Okay, I have decided that those who say Michael Jackson was a pedophile are officially idiots who believed the lies of the morons who accused him of such an act. Let me educate you haters. Maybe you'll learn something. (From your lack of intelligence, I doubt it.)
First: Diane Dimond claimed that 20 adult males testified against Jackson. That's untrue. 32 adult males testified saying that Michael DIDN'T rape them. Only two testified saying that Michael had raped them. One of them admitted that he was lying. The other, Gavin, was just RIDDICULOUS.
Second: Jordan Chandler's Case: In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal—which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year [1994] that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”
Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.
“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “eople are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously. Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized—some into catatonic states—by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.
Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.
As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administeredsodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”
During the trial, no evidence from the prosecution side was produced (and the prosecution spent millions and millions: it was the most expensive trial in history), and, according to court documents, the kids couldn't keep their story straight. They would contradict themselves on court. The kid [accuser], Gavin Arvizo, even admitted he was lying, after being confronted with his brother's contradiction, while talking about account 6.
Moreover, the mother of Gavin, Janet Arvizo, had a history of trying to work the system to her benefit (she even robbed a charity institution...). I was fortunate enough to read courtroom transcripts and all I can say is not once did he, Michael Jackson, ever have anything to worry about.
The majority of his 'accusers' (including MacCauly Culkin) found the allegations laughable and the only teen who cried abuse gave testimony that was RIDDICULED with innacuracies (even the jurors started giggling one time, during Jason's testimony).
Many people will admit that they never even researched about the 2005 Child Molestation Case and still say that Michael Jackson is guilty. However, if they knew the facts, their opinion would be quite different.
It was known that the accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was a thief and a very unbehaved young man. He had previously had many suspensions and detentions because of his behavior in school. George Lopez, the well know comedian, testified in court that young Gavin Arvizo had stolen 40 dollars from his wallet in the previous months. He [Lopez] would give money to the family (who kept asking for more) and was accused of having stolen 300 dollars from the family by Janet.
Gavin Arvizo's mother, Janet Arvizo, was pending a fine for assaulting a security guard at a JCPenney's and stealing over $1,000,000 worth of merchandise from that store. As you can see, the accuser and the accuser's family were well known scammers.
So, how could you believe the story of the molestation, when Gavin Arvizo himself admitted, before the trial, to his teacher and 4 other attorneys, that Michael Jackson never molested him?
The DA, Tom Sneddon, was really desperate to get Jackson. He flew to Australia, at one point, in the mid-90s, to try and find an alleged victim. And the person said, "take a a hike, get out
of here. I've never even met Jackson."
The media's coverage of this case was awful. They never showed to the public the defence side and that's why everyone got surprised when Jackson was acquitted.
Without a shadow of a doubt Michael Jackson was innocent in this case and the accusers were just out for cash. They had conned celebrities, charities and police departments before, but their target in this case was not about to roll over as they expected. Now, seriously, you should read court transcripts!!! You will die laughing; Davelin Arvizo, sister of the accuser, "forgot" to mention Michael Jackson had given her alcohol back when she talked to the cops, but of course remembered MJ given her alcohol on the stand. The Who "would believe me?" excuse given by 4 prosecution witnesses as to why they never called the cops is laughable. Jason cries over his balls being tickled (perhaps he just cries because he would lose the 2.5 millions of dollars he got from "National Enquirer" to lie against Jackson?).
As I said, Janet Arvizo had previously sued JC Penney's for alleged assault and molestation. In which her sons Star and Gavin testified and were later proven to have lied on the stand. During Star Arvizo's testimony, he explained the molestation act that Michael had supposedly performed on Gavin Arvizo. While I will not go into details, I can tell you that it was a completely different story than Gavin told. Read court transcripts. One big flaw in the prosecutions case is the time line of events. Tom Sneddon claimed that the molestation occurred AFTER the airing of the Martin Bashir "Living With Michael Jackson" documentary. Sneddon claimed that after the airing of the documentary, Jackson's people did everything in their power, including forcing the Arvizo's to make a rebuttal video in which the Arvizo's claim that everything stated was coached by Jackson's team, however (here's where it gets interesting), according to Sneddon and Gavin Arvizo, the molestation occurred AFTER this series of events. If Michael Jackson was already being questioned by almost every news media outlet about his involvment in Gavin Arvizo's life after the Bashir airing, WHY would he molest the child during that time? Why would he put himself in that position when people are already questioning his actions? The time line makes no sense.
Lastly, not only did Gavin Arvizo's testimony greatly vary from his brother's, but it also varied from his own previous grand jury testimony in which he claimed that the molestation happened before he saw officials who were investigating Michael due to the Bashir documentary, while during the criminal trial Gavin claimed the molestation happened AFTER the officals investigated.
Michael wasn't a drug addict. He abused prescripted drugs. I, and billions of people, have already done that in tough periods of life. That doesn't mean I'm an addcit. An addict is a person who has convulsions whenever she/he doesn't get the drug he/she wants. An addict is a drug-seeker. Michael Jackson had trouble sleeping and, therefore, he needed pills to sleep. He got a doctor who was supposed to give him the right quantities of pills so that he wouldn't get addicted. If he didn't have those pills, he just wouldn't be able to sleep. He wouldn't have convulsions or anything like that.
Aphrodite Jones is a woman who thought that Jackson was guilty of molesting Gavin. She worked for FOX news and her reports were completely biased. After hours and hours of investigation, she reached one conclusion: Michael Jackson never raped children. So she decided to write "Michael Jackson Conspiracy". If you have doubts about MJ's innocence, read her book. It's completely objective and factual.
The same goes for Ian Halperin. He thought Jackson was a pedophile until he researched about the allegations. He reached one conclusion: Jackson was a sweet man who didn't even know what is a pedophile.
As Michael said: "I would slit my wrists before hurting a child."
But he was guilty of one thing: being too naive, kind and God-like.
Read it and weep haters.
