Michael Jackson's Prints Found on Porn Mags

[Placebo]

Authorities, driving an unmarked Santa Barbara County sheriff's vehicle, leave Michael Jackson's
Neverland Ranch in Los Olivos, Calif., Friday, Dec. 3, 2004, after the execution of a search warrant.

Fingerprints belonging to both Michael Jackson and the boy accusing him of child molestation were found on pornographic magazines seized from Jackson's Neverland ranch last year, the Santa Barbara News-Press reported Saturday, citing sources it did not identify.

If the reported evidence is admitted during Jackson's trial, prosecutors would be expected to argue that the fingerprints were proof that Jackson showed the boy pornographic literature before molesting him. But the defense could question whether the entertainer knew the boy had been leafing through the magazines.

full article may be found here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041212/D86TR8SG1.html

[mattclearing]

1. Arnebeck is doomed.

Michael Jackson/Scott Peterson verdict will kill all other news tomorrow.

[blondeatlast]

27. Conyers vote fraud investigation into Ohio starts tomorrow.

Can you say convenient?

[bettyellen]

2. whoa, that's pretty incriminating, huh?

i was thinking all sorts of horrible stuff hen i heard they wre going back for another search. i was thinking dna colllection. eeek.
i think he's going to attempt an o.j. / scott peterson and try to run now!

[Muzzle Tough]

3. Just look at the titles of his albums.

Off The Wall

Thriller

Bad

Dangerous

[eleonora]

4. not to defend him but...

I remember finding my parents' stach of mags, that doesn't make them abusers even though both our prints were on them at some point

LOL

Although I agree, IF the mags were his, then he should have kept them locked away and I'd rather think that in his case, he did show them to the boy. YIKES

edit: and we don't know if those were straight or gay porn..hmmm

[bettyellen]

5. yeah i know it may not prove anything, but coupled with the kids

testimony it's going to be pretty bad for mj no doubt. makes the kid a lot more believable.
and a lot of pedophiles use hetero porn with kids to see if they can get them worked up. i wouldn't be suprised if it was.

[freeplessinseattle]

6. yeah, I think they must been a male version of "Barely Legal" or

something along those lines, otherwise it's just too speculative.

I do have a feeling that he is guilty as charged, he's always given me the heebie-jeebies, but that could be for other reasons.

That's funny about his album titles, never thought about that, guess he wanted that "bad boy" image and got more than he bargained for.

[UdoKier]

15. It was female porn.

And as much as I think Jacko is a freak and possibly guilty, this doesn't prove anything at all.

[Guaranteed]

16. Did you see the part about the kid's prints being on the magazine,

too? I didn't catch that at first, thought the same thing.

[bettyellen]

19. yes, both thier prints.. and using hetero porn is classic pedophile

behavior, much more mainstream and non threatening. get a reaction out of the kid, and reassure him it's okay, even good, to feel that way. that's the pattern.

[UdoKier]

36. It doesn't prove that he "used" the porn on the kid

it proves that he had it, and that the boy looked at it, as 13yo boys always do. I see no proof that MJ showed it to him or looked at it WITH him.

I can speak from experience. If there is porn in a house where a 13 year old boy is staying, he will find it.

[UdoKier]

38. Of course I did.

As a 13 year old, I stayed at some relatives' house, and I can assure you my fingerprints were on their porn - and they never knew it.

[bettyellen]

17. well it has to be reasonable doubt, not an actual videotape of MJ

buggering the kid. Thank god for that.

[UdoKier]

37. I don't even see how MJs possession of a porn mag proves anything.

Unless there is proof that MJ actually showed it to the boy, it means nothing.

[bettyellen]

18. if the kd testifies he used it in the seduction, and the mag/prints match

the story. then it's pretty good evidence actually. not having any physical evidence is always what allows the "reasonable doubts" to creep in. It certainly helps the prosecuter, peope have gone to jail on less. no one thing is going to "prove" it.

[UdoKier]

35. Evidence of what?

It proves he looked at Jacko's mag. Teenage boys ALWAYS look at porn mags when they find them. Who's to say the boy didn't come across it, look through it, then incorporate it into his dad's scheme to take MJ for a bundle.

Again, I don't doubt for a minute that MJ is guilty, but I don't see that this proves anything except that MJ had a porn mag in his house, and that the boy looked at it. Thhere is no evidence that they ever looked at it TOGETHER.

[bettyellen]

No one said it "proves" anything, it bolsters the kids testimony...

and that's significant. because that's all there is, and the all the defense can do is discredit the kids. and depending on the quality of the prints, they maybe able to determine more specific deatails about the magazine incident. yeah, o kidding, we all lokked at other peoples porn at times without them knowing. of course. did we also go an tv and talk about sleeping with the person? there is no magic bullet here, it is gathering evidence for a trial. that's how it works.
even if there was direct DNA or video of the act, some people, mostly fans and conspiricy theorists, would need to believe it was faked. so, no physical evidence would satisfy them either. circumstastantial evidence nailed scott peterson because sometimes a lot of these things add up so that no other explaination is possible, and it removes the reasonable doubt. a friend was pointing out that jury selection is going to be hell because of his huge fan base and long career. finding 12 people with no opinion is going to be hell.

[UdoKier]

54. I'm no fan, but I believe in innocent until proven guilty

beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Jackson, because of his fame and fortune is more likely to be targeted by false accusations.

He brings it on himself with his suspicious and bizarre behavior, but I still think the magazine is pretty irrelevant. 13 year olds can be as greedy and deceptive as adults.

Wonder how the kid will hold up under cross-examination?

[bettyellen]

55. can i ask if you saw the complete interview w/ the kid and MJ?

the one that was for the documentary that MJ didn't realize made him look so bad. i am just curious, because when i saw it, i was completely like WTF? how could anybody say this is okay. the only other person i know who saw it said the same thing. it was very foolish of him to be putting that out there, because the kid had no boundaries at all, and they were behaving like that was normal, and also holding hands and talking about sharing the bed. it's really the first time i gave any real thought to him being a pedophile (somehow i missed the brouhaha 10 years ago.) but this was before any charges were brought.and i have to say it gave me an unshakable gut feeling. it actually made me queasy and really upset. i can understand a lot of people not being that suprised because they know of MJ from Thriller, which was what I recall as his decline in to being plastic surgerized, getting weird and making really boring music. unlike a lot of the country in my hood we thought Thriller was a big snooze, we liked to stop thinking about him after Off the Wall, when he still had some soul and his own face. he was such an amazing kid. what the hell happened? i guess to his thriller + after fans he hasn't changed all that much.

[UdoKier]

59. Yes. I did see that interview. I wasn't sure it was the same kid.

Here he is. His name is Gavin.



And yes, on a gut level, I'm pretty sure MJ is doing things with kids that he should not be doing. He has had his ass kissed do long by everyone around him that he no longer knows right from wrong - like that kid on the Twilight Zone who has the power to make anyone around him disappear if they say something he doesn't like. I think he needs a LOT of intense psychotherapy, and some jail time to get his ass beat and learn about what it's like to live with and work with more regular people. But that's just my personal feeling.

That being said, as a citizen, he deserves a fair trial under the law. That means innocent until proven guilty. Since the kid claimes that MJ used hetero porn to get him aroused, I do think the evidence is admissible, simply to show that the porn was indeed there. But it DOESN'T PROVE that they every looked at it TOGETHER, or that MJ "used" it on the kid in any way.

Problem is, being as weird and suspicious-acting as Michael is, he is very vulnerable to false accusations, and it is POSSIBLE (however unlikely) that the boy is lying. I hope they find better evidence than this, and I hope the boy's family does NOT accept a settlement. If it's true, it should be about stopping MJ from doing this again, and getting him treatment, not about a big payday.

And I fully agree that "Thriller" was the beginning of the end for Michael. I did like "PYT" and there were a few tracks after that I thought were good, but he has produce nothing worth listening to for well over a decade.

[bettyellen]

60. yeah, that's him . i hope he holds up okay during the trial.

if he has to recount all 7 episodes in the indictment in detail. rough going. i can't imagine doing that. especially since the kid went along with it, that has got to be some confusing stuff for him.
the kid seemed to have been hiding what was going on to his family pretty well, he had beenn convinced adults shouldn't be judging what he did and it's weird that so many people say his parents are equally at fault. when you factor in how many people stilll don't want to believe this could happen, it's kind of easy to understand that the parents were very deceived and manipulated. MJ claims to have saved this kids life.
i don't know what happened with it, but early on i heard that they were also trying to compel the kid from the first trial- the one who got 20-25 million payoff, to testify in this trial. i don't remember if they were able to do that, there was something about laws being different now. it's obvious that since they are not going to have concrete evidence, they are pulling out all the stops to give a lot of little pieces.
the twilight zone analogy is good, so many kid stars get locked in this arrested development thing due to an odd mix of ass kissing, pressure to perform and the substance abuse so prevalent in the business. i have worked for a lot of druggies who grew up privileged on a smaller scale, and it is not a pretty combination i'll tell you that.
the thing about pedophiles is, there is no treatment, it has the highest recidivist rate of any crime. the only treatment shown to work so far is chemical castration. apparently you can't reprogram the sexual urge.
a psychologist friend worked with a lot a lot of women who wre in therapy because it was court ordered. they had allowed some type of abuse to happen in their homes. even with their boyfriends/ husband in jail and their kids in social services, most of them still denied anything occured. it would be too hard to face up to the fact that they allowed it to happen for the most part, to keep a roof over their heads. there's a big sense of what's done is done and what's the point of doing anything about it. it's amazing that financial pressure like that would compell a woman to put anything above the safety and health of their kids. but it happens all the times. my brother has seen it quite often that they can't press charges because the family rallies around the man. he had one case where they knew there were videos, and the kid alerted school officals because her mom was calling her a liar. it takes a while to get a search warrant, and he pulled a lot of strings to make it happen the same day. the whole time the mom was trying to reach a relative to get in and get rid of the tapes. he actaually had to charge her with a crime in order to keep her off the phone a bit longer. all the other cops were like, we never charge the mom this is unheard of. but he did, becasue he knew she would try anything to keep them out of the apartment. the guy had attack dogs in the apartment, which held up the search for another few hours. he actually had the camera set up pointed at the bed. and tapes everywhere so the mom knew alright, none of the tapes were of her, and it was her bedroom in a tiny apartment. my poor brother had to watch those videotapes ( a few years worth) in order to write the charges. he had spent a lot of time with the girl that day, and the next day had to watch hours of tapes of her being raped and note how many specific crimes that occured. he was sick over it. but he had been screwed over by one too many family members in these cases to let this girl fall through the cracks. i am really proud of him for that. he came so close to not being able to search the apartment that day, it's frightening. if he had been a newbie cop, he wouldn't have been able to pull it off.

[bettyellen]

7. well they must have found the mags based on the kid remembering...

that they had both touched it. i am sure the poor kid has been endlessly grilled about where there could still be traces of evidence. fingerprints or dna left over, can you imagine? i feel so bad for that kid. he was totally brainwashed. after seeing him on the interview, i was shocked the police didn't raid the house the next morning. it seemed pretty obvious the kid felt he was capable of making adult decisions.

[warrens]

10. My first reaction is

He's clearly guilty, but this doesn't prove a thing. If the kid testified that Jackson showed him porn and identifies these magazines in court, that is another thing entirely.

[sandnsea]

8. And if he's innocent

Then this is one of the craziest witch hunts ever against a man who has only done good for the world. All because he's different. Or maybe *because* he's only done good for the world and people just can't handle the possibility of true goodness. I think it's very interesting.

[bettyellen]

9. he's different because darn it, he just can't stop sleeping with kids....

he's admitted to that. any adult in his position would have stopped that ten years ago.
what compels him to continue when it means he could be set up to destroy his career?

[sandnsea]

12. Because he's innocent???

Truly innocent and just doesn't understand all the hoopla. It's a possibility, just saying. What other horrific thing has Michael Jackson ever done?

[bettyellen]

14. i know he still claims to be suprised that anyone would have a problem

with him sleeping with kids, but everybody, everybody... thinks it's messed up. in light of the charges brought against him before he doesn't understand whu people would have a problem with it? even if he was innocent the first times,,,,,, he would certainly understand the reasoning. anyone could put that two and two together. anyone who didn't have a compulsion to sleep with kids would have stopped as an act of self preservation, especially if they had been targeted or set up in the past.
it's bullshit, he thought he was untouchable. did you see the entire interview with that kid? it was completely repulsive.

[sandnsea]

20. So you've made up your mind

Crucify him. Whatever turns your crank. Last I saw he wasn't even charged with committing an actual sex act, did you know that?

[bettyellen]

22. 7 counts of lewd/ lacivious acts WITH a child don't count for anything?

that's not a sex crime as far as you are concerned?
i admit i made up my mind before the charges came about, when i saw him on the couch giggling and holding hands with the little boy and talking about sleeping with him.
when the kid started in on his rap about who's to say who's a kid and who's an adult and what a kid should and shouldn't do.
yeah, when i saw that this kid had been manipulated to believe there should be no boundries between kids and adults, i guessed it was the adult sleeping with him that might have given him that screwed up idea, and that there was more going on.
if you saw it yourself, you might be pretty repulsed as well. so i have made it clear why i think the prosecution is not unreasonable, and my gut tells me he is guilty,
but i have no idea where or what your insistance of his innocence is based on except repeating that maybe he is. well, don't worry he will have his time in court, and he will be extremely difficult to prosecute --these cases always are (which is why they aren't bothering with sodomy, FYI-harder to prove), and becasue he is so famous and quite beloved still. it will be difficult to find a jury where someone doesn't love him, they will have to go way beyond a reasonable doubt. or have a hung jury. It freaks me out that people expect rock solid proof and they are kidding themselves that this is how it works. rapists and molesters don't often videotape themselves. often their are other adults around who will discredit the accuser and charges are never made because largely it can be a he said. they said thing. sex crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute without DNA taken from a rape kit immediately after the act.

[sandnsea]

41. I didn't insist anything

Just said, it would be tragic if he were innocent. Because that would mean this has been a witch hunt, just because he's different.

He wasn't charged with an actual sex act, didn't know if you knew that. The law on lewd/lacivious is actually pretty vague. They could have charged him with aggravated sexual assault if they had evidence he'd actually committed a sexual act. The charges are all about acts after that interview, so DNA and other rape kit type evidence shouldn't have been difficult to obtain.

And for every juror who loves Michael Jackson, there will be another one whose gut tells them he's guilty.

[bettyellen]

65. charges are often of a lesser level than what was believed to have

happened. it is probably that it's easier to convince people beyond a reasonable doubt that something lesser occured, and its better than gambling and pressing for the full prosecution. most people plead out to lesser charges and murders are charged with manslaughter all the time so as to make the prosecution easier because intent is difficult to prove. that's very common in the court system. it does not mean by any stretch that's all they believe occured. it's what they are gambling they can prove within a reasonable doubt to a jury. if they aim to high, they can blow the case. look at what happened to that crazy guy who admittedly chopped up his neighbor, they aimed to high w/ a murder charge, and the jury said that there was no way to prove he planned to kill the person. they should have charged him with manslaughter instead. he admitted to manslaughter himself. but they screwed up, and he's scott free on that death he caused.
i wouldn't say witch hunt because he's different, it's because kids are saying things happened. i would say if there's any reason, it's the money. and you are right that would be tragic. but i am sick of hearing about other people setting him up, he set himself up woth no help from anyone else.

[blondeatlast]

29. I think any parent who has allowed their child to sleep at Neverland

since the first "incident" was reported has some serious explaining to do.

And not just in therapy, either--they need to convince me why they aren't neglectful.

[mrbassman03]

21. Well, they wouldn't frame a rich black guy for nothing!

Though the sleeping with little kids and stuff is beyond wrong...

[bettyellen]

23. how do you get kids to "frame him" for you?

i understand he believes that the prosecuter has it out for him, but i totally understand why the prosecuter would be. he did buy his way out of the last prosecution, didn't he?
it cost him 25 million that time. after i saw his interview with the kid, i was just shocked.
i would say at the very least, MJ's an idiot who walked into it. after what he went through ten years ago? who the hell would keep sleeeping with kids and talk about it on tv? and then pretend you do not understand why anyone would have a problem with it. it boggles the mind. i am sorry, it's classic compulsive behavior. i can't believe he would put himself in this position unless he was pretty screwed up. what would compel him to do this?

[fujiyama]

64. He's black?

You couldn't have fooled me. :silly:

[blondeatlast]

28. Not saying he's guilty, but it's just WRONG for an adult to be

sleeping in the same bed with children if they aren't relatives (of course, it could be with relatives, but I'm sure you can see my point).

And I still have nothing but disdain for the parents who apparently let this happen even after the FIRST allegation.

[sandnsea]

42. "if they aren't relatives"

So let me get this straight, if my kids are at my brothers, it's okay if they get scared in the middle of the night or something and he lets them get into bed. But if it's Michael Jackson, it's gotta be a crime.

You do know children are molested by relatives more than by strangers, right?

[Placebo]

43. Who would you trust your children with:

Michael Jackson or your brother?

That's the point.

[sandnsea]

44. Well it depends

I guess you assume no brother has ever molested his nieces or nephews.

[Placebo]

45. No, I didn't assume that, don't put words in my mouth.

But since you like to make assumptions, lets assume that your brother has no record of child molestation and no reason for you to worry about such a thing; who do you trust more to sleep in the same bed with your kids, Michael Jackson who is a total mystery, or your brother?

[sandnsea]

53. let's assume

That's my whole point. Alot of assuming going on around here. I don't know Michael Jackson, I don't know the evidence in the case, so I make no assumptions. I also make no assumptions on my kids' safety, whether it's a family member or not. It all depends on the person and I make those decisions case by case.

[mattclearing]

11. Michael Jackson Vs. The World is a Freakshow That Needs to End.

Can't we just ship him and everyone responsible for celebrity news off to an island where they can recriminate against each other without contaminating our minds?

[bettyellen]

13. i agree about the celeb stuff, but it's a criminal case...

and it ain't going away until the trial. this will be taking up a lot of the next six months, minimum. you might as well get used to it.

[underpants]

24. Anyone heard what is happening in the ERIC RUDOLPH case?

You know the TERRORIST who is accused of actually killing three people!!

[blondeatlast]

31. Good point...

and he destroyed another life (the unfortunate Atlanta security guard) in the process as well.

[bettyellen]

48. why don't you start an Eric Rudolf thread and go there if

you're only here to tell people what they should/ shouldn't be discussing? No offence, but really, why did you come here except to diss people? I don't get it.
You don't care to discuss MJ. You know what I do? I don't click on the thread. I don't go there and say hey, what's up with all the spawning, or cheesecake recipes or cat pictures? Why aren't you talking about what I want to talk about? Why aren't you talking thinking about election fraud every moment of your waking life! Variety is the spice of life. Learn to avoid the ones you don't care for, and let people be already! i ain't getting on tv and calling for a lynching. i have interests that i really don't feel the need to justify to you, and vice versa. glad to here that spawning thing worked out for ya!

[underpants]

66. Thanks

Interesting post.

[Deja Q]

25. Regular porn or child porn? Yon article refuses to be justly descriptive.

Not to defend Michael, but I'm going to question that article's veracity.

(and last I recall, regular porn ain't illegal. Child porn is, and a child would be more likely to be bamboozled with child porn.)

[Guaranteed]

26. Yeah, I missed the kid's fingerprints being on it

too, at first.

[Deja Q]

32. Point taken. I was more interested in the type of porn, but kiddie prints

do rather suggest something despicable was afoot.

[bettyellen]

40. actually most pedophiles start with milder hetero stuff to

start with, it's less threatening, maybe not that diferent from what they see on cable. it would not neccesarily be what the molester is into, it would be what work on the kid to possibly arrouse them. Same as the booze and the candy, it's a manpulative device.
A lot of people are here are really judgemental about taking any interest, assuming that one has spend all their time watching reality shows and reading the national enquire.
i'm not going to apologise that two people i am very close to work in the field of sex crimes. one in pschology and another in law enforcement, . so it has come up a lot in converstation this week. it just amazes me how many misconceptions there are out there about this case. i hear over and over again that he wasn't even charged with any sex crimes. 7 counts felony lewd/ lacivious with a child. and that he should go free because there's no video taped evidence.WTF? it's as if this sort of thing should not be prosecuted or even more difficult to prosecute than it is. i have heard many horrible stories where there ws no physical evidence, and no charges brought. it's still the rule rather than the exception when it comes to sex crimes across the board. and other adults very often lie to protect the accused. that's a lot more common than most of us would want to believe.

[Bertha Venation]

30. How is this anyone's business outside the courtroom or

outside the families that've had kids who've stayed with the man?

For chrissakes. :eyes:

[Deja Q]

33. In our celebrity-centric culture, people like to know. Personally,

it is none of our business.

Given I was molested as a child, I wouldn't mind knowing that Michael get fried if he really has done that awful crime, but I'd say the same for any convicted molester.

The difference is, your typical sex offender gets 15 minutes on the local nightly news. Yon celebrity gets 6-18 months on national, if not international, news. :eyes:

[rfkrfk]

34. anything can be faked

documents from the 1970s, fingerprints on paper, etc
....
If the 'whatever' PD doesn't have, MJ fingerprint rollers, by now,
the whole bunch should be fired.

[Placebo]

39. But why fake it?

Especially when you know this case is going to be getting so much attention and any potential illegality is going to ripped apart? :shrug:

[Iris]

46. Yeah. No kid would ever look at porn unattended.

Yeah. This is brilliant.

I could care less about the Michael Jackson thing, but this is just too stupid NOT to make a comment about.

[Placebo]

47. It's not a normal case though.

The kid's prints are on porn found in Michael Jackson's house. It's not like the kid just found his daddy's porn in the basement.

[Iris]

58. Oh, right. No kids ever look at porn alone at anyone else's house either.

Silly me.

[vinnievin777]

49. I will say that Michael Jackson

is strange but in California you never know the way the police and DA's abuse their power.
With that disclaimer here is a joke:

What did the lady on the beach say to Michael Jackson?

Hey get out of my son.


Vinnie Vin
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1932852344/qid=1086103239/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/103-2300153-1657413?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.vinnievin.com

[Placebo]

50. HaHa

Baaaaaaaaaad.

[bettyellen]

52. wow this thread is proving my friend's theory, some people

will dismiss everything they are presented with. there has always been a pattern in sex crimes prosecution that some usually smart people just refuse to believe that the type of crime itself happens. the crime is beyond their scope of possibbilty. she was saying this is all going to hinge on jury selection becasue of this. i'm starting to see what she means.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

56. Just because people don't want to jump to conclusions,

doesn't mean that they refuse to believe it could happen.

By the way, do you know the circumstances of the first allegation that was levied against Michael Jackson?

[bettyellen]

63. i know the payoff was huge and that doesn't make either of them

look too good, does it? i know the prosecution was pretty disappointed because he thought it was a strong case and the state had wasted a lot of time any money on it.
i would say the 20-25 million must have prevented the most damaging stuff from ever being revealed.
hey, Mj thought it was worth it, and it was after the basic allegations were made, it wasn't to hide the scandal entirely, but to prevent a jail sentence and/or put a gag on any more details coming out. i read they were trying to force this chandler person tetstify in this upcoming trial. some new law might compel him to.

[arwalden]

51. A Photo Of More Evidence Against Michael Jackson

?click

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. Lynching...

Whether or not he is guilty, people's minds have already been made up about Michael Jackson long before this second allegation was even brought to light. By the way, this is from a secretly taped phone conversation between the father of the boy who first brought the charges against Michael Jackson in 1993. It was in GQ magazine.

It's already set," Chandler told Schwartz. "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can
do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."

Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose ...and Michael's career will be over."

"Does that help (the boy)?" Schwartz asked.

"That's irrelevant to me," Chandler replied. "It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."

[KurtNYC]

61. More to that story

In 1995, I wrote that Chandler, whose family brought a civil suit against Jackson and were paid millions, was nearly run over one day when he and the housekeeper were out side. After missing him the first time, the driver turned around and tried again. Chandler's father, Evan, was threatened; he received a dead rat in a box; and his office was ransacked. The boy's attorney, Larry Feldman, was protected for several months by guards from the U.S. Justice Department after he received numerous death threats and had the walls of his office building sprayed with pornographic graffiti. Meanwhile, security people at Neverland brandished guns, and employees there believed that the phones were tapped. “That certainly chilled potential witnesses,” one member of the prosecution team told me recently. “It was very scary stuff.”

http://websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3417

[bettyellen]

62. i didn't see what was incriminating about that first story, yeah they were

paid off, so what's suprising about them negotiating in a hard ball fashion? admittedly, it ain't taking the high road being piad off, but most people are pretty selfish.. if you had a choice of 25 million or stopping sombody from potenntialy commiting a crime in the future.... what would you do? tough call for a lot of people, for them the damage is done, and perhaps they thought that the allegations would give other people pause before they left their kids on a sleepover at neverland.
i had heard they were trying to compel this chandler kid to testify in the upcoming trial., i have no idea what hapened with it. i love all these people crying lynching, etc accusing other people of having their minds made up. they seem pretty certain themselves, but have no explaination for MJ's inability to stop sleeping with kids. Except that he didn't understand that people would alledge things just as they had ten years ago. Who wouldn't undestand that the same thing could happen twice?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

68. It is a lynching. I don't know whether he's guilty or innocent.

I'd say he's pretty messed up though. But he is still entitled to a fair trial and he's not going to get it. Also what is most damning about that taped conversation is that he says his boy is "irrelevent". And you can bet your sweet ass that if someone touched my kid I would be willing to sacrifice any sum to put the guy behind bars.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. If he's a liar, what's to say he's not lying about this? The only evidenc

is his say so. Whereas the tapes of him saying that he's going to get michael jackson and that his son is irrelevant are tangible hard evidence.

[bettyellen]

69. lynching? WTF? i don't understand the full context of this to be honest,

(the initial converstion you quoted from GQ), but seems to me about squeezing the money out of MJ. that's understandable as tey were in sttlement talks, right? it doesn't say anything i can see about fabricating any evidence, does it? they wanted to scare him with what they had- maybe what could come out at the trial-- to the max to get the maximum settlement. maybe they thought they could smear him at the same time to stop him from hurting other kids and still avoid the trial.
of course none of us has had a check for 25 million waved in our faces, so i find it hard to say what one would do in that case. a trial like that is going to be hard on the family and kid, they may feel it's better to take the money and put it behind them. a lot of people do this in smaller cases, too.
i have no idea how you get lynching out of this. No idea. i can see if you said a lot of people have there minds made up, including yourself, i'd have to agree. it's not a jury you or i should serve on, that's for sure.

[bettyellen]

70. it seems to me they felt they had enough evidence to ruin MJ

and that's about it. he had people advising him on how to scare the MJ camp in to providing him with a bigger settlement? not suprising. it sounds like he just also wanted to smear michael on the way out as well, not too suprising if he believes that MJ hurt his kid, is it? devious, yep! but there's nothing here about fake evidence or fale testimony, is there?