Trying to compare MJ case to the Durst case.

If it is nasty article, it would be better to copy & paste it here in full so they don't get any click from fans that are unaware of the content.
 
Thanks. I just went back and the moved the story from celebrity news to opinion. I wrote them an email in detail on why they were wrong in comparing those two stories. MJ video in 2003 is nothing like Durst and MJ was clearly innocent compare to Durst. I just can not stand when folks want to put all things in one boat.
 
Last edited:
<header class="article-header">[h=1]Michael Jackson&#8217;s Trial History Repeated By Accused Millionaire Murderer Robert Durst?[/h]</header><!-- end article header -->
<a title="Share this page on pinterestUnsafe" class="share icon icon-pinterest" href="http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquisitr.com%2F1940462%2Fmichael-jacksons-trial-history-repeated-by-millionaire-murderer-robert-durst%2F&media=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.inquisitr.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Finquisitr%2Fdist%2Fimages%2F1x1.trans.png&description=Michael%20Jackson" sl-processed="1" s%20trial%20history%20repeated%20by%20millionaire%20murderer%20robert%20durst'="" data-network="pinterest">
image: http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Michael-Jackson-665x385.jpg
Michael-Jackson-665x385.jpg


<noscript>&lt;img width="665" height="385" src="http://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Michael-Jackson-665x385.jpg" data-attID="964521" class="single-leader wp-post-image" alt="Michael Jackson Trial" /&gt;</noscript> <section class="entry-content clearfix" itemprop="articleBody">Michael Jackson has resurfaced in the news recently due to details surrounding similarities between his case and the one that accused millionaire murderer Robert Durst is currently undergoing. While most headlines about Michael Jackson discuss light-hearted topics like his past romance to <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/1907748/maureen-mccormick-dishes-on-teenage-love-interest-michael-jackson/" sl-processed="1">Marcia from the Brady Bunch, the child molestation charges against Michael Jackson are also a part of his history.

How is Michael Jackson&#8217;s case similar to Robert Durst&#8217;s? In both of their cases, evidence was introduced against Michael Jackson and Robert Durst from documentaries they made. When Michael Jackson was acquitted of charges of child molestation in 2005, the <a class="external" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/national/14jackson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">New York Times published a full story of the entire trial. In it, they stated the following.
&#8220;The current case against Mr. Jackson erupted in February 2003, with the broadcast of &#8220;Living With Michael Jackson,&#8221; a British documentary in which Mr. Jackson talked about sharing his bed with young boys, calling it a loving act and insisting it had nothing to do with sex. The accuser in this case, then 13, was shown holding hands with the singer and resting his head affectionately on his shoulder. The documentary provoked an international sensation, seeming to confirm years of rumors that Mr. Jackson was overly fond of young boys. Mr. Sneddon, hearing what he had long suspected, immediately began a criminal investigation.&#8221;
<center class="ebz_native_center ebz_native" style="margin: auto; width: auto; height: 419px; overflow: hidden; display: block; transition-property: height, margin; transition-duration: 1s, 1s;">
ADVERTISEMENT
<iframe id="ebzIframe0" src="http://assets.ebz.io/ebzFormats/assets/html/iframe.html?h=2.20.d5fb3bd8d4c47d0d6a4ce38aa9b36e788a58dc3d.20150319083212" border="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" style="background: none; border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; width: 100%; height: 100%;" allowtransparency="true" mozallowfullscreen="true" webkitallowfullscreen="true"></iframe>

</center>He was acquitted of all charges in 2005, but Michael Jackson began to be targeted with child molestation charges as early as 1993. <a class="external" href="http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/MichaelJackson/story?id=7936528&page=1&singlePage=true" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">ABC published an article when Michael Jackson died in 2009 stating that he was able to avoid the charges because, &#8220;Jackson&#8217;s defense argued the alleged victim and his family made up the allegations in an attempt to get money.&#8221; <a class="external" href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/exclusive-michael-jackson-hit-with-new-sex-abuse-claim.html" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">The Daily Beast reports that allegations have continued after Michael Jackson&#8217;s death as late as 2014.
While Michael Jackson&#8217;s charges were dismissed, the same may not be true for Robert Durst. <a class="external" href="http://www.nbc29.com/story/28547894/real-estate-heir-durst-is-a-suicide-risk-sheriff-says" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">NBC 29 News says that Durst is a millionaire in jail for murders that he may have gotten away with for years. Over the past 30 years, he has had two books published about him &#8212; one about how he was acquitted for murder and another about the disappearance of his wife.
The <a class="external" href="http://www.weyburnreview.com/news/warrant-handwriting-analysis-error-delayed-authorities-linking-durst-to-california-killing-1.1797491#sthash.yfT2Cynx.dpuf" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">Associate Press published a caption about Robert Durst saying, &#8220;The whispered words of Durst recorded in an unguarded moment in a bathroom could come back to haunt him &#8211; or help him &#8211; as he faces a murder charge. A possible move by prosecutors to introduce the incriminating material from a six-part documentary on his strange life and connection to three killings could backfire as interview footage did in the Michael Jackson molestation trial and the Robert Blake murder case.&#8221;
Will this case have the same verdict as the Michael Jackson trial &#8212; despite &#8220;video evidence&#8221;? For now, everyone will need to be patient. <a class="external" href="http://townhall.com/news/entertainment/2015/03/19/audio-of-durst-in-bathroom-could-play-2-ways-in-murder-case-n1973024" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">Town Hall News says that it will take the police a month to check for video tampering from the evidence that they have from the six-part HBO documentary &#8220;The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst.&#8221; Like the Michael Jackson documentary footage, the video of Durst seems fairly straightforward &#8212; but it does not mean it will definitely convict him.
The video in question shows Durst allegedly pointing at the home where murders may have taken place and stating that he had &#8220;killed them all&#8221; and that he didn&#8217;t know what was &#8220;in the house.&#8221; Obviously, it will be over a month or longer before we can determine if Robert Durst will join Michael Jackson and <a class="external" href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/16/blake.case/index.html?iref=newssearch" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">Robert Blake in being rich elites that were acquitted &#8212; despite damning video footage.

</section>


<iframe width="670" height="175" id="_mN_main_967774781_0_n" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<aside class="article-footer clearfix">This article is entirely the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of Inquisitr.com.
</aside><footer class="article-footer clearfix"><a title="Posts by Maryam Louise" href="http://www.inquisitr.com/author/maryam/" rel="author" sl-processed="1">image: http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/08618e...tar/ad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536?s=90&r=G
08618e60173286765ce50fd23f809119
<noscript>&lt;img id="authorbox-photo" title="Maryam Louise" alt='Maryam Louise' src="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/08618e60173286765ce50fd23f809119?s=90&amp;amp;d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D90&amp;amp;r=G" class='avatar avatar-90 photo' height='90' width='90' /&gt;</noscript> [h=3]<a title="Posts by Maryam Louise" href="http://www.inquisitr.com/author/maryam/" rel="author" sl-processed="1">Maryam Louise[/h]
  • <a title="Follow Maryam Louise on Twitter." class="icon icon-twitter external" href="http://twitter.com/https://twitter.com/MaryamLouise" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">
  • <a title="Follow Maryam Louise on Google Plus." class="icon icon-googleplus external" href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+MaryamLouise" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">
  • <a title="Follow Maryam Louise on Facebook." class="icon icon-facebook external" href="https://www.facebook.com/MaryamLouiseWriter?ref=hl" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">
  • <a title="Email Maryam Louise." class="icon icon-email external" href="mailto:maryamlouise@yahoo.com" target="_blank" sl-processed="1">
  • <a title="Subscribe to Maryam Louise's RSS Feed ." class="icon icon-rss external" href="http://www.inquisitr.com/author/maryam/feed/" sl-processed="1">

</footer>

<!-- Inquisitr_670x250 --> <section><header style="text-align: left;">[h=2]Articles And Offers From The Web[/h]</header><iframe name="google_ads_iframe_/3945829/IQ_MediaForce_670x250_0" width="670" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/3945829/IQ_MediaForce_670x250_0" src="javascript:&quot;<html><body style='background:transparent'></body></html>&quot;" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border: 0px currentColor; border-image: none; vertical-align: bottom;"></iframe>

</section>​

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1940462/mi...re-murderer-robert-durst/#fGajbotD7mdBhU9U.99
 
^^ Someone who is so incredibly ignorant about a criminal case should not write about that criminal case. That's why I do not read tabloids.
 
See, this writer did not point out how Martin PRAISED MJ but LIED on the edited version. Also, that tape in 2003 did NOT prove NOTHING. Sitting by someone does NOT mean you are abusing them. In the Durst case, that guy CUT UP someone and ADMITTED he kill and even on tape admitted. Also, this is a murder case. This writer is stupid and I made sure that I pointed that out. And look, they moved the article.
 
I just run across it by mistake and I had to response and I wanted you all to know. Anyway, they got my messaged and moved it to "opinion" so even they reacted quick to this is NOT news it is an opinion. I doubt anyone care but I wanted them to know no one is stupid either who did read the story.
 
terrell;4082176 said:
See, this writer did not point out how Martin PRAISED MJ but LIED on the edited version. Also, that tape in 2003 did NOT prove NOTHING. Sitting by someone does NOT mean you are abusing them. In the Durst case, that guy CUT UP someone and ADMITTED he kill and even on tape admitted. Also, this is a murder case. This writer is stupid and I made sure that I pointed that out. And look, they moved the article.

You can also point out to her this:

Many people base their own &#8220;guilty&#8221; verdict about Michael Jackson on the fact that in the 2003 Martin Bashir interview Living with Michael Jackson Jackson talked about &#8220;sharing his bed&#8221; with children. The infamous scene featured Jackson and his later accuser Gavin Arvizo. Jackson said whenever a child wants to sleep in his bed he allows them, while he would sleep on the floor on a sleeping bag. He said sometimes he and children, like Macaulay Culkin and his brother Kieran, slept in the same bed, but he usually would sleep on the floor. Jackson also stated that he never asked children to come to his bedroom:
&#8220;[W]e have guest units, but whenever kids come here they always want to stay with me, they never want to stay in the guest rooms. And I have never invited them into my room, they always just wanna stay with me. They say, &#8216;Can I stay with you tonight?&#8217;, so I go &#8216;If it&#8217;s OK with your parents then yes you can&#8217;.&#8221; [1]
In the interview this was supported by Gavin stating that he specifically asked Jackson to be allowed in his bedroom and sleep there with his brother, Star:
&#8220;Gavin: There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in his bedroom. He let me stay in the bedroom. And I was like, &#8216;Michael you can sleep in the bed&#8217;, and he was like &#8216;No, no, you sleep on the bed&#8217;, and I was like &#8216;No, no, no, you sleep on the bed&#8217;, and then he said &#8216;Look, if you love me, you&#8217;ll sleep in the bed&#8217;. I was like &#8216;Oh mannnn?&#8221; so I finally slept on the bed. But it was fun that night. Jackson: I slept on the floor. Was it a sleeping bag? Gavin: You packed the whole mess of blankets on the floor.&#8221; [1]
(Emphasis added.) Never in the interview is it claimed that Jackson and Gavin slept in the same bed. In actuality, both state that Jackson slept on the floor and later, at the 2005 trial Gavin testified that Jackson&#8217;s friend and personal assistant Frank Cascio also slept in the room that night, as well as Gavin&#8217;s brother, Star [2]. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man Cascio recalls that it were the Arvizo children who insisted they wanted to sleep in Jackson&#8217;s bedroom despite the fact that Jackson was reluctant to let them.
&#8220;Gavin and Star kept begging, I kept saying no, and then Janet [Arvizo &#8211; the boys&#8217; mother] said to Michael, &#8220;They really want to stay with you. It&#8217;s okay with me.&#8221; Michael relented. He didn&#8217;t want to let the kids down. His heart got in the way, but he was fully aware of the risk. He said to me, &#8220;Frank, if they&#8217;re staying in my room, you&#8217;re staying with me. I don&#8217;t trust this mother. She&#8217;s ****ed up.&#8221; I was totally against it, but I said, &#8220;All right. We do what we have to do.&#8221; Having me there as a witness would safeguard Michael against any shady ideas that the Arvizos might have been harboring. Or so we were both naive enough to think.&#8221; [3; Kindle Locations 3868-3873]
Nevertheless this is the scene in the Bashir documentary that caused worldwide uproar and speculation about the nature of Jackson&#8217;s relationship with children. The picture the media painted of Jackson was of a predator who lured children in his bedroom while keeping them away from their parents. In reality, Jackson&#8217;s two-story bedroom was a gathering place for families and friends, and the parents and families of the children were allowed to stay there as well as the children.
[...]

Another person who spent time with Jackson since an early childhood was Frank Cascio. In his 2011 book entitled My Friend Michael: An Ordinary Friendship with an Extraordinary Man he too attested to the fact that the media often misrepresented this issue, which was not helped by the fact that Jackson often was misunderstood, sometimes genuinely, sometimes deliberately when he spoke about this issue in interviews. Something that Macaulay Culkin also noted in the above interview. Cascio wrote in his book:
&#8220;In Bashir&#8217;s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin&#8217;s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light. What Michael didn&#8217;t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn&#8217;t care to ask about, was that Michael&#8217;s suite at Neverland, as I&#8217;ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn&#8217;t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn&#8217;t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn&#8217;t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family. One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael&#8217;s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him. What Michael said on Bashir&#8217;s video is true. &#8220;You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I&#8217;ll sleep on the floor. It&#8217;s your&#8217;s. Always give the best to the company, you know.&#8221; Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, &#8220;Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.&#8221; The fact of the matter is, when he was &#8220;sharing&#8221; his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it&#8217;s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family. Now, I know that most grown men don&#8217;t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn&#8217;t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn&#8217;t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it&#8217;s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It&#8217;s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?
I&#8217;m quite sure that the answer is no. The bottom line: Michael&#8217;s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn&#8217;t make him a criminal. The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn&#8217;t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn&#8217;t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael&#8217;s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there&#8217;s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir&#8217;s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.&#8221; [3; Kindle Locations 3738-3771]

http://michaeljacksonallegations.co...-sharing-his-bedroom-with-unrelated-children/

You can also tell them that the reason why MJ was aquitted was not just because MJ's defense claimed they made it up for money. Of course, they made it up for money, but no one gets aquitted simply because his defense just claims something. The Arvizos story simply did not make sense, had many contradictions, discrepancies and the accuser and his family were caught in several lies. And if this author wants to talk about incriminating tapes maybe she should have better used the example of the tape that was incriminating to the Arvizos:

Jackson&#8217;s team was trying to do damage control regarding the Bashir documentary and they were working on a so called &#8220;rebuttal video&#8221; which was released on February 20, 2003 as Michael Jackson, Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant To See. This documentary features footage made by Jackson&#8217;s own cameraman Hamid Moslehi during the shooting of the Bashir documentary and it features material that Bashir deliberately omitted, shows his manipulation of Jackson and also features interviews with other people, for example with Jackson&#8217;s ex-wife, Debbie Rowe. Initially the Arvizos would have been featured in this documentary as well, but at the end their segment was not included. However, the footage that was made for this documentary with the Arvizo family was shot early in that morning (on February 20) and later found by the prosecution when they searched Moslehi&#8217;s home during the Jackson investigation. As a result the Arvizos, &#8211; with the prosecution&#8217;s assistance &#8211; were forced to change their initial timeline of the allegations. Initially the Arvizos claimed the molestation started as soon as they returned from Miami with Jackson, on February 7. Their segment of the &#8220;rebuttal video&#8221; however was shot on February 20. In it they are seen laughing and joking, happily praising Michael Jackson. They also express their displeasure with Martin Bashir. In the hindsight they tried to claim they were under duress, but behind the scenes footage showed them not only laughing and joking, but even making suggestions themselves about what they wanted to do on film. They certainly do not seem to be forced or under duress by any means. The resulting timeline change was not just a minor correction. It significantly changed the narrative of the Arvizo&#8217;s initial story as we will discuss later in this article.
The Arvizo segment from the so called &#8220;rebuttal video&#8221; which eventually was not used in the Take Two documentary, but later became significant at Jackson&#8217;s trial:

[video=youtube;Bez7QCXJJV4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez7QCXJJV4[/video]

Behind the scenes footage shows the family laughing and joking:

[video=youtube;xUlDSoPzLLs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUlDSoPzLLs[/video]

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/a-general-outline-of-the-events-leading-up-to-the-allegations/

 
^^This writer won't care about or read your rebuttal. She's stretching as is and is just another typical "wanna be writer" that puts Michael's name in the headline (and sometimes the story)to get clicks. This fairly new website puts out about three or four Michael Jackson stories a week now.

It's really disgusting how just his name gets readers-most of the time the stories don't even have anything to do with him.


(It also proves to me that Michael is as popular as ever, since just his NAME gets readers from all over the world).
 
Last edited:
And that is why fans should not feed this and give them any clicks or attention about it.
 
And that is why fans should not feed this and give them any clicks or attention about it.

Thanks. I just came upon the story that day and I did response and I notice they changed the topic. I email them. Anyway, I showed how stupid that writer was to make such comparison. As long as they know people who did read it is not stupid and know what they are trying to do
 
Thanks. I just came upon the story that day and I did response and I notice they changed the topic. I email them. Anyway, I showed how stupid that writer was to make such comparison. As long as they know people who did read it is not stupid and know what they are trying to do
Good for you and good about letting everybody know so 1)we know what's being printed out there and 2)we are informed and won't inadvertently click it on ourselves.

I don't know who the inquisitir is, where they suddenly came from, or if they are just an old tabloid with a new name. But a couple of Michael stories from them hit my google alerts every week.
 
Back
Top