Pathetic Attempts to Spark a Jackson Scandal? – MiniBullet#34

Pathetic Attempts to Spark a Jackson Scandal?  – MiniBullet#34

April 2 2007 – What do you do when you are publicly embarrassed by Raymone Bain after publishing the story that Michael Jackson has been hospitalized with pneumonia?

Well, you turn the story into something else entirely and tack on independently unverifiable comments from shady, unnamed sources!

The apparently false story of Jackson being {tag hospitalized} with pneumonia came out a few days ago.  

{tag Raymone Bain} released a statement denying that Jackson was hospitalized for pneumonia. Bain confirmed that Jackson and other people around him had gotten ill following whirlwind visits to {tag Japan} and {tag London} last month.

Apparently the truth is never good enough for some people.
I absolutely refuse to give any publicity to the pathetic, Jackson-bashing online reporter who appears to have started this.

It seems as if this person has a hard-on for ridiculous Jackson rumors and pushing dubious-sounding information onto those who don’t know any better. Or maybe this person just has a hard-on for Jackson? I wouldn’t be surprised.

As with anything Jackson-related, the need to exaggerate — and to be all up in his business as if they should get a say in what he does — is still present in a few of the usual suspects. 

Screaming fans Greet Jackson with Hugs in London – MiniBullet#33

Screaming fans Greet Jackson with Hugs in London – MiniBullet#33
Media greets him with disgusting contempt and disrespect

MARCH 21 2007 – Despite certain news outlets’ attempts to convince the public that Michael Jackson is irrelevant and has no fans, events all over the world continue to illustrate how purposely misleading their reports appear to be.

Reading and watching all of the online news coverage — mostly from the Associated Press — both from Japan and {tag London} sparked by Jackson’s visits this month, it’s difficult to come away thinking that Jackson is on his way down as far as popularity is concerned or that the media’s credibility is on it’s way up as far as respect is concerned.

Did the recent news stop the {tag Daily Mail} and from lacing recent reports with dubious information about the reason for Jackson’s recent visit to London? Hell no!

Neither source is particularly known to be a bastion of accurate Michael Jackson news. Both agencies preferred to refer to him as ‘Jacko’, which has become equivalent to a hackneyed expletive, at least among some in the fan community.

Creating ‘Accusers’ Could Backfire on Desperate Prosecution – MB #255

Creating ‘Accusers’ Could Backfire on Desperate Prosecution – MJEOL Bullet #255
By bringing in ridiculous, witness-come-lately allegations, the prosecution may be giving Jackson a chance to go after old tabloid rumors

APRIL 1 2005 — There is an old saying “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.” Someone should have made sure prosecutors in the Michael Jackson so-called “case” were aware of this before they talked Judge Rodney Melville into allowing in previous allegations-come-lately by what some observers have called a gang of crooks who had their hands out in 1993.

First, it’s important to note what prosecutors want to do. They want to introduce allegations from “witnesses” who claimed they saw Jackson molest kids. These “witnesses” are former employees each with a negative history of their own with Jackson. Neither of these people called the police at the time they allegedly saw a crime in progress.

The prosecution isn’t going to have 5 accusers come in to testify. They don’t even have 5 accusers. He’s going to have 9 employees come in to say that they “witnessed molestation”, and one accuser whose mother is already on record denying the allegation.

Now, why they said nothing at the time or why Jackson wasn’t charged with any of these miraculously remembered “molestations” from ex-employees is beyond a number of observers. So, we are now supposed to believe that not only is Jackson a “child molester”, but that he routinely molests children in front of people?! In internet language: WTF??

Second, the majority of these named young adults have never even made an allegation against Jackson. Yep, you read correctly. The prosecution by way of these crackpot witnesses will create “victims” when there are none. What’s worse is that two mothers who are supposed to be testifying, Blanca Francia and June Chandler have problems of their own.

For example, the 1993 accuser filed for emancipation and hasn’t spoken to his mother, reportedly, in the past 12 years. A number of people aren’t surprised at all that the judge allowed these non-allegations into this current nonexistent “case”.The prosecution has been allowed a considerable amount of free-reign in this trial.

With that said, the defense has thrown down the gauntlet by promising that these miraculously recovered allegations will turn into full blown trials because they plan to vigorously and thoroughly challenge these witnesses in every way, shape and form.

Pt 3: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MB #254

Pt 3: 1993 Investigation Not a Problem for Defense? – MJEOL Bullet #254
The prosecution has been searching far and wide for other accusers that don’t exist.
One such opportunist may have snuck in under the radar before the release of Jackson’s highly profitable HIStory album

Part 3 | Part 1| Part 2

MARCH 26 2005 — Part 2 included information and old articles confirming that there was no matching description given by the accuser of Michael Jackson’s body, as well as info dealing with the fact that prosecutors could have pursued a “case” against Jackson back in 1993 had they had evidence IF they wanted to.

With the hearing set for Monday March 28 2005 to decide whether or not prosecutors can try to muddy up this current non- “case” with as yet un-cross-examined allegations from back then, it’s amazing to see the kind of chicken-little attitudes that have once again sprung up in the media.

Even some of those who normally display common sense have been drilled with so much nonsense for the last 10 years, that they claim “devastation” if the judge rules in the prosecution’s favor. But it is really their fault? Or is it the fault of the hacks among the bunch who have taken it upon themselves to talk the public into this false notion in the face of a silent Jackson who couldn’t present his side of the situation in any way other than the form that’s about to happen on Monday?

Isuppose these normally fair-minded people can do a bit of research first. A number of other people who are somewhat familiar with how the defense was going to handle the 1993 allegation had Sneddon filed charges back then disagree with the ‘chicken-little’ assessment.

Of course, observers who have been watching this “case” materialize have seen this before. At the start of THIS “case” the same ‘chicken-little’ attitude was running rampant with the media. And what’s happened thus far?

Sneddon’s been chastised for putting on such an incredibly weak case. And 100+ search warrants later, the only thing the prosecution has proven thus far is that Jackson loves to look at naked women.

Earlier the public learned that the defense was prepared to call their own witnesses for this hearing, because they made a request from the judge that if prosecutors were allowed to call witnesses, they were prepared to call other witnesses to talk about what really happened. That either spooked the judge, or he just didn’t want to get into having a mini-trial on Monday, because he said that he would only hear arguments on the issue and would call witnesses when necessary.

But in the grand scheme of things, as revealed recently, Sneddon has been looking for mythical “victims” for a very long time. And the one accuser he needed to work with him, doesn’t seem to want to touch him or this “case” with a 10,000 foot pole.