May 09 2011

Michael’s innocence: It’s not just Mrs. Jackson’s “opinion”

Category: Family,Justice,VideosSeven @ 6:30 am

Stop. Filthy. Press.

Stop. Filthy. Press.

A few days ago, Mrs. Katherine Jackson appeared on the Today show with Matt Lauer. On that show, Mrs. Jackson said that “the biggest lie that’s ever been told” was that Michael was a pedophile.  After the portion of the program containing Mrs. Jackson’s interview ended, Matt Lauer claimed that this was just Mrs. Jackson’s opinion. But it’s not just Mrs. Jackson’s opinion. It was also the opinion of the DCFS who investigated Michael on and off for a decade, and it was even stated, directly or indirectly by his previous accuser, Jordie Chandler.

I mentioned this issue with Matt Lauer on May 4th, Mrs. Jackson’s birthday.  You’ll find video of the relevant interview in that post.

The next day, May 5th, tabloid RadarOnline posted a story whose headline read: Authorities:TheresNeverBeen EvidenceMichaelJacksonWas APedophile!

I also posted the relevant document from the DCFS on my MJJ-777 Facbook Page on that same day, May 5th.  This is the report RadarOnline and the authorities they spoke of to refer to.

Matt Lauer’s comment deserves a post of its own rather than being buried inside another one, a little background is needed about the DCFS investigation RadarOnline’s article refers to, and there is also the issue of the media’s chosen “angle” regarding Mrs. Jackson’s comments.

Just yesterday I shared with you a great article by Deborah Kunesh of Reflections on the Dance about why there are so many negative stories about Michael in the media and how the media shapes our thinking about things. Deborah has since added this DCFS document to her article, as well. Her article explains just exactly why this document and other facts about these cases against Michael are deliberately ignored – censored, blacked out – by the media.

And remember what Deborah wrote about “angle“? This is a journalistic term used to indicate what an editor, publisher, producer, television station manager, etc. wants a particular story to convey. Right now, the media(loids) are busily conveying the “angle“, or the story, that Mrs. Jackson is entitled to her “opinions” that her son is innocent, but that her “opinions” are that of a “loving mother blinded by love” and who doesn’t know the facts.

But in reality, everything Mrs. Jackson has said can readily be backed up by facts.

You see, this document has been available and had been written about on the internet since 2003.  But the media has largely ignored it. They never mention it. Matt Lauer of course didn’t mention it while exclaiming that Mrs. Jackson’s comments were only her “opinion“.  The media knows that most of the general public are not aware of this report from the DCFS. And they are going to do all they can to ensure the public remains unaware of this document and the other facts surrounding these cases. Why?  Read Deborah’s article.

They’re protecting their profits. They’re protecting the industry they made of characterizing Michael as a freak, weirdo, pedophile, and a drug addict. After 3 or more decades, they are not about to reveal their avarice or their lies. That would destroy their corporate profits and make the media look as if they got their stories wrong or misreported them. It would destroy their credibility. But the truth is, they did misreport them. They continue to misreport them. They have lied and continue to lie – by omission and commission. Because reporting negative and salacious stories about Michael Jackson and his life and death has become a very profitable enterprise for them. They are no doubt salivating at the opportunity to rake in more money off of the Conrad Murray trial – by putting Michael Jackson on trial again instead of his killer. The machinery is already in place and has been for decades.

Here again is that DCFS document, and you can read full articles about it here, and here.

DCFS memo dated November 2003 stating that allegations of sexual abuse were "unfounded". Sneddon pressed charges anyway, after seemingly pressing the Arvizos to change their story after the investigation was done.

DCFS memo dated November 2003 stating that allegations of sexual abuse were "unfounded". Sneddon pressed charges anyway, after seemingly pressing the Arvizos to change their story after the investigation was done.

This DCFS investigation actually concluded in Feburary 2003. This report was released in November 2003 – after charges against Michael were filed. The Arvizos had changed their stories between February and November of 2003. But why?

What happened between February 2003 and November 2003? Why did their stories change so drastically?

This investigation was completed and filed before the family changed their mind and decided to extort money from Michael once they found out that they were on their way out due to their destruction of some of Michael’s property at Neverland. They had begun to feel entitled to his hospitality and generosity even though they had abused their privileges there and frankly, worn out their welcome. That sense of entitlement is mentioned in Larry Nimmer’s film “The Untold Story of Neverland“. And, Tom Sneddon’s team were very persuasive in getting them to change their stories because Sneddon had a decades-long agenda of his own — and that was to get Michael Jackson in prison, no matter how he had to go about it.

It’s also worth mentioning that Janet Arvizo was a known grifter, that she had extorted money from JC Penny, and that she had been convicted of Medicare fraud. She would have been an easy target for Sneddon’s agenda and she likely was.

That this family’s story changed so drastically between February and November 2003 is something that should make any sensible person question the validity of these charges against Michael. It should also have caused the media to question it as well and to do some investigative reporting. But – as is their policy, they don’t report on any information that is exculpatory ie: that would exonerate Michael. Thus, you never heard of this document even though it’s been out there for years.

In regards to the 1993 case, Mrs. Jackson also has remarked that Jordie Chandler said that he lied about Michael. She stated that Jordan Chandler admitted that his father was only after money and that Michael Jackson never did anything to him. Yet Mrs. Jackson was accused by Rich Juzwiak in this TV Guide article of “clinging to a document of questionable veracity“. Juzwiak further asserted that Mrs. Jackson was “just a loving mother who is blinded by love“.

This is how the media are now attempting to portray Mrs. Jackson. As just a grieving mother taking up for her beloved son by desperately clinging to anything she can find. This is their “angle“. But Mrs. Jackson was stating facts. Not opinion. Not “blind love“, and not anything of ‘questionable veracity‘.

The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated. Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS. Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back. He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in ALL investigations.

Let’s also take a little deeper look at what Jordie Chandler told DCFS investigators in 1993:

Minor stated he and his father met with Michael Jackson and attorneys for father and Mr. Jackson and confronted him with allegations in an effort to make a settlement and avoid a court hearing.

-Jordan Chandler to Ms. Rosato in his DFCS interview in August 1993

There is no questioning the “veracity” of the statement directly above. It’s documented and on record — and it’s clearly extortion.

In addition to the DCFS’s conclusions, Tom Mesereau had multiple witnesses ready to testify that Jordie Chandler had told several people exactly what Mrs. Jackson claimed: That he had lied about Michael and that Michael had never touched him in any sexual way. Jordie refused to testify at the trial in 2005, choosing to flee the country instead. However, had he agreed to testify, Mr. Mesereau had multiple witnesses ready to testify that Jordie Chandler told them he lied about Michael Jackson because his parents made him do it.

In the video below Tom Mesereau discusses “1108 evidence” and how the State wanted to present previous allegations. The whole video is extremely informative but please carefully listen at 1:56.

Tom Mesereau states:

“... he’s the one that got a settlement in the early 90’s, my understanding is the Prosecutors tried to get him to show up, and he wouldn’t, if he had I had witnesses who were gonna come in and say he told them that it never happened and that he wouldn’t talk to his parents for what they made him say..and it turned out that he went into court and got legal emancipation – his mother came in a testified that she hadn’t talked to him in eleven years…

From Vindicate MJ, Josephine Zohny was one of the potential witnesses for the defense in the 2005 trial, and her name can be found in the witness list. What she had to say was this: during a conversation regarding Michael Jackson’s allegations, Jordan Chandler expressed the belief that the singer was innocent, and when he referred to his father, he said that he had a poor relationship with him, and he made him do things he didn’t want to do.

The only thing that Mrs. Jackson said that may be incorrect is that Jordie publicly confessed that MJ was innocent. The truth is that Jordie said this privately to his friends. But a recant is a recant whether done in public or private. The point is, Jordie’s friends were willing to testify under oath about what he said to them – as stated by Mr. Mesereau in the video above. Jordie was not willing to go to court however. He refused to testify in both 1993 and in 2005 which along with the Arvizos gross inconsistencies, ought to bring into question his allegations against Michael, as well.

Whether Jordie Chandler recanted in public or private does not in any way diminish the fact that what Katherine said is essentially true. To focus on her statement as “lacking in veracity” when the base essence of it is absolutely true, is to ignore the outrageous inconsistencies in this case against Michael as a means of deliberate distraction. This method of distraction is also an oft-used tactic of the establishment media in their endeavor to shape public opinion against a person. In this case, Michael Jackson.

Chandler had also stated that he “feared cross-examination” in that 2005 trial ie: that he feared his lies would be exposed. If there were any truth to his allegations against Michael, this would not have been a factor. After all, remembering details of a story you told 12 years ago can be very difficult. Unless the story is true. But the problem is, it wasn’t. Most people would agree that remembering the details of a fabricated story is much more difficult than remembering something that actually happened.

Vindicate MJ covers the DCFS report as well. Their write-up details the animosity between the LAPD/Tom Sneddon and the DCFS, with Sneddon complaining of DCFS’s ‘shoddy work‘. The LAPD apparently had tried to oust DCFS from working on the 1993 case. But DCFS stubbornly continued their investigations which as their article states, was seemingly very thorough. The DCFS looked into every detail of the graphic story Jordie Chandler told them. To analyse the case, the top DCFS authority was even summoned from his vacation. And, once allegations were made in 1993, the DCFS stayed on the case investigating every allegation that surfaced.

Still, they concluded that allegations against Michael were unfounded.

Michael was under investigation by the DCFS on and off for over a decade, starting from allegations in 1993 up until the 2003-2005 trial. DCFS had to eventually drop the case in 2003 because the Arvizos couldn’t get their story straight. Speaking of “questionable veracity“, this information about the Arvizo’s ever-changing and inconsistent stories, along with the fact that Jordie Chandler refused to testify at all in either case, ought to bring into question the veracity of these allegations against Michael Jackson.

But instead of the media questioning those, they question Mrs. Jackson, her knowledge, her motives, and worst of all, Michael’s innocence. Even after he was fully acquitted.

But wait. There’s more. Remember those humiliating photos of Michael’s private parts? It’s unknown whether DCFS looked at those photos or did any comparison. But, we do know full well that if they were found by Sneddon’s team or the LAPD to match Jordie Chandler’s description, Tom Sneddon would have been prancing around in front of television cameras lambasting the DCFS’s “shoddy work” because they had not discovered this themselves.

However that didn’t happen — because the photos did not match – something that is now confirmed since Michael’s tragic death almost two years ago.

At that time though, there was only one tiny snippet regarding the issue of these photos not matching Jordie’s description in the media. It is as follows:

Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser

USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: J an 28, 1994

Copyright USA Today Information Network Jan 28, 1994

An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/55226686.html?did=55226686&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT& desc=Photos+may+contradict+Michael%27s+accuser

This is by no means an exhaustive exposé on all the details of these cases. However, as you can see, regardless of the media’s “angle” on Mrs. Jackson’s recently-made statements about Michael’s innocence, everything she has claimed can be backed up by the facts surrounding these cases. Katherine Jackson may be a grieving mother, but she’s not stupid. She knows her son, and she knows all about these allegations against him. She was in that courtroom every day in 2005. What parent wouldn’t if he was their child? And what parent wouldn’t be in that courtroom every day representing their son in the Murray case?

Be aware of the “angle” being used in these media broadcasts and stories. Know the facts. Someone has a blind spot, certainly. But it’s not Mrs. Jackson. It’s the establishment media. And it’s deliberate. And certainly the ‘veracity‘ of some information in regards to these cases ought to be questioned. Specifically, much of that which comes from the establishment media. Don’t buy what they’re trying to sell you about Michael Jackson or his mother without questioning the ‘veracity’ of it. Don’t let your family or friends buy it wholesale either.

What happened to truth? Did it go out of style?
— Michael Jackson
_ _ _

{ Thanks to Vindicate MJ, Deborah of ROTD and my friends at MJJJustice for providing details I’ve included in this article  -Seven }

Tags: , ,

24 Responses to “Michael’s innocence: It’s not just Mrs. Jackson’s “opinion””

  1. Anne Mette Jepsen says:

    Thank you Seven!
    LOVE and GRATITUDE 🙂

  2. Marlena says:

    Thank you, Seven, for your continuing emphasis on this important issue.

    I’m feeling that we’ve arrived at one of “those moments” – one where we have the perfect vehicle to begin to turn the tide for Michael. I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking over the past few days, since this story surfaced, that we could start some sort of mass emailing of this document to various news services. Could this document be cut and pasted into an email? We could include a caption like: “Not just a grieving mother’s opinion – the Truth in black and white.” No matter how they might want to twist Mrs. Jackson’s statements into the mere “opinions” of a distraught mother, the facts in this instance preclude anyone’s opinion (and that includes the mass media’s).

    Since Michael passed I’ve noticed another tactic used by the mass media. That is zeroing in on a few “vulnerable” statements of the person being interviewed. These are statements that, as in Mrs. Jackson’s case, have been spoken from the heart, expressing raw emotion without conscious consideration for the manipulative tactics of the interviewer. I learned this tactic in debating class back in high school. Needless to say, its one of the main weapons used by courtroom attorneys.
    Another vulnerable statement I noticed, that I had thought Lauer might twist was when he asked Mrs. Jackson something to the effect of why she felt the need to be at Murray’s trial. She answered by saying, “I was at his (Michael’s) OTHER trial.” In my opinion, this statement played right along with the fact that the defense will certainly be attempting to put Michael on trial again. I believe this is the “angle” that the media has been salivating over from the beginning. Thankfully, Lauer let it pass.

    I do think we now have a great opportunity to get this document out into the light of day during these four months until the trial begins.

    All for Michael!

  3. Siu Siu from Hong Kong says:

    I read this with anger, how media industry try to destroy people and implant bad images about Michael for decades. It’s all about money. Don’t we have the law to protect our life?

  4. lina says:

    Thank you so much!! The truth is slowly unveiling!

  5. Sarah says:

    It’s all so heart rending. The man is dead and gone, prematurely. And yet the mercilessness continues..when will it end? When will it end??

  6. June says:

    @Marlena – I agree with your statement about this being “a moment” – a perfect vehicle for disseminating the truth about those continuing absurd lies about Michael. How can this DCFS document receive the attention it deserves? I wish I still lived in the LA area (from which the jury pool will (eventually) be drawn), as I would make sure a copy were posted on every building, light pole, billboard and other place of attention I could locate, as I firmly believe this method would provide better circulation than any attempt to get it out there through mainstream media. Not to say we shouldn’t try, however, to get the media’s attention on this…….

  7. Michaholics says:

    Greetings Seven.

    It is so nice to finally feel another source is heart and soul into more than just comment. This website is bar none full metal jacket Michaholic material. Back in the day Michaholics website flooded the internet with pro-Michael personnel in an attempt to get things set right. We were the boldest with contests to pick the date he would be found innocent and others. Fans found it entertaining while foes found Michaholics a pain in their as…

    Again Thanks for being there. We had to say it because not only did we get shunned by the community but never heard a word of encouragement from any other source. Regardless VH1 and several other sources as well as personal appearances by the Michaholics gang at anti-Jackson events said it all.

    Love, Hugs, Spirit. An Angel among men is the only true description of Michael J. Jackson…

    Michaholics website shut down in 2007 by request of the sponsors in fear of something they would not reveal. In hind sight it was a good thing. Michaholics website will be back times ten very soon! http://www.Michaholics.org

    Be Good! And if you can not be good, Be Great!

  8. budsgirl11954 says:

    Beautifully done…. as always…

  9. Elizabeth Rossini(Llontop) says:

    Dear Seven, thank you so much for your endless effort to bring the truth out there. We knew Michael was the victim all the way. Now I feel some kind of gladness, just to see that light at the end of the tunnel. Let’s keep the faith…Truth will prevail!!! This is good timing for this document to be presented to the public before the trial begins. Besides other sites, can we put it in schools, libraries, colleges, buses, train stations?, any place to call the attention…Thanks a million again Seven. God Bless!! LOVE <3

  10. Sina says:

    Thank you Seven and all the others who contributed to the article.
    The information is so revealing it needs to reach out to the general public, not just the MJ community.
    I dont know what the Huffington posts policy is, but that would be a excellent platform . It will be a welcome contribution with factual information to the posts of regular writers who write on a diversity of subjects about Michael

    People should be more aware of how they are manipulated by the media.
    I saw some comments of people thanking Matt Lauer for being so gentle towards Mrs Jackson. Meanwhile missing the subtle lead about ‘her stating her opinion’.
    Unconsciously these hidden messages get stuck between the ears of the viewers and that is exactly their purpose.
    If I remember well you wrote an article a while ago along the line of insults wrapped up as compliments or praise . I see it very often.
    We are so used to negative news about Michael that whenever someone says something remotely positive , even if the rest of what they say is horrible,some fans fall for it.
    In Michaels words: tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

  11. Anna @ D16 says:

    Thank you for assembling this post! Your eloquence and clarity are much appreciated.

    Michael was acquitted for a reason, and it wasn’t just because he had a GREAT lawyer. Justice prevailed because his innocence was indisputable.

  12. Nancy says:

    I was so angry with the comment by Matt Lauer that it was Mrs. Jackson’s “opinion” that the media continues to lie about Michael Jackson and his innocence. I was also confused by why he would ask her why she would be in the courtroom everyday during the trial of murray. I was also angry by the commentary by Meredith Viera, that she thought it was “interesting” that Mrs. Jackson was so vocal in her support of her son. These comments were so unbelievable to me that I had to write to the Today Show,specifically to Matt Lauer and tell him how appalled I was at his pretense to be empathic to Mrs. Jackson and then at the end of the segment claim that Michael Jackson’s innocence is her opinion. The media always makes everything about Michael Jackson seem so odd. Is it strange that a parent would speak up and for their child’s innocence? Would a parent not be there everyday in court if there child was fighting for their life? Mrs. Jackson was there in 2005 and she will be there in 2011. I told him I would not be watching the Today Show anymore and that they are all part of the medialoid perpetuating lies about Michael’s innocence. It just makes me sick and I will stand up to it and be vocal and support Michael Jackson and his innocence always.

  13. skiper says:

    Seven, thanks! Very very good.
    I love you Michael!

  14. Deborah Ffrench says:

    Outstanding.

  15. Solar says:

    Going about our everyday lives, many don’t realize that we are being brainwashed by the media, continually being bombarded by countless ads, slanted articles and commentaries. The devious subconscious planting of thoughts in the collective public’s mind, to control our thinking, is certain media’s standard operating procedure driven by their corporate owners solely for monetary gain at the expense of human lives.

    The sooner the public realizes this along with the fact that we should neither allow the unfettered media to define the truth for us nor accept their definition of such, the sooner change will come and the better this world will become. As depicted in Seven’s eloquent post, “Stop, Filthy Press,” and as Michael said, “Burn the tabloids.” We, the public, have the power to overcome and change present circumstances. We have the power to refuse to buy certain newspapers, magazines and tabloids. We have the power to refuse to listen to or watch certain TV stations and networks. We have the power to refuse to support or buy the products of advertisers and sponsors of offending programs.

    The driving force behind the media’s business and their owners is the same force that the public can turn around and use against them: MONEY. The media and their corporate owners cannot survive without MONEY. We, the public, have the absolute power to cut off that essential life support to any offending media!

    As Michael said, “There’s nothing that can’t be done, if we raise our voice as one.”

  16. Lou says:

    Thanks for the excellent new blog, Seven. I have to say something about Katherine’s comments regarding Jordan Chandler’s ‘confession’ though. While, i know Tom Mesereau had witnesses lined up to say that JC had told them MJ never touched him, KJ was talking about the internet rumour of a Jordan confession after Michael died. And there is no evidence that this confesion was authentic, so i have to agree that she doesn’tdo herself any favours by referring to itas proof of MJ’s innocence, especially whent there is so much factual evidence.

    There must be a way that the public can be made more aware of how the media works. Especially the tabloid press. It would be good if a former tabloid journalist could grow a conscience and set about educating people about how they’re being manipulated. I know Aphrodite Jones has done this somewhat but someone with a bgeer profile. Someone like Piers Morgan, for example; big audience, slightly improved sense of decency since being sacked from The Mirror. Although sadly i think he’s a bit too ful of himself and his angle is still a bit too tabloidy to care about setting people straight.

  17. Nancy says:

    @Solar

    Amen.

  18. Joyce says:

    Seven,
    Just finished reading the posts and comments from the past several days. I cannot find the appropriate words to express my gratitude to everyone who has contributed to these well written, factual, informative articles. Deborah Kunesh’s entire article is outstanding! I wish it could be seen by a much wider audience. She provides an amazing insight from within the media. When will more people wake up to the media’s manipulation of everything we read, hear and see. We have to seek our own facts and truths and not expect to be spoon-fed it by a very deceptive and self serving media. Articles and posts such as this one most certainly help to enlighten and encourage us to seek the truth. Hopefully the truth will slowly spread and gain momentum through all of us.

    Thank you also for the lovely, touching story about Michael’s involvement with the family of the young boy who was killed in a drive-by shooting. How sad that so many people will never see or know the real, gentle, caring, giving Michael Jackson but will continue to believe the media’s lies and misinformation instead.
    I will never stop sharing these stories and making sure the truth is known.

    One final comment regarding the post “A Night at the Dorchester”.
    Thanks for making me smile thinking about Michael enjoying a fun and relaxing night around a piano with friends. I especially like to imagine how wonderful he must have sounded singing such a variety of artist’s songs. (I love that he enjoyed the Carpenters, who were also one of my favorites so long ago!)
    As always, he never failed to compliment and appreciate anyone who shared their time and talents with him. What an amazing moment and memory for that lucky musician!
    Thanks again Seven for all of your enlighting, informative posts!

  19. Seven says:

    @Lou,

    I am quite aware of that. However, as you stated there is much factual evidence to support what Mrs. Jackson says. What she said is still TRUE – Chandler did recant. Whether he did so publicly or privately is what is in question.

    There was no reason the “journalist” could not have – as I’ve done here, focused on that rather than focusing on discounting Mrs. Jackson, and thus Michael’s innocence. If he did not know the facts, he could taken time to research them before writing his article.

    I personally resent the comment from the writer, Mr. Juzwiak, that Mrs. Jackson is just “a grieving mother, blinded by love“. I also resent Lauer’s sneering comment that it is just Mrs. Jackson’s “OPINION” that Michael is innocent and that the allegations were lies.

    The female on the Today show with Lauer that day made a comment that it is “interesting” that Mrs. Jackson would want to be in the courtroom every day even though she does not have to.

    In verbal abuse terms, this is three things: discounting, trivializing, and undermining.

    The writer Juzwiak and Matt Lauer on the Today show were both completely discounting what Mrs. J. said, and simultaneously trivializing the importance of it in regards to those allegations.

    The woman on Today with Matt Lauer was undermining her.

    There was not a thing preventing Juzwiak from writing the same thing I did here. But, he didn’t. Because it was easier, quicker and more convenient to just completely discount what Mrs. Jackson said and to trivialize it, while ignoring the absolutely glaring issues with the “veracity” of the allegations against Michael. Same with Matt Lauer and the Today show. Discount. Trivialize. That’s the treatment most exonerating facts get from the media when it comes to Michael Jackson. That’s the treatment most people get who dare challenge the horrid caricature they’ve carefully created of him.

    These tactics on the part of the media are all attempts at distraction and manipulation of public opinion. If they are due to sheer ignorance, then that ignorance is wholly willful. Because just as myself and many others have the facts at hand, so do they.

  20. june says:

    @Nancy, I took your lead and also wrote to Matt Lauer of the Today Show, with a copy to the senior producer of Today, Noah Kotch (the name listed on the Today website). Tom Mesereau has appeared on Today and I suggested that invite him back. And I included a copy of the DCFS release on the unfounded charges. If enough long-time viewers (I am one) express their disgust with this type of interview, aka trivialization of the interviewee and the subject matter, perhaps NBC will get the message.

  21. Olga says:

    I explain all there is regarding the extortion in parts 1 & 2 of HIStory vs EVANstory

  22. Seven says:

    Dear Readers,

    The articles Olga refers in her comment are here:

    http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-1/
    http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/history-vs-evanstory-the-1993-allegations-part-2/

    Olga is a researcher and writer for the Vindicate MJ site. I highly recommend reading these articles so that you can be informed in responding intelligently to online articles which assert Michael’s guilt, and to broadcasts or friends/family who are ignorant about the facts.

  23. Maria Ortiz says:

    Everybody know that Michael Joseph Jackson is innocent. He is a wonderful human being. Just only he haven a gift that God give to him and he use that gift to send a messanger to the people in the world for love, peace and care for all existence that live in entire planet.

  24. Nina Hamilton says:

    Brilliant, Nancy, Seven, well everyone! I only wish that report by the Los Angeles Families’ and Children’s Dept. could be on the headlines of all the world’s newspapers in black and white; no pun intended. Michael’s power, influence and wealth, penetrated popular social culture and consciousness to put fear into the hearts of media and corporations, which is why they published the lies to try to weaken and discredit him. But the tables are turning. He was a huge historical figure, and, according to a top legal expert, MJ advocate and reporter/writer, who is to comment on the Conrad Murray trial, ‘Michael Jackson has left an indelible mark on the world’, which will never fade away.

Leave a Reply