Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 16 at 10:33 a.m.
MAN: I wonder what "facts" you are reviewing - probably what you recall from the media coverage at the time - which indeed would suggest Jackson was a guilty man. Were you aware he was investigated by the Department of Family and Child services who found no evidence - Arvizo admitted to them there had been no sexual misconduct? Were you aware the FBI tracked Jackson for ten years on Sneddon's order, but could find no hint of any wrong-doing? Were you aware that all prosecution witnesses were discredited as either being disgruntled ex-employees or had a financial motive for their stories? Probably not, as the tabloid editors knew you would not be interested in a truth less sensational than the lurid accusations being leveled at one of the biggest names in showbiz. Try doing some real research before you make your judgments.
On Michael Jackson Fans Go After Prosecutor
Posted on August 16 at 10:14 a.m.
Looking through the trial transcripts it's obvious the case should never have come to Court in the first place, there was so little concrete evidence that would stand up to close scrutiny. The media had a field day of course - juicy gossip sells - although they were somewhat remiss in reporting any facts in Jackson's favor. Conspiracy by Aphrodite Jones is an interesting read which reveals to some extent the media bias at the time. Sneddon had his eyes of the prize of Jackson in jail for over ten years, driven by motives which are not difficult to identify - although they may be more troublesome to prove. Although Jackson was acquitted, the damage done to his reputation, his career and undoubtedly his well-being was immeasurable. It's too late now for Jackson himself, but exposing the whole trial as a malicious set-up will at least be some comfort to his family and especially his children.