Debates with the public

Well, the lady I spoke to yesterday, said she thought someone was paid off to keep Michael out of jail. Whatever video she was describing, it really struck a nerve with her. She said she used to be a fan, but seeing that video with her husband put them both off.
If you see that lady again, you tell her you an not pay someone of to keep someone out of jail unless it is a JUDGE ONLY verdict. MJ had a JURY trial and he was investigated. That lady is clearly dumb to the law as weel. if Mike had child porn, he would have been charged with child porn. that is EVIDENE very strong evidence.
 
Conrad Murray has been on Australian TV a bit lately and I haven't watched any of it, I'm guessing that my fb friend is talking about Harriet Lester here? If so I know her and her father have spoken out about this.I didn't say anything about that because I wasn't sure if it was about her or not, I haven't been following Murray's interviews on tv here because I don't want to waste my time on him.

28312296180_926a57f539.jpg

28564046276_d71035bddd.jpg

27979580294_b7ef0af8ba.jpg

27980742863_ce8d1a052b.jpg
 
Here is Harriet and Mark Lester addressing it.


It's annoying that the interviewers still try to put words in their mouth like "maybe he meant it in a 12-year-old way", though. What do they don't get in what credibility a story that comes from a proven liar with a financial motive has?
 
How I wish the ignorant would stop having opinions on Michael Jackson. None of these people have done any proper research.

The gullibility of people is astounding. 'MJ was in love with his five year old god daughter and her Father was happy to let MJ do what he wants to his daughter.'

How can it not dawn on people that MJ now, in 2016, is accused for the first time of having feelings for female children, yet over the last 30 years his supposed attraction has been to boys, and not query it?

When reading an article stating the Father of a girl was happy for MJ to do what he wanted with her, and in which Mark Lester's name would be in that article, would somebody not Google for 'Mark Lester' and see who this man was. Then upon seeing he was a famous actor not further query it.

Common sense is severely lacking in people.

Another one is the $200 million paid out as per FBI Files. Where is the common sense to think, 'why on earth would the FBI cover have knowledge of this, yet do nothing about it?'

The level of research conducted shows when the point switches from 'how can we still idolise Michael Jackson?' to 'well I guess nobody will ever truly know the truth' after a short post by MJresearcher.

MJresearcher, I do wonder in the times you've responded to people have you ever had anybody properly engage in a conversation with you? Has anybody ever cited anything whatsoever of note?

Here is Harriet and Mark Lester addressing it.


It's annoying that the interviewers still try to put words in their mouth like "maybe he meant it in a 12-year-old way", though. What do they don't get in what credibility a story that comes from a proven liar with a financial motive has?


Very annoying. Janet Street - Porter (the one on the far right) clearly thinks MJ is guilty going by her questioning of Harriett.
 
Last edited:
Conrad Murray has been on Australian TV a bit lately and I haven't watched any of it, I'm guessing that my fb friend is talking about Harriet Lester here? If so I know her and her father have spoken out about this.I didn't say anything about that because I wasn't sure if it was about her or not, I haven't been following Murray's interviews on tv here because I don't want to waste my time on him.

28312296180_926a57f539.jpg

28564046276_d71035bddd.jpg

27979580294_b7ef0af8ba.jpg

27980742863_ce8d1a052b.jpg
The key statement there is "regardless if he did it or not, I never liked his music. That person was ALREADY bias or prejudice towards MJ. Stupid. He saying the truth died with Mj. No it did NOT. MJ PROVED his innocence in court of law and the evidence backed him up. So that nonsense abut " just because they gave a not guilty verdict, does not mean it did not happen". WRONG. Based on everything, MJ was proven to be right. Again, that is just a nut who does not like Michael. He maybe upset that a black man was great.It does not matter what that nut think, like it or not, MICHAEL WAS INNOCENT and MJ was idiol who is in the history music books; and MJ will be there even when this fool is dead and gone; better yet, MJ will still be in the history books and celebrated even when this nut computer is off.
 
Also, Gary Glitter was CONVICTED and admitted it (that is what real pedo do when caught); Michael PROVEN to be not guilty and the evidence backed it up and ALWAYS said he was innocent. And that is all an INNOCENT man can do.
 
The level of research conducted shows when the point switches from 'how can we still idolise Michael Jackson?' to 'well I guess nobody will ever truly know the truth' after a short post by MJresearcher.

MJresearcher, I do wonder in the times you've responded to people have you ever had anybody properly engage in a conversation with you? Has anybody ever cited anything whatsoever of note?

The only thing most people really bring up is the Chandler settlement (most of them don't even know the nae of the accuser, just that a case was settled) but lack knowledge about the case and the reasons for settlement. Nobody has ever posted something that I haven't had some facts to refute it with. Very rarely have I encountered someone who even knew what the basic facts actually are, people have a tendency to get emotional because of the nature of the claims and then go off on a rant without knowing the first thing about any of it.

The key statement there is "regardless if he did it or not, I never liked his music. That person was ALREADY bias or prejudice towards MJ. Stupid. He saying the truth died with Mj. No it did NOT. MJ PROVED his innocence in court of law and the evidence backed him up. So that nonsense abut " just because they gave a not guilty verdict, does not mean it did not happen". WRONG. Based on everything, MJ was proven to be right. Again, that is just a nut who does not like Michael. He maybe upset that a black man was great.It does not matter what that nut think, like it or not, MICHAEL WAS INNOCENT and MJ was idiol who is in the history music books; and MJ will be there even when this fool is dead and gone; better yet, MJ will still be in the history books and celebrated even when this nut computer is off.

I'm not sure why she added in not liking his music, that's fine if she doesn't like it but what does it have to do with anything? Whether or not Michael's music is to her personal taste is irrelevant to whether or not Michael should be considered an idol. It's pretty clear to me that she doesn't actually know much about the Arvizo case to begin with which is not a surprise to me. There's nothing to indicate that this has anything to do with race, I wouldn't push it that far. I couldn't help but laugh when she backed off so quickly after I challenged her about believing Conrad's claims. After I posted the excerpts from Ray Chandler's book she had nothing to say and none of the other detractors tried to engage with me about it either. I think this woman realised she was in over her head.

Also, Gary Glitter was CONVICTED and admitted it (that is what real pedo do when caught); Michael PROVEN to be not guilty and the evidence backed it up and ALWAYS said he was innocent. And that is all an INNOCENT man can do.

That comparison frustrated me too, it's not an accurate comparison because Glitter was proved guilty, the same is not true for Michael. Hopefully my posts will make her think twice about posting about MJ again unless she actually has some evidence to back her claims up. I'm also hoping she'll rethink the Chandler claim after the facts from the book I posted.
 
It's shocking how many people lack the common sense over the whole 'child porn' issue. Had child porn been found he'd of been put behind bars for that alone. Seeing as though he wasn't, that should register in people's minds that it's nonsense.

Exactly, it's mind-blowing how people lack the brains to think about that. Hell, he'd probably still be alive right now if he was guilty of that (given the chain of events leading to his death wouldn't have happened).
 
Also, Gary Glitter was CONVICTED and admitted it (that is what real pedo do when caught); Michael PROVEN to be not guilty and the evidence backed it up and ALWAYS said he was innocent. And that is all an INNOCENT man can do.

Plus their don't question Robson's etc own dodgy background or even Conrat Murray's recent hit piece of trash called a book, but with MJ its always "he's a genius.....but blah blah blah. That's what really ticks me off with some of these "journalist" they won't ask the tough questions on these low lives, but will accept every thing they say, even when they know its BS! Talk about sheep! :angry:
 
Plus their don't question Robson's etc own dodgy background or even Conrat Murray's recent hit piece of trash called a book, but with MJ its always "he's a genius.....but blah blah blah. That's what really ticks me off with some of these "journalist" they won't ask the tough questions on these low lives, but will accept every thing they say, even when they know its BS! Talk about sheep! :angry:

There's no news when reporting on the dodgy backgrounds or dodgy claims. It's not front page worthy.

I should add I'm not condoning it by saying that. I'm saying that, basically, truth doesn't sell. It doesn't sell media to report 'X person is lying about MJ'.
 
There's no news when reporting on the dodgy backgrounds or dodgy claims. It's not front page worthy.

I should add I'm not condoning it by saying that. I'm saying that, basically, truth doesn't sell. It doesn't sell media to report 'X person is lying about MJ'.

Yuuuuuup that's the reality and its stinks to high hell :despair:wtf1:, I would like to see these people get their just deserts one day :frustrated:
 
The key statement there is "regardless if he did it or not, I never liked his music. That person was ALREADY bias or prejudice towards MJ.

The irony is that they so easily dismiss what fans' have to say, like "you only defend him because you like his music" but they don't have any problems with their own similar biases. I have seen that in debates as well. As soon as they run out of arguments (which is usually pretty soon, LOL) they start to bash MJ's music and artistry or throw other red herrings about things like "skin bleaching", plastic surgery etc - as if any of that has anything to do with the allegations. So they are actually doing exactly what they accuse fans of: they judge him by whether they like him or his music, not based on the merits of the cases. You don't have to like him as an artist or a person to judge the cases based on facts, rather than just fantasy and assumptions. And if you don't care to check out those facts then why don't you just refrain from stating any opinion? You are not obliged to have an opinion about everything.
 
IDK why people put so much effort to appose Michael.. just sometimes it's baffling
 
IDK why people put so much effort to appose Michael.. just sometimes it's baffling
Because MJ did not do things to it into their way of thinking; and I know some folks do not think race play apart in some of this, wrong, it does or some people but hey will not admit it. Sorry but some people have a bias when a black person has great success. Look at how MJ is treated I treated and he was PROVEN innocent in a court of law YET you do not see Woody Allen who have these claims against him AND he MARRIED his adopted daughter-that is still like marrying your CHILD and a adopted kid has the same rights as a BIRTH child- you do NOT see the media trashing him to the same level as MJ.
 
AND he MARRIED his adopted daughter-that is still like marrying your CHILD and a adopted kid has the same rights as a BIRTH child- you do NOT see the media trashing him to the same level as MJ.

^The media doesn't go on about it because that isn't the case. I looked up Woody Allen and I presume you are talking about his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn?

If so, she was never adopted by Allen as you claim. Previn was actually the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, who Allen dated but never married (seems they didn't even move in together). Therefore Woody Allen was never her step-father in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Because MJ did not do things to it into their way of thinking; and I know some folks do not think race play apart in some of this, wrong, it does or some people but hey will not admit it. Sorry but some people have a bias when a black person has great success. Look at how MJ is treated I treated and he was PROVEN innocent in a court of law YET you do not see Woody Allen who have these claims against him AND he MARRIED his adopted daughter-that is still like marrying your CHILD and a adopted kid has the same rights as a BIRTH child- you do NOT see the media trashing him to the same level as MJ.
Yes-I, for one, would really appreciate people leaving Woody Allen out of their debates about Michael.

Woody Allen was thoroughly investigated in the child abuse case with his daughter and never charged. You had a small child who kept changing her story and a bitter, vindictive ex-girlfriend who starred in All of his movies.

Yes, he married Mia's adopted daughter. Strange, yes. Illegal, no. He never adopted Soo-Yi. He never married Mia. He never lived with Mia.
Please keep the examples to admitted, guilty, convicted pedophiles like Roman Polanski, Jerry Sandusky or Jared whatshisname.
 
^The media doesn't go on about it because that isn't the case. I looked up Woody Allen and I presume you are talking about his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn?

If so, she was never adopted by Allen as you claim. Previn was actually the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, who Allen dated but never married (seems they didn't even move in together). Therefore Woody Allen was never her step-father in the first place.
Either way, it still was tacky and he was accused even by his son and daughter which is worst.
 
Yes-I, for one, would really appreciate people leaving Woody Allen out of their debates about Michael.

Woody Allen was thoroughly investigated in the child abuse case with his daughter and never charged. You had a small child who kept changing her story and a bitter, vindictive ex-girlfriend who starred in All of his movies.

Yes, he married Mia's adopted daughter. Strange, yes. Illegal, no. He never adopted Soo-Yi. He never married Mia. He never lived with Mia.
Please keep the examples to admitted, guilty, convicted pedophiles like Roman Polanski, Jerry Sandusky or Jared whatshisname.
You are missing the point. The point is Woody was a accused and I do not see him being treated in the same manner as MJ. even if Woody came out all cleared, Woody does not get the same treatment. MJ had a trial that cleared him YET this issue is constant being brought up on MJ which is not fair.
 
You are missing the point. The point is Woody was a accused and I do not see him being treated in the same manner as MJ. even if Woody came out all cleared, Woody does not get the same treatment. MJ had a trial that cleared him YET this issue is constant being brought up on MJ which is not fair.
OK-I see your point. But the media doesn't talk about Woody at all unless he has a movie out and that's usually a review. He stayed pretty much to himself and his New York circle. Michael, on the other hand, was outrageously famous and every single solitary move he made was reported on. Everybody wanted to read about him then and now, made up or not. Nobody reads articles about Woody. He's not a money maker for any media.

I will tell you this. Every single year that he comes out with a new movie, 99% of the comments on the reviews blast him for being a pedophile.

What should have happened with Michael after he was totally vindicated is the press should have apologized and dropped it and let him live his life. But there's always money to be made, apparently. I know I saw a weird shift in the press coverage after Michael's death and the mainstream press went from continually bringing up the trial and allegations to waxing rhapsodic on his talent and art. They had a rude awakening after the outpouring of grief that the public didn't want to hear about it.
Only recently and mainly Radar has been stirring the pot and no mainstream media is jumping in.
 
Last edited:
With the media its a hard habit to break, MJ has been their go to guy for this kind of crap for decades!
 
*sigh* I'm so sick of the OJ excuse. Like honestly, if you say this you clearly demonstrate you're a gullible idiot who hasn't even bothered to look into the actual details of the case (never mind the fact that the two trials are completely different circumstances). Found on a "History in Pictures" Facebook page.

ZVLLNp1.png
 
Last edited:
*sigh* I'm so sick of the OJ excuse. Like honestly, if you say this you clearly demonstrate you're a gullible idiot who hasn't even bothered to look into the actual details of the case (never mind the fact that the two trials are completely different circumstances). Found on a "History in Pictures" Facebook page.

ZVLLNp1.png

tumblr_mjzph0mTph1ryurmdo1_500.jpg

SMH.
I can't stand dumbasses like this.
 
Greatest pedophile next to Caesar? really, All the From Gasey who murdered and abused kids to Roman Polanski and this fool want to judge MJ? That shows he is a Stupid fool. He want to bring O J into the topic the he better bring all the black men who have been falsely accused, even put to death over lies in the same system. But no, folks like that nut does not bring that up.
 
The OJ claim is such nonsense. Those who have no clue say it.

So, given OJ was found innocent that means every innocent verdict must be invalid. Let's go one further and release every prisoner shall we? By the same logic we can't trust the courts due to that one trial so, all those found guilty should be released today.
 
yeah I'll def say OJ case made it worse on Michael for sure!! made it worse for every celeb after him...
 
yeah I'll def say OJ case made it worse on Michael for sure!! made it worse for every celeb after him...
At the end of the day, in the O J case, NO none really know the truth but God and O J; however, anyone who will let their bias in one case make them think that is what is going on in all cases is just being prejudice and stupid. I notice no one bring up Robert Blake's case-and these cases are crazy to compare to MJ's case because these were murder cases.
 
Two very different cases, they don't even have to be compared.

If they really had a clue about the 2005 case which non-fans don't and don't even care, they'd know the prosecution didn't have strong grounds to condemn Michael. Tom and co. tore the prosecution's case and the Arvizos claims apart because they were laughable. To this day I don't get how the grand jury allowed that embarrasment of a "case" to go to trial, at least the jury did the right thing.
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan;4162276 said:
Two very different cases, they don't even have to be compared.

If they really had a clue about the 2005 case which non-fans don't and don't even care, they'd know the prosecution didn't have strong grounds to condemn Michael. Tom and co. tore the prosecution's case and the Arvizos claims apart because they were laughable. To this day I don't get how the grand jury allowed that embarrasment of a "case" to go to trial, at least the jury did the right thing.

It's not surprising a Grand Jury believed what was said. The Grand Jury allowed Sneddon to run wild. No judge and no defence attorney allowed him to say whatever he wanted.

The defence alleged that he abused his power during the proceedings. They say he bullied witnesses. He basically got to tell the story his own way.

You also had Sneddon emphasise the settlement from 1993, with help from Larry Feldman.

[..] Q. And eventually did the matter which you had filed the lawsuit against Mr. Jackson result in a substantial civil settlement in your favor?

A. It did.

Q. Multi-multimillion dollar settlement?

A. Multi-multi-multimillions of dollars.

Referring to it as 'multi-multimillion' and then Feldman adding another 'multi' no doubt prejudiced the jury.

Also not to forget you had the claim, at that time, that MJ had touched both Gavin and Star. Star told Stan Katz he'd been touched also. So you had presented to a jury two boys having been abused. Telling a jury two children had been abused would no doubt of helped Sneddon's case. Star's supposed abuse conveniently no longer existed come the trial, however.

Edit: Part of the motion from the defence regarding the Grand Jury hearing shows Sneddon's tactics:

“The District Attorney called many witnesses whose testimony would not have been allowed over objection at trial. The District Attorney eliminated any chance that the grand jury could limit its consideration to admissible and relevant evidence when he chose to call Larry Feldman and Stan Katz as witnesses on the first day of testimony.

Both witnesses proceeded to testify to a large amount of incompetent and irrelevant evidence that poisoned the entire proceeding with highly inflammatory and prejudicial testimony that is inadmissible over objection at trial.

Mr. Sneddon asked Mr. Feldman about the 1993 lawsuit against Mr. Jackson and prompted Mr. Feldman to inform the grand jury that the lawsuit resulted in a settlement for “multi-multi-millions of dollars”. Mr. Sneddon asked Mr. Feldman if “Johnnie Cochran of the O.J.Simpson fame” represented Mr. Jackson in that lawsuit.

These types of questions and answers violated Mr. Jackson’s right to due process from the moment the grand jury began to hear testimony and guaranteed that the grand jury would not be able to function as an independent body with the obligation to protect citizens from unfounded allegations. Any limiting instructions later provided by the prosecution could not unring the bell.”
 
Two very different cases, they don't even have to be compared.

If they really had a clue about the 2005 case which non-fans don't and don't even care, they'd know the prosecution didn't have strong grounds to condemn Michael. Tom and co. tore the prosecution's case and the Arvizos claims apart because they were laughable. To this day I don't get how the grand jury allowed that embarrasment of a "case" to go to trial, at least the jury did the right thing.
To me, even Sneddon knew Garvin and that family was full of it (According to the report, Sneddon was sitting there with his head in his head shaking it when the mother was testifying but he wanted to shame MJ and seem to still be upet that MJ settled the first case.
 
Back
Top