Jordan Chandler Discussion Thread

Dave dave was there? :eek: omg are u serious?

Yeah, he was supposed to be filmed, but clearly didn't fit into Bashir's narrative. Dave Dave being a boy who'd known him with a severe disfigurement and MJ still being in contact and hiring him to work for him all those years later. Unlike the Arvizo's who MJ had barely seen since 2000 when LaMere warned him about them. Imagine how different the doc would have been if it had been Dave Dave instead of Gavin?

Are you guys saying the Arvizos wanted to f*ck Michael up since day one and then Bashit jumped on the bandwagon!? :shock:

They wanted money from everyone else they'd met before MJ. I don't know if the allegations were something they'd considered, but I would be very surprised if screwing him over in some way had not been a consideration. If they'd tried to extort George Lopez, why not MJ?
 
It seems Bashir was determined to make a mockumentary and destroy Michael, I remember he told him interview Dame Elizabeth and of course it never happened because she never had anything negative or bashful about her dear friend. What an evil bastard! :perrin:
 
^^Yes all this is true. The Avcios did have a plan to exploit Michael in advance. I read that the other child, not starr & Gavin, I can't think of the little crooks name now, oh Devlelone (notice sounds like devil) told someone of the plot they had. Let me go and reread my notes and come back & post it.
 
Yes, gardener was involved in the civil suit. Why do you think feldman chose this man when he was well-known to root out false claims? You would think he would be looking for a sympathetic psychologist. Seeing june accompanied him, maybe she insisted upon it as she needed convincing of the claims. And then they changed to katz, was gardener a dry run to test out the story? We only have a partial transcript of the gardener interview years later, would we even know jordan had been to gardener if ray hadn't included it in his book? This type of info would only come out in a xexam at the civil trial and only if mj's lawyers suspected that jordan had been psychologist-shopping.

I remember reading somewhere that this gardener was a legal expert on false claims because it paid better as it was usually the father who was being accused and men have more money. He killed himself in a particularly horrible suicide if i remember right.

About Gardener, he also was involved in the Kelly Michaels case, she was convicted in 1988 of 115 counts of sexual abuse against 20 children at the Wee Care Nursery in Maplewood, NJ. She was sent to jail for 47 years but got out in 1993 on appeal. She was 23 when she was charged. Gardener wrote this in a letter to the NYTimes:

I believe we are witnessing a wave of hysteria in both categories of sex-abuse accusations. The hysteria has resulted in overreaction and often Draconian punishment for those who have abused children, punishment that can be considered beyond Constitutional safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment. And this hysteria has also resulted in lack of objectivity of assessment, resulting in "validation" of sex abuse when it has not taken place. Accordingly, the careers and marriages of innocent people have been destroyed, and some people have even been incarcerated.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/19/opinion/l-child-sex-abuse-cases-can-be-witch-hunts-331592.html

Here is the way interviews were conducted on the children:

The following excerpted interview, along with our annotated comments, summarizes many of the points made in this section. The interviewer, an experienced social worker, is denoted I, and he is interviewing one child, denoted C. Occasionally a police detective (P) joins the interview.
I: We have gotten a lot of other kids to help us since I last saw you.
C: No. I don't have to.
I: Oh come on. Did we tell you she is in jail?
C: Yes. My mother already told me.
Comment: It is obvious that this interviewer was not neutral regarding the defendant's guilt, insinuating that because she is now jail he need not be afraid of he r, although it is not clear that this child was ever afraid. Also note the use of peer pressure.
I: Well, we can get out of here real quick if you just tell me what you told me last time.
Comment: There is no desire on the part of this interviewer to test an alternative hypothesis; rather he desires the child to reaffirm on tape what he said in an earlier interview through the use of a bribe.
C: I forgot.
I: No you didn't, I know you didn't.
C: I did, I did.
I: No, come on.
C: I forgot.
I: I thought we were friends last time.
C: I'm not your friend any more.
I: How come?
C: Because I hate you.
I: Is it because we are talking about stuff you don't want to talk about? What are you a monster now? Huh? ....
Comment: This interviewing borders on being coercive. There is little respect for the child's wish not to discuss this matter.
I: We talked to a few more of your buddies - we talked to everybody now. And everyone told me about the nap room, and the bathroom stuff, and the music room stuff, and the choir stuff, and the peanut butter stuff, and nothing surprises me any more.
Comment: Again, further evidence that no alternative hypothesis is being te sted. The interviewer essentially tells the child that his friends already told on th e defendant, and that he, the child, should do the same.
C: I hate you.
I: No you don't... You just don't like talking about this, but you don't hate me.
C: Yes, I do hate you.
I: We can finish this real fast if you just show me real fast what you showed me last time.
C: No.
I: I will let you play my tape recorder....Come on, do you want to help us out? Do you want to help us keep her in jail, huh? ...Tell me what happened to (three other children). Tell me what happened to them. Come on.....I need your help again, buddy. Come on.
C: No.
I: You told us everything once before. Do you want to undress my dolly?
I: Let's get done with this real quick so we could go to Kings to get popsicles....Did (defendant) ever tell you she could get out of jail?
Comment: The interviewer comes close to bribing the child for a disclosure, by implying that the aversive interview can be terminated as soon as the child repeats what he said earlier. Popsicles and playing with a tape recorder are offere d as rewards.
Police: She could never get out.
C: I know that.
Police: Cause I got her... She is very afraid of me. She is so scared of me.
I: She cries when she sees him (indicating the police detective) because she is so scared... What happened to (another child) with the wooden spoon? If you don't remember in words, maybe you can show me.
Comment: Note the authoritative statements of the policeman. There is no attempt to test the hypothesis that the defendant did not do what they believed she did. Instead, we see further attempts to vilify the defendant to make it more likely the chi ld will confirm their hunch about her.
C: I forgot what happened, too.
I: You remember. You told your mommy about everything, about the music room, and the nap room. And all the stuff. You want to help her stay in jail, don't you? So she doesn't bother you any more...Your mommy told me that you had a picture of yourself in your room and there was blood on your penis. Who hurt you?
C: (child names the defendant).
I: So, your penis was bleeding, oh. Your penis was bleeding. Tell me something else: was your hiney bleeding, too?
C: No.
Comment: The child never says to this investigator that his penis was bleeding. The investigator provides this misleading information to the child.
I: Did (defendant) bleed, too?
C: No.
I: Are you sure she didn't bleed?
C: Yes.... I saw her penis, too.
I: Show me on the (anatomical) doll....you saw that? Oh.
C: See doodied on me...She peed on us.
I: And did you have to pee on her at all?
C: Yeah.
I: You did? And who peed on her, you and who else?
C: (child names a male friend)
I: Didn't his penis bleed?
C: Yes.
I: It did? What made it bleed? What was she doing?
C: She was bleeding.
I: She was bleeding in her penis? Did you have to put your penis in her penis? Yes or No?
C: Yeah...And I peed in her penis.
I: What was that like? What did it feel like?
C: Like a shot.
I: Did (friend) have to put his penis in her penis, too?
C: Yes, at the same time.
I: At the same time? How did you do that?
C: We chopped our penises off.
I: So, she was bleeding in her penis and you had your penis and your friend's inside her penis.
C: At the same time.

http://www.falseallegations.com/amicus.htm

Frequently, the people charged couldnot make bail--either b/c it was set too high (like a million dollars or really high like tht ) or it was denied. One guy in the Little rascals case in NC was in jail 3 and a half years just waiting for a trial, and he had never even been in the Daycare, didn't know the kids, and had only been questioned once by police. Frontline did a series of reports on that case over a 7 year period.
NARRATOR: Betsy stayed in prison almost one full year. In the middle of 1993, Glenn Lancaster, a successful businessman in Raleigh, North Carolina, picked up a local paper. He read a story about the Little Rascals case and about the man the writer called "the forgotten defendant," Scott Privott, who had been languishing in jail for over 3 and half years awaiting trial.
GLENN LANCASTER: I'm finding myself saying, "This cannot happen in America. This cannot happen. This doesn't happen in our country," you know? I mean, we don't throw people in jail without even-- the police even interrogating them or talking to them or asking them questions.
NARRATOR: But obviously, it had happened. In the three and half years that Scott Privott had been in jail, hehad been interrogated by the police only once.
JOE CHESHIRE, Defense Attorney: Most people in the public think that a plea is kind of a-- you've bought your way out of something. You've gotten some fast talking lawyer who's gotten you out and your happy as a clam. You can't imagine the pressures that there are on you when people have accused you of a crime. You can't imagine how your life changes. When you're charged with a crime, you're raped. And sometimes you're guilty. But if you're not, it changes your life forever. Forever.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html#3
 
Last edited:
First time he was there he told MJ he'd hoped Macaulay Culkin would be there so he could film them together. Guess why?

MJ had Dave Dave the burn victim also there when Gavin was filming, guess whose interview was used?


Wow i did not know that, I cant stand to watch that interview because of what Bashir did but theres more and more things im reading in this thread now that i didnt know and its making it even worse! Its ridiculous
 
^^Yes all this is true. The Avcios did have a plan to exploit Michael in advance. I read that the other child, not starr & Gavin, I can't think of the little crooks name now, oh Devlelone (notice sounds like devil) told someone of the plot they had. Let me go and reread my notes and come back & post it.

The roach's name is Davelin. It's a real shame those bastards lied all the time about loving and caring for Michael, if that mofo Gavin is alive is because he paid most of his cancer treatments, he's alive because of Michael's gigantic generosity and true commitment to help people in disgrace like him. It's not fair! :mat:
 
Snow White luvs Peter Pan;3778445 said:
The roach's name is Davelin. It's a real shame those bastards lied all the time about loving and caring for Michael, if that mofo Gavin is alive is because he paid most of his cancer treatments, he's alive because of Michael's gigantic generosity and true commitment to help people in disgrace like him. It's not fair! :mat:

Yes that is the name. It was something she said & the person she told said he was going to warn Michael. I have these large files on my desktop with like 200+ pages each & I am trying to find the information. When Respect comes she will most likely find it before I do.

Meanwhile I came across this information that in January 2000, 7 months before they met Michael, Janet Arvizo visited a lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for molesting her son. Mesereau, said she told the investigators this in June 2003 when they made their allegations against Michael, and guess what this case was still brought to court.

Then, we know from Geraldine that on tape Jordan's dad says he is ready to move with his plan, others he paid are waiting on his phone call, & that things are going according to a certain plan in which he is not the only one involved, and guess what, this was before his son admitted any molestation.

Edit: Found the Davellin piece:
Davellin told Lamere that Michael was going to buy her family a big house. After questioning Davellin about what she meant, Lemere figured out that Davellin was implying that Janet was going to blackmail Jackson into buy them a house. The plan was to accuse the client of showing the children how to log on to adult websites. Davellin acted as if he did not know how to use the internet until she met the client. Lamere became upset and told Davellin that it was wrong to falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. Davellin became flutstered and scared and then said she was joking. Shortly thereafter, Lemere called Evi Tavaschi and told her to “get Michael away from the Arvizo kids.”
 
Last edited:
I find it funny that the media always made sure to say that they did not pay some people for interviews who talked trash about Michael as if that was supposed to prove they were telling the truth. In my opinion, alot of people were only looking to get themselves on TV and in magazines. Just jumping on the negativity bandwagon created by that mess was enough for them. And not getting paid for an interview doesn't mean they had any credibility. I believe there were a bunch of those people doing interviews where it was claimed they weren't paid by the media. But their stories fell flat when the authorities investigated their claims.
 
Last edited:
I find it funny that the media always made sure to say that they did not pay the people for interviews who talked trash about Michael as if that was supposed to prove they were telling the truth. In my opinion, alot of people were only looking to get themselves on TV and in magazines. Just jumping on the negativity bandwagon created by that mess was enough for them. And not getting paid for an interview doesn't mean they had any credibility. I believe there were a bunch of those people doing interviews where it was claimed they weren't paid by the media. But their stories fell flat when the authorities investigated their claims.

That's a load of BS.

Terry George, Daniel Kapon, Newt, Robson, Ribiero, etc were all paid or offered money

http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/the-allegations/high-price-of-molestation-the-allegations/

Havenhurst 3/Neverland 5, Bob Jones, Stacy Brown... all of them were paid.

Arvizo's received money from tabloids in February 2003. Chandler's received money from tabloids via Ray.

I have no idea who they're claiming wasn't paid or offered money, it's BS. As David Nordahl said tabloids were wandering about with briefcases full of money waiting to give it to people. These people were not coming forwards for their health.
 
Kingofpop4ever3000;3778489 said:
I find it funny that the media always made sure to say that they did not pay the people for interviews who talked trash about Michael as if that was supposed to prove they were telling the truth. In my opinion, alot of people were only looking to get themselves on TV and in magazines. Just jumping on the negativity bandwagon created by that mess was enough for them. And not getting paid for an interview doesn't mean they had any credibility. I believe there were a bunch of those people doing interviews where it was claimed they weren't paid by the media. But their stories fell flat when the authorities investigated their claims.


A lot of times it was a lie that they were not paid. From Mary Fischer's 1994 GQ article:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->[FONT=&amp]&#8220;Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy's Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was "pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all." But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.&#8221;[[/FONT]<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Normál táblázat"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]-->

As it came out at the 2005 trial, many of the prosecution's witnesses got payments from the media for their stories. Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus, Phillip LeMarque. You can be sure that those who appeared in the tabloid media WERE paid to say the things they said. I personally can't think of anyone who wasn't. It came out crystal clearly during the trial. People do not go to tabloids if they want justice. They go to tabloids if they want money.
 
Last edited:
About Gardener, he also was involved in the Kelly Michaels case, she was convicted in 1988 of 115 counts of sexual abuse against 20 children at the Wee Care Nursery in Maplewood, NJ. She was sent to jail for 47 years but got out in 1993 on appeal. She was 23 when she was charged. Gardener wrote this in a letter to the NYTimes:

I believe we are witnessing a wave of hysteria in both categories of sex-abuse accusations. The hysteria has resulted in overreaction and often Draconian punishment for those who have abused children, punishment that can be considered beyond Constitutional safeguards against cruel and unusual punishment. And this hysteria has also resulted in lack of objectivity of assessment, resulting in "validation" of sex abuse when it has not taken place. Accordingly, the careers and marriages of innocent people have been destroyed, and some people have even been incarcerated.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/19/opinion/l-child-sex-abuse-cases-can-be-witch-hunts-331592.html

Here is the way interviews were conducted on the children:

The following excerpted interview, along with our annotated comments, summarizes many of the points made in this section. The interviewer, an experienced social worker, is denoted I, and he is interviewing one child, denoted C. Occasionally a police detective (P) joins the interview.
I: We have gotten a lot of other kids to help us since I last saw you.
C: No. I don't have to.
I: Oh come on. Did we tell you she is in jail?
C: Yes. My mother already told me.
Comment: It is obvious that this interviewer was not neutral regarding the defendant's guilt, insinuating that because she is now jail he need not be afraid of he r, although it is not clear that this child was ever afraid. Also note the use of peer pressure.
I: Well, we can get out of here real quick if you just tell me what you told me last time.
Comment: There is no desire on the part of this interviewer to test an alternative hypothesis; rather he desires the child to reaffirm on tape what he said in an earlier interview through the use of a bribe.
C: I forgot.
I: No you didn't, I know you didn't.
C: I did, I did.
I: No, come on.
C: I forgot.
I: I thought we were friends last time.
C: I'm not your friend any more.
I: How come?
C: Because I hate you.
I: Is it because we are talking about stuff you don't want to talk about? What are you a monster now? Huh? ....
Comment: This interviewing borders on being coercive. There is little respect for the child's wish not to discuss this matter.
I: We talked to a few more of your buddies - we talked to everybody now. And everyone told me about the nap room, and the bathroom stuff, and the music room stuff, and the choir stuff, and the peanut butter stuff, and nothing surprises me any more.
Comment: Again, further evidence that no alternative hypothesis is being te sted. The interviewer essentially tells the child that his friends already told on th e defendant, and that he, the child, should do the same.
C: I hate you.
I: No you don't... You just don't like talking about this, but you don't hate me.
C: Yes, I do hate you.
I: We can finish this real fast if you just show me real fast what you showed me last time.
C: No.
I: I will let you play my tape recorder....Come on, do you want to help us out? Do you want to help us keep her in jail, huh? ...Tell me what happened to (three other children). Tell me what happened to them. Come on.....I need your help again, buddy. Come on.
C: No.
I: You told us everything once before. Do you want to undress my dolly?
I: Let's get done with this real quick so we could go to Kings to get popsicles....Did (defendant) ever tell you she could get out of jail?
Comment: The interviewer comes close to bribing the child for a disclosure, by implying that the aversive interview can be terminated as soon as the child repeats what he said earlier. Popsicles and playing with a tape recorder are offere d as rewards.
Police: She could never get out.
C: I know that.
Police: Cause I got her... She is very afraid of me. She is so scared of me.
I: She cries when she sees him (indicating the police detective) because she is so scared... What happened to (another child) with the wooden spoon? If you don't remember in words, maybe you can show me.
Comment: Note the authoritative statements of the policeman. There is no attempt to test the hypothesis that the defendant did not do what they believed she did. Instead, we see further attempts to vilify the defendant to make it more likely the chi ld will confirm their hunch about her.
C: I forgot what happened, too.
I: You remember. You told your mommy about everything, about the music room, and the nap room. And all the stuff. You want to help her stay in jail, don't you? So she doesn't bother you any more...Your mommy told me that you had a picture of yourself in your room and there was blood on your penis. Who hurt you?
C: (child names the defendant).
I: So, your penis was bleeding, oh. Your penis was bleeding. Tell me something else: was your hiney bleeding, too?
C: No.
Comment: The child never says to this investigator that his penis was bleeding. The investigator provides this misleading information to the child.
I: Did (defendant) bleed, too?
C: No.
I: Are you sure she didn't bleed?
C: Yes.... I saw her penis, too.
I: Show me on the (anatomical) doll....you saw that? Oh.
C: See doodied on me...She peed on us.
I: And did you have to pee on her at all?
C: Yeah.
I: You did? And who peed on her, you and who else?
C: (child names a male friend)
I: Didn't his penis bleed?
C: Yes.
I: It did? What made it bleed? What was she doing?
C: She was bleeding.
I: She was bleeding in her penis? Did you have to put your penis in her penis? Yes or No?
C: Yeah...And I peed in her penis.
I: What was that like? What did it feel like?
C: Like a shot.
I: Did (friend) have to put his penis in her penis, too?
C: Yes, at the same time.
I: At the same time? How did you do that?
C: We chopped our penises off.
I: So, she was bleeding in her penis and you had your penis and your friend's inside her penis.
C: At the same time.

http://www.falseallegations.com/amicus.htm

Frequently, the people charged couldnot make bail--either b/c it was set too high (like a million dollars or really high like tht ) or it was denied. One guy in the Little rascals case in NC was in jail 3 and a half years just waiting for a trial, and he had never even been in the Daycare, didn't know the kids, and had only been questioned once by police. Frontline did a series of reports on that case over a 7 year period.
NARRATOR: Betsy stayed in prison almost one full year. In the middle of 1993, Glenn Lancaster, a successful businessman in Raleigh, North Carolina, picked up a local paper. He read a story about the Little Rascals case and about the man the writer called "the forgotten defendant," Scott Privott, who had been languishing in jail for over 3 and half years awaiting trial.
GLENN LANCASTER: I'm finding myself saying, "This cannot happen in America. This cannot happen. This doesn't happen in our country," you know? I mean, we don't throw people in jail without even-- the police even interrogating them or talking to them or asking them questions.
NARRATOR: But obviously, it had happened. In the three and half years that Scott Privott had been in jail, hehad been interrogated by the police only once.
JOE CHESHIRE, Defense Attorney: Most people in the public think that a plea is kind of a-- you've bought your way out of something. You've gotten some fast talking lawyer who's gotten you out and your happy as a clam. You can't imagine the pressures that there are on you when people have accused you of a crime. You can't imagine how your life changes. When you're charged with a crime, you're raped. And sometimes you're guilty. But if you're not, it changes your life forever. Forever.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/etc/other.html#3

Reminds me of Jason Francia's interrogation in 1993. And also of Jordan's by his father.
 
Meanwhile I came across this information that in January 2000, 7 months before they met Michael, Janet Arvizo visited a lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for molesting her son. Mesereau, said she told the investigators this in June 2003 when they made their allegations against Michael, and guess what this case was still brought to court.

Yes, and Janet told to prosecutors that she learnt about the alleged molestation on September 30, when prosecutors told him that. She didn't know before. Except they went to Larry Feldman in June. And Janet previously told that her sons told her about the molestation back in February/March, to which she just said "forgive and forget". All this is in a prosecution motion: both the September claim and the February/March claim! In the same motion. Along with many other laughable claims and contradictions. I can't believe this crap even went to court. My firm opinion is that it only went to court because the media created such a hysterical atmosphere around Michael because of the Bashir docu that it put a huge pressure on the Grand Jury to indict. It's always ridiculous when the media talks about "celebrity justice" regarding Michael. His "celebrity justice" was that he was indicted in a case which, if it wasn't him, would have been thrown out.
 
That's a load of BS.

Terry George, Daniel Kapon, Newt, Robson, Ribiero, etc were all paid or offered money

http://rhythmofthetide.com/category/the-allegations/high-price-of-molestation-the-allegations/

Havenhurst 3/Neverland 5, Bob Jones, Stacy Brown... all of them were paid.

Arvizo's received money from tabloids in February 2003. Chandler's received money from tabloids via Ray.

I have no idea who they're claiming wasn't paid or offered money, it's BS. As David Nordahl said tabloids were wandering about with briefcases full of money waiting to give it to people. These people were not coming forwards for their health.

A lot of times it was a lie that they were not paid. From Mary Fischer's 1994 GQ article:



As it came out at the 2005 trial, many of the prosecution's witnesses got payments from the media for their stories. Blanca Francia, Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus, Phillip LeMarque. You can be sure that those who appeared in the tabloid media WERE paid to say the things they said. I personally can't think of anyone who wasn't. It came out crystal clearly during the trial. People do not go to tabloids if they want justice. They go to tabloids if they want money.

I agree with you la_cienega and respect77. Thank you.
 
Yes, and Janet told to prosecutors that she learnt about the alleged molestation on September 30, when prosecutors told him that. She didn't know before. Except they went to Larry Feldman in June. And Janet previously told that her sons told her about the molestation back in February/March, to which she just said "forgive and forget". All this is in a prosecution motion: both the September claim and the February/March claim! In the same motion. Along with many other laughable claims and contradictions. I can't believe this crap even went to court. My firm opinion is that it only went to court because the media created such a hysterical atmosphere around Michael because of the Bashir docu that it put a huge pressure on the Grand Jury to indict. It's always ridiculous when the media talks about "celebrity justice" regarding Michael. His "celebrity justice" was that he was indicted in a case which, if it wasn't him, would have been thrown out.

Yes. I remember somebody said in the media soon after the 2003 case started that if the case had been looked at carefully all the way through, there was no way the case could have gotten as far as it did. And I remember that a few people who said that were given interview time. But of course, the media did not take them seriously. Because almost right away, the media allowed much more time for known haters to be interviewed and claim that the case was strong and there was no hope for Michael to be acquitted. But in my opinion, the fact that the case even got to court when it was such a hot mess would be laughable if it wasn't based on such serious charges and bias against Michael.
 
Last edited:
a. Not Affectionate Or Friendly; Aloof: A Cold Person



"D.S."

They wanna get my ass Dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me Down by surprise
I bet he missioned with the CIA
He don't do half what he say

Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man

He out shock in every single way He'll stop at nothing just to get his political say
He think he bad cause he's BSTA I bet he never had a social life anyway You think he brother with the KKK?
I know his mother never taught himright anyway He want your vote just to remain TA. He don't do half what he say

Does he send letters to the FBI?
Did he say to either do it or die?
 
[video=youtube;H8dP6em7QZ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8dP6em7QZ0&feature=related[/video]

"Michael Jackson: The Untold Story of Neverland" - Clip 2

jarvizo.jpg




94842579.jpg



...the Santa Barbara, Calif., wedding of Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen to Louise Palanker, a comedian who testified against Jackson in the notorious 2005 trial.

In 2005, after the trial ended, Palanker told the BBC that she had developed a friendship with Gavin and “no matter what happens, I will be on the phone to make sure he is okay and hoping that he can rebuild his life.”

-Later, it was Zonen who told the court that “something terribly illegal” happened at Neverland.
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...edding-photos-gavin-arvizo-attends-ron-zonen/
33680255.jpg


295733_2295618864806_1079114024_2578107_1226938522  _n.jpg
 
Yes, and Janet told to prosecutors that she learnt about the alleged molestation on September 30, when prosecutors told him that. She didn't know before. Except they went to Larry Feldman in June. And Janet previously told that her sons told her about the molestation back in February/March, to which she just said "forgive and forget". All this is in a prosecution motion: both the September claim and the February/March claim! In the same motion. Along with many other laughable claims and contradictions. I can't believe this crap even went to court. My firm opinion is that it only went to court because the media created such a hysterical atmosphere around Michael because of the Bashir docu that it put a huge pressure on the Grand Jury to indict. It's always ridiculous when the media talks about "celebrity justice" regarding Michael. His "celebrity justice" was that he was indicted in a case which, if it wasn't him, would have been thrown out.

respect 77, I read on VMJ that Larry Feldman was influential in getting the 2003 case going and that he testified at the Grand Jury and was influential in getting the GJ to indict. It's possible that Feldman was thinking about another big payoff. I believe Feldman is a huge, disgusting liar and if you read his ridiculous, lying 'testimony' in 2005 trial it is clear he is hiding a lot.
 
Yes, and Janet told to prosecutors that she learnt about the alleged molestation on September 30, when prosecutors told him that. She didn't know before. Except they went to Larry Feldman in June. And Janet previously told that her sons told her about the molestation back in February/March, to which she just said "forgive and forget". All this is in a prosecution motion: both the September claim and the February/March claim! In the same motion. Along with many other laughable claims and contradictions. I can't believe this crap even went to court. My firm opinion is that it only went to court because the media created such a hysterical atmosphere around Michael because of the Bashir docu that it put a huge pressure on the Grand Jury to indict. It's always ridiculous when the media talks about "celebrity justice" regarding Michael. His "celebrity justice" was that he was indicted in a case which, if it wasn't him, would have been thrown out.

Yes I agree^^. I am trying to piece through this information myself, and the contradictions in stories, dates is making my head spin. Seriously I am thinking of getting a big chart board & put down by dates how a statement has changed. I also, believe the media coverage did put some pressure on the Grand Jury, because they must have seen that this case had too many holes in it. Also, all people interviewed by the media got paid. The media was looking in ABROAD for victims as well, so we know that money was exchanging hands.

Can anyone tell me what they think Ray got from this deal. I mean he is involved & pretends he is not, then he claims he knew about the allegations, then he claims he does not. Is there information he got money from Evan? No doubt the book money was split between the 2, but the book only came out in 2004.

Also, I am seeing articles that state Michael agreed to pay a separate amount for the Chandlers lawyers, Which I do not believe. Am I correct? I am thinking that Chandlers got the 15 million and change. Then their attorneys got about 7mill & the rest went to the Chandlers. Why would Michael's insurance pay for the attorneys separately if the case was for negligence & they wrote into the document that the payment does not mean Michael is admitting to any wrongdoing?

Alicat thanks so much for that DS video. I could Imagine Michael exorcising the DS nasty ghost as he sang. We really need the history tour on dvd. Those 2 people deserve each other, after all they look alike.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Found the Davellin piece:
Davellin told Lamere that Michael was going to buy her family a big house. After questioning Davellin about what she meant, Lemere figured out that Davellin was implying that Janet was going to blackmail Jackson into buy them a house. The plan was to accuse the client of showing the children how to log on to adult websites. Davellin acted as if he did not know how to use the internet until she met the client. Lamere became upset and told Davellin that it was wrong to falsely accuse someone of wrongdoing. Davellin became flutstered and scared and then said she was joking. Shortly thereafter, Lemere called Evi Tavaschi and told her to “get Michael away from the Arvizo kids.”


:eek: Omg reading this just makes me so mad...cant belive it why oh why did god let this happen :(

Isnt davelin the sister?
 
Are you guys saying the Arvizos wanted to f*ck Michael up since day one and then Bashit jumped on the bandwagon!? :shock:

Of course bashit wanted to jump in on the action, remember he is in the media and i bet any other interviewer in the media wouldve given anything to be in bashit's spot at that time to play the dirty on michel
 
If Michael was warned in advance, why did he continued to have contact with the Arvizos then? I don't get it... :scratch: :thinking:

I think michael wanted to belive that the arvizos were good people, thats the way he was - looking at the best of people
 
If Michael was warned in advance, why did he continued to have contact with the Arvizos then? I don't get it... :scratch: :thinking:

He didn't see them throughout the whole of 2001 and only called them in 2002 to the Bashir documentary.

Then when that blew up he obviously felt bad and he felt it was "safer" I guess if they were with him. They were getting harassed by the media and by Sneddon, DCFS, etc

But the thing is, while they were in Neverland from Feb-March 2003 MJ was almost never around them. He went to Miami, to LA, he had them stay in a hotel, he was not really close to them to begin with. The prosecution and media wanted people to believe MJ had this entire conspiracy to hold Gavin hostage to molest him, except MJ made it his goal to totally disappear on them while they were there.

His people tried to do the right thing - they kept receipts, kept an eye on them, they spoke to an investigator of MJ's who said nothing happened, told DCFS nothing happened, etc etc etc But this didn't matter to Sneddon who said in his statement of probable cause to charge MJ that just being friends with a 13 year old boy was enough. When even then, MJ had not been that close to Gavin at all.

Yes I agree^^. I am trying to piece through this information myself, and the contradictions in stories, dates is making my head spin. Seriously I am thinking of getting a big chart board & put down by dates how a statement has changed. I also, believe the media coverage did put some pressure on the Grand Jury, because they must have seen that this case had too many holes in it. Also, all people interviewed by the media got paid. The media was looking in ABROAD for victims as well, so we know that money was exchanging hands.
LOL some people are working on this.

The MichaelJacksonVindication breakdowns of the Arvizo testimony are really useful though:

http://michaeljacksonvindication2.w...rect-examination-of-gavin-arvizo-part-2-of-2/

If I had one wish for this fandom it would be that every fan would read up and talk about the allegations more.

It's why Randall Sullivan's book flopped so hard with us this time, because too many vocal fans could easily fact check it and it rendered it redundant, obsolete and useless. But if more fans could be more informed it would mean whenever this comes up, which it always does, that fans could have more to say in his defense than talking about how nice MJ is or whatever, which makes me cringe when I see fans doing. It's the worst defense for him possible.
 
Last edited:
He didn't see them throughout the whole of 2001 and only called them in 2002 to the Bashir documentary.


But the thing is, while they were in Neverland from Feb-March 2003 MJ was almost never around them. He went to Miami, to LA, he had them stay in a hotel, he was not really close to them to begin with. The prosecution and media wanted people to believe MJ had this entire conspiracy to hold Gavin hostage to molest him, except MJ made it his goal to totally disappear on them while they were there.

His people tried to do the right thing - they kept receipts, kept an eye on them, they spoke to an investigator of MJ's who said nothing happened, told DCFS nothing happened, etc etc etc


I agree. I remember that Michael would have his people take the Arvizos to restaurants and Janet Arvizo was going to beauty shops all with Michael's money. And this was going on at the time they were being held against their will at Neverland according to the prosecution. Pfft. The Arvizos didn't say anything about Michael acting inappropriately and never even showed signs of distress to anybody while they were going to public places and spending his money. It wasn't until he finally realized they were taking advantage of him and kicked them out that they started with that crap.
 
Last edited:
I agree. I remember that Michael would have his people take the Arvizos to restaurants and Janet Arvizo was going to beauty shops all with Michael's money. And this was going on at the time they were being held against their will at Neverland according to the prosecution. Pfft. The Arvizos didn't say anything about Michael acting inappropriately and never even showed signs of distress to anybody while they were going to public places and spending his money. It wasn't until he finally realized they were taking advantage of him and kicked them out that they started with that crap.

Yes, everyone said they all seemed to be enjoying their time there and the only thing they complained about was people separating MJ from them.

Then much to Sneddon's dismay... Gavin Arvizo finished his 2005 testimony by saying he had never wanted to leave Neverland because he was having a good time there. They'd claimed they were held hostage, had their lives threatened by Cascio and MJ's people, couldn't escape, were being sexually abused, and then the victim finishes his testimony by saying that he didn't want to leave.

Jordan did the exact same thing, he said he'd wanted to go on tour with Michael because he was having fun.
 
Mom was meeting with lawyers to sue Michael months before she met him

Meanwhile I came across this information that in January 2000, 7 months before they met Michael, Janet Arvizo visited a lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for molesting her son. Mesereau, said she told the investigators this in June 2003 when they made their allegations against Michael, and guess what this case was still brought to court.

This is just wrong. I've seen this claim before and it's just one of the fan conspiracies that get's passed around and repeated. It arose from janet arvizo visiting a lawyer apparently in 2000 on some matter who just happened to be called feldman. People put 2 and 2 together and made out that it was larry feldman and it meant janet was planning on entrapping mj before she even met him. It was all discussed i think in a pre-trial hearing in 03 where sneddon made it crystal clear in a redirect that it was just some random lawyer janet was seeing called feldman and it was nothing to do with mj.
 
Back
Top