Debates with the public

[Bad7]

I've always found this interesting, why should it have taken him hours to describe the body of someone he'd supposedly seen naked multiple times in an intimate setting? What about all the other markings he described, why weren't they mentioned again? Did they not match? I suspect that the vague statement about Jordan describing a marking that was 'about the same relative location' as the pictures showed was meant to be vague because technically it could have been true. If any of us on here were to make guesses about markings on MJ's penis I'll bet we'd be able to do the same thing and also guess the position of a marking at 'about the same relative location' also. It doesn't prove anything happened with him and MJ because it's something can can also be guessed, therefore it was certainly not the only way to get this result. People would also have to believe that Jordan only ever saw MJ in an erect state and also did not physically feel a difference regarding foreskin. Then of course there's the fact that the authorities aren't in a agreement about what colour this marking even was. All of these things are perfectly valid reasons to dismiss the claim that this was somehow a perfect match as haters so often love to claim.

Respect77 made a great point about people's complaints about bias too, they don't seem to even think about the fact that information coming from the prosecution could possibly be biased but don't have any issue with saying the defense or any fans are biased. Just because authorities are meant to do the right thing that does not mean that they will and placing blind faith in anyone or anything is not something I would recommend. People are showing their own biases in that situation and they're incorrectly assuming that you can't get factual information from any source that has bias. That's not necessarily true and if a person knows what questions to ask and how to think and read information for themselves then it shouldn't really be that much of a problem to begin with.

Well, Ray said it took hours to describe something that Larry Feldman could understand which sounds, well, odd. It's so very odd how the description suddenly changed drastically.

Well the whole 'marking at about the same relative location' can mean just about anything. It's so vague. Like how big is this marking? Besides, given Ray says Jordan saw MJ from every possible angle it should of been in the exact location. More so than anything, Dr. Strick totally contradicts Jordan's description.

Agreed about the biased thing. Sneddon saying it matched = (to haters) the truth. Yet what if Sneddon had never said a word about any match between 1993 and 2005. However, let's say Johnnie Cochran declared 'there was no match'. Would haters accept that? No. They'd say 'he would say that'.

What they ignore is, it wasn't up to Sneddon to declare a match. If he was so confident it matched, why on earth would he of left the most vital prior bad acts evidence until the trial was nearly over to admit?

Also, Jordan refusing to testify meant that it went against MJ's amendment rights. However, there was a simple way around it. Put Dr. Strick on the witness stand. Why on earth would you not do that if the description matched?

Even more ridiculous is why during the 1994 grand juries the evidence that would of been damning against MJ was never used. The description and Dr. Strick was all that was needed given Jordan refused to play a part. This would of been far more convincing than whatever he showed those two grand juries.

It's so simple, yet Sneddon never did it. One can only wonder why...

Edit: Sneddon knew that MJ would fight all he could to never have those photographs shown in court. Haters take this as 'why would an innocent man be so set against it, when he could show his innocence from the 1993 case?'. Yes, why would a man not want photographs of his genitalia to be shown? The only answer must be guilt. /s It would of been embarrassing enough. Then you had vitiligo on top of it, ffs.

Sneddon knew how upset and angry he got during the photographs being taken in 1993 and used that against him. Dirty Diane's book has the statement Strick gave regarding the delay in the photographs being taken and the procedure of taking them. It was an awful experience and he was shown very little sympathy.

I even see haters say MJ wanting the photographs returned to him after the trial adds to his guilt. Just wtf? There were rumours Sneddon passed them around in the 90s. Is it any wonder MJ wanted them returned!

 

[Bad7]

Something also to add is a hater's most 'reliable' source in Diane Dimond happens to tell us a totally different description to the one Sneddon stated. She states Jordan gave a 'very specific description' and it stated there were 'mottled pink spots' on MJ's scrotum and buttocks. Two things here. Sneddon never mentions these two aspects and also Evan had seen MJ's buttocks so would of known what that looked like.

Dirty Diane also further adds Jordan claimed MJ had a dark splotch at the base of MJ's penis, underneath. Sneddon states 'The photographs reveal a mark on the right side'... So now this supposed dark mark is in two different places?

Diane also states, not in the book, but on her website that Jordan wasn't sure if MJ was circumcised.

So...

Sneddon:

One dark mark on the right side of MJ's penis.

Ray:

Numerous distinctive markings and discolourations.

Diane:

'Mottled' pink spots on MJ's scrotum and buttocks.
One dark mark at the base of MJ's penis, underneath.
Jordan unsure if MJ is circumcised.

Another one to add is Sergeant Spiegel, who took the photographs. He stated in his statement to police, according to Dirty Diane, after MJ had lifted his penis:

'I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson's penis.'

We can even add Dr. Strick:

'The genitalia were very oddly coloured with dark and light skin.'

---

How is it Sneddon, Diane and the Chandlers, all of whom were very closely linked, tell differing accounts of the same description?

How is it the photographer contradicts Sneddon's statement regarding where the supposed dark mark was located?

How is it Dr. Strick speaks of the genitalia being 'very oddly coloured with dark and light skin' when Sneddon's statement simply states one 'dark blemish'?

How is it that Diane Dimond, a journalist, gave a more in depth description than the District Attorney Tom Sneddon did in his statement in 2005?!

---

Another argument haters use with the description matching is 'MJ settled after the photographs were taken due to the match.' Now one would question why MJ would allow himself to be photographed at all if Jordan had really seen him up close.

More so, according to Sneddon's statement given to court, there were to be MORE photographs taken as MJ had cut short the photographing. This adds to why MJ eventually settled. The experience was clearly awful. No way would he want to go through it a second time.

Weirdly, no more photographs were taken 'due to the settlement' Diane says. Why not? A civil settlement being reached is irrelevant to the criminal trial. Jordan refusing to testify wouldn't of stopped anymore photographs being taken. Ray states in July 1994 Jordan informed police of his refusal to testify. Sneddon stated in a declaration in December of 1993 that further photographs would be taken within 30 days.

All Sneddon needed was the description, photographs and Dr. Strick. Why not take more photographs? Was it really a case of the photographs taken already were enough to see there was no match? If not, then how can Jordan's description be labelled a match if more photographs needed to be taken? Diane states it's not clear if a photograph was taken of the dark marking Spiegel described as MJ had had enough and ended the session.

Sneddon also states in his statement to the court MJ refused the agreement to have his 'entire body' photographed. Just why on earth was his entire body needing to be photographed if Jordan had described MJ's genitalia and buttocks only?

 

[HIStory]

Diane also states, not in the book, but on her website that Jordan wasn't sure if MJ was circumcised.

Of course, haters are now trying to somehow sweep Jordan's statement that MJ was circumcised under the rug. I realized that while earlier they tried to use the "an erect circumcised penis can look circumcised" argument now they increasingly rather simply lie and say "Jordan never claimed MJ was circumcised" (or in Diane's version "was not sure"). They must have realized how stupid the first argument looked based on what exactly the Chandlers claimed about how many times and from how many angles Jordan allegedly had seen MJ's penis.

For something being such a match - as they claim - haters sure have a lot of explaining, twisting and cover-up to do. LOL.

Thing is everything points to Jordan claiming MJ was circumcised. The Linden affidavit states it. The drawing in Guiterrez's book states it. The fact investigators asked Katherine this in 1994 also points to that.

“Jackson’s mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson’s physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.” [5]

What would a mother know about her adult son's penis? She would know if he was circumcised as a baby. I think that's what they asked Katherine about because they were desperate and probably tried to see if MJ might have had foreskin restoration while he was abroad in 1993. They had to come up with such a desperate theory to try to explain why it wasn't a match. The very fact they had to ask Katherine these questions shows that they had trouble with the description. So how was it "a match"? LOL.

And the very fact Sneddon is so mum about the circumcision in his motion and the Chandlers also don't mention anything about it in their book shows that it is something that totally ruins their claims of a "match" so they rather just try to sweep it under the rug and not mention it at all. Actually the circumcision is the single most important element of the whole description issue because he either was or was not circumcised. It is not as easy to make vauge and manipulative statements about that as about a splotch (left side? right side? back side? dark splotch? light splotch? - people on the prosecution's side made so many contradictory statements about it and why don't they ever mention all the other splotches that Jordan drew?). And vitiligo splotches change over time as even the prosecution admitted to know (Lauren Weis), so they are absolutely inadequate to prove innocence or guilt, anyway. Circumcision doesn't change and because of that it is a much more substantial element of the description than anything else, yet Sneddon and the Chandlers don't even mention it. That's because it single handedly sinks the whole "it was a match" claim.

BTW, there is that drawing from Gutierrez's book. The same drawing was circulated later in 2005 only in a redacted version. The claims about Brett Barnes and the claim about MJ being circumcised had been edited out of it. I have read that this redacted version comes from Ray Chandler's website that he had at the time (2004-2005). I also read that his book contained a couple of things as an appendix, including this drawing (in this redacted form). I don't know because it isn't in the electronic version that I have. But I'd like to know for sure if this edited version of the drawing indeed comes from the Chandlers because it would be very telling if it were them who had edited out the circumcision claim from the original drawing. Once again trying to rewrite and manipulate history in the hindsight and trying to hide that Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised. Why would you need that if you are telling the truth? And why would you need that if Jordan never claimed MJ was circumcised?

So...

Sneddon:

One dark mark on the right side of MJ's penis.

Ray:

Numerous distinctive markings and discolourations.

Diane:

'Mottled' pink spots on MJ's scrotum and buttocks.
One dark mark at the base of MJ's penis, underneath.
Jordan unsure if MJ is circumcised.

Another one to add is Sergeant Spiegel, who took the photographs. He stated in his statement to police, according to Dirty Diane, after MJ had lifted his penis:

'I observed a dark spot on the lower left side of Mr. Jackson's penis.'

We can even add Dr. Strick:

'The genitalia were very oddly coloured with dark and light skin.'

---

How is it Sneddon, Diane and the Chandlers, all of whom were very closely linked, tell differing accounts of the same description?

How is it the photographer contradicts Sneddon's statement regarding where the supposed dark mark was located?

How is it Dr. Strick speaks of the genitalia being 'very oddly coloured with dark and light skin' when Sneddon's statement simply states one 'dark blemish'?

How is it that Diane Dimond, a journalist, gave a more in depth description than the District Attorney Tom Sneddon did in his statement in 2005?!

---

Yes, good point. So many contradictory statements about the splotches from the prosecution's side, yet it was supposedly a "perfect match" when they cannot even match each other's claims. LOL.

When you think about it Sneddon's claim in the motion is very vauge. "Relatively". "About". These are extremely vauge and easily manipulated terms - depending on from which angle you are looking at a thing etc. And Jordan described more than one splotch, so whatever happened to the rest of the description? Why isn't anything mentioned about those? Supposedly this was "a perfect match", yet this vaugue thing about a splotch all Sneddon can talk about - "relatively" and "about"?

Another argument haters use with the description matching is 'MJ settled after the photographs were taken due to the match.'

As usual, haters "forget" to add that the Chandlers' lawyer Larry Feldman asked for the barring of the photos from the civil court. The Chandlers didn't want them to be a part of the civil trial, so that's not why MJ settled the civil case.

All Sneddon needed was the description, photographs and Dr. Strick. Why not take more photographs? Was it really a case of the photographs taken already were enough to see there was no match? If not, then how can Jordan's description be labelled a match if more photographs needed to be taken? Diane states it's not clear if a photograph was taken of the dark marking Spiegel described as MJ had had enough and ended the session.

If the prosecution felt they needed to take more photos that's once again a sign of NO match. It's desperate. Like I said before, I actually think MJ's constitutional rights have been massively violated already with the first search because the prosecution (as per Ray Chandler's own book) knew there was no probative value in this search (vitiligo splotches change). So to do it and then do it again and again is harrassment and the Court should not have assisted to it already the first time around. It's outrageous and scandalous actually.

 

[Bad7]

Another thing with Sneddon and the declaration is he covered his back. He used the term 'I believe' twice in the paragraph regarding the description in his declaration.

“I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and to those statements, I believe them to be true.”

Haters love to say Sneddon wouldn't risk his job. Quite hilarious given he did just that throughout his career and especially with MJ. Terms of the search warrant were broken, he participated in aspects of the investigation his job wasn't qualified for, had Gavin touch an adult magazine without wearing gloves and was jovial over such a serious matter at the press conference announcing charges.

I saw a hater say 'what if the judge how allowed the evidence to be admitted? Sneddon wouldn't take that risk'. No judge would of allowed it that knew the law. It was a risk with very little chance of backfiring given Sneddon knew the defence would cite why it couldn't be admitted and Melville was highly experienced.

One of the very reasons it was disallowed was Jordan refusing to testify. Testimony from others regarding Safechuck wasn't allowed by the judge for the very reason that he wouldn't be coming to testify against MJ. So given Melville had already denied testimony regarding Safechuck, due to him not testifying himself, that further reduces the little chance there was that Melville would of allowed anything regarding the description given Jordan not appearing.

---

Edit: respect77, the vagueness is especially telling. The declaration is absolutely pathetic. Where is the mention of circumcision as you say. Another pathetic hater argument is when fans cite the circumcision issue they say 'where does it come from? There's no mention in the declaration of it. It's just media talk'.

If we go along with 'it's just media talk' then a question needing to be answered is why wasn't Jordan asked if MJ was circumcised? If he was describing his genital area, that'd be one of the most obvious aspects to mention.

 

[HIStory]

Testimony from others regarding Safechuck wasn't allowed by the judge for the very reason that he wouldn't be coming to testify against MJ.

That's a common misconception but it is not true. Testimony about Safechuck wasn't allowed because the only testimony offered about him was about "grooming" (ie. MJ buying him gifts) but no one that the prosecution eventually wanted to put on the stand regarding him (Jolie Levine and Mary Coller) claimed to have seen anything apart from MJ buying him gifts. The Judge states this as a reason why he did not allow testimony regarding Safachuck and Spence. It is in the March 28, 2005 court transcript.

The evidence of

11 alleged grooming of the other children will not be

12 permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and

13 Jonathan Spence will not be permitted.

14 The witnesses that would be precluded under

15 this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller.

[...]

21 But I think if you can see the way I’ve

22 divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited

23 to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual

24 conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That

25 really is where I’ve drawn the line.

Jordan didn't come to testify either yet testimony about him was allowed (June Chandler, Bob Jones - even if he eventually admitted not to have seen anything, Ralph Chacon).

But I agree that it was not likely that Melville would allow in the photos and Sneddon knew it. It was at the very end of the trial when Sneddon tried to introduce it and that alone made it unlikely Melville would allow it because it looked like a last minute ambush with the intent of trying to prejudice the jury. If it was truly the bombshell evidence haters claim it is then it would have been the first thing Sneddon had offered to introduce as soon as the judge allowed the "prior bad acts" evidence. It is curious that only after everything else fell apart did Sneddon try to introduce it. Maybe Jordan not coming too played a part too - after all it was his drawing that he should have been allowed to interpret and be cross-examined about it, but I think it was rather a combination of factors why it wasn't allowed and yes, Sneddon knew those factors would make it very unlikely that the Judge would allow it.

Edit: respect77, the vagueness is especially telling. The declaration is absolutely pathetic. Where is the mention of circumcision as you say. Another pathetic hater argument is when fans cite the circumcision issue they say 'where does it come from? There's no mention in the declaration of it. It's just media talk'.

LOL at the hypocrisy when their 80% of their website is just media talk (and the other 20% is uncritically citing prosecution claims as if they were facts). They cite tabloid articles left and right as if they were facts. That's what most of their website is about. I am pretty sure if Michael's autopsy had stated he was circumcised those same haters would now plaster that Smoking Gun article about the Linden affidavit everywhere. But because it ruins their case it is suddenly "just media talk". LOL @ the irony of this coming from those tabloid junkies. Like I said everything points to the fact that Jordan claimed MJ was circumcised. Everything. I am pleased to see that this is something that haters are trying to deny and hide now. Just shows how much of a "match" it really was when they need to hide facts to make their case "work".

 

[Bad7]

Ahh, thanks for the correction on Safechuck. I'll bare that in mind in future. I read that motion a while back as well so I should of remembered.

Edit: Yep, it was clearly a way to prejudice the jury from Sneddon. There is no answer whatsoever for Sneddon not introducing such evidence sooner and likewise not using the description and photographs before two grand juries in 1994.

Edit 2: Ray saying this as well was telling:

KING: So you think he (Sneddon) didn’t bring the charges because…?

CHANDLER: No, I think he didn’t bring the charges because he did not feel that he could get a conviction against a man of that stature on the same evidence he could get against me or any normal person.

Yet Ray claims his book is full of damning evidence, but Sneddon didn't think he could get a conviction? I thought Sneddon had a matching description? This was far more damning than anything he had in 2005.

Ray also told Larry King that Sneddon never intended to file a charge. More nonsense from Ray. Sneddon was desperate to find something.

 

[HIStory]

Yet Ray claims his book is full of damning evidence, but Sneddon didn't think he could get a conviction? I thought Sneddon had a matching description? This was far more damning than anything he had in 2005.

In their book they also say they did not want to go to court because it would have only been Jordan's word vs. MJ's and who would have believed them. If they had tons of evidence, including a matching photo, how come it would have only been Jordan's word vs. MJ's? LOL.

And I agree, if the photo was really a match that's all Sneddon had needed to secure an indiction in 1994. Instead they called Katherine trying to find alternative theories for why the photos did NOT match, other than the most obvious explanation, ie. that Jordan was simply lying.

 

[Bad7]

In their book they also say they did not want to go to court because it would have only been Jordan's word vs. MJ's and who would have believed them. If they had tons of evidence, including a matching photo, how come it would have only been Jordan's word vs. MJ's? LOL.

And I agree, if the photo was really a match that's all Sneddon had needed to secure an indiction in 1994. Instead they called Katherine trying to find alternative theories for why the photos did NOT match, other than the most obvious explanation, ie. that Jordan was simply lying.

Yep. Ray trips himself up many, many times. 'We didn't want to put Jordan through a criminal trial'. They make out as if it was to protect Jordan. Yet they were more than happy for him to go through a civil trial.

Another pathetic moment from Ray was when he was going around various media sources to promote his book. In one interview when asked about if Jordan would appreciate him bringing it up again, Ray said 'the media would talk about it anyway'. So, Ray thought he'd add to it?

How kind of Uncle Ray to think, 'the media are bringing up my nephew's worst life experience... I know what I'll do, I'll make it worse and publish a book all about it and go around various media sources.'

 

[KOPV]

I've gotta ask.. these discriptions.. How close did these people supposedly get to Michaels penis to have these type of descriptions... They talk about it like they held it, lifted, and played with it to get the best look..

I bet you some women that have slept with Michael could not explain his penis in that detail..


And its funny how detailed they are, but are all different!

 

[Bad7]

I've gotta ask.. these discriptions.. How close did these people supposedly get to Michaels penis to have these type of descriptions... They talk about it like they held it, lifted, and played with it to get the best look..

I bet you some women that have slept with Michael could not explain his penis in that detail..


And its funny how detailed they are, but are all different!

Well Sneddon saw photographs. Diane was told what Jordan had said and what he had described (whether what she was told is true, we don't know). Ray was told by Evan what Jordan described, in December 1993, in Larry Feldman's office (which differed entirely to what Jordan had described in September of that same year). Sergeant Spiegel took the photographs and Dr. Strick is a dermatologist, who was present when the photographs were being taken, and who's job it was to determine a match.

There may of been one or two other officers present at the photographing. Or there would of been, and they left the room to make it more private. I can't recall which it was.

Yes, the differing descriptions are bemusing. Especially given such close connections.

 

[MJresearcher]

I strongly believe the Chandler family, their lawyer and Sneddon were just bluffing when they talked about how 'strong' their case was. It clearly wasn't. The whole description issue is all over the place! It's good to have that evidence, it makes the whole match myth go up in flames.

Slightly different direction regarding these claims, has anyone run into people trying to argue that since the false accusation rate is low that therefore MJ 'must' be guilty because there's more than one accuser? I hate this argument. General statistics cannot be used to 'prove' that something is true, each case must be assessed by the facts pertaining to it, not on general numbers that don't take facts of individual cases into consideration. People who use this argument are usually victim's advocates and usually also use the argument that many victims aren't taken seriously (in this case they absolutely were) and look at anyone with money and power as someone who can get away with things because of what they have. Those biases are really difficult to navigate because these people have very strong emotions attached but also because they have an inherent bias due to seeing genuine victims get the short end of the stick, especially when up against someone with more than them. It can be very difficult to even get people like that to consider that their assumptions are wrong and sometimes any reason given for why you aren't convinced by the claims is dismissed as 'victim blaming' even when it isn't. It can be hard to figure out the right approach with people like this, some may never agree to consider the other side but some may do so if we word our arguments the right way. I'm just not totally sure how to do that yet. Any ideas?

 

[HIStory]

^ Yes, such arguments are fallacious. You can't judge an individual case based on general statistics, when you don't know about that individual case. "More accusers" also don't mean anything in themselves when you don't know the circumstances. In the McMartin case there were several hundreds of accusers. There is that documentary I showed once where several people have been jailed for many years based on the false allegations of several children (in some cases the accused people's own children!). The circumstances were that authorities had a zealous agenda and they manipulated kids into claiming things. When some of the kids grew up they admitted their allegations were false and those people were released from jail. In MJ's case there is a strong monetary motive behind each and every one of these allegations. There is also the effect of seeing other people before them getting rich on these allegations. There are also a lot of other circumstances I could list why this cannot be judged based on general statistics, but we all know those.

As for the emotions, I am afraid you cannot reason with emotions. You may try, patiently explain the facts of the case, while also acknowledging that there are many genuine victims and this is not about them, but there are also people who take advantage of the system regarding these type of allegations. And eventually those people aren't only harming the people who they falsely accuse but they also harm genuine victims. Wade Robson is a great example of that. It makes my blood boil how he uses real victims for his own agenda and just to get rich. He is some sort of sociopath, IMO.

Appealing to the emotions of people is exactly so dangerously effective because it doesn't require thinking or logic or reasoning. It's appealing to people's emotions how Hitler managed to get so many people support him in face of all reason and logic. It's appealing to people's emotions how people lynched other people in US history while there was no evidence they committed anything. It's also the emotional manipulation that MJ haters use a lot. I think all you can do is patiently planting the seeds of reason and facts and even if the person cannot see past his or her emotions right away hope that eventually he/she will start thinking about those reasonable arguments one day. And of course, that there are other people who read it and who are able to past through emotions.

 

[MJresearcher]

One thing I'll likely do is prove how MJ was treated by the police and how his rights were stomped on, many victim's advocates often complain that the accused usually gets better treatment so being able to show them that things were very different here is important.

 

[HIStory]

One thing I'll likely do is prove how MJ was treated by the police and how his rights were stomped on, many victim's advocates often complain that the accused usually gets better treatment so being able to show them that things were very different here is important.

Yes, a usual problem genuine victims run into is that they are not being believed by authorities. You can definitely show that here it was the exact opposite. We actually had an overzealous prosecution who, before they even started to investigate, made up their minds that MJ was guilty. And that for Sneddon it was so personal that he went to great lenghts to put MJ on trial. He even changed laws and extended the statutes of limitations for Jordan, even though the Chandlers were obviously not interested in that. That's why Robson and Safechuck also cannot credibly hide behind this "I feared no one would believe me" argument.

 

[Bad7]

I strongly believe the Chandler family, their lawyer and Sneddon were just bluffing when they talked about how 'strong' their case was. It clearly wasn't. The whole description issue is all over the place! It's good to have that evidence, it makes the whole match myth go up in flames.

Slightly different direction regarding these claims, has anyone run into people trying to argue that since the false accusation rate is low that therefore MJ 'must' be guilty because there's more than one accuser? I hate this argument. General statistics cannot be used to 'prove' that something is true, each case must be assessed by the facts pertaining to it, not on general numbers that don't take facts of individual cases into consideration. People who use this argument are usually victim's advocates and usually also use the argument that many victims aren't taken seriously (in this case they absolutely were) and look at anyone with money and power as someone who can get away with things because of what they have. Those biases are really difficult to navigate because these people have very strong emotions attached but also because they have an inherent bias due to seeing genuine victims get the short end of the stick, especially when up against someone with more than them. It can be very difficult to even get people like that to consider that their assumptions are wrong and sometimes any reason given for why you aren't convinced by the claims is dismissed as 'victim blaming' even when it isn't. It can be hard to figure out the right approach with people like this, some may never agree to consider the other side but some may do so if we word our arguments the right way. I'm just not totally sure how to do that yet. Any ideas?

It was a definite bluff. It shows with Ray. Ray claims he was given the incriminating files, yet did all he could to not testify. The prosecution never wanted him to testify either which shows just how damning his evidence was.

Ray's supposed damning evidence adds to MJ's innocence also. MJ's defence wanting Ray to testify is huge! Why would MJ want anybody from the 1993 case to testify if he was guilty? MJ's defence really fought for Ray to testify as well. It wasn't a case of trying to scare him off so he shut up either (if anybody were to say that). When Ray refused to come in citing his reasons, MJ's defence responded as to why they weren't sufficient. They really wanted him to testify.

I've heard 'five people accusing wouldn't all be lying' which makes no sense. The false accusation rate really doesn't apply with celebrities. If Evan Chandler falsely accused a family friend, who wasn't famous, what would he gain? Nothing. Whereas he chose to accuse the most famous man on the planet who had money. He had something to gain in that scenario.

Like respect said, the McMartin case is a prime example regarding false accusations. Personally, I'd mention that to everybody if I was ever in a debate. Also, look at the average number of children a child molester abuses in their life time. Some numbers have been as high as I think it's 240. Others at 100 and something.

So take that and look at MJ who was around far more children than a molester and we have five accusers against MJ. Seven if you want to include the two proven liars (Canadian boy in 1995 and Daniel Kapon). If anybody ever cites 'five wouldn't lie' then cite 1. McMartin and 2. The two other MJ accusers who the media and haters never repeat as it shows that proven false accusations have been made against MJ.

---

Anybody saying victims aren't taken seriously etc when talking about MJ, shows their obvious ignorance in the case. If this crops up then cite all the times Sneddon went too far. Strip search, breaking terms of the search warrant on Neverland and changing the alleged dates of molestation. Heck, he even carried out jobs that district attorneys aren't intended to do. (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116524&page=1#.UBJr3WGdCj0)

 

[HIStory]

I just listened to the latest podcast of the MJ Cast. They had Scott Ross who was the private investigator for the defense in 2005.

Here is the full podcast: http://www.**************/

Some interesting things he said.

- According to the prosecution's claims MJ and his co-conspirators got the Arvizo family to Miami for that planned (but eventually cancelled) press conference after the Bashir interview. But when Ross checked the actual phone records and how everything happened it turned out that MJ or his people never called them. It was Chris Tucker who brought them along when he went to see his brother in Florida on a private plane. When the Arvizos heard that and that MJ was also in Florida they wanted to go with him. They were the ones who actually contacted Tucker that they wanted to go to Miami with him to see MJ. This is kind of important because the prosecution tried to imply that MJ and his people somehow kidnapped or maliciously taken this family to Miami.

- Fans or those who are familiar with the cases, probably know about that Canadian boy whom Hard Copy dug up back in the 90s and who first claimed MJ molested him but then his story totally crumbled when he was taken to the police and he eventually broke down and admitted it was a lie and that he was coached to say these things by a man called Rodney Allen. Now, we are all familiar that Diane Dimond was on the story (and my suspicion is that she was also probably behind it along with her buddy Victory Gutierrez) but their plan crumbled when the boy admitted the truth to the police. The interesting piece of new info regarding this from Ross is that not only Dimond went to Canada to see this boy but one of Sneddon's detective's Sgt. Robel as well. Ross told this story to demonstrate how Sneddon never stopped, he was always on the look-out for potential "victims" and for anyone who would be willing to claim things.

- Besides being on MJ's defense team in 2005, interestingly Scott Ross was also on Conrad Murray's defense team, so he talked about that a bit as well. He said he agrees that Murray was negligent just not criminally negligent in his opinion. He added that him and Mesereau (with whom he is still friendly with) strongly disagree on the matter.

Regarding Propofol Ross disclosed that it was Arnold Klein who first gave MJ Propofol, way back in 1991.

- Back to the 2005 case, he said in his opinion if there was if there was a preliminary hearing in 2005, rather than a Grand Jury MJ would have never even been indicted. The difference is that at a Grand Jury hearing the jury only hears one side of the case, the Prosecution, without any challenge by the defense. At a preliminary hearing the jury would have heard the defense as well.

- He mentions how when people say "MJ's bedroom", they don't know that it was as big as other people's house: 300 square feet, two storey.

- He mentions how the fact that the prosecution tried to use the alarm system against MJ backfired at them, because it discredited Star Arvizo's testimony.

- The defense got a lot of info about the Arvizo family's shenanigans from the father David Arvizo who initially didn't want to talk to Ross but eventually did talk to him for three hours and told him all the dirt about his ex-wife that the defense could later check up and these indeed proved to be true.

- Ross doesn't have a high opinion of Mark Geragos. He wasn't very useful, he was not on the right path. (He says that as a person who actually still works with Geragos from time to time today.)

- Prosecution witness Jamie Masada claimed he introduced the Arvizos to MJ. It wasn't true ("he can claim anything he wants but he didn't introduce them"). Carole Lamire (sp?) did.

- Janet Arvizo claimed Gavin had a rare type of cancer that no one even heard about before. It wasn't true. He had Wilms' tumor ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilms'_tumor ) which is a well known thing and it has a 90% recovery rate. Yet, the Arvizos were acting as if Gavin was dying from cancer when they tried get donations from people.

- They didn't live in a horribly bad place like they claimed. They actually had a nice home. The bad apartment that they were in for a while was only temporary because they wanted to move closer to the hospital where Gavin was treated.

- Gavin was treated at a Kaiser hospital. This is a system where you have membership and no bills. So once again they lied to people when they asked people to donate to them for medical bills. They didn't need that. They were Kaiser members.

- Janet Arvizo filtered donated money through her mother's bank account so that the money couldn't get traced to her. She knew what she was doing.

- Janet Arvizo was involed in welfare breach.

- Law enforcement does not investigate the alleged victim but they should because you can have fraudsters and liars like this family.

- Wade Robson: he interviewed him in 2005 and he was absolutely credible when he said MJ never molested him. He never lost eye contact etc.

Ross said he actually knows and is friendly with Wade's older brother Shane who used to be a police officer and who is now also a PI. They have been friends since 2005. Ross says when Wade came out with his allegations he called Shane and told him how disappointed he was in Wade and he understands he is family to Shane but he (Ross) doesn't approve of what he is doing now for the money. Him and Shane still talk from time to tome but do not talk about this issue.

- Ross cannot stand Aphrodite Jones. He considers her an opportunist. He says she was all chummy with Diane Dimond during the trial and he feels she changed sides after the verdict because she wasn't able to write a book about a conviction.

In his opinion Linda Deutsch of AP and Don "Something" (he didn't recall the person's surname) were the only journalists who did honest and genuine reporting on the case.

- Brian Oxman. He is an idiot. He caused more problems than what he solved. He never tried to win a case. He has no experience in trying cases. Oxman reported the welfare fraud of Janet which almost messed up the chance of her testifying - and the defense did want her to testify. Oxman doesn't understand a criminal matter. He did Randy's divorce case - that's his only claim to fame.

- David Arvizo also told them about a local newspaper that Janet Arvizo got to collect money for them by publishing articles about how poor and in need they were. In reality they weren't that much in need at all.

- MJ's health constantly deteriorated during the trial because he was not eating. But he was always coherent, paid attention, he was writing notes. It was odd to Ross though that he never gave those notes to Mez or any of the attorney, just put them in his pocket.

- Susan Yu deservs a LOT of credit. She did a tremendous job on the trial. She made sure that everything was ready and prepared for Mez. MJ talked to her a lot on the phone. Mez wasn't really a phone person and went to bed early but MJ was on the phone with Susan Yu often in the early hours of dawn, Susan trying to calm him etc. (Mez once mentioned this too. He actually said that the phone calls by MJ to Susan continued after the trial as well.)

- Pellicano. Ross wouldn't use his recordings because they were obtained illegally. (Well, yes, possibly, but they still contain what they contain and prove Evan's intentions before Jordan even allegedly "confessed".)

- He mentions (without names) that there was a person the prosceution considered a "victim" in 1993 who told them while they interviewed him that MJ never molested him but there was another person who did molest him and he told the detective that person's name. The detective was like "oh, that's a shame" and just went on to keep pressing him about MJ, totally ignoring the information about a molester who actually did molest this person still being out there. Well, we know who this is about. It was Corey Feldman who indeed did tell Sgt. Deborah Linden in 1993 that MJ never molested him but there was another person who did, but Linden totally ignored that information and only wanted to target MJ. The police never did anything about that person whom Corey named.

- By the last days of the trial they had cash flow issues. The Jackson family didn't really help out MJ with money as far as Ross could tell.

_______________

^ Interesting new info that Robson's brother was a police officer. I found more about that here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shane-robson-35b5693a

Summary

Former Police Detective from Australia. Commenced in the private industry in Los Angeles in 2003 as a Private Investigator and Security Consultant

Detective Senior Constable
Queensland Police Service
1991 – 2003 (12 years)Brisbane, Australia

Worked as a sworn Police Officer in various capacities including uniform duties and criminal investigation duties in Brisbane and the Gold Coast.

 

[KOPV]

I think a nicely put together documentary (even if MJ fan made) about Janet Arvizo would be nice to watch...

 

[HIStory]

That his brother was a policeman is interesting to me, because it makes Wade's story even less believable than it already is. You have a criminal detective in your family and you don't know what child abuse is? You don't know what is wrong and what isn't? This wasn't a family with low education level. He also cannot claim "I was afraid I wouldn't be believed" etc. He already couldn't claim it because Sneddon was obviously willing to believe anyone who made a claim. But with Shane being a detective that would be even more difficult to claim.

 

[Bad7]

Delete.

 

[prettyyoungthaang]

How do you react when coming across people who don't believe in Michael's innocence?

Generally I tend to ignore stuff on the internet as it's unlikely you will ever get through to them. However, have you ever met someone in person who questions Michael's innocence?

I honestly get so mad and crack out all the facts that I have researched over the years to try and convince them otherwise. Sadly, I find once someone has formed an opinion on the matter it is very hard to shift. However, there is so much irrefutable evidence for Michael's innocence that it has to be hard for people to ignore?

For example people believe Michael paying off the Chandler family was indicative of his 'guilt' - yet people overlook the fact that it was a civil settlement. And you also cannot deny that a real family whose son has suffered so much would not disappear right after receiving a money settlement. It makes absolutely zero sense.

It makes me so mad that people did this to Michael, on more than one occasion, and that the media circus jumped on it and scrutinised every little detail in the case for their own profit.

Poor Michael endured so much.

 

[MJresearcher]

When I go into a debate I do so knowing that it's not likely that the person will change their mind. Realistically most people won't change their minds as a result of a debate and I think it had a lot to do with the fact that debating often causes people to feel defensive which results in them doubling down on their beliefs. I debate because on the internet there's the potential for a large amount of people to read the debate and sometimes those that aren't participating can end up cal hanging their minds or for people who weren't sure to be convinced that MJ didn't do this. There's also the fact that if comments from people who think he's guilty were never to be challenged it could lead to people erroneously assuming that there aren't any arguments in his defense. Those pretty much sum up the reasons I debate but I understand why some people don't want to do it, it can be tiring and frustrating. There's an element of stress to it as well, sometimes people attack you on a personal level rather than focusing only on the arguments and that's not pleasant.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: How do you react when coming across people who don't believe in Michael's innocence?

For example people believe Michael paying off the Chandler family was indicative of his 'guilt' - yet people overlook the fact that it was a civil settlement.

How many people even know the difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial though? Idk how well known the difference is in America (given I'm not from the USA). In fact I don't think I was even aware of this aspect until this year and I've read up quite a lot on it.

 

[KOPV]

If Michael was not so unique, different.. it would be a lot easier to get people to open up there minds.. I'll say that for sure!!! How many times do people think of his amusement park and say "what adult.....". Has no factual base on criminal activity, just the fog that could appear as such...

 

[barbee0715]

So, I have a question, and I think I know the answer, but want to check. It's late here, and I just got my Google alert that includes top newspaper articles that mention Michael. The first one I read was from the UK's Guardian and it's a story about pop stars and the politicians, presidents, and prime ministers that they met, etc. First story was about Elvis and Nixon, 2nd story was about Mick Jagger and a UK politician, and then the Beatles and another UK politician, who arranged for their MBEs.

Next story was about Reagan and Michael and the famous meeting on the South Lawn where Michael was helping the campaign against Drunk Driving by donating Beat It.
They made a big deal that the Freedom of Information Act had revealed that the FBI had dropped an investigation at the time that he was abusing 2 Mexican boys in order not to embarrass the President.
I know that's not true, but wasn't that part of that big tabloid mess about the so-called fake FBI files that the Sun or whatever tried to publish at the same time the Cirque show opened? The one that Taj was fighting the tabloid over? That sounds right. Just can't believe that they put it in the middle of this story like it was FACT.

I'm not going to copy over the article because it's not worth it-but I did read the comments.
One person called them out on this, and another called them out on the use of the name Jxxxo. That person's name was aldebranredstar-so he must be related to our old friend. I couldn't comment without opening a mail account with the Guardian and no way would I do that.

I have no idea if the Guardian is an important paper or not, so I don't know if it will be copied and pasted around tomorrow. I just wanted to check to see if I was right that this story was the one and the same. I was a little shocked to see it inserted in the middle of a pretty uninteresting gossipy type story.

 

[HIStory]

Yes, you are right. That comes from that Mirror article and it's absolutely shameful how supposedly "reputable" media in the UK refers to tabloid claims as if they are facts when it comes to MJ. The Guardian is especially guilty of this. It seems they have some sort axe-to-grind against MJ.

Of course, the story is not true. Under the Freedom of Information Act MJ's FBI files have been released and it does not contain anything like that. On the contrary. There is one story where some "book author" (I suspect Victor Gutierrez) called them during the 1993 allegations claiming to them that the FBI dropped an investigation like that but the report then says the FBI checked out the veracity of the claim and they found it to be not true. Of course, the Mirror won't add that important detail when they are out to slander Michael Jackson. But at least the Guardian should.

Here is what is in the FBI files. Last paragraph is all important.

It screams Victor Guiterrez's method of stirring it. Calling the police, dropping some story that he knows is not true, but this way it becomes a part of official records. He was the one who wrote a book about MJ and molestation at the time.

But the bottom line is, the FBI checked their records and found no reference to any such investigation.

 

[HIStoric]

I'm currently on my phone right now so I haven't got time to properly read it, but this just popped up on my newsfeed. Can someone far more knowledgable discuss this? https://www.facebook.com/nzherald.co.nz/posts/10153561317966302

I am aware of those prosecutors papers from the trial that tried to portray a few nudist books as pornography (despite being evidence it was sent in by Michaels fans and the likelihood he never even looked at them). However the source they use claims that new paperwork has just been unveiled, however I find it weird that this wouldn't have been brought up during the trial itself because surely that'd lay him down on child porn charges at least? That'd be a holy grail for the prosecutors and the fact it wasn't used has me extremely suspicious. That's my line of thoughts, but I'm not as well versed as you guys and I've only skimmed the articles so what are your thoughts?

 

[LindavG]

I'm currently on my phone right now so I haven't got time to properly read it, but this just popped up on my newsfeed. Can someone far more knowledgable discuss this? https://www.facebook.com/nzherald.co.nz/posts/10153561317966302

I am aware of those prosecutors papers from the trial that tried to portray a few nudist books as pornography (despite being evidence it was sent in by Michaels fans and the likelihood he never even looked at them). However the source they use claims that new paperwork has just been unveiled, however I find it weird that this wouldn't have been brought up during the trial itself because surely that'd lay him down on child porn charges at least? That'd be a holy grail for the prosecutors and the fact it wasn't used has me extremely suspicious. That's my line of thoughts, but I'm not as well versed as you guys and I've only skimmed the articles so what are your thoughts?

We are discussing it in the Wade Robson thread

 

[HIStoric]

We are discussing it in the Wade Robson thread

My bad! Didn't post in there as this seemed related to the trials a decade ago, not Robson's case (EDIT: At the first glance I had anyway).

 

[MJresearcher]

Well, this could be interesting. Let's see if this one is actually interested in listening...

 

[MJresearcher]