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?

17 Comments:

Blogger gilesmic said...

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

...Because Star is fat? Honestly, what jury would believe that anyone would want to touch that?

8:58 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

I am asking this question seriously...lol think about it.

9:05 PM  
Blogger gilesmic said...

I know, especially since the prosecution alleged that Michael "groomed" both boys by allegedly showing them porn and giving them alcohol, why would he "groom" both of them and only molest one?

9:12 PM  
Blogger Unbreakable J said...

I think it's because Gavin made a much better victim since he was the smallest one and used to be sick. that would make him seem to be more belivable that Michael went after him. Gavin alone was big enough to knock MJ out if he really did molest him, what do you think the jury would think of star who is like 10000 times bigger than Mike? LOL
plus, he didn't have any illness to make the jury feel sorry for him.

9:46 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

I also think the documentary was key.

6:24 AM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

I know why they didn't charged Mj with touching Star... he's so fat that his dick and balls are hid deep into his belly so it's virtually impossible to grab them as Star wish it happened

8:09 AM  
Blogger rednecksneddon said...

Sneddon as my handle says correctly is a ugly fisheye redneck. He and his racist crew featuring horsefaced Zonen and the other prosecution bitches had to at least present a "victim" that they figured the public and jury could identify with so they thought. Fortunately with psychotic grotesque lying punkmonkeys no amount of twisted versions of alleged molestation convicted Michael. If there is a God, those worthless scumbags need karma visited on them for attempting to destroy Michael's life. Tragically their fatmonkey mother is a pathological whorish liar who has taught her evil spawn the same values. How does one seek to go after people time and time again who sought to help them?

8:14 AM  
Blogger LIARvizo said...

rednecksneddon : I couldn't have said it any better!! You nailed it...

9:18 AM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

you hit the nail on the head, rednecksneddon.

i think people wouldn't have believed it if the prosecution said mj molested star. that lardboy is to much for anyone to handle.

9:23 AM  
Blogger Anti-Jacko Crowd said...

You Jacko fanatics really love to "discuss" (ahem) those Arvizo boys, don't you?

And gee, I thought the court case was over back in June...

11:07 AM  
Blogger rednecksneddon said...

anti-jacko coward oops I mean anti-jacko crowd you're just pist off with the truth here. Your buddies like Diane whorish Demon, Nancy DisGrace can't shut up about the past trial either when there is any Michael news.

Bottomline you can't deal with the reality that your punkmonkey buddies are nothing but worthless trash who sold their souls and got burned in the process.

This blog must really bother you since you are posting on it and showing your obvious contempt for the facts and also you still didn't answer the original question is why fisheye Snotface didn't charge lardass since he was so 'molested' as well. You can't answer because it would involve dealing with actual truths and pathological lying trash don't deal in reality

11:38 AM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

Certain topics really bother Anti-Jacko. LMAO. Good!


Anyway, my theory is that the family wasn't believed.

11:55 AM  
Blogger losal23 said...

i think gavin made themore sympathetic victim

7:28 PM  
Blogger gilesmic said...

Anton Jackson said...

Anyway, my theory is that the family wasn't believed.
************
Are you implying that Tom Sneddon felt that some of the family's claims were not credible but went ahead with the prosecution anyway? *cough*malicous prosecution*cough*

8:09 PM  
Blogger Anton Jackson said...

That's exactly what I am saying. The family's own story PROVED THEM WRONG. LOL Come on now.

8:10 PM  
Blogger pyt in nyc said...

honestly, the arvizo's story doesn't make sense no matter how ignorant you are. you have to admit it.

10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes Star was ugly but so was Gavin! That was one of the many absurd point of the prosecution's argument.
On the one hand they argued that the boys around MJ were all slender and good looking like Chandler or Culkin on the other hand they said that MJ wanted both Star and Gavin in his bedroom even while they were neither slender nor good loooking.

Anyway, there was not one element of the ARvizo story that didn't keep changing, not one element where various members of this rotten family didn't contradict each other and/or themselves.

Remember their claim that they saw MJ fully naked?
Then Gavin Arvizo was caught saying that he didn't know about MJ's brown patches he ASSUMED that he was fully white.
MJ was never fully white and if Gavin had indeed seen him naked he would have KNOWN not ASSUMED that he had brown patches particularly on his legs.
That alone proves what a big fat liar this piece of shit false accuser was.

7:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Humor 
Blog Top Sites