How Innocent Was Michael Jackson Really?

If you know anything about the way Michael Jackson behaved with children – and if you don’t, just browse a few of the pages of this site – it is extremely eerie when you compare how child molesters behave around children.

Check, for example, the publication available from the Vermont Department of Children and Families. This publication was written by convicted child molesters and outlines how they get close to their victims:

  • I pay attention to your child and make him feel special.
  • I present the appearance of being someone you and your family can trust and rely on.
  • I get to know your child’s likes and dislikes very well.
  • I go out of my way to buy gifts or treats your child will like.
  • I isolate your child by involving him in fun activities so we can be together – alone.
  • If you are a single parent, I may prey on your fears about your child lacking a father figure or a stable home life.
  • If my career involves working with children, I may also choose to spend my free time helping children or taking them on “special outings” by myself.
  • I take advantage of your child’s natural curiosity about sex by telling “dirty” jokes, showing her pornography and by playing sexual games.
  • I will probably know more about what kids like than you do: (music, clothing, video games, language, etc.)
  • I make comments like, “Anyone who molests a child should be shot!” or “Sexually abusing a kid is the sickest thing anyone can do.”
  • I may touch your child in your presence so that she thinks you are comfortable with the way I touch her.[1]
Check out  The Truth About Michael Jackson (feat. Jonathan Spence)

As you can see, the very behaviours that defenders of Jackson’s behaviour (and even Jackson himself) purport to show that Jackson “loved children” and was “innocent” only further strengthen suspicion about him.

Also of note is the absence of any mention of force, kidnapping or grabbing children! It is all done through coercion, bribery and grooming.

The publication also includes various warnings and how to protect children from abuse.

Of particular note, as some defenders of Jackson’s behaviour state repeatedly that many of Jackson’s boys have said “nothing happened”, the publication also includes this admonition:

Some children may not demonstrate any type of negative symptoms. Some offenders are able to groom children for abuse in a manner that makes the child feel comfortable, close to and even protective of the offender.

So, rather than Jackson’s behaviour being totally above board and beyond suspicion as some would have you believe, his behaviour aligned very closely with child molesters.

[1] Protecting Your Children: Advice from Child Molesters – Vermont Department of Children and Families, www.mjfacts.com/resources/Protecting_Your_Children.pdf or Vermont Department of Children and Families website

  • Lena, your comment was one of the funniest screeds I’ve read in a long time. It’s every dumb fan excuse all rolled into one stupid paragraph lol.

    Even just taking one of your ridiculous assertions at random we can show you are talking from a part of your brain that stubbornly refuses to absorb facts.

    “they did not find any porn magazines in his home, they found one book that was a book of art that showed artwork of some naked children ( cherubs)”

    http://www.mjfacts.com/the-full-list-of-porn-erotica-found-in-michael-jacksons-home/

    • Ekalav Jahanz

      Michael Jackson himself said he gets a lot of mail and paraphernalia pertaining to kids in his interviews. All though Lena might be delusional about a lot of the stuff, there is the fact that MJ did contribute to a lot of charities pertaining to kids improving. Just because you pull a quote from someone CLOSE to Michael Jackson saying he did this or that doesn’t mean it actually happened in that way. You have to actually go watch what they said, read their body language, and take all of that into account. You, so assertively, have concluded that Michael Jackson was a child molester, which he might have been who knows, but I don’t think you have all the info or even 30 percent of the info pertaining to that case. I mean I don’t know what to say when I watch Tom Mesereau, the lawyer for Michael, completely disagree with you on everything, and he is a person who is more knowledgeable about the matter than you are while being an esteemed and competent lawyer. I can name many instances when people have said something about someone in a bad way or lied, and when I met the person I got a totally different impression. I don’t know. Hopefully, this might be some food for thought.
      The fact is that Michael Jackson was questionable, but I don’t think you can conclusively say that he was a child molester by any stretch of the imagination. Just me. No ad hominem intended, even in the previous comment I wrote a while back about the blog.

      • Andreas Moss

        I mean I don’t know what to say when I watch Tom Mesereau, the lawyer for Michael, completely disagree with you on everything.

        I am not even sure Tom Mesereau really believes what he says himself. I always thought he did, to be honest, but I listened to this podcast called MJCast, where he was invited, and there were several times he seemed to lower his guard a bit more than he usually does, and admitted weaknesses in his case, and that he had to switch strategies a few times. They couldn’t “afford” a hung jury, because Michael probably wouldn’t be able to survive another courtcase. So he had to adopt a more aggressive approach. He needed to totally discredit and crush every witness, whatever it took, so he had to aggressivly attack the credibility of all these people. He simply had to, to avoid a hung jury. In essence he had to present a case that painted Jackson as an innocent lamb, where everyone else wasn’t even human. Just bloodthirsty wolves out to get him. There were a lot of witnesses in the case, people that had seen molestations taking place, but they were able to find some dirt on everybody.

        Meseraeu also admitted he was paid a lot to defend Jackson, and it also was probably the case that had most money to spend on research perhaps ever. They had so much money it would make anyone dizzy. Research on Janet Arvizo alone went over a million dollar, apparantly. It was insane. There was nothing in her whole life that the defense team didn’t have in their papers. All her medical records, her gynecologal records, everything was went through with a fine comb.. I think the prosecution was shocked at the budget that must have gone into it. Its was quite crazy.

        Ron Zonen said that they were actually the one’s who told Janet Arvizo that Gavin had told them he was molested. She had no idea, actually. She had noticed Gavin acting differently, and she once found him crying in church, saying he would never go to heaven, but she had no idea what it meant. She only initally took them out of Neverland, because she found out they were served alcohol. That upset her, but she didn’t know about anything else. Fans like to claim they went to Larry Feldman first so they could get money, since Feldman was in charge of the settlement for the Chandlers, but they were just sent there briefly by somebody else since Feldman was familiar with the first Jackson case with the Chandlers, and then Sneddon & co took over. They weren’t after money. They never were.

        • ShawntayUStay

          That’s interesting about Tom Mesereau. What weaknesses in his case did he speak of, in particular? Because, of course, from the outside looking in, it seemed like a slam dunk win for the defense once Janet Arvizo was “unleashed” onto the world.

          • Andreas Moss

            I don’t think Tom Mesereau viewed it like a slam dunk, Shawntay. More like a successful save, perhaps? I’ve been listening in on these lengthy fan podcasts with him, and he often says he thought he was in some contrary minority position defending Jackson, pretty much all along. He says he felt the judge was suspiciously “prosecution friendly”, and of course, he complains about the media’s coverage all the time. How they were all out to “get Michael Jackson”, didn’t pay attention to his cross-examination of the witnesses, and so on and so on. I think its correct that the journalists seemed to be expecting a guilty verdict. Even Court TV must have as well, as they used Diane Dimond as a reporter for the case. Which probably is a bit biased, isn’t it, if we’re honest? The media also quickly left covering the case all that much after he was acquitted.

            Tom Mesereau also said the settlement with the Chandlers in the 90s was a major handicap for the defense, and felt he had public opinion against him from the get-go. The only thing he could do was to make a public statement that Jackson regretted doing the settlement, and had bad advisers.

            As I mentioned, Meserau was worried about getting a hung jury, at some point well into the case, so he had to switch to a more aggressive approach, so thats probably indication that he wasn’t really as steel confident as he often sounds. The case also involved all the witnesses seeing Jackson with little boys, June Chandler, Jason Francia and so on too. The defense team had to creatively second-explain all these people’s motivations, and hope the jury would buy that person after person would go after Jackson for greed or vengence. As for the Arvizos, the mother was a lucky goldmine for him, I probably don’t need to tell you, but on the other hand, Tom Mesereau still utterly utterly failed to prove what he set out to confidently prove about the Arvizos from the start, that they were “low-life grifters”, simply someone out to make a buck on accusing him. He never successfully proved that. So he changed tactics and started sledgehammering on their general credibility instead. It was good enough for “reasonable doubt”, even though three of the jurors came back regretting the veridict a few months later.

            I suppose you’re still on the fence about the Arvizos, Shawntay. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this in depth interview with prosecutor Ron Zonen.
            https://ia601301.us.archive.org/11/items/WeezyAndTheSwishEpisode016/WeezyAndTheSwish-Episode14.mp3

            Its a podcast called “Weezy And The Swish”, and one of the two hosts is stand up comedian Louise Palanker, who as you probably know witnessed in the Arvizo case on behalf of the Arvizos. They had Zonen as a special guest one episode. Palanker also knows Janet Arvizo personally, so there’s some intruguing info there. Pretty interesting podcast. (Palanker also talks about Janet and the Arvizos when Diane Dimond was invited on another podcast.) Recommended. πŸ™‚

            I know you (and Pea) seemed to put some weight on Ray Hultman’s comment about Jackson being guilty, but perhaps not on these charges. Hultman said this was right after the case. I think Ray kind of had to say that because the jurors had agreed to stand together on the interviews after the not guilty verdict. He has been pretty vocal about thinking Jackson really was guilty also on the Arvizo charges. Read these later quotes by him:

            If you had to do it all over agian, would you, If you were able to go back in time and not sign the papers, not vote not guilty but guilty would you?
            RH: Yes, in a second.

            What would you say to Thomas Sneddon?
            RH: I would say sorry because you did put up a good case and I believe jackson is guilty of these charges.

            If the victim is reading this right now what would you want to say to him?
            RH: I’m sorry, very sorry.

            http://larryharrietlive.blogspot.com.au/2006/11/raymond-hultman.html

          • ShawntayUStay

            Thanks for the link to the podcast, Andreas. When I get some time, I’ll take a listen and report my impressions. I am still on the fence about the Arvizos primarily because I still haven’t had enough time to really delve deeply into the transcripts in a systematic manner, and since there was an acquittal, I can’t immediately say that it was “in error” just because MJ molested other boys. I’m open to all directions.

            About T-Mez, that’s interesting! Like I’ve said before, Mesereau is a true believer in MJ’s innocence so I can understand why he’d see himself as “David” as in David & Goliath. He says that the media was out to get MJ but why would they want to “get” him if he was so innocent? For ratings? It really makes little sense yet that has been the dominant narrative he, MJ and the fans have spoke about. Why would the media want to see an innocent, beloved entertainer be falsely imprisoned? I’m still scratching my head on that one! But there is some truth in the idea of watching a trainwreck; in 1993, the media felt they couldn’t lose whatever the outcome of the Chandler scandal: pop megastar’s pedophile secret lands him in prison, or the tale of innocent celebrity targeted by money-hungry father and son. That was pretty much Diane Dimond’s thinking back in 1993 (honestly she comes off as such a hack, in general…she’s so thirsty for attention, LOL). If you haven’t seen this documentary from Frontline, please watch it.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASaOPZnmm8

            You think about Mesereau’s strategy of targeting the witnesses’ credibility because, as you will see, most of them did in fact behave badly. The tabloids were throwing around money left and right and if you had dirt, you could make a lot. But does this really mean that they lied? Not really; some might have embellished and some may have inserted themselves into the mix (e.g. Adrian McManus — she’s really very incredible IMO) to get attention. As many have said, there is really no use to try to clean up the image of these witnesses because they did do stuff, it’s Hollyweird– but MJ’s own behavior stands alone and it speaks (terribly) for itself.

            I also think Mesereau was likely feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance if he felt unsure at any point. One wonders if he ever asked himself “why?” would people overwhelmingly believe MJ was guilty because of the settlement with Jordie Chandler? It’s really not good enough to say that he had bad advice or he wanted to “make it go away”. Actually, it’s a crappy excuse if a man was truly innocent, one that up until 2014, nearly all MJ fans didn’t buy, instead preferring to believe MJ’s insurance carrier settled sex abuse claims without his consent or input, ignoring the plan language of the settlement document itself that stated very clearly MJ was the sole payer, his signature the only one on the dotted line.

            I also think Mesereau was aware of just how interested MJ was in young boys (not that he thinks he’s guilty, of course) and he knew how it would look to most people. He saw those nude boy books MJ had. Why would an innocent man-child want to look at photos of fully frontal nudes of young boys? Did you notice who piss poor his cross exam of June Chandler was? He didn’t rattle her because she was telling the truth and MJ was guilty in that case, obviously. He barely left a mark on Blanca Francia as well in my opinion. Jason, to be honest, was a nightmare on the stand, which was very unfortunate. He was so combative; it’s no surprise some of the jurors had trouble with believing him. I think he was just protective of what happened to him so he was on “red alert” with Mez… but it was unbecoming of a witness. But in general, the past allegations and past special friends were very troublesome to MJ and I think Mesereau knew it. Why he still believes in MJ is anyone’s guess :-

            About Ray Hultman, I’ve read that interview (have it saved on my computer actually just in case it disappears). I still don’t buy the idea that any of them was forced to change the verdict. The other juror who thought MJ was a pedo, Katerina Carls, never intimated that they were forced to change their verdicts to NG as Hultman and Cook claim. I think what he said to the press was true — he thought MJ may have molested boys in the past but the Arvizo case wasn’t convincing. That’s a legitimate viewpoint based on what anyone watching could see. At any rate, I’ve seen jurors regret their decisions after the fact, when they’ve had time to process everything away from the cameras and perhaps Hultman now thinks MJ molested Gavin. But why should I believe that he was strong-armed? I don’t think he was; I think that was his firm opinion on the case.

            Hultman may have gotten swept up in the media’s dissatisfaction over the verdict, which would explain why he’d sign a book deal. He doesn’t appear to be media savvy, though, and the book deal turned people really, really off. The book has to be ghostwritten by Stacy Brown but since he’s a major plagiarist who ripped off Maureen Orth’s articles for the book (also, “Man Behind the Mask” is filled with copy-paste sections from the Smoking Gun and ABC as well), Hultman was understandably ridiculed. FYI, never work with Stacy Brown, LOL. The guy’s trouble and clearly unprofessional/unethical.

            http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/jackson-juror-sues-to-get-out-of-book-deal/article_b90a9be6-5773-57e0-bf53-0c8c4ad82ad9.html

          • Andreas Moss

            Mhm. I think Tom Mesereau is slightly disingenuous sometimes, but when you’re a defense lawyer its kind of your job to believe and defend your client. No matter who it is. Mesereau probably got very wealthy by this case, he became famous because of it, and I think he also enjoys being loved by fans for his efforts. He’s one of the last ankles to hold onto for them, so even if he likes it or not, its hard for him to leave this position by this point. I also think he liked his client. I’ll be interested in his further reactions if more boys come out in the future.

            As you mention, the whole idea that the media was out to get Jackson seems a bit too exaggerated. Mesereau claims the media was drooling to make reports about Jackson’s life in jail, how he looked like without make-up, if he was going to kill himself and so on. The way Mesereau talks about the media is like they’re completely morbid wolves for scandals to sell, and without any sense of humanity at all. There’s obviously some truth that scandals sells, but he overstates it to such an absurd extreme, and the reason why he does it is pretty obvious; to discredit the media reporting completely. Its the same kind total discrediting he was doing to everybody in court too my opinion. Many of these witnesses might not have been saints, you’re probably right, but he definitely had to grill these people out of the ordinary to make them sound completely unreliable for the jury. That was kind of what he had to do to acquit MJ though.

            Louise Palanker said she found him intimidating and dishonest when he was cross-examinating her. He lied about her and things she had said right from the start, and showed her interview transcripts by her that she didn’t even know was recorded. Parts that was inaudible as they’d had the recorder in the pocket, and they’d just filled in unclear parts themselves and presented them as real quotes in court. With the case it seems like Mesereau had to use every trick up his sleeve to get Jackson acquitted. I think it was more about doing this than to get to the honest truth, but that was his job though. Thats how courts work.

            Didn’t Tom Mesereau say during the Arvizo case that the 93′ settlements were done by an insurance company too? I might be wrong, but I see fans sometimes refers to it like Meserau did, andt I also thought I read that somewhere. If that is true, thats another example of him not being totally upfront, because he knew perfectly well Jackson signed it himself.

            I’d like to hear your thoughts on the podcast, yes. Hmm. I think I’d be more on board with the acquittal being a good argument against the Arvizos if Jackson was charged guilty on those smaller counts, they had witnesses after all(as you’ve mentioned yourself), and I would also grant the acquittal more value if the jury would have been more open to him being a child molester in the other instances, but alas, many of them were not.

            Reading the interviews some of them said they never had a single doubt that Michael Jackson wasn’t a child molester at all. Not in 93.. not ever. Some of the women said they never doubted it at any point. In my opinion it kind of ruins the overall credibility for them, because there should surely have been enough presented in the case for them to be at least be suspicious about Jackson?

            I personally think some of them were clearly driven by emotion, perhaps a bit of sympathy for Jackson, and not really by critical thinking. A few of them were also big fans, which of course is a big handicap. Its quite astonishing that Tammy Bolton’s biggest revelation after some weeks sitting in the room with him understood he was a “person too”. I wonder what she thought he was at first.

            I also think meeting the restless hardcore fans coming to work every day, fans most likely aware that they were jurors, perhaps approaching them, could have had some effect too. Its almost like lobbyism, isn’t it? Some fans sleeping outside the building for weeks, months? (Its insane, didn’t they have lives?) No doubt voting guilty would be a quite unpopular public opinion. I also personally think many of those jurors were a bit dense, even though it might be a bit unpolitically correct to say. (Sorry)

            But really.. like even Paul Rodriguez. He really seems to enjoy the sunshine he got from the fan community after the acquittal. He appeared in Aphrodite Jones documentary on Crime Time, and I saw him some other pro-Jackson documtentary too, defending Jackson, critzicing the Arvizos, and he always looks like he knew he was going to be loved by thousands upon thousands of people for saying what he says, as he always smiles so shyly when he’s on those programs.. I’m really wondering about that guy, because he’s been really two-faced about his position. Diane Dimond said he approached her after the court case and said he really thought Jackson was a child molester, but then another juror had another “theory”, way of explaining it, and he concluded that would be good enough for “reasonable doubt” — even if it wasn’t his even own thoughts! He’s so strange. He said a similiar thing in an interview, he personally thought Jackson was a child molester, but for whatever reason he put the bar for reasonable doubt so high that he couldn’t vote guilty. What is up with that guy?

            Ray Hultman never said he was strong armed by the jury, did he? That was Ellie Parker. Hultman just said he didn’t want a hung jury, because he wanted his 5 months spent to be worth something. (Meaning if it was a hung jury, it would all reset and start over.) Its a weird reason, but thats what he said. Both him and Katarina Carls said they believed Gavin, it seems.

            With Ellie Parker I think there was something else going on. She reportedly had decided Jackson was guilty very VERY early in the proccess, and insisted she wouldn’t change her mind about it. “And she said it in a big way”. Paul Rodriguez and some of the others threatened to throw her off the case, as a result.

            Hultman thought they were being very unfair to Ellie, and even though Ellie probably was a strong person in many ways, she seems to be, I suspect she later tried her best to be part of the group and be open minded, but she did say she felt hated for holding her opinion, especially in the end. I think 3 of the jurors really contemplated voting guilty, but they decided not to in the end. I do think there was a lot of peer pressure in the jury. Can you imagine being the only one of 12 who was going to vote guilty? Knowing only your vote would be the reason for a hung jury? And the next day you’re all supposed to be interviewed on national television and talk about it. I have to admit I might have caved in too, but I don’t know. You have to be a very strong person to go through with something like that. Btw: Ellie also bursted out in court calling Wade a liar when he testified, which I thought was a bit funny.

            I guess I believe Gavin personally. According to both Louise Palanker and Ron Zonen(from the podcast), Janet had no clue what was going on with Gavin. She just got them out of Neverland the second she heard they had served her sons alcohol. She had seen changes in Gavin, classic symptom, and she had found him in church saying he wouldn’t go to heaven and stuff, but she had no clue what was up with him. It was actually Ron Zonen and Tom Sneddon that told her what Gavin told them. That he was molested by Jackson. To me that’s enough to exclude Janet as this kind of master orchestrator, as she’s been accused of being sometimes. Of course, it could still leave the option that Gavin for whatever reason would “invent it” by his own accord, but I just don’t see any reason why he would. Can you? Why? Boys in that age don’t like to admit to being molested, as you know… and there’s simply no gain here. There’s nothing indicating the Arvizos ever wanted the attention, nor that they wanted money from Jackson. Combined with a story of a superstar with a series of molestations under his belt already, and the overall fact that child molesters has a compulsive problem and can’t control themselves, Child molesters can do really stupid stuff sometimes, like filming and photo themselves with their victims.

            And knowing how Anthony Pellicano was hired to dig down Jackson’s dirt in the Chandler case in the 90s, I don’t find it very hard to believe he had some goons sent on the Arvizos too, to keep them away from the media contacting them about the Bashir. Its strange that Jackson had people hired to cover up for him, even stranger that one of them was Frank Cascio, but it seems to be the case.

          • Kat

            I don’t know if the defense attorney is always supposed to believe that his client is innocent. People don’t consider lawyers to be moral people, mostly everyone just thinks they are ready to do everything to get off their clients. Tom Mesearau certainly isn’t the most virtuous person. He’s defended rapists and child molesters in the past, and is currently defending an accused murderer. But I suppose the only valid reason why Meserau can feel good about the outcome of the Jackson trial is if he genuinely believes Jackson never did any child touching and that he helped to save an innocent man from prison. Maybe that’s what he tells himself, even though, if he is familiar with all details he should know Michael is far from innocent.

            It interests me why Tom used the same strategy and explanations as MJ and his past lawyers to create reasonable doubt. I’m talking stuff like monetary gain, press bias, Jackson being infantile and not understanding that his behavior was wrong. I supposed he just went with what was already established. And really – what other reason could he claim for people supposedly falsely continuing accusing Jackson of sexual abuse except extortion? It is true though, there is barely any evidence that the Arvizos were after money despite their past deeds. Meserau is still repeating the old lie about them going to the same lawyer as the Chandlers. He knows very well it’s not true.

            I don’t know if it’s been brought up before, but I wanted to say that if the accusers would have actually managed to put Jackson in jail it’s possible that some of the mentally unbalanced fans who sent Chandlers and Arvizos death threats might have really tried to kill them? I suspect those loonies are capable of that. The jurors, if they would have voted guilty and gotten him a sentence would also be persecuted, threatened, and attacked for putting the saint among the ordinary mortals MJ, as fans think of him, in prison. Another reason to vote ‘not guilty’ I suppose…

            The thing is, I’m not sure what I would have voted had I been on that jury or another child molestation jury. That’s because I’m not sure about what constitutes reasonable doubt in a child molestation case. The evidence is almost always circumstantial, and sometimes there’s no evidence whatsoever. In her book Diane Dimond also mentioned this is the main factor why there was a not guilty verdict. That, and Janet’s ramblings on the stand. But yes, child sexual abuse is hard to try. It’s not like you get fingerprints and DNS, weapons, CCTV footage, obvious motive. A lot of it is also ambiguous. If the jurors didn’t want to believe that MJ molested the kids he spent hundreds of nights with, then they were free not to, since sleeping in one bed doesn’t equal sex. I do believe Gavin though. I have a lot of compassion for him, because of everything that happened. I would still like to learn more about the case, I don’t know all as of yet.

          • Andreas Moss

            I don’t know if it’s been brought up before, but I wanted to say that if the accusers would have actually managed to put Jackson in jail it’s possible that some of the mentally unbalanced fans who sent Chandlers and Arvizos death threats might have really tried to kill them?

            Its a good point, Kat. Evan Chandler was hit with a bat inside his own office building, and people shot at their house and left decapitaded mice at their doorstep, so yes, Jackson had fans capable of doing really violent stuff.
            Fans can get crazy. The jurors weren’t allowed to be anonymous in this case. For whatever reason they were supposed to talk about their decision, which is rare.

            That’s because I’m not sure about what constitutes reasonable doubt in a child molestation case.

            I feel like I’m on a forever pitch about everyone listening to Ron Zonen on the podcast for 1.5 hours πŸ™‚ ..but he is asked about the “reasonable doubt” thing there, and he’s been prosecuting hundreds of rape and molestation cases for 20 years. What he says, is that its supposed to be vague.
            Its really up to the jury what they consider ‘reasonable doubt’. He also says he has been part of convicting child molesters on a lot less evidence than with MJ, so this was just a case where a jury didn’t want to vote guilty.

          • Kat

            I just listened to the podcast and found it to be gripping. I learned new stuff too, definitely appreciate you posting the link… Before I didn’t have a certain opinion about the conspiracy charge because it seemed so incomprehensible, but now I understand it more. It appears that Janet Arvizo was afraid to call the police, because she thought no one was going to believe her if she’ll say she was being held hostage by Michael Jackson. And that the prosecutors didn’t believe her either until they found their passports and visas and tickets meant to send them out of the country…

            I was amused by the portion where they discussed Jackson’s attire, the way he came dressed to court every day. Certainly no ordinary person would be forgiven if they came to court late and wearing pajamas while on trial for child molestation! Zonen also spoke about molestation cases being difficult, because the victims come from bad families with absent parents, it what makes them vulnerable. However, then the bad family situation is used against them by the defense. Just because the mother’s wacky means that the child couldn’t have been molested, according to lawyers.

            I was sort of stunned by him saying that he is ready to bet Jordie Chandler would give all his millions away if he could have a normal life. A life where he would have never met Michael Jackson, would still be on good terms with his mother, and wouldn’t have to hide living under a false name. But then again, the money is only relative comfort considering what happened. People who scream that Chandlers’ case was a shakedown don’t realize the toll that it took on the family. It broke them apart and nothing was ever the same.

            Zonen also spoke about each jury having their own reasonable doubt threshold. If the people selected were biased in MJs favor and didn’t want to think him guilty they would decide that the evidence presented wasn’t enough, that they needed more. Even now, with five accusations, it still isn’t enough for some, because they don’t want to believe he did it. Unfortunately, in child molestation cases there is rarely any direct evidence, and I suppose strong evidence is needed to take a person’s freedom away. It was curious to hear Zonen say that he had gotten guilty verdicts with much less proof than in Jackson’s case. It would be interesting to become familiarized with those cases… (:

          • ShawntayUStay

            Not to be an eternal contrarian, LOL, but I was not convinced by Zonen’s excuse for Janet not calling the police. He goes on and on about general trends of non-reportage, but what did that have to do with the particulars? He, IMO, was just trying to clean up the “Janet mess” by using convincing statements because he knows she sunk the ship. Especially considering the facts of the case, her getting beauty treatments at local salons, her coming and going from NL on multiple occasions, her talking to Jay Jackson, etc. It makes no sense that she’d fear “no one would believe her” if she was so in fear of her life and the people were threatening to wipe her and her parents and children off this Earth.

            I think Stan Katz was right about Janet: there’s some entanglement between perception and reality. Actually, did the evidence show that her conspiracy was real? If so, why did Sneddon choose to keep Schaffel, Amen, Cascio, Konitzer and Weisner as “unindicted co-conspirators” and instead try to pin everything on MJ when Janet was interacting more with MJ’s goons than MJ himself? Perhaps if Sneddon wasn’t so thirsty to put MJ in jail, he could have convinced the jury Janet was telling the truth(?) instead of unintentionally convincing them she was certifiable. I’m of the opinion that Sneddon feared what would come out if the others were officially indicted, however I also believe that it may have hurt MJ, too, if someone like Frank Cascio testified.

            I think Louise Palanker was actually right in her initial evaluation of the situation and one wonders why she feels the need to disavow her previous perceptions: MJ & Co were afraid of Janet’s erratic, unstable personality and were trying to keep her away from the media vis a vis the extended stay at NL and the vacation to Brazil. Schaffel didn’t write “Janet Strategies” for nothing!

            You’re right about Zonen’s comments about Jordie; those were very eye opening and tragic. You get the feeling that Jordie Chandler came off desperate for privacy and likely very sad that events turned out the way they did. Zonen is absolutely correct about MJ destroying his family. Ray Chandler said that Jordie wouldn’t want to be known again as the “Michael Jackson boy”. The fans claim he didn’t want to have to lie under oath or face the man he destroyed but that’s idiotic, MJ was guilty. I didn’t particularly care for the jab about him not being “raised right” for not testifying because it’s Michael Jackson, not a Joe Schmoe, we’re talking about; he’d have to jeopardize his privacy and perhaps life, testifying in Gavin’s favor. I can understand his reticence. James Safechuck felt the same way plus he was fearful of MJ’s possible retaliation.

            Zonen was right about juries, as he said it’s “human nature” to want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who appears to have a clean record and thus a far pedestal to fall from. But perhaps that’s a good thing; no one should be painted evil due to a rush to judgement. Perhaps that’s why he can say that he’s convicted alleged child molesters with less evidence: the alleged child molester had prior convictions or a demeanor that would turn off a jury or the connection to alleged victim was so strong no other evidence was needed. Perhaps in those other cases, they didn’t have past alleged victims testifying on the defendant’s behalf, saying nothing happened — which is likely important for a jury. As you said, we’d need to see the particulars of these cases before we can conclude that jury nullification or “Dumb Juror syndrome” was the reason for MJ’s acquittal.

          • Kat

            I think what Zonen tried to say was that Janet was intimidated by Michael’s people and probably very confused because of what they were telling her – that the killers were after them and they needed to hide. Michael’s men went everywhere with them and never let Janet stay without supervision, she was probably scared and indecisive about telling anyone, although she insinuated that she did try to tell her boyfriend, albeit indirectly. And that she thought no one would believe her not because of what was happening, but because of who the person doing this to her was, which I think is a valid reason. Imagine that the police receives a phone call from someone who says that they’re being held hostage by someone crazy rich and famous… I’ve been kidnapped by Jay-Z and Beyonce, come and save me! The person on the other end might just think it’s some nut calling. Sounds plausible to me. πŸ™‚

            I have wondered myself why MJs co-conspirators weren’t brought to the trial. I’ve thought it must have been some legal thing that allows to only indict the main person responsible. I don’t know why for sure, but if Jackson was the mastermind behind all that and everyone else was just acting on his orders, then I suppose it’s acceptable to only try to put the initiator in jail.

            I really don’t think anyone was afraid of Janet. She barely had any power and there wasn’t much she could do. Nor did she have a desire to speak to the media. On the contrary, she tried to cut Gavin out of the Bashir documentary, she never wanted him to participate in filmed material without her consent. If MJs people tried to help Janet, then why take away their passports and furniture, buy them one way tickets to Latin America, and bully them into making the rebuttal video? Doesn’t add up with helping someone, lol. I’m still undecided about the conspiracy charge, but I do think that it was real, at least part of it.

            As for other convictions with less evidence – I was just thinking about Jerry Sandusky and him being found guilty. Jerry, as we all know, is a boy-lover often compared to MJ. Both of them went after the same type of victims and hid behind the ‘charitable saint’ facade for decades. I always thought that the main reason why Sandusky got a prison sentence was because of the sheer number of people testifying against him. The prosecution were able to amass ten or fifteen boys/men who had been victimized. When you have this many people telling the same story there’s no way all of them are lying, hence the guilty verdict and thirty years in prison. The number of accusers is definitely a strong factor.

          • ShawntayUStay

            To be honest, Andreas, I really don’t know if I can believe everything Ellie Cook says. She just comes of as attention seeking and incredible. I can’t get past her confident appraisal of Janet Arvizo that she gave to the media; she looked like a woman that was okay with her decision to acquit MJ. So why is she now claiming otherwise? I smell BS. The media rightfully condemned both she and Hultman for their about-faces, especially with their two book deals. It was shameful.

            Perhaps there was MJ fans on the jury but I tend to think that they did their job rather than nullify in his favor. Also, Paul Rodriguez, in the interviews I’ve seen, never comes of a “two-faced”, in my opinion. I believe what he has said in his various statements: that he believed MJ was likely a pedophile or may have done things before, but there wasn’t enough evidence. I don’t think that him reflecting on another juror’s “theory” about the case is a bad thing; it shows he has an open mind and wasn’t going to let things sway him. He said as much to Larry Harriet, saying that he didn’t look at the nude boy books because he didn’t want it to color his analysis with respect to the Arvizo case. It may seem silly to ignore evidence but those books were technically 1101/1108 “propensity” evidence anyway and could not be used to prove that he did anything with Gavin Arvizo. Just m opinion, but he comes of more reasonable than Ellie Cook; I don’t buy what she’s selling. Plus, if she “very early” made up her mind about MJ, she is far too biased to be on any jury. Isn’t it possible that the real reason the other jurors were “being unfair” to Ellie is because she was dogmatic and unreasonable? It’s possible but again, she was very confident with her decision when the cameras were rolling. Something’s not adding up.

            Ray Hultman saying he didn’t want a hung jury… well if that would have been the case, he should have let it be the case; it would be another jury’s problem. Sneddon could have “trimmed the fat” in a second prosecution, although I feel very confident in saying that I doubt MJ would have been retried. I get jurors want to give a resolution to a defendant, but I think Hultman gave his verdict in good faith. He just thinks MJ was a pedophile.

          • Andreas Moss

            Both Ray Hultman and Paul Rodriguez and others said Ellie was on the guilty side all along, so I think its safe to say she was. In the same interview where she talks about Janet snapping her fingers, I think she even says at one point she had moments where she thought Jackson was guilty.

            When they were going down to be on national television, they had all voted “not guilty”, and there was a collective understanding that they wouldn’t air their dirty laundry, and disagreements, and stand together on what they voted. Which makes sense. Since Ellie voted not guilty, she had to stand by that. She didn’t like the mother snapping at her, but its possible to still think Jackson was a child molester. Makes sense to me.

            Isn’t it possible that the real reason the other jurors were “being unfair” to Ellie is because she was dogmatic and unreasonable?

            It sounds like she was a bit unprofessional saying she had already made up her mind just as the case had started, perhaps, but I think threatening to remove her is an overreaction. She’s allowed to have her opinion. I don’t know how far into the case this was though, and I think they had temporary votes as points. According to Hultman at the first voting 1/3 of the jury was considering Jackson guilty… Guessing: Hultman, Parker, Carls, Rodriguez(?).

          • ShawntayUStay

            I know Ellie Cook thought MJ was a pedo, but I’m just wondering if all her later shenanigans deem her current statements incredible. From my perspective, they do make it hard for me to believe she was strong-armed to change her vote. I’m not saying it couldn’t have happened — she could just be a damned good actress for the cameras! — but she seemed to be fairly comfortable with her vote. By the way, do you know if any of the other jurors confirm that Paul Rodriguez wanted to get Cook kicked off because of the reason she gave? That it was because she thought MJ was guilty? Paul Rodriguez has, of course, denied the allegation that he was intimidating her, etc. I’m just curious if anyone else corroborates her claim… besides, I’m assuming, Ray Hultman?

            But I think we will have to agree to disagree about Ellie Cook. πŸ™‚

            I finally listened to the podcast and it was definitely interesting; it’s always interesting to hear the perspectives of the players involved. However, I was a little disappointed because there was nothing really new that Zonen hadn’t already said before (I feel the same way about Tom Mesereau, too). I think the ultimate issue is that we have two individuals — Zonen and Mesereau — who both strongly believe they were on the “right side” in the Arvizo case, so it becomes basically a game of appeals to emotion. So, for me, since they both feel strongly, it comes down to which side has the better evidence to support their opinion. That’s why I was a little disappointed in Zonen. He, like Mesereau, is obviously very intelligent and skilled. But Zonen said some peculiar things that left me scratching my head:

            1. About Janet Arvizo: On one hand, he said basically agree, as he always has, that she was “nutty” and a loose canon, but that that was typical of the parents that skilled molesters target: parents who aren’t stable, parents who aren’t “available” to their children. The kids are therefore troubled kids, emotionally vulnerable and looking for affection. All of this, of course, is absolutely true, and pedos do target at risk kids (e.g. Jerry Sandusky). So Zonen is intimating that Janet’s erratic behavior shouldn’t be used against Gavin, etc. I felt he was saying that we should never care about Janet with respect to the allegations. But then he later, in my opinion, kind of contradicts that notion by trying to “explain” her behavior away, saying that she had no self esteem, she was abused, etc — all of which are likely true. So my thing is: which is it? Why try to find a palatable excuse for Janet’s admittedly damaging demeanor if he actions were never relevant to begin with? So my thinking is that Zonen is very well aware that Janet was a very integral part of the 2005 saga…for better and for worse.

            2. He claimed that MJ was doing to the Arvizos exactly what Mesereau claimed the Arvizos were doing to MJ: trying to make money off them. While it is true that MJ wanted Gavin in the Bashir documentary (he also had another “photo op” by the name of Dan Dan who was a burn victim) to make himself look better — which was the purpose of him coming out of reclusion to be interviewed in the first place — I don’t think he was trying to make millions of the family. Look at Mj’s own behavior: he called Gavin up after having lost contact with him for months, they filmed the doc, MJ left after and the Arvizos only heard from him again after the shit hit the fan. It stands to reason that MJ wouldn’t have ever talked to them again if not for the media hoopla. Zonen said that since everyone, the whole world, was interested in who this kid was that was MJ’s new bedmate, there was money to be made by controlling them? That really makes no sense with what happened. MJ did not want the family in the spotlight at all; he was helping Janet get into talks with lawyers to file claim against the “unauthorized” use of Gavin’s image by the folks in Britain. It makes no sense that MJ could make money off of the Arvizos after the Bashir doc came out if the only narrative presented would be “Wacko Jacko beds another boy” — he’d hate that and that was the point of Gavin’s inclusion in the first place: to show that MJ was a child savior. And if we take a look at MJ’s people’s behavior and “Janet Strategies” as F. Marc Schaffel wrote, we can see that they were trying their hardest to prevent them from being exposed to the media, such as the Brazil trips, all the passports and removing from school, keeping them at Neverland; they wanted to keep an eye on the family to make sure they weren’t exploiting MJ or being exploited in a way that would hurt MJ. You could argue about the Rebuttal Tape, but I’m still not understanding how millions could be made of of Gavin and his family. Seems to me that MJ wanted a “clean up” and to never speak about the family again, just like with Jordie Chandler. So Zonen is completely wrong about that.

            3. As it related to his comments about Janet, he reiterates over and over that Gavin, Davellin and Star Arvizo are/were “great kids”, and I believe that that is true. He says that they are well behaved, studious, ambitious, etc. After all, they were involved in some many activities like the comedy camp, military clubs, etc. I mean Gavin beat the odds with his cancer and managed to turn out well because he is a strong kid. So why does he also say that Gavin was troubled and vulnerable and like the kids that are routinely targeted by pedos? To me, what Zonen described was someone who has internal drive, someone who can’t be phased by outside “nonsense” around him; he said these are the kids that are not typically targeted by pedos. So I’m trying to understand why it feels to me that he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth? Was Gavin vulnerable and troubled, or extraordinary? Was he the victim of his circumstances or was he someone that rose above it? It seemed so contradictory unless his goal was to try to convince the audience by creating a bifurcated “Angel vs Devil” narrative so we are to immediately believe that MJ was absolutely guilty of the charges he wasn’t convicted of. He even went so far to blame MJ for all of the boys’ “bad behavior” at Neverland, as if MJ condones it or encourages it, or if not, the claims are completely exaggerated by starstruck employees. Besides the alcohol drinking, I doubt MJ would encourage a kid pulling a knife on an employee, LOL.

            Actually, that’s the problem for me: who to believe? Mesereau does the exact same thing when he talks about MJ, that MJ was this innocent man-child, naive and overly trusting, which makes him the perfect target to be exploited. He of course ignores the fact that MJ routinely picks people that are shady because he is shady in some respects. MJ liked money, he liked to shop and spend; MJ reneged on contracts left and right with callous disregard for who it could impacted. Why such a binary view of things? Because just like Zonen, he is a true believer in his client. So all I can do is go off the evidence because both sides use fallacious appeals to emotions to support their opinions.

          • Andreas Moss

            Thanks for listening to it, S. Glad you found it interesting. πŸ™‚

            Right, so your disagreement is more about if Ellie was strong-armed into voting ‘not guilty’, and not that if she through out the case ever thought Jackson was a child molester? Look, I don’t know. Its true one of the other jururs, one of the women(can’t remember which one) said she wasn’t the type to be strong armed. Thats possibly true. I’m sure the other jurors disagrees she was “pushed”. Stuff like that is complex though, and Ellie might have perceived it mentally more than it happened, but I believe there may have been some peer pressure in the group. The story about Paul Rodriguez threatning to remove her because she was too vocal about her position too early seems a bit odd to me, even if she exagerrated it.

            Seperate to that incident there was some other controversy with Ellie, because she was friends with one of the witnesses, Adrian McManus, and she was allegedly even talking to her at points into the case. She was seen once at a mall talking to her after McManus did her testimony. Perhaps Ellie knew too much before the case already had started, and that caused her to act so certain already from the beginning? My money is on that.

            Your points.

            1. I don’t see really the big problem here? Zonen says at some point into the podcast that the case was largely affected of a mother that wasn’t really “presentable”. So, of course he admits her performance affected many people’s perception and perhaps even the outcome. It clearly did too. Some of the jurors admitted they had problems believing “anyone in the family” after she was put on stand. So she did harm just by association. I don’t think Zonen defended her in connection to any “nexus” to Gavin’s testimony though, I think he simply defended her because she has been object to a lot of criticism and ridicule on her own. He has held contact with the Arvizos after the case, attending Gavin’s wedding, etc, so I just think he cares about them as people. He had dealt with a lot of abuse victims, and some of her behavior could be explained as typical symptoms. Most people that saw her for the first time didn’t know about her background. They just saw a crazy and unpredictable mother.

            I know the prosecution wanted to get an expert on abused women to witness to talk about Janet’s behavior, so the jury could take that into consideration, but it was one of the many witnesses that there wasn’t time for. Who knows if that could have saved anything tough.

            2. Hmm, yeah. Zonen might have exaggerated that Jackson profitted in ‘millions’ by using the Arvizos. I think it was more about ‘image’ to Jackson too, both early in the process when he was hanging out with a cancerkid, to show him as the ‘great protector of children’, and later when Gavin for the rebuttal video to save his image from the damage done by the Bashir documentary. Of course, one could say Jackson’s working on his image is connected with money, but I don’t think thats a crime in itself. Artists obviously care about their public image.

            3. I see your point, although I think Zonen was mainly refering to that both Star and Gavin was portraited by a lot of the MJs loyal staff to be rude, misbehaving as people… one in the staff said they pulled out a knife on them, they were seen breaking into the wine cellar, and running around “thinking they owned the place”, and so on. They were painted a certain way by the defense to make them less sympatethic. Like they could be the type of children to lie. I think Zonen was just trying to explain they weren’t that bad. Lets say the family had a further history of scamming and accusing others, suing for money for all kinds of stuff, then it would obviously be in Jacksons favor, but they seem to be doing alright.

            It might be true Gavin wasn’t the most molestable type, thats up to discussion, but perhaps that is why he was only drunk out of his mind when it allegedly happened? I read Jackson suggested a one-on-one sleepover with Gavin, but Gavin insisted Star should be there too. Sounded like Jackson had plans at least.

            Actually, that’s the problem for me: who to believe? Mesereau does the exact same thing when he talks about MJ, that MJ was this innocent man-child, naive and overly trusting, which makes him the perfect target to be exploited.

            I understand. Does it have to be a dichotomy, though? In some ways I think Jackson probably was like fans and Meserau portrays him. I’m sure many people wanted to exploit him, that many people that wanted to be his friend was after something, the media tending to write some cynical gossip about him, that he was a cash cow, and so on, he obviously was that big, but I think Jackson also conveniently used all that stuff as a cover to hide behind too. Its kind of clever.

            There’s a lot of people that aren’t fans that thinks he was completely innocent too. Its because there’s factors like that to explain the charges away. Its so easy to say he was just targeted, that he was misunderstood and so on. When you’re that famous you’re often a target. As I’m a bit ashamed to admit, I used to think that way too before I started researching the case.

            By the way. Another point about Tom Mesereau, and if he truly believes in Jacksons innocence.. What do you make of the fact that after the case was won Tom Mesereau advised Jackson to move out of Neverland and go into hiding?

            To me that is kind of weird. If Tom Mesereau truly believed Jackson was totally exonerated then you’d expect him to think more along the lines that Jackson was finally proved to just be misunderstood and attacked by moneygrubbing charlatans, and now Jackson could finally go back to make music on the ranch, relax, focus on his career and so on. Instead he advises Jackson to hide? Why?

            I think Tom in a sense knows. He did see like everyone else how much of a wreck Jackson was at the last days of the trial. Innocent people don’t act like that.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Yes, that was my issue, whether Ellie was really strong armed into voting “not guilty”, because if not, it really, in my opinion, paints the jury into a different light, namely that they took their jobs seriously. I don’t think she was intimidated based on her behavior for the cameras. I think you may be right, though, about her possibly knowing too much prior to the trial. Her being friends with Adrian McManus — who admittedly is a bit sketchy in her own right — she could have talked about the fact she was a juror and Adrian could have given Ellie her opinion on MJ. Highly possible.

            You could be right about the alcohol used on Gavin because he wasn’t “weak” and as “vulnerable” as the typical targets Zonen described. That would make it more in line with his persona now, a strong kid that could only be taken advantage of if he was incapacitated in some way. It’s plausible.

            I know many want to separate the alleged molestation and the alleged conspiracy/kidnapping but I think they are a packaged deal, because the kids reinforced her bizarre narrative and Janet claimed she saw MJ licking his head, for example. I don’t think however if one was false (e.g. the stuff from Janet), the other has to be false as well. One just wonders why extra stuff that is untrue is added to the story if the more serious things are true. It would make anyone skeptical because it’s essentially a “he said, he said” with no physical evidence. We can use stats and experts but that can only go so far when someone’s freedom is on the line. So Zonen’s appeal to emotion by saying Gavin is a good kid, etc isn’t enough for me, because it may or may not be accurate to the particular events (as some NL have testified too).

            As you mentioned dichotomy, yes, I agree that it can be both at once, absolutely. I think MJ was very likable to most people, as is Gavin is likable to most people he encounters. But I’m just wondering how to navigate those two things with respect to evaluating the case? Because “character evidence” like that only goes so far; the particular facts have to support it. Once I look deeper, I believe the facts will support one side more than the other.

            What do you make of the fact that after the case was won Tom Mesereau advised Jackson to move out of Neverland and go into hiding?

            Well I do know that MJ said that he could never return to NL because he said the cops defiled it through the search, so that could be a factor. Also, MJ was broke as hell and eventually sold the deed to NL. But I think perhaps Mesereau was just trying to help MJ minimize the trauma? As we know, Mesereau has been against the “mediation” of the case from the beginning; he hated the whole MJ on the roof of the SUV thing that happened when Geragos (a media whore, LOL) was still head lawyer. And let’s be honest, MJ was always interested in the media, even if he claimed they abused him. So perhaps Mesereau believed MJ could have the potential to do another interview or something related, so he suggested he needed to “heal”? Maybe. He also said in interviews after the verdict that MJ wouldn’t sleep with kids anymore, LOL. No clue if he followed that proscription.

            I think Tom in a sense knows. He did see like everyone else how much of a wreck Jackson was at the last days of the trial. Innocent people don’t act like that.

            Oh Andreas! You’re so cynical ;-). You really think Mesereau “knows” MJ is guilty? I really, really think he loves him some Wacko Jacko, LOL. I believe he’s basically a fan, a fan of the man he met. He also has said that his grandmother told him that Black people are closer to God than anyone else, and that stuck with him; he’s married to a black woman and goes to a black church. I think he believes it strongly. He even, in a way, “deified” Katherine Jackson. No, he doesn’t think MJ is guilty at all. He looked like he got punched in the gut when Wade Robson’s allegations came out; he still looks like that when he talks about the new allegations. He was “hurt” by Wade, LOL, and not because he is somehow embarrassed that he defended a “guilty man” but because he feels Wade is a ruthless betrayer of blessed Michael, LOL. Perhaps if James and Wade get a trial and all the evidence comes out he’ll change, but the affection is real, Andreas. MJ was a saint in Mez’s eyes.

          • Kat

            I also feel like Mesereau might very well know MJ was guilty. I don’t know why you’re so sure he doesn’t, Shawntay. πŸ˜›

            Yes, he’s a black apologist and black savior, and he probably thinks he’s the real life equivalent of Atticus Finch. But he was also familiar with all the details of MJs interactions with male children. He knows about the sleepovers, and the payments, and Chandler’s accurate description of Michael’s genitalia. He knows that Michael had no real relationships with women. Furthermore, he’s a smart dude and everything, but he never brought anything new to the defense side’s argument. All that he can say is that the accusations were financially motivated, that MJ was a target his whole life, and that he paid the Chandlers because he had to continue with his career. It’s nothing we haven’t heard before, right? Somehow I think if he really thought Michael was completely innocent he could have brought something new and insightful to the table.

            And Mesereau also has his own reputation at stake. He is most well-known for the Jackson trial. But who wants to be known for getting off a child molester? It’s better for his own image that Mesereau continues shouting that Jackson was innocent all along. And he was also paid handsomely for saving MJs sorry pedo ass from prison, and that’s one more reason to continue defending him.

            I recently asked my mom if defense attorneys actually believe that their clients didn’t do it. She said that they have to, only I’m not sure it’s true. Lawyers only have to find gaps in the allegations and the prosecution’s strategy, so that they can create reasonable doubt in the courtroom and save their client and have them receive a lesser sentence. And because of that I don’t think Tom Mesereau or Anthony Pellicano, or Johnnie Cochran actually believed that Jackson was innocent; they were simply doing their jobs.

          • Pea

            Nah…. it’s fairly clear that Mez believes in Jacko’s whole innocence. I am shocked any of you would think otherwise! πŸ™‚ I believe Mesereau is totally sincere; he’s no different from Helena over at Vindicate MJ or any other fan. Yes, he may know of the “evidence” but, just as an article on this website actually talks about, there’s tons of “plausible deniability” with regard to Jacko’s choices and behavior. There are no smoking guns; look at Evan Chandler and Janet Arvizo — two mental patients* whose conduct can easily (maybe more easily with Janet over Evan) be used to cast reasonable doubt… assuming one is desirous of a reason to believe in Jacko’s innocence. And Mez certainly is.

            (* according to Ray Chandler, Evan was bipolar. I’d actually heard this allegation on VMJ a while ago and thought they were libeling Evan because they hated him, but it was confirmed in Randall Sullivan’s book. Actually, when you read that taped phone convo between he and Dave Schwartz, you get a hint of Evan’s erratic tendencies. Nevertheless, Evan was very intelligent and perceptive.)

            What is behind wanting to think Mesereau is a phony anyway? I’m curious about this. Because we believe he is “too smart” to be so blind to things such as countless ‘special friends’ sleeping in Jacko’s bedroom at and away from Neverland? Photos of Jacko in a hotel room with Brett Barnes while wearing only his panties? Well, he may just blind! There’s tons of smart people who believe seemingly inexplicable things. Ironically, it is intelligence that makes it easy to hold on to silly beliefs — the higher the IQ, the more complex and well thought out the defenses.

            I should also mention that I have seen fans still trying to “claim” Wade Robson, and my theory is that it has something to do with wanting “good people” on one’s side. Wade was their golden boy for a number of years because of his support of Jacko — and anyone who supported Jacko, in turn, got the support of Jacko’s fans. One particularly unpleasant fan, last time I checked, believed that Jacko’s haters were orchestrating Wade’s turncoat, and she wanted to find a way to “get those people away from him” — I kid you not!

            Perhaps this is a similar kind of situation with Mez? Wanting him on our “side”? Or is it that there is a tendency to want to believe that everyone around a suspected pedophile and obvious manipulator was shady, duplicitous, or evil?

          • Kat

            This is curious, Pea. I remember you writing that Tom Mesereau doesn’t want to admit that he was wrong about Jackson because he’s too arrogant to acknowledge the egg on his face. It seemed to imply that Mesereau knows very well that his client was guilty, but doesn’t want to admit his mistake in defending him? It seemed like you thought Mesereau knows Jackson did it? Or am I wrong? πŸ™‚ Those comments are still on the ‘Tom Mesereau Educated and Analyzed’ entry.

            Evan Chandler’s and Janet Arvizo’s questionable actions can certainly be used to create reasonable doubt, and that was also the defense’s strategy. But these actions don’t explain the sleepovers, or the locks on MJs bedroom, or the child erotica found in his home, or eyewitnesses, or million dollar payouts to keep families silent. Tom is no fool, so if knows all that, he must realize, intellectually at least, that Jackson behaved like a child molester. Well, he could be deeply in denial and having cognitive dissonance, like many fans do.

            But Mesereau is also a cocky, amoral ass, as we all know. There’s a reason why no one can stand him. Well, the realists can’t stand him, it’s a different story with dumb MJ floons who still want to believe their god was innocent. I’ve heard Mesereau speak about people accused of child sexual abuse in general. He doesn’t care about justice! He only cares about making it harder to put them in prison. He said that, in each child molestation case there should be physical evidence and credible eye witnesses. And in 90% of cases no such things exist. I suspect Tom knows this, he just wants to make it harder to convict people, because he’s a defense attorney and it’s what they do. I wouldn’t put it past him to defend a person whom he knows molested kids just to continue saving his own reputation.

          • Pea

            “Well, he could be deeply in denial and having cognitive dissonance, like many fans do.”

            That’s how I’ve always seen Mez. My comments in that other thread are consistent with those in this one. Mesereau is a “true believer” who felt massive cognitive dissonance when Wade Robson turncoated (and then when James Safechuck emerged with allegations a year later). Like many people whose beliefs are challenged, Mez’s brain went into red alert trying to protect his ego from injury. He loves Jacko and enjoys supporting him — but he had to find a way to maintain his true belief in Jacko’s innocence in the face of changing information.

            Hence claims that Wade could be being paid by the Estate or the stock, “They want money.” After all, that’s how he’d rationalized every other accuser.

            That is why I said he was “too damned arrogant” to admit he is likely wrong about Jacko. He’s no different from Jacko’s fans. I don’t believe I implied he was a shyster, only that his Jack o’ Lantern head was too big to face the truth.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Kat, yes, I really think T-Mez thinks MJ is completely innocent! I really do.

            He defends MJ even in the face of fan nonsense! For instance, remember that book by Randall Sullivan called “Untouchable”? Well fans skewered that book — even though the author concluded that MJ was NOT a pedo — just because he had the “nerve” to write that MJ died an asexual virgin (LMAO). The fangirls were pissed off, some said it was racist to “denigrate” a black man’s sexuality (Huh?), etc. So off the fans went to torpedo his book. And Tom was livid, LOL! He was basically like what the hell is wrong with you people, a book by a legitimate author writing that MJ was innocent is far more important than whether MJ was gay, straight or an asexual virgin. He said that MJ told him he was hetero and he believed him, but it wouldn’t matter anyway to him. Of course, Mesereau was a significant source in the book so he’d feel upset that the fans would stymie his efforts to “vindicate” MJ as well.

            But he was also familiar with all the details of MJs interactions with male children. He knows about the sleepovers, and the payments, and Chandler’s accurate description of Michael’s genitalia. He knows that Michael had no real relationships with women.

            I don’t know; is he familiar with all the evidence? I’m not so sure about that. Yes, he knows about the special friends but only the way it was framed by MJ and the ones that hadn’t said anything. It was portrayed as innocent, and even when it wasn’t (e.g. the way it was portrayed in MJWML, which Mesereau read and said was a “horrible” book), he just can choose to ignore it as lies. Wade, Brett and Macauley all said he didn’t do anything at the sleepovers and Mesereau had no stronger evidence to refute it, especially since he didn’t believe the likes of the Neverland 5, Mark Quindoy, the Lemarques. There’s the plausible deniability thing that Pea mentioned.

            Also the genitalia description, he doesn’t “know” it was accurate. According to the court documents, the defense classified Sneddon’s declaration and examination as “ex parte”, meaning that it was only seen by one side; the photos and description were never made an official part of the case in chief so they were never handed over to the defense during discovery; Mesereau and the rest of the defense team never seen anything. Of course, as we all know, it wasn’t like Mesereau was going to subpoena them if he didn’t have to, and I believe MJ had a copy of at least the photographs as well. And then there is the fact hat Mesereau can rely on that no charges were filed even after the photos were taken, which could allow him to believe — like all other fans — that there must have been a mismatch.

            Then we have the settlement, which anyone would see as good evidence that the description matched well enough that MJ would pay millions only a month after the body search. But again, Mesereau never seen the actual documents; he only saw what was leaked to the media and the payment schedule was completely redacted. The prosecution rightly pointed out that the documents could be obtained from MJ himself instead of Larry Feldman, but MJ never volunteered. Actually, there was a protective order that stipulated that no parties can have the confidential settlement as an “exhibit” in any legal proceeding. He’s never seen the amount that was paid or by whom or how it was paid. There’s the plausible deniability again.

            I also think it’s important to remember that because of all these “gaps” in knowledge, Mesereau seems to primarily base his belief in MJ on the Arvizo case/evidence. And since, objectively speaking, the case has enough reasonable doubt, it’s easy for him to be a true believer. Tom seems to me to be quite ignorant of the past allegations, no thanks to MJ’s likely reticence for divulging information.

            [H]e never brought anything new to the defense side’s argument. All that he can say is that the accusations were financially motivated, that MJ was a target his whole life, and that he paid the Chandlers because he had to continue with his career. It’s nothing we haven’t heard before, right? Somehow I think if he really thought Michael was completely innocent he could have brought something new and insightful to the table.

            Perhaps he never brought what we would consider “new arguments” because the extortion/money angle is the only argument that could make sense. He was a big celebrity with a huge net worth and in Hollyweird, all problems are solved financially. What other reason could be given if a seemingly wholesome, family friendly pop superstar was accused of child molestation? If we argue from the standpoint of MJ’s innocence, financial motive would be the chief motive, especially since the Chandlers took a settlement instead of proceeding with criminal charges.

            Of course, realistically speaking, logic would dictate that if a wholesome, family friendly pop superstar was accused of molestation, when upon examination we find out that said superstar had sleepovers with young fanboys and had no girlfriends, it is more likely that the superstar was guilty instead of being extorted.

          • Kat

            Well! You sure make Mesereau sound like a lousy lawyer, one who barely knows anything about the allegations against their client. πŸ™‚

            I’m surprised that Mesereau didn’t see the photos of MJs private areas and the description given by Jordie, I was sure he must have?… That was my understanding when I read the legal correspondence. Sneddon wanted to bring them to the trial, and swore under the penalty of perjury that they matched. The judge agreed that they matched, while Mesereau brought forward some ridiculous statement that pictures without the description made it hearsay. It sounded like he knew they matched too, but wanted to find a gap, because he’s a defense lawyer, and it’s what they do.

            And then, if we further examine the pieces of evidence that Jackson’s defense team managed to keep away from the courtroom, then it becomes clear that some of them were very damaging indeed. The amounts of money paid to Chandlers and Francia family were forbidden to discuss. The lawyers must have known what impact it would made if the jurors would know it had been millions of dollars, because no one who’s innocent pays that kind of money. And there’s no way Meserau didn’t know Jackson cashed out millions to Chandlers. People who are only vaguely aware of the 1993 case know that MJ gave an outrageous sum of money to make the allegations go away. As his lawyer, Mesereau must have known how much it was. Then, the books written by Victor Gutierrez and Ray Chandler. They were labeled as tabloid trash by the defense, but as we know these books are highly accurate and show that the possibility of MJ being guilty is much stronger than that of him being innocent. Why would the defense be wary of them being mentioned in court? Also, the male sperm or ‘male DNA’ the awkward euphemism that was used. Is there an innocuous way to explain male semen found on a bed in which an adult male had sleepovers with pre-teen boys? Behind doors with locks on them and a motion detector? Certainly, there is not. The defense might have claimed that it wasn’t relevant, because they weren’t from Star or Gavin, but we know it was very relevant indeed, because it showed that these sleepovers weren’t some harmless fun slumber parties.

            When I consider all this it makes me think that MJs lawyers knew he was or could have been guilty. They were just doing their job, deflecting the attention away from his actions and focusing on Janet Arvizo and how shady she was.

            Of course, there’s also the possibility of blindly believing that Jackson didn’t do it or wasn’t capable to. And I guess for a criminal defense lawyer, they find meaning in thinking that their clients are wrongly accused and don’t deserve a prison sentence. But then again, Anthony Pellicano did make scandalous statements (he did far worse things to young boys than molest them) about Jackson when no longer working for him. So sometimes I do think that these lawyers only do the defending because they’re being paid, they don’t necessarily have to be true believers in a person’s innocence.

          • Andreas

            That is some good points, Kat. I didn’t expect my comment on Tom Mesereau to become a topic! Umm, right, for the most part I too used to think he truly believed fully in MJs innocence, but perhaps maybe was a bit ‘stomached’ when Wade Robson came out with his allegations..

            My impression has gradually changed though. I was listening to some podcasts with him, in particular the MJCast’s podcast with him, for the 10 year anniversary of Michaels acquittal. (Its on youtube if anyone is interested.) They had Tom Mesereau for 2 hours talking about the case, talking about his career in general, and various other things, quite in depth. For the first time I felt he wasn’t necessarily defending someone he actually thought was innocent, but more that he defended someone who he liked, both as a person and an artist, and wanted to protect the legacy of. (That he was paid in mountains of gold to defend Jackson, and was able to spend a mountain of gold investigating for the case(as Zonen says, the defense had outspent the prosecution by multiples!), and he’s famous for the case, could also be a factor.)

            I had to re-listen to the whole podcast again, because its so subtle that its quite possible someone else wouldn’t hear the same as me, but somehow I feel there are some strange ‘glitches’ in the way he talks about the case sometimes. Like when he told Jackson to move away from Neverland, and go into hiding.. what was his reasoning? He claimed the prosecution was so “humiliated”, wouldn’t stop and would do anything to find another boy to go after him, oh no, they were “relentless”. Very odd, and it sounds like he’s not even believing what he’s saying. More like “Hey, Michael I got you out of there alive, now, you run and hide! Don’t look back!” Its very strange behavior if he really believe Jackson was innocent, and is as confident in it as he likes to portay himself as.

            He also said that after the case was over, and won, later that day he spent it with Michael and the family. How was the air around the house within the family according to him? Well, there was no sense of celebration or joy(like the masses of fans who really belived in his innocence certainly felt, and thus partied for nights straight), but rather a “solemn” atmosphere with a lot of silence. Like a relief, and more like they successfully got away from something, rather than some joyful exonorating ‘oh did WE prove the world Michael was innocent.’ The family obviously knows Jackson probably a child molester, and probably is guilty of all of these charges, even if they always have to act like they don’t. Is it such a weird thing to think that Tom Mesereau could be in the same boat?

            Michael Jackson himself was sitting there like a vegetable watching The Three Stooges, until someone had to feed him something so he wouldn’t fall over and die of starvation. He had barely ate or slept for days. He was instead on constant medication.

            About the Chandler case, the prosecution actually wanted to introduce the pictures of Jacksons genitalia in court, and tried to get in witnesses who would talk about how Jordy described them back in 93′, but guess who aggressively stopped them? Sir Mesereau, of course. He started arguing that it was too late in the case to introduce new elements, and nonsense like that. He succeeded in stopping it, and after the case also did his best to get the police to hand over the pictures to Jackson, so they could be destroyed forever. Obviously because he feared they could come back later and bite Michael. Which says a lot about his feelings about them.

            On the podcast he also seemed to agree with the possibility if there could be a connection between Tom Sneddon, the media and other parties to bring down Jackson with molestations claims, which to me sounds absurd. He does not deny the conspiracy idea about Jackson. I don’t believe he really thinks that. Tom Mesereau might not be the most honest person in the world, but he’s not stupid.

            As I said earlier he was also worrying about a hung jury, and had to change to a more aggressive strategy and go for full acquittal, because he admitted he was worrying. When Louise Palanker described her experience as a witness, and Zonen gave his opinion on how Mesereau cross-examined her, it sort of paints a picture of Mesereau as someone who isn’t always honest, and not completly fair as a cross-examinator. He tries to guide his witnesses into traps, and does his best to make them only say yes or no, or put them in situations where he wants them to admit they can’t answer this or that, and quickly moves ahead to next question, and builds large conclusions based on their little ability to answer. He also interestingly says he cut the case shorter that it was planned, because he felt he was on top at that moment. All he needed was for there to be reasonable doubt. Nothing more. It obviously worked.

            About his true beliefs: As a defense lawyer I think you’re of trained to believe your client. Even if you don’t believe your client, you have to role-play like you do, because its simply your job. You’re hired to protect your clients interests, so you choose to believe him/her. If you picture someone who is extremely professional at this role, then you’d have someone like Tom Mesereau, I think. Someone who can seem earnest, and argue like he is. when he might not in reality be.

            I also agree with Kat’s points here. When there’s so many witnesses and testimony and stuff against Jackson, its unlikely you can to be so certain as Tom Mesereau is. It does not make sense. Its too much.

            Why does he still sound like he believes it? Its because its his style and trademark to act certain and confident. He knows as an experienced lawyer that simply acting certain about your case can go a long way. When I got into the MJ case Mesereau’s certainty kind of made me shake too, it confused me in a sense, but when I reflected on it I can’t remember him ever saying anything in specific that’s a really good argument for Michaels innocence. Neither for the Arvizos or any of his other victims. Its just the way he says things which such steel certainty that makes you subconsciously wonder if he knows something you perhaps don’t. At least thats how I experienced it.

            Here’s a classic quote by Tom Mesereau, and a good example. “Michael couldn’t even DREAM of doing these horrible things he was charged for, let alone actually DO it.”

            Very cleverly constructed sentence. Is really he saying anything of substance here at all? Nope. Does it still sound convincing? Yes/Perhaps. Why? Because the certainty level is so way over the top.

            Now, lets compare him to another lawyer of Jackson, Howard Weitzman, the man responsible for MJ not trying to take the Chandlers to trial, and doing the 20 million dollar settlement.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2_ROMwK60Q

            Notice how Weitzmen says “I choose to believe” in Michaels innocence. Even Lunajo who posted it, a huge MJ fan, react to his way of saying this. Weitzman’s slightly more honest than Mesereau. in my opinion, but I think they do a similiar thing mentally; they just ‘choose’ to believe in Michaels innocence. Ao yes, its faith, in a sense. Its what good old’ Soren Kierkegaard talked about, with his “leap of faith”-theory. Simply put, you don’t believe in it because there’s evidence for it, perhaps there’s even evidence against it, but you still believe it because you want to, and you choose to.

          • Pea

            “Simply put, you don’t believe in it because there’s evidence for it, perhaps there’s even evidence against it, but you still believe it because you want to, and you choose to.”

            You don’t think that goes for Ron Zonen, too?

          • ShawntayUStay

            I think “knowing he’s guilty” is more applicable to Howard Weitzman because he was involved in the 1993 case, involved in negotiating the settlement with Larry Feldman. He knows the evidence involving Jordie that was kept under lock and key still to this day. His “I choose to believe” statement would therefore be consistent.

            For the first time I felt he wasn’t necessarily defending someone he actually thought was innocent, but more that he defended someone who he liked, both as a person and an artist, and wanted to protect the legacy of.

            I’ve seen Mesereau say that he believed the 2005 trial was as serious (if not more) as a death penalty case, the ones he does for indigent blacks in deep South. Maybe he saw it as racial, too? Who knows, but that is what he felt. He also has said multiple times that child molestation is the most horrible crime someone could be accused of. He seemed genuinely disgusted by the crime, as any would be. So I’m left scratching my head at the assertion he’d “like MJ as a person and artist” even though he’s a prolific pedophile child molester. So even though Mesereau says that child molestation is a heinous crime to be accused of, he “knows” MJ is guilty and still likes him as a person and artist? I don’t think that’s likely. As I said to Kat, if you listen to Mesereau’s talks, his strongly held belief in MJ is almost completely based on his intimate involvement in the Arvizo case. And if we’re honest — regardless of personal opinions — that case had tons of reasonable doubt and plausible deniability that anyone could safely rest their belief in MJ’s innocence on the 2005 acquittal. Even with the settlement in 1994, people can still argue “Why would a parent seek money instead of jail time for the child molester?” and people do argue that.

            Most of MJ’s diehard fans have only seen him in concert, on TV, listened to his music; they’ve never met him. They have looked into the child molestation cases and still believe he was completely 100% innocent. Why? Because they love MJ and believe in his goodness, first and foremost, and more importantly there is enough real “bullshittery” surrounding Sneddon, Diane Dimond, Victor Gutierrez, most, if not all, of the Neverland employees, Evan Chandler, Ray Chandler, Jason and Blanca Francia, and the Arvizos, etc etc, so that they can maintain the idea of MJ = innocent angel maligned by corrupt, thirsty, individuals who lack integrity. As crazy as it sounds, but it’s completely true, especially if someone has the desire to believe it (just like we have the desire to prove that MJ wasn’t an angel which is why many critics sometimes blindly believe in people like Stacy Brown or Diane Dimond, even though both are clearly unethical). So why not Mesereau? He’s met the man who he claims was always pleasant and humble and loved his children; he’s met his mother and went to the private Forrest Lawn funeral reception. He has all the characteristics of fandom plus intimate proximity. Mesereau likes MJ a lot, it’s obvious. His reactions to Safechuck and Robson are the exact same as any fanatic.

            And I don’t think it’s all that strange that Mesereau would want MJ to go into hiding after the verdict. What’s so strange about it and how does that indicate Mesereau knows he’s guilty?? He could have easily wanted MJ to recover in silence and peace. Mesereau said that when the verdict was read, he took MJ’s hand; he was calming him. Susan Yu, always steely throughout the trial, cried. She clearly believes in his innocence as well. He knew MJ was stressed thoughout the trial, that he was petrified — he’s said MJ was — so telling MJ to go somewhere where the media wouldn’t find him so he could recover is not weird at all. It’s damned good advice! And MJ did just that; he went to Bahrain, he was in Ireland for a time. He then came back to the States in 2006 or 2007.

          • Pea

            Speaking of “bullshittery” around celebrities and their scandals, Shawntay, Mesereau was on TV within the last couple of days following the arrest of Bill Cosby, and he made comparisons between the Arvizo case and the current Cosby maelstrom that I am sure you’d find interesting:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbBiQ-GmNQw

            (That was uploaded to YouTube by King Jordan, who loves All Things Mez.)

            By his comments in the video, it is clear he is a “true believer” in Jacko’s innocence, and his experience with that particular celebrity has colored his entire worldview. He saw the Arvizos speak glowingly about Jacko in the rebuttal tape and learned they had a prior history acquiring money and materials from celebrities; he saw the media feeding frenzy and “rush to judgment”; he learned of employees selling stories to tabloids. And all of what he learned, for better or worse, still led to an acquittal on, as he has memorized, “all 14 charges — 10 felonies and 4 misdemeanors.”

            In another interview, he stated that when he defended Mike Tyson on a rape allegation, the defense team prepared an investigatory report and handed it over to the DAs, who subsequently refused to file charges against Tyson.

            From Tom Mesereau’s perspective, all he’s really seen are two cases of celebrities getting actually or arguably “falsely accused” by people who actually or arguably wanted money — it is no wonder he absolutely believes in Michael’s innocence. And it is from his belief in Jacko’s innocence that makes him believe celebs are routinely targeted by grifters (I think in one speech he suggested Jacko had been the subject of ~1000 lawsuits).

            As far as his opinions on Bill Cosby are concerned, he did have a salient point: where the potential for money and the presence of the media exist, it makes the motives of accusers questionable. This is the grey area in which Tom resides and from which he explains everything. Outside of Gavin Arvizo, who I still have yet to figure out, I don’t believe lying for money comes to play with Jacko’s accusers; but it was a motive for some of Jacko’s employees. The same likely goes for some of Cosby’s accusers; I have no doubt some of them are lying. Cosby has filed a defamation suit against some of them….

          • ShawntayUStay

            Tom Mesereau is clearly a true believer! I think Mesereau is one of those people that cannot wrap their heads around “schizo” behavior in a seemingly wholesome individual like Bill Cosby and MJ; he does not believe a person can be so twistedly “evil” inside while actually and actively participating in societal good so it must be false. It certainly is a bit of a mindfuck. But Mesereau might be one of those lawyers that only likes to represent clients that he believes are innocent. He seemed to hate working on the Robert Blake case. And Mesereau has been lucky to work with individuals that have “plausible deniability” on their side, so one can’t really blame him for transmitting that perspective when he’s interviewed. So many of the players in the 2005 case were shady; Tom Mesereau swatted them down like fat lazy flies, it was so easy.

            I think Mesereau does have a good point about media hype around cases like this. One could argue that Bill Cosby’s accusers finally had the courage to speak out because the media was creating a “safe space” for them by so quickly declaring Cosby guilty. But on the flip side, the unintended consequence of all of that permissiveness is that charlatans can take advantage of the situation for their own gain. I personally have no doubt that Cosby has committed the general crimes he’s accused of — drugging and having sex with unconscious women — but I do think that some of these stories may be false, especially when the media and media-hungry lawyers like Gloria Allred are not even trying to vet out the truth of claims before the cameras are turned on. It’s sad because it makes the real victims look incredible as well if the frauds are later exposed.

            Just imagine if Cosby is acquitted — will that mean he was innocent or will it just be another case of “celebrity justice”? Did Cosby just “party” with these women if he is acquitted, or was there not enough evidence to prove guilt even if he was guilty? It will be hard to tell because of all the rush to judgment and I can’t help but wonder about the further damage to the credibility of the system. I felt sad seeing Cosby’s mugshot…such a waste, such a tarnished legacy. I can understand why Mesereau doesn’t want to think the folks that look good on the outside are really devils on the inside.

          • Andreas

            I’m surprised that you have such an opposite view of Mesereau. I very much disagree. Watching that clip I actually feel he’s even more dishonest than ever, and I more than ever think he’s full of BS, and that he perfectly knows it. If he really believes Cosby is innocent of these charges I’m kind of stunned. He’s not that dumb. He also has claimed Jerry Sandusky could have been innocent, and he compared the Jackson trial to that the Sandusky trial too.

            I’m more and more leaning on him to have some kind of authoritarian and Machiavellian view of defending people in power, or people with status, that are at the risk of losing it. Its possible he somehow chooses to believe they are innocent, maybe, but I think he just as much also could believe in their ‘god given’ right to do what the heck they want, because of who they are, and what status they have. Mesereau strikes me to be the exactly that type of person.

            Have you ever studied the cases in Iraq with Saddam Husseins sons? They just met up at people’s weddings and raped the brides, and did whatever carnage they wanted. Why? They believed in their rights to do so. They were in power, so of course they could do whatever they wanted, and what better way to demonstrate just that than to humiliate people on their wedding days. More disturbing was that there were state intellectuals that protected their rights to do so. History is full of public intellectuals who just protects people in power, its just a flaw in people. The idea is that people with great status has a right to express their sexuality and lust, more than the common man, so its supposedly different rules. Its socialdarwinistic and just cruel, but with some mental gymnastics its somehow justified.

            I’m beginning to categorize Tom Mesereau as someone like that, only adjusted (slightly) for western contexts. I mean, I used to respect him a little, and I’ve always wanted to believe he at least thought he was doing the right thing, so I’m actually disappointed. Now I really can’t fathom why anyone would believe a word he says anymore. He just a transparant and dishonest liar.

            It also sounds like he might become a defender of Bill Cosby in a potential upcoming trial, from the sound of it. Well, that could become interesting. I hope he do so and reveals himself even more.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Saddam’s sons did that? How horrible! And the public intellectuals defending them probably did it out of fear since, clearly, those guys were completely nuts. I doubt they just agreed with raping brides. Reminds me of those Roman emperors, Nero and Caligula, who were probably some of the most morally bankrupt individuals that ever lived. Anyone who sanctioned or lauded their activity were practicing CYA so they wouldn’t get executed.

            I don’t think Mesereau is evil, at all. He wouldn’t defend the like of Hussein unless he was forced; he did after all say that child molestation was the worst thing to be accused of. He’s a defense attorney that truly believes in the right to an adequate defense. What I’m starting to think from watching him is that he starts on the premise of “I don’t know” but is a strong believer in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Then, when he senses the slightest whiff of media, he gets suspicious of the motivations of the plaintiffs/accusers. And finally, when he finds any sort of evidence that may “tarnish” the credibility of the accuser, he’s like “Screw that, this guy is innocent!” I think he’s very much put off by the media feeding frenzies that surround notables.

            I closely followed the Kobe Bryant rape case back in 2004 and at first people just assumed that he had to have done it, and the typical slanderous (IMO) rush to judgment attacks ensued, even fans of the opposing basketball teams the Lakers played held up signs like “No means no” which is very disgusting. But Kobe Bryant wasn’t like MJ and he fought the charges. And as the evidence came out, the media started to reign in the rush to judgment mentality because the accuser was clearly making it up and had a history of targeting celebrity men, for example she wanted to go and try to hook up with rapper Eminem. She had multiple flavors of semen in her underwear and another man’s public hairs. Reasonable doubt! Why would a raped woman have sex after the attack? Makes no sense. She refused to testify and the prosecutor dismissed the case with prejudice so it could never be filed again. Seems that she was trying to get money and she did get a settlement for six figures just to shut up after the fact. He was innocent, based on the evidence.

            So I can understand why Mesereau would be suspicious and always play Devil’s advocate with the celebrity scandals. It’s Hollyweird after all. People will do, and have done, anything for money.

            I agree that his defense of Sandusky was…eyebrow raising, LOL. Although from memory he seemed to be more focused on the allegations of “turning a blind eye” attributed to the late Joe Paterno rather than on Sandusky, because he was a huge Paterno starting when he was a boy. But he does have this thing about being suspicious of folks that wait forever to come forward, and seemingly coinciding their silence-breaking with media cameras or civil court cases. It’s a legit gripe but he should learn to not be so knee jerk in his application of it.

            But from my position on the outside looking in, what is the difference between Mesereau defending MJ and Zonen defending Gavin? Two sides of the same coin. :-/

          • Andreas

            But from my position on the outside looking in, what is the difference between Mesereau defending MJ and Zonen defending Gavin? Two sides of the same coin. :-/

            To say it diplomatic: I personally think its as safe to say Gavin was molested as Jordy(or James, Wade, etc), and I have no doubt Gavin was molested. That is my position. So its difficult for me to understand you (or Pea) what you even mean with comparing Zonen to Mesereau. I suppose if I was more on the fence about the case, like you two are, but I’m just not. Call me arrogant if you want πŸ™‚

            Its not only fear that makes public intellectuals defend currupt power, although it arguably can play a part too, its the respect and blind loyalty to power in itself. Those in power makes the rules, and some people think thats how its supposed to be, even if those rules are very unfair. Its about blindly trusting authority. So when the authority is questioned they simply defend it as a knee reaction. In a western world people like Cosby, Sandusky and Jackson are powerhouses because we put celebrities on a pedestal, they are cherised like idols, and certain people will just defend them even if they understand they might not be innocent, because their heads just work like that.

            Plus, I simply don’t trust Tom Mesereau. To me he’s a guy that hides his real opinions behind a thick layer of well-trained lawyer rethoric. So I kind of stopped taking most things he says literal by now. Its difficult to know what he really hides behind his pokerface, but at least I know he’s not playing with open cards. Another way of saying it is that I see an actor.

            Zonen or Sneddon or Auchincloss strikes me as different types of people. Both to Mesereau, and to each other. They might have their ‘flaws’ too, but I’m not going to trash talk them just to seem unbiased.

          • ShawntayUStay

            When I say two sides of the same coin, I mean that you have two intelligent men who strongly believe in the clients that they represented, even after case was over and since I wasn’t there, all I see is two guys with hard held opinions. But as you say, I’m still on the fence because I’ve only just started looking more deeply; perhaps I’ll be on your side in the end, or I should say, I’ll think still think Tom Mesereau is a delusional MJ fan, :-p

            I wouldn’t say arrogant…maybe a little curt sometimes, LOL, but that’s to be expected when one has made up their mind and is talking to the undecided!

            I guess I’m a little less gung ho about always siding with the prosecution because I’ve watched enough documentaries about power hungry, dog-with-a-bone DAs that cannot admit they made a mistake and in turn fight relentlessly to keep innocent folks in prison. It’s all about ego with these men (usually) so I don’t like to rush to judgment. Must always remember that district attorneys in the USA are elected, they’re politicians. Closing cases that become emotionally charged in the public (for example, rape cases in the American south where the white female alleged victim claims she was attacked by a black or Hispanic male), the pressure to find who did it can put innocent men in jail.

            Not that that is the norm but it happens more than it should! Sneddon had admittedly done some less than savory things because of his, I think, sincere belief in MJ’s guilt. He’s not called “mad dog” for no reason, LOL. So I’m not just going to believe Zonen, for example, just because I think MJ was a pedo. I need to look into it. So that’s why I put little into Mesereau or Zonen’s words.

            You’re right about people blindly believing in authority (or outwardly appearing “good people”), but that applies to everybody, don’t you think? That’s the reason people trust someone with a string of letters behind their name (M.D., Ph.D., Esq, etc) to sell them something or to dispense advice over some random Schmo on the street. Cosby was very outwardly good, so was MJ, so was Sandusky, it’s not unfathomable that people don’t want to believe the accusations are true, at least initially, so I can’t fault Mez for that. It’s the same reason you trust Zonen, Auchincloss, and Sneddon more as well: you believe then to be upstanding intelligent men that have carefully arrived at their opinions. How do you know, really, that Mesereau hasn’t done the same?

          • Andreas

            We seem to have very different positions on all things Meserau and all things Arvizos, so I’m just not sure how find common ground here. It might be too difficult.

            But I do agree with you that one shouldn’t always believe prosecutors, as a rule, obviously, and of course police brutality and abuse of power has been, and still is, very common. The black communities in America has been especially unfairly targeted, as you mention.

            How this relates to the Jackson case I still think misses some links, though. Mark Gregaros, before he was replaced by Tom Mesereau allegedly planned to make the Jackson case more about race, and put the Jacksons accusations in a context of a history of poltical racism in America. I think Nation Of Islam was supposed to appear to back this up, and even Jesse Jackson was meant to make Martin Luther-ish speeches to defend Jackson.

            I suppose the idea was to make a case where Jacksons accusations have been constructed to tarnish a successful black mans reputation. The lonely few left still defending Bill Cosby seems to think the same. He’s supposedly a poor victim to some kind of overarching racist conspiracy bringing a famous black person down, they claim. (Nevermind if Cosby’s career is a little bit beyond its peak by now?)

            Its sounds a bit more like a circus making race the big topic of the Jackson trial. I have no idea how that would have been played out. When Tom Meserau replaced Gregaros he threw all that stuff out though.. so we’ll never know. πŸ™‚

            I’ve spoken to a lot of fans/defenders of Jackson the last year. Some of them quite ardently claim DA Tom Sneddon was a racist, and with some “personal agenda” against Jackson, and claims he even used the N-word on Jackson several times… but when I’ve asked for sources they never been able to back that up. I personally don’t feel race had very much to do with this exact case.

            Perhaps Sneddons somewhat brute methods can be debated, as he might have reached Jacksons victims better with a softer approach, but in genereal I get the impression he went after Jackson because he really genuinely thought Jackson was guilty. From reading ATG and MJWML theres signs of more secret phonecalls to the police than just the Chandlers. (That mother with her son from Switzerland, and so on.)

            Sneddon has been villified to the absurd by the pro-Jackson community. Zonen has slipped under the smear-radar more easily though. I think some of the reason for that is that Tom Mesereau(who has always has been a fan darling) publically confirmed that the rumors that Sneddon truly had an suspiciouus agenda, and was out to get Jackson, feeding into those rumors. Interestingly though Mesereau always compliments Zonen in high regards, saying he’s the best prosecutor he has ever seen, and so on. So as an effect, Zonen is rarely trash talked the same way by the fan community, even if Zonen was just as present and hardworking in 93 and 03-05 as Sneddon was. I suppose this shows how much trust the fan community really puts in Mesereau. They let him tell them what to think.

            As for comparing Zonen and Mesereau, wow, I don’t know. I just feel Mesereau is very dishonest and seem to cater to sketchy powerfigures. Thats what I see in him. He’s just that kind of lawyer. Him defending Cosby and Sandusky certainly does not help correcting that image.. as those cases are a lot more obvious than Jackson’s. Um, I don’t get the same vibes with Zonen, I suppose? If thats biased its probably because I believe Gavin too, yes.

            I’m confused how anyone believes a single word from Mesereau after him defending Bill Cosby and Sandusky though. The MJ fan community must feel embarrassed too.
            Whos’s next for Tom? Jimmy Savile? Cosby’s 50 accusers wasn’t enough to still sound like the same old certain douche.. What about staggering 450, Tom? Seriously, fuck Tom Mesereau. πŸ™‚

          • Pea

            To be honest, mentioning Uday and Qusay Hussein (yes, I remember the talk of their “rape rooms” during the G.W. Bush years) in connection to Tom Mesereau is a bit extreme. You don’t have any evidence Mez would defend anyone like either of those men, and I’d think you’d also agree Michael Jackson wasn’t like them. Jacko wasn’t aggressive in any capacity and “plausible deniability” allows a suggestible person (i.e. someone who wants to believe Jacko is good) to believe he was an innocent man-child, in spite of the the suspicion raised by the one-on-one sleepovers and the succession of boy-only ‘special friends’.

            As I suggested in my comment linking the video (sorry, I don’t mean to repeat myself), Mez seems highly suspicious of people accusing celebrities because of the specter of money and attention surrounding well-off people. Which is totally reasonable. He’s had two cases — Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson — that were resolved in the defendants favor; he feels he beat the odds with Jacko because he was already tried and convicted in the media. I don’t blame him for being skeptical given what he believes he went through with the Jacko case; I also don’t believe his skepticism indicates either an impossible naivete or being dishonest or deceptive.

            But I did think of a possible instance of duplicity. Team Jacko stated in a court document that Jacko was getting injections for vitiligo instead of admitting that the blood on some of his underwear were needlemarks from syringes of Demerol. One could argue that they were just told that by Jacko and, believing him and feeling he’d be more abreast of the subject than they, they repeated what he said in the document. However, the lab report stated Demerol was in the blood so they were likely just lying in that document.

            So, that could be something. I also don’t believe Mez really had reliable witnesses “lined up”, as he’d claimed, to refute Jordie Chandler. The only one was Josephine Zohny, and she was hardly “reliable”.

            Make of those as you will, but I wouldn’t say Tom Mesereau was a knowingly protecting a child molester or that he enjoys protecting rich people’s ability to express criminal peccadilloes. I, personally, would need more evidence to make such an accusation….

            “It also sounds like he might become a defender of Bill Cosby in a potential upcoming trial, from the sound of it.”

            Mesereau errs in failing to consider basic probability: the more alleged victims, the more likely the general allegation is true. At this point, Bill Cosby has, according to a news report I’d seen, 57 accusers — that’s less than a 1% chance of being innocent! He also admitted, I believe, to keeping Quaaludes for sexual purposes (not dissimilar to Jacko saying he did sleep in bed with kids). And like Jacko, I also accept that when seemingly “good” people are accused of something overwhelmingly bad it is likely based in truth because the logic is “good people don’t get accused of terrible things therefore this person’s goodness must’ve been a facade”, no matter how counter-intuitive or circular.

            Conversely, however, probability also suggests to me that it is likely some of Cosby’s accusers are lying (as I’ve said before), perhaps turning consensual kinky sex with a celebrity into “rape” because the media’s rabidly Anti-Cosby narrative makes it easy to capitalize on any story of intimacy with him.

            At any rate, while I didn’t feel Mez came off too bad in the video I’d linked, he comes off better and in line with what I explained as his genuine skepticism:

            http://www.msnbc.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/watch/michael-jackson-ex-attorney-examines-cosby-case-594836547928

          • Andreas

            Yes, I quite understand that comparing Iraqi public intellectuals that defended Husseins sons rights to rape to Tom Mesereau could seem a bit extreme. It sort of is. Its not exactly what I was trying to say, but I suppose its close enough.

            My point was and is that apologists for power abuse is a very real thing, even if it would seem unbelievable. I’ll give you another example. Lets take India. Rape epidemics has been and still is a major and quite horrifying problem over there, and rape of women is reported every 30 minute at average (other statistics says every 15 minute). So, an indian minister, Mr. Narendra Modi, was urged to comment on this national problem.

            His comment wasn’t very comforting for people hoping the issue would be taken more seriously. He said: “This is a social crime which depends on men and women. Sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong.”

            http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/indian-minister-rape-sometimes-wrong-sometimes-right-n123576

            Yep, he’s talking about rape. So, sometimes rape can be right. Sometimes wrong, but sometimes right. Depends on the situation, perhaps? Good to know! Now, this isn’t some depraved nobody in India saying this, its a conservative Indian minister and politician, and this was not a long time ago either, it was in 2014..

            You might have to think this more through if you don’t believe that there will always be a lot of people that will defend priviliged high status men to do what they want, and to be protected from scrutiny, which includes their right to express their sexuality to female “nobodies”. Its a typical attitude, and its not just in India.

            Now lets talk about Tom again. What do you really see when you listen to Tom Mesereau, Pea? I wouldn’t know, but think about this. Have you ever heard him actually sympathize with true victims of either rape or molestation? That he understands the lasting effects, trauma it can cause? Have you ever actually ever heard him take side with a case like that, at all, ever? Even once?

            Well. You probably haven’t, and that should tell you something. Instead, Mesereau has this knee-jerk reaction where he insists we should look into “these people’s” background, as they need to be investigated in case there is some dirt to be found on them, and starts to automatically second guess the motives of the women that has come forward against Bill Cosby.

            Mesereau keeps saying there’s a possibility some of these women “wanted” something from Bill Cosby, that they hoped to gain their careers by having him as a contact. Well, okay, lets explore that scenario, and lets say that was the case with some of those women… but does that does prove they weren’t raped? Its so backwards by Tom, I’m kind of stunned. If these women were vulnerable, and insecure in their careers, and Bill Cosby wanted to work with them, and they wanted to work with him, its more likely they were exploitable, which is exactly what many of these woman has expressed. It doesn’t prove they weren’t raped even if they hoped Cosby could advance their careers! And what’s Tom even saying here? That they are coming out decades later because they are bitter Cosby couldn’t advance their career more back then? So silly.

            In Mesereau’s view its just as possible, if not even more so, that they are just saying this now to go on talk shows for attention or have some secret financial motives. His default position seems to be catering to the powerful and rich in these types of cases, to protect their legacy and their power positions, no matter how sketchy and unbelievable it is. Its suspect behavior in my opinion. He keeps saying celebrities are “targets” to things like this, and goes on and on and on about it, like its the most common thing in the world, but unfortunately his only example, and the one he keeps coming back to, like a broken record, is the Michael Jackson case. (A case that obviously won’t sway ME much…)

            And has there ever even been any large cases where women has falsely accused celebrities of rape just to get money or celebrity status? I don’t really know of any. I’m ready to be proven wrong, but I somehow find it doubtful that its all that common. Coming forward about rape(or child molestation) charges is extremely painful and difficult, and towards a high profile beloved celebrity even more so obviously, so where does Tom Mesereau get this stuff from?

            Lets not forget that Tom Mesereau also defended Mike Tyson, and got him acquitted from raping a woman. Its just as suspicious, the way I see it. Lets summarize Mike Tyson’s behavior at the peak of his boxing career. He was not really te most stable person in the world, and another thing that is also pretty safe to say his respect towards women wasn’t exactly the greatest.

            For example: Mike Tyson was once asked a fairly normal question by a female journalist about his boxing match, and he rudely told her this, amongst a crowd of other people, and on camera:
            “Are you talking out of turn? I normally don’t do anything with women unless I fornicate with them first. So you shouldn’t talk anymore. Unless you wanna, you know…” He often refused speaking to female journalists.

            About his rape accusations he slipped up and kind of actually admitted it:
            “I was young and I mean, wanted to have fun, I enjoyed having fun and maybe I took it further than….whatever”

            He was admittedly a sex addict, just like Bill Cosby was. Tyson was also charged with another rape case in the 90s and was found guilty in a court of law, and was put in prison for four years. The jurors reportedly were disturbed at how rude and careless he seemed when he was examined when talking about the allegations.

            This is the type of person Tom Mesereau wants to defend. and not only does he cater to people like that, but he will go to lengths humiliating and cross-examine potential victims with something akin to a disgust, for whatever odd reason.

            I also find Tom Mesereau very dishonest in his methods often, as I’ve mentioned before. If he’s not lying, I’m not sure what it is.. but my money is on lying. For example, he keeps saying in interviews that he and the defense team “effectivly proved” that the Arvizos were after money, like its a fact. PROVED? Well, I know he promised to prove that from the get-go, but I can’t see any sign that he did. He knows it perfectly well, but he says the complete opposite.

            Instead he tried to use the spendings by the Arvizos while being stuck at Neverland against them, as proof they were after Jackson’s money, which of course is absurd. The Arvizos obviously were not chasing Jacksons money, as nothing about that case had to do with money anyway. It was a criminal case, and there is no sign ever that the Arvizos tried to capitalize on it.

            I also find his typical portrayal of the media quite absurd. He keeps claiming they only wanted a conviction on Jackson because it would sell, implying they couldn’t possibly conclude Jackson was guilty for any real reason, or be fair in any strech, no, it was seemingly only about selling. Now, could he actually truly believe this? A lawyer educated at Harvard believes the media is out to get Michael Jackson, just to sell more, even if he was innocent? Its possible he really believes that, but I kind of doubt it. It sounds like his typical rethoric buzz.

            And surprise, he says the same thing about the Cosby case too, implying the media might invent stuff to sell, because Cosby being guilty would be another great money machine. Journalists supposedly would love to write about Bill Cosby being a serial rapist, and they wouldn’t care if its true or not. Sigh. I don’t know. If such nonsensical arguments appeal to anyone else, then fine. I admit he’s quite good at talking, but I just find him very dishonest. (Btw, he was interviewed on TheLipTV today too about the Cosby case. His presence wasn’t any better there, to put it mildy.)

          • Pea

            Andreas, do you think Tom Mesereau is important to the overarching Jacko story? I don’t think he is, which is why I haven’t given him too much attention — outside of this discussion, of course! He had a reactionary role, meaning that he was hired to come on to the case because Jacko needed a good defense. I think your dislike of Mez may be rooted in the mythical status fans have given him as this highly intelligent, selfless crusader for and protector of childlike Jacko. (One fan called him her “Atticus Finch” — the lawyer character from “To Kill A Mockingbird” who saved a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Perhaps Mez himself idolizes Atticus! Who knows.) In my opinion, at least as far as the progression of the story goes, people like Tom Sneddon are more important characters to consider.

            I’m interested, though: why do you seem to care so much about Mez? Why are you so angry about him? And how do you know that you wouldn’t enjoy a beer and conversation with him? How do you know you wouldn’t like him or agree with him on other matters? πŸ™‚

            I agree with you that I haven’t heard him say more than the general statements of support for actual victims of sexual offenses. But that’s par for the course when one’s primary goal is to defend the accused. I don’t know how he’s supposed to be. He’s a defense attorney, not a victim’s rights attorney. I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks at the Innocence Project are just as skeptical of accusers and police!

            Anyway, I don’t want to be forced to defend Mez’s character. I don’t know him personally, and I haven’t seen any evidence to support that he’s anything more than arrogant. I don’t doubt at all that there are people who are silent or stealth collaborators in wealthy people’s criminal sexual vices. I just don’t think Tom Mesereau wants to protect folks seeking to rape women or abuse boys so they may continue to rape women or abuse boys; I don’t believe that. I accept that Mez is mistrustful of accusers. It’s not too strange, especially in his line of work. Admittedly, whenever I hear about a rape case in the news, I always err on the side of the Accused being innocent until more facts emerge, and especially if the Accused is wealthy. It’s not because I have an agenda or because I think celebs should be able to do whatever they want with impunity. No, it’s because I think being accused of a sex crime is the absolute worst charge to be leveled against someone, primarily because even if someone is exonerated there will still be harpyish factions demonizing them whenever an Ad Hominem is needed, and I want to withhold judgment. I don’t ever want to label someone a sex offender without reasonable evidence. Maybe Mez is the same way?

            Now, I just wanted to make a comment about the media. You wrote:

            “I also find his typical portrayal of the media quite absurd. He keeps
            claiming they only wanted a conviction on Jackson because it would sell,
            implying they couldn’t possibly conclude Jackson was guilty for any
            real reason, or be fair in any strech, no, it was seemingly only about
            selling. Now, could he actually truly believe this?”

            Yes, he probably does believe that, and, yes, it is too easy a conclusion to come to for any American citizen. I don’t know how the media is in Norway — I’d wager your country is a much more milder, calmer society in general — but the United States media is cutthroat capitalism at it’s finest (or worst, depending on your perspective). Everything is money-driven in the U.S.; I have no doubt the media would’ve glutted itself on Jailhouse Jacko coverage between verdict through to sentencing to at least a month following his incarceration at Corcoran prison. In fact, I remember them saying Jacko would be roomies with Charles Manson, lol. That’s how it works here. It’s ugly and Mez’s portrayal is sadly not hyperbole.

            Have you ever watched the documentary “Tabloid Truth”? It’s excellent and shows the media hullabaloo surrounding the 1993 scandal. Diane Dimond appears in the film and says quite nonchalantly that
            regardless of whether Jacko is or isn’t guilty, she can’t lose:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASaOPZnmm8

            (You can also check out the movie “Nightcrawler” featuring Jake Gyllenhaal. It also shows the ugly reality of American media.)

            The media is notorious for rushing to judgment. As another example, Rolling Stone magazine humiliated themselves by self-assuredly publishing a piece about alleged rape epidemics on college campuses, using the University of Virginia as a case study, only to have been duped by the woman claiming she was “gang raped”: http://www.cjr.org/investigation/rolling_stone_investigation.php Before the truth was exposed (I knew it was crap the moment it was reported because it didn’t make any sense), the TV talking heads acted as though it were true. The same happened with the Duke Lacrosse case a couple of years ago. The woman lied and the media ate crow.

            (Ironically, the media is extremely quick to kick a subject to the curb when they fail to conform to what generates the most hits or invites the most views. I saw that in real time during the Trayvon Martin case.)

            Whenever the media is involved, a serious story can quickly become salacious or be used as propaganda. It’s prudent to question everything that’s reported. If you lived here, you might be able to sympathize with Mez’s position.

          • Andreas

            Do you think Tom Mesereau is important to the overall Jacko story?

            Ah, well. Yes I do. The way I see it, he’s the sole reason Jackson got off in 2005.

            I think your dislike of Mez may be rooted in the mythical status fans have given him as this highly intelligent, selfless crusader for and protector of childlike Jacko.

            I don’t know if I care that much how fans view him, really, but when I was still making up my mind about what to think about the allegations, I admit Tom Mesereau sounded somewhat convincing, and probably kept me on the fence a little bit longer. He’s a good talker, sounds somewhat convincing, at least if you don’t know anything about him or the case. When I look back at him now as I have a bit more knowledge about the things he’s commenting on, my perception of him has changed. Now I got a strong sense he’s not being honest at all. That he lies. That he does cover up for Michael. So I suppose some of my frustration comes from feeling a bit deceived by him, and that he probably deceives a lot of other people too.

            Why are you so angry about him? And how do you know that you wouldn’t enjoy a beer and conversation with him? How do you know you wouldn’t like him or agree with him on other matters? πŸ™‚

            Hehe, beer with Mesereau? Now, thats an interesting idea. I doubt I would hit it with someone like Mesereau… bit I don’t hate him, just to seem a tad more balanced, and I actually do agree with him on some things. Like, I’m also against the death penalty, as he is, and I also believe everybody deserves a fair trial. Bill Cosby included. (Even if I think the idea that “truth” only can be served in court is quite naive, but thats another thing..) I also understand he has defended a lot of low profile people on death row, for free, which I’m sure could be seen as noble, depending on how you look at it. (On the flipside, I’m sure he did his usual coldblooded victim blaming in those cases, defending potential murderers and serial rapists, so its probably not all good, but hey, stuff like that is complex.)

            But thats probably an important point. He said he saw Michael Jackson’s trial as a death row court, as he was certain Jackson wouldn’t have survived prison, so I can kind of understand why he feels so protective of him, and that is probably why he lied and still lies through his teeth so much too. The end justify the means.

            Jackson not going prison is not my main issue though. To be honest, I don’t really care about Jackson being more punished when he was alive. I don’t know how you feel about that, but I think a 5 month public trial probably was punishment enough for a fragile soul like Jackson, and I don’t think Jackson molested many boys after it either.

            I just think people should accept he was a child molester, no more public confusion(because the public seems to be confused), and that his victims can be understood and not be bullied by crazy fans.

            Yes, sure I know about the tabloids in the US(Shawntay linked that documentary earlier, I think? But I saw it here.). They’re here in Norway too, although I believe you’re right thats probably more aggressive and cutthroat in certain places in the US. I’m obviously not disputing that.

            I’m more talking about nuances though. If someone told you they don’t believe the Bill Cosby allegations because “the media writes whatever they want just to sell, don’t believe any of it”, you see signs of someone who has probably gone too far. If you look at some Michael Jackson fans there’s this crazy idea that the media always lies to sell, and they obviously have gone too far in that direction.

            When fans of Jackson talks about the media it’s not exactly intelligent media critique on the level of Manufacturing Consent or something, it truly transcends critique, and just sounds stupid again. You must be familiar with fans of MJ that denies reading any newspaperarticles about the Jackson case, surely? Everything critical written about Jackson can be dismissed as tabloid junk. Like, be critical of what you read, but to dismiss everything flat because “money”? I don’t know. (Its also a bit ironic since Jackson exploited the tabloids too.)

            Plus, I’ve watched some of the TV-covering of the Jackson case on youtube, and I don’t really see the humongous problem. Perhaps some of it is mildy hasty and time-efficiently superficial, its certainly not the stuff of Pulitzer dreams, but they’re still just covering the case like any other news story, in my opinion, like, merely discussing what happened that day, and perhaps have a couple of guests talking about it. Yes, there was interest in the Jackson case, so many news sources covered it. I don’t see the alleged “bloodlust”, I don’t see gluttony, I don’t see bias as they invited all kinds of guests, I didn’t see any anchors wanting Jackson to be guilty, and so on. In fact as they had daily coverage for 5 months it almost seemed a bit dry at times.

            I don’t know, I try not to repeat what I’ve already said too much, but I think Tom is very dishonest about some of the stuff he says. That is all.

          • Pea

            Thanks for your comment, Andreas. It’s important that we have intelligent people willing to be on the side of the accused; I couldn’t imagine how much worse the American justice system would be if every skilled attorney was too worried about being labeled a “victim blamer/shamer” to help out a defendant. Some cases being defended aren’t the prettiest, and some defense attorneys are duplicitous, but so, too, are victim’s rights attorneys and prosecutors and police. The latter is the reason the Innocence Project exists!

            Are you the type of person who immediately believes an accuser? If so, it is no surprise we have different perspectives on what constitutes “reasonable skepticism”! πŸ™‚ I don’t immediately believe anything anyone says (unless I know them well enough to have a sense of when they tell the truth and when it is just a conflict between perception & reality), and, as I mentioned in my other comment, that’s especially the case for a sex crime because I wasn’t there and will, therefore, need good evidence to believe an accuser. I don’t think that should make anyone be viewed badly or be shamed because they are cautiously incredulous about people’s claims/stories.

            As for Mez’s character, I don’t know if he’s dishonest and a liar; I don’t know him personally. All I know is that he’s a Jacko supporter not unlike the Vindicate MJ crowd. His comments, to me, are no different than the typical f’loon arguments, which I reject as biased. He doesn’t consider the entire history of accusations against Jacko but only applies his understanding of the Arvizo case since he won an acquittal. I consider that a failing but I don’t think that makes him devious. For you it may be a foregone conclusion that the Arvizos were an honest bunch and that Mez’s slick lawyering is what got Jacko off. Or was it the facts of the case that helped Jacko? I don’t know, and because I don’t know completely — including not knowing whether they wanted money or not — I cannot side with you about his “dishonesty” when he talks about the trial.

            It’s just easier for me to err on the side of his being an arrogant f’loon, for now. πŸ™‚ If he’s duping scores of people, I suggest they do more independent research.

            I will say, though, when I re-read his article about Jerry Sandusky the other day, I wondered what was the point of it. Did he just want attention? And he continued to say that he didn’t have enough information about the case… as you said, his typical song-and-dance while he still gives his seemingly unequivocal opinions on the issue.

            As for the media, I don’t know if you could really squish Feb 2003 to June 2005 Michael Jackson media coverage into a bunch of Youtube videos. And my assessment wasn’t even just about Jacko but in general.

            At any rate, we both seem to be repeating ourselves, so maybe we ought to square the circle. πŸ™‚

          • Andreas

            Are you the type of person who immediately believes an accuser? If so, it is no surprise we have different perspectives on what constitutes “reasonable skepticism”! πŸ™‚

            Of course not, Pea. I’d like to think I think case-to-case like most people, and I’d also like to get some of the facts before taking any side. I don’t really have any “set” rules how I view cases, but when it comes to “presupposed hunches”(lets admit it, we all have them) I can try to explain how I see it;

            Well, with rape cases I accept there exists examples of women who might have a motive of destroying a mans reputation, as its a damning thing, and it can be used as a weapon for vengance. I get that. While I admittedly don’t see that as a default position to be convinced out of (not implying you do), I can believe that could happen once in while. If a woman hate a man enough, etc. If there is enough anger and vengence.

            I suppose what I have more problems believing is that there are lots of women ready to just charge some huge celebrity of raping them, as a mean of either getting money or glamorous media attention, to sunbathe in the fame of the one they’re accusing, and going on talk shows to talk about it(like Mez implied some of Cosby’s victims might do). Thats where I start to it sounds extremely unlikely, and to be honest, a little bit dumb. If people like Mesereau can just casually claim there’s a 50/50 chance, or even more, that THIS could be the case, I sort of cringe a bit, and get suspicious what’s going on with him.

            In cases like that I would more easily pre-assume a power profile could have abused their role, and thought he could get away with it. How do I reason that? Because its very typical and statistically a lot more probable, because it happens and has happened historically all the time all over the world. (Like have you seen Salo? That portrays the italian fascists under Mussolini? People in power can get sexually depraved beyond belief.) While the other option is a lot more improbale and unlikley, and I have found no good examples of it, and I’ve looked. Although one should of course always be critical, and still look into cases indiviually. Not saying one always should presuppose obviously.

            When it comes to child molestation cases I view it somewhat similiar. In custody cases children sometimes become pawns, so in cases like I would agree one should be a little bit more skeptical. But again, I do think its a hard to believe people would falsely accuse celebrities for molesting as children them just for financial gain alone. With the Jackson case I often feel its just a poor excuse when defenders of Jackson say witnesses and accusers are only after money, or did get money, so they’re lying. Its just too sloppy and lazy when people say that… at least the way its usually portrayed(and I would include Mez here).

            When you accuse someone, at all, for raping you, or molesting you as a child, you put your own reputation and life on the line as well, and if you’re found to be a bluff, your life is basically a joke. If you actually lie about something like that you also have to seem believable, and everyone will judge you. And if you do it against a celebrity its all that but multiplied. With MJ multiplied by even more. You also will know the accused will have a more expensive defense team than you, and they will go through your life with a fine comb, and find dirt to use and twist against you. There’s not much glamour in it, either way. Probably quite the opposite. I do find it somewhat moronic that someone would claim Cosby’s accusers just want to get on television or something like that. Most statistics shows that 80% of women raped does not dare to come out.

            So, to cook it down, I think my biggest problem is the money & fame argument when charging some big power mogul for molesting or rape. Its just sounds a bit unlikely to me, but if someone gave me links to a lot of cases like that I’d obviously revise my views. But I need to see it first.

            To me it just seems like a logical fallacy a lot of people think it could be a typical thing people do, especially in a money driven place like Hollywood, while its in reality its probably not.

          • If we were to be completely honest, we would see what a sad and pathetic figure Tom Mesereau really is. In spite of his pro bono work with people on death row, or his setting up of The Mesereau Free Legal Clinic for disadvantaged residents of South Los Angeles, and the myriad of other community service he does (http://www.mesereaulaw.com/tom-mesereau-pro-bono.html) he chooses to continue to be defined by Michael Jackson.

            That the Jackson trial was a highlight for him over and above his other work makes me think he has a particular character defect in preferring to be connected to celebrity rather than poverty, and it appears he is trading on past glories. 2016 marks eleven years since the Jackson trial, and he continues to make it a huge part of his public life. This is not normal. He has moved on from all his other high profile cases yet seems stuck on MJ. Why is that?

            A clue is in his support of Randall Sullivan’s book on MJ. Even though there were many items unflattering and even damning of Jackson, Mesereau supported this book against fan objections on one point only. Mesereau supported the book because it made the case that MJ was innocent of child molestation. Combine that with his remark that “child molestation is the worst crime that anybody could ever be accused of”* and it hints at a reason for Mesereau’s continued defense of MJ. I believe that someone in Mesereau’s life, or he himself, has in the past been what he believes to be “falsely” accused of sexual abuse, and he is using MJ as a proxy to defend those charges.

            I know this is a controversial theory, but it would explain Mesereau’s behavior. If you look at his interview with Jim Clemente (http://www.mjfacts.com/tom-mesereau-educated-analyzed/), he refuses to absorb anything Jim explains about molesters and their methods of seducing children and continues to say that Jackson is innocent of this “horrible crime”.

            He could be lying Andreas, that’s entirely possible and maybe even likely. Or he is suffering from cognitive dissonance. Let’s not forget he was, and still is, totally under MJ’s spell. Combine that with his horror (as I suspect) of someone being “falsely” accused of child molestation and he may be just speaking from an internal script every time he talks about MJ.

          • ShawntayUStay

            To be completely fair, Mesereau’s media appearances — where he’s likely hired to talked about his MJ defense experience — are not the totality of his professional engagements. We don’t see him when he’s doing his normal job, helping the non famous, because then he’s not deemed “interesting” enough to cover by the press. The press only highlights notable cases and stories that appeal to large swaths of people; helping out indigent black people or a so called “nameless” (typically minority) convict is not high on the human interest story list.

            Many decent lawyers on both sides of the aisle do a lot of unpublicized work but when they come on tv, the journalist will say “so and so, famous for prosecuting/defending”…so it’s partly the media’s fault for shaping the perception we have of these folks. Recalling a lawyer’s high profile case helps the audience “understand” who the person is through mental association, so we can make a quick judgment as to whether their subsequent opinions can be deemed “expert”; if they did a high profile case, they must be better than other lawyers, according to the media logic.

            I don’t think he’s sad or pathetic, either, if he truly cared about MJ and really believes that MJ was innocent. His continued defense would be expected, in my opinion. If that’s the case, I can imagine Mesereau thinking he saved MJ’s life from public ostracism and certain death in prison, and in a unique situation because MJ was so famous and yet (in Mesereau’s mind) this famous (black) person was having the same problem of (alleged) prosecutorial over-zealousness that he may have seen with regular defendants. He could see it as something important worth discussing, as it is important to talk about the general topic of prosecutorial “hijinks” and what it can mean for an accused person’s ability to have a fair trial or get justice in the event they are wrongly convicted/incarcerated. All of this is possible.

            People are interested in the Michael Jackson case, after all. Sneddon had many cases throughout his career but the media still only referred to him as the 1993 MJ prosecutor who failed to get him. Even Sneddon readily talked about MJ when asked in the years following the settlement. One could argue that Sneddon was defining himself as the MJ prosecutor — for years — but he, like Mesereau, was simply discussing the only questions the media was interested in asking.

          • Pea

            Excellent. πŸ™‚

          • ShawntayUStay

            Sneddon absolutely believed MJ got away with it. He and Gil Garcetti were so sure of it that they smartly changed the law to prevent settlers of sex abuse that would span longer than a year, which is a great law! Only dumb fans thinking only through the eyes of their MJ obsession think it’s overzealous. Sneddon was just dedicated, imo. Some of his antics, like wanting to introduce the photos and Jordie’s description at the last moments of trial — even though neither were ever submitted as evidence during discovery — simply reflected his strongly held (and true, let’s be honest) belief that MJ was a pedophile about to escape yet again.

          • To be completely fair, Mesereau’s media appearances — where he’s likely hired to talk about his MJ defense experience — are not the totality of his professional engagements.

            Recalling a lawyer’s high profile case helps the audience “understand” who the person is through mental association, so we can make a quick judgment as to whether their subsequent opinions can be deemed “expert”; if they did a high profile case, they must be better than other lawyers, according to the media logic.

            True, yet Tom then goes on to frame everything he says from the point of view of the Michael Jackson case, which would be useful if the cases he is commenting on were the same (yet we, and he, knows every case is different). he brings up the MJ case even when not asked specifically about it.

            It seems he can’t move on. I find that sad, and pathetic.

          • ShawntayUStay

            From my reading of some of his interviews and talks, he sees the Michael Jackson case as instructive, as a case study for trial attorneys on potential issues of jury selection, media coverage, courtroom etiquette, how to examine witnesses, and deviation from classic trial procedural techniques learned in law school. He doesn’t seem “defined” by it from his vantage point by any means, from my reading anyway.

            It’s extremely common for a case to become a “model” for learning, especially if the model is unusual. We do it all the time in my field of study. We go over the same, sometimes decades or centuries old, experiments, like Koch’s postulates, Mendel’s peas, Darwin’s experiments with finches, Pasteur, experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, and C. elegans to model molecular genetics, cellular pathways, and evolution, etc. So, from the reception his talks garner at these law schools, the MJ case is being looked at it from that perspective as well, kind of like the OJ case. People are getting something out of it by discussing it (like we do here).

          • Pea

            “Mesereau supported the book because it made the case that MJ was innocent of child molestation.”

            As far as Mez supporting Sullivan’s book, his plea to the fans was quite impassioned. He’s always said that he didn’t care if Jacko was asexual (Sullivan’s stance) or homosexual. I suspect Mez was actually the more balanced perspective on Sullivan. There are a lot of rules that must be obeyed when talking about Jacko, as I recall well from my days as a fan. God forbid you step into Lipstick Alley and suggest he wasn’t plowing through babes! πŸ™‚

          • Andreas

            Yeah, goods points, MJfacts. I think another factor in the whole mix that the MJ fans really loves Mesereau, and he is depended upon now. I’m sure the thank you letters after defending Michael is quite a large pile, and I think thats a role he is humbled by and has accepted. Which for him probably has both cons and pros.

            He is appearing on fanpodcasts like King Jordan and MJcast regularely, showing he has truly accepted a role in the MJ community. Something that arguably isn’t a very professional choice as a lawyer, but I think he must like that role, as he’s so defined by it. I think fans really needed him when Wade Robson and James Safechuck came out with their stories, to explain what was happening and to make it all good and calm again.

            Its possible he has experienced someone being falsely accused. I remember(because I’ve suffered myself through many of those lengthy podcasts with him) that he said he started as a prosecutor lawyer, but that he felt dirty and awful doing that, so he switched to a defense lawyer. A bit strange.

          • Kat

            That is a good comment, Andreas. I suppose we could debate, in general terms, whether the lawyer is always supposed to believe that the defendant is innocent. After all, a lawyer is the same as liar, as everyone knows, right?

            While I haven’t listened to as many interviews with him as you have I have heard/watched some, and you’re right, he has never been able to put forward a convincing argument for Michael’s innocence. I remember he said about the Arvizo allegations – ‘My intention was to prove that they were liars, they were out for money, and I think we effectively proved that in court. He was found innocent on every misdemeanor count and every felony count and completely exonerated.’

            Now this sounds like a strong statement, but if you look deeper you’ll see that Mesereau doesn’t really say anything meaningful. It was never proven in court that the Arvizos were liars, if it would have, they would have been charged with perjury, I’m sure. Furthermore, Jackson was never found innocent, because there is no such thing. He was never exonerated, and there are many people who despite the verdict believe he was guilty of molesting Gavin. In other words, nothing that Mesereau said is ultimately true, even if it sounds confident.

            I also think that, if the defense lawyers would have been absolutely sure that MJ never molested any child they wouldn’t have tried to hard to present the Arvizos as the worst family ever to deflect the attention from the real issue. The way I see it, the focus should have stayed on whether Gavin was or was not molested. But they turned it around and made it about JC Penney case and Janet being dishonest with the welfare system and them befriending celebrities through Jamie Masada in a desperate effort to paint them as ready to do anything for money. It was an effective strategy to plan reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. Somehow I think it would have been more important to discuss Michael’s collection of child erotica, his compulsive need to sleep with boys, him being accused of other kids that were Gavin’s age and gender. BTW, I’ve never heard Mesereau comment about any of that. I wonder what he would say if he’d be asked – what are your thoughts about MJ spending countless nights with unrelated pre-teen boys and where were the girls if he loved all kids, as he claimed to?

            A lot of people have acknowledged Mesereau not being fair when cross examining people. He had to stopped by the judge several times because his discussions with Jason and Gavin became too heated. Apparently he didn’t see a problem in shouting at a fifteen year cancer patient. He also insulted Janet on various occasions and tried to make the jurors believe that she went to lawyers because she was after money by trying to make her agree it was true.

            Now he could have done that because he legitimately believed Michael just wanted to help Gavin and never molested anyone. But if you really look into Jackson’s behavior around children, the things he did and said – there’s only one logical conclusion. Maybe Mesereau just doesn’t want to look into that and prefers to focus on the doubtfulness of Gavin, and now Wade and James, who as he says waited too long and are only doing this for money?

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, the defense never saw the photographs or the description given by Jordie Chandler. All of that evidence is under lock and key, property of the cops. Sneddon & Co never made it official evidence, according to the documents, so it was never handed over during discovery. And the judge never concluded that it was a “match”; Melville merely pointed out that the description wouldn’t be hearsay, and said that Jordie not testifying would be a violation of sorts to MJ’s right to cross-examine his accuser. If the judge had made any determination to the accuracy of the photos, in open court, that would have been front page fodder, not to mention the fans would have that posted all over as a discussion point! And MJ’s critics would use it as circumstantial proof.

            The semen stains from three different males could have been described to Mesereau as coming from people staying in his room when he was away (that’s the fan argument for why he has 3 different flavors in his bed, LOL), or Mesereau could have assumed it was from men. There are alternative explanations than boys that could have been plausible.

            Mesereau has said that he read all of the books and he doesn’t believe them. He said they are terrible and horrible. To me, he seems genuine. He seemed genuine when I was a fan and he still seems like that today. Time will tell if he changes his tune if and when Wade Robson goes to trial.

          • Kat

            I was reading the trial documents on Scribd, but I didn’t read all of them. I want to go back and reread all grand jury transcripts, court testimonies, and other legal correspondence, because they are official, and therefore important to know. The issue with photos of MJs junk I found to be confusing. I understood that Sneddon wanted to enter them to prove that Michael wasn’t shy and modest in nature, and could have walked into the room naked while Gavin and Star were there, because, well, he had done that before with Jordie Chandler. The judge later didn’t allow to enter the photos, because he said that the evidence would be more sensational and couldn’t influence much this late in the trial. But if Meserau never saw them why would he try to bar them from being used? Surely, it would have been a good opportunity to show everyone that the Chandler kid was never able to describe MJs erected penis, as Michael himself asserted doing his interview with Diane Sawyer. I might really have to go back and reread the whole thing again, because I can’t wrap my head around it.

            When Carl Douglas admitted, using vague language, but still, that the photographs taken where the main reason why they had to quote unquote silence the accuser, Mesereau was sitting right next to him, and he had this crushed face expression, like he knew that it was true, the description and the pictures did match.

            It is unlikely that Mesereau will change his opinion about MJ anytime soon or ever, hehe. I recently heard him say that he will defend Jackson until his dying breath, and I don’t think he was joking. I’m not sure why he has so much loyalty for him, but sometimes I do suspect that Mesereau simply doesn’t want to be known as the person who got off a child molester.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Kat, if you want to read the grand jury transcripts, they’re all on the Smoking Gun. Bear in mind, this is not all the transcripts for all of the witnesses. Curiously, the grand jury testimony of David Arvizo and his attorney Russell Halpern aren’t included. I would have loved to read David’s testimony, as he’s cited as the evil mastermind behind most Arvizo “bad behavior”, according to prosecutors!

            http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/inside-michael-jackson-grand-jury

            I’m like you, I want to read everything from the beginning to get the full picture. Did you know MJFacts has all of the court documents on the site? No need for Scribd, πŸ™‚

            http://www.mjfacts.info/ctdocs.php

            About the description, Mesereau wouldn’t want them in for more than just they are circumstantial proof of him having molested Jordie Chandler. They are, in their very nature, salacious and private. Just imagine the media reports about MJ’s genitalia! How humiliating, regardless if they could prove him innocent. I believe Mesereau was being a good lawyer trying to prevent the world from seeing MJ’s discolored “parts”, especially since Jordie Chandler wasn’t going to be there. And since he never did see those pictures (because they were never official evidence), the strategy for keeping them excluded can’t be based on “covering up” for MJ.

            I wonder what Mesereau thought of Carl’s portion of the talk. He seemed very interested in what Feldman and Douglas were saying, but way less interested in Zonen, LOL! I think he was interested because, as I mentioned before, he doesn’t know a lot about 1993. Fans have claimed that Carl Douglas did a poor job of defending MJ but what’s to defend? He was in the thick of it in 1993; he knows the evidence. Also interesting to me was how Douglas said the settlement talks involved discussing some “fabulous numbers” in terms of how much MJ was willing to pay Jordie. If MJ was so confident like he portrayed to Diane Sawyer, why was he willing to pay an alleged extortionist so much money? I wonder if any of that registered with Mesereau? Because it apparently doesn’t resonate with fans. Once the myth of the insurance company paying the Chandlers was debunked, many of the fans (like VMJ crowd) just cast it off like it was nothing, like it didn’t matter even though they were all clamoring to get people to “know” the insurance company paid the settlement every chance they got.

            I recently heard him say that he will defend Jackson until his dying breath, and I don’t think he was joking. I’m not sure why he has so much loyalty for him, but sometimes I do suspect that Mesereau simply doesn’t want to be known as the person who got off a child molester.

            I don’t think he’s joking either. Mesereau is very dedicated to MJ and he’s not even getting paid anymore. He just really likes him. I don’t see it as mutually exclusive, either, for Mesereau to really like MJ and believe he’s innocent, and for him not to want to be known as getting off a pedophile. It’s possible that the thought of being duped by MJ is too much for him so he continues to be just like any other fan, thinking everything was a ploy for money, MJ was a target, etc. You don’t think that’s possible? I watched an episode of Dateline NBC and the parents of a woman convicted of murdering her ex-lover’s fiancee were “absolutely positive” that she was innocent, even though the evidence, albeit circumstantial, demonstrated she was the killer. Her parents lived within the penumbra of the fact it was a circumstantial case, just like MJ admirers (including Mesereau) live within the penumbra of the fact MJ was surrounded by shady characters who acted suspiciously. So to me it’s possible that Mesereau will continue to defend MJ because he doesn’t want to know the truth or have been (unknowingly) part of covering up the truth.

          • Kat

            Thank you, I shall return to reading court documents just as soon as I have more time. Reading anything from David Arvizo would be valuable, since the prosecution labelled him as the mastermind behind the schemes, while Janet was presented as a victim manipulated into going along with his scams.

            Hmm, I’m still not convinced if Mesereau really wanted to bar photos from appearing because of their inflammatory nature alone. After all Tom Sneddon, who had actually seen them, swore under the penalty or perjury that the description matched. Perhaps Mesereau realized that the main prosecutor wouldn’t lie about something like that and that the damaging evidence had to be kept out? I will have to reread all that and pay special attention to the language that was used in correspondence. Language is often revealing when it comes to legal matters. I also want to watch Frozen in Time seminar, as I haven’t seen all of it, only parts.

            Do I think Mesereau is in denial and continuous to believe in Jackson’s innocence? Certainly, it’s a possibility. And he would be like many fans in that regard. But sometimes I think, mostly because I don’t consider Mesereau to be stupid or naive, that he could know the truth, but continues to publicly deny it for the sake of his own reputation and to continue to be popular with the fans. He might simply choose not to believe MJ was guilty, because it seems to me that he sympathizes with accused molesters, as sick as that may sound. I’ve heard him speak about other cases, and he claimed that in all instances of accusations there should be physical findings and a credible eyewitness, which is just ridiculous. But he said something like – if that isn’t there, it means it didn’t happen. He’s just someone who takes the side of the defendant and tries to find holes and weaknesses in the case, so that the defendant doesn’t go to prison. He does his job well, but I haven’t figured out yet if he’s genuine in his belief in the accused innocence.

        • Pea

          Andreas, can you tell me which transcript has Janet talking about Gavin “crying in church” and saying he’d “never go to heaven”? That just sounds a bit bizarre — why would Gavin think he couldn’t go to heaven? Because of what he and Jacko allegedly engaged in?

          I feel for Janet suffering from abuse and schizo-affective disorder but, to be honest — and I think this is totally reasonable –, I have a hard time completely trusting a former mental patient, who, according to testimony, frequently invoked the concept of Demons and Devils when she was throwing fits. It’s really, really tough! LOL.

          As for the claim that she didn’t know that Gavin and Star were molested, I don’t think that is true. I don’t think it can be true, not after reading the testimonies of Katz, Dickerman, and Feldman. It just doesn’t add up with the timeline — at least for now! I still need to give everything a bit more consideration now that I have some more time. πŸ™‚

          But there was something that was on the Michael Jackson Allegations site that interested me (yes, I was lazy, so I looked at a fan site, lol). It was a snippet of testimony from Janet’s April 18 day on the stand. If they claimed in the Statement of Probable Cause that Janet was told about the abuse by cops, how do we explain this testimony:

          3 Q. In none of his letters did he ever mention
          4 anything about alcohol or child molestation, true?
          5 A. Because that was information for these guys
          6 right here, for the police.
          7 Q. How many months later?
          8 A. Because I didn’t want Geragos to know that
          9 we were headed towards — straight to the police.

          [cont.]

          26 Q. How long did Mr. Dickerman represent you?
          27 A. Well, until Mr. Feldman and Mr. Dickerman
          28 kicked me to the curb because I didn’t want to tell 6691
          1 them all the information that I was telling the
          2 police. Because the police told me not to tell them
          3 because that would compromise the investigation.
          4 And so I didn’t tell them nothing. Mr. Feldman was
          5 clueless, and so was Mr. Dickerman.

          (There is more testimony following that and it didn’t get better, in my opinion.)

          Wouldn’t that be considered contradictory? I think so. Janet was basically saying that she knew of the info prior to even meeting Feldman, who then sent it to the Santa Barbara DA’s Office. From my reading of Katz, Dickerman, and Feldman, it seemed evident that some “odd goings-on” were known about when Feldman decided to send them to Katz. And Janet was interviewed way before the boys. So, her knowing nothing doesn’t seem to comport with the evidence — so far.

          What’s your thoughts about that, since I’m assuming you’ve read Janet’s full testimony?

          • Andreas Moss

            What’s your thoughts about that, since I’m assuming you’ve read Janet’s full testimony?

            Yes, I’ve read it.. I’m fine with you thinking I’m evasive about her, but I just don’t see what she really has to do with Gavin saying he was molested? Why be so strident on there being a connection, when nothing really says there is one? When Ron Zonen says he was the one who told Janet that Gavin said he was molested, and she really had no clue, its like everything about her past crimes suddenly becomes irrelevant, doesn’t it? To me it does, at least. I trust Zonen is telling the truth here. You can still point at Gavin though, perhaps he lied to the police for whatever reason, but as I said in the comment to Shawntay, I just don’t see no reason for him to.

            To quote Ray Hultman:

            Q: What was your reaction to the mother in the case?
            RH: Rude, very rude, but i had to know that the mother was not on trial, it was Michael Jackson.

            I think that is true. His mothers potential past crimes is unrelated to the accusations by Gavin, which was his own(+Star as a witness). I can understand why the defense would try to use it to discredit the whole family through the mother, it was their best bet, and it worked, but the connection in my opinion was fictious all along. I also feel like using her mental problems caused by 16 years of domestic abuse by her ex-husband isn’t something that should be used against her son, when he’s testifying against a multiple child molester. Janet only got them out of Neverland because they were served alcohol. She never observed the molestations or suspected any. She just didn’t know. Child molesters know how to pick out potential victims from unstable families. Its an established pattern, both for Jackson, and for other child molesters. So when some of these parents are a bit unstable, it should be seen within this pattern. In my opinion.

            Can you tell me which transcript has Janet talking about Gavin “crying in church” and saying he’d “never go to heaven”? That just sounds a bit bizarre — why would Gavin think he couldn’t go to heaven? Because of what he and Jacko allegedly engaged in?

            I’m not religious, so I’m assuming here, but it sounds like he felt he had engaged in something sinful, yes. The source is the podcast I linked to Shawntay. Louise Palanker, friend of Janet, says this at one point.

          • ShawntayUStay

            The point I think was the claim about Janet Arvizo not knowing about molestation until September 2003, when she was using Dickerman in April 2003. She seems to be saying that she did know about the molestations, etc around that time but didn’t want Geragos to know about it because she was going to the cops. So regardless of Zonen saying she didn’t know, that would be based on his belief in her word, right? That she was genuine when she said she didn’t know. I don’t think Zonen would lie, but it would only be his perception. Straight from the horse’s mouth on cross exam she intimates that she knew about the “alcohol and child molestations”. We do know that she knew about some stuff, like alcohol and Star’s allegations (which later disappeared), in June 2003 because of the Statement of Probable Cause.

          • Pea

            Yeah, that was odd to me, Janet saying that she was “withholding” info during the letter-writing phase when Zonen et al were saying she was oblivious. It’s bizarre, and I didn’t know whether she was trying to one up Mez or something, but it seems consistent with the timeline I was able to discern from reading Katz, Dickerman, and Feldman’s testimonies — i.e. that at some point, contrary to the oft-repeated claim that they never asked for money, money was, at the very least, some kind of goal post. Especially with regard to the Bashir documentary. Then you have them going to Feldman, whose whole firm seemed interested in what could be secured from the Bashir film issue.

            Eh, I’m going to have to look into it more closely but that testimony was very strange coming from Janet. I definitely see why it was flagged on the Michael Jackson Allegations fan site as “suspicious”.

      • silverspirit

        Innocent men do not pay out over 20 million to silence their victims. That’s enough for me to prove Jacko was a child molester. He thumbed his nose at the law. He knew fair well that he was going to pay to get off. You’re a body language expert?

  • I’ve been reading this debate about Tom Mesereau with interest, because I’m still on the fence.

    Tom may suffer what many fans suffer from, (as I’ve written before) a dissociation between what a child molester is and Michael Jackson. Unless they put aside all preconceptions – both about MJ and child molesters – they can continue to think MJ was innocent with considerable ease. Many people travel the road to understanding MJ in the way described below. Most of his defenders never get past c), even seemingly intelligent ones who seem to have no difficulty in analyzing the motives and behaviors of the people around MJ – they have a blind spot, or block, when it comes to MJ. They don’t get past c) because of cognitive dissonance – it is too painful to go any further. There is also a great deal of positive reinforcement in the MJ fan community – genuine questioning is met with ridicule and ostracizing which makes it difficult to form an alternative view. The steps, in a nutshell:

    a) we have a definition in our head of a child molester, one that is totally divorced from reality, and that is one of the child molester as a creepy monster who uses cruelty and violence to sexually assault children;
    b) because MJ was never violent or cruel, and was in fact the opposite – gentle, polite, quiet, almost obsequious – it’s easy to think that “MJ would never molest a child, he isn’t that type of person”. It’s also easy to believe the “lost childhood” as a reason for his sleepovers (even if he is the only known person in history to have attempted to regain his lost childhood by sleeping with prepubescent boys of a particular type and look!) and his interest in children as “pure”;
    c) we start researching pedophiles and child molesters. While initially we think that the traits described in them don’t relate to someone who “loves children” like MJ did, we may start to see patterns in his behavior that indicate he may be guilty, we can still scoff at suggestions he molested children and make excuses for his inappropriate interactions with children;
    d) We continue to research pedophiles more carefully, and come to the realization that child molesters can be anywhere on a spectrum with violent criminals who snatch children from the street and rape them cruelly on one end to “nice guys” who are kind and gentle and use coercion and grooming to seduce children (and their parents);
    e) We realize with clarity that MJ behaved exactly as a “nice guy” molester, and his victims behave precisely as “nice guy molester” victims do, and start to look at the evidence as it really is;
    f) Our intellectual journey is complete.

    The way Tom speaks and the way he talks about MJ and the 2005 molestation case, it is entirely arguable that he is stuck at b)!

    Several things bother me about that though. During the trial he must have seen and read things that gave him pause. Were these things explained away well enough by MJ? Was MJ able to lie to Tom Mesereau so effectively that he was credulous? I find that possible but hard to believe. I wonder if Tom was so much in awe of MJ that he just accepted everything MJ said at face value?

    I do recall Tom Mesereau saying something along the lines of “MJ was eccentric, but he wasn’t a criminal”, as well as “He was an artist, we was creative and a bit weird”. That makes me wonder if Tom looked at everything MJ did through that prism. Then there is the whole “everyone wanted to take advantage of Michael Jackson” excuse Tom also gave. He must have considered the flip side – MJ wanted to take advantage of a lot of people! Didn’t Tom see that?

    • silverspirit

      Good post. IMO, You can pay Tom anything to lie thru his teeth for you. That’s how I always felt about him. Didn’t he also say Jacko didn’t do drugs either? How about a category for “delusional”? lmao

    • allysofwaderobson

      Tom Mesereau understands that time is not on his side. Many defense attorneys defend less than respectable individuals and in many ways have to disassociate themselves from reality to justify their paycheck. Tom Mesereau accused the Arvizo’s of being opportunists who only wanted a payday. However history has shown that the Arvizos have received zero monetary gain while Mr. Mesereau received millions to defend a obvious pedophile. This is why Tom goes on sycophant shows over and over again. In many ways he needs to ease a weary conscious because he may have helped MJ get off with some of the worse crimes imaginable. I also believe MJ knew within moments of meeting Tom Mesereau that he could groom him just as he had groomed so many others. Just think about it, it is now 10 years later and Tom Mez. is still on the same talking points, rather sad

    • Kat

      Tom Mesereau might very well be stuck at b, and he also uses the same excuses that are endlessly used in the fan base. They are: Jackson was an easy target, it was all about money, everyone wanted something from poor MJ, who only wanted to make the world a better place, Chandlers, Arvizos and everyone else are the worst people ever who are ready to do everything for money. At the same time, Mesereau also acts like a fan by speaking about the great talent that Jackson was, the charity he did, all that. He may just be starstruck.

      Another thing is, and this I suppose this also related to the b point, Mesereau doesn’t seem to know much about child sexual abuse. I’ve heard him say many misguided things about it. In his conversation with Jim Clemente he said a thirteen year old would lie more than a five year old. This might be true, but not when it comes to being molested. Teens lying about molestation is extremely rarely. He made other false statements that make me believe he isn’t all that familiar with the subject. Like, he said, that MJ said he would slash his wrists before he would hurt a child, which Mesereau interpreted as a strong denial, seemingly not realizing that such a statement works against MJ and adds more to him being a pedophile. If he doesn’t understand what molestation and grooming really is, he can really believe Michael didn’t do it. All of us who have learned what it is are able to see that MJ set off all read flags.

      I’ve also been wondering what Mesereau thinks about the sleepovers, the child erotica (or ‘art books’ as they were called by the defense), the payments, and more. I’ve never heard him speak about that. Mostly, he just ignores that and starts finding faults with the alleged victims – the Arvizos were questionable, Safechuck and Robson waited for too long, et cetera. It could be enlightening to learn what he actually thinks about those things and how he justifies them.

    • Ali

      Everyone who like children will fit into the “profile” of a molester , or as you call it “nice guy molester” , and you really think that “fitting into a profile of a molester” is proof that you’re a pedophile. Lol You think you are so inteligent beacuse you see “the truth” about Michael Jackson but just the fact that you believe in those “experts” and the “profile of a pedophile” shows you’re not.

      • I don’t believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile just because he acted exactly as a “nice guy molester” (which is the term used by FBI experts), that would be ridiculous and unfair.

        I believe MJ was a pedophile because he courted boys, he slept with boys (for 1000+ nights), he owned naked boy erotica, he bribed parents of boys, he never allowed himself to be interviewed by law enforcement over his relationships with boys, he paid millions of dollars to avoid being accountable in a civil court, and the list goes on and on.

        I’ve also read the testimony of his special friends from the 2005 trial – Macauley Culkin, Wade Robson, Brett Barnes, and Jason Francia, as well as Jordan’s mother June Chandler – and cross referenced what they’ve said with the material in this publication http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf, and there is no doubt in my mind. Michael Jackson was a pedophile and child molester.

        So the real question is, why do you think it’s OK for a grown man to take boys to his bed for 1000+ nights, 850+ with just three different boys alone http://www.mjfacts.com/michael-jackson-sleepovers/? I’m interested in why you think there isn’t a problem with that. Is it because it’s “Michael Jackson”?

        • Ali

          The real question is why do you think it’s NOT OKAY?
          Why beacuse he’s a man? If he was woman would it be ok ? Beacuse a man can’t have sleep in bed with a child without having some strong sexual urge to molest them? If we replaced the word “bed” with sofa or floor ? Would the question sound less sexual? “Why do you think it’s ok for a grown man to sleep with boys on the floor?” Why do you think it’s ok for a grown man to sleep with boys on a gian sofa?

          • You didn’t answer my question Ali. Why do you think it’s OK for a grown man to take boys to his bed for 1000+ nights? If it was your brother, your neighbor, your pastor, a scoutmaster would that be OK too? Or is it just OK because it’s “Michael Jackson”?

            I’d seriously like a sensible, well thought answer from you. I’m curious why fans think it’s OK.

          • Ali

            Yes it would be ok if it was my brother or my neighbor or my pastor or whatever as long as they are not molesting them. But you don’t seem to get it, beacuse you are so brainwashed and paranoid.

          • Ali, could you explain to me how you would know if there was molestation going on or not? How would you find out?

            I don’t think it is “brainwashing” or “paranoia” to be suspicious of a grown man wanting to go to extraordinary lengths to have young boys into his bed, I believe it’s displays sensible caution. For the protection of children and adults, it’s best that relationships between them are both accountable and transparent.

            MJ would have been told this too, yet even after the supposed pain and humiliation of the Chandler accusations he continued his relationships with boys behind closed doors. It’s no surprise he was, and is, the subject of suspicion like other shady men who are inappropriate with children.

  • Ali

    I don’t know if this would open your mind . But there is a book written by Frank Cascio who was one of his “boys” as you call him , he was friends with Michael since he was 5 years old , and also met Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo. You need to be more open minded and read things from both sides. Just try to read it, even if you think he’s lying or whatever , it’s very eye opening and revealing about Michael Jackson.

    • I agree with you there Ali. Everyone should read as much as they can from both sides and then make up their mind. It’s important to sift the lies from the truth however, and Frank included a myriad of lies in his book. Does Frank have a motive to lie? Yes he does. Think about it.

  • i think it’s important to read accounts from people who actually KNEW him.

    I agree, it’s extremely important. So, why is Frank’s account more believable than this account? http://www.mjfacts.com/jimmy-safechuck-civil-complaint/
    It would be interesting to hear your thoughts (but please, don’t say it’s about money because Frank has made money from writing his book).

    ..came to the conclusion that he was not a pedophile.

    That’s interesting. How do you reconcile the sleepovers, the lack of believable female relationships, the accusations, the grooming, the child erotica, and that’s just the start, with him being a normal heterosexual or homosexual man? I’ve never known anyone but a pedophile to behave in that fashion. I am seriously interested in how you made that fit in your mind.

    …literally reading everything there is to read…

    Have you read the Chandler settlement? In your opinion, what was that settlement for? I’d like to see your analysis of it and whether you can refute this http://www.mjfacts.com/the-jordie-chandler-settlement-revisited/

    I’d also love to see your explanation of MJ’s behavior with boys. Why do you think he had such intense relationships with boys stretching over months and sometimes years yet never had such intense feelings with women?

    he first start will be Frank Cascio’s book

    I’ve read some of it. Pea, one of the commentators here, has read it in it’s entirety and will probably give you more examples than I can.

    • Ali

      If i answer all those question using rational thinking , my comment will not be approved here , since you censore everything that doesn’t fit into your logic.

      • Pea

        Ali, if you answered all of those questions using rational thinking, your comment would be approved. So, by all means, answer the questions. I’m especially curious about how Frank Cascio’s account of his life with Jacko is more valid than James Safechuck’s.

        But, do us a favor, Ali, and please do not post comments under phony names and pretending to be something you’re not.

        • Ali

          Safechuck is after money . SIMPLE.

          • Pea

            Is that what you believe passes as substantive discourse? If you believe “Safechuck is after money,” and that it is “SIMPLE”, please instruct we simpletons here at MJ Facts on your logic so that we may “get” this supposedly obvious conclusion.

            I must say: Michael Jackson, being a 5x accused alleged pedophile, needs a much better representative of his cause than someone defending him with spammy one liners. You’re not doing a very good job. πŸ™

          • Andreas

            Ali, if there is anyone that can be proved to be about exploiting Jackson’s legacy for money its the Cascio brothers. Eddie and Franks studio Angelikson Productions LLC made several tracks via the MJ estate for the “Michael” album, using a MJ impersonator on vocals, claiming it was Michael himself from old recordings. Forensic reports however showed these vocals not the be the real Michael Jackson, meaning the Cascio performed a scam. They are currently being sued.

            And you want anyone to believe a book written by Frank Cascio is 100% honest? Come on, Ali. Its also ironic how Jackson’s fans are so blunt about discrediting anything critical of Jackson when money is involved, while anything praising Jackson when money is involved obviously must to be seen as gospel?

          • Pea

            People can read the fan’s lawsuit against the Cascios, et al. over at the Daily Michael Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229471634/MJ-Fan-vs-Sony-MJ-Estate-Cascio-Porte

            (There’s some other documents related to that case, too, that can be read on that page.)

            I never followed this story about the fake Cascio songs, but I just grabbed the copy of the “Michael” album I have in my house (more reliable than potentially fan-manipulated uploads to YouTube) and listened to the allegedly fake songs “Keep Your Head Up,” “Monster,” and “Breaking News”. Am I missing something? All of the lead vocals on that album sound like Jacko’s voice. If it’s an “impersonator”, that guy could make millions sounding identical to Michael Jackson!

            I was unsurprised to see, upon a little further research, that it was the Jackson family who first started complaining about those supposedly “fake” songs. That is, the same troop who hates the MJ Estate, got La Toya Jackson to steal from Jacko’s mansion after he died, and tried, unsuccessfully, to invalidate Jacko’s will. They are constantly undermining any effort that may not directly benefit them, so if they say something is “fake” I take it with a grain of salt.

            http://www.ctvnews.ca/songs-on-new-album-are-fake-says-jackson-s-mom-1.571515
            http://www.damienshields.com/teddy-riley-apologises-for-michael-album/

            As for the Cascios, operating under the assumption that the songs are real, I could see why people would also trust their book. But if the songs are faked — or, as alleged, have bits and pieces of “real” Jacko vocals amid fake ones — you have to wonder why the fans would trust their accounts of Jacko over someone else’s, especially when Jacko clearly showed different sides of himself to different people. And why would the Cascios fabricate the songs, if they did? How did they become so cynical?

            Well, I recommend that Cascio book because it has too many nuggets within it. It didn’t make Jacko look all that good; more like someone who lived in a gilded bubble. Frank comes off terribly: a user who had no problem watching a man he wanted everyone to believe he loved stumble off over a cliff. Real songs or fake, the entire Cascio family is trash.

          • Kat

            From what I know about the matter, the ‘Michael’ album was so bad, strange, hastily put together, weirdly arranged and remixed, that even Jackson’s own family doubted that it was him singing on some of the songs. I understood that the quality was so poor his family members didn’t want to believe those were in fact Michael’s songs and vocals. No clue if they were actually fake or not. And why would Eddie and Frank fabricate them? Unusual story.

          • Andreas

            To be honest I’ve only heard the Breaking News song, but I do think it sounds a bit weird. His voice sounds darker than I associate with MJ, and not enough tenor/falsetto, but then again, I’m probably the very last person to ask about Jackson’s music. A lot of people seem to react to those vocals though.

            I never thought it was 100% fabricated. My theory was that these could be lyrics he actually wrote, or songs he never got any good and/or full takes on, and perhaps the Cascio brothers rationalized in their minds that having some impersonator singing it they would still make it “enough Jackson” to make it justifiable. Especially if they thought these were quality songs, and thought they’d know how Jackson would want them.

            The whole thing about trying to repackage and release everything Jackson left after he died, is a bit questionable in itself. People who knew him said he would never approve of that. Most artists don’t, and with good reason. They’re already going against a dead mans wish, so I wouldn’t put it past them to use a soundalike on some songs.

      • Give it a try Ali. Help us understand why we should put more store in Frank’s account as opposed to James’s.

        Help us understand why a man who behaved exactly as other pedophiles isn’t one himself. Us simpletons can’t figure it out.

        And that settlement looks to me and others reading here that it was for molestation. Can you explain how a boy sues a man for molestation, then the man pays a lot (a lot!) of money, but that money isn’t for molestation? I’m trying to get my head around that one but I just can’t!

    • Pea

      Yes, I’ve read Frank Cascio’s book, and I think I might just re-read some of the more interesting portions with Post-It notes at the ready. “My Friend Michael” is important, specifically for its subtleties; it manages to be unintentionally telling.

      For instance, from reading the book, you see that Michael Jackson and Frank had a very odd relationship — I would even call it codependent. If one was to believe that nothing sexual ever happened between he and Frank, you could at least come away with the impression that they were emotional lovers. They hurt each other like lovers sometimes do. Bob Jones remarked on their bond in “Man Behind the Mask”, saying that it was peculiar: Frank would do anything for Jacko and Jacko would do anything with Frank. And this is reflected in the book.

      At one point, Frank expressed that he was relieved when Lisa Marie Presley was out of the picture; as he said, it meant he had his buddy back. He didn’t paint a good picture of that marriage at all, and you are left with the impression that Lisa Marie was jealous of the boys — and indication that Jacko valued boy companionship more than he did women’s. You get the impression Jacko was jealous of Frank’s girlfriends, too.

      Also, with regard to women, Frank Cascio spent the equivalent of 2 printed pages stringing the reader along about two women Jacko may have been with — totally unbelievable, and, about one of them, Frank says that he didn’t know if it was “sexual”. LOL.

      Then you have the fallout between them over the 2005 trial. I’m sure Frank Cascio and company would’ve had very interesting things to say, if news reports are to be believed, but he didn’t discuss the Arvizo in detail at all, which was suspicious. But Jacko cutting Frank from his life because Frank refused to testify says a lot about their friendship and how intimately Jacko perceived it and that he probably felt, given everything he’d done for Frank, that Frank had used him.

      And why would Frank use him if the boy basically grew up knowing Jacko? How could Frank have gotten so cynical about a man he wants us to believe he loved? In my opinion, a reasonable explanation would be that Jacko and Frank operated under a sexual quid pro quo, in which Frank got things by providing Jacko sexual favors.

      At any rate, the book is good because it is full of lies, such as how Frank and Jordie Chandler allegedly talked about how evil Evan was, and papering over weird shit, like Jacko’s sleeping in bed with boys (Frank says Jacko always slept on the floor, which is a lie, since Jacko said to Bashir and Sawyer that he slept with unrelated kids in bed).

      Any fan thinking that book helps Jacko is delusional. At best, it’s completely debatable.

      • Neely

        Omg….I haven’t read this book either. Admittedly because Frank just seems like an idiot. I had other things above that on the priority list for sure. I wonder how Frank could refuse to testify. Why wasn’t he just served with a subpoena?

        • Pea

          The book is an important book to read, but I wouldn’t read it until you have more knowledge of Jacko.

          As for why Frank Cascio wasn’t subpoenaed, I suspect the answer to that is probably complicated. The prosecution practically “scared off”, for lack of a better term, Jacko’s people (Frank, Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wisner, Ronald Konitzer) from going near the courthouse by labeling them “unindicted co-conspirators”. According to Frank, he said that Sneddon made a sort of off-the-table deal with him, “You can go down with the ship or cooperate with me and get a lifesaver.” This was probably frightening for a 20-something young man.

          However, I believe that there was something suspect being done with the Arvizos by Jacko’s people, actions that could potentially look bad if any of them were brought onto the stand. That doesn’t necessarily prove Jacko’s guilt — perhaps they were overly aggressive with shielding them from the media following the Bashir documentary such that someone as mentally fragile as Janet Arvizo believed it was a kidnapping and/or harassment. Mesereau likely believed the costs of their testimony outweighed the benefits; from memory, he crafted a narrative and presented evidence he believed showed Jacko had nothing to do with what they were up to.

          Alternately, one should also wonder why Sneddon was so eager to keep them away. It’s unfortunate that without any of those men’s testimony, there are parts of the story missing; perhaps Sneddon didn’t want them challenging the Arvizos’ allegations?

          At any rate, one side kept them away and the other side gave up. It’s definitely a curious situation.

          • Neely

            Well, I am in the midst of reading transcripts, and the question has occurred to me many times…..why, if they were co-conspirators, weren’t they also charged and at the very least, subpoenaed.

            I feel like the death threats could have possibly been real….against the arvizos. Folks in this world can be so crazy, that I wonder if the MJ camp actually did receive death threats on that family after the bashir documentary. I haven’t gotten to Janet’s testimony yet. I don’t know if I buy into what Frank allegedly said to Gavin, that he could make Gavin’s family disappear (loosely quoted). I don’t feel like that’s as believable as perhaps an outsider death threat on them.

            Oh, what a tangled web we weave! πŸ™‚

          • ShawntayUStay

            I agree, I think the death threats that MJ’s people said were against them could be true and that could have been part of the reason why the Arvizos were sequestered, but then again, why would anyone want to kill them if Gavin said nothing bad about MJ in the Bashir doc? So to me it seems more likely that MJ’s people wanted to sequester the family to keep an eye on them and make sure the media didn’t get to them.

            I thought the same thing about the mafia style threats allegedly by Frank Cascio. I don’t think those are true at all. It’s too risky imo for a Michael Jackson person to threaten anyone. But if it was true, I can’t see why Sneddon wouldn’t want to charge these guys, especially if they’d be falsely imprisoning/kidnapping 3 minor children! That’s a serious felony. Why pin it all on MJ if most of that stuff was allegedly done by the others…with likely more (at least circumstantial) evidence to boot?

            It’s confusing to put it mildly.

          • Andreas

            but then again, why would anyone want to kill them if Gavin said nothing bad about MJ in the Bashir doc?

            I think a lot of people were assuming a lot just after seeing the Bashir documentary. Gavin with his head leaning on Jackson, holding hands, Jackson’s rather eccentric comments, Bashir’s very assuming commentary, Jackson’s past with the 93 settlement, etc. I’m sure someone out there felt something was very wrong by that alone. I think Jackson was in deep trouble even before Gavin accused him, and I think Ron Zonen probably was correct that Jackson’s people and Jackson wanted to control what came out to the media, and that especially Janet Arvizo was a great worry. She could say anything.

            Its a good question why more of the conspiracy charge wasn’t looked further into at the trial. One guess could be that the prosecution wanted to first deal with proving that Jackson was a child molester, including Gavin, because then the conspiracy charge would be easy to deal with afterwards? It was a huge case though, and I think a lot of stuff was cut off.

            I think they took a chance with the prior acts thing too, because as I understand it they weren’t expecting that the defense would actually call in the three kids(Barnes, Robson, Culkin) that had been seen molested by the people working at Neverland. When they came in denying that anything happened to them, the witnesses probably lost some of its ‘punch’, or at best made the whole thing even more confusing.

          • ShawntayUStay

            But why would anyone think to kill Gavin et al? If anything, MJ should’ve been getting death threats for being a weirdo, LOL. That’s what the collective reaction was in the media. Still makes no sense. Actually now that I think about it, it was probably just a roost to get “control” of them.

            What do you mean MJ was in trouble before Gavin accused him? You mean the media fallout from the doc?

            I think they should’ve charged the others if they were confident that Janet Arvizo’s allegations were true. You have a huge chunk of information that’s just lost because the prosecution wanted to pile everything onto MJ. I think you may be right about them thinking that if they prove the molestation, the conspiracy would take care of itself, but they forgot that jurors are asked if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge. However, I’d argue that if the molestation wasn’t proven, the jury by necessity would never find guilt for conspiracy/kidnapping/false imprisonment.

            It’s all just really confusing to me. Janet according to accounts barely spent anytime with MJ, but she did spend time/interact with the unindicted co-conspirators.

          • Andreas

            Okay, I thought you were talking about MJ getting death threats after the doc, not Gavin. I misunderstood, sorry.

            I’m not sure I believe that Gavin got death threats. I always thought Jackon only wanted to protect his image, and yeah, needed to keep them scared and under control. I think the conspiracy charges were very real, although from Janet’s side a bit exagerrated.

            I’ve gotten the hunch that the prosecution weren’t that keen on putting Janet Arvizo too much in the center either, so that might be another reason for not building too much on the conspiracy charges. It would basically be their word against hers, and that could go either way. I could see other routes being more strategic to convincing the jurors. I think that makes sense, at least.

            Even the prosecution had problems keeping her under control, according to Ron Zonen. They perhaps even wanted to keep her off the stand, if they could freely choose, but the defense would put her on anyway, so there was no way around it. They had to work with it. Tom Mesereau understood early he could just harp at this woman through the whole case, and it would be enough for reasonable doubt, since she wasn’t clean and acted a bit crazy.

            As I understand it Tom Mesereau tried to get her convicted for welfare fraud even before the case had started, so he could have that as a trump card to take her down, and by proxy Gavin’s claims of Jackson molesting him too.

            I’m surprised more people haven’t considered the slight possibility that these things aren’t necessarily connected. I suppose thats too crazy? πŸ™‚

          • Pea

            Did Mez try to get her convicted? I don’t know if that’s even possible — he wasn’t prosecutor in that case. According to the Frozen in Time seminar, Mez stated that he did think Janet Arvizo was invaluable to the defense strategy and didn’t want anyone reporting her to the police for welfare fraud. He said he knew that if she was involved in another case, she could refuse to testify in Jacko’s case, and a subpoena would be useless. Mez ousted Brian Oxman from the defense team for reporting her.

            Needless to say, Janet did testify, which, in my opinion, isn’t too surprising considering how excited she looked to be interviewed in the rebuttal tape. I believe she enjoyed expressing herself. Mez said he knew she wasn’t very bright and would get tripped up answering too many questions. Poor Janet: she was mentally ill and had a hard life.

            I think the prosecution didn’t want her on the stand and for the same reasons Mez mentioned: they knew she wasn’t intelligent and was crazy and, for those reasons, would make a terrible witness. However, she was essential to their case, and both sides knew it. I think it was good she ended up on the stand. It’s better for the whole story to be told and by all the alleged victims (I wonder why Jacko wasn’t charged with her imprisonment and kidnapping?). Whatever happens, happens, which is why the unindicted co-conspirators should’ve spoke, too.

            It’s a shame we can’t get the full story. I tend to agree with the idea they were “kept away” by the prosecution. It’s seems the most plausible explanation.

          • Andreas

            Yes, Brian Oxman hired another lawyer Tony Capozzola to get Janet Arvizo convicted for welfare fraud before the trial had started.

            Capozzola had contacted the Los Angeles police. Janet Arvizo plead the fifth amendment when asked about at the Jackson case. She was found guilty of welfare fraud in a later case some months later(she paid a 18.000$ fine). Perhaps Mesereau didn’t have much to do with that decision. Its news to me if he was against it. I just understand the defense tried to get her convicted before the case started, so I presumed he was in on it.

          • ShawntayUStay

            What was the conspiracy charge anyway? What was it based on, a conspiracy to kidnap or false imprison? And the motive was…? To protect MJ’s image? And this kidnapping/imprisonment was only temporary and included an all expenses paid retreat to Neverland and a vacay to Brazil? Is that the prosecution’s basis for charging MJ with a felony? If so, the question of not indicting the others becomes even more interesting.

            Bodyguard Chris Carter claimed that the Cascios were getting sick of the Arvizos and wanted to get rid of them, but I doubt “getting rid of them” involved permanent displacement. However, one could also say that these comments by the Cascios indicate that the Arvizo family were being “contained” by MJ et al, at least for a time being until the media storm called and they did the rebuttal tape. So it may just be a problem with perception vs reality with Janet regarding the severity of alleged kidnapping; the boys seemed to be having a great time.

          • Andreas

            Yes, indeed, what was the conspiracy charge?

            Okay. The way I understand it, Michael Jackson and his people were in complete panic-mode after the Bashir documentary had aired in Britain, soon to be shown in the US… and the rest of the world at large. Understandably so.

            They were of two minds:

            1. They wanted to keep The Arvizos from talking to the media. So they bought them visas and passes, to get them to off to a secret place in Brazil. Both shown as evidence at the trial. But why ship them away, one might ask? According to Ron Zonen, and what the prosecution was assuming, they were most likely worried about Janet. Its interesting pondering about what they were worried she could possibly say. At least they feared she could say something that made things even worse than what they were dealing with.

            2. They also wanted Gavin to come to Neverland, so he could join some kind of press conference to say (in essence) that Jackson didn’t touch him, and Jackson was a great person, etc. This plan evolved into the rebuttal video instead, but its still the same thing basically.

            The reason why they wanted Gavin to come to Neverland was quite obvious. Bashir’s documentary had put Jacksons image in a stinking mess, and they desperately needed to repair it, but quickly. It had aired in England, but not in the US yet, so things could possibly be reversed before it had happened for real. If they got shit together in a hurry of course, so time were a factor here. When time is short, people tend to get nasty, which is an important factor here.

            Jackson initially only wanted Gavin to come to Neverland, but Janet insisted she and the other kids should go too, since she was told Gavin was in danger(probably a lie, but who knows). Jackson agreed the whole family should come, and meanwhile probably got the idea that the whole family should defend him. Even better than just Gavin.

            So, while at Neverland Janet was told what they wanted from her and the family. A true rebuttal to Bashir. Now Janet was already very dismayed by having Gavin in the Bashir documentary, and having Gavin exposed to the whole world. Janet had shown interest in legally stopping further viewings of her son in the documentary. So naturally she wasn’t too pleased with the idea of instead doing a rebuttal video to the whole world with her whole family in it. MORE exposure, not less. More than a little skeptical, she flat out refused to do the rebuttal video.

            This was obviously not the answer Jackson’s people wanted to hear, and the clock was ticking, things were getting hot and angry down in Neverland, so they started pressuring her in, well, some kind of way. Its still unclear to me how extreme this pressuring of Janet and the family was, but it was even at mininum something. She was told the family couldn’t leave Neverland before the video was done. Janet still refused however. So things went into days of limbo, making them stay for quite a while.

            Meanwhile she lost track of her two sons, who were living their own lives. Most of the time she couldn’t get to them when she wanted to. Little did she she know they were being shown porn by Jackson, and got drunk on wine from coca cans. Janet didn’t know this at the time, but she still got hysterical, and started crying when nobody would tell her where her sons were at.

            Its possibly true the reality of a woman affected by 16 years of domestic abuse, not understanding what was going on, may have effected her to see the situation as even more horrific than it was, who knows, but its still true they were trapped in a sense, no matter how you twist it.

            At one point, I think she was given credit cards to go out shopping just to calm down. Eventually she understood there was no way around it. They just had to do the rebuttal video to get out of there, and so they did. She then found out the boys drank wine, and then she got them out of there in a heartbeat.

            When they got back home, Jackson’s people had by then taken all their belongings and furniture and stored it away, ready to send to South America probably, and Janet had to go to lawyer Bill Dickerman to file a suit to get it all back.

            Bill Dickerman, perhaps a bit overwhelmed with dealing with someone like Michael Jackson, got in contact with Larry Feldman, because he had dealt with Jackson and his lawyers before. Feldman as we know was the Chandlers lawyers in 93′ at the time of the settlement.

            Larry Feldman thought the case was curious too, he most likely knew about the stuff going on in the media, and was probably wondering if Gavin had been molested too, just like his former client had been. After all, they looked almost exactly the same, were the same age, etc, so no wonder Larry thought this way. Reportedly Gavin also had acted different according to Janet. Distanced, a bit angry, touchy… the usual symptoms of someone being molested basically.

            Feldman contacted Dr. Stan Katz for evaluation of Gavin. Gavin had reportedly gotten visibly upset when Katz asked him, and had started to cry, but he didn’t want to answer what really had happened. Dr. Stan Katz contacted the police.

            It was a bit later the Santa Barbara police that finally got it out of Gavin what really had happened, and he gave a full statement. He said that, yes, while being drunk Michael Jackson had masturbated him. Several times. When Gavin had felt ashamed about it, Jackson had explained to him how “natural” it was, a statement very typical a child molesters tend to say, but not something a typical 13 year old boy would know.

            The police then had to tell Janet what Gavin had refused to tell her. Janet was reportedly completely unaware and reacted in shock, and thats how things really started rolling. DA Tom Sneddon took it from there.

            ___

            I’m curious what part of this story you and Pea have most problems with, and if you still think this was might have been orchestrated by Janet, and if so, which part? What’s a good alternative explanation to this? I personally don’t see the major plot holes, so I wish I could understand why you doubt the Arvizos so much. :-/

            If it was a civil suit I might have understood you, at least a little bit better, as money can muddle the water, but even then I think I’d need something more to doubt that a serial child molester wouldn’t masturbate yet another kid. Why doubt that? When its not even about money, and no other sensible motive is there for a family to put themselves vulnerable out there in public like that, against a mega celebrity,, no less, to me at least, seems like quite a clear cut case. At least if you’re of the mind that he has molested several other children.

          • ShawntayUStay

            That’s quite a tale, LOL. Who’s testimony is this based on, or is this just the prosecution’s theory in general?

            I think MJ et al were definitely worried about the negative repercussions of the Bashir doc, esp when you have MJ giving an interview when he never gave interviews; he felt duped. They likely wanted Gavin to say unequivocally that nothing happened like the media claimed. But since MJ (probably) did show the boys porn on their first visit, he was afraid that that could come out if the family was gotten a hold of by the tabloids and offered money to “spill secrets”. So even better for MJ was probably to get the family on tape saying nice things just in case they had to combat the porn-showing episode the Arvizo boys could reveal.

            But if MJ was afraid of that coming out (hypothetically speaking), I’m just trying to understand why he’d then do something much much worse? The sexual acts are to have occurred after the rebuttal tape filmed on Feb 20th. The other acts, like showing/letting them see porn and drinking, started before this date and according to Star, Aldo Cascio was always there — those could’ve actually happened.

            Also when was Janet beginning to be viewed suspiciously to the point that they allegedly felt they would need to contain her? It seems that perhaps she was coming off strange while they were in Miami, as Chris Tucker warned about her, because before that time, she was rarely, if ever, there when Gavin interacted with MJ.

            I just got done reading Star’s testimony and I’m really confused by it. One, because Sneddon asked a lot of pointless questions that only required a non-probative yes or no response; two, I felt some of the questions were leading, like there were many times when Star would answer and Sneddon would say “what?” or “pardon?” and Star would change his answer, as if it was like he had gotten it wrong and Sneddon was giving him a signal. Then under cross, I must admit, Mez did a good job, to the point that some of star’s story was clearly revealed to be, at best, embellished, and at worst, a lie.

            I was left wondering what the hell is going on! Totally in the middle at this point because although he seemed truthful about the stuff with Aldo Cascio and some of MJ crude comments–and Mez didn’t really trick him on those–the little obvious lies are…strange additions.

            Also, Star basically said that the rebuttal answers were not scripted and that those “were her[Janet’s] emotions” on there, real emotions. So is weird that she would claim she was so distressed having to do the tape when she came off like she was overjoyed to do it? :-/

            Hopefully Gavin’s testimony is better because Star didn’t help things imo. And the thing about MJ naked: Star’s version was always that MJ came over to talk to them on the bed and said nudity was natural, and had an erection. Gavin’s has always been that MJ just stood there very briefly, almost embarrassed; they saw him so quick, looking away in disgust. Which imo could explain why Gavin could have not recognized the vitiligo, if it was so brief. However, the autopsy (and many of MJ’s confidantes like Dr Conrad Murray) said he had a lot of patches on his body, esp his upper body, back, face, and legs, so why did he not see them? And why is Star’s version so much different?

            Very confusing because Gavin’s seems more truthful but if they have been different from the start, it makes me wonder if they decided on a story (Gavin’s) and Star is adding his own thing to it. According to Mary Holzer, Janet said she worried only about Star getting the story right, not Gavin. :-/ This, plus the vitiligo confusion, I’m skeptical about whether anyone saw MJ naked.

            I still think it’s possible something could have happened to Gavin but at least now, I’m having trouble believing Star.

          • Neely

            Well, they did have the option of a nearly guaranteed civil victory if there was a criminal conviction. That might have been a motive.

            My opinion from the transcripts I’ve read so far, is that Janet wasn’t really concerned about public notoriety. In fact she might have invited celebrity status, or at least shoulder rubbing. I don’t believe she was at all offended or worried about her kid being on the Bashir documentary. I don’t think she was refusing to do the rebuttal for any reason other than she thought they should be getting paid. She wasn’t satisfied with a college education for Gavin. She wanted cash. She denied even knowing that she was involved in the British suit against bashir and the network. Yet, another plight for money, she claimed to know nothing about.

            During direct, even the prosecutor is frustrated and unnerved with her seeming inability to refrain from veering off on some rabbit trail which no one could even attempt to follow. Numerous times, reminded to just answer the question, or to wait until the question was complete before answering. She was a disaster for them, and they knew it. Now, fast forward to Mesereau. He chewed her up and spit her out!! I believe she was being followed as she says. Brad Miller I believe was investigating her on behalf of MJ. I believe Chris Tucker had become suspicious, gave MJs people a heads up, and they began trailing her. Possibly also to make sure she wasn’t doing anything stupid publicly as well……because, let’s face it, she’s a train wreck.

            I am 3/4 finished with her testimony. What I really believe is that she put a lot of people in positions to do her dirty work. Her kids were pawns, and I really think David was too. She’s often absent from circumstances which could incriminate her, yet, someone in her inner circle is there, plying someone for a free ride in some shape or form. She’s even absent from the main house according to her own testimony and that of others.

            A question you had was, why would she put herself up against a giant? Two words….Larry Feldman. Remember he was the one who got 20 million awarded to the Chandlers. A better question is, why WOULDN’T she. And, it’s another example of attention she pretends to abhor. I will never believe she didn’t seek attention for herself, and her children…..from anyone, literally.

            For me, my suspicions of her and her kids, come from her. She gives a plethora of reasons to question her motives and her actions.

          • ShawntayUStay

            Interestingly enough, I got the same feeling from reading the boys’ testimony; I’ve read all of Star and Gavin’s testimony and it was very odd to me how whenever, on cross-exam, Mesereau would ask even simple questions about Janet’s involvement, both Star and Gavin would act as if she wasn’t there, she didn’t know, etc, etc…but one knows that is not humanly possible as she was the only Arvizo parent involved. Janet allegedly said to a court-appointed shrink that she didn’t want to be a “housewife sitting around getting fat”…perhaps she felt entitled to rub elbows with the rich and famous but knew she didn’t have the skills to do it herself so she sculpted her boys to do it. Have you read Carol Lamere’s interview? She has known the Arvizo family since the mid 1990s and also knew MJ (but was closer to the Arvizos). Her testimony wasn’t allowed in but I was taken aback at her recollections because they are damning. I know some would dismiss her because she was going to be a witness for MJ’s side, and initially I thought the same way, but I thought to myself “Why disbelieve her anecdotes when I believe so-called ‘shadier’ characters’ stories of MJ molesting some of his special friends, characters that have sold their stories to tabloids and never went to the police after seeing something untoward, like Philip Lemarque, Mark Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon…” I think it’s so very important to be objective looking at this stuff, regardless if you already think MJ was a pedophile. So, I think Lamere is legitimate, and if she is, then that doesn’t bode well for Janet Arvizo.

            http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/030105motadmevidgsa.pdf

            The family corroborates each other’s stories, which doesn’t really mean anything unless they are all believable.

            As I said earlier in another comment, my hopes were dashed for the believability of the family’s story because, IMO, Star did terribly on the stand, and I felt that Sneddon did as little as required to get the necessary answers from him; he barely let the boy speak! But Mesereau, I felt, obliterated Star for the most part to the point that you could tell that he was simply just lying to maintain the most “positive” image of himself and his brother, et al., like pretending he didn’t even know who Larry Feldman was, for example.

            The conversation with Star about letters written to “Daddy Michael” when the family was not in contact with MJ anymore (around 2001), the words were so so over the top and effusive yet he claimed that he just copied them from a store-bought card, when clearly the words were specific, personal, and convoluted — too “imperfect” to ever be on a mass-market card. The family claim about them being kept away from clocks was also dismantled when Mesereau got Star to “admit” that he saw clocks through the large telescope on the grounds of Neverland, and strangely enough, Star so perfectly remembered where each and every clock was located when asked about them — a testament to having seen them many times. But he claimed that they were still not allowed around clocks because “those clocks” were wrong, but Mez asked how do you know they were wrong if you didn’t know the time! “Because one said one time and the other said a completely different time”. LOL, tangled webs.

            I also was struck by Star’s description of one of the two instances that he claims to have witnessed MJ molesting his brother. He said that he was on the stairs looking over the bed where MJ and Gavin allegedly were, but he says the lights over the bed were out, but he said that there was light coming from the stairway where he was standing which he says illuminated the bed enough for him to see everything from Gavin’s sleeping face, the bottle of wine on the right nightstand, MJ’s outfit of a shirt, socks, and “underwears”, and where MJ’s hands were (this is disregarding the face that his description changed over the retellings of the incident, of course). I just found it weird because from personal experience, I find it very hard to see into a dark space if I am standing in light, like Star claims. That’s the reason why it’s hard for performers to see the audience from the stage if the stage is light, and the reason that I can’t see inside a house that well when I’m standing outside at the front door looking into it. I’d think it would be hard for him to see if the light is on him and not on MJ and Gavin. do you know what I mean? How could Star have seen every detail if the room was dark and he’s in light? Perhaps if the difference between dark and light is not extremely different it’s possible but he was saying the light from the stairway helped him “see everything”. It was…curious to me.

            When I read Gavin’s testimony, I was struck by how cavalier he seemed. He seemed like he enjoyed the attention, and to me, he came of cocky and like this was “no biggie” that he was testifying about something that, according to his mother, made him cry in church about not going to heaven, and had the potential to put a man behind bars for decades. Like he’d make smart alleck remarks, or when Sneddon misspoke while showing him some evidence, saying “blue blag” instead of “blue bag”, Gavin mocked saying “Blue blag?” to which Sneddon retorted it’s a tough job, cut me slack. Gavin also joked about “just needing a pillow” to fall asleep during what was obviously to him, a very boring direct examination. I know he’s a kid and all, but it was strange. But the most interesting part was Gavin admitted that nothing in the rebuttal tape was scripted, outside of written questions. Mez got Gavin to view the rebuttal tape piece by piece, stopping to ask if what was just said was the truth or a lie. Gavin said everything his mother Janet said was true “those we here emotions”, most of what they said in the Feb 20th tape was true about MJ… because he hadn’t molested him yet. But in a interview with Sneddon, Gavin agreed with the prosecutor that the tape was made to get the family tied down to comments since MJ knew he had already molested Gavin prior. That was what Star had originally said as well, that Frank Cascio threatened to have them killed because he knew MJ would go to jail if anyone found out what he was doing to them (the implication was molestation, drinking, etc). But clearly, they had to change the dates of the alleged acts, to “the very very end” of the stay, according to Gavin, because as Gavin admitted, he never wanted to leave Neverland when the family did their first two “escapes”, only until the third ‘escape” where they never returned he “understood” why his mom hated Neverland.

            The inconsistencies are glaring. What is also curious is that Davellin, Star, and Gavin were some of the very earliest prosecution witnesses, while Janet came in at almost the end of their case, even after all the 1108 “Prior Bad Acts” witnesses like June Chandler (who was highly believable ). It makes me think that the prosecution was trying to buffer Janet’s testimony, who they knew was a highly probable canon ball to the ship, by padding the case with old, more “believable” witnesses who claimed to see stuff with his real special friends like Brett, Mac, Wade Robson, James Safechuck, and Jordie Chandler. I don’t know if that worked, LOL.

          • Neely

            I do understand what you mean about the light from the stairway. I noticed an inconsistency with his testimony, which has been 4 million written words ago, haha…..it seems I remember him saying Gavin was facing a certain direction on the bed, which would have made it physically impossible for him to see, or for MJ to even reach his genitalia, or something along those lines. I can’t believe I’ve forgotten what it was, jeez! I remember feeling at the time that I read the boys’ testimonies, that I felt torn. Both sides did well I thought. However, at the end, I remember my final summation being that of skepticism.

            The testimony that I absolutely felt, hands down, was utter crap, was Jason Francia. What a little jerk!! I was appalled by him, truly. I don’t know if his story is true. I do have trouble believing that MJ touched him inappropriately on 3 different occasions, with literally years passing by in between events. He made an uncanny effort to use the word molestation whenever he could, which seemed like his aim was to vilify. From what I’ve read about pedophilia, it’s an undeniable compulsion….like an addict. Is it really believable that there was such long periods of time between events? Could a child molester refrain for that extended period of time in reality? And, 5 years of therapy because the man touched his testicles? I don’t want to sound insensitive. I am generally a child advocate. I just thought this kid was a little jerk…..and that has probably jaded me in terms of finding any of it believable, or in mustering up any sympathy for him. :/

          • ShawntayUStay

            After reading Star’s testimony, I almost felt “what was the point of this?” because he wasn’t convincing, imo, esp when it seemed to me that he was just giving yes or no answers and Sneddon seemed to signal for him to change his responses when he got stuff “wrong”. Both he and his brother are obviously intelligent but… I don’t know, I was disappointed in their performances because I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

            I believe Jason Francia but he really did terribly on the stand so I can understand why he’d be questioned. He was extremely combative on the stand under cross, to the point that one could say “what’s he hiding?” One of the jurors said that he reminded him of Janet Arvizo — never a good thing, LOL. It’s just that what was alleged was so minor why would he lie, and most importantly, MJ paid him $2.7 million — for tickling — rather than fighting it. While fans argue that he wanted to avoid any negative publicity because he just paid Jordie millions, I think the significance of intercepting Francia’s lawsuit, not even letting it be filed, is telling of the fact MJ probably remembered what he did, as minor as it was. MJ remembered his “plan” for Jason.

            Sneddon’s involvement so closely can be viewed as either strong victim advocate our overzealous prosecutor. Personally, I think Sneddon really was pissed that a pedophile got away with it when Jordie’s case was so utterly believable. I saw him interviewed by Rita Cosby after the verdict and imo, he seemed very much okay with the verdict, more than you’d expect given all the time and resources used, abs much more than Ruin Zonen (who is still friends with Gavin).

            I believe that he realized that the Arvizo case was likely suspect by the end — which would explain why the prosecution would try, at the very end of the trial, to have Jordie Chandler’s description of the the photos of MJ’s genitals admitted as evidence, when that was never presented as evidence during discovery or during preparation for the prior bad acts portion of the case. They were trying to save the sinking ship.

            Did you have a chance to read the document I linked? What were your thoughts on it?

          • Neely

            I haven’t made it to the document yet. I’m going to before the day is out though. I admittedly know nothing about the Chandler case, or the Francia case, aside from what I’ve read in the testimonies I’m reading right now. And, of course the glaring things that nearly everyone on the planet has heard. This is my first impression of Jason F., and June C.

            I have some questions about the Chandler case of course. Based on my very limited research, I wonder why Jordie didn’t want to testify, if in fact that was the case. Either in 1993, or in 2003. Why wasn’t he subpoenaed in 2003 if they wanted to really dig up the past? The only people they’ve brought in so far, that I’ve read, are people who say they saw something. It seems it’s kind of evident they each had an axe to grind. When they call (I haven’t gotten this far in the testimonies, this is what I remember hearing at the time) in the victims of the people who witnessed it, they deny it. I need to understand why Jordie didn’t want to bring criminal charges. Why he wasn’t subpoenaed in 2003. So many questions! Agh!!

            I did see somewhere that Louise palanker and Zonen ended up marrying and were seen at Gavin’s wedding.

            I’m off to read your link.

          • ShawntayUStay

            No, Jordie didn’t want to testify in the Arvizo case. The prosecutors did meet with him in New York and he stated flat out that he would take legal action if he was subpoenaed. He said that he had “done his part” back in 1993 and they could get the others to testify if they were so inclined to resurrected his case. I think Jordie wanted to move on with his life and didn’t want any publicity. In 1993, the lawyers for MJ and the Chandler family were best buds, practically, so there was, IMO, little likelihood that a criminal case was ever going to take place. MJ was always going to pay up. Actually, Jordie Chandler was never interviewed by Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon because I believe there was a greater likelihood that Sneddon would have quickly charged MJ after speaking with Jordie, unlike the Los Angeles DA Gil Garcetti (a friend of Johnnie Cochran). I think they tried to keep Sneddon away so that a financial settlement could be reached before anything happened criminally. But that’s Hollyweird for you!

          • Neely

            Okay, I read the link. Wow!! Now, Janet says in her testimony that David and Carol Lamir had entered into a relationship. I suppose that could be a motive for almost anything she said. BUT, I believe her. What she says mirrors my sentiments exactly. It was David who was always at the ranch, at the hospital, and at the fundraisers. Janet complained her children were fading from her grip (basically) – that she was losing her bond with them etc. They were off having fun with Michael. Please!! Everyone testified she never came out of the guesthouse. Whose fault is that? It sure isn’t someone else’s.

            I suspected it was her that was abusive rather than David. Now, Im convinced. She claims all this concern about her kids’ lives being endangered. If she was, then where was she all the time? Why did she leave them at Neverland without her? It all speaks volumes to what kind of mother she was….completely outside of any molestation allegations, all that aside. This mother is a piece of work. She had everyone around her jumping through hoops on her behalf. Sheesh! Put her kids in comedy camp with their stories of poverty. Seriously? Do people actually believe she didn’t have an agenda? She couldn’t be at the hospital by Gavin’s side, but, she could be at the laugh factory where she might accidentally rub shoulders with someone famous? Pft!! Sorry, tiny rant there. I have a sensitivity to narcissism, haha! More like an allergy really.

            Thanks for the link. I now believe my hunches were correct. πŸ™‚

          • ShawntayUStay

            I just found Carol Lamir’s story believable and I couldn’t find any reason to disbelieve her. Janet was objectively crazy, so Carol just provided many of the missing puzzle pieces. I know some still think she was just a poor Latina who was abused and easily got in over her head regarding all the MJ goings on, but that doesn’t seem to be reality, unfortunately. It’s actually insulting if you think about it, that a poor Barrio woman can’t have some smarts and is easily taken advantage of! Her mental illness, her poor formal education attainment, and likely early motherhood limited how far she could go (in her mind), but I believe she’s a lot smarter than people think. Janet Arvizo does in fact have a history of claiming maltreatment at the hands of others — MJ’s people, the JC Penney guards, David Arvizo, etc — so I don’t understand how that wouldn’t play a part on how she should be evaluated.

            I agree with your analysis, and I’ll add that, imo, she used the write is me card to play susceptible people out of goods and services because, let’s be honest, there are many people that fall for that trick and want to help. I imagine that Janet may have seen Gavin’s cancer diagnosis as a meal ticket; indeed, during Gavin’s testimony, a card written to comedian Louise Palanker was read abs it was waaay over the top effusive. But Louise did give them $20,000 to make an aseptic room at the grandmother’s house. Many celebs gave the family gifts, took them out shopping, etc. I think they saw MJ as the same type of cash cow, based on the evidence. The number of saccharine letters they sent to MJ when they had lost contact after he’d let the kids play many times at Neverland, gave them a car, and computer.

            But MJ was honestly a cynical a-hole and it’s his own fault that his ego was so big that he’d call up this kid after he’d changed his numbers abs cut off all avenues of contact, just to feature him in a doc to make him look like a child healer… only to cut off contact again until Feb 2003. It’s almost “just desserts” for poor decision making and narcissism!

          • Pea

            Very interesting comment, Neely, and thank you for your input. I apologize that your post was languishing in the “Pending” queue for several hours! One of the admins is on holiday. πŸ™‚

            “A question you had was, why would she put herself up against a giant? Two words….Larry Feldman. Remember he was the one who got 20 million awarded to the Chandlers. A better question is, why WOULDN’T she.”

            I’ve been busy the past couple of days and the 2005 trial has been distant from my mind and I haven’t got to tuck into Janet’s testimony (I’m only about 30-40 pages in). However, I did read the complete testimonies of Arvizo attorneys Bill Dickerman and Larry Feldman. One argument among Jacko skeptics is that the Arvizos failure to seek money after the acquittal somehow proves (?) that they never were after Jacko’s money. I can’t seem to wrap my head around that logic: present behavior isn’t usually — or is not ever — an explanation for past behavior; it’s the other way around. (Not to mention that I can imagine Jacko’s side going after them vigorously for defamation if they spoke to media outlets.) So, the converse argument would be they were after money (in fact, I’d argue that not only would a conviction all but guarantee a civil payout from Jacko, one from ABC, Granada, Bashir, etc., would likely be ensured, too, since, according to prosecution theory, it was the fallout from the Bashir documentary — for which the Arvizos claimed they never gave consents — that led to the imprisonment that led to the drinking that led to the molestation), but for it to stand, one needs to find out at which point in the timeline did money come into play.

            To me, it’s obvious from Dickerman’s testimony that money was the basis for his working for Janet Arvizo; it was just that it wasn’t Jacko’s money they were seeking but that of ABC, Granada, Disney, the Globe, National Enquirer, etc. His letter-writing campaign, in my opinion, was to see if by demanding these entities to shield Gavin’s identity (since the Arvizos allegedly never gave consent) they would be willing to negotiate a “price” to show Gavin without censor bars. That was the defense theory, I believe, and I think it was salient: if they had proof of no consents given, I think they would’ve filed a lawsuit immediately.

            After they left Neverland, that is when they attempted to rescind all consents given to Jacko for the rebuttal documentary, too. They never mentioned molestation while they were asking about getting their stuff back or claiming harassment. So, if that is the case, when did that come up?

            I can reasonably believe Dickerman when he said that he wanted to “pick Feldman’s brain” about any proceeding that could involve Jacko, but I don’t understand why Feldman, specifically, was needed. Of course, it makes sense if money was a motivation. According to Feldman, his law firm researched the issues surrounding the alleged lack of consents given for the Bashir documentary — I believe Feldman and his firm were interested in the large payout that could possibly be gained from suing media corporations (in fact, Feldman continued to do little pro bono “odd jobs” for members of the Arvizo family unrelated to the Jacko case and sent a preliminary complaint to the DCFS regarding the leaked memo — my feeling is that he was holding out for the media case, especially if Jacko was convicted, but that’s just my suspicion).

            Somewhere molestation came up — Feldman said in his grand jury testimony that there were “very very vague” allegations that something could have happened. He claims he got Katz involved because he was “selfish” and wanted someone to vet out the “very very vague” allegations. However, if you look at the timeline, Katz interviewed Janet on May 15 & May 16, then the children on May 29, then Janet and the boys again on June 11. If one was sufficiently cynical, they could easily argue that the two weeks between Janet’s second interview and the boys’ first one is ample amount of time to create a story of molestation.

            Gavin said to Katz in his interview, “Jordie Chandler didn’t stop him,” in response to Katz’s suggestion that Gavin should be willing to testify so that he could help other kids. Where did he learn about Jordie Chandler? Well, likely from Feldman or Dickerman. If Dickerman, that suggests why they’d want to align with Feldman because he’d secured a massive settlement; if from Feldman, that could’ve inspired the claims that weren’t prominent at the beginning of the association (Feldman said it was mainly about Bashir and getting the stuff back).

            It is interesting to note that Feldman seemed eager, from my reading, to be rid of the molestation case. He passed it on to Sneddon and later terminated his representation. He told Larry King Janet was a “Wacko” and “In it for the money”. In his expert opinion after many big wins, he didn’t think it was a good case.

            So, I think the molestation claims came about when Feldman got involved. Which necessarily raises flags that, instead of merely going after Jacko for “stuff”, they could put some meat in their claims because it could guarantee a larger payout ($25M worth?). If that is what happened, I am not surprised they pushed forward — Jacko was obviously a pedophile and a little public exposure was worth it with a potential reward so enormous.

            (This is just a Devil’s Advocate theory about money based on what could be gleaned from the testimonies. I’m not saying they lied, just challenging the logic.)

          • Neely

            Well, after an acquittal, imagine the giant they really would be up against in trying to prove a civil case.

          • Neely

            Well, if you’re a crazed fan of MJ, and even though Gavin didn’t say or do anything derogatory in the documentary, I can imagine there are people who looked at that, saw the dire situation at hand, and said, “this kid is an asshole for getting on worldwide TV and putting MJ in a negative light”. To some fans, I think anyone who compromises MJs image is reason for backlash. I don’t mean to say Gavin actually DID compromise MJs image, but, I believe that people who refuse to hold MJ accountable for literally anything, could take that stance.

          • Pea

            If the Bashir documentary had just aired February 3rd in England (England being approximately 8 to 9 hours ahead of Los Angeles), and, according to transcripts, phone records indicated arrangements to do this press conference with Gavin in Miami took place on February 4th, Los Angeles time, would there have yet been enough outcry from fans in response to the documentary and the media coverage of it to generate “death threats”, and especially against Gavin when he was attempting to show Jacko’s seeming regression as benign and fun?

            Remember, the Bashir doc had yet to air in the U.S. by the time the family even got to Miami. I can’t recall the amount off hand but at least 15 million people watched it in the UK; it was about double that in the U.S., where it aired on Feb 6th, I believe.

            If anything, Bashir would’ve gotten death threats from UK fans, not Gavin — fans are protective of all boys who speak positively of Jacko, even if they testify to frankly suspect behavior (e.g. Brett Barnes and his decade’s long bed-sharing with Michael).

            Now, I’m not suggesting the idea of death threats received on Gavin’s life couldn’t have been said. For instance, a sufficiently desperate and distressed Jacko could have greased Janet Arvizo to agree to let Gavin go to Miami under the guise of “protecting him” and it was a part of a self-interested ploy…. Well, as I’m typing that, I’m suddenly thinking the notion of protecting Gavin from death threats is completely counterintuitive to the plans to have a press conference to “set the record straight” about the Bashir documentary. LOL. Which is why this case is difficult because that makes no sense!

            It’s also entirely and equally possible that these supposed death threats were manufactured after the fact as part of the Arvizo narrative against Jacko, and that what was really going to happen was that the plan was just for a press conference without pretense or ulterior motive. According to Chris Tucker, everyone was happy to see Jacko when they got to Miami.

            But, to be honest, I doubt there were any actual death threats, regardless of whether they were said by Jacko to Janet or simply made up by the Arvizos.

          • Neely

            After further reading, I agree. I doubt there were death threats. I feel like the media circus ensued, the Jackson camp is experienced with what that can entail, and how detrimental the media coverage was at that specific time. I now believe they were simply staying involved under the guise of shielding her from the media, while simultaneously running a mild investigation of her character. And what a character!!

          • ShawntayUStay

            I’m reading the transcripts, too, of Star and he continues to say that Aldo Cascio was in the room with he, Gavin, and MJ when the briefcase of porn was shown, when MJ allegedly humped the mannequin, and when they drank wine and played crack call drinking games. He also said the Rijo Jackson was in the room when MJ asked him if he masturbated.

            It’s confusing because I tend to believe that it sounds true because of the inclusion of another person, plus the fact that Chris Carter said he saw MJ with the three boys in his office and they had four wines glasses in front of them.

            But if Star is lying, having Aldo testify would be like Wade, Brett, and Mac Culkin to rebut the claims of fondling seen by the staff; Aldo would’ve been a star defense witness. I haven’t read Rijo’s testimony to see if he challenges the claim of masturbation talk with MJ.

            I’m thinking that Frank Cascio not appearing made it so that none of the Cascio family would testify, something that according to Frank’s book, MJ was quite angry about. And as you said, Mesereau believes that Sneddon scared then away. It’s just curious why at least Aldo wasn’t called….because even if he saw something, MJ still obviously wouldn’t have had any qualms about him lying on the stand, like he did for his other special friends and him wanting James Safechuck to testify.

  • silverspirit

    IMO, Frank told many lies. He’s got no credibility what so ever. Do you have another book that is credible to suggest?

  • CandyC

    I was browsing Topix and I come across this article: http://stars.topix.com/slideshow/16690?utm_campaign=16690&utm_source=topix-stars

    I’m kind of surprised that Michael is still being perpetuated as an “asexual”, you don’t have to know too much about him to know he definitely wasn’t. Anyone have an thoughts on this?

    • Andreas

      He sure owned a lot of porn for an asexual… and the autopsy showed he wasn’t chemically castrated either, another popular myth. I think people just don’t see whats in front of their nose, or they might not want to think about it?

      • CandyC

        IMO it’s obvious that article was written by someone who was biased, and I don’t think Topix is the most credible of websites. The article goes by Michaels public persona, which we know would have been completely different to his private one. It is a myth he was asexual, to the way he danced on stage to just the “vibe” he gave off, as well as the mountains of porn he owned (I think that was probably for seducing boys though).

        I think it’s possible some people think he was asexual since the evidence of his supposed interest in women is not strong, we have women claiming to be with him but I think they’re just delusional and possibly were led on by him. He was almost never seen with an adult female in that kind of way. I’m not completely sure where this myth started…

        • ShawntayUStay

          Candy, I always thought the reason for the persistence of the asexual myth was because of MJ himself. I think he almost cultivated it because he didn’t want people to hound him for his lack of interest in women, so it was easier to feign asexuality. If folks just thought he was asexual it would put an end to gay rumors and the pressure to get into a romantic relationship.

          I think the fans (at least some of them) like to think he was just an innocent instead of gay.

          I think MJ may also have been mimicking children with his (pretend) lack of sexual interest; children are “pure”. Perhaps it was his own personal fantasy, or him trying to distance himself from the oversexed “Jackson male” persona. But we all know that MJ’s perceived asexuality made him be able to get close to kids because the parents saw him as a big kid himself. So I wonder how much was genuine and how much of it was a calculated ploy on his part.

          • CandyC

            I was thinking something similar myself, like the asexual facade was a ploy to disguise his *real* desires (boys). To me, if someone was truly heterosexual and especially someone as famous as Michael, there would be no question about it. With Michael the gay rumors constantly plagued him his entire life. No everyone is a liar or out to get him, some are genuinely telling the truth which is what f’loons fail to realise.

            I think he desperately wanted to be child-like in his personality but since he was a full grown adult it would have been difficult for him to consistently maintain that masquerade. I often wonder if he suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder, he seemed to switch with how he acted IMO. And I also wonder the same thing; although I can imagine that part of his childlike persona was something he did to appear more appealing to children. He did the same thing with Neverland after all, that was a kids’ paradise.

  • AKS, you are well within your rights, and the rights of others, to question the motives of the owners, administrators and writers on this site. I can put your mind at rest, we are merely interested in uncovering the truth about MJ. Naturally this site will be slightly biased – having done thorough research and looking carefully at the evidence we have all concluded that Michael Jackson was a pedophile and child molester – so our outlook comes from that perspective.

    Our expectation though is for people not to follow what we say blindly. That would be ridiculous and unfair. We suggest everyone go out on the web and read as much as they can on the subject and come to their own conclusion. We even have links to vindication sites on our links page, in stark contrast to fan sites who tell their readers not to visit here. Odd that they would do that, wouldn’t you agree? There is no plausible reason to discourage people from reading both sides.

    Odd too is the fact that you have chosen an ad hominem attack on the site owner, and rail against “wrong facts”, yet you didn’t even refute a single one of those facts? That’s in spite of your claim that “there is a paper trail to refute them”.

    If you would like to debate the facts, do it. There are many people here willing to back up the information on the site. Who knows, you might even change our mind. Don’t be shy, which particular facts on the site are wrong? It’s that old saying in action, “play the ball, not the man (or woman lol)”.

    If you are objective, you don’t call those with a differing opinion or interpretation of the information presented “apologist”.

    I thought that would be obvious. If your neighbor, pastor, Little League coach etc slept with young boys, collected child erotica or was accused of molestation five times, would you be defending them? Answer honestly.

    Another thing puzzles me, and perhaps you can help me understand. Why is any Jackson defender worried about this site? We have just 5,000 visitors a week, nobody from the media industry nor any influential people use us as a source of information, we don’t go out of our way to advertise ourselves and there is just one site like ours on the entire web in contrast to the hundreds, if not thousands, of pro-MJ sites out there. So why should any of you care? What are you afraid of?

    • AKS

      I am not afraid of anything. However, I am a journalist who publishes weekly and I have actually interviewed people who have known MJ throught his life since 2010 while doing research for a piece on a related artist. I actually have real first-hand insight and I know better. That’s why I can state what I have stated and not challenge you bit by bit. I have had the conversations with people who knew him going back to 1968 and others who actually interviewed him several times since 1970 until 2007 and so forth. Perhaps if you talk to them, “you will change your mind”. I had no opinion prior to my interviews. But prior to becoming a full-time journalist, I was a therapist with a grad degree in clinical psychology and have taught the subject in higher education since 1999. My first rotation was with sex offenders and I have treated victims since. I also am a survivor so trust me when I say I have no ssympathies for the victims of children. When you really study the testimonies, and know some of the histories from the Motown folks especially from their mouths, you realize none of this is true. Do I believe R. Kelly is guilty, 100%; Bill Cosby is of at least one, his deposition makes that clear. However, Michael Jackson was not. See the movie “Robin Hood Men In Tights”. That was the film Evan Chandler wanted MJ to sink $20 million in. He was going to when advisors read the script and declared it a dud. Jackson changed his mind and Chandler got upset. He also committed suicide a few months after Jackson’s death. Also, I would advise you look at Sneddon’s other cases. He has a record of trying to vindicate his losses. But I suggest you get to learn a lot about the Motown ongoings. They explain a lot and things that seem off or odd become clearer. It is a tough group to get close to but once they trust you, they talk. Their stories aren’t for me to tell, but if you truly are about being “objective” you have to begin there, not with the 1993 charges. Oh, and I found this site because I was looking for a specific report for an article about the R. Kelly case to show differences between the two. I’m thorough so I exhaust all possible search keyword combos.The Google description said “objective” as a journalist I thought it may be useful. And I want to be VERY clear. I am not a Jackson “defender”, I am a defender of the truth because in the end, that’s all that matters.

      • Pea

        “But I suggest you get to learn a lot about the Motown ongoings. They explain a lot and things that seem off or odd become clearer. It is a tough group to get close to but once they trust you, they talk. Their stories aren’t for me to tell, but if you truly are about being “objective” you have to begin there, not with the 1993 charges.”

        This is funny, AKS. You’re essentially saying that because you don’t like the content here, the only way we can become “objective” (by your definition) is if we manage to track down some obscure, cagey-but-gossipy Motown insiders. No doubt you know that this is very difficult to do, but, instead of being reasonable and in lieu of (likely) proving you cannot rebut the information on this website, you fabricate this “trumps!” to get you off the hook. Excuse me, but that is ridiculous, and so are you.

        Save us some of the work, though, and tell us whether those Motown insiders have good explanations about why Jacko insisted sleeping in the bed with young boys (http://www.mjfacts.com/mjs-bed-by-invitation-only/ ), collecting them as a “special friends” (http://www.mjfacts.com/whats-the-story-with-omer-bhatti-and-michael-jackson/ ), and the etiology of the behaviors that led to him being accused of molestation by 5 different alleged victims (e.g. http://www.mjfacts.com/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/ ).

        And please do reveal what those secretive Motown Chatty Kathys know about his ownership of pedophile made and peddled books that featured the naked genitals of little white boys the same ages of the “special friends” he repeatedly and obsessively chose to sleep with.

        No, really, AKS, return to edify us; I think many readers would love to know at least the most general descriptions of your especial info. If you’re not willing or able, please do us — and yourself — a favor and admit that your real beef is not with the site’s claim of “objectivity” but the site’s differing position on Michael Jackson.

        By the way, this…

        “See the movie “Robin Hood Men In Tights”. That was the film Evan Chandler wanted MJ to sink $20 million in. He was going to when advisors read the script and declared it a dud. Jackson changed his mind and Chandler got upset.”

        …is inaccurate. “Robin Hood: Men in Tights”, a Mel Brooks film, was released at the end of July 1993; Evan Chandler had only met Jacko, in person, at the close of May 1993. The script had been written and optioned well in advance of Jordie Chandler even hanging out with Jacko.

        • AKS

          It is easy to call people “Chatty Cathy’s” when you haven’t spoken to them. I know who the “gossipy” folks are and I also know who the real handlers and people whose knowledge is above reproach. That is why I can advise you to do additional reseearch. As for the film, Mel Brooks served as producer and director. The original.concept and writing was Chandler. Digging is essential. As for the sleeping in the bed, have you ever seen how big the bed at Neverland was!? Have you visited anyone’s home who works in the music business and is successful? Ten people can fit in these beds with space for four more. I find it funny that you ignored the actual essential information in my post regarding my clinical knowledge. But I will bow out of this site, happily. My only question and reason for posting in the first place goes back to my original question about objectivity. You said if I was open minded, I might change my mind. However, you are not willing to do the same and instead of “debating” as you say, you pick out excerpts of a post and twist it to fit your purpose as opposed to answering the original question. If you have pitched your tent in the field of guilt, why claim to be “objective”. That’s not only a misnomer, it is a flat out lie. That was my initial post and question. Objective was used incorrectly in your description. And the truth is that you know it and just don’t care!

          • ShawntayUStay

            It was ignored because it doesn’t matter whether you’re Harvard educated, or if you where born in a Walmart trash can and raised in the streets, only opening up a textbook to rip out a page for the toilet, LOL. Sorry for being crude but it’s true; your education has nothing to do with the validity of the molestation allegations, especially since those allegations have nothing to do with you or the Motown crowd whatsoever. So congratulations to you for your educational successes but bringing them up is a fallacy.

          • Pea

            AKS, did you click over to MJFacts because, by “objective”, you believed that it would say Michael Jackson was innocent? Tell the truth: you believe that because Jacko was rumored to be a pedophile, a charge you dislike, an “objective” site (by your definition) would dispel those ugly accusations. After all, you were googling away wanting to find a website that would underscore your thesis about how R. Kelly was a pedophile but Jacko wasn’t, right?

            With all due respect, you’re not telling the truth when you say you just wanted “objectivity”, so let’s stop the charade…. I would also add that some of us — and I can speak best for myself only — have researched into Michael Jackson, have done it for a while, and have made a decision about our findings. No, this website probably is not “objective” but you weren’t looking for objectivity anyway. I hope you also censure the dozens and dozens of fan websites that swear up and down that Jacko wasn’t interested in young boys.

            As for the rest of your comment…

            “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” never had anything to do with Michael Jackson. That was your error. It was written and in production way before the Chandlers had even began hanging around Jacko. You haven’t refuted that in your reply.

            “As for the sleeping in the bed, have you ever seen how big the bed at Neverland was!? Have you visited anyone’s home who works in the music business and is successful? Ten people can fit in these beds with space for four more.”

            This is absurd. First of all, Michael Jackson didn’t just sleep with boys at Neverland. He slept with them in hotel rooms and at their homes, where, if we use your argument, the “music industry standard sized bed” was not present. According to Wade Robson’s testimony at the 2005 trial, he and Jacko slept in a pullout sofa bed. He also lay with them on sleeping bags. I would wager anything remotely “bed-like” Jacko would be on it with his favorite boy.

            Do you have any secret Motown stories about why he liked being in bed with young boys? Please do edify promptly. All I could find was the below and, using simple math, Bobby Taylor was in his 30s sleeping with Jacko when Jacko was a boy:

            https://youtu.be/xGcGsx3psZI

            Second, this is the bed from Jacko’s Neverland bedroom. It doesn’t look especially huge to me, just a standard, regular-folks’ sized bed — nothing that would give Jacko special privileges to snuggle up with other people’s sons:

            http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/04/article-0-0598A21F000005DC-87_634x566.jpg

            http://www.mjfacts.com/mjs-bed-by-invitation-only/

            “I find it funny that you ignored the actual essential information in my post regarding my clinical knowledge.”

            Well, it was ignored because it isn’t relevant to the conversation, AKS. Had you stated that your clinical knowledge included interviewing Jacko and diagnosing him with pedophilia, I might be more interested…

      • No offence AKS, but I’m disappointed.

        You promised us “BTW, some of yoyr (sic) “facts” are wrong and there is a paper trail to refute them.”, yet when challenged you, in essence, say “Trust me, I know the real story”.

        I don’t see any reason why we should trust you, in spite of your appeals to authority. Even if you are a journalist, a clinical psychologist, a teacher or a survivor, you haven’t brought one fact to the table, or refuted a single fact on the site.

        Wait, I apologize, you did bring one “fact” – “See the movie “Robin Hood Men In Tights”. That was the film Evan Chandler wanted MJ to sink $20 million in. He was going to when advisors read the script and declared it a dud. Jackson changed his mind and Chandler got upset. – which isn’t even true.

        There is also your other errors. There were no “1993 charges”, Jackson was never charged in the 1993 allegations because he paid the Chandler family so it wouldn’t get to that stage. While an argument could be made that Tom Sneddon was overzealous in his prosecution of Jackson, he has no “record of trying to vindicate his losses”, unless you want to believe unsubstantiated claims on fan websites.

        If you want your criticisms of this site and it’s writers to be taken seriously, you will need to come up with something more substantial than “believe me, I talked to some Motown people and they explained everything.

        Looking forward to a more substantive reply.

  • AKS

    BTW, I hope you don’t mind, but I will be using this discussion in one of my articles this week. I think coming to a clear understanding of objectivity in an age where technology allows anyone with an opinion to share it as authority is worthy of the discussion and what those of us who are journalists should keep in mind when reporting.

    • I’ll be looking out for it AKS, it will be interesting to see how you interpret the discussion.

      I’m a bit worried though — this is a website which tells the truth about Michael Jackson (which you acknowledge by failing to refute a single one of the facts written here), so I’m concerned that someone who writes “So I just want to personally say, β€œthank you,” Michael Jackson. You were too good for us and we didn’t deserve you, but I’m glad we had you.” and “I was doing some research gor(sic) an article and came across one of these fake blogs that claimed it was β€œobjective” and upon questioning their use (and understanding) of the term, they attacked.” would be objective enough to present us fairly?

      We never “attacked” you for questioning the objectiveness of this site. Quite the contrary, we admitted that yes, we may be somewhat biased (but only after looking at the facts objectively). I have no idea why you would want to dishonestly characterize our requests for you to back up your claims and our pointing out of your factual errors as an “attack”, unless, perhaps, you viewed our questioning as an “attack” on your beliefs about Michael Jackson? Rather than becoming defensive, you could come back and explain in detail why you believe MJ to be innocent.

      Looking forward to your return so that you can enlighten us “haters” πŸ™‚

      • silverspirit

        The Motown gossip was new one for me.

      • ShawntayUStay

        I think it’s really funny how she’d claim she was attacked, esp since she came on here guns ablazin’ because, as Pea pointed out, she didn’t find a Michael Jackson website that conformed to her position that MJ was innocent. I’m always interested in why someone feels MJ was innocent because I’ve concluded otherwise after years of research; I’m open to seeing if my conclusions are incorrect. But fans rarely have the proof to match their commitment to the “Michael Jackson was framed!”, etc, narrative.

        If she wants to see people attacked for having a different opinion, look at fans. I’ve seen people kicked out or ostracized from MJ forums for even broaching “sensitive” topics like his incessant need to sleep with little boys — something that really has never, ever been successfully explained. I remember a heated exchange on VMJ between two admins over this very issue, one saying he shouldn’t have done it, the other basically questioning why anyone would question MJ!

        Fans have stalked MJ’s alleged victims in forums, posting all types of pictures of their family, friends, and co-workers, just because these men have the “nerve” to call MJ a molester, but I bet AKS doesn’t feel this is a form of attack? They even go after regular bloggers, libelling them for their content that didn’t praise MJ, or trying to get their blogs deleted to prevent people from knowing the truth of MJ’s disgusting boy books, for example.

        It’s far more difficult to hold the opinion that MJ was guilty, esp if you want to write about the research that made you come to that conclusion. So AKS shouldn’t be so dramatic because no one attacked her…But she seems to be going the typical fan route, writing about the people here’s supposed “psychosis” just because we disagree with her. Smh

        • silverspirit

          Well said!

  • Andreas

    Seems like there’s an astonishing pattern for people with supposed degrees in clinical psychology defending a strong stance on Jacksons innocence. This one has even talked to Motown people though, who has given him secret inside information from their secret pedophile society and told him Jackson wasn’t a member, so I suppose Michael Jackson really was innocent all along then. This was fun while it lasted, but we probably should have seen it coming that a professional journalist with black belt in journalism one day would come wipe the floor with us all.

    • silverspirit

      Love a good sense of humor. Best way to handle those who think they are the only in the know while not knowing much at all.

  • I was reading this the other day and just want to leave it here to remind myself to always be true with myself.

    “Weak-sense critical thinking is the use of critical thinking to defend your current beliefs. Strong-sense critical thinking is the use of the same skills to evaluate all claims and beliefs, especially your own…. The purpose of weak-sense critical thinking is to resist and annihilate opinions and reasoning different from yours. To see domination and victory over those who disagree with you as the objective of critical thinking is to ruin the potentially humane and progressive aspects of critical thinking. In contrast, strong-sense critical thinking requires us to apply the critical questions to all claims, including our own. By forcing ourselves to look critically at our initial beliefs, we help protect ourselves against self-deception and conformity…. Strong-sense critical thinking does not necessarily force us to give up our initial beliefs. It can provide a basis for strengthening them because critical examination of those beliefs will sometimes reinforce our original commitment to them.”

    From the textbook, Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking – Authors: M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley 9th edition

    • ShawntayUStay

      OMG, I am reading this exact book right now as well! Another good one that I’ve read is “With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies” by Engel.

      You see weak sense critical thinking all the time surrounding discussions about Michael Jackson, and a lot of “working backward” to confirm previous assumptions. Fans do it because they have a pre-established love for him as an artist and no doubt lots of time and energy has been put into being a fan. So to them, MJ cannot be guilty of molesting his special friends, or being gay, or a liar about his skin and plastic surgery and kids’ biological origins. It’s almost stifling to be the object of obsession!

      I feel sorry for fans though, since I was like that too but I’m too rational to ignore obvious evidence, despite the horrible(!) feeling of cognitive dissonance that takes a hold of you when you are faced with things that go against previous assumptions. But my motto, as a scientist, is “Evolve or Die” — if you don’t change when necessary you’ll be left behind in the dust of history.