qbee;3859546 said:
We are planning on taking Action .. with an open letter and a campaign - We are uniting with other advocates.
Do we have all the rebuttles and defense up now in the resource thread
Resource material about the allegations against Michael
No it's far from everything. Right now I think we should specifically focus on the rebuttal of this particular Sunday People story. Unfortunately I have much work now, so I can't get involved the way I'd love to, but I think the talking points should be:
- Prove these are not FBI files. A very effective way to do this is to post the video @
http://mjtruthnow.com/ and the one on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knMIhqHLmJY - side by side with that document that the Sunday People now claims to be an FBI file, but it's in this 1994 documentary where Barresi even talks about how and why it was created. Nothing to do with Pellicano or the FBI. It should be pointed out how it seems to be Barresi's modus operandi to try to make his material look more "credible" or like they are official documents this way. He himself talks about this in the docu. It also should be pointed out that he himself does not consider the LeMarques credible ("So c'mon!" @ 38:30) and also in the YT documentary he talks about that.
- This should establish that the doc really are from Barresi and not from some secret FBI files.
- Should be hammered that it's nonsense to think had the FBI really had incriminating evidence against MJ it would not have been introduced to court in 2005. We could mention that MJ's FBI files did not include anything incriminating either.
- It should be pointed out that the attached Barresi documents do not support what is claimed in the article. There is no proof in them that MJ abused and paid off 24 (or 17) or any boys. I posted this earlier here, so I just quote myself:
Document 1:
Someone faxing to Pellicano claiming there is an agreement in which MJ paid off a boy in 1992. The actual agreement is not presented. Instead this person just tells about it. According to Friedman's 2005 article the person telling this story was a woman by the name of Taylea Shea, some tabloid whore. According to Friedman's article she read this document to Mitteager (I'm guessing on phone?). So I guess this document is some kind of note of that conversation. Maybe something that Mitteager sent about it to Pellicano.
The document says that the writer (Mitteager?) was unable to obtain a copy of the alleged agreement. It seems like everything is just based on Shea's words, no one ever saw this alleged agreement.
The text does not seem like a legit agreement. Someone was trying hard to sound like a real legal document, but it's very much off compared to how such documents are usually constructed. Compare it to the settlement with the Chandlers in language and length and content! This one doesn't even say what the agreement is about! I don't think either Fields or Weitzman would produce such a sloppy settlement agreement. And how come no one ever saw this agreement if it's out there somewhere?
From Friedman's article we know the name blocked out is Brandon P. Richmond. No one knows about a Brandon Richmond in Michael's life ever and apparently tabloids at the time did not find anyone by this name in his life either, so they started to suggest it might be Brandon Adams, the boy who played in Moonwalker. Also because he's described as a actor/dancer. However, Brandon Adams denied he and his family have ever been paid off by MJ or that MJ ever molested him. And someone even tweeted him today to ask him and he still denies it. He always remembered MJ fondly.
At the end of the the document the writer says: "In the end, Jackson allegedly paid off the following victims" and then gives a list of names. No source is given as to who alleges that. This is basically someone informing Pellicano about rumors about whom MJ allegedly paid off. And the Mirror acts in their article like it's FBI proven fact that he paid off these people?
The document is dated July 26, 1993. About a month before the Chandler allegations went public, but the Chandlers already tried to extort Michael behind the scenes and Pellicano was already hired to work on the case. Pellicano is an opportunist, so I can imagine he really did look into all these rumours and if he had found them to be true he would have tried to blackmail him with that info. He didn't find anything so he ended up in Michael's team at the time.
Document 2:
It is about Blanca Francia's claims. We have talked enough about them. Just because they are printed on one more paper it does not make them true. Also it's some info about her that I actually found interesting. Like:
"[She] told her friend that when the Jackson criminal case is over, she will sue Jackson for molesting her son."
So she was not eager to turn to police (the police contacted them, not the other way around) but she was already planning a lawsuit before the criminal was over?
"She got $20,000 from Hard Copy and supposedly regrets doing it because after her segment aired the cops put her undert wraps."
At the trial she admitted she also considered selling her story to the Enquirer, but she then did not. I wonder if this was the reason. And the reason why she regretted it because the Enquirer probably could have paid her more.
And then the part about detectives bringing someone to her interrogation - and we know from other sources that the person was a National Enquirer reporter!
The document also states: "Detectives believe that so many people have been bought off, there is nobody to talk to."
This is funny, because what it actually proves is that detectives did not find any other alleged victim. And that they were so biased that they refused to entertain the idea that this means that maybe there aren't other alleged victims. No it had to be because MJ paid them off. But this assumption is just based on belief, nothing else.
Document 3:
A conversation between Pellicano and Jim Mitteager. Again, what does it prove? Pellicano says in it that there is no other kid than Jordan: "They keep looking and looking and calling and calling. There is no other kid." So what does it prove about dozens of kids being paid off and silenced?
Document 4:
Paul Barresi's interview with the LeMarques. Again, what does it prove? Philip LeMarque was on the stand in 2005 and was utterly discredited. But this tabloid acts as if this story is some new revelation. The boy in their story is Macaulay Culkin, who refuted the LeMarques on the stand. About other boys he did not even testify.
And there are two notes about some tapes.
None of these proves anything.
Actually it's always reassuring to see that after 20 years of desperate digging and digging and digging this is all the media and investigators can come up with. No doubt they try to sensationalize and twist them and they try to claim they are something else then what they really are, but all people have to do is click on the actual documents and see if they really contain what the article claims they contain. Because they do not.
The article talks about how they contain proof that 24 (or 17 - depending which part of the article you read) boys have been paid-off by MJ. Where? There are a number of names blocked out, but I haven't seen any proof that boys have been paid off. Just names thrown in in the context that "sources" claim them to be victims and "sources" allege that they had been paid off.
We know a lot of those names, even if they are blocked out and we know that they said that they weren't molested. I strongly suspect that the "source" mentioned in the Blanca Francia document and that document about the alleged $600,000 agreement is Victor Gutierrez. He was the one throwing about all the boys names whom he has ever seen around MJ.
- The article claims these are files from Pellicano who gathered a lot of incriminating info about MJ and quit because of that. This can be refuted too. Again I refer to a post I wrote earlier in this thread:
Actually the documents they posted not only do not support, but refute what the Mirror claims. The claim is that Pellicano gathered all this incriminating evidence against Michael that the FBI found in his possession in 2002. But in that document which records a conversation between Pellicano and Mitteager in December, 1993 Pellicano tells Mitteager that "There is no other boy. They are looking and looking, digging and digging but there is no one." (other than Jordan)
This was on December 10, 1993. Fields was fired by Michael on December 3, 1993 and Pellicano followed soon (he was Fields' man and he left because Fields was fired and because things headed towards a settlement which he did not support, not because he found incriminating things on Michael). So the conversation with Mitteager in which Pellicano says there is no other boy takes place shortly after or around the time when Pellicano left his employment with Michael.
Does anyone really think that a guy like Pellicano, who lived of blackmailing celebrities and selling tabloid stories about them would not have sold any incriminating info on Michael if he had them?
Moreover, there is another taped conversation between Mitteager and Pellicano on those tapes. Conveniently the Mirror does not publish that, of course, but we know of its existence because Barresi sold it to Aphrodite Jones a few years ago. Of course, no sensational stories were run about that in the media. It was only featured on Aphrodite's website. That was taped in September, 1994. In that Pellicano assures Mitteager that he does not believe that MJ was a pedo. He says he let his kids play with him and it would not have be the case if he thought he was a pedo. He also talks about how he asked Jordan about whether MJ molested him, how he tried to trick him into admitting something but Jordan was adamant that nothing ever happened. This was almost a year after Pellicano stopped working for Michael!
He also was a main source for Mary Fischer's Was MJ Framed? article! From Ray Chandlers book I also have the impression that he hated Evan's guts and he was convinced he was an extortionist. And the Chandlers hated him more than Michael, because he exposed them.
So how realistic is it to think that Pellicano had huge piles of evidence about MJ molesting and paying off boys? Think about it!
- Friedman's old 2005 articles should be used in support of how these are the Mitteager tapes that Barresi inherited. The story about Taylea Shea should be used to discredit that fax about an alleged agreement:
http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/06/3...-british-press-heres-the-real-story-from-2005
Point out that no one ever saw this alleged agreement. Shea (a fraudster) just "read" it on the telephone. Point out that there never has been an actor/dancer Brandon P. Richmond around Michael. Therefore tabloids tried to claim it was Brandon Adams, but he denies being molested and paid off. Inlcude also his recent tweets about it.
Point out that it does not seem like a well constructed, professional agreement. It's not even said in it what the agreement is about. And is there a Michael Jackson Organization at all?
- I think we should also bring out that the Mitteager tapes actually exonerate Michael! Point out that this is also on them, but of course the Sunday People would not publish it:
“PELLICANO: You have to understand something. I have nine kids. Michael [Jackson] plays with my baby. They crawl all over him. They pull his hair. They pull his nose. Sometimes he wears a bandage across his face. If I let my own kids (unintelligible) do you think there’s a chance?
MITTEAGER: Well, all things being equal, I would say, no.
PELLICANO: Not only that. If you sat this kid [Jordie Chandler] down like I did, as a matter of fact, he couldn’t wait to get up and go play video games. I said, “you don’t understand how serious this is. Your dad [Evan Chandler] is going to accuse Michael of sexual molestation. He going to say all kinds of stuff.” He [Jordie] says, “Yeah, my dad’s trying to get money.” As a matter of fact, I (unintelligible) for 45 minutes. Then I tried tricking him. I mean, I want you to know, I’m a vegetarian. I picked this kid with a fine tooth comb. So we’re there (unintelligible) with this kid... and If you sat down and talked to this kid, there wouldn’t be any doubt in your mind either. And I said Michael is all upset. We went over and over. I tried to get him to sit down and he wants to play video games while I’m sitting there. I’m sitting there with the kid’s mother [June Chandler] and David Schwartz walks in and (unintelligible) what’s this all about? And [Barry] Rothman (unintelligible) asking questions. There is no question that Rothman (unintelligible) what this is all about.”
It was recorded in September 1994, long after Pellicano stopped working for Michael. Another Friedman article from 2005 is helpful here as well:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html It tells the story of the Newt family who were offered $200,000 by Mitteager (National Enquirer) to say MJ molested their twin sons. That is also on the Mitteager tapes! Of course, the Sunday People would not publish that.
- You can quote Macaulay's testimony denying the LeMarques' story and about how he learnt from CNN that he was supposed to have been molested and they ran the story as if it's fact without even asking him (the same what the media are doing now).
Q. You heard about some of the allegations about whether or not Mr. Jackson improperly ever touched you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever molest you?
A. Never.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever improperly touch you?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in any sexual type of way?
A. No.
Q. Has he ever touched you in any offensive way?
A. No.
Q. What do you think of these allegations?
A. I think they’re absolutely ridiculous.
Q. When did you first learn that these prosecutors were claiming that you were improperly touched?
A. When did I first learn that?
Q. Yes.
A. I -- somebody called me up and said, “You should probably check out CNN, because they’re saying something about you.”
Q. And did you check it out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what did you learn?
A. I learned that it was a former cook had done something to me, and there was something about a maid or something like that. It was just one of those things where I just couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or -- let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me. And at the same time it was amazing to me that they -- that nobody approached me and even asked me whether or not the allegations were true. They kind of just were -- threw it out there just like -- they didn’t even -- they didn’t even double-check it basically. I mean, even if they assumed that they knew the answer, what got me was that they didn’t even ask.
Q. Now, are you saying these prosecutors never tried to reach you to ask you your position on this?
A. No, they didn’t.
Q. Do you know if any police officer from Santa Barbara has ever tried to call you to see what the truth is?
A. No.
- Point out how it actually proves Michael's innocence that despite of so much effort and money spent by the both law enforcement and the media to dig up dirt on MJ they never found any convincing evidence and all they have to rely upon are maipulations and twisting of facts like this.
And after having Prince on as a correspondent. SmDh. ET's twitter is @ETonlineAlert (I think individuals with ET have their own twitter too). Facebook is http://www.facebook.com/entertainmenttonight. Not sure if this is useful or not... I couldn't find a contact form, but a "submit a tip" form on their website (http://www.etonline.com/newsdesk/tips.php). I'm feeling livid. I know it's "just" an entertainment show, but at least in the old days ET had a better reputation than tabloids and a LOT of people watch it still, don't they? I haven't lived in the US for some years now and am kind of out of touch with that...
