[Diana Jean]

Who is William Bratton?
William Bratton was the chief of police of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).  On June 19, 2007, the LA Police Commission reappointed William Bratton to a second five-year term.

Why is William Bratton Suspicious?
 "On August 5, 2009, Bratton announced that after nearly seven years he would be stepping down as chief of police for the City of Los Angeles."
He still had 3 years left, and he's backing down. Why? Notice that August 5th is still in the begining stages of the Michael Jackson investigation.Why would he be backing down during such a huge investigation? (Which the LAPD was involved with) :

"Although they did not immediately suspect foul play, by the day after Jackson's death the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began to investigate the unusual and high-profile case"

So why would he just back down in the middle of an investigation? A HUGE one.

William Bratton's reason for resigning
"The chief says that when he came to Los Angeles, the department was a "troubled organization" in a "troubled city", but now is the "right time" to leave."

Toubled organization? What could they be doing that's so bad he considers them "troubled"?

[tiida11]

Bratton was on such an important position that he could be one of those Michael chose for his plan. Chief of the police department, close to retirement,  what could have been more suitable for such an usual case? If you ask me , i'm sure Bratton knows most of the details we need for our investigations.

[i_need YoU]

unless Mr. Jackson and Mr. Bratton have history together I don't believe Michael would approach the head guy on the police force to help fake his death...it's illegal

[See]

William Bratton's wife is somehow connected. She was one of the few reporters/narrogaters of the second molestation case that was actually positive about Michael Jackson... I do not remember her name does anybody else do???

[See]

Bratton's wife Rikki Kleiman about the trial:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rikki-kli ... b_531.html

The bias of certain members of the media covering the Michael Jackson case is astounding. The so-called "legal experts" and reporters who should be reviewing the transcripts or observing the courtroom with objectivity can only see through their own prism. Those against the King of Pop seem to have some personal investmentment in a conviction. They watched the brilliance of the cross examination of defense attorney Tom Mesereau and called him a bully. They anguished over the "tormenting" of the mothers of the accusers, old and new. Yet, once the defense began its case, they have changed their tune, according great praise to the equally thorough (and equally devastating) cross examination by the prosecution of the mothers of those who say they were never molested. Why are one group of mothers the object of pity and another group the object of derision?

EmailPrint
These commentators need to choose: either appreciate the skills of the advocates and discuss trial techniques objectively -- or-- just admit your bias so the public does not think you are telling "the truth" when you are giving an opinion grounded in your desire for societal vengence.

[Datroot]

To be honest, if MJ escaped for his own safety, he would have had help from the Authorities, LAPD epsecially or FBI or both (Bratton may have been involved - early retirement being his excuse for leaving his normal job).