There had been much hoopla about Michael Jackson’s interview with Geraldo in the few days leading up to it. Many in the speculation corps of the media (an ever-growing wing these days) thought that Jackson’s lawyers chose Geraldo on strategic grounds, given the fact that he had been fairly pro-Jackson in his coverage. They were right.
Geraldo’s weekend interview with Jackson went far beyond the bounds of ordinary journalism. I realize that, because of a gag order on the principals in the case (and probably because Jackson wouldn’t have come on TV unless he had certain concessions), Rivera couldn’t ask a lot of pointed questions. But he didn’t have to softball to Jackson.
Geraldo turned his program into an episode of Oprah this weekend, as he fawned all over Jackson, talking about how great it was to give the world a chance to see that he’s pretty much a normal guy with a big heart. Now, I must admit, Jackson’s performance on the show was pretty good, as people who saw the program are probably somewhat likely to think that he’s not as weird as the media has made him out to be over the past decade. (Don’t get me wrong, I still think he’s odd, but he certainly came across as much more functional on a day to day basis — as Geraldo says, the program showed him speaking in complete sentences — than I initially thought him to be.) But Geraldo was basically a partisan during this interview, not a journalist. Never before have I seen Rivera, usually known for doggedly questioning guests, turn in to such a shill.
At the end of the program, after the interview portion with Jackson had ended, Rivera stated that he believes that Jackson was framed! Never before have I heard such a strange statement from the host of a mainstream show on cable news. I have frequently chided the antics of certain television personalities when they speculate on a person’s guilt, thus trying him in the media (see Scott Peterson, for instance), but this isn’t much better. Rivera has gone far past the ideal of waiting for Jackson’s day in court before passing judgment on him. He’s actually gone the other way, and by claiming Jackson was framed he’s basically accused the state or the complaining witnesses of some sort of misdeed. In effect, Rivera is proclaiming that these parties have engaged in some sort of criminal acts.
On his show Sunday night, Rivera said that this case has brought out the strongest feelings in him he’s ever had as a journalist. This is obvious. He says that he’s just reporting his feelings to the masses, as if those feelings were news or something. He also told a guest that Court TV seems like it’s trying to convict Jackson no matter what. This is very disappointing. I think Rivera is a great piece of the Fox News Channel, as he’s a very good journalist who usually has a liberal view on things. He balances out some of the right-wingers on the network. In this case, however, Rivera has really missed the boat.
Geraldo Rivera has completely lost his objectivity in this case. In my opinion, he has no credibility vis-a-vis the Michael Jackson trial. I believe that the public has no choice but to assume that anything Rivera says about the case will be spun in a manner that makes it impossible to take his statements at face value. I don’t really care much about the case, but if I feel like I want some coverage on it, I will get said coverage from Dan Abrams on MSLIB, who I consider to be a fair-minded and responsible journalist. In short, I think Abrams can be trusted to report the facts of the case. Unfortunately, this is becoming an endorsement I can’t give to many journalists.
Note: This has been submitted to Outside The Beltway’s Beltway Traffic Jam.
Nathan Novak at 10:47 am
It seems very interesting that you feel Geraldo Rivera has lost his objectivty because he has chosen NOT to convict Michael Jackson on gossip and innuendo. But rather, as he has stated REPEATEDLY, he has INVESTIGATED the allegations, researched the materials and made an educated decision. What Dan Abrams, CourtTV, et al HAVE NOT DONE is presented a COMPLETE view of the information regarding Michael Jackson and those who are attempting to extort by law. They tell you Michael Jackson settled Jordan Chandler’s 1993 lawsuit, they DON’T highlight the Chandler’s asked for money (by filing a civil suit) BEFORE they asked for justice (and waiting for the police to press charges). They tell you how much the Chandler’s got paid but they DON’T emphasize he could have/should have testified in court even after receiving the money (my thought is the penalty for perjury could have been a problem). You are informed of how zealous a district attorney Tom Sneddon is but they DON’T tell you how many suits are pending against him for prosecutorial misconduct (lawsuits given the “green light” by the judicial system to continue because impropriety has been evidenced). Try visiting this site (http://www.mj-case.net) and see what you are not being told by the individuals who rely on “analyst” that repeat the gossip that has been circulating for 12 years, that have made careers of bashing Jackson when no other target gets them on TV. Before even researching information on your own why don’t YOU ask a few questions: why is it that NO ONE goes to the police first (remember Evan Chandler went to a lawyer that sent him to a shrink, that told family services who then went to the police; remember the Arvizo’s went to a lawyer, who sent them to a shrink, that told family services who then went to the police; remember Blanca Francia when to Hard Copy then to a lawyer AND NEVER went to the police (they also DON’T tell you she has already RECANTED her story when put under oath). Why not ask why NO ONE reports witnessing inappropriate behavior without being offered money by tabloids (think bodyguards, think ex employees). I have watched Dan Abrams to the point of nausea and when he mounts his high horse, he does it half assed and WITHOUT researching for HIMSELF the information he panders to you. What Abrams, CourtTV and others have done is accept, without merit and without research, the most salacious information and then they rely on unquestioning, unthinking sycophants such as you to pass it on.
Realize something, Geraldo Rivera has done what he has always done. He spoke up THE WAY HE BELIEVES after investigating. Notice - he didn’t rehash what was reported by others, he didn’t wait for analysts to tell him what he should think – he did what any INTELLIGANT person would do - he made a decision based on HIS research and on HIS impression of the human being he met. Maybe you should try it sometime.
Comment by Chondra Carston — February 7, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
Rivera has got the same access to info about Michael Jackson as the rest of us - including you and Dan Abrams or CTV whom you cite. So your critisism with already outdated information (e.g. Pellicano’s role is not mentioned by you and neither the fact that the Children’s care unit report was sloppy) is just not valid. In the court we will have all participiant under oath that will help a lot (hopefully) in getting the whole picture.
Furthermore, after watching Rivera with jackson on TV everybody knows that there has never been and never will be a spontaneuos Michael Jackson interview. It is all scripted and well-rehearsed and therefore completely unrealistic to get the “real personality” of Michael jackson. For now, nobody knows it - perhaps we’ll find it out in the trial.
believing is not knowing - especially in court trials.
Comment by A. G. — February 7, 2005 @ 12:48 pm
Chondra:
As I said in my story, Geraldo has done more than merely exercise restraint by not convicting Jackson in the media. That sort of restraint is laudable. But Rivera has gone completely the other way, basically acquitting Jackson in the media and convicting others of framing him. This is not the type of “reporting” that should occur. A host of a show like Rivera’s should play gatekeeper and let the mouthpieces for the parties present these kinds of theories.
I have heard numerous accounts of what happened in the Chandler case, what Sneddon’s track record is, etc. I’m not here to carry Abrams’s water — I prefer FNC to MSNBC in almost every regard — but I know that Abrams isn’t going to turn into a member of the Jackson defense team at any moment and thus he’s more worthy of my consideration right now than Rivera.
Most of these people you are talking about (Chandler, Francia, etc.) are not implicated in this case specifically, so it strains logic to think that a full picture of all these peripheral players needs to be belabored by television programs that have time constraints. (I have never watched Court TV, so I can’t comment on them.)
As for the personal attack on my journalistic methodology, you miss the point. I’m not making any normative statement on the Jackson case. I don’t know what happened, and I don’t want to speculate about it. (Personally, I loved Jackson’s early music and really hope none of these allegations are true.) I’m simply reporting on the fact that Rivera, whether or not this is what he “has always done”, is completely out of line in this situation. Whether his assessment of the case is right or wrong is not the issue. Im my opinion, the fact that he trumpets one side or another is a journalistic sin in its own right.
Comment by Nathan J. Novak — February 7, 2005 @ 12:49 pm
UNFORTUNATELY , I DID NOT LIKE YOUR SO COLD JOURNALIST AMATEURISM !!!!!!!!!
SINCE IN AMERICA IT IS FASHION STATEMENT TO HATE MICHAEL JACKSON IN ORDER TO FIT THE MOLD
OF COUSE YOU WILL PUT YOURSELF ON DAN ABRAMS SIDE AND DIANE DIAMOND AND COURT TV , BC IT IS FASHIONNABLE , IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR PAY CHAECK , YOU MUST HATE MICHAEL JACKSON .
AND IF U DON’T THEN U R DUMB
THEN U KNOW WHAT , I AM NO MICHAEL JACKSON FAN , BUT NO STUPID EITHER , I AM SICK AND TIRED TO HEAR OR WATCH ON TV , PEOPLE MAKING THIS MAN LOOK ALIKE A CRIMINAL ,
AND IN AMERICA PEOPLE R JUDGEMENTAL , IF U R DIFFERENT , U R A CRIMINAL , BUT U KNOW WHAT ?
SOMETIME ,THE REAL CRIMINAL , LOOKS THE SAME AS US .
I TRULY BELIEVE AFTER WHAT I SAW ON TV AND HEARD ABOUT THE CHANDLERS , FRANCIA , WHO BY THE WAY HAS NO PAPER WORK THAT ALLOWS HER TO LIVE IN THE USA , AND JANET ARVIZO JACKSON , BC THIS IS HOW OBSSESSED SHE IS BY THIS NAME , ” JACKSON ” , SHE JUST HAD A BABY , WHOM SHE CALLED MICHAEL , JACKSON .
THIS IS HOW CRAZY THIS WOMAN IS , AND SHE FRAUDED , AND HAD NUMEROUS SCAMED SHE HAS DONE TO PEOPLE ! INCLUDING A NEWSPAPER .
AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT MONEY , NO WONDER 9/11 HAPPENED !
U STARTED BY THE SWORD U DIE BY THE SWORD .
AMERICA WAS BUILD UNDER OR UPON WHICHEVER U WANT IT , IT WAS BUILDT ON VIOLENCE , AND WILL END WITH VIOLENCE .
U GUYS DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYBODY’S LIFE AS LONG AS YOU CAN MAKE MONEY , IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW U MAKE IT , EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO SELL UR SOUL , PIMP UR KIDS , OR KILL FOR IT , U WILL DO IT .
NO WONDER WHY ALL THIS IS COMING BACK TO U .UNDER SAD CIRCUMSTANCES AND INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE . BC OF UR SINS AND GREED .
I GUESS IT IS PAY BACK TIME FOR AMERICA .
AND HOW WOULD U FEEL IF IT WAS U WALKING IN MICHAEL JACKSON’S SHOES ?
IF U WERE FALSY ACCUSED OF CHILD MOLESTATION OR RAPE ?
WOULD U BE HAPPY TO SEE THE MEDIA TARE YOU APART ?
I DON’T THINK SO !
AND DON’T U SAY THAT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO U
ESPECIALLY IF U R BLACK , CUZ U DON’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO ANYBODY WHEN U R BLACK IN AMERICA , BLACK AND RICH , THEY WILL FIND SOMETHING TO CONVICT U .
AND IF U R WHITE , THEY WILL STILL HURT U .
DON’T WORRY .
REMEMBER , BEFORE 9/11 AMERICA THOUGHT THEY WERE SHIELDED , NOTHING COULD HAPPEN TO THEM !!!!!!!
AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG !!!!!!
Comment by CANDY BROWN — February 7, 2005 @ 1:16 pm
Why not attack Diane Dimond who has repeatly called Michael Jackson guilty. Why not attack court tv for allow a “journalist” who was once sued by the defendent to cover his trial. Rivera is doing the same thing Dimond has got away with for years expressed his opinion. He also said OJ Simpson,Scott Peterson and Robert Blake guilty as sin before trial and nobody cared only when expressing his opinion on Jackson has anyone attacked him.
Comment by Lisa Asher — February 7, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
Pathetic of you to say so… about Geraldo just cuz he puts the truth out there.. people like u don’t want to see anything positive being said or written about Michael Jackson.. Geraldo has finally put the FACTS out there..and not lies and innuendo.. facts in court Documents..not facts from the National Enquirer like Court TV and their leading Heffas do.. Anyway.. people like you are just upset that Michael looked and sounded human in the interview that Geraldo did..cuz unlike BASHIR GEraldo didn’t EDit to make Michael Weird..and didn’t ask the stupid questions about SURGERY since he couldn’t speak about the case
Comment by Yamileth — February 7, 2005 @ 1:22 pm
I advise the writer of thise piece to visit this site:
www.mj-case.com
Comment by Erik — February 7, 2005 @ 1:33 pm
TRANSLATION OF YOUR ARTICLE:
How dare Geraldo say Michael Jackson is innocent! He’s suppose to say, or at least suggest, that Michael Jackson’s GUILTY!
Geraldo is presenting Michael to the public as decent human being—after ALL that tiring hard work we have been doing portraying Michael Jackson as a weirdo molester!
Geraldo is betraying us—his media colleagues!
Geraldo is selling out!
Geraldo is going against ‘the rules!
Geraldo is spoiling our fun and making us look bad!
Geraldo needs to be stopped!
Comment by cdh — February 7, 2005 @ 1:38 pm
also for facts on the previous ‘case’, check out this article!
To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense — particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse. To others, something else is clear now — that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.
Comment by Charlotte — February 7, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
sorry, url for article - www.geocities.com/jojon4eva/MJ_gq.htm
Comment by Charlotte — February 7, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
Watching the interview, I saw Geraldo being a responsible journalist. He respected Michael’s rights, as a man who is innocent until proven guilty. Your criticism of Geraldo is just stupid. If you were fair and impartial you would have expected the interview to go that route. Yes, Geraldo was soft with Michael. Not being able to talk about specifics in the case at hand, did not leave a whole lot to talk about. So what if there is at least one journalist who has not convicted Michael? Give Geraldo a break and get off his case. He endorses Michael’s right and you endorse your bias. With that unfairness, you need to keep your comments to yourself. Then again, I am at fault because I read your piece and spend time responding to it instead of throwing it out with the rest of my garbage.
Comment by Brenda — February 7, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
I’m trying to figure out how a critique of a journalist’s coverage of a case has become an assertion that I believe Jackson to be guilty and that I want to try him in the media. On the contrary, I am against all sorts of these outcome determinative statements (”Jackson is guilty”, “Jackson was framed”), and I believe that they have no place in journalism on either side.
If Rivera or other journalists have questions about this case, they can make such statements thus:
“The evidence is circumstantial and there may be some colorable credibility issues regarding the complaining witness; I don’t know if the prosecution can meet its burden of proof.” Or:
“Jackson’s team has some evidence of and a theory based on the fact that DA Tom Sneddon has been out to get Jackson for years, and that the complaining witness and his family conspired to frame Jackson. This may well sway the jury in Jackson’s favor.”
Those statements are analysis, based on legal evaluation of what the jury’s verdict might be and why. Those are perfectly okay, as is pointing out that Jackson is presumed innocent and that we should not rush to judgment.
However, when a reporter says he believes Jackson has been framed, that’s just strange. As I said, that runs into same problems as coming on TV and declaring Jackson to be guilty, because it accuses people of framing him and presumes them to be guilty. Does anyone see the irony here?
Comment by Nathan J. Novak — February 7, 2005 @ 2:39 pm
I have checked out the veritas site and what I find intriguing is that theory about that the 1993 case was torpeding Michael Jackson’s high riding career. this is nonsense because Jacksons record sales were continually dropping before 1993. just check out World Wide of his CD sales on that - they were respectable - ok but not outstanding. To this day, no report exists that list all the known facts and evidences and hearsay about the 1993 case and 2003.
BTW, Geraldo could have asked some interesting and spontaneous questions without getting all that old stuff we already know and have heard hundreds of times! A good reporter does that…
Comment by A. G. — February 7, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
Yeah, Nathan great article. I think you were trying to be *fair and balanced.* Which is the faux.. er fox news mantra. You didn’t bash Geraldo and made a point of illustrating his mishaps in this case.
A word of advice, don’t take to heart what all the rants of those Jackobots. The froth at the mouth at the least criticism of their idol or anyone that defends him.
Comment by Anonymous — February 7, 2005 @ 2:59 pm
I have to agree with Geraldo. I have followed this case from the beginning and have read the motions to date. The prosecution has some serious problems and Geraldo had the guts to say it. You go on and on about Geraldo, but say nothing about the ladies of Court TV, they have said Michael is guilty many many times. Why have you not called them on the carpet? I applaud Geraldo for having the guts to say how he feels. You probably feel the say way Geraldo does, but can’t say it, because in your line of work BAD Michael is worth more than GOOD Michael.
Comment by Anonymous — February 7, 2005 @ 3:11 pm
Good grief….there is only one literate person in the world here? Dear Candy: I suppose that english is not your first language nor is the US your home, at least hit the caps key would you? Hmmm equating Michael Jackson with 9/11, yeah…and it rained in hell today too. Good luck with that.
Comment by somebodyelse — February 7, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Burn in hell, I say.
Comment by Jacko is gonna fry — February 7, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
Many people in the media have approached this case from the premise that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, they always do so under the guise that they are being fair. Geraldo’s support of Jackson has brought these people front and center. Their inability to accommodate the expression of an opinion opposite to the one they silently harbored has forced them to play their hand.
Last night I heard Wendy Williams say outright that she thought that Michael Jackson was guilty and that if there was DNA evidence, fingerprints, and 7 other accusers that Jackson would be convicted. I agree.
The problem is there is no DNA evidence, the only fingerprints found mean absolutely nothing since Jackson’s accuser was caught in Jackson’s bedroom after breaking in without permission, and 5 of the 7 “accusers” have been claiming for the past 12 years that they were not victims and the two remaining accusers have both accepted money from Jackson and now refuse to testify in a criminal trial.
Avoiding to admit to yourself that the evidence against Jackson is flimsy at best will change nothing when it is presented in court. Telling the American public over and over again that Jackson is guilty will not make it true. Creating evidence that doesn’t exist during verbal sparring on national television cannot make that evidence materialize. Accusing Michael Jackson of committing horrendous deeds against you at a time when you and he were not even in the same city does not make you a victim.
DA Tom Sneddon MUST present more evidence than we know about so far in order to justify the cost of this trial. If he does not, this man should be recalled from office and an investigation by the American Bar Association as well as the Justice Department should promptly follow.
Comment by Anonymous 2 — February 7, 2005 @ 4:32 pm
About time, A reported with creditbiltiy sees the truth. Hey I am no fan of Michael Jackson, Don’t like his music personally, but from the time of the first 1993 case, and now this case. I have seen that its nothing but false lies and chance to bring down the biggest superstar this world has ever seen. Michael is innocent. without doubt. I wish the public could see that they are being fed lies and twisted truths to frame this man. Everything about this case and the first case is wrong.
Michael is innocent.
Comment by Chris Kaelus — February 7, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
Nathan J Novak:
“I’m simply reporting on the fact that Rivera, whether or not this is what he “has always done”, is completely out of line in this situation.”
Well in this situation you’re not doing anything different than Geraldo did. You’re stating your opinion. Your speaking out against what you believe is wrong. Are you out of line? In my opinion, yes you are. It would be one thing if you were to critique the reporting on the Jackson case as a whole. If you were to condemn prosecution apologists in the media as well those who are out spoken in their support of Jackson then your article would be fair (in my opinion) .
“I am against all sorts of these outcome determinative statements (”Jackson is guilty”, “Jackson was framed”), and I believe that they have no place in journalism on either side.
Those statements are analysis, based on legal evaluation of what the jury’s verdict might be and why. Those are perfectly okay, as is pointing out that Jackson is presumed innocent and that we should not rush to judgment.”
You and I are in agreement there. But unfortunately, true fair and balanced journalism are not main stream. If you want to catch a story that was truly objective, you could only depend on a couple of places and Fox News is not one of them. It doesn’t matter whether or not you watch Court TV. You have seen Mr. Jackson tried and convicted in the media on a number of issues. However, it seems that you have only become offended when Geraldo acquits Mr. Jackson in the media.
“However, when a reporter says he believes Jackson has been framed, that’s just strange. As I said, that runs into same problems as coming on TV and declaring Jackson to be guilty, because it accuses people of framing him and presumes them to be guilty. Does anyone see the irony here?”
I don’t think I see the irony that you see. What I see is that you would rather a Journalist and lawyer who has investigated the Jackson case to find there is prosecutorial misconduct just sweep it under the rug. That is not journalism. We give freedom to the press so they would be able to uncover corruption in our government. Not so they could get away with making up stories by claiming it’s what a source told them and get away with slander. In my opinion Geraldo showed a lot of restraint by just saying he believes Jackson is being framed. He could have said “Tom Sneddon committed perjury on the witness stand in the Jackson case” and read the transcripts of him testifying.
Geraldo’s interview with MJ over the weekend gave the media an opportunity to look at themselves and ask questions about how they have portrayed this man and the role they play in him being persecuted. One thing Geraldo brought up that I feel was extremely important but over looked by you and every other media is the success of Jackson’s record sells. And how everything regarding him is either overstated or understated in an effort to discredit him. In my opinion, the way MJ has been portrayed in the press played a much bigger role in him being vulnerable to these false allegations than a sleepover ever did. I feel that Geraldo was being a responsible journalist with how he reported on the Jackson case this weekend.
Comment by kaye — February 7, 2005 @ 8:54 pm
Michael Jackson tried to get Howard Stern to shill for him post 1993 case, but Howard said no. So he got a nice fluff piece done. Now in a second molestation accusation ( how many will there be before Jackson is jailed? ) he gets another fluff piece from Geraldo. Geraldo said this would be a no holds barred interview with Michael Jackson and then didn’t ask half the questions we wanted to know. Why?. Did Geraldo “forget” to ask them or did Michael jackson “order” him to not ask.
now that MJ faces jury selection he stated “I have learned my lesson,I will not sleep with little boys again.” Well bravo Michael how long did it take you to figure that out 30 years. Since Michael was 16 he has had special little friends starting with the five year old who was in the “McDonalds” ads. Then he had many, many more. McCauley Culkin, Jimmy Safechuck, Jordy Chandler, Sean Lennon (who was 9 at the time Yoko left him alone for weekend sleepovers), Blanca Fransica’s (MJs maid he paid $2 million)son, The Casico brothers, Corey Feldman, The current boy, ect, ect, ect. Thats just the ones I KNOW of. According Jackson and many others he has had THOUSANDS of children over at neverland, most of whom are underprivalaged and ill boys. What perfect targets for a serial pedophile. And that old tat about “helping” children. He saw McCauley culkin on a movie got the biggest hardon of his life and pursued him. he ordered his staff to get Culkins phone number and “pursauded” Culkin to come to Neverland what “help” did Culkin need excactly.. He dresses many of his special friends in his image to look like clones of himself and this “helps” the children how? Why has MJ got a WINE CELLAR with a hidden door behind the jukebox in the ARCADE? Why has MJ got special alrms that goes off when anybody comes within 100 feet of the bedroom door, is one of his staff going to assasinate him? Why has MJ got stacks of porn everywhere including his six year old daughters bathroom. Is this “helping”. Why has MJ got child porn disguised as a homoerotic art book. C’mon did you see the pictures shown by Diane Diamond most of the 12 year old kids were NAKED and one section had them with thier mouths open and sucking a BANANA. (I would love it if they found traces of MJs sperm in that book.) Then thiers the ever changing defense of the current accuser’s accusation that MJ started surfing the net for porn to get the then 12 year old and his nine year old brother turned on by porn. MJ punched up www.teenp***y.com and started making sexually explicit remarks with his old sleeping partner Mr.Cassico. Excuse one MJ was never thier, they broke into it and surfed the net on thier own. Then excuse two MJ was never thier and the boys are hell raisers. (What is MJ doing having two little heathens stealing and vandalising for months on end?). Excuse three a member of staff witnessed the boys doing the deed (Hey staff man, didn’t you think to say hey kids my boss had to payout $20 million dollars over sex allagations and no way do I want you two little kids surfing PORN on Michael Jacksons laptop). Excuse four the member of staff then saw both boys masturbate each other, (If that was the truth which is as likely as me believing MJ is innocent of these very justified charges why didnt the dumbo member of staff rush in rip the laptop from the boys sperm covered hands and eject them and the family off neverland estate never to be seen again instead low and behold the boys remain living with michael jackson for months. Unless of course MJ likes little boys who like masturbating each other.)
With MJ there is boy, after boy after boy, in bed after bed after bed. If MJ is not put away he will continue molesting boys since no one will be able to stop him.
His constant excuses are too feeble to be belived and actions scream a total contradiction to his lies. I can see the truth because with MJ it is staring me in the face, he is quite possibly the most prolific and powerful pedophile in history. When he says he loves children he is telling the truth. He loves children physically, he loves sleeping with children, he loves molesting children, he loves spunking on children, and he loves F#cking them up. Have you listed the broken families he has left in his wake from “helping” his kiddie friends. Jordy Chandler no longer wants to go near his own mother since she was instrumental in letting MJ sleep with him for 30 days straight once personally driving him in his silk pyjamas to sleep with Jordy. McCauley culkin who on MJs advice divorced his own parents. One German mother who had to get the police to return her child in MJs custody after he dissapeared with the boy. Another german mother whos child is in intensive therapy after being molested by MJ the list goes on, and on and on. And I pity MJs poor kids, since MJ thinks it will be all the help in the world if they are all denied seeing thier own MOTHER. How can anyone in good concience say it is a good idea for these kids only contact with thier own mother to be an occasionial christmas card as ordered by Michael Jackson in his confidentialty agreement with Debbie Rowe and then he gets her to sign away ALL her parental rights. What dark heart beats in this man named Michael Jackson. I dare any so called fan of MJ or in my opinion supporter of pedophilia to rebuke this statement point by point! Not thier usual blather. C’mon if you think I’m wrong argue it point by point. The guantlet is thrown pedophile supports. MJ is guilty its as plain as the plastic nose on his face.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 7, 2005 @ 8:59 pm
YEAH IT RAINED IN HELL AND HELL IS IN UR PANTS BITCH
Comment by CANDY BROWN — February 7, 2005 @ 11:09 pm
ALL THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE R ADRESSED TO U ” COMMENT BY SOMEBODY ELSE ”
I AM NOT ILLETTERATE
AND YES IT RAINED IN HELL AND HELL IS EXACTLY WHERE UR MOTHER MADE IT !
IN UR PANTS BITCH !!!!!!!!!
YOU AMERICANS R MAKING ME WANNA THROW UP IN UR FACE !!!!!!!
U MAKE ME SICK !
NO WONDER WHY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WANT UR SKIN !!!!!!!
U DESERVE TO LOSE IT ANYWAY !!!!!!!!
Comment by CANDY BROWN — February 7, 2005 @ 11:13 pm
Uncle Sam: You have compiled a collection of taboid (means Diane Dimond) speculations, gossips and innuendos.
Diane Dimond took wrong book, as well as she was 100% sure that there were love letters to the last accuser — than never existed. Overall with books she perverted was was pictured since it were mere professional photography books that can be found in any art-store, and ones have nothing to do with pornography and the more so child pornography. Additionally, there are thousands of books in Jackson’s house, including meny of them sent by fans, signed and were given as gift by authors.
*** 1993 accusation ***
————————————————————————————————————–
- In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.
- According to June Schwartz’s former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy’s father and June’s ex-husband Evan Chandler “began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out.”
- In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.
- At Jordan’s 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part. Freeman says that June Schwartz “thought the whole thing was baloney” and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.
- Chandler’s behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano’s advice, Jordan Chandler’s stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:
“I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. I’ve been rehearsed about what to say and not to say.”
“[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.”
“I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. It’s already set. There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”
“And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son] and Michael’s career will be over.”
“[Jordan’s welfare is] irrelevant to me. It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”
“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.”
- Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part.
- In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.
- According to Rothman’s former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.
- Taking Rothman’s advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler’s phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.
- Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.
- Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.
- According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person’s mind when they are under the influence of this drug.
- Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.” Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.
- During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: “[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright - a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said - and his friend was gone, it was just him and me - and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.” [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler’s interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy’s uncle Ray Chandler]
- On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz’s attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he’d had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.
- On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson’s part.
Comment by DRS — February 8, 2005 @ 1:37 am
The same civil money lawyer Larry Feldman and the same psychatrist Dr.Katz participated in scheme of two previous settlements, as well as in this current attempt. In 1994 and 1994 Larry Feldman threatened to sue civilly Jackson for like 7 (!) years, if he will not settle.
But criminal proceedings were declined BEFORE settlement TWICE by grand juries, convened by Sneddon. GJs never saw match in the description of Jackson’s genitals and photos police took of him early December 1993. THAT is the reason of why case did not go forward, not because of CIVIL settlement being made later, and that did not prohibit any testimony from Jordan Chandler.
Signing Settlement, Jackson already had TWICE declined attempt by Sneddon to file indictment — no evidence, so the only reason Jackson signed was Feldman’s threats to pursue Michael civilly for 7 years with dirty slanderoud defamation campaign.
Comment by DRS — February 8, 2005 @ 1:44 am
Uncle Sam, CANDY BROWN, and DRS, this was an interesting discussion. Why the heck did you all get off topic.?
BTW Uncle Sam, I would love to argue with you point by point. But, it would be a waste of time being that you’re so determined to put your own spin on everything regarding Jackson. Not to mention your very selective about what you want to hear in this case. So there’s no point.
Comment by kaye — February 8, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
“…I AM NO MICHAEL JACKSON FAN , BUT NO STUPID EITHER , I AM SICK AND TIRED TO HEAR OR WATCH ON TV , PEOPLE MAKING THIS MAN LOOK ALIKE A CRIMINAL…”
Owned
Comment by twiddah — February 8, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
Kaye, the point is that author of the article Mr.Novak was totally satisfied with how modern lynching was going on in the press and television. In ALL television, and this has nothing to do with him not watching CourtTV.
However once he saw Geraldo stating his substantiated, investigation-confirmed view, that caused an outrage.
That is bias, unprofessionalism, and simply not ethical — with all Mr.Novak written in his article and in answers to Your reply, Kaye.
Comment by DRS — February 9, 2005 @ 12:15 am
Congrats to Geraldo — the ONLY journalist willing to take a stand and do the right thing. ALL the other “respectable” journlists do no more than CONSTANTLY report negative stories on the King of Pop like jumping in on some media gang rape — Geraldo is the only one who refuses to partake in such depravity. He has the balls to go go against the grain — and to stand up for what he belives in. He’s 10000000 times the person Tom Sneddon’s cohort Diane Diamond is.
Comment by mad dog — February 9, 2005 @ 6:23 am
Finally! Someone with some guts to do some work and find the truth! And now he’s being criticised for not being like journo hack CourtTV. Geraldo wasn’t always in favour of MJ until he started looking into this whole thing a little closer. To his credit he has regretted ever speculating without really going deep into it enough. Now he’s seen the light with what he has found and is convinced now that Michael Jackson is innocent. As a matter of fact the truth is out there for all the world to see. It’s public knowledge that Jane Doe is a scam artist who loves to falsely solicit money from charities and pretends to be some kind of victim of abuse or some rediculous thing like that.
Comment by Phil — February 9, 2005 @ 5:00 pm
…isn’t it strange how the press have failed to mention that in January 2000 Arvizo’s twisted mother went to visit a lawyer for advice on child molestation against Michael Jackson — oooh except this is some 7 or 8 months before even she or her son had met him.
This has got SCAM on behalf of her, Sneddon, Dimond etc, etc written all over it! I’m not gonna be wrong in saying that they’re all in on this from the very beginning. I knew the world was a sick and corrupted place it’s just infortunately taken something as horrendous as this to see the extent of it and the lengths that some people will go to when it seems they have a personal vendetta against someone (whether this is admitted or not, in these people it is evident)
Comment by Charlotte — February 9, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
That grifter is totally crazy. He’s scam artist and the sooner more people realise this the better off we will all be.
Comment by Phil — February 10, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
Edit: I made a typo. I meant She not He.
Comment by Phil — February 10, 2005 @ 4:34 pm
“Corey Feldman Says Michael Jackson Showed Him Nude Photos” - so whos lying people Corey or Michael Jackson?
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 11, 2005 @ 3:56 am
Oooooh yeah, and this has come out what? 20 years after it supposedly happened. Sorry to do this but i’m just going to have to laugh at that!
Comment by Charlotte — February 11, 2005 @ 4:52 am
In the interview he talked about a book that was on display at the Neverland ranch when he visited at the age of 13 or 14.
“The book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia,” Mr Feldman said.
Corey Feldman
“(Mr Jackson) sat down with me and he explained it to me, showed me some different pictures and discussed what those meant.”
Ok Charlotte thinks Corey is lying since it took Corey 20 years to admit to this. Personally it rings true to me. More inappropriate behaviour by our resident kiddie obsessed pop star. Still if it is lies and very public lies whats old MJ going to do. If it was me and I was innocent I would be suing Coreys arse right now. Still to be fair the current case will be instructive to all of us. If MJ is innocent TMEZ should be able to tear Corey apart at trial. If at trial it is obvious that MJ is innocent I will admit I was wrong and that he is innocent. However if it becomes obvious that MJ is guilty Charlotte would you admit you are wrong and agree that Michael Jackson is guily.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 11, 2005 @ 7:33 am
Unlike most people I’ve actually spent the time evaulating EVERYTHING that is available in relation to the case - and based upon the EVIDENCE I’ve seen, and not the trash that the media decide to publish and report on, I’ve concluded that MJ is INNOCENT. OK, people may presume that there’s no smoke without fire but quite often people won’t see the fire due to the smoke. This seems to me that this is someone who has wasted no time jumping on the bandwagon to get back into the ‘limelight’… believe it or not Feldman was actually in SUPPORT of Jackson when this started, but obviously he’s no better than the rest of them when it comes to the backstabbing upon the realisation that they could possibly cash in on things.
Comment by Charlotte — February 11, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
…and another thing. Like every living being, Michael has the common right to be presumed INNOCENT until proven guilty. Like Geraldo said “..once you get past the packaging, he’s just a normal guy!”
Comment by Charlotte — February 11, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
And If the court find Michael Jackson guilty what then Charlotte?
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 11, 2005 @ 5:49 pm
Corey Feldman numerously denied ANYTHING suspicious EVER happened to him. Being ADULT and hearing all the details of 1993 case he told to police that he was trying remembering again and again at least anything that could somehow be related to molestation or luring, but never could.
In 2001 he had feud on Jackson, and after that he wants revenge.
Comment by DRS — February 12, 2005 @ 3:43 am
Wow juicy news DRS wonder what the fued was about, unless it was that thing about MJ not driving him out of New York. Its not that simple is it?
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 12, 2005 @ 5:41 am
Hey Michael Jackson fans. Everything is going to be OK. I now believe MJ is innocent, and so will the jury why? well because :
Geller defends Jackson at union
Celebrity spoon-bender Uri Geller told students at the Oxford Union if Michael Jackson is found guilty his belief in human nature will be “shattered”.
He said that Mr Jackson - was “naive and gullible”.
“I want to believe he has done none of what he has been accused of.He said: “I think I blew their minds. I do not want to sound boastful but they were amazed.”
Well thats it for me Michael Jackson now has the Uri Geller seal of approval, he must be a great guy if a bit er….naive and gullible.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 12, 2005 @ 6:35 am
Hey Michael Jackson fans, more bad news, what are we gonna do. Quick phone MJ!
McCARTNEY QUESTIONS JACKSON’S SANITY
Troubled superstar MICHAEL JACKSON’s grasp of reality has been questioned by STELLA McCARTNEY - who recalls his bizarre behaviour during visits to her family home.
“It just seemed normal when people like STEVIE WONDER and NEIL YOUNG came round. They were normal.
“And some of them weren’t normal. Michael Jackson came, but before the masks and all the surgery.”
Wow that list of Michael Jackson enimies is growing daily. Chin up though I’m sure everything will be ok. Come everybody Kumbiyaaa me Michael Kumbiyaaa……Let us pray
Our Michael, who art in neverland,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy strange kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in neverland.
Give us this day our daily video.
And forgive us our own thoughts,
As we forgive you who trespass against kids.
And lead us not into believing anything not ok’ed by team MJ ,
But deliver us from everything you consider evil.
For thine is the magic kingdom,
and the power of cash and lawyers,
and the glory of your self,
for ever and ever, until you are jailed.
Amen.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 12, 2005 @ 6:47 am
Hey Michael jackson fans. More bad news, quick phone MJ, get going and do some sort of boycott. maybe you can get almost 20 people and that looklike to really go for it.
SWISS RADIO BANS JACKSON
FABRICE BENEDET, head of programming at One FM and Lausanne FM, adds, “We are producing entertainment. However the accusation of paedophilia against Michael Jackson could offend our listeners.”
Place swiss radio in the enemy list. Bad Swiss radio, naughty swiss radio.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 12, 2005 @ 6:51 am
Hey Michael Jackson fans wake MJ up from his drug induced topor or rip any homoerotic art book from his hands, more bad news, theres another traitor:
Jackson impersonator lands role on E!
Actor Edward Moss, a Los Angeles native and veteran Michael Jackson impersonator, will play his money role during daily 30-minute dramatizations of trial highlights based on transcripts.
Last month, E! said it would use actors to play key roles in the dramatizations because Santa Barbara (Calif.) Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville is not allowing cameras in the courtroom. Minors are expected to testify, and graphic descriptions of sexual allegations are expected to be bandied about.
In addition to performing as Jackson on stage, Moss has appeared on cable’s “Nip/Tuck” as an impersonator, on TV’s “The Steve Harvey Show” and in the film “Don’t Be Scared.” He also spoofed Jackson on “MadTV” and in the film “Scary Movie 3.”
Jeff Shore, senior vice president of production for E! Networks, said in a news release that Moss “brings experience and skill to the role of Michael Jackson. All the components of our production, from casting to the re-creation of the courtroom set, will be vital to our re-enactment series of ‘The Michael Jackson Trial . . .’ ”
“The Michael Jackson Trial” will air on cable’s E! at 6:30 p.m. once the trial begins.
Quick get MJ on it, for all you fans sake this must stop.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 12, 2005 @ 11:52 pm
Oh my god Michael jackson fans, the doo doo is really hitting the blowhole check this out:
Bashir plans to broadcast damaging new film on ‘Michael Jackson’s Secret World’
By John Hiscock in Los Angeles
13 February 2005
British television interviewer Martin Bashir, whose documentary Living With Michael Jackson led to the current molestation charges against the entertainer, is putting the finishing touches to another film which is reported to be equally damaging to Jackson.
Called Michael Jackson’s Secret World, it is being kept under close wraps by the ABC network, for whom Bashir now works, but is said to contain video footage showing Jackson with young boys, including the one at the heart of the current criminal trial. Not surprisingly, Jackson did not provide a new interview. The two-hour programme, described by insiders as “still a work in progress” is due to be shown in the US on Thursday.
Jackson, 46, is accused of molesting a 13-year-old former cancer patient, giving the boy alcohol, and conspiring to hold him and his family captive. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Jury selection in the case continues tomorrow.
On Friday ABC broadcast a much-publicised television interview by Bashir with the former child actor Corey Feldman, who talked about visiting Jackson’s home when he was a young teenager and seeing pictures of naked men and women. Feldman, who, like the interviewer, has been subpoenaed by prosecutors to testify against Jackson, told Bashir on the ABC news programme 20/20 that he went to the singer’s home when he was 13 or 14 and saw a book on the coffee table with pictures of naked men and women.
“The book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia,” he said. “And he sat down with me and he explained it to me, showed me some different pictures and discussed what those meant.
“I was kind of grossed out by it,” he told Bashir. “But I didn’t think of it as a big deal, and for all these years I probably never thought twice about it. But in light of recent evidence, I have to say that if my son was 13 or 14 years old and went to a man’s apartment and I knew they were sitting down together talking about this, I would probably beat his ass.” Feldman, whose fee for the interview - if any - is unknown, said he hoped the allegations against Jackson were proved false, but felt compelled to speak out.
The former child actor’s statements are inconsistent with previous comments he had made, such as when he told CNN interviewer Larry King in November 2003 that he had never seen Jackson “act in any inappropriate way to a child. Never with me.” Feldman, 33, who starred in the 1980s films Stand By Me and The Goonies and was arrested for heroin possession in 1990, said he was coming forward now because he started “looking at each piece of information … and with that came this sickening realisation that there have been many occurrences in my life and in my relationship to Michael that have created a question of doubt.”
Lets get you overworked fans on this. Martin Bashir cannot be allowed to do it to Michael again, can he. OMG what are you all going to do. Remeber its showing thursday so get ready with the laxative because its going to be Doo Doo head time. Were talking applehead city. Michael Jackson is definitly
going to lose his bliss over this big time. jesus juice this is going to hurt. I hope his giving tree will help. I truly pray that Michael gets what he deserves and I pray for all the tens of Michael Jackson fans out there. How can Martin Bashir do it to Michael again!!! Still in the spirit of forgiveness I want to give a quick blessing to Martin Bashir “Bless your cotton socks you lovely man”. Still to all you apple and doo doo head fans you must use your blow holes with all your might and protect MJ. I’ve got it we can phone that kindly group “the nation of Islam” for help. They can advise the best course of action to deal with Martin. Say the odd death threat or two, or maybe MJ can phone Anthony pellicano at jail and ask him if he has any grenades spare left in his safe. Big hugs to my automatic friends the Michael Jackson fans.
Comment by Uncle Sam — February 13, 2005 @ 12:04 am
they’ll all reep what they sow
Comment by Charlotte — February 15, 2005 @ 10:18 am