Saturday, December 03, 2005

Why would you question...

Why would critics of Michael Jackson question the Chandlers whom sued Michael Jackson and settled (it takes two to settle) the case for million of dollars. And the Francias whom blackmailed Michael Jackson into a settlement after the Chandler case. Why would they question taking money for an alleged molestation when the critics themselves make money out of the allegations as well? Jim Thomas became a paid TV guest during the trial on MSNBC, Diane Dimond keeps looking for a pot of gold; Stacy Brown (who is really a hypocrite and a pathological liar) does not have a problem profiting for a crime he now says he believes happened. And Bob Jones who is allegedly the real pedophile does not care about making money out of allegations he now says he believes are true. Why would the two jurors Ray Hultman and Eleanor Cook have a problem with any of the ex-employees who testified in the trial, why would they have a problem with them? When these two jurors themselves do not have a problem with profiting from a crime they say they believe happened. At least the alleged third juror who believed a crime happened had the decency of not cashing in. I am asking this question again, why would they have a problem with the Chandlers, Francias or the Arvizos (who visited a bunch of civil attorneys including Larry Feldman before their allegation made their way to the police) they shouldn’t have a problem with profiting from a crime they say they believe because they’re just like the Chandlers, the Arvizos and the Francias: greedy. Look for others close to the Arvizos to want to "sell" oops I mean tell their side of the story soon.


Blogger pyt in nyc said...

seeing those pictures burns my eyes

3:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Blog Top Sites