Weapons of Mass Distraction in Jackson Case – MJEOL Bullet #84

It has come to the attention of many that certain news reports exist only to attempt to defame Michael Jackson and distract the public’s attention from the many flaws/misconduct/holes/inaccuracies/impossibilities in the prosecution’s case against him. Whether intentionally designed for that purpose or not, the effect is the same.

Why, just today the NY Times has published yet another article from Sharon “the hack” Waxman—as she is sometimes called in the fan community—concerning Jackson’s finances; as if it even matters in the great scheme of everything that is currently happening in the criminal case.

Waxman has a history of not thoroughly checking with the subjects of her articles and using questionable sources when it comes to her Jackson pieces. But according to her “sources”, Jackson is going broke……again.

To some rabid reporters trying to make a name for themselves, the ‘Jackson-going-broke’ story has been a staple in the arsenal of misguided attempts to ride to notoriety on Jackson’s name. This weapon of mass distraction is typically used right before or right after something positive relating to Jackson is being reported.

In this case, the “positives” are Jamie Masada being outed by Geraldo Rivera–not only did he NOT introduce the accuser to Jackson, but he’s never even met Jackson–and that Jackson is taking a more hands-on approach to dealing with the media, kicking the asses of some of his advisers (former advisors) and hired a publicist he trusts, Raymone Bain (see Rivera Outs Masada).

This, evidently, couldn’t go unchallenged from the faction of journalists who have seen fit to try to further destroy Jackson’s image. In this case, the NY Times article comes one day before Jackson’s lawyers will meet in court to discuss a number of issues on his behalf. A day which will see district attorney Tom Sneddon trying to explain why he illegally raided the offices of a PI hired by Mark Geragos over a year ago (see Motions Filed Over Jackson Documents), among other things.

If Geragos can show the district attorney did this—and the judge has already granted a motion that those materials be removed from the DA’s custody until this Feb 13 hearing—it would be an astonishing display of misconduct on the part of Sneddon’s office. But where’s the exhaustive NY Times article speaking to this issue?

Instead we are being subjected to speculative, as of yet unfounded reports about how much money Jackson has in his pocket. Who cares? It’s not like Ms. Waxman is going to take up a collection for the brotha if her reports turn out to be true (fat chance).

Other issues are whether or not this case ever had any legs to stand on from the beginning, and whether or not the district attorney should have pursued it. Some feel this DA has taken this case from the top down by going with the belief that Jackson is guilty first, instead of only trying to find out the truth.

In fact, there have been “whispers” from his office about this case not making it past a preliminary hearing for lack of evidence. There are also rumors that Sneddon has already attempted to get an indictment from a grand jury and has failed. Are these issues being discussed? No. Instead, we the public have to wade through Nation of Islam rumors foisted upon us as if any of us actually care what their role is in Jackson’s camp.

Further, we are being spun as if we should have a say in who Jackson associates with. When Jackson was associating with Rabbi Schmuley Boteach— — himself surrounded by allegations of misappropriating funds for Jackson’s charity and other charities in the past— — there were no exhaustive articles speculating about whether Jackson was trying to be recruited by the Jewish faith. There were no articles saying the Rabbi was coming between Jackson and his family. There were no articles claiming a ‘rift’.

The “good” Rabbi has also publicly attacked Jackson after being thrown from Jackson’s inner circle. He’s certainly not the first to talk about how wonderful and misunderstood Jackson is–as long as he could use Jackson for publicity and financial gain–only to turn on him once Jackson withdraws his friendship as a result of being taken advantage of. Again, the speculation was the misappropriation of funds. If we’re going to veer off from news of the case, can we get an article about that Ms. Waxman? Guess not.

Another weapon of mass distraction is to try to give credibility to former employees of Jackson who have agendas to push. M.H. Lee is cited as the “source” by Wacko Ortho (Maureen Orth) in her latest defamatory article for Vanity Fair.

Lee was tossed from Jackson’s gravy train a long time ago, but still finds it necessary to push lies upon any all-too-eager reporter. He later sued Jackson in civil court. To call him a “disgruntled former employee” is an understatement as he has latched himself permanently to just about every lie that has been told about Jackson.

The Vanity Fair article, with its tales of getting children drunk with “jesus juice” and drug addition, is a weapon of mass distraction from the fact that the credibility of the accusing family has been shot to hell by their own behavior.

Court documents exist which show the family has a history of lying to authorities. Documents also exist where the mother claimed, under oath, she was never abused by her husband. The children also told Child Services (without the mother present) that their father had never abuse them in any way.

However, during her divorce, she claimed both she and her children were abused by him (see Attorney for Accuser’s father releases damaging documents).

Not to mention their denials upon denials to Child Services in Feb 2003 concerning these very allegations of molestation against Jackson (see Allegations “unfounded” memo). The mother also spent time in a mental hospital in 1998, which is shown in documents released by the father of the accuser.

The family made an allegation to CPS in 2001 that the father threatened to kill the mother. The accuser’s sister later admits to the judge in that case that they were lying.

The family claims to have been held hostage at Neverland by Jackson’s people from Feb to March. However, this does not explain why they did not mention being “held hostage” to any CPS worker who investigated them at the time, nor does it explain why they befriended Ed Bradley in Feb 2003 and offered to go on television to talk about “what a wonderful person” Jackson is; making no mention of being “held hostage” to Bradley either (see Bombshells from Ed Bradley about Accusing Family – Bullet #80).

Once they “escaped” from Neverland (yeah…right), they don’t call the police, but instead shop for civil attorneys until they find one, who then starts to send threatening letters to Jackson’s attorneys. According to reports, court documents exist that show this same mother going to court in March 2003 asking for a judge to double her child support payments from the father. She doesn’t mention anything about being “held hostage” by Jackson’s people then either (see Accuser’s Mom Was in Mental Hospital).

Further, there are eye witnesses who have seen this accuser and his family at Neverland—not intoxicated and having a great time—after March 10.

Let’s see if Wacko Ortho will write a 10,000 word article about those issues (don’t hold your breath).

Are any of these points the subject of any heavily reported NY Times article? Yes and no. While there have been some articles containing some of these details– not by Waxman—they rarely fail to get the kind of coverage that ‘jackson-going-broke’/ ‘NOI rift’ reports seem to get in the media. All of this to say that certain weapons of mass distraction are used over and over again as a means to divert attention from the explosive facts regarding the so-called “case” against Jackson. Fortunately, not all of us are so easily duped.

-MJEOL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *