I think most fans realize that the research being done about the murder is about Michael Jackson, and only him. It is not about being right. It is not about notoriety for the blogger. It is not about blog or fan base wars. It is solely about the truth and justice for Michael Jackson, period. And as Michael so often said, it's all above L.O.V.E. No matter what readers believe, if they are Michael Jackson fans, then we have something in common at the core of our being. I think that we need a reminder of that at times. With that said, this will be the last time I blog in defense of a previous blog entry.
Today, I was accused of many things by another blogger. The only reason I am defending myself is so those who read the blog will at least consider that John Branca did in fact work for Michael Jackson after 2003, and that Branca had no reason to conspire against him. Those who believe that are looking in the wrong place for the murderer(s). So here we go:
1. "Some blogs popping up rather recently have taken the defense behind the lines of John Branca and Al Malnik of all people with some convincing resources like the New York Times." The blogger goes on to discredit the sources I used as evidence of Branca's employment with Michael Jackson in late 2003. The blogger continues by stating, "Any blog lauding the 'saving' of Michael Jackson by Al Malnik is suspect to MOST sensible Jackson fans....And for one particular blog to extol the virtues of a mob connected conspirer of Michael's, all one has to do is read himself about Malnik to confirm what kind of person he is."
I am questioning whether the blogger was directing this toward my blog, because there is hardly a mention of Alvin Malnik in any of my blogs. There is one mention of Malnik in the Randy Jackson blog, which stated that Al Malnik and Charles Koppelman helped to back a $70 million loan payment that Michael owed to Bank of America. NY Times source is here, Eonline source is here. Even a source my accuser used states the same thing here. Other than that, I have not mentioned Al Malnik. This one mention of Malnik is nowhere near "extolling Malnik's virtues." I do not know enough about Malnik to make an educated decision, but the fact that Malnik was Meyer Lansky's heir apparent, and that he is known as the "King of Payday Loans" makes me a little more than doubtful as to his character.
~In late 2003, CBS would not air the special "Michael Jackson's Number Ones" until Michael publicly denied the child molestation allegations against him. Michael did an interview with Ed Bradley on 60 minutes, and Branca is credited for negotiating that deal. Source is here. If you don't believe the Daily News, here is a source from MTV News that states, "though some sources say that (Leonard) Muhammad was involved in brokering the '60 minutes' interview, lawyer John Branca and former EMI executive Charles Koppelman negotiated the CBS interview in exchange for the network putting Jackson's 'Michael Jackson's Number Ones' back on its programming schedule." Source is here.
~In January, 2004, there are numerous reports that Michael Jackson's advisors met together at the Beverly Hills Hotel to strategize their next move prior to Jackson's arraignment hearing. The picture above is from one of the articles, from NBC Miami website. USA Today reported that although Michael "was nowhere to be seen, the entertainer had been on a conference call with his advisers at that time. Source is here.
~I used the Los Angeles Times article dated April 30, 2004 as a source that stated John Branca was in fact, Michael Jackson's lawyer. Amongst rumors that Michael was in financial straits and that his career was over, the article states that Michael Jackson's "longtime music attorney, John Branca, says it would be a mistake to count him out." The accusatory blogger states that the article is now "defunct", but it is not. You just have to PAY to read it. Here are screen shots of the article so nobody else has to buy it:
Times Online article that stated that just prior to Michael's acquittal, Branca was advising him. I also used both a Daily News and a Newsday article which stated Branca could not be reached for comment, but he was representing Jackson in 2005. The accusatory blogger maintains that because Branca could not be reached for comment, this automatically means Branca was not Michael's lawyer between 2003-2006. However, I beg to differ as the many sources I have quoted above attest to the fact that Branca did indeed work for Michael Jackson between the years of 2003 and 2006.
~I readily admitted that in early 2006, I had relied on Roger Friedman's column to find a timeline for John Branca's employment with Michael Jackson. And even though the accusatory blogger stated that Friedman was a gossip columnist, she used Friedman for her own source.
3. The accusatory blogger maintains that my blog "contains a falsified copy of court testimony in which supposedly attorney LeGrand is questioned by Tom Messereau about the investigations done into the people surrounding Michael at the 2005 trial, and LeGrand exhonerates (sic) Branca while implicating Wiesner and Konitzer. The real court document found at this source says something quite different." The accusatory blogger's source is here.
Below is a screen shot of the accusatory blogger's source for the court document.
Now, please see below for a screen shot of my source for the same court testimony:
Please take a look at the two screen shots and compare them. Is it not the same exact wording? I implore you to look at both of our sources. Had the accusatory blogger bothered to delve deeper, they would have realized that the court transcripts I provided were one in the same with theirs. In any case, LeGrand did not in any way implicate Branca. Moreover, my source for the court transcripts was not falsified. Here is the accusatory blogger's source, and here is my source.
Strike three. You're out!
The accusation of a "Sony-slanted blog" is a joke. I have not posted anything remotely positive about Sony, as I am aware of what happened prior to, during, and after the making of Invincible.
I'd like to say it was fun playing blogger baseball but it was not. It is tedious to have to repeat yourself in defense of information that is readily available to the public, if they choose to dig deep enough to look.