DEMON,
another bunch of lies Michael is all 3 of them children father and Michael was/is and always has been innocent proven in 3 grand juries. and Michael didn't buy his children maybe you bought your children with Michael's money or your husband" is a sperm doner cause he didn't want to touch your old decrepit nasty tw@# after you slept with Sneddon in that restaurant parking lot during his retirement. you just don't know what the truth is, do you? and {if} he did pay Debbie Rowe for the children that says something bad about her not him you need to get on with your miserable life and leave Michael and his children alone did you think that I wouldn't find this article? wrong, because I research every day to find out everything about Michael.and I read the date on this one and it is February 2010 and I see that you are still at it and didn't I tell you to leave his children out of it as long as you talk sh** about him I'll be right there to defend him., and you are no reporter all you are is a liar and don't say anything about the autopsy report that came out, the FBI Files that came out, the toxicology report that came out and all of the evidence that prove that Michael is innocent and not a drug addict as you say lies,lies,lies.go and attack Tiger Woods like you attack Michael and his 3 innocent children, don't you have any shame? no you don't because if you did you would get over your self and leave an innocent man and his children alone I'm not going to stop until you do so as long as you attack Michael and his children I'll be right here and attack you right back and expose you for the liar that you are. and I told you I'm your KARMA so get used to it I'm not going to leave you alone and just because you blocked my IP address that still isn't stopping me from getting back at you. and I don't need your lying sites to expose you as the liar that you are and you are no reporter you are a lying hack.
http://www.fakedimond.blogspot.com/

http://www.luc.edu/law/activities/publications/lljdocs/vol40_no4/vol40_issue4/Karcher.pdf

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fbi_releases_files_on_michael_jackson_lsO5Bb4NkC3JCVDDOqm2wI

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2575177/why_was_michael_jackson_accuser_jordan.html?cat=2

http://deargavinarvizo.com/2009/11/the-transcripts/

http://site2.mjeol.com/

and there is more but I have to look for them
Blanket edition,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Anx5YPKzXBA,,,,,,,,
Prince 1 edition,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDLsYD6j0aE&feature=related
Paris edition,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4rHGZ2OT-4&feature=related

there are 3 more lies that you were caught in. when are you going to learn to give up? because like I said I'll be there to catch you in all of your lies about him, he's not here to defend himself any more thanks to you and Bashir, and others that lies about him and surprise he wasn't addicted to anything he just wanted a good nights sleep that don't make him a bad person because he was an insomniac that was because of you and Bashir and all of your lies at least Bashir admitted that he lied about Michael you haven't and never will and I can't wait for KARMA to come for you.

o.h yeah and
P.S.
it wasn't even 30 million dollars that's how much you know,
it was only 20 million that HIS INSURANCE COMPANY PAID THEM EXTORTIONISTS,
and Michael was pi**ed about it to.

Diane Dimond really needs to stop slandering Michael Jackson's name and his legacy. It is really pathetic that she continues to lie about a dead man. Her "sources" are proven liars. She can't produce any verifiable proof of her claims that Michael Jackson molested any child. The FBI could not find anything proving that Michael Jackson molested children. What makes any thinking person believe that Dimond did. Diane Dimond really should read the FBI report. It is on the internet. She also need to read his official autopsy report. The coroner's report shows that there were no illegal substances or alcohol in Mr. Jackson's system. The only medications in his system were what Murray administered. Mr. Jackson was an insominac looking for a good nights sleep. Diane Dimond even goes as far as to say that Mr. Jackson bought his children. Where is her proof of this? Where is her proof that these are not his biological children? She is just speculating. Dimond's reporting is full of speculation, innuendos and outright lies. Where are the facts?

Diane Dimond (aka Demon) - since 1993, this self-proclaimed "expert" on Michael Jackson has pimped him for mortgage money. With absolutely no scruples and no morals, Diane Demon continues to breathlessly weigh in on everything Michael. She cares not a wit for children (I don't recall that she dialed 911 when she was interviewing people who claimed they witnessed crimes against children) but only that she exact some sort of revenge against Michael (apparently he sued her ass over one of her lies). Like a bitch in heat she has attached herself to Michael Jackson and short of a very powerful hose of water, we can't get her off him. If only she would attach herself to truth and integrity and objective "reporting" like she has attached herself to Michael's penis she might actually be worth the skin she occupies. The sad part is people believe her. I actually hate her more than Dr. Conrad Murray, who just looks stupid to me. But she looks like the calculating b*tch she is.

Diane Demon, whatever your name is. I just have to say one thing...who did you screw to get your job? You are nothing but a bag sh*t liar who doesn't even investigate the things you report. You a cruel and vicious person with no morals what so ever. You accuse Michael Jackson of thinking he could get away with anything....and being immoral..honey for someone who seems to hate the immorals where's yours. You are no better with your all your lies, deception, and immoral judgement. Oh and by the way, this so called molester as you called and continue to call him has more morals and goodness in him on his thumb nail then you have throughout your whole fat body. He sure made you a fat ass with the money you made off of him. And leave his kids alone, have some descency.

Diane you seem to change your tone from website to website. On this one you are using nostalgia, a wistfulness that is as false as your accreditation's. When you discovered there was big money to be made by slandering Michael Jackson you knew you had hit the jack pot. Your social consciousness and concern for anyone other than your pocket and available face time is a lie.
On the Daily Beast you claim the "FBI failed to do a proper investigation". Implying had they done so then surely they would have been able to back up your and DA Sneddon's lies. I think if 90 agents could not find anything credible, then it is a case of there being nothing to be found. They should have started an investigation on you two. How many millions of tax payer dollars were wasted on charade that even the best of your efforts could not pull off; the destruction of an innocent man.
I personally believe that just asking for forgiveness at the end of days is not enough for redemption. You better hope I am wrong.

http://cscstaff.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7295&page=1
here is more proof that Michael is innocent, but she ignores all of this but that's o.k. because I'll just keep cutting and pasting things that I write to her somewhere else.
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-file-reveals-attempt-to-convict.html
proof that they went after Michael because he was black,
http://deargavinarvizo.com/2009/11/the-transcripts/
more proof he was innocent
and she is nothing but a big fat liar as usual. and she says that the FBI is lying about Michael, she's the only liar,
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/fbi_releases_files_on_michael_jackson_lsO5Bb4NkC3JCVDDOqm2wI
another lie here is the autopsy report and she even lied about this before it came out,
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf
she needs to realize that I'm going to keep catching her in all of these lies and I'm not going to stop until she admits that she lied about him all of these years. and that's how she makes her money off of slandering Michael Jackson.
and she even blocked my IP Address so I can't post the truth on her lying sites and I told her that that's not going to stop me from exposing her as the liar that she is she don't want to write blogs on how to help the Haiti victims or she don't want to go after Roman Polanski because that's news and Polanski is guilty as sin no she rather go after an innocent man and ultimately cause his insomnia because of her lies about him for 17+ years DEMON find someone else to slander and leave Michael and his Children alone everybody knows that your a liar, and you'll do anything for money, she's the Dirty Diana that he sang about, she invades his privacy,cause she's a tabloid junkie,AND SHE NEEDS TO LEAVE HIM ALONE, she needs to find some real news and stop spreading her lies about every aspect of his life,

hey DEMON here is the 1993 case more proof that you are a liar,

THE 1993 ALLEGATIONS

- In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.

- According to June Schwartz's former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy's father and June's ex-husband Evan Chandler "began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out."

- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.

- At Jordan's 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson's part. Freeman says that June Schwartz "thought the whole thing was baloney" and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.

- Chandler's behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano's advice, Jordan Chandler's stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:

"I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I've been rehearsed about what to say and not to say."

"[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy's power and money."

"I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It's already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."

"And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael's career will be over."

"[Jordan's welfare is] irrelevant to me. It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

"This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity."

- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson's part.

- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.

- According to Rothman's former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.

- Taking Rothman's advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler's phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.

- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.

- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.

- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person's mind when they are under the influence of this drug.

- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: "If I used it, it was for dental purposes." Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.

- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: "[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don't like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he's an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, 'I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?' And I said 'Yes,' and he gave me a big hug and that was it." [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler's interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy's uncle Ray Chandler]

- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz's attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he'd had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.

- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson's part.

DEMON I'm baaaaaaaack and now I have the 2002-5 allegations, of them liars and here it is,




THE ACCUSING FAMILY

The relationship between Michael Jackson and his second accuser began innocently enough. Two years ago, the recovering cancer patient made a request through the Make a Wish Foundation to meet the pop superstar. Jackson obliged and eventually formed a friendship with the boy and his family. The boy's mother characterized her children's relationship with the singer as a “loving father, sons and daughters one,” even crediting Jackson with helping her son overcome his bout with cancer.

Court documents reveal that this was not the first time the family had used the boy's cancer as a way to get close to celebrities. According to a report filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: "Mom said that they met the celebrities due to her son's illness and that the celebrities are very supportive of her son and their family.” The mother told a caseworker that through her connection to celebrities, she had “found ways to get things for her kids."

Rush Hour director Brett Ratner was one of the many celebrities who had met and befriended the boy. "[He] would sit in my director's chair. When I told him to get up, he'd tell me to go to hell... He's more street smart than I was at that age," Ratner recalled. “I always had a weird feeling that the mother would set Michael up. I always liked the father. But the mother was an opportunist.”

Adding credence to Ratner's suspicion was the fact that the family had a history of making unsubstantiated abuse claims. In 1998, they accused security guards from JCPenney and Tower Records of physically assaulting them after pulling them over for shoplifting. Two years after filing a $3 million lawsuit against the companies, the mother also accused the guards of sexually assaulting her during the altercation. She alleged that one of them had fondled her breasts and pelvic area for approximately seven minutes, a detail that had never come up in her initial depositions. The companies settled out of court for $152,500 without admitting guilt.

Tom Griffin, the attorney who represented JCPenney in the case, told NBC's Mike Taibbi that the family had no evidence to substantiate their claims. "[The mother] just came up with this fairy tale, not a fairy tale, it's a horror story, and just ran with it," Griffin said.

A psychiatrist hired by JCPenney during the investigation said that the children's testimonies sounded scripted and rehearsed, a suspicion that was confirmed by the boy's father. In an affidavit, he admitted that the kids were coached by their mother to lie. According to Russell Halpern, an attorney for the father, "[The mother] wrote all of their testimony. I actually saw the script."

Halpern was hired when a bitter custody dispute arose between the parents following their divorce in 2001. The battle took an unexpected turn when the mother accused her ex-husband of spousal abuse, an allegation that was initially denied by the couple's three children. In October 2001, social workers were called to investigate the family following an altercation that took place in their home. When questioned on their own, the children did not allude to any abuse on the father's part. The social workers left but were called back when the mother returned. In the presence of their mother, the children all changed their story, alleging that their father was indeed abusive.

The father pleaded no-contest to the charges and was barred from seeing his children as a result. During an interview on Larry King Live, Halpern, who is currently trying to obtain visitation rights for his client, discussed documents from the JCPenney case that suggest the abuse allegations against the father were false. "[The mother] was specifically asked, ‘did he ever hit you?' and she said ‘no' and then she elaborated by saying he was a wonderful husband, he had never touched her, he didn't have it in him to touch a woman and he had never touched the children, never as far as even spanking the kids."

In court papers that were later filed during the custody proceedings, the mother painted a startlingly different picture of her ex-husband, claiming that her children were terrified of him. "Every single night, one of my sons barricades the front door by putting two chairs in front of the door," she alleged. "He also puts a boogie board and an archery arrow against the front door... Both boys sleep with baseball bats."

With their biological father out of the picture, the children were reportedly encouraged by their mother to refer to various other men in their lives as “daddy,” a title that was eventually given to Michael Jackson. The mother told a British newspaper last year that it was Jackson who encouraged the children to refer to him as their father. Sources close to the family, however, suggest that it was the other way around.

Whatever the case may be, Jackson formed a relationship with the family; the eldest son was even featured on the now infamous Living with Michael Jackson documentary. The 12-year-old raised eyebrows when he told journalist Martin Bashir that he had once spent the night in Jackson's bedroom. The boy's comments led to two separate investigations into possible sexual abuse on Jackson's part, investigations that would later help Jackson's defense.

Ms. Dimond:
I believe Michael Jackson was found innocent on all charges in 2005. Something you seem to have yet to understand. The people that accused him, the Arvizos, were nothing but a bunch of gypsies going after not only Michael Jackson, but Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, etc. The mother was guilty of welfare fraud and she filed a ridculous lawsuit against J. C. Penney. The boys were, conveniently, takng acting lessons If you remember, in the Bashir interview, Mr. Jackson said he slept ON THE FLOOR, and gave his bed to Gavin. He didn't say he slept with the boy.

Now, about your comments about his children. I'm sure the people in this country who have opted for surrogacy to have a family are appalled to hear you call it "baby buying". How insenstive you are! Anyone who knew Mr. Jackson and his children, have nothing but wonderful things to say about him as a father. Paris said as much at his memorial service- "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imgagine; and I just want to say, I love him- so much!"

He always ate lunch dinner with his children and made sure, even during the grueling rehearsals for "This Is It", that he was home to put them to bed. He wanted to give them all the love that he never got as a child. To see Prince and Paris speak at the Grammy Awards show in front of thousands of people with so much poise and intelligence- is testimony as to how they were raised.

I was very upset to see your comments on a special that was done on Mr. Jackson after his death. Once again, you implied his marriage to Lisa Marie was not real- something she has said is NOT the truth. She has written that their marriage was real and that she was desperately in love with him. She even followed him to Africa and England after their divorce where they were photographed holding hands. There are even pictures of them after that, out having dinner in California showing them kissing and she is snuggling against him. Mr. Jackson said in the book that Rabbi Schumley wrote, that she tried for months and months to get back together with him.

Your comment on the special was that Lisa never lived with him at Neverland- implying that they didn't have a real marriage. Mr. Jackson, himself, said that they did not live at Neverland, but lived at her house. He said that they would take her children to Neverland as a fun weekend. There were always inner city and sick chidlren at Neverland- even when Mr. Jackson was not there. I'm sure Lisa Marie wanted privacy for her and Michael and her children.

It is time you stop speaking of things you have no knowledge about just to make Mr. Jackson look bad. He is gone now- mainly due to the horrible toll that trial took on him. I don't think he ever recovered emotionally from the trauma that the media- including you- put him through. He was only a human being and the media persecuted him mercilessly. Shame on all of you! I don't know how you sleep at night.

Once again you were wrong in your "prediction" about his cause of death. The autopsy showed that he was healthy for a man his age, had no drugs in his system except those given by Dr. Murray and the hospital, and he was not anorexic. I'm sure this burst your bubble that you were proven wrong.

It is time for you to let him go. You have done your worst- you did your part in the destruction of a man that only wanted to help chlldren all over the world and to do what he could to help save the planet through his music and dance. It is a sad time in the history of the media, that a life can be destroyed without so much as a pang of guilt.

May Michael Joseph Jackson find the peace that you and your ilk never allowed him to have while he lived.

Ms. Dimond:
I believe Michael Jackson was found innocent on all charges in 2005. Something you seem to have yet to understand. The people that accused him, the Arvizos, were nothing but a bunch of gypsies going after not only Michael Jackson, but Jay Leno, Chris Tucker, etc. The mother was guilty of welfare fraud and she filed a ridculous lawsuit against J. C. Penney. The boys were, conveniently, takng acting lessons If you remember, in the Bashir interview, Mr. Jackson said he slept ON THE FLOOR, and gave his bed to Gavin. He didn't say he slept with the boy.

Now, about your comments about his children. I'm sure the people in this country who have opted for surrogacy to have a family are appalled to hear you call it "baby buying". How insenstive you are! Anyone who knew Mr. Jackson and his children, have nothing but wonderful things to say about him as a father. Paris said as much at his memorial service- "Ever since I was born, Daddy has been the best father you could ever imgagine; and I just want to say, I love him- so much!"

He always ate lunch dinner with his children and made sure, even during the grueling rehearsals for "This Is It", that he was home to put them to bed. He wanted to give them all the love that he never got as a child. To see Prince and Paris speak at the Grammy Awards show in front of thousands of people with so much poise and intelligence- is testimony as to how they were raised.

I was very upset to see your comments on a special that was done on Mr. Jackson after his death. Once again, you implied his marriage to Lisa Marie was not real- something she has said is NOT the truth. She has written that their marriage was real and that she was desperately in love with him. She even followed him to Africa and England after their divorce where they were photographed holding hands. There are even pictures of them after that, out having dinner in California showing them kissing and she is snuggling against him. Mr. Jackson said in the book that Rabbi Schumley wrote, that she tried for months and months to get back together with him.

Your comment on the special was that Lisa never lived with him at Neverland- implying that they didn't have a real marriage. Mr. Jackson, himself, said that they did not live at Neverland, but lived at her house. He said that they would take her children to Neverland as a fun weekend. There were always inner city and sick chidlren at Neverland- even when Mr. Jackson was not there. I'm sure Lisa Marie wanted privacy for her and Michael and her children.

It is time you stop speaking of things you have no knowledge about just to make Mr. Jackson look bad. He is gone now- mainly due to the horrible toll that trial took on him. I don't think he ever recovered emotionally from the trauma that the media- including you- put him through. He was only a human being and the media persecuted him mercilessly. Shame on all of you! I don't know how you sleep at night.

Once again you were wrong in your "prediction" about his cause of death. The autopsy showed that he was healthy for a man his age, had no drugs in his sytem except those given by Dr. Murray and the hospital, and he was not anorexic. I'm sure this burst your bubble that you were proven wrong.

It is time for you to let him go. You have done your worst- you did your part in the destruction of a man that only wanted to help chlldren all over the world and to do what he could to help save the planet through his music and dance. It is a sad time in the history of the media, that a life can be destroyed without so much as a pang of guilt.

May Michael Joseph Jackson find the peace that you and your ilk never allowed him to have while he lived.

DEMON here's the Evan Chandler Extortion case,

Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn't it possible that his son really was molested?

No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler used a letter from a psychiatrist to try to blackmail Jackson and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why didn't he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.

It's undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn't Michael Jackson just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile, he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn't pay off Evan Chandler is because he was innocent and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.

Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have been to Neverland, you expect me to believe that Jackson only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven't they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their sexually abused children? Bullshit.

compliments of the Michael Jackson case and these {are not} my words.

Who is Diane Dimond and how is she involved in this case?

Diane Dimond is the former host of Hard Copy who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson case. She's obviously very close to the District Attorney Tom Sneddon but is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:

- In 1993, Dimond did a segment with two of Jackson's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Jackson's alleged relationships with young boys. Dimond swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted that they had made the whole thing up.

- That same year, Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Jackson naked with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she had lied.

- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael Jackson sexually abusing his nephews. Dimond later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Jackson filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Dimond was dismissed from the lawsuit because of "journalistic integrity" (which should not even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages.

- When Jackson's former sister-in-law was tragically murdered, Dimond implied that Jackson might have had something to do with it.

- In 1995, Dimond found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police station where investigators questioned him for hours. Dimond was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he had made it all up. Since Dimond had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson?

- In June 2003, Dimond appeared on television and said: "When I saw the part of the documentary with that little cancer boy sitting next to Michael Jackson holding his hand I thought 'this is the proof that it's still going on.'"

- Dimond admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist? She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.

- In November, Dimond reported that police found love letters addressed to Jackson's accuser at Neverland. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Jackson store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this family would accuse him?) and that's why he denied it.

- When a man who won a collection of Jackson memorabilia started doing the rounds on various TV shows, Diane Dimond got in contact with him. While visiting him, Dimond found a pair of 20-year-old, dirty underwear (which could have belonged to any member of the Jackson family). She phoned Tom Sneddon and told him to take DNA samples from the item. She then proceeded to pick up the underwear and parade them around on television.

- Dimond, after getting a copy of a confidential document revealing the details of Jackson's 1993 civil settlement, leaked the contents of the document to the press. She also falsely stated that Jackson admitted to wrongdoing in the agreement.

Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations.

Diane the Great Investigative Reporter of all time, pray tell us what your investigations have revealed of Michael's crimes? If indeed you have the evidence, why wasn't he put behind bars? Yet you continue to write about him, implying that he is guilty of the accusations , that he paid his way out of trouble, when you have no proof. Is that the kind of faith you have in the American legal system? though you did not say outright that you think him to be guilty, even an idiot can tell that you are implying as much. Then you drag in his children.........now that is downright despicable, how low can a person go? Did Debbie Rowe tell you that she was inseminated by donor sperm? Hmmm, well i thought not too........then on what basis do you write this, like you were Debbie herself? Then you follow up with more wild speculation that Blanket was also conceived from donor sperm, where is the proof woman?...............puleeze, you are nothing more than a tabloid trash writer. Leave Michael and his children alone, then perhaps you can start trying to be a real reporter.

5 Journalism Rules the Media Completely Ignore (especially when it comes to Michael Jackson)
Category: Justice, MJ Quotes, Photos — Seven @ 2:57 am
•
His blood is on their presses and on their hands. If the media had not spent decades lying, twisting facts, distorting, sensationalizing, ignoring facts, making things up, deceiving, misleading, humiliating and crucifying Michael Jackson in the court of ‘public opinion', he'd likely still be alive today.
What they did to this man for DECADES is, very simply – ABUSE. Barbaric verbal and psychological ABUSE. The SAME type of abuse inflicted on prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib (some of which broke international laws) and he SAME type of abuse inflicted on victims of domestic violence (verbal and psychological abuse always precedes or accompanies physical abuse and is just as damaging to the victim if not more so).
Abusive Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits
Abusive Medialoid Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits
The media's culpability in sending this man to an early grave will not be ignored. THEY won't admit it. They're still selling the lies. And the tabloid/media junkies (aka Ignorami) still believe them.
They have no integrity at all. HOW MANY of the media have apologized to Michael and his family for accusing him of “bleaching his skin because he didn't want to be black” for decades – now that the coroner's report VERIFIES that he did indeed have vitiligo? This is something that Michael told the press in various interviews over the years, however, they chose to ignore him.
Now that what Michael told them is verified, WILL THEY ADMIT THEY were WRONG? NOT ONE has stepped forward to do so yet.
Even though Michael was acquitted on 14 charges in 2005, many in the media seem to think they are qualified to overturn a verdict handed down in a court of law – in their own court of public opinion. Bereft of any facts regarding the case and apparently as disinterested in them as they are the facts surrounding Michael's murder, WHAT qualifies them to overturn that verdict?
Currently, the media(loids) are busily convicting Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion of his own murder, while portraying the negligent doctor who carelessly administered him a dangerous drug he was not qualified to administer, in an inadequate and incorrect setting - as totally innocent.
• • •
HERE are the 5 rules from a book on Journalism that NONE of the media seems to have read – or, that they simply choose to ignore due to their blatant and ever-increasing lack of integrity:
1. Do not add – Do not add things that did not happen
2. Do not deceive – Never mislead the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness
3. Transparency – If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too-that they be truth presenters
4. Misleading sources: A corollary to transparency – Obviously journalists should not lie to or mislead their sources in the process of trying to tell the truth to their audience
5. Humility – Journalists should be humble about their own skills. In other words, not only should they be skeptical of what they see and hear from others, but just as important, they should be skeptical about their ability to know what it really means.
Don't judge a person by what you hear or read….there is so much tabloid sensationalism. Don't fall prey to it. It's ugly. I'd like to take all of the tabloids and burn them…..Some of them try to disguise themselves, but they are still tabloids.
- Michael Jackson

5 Journalism Rules the Media Completely Ignore (especially when it comes to Michael Jackson)
Category: Justice, MJ Quotes, Photos — Seven @ 2:57 am

•

His blood is on their presses and on their hands. If the media had not spent decades lying, twisting facts, distorting, sensationalizing, ignoring facts, making things up, deceiving, misleading, humiliating and crucifying Michael Jackson in the court of ‘public opinion', he'd likely still be alive today.

What they did to this man for DECADES is, very simply – ABUSE. Barbaric verbal and psychological ABUSE. The SAME type of abuse inflicted on prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib (some of which broke international laws) and he SAME type of abuse inflicted on victims of domestic violence (verbal and psychological abuse always precedes or accompanies physical abuse and is just as damaging to the victim if not more so).
Abusive Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

Abusive Medialoid Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

The media's culpability in sending this man to an early grave will not be ignored. THEY won't admit it. They're still selling the lies. And the tabloid/media junkies (aka Ignorami) still believe them.

They have no integrity at all. HOW MANY of the media have apologized to Michael and his family for accusing him of “bleaching his skin because he didn't want to be black” for decades – now that the coroner's report VERIFIES that he did indeed have vitiligo? This is something that Michael told the press in various interviews over the years, however, they chose to ignore him.

Now that what Michael told them is verified, WILL THEY ADMIT THEY were WRONG? NOT ONE has stepped forward to do so yet.

Even though Michael was acquitted on 14 charges in 2005, many in the media seem to think they are qualified to overturn a verdict handed down in a court of law – in their own court of public opinion. Bereft of any facts regarding the case and apparently as disinterested in them as they are the facts surrounding Michael's murder, WHAT qualifies them to overturn that verdict?

Currently, the media(loids) are busily convicting Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion of his own murder, while portraying the negligent doctor who carelessly administered him a dangerous drug he was not qualified to administer, in an inadequate and incorrect setting - as totally innocent.

• • •
HERE are the 5 rules from a book on Journalism that NONE of the media seems to have read – or, that they simply choose to ignore due to their blatant and ever-increasing lack of integrity:

1. Do not add – Do not add things that did not happen

2. Do not deceive – Never mislead the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness

3. Transparency – If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too-that they be truth presenters

4. Misleading sources: A corollary to transparency – Obviously journalists should not lie to or mislead their sources in the process of trying to tell the truth to their audience

5. Humility – Journalists should be humble about their own skills. In other words, not only should they be skeptical of what they see and hear from others, but just as important, they should be skeptical about their ability to know what it really means.

Don't judge a person by what you hear or read….there is so much tabloid sensationalism. Don't fall prey to it. It's ugly. I'd like to take all of the tabloids and burn them…..Some of them try to disguise themselves, but they are still tabloids.
- Michael Jackson

5 Journalism Rules the Media Completely Ignore (especially when it comes to Michael Jackson)
Category: Justice, MJ Quotes, Photos — Seven @ 2:57 am

•

His blood is on their presses and on their hands. If the media had not spent decades lying, twisting facts, distorting, sensationalizing, ignoring facts, making things up, deceiving, misleading, humiliating and crucifying Michael Jackson in the court of ‘public opinion', he'd likely still be alive today.

What they did to this man for DECADES is, very simply – ABUSE. Barbaric verbal and psychological ABUSE. The SAME type of abuse inflicted on prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib (some of which broke international laws) and he SAME type of abuse inflicted on victims of domestic violence (verbal and psychological abuse always precedes or accompanies physical abuse and is just as damaging to the victim if not more so).
Abusive Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

Abusive Medialoid Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

The media's culpability in sending this man to an early grave will not be ignored. THEY won't admit it. They're still selling the lies. And the tabloid/media junkies (aka Ignorami) still believe them.

They have no integrity at all. HOW MANY of the media have apologized to Michael and his family for accusing him of “bleaching his skin because he didn't want to be black” for decades – now that the coroner's report VERIFIES that he did indeed have vitiligo? This is something that Michael told the press in various interviews over the years, however, they chose to ignore him.

Now that what Michael told them is verified, WILL THEY ADMIT THEY were WRONG? NOT ONE has stepped forward to do so yet.

Even though Michael was acquitted on 14 charges in 2005, many in the media seem to think they are qualified to overturn a verdict handed down in a court of law – in their own court of public opinion. Bereft of any facts regarding the case and apparently as disinterested in them as they are the facts surrounding Michael's murder, WHAT qualifies them to overturn that verdict?

Currently, the media(loids) are busily convicting Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion of his own murder, while portraying the negligent doctor who carelessly administered him a dangerous drug he was not qualified to administer, in an inadequate and incorrect setting - as totally innocent.

• • •
HERE are the 5 rules from a book on Journalism that NONE of the media seems to have read – or, that they simply choose to ignore due to their blatant and ever-increasing lack of integrity:

1. Do not add – Do not add things that did not happen

2. Do not deceive – Never mislead the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness

3. Transparency – If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too-that they be truth presenters

4. Misleading sources: A corollary to transparency – Obviously journalists should not lie to or mislead their sources in the process of trying to tell the truth to their audience

5. Humility – Journalists should be humble about their own skills. In other words, not only should they be skeptical of what they see and hear from others, but just as important, they should be skeptical about their ability to know what it really means.

Don't judge a person by what you hear or read….there is so much tabloid sensationalism. Don't fall prey to it. It's ugly. I'd like to take all of the tabloids and burn them…..Some of them try to disguise themselves, but they are still tabloids.
- Michael Jackson

http://www.mj-777.com/?tag=photos&paged=2
here's something that you might be interested in please read all of it
5 Journalism Rules the Media Completely Ignore (especially when it comes to Michael Jackson)
Category: Justice, MJ Quotes, Photos — Seven @ 2:57 am

•

His blood is on their presses and on their hands. If the media had not spent decades lying, twisting facts, distorting, sensationalizing, ignoring facts, making things up, deceiving, misleading, humiliating and crucifying Michael Jackson in the court of ‘public opinion', he'd likely still be alive today.

What they did to this man for DECADES is, very simply – ABUSE. Barbaric verbal and psychological ABUSE. The SAME type of abuse inflicted on prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib (some of which broke international laws) and he SAME type of abuse inflicted on victims of domestic violence (verbal and psychological abuse always precedes or accompanies physical abuse and is just as damaging to the victim if not more so).
Abusive Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

Abusive Medialoid Press Feeds Tabloid Junkie Habits

The media's culpability in sending this man to an early grave will not be ignored. THEY won't admit it. They're still selling the lies. And the tabloid/media junkies (aka Ignorami) still believe them.

They have no integrity at all. HOW MANY of the media have apologized to Michael and his family for accusing him of “bleaching his skin because he didn't want to be black” for decades – now that the coroner's report VERIFIES that he did indeed have vitiligo? This is something that Michael told the press in various interviews over the years, however, they chose to ignore him.

Now that what Michael told them is verified, WILL THEY ADMIT THEY were WRONG? NOT ONE has stepped forward to do so yet.

Even though Michael was acquitted on 14 charges in 2005, many in the media seem to think they are qualified to overturn a verdict handed down in a court of law – in their own court of public opinion. Bereft of any facts regarding the case and apparently as disinterested in them as they are the facts surrounding Michael's murder, WHAT qualifies them to overturn that verdict?

Currently, the media(loids) are busily convicting Michael Jackson in the court of public opinion of his own murder, while portraying the negligent doctor who carelessly administered him a dangerous drug he was not qualified to administer, in an inadequate and incorrect setting - as totally innocent.

• • •
HERE are the 5 rules from a book on Journalism that NONE of the media seems to have read – or, that they simply choose to ignore due to their blatant and ever-increasing lack of integrity:

1. Do not add – Do not add things that did not happen

2. Do not deceive – Never mislead the audience. Fooling people is a form of lying and it mocks the idea that journalism is committed to truthfulness

3. Transparency – If journalists are truth seekers, it must follow that they be honest and truthful with their audiences, too-that they be truth presenters

4. Misleading sources: A corollary to transparency – Obviously journalists should not lie to or mislead their sources in the process of trying to tell the truth to their audience

5. Humility – Journalists should be humble about their own skills. In other words, not only should they be skeptical of what they see and hear from others, but just as important, they should be skeptical about their ability to know what it really means.

Don't judge a person by what you hear or read….there is so much tabloid sensationalism. Don't fall prey to it. It's ugly. I'd like to take all of the tabloids and burn them…..Some of them try to disguise themselves, but they are still tabloids.
- Michael Jackson

http://www.mj-777.com/?tag=photos&paged=2
please read this whole thing especially the justice part

http://www.mj-777.com/?tag=photos&paged=2

http://www.mj-777.com/?tag=photos&paged=2
please read this whole thing it's the reason why the media will not say anything to vindicate Michael.

2. Was Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's genitalia accurate?

In 1994, sources told USA Today that "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Because this statement came from anonymous sources, some Jackson critics are quick to dismiss the article as erroneous and continue to insist that Jordan Chandler's description was accurate. There has never been any evidence to substantiate this claim; on the other hand, the fact that no charges were ever brought against Jackson indicates that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even told CNN that "no damaging evidence was heard."

DEMON here's something else for you to chew on,
http://www.mj-777.com/?tag=photos
and this
2. Was Jordan Chandler's description of Michael Jackson's genitalia accurate?

In 1994, sources told USA Today that "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct." Because this statement came from anonymous sources, some Jackson critics are quick to dismiss the article as erroneous and continue to insist that Jordan Chandler's description was accurate. There has never been any evidence to substantiate this claim; on the other hand, the fact that no charges were ever brought against Jackson indicates that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even told CNN that "no damaging evidence was heard."

DEMON, I'm baaaaaaaack you can't stop my from exposing you for the liar that you are,
http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/faq.html
http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/683186
http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/gq-article-was-michael-jackson-framed/
http://cscstaff.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7295&page=1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/02/entertainment/main5358197.shtml
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2575177/why_was_michael_jackson_accuser_jordan.html?cat=2
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/09/mj_autopsy.pdf
read them and weep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4
http://www.azfamily.com/news/national/86137652.html

DEMON,
I'm baaaaaaaaaack and what new lies are you saying now? or have you learned your lesson by now?
I don't think so you can't get through one day without mentioning Michael's name can you?
I'll be there like I always say to catch you in all of your lies and I'm never going to give up until you
admit that you are a liar,remember me? I'm your worst nightmare just you were his and I'm your Karma
get used to it I'm gonna be on you like flies on shit.and you know that song Dirty Diana that wasn't for the
groupies that was for you and Michael wasn't as mean as you to say the truth so he made that up now if it was me
I would have came right out and said it was about you, also that song Tabloid Junkie and Privacy, and
Leave me alone, and They don't care about us,2 bad,and others that were about you and you already know who D.S. was about it was for your not so secret lover that you tried to hide but a snapparazzi got you to didn't they?
I would love to see that video or picture I should google it to see if there is one or a you tube video already one had caught you in a lie brb gotta check hopefully with proof,
I found this DEMON
Correspondent for Hard Copy at the time of the allegations. After Mike's ‘death', Dimond became a daily contributor on Entertainment Tonight for its Michael Jackson “Investigation”. From 1993 on, Dimond has portrayed Mike as a pedophile in her coverage, paying for interviews and not presenting facts but only opinions from haters. Rumor has it that she shared a bed with Tom Sneddon and that's why she would have had all the scoops, but of course no proof of that on the internet.
here's something else you might be interested in,


V for Vendetta – V for Vengeance
February 19, 2010 Souza & Mo 5 comments



***Due to a bug in Mozilla Firefox this blog can not be read fully. We have encountered no problems with I.E., Safari & Google Chrome.***



We would like to start this blog by sharing our personal thoughts. At the time of the trial we both were busy with other things and therefore didn't pay much attention to the coverage of the trial. Besides that, here in Holland it was not that much of a media circus as it was in the U.S. We knew about the accusations, the start of the trial, and we heard he was acquitted but that was about it, we never really looked further into it. Maybe because we are not fans (which some people still think is a crime while owning this website), maybe because we both never saw him as a pedophile and therefore never felt the urge to read up on it, because in our eyes justice was served.



But in this hoax everything should be investigated and stripped to the bone, so we both decided to read up on the trial and the 1993 accusations. We started with Aphrodite Jones' “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” about the 2005 trial. This is a must-read! There is a lot of information in the book that was ignored by the mainstream media. If you want to know what happened in that courtroom, this is where you start and you will be amazed about the evilness in this world. As we already thought before, we now dare to say with absolute certainty: Michael Jackson was framed, both in 1993 and in 2003.



We will give you as much information about both cases in this blog as possible, but to be best informed about the 2005 trial you should really read Aphrodite's book to get the full picture.



Besides facts articles and the summaries of both the 1993 accusation case and the 2005 trial, we also want to share our thoughts about why we think he was framed and by who at the end of this blog. Please note that everything besides the facts, is nothing more than our opinion, our theory. As we both never doubted his innocence, we now also wanted to KNOW, by researching both cases and see if we could link some things to support the conspiracy against him that is well known and supported by many.



Because there is so much information about these cases, we decided to split the blog in different parts, but that does not mean that the information that is not in this main article is less important, so we advise you to read it all if you are really interested in the absurd circumstances surrounding this that could have put Mike behind bars for decades without any proof, if it weren't for the brilliant defense attorney Tom Mesereau that wiped his ass with the prosecution witnesses and for the 12 people of the jury that could see through the filthy lies of the accusers and exposed Tom Sneddon's vendetta against Michael Jackson.





THE 1993 ACCUSATIONS



Please read the article by Mary A. Fisher as linked to below. There is a lot of information in it, an accurate timeline and interesting information about some of the key players. Below you will find the key players and some quoted from the article with some additional info about the case and the people involved.





Was Michael Jackson Framed?

The Untold Story

Mary A. Fischer

GQ, October 1994





Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson — another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life. Those allegations — that Jackson had molested a 13-year-old boy — instigated a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, two grand-jury investigations and a shameless media circus. Jackson, in turn, filed charges of extortion against some of his accusers. Ultimately, the suit was settled out of court for a sum that has been estimated at $20 million; no criminal charges were brought against Jackson by the police or the grand juries. This past August, Jackson was in the news again, when Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis's daughter, announced that she and the singer had married. As the dust settles on one of the nation's worst episodes of media excess, one thing is clear: The American public has never heard a defense of Michael Jackson. Until now.



Read more





Evan Chandler

Father of Jordan Chandler who accused Mike of molesting his son. Chandler first welcomed Mike in Jordie's life, but soon turned around and wanted to become rich over Mike's back. You can find a lot of background info on Chandler in the article, so we will just highlights some quotes from the article regarding the case, to give you an impression of what kind of sick game he played.



* According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn't be done, Chandler made another suggestion — that Jackson just build him a new home.



* At no time has Chandler claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct on Jackson's part.



* Dave Schwartz, Jordie's stepfather secretly taped a phone conversation with Chandler in July, here are some of the statements he makes to Schwarz in that conversation:



“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.”



Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that “he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy's power and money.” Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.



“It's already set, there are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine.”



“Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that.”



“And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael's career will be over.”



“It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want.”



“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity.”



This is a leaked snippet from that taped call:





For the complete transcript of the call click here.



* Chandler and his son met with Jackson and Pellicano in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist's suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams's letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn't say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I'm going to ruin you.”



* At a meeting with Pellicano in Rothman's office later that evening, Chandler and Rothman made their demand – $20 million.



* On August 13, there was another meeting in Rothman's office. Pellicano came back with a counteroffer — a $350,000 screenwriting deal. Pellicano says he made the offer as a way to resolve the custody dispute and give Chandler an opportunity to spend more time with his son by working on a screenplay together. Chandler rejected the offer. Rothman made a counter demand — a deal for three screenplays or nothing — which was spurned. In the diary of Rothman's ex-colleague, an August 24 entry reveals Chandler's disappointment: “I almost had a $20 million deal,” he was overheard telling Rothman.



*
Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself — the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler's Beverly Hills dental office. In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy's allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable:

“False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened.”





June Chandler

Mother of Jordan Chandler. June and Jordie spent a lot of time at Neverland. They went on tour with Mike, they went shopping at his costs and had holidays with him. Some quotes from the article:



* June Chandler Schwartz had also become close to Jackson “and liked him enormously,” one friend says. “He was the kindest man she had ever met.”



* Chandler talked of his concern for his son and his anger at Jackson and at his ex-wife, whom he described as “cold and heartless.” When Chandler tried to “get her attention” to discuss his suspicions about Jackson, he says on the tape, she told him “Go fuck yourself.”



* At a graduation that month, Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his suspicions. “She thought the whole thing was baloney,” says her ex-attorney, Michael Freeman. She told Chandler that she planned to take their son out of school in the fall so they could accompany Jackson on his “Dangerous” world tour.



* All along, June Chandler Schwartz rejected the charges Chandler was making against Jackson — until a meeting with police in late August 1993. Officers Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino made a statement that began to change her mind. “[The officers] admitted they only had one boy,” says Freeman, who attended the meeting, “but they said, ‘We're convinced Michael Jackson molested this boy because he fits the classic profile of a pedophile perfectly.' ”



* By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy's mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn't side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson.



June also testified in the 2005 trial, here is a part of the transcript:



*
Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by June Chandler



Q. Did you notice — I may not have asked this with regard to the third visit, but you indicated in at least the first visit that Jordan slept with you in your guest cottage, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In the second visit, did Jordan sleep with you in your guest cottage?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And the third visit, did Jordan sleep with you in your guest cottage?

A. Yes, he did.

———-



Q. And when you got to Las Vegas, where did you stay, what hotel?

A. The Mirage Hotel.

Q. And when you got to The Mirage Hotel, do you remember what time of day or night it was?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember how long you stayed in Las Vegas on this occasion?

A. Two or three nights.

Q. Now, when you got to Las Vegas, did you have — obviously you had a room –

A. Correct.

Q. — in The Mirage. And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?

A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.

Q. All in the same room?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did those arrangements change at any point in time?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did they change?

A. The second night things changed.

Q. With regard to “things changed,” could you tell me what changed first?

A. Well, there were approximately three bedrooms in that suite at the Mirage Hotel. Lily and I were staying in one bedroom, Jordie had another bedroom, and Michael had another bedroom. The second night, they were going to see a performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.

Q. “They” meaning who?

A. Jordie and Michael –

Q. Okay.

A. — and Lily and I. It was around 11 p.m. at night, and I got a call from somebody at Cirque du Soleil saying, “Where is Michael?” And I said, “He should be there with my son.” They said, “He's not here.” A little while later, another call, he still didn't show up. They still did not show up. And I — there's a knock on the door and it's Michael and Jordan, and they came back into the suite. Michael –

Q. Now, let me stop you right there, okay?

A. Yes.

Q. About what time is it when your son Jordan and the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, showed up?

A. Well, I think the performance started at 11:00, and I would say Jordan and Michael showed up around 11:30.

Q. Now, could you describe for the jury Mr. Jackson's demeanor at the time that they came back to the room?

A. He was sobbing. He was crying, shaking, trembling.

Q. Michael Jackson was?

A. He was.

Q. And what about your son's demeanor?

A. He was quiet.

Q. Now, at that point in time, did Mr. Jackson tell you why he was upset or crying?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Tell the jury what he said.

A. He said, “You don't trust me? We're a family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is with you.” He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun. Boys” –

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive; narrative.

THE COURT: Narrative; sustained.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us what – Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep with him in his bed – what you said to Mr. Jackson.

A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” — “This is not anything that I want. This is not right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants to sleep.”

Q. Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking?

A. I was saying this. And Michael was trembling and saying, “We're a family. Jordie is having fun. Why can't he sleep in my bed? There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on. Don't you trust me?”

Q. All right. How long do you think this conversation lasted between you and Mr. Jackson over where Jordan was going to sleep that night?

A. I would say 20 to 30, 40 minutes.

Q. So it was a back-and-forth conversation; is that right?

A. Yes.



What happened in those lost 30 minutes at The Mirage that made Mike so upset and why did he suddenly wanted Jordie to sleep in his room?





Jordan (Jordie) Chandler

The son of Evan Chandler and June Chandler Schwarz that claimed to have been molested by Mike. Read his deposition here.

The following quotes form the article will show that no such thing ever happened.



* Until Michael Jackson entered his son's life, Chandler hadn't shown all that much interest in the boy. “He kept promising to buy him a computer so they could work on scripts together, but he never did,” says Michael Freeman, formerly an attorney for June Chandler Schwartz.



* Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says, “very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened.



* In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.



So it is clear that Jordie found a father figure in Mike. He wanted to be near him as much as possible. If you are 13 years old and someone has molested you, you are scared stiff of that person and will grab any opportunity to stay away from that person. Jordie never did that, he wanted to be with him.

If Jordie really was molested by Mike, the conversation with Anthony Pellicano would have been his chance to get away, but he repeatedly denies it. Jordie only began making allegations towards Mike after they had given him a drug that can implant false memories. Jordie didn't want to testify in 1994, and when he was asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution in 2005, he didn't want to either.





David Schwartz

At the time June Chandler's husband, although they lived separately since August 1993. He was the owner of Rent-a-Wreck, where Mike ended up after his car broke down. At first he and June didn't believe the allegations her ex-husband made, but both of them later turned against Mike. Why would Schwartz turn against him? Why suddenly believe that Mike molested Jordie? The only answer we can think of is money. And that would make sense, since Tom Mesereau brings up the following to June Chandler in the cross-examination in 2005:



* Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by June Chandler



Q. Do you recall asking Michael Jackson if he would loan David Schwartz four million dollars?

A. Never.

Q. You say you never did that?

A. Never did that.

Q. Okay. Do you recall your ex-husband David Schwartz asking you to do that?

A. Never.

Q. Do you recall him being five million dollars in debt around the time you were associating with Michael Jackson?

A. No.

Q. Don't recall that at all?

A. Not at all.





Barry Rothman

Evan Chandler's attorney, with a history of questionable business.



* “This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a (bleep) I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity.”



* To a former employee, Rothman is “a demon” with “a terrible temper.”



* Over the years, Rothman has made so many enemies that his ex-wife once expressed, to her attorney, surprise that someone “hadn't done him in.” He has a reputation for stiffing people. “He appears to be a professional deadbeat… He pays almost no one,” investigator Ed Marcus concluded (in a report filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, as part of a lawsuit against Rothman), after reviewing the attorney's credit profile, which listed more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were chasing him.





Michael Freeman

June Chandler's attorney for a short period of time. Freeman resigned because he didn't trust Chandler's intentions. Some quotes from the article:



* “What parent in his right mind would want to drag his child into the public spotlight?” asks Freeman. “If something like this actually occurred, you'd want to protect your child.”



* One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he'd interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman.



* Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. “I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn't a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn't playing things straight.”



* So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime — that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It's my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”





Bert Fields

Mike's attorney at that time.



* The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, “have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as ‘We have nude photos of you.' There are, of course, no such photos.”



* With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients.



* Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says Fields. “We wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.”



* Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson's camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. “It was important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. [Larry] Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn't.”



* On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy's civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first. Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields, “because it wasn't true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.”



* “There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.”





Anthony Pellicano

Private investigator brought in by Mike's attorney Bert Fields to help sort things out.



* “After listening to the tape for ten minutes, I knew it was about extortion,” says Pellicano.



* On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist's suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams's letter and began reading passages from it.



* Pellicano resigned at the same time as Bert Fields.





Howard Weitzman – Johnnie Cochran Jr. – John Branca

Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients, brought in by Bert Fields.



* From the day Weitzman joined Jackson's defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense.



* With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson's general counsel in 1990, was back on board.



* In late 1993, as DAs in both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties convened grand juries to assess whether criminal charges should be filed against Jackson, the defense strategy changed course and talk of settling the civil case began in earnest, even though his new team also believed in Jackson's innocence.





Larry Feldman

The civil attorney that was representing Jordie Chandler.



* In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who'd served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler's son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.



* According to a member of Jackson's legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they'd been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.



* The actual amount of the settlement has never been revealed, although speculation has placed the sum around $20 million. One source says Chandler and June Chandler Schwartz received up to $2 million each, while attorney Feldman might have gotten up to 25 percent in contingency fees.





Mark Torbiner

A dental anesthesiologist that was present when Chandler administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal to Jordie.



* Torbiner makes housecalls to administer drugs — mostly morphine and Demerol — not only postoperatively to his dental patients but also, it seems, to those suffering pain whose source has nothing to do with dental work.



* A check of Torbiner's credentials with the Board of Dental Examiners indicates that he is restricted by law to administering drugs solely for dental-related procedures. But there is clear evidence that he has not abided by those restrictions. In fact, on at least eight occasions, Torbiner has given a general anesthetic to Barry Rothman, during hair-transplant procedures. Though normally a local anesthetic would be injected into the scalp, “Barry is so afraid of the pain,” says Dr. James De Yarman, the San Diego physician who performed Rothman's transplants, “that [he] wanted to be put out completely.” De Yarman said he was “amazed” to learn that Torbiner is a dentist, having assumed all along that he was an M.D.



* In another instance, Torbiner came to the home of Nylla Jones, she says, and injected her with Demerol to help dull the pain that followed her appendectomy.





Mathis Abrams

A Beverly Hills psychiatrist, who reported the case to the Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services.



* Rothman, seeking an expert's opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson, called Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist. Over the telephone, Rothman presented Abrams with a hypothetical situation. In reply and without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.”



* Chandler took his son to Mathis Abrams, the psychiatrist who'd provided Rothman with his assessment of the hypothetical child-abuse situation. During a three-hour session, the boy alleged that Jackson had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. He talked of masturbation, kissing, fondling of nipples and oral sex. The next step was inevitable. Abrams, who is required by law to report any such accusation to authorities, called a social worker at the Department of Children's Services, who in turn contacted the police. The full-scale investigation of Michael Jackson was about to begin.



* The investigation of Jackson, which by October 1993 would grow to involve at least twelve detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, was instigated in part by the perceptions of one psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, who had no particular expertise in child sexual abuse. Abrams, the DCS caseworker's report noted, “feels the child is telling the truth.”





Stella and Philippe Lemarque

Mike's' ex-housekeepers.



* Tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000.





The Quindoys

A Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland.



* Tried to sell their story to the tabloids as well. When their asking price was $100,000, they said ‘the hand was outside the kid's pants,' As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants.





The Bodyguards

Five former security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs. The case was thrown out of court in July 1995. As their depositions under oath reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Mike do anything improper with Jordie or any other child:



* “So you don't know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson's attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.



“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”



“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”



“That's correct.”



“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”



“No.”



When asked by Jackson's attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied:



“Just what I've been hearing in the media and what I've experienced with my own eyes.”



“Okay. That's the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”



“That's right, nothing.”



Ex-Employee of Jackson Speaks of Threats During Earlier Inquiry





Blanca Francia

The maid.



* Blanca Francia told Diane Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.



* A copy of Francia's sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman's claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.





Brett Barnes – Wade Robson

Friends of Mike that had stayed over at Neverland as well.



* Police seized Jackson's telephone books during the raid on his residences in August and questioned close to thirty children and their families. Some, such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, said they had shared Jackson's bed, but like all the others, they gave the same response — Jackson had done nothing wrong.



The both of them also testified in the 2005 trial:



* Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Brett Barnes



Q. And how many times do you think you've stayed over at Neverland?

A. Every time.

Q. Okay. Did you ever stay in Michael Jackson's room?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times do you think you've done that?

A. Countless as well.

Q. And how would you describe his room?

A. It's big. It's pretty cool because it's got lots of fun stuff to do there. Video games, such as stuff like that. And it's probably the best as I can describe it.

Q. Have you ever stayed in Michael Jackson's bed?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times do you think you have?

A. Countless as well.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever molested you?

A. Absolutely not. And I can tell you right now that if he had, I wouldn't be here right now.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in a sexual way?

A. Never. I wouldn't stand for it.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched any part of your body in a way that you thought was inappropriate?

A. Never. It's not the type of thing that I would stand for.





* Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Wade Robson



Q. Mr. Robson, has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?

A. No.

Q. Is everything you've said the complete and honest truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?

A. No.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.





Diane Dimond

Correspondent for Hard Copy at the time of the allegations. After Mike's ‘death', Dimond became a daily contributor on Entertainment Tonight for its Michael Jackson “Investigation”. From 1993 on, Dimond has portrayed Mike as a pedophile in her coverage, paying for interviews and not presenting facts but only opinions from haters. Rumor has it that she shared a bed with Tom Sneddon and that's why she would have had all the scoops, but of course no proof of that on the internet.



* Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy's Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.



* On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid's Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible. A copy of Francia's sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman's claims, she would have found them to be false.



However, Dimond had one bright moment in her career, were she exposed people that were trying to ruin Mike:







Tom Sneddon

Tom Sneddon was the Santa Barbara DA at that time, and during the 2005 trial. Sneddon and his mates travelled around the world to find one boy that would want to testify against Mike, they found no one. They had no case. He also was the one that ordered the strip search on Mike, stating later that is was a match, while it wasn't. There is a very interesting article on a blog that also brings up this strip search and the questions surrounding it. We will take some quotes from it, but the article itself is very interesting to read.



* If Michael had accused of such (penetration), it can be medically disproven and no one could dispute this. But it is one of the worse crimes to be accused of, even if it would have shown his innocence to be substantial. This is exactly the reason why Evan Chandler didn't make the accusations to be rape.



* Taking photos of someone's buttocks who was not accused of penetration seems a bit odd to me. I was under the impression that Sneddon wanted to see if MJ was gay for their own sick reasons. There were no allegations by Evan or Jordan of penetrative sex.



* I guess they were interested to see if Michael Jackson was gay, being penetrated by anyone (or anything). Cause remember, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand! But since penetration was never an allegation in 1993 from Jordie or Evan, it was just a nosy search to see if the rumors of Jackson being gay were true.



* Vitiligo spots “marks” can move, and thus Jordan could claim there were marks, and if marks were on other places Sneddon still can claim there was “match”. Even though the only actual match could be that Michael indeed has genitals.



* Why do people say they matched again? “The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised,” . Um yeah, the only problem with this whole statement is that Michael is NOT circumcised. Being Jewish may be a reason why Evan assumed he was. Someone explain to me how you mistake an uncircumcised penis for a circumcised one.



* The photos were pretty much passed around the police station, where most of the officers said they couldn't see a match. Also the two grand juries probably were given the description and they didn't agree either. Also at the time, there were articles in the press saying that Jordan's description didn't match. Just over the years the story gone from no match to match, curtsy to people like Diane Dimond, Thomas Sneddon, etc. It was also reported back in ‘93 that Sneddon wanted another set of pictures of Jackson naked be done. If true, it's obvious he didn't get what he was ‘looking' for in the first set. Post trial verdict, in a brief interview, he admitted that he still has the photographs, and I quote, just in case more victims show up. Right.



* Had Jordan's description matched surely that would have been enough to at least arrest Jackson.



Read more





For those reading that are still not convinced of his innocence, let's sum things up here:



* No one has ever SEEN Mike molest Jordan, or any other child.



* After months of investigation and questioning people and other boys all over the world, the DA had NO proof, NO ONE that wanted to testify and NO case.



* The picture that Jordan made of Mike's genitals was NO match, the thing he drew didn't even look like a penis. Also the claim that Mike should have been circumcised was FALSE.



* Jordan denied ANY wrongdoing by Mike until his father and Torbiner drugged him.



* The case was presented to 2 different juries, twice they didn't buy the accusations or anything Sneddon pushed to them…. those are the facts, those 2 juries were given everything Sneddon had.



* Jordan has said to his friends repeatedly that Mike didn't do a thing to him, that his parents made him lie. His friends were even ready to testify to this in court.



* Evan was on tape admitting to a plan, a con as proved and written in the article by Mary Fisher.

here's the whole thing


http://doubledutchblogs.wordpress.com/

Re: mjlover4life

Re: mjlover4life

Re: mjlover4life

Re: mjlover4life

I was very moved with your comments about Michael. I have spent hours researching as well. I am 63 (female) and I feel like a lost a son. I have 3 sons and a daughter. I would love to talk one on one with you. Have no one to share my grief with. Would it be possible for you to post your email address? Don't know if this would be unethical or if there is a way of obtaining it without it being public. Reply back and maybe we can figure something out.

Maggie

Maggie,
sorry I just read your post on here and the demon Diane Dimond already has my email address because she emailed me a few times I have her blackbury address but I don't want to post it on here any Michael Jackson supporter is a friend of mine I have all the proof that proves Michael innocent I don't know what to do cause I don't want to post my email address on here, I don't know how we can exchange email addresses

Smiles,to you!

The lies must stop here and the truth be spoken.Michael Jackson was a very innocent man.He had a strong love for God.He spoke from his heart and soul.No man with this kind of love would betray God.

EVERYONE:

Go to her web site and ask her if she would be willing to go on TV and discuss her MJ "facts" with either A Jones or T. Messereau. She won't do it. She will make an excuse as to why it shouldn't happen and then she will block you from her email. She is a cowardly lying media whore and she knows she is wrong. She is hanging on to her pitiful career by a thread and has to resort to recycling this old crap of hers.

Re: mjlover4life
Hi mjlover4life. Love your posts. I have seen your name around the MJ cyber world. Either LKL, or FB, or maybe even TMZ. Good on you, my friend! PEACE.

Ms. Dimond I dont know if you are evil or stupid, perhaps it's both. You haven't a clue as to why people love Michael Jackson so dearly, his purity of spirit, compassion and empathy, his joy and love of life have eluded you completely. He was able to keep his dignity and grace even when gutter trash like you threw crap at him, relentlessly. I am ashamed to admit that I was not sure of MJs innocence at one time so I researched it thoroughly, including reading court transcripts. Not only did I find he is innocent in every sense of the word, I learned the truth about YOU. You should be ashamed, deeply ashamed. You make me physically sick.

from surftofind.com

Who is Diane Dimond?
Diane Dimond is the former host of "Hard Copy" who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson Case. She's obviously VERY close with the District Attorney but she is far from accurate in her reporting. Here's a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:

- In 1993, Diane did a segment with two of Michael's former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Michael's relationships with young boys. Diane swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted they made the whole thing up.

- That same year, Michael's former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she'd seen Michael naked in a Jacuzzi with young boys. A copy of Francia's testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she was full of shit.

- A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he'd seen a tape of Michael having sex with a young boy. Diane later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Michael filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Diane was dismissed from the lawsuit because of some crap regarding journalistic integrity (which shouldn't even be used in the same sentence with the name "Diane Dimond"), Gutierrez was forced to pay Michael $2.7 million.

- In 1995, Diane found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police where they questioned him for hours. Diane was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he made it all up. Since Diane had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy's lie but it's blatantly obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson? Wouldn't the police be a more logical alternative?

- Diane admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.

- In November, Diane reported that police found love letters addressed to the boy in Michael's home. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Michael store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this would happen?) and that's why he denied it.

Do not be fooled by Diane's sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations. 90% of what she says is a lie. This will be revealed in due time. Until then, refer to the second verse in Michael Jackson's song "2Bad." It is not necessarily written about Diane Dimond, but it certainly applies to her.

Head all up in Hollywood
Saying that she got it good
Creepin' from a dusty hole
Tell 'em what somebody told
What do you want from me?
What do you want from me?
Tired of you hunting me yeah, yeah
You're aiming just for me
You are disgusting me
You got blood lust for me
But too bad, too bad
Look who got slapped in the face
It's dead and stuffy in the place
I'm right back where I wanna be
I'm standing though you're kickin' me

Excuse me Ms Dirtbag, I mean Dimond, but in the article above you say Chandler recieved $30M. Here you are cited as the source of the $15.3 settlement document, so which is it?
from thesomkinggun-
JUNE 16--Michael Jackson agreed to pay $15.3 million to settle child molestation charges leveled against him in 1993 by a California boy, according to a confidential legal agreement. A heavily redacted version of the 31-page document, a copy of which you'll find below, was obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond.
The January 1994 agreement contains a one-line reference to Jackson delivering "confessions of judgment" totaling
$15,331,250 to the boy's attorneys. However, since the entire eight-page section of the agreement titled "Settlement Payment" is not included in the document, it is unclear how the eight-figure payout was distributed to the boy or what his parents were paid. However, a reference to the establishment of a "qualified funding asset" would indicate that an annuity (likely tax free) was a central part of the settlement.
As with most confidential deals, Jackson admitted no wrongdoing, noting that the cash was to settle claims for "damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence" and not for "claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation." The agreement also states that Jackson elected to settle "in view of the impact the action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income."
A redacted version of the settlement agreement was prepared in connection with a May 1996 lawsuit brought against Jackson by the child's father, who claimed that the singer breached terms of the 1994 legal agreement during a June 1995 interview on ABC's "Primetime Live." During that chat with Diane Sawyer, Jackson and then-wife Lisa Marie Presley accused the boy of fabricating his tales of sexual abuse. Those televised statements, the father argued, violated a provision of the 1994 agreement guaranteeing that Jackson would not publicly accuse the boy or his parents of "any wrongful conduct whatsoever."

I thought it might help if I gave you an example of REAL investigative journalism. You could learn a lot from Mary Fischer--but you already know that, don't you?

Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over.”

“Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked.

“That's irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want.”

Instead of going to the police, seemingly the most appropriate action in a situation involving suspected child molestation, Chandler had turned to a lawyer. And not just any lawyer. He'd turned to Barry Rothman.

“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity.” (Through his attorney, Wylie Aitken, Rothman declined to be interviewed for this article. Aitken agreed to answer general questions limited to the Jackson case, and then only about aspects that did not involve Chandler or the boy.)
Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself—the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler's Beverly Hills dental office.

In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy's allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.

“It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it's injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.

Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter's therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona's was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.

As for Chandler's story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug's customary use. “It's absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA's school of dentistry, adds, “It's unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”

Because of sodium Amytal's potential side effects, some doctors will administer it only in a hospital. “I would never want to use a drug that tampers with a person's unconscious unless there was no other drug available,” says Gottlieb. “And I would not use it without resuscitating equipment, in case of allergic reaction, and only with an M.D. anesthesiologist present.”

You need to end this personal vendetta you have against Michael, you heartless woman. Have you sold your soul to the devil? Even if for some crazy reason you honestly believe in the trash you put out there, a time comes when enough is enough. You had your slanderous say, no move on. I don't think anyone values your opinion anyway, I know I don't. You are a product of a scandalous media system that feeds of the hate and negativity of man. Michael has hundreds of thousands fans and followers. Try doing a report in comparison to how pathetic your life is compared to his great deeds and accomplishments. I didn't even read your article. I just came here to I and many others can let you hear us. YOU ARE A HATEFUL, LYING, HORRIBLE PERSON. Just go away and never report your garbage again. You will pay the price when it comes to your judgement day. You casted many stones at the innocent and for what price? Your soul?

Diane from Mpls,
it's my pleasure to do what I have to do for Michael and his children and I will defend him till the death of me
and I think it was TMZ I was attacking a hater.I also got the demon on The Daily Beast,Foreverland
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-01/michaels-foreverland/
Blame it on Karma a few of them I think you can get to all her sites on there got her on all of them
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2009/08/diane-dimond/
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2010/02/another-post-to-dianes-blog-that-wont-get-published/
this one is all ofmy handy work,
http://dianedimond.net/the-jacksom-kid-comes-of-age/
this one I just found yesterday I'm going to post on there too you know from my posts that I won't leave her alone until
she admits that she lied about Michael for 17-18 years and that's her bread and butter she made her rounds on his anniversary and I'm going to go after her for that but I did break her in a little now she says "in my opinion" well her opinion is wrong and her sources are her and Snot rag Sneddon

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/brother-of-jackson-accuser-admits-he-lied-192741.html
look at this other little bit of proof that Michael is innocent this is the Gavin Arvizo/Anton Jackson,
and do you know that there are websites dear Gavin and Dear Jordan I posted on them also
http://deargavinarvizo.com/2009/11/dear-gavin-arvizo/
http://dearjordanchandler.com/?p=10
here they are you know my name it's the same everywhere mjlover4life

sorry ignore that last post about Gavin coming forward look at this one the N.Y. Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article427970.ece

Image
this is funny as hell I hope it works

who wants to laugh?
read the 10th one down and click on the link,
http://wevehadenough.webklik.nl/page/articles
sorry the last one didn't work you have to look at this

sorry it didn't work it's a google search that types in Diane Dimond
and it did you mean heartless fu***ng bitch
it's sooooo funny because it's true she is a heartless fu**ing bitch

http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/6260/694fa.gif
I hope this is it if not just ignore it

Re: mjlover4life Thank you! Thank you ! Thank you! :) Is there any way of getting your e-mail??

Mado,
hi I would love to but you never know who's lurking
and I don't want to put my email address on a public forum.
do you know anybody on the Amazon forums? if so I know just about everybody there
but you have to buy something from amazon before you can post and what time are you usually on these forums? I live in the united states Providence Rhode Island,
and I warned her to leave Michael and his children alone and on the 25th of June there she was making her rounds on all the tabloid shows she was on CNN joy behar/Showbiz tonight/Jane Vales Mitchell/CNN that show the last days of Michael Jackson's life with Jon Lemon/NBC the Dateline Mommas special/and the View and them are only the ones that I watched. she needs to be stopped.
I told her I'd leave her alone but she wants to be blasted. because she will never leave them alone.
P.S. let me know if you know anybody from amazon I have almost all their email addresses.

It's a shame that some fifty (or is it sixty) something year old woman has to "earn" her living that way. Can someone get this b!tch off Michael Jackson's d!ck????

Re: mjlover4lifeThanks for replying. No I do not know anyone at amazon.
I can give you my e-mail, I don't care.
mado26gr@yahoo.gr
Please contact me. Thanks a lot.

Mado,
thanks I got it now but you can't delete it that's why I don't want to put mine on here
even though the demon already knows mine, I'm still not gonna post mine I don't want any haters
to have it because you and I doth know that there lurking about. and another thing this demon thinks that us fans are using more than one name and coming to her blogs
multiple times and blasting her but what she don't realize that we are numerous fans.
she's just a hack that don't know how to do anything else unless she's holding that poison pen.
and I told her that I would stop but she had to open up her pie hole on all them shows on the anniversary of Michael's death I would have blasted her sooner but my computer was broke I had lots of viruses on here I'm all better now and ready to catch her in all of her lies again I googled her and Michael and got a lot of sites I blast her on the daily {how quaint} beast {the demon writes for the beast} I blast her on Karma and on other sites
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2009/10/what-do-you-say-now-diane-dimond/
there are a few on the Karma ones that I was on of course the demon ones
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-01/michaels-foreverland/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-28/the-feds-jackson-whitewash/2/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/inside-michael-jacksons-future-plans/
these are only some of the places that I got her and she can't delete these ones she won't post any of my comments on any sites that she monitors but that don't stop me from getting her.

Re: mjlover4lifeI enjoyed our conversation! I am not worrying, I take care of haters too. LOL! See you later. Thanks again!

Re: Maggie I have the e-mail address you need. I have mine posted here. Look at one of my comments. Send me an e-mail and I will put you in contact with mjlover4life . I am sure she agrees to this. Take care.

"...You are honesty personified.. to the point where I'd say you hurt yourself. You are painfully honest. You're vulnerable to the point of pain. You are so giving of yourself that at times you leave very little left to protect that inner core, that beautiful inner core that is the essense of you. The thing that I love so much about you. And makes the world identify with you the way they do. It makes you I think the phenomena that you are..."
"Your friendship and your sense of giving is totally yours. And you do it the same way. Almost timidly, but thoroughly and completely. And with the same kind of effect..the same devastation."
"You're sense of caring. The things you have done that so few people know about...not even the receivers know about, that is true charity...I think it is the most beautiful quality that you have....thank you for being you. I love you." (Elizabeth Taylor)

Hey demon here's a little {well not so little} present for you,

Deborah Ffrench
A more honest reappraisal would be that the crime of false accusation was committed against Michael Jackson. The man was virtually hounded to his death. And from what I can see from the largely rebutting responses on this post, it seems clear the true 'fanatics' as regards Michael Jackson - are his detractors.

As a child psychologist with over 20 years experience working in more crisis /abuse scenarios than I care to recall, I can assure you that simply participating in what amounted to 'sleepovers' is no evidence of pedophilia c behavior. Contrary to what most people assume about pedophiles, the overriding personality trait they demonstrate is not their interest in children - but their spectacular disinterest.

They are unable to perceive a child as being anything more than something to be used and dispensed with. This disinterest cannot be masked, it is part of the intrinsic make-up of child predators. There are no 'ifs' and 'buts' with this. Mr Jackson, far from using children, clearly felt great affection and concern for them. He may have over-identified with them, but he did not present as a molester to any social worker or child specialist I have come across.

There isn't a pedophile in the world with a track record of public works that Jackson had. He also clearly lavished healthy love and affection on his own children. The lack of corroborating evidence in 1993 and again in 2005, the lack of incriminating evidence over a 10 year period from the FBI investigation casts serious - if not fatal doubts, on the authenticity of both the accusations and the accusers themselves.

What I find truly shocking though, is that so many otherwise intelligent people allowed Mr Jackson's addiction to surgery and his obvious self-identification issues, to obscure the reality of his innocence.

It was a clear case of - "well he's odd so he must be guilty."

Diane Dimond, who I only know of from her inflammatory and clearly self-interested profile as a Jackson 'expert' has been successfully discredited over the years, and one can assume blogging nonsense such as this is the type of 'bread and butter' work her career has been reduced to - as a result of her persistent and regrettable misleading of the American public.

This woman represents the results of the insidious 'dumbing down' of American life that led millions of people to allow their views and erroneous belief in a innocent man's guilt to be masticated and served up for them.

Re: mjlover4life What a lovely article! Thank you!

no problem anything top expose the demon for the liar that she is
she needs to be stopped.

if he tried to put that in a little boy that little boy would be hurting for certain and your just jealous because he never wanted your ugly ass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it9AY30v4Dk look at 9-11 seconds and it's hanging to the right. that's what the demon wanted and Michael the angel that he is/was would touch her with a 10 foot pole, and maybe if she didn't sleep with snot rag Sneddon maybe Michael would have let her at least touch it that's why she's always on his dick. I'm sorry readers for my swearing at her like this but it's the only thing that works I'm breaking her down and that article by Deborah Ffrench says it all. she was only nicer she the demon has emailed me a few times and in one she said and this is exactly how she said it to me,
TRUTH DOESN'T HURT NOT ONE LITTLE BIT {I'll find all of her emails and post them for you guys to see}, she knows she's lying but she don't care about the truth oh and there is something you can also watch that proves Michael's innocent it's on you tube and it's what DID happen to Michael Jackson it's 62 videos there long about 10 minutes each but so worth watching,,,here is the link,,,,,,,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaqOqnyrGZA&feature=related she needs to be stopped and I know I say that in just about every post but it's true.
http://cscstaff.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7295&page=1
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/7129260
http://www.blogger.com/profile/03789565100357268244
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article422705.ece
http://www.sawfnews.com/Entertainment/62954.aspx
http://site2.mjeol.com/mjeol-bullet/diane-dimond-s-suspicious-involvement-bullet-54.html
here is other things that prove her wrong

You HORRIBLE EVIL DEMON,
How dare you keep slandering our beloved Michael!!! After all the LIES you told about him all these years, I can't believe you're still at it now that he's gone! Didn't you and all those other greedy bastards put him through enough when he was still alive??? You don't care one iota about tearing someone down, do you? And yet, Michael endured everything you and your vicious tabloid reporters and others hurled at him. Why can't you stop? Have you nothing better to do? Who are you going to attack next--his children? And yes, they ARE his children! And really, if you look at it, you've already attacked them by saying they're not his, he bought them, etc.---You EVIL piece of shit!!! You really should look for a different career and by the way, why don't you take some courses in integrity and honesty??? And for God's sake, get your facts straight! He was proven INNOCENT (I never doubted his innocence), but even that's still not good enough for you! His death isn't even enough for you to keep your trap shut!!! You need to really educate yourself--this bullshit was nothing more than extortion!!! In case you forgot, didn't the Chandler boy admit after Michael's death that Michael never laid a finger on him? And the whole deal with the $20,000,000 was NOT Michael's decision! And didn't Sneddon falsify evidence--or did you forget that too?!!! Like I said, you need to EDUCATE YOURSELF and you really need to read Redemption and Conspiracy--that is, if you CAN read. In the meantime, you need to keep your mouth shut and put away your poison pen. How are you going to explain your actions to God on Judgement Day when He asks you why you slandered and dehumanized one of His chosen? Maybe that's when you'll be condemned to Hell for all eternity, because I doubt you'll be able to justify your actions! You AND your poison media did enough to destroy him when he was alive! Now that Michael is gone, you need to let this beautiful man rest in peace!!!And ADMIT to the world that you LIED!!! The TRUTH may set you free, but I doubt it!
 

LoveLives4everMJ
she won't admit that she lied she knows she's lying but she don't care she'll never leave him alone but I'm her karnma
and she knows it I hate to post this pic but look at what all these liars have done to him they killed his spirit long before 6-25-2009,and I'm also posting that them 3 innocent beautiful children ARE HIS.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson%20gif/Valarie_Lestat/Michael/MJ2.gif?o=131
here is something else that I found look more proof,
Michael Jackson's kids looks white because

Michael Jackson has WHITE paternal grandmother (Joe's mother) and maternal grandfather who had MULATTO mother and MULATTO father (Katherine's father). And his maternal grandmother is INDIAN and paternal grandfather is also ALMOST PURE INDIAN.

Michael's father Joe Jackson has light eyes and he is pretty light-skinned.

MICHAEL AND ALL JACKSON S are African American BUT HAVE TOO LITTLE BLACK BLOOD THEM SELF.

THEY ARE ALL ON THE WHOLE INDIAN/WHITE BLEND IN THERE GENE POOL than black

And Debbie is white. Of course their children don't look half black. It is not possible to have black or mulatto children with white women when he himself has majority Indian and white roots than black. The COMBINATION of DEBBIE'S WHITE GENE and WHITE GENE FROM MICHAEL'S GENE POOL have made his children more white-looking than Indian and especially black or bi-racial.

These are his kids

http://www.steady-laughing.com/thefools.htm


http://susanetok.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/fans-were-right-about-diane-dimond-i-was-naive-believing-in-her/
this is what she wrote to Susan Etok he's addicted to drugs and little boys
please tell me it isn't so. Because, Susan, I don't believe that. It was nice meeting you and I know you love your departed friend but I've covered this story since 1993. I've sat with damaged children and crying parents too many times, parents too scared to press charges for fear of the media onslaught. I've talked with police officers and seen sworn statements they've gathered. I sat in the nearly 5 month long trial and watched 20-something young men take the stand and tearfully describe what happened to them at Michael Jackson's hand. Forget the outcome of the trial – where three jurors later said they were coerced into their acquittal vote and wish they could take it back. It cannot be that ALL these people are lying and Michael is just a victim of his own celebrity.
here is what the demon emailed to Susan


Please. Don't speak for me on this very, very delicate and important issue. As you said – your friend was a drug addict. I'm here to tell you he was an addict for years. He was not a person in charge of his behavior. I know it's hard to hear but he was also addicted to little boys – and that's a fact – just as sure as he was addicted to alcohol and drugs.

I wish you all the best in your endeavors.

Diane Dimond

Post this on what ever site you can get on. First post her reply to you.
this is one of the emails she sent me.
{{I haven't wriotten anything about jax in months and months. Learn to read
dates....Via BlackBerry}}


this is what was said back to her.
You may not have written anything in months on Michael Jackson, but you shot your mouth off plenty during the anniversary of his death. It was the same old spew. Since I could not respond to your televised comments I am bringing my replies to them here. So quit playing the victim. You don't know what it is to be one, just how to create one.

http://api.ning.com/files/KKqVz*iLUi1Ua97fMRu1BoXi-gheayEPzMg8sFrt3ms_/mjslookingoutforus.jpg
http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/63678.aspx
http://popspiracy.blogspot.com/2009/06/michael-jackson-rumors-debunked.html
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=1752
http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/01/fbi-files-support-jacksons-innocence.html
http://deargavinarvizo.com/2009/11/the-transcripts/
this is what her boyfriend snot rag Sneddon said and did
Regarding Jackson's comments that he shared a room with children, Sneddon replied by saying it was, "unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously" but "Mental leaps of misbehavior are not acceptable as legal substitutes for credible, cooperative victims or percipient witnesses." Then, in typical Sneddon style, he urged any victims to come forward. A few days later, somebody within the District Attorney's office leaked Jordan Chandler's affidavit from 1993 onto the Internet. On February 13, Tom Sneddon gave an interview to trashy tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he again stressed the fact that if another victim came forward, the case would be re-opened.
Basically, after being made a fool of in 1993, Sneddon changed the law so that if any more victims came forward, they would be more inclined to cooperate in a criminal trial. This behavior alone shows that Sneddon was eager to convict Michael Jackson. Isn't it a bit suspicious that the new victim just happens to be the one boy from a documentary that Sneddon admitted to watching? And that as soon as that boy appeared on television, the allegations from 10 years ago and the main players involved with them resurfaced?
Regardless of whether or not Sneddon had something to do with this boy coming forward, he was clearly happy about being able to reopen the Michael Jackson case. This was evident at a press conference held by the Santa Barbara Police Department on November 19th, 2003 where Mr. Sneddon laughed and made jokes.
Since arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon's actions have been questionable at best.

And that is really just the beginning
please check out http://surftofind.com/jackson and help spread the truth
‹ CORRECTION: Tohme Tohme on Larry King Live NEXT THURSDAY night- send in your questions -email or video DJ TLM's MJ Tribute (R.I.P. Michael Jackson) ›

http://www.mj-upbeat.com/TrialMJJSource.htm

this is all for now

mjlover4life,
Thankyou for the links. I spent a lot of time checking them out. Oh, how I hate that EVIL DEMON and everyone else who destroyed Michael! Believe me, I know that she's not going to come clean and admit she LIED--its not in her character, unfortunately. I totally agree with you. Her and all these other greedy lying bastards robbed him of his spirit long before 6/25/09. You can tell just by looking at him how much it destroyed him. He didn't deserve ANY of that! I truly believe that he just lost his zest for life in general after this latest blow. And I don't think he ever recovered from it. Its so sad that such a beautiful man had to endure so much pain and humiliation.
These vultures have no regard for human life whatsoever!!! Not only were they greedy and cruel, I believe they were racist pigs also who were envious of Michael because of his tremendous wealth, celebrity status, and his great love for children as well as all mankind. So they all decided to make it into something twisted and sick for their own personal gain! I still fail to understand how anyone CANNOT love Michael!!! I mean, I truly believe he was one of God's chosen. And it really upsets me and angers me when I hear ANYONE talk about him like he was a pedophile. WE know he was INNOCENT. And I, like many others, did not look at him as weird, freaky, etc. He was a normal human being with more morals and character than a lot of people put together! He truly wanted to make the world a better place. Why the HELL couldn't these a**holes see him for the beautiful human being he was? Really, how much abuse can one man take???
Now I just recently find out that DEMON is still bashing our Michael!!! I had no idea until a few days ago because I happened to be in Gary, IN on June 25th. Wasn't that the day she was running her mouth on tv? I guess its probably a good thing I didn't see it! Even now, a few weeks later, I'm seething with anger!!! It just brings everything back into focus of her doing the same f****ed-up bullshit she did before to trash his good name! And he's not even here anymore to defend himself, NOT that he should have to anyway. Its trash like her that gives journalism and the media a bad name! I really feel sorry for his children because no matter how hard the family tries to shield them from these despicable LIES, I still feel like there's no way they can do it 100%. When I think of the emotional trauma this negative publicity is going to cause his children, it angers me even more! But this worthless B****H doesn't care about that either!!! All these LIES about their father, and then him buying them and not being their father--what!, Is the DEMON trying to destroy them too? We KNOW he's their father, but even if he wasn't, it wouldn't be anybody's business anyway. But why should they maybe even have to question it because of the filthy tabloid media??? Like I said, she needs to take some courses in integrity and honesty!!! As does Sneddon, Bashir, Grace, etc. How would ANY of these people like to be treated the way they treated Michael? I'd bet they wouldn't be able to endure everything that he endured--they would for sure cave! Like the Bible says, "treat others as you yourself would want to be treated". Too bad they don't follow what the Bible says!
So much for everyone that thought now that he's gone, they'll finally leave him alone. Not so, which is pretty pathetic! To think this poor excuse of a human being is still bashing Michael even in death--she just makes me physically sick and emotionally drained. But like they say, what comes around goes around. And I seriously doubt she'll be able to justify her actions to God when Judgement Day comes. Maybe then, she'll keep her trap shut!--when she is cast into the fires of Hell!!! Michael was a gift from God. Too bad all these narrowminded idiots can't see that! But one thing Michael does have on his side is his Army of Love. And one way or the other, we will get Justice For Michael!!! L.O.V.E.

LoveLives4everMJ,
yes she did make the rounds on June 25,10. she was on The View,she was on and on, HLN Joy Behar/Jane Vales Mitchell/and Showbiz Tonight/ CNN Michael Jackson's last days with Jon Lemon/ and NBC the Dateline Mommas special and them are the only ones that I watched she was probably on more than that,and about the children they know he's not like she and others say they lived with him for 12/11/and 7 years and he" NEVER" did anything to them so they know that's a lie,
I wouldn't worry about that, but I also see your point they don't need to read this when they type in their {{DADDY'S}} name. and that wasn't the right pic that I posted the one I was talking about was even worse than that one I have to look for it and I'll post it.I already know that he never touched any child inappropriately
http://www.mjfancommunity.com/quotations.htm
look at what they stolen from us this is why I fight so hard for him, I love you Michael Joseph Jackson Rest in Piece my angel.I'll find that pic and post it here for you guys

http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson%20gifs/strots9/Michael%20Jackson%20GIFS/tumblr_kwkkxux4e41qavazpo1_250.gif?o=60
http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson%20gifs/staceyYOUsee/MJ%20GIFS/qoc7xljpg.gif?o=86
Do these children look sexually abused? come on.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson%20gifs/staceyYOUsee/MJ%20GIFS/qoc7xljpg.gif?o=86
he didn't change that much the media photoshopped his pics to make him look freaky and girlish that's another whole story
,http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson%20gifs/JuliasAngel/Michael%20Gifs%20by%20JuliasAngel/548954215_644816.gif?o=160
this is my favorite pic of him.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/young%20michael%20jackson/pashby_2009/thmjblack7109.gif?o=361
this is the pic this last one it's at the end

http://gs0007.photobucket.com/groups/0007/JE638GEUUS/?action=view&current=ILoveYouSoMuchMichael.jpg
http://gs0007.photobucket.com/groups/0007/JE638GEUUS/?action=view&current=MichaelIsMyAngel.jpg
http://gs0007.photobucket.com/groups/0007/JE638GEUUS/?action=view&current=stairwayToHeavenmichael.jpg
http://gs0007.photobucket.com/groups/0007/JE638GEUUS/?action=view&current=aaaf-2.jpg
http://gs0007.photobucket.com/groups/0007/JE638GEUUS/?action=view&current=lunapic-1245993750983812.gif

http://www.mj-777.com/
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=3923

Diane,really. I wonder how you can call yourself a `reporter`. That would infer that you report actual facts,not the wishful fantasies you have about the King of Pop,Michael Jackson. You have been slammed so many times and made to look the fool. have you no shame1 I wonder what your endless pursuit of Michael says about your mental well being. Seriously,you are either unable to assimilate factual evidence or you have an ax to grind. I suspect it is the latter and that raises the very valid question about your motives.As MLKing said` The truth may be trampled into the dust but it will rise again`. The basis for your obsession will come to light one day...and I know it will not be pretty in what it reveals about you ,in your own personal life. That will expose your dark underbelly and all the nastiness you have tried to hide.
Take care and I wish you a reality check for your next Xmas.
L.O.V.E.

Re: mjlover4life
LOL,this Diane really is hiding something about herself,trust me. It will be a shocker when it comes out!

ladymoonwalker,
I already know what it is she slept with snot rag Sneddon for info fake info at that
Snot rag and demon have a vendetta on Michael and I have not a clue what it is it could be because he's a black man
or he's the biggest artist of all time could be that he was/is so rich and everybody want's a piece of the Michael Jackson pie. I don't know exactly what it is but sooner or later I'll find out I do know that snot rag Sneddon wanted Neverland so he could grow grapes for a winery it's on the Michael Jackson case I'm almost positive that I posted it on here,if not here it is again,it's supposed to be on here I think they took it off I'm not sure I haven't just read the whole thing yet there used to be a snot rag part,,,,,http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/faq.html
http://surftofind.com/seminal3
http://michaeljacksoncase.blogeasy.com/
here are two more things where she was caught in lies about Michael

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNIwRwxs0Gk
this is a good tribute to Michael it's a rap song and even if you didn't like rap you'll like this song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShswFB4f4s
this one is our call to Jordan Chandler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez7QCXJJV4&feature=related
this is the rebuttal video it's 2 parts

it's a good thing I cut and pasted this on another demons blog here is the snot rag wanting to get rid of Michael he wanted to run him out of Santa Barbara and take over Never Land for a winery and the demon knew about it,
more proof that she makes an ass out of herself V is for Vendetta.
here is the part about Sneddon wanting to get rid of Michael Jackson for his own greed and Diane Demond knew it.
- After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.
- Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler's story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.
- According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson's genitalia. “I've got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson's penis,” Rivera said.
- In 1995, Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that appeared on his album HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I. In the song, Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA's office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame. Click here to read the lyrics.
- Many legal experts dismissed the idea that Sneddon would prosecute Jackson solely for his own self-aggrandizement but perhaps there are other motives involved. According to Thambiah Sundaram, a dentist who filed and won a lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors in 1996, the commercial prospects of Neverland might be one factor influencing authorities' relentless pursuit of Jackson.
- In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fundraising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram's allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county's annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn't enough available land in the area to do so.
- Whether or not Sundaram's allegations have any merit remains to be seen, but there are other facts that point to Sneddon having a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Sneddon said in a press conference that after 1993, he changed certain California laws pertaining to child molestation specifically because of the Michael Jackson case.
- In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”
- Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said: “After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff's Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.”
- Regarding Jackson's comments that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom with a child, Sneddon replied by saying it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.” He then urged any victims to come forward. Read the full press release here.
- Shortly after this statement was released, Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he discussed the 1993 case.
- Coincidentally, the boy who appeared in Living with Michael Jackson – the documentary that Sneddon taped and watched – is the same boy who ended up becoming Jackson's second accuser. Did Sneddon have something to do with this boy coming forward?
- During his testimony at a pre-trial hearing, Sneddon admitted to having met with the second accuser's mother in an empty parking lot to give her papers that would qualify her for a state victim's fund. He also personally investigated the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson, a job that is supposed to be carried out by investigators.
- Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said of Sneddon's actions: “It's way too personal. It's way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case.” She continued: “It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it's not his place to do that. He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role.”
- Although the accusing family's story had numerous holes in it, Sneddon went forward with the case and pressed charges. Read on to learn about the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson.
Read about the Current Case

this is the part I was talking about

- In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fund raising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram's allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that wine making is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county's annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn't enough available land in the area to do so.

If you really want to read a definitive case study on exactly what the media did to Michael Jackson. People like Diane Dimond, et al, you must read this: http://www.voiceseducation.org/content/case-study-caricature. The writer touches on every aspect. It lengthy but well worth. Now this particular individual is a writer, unless this hack.

Excuse the typos. I mean (and it bears repeating) - unlike this hack.

thank you Paulie for that article

thank you Paulie for that article

thank you Paulie for that article I loved it we need more of these articles out there

I know what you meant Paulie thank you for the article it wouldn't let me book mark it so I saved it on my notepad

sorry for the extras it wouldn't let me post

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/some-sex-crimes-get-a-pass-why.html#
look at what I just refound this one is ancient
and Paulie and me have already blasted her on here

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/some-sex-crimes-get-a-pass-why.html#
look at what I just found again it is ancient and Paulie and I have already blasted her on there.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/some-sex-crimes-get-a-pass-why.html#
look at what I just found and Paulie and I have already posted on here

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-06/its-getting-even-weirder/?cid=tag:all11
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-13/jackson-family-civil-war/?cid=tag:all9
look at what I found
http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/some-sex-crimes-get-a-pass-why.html#
and that one

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/toxicology-reports-don-t-lie.html#
and look at what else I found this bitch needs to learn

http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf
here is a Deborah Ffrench mini book it's 22 pages it's good read

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books1-jetzi/joej/joej0b.html
read this it's Joseph Jackson's book no wonder them kids lookm"white" Joe is Indian/black and white Joe didn't even have that much black in him and Katie was an Indian so how could Michael's babies look half "black"?
it's on the first page about Joe not Katie you also have the geanology {sorry I know I spelled it wrong} and that says she's Indian it don't say it about Joe I don't think.Joe don't even have that much black in him.and demon thinks if they have a drop of black in them they look "half black" she's just a racist bitch.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/the-addict-the-enabler-and-us.html
this bitch has another one on Michael

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/some-sex-crimes-get-a-pass-why.html
http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/toxicology-reports-don-t-lie.html
http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/the-addict-the-enabler-and-us.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-13/jackson-family-civil-war/?cid=tag:all9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-06/its-getting-even-weirder/
these are ones I just found so I haven't had much time to blast her on all of them

http://dianedimond.net/the-jacksom-kid-comes-of-age/
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2010/02/another-post-to-dianes-blog-that-wont-get-published/
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2009/08/diane-dimond/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-01/michaels-foreverland/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-10-31/inside-michael-jacksons-future-plans/?cid=tag:all9
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-28/the-feds-jackson-whitewash/2/
http://www.blameitonkarma.com/2009/10/what-do-you-say-now-diane-dimond/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-01/michaels-foreverland/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFDA1639F93BA25756C0A9639C8B63
look at this the D.C.Y.F. worker said there was no child molestation of Gavin and she was at the 2005 trial

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ray-chandlers-subpoena-scared-to-death-to-prove-his-lies-in-court/
this one is also good it's Ray Chandler Evan's brother Jordan's uncle the author of that rag All that Glitters

MS. DIAMOND IS NOTHING BUT LIAR, WHO THINKS SHE KNOWS ALL ABOUT MICHAEL. WELL, LET ME SAY THIS LADY, LIRS AND SENSATIONALISM DONT EQUAL THE TRUTH. MICHAEL NEVER EVER BOUGHT HIS CHILDREN, HE MARRIED DEBBIE ROWE OR DO YOU HAVE SELESCTIVE MEMORY JUST LIKE YOUR OTHER SUPPOSED JOURNALISTS. WHAT A PILE OF SHIT THAT IS. GO JOIN , BASHIR, SNEDDON, THE SNAKE, THE CHANDLERS, ARVIZOS. YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY ABOUT MICHAEL JACKSON AND YOUR LIES MUST BE STOPPE FOREVER.

YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS LIKE THE REST. DO US ALL A FAVOUR AND LEAVE US ALONE. LIAR, SOMEONE SHOULD FIRE YOUR SLIMEY AZZ, WITCH!!!

http://www.creators.com/opinion/diane-dimond/hate-is-the-name-of-the-game-in-crime.html
look at what she actually had the nerve to post on a blog hate crimes when she's the racist bitch that she is she has a nerve to post this blog lets go and tell her about all of her hate crimes that she has done to Michael.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24429569/Michael-Jackson-FBI-Extortion-Document
look at this an extortion document a crazed fan of Janet's wanted to kill Michael.

this is Uri Geller hypnotizes Michael Jackson

Psychic URI GELLER once interviewed MICHAEL JACKSON under hypnosis to find out whether the superstar was innocent of the child sex allegations which rocked the last few years of his life.
Spoon-bending performer Geller - who was pals with Jackson throughout the 1990s - offered to put the pop superstar in a trance to help improve his eating habits.
But Geller secretly used the opportunity to probe the star about Jordy Chandler - the boy Jackson was accused of molesting in the 1993.
Chandler received a multi-million dollar out of court settlement from the star and Geller was determined to find out whether the pay-off was an admission of his friend's guilt.
He explains, "(Michael) said to me suddenly, 'This mind power that you have - can you send it to me? Can I feel it? Is there some food I can eat - I don't want to eat junk food - can you make me healthy?'
"And I said to him, 'Will you allow me to hypnotize you?' and he said, 'Yes! Wow! Can you really hypnotize me?'
"So I put him into a trance and I confronted him under hypnosis - I asked him, 'Michael, did you ever touch a child in an inappropriate manner?' And Michael answered immediately, 'No I would never do that.'
"So I asked him, 'Why did you pay off Jordy Chandler?' and he said, 'I had enough - I couldn't take it any more.'
"I pulled him out of the trance - he never knew this - but to me this was a private validation that this poor man is innocent."
Jackson was accused of child molestation again in 2003 in relation to 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo. He was cleared of all charges at his 2005 trial.

Advertise on NYTimes.com
Jackson Case Social Worker Says She Found No Molesting

By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: May 18, 2005

CORRECTION APPENDED

Photo: Irene Peters, a social worker from Los Angele's, being escorted yesterday after testifying at Michael Jackson's trial in Santa Maria, Calif. (Photo by Christina Barany/Getty Images)

SANTA MARIA, Calif., May 17

A longtime social worker testified on Tuesday that she investigated accusations that Michael Jackson's accuser had been sexually abused but found no basis for believing that was the case.

Irene Peters, a social worker with 30 years of experience in the Los Angele's County Department of Child and Family Services, told the jury that she investigated after a complaint had been lodged with her office after a documentary was broadcast in February 2003.

In that documentary, Mr. Jackson told the interviewer, Martin Bashir, that he slept with young boys.

The accuser appeared in the documentary with his head resting lovingly on Mr. Jackson's shoulder.

He only later accused Mr. Jackson of molesting him.

Testifying for the defense, Ms. Peters said she and two colleagues interviewed the accuser, his two siblings and his mother in the Los Angele's apartment of the mother's boyfriend and were told that the children had not been mistreated or sexually abused.

''I asked point blank, 'Did you sleep in bed with Mr. Jackson?''' Ms. Peters said she asked the accuser, who was 13.

He responded that he did not, she said.

She then asked whether Mr. Jackson had touched him sexually.

''He became upset,'' Ms. Peters testified. ''Said: 'Everyone thinks Michael Jackson abused me. He never touched me.' He was very upset about it.''

She said that the teenager's demeanor was ''playful, articulate'' and that ''he appeared to enjoy the attention.''

She added that he was not withdrawn or mistrustful, behavior that is common with sexual abuse victims.

The prosecution has accused Mr. Jackson of molesting the boy after the date of Ms. Peters's interview, and before May 12, 2003, when the family was escorted off the Never land Ranch, five miles from Los Olivos.

The testimony on Tuesday underscored how difficult it may be to prove that Mr. Jackson chose to molest the boy at the very moment when the news media, the police and social workers were scrutinizing him for such crimes.

Ms. Peters and her supervisor, Karen Walker, testified that the accuser's mother never complained that she was being held against her will at the ranch, as the prosecution contends, despite many opportunities to do so.

Instead, the two social workers said, the mother repeatedly expressed her displeasure that Mr. Bashir's documentary showed her son's face without her permission and asked for help in persuading Mr. Jackson to send her children to private school, because of the unwanted news media attention.

''Her main complaint was she felt the kids were being taped without her consent, and what could she do about it,'' Ms. Peters said.

She and Ms. Walker met the mother and spoke to her repeatedly on the telephone in February and March, when the family says it was held captive.

On April 1, 2003, the social workers coincidentally crossed paths with the mother and her children at a restaurant in Los Angeles, and no mention was made of being abused or held captive, they said.

''I asked how the children were doing, and she said they were doing O.K., except they had missed a lot of school,'' Ms. Peters testified.

On cross-examination, District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon Jr. tried to show that the social workers should have been more skeptical.

Under questioning by the prosecutor, Ms. Peters agreed that teenage boys are often slow to admit being molested when asked about it in front of their mothers.

''I would have called,'' Ms. Peters said, referring to the police, ''if there was any doubt in my mind that abuse was going on. We'd have been in children's court.''

Correction: May 26, 2005, Thursday An article on May 18 about defense testimony in the child molesting trial of Michael Jackson misstated the date his accuser's family was escorted off his ranch, Never land. It was March 12, 2003, not May 12.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson/vampirehunterlebowski/mjacko.gif?o=37758
lets throw the demon and bashit and snot rag and others in this water but it's a fucked up pic though that would be the only way for it to be a good pic
http://www.mj-777.com/?p=4290&cpage=1#comment-4012

http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson/FoundPen112/MJAngel.jpg?o=28663
http://www.lasentinel.net/Firefighter-Speaks-Out-About-Michael-Jackson-s-Scalp-Burn.html
she seems to forget about this
http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/647307

http://www.michaeljackson.com/us/node/647307

http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson/73737_2007/Michael%20Jackson/DontBotherMichaelJackson.gif?o=21462
http://life2getherblog.com/2008/11/
number 6 fits her

6. Mental illness is caused by demon possession.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/michael%20jackson/itsmezinara/88-2007.jpg?o=23747

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrYnXYBHO-8
this bitch wants to see Michael in jail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbBqGgTvwpg

http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/06/27/jackos-healthy-body-surprises-investigators-11981/
another lie that she told

Diane D.
- You should RETRACT and apologize to the worlkd for SPEWING out lies about Michael! You Mal informed journalist!!!
Maybe Aphrodite Jones can teach you how to do RESEARCH!!!!!!

Michael Jackson - A Legend... Rest in Peace!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6I7TeKCs3A&feature=related
watch these videos I'm downloading them now and yes she does some doing on this
she "reported" them lies about him
Esmirelda,
sorry to tell you she's not going to RETRACT NOTHING she makes all of her money on slandering him she sees a meal ticket and she don't care if his babies see the lies that she says about him their daddy all she cares about is getting paid off of Michael's name like she has been doing now for 17-18 years now, and she don't a crap about his legacy
that's why I'm her to set the record straight.and prove her lies.

♥_♥___♥_♥_ Put this
♥___♥_♥___♥ heart
_♥___ღ___♥_ on your
__♥_____♥__ page if
___♥___♥___ you always loved
____♥_♥____Michael Jackson
_____♥_____ and always will

and she will never change this

♥_♥___♥_♥_ Put this
♥___♥_♥___♥ heart
_♥___ღ___♥_ on your
__♥_____♥__ page if
___♥___♥___ you always loved
____♥_♥____Michael Jackson
_____♥_____ and always will

(¯`v´¯)
`*.¸.*´ Before You Judge Him..
¸.•´¸.•*¨) ¸.•*¨) Try Hard To Love Him.....
(¸.•´ (¸.•´ .•´ ¸¸.•¨¯`• Look Within Your Heart....
Then Ask.. HaVe You See HiS CHiLDHooD ??!!

http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2009/06/30/phonte-my-hero-aint-molest-them-bitch-ass-kids-blog/
http://cscstaff.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7295&page=1
here are two more articles that prove Michael's innocence

Demon you are so simplistic and out to lunch with your off the wall crap. Shut up you hound from hell. Just shut up with your slander and false info. Reporter,that is a laugh. You are a toad,smelly and warty-yuck. Go to hell you maniac.

Re: Paulie
Cemon is so whacked. Doesn`t she have a health plan so she can get that head looked at? She is insane-totally and absolutely insane.

http://www.squidoo.com/MichaelJacksonQuestions
WHY WASN'T MICHAEL INDICTED?

The lack of corroborating evidence in the criminal case, was confirmed by an officer from the LA Police Department, who told the LA Times in 1993 that " no evidence (medical, photographic or video) could be found that would support a criminal filing " against Jackson. Despite the use of intimidatory techniques (such as telling the children that nude photos of them existed,) by the police when interviewing the 30 or so children who had been guests at Neverland with their families over the years - every one of them
denied any abuse had occurred.

At one point, officers even resorted to asking Jackson's younger cousins and nephews if they had ever been `abused' by their relative. Reduced to following the `leads' the tabloids broke, investigators questioned the Lemarques and the Quindoys. But despite the stories these ex-employees had profited from selling, they refused to go on record and accuse Jackson of molestation.

Retrospectively, in 2004, in an interview with News Press, former members of the 1993 grand jury in Santa Barbara, said they were never shown enough evidence to issue an indictment against Jackson. Their statements support the comments made by Thomas Mesereau. On November 29, 2005, in front of a mixed audience of legal commentators, undergraduates, post-graduates and reporters at Harvard University, Mesereau said,
"[Sneddon] had convened a grand jury in the early 90's to try and get an indictment and he failed.

The grand jury met for approximately 6 months and would not charge Michael Jackson with anything. And I have since spoken to someone who was on that grand jury quite recently from Los Angeles. She was on a Los Angeles grand jury that was convened at the same time. And they had real problems with these accusations. And [the] real problems were the sense that people were trying to get money out of Michael Jackson by generating these charges. "

During this question and answer session, Mesereau also revealed that had Jordan Chandler come forward to testify in the 2005 trial, that he [Mesrereau] had witnesses prepared to testify that Jordan had told them that the reasons behind his decision to file for legal emancipation from his parents, were due to Jordan's anger and resentment at being forced to lie about Jackson.

Mesereau further stated that he had been ready to call witnesses who could corroborate that Jordan had told them many times over the years that Jackson
had never molested him, and that the accusations had simply been about Evan's desire for money.

WHY MICHAEL JACKSON SETTLED:

Misreported at the time, the reasons for the settlement have been completely misunderstood for years by not only the American public, but observers in general. Understandably, the biggest issue most people can't get past when judging the events of `93, is why Jackson chose to pay the Chandlers a substantial financial settlement instead of fighting the civil case in court. The assumption is that Jackson was afraid
of what the boy would say. This assumption, widely held to this day - is profoundly incorrect. The reasons behind the decision to settle were many. But the key one was a point of law.

Before the Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, changed the legislation in California that now prevents a civil case from preceding a criminal one when the defendant is facing the same charges, the law in 1993 meant Jackson would have had to give his defense testimony in the civil case before he testified in the subsequent criminal one.
Put simply, if the civil trial went ahead before the criminal one, the prosecution would have had a front row seat to Jackson's defense strategy. That would have left Jackson with only one option - invoking them fifth amendment. That option, however, only works on paper. In reality, in a trial where the charges involve something as emotive and heinous as child abuse, a defendant who continually answers `I plead the fifth your honor' isn't a trial. It's legally assisted suicide.

If Jackson's lawyers cared about winning the criminal trial, they had stop the civil suit from preceding the bcriminal one. In the 2003-2005 case trial, police investigators, under Tom Sneddon's direction, notably lifted defense documents clearly marked `Mesereau' from the house of Jackson's then personal assistant, Evelyn Tavasci. They also exceeded the scope of a search warrant to raid the office of Bradley Miller, a private investigator working for one of Jackson's lawyers at the time, thus violating attorney-client privilege. So the prosecution were clearly not above tailoring the prosecution towards the defense's case. "Holding the civil trial in advance of a criminal trial " journalist Charles Thomson explains, " would give the prosecution unqualified access to Jackson's defense strategy.

If Jackson cited an alibi in his civil trial, Sneddon could go back to the office and change the dates on the criminal charges. If Jackson called witnesses to corroborate his version of events, Sneddon could go back to his office and mould his case around their testimony. He could tailor his case exactly to the defense strategy, making it impossible for Jackson to win a criminal trial. The only way Jackson could guarantee himself a fair criminal trial was to make the civil trial go away. "

THE AGREEMENT WITH CHANDLER:

The settlement question, always polarizing, seems to raise more questions more answers. Looking at the wording of the agreement, it is clear that a compromise was negotiated. But it is also clear that acceptance and admission of criminal conduct, was for Jackson - non-negotiable. The relevant clauses are:
"The 1993 civil settlement was made by Mr Jackson's insurance company and was not within Mr Jackson's control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit defended by Mr Jackson's insurance carrier."

The agreement further states that:
"The parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of molestation."

The most important part of the settlement agreement, from Jackson's perspective, was the key clause of non-admission of liability. This clause was as adamant - and as clear, as Jackson could get in this agreement to stating that he was not guilty of the criminal accusation. Jackson's legal team specifically negotiated the inclusion of this clause, and only when this clause was agreed - did Jackson sign on to the agreement.

The fact that this was agreed to by the Chandlers, is astonishing in as far as it perhaps most clearly reveals Evan Chandler's (and June's - who also stood to gain financially) intentions. For most parents of a child who had allegedly been `molested' - this is the one clause that would be unacceptable.

The other key point in this agreement, is that nowhere in it are the Chandlers' rights to pursue a criminal case affected. This fact, was reflected in a report carried in USA Today on January 28, 1994, three days after the settlement agreement was announced. Every other media outlet at the time reported the same.

" The boy's civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy's lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will."

At a press conference in Santa Monica on January 25, 1994, lawyers for both sides announced that an agreement had been reached by both parties. Media speculation over the actual amount paid, like the rest of their coverage oscillated wildly, with figures of between £ 25 million to a quarter of Jackson's wealth being estimated. The actual figure paid was $ 15,331.250.

Cochran, told reporters present. " The resolution of this case is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. In short, he is an innocent man who does not intend to have his career and his life destroyed by rumors and innuendos." Cochran, subsequently commented to JET Magazine "They [Hard Copy ] want ratings. They pay witnesses. Any similarity between the truth and Hard Copy is purely incidental. "

At the same conference, Feldman, echoing Cochran, told reporters, " Nobody's bought anyone's silence." As far as answering questions about whether or not Jackson `bought' his way out of a criminal trial, the fact that the agreement did not prevent the Chandlers in any way from testifying in a criminal trial - is unequivocal. The most Jackson could ask for, if the Chandlers decided to testify was written notice of the fact.
"In the event the Minor, the Minor's Legal Guardians, the Minor's Guardian ad Litem, the Minor's attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler... receive any subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted, or is investigating, any claim against Jackson or the Jackson Releases or the Action or the Claims, they agree * to give notice in writing* to Jackson's attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law."

Yet, they never did. That the family subsequently refused to testify was their own decision, and one that was made entirely independently of the civil suit settlement. The settlement only resolved the civil case, not the criminal case, which staggered on for another eight months, finally closing in September '94.

DID THE DESCRIPTION MATCH?

The warrant itself, which was to examine, photograph and videotape Jackson's entire body, "including his p e n is, a n u s, hips, b u t t o c k s and any other part of his body " was executed on December 20 at Neverland. Jackson's lawyers were denied a copy of the affidavit which would have indicated the `probable cause,' in other words, some clear sign on Jackson's genitalia that Jordan alleged existed.

In front of his two attorneys, Dr Arnold Klein, Louis Swayne who was Jackson's photographer, Sergeant Gary Spiegel, the sheriff's department's photographer, Dr Richard Strick (the DA's dermatologist,) and a bodyguard - Jackson, in some degree of distress - removed his bathrobe and stood in the center of the room for 25 minutes while he was intimately examined. For Jackson, someone who, arguably, was body-dysmorphic and chronically, even pathologically shy, this experience would be a watershed moment. Profoundly shaming, Jackson's family and friends in later years have said that Jackson was irrevocably shattered by this event. For Jackson's lawyers, with the
judge's refusal to defer the civil case effectively rubber-stamping the growing appeal of the settlement idea, the body search - would make that idea a certainty.

Far from being the definitive match Feldman heralded the photographs as, the comparison between
Jordan's description and Jackson's body differed in the most obvious area:
Jordan had categorically stated that Jackson was circumcised. He was not. It could be speculated that as the child of a Jewish father, Jordan, possibly circumcised himself, may simply have assumed that everyone else was also. If so, that would also mean Jordan did not have an intimate knowledge of Jackson's body.

Vitiligo, is a constantly evolving disease. It is progressive, and markings differ markedly between sufferers. Some sufferers have huge blocks of color pigmentation, others like Jackson, present as intricate markings. If one can imagine flicking paint very lightly over a surface and then observing the results, this is what Jackson's vitiligo looked like.
The idea that Jordan would be able to identify such subtle markings, but yet could not, as a mixed Jewish child, discern the difference between a c i r c u m cised p e nis and one that was not - is unsustainable.

For any male, the difference between the two is defining. Any claim therefore that such a fundamental difference in pe nis types could be termed a `match,' is a leap - and a substantial one.. The "dark spot" that Diane Dimond claimed Jordan said was positioned on the underside of Jackson's scrotum, was not photographed during the session, according to the sheriff's photographer present. This fact - that a photograph was not taken of the so-called only `tell-tale' mark, and apparently the reason why the b ody search was allowed in the first place - is somewhat remarkable. However, speculation on this point is unnecessary, as the clearest divergence from Jordan's description has already been stated.

Since no photograph of this `dark spot' was taken, and there is no evidence to suggest that there was, any claims about its existence can neither be refuted nor claimed as absolute. bThe drawing, Jordan drew as a likeness of Jackson's pe nis was a generic likeness. Unless Jackson had some significant peculiarity to his geni talia, there would inevitably have been some `likeness' in the widest sense. In short, a penis, whatever color it is - is still a pen is.

It is important to remember that in February of `93, in a widely advertised interview with O p r a h W i n f r e y, Jackson told the world he had a skin disorder. It became known that vitiligo was the name of this disorder, and Jackson's revelation became a much talked about topic at the time. As a result there were debates on TV, radio shows, and by the press, with pictures of vitiligo sufferers circulated all over the media.

It is reasonable to contend that Evan Chandler may have also seen this coverage, especially as Jordan was already friends with Jackson at the time of Winfrey's interview. Rudimentary research of vitiligo, reveals information that has been in the public domain for over 20 years, such as the fact that vitiligo typically begins at the extremities - hands, feet and geni talia. Therefore, if somebody wished to extort someone
who was known to have vitiligo, taking a `risk' that their geni talia may have been affected - is clearly no risk at all.

Whatever the debatable results of the examination, the damage to Jackson's name and reputation, came not just from the experience of being publicly examined, but from how it was perceived. One of the biggest entertainers in the world, standing n aked in the middle of a room while strangers took pictures.

It's hard to imagine anything more demeaning, even if such an experience only involves the participants. What made the experience execrable for Jackson was the fact that, this experience was discussed, dissected, and deliberated about, by every news channel, TV host, radio show pundit, and newspaper in the world. On December 22, a clearly traumatized Jackson, spoke from Neverland via satellite about the search, which he
described as the " most humiliating experience of my life." Jackson was criticized the next day by Feldman who, as it was reported in every paper the next day, accused Jackson of attempting to "try this case in the press." At one point in the message, Jackson appealed
directly to ordinary Americans to ignore the media bias saying, "At every opportunity, the media has dissected and manipulated these allegations to reach their conclusions. I ask all of you to wait and hear the truth before you label or condemn me. "
As far as the media were concerned, however, the questions raised by the allegations against Michael Jackson had already been answered - with or without the
body search. From the end of December until the date of the settlement, the press and Feldman continued to insist that the photographs proved there was a complete match
up between Jordan's description and Jackson's body.

On January 5, 1994, Feldman made a completely misleading statement to the press, when he (ostensibly) went to court to try and obtain n u d e photographs of Jackson.
At the time, negotiations for the settlement were tentative. Feldman, doing what any competent civil lawyer would do, was using the court appointment as an opportunity to apply pressure to Jackson's legal team. Speaking to jockeying press gathered outside the court, Feldman said, "We think that the fact my client can establish what Mr Jackson looks like n a k e d is very substantial evidence of Mr Jackson's guilt."

One would have to be fairly imperceptive not to see that Feldman was attempting to use public opinion to add leverage to his client's - the Chandler's, demand for money. By implying that his client still intended to go forward with the criminal trial, Feldman was sending two clear messages: To Jackson's legal team, he was saying - it doesn't matter what the photograph's prove, what matters is what people believe. To the public, Feldman's statement expressly said, the photograph's match - Jackson is guilty.
Only two media outlets carried the correct information. One was Reuters, the other was USA Today. On January 28, 1994, when the articles were written, the civil suit had already been settled three days previously. In USA Today, it was reported that,
"A source close to the case stated that the photographs were "at variance" with the descriptions Jordan Chandler had provided, and that, " the pictures simply don't match the boy's description." The article in Reuters said " the photo's of Michael Jackson's geni talia do not match descriptions given by the boy....If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer." By late December '93, Jackson's legal team were running out of time. Regardless of the weakness of the evidence against Jackson, from where they stood, it looked like the LA and Santa Barbara police were forging ahead with the criminal case.


http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson

An Innocent Man Wouldn't Have Settled...

Back in 1993, when the first set of allegations materialized, there was not enough evidence to indict Michael Jackson. The case was brought in front of two grand juries and charges were never brought. There was no corroborating evidence, no child pornography found, no witnesses to inappropriate behavior on Mr. Jackson's part and no other victims. Surely if Michael Jackson were a pedophile, authorities would have found something incriminating against him. They searched his entire house, interviewed hundreds...

sorry here is all of it
An Innocent Man Wouldn't Have Settled...

Back in 1993, when the first set of allegations materialized, there was not enough evidence to indict Michael Jackson. The case was brought in front of two grand juries and charges were never brought. There was no corroborating evidence, no child pornography found, no witnesses to inappropriate behavior on Mr. Jackson's part and no other victims. Surely if Michael Jackson were a pedophile, authorities would have found something incriminating against him. They searched his entire house, interviewed hundreds of children and found nothing. On top of that, there is ample evidence that proves the entire thing was a scam.

So why do people still insist that he was guilty in 1993? Most people refer to the civil settlement that Michael Jackson reached with the accusing family. Anyone who uses the civil settlement as evidence of Michael Jackson's guilt lacks a basic understanding of law and needs to do a little research before making baseless assumptions. Since most members of the "Michael Jackson is guilty" club are lazy, I've done the research for you. I've even written a little analogy to help those with no legal knowledge understand the situation more clearly. Read on to learn why Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit in 1993 and why it means absolutely nothing in terms of him being innocent or guilty...

Imagine you are a professional dancer and have been entered into two competitions. You are required to perform the exact same routine in both competitions but the second one is much more significant. The first competition offers a cash prize of $100 while the second competition guarantees the winner a highly coveted spot at one of the most prestigious dance schools in the country. You have no desire to win the first competition as $100 really wouldn't benefit you much in the long run. Your entire career, however, rests on whether or not you win that second competition.

Now imagine that the person you're up against in the second competition will be coming to watch you perform in the first competition. Your opponent is going to be watching the entire routine, taking notes on all of your strengths and weaknesses and using this information to improve his/her own routine and make it better than yours. You approach the judge and ask that the order of the competitions be reversed so that the more important competition takes place first; this will prevent your opponent from knowing in advance what he/she is up against. The judge denies your request. You then ask that your opponent be banned from attending the first competition. Again, your request is denied.

Now you are faced with two choices. You could either a) perform in the first competition and risk your opponent having the upper hand in the more important competition or b) drop out of the first competition (since you don't care about a lousy $100 prize) and risk people thinking that your dropping out had something to do with your inability as a dancer. What would you do? Would people's opinions be more important than your own future? Would you compete in the first competition just to prove that you could win it if you tried?

If you want some insight into Michael Jackson's predicament in 1993, take this scenario and increase its magnitude by a thousand. The civil trial was supposed to take place before the criminal trial which would have been a direct violation of Mr. Jackson's constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Because of double jeopardy anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves twice on the same allegation unless one trial takes place in a civil court and the other takes place in a criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993. A criminal trial is always between the State and the accused; a civil trial, on the other hand, takes place between two private parties. The civil suit against Michael Jackson was filed by the Chandlers in 1993; the criminal proceedings were completely independent.

Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place first. For example, in the O.J Simpson case, the criminal trial was resolved before the civil trial began. Jackson's attorneys filed a motion asking for the order of the trials to be reversed. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved." Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.

The family's attorney Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff- being a minor- might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy's "fragile state" was more important than Jackson's 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy's favour. Jackson's attorney Johnnie Cochrane filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost this motion.

Let's pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Mr. Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson's most critical evidence and found ways to discredit it so that he would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial. For example, let's say the defense team proved that Jordan Chandler was given the memory altering drug sodium amytal before making the allegations. Jackson's lawyers would have revealed this discovery to the court while cross-examining Evan Chandler (since he'd already admitted to using the drug for "dental purposes") and it would have been a huge factor in proving that the allegations were a lie. The defense would have also called upon medical experts to testify that sodium amytal is strictly a psychiatric drug and cannot be relied on to produce fact. Sneddon, seeing how damaging this revelation would be to his case, could have then found experts of his own who could argue that sodium amytal is actually a truth serum. Sneddon would have had months to figure out ways to downplay the significance of the use of sodium amytal.

The defense would have also called Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Barry Rothman (the attorney who represented Evan Chandler in his custody case). Ms. Hughes would have told the court everything she knew about Rothman and Chandler's extortion plot and would have made an explosive witness for the defense. Now keep in mind that Mr. Sneddon has a history of witness tampering. He is currently being sued for $10 million by lawyer Gary Dunlap who claims that Sneddon maliciously prosecuted him. According to Dunlap, when a judge refused to change her ruling in Sneddon's favor, Sneddon brought bogus charges against her, publicly humiliated her and ruined her career. When it became apparent to Sneddon that this judge would be a witness in the Dunlap case, he threatened to bring more charges against her. Just imagine what might have happened if Sneddon knew in advance who would make the best witnesses for the defense in the criminal trial.

As you can see, if Jackson had gone through with the civil trial, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution. Although this is the most important reason for Michael Jackson settling, there were many other factors involved. One must understand the various differences between civil and criminal trials in order to fully comprehend Mr. Jackson's reasons for settling.

In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, the jury's verdict is based on a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the plaintiff's rights. In short, in order to be convicted in a criminal trial, the jury must be completely convinced of your guilt. In a civil trial, however, if the jury thinks you might have committed the crime, they can still rule against you.

The defendant in a civil trial also has less rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person's property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. They can even take the deposition of nonparties in a civil case and order them to bring documents with them. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute.

In criminal law, if the defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the defendant must be cooperative for depositions and testimony. If the defendant in a civil trial invokes their fifth amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display for everybody to see. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.

The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been up to his elbows in lawyers fees while at the same time putting his career on hold, limiting his source of income. Such a long, drawn out process would have also caused him and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to deal with. Why go through all of that twice, especially if going court in the civil trial would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the criminal trial? Why risk your chances of being acquitted when there would be absolutely nothing beneficial about going through with the civil trial? What would you have done? If you say you would have fought tooth and nail in both the civil trial and the criminal trial, well, that's very noble of you but until you are actually in the position that Michael Jackson was in, don't tell me that there's no way you would have settled the case.

Keep in mind that the settlement did not prevent the boy from testifying in the criminal trial. The Chandlers would not cooperate with authorities; this was their own decision. Larry Feldman stated himself that the civil settlement had nothing to do with Jordan Chandler's refusal to testify. The media, however, has gone out of their way to promote the idea that Michael Jackson bought the family's silence. For example, they will use sentences like "No charges were brought against Michael Jackson after he paid his accuser $20 million." Technically, there is nothing inaccurate about that statement but the implication is that charges were never brought because of the civil settlement. This is known as false cause- when people assume that because event A occurred before event B, event B was a result of event A. In reality, however, the case fell apart because Jordan Chandler would not testify and there was no evidence to corroborate his story. The criminal investigation was completely independent of the civil proceedings and the settlement did not affect the investigation. Simply put, there was no evidence to prove or even support the claim that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. This is the only reason why charges were not brought. Michael Jackson did not buy his way out of anything.

Logically, it doesn't even make sense to say that he paid them off. Chandler asked for $20 million at the very beginning and Michael Jackson turned him away. This was before the boy had even made any allegations; Chandler basically said, "give me $20 million or my son is going to make accusations against you." Why didn't Michael Jackson pay him off at that point? If he was guilty wouldn't he have paid him to go away? What, he was just like, "Nah, turn me in first, ruin my career and get my ass investigated by the police and then I'll pay you off?" It doesn't make any sense at all.

If it is still your contention that Jackson's plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which would have made it impossible for him to "bribe" the boy into not testifying. Jackson's actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler's silence.

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the District Attorney was seeking a conviction instead of justice and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could either go through with the civil trial and risk a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settle the civil lawsuit and risk people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit. Settling the civil suit was the easiest option for Michael Jackson and from a legal standpoint, his decision to settle makes sense. Unfortunately, the settlement is constantly used against Michael Jackson by a lazy media who refuse to do any research before writing a story.

An innocent man wouldn't have settled? Whatever. Do your homework before you use legal proceedings that you don't understand to prove a person's guilt.

Now that MJ has passed, Jordan Chandler is saying that his father made him say it. How sad is that? An innocent man was shamed and blackmailed and the authorities let them get away with it?
surftofind.com/jackson

This is a great website it as factual statement. As you can see it explains the difference between the civil and criminal proceedings. I thought I would put it out there, It is Mj turn for his voice to be heard.

I think the vast majority of people do not know that it was the insurance company that had the final say and paid the settlement money, not Michael, in the 1993 civil case. Most people think the Money came from Michael's personal account.
The fact that the civil case would have been heard before the criminal trial is all the more reason to settle the civil case...you wouldn't want Sneddon and company knowing your strategy from a civil trial to be used against you in a criminal trial that would come later. Michael was between a rock and a hard place, damn if he did, damn if he didn't...either way, he was in a no win situation.

look this is what her boyfriend wanted done I told you so
http://www.heraldo-sale.co.cc/heraldo-rivera/transcripts-geraldo-rivera.htm

http://www.themjifc.com/forum/innocent/1042-sneddon-toast.html
here is her boyfriend again and why he wanted Michael out of anta Barbara, for his own greed and this bitch knew Michael was innocent. but she don't care about truth

http://mjtruthnow.com/
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/michael-jackson-lies-run-spirits-but-the-truth-runs-marathons/6547959
here's a good book on the truth on the 2005 trial which they did bring in the 1993 case and dear old Jordan REFUSED TO TESTIFY, copy and paste

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050329_spilbor.html
lookie here

>
>First: Diane Dimond claimed that 20 adult males testified against Jackson.
>That's untrue. 32 adult males testified saying that Michael DIDN'T rape them.
>Only two testified saying that Michael had raped them. One of them admitted
>that he was lying. The other, Gavin, was just RIDICULOUS.
>Second: Jordan Chandler's Case: In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner,
>a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug
>sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after
>this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at
>KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used
>the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's
>tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with
>allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy,
>Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
>
>Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved
>the drug, the boy's allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as
>unreliable, if not highly questionable.
>
>“It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says
>Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “ people are very suggestible under
>it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.”
>Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic
>state when it's injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the
>treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers
>traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific
>studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead
>demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under
>its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking
>of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more
>insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even
>when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it
>happened,” says Resnick.
>
>Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial
>in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at
>least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona
>accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied
>the charge and sued his daughter's therapist and the psychiatrist who had
>administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing
>that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were
>false. Gary Ramona's was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called
>“repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse
>allegations over the past decade.
>
>As for Chandler's story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth
>extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug's customary use. “It's
>absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco
>psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John
>Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of
>UCLA's school of dentistry, adds, “It's unusual for it to be used [for pulling
>a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It
>would not be my choice.”
>
>During the trial, no evidence from the prosecution side was produced (and the
>prosecution spent millions and millions: it was the most expensive trial in
>history), and, according to court documents, the kids couldn't keep their story
>straight. They would contradict themselves on court. The kid [accuser], Gavin
>Arvizo, even admitted he was lying, after being confronted with his brother's
>contradiction, while talking about account 6.
>Moreover, the mother of Gavin, Janet Arvizo, had a history of trying to work
>the system to her benefit (she even robbed a charity institution...). I was
>fortunate enough to read courtroom transcripts and all I can say is not once
>did he, Michael Jackson, ever have anything to worry about.
>The majority of his 'accusers' (including MacCauly Culkin) found the
>allegations laughable and the only teen who cried abuse gave testimony that was
>RIDDICULED with innacuracies (even the jurors started giggling one time, during
>Jason's testimony).
>
>Many people will admit that they never even researched about the 2005 Child
>Molestation Case and still say that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, if they
>knew the facts, their opinion would be quite different.
>
>It was known that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was a thief and a very unbehaved
>young man. He had previously had many suspensions and detentions because of his
>behavior in school. George Lopez, the well know comedian, testified in court
>that young Gavin Arvizo had stolen 40 dollars from his wallet in the previous
>months. He [Lopez] would give money to the family (who kept asking for more)
>and was accused of having stolen 300 dollars from the family by Janet.
>Gavin Arvizo's mother, Janet Arvizo, was pending a fine for assaulting a
>security guard at a JCPenney's and stealing over $1,000,000 worth of
>merchandise from that store. As you can see, the accuser and the accuser's
>family were well known scammers.
>
>So, how could you believe the story of the molestation, when Gavin Arvizo
>himself admitted, before the trial, to his teacher and 4 other attorneys, that
>Michael Jackson never molested him?
>The DA, Tom Sneddon, was really desperate to get Jackson. He flew to Australia,
>at one point, in the mid-90s, to try and find an alleged victim. And the person
>said, "take a a hike, get out
>of here. I've never even met Jackson."
>
>The media's coverage of this case was awful. They never showed to the public
>the defence side and that's why everyone got surprised when Jackson was
>acquitted.
>Without a shadow of a doubt Michael Jackson was innocent in this case and the
>accusers were just out for cash. They had conned celebrities, charities and
>police departments before, but their target in this case was not about to roll
>over as they expected. Now, seriously, you should read court transcripts!!! You
>will die laughing; Davelin Arvizo, sister of the accuser, "forgot" to mention
>Michael Jackson had given her alcohol back when she talked to the cops, but of
>course remembered MJ given her alcohol on the stand. The Who "would believe
>me?" excuse given by 4 prosecution witnesses as to why they never called the
>cops is laughable. Jason cries over his balls being tickled (perhaps he just
>cries because he would lose the 2.5 millions of dollars he got from "National
>Enquirer" to lie against Jackson?).
>
>As I said, Janet Arvizo had previously sued JC Penney's for alleged assault and
>molestation. In which her sons Star and Gavin testified and were later proven
>to have lied on the stand. During Star Arvizo's testimony, he explained the
>molestation act that Michael had supposedly performed on Gavin Arvizo. While I
>will not go into details, I can tell you that it was a completely different
>story than Gavin told. Read court transcripts. One big flaw in the prosecutions
>case is the time line of events. Tom Sneddon claimed that the molestation
>occurred AFTER the airing of the Martin Bashir "Living With Michael Jackson"
>documentary. Sneddon claimed that after the airing of the documentary,
>Jackson's people did everything in their power, including forcing the Arvizo's
>to make a rebuttal video in which the Arvizo's claim that everything stated
>was coached by Jackson's team, however (here's where it gets interesting),
>according to Sneddon and Gavin Arvizo, the molestation occurred AFTER this
>series of events. If Michael Jackson was already being questioned by almost
>every news media outlet about his involvment in Gavin Arvizo's life after the
>Bashir airing, WHY would he molest the child during that time? Why would he put
>himself in that position when people are already questioning his actions? The
>time line makes no sense.
>
>Lastly, not only did Gavin Arvizo's testimony greatly vary from his brother's,
>but it also varied from his own previous grand jury testimony in which he
>claimed that the molestation happened before he saw officials who were
>investigating Michael due to the Bashir documentary, while during the criminal
>trial Gavin claimed the molestation happened AFTER the officals investigated.
>
>Michael wasn't a drug addict. He abused prescripted drugs. I, and billions of
>people, have already done that in tough periods of life. That doesn't mean I'm
>an addcit. An addict is a person who has convulsions whenever she/he doesn't
>get the drug he/she wants. An addict is a drug-seeker. Michael Jackson had
>trouble sleeping and, therefore, he needed pills to sleep. He got a doctor who
>was supposed to give him the right quantities of pills so that he wouldn't get
>addicted. If he didn't have those pills, he just wouldn't be able to sleep. He
>wouldn't have convulsions or anything like that.
>
>Aphrodite Jones is a woman who thought that Jackson was guilty of molesting
>Gavin. She worked for FOX news and her reports were completely biased. After
>hours and hours of investigation, she reached one conclusion: Michael Jackson
>never raped children. So she decided to write "Michael Jackson Conspiracy". If
>you have doubts about MJ's innocence, read her book. It's completely objective
>and factual.
>
>The same goes for Ian Halperin. He thought Jackson was a ***** until he
>researched about the allegations. He reached one conclusion: Jackson was a
>sweet man who didn't even know what ***** was. (as in no mentally capable of
>comitting such an act.)
>
>As Michael said: "I would slit my wrists before hurting a child."
>
>But he was guilty of one thing: being too naive, kind and God-like.
>
>EDIT: I will now give sources that show the inconsistances of the trials;
>
>Chandler's Case
>
>Arvizo's Case

this is from Paulie from another forum,
...thinking people would first wonder why on earth a parent would "settle" with a child molester. When you read the settlement document, it pretty much says the accused did nothing wrong, certainly no where does it say the accused admits to molesting your child. The most damning word (because after all we are settling for *something*) is "negligence".

Okay, some might say, ah, they needed the money for all the therapy the kid would need. But nowhere does the document preclude the injured parties from pursuing the accused further and helping criminal prosecution. So the next step (as also part of the kid's therapy and to prevent this monster from committing further crimes) would be help see the perpetrator go to jail for his crimes. To that end you would turn over all the "evidence" you have to the DA. But what about traumatizing the kid further with testimony? If you don't want your kid further traumatized, his testimony can be videotaped as they have done in other trials with children whose parents did not want them to appear in court. The important thing is to stop this monster. Do you do any of that in the interest of innocent victims? Nope. You take the money and run.

You also learn that the accused did not want to settle so much so that the whole mess became public. In reality if the accused had settled at the first threat, the matter would probably never have seen the light of day. Some still might wonder why an innocent person would settle. Well, one only as to look no further than at the media surrounding the case. The accused has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Many cases are jeopardized unfairly by local publicity and their cases have to be moved to a new jurisdiction. In this particular case there is no jurisdiction it can be moved to for a fair trial because it is INTERNATIONAL news. If you do challenge the family in civil case it would give the DA a peep into your defense strategy and afford him something, anything, to get a grand jury to indict you. A trial at this point may ruin your career and earning potential, you are between a rock and a hard place. Should you take the chance, despite all the media circus and public condemnation?

But, a big but, you are a money making machine, so while it is not in YOUR best personal interest and against your wishes, it is in everyone Else's best interests (all the people who live off you) for you to settle. So despite your protests, your insurance company pays these people off anyway so you can continue being a money-making machine for your money-grubbing handlers. As it happens a grand jury refuses to indict you anyway. Now you have to pick up the pieces of your life and career.

But you are a thinking person and so you want to go back to how did this whole mess get started in the first place. You learn some interesting things. Everyone was as happy as pigs in slop until they started getting greedy and making money-making demands, the accused said, no. Then the wheels start turning. Your kid says Michael never touched me. Your wife says Michael never touched your kid. You can see the money slipping from your greedy fingers. Thinking fast, you take illegal custody of the golden goose, uh, the kid, drug your own kid with "truth serum", find an entertainment lawyer known for unethical practices, present a *hypothetical* case to a psychologist, get recorded saying you are going after some money and you really don't care anything about your kid but getting paid big time. None of this is conjecture. The father actually admits to doing these things. To a thinking person it sounds like Michael was a patsy and the accusations were for the sake of extorting money behind closed doors. Conclusion? No accusations were made until the accused wouldn't give the parents the money they demanded. That would make any thinking person wonder.

Then years later after a trial (which any myopic moron could see was a farce), the uncle of the first kid writes a book (perhaps to earn more money for the kid's continued therapy, which now consists of living high on the hog from the original ill-gotten gains? - no, to line his own pockets). In his book he claims to have evidence. But you learn he was not there and he has had no contact with his brother, the father of the "victim" for 12 years, but the book contains first person accounts of "events". The accuser's lawyers demand in court recorded documents for this uncle to produce this evidence. The uncle fights tooth and nail to NOT produce any evidence. He also admits his "evidence" are newspaper clippings and magazine articles.

Also, the thinking person notes he never provided this "proof", even though the DA was begging for information from *anybody* for the Avizo case a few years prior and he could have nailed this so-and-so on behalf of his beloved nephew. This particular book the proceeds of which went right into the uncle's pocket and not to some children's charity, purports that Michael Jackson broke up what anyone can see was a dysfunctional family, full of greed and avarice. The kid never lives with or has contact with his mother ever again (as she states during the Avizo trial), his father assaults him and nearly kills him, the uncle exploits him with a book full of fiction, and the father kills himself. One e f f ed up family from the get go, apparently not above using each other for profit and gain.

Given all these recorded facts, a thinking person would start to wonder. But what about all those stories from maids and security guards? You look at the court documents and find that those people the money-paying media interview who claimed to have seen things, later recanted under testimony or refused to go on the record. Why, a thinking person asks. Why would people refuse to testify to having seen someone molesting children? Could it be because they in fact never saw any such things? You also learn that under testimony, the so-called "third kid", now an adult admitted under oath that the "molestation" he experienced was being tickled three times over his clothes. Hmmm....A thinking person might say. But what about that book that was supposed to be the first kid's diary? Oh, he got sued, lost, and fled the country. What about that couple? Oh, they were asked to produce proof and fled the country. So a thinking person concludes, accusing Michael was a money-making. And the media lapped it up, appealing to the basest of the human condition - greed. Hot d a m n!!!!

Then the thinking person says, well often these crimes happen without eye witnesses, so they wonder, well, what about bodily fluids, child porn, internet kiddie porn, forensic evidence? The accused's houses were raided, samples were taken, his body was photographed. So why wasn't anything found? You heard about a distinguishing mark that was described as being on the underside of the accused penis. Surely that ought to have nailed him. Pictures were taken of his penis. Why a thinking person asks, wasn't the picture presented in court? You know that hearsay and prior bad acts were actually allowed in this case. Certainly a picture matching a "victim's" description would have been a huge blow to the defense. Why wasn't it presented in court, because no description ever matched the accused's body? No wonder the accused was found not guilty in the Avizo trial.

Long after the trial is over and now the accused is dead, you learn there was a 10-year FBI investigation. You learn the accused was trailed all over the world. Anyone who made a peep was interviewed. The FBI has a 300-page report. They also forensically examined the accused's 16 computers. Finally, one would say, they've finally caught that bastard (although a thinking person would say, well there is probably nothing in the report because the DA would have used it in the Avizo case). The report becomes public, you learn that they found not one iota of credible proof that this so-called child molester (usually known to have multiple victims and obsessive about "keepsakes") has molested anyone. As a matter of fact the report indicates everyone they interviewed was not credible in the least.

So now in a last gasp, the thinking person waits and waits and waits, for any one of the THOUSANDS of children the accused came in contact with over a 30-year period to come forth with an accusation, a tell-all book, a claim against his $billion estate. Instead, you see that despite media reports of homosexuality, asexuality, and pedophilia, the long-accused was, instead, an apparent womanizer because woman after woman and adults are coming forth with claims of paternity. So far not one "victim" of child molestation as come forth. Well, for the non-thinking, they can only hope.

The thinking person now concludes that this was one big sorry mess of greed, media hype, and extortation for profit and gain, where a lot of money was spent and changed hands and you, the public, and the accused got played big time.

http://deargavinarvizo.com/2010/04/objection-to-subpoena-for-settlement-documents/
here is the extortion settlement from 1993

http://deargavinarvizo.com/2010/04/objection-to-subpoena-for-settlement-documents/
here is the 1993 extortion settlement

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032205mjmemospprtobj.pdf

http://surftofind.com/jackson#1
http://surftofind.com/jackson

http://www.thesilencedtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65&Itemid=59
how can people say that Michael didn't like the black race look at all of the stuff he did for them, they say he didn't want to be black not true he had that skin disorder {I don't want to call it a disease}viti-ilaigo {sorry I can never spell that right but you know what I mean}

this is a song from Elton John
Hello Michael Jackson
Though you never fiddled with kiddies
You had the guts to deny it
While those around you lied
They lied through their crooked teeth
And they made up this stupid case
They put you in the courthouse
And they made you change your face

{Refrain}
And it seems to me you lived your life
With a candle up your bum
Never knowing who to fondle
When the boys grew up
And I would have liked to have blown you
But you were just too small
This scandal will burn out long before
Your legend ever will

Innocence was tough
The toughest role you ever played
Hollywood created a plastic ponce
And shame was the price you paid
Even when you denied
The press still hounded you
All the papers had to say
Was that a you'd buggered a boy in your bed

{Refrain}

Hello Michael Jackson
Though you never fiddled with kiddies
You had the guts to deny it
While those around you lied
Hello Michael Jackson
From the gay bloke in the frilly shirt
Who sees you as something more than sexual
More than just another sex pervert

This scandal will burn out long before
Your legend ever will

sorry I posted that crap before I read all of the lyrics please ignore that song

sorry again that "song" was sung by "drag queens" and it was cracking on Elton John not Michael
don't hate on E.J. because it wasn't him I thought it was it was on a website named utterpants.

here is that "song" again but this ti,me I fixed it up a little bit now it sounds better

Hello Michael Jackson
Though you never fiddled with kiddies
You had the guts to deny it
While those around you lied
They lied through their crooked teeth
And they made up this stupid case
They put you in the courthouse
And they made you change your face

{Refrain}
And it seems to me you lived your life
like a candle in the wind
Never knowing who to trust
When the boys grew up
And I would have liked to have known you
But you were just too huge
This scandal will burn out long before
Your legend ever will

Innocence was tough
The toughest role you ever played
Hollywood created a plastic ponce
And shame was the price you paid
Even when you denied
The press still hounded you
All the papers had to say
Was that a you'd buggered a boy in your bed

{Refrain}

Hello Michael Jackson
Though you never fiddled with kiddies
You had the guts to deny it
While those around you lied
Hello Michael Jackson
From the one who's fighting most
Who sees you as something more than sexual
More than just another singer

This scandal will burn out long before
Your legend ever will

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1206715/Is-ex-husband-Mark-Lester-father-Jackos-children-No-hes-completely-nuts.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/08/16/mark-is-a-fantasist-115875-21599726/
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t137/gzbrown/shutup.jpg?t=1192561690

http://cscstaff.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7295&page=1

Old How Jordan Chandler lied
This story was shared by Taymoor Marmarchi, who worked on humanitarian projects for Michael Jackson and knew him personally.


"On one of my trips to Neverland, a Mexican worker who took care of the grounds of Michael's main residence, confided to me in Spanish and shared a fascinating story that both shocked and clarified how people in Michael Jackson's life take advantage, manipulate, twist the truth and create malicious lies about him, all for the sake of money.

The worker began to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world.

He began telling me that one day back in 92/93 before Michael's heavy scheduled Dangerous tour, there was a BBQ and swimming pool party that Michael hosted for a group of friends, both youngsters and adults at Neverland.

After a couple of hours, Michael got out of the pool and went to shower and dry off. The worker noticed that a young boy also excused himself from the pool after Michael. He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather shockingly spying and scanning Michael's naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom. The worker immediately shouted at him and asked, 'What the hell are you doing up here?' Michael heard the worker yell, discovered the boy in his bathroom and told him to take the boy back down to the pool, thinking nothing of it.

When the boy returned to the pool he glanced over at his mother, who was present and sunbathing by the pool, and gave her a sign of acknowledgement, as if he had accomplished whatever he set out to do. In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit.

That same boy later claimed in Aug '93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler.

Chandler infamously told police vivid details of how Michael Jackson's genitalia appeared, as a certain guarantee to the world, that Michael must have been guilty of these heinous accusations.

Of course he knew how to describe the different skin shades and colour blemishes in Michael's private parts, he was spying on him in the shower that day to prepare for an incredible extortion attempt for millions of dollars, meticulously and carefully planned by a family of professional con artists and scammers."

~~

Editor's Note: Chandler's description was not 100% accurate. One example is that he described Michael as having been circumcised, when he was not. I do not bring this up to further exploit Michael and I feel horrible even having to mention it, but it does matter because this is very telling about the falseness of Chandler's description of Michael in this case.

How Jordan Chandler lied
Don't know the source of this story but this is where it's posted.
1993-Case
This story was shared by Taymoor Marmarchi, who worked on humanitarian projects for Michael Jackson and knew him personally.
"On one of my trips to Neverland, a Mexican worker who took care of the grounds of Michael's main residence, confided to me in Spanish and shared a fascinating story that both shocked and clarified how people in Michael Jackson's life take advantage, manipulate, twist the truth and create malicious lies about him, all for the sake of money.
The worker began to whisper to me, afraid he may be overheard and questioned why he was revealing such confidential yet incredibly important information that must be shared with the rest of the world.
He began telling me that one day back in 92/93 before Michael's heavy scheduled Dangerous tour, there was a BBQ and swimming pool party that Michael hosted for a group of friends, both youngsters and adults at Neverland.
After a couple of hours, Michael got out of the pool and went to shower and dry off. The worker noticed that a young boy also excused himself from the pool after Michael. He went to look for him and followed him to discover that the boy was in the bathroom where Michael was showering. Not in the shower with him, but rather shockingly spying and scanning Michael's naked body through the shower, from a corner of the bathroom. The worker immediately shouted at him and asked, 'What the hell are you doing up here?' Michael heard the worker yell, discovered the boy in his bathroom and told him to take the boy back down to the pool, thinking nothing of it.
When the boy returned to the pool he glanced over at his mother, who was present and sunbathing by the pool, and gave her a sign of acknowledgment, as if he had accomplished whatever he set out to do. In fact, the worker said that he had seen the woman signal to her son that Michael had left the pool, as an indication to exit.
That same boy later claimed in Aug '93, that Michael Jackson had sexually molested him, his name was Jordie Chandler.
Chandler infamously told police vivid details of how Michael Jackson's genitalia appeared, as a certain guarantee to the world, that Michael must have been guilty of these heinous accusations.
Of course he knew how to describe the different skin shades and colour blemishes in Michael's private parts, he was spying on him in the shower that day to prepare for an incredible extortion attempt for millions of dollars, meticulously and carefully planned by a family of professional con artists and scammers."
~~
Editor's Note: Chandler's description was not 100% accurate. One example is that he described Michael as having been circumcised, when he was not. I do not bring this up to further exploit Michael and I feel horrible even having to mention it, but it does matter because this is very telling about the falseness of Chandler's description of Michael in this case.
---------
here is another one and we already know about the other con artist family if I find his lies I'll post them here too this is the first liar

GAVIN DENY'S ABUSE
Jackson accuser 'denied abuses'
A social worker who spoke to Michael Jackson's accuser and his family in early 2003 said he told her the star had never abused him sexually.
Irene Peters, who works for the Los Angeles child welfare department, says Gavin Arvizo had even denied he had ever slept in the same bed as the star.
Mr Jackson denies abusing the child and holding his family against their will.
The first members of the singer's family have begun to give evidence at his trial in Santa Maria in California.
His 16-year-old cousin, Simone Jackson, described her visits to Neverland Ranch and her contact with the Arvizo family, who are accusing Mr Jackson of abuse.
'Like a father'
Ms Peters said she met Gavin's mother Janet and her children on 20 February 2003, a few weeks after the US airing of a documentary in which Mr Jackson had spoken of his relationship with the boy.
In it, Mr Jackson and the then 13-year-old were seen holding hands, and the singer said he would sometimes sleep in the same bed as his child visitors.
Mr Jackson now stands accused of molesting the boy between 20 February and 12 March of that year, as well as of plying him with alcohol and conspiring to hold his family captive to keep them away from reporters.
"I asked him (Gavin) if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset," Ms Peters said.
"He said, 'Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me."
Ms Peters said the boy's mother had told her and other social workers that Mr Jackson was like "a father to her children".
However, Ms Arvizo had mentioned the fact that Mr Jackson wanted to send her to Brazil and that she did not want to go there, Ms Peters said.
On Monday, several witnesses told the jury that Ms Arvizo did not try to call for help while she and her family were allegedly being held captive at the star's ranch.
'Taking alcohol'
Also on Tuesday, the star's cousin told jurors that she had once watched as Gavin and his 11-year-old brother took two bottles of wine from the kitchen at Neverland.
Ms Jackson said she told them not to take the alcohol, but they just ignored her.
Earlier in the trial, the prosecution had alleged that Mr Jackson often gave wine to children visiting him at his home.
But the defence will now argue that the evidence of this witness shows that the Arvizo children often took alcohol without permission, and were wilful and badly behaved.

GAVIN DENIES ABUSE

Jackson accuser 'denied abuses'
A social worker who spoke to Michael Jackson's accuser and his family in early 2003 said he told her the star had never abused him sexually.
Irene Peters, who works for the Los Angeles child welfare department, says Gavin Arvizo had even denied he had ever slept in the same bed as the star.
Mr Jackson denies abusing the child and holding his family against their will.
The first members of the singer's family have begun to give evidence at his trial in Santa Maria in California.
His 16-year-old cousin, Simone Jackson, described her visits to Neverland Ranch and her contact with the Arvizo family, who are accusing Mr Jackson of abuse.
'Like a father'
Ms Peters said she met Gavin's mother Janet and her children on 20 February 2003, a few weeks after the US airing of a documentary in which Mr Jackson had spoken of his relationship with the boy.
In it, Mr Jackson and the then 13-year-old were seen holding hands, and the singer said he would sometimes sleep in the same bed as his child visitors.
Mr Jackson now stands accused of molesting the boy between 20 February and 12 March of that year, as well as of plying him with alcohol and conspiring to hold his family captive to keep them away from reporters.
"I asked him (Gavin) if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset," Ms Peters said.
"He said, 'Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me."
Ms Peters said the boy's mother had told her and other social workers that Mr Jackson was like "a father to her children".
However, Ms Arvizo had mentioned the fact that Mr Jackson wanted to send her to Brazil and that she did not want to go there, Ms Peters said.
On Monday, several witnesses told the jury that Ms Arvizo did not try to call for help while she and her family were allegedly being held captive at the star's ranch.
'Taking alcohol'
Also on Tuesday, the star's cousin told jurors that she had once watched as Gavin and his 11-year-old brother took two bottles of wine from the kitchen at Neverland.
Ms Jackson said she told them not to take the alcohol, but they just ignored her.
Earlier in the trial, the prosecution had alleged that Mr Jackson often gave wine to children visiting him at his home.
But the defence will now argue that the evidence of this witness shows that the Arvizo children often took alcohol without permission, and were wilful and badly behaved.

GAVIN DENIES ABUSE

Jackson accuser 'denied abuses'
A social worker who spoke to Michael Jackson's accuser and his family in early 2003 said he told her the star had never abused him sexually.
Irene Peters, who works for the Los Angeles child welfare department, says Gavin Arvizo had even denied he had ever slept in the same bed as the star.
Mr Jackson denies abusing the child and holding his family against their will.
The first members of the singer's family have begun to give evidence at his trial in Santa Maria in California.
His 16-year-old cousin, Simone Jackson, described her visits to Neverland Ranch and her contact with the Arvizo family, who are accusing Mr Jackson of abuse.
'Like a father'
Ms Peters said she met Gavin's mother Janet and her children on 20 February 2003, a few weeks after the US airing of a documentary in which Mr Jackson had spoken of his relationship with the boy.
In it, Mr Jackson and the then 13-year-old were seen holding hands, and the singer said he would sometimes sleep in the same bed as his child visitors.
Mr Jackson now stands accused of molesting the boy between 20 February and 12 March of that year, as well as of plying him with alcohol and conspiring to hold his family captive to keep them away from reporters.
"I asked him (Gavin) if he had ever been sexually abused by Michael Jackson and he became upset," Ms Peters said.
"He said, 'Everybody thinks Michael Jackson sexually abused me. He never touched me."
Ms Peters said the boy's mother had told her and other social workers that Mr Jackson was like "a father to her children".
However, Ms Arvizo had mentioned the fact that Mr Jackson wanted to send her to Brazil and that she did not want to go there, Ms Peters said.
On Monday, several witnesses told the jury that Ms Arvizo did not try to call for help while she and her family were allegedly being held captive at the star's ranch.
'Taking alcohol'
Also on Tuesday, the star's cousin told jurors that she had once watched as Gavin and his 11-year-old brother took two bottles of wine from the kitchen at Neverland.
Ms Jackson said she told them not to take the alcohol, but they just ignored her.
Earlier in the trial, the prosecution had alleged that Mr Jackson often gave wine to children visiting him at his home.
But the defence will now argue that the evidence of this witness shows that the Arvizo children often took alcohol without permission, and were wilful and badly behaved.

sorry about the triple post but it didn't go through right away

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywMim2aYKOk&feature=related
she says that he bought his babies another lie
them kids are Michael's children Prince 1 looks just like Joe's dad Samuel google Samuel Jackso {not the actor} Michael's grand father and you'll see Prince ! in him.Paris looks like Joe and Latoilet Latoya. and I don't even have to say anything about Blanket Prince 2 that's Michael's twin.
http://bestofmichaeljackson.jclondon.com/2010/05/26/forum-find-look-at-michael-jacksons-grandfather-he-was-a-handsome-little-man/
Michael's father Joe is right under Samuel
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://brenworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/prince-ii-paris-prince-jackson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://fun140.com/polls/8053-if-prince-jackson-has-a-twitter-which-1-do-u-think-it-is/take&h=594&w=429&sz=42&tbnid=C0eD9xg1-F1p2M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPictures%2Bof%2BPrince%2BJackson&zoom=1&hl=en&usg=__iZqMZBpN7_vI_KqAcebdrVYop_I=&sa=X&ei=34JxTImIIIqgsQOKoOSzCw&ved=0CCYQ9QEwBg Prince Jackson
http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/michael-jacksons-children-are-his/
the poor kid inherited Michael's vitilaigo {I know I spelled it wrong but you know what I mean
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Yomyb-NCs
this is Paris compared to Joe and Latoya
she and other media will do and or say anything for money the proof is in the pictures they say Paris looks like Debbie I don't see it only the eye color and the fact that she's a female other than that I don't see Debbie in Paris.

http://deargavinarvizo.com/2010/04/objection-to-subpoena-for-settlement-documents/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywMim2aYKOk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2ycex9xTsk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUpSs5HLQ6o&feature=player_embedded
Gavin Arvizo said Michael never touched him ^^^^

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/children-dont-lie-video/

http://www.meetnigerians.net/members/videos.php?cmd=w&t=Did+Michael+Jackson+Do+It%3F+*PROOF*+Must+See+Video!+%284%2F5%29&a=RussHoweIsHere&v=87rDGgOst4s&feature=youtube_gdata&l=10:01

Default Michael Jackson was NOT a pedophile, the evidence proves it if people bother to research the cases
Ever since Michael Jackson died, I've been interested in his life and wanted to know whether or not he really was a pedophile. I was stunned by all the information I found that pointed to his innocence. The U.S. media is evil and has blood on its hand for their slanderous misrepresentation of Michael Jackson's life and the cases against him. There was never any evidence to support their claims that Michael Jackson was a pedophile other than the words of proven and admitted liars motivated by money. In fact, all the evidence including the prosecution's 'evidence' pointed to the man's innocence. I find it disgusting that people continue to propagate the myth that Michael Jackson was a pedophile even though when you ask them why they think that you find out that they know next to nothing about the court cases.
I won't waste my time outlining the details of both cases. That information is already out their in books and articles, and even on wikipedia, if anyone's interested. Anyone with a brain should conclude that the 2005 case was pure baloney based on one simple fact. The 'little boy' (he was 15 at the time) could look a Jury point blank in the eye and claim that Michael Jackson held him and his family prisoner at Neverland in addition to plying him with alcohol and molesting him. Meanwhile, the defense could show documented evidence of all the times he and his family 'escaped' from Neverland to spend Michael Jackson's money and then return only to 'escape' again. That alone should have ended the prosecution's case. The conspiracy and kidnapping charges were more serious than the molestation charges and had a larger prison sentence. If the prosecution could bring those charges against Michael Jackson and the alleged 'victim' could lie about it with a straight face, despite all the obvious evidence that proves them to be false, then they can do anything. The media likes to ignore those conspiracy and kidnapping charges, as if you can choose to disbelieve one part of this kid's story and then believe the other part. If he's comfortable lying about something as serious as kidnapping and has a past history of lying under oath for his mother, then chances are he can lie and make up a fake story about anything. Based only on this I don't need to go any further with the prosecution's evidence. Instead of outlining the cases I'll attack the nonsensical statements that people continue to make to prove the Michael Jackson was a pedophile even though he was never charged in 1993 and was aquitted in 2005.
People like to claim Michael Jackson was a pedophile based on these idiotic lines of reasoning.
1. “He's spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester”. If so how come all the kids he spends time with aren't accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. He's had thousands of kids at Neverland over the years, and only three accusers, all whose parents happen to be con-artists chasing after money. If they could convict Jackson in criminal court they would automatically be able to wipe him clean in civil court. Money talks. If all these victims are out their they would have come forward for a shot at millions of dollars. Its telling that only the shadiest people manage to come forward.
2. “He paid them off so he's guilty.” Do you know the difference between a civil case and criminal case? WTF is something as serious as child molestation doing in civil court instead of criminal court. If you think someone molested your kid, you go straight to the cops. You don't call your lawyer to file a lawsuit and then refuse to cooperate with the police once you get a settlement. Explain to me where in the settlement Michael Jackson's Big Payoff - June 16, 2004 does it say the money is contingent upon the accuser's failure to cooperate with the police. It was the Chandler's decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) you'd notice MJ claimed he's innocent in the settlement and accuser and his lawyers agreed to sign it. By this idiotic logic, Janet Arvizo and her children were telling the truth when they claimed that a JC Penny's security guard beat and sexually abused her because JC Penny settled with her for more than 100,000. Please.
3. “He had money so he beat the rap.” Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Madoff, etc. I guess did not have enough money to beat the rap. Michael Jackson's trial was one of the most expensive trials in U.S. History. It cost taxpayers 2.7 million dollars. Michael Jackson's Trial Cost $2,7 million - The Michael Jackson's trial cost the Santa Barbara County taxpayers about $2,7 million - Softpedia Sneddon had been chasing after Michael Jackson for 12 years and he still could not find any evidence or credible witnesses, despite ransacking Neverland twice with 70 police officers, setting up a hotline for alleged victims to come forward, and traveling around the world looking for victims. Also, I thought Michael Jackson was broke? Thats what all his detractors in 2005 claimed, while at the same time claiming he 'got off' because he was rich.
4. “OJ Simpson got away with it, so Michael Jackson got away with it too.” People who think OJ is guilty can point to evidence, something that MJ haters have a hard time doing. By that same logic, Charles Manson is also innocent because some people are wrongfully convicted. Therefore, we should release all convicted criminals from prison. RUBBISH
5. "He sleeps with boys." This is not illegal. If you want to use this as proof of his guilt, then at a minimum the boys he's sleeping with have to be the ones accusing him, NOT you. This didn‘t happen in the Michael Jackson case, contrary to popular belief. Gavin Arvizo the boy accusing him in 2005 never slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the Martin Bashir interview and witnesses at the trial. He slept in the guest room with his family. Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Bert Lewis, all testified they slept with Jackson in the early 90s and nothing happened. Do you know better than them what happened to them? The maid's son was not even one of Jackson 'special friends' as the prosecution liked to call the boys he supposedly 'groomed'. That kid was never invited on any vacations or given any expensive presents and never invited into Michael Jackson's bed. His claims that Michael Jackson molested him actually contradicts the prosecution previous portrayal of Michael Jackson as a serial pedophile who carefully choose and grooms his victims. According to the maid's son Jackson is an impulsive pedophile who stick his hands into the pants of any random kids who happen to be hanging around the place. LMAO! Jordie Chandler who is the only accuser to sleep with Jackson, (the boy got the settlement in the early 90s) skipped the country so he wouldn't have to testify in the 2005 case. Gee, I wonder why? Also, witnesses at the trial testified that their were a few girls who slept in Michael Jackson's bed, one of which was Macauley Culkin's sister in the early 90s.
6. “There was ‘lurid' testimony. 'Jesus Juice!!!' ‘Little boys never lie'. When a child speaks we should believe them…” I can give lurid testimony about you too. I wonder if that makes it true. Here's one of my favorites from you tube. On the witch hunt for victims Diane Diamond comes across a boy who could give ‘lurid testimony' that Michael Jackson molested him and details of his time at Neverland. She believed him and wasted months trying to corroborate his story and even gets the police involved. Turned out this kids a liar who'd never even met Michael Jackson.
YouTube - Michael Jackson framing Videoed Hard Copy April 27 1995 little-seen footage
7. "Would you leave you're kids with him?" I wouldn't leave my kids with you either. That must be proof that you are a child molester. Michael Jackson has been around the children of countless celebrities, including Yoko Ono's son, Paul McCartney's children, Quincy Jones kids, Whoopi Goldberg, and business associates. They all knew him and judged it was safe for their kids to be around him. So every idiot using this line of reasoning needs to get a clue.
8. "He chose his victims carefully, that explains why all his accusers are con-artists" If he was so slick of a pedophile to 'carefully choose his victims', maybe he would have been slick enough to know not to come on TV and announce to the world 'the most beautiful thing you could do is share your bed with a child'. LOL. Michael Jackson had nothing to hide from anybody. If he's pedophile he was doing it in everybody's face for the past 30 years of his life. He was parading his supposed 'victims' around with him in public, taking them to the Grammys and other award show. He's babbling on and on about how special children are since the late 70s. He mentions children in almost every interview. I read Quincy Jone's autobiography and in it he explains how close Michael Jackson was with his daughter who was 8 when Jackson was 20. He recounted an incident when his wife discovered that his daughter had made more than 91 phone calls to Michael Jackson. Therefore, Quincy's daughter must have been one Michael Jackson's first 'victims'. Only people with sick minds think that every close relationship has to be sexual. If Michael Jackson wanted have sex with kids, there are a lot smarter ways to go about doing it. He didn't have to build Neverland or waste time 'grooming' anybody. He could travel to some foreign country and secretly buy children to molest in private and he would never have been caught because he had enough money and resources to keep his activities hidden.
9."PORN+ALCOHOL+CHILDREN=CHILD MOLESTER" This has to be the dumbest. How many households in America can you find the same things; therefore, every parent who owns porn and has alcohol in their house must also be molesting children. Please. There is no evidence that Jackson either showed the boy porn or gave him alcohol, other than the testimony of the boy and his family who I said before had no problem lying about being kidnapped and held prisoner. Fact is, the police found nothing incriminating , no Kiddie porn, or naked pictures of boys. The only thing they found was this, http://mjjshop.com/shop/images/whyplasticase.jpg, a publicity photo of him promoting his nephews' album and a legal art book sent to him by fans.
If you are an intelligent person read, Aphrodite Jones's book 'The Michael Jackson Conspiracy' and Geraldine Hugh's book 'Redemption' and the GQ article, Was Michael Jackson Framed?. If you won't read the evidence than just be quiet and quit slandering an innocent man's name. Its a shame anyone continues to claim with conviction 'Michael Jackson was a pedophile' given all the evidence thats out their. I don't even think its appropriate to claim they even 'think' that Michael Jackson is a pedophile given all the evidence. The only thing these haters can do is just say 'we will never know' what happened because we weren't there. All Michael Jackson's fans should also research the cases, so they can respond intelligently to all the ignorant fools who continue rehash those nonsensical claims as evidence that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/celebrities/781353-michael-jackson-not-pedophile-evidence-proves.html#ixzz0xUBP459C

http://www.m-jackson.com/illustrations/news/paper-english.pdf

http://www.mj-777.com/?p=490
http://vodpod.com/watch/3915280-michael-jacksons-1993-innocence-statement-from-neverland
look at his eyes you can tell he's innocent what these assholes don't get is Michael NEVER HAD A CHILDHOOD he's been
WORKING SINCE HE WAS 5 YEARS OLD and that's what these assholes don't get his whole childhood was taken away from him sense he was 5 years old.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504verobjsnonpty.pdf
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504appsealwonotpeop.pdf
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ray-chandlers-subpoena-scared-to-death/
Father of Jacko molestation accuser kills self in NJ
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/father_of_jacko_molestation_accuser_kek0TWE1fPywMMyQnIAxWP
Here's the video to Evan Chandler's leaked phone call found on Youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMnTYmQhKMU
Michael Jackson Extortion Plot Exposed!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqZR55Go1QI
Michael Jackson was Innocent - Tom Mesereau
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSC997_HH0&feature=player_embedded
Judith Regan on Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations on SIRIUS XM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM
Tom Sneddon SLAMMED on LIVE TV For Falsifying Rumors Against Michael Jackson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x390rVfx3Qg
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 1 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L17TpHUHhv0
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 2 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOgTJ_Dah9Q
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 3 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKVvarWg3Po
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 4 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_NHvXPj84
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 5 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lmp6daoiZk
Aphrodite Jones MJ Conspiracy 6 of 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uNG8dD3KE4
The Michael Jackson Conspiracy: What You Didn't Hear (Aphrodite Jones)
http://investigation.discovery.com/videos/the-michael-jackson-conspiracy-what-you-didnt-hear.html
http://deargavinarvizo.com/2009/11/the-transcripts/
http://www.thetrialsofmichaeljackson.com/
Michael Jackson: The Untold Story of Neverland Ranch
Order it at: http://www.nimmer.net/
Chris Tucker Ex's Open Letter to Michael's 2005 Accusers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syQsYdrVuyQ

http://www.sawfnews.com/Gossip/63678.aspx

http://allforloveblog.com/?p=3479
this is good must read

http://allforloveblog.com/?p=3159
scroll down and read the comment by Rhia she has some good information there better yet I'll cut and paste it
Rhia says:
August 22, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Admin,

I happen to know that Jordan Chandler tells people close to him that MJ didn't do anything to him. He's even friends with MJ fans – which I thought would be weird but it isn't to him since we all know he was a big fan of MJ himself and still is! In fact, Jordan often defends MJ when others speak bad of him.

Remember Mesereau saying that if the prosecution were able to admit Jordan's affidavit as evidence – he would have got Jordan's friends to testify in court that Jordan told them that nothing ever happened to him.

You might be asking why he hasn't come out publicly – the answers pretty simple – if he does that, you and I both know people will try and attack him or worse because everyone will be able to track him down – not to mention the media attention!

By the way I have seen that video too – and it quotes Gavin Arvizo as saying “people think MJ abused me … he never touched me” – now I don't know how true this statement is. – Is there anyone here who knows about his new life and what he's saying these days?

there is good stuff on here with her boyfriend

The birth of a pop icon

Kidnapping and Extortion

May 2, 2004

On February 6, 2003, ABC News reported that "Michael Jackson, who was accused of molesting a 13-year-old boy a decade ago but denied it, says in a new documentary that he still allows children to sleep over at his California ranch, Neverland."

ABC News also reported the following. "The boy, who says he met Jackson after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer, said when he asked to spend the night in the singer's bedroom, Jackson gave him and his brother the bed and slept on the floor himself." After extensive coaching and prompting from a mother who has a history of exploiting criminal allegations, the boys have a different story to tell, today. Would you like to hear it? Oh, go ahead and make it up, any cheap pornographer can easily invent a tawdry tale, the media is good at it.

It was not until May, when the mother of Jackson's accuser met with Larry Feldman, who'd represented the family in the Jackson case 10 years ago, that accusations of child molestation were made. Needless to say, the fact that these allegations were such a big secret prior to May, needs to be explained. Kidnapping, death threats and coercion are an explanation which suggests that nobody said anything out of fear for their lives, but the District Attorney must come to grips with the fact that the explanation has to be reasonable, not outrageous.

It is quite clear that whoever is coaching the mother in this transparent scam to extort Michael Jackson is putting a great deal of thought into explaining away the fact that the family didn't tell anybody about sexual molestation allegations prior to May, but it doesn't make any sense to turn around and say that they were kidnapped to cover up something that was kept secret. Needless to say, this case is not about making sense. It is about extortion again because as soon as all the phantom, criminal co-conspirators are lined up and successfully prosecuted, then Michael Jackson's estate is essentially the property of civil litigation attorneys. That's the plan, but have Michael Jackson's accusers bitten off more than they can chew?

The driving force behind this Inquisition is Tom Sneddon, and whether he is acting on good faith or not, the perpetual vendetta against Michael Jackson is providing the opportunity to amalgamate the forces that seek to exploit the opportunity to extort a vulnerable target. On February 14, 2001, Tom Sneddon said, "The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated. It's in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time." The Bashir documentary invariably made Tom Sneddon feel vindicated by what was viewed to be a tawdry portrayal of Michael Jackson and that set the stage to accept the open invitation that Sneddon had issued in 1996, when he said, "the state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies." Tom Sneddon's open invitation is currently conspiring to pervert justice because it was accepted by those who have a history of exploiting false criminal allegations. The accuser appeared on national TV in the Bashir documentary holding hands with Jackson, who said the two had slept in the same bedroom but not the same bed. Jackson defended his sleep overs with children, describing the practice as sweet and innocent. The boy said he had met Jackson two years earlier and believed the singer's friendship and support had helped him recover from what doctors had said was terminal cancer and his parents were happy to let him spend time with Jackson. And now, we are supposed to believe that the family was not happy, the family was kidnapped.

Where do you find 12 people to believe that Michael Jackson, who never touched this cancer victim for over 2 years while he helped him recover, waited for the Bashir documentary to decide to molest the kid? The truth of the matter is, the Bashir documentary prompted those who are inclined to call Michael Jackson a child molester to suggest the worst and set the stage for the latest extortion effort, but this scam is way too elaborate to take seriously. The smoke and mirrors effort to create something out of nothing will never amount to anything because Michael Jackson is a public figure who leads a public life and the Bashir Documentary exposed the full extent of Michael Jackson's so called "weirdness," it did not leave anything for the imagination of those who are currently seeking to create the impression that Neverland is Alcatraz with valet parking. The only hell on earth where Neverland is concerned is created by overbearing opportunists who overstay their welcome because they are vulgar and inconsiderate.

The suggestion that anybody has ever been threatened and coerced to keep them from leaving Neverland is quite amusing, and it makes the false nature of the sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson, very clear. The modus operandi of an overzealous prosecutor like Ted Sneddon is to put out as wide a net as possible to drag in as many fish as he can, so that he can work on the opportunity to squeeze the hell out of them. In the hands of a desperate prosecutor who cannot prove sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson, co-conspiracy charges provide the opportunity that is required to compensate for sexual molestation allegations that are too weak, to stand on their own. It's an old trick that is used to squeeze criminals, but when it is used to target innocent people it is a repugnant scheme. Clearly, the zeal to destroy Michael Jackson's friends, simply because Tom Sneddon wants to destroy Michael Jackson, will never triumph. American soldiers are dying in Iraq as we speak, to give people the opportunity to be free of evil dictators, free of celebrity showboat trials, and free of overzealous prosecutors who make a mockery of the entire justice system.

The Grand Jury indictment said Jackson conspired with "other uncharged conspirators and co-conspirators," but the judge ordered that the parts of the indictment identifying them be removed before it was publicly released. What's the big secret? It is not even remotely plausible to cover up a scam that is so absolutely transparent, that not even Grand Jury secrecy will grant Tom Sneddon the competitive advantage he seeks. This game is over, and if Tom Sneddon is deluded enough to think that he is a serious player of his perpetual effort to "drive the weirdo out of town" nothing has changed.

Why is the Grand Jury beating around the bush, we all know who the co-conspirators are. Anybody who is in a position to prove that Michael Jackson is innocent, is supposed to be an evil, co-conspirator. It's like the insanity that surrounds the Laci Peterson case. Anybody who saw Laci walking the dog is either wrong, stupid, crazy or dead.

What Tom Sneddon is trying to do, to create the impression that Michael Jackson is a mastermind kidnapper is to cultivate somebody called an unindicted co-conspirator. It's a neat trick. All Tom has to do is to find somebody he can intimidate, threaten to lock him away for life if he doesn't cooperate, and grant him immunity, formal or otherwise, if he suggests that Michael Jackson conspired to coerce the person he allegedly molested. Some trick, huh? Tom Sneddon wants us to think that Michael Jackson used people like Frank Tyson and Vinnie Amen, to coerce a mother and her children to the point where they were afraid to reveal that Michael Jackson had sexually molested her son. The problem is, the women and her sons are tripping all over their lies in the process, because in effort to feign credibility the first time around, she had said that she was unaware of any sexual abuse allegations until a therapist brought them to her attention. So you see, Tom Sneddon make these bizarre, kidnapping and coercion allegations sound credible, because if the sexual assault allegations were such a well kept secret, there was no reason to coerce anybody.

This case is too weird because it is not Michael Jackson but Tom Sneddon who obstructs justice when he routinely targets anybody who is in a position to disprove the fraudulent claim that Michael jackson molested 12 year old Gavin Arvizo. Fortunately, for Michael Jackson, he keeps good company, and that is making Tom Sneddon's job very, very difficult. In particular, the two young college students who will invariably be targeted because they essentially expose the fraud behind Tom Sneddon's fraudulent allegations. Clearly, Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen are not coercive, extortionists. Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen, who watched over the family involved in the child molestation charges, are just two, laid back, 23-year old college students who were made weary by an overbearing guest at Neverland Ranch. The mother of Jackson's accusers thought that Michael Jackson's "help" was her own, and Amen, who was Tyson's college buddy and wanted to work in video and music, was about to be made weary by the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser. The demanding opportunist with the imposing personality treated Amen and Tyson like her personal babysitters and chauffeurs and she had clear expectations about exploiting Michael Jackson as evidenced by her anger over her view that the pop star had let her down because she claimed that "Michael promised he'd make my kids stars." Is that why her son was "exposed" in the Bashir documentary? And we are supposed to think that he was a kidnapped victim who was subject to coercion? If Tom Sneddon proves that, he is probably going to be the next President of the United States.

The claim that the family was held against their will at Neverland is very cute because the boys mother routinely abandoned her children, forcing the college students, Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen, to babysit while she socialized or went out with her boyfriend, Army Reserves Major Jay Jackson. If this mother was kidnapped, why didn't Army Reserves Major Jay Jackson, save her, or is he also a part of this elaborate scheme to destroy Michael Jackson? Clearly, one has to be literally brain-dead, to believe that Michael Jackson or any of his supporters, conspired to kidnap a woman who abandoned her children at Neverland Ranch because she is a selfish, unfit mother who should be in jail for her participation in this illegal, covert scheme to extort Michael Jackson.

No self-respecting authority would embrace this scam. Tom Sneddon abuses the dignity of his office by upping the ante to add creedence to transparent lies through the addition of "28 overt act charges" that are supposed to create the impression that lunatic charges are serious. At this point in time, it would be a huge revelation to learn that Tom Sneddon is smart enough to be able to count to 10, let alone produce 28 relevant allegations. The conspiracy count which alleges 28 individual overt acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion, is too stupid to take seriously, whether it is protected by Grand Jury secrecy or not. Indeed, publicizing the details will merely flesh out the illegal plot to destroy Michael Jackson. The effort to create the impression that sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson, is not washing. We did not have to read the Starr Report to figure out the fact that Ken Starr was an overzealous crackpot, and the same goes for the so called 28 overt acts, that are making Tom Sneddon's supporters salivate. Clearly, the mother of the accuser had claimed that even she was not aware of sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson, prior to May, and the claim that she was kidnapped to keep her from talking about something that she did not even know about, is as stupid as they come.

All nonsense aside, Tom Mesereau put it best, when he said, "this case is about one thing only. It's about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honor, the charity, the innocence and the complete vindication of a wonderful human being named Michael Jackson." If the other Tom thinks he can vindicate SneddonStory through preposterous allegations, he is wrong. Those who currently claim that Michael Jackson will be acquitted of the molestation charges but will be convicted of conspiring to abduct the child and his family, falsely imprison them and commit extortion by threatening grave consequences if they accused him, are living in Neverland. Tom Sneddon can offer the Pope immunity to testify for the prosecution, but in the final analysis, he ought to be very careful because he is jeopardizing the integrity of "state's evidence" the very same way that Ken Starr destroyed the Independent Counsel Statute.

Update: Michael Jackson is not Tom Sneddon's only, innocent target.

Next: Tom Sneddon's Strategy.

Plus: Lynching Michael Jackson

# The Genius of Michael Jackson
# The Plot to Frame Michael Jackson
# Tell us what you think
http://surftofind.com/extort
this is the link unless they try to get this shit deleted I copied and pasted for you guys but wait there is more
===============================================================================================
The Plot to frame Michael Jackson

Wednesday April 28, 2004

In 1993, Evan Chandler claimed that Michael Jackson had molested his son. He pursued child-abuse charges in a civil rather than a criminal court because that is what crafty extortionists do. Clearly, anybody Who seeks a financial payoff in lieu of a criminal prosecution is not to be taken seriously, and no self-respecting prosecutor would do anything beyond charge Evan Chandler for conspiring to extort money from Michael Jackson.

Chandler and Jackson ultimately reached an out-of-court settlement, and lawyers for both men announced the deal in a joint, one-page statement wherein Michael Jackson twice asserted his innocence. Two years after the agreement was signed, Chandler claimed that Michael Jackson violated the terms of their agreement because Michael Jackson continued to assert his innocence. Did Evan Chandler think that time would give him the opportunity to fade the memory that Michael Jackson paid him off without sacrificing the claim that he was innocent? That is evidently what Evan Chandler thought, because after filing a civil suit which was reportedly settled out of court in 1994, Evan Chandler demanded another $60 million dollars in 1996.

Evan Chandler thought that Michael Jackson was his own private goose that laid the golden egg. In 1996, he went back to court and demanded 60 million dollars, on a foundation of absurd allegations like the demand to impose a ban on the lyrics of Michael Jackson's HIStory album and to replace them with a so called, non-offensive rendition called EVANstory. You probably think that this is a joke, but it isn't. It's Michael Jackson's Waco critics, and since discovering the fact that the media is more interested in publicizing sexual assault allegations against Michael Jackson, the bizarre truth is rarely promoted.

In retrospect, sexual molestation charges against Michael Jackson are too frivolous to take seriously. If Evan Chandler was a conscientious father who was genuinely concerned about the claim that Michael Jackson had sexually molested his child, he would have delivered Jackson's head on a silver platter, he would not have merely sought to pick his pocket. Moreover, when Evan Chandler allowed Michael Jackson to state his innocence TWICE in the joint statement they released, to settle the sexual allegation lawsuit, he essentially proved that Michael Jackson was the only one who cared about justice. Those who were not in it for the sake of lining the pockets of all involved failed to indict the extortionists, and that is the ultimate tragedy that the current, sexual assault allegations, media circus, even more outrageous than the previous one.

Make no mistake about it, Evan Chandler was never concerned about presenting evidence that his son was sexually molested and assaulted, to a prosecutor. Instead, he focused on the obsession to manufacture a fiction, and to find a mouthpiece, to promote it. Quoted in GQ Magazine, Evan Chandler said, “This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity.” In describing the plot to destroy Jackson, Chandler said, "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that.”

Chandler's Attorney, Barry Rothman, was certainly the sort to exploit the opportunity that Michael Jackson presented. According to a former colleague, to know Rothman is to believe that Barry could have “devised this whole plan, period. This [making allegations against Michael Jackson] is within the boundary of his character, to do something like this.” The manipulation and deceit that Rothman practices has earned him a reputation for stiffing people, and Michael Jackson is not the only man who has earned the right to hate him. His credit profile lists more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were after him, and that's only a list of those who bothered. It is no wonder that his former wife is perplexed over the fact that someone hadn't "done him in".

In a nutshell, Barry Rothman, the man who "develops" Michael Jackson's accusers is a certified fraud artist. His entire life is a portrait of a deadbeat loser who routinely filed for bankruptcy after creating shell companies to hide his assets and thereby defraud his creditors. Barry Rothman is essentially an unindicted felon, and the failure to put him in jail where he belongs, is extremely peculiar. Is law enforcement that restricted or incompetent?

It is not possible to reasonably dispute the claim that Evan Chandler hired Barry Rothman to hatch the opportunity to exploit his relationship with Michael Jackson. In 1993, Chandler said, “I had a good communication with Michael. We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.” We certainly found out what Evan Chandler wanted when he demanded a further 60 million dollars, to settle outrageous complaints. But let's get serious here. If Michael Jackson had in fact molested his son, a serious, mature parent would not go around saying, "Gee....there was no reason the alleged molester had to stop calling me."

Like his lawyer, Evan Chandler is a certified loser. Indeed, the very day he filed papers against Michael Jackson, he filed custody proceedings against his former wife, because Evan Chandler required the custody of Jordan Chandler to pocket Michael Jackson's money, and that is the 2nd worst case of child abuse, that has been orchestrated in the name of the law. A bitter custody dispute that is inspired by the sleazy obsession to control what is in effect, an "extortion estate" manifests motivations that are so mean and ugly, that it is even easier to excuse the disgusting deeds of pedophiles who acts out of addiction, rather than out of the conscious disregard that leads one to "destroy everybody in sight" to use Chandler's own words.

Let us be explicit, shall we. Prior to discovering the tooth fairy, Evan Chandler was a deadbeat dad who divorced in 1985. The court awarded sole custody of Michael Jackson's child molestation accuser to his mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support. By 1993, Chandler owed his ex-wife $68,000, and instead of assuming his responsibilities, he chose to extort Michael Jackson.

To be sure, it takes more than one deadbeat, to abuse the legal system, and if his lawyer was not a fellow deadbeat loser, it is difficult to imagine how the plot to obtain custody of Michael Jackson's accuser would have existed, but it did. The conduct of Evan Chandler reflected the actions of a man who essentially "hijacked" the law. When Evan Chandler asked his ex-wife to allow the boy to stay with him for a “one-week visitation period,” and then refused to return the boy, the motivation behind the bitter custody battle that ensued, was very clear. It would have been nice if Chandler had the boys best interest in mind, but he was merely executing the plan of a corrupt legal mind like Barry Rothman, and you can take that claim to the very same bank that cashed Michael Jackson's cheques.

The plot gets thicker. After snatching control of the son he had abandoned, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal, to reduce his resistance to planting suggestions, and it was after this session that Michael Jackson's accuser learned that he had been molested. In other words, when you connect all the dots, it is very clear and obvious that Chandler and Rothman had no intention of abiding by a visitation agreement which was nothing more and nothing less than a ploy to exploit a child for the sake of extorting Michael Jackson.

Having cultivated the field, Barry Rothman sought an expert's opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson. The expert, a psychologist who was ethically bound to report allegations of sexual abuse, contacted the police, and that is when they got involved. Prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, spent millions of dollars and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found, and the police spared no expense in the effort -they even traveled to Australia, to interview kids who had slept in Michael Jackson's bedroom. Even the current claim that a cancer patient who stayed at Jackson's Neverland Ranch on a few occasions, was sexually molested, has been investigated by child welfare authorities and proven to be unfounded. It should be a federal offense to duplicate an investigation which has repeatedly proven to be an utter waste of time and resources, because the pedophiles who are currently sexually assaulting children, are on the street because legitimate law enforcement lacks the required resources to put all the creeps on the street out of business.

To be sure, Tom Sneddon says that child welfare authorities did not investigate sexual assault allegations, they conducted interviews. Okay, they conducted interviews and determined that the allegations were unfounded. When Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos was in court defending Scott Peterson, 40 police officers and 20 FBI agents raided Michael Jackson's property. Is that what Tom Sneddon calls an investigation?

The mother of the current complainant is a seasoned shakedown artist. J.C. Penney Co. paid the boy's family $137,500 in November 2001, to settle a lawsuit alleging security guards beat the boy, his mother and his brother in a parking lot after the boy left the store carrying clothes he hadn't been paid for. Two years after the confrontation, the mother decided that one of the guards had sexually assaulted her, making it the first time in history that a security guard has been able to get away with beating up a child and sexually assaulting the mother, in the process of trying to prevent a burglary. This disturbed woman who is being used because she has a history of exploiting false, criminal allegations should be pitied, she should not be "in the custody" of those who seek to extort Michael Jackson.

The current case against Michael Jackson is not a serious prosecution because it reflects the same earmarks of another cultivated witness who is being used to further extort Michael Jackson, and the suggestion that the similarities are merely a coincidence is manifest delusion.

Regardless, the same ploy of using an expert's opinion to help establish manufactured allegations will never triumph where Michael Jackson is concerned because there is absolutely no excuse for revisiting the scam that is responsible for extorting money through phony, sexual assault allegations.

No reasonable person can dispute the simple fact that Michael Jackson was and is innocent. The blatant greed and exploitation of the effort to use a child, cancer victim to extort money from Michael Jackson, would be difficult to imagine without people like Barry Rothman, Evan Chandler, and the mother of the latest accuser.

Like Evan Chandler, the mother of the latest complainant initially contacted a civil lawyer, and it certainly did not take long to determine the need to develop a new angle to divert attention away from the fact that this latest extortion attempt is exactly the same as the previous one -it is all about money, and only somebody like Nancy Grace, Diane Dimond or Tom Sneddon, would suggest otherwise. Most people are not that ignorant.

Fickle talking heads that include Tom Sneddon have repeatedly claimed that changes in the law are responsible for the fact that charges are currently being pursued in criminal rather than in civil court, but do you buy the crap of some of the same idiots who claimed that Howard Dean was going to be the triumphant, Democratic Nominee? The fact of the matter is, the latest accuser is pursuing Jackson in criminal court because she has absolutely no choice. The civil suit route to extort money from Michael Jackson cannot possibly be duplicated until Michael Jackson is criminally convicted. Even George Bush understands the validity of “fool me once shame on you...” why doesn't Tom Sneddon and all the pundits who insist that changes in the law are responsible for the current change in venue?

The credibility of those who claim that Michael Jackson sexually molested a child has already been flushed down the toilet. Indeed, the very same sexual molestation complainants who are responsible for the current charges against Michael Jackson are recorded on tape, praising the King of Pop for providing support, love, guidance and advice, and the boy's mother even said that God had blessed them by bringing Jackson into their lives. Kimberley Guilfoyle, who is herself an intelligent prosecutor, has heard the tape, and indicated that this evidence is extremely damaging to the prosecution. Why is Tom Sneddon trying to create the impression that the proven liars who are accusing Michael Jackson, are credible? Is he that desperate?

The attorney for the father of the boy who is currently alleging that he was molested by Michael Jackson, is one of many voices who have exposed the shakedown artists that are currently seeking to extort Michael Jackson. According to attorney, H. Russell Halpern, the boys father believes the boy's mother is unfit and does not believe that Michael Jackson abused his son. In his own words, "either she places a child in a home in which he's in danger of being molested, or the alternative, she is encouraging a child to make false accusations. Either way, it makes her unfit." If prosecutors cannot even convince the boys own father that his son was sexually molested, what makes them believe that they can convince a jury?

Thomas Mesereau Jr., is not Barry Rothman or Thomas Sneddon, he is an intelligent, ethical, highly respected attorney who will make sure that anybody who further seeks to extort Michael Jackson will add an orange jumpsuit to his or her wardrobe. Kind of suits somebody like Thomas Sneddon, doesn't it? Nobody can really be that dumb, can they? Ignorance is no excuse, is it? Michael Jackson is innocent. The questions are merely a manifestation of the extreme obscenity of the current, sexual molestation charges against the pop icon with the deep pockets.

UPDATE: Current Death Investigation

# The Genius of Michael Jackson
# Is Tom Sneddon a repeat loser?
# How weird is this?
# Tell us what you think
================================================================================================
"Convicting the Innocent" (Excerpts)
by James McCloskey, Director of Centurion Ministries, Inc.
On most occasions when it has been discovered that the wrong person was convicted for another's crime, the local law enforcement community, if it has commented at all, has assured the public that such instances are indeed rare and isolated aberrations of a criminal justice system that bats nearly 1,000 percent in convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. And this view is shared, I think, not only by the vast majority of the public but also by almost all of the professionals (lawyers and judges) whose work comes together to produce the results. I realize that I am a voice crying in the wilderness, but I believe that the innocent are convicted far more frequently than the public cares to believe, and far more frequently than those who operate the system dare to believe. An innocent person in prison, in my view, is about as rare as a pigeon in the yard. The primary purpose of this article is to delineate why and how I have come to believe that this phenomenon of the "convicted innocent" is so alarmingly widespread in the United States. Although no one has any real idea of what proportion it has reached, it is my perception that at least 10 percent of those convicted of serious and violent crimes are completely innocent. Those whose business it is to convict or to defend would more than likely concede to such mistakes occurring in only 1 percent of cases, if that. Regardless of where the reader places his estimate, these percentages, when converted into absolute numbers, tell us that thousands and even tens of thousands of innocent people languish in prisons across the nation".

"These cries of innocence will forever fall on deaf ears and cynical minds. Once he (a defendant) is convicted, no one in whose hands his life is placed (his lawyer and the appellate judges) either believes him or is concerned about his innocence or guilt. It is no longer an issue of relevance. The only question remaining that is important or material is whether he "legally" received a fair trial, not whether the trial yielded a result that was factually accurate. Appellate attorneys are not expected to, nor do they have the time, inclination, and resources to, initiate an investigation designed to unearth new evidence that goes to the question of a false conviction. Such an effort is simply beyond the scope of their thinking and beyond the realm of their professional responsibility. It is a rare attorney indeed who would dare go before any American appellate court and attempt to win a retrial for his client based on his innocence. That's like asking an actor in a Shakespearean tragedy to go on stage and pretend it's a comedy. It is simply not done".

Under the heading "Causes of Wrongful Conviction", Mr. McCloskey continues:

"......Let's return to the trial and discuss those elements that commonly combine to convict the innocent. Let me state at the outset that each of these ingredients is systemic and not peculiar to one p rt of the country or one type of case. We see these elements as constant themes or patterns informing the cases that cross our desks. They are the seeds that sow wrongful convictions. After one has reflected on them individually and as a whole, it becomes, readily apparent, I think, how easy it is and how real the potential is in every courthouse in America for wrongful convictions to take place.

(a) Presumption of Guilt: The first factor I would like to consider is the "presumption-of-innocence" principle. Although we would all like to believe that a defendant is truly considered innocent by those who represent and judge him, this is just not so. Once accusations have matured through the system to the point at which the accused is actually brought to trial, is it not the tendency of human nature to suspect deep down or even believe that the defendant probably did it? Most people are inclined to believe that where there is smoke, there is fire. This applies to professional and lay people alike albeit for different reasons perhaps. The innate inclinations of the average American law-abiding citizen whose jury experience is that person's first exposure to the criminal justice system is to think that law enforcement people have earnestly investigated the case and surely would not bring someone to trial unless they had bona fide evidence against the person. That is a strong barrier and a heavy burden for the defense to overcome. And how about judges and defense lawyers? These professionals, like members of any profession "have a natural tendency to become somewhat cynical and callous with time. .......
...... As far as defense attorneys are concerned, if they really believe in their clients innocence why is it that in so many instances they are quick to urge them to take a plea for a lesser sentence than they could get with a trial conviction? So, by the time a person is in the trial docket, the System (including the media) has already tarnished him with its multitude of prejudices, which, of course, would all be denied by those who ascertain such prejudices.

(b) Perjury by Police: Another reason for widespread perversions of justice is the pervasiveness of perjury. The recent District Attorney of Philadelphia once said, "In almost any factual hearing or trial, someone is committing perjury; and if we investigate all of those things, literally we would be doing nothing but prosecuting perjury cases." If he is guilty, the defendant and his supporters would lie to save his skin and keep him from going to prison. That is assumed and even expected by the jury and the judge. But what would surprise and even shock most jury members is the extent to which police officers lie on the stand to reinforce the prosecution and not jeopardize their own standing within their own particular law enforcement community. The words of one twenty-five-year veteran senior officer of a northern New Jersey police force still ring in my ears: "...... I don't know one of my fellow officers who hasn't lied under oath." Not too long ago a prominent Ncw York judge, when asked if perjury by police was a problem, responded, "Oh, sure, cops often lie on the stand."

(c) False Witnesses for the Prosecution: What is more, not only do law officers frequently lie, but the primary witnesses for the prosecution often commit perjury for the state, and do so under the guidance of the prosecutor. .........common criminals who are in deep trouble themselves with the same prosecutor' s office or local police authority are employed as star state witnesses. In exchange for their false testimony, their own charges are dismissed, or they are given non-custodial or greatly reduced prison sentences. In other words a secret deal is struck whereby the witness is paid for his fabricated testimony with that most precious of all commodities -- freedom! Such witnesses are usually brought forward by the state to say either that the defendant confessed the crime to them or that they saw the defendant near the crime scene shortly before it happened, or they saw him flee the scene of the crime as it was occurring. If I have seen one, I have seen a hundred "jailhouse confessions" spring open the prison doors for the witness who will tell a jury on behalf of the state that the defendant confessed the crime to him while they shared the same cell or tier. When the state needs important help, it goes to its bullpen, the local county jail, and brings in one of the many ace relievers housed there to put out the fire. As several of these "jailhouse priests" have told.me, "It's a matter of survival: either I go away or the the defendant goes away, and I'm not going'."

Jailhouse confessions are a total perversion of the truth seeking process. Amazingly enough, they are a highly effective prosecutorial means to a conviction. Part and parcel of a jailhouse confession is the witness lying to the jury when he assures them that he expects nothing in return for his testimony, that he is willing to swallow whatever pill he must for his own crimes.

Decision by a jury depends largely on prosecutorial integrity and proper use of prosecutorial power. If law enforcement officers, in their zeal to win and convict, manipulate or intimidate witnesses into false testimony, or suppress evidence that impeaches the prosecution's own witnesses or even goes to the defendant's innocence, then the chances of an accurate jury verdict are greatly diminished. Sadly, we see this far too often. It is frightening how easily people respond to pressure or threats of trouble by the authorities of the law . Our insecurities and fears as well as our desires to please those who can punish us allow all of us to be far more malleable than we like to think. Few of us have the inner strength we think we have to resist such overreaching by the law. This applies to mainline citizenry as well as to those living on the margins. However, the underclasses are particularly vulnerable and susceptible to police pressure because they are powerless; and both they and the police know it. A few examples will illustrate. In 1981 three white high school janitors were threatened by the Texas Rangers into testifying that they had seen Clarence Brandley, their black custodial supervisor, walking into the restroom area of the high school where the victim had entered only minutes before she had disappeared. Brandley was convicted and sentenced to death based on the inferential testimony that since he was the last person seen near her, then he must have killed her. Eight years later Brandley was exonerated by the judge who conducted his evidentiary hearing when one of these janitors came forward and told how they had lied in implicating Brandley because of coercion by the investigating law officer. On the eve of the Rene Santana trial in Newark, New Jersey, which was a year and a half after the crime, the prosecutors produced a surprise "eyewitness" who said he saw Mr. Santana flee the scene of the crime. A decade later that same witness visited Mr. Santana at New Jersey's Rathway State Prison and asked for his forgiveness after admitting to him that he had concocted the "eyewitness" testimony in response to intense pressure from the prosecutor's investigator. Since this "eyewitness" was from Trujillo's Dominican Republic police state, his innate fear of the police made him vulnerable to such police coercion. Or how about the Wingo case in white, rural northwestern Louisiana? Wingo's common-law wife came forward on the eve of his execution and admitted that she had lied at his trial five years earlier because the deputy sheriff had threatened to put her in jail and forever separate her from her children unless she regurgitated at trial what he wanted her to say. And in the Terry McCracken case in the suburbs of Philadelphia, a fellow high school student of the Caucasian McCracken testified that he saw McCracken flee the convenience store moments after a customer was shot to death during the course of a robbery. The teenager was induced to manufacture this false eyewitness account after three visits to the police station. Among the evidence that vindicates McCracken are the confessions by the real robber/ killers. So, you see, it not only can happen anywhere, it does happen every where; and it does happen to all different people, regardless of race and background.

(d) Manipulation of the evidence: Another common trait of wrongful convictions is the prosecutor's habit of suppressing or withholding evidence which he is obliged to provide to the defendant in the interests of justice and fairness. Clarence Darrow was right when he said, "A courtroom is not a place where truth and innocence inevitably triumph; it is only an arena where contending lawyers fight not for justice but to win." And so many times this hidden information is not only "favorable" to the defendant but it clears him. In Philadelphia's Miguel Rivera case the district attorney withheld the fact that two shopkeepers had seen the defendant outside their shop when the art museum murder was actually in progress. And in the Gordon Marsh case near Baltimore, Maryland. the state failed to tell the defendant that its main witness against him was in jail when she said she saw him running from the murder scene. One has to wonder what the primary objective of prosecutors is. Is it to convict, regardless of the factual truth, or is it to pursue justice? The prosecution is the "house" in the criminal justice system's game of poker. The cards are his, and he deals them . He decides whom and what to charge for crimes, and if there will be a trial or whether a plea is acceptable. He dominates. Unfortunately, his power is virtually unchecked because he is practically immune from punishment for offenses, no matter how flagrant or miscreant. According to many state and federal courts, prosecutorial misbehavior occurs with "disturbing frequency." When the "house" cheats, the innocent lose. Lamentably, we see prosecutors through out the nation continually violating the standards set for them by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1930 when it said that the prosecutor's interest in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.... it is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two fold arm of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.... While he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

It is human nature to resist any information that indicates that we have made a grievous mistake. This is particularly true of prosecutors when presented with new evidence that impeaches a conviction and goes to the innocence of a person convicted by their office at a prior time, whether it occurred four months or forty years before. Not only are they coldly unresponsive to such indications but they quickly act to suppress or stamp them out. New evidence usually comes in the form of a state witness who, plagued with a guilty conscience, admits that he lied at the trial; or from a person completely new to the case who comes forward with his exculpatory knowledge. Without exception, in my experience, the prosecutor's office will treat that person with total contempt in its usually successful attempt to force the person to retreat into silence. If that doesn't work, it will dismiss such testimony as somehow undeserving of any credibility and blithely ignore it. This prosecutorial impishness reminds me of a little boy holding his hands to his ears on hearing an unpleasant sound. The Joyce Ann Brown case is a poignant illustration of this kind of prosecutorial posturing.

One year after Joyce's 1980 conviction for being one of two black women who had robbed a Dallas, Texas furrier and killed one of the proprietors, the admitted shooter was captured and pleaded guilty while accepting a life sentence. She also told her attorney that the district attorney had convicted the wrong woman (Joyce Brown) as her partner in the crime. She had never known or even heard of that Joyce Brown. With the district attorney fighting her with all of his might, Joyce sits in prison to this day trying to win a retrial as we try to develop new evidence on her behalf.

(e) Shoddy Police Work: The police work of investigating crimes, when done correctly and thoroughly, is indeed a noble profession. Law and order are essential to a cohesive and just society. Because police work is fraught with so many different kinds of pressures, it is rather easy for an investigation to go awry. The high volume of violent crime plagues every urban police department. Skilled detectives are few, and their caseloads are overwhelming. The "burnout" syndrome is a well-documented reality within police ranks. Interdepartmental politics and the bureaucracy stifle initiative and energy. The pressure to "solve" a case is intensely felt by the line detective and comes both from his superiors and the community and from his own ambitious need for recognition and advancement. If today's climate of "burn or bury" them puts more pressure on the detective to resolve, it also gives him more license to do so by whatever means. Too often, as a result of the above factors, police officers take the easy way out. Once they come to suspect someone as the culprit, and this often occurs early within the investigation and is based on rather flimsy circumstantial information, then the investigation blindly focuses in on that adopted "target." Crucial pieces of evidence are overlooked and disregarded. Some witnesses are not interviewed who should be, while others are seduced or coerced into telling the police what they want to hear. Evidence or information that does not fit the suspect or the prevailing theory of the crime is dismissed as not material or is changed to implicate the suspect. Good old-fashioned legwork is replaced by expediency and shortcuts. Coercive confessions are extracted and solid leads are ignored. Before too long, momentum has gathered, and the "project" now is to put it on the suspect. Any information that points to the suspect, no matter how spuriously secured, is somehow obtained; and anything that points away from him is ridiculed and twisted into nothingness. The task is made much easier if the suspect has a police record because he should be "taken off the streets" anyhow . That kind of person is not only a prime suspect but also a prime scapegoat. An example of this is Clarence Brandley, who was mentioned earlier. He was arrested in late August four days after the crime and on the weekend before school was to begin. The high school where the rape and murder took place was flooded with telephone calls by scared parents who refused to send their children to school until the murderer was caught. The arrest of Brandley calmed the community ~and school started as scheduled. It was after Brandley's arrest that the investigation then spent five hundred hours building the case against him

(f) Incompetent Defense Counsel: The wrongly convicted invariably find themselves between the rock of police/prosecutorial misconduct and the hard place of an incompetent and irresponsible defense attorney. While the correct decision by a jury hinges on a fair prosecution, it also depends on dedicated and skilled defendant lawyering. And there is such a paucity of the latter. Not only there are very few highly competent defense lawyers but there are very few criminal defense lawyers, period. They are rapidly becoming an extinct species. The current Attorney General of New Jersey not too long ago told the New Jersey State Bar Association that finding quality private defense attorneys "may be the most crying need that we have." He also told this same assemblage that unless there is an adequate number of well-trained private defense lawyers, there will be little hope for justice. Of the 30,000 lawyers in New Jersey, the number of those doing primarily criminal defense work is only in the hundreds. At this same conference the First Assistant Attorney General pointed out that 8 percent of New Jersey's criminal cases are handled by the public defender system; and he wondered if there would be a private defense bar by the year 2000. This means, of course, that 8 percent of those charged with a crime cannot afford an attorney, so they are forced to use the public defender system. As competent as New Jersey's full-time salaried public defenders generally are, their resources (budget and people) are vastly inadequate and are dwarfed by those of their adversaries (the local prosecutors office). Moreover, they are so overwhelmed by the sheer volume of caseload that no defender can give quality attention to any one of his cases, let alone all of them. So, in response to this shortage, public defender cases are farmed out to "pooled" attorneys, who are paid a pittance relative to what they earn from other clients who retain them privately. The experience of these pooled attorneys in criminal matters is often limited and scanty. In addition, they do not bring to their new-found indigent client the desired level of heart and enthusiasm for their cases. All of these conditions leave the defendant with an attorney somewhat lacking in will, effort, resources, and experience. Thus, the defendant goes to trial with two strikes against him. What we have discovered as a common theme among those whose cases we have studied from all over the country is that their trial attorney, whether from the public domain or privately retained, undertakes his work with an appalling lack of assiduity. Communication with the defendant is almost nonexistent. When it does take place, it is carried on in a hurried, callous, and dismissive manner. Attempts at discovery are made perfunctorily. Prosecutors are not pressed for this material. Investigation is shallow and narrow, if conducted at all. Preparation meets minimal standards. And advocacy at trial is weak. Cross examination is superficial and tentative. Physical evidence is left untested, and forensic experts are not called to rebut whatever scientific evidence the state introduces through its criminalists. I cannot help thinking of the Nate Walker ,case, where, at Nate's 1976 trial for rape and kidnapping, the doctor who examined the victim the night of her ordeal testified that he found semen in her vaginal cavity. Walker's privately retained attorney had no questions for the doctor when it came time for cross-examination, nor did he even ask any one to test the vaginal semen for blood type. Twelve years later, that test was performed at our request, and Walker was exonerated and immediately freed. This is not to say, however, that we have not encountered some outstanding examples of vigorous and thorough defense lawyering that left no stones unturned. What a rare but inspiring sight! We could not do our work without the critically important services of the extremely able and dedicated attorneys with whom we team up. If only the preponderance of attorneys would heed the admonition of Herbert Stern, a former U.S. Attorney and U.S. District Court judge in Newark, New Jersey, when he addressed a new crop of attorneys who had just been sworn in. He told them that they were free to choose their own clients. "But," he continued, "once that choice is made, once a representation is undertaken, then that responsibility is as sacred to us as the one assumed by a surgeon in the operating room. You must be as committed and as selfless as any surgeon." He further challenged them to "be an advocate. Represent your clients -- all of them -- fearlessly, diligently, unflinchingly.... Withhold no proper legal assistance from any client. And when you do that, you thereby preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, just as you have this day sworn to."

(g) Nature of Convicting Evidence: The unschooled public largely and erroneously believes that convictions are mostly obtained through the use of one form of tangible evidence or another. This naive impression is shaped by watching too many TV shows like Perry Mason or Matlock The reality is that in most criminal trials the verdict more often than not hinges on whose witnesses -- the state's or defendant's - the jury chooses to believe. It boils down to a matter of credibility. There is no "smoking gun" scientific evidence that clearly points to the defendant. This puts an extremely heavy burden on the jury. It must somehow ferret out and piece together the truth from substantially inconsistent and contradictory testimony between and within each side. The jury is forced to make one subjective call after another in deciding whom to believe and what inferences to draw from conflicting statements. For example, how can a jury accept a victim's positive identification at trial of the defendant as her assailant when she had previously described her attacker in physical terms that were very different from the actual physical characteristics of the defendant, or when the defense has presented documented information that precludes the defendant from being the assaulter? Several cases come to mind. Boy was convicted of robbing a convenience store in Georgia. The clerk initially told the police that since she was 5 feet 3 inches, was standing on a 3-inch platform, and had direct eye contact with the robber, he must have been about 5 feet 6 inches tall. Boy is 6 feet 5 inches tall. Four teenage girls identified Russell Burton as their rapist on a particular day in Arkansas. Burton introduced evidence that on that day his penis was badly blistered from an operation two days before for removal of a wart. And a Virginia woman was certain that Edward Honaker was her rapist even though her rapist had left semen within her, and Honaker had had a vasectomy well in advance of the assault. Criminal prosecutions that primarily or exclusively depend on the victim's identification of the defendant as the perpetrator must be viewed with some skepticism unless solid corroborating evidence is also introduced. Traumatized by a crime as it occurs, the victim frequently is looking but not seeing. Victims are extremely vulnerable and can easily be led by the police, through unduly suggestive techniques, into identifying a particular person. The victim in Nate Walker's case, for example, was with her abductor/rapist for two and a half hours with ample opportunity to clearly view him. She told the jury with out hesitation eighteen months later that ''he's the man." Nate had an ironclad alibi. The jury struggled for several days but in the end came in with a guilty verdict. As mentioned earlier, he was scientifically vindicated twelve years later. When juries are confronted with a choice between a victim's ringing declaration that "that's the man" and solid evidence that "it couldn't be him," they usually cast their lot with the victim. I suggest that this can be a very dangerous tendency and practice. And this is particularly so when identification crosses racial lines, that is, when a white victim says it was that black person. Future jurors should be aware that identifications can be very unreliable forms of evidence. Another type of evidence that can be misleading and even confusing to jurors is that offered by laboratory scientists. Results of laboratory tests that are presented by the forensic scientists are not always what they appear to be, although they strongly influence jury decisions. A recent New York Times article pointed out that there is a "growing concern about the professionalism and impartiality of the laboratory scientists whose testimony in court can often mean conviction or acquittal." This article went on to say that the work of forensic technicians in police crime laboratories is plagued by uneven training and questionable objectivity. We share this mounting concern because we see instance after instance where the prosecutor's crime laboratory experts cross the line from science to advocacy. They exaggerate the results of their analysis of hairs, fibers, blood, or semen in such a manner that it is absolutely devastating to the defendant. To put the defendants at a further disadvantage, the defense attorneys do not educate themselves in the forensic science in question, and therefore conduct a weak cross-examination. Also, in many cases, the defense does not call in its own forensic experts, whose testimony in numerous instances could severely damage the state's scientific analysis. One case profoundly reflects this com mon cause of numerous unjust convictions. Roger Coleman sits on Virginia's death row today primarily because the Commonwealth's Bureau of Forensic Science expert testified that the two foreign pubic hairs found on the murdered victim were "consistent" with Mr. Coleman's, and that it was unlikely that these hairs came from anyone other than Mr. Coleman. The defense offered nothing in rebuttal, so this "testimony" stood unchallenged. In a post-conviction hearing Mr. Coleman" s new lawyer introduced the testimony of a forensic hair specialist who had twenty-five years of experience with the F.B.I. He testified that "it is improper to conclude that it is likely that hairs came from a particular person simply because they are consistent with that person's hair because hairs belonging to different people are often consistent with each other, especially pubic hairs." Another problem that we continually observe within the realm of forensic evidence is the phenomenon of lost and untested physical evidence. Often, especially in cases up to the early 1980's, the specimens that have the potential to exclude the defendant have not been tested and eventually get misplaced. At best this is gross negligence on the part of both the police technician and the defense attorney in not ensuring that the tests be done.

Conclusion

We agree with a past president of the New Jersey Division of the Asociation of Trial Lawyers of America who said that "juries are strange creatures. Even after taking part in many, many trials, I still find them to be unpredictable. The jury system isn't perfect, but it does represent the best system to mete out justice. They're right in their decisions more often than not." Remember when I quoted a former District Attorney who said that "in almost any factual hearing or trial someone is committing perjury." So, a wide margin of error exists when earnest but all too fallible juries are only right "more often than not" and when trial testimony is so frequently and pervasively perjurious. My contention is that at least 10 percent of those convicted for serious, violent crimes are in correctly convicted because some combination of the trial infirmities described in this article results in mistaken jury determinations. Everyone will agree that the system is not perfect, but the real question is this: To what extent do its imperfections prevail? I contend that for all the reasons detailed above, the system is a far leakier stern than any among us has ever imagined. Untold numbers of innocents have tumbled into the dark pit of prison s Some of them have eventually gained their freedom, but a majority remain buried in prison, completely forsaken and forgotten by the outside world. Other than my own wholly inadequate organization, no person or agency, private or public, exists anywhere that works full time and serves exclusively as an advocate and arm for the innocent in prison The body of justice that has evolved over the centuries has many members. But not one part that functions within this whole has been created or is properly equipped specifically to secure the freedom of the incarcerated innocent.

Mat Wilson, a competent advocate for the wrongfully accused, has writtenThe Trial to expose the Kafkaesque aspects of our legal system. Others have exposed the travesty of convicting innocent scapegoats like Michael Skakel. We need more, reasonable people, to demand justice.

===============================================================================================
Murphy's Grace

May 1, 2004

Funny, arent they? Authorities do not have any credible evidence to prove that Michael Jackson molested anybody, so The mother claims that Jackson associates coerced her and the children to initially deny that Jackson had sexually abused the boy who is a recovering cancer patient. Isn't that a mouthful? Now how do these brilliant authorities use this lauable approach, to prove that the King of Pop is a child molester. Leave it to two experienced defendant bashers, to piece it all together in a manner that would make any fickle, unreliable analyst proud.

GRACE: Wendy Murphy, weigh in on this. The reality here, in my mind, strategically speaking, is that before, on the original arrest charges, it was all about alleged conduct by Michael Jackson. Now we see a conspiracy charge, allegedly that Jackson tried to extort money or threaten the family, tried to falsely imprison this child or his family or even kidnap or move the child. That means, Wendy, somebody else, according to the prosecutors, is involved. Once you have more than one or two people involved, somebody cracks and testifies, Wendy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You're absolutely right, Nancy. And it might even be more than one person. We just don't know yet. And whether or not that person is indicted -- remember, there's such a thing as an unindicted co-conspirator. There's going to be an awful lot of pressure brought to bear on that person or persons. And Nancy, I think this makes the prosecution's case extremely strong now because it isn't just about the word of a child now.

Remember, 28 different overt acts are alleged in support of this conspiracy indictment. What that means is we're going to hear about 28 different things that were done to intimidate, or the abduction and so on. And how is that going to be explained away? You know, the reasonable jury is going to say, Hey, if this kid's making it up, the mother's out for money, it's all a big bunch of nonsense and Michael Jackson's so guilty, why did there have to be 28 separate acts of, in a sense, intimidation tactics taken against these people?

GRACE: Well, put. Chris Pixley, you want to take a crack at that, Chris. What can the defense say? Or will they portray it, Chris, like this -- say Jackson took the kid and his mom to Disneyland. What's wrong about that? That could be viewed as philanthropic. But then, when you look at these charges, suddenly, there is a nefarious stroke to even a trip to Disneyland.

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's right. That's right. And I also think, Nancy, that there's an obvious angle here. One of the problems that the DA's had from the very beginning is they have an accuser who claims that he was molested by Michael Jackson during the same period of time that the LAPD and the Department of Chile and Family Services were investigating those allegations and were finding that there was no basis for them. So the DA has to do something to rehabilitate this witness, to build the accuser and his family's testimony. And what better way than to say, Well, actually, during that period of time, they were under threat of force. They were being intimidated. They were in danger, and that's the only reason they didn't tell the truth.

The problem with that, of course, is that any adult, even if the child doesn't know, understands that if you're being interviewed by the police and you are in danger for your life or fear danger, you simply tell the police...

GRACE: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

PIXLEY: ... and they protect you. So if...

GRACE: Wait a minute on that. Let me throw that at Wendy. That's a really good point, Chris. My understanding, Wendy, is that there are allegations that when this child and his mom talked to child protective services, that there was actually Jackson representative there. Could that be viewed as intimidating?

MURPHY: You know, was that a rhetorical question, Nancy?

GRACE: I'm just throwing it out there.

(LAUGHTER)

MURPHY: You know, look, there's so much about this case that still has yet to be proved, but what's important is, and what I think makes the prosecution's case extremely strong, is that the jury's going to hear all this. It's one thing to explain away one piece of evidence, but explaining away 28 separate overt acts...

GRACE: Yes.

MURPHY: And Chris thinks it's all easy to do by simply saying, Hey, you know, a reasonable child would simply tell the police the truth. Not when the person against whom you're making an allegation has made threats, has abducted you, has tried to, you know, use extortion tactics against you and is the most powerful man on the planet in terms of music!

And now, let's inject Murphy and Grace with a healthy dose of sodium Amytal, to make them tell the truth.

GRACE: Wendy Murphy, weigh in on this. The reality here, realistically speaking, in the first charges, filed by Sneddon on Jan. 31, he accused Jackson of committing nine different acts between Feb. 7 and March 10, 2003. Now he says Jackson did whatever he's alleged to have done between Feb. 20 and March 12, 2003. Has Tom Sneddon cracked?

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You're absolutely right, Nancy.

http://www.thecelebritytruth.com/coroner-tabloid-lied-michael-jackson-autopsy/007477
look here is more proof of hiw them rags and the demon lied about Michael's autopsy report

To mjlover4life, 1st time I ever saw this site and I want to say to you, thank you so much for being the well informed defender of our Michael, seriously.

Roberta,
your welcome and always I'll always fight for Michael and his children
you don't think that I swear just a bit too much? only for the people
that hurt Michael and yes she's the biggest one that I go after and will
never stop fighting for them Michael and his 3 innocent children
Michael never deserved any of the treatment that he received and now I'm here to help him.
I just wish I knew about computers before Michael passed because I would have went after her in 1993.
then again in 2003-2005

----♥♥-♥♥------ Put This
----♥♥-♥♥---- Ribbon
---♥♥---♥♥--- On Your
---♥♥---♥♥--- Page If
---♥♥---♥♥--- Your
----♥♥-♥♥---- Against
-----♥♥♥------ Animal
----♥♥-♥♥---- Abuse.
---♥♥---♥♥--- Thank You!
>
███████████100000000000000% Michael Jackson Fan

███████████100000000000000% Just Being Myself ;)
>
█║▌│█│║▌║││█║▌│║▌║
█║▌│█│║▌║││█║▌│║▌║
© MJLOVE RLOVESYOUMJ

♫ Verified Official Michael Jackson Fan ♫

╔╗╔═╦╗ Put this on your site
║╚╣║║╚╗If you love to laugh! XD
╚═╩═╩═╝

[I love Michael Joesph Jackson & if loving him is wrong, then I don't
want to be right!]

The definition of
█▄█ █▀█ ▀█▀ has a picture of Michael Jackson under it!
█▀█ █▄█ ♥█

*Haters don't even bother to say anything because anything mean or bad
will be deleted anyways! Haha!*

MY GOAL: TO SATISFY ALL MICHAEL JACKSON FANS WITH MY BLOG!

╔══╗♫♫
║██║
║██║I ♥ My iPod!
╚══╝

-If you're a Michael Jackson hater - GET OFF MY BLOG NOW!
-If you don't like my blog - Go away!
-Yes, I love Michael Jackson, and I am proud of it!

мy ғavorιтe тнιngѕ aвoυт мj: нιѕ вody, нιѕ lιpѕ, нandѕ, нaιr, neck,
them legѕ, and тнe oвvιoυѕ y'all ĸno wнaт ι мean?

M:agical
I:nsperational
C:aring
H:ot
A:wesome
E:xcellent
L:oving

☆┌─┐ ─ ☆
│▒│ /▒/
│▒│/▒/
│▒ /▒/─┬─┐
│▒│▒|▒│▒│
┌┴─┴─┐-┘─┘
│▒┌──┘▒▒▒│
└┐▒▒▒▒▒▒┌┘
└┐▒▒▒▒┌┘

(\____/) Paste this Bunny on your page
(=0_0=) If you are against
(")___(") -ANIMAL CRUELTY-

._........_________________ ___ , ,
....../ `---___________----_____|]░ ▒▓▓█D
...../_==o;;;;;;;;_______.:/
.....), ---.(_(__) /
....// (..) ), ----
.../ /___//
..//___// Call Michael "Wacko Jacko" and you're dead!

To all Michael Jackson haters:
....................... /´ /)
......................../¯ ..//
......................./... .//
....................../¯ ..//
...................../... ./ /
............./´¯/' ...'/´¯`•¸
........../'/.../... ./... ..../¨¯\
........('(....(...(....... ,~/'...')
.........\.......... ..... ..\/..../
..........\...\.... ..... . _.•´
............\....... ..... ..(
..............\..... ..... ...\

╔═══╗♫> > > > > ║███║I'm listening to
║ ( o ) ║Michael Jackson baby!
╚═══╝

_§§§§§§§§§$§§$_§§§
__§§§§$§§§$§$§§$_§§
___§§§§$§§§$§$§§$_§§
_____$§§§§§§§§§§§$§_§§
______§§§$§§§§§§$§§$§_§
_______$§§§§§§§$$§$$§§_§§
________§§§§$$§§$$§§$$§§_§
_________§$§$$$§§§§§§$$§§$§§
__________$$$$§§$_§§$§§$§§§§§§
___________§$§§$§§_§§§§§§§§§$$§§$§
____________§$§§$§§_§§§§§§§§_$$§§$
_____________ §$§§$§§_$§§§§§__§§$§
______________\___§$§§$_\_____§§§§
________________\__§§§§§_§§__§§§§$
_________________\_§§§$§§__$§§§§§§§
___________________§$§§$§____§$§§§§
_____________________§§§$§§___§§$§§
_______________________§§§§§___§$§

╔╦═╦═╦╦═╦╗╔╦═╦═╦╗╬♥
║║═║═║║╔╣╚╝║═║═╣║
║╔╗╔╗║║╚╣╔╗║║║═╣╚╗
╚╝╚╝╚╩╩═╩╝╚╩╩╩═╩═╝
╬╔══╦═╦═╦╗╔╦═╦═╦╦═╗
═╚╗╔╣═║╔╣╚╝╣╚ ╣║║╔╗║
═╔╝║║║║╚╣╔╗╠╗║║║║║║
═╚═╩╩╩╩═╩╝╚╩═╩═╩╝╚

...........♥...♥
........♥.........♥
.....♥...............♥
...♥....................♥
..♥......................♥
.♥........................♥... ......♥....♥
♥.........................♥... ♥..............♥
.♥.........................♥.. .................♥
..♥.........................♥. ..............♥
...♥.... Michael Jackson.. ..♥
.....♥........................ ..........♥
........♥..................... ......♥
...........♥.................. ....♥
...............♥.............. .♥
..................♥..........♥
.....................♥.....♥
......................♥..♥
........................♥

sorry some of them didn't come out

http://www.mjjboard.com/king-pop-news-desk/20300-michael-jackson-making-myth.html

http://www.mjjboard.com/king-pop-news-desk/20300-michael-jackson-making-myth.html

These are the lyrics:
CHILDHOOD
Have you seen my Childhood?
I'm searching for the world that I come from
'Cause I've been looking around
In the lost and found of my heart... No one understands me
They view it as such strange eccentricities...
'Cause I keep kidding around
Like a child, but pardon me...

People say I'm not okay
'Cause I love such elementary things...
It's been my fate to compensate,
for the Childhood
I've never known...

Have you seen my Childhood?
I'm searching for that wonder in my youth
Like pirates in adventurous dreams,
Of conquest and kings on the throne...

Before you judge me, try hard to love me,
Look within your heart then ask,
Have you seen my Childhood?

People say I'm strange that way
'Cause I love such elementary things,
It's been my fate to compensate,
for the Childhood I've never known...

Have you seen my Childhood?
I'm searching for that wonder in my youth
Like fantastical stories to share
The dreams I would dare, watch me fly...

Before you judge me, try hard to love me.
The painful youth I've had

Have you seen my Childhood...

Re: mjlover4life
Michael jackson was never accused of rape. So be careful with the terminology

I never said he raped anyone I was quoting someone else I'll never say that about him

In all fairness, Ms. Dimond...oh, perhaps that's not a word that's in your vocabulary. Please look it up. F-A-I-R-N-E-S-S. I have a question. Were you sexually abused when you were a child?
I also want to comment on your phraseology. You stated that he "...paid about $30 million to avoid a trial...." Please compare the following statement. Mr. Jackson decided, after deliberating with his attorneys and advisers, that the best course of action to take was to settle the case. He did not "pay" out of his pocket, which your statement implies. Also, the amount was closer to $20 million. What I'm writing here came straight from "the horse's mouth", Mr. Jackson himself. Other statements of yours are, "Then he started to collect children of his own. He reportedly paid $10 million to a nurse named Debbie Rowe in return for her agreement to be inseminated with donor sperm, give him two children and disappear. " Who reported this? "Collect" children? "A" nurse named Debbie Rowe? "give" him two children and "disappear"? Where in the world have you been and what idiots do you think we are? Only idiots can believe your twisted spin. My personal theory is that you yourself have been and continue to be obsessed with Mr. Jackson, and your persistent efforts to ruin his reputation as a person is merely reaction formation. If you don't know what that means, ask your psychiatrist. You would've made a terrible witness for the prosecution in 2005. Everything you would have had to say would've been stricken as "heresay".

Dimond wrote: When I was plying my trade as an investigative reporter...
Oh, please. You're not an "investigative reporter;" you're a yellow hack. A tabloid proctologist. A pen for murderous hire. Don't flatter yourself that you're a "modern day journalist." You've never attended an accredited university and received a degree in journalism with at least one course in media law and ethics. You wouldn't know a single word of responsible reporting if it bit you in the ass. Journalism needs to clean house and toss "investigative reporters" like you out on their ears. You're a disgrade to the profession of journalism and a blight on the landscape of media. I'm not a Michael Jackson fan but I know crap reporting when I read it.

I had to come back here to inform all MJ family to sign the petition at www.cadeflaw.com
If this gets passed then nobody would ever be allowed to talk and say lies about anyone who has died, especially about Our beloved Michael.

liar

this bitch knows better than to mess with Michael and/or his children she will be getting another smack down