tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6829628.post111942381442501484..comments2023-11-03T02:52:52.723-07:00Comments on Michael Jackson's Trials: Katherine Jackson Speaks OutKen Frosthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13568488818950912374noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6829628.post-1119660766083408532005-06-24T17:52:00.000-07:002005-06-24T17:52:00.000-07:00You Wrote "There was clear evidence of molestation...You Wrote "There was clear evidence of molestation of Jordie Chandler and the young man who is now in the ministry"<BR/><BR/>This is an absurd statement especially when you said you watched the case closely.<BR/><BR/>Fact 1<BR/>Firstly the young man who is now in the ministry - If you read your facts about this you would have known that it was only after the 3rd attempt at trying to obtain information from him that he 'remembered' MJ touched him in private parts when tickling him. The interview transcripts clearly showed that the interviewers were pushing him HARD for an allegation. This made his molestation statement suspect<BR/><BR/>Fact 2.<BR/>All the witnesses that testified they saw MJ molest Jordan were proven to be ex-employees who had an axe to grind with MJ. They also sold their false stories to tabloid papers to get back at MJ. <BR/><BR/>Fact 3<BR/>The only evidence that would have convicted MJ in 1993 was a picture of his penis. This never matched up with Jordan Chandlers description.. βIn January 1994, USA Today printed an article confirming that, "photos of Michael Jackson's genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct."β<BR/><BR/>Jordan later divorced his parents.<BR/><BR/>I am surprised you say you are a experienced criminal defense lawyer yet you have not looked into family background of Jordan Chandler. It has all the hallmarks of a desperate greedy parent. Surely as an experienced defense lawyer you would be looking to have hard facts. I am not impressed with your lack of research.<BR/><BR/>I also believe that if MJ did molest young boys then you would have had more children come up with allegations. You only have 3 suspect ones.<BR/><BR/>3 allegations<BR/>Jordie - Greedy father<BR/>Ministry boy - prompted for an allegation on the 3rd attempt.<BR/>Arvizo β coached by his demented psycho mum. Proved to be lair.<BR/><BR/>All other allegations (3) brought by the prosecution turned out to be false. All 3 denied they were molested by MJ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6829628.post-1119490006943040112005-06-22T18:26:00.000-07:002005-06-22T18:26:00.000-07:00I have watched this trial very closely, from begin...I have watched this trial very closely, from beginning to end, including reading the indictment and many of the witness depositions. I am an experienced criminal defense lawyer. I am not surprised that Jackson won, not because I think that he is innocent (or that the jury thinks that he is innocent), but because reasonable doubt existed (in the form of Janet Arvizo). For Mom Jackson to say that the world sees his innocence is ridiculous. The only people who will proclaim his actual innocence (distinguished from "not guilty") are his rabid, scary fans, and his deluded family. This jury would have come back with a guilty verdict, if the question posed was "has he molested." There was clear evidence of molestation of Jordie Chandler and the young man who is now in the ministry, and the jury was probably compelled by that testimony. But that does not equate to molestation of young Mr. Arvizo.<BR/><BR/>I leave this ordeal with no love for Michael, but no regrets as to the verdict. In the end, everyone lost except the system, which prevailed. I also leave this debacle with one lasting impression -- there are a lot of very strange and frightening people in the world (apparently, most from Europe), and they are called Michael Jackson fans.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Ken, for succinct, frank and insightful comments throughout the trial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com