Questions regarding the Arvizo case
I’ve been doing some research on the Arvizo case lately and a few things are still unclear to me. Can we discuss?
Basically, I have three questions:
1. Why did Arvizos suddenly turn on Michael?
Before accusing Michael of all the terrible things, Arvizos gave two interviews (one as a part of the Take Two footage owned by MJ’s videographer and the other one - to the DCFS) in which they praised Michael and said there was nothing wrong in his relationship with the kids whatsoever. I saw one of these interviews within a documentary posted here a few days ago, and I must say they sounded very sincere. One would think they were the most devoted and loyal people.
Then, within just in a few months they change their course entirely and accuse him on 10 (!) counts. Wikipedia reads:
"Jackson's attorney alleged that the charges were made in retaliation by the family after the family members realized that Jackson was not going to continue supporting them financially indefinitely"
But why would they suddenly "realize" that? It couldn’t have just popped into their minds one sunny morning. Something must have triggered it - a row with Michael or something. Maybe he denied them some privileges? Any information on that?
2. What’s with the alcohol?
I dug up an old discussion in Wikipedia from the days of the trial. A couple of people said then that “It's pretty much proven [he] gave them alcohol". What did they mean by that? Was there any real evidence that the boys had been drunk?
3. No extortion counter-charges?
The GQ article written about the 1993 case says that Michael filed extortion charges against Chandler and his attorneys. Later he withdrew them because of the settlement, which makes sense.
But what about the second case? After he had been acquitted, why didn't he bring extortion and slander counter-charges against Arvizos? Or did he? I've never heard of that. His team even sued some jet company for wiring the jet with recording devices, but the accusers, the biggest troublemakers, were just let go. It would seem natural to want revenge (or, more like justice) in such a situation.
A googled pic for you:
I haven't yet read the Conspiracy book (I actually spend all my free time catching up with this community, lol), so if the answers are there, sorry for bothering you. But I would be grateful for a short summary. Thanks.
Basically, I have three questions:
1. Why did Arvizos suddenly turn on Michael?
Before accusing Michael of all the terrible things, Arvizos gave two interviews (one as a part of the Take Two footage owned by MJ’s videographer and the other one - to the DCFS) in which they praised Michael and said there was nothing wrong in his relationship with the kids whatsoever. I saw one of these interviews within a documentary posted here a few days ago, and I must say they sounded very sincere. One would think they were the most devoted and loyal people.
Then, within just in a few months they change their course entirely and accuse him on 10 (!) counts. Wikipedia reads:
"Jackson's attorney alleged that the charges were made in retaliation by the family after the family members realized that Jackson was not going to continue supporting them financially indefinitely"
But why would they suddenly "realize" that? It couldn’t have just popped into their minds one sunny morning. Something must have triggered it - a row with Michael or something. Maybe he denied them some privileges? Any information on that?
2. What’s with the alcohol?
I dug up an old discussion in Wikipedia from the days of the trial. A couple of people said then that “It's pretty much proven [he] gave them alcohol". What did they mean by that? Was there any real evidence that the boys had been drunk?
3. No extortion counter-charges?
The GQ article written about the 1993 case says that Michael filed extortion charges against Chandler and his attorneys. Later he withdrew them because of the settlement, which makes sense.
But what about the second case? After he had been acquitted, why didn't he bring extortion and slander counter-charges against Arvizos? Or did he? I've never heard of that. His team even sued some jet company for wiring the jet with recording devices, but the accusers, the biggest troublemakers, were just let go. It would seem natural to want revenge (or, more like justice) in such a situation.
A googled pic for you:
I haven't yet read the Conspiracy book (I actually spend all my free time catching up with this community, lol), so if the answers are there, sorry for bothering you. But I would be grateful for a short summary. Thanks.