V-Day Ten Years On: The Truth Is Still Running Marathons, And Winning

Michael On V-Day, 2005...Putting His Fate In God's Hands
Michael On V-Day, 2005…Putting His Fate In God’s Hands

Michael Jackson Molestation Case: Wade Robson’s Lawsuit Against Singer’s Estate Dismissed-International Business Times Headline from May 28, 2015

“Lies Run Sprints, But The Truth Runs Marathons”-Michael Jackson 

This blog’s previous post focused on many of the sham cases that have been brought against Michael Jackson and the many, numerous attempts to frame him that have been going on for over two decades. However, today I would like to focus on the positive. I have said it before and will say it again: No matter how much we may wish to view Michael as a martyred hero, the truth is that the American justice system has been good to Michael Jackson. Over and over, there have been people who tried to bring him down, but in almost every instance the courts have vindicated him. However, perhaps phrasing it as the American justice system being “good” to Michael is erroneous. After all, it isn’t the justice system’s responsibility to be “good” or “bad” to anyone. It is, however, the responsibility of the justice system to ensure that truth prevails, and justice is done.

So let’s think about what that means in relation to Michael, the man who once said that lies will run sprints but the truth will run marathons.

June 13, 2005 is a very special day on the timeline of Michael Jackson history, a day that fans often commemorate as a day of both celebration and somber reflection. This year has an especial relevance, however, as it marks the tenth anniversary of that event-a decade since justice prevailed. A lot can happen in ten years. Both of the trial’s principle players-who faced each other from opposing ends-are now gone. But justice does have strange ways of winning out. Ten years ago, Tom Sneddon had envisioned an end with Michael behind bars and his own reputation shooting into the stratosphere of glory. Ten years later, Michael Jackson’s reputation and legacy are all but restored, his name and brand stronger than ever, and poor Tom Sneddon is…well, dead.

Tom Sneddon's Face On V-Day...Priceless!
Tom Sneddon’s Face On V-Day…Priceless!

The day has come to be known informally as V-Day, which is short for both Verdict Day or Vindication Day. It also parodies the nickname V-Day as in Victory Day, bestowed upon May 9 to commemorate the day in 1945 that Nazi Germany capitulated to the Soviet Union, effectively marking the beginning of the end of World War II. There are no doubt some who would think it is trivial, even insulting, to compare the ending of a world war and thousands of soldier deaths to Michael Jackson’s day in court. But for Michael and those who lived through those dark 134 days in early to mid 2005, the name V-Day is all too fitting, and with utmost respect to anyone who has endured a war fraught with great battles. By the end of that ordeal, Michael was a seasoned soldier who had fought the good fight to the end. And so, too, were his fans-soldiers who had dug in their trenches and stood firm for what they believed was right, at a time when it was certainly not the popular stance to take. And, like all battle weary soldiers, victory was not easily won. Both Michael and the fans who stood loyal in those battle trenches came out scarred.

V-Day in the Michael Jackson case produced strong emotions from all sides. For many, it was a day of rejoicing and thankfulness. However, in many circles, it was a day in which “celebrity justice”-a belief already confirmed for many by the O.J. Simpson verdict-seemed all but confirmed. I knew instantly, as the shocked backlash against the verdict began to permeate the airwaves within minutes, that Michael’s victory would be a hollow one in the court of media and public opinion. However, I can’t really blame those who, at the time, thought of this as just another case of a celebrity “getting off” yet again. In the wake of the O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake cases. the mood of the nation at the time was bound to be intolerant of what seemed like another case of “celebrity justice,” especially when the very biased media coverage of the trial had made it an almost foregone conclusion in our minds that he must be guilty.

But while some rejoiced and many lashed out in angry bitterness, Michael simply went home and collapsed in bed. Doesn’t this remind you of every soldier who ever returned home after battle? Relatives rejoice and celebrate, while elsewhere politicians and armchair analysts debate political motives and what was “right” or “wrong” with the war. The poor soldier, meanwhile, shell shocked and battle weary, just wants to shut it all out and forget. Their minds, bodies, and spirits can neither rejoice nor argue; emotions like joy, anger, or even regret have no part. All the soldier can feel is a numb thankfulness that he is home and alive-and if he is fortunate, in one piece.

Pictures speak a thousand words: Michael was a shell shocked war veteran by V-Day, visibly scarred and emotionally detached from his surroundings:

vday5

vday3

I don’t have to ask anyone if this is how Michael felt on V-Day. I know it, from the depths of my soul as one soldier to another. It doesn’t matter whether our battles are fought on the field, or in the courtroom, or in the traumatic things we endure mentally, physically, or spiritually. The results are the same.

The Mood of the Defense  On V-Day...Everyone, It Seemed, Except The Defendant Himself
The Mood of the Defense On V-Day…Everyone, It Seemed, Except The Defendant Himself

But however shell shocked and battle weary Michael may have emerged from that ordeal, the important thing to remember is that on Monday, June 13th, 2005, justice prevailed. Michael Jackson was fully exonerated on not just one or two, but all fourteen counts for which he had been charged.trial7

And with that in mind, this is a good day to pause and reflect on Michael’s statement that lies may run sprints, but the truth will run marathons. For every crazy and outlandish accusation brought against Michael, and for almost every wrong done against him that has been brought to court, Michael has emerged victorious time and again-not because his money “bought him off” (though having good attorneys never hurts!) but because going to trial has a peculiar way of forcing the truth to come out. Lies can indeed sprint pretty quickly; they can run all over tabloid headlines; they can run amok on TV; they can shoot quickly out of a starting gate. But they cannot hold up under the intense scrutiny of court proceedings.

The record speaks for itself. In 2005, Michael was fully acquitted. But the truth’s long distance marathon doesn’t end there. In virtually every silly case ever brought against him that went to trial (and here I am referring to the gamut of frivolous lawsuits) Michael emerged victorious time and again. In every instance in which he counter sued parties for damages, he was either awarded fully or partially in his favor. In 2011, Dr. Conrad Murray was found guilty in Michael’s criminal death trial, resulting in some measure of justice for his homicide. And, just a few weeks ago, Judge Beckloff gave Wade Robson his walking papers, at least as far as the probate case is concerned.

The only thing that puts a crinkle in this near perfect record of justice was the result of the AEG trial. I still feel firmly, to this day, that AEG should have been held accountable in that lawsuit, but I suppose as the old saying goes, you can’t win them all.

That still, however, leaves an incredible track record of prevailed justice, especially for a man who was so often put in the defense position for much of his life. It has been almost six years since his death and he is not here to defend himself against accusations that continue to plague him even in death, but perhaps he need not fear. Truth and justice still seem to fight on his side, as has been proven time and again. In closing, another of Michael’s famous phrases comes to mind: “God is for me, who can be against me?”

God fights only on  the side of His children and not for the forces who work for the opposing team. And indeed if God fights on your side, then what is there to fear?  I believe it has been proven time and again that God is fighting on Michael’s side.

And if God and Truth are on your side, then the forces of darkness have no power. Ten years and counting, the truth is still running strong.

21 thoughts on “V-Day Ten Years On: The Truth Is Still Running Marathons, And Winning”

  1. “However, I can’t really blame those who, at the time, thought of this as just another case of a celebrity “getting off” yet again.”

    I can. It is simply lazyness when people keep parrotting this “celebrity justice” stuff. They are aren’t bothered to look into a case deeply, but they are so eager to judge and jump to conclusions. People should realize you aren’t able to judge a case properly without investing some time into learning about it. This is not just about this case, but virtually everything in our fast food societies. People read some headline (which is either true or not) and they think they know all about a case and have the right to judge it.

    1. I agree that they should, but remember all that most people know of any given case is what they read in the papers or on CNN over their morning coffee. And I can speak for the majority back then because I was one of them-that is, one of those who hadn’t thought enough about the case to investigate it in any depth. And even if people like me had investigated it-aside from ordering transcripts, etc-what resources AT THAT TIME, in June of 2005, were out there? Fan sites? Most people with only a casual investment in a celebrity aren’t going to bother. Aphrodite Jones’s Conspiracy was still two years down the road. There were very few journalists or news outlets reporting the trial fairly or accurately. I do agree that the public should refrain from making judgments about cases when all they know is what the media reports, but the media can influence, generally, whether we believe someone is guilty or innocent and people tend to go with their gut reactions to stories rather than gathering facts. But this is why I was very careful in the way I phrased that passage with the inclusion of “at the time.” I don’t think there is any excuse now because too many resources are available to get the full facts of the trial. But I’m talking about Mr. Average Joe Blow who, in 2005, only knows what he hears of the case on the news each morning before work. I think the mood of the country a decade ago was especially sensitive to the idea of “celebrity justice” after the O.J.Simpson and Robert Blake verdicts, but especially the O. J. Simpson verdict. I remember thinking at the time that it wouldn’t surprise me if they DID find Michael Jackson guilty, just to make an example of him. Thankfully, that didn’t happen, but the mood of the country it seemed was that he SHOULD have been made to be such an example. Of course, in general, I think most people at the time, outside the hardcore fan base and outside of the media, were simply indifferent, the way most of us are when a celebrity case is in the news. That is to say, we may have some curiosity about the proceedings and outcome, but it doesn’t impact our lives enough that we spend time really deliberating the facts of the case. The reaction of the media to the case, thus, probably didn’t really reflect the general mood of the public so much as their own bitterness/embarrassment over the outcome and the loss of such a potentially hot story that could have generated ratings revenue for years to come. But also, I believe that today, thanks to social media and the surge of popularity in blogs and citizen journalism, people are much more informed today and much more media savvy than they were a decade ago. Again, I think a lot of the people who did react the way that they did to the verdict at the time were products OF their time in that the media still had a much bigger impact on how they perceived stories in the news. I don’t think that is as true today because there are more resources available and many alternative outlets available where information can be more accessibly filtered from all sides.

      1. I agree , I do not expect people who have no specific interest in a celebrity to delve into court documents, that is not realistic. And even if you study what is available, there is much under lock and key and celebrities have a life out of the public eye that we are not privy to . Which makes our knowledge more of an educated guess than 100% knowledge of facts.

        I m sorry I feel like there is not much to celebrate because despite enduring the trial Michael did not survive .
        He was first chased out of his home into exile, lost his life and is now robbed of his property . Does not feel like justice to me.

      2. “Of course, in general, I think most people at the time, outside the hardcore fan base and outside of the media, were simply indifferent, the way most of us are when a celebrity case is in the news. That is to say, we may have some curiosity about the proceedings and outcome, but it doesn’t impact our lives enough that we spend time really deliberating the facts of the case. ”

        I understand that most people just do not care that much (and that is still true regardless of how much information is available now on the Internet – most people just do not care enough to spend any time on that). But the point is that despite of having a very superficial knowledge in a case many people still feel they have the right to judge it and call someone this or that. I think what people need to realize is that you cannot judge a case based on a couple of cherry-picked headlines. Yes, the media was extremely misleading in MJ’s case, but does that really excuse the public from being so judgemental while having so little real info? I don’t think so. I think people should learn to be critical and sceptical of the media.

      3. Also, every time when someone brings up OJ Simpson I ask that person: “OK, and what does that have to do with Michael Jackson’s case? How are they any similar? How is there any similarity in why they got the verdict that they got, apart from both being “Not Guilty”? How does a possibly wrong “Not Guilty” verdict in a totally non-related, totally different case mean that all other “Not Guilty” verdicts in any celebrity case are wrong?”

        People aren’t able to give an answer to these questions because fact is that they do not know ANY detail of the MJ case and why it turned out the way it did. They are just throwing around fallacies like this OJ one. Actually I do not even think you have to be extremely knowledable about the details of the MJ case to realize that to say the outcome of one case determines how we should think about another is nothing but a fallacy. All you have to be is a logically thinking person.

        1. I agree. One of the lamest lines I get tired of hearing from MJ detractors is “O.J. was acquitted, too.” That line is always a dead giveaway that they know nothing and have nothing with which to back up their fallacies.

          1. The only thing they have in common is that they are /were both succesfull black men in high profile cases hyped by the media.
            But they are often named in one sentence, not only by the media.
            Ironically, Sitrick , the PR company hired by the MJE once said that the only two celebrities they would decline to represent were OJS and MJ .

        2. I agree that people should exercise critical thinking but we have media whose job it is or once was to inform and educate , independent, objective and factual. This goes for all professions, we cannot expect the average patient to know side effects of medication when it takes a doctors 5-7 years study. But media have become mouthpieces for sources who they benefit from or are courted/catered by, we have a justice system, businesses and politicians who use the media for plain propaganda. Speaking of Roger Friedman, he is an example of that MO who has done irreversible damage to Michael with 20 years of intentional , consistant misinformation and character assassination, mocking and ridiculing him , his family, his lifestyle, his music and even his children. He helped push the molestation agenda on behalf of Marc Shaffel suggesting that Michael paid off children in Brazil who he had alledgedly molested , forcing Michael to make this statement.

          While in his entire career, Mr. Jackson has never uttered a disparaging word to any reporter, nor has he ever used or instructed his security to use any force toward any reporter, there are those whose vehement hatred for Mr. Jackson has reached a level where all journalistic integrity has been lost, in order to write reports for which there is no substantiation, are untrue, written to create a frenzy, or used to try and destroy Mr. Jackson’s image. They know who they are; and, this is a sad commentary…a commentary which Mr. Jackson’s attorneys will address.

          How do you expect the average public to know what is the truth if they have been systematically misinformed not only by tabloids but by ‘credible’media.
          Social media could be an alternative and there are good examples , but most of the time it is worse because there is less fact and context checking , and it thrives on hypes and pseudo experts. Unfortunately not many people can seperate the wheat from the chaff.

    2. “People read some headline (which is either true or not) and they think they know all about a case and have the right to judge it.”
      So true, Suzy! And Michael tried to point out that in Tabloid Junkie: “just because you read it in a magazine or see it on a TV screen don’t make it factual, actual.”

  2. The saddest thing for me is that 10 years on , with a string of successful concerts behind him and his Archenemy out of the picture , Michael may have found some peace at last here on Earth. Heartbreaking..

  3. Roger Friedman may have been complicit in the past, but has published two passionate articles on Michael in the past few days. I’ve tried to post a comment to him, simply saying “thank you” but the comment section has been disabled. Am posting the whole article below. Say what you will about Roger Friedman. In this article he has done right. The bitter, horrible truth of it almost makes my heart break.

    “Michael Jackson: 10 Years Since The Court Acquittal That Eventually Killed Him” Roger Friedman, June 12, 2015 ; Showbiz*411

    “Ten years ago tomorrow a jury in Santa Maria, California acquitted mega pop star Michael Jackson of child molestation and conspiracy. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon charged Michael with molesting Garvin Arvizo and then kidnapping Gavin’s family– his mother, brother, and sister. Attorney Thomas Mesereau mounted a brilliant defense and Michael, after four months, was acquitted.

    “But the damage was done. Michael had sat through weeks and weeks of crazy testimony and accusations. His entire life was laid open– his finances, his personal peccadilloes, relationships with every single person he ever knew, descriptions of his body parts. His mother and sometimes his father, or a sibling, sat in the row behind him. They heard it all. Everything was on the record for his child one day to read.

    “By the time the jury reached their verdict, Jackson was destroyed. There was no jubilant celebration. He was done. He took his kids and left California. Mesereau advised him, “Leave here now.” Why? He knew, as did I, and every reasonable person who’d watched this circus since Jackson’s arrest in November 2003, that Sneddon had it in for him. Sneddon was not going to stop until he somehow put Michael Jackson in jail. If Michael stayed at Neverland, in Santa Barbara County, he would always be a target.

    “Sneddon’s vendetta against Jackson reached back a decade, to when Michael agreed to a financial settlement with the family of another boy, Jordan Chandler. It was the worst decision that Michael ever made. It created an aura around him of a pedophile, one that he couldn’t shake. It made him a target for more extortion. It turned him into a real drug addict who couldn’t always make other, clear decisions. Eventually, it would kill him.

    “What was the upside of the Chandler settlement? To the lawyers and advisers, it kept Michael out of jail and court in 1994. Sneddon couldn’t prosecute Michael without the Chandlers. Sneddon was defeated before he could make his case. Jackson, Sneddon felt, danced away. Instead of leaving it alone, Jackson mocked Sneddon publicly in song, taunted him. And Sneddon vowed revenge.

    “There are just a couple of things you need to know about that trial. Gavin Arvizo’s mother, proved in court to be a scammer and a schemer, was crazy. Sneddon found in her a perfect collaborator. She said and did whatever he wanted. It didn’t matter that her so called “kidnappers” had a full record of their time with her including receipts for spa treatments, movie dates, fast food restaurant meals and shopping safaris. When those guys — Frank Cascio and Vinnie Amen– came to me in 2004 with a huge metal briefcase filled with records of what had gone on, the first thing I remember saying to them was, “Are you sure the Arvizos didn’t kidnap you?”

    “I was joking, but that’s really what had happened. Gavin Arvizo had cancer. His mother, Janet, used the cancer as leverage to worm her way into Michael’s life. Michael Jackson was naive about one thing since his “We are the World” hit project– that he could save the world, and “save the children who are destined to die,” as Marvin Gaye once sang. Michael, after selling 100 million records, and being dubbed the “King of Pop,” saw himself as a savior. Saving Gavin was just part of his duties.

    “And that’s what blew him up. He allowed Martin Bashir to come to his house and make a documentary that showed Michael embracing the Arvizos. It was appalling. The worst part of Bashir’ heavily slanted film, called “Living with Michael Jackson,” was a segment in which Gavin– who Michael had brought to Neverland for the filming to show that he was a savior– talked about sleeping in Michael’s bed. When the documentary ran on ABC at the end of January 2003, this moment set off alarms. I wrote at the time that it was possible Michael would wind up in jail. The internet blew up.

    “Sneddon immediately sent his people to the Arvizos’ apartment in Los Angeles. They left his card under their door. And when Michael realized what had happened, he kicked the freeloading Arvizo’s out of Neverland. They had to return to their real life– no more spa treatments and gifts. And that’s when Sneddon found a conspirator in Janet Arvizo. The only thing was, he didn’t do due diligence. He was so excited to have someone who could help him realize his goal of putting Michael Jackson in jail, he never investigated Janet Arvizo’s background.

    “My favorite moment sitting in that Santa Maria courthouse? When Tom Mesereau got Janet Arvizo to testify she thought Michael Jackson was going to steal her children by taking them away in a hot air balloon. The courtroom howled. Judge Melville banged his gavel. It was the culmination of a devastating testimony skillfully delived by Mesereau. Everyone knew at that moment the jury was not going to buy Sneddon’s prosecution. Everyone, that is, except Sneddon.

    “There were good prosecutors on Sneddon’s team. Ron Zonen was and is respected. So is Gordon Auchincloss. They had some great dramatic moments in court. But they never questioned Sneddon’s motives. They followed him right off the bridge into the ocean.

    “The prosecutors were so out of touch with what was happening that on the eve of the verdict, they threw themselves a congratulatory party. In a public restaurant. A woman I knew stumbled upon them and called me immediately.

    “This is what I wrote on June 10, 2005:
    The prosecutors in Michael Jackson’s child molestation and conspiracy trial apparently feel they’ve already won their case.

    “On Wednesday night [June 8], the whole lot of them — DA Tom Sneddon, Ron Zonen, Gordon Auchincloss, their wives and families — all celebrated at the Hitching Post restaurant in Casmalia.

    “The Hitching Post, cousin of the Buellton restaurant featured in the movie “Sideways,” is considered the best restaurant in the greater Santa Maria area.

    “Sneddon was so happy that he actually embraced celebrity crime reporter Aphrodite Jones. She told me he was in a jubilant mood, and the most outgoing of all the people on hand.

    “Said one observer, “This group was happy. There was definitely a celebratory mood.”

    “The prosecutor’s team was first spotted making merry at the bar, and then retreated to a private dining room behind the bar that has no door.

    “They could be heard laughing and carrying on,” said a source.

    “Also present at what could only be termed a party were several of the police investigators involved in the case, including Sgts. Steve Robel and Jeff Klapakis.

    “By contrast, little has been seen around town of defense attorney Tom Mesereau, who’s kept a low profile since the jury began deliberations a week ago.

    “It was two weeks since the defense had rested. It would be five more days before the jury would come back with their stunning verdict that rebuked Sneddon’s entire case. But there they were, so full of hubris, certain that they’d prevailed.

    “In a way they had. Tom Sneddon essentially killed Michael Jackson. If Sneddon had really been objective and had investigated the Arvizo’s properly, the case would not have come to trial. But he turned it into a circus from day 1–staging a surprise raid of Neverland, conspiring with tabloid reporter Diane Dimond (whose entire career is built on her obsession with being Jackson’s snarling enemy)– to make it a big media splash. Nothing was done by the book. It was all done to ruin Michael Jackson and it worked.

    “The Arvizos– we’ve never heard from them again, not a peep (except for Diane Dimond’s report about his 2013 wedding where — unbelievably– at least one Michael Jackson was played by the deejay). Jordan Chandler? His father, after turning his son into a recluse and destroying Jackson’s reputation, committed suicide five months after Michael’s death at the hands of Dr. Conrad Murray. In 1996, a journalist named Mary Fisher wrote a seminal piece in GQ proving Evan Chandler and his ex-wife’s new husband had brainwashed Jordy into thinking he’d been molested. They got $20 million for their hard work. Thirteen years later Michael Jackson was dead.

    “The jury in the trial thought that once they’d acquitted Michael, the solid gold gates to Neverland would swing open and Jackson would thank each of them individually. They were so wrong. The gates snapped shut. Jackson was never seen again in the town of Los Olivos. Two weeks later he and his children were gone, kicking off four years of homelessness that would end in death. Neverland fell silent. Unlike with the prosecutors, there was no celebration of this bitter victory.”

    1. Friedman also very publicly humiliated Diane Dimond on Twitter recently, in a true grab-the-popcorn moment!

      I do find Friedman irritating because he swings back and forth so much, but I have to hand it to him, his last few pieces have been very impassioned defenses of Michael.

      It’s a sad story, isn’t it? A story of a trial and its “losers” who celebrated, and its “winner” who could not. I know that someone here had commented earlier that the verdict didn’t seem something to celebrate because Michael still died four years later, having been effectively killed by this trial. I definitely agree. For me, June 13th is always more of a day for somber reflection rather than celebration. It is a day to reflect and feel thankful for the verdict, but it’s hard to feel joyous knowing it was really just the beginning of the end. It’s always a day of very mixed emotions.

      1. But isn’t interesting, Raven, that no other media, besides Friedman, have mentioned the 10 year anniversary of the acquittal. It is a very sad day, as the trial should have never happened in the first place, but media always like to dredge up one year, five year, ten year, etc., etc. anniversaries. Yet, silence.

        I’ve seen 20th Anniversary specials on OJ and the 10th Anniversary of the disappearance of Natalie Holloway, whose story was evolving the day after Michael’s verdict.

        Is it because they don’t remember, they don’t care or they know they were wrong and were complicit in the torture of an innocent man?

        1. Interesting. I hadn’t really observed that no outlet other than Showbiz 411 had covered it but somehow it doesn’t surprise me. I think a couple of reasons may explain this. The first is sheer embarrassment. The media tucked tail and buried the story pretty quickly after the verdict, rather than taking advantage of what might have been a prime time to highlight and focus on relevant topics like media bias and celebrity extortion in the aftermath. Despite all the claims of “Trial of The Century” the media buried this case rather quickly in its aftermath. With the O.J. trial, there was a certain amount of sensationalism involved, and even when the verdict did not go as expected, it was still sensationalistic due to the fact that the verdict was so shocking. To this day, I think many view the O.J. trial and its verdict as a kind of cultural watershed moment, whereas the MJ trial-which certainly stood to top the Simpson trial in cultural significance-didn’t quite become that anticipated watershed moment when the verdict did not play out as expected. It didn’t have the same shock factor as the O.J. Simpson trial because there was no grisly murder involved (it may be worth keeping in mind, however, that even Michael extended benefit of the doubt to Simpson and, according to the book Remember The Time, still invited Simpson to Neverland on a few occasions). I believe, mostly, that ten years on the media still finds the outcome of this trial as one of their biggest embarrassments. And while a few maverick journalists have been brave enough to acknowledge “the most shameful moment in journalism history” (as Charles Thomson put it) most are still circling the wagons.

          1. “I think a couple of reasons may explain this.”

            LoL. Not to forget selfserving reasons like RF finding out as we say : you catch bees with honey not with vinager.

            I will never forget what he did to Michael. That is his legacy.

        2. Yes, that’s an interesting thing although the Sun did try something on this anniversary: to try to stir something with what is really a non-story:

          “Lord Janner wrote to Michael Jackson to congratulate him on being cleared of child sex charges.
          Letter, dated July 12, 2005, was written after Jackson was cleared by jury
          Said ‘What a terrible time you have endured’ and was ‘pleased’ by acquittal
          Note was given to Jackson’s friend Mark Lester who forgot to pass it on
          He said it was as if Janner was saying ‘Well done, you got away with it’

          The letter from Janner, who last month was deemed unfit to stand trial for 22 child sex abuse charges, was penned on House of Lords paper with his signature clearly visible at the bottom.

          It comes days after Scottish police launched a new probe into the former MP for allegedly sexually abusing a teenage boy.
          Janner has always denied claims that he was a paedophile and his family say he is innocent of the alleged sex attacks.

          The letter was given to Jackson’s friend Mark Lester, who starred in the 1968 classic film Oliver! but never passed on to the pop star, according to Ben Griffiths at The Sun on Sunday.
          Mr Lester found the note during a clear-out at his home in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, and says Janner gave it to him during a charity do 10 years ago.
          Mark, 56, said: ‘What he said was inappropriate. No one should congratulate Michael on being cleared let alone a QC and peer. It’s as if he’s saying, ‘Well done, you got away with it’.’

          —-

          So this kind of desperate “guilty by association” BS is all they have. (Never mind the fact that Lord Janner was introduced to Michael by Uri Geller and Mark Lester and he was their friend, not Michael’s. Michael just met him once for about ten seconds. So if such a friendship reflects badly on anyone it should be Lester ironically, the person who sold this story. He must be running out of money.)

          Although there are some encouraging examples as well. This is from the Express:

          “The case became infamous for the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses, including one who told a journalist he would say he had seen Jackson molest underage boys if he was paid $500,000.”

          Sometimes there are some positive signs, but overall sensationalism will always win out, because that’s what brings the ratings and the money.

    1. This was a great series! It really did take me back to that Monday ten years ago, and the buildup of anticipation as that verdict was awaited. The first video really broke my heart at 8:52 when we see Michael stepping out of that SUV. If I needed further evidence of how detached and emotionally drained-how frightened he was that day-this is it. Imagine leaving that morning and not knowing if it would be the last time he would ever see his kids! I just don’t know how he did it, and held up as well as he did.

      It was quite interesting to watch the media reactions to the verdict. Some interesting patterns emerged. Of course, this series was heavily edited to showcase the more positive media coverage in the aftermath of the verdict, but we do see a kind of about face where all of a sudden everyone is going on about how weak and ridiculous the prosecution case was (as compared to the “before” when so many of them were presuming a guilty verdict!). It was as if, all of a sudden, the big story-the angle, per se- was not the Michael Jackson conviction, but what a major, humiliating blow this was for the prosecution. The tables were turned and now it seemed a lot of media outlets were having a great laugh at the expense of Tom Sneddon’s arrogance and Janet Arvizo’s nuttiness. Again, it is quite fascinating to watch something like this play out and see how the media truly operates, in this instance saving face by turning the tables and seemingly switching the focus of their angle overnight. This wasn’t the entire picture, however, as I well remember a lot of negative press coverage after the verdict (most of it, however, just typical legal analyst yapping) but this was also a warm and refreshing reminder that Michael did have many journalists who stood steadfastly in his corner throughout the entire ordeal.

      Thanks again, that was both sad but fascinating to watch.

Leave a Reply