Not Guilty Verdict Sparks Media Meltdown – MJEOL Bullet #274

Posted by

Not Guilty Verdict Sparks Media Meltdown – MJEOL Bullet #274 JUNE 14 2005 — A mostly white, conservative Santa Maria jury found Michael Jackson not guilty on 10 felony counts and 4 misdemeanor counts leveled against him by the prosecution in a California courtroom yesterday. Some members of the media have all but pulled their hair out on camera at a verdict that they can’t explain-away/downplay/second-guess. They can’t say he “got off” because the black jurors didn’t trust the government. There were no black jurors. They can’t say he “got off” because it was moved to liberal Los Angeles County. The defense didn’t opt to move it to another location. They have no where to go….oh but that’s not stopping them from trying. Not 2 hours after the verdict, some had already begun to look for a reason why the jury didn’t convict an innocent Jackson of the charges against him. The aptly titled “Nancy disGrace” (that’s Nancy Grace) yelled that the poor minority family didn’t stand a chance against the Jackson machine. ‘Poor minority’ my ass! This ‘poor minority family’ has connections not only to law enforcement, but also to the military. One of Janet Arvizo’s connections was a police officer she’d known for a long time before this trial. She’s also married to an army Major who makes $80,000 a year. Not to mention all of the thousands of dollars out of which they apparently defrauded celebrities. Oh yeah, boohoo for the ‘poor minority family’. If anyone had a handicap coming into this trial, it was Michael Jackson, who the media had already tried and convicted…both in 1993 and 2003…with zero evidence. Pat Lalama (CJ) seemed to publicly lose her mind last night, having a total meltdown on Hannity & Colmes; pointing her finger into the camera and screeching about how the kid was obviously molested; screeching about how the “victim” is upset that a “molester” got off because of his “wacked” mother. It was astonishing to watch. And a little pitiful, really. As if the mother’s testimony is the only reason for a not guilty verdict! No amount of disgustingly hateful hysteria is going to change that……no matter how loud Lalama screeches. __Creating a crime__ One of the things this media can’t get around is the fact that Jackson use to allow children to sleep in his bed 12 years ago. Often cited is this alleged ‘sleeping in bed with’ Brett Barnes ‘365 days’, 13 years ago. There are a number of problems with that argument, however. Problem #1: Barnes never testified to that. The ‘365’ estimation came from his sister Karlee Barnes, who apparently wasn’t there and couldn’t testify as to whether Barnes slept on the floor or in Jackson’s bed. Problem #2: Brett Barnes came to testify FOR THE DEFENSE. The 20-something year old man basically said that he doesn’t give a flying flip about whether or not the world thinks it’s weird. He says absolutely nothing untoward ever happened with Jackson. Problem #3: Sleeping in the same bed or in the same room with a kid isn’t illegal. Woops! I guess ole’ Sneddy should have tried to pass a law against that in 1993. This is a fact that a number of pundits don’t get. With the media, he HAS to be guilty, because he allowed kids – boys AND girls – to sleep in his bed with him 12 years ago, and in his room 2 years ago. Problem #4: Just because some pundits can’t drag their minds out of the gutter long enough to see someone be able to sleep in the same bed with a kid without sexually abusing them, does not mean that Jackson’s a “molester”. That’s a rather provocative point. Something Max Kellerman called a “pedophilic projection”. Follow me on this. Ask one of these pundits if it is possible – not whether or not they’d allow it, just if it were possible – for them to physically sleep in the same bed with a kid and NOT molest them. Their response, filled with insulted outrage, would probably be ‘of course I could! I’m not a child molester!’ Yeah. Exactly! Now apply that to Michael Jackson. To put it quite bluntly, you would HAVE to already think he’s a child molester, FIRST, to think he couldn’t sleep in the same bed with a kid and not molest them. Thus, trying to use that ‘365 nights’ argument is more indicative of which way these journos/jurors were ALREADY leaning, as opposed to the 365 argument being citable proof of Jackson’s guilt. Get what I’m saying? In other words, those who use that argument as proof of guilt most likely already thought he was guilty to begin with. __Convicting on smoke?__ What these specific know-nothings need to get over is the ‘big, bad boogey man who will pillage and rape our children’ complex. It is garbage; it is nonsensical babble when applied to Jackson. I guess if some of these hacks, crackpots and opportunists really ask ‘where’s the evidence’, they would find that their fears ARE NOT enough to send someone to prison or to treat them like a pariah. This isn’t an ‘OJ’ verdict where there were mountains of evidence for the prosecution. Rather, there were mountains of evidence showing Jackson’s innocence. One of these lame-ass arguments is ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’. My response: Where’s the damn fire?! If there’s smoke, there must be fire, right? Right?? So where was the fire? And the fire – although there isn’t any — is what should have been tried in court. In this “case”, prosecutors put up the ‘smoke’ as evidence, instead. Some of us looking at this trial for what it is are tired of these smokescreens put up by prosecutors and pro-prosecution pundits. Some of whom saw their multi-million dollar book deals snatched from their grasps with this verdict. And of course, the ‘smoke’ adage doesn’t count if there are people behind the proverbial curtain, CREATING the damn smoke. Thus, not only do you NOT have a fire, but you’ve got fake smoke to boot. __When in doubt, pull Chandler out__ The media has also both tried and convicted Jackson of Jordan Chandler’s allegation. Thus, creating public opinion that he ‘did it’ in 1993. This same media hasn’t seen fit to afford the defense or Jackson the opportunity to cross-examine any of Chandler’s story(ies). His allegation has NEVER been cross-examined because it seems rather obvious that the 1993 family, from the outset, only wanted money. Period. Anyone who says anything differently definitely hasn’t read the GQ article from Oct 1994… or Geraldine Hughes’s book….or heard Evan Chandler on tape pretty much admitting to having a “plan” to extort Jackson. Just as a reminder, Chandler’s father said the following in a taped telephone conversation:

“… I had a good communication with Michael… We were friends. I liked him and I respected 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. What I want. …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 [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] 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. (see Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Untold Story)

Not exactly the words of a father simply upset that his son was allegedly molested. Jordan Chander refused to cooperate with prosecutors, some say, because he didn’t want to be dragged into this. Others say it’s because he doesn’t want to have his story challenged in a court of law for fear that he – like so many other witnesses – would be outed as a liar as well. Chandler’s un-cross-examined allegation hasn’t stopped the media, though. They have accepted it as true and to hell with actual evidence. To them, Chandler said it, therefore it happened. Jason Francia said it, therefore it happened. Not so, said the jury. More on their views about Francia in a later bullet. So now here comes the ‘ok he wasn’t guilty of this, but he’s still a molester’. Is this the Salem Witch trials? Just because Abigail Williams and Elizabeth Parris said it, didn’t make it so in 1692. And just because Francia and Chandler – both under the influence of parents with dollar signs in their eyes – said it, doesn’t make it true either. No matter how hard the media tries, they can’t MAKE it so. That’s why Lalama’s head was about to explode. That’s why disGrace is looking for an explanation as to why she wasn’t right. That’s why the hosts of these shows are sitting around looking bewildered, as if they’d just awakened from a dream where they got to set all the rules, state the “facts”, and hold kangaroo courts. -MJEOL

Leave a Reply