[Micjones]

Originally Posted by BigRock

Should I again bring up the fact that Michael's lawyers, who often went after people that made certain claims, never once challenged anything printed in the Vanity Fair columns?

I suppose if you'd rather do that than answer my original question. What purpose would it serve to pursue Vanity Fair in court when the article had absolutely no bearing, whatsoever, on the case?

But it doesn't matter. As I said before, we can throw out any subjective material from the Vanity Fair columns and just focus on the facts archived within them. You're the one who was so big on people ignoring facts, remember?

Convenient. Let's pick and choose what information from Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth, who has consistently vilified Jackson over the years, and adopt her alleged sources and their subsequent information as truth. We'll just gloss over the fact that her representation of the facts is spotty at best and tend to contradict agencies like...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office.

Oh, OK. Because the biographer was critical of some of Michael's life choices, it doesn't really matter that his book is the ONLY place you'll find references to two major items suggesting Michael's innocence.

I'll explain, slowly, so you'll understand.
The fact that Taraborrelli's been critical of Jackson both personally and in print dispatches the idea that he CANNOT be objective as it relates to Jackson and his circumstances.

Taraborrelli's accounts of Katz are irrelevant.

But the Maureen Orth piece is gospel? Gotcha.

This doctor, who you yourself held up as a grand expert, believed the accuser when he said he'd been abused by Michael Jackson.

Does that not give you pause?

Are we talking about the Chandler case or the Arvizo case?

In the Arvizo case...the same doctor, himself, characterized his examination of Gavin Arvizo as cursory. He went on to say that he was NOT asked to do an in-depth evaluation of the boy.

Two claims that you'll only find in one specific book, at least one of which has been specifically refuted on the record by the LA District Attorney. Yet you freely accept both claims as the gospel truth.

Care to provide a link for that?

Again, I point out how odd it is that you're so willing to believe any little nugget that suggests Michael's innocence, while you put on your tap shoes and shuffle around actual documented facts supporting his guilt.

Where are these facts documented aside from Vanity Fair and The Smoking Gun piece that you alluded to previously?

I'm sorry, do you not understand the difference between facts and allegations?

- It is a FACT that more than two boys accused Michael Jackson. A third accuser testified at Jackson's criminal trial.

You mean Jason Francia (Jackson's first accuser)? The SAME Jason Francia who told the investigators who approached him that he had only been tickled?
The SAME Jason Francia who later leveled molestation charges on Jackson? The SAME Jason Francia whose mother, former employee of Jackson's, received $20K for a "Hard Copy" interview?

It is a FACT that tons of porn was removed from Neverland. You can see the search warrant article at The Smoking Gun, to say nothing of the evidence introduced at trial.

It's also a fact that the lead investigator, Robel, said the materials were LEGAL.

- It is a FACT that they found fingerprints from Michael, an accuser, and the accuser's brother on dirty magazines taken from Michael's bedroom.

It's also a fact that the magazines weren't examined until AFTER the boy's Grand Jury testimony where he handled the documents in question.

Just be honest: you have no interest in honestly discussing anything here. You're all about discussing the facts until ones come up that don't fit your position, and then you're as guilty of driving around those speed bumps as anyone, if not moreso.

You're right. And there's good reason why you've repeatedly danced around the holes in the Arvizo case.

Yeah. All of that information I provided is insignificant.
But if Vanity Fair or TSG printed it...by God...it's gotta be true!