[b]Accuser has history of changing his story[/b] Attorney says boy recanted claim of abuse by parents MSNBC News Services Updated:
Month: February 2005
Feb 22 2005 hearing
Stay tuned to all the latest tv alerts, news, photos, etc of today’s court hearing at the MJEOL forums
LeGrand responds to Gabriel Testimony – Review Journal
[b]LeGrand responds[/b] Former Michael Jackson attorney David LeGrand, who moved to Las Vegas two years ago, responded Sunday to a
BET Michael Jackson Marathon in Full Swing
JUST A REMINDER (as if you need one): The BET Michael Jackson Marathon is in full swing! Wooo! Check it
When Did Jackson Ask for Your Sympathy for Having the Flu? MiniBullet #5
When Did Jackson Ask for Your Sympathy for Having the Flu? MiniBullet #5 FEB 20 2005 — Once again I find myself disgusted with media coverage of Michael Jacksons hospitalization for a severe, viral flu with the last straw being another inane article from local Santa Maria reporter Steve Corbett. The media has been rife with speculative nonsense, collectively claiming that Jackson just wants sympathy or is being dramatic. And they lace their pundits view with tales of their own illnesses and how they just .took Tylenol and stayed in bed. Probably one of the most ridiculous articles on Jacksons illness came from Santa Maria Timess Corbett, completely with whiny, complaining comments from people who probably didnt like Jackson to begin with. Then they complain about a ruckus in the hospital. What they may not realize is that this ruckus was not caused by a queasy Jackson, but by the media and by city employees who are duty-bound to protect him. But Corbetts crowd of quoted locals arent the only ones taking leave of their senses. What some of these jaded lunatics dont seem to understand is that 1) Jackson has never asked them for their sympathy, 2) He probably couldnt give two craps about whether the media feels sorry for him, 3) Not even Michael Jackson can fake a viral-based flu, and 4) Just because your flu didnt land you in the emergency room, it doesnt mean Jacksons faking. To be more blunt: You aint Michael Jackson. Given the medias history of treating him like garbage, I highly doubt Jackson is wishing, hoping or praying that the media who all act like tabloids when it comes to stories about him would suddenly feel sorry for him. He hasnt asked for the publics sympathy on this issue.
Family ‘Kidnapped’ for Interview Public Never Saw? MiniBullet #4
Family Kidnapped for Interview Public Never Saw? MiniBullet #4 FEB 20 2005 One of the accusations made by the prosecution in the Michael Jackson case is that the accusing family was allegedly kidnapped so that they could be kept away from the public and appear in a rebuttal video exonerating Jackson. They want the public to believe that Jackson was so panicked about his image that he would conspire to kidnap a family of four. However, the rebuttal footage to the Martin Bashir hatchet-job of a documentary, in which the family was allegedly supposed to appear, was aired just days after Bashirs, but without any new footage of this family at all. Take Two: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See aired on the Fox network Feb 20 2003. The explosive rebuttal showed subpoenaed witness and accused blackmailer Martin Bashir telling a completely different story than the one that made it on air. He said, both to Jackson and Jacksons staff, such glowing things as The problem is you see, that nobody, nobody actually comes here and sees it. But I was here yesterday and I saw it, and its nothing short of a spiritual kind [of] thing . Then he gets on TV during promos, apparently to sell the advertising for the show and to increase the ratings, and says, One of the most disturbing things is the fact that a lot of disadvantaged children go to Neverland This was only one of numerous contradictions that Bashir was caught in; sure to be brought up under cross-examination at trial. But one thing which was not in the Take Two special was an interview with the family defending Jackson. Why not? How is the public supposed to believe this family was kidnapped by a panicked Jackson, and essentially forced to say nice things about him, when the public wasnt shown any video or audio of them defending Jackson? Wasnt that the point, according to the prosecution?
Pellicano The Investigator
Redemption by Geraldine Hughes (Excerpt) 2.5 Pellicano The Investigator Convinced of Michael Jacksons innocence, Mr. Pellicano worked around the
Family of Jackson’s accuser made a living from false allegations: defence
[b]Family of Jackson’s accuser made a living from false allegations: defence[/b] Fri Feb 18, 3:40 PM ET LOS ANGELES (AFP)
ABC Bashir Doc Draws Criticism in the UK? – BBC
Reporter’s log: Michael Jackson trial [b] Thursday 17 February: 2052 local time (0452 Friday GMT)[/b] The ABC network has just
Ridiculous Propaganda Continues from Prosecution Supporters? MiniBullet #3
Ridiculous Propaganda Continues from Prosecution Supporters? MiniBullet #3 FEB 18 2005 — Amazingly, certain people are pumping media propaganda that the defense would be desperate enough to leak grand jury transcripts. And theyre banking on the media to be stupid enough not to ask questions about the logic of their allegation. It would seem that to even take this seriously, one has to be either on drugs or so incredibly desperate that they want to point the finger at someone else to get the attention off of them. Most feel its safe to say that the defense did not leak this information. According to reports, Jackson spokeswoman Raymone Bain said its ridiculous for anyone to claim that the defense leaked this one-sided garbage. One-sided garbage is my term, by the way. Apparently, this accusation is coming from pro-prosecution sympathizers who may want to get prosecutors off the hook for this illegal leak or who are trying to inject themselves into this case. What prosecutors or pro-prosecution sympathizers may be trying to do is have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to taint the jury pool, smear Jackson AND blame the smear job on his lawyers. This is disgusting. The first question most family with the defenses arguments, via released court docs, ask is why would the defense have to leak anything at all at this point? Once one starts to realize the massive amounts of ammunition the defense already has against the family at least the info that can be gleaned from the court documents (docs) it does become ridiculous to even suggest that they would have to break the law to leak anything for any reason at this point.