[BigRock]

Originally Posted by Micjones

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?

Is this a serious question?

What purpose did it serve for Jackson's legal team to pursue ANY of the numerous people they did for libel and slander? They went after Diane Diamond and Hard Copy. They went after TV and radio stations. They went after authors.

They've also made suits for things completely unrelated to the child molestation accusations. They've sued tabloids for any number of things, like stories about Michael's plastic surgery.

They had a noted history of lashing out against stories or coverage unfavorable to Michael. The "purpose" would seemingly be to set the record straight and to correct what they thought (or wanted people to think) was false information and/or lies about Michael.

But despite that impressive work load, at no time did they ever bring a legal challenge against Maureen Orth or Vanity Fair. Kind of interesting, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by Micjones

Convenient. Let's pick and choose what information from Vanity Fair's Maureen Orth

Do I really have to go over this again?

Try to follow along: there are things called ALLEGATIONS. Right? Still with me? And there are things called FACTS. Are we good? Do you need to lie down and digest all this?

There are ALLEGATIONS in the Vanity Fair articles. Things that have only appeared from Maureen Orth's reporting. Things that some independent person cannot prove without having access to her notes or sources.

Then there are FACTS in the articles. Things that are common knowledge. Things that are a matter of record. Things that can be verified.

For example, that Michael had a bunch of porn in his bedroom at Neverland -- a place he referred to as a safe, sweet place for children -- is a FACT. It is not an allegation. It can, and has, been proven to be true. There are numerous documents, from the seizure reports when it was taken from his home to when it was entered as evidence at his trial, to show it.

Let's try one out.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: your Chiefsplanet handle is Micjones

Give up? That one's a fact! Let's try another.

FACT OR ALLEGATION: you're being reeruned

This is a tricky one! I know it seems like a fact, but it's only an allegation.

We can, believe it or not, separate facts from allegations. You can cry about Maureen Orth all you want. You can completely ignore the allegations made in her articles if you don't believe her. But you can't ignore facts. If Hitler tells you the sky is blue, are you going to deny it's true because of who told you?

I have outlined a laundry list of facts that you are running away from like a taut pre-teen boy with no pants trying to get out of Neverland. The more you continue to ignore the existence of these facts, the more foolish you look.

Just so you know, this is what you're coming off like:

Originally Posted by Micjones

We'll just gloss over the fact that her representation of the facts is spotty at best

Originally Posted by Micjones

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.

So it doesn't raise your suspicion that this one book is the only place you're going to hear these stories?

The author described the strip search far differently (and far better for Michael) than the people who were actually there, but that doesn't raise any red flags with you? The author made it seem like everyone was there to see if Michael was circumcized, when it was actually the colored splotches, and that doesn't seem at all strange?

That he'd completely misrepresent the story while giving this grand detail of Michael's innocence -- a detail that apparently only HE knows -- doesn't make you wonder? Not even just a little bit?

Of course it doesn't because you're not even familiar with what I just described. You're taking your talking points off some "WAYS TO DEFEND JACKO" website.

As I've said what seems like 10 times, and as you continue to demonstrate, you're willing to believe anything and everything in support of Michael. But anything against him has to meet an emmense burden of proof that nothing short of a tape of Michael jacking some kid off will ever reach.

And then you'd just tell us how the tape was doctored.

Originally Posted by Micjones

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.

The world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) said he believed the boy had been abused by Michael Jackson. He interviewed him twice, just for the record.

I'll ask again: does that not give you pause? Or is that world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not such a good source anymore? Is a world-renowned clinical psychologist (your words) not capable of making such a determination after conducting two separate "cursory" interviews with a child?

Because if not, it sure is strange that you'd jump to cite him as a character witness for Michael -- someone he never examined at all. Yes, that's another issue you were wrong about when you were "bubbling over with facts".

Originally Posted by Micjones

Care to provide a link for that?

Other examples aside, I know he's quoted directly on the matter in one of the Vanity Fair articles. I gave the link earlier in the thread.

Read 'em, maybe you'll learn something as you look for the quote. Unlikely, I know.

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

Court records of Case #1133603 - The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson. Just to name one source you may be familiar with.

The Santa Barbara Superior Court site has pretty thorough documentation of things that go through their county. Go nuts:

http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org

Originally Posted by Micjones

You mean Jason Francia?

That would be the guy who testified at the trial, yes. That's three accusers, a direct contradictment of your statement in your post "bubbling over with facts" where you said "Only two kids have EVER come forward".

I mean, right off the bat you were wrong. Come on.

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

Yes, there's nothing illegal about having copies of Barely Legal and "Plumpers" and whatever else he had.

But does it not give you pause that Michael had these magazines (and videos!) (and pictures of naked boys!) right there in his bedroom, the place he's repeatedly hailed as a wonderful safe place for children? Where kids can frolic and play and climb into bed with him and, why, it's just the most loving place in the whole wide world?

Originally Posted by Micjones

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.

I suppose this explains why you've had such trouble separating facts from allegations -- you don't actually know what a fact is.

Just because Michael Jackson's defense argues something doesn't make it true. The defense tried to argue that the accuser MIGHT have touched something during the grand jury. The prosecution called a witness in rebuttal that said, uh, no they didn't.

The defense also suggested the boy and his brother broke into Michael's porn stash behind his back and Michael caught them with dirty magazines, which he took away from them. (They just happened to know where the porn was.)

It's called "grasping at straws". They're going to suggest anything to explain why the boy's fingerprints were on Michael's porn, other than the obvious reason.

Originally Posted by Micjones

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

I haven't danced around anything. I didn't say there were no holes in the Arvizo case. Quite obviously there were, since the jury found Michael not guilty.

You are the one who acted like there's nothing at all to suggest that Michael ever molested children. Quite obviously, you're wrong.

The question is whether you'll ever admit it.