Riverpoet31 said:

Who are you responding to? Because I'm often combative against hardcore MJ fans who refuse to believe anything negative about Jackson. I agree with you for the most part, but the pedophile issue is a sticking point to a lot of people The "jesus juice" stuff is just an accusation, like the pedophile stuff.

The drugs, sharing his bed and his bedroom, etc. is all a big issue and a reason why the accusations were made in the first place, but it doesn't mean he was actually guilty of what he was accused of. If he was so f*cked up in the head, as you say he was, then is it not possible people took advantage of that morphed view of reality?

I think ppl like myself just keep it real. He was with Brooke Shields at the 1984 Grammy Awards but would rather have Emanuel Lewis sitting on his lap. Majority of men in that time period would love to have Brooke holding on to hand night long. He was with the lovely Tatiana on the Way u Make Me Feel set but the excuse was frank Dileo kicked her off for kissing him on stage.

WEAK EXCUSE. Many singers who are popular get that. To have her kicked off shows u must not have liked it. Cmon, MJ had more power than his manager cause it was his concert.

Combine this with accused 3 times and sleeps in bed with 13 year old MALES


There 13.....Not 5.

midnightmover said:

Actually the drug really does look like milk in it's appearance. It is opaque, pure white and thin liquid... just like milk.

I have had several family members ask me when we discuss "waking" a patient up and removing the breathing tube... will the patient still be able to eat, or will they still get "that milk"...

They mistaken propofol for milk thinking it was for dietary supplement.

BabyBeMine said:

Keep it real my ass. We don't know shit about Michael personal life. You all act like u were with him 24-7.

voyevoda said:

That is so true, we know shit about MJ life. Apart from the obvious things, i.e plastic surgery and other things that have been actually verified, everything else is speculation. So we really don't know whether he died a virgin, I personally don't think he did. We really don't know whether he was a Pedo, gay, bisexual or hetrosexual unless you were with him 24/7 for the whole of his life. There no point trying to state certain things as facts when they are really just opinions and that's the problem with everyone, both fans and haters alike, try and state their own personal views as facts when they are nothing more than personal views.

When it comes to Hollywood, where there's smoke, there's a big pile of stinkin dough.

I often wonder if those who are so convinced of his guilt have ever bothered to wonder what it must have been like if Michael was actually innocent. Have you entertained the thought that maybe it was an extortion attempt, and maybe the second lot of accusations were by opportunistic people who thought with that perception out there that Michael was an easier target.

Have you for one minute wondered what it would be like to have allegations levelled against you that were not true?

I'm not asking you to change your mind, just asking you to entertain what it must have been like if at the end of the day the man was innocent.

I know as a long term fan of Michael I have certainly entertained the thought and wondered "what if he is guilty". I know that I wouldn't have supported him by buying his music after the allegations if I thought he was guilty. In fact like I would assume most objective fans have, I have trawled through the evidence for and against, read flattery and damning pieces and come to my own conclusion. I am sure I am not the only fan who has seriously considered the facts.

As has often been stated on here, the total diehard fans will not entertain the thought of him being guilty, just as many of those convinced of his guilt will not entertain the thought of him being innocent. And sadly nothing anyone can say one way or the other will convince either side of the opposing view.

To which such discussions are mute.

Swa

BabyBeMine said:

That's not "keeping it real". That's called speculating he was a child molester because he was different.. What in the flying f*ck does a dispute between him, Tatiana and Dileo have to do with the accusations? You're guessing that the rumors of Dileo firing her are a lie, and then in turn using that to fuel that he didn't like girls so he was a molester. You're using speculation to fuel another speculation.

Then you mention Brooke Shields, but also conveniently ignore the fact they were close friends for YEARS, and that Brooke Shields mentioned Jackson asked her to marry him. That's coming directly from her.

You're trying to draw lines that don't exist. Many child molesters, murderers and other sick individuals have wives, kids, and seemingly normal lives, so trying to paint him as a pedophile based on his eccentricities is pointless.

And as I mentioned before, I find it funny that after three accusations, nobody went to authorities first. It's like ten people being injured in a store, but nobody goes to the hospital first... they all head straight for an attorney.
[Edited 8/31/09 2:53am]

DON'T MIND MIDNIGHTMOVER

He's talking loud and saying nothing as usual. Anyone who continues talking out of their ass despite been corrected by their betters isn't worth the effort.

Swa said:

Swa said:

Not a huge stretch, but I think you're missing my point. According to Murray Michael routinely referred to it as "milk" instead of Propofol, which was clearly a habit unique to Michael. Michael knew full well what it was, but chose instead to use a cute euphamism instead. Arvizo described him using a cute euphamism for alcohol too, as well as another euphamism for sperm. The consistency of those details clearly points to a personality trait of Jackson's and increases the likelihood that Arvizo was telling the truth there. Just like Arvizo's revelation on the Bashir interview that Michael coaxed him into sharing his bedroom by saying "If you love me you will" clearly echoes what Jordan Chandler said about Michael coaxing him into letting Mike fondle his genitals by saying "If you love me you will". It CANNOT be a coincidence that they both show him using that "If you love me" line whenever he wants to push them into something they're uncomfortable with. And by the way, think about that line for a second. Even if you think he's perfectly innocent, surely you can see that coaxing a 13 year old boy into sleeping in your bedroom by saying "If you love me you will" is an extremely troubling thing in itself. It's more or less a form of psychological blackmail.

Also consider Frank Tyson's admission that Mike drunk alcohol out of soda cans when he was around children. That backs up what Arzizo said. Doesn't that raise alarm bells in your head? If he didn't want the kids to see him drinking alcohol then why not just NOT drink it around them at all? Why the subterfuge?

Why the elaborate alarm system specifically designed to let him know if anyone was approaching when he was in that chamber next to his bedroom? Also, a HIGHLY DAMNING fact you guys consistently ignore is that Chandler was able to describe with astonishing accuracy markings on Michael's private parts. Both the shape of the markings and their exact positioning. The description was so accurate that the prosecution in the Arvizo trial tried to have the photos used in evidence to show just how accurate Chandler's description was. Unfortunately for them, the judge decided that would be "more provocative than probative". A senseless decison that probably saved Michael's ass. My question is... how the fuck could Chandler have described the markings so accurately if he hadn't seen them?

prodigalfan said:

They didn't know what it actually was. Michael knew full well what it was.

Timeline:

Let's have a little exercise in logic, shall we?
To begin, the timeline and testimony given by the prosecution in the trial alleged that Gavin was not molested until shortly before "escaping" Neverland for the last time1 (remember, they escaped and went back a few times). That means that Michael Jackson allegedly began molesting Gavin after the Bashir documentary set of a worldwide media craze, with everyone speculating about inappropriate behavior by Mr. Jackson and while Mr. Jackson was being investigated by the Department of Child and Family Services. So, our first question is why would he molest Gavin while under all of this public scrutiny? It is clearly not a logical time to do so. One might answer 'because pedophiles are often impulsive and cannot control their behavior'. And that might be a valid answer except for the fact that Michael Jackson had known Gavin since late summer of 2000. If we are to believe that he was such an impulsive pedophile, then why was he able to control those impulses for about the first two and a half years that he knew Gavin, but not able to control he impulses when he is being investigated for something, according to Gavin's testimony, had not happened yet? Maybe Michael Jackson heard the speculation that he was allegedly molesting this young man and thought 'hey, what a good idea! Why didn't I think of that in the last 2+ years I have known Gavin! I'll go molest him now while the media, DCFS, and cops are watching me'.

But wait, there is more. The prosecution's timeline during the trial argued that the alleged molestation happened between Feb 20th and March 12th (the day the Arvizo's left Neverland for the last time). Gavin testified that the molestation did not occur immediately before leaving Neverland, but at least a few days before and at one point even said as much as a week before, which would narrow the timeline to Feb 20th to March 5th. The DCFS investigation lasted until Feb 27th, according to the report filed by the DCFS. Also keep in mind that Mark Geragos had told Michael Jackson to avoid the Arvizos during this time and that the Arvizos had left Neverland and returned several times during this time period. In addition, Michael Jackson was out of state for portions of this time and was not even at Neverland.

So, let's review. During our approximate 15 day timeline (Feb 20th to March 5th), we have:
-Worldwide media frenzy started by the Bashir documentary aired on Feb 6th that sparked public speculation over inappropriate behavior on the part of Mr. Jacksons with the boy, Gavin, that appeared in that documentary. Although Gavin testified that nothing inappropriate had happened (originally yes, but he then changed his story) yet at the time of the documentary and in fact not until after the DCFS interviewed him on Feb 16th.
-Michael Jackson being investigated by the DCFS (beginning Feb 14th and ending Feb 27th with a finding that the accusations were unfounded)
-The Arvizo's 'escaping' Neverland three times
-Michael Jackson being out of state for part of the time period
-Mark Geragos advising Michael Jackson to cut all ties with the Arvizos and avoid them
And we are to believe that Michael Jackson molested Gavin amid all of this? The idea is illogical and really quite laughable.

Sources:
1. March 10th testimony regarding when Mr. Jackson allegedly began 'molesting' Gavin. (Q: Tom Mesereau A: Gavin Anton Arvizo)

Q: So right before you’re supposed to leave to Brazil --
A. No, right before we left Neverland.
Q. Oh, right before you left Neverland for good.
A. No, right before -- maybe a few days.
Q. A few days before you left Neverland for good.
A. Yes, because -- yeah.

2. March 10th testimony regarding when Mr. Jackson allegedly began 'molesting' Gavin. (Q: Tom Mesereau A: Gavin Anton Arvizo)

Q. Okay. So it’s actually a little bit after the interview with the social workers, then, right.
A. Maybe it’s a little bit after. And it’s probably -- I don’t think it happened right -- like, it didn’t happen, like, the day -- like, he did it, and then the day after, we left. I don’t think it happened like that.
Q. But it’s right before you leave Neverland for good, right.
A. Maybe a week before, or something like that.
Q. Okay. Okay. And you’ve already had the interview with the social workers, as you said, right.
A. Yes.

3 May 13th testimony from Mark Geragos. (Q: Ron Zonen, A: Mark Geragos)
Q. Now, I asked you a number of questions about your giving counsel to your client about the Arvizo family leaving Neverland. When did you finally tell your client that it’s time for the Arvizo family to go home?
A. I think I told -- I don’t know that it was Michael or Ronald, or maybe on the same phone call, but sometime in March that -- in March of ‘03.
Q. Now, were you aware in March of ‘03 that the Arvizo family was still at Neverland?
A. I think they had come and gone, was my 10321 understanding back then, in March of ‘03.

4. May 13th testimony from Mark Geragos. (Q: Ron Zonen, A: Mark Geragos)
Q. All right. Is there a reason you didn’t call Michael Jackson directly, given that he is your -- was your client --
A. Well --
Q. -- and tell him to send the Arvizo family home? Is there a reason you didn’t do that?
A. Because I don’t believe, at the time when I 10322 had that conversation, that Michael was even at Neverland. I don’t think Michael was there then.
Q. Did you make any effort to determine when Michael Jackson would be at Neverland?
A. Well, when you say, “make an effort to determine,” I believe at one point he was out of state and -- in March, and I was informed of that, and so that’s -- that was the basis for my opinion.



As you would noticed in the testimony that is highlighted Gavin said he was molested after the social workers went to his home, however, in previous statements with Stan Katz and the police he had said BEFORE.

midnightmover said:

According to experts what Conrad Murray said it's unlogical. The quantities he supposedely gave Michael Jackson could never kill him, even when mixed with other drugs. So the whole "Milk thing" is pretty unclear as of now.


" The consistency of those details clearly points to a personality trait of Jackson's and increases the likelihood that Arvizo was telling the truth there. Just like Arvizo's revelation on the Bashir interview that Michael coaxed him into sharing his bedroom by saying "If you love me you will" clearly echoes what Jordan Chandler said about Michael coaxing him into letting Mike fondle his genitals by saying "If you love me you will". It CANNOT be a coincidence that they both show him using that "If you love me" line whenever he wants to push them into something they're uncomfortable with. And by the way, think about that line for a second. Even if you think he's perfectly innocent, surely you can see that coaxing a 13 year old boy into sleeping in your bedroom by saying "If you love me you will" is an extremely troubling thing in itself. It's more or less a form of psychological blackmail."- That only shows that you know NOTHING about the accusations, honey. Jackson didn't invite kids to sleep in his room. Kids asked him if they could play in his room. They would or fall asleep or ended up by sleeping in his room because they wanted. Michael asked the kid's parents if they allowed their sons/daughters to sleep in his room.
Tom Mesereau: " And women stayed there, mothers stayed there, parents stayed there. And any time a child came up to him and said, “we want to play in your room,” which he has arcade games and that kind of thing,he always said, “I want your parents here right now, and I want their permission.”The parents were free to stay. And we had parents testifying who did stay in Jackson's room."

WATCH THIS VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/wa...yQsYdrVuyQ

Gavin begged to sleep in Michael's room! According to the timeline of events, he begged to sleep in MJ's room after the alleged molestation. Funny, uh?

"fondle his genitals by saying "If you love me you will"."- Read this:


TRANSCRIPT

September 1994

PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?

MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.

PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.” He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid... and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over. I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Swartrz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”
Bombshell: In the 2005 case against Michael Jackson, when June Chandler was cross examined on the witness stand in Santa Maria, June admitted that she’d met with Anthony Pellicano “three or four times” but had no recollection of what went on during those meetings. Tom Mesereau asked Mrs. Chandler if she recalled telling Pellicano that “Evan wanted money.” Mesereau also asked Mrs. Chandler if she’d ever told Pellicano that “Evan’s concerns could only be about money.” Of course, June Chandler didn’t recall making either statement.

-----

Pellicano, after learning about the accusations went to Jordan Chandler, looked at him eye in eye and asked: "Did Michael Jackson touch you? Did he hurt you?"
Chandler answered: "No. Why would he do that?

Papa Chandler asked Jordan: "Did Michael Jackson molest you?" Jordan answered "No!". Jordan went to a psychiatrician who asked him the same question. Jordan replied, once again, "No!".
After some days, Evan Chandler decided that he needed to remove one tooth from Jordan. In order to do so, he gave him Amytal sodium. It has sedative-hypnotic and analgesic properties.Mistakenly known as a "Truth Serum", Amytal Sodium allows one to implant false memories in a person, just by asking questions. In 1981, some girl accused her father of having raped her, after being admnistered with Amytal Sodium. She accused him of intercourse and, due to that, she was no longer a virgin. When the girl was 22, she was persuaded to see if she was a virgin or not, and the results couldn't be more contradictory, She was a virgin and, as time went by, the false memories started to fade. She then sued her psychiatrist and her father was proclaimed innocent.

In an interview with Greta van Sustren (On the Record; Fox news) Nov 25 2003, Mary Fischer was interviewed. She is the author of the exhaustive article detailing the goings-on of the family and lawyers involve during the 93 case.

Fischer says that there was no corroborating evidence in that case. Unlike what has been reported by some media outlets, the lack of any evidence in the 93 case—coupled with there not being a ‘Michael Jackson law' (288a) in which you only need the accusation itself to proceed-is the reason why there were no criminal charges then.

During the conversation, Sustren specifically asks Fischer if the 93 allegation was stripped away, was there anyone else backing up what that family claimed. Fischer replied that there was not:

There was no corroborating evidence. As there often is in these cases of alleged child molestation, it's easy for someone to make an accusation, but it's very hard to defend against it. And that's because often there's no other evidence (see transcript).

This is in contradiction to the unfounded information circulating certain media outlets about a phantom 3rd accuser from 1990. Fischer says the 93 allegation was in fact the only allegation made before this current case and, again, there was no corroboration to prove those charges.

This means that there was no pornography, no pictures, no other allegations, no physical evidence and no matching description of Jackson's genitalia. All of which has been misrepresented, intentionally or not, by the media since that first case. Fischer also discusses some of the odd similarities in each case.

Of the 93 case, Fischer says:

There's the say so of a child surrounded by adults who encourage the child to make these statements for their own motivations. And there's no other evidence. That was the case in 93 and so far that seems to be the case now.

Fischer says that like in the 93 case, the current case involves the same civil attorney, Larry Feldman. Feldman is the lawyer representing the family in 93 and the family in 2003.

Indeed, he is up to his eyeballs in this case. What is also incredibly odd is that both of these accusing families ran to a civil attorney first instead of getting law enforcement involved. Fischer points that out during her interview:

Also in this new case, the fact that the parents did not take the boy or call the police, but they took him to a civil lawyer.

She continues by commenting on what a great number of people have asked about both cases, which is just why the family didn't bother to go to the police first before running to money lawyers. But more importantly in this current case, there were previous investigations that we know of: a 2 month investigation by the Santa Barbara sheriff's department and a 2 week investigation by LA Child Services.

Both of these investigations turned up no criminal wrongdoing on Jackson's part and no other accusers. These investigations also couldn't have come to a surprise to this current family, so why didn't they contact the Santa Barbara police or the Los Angeles police first?

They couldn't have possibly thought that a money lawyer could provide them more protection than the police. Remember they claim, absurdly, that they were being harassed and held hostage by Jackson's people. But they never contacted the police. Some have speculated that by not contacting the police and pressing charges, the family wouldn't be held criminally responsible for filing a false police report if (when) they are unsuccessful against Jackson and if (when) Jackson proves they are lying.

One of the most devastating admissions Fischer makes is that the 93 accuser was given a psychiatric barbiturate while not under a doctor's or psychiatrist's care. It was only after the accuser was doped up on this drug that any allegation was made.

Sodium amytal is a drug shrouded in such suspicion by the courts that the California Court of Appeals had to become involved. Fischer explains during the interview:

…it's a powerful psychiatric drug which, when under the influence, a person is highly suggestible. And that drug was given to the boy by the father of the boy and the father's friend who was a dental anesthesiologist. The dental anesthesiologist gave the boy the drug in a dentist's office.

Not only is it odd that the drug would be administered by someone who was not a psychiatrist, but it's suspicious how these two people--the 93 accuser's father and his dental anesthesiologist came to possess this drug in the first place.

Not to mention that because of the risks, this drug is often administered in a hospital, not a dentist's office. In her Oct 94 article, Fischer says a LA KCBS-TV newsman reported that:

Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son's tooth and that while under the drug's influence, the boy came out with allegations.

Sodium amytal used the pull a tooth?? I don't think so. In the 94 article, Fischer quotes Cleveland psychiatrist, Dr. Resnick, as saying of sodium amytal:

It's a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact…People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium amytal that are blatantly untrue. It's quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened.

Not exactly a drug used to pull teeth, is it? Fischer also asked Dr. John Yagiela, coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA's School of Dentistry about it. He said:

It's unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.

The accuracy of allegations made under the influence of this drug was questioned, finally, in a landmark case in Napa County, California.

The Gary Raymona case blew the lid off the lies surrounded the effectiveness (or lackthereof) of this drug. In that famous case, a daughter falsely accused her father of molestation after being administered the drug by a therapist she was seeing. As a result of that case, the California Court of Appeals said in their opinion filed August 19 1997 that:

sodium amytal is, in some aspects, even more problematic than hypnosis in it's affects of producing false and confabulations. If the patient is concerned about sexual matters, he or she will tend to recall sexual experiences. This is likely to forever distort the memory of the subject.

Now, couple the administration of this drug with the fact that there were no other accusers, and no corroborating evidence, and you have no case. The lack of a case, the absence of the new "Michael Jackson law"(288a)--passed as a result of the 93 case----and you have the result of prosecutors not being able to go forward with charges in the 93 case.

Just because Jackson settled the case, it didn't prevent a criminal trial for proceeding no matter what any hack journalist or prosecution crony says.

Add the lawyer of there not being any other accuser from 93 either, and we have a pile of may-bes and could-bes. This amounts to a pile of garbage. Thus if prosecutors want to try to use this 93 case so show some imaginary "pattern of behavior", they should be prepared for the consequences.



-.-----


"Why the elaborate alarm system specifically designed to let him know if anyone was approaching when he was in that chamber next to his bedroom? Also, a HIGHLY DAMNING fact you guys consistently ignore is that Chandler was able to describe with astonishing accuracy markings on Michael's private parts."- FALSE. It was said that Jackson was circumsized and Jackson was not.


" The description was so accurate that the prosecution in the Arvizo trial tried to have the photos used in evidence to show just how accurate Chandler's description was."- LOL! WORNG! It's exactly the contrary! Tom Sneddon refused to show Jackson's pennis! EHEHEHEHEH!
" Unfortunately for them, the judge decided that would be "more provocative than probative"."- Nope. The jury said that, if necessary, the photos would be shown. When Jordan Chandler refused to testify, Sneddon- who could have used Jordan's description and compare it to Jackson's pennis pic- said he would not show the photo. "There is no need" he said.

"My question is... how the fuck could Chandler have described the markings so accurately if he hadn't seen them?"- My answer is: he didn't. He didn't describe anything accurately. All that was said- by Evan Chandler and not Jordan Chandler- was said Jackson had vitiligo marks in his pennis and was circumsized.
[Edited 8/31/09 10:24am]
[Edited 8/31/09 10:26am]
[Edited 8/31/09 10:33am]
[Edited 8/31/09 10:36am]

Superstition said:

Your missing the overall picture. It's not just when i mentioned above. It's combining that with everything else.

1. accused 3 times

2. sleeps in bed with 13 year olds and gives them milk and cookies

3. rarely with women his own age romantically


Cmon be realistic MJ could have had Tatiana back on the Bad tour. It's MJ's concert and as Frank Dileo has said, MJ is in control of everything. If Mike wanted her he could have had her. He didn't want her. The Brooke Shields situation he asked her to marry him cause he felt he would lose the friendship but she said MJ was asexual. Here is the definition of the worde asexual used by Brooke Shields

Asexuality is a sexual orientation describing individuals who do not experience sexual attraction,or have no interest in or desire for sex


There is no way Brooke just liked MJ as buddle ole pal early on. You can see that big grin on her face that she was very happy when she was with him. MJ could have had her but didn't want her so she said he was asexual. She called him that because there were opportunities to get BUSY and he wasn't interested. That's why she turned his marriage proposal's down. She wants to have sex in her marriage like all women.

Women didn't turn MJ on. The Lisa Marie marriage happened right after the accusations to try and prove he liked women. That was so predictable and scripted. How come he wasn't doing that before the accusations?

Cause he was busy with 13 year olds in the secret room
[Edited 8/31/09 11:49am]

BabyBeMine said:

BabyBeMine...did you even read my posts or did you prefer to ignore them? You can clearly see that Jackson didn't molest anyone. Unless your IQ is a bit low...

C'mon BabyBeMine...read my posts and reply! I'm waiting!

BabyBeMine said:

BabyBeMine, discussing with you seems impossible. You keep saying the same things over and over again while ignoring the facts. And if someone corrects you, you immediately say:"Your missing the overall picture.".
[Edited 8/31/09 12:01pm]
[Edited 8/31/09 12:02pm]

MOL said:

It's like arguing with a child. The man is dead and they are still trying to put him down.

BabyBeMine said:

According to Presley's friends, Lisa used to say that Michael was "surprisingly good in bed" and "insatiable". EHEHEHEH!!!

Im reading all of your post. I just think ppl become such die hard fans that they worship to the point of if there favorite celebrity does something potentially wrong they make any and every excuse. If the average person had that against them there would be no excuses. If it was Jeff on the corner of 104 and avalon BLVD and he was accused 3 times of molestation, admitted to sleeping in bed with 13 year old boys there would be no excuses.

Question? How many 13 year old boys in this world still sleep in bed with there daddys with Milk and Cookies. Isn't that for 5 year olds.

That was MJ's idea. Not many teen boys still sleep in bed with there dads, let alone someone not there dad

Milk and cookies with a 13 year old boy in bed. Not 5 years old, but 13 years old.

Don't say this is not true cause MJ admitted it on national tv. Warm milk and cookies and he wasnt talking about for 5 year olds.

13 year old boys do not chill with there dads in bed with warm milk and cookies. At least not where im from. They would be like im to old for that and laugh

That was MJ's idea

As far as the settlements goes, from a public and moral standpoint it was the dumbest decision MJ ever made but from a legal standpoint, it was very smart. But I don't think MJ was that legal savvy.

His lawyers knew that he stood a good chance to lose if any one of those accusations made it to civil/family court because all the kid had to do was say "Yes, he touched me.", it would've been over, and Michael would have lost everything and he was worth a hell of a lot more money in 92-93 than he was in 2003-04.

And it is my humble opinion that it was his lawyers and management who were calling the shots, and I do believe MJ wanted no part of it, courts are time consuming and was looking for the easy way out, he wanted to return to his music.

On the flipside, the moment Cochran came onto the scene, lawyers of the Chandlers wanted no part of him and they wanted to avoid criminal court with the quickness much to the disappointment of LAPD and SBPD. The settlement came because both parties stood to lose badly.

Folks need to remember that settlements are a two-way street, both parties are involved, otherwise it would be called a "payoff", or "hush money" with no lawyers involved. Because if it was hush money, the families would've played dumb talking about "molestations, what molestations?" "Michael Jackson never touched me."

BabyBeMine said:

??? I'm sorry: I may not be clever enough in order to understand your complicated/complex posts. SHAME ON ME!

Listen: I said that MJ wasn't a pedophile. I never said he was normal, OK? I stated- and I'm sure you didn't read my posts- that the kids wanted to sleep in Michael's bedroom.As I wrote previously: "Jackson didn't invite kids to sleep in his room. Kids asked him if they could play in his room. They would or fall asleep or end up by sleeping in his room because they wanted. Michael asked the kid's parents if they allowed their sons/daughters to sleep in his room.
Tom Mesereau: "And women stayed there, mothers stayed there, parents stayed there. And any time a child came up to him and said, “we want to play in your room,” which he has arcade games and that kind of thing [aka kiddie shit],he always said, “I want your parents here right now, and I want their permission.”The parents were free to stay. And we had parents testifying who did stay in Jackson's room.".


WATCH THIS VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/wa...yQsYdrVuyQ

Gavin begged to sleep in Michael's room! According to the timeline of events, he begged to sleep in MJ's room after the alleged molestation. Funny, uh? "
Does the kid like being raped? Well...can you blame a fella for looking for romance?

"Don't say this is not true cause MJ admitted it on national tv. Warm milk and cookies and he wasnt talking about for 5 year olds."-Once again, my IQ isn't high enough to understand your full-of-intelligence posts. What does that have to do with the conversation?

"13 year old boys do not chill with there dads in bed with warm milk and cookies. At least not where im from. They would be like im to old for that and laugh"- Yeah! They'd be like: "I'm too cool for this shizz. Let's try alcohol instead, y'all! Or destroy some cars and holla at some chicks, y'all! Let's masturbate while watching porno movies, y'all! And then, mama sues the person who saved my life. She sues the person who saved us from misery and gave us a confortable life!
If you think that way, then you are describing Gavin Arvizo. Is it normal for a 13 years old to be that unbehaved? I'd rather have a kid who drinks "warm milk and cookies" in my bed, at night, than some unbehaved piece of trash with no bright future in life.What about you, sweetheart?

"That was MJ's idea"- THE THREAT! You always end your posts with a sinister sentence!!! Hey, members of the org: be careful! BabyBeMine is a dangerous fella!


STOP with the whole "you are a diehard fan, so you are blind and you will always defend that evil, nasty pedophile!" I HAVE MORE TO DO THAN DEFENDING SEX OFFENDERS. I am taking a degree, I have a family, friends, boyfriend and a community. I WOULDN'T WASTE A MINUTE OF MY PRECIOUS TIME TO DEFEND A PEDOPHILE. But Michael wasn't a pedophile. He was, in fact, an amazing person with a pure heart. If I suspected, for a second, that Jackson had smelled a kid's buttyhole I would burn my white sparkly glove, OK? I would fart while singing his name! BUT HE WASN'T A PEDOPHILE! READ MY POSTS!
[Edited 8/31/09 15:59pm]

There is no evidence that proves MJ is 100" not a pedophile. Just reasonable doubt like the OJ Simpson case. The GQ article does not prove 100% innocents. Here are some points

1. Jordy Chnder - Just cause his dad was greedy does not mean Jordy lied

2. The Maid accepting 20,000 from Hard Copy does not mean her son lied. She didnt even make all that much money and had no power at all. Just a broke maid working at neverland.

3. Book of Naked boys in his room called the LOST BOYS. Please THAT AINT ART

http://www.foxnews.com/st...08,00.html

Former Protégé Vouches for Jackson

Thursday, April 07, 2005

By Roger Friedman


No matter who testifies next in Michael Jackson's alleged "prior acts" of sexual abuse mini-trial, the prosecution will have to deal with the fact that only one boy will show up to say he was molested many years ago by the pop star.

Now comes Robert Newt, 30, long a "Holy Grail" for The National Enquirer from its investigation into Jackson circa 1993.

Newt and his twin brother Ronald Newt Jr. (now deceased) were aspiring performers and spent two weeks as guests in the Jackson family home in Encino, Calif., around 1985. They were about 11 years old. This all occurred before Neverland was completed. Michael, Janet Jackson and LaToya Jackson were all there, as well as the Jackson parents.

Fast-forward to December 1993. The National Enquirer, desperate to get a scoop that Jackson has abused children, heard that the Newt kids once spent time with Jackson.

The tabloid offered the Newts' father, Ronald Newt Sr., $200,000 to say that something happened between his kids and Jackson.

Newt, a San Francisco "character" and filmmaker whose past includes pimping and jail time, considered the offer.

A contract was drawn up, signed by Enquirer editor David Perel. Enquirer reporter Jim Mitteager, who is also now deceased, met with Newt and his son at the Marriott hotel in downtown San Francisco.

It seemed that all systems were go. But the Newts declined the offer at the last minute.

Ron Newt Sr., to whom $200,000 would have seemed like the world on a silver platter, wrote "No good sucker" where his signature was supposed to go. The reason: Nothing ever happened between Jackson and the Newt boys.

Indeed, no kids, no matter how much money was dangled by the tabloids, ever showed up to trade stories of Jackson malfeasance for big lumps of cash after the first scandal broke in 1993.

"Maybe there aren't any other kids," a current Enquirer editor conceded.

I met Bobby Newt yesterday near the office where he works as a mortgage broker in suburban Los Angeles.

Just as his dad promised me a few days earlier, he's a good-looking kid. He's half black and half Chinese.

Robert and his twin brother were likely very cute kids. They have the same features as other boys advertised as alleged Neverland "victims." But all Bobby Newt remembers of his encounter with Jackson is good times.

And all he remembers about the man from The National Enquirer is that he wanted Bobby, then 18, to lie.

"He said, 'Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,'" Newt said. "He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down.

All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, 'We take these people down. That's what we do.'"

Prior to Bobby's meeting with Mitteager, Bobby's father met with him and brought along an intermediary, San Francisco politician, businessman and fellow jailbird Charlie Walker.

Walker is infamous in San Francisco circles for being "hooked up" to anything interesting cooking on the West Coast.

"My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, 'Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on 'Oprah' in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we'll give you money,'" Newt said.

Two pieces of evidence confirm the Newts' story. One is the actual contract proffered by the Enquirer and signed by Perel, who declined to comment for this story.

The contract, written as a letter, says it's an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding "your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson's sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others."

Mitteager expected them to sign, even though it was completely untrue and there was, in fact, no story.

He knew you were lying, I reminded Bobby Newt.

"Exactly! And he didn't care! He was like, 'Just say it and we'll give you the money.' And I was like, 'He [Jackson] never touched me!" Newt said. "He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, 'We'll give you this money,' even [if it's not true]. And they'd take it."

Bobby Newt recalled more details of the 30-minute meeting with The National Enquirer's reporter:

"He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said 'You know, it's going to be a huge scandal. You'll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You're going to be famous!' But to me, you'd be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn't do anything even close to trying to molest us."

Ironically, the second piece of evidence also backs up the Newts' story. Unbeknownst to them, they were taped by Mitteager.

I told you last week that Mitteager did more surreptitious taping than Richard Nixon. When he died, the tapes were left to Hollywood investigator Paul Barresi. His dozens of hours of tapes include a conversation between Mitteager, Ron Newt Sr. and Charlie Walker.

When I read some of the transcript back to Newt the other day, he was shocked.

"I said all that," he observed, surprised to have his memory prodded some 12 years later.

Back in the mid-'80s, Ron Newt Sr. put his three sons together as a singing group much as Joseph Jackson did. He called them The Newtrons.

After much pushing, he got the attention of Joe Jackson, who agreed to manage the group. Joe Jackson got the Newtrons a showcase at the Roxy in West Hollywood.

Michael showed up and loved them. The result was a two-week stay for the boys at the Encino house on Hayvenhurst Ave., where they were supposed to work on their music.

"We would see Michael in passing. We didn't see him, maybe, because he was working on an album. We saw him downstairs in the kitchen and we talked to him," he said.

The Newtrons eventually got a record contract and recorded the Jackson 5 hit "I Want You Back" at Hayvenhurst. They also spent the night at Tito Jackson's house. But nothing about what Bobby Newt hears now about himself or others makes sense.

"I don't know what to believe. He had prime time with me and my brother in the guest room for two weeks," he said. "And he didn't try anything."

As a footnote to all of this: In the small world of the Los Angeles music business, Bobby Newt recently worked with choreographer and alleged Jackson "victim" Wade Robson on tracks for his first album, a potential hit compendium of original R&B ballads.

Jackson's former maid Blanca Francia implicated Robson in the case during Monday's testimony. Robson is not testifying for the prosecution.

"Wade is straight as they come. He's getting married. And nothing ever happened to him, either," Newt said.

He shakes his head, thinking about those who have made claims against Jackson.

"You have to look at these people, go back and see when their relationship with Michael fractured. The calls stopped coming," he said.

And Newt should know. After the adventure in 1985, the Newts never saw Jackson again. It didn't bother them, Bobby says, as much as it might have others.

"They probably didn't like it. And this is their way of getting back at him," he said.

BabyBeMine said:

You just ignored everything I posted and said the same sh*t you did before, so all we're doing is going in a circle.

And now, your argument is going further and further off into the land of guessing, because now you're telling us what Brooke Shields felt for Michael Jackson. You're making assumptions and using those to fuel your argument. Your arguments are about as weak as me saying "Jackson couldn't have molested anyone because he was a nice guy."

BabyBeMine said:

Again, another twisting of what he said. He didn't say he gives 13 year olds milk and cookies. One should be smart enough to assume he may have slumber party type deals with 13 year olds, but he was clearly referring to younger children with regards to tucking them in and reading them books and the like.

He also talked about the family bond being broken and children not having dinner with their parents. So your taking an excerpt of what he said and misinterpreting it.
[Edited 8/31/09 16:41pm]

"1. Jordy Chnder - Just cause his dad was greedy does not mean Jordy lied "

For the 1000th time: Jordie (NOT jordy) said he had NOT been abused. Pellicano asked him if he had been abused four times. Answer? No. June Chandler told Pellicano that Evan was blackmailing her and that he was "out for cash". She was against the lawsuit and said, many times, that Jackson wasn't a child molester. When the psychiatrist asked Jordie if he had been raped, he said "No. I wasn't raped". The psychiatrist SAID THIS, on court! The kid just said he had been raped after being admnistered with Amytal Sodium and refused to testify during the trial. Jordan Chandler, now a man, sued/is suing his OWN FATHER. June Chandler amitted, ON COURT, that her son is mad at her. Read my last posts.
Tell me: why didn't the Chandlers pursue a Criminal trial? They could do that, even with the settlement.

"The Maid accepting 20,000 from Hard Copy does not mean her son lied. She didnt even make all that much money and had no power at all. Just a broke maid working at neverland."- The maid? LOOOOLL! The maid contradicted herself on court and ended up by admitting that she just wanted money and that nothing had happened. I wrote about this in another post. SHE ADMITTED THAT SHE HADN'T SEEN JACKSON ENGAGING IN PAEDOPHILERIC ACTS AND THAT SHE DIDN'T NOTICE ANYTHING PAEDOPHILERIC.

"3. Book of Naked boys in his room called the LOST BOYS. Please THAT AINT ART"- THE UGLIEST LIE! 70 policemen raided Neverland and found NOTHING! NOTHING! There was a book that had one pic of twins (boy and girl) naked hugging. JUST THAT! There were no books of naked boys. There were no photos of naked boys. Read court transcripts. Sneddon said that nothing "suspicious, including physical evidence" was found at Neverland. Where did the whole "there were photos of naked kids" came from? THERE WERE NO PHOTOS/BOOKS WITH NAKED KIDS.


Let's not compare OJ Simpson to MJ, ok? In the OJ case there was DNA evidence.
[Edited 8/31/09 17:22pm]
[Edited 8/31/09 17:47pm]

"Why believe the family is ignorant, uneducated and unable to accept their time has past? The Jacksons are not the only group who wants to get back together and the lead singer does not.

Why not believe what Rebbie said in 1992? That she had not even seen her brother Michael in 3 years. I think he treated them all like that and maybe what Jermaine said in his uncussessful song WORD TO BAD was accurate. I think he felt like that because majority of the family was probably wondering why Michael never comes around. Rebbie had not seen him in 3 years

Thats why i think the nice, shy image he displays is BS. He treats his family like crap. They supported him during the trial when they didn't have to and when they show up at his crib he has security prevent them from coming in.

MJ's family in 2005 could have been like you know you rarely even come around so handle it yourself buddy. There is a reason why Rebbie never came to the trial."

BabyBeMine: read "Jackson Family Values". The author, Jermaine's ex-wife, praises Michael but talks trash about the rest of the family. You will understand one thing: Jermaine, Randy, Latoya, Marlon, Tito, Jackie, Joe and Katherine ARE SHIT! They used to make Michael's life a living hell. Michael would pay their debts and give them money. They treated him like a piece of crap. READ IT! You will stay open-mouthed. The things they used to do to MJ! The concerts in Korea are a big example of that. Jermaine psychologically tortured Michael. I will not mention what the Jackson brother, mainly Jermaine, did to their wives. I will not mention what they used to do to Michael. I will not mention that Katherine is the devil. I will not mention that Jermaine was sooooo jealous of Michael that he did REALLY awful things. READ IT!

His family treats him like crap. I don't blame him for not wanting to be around them. Read the book, and you will see why.


"There is a reason why Rebbie never came to the trial"- LOOOLLL! She appeared in the trial! Where in the blue hell did you read that? In the day of the verdict, the entire Jackson family (read brother, sisters and parents) was present. Rebbie was there many times. Janet was the only one who, sometimes, couldn't be there. Apparently, it has something to do with having a job.

OldTeenager said:

The urges come/appear once/twice in a 10 years period? Utterly laughable.
[Edited 8/31/09 17:30pm]

Did I mention that Jason Francia, the maid's son, is married to one of Tom Sneddon's daughters? Hummmmm!!
[Edited 8/31/09 17:34pm]