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 cant explain-away/downplay/second-guess. They cant say he got off because the black jurors didnt trust the government. There were no black jurors. They cant say he got off because it was moved to liberal Los Angeles County. The defense didnt opt to move it to another location. They have no where to go .oh but thats not stopping them from trying. Not 2 hours after the verdict, some had already begun to look for a reason why the jury didnt convict an innocent Jackson of the charges against him. The aptly titled Nancy disGrace (thats Nancy Grace) yelled that the poor minority family didnt 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 Arvizos connections was a police officer shed known for a long time before this trial. Shes 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 mothers 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 cant 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 wasnt there and couldnt testify as to whether Barnes slept on the floor or in Jacksons bed. Problem #2: Brett Barnes came to testify FOR THE DEFENSE. The 20-something year old man basically said that he doesnt give a flying flip about whether or not the world thinks its 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 isnt 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 dont 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 cant 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 Jacksons a molester. Thats 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 theyd 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! Im not a child molester! Yeah. Exactly! Now apply that to Michael Jackson. To put it quite bluntly, you would HAVE to already think hes a child molester, FIRST, to think he couldnt 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 Jacksons guilt. Get what Im 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 wheres the evidence, they would find that their fears ARE NOT enough to send someone to prison or to treat them like a pariah. This isnt an OJ verdict where there were mountains of evidence for the prosecution. Rather, there were mountains of evidence showing Jacksons innocence. One of these lame-ass arguments is where theres smoke, theres fire. My response: Wheres the damn fire?! If theres smoke, there must be fire, right? Right?? So where was the fire? And the fire although there isnt 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 doesnt count if there are people behind the proverbial curtain, CREATING the damn smoke. Thus, not only do you NOT have a fire, but youve got fake smoke to boot. __When in doubt, pull Chandler out__ The media has also both tried and convicted Jackson of Jordan Chandlers allegation. Thus, creating public opinion that he did it in 1993. This same media hasnt seen fit to afford the defense or Jackson the opportunity to cross-examine any of Chandlers 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 hasnt read the GQ article from Oct 1994 or Geraldine Hughess book .or heard Evan Chandler on tape pretty much admitting to having a plan to extort Jackson. Just as a reminder, Chandlers 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 didnt want to be dragged into this. Others say its because he doesnt 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. Chandlers un-cross-examined allegation hasnt 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 wasnt guilty of this, but hes still a molester. Is this the Salem Witch trials? Just because Abigail Williams and Elizabeth Parris said it, didnt 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, doesnt make it true either. No matter how hard the media tries, they cant MAKE it so. Thats why Lalamas head was about to explode. Thats why disGrace is looking for an explanation as to why she wasnt right. Thats why the hosts of these shows are sitting around looking bewildered, as if theyd just awakened from a dream where they got to set all the rules, state the facts, and hold kangaroo courts. -MJEOL