Refuting the Legal Analysts

August 17, 2010

Hello readers, I wrote this piece because I wanted to compare and contrast the views of two rabid MJ haters (Nancy Grace and Sunny Hostin) to two fair and objective legal analysts (Andrew Cohen & Jonna Spilbor) in this piece.

Enjoy!

- David Edwards

Sunny Hostin



I wanted to start off by going after the authenticity of Jordie Chandler’s affidavit, which (according to Ray Chandler) was leaked by Larry Feldman or one of his associates after the Bashir documentary aired in February 2003, because attorney Sunny Hostin uses this document as indisputable proof that MJ was guilty in 1993. First, let’s look at Mesereau’s March 22nd, 2005 request to deny Sneddon the chance to use MJ’s 1994 settlement as a sign of guilt. This was the document that confirmed that MJ’s insurance carrier paid the settlement without his consent.

If you read page 9, lines 23-28, and page 10, lines 1-4, it states that Jordie was interviewed by cops conducting the CRIMINAL (not civil) investigation AFTER the settlement was paid. It then says that “no criminal charges were filed AS A RESULT OF THAT INTERVIEW“, and his statements were NOT SUFFICIENT to support molestation charges.

Sneddon and the media have always tried to maintain that Jordie’s lack of cooperation is what killed the criminal case, but according to that document he was interviewed AFTER the settlement and the cops basically said his story was BS! (I’m paraphrasing, but you get my drift!) So perhaps Sneddon just stopped working with the Chandlers because he knew that if Jordie’s testimony couldn’t convince the cops MJ was guilty, it certainly wouldn’t convince a grand jury!

I think we definitely need to investigate, because that is something that is unknown to a lot of MJ fans. That document not only destroys the myth that MJ paid “hush money” to avoid the criminal case, it also proves that Jordie’s affidavit was a rehearsed piece of fiction.

Unfortunately, there are some MJ haters posing as legal “analysts” who use that affidavit as “proof” that MJ is guilty, such as CNN’s Sunny Hostin (who also rolled off of the Court TV assembly line, along with Grace, Dimond, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Catherine Crier, etc.) In the video below, while debating Peter King’s vicious comments last summer, Sunny says that MJ is guilty based on that affidavit alone (“How could a kid tell such a detailed lie? MJ’s guilty!”) She was certain to remind viewers of her years of experience as a sex crimes prosecutor, as if that makes her opinion infallible!

And not only does she claim he’s guilty of molesting both Jordie Chandler AND Jason Francia, but she regurgitates all of the lies that have plagued MJ throughout his life (“he bleached his skin, he’s a self hating black man”, “he paid off Jordie and Jason Francia”, etc.), and she also says that “boys don’t lie about being molested by men” (it’s obvious she hasn’t seen this 1995 Hard Copy report about that Canadian kid that Diane Dimond and Rodney Allen set up to lie about MJ! ).

But I’ll give her credit where it’s due: SHE STATED THAT MJ WAS INNOCENT OF MOLESTING GAVIN ARVIZO!!! So that shows that she has at least some common sense! That’s something that neither Dimond nor Grace have or will ever admit! (More on Grace later on!). Ironically, if you listen closely enough, you’ll hear her contradict herself within the same sentence, because she says that “boys don’t lie about being molested”, then she says (regarding the 2005 trial) “I’ll give him (MJ) that one!” What a hypocrite! Lastly, near the end, she makes the heartless comment that there will be “daddy dearest” books by his kids, which openly mocks the tribute memoirs that MJ’s kids will inevitably write when they are older. How cruel can she be? And the icing on the cake is when Tucker Carlson compared MJ to – not OJ Simpson as you probably expect – but to Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, who slaughtered 2 million people!!!

One more thing to consider: MJ haters always use this affidavit as a sign of guilt. Well, if he was so guilty, then why wasn’t MJ ARRESTED AND CHARGED with molesting Jordie after Jordie gave his sworn statement? Since Sunny Hostin didn’t answer that question in the interview, I will! The reason that MJ wasn’t arrested is because Jordie’s description DID NOT MATCH! He claimed to be sexually “intimate” with MJ on multiple occasions, but falsely asserted that MJ was circumcised, when he is not circumcised!

(If I was on that panel and asked Sunny why MJ wasn’t arrested, she’d probably say “Because MJ paid $20 million in hush money!” And then I’d reply “Well, why wasn’t MJ arrested and charged with obstruction of justice?” And “Why weren’t Evan & June Chandler arrested and charged with aiding & abetting a pedophile, or with child neglect?”)

And as further proof that the description didn’t match, on January 5th, 1994 Larry Feldman filed a motion in court that was a “multiple choice” request: A) that Jackson provide him with copies of the police photographs, B) Jackson submit to a second search, or C) the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.

Now let’s put on our thinking caps here: if Jordie’s description matched the photos, then why would Feldman need copies of them for himself? Why would he need MJ to submit to a second search? And most importantly, why would he ask the court to bar the photos as evidence? Feldman made those requests because the photos, which he was hoping would be his “smoking gun”, DID NOT MATCH! He wanted to get copies so that Jordie could alter his “declaration” (which obviously isn’t as infallible as Hostin would have us believe), he wanted MJ to do a second strip search so that Jordie could have a second crack of “guessing” what MJ’s genitals looked like after reviewing the photos, and most importantly he wanted the photos barred so that MJ couldn’t use them as EXCUPLATORY EVIDENCE!! If you had any doubt that Feldman was a sleazy extortionist, then this article will make you do a 180 degree turnaround!

Here is some more information that will further debunk the myth that Jordie’s description matched. As we all know, the most descriptive characteristic of the male anatomy is whether or not it is circumcised. Think about the very first time that you’ve seen an uncircumcised penis. It’s something that probably made you do a double take, and it’s something that you would NEVER mistake for being circumcised! The difference is like night and day! Jordie said that MJ was circumcised, when he was NOT!

Now, MJ haters will say that an uncircumcised penis can easily be mistaken for a circumcised penis when it is erect. (Make sure you scroll to appendix at the bottom of her page and open the link to see the time lapse photos of an erect, uncircumcised penis.) Well, Jordie shot himself in the foot in his interview with Dr. Gardner on October 6th, 1993. He mentioned TAKING BATHS with MJ, and surely nobody believes that MJ had a full erection while bathing, do you? I sure don’t! Here are a few excerpts (in no particular order):

“In Monaco, he and I both had colds so we couldn’t go out on the town or whatever and see the sights. We had to stay in and that’s pretty much when the bad stuff happened.”

“What happened?”

“I don’t know. I think when he convinced me to take a bath with him or something. See, my mom and Kelly were gone, they were having fun and we were stuck in with colds. And my mom, I remember, she offered to stay in and help us and take care of us, and Michael insisted that our colds shouldn’t detract from them having fun. So we were alone and we took a bath together. That was the first time we ever saw each other naked. And during that time when we were alone in the room and they were gone, he talked about how all of his children friends masturbate in front of him.”

“And he, like, continued that. He stopped everything else that we were originally doing together; we just took baths. And we went to Euro-Disney after we went to Monaco.”

“I think we might have taken a bath together.”

That passage confirms that Jordie claims to have seen MJ multiple times in a non-erect state, and if it was true he would have instantly known that MJ was not circumcised. And even IF Jordie would have correctly guessed that MJ was circumcised, that would not in and of itself mean that he was telling the truth; it would only mean that he made a lucky guess! He had a 50% chance of guessing correctly, and lucky for MJ he guessed wrong! Not only did he incorrectly guess whether or not MJ was circumcised, but he also incorrectly guessed all of the “splotches” of vitiligo, which is discussed in more detail in this post. (Read parts 1 & 2 of that series as well.) Also, be sure to watch actor Todd Bridges, a REAL molestation victim, at the bottom of this post. Listen to his EMOTIONS while telling Oprah Winfrey his story, and listen to what he would do to anyone who would molest his son. (And think of Jordie and Evan Chandler when watching this!)

Here is the Holy Grail that haters use to prove MJ’s guilt: Jordie’s declaration, which was given on December 28th, 1993, which is after the strip search and before the settlement. Keep in mind that a declaration is not admissible in court; but if Jordie had given a sworn deposition, in the presence of both his and MJ’s lawyers, than that would have been admissible in court, and could be cross examined in if he had refused to testify. MJ haters seem to think that Jordie couldn’t have simply “made this up”, because what 13 year old kid has the imagination to do this? I’ll tell you: the same 13 year old kid that could write a Hollywood movie script that was filled with sexual comedy and innuendo!

It was Jordie’s idea to do the “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” spoof, after watching “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves”, and Jordie almost got credited for it. Evan Chandler, Mel Brooks, and David Shapiro were credited as the writers, but Mel Brooks stated in the aforementioned article that he and David should get screenwriting credit, but that Evan and Jordie should get STORY CREDIT! So this means that Jordie wasn’t the shy, naive, innocent child when it comes to sex that the media made him out to be! Watch the trailer on youtube, and look at the reference to the lady wearing the chastity belt!

(By the way, if you guys do a google search of “Michael Jackson”, and then click on “news”, and under “any time” you’ll see that you can filter by the past hour, past 24 hours, past week, month, or year. They also have 1993-94, 2003-04, and 2005 in their own category, so that means that Google recognizes that there are a LOT of people researching articles from those time periods.) Sunny Hostin obviously needs to step up and do some research, instead of having an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to that declaration! What kind of lawyer could be that gullible to believe that trash without scrutinizing it?

Nancy Grace:



Just when you thought the analysis of these legal experts couldn’t get any worse, here comes Nancy Grace!! In this March 2007 interview with CBS News, Grace CONTINUES to state that MJ was guilty, almost 2 years after his acquittal! And when you hear her rationale for MJ being guilty, you are going to LAUGH OUT LOUD! Throughout the course of this article, I am going to thoroughly analyze Grace’s interview with a fine toothed comb.

Grace thinks that Mesereau is the ONLY reason that MJ was acquitted. (As if Mesereau simply walked in the courtroom, clapped his hands and said “Hocus Pocus”, sprinkled fairy dust on the jurors, and “Voila!” They voted to acquit MJ!) She then goes on to say that the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” applies until there is reasonable evidence to “pierce” that presumption. (So in other words, once she hears the prosecution’s side of the case, she has a right to use her TV show to convict you in the court of public opinion). So in Nancy Grace’s world, its “innocent until there’s reasonable doubt!”

Well, my question to Nancy is this: “What evidence did you use to pierce MJ’s presumption of innocence?” Was it the Arvizo’s changing storyline? (Remember, in the November 2003 arrest warrant MJ molested Gavin first, and then forced the family to shoot the rebuttal video. But in the April 2004 indictment, the family was first kidnapped & held hostage, and then forced to shoot the rebuttal, and then MJ started molesting Gavin.) Or was it when she learned that the prosecution was going to bring people who “witnessed” MJ’s molesting the 5 former “victims”? (3 of which completely denied it, the 4th made some jurors laugh at his testimony during a courtroom break, and the 5th never even showing up! Open the link and scroll down to “Quotes from Mr. Mesereau regarding the admissibility of the prior bad acts”.)

Granted, she shows that she has some musical taste by saying how she used to watch MJ on Soul Train and dance in front of the TV, and she didn’t want to see a musical legend go down, but she LIES and says that MJ is guilty because he “sleeps in his underwear with non-related 10 year olds.” Fortunately, Macaulay Culkin’s and Brett Barnes’ trial testimony totally exposes Grace for the liar that she is! She intentionally played the “he sleeps with little boys” card to prejudice the viewers into thinking that MJ “invites” young boys to take off their clothes and sleep with him so they can spoon and cuddle all night! This is a common scare tactic that MJ haters use! It’s called an “ad hominem” technique (ad hominem means to “appeal to people’s emotions, biases, and prejudices, INSTEAD OF THEIR ABILITY TO THINK!!). In their testimony, Culkin clearly and explicitly states that in 1993 everyone SLEPT IN HIS CLOTHES, and Barnes states that he SLEPT IN HIS PAJAMAS!

And what’s amazing about Grace, and what most people will not notice, is that in this interview she is referring to the 2005 Arvizo case when she starts to play the “he sleeps with little boys” card, when even Gavin himself admitted that he never slept WITH MJ in his bed together! MJ slept on the floor! Grace wants the viewer to believe that MJ and Gavin slept in the bed together in their underwear! This was confirmed in the DCFS report that was conducted from February 14th-27th, 2003.

So I just killed two of Graces’ birds with one stone! Gavin did not sleep with MJ, and in 1993 Culkin & Barnes and everyone else slept in their clothes or pajamas!

Here is part of Culkin’s cross examination testimony against Prosecutor Ron Zonen regarding his “sleeping arrangements” at Neverland.

Q. Mr. Culkin, the question was, did you ever share a bed with Mr. Jackson –

A. Yes.

Q. — the two of you by yourself, prior to going to Bermuda?

A. If I remember correctly, probably, yes.

Q. On approximately how many occasions did you and Mr. Jackson share a bed the entire night prior to going to Bermuda?

A. A handful of times.

Q. Was it your expectation that while in Bermuda you would be sharing a hotel room and a bed with Mr. Jackson?

A. I don’t remember it being like an expectation. It was — I may have fallen asleep in the same bed with him there, but it was just as likely I’d fall asleep on the couch watching T.V.

Q. You might have fallen asleep in the bed with Mr. Jackson in Bermuda?

A. I might have fallen asleep on his bed, yes.

Q. All right. On how many of those occasions were you there by yourself without any sibling, alone, without any sibling at all?

A. I don’t really remember. But most every time I was there, I was there with my siblings. And most every time I was with my siblings, they were, like, with me the entire time.

Q. In fact, none of your brothers ever shared a bed with Mr. Jackson by themselves either, did they?

A. I’m not sure if that’s true. But I don’t –I don’t know. Sometimes I would — I wouldn’t fall asleep. I’d be up for a little bit longer and, you know, my brothers would fall asleep who knows where.

Q. But there were occasions when you went to Neverland without your siblings and without your parents; is that right?

A. I think I took one trip there where I arrived there before my family did, for like a day or two, and then they showed up.

Q. Up until the age of, say, 14, are you telling us every time you went to Neverland you were with your parents and your siblings?

A. In some kind of combination of siblings and parents, yes.

Q. You never once went to Neverland by yourself?

A. Like I said, I think I showed up — I showed up there once, and it was like a day or two and then my family met me there.


A. It would be — I slept in his room about as often as I fell asleep anywhere. Like, I fell asleep — I would flop down – we’d fall asleep in the movie theater. He has beds in the movie theater. I’d flop down and fall asleep there. I’ve fallen asleep in the video game machines before. I mean, I’ve — I would go and play there basically until I’d just run myself out, and I would just flop down wherever I needed to.

Q. And you’d be pretty exhausted and go fast asleep; is that right?

A. Yeah, I mean, that would happen. I’d wear myself out and fall asleep, just like any kid would.

Q. While you were asleep as a nine-year-old kid who had run himself ragged, you wouldn’t know what happened while you were asleep, right? (This question is an obvious attempt by the prosecution to imply that MJ may have molested Culkin in his sleep, and Culkin wouldn’t have known about it.)

A. I find that unlikely.

Q. Well, but you just told us that sometimes you’d be so exhausted after a day of playing you’d fall asleep on a machine.

A. Yeah, but I think I’d realize if something like that was happening to me.

Q. Yes? And on many of those occasions, you would fall asleep in his bed?

A. It would happen.

Q. So you would have no recollection at all, of all of your visits to Neverland, of ever actually making arrangements to simply go to bed like anybody else, putting on pajamas and crawling into bed and turning out the light?

A. I never really wore pajamas. But at the same time, it was something like — I mean, occasionally, yeah, I’d have to — like, we’d have to wake up early in the morning because – for whatever reason, because I’d have to — because we were going to be leaving in the morning or whatever. I mean, sometimes I was put on a schedule.

Q. Mr. Culkin, as a nine-year-old child, what did you wear to bed?

A. I wore my clothes.

Q. You would just wear whatever you were wearing during the day?

A. Yeah.

Q. Every single night?

A. Up until I was about 17 years old. That’s when I kind of discovered what pajamas were.

Q. And you did that at home as well?

A. Yeah.

Q. Whatever you were wearing?

A. I always fell asleep in jeans and socks and a T-shirt.

Q. All right. So whenever you were at Neverland, you would crawl into bed in jeans and socks and a T-shirt?

A. Yeah.

Here is the cross examination of Brett Barnes by Zonen:

Q. When you slept with Mr. Jackson in the same bed, what would you wear?

A. Pajama pants, T-shirt, pajama top sometimes.

Q. Always?

A. Well, always pajama pants, always a T-shirt.

Q. And Mr. Jackson?

A. Exactly the same thing.

Q. Always pajamas and pajama bottoms?

A. Uh-huh.

Then, when asked if she thinks it’s ok to assume and predict guilt, she completely contradicts the very basis of her TV show (which is to predict the guilt of whoever she’s bullying that night) by saying “there is no court of public opinion”. It’s funny that she says that! In Charles Thompson’s most recent masterpiece exposing media bias, he writes the following:

When both sides rested jurors were told that if they found reasonable doubt, they had to acquit. Anybody who had been paying attention to proceedings could see that the doubt was so far beyond reasonable it wasn’t even funny. Almost every single prosecution witness either perjured themselves or wound up helping the defense. There wasn’t a shred of evidence connecting Jackson to any crime and there wasn’t a single credible witness connecting him to a crime either.

But that didn’t stop journalists and pundits from predicting guilty verdicts, CNN‘s Nancy Grace leading the way. Defense attorney Robert Shapiro, who had once represented the Chandler family, stated with certainty on CNN, “He’s going to be convicted.” Ex-prosecutor Wendy Murphy told Fox News, “There is no question we will see convictions here.”

Now, let me segue into another two additional examples of Grace predicting a defendant’s guilt, and I’ll return to MJ later on.

A.) First, let’s discuss the case of Melinda Duckett. Nancy Grace is currently facing a “wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress” civil lawsuit, which was filed in November 2006 by the Estate of Melinda Duckett. On September 7th, 2006, Grace interviewed the 21 year old mother of a missing two year old boy, and publicly berated her on her tv show. Duckett reported to police that her son disappeared from a bedroom of their garden-level apartment. (To this day, his remains have never been found.) Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect at the time of Grace’s interview, but nevertheless Grace presumed that Melinda was guilty of foul play and conducted her interview accordingly. At one point, Grace implied that Duckett was “hiding something” (most likely critical information about the timeline or her son’s whereabouts). Embarrassed and humiliated at the thought that people would watch her interview and assume that she was guilty of murdering her own son, Duckett committed suicide the next day, before the show aired. Not wanting to watch a ratings bonanza go to waste, CNN even had the callousness to air Duckett’s interview with Grace, as originally scheduled, on the day when Duckett committed suicide! Duckett’s family blamed Grace, and the media in general, for pushing Duckett over the edge. They issued the following statement: “Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end.” The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace’s aggressive questioning so traumatized Duckett that she committed suicide, and that CNN’s decision to air the interview after Duckett’s suicide traumatized her family.



And if you’re wondering how Grace and CNN reacted to the controversy, then look no further than the emails that lawyers for Duckett’s estate obtained prior to Grace’s deposition. . The emails (which were sent by a network producer) state that CNN and Grace were “more concerned about ratings than the human beings involved,” and that the show’s audience actually grew due to Grace’s grilling of the mother. “Audience loved it,” wrote producer Clark Goldband, describing Grace’s performance as “fiery.” Duckett’s lawyer argued in a court filing that “Ms. Grace knew exactly what she was doing when she took advantage of a scared, confused and mentally ill woman who was under tremendous amounts of stress“. Duckett’s lawyers also claim the show’s producers knew Melinda Duckett was emotionally unstable but tricked her into appearing on the show — against her lawyer’s wishes — by promising to broadcast photos of the missing boy. He claimed that Grace, using her skills as a former prosecutor, hoped to “intimidate and frighten Melinda Duckett, perhaps into giving an on-air confession.” As a result, he alleged in the filing, “Melinda killed herself.” So let’s stop for a minute…………….Grace & CNN allegedly “tricked” Duckett into giving the interview? Does that modus operandi sound familiar? It definitely does sound familiar to MJ fans, because that’s how Martin Bashir and ITV snagged interviews with MJ, Princess Diana, and the father of a missing girl who would successfully get Bashir reprimanded for unfair journalistic practices! (Bashir had promised to give the father information about the whereabouts of his daughter in return for an interview)

In January 2010 Grace was ordered to give her deposition on camera, almost 4 years after the civil lawsuit was filed. (Wow, these civil lawsuits can take years to make it to trial, huh? No wonder MJ’s insurance carrier settled his lawsuit without his consent! They didn’t want the bad press to hover over his career until the start of the trial!) Grace and her legal team attempted to prevent the videotaping of her deposition so that clips wouldn’t leak to the public in the future and cause Grace any “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and undue harm.“ But the judge ruled against their request, and Grace was deposed on videotape as scheduled. So what were you so scared of, Nancy? That court of public opinion can be a real bitch, huh Nancy? I wonder if she feels she should be presumed innocent of contributing to Melinda Duckett’s death? Honestly, using her logic, I would say she shouldn’t be presumed innocent, because her intimidating interview pierces the presumption!

The reason Grace didn’t want her deposition videotaped is because she was afraid that if it leaked, the public would see the tape and judge her guilt based on her body language and demeanor. Many MJ haters have used his 1996 deposition to do the same thing. When MJ is asked about whether he molested Brett Barnes, he grimaces and puts his hands over his face. MJ haters view that as a sign of being “nervous”, and thus being guilty, when his reaction is based solely on the sheer absurdity of being accused of molestation! (And for the record, Brett Barnes never accused MJ of molestation! Several former Neverland employees did, but they were thoroughly discredited during MJ’s trial).

Based on what witnesses to her deposition have reported, it’s a good thing that the videotape deposition is sealed, because Grace was a hot mess!

B.) An additional example of Grace’s unprofessional and despicable behavior is her public lynching of the three Duke Lacrosse players who were charged with rape in March 2006. As expected, she took a pro-prosecution slant in her reporting, and continued to do so despite an overwhelming amount of exculpatory evidence in favor of the Duke players. When the charges against them were dropped, instead of showing some class and publicly apologizing to the players, Grace took the night off and let her co-host Jane Velez-Mitchell (who provided heavily biased reports on MJ to Grace during his trial) announce the news for her! What a coward! Comedy Central’s John Stewart brutally mocked her during an episode of “The Daily Show”. It shows a chronological timeline of her coverage as she attempted to sway public opinion on the guilt of the players even AFTER no DNA was found at the crime scene! You could easily replace “Duke Lacrosse Players” with “Michael Jackson” and everything would be the same!

Ironically, in the clip she tried to censure a defense attorney about “deciding the outcome of the case based on all of the defense filings”. But in the aforementioned CBS interview, she said it was “ok” for her to “pierce the presumption of innocence” once she hears all of the prosecution’s filings! Her hypocrisy is unbelievable!

OK, now back to Michael Jackson!!! In that aforementioned CBS interview, Grace says that we need to “give the jury a little credit” when deciding verdicts. However, shortly after the MJ verdicts were announced, Grace didn’t want to give the jury any credit! And when jury foreman Paul Rodriguez was interviewed on her show, she began her usual shtick of berating guests that she disagrees with. But the icing of the cake is when Grace allowed another guest to make personal attacks on the jury! Charles Thompson describes these occurrences below:

Within minutes of the announcement, Nancy Grace appeared on CourtTV to allege that jurors had been seduced by Jackson’s fame and bizarrely claim that the prosecution’s only weak link had been Janet Arvizo.

“I’m having a crow sandwich right now,” she said. “It doesn’t taste very good. But you know what? I’m also not surprised. I thought that celebrity is such a big factor. When you think you know somebody, when you have watched their concerts, listened to their records, read the lyrics, believed they were coming from somebody’s heart… Jackson is very charismatic, although he never took the stand. That has an effect on this jury.

“I’m not gonna throw a stone at the mom, although I think she was the weak link in the state’s case, but the reality is I’m not surprised. I thought that the jury would vote in favor of the similar transaction witnesses. Apparently the defense overwhelmed them with the cross-examining of the mother. I think it boils down to that, plain and simple.”

Grace later stated that Jackson was ‘not guilty by reason of celebrity’ and was seen attempting to hound jury foreman Paul Rodriguez into saying he believed Jackson had molested children. One of Grace’s guests, psychoanalyst Bethany Marshall, leveled personal attacks towards one female juror, saying, “This is a woman who has no life.”

Now, going back to Grace’s comments on trusting juries, she states that jurors aren’t going to be influenced by her TV show to just completely disregard the evidence in a criminal trial. But the following story says otherwise!

In August 2005, two jurors announced that they were “pressured” into acquitting MJ, but later came to regret it. Stacey Brown claims that the two jurors “consulted” him for help in writing “tell-all” books about the MJ case (although he very well could have consulted them about the possibility of him helping them to write the book, considering he also co-authored “The Man Behind the Mask” with MJ’s former publicist Bob Jones. Jones would reveal during his testimony against MJ that he included lies about MJ licking Jordie Chandler’s head in his book in order to boost sales).

Brown goes on to state that one of the jurors tried to sneak in a videotape of –guess who?- Nancy Grace’s & Diane Dimond’s trial coverage for Court TV during the deliberations, which was a violation of court rules because only trial evidence is allowed in deliberations and jurors are barred from considering outside materials, especially media reports. (Hey Nancy, I wonder why media reports are barred? Could it be because they could influence the jury?). And guess who the juror was who sneaked in the contraband? Eleanor Cook! She also says that she smuggled a medical text into deliberations to show “Jackson fit the book’s definition of a pedophile to a T.”

Regardless of who contacted who first, Stacey Brown certainly did “assist” them in writing their books! When he submitted his manuscript to the publisher, he was caught plagiarizing one of Maureen Orth’s slanderous Vanity Fair articles on MJ, and as a result one of the jurors filed a lawsuit to get out of his book deal. Guess which juror what was? Ray Hultman! The lawsuit was settled out of court in the fall of 2005, and neither juror released any book. (The fact that Brown chose to plagiarize Orth is indicative of the lack of quality of her work!)

But here’s where I caught Stacy Brown in another lie! In the aforementioned August 2005 article Brown states that after talking to Cook and Hultman, he realizes that their explanations for voting to acquit Jackson while believing he was guilty “just don’t add up,” and it’s “very unlikely” he’ll help either pen a book. So he didn’t admit to plagiarizing Orth for his manuscript in that article, but that information was later revealed in September 2005 when Hultman filed his lawsuit against Brown. If he truly felt that the two jurors were lying from the start, then he wouldn’t have written the manuscripts in the first place (and in the process, plagiarize Orth or any other tabloids he was reading at the time.) Liar, liar, pants on fire!

(Oh, on a side note, Brown was hired by –you guessed it!- MSNBC as a Jackson family “expert” during the trial. This reinforces what I’ve said all along about MSNBC being infested with MJ haters. How could they hire Brown to objectively cover the trial when he co-wrote the hit piece “The Man Behind the Mask” with Bob Jones? Probably the same reason they hired Victor Guiterrez to produce that February 2003 episode of Dateline NBC.)

It was later revealed by journalist Aphrodite Jones that several other jurors were ALSO offered book deals, but only if they lied and said that MJ was GUILTY! They rejected the blood money, and stuck to their integrity, and called Hultman and Cook “traitors”! This unfortunate episode shows exactly how “influential” outside media can be, whether it’s lying TV pundits, poorly researched tabloid hit pieces, or shady book publishers.

In the CBS interview, Grace uses these two jurors as “proof” that MJ was guilty by saying that their books prove it, and that they “agree with her but they couldn’t say it in court”. But listen very carefully to Grace’s words. Notice how she uses PRESENT TENSE to describe the books. She says “when you take a look at the jurors who are NOW writing books about how guilty Mr. Jackson is, they agree with me”. Hultman and Cooke lost their book deals in the Fall of 2005, almost 18 months BEFORE this interview was given in March 2007. So it’s clearly obvious that Grace and her ilk used these jurors as “evidence” that MJ was guilty as soon as the book deals were announced, but completely forgot to keep up with the progress of the book, which is why Grace acts as if the books are still in the process of being written. This is by far the most egregious example of rampant MJ antipathy that Grace exuded in her interview.

Grace goes on to say that every night on her show, she “meticulously goes over and reports exactly what happened in the courtroom”. Well, anyone who has read this far into the article will know that that statement is so absurd it is not even worth analyzing. But I’ll admit that there is some truth to that statement: the only reason she “meticulously” goes over what happened in the courtroom is so that she’ll know exactly what exculpatory evidence to omit from her show in her rush to convict defendants in the court of public opinion!

Now, I can quote from a lot of Grace’s critics as to how they really feel about her tactics, but the great Tom Mesereau sums it all up so succinctly in this excerpt:

Grace’s unique style has turned her into a TV caricature, on “Saturday Night Live,” “Boston Legal,” even “Law and Order: Criminal Intent.” But a number of defense attorneys like Tom Mesereau are not amused

“She is not a newscaster and she’s not a legal analyst,” Mesereau, who successfully defended Michael Jackson on child molestation charges, said. “She is at best an entertainer. I do not have a problem with people with very different points of view from me, as long as they do it with integrity and with some knowledge. She was not coming from a place of integrity or knowledge. She wanted to spin ratings. She wanted to be outrageous.”

Here is some additional dirt that I found on Grace! She has a horrendous history of prosecutorial misconduct as a federal prosecutor! Professor Jonathan Turley wrote a scathing rebuke of Grace’s tactics on his blog a few years ago. Here is an excerpt:

Before becoming a CNN and Court TV anchor, she was a notorious prosecutor in Alabama. In a blistering 2005 federal appeals opinion, Judge William H. Pryor Jr., a conservative former Alabama attorney general, found that Grace had “played fast and loose” with core ethical rules in a 1990 triple-murder case. Like Nifong, Grace was accused of not disclosing critical evidence (the existence of other suspects) as well as knowingly permitting a detective to testify falsely under oath. The Georgia Supreme Court also reprimanded her for withholding evidence and for making improper statements in a 1997 arson and murder case. The court overturned the conviction in that case and found that Grace’s behavior “demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness and was inexcusable.” She faced similar claims in other cases.
You might have expected Grace to suffer the same fate as Nifong. Instead, she has her own show on CNN, and the network celebrates her as “one of television’s most respected legal analysts.” On TV, she displays the same style she had in the courtroom. (In the Duke case, her presumed-guilty approach was evident early on, when she declared: “I’m so glad they didn’t miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape.”) The Grace effect is not lost on aspiring young prosecutors who struggle to outdo one another as camera-ready, take-no-prisoners avengers of justice. Grace’s controversial career also shows how prosecutors can routinely push the envelope without fear of any professional consequences. Often this does not mean violating an ethics rule, but using legally valid charges toward unjust ends.

There are plenty of other examples of Grace’s unprofessionalism, and for more details, please read the descriptions that are posted on this “Students Against Nancy Grace” facebook page.

Recently, Grace has (somewhat) acknowledged her terrible behavior and has attempted to make amends for what she has done. She recently made a large donation to a ministry that helps to take care of adults with disabilities. There was something that she said that definitely caught my ears! Here is her quote from her TV show:

“We all know I’ve been pretty mean in the courtroom and out, so this may be my only ticket to heaven.”

Well Nancy, you HAVE been pretty mean in and out of the courtroom, but I’m glad that you’re finally stepping up and confessing to everyone what we already know! Better late than never! Here is the link:

As you can see, it’s very easy for these overpaid legal “entertainers” to intentionally manipulate the facts and spoon-feed anti-MJ propaganda to a naïve and gullible public, of which very few will have the motivation and mental acuity to perform their own research and not rely solely on the media. MJ fans can easily name all of the “usual suspects” in the media who for years have profited off of MJ’s demise, but it would be foolish to claim that there aren’t any objective lawyers who accurately reported the case. Two of them that come to mind are Fox News Legal Analyst Jonna Spilbor and CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen.

During the trial, Cohen and Spilbor both wrote several objective, factual columns which detailed how the prosecution witnesses were obliterated under cross-examination, and both were highly critical of Sneddon. (In fact, Cohen described the prosecution team as “bush league”, which is a derogatory term that means “of inferior or unprofessional quality”.)

      

Open this link, and beginning on page 12, with the “Can Jackson Get A Fair Trial?” column, Cohen writes a weekly column (with some weeks having multiple columns, which are far too numerous to be listed here). They end on page 10 (you have to go backwards). He called the trial exactly how he saw it, just like a sports announcer (for proof of this, read the “Bad Evidence” column), and after the trial he offered some loving, yet CONSTRUCTIVE advice for MJ, which we can all agree is FAIR. The only complaint with Cohen was the fact that he referred to MJ as a “freak” several times throughout the trial, which was unprofessional. If MJ was obese, would he have called him fat? I don’t think so! But his objective coverage more than makes up for that slight oversight.

Jonna Spilbor started writing about the MJ trial in May 2004, with her “The Michael Jackson Case” column, where she blasts Sneddon for using a grand jury instead of a preliminary hearing to indict MJ. (Remember, at a grand jury hearing, the defendant and his attorneys aren’t present, so Mesereau couldn’t cross-examine Sneddon’s witnesses, nor could he challenge Sneddon when he tried to falsify the fingerprint evidence on the porn mags.) She also questions the “conspiracy” charge, and points out the logic (or LACK THEREOF) of that charge.

Here’s her web page. Jonna’s other columns on MJ include:

“Looking for Clues in All the Wrong Places”, where she blasts Sneddon for the illegal raid on Bradley Miller, who was the private investigator of Mark Geragos.

“When the Witness is a Kid”, where she praises Judge Melville for putting MJ’s right to confront his accuser in court above the prosecution’s request to have Gavin give his “testimony” in private to avoid embarrassment. Ironically, Sneddon didn’t mind having Gavin testify in front of the grand jury.

“The Ruling in the Michael Jackson Case Allowing of Past Molestation Allegations”, where she predicts that the 1108 evidence will actually HELP MJ because it will show the prosecution as “desperate” (which they were!)

“The Testimony of Mark Geragos”, whose testimony weakened the conspiracy charge, thus weakening the molestation charges as well.

“The Not Guilty Verdicts in the Michael Jackson Case”. There is one sentence from this column that says it all: “The Bottom Line: A Wrongful Prosecution Leads to a Righteous Result.”

“When the Jury Has Spoken, But Won’t Shut Up”. In this column, she harshly criticizes the two jurors who took book deals to say MJ was guilty. The following two excerpts say it all:

“And, it isn’t much of a leap from there to imagine an unscrupulous publisher who, with a wink and nod, secretly convinces a juror that his or her advance may include an extra zero should the verdict be, say, guilty. It’s been said that “sex sells,” but acquittals? Eh, not so much.”

“The conduct of Michael Jackson’s jurors is downright shameful. In this country, an acquittal should guarantee one’s freedom. And I don’t simply mean freedom from future prosecution, I mean freedom from public ridicule, freedom from suspicion, freedom from having to be berated publicly by the same individuals who set you free.”

(Also, read her column “Cashing In from High Profile Criminal Trials”, where she explains why all “tell all” books by juries should be banned!)

Another legal analyst that I think deserves to be honored for her work is Anne Bremner.



She provided legal analysis for several networks in 2005, and she was also fair and objective in the face of media scrutiny. I couldn’t tell whether or not she even liked MJ personally, based on her coverage. But that all changed when I googled her and found a tribute that she wrote to MJ after his death! It’s beautiful! She’s been a lifelong fan, so it must have crushed her to see her musical idol go through such a horrible trial. I believe that her admiration of MJ forced her to look at the evidence objectively, and after concluding that he was totally innocent, it made the decision to cover him that much easier! She provided links to her two-part analysis of the trial in her tribute, called “Lessons from Jackson Trial”. Everyone should take the time to read them when you get the chance!

One last example of someone who bravely defended MJ when it wasn’t popular to do so is conservative commentator Matt Drudge. He provided some commentary on the trial to his viewers, and interviewed entertainment columnist Roger Friedman. His commentary is included in a long series of videos provided by an MJ fan who uses the YouTube username “LunaJo67”. She has produced (as of 8-16-2010) 64 ten minute videos titled “What did happen to Michael Jackson?” They go through the timeline of his life, and include valuable information about the allegations. When you do the math, 64 videos times 10 minutes each equals 640 minutes, divided 60 minutes equals 10.6 hours of non-stop MJ! What more could a fan ask more?

Part 45, Drudge’s commentary is from 1:20 to 6:30



Part 52, Drudge’s commentary is from 7:16 to the end



Part 53, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 6:49, and from 8:10 to the end



Part 54, Drudge’s commentary is from the beginning to 3:29



Cohen, Spilbor, Drudge, Bremner, and “LunaJo67” are truly unsung heroes (along with Aphrodite Jones and Geraldine Hughes) who deserve to be recognized by MJ fans around the world for their hard work.

One last example of a media personality who bravely stood up for MJ is ultra-conservative commentator/entertainer Rush Limbaugh. On his June 29th, 2009 show he fielded a call from a listener who was “convinced” that MJ was a child molester. So Limbaugh promptly checked him and set him straight!



CALLER: Well, instead of that they’re doing all these big stories on Michael Jackson — who, by the way, I am still convinced is a child molester. Then you’ve got Farrah Fawcett, Billy Mays.

RUSH: Wait a second now. You’re no different than the media! He was acquitted. I’m going to tell you something about Michael Jackson. We haven’t talked about this. But he was acquitted of that charge. That kid and the kids’ mother were the worst witnesses. That was an abomination of a case brought against him. That was a vendetta case. I’m not saying he didn’t have some strange peccadilloes with kids but that case didn’t prove it. So if you’re out there saying, “I’m still convinced he’s a child molester,” you’re no different than the media lying about what was in the autopsy report, lying about all the drugs he was supposedly taking, lying about this and that. We don’t know diddly-squat yet. The autopsy details have not been released. All we have is a bunch of media speculation. This guy’s talent was incomparable! We build ‘em up and we tear ‘em down in this culture, and it’s wrong. I’ll tell you, it’s the first time in my life… The media in this situation has been so bad they’re making Al Sharpton look credible. They’re making the Justice Brothers look like they have a reasonable reason to intervene here. That’s how bad it’s gotten.

So Rush Limbaugh, the de-facto leader of the conservative movement in America, actually AGREES with liberal Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, that the mainstream media has been disingenuous in their coverage of MJ! If this doesn’t give you an indication of how biased against MJ the media really is, then nothing will!

And Limbaugh did not just jump on the MJ bandwagon after his death, as you might assume. Recently, he had a biography written about him, and he admits to being a “racial pioneer” in the 80’s by playing MJ’s music to majority white crowds at Kansas City Royals baseball games (where he worked as Director of Promotions before getting his radio show).

Surprisingly, he got some negative reaction towards MJ from some of the fans, which is absolutely shocking because this was during MJ’s prime, before the “Wacko Jacko” nonsense. Here’s a quote from the book:

“Surprisingly, Limbaugh was a “racial pioneer” while producing the scoreboard at Kansas City Royals ballgames in the late ’70s and early ’80s. He used to play Michael Jackson songs between innings which annoyed some conservatives in the crowd. “They used to say, ‘Where do you think we are, Oakland?’”

So in closing, we can only hope that the media will give MJ in death the respect and dignity they so viciously denied him in life. But I’m not holding my breath for it………………….

Thank you David & Helena for your generosity sharing your investigation!