A look at real crime: A documentary by Aphrodite Jones
Earlier on this page, you read the news about a new documentary regarding Michael Jackson’s innocence of the charge of child sexual abuse. This documentary aired on April 29 this year on the Investigation Discovery network. In this documentary, Aphrodite Jones interviews people who confirm Michael’s innocence. Jones says:
“There is a conspiracy between prosecutors and the media to portray Michael Jackson as the most guilty person on Earth. While no one can be more humble, more talented, and kinder than Michael Jackson.”
Ms. Aphrodite Jones is a Fox News reporter and the author of realistic crime books. In 2005, she reported on the court proceedings for the accusation of sexual abuse of a 13-year-old boy, which had been brought against the King of Pop. At first, she believed Michael was guilty. But after attending court sessions and after Michael was found not guilty, she wrote a book titled “Michael Jackson Conspiracy,” in which she proved Michael’s innocence. However, American publishers were thirsty for a book about his guilt, so Jones was forced to publish her book at her own expense.
You can read the interview with Jones here: here
Of course, Jones is not the only television personality who has faced a media onslaught in order to prove Michael’s innocence. Previously, a documentary by Larry Nimmer—whose description you read on this same page—was also released. No network was willing to buy Nimmer’s film, and he offered his documentary titled “Un-Norland Story” on DVD for sale. To read an article about this documentary, click: Part One - Part Two
Since March 11, every week one episode of the 10-episode series produced by Aphrodite Jones titled “Real Crime” has been aired on the Discovery network. The eighth episode, which aired on April 29, was a documentary film dedicated to the 2005 court story of Michael Jackson. Although, like her book, it has received less public interest than the media’s widespread rumors, it is another piece of evidence of Michael’s innocence.
Charles Thomson, a well-known writer, wrote about media behavior some time ago:
“Even before Aphrodite Jones’s series begins airing on television, the media has already sharpened its sword and started its attacks. The New York Daily read this documentary as a love letter to the star (Michael Jackson), and the Daily News (from the South Coast) also questioned its credibility, saying that all the interviewees in this documentary are former employees of Michael. Both of these criticisms are incorrect and unfair. First, two of the interviewees in this documentary are members of Michael’s jury, and others are also a criminal defense expert and person Jones. None of these people knew Michael and were not employed by him. Second, discrediting this documentary because it includes interviews with people who knew Michael is beyond the ridiculous. The conclusion that can be drawn from what these critics say is that if the documentary included interviews with people who had never seen or known Michael but spoke every false accusation about him; then it would be acceptable. Obviously, this criticism is unreasonable and pointless.”
Thomson writes in his account of this film:
The film begins with scenes of Michael’s death on June 25 and with Jones’s statement that although Michael died due to an anesthetic injection, his death was inevitable. His spirit was crushed by having to endure accusations about his relationship with children and the incorrect media coverage. Jones says, “Jackson never returned to this court. He died while trying.”
This documentary takes viewers back to 1993, when the first accusations were raised. Most of this episode focuses on the financial settlement with the accusing family (Chandler). Jones states that this financial settlement was the beginning of many people’s distrust of Michael. Frank Dileo, Michael’s former manager, says that this financial agreement was the result of Michael obeying his business advisors—who were more concerned with material profit than with the image of Michael presented to the world.
Thomas Mesereau, Michael’s defense attorney in 2005, says in this documentary that the financial settlement of the 1993 lawsuit against Michael sent a message to everyone who was thinking about extorting Michael: that he was a simple target. Mesereau continues: “Why work when you can get money by suing Michael?”
Jones says that Michael’s concern about the image that the 1993 financial settlement presented to the world caused him to invite reporter Martin Bashir to his home to produce the documentary “Living with Michael Jackson.” He fell for Bashir’s false promise and gave him unprecedented access. But Bashir presented Michael in the documentary in a way that would guarantee his own professional progress. The result was the formation of a second round of sexual accusations against Michael.
Thomas Mesereau describes prosecutor Tom Sneddon, who tried twice in the years 1993 and 2005 to prove the accusations against Michael, as “to the point of absurdity, trapped in obsession and fixation.”
Paul Redrigers, one of the members of the 2005 jury, agrees:
“It seemed he was willing to do anything to get us to follow his personal opinion, not what the evidence and documents said. It was like he had a blood feud with Michael.”
Mickey Sherman, an expert in criminal defense and the courts of prominent individuals, also believes:
“I think the pursuit of this case by the prosecution was very emotional. I think Tom Sneddon was happy. Happy. He seemed delighted to bring trouble upon Michael Jackson. It showed such eagerness to trap Michael Jackson that the credibility of the accusations—if it hadn’t already been destroyed—was severely reduced.”
Jones says that the media beat the drum of Michael’s guilt while ignoring the verdict of acquittal.
Mesereau believes that the court’s decision humiliated the media because they expected Michael to be convicted, and they were salivating at the idea of announcing his transfer to prison.
Jones continues that the court inflicted such a wound on Michael that he couldn’t sleep, and this is why he died from the injection of propofol.
Untold facts
Charles Thomson, while defending the existence of this documentary, criticizes it for lacking creativity, not having enough time, and therefore not addressing key and sensitive topics.
He writes that Michael’s trial lasted four months, and to review it, at least a six-part television program is needed. Because in this one-hour documentary, key advertisements are omitted. The 1993 case was not challenged enough. The documentary also ignores the big reason for the signature of the agreement between Michael and the Chandler family in 1994.
(The truth that was always ignored: The payment to the accusing family was made regarding Michael’s alleged negligence in caring for their child. The father of the accuser, Evan Chandler, claimed that Michael was negligent in caring for his child. Michael’s insurance company, against Michael’s wishes, paid Chandler compensation for this claim. This key truth has been kept hidden by the media’s efforts over all these years.)
You can read the untold facts of the 1993 case here: here
In 1993, Tom Sneddon had no evidence to prove the accusation against Michael, and the grand jury issued a decision not to bring a criminal case. As a result, the accuser could drag Michael into civil court without having to prove the accusation in criminal court, which undermined Michael’s right to a fair trial. Holding the civil trial before the criminal trial meant the prosecutor had insight into Michael’s defense strategy. If Michael presented reasons in civil court to prove he wasn’t present at the time and place of the alleged crime, Sneddon would go back to his office and change the date of the alleged crime so that he could surprise Michael in criminal court. If Michael brought witnesses to defend himself in court, Sneddon would organize his attack on Michael around their testimony and use it in criminal court. He could reconstruct his case so that he could attack the defenses of the lawyers. The only way Michael could ensure he had a fair criminal trial was to get released from the civil court clause.
In the text of the contract related to this financial settlement, it is clearly stated that signing the agreement does not prevent the accusing family from bringing charges in criminal court.
Jackson was prepared to defend himself in criminal court and did not want to waste his defense strategy in civil court. The decision by the accusing family not to attend the criminal trial clearly shows what they were looking for.
None of these points are shown in Jones’s documentary.
In 2003, prosecutor Tom Sneddon violated California law to trap Michael. He overturned the law requiring civil court to be held before criminal court. Illegally raided the office of the lawyer employed by Michael. He violated the court’s gag order and stole defense documents and evidence from the home of a Michael employee.
When Michael’s defense attorney appeared on NBC and said that Jackson was in another place on the days Sneddon had specified as the date of the crime, and that he had strong evidence, Sneddon moved the days of the alleged crime in the case file by two weeks.
None of these facts are mentioned in the documentary. There isn’t much talk about the testimonies presented in court in Michael’s favor either.
The Arviso family (the accusers) fell into their own countless lies. Each one’s statements contradicted their previous statements and those of other family members. They claimed they were imprisoned in Neverland, while footage of their free entry and exit to Neverland was shown in court. In addition, it was proven that this family had access to many phones. It was also shown that in the past, this family had lied in a sexual abuse case against someone in order to get money.
A former employee of Michael testified in court that he had seen Michael sexually abusing Brett Barnes, Vida Robson, and Macaulay Culkin. All three of them, by appearing in court, said that nothing like that was true.
The prosecutor was unable to provide even a single acceptable piece of evidence proving Michael Jackson’s guilt. All of these facts were removed from Jones’s documentary due to lack of time.
Aside from these criticisms, the documentary includes notable comments from Thomas Mesereau and two members of the jury, and for those who are not fans, it raises questions about the prosecution’s tactics and motives in this case.
Aphrodite Jones wrote a 296-page book, only about the 2005 trial of Michael. So it is impossible to summarize the truth behind Michael’s accusations in a one-hour documentary. Although the documentary does not include all the exonerating evidence for the King of Pop, it can encourage people who still doubt his innocence to change their position—or to read Jones’s book, which contains much more information.
Source: eMJey / charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com