Child Abuse Allegations In 2003

Gavin Arvizo, 14, accused Jackson of sexual molestation and intoxicating him in November 2003. This case is very much similar to the 1993 case, and it has been widely speculated that it is just an extortion attempt (just like the previous case) by Gavin's mentally unbalanced mother. Her ex-husband has publicly claimed that he does not believe that Jackson ever molested his son, and that the boy's mother may be using the boy to extort money from the pop star.

However, many people believe that Jackson is guilty of molesting Gavin, but they do not know anything about the details of the case. It seems that Jackson is innocent, due to the following things that raise some serious doubts about the case:

1. The police raided Jackson's Neverland ranch, but no incriminating evidence was found. Porno videos and magazines (NOT child porn) were confiscated, but that is not a proof. It is perfectly normal to possess porno material.

2. In winter 2003, Gavin gave his testimony, where he specified three days on which the alleged molestation took place. However, later he decided to change his testimony, and replaced the original dates with three new ones. Why? The three original dates mentioned could not have been slips of the tongue, for Gavin had several months to prepare his testimony.

3. Gavin's mother is mentally unbalanced, and she is said to be a person who may 'use other people to extort money'.

4. Why did the Arvizos go and see the same lawyer who represented the Chandlers back in 1993? Why did two other lawyers refuse to work for them?

5. Why did they go and see a lawyer before reporting the alleged molestation to the police?

6. The accusations were investigated into by the police and a child support organisation in spring 2003, and they concluded that the allegations were unfounded. Gavin also denied that anything bad had happened.

7. The prosecution (the police officers and the lawyers) consists of almost exactly the same people who were involved in the 1993 case. Just a coincidence? I don't think so.

8. Why did Gavin and his family praise Jackson weeks after the alleged molestation is said to have taken place? Why did they visit Jackson regularly during the spring if Gavin had been molested in February?

9. Why would Michael Jackson start molesting the kid at the time when the Martin Bashir documentary was broadcast worldwide and Jackson had become the centre of public attention again?

10. Why did Tom Sneddon (the district attorney) make fun of Jackson at a press conference after the charges were made public? Why would a police officer do something like that?

11. Why did the Neverland raid take place on the very day when Jackson's new CD "Number Ones" was released? Just a coincidence? Not likely.

12. Why does Bill Dickerman, one of the lawyers who worked for the Arvizos, refuse to testify in court? Is there something he and the Arvizos want to hide?

13. Why did Sneddon prolong the investigation? Why was he not willing to give Jackson's lawyers the information they needed when preparing for the court battle?

14. Paedophiles normally have tens or even hundreds of victims; Michael Jackson is one of the most famous people in the world, and he has been accused of paedophilia twice in more than ten years of time. Wouldn't it be probable that more than two credible victims would have accused him?

15. Jackson is also charged with kidnapping Gavin. However, this allegation was not part of the family's original story. Why didn't they tell investigators about being kidnapped when they first went to the police? Suspicious, isn't it?




WHY DO SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT JACKSON WILL BE FOUND GUILTY, THEN?

Because Jackson is a famous and eccentric pop star, who was accused of paedophilia back in 1993. The stigma of being accused of committing such a heinous crime is so strong that one will bear that cross for the rest of one's life, unless proven innocent. Many people also consider Jackson's friendship with children strange and even an indication of his guilt, but of course hanging out with kids does not make anyone a criminal! Many tend to forget the phrase: 'Innocent until proven guilty.'



All in all, the only evidence the prosecution has of any crime committed is the testimony of Gavin Arvizo.
I firmly believe in Jackson's innocence, but I want to remind all of you that the possibility of his being guilty still exists, although it seems very unlikely. I hope that Michael Jackson will clear his reputation in court, and I also hope that you'll consider the points given above (that speak for his innocence) and reach the same conclusion as I did. Thank you.