A recent National Enquirer story about fingerprints was swiped by various media outlets and furthered by prosecution leaks. The so-called "bombshell" promised to be "devastating" for Jackson's "case" and was supposed to be "damning evidence." What most of these chicken-little reports fail to do is provide an argument that stands up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

That Enquirer report says fingerprints of the accuser were allegedly found on the same adult heterosexual porn magazine taken from Jackson's house. Besides not knowing whether or not the story is true, no one seems to know when Jackson's fingerprints were put on the magazine and when the accuser's fingerprints were put on the magazine.

Reports and comments from pundits, who already thought Jackson was guilty before hearing this story, were overly dramatic as expected; proclaiming this as a "smoking gun". Others however were not impressed with this wannabe "bombshell".

What some of the broadcast news snatchers failed to include in their reporters were questions about the validity of the claims. Other non-prosecution/law enforcement sources have another story to tell.

These sources say the accuser and his brother were very "disruptive" at Jackson's home. Many times they--other children and adults too--were at Jackson's ranch when Jackson was away, reportedly say sources who were there observing these children. They also report that the accuser, his brother and possibly other children were given free run of Neverland.

Geraldo Rivera reported that his sources say these kids were going through Jackson’s belongings, and were even caught and chastised for breaking into the place where Jackson allegedly kept his adult material. Rivera says during a December 12 2004 show:




Cynthia McFadden’s short conversation on Good Morning America (ABC) Dec 13 2004 mentioned a slightly broader sense of the importance of this info. She told Diane Sawyer that fingerprints can’t be dated nor can one tell if they were made at the same time:





__I’m absolutely certain!...I think…maybe__
The repeated source of this story, the National Enquirer’s Mike Walker, was on Rivera’s Dec 12 2004 show in a failed attempt to play up the meaning of the story…that is, if it’s even true.

Walker spoke of devastation and damning evidence. He, however, couldn’t offer a credible response to the new details of these children’s behavior as revealed by Rivera’s sources.

Rivera first asked Walker: “How sure are you of this story?” Walker, in his double-speak, at first claims he was “very sure of this story”. But then he offers words seemingly unsure of it. He told Rivera: “And if this story absolutely pans out exactly the way we believe it to be true, this is bombshell evidence.” Well yeah, it would be bombshell evidence if every little detail was as the National Enquirer wanted it to be.

By that same speculative token, one could say it would/could be bombshell evidence if Walker was caught on tape molesting a little girl that he knows. Or bombshell evidence of bias if an authentic Fox memo surfaced saying “Bash all liberals…and Michael Jackson too”. Or bombshell evidence if video surveillance caught Diane Dimond on tape breaking into court files and copying the grand jury transcripts. Or bombshell evidence if the investigation into CBS found that Dan Rather typed up the Bush memos himself on his own computer. But NONE of this is true! People, including us, love to speculate. But it certainly isn’t something one could hang their hat on as proof of guilt.

Some of those who watched Rivera’s show also pointed out that Walker’s defense of the fingerprints story included an almost unsure undertone. No kidding. Of course, this is the same National Enquirer that recently claimed Jackson had procured quadruplets…and the world is still waiting on those mythical quads. But I digress…sort of.

After Rivera revealed that there are sources/people who witnessed these kids snooping into Jackson’s belongings when he wasn’t there and generally being “disruptive,” the only thing Walker could do was offer his own opinion. He claims that Jackson wouldn’t use heterosexual porn for his own pleasure.

Walker didn’t explain just how in hell he would know what Jackson uses or doesn’t use for his own pleasure. Rivera didn’t ask him to explain. Walker seemed to view this latest allegation with the premise that Jackson can’t be attracted to pornography or heterosexual pornography or whatever. Thus, everything involving it must be sinister! Right?? Ridiculous.

For decades the collective media have been pushing a tabloid version of who Jackson is; right down to the non-existent hyperbaric chamber and the mythical bleaching of his skin. So, they are loathed to stop whoring Jackson’s imagined image for their ‘MJ’ industry, which has made them millions of dollars over the years.

Almost everything the media doesn’t understand about Jackson is automatically given a monstrous tone to it solely because some people can’t wrap their minds around the fact that Jackson is…get this: a red-blooded male human being. Shock! Amazement! It can’t be! Say it ain’t so, Joe! Good grief.

These non-prosecution sources also say the accuser and brother were caught by Neverland staff breaking into Jackson’s wine cellar. This was reported months ago by Fox news before this current round of stories surfaced.


__ Told’cha so, told’cha so, told’cha so__
As dubious as Roger Friedman’s sources are on just about anything ‘Jackson’, and anything unrelated to this actual “case”, the sources are more right than most solely concerning the issue of this “case”.

In a report dated July 01 2004, Friedman wrote that his source said the accuser and his brother were caught by a Neverland employee doing what they weren’t supposed to be doing:



What could also be more enlightening, as some observers have speculated, are possible surveillance video around Neverland taken at the time the accusing family claimed all these things were happening. By all accounts, Neverland has a surveillance system.

“Case” observers who have been inside the courtroom during a previous hearing say it was revealed that Jackson’s personal living quarters (bedroom) has video surveillance. They also say one of the prosecutors asked the ranch manager Joseph Marcus about this subject.

As mentioned in MJEOL Bullet #186, Marcus was asked if Jackson had security cameras in his bedroom and if they were working on the day of November 18 raiding Neverland. Marcus confirmed the cameras were up and rolling the day of the police raid, say courtroom observers.

Now, if the defense has tape of the accuser and/or brother snooping around Jackson’s bedroom, or sneaking into Jackson’s wine cellar, or getting caught and chastised by Neverland employees, it will be yet another story told by the accusing family which doesn’t pan out.

In a CNN article written about this subject dated December 11 2004, their sources also say the family had “free run” of Neverland when Jackson was away:




So has this promised “bombshell” turned out to be a dud? Some “case” observers say if this is what prosecutors are hanging their hats on, they are in “a world of trouble.”


Desperate Prosecutor Tip #66: When in deep $@#!, distract from the main issue
Speaking of this story, some are asking why was this story leaked and pushed at the time. If this alleged magazine was found at Jackson’s Neverland ranch back during the November 2003 raid, why did this story just so happen to be leaked after prosecutors came under heavy fire for waiting so late to collect a DNA sample from Jackson.

The leaker(s) probably hoped to push questions about the validity of their “case” to the backburner. However, the question still remains, if true, how could the recently leaked info make a difference, if any, in this “case”; especially given eye witness and possibly video surveillance to the contrary?

Could these types of stories hurt prosecutors more than help? Some observers do say that once a possible trial does start, people are going to be actively looking for all of this leaked info to come out in full detail. If the prosecutors don’t deliver, what then? Will the National Enquirer print a retraction? Don’t hold your breath.

-MJEOL

http://site.mjeol.com/mod...oryid=1259

An excellent post from someone at the KOP Board:

To believe the print on porn story, you have to put it in the context of THE FAMILY'S ENTIRE STORY, not just a porn print. A porn print can not stand alone or outside their story as Tom Sneddon wishes.

So, let's start with the abduction. After Living With Michael Jackson aired on February 6, 2003, Michael plots to abduct the family although the family claims the molestation begins on February 20, 2003? Michael plans to abduct them when they are praising him to Ed Bradley? How exactly will they explain their kidnapping when Ed Bradley, Chris Tucker, and Rita Crosby witnessed them????

How exactly will they mix this porn print into their ENTIRE STORY "Michael showed the boy porn (producing a print) , got him drunk to pass out, molested him WHILE his brother watched on the stairs, all AFTER/DURING the family's investigation by the Los Angeles Department of Child and Family Services?" What kills this family's claim is the TIMELINE. The porn print doesn't stand alone and is a distraction from the bigger picture. Since Michael knew the family since October 2001, it could have been many occassions for the boy to find Michael's porn stash. However, to fit the porn print in the family's timeline of story is a little more difficult to digest and believe. So, PUT THE PORN PRINT STORY WITH THE FAMILY'S STORY AND SEE IF IT'S ANYMORE BELIEVABLE THAN BEFORE. AND IT'S NOT!

And that's the MAJOR problem with the porn print. Porn print or not, it's the timeline that kills their case because the porn print would have to be apart of their story not separate from it. And this is a major reason the porn print story has no clout. The porn print is a subplot, not the plot in their outrageous story. The timeline is like a FAT ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM ignored because of a fly, the fly is the porn print.

BTW, this is NOT a smoking gun for 2 reason.

1. The family met Michael in October 2001, meaning they've been in his house for over 2 years and could have come upon ANYTHING.

2. It's WOMEN PORN. What pedophile gets gratification from watching women bodies????

First off: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So said the Lord, so I'm not about to tear down ol' MJ. Too often, he's the easy target of ridicule. To me, the most interesting aspect of the porn lock box is the refutation it provides of his self-avowed "Peter Pan" image.

Whether the truth reveals that Jackson abused this boy and/or others or that the youth's family has been using him as a pawn to get money, this much is clear: This case stands to show the degrees to which adults in America will go to exploit children. I hope -- in the midst of all the hype and exposition -- that crucial point isn't lost.

America, we must protect our children. We're doing a crummy job.

I'm sorry but this shit is so fucking tired...

The circus goes round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round.

Book'em danno

From Roger Friedman's FOX411 column on July 1st,2004:

It's good news and bad news for Michael Jackson, according to my sources, when it comes to items taken from his bedroom by the Santa Barbara District Attorney's office.

This week, Jackson's lawyers lobbied judge Rodney S. Melville to keep sealed parts of the indictment that would reveal what had been taken from Jackson's Neverland ranch last November when police conducted their all-day raid. Since then it's seemed that the objects confiscated bore less of a consequence on any specific physical interaction Jackson might have had with his accuser, but showed questionable judgment on his part.

My source, who has seen documents related to the case, tells me that police found a "collection" of pornography in Jackson's large two-story bedroom. Among the items my source said were confiscated were magazines and DVDs of adult movies, including at least one that involved lesbian sex. That's the bad news.

The good news — and this is relative — is that the material, as far as can be determined so far, was of a heterosexual nature and did not involve children.

The magazines said to be found included the more conventional Playboy and Penthouse, and harder core magazines such as Hustler and Cheri. How many issues of each magazine were confiscated is unknown, but according to my source, Jackson apparently kept them in a drawer next to his bedside.

My source says that also taken by police during the raid were unspecified coins, framed and unframed pictures, and more seriously, prescription pill bottles for controlled medications such as Oxycodone. The big problem with the latter, I'm told, is that several of the vials' labels were made out not to Jackson, but to employees whose name he used to secure unauthorized prescriptions.

As for the porno, the magazines and DVDs are said to have been purchased by Jackson's nephews and friends.

"It's not like Michael can go out and get this stuff himself," my source says. "He has to have others do it for him."

Nevertheless, my source says that the DVDs were kept in a locked briefcase in Jackson's bedroom.

The Santa Barbara grand jury that indicted Jackson might have actually felt that the accusing child's proximity and potential access to these materials constituted abuse or neglect, I am told.

Certainly, another big issue in Jackson's child molestation case and indictment is alcohol. Way back on the day the Jackson story broke in November 2003, this column reported that there would be an accusation of pills and liquor given to the then 13-year-old boy.

Now a source says that the boy and his brother were found by a Jackson employee in the Neverland wine cellar.

"They were pouring Harbor Mist into cups," says my source, who says the inexpensive liqueur, which comes with twist off caps, was used as a mixer.

I'm told that once this was discovered, the kids were lectured and cut off from entering the room again.

The wine cellar, I am told, is just down a few steps from the Neverland game room, and next to a jukebox. Even though it had a lock, my source claims that one of Jackson's cooks broke it, making the liquor easy to get at.

After the wine cellar was re-locked and the boys were cut off, they are said to have approached the Neverland chef for drinks. Wisely, he refused.

Mike reads Hustler?


For some reason,that cracks me up

Jackson Accuser's Mother Being Questioned for Welfare Fraud? - Undercover.com.au

by Paul Cashmere
6 December 2004

Time is quickly running out for Michael Jackson's accusers to gather their evidence to proceed with the case.

To expedite their claims, authorities conducted a further raid on the Neverland Ranch in an attempt to gather more legal ammunition to use as evidence against the superstar.

On Friday, sheriff's deputies from Santa Barbara County once again raided Jackson's home. Jackson left with his children by helicopter to avoid his children being traumatized by the raid but returned the following day to give DNA samples. It is not yet clear why the DNA was required.

The latest raid is signaling a weak defense from Jackson accusers. For starters, a DNA sample is something that should have been gathered much earlier during the investigation if really required.

Jackson's home was first raided on November 18, 2003. More than a year later, the sheriff's office is still looking for something that may prove their case against Jackson on charges of child molestation.

The case for Jackson is also getting stronger. The mother of the boy is being questioned for fraud for allegedly being on welfare while he then boyfriend (and now husband) was earning $80,000 a year.

Jackson is due to stand trial on January 31, 2005.

Hats off to you for doing your homework
Lotta stuff i didn't even know about lol

Christ Mj's bedroom is a goddamn Cesspool of porn
you'd think with a man of his status he'd turn into batman when it comes to hiding porn
he's just like any old Joe lol
Guess he isn't A-sexual as some fans make him out to be christ
I must agree with some of the skeptics
if he's gonna have that much porn around his bedroom premises
he really shouldn't be having kids around his bedroom
either no kids in the porno playroom
or hide your stash better
C'mon MIKE!

Published: Monday, November 24, 2003

Lawyer: Michael Jackson accuser never mentioned alleged abuse

By Tim Molloy

Published: Monday, November 24, 2003

LOS ANGELES - An attorney who represented the mother of Michael Jackson's accuser in her divorce from the child's father said the family never indicated to him that Jackson had sexually abused the boy.

Attorney Michael Manning said Monday he remembers the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May.

'''He was really good to us' - that's what she said at the time,'' Manning said.

Asked if she had said anything else about Jackson, Manning added, ''Nothing bad. ... If it turned sour, I don't know how.''

The mother filed for divorce in 2001 and has custody. Manning said she and the alleged victim rarely mentioned their visits to Jackson's Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County.

The Associated Press does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. The child's mother could not be located for comment Monday.

Stuart Backerman, the entertainer's spokesman, declined to comment Monday night.

Santa Barbara County district attorney's office and the sheriff's department declined to comment Monday on the case. Both have said they will not comment until charges are filed.
Jackson launched a Web site Monday designed to tell his side of the story in the case, asserting the allegations are ''predicated on a big lie.''

Jackson put the site together so he could communicate directly with the news media and fans, Backerman said. Jackson said in his statement that the site would serve as a source for ''official communications on my case.''

The site contains links to three earlier statements Backerman made last week on Jackson's behalf. The statements were made after authorities raided the singer's Neverland Ranch and before and after the entertainer surrendered on a warrant alleging lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14.

A public relations executive who is not involved in the Jackson case said the Web site allows the entertainer to bypass the news media to deliver his side of the story to the public.
''He's able to communicate with those people interested without the message being filtered by the media,'' said Doug Dowie, senior vice president of Fleishman-Hillard.

Jackson was released on $3 million bail after his surrender Thursday and immediately returned to Las Vegas, where he had been filming a video. Authorities have said they expect to file formal charges sometime after Thanksgiving.
[Edited 12/15/04 17:44pm]

Amit, its a real nice gesture i appreciate it
but uh if you haven't noticed this thread is pretty dull why?
because no one likes good news especially about MJ
the other thread that just said jackson fingerprints on porn
got 60 answers within the hour

People are gonna believe what they want
each day im starting to care less and less

Luv4oneanotha said:

Tru that

Published: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 5:19:27 PM PST

Family of Jackson's Accuser Has Long History of Legal woes

By Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) - The family of the boy accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation has already been involved in two previous cases that involved abuse allegations: a lawsuit in which the family said they were battered by mall security guards, and a divorce fight in which the father pleaded no contest to spousal abuse and child cruelty.

In November of 2001, J.C. Penney Co. paid the boy's family $137,500 to settle a $3 million civil lawsuit alleging security guards beat the boy, his brother, his mother in a parking lot after the boy left the store carrying clothes that hadn't been paid for, court records show.

The mother also contended that she was sexually assaulted by one of the guards during the 1998 confrontation.

A month before the settlement, the boy's mother had filed for divorce, beginning a bitter fight that would include criminal charges of abuse. The father's attorney, Russell Halpern, said the mother had lied about the abuse and had a "Svengali-like" ability to make her children repeat her lies.

The family's past legal cases could be critical in the current molestation case, if Jackson attorney Mark Geragos can show the mother or the accuser lacks credibility, said Leonard Levine, a defense attorney who specializes in sexual assault cases.

"It sounds like music to a defense attorney's ears - that there have been other cases where they have sued and there is at least an argument that the allegations are similar to the ones here," Levine said, referring to the claims of physical abuse.

Halpern said the father once showed him a script his wife had allegedly written for their children to use when they were questioned in a civil deposition.

"She wrote out all their testimony. I actually saw the script," Halpern said. "I remember my client showing me, bringing the paperwork to me."

Halpern said it may have been from the J.C. Penney case, but he wasn't sure. J.C. Penney lawyers did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

"Once you can get evidence in that there's previous evidence that either the child or the parents have fabricated evidence or testimony, you're 90 percent to an acquittal," Levine said.

The Associated Press does not identify alleged victims of sexual abuse. The child's mother has an unlisted number and could not be located for comment.

Jackson was released on $3 million bail after his surrender Thursday and immediately returned to Las Vegas, where he had been filming a video. Santa Barbara County authorities said Tuesday they now expect to file formal charges sometime in mid-December rather than soon after Thanksgiving.

Jackson's spokesman, Stuart Backerman, declined comment about the past lawsuits involving the accuser's family. Geragos said Tuesday that Jackson's accusers were motivated by money.

In 2002, the boy's father was charged with four counts of child cruelty, and one count each of injuring a child, making a threat and false imprisonment. He pleaded no contest to one count of child cruelty but it was unclear from court records which of his children was involved. The other charges were dismissed.

The father also pleaded no contest to spousal abuse in 2001.

In a court document describing the alleged abuse, the boy's mother said that on Sept. 29, 2001, her husband grabbed her and shook her, hit her in the head and pulled her hair. When she fell down, she said, he kicked her.

"He said he hated me and hated our kids and that he was disowning us," she said in the statement. "He said if I ever told anyone about this that he would kill me and the kids would have no mother."

Halpern said the mother made up the abuse allegations and that his client had only pleaded no contest to avoid going to trial. He said that in the case of the threat charge, the mother had encouraged her daughter to falsely accuse her father.

"The allegation was that my client had come to the girl's school and told her he was going to kill her mother. That's what she claimed to the police," Halpern said. "And then when she was in court talking to the judge alone, without the mother around, she changed her story dramatically and said he picked her up from school, talking to her but never threatened anybody.

"She didn't say her mother made her do it, but that's obviously where it came from."

Halpern said the father is now considering seeking custody of the children because, if the allegations against Jackson are true, the mother put their son at risk by letting him be close to Jackson.

If the allegations are untrue, Halpern said, the boy's mother is putting him at legal risk by asking him to lie.

The mother's attorney in the divorce, Michael Manning, declined to comment through his secretary Tuesday. On Monday, Manning told The Associated Press that she had never indicated to him that the singer had sexually abused the boy, and that he remembered the mother saying positive things about Jackson as recently as April or May.

"'He was really good to us' - that's what she said at the time," Manning said.

But on Tuesday, his secretary said the mother had asked Manning to stop talking to the media.
[Edited 12/16/04 7:23am]

I read MJEOL because I'm like every other MJ nut, but there's really no need to delve in to the particulars of this case. Tom Sneddon is the only DA in history who would prosecute this and there’s no evidence out there that’s gonna prevent him from stopping.

The Jackson family has always hung around sycophants and obvious sleaze.

threat said:

NO DNA found of Accuser in Jackson's Bedroom

11/5/04
By DAWN HOBBS

NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER

A judge refused Thursday to throw veteran prosecutor Tom Sneddon off the Michael Jackson case.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville disagreed with defense lawyers, who said the Santa Barbara County district attorney has misused his power in the child molestation case against the entertainer.

"It is my belief he has not been excessively zealous and has not threatened the integrity of the investigation up to this point," Judge Melville said in the Santa Maria courtroom Thursday morning.

Judge Melville's ruling means that Mr. Sneddon will continue to pursue the high-profile case that has attracted worldwide attention.

Mr. Jackson's lawyers had alleged that Mr. Sneddon was waging a vendetta against their client stemming from a failed 1993 child molestation investigation that also targeted Mr. Jackson.

But the judge said a prosecutor may be removed from a case only if there is a conflict so grave that it would be unlikely the defendant would receive a fair trial. Judge Melville said he found "no disabling conflict."

Judge Melville had previously characterized some of Mr. Sneddon's conduct during the grand jury hearing in April as "regrettable."

The judge noted Thursday that he plans to keep a tight rein on attorneys during the upcoming trial in his courtroom: "There will be controls during this trial while the jury is present. The conduct of the district attorney will be under my direction. If he appears excessively zealous -- it will be taken care of."

The judge's ruling came after he heard heated arguments about Mr. Sneddon's conduct.

Lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau contended that Mr. Sneddon has been "blinded by zeal" in an attempt to convict his client and pointed to the use of 70 officers to raid Mr. Jackson's ranch and nearly 100 subsequent search warrants. The prosecutors "have done more to intimidate Mr. Jackson than they have done to go after serial killers and alleged murderers," Mr. Mesereau said.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen countered each of the defense allegations and defended Mr. Sneddon's record.

Mr. Zonen said: "Tom Sneddon was elected to district attorney in 1982 by an overwhelming majority of the vote. No one has run against him since that time. . . . No one in the state of California has held the position of district attorney longer than Tom Sneddon. He's been elected repeatedly because . . . of his skill, hard work and, particularly, his integrity."

Mr. Jackson pleaded not guilty in April to child molestation and conspiracy charges. Trial is scheduled to begin in January.

The pretrial hearing continues today. Sheriff's detectives who seized items from the Sherman Oaks home office of Mr. Jackson's personal assistant are expected to take the stand. Defense lawyers contend some of the items taken violate attorney-client privilege, particularly items in three folders labeled "Mesereau."

Judge Melville's decision Thursday marks the third time he has denied a defense motion attacking the prosecution.

In October, defense lawyers petitioned the judge to drop the indictment against their client, claiming Mr. Sneddon "bullied" witnesses during the grand jury proceeding and presented inadmissible evidence. Also last month, the defense lawyers requested that the judge throw out material seized in the November 2003 raids of Mr. Jackson's Neverland Valley Ranch and a private investigator's office, claiming the searches were illegal.

Although Judge Melville ruled against the defense motions, Mr. Jackson's lawyers have made gains. The motions allowed them to put Mr. Sneddon and the prosecution's key witnesses on the stand to give testimony that can be used later in the case. In the process, defense lawyers educated the judge about the case and presented their client's side of the story to the public and potential jurors through intense media coverage.

New details about the case also came out Thursday.

Mr. Mesereau told the court that the accuser's DNA was not found on Mr. Jackson's mattress seized during the Neverland raid. If the forensic tests had been positive, prosecutors would have had a physical link to the allegations.

Mr. Mesereau also said that the accuser's mother deposited her welfare checks into the account of her husband -- who makes more than $80,000 per year. He was attempting to show that prosecutors had failed to look into her background and question her credibility.

Mr. Mesereau indicated that he plans to call Mr. Sneddon as a witness at trial because the prosecutor questioned the accuser's mother in Los Angeles without an investigator present.

Mr. Zonen shot down the defense allegation that Mr. Sneddon crossed the line that day by acting as an investigator. He said Mr. Sneddon had planned to be in the Los Angeles area anyway and characterized the trip as a 20-minute "errand."
[Edited 12/16/04 9:49am]

Luv4oneanotha said:

This thread got less replies because most people here are tired of this incessant cross posting of dubious articles written with such a pro-MJ bias that you can't believe what you read. For God's sake, as long as anyone writes anything remotely pro-Michael Jackson, amit1234 will post it here as "fact". This is not the only message board where he/she/it exhibits this behavior. For God's sake, give it a rest!

The articles are from the Santa Barbara News Press, NY Daily News, AP, Reuters, etc. so if you want to say they have a pro MJ bias, then go ahead.

The facts speak for themselves.

Axchi696 said:

Thats Asanine
and baseless
When ever an Anti- Mj thread comes along People come from all over the woodwork
but when its Pro-Mj Nobody thinks its true

I doubt people are tired cause the other thread has nearly 160 posts
Majority Negative
Truth is People will believe what they wish
Whether its True Or not
Societies is Fickle
They'll Praise you one day and Crucify you the next
like mindless farm Animals

we haven't Evolved into such eloquent creatures
In reality we're still in the Dark Ages
at Least Im aware of it

Love4oneantha, once again - thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!

JACKSON ACCUSER'S MOM MADE SAME CLAIMS IN 2001
10/12/04
By DAWN HOBBS

NEWS-PRESS STAFF WRITER

The mother of the boy who has accused Michael Jackson of molestation and false imprisonment made the same allegations against her husband three years ago, according to documents obtained by the News-Press on Monday.

In a Los Angeles Police Department report in November 2001, the mother told police she observed her husband inappropriately touching her daughter when she was 3 or 4 years old: "The victim was emotionally distraught during this interview and could not provide any other pertinent information regarding this incident," the report states.

Mr. Jackson's defense lawyers will likely attempt to use portions of this information to try to discredit the mother when she testifies during Mr. Jackson's child molestation trial, scheduled to begin in January. The defense may try to show that she has a history of making false accusations.

However, prosecutors would likely assert that accusations that preceded her divorce have nothing to do with the charges Mr. Jackson faces and may object to testimony about the mother's past.

Mr. Jackson pleaded not guilty in April to child molestation and conspiracy charges. The prosecution alleges Mr. Jackson and several associates conspired to abduct and falsely imprison the boy and his family while they made a video in support of Mr. Jackson. The singer had just been the focus of a British documentary that tarnished his reputation. A gag order bars attorneys from speaking with the media about the case.

But lead defense lawyer Thomas Mesereau provided a possible preview of his strategy when he questioned the mother, referred to by the court as Jane Doe, during a pretrial hearing last month.

During that hearing Mr. Mesereau asked whether it was correct that she had also accused her ex-husband of child molestation and false imprisonment. But Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville stopped the line of questioning after the objections of Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen.

Ms. Doe offered few details in her testimony that day about Mr. Jackson's alleged conspiracy to abduct and falsely imprison her and her children. She also had difficulty understanding Mr. Mesereau's questions, needing them repeated numerous times, and said the questions were triggering flashbacks.

That day Mr. Zonen said in court that the high-profile case had caused Ms. Doe so many problems that the family has been relocated. The News-Press later learned that the family has been moved several times.

In a declaration dated March 8, 2004, Ms. Doe requested that portions of her divorce file be sealed: "I am concerned that this case will become the circus-like atmosphere that the Michael Jackson case has become and that everything that is said and filed will find its way back to the children. The children have been through enough. The press sometimes blocks entry to our home, preventing us from going in and out. My children have been followed an videotaped without my permission. I do not want it to become worse."

The volatile family relationship finally ended in divorce in April with a restraining order against the father.

In the police documents, the mother details a history of alleged abuse including "head injuries, holding her head under water, making her stand outside naked, and throwing (her) little dog against a wall."

She also alleged that when her ex-husband was released from jail an unknown man outside her apartment threatened "that if she did not shut up, her children would not see her again and she would be killed."

The defense would likely use these accusations against the woman because she also testified last month that one of "Jackson's people" had warned her that her life was in danger and encouraged her to flee to Brazil with her family.

Luv4oneanotha said:

Well, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that I'm tired of all of the MJ threads; both the pro and anti threads are becoming too much to take.

Newsflash: Michael Jackson's butler's brother's girlfriend's sister talked to my cousin's boyfriend who told me that he worked for MJ back in 1992 and he never molested anyone

Axchi696 said:

Well my aunt's sister's dog was professionally walked by the butler's sister's ex and he said the butler said something else entirely!

VoicesCarry said:

Lmao

Jackson Accuser's Mother Demanded $15,000 for interview after Bashir Doc Aired

Showbiz gossip Aug 26 2004

By The Evening Chronicle

Much has been written about the Michael Jackson child abuse claims, but little has been heard from the mother of Gavin Arvizo, the teenager who has accused Jackson of molesting him.

A reporter who spoke to Janet Arvizo says a longer interview was cancelled after her then boyfriend, Major Jay Jackson, who is now the father of a baby with her, demanded more than $15,000 for a more lengthy chat.

Jay Jackson was asked about those negotiations when he appeared at a preliminary hearing in Santa Barbara last week and now the boy's mother has been ordered by Judge Rodney Melville to give evidence in person on September 17. It will be the first time since the initial interview Arvizo has spoken publicly about the allegations.

She has been accused of lying under oath by the singer's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, who claims the charges are part of an extortion plot by the family.

The reporter involved says when she spoke to Arvizo shortly after Martin Bashir's documentary was shown in Britain, Arvizo gushed about Jackson, saying her son called him "daddy" and was hoping to travel the world with him.

She shrugged off suggestions that some people found it irresponsible for her to let her children stay overnight at the star's Neverland ranch without any other adults to watch over them.

Source: http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk

Accuser's Stepfather Wanted Money from Jackson - AP

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) -- The stepfather of the boy who accused Michael Jackson of molestation testified Thursday that he asked for payment from Jackson for the family's participation in a video interview intended to restore Jackson's reputation.

"I said 'this family has nothing and you're making millions from this and what are you doing to do for this little family,'" the witness said of a conversation he had with someone he identified only as the "gentleman from Neverland," a reference to Jackson's ranch.

The man was identified in court as Mr. Doe to keep his identity secret. He said he had been an officer in the Army reserve for 22 years and had married the mother of the accuser last May. He said she recently gave birth to a child.

The witness testified that he also asked for compensation at some point from a British journalist who came to the family's home to try to interview them after a documentary on Jackson aired on British television.

"Two British journalists showed up and I talked to them," the witness said. "The said they wanted to do an interview with (his wife) and the children. I said, 'what are you offering?' They said, 'what do you want?' And I said I didn't know."

He said the journalists left and said they would return with an offer.

"Did you complain to anyone that Mrs. Doe was not receiving proper payment?" asked defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr.

"It was a conversation with a person form Neverland," the witness said. "He said, 'we are going to do a rebuttal video and we need them to come and sign a contract.'"

The witness said he asked the man what was being offered in return.

"He said, 'we are going to give them a college education and buy them a house,'" the witness testified.

In wide-ranging questioning, Mesereau questioned Mr. Doe about the man's belief that the mother and family were being held under duress at Neverland.

The man testified that he called the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department in April 2003 after the woman and her children had gone to the ranch.

"I felt (my wife) and the family might be under duress," the witness testified.

But after calling authorities, he said, the family returned and he told deputies everything was fine.

After that incident, he said, his wife returned to Neverland.

"She somehow or another got back there," the witness said.

Defense attorneys were expected to ask the man what he knew about the relationship between Jackson's former lawyer and a private investigator.

The issue is whether anyone told prosecutors and sheriff's deputies that investigator Bradley Miller was working for attorney Mark Geragos before the authorities decided to break into Miller's office and seize evidence for the Jackson case.

Mr. Doe is said to have been present when Miller supervised the making of a videotaped interview with the 12-year-old and his family. The so-called "rebuttal video" was intended to answer negative publicity surrounding a British TV special on Jackson's life that featured the pop star defending his practice of having young boys sleep in his bed.

In the rebuttal video, the boy and his family reportedly vouch for Jackson's good character and praise his relationship with youngsters.

Prosecutors are claiming the family was coerced into making the video as part of a conspiracy charged in the indictment against Jackson.

The tape is among items seized from Miller's office when sheriff's deputies broke in with a sledgehammer. The defense contends that if authorities knew Miller was working with Geragos, the search violated attorney-client privilege of confidentiality.

In other testimony Thursday, an attorney who once represented the accuser's family acknowledged he exchanged numerous letters and phone calls with Geragos and Miller but never asked or was told that the investigator was working for Geragos.

William Dickerman acknowledged he was aware of the existence of tape recordings made by Miller and was concerned about whether consent had been given by his clients to use the tapes for the purpose of television exploitation.

Meanwhile, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville agreed to let Jackson file a request to make a public statement of unspecified content, according to papers posted on the court's Web site Wednesday. Jackson's lawyers filed the request Aug. 13, with the proposed statement blacked out.

Also posted on the Web site Wednesday was Jackson's request to file an objection to the release of a sealed report by the California attorney general.

Sheriff Jim Anderson wants the report released. In it, state officials reportedly concluded that Jackson was not mistreated as he claimed when he surrendered to authorities last year. A copy of the leaked report was posted Sunday on the CBS News Web site.

In an interview broadcast by CBS's "60 Minutes" a month after his Nov. 20, 2003, arrest, Jackson said he was "manhandled" by Santa Barbara County sheriff's deputies who took him into custody.

The report to Anderson from the California Bureau of Investigation said there was no evidence to support Jackson's claim that his shoulder was dislocated when he was handcuffed. It also found that there was no criminal misconduct by sheriff's personnel.

Jackson, 45, is charged with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering an intoxicating agent and conspiring to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. He has pleaded not guilty and is free on $3 million bail.

Source: http://www.xposed.com/hea...60730.aspx

ThreadBare said:

Jackson Case: Shakedown Admitted by Accuser's Side - Fox 411

Friday, August 20, 2004
By Roger Friedman

It's no shock that Thursday's big admission in the Michael Jackson case concerned a shakedown. Major Jay Jackson, stepfather now to Jackson's 14-year-old accuser, conceded in court that he asked Jackson's staff for a lot of things as compensation for the family's participation in a "rebuttal" video.
I've been telling you for months that Jay Jackson and the accuser's mother wanted everything they could get from the King of Pop and his associates. There are receipts, too, lots of them, that can be brought into evidence showing how much shopping the mother did on Michael Jackson's dime.

But Major Jackson is wrong about one thing: He suggested that his wife and stepkids were held "for months" at Michael's Neverland ranch in 2003. In fact, the family stayed there on and off between Feb. 7 and March 11 of that year.

On March 11, the mother was awarded an increase in her weekly alimony from family court from her ex-husband. She and her children returned to Major Jackson's apartment (the couple were not married yet at that time). After that, their connection to Neverland was almost completely severed.
[Edited 12/17/04 19:38pm]

Jackson's Smoking Gun
By Roger Friedman


Audio Tape Is Smoking Gun

There's a smoking gun in the Michael Jackson child-abuse case, but it's not going to help the prosecution.

An audio tape made by private investigator Brad Miller on or around Feb 20, 2003, may in fact solve the whole case.

On the tape, Miller — working for Jackson defense attorney Mark Geragos — interviews the 13-year-old boy who has since accused Jackson of impropriety. Also interviewed are the boy's brother, sister and mother.

This tape, I'm told, is the reason behind all those closed-door arguments among the lawyers in the case and the subject of Judge Rodney Melville's sealing of evidence. The tape, and a lot of documents that have nothing to do with Jackson, were found in a police raid on Miller's office the same day cops charged into Neverland last November.

And that's the problem. Miller's lawyer, as well as Jackson's, claims that Miller worked for Geragos and not for Jackson, making Miller part of the defense team — and everything in his office off-limits to prosecutors. I'm told that the search warrant against Miller, however, incorrectly stated that he was Jackson's employee.


Miller has had to hire his own legal representation because, he's told friends, many of the items confiscated by the Santa Barbara police in that November raid are files pertaining to other clients, not to Jackson.

But it's what's on the tape that all the lawyers are fighting about.

Miller, under instructions from Geragos, interviewed the family members about their relationship with Jackson. He asked them a lot of questions, including whether or not there had been any sexual misconduct. The answers, I'm told, were emphatically "no."

Prosecutors may suggest the three were coerced or forced to read from a script. But it appears they were not alone during the taping session. Major Jay Jackson, the boy's mother's boyfriend, was with them the whole time, my sources say.

"If Jay Jackson didn't like what they were being asked, he could have said something," one source says. "He didn't."

It's a big issue now that the prosecutors are in possession of this tape. Under the law, they are not allowed to listen to it until the judge rules whether it's part of the defense. But District Attorney Tom Sneddon may have listened to it after all. (No one from the prosecutor's office will comment on this or any other part of the Jackson case, invoking the court's gag order.)

The tape may also play into the ever-shifting timeline in the Jackson case. When Sneddon filed charges against Jackson, he alleged that the child molestation took place between Feb. 7 and March 10 of 2003. Later, when he re-filed, the dates were changed: Feb. 20 to March 12, 2003.

"That's because the tape was made later, around February 16 or 18," says my source. "Also, that's when the family was interviewed by the Los Angeles child-welfare people. Sneddon is trying to re-set the timeline so it all matches."

An interviewer from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services spoke to the family the same week they made the tape. I'm told the same answers came back — that nothing untoward had happened.

Sneddon, it's suggested, had to change the dates of the charges so that they began after the tape was made and the interview was conducted.

"And we're to believe that Michael, knowing about the tape and the interview, then decided to molest the kid," my source says incredulously.

There's more. Initially, we were led to believe that Jackson's managers, Dieter Wiesner and Ronald Konitzer, hired Geragos in January 2003 before any of this started.

We were told that they did this with an eye toward suing Sony Music over Jackson's situation with the company. It was supposedly a coincidence that Geragos was on duty when the family of the accuser needed handling.

Now, however, I am told by an eyewitness that Wiesner and Konitzer didn't retain Geragos until right after the Martin Bashir television special "Living With Michael Jackson" aired on ABC on Feb. 7, 2003.

According to my source, Wiesner and Konitzer immediately suspected that the family was going to become a problem once the special aired.

"They wanted to be paid for being in it," my source said. "When they weren't, it became an issue."

Geragos kept a vigilant eye on the family even when it was being chaperoned by Jackson's employees. For example, he paid at least one month's rent on the family's East Los Angeles apartment.

"They were going to be evicted," says a source, "and he thought it was the right thing to do."

He also assigned a "watcher" named Johnny who worked for Miller to keep an eye on the family during a four- or five-day stay at the Hotel Calabasas about 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles.

"He [Johnny] was there to keep the press away," says my source.

Prosecutors have hinted that the Hotel Calabasas stay was a type of incarceration. But defense sources say they have evidence that the family went to the movies, ate at an Outback Steakhouse and was free to come and go.

The family was eventually moved out of its apartment and all its belongings put in storage. The conspiracy component of the Jackson indictment suggests that this was done against the family's wishes.

But, my source insists, "They wanted it. The mother said she wanted her apartment cleaned out and everything thrown away. She said she was starting a new life with Jay."

The Jackson team made sure it chronicled everything that happened.

"All the contents of that apartment were videotaped. We weren't going to have them say something was missing later," my source says.

http://www.foxnews.com/st...05,00.html