounds, since no preparation was ever made for a press conference. And it would have been easier, my source argues, for Jackson simply to return home and have a press conference with the Arvizos in Los Angeles, rather than fly them all to Miami and then back again in less than 48 hours. And there’s proof that Jackson was already set to return from Miami on Feb. 7. He had an appointment with Ed Bradley of “60 Minutes.”

    I am told that not only can Tucker attest to the general validity of this scenario, but so too can his ex-fiancee, Azja Pryor, and “Rush Hour” director Ratner. There may be others as well.

    And when this story unravels on the stand, my sources insist, it will fill in the blanks about why the Arvizos went to Miami. If it’s true — and I have reason to believe it is — the underpinnings of the conspiracy case will be kicked out for good.

  • Mihos

    …Starting to look alot like Sneddon planted the Grifters.

  • nick

    It has been my theory all along.
    Have you ever heard of a DA who calls names the person he prosecutes ?
    Once in a press conference he referred to MJ as “Wacko Jacko”
    How much credibility as a prosecutor can he have after that ?
    I hope the defense is going to exploit it.

  • http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=634665 nick

    The Independent, Sunday May 1st

    Jackson prosecution derailed by ex-wife’s testimony
    By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
    01 May 2005

    The prosecution in the Michael Jackson trial always knew it had a witness credibility problem, since the family at the centre of its child molestation allegations has an acknowledged track record of lying under oath.

    Now, with just days to go before it hands the case over to the defence, the prosecution has developed a new problem of credibility – its own. The appearance of Jackson’s ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, on the witness stand last week was little short of a disaster for Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon and his team. For weeks they had announced how Ms Rowe would testify that she was pressed into giving a scripted interview for a propaganda video in the wake of Martin Bashir’s damaging documentary Living with Michael Jackson.

    Ms Rowe was intended to be the prosecution’s climactic witness. Her promised allegations of coercion were to be an important element bolstering the contentions of the Arvizo family that they were effectively held hostage at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch.

    As late as Monday, prosecutor Ron Zonen assured jurors Ms Rowe would describe giving “a highly scripted interview” and that her incentive for doing so was access to her children, Prince Michael, eight, and Paris, seven. Jackson’s lawyers were worried enough to try to have her testimony disqualified before it started.

    When Ms Rowe appeared on Wednesday, however, shedescribed Jackson as a friend, a great father and a “brilliant” companion to children. She said unequivocally that her interview for the video was unscripted and uncoerced.

    Jurors will now find it harder to believe anything the prosecution tells them – which has to be excellent news for Jackson and his team.

  • james mclafferty

    Nick,”i think this is very apt,excerpt from scream:
    (michael)
    Tired of injustice
    Tired of the schemes
    The lies are disgusting
    So what does it mean
    Kicking me down
    I got to get up
    As jacked as it sounds
    The whole system sucks

    (janet)
    Peek in the shadow
    Come into the light
    You tell me I’m wrong
    Then you better prove you’re right
    You’re sellin’ out souls but
    I care about mine
    I’ve got to get stronger
    And I won’t give up the fight
    (michael)
    With such confusions don’t it make you wanna scream
    Your bash abusin’ victimize within the scheme
    (janet)
    You try to cope with every lie they scrutinize
    (both)
    Somebody please have mercy
    ’cause I just can’t take it
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Just stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Make me wanna scream
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Just stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Make you just wanna scream

    (michael)
    Tired of you tellin’ the story your way
    It’s causin’ confusion
    You think it’s okay

    (janet)
    You keep changin’ the rules
    While I keep playin’ the game
    I can’t take it much longer
    I think I might go insane

    (michael)
    With such confusion don’t it make you wanna scream
    Your bash abusin’ victimize within the scheme
    (janet)
    You find your pleasure scandalizin’ every lie
    (both)
    Oh father, please have mercy ’cause I just can’t take it
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Just stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Make me wanna scream
    Stop pressurin’ me
    Just stop pressurin’ me
    Stop *? !@#!in’ with me
    Make me wanna scream

    (janet)
    “oh my god, can’t believe what I saw
    As I turned on the tv this evening
    I was disgusted by all the injustice
    All the injustice”
    (michael)
    “all the injustice”

    (news man)
    “a man has been brutally beaten to death by
    Police after being wrongly identified as a
    Robbery suspect. the man was
    An 18 year old black male…”

    (michael)
    With such collusions don’t it make you wanna scream
    Your bash abusin’ victimize within the scheme
    (janet)
    You try to cope with every lie they scrutinize
    (both)
    Oh brother please have mercy’cause I just can’t take it
    Stop pressurin’ mejust stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ memake me wanna scream
    Stop pressurin’ mejust stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ memake me wanna scream
    Stop pressurin’ mejust stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ memake me wanna scream
    Stop pressurin’ mejust stop pressurin’ me
    Stop pressurin’ memake me wanna scream

  • R. HILL

    I’m glad that the person who wrote this opinion is not on the Jackson jury because it sounds to me that in his polluted thought process it didn’t matter how many lies the prosecutions witnesses told, it didn’t matter that the defense “SHOWED A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR BY THE ACCUSERS MOTHER” INCLUDING LYING TO OBTAIN WELFARE, NOT DISCLOSING THE FACT THAT THEY HAD FULL COVERAGE MEDICAL INSURANCE TO COVER THE BOYS TREATMENTS, BEING CAUGHT SHOP-LIFTING IN J.C. PENNY’S AND FALSELY ACCUSING THE GUARDS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. IF YOU CAN’T SEE A PATTERN HERE THEN MICHAEL WAS GUILTY IN YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU EVER HEARD ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. I’M GLAD YOUR NOT ON ANY JURY

  • Eric Olsen

    I Do see a pattern and thinks it’s a scummy family, especially the estranged father, but the mother is no gem either. But that doesn’t mean Michael Jackson didn’t molest her son.

  • Mihos

    That’s correct Eric.
    Being a desperately materialistic grifter does not disprove that jackson molested her
    cancer stricken son.

    Learning about the son’s behavior, his fist fights, penchant for drinking and his violent family however suggest to me that he could beat the tar out of a frail forty six year old wearing a fright wig with rhinoplasty complications.

    Please acknowledge what a ridiculous witch hunt this has been Eric.
    C’mon Sheelah!
    Stewart’s danger zone was never breached and we have all been coerced into Sneddon’s sick and delusional pedarast fantasies featuring Jackson.
    don’t tell me sneddon doesnt get a little wood thinking about the way Jackson makes him feel.
    This is the case of a scorned homosexual ( sneddon)
    so deep in the closet hes taken to wearing ben gay just to get athletes to talk to him.

  • Eric Olsen

    speaking of jumping to conclusions

  • Mihos

    that conclusion is a non binding one with water soluble lubricant ..

    Sneddon spends way too much time ball sniffing to attain any height.

    it doesnt require a psych major to put two and three together.

    If a blind man is raised by dogs he may grow up with a permanent crook in his neck and a low opinion of the people he meets.

  • mjs 1stobserver

    This post is directed Eric Olsen.

    What proves that MJ did not molest Gavin Arviso is the TIMING of the alleged molestations. During the very midst of the uproar, MJ does the very thing he’s trying to protect himself against? Especially when it has been proven that he knew this family was going to be a problem and was trying to protect himself from them.

    My synopsis on this is that Sneddon created this particular time frame so it wouldn’t conflict with the previous statements made by this family that MJ was the 2nd closest thing to God to them. I have seen one instance where it was stated that Sneddon, not the kid that informed the mother of the so-called molestation. It was either CBS News or Celebrity Justice.

    Mihos and R. Hill are right.

  • tom

    “Secrets and Lies” – Dateline

    State Prosecutor and Caseworkers found lying and grown children testify as adults they were FORCED TO LIE !!!
    Parents spend 15-20 years in prison !

    Good NEWS STATE CROOKS GOT RICH ! HAVEN”T you heard of the Scam !

    “In the Care of EVIL” – Dateline

    “States Child Protection Agencies Collude with Judges to Defraud Federal Government” by Nev Moore http://www.sierratimes.com/02/10/18/ednm101802.htm

    “National Organized Crime Operating in Child Protection System” by Roger Brown and

    a WHOLE LOT MORE

    “Falsification of Records”

    http://www.liftingtheveil.org/falsification.htm

    It is fun and easy for State Crooks they have it perfected WE HAVE TONS MORE ON HOW THEY DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT !

  • Tippu

    I completely agree with chello. MJ is the greatest ever star/entertainer in the human history. I am sure if you go any corner of the earth, one name you would be sure everyone knows, from kids to old people, is MJ. This whole controversy was created to bring him down from his unbelievable popularity and stardom.

  • Me

    MJ is a pedo.

  • http://groups.google.com/group/an-american-tail?hl=en Dennis E Strausser Jr

    Personally, I think many people are missing who the true pedophiles were here.
    What does a pedophile do, who don’t want to get caught? Blame someone else, before any1 notices.
    Then kiss someone’s Else’s butt, just to get close to their kids.
    Thank god in one way, the excuse to blame Jackson has just about worn it’s self out.
    The real pedophiles are going to have to find someone else to blame.

    If any victims are reading this, of any pedophile, no matter what age you are. (TELL ON
    THEM.)
    It may hurt, but at least they cant hurt anyone else later.

    Denny…