Gavin & Star Arvizo attends wedding between Ron Zonen and Louise Palanker

[bluetopez]

Well, they think that changing their names they can hide I guess from fans and threats? But, they look exactly the same just older so many will still recognized them. Same with Jordan Cahndler, if some ever see him on the street they would recognize him too. I sure the Arviso boys would say they took their Step dads last name who's name is Jay Jackson.

But, reguardless it's still creepy because it's the same last name as Michael's. So why would they want to have the same last name as the person they claimed hurt their family?! Their so fake. I mean it's crazy look at Janet Arviso because she married her new Husband before the trial she became is Janet Jackson. SMH I remember when she wanted the court to address her as that! ROTFL Their all now Jacksons...a dream come true I'm sure. :crazy

 

[HIStory]

Interview with Ron Zonen in April, 2011:

http://sb-justbetweenus.com/archives/tag/jesse-james-hollywood

Can you believe this person? His appeals to emotions by claiming Gavin is such a "good, Christian boy". Makes me want to puke. And he would try the Jackson case differently? LOL. Like how? With a little less obvious lies? I mean how could they claim with a straight face that Michael started molesting Gavin while the whole world was watching after the Bashir interview?

Thing is, when one doesn't have a case then he doesn't have a case, no matter how he tries it. A lie is just that: a lie! In the MJ case the prosecution was given every advantage imaginable (sometimes even violating Michael's constitutional rights), they had a conservative jury with no black juror but with plenty of Hispanics (the accuser was Hispanic), but they still could not get any guilty verdicts out of the 14 charges! Zonen should try to live with that!

I watched it again now and it makes my blood boil so I need to rant. Kudos to the lady for saying she believes MJ was innocent, but too bad people don't know all the facts of the trial so she couldn't call out Zonen on his BS! I guess the main audience of this podcast is Santa Barbara residents which is a conservative area, so Zonen knows how to pull the strings of those conservative, probably predominantly Republican people. "Oh, this boy is such a good, wholesome, Christian boy. A registered Republican too." uke:

Of course, he won't tell that this good, wholesome Christian-Republican boy got caught stealing from JC Penney, lied under oath, talked back to teachers and so on. Of course he won't talk about the FACTS of the trial starting with the idiotic timeline according to which Michael started to molest Gavin while the whole world was watching! What a fake this Zonen is! But the bottom line is Gavin is a good, wholesome, Christian boy and a registered Republican, so he can be trusted, right? Unlike that weird, eccentric guy. After all plastic surgery alone proves he must be a criminal.

I still cannot decide whether Zonen is this stupid that he cannot see through the obvious BS of the Arvizos or this hellbent to destroy MJ? Probably both?

And it shows the kind of "values" Zonen (and probably Sneddon) has if he thinks saying Gavin is a "registered Republican" adds to his credibility and to his "goodness" and "wholesomeness".

I don't think Michael was off with his portrayal of Sneddon in "Ghosts" as the white bigoted, prejudiced Republican whom no one likes (Stan Wilson gave that description of the Mayor in the Making of). I really think this kind of bigotry and prejudice played a big part in their persecution of Michael who didn't fit in their mould with his "eccentricities". So he must be a criminal according to their bigoted way of thinking. They are nothing but a bunch of 21st century witch hunters!

Oh and what business this guy has to declare Michael's marriage with LMP a "sham"? Because some Neverland employee told him they never slept in the same room. Well, he forgot to add that the Neverland employee in question was one of the Neverland Five, part of the group of ex-employees with an axe to grind against Michael, who sold such stories to tabloids for money and who were utterly discredited on the stand! He's like some tabloid junkie, not a serious prosecutor.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^ I just clicked on the link, but it doesn't work on my computer for some reason. Maybe just as well, as your rant gives me a good idea what f*ckery to expect. Loved the registered republican bit as proof of a good character. Didn't sneddon make much play on jfrancia being a youth pastor during the triall, but in fact it was only a part time thing. It's just what they do - trial by innuendo, prejudice and ad hominem attacks. The attempts to try and portray mj as gay were esp disturbing - trying to imply a connection between homosexuality and peodophila.

Re zonen's motives, i imagine it's self-preservation - his career is invested in that trial, if it was shown it was malicious prosecution he would be in the firing line with sneddon.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

^ I just clicked on the link, but it doesn't work on my computer for some reason. Maybe just as well, as your rant gives me a good idea what f*ckery to expect. Loved the registered republican bit as proof of a good character.
...

Shocker, huh?

Didn't sneddon make much play on jfrancia being a youth pastor during the triall, but in fact it was only a part time thing. It's just what they do - trial by innuendo, prejudice and ad hominem attacks. The attempts to try and portray mj as gay were esp disturbing - trying to imply a connection between homosexuality and peodophila.

Re zonen's motives, i imagine it's self-preservation - his career is invested in that trial, if it was shown it was malicious prosecution he would be in the firing line with sneddon.

That was done for a loooong time. When 'gay' didn't work anymore to turn a gradually more open minded public against Michael, it was stepped up to "pe*oph*le" trying to get the job done, employing whatever deeply buried stereotypes people exhibit.

You think it's a surprise Michael got persecuted?
Michael was a high profile US American who went abroad and said in public speeches in front of the head of state (in Germany for example- and that head of state btw was very much Bush aligned back in the day...don't remind her now...)
"we don't need to have war." Yeah, I remember the look on the faces of some of these politicians.
The backlash that Michael received in Berlin for example was only partially related to the whole Blanket thing. A big amount of press were the kind that were 'punishing' Michael for his "naive and delusional" stances on Peace and War. Believe it or not.

What are the main impulses you hear about MJ, when comparing the US and Europe, for example? What is the media trying to imply that Michael is all about?
US: "Off The Wall, Thriller and 2005 trial."
It's amazing to hear the majority of US media being focused on OTW and Thriller- that's his 'job' apparently. Be harmless and sing a harmless danceable tune. Don't be the black guy from Indiana who doesn't 'know his place'.

 

[HIStory]

^ I just clicked on the link, but it doesn't work on my computer for some reason.

It doesn't work when you click on the video, but you can download it clicking on "Download" in the left bottom corner. The whole interview is not about Michael, he is only mentioned towards the end.

Maybe just as well, as your rant gives me a good idea what f*ckery to expect. Loved the registered republican bit as proof of a good character. Didn't sneddon make much play on jfrancia being a youth pastor during the triall, but in fact it was only a part time thing. It's just what they do - trial by innuendo, prejudice and ad hominem attacks. The attempts to try and portray mj as gay were esp disturbing - trying to imply a connection between homosexuality and peodophila.

Another give-away about their bigotry was that they called homosexuality "sodomy" in court. And yeah, the youth pastor thing about Jason Francia. Also the media mentioned it like in every second sentence reporting about his testimony as if that alone would make him credible. Unfortunately I can imagine that in the US that actually works with many people.

As for what they were trying to imply about Michael's sexuality I'm not sure (other than, of course, they were trying to imply he was a pedophile). They dangled around those couple of innocent nude art books as if they proved something but I guess they must have been pretty disappointed by the fact that all of Michael's porn was heterosexual. They actually spent days with showing his porn magazines one by one on a screen in the courtroom. Until this day I don't know what was the point. I understand that they claimed Michael showed such magazines to Gavin but they weren't just showing the ones he allegedly showed them but basically the whole collection. Magazines with dates like August, September 2003 - dates long after the Arvizos left. They even had fingerprint experts testify about them: "yes, this magazine titled Girlfriends, published in September 2003 had the defendant's fingerprints on it". SO WHAT?! Are we in the Middle Ages? So I guess the only goal was if they could not get Michael convicted at least they would try to humiliate him in public as much as they could because I don't see otherwise what was the point. And to make at least the prude part of America condemn him. "This guy had porn, so he must be a sexual pervert, right?" :smilerolleyes:

 

[HIStory]

You think it's a surprise Michael got persecuted?
Michael was a high profile US American who went abroad and said in public speeches in front of the head of state (in Germany for example- and that head of state btw was very much Bush aligned back in the day...don't remind her now...)
"we don't need to have war." Yeah, I remember the look on the faces of some of these politicians.
The backlash that Michael received in Berlin for example was only partially related to the whole Blanket thing. A big amount of press were the kind that were 'punishing' Michael for his "naive and delusional" stances on Peace and War. Believe it or not.

What are the main impulses you hear about MJ, when comparing the US and Europe, for example? What is the media trying to imply that Michael is all about?
US: "Off The Wall, Thriller and 2005 trial."
It's amazing to hear the majority of US media being focused on OTW and Thriller- that's his 'job' apparently. Be harmless and sing a harmless danceable tune. Don't be the black guy from Indiana who doesn't 'know his place'.

That's interesting about war. I have always wondered if it was a mere coincidence that the Bashir documentary aired and the whole case started around the time when the US was preparing for the invasion of Iraq and while eventually the invasion happened? Whether the whole MJ thing was thrown in as a distraction for the masses.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the US media wanting Michael "back in his place" which is according to them singing harmless R&B songs rather than any protest songs. Just look at what happened TDCAU in the US! It was dragged into an artificial "controversy" so that people would not listen to its real message. You have to have the comprehensive skills of 2 year old to deem that song anti-semitic...
And Earth Song wasn't even released in the US, while it was a huge hit everywhere else.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

That's interesting about war. I have always wondered if it was a mere coincidence that the Bashir documentary aired and the whole case started around the time when the US was preparing for the invasion of Iraq and while eventually the invasion happened? Whether the whole MJ thing was thrown in as a distraction for the masses.

Oh yeah, those were some fascinating years in terms of public hysteria, I remember. I remember traveling to the US pre 9/11 and I remember traveling post 9/11- one time the entire plane was made to exit in the US with their passport in their hands- held above your head! We were walking past a 'greeting line' of automatic weapons!
In that time the media was just absolutely hysterical about anything and anybody. If you even DARED to disagree with public policy you were literally lynch mobbed in the media, disgusting.

And MJ was the perfect excuse to 'legitimately' beat up on someone, displaying their own perceived "moral superiority" without having to talk about warwarwar.
"What More Can I give"? I lived here in the US and barely heard about it. If your 'patriotic sentiments' didn't serve anyone- don't expect to hear it.

I'm wondering if someone already went to great length and FOIAed ("Freedom of Information Act) for Michael's FBI record? 'Course Michael has a record from here to Mars, all the head of states he met. I just remember the blip in the media that his records were free of 'tarnishing', but didn't hear much else about it, I'm sure someone has copies somewhere.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the US media wanting Michael "back in his place" which is according to them singing harmless R&B songs rather than any protest songs. Just look at what happened TDCAU in the US! It was dragged into an artificial "controversy" so that people would not listen to its real message. You have to have the comprehensive skills of 2 year old to deem that song anti-semitic...
And Earth Song wasn't even released in the US, while it was a huge hit everywhere else.

The US media very much works that way. Take a statement and turn it into some hype that everyone and their mother gets excited about. That's how Comedy Central took off in the US- create 'fake news' report that play with that principle.

If you look at US campaigning strategies right now- one candidate referred to Obama as "snob" since he apparently said that parents would hope their child is able to access higher education- so one candidate turned that statement around and lambasts it a 'elitist snobbish' stuff. Actually, Obama is constantly reffered to as "Nazi camp" organizer in certain circles. Being called "commie" or alternatively "Nazi" has a very long tradition.
"Sexual" stuff is also very popular in politics to kick people off etc- think back to Clinton and how millions of taxpayer dollars got wasted.
It kind of leads into uncomfortable aread for many MJ fans since MJ himself wanted to be universal and his message to be a universal one- yet it is no coincidence that this fake thing went to trial in the timeframe it happened.

I don't think the whole TDCAU thing was a controversy anywhere BUT the US- and I bought my HIStory tapes in GERMANY of all places- and I remember buying the early uncensored tapes. (I bought tapes back then)
But I remember the TDCAU prison version being played 3 times an hour... when apparently that thing didn't see much of US airtime, huh? Couple of cops beating up black men and the KKK in it probably would have made people wonder how MJ of all people was the supposed 'antisemite'.

I don't remember the youth magazines talking much about that. I didn't even see that Diane Sawyer (God, that woman has some "nerve"- the whole antisemitic BS coupled with "I didn't become a journalist to ask these kinds of questions- and then plays a clip of random Joe's asking 'these questions- yeah, love the 'morality' on TV *barf*)clip until the youtube era.

Apparently the entire world was capable of understanding that phrase as "you are making me the scapegoat"- the whole world except for a few journalists in the US- and I wished he had said that outright into their faces.

Propaganda is an incredibly strong method to this day.

 

[HIStory]

^^ Here are Michael's FBI files those were released: http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson

Most of it deal with the allegations. Lots of tabloid articles cut off. :smilerolleyes: You can also find the FBI's reports on the examination of Michael's computers in them that I mentioned in the other thread (all came back with the remark "Nothing"). It's in these files where you can read about the prosecution meeting with Jordan in New York in 2004 trying to get him testify against Michael but he refused and even told them he would take legal action if they tried to force him. There's also an interesting bit about how Sneddon tried to investigate Michael under the Mann Act:

The Mann Act actually is a racist law originally and it was first used for the persecution of black heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson: http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/mann.html

Other famous people were also investigated under the Mann Act:

In 1944, actor Charlie Chaplin was acquitted of a Mann Act indictment stemming from a paternity suit. In actuality, the case was motivated by Chaplin's left-of-center political views and was personally instigated by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had called Chaplin one of Hollywood's "parlor Bolsheviki." In 1959, black rock 'n roll star Chuck Berry was convicted of violating the Mann Act and served 20 months in prison for transporting across state lines an underage Apache girl who was weeks later arrested on a prostitution charge.

Other than the allegations I think there's some stuff about some crazy guy who made death threats against Michael and Janet and who was eventually jailed. No mention of his relationship with heads of states but it's not his full files those were released. Those which are deemed sensitive were held back, so perhaps that's where we could read about his political and business relationships.

I agree with you, to me the US public seems very easily manipulated by the media. Obviously not everybody but the majority of people. If the media says TDCAU is anti-semitic then they must be right and people don't even think it over for themselves...

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

^^ Here are Michael's FBI files those were released: http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael Jackson

Most of it deal with the allegations. Lots of tabloid articles cut off. :smilerolleyes: You can also find the FBI's reports on the examination of Michael's computers in them that I mentioned in the other thread (all came back with the remark "Nothing"). It's in these files where you can read about the prosecution meeting with Jordan in New York in 2004 trying to get him testify against Michael but he refused and even told them he would take legal action if they tried to force him. There's also an interesting bit about how Sneddon tried to investigate Michael under the Mann Act:

The Mann Act actually is a racist law originally and it was first used for the persecution of black heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson: http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/mann.html

Other than the allegations I think there's some stuff about some crazy guy who made death threats against Michael and Janet and who was eventually jailed. No mention of his relationship with heads of states but it's not his full files those were released. Those which are deemed sensitive were held back, so perhaps that's where we could read about his political and business relationships.

I agree with you, to me the US public seems very easily manipulated by the media. Obviously not everybody but the majority of people. If the media says TDCAU is anti-semitic then they must be right and people don't even think it over for themselves...

Shocker, incomplete files... :smilerolleyes:

I remember trying to track down the exact art book that was one of the books that was confiscated in that "let's persecute a man over his art books" search. I remember reading the results of that search warrant on Smoking Gun, I believe- and wouldn't you know, the really interesting bits are OF COURSE all blacked out. I mean, you KNOW something isn't right when you can pretty much read every bit of porn that Michael owned- but you can't know about all his art books??????? I mean, really?


I remember there was talk about one book by one German-Jewish artist (SHOCKER!) that was confiscated- by an artist who had been already persecuted under the Nazis. I recall reading even the motion (letter?) that Thomas Mesereau had filed/written describing that's it's been quite a while since a man was persecuted for his art books... But for the life of me I have not been able to track down the precise name of the specific book and its author. Bummer. I would LOVE to add that to my video.
All search warrants had it somehow blacked out and it might fall under attorney-client privilege if I were to ask Mr. Mesereau personally.




_______________________________________________
And back to the whole "I can't chose my victims" BS by Sneddon? I think Sneddon was VERY HAPPY that he had Hispanics accusing Michael- another minority. I mean, seriously, how much 'accidental' stuff am I supposed to believe??
I remember lots of clips that I watched fairly recently- what is that "MJ defense is expected to pull the race card should their case get desperate" - which is would be funny, if it wasn't so sad since it was Mesereau who said clearly that he's not going there and never intended to go there- but if he was personally asked, he did have things to say on that.

"See, I'm not the racist fool you think I am." Sneddon knew that "my gardener is Hispanic" wouldn't be enough to literally whitewash him from the stench of racism and personal vendetta.
Insidious. That with the Mann act- I mean, seriously?
The whole strip search is nothing but a modern day repeat of "the negro rape problem"- google that, make sure you don't vomit- and then you understand the historical irony when the strip search did not help Sneddon's case.

Sometimes I want to barf and cry at the same time. So obvious what was done, so obvious.

 

[bluetopez]

MJ was a cover up in the news for alot that was really going on in 93 and in 2003. Catholic priest scandal, war, racism, NAMBLA and so on. We'll Be here forever!

 

[analogue]

The media definatly wanted Michael to only sing harmless dance/love songs. You Are Not Alone is a perfect example of this cause it's the harmless love song on the HIStory album and the one song on the album that the media praises the most/bashes the least.

 

[HIStory]

For those who couldn't watch the Ron Zonen interview by the link I gave. This is the MJ part:

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^Thanks for posting, i'll watch it.

As for what they were trying to imply about Michael's sexuality I'm not sure (other than, of course, they were trying to imply he was a pedophile). They dangled around those couple of innocent nude art books as if they proved something but I guess they must have been pretty disappointed by the fact that all of Michael's porn was heterosexual.

The pros made allusions to mj being gay (even though sneddon's rather thorough strip search must have proved to them that he wasn't). They asked questions of the house servants whether mj had women visitors to his bedroom and ridiculed mj when it turned out he wasn't a tiger woods, and they made much of a gay sex book they discovered amongst mj's 10,000 library which i believe was an antiquarian book. They showed it to wade robson on his x-examination and asked him if he would have been happy sleeping in the same room as mj if he knew that mj owned a book like that. It was just v v unpleasant tactics.

I think the porn (what pattern were they establishing here? - noone apart from gavin and star mentioned anything about mj having porn, not jordanchandler, nor the tickled guy) and the finances were purely introduced to humiliate and try to degrade mj in the eyes of the public. Why the judge allowed the introduction of mj's finances (mj rightly always seemed v protective of his financial situation) i'll never know. I just feel the whole trial was designed to destroy mj financially, physically, emotionally - i think to them the fact mj got 14 not guiltys didn't necessarily mean that they had failed in their mission - it was almost a means to an end.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

I think the porn introduced in that sham of a trial served a number of purposes.

- Jury members were largely female, if I remember correctly. So what was the point of that porn obsession? In the minds of the prosecution (gosh, all this %^&* reflects so much on the state of mind of these men gone beserk) women hate porn. I think the goal was to make the jury as 'uncomfortable' as possible to turn them against Michael, any way possible. Didn't quite work... judging by one comment there. "my Michael".

-play on the general conservative hysteria there. Never mind that California is something like the porn production capital of the world- but hey, hypocrisy is nothing new. It's actually hilarious that LAW MAKERS in California deal with actual porn legistation- and California DAs don't shy away from porn, you see. *sarcasm*

-I recall reading the results of the search warrants and the prosecution tried to make a huge point out of every found item of porn as "grooming material"- they listed virtually every piece as being used as "could be used to groom potential victims".

Thankfully none of those 'techniques' to throw hot air dirt at Michael worked- it merely illustrated to the jury that the persecution had NOTHING on Michael and made themselves look like fools.
Nobody understood either why the persecution insisted on 'gayness' when they made people stare at LEGAL heterosexual porn all day long?? Don't ask for logic, there wasn't any.

Wasn't it reported that the 'porn' day was the only day that Katherine Jackson excused herself from court? I can understand that, just shows you how non-existent the prosecution's case was.
Just like the hot air ballon, "no clocks on Neverland".

Somebody should send Sneddon mouth wash, toothpaste, nail cutter and a comb so that he gets the meaning of "grooming".

 

[HIStory]

Don't forget they also kept calling homosexuality pejoratively "sodomy" in court! The book Bonnie Blue mentioned was called a book about "sodomy". That again shows the mind set of the prosecution and where their bias is coming from. Conservative hysteria indeed. (But I'd like to see what they are hiding under their beds...)

I just read this on Mesereau's website yesterday. He too didn't know where the prosecution was trying to go regarding MJ's sexuality:

They did this through the types of questions they asked throughout the trial. They would make references and ask questions suggesting that he was asexual, homosexual, effeminate, slept with “little boys” and other similar things. I doubt they ever really knew what they were trying to prove in this regard except that they were trying to prejudice the jury against his sexuality. It was bigoted, mean-spirited, unprofessional and ultimately counter-productive.

http://www.mesereauyu.com/random-thoughts-on-trial-practice-by-thomas-a-mesereau-jr

I also like the things he says about the jury selection:

During jury selection, a black female appeared on the initial panel. The prosecutor exercised a preemptory challenge and promptly removed her. I made a constitutional challenge at side-bar that was denied by the trial judge. To my surprise, a second African-American woman appeared on the panel. The prosecutors promptly removed her and I made the same fruitless constitutional objection at side-bar.

One of the intuitive challenges facing a trial lawyer is to determine what the other side is thinking. This begins as soon as you enter a case. During jury selection, I was always trying to fathom what the prosecution’s strategies were. Race was a major issue in this regard. How so?

As you all know, a trial lawyer has a certain number of preemptory challenges with which to remove jurors. No reason need be given unless your removal is challenged on constitutional grounds. Other jurors can be removed “for cause” if the judge determines they cannot be fair and impartial. There is no limitation on removing jurors for cause, but you need the judge’s approval to do so.

One exercises preemptory challenges with many factors in mind, including what you think the other side is trying to accomplish. In Jackson, the prosecution quickly began to “accept the panel,” meaning they were willing to utilize the jurors in the box as the trial jury. I believed they were doing this for strategic reasons. They thought that I would not accept the panel so early and they were, in effect, banking their challenges. They knew that a young African-American male was coming up through the ranks and could statistically make it to the final jury. In my opinion, they thought I was desperate to have a black juror and that I would do anything to see this happen. They hoped to bank their challenges and eventually “run a table” on me and remove many jurors that they probably did not care for.

This conclusion was strictly intuitive. I looked to the other side and saw three white male prosecutors and their white male jury consultant. The jury consultant was named Varinsky. He had been a consultant for the prosecution in three high-profile trials where convictions were obtained: Timothy McVeigh (who received the death penalty), Martha Stewart and Scott Peterson (who also received the death penalty). I watched these prosecutors and their consultant as they huddled and conversed. I believed they thought this case was indefensible and that my only hope was a hung jury. They believed I would do anything to obtain a single black juror to hang the case. I believed they were engaged in stereotypical, simplistic thinking about race and were willing to temporarily accept jurors while they banked their challenges for the future. They thought I would never accept any panel if there was any potential for an African-American juror.

I concluded they also believed that, even if I wanted to accept a panel before this black male appeared, the Jackson family would not permit it. Well, I shocked them when I accepted the panel with five preemptory challenges remaining. I saw their jaws drop. I believe the final jury had people they did not particularly want and that their strategy had backfired.

Consider one juror: He was a young, white disabled man in a wheelchair. His attitude and politics appeared very conservative; but remember, they were viciously attacking Michael Jackson’s make-up, skin and other things about his appearance. Who knows discrimination better than a young disabled person? Who is more likely to dislike these kinds of personal attacks than someone who is disabled?

During the trial, the prosecution schooled some of their witnesses to discuss Michael Jackson’s make-up and appearance. Michael Jackson suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo. This disease destroys skin pigment. One day Michael showed me his back by lifting his shirt. His skin is brown with white patches. He looks like a cow. He is very self-conscious of similar skin conditions on his face and this is why he applies make-up. You also see his security guards use an umbrella because his skin cannot accept sunlight.

I knew that the prosecutors were going to exploit his appearance. I also believed a young disabled man would take considerable dislike to this. It is difficult for me to believe that they wanted this kind of person on the jury. I think their gamble backfired in the way they attempted to bank their preemptory challenges.

This was a five-month trial. Not one juror was removed. Clearly these jurors wanted to remain on this panel and took their job very seriously. My instincts during jury selection were very important to our victory.

I love the fact that it was a very conservative jury, with no African-American, but plenty of Hispanic jurors (and the accusers were Hispanic), yet they came back with an unanimous "not guilty" verdict all 14 times! Total defeat for Sneddon!

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Pace - Actually i think tmez managed to strike the word porn from the courtroom - it was referred to as adult material! Oh i'm glad mrs j wasn't in court that day - i just can't imagine the sheer embarrassment felt by mj of your girly collection being shown on a big screen with your mother sitting behind you, never mind the world's media.

MJ's 'adult material' collection reminds me of that video from the early 70s of the jackon 5 relaxing between concerts and mj having a good old eyefull of one of his brother's playboys, he says approvingly 'big butts'.

Respect - interesting about the jury selection. I think tmez always felt that mj transcended race, but i must admit that there were influences around mj eg his family, jesse jackson, who were not convinced of that. MJ seemed very well liked in his neighbourhood. I read on another forum the experiences of some fans who visited san olives(spelling?) last year i think, and in all the shops, the inhabitants only had nice things to say about him - race played no part in how they viewed him.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Pace - Actually i think tmez managed to strike the word porn from the courtroom - it was referred to as adult material! ...

Oh, I know.
Can you imagine an entire courtroom repeating all day "porn porn porn"- It would have looked like Monthy Python. "Spam, spam spam. "

He also referred to that stuff as "girly magazines" on TV- which I thought was hilarious. If the prosecution plays the 'sodomy' word game- then Mr. Mesereau can do that way better- and he did.

"Girly magazine" sounds 'latest fashions'. And that was awesome in the language department.

 

[analogue]

I really think a law should be introduced where if someone accuses someone of a crime they didn't commit then they should be thrown in jail. I strongly believe that accusing an innocent person of a serious crime they didn't commit should be a crime in itself.

 

[HIStory]

I really think a law should be introduced where if someone accuses someone of a crime they didn't commit then they should be thrown in jail. I strongly believe that accusing an innocent person of a serious crime they didn't commit should be a crime in itself.

I agree. Falsely accusing someone with a crime is a serious crime. It can ruin lives and kill people - the false allegations contributed to Michael's death as well. Those who falsely accused him are criminals.

I have also read somewhere about 40% of child molestation allegations in the US are false. But people like to use it as a weapon against someone who they want to smear, because it's such a "deadly" weapon. Especially mothers against fathers in custody battles. People simply tend to stand on the side of a "poor, abused child" automatically on emotional grounds, without knowing all the facts. Even if at the end it turns out the allegation has been false, the damage is done: the stigma is hard to be washed off. And the victim of the false allegations often cannot sue, since the mother (or any adult training the child) can hide behind the claim: it's what I was told by my child, if it's not true I can't help it. And of course a child cannot be held accountable. So it's a perfect way to smear someone. But it should be stopped - in a way that it wouldn't discourage real victims to come forward. But too many lives are ruined by false allegations too, but no one seems to care about that, since it's easier for people to feel for a child, than for an adult (usually male).

 

[teli-mj]

I really think a law should be introduced where if someone accuses someone of a crime they didn't commit then they should be thrown in jail. I strongly believe that accusing an innocent person of a serious crime they didn't commit should be a crime in itself.

I totally agree with this and i still don't understand why the Arvizos weren't prosecuted for anything regarding that trial. They were caught lying on court, isn't that an offense? I'm not familiar with the legal stuff though so i may be wrong.

 

[Bonnie Blue]

^^ Mj would have had to instigate a malicious prosecution case against the arvizos. There was no way after that 05 trial he was emotionally, physically or financially able to do that. He left the usa a couple of days after the verdict i think. Tmez said he gave mj advice to leave santa barbara as he believed that mj would never get a moment's peace from sneddon. Imagine, mj virtually made an asylum seeker from the usa?

Respect - i watched the video, never seen zonen talking before. Yes, alot of emphasis on the arvizo boys being v conservative and republican. He was talking to 2 well to do whites, presumably from santa barbara area, so he was clearly trying to appeal to what he perceived to be their prejudices, whilst in the process revealing his own. Didn't the boys act like punks on the stand in the grand jury and trial, full of little wisecracks and smart alec remarks - must have had a personality transplant. Irked no end by his claim that the payouts mj gave to jchandler and jason ended their involvement in the criminal investigation when he knows it did nothing of the sort. Such a glaring mistake for a lawyer to make - and just adds to my shedload of suspicions over their conduct of the mj case.

 

[jaydom7]

Every last single one of them will rot in the depths of hell.. They know what they did was wrong and the Arvizos know they lied on MJ. I just hope and pray they will get their's in my life time.

 

[8701girl]

I totally agree with this and i still don't understand why the Arvizos weren't prosecuted for anything regarding that trial. They were caught lying on court, isn't that an offense? I'm not familiar with the legal stuff though so i may be wrong.

I think sneddon will try to put a stop any prosecution against the arvizos cuz he knows all his lies will come out

 

[bluetopez]

I saw that damn Zonen video. That dude is an amazing bullsh*tter and hater! Did he really say NL staff told him about MJ marriages being scams? lmao. First off I think it's funny that he actaully believe those were the only women that MJ could have possibly had anything with or had to have sex in his bedroom only to be considered even real. And second there were a few of the NL staff that sued MJ and lost the case and admitted they lied under oath aswell and sold stories to tabloids. Clearly he is speakin about these people. Yet, they were other staff who did say postive things about MJ and Lisa Marie but, ofcourse Zonen would never mention them now would he?

Also the settlements never stopped any criminal prosecution because MJ was still under investigation even after the settlements. But, they always knew either way that Jordan Chandler was never gonna testify against MJ. That is something that Ray Chandler admitted to in his own book. They just wanted Money. That's why the went after MJ civilly! But, once MJ insurance stepped in they settled out of court for negligence only!

It creeps the hell out of me how Zonen sits there and talk about Gavin as if he is just the perfect guy in the world. It's clear to me the Arviso's are being looked after my Zonen and Co. helping them have the life they so badly wanted MJ to give them. Both Gavin and Starr poor asses got to go to college and all! Even got to go to Zonen's wedding along with the bitch Dimond. :crazy All of them are PATHETIC & SICK!

 

[HIStory]

^^ Zonen is simply pathetic. Instead of talking about the facts of the trial, he's just trying to appeal to the emotions of a probably mainly conservative audience. And the LMP thing wasn't the only thing in which the prosecution put a little too much trust into tabloid information. They brought up stories in court which came from Victor Gutierrez's book, even though that book was discredited even by the Chandlers. Yes, the source of this claim about LMP and Michael is a woman from the Neverland 5 (not one who testified, but this woman was on TV in the 90s telling this story) - the Neverland 5 who went to tabloids to sell stories about Michael and who were throughly discredited in court. Michael and Lisa didn't spend most of their time in Neverland while they were married. They lived in Lisa's house in LA. So how would a Neverland employee know anything about their marriage? And why should we take the words of this Neverland employee over the words of LMP's and Michael's - the two people who were involved? And even if it would be true (and it isn't) it has nothing to do with whether Michael was a child molester. Zonen is tabloid and the fact he brings something like this up as a defense for his "case" (plus that Gavin is "such a good boy") just shows he didn't have a case in first place and he cannot argue for it by relevant facts, just by appeals to emotions and prejudices.

 

[Erikmjfan]

Regarding the politics, Zonen is an ulta-liberal zionst jew. Dont blame conservatives like me for him....

 

[AliCat]

If Ron Zonen believes that there is a pattern that Michael did, in molesting children, he has never, ever proved it. Ron Zonen wants you to believe that he isn't at fault when he prosecuted Michael and the JURY found Michael innocent. Michael defended CHILDREN till the day he died!

 

[sweet princess]

These people are..:crazy They need to be put in a mental ward..

seeing them makes me :mat::angry::banghead

 

[Bonnie Blue]

Regarding the politics, Zonen is an ulta-liberal zionst jew. Dont blame conservatives like me for him....

That's interesting, didn't know his background. I think the main issue was that he and sneddon were trying to play on what they felt would be the mindset of the conservative santa maria jury which backfired as by all accounts they lost the jury early on in the trial.

 

[HIStory]

Regarding the politics, Zonen is an ulta-liberal zionst jew. Dont blame conservatives like me for him....

Do you have a source for this information or is it just your opinion? From all their behaviour in court and during the MJ case I'd be most surprised if he'd be "ultra-liberal".