Talk:Trial of Michael Jackson/Archive 3

Untitled
Please add only comments relevant to the article.

Because it started to turn into a message board, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


 * Archive 1 (6 Feb 2005 to 15 Jun 2005):
 * Archive 2 (16 June 2005 to 20 June 2009):

Aphrodite Jones book
Oddly located the Bashir documentary section, there is a paragraph about a book on the trial by Aphrodite Jones. It's decidedly on Jackson's side and called "The Michael Jackson Conspiracy" to boot. Yet it's called an "unbiased report" -- as if wikipedia was in the business of telling people which side is the unbiased one. Frankly, the paragraph reads like an ad for the book.

It might be appropriate to reference specific sections of this book in a logical, supportive manner, for example, to support a section that the press coverage of the trial was criticized in some quarters. This use, however, it not suitable for an encyclopedia article. And certainly not in the location about the Bashir documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toyblocks (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources to use

 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4212855.stm
 * http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20050615_spilbor.html
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=WOug0pzW6_IC&pg=PA219&dq=media+bias+against+michael+jackson&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html - Gallup poll conducted on day of acquittal. 44% of US fan base say they are no longer fans.

Change of Californian CSA laws?
I've heard the 1993 allegations died down because as by Californian statutes back then a trial could be held only in case of a civil suit, and because the Chandlers decided not to go forward and in California back then CSA required no public prosecution if no civil suit had been filed by an involved party, the trial did not take place, whereas the 2005 trial was only possible because of a 1999 change of said law now making CSA a criminal offense requiring public prosecution under any circumstances. Is this true? It's a fact that seems most noteworthy for the articles on both the 1993 allegations and the 2005 trial. --79.193.73.20 (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! Citations, citations, citations! This article badly needs them!
There will have been many eyes on this article with surely many more yet to come. I hope the community can provide some citations for the huge number of unreferenced statements we have on here. I may try to work on this myself soon. --bodnotbod (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Three years and I guess still not happened. 72 citations for an article of this length, with over half of these citations being the last few sections is horrendous. I mean, yeah, I guess complaining about it won't help, but I'm not a good citation dude.. --Sgtlion (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not only citations, but the article suffers badly from POV and objective language problems. Especially the following paragraphs stand out, but many others (bolded areas worst offenders):

When George Lopez came in the witness stand, it became clear to everyone that the Arvizo were fraudsters (Testimony G.Lopez).[9] Witness George Lopez, who has been a friend of the accuser's family, gave the family money, but had a falling out when the father kept asking for more.

...

Jurors were astounded: it became clear that the Arvizo had left intentionally the billfold there to then proceed with the allegations and get more money(Testimony G.Lopez).[9] This allegation was used to illustrate a pattern of family behavior.

...

She also said that her children could disappear from Neverland with a balloon. After hearing all her improbable statements, when Janet claimed that she was forced to recite a script during the of disproof video, the jury was no longer ready to believe in her and the observers in courtroom asked the prosecution why it had called her to testify (Testimony J.Arvizo)[9]

173.65.216.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Jackson timeline
Template:Jackson timeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Solid State Survivor (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article only presentes the prosecution side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all: My native language isn't English. I know a lot about the trial as I've read most of the 13,000 pages court transcripts.

Someone asks for a citation of Star Arvizo's testimony that he changed the number of molestations from initially 2 to 3. I've checked his testimony. He didn't. You find ALL INCONSISTENCIES in Star's testimony summarized here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/michaeljackson/0307052jacksonboys1.html

Though the layout looks sensational the INVESTIGATION of this source is MINUTE!!! --Stephanie Hu (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's really sad to see that so many people hated michael jackson he must have been sued over 10 times. -Semaj(Michael Jackson fan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.73.247 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Court Dates
I think informations about court dates and witnesses can be improved. One of the sources being http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/entertainment/2005/michael_jackson_on_trial/default.stm InfiniteMJ (talk) 00:34am, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendship, tape recording...
Hi, I found a longer part of the transcript of the phone call quoted in this section, which seems to make things a lot clearer, I'll paste it in, I'm not sure if this is in the given reference or not, it is easy to find various places on the internet, it is E Chandler speaking to J Chandler's stepfather, mixing up his personal feelings of rejection and wanting money with concepts of danger to J Chandler. A longer quote would be a lot more illuminating; it even seems to come down to blaming MJ that E Chandler had not received a fathers' day card; and here E Chandler connects blaming Jackson with a concept of himself having been cheated on by girlfriends. Not sure what to make of this, but a wider quote certainly seems to show something significant about the nature of the accusations. Sorry to paste such a long quote here but just the 'there was no reason he had to stop calling me' is not enough to convey this:

1 MR. CHANDLER: In fact, Dave, I -- you

2 ask Jordy. I sat in the room one day, and I talked

3 to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of

4 this whole relationship, what I want [tape

5 irregularity], okay, so he wouldn't have to figure

6 me out.

7 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

8 MR. CHANDLER: And one of things I said

9 is we always have to be able to talk to each other.

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

11 MR. CHANDLER: That's the rule, okay,

12 because I know that as soon as you stop talking

13 weird things start going on and people [tape

14 irregularity] --

15 MR. SCHWARTZ: Imaginations take over.

16 MR. CHANDLER: Imagination will just

17 kill you.

18 MR. SCHWARTZ: Right.

19 MR. CHANDLER: It causes all kinds of

20 problems, and so, I mean --

21 MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, can you do

22 this --

23 MR. CHANDLER: Do you think

24 you -- look. Do you know what it's like? You go

25 out with -- listen. I -- just that old expression, 1 you know. It came from some movie. How does it

2 go? "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean

3 somebody isn't [tape irregularity]."

4 You know that expression?

5 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

6 MR. CHANDLER: Okay. What it really

7 means is that you may think I'm crazy --

8 MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.

9 MR. CHANDLER: -- (simultaneous,

10 inaudible) I'm thinking is actually right, but what

11 I'm saying to you is that I've had every single

12 girl -- and I am not kidding you -- every [tape

13 irregularity] ever gone out with, from the very

14 first girl to the very last, has cheated on me

Also there is another part where he talks about MJ being 'seductive' and he definitely is saying it in a tendentious way, clarifying that he means his wealth only when pressed to clarify it. 92.14.239.35 (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
Due to a whole lot of unsourced, one-sided material seemingly intended to promote Thomas Mesereau (in both articles) from a number of single purpose accounts, I have opened a sock case at Sockpuppet investigations/Rk2011. Feel free to add any additional accounts you stumble across. We'll likely end up protecting the page as well. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, we're under way. Several accounts have been blocked for sockpuppetry and/or edit warring and both articles are now semi-protected. Back to stripping out the crap. If anyone has anything sourced to add, feel free. If you need help with how to format references, as here or on my talk page or read WP:CITE. Otherwise, I'll continue on my way. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible disruption...
has been causing disruption to the article, even though he was already blocked for edit warring on Thomas Mesereau. Can someone look into this mess please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Trial of Michael Jackson Mike Cline (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

People v. Jackson → Trial of Michael Jackson – The interest here is in the events of trial, not in the legal precedent set by the court judgment, so People v. Jackson is not the common name of the subject of the article. We should instead use a commonly used descriptive title. Other alternatives include "Michael Jackson trial" or "Michael Jackson child molestation trial." Examples of other celebrity criminal trials include Trial of Conrad Murray (not People v. Murray) and O. J. Simpson murder case (not People v. Simpson). Jiang (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. A much more reader-friendly title. N oetica Tea? 23:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New sock case
I have opened another sock case involving editors on this article at Sockpuppet investigations/Mesereauyu. Interested editors are invited to comment. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources
E.g. 'Jackson's accuser, Gavin Arvizo, was officially anonymized as "John Doe" by the court and the media until February 2005.' Source:https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.music.michael-jackson/uPGGeqaUgbQ/9cN3-dTKrFEJ Is the words of 'Poop Dogg' on a Google Michael Jackson forum really a credible source? Shiningroad (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's also a source called deargavinarvizo.com which leads to dead links. Shiningroad (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trial of Michael Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040830084245/http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/ to http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)