Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Nancy Grace cares more about Jackson than dead boyfriend?




Besides the issue Nancy Grace allegedly profits from her boyfriend's death by exaggerating the events that occurred. Don't you feel sorry for Nancy? I feel sorry for the family of her boyfriend, for Nancy? Nope, I don't give a crap. I don't respect anybody that makes a career out of tragedy. That's beside the point though. On January 31, 2006 Nancy Grace dedicated over 20 minutes to a Michael Jackson story. In other words how to slander Mr. Jackson as much as possible in 20 minutes? Simply present the facts how I see them and not as they're. January 31, 2006 was also a sad day for America, we lost Coretta Scott King. And how many minutes did Grace dedicate to Mrs. King? I am going to tell you it wasn't 25 minutes. Of course Grace brought the usual suspects to get her Michael Jackson fix: Diane *stalker* Dimond, some loser from who probably failed the bar exam and Brian *I am addicted to a camera* Oxman. And for 20 plus minutes I saw what civilization has become: Celebrity driven. We give a stage to obsession and people obsessed with a particular celebrity as Nancy Grace and Dimond Dimond are, sickly obsessed with Michael Jackson's every move. I am guilty of that; this blog is guilty of that as well. I know there are major injustices around the world, yet, I chose one injustice to do a blog on: the biased and unfair treatment of Michael Jackson. I don't have the communicating power Grace has, I do not have 2 million people watching my blog or regurgitating at my commentary, Grace does. And she chose Michael Jackson over Coretta Scott King. I think she would've chosen Jackson over her dead boyfriend. Yes, I believe so. Dead boyfriends do not bring as much rating as Mr. Jackson. Right Nancy?

Saturday, January 21, 2006

Diane Dimond the obsessed stalker?
















Diane Dimond on the defensive! Oh, I like that! What’s going on Diane? Can’t handle the truth? I hear you’re pretty angry about this line "...But some are much weaker. Michael Jackson’s near-stalker Diane Diamond’s stomach-churning title Be Careful Who You Love hit the checkout scanner just 5,000 times." Well, let’s compare other journalists covering the MJ case at the same time as you. Let’s see. Did you ever see any other so called professional journalists befriending the families that accused Mr. Jackson? Did you ever see any journalists with such close relationships with the prosecution? Did you ever see any journalist buying a fedora because they thought it was worn by Mr. Jackson?

Did you ever see any real journalists getting sued by Mr. Jackson and then having Tom Sneddon come to their rescue? Did you ever see any journalists much biased against any subject than you’ve been against Mr. Jackson in the last 10 years? Yes, Diane it is STOMACH turning because your obsession with Mr. Jackson is obvious to anyone but the family you’ve created based on your obsession with Mr. Jackson: Tom *obsessed with Mr. Jackson* Sneddon, Ray *greedy ass* Chandler, The *grifters* Arvizos, Louise *ugly as a monkey’s ass* Palanker, all your friends share one thing: greed, hate and revenge. So allegedly you may not only be a near stalker, but a woman who lives her life through Mr. Jackson.

Great comment from Abert:


Diane wasn't doing much reporting AT ALL between each criminal investigation of Michael Jackson. The hater disappeared from radar after Hard Copy was kicked to the curb up until she started getting called to comment on....guess who, MICHAEL JACKSON. Anyone with half a brain knows that her various "jobs" reporting on anything are dependant upon her Michael Jackson "exclusives".....she wouldn't have been made "editor" of the Michael Jackson case on Court TV if Tom Sneddon and company hadn't been whispering in her ear the whole time. The witch has an uncanny ability for hitting the scene right before any allegations against Michael Jackson break in the mainstream media. Like Tom Sneddon, she's like a beast waiting in the wings for her prey to come into target.....if that ain't a stalker, what is?A tad defensive isn't she?....truth hurts I guess.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Ode to my family...

Monday, January 16, 2006

only a few weeks into the new year and...

According to the Broadcasting and Cable article entitled 'Media Produce Literary Leftovers', Diane Dimond's 'book' is already going 'splat'. Quote: "...But some are much weaker. Michael Jackson’s near-stalker Diane Diamond’s stomach-churning title Be Careful Who You Love hit the checkout scanner just 5,000 times." That's pretty much everyone at the SBPD! Congratulations on a job well done Diane. You deserve it!

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6299462.html?display=Breaking+News

Bad mothers wear wigs too...




In the latest book from my Godmother Diane *spinderella* Dimond writes the other reporter who covered the Michael Jackson case on Court TV, I believe her name is Savannah or how we all know her as the less obnoxious reporter on Court TV. It seems like Savannah met June Chandler at some airport after the verdict and June Chandler said to her she believed Michael Jackson will “do it” again. I've decided to write a nice little thing about that nice little comment.

Do it again…will Michael Jackson do it again?

Why didn’t you think of that when you signed that settlement and obtained a million dollars?

Do it again…will Michael Jackson do it again?

Why didn’t you think of that EVERYTIME YOU SPENT THAT MONEY FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

Do it again…will Michael Jackson do it again?

Every penny you’ve spent, you never thought of that?

Do it again…will Michael Jackson do it again?

Why didn’t you think of that when your own son divorced from you?

Do it again…will Michael Jackson do it again?

Why didn’t you think of that when you kept trying to fool Michael Jackson into giving you money. Why didn't you think of that when you signed this document?



It didn’t matter if he would “do it” again when you put that signature on that document that made you rich? Right? You sold your son’s soul. And what do you have now? A house, nice hair, but no SON.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

The 1993 settlement myths

How much did Michael Jackson settled the 1993 lawsuit filed against him by Evan Chandler? We've heard 50, 40, 30, 20 million. For some reason the media has never been able to get the exact number of the settlement. Diane Dimond known for her antics to try to make anything Michael Jackson even bigger than what it was, leaked the actual documents. In the documents one find many interesting things. For example, in the document Michael Jackson denies ever having any sexual contact with Jordan Chandler. And to make things even more interesting, the parents of Jordan Chandler, Evan and June Chandler agreed to that denial. Here that part of the document:




Also, in the document it actually says the Chandlers can only speak of the case in a court of law. For 10 years the media has been spreading the lie that the settlement somehow stopped the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson. Another myth destroyed by the factual document.



another myth that the settlement was for more than 30 million when in fact it was only 15,331,250, both Evan and June Chandler obtained 1.5 million while Larry Feldman obtained 3 million and 10% of the settlement which would bring his earnings to 5 million dollars.






And how much Jordan Chandler got? The most he could've gotten was 8 million dollars. Who leaked this private document? The only party that had this particular document was Lisa Marie Presley's attorney at the time. So who gave it to Diane Dimond? Hmmm.




Source:

Entire document here:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Greed i$ a bitch...



In 2004, after realizing they weren't going to get any money from MJ the Greedy Team: Larry Feldman and Janet Arvizo decided to file a lawsuit against the Department of Children Services for allegedly leaking a memo, which stated the Arvizos had denied any abuse from Jackson. Larry Feldman then appeared on the Today Show and talked about his anger at the fact the memo was leaked. And he felt it violated the rights of his clients The Arvizos. As many of us know Larry Feldman was also the same lawyer that represented The Chandlers in 1993 and obtained a 15 million dollar settlement in which he kept 5 million dollars. However, sadly for Feldman the 2003 scam didn't go as well as the 1993 scam. He figured all the effort and money he put into the Arvizos he may as well sue someone or some entity. And that entity happened to be the Department of Children Services in Los Angeles. I don't understand why Janet Arvizo was so angry or at least she says at the fact the memo was leaked. Why wasn't she angry at all the salacious stories leaked by the National Enquirer that places her son in sexual positions with an adult? Wouldn't Janet as a mother and adult be more angry at those leaks? Why not sue the National Enquirer? Perhaps because they were the ones who sold those stories to the National Enquirer? Who knows. If Feldman was angry about the rights of his clients been violated, how come he wasn't angry at all the leaks that placed a teenage boy having sex with a man? Was it because the memo had information that proved their allegations of molestation, false imprisonment and kidnapping were all lies? I am sure that was it. Greed is a bitch. Sadly for Feldman, I believe he will die a horrible death. I don't believe for a minute God will allow The Chandlers, The Arvizos, The Francias and Larry Feldman to get away with what they did.

Friday, January 13, 2006

The Diane Dimond Story: A love that was not returned





It was a beautiful day in 1993 and Diane Dimond met the love of her life. The man that would keep her attention and panties wet for almost a decade: Michael Joseph Jackson. This is not the typical love story as you can see, Mr. Jackson has no idea Diane Dimond is cheating on her husband with the 1,800 dollar fedora Spinderella, I mean Diane bought as memorabilia to be closer to the love of her life Michael Jackson. However, this love story hasn't always being all pretty, Mr. Jackson sued Diane Dimond along with a pervert reporter from Chile in the mid 90s, for you know, spreading lies... I think since that lawsuit Diane's love just hasn't being the same! I'd love to pay tribute to that love story and I've put together a little reminder of all the bitter lies Diane Dimond has told about her unreturned love Michael Jackson. Some of the most compelling quotes from Diane that were proven to be dogshit in the trial. Thanks Diane for all the laugh! We pity you.

"I think you're gonna hear a compelling timeline case from the prosecution: 'Here's how this family met him.

*Which timeline Diane? Timeline number 1, number 2, or number 3? Because as you've failed to tell the public the timeline was changed many times.


Court TV reporter Diane Dimond believes Jackson's first accuser, who was just 12 years old at the time, is looking forward to telling his story to a jury.

"From what I understand he is this close to agreeing to testify before the grand jury voluntarily," Dimond says. "He wants to do this."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127942&page=1

* Too bad Jordan actually didn't show up! Another one of your lies!


Remember the alleged Jackson love letters? Remember Diane Dimond going around on TV saying Michael Jackson had written Gavin Arvizo a bunch of love letters?

This is Diane Dimond on Larry King spreading the love letters story:

(CROSSTALK)KING: Wait a minute! Hold it!…

(CROSSTALK)KING: Do we -- hold it! Does anyone here -- does anyone here -- anyone -- know of the existence of these letters?

COCHRAN: I don't. I mean, I think that's...

DIMOND: Absolutely. I do.
COCHRAN: ... again, speculation.
DIMOND: I do!
COCHRAN: I don't know of this.
KING: Hold it!…
DIMOND: I absolutely know of their existence!
(CROSSTALK)KING: Diane, have you read them?
DIMOND: No, I have not read them, but I absolutely know that that... was tops on the list of the DA and sheriff's department, things to look for inside Neverland. Listen, Larry...
KING: But you don't know what they say.
DIMOND: ... these are letters that are written in Michael Jackson's hand. They are said to be -- no, I've not read them, but...
KING: OK. Well, then...
DIMOND: ... they -- they went after them because they're said to be so sensational and so salacious in nature...
KING: Yes, but how...DIMOND: ... that this could be a key to the prosecution...KING: I see. Now, let me...
DIMOND: ... if and when this goes to trial.(see Larry King Live: Dimond talk about " love letters " (Nov 24 2003))


Remember that Diane? How come you didn't give your viewers an update on those love letters? Did you tell them that the letters they've found were from Gavin to Michael and NOT FROM Michael to Gavin? LMAO What a pathetic excuse for a human being: Diane *spinderella* Dimond. I feel sorry for your children and grandchildren.


Who can forget this one:


"I am 99.9% sure Jordan Chandler is going to testify against Michael Jackson"

I am 99.9% sure you're full of shit DIANE! lol

Let's look at the bright side, let's look at the things Diane has actually told the truth on:

*MJ videotape of sex with boys - oh sorry that wasn't true either!
*MJ love letters to boys - They turned out to be false as well...
*Debbie Rowe "bombshell witness for the state" - I am sure Sneddon still biting his little penis for calling Rowe.
*Dr. Stan Katz "bombshell witness for the state" - He kind of contradicted everything the accusers said, why? because the accusers told him a different story!
*Bob Jones "bombshell witness for the state" - Jones who is an alleged pedophile himself couldn't even stand behind the lie he told to sell that BEST SELLING book of his? What's the name again? I bet you don't know either.
*Rudy P - "bombshell witness for the state" - He was absolutely fascinating to watch because after he took the stand the conspiracy made even less sense.
*Chris Carter - "bombshell witness for the state" - the robber?
*Mac Culkin - nope - I remember Diane trying to spin about Culkin not testifying, she knew Culkin would be bad for her case and yes he turned out to be PRETTY BAD for the prosecution and great for the defense!
*Brett Barnes - nope - Brett the same Brett Diane implies was molested, however went on stand and said HAS NEVER BEEN MOLESTED?
*Wade Robeson - The same Wade Diane implies was molested, however, went on the stand and said HAS NEVER BEEN MOLESTED?

"Sadly" for us CourtTV fired Diane Dimond on Michael Jackson's birthday as if to say: You're a tabloid reporter and you will die a tabloid reporter. You're nothing without Michael Jackson. I prefer to say Diane is is a free fall and everybody is waiting to hear the SPLAT!

I believe CourtTV gave us that splat!



*claps hands together in a splat type motion*







On Michael's birthday of all days....

Thursday, January 12, 2006

My grandma and Michael Jackson the same person?






Q: Defense attorney Tom M
A: Gavin Anton Arvizo



13 Q. Do you remember being interviewed by the
14 Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on a number of
15 occasions.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And do you remember who interviewed you.
18 A. Most likely Steve Robel or Paul Zelis.
19 Q. Do you remember being asked, “Before we get
20 started on the next set of questions, can you
21 describe to us what your opinion is, what you think
22 masturbation is.”
Do you remember one of the
23 sheriffs asked you that during an interview.
24 A. I believe so.
25 Q. And you knew those interviews were being
26 recorded, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Remember you said, “My grandma explained it 1798
1 to me. She told me that -- that your -- the only
2 reason is because like if -- if men don’t do it, men
3 might get to a point where they might go ahead and
4 rape a woman”.
Do you remember saying that to the
5 sheriffs.
6 A. I believe so.
7 Q. Why did your story change between that
8 interview and your testimony last Thursday.
9 A. Well, what do you mean “changed”.
10 Q.
Well, you told the police your grandmother
11 made that quote to you, and you came into court
12 under oath and told the jury Mr. Jackson made that
13 quote to you.


PS. Taken from official transcripts of testimony by Gavin Arvizo now known as Anton Jackson. Gavin had told the cops his grandmother had explained to him what would happen if he didn't masturbate. However, when Gavin took the stand during his direct testimony with the prosecution he told the jury it was Michael Jackson who told him what would happen if he didn't masturbate. When confronted with his lie Gavin said it just happen that his grandmother and Michael Jackson told him the same EXACT quote about masturbation. What are the chances of that? Lucky lucky Gavin! lol

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Pure coincidences

The only allegations ever made against Michael Jackson that have been taken serious by the so called authorities and some of the public...

1993 and 2003 Allegations

Accusers:

The Chandler$, the Francia$ and the Arvizo$

Players involved:






Larry Feldman civil attorney for The Chandlers, The Arvizos and initially for the Francias. Filed a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson in the middle of a criminal investigation. Demanded and settled for 20 million dollars in which he obtained 5 million dollars.







Stanley Katz Psychiatrist for both the Chandlers and the Arvizos. Katz had a legal contract in which it stated he was to obtain a percentage of any money Feldman obtained from Jackson.







Tom Sneddon, prosecutor for the three cases yet failed to file charges for Francia and Chandler. After 1993 Sneddon became obsessed with Michael Jackson; even appearing on a tabloid TV show Hard Copy to discuss one of Jackson's songs.




Diane Dimond tabloid journalist formerly reporter of tabloid TV show Hard Copy. Dimond was used to leak misinformation about the 2003 case. Dimond became involved with Mr. Jackson during the 1993 case. In the mid 90s Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierez were sued by Michael Jackson for claiming there was a video tape of Jackson having sex with a boy. Diane was taken out of the lawsuit after claiming journalism privilege. However, Diane's career suffered after the lawsuit. After such, Diane Dimond's only objective in life is to destroy Michael Jackson. Diane is so obsessed with Michael Jackson, she spent almost 2,000 dollars on a fedora she believed was worn by Jackson during his Billie Jean performances.

Pure coincidences

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Teenage Boys for Sale

Teenage Boys
Jordan Chandler sold for 20 million dollars paid for by Jackson's insurance company.







Gavin Anton Arvizo almost sold by Janet Arvizo through her attorney Larry Feldman, sadly for her Tom Sneddon got a hold of the case and ruined her settlement plans. However, Gavin was sold by Janet when she received documents that would entitle her family with state funds by making accusations of molestation against an individual. Sold for a better life at Los Alamitos!




Jason Francia sold for 2 million dollars


Biased against Michael Jackson is something that many of us are so used to, we’ve failed to ask some questions. For example, many people foam at the mouth asking “why Michael Jackson settled his cases in 1993? However, I’ve never heard anybody asking this question, “Why the families settled the cases in the 90s.” Why this question isn’t asks more often? Some people act as if Michael Jackson offered money, when in fact he was sued. Why do people sue people? It’s to get money. So who really wanted money? If Evan Chandler had the health and the time to put his teenager through a civil case, which he was willing to do more than once, why couldn’t he take the time to send the guy he said harmed his son to prison? In fact, in 1996 Evan Chandler found the strength, and health to sue Michael Jackson again for close to 60 million dollars. And guess what my friends? In the lawsuit Chandler offered to put his son on the stand during the civil trial, however, the legal statue of limitations on the criminal case had not ran out. Evan Chandler could’ve very well re-open the criminal case and put his son on the stand to testify against Jackson and finally put him in prison (with all the mind-blowing evidence they claimed they had). Once again, Chandler chose the civil route. Diane Dimond foams at the mouth with her “Michael Jackson is guilty” signs on her forehead, but can’t explain why these families fought so weakly to put the guy that allegedly harmed their children in prison. Blanca Francia who claimed her son was molested by Jackson ran to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond to tell her story (Francia got a nice sum by Hard Copy to tell her heartbreaking story), now unless Diane is an undercover cop, I’ll never understand that one. Francia also sold a picture of her son posing with Jackson to tabloid reporters, talk about mother of the year? Why don’t reporters in the media attack the parenting skills of these people? Who knows? Blanca Francia also took the civil route and settled her case for 2 million dollars. I encourage you all to read Blanca Francia and Jason Francia’s testimony during the trial. And you will realize yourself what kind of people walk this earth and perhaps they should not. And then there is the mother of all mothers: Janet Arvizo who just could not come up with an original accusation, but the same accusations she used to accuse two others in the past she used against Jackson as well. Many do not know this but according to court documents shortly before Jackson was charged; Janet Arvizo and Tom Sneddon met in a parking lot to exchange “evidence.” What they've exchanged that day could very well explain why Janet went ahead with the criminal trial. According to court documents Tom Sneddon gave Janet Arvizo documents related to the California Victim State Funds; such funds are for people who claim to have been victims of a crime. Those funds allowed them to receive money for any claim, even if the claim has not been proven to be true. If this wasn’t about money why would she received such documents shortly before going ahead with the criminal case? Janet like others found her way to civil attorney Larry feldman who was also the attorney for the 1993 case. Once again, I guess civil attorney Larry Feldman and “psychologist” Stan Katz are undercover cops because all these accusers just find their way to them. I wonder sometimes? Are these teenagers for sale by the parents? If you believe Michael Jackson bought them, then you have to believe the parents sold them.



Thanks to Angel7 for Chandler graphic...

Monday, January 09, 2006

Time For "Star" To Shine



Poor "little" brother Star Arvizo (aka, Daniel Jackson) hasn't gotten the attention he deserves. so now, we're going to focus on his testimony, and his testimony alone.

- One of the most memorable moments of Star's testimony, is him insisting during direct examination and cross examination that the "barely legal" magazine shown in a photograph is the same exact magazine that was shown to him and his brother by Michael Jackson, until Mesereau points out a huge factor, that the magazine wasn't even published when the boys where at Neverland and it was published months after they left NL for the very last time.
then of course he goes back and says he meant it was a "barely legal" magazine, just not the same issue.









P.S : Exhibit no. 86 is a picture that shows a brief case and a bunch of "girlie magazines"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct examination By Tom Sneddon :
11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. People’s 86.
12 Do you recognize that.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is that an accurate depiction of what it
15 represents.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. I’m going to ask you some
18 questions about People’s 86.
19 And put it on the board, Your Honor. I move
20 it be admitted into evidence.
21 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; and
22 authenticity and relevance.
23 THE COURT: On 86.
24 MR. SNEDDON: Yes. I asked him and he said
25 it accurately depicted the materials.

*****************
Cross examination By Tom Mesereau :
6 Q. And what you’re looking at is Exhibit 86,
7 right.
8 A. I don’t see the number.
9 Q. Okay. Just -- what you’re looking at is
10 a -- appears to be a black briefcase with some
11 girlie magazines, right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the first one says "Barely Legal" on it;
14 do you see that.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman lifting
17 up her shirt, correct.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman who’s
20 exposing her breasts, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And she appears to be wearing a dark pair of
23 shorts, right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at
26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are 1279
1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael
4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
7 magazine, "Barely Legal," did he.
8 A. What.
9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
10 magazine, "Barely Legal," did he.
11 A. He did show us.
12 Q. He did.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the
15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.
16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that
17 one.
18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many
19 months before, never to return, correct.
20 A. That -- I’m telling you that that wasn’t
21 exactly the one he showed us.
22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s
23 not what you said today, right.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- we HAVE to give him credit for making up excuses on the spot! he was really great with that. and he didn't care how stupid or ridiculous those excuses were as long as it was an excuse to cover up his lies.
here are just a couple of examples :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
10 Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show
11 you a transcript from a police interview.
12 A. Sure.
13 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: Yes.
15 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me, what page.
16 THE WITNESS: The lady might have misheard
17 me.
18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Excuse me, what did you
19 just say.
20 A. I never looked into the can.
21 Q. You said a lady might have misheard you.
22 A. The -- I don’t know what her -- what the --
23 Q. The court reporter.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Oh, you think the court reporter made a
26 mistake.
27 A. Yes.


**********************
about something else :
6 A. I never said that. That’s just a paragraph
7 that somebody wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Now, three of THE MOST important parts of Star's testimony is him witnessing the alleged molestation :

* first of all, he and many others testified that when someone enters the hallways leading up to Michael Jackson's bedroom, a bell would go off so that Mr.Jackson would be aware that someone is aproaching his bedroom, and Star said that the bell did in fact go off before he witnessed the alleged molestation.

* he says that the lights inside the bedroom were turned off including the ones above the bed where he claims Michael Jackson and his brother were. and the only lights that were on were one or two on the stairs leading up to Mr.Jackson's bedroom. yet, he magically was able to see alot of vivid details about what Mr.Jackson was doing, and that he had his eyes closed. and that there was vodka in the room. he observed all of that when he claims he only stood at the stairs for no more than 4 seconds with the lights turned off inside the room.

* Star told the grand jury that he was five-feet-two tall at the time. and Mr.Mesereau pointed that out because Star says he witnessed Michael Jackson molest his brother 2 times while he was standing on the stairs on two separate occasions. and it was impossible for someone that short to have seen what he claims he saw on those stairs. in fact, Mr. Mesereau wanted to take the jury to Neverland and especially to the stairs for them to see, but the judge wouldn't allow it.

also, Star's testimony about the molestation itself doesn't make much sense, and the reason it doesn't make sense is this :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Q: BY TOM SNEDDON, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
1 where you saw your brother and Mr. Jackson on the
2 bed - okay. - when you’re looking at the bed, just
3 like we saw it on the photograph here - what side of
4 the bed was the defendant on.
5 A. Left side.
6 Q. And what side was your brother on.
7 A. Right side.
8 Q. And what position was Mr. Jackson in.
9 A. On his back. On his back.
10 Q. And what position was your brother in.
11 A. He was curled up, looking to the left. He
12 was curled up facing left.
13 Q. Now, would that be looking towards Mr.
14 Jackson or away from Mr. Jackson.
15 A. Away.

6 Q. All right. Now, you said you saw "his
7 hand." Whose hands are you talking about.
8 A. Michael’s.
9 Q. All right. And where were his hands.
10 A. Left hand was in my brother’s pants and
11 right hand was in his pants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^^^^ ok, now here I want you guys to try to picture this for a second, because what he says can't be possible unless Michael Jackson can magically stretch his arm.
according to Star, Michael is on the left side of the bed on his back reaching with his LEFT hand over across his chest or stomach and reaching to Gavin who is on the right side of the bed (not middle) and sleeping on his left side. how is that even possible? (btw, if he was looking to the left like star said, he should be facing Michael not have his back to him.. but anyway) ...
an even better question is, if it was possible, why would Michael put himself through so much trouble? LMAO! it would just be easier to put his right hand inside Gavin's pants and jerk off with the left.
and before anyone thinks I'm over analyzing things, Star mentioned this more than once and made it clear how and where both MJ and Gavin were on the bed. and he described the second molestation he claimed he saw as Michael doing the same thing, the only difference is that the second time, his brother was on his back.
******
- Here are just some contradictions about statements he made in other testimonies before the trial, let's begin with the biggest one :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
4 Q. Do you remember you told the Santa Barbara
5 Grand Jury that you saw Michael Jackson touching
6 your brother a lot?
7 A. Probably. I don't remember.
8 Q. You said he would try to fix your brother's
9 shirt. Do you remember that?
10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. You said he would be touching him a lot,
12 right?
13 A. I don't remember.
14 Q. You said, "He would, like, fix his shirt."


28 Q. Okay. You were asked the question, "He


1 would be touching him a lot?"
2 "A. Yeah.
3 "Q. Not his genitals, not his penis?
4 "A. I never saw that

*****************
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
25 Q. Okay. Now, you told the Santa Barbara
26 Sheriffs that Frank threatened you and your family,
27 right.
28 A. He just threatened me. 1317
1 Q. He just threatened you alone.
2 A. He probably threatened my family.
3 Q. Did he threaten you alone.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know when that was.
6 A. I don’t know the date.
7 Q. Was it when you first got to Neverland.
8 A. I don’t really remember.
9 Q. Was it after the Miami trip.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know how soon after the Miami trip.
12 A. I think it was right before the rebuttal.
13 Q. Right before the rebuttal.
14 A. I was trying to go talk to my mom.
15 Q. So this would be before, if I represent to
16 you the rebuttal was June 20th, right.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Excuse me, February 20th, pardon me.
19 February 20th was the rebuttal tape, right.
20 A. Okay.
21 Q. And you’re saying that Frank threatened you
22 right before the rebuttal tape.
23 A. While I was trying to walk to my mom’s guest
24 unit.
25 Q. Okay. But it was -- as far as you know,
26 it’s before the rebuttal tape, right.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. Okay. And in one of your sheriffs’ 1318
1 interviews, you were asked why Frank made that
2 threat, right.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you told the sheriffs, "Because he
5 already knew that what Michael did to us, and if we
6 told them the truth, he would have went to jail,"
7 right.
8 A. Can I read that.
9 Q. Yes.
10 May I approach, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Yes.
12 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to
13 look at that page.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you remember saying that to the sheriffs.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you told them, essentially, that Frank
18 said that to you, threatened you, because he knew
19 that if you told anybody what Michael had done,
20 Michael would go to jail, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That was right before the rebuttal tape,
23 right.
24 A. I think so, yes.

( ^^^^ This is HUGE because before the trial started, they used to claim that the molestation happened BEFORE Feb 20th and it's clear from this interview, but they later changed their story to AFTER Feb 20th because they realized that Mr.Jackson wasn't anywhere around the family for the molestation to have been even possible )
********************
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
7 Q. Okay. Now, did your mother ever complain to
8 you that she wanted to leave the ranch?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you know about when that was?
11 A. No. I don't know exactly.
12 Q. Do you remember telling the Santa Barbara
13 Grand Jury when you were asked the question, "Star,
14 while you were at the ranch, did you ever have any
15 discussions with your mother about the subject of
16 her wanting to leave the ranch?" and your answer
17 was, "No"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* star gave different descriptions about seeing MJ molest gavin each time he was asked. what he said to the Santa Barbara Sheriffs was different to what he said to the grand jury, to what he said to psychologist Stanley Katz, to what he said on the stand. for example : Star told Dr.Katz that the second time he saw MJ molesting gavin, MJ was rubbing his penis against Gavin's butt, but in court he denied ever saying that. he also told Katz that he smelled marijuana. he denied that in court too and said he doesn't even know what marijuana smells like.
that was just some of the stuff that Star told Dr.Katz that he denied on the stand.
******
- Another thing that doesn't make any sense is Star and his brother knowing the master code which would open every door in Neverland, yet they still stuck with the "falsely imprisoned" story. how can you be held against your will when you can simply punch in a code, open the door, and go over an approximately 1 meter wooden fence? lol

- IMO, one of the most hilarious parts of his testimony was the "no clocks at Neverland" part :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
9 A. They kept us away from the clocks. We
10 didn’t know the exact time or the date or nothing.
11 Q. Would you agree that overlooking Neverland
12 is a huge clock.
13 A. Yes. It’s a flower clock.
14 Q. Yes. And to the right of that big flower
15 clock is another clock, correct.
16 A. Probably.
17 Q. There are clocks all over Neverland,
18 correct.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you and your brothers used to run all
21 around Neverland, right.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You wanted the sheriffs to think that you
24 and your family were imprisoned and kept away from
25 clocks.
26 A. No.
27 Q. That’s why you told them that lie, right.
28 A. No. 1295
1 Q. If there are clocks all over Neverland, if
2 there’s a big flower clock on a hill overlooking
3 Neverland, and if you and your brothers were running
4 freely around Neverland, why did you tell the Santa
5 Barbara Sheriffs "We were kept away from clocks and
6 time".



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- AND FINALLY! I found this part to be very very VERY interesting from Star's testimony :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( Q: BY MR. MESEREAU, A: BY STAR ARVIZO )
9 Q. Please tell the jury how many pages you were
10 mailed to review before you testified.
11 A. I didn’t count them.
12 Q. Do you know approximately how many.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Didn’t you just say 300.
15 A. I was showing you an example.
16 Q. Okay. And when did you get these pages,
17 however many there were.
18 A. When did I get them.
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. About a month ago.
21 Q. Do you know where they came from.
22 A. No.
23 Q. No idea.
24 A. No.
25 Q. They just popped up in the mail.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. And when you got them, what did you do.
28 A. I didn’t read them. 1321
1 Q. Where did you put them.
2 A. Put them right near my bed.
3 Q. Never looked at them again.
4 A. No. Until -- until I almost came up here.
5 Q. So when you almost came up here, you looked
6 at those pages for the first time, right.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And how many of them did you look at.
9 A. How many.
10 Q. Yeah. Roughly.
11 A. I don’t know.
12 Q. Did you look at all of them.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did someone tell you to read them.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who.
17 A. Tom.
18 Q. Prosecutor Sneddon.
19 A. Yes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There were alot more things I wanted to point out from Star's testimony. but this is too long as it is. maybe there would be a part 2 soon lol

So how easy it is to make ridiculous accusations against Jackson and be believed?





Read the article below...LMAO


http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/61273.htm

Jackson SUIT'S A HOOT

By DAVID K. LI Post Correspondent

January 9, 2006 -- SANTA ANA, Calif. — Michael Jackson, having licked kiddie-sex charges just months ago, has been quietly fighting molestation claims made by a young man who says Jackson forced him into cosmetic surgery and stole music he composed as a toddler, court documents say.

The accuser, 20, filed complaints against Jackson in a July 25 lawsuit that flew completely under the public radar — in part because the handwritten, paper-thin grievance included no details, or even a lawyer representing the plaintiff.

Then he hired lawyers from nearby Newport Beach on Oct. 11, and his civil action in Orange County Superior Court suddenly picked up new details and several additional co-defendants, including Jackson's corporate entity, Sony.

The accuser, whose name is being withheld by The Post, claimed he was sexually abused by Jackson from 1987, when he was 2, until Dec. 21, 1999 — and that The King of Pop's corporate handlers knew it was happening.
The amended complaint filed by lawyer Michael Mattern also alleged that Jackson was "subjecting plaintiff to unnecessary cosmetic-surgery procedures."

The lawsuit didn't detail what the accuser allegedly had nipped or tucked at The Gloved One's behest. But Mattern said the most glaring procedures gave his client noticeably red lips, resembling the garish makeup Jackson often wears in public, and a pronounced cleft chin.

Not only did he attack Jackson as a pervert, he also blasted The King of Pop as an intellectual thief. He said he came up with lyrics and melodies between ages 2 and 12 that Jackson stole.

The plaintiff's name isn't new to The King of Pop and cops. When deputies raided Neverland in fall 2003, Santa Barbara County authorities said they wanted to put any past or new Jackson accusers on the witness stand — and he stepped forward.

Santa Barbara County investigators interviewed the accuser at length, but authorities didn't believe his story would stand up in court, law-enforcement sources said.

david.li@nypost.com



PS. My question is


Where were the parents of this two-year-old Mozart child?

A. Running for their life from a camera crew
B. Having a body wax
C. Staying in hotels in Calabasas and using the phone but failing to call the cops
D. Scaping in a hot air balloon


All the options above were excuses given by Janet Arvizo the last Jackson accuser. Not much difference in how ridiculous the claims can get against Mr. Jackson and still be believed. All you need is Michael Jackson on the defendant chair to believe ANYTHING against him, it does not matter how ridiculous the accusations are. Just ask Tom Sneddon.


T, and Kaymon contributed to this report...

Sunday, January 08, 2006

Website of the month: The Veritas Project



The Veritas Project


A detailed look at Mr. Jackson's case, it includes transcripts and analysis.

http://ns1.mjjforum.com/~mjcase/

Reminder: Gavin Arvizo is now going by the name of Anton Jackson




Just a reminder because many people could be confused about the names. The family is now going by the last name Jackson, they now live in Alamitos, California.

Timeline please phone home: You must be in outer space


Daniel Jackson (Star Arvizo) and Anton Jackson (Gavin Arvizo) from Alamitos High School





E.T




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'.

Buy 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.


Report by gilesmic

Saturday, January 07, 2006

Molested before or after, after or before, or in between?






Daniel Jackson (Star Arvizo) and Anton Jackson (Gavin Arvizo) from Alamitos High School



After the documentary the Arvizo family was visited by the Los Angeles Department of Children Services, the family was interviewed and they denied any type of abuse. The family then went to their first civil attorney, Mr. Dickerman then sent them to Larry Feldman who then sent them to Stan Katz. What the family told Stan Katz would dramatically be different from what they later told the police. Many people believe that Gavin Arvizo was the only person in the Arvizo family who has accused Jackson of molestation. In fact in their original complaint the Arvizos also accused Jackson of molesting Star Arvizo. In their original complaint Jackson was also accused of providing alcohol to the three Arvizo teenagers: Gavin, Star and Davellin. However, Jackson was never charged with such. Why? Who knows, ask Tom Sneddon. Perhaps Gavin made a better victim? Many of you know Michael was charged with a crime, but many of you do not know the details of the complaint. Originally, Gavin Arvizo stated Michael Jackson had molested him before the documentary that however was later changed to after the documentary. When the family talked to the cops the timeline of the molestation was not only changed but Star Arvizo was no longer claiming he was molested by Mr. Jackson. The timeline then stated Jackson had molested Gavin after the Department of Children Services had visited the family. Why did the timeline changed so much? In my personal opinion it has to do with the fact Mr. Michael was not around his home during the time Gavin originally claimed he was molested. Jackson was in the state of Florida. Originally, on December 18, 2003
Jackson was charged with:






However, a grand jury was later called and the original charges were thrown out and Jackson was then charged with:



Here are the official indictment documents found at SmokingGun.com





The initial complaint filed on DECEMBER 18th, 2003 charged Michael with SEVEN counts of molestation between FEBRUARY 7th and MARCH 10th 2003; in addition to TWO counts of intoxicating Gavin with intent to molest between FEBRUARY 20th and MARCH 10th 2003.

The indictment filed on APRIL 21st, 2004 charged Michael with ONE count of conspiracy with 28 overt-acts between FEBRUARY 1st and MARCH 31st, 2003; in addition to FOUR counts of molestation between FEBRUARY 20th and MARCH 12th, 2003; in addition to ONE count of attempted lewd act between FEBRUARY 20th and MARCH 12th, 2003; in addition to FOUR counts of intoxicating Gavin with intent to molest between FEBRUARY 20th and MARCH 12th, 2003.


written by TSCM


In other words the actual molestation counts decreased from the time Gavin spoke to the cops to the time Gavin spoke to the grand jury. Confusing? It shouldn't be, if you believe this family is telling the truth, correct? Let's review three of the MAJOR things that changed during the case:

***Star alleged molestation
***Gavin 24/7 pill popping/drunkenness
***Star description of what he saw Mr. Jackson do to his brother.

Let's get into that a little bit. Star Arvizo originally said Mr. Jackson put his penis on Gavin's butt, however, he denied ever saying that during his testimony. He blames that story on the court reporter who according to Star typed it wrong. The point is before their story ended up with the cops it was a very different story, before their story ended up with the grand jury it was also a different story, and before the story ended up with the JURY whom acquitted Mr. Jackson the story was different as well. So who says differences hurt? It sure didn't hurt Mr. Jackson.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Why wasn't Michael Jackson charged with molesting Star Arvizo?



Star Arvizo on the left side...

The younger boy also claimed that, during an early visit to Neverland, he was groped by Jackson while the two were in a golf cart. The child, who said he was driving at the time, told investigators that Jackson reached over with his left hand and touched his "testicles and penis" over his clothes. According to the boy, he continued driving and said nothing to Jackson. In a July 2003 interview with detectives, the child also claimed that, on one occasion, Jackson wanted to give him and his brother sleeping pills, directing the younger boy to get the drugs from a Neverland chef. However, according to an investigative report, "somehow the subject changed and the pills were forgotten." The child, though, kept the "sleeping pill" and later turned it over to his family's civil attorney. A subsequent government analysis of the pill showed it to be an over-the-counter cold capsule.


Source: Smoking Gun
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/010605jackson3.html

My question for Tom Sneddon is how come Michael Jackson wasn't charged with molesting Star Arvizo? Star Arvizo in his earlier claims said Michael Jackson grabbed his balls and penis while riding a golf cart. Isn't that child molestation? Why wasn't Jackson charged with such? Why did the prosecution picked and chose what to believe and what not to believe? Did Sneddon actually believe the family? Did he think Gavin would be a better "victim" and that because of the documentary people were more willing to believe he had molested Gavin? Is that why Star's accusations weren't even charged? And if Sneddon didn't believe Star's accusations, how come he believed (at least they pretended they believed ) everything else Star said? Did Sneddon used this family to get his target? Did Tom Sneddon really believed this family? Did you know Star Arvizo and Davelin Arvizo also accused Michael of giving them alcohol, however, Michael Jackson was not charged with it. How come?

What to do when someone licks the head of your child...



What do you do when someone licks the head of your child?

NOTHING

What would someone who cares about their child do?

SOMETHING


What did Janet Arvizo do when Michael Jackson according to her own accounts licked the head of her child in front of HER...

NOTHING

So what would you do if you see someone licking the head of your child?




The following testimony is Janet Arvizo's. It was taken during the Grand Jury investigation. During the grand jury investigation there is not defense attorney present and it is only the prosecution's side that is presented to the grand jury. The following testimony does not involve any DEFENSE of Michael Jackson. It is only the side of the prosecution presented, I, however, would like people to read the following words and make their own decisions.

Q: Zonen or Sneddon
A: Janet Arvizo

[GRAND JURY TESTIMONY - 04-06-2004 - Page 981 - 983]

Q: All right. Mss Arvizo, did you see anything on that flight in terms of behavior by Michael Jackson toward Gavin that caught your attention that you would believe were suspicious, for lack of a better term, suspicious? Did you see him doing something that you noticed?

A: (Nods head up and down.)

Q: What did you see?

A: This was -- this was hours into the flight where everybody was already asleep, meaning Farschian --

Q: Uh-huh.

A: -- Patty and Grace.

Q: Okay.

A: This was after time had passed. They wouldn't let me get up. They wouldn't let me look at what was going on. So at this time when they were asleep I wanted to see where everybody was. And when I got up, that's when I saw Michael licking Gavin.

Q: Licking Gavin?

A: (Nods head up and down.)

Q: Where? What part of his body?

A: On the side of his head.

Q: Were they sitting next to each other?

A: Yes.

Q: Was Gavin awake or asleep?

A: Gavin was asleep.

Q: And did you see this more than once or just once?

A: Just that time period. And I thought I was losing my mind.

Q: You weren't certain what you were seeing?

A: Yeah. And I saw a big long white tongue. His tongue is like white.

Q: Did he do this more than once?

A: Yes. He just continues. He kept on over and over. And I thought it was -- I looked around, and I thought it was me that --

Q: Did you talk with one of your children afterward about this?

A: No. I went -- afterwards when we had went back I had asked Gavin, you know, Star, Davellin, "Are you okay? Is everything okay?" And that satisfied me. Because I thought it was me who saw something that wasn't there.

Q: Did somebody tell you that they had also seen that?

A: Yes.

Q: Who?

A: Time had passed, many times. Now this is like fast forward, way into us totally being out of Neverland.

Q: Okay.

A: Okay. Star -- Star is the smaller one of my three.

Q: Okay.

A: And the more -- the more I saw him speak, the freer he became. Like the more he spoke, the more Gavin became opposite.

Q: Okay.

A: Okay. In Jay's apartment Star said, "Oh," because Star was left and right throwing out different things that he had seen and what was happening. It came to a point where I was telling them after this, "Forgive and forget, forgive and forget, forgive and forget. And that's when Star had said, "Oh, mommy, and I saw Michael lick Star's -- Gavin's head on the airplane." And right there, that's when I knew that what I saw --

Q: Okay.

A: -- I saw.


[GRAND JURY TESTIMONY - 04-07-2004 - Page 1185]

Q: Well -- all right. Tell me about the situation involving your having seen Michael Jackson lick your son on the plane. Was this something that stayed with you for awhile? Were you thinking about this for awhile?

A: Yes.

Q: All right. How did it impact on you with Michael Jackson? What did you think about him?

A: Well, when Star told me what he had seen, then everything went -- I started --

Q: But during this early stages when you got back from Miami --

A: I thought -- when I'd seen it on the airplane I thought it was me.

Q: When was it that Star told you he'd seen it as well?

A: Star?

Q: Yeah.

A: Until after, when Star was opening up.

Q: Oh, so we're talking about after the 12th of March, aren't we?

A: Yes...
----------------


Again?

Question: What would you do if you see a grown male licking the head of your child?


What did Janet Arvizo do? Absolutely NOTHING.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

I Saw Him Licking And Licking His Head.....


So, me and my eternally molested and kidnapped family have just been ‘kidnapped’… again, and flown to Miami for a press conference that never happened and were all bungled into a room with ‘Daddy Michael’ and told not to watch the bad tv show. We were there for two nights and then flown back to LA.. On the airplane back I’m sitting there looking out the window of the plane with my back to ‘Daddy Michael’ and ‘Anton‘, I gets up to go and look about only to be shocked at what I saw!!

I see none other than ‘Daddy Michael’ licking and preening my son, Anton’s, head like a cat. A big white tongue like a cheap nylon stair carpet, licking and licking and licking his head. But what did I do about it??

Come on guess!?

That’s right I did NOTHING at all, not a thing, I watched and then returned to my seat and swore silently to myself, the mother of this poor licked child, to never tell a soul.
But soon down-wind came the smell of the Greenback, and before you know it - I was singing like a canary.

This is what I told the jury about this event in my own convoluted way.

(Quotes taken from Court Transcripts titled ‘028_04-13-2005 - Jay Jackson, Janet Arvizo Jackson [PD28]’)

(Page 6077 Testimony Of Janet Arvizo)

Q: Now, at sometime while you were on that plane, did you see an event that caused you concern?
A: Yes
Q: What did you see?
A: Um, Okay. (To the jury) Please don’t judge me!.
Q: If you could, just answer the question.
Tell the Jury what you saw
A: (To the jury) Please don’t judge me.
At the time I was -- I hadn’t slept for so long. When everybody had fallen asleep -- and it
was hours into the flight. I hadn’t gotten up, and so -- and I figured it was my chance to look and see what had -- what was going on back there.


(Page 6078 Testimony Continued)

A: So I got up, and that’s when I saw Michael licking Gavin’s head.
I thought it was me. I thought I was seeing things. I thought it was me.
When we got off the airplane and I asked “Are you ok?” He said “I’m fine” and that was it.
Q: Do you know if Gavin was awake or asleep at this time?
A: He was asleep at the time.
Q: How could you tell?
A: Because his head was on his chest.
Q: Okay. Where was Mr Jackson’s arms at that time
A: Like this.
Q: He had an arm around Gavin?
A: Yes
Q: Now I want you to describe what it was you saw. You said you saw him lick him. What part of his head?
A: Like this, over and over.
Q: All right. What part of his head was it?
A: Right here.
Q: Actually his hair?
A: Yes
Q: And do you mean the side of his head?
A: Yes


(Page 6079 Testimony Continued)

Q: Okay. And you said “over and over”. How many times did you see that.
A: It was just over and over.
Q: All right. Are we talking about a few second’s worth or a few minutes worth? What?
A: I couldn’t tell you.
Q: All right. Did you say anything to anybody --
A: No
Q: -- At this time?
A: I looked around to see if anybody was awake, to see if anybody was seeing what I was seeing. And everybody was asleep, that I could see. Like I took a look at Patty and Grace, and I took a look at Farshshian, they were asleep.
Q: Did you say anything to anybody at that time?
A: No
Q: Did you ever say --
A: I was never going to tell nobody.
Q: Did you say anything to anybody at any time about that event?
A: No.
Q: Who was the first person you discussed that with?
A: I didn’t discuss it with anybody until like way, way after, Neverland --
Q: Okay


(Page 6080 Testimony Continued)

A: When Star told me he had seen.
Q: Okay
A: And then there was like -- everything went, like backwards.

~ End transcript quotes ~

So I see my baby‘s greazy lice raddled head being rasped, by a man, not just any man, but Michael Jackson. The same Michael Jackson who is allegedly scared to death of germs to the point where he allegedly bathed in mineral water and sat in hotel rooms with an Oxygen mask on breathing oxygen straight from a can.

Think for a minute, teenagers are not exactly the cleanest kids in the world and this man who is scared of germs is preening and grooming my child’s head like a little kitty cat?????

I thought it was like, totally crazy, and I didn’t do anything and didn’t plan on telling anyone! What kind of mother am I? I must be crazy, I must really have been seeing things, I could have woken up at least three or four people on the plane that could have stopped this licking of my son’s hair but I didn’t bother cos I thought I was seeing things. I thought it was me. No way would any normal mother in that situation would just watch would they? No, they would stop the head licking situation so fast. Instead I watched and thought I was crazy.

Actually I really am crazy, I was seeing things, because it NEVER HAPPENED.

DON’T JUDGE ME!!!

Thanks to TSCM and GILESMIC for providing me with the official court transcripts! :D

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Diane **spinderella** Dimond has landed...





Liz Smith from the New York Post (AKA Gossip Trash Queen)wrote this lovely piece about our beloved Diane Dimond. The article states Diane refuses to accept she hates Michael Jackson's guts and she is obviously very biased against him:


http://www.nypost.com/gossip/liz/liz.htm

Liz Smith

January 4, 2006 -- DIANE DIMOND, formerly the Court TV diva and now a book
author: "Be Careful Who You Love - Inside the Michael Jackson Case"- insists that
she, herself, personally, has never, ever implied that she thinks Michael
Jackson "got away with it" by being found not guilty in his child molestation trial.
She doesn't give opinions, she says, and should never be lumped in with what
other Court TV personalities have said about Michael. Ms. Dimond says
Jackson "minions and fans" have "distorted what I've said."

Fine. I will only note, as I have since the 1993 charges against Michael Jackson
surfaced, that Ms. Dimond does not have a poker face. What she believes is there
for the world to see. She says she never condemned Michael in words. In that
she stands virtuously, and virtually, alone.



And thanks to the lovely TSCM who took the time to answer Diane's biggest lie yet "I am not biased..." crap she spreads around.

No, and she also doesn't give the other side of any story or piece of evidence that allegedly points to Michael's guilt . it aggravates me to no end that nobody has ever sat down with her and called her out point-by-point for all of her biased and false reporting.

Where's that DNA evidence you said was found, Diane? Where's those love letters you knew positively existed, Diane? Can people really not reach a 911 operator from inside Neverland, Diane? Where's that 27-minute child sex video, Diane? Why did you claim that Christian Robinson amongst other witnesses had flipped on the defense when they actually hadn't, Diane? Were Bob Jones, Debbie Rowe, and Rudy Provencio truly bombshell witnesses for the prosecution, Diane? Why have you only conducted interviews with people on the prosecution side, Diane? How come Ron Zonen was at your book signing, Diane? Why did you tend to skip over full blocks of Thomas Mesereau's direct and cross-examination, Diane? Why did you try to come up with your own wild theories as to why Gavin and Star might not be lying on the stand when all the evidence said they were? Why were you so somber looking after Michael was acquitted of all charges against him? Why do you feel that Michael was acquitted because of "celebrity" when in reality all of the jurors explained point-by-point exactly why they acquitted him and celebrity was ruled out as a factor very early on, Diane? Why are you so outraged about the blog exposing the Arvizos but yet could care less about all the sites out there spreading false information about Michael Jackson, Diane? Why are the major sources in your book tabloid sell-outs who were proven to be absolutely un-credible on the stand? Why in your book do you continuously cite only "prosecution and Chandler sources"? Why did you say on national television that you believe Michael is dangerous? Why did you go on a tabloidish show to speak about Michael having fake noses, false teeth, and wigs all based on another 1108 witness that admitted to having lied time-and-time again under oath in the past.

Those are some of the questions I can't believe nobody has asked Dimond yet. I'm dying to hear her answers.



PS. if you want facts in a non-satirical format you should check out http://www.casefact.com thanks GILESMIC!


gilesmic said...
For those interested, the court motions relevant to the update below on the blog can be found here:

This motion talks about the statements Davellin made about her family, etc.
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/051705mjrespvivanco.pdf

and
This motion talks about Davellin's and Angel's "quasi-sexual" relationship
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/051005pltmotexclsex.pdf

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Sucking for her life...





Angel was a cook at Neverland, he was also Davellin Arvizo's boyfriend.




In court it was revealed that Davellin Arvizo spent a lot of her time at Neverland with a young cook named Angel. However, when Davellin talked to the police, she never mentioned Angel or her relationship with him, why? Well, Davellin and her family told the police the family was held against their will at Neverland, Davellin told the police she was always left alone at Neverland because she was a girl. When in fact, Angel testified, Davellin spent a lot of her time with him; in fact it was revealed in court documents that they had a sexual relationship. However, on the stand she said she had never met Angel. So, when the family was held against their will at Neverland they were allowed sexual favors from cooks? I guess I am just trying to make sense of what is like to be kidnapped in a place like Neverland. A place where you're kidnapped and allowed to go shopping, attend odontologist's appointments (yes, one of the Arvizo kids had braces, I believe it was Anton himself) and go back to their house and come back over and over again. It must have been terrible for them. Sadly for them Michael Jackson wasn't around, yes, that's why the molestation dates were changed three times, right Anton? Because you guys (along with Sneddon) realized Michael wasn't around. So the dates had to be changed (more on the fact the molestation dates were changed three times later on this week) Sometimes I wonder while Davellin was kidnapped and Angel was with her, did she think Angel's penis was a phone with a direct line to 911? Perhaps. Who knows!



PS. Also, it was revealed Davellin Arvizo called Angel and said her mother and Jay Jackson are planning to do something "crazy" against Mr. Jackson. Davellin also told Angel her mother was crazy and that they were going to own Neverland...

Sunday, January 01, 2006

Praying for a molestation





Anton Jackson in his high school Alamitos High living a lie...


Sometimes I wonder if my Godmother Diane Dimond, Tom Sneddon, Stacy Brown, Bill O'Reilly, Nancy Grace, Gloria Allred all kneel down at night and pray for children to be molested just so they could have something to talk about? Sometimes I wonder if they wished I was really molested, just so they could be right. Sometimes I wonder what would they do if Jordan Chandler came out now and said he was never molested, what would they do? Would they be devastated? Would they rather see me as a molestation victim or someone who simply could not get out of this lie? Do they wished I was molested? Wouldn't they be happier if I wasn't? Why wouldn't they wish I was lying? It seems like they wanted me to be a victim. Would they be happy if they heard that Jordan Chandler told many people who were ready to testify that he wasn't molested? Would they be happy to hear Jordan Chandler had all of Michael Jackson's CDS in his apartment in NY while he was attending NYU. I wonder if they would be happy if he came out and said "It never happened..." as he has already told some, what if he finally finds the guts to actually SAY IT TO THE WORLD. How would Diane *spinderella* Dimond, Stacy *he is gay* Brown, Nancy Disgrace, Tom *mad dog* Sneddon, Bill O'Racist, and Gloria Allwrong react? Because Jordan Chandler is the big domino, if he falls, we all do. However, Jordan Chandler's domino fell in private, some of us know the truth.


Anton Jackson...AKA Gavin Arvizo

The penis that knew too little...

In 1993, many people in the media rejoiced the possibility of Michael Jackson going to prison based on a drawing of a "penis" made by Evan Chandler allegedly described by his son Jordan Chandler. For a decade many people have thrown that idea of a description as proof Michael Jackson molested Jordan Chandler. In fact, many in the media have the balls to proclaim the drawing was a 100% match. However, I am not sure even a man looking at his own penis, and drawing it can have a 100% match, but that’s the logic of certain people in the media. Any logic that promotes the lie they’ve been promoting for 10 years that Michael Jackson is guilty of molestation. And I want to give my readers a scenario: Let’s pretend the drawing was 100% a match, Evan Chandler still sued Michael Jackson and refused to go to a criminal trial. Wouldn’t you as a parent be rejoiced to have such concrete proof to put the person that harmed your child in prison? Well, I guess The Chandler$ are different kind of parent$. I would like any male who believes Michael Jackson is guilty based on a drawing to draw their own private parts without looking at it and then tell me if it is a PERFECT MATCH. I also want to present my readers the actual drawing released by the Smoking Gun and the Drudge Report Websites:

Here we go folks:





As you can see above, this is the drawing many people have been throwing in our faces to make us believe this drawing classified as a perfect match of Michael Jackson’s penis. Well, draw your own conclusions by looking at it. I also want to point out it was Evan Chandler who made the drawing allegedly with the direction of his son Jordan Chandler (who divorced his parents in the mid-90s) I also want you guys to notice the last name Orietta on the document. The name belongs to a Michael Jackson ex-employee Orietta Murdoch who sold her stories to various tabloids. And this woman also helped Evan Chandler with the supposed description of the penis and butt who according to many smartasses in the media was a PERFECT MATCH. I also want to add the fact this description of the penis (looks more like a mushroom to me) describes a penis that is circumcised, I do not know if Jackson is circumcised, however, I do know he was born into a Jehovah Witness family, so the chances of Jackson been circumcised as a child decreased. However, maybe Evan who was or still is a Jew assumed all males were circumcised, because he himself was. Take it as you'd like.
Humor 
Blog Top Sites