Archive

Archive for February, 2010

V for Vendetta – V for Vengeance

February 19, 2010 18 comments

***Due to a bug in Mozilla Firefox this blog can not be read fully. We have encountered no problems with I.E., Safari & Google Chrome.***

We would like to start this blog by sharing our personal thoughts. At the time of the trial we both were busy with other things and therefore didn’t pay much attention to the coverage of the trial. Besides that, here in Holland it was not that much of a media circus as it was in the U.S. We knew about the accusations, the start of the trial, and we heard he was acquitted but that was about it, we never really looked further into it. Maybe because we are not fans (which some people still think is a crime while owning this website), maybe because we both never saw him as a pedophile and therefore never felt the urge to read up on it, because in our eyes justice was served.

But in this hoax everything should be investigated and stripped to the bone, so we both decided to read up on the trial and the 1993 accusations. We started with Aphrodite Jones’ “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” about the 2005 trial. This is a must-read! There is a lot of information in the book that was ignored by the mainstream media. If you want to know what happened in that courtroom, this is where you start and you will be amazed about the evilness in this world. As we already thought before, we now dare to say with absolute certainty: Michael Jackson was framed, both in 1993 and in 2003.

We will give you as much information about both cases in this blog as possible, but to be best informed about the 2005 trial you should really read Aphrodite’s book to get the full picture.

Besides facts articles and the summaries of both the 1993 accusation case and the 2005 trial, we also want to share our thoughts about why we think he was framed and by who at the end of this blog. Please note that everything besides the facts, is nothing more than our opinion, our theory. As we both never doubted his innocence, we now also wanted to KNOW, by researching both cases and see if we could link some things to support the conspiracy against him that is well known and supported by many.

Because there is so much information about these cases, we decided to split the blog in different parts, but that does not mean that the information that is not in this main article is less important, so we advise you to read it all if you are really interested in the absurd circumstances surrounding this that could have put Mike behind bars for decades without any proof, if it weren’t for the brilliant defense attorney Tom Mesereau that wiped his ass with the prosecution witnesses and for the 12 people of the jury that could see through the filthy lies of the accusers and exposed Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson.

THE 1993 ACCUSATIONS

Please read the article by Mary A. Fisher as linked to below. There is a lot of information in it, an accurate timeline and interesting information about some of the key players. Below you will find the key players and some quoted from the article with some additional info about the case and the people involved.

Was Michael Jackson Framed?

The Untold Story

Mary A. Fischer

GQ, October 1994

Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson — another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life. Those allegations — that Jackson had molested a 13-year-old boy — instigated a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, two grand-jury investigations and a shameless media circus. Jackson, in turn, filed charges of extortion against some of his accusers. Ultimately, the suit was settled out of court for a sum that has been estimated at $20 million; no criminal charges were brought against Jackson by the police or the grand juries. This past August, Jackson was in the news again, when Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis’s daughter, announced that she and the singer had married. As the dust settles on one of the nation’s worst episodes of media excess, one thing is clear: The American public has never heard a defense of Michael Jackson. Until now.

Read more

Evan Chandler

Father of Jordan Chandler who accused Mike of molesting his son. Chandler first welcomed Mike in Jordie’s life, but soon turned around and wanted to become rich over Mike’s back. You can find a lot of background info on Chandler in the article, so we will just highlights some quotes from the article regarding the case, to give you an impression of what kind of sick game he played.

  • According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done, Chandler made another suggestion — that Jackson just build him a new home.
  • At no time has Chandler claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part.
  • Dave Schwartz, Jordie’s stepfather secretly taped a phone conversation with Chandler in July, here are some of the statements he makes to Schwarz in that conversation:

“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.”

Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that “he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.” Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.

“It’s already set, there are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine.”

“Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”

“And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.”

“It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”

“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find. All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.”

This is a leaked snippet from that taped call:

For the complete transcript of the call click here.

  • Chandler and his son met with Jackson and Pellicano in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.”
  • At a meeting with Pellicano in Rothman’s office later that evening, Chandler and Rothman made their demand – $20 million.
  • On August 13, there was another meeting in Rothman’s office. Pellicano came back with a counteroffer — a $350,000 screenwriting deal. Pellicano says he made the offer as a way to resolve the custody dispute and give Chandler an opportunity to spend more time with his son by working on a screenplay together. Chandler rejected the offer. Rothman made a counter demand — a deal for three screenplays or nothing — which was spurned. In the diary of Rothman’s ex-colleague, an August 24 entry reveals Chandler’s disappointment: “I almost had a $20 million deal,” he was overheard telling Rothman.
  • Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself — the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler’s Beverly Hills dental office. In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable:

    “False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question. The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened.”

June Chandler

Mother of Jordan Chandler. June and Jordie spent a lot of time at Neverland. They went on tour with Mike, they went shopping at his costs and had holidays with him. Some quotes from the article:

  • June Chandler Schwartz had also become close to Jackson “and liked him enormously,” one friend says. “He was the kindest man she had ever met.”
  • Chandler talked of his concern for his son and his anger at Jackson and at his ex-wife, whom he described as “cold and heartless.” When Chandler tried to “get her attention” to discuss his suspicions about Jackson, he says on the tape, she told him “Go fuck yourself.”
  • At a graduation that month, Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his suspicions. “She thought the whole thing was baloney,” says her ex-attorney, Michael Freeman. She told Chandler that she planned to take their son out of school in the fall so they could accompany Jackson on his “Dangerous” world tour.
  • All along, June Chandler Schwartz rejected the charges Chandler was making against Jackson — until a meeting with police in late August 1993. Officers Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino made a statement that began to change her mind. “[The officers] admitted they only had one boy,” says Freeman, who attended the meeting, “but they said, ‘We’re convinced Michael Jackson molested this boy because he fits the classic profile of a pedophile perfectly.’ “
  • By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson.

June also testified in the 2005 trial, here is a part of the transcript:

  • Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by June Chandler

    Q. Did you notice — I may not have asked this with regard to the third visit, but you indicated in at least the first visit that Jordan slept with you in your guest cottage, correct?

    A. Correct.

    Q. In the second visit, did Jordan sleep with you in your guest cottage?

    A. Yes, he did.

    Q. And the third visit, did Jordan sleep with you in your guest cottage?

    A. Yes, he did.

———-

Q. And when you got to Las Vegas, where did you stay, what hotel?

A. The Mirage Hotel.

Q. And when you got to The Mirage Hotel, do you remember what time of day or night it was?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember how long you stayed in Las Vegas on this occasion?

A. Two or three nights.

Q. Now, when you got to Las Vegas, did you have — obviously you had a room —

A. Correct.

Q. — in The Mirage. And who was in your room when you first got there? Who was staying in your room?

A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael.

Q. All in the same room?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, did those arrangements change at any point in time?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did they change?

A. The second night things changed.

Q. With regard to “things changed,” could you tell me what changed first?

A. Well, there were approximately three bedrooms in that suite at the Mirage Hotel. Lily and I were staying in one bedroom, Jordie had another bedroom, and Michael had another bedroom. The second night, they were going to see a performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.

Q. “They” meaning who?

A. Jordie and Michael —

Q. Okay.

A. — and Lily and I. It was around 11 p.m. at night, and I got a call from somebody at Cirque du Soleil saying, “Where is Michael?” And I said, “He should be there with my son.” They said, “He’s not here.” A little while later, another call, he still didn’t show up. They still did not show up. And I — there’s a knock on the door and it’s Michael and Jordan, and they came back into the suite. Michael —

Q. Now, let me stop you right there, okay?

A. Yes.

Q. About what time is it when your son Jordan and the defendant in this case, Mr. Jackson, showed up?

A. Well, I think the performance started at 11:00, and I would say Jordan and Michael showed up around 11:30.

Q. Now, could you describe for the jury Mr. Jackson’s demeanor at the time that they came back to the room?

A. He was sobbing. He was crying, shaking, trembling.

Q. Michael Jackson was?

A. He was.

Q. And what about your son’s demeanor?

A. He was quiet.

Q. Now, at that point in time, did Mr. Jackson tell you why he was upset or crying?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Tell the jury what he said.

A. He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is with you.” He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun. Boys” —

MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Nonresponsive; narrative.

THE COURT: Narrative; sustained.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us what – Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep with him in his bed – what you said to Mr. Jackson.

A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” — “This is not anything that I want. This is not right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants to sleep.”

Q. Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking?

A. I was saying this. And Michael was trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you trust me?”

Q. All right. How long do you think this conversation lasted between you and Mr. Jackson over where Jordan was going to sleep that night?

A. I would say 20 to 30, 40 minutes.

Q. So it was a back-and-forth conversation; is that right?

A. Yes.

What happened in those lost 30 minutes at The Mirage that made Mike so upset and why did he suddenly wanted Jordie to sleep in his room?

Jordan (Jordie) Chandler

The son of Evan Chandler and June Chandler Schwarz that claimed to have been molested by Mike. Read his deposition here.

The following quotes form the article will show that no such thing ever happened.

  • Until Michael Jackson entered his son’s life, Chandler hadn’t shown all that much interest in the boy. “He kept promising to buy him a computer so they could work on scripts together, but he never did,” says Michael Freeman, formerly an attorney for June Chandler Schwartz.
  • Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says, “very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened.
  • In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.

So it is clear that Jordie found a father figure in Mike. He wanted to be near him as much as possible. If you are 13 years old and someone has molested you, you are scared stiff of that person and will grab any opportunity to stay away from that person. Jordie never did that, he wanted to be with him.

If Jordie really was molested by Mike, the conversation with Anthony Pellicano would have been his chance to get away, but he repeatedly denies it. Jordie only began making allegations towards Mike after they had given him a drug that can implant false memories. Jordie didn’t want to testify in 1994, and when he was asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution in 2005, he didn’t want to either.

David Schwartz

At the time June Chandler’s husband, although they lived separately since August 1993. He was the owner of Rent-a-Wreck, where Mike ended up after his car broke down. At first he and June didn’t believe the allegations her ex-husband made, but both of them later turned against Mike. Why would Schwartz turn against him? Why suddenly believe that Mike molested Jordie? The only answer we can think of is money. And that would make sense, since Tom Mesereau brings up the following to June Chandler in the cross-examination in 2005:

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by June Chandler

Q. Do you recall asking Michael Jackson if he would loan David Schwartz four million dollars?

A. Never.

Q. You say you never did that?

A. Never did that.

Q. Okay. Do you recall your ex-husband David Schwartz asking you to do that?

A. Never.

Q. Do you recall him being five million dollars in debt around the time you were associating with Michael Jackson?

A. No.

Q. Don’t recall that at all?

A. Not at all.

Barry Rothman

Evan Chandler’s attorney, with a history of questionable business.

  • “This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a (bleep) I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.”
  • To a former employee, Rothman is “a demon” with “a terrible temper.”
  • Over the years, Rothman has made so many enemies that his ex-wife once expressed, to her attorney, surprise that someone “hadn’t done him in.” He has a reputation for stiffing people. “He appears to be a professional deadbeat… He pays almost no one,” investigator Ed Marcus concluded (in a report filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, as part of a lawsuit against Rothman), after reviewing the attorney’s credit profile, which listed more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were chasing him.

Michael Freeman

June Chandler’s attorney for a short period of time. Freeman resigned because he didn’t trust Chandler’s intentions. Some quotes from the article:

  • “What parent in his right mind would want to drag his child into the public spotlight?” asks Freeman. “If something like this actually occurred, you’d want to protect your child.”
  • One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he’d interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman.
  • Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. “I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”
  • So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime — that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It’s my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”

Bert Fields

Mike’s attorney at that time.

  • The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, “have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as ‘We have nude photos of you.’ There are, of course, no such photos.”
  • With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients.
  • Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says Fields. “We wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.”
  • Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson’s camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. “It was important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. [Larry] Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn’t.”
  • On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy’s civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first. Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields, “because it wasn’t true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.”
  • “There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.”

Anthony Pellicano

Private investigator brought in by Mike’s attorney Bert Fields to help sort things out.

  • “After listening to the tape for ten minutes, I knew it was about extortion,” says Pellicano.
  • On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it.
  • Pellicano resigned at the same time as Bert Fields.

Howard Weitzman – Johnnie Cochran Jr. – John Branca

Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients, brought in by Bert Fields.

  • From the day Weitzman joined Jackson’s defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense.
  • With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson’s general counsel in 1990, was back on board.
  • In late 1993, as DAs in both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties convened grand juries to assess whether criminal charges should be filed against Jackson, the defense strategy changed course and talk of settling the civil case began in earnest, even though his new team also believed in Jackson’s innocence.

Larry Feldman

The civil attorney that was representing Jordie Chandler.

  • In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.
  • According to a member of Jackson’s legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they’d been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.
  • The actual amount of the settlement has never been revealed, although speculation has placed the sum around $20 million. One source says Chandler and June Chandler Schwartz received up to $2 million each, while attorney Feldman might have gotten up to 25 percent in contingency fees.

Mark Torbiner

A dental anesthesiologist that was present when Chandler administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal to Jordie.

  • Torbiner makes housecalls to administer drugs — mostly morphine and Demerol — not only postoperatively to his dental patients but also, it seems, to those suffering pain whose source has nothing to do with dental work.
  • A check of Torbiner’s credentials with the Board of Dental Examiners indicates that he is restricted by law to administering drugs solely for dental-related procedures. But there is clear evidence that he has not abided by those restrictions. In fact, on at least eight occasions, Torbiner has given a general anesthetic to Barry Rothman, during hair-transplant procedures. Though normally a local anesthetic would be injected into the scalp, “Barry is so afraid of the pain,” says Dr. James De Yarman, the San Diego physician who performed Rothman’s transplants, “that [he] wanted to be put out completely.” De Yarman said he was “amazed” to learn that Torbiner is a dentist, having assumed all along that he was an M.D.
  • In another instance, Torbiner came to the home of Nylla Jones, she says, and injected her with Demerol to help dull the pain that followed her appendectomy.

Mathis Abrams

A Beverly Hills psychiatrist, who reported the case to the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services.

  • Rothman, seeking an expert’s opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson, called Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist. Over the telephone, Rothman presented Abrams with a hypothetical situation. In reply and without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.”
  • Chandler took his son to Mathis Abrams, the psychiatrist who’d provided Rothman with his assessment of the hypothetical child-abuse situation. During a three-hour session, the boy alleged that Jackson had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. He talked of masturbation, kissing, fondling of nipples and oral sex. The next step was inevitable. Abrams, who is required by law to report any such accusation to authorities, called a social worker at the Department of Children’s Services, who in turn contacted the police. The full-scale investigation of Michael Jackson was about to begin.
  • The investigation of Jackson, which by October 1993 would grow to involve at least twelve detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, was instigated in part by the perceptions of one psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, who had no particular expertise in child sexual abuse. Abrams, the DCS caseworker’s report noted, “feels the child is telling the truth.”

Stella and Philippe Lemarque

Mike’s’ ex-housekeepers.

  • Tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000.

The Quindoys

A Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland.

  • Tried to sell their story to the tabloids as well. When their asking price was $100,000, they said ‘the hand was outside the kid’s pants,’ As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants.

The Bodyguards

Five former security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs. The case was thrown out of court in July 1995. As their depositions under oath reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Mike do anything improper with Jordie or any other child:

  • “So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”

“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”

“That’s correct.”

“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”

“No.”

When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied:

“Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.”

“Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”

“That’s right, nothing.”

Ex-Employee of Jackson Speaks of Threats During Earlier Inquiry

Blanca Francia

The maid.

  • Blanca Francia told Diane Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.
  • A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

Brett Barnes – Wade Robson

Friends of Mike that had stayed over at Neverland as well.

  • Police seized Jackson’s telephone books during the raid on his residences in August and questioned close to thirty children and their families. Some, such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, said they had shared Jackson’s bed, but like all the others, they gave the same response — Jackson had done nothing wrong.

The both of them also testified in the 2005 trial:

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Brett Barnes

Q. And how many times do you think you’ve stayed over at Neverland?

A. Every time.

Q. Okay. Did you ever stay in Michael Jackson’s room?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times do you think you’ve done that?

A. Countless as well.

Q. And how would you describe his room?

A. It’s big. It’s pretty cool because it’s got lots of fun stuff to do there. Video games, such as stuff like that. And it’s probably the best as I can describe it.

Q. Have you ever stayed in Michael Jackson’s bed?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times do you think you have?

A. Countless as well.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever molested you?

A. Absolutely not. And I can tell you right now that if he had, I wouldn’t be here right now.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in a sexual way?

A. Never. I wouldn’t stand for it.

Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched any part of your body in a way that you thought was inappropriate?

A. Never. It’s not the type of thing that I would stand for.

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Wade Robson

Q. Mr. Robson, has anyone told you what to say in this courtroom today?

A. No.

Q. Is everything you’ve said the complete and honest truth?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with you?

A. No.

MR. MESEREAU: No further questions.

Diane Dimond

Correspondent for Hard Copy at the time of the allegations. After Mike’s ‘death’, Dimond became a daily contributor on Entertainment Tonight for its Michael Jackson “Investigation”. From 1993 on, Dimond has portrayed Mike as a pedophile in her coverage, paying for interviews and not presenting facts but only opinions from haters. Rumor has it that she shared a bed with Tom Sneddon and that’s why she would have had all the scoops, but of course no proof of that on the internet.

  • Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.
  • On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible. A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false.

However, Dimond had one bright moment in her career, were she exposed people that were trying to ruin Mike:

Tom Sneddon

Tom Sneddon was the Santa Barbara DA at that time, and during the 2005 trial. Sneddon and his mates travelled around the world to find one boy that would want to testify against Mike, they found no one. They had no case. He also was the one that ordered the strip search on Mike, stating later that is was a match, while it wasn’t. There is a very interesting article on a blog that also brings up this strip search and the questions surrounding it. We will take some quotes from it, but the article itself is very interesting to read.

  • If Michael had accused of such (penetration), it can be medically disproven and no one could dispute this. But it is one of the worse crimes to be accused of, even if it would have shown his innocence to be substantial. This is exactly the reason why Evan Chandler didn’t make the accusations to be rape.
  • Taking photos of someone’s buttocks who was not accused of penetration seems a bit odd to me. I was under the impression that Sneddon wanted to see if MJ was gay for their own sick reasons. There were no allegations by Evan or Jordan of penetrative sex.
  • I guess they were interested to see if Michael Jackson was gay, being penetrated by anyone (or anything). Cause remember, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand! But since penetration was never an allegation in 1993 from Jordie or Evan, it was just a nosy search to see if the rumors of Jackson being gay were true.
  • Vitiligo spots “marks” can move, and thus Jordan could claim there were marks, and if marks were on other places Sneddon still can claim there was “match”. Even though the only actual match could be that Michael indeed has genitals.
  • Why do people say they matched again? “The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised,” . Um yeah, the only problem with this whole statement is that Michael is NOT circumcised. Being Jewish may be a reason why Evan assumed he was. Someone explain to me how you mistake an uncircumcised penis for a circumcised one.
  • The photos were pretty much passed around the police station, where most of the officers said they couldn’t see a match. Also the two grand juries probably were given the description and they didn’t agree either. Also at the time, there were articles in the press saying that Jordan’s description didn’t match. Just over the years the story gone from no match to match, curtsy to people like Diane Dimond, Thomas Sneddon, etc. It was also reported back in ’93 that Sneddon wanted another set of pictures of Jackson naked be done. If true, it’s obvious he didn’t get what he was ‘looking’ for in the first set. Post trial verdict, in a brief interview, he admitted that he still has the photographs, and I quote, just in case more victims show up. Right.
  • Had Jordan’s description matched surely that would have been enough to at least arrest Jackson.

Read more

For those reading that are still not convinced of his innocence, let’s sum things up here:

  • No one has ever SEEN Mike molest Jordan, or any other child.
  • After months of investigation and questioning people and other boys all over the world, the DA had NO proof, NO ONE that wanted to testify and NO case.
  • The picture that Jordan made of Mike’s genitals was NO match, the thing he drew didn’t even look like a penis. Also the claim that Mike should have been circumcised was FALSE.
  • Jordan denied ANY wrongdoing by Mike until his father and Torbiner drugged him.
  • The case was presented to 2 different juries, twice they didn’t buy the accusations or anything Sneddon pushed to them…. those are the facts, those 2 juries were given everything Sneddon had.
  • Jordan has said to his friends repeatedly that Mike didn’t do a thing to him, that his parents made him lie. His friends were even ready to testify to this in court.
  • Evan was on tape admitting to a plan, a con as proved and written in the article by Mary Fisher.

The Criminal Investigation

When the boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993 refused to cooperate with authorities, the police investigation fell apart.

Police obtained Jackson’s telephone books and contacted about thirty children and their families. Although investigators allegedly used aggressive interrogation techniques to scare the children into making accusations against Jackson, they still could not find another accuser. All of the children questioned maintained that Jackson had never sexually abused them.

In an attempt to find corroborating evidence, the Santa Barbara Police Department subjected Jackson to a strip search to see if the description the accuser provided of Jackson’s genitalia was accurate. According to an article from USA Today: “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.”

By February 1994, police still did not have a witness who was willing to testify against Jackson. Investigators consequently turned to the tabloids for leads, contacting several of Jackson’s former employees who had sold their stories to the media. For example, investigators flew to the Philippines to interview the Quindoys, a couple who had told the tabloids that they’d seen Jackson act inappropriately with a child. Police decided that their story was not credible based on the fact that the more money they received, the more salacious their story became.

Police also got in contact with Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid who had sold her story to Hard Copy for $20,000. On December 15 1993, Francia told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson showering with young boys and that she had also seen him act inappropriately with her own son. Francia repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit. While under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, however, Francia admitted that she had exaggerated details during her Hard Copy interview and that the producers had paid her for her story.

In the mid 90s, Francia threatened to accuse Jackson of molesting her son unless she received money from the Jackson camp. To avoid the negative publicity that would have inevitably resulted from a second child abuse allegation, Jackson’s associates advised him to quietly settle the case. After receiving $2 million from Jackson, Francia did not go forward with the civil lawsuit.

While Francia seemed more than willing to make accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, she did not have anything incriminating to reveal when authorities questioned her during the criminal investigation in 1994. Contrary to what she had previously claimed (and to what she would claim in the future), Francia told investigators that her son had repeatedly denied being sexually abused by Jackson. Here is an excerpt from a USA Today article that was published on February 7th, 1994:

“Investigators from the county sheriff’s office recently arranged for the 13-year-old son of Jackson’s former maid to see a therapist. The boy was first interviewed by police after his mother told them he had spent time alone with Jackson. According to his mother, the child has repeatedly denied being abused in any way by the pop music star.

The offer of a therapist was made after the woman, an immigrant from Central America, complained about meetings and phone conversations sheriff’s deputies had with the boy while she was not present.

It made her “feel uncomfortable,” she said in a deposition, that she didn’t know what the deputies were talking about with the young boy. When she asked them “who should I talk to” about her concerns, they arranged for the woman and her son to see separate therapists at the county’s expense, she said in the sworn statement.”

In 1994, two grand juries were convened to hear evidence in the Jackson case but no charges were ever brought; in fact, evidence was so scant that prosecutors did not even ask for an indictment. According to a report from CNN that aired on May 2, 1994: “One jury member said no damaging evidence was heard.”

If the case against Jackson was so weak, why did District Attorney Tom Sneddon spend the next ten years slandering Jackson’s name in the press?

Source: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/investigation.html

Questions surrounding this case

How come the car broke down and why that close to Rent-a-Wreck? It seems too much of a coincidence. Probably an expensive car with outstanding maintenance, Schwartz had an alleged $5 million debt and Chandler was lobbying with a film script and had some financial issues after claims from patients. Because Mike clearly was framed, we think this was all part of the plan. Mike was supposed to meet the Chandlers and we think deals were made before the car broke down near Rent-a-Wreck.

If Schwartz was part of the conspiracy, why did he tape the phone conversation with Chandler and played it to Pellicano? Could be blackmail. Maybe Chandler got cold feet, maybe it was in case Chandler would get cold feet. If Chandler would back out, they would have had nothing at all. Dave Schwartz actually has a link to District Attorney Tom Sneddon. Tellem, the PR firm working for Sneddon, also works for Dave Schwartz.

Why did June eventually turn against Mike? Because she was afraid to loose Jordie? Or did June have a hidden agenda? Rumor has it that June wanted to become Mrs. Jackson. Maybe she thought she could get close enough to Mike to get out of the deal and get rich by marrying Mike? Or she was supposed to get close to Mike. One other thing that bugged us was the drawing Jordie made of Mike’s genitals and while it wasn’t a match, there seemed to have been strong similarities. Of course he could have guessed there was discoloration, but the risk was that there was none at all. As far as we know Mike loved to swim and maybe at one point Jordie saw a glimpse while at the pool, we all know that can happen, but mostly that’s all it is, a glimpse. Not enough to see it long enough to draw a map of it if you know what we mean. We don’t think Jordie saw anything at all. What we did discuss is that there is a chance that Mike and June had an affair, or a one night stand. As we still assume he suffered from DID, it is actually quite possible he himself doesn’t even know if anything ever happened. Maybe June was the one that told Jordie what to draw? She was wrong about the fact that Mike was NOT circumcised, but maybe she focused too much on the discoloration and forgot about that. Having been married to a Jewish man might have let her assume that he was.

Why did Chandler approve of the relationship between Mike and Jordie at first and did that change later on, while Jordie hadn’t made any accusations against Mike and Chandler never had seen anything inappropriate with his own eyes? Mike didn’t help him with his film script so that could have made him pissed, but before accusations were made; Pellicano offered him a $350.000 film script deal which he turned down. He wanted more money, to be exact: $30 million was the first claim Feldman made. Now tell us, if your little boy would have been molested by anyone, doesn’t matter by who, would you ask for $30 million or would you want that person behind bars? Chandler turned to Rothman instead of the police, means that he didn’t want justice for his son, because nothing ever happened and Chandler was in for the $$$$.

The thing is that if they would file criminal charges first, they would have to go through trial. But they only had Jordie with a story that popped up after Chandler gave him a controversial drug that can implant false memories. The defense would have kicked ass with that fact. Also there was the taped conversation between Schwartz and Chandler which wouldn’t have helped the prosecution at all. No one had seen anything, the drawing that Jordie made of Mike’s genitals didn’t match so they had no case. They must have known that, that is why Chandler turned to a civil lawyer first because once you have lost a trial, you can say bye bye to the bucks. But turning to a civil lawyer doesn’t change the fact that there was no case. Mike wanted to fight, wanted to go to court and he would have won, we have no doubt about that. But then suddenly the settlement… Didn’t Mike want to fight anymore? We don’t believe that. He was strong enough to go through all the shit in 2005, why wouldn’t he have been strong enough in 1993? The strange part is that Mike suddenly became weak. He didn’t eat anymore, lost a lot of weight, his health was getting bad and Fields even said he was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” The settlement was signed for allegedly around $15 – $20 million. That was the best case scenario for Sneddon of course, since he would never have won if he had filed criminal charges. That might have been Plan A, but for plan B this was the best thing to happen, they had Mike look guilty by signing the settlement (which is BS, see link below) so there was a base for new accusations. When criminal charges were filed in 2003, the media already had convicted Mike without knowing anything about the case.

Info about the settlement

The fact that Mike went to rehab right after that gives us an uncomfortable feeling. As we have said before we think Mike has been drugged and poisoned and if you see he first wants to fight, then his health gets bad, he was barely able to function and he didn’t eat anymore, makes us wonder what they did to him to make him sign those papers. He didn’t eat anymore, was he afraid to eat? Did they get him by putting drugs in his food? Something is not right here.

Same with the lost 30 minutes at The Mirage. What happened that made him so upset? Why did they never arrive at the Cirque du Soleil performance? Who else was there? As you know we think Mike is a mind control victim and we think someone must have triggered him during those 30 minutes. Suddenly Mike insisted that Jordie slept in his bed, while on previous visits the Chandlers all slept at the guest houses. Something happened at the Mirage, we just can’t figure out what, but The Mirage will come back later in this blog because Mike also stayed at the Mirage when in 2003 Neverland was raided again:

Jackson Trashed Vegas Hotel Room As Police Raided His Home

THE 2005 TRIAL

With twenty-two hundred media people present, this trial has probably been the biggest media circus in history. The media had convicted Mike beforehand and the news coverage was one-sided. Even if he would be acquitted, the media had already put him behind bars. Just like in the 1993 case, his image would be ruined and a lot of people would always think he did it and got away with it.

Luckily one of the reporters that biased him saw the light and decided to have a better look at the case. While investigating the case, she came to the conclusion that Mike was the victim in this case, instead of Gavin Arvizo, the boy that claimed to be molested by Mike. Her name is Aphrodite Jones and she wrote a book about the trial “Michael Jackson Conspiracy”. If you have not read it yet, please take our advice and order it, she presents very accurate info about what happened IN the courtroom. There is also an online version.

Aphrodite’s book was a big help to us. Follow her blog and make sure you watch the promo for True Crime with Aphrodite Jones here.

We both never followed the case, other than that we heard he was accused, he would go to trial and that he was acquitted. The book has many “jaw-on-floor” moments and after reading it, even the biggest racist or Michael Jackson hater should acknowledge that he is innocent.

Two thumbs up for Tom Mesereau, who handled the case brilliantly! He would often start his cross examination with:

“My name is Thomas Mesereau and I speak for Mr. Jackson. Okay.

I’m on his side. All right.

Not the government. I’m on Mr. Jackson’s side. Okay.”

This is a timeline of the events from January 2003 until June 13, 2005, the day Mike was found not guilty on all 10 counts. Even though we will try to keep it as short as possible, it will be another long read.

Arvizo family allegations: Introduction and overview

The events prior to the trial

The Evidence

This is a brief summary of the evidence that has been presented.

The Molestation Charges

Jackson is accused of molesting Gavin Arvizo at his Neverland Ranch on several occasions in March 2003

Evidence:

  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo, the alleged victim.
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo, who claims to have witnessed the alleged abuse on several occasions.

Defense Evidence:

  • Gavin Arvizo initially told authorities that the alleged molestation occurred before he and his family made videotaped statements in Jackson’s defense. This would also mean that the alleged abuse occurred before the boy defended Jackson to social workers in February. Gavin Arvizo now contends that the molestation took place after he repeatedly denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. While it is understandable that the boy cannot remember the exact dates on which he was allegedly molested, his original assertion that the abuse took place before the videotape was made cannot be attributed to confusion on the boy’s part because he also told investigators that the videotape was made to cover-up the alleged molestation (see testimony of Sgt. Steve Robel).
  • Based on what District Attorney Tom Sneddon said in his opening statement, it’s possible that Michael Jackson was not even with the Arvizos at Neverland throughout the month of February. From pages 115-116 of Sneddon’s opening statement:

“I believe that the records from the ranch logs and the testimony from individuals involved here will show that from basically March the 2nd to March the 5th, that the defendant and the Arvizos were on the ranch together. That again, from March 9th until March 12th, when the Arvizos left for the last time, that the Jackson — Michael Jackson, the defendant in this case, was present.”

It suffices to say that if investigators did discover that Mr. Jackson was not with the Arvizos throughout the month of February (as Sneddon implied in his opening statement), they must have realized that Gavin Arvizo was lying when he claimed to have been molested sometime between February 7th and February 20th. Hence, the changing of the timeline from February 7th – March 10th (as stated in the original charges) to February 20th – March 12th (as stated in the current set of charges)

  • According to an investigator, the boy originally claimed that he was molested between five and seven times. Gavin Arvizo only testified to two incidences of alleged molestation.
  • Gavin Arvizo’s younger brother Star, who supposedly walked in on Jackson molesting his brother, said under cross-examination that there are seven locks on Jackson’s bedroom door and an alarm that goes off if anybody approaches. Yet somehow, Star Arvizo managed to walk into Jackson’s room unnoticed on two seperate occasions.
  • In his grand jury testimony and in past police interviews, Star Arvizo claimed to have witnessed Jackson rubbing his penis against Gavin Arvizo’s behind while the boy slept. While testifying at the trial, Star Arvizo denied ever having made such a statement.
  • When Jackson’s defense attorney pointed out that Star Arvizo’s description of the second incident of alleged molestation differed from an earlier description that he had given of the same incident, Mr. Arvizo suddenly claimed to have actually witnessed three incidences of alleged abuse.
  • Star Arvizo alleged that Jackson once appeared naked in front of him and his brother. During his testimony, Gavin Arvizo was asked whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has a skin disorder called Vitiligo that eats away at his pigment. Mr. Arvizo acknowledged that he was aware of Jackson’s skin disease. Jackson’s attorney then asked him whether or not he was aware of the fact that Jackson has brown patches on his body, to which Mr. Arvizo replied, “I didn’t know about patches. I thought he was just all white.” There are various pictures of Mr. Jackson on the Internet where one can clearly see that his body is not white all over, as Gavin Arvizo claimed.
  • In spring 2003, after the alleged abuse took place, Gavin Arvizo told his principal that Jackson had not sexually abused him. Mr. Arvizo claims that he said this because he didn’t want the kids at school to make fun of him.

The Alcohol Allegations

Jackson is accused of supplying Gavin Arvizo with liquor to seduce the boy

Evidence:

  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • Testimony of Davellin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Kiki Fournier, Jackson’s former maid. During her twelve years working at Neverland, Fournier claimed to have seen several minors who “might” have been intoxicated.

Defense Evidence:

  • Ms. Fournier conceded that she had never witnessed Jackson serve alcohol to minors.
  • The defense claims that the Arvizo children broke into Jackson’s wine cellar and drank his alcohol when he was not at Neverland.
  • In his testimony, Star Arvizo claimed that he and his brother got drunk with Jackson from the time they arrived at Neverland from Miami (February 7th) to the time they left the ranch for the first time with house manager Jesus Salas (February 12th). As mentioned earlier, the District Attorney said that Jackson was not at Neverland with the Arvizos during this time frame.
  • Star Arvizo admitted that he knew the exact location of the key to Jackson’s wine cellar.
  • The accuser’s older sister Davellin Arvizo claims that she walked into the wine cellar and witnessed Jackson serving alcohol to her younger brothers. Under cross-examination, it was revealed that she never made such a statement in her earlier interviews with police.
  • Davellin Arvizo claims that Jackson served her alcohol in the wine cellar. Star Arvizo, however, testified that Jackson served Davellin Arvizo alcohol in the kitchen.
  • When confronted with a conflicting statement that he had made regarding the alcohol allegations, Star Arvizo blamed the court reporter, claiming that she had misquoted him.

The Pornography Allegations

Jackson is accused of showing pornography to Gavin and Star Arvizo.

Evidence:

  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • The boys were able to tell investigators where Jackson kept his stash of pornography.
  • The accuser’s fingerprints were found on one of Jackson’s porn magazines.

Defense Evidence:

  • The porn magazine with the accuser’s fingerprints was not tested for prints until after the boy handled the magazine at a grand jury proceedings in April 2004.
  • The defense claims that the boys went into Jackson’s room when he was not there and looked at the magazines on their own. In support of this theory, Star Arvizo testified that he knew the code to get into Jackson’s bedroom.
  • Jackson’s defense attorney revealed that the magazine that Jackson had supposedly shown Star Arvizo and his brother, was actually released in August 2003 – five months after the Arvizos had left the ranch for the last time.
  • In his grand jury testimony in April 2004, Star Arvizo testified that he and his brother had once surfed porn sites. When confronted with a transcript of this testimony, Star Arvizo replied “that’s just a paragraph that somebody wrote.”

The Conspiracy Charge

Jackson is accused of holding Gavin Arvizo and his family hostage at Neverland and forcing them to participate in a videotaped rebuttal to the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003.

Evidence:

  • Testimony of Davellin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Star Arvizo
  • Testimony of Gavin Arvizo
  • Testimony of Ann Marie Kite, a former Jackson employee who confirmed that Living with Michael Jackson was a public relations disaster. Kite also testified that one of Jackson’s associates wanted to paint Janet Arvizo, the mother of Jackson’s accuser as a “crack whore,” in the media.
  • Testimony of Louise Palanker, a comedian who befriended the Arvizos. According to Palanker, she received a panicked call from Janet Arvizo who told her that Jackson’s associates were “evil.”

Defense Evidence:

  • Kite only worked for Jackson for six days and never met or even spoke to him or his accuser.
  • Louise Palanker told police that she thought that Janet Arvizo was “wacky” and “totally bipolar.”
  • Jackson’s maid Kiki Fournier, who worked at the ranch during the time of the alleged conpsiracy, testified that she did not believe the family were held against their will.
  • All of the Arvizo children conceded that they had never asked for anybody’s help even though they had numerous opportunities to do so.
  • The prosecution contends that the Arvizos were forced to defend Jackson in February 2003. Gavin Arvizo, however, testified that he meant most of what he said in his videotaped defense of Jackson.
  • When the boy was still claiming that the alleged abuse happened before the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution claimed that the tape was made to cover up the alleged molestation. Now that the boy is claiming that the alleged abuse happened after the rebuttal film was made, the prosecution is claiming that the tape was actually made as part of a conspiracy to improve Jackson’s public image.

Past Accusations

Judge Rodney Melville ruled that past accusations of sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part will be heard by the jury.

The Ruling in the Michael Jackson Case Allowing Testimony About Past Molestation Allegations: Why It Was Wrong on the Law, and Unfair to the Defendant, Yet May End Up Hurting the Prosecution More

During an important hearing on March 28, 2005, District Attorney Tom Sneddon said that:

  • The son of Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia will testify that Jackson touched him inappropriately on several occasions. The Francias received a $2 million settlement from Jackson in 1994.
  • Witnesses will testify that they saw a pair of Jackson’s underwear lying next to a pair of his original accuser Jordan Chandler’s underwear on the floor beside a bed that the two shared. Chandler, however, is not scheduled to testify.
  • Witnesses will testify that they saw Jackson act inappropriately with four teenage boys.
  • Two witnesses will testify that they heard Jackson encourage children to refer to him as “Daddy.”
  • Former Jackson employee Bob Jones claimed that he saw Jackson lick the head of a child.

In resonse, defense attorney Tom Mesereau argued that:

  • The other boys who have been named alleged victims by the prosecution all vehemently deny any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. One of the alleged victims is former child star Macaulay Culkin, who has publicly defended Jackson and is still good friends with him today. The other alleged victims – Wade Robson, Brett Barnes and Jimmy Shafechuck – have also maintained that Jackson never did anything sexual to them.
  • The mother of the boy who will testify about inappropriate touching originally sold her story to the tabloids but later recanted her statements while under deposition by a Jackson attorney.
  • The former employees who claim to have witnessed inappropriate behaviour on Jackson’s part all sold their stories to tabloids. Five of the former employees also tried to sue Jackson for wrongful termination in 1995. Jackson denied the allegations and counter-sued, alleging that two of them stole belongings from his home and sold the items to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson, awarding him $60,000 from the ex-employees who robbed him. The ex-employees filed for bankruptcy as a result.

Source: The Smoking Gun

In other develpoments, NBC’s Mike Taibbi reported that Bob Jones has recanted his allegation about having witnessed Jackson lick a child’s head.

Quotes from Mr. Mesereau regarding the admissability of the “prior bad acts.”

“Now, let’s look at what they’re trying to do. They have an alleged prior victim named Brett Barnes who tells us he never was touched improperly. They want to bring in four witnesses to talk about Brett Barnes. They don’t want to bring him in. Because the moment they bring him in, they’re done. So they want to bring in allegedly four honest witnesses – I guess they’re vouching for their credibility – to testify that Mr. Barnes was improperly touched. Who are their main witnesses? Their main witnesses sued Mr. Jackson in the mid ’90s… At numerous times during that six-month trial, the trial Judge made findings that the plaintiffs were lying, not being candid, changing their stories, even leaving the bench on a couple of occasions. And when the dust settled, the jury returned a verdict for Mr. Jackson, awarded Mr. Jackson damages, because the plaintiffs had stole from him. The Judge then awarded not only costs, but legal fees, and in the end Mr. Jackson obtained a judgment for over a million dollars against these lying plaintiffs. They want the Court to allow these lying plaintiffs to come in now again and try and testify to improper acts, when there is no alleged victim they intend to call. That’s just plain wrong. And if they suggest it wouldn’t be time-consuming to litigate that issue, all the Court has to do is look at the six-month trial and its length to know that’s not true, because they sold stories to tabloids, they were caught lying, and they had a big judgment against them.”

“First of all, Your Honor, I would note that in their motion, they mention someone named Bob Jones. And in very graphic — in a very graphic manner they told the Court that Mr. Jones had worked for Mr. Jackson for years, had traveled internationally with him, and would testify to all sorts of improprieties with children. We just were produced a police report by the prosecution where Mr. Jones flat out denies virtually everything they said in their motion. He has told the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, with counsel, that he never saw anything inappropriate happen when Mr. Jackson was in the company of any of these children.”

“Now, what happens if you allow third-party testimony about Mr. Chandler without allowing Mr. — forcing them, or ordering them, or requiring them to have Mr. Chandler, the alleged victim, testify? You then have people come in to say what they saw without any victim to confirm it. And what happened back in those days? In summary, this is what happened: Chandler’s parents had been divorced in 1986. The father had given up custody of the child. When these alleged events happened, the father jumped on the bandwagon and wanted to become a multimillionaire, and he fueled litigation. And all of a sudden, you had the parents suing Mr. Jackson, you had — the mother’s new husband then decided to sue Mr. Jackson for allegedly interfering with his business. He had an auto company, and he claimed that the publicity had interfered with his business. He wanted millions. After the settlement, the father then filed a new lawsuit against Mr. Jackson wanting 30 million more dollars. That was litigated and he lost. You have all sorts of collateral litigation, and eventually Mr. Chandler filed papers in Superior Court seeking legal emancipation from his parents. Where is the justice in this case of allowing parents to come in who collected lots of money because Mr. Jackson wanted to get this case behind him and pursue his music career? And indeed, all kinds of advisors were telling him to do that. You have parents playing each other off with the child and pursuing collateral litigation, all of that will obviously have to be explored, because the potential for financial interest, financial bias in a situation like that, is enormous, the motives for financial gain were enormous, and indeed, there was never any criminal prosecution despite Mr. Sneddon’s noble efforts to try and do one.”

“Then we come to Macaulay Culkin, who has repeatedly made statements that he’s a friend of Mr. Jackson and has never been molested. But they want to bring in evidence that he was molested. And they want to bring in witnesses who also were part of the gang that sued Mr. Jackson, and lost, with findings that they had lied and with enormous damages awarded against them.”

“Now, the fourth alleged victim is Jason Francia. Jason Francia and his mother were interviewed by the sheriffs and a deposition of the mother was taken. Money was paid to settle that case, again because Mr. Jackson didn’t want the press, didn’t want his family going through it, and wanted to pursue his music career. There never was a criminal prosecution, even though the alleged victim was interviewed by the Los Angeles District Attorney and the Santa Barbara District Attorney together. And after their interview with Jason Francia – which was so wishy-washy about what happened, they never decided to pursue a criminal case, because there wasn’t one. We have that taped interview – the mother, in a civil deposition in the Chandler litigation, began by saying she saw something and ended by saying she saw nothing. And indeed, stories were sold to tabloids, and money was paid to settle. He appears to be the only alleged victim they want to bring in. Five, Wade Robeson, who tells us nothing ever happened to him. And they don’t propose to bring him in as an alleged victim. They want to bring in the gang that basically has tried to accuse Mr. Jackson and get money from him for years, generally unsuccessfully, with the exception of Miss — Mr. Francia’s mother, and I’ve just talked about the problems in her sworn statement in discovery. The deposition is clear, she begins by saying, ‘I think I saw something.’ She ends by saying, ‘I didn’t see anything.’

“Six, Jimmy Safechuck, who we are informed says nothing happened. They don’t propose to call him as an alleged victim either, but they’ve got the same old gang again coming in to try and capitalize on the case, people who have been adjudged to be liars, and they are. People who asked for money from tabloids, who’ve asked for money from Mr. Jackson, et cetera.”

“Seven, Jonathan Spence, who we are informed says nothing happened and doesn’t intend to come in to support them at all. What do they want to do? Bring in the same crew again. Third-party witnesses with an axe to grind, all of whom have wanted money in the past, none of whom can substantiate that anything happened because the alleged victim says nothing happened.”

“The testimony that the prosecutor wants to introduce concerns seven alleged victims with only one scheduled to testify. This testimony has been presented to two criminal grand juries in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara, neither of which ever returned an Indictment, and it’s been rejected by one civil jury in the longest civil trial in the history of this courthouse.”

Source: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/trial1.html

The Trial Timeline

February 28 (Day 1 of the trial) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jermaine. District attorney Thomas Sneddon Jr gives his opening statement followed by Thomas Mesereau’s.

March 1 (Day 2) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Mesereau completes his opening statement. The prosecution opens his case by showing the Martin Batshit documentary to the Jury before calling Batshit as the first witness. His testimony is followed by the one of Ann Gabriel.

March 2 (Day 3) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Ann Gabriel is cross examined by the defense.

March 3 (Day 4) Michael goes the court with Jackie & Katherine. The prosecution shows a video of the Neverland search to the Jury. Deputy Sheriff Albert Lafferty testifies followed by Davellin Arvizo.

March 4 (Day 5) Michael goes to court with Katherine, LaToya & Jermaine. The prosecution shows the rebuttal interview of the Arvizo family made by Michael’s team. Davellin Arvizo Is cross examined by Mesereau.

March 7 (Day 6) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Mesereau finishes Davellin Arvizo’s cross examination. The prosecution presents the audio interview of the Arvizo family to the Jury before calling it’s next witness : Star Arvizo.

March 8 (Day 7) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Mesereau cross examines Star.

March 9 (Day 8 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jermaine & Tito. Mesereau completes the cross examination. The next witness is Gavin Arvizo.

March 10 (Day 9) Michael arrives 1 hour late and dressed with pajamas with Katherine, Joe, Jermaine & Tito because a terrible back-ache took him to the emergency room of the hospital. Gavin’s testimony resumes.

March 11 (Day 10) Michael does not attend today’s hearing which is dedicated to motions.

March 14 (Day 11) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Tito. Mesereau cross-examines Gavin.

March 15 (Day 12) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Tito. Mesereau completes Gavin’s cross examinations. The following prosecution witnesses are Steve Robel & Jeff Klapakis.

March 16 (Day 13) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The prosection shows to the Jury the erotic material found during the Neverland search.

March 17 (Day 14) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Kiki Fournier & Fritz Coleman.

March 18 (Day 15) Special motions hearing without Michael & the Jury.

March 21 (Day 16) Michael is once again taken to the hospital because of back pain. He then goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie where a doctor explains the health state of Michael to the judge who agrees to let him go home. Testimonies of detective Conn Abel, flight attendent Lauren Wallace & child molestation specialist Anthony Urquiza.

March 22 (Day 17) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Louise Palanker.

March 23 (Day 18 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Robert Cooley, Craig Bonner & Dr Antonio Cantu.

March 24 (Day 19) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Jackie & Marlon. Testimonies of Dr Antonio Cantu & Lisa Hermann.

March 25 (Day 20) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies about Michael & Gavin’s DNA found on the same porno magazine.

March 27 Michael gives a radio interview to Reverend Jesse Jackson.

March 28 (Day 21) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of George Lopez.

March 29 (Day 22) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Jaimie Massada & Cynthia Ann Bell.

March 30 (Day 23) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Cynthia Ann Bell is cross examined.

The next prosecution witnesses are Stanley Katz & William Dickerman

April 1 (Day 24) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Jeff Klapackis, Jack Green, Larry Feldman & Jesus Salas.

April 3 Michael celebrates his daughter Paris 7th birthday at Neverland

April 4 Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Jesus Salas is cross examined. The next witness is Jason Francia. Back at Neverland, Michael Is welcomed by many fans who led by Karen Faye have decorated the ranch gates with rose petals. To thank them, he invites them to his home where they meet Prince, Paris & Blanket + get each a signed box set of Michael’s Ultimate Collection!

April 5 (Day 26) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Jason Francia is cross examined. Then his lawyer Chriss Kallman & his mother Blanca Francia testify.

April 6 Michael attends the funerals of his old criminal lawyer Johnnie Cochran.

April 7 (Day 27) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Tito. Testimonies of Ralph Chacon & Adrian Mc Manus.

April 8 (Day 28 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Tito. Adrian Mc Manus is cross examined. Testimony of Phillip Lemaeque.

April 11 (Day 29) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Tito & Jackie. Testimonies of Bob Jones & Stacy Brown (who are writting a book on Michael) followed by Duane Swingler & June Chandler (Jordie’s mother!)

April 12 (Day 30) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Jackie. Testimony of Jay Jackson (Gavin’s stepfather)

April 13 (Day 31) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Jay Jackson is cross examined. He is followed by his wife Janet Arvizo Jackson who pleads the 5th amendment to avoid questions about her welfare fraud.

April 14 (Day 32) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Janet Arvizo Jackson’s testimony goes on.

April 15 (Day 33) Michael goes to court with Katherine. The prosecution shows the Jury surveillance videos of the Arvizo family by Brad Miller. Mesereau then begins the cross examination of Janet Arvizo Jackson.

April 16 (Day 34) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Mesereau finishes Janet’s cross examination. The next witnesses are her mother Maria Ventura, Michael Davy & Janet Williams.

April 20 (Day 35) Michael goes to court with Katherine Testimony of Brian Barron.

April 21 (Day 37) Michael goes to court with Katherine Cross examination of Brian Barron then Judge Melville hears several motions without Michael & the Jury.

April 25 (Day 38 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Kaseem Abdul. Brian OXMAN is fired by Mesereau.

April 26 (Day 39) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Cynthia Montgomery & Hamid Moslehi.

April 27 (Day 40) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Testimony of Debbie Rowe Jackson.

April 28 (Day 41) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Cross examination of Debbie & then testimony of her lawyer Iris Finsilver.

April 29 (Day 42) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jackie. Testimony of Ian Drew. The prosecution shows the Jury a book on children found at Neverland…in 1993!

May 2 (Day 43) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of detective Craig Bonner & Beverly Wagner.

May 3 (Day 44) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Steve Robel, John Duross & Rudy Provencio.

May 4 (Day 45) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The prosecution rests its case after Rudy Provencio’s cross examination.

May 5 (Day 46) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. The defense opens his case with the testimonies of Wade Robson & Brett Barnes (who stay at Neverland with their families)

May 6 (Day 47) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Joy & Chantal Robson + Marie & Karlee Barnes.

May 9 (Day 48 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Jermaine. Testimonies of Francine Contreras, Gayle Goforth, Violet Silva, Ramon Velasco & Joe Marcus.

May 10 (Day 49) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Cross Examination of Joe Marcus.

May 11 (Day 50) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimony of Macauley Culkin. The defense then shows the Jury the outtakes of the Batshit interviews.

May 12 (Day 51) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Carlos Velasco & David LeGrand.

May 13 (Day 52) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy. Testimony of Mark Geragos.

May 16 (Day 53) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Testimonies of Dr Jean Seamount, Tiffany Haynes, Carole Mc Coy, Kathryn Bernard, Maria Gomez, Shane Meredith, Brian Salce, Russ Birchim & Angel VIvanco.

May 17 (Day 54) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Cross examination of Angel Vivanco followed by the testimonies of Irene Peters, Karen Walker & Simone Jackson (Michael’s cousin)

May 18 (Day 55) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Cross examination of Simone Jackson followed by the testimonies of her brother Rijo , their mother Michelle Jackson (Michael’s aunt), Christian Robinson & Vernee Watson-Johnson.

May 19 (Day 56) Michael goes to court with Katherine. The judge refuses to allow the testimonies of Larry King & Michael Viner because they are “hearsay”. The next witness is Chris Tucker’ girldriend Azja Pyor. The defense then proceed by showing to the Jury a video presentation of Neverland.

May 20 (Day 57) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Randy. Mark Geragos completes his testimony.

May 23 (Day 58 ) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Testimonies of Mercy Manriquez, Michael Radakovitch, Marion Arvizo & Connie Keenan.

May 24 (Day 59) Michael goes to court with Katherine. Testimonies of Jay Leno, Sulli McCullough, Monica de los Santos, Mary Holzer, Anthony Ranieri, Karen Brando, Prudence Brando, Dr Philip Esplin, Julio Avila, Leslie Wraggs, Arlene Kennedy & Chris Tucker.

May 25 (Day 60) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. The defense rests its case after Chris Tucker’s cross examination. The prosecution then opens it’s rebuttal with the testimonies of Timothy Rooney & Jesus Salas.

May 26 (Day 61) Michael goes to court with Katherine & Joe. Testimonies of Christine Klausner, Gearge Erwin & William Dickerman.

May 27 (Day 62) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy. Testimonies of Steve Robel & Craig Bonner. The prosecution rests it’s rebuttal by showin the Jury a video of Gavin police deposition in July 2003. The defense declines to make a rebuttal so Judge Melville declares the testimonies over.

May 31 (Day 63) Special hearing where the Judge & the lawyers determine the rules of Jury deliberations. Neither Michael, nor the Jury attend court.

June 1 (Day 64) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe & Randy where Judge Melville gives the Jury the rules of Jury Deliberations.

June 2 (Day 66) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Randy, Jermaine & Tito. Ron Zonen gives his closing staement followed by Tom Mesereau who doesn’t have time to finish.

Frank Tyson speaks for the first time to defend Michael in an interview to Prime Time Live on ABC.

June 3 (Day 67) Michael goes to court with Katherine, Joe, Janet and LaToya. Tom Mesereau completes his closing arguments.

June 3-13 While Jury deliberations take place, the whole Jackson family waits for the verdict at Neverland.

June 13 The Jury reaches a verdict. Michael and the Jackson family goes to court where he is acquitted on all counts! They go back to Neverland. The trial is over.

For those interested we also uploaded the court transcripts.

Some court transcript summaries

Martin Batshit

Court transcript cross-examination Martin Batshit (partially):

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Martin Batshit

Q. Mr. Batshit, in the show you prepared, which we’ve just seen, Mr. Jackson made statements to the effect that nothing sexual was going on in his bed, correct.

A. Correct.

Q. To obtain the interview you had with Mr. Jackson when he made that statement, you told him that he was underappreciated, true.

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor, on the shield law grounds and First Amendment grounds, unpublished information, and the tape that the jury has seen speaks for itself.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I’m standing on the broadest privilege and the shield law, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.

Q. Mr. Batshit, in the show about Michael Jackson, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told Mr. Jackson that your romantic development was partially shaped by his records, true.

MR. BOUTROUS: Objection, Your Honor. Same grounds. First Amendment; shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is noted.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, on the show we just saw in this courtroom, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual goes on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from Mr. Jackson, you told him that when you looked at his relationship with children, it almost made you weep, correct.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. California shield law and the First Amendment. And I object to that question as being ambiguous as well, the first phrase, “to obtain that statement.” Object to that.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Do you wish to answer that.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, on your show, Mr. Jackson says that nothing sexual ever went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement from him, you told him that you believe in his vision of an international children’s holiday, correct.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. The shield law and the First Amendment.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection noted, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Noted.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Mr. Batshit, in this interview you did of Michael Jackson, he says that nothing sexual went on in his bedroom. To obtain that statement, you told him, “Neverland is an extraordinary, a breathtaking, a stupendous, an exhilarating and amazing place. I can’t put together words to describe Neverland.” True.

MR. BOUTROUS: Same objections, Your Honor. First Amendment and the California shield law.

THE COURT: Do you wish to answer that question.

THE WITNESS: I don’t, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Noted; objection noted.

MR. MESEREAU: Thank you, Your Honor.

And this goes on and on. The objections of Batshit’s attorney Theodore Boutrous, were sustained on the grounds that Batshit was protected by the California Shield Law, which states that reporters can not be forced to testify about things they learn while working on a story.

Batshit didn’t want to answer any questions regarding the promises he made to Mike in order to get him cooperate with the documentary without pay.

Anne Gabriel (true name Ann Marie Kite)

This woman, the ex-girlfriend of one of Mike’s attorneys David LeGrand, was brought in by the prosecution to support the DA’s charge that Michael Jackson and his associates had conspired to keep the Arvizos under tight control at Neverland, alleging that the Arvizos were being held captive by Mike and his “people” (Marc Shaffel, Ron Konitzer and Deiter Weisner. Kite was hired on February 9, 2003 to “resusicate” Mike’s career after the airing of the Batshit tapes. She had been terminated from het job within 6 days. She had never even spoken with Mike.

Court transcript cross-examination Anne Gabriel (true name Ann Marie Kite) (partially):

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Ann Marie Kite

Q. When you had your interview with Santa Barbara sheriffs, you were asked by detective Zelis, if you knew if Michael Jackson was aware of what his team was doing. Do you remember that?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. And you told detective Zalis, you had no idea wheter Michael Jackson knew what his team was doing, is that correct?

A. That’s correct. Because I never spoke with Mr. Jackson.

Davellin Arvizo

Davellin talked about The Laugh Factory and Jamie Masada. She told the jury that they met Jamie Masada in the summer of 1999 when she and her brothers were in a comedy camp. Davellin testifies about her brother, Gavin being diagnosed with cancer. She tells about Gavin’s wishes to meet Chris Tucker, Adam Sandler, and Michael Jackson, and that he had met two of them, Mike and Chris Tucker, who both reached out to him.

She then is asked by Sneddon about the first visit to Neverland and then something interesting comes up, the abusive father:

  • Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Davellin Arvizo

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What happened.

A. My parents were arguing back and forth, and my dad threw a soda can at my mom.

Q. And what happened after he threw the can at her.

A. He ran, like walked — stormed out of the room.

Q. And what was your mother’s reaction.

A. She just started crying.

MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is, “She started crying.”

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Now, during the time that you were living with your father and your mother and your brothers at the Soto Street residence, did you ever see your father strike your mother.

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions.

A. Too many to count. So many.

Q. Did he ever strike you.

A. Yes.

Q. How about your brothers. 600

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions.

A. Lots.

She also talked about a benefit for Gavin, to pay for medical expenses. Later on we will learn that all the expenses were covered by the medical insurance of Gavin’s father.

Something else that rang a bell is when Sneddon showed her pictures of her parents. Just like Mike doesn’t say “dad” to Joe and had to call him Joseph, Davellin refers to her father as David, while Janet is referred to as “mommy”.

Q. And I want to direct your attention to the exhibit marked as 31 in evidence. No, not that one. I’m sorry, my fault. There. 31. Do you recognize that person.

A. Yes.

Q. Who is that.

A. That’s my mommy.

Q. It’s your who.

A. Mommy.

Q. You say she doesn’t look like that now, because her hair — what’s different.

A. Her hair is darker and shorter.

Q. Other than that, it looks like your mom.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. The next one, let’s go to 35. All right. Who’s that.

A. That’s David.

Q. David who.

A. My father.

It is only after they are brought to Miami by Chris Tucker to meet Mike, that she talkes about a conspiracy. She states that they felt ‘captive’ in Mike’s hotelroom in Florida while Mike would take Gavin seperate in the bedroom a few times to talk and that they were prevented from watching the U.S. airing of the Batshit tapes.. Also after they returned to Neverland, she said they felt ‘uncomfortable’ being around Mike’s associates, that were claiming that the Arvizo’s were the subject to death threats. Later on we will learn that they went off the property many times without complaining to anyone and that there were many ways to ‘escape’ if they thought it was necessary, because the fences around Neverland are that low that you can just jump over it. She also stated that she had never tasted alcohol until she was handed an alcoholic drink by Mike.

Cross examination Davellin Arvizo; what stands out: Davelin calls her father David, not dad.

Regarding the rebuttal video: Mesereau asks Davellin if she met with any member of the prosecution team, any member of the sheriff’s department or her attorney the night before she testified. The answer is No. Next she testified that she called Steve Robel, a Santa Barbara Sheriff, the night before she testified. Steve Robel brought her the CD the very same night.

A couple of days before she testified Steve Robel’s wife picked her up for a meeting with Sneddon:

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Davellin Arvizo

Q. How long did that meeting with Mr. Sneddon take place.

A. Like 15 minutes.

Q. Only 15 minutes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Did you discuss what you were going to be asked in court.

A. No. He just — he just helped me refresh my memory.

Q. Now, how did he help you refresh your memory.

A. They just gave me what I said.

Q. Do you mean police reports.

A. No.

Q. Would it be transcripts.

A. Yes.

Q. Did he tell what you transcripts he was giving you to read.

A. Just of the grand jury, and that’s all I remember. That’s the only one.

The following occurs several times during cross examination. When Mesereau asks Davellin if she discussed her testimony with her family members, she answers as quoted below. The same type of answers she also gives when Mesereau asks her if she discussed the Batshit documentary, the rebuttal video, shows on television that talked about her mother, her mother’s testimony or the JC Penney case. We find it hard to believe that she would not talk to her family members about any of these issues at all.

Q. Have you discussed what you were going to say today with Jay Jackson.

A. No.

Q. At any time.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with Jay Jackson.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with your mother.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Gavin.

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Star.

A. No.

Janet Arvizo remarried before the trial. After she divorced her abusive husband David, she married a United States Army officer. The CIA is known for recruiting people for their MK Ultra program in the army. Mind that Davellin called her father David, not Dad.

Q. Now, your mother and Jay Jackson are married now, right.

A. Yes, he’s my stepfather.

Q. He’s still in the United States Army, right.

A. Yes, he is.

Q. As a reserve.

A. No, he’s active now.

Q. He is active now.

A. Yes, he is. He’s been since my mom — since my mom and them have been dating, he’s been in active duty.

Q. He was in the reserve at one point, wasn’t he.

A. They turned him back in because of the war.

About abuse:

Q. Okay. You told Carol Lamir stories about your mother, didn’t you.

A. No.

Q. You told her your mother would awaken you at 2:00 in the morning, correct.

A. No.

Q. You told her your mother would beat your father, didn’t you.

A. No. I told her my — I tried telling her that my father would beat my mother.

Q. You told Carol Lamir that your mother was telling you to attack your father, when, in reality, your mother was beating your father, right.

A. No.

Q. You never said anything like that to Carol Lamir.

A. No.

Q. You constantly told Carol about Janet hitting you and your brothers, true.

A. No.

———-

Q. Okay. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that Janet would take her children places and intentionally not feed them or bring food.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever tell Carol Lamir that it was Janet’s intent that the children be fed by whoever they were visiting.

A. No.

Q. Never said anything like that.

A. No.

Q. Are you saying you never complained about your mother at all to Carol Lamir.

A. No. My mom’s a very, very, very good mother to me.

Q. And you never complained about her one bit.

A. No.

Q. Never complained about her to Carol.

A. No.

———-

Q. Okay. You told the police that you were being abused five times a week — five times a week, right.

A. We were abused every day, more than once, by my father.

———-

A. At that point, I still liked Mr. Jackson. And that was the point that David had left and — I don’t know, I was just latching onto something, because I don’t know what a description of a father is. I had 16 years of just abuse. I don’t know what it is. I just latched onto something.

The Arvizos had friends among the LAPD (see Janet Arvizo’s testimony also).

Q. Okay. Do you ever remember police officers in Los Angeles having a fund-raiser to raise money for Gavin’s medical bills.

A. They didn’t have a fund-raiser for us. What the Los Angeles Police Department did was, Officer Lassak brought his old Christmas tree for us. And that’s all I remember them doing.

Q. Do you know who spoke to them about Gavin’s health.

A. Officers.

Q. Yes.

A. Officer Lassak spoke to the police department about it.

Q. Who is Officer Lassak.

A. I met him through my LAPD Explorers.

Q. He was a friend of your mom, right.

A. He was a friend of the family, yes.

Q. Do you know if your mother was in contact with Andrew Lassak during 2003.

A. I know he would come and visit us once in a while, but I don’t know.

Q. Do you know about your mother approaching Andrew Lassak about raising money to pay for Gavin’s medical expenses.

A. She never approached him that way.

Q. Now, how do you know that.

A. Because that never happened.

Q. It never happened.

A. No.

Q. And you’re not aware of any LAPD police officers trying to raise, you know, funds to pay Gavin’s medical expenses.

A. No. Not that I remember. Not that I know of.

———-

A. That was after. I didn’t join the LAPD Explorers until 2001, I think.

Admitting that she and family members lied:

Q. Are you saying that, after that, your mother never left her cottage.

A. My mom didn’t leave her cottage.

Q. Were her meals served at the cottage, to your knowledge.

A. Yes, they were brought to her.

Q. Three times a day.

A. I think it’s — I don’t know. I wasn’t watching.

Q. Do you remember, your mother told the three social workers from the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services that she’s always at the main residence.

A. Yeah.

Q. Remember, she told those workers that she’s there all times of day.

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you think your mother was lying.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you think your mother lied throughout that interview.

A. Somewhat. I don’t know. But I know those comments can’t be true.

Q. And that was the day you lied about bringing girlfriends to Neverland, right.

A. Yeah.

Q. And you’re telling this jury that you’ve never brought any girlfriend to Neverland.

A. No.

Q. But you told it to the Los Angeles Department of Children & Family Services.

A. Yes, I did.

Not only does Al Malnik know Brett Ratner (see later on in the blog), the Arvizos do as well:

Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Brett Ratner.

A. Yes.

Q. Who is Brett Ratner.

A. He was the director for Rush Hour 2.

Q. Where did you meet him.

A. On the set of Rush Hour 2.

Q. Did Chris Tucker introduce you to him.

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did you get to know him pretty well.

A. Somewhat. Not really.

Q. Were you ever at his house.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever hang out with him anyplace.

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see him off the set of Rush Hour.

A. Well, Chris took us to like — like a restaurant they were at. And we just sat with them for like a couple minutes, and then I think we went back to our hotel room.

Q. When did you last see him.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Did you ever see Gavin talking to Brett Ratner.

A. While they were on the set, yeah. They would play with each other and laugh and stuff.

Caught in lies:

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you remember, I asked you last week if you had ever discussed the J.C. Penney case with Gavin or your mom. Remember, I asked you that question.

A. Yes.

Q. You said you had not discussed it with either of them, right.

A. Yes.

Q. How could that be, if you attended those depositions.

A. I’m not talking to them about it.

Q. Before.

A. No. I haven’t talked to them about it at all. I’m just sitting there. I don’t know anything about the case. I was just sitting there to comfort my brother. He wanted me to be with him. I’m not even paying attention to what he’s saying. I’m just paying attention to how he’s looking. And that was during his chemo.

Q. So you had never discussed the J.C. Penney case with him before you attended his deposition.

A. No.

Q. And you never discussed the J.C. Penney case with any of your family members before you attended Star’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. You never discussed the J.C. Penney case with Gavin or your mom or Star after Gavin’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. And you never discussed the J.C. Penney case with Star, your mom or Gavin after Star’s deposition.

A. Never.

Q. You just kind of got there, silently listened, left, and never talked to anybody about it, right.

A. No.

———-

Q. Your brothers had codes, didn’t they.

A. Yes.

Q. They had codes to the wine cellar, didn’t they.

A. I don’t remember that.

Q. They had codes to Mr. Jackson’s room, didn’t they.

A. I didn’t know they had that one.

Q. And they went up to the room without Mr. Jackson present, correct.

A. Anytime Mr. Jackson wasn’t on the ranch, they were with me.

Q. That’s not what you said last week, is it. Last week you said that when your brothers were on the ranch, they always left you alone, correct.

A. No. When Mr. Jackson wasn’t on the ranch, they were with me.

Q. Well, you had knowledge that your brothers were going into the main house when Mr. Jackson wasn’t even there, correct.

A. When Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, they were with me. There was no reason for us to be apart if Mr. Jackson wasn’t there.

Q. Well, you — correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t you tell the jury last week, “When I would visit Neverland, my brothers would go off and, for the most part, leave me alone”. Did you say that.

A. If Mr. Jackson was there, yes, I said that last week.

Q. So you’re — now you’re saying whenever Mr. Jackson wasn’t there, all three of you hung around together; is that right.

A. Yes.

Star Arvizo

In regards to the alarms at Neverland, Star tells Sneddon that Mike had given him the code of the alarm of the door that gives access to his bedroom. Besides this code, there was another code, the master code to all the doors. Star also knew that code:

  • Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Star Arvizo

Q. Now. Were there another set of numbers.

A. Yes, it was another code that was 1849 that got you in every door.

Q. And where did you get that code from.

A. I got it from the security guard.

Q. Do you remember the security guard’s name.

A. No.

Q. Do you remember what he looks like.

A. He was — he was white, but I don’t exactly remember his face.

Q. I couldn’t hear what you said.

A. I don’t remember his face.

Q. Okay. And do you remember when it was that you got that code from the security — let me ask it this way: At some point in time you went to Miami, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. And then after Miami, you came back to the ranch.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, with regard to the code number that Mr. Jackson gave you – all right. —

A. Yeah.

Q. When did you get that code number from him. Before or after you went to Miami.

A. After.

Q. And with regard to the code number that you got from the security guard, was it before or after you went to Miami.

A. After.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. After.

Q. So on the first occasion that you went to Mr. Jackson’s room, you did not have a code number.

A. No.

The Arvizo kids were involved with military programs:

Q. What was going on at the time that you were introduced by Mr. Bashir. Who introduced you.

A. Michael.

Q. Now, did you have an understanding — did you personally have an understanding that you were going to appear on film that day.

A. No.

Q. Did you eventually appear on film that day.

A. Yes.

Q. And what were you doing on film.

A. We were showing Michael one of our military cadences that we learned from a program, military program.

Q. What military program.

A. At that time we were in the NLCC. Stood for Naval League Cadet Corps. That’s what it — it was a Navy program.

Q. And do you remember when you joined that program.

A. I was 11.

Q. Before the Bashir — I mean in relation to the Bashir —

A. It was before.

Q. Are you still in that program.

A. No.

Q. Are you in another program. 1058

A. Yes.

Q. What’s that.

A. It’s Infantry Explorers.

Q. And what service is that connected with.

A. Army.

Q. And how long have you been in that program.

A. It’s going on four months. We barely joined.

Q. I’m sorry.

A. We barely joined four months ago.

Q. Were you ever in a Navy program.

A. Yes.

Q. What was that.

A. That was the Naval Sea Cadets. It was an older program. It’s for older kids. It’s from 13 to 17.

Q. And how long were you in that.

A. About a year.

The following occurs several times during cross examination. The exact same things happened when Star’s sister Davellin was cross examined. We find it hard to believe that Star would not talk to any of his family members about anything regarding the trial and the J.C. Penney case.

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Star Arvizo

Q. Did you discuss yesterday’s testimony with anyone last night.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your mom about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your dad about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to your sister about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to Gavin about it.

A. No.

Q. Talk to the D.A. about it.

A. No.

———-

Q. Okay. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed what you were going to say with your mom.

A. No.

Q. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed with Gavin what you were going to say.

A. No.

Q. Before you testified yesterday, had you ever discussed with your sister Davellin what you were going to say.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with your mom?

A. No.

Q. Ever discussed this case with Gavin.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with Davellin.

A. No.

The following stood out to us. During cross examination Star refers to DA Sneddon as “Tom”, DA Auchincloss as “Gorden” and DA Zonen as “Ron”. It’s our opinion that it’s highly unusual and impolite for a 14 year old boy to call the DA’s by their first names, unless they knew each other quite well.

Q. Have you ever discussed this case with an attorney?

A. Yes.

Q. Who.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. Excuse me.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. I’m sorry, we’re having trouble hearing the name.

A. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

Q. Tom, Gordon and Ron.

About the diagram about the inside of the plane:

Q. And what prosecutor did you go over that diagram with before you testified.

A. Um, let me remember. It was Tom.

Q. Is that Tom Sneddon.

A. Yes.

———-

A. No. I knew it was a diagram. I was the one that drew it up for Tom.

Q. So you drew the whole diagram up for Prosecutor Sneddon.

A. No, I just drew a picture and I gave it to Tom.

———-

Q. Did you then discuss that transcript with anybody.

A. No.

Q. Never.

A. No. Tom told us not to.

———-

Q. Did someone tell you to read them.

A. Yes.

Q. Who.

A. Tom.

Q. Prosecutor Sneddon.

A. Yes.

Caught in lies:

Q. Well, when you met with Psychologist Stanley Katz, you also describe what you claim happened in Michael Jackson’s bedroom, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And would you agree that you’ve given different descriptions almost every time that you have described it.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. Well, you’ve given different descriptions about what Michael Jackson was wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions of what Gavin was supposed to be wearing, right.

A. I don’t remember exactly what I said.

Q. You’ve given different descriptions about what you claim Michael Jackson did in the bedroom, right.

A. No.

Q. Well, there were times you said that Michael Jackson put his hand on top of your brother’s underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember saying that.

Q. And there are other times you said he put his hand inside his underwear, right.

A. Yes.

Q. And there are times you’ve said your brother was wearing pajamas, right.

A. Yes.

Q. There are times you said he was wearing underwear, right.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. And there are times you said that Michael Jackson touched his butt and not his crotch, right.

A. When was this.

Q. When you did some interviews, right.

A. About what.

Q. About what Michael Jackson, you claim, was doing in his bedroom, right.

A. I never said he touched his butt.

Q. Did you ever tell anyone that when you saw Michael Jackson in bed with your brother, he was rubbing his butt.

A. No.

Q. Never said that at any time to anybody.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to Mr. Katz, right.

A. No.

Q. Never said it to the sheriffs, right.

A. No.

Q. And never said it to a grand jury, right.

A. No.

———-

Q. When you stated under oath in the J.C. Penney deposition in the year 2000 that your mom and dad never fight, were you telling the truth.

A. No.

Q. Did someone tell you to lie in that deposition.

A. I don’t remember.

Q. You don’t remember at all.

A. No. It happened a long time ago.

Q. You also said in that deposition under oath that your dad never hit you; do you remember that.

A. Not really.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you that page.

A. Sure.

MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to look at that page of your deposition.

A. Yes.

Q. And does it refresh your recollection about what you said that day.

A. Yes.

Q. You were asked if your dad had ever hit you, and you said, “Never,” right.

A. Yes.

Q. Was that the truth?

A. No.

Q. Did someone ever tell you to lie about that under oath in your deposition in the J.C. Penney case.

A. I really don’t remember.

Q. Don’t remember at all.

A. No. I don’t remember nothing from there.

———-

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have your — excuse me. Has — did your father ever coach you about what to say in the J.C. Penney deposition.

A. No.

Q. Did your mother ever coach you about what to say in the J.C. Penney deposition.

A. No.

Q. Please tell the jury why you lied under oath.

A. I don’t remember. It was, like, five years ago. I don’t remember nothing.

Gavin Arvizo

Unfortunately the first part of Gavin’s testimony is missing. We have searched the net for two days, but ended up empty handed…

We’re really curious as to why Gavin gave a 75k watch to Larry Feldman:

  • Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Gavin Arvizo

A. This is the watch that Michael gave me right before the plane took off.

MR. SNEDDON: Move that it be admitted into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. MESEREAU: No objection.

THE COURT: It’s admitted.

Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Yeah, why don’t you —

A. Give it to you.

Q. No, just stand up and show it to them. Okay. Now I’m going to ask you a question about the watch. With regard to that particular watch, did Mr. Jackson make any statements to you about the value of the watch when he gave it to you.

A. He told me that it was $75,000.

Q. Now, did you keep that watch.

A. Yes.

Q. At some point, did you give that watch to somebody.

A. Yeah. I think I gave it to Tom.

Q. To me.

A. I mean — no, Larry.

Q. Larry.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know who Larry is.

A. Larry Feldman, I think.

Q. And do you remember when that was. Had you left Neverland for the last time.

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s — and after that, you gave the watch to him.

A. Yes.

Like Star and Davellin, Gavin also said when he was cross examined that he didn’t talk about the J.C. Penney case with his mother, and he can’t remember when he talked to his mother for the last time about the Batshit documentary. We find it hard to believe.

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Gavin Arvizo

Q. Did you and your mom talk about the facts of that case before your deposition was taken.

A. No, I don’t think we were allowed to.

Q. So you never discussed it with your mom before the deposition was taken.

A. No.

Q. Have you ever talked about the facts of this case with your mother.

A. No. I don’t think we’re allowed to either.

Q. So you’ve never discussed the facts of this case with your mother.

A. Um, no.

Q. Have you ever discussed the Bashir documentary with your mother.

A. Yeah.

Q. When.

A. We had talked about it with her sometimes, like how I felt about what I said on there.

Q. And when did you last discuss the Bashir documentary with your mother.

A. I do not remember.

Q. Pardon me.

A. I don’t remember.

MR. MESEREAU: Okay.

The same thing that stood out to us in Star’s testimony occurs in Gavin’s testimony. During cross examination Gavin refers to DA Sneddon as “Tom”, DA Auchincloss as “Gorden” and DA Zonen as “Ron”. Again, it’s our opinion that it’s highly unusual and impolite for a 14 years old boy to call the DA’s by their first names, unless they knew each other quite well.

Q. Did you engage in a conversation with Mr. Sneddon over the weekend.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did that conversation take place.

A. In a house.

Q. Okay. Did Mr. Sneddon come to see you.

A. No.

Q. Did you go to see Mr. Sneddon.

A. Yes.

Q. Where did you go to see Mr. Sneddon.

A. In a house.

Q. In his house.

A. In a house.

Q. Okay. Who was with you, if anybody.

A. Detective Robel. Mr. — Ron, Gordon and Mr. Sneddon, and I believe Mr. Mag was there.

Q. Okay. Let me just get it straight. Mr. Robel was there from the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, right.

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Sneddon was there, right.

A. The attorneys were there.

Q. Prosecutors. Prosecutor Zonen was there, right.


A. All of the district — all of the attorneys were there.

Q. Prosecutor Auchincloss was there, right.

A. Auchincloss.

Q. Yes. The fellow seated right to my left.

A. Oh, Gordon, yeah.

Q. Anyone else there besides those four.

A. Mag.

Q. Who.

A. Mag. I don’t know his full name.

Q. Okay. Is this another sheriff.

A. No, this is an attorney.

Q. Another prosecutor.

A. He’s another attorney.

Q. So you met with four prosecutors and a Santa Barbara Sheriff over the weekend, right.

———-

Q. Okay. Was anyone else present.

A. They were there, but they were in another room.

Q. Okay. Who was there but in another room.

A. Ron, Mr. Zonen, Gordon and Mag.

———-

A. No. They told me that Tom was going to have to talk to me about some things.

Q. Okay. And Mr. Sneddon did talk to you about some things, correct.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SNEDDON:

  • Q. by Tom Sneddon – A. by Gavin Arvizo

Q. Morning, Gavin.

A. Hey, Tom.

The Arvizos had friends among the LAPD (see Davellin Arvizo’s testimony also)

Q. Okay. Do you know someone named Andrew Lassak.

A. No.

Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned —

A. Lassak. Police officer.

Q. Yes. Do you know him.

A. Yes.

Q. How did you meet him.

A. He was an LAPD officer that — I forgot, really, how we met him. I think he was — I don’t know. My mom met him or something, and then he visited us a lot.

Q. Do you know approximately when you first met this LAPD officer, Mr. Lassak.

A. After my father left. A few months after my father left, after I finished chemotherapy.

Q. And he was a friend of your family, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. He used to visit your house, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. You spoke to him, right. 2027

A. Yes.

Q. You saw your brother and sister speak to him, didn’t you.

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw your mother speak to him, right.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall anyone ever complaining to Los Angeles Police Officer Andrew Lassak that anyone was being held against their will.

MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to object to the question as vague as to time frame.

MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During the period you claim you escaped from Neverland three times, do you recall anyone in your family ever complaining to LAPD Officer Andrew Lassak that anyone was being mistreated or held against their will.

A. His name is Lassak, and I don’t remember anything happening like that.

We’re having a hard time believing the following:

Q. Okay. Now, you’re aware, are you not, that you have until the age of 18 to file a lawsuit against Mr. Jackson if you choose to, correct.

A. No.

Q. You’ve never discussed that with your mother.

A. No.

Q. Never discussed that with Larry Feldman, the attorney.

A. No.

Q. And never discussed it with Bill Dickerman, the attorney.

A. No.

Q. Okay. You’re also aware that if Mr. Jackson is convicted, you could automatically win that civil suit, right.

A. No.

Q. No one’s ever discussed that with you.

A. No. We said things like, oh, we don’t want his money, and stuff like that.

Q. Never discussed that issue with any attorney, right.

A. No.

Q. First time you’ve heard about it.

A. About that I can — you just told me now that I can sue him till I’m 18 or something like that. I didn’t even know about that stuff.

Q. Didn’t even know about that, right. And never heard your mother mention it.

A. No.

Janet Arvizo

Janet’s testimony started April 13 and ended April 19. Her testimony was devastating for the prosecution. A weird part is where Mesereau asks her about investigating Mike from January 2000, while she didn’t even met him until August 2000. An article about Janet’s LAPD friends can be found here.

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Janet Arvizo

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: When did you meet Michael Jackson?

A. I think it was, my best estimate, August of 2000.

Q. Do you remember signing a document prepared by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department on December 18th, 2003?

A. Okay, I think — is it the paper you just showed me?

Q. Yes. But I have a —

A. I can’t answer unless you tell me exactly. You know, there was a lot of paperwork.

Q. Would you like to see it?

A. Well, I’m asking you, please, is it the same one that you just came up here and showed me?

Q. It is.

A. Okay. Then, yes. I’ve signed many paperworks of theirs.

Q. Let me ask you the question again.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you recall signing a document prepared by the Sheriff’s Department of Santa Barbara County on December 18th, 2003?

A. I think so.

Q. Would it refresh your recollection just to look at the date and your signature?

A. No. That’s — is that the one that you just showed me?

Q. It is.

A. Then — then, yes.

Q. You did sign that document —

A. Yes.

Q. — on December 18th —

A. Yes.

Q. — 2003?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, do you remember signing a document prepared by the sheriff’s department that said the following: “From time to time, between January 1st, 2000, and the present date, I consulted one or more of those lawyers concerning Michael Jackson’s interaction with me and my children at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County and elsewhere, in this and other states, and concerning the return of some furniture stored by or in the name of Brad Miller at Dino’s Storage in North Hollywood, Los Angeles County.” Do you remember signing a document that had those words?

A. Do you want me to have the document, like — we’ve had this discussion over since August.

MR. MESEREAU: Object, Your Honor.

THE WITNESS: Since August, the same thing —

THE COURT: Just a moment. I want you to answer the question. The question is, do you remember signing that document?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: And the document said that you had started investigating Michael Jackson sometime between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, which is December 18th, 2003, right?

A. Yes. If that’s — those words are on there.

Q. Why would you start investigating Michael Jackson around January 1st, 2000, if you didn’t meet him till August 2000?

A. Okay. Let me explain something to you. And this has already been discussed, and he knows the answers. This was discussed at the end of September.

MR. ZONEN: I’m going to object to this part of the answer as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: This — when the sheriffs were doing their investigation, they wanted to know every single detail about me. George Owen Feldman is — I think he’s associated in the same law firm of Rothstein. So the — the police department did an extensive, extensive search on me as a person, and so they want — they put everything in a general form so they can have access to everything about me and my past, because they wanted to verify and make sure that what they were going to do towards this goliath was going to be accurate and truthful. And that’s why this — this paper was made in such a general way.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Are you now telling the jury that George Owen Feldman did represent you?

A. No, he didn’t represent me.

Q. At any time?

A. No, he didn’t represent me. He is one of the people inside the civil law firm. But my understanding — my understanding was that it was only the Rothstein — Rothstein and another attorney named Adler, another attorney named Ramieri. That was my understanding, and it still is today.

Q. Let me try and ask the question again – okay? – in a clearer form, because perhaps I was not clear. And I apologize if I wasn’t. You signed a document that said from time to time between January 1st, 2000, and the date you signed the document, you were investigating Michael Jackson through various lawyers, correct?

A. Okay. There’s more information on that paperwork which he purposely has taken out of context. It’s — certain events are attached to specific attorneys. Certain situations are attached to certain attorneys. Like I said, the police wanted to do an extensive, thorough investigation on me prior to doing it on him. So they wanted everything about me. So they made it in a general form. But he keeps taking it out of context.

MR. MESEREAU: I don’t want to offend the Court, Your Honor. I don’t think I actually got an answer to that, but I will leave it to the Court’s discretion.

On mjjr.net we found a great summary that shows the madness of this woman:

What’s My Age Again?

In a recent defense motion, attorney Brian Oxman pointed out that the mother of Michael Jackson’s accuser “testified before the Grand Jury without the benefit of medications.” After reading through hundreds of pages of her testimony, I am inclinded to agree.

Janet Arvizo – who currently goes by the name Janet Jackson – made several bizarre claims throughout the grand jury proceeding. Most notably, she insists that Michael Jackson kidnapped her and her children and, in a cunning ploy to manipulate them into saying nice things about him on camera, convinced the Arvizos that killers were after them.

I wish I was making this up.

If you want to view the transcripts for yourself, click here, although I should warn you that you’re in for a major headache if you attempt to read them all, namely because Mrs. Arvizo (or is it Mrs. Jackson now?) doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. As one observer bluntly put it, reading Mrs. Arvizo’s testimony is like “walking into a wall of dumb.” Indeed. Within minutes of being sworn in, Mrs. Arvizo already comes across as somewhat confused when she tells the court that she has no idea how old she is:

Initially, I assumed that Mrs. Arvizo had misspoken. Perhaps she meant that she didn’t know how old she was when her sons were born. But then, there it is again on page 4, Janet Arvizo’s startling admission that she does not know her own age:

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Michael Jackson didn’t kidnap her family and molest her son but this isn’t an essay about Jackson’s guilt or innocence, it’s an essay about the merits of taking your medication. So let’s continue.

Read more

Debbie Rowe

Debbie testified on behalf of the prosecution. Although she was helpful to the defense, this must have hurt Mike.

About her reason to cooperate with the making of the rebuttal tape:

  • Q. by Ron Zonen – A. by Deborah Rowe

Q. BY MR. ZONEN: All right. What is it that you were intending to represent in this interview?

A. Michael as a wonderful person and as a great father and generous and caring.

Q. All right. Did you have information as to Michael Jackson as a wonderful father?

A. As I’ve known him?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

About her cooperating with the sheriff by recording phonecalls she had with Mike’s team:

Q. Okay. And at some point you were in contact with the Santa Barbara sheriffs about this case, correct?

A. They had called me, yes. And I did not return the first call.

Q. And eventually, you developed somewhat of a dialogue with Santa Barbara sheriffs about this case, right?

A. When they caught me on my cell phone on my way home from Palm Springs, yes, the number they got from Marc Schaffel.

Q. And you agreed to make what you called some pretext phone calls for the sheriffs, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And a pretext phone call means basically you agreed to work with the sheriffs, telephone people and talk to them while the sheriffs were recording those calls; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the idea was that the people you would call would not know they were being recorded, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Only you and the sheriffs would know there were recordings, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, how many of these pretext phone calls do you think you made with or for the sheriffs?

A. I think there were a total of four to six. I’m not sure.

Q. And who were those pretext phone calls with?

A. Marc Schaffel. Ian Drew. And I think I may have tried to do one with Dieter.

Q. Were you able to do that one?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Okay. So the only people you recall actually speaking with when they didn’t know the call was being recorded are Schaffel and Drew; is that right?

A. And Dieter, if I did one with him, he wouldn’t have known.

About Mike’s team; Konitzer, Schaffel & Weisner:

  • Q. by Tom Mesereau – A. by Deborah Rowe

Q. During the period of the interview — I say “during the period.” That’s a little bit vague. Let me withdraw that. Around the time of the interview, did you talk to Konitzer at all?

A. I spoke with him when I spoke with Mr. Jackson to arrange it. And he and Dieter and Marc had been on the phone. They had been on the phone to tell me about problems that were going on, yes.

Q. And you’ve also made statements to the sheriffs that you thought Dieter and Konitzer were manipulating Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You thought Dieter and Konitzer were taking advantage of Michael Jackson, true?

A. Yes.

Q. And you thought they were trying to manipulate Michael Jackson to make a lot of money, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it your perception, based upon what you observed of Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, that those three were working together?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. You definitely got that impression?

A. Oh, yeah.

Q. Okay. And was it your impression that those three were working together to find ways to use Michael Jackson’s name so they could profit?

A. Yes.

Q. And at one point you told the sheriffs that you thought Michael Jackson was, in some ways, very removed from what those guys were doing, right?

A. In my past knowledge, he’s removed from the handlers, the people who are taking care of business, and they make all the decisions. There’s a number of times they don’t consult him.

Q. And you thought these three guys, Schaffel, Dieter and Konitzer, were doing just that, didn’t you?

A. Very strongly.

———-

Q. Did Schaffel, in your mind, ever ask you to help him in his business dealings with Mr. Jackson?

A. No. He just bragged about either how he took advantage of an opportunity that I’m sure he knew nothing about or how he was going to do this, that or the other thing to make sure that Michael’s career was saved, and things of that nature.

Q. Did Schaffel tell you that he was involved in business matters with Dieter?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Schaffel tell you he was involved in business matters with Konitzer?

A. Yes. In Europe.

Q. Okay. And did you ever get the impression he was not giving Michael Jackson all the information about what he was up to?

A. He was like everybody else around Mr. Jackson. Yeah, he wasn’t telling him everything.

Q. Why did you think Schaffel was calling you?

A. To placate me. To say that, “Oh, no, I’m working on it. You’ll be seeing the kids. Michael’s very excited about it. Everything’s going to be great. They’re still in Florida.” You know, “As soon as they get home you guys will be together.”

Q. And you didn’t think he was being truthful, right?

A. Obviously he’s full of shit. Sorry. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

Q. You consider Marc Schaffel a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider Dieter a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.

Q. You consider Konitzer to be a liar, don’t you?

A. Yes.

———-

Q. He told you he wanted over a million dollars from Michael Jackson, true?

A. He said Michael owed him a million dollars.

Q. And approximately when did Marc Schaffel tell you he was going to sue Michael Jackson?

A. Six months ago maybe. It may have been longer than that, but I’m not really good with — if you could give me something to refer to at a time, I could say yes, it happened then. But I think it was about six months ago. And then he told me, about three months ago, that he and his lawyer were filing papers.

Q. And did you ever learn at some point that he had actually sued Michael Jackson?

A. He told me that they’d filed the papers.

———-

Q. And correct me if I’m wrong, I think what you’re saying is that many hours of your interview don’t appear in that DVD, right?

A. I don’t see how I could have sat there for seven hours and only had three hours on tape. I don’t remember any breaks except for when the cameras were — the film was being changed. I interrupted the interview to tell them the film was — the camera was blinking, the light. I didn’t want to be in the middle of the statement and have to start over again, to tell them that the lights were blinking, to change the film. I saw cuts in that film, in that tape, that were — had nothing with me saying, “It’s blinking, take it off,” so there’s — there is stuff missing from that video.

Q. When Schaffel told you he’d made seven and a half million dollars off your interview, did he ever tell you who he made the money from?

A. I think he said it was FOX Network. And someone in Europe. But I don’t remember who it was in Europe.

Q. And was it your understanding that he kept all the footage of your interview?

A. Yes. It was all taken upstairs to a bedroom where they did the editing that night.

Q. Okay. How did you know they did the editing that night?

A. I was there for about an hour when they were doing it.

Q. Were you upstairs in the bedroom while they were doing it?

A. Yes.

———-

Q. Now, Mr. Jackson wasn’t there for any of that interview, was he?

A. No.

Debbie obviously didn’t trust the three men. The more you read up on the trial, the more you will get the feeling that Mike had no idea what these men were doing. This is what we found on Wiesner:

Jacko Loses Logo; Manager Owns Sex Clubs

By Roger Friedman

FOX NEWS

“Michael Jackson’s got some big problems. And that’s besides being arrested for child molestation. Jackson has no idea that his current manager, Dieter Wiesner, the man who helped hire attorney Mark Geragos and is now calling the shots in the Jackson camp, is known for operating sex clubs and brothels at home in Germany.”

Malicious Prosecution?

The unfair treatment Mike has received since authorities raided Neverland:

  • During the raid of Neverland, police went into areas that they were not permitted to go into and took items that were not on the search warrant.
  • According to a motion filed by the defense, Sneddon conducted an illegal search of the office of Bradley Miller. Because Miller worked for Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos, anything taken from his office falls under the category of attorney/client privilege. Sneddon tried to justify his search by claiming he did not know that Miller worked for Geragos. In court, however, it was revealed that Sneddon was caught on tape admitting to having known about Miller and Geragos’ working relationship at the time of the raid. Sneddon claimed he was tired when he made this taped statement and did not mean what he said.
  • Sneddon waited until November 18th- the day Jackson’s Number Ones album was released- to raid Neverland. He claimed that he knew about the allegations since June but didn’t take action until November because of Halloween. (Yes, we wouldn’t want to upset anyone’s trick-or-treating experience, so let’s let an alleged pedophile run around for five months and finally raid his house on the day that his new CD comes out.)
  • During the press conference announcing the accusations against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon laughed and made several jokes at Jackson’s expense.
  • Sneddon acknowledged that Jackson was investigated for suspected child abuse in February but said “don’t assume it’s the same family.” He knew it was the same family, why did he make this statement?
  • At the press conference, Sneddon invited more victims to come forward.
  • Sneddon said that California law was changed so that child victims in a molestation case could be forced to testify. This was a lie; the law was changed so that if a civil suit was filed, it would remain inactive until the criminal trial was resolved.
  • Sneddon swore that the family was after justice and not money even though it is a widely known fact that they went to a civil lawyer first.
  • Jackson’s bail amount was set at $3 million; this amount is excessive compared to the amount that other Defendants in child molestation cases have to pay. Jackson’s lawyers recently filed a motion challenging the bail amount but their request was denied by Judge Rodney Melville. Melville sided with the prosecution, stating that because Jackson is rich, his bail should be higher than that of other Defendants. He did not use any laws to support his decision. (The court of appeals later questioned Melville’s ruling and asked him to provide a better justification for his decision)
  • Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he referred to Michael Jackson as “Jacko Wacko.”
  • Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?
  • Sneddon delayed filing charges until December so that the Santa Barbara Police Department could set up a website exclusively for members of the press.
  • Sneddon enlisted the help of a PR firm to deal with the media. Tellem, the PR firm working for Sneddon, also works for Dave Schwartz, the stepfather of Jackson’s first accuser.
  • Sneddon dismissed the Department of Children and Family Services investigation as an “interview” and accused the DCFS of being incompetent. It turns out that his own department also investigated Michael Jackson in February and came back with the same “unfounded” ruling as the DCFS.
  • In December, Jackson told Sixty Minutes that he was roughly handled by police officers when he was arrested; he showed photographic evidence to substantiate his claims. The SBPD responded to Jackson’s allegations by releasing audio clips of Jackson whistling in the car before he was booked. Jackson, however, did not claim that he was abused on his way to the station. The only mistreatment he alleged before the booking was when the handcuffs were put on but you can hear him on the audiotape complaining about the handcuffs being too tight.

    The actual abuse was not alleged to have occurred until Jackson was brought into the booking station. The SBPD did not show any footage of Jackson in the booking station, claiming that they did not film Jackson’s booking because they didn’t anticipate that there would be any problems. This contradicts their explanation as to why they recorded Jackson on his way to the station; they said they taped Jackson because it was a high-profile arrest and they wanted to ensure that everything was handled appropriately. In that case, why didn’t they tape Jackson in the booking station?

  • Sheriff Jim Anderson said that if Michael Jackson’s claims of police abuse turned out to be false, he would charge Jackson with making a false complaint. Since Jackson never actually made a formal complaint, Anderson’s statement is not in accordance with the law.
  • Attorney General Bill Lockyer was asked by Anderson to investigate Jackson’s claims in December; almost seven months later, he still has not issued any statement regarding his findings.
  • Jackson also alleged during the interview that he still had not received a list of what was taken from Neverland.
  • The alleged victim’s parents are currently in the midst of a custody battle. Sneddon wrote a letter to the judge in the custody proceedings requesting that the boy be kept from seeing his father. Why would the District Attorney care if the boy saw his father? What does this have to do with the molestation case? Perhaps Sneddon does not want the boy to change his story once he’s no longer under the influence of his mother.
  • To date, Sneddon has obtained 69 search warrants, including warrants to search Jackson’s bank statements, financial records and security boxes. Please tell me what evidence of child molestation does Sneddon hope to find in Jackson’s financial records?
  • Eight months after arresting Michael Jackson, Sneddon has still failed to hand over all of his evidence to the defense. How are Jackson’s attorneys supposed to prepare for the trial?
  • Court documents filed by the prosecution indicate that Sneddon sends his investigators to read fan discussion boards like MJJForum.
  • Sneddon took his case to a grand jury in order to avoid a public preliminary hearing. This is unfair to the Defendant.
  • The charges from the criminal complaint are completely different from the charges in the indictment. After the inconsistencies in Sneddon’s case were brought to the attention of the public, the timeline of alleged abuse changed, the number of times the abuse allegedly occurred changed and allegations of kidnapping have suddenly materialized. Why is this?
  • Jackson’s defense team recently filed a 126-page motion asking for the indictment to be thrown out. The document states that during the grand jury proceedings, Sneddon bullied witnesses, failed to properly present exculpatory evidence, refused to let the jurors question the prosecution witnesses and provided the jurors with a false legal definition of the term “conspiracy” (for which Jackson was indicted). The motion says: “There is simply no evidence that Mr. Jackson had the specific intent to agree or conspire with anyone about anything.”
  • The grand jury transcripts reveal that Sneddon allowed the accuser’s mother to refer to Jackson as “the devil” when she testified.
  • Although she has never even met Michael Jackson, a woman who worked for him for 10 days was the prosecution’s key witness to the alleged conspiracy. When she testified in front of the grand jury, she answered questions with: “I’m not sure,” “I guess,” “I assume,” “I don’t know exactly,” and “I think.” Sneddon allowed her to proceed even though she clearly had no knowledge of any alleged conspiracy.
  • A defense motion reveals that Sneddon used Jackson’s preference for a clean household as evidence that he was the mastermind of a criminal conspiracy. Seriously. The motion reads: “It is simply not reasonable to infer that Mr. Jackson’s preference for a well run household demonstrates the specific intent to commit crimes. Evidence that Mr. Jackson would complain to his staff when household chores were not done properly is not evidence that he was directing a criminal conspiracy.”
  • While at a District Attorney’s convention in Canada, Sneddon broke the gag order in the case and inadvertently revealed prosecutorial misconduct on his part. He told his fellow DAs that: “We sent letters to some people saying we intended to call them as witnesses in order to keep them off TV.” As it turns out, a journalist from the Globe and Mail was at the conference and printed his comments in a newspaper. Sneddon’s behaviour drew criticism from many legal experts who felt this was an abuse of power on Sneddon’s part. Jackson’s lawyers also brought Sneddon’s comments to the attention of Judge Melville, asking him to clarify whether or not Sneddon had violated the gag order.
  • According to a motion filed by the defense, the amount of search warrants that have been given to them by the prosecution does not match the amount of search warrants that have actually been issued by the prosecution. Six search warrants are missing, 10 affidavits used to support the search warrants have been heavily redacted and 49 affidavits used to support the search warrants have not been given to the defense at all. What is Sneddon hiding?
  • Sneddon has been ordered to testify about his illegal raid of Bradley Miller’s office. The accuser’s mother, her former civil lawyer Bill Dickerman and the therapist who reported the allegations to the police have also been subpoenaed to testify. Sneddon tried to quash their subpoenas so that they would not have to appear in court; the judge denied his request.
  • According to the defense team: “There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceeding.”

Source: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/prosecution.html

The Mirage

Again The Mirage pops up. Earlier in the blog you have read about the lost 30 minutes at The Mirage, after which the sleepovers began. Mike also was at The Mirage during the Neverland Raid and again when he was arrested, as you can read here.

“These photos show Jackson in a bathroom at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Lake Las Vegas, Nev. They were taken at least eight days after the arrest. Jackson had returned to the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, moved to a nearby resort before finally ending up at the Ritz Carlton.”

So he was at The Mirage when he was arrested, returned there but decided to leave The Mirage. There was not much we could find on The Mirage, other than this:

“The Mirage was built by developer Steve Wynn and designed by Joel Bergman. Wynn was born Steven Alan Weinberg in New Haven, Connecticut. His father, Michael, changed the family’s last name from “Weinberg” to “Wynn” when Steve was six months old “to avoid anti-Jewish discrimination” according to several sources.”

The Mirage hotel is one big mirror and after reading all the stuff about the mirror rooms and Mind Control, this just gives us a weird feeling, but we can’t put our finger on it.

WHO IS BEHIND THIS?

Was this all part of a bigger plan? Was Chandler paid? Were the Arvizos paid? And by who? Who would gain $$$ by getting Mike behind bars? Lets have a closer look at Santa Barbara County, Sony & Motolla, Sneddon and everyone else involved to see if we can build a theory about this.

Let’s start with the one the most at the surface, Tom Sneddon. He might be infamous for his vendetta against Mike, but that is not all the dirt we found on him.

Tom Sneddon

After having spent millions of dollars on the Michael Jackson investigation in 1993, District Attorney Tom Sneddon did not find enough evidence to bring charges against the pop star.

Over the next few years, Sneddon and several of his employees made numerous statements to the press where they implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate Jordan Chandler’s story. They failed to explain, however, why two grand juries did not indict Michael Jackson if such evidence actually existed.

According to reporter Geraldo Rivera, members of the Santa Barbara Police Department were shown footage of the strip search of Jackson’s genitalia. “I’ve got a videotape that was shown to every cop in Santa Barbara of Michael Jackson’s penis,” Rivera said.

In 1995, Jackson wrote a song about Tom Sneddon that appeared on his album HIStory: Past, Present and Future Book I. In the song (D.S.), Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA’s office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame.

Many legal experts dismissed the idea that Sneddon would prosecute Jackson solely for his own self-aggrandizement but perhaps there are other motives involved. According to Thambiah Sundaram, a dentist who filed and won a lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors in 1996, the commercial prospects of Neverland might be one factor influencing authorities’ relentless pursuit of Jackson.

In 1994, Sundaram attended a private fundraising event where he allegedly heard Sneddon discuss a plan to run Jackson out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. According to Sundaram, Sneddon planned to do this by finding another child to accuse Jackson of sexual abuse. While Sundaram’s allegations are difficult to prove or disprove at this point, it is a widely known fact that winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, accounting for about $360 million of the county’s annual economy. The Santa Ynez Valley, where Jackson owns almost 3,000 acres of land, is particularly well suited for growing grapes because of its ideal climate and soil conditions. Numerous wineries located in the Santa Ynez Valley are looking to expand but there isn’t enough available land in the area to do so.

Whether or not Sundaram’s allegations have any merit remains to be seen, but there are other facts that point to Sneddon having a vendetta against Michael Jackson. Sneddon said in a press conference that after 1993, he changed certain California laws pertaining to child molestation specifically because of the Michael Jackson case.

In 1995, Sneddon told Vanity Fair magazine:

“The state of the investigation [of Jackson] is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”

Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary that aired in February 2003, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 6, 2003, Sneddon said:

“After conversations with Sheriff Jim Anderson, it was agreed that the BBC broadcast would be taped by the Sheriff’s Department. It is anticipated that it will be reviewed.”

Regarding Jackson’s comments that there is nothing wrong with sharing a bedroom with a child, Sneddon replied by saying it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.” He then urged any victims to come forward. Read the full press release here.

Shortly after this statement was released, Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he discussed the 1993 case.

Coincidentally, the boy who appeared in Living with Michael Jackson – the documentary that Sneddon taped and watched – is the same boy who ended up becoming Jackson’s second accuser. Did Sneddon have something to do with this boy coming forward?

During his testimony at a pre-trial hearing, Sneddon admitted to having met with the second accuser’s mother in an empty parking lot to give her papers that would qualify her for a state victim’s fund. He also personally investigated the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson, a job that is supposed to be carried out by investigators.

Linda Fairstein, a leading sex crimes prosecutor, said of Sneddon’s actions:

“It’s way too personal. It’s way out of line. If he does any substantive parts of an investigation, he may become a witness in the case.”

She continued:

“It lets these very talented defense attorneys take him apart before the jury and explain that it’s not his place to do that. He creates trouble in and out of the courtroom for himself by taking on that role.”

Although the accusing family’s story had numerous holes in it, Sneddon went forward with the case and pressed charges.

Source: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/tomsneddon.html

  • Some of Sneddon’s friends wanted Jackson’s property to convert it into a thriving vineyard. Consistent with Sundaram’s claims, wine-making is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara where Jackson owns 2,700 acres of prime real estate.
  • Authorities laughed and bragged about passing around pictures of Jackson’s genitalia, pictures that were taken during the 1993-94 investigation. This was done to embarrass Jackson. (These pictures were supposed to be sealed but are not. Even Geraldo Rivera admits that he has seen them)
  • Nicola lamented that they had done everything they could to get “that nigger” out of town but had failed. Apparently, authorities did not like the fact that Jackson was the richest resident in Santa Barbara, that he had married a white woman (Lisa Marie Presley) and that he owned all of that property. They promised they would not fail to get rid of him the next time around.
  • Sneddon allegedly stated that his goal was to get “some dirt to get him to leave” and that he wanted to “run him out of town.”

These tidbits of information have been challenged by Sneddon supporters and Jackson haters alike as unsubstantiated gossip. However, if this information has any kernel of truth to it (and we believe it does), then it makes the events of November 2003 a mere fulfillment of an alleged obsession with Jackson on Sneddon’s part.

Read more

Sneddon’s prosecutorial misconduct in the Michael Jackson case is not an isolated incident; in fact, several other people have accused him of malicious prosecution.

What’s Going On In Santa Barbara?

Interesting is the link Sneddon has with David Schwartz, who was Jordie Chandler’s stepfather during the 1993 allegations. Normally that could be a coincidence, but the fact that during his testimony at a pre-trial hearing Sneddon admitted to having met with the Janet Arvizo before the second accusations makes us think this was all planned. But what would Sneddon gain from all this? Did he hate Mike? And why? Justice was not a motive, because both cases were doomed to be lost by him, because he had NOTHING. Fame could be a motive, but who wants to be known for nailing the most famous and loved person in the world? That seems a little strange. So it must be money. Since we don’t believe that Sneddon’s paycheck was that big, he must have been paid by other parties. But by who? Who would gain enough by getting rid of Mike?

Ron Zonen

Sr. Deputy District Attorney during the 2005 trial. We found a little dirt on him as well. The source link doesn’t work anymore, that is why we are glad we save everything.

Ron Zonen Breaks the Law in ‘Hollywood’ Case ? – SBNP

Hollywood prosecutor admits to misdemeanor

9/21/05 By SCOTT HADLY

NEWS-PRESS SENIOR WRITER

Prosecutor says he shouldn’t be disqualified The prosecutor in the Jesse James Hollywood murder and kidnapping trial may have committed a misdemeanor when he gave certain information to the makers of a new film, but that shouldn’t disqualify him from handling the case, according to court documents. Senior Deputy District Attorney Ron Zonen may have inadvertently given the makers of the yet-to-be released movie, “Alpha Dog,” rap sheets and information about witnesses, and while that might be “evidence of carelessness,” it doesn’t amount to bias, according to a district attorney’s motion submitted for a hearing Tuesday. After his March capture in Brazil, Mr. Hollywood, 25, pleaded not guilty to orchestrating the August 2000 kidnapping and killing of 15-year-old Nicholas Markowitz.

Prosecutors allege Nicholas’ death was the culmination of an escalating feud between Mr.

Hollywood and the teenager’s older half-brother over a $1,200 drug debt. After the teen’s body was found off West Camino Cielo, Mr. Hollywood disappeared. He and four others were indicted for the killing by a Santa Barbara County grand jury. While Mr. Hollywood was on the run, three of the co-defendants were tried and convicted and another pleaded guilty. All are now serving time and one, the alleged triggerman, Ryan Hoyt, is now on death row. “Alpha Dog,” which is set to be released early next year, stars Sharon Stone, Bruce Willis and Justin Timberlake. It has been shown once to preview audiences. Mr. Hollywood’s attorney, James Blatt, who saw the movie, said it is hewn directly from the prosecution’s version of events and depicts his client as “extremely manipulative, vicious, selfish and without any redeeming character traits whatsoever.” In a motion filed last week, Mr. Blatt called the cooperation between Mr. Zonen and the filmmaker, Nick Cassavetes, “unprecedented misconduct.”

Mr. Blatt said Mr. Zonen told Mr. Cassavetes’ researcher that the case against Mr. Hollywood and his four co-defendants would be his “legacy” and that he planned to write a book. But in the response written by Senior Deputy District Attorney Gerald Franklin for Tuesday’s hearing, Mr. Franklin points out that talking about writing a book and actually writing one are two different things. “There probably is a book in every prosecutor who has made a career of prosecuting serious felonies,” Mr. Franklin said. To show some sort of conflict, Mr. Blatt has to show that Mr. Zonen has a personal interest or financial benefit in the outcome of the trial and there is none, according to Mr. Franklin. “There is nothing in (Mr. Blatt’s) screed that remotely suggests that (Deputy District Attorney) Zonen has a personal interest in securing the conviction of Defendant Hollywood distinct from a professional interest in bringing all Santa Barbara murderers to book, apart from the sharpened focus that necessarily attends being assigned a particular case to prosecute and having to prepare it for trial (in this case five times over),” Mr. Franklin said in the motion.

“There is nothing to suggest that (Deputy District Attorney) Zonen is under the influence of a private party with a personal interest in securing Hollywood’s conviction.” … Mr. Blatt said Tuesday that he intends to respond to the district attorney by the end of this week. And he hopes to get a sworn declaration from Mr. Cassavetes, the movie’s writer and director. In court he told Judge Brian Hill that Michael Mehas, an attorney who helped Mr. Cassavetes research the case and write the script, had stopped cooperating with the defense. Mr. Blatt indicated that he might have to haul Mr. Mehas into court to ask him about what other kinds of information were given to him during his research. The next hearing is scheduled for November 1.

Source: http://news.newspress.com/topsports/092105hollywood.htm

Sheriff Jim Thomas

Sheriff Jim Thomas conducted the investigation into molestation charges in 1993 and sent investigators all over the country and as far as the Philippines to investigate other reports of sexual molestation. Tom Sneddon, who was also the district attorney in the 1993 case, presented evidence from that investigation to a Santa Barbara grand jury at the time. But ultimately no formal charges were filed against Mike.

Thomas was elected sheriff in 1990, and ran unopposed for three terms before retiring, so he was the Santa Barbara County sheriff while Brooks Firestone represented the 35th District in the California State Assembly for two terms (1994-1998). Thomas has kept busy since he retired as sheriff in 2002 after 30 years with the department, but he didn’t loose his interest for Mike.

In December 2003, over a year after his retirement, Jim Thomas hit the spotlight again and told CNN there was a second child who claimed in 1993 that Michael Jackson molested him. Thomas told CNN the second accuser in 1993, a boy aged 9 or 10 at the time, decided he was too “ashamed” to testify against Jackson, and didn’t want his friends to know. The parents also did not want the boy or themselves subjected to a “take no prisoners” defense, Thomas said. “The child did not want to testify, and we can’t force a child to testify, so that never went forward,” he said. Thomas said he believed the second child would have gone forward with the allegations had other alleged victims come forward. He said the case was “strong,” but “it would have been up to a jury to decide, and it never got that far.”

On March 12, 2004, Jim Thomas appeared on MSNBC’s ‘The Abrams Report’ and blew the prosecution’s claims. This show was about a two month investigation done by the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department that ultimately cleared Jackson of these allegations, finding “no criminal activity” occurred. The investigation began Feb 18 2003 and ended April 16 2003, according to reports.

The public was told nothing about this investigation during any of Sneddon’s interviews with Diane Dimond and Art Harris. Sneddon didn’t volunteer this information during any of his joking and insulting press conferences. Neither was the information published on the prosecution’s media website. Nor was it released in a statement though it’s PR firm Tellum Worldwide.

Jim Thomas appeared on the ‘The Abrams Report’ trying unsuccessfully to put out this fire of doubt currently building in many media pundits who previously were absolutely sure-disgustingly so-that Jackson was guilty of a crime. Some are rethinking their preconceptions about this case and are actually asking questions about the situation instead of just accepting whatever nonsense prosecution sympathizers throw out.

Thomas said on the show:

“They opened the case but at that point you had no victim. The child had not confided in anyone until June. So the mother didn’t know. The siblings didn’t know and the case was started only because of suspicions based upon Bashir’s [documentary]. Nobody had ever come forward at that point and specifically said that Michael Jackson had molested that child. Certainly, that child had not said that and did not say that until June. So in essence you really had no victim until June.”

Read the complete transcript here

Sources:

http://www.santamariatimes.com/articles/2006/01/11/news/local/news01.txt

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/04/jackson.case/index.html

http://site2.mjeol.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=514

Thomas worked as a television analyst for MSNBC during the Michael Jackson child-molestation trial.

Sheriff Jim Anderson

On November 19 2003, Sneddon held a press conference where his behaviour led many to believe that he had a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 case. Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Anderson created a jovial atmosphere by making several jokes at Jackson’s expense. It appears that this video was removed from the internet on Sneddon’s request, but you can read it here.

Then we have the issue of how Mike was treated by the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department personnel:

Following that footage Sheriff Jim Anderson asked the state attorney general to investigate the allegations Mike levelled:

JEFF WILSON, Associated Press Writer

AP Worldstream

01-01-2004

Dateline: SANTA BARBARA, California

The sheriff of Santa Barbara County has strongly denied Michael Jackson was roughed up by jailers during his arrest, and threatened to press charges against the pop star for making a false accusation against an officer.

Sheriff Jim Anderson said he asked the state attorney general to investigate the allegations Jackson leveled during a television interview on Sunday.

Jackson was treated “with the utmost respect and courtesy” during his arrest and booking Nov. 20 on suspicion of child molestation and was “in no way manhandled or abused,” Anderson said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3842514

According to Thomas Mesereau Mike never made a formal complaint about his treatment or requested an investigation, although he had bruises and received medical treatment after his arrest. Yet 163 witnesses were interviewed and 2,500 investigative hours were spent (who paid for that?) and the California Bureau of Investigation determined that Mike was not injured at the hands of Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department personnel.

Source: http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,687564,00.html

Jamie Masada

The owner of the Laugh Factory, who introduced Gavin to Mike and other celebs.

In 1985, Masada marched down Pennsylvania Avenue with Bob Hope, Phyllis Diller, Red Foxx, amongst many others in The Laugh Factory’s campaign to send the first comedian into space. The campaign drew so much attention that President Reagan asked Bob Hope to arrange a meeting with Masada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laugh_Factory

Bob Hope was the alleged owner/handler of Brice Taylor:

http://www.educate-yourself.org/mc/

http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2009/03/cathy-obrien-mk-ultra-cia-mind-control.html

Following the advice of her friend Jamie Massada, Janet consults a lawyer named William Dickerman. Dickerman sends the family to Feldman before any accusations have been made.

Uri Geller

Here is some information about Uri Geller.

Born in Tel Aviv, Israel, to Hungarian Jewish parents, Geller was the only child of Itzhaak Geller, a retired Army sergeant major, and Manzy Freud (Freud Manci). It is claimed that Geller is a distant relative of Sigmund Freud on his mother’s side, also has a twin called Adrian. He was brought to the United States for scientific investigation by Andrija Puharich.

Andrija Puharich, MD, also known as Henry K. Puharich, (February 19, 1918 – January 3, 1995), was a medical and parapsychological researcher, medical inventor and author, who is perhaps best known as the person who brought Uri Geller and Peter Hurkos to the United States for scientific investigation. His research included studying the influence of extremely low frequency ELF electromagnetic wave emissions on the mind, and he invented several devices allegedly blocking or converting ELF waves to prevent harm.

Extremely low frequency (ELF) is used to control behavior and mood patterns.

Recent research has revealed Puharich to have a distinctly sinister side. As an Army doctor in the 1950s, he was deeply involved with the CIA’s notorious MKULTRA mind control project. He – together with the infamous Dr Sidney Gottlieb – experimented with a variety of techniques to change or induce actual thought processes even to creating the impression of voices in the head. These techniques included the use of drugs, hypnosis and beaming radio signals directly into the subject’s brain. And, significantly, he was engaged in this work at exactly the same time that The Nine made their first appearance at the Round Table Foundation. The Foundation itself is now known to have been largely funded by the Pentagon as a front for its medical and parapsychological research. Puharich was still working for the CIA in the early 1970s, when he brought Uri Geller out of Israel.

Longtime friend Michael Jackson was best man when Geller renewed his wedding vows in 2001. Geller also claimed on a BBC Radio 5 Live interview with Nicky Campbell on the morning after Michael Jackson’s death (26 June 2009) that Jackson had agreed to let Geller hypnotise him to help him with a problem. Geller said that he did something “highly unethical” by asking him whether he had ever “touched a child in an inappropriate way.” Geller says that Jackson immediately denied it under hypnosis. Geller also negotiated the famous TV interview between Jackson with the journalist Martin Batshit: Living with Michael Jackson. He is also very well known inside the Pentagon.

Among conspiracy theorists there’s always been talk that Uri Geller was not just a psychic – that he was working for U.S. military intelligence. The work Puthoff and Targ were conducting – as well as other research into psychic powers, ESP, ELF and such was heavily funded by the U.S. military.

The belief is that the U.S. was locked in a covert sort of psychic arms race with the Soviets, both sides conducting research in how to use this stuff for spying, for mind control, and for weapons. Moreover, it is believed that Geller himself had put his psychic powers at the service of the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad.

You might think “What is so interesting about this?” But Uri Geller is the one that introduced Batshit to Mike and we all know what happened after Batshit came to visit. He claims to be his friend, but we all noticed Uri likes to promote Uri. Is he Mike’s friend? Maybe, but we think he is not. If you look at his background and connections, it is way more likely that Geller introduced Batshit to Mike for a reason, and not to make Mike look better.

Martin Batshit

The way Batshit works is devilish. He promises he will help you spread a message, make something clear in your interview, he makes you trust him and then he will air something complete different than agreed, making you look bad. We know he did that to Mike, but Mike was not his own victim. In 1992 he did the same to a victim of satanic rituals, read her story here.

Batshit was in our eyes of good use: hungry for fame and without any morals.

Malnik, Lansky, Mottola & Ratner

After Mike’s “death” his former friend Al Malnik hit the news several times, saying that he’s godfather to Blanket, and that, last Malnik knew, he was executor of Mike’s estate. His wife Nancy published photos showing Malnik and his family with Mike in 2003.

Quote Daily Mail:

“In pictures taken from the same party, Jackson and his children are allegedly pictured with the children of close friends Al and Nancy Malnik.The 76-year-old American millionaire has triplets Jarod, Spencer and Nathan, who are now 11. Mr Malnik had been friends with the singer for more than ten years and the singer stayed with him at the height of the child abuse scandals. Jackson is godfather to Spencer, who is understood to be featured in the pictures sitting on the steps of Mr Malnik’s Miami mansion with Paris.”

According to Gordon Novel, known for several controversial investigations, allegations connected with intelligence agencies and currently for his commitments to fight the alleged conspiracy of free energy suppression, the friendship between Mike and Al Malnik ended in 2003. The two men had a falling out after Mike began to believe that Malnik, who has known Mafia ties and was once a close associate of Meyer Lansky, was trying to wrangle Mike’s rights to half the Beatles catalog of songs from him, rights that are worth an estimated half billion dollars.

According to Novel, Mike said he was lured to Malnik’s house in Miami Beach by film director Brett Ratner to see a house so beautiful it would make him catatonic. He said that once he was there, however, Malnik, who according to Mike had Mafia ties, wanted to put his fingers in his business. Mike also said he received a call from Tommy Mottola while he was there, which aroused his suspicion.

Al Malnik and Brett Ratner indeed know each other:

(from left to right): Shareef Malnick, Al Malnick, Serena Williams, Michael Jackson, Chris Tucker, and Brett Ratner (front).

(from left to right): Brett Ratner, Michael Jackson, Al Malnik (standing), Chris Tucker.

Al Malnik

A little search on Malnik results in the following information about Mafia connections:

A lawyer, real estate developer and proprietor of the supertrendy Miami Beach hot spot The Forge, Malnik is also owner of Title Loans of America, a national chain that lends money legally at annual percentage rates reaching 264% – higher than most loansharks’ vig.

The feds opened their first dossier on Malnik in 1963. It was two years after he graduated, first in his class, from Miami Law School. He had helped set up the Bank of World Commerce in Nassau, the Bahamas, an alleged loot laundry that investigators said involved “some of the nation’s top gangsters.”

Acquitted on tax fraud charges in 1964, Malnik was heard discussing Lansky two years later on bugs placed by cops probing whether casino profits were invested overseas on the mobster’s behalf.

In 1964, he made his first venture into showbiz, organizing a video jukebox company, Scopitone, that was touted as a music-industry revolution.

In 1966, the U.S. attorney in New York secretly indicted Malnik on charges of using the mail to defraud Scopitone investors.In 1971, prosecutors quietly dropped the case.

Meanwhile, after Malnik opened The Forge in 1969, it rose quickly to the top of Miami’s night scene, attracting celebrities such as Frank Sinatra, Judy Garland, Richard Burton and even Richard Nixon, who came with his shady financier pal, Bebe Rebozo.

Alvin Malnik, the man once regarded as the heir apparent to mobster Meyer Lansky, … described by federal authorities as a top associate of organized crime figures … Among his friends, Malnik counts Saudi royalty.

The sole owner of a Georgia company, Title Loans of America, Malnik runs a national chain of loan stores that make millions of dollars from the interest charged on quick cash offered to people in desperate need of money. … Attorney General Bob Butterworth [Florida] likens the business to ‘legalized loan sharking.’ … ‘It was a known fact among the criminal underworld that dealing with Al Malnik was the same as dealing with Meyer Lansky,’ [said] Vincent Teresa, ‘a convicted criminal and frequent government witness currently in the federal Witness Protection Program,’ …

When Lansky died in 1983 at age 81, Reader’s Digest named Malnik his ‘heir apparent.’ … ‘He is not welcome here,’ James Hurley, the chairman of the New Jersey Casino Control Commission … ‘He’s done nothing to overcome his reputation of being closely identified with Meyer Lansky and other organized crime figures.’ … In 1962, Malnik was listed as a director of the Bank of World Commerce, a Bahamas-based institution that involved ‘some of the nations’ top gangsters,’ … In 1978, a Bahamian company named Appolonia Investment Limited paid $3.35 million to buy the property just north of Malnik’s Ranch. … Malnik refuse to divulge Appolonia’s owners.

Source: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Malnik_Al_58621055.aspx

Meyer Lansky

(born Meyer Suchowljanski) (July 4, 1902 – January 15, 1983; known as the “Mob’s Accountant”) was a Jewish-American organized crime figure who, along with his associate Charles “Lucky” Luciano, was instrumental in the development of the “National Crime Syndicate” in the United States.

Lansky developed a gambling empire which stretched from Saratoga, New York to Miami to Council Bluffs Iowa and Las Vegas; it is also said that he oversaw gambling concessions in Cuba. Although a member of the Jewish Mafia, Lansky undoubtedly had strong influence with the Italian Mafia and played a large role in the consolidation of the criminal underworld (although the full extent of this role has been the subject of some debate).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_Lansky

According to Gordon Novel he was originally contacted by Jermaine and said that Mike and the family wanted Novel to gather proof of the Malnik/Mottola conspiracy and further find evidence that Mottola was behind the criminal child molestation charges.

Novel said he flew in March 2005, about a month into Mike’s trial, from his home in New Orleans to the Los Angeles home owned by Mike’s parents, where he stayed several days before Jackson finally had him over to Neverland Valley. He said the two of them met in a bungalow on the property before Mike drove him around the ranch in an old pickup truck.

Quote:

“The whole thing centered on Tommy Mottola setting him up,” Novel told me. “Mottola and him were at odds, and Jackson’s information was that Mottola and Malnik got together to fuck him. He said he believed Malnik was representing the Mob.”

He said Jackson had special loathing for Malnik because he felt betrayed by him. When I told him that Malnik was saying that Jackson had made him executor of his estate, he was dubious.

“He had split up with Malnik,” said Novel. “He never said anything about Malnik being executor of his will. And based on how pissed off Jackson was at him at the time, I wouldn’t believe it on a bet.”

When asked what Jackson was like at the meeting, Novel didn’t hesitate: “He was afraid, very very afraid. He didn’t want to go to jail and didn’t think he would be treated very well there.”

Was he fearful that he would be killed in prison?

“Yeah, you can say that,” Novel said.

But he also said that Jackson’s mental state was “excellent” and that the pop star was lucid and extremely intelligent. He didn’t believe Jackson was on any drugs during the meeting.

I asked Novel if he believed Jackson’s theory about the conspiracy against him. He said that he thought Jackson was not guilty of the criminal charges and that he was probably set up, but he had no idea if Mottola was involved.

“He thought that Mottola was Mob-connected and that Malnik was representing the Mob, but I can’t vouch for any of that shit,” Novel said. “I don’t have anything against Tommy Mottola and don’t know if what he thought was true or not. I don’t want to get on Mottola’s bad side. My sources in New York say he’s a dangerous guy.”

Source: http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2009/06/the_malnik_familys_michael_jac.php

Tommy Mottola

A search also results in articles which mention Tommy Mottola’s alleged mob ties.

Quote:

“Do you know this guy has a Mafia background?” a senior Sony executive quotes the CBS man as saying. “What are you doing tainting this wonderful company you just bought from us with a guy who has a background that would make the F.B.I. cringe?”

Rattled, Sony contacted F.B.I. director William Sessions, requesting a quiet background check. The response was a qualified O.K. “The F.B.I. said, ‘No, this guy is not somebody who will start dealing with people we should worry about, but he has friends who do,'” says a former senior executive at Sony. “We said, ‘As long as he’s clean, we won’t worry.’ And that was the basis on which we didn’t.”

Source: http://www.mariahjournal.com/infozone/magazines/articles/1996/vanityfair/

Quote:

Opportunistic from the get-go, Mottola converted to Judaism as a young man in order to marry the daughter of tough ABC Records creator Sam Clark, yet has spent the rest of his life playing the mobster angle to whatever advantage he can. He named his first management company “Don Tommy”; as head of Warner Music, Michael Fuchs recalled to New York magazine that Mottola spoke of Morris Levy as a personal hero, and in fact Mottola was an investment partner of Levy’s up until Levy’s conviction. In the racketeering trial of Gambino family capo Greg De Palma, a former undercover FBI agent stated under oath that De Palma bragged of wining and dining with Mottola and his then-wife Mariah Carey.

Vanity Fair reported that Colombo family boss-turned-FBI-informant Michael Franzese told journalist Frederic Dannen (author of best-selling industry exposé Hit Men), “Tommy, we knew he was a friend of ours.” Mottola makes light of these connections, dismissing it all (in certain company, at least) as sensationalism and hearsay, yet as long as these associations continue to work for him more often than against him, he seems content to perpetuate them.

Source: http://www.crawdaddy.com/index.php/2009/01/21/the-mafia-and-the-music-industry/2/

Brett Ratner

A little search on Ratner lead us to this information, showing a close, personal connection to Malnik:

Quote:

“Had he been realistic and realized what the odds were that he would succeed to the extent that he has, he probably wouldn’t have tried at all,” says Shareef Malnik, owner of the landmark Miami Beach restaurant The Forge.

Shareef’s father Al Malnik was a friend of Ratner’s paternal grandfather, developer Lee Ratner. Brett was raised by his mother and maternal grandparents, who are Cuban and Jewish. They all lived in a house a block away from The Forge. The elder Malnik mentored Ratner while he was a going to Hebrew Academy and then Beach High.

“He grew up as my little brother,” Shareef says. He calls my dad Dad.

Source: http://towntek.com/blog/?p=206

Flash frames show Malnik with a slew of the big names across the years-from world-famous attorney and mentor Jake Ehrlich to Rat Pack stars Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr., to his first son, Shareef, and his “11th son,” famed director Brett Ratner, to a bevy of beautiful women and a host of others-until, suddenly, the camera pauses, and Malnik finds the love of his life-Nancy.

Source: http://www.miamibeachreflections.com/?tag=al-malnik

The Firestone Family

Sneddon was allegedly overheard in 1994 discussing a plan to get Mike out of Santa Barbara and turn Neverland into a winery. Winemaking is the leading agricultural industry in Santa Barbara, and while searching for the wineries in Santa Barbara, we bumped into the Firestone Family.

Like mentioned above, Thambiah Sundaram attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.

Slick Gardner is a horse rancher who owns 2,000 acres of land in Santa Barbara. In 2003, Gardner was investigated for animal abuse after his neighbours reported that some of his horses looked unhealthy. Around the same time the allegations hit, Gardner ran for 3rd District Supervisor against John Buttny, Steve Pappas and Brooks Firestone. Firestone – who owns a successful winery in Santa Barbara and who also has political ties to Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff Jim Thomas – won the election by a landslide. As a result of the bad publicity from the animal abuse allegations, Gardner got the least amount of votes.

While investigating Gardner for animal abuse, Santa Barbara authorities also stumbled upon evidence of grand theft. Gardner was charged with 12 felony counts and hired defense attorney Steve Balash to represent him in the case. Balash later backed out of the case saying it was too complicated.

According to Gardner, Sneddon has had a grudge against him for 30 years and is only prosecuting him out of spite. “It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done,” Gardner said.

“The same thing that’s happening to Michael Jackson happened to me. One day Sneddon is going to wake up with a boot up his ass with a white glove in it, and it will be about time.”

Let’s have a closer look at the Firestones.

Harvey Firestone’s son Leonard was an attendee at Bohemian Grove. A staunch Republican, Leonard Firestone was delegate to Republican National Convention from California in 1944 (alternate), 1948 and 1952. In 1954 he was elected to the city council of Beverly Hills.

Leonard Firestone was chairman of the Nelson Rockefeller campaign in the California Presidential primary in 1964. Firestone was appointed U.S. ambassador to Belgium by President Richard Nixon in 1974, and was reappointed by President Gerald Ford, serving until 1976. He was later chairman of the Richard M. Nixon Foundation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Firestone

The Nixon/Illuminati connection

President Gerald Ford’s connections to MK Ultra are described in Cathy O’Brian’s book “Trance Formation of America”.

Excerpts

The Vice-President under Ford was Nelson Rockefeller.

Leonard Firestone’s first marriage produced three children, of which one is a son named Brooks Firestone. Brooks Firestone represented the 35th District in the California State Assembly for two terms (1994-1998), and is the former Santa Barbara County, California Third District Supervisor (2004-2008).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Firestone

In the early 1970s, Harvey’s son Leonard, a former United States Ambassador to Belgium, established a family ranch in Santa Barbara County’s rugged Santa Ynez Valley. At the time, Santa Barbara County barely registered on California’s winegrowing radar, but Leonard saw immense potential in the region’s coastal climate and amenable soils. He decided to plant a vineyard, with the initial intent of selling the grapes to North Coast wineries.

Soon thereafter, Leonard was joined by his son Brooks and Brooks’ wife Kate, and together they decided to take their winegrowing adventure to the next level by establishing Santa Barbara County’s first estate winery.

In 1987, Los Angeles Times Magazine noted: “Brooks Firestone’s importance to the California wine industry is first of all historical: He was a pioneer, an inspirer, and expander of possibilities; he took a chance on an untried wine area, then stuck with it and made it pay…”

Source: http://www.firestonewine.com/index.cfm?method=pages.showPage&pageid=8db7dd65-1cc4-fbb6-2378-ab89ea1fc73c

We are not saying anything with this, but the connections of the Firestones are interesting to say the least.

SONY

Sony turns out to be more interesting then we thought as well. The origin of the name SONY is not very clear, but many people seen to think it is an acronym of Standard Oil of New York. This is what Leroy Fletcher Prouty had to say about it.

It just happens that I was ordered to Tokyo during the early days of the Korean War period, and was assigned the job of “Military Manager of Tokyo International Airport” during the period of the U.S. military occupation of Japan. At that time it was the third busiest airport in the world, not only because of the Korean War activity; but because of just such business activity as Burnham describes on the part of Mr. Morita. Many other Japanese entrepreneurs were doing their best to revive from the losses and damage of WWII; but even more important was an another enormous business phenomenon.

I began to notice that day after day the few Japanese transport aircraft available, and countless large commercial aircraft from USA Charter Companies began to jam the parking ramp on Tokyo Airport. They were loaded with items from the States.

US money and manufactured material was flooding the place. Have you ever really thought why Mr. Morita, a fine Japanese businessman, would name his company SONY? That is not a Japanese word, nor is it a Japanese acronym.

The name SONY began to appear at the airport after the flood of post-war recovery money, and one of the meanings of those four letters is “STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK”. That has always been SONY or SOCONY. (The Standard Oil Company of New York)

THE ROCKEFELLERS had arrived to re-finance Japan.

What this meant was that during those “MacArthur” days Rockefeller money was flooding Japan; and money such as that (Yes, I’m using the term MONEY) kind of “money” began the amazing job of rebuilding Japan.

Source: http://www.prouty.org/letter11.html

Leroy Fletcher Prouty (January 24, 1917 – June 5, 2001) was an American colonel in the United States Air Force, author, banker, and critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially as regarded the activities of the CIA.

As a critic of the CIA, Prouty pointed out its influence in global matters, outside the realm of U.S. congressional and government oversight. His works detail the formation and development of the CIA, the origins of the Cold War, the U-2 incident, the Vietnam War, and the John F. Kennedy assassination. Prouty’s book JFK claims that these events are proof of a secret “global elite” at work.

He has subscribed to the theory that oil is not derived from fossils but from carbon deposits deep within the Earth (abiogenic petroleum origin theory).

The Col. L Fletcher Prouty Reference Site

So if this is true, SONY also has links to the Rockefellers (Illuminati), just like the Firestones. Click here for information about Standard Oil.

Besides that, Mike owned half of SONY ATV, that owns the rights to songs by Elvis Presley, Eminem, Akon, Bob Dylan, and Willie Nelson. The value of Sony/ATV Music Publishing has varied in reports. Industry experts have estimated the company to be worth as much as $1.5 billion.

So that means big bucks. Others say that the worth of SONY/ATV is even higher than that. Sony had been pushing to buy Mike’s entire share in their music catalog venture for years. Sony had something to gain from Mike’s career failing because if Mike’s career or financial situation were to deteriorate, he would have to sell his catalog.

Here is another interesting read about Sony, mentioning Mottola, Malnik, Rattner, and others.

Source: This is a thread from http://michaeljackson.ae/

OUR THOUGHTS

Well, it is clear that he was framed…twice! But how and why? There are too many similarities between the Chandlers and the Arvizos. There is a link with David Schwarz and Tom Sneddon and Sneddon admitted he met with Janet Arvizo before the accusations. Makes us think that Sneddon planned this and that the Arvizos and the Chandlers are on the payroll?

But what’s in it for Sneddon? Fame? Not in a good way because putting Mike behind bars means he will gain millions of haters, some even mad enough to hunt him down and kill him.

Because he thought he was guilty and wanted the child molester behind bars? Doesn’t make sense either, because he was presented all the facts and evidence supporting Mike, he must have known he was innocent. If we can already see that by reading on the net, he must have seen that as well. So why hunt him down for so many years? Must have been for $$$$, we don’t see another reason. But who was paying Sneddon to get Mike?

We do have our thoughts on this, but after reading all the above, we think you can draw your own conclusion.

We heard that the support Mike got from his fans was ignored by the mainstream media, but there was a lot of support, all over the world:

If you still doubt his innocence, you must have missed the FBI files, you can download them here.

FBI Files Support Jackson’s Innocence; Media Reports Otherwise

By Charles Thomson

Links of interest

http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/main.html

http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/index2.html

http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/TheInterviews.html

http://floacist.wordpress.com/

What’s Going On In Santa Barbara?

February 16, 2010 1 comment

.

While it is obvious that District Attorney Tom Sneddon has a vendetta against Michael Jackson, there are other allegations of abuse on Sneddon’s part that have been ignored by the mainstream media. The following people have accused Sneddon and his employees of malicious prosecution, conspiracy, abuse of power and civil rights violations.

And these are just the cases that have been made public…

Gary Dunlap

In November 2003, Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tom Sneddon, accusing him of racketeering, witness tampering, conspiracy and malicious prosecution. Earlier that year, Sneddon had charged Dunlap with perjury, witness intimidation, filing false documents and preparing false documents in a case that Dunlap had handled. Dunlap was acquitted on all charges but claims his reputation has been irreparably harmed as a result of the proceedings. In an interview with Online Legal Review’s Ron Sweet, Dunlap claimed that Sneddon stacked the charges against him in order to get a conviction on at least one count; apparently, this is a common occurrence in Sneddon’s office. Dunlap also discussed Sneddon’s frequent abuse of power and claimed that there are other lawyers who have seen this. A judge recently upheld most of Dunlap’s lawsuit and the case will soon go to trial unless a civil settlement is reached.

In related news, Dunlap’s lawyer Joe Freeman recently sent a complaint asking that federal, state and county officials investigate Tom Sneddon and members of the Santa Barbara Police Department for misconduct. “In my opinion, the matters to be investigated are the possible criminal violations of several felony and misdemeanour statutes, including conspiracy, illegal taping, deceiving a court and a prosecutor illegally assisting the defense of a case,” Freeman said in his complaint. “I respectfully request that the U.S. Attorney, the California Attorney General, the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury and the State Bar open investigations and seek whatever sanctions are found to be warranted against Sneddon and his staff.” In response to the allegations, the SBPD’s attorney Jake Stoddard said that Sneddon and his employees are immune from legal action because they are prosecutors.

Efren Cruz

In 2001, a man named Efren Cruz filed a federal lawsuit against Santa Barbara prosecutors accusing them of negligence and conspiracy to keep him in prison. The lawsuit also accused District Attorney Tom Sneddon of malicious prosecution. Cruz was incarcerated for four years after being convicted of murder in 1997. The lawsuit claimed that prosecutors had evidence favourable to Cruz but failed to hand it over to the defense before the trial. After Cruz was convicted, the real murderer was caught on tape confessing to the crime. Regardless, Santa Barbara prosecutors stood by their conviction until the case was taken to a higher court where Cruz was exonerated.

Thambiah Sundaram

Thambiah Sundaram’s contentious relationship with Santa Barbara authorities began when he opened a non-profit dental clinic in the county and began to attain political status as a result. After unsuccessfully trying to have the clinic shut down, authorities arrested Sundaram for grand theft, impersonating a doctor and malicious mischief. His wife was also arrested and an employee at the clinic was later charged with committing a drive-by shooting. All three were found not guilty. Sundaram sued Sneddon and his employees for conspiracy, false imprisonment and several civil rights violations. He was awarded almost $300,000 in damages.

Sundaram also attended a private fundraising dinner in 1994 where Tom Sneddon and other government officials allegedly discussed their plans to get rid of certain individuals in Santa Barbara who owned substantial amounts of land. Michael Jackson’s property was allegedly brought up during this meeting; Sundaram claimed that authorities wanted to acquire Neverland for vineyards.

Slick Gardner

Slick Gardner is a horse rancher who owns 2,000 acres of land in Santa Barbara. In 2003, Gardner was investigated for animal abuse after his neighbours reported that some of his horses looked unhealthy. Around the same time the allegations hit, Gardner ran for 3rd District Supervisor against John Buttny, Steve Pappas and Brooks Firestone. Firestone – who owns a successful winery in Santa Barbara and who also has political ties to Tom Sneddon and former Sheriff Jim Thomas – won the election by a landslide. As a result of the bad publicity from the animal abuse allegations, Gardner got the least amount of votes.

While investigating Gardner for animal abuse, Santa Barbara authorities also stumbled upon evidence of grand theft. Gardner was charged with 12 felony counts and hired defense attorney Steve Balash to represent him in the case. Balash later backed out of the case saying it was too complicated.

According to Gardner, Sneddon has had a grudge against him for 30 years and is only prosecuting him out of spite. “It just seems like it’s almost a vendetta deal. These guys are going so far out of their way to do things to me that normally wouldn’t be done,” Gardner said.

“The same thing that’s happening to Michael Jackson happened to me. One day Sneddon is going to wake up with a boot up his ass with a white glove in it, and it will be about time.”

Judge Rodney Melville, the same judge who will be presiding over Michael Jackson’s trial, is also involved in Gardner’s case.

Adams Bros. Farming, Inc.

In 1997, the Adams brothers purchased 268-acres of land in Orcutt and began agricultural grading on the site. 95-acres of their land was deemed an “environmentally sensitive wetland” by Santa Barbara authorities, which prevented the farmers from using it.

The brothers filed a lawsuit against the County in 2000, alleging that officials had falsely designated a portion of their land as wetland in an attempt to jeopardize the company’s financial earnings. At the request of Santa Barbara County officials, Judge Rodney Melville dismissed the brothers’ action. The brothers took their case to an appeals court where Melville’s decision was overturned.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the County had violated the company’s constitutional right to use its land and that the County and a county consultant had conspired to interfere with the company’s income.

Emilio Sutti

Emilio Sutti is a dairyman and farmer who recently filed a $10 million lawsuit against Santa Barbara County, claiming to have been the target of a government conspiracy to interfere with his company’s profits. Sutti alleged that Santa Barbara authorities have been targeting his family’s land for years. The battle began when Emilio’s brother and business partner Ed was sued by Santa Barbara County Planning and Development for alleged environmental and grading ordinance violations.

After winning a partial victory in the lawsuit, Ed Sutti was arrested and indicted for arson, witness intimidation, making terrorist threats, making false statements to an insurer, giving false deposition and four counts of state income tax evasion.

Emilio’s Sutti’s civil lawsuit was handled by Judge Rodney Melville.

Nuevo Energy Company

According to an article from The Lompoc Record: “Nuevo Energy Company has a launched a three-pronged legal attack on Santa Barbara County, claiming it violated state environmental law in using wrong baseline data in an environmental impact report, wasn’t the correct lead agency to prepare the report and wrongly applied mitigation measures in denying the Tranquillon Ridge project.” Judge Rodney Melville presided over the case.


Art Montandon

Santa Maria City Attorney Art Montandon recently filed a claim against the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office, alleging that they falsely accused him of bribing a defense attorney in a case that Sneddon was prosecuting. Montandon had evidence favorable to the defense and prosecutors tried to stop him from interfering by threatening to bring bribery charges against him. A judge later ruled that Sneddon’s office had no right to stop Montandon’s involvement in the case.

In a letter, Montandon denied any wrongdoing and lashed out at Sneddon and his employees, saying: “Unlike (Assistant District Attorney Christie) Stanley and current and former members of her office, I have never had my license to practice law suspended by the State Bar, have never been convicted of a crime, and have never been terminated from any attorney job.”

At the end of his letter, Montandon said he would reveal in court: “the full and complete story of not only the District Attorney’s unprofessional conduct, but the inappropriate conduct and motives of others working behind the scenes to cause community conflict.”

Recently, Montandon requested that the State Bar investigate Sneddon and his office for obstruction of justice.

William Wagener

William Wagener ran for 5th District County Supervisor in 2002 and was arrested shortly before the election. Because he was a convicted felon, Wisconsin authorities claimed that he had no right to run for political office. As a result, Wagener was arrested by Santa Barbara authorities.

In response, Wagener’s attorney John Holland said that his client’s prior conviction should have had no effect on his right to be a political candidate. He also said that because the terms of Wagener’s probation had been given to the SBPD in 1998, authorities were already aware of his record when they allowed him to run for office.

The charges against Wagener were dropped and he was released from jail. Still, his attorney accused Sneddon’s office of making sure Wagener was: “defamed and ridiculed in the local media in order to destroy his campaign for public office.” Wagener filed a lawsuit against the city of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara County and former Police Chief John Sterling, accusing them of violating his civil rights.

The lawsuit alleges that Police Chief John Sterling “had actual, advance knowledge of the plan by other defendants to falsely arrest, inaccurate and violate (Wagener’s) California and Federal civil rights.” Wagener claimed that authorities conspired against him because they wanted his opponent Joe Centeno to win the election.

Diana Hall

According to Gary Dunlap, when a local judge refused to change her ruling in Sneddon’s favour, Sneddon brought bogus charges against her, ruined her career and publicly humiliated her by exposing that she was a lesbian. When it became apparent to Sneddon that this judge would be a witness in the Gary Dunlap case, he threatened to bring more charges against her. The judge in question is Diana Hall.

On September 29, 2003, Hall was acquitted on charges of battery but eight months later found herself accused of violating campaign laws. On January 16th, 2004, she showed up at Michael Jackson’s arraignment because she wanted to see how Judge Rodney S. Melville handled motions. Hall told reporters: “I’m not being treated well. This has ruined my reputation, and I’m just not going to take it any longer.”



Members of the SBPD

In 2002, Santa Barbara County law enforcement groups filed a lawsuit against Tom Sneddon for threatening the police officers’ right to privacy. The lawsuit stems from a policy which allows the District Attorney’s office to give information about police misconduct to defense attorneys at its own discretion. According to Sgt. Mike McGrew, “It’s confusing. He’s an aggressive DA. There are actually no files right now on any officers in Santa Barbara. We really don’t know why he did this.” Future blackmail material perhaps?

David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson and George Beeghly

In a civil lawsuit that was settled out of court, David Allen Richardson, Carina Richardson George Beeghly sued Sheriff Jim Thomas and several Santa Barbara police officers for unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest/false imprisonment, excessive force, retaliation for exercise of speech and petition rights, conspiracy to violate civil rights, violation of First Amendment right of association, malicious prosecution, negligence, battery and conspiracy and other charges.

The Case Sneddon Ignored

Is Tom Sneddon a concerned government official seeking justice for an allegedly abused child or is he merely a prosecutor with a grudge trying to get a conviction? Sneddon’s handling of a past child molestation case would indicate the latter.

In 2002, David Bruce Danielson, a forensic investigator for the Santa Barbara Police Department, was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl. After returning home intoxicated, Danielson climbed into his bed where the girl, who was a guest at his home, was sleeping. Danielson admitted to “accidentally” molesting her, claiming he had mistaken her for his wife. Sneddon closed the case stating that there was no evidence to corroborate the girl’s claims.

The girl involved in the case wrote her feelings down in a letter that was published in the Santa Maria Times. “I am astounded at the stupidity the DA showed by allowing this man to be released of all charges. David Danielson may be free, but I am still emotionally trapped. There is not one day that I don’t wish I wouldn’t have come clean.”

About Sneddon’s handling of the Michael Jackson case, the girl’s father said, “Maybe it’s because it is high profile… but still, in her mind it’s the same situation. She’s still angry.”

While it seems that child abuse might not be Tom Sneddon’s first priority, the question still remains whether or not he would really pursue seemingly false allegations in order to carry out his own personal agenda. After learning the facts about the Michael Jackson case and reading through the numerous accusations that have been made against Tom Sneddon, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about that…

Druyan Byrne

In September 2003, a drama teacher named Druyan Byrne was arrested after police were told that Byrne had photographs of a partially nude 15-year-old girl on his camera. Although the photographs were taken for an art project and were not sexual in nature, authorities insisted on going forward with their case against Byrne.

The girl in the photographs, who was brought in for questioning on five separate occasions, repeatedly denied that anything sexual had transpired between her and Byrne. In response, police told the girl that she was a liar and that it was “obvious to everyone around here that there is some kind of relationship going on.”

Santa Barbara Police Detective Stuart Gardner then lied to the girl, falsely stating that police had proof of Byrne’s past sexual relationships with minors. Although no such evidence actually existed, Gardner convinced the girl that Byrne was a sexual predator and that it was up to her to prevent him from harming anybody else. “I’m just telling you the pattern with these guys. And he fits it to a tee,” Gardner told the girl. “Do you see how this could happen to other girls? Do you see how important you are that this isn’t going to happen to any other girls?”

After being interrogated for hours, the girl finally told Gardner that she and Byrne had kissed on the lips, a statement that she later recanted. “I felt the only way I was going to get out of that room was to tell [Gardner] what he wanted and tell him something happened,” she testified.

The case against Druyan Byrne is still pending. Thanks to MJEOL for the info.

Conrad Jess Zapien

In 1985, Conrad Jess Zapien was arrested for allegedly murdering his brother-in-law’s mistress. While jury selection was underway, Deputy District Attorney Gary Van Camp and investigator Harry Heidt inadvertently came across a tape that belonged to Zapien’s defense counsel. The tape was in a sealed envelope that bore the name of Zapien’s attorney Bill Davis.

Upon finding the package, Van Camp allegedly urged Heidt to open the envelope and listen to the tape. Van Camp later denied ever having made such a statement and both he and Heidt denied ever having listened to the tape, an act that would have violated Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. Rather than return the package to Zapien’s attorney, Heidt discarded of the package by throwing it in a dumpster.

Zapien’s attorney argued that by getting rid of the package, Heidt had “deprived the defense of the only physical evidence it could use to impeach Heidt and Van Camp regarding whether they unsealed the envelope and listened to the tape.” For example, if the envelope was unsealed, he argued, such evidence would have contradicted both Van Camp’s and Heidt’s assertion that they did not open the package. Furthermore, tests could have been conducted on the tape to determine whether or not it had been listened to.

Zapien later filed a motion asking that Tom Sneddon and the entire Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office be recused from the case. Zapien argued that although Sneddon had taken Van Camp off of the case, he failed to properly investigate the violation of Zapien’s attorney-client privileges. He further argued that Sneddon brought an auto theft charge against him even though there was no credible evidence to support the charge. Zapien’s motion was denied.

Anthenasios Boulas

In 1985, a man named Anthenasios Boulas retained a lawyer after being arrested for selling cocaine. Shortly after hiring the lawyer, referred to in court documents as “Attorney S,” Boulas also hired a Private Investigator named William Harkness. On Boulas’ behalf, Harkness got in contact with sheriff’s deputy Scott Tunnicliffe to inquire about a possible plea bargain. In exchange for leniency, Boulas would provide authorities with the names of several drug dealers in the area. “Attorney S” was not aware of this potential deal.

After meeting with Boulas and Harkness, Tunnicliffe broached the subject of a plea bargain to Robert Calvert, the Deputy District Attorney at the time. Calvert said that he would only agree to the deal if Boulas fired his attorney and hired a lawyer that met with his approval. After being convinced by Tunnicliffe that “Attorney S” was a drug addict who could not be trusted, Boulas fired him and attempted to find another attorney. Taking the advice of Sheriff’s deputies, he hired “Attorney C,” who later backed out of the case.

Without a lawyer representing him and under the pretense that he would be receiving a plea bargain, Boulas met with authorities and gave them information about several drug dealers in the area. After giving them this information, Boulas was told by authorities that the plea bargain would no longer be possible.

Several months later, Boulas filed a motion to have the charges dismissed. The court ruled that although “conduct by the district attorney’s office and the sheriff’s department interfered with his rights to counsel and to a fair trial,” they would not drop the charges against him.

Boulas then took his case to a higher court where the case was ultimately dismissed. According to documents, the court found the conduct of Sneddon’s office: “outrageous in the extreme, and shocking to the conscience; we are, thereby, compelled to order the dismissal of the present case.”



James William Herring

In 1993, the Santa Barbara District’s Attorney’s office was admonished for making racially insensitive comments during the trial of James William Herring, a biracial man who had been accused of rape. During closing arguments, prosecutors described Herring as “primal man in his most basic level… his idea of being loved is sex. He wouldn’t know what love was. He’s like a dog in heat.”

Herring’s conviction was overturned because of the highly prejudicial, unfounded comments that prosecutors made about him throughout the trial. Prosecutors described him as a “parasite” and made the inference that because Herring was unemployed, he was more likely to have raped the complaining witness. Furthermore, prosecutors made inflammatory comments about defense attorneys in general, saying: “my people are victims. His people are rapists, murderers, robbers, child molesters. He has to tell them what to say. He has to help them plan a defense. He does not want you to hear the truth.” Such a statement created the false impression that anyone who is accused of a crime is guilty.

The Court of Appeals ruled that “the prosecutor’s… statements about a biracial defendant are, at the very least, in bad taste” and that his unfounded remarks about Herring’s defense counsel lead to an unfair conviction. As a result, Herring’s conviction was overturned.



Richard Joal Wagner

In the early 1970s, Richard Joal Wagner was convicted in a Santa Barbara court of selling marijuana. He appealed the jury’s conviction, claiming prosecutorial misconduct during his own cross-examination because prosecutors implied that he had been caught dealing narcotics in the past. Some of the questions asked include:

“Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Wagner, that in Alaska you are not only in the business of putting up fences, but you are also in the business … of furnishing cocaine a drug, for sale, illegally, isn’t that correct?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that you have in fact sold heroin?

“Q. … To your knowledge, at your place of business, is there any illegal sale of narcotic activity going on?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, that you have received … a shipment of ‘pure pharmacy’ cocaine?

“Q. … Now, isn’t it true that on December 30, 1971, you had in your possession approximately three kilograms of pure pharmacy cocaine . .?

“Q. … Isn’t it true that those three kilograms of cocaine were in a shoebox?”

Although prosecutors failed to present any evidence of Wagner’s alleged past offenses, they created the impression in the minds of the jurors that Wagner had been involved in the sale of narcotics before, thus leading to an unfair conviction. Sneddon was not the District Attorney at the time but he was one of the led prosecutors on the case. The appeals court ruled that the conduct of the District Attorney’s office was prejudicial to the defendant and thus overturned Wagner’s conviction.

Source: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/whats-going-on-in-santa-barbara-other-accusations-that-have-been-made-against-tom-sneddon/

Events prior to the trial

February 16, 2010 7 comments

2003

Early January : Michael, who is in Miami , gives an interview to tabloid The Globe where he speaks for the first time of his pain from the spider bite and he shows a picture of his leg.

January 5 : Michael visits Maurice Gibbs (one of the Bee Gees) at a Miami hospital.

January 11 : Dieter Wiesner & Ronald Konitzer officially take over Michael’s management in a written agreement. The first act is to fire Michael’s previous managers Trudy Green & Howard Koffman. They also work on a plan named MJ Universe which Is supposed to relaunch Michael’s career.

January 12 : Michael gives his final interview to Martin Bashir in his Miami Hotel. The same day, he hears that Maurice Gibb has died from an heart attack.

January 15 : Michael pays a last respect to Maurice Gibb at the Miami Chapel with his brother Barry.

January 16 : Michael, Prince & Paris have dinner with the Malnik family in Miami.

February 1 : The Cascios join Michael in Miami (Frank, Aldo & Marie Nicole). Mark Lester is also there. Wiesner & Konitzer try to block the airing of Martin Bashir’s documentary after obtaining the final transcrpit.

February 3 : Living With Michael Jackson, the Martin Bashir Documentary is premiered in on ITV and gets phenomenal ratings.

.

February 4 : A huge controversy arises in over Michael’s admission that he loves to share his bed with children & his interview with Gavin Arvizo.

Gavin’s mother, Janet Arvizo agrees to give an interview to the London Daily Mail where she defends Michael gaining $4000.

Michael calls Gavin and asks him to come to Miami to do a press conference. Following Marc Schaffel’s idea he also calls Debbie to ask her to do an interview for him.

February 5 : Gavin, his mother Janet, brother Star & sister Davellin go to Miami on a private Jet with Chris Tucker. Once arrived, they check in the Turnberry Isle Resort where Michael & his friends stay.

Marc Schaffel convinces Debbie to come to his house and do an interview for Michael by promising her that she will get to see her children. Debbie gives a long interview to journalist Ian Drew in the presence of her lawyer/friend Iris Finsilver, Marc Shaffel, his assistants Christian Robinson & Rudy Provencio, as well as Michael’s new spokesman Stuart Backerman.

Scheffel also hires David LeGrand, a new lawyer based in Las Vegas

February 6 : Jordy Chandler’s 1993 deposition is leaked on the Smoking Gun website which create a new controversy.

In Miami , Wiesner & Konitzer asks Janet Arvizo to sign a complaint against Granada Television, the company which produced LWMJ.

LWMJ is aired on American’s network ABC.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/mjdec1.html

.

February 7 : Michael decides to cancel the press conference and return to Neverland to give an interview. He leaves Miami in a private Jet with Prince, Paris, Blanket, their nannies Grace & Patricia, his physician Dr Alex Farschian, Marie Nicole & Aldo Cascio, the bodygards Mike LaPerruque, Chris Carter & Danny Crawford as well as Gavin, Star; Davellin & Janet Arvizo.

Febryary 8 : CBS Entertainment (Ed Bradley & Jack Saussman) arrive at Neverland in order to interview Michael for their show 60 Minutes but Michael cancels the interview when he hears about the leak of the Chandler deposition.

Bradley does get to meet Gavin & his family (who volunteer to give an interview to defend Michael!) as well as Mark Geragos, Michael freshly hired criminal lawyer who came to Neverland to meet Michael and make Gavin’s mother sign a release stating that Michael’s relation with Gavin was never innapropriate.

With the outtakes from the Martin Bashir interviews captured by Michael’s cameraman Hamid Moslehi, Michael asks his team (Schaffel, Weisner & Konitzer) to produce & sell a rebuttal TV documentary.

February 9 : David LeGrand hires his girlfrend Ann Gabriel as a consultant for Michael’s PR Team.

Gavin, Star, Davellin, Marie Nicole, Ann & Silvana Ruiz go shopping close to Neverland.

February 11 : Janet Arvizo gets a body wax in a beauty shop close to Neverland.

Michael’s friends, Mark Lester, Robert Evans, Miko & Karen Brando (with their children Prudence & Shane) come to Neverland to suport him.

Wiesner & Konitzer (with his family) also stay over at the ranch to work on the TV rebuttal.

February 12 : After an argument with Wiesner & Konitzer, Janet Arvizo asks Jesus Salas (a Neverland employee) to taker her & the children to her parent’s house in El Monte. He accepts to take the family out of Neverland in the middle of the night…

February 13 : Michael hosts a Spiderman theme party for Prince’s 6th birthday at Neverland.

Franck Cacsio/Tyson arrives at the ranch and he calls Janet Arvizo on the phone (recording the conversation) to ask her to come back to Neverland in order to avoid the media frenzy.

February 14 : The Los Angeles Family Service opens an investigation on Michael Jackson’s relationship with Gavin based on a phone call made from his school…

Janet & her children go to her boyfriend’s appartment, Jay Jackson.

February 15 : Ann Gabriel is fired by Mark Geragos after wanting to appear on US TV show Access Hollywood as Michael’s Spokesperson.

February 16 : Bradley Miller (Geragos’ private investigator) comes to Jay Jackson ‘s to record a tape interview of Gavin, Star, Davellin & Janet where they defend Michael.

Just after, the Arvizos are taken back to Neverland by Michael’s chauffeur Gary Hearn but once arrived, Janet asks Michael’s bodygard Chris Carter to take her back to her boyfriend’s appartment leaving her children at the ranch with Michael…

February 17 : LA Family Service calls Janet Arvizo to set an interview between her children & social workers on February 20.

February 18 : Santa Barbara Police Department opens an investigation on Michael Jackson based on a letter from Gloria Allred & Carol Lieberman…

February 19 : Hamid Moslehi goes to Neverland to pick up Gavin, Star & Davellin and take them to his house while Vinnie Amen (a friend of Frank) pick up Janet Arvizo & Jay Jackson.

In the presence of Wiesner, Brad Miller, Christian Robinson & Jay Jackson, Janet & her children tape a long interview where they defend Michael.

After the taping ends, Vinnie takes the family back to Jay Jackson’s.

The interview is supposed to be included in the TV rebuttal but Moslehi asks $ 400 000 that he is owed for the Bashir outtakes which Schaffel & Wiesner refuse.

February 20 : Michael leaves for Miami with his children and they stay at Al Malnik’s mansion.

3 social workers come to Jay Jackson’s to interview Gavin & his family. Once again they defend Michael and say nothing innapropriate ever happended.

Chris Tucker’s girlfriend Azja Pryor is there to support the family and after the interview she takes the children to Neverland while VInnie takes Janet to a federal office in LA in order to obtain birth certificates of the family that they will need to get visas & passeports for a planned trip in …

An assortment of direct quotes from each of the Arvizo family members as they answered the Michael Jackson related questions for the Department of Children &
Family Services on February 20, 2003. The interview was tape recorded by social workers. The excerpts displayed below come from verbatim transcripts of this tape recording:


Janet Arvizo DCFS Interview Excerpts

Janet Arvizo: Michael is like a father to my children. He’s like family. Michael gives advice to my children and that is something that they have never had with their father. He loves them and I trust them with him.

Question: Were you aware that Gavin and Star slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the broadcast?

Janet Arvizo: My Children are never solely alone with Michael Jackson. There’s always someone around. When we go to Neverland, we’re always around people. Sometimes I stay in the visitor’s quarters, but mostly I am in the main house. Gavin, Star and Davellin have all been in Michael’s room. Yes, Gavin and Star have been with Michael on his bed watching TV. As to the allegations that they share a bed, it is no… I’m usually up walking around the house all night long. The room is open and there are no doors to shut. It makes me sick that someone accuses Michael of doing harm to my son and other children, when he has never been anything but wonderful… I was not aware that the taping with Mr. Bashir would be aired. We did not sign any consent to have my children on this interview.


Gavin Arvizo DCFS Interview Excerpts

Question: What is your relationship with Michael Jackson?

Gavin Arvizo: Michael has been like a father to me. He has been there for me. I met Michael about three years ago… Michael has been by my side through it all. I have gone to Neverland on several occasions. I like it there. You could be free and feel like there is no care in the world. When I go to Neverland, Star and Davellin are with me… Michael sends his staff to get my family and we have a ball… Since the airing of the Michael Jackson broadcast, I have not felt comfortable. I was in the gas station and some kids came up to me and asked if I was the boy on TV that slept with Michael Jackson. Everywhere we go there’s always people staring at us… Mr. Bashir did not get my consent from my mother. My mother thought this taping was private like the previous one.

Question: What happens when you spend the night at Neverland?

Gavin Arvizo: Usually when I visit Neverland, we eat, play video games, ride to the park and watch movies. Sometimes we have slumber parties and everyone sleeps in the room.

Question: Has anyone ever touched you in a way that was inappropriate?

Gavin Arvizo: [Visibly angered] People think that something’s happened sexually between Michael and I. That’s not true. Michael’s like a father to me and he has never done anything to me sexually. My mother has been there at Neverland with me and always comes in and out of the room to see how we are doing.

Question: Have you ever slept in a bed with Michael Jackson?

Gavin Arvizo: No, I’ve never slept in a bed with Michael Jackson. Sometimes my brother and I fall asleep in a bed with Michael Jackson. Sometimes my brother and I fall asleep on the bed with our pajamas or our clothes on. Everybody sleeps in Michael’s room together because it’s so big. Nothing has ever happened. My mother is always aware of what goes on in Neverland.


Star Arvizo DCFS Interview Excerpts

Question: What is your relationship with Michael Jackson?

Star Arvizo: Michael is like a father to me. He listens to me and gives me advice… When we go to Neverland, it makes me real happy. We have fun with Michael, we all give each other nicknames. My name is Blow Hole, like the fish…

Question: What happens when you spend the night at Neverland?

Star Arvizo: When we go to Neverland we usually ride to the park, play video games and watch movies. There’s always something to do. When we stay overnight at Neverland, sometimes we are in Michael’s room watching TV… We fall asleep with our pajamas or clothes on. My mother is there. When we are in Michael’s room, we are never left alone.

Question: Have you ever slept in a bed with Michael Jackson?

Star Arvizo: I have slept in Michael’s bed before, when I fell asleep after watching TV. No, I’ve never slept in the bed with Michael Jackson. If Michael is in the room, he will make a bed on the floor.


Davellin Arvizo DCFS Interview Excerpts

Question: What is your relationship with Michael Jackson?

Davellin Arvizo: [Teary eyed] Michael is like a father to all of us. He has provided us with guidance. He is so kind and loving… My mother has always been with us and I’ve never seen Michael do anything sexually inappropriate with Gavin or Star.

Question: What happens when you spend the night at Neverland?

Davellin Arvizo: When we go to Neverland, we go and relax. There’s so many things to do. We usually go to the media room and watch movies and eat candy. Most of the time I take a girlfriend with me to keep me company. We stay in the room down the hall in the main house. My mother always knows what’s going on when she is at Neverland with us.

.

TAKE 2 : The Footage You Were Not Meant To See is aired on FOX TV. It includes the outtakes of the Bashir interview & the interviews of Debbie, the Jackson family, Karen Faye, Hamid Moslehi & Jamie Massada.

.

February 21 : Janet Arvizo is back at Neverland and she defends Michael to Fox News’ journalist Rita Cosby who came to the ranch to meet them.

Following the advice of her friend Jamie Massada, Janet consults a lawyer named William Dickerman.

Michael host Blanket’s first birthday party at the Malnik’s house in Miami.

February 25 : Franck & Vinnie take the mother to the Laugh Factory where she has a second meeting with Dickerman.

After that, they take the family to the Calabasas Inn where they stay for 5 days in order to obtain the Visas and look for a new appartment paid by Michael for the family.

March 1 : The family’s appartment is emptied at the mother’s request and their belongings are put into storage (paid by Michael)

March 2 : Franck & Vinnie take the family back to Neverland where they meet Michael & his children who are back from Miami.

March 3 : Michael’s cousins, Rijo & Simone Jackson arrive at Neverland.

March 5-9 : Michael & his children stay at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles.

The Brazil trip is cancelled.

March 9 : On his way back to Neverland, Michael invites several fans that he know well (Joanna Thomae, Jen Winings or Ahmad Elatab) to spend the day with him at the ranch and on a shopping spree at the local Toys ‘R Us and they all witness the complicity between Michael & Gavin.

March 10 : Vinnies takes Gavin to the hospital for a urine test. On the way back, he drops Janet at her boyfriend’s and takes Gavin back to Neverland.

March 11 : Vinnie takes Janet to the Los Angeles family court where she obtain an incrase of her ex husband child support.

March 12 : Janet calls Franck & Vinnie to ask them to take her children to their grandparent’s in El Monte because they are supposedly sick.

The family officially moves in Jay Jackson’s appartment and cuts every contact with Michael & his team..

March 14 : Michael is ordered to pay $5,3 million to concert promoter Marcel Avram for the cancellation of the Millenium Concerts.

March 26 : William Dickerman sends a letter to Mark Geragos asking for the family belongings to be returned.

Michael goes to Acapulco in Mexico with the Malnik family, Brett Ratner & Chris Tucker for a movie project

March 29 : Michael returns to Neverland.

March 31 : Michael & his children go back to Miami where they are the guests of Al Malnik.

April 1 : Michael & Chris Tucker visit lawyer Willie Gary in Stuart (Florida)

April 2 : Michael, Chris & Brett have dinner at the Forge Restaurant in Miami with Al Malnik & Serena Williams.

April 3 : Paris celebrates her 5th birthday in Miami

April 6 : Michael makes a surprise appearance at the Palm Beach Film Festival Grand Gala Awards Show joining Chris, Brett, Robert Evans & Al Malnik at the centre table.

April 16 : The Santa Barbara Police Department closes his investigation with no elements against Michael. Dickerman sends the family to consult Larry Feldman (the lawer who negociated the civil settlement between Michael & the Chandlers )

April 17 : During a shopping spree in Santa Monica ( California ) with Prince & Paris, Michael falls on his sister LaToya!

April 24 : Michael Jackson : Private Home Movies airs on Fox TV. Michael hosts this two-hour special from his cinema in Neverland.

May 1 : Michael is spotted on a shopping spree in Aventura ( Florida )

Early May : Michael returns to Acapulco for a three days stay.

May 9 : Michael files a lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking unpaid royalties for his Motown recordings.

May 15 + 29 : Larry Feldman sends Gavin, Star & Davellin to consult Stanley Katz. (the psychologist who analysed Jordy Chandler)

May 17 : Wearing Seventies clothes and an afro wig, Michael attends a party at Miami’s Forge night-club for owner Al Malnik’s 70th birthday with Aldo Cascio, Chris Tucker, Brett Ratner & Wiesner among others.

May 20 : Michael arrives in Indianapolis with his cousins Rijo, Simone, Elijah & Levon. He came to give a deposition in court following a lawsuit brought by Steeltown Records boss Gordon Keith.

May 21 : Before he is able to give his deposition, Michael is taken ill and decides to fly back to LA.

May 27 : Michael takes Prince & Paris at Universal Studios in Los Angeles.

May 30 : Michael attends a party at Robert Evans’ house to celebrate the launch of Brett Ratner’s book. Later, Michael show up at a MTV Movie Awards post party at Ron Burkle Beverly Hills Mansion in Beverly Hlls where he meets Puff Daddy & Paris Hilton among others.

June 9 : Michael attends the National Cable Telecommunications Association conference in Chicago with Chris Tucker to support his brother Marlon and his channel MBC.

He then returns to Indianapolis.

June 10 : Michael finally gives his deposition in Indianapolis before going to Merrville.

Michael hires Charles Koppleman as a new business adviser.

June 11 : Accompanied by Karen and his cousins Elijah & Levon, Michael returns to his hometown Gary. Michael first goes to the City Hall where the Mayor King presents him with a Key to the city. He then, Michael returns to his childhood home 2300 Jackson Street that now belongs to a cousin of Joseph Jackson! Later, Michael visits Roosvelt High School and in the evening he attends “Salute to the Troops”, an event held at the Baseball Stadium

The lawsuit between Myung-Ho Lee and Michael has been settled out of court.

June 12 : Michael attends a Rainbow/PUSH Coalition breakfast planning meeting with Reverend Jesse Jackson in Chicago.

June 13 : After weeks of backgound plotting, Feldman & Katz finally report the allegations of the family to the Santa Barbara County Sherriff. District Attorney Tom Sneddon asks Feldman not to file a civil suit before he has completed a criminal investigation…

Michael is back in Los Angeles.

June 15 : Michael invites the German family Wolf to Neverland.

June 16 : Michael is one of the 3000 people who attend a memorial service for Gregory Peck in Los Angeles.

June 24 : Michael makes a surprise appearance at the BET Awards in Hollywood to present James Brown with a Lifetime Achievement Award. Backstage, he meets Latoya.

Early July : After Katherine Hepburn dies, Michael supports her family.

July 04 : Michael, Grace, Prince, Paris & Blanket spend the Independance Day with the Malnik family and Brett Ratner in Miami Beach

July 12 : Michael goes on a boat in Santa Monica where the ashes of Barry White are thrown in the sea.

July 26 : Michael organises the Joe Jackson Day in Neverland (attended by Jermaine, Jackie, Tito, Janet & LaToya) but after too many people show up, he decides to leave the ranch with his children and go to Monterey to spend the week end.

August 29 : Michael celebrates his 45th birthday at Neverland with family & friends.

August 30 : Michael attends a fan-club party for his birthday with the Cascio family, Omer Bhatti, Prudence Brando, Karen Faye & Dieter Wiesner among others. The show is hosted by Steve Harvey and at the end Michael gives a long speech to thank his fans and annonce his future plans…

September 8 : Michael goes to Montreal.

September 10 : Michael goes to Toronto to study new 3D techniques. He gives a telephone interview to DJ Rick Dees of US radio station KISS FM.

September 12 : Michael goes back to Neverland.

September 13 : Michael opens the gates of Neverland for a special charity day with many celebrities such as Mike Tyson, Rodney Jerkins, Chris Tucker, Nick & Aaron Carter. Michael shows up for 5 minutes to thank everyone for coming.

October : Michael, Prince, Paris & Blanket make a photoshoot with the Jackson family (including Katherine, Joe, Rebbie, Jermaine, LaToya, Randy, TJ, Auggie among others)

October 1 : During a charity event at the Beverly Hills Hotel, Michael presents the Medical Visionary Award to his Dr Alan Metzger in recognition for his work to aid LUPUS patients.

October 15 : Michael attends his brother Tito’s 5Oth birthday party with all the Jackson family.

One More Chance, the single from the forthcoming Number Ones compilation is premiered on radios.

October 25 : Michael is in Las Vegas to receive the keys of the city from Mayor Goodman and promote What More Can I Give. He is accompanied by his friend Mark Lester & manager Dieter Wiesner.

October 27 : What More Can I Give is made available as a download on the Internet.

In the evening, Michael show the video of the song during the Radio Music Awards where Beyonce also presents him with the Humanitarian Award.

November 8 : Michael attends a Celine Dion concert in Las Vegas.

November 15 : During the Charity Awards, Michael accepts a Oneness Award via satellite because he is busy shooting the video for One More Chance in Las Vegas .

November 18 : The Number Ones CD & DVD are released in the .

Tom Sneddon chooses this specific day to raid Neverland with a search warrant accompanied by 7O members of the Santa Barbara County Sherriff.

Other searches are done at Bradley Miller (Mark Geragos’ private investigator) & Hamid Moslehi (Michael’s videographer) ‘ houses.

Diane Dimond is the first “journalist” to report the news for Court TV.

Michael who is in Las Vegas issues a statement through his spokesman Stuart Backerman.

November 19 : While the news of the Neverland search is covered by every media around the world, DA Tom Sneddon & Sherriff Jim Anderson give a press conference to announce that they have a stop warrant against Michael I connection to new allegations of child molestation made by a 12 year old boy. Media learn that the boy accusing Michael is Gavin.

November 20 : Michael arrives at the Santa Barbara airport in a private Jet with Grace & his attorney Mark Geragos where he is handcuffed and taken to the Santa Barbara County main jail. He is allowed to walk free after posting a $3 million bail, posing for a mugshot and being advised of the charges against him.

Geragos gives a press conference to refute those allegations while Michael returns to Las Vegas where the Jackson family (Joe, Katherine, LaToya & Tito) has arrived to support him.

November 21 : Michael’s mugshot is on the front page of every newspapers in the world. A media frenzy explodes in America & Europe with tons of talk shows being dedicated to this new controversy.

.

November 24 : Michael & Mark Geragos sue Extra Jet for illegally taping them during their flight from Las Vegas to Santa Barbara.

December 15 : Michael cuts every contacts with Dieter Wiesner, Ronald Kontizer & Marc Schaffel. Following Jermaine’s advice, he hires the services of extremist group Nation Of Islam to protect him The media say that he wants to convert to Islam which is not true.

December 18 : Prosecutors formally charge Michael with seven counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 and two counts of administrating an intoxicating agent to a child for the purpose of committing a crime during a timeline going from February 7 to March 20 2003.

Mark Geragos denies all these allegations during a special interview at the Larry King Show featuring also Jermaine who alleges that Michael was mistreated by the police during his arrestation.

Indictment: http://www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/blog/indictment.pdf

.

December 20 : Michael returns to Neverland for the first time since it was searched for a private get together entitled “You Are Not Alone” which about 600 friends & family attend

Michael who does not condider Neverland as his home anymore, moves in a rented mansion in Beverly Hills with Grace & the kids.

December 25 : From the Beverly Hills Hotel, Michael gives an interview to Ed Bradley (shown on CBS’s 60 minutes 3 days later) in the presence of Mark Geragos, Leonard Muhammad & Grace.

Read the transcripts here.

.

December 30 : Stuart Backerman resigns because of the presence of the Nation Of Islam.

December 31 : While the media declare that the NOI has taken over Michael’s business, a worried Debbie who can’t get in touch with Michael & her children decides to files for visitation rights.

The Santa Barbara Sherriff Jim Anderson gives a press conference to denies Michael’s claim that he was manshandled by the police during his arrestation.

Michael spends New year’s eve at his Beverly Hills mansion with his fiend Mark Lester who came to support him.

2004

January 2 : CBS airs a TV Special for Number Ones featuring many young artists speaking about Michael’s influence.

January 12 : While Jermaine gives a press conference outside Hayvenhurst to organise fans’ support, Mark Geragos organises a big meeting of Michael’s team at the Beverly Hills Hotel attended by Charles Koppleman, Leonard Muhammad, Al Malnik, John Branca, Alan Whitman, Zia Modabber & Kevin Mac Lin.

Marc Schaffel & Dieter Wiesner who were not invited set up Debbie by inviting her to have lunch at the Ivvy restaurant to talk about her children while in fact they just want to be photographed with her by the paparazzi that they have contacted…

January 15 : Geragos announces that Michael & him have hired top criminal layer Benjamin Brafman.

Gloria Allred asks the Department of Child & Family Services of Los Angeles to remove Michael’s children from his care.

January 16 : Michael arrives 20 minutes late at the Santa Maria Courthouse where he is formally arraigned. Accompanied by Katherine, Joe, Janet, Jermaine, Tito, Randy, Grace, Karen, Frank Dileo & Leonnard Muhammad. He pleads not guilty to all the charges and judge Rodney Melville puts a gag order preventing both sides from making public comments about the current case.

After going out of the courthouse, Michael gets on the top of his SUV and invites all the fans for an after arraignment party at Neverland!

.

January 24 : Social workers from the Department of Child & Family Services of Los Angeles go to Michael’s rented mansion in Beverly Hills to talk with Prince, Paris, Blanket & Grace.

Michael decides to leave the Beverly Hills house by fear of losing his children.

January 31 : The police searches the houses of Marc Schaffel & his assistant Christian Robinson.

February 1 : Michael, who stays with Grace & the children at his friend Ron Burkle’s house in La Jolla, watches his sister Janet’s Nipplegate during the Superbowl half time show on TV.

February 7 : Michael hires Raymone Bain as new official Spokesperson.

February 13 : As Michael celebrates his son Prince 7th birthday, Geragos & Brafman go to Santa Maria Courthouse where they obtain a delay of the prelimiary hearing to have more time to study the prosecution case.

February 16 : Michael, Grace, the kids, Omer Bhatti & Dr Sebi arrive in Old Snowman in Colorado where Michael has rented the Meanwhile ranch (close to Aspen)

February 20 : Raymone Bain denies reports claiming that Michael came to Aspen for a detox programme.

Retired family judge Stephen Lachs accepts to mediate Michael & Debbie litigation over her visitation rights on Prince & Paris.

February 21 : Michael hosts a big party for Blanket’s 2nd birthday.

March : Michael’s new official website MJJ SOURCE is launched.

Sneddon sets a Grand Jury proceeding to avoid the preliminary hearing.

Michael, Grace & the kids go to Hawaii.

March 9 : Michael Jackson The One is released on DVD.

March 19 : The Department of Child & Family Services of Los Angeles refuses to remove Michael’s children from his care.

March 25 : Secret Jury selection is completed in Santa Barbara.

Michael files a lawsuit in US District Court in Los Angeles to regain possessions that were sold to a European buyer by Henry Vaccaro

March 29 : Prosecutor Ron Zonen gives his opening statement during the first day of a Grand Jury proceeding where neither Michael nor his lawyers have the rights to appear. Members of the media are also prohibitted from attending.

March 30 : Gavin & Star Arvizo testify before the Grand Jury.

Michael visits members of the Congress in Washington .

March 31 : Janet Arvizo testifies before the Grand Jury.

Michael returns to the Congress to take part in a press conference agains’t AIDS in Africa .

April 1 : Michael is still in Washington where he is presented with a special award from the African Ambassadors’ wives at the Ethiopian Embassy (Grace attends the presentation)

April 2 : Gerogos & Brafman go to Santa Maria courthouse where they obtain the Arvizo family court documents in the JC Penney case.

Judge Lachs refuses visitation rights to Debbie but he accepts to nullify her 2001 decision to give up her parental tights which sets a new battle between Michael & Debbie’s attorneys.

April 03 : Michael hosts a big party for Paris’s 6th birthday.

April 8 : Michael, Grace & the kids go to Orlando to visit theme parks.

April 11 : Medias report the allegations of Daniel Kapon, a young man who claims to have been abused by Michael when he was a kid. It turns out that the Santa Barbara Police Department did not find him credible and closed this case after investigating it.

April 21 : Michael who is is a rented mansion in Orlando learns that he has been indicted by the Grand Jury in Santa Barabara. He asks Randy to intervene quickly.

April 24 : Randy organises a meeting at Michael’s house in Orlando with his civil lawyer Brian Oxman and top criminal lawyer Thomas Mesereau Jr.

April 25 : Michael announces that he has changed his legal team. Mesereau officially takes over Geragos & Brafman. He also decides to get rid of the Nation Of Islam and to go back to Neverland.

April 30 : Michael arrives in time at the Santa Maria Courthouse with Katherine, Joe, Grace, Randy, Jackie, Mesereau, Oxman & Raymone Bain. He pleads not guilty to 10 counts retained by the Grand Jury.The new charges indicate a new timeline of allegations + a charge of false emprisonment + abduction of a child with the help of 5 undicted co-conspirators (Schaffel, Wienser, Konitzer, Tyson & Amen) Outside of the court house, Mesereau & Michael give a little speech before returning to Neverland.

May 28 : Mesereau go to the Santa Maria courthouse with Brian Oxman & Joe Jackson for an hearing where Judge Melville sets September 13 as date for the trial to begin.

June 10 : Randy fires Bob Jones, vice president of MJJ Productions since 1987, after discovering that he is writting a tell all book on Michael. He also stops paying Marc Schaffel.

June 15 : Judge Melville refuses to lower Michael’s bail.

Diane Dimond reveals the details of the Chandler secret financial settlement of 1994…

June 25 : Mesereau goes to a hearing in Santa Maria .

Michael, who is in Miami calls his nephew Auggie Brown to celebrate him on his graduation day.

July 1 : Michael hears about his friend Marlon Brando’s death.

July 4 : Michael celebrates Independance day in Miami with many members of the Jackson family.

July 9 : During a hearing in Santa Maria , Judge Melville scolds Michael for violating the gag order in a written statement.

July 20 : The story of a woman claiming to bear Michael ‘s quadruplets dominates gossip medias…

July 27 : While Michael is seen shopping at Memorial City Hall in Houston with a friend of Randy called Monique, Mesereau goes to Santa Maria where he obtains the trial to be pushed back to January 31st 2005…

August 2 : Michael’s lawyers depose a motion against Sneddon for violating the gag order.

August 6 : VH1 hairs Man In The Mirror, a TV film about Michael’s life and scandals.

August 15 : Michaet attends church service with Randy, Mesereau, Oxman & Steve Harvey in South Central ( Los Angeles )

August 16 (Day 1 of pre-trial) : Even though his presence is not complulsory, Michael goes to the Santa Maria courthouse. Accompanied by Katherine, Joe, Janet, LaToya, Jermaine, Jackie, Randy, Grace, Karen, Mesereau & Oxman to watch district attorney Tom Sneddon testify about the search of Brad MIller.

August 17 (Day 2) : Testimony of Stanley Katz (Gavin’s psychologist)

August 19 (Day 3) : Testimonies of Jay Jackson & William Dickerman. The defense plays a video tape of the Neverland search.

August 20 (Day 4) : Testimonies of Joseph Marcus & Violet Silva about the Neverland search.

August 23 (Day 5) Because she has just given birth to a baby boy, Janet Arvizo Jackson can’t go testify so the pre-trial is delayed…

August 29 : For his 46th birthday, Michael takes all the Jackson family to the Noe Restaurant at the Omni Hotel of Los Angeles.

September 3 : TV show Dateline reveals that Michael made a second financial settlement with Blanca Francia in 1995 to avoid a new scandal involving her son Jason.

September 13 : New controversy around the book of Raymond Chandler, Jordy’s uncle who never met Michael Jackson but pretends to know the truth about his relationships with children…

Debbie gives an interview to Entertainment Tonight. Considering that she has violated her confidentiality agreement, Randy decides to cancel her annual 1$ million payment.

September 15 : Police search the house of Evvy Tavasci, Michael ‘s assistant since 1991!

September 16 (Day 6) : The pre- trial resumes in Santa Maria .

September 17 (7th day) Even though his presence is not complulsory, Michael goes to the Santa Maria . Accompanied by Katherine, Joe, Janet, LaToya, Jermaine, Jackie, Randy, Grace, Karen, Mesereau & Oxman to watch Janet Arvizo Jackson testify.

Mesereau gives a speech to state that Michael regrets the settelements he has done on the past.

The Jackson family returns to Neverland where Michael has invited the fans and later they all have dinner at the Epihany Restaurant in Santa Barabara.

October 4 : Michael’s lawyers present a motion to withdraw Tom Sneddon from the case because of his too personal involvment.

October 12 : Michael calls the Steve Harvey Morning Radio Show to ask TV networks not to air Eminem new video which makes fun of him. BET acceps but not MTV which creates a new controversy.

October 13 : CBS Early show airs an interview of Genevieve, Randy Jr, Dante, Jaffar, & Jermajesty Jackson at Hayvenhurst defending their uncle Michael.

October 14 : Michael’s layers go to the Santa Maria Courthouse where Judge Melville refuses to withdraw the case and to suppress any elements taken during the search of Neverland and Brad Millers’ offIce.

October 15 : Steve Cochran leaves Michael’s legal team.

November 4 : Michael’s layers go to the Santa Maria Courthouse where Judge Melville refuses to withdraw Tom Sneddon from the case.

A man called Joseph Bartucci files a civil complaint in New Orleans claiming that Michael abused him in May 1984 when he was 18 and he supposedly suppressed that from his memory until 2003…

November 11 : Michael makes a phone call to the Geraldo Riveira Show to speak against the Eminem video

November 16 : Sony releases Michael Jackson : The Ultimate Collection featuring 4 CD’s of hits and unreleasing songs + a live DVD of the Dangerous Tour.

Marc Schaffel files a civil complaint in Los Angeles seeking 3 $ millions for money loans. He has also written a tell all book about Michael with Stuart Backerman…

November 20 : Brian Michael Stoller’s comedy Miss Cast Away featuring Michael is released on DVD

November 29 : Michael’s lawyers go to the Santa Maria courthouse where Judge Melville refuses them the right to have a psychiatrist analyse the Arvizo family.

December 3 : More than 1 year after searching Neverland, the Santa Barabara Police investigators come back to the ranch to make pictures and measures…

December 4 : Michael accepts to provide a sample of his saliva to the police for DNA testing.

December 17 : Michael (accompanied by Karen & Raymone) welcomes 200 unprivilged children to spend the day at Neverland. 50 journalists are also invited including Geraldo Rivero whom Michael thanks for his support.

December 20 : During a hearing at the Santa Maria Courthouse, Judge Melville refuses defense request to delay the trial for 6 weeks.

Michael records a video message to thank his fans on his MJJ SOURCE website.

December 21 : Hamid Moslehi (Michael’s videographer from 96 to 2003) files a civil complaint agains’t Michael for non payment of his work on Take 2 and Private Home Movies.

December 25 : Michael spends Christmas à Neverland with family & friends.

2005

January 19 : After the leaks of the Grand Jury transcripts to the media, Judge Melville gives Michael permission to react. He gives an interview to Geraldo Rivera. During the interview he reveals that he is working with his bothers on a song to benefit the victims of the Tsunami disaster.

January 30 : Michael releases a video statement approved by Judge Melville.

.

January 31 (Day 1 of Jury selection) : Michael arrives at court without his family and friends due to a lack of space in the courtroom.

February 1 (day 2) : Michael goes to court where Jury selection continues.

February 2 : Michael’s lawyers attend a court hearing for Debbie’s visitation rights.

February 5 : Fox News airs Michael’s interview with Geraldo Rivera…

.

+ an interview with Joe & Katherine at Hayvenhurst.

.

February 13 : Michael celebrates his son Prince’s 8th birthday at Neverland.

February 14 (day 3) : Michael goes to court where Jury selection resumes after a break due to Mesereau’s sister death.

February 15 : Jury selection is once again delayed after Michael gets sick on his way to the courthouse. He is taken to the Marion hospital where he spends the night.

February 16 : Katherine, Joe & Jermaine visit Michael at the hospital before he goes back to Neverland to rest.

February 21 : Michael hosts a party for Blanket’s 3rd birthday.

February 22 (day 4) : Michael goes to court where Jury selection continues.

February 23 (day 5) Michael goes to court where the 12 members of the Jury are selected.

February 24 (day 6) Michael goes to court where the alternate members of the Jury are selected.

February 25 : Michael goes to court to attend the last preliminary hearing before the trial starts.


Well, Clarice have the lambs stopped screaming?

February 15, 2010 7 comments

Well, Clarice have the lambs stopped screaming?

2007 NOVEMBER 22

by the floacist


Hannibal Lecter: I will listen now. After your father’s murder, you were orphaned. You were ten years old. You went to live with cousins on a sheep and horse ranch in Montana. And…?
Clarice Starling: [tears begin forming in her eyes] And one morning, I just ran away.
Hannibal Lecter: No “just”, Clarice. What set you off? You started at what time?
Clarice Starling: Early, still dark.
Hannibal Lecter: Then something woke you, didn’t it? Was it a dream? What was it?
Clarice Starling: I heard a strange noise.
Hannibal Lecter: What was it?
Clarice Starling: It was… screaming. Some kind of screaming, like a child’s voice.
Hannibal Lecter: What did you do?
Clarice Starling: I went downstairs, outside. I crept up into the barn. I was so scared to look inside, but I had to.
Hannibal Lecter: And what did you see, Clarice? What did you see?
Clarice Starling: Lambs. The lambs were screaming.
Hannibal Lecter: They were slaughtering the spring lambs?
Clarice Starling: And they were screaming.
Hannibal Lecter: And you ran away?
Clarice Starling: No. First I tried to free them. I… I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn’t run. They just stood there, confused. They wouldn’t run.
Hannibal Lecter: But you could and you did, didn’t you?
Clarice Starling: Yes. I took one lamb, and I ran away as fast as I could.
Hannibal Lecter: Where were you going, Clarice?
Clarice Starling: I don’t know. I didn’t have any food, any water and it was very cold, very cold. I thought, I thought if I could save just one, but… he was so heavy. So heavy. I didn’t get more than a few miles when the sheriff’s car picked me up. The rancher was so angry he sent me to live at the Lutheran orphanage in Bozeman. I never saw the ranch again.
Hannibal Lecter: What became of your lamb, Clarice?
Clarice Starling: They killed him.


FAN BACK TALK: Edited for reading.

The book Victor Gutierez wrote has been commission by WOW report to be made in to a movie (I doubt they mean feature film probably television movie or documentary type thing),WOW did the “camp Michael Jackson” documentary after the trial.

There is no way this movie will ever be created because there are laws against defamation of character. If this isn’t reason enough why Jackson would want to settle this, then I don’t know what is. I could never ever in a million years handle something so humiliating and degrading.

Gutierez would have two problems; he would be sued by both Michael Jackson and Jordan and Evan Chandler would also sue him. There is no way he can claim he’s just writing “fiction” about the 1993 incident despite “similarities” — that would not pass anywhere. First off, he owes Jackson money 2.7 Million, his book was banned in the US as well, so if they do anything based on that book its not being shown in the US any time soon. From comments on WOW and Google the book was very graphic again that can’t go to any movie theater or TV screen anywhere. As I remember it, Gail sent this information to Ms. Bain, I’m sure they’ll be following it up and sending a C&D letter to WOW soon. He’s a dreamer, there’s no way he’s coming up with a movie.

For anyone who doesn’t know Victor Gutierez here’s the story:

Who is Victor Gutierrez and why did Michael sue him?


Victor Gutierrez is a freelance writer who appeared on the U.S. tabloid television show “Hard Copy” to claim that there was a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting a boy. Some background on his story can be found in the book Jackson Family Values, by Jermaine Jackson’s ex-common-law wife, Margaret Maldonado. She writes that in early 1995,

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. “I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.”

If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks.She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

“Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on the L.A. radio station KABC-AM, a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.”

After the “Hard Copy” story aired, the LAPD told the Los Angeles Times that they had seen no such videotape, they were not looking for it, and there was no renewed investigation into molestation allegations. Michael Jackson subsequently filed a $100 million slander lawsuit against Gutierrez, “Hard Copy”, and KABC-AM for perpetuating the story. None of these parties ever produced the videotape or any evidence it existed. Because Jackson’s lawyers could find no sign of the videotape or the origin of the tale, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez was no longer protected by the California Shield Law, and ordered him to name his source. Gutierrez did not, instead claiming that a host of people, including Elizabeth Taylor and Los Angeles County District Attorney Gil Garcetti, could verify the existence of the videotape (none of these people in fact supported him). Consequently, on October 15, 1996, Judge Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false and that he had acted with malice, and was therefore liable for presumed and punitive damages (the amount of which would be determined at a later date.) The writer then fled to Mexico.

In October 1997, a legal action to assess the amount of “presumed and punitive damages” to be paid to Jackson by Victor Gutierrez was delayed due to Gutierrez filing for bankruptcy. Mr. Jackson’s lawyers stated that the assessment of such damages would be determined and that Gutierrez would not be protected indefinitely by his action.

On April 9, 1998 Michael Jackson won the slander suit against free-lance writer Victor Gutierrez. A Los Angeles jury ordered Victor Gutierrez to pay Jackson $2.7 million for failing to prove the existence of a videotape that allegedly showed Michael in an inappropriate conduct with a young boy.

“We talked to the jurors afterwards,” Michael’s lawyer Mr. Modabber said. “They said they wanted to send a message that they were tired of the tabloids telling malicious stories about celebrities for money. They said they hope this will send a message not to do this.”

Sources: Jackson Family Values, Jet, LA Times, Reuters, AP, Hollywood Reporter

I think its really sick of one who nay-says Jackson’s innocence to be okay with an uncle that wants to profit off a possible criminal’s action. Makes me question your stance on pedophilia to begin with. I wonder if Jordan knows about this attempted film, and how he feels about it — someone putting a manipulated version of his “life” up on screen for all his friends (and associates) to see and all the attention he would get from it. As long as his dad stops hitting him over the head long enough to talk to his lawyers.

Surely if anyone had a picture like that it would already been seen most likely by the police years ago. Come on! After the DA [Tom] Sneddon wasted over 10 years of looking and questioninghundreds of people and had over a 100 search warrants, yet couldn’t find any proof Jackson molested any children. But some guy in California has got “proof” Jackson is a pedophile, but it waiting to “sell” the picture. I think someone is getting their leg pulled. Wasn’t it the Watch Tower magazine that Sneddon wanted to use as evidence was it? If it is proof he should have sent it to the police, so he will be aiding and abetting a criminal.

Where does the logic begin? The GQ article said it was a “fictionalized” portrayal of the events. Well the book is a “fictionalized” portrayal of the events, so it don’t really make much difference. Something cant be a “fictionalized portrayal of the events”. Either you are copying the events in the book, or you are doing something totally on its own. But then the book wouldn’t even be mentioned cause its ‘fiction’. There are laws to protecting people from that sort of foul trash. So there’s no way the makers wont be able to prove the story has ‘nothing’ to do with Michael Jackson when the whole film is based on the book. Of course they could make a ‘fictional’ pop star, change the names and shazzam! You got yourself a blockbuster #1 box office movie.

Planning to ‘sell’ evidence. Isn’t out society fucked? We have to have posters advertising REWARDS of X amount of $$$ to turn in criminals; no moral in motive (or possibly worse, we have to phone in anonymously because ‘snitching’ is looked down upon; you know, doing the right thing). Worse, for one to offer evidence but only in exchange for reward themselves is probably worse. Say if, for whatever reason, the money can’t be given; are you going keep said criminal from going to jail?

The very same unit Sneddon went rifling through in search of soiled under pants and Watch Tower magazines? The very same unit which produced “molestation warnings” written by Jackson to warn his sister-in-laws to watch his nephews closely. The same storage unit that has been the subject of article after article and every last bit of it has basically been hashed overrepeatedly by the media during the trial?

The book is banned nearly everywhere, however its still being sold over seas. Though I suspect the only people who buy it are pedophiles. Hey, do you wanna BUY IT?

AMAZON.COM

Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler (Paperback)
by Victor M. Gutierrez
(17 customer reviews)
————–
Availability: Available from these sellers. 12 used & new available from$118.95

The book is fiction. As there are no such thing as the “DIARIES of Jordan Chandler”. If he went by what Chandler said in his taped “confession” to his shrink or what? But any rate, the book is mumbo jumbo fodder. It is a sick idea, and only attracts perverts. Not someone who seeks “the truth” (as many of the Amazon.com reviewers have repeatedly maintained). The price alone should be somewhat suspicious to the common, well functioning brain. As would any movie made. Maybe Evan Chandler can direct it himself? He did after all, wanting to get his in the movie producing field. Fortunately, all we got from him was ‘Robin Hood: Men In Tights’.

I know someone who was unfortunate enough to read an excerpt of it awhile ago, and it came across as a revolting, wholly fictional fantasy written BY a pedophile FOR pedophiles. There’s a chance that Victor did work with a source close to the Chandlers as he wrote the book, presumably either Evan Chandler, Ray Chandler or Diane Dimond herself (which is a strong possibility for multiple reasons).

Why? I say this because the book has several photocopies of ‘confidential’ documents in it such as a letter from the LA district attorney’s office to the Chandlers (which was verified as authentic in an independent interview by the sex crimes department individual who wrote it initially – though she also said she remained hugely skeptical of the book’s contents and accuracy, and was outraged over the whole thing).

At least a portion of these documents and Victor’s writings have since appeared in Ray Chandler’s book (though you had to pay him extra to get them, hehe) as well as Diane Dimond’s. Of all whom have read and researched, the actual written portions of the book seem about 5-10% accurate (based on Jordan’s ‘sworn declaration’) and 90-95% fictitious. It is certainly NOT something that Jordan Chandler or any other (real) molestation victim would had ever written in aforementioned diaries if there were any such. I doubt that ANY SIDE of the case, nor ANY party of the case, would had been happy with what was written.

Gutierez who ‘plays’ Jordan Chandler, makes it out as though Michael is in fact a masterful “lover” and that he and Jordan actually had “consensual sex”. He makes Evan and June (his parents) out as evil crooks for using the criminal trial to pressure Michael into settling and letting Michael get away. And from the portions that some have read and reported, Victor goes on to describe each of the sex acts in such lurid detail that it likely rivals most published “adult” sex fiction stories out there, except here we are dealing with a minor and an adult and it is being passed off as ‘non-fiction’. In one part, Jackson supposedly wanted Jordan to ‘penetrate him’.

It bothers me to no end when articles say “kiddie sex charges against Jackson” or “raped little boys” because they’re implying penetration. They are also implying penetration with small toddler age children, which is absolutely disgusting. Ironically, if Michael had accused of such, it can be medically disproven and no one could dispute this. But it is one of the worse crimes to be accused of, even if it would have shown his innonence to be substancial. This is exactly the reason why Evan Chandler didn’t make the accuasations to be rape.

Ridiculous. Penetration is different from “Michael tickled me and I think maybe he might have touched my balls,” It didn’t fly for a lot of reasons, but mainly no one ever said anything about penetration. People inaccurately say he “rapes little boys” as if molest is synonymous. You know, you ought to broaden your horizons, I’ve across so many with limited vocabulary range. Try picking up Webster sometime, not urbandictionary.com

They weren’t “little boys” because when someone says “little boys” children between the age of 5-9 years spring to mind, not teenagers. Gavin’s testimony and all the alleged accusers were xerox copies of the Chandler case. And I just can’t see someone who is 13 or 14 yrs old laying there and not try and fight back. They are not naive, they are not vulnerable as a child, who is far more likely to be unaware whats going on, the inappropriate activity in and out itself, etc.

Kasim Abdool — Did he or did he not try and suggest that was the case? I think he was the one who was barred from saying at the trial that Michael opened a door with a blatant erection with Jordan on the bed and asked for some Vaseline? To be accused of penetration would be easily proved wrong. I think in the book “Michael Jackson was my lover” penetration was said. That was in the book, that was NEVER filed in any report. I remember Gutierez said on Spanish television that Michael “violently anally raped” Macaulay Culkin and Jordan Chandler. ¿Yo no puedo decir que en la televisión Americana, no? It also had something to with Sneddon supposedly wanting pictures of his buttocks taken.

I have read so may vile stories about the case it’s hard to keep up. And to think, so many people take that prick, or this whole ordeal entirely, seriously. But no, its only crazy Michael Jackson fans who believe in his innocence remember.

Taking photos of someone’s buttocks who was not accused of penetration seems a bit odd to me. I was under the impression that Sneddon wanted to see if MJ was gay for their own sick reasons. There were no allegation by Evan or Jordan of penetrative sex. Oh, but books and fired ex-employees have made the insinuations of such an act. If you’re going to try and pull that one, at least keep it consistent. I do think that Gutierez needs checking out badly, to even write a book about such things, and say its fact when it clearly isn’t, and then have the nerve to try and make a film out of it. That’s pedophilia in my mind. Of course I’m just a delusional MJ fan, remember hehe.

Geraldo discussed the video footage taken from the body search in 1993, he spoke about it (he whom actually saw the tape, yes they taped it, they were not just photographs) and that you could hear Michael crying. He was told to spread his legs, toes, and the aforementioned buttocks. They were lifting up his penis with a ruler and other sick, unnecessary tomfoolery. The video was being passed round SBDA’s office like it was a good popcorn movie. And the manner in which they were doing it? What the hell has his toes got to do with it? And his asshole? If no allegation of penetrative sex was made either to Jackson or by Jackson by Jordan or his father, what that they did to Jackson was cruel and even somewhat sadistic.

Something Johnnie Cochran had said — may he rest in peace — Michael cried and locked himself in his bathroom for a whole day. And not even his mother could coax him out. I cant imagine how much he scrubbed himself. So about spreading your cheeks, I guess they were interested to see if Michael Jackson was gay, being penetrated by anyone (or anything). Cause remember, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand in hand! But since penetration was never an allegation in 1993 from Jordie or Evan, it was just a nosy search to see if the rumors of Jackson being gay were true.

If anyone remembers when the Osbournes had that Godforsaken reality show on MTV,‘Michael Jackson was my lover’ was casually laid down somewhere. That book is definitely not a coffee table book, and judging by the photos in the book, Evan had to have worked with Gutierrez. As soon as that book was published, DCFS, Gloria Allred, and every other alleged children’s advocate should have been screaming, demanding that whoever gave Gutierrez photos of a semi-naked Jordan (looking drugged) to put in his book, and worked with him, be prosecuted for child abuse.

But nobody screamed.

Instead, they salivated because it was a book about Jackson Chandler, and it didn’t matter that the book was equal to child abuse, on a child that they all claimed had already been abused; so much for children’s rights and advocacy.

Vitiligo spots “marks” can move, and thus Jordan could claim there were marks, and if marks were on other places Sneddon still can claim there was “match”. Even though the only actual match could be that Michael indeed has genitals.

“Coincidentally” Gutierez has accused politicians in the past in his own country of being pedophiles as well. Think he got in trouble for making bullshit accusations. He should be looked at. Why do people say they matched again? “The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised,” . Um yeah, the only problem with this whole statement is that Michael is NOT circumcised. Being Jewish may be a reason why Evan assumed he was.Someone explain to me how you mistake an uncircumcised penis for a circumcised one.

The photos were pretty much passed around the police station, where most of the officers said they couldn’t see a match. Also the two grand juries probably were given the description and they didn’t agree either. Also at the time, there was articles in the press saying the Jordan’s description didn’t match. Just over the years the story gone from no match to match, curtsy to people like Diane Dimond, Thomas Sneddon, etc. It was also reported back in ’93 that Sneddon wanted another set of pictures of Jackson naked be done. If true, it’s obvious he didn’t get what he was ‘looking’ for in the first set. Post trial verdict, in a brief interview, he admitted that he still has the photographs, and I quote, just in case more victims show up. Right.

Had Jordan’s description matched surely that would have been enough to at least arrest Jackson. I think anyone can agree that the Jordan/Evan’s description was very vague. Anyone could come up with a description that’s a vague match to Jackson’s penis too. (Ironically, those who are firm believers in Jackson’s pedophilia do not think he has vitiligo, but that he “bleaches his skin”. Isn’t that a contradiction?) Even I would make a semi accurate description even though I’ve never seen it. As long as you know about Vitiligo you know he’s patched, it easy to come to conclusions that he is patched even around his private areas, because the rest of his body is that way. He didn’t have to be that accurate, as long as he said he had patches here and there the rest can be filled in. Oh, and they also included that he had short pubic hair, didn’t they? He’s a black man, black men have short pubic hair. Again, anyone could have guessed that. I know Dave Chappelle agrees with me as well. Any guy with a penis will describe it right. Just add the patches here and there then Bingo….Tom is your uncle.

Remember this con was being done by people who took time to plan it. They investigated everything, I’m sure vitiligo and how it affects the pigment in your skin was one of them. Besides June and Jordan (even Evan) had been close to Jackson prior to that, they must have seen that his skin was spotted, most likely through his sleeves cuffs; many times when they’re open, you can get a good glimpse of his spotting. So just because its claimed that he identified Jackson’s skin complexion accurately doesn’t mean he had to have seen it, or that something improper happened. Anyone who knows that Michael Jackson has vitiligo (which is not many, although we still believe he molested Jordan! HEHE) can confirm. The second grand jury saw that image and didn’t believe it — but just because this others on the prosecution side (namely Dimond and Sneddon) say it does matched it must be true. We do always, in fact, tend to believe that side subconsciously.

“Not Guilty” does not equal innocent to most. Nothing was PROVEN by the trial and that’s why a lot of people still think he’s guilty, and just ‘got off’. Now, if he was accused of penetration it could be indisputable, absolute, medically proven NO. There wouldn’t be this uncertainty that there is with molestation because it’s so hard to disprove. The trick is accusing someone of something you can not physically prove didn’t happen, i.e accuse someone of penetration, you can prove it happened because of physical evidence.

I believe some man in Canada made allegations that his son was abused by Jackson, they had all these details of Michael’s bedroom. Dimond went out there to Canada to interview the boy, turns out the father of the boy, or the man who was setting up these allegations was a pedophile himself.

Summary: It was sometime around 1995, Dimond went to Canada and took kids to the police because she was THAT desperate. Not sure if he was off the streets or somewhere really poor, and they told them to get lost. The father of the kid used to go on the very first MJ fan sites, and he used to talk negatively about Jackson. Turned out he got done for abusing loads of kids himself. The Canadian had never even met Jackson, don’t think he had even ever been out of Canada. Just desperation by Jackson obsessed Diane Dimond and her friend the real pedophile (the boy’s father).

*** *** ***

Any discussion of the drawing and description matching is a lie perpetrated by the LAPD/SB Sheriff’s office and Tom Sneddon to give credence or a reason to stripping Jackson naked and photographing him. Just think, the reason they stripped Michael was based on a drawing that was [allegedly from Jordan] that was handed to the LAPD/SB Sheriff’s authorities. From that drawing they decided to strip him down like an African slave. Do you honestly believe they would say it didn’t match? They have to justify stripping him down and humiliating him, and this is the reason I believe they are lying about the match. And remember, saying the drawing was “accurate” is subjective. How can anyone say a drawing from a 13 year old is accurate? A 13 year old can’t even draw an accurate picture of his own penis so how the hell can he draw someone else’s?

WHY would the SB Sheriff’s office even want him to draw a picture of Michael’s penis is the bigger question? This is where you can pick the lie apart if anyone is THINKING.AUTHORITIES would NOT have the child draw the picture anyway, to compare to Jackson’s penis. That’s absurd. You have a criminal sketch artist draw the composite because that’s how it’s handled. Imagine a child seeing a person rob a bank. Do you think that child would draw the picture and give it to authorities? NO! The criminal sketch artist provides a composite based on what’s described. That’s why this entire “match” issue is a JOKE based on this “Jordy drew an accurate description,”. This is the part where you can tear that lie apart.

Could the SB Sheriff’s may have assisted the Chandler’s in their lie? Sneddon recently said that he showed pictures of Jackson’s penis to Jordy back than and he identified them as his penis. WHY would you show pictures to those accusing? I would think the pictures were to match to their description, NOT FOR THEM TO SEE. If you claim a drawing “matches” then your proof would be putting that drawing next to the pictures you took to show the similarities not to allow the person to see them. That’s giving away evidence that they may never have had in the first place. I believe it’s rather corrupt to allow Jordy to view the pictures then come back and say he identified them.

Also, why would you then trust a DA like Tom Sneddon to not tamper with the evidence to allow Jordy then to make a description later? Something stinks if Jordy can really describe Michael’s penis when it was obvious from the drawing, that Evan Chandler claimed Jordy gave him, that he had no clue and was really grasping for straws based on Michael Jackson having vitiligo. And that’s obvious from drawing that was claimed to have been given to Evan Chandler provided in that book called ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover’, where he claimed Jordy drew and gave to him on October 24, 1993 at 11:45 pm.

This discussion of a match is Sneddon’s saving face for a fake case. He didn’t want to tell citizens of Santa Barbara that he was on a witch hunt and had wasted their tax money so instead he continued to parade this case as some “he got away with it” and “the boy gave an accurate description.” This was their only way to dignify stripping Michael Jackson completely naked and photographing his genitals, which would have been met with more outrage if the public really knew it didn’t match. So Tom Sneddon and the SB Sherrif’s office is using this “match” for PR. And it wouldn’t surprise me if Jordy now knows the description — IT’S BECAUSE HE WAS PROVIDED WITH THE PICTURES TO CORROBORATE WHAT HE DIDN’T KNOW AT FIRST.

Also, that former LA Policeman who parades around to the network (that old KKK looking man is about as credible as Mark Furhman finding the glove. NO black person living in LA TRUST A LAPD back in 1993 as they were the epitome of corruption, tampering and planting [refresh your memory if need be] SO, WHY WOULD HE THINK PEOPLE BELIEVE HIM? Well, besides the obvious, lol. That picture claimed to have been drawn by Jordy is a HOAX. I wouldn’t even be surprised he had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The picture was the safest picture in the world because there is NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE IN IT LIKE SIZE, LENGTH. That drawing could have been ANYTHING, a house, mushroon, a hut. That’s how “specific” the drawing was.

That’s why I believe the person who drew it is the same person who put the rambling writing on the side — EVAN CHANDLER. If you look at the words below the picture, it says the drawing that Jordy gave his father on October 24, 1993 AT 11:45 PM. So, Jordy was up until close to midnight drawing a picture? By the way, the date of the picture also coincides with the SAME MONTH EVAN CHANDLER FILED HIS LAWSUIT. And it’s obvious they had NO CLUE how Michael really looked when you read that RAMBLING STATEMENT “MY THEORY.” That’s what the entire bullshit was a THEORY BASED ON MICHAEL HAVING VITILIGO.

*** *** ***

Than there’s. Jason Francia yes, the tickling games. PLEASE, tickling games DO NOT require 5 years of therapy with a DA present to get over about of tickling. He has a MySpace you know, won’t don’t you add him as a friend?


Latin King G-Money Gavin Arvizo Anton Jackson (what an unfortunate last name. His mother is Janet Jackson).

In regards to Evan Chandler’s taped phone conversation “paid the right people” was in reference to his con lawyer that he had used to put the con together, and the other cons the lawyer had gathered to make the plan. That con lawyers organized all the information and gathered the crew the psychologist, KatzFieldman lined up all the ducks so that Evan couldn’t be found to be negligent, so that they could push for a civil trial and squash a criminal trial which would guarantee them a settlement. Evan had this plan for awhile before they decided to put it in effect — they had gathered all the information they needed including talking to people who had been close to and knew Jackson’s body/person and his vitiligo [sic] to ensure it would go smooth, when he took his son and kept him away from everyone — then eventually feeding him that “memory” they implanted stuff and he regurgitated for everyone else.

What parts specifically matched that have been proven as fact? In court? Because if they did Michael Jackson would be in jail with or without JC’s incorporation (oh no I forgot, hes a celebrity so he wouldn’t have been put in jail! You know, despite every American citizens are granted a juror of their peers, hand picked for unbiased testimony, who make that decision).

Fact: 1993 was presented to 2 differnt juries, twice they didn’t buy the accusations or anything Sneddon pushed to them…. those are the facts, those 2 juries were given everything Sneddon had ++++.

Fact: Jordan has said to his friends repeatedly that MJ didn’t do a thing to him, that his parents made him lie. Now that is a fact, his friends were ready to testify to this in court.

Fact: Evan was on tape admitting to a plan, a con as proved and written about by Mary Fisher.

Finally, look at the people implying guilt of any sort and look at their motives, how can you take a single word they say as truth? Oh no, MJ fans think everything is some conspiracy to our idol, don’t consider a word they say…

I’m disappointed. Our uneducated friend Gavin (or was it Star?) Arvizo who said Jackson was totally white when the they supposedly seen Jackson naked. I was surprised Thomas Mesereau didn’t bring that up. AND Gavin said “I thought he was all white,” but he said “thought”. God, I wanted Mesereau to go “Well if you actually saw him naked then shouldn’t you KNOW?” because then Gavin can say 1) ‘I don’t know’, which kills his story or 2) He can confirm that he KNOWS Michael is all white, and then Thomas Mesereau can throw the vitiligo back in his face. But alas, he didn’t.

But he most likely didn’t bring it up in reference to the 1993 case because all that evidence was blocked by judge Melville at the defense’s request. He only allowed the 1108 hearsay from the maids and June [Chandler] without direct accusations against Jackson with reference to Jordan. All the maids/former employees and June talked about what they thought they saw that was “inappropriate” but none of them could outright say yes he molested Jordan. In which case then Mesereau couldn’t bring up that point.

Still, it would of been kick ass and another laugh (and oh, there were many) laughs from the jurors. These people really ought to be on Saturday Night Live. As for Gavin, he had already tied a noose around himself with his testimony and the tape. Mesereau had already done a good job impeaching him and his family that he didn’t need to add more, really. But when push came to shove he got a very very important detail wrong. Yeah one could make the argument that if a person is aroused you can’t tell if they are circumcised or not.

However, Jordan described very very intimate moments with MJ. Most men do not stay fully aroused at all times during a sexual exchange. Jordan talked a lot of getting ‘oral sex’ from Michael. Its very hard for me to believe that – if you buy Jordan’s story – Michael was ALWAYS FULLY aroused when sexual or physical exchanges were going on. You mean to tell me that Jordan never saw Jackson’s penis when it wasn’t erect? That is why that detail is very important, especially since this wasn’t something he said happened ONCE or twice. It was a ‘very intimate relationship’ according to the Chandlers.

If Jordan saw Jackson at such a range where he could SEE Jacksons patches and short pubic hair he should have seen Michael at least ONCE with OUT an erection. Why did he say he was circumcised? Because he is himself his father probably is, and that’s ALL he ever knew. THEY assumed. And they assumed INCORRECTLY. People who have vitiligo patches are ever changing; repigment. That is why sometimes you see blotches on his arms (whenever the rare times he his long sleeve sleeves reveal them).

Anything the Chandler sources or DA sources give is to try to prove they had something but they didn’t — the truth of the matter is if they had something, Michael Jackson would have had to go through a criminal trial than. Remember a judge refused to grant Jackson a criminal trial before the civil trial that the Chandlers had pressed. If they really wanted Michael Jackson to face the consequences of what they claimed he had done to their child, why were they insisting on a civil trial before a criminal trial? They knew that if the criminal trial took place first and MJ was found innocent with everyone on the defense believed would be the case, they would get nothing. So they tried to bypass that by going to a civil trial which requires way less evidence, and allows for hearsay essentially guaranteeing them getting money. YAY 15 MILLION! (OR WAS IT 20 MILLION?)

In my humble opinion, Diane Dimond’s book seemed to confirm in the first chapter that there was NO picture ever taken of Michael which matched Jordan’s description. She describes in excruciating detail every single moment of the body search (based on testimony given by Sneddon’s people doing this body search back in 1993/94) right down to the specific type of camera used, the emotions and words spoken during the session, and so-forth. Supposedly, they were looking for one specific mark on the “lower left side” of his ‘anatomy’ to compare to Jordan’s description. The photographer took all sorts of random pictures from every angle possible, and Michael complied with their every request including lifting his penis up to simulate sexual arousal when they were looking for this one particular spot. The seargeant CLAIMS to have seen this mark, yet, after all of this, Dimond then comments that “it’s unclear whether Sergeant Spiegel actually had time to snap a photograph of the mark he saw.

Give me a break! There is absolutely no way that this “Smoking Gun” evidence wouldn’t have been snapped right away if such evidence matched with what Jordan described. Likewise, I highly doubt Dimond would say that it’s ‘unclear’ if such a picture exists unless it most certainly does not, since she obviously had very close contacts with Sneddon and company, and was so vivid about all other details about the body search and what pictures were taken. So, if you believe these “Sneddon law enforcement sources” and/or “Chandler family sources”, the patch on Michael’s body matched what Chandler described. However, when Dimond (who seems to be pretty much Sneddon’s left-arm) then says that it’s unclear if any picture to confirm the details was ever taken, it becomes highly suspicious now doesn’t it?

There were also a number of articles published back in ’93 claiming that the description and photos did not match, amongst other interesting tidbits, such as the one below:

Photos May Help Jackson

A Source Says Pictures Don’t Match a Description of the Singer’s Genitalia, Which May Mean No Criminal Charges.

Orlando Sentinel
January 28, 1994

Police photographs of Michael Jackson’s genitals, which the pop superstar said deeply embarrassed him, may end up being his salvation in avoiding criminal charges of child molestation, a source close to the pop star said Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be identified, said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year-old boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of sexually abusing him.

The source said this was one reason the star, who wants to get the six-month-old matter behind him, agreed this week to settle the suit with the boy and his parents. According to the source, the boy was paid $5 million to withdraw his suit and his parents received unspecified cash settlements.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation and lawyers for the boy said there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case.

Lawyers both for Jackson and the boy also said they wanted to get the case behind them; many outside legal experts took that as a sign that the boy would not testify in any future criminal proceeding. Under California law, the decision as to whether to testify would be up to the boy.

The source said the description the youth gave of Jackson’s genitalia turned out to be at variance with photographs taken by police on orders of a California judge.

“The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description,” the source said.

Jackson, in a tearful four-minute message televised from his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara County, Calif., late last month, called the photographic session “the most humiliating ordeal” of his life.

He said the search warrant “allowed them to view and photograph my body, including my penis, my buttocks, my lower torso, thighs and any other areas that they wanted.”

The source said the teenager had implicated other boys whom he alleged Jackson sexually molested. But the source said that when police questioned these boys, they denied being molested.

The source said the suit would have been settled earlier except for a disagreement between the boy’s parents.

“What held up the settlement was the father’s insistence that his ex-wife not get any money because he claimed she had allowed the relationship between the boy and superstar,” the source said.

I’ll post the complete transcript of the investigative report that Dimond aired back in 1995 when she followed another totally false complaint, when found. It’s worth noting that it wasn’t just one Canadian kid who was instructed to make up such false complaints against Michael, but a group of them. And, the man telling them to say all of this stuff was of no relation to the kids nor to Michael. He was just someone fixated on the Jackson case and he himself had once also claimed that he was molested by a Jackson family member (after the Chandler case broke, of course) – obviously there was no evidence to support the claim.

I’d say that if there was ever a genuine-looking and genuine-sounding case, it was most-definitely the one discussed in this report. This kid came off as a much more professional liar than the Arvizos, Chandlers and Francias combined.

Hard Copy
Diane Dimond (04/27/1995)

Female Host: Now, the plot to destroy Michael Jackson. Another young boy coming forward with allegations he was molested by the superstar. But when our Diane Dimond began to investigate, she uncovered a trail of lies. Diane?

Dimond: Terry, ever since the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal broke, we’ve gotten a constant stream of calls and letters from people making dubious claims about the singer. Frankly, we ignore most of them. But when I heard the facts of this story, I just had to go to Canada and check it out myself.

(Begin Tape Segment)

Accuser: And I’d like to make a confession about something that happened between me and Michael Jackson.

(End Tape Segment)

Dimond: He is only 15-years old so we can’t show you his face or let you hear his real name. But the eleven-minute home video he sent Hard Copy several weeks ago, could’ve become Michael Jackson’s worst nightmare. Looking straight into the camera, using no notes, this boy proceeded to tell us in graphic detail how he and another teen were allegedly molested by the superstar.

(Begin Tape Segment)

Accuser: He started just, touching like our stomach and things. Like, he’d rub our stomach and then he’d get lower and then that’s when I started saying like, “what are you doing?” He said, “it’s okay. Don’t worry, your bodies are meant to be touched.”

(End Tape Segment)

Dimond: But the boy wasn’t acting on his own, he had help. A man who identified himself as John Templeton of Mississauga, Canada. That’s a suburb of Toronto. He sent us the boy’s videotaped statement and even called several times to make sure we looked at it. Then, I got a call from the boy himself.

Dimond: Diane Dimond. (Answering the phone)

Dimond: Over the next few days, I spoke with the boy for hours and he never wavered. His story stayed consistent. The boy said he met Michael Jackson at a Canadian video arcade. He said he was supposed to spend the weekend with a friend, but when Jackson invited him to visit Neverland instead, off they flew in a private jet.

Dimond: This 15-year old described in detail the people in Jackson’s entourage; the layout of the ranch; and even Jackson’s family home at Encino. Later, he would draw us incredibly detailed maps of both Jackson homes. It was clear; either the boy was telling the truth, or he had been well-coached. To get to the bottom of it, I agreed to meet the boy and John Templeton in Toronto.

Dimond: The plan was to meet the pair in the lobby of a airport hotel. But when I arrived, the only one to greet me was the young boy. He came with me into town and told me that he lived on the streets of Toronto – in a section called “Boy’s Town” where the street kids gather. He explained that his mother had kicked him out of the house, and that John Templeton was just a man he’d met on the streets.

Accuser: He kind of helps street kids, like just talks to them and things. Sort of like a guided counselor of the street. That’s what it seemed like.

Dimond: The boy appeared to be on his own. There was no sign of John Templeton. And frankly, that seemed suspicious. But over the next few days, a “Hard Copy” team conducted hours of interviews with the boy. Standing by were police officials in both California, and Toronto. They were waiting to conduct their own investigation of the boy’s charges.

Grimes: (On the phone) Hi, my name is Frank Grimes. I work for the TV show, “Hard Copy.”

Dimond: Producer Frank Grimes and I worked to check out countless pieces of information the boy gave us. While sources were able to confirm much of what he said, there were some troubling inconsistencies. Still, the boy stubbornly stuck by his story and he had an incredible knowledge of Michael Jackson’s lifestyle.

(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)

Accuser: He showed me this place, like a saddle shop, where he said he gets stuff for his animals there. I don’t what he got, but…

Dimond: Like a saddle shop. I see that on your map here.

Accuser: Yeah.

Dimond: People are going to think, that you’re out for his money.

Accuser: I don’t care about his money.

Dimond: They’re going to think you’re making it up.

Accuser: I know. You know, I know. But I don’t care about his money. He can keep it.

Dimond: You’re telling the absolute truth?

Accuser: Yeah.

(End Conversation)

Grimes: He talked for hours, and he knew so much. So much in fact, that we thought,”well, let’s give him a test.” You know, to see if we could trip him up.

Dimond: We showed the boy several photographs, some of them were of Neverland employees. And he was able to identify each and every one of them.

Accuser: (Confirming pictures) Yeah, that’s him. That’s him.

Dimond: If this was a scam, this boy had really done his homework. He even went so far as to draw us a picture of what he said Michael Jackson looked like during the alleged molestation. Always, he came back to his claims of molestation.

Accuser: His eyes are big. They’re, they’re dark. They cavern in. Like, the sockets go right in, you know?

Dimond: But there was one thing I didn’t tell the boy. I didn’t tell him that for the last year I’d been getting Michael Jackson related letters from his same small suburb in Canada. The letters were supposedly from other young boys who also claimed that they had been molested by Jackson. Two of the letters even included pictures of the boys. Well, someone was behind all of this, but still there was no sign of the man who had sent us the original video statement of the boy. No sign of John Templeton.

(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)

Dimond: There’s a detective Campbell down town. He doesn’t know your name. He doesn’t know anything yet. But he’s waiting to see us. Want to go?

Accuser: Yeah.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: From the very beginning the boy never asked us for money. And he repeatedly said he didn’t want any money from Michael Jackson either. So what was his motivation? Well, he said it was simple. He said he wanted justice. And now, he was about to give a sworn statement to the police.

(Conversation between Dimond and Accuser)

Dimond: I want you to remember one thing. Tell the truth.

Accuser: Oh yeah.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: We delivered the boy to the Toronto Metro Police Headquarters, where detectives from the sexual assault unit had been waiting for us.

(Conversation between Campbell and Accuser)

Detective Campbell: I understand you want to speak to me. And that’s okay, we’re going to go upstairs and you can talk to me. Okay?

Accuser:Yeah.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: For six solid hours, police questioned the boy. Took his sworn statement. He told them just what he had told us. That superstar Michael Jackson had molested him.

Detective Campbell: I found him fairly believable.

Dimond: While the boy talked with police, we continued our investigation. We had to find this, John Templeton. So we drove out to the Toronto suburbs to check out the return address from the video tape he had sent us. That’s when we ran into somebody we knew.

(Conversation between Dimond and Allen)

Dimond: What the h*ll is going on?

Allen: Okay, Diane. Let me explain something to you.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: Say hello to John Templeton. Only his real name is Rodney Allen. We’ve known about Rodney for a long time. Right after the Michael Jackson scandal first broke, he was on the phone to us claiming that another Jackson family member had molested him years ago. Rodney has never offered any solid proof of this claim, he appeared to be a man bent on revenge. And Rodney admitted he was the one who had been writing me all those letters.

(Conversation between Dimond and Allen)

Dimond: I care about this one kid, who gave me all sorts of information about Neverland, about Havenhurst, about Disneyland, about Michael Jackson’s body, where did he get all of that information?

Allen: He got it from me.

Dimond: You planted all this stuff in that kid’s head?

Allen: I didn’t plant it in his head. He was asking questions. I answered them the best I can. I told him what I could tell him about the place because I want Michael to face it.

Dimond: So this kid is an A-one, number one liar?

Allen: Professional.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: The whole story, was a scam. A Toronto street kid meets a man obsessed with the Michael Jackson case, and the results could have been an international scandal. Meanwhile back at the police station, the boy finally broke down. He admitted that he and Rodney Allen had made up the whole story.

(Conversation between Dimond and Campbell)

Dimond: The young boy was lying?

Detective Campbell: That’s my belief. And as a result of that, he was charged. Yes.

Dimond: Can you tell us what he was charged with?

Detective Campbell: Public mischief.

(End Conversation)

Dimond: Well, the boy is still in custody tonight and police continue their investigation of Mr. Rodney Allen.

Male Host: Thanks Diane.

Female Host: What an incredible scheme.

4 years later Rodney Allen was arrested for molesting multiple boys.

That goes along way to show that anyone can make up anything out of greed. This kid had never even met Michael Jackson but was able to try to pull this off just from information given to him by someone obsessed with MJ. The other two families on the other hand had spend time traveling and being with Jackson; they had way more information to pull of the con that they did. The Arvizo’s tried it knowing the Chandler family had succeeded, but this time the scheme failed spectacularly.

*** *** ***

This was just various ramblings from Michael Jackson fans who doesn’t think he is guilty because he made ‘Thriller’ and we like ‘Beat It’. The real truth is that he paid money to silence little boys, he molested said boys, thus he is gay, he bought the Elephant Man’s bones, he bleaches his skin, and according to rival Prince fans, he doesn’t play 1082394829348 instruments so he sucks.

*** *** ***

I’m still hopeful, the truth always comes out — however long it takes it, it does come out. Unfortunately, morbidly, it will most likely come when Michael Joseph Jackson passes.

Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?
Clarice Starling: He kills women…
Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?
Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir…
Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just…
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don’t you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don’t your eyes seek out the things you want?


Source: http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/well-claricehave-the-lambs-stopped-screaming/


Was Michael Jackson Framed?

February 15, 2010 9 comments

Was Michael Jackson Framed?
The Untold Story
Mary A. Fischer
GQ, October 1994

Before O.J. Simpson, there was Michael Jackson — another beloved black celebrity seemingly brought down by allegations of scandal in his personal life. Those allegations — that Jackson had molested a 13-year-old boy — instigated a multimillion-dollar lawsuit, two grand-jury investigations and a shameless media circus. Jackson, in turn, filed charges of extortion against some of his accusers. Ultimately, the suit was settled out of court for a sum that has been estimated at $20 million; no criminal charges were brought against Jackson by the police or the grand juries. This past August, Jackson was in the news again, when Lisa Marie Presley, Elvis’s daughter, announced that she and the singer had married. As the dust settles on one of the nation’s worst episodes of media excess, one thing is clear: The American public has never heard a defense of Michael Jackson. Until now.

It is, of course, impossible to prove a negative — that is, prove that something didn’t happen. But it is possible to take an in-depth look at the people who made the allegations against Jackson and thus gain insight into their character and motives. What emerges from such an examination, based on court documents, business records and scores of interviews, is a persuasive argument that Jackson molested no one and that he himself may have been the victim of a well-conceived plan to extract money from him.

More than that, the story that arises from this previously unexplored territory is radically different from the tale that has been promoted by tabloid and even mainstream journalists. It is a story of greed, ambition, misconceptions on the part of police and prosecutors, a lazy and sensation-seeking media and the use of a powerful, hypnotic drug. It may also be a story about how a case was simply invented.

Neither Michael Jackson nor his current defense attorneys agreed to be interviewed for this article. Had they decided to fight the civil charges and go to trial, what follows might have served as the core of Jackson’s defense — as well as the basis to further the extortion charges against his own accusers, which could well have exonerated the singer.

Jackson’s troubles began when his van broke down on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles in May 1992. Stranded in the middle of the heavily trafficked street, Jackson was spotted by the wife of Mel Green, an employee at Rent-a-Wreck, an offbeat car-rental agency a mile away. Green went to the rescue. When Dave Schwartz, the owner of the car-rental company, heard Green was bringing Jackson to the lot, he called his wife, June, and told her to come over with their 6-year-old daughter and her son from her previous marriage. The boy, then 12, was a big Jackson fan. Upon arriving, June Chandler Schwartz told Jackson about the time her son had sent him a drawing after the singer’s hair caught on fire during the filming of a Pepsi commercial. Then she gave Jackson their home number.

“It was almost like she was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think

Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.”

Certain facts about the relationship are not in dispute. Jackson began calling the boy, and a friendship developed. After Jackson returned from a promotional tour, three months later, June Chandler Schwartz and her son and daughter became regular guests at Neverland, Jackson’s ranch in Santa Barbara County. During the following year, Jackson showered the boy and his family with attention and gifts, including video games, watches, an after-hours shopping spree at Toys “R” Us and trips around the world — from Las Vegas and Disney World to Monaco and Paris.

By March 1993, Jackson and the boy were together frequently and the sleepovers began. June Chandler Schwartz had also become close to Jackson “and liked him enormously,” one friend says. “He was the kindest man she had ever met.”

Jackson’s personal eccentricities — from his attempts to remake his face through plastic surgery to his preference for the company of children — have been widely reported. And while it may be unusual for a 35-year-old man to have sleepovers with a 13-yearold child, the boy’s mother and others close to Jackson never thought it odd. Jackson’s behavior is better understood once it’s put in the context of his own childhood.

“Contrary to what you might think, Michael’s life hasn’t been a walk in the park,” one of his attorneys says. Jackson’s childhood essentially stopped — and his unorthodox life began — when he was 5 years old and living in Gary, Indiana. Michael spent his youth in rehearsal studios, on stages performing before millions of strangers and sleeping in an endless string of hotel rooms. Except for his eight brothers and sisters, Jackson was surrounded by adults who pushed him relentlessly, particularly his father, Joe Jackson — a strict, unaffectionate man who reportedly beat his children.

Jackson’s early experiences translated into a kind of arrested development, many say, and he became a child in a man’s body. “He never had a childhood,” says Bert Fields, a former attorney of Jackson’s. “He is having one now. His buddies are 12-year-old kids. They have pillow fights and food fights.” Jackson’s interest in children also translated into humanitarian efforts. Over the years, he has given millions to causes benefiting children, including his own Heal the World Foundation.

But there is another context — the one having to do with the times in which we live – in which most observers would evaluate Jackson’s behavior. “Given the current confusion and hysteria over child sexual abuse,” says Dr. Phillip Resnick, a noted Cleveland psychiatrist, “any physical or nurturing contact with a child may be seen as suspicious, and the adult could well be accused of sexual misconduct.”

Jackson’s involvement with the boy was welcomed, at first, by all the adults in the youth’s life — his mother, his stepfather and even his biological father, Evan Chandler (who also declined to be interviewed for this article).

Born Evan Robert Charmatz in the Bronx in 1944, Chandler had reluctantly followed in the footsteps of his father and brothers and become a dentist. “He hated being a dentist,” a family friend says. “He always wanted to be a writer.” After moving in 1973 to West Palm Beach to practice dentistry, he changed his last name, believing Charmatz was “too Jewish-sounding,” says a former colleague. Hoping somehow to become a screenwriter, Chandler moved to Los Angeles in the late Seventies with his wife, June Wong, an attractive Eurasian who had worked briefly as a model.

Chandler’s dental career had its precarious moments. In December 1978, while working at the Crenshaw Family Dental Center, a clinic in a low-income area of L.A., Chandler did restoration work on sixteen of a patient’s teeth during a single visit. An examination of the work, the Board of Dental Examiners concluded, revealed “gross ignorance and/or inefficiency” in his profession. The board revoked his license; however, the revocation was stayed, and the board instead suspended him for ninety days and placed him on probation for two and a half years. Devastated, Chandler left town for New York. He wrote a film script but couldn’t sell it.

Months later, Chandler returned to L.A. with his wife and held a series of dentistry jobs. By 1980, when their son was born, the couple’s marriage was in trouble. “One of the reasons June left Evan was because of his temper,” a family friend says. They divorced in 1985. The court awarded sole custody of the boy to his mother and ordered Chandler to pay $500 a month in child support, but a review of documents reveals that in 1993, when the Jackson scandal broke, Chandler owed his ex-wife $68,000 — a debt she ultimately forgave.

A year before Jackson came into his son’s life, Chandler had a second serious professional problem. One of his patients, a model, sued him for dental negligence after he did restoration work on some of her teeth. Chandler claimed that the woman had signed a consent form in which she’d acknowledged the risks involved. But when Edwin Zinman, her attorney, asked to see the original records, Chandler said they had been stolen from the trunk of his Jaguar. He provided a duplicate set. Zinman, suspicious, was unable to verify the authenticity of the records. “What an extraordinary coincidence that they were stolen,” Zinman says now. “That’s like saying ‘The dog ate my homework.’ “The suit was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Despite such setbacks, Chandler by then had a successful practice in Beverly Hills. And he got his first break in Hollywood in 1992, when he co wrote the Mel Brooks film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Until Michael Jackson entered his son’s life, Chandler hadn’t shown all that much interest in the boy. “He kept promising to buy him a computer so they could work on scripts together, but he never did,” says Michael Freeman, formerly an attorney for June Chandler Schwartz. Chandler’s dental practice kept him busy, and he had started a new family by then, with two small children by his second wife, a corporate attorney.

At first, Chandler welcomed and encouraged his son’s relationship with Michael Jackson, bragging about it to friends and associates. When Jackson and the boy stayed with Chandler during May 1993, Chandler urged the entertainer to spend more time with his son at his house. According to sources, Chandler even suggested that Jackson build an addition onto the house so the singer could stay there. After calling the zoning department and discovering it couldn’t be done, Chandler made another suggestion — that Jackson just build him a new home.

That same month, the boy, his mother and Jackson flew to Monaco for the World Music Awards. “Evan began to get jealous of the involvement and felt left out,” Freeman says. Upon their return, Jackson and the boy again stayed with Chandler, which pleased him — a five-day visit, during which they slept in a room with the youth’s half brother. Though Chandler has admitted that Jackson and the boy always had their clothes on whenever he saw them in bed together, he claimed that it was during this time that his suspicions of sexual misconduct were triggered. At no time has Chandler claimed to have witnessed any sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part.

Chandler became increasingly volatile, making threats that alienated Jackson, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz. In early July 1993, Dave Schwartz, who had been friendly with Chandler, secretly tape-recorded a lengthy telephone conversation he had with him. During the conversation, Chandler talked of his concern for his son and his anger at Jackson and at his ex-wife, whom he described as “cold and heartless.” When Chandler tried to “get her attention” to discuss his suspicions about Jackson, he says on the tape, she told him “Go (bleep) yourself.”

“I had a good communication with Michael,” Chandler told Schwartz. “We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want.

Admitting to Schwartz that he had “been rehearsed” about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that “he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.” Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.

Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: “It’s already set,” Chandler told Schwartz. “There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I’ve paid them to do it. Everything’s going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.”

Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: “And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]…and Michael’s career will be over.”

“Does that help [the boy]?” Schwartz asked.

“That’s irrelevant to me,” Chandler replied. “It’s going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”

Instead of going to the police, seemingly the most appropriate action in a situation involving suspected child molestation, Chandler had turned to a lawyer. And not just any lawyer. He’d turned to Barry Rothman.

“This attorney I found, I picked the nastiest son of a (bleep) I could find,” Chandler said in the recorded conversation with Schwartz. “All he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can, and humiliate as many people as he can. He’s nasty, he’s mean, he’s very smart, and he’s hungry for the publicity.” (Through his attorney, Wylie Aitken, Rothman declined to be interviewed for this article. Aitken agreed to answer general questions limited to the Jackson case, and then only about aspects that did not involve Chandler or the boy.)

To know Rothman, says a former colleague, who worked with him during the Jackson case, and who kept a diary of what Rothman and Chandler said and did in Rothman’s office, is to believe that Barry could have “devised this whole plan, period. This [making allegations against Michael Jackson] is within the boundary of his character, to do something like this.” Information supplied by Rothman’s former clients, associates and employees reveals a pattern of manipulation and deceit.

Rothman has a general-law practice in Century City. At one time, he negotiated music and concert deals for Little Richard, the Rolling Stones, the Who, ELO and Ozzy Osbourne. Gold and platinum records commemorating those days still hang on the walls of his office. With his grayish-white beard and perpetual tan — which he maintains in a tanning bed at his house — Rothman reminds a former client of “a leprechaun.” To a former employee, Rothman is “a demon” with “a terrible temper.” His most cherished possession, acquaintances say, is his 1977 Rolls-Royce Corniche, which carries the license plate “BKR 1.”

Over the years, Rothman has made so many enemies that his ex-wife once expressed, to her attorney, surprise that someone “hadn’t done him in.” He has a reputation for stiffing people. “He appears to be a professional deadbeat… He pays almost no one,” investigator Ed Marcus concluded (in a report filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, as part of a lawsuit against Rothman), after reviewing the attorney’s credit profile, which listed more than thirty creditors and judgment holders who were chasing him. In addition, more than twenty civil lawsuits involving Rothman have been filed in Superior Court, several complaints have been made to the Labor Commission and disciplinary actions for three incidents have been taken against him by the state bar of California. In

1992, he was suspended for a year, though that suspension was stayed and he was instead placed on probation for the term.

In 1987, Rothman was $16,800 behind in alimony and child-support payments. Through her attorney, his ex-wife, Joanne Ward, threatened to attach Rothman’s assets, but he agreed to make good on the debt. A year later, after Rothman still hadn’t made the payments, Ward’s attorney tried to put a lien on Rothman’s expensive Sherman Oaks home. To their surprise, Rothman said he no longer owned the house; three years earlier, he’d deeded the property to Tinoa Operations, Inc., a Panamanian shell corporation. According to Ward’s lawyer, Rothman claimed that he’d had $200,000 of Tinoa’s money, in cash, at his house one night when he was robbed at gunpoint. The only way he could make good on the loss was to deed his home to Tinoa, he told them. Ward and her attorney suspected the whole scenario was a ruse, but they could never prove it. It was only after sheriff’s deputies had towed away Rothman’s Rolls Royce that he began paying what he owed.

Documents filed with Los Angeles Superior Court seem to confirm the suspicions of Ward and her attorney. These show that Rothman created an elaborate network of foreign bank accounts and shell companies, seemingly to conceal some of his assets — in particular, his home and much of the $531,000 proceeds from its eventual sale, in 1989. The companies, including Tinoa, can be traced to Rothman. He bought a Panamanian shelf company (an existing but nonoperating firm) and arranged matters so that though his name would not appear on the list of its officers, he would have unconditional power of attorney, in effect leaving him in control of moving money in and out.

Meanwhile, Rothman’s employees didn’t fare much better than his ex-wife. Former employees say they sometimes had to beg for their paychecks. And sometimes the checks that they did get would bounce. He couldn’t keep legal secretaries. “He’d demean and humiliate them,” says one. Temporary workers fared the worst. “He would work them for two weeks,” adds the legal secretary, “then run them off by yelling at them and saying they were stupid. Then he’d tell the agency he was dissatisfied with the temp and wouldn’t pay.” Some agencies finally got wise and made Rothman pay cash up front before they’d do business with him.

The state bar’s 1992 disciplining of Rothman grew out of a conflict-of-interest matter. A year earlier, Rothman had been kicked off a case by a client, Muriel Metcalf, whom he’d been representing in child-support and custody proceedings; Metcalf later accused him of padding her bill. Four months after Metcalf fired him, Rothman, without notifying her, began representing the company of her estranged companion, Bob Brutzman.

The case is revealing for another reason: It shows that Rothman had some experience dealing with child-molestation allegations before the Jackson scandal. Metcalf, while Rothman was still representing her, had accused Brutzman of molesting their child (which Brutzman denied). Rothman’s knowledge of Metcalf’s charges didn’t prevent him from going to work for Brutzman’s company — a move for which he was disciplined.

By 1992, Rothman was running from numerous creditors. Folb Management, a corporate real-estate agency, was one. Rothman owed the company $53,000 in back rent and interest for an office on Sunset Boulevard. Folb sued. Rothman then countersued, claiming that the building’s security was so inadequate that burglars were able to steal more than $6,900 worth of equipment from his office one night. In the course of the proceedings, Folb’s lawyer told the court, “Mr. Rothman is not the kind of person whose word can be taken at face value.”

In November 1992, Rothman had his law firm file for bankruptcy, listing thirteen creditors — including Folb Management — with debts totaling $880,000 and no acknowledged assets. After reviewing the bankruptcy papers, an ex-client whom Rothman was suing for $400,000 in legal fees noticed that Rothman had failed to list a $133,000 asset. The former client threatened to expose Rothman for “defrauding his creditors” — a felony — if he didn’t drop the lawsuit. Cornered, Rothman had the suit dismissed in a matter of hours.

Six months before filing for bankruptcy, Rothman had transferred title on his Rolls-Royce to Majo, a fictitious company he controlled. Three years earlier, Rothman had claimed a different corporate owner for the car — Longridge Estates, a subsidiary of Tinoa Operations, the company that held the deed to his home. On corporation papers filed by Rothman, the addresses listed for Longridge and Tinoa were the same, 1554 Cahuenga Boulevard — which, as it turns out, is that of a Chinese restaurant in Hollywood.

It was with this man, in June 1993, that Evan Chandler began carrying out the “certain plan” to which he referred in his taped conversation with Dave Schwartz. At a graduation that month, Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his suspicions. “She thought the whole thing was baloney,” says her ex-attorney, Michael Freeman. She told Chandler that she planned to take their son out of school in the fall so they could accompany Jackson on his “Dangerous” world tour. Chandler became irate and, say several sources, threatened to go public with the evidence he claimed he had on Jackson. “What parent in his right mind would want to drag his child into the public spotlight?” asks Freeman. “If something like this actually occurred, you’d want to protect your child.”

Jackson asked his then-lawyer, Bert Fields, to intervene. One of the most prominent attorneys in the entertainment industry, Fields has been representing Jackson since 1990 and had negotiated for him, with Sony, the biggest music deal ever — with possible earnings of $700 million. Fields brought in investigator Anthony Pellicano to help sort things out. Pellicano does things Sicilian-style, being fiercely loyal to those he likes but a ruthless hardball player when it comes to his enemies.

On July 9, 1993, Dave Schwartz and June Chandler Schwartz played the taped conversation for Pellicano. “After listening to the tape for ten minutes, I knew it was about extortion,” says Pellicano. That same day, he drove to Jackson’s Century City condominium, where Chandler’s son and the boy’s half-sister were visiting. Without Jackson there, Pellicano “made eye contact” with the boy and asked him, he says, “very pointed questions”: “Has Michael ever touched you? Have you ever seen him naked in bed?” The answer to all the questions was no. The boy repeatedly denied that anything bad had happened.

On July 11, after Jackson had declined to meet with Chandler, the boy’s father and Rothman went ahead with another part of the plan — they needed to get custody of the boy. Chandler asked his ex-wife to let the youth stay with him for a “one-week visitation period.” As Bert Fields later said in an affidavit to the court, June Chandler Schwartz allowed the boy to go based on Rothman’s assurance to Fields that her son would come back to her after the specified time, never guessing that Rothman’s word would be worthless and that Chandler would not return their son.

Wylie Aitken, Rothman’s attorney, claims that “at the time [Rothman] gave his word, it was his intention to have the boy returned.” However, once “he learned that the boy would be whisked out of the country [to go on tour with Jackson], I don’t think Mr. Rothman had any other choice.” But the chronology clearly indicates that Chandler had learned in June, at the graduation, that the boy’s mother planned to take her son on the tour. The taped telephone conversation made in early July, before Chandler took custody of his son, also seems to verify that Chandler and Rothman had no intention of abiding by the visitation agreement. “They [the boy and his mother] don’t know it yet,” Chandler told Schwartz, “but they aren’t going anywhere.”

On July 12, one day after Chandler took control of his son, he had his ex-wife sign a document prepared by Rothman that prevented her from taking the youth out of Los Angeles County. This meant the boy would be unable to accompany Jackson on the tour. His mother told the court she signed the document under duress. Chandler, she said in an affidavit, had threatened that “I would not have [the boy] returned to me.”A bitter custody battle ensued, making even murkier any charges Chandler made about wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. (As of this August [1994], the boy was still living with Chandler) It was during the first few weeks after Chandler took control of his son — who was now isolated from his friends, mother and stepfather — that the boy’s allegations began to take shape.

At the same time, Rothman, seeking an expert’s opinion to help establish the allegations against Jackson, called Dr. Mathis Abrams, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist. Over the telephone, Rothman presented Abrams with a hypothetical situation. In reply and without having met either Chandler or his son, Abrams on July 15 sent Rothman a two-page letter in which he stated that “reasonable suspicion would exist that sexual abuse may have occurred.” Importantly, he also stated that if this were a real and not a hypothetical case, he would be required by law to report the matter to the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services (DCS).

According to a July 27 entry in the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, it’s clear that Rothman was guiding Chandler in the plan. “Rothman wrote letter to Chandler advising him how to report child abuse without liability to parent,” the entry reads. At this point, there still had been made no demands or formal accusations, only veiled assertions that had become intertwined with a fierce custody battle.

On August 4, 1993, however, things became very clear. Chandler and his son met with Jackson and Pellicano in a suite at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. On seeing Jackson, says Pellicano, Chandler gave the singer an affectionate hug (a gesture, some say, that would seem to belie the dentist’s suspicions that Jackson had molested his son), then reached into his pocket, pulled out Abrams’s letter and began reading passages from it. When Chandler got to the parts about child molestation, the boy, says Pellicano, put his head down and then looked up at Jackson with a surprised expression, as if to say “I didn’t say that.” As the meeting broke up, Chandler pointed his finger at Jackson, says Pellicano, and warned “I’m going to ruin you.”

At a meeting with Pellicano in Rothman’s office later that evening, Chandler and Rothman made their demand – $20 million.

On August 13, there was another meeting in Rothman’s office. Pellicano came back with a counteroffer — a $350,000 screenwriting deal. Pellicano says he made the offer as a way to resolve the custody dispute and give Chandler an opportunity to spend more time with his son by working on a screenplay together. Chandler rejected the offer. Rothman made a counter demand — a deal for three screenplays or nothing — which was spurned. In the diary of Rothman’s ex-colleague, an August 24 entry reveals Chandler’s disappointment: “I almost had a $20 million deal,” he was overheard telling Rothman.

Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself — the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler’s Beverly Hills dental office.

In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum.

And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.

A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.” Given the facts about sodium Amytal and a recent landmark case that involved the drug, the boy’s allegations, say several medical experts, must be viewed as unreliable, if not highly questionable.

“It’s a psychiatric medication that cannot be relied on to produce fact,” says Dr. Resnick, the Cleveland psychiatrist. “People are very suggestible under it. People will say things under sodium Amytal that are blatantly untrue.” Sodium Amytal is a barbiturate, an invasive drug that puts people in a hypnotic state when it’s injected intravenously.

Primarily administered for the treatment of amnesia, it first came into use during World War II, on soldiers traumatized — some into catatonic states — by the horrors of war. Scientific studies done in 1952 debunked the drug as a truth serum and instead demonstrated its risks: False memories can be easily implanted in those under its influence. “It is quite possible to implant an idea through the mere asking of a question,” says Resnick. But its effects are apparently even more insidious: “The idea can become their memory, and studies have shown that even when you tell them the truth, they will swear on a stack of Bibles that it happened,” says Resnick.

Recently, the reliability of the drug became an issue in a high-profile trial in Napa County, California. After undergoing numerous therapy sessions, at least one of which included the use of sodium Amytal, 20-year-old Holly Ramona accused her father of molesting her as a child. Gary Ramona vehemently denied the charge and sued his daughter’s therapist and the psychiatrist who had administered the drug. This past May, jurors sided with Gary Ramona, believing that the therapist and the psychiatrist may have reinforced memories that were false. Gary Ramona’s was the first successful legal challenge to the so-called “repressed memory phenomenon” that has produced thousands of sexual-abuse allegations over the past decade.

As for Chandler’s story about using the drug to sedate his son during a tooth extraction, that too seems dubious, in light of the drug’s customary use. “It’s absolutely a psychiatric drug,” says Dr. Kenneth Gottlieb, a San Francisco psychiatrist who has administered sodium Amytal to amnesia patients. Dr. John Yagiela, the coordinator of the anesthesia and pain control department of UCLA’s school of dentistry, adds, “It’s unusual for it to be used [for pulling a tooth]. It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available. It would not be my choice.”

Because of sodium Amytal’s potential side effects, some doctors will administer it only in a hospital. “I would never want to use a drug that tampers with a person’s unconscious unless there was no other drug available,” says Gottlieb. “And I would not use it without resuscitating equipment, in case of allergic reaction, and only with an M.D. anesthesiologist present.”

Chandler, it seems, did not follow these guidelines. He had the procedure performed on his son in his office, and he relied on the dental anesthesiologist Mark Torbiner for expertise. (It was Torbiner who’d introduced Chandler and Rothman in 1991, when Rothman needed dental work)

The nature of Torbiner’s practice appears to have made it highly successful. “He boasts that he has $100 a month overhead and $40,000 a month income,” says Nylla Jones, a former patient of his. Torbiner doesn’t have an office for seeing patients; rather, he travels to various dental offices around the city, where he administers anesthesia during procedures.

This magazine (GQ) has learned that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is probing another aspect of Torbiner’s business practices: He makes house calls to administer drugs — mostly morphine and Demerol — not only postoperatively to his dental patients but also, it seems, to those suffering pain whose source has nothing to do with dental work. He arrives at the homes of his clients — some of them celebrities — carrying a kind of fishing-tackle box that contains drugs and syringes. At one time, the license plate on his Jaguar read “SLPYDOC.” According to Jones, Torbiner charges $350 for a basic ten-to-twenty-minute visit. In what Jones describes as standard practice, when it’s unclear how long Torbiner will need to stay, the client, anticipating the stupor that will soon set in, leaves a blank check for Torbiner to fill in with the appropriate amount.

Torbiner wasn’t always successful. In 1989, he got caught in a lie and was asked to resign from UCLA, where he was an assistant professor at the school of dentistry. Torbiner had asked to take a half-day off so he could observe a religious holiday but was later found to have worked at a dental office instead.

A check of Torbiner’s credentials with the Board of Dental Examiners indicates that he is restricted by law to administering drugs solely for dental-related procedures. But there is clear evidence that he has not abided by those restrictions. In fact, on at least eight occasions, Torbiner has given a general anesthetic to Barry Rothman, during hair-transplant procedures. Though normally a local anesthetic would be injected into the scalp, “Barry is so afraid of the pain,” says Dr. James De Yarman, the San Diego physician who performed Rothman’s transplants, “that [he] wanted to be put out completely.” De Yarman said he was “amazed” to learn that Torbiner is a dentist, having assumed all along that he was an M.D. In another instance, Torbiner came to the home of Nylla Jones, she says, and injected her with Demerol to help dull the pain that followed her appendectomy.

On August 16, three days after Chandler and Rothman rejected the $350,000 script deal, the situation came to a head. On behalf of June Chandler Schwartz, Michael Freeman notified Rothman that he would be filing paper situation came to a head. On behalf of June Chandler Schwartz, Michael Freeman notified Rothman that he would be filing papers early the next morning that would force Chandler to turn over the boy. Reacting quickly, Chandler took his son to Mathis Abrams, the psychiatrist who’d provided Rothman with his assessment of the hypothetical child-abuse situation. During a three-hour session, the boy alleged that Jackson had engaged in a sexual relationship with him. He talked of masturbation, kissing, fondling of nipples and oral sex.

The next step was inevitable. Abrams, who is required by law to report any such accusation to authorities, called a social worker at the Department of Children’s Services, who in turn contacted the police. The full-scale investigation of Michael Jackson was about to begin.

Five days after Abrams called the authorities, the media got wind of the investigation. On Sunday morning, August 22, Don Ray, a free-lance reporter in Burbank, was asleep when his phone rang. The caller, one of his tipsters, said that warrants had been issued to search Jackson’s ranch and condominium. Ray sold the story to L.A.’s KNBC-TV, which broke the news at 4 P.M. the following day.

After that, Ray “watched this story go away like a freight train,” he says. Within twenty-four hours, Jackson was the lead story on seventy-three TV news broadcasts in the Los Angeles area alone and was on the front page of every British newspaper. The story of Michael Jackson and the 13-year-old boy became a frenzy of hype and unsubstantiated rumor, with the line between tabloid and mainstream media virtually eliminated.

The extent of the allegations against Jackson wasn’t known until August 25. A person inside the DCS illegally leaked a copy of the abuse report to Diane Dimond of Hard Copy. Within hours, the L.A. office of a British news service also got the report and began selling copies to any reporter willing to pay $750. The following day, the world knew about the graphic details in the leaked report. “While laying next to each other in bed, Mr. Jackson put his hand under [the child’s] shorts,” the social worker had written. From there, the coverage soon demonstrated that anything about Jackson would be fair game.

“Competition among news organizations became so fierce,” says KNBC reporter Conan Nolan that “stories weren’t being checked out. It was very unfortunate.” The National Enquirer put twenty reporters and editors on the story. One team knocked on 500 doors in Brentwood trying to find Evan Chandler and his son. Using property records, they finally did, catching up with Chandler in his black Mercedes. “He was not a happy man. But I was,” said Andy O’Brien, a tabloid photographer.

Next came the accusers — Jackson’s former employees. First, Stella and Philippe Lemarque, Jackson’ ex-housekeepers, tried to sell their story to the tabloids with the help of broker Paul Barresi, a former porn star. They asked for as much as half a million dollars but wound up selling an interview to The Globe of Britain for $15,000. The Quindoys, a Filipino couple who had worked at Neverland, followed. When their asking price was $100,000, they said ” ‘the hand was outside the kid’s pants,’ ” Barresi told a producer of Frontline, a PBS program. “As soon as their price went up to $500,000, the hand went inside the pants. So come on.” The L.A. district attorney’s office eventually concluded that both couples were useless as witnesses.

Next came the bodyguards. Purporting to take the journalistic high road, Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond told Frontline in early November of last year that her program was “pristinely clean on this. We paid no money for this story at all.” But two weeks later, as a Hard Copy contract reveals, the show was negotiating a $100,000 payment to five former Jackson security guards who were planning to file a $10 million lawsuit alleging wrongful termination of their jobs.

On December 1, with the deal in place, two of the guards appeared on the program; they had been fired, Dimond told viewers, because “they knew too much about Michael Jackson’s strange relationship with young boys.” In reality, as their depositions under oath three months later reveal, it was clear they had never actually seen Jackson do anything improper with Chandler’s son or any other child:

“So you don’t know anything about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?” one of Jackson’s attorneys asked former security guard Morris Williams under oath.

“All I know is from the sworn documents that other people have sworn to.”

“But other than what someone else may have said, you have no firsthand knowledge about Mr. Jackson and [the boy], do you?”

“That’s correct.”

“Have you spoken to a child who has ever told you that Mr. Jackson did anything improper with the child?”

“No.”

When asked by Jackson’s attorney where he had gotten his impressions, Williams replied: “Just what I’ve been hearing in the media and what I’ve experienced with my own eyes.”

“Okay. That’s the point. You experienced nothing with your own eyes, did you?”

“That’s right, nothing.”

(The guards’ lawsuit, filed in March 1994, was still pending as this article went to press)

Note: The case was thrown out of court in July 1995.

Next came the maid. On December 15, Hard Copy presented “The Bedroom Maid’s Painful Secret.” Blanca Francia told Dimond and other reporters that she had seen a naked Jackson taking showers and Jacuzzi baths with young boys. She also told Dimond that she had witnessed her own son in compromising positions with Jackson — an allegation that the grand juries apparently never found credible.

A copy of Francia’s sworn testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000, and had Dimond checked out the woman’s claims, she would have found them to be false. Under deposition by a Jackson attorney, Francia admitted she had never actually see Jackson shower with anyone nor had she seen him naked with boys in his Jacuzzi. They always had their swimming trunks on, she acknowledged.

The coverage, says Michael Levine, a Jackson press representative, “followed a proctologist’s view of the world. Hard Copy was loathsome. The vicious and vile treatment of this man in the media was for selfish reasons. [Even] if you have never bought a Michael Jackson record in your life, you should be very concerned. Society is built on very few pillars. One of them is truth. When you abandon that, it’s a slippery slope.”

The investigation of Jackson, which by October 1993 would grow to involve at least twelve detectives from Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties, was instigated in part by the perceptions of one psychiatrist, Mathis Abrams, who had no particular expertise in child sexual abuse. Abrams, the DCS caseworker’s report noted, “feels the child is telling the truth.” In an era of widespread and often false claims of child molestation, police and prosecutors have come to give great weight to the testimony of psychiatrists, therapists and social workers.

Police seized Jackson’s telephone books during the raid on his residences in August and questioned close to thirty children and their families. Some, such as Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, said they had shared Jackson’s bed, but like all the others, they gave the same response — Jackson had done nothing wrong. “The evidence was very good for us,” says an attorney who worked on Jackson’s defense. “The other side had nothing but a big mouth.”

Despite the scant evidence supporting their belief that Jackson was guilty, the police stepped up their efforts. Two officers flew to the Philippines to try to nail down the Quindoys’ “hand in the pants” story, but apparently decided it lacked credibility. The police also employed aggressive investigative techniques — including allegedly telling lies — to push the children into making accusations against Jackson. According to several parents who complained to Bert Fields, officers told them unequivocally that their children had been molested, even though the children denied to their parents that anything bad had happened. The police, Fields complained in a letter to Los Angeles Police Chief Willie Williams, “have also frightened youngsters with outrageous lies, such as ‘We have nude photos of you.’ There are, of course, no such photos.” One officer, Federico Sicard, told attorney Michael Freeman that he had lied to the children he’d interviewed and told them that he himself had been molested as a child, says Freeman. Sicard did not respond to requests for an interview for this article.

All along, June Chandler Schwartz rejected the charges Chandler was making against Jackson — until a meeting with police in late August 1993. Officers Sicard and Rosibel Ferrufino made a statement that began to change her mind. “[The officers] admitted they only had one boy,” says Freeman, who attended the meeting, “but they said, ‘We’re convinced Michael Jackson molested this boy because he fits the classic profile of a pedophile perfectly.’ ”

“There’s no such thing as a classic profile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error,” says Dr. Ralph Underwager, a Minneapolis psychiatrist who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953. Jackson, he believes, “got nailed” because of “misconceptions like these that have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria.” In truth, as a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study shows, many child-abuse allegations — 48 percent of those filed in 1990 — proved to be unfounded.

“It was just a matter of time before someone like Jackson became a target,” says Phillip Resnick. “He’s rich, bizarre, hangs around with kids and there is a fragility to him. The atmosphere is such that an accusation must mean it happened.”

The seeds of settlement were already being sown as the police investigation continued in both counties through the fall of 1993. And a behind-the-scenes battle among Jackson’s lawyers for control of the case, which would ultimately alter the course the defense would take, had begun.

By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson. Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

Over the months, lawyers for both sides were retained, demoted and ousted as they feuded over the best strategy to take. Rothman ceased being Chandler’s lawyer in late August, when the Jackson camp filed extortion charges against the two. Both then hired high-priced criminal defense attorneys to represent them.. (Rothman retained Robert Shapiro, now O.J. Simpson’s chief lawyer.) According to the diary kept by Rothman’s former colleague, on August 26, before the extortion charges were filed, Chandler was heard to say “It’s my (bleep) that’s on the line and in danger of going to prison.” The investigation into the extortion charges was superficial because, says a source, “the police never took it that seriously. But a whole lot more could have been done.” For example, as they had done with Jackson, the police could have sought warrants to search the homes and offices of Rothman and Chandler. And when both men, through their attorneys, declined to be interviewed by police, a grand jury could have been convened.

In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.

Once news of the suit spread, the wolves began lining up at the door. According to a member of Jackson’s legal team, “Feldman got dozens of letters from all kinds of people saying they’d been molested by Jackson. They went through all of them trying to find somebody, and they found zero.”

With the possibility of criminal charges against Jackson now looming, Bert Fields brought in Howard Weitzman, a well-known criminal-defense lawyer with a string of high-profile clients — including John DeLorean, whose trail he won, and Kim Basinger, whose Boxing Helena contract dispute he lost. (Also, for a short time, Weitzman was O.J. Simpson’s attorney.) Some predicted a problem between the two lawyers early on. There wasn’t room for two strong attorneys used to running their own show.

From the day Weitzman joined Jackson’s defense team, “he was talking settlement,” says Bonnie Ezkenazi, an attorney who worked for the defense. With Fields and Pellicano still in control of Jackson’s defense, they adopted an aggressive strategy. They believed staunchly in Jackson’s innocence and vowed to fight the charges in court. Pellicano began gathering evidence to use in the trial, which was scheduled for March 21, 1994. “They had a very weak case,” says Fields. “We wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.”

Dissension within the Jackson camp accelerated on November 12, after Jackson’s publicist announced at a press conference that the singer was canceling the remainder of his world tour to go into a drug-rehabilitation program to treat his addiction to painkillers. Fields later told reporters that Jackson was “barely able to function adequately on an intellectual level.” Others in Jackson’s camp felt it was a mistake to portray the singer as incompetent. “It was important,” Fields says, “to tell the truth. [Larry] Feldman and the press took the position that Michael was trying to hide and that it was all a scam. But it wasn’t.”

On November 23, the friction peaked. Based on information he says he got from Weitzman, Fields told a courtroom full of reporters that a criminal indictment against Jackson seemed imminent. Fields had a reason for making the statement: He was trying to delay the boy’s civil suit by establishing that there was an impending criminal case that should be tried first. Outside the courtroom, reporters asked why Fields had made the announcement, to which Weitzman replied essentially that Fields “misspoke himself.” The comment infuriated Fields, “because it wasn’t true,” he says. “It was just an outrage. I was very upset with Howard.”

“There was this vast group of people all wanting to do a different thing, and it was like moving through molasses to get a decision,” says Fields. “It was a nightmare, and I wanted to get the hell out of it.” Pellicano, who had received his share of flak for his aggressive manner, resigned at the same time.

With Fields and Pellicano gone, Weitzman brought in Johnnie Cochran Jr., a well-known civil attorney who is now helping defend O.J. Simpson. And John Branca, whom Fields had replaced as Jackson’s general counsel in 1990, was back on board. In late 1993, as DAs in both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles counties convened grand juries to assess whether criminal charges should be filed against Jackson, the defense strategy changed course and talk of settling the civil case began in earnest, even though his new team also believed in Jackson’s innocence.

Why would Jackson’s side agree to settle out of court, given his claims of innocence and the questionable evidence against him? His attorneys apparently decided there were many factors that argued against taking the case to civil court. Among them was the fact that Jackson’s emotional fragility would be tested by the oppressive media coverage that would likely plague the singer day after day during a trial that could last as long as six months.

Politics and racial issues had also seeped into legal proceedings — particularly in Los Angeles, which was still recovering from the Rodney King ordeal — and the defense feared that a court of law could not be counted on to deliver justice. Then, too, there was the jury mix to consider. As one attorney says, “They figured that Hispanics might resent [Jackson] for his money, blacks might resent him for trying to be white, and whites would have trouble getting around the molestation issue.” In Resnick’s opinion, “The hysteria is so great and the stigma [of child molestation] is so strong, there is no defense against it.”

Jackson’s lawyers also worried about what might happen if a criminal trial followed, particularly in Santa Barbara, which is a largely white, conservative, middle-to-upper-class community. Any way the defense looked at it, a civil trial seemed too big a gamble. By meeting the terms of a civil settlement, sources say, the lawyers figured they could forestall a criminal trial through a tacit understanding that Chandler would agree to make his son unavailable to testify.

Others close to the case say the decision to settle also probably had to do with another factor — the lawyers’ reputations. “Can you imagine what would happen to an attorney who lost the Michael Jackson case?” says Anthony Pellicano. “There’s no way for all three lawyers to come out winners unless they settle. The only person who lost is Michael Jackson.” But Jackson, says Branca, “changed his mind about [taking the case to trial] when he returned to this country. He hadn’t seen the massive coverage and how hostile it was. He just wanted the whole thing to go away.”

On the other side, relationships among members of the boy’s family had become bitter. During a meeting in Larry Feldman’s office in late 1993, Chandler, a source says, “completely lost it and beat up Dave [Schwartz].” Schwartz, having separated from June by this time, was getting pushed out of making decisions that affected his stepson, and he resented Chandler for taking the boy and not returning him. “Dave got mad and told Evan this was all about extortion, anyway, at which point Evan stood up, walked over and started hitting Dave,” a second source says.

To anyone who lived in Los Angeles in January 1994, there were two main topics of discussion — the earthquake and the Jackson settlement. On January 25, Jackson agreed to pay the boy an undisclosed sum. The day before, Jackson’s attorneys had withdrawn the extortion charges against Chandler and Rothman.

The actual amount of the settlement has never been revealed, although speculation has placed the sum around $20 million. One source says Chandler and June Chandler Schwartz received up to $2 million each, while attorney Feldman might have gotten up to 25 percent in contingency fees. The rest of the money is being held in trust for the boy and will be paid out under the supervision of a court-appointed trustee.

“Remember, this case was always about money,” Pellicano says, “and Evan Chandler wound up getting what he wanted.” Since Chandler still has custody of his son, sources contend that logically this means the father has access to any money his son gets.

By late May 1994, Chandler finally appeared to be out of dentistry. He’d closed down his Beverly Hills office, citing ongoing harassment from Jackson supporters. Under the terms of the settlement, Chandler is apparently prohibited from writing about the affair, but his brother, Ray Charmatz, was reportedly trying to get a book deal.

In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family. Rothman’s lawsuit claims defamation and slander on the part of Jackson, as well as his original defense team — Fields, Pellicano and Weitzman — for the allegations of extortion. “The charge of [extortion],” says Rothman attorney Aitken, “is totally untrue. Mr. Rothman has been held up for public ridicule, was the subject of a criminal investigation and suffered loss of income.” (Presumably, some of Rothman’s lost income is the hefty fee he would have received had he been able to continue as Chandler’s attorney through the settlement phase.)

As for Michael Jackson, “he is getting on with his life,” says publicist Michael Levine. Now married, Jackson also recently recorded three new songs for a greatest-hits album and completed a new music video called “History.”

And what became of the massive investigation of Jackson? After millions of dollars were spent by prosecutors and police departments in two jurisdictions, and after two grand juries questioned close to 200 witnesses, including 30 children who knew Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found.

In June 1994, still determined to find even one corroborating witness, three prosecutors and two police detectives flew to Australia to again question Wade Robson, the boy who had acknowledged that he’d slept in the same bed with Jackson. Once again, the boy said that nothing bad had happened.

The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been give a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion.

“I found the case suspicious,” says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis psychiatrist, “precisely because the only evidence came from one boy. That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of 240 victims in their lifetime. It’s a progressive disorder. They’re never satisfied.”

Given the slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he would have been found guilty had the case People are free to speculate as they wish, and Jackson’s eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the likelihood that the public has assumed the worst about him.

So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime — that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It’s my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”

To some observers, the Michael Jackson story illustrates the dangerous power of accusation, against which there is often no defense — particularly when the accusations involve child sexual abuse.

To others, something else is clear now — that police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.

The Grammys 2010: Caves are opened, sharp exits are made

February 10, 2010 49 comments

.

This is actually an “in between” blog, since we are working on something else for a few weeks already. But because this has not been fully picked up yet, we thought we’d make a blog about it.

The Grammys were great, but we wonder if anyone saw the big statements on stage that were made. Artists breaking free; the beginning of a revolution in the music industry. Those who have knowledge of Mind Control and the Illuminati symbols must have seen what happened on stage.

We will analyze as much as we can, but we might have missed things. Feel free to add.

Also there will be a few side notes. While analyzing the performances using the book we have about MK ULTRA and Mind Control, we found some things that in our opinion stood out about Mike and mind control so we just threw that in for your information.

The book we have about the programming of Monarch slaves is very disturbing and the authors even warn at the start that if you are a victim yourself, the book can be dangerous. Some parts of the book are very revealing, but too disturbing to post, so we will not post everything we have found, even though a lot of naysayers are ridiculing the whole subject and will say again after this one that we ‘can’t prove it’.

“You tell me I’m wrong
Then you better prove you’re right”

Also we made a video with the things we saw at the Grammys that reminded us of Mike, and there were many of them, too much to be coincidences.

Here is our evaluation and interpretation of some of the performances.

Note: some of the video’s are blocked in the US and Canada, you can watch them by going to www.hidemyass.com first.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Lady Gaga & Elton John

.

.

There is a lot of symbolism in this performance. The scenery is a factory, “The Fame Factory”. This could be symbolic for a ‘factory’ where the slaves are made, programmed, ready to be used. Reminded us of the Dangerous album cover, where we can find a factory like that as well. The guy in the suit says:

.

Excuse me

Excuse me!

I have a return

I bought a Lady Gaga

But you sold me a fake

All my money you take

I want the real Gaga

You can’t fake it

Tryin’ to make it

I want the real Gaga

I want the the Pokerface

Don’t you fake it

Try to make it

I want the real Gaga

You see the real Gaga comes complete with five number 1 singles

And the best part is she has her own pogo stick

And she has no soul

I’ll take her

.

He wants the money making Gaga, not a fake. So a new ‘real’ Gaga appears. In a cage with a heart-shaped costume and reversed pink pyramids around her eyes, a ‘Fuck You’ to the Illuminati. The color of the costume is emerald green, if we do a search on Google for “emerald heart”, we find this website:

http://www.emeraldheart.co.uk

“The Emerald Heart is a Spiritual Light for the Evolution of Human Consciousness, as such it can be used for your own healing, guidance and advancement. Either for you as an individual, for humanity, or for the planet as a whole organism.”

.

https://i2.wp.com/www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/images/grammys/foto1.jpg

.

Cages are used in MK ULTRA programming, but the parts in the book that describe those programming rituals, are too disturbing to post.

Then she makes a fist, the same the Black Panthers use (with the thumb over the fingers) to show resistance.

https://i2.wp.com/www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/images/grammys/foto2.jpg

.

We see her making a claw, like she does in her Bad Romance video as well. Her mic is golden. Gold is the perfect metal and is considered to be divine and the source of wisdom by the Illuminati.

https://i1.wp.com/www.michaeljacksonhoaxforum.com/images/grammys/foto3.jpg

.

Side note:

Wizard of Oz programming: The Yellow Brick Road is the script or programmed set of instructions one must follow. It also serves as a runway for alters to take off from their internal world and take the body. “FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD”

There is a code to get through the poppy field (trance state). Some alters to get through the poppy field need to put on a new dress and a new image. The poppy field may be called “the field of forget-me-not”. To get into the poppy field is easy, it is “*Codes*.

“THERE’S A PAIR OF MAGIC SHOES TO WEAR WITH YOUR DRESS..

.SOMETHING IN LIGHTNING…TO TRANSPORT YOU FASTER THAN THE OL’ FURRY SLIPPERS.”

When the slave is finished being used they return from Never Never Land to Kansas. To do this they are told: “CLICK YOUR HEELS.. .THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOME.” They might be reminded “YOU’RE NOW GOING OVER THE RAINBOW TO THE OTHER WORLD.”

Threatened lyrics (partial):

The unknown monster is about to embark
From a far corner, out of the dark
A nightmare, that’s the case
Never Neverland, that’s the place
This particular monster can read minds
Be in two places at the same time
This is judgement night, execution, slaughter
The devil, ghosts, this monster is torture
You can be sure of one thing, that’s fate
A human presence that you feel is strange
A monster that you can see disappear
A monster, the worst thing to fear.

Intro You Rock My World:

Chris: Taa-ta-ta-ta-ta-mee! That giiiiiirl! Oh man! Look at that girl right
there! Goodness gracious! Uuh! That girl fine man! Look at the, oh! She’s just
too fine she know she fine too!
Michael: She is bangin’…
Chris: Ooh, she’s off the hook!
Michael: She looks good, you’re right.
Chris: Uhh, uhh, uh, uh, uh. I betchoo cain’t nobody can get that girl!
Michael: Chris, I can get her…
Chris: You can’t get that girl, Mike, I guarantee you can’t get that girl!
Michael: Watch me get that girl!
Chris: I bet you
never neverland you can’t!
Michael: I can get her!
Chris: Alright, shomon then! Shomon!
Michael: Watch!

.

Then she freezes. There is a code in the MK ULTRA programming that can make the slaves freeze. We will not name certain codes, because we are not experts on it so we don’t know if it could do any harm to victims who might be reading this as well. We’ll call it the ‘freeze code’:

Victim’s body freezes in motion and can’t move until another code is given.

.

She jumps out of her cage and her dancers catch her. In the dance we see the claw again.

.

Maybe this reminds you of something? Right!

.

Zombie arms. Eyewitnesses of the MK ULTRA programming have described the hundreds of numbed children as “zombies”. The word itself is also a programming code/trigger.

.

Side note: In the thriller screenshot we see Mike on his toes again, one of his trademarks.

This is a code as well; it means “attention slave” get ready for a command.

.

When Poker face ends, we see a stop sign:

.

Another familiar sign don’t you think? Remember this one?

.

We noticed that they all have the pink divided from the other fingers. We couldn’t find the meaning of that, maybe someone knows what it means or could mean?

.

The music stops and Lady Gaga is taken away. The guy talks again:

.

Everyone’s going Googoo for Gaga

Her mind controlling pop music is ruining my business

Take her away

She’s a monster

She’s a monster

She’s a monster

And she’s turning all of you

Into monsters

She’s a monster

She’s a monster

She’s a monster!

.

What we think is that he is one of ‘them’ and because of her statements; she needs to be ‘taken down’. She is ruining his business; she is exposing the dark side of the music industry with her symbolism. They throw her into some kind of burning oven that has ‘rejected’ on it. An oven is used as a part of the programming as well, but this is also too disturbing to post.

.

Side note: A search for fire showed us this in the book:

Monarch slaves are threatened with fire, like the Scarecrow (Wizard of Oz Programming). They also see people dismembered like the Scarecrow was dismembered. For them it is not an idle threat. The front alters also have hearts full of pain like Scarecrow.

We just say Pepsi ‘accident’ and Mike’s words in TDCAU in TII: “They dipped me in fire”…

.

Doors open and Gaga appears again, dirty but unharmed with Elton John, who has also a dirty face. Maybe this means Elton got her out of the fire, saved her. He is a mind control victim too, just look at his album covers and they wear the same strange glasses, they relate. As we think Mike must have had help from someone that was a victim too because they would see the signals and know how to help, Lady Gaga probably (hopefully) has her savior. It could be symbolic and we’re just guessing but would make sense.

.

The piano is a double one, mirrored, especially made for this performance.

Mirror rooms are used in MK ULTRA programming. The arms on the piano are zombie arms. Most likely is that the meaning is that they are artists (victims of the Monarch programming) trapped in music (industry) and reaching out for help. Lady Gaga makes the claws again as well, saying:

.

Take my picture Hollywood

I wanna be a star!

.

Notice Elton’s earring, a planet. In the 1980 models of Monarch slaves, the Programmers began placing a planet of alters, interspersed with a planet of demons, as they would build a solar system. This had the same layering effect as the mirrors. The demons then would be assigned to protect the different levels, in this case represented by different orbiting planets.


Side note: Just bumped into this while scrolling through the book:

Umbrella:

This is associated with military programming. An umbrella can protect other alters. An umbrella must be taken down from the inside and so must this protective shield of the Umbrella program.

.

Then we see Lady Gaga throw off her glasses or mask, showing that she’s not a puppet anymore? Underneath the mask, in our opinion, the real Gaga; a very talented girl that just gave a fantastic performance. A revealing show has started…

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Beyonce

.

Watch her performance here.

.

Beyonce’s performance was announced by Simon Baker, the star of The Mentalist. (mentalism: the doctrine that objects of knowledge have no existence except in the mind of the perceiver.)

The first thing that stands out is that Beyonce is accompanied by Mike’s army of dancers. We know that for sure, because Timor tweetet about it:

.

Yesterday i worked on beyonce and Today is the 1st day after 2 weeks that i start rehearsing again for the Movie burlesque again.on my way!

11:52 PM Feb 1st from web

.

Since Mike broke free, it’s completely illogical for him to lend his dancers to an artist who is “on message”.  As from this moment our eyes were glued to the screen.

.

Next thing we noticed was Beyonce’s dress. The dress is composed of pyramids, but in between these pyramids you see inverted pyramids. The largest inverted  pyramid is in the top and is the most prominent visual.

.

Okay, on with the show! Beyonce marched on stage with her dancers. When she starts with her song If I Were A Boy the camera zooms in on her and we can clearly see she is only wearing one earring – a butterfly. There were 149 subprojects listed under the umbrella of MKULTRA. Project MONARCH has not been officially identified by any government documentation as one of the corresponding subprojects, but is used rather, as a descriptive “catch phrase” by survivors, therapists, and possible “insiders”. The name MONARCH is not necessarily defined within the context of royal nobility, but rather refers to the Monarch butterfly. One of the internal images predominately seen by victims/survivors is the butterfly.

.

Next, the Mike connection.  She very very obviously grabs her crotch. Note that the dancers on her right side are in the dark, the one on her left is In the light.

.

The dancers salute (gesture of respect) and Beyonce sings a verse that does not appear in her original song, neither is it a verse of another song:

.

I will walk you down that aisle

I will grab you by the hand

I would snatch you out of that fire

I would be a better man

I would love you, you

Only in the midnight hour

I’ll show love, give you good love

Don’t need no one

I need no man

.

Interpretation: I will show you the way, I will guide you, I will help you get out of your living hell, and I will show you what true love is.

.

She put her hair back to show us another clear view on her butterfly earring.

.

During the next verse the dancers are in the same pose as Mike’s HIStory statue:

.

The dancers are on guard, look to their left, right, and straight ahead, looking for anyone who might want to hurt Beyonce. It’s obvious that they are protecting her.

During the next phase the majority of dancers leave the stage, and line up in the aisle of the hall. Two of them stay on stage, preventing anyone from entering.

.

After singing If I Were A Boy, which she by the way did not sing in the original sequence of verses, Beyonce starts singing Alanis Morissette’s song You Oughta Know, but again the lyrics are altered. The lightning on the stage turns red. Beyonce leaves the stage, walks down the aisle of the hall, and is protected on both sides by Mike’s dancers who salute.  She goes onto the small stage in the hall where she sings this:

.

And every time you speak her name

Does she know how you told me you’d hold me

Until you died, ’till you died

Well [original word here is “but”, not “well”] you’re still alive

And I’m here to remind you

Of the mess you left when you went away

It’s not fair to deny me

Of the cross you bear….. [leaves out “that you gave to me”]

You, you, you oughta know

And I’m here to remind you

Of the mess you left when you went away

.

The dancers, among them Mike’s dancers, salute during this whole time, which is clearly a sign of respect towards him. This song wasn’t just a randomly chosen song.  Just look at the lyrics again!

.

Beyonce walks off the small stage, walks down the aisle, the dancers take normal position again and Beyonce goes back on the center stage while singing:

.

It’s not fair to deny me

Of the cross you bear….. [leaves out “that you gave to me”]

You, you, you oughta know

.

When she’s back on the center stage she sings the last verse of If I Were A Boy she makes a Black Panther fist:

.

She ends her performance with one of Mike’s trademark poses…

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Pink

.

Watch her performance here.

.

Pink performed “”Glitter in the air”. At the beginning we see stardust in the air, let us quote something from the book.

.

When the Slave Masters within the Illuminati take away the hearts of the alters, they give them a heart of stone and a ring. The ring is important for if they lose this, they think they will not get their hearts back. The slaves will wake up in the middle of the night looking for a ring–but never know what ring they are looking for. “CATCH A FALLING STAR, PUT IT IN YOUR POCKET FOR A RAINY DAY” ties in with this story line. The star is magical stardust. During programming the Programmers use “magical star dust.” If the slave loses his/her ring, they are told the Master will never love them.

.

Then she “rips” off her dress, symbolic for starting a new life without fear. Underneath her cloak she is almost naked, just covered with ribbons.

In a standard Illuminati alter system, 13 colors are used. One of them is pink. These alters maintain the true feelings of the true self apart from the programming. These alters are emotional and often break down and cry.

During the programming they use a black box with needles and wires attached to the body for electroshock. While electro shocking the victim, colored scarfs coming out of a box are showed to the child. The scarfs would help form the imagery needed to build colored ribbons internally.

She gets lift up in the air in a white sheet. The three women covered in gold are making three reversed pyramids with the purple sheets. Then she is lowered into the water before she gets lifted again.

One of the tortures some Monarch slaves have to go through is water torture.  The victim is placed in salt water (for buoyancy and weightlessness), then they put sensitive sensors on the victim that will give a shock if the victim moves, putting the victim back into unconsciousness. The brain is trained to stop all body movement.  The Illuminati used water torture because they needed their slaves to be afraid of water. The victim may be traumatized by being lowered on ropes or a cage on ropes into the water.

Pink shows she’s not afraid anymore by letting them lowering into the water.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————

Earth Song

.

.

Lionel looks a bit too happy talking about his ‘dead’ friend, and even promoting the released DVD.

The 3D footage starts with the sun ‘illuminating’ the world. Trees, butterflies and flowers are all related to mind control, as we’ve explained in our previous blog.

The end of the song is interesting to say the least. We’ve listened to it a hundred times, but we can’t hear ‘about’ like in other live performances. We think he definitely sings “What if I’d live again, do you give a damn”. At the end no 1958-2009, nothing. Only pictures and again they were like 20 years old.

The kids did great. Guarded by 3 guardian angels (Taj, Taryll & TJ) who were keeping an eye on them.

Prince looks like he’s is a little nervous, but if you look closely you see he is making a reversed pyramid with his hands. They both wear clothes in Illuminati related colors (black/red/white) and Paris wears a bow on her jacket.

.

Prince:

Thank you, thank you

We are proud to be here to accept this award on behalf of our father Michael Jackson

First of all we’d like to thank God for watching over us for these past seven months

And our grandma and grandpa for their love and support

We would also like to thank your fans..the fans

Our father loved you so much because you are always there for him

Our father was always concerned about the planet and humanity

Through all his hard work and dedication he has helped the many charities and donated to all of them

Through all his songs his message was simple; love

We will continue to spread his message and help the world

Thank you

We love you daddy

.

Paris:

Daddy was supposed to be here, daddy was going to perform this year

But he couldn’t perform last year

Thank you, we love you daddy

.

They both make a nice slip-up. Prince mentions ‘your fans..the fans’ and ‘because you are always there for him’ instead of ‘because you were always there for him’. What Paris had to say didn’t make sense at all, but did she look nervous? No not at all. And why say 7 months instead of just months? Right, because it’s a hoax!

.

Special thanks to Badkolo for the nice home made soup while writing this.


PS: youtube copyright info

What a surprise…  Our videos “Michael Jackson’s vibe during the Grammys 2010” and “Tribute to Michael Jackson at The Grammys 2010” got the following youtube copyright notice:

Your videos may include content that is owned or licensed by these content owners:

Content owner: Grammys

Type: Audiovisual content

As a result, your video is blocked worldwide.

Strangely, the Pink and Beyonce videos are blocked in Canada and the US only, and the one of Elton John and Lady Gaga is not blocked at all while all contain the same copyrighted Grammy material.  Mmmmmmm…