HLN Linking MJ With Jerry Sandusky

Victory22

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,807
Points
0
Location
Westland, Michigan, United States
Fans HLN is at it again slandering MJ and it’s time to contact them and demand they stop immediately. For the last two days they have been reporting the story of Penn State University assistant coach Jerry Sandusky who has been accused of sexually assaulting young boys. Every time they report the story they link Michael Jackson’s name to the coach. This needs to stop and I urge all of you to contact them ASAP and demand them to stop. Thank you in advance for defending and standing up for Michael.

http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/

https://www.facebook.com/DrDrewHLN?ref=ts#!/HLN

http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/hdlns/

http://twitter.com/#!/hlntv
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
So we've got a case where victims are coming forward left and right. And according to the media this is similar to a case where the DA has been chasing alleged "victims" for a decade, sent officers aboard to interview kids, set up a website for alleged victims to come forward, yet found nothing?

Just goes to show how evil or/and ignorant the American media are if they are linking the two cases.
 

KingMikeJ

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
2,721
Points
0
InSession In Session
Tom Mesereau is coming up next to talk about how he would defend #JerrySandusky at trial. #PennState
57 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply
 

maral

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
840
Points
0
Location
Stockholm, Sweden, Sweden
So we've got a case where victims are coming forward left and right. And according to the media this is similar to a case where the DA has been chasing alleged "victims" for a decade, sent officers aboard to interview kids, set up a website for alleged victims to come forward, yet found nothing?

Just goes to show how evil or/and ignorant the American media are if they are linking the two cases.
that's logic for ya
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
InSession In Session
Tom Mesereau is coming up next to talk about how he would defend #JerrySandusky at trial. #PennState
57 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply

I really hope this is not the case. If Mesereau is talking about how he would defend Jerry Sandusky people will see that as one more link and will say MJ got only acquitted because he had a good lawyer.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
I really hope this is not the case. If Mesereau is talking about how he would defend Jerry Sandusky people will see that as one more link and will say MJ got only acquitted because he had a good lawyer.
I agree. I hope Tmez say this case is NOT like MJ's case. Keep up posted. I am at work.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
I have to say this is almost like what MJ had to deal with in life. When we get goods news on MJ, there is always something bad to come and overshadow it.
 

Graf

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
3,981
Points
0
Location
Canada
Not only HLN..The other day CNN had a so called 'legal expert' on and compared he it to Michael..Made me really angry.

Piece of **** 'news' channels. :sigh:
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
^^ It's interesting that when he is asked if he's sexually attracted to young boys he hesitates a lot before answering a pretty uncertain "no".
 

Aniram

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,191
Points
0
^^ It's interesting that when he is asked if he's sexually attracted to young boys he hesitates a lot before answering a pretty uncertain "no".
Yep, you can immediately tell it's very likely that he's guilty... from that hesitation.
 

jaydom7

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,244
Points
0
so was Tom Messereau on? and hopefully he said that the cases are totally different
 

teli-mj

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
625
Points
0
InSession In Session
Tom Mesereau is coming up next to talk about how he would defend #JerrySandusky at trial. #PennState
57 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply



Whaaaaat? Why would Tom talk about how he would defend Sandusky? What in the name of . is going on?
 

bluetopez

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
4,869
Points
0
Location
Philadelphia, PA
The media never disapoints in their attempts to destroy MJ without proof. Even when the man is dead. He is that much of a threat....STILL!
 

anak

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
28
Points
0
tHe transcript from the O'rEilly show

O’Reilly: Joining us now from Los Angeles, attorney Thomas Mesereau, who successfully defended Michael Jackson against child molestation charges back in 2005. Counsel, do you see any similarities in the two cases?

Mesereau: Yes I do. In both cases you had a grand jury indictment. In both cases grand jury information has been handed to the media. And remember, in a grand jury proceeding, there’s no judge, and no jury, and no cross-examination, so everything looks stacked against the defendant. And in both cases the media has swarmed all over that grand jury indictment, and whatever information they’ve gotten, and they basically have convicted the defendant before the defendant has a chance to even defend himself.

O’Reilly: Now, isn’t grand jury testimony supposed to be secret? You rightly pointed out that in both the Jackson case and the Sandusky case, the media got a hold of this stuff. Is there something wrong with that?

Mesereau: Yes, there is. A grand jury proceeding is supposed to be secret. It’s supposed to be closed. In the Jackson case, information was being leaked on almost a daily basis from that grand jury room. And remember, there’s no defense lawyer in sight in a grand jury proceeding. Additionally, on the first day of jury selection in the Jackson case, someone took all those transcripts and handed them to ABC. The judge had ordered that they be suppressed and basically remain secret until they naturally arose during the course of the trial. So people were trying to prejudice everyone against us. I suspect that may be starting in this case too.

O’Reilly: And that’s illegal, though, for anybody to release grand jury testimony, correct?

Mesereau: Yes, it is.

O’Reilly: Alright, but how aggressively authorities are going to pursue that, I don’t know. Now, the Jackson situation was basically one family, one kid against Jackson, that’s what you had to contend with, correct?

Mesereau: That’s not totally correct. It was one primary accuser, and in California the prosecution introduce evidence of other similar acts. And they introduced evidence that five other young men had been molested as well, and they tried to introduce evidence that more young men had been molested.
O’Reilly: But they weren’t called to testify, these kids, right?

Mesereau: I called them to testify. They put on evidence that five other young men were molested, they did it primarily through third-party witnesses, however, one of them did testify, an alleged youth pastor, who said that he had been tickled outside of his jeans. I started my case by calling three of those five as my first three witnesses, all of whom denied that they had been molested by Michael Jackson.

O’Reilly: Alright, you quickly impeached that scenario, but in this scenario with Sandusky, there’s a lot of kids, allegedly, a lot, and they’re are adults now, they’re not children any longer. And there are two eyewitnesses; the football coach, and a janitor. Now the janitor is problematic because he’s got dementia, he resides in a nursing home, and he’s incompetent to testify, so that’s going to go out the window. Now Mesereau, the football coach, he says he’s an eyewitness, now that………Jackson didn’t have that against him, but Sandusky seems to have that against him.

Mesereau: No, Michael had witnesses against him. There were people who worked at Neverland who tried to claim that all of these other young men were molested. They got on the stand, one after another, and said they’d seen things in the shower, they’d seen things in the pool, they’d seen things in his room, the prosecution really tried to load up on us in the Jackson case. The problem was, they all fell like a deck of cards when you start cross-examining them! They made conflicting statements, they tried to sell their stories, they had questionable pasts, I mean, it was just amazing to watch them fall like dominoes, and you never know if that will happen in this case.

O’Reilly: But you didn’t have anybody, and correct me if I’m wrong, testify before a grand jury that he’s witnessed a crime? McQuery testified in front of the grand jury. You didn’t have anybody testify in front of the grand jury that actually witnessed Michael Jackson molesting anybody, did you?

Mesereau: Yes, we had the brother of the accuser claim that he had walked up a stairwell and had seen his brother being molested. We did have that.

O’Reilly: Okay. So you impeached every single one of them, and that’s what Sandusky’s attorney is going to have to do. He’s just gonna have to knock them down one by one.

Mesereau: Well remember, in the world of Michael Jackson, there were so many con artists, and exploiters, and imposters showing up and trying to take advantage of Michael Jackson. He was the best known celebrity, he was fabulously wealthy, and so many people would show up with their hands out, trying to get something, and we were able to not only knock over these witnesses one by one, but show a picture, a broader picture, of exploitation. And it all worked in the end.

O’Reilly: Now you heard Sandusky say on television that he showered with boys, I mean, that’s pretty damning just in that regard, is it not?

Mesereau: It is, and I think his statement was very foolish. I don’t know why his lawyer let him do that, and I think it’s gonna hurt you in the long run. But technically speaking, showering with boys is not sex, and what the defense has to do is draw a distinction and say “Look! He’s a big jock, you know, he hangs around football facilities, he hangs around with young people all the time, and never did he do anything sexual.” It sounds like a tall order, but you know it might happen.

O’Reilly: Would you take this case, Sandusky? Would you take this case?

Mesereau: You know, I have no interest in this case at the moment, but I do defend difficult cases. I believe in what criminal defense lawyers do, we make the system work, we defend people charged with crimes, who everyone has vilified and attacked, and yes,it’s a case I would consider taking, but it’s not a case that interests me right now.

O’Reilly: Do you still believe that Michael Jackson innocent of all of this? Not “not guilty”, but innocent?

Mesereau: I know he was 100% innocent. He wasn’t just acquitted, he was vindicated. The jury said “Not guilty” 14 times, and……………

O’Reilly: But you personally, now that Mr. Jackson is not here any longer, do you personally, 100% convinced he was not a child molester?

Mesereau: I’m 100% convinced that he was innocent and not a child molester, yes sir.

O’Reilly: Thanks for coming on, we appreciate it.



http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...in-michael-jacksons-home-again/#comment-17276
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Tmez did good. Even Oreilly pointed that out in the end while reading email.
 
Top