Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir – Why A Positive + Negative Will ALWAYS Equal A Negative

“She’s pushing her kids onto me.” he said, visibly concerned. He had a strange uncomfortable feeling about it. “Frank, they can’t stay.” (Michael told Frank Cascio)

Martin Bashir set off a chain of events that led to Michael Jackson’s premature death. That “documentary” that aired was NOT approved by Jackson, as Bashir has originally promised it would be. Instead, Bashir edited the footage on his own, added his own negative commentary, and ruined Jackson’s reputation by implying that he was a child molester.

For example, prior to shooting that infamous scene, he told Gavin Arvizo to hold MJ’s hand and place his head on MJ’s shoulder, and then when the cameras started rolling he ambushed them into talking about Gavin’s sleeping arrangements. What many people don’t know, however, was that Michael was very uncomfortable doing this (holding Gavin’s hands), but Bashir assured him that it’s okay and it would be great footage. (I wish Michael listened to his gut feeling instead).

Gavin slept in MJ’s bed, while MJ slept on the floor (also corroborated by longtime friend, Frank Cascio and the Alternative Services document I posted below), but because they were holding hands, Bashir was able to insinuate that there was sexual misconduct, when there were none whatsoever.

When Bashir was called to testify at MJ’s trial, he hid behind the California Journalistic Shield Law, and was thus able to avoid answering any questions about his selectively edited “documentary”. While you may believe it was inappropriate for MJ to share his bed or bedroom, it was not criminal, and he didn’t do anything that many people don’t already do when they have guests. MJ never forced anyone to sleep in his bed or bedroom, and the parents always had to give permission.

If any of them had a reason to say no, then they wouldn’t have been at Neverland in the first place! His “bedroom” was actually a 2 story duplex that was larger than most apartments, so it was very common for entire families to sleep in his living quarters. There were many parents who defended MJ in the press, and a few even testified on his behalf at his trial. There were no “urges” or anything of that nature, and Jackson was not a “pervert”, so please stop promoting that fallacy.

What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part, slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps, most important, he didn’t explain that the guests were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.” – Longtime friend, Frank Cascio.

Michael Jackson trusted Bashir to present him in a good light while they were filming the documentary. He didn’t know Bashir had an agenda to portray him as a pervert; Michael was manipulated by Bashir.

More to come.

The original version that MJ thought was going to air on TV (and the original version we were cheated out of).

Aphrodite Jones – TRUE CRIME SHOW – Michael Jackson Episode (FULL documentary)

Aphrodite Jones talks about how Martin Bashir set up Michael Jackson

Martin Bashir called Tom Mesereau after Michael Jackson died!

 

Tom Sneddons Secret Motives For Michael Jackson WitchHunt Revealed33

Frank Cascio explains why MJ let Gavin Arvizo sleep in his bedroom!

Gavin BEGGED Michael to sleep in his bedroom

 

Frank also stated in his book My Friend Michael:

frankcascio1.jpg

frankcascio2.jpg

frankcascio3.jpg

Was Michael Jackson Framed? The Defining 1994 GQ Article by Mary A. Fischer That Sets The Record Straight on the 1993 Allegations.

10275986_554247258029927_820959341497913345_n (1)

“I have been a vulnerable target for those who want money.”

– Michael Jackson

Was Michael Jackson Framed?
The Untold Story
Mary A. Fischer
GQ, October 1994

Did Michael Do It?

The untold story of the events that brought down a superstar

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.

lily2

hqdefault

“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-year-old 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 marriagewas 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 cowrote 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 anew 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 fuck 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 bitch 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.

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.”

10289927_795604463785502_8438604098579982596_n (1)

Michael Jackson NEVER paid the $20 million dollar settlement…The public thought it was a case of child molestation, but behind the scenes it was all about extortion. When Michael Jackson refused to give Evan Chandler $20 million to make a movie, he launched the false allegation of child molestation solely to ruin Michael Jackson’s career and so that he could get paid.

– Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

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 wrong-doing 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 counterdemand—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 administeredsodium 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 has learned that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration is probing another aspect of Torbiner’s business practices: He 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. 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 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. There was, however, no mention of actual penetration, which might have been verified by a medical exam, thus providing corroborating evidence.

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.

@2:39 the assorted reports:

“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 Michael Jackson, not a single corroborating witness could be found.”

Newsday, 1993,

“No hard evidence had been gathered from the hundreds of papers, photographs and videotapes seized during the raids on Jackson’s Neverland home and Century City apartment.”

The Times, 1993

Having spent much of last week watching Jackson’s videotape collection, officers admitted they could not find no proof there of child sex abuse.”

The Times, 1993

“On Monday, police searched another property used by Jackson, a three-bedroom flat at the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas, but after 30 minutes the officers left empty-handed.”

The Times, 1993

“The Los Angeles Police Department raided his Neverland home in the Santa Ynez Valley, confiscating videos and photographs that Jackson has taken of children. The LAPD report that they have all turned out to be totally innocent. Many of the children that Jackson has befriended, including Home Alone star Macauley Culkin, have been questioned by police and have testified that their relationship was perfectly innocent. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of children have visited the star’s home. The allegations centre on the evidence of just one boy.”

The Daily Telegraph, 1993

“The source, who asked not to be identified said the photographs did not tally with a description given to police by a 14-year boy who accused Jackson in a civil suit of secually abusing him. “The pictures simply didn’t match the boy’s description, the source said.”

Prosecutors in Los Angeles said settlement of the civil suit did not end their investigation, and there was no provision in the settlement to bar him from testifying in a possible criminal case.

Reuters, 1994

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 ass 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.

“It was just a matter of time before someone like Jackson became a target. He’s rich, bizarre [and] hangs around with kids…

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 this June, 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.” Fields sent a letter of resignation to Jackson the following week.

“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 defenseagainst 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 gone to trial. But in the court of public opinion, there are no restrictions. 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.

Did Evan Chandler get a taste of his own medicine?

10401535_795582330454382_1105371834461569489_n

A couple of years after the allegations, in 2004, we learned about the nature of the settlement because they were leaked.

mj1993

WAS THE SETTLEMENT AN ADMISSION OF GUILT BY MICHAEL JACKSON?

No. In fact, the official settlement agreement clearly states that Michael Jackson “specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Chandlers.” At another point it is written that the civil settlement is explicitly “for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and NOT for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”

As part of the civil case, the Chandlers also announced within the settlement agreement that the first through sixth causes of actions (consisting of:  sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud) would be dismissed without prejudice  which the Chandlers likewise agreed to drop once the money was received.

Quotes: “Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against, the Minor [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] or [June Chandler] or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.

The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment are in settlement of claims by [Jordan Chandler], [Evan Chandler] and [June Chandler] for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation”.

DID THE SETTLEMENT PREVENT JORDAN CHANDLER FROM TESTIFYING IN COURT?

Absolutely not. One of the most commonly misconstrued beliefs of the settlement agreement is that it somehow prevented Jordan Chandler from testifying against Jackson in criminal court.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The 1993 settlement dealt exclusively with the civil case brought against Michael Jackson by the Chandlers, not the then on-going criminal investigation.  A civil case, in this perspective, is one that is filed with the single goal of obtaining monetary gain via a judgment against the defendant. Thus, when the Chandlers and their high-profile civil attorney Larry Feldman filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, they did so with the sole intent of acquiring a certain degree of wealth;  not justice.

NOTHING within the settlement documents in any way prohibited the Chandlers from pressing criminal charges and pursuing the matter in criminal court, REGARDLESS of any financial settlement in the civil case. The Chandlers had every RIGHT to carry the case over to CRIMINAL COURT, even after obtaining the financial settlement.

In fact, Jordan Chandler was given more years to testify against Michael Jackson in a criminal court system than virtually any other alleged molestation victim, and was even granted a rare second opportunity to come forward during the 2005 criminal trial but refused. (Reports from his uncle, Ray Chandler, indicated that he had left the country in both 1998 at the age of 18 and again in 2005 to avoid having to testify).

By law, Jordan Chandler was permitted to testify at any time against Michael Jackson in court up through August of 2000. However, Tom Sneddon announced in 2001 that he had actually extended the statute of limitations of the 1993 case so that it “can be reopened at any time.”

According to Sneddon, the statute of limitations was frozen in time “because Jackson was living out of the country for much of that time.” On February 6, 2003, Tom Sneddon echoed a similar statement in a press release: “the 1993 case could be reactivated upon the discovery of new, credible evidence or victims willing to cooperate. Nothing has changed. The investigation remains ‘open, but inactive.’”

Between 1993 and 1994, the criminal allegations were investigated for over 12 months by Gil Garcetti of Los Angeles and Tom Sneddon of Santa Barbara.

TWO grand juries from both jurisdictions convened and spent months listening to the prosecution’s evidence and third party witnesses. At the end, each grand jury agreed that there was not enough evidence to indict.

Both district attorneys insisted that the reason they could not indict Michael Jackson on criminal charges is due to the “unavailability of the primary alleged victim.” It was made clear that Jordan Chandler could have come forward to testify at any point, but he never did.

DID THE INSURANCE COMPANY NEGOTIATE THE SETTLEMENT?

Ever since the initial leak of the settlement documents in 2004, speculation has spread that it was in fact an Insurer Carrier that ultimately negotiated and paid for the settlement, NOT Michael Jackson himself.

In a 2005 legal document filed in court by Michael Jackson’s defense, this theory grew feet.

On a Web chat conducted by Diane Dimond on June 16, 2004, among the questions discussed was the following one:
QUESTION from Incognito:  Did you say that an insurance company paid the money? What kind of insurance would that be?

DIANE DIMOND: Note that Jackson agreed to pay on the allegation of negligence. Check out your homeowner’s policy. If you negligently leave out a banana peel that someone trips and falls over, your insurance company will pay out for your negligence. They will not, however, pay out if you committed a crime. That’s probably why he agreed only to the negligence claim”. (***sidenote – as stated before, the civil case was for global claims of negligence, NOT molestation. Celebrities, businesses, hospitals, wealthy people insurers pay out negligence claims all the time – they are the easiest claims to bring against someone/an entity because they don’t necessarily require corroborating evidence).

Little more was said about the insurance settlement theory until the trial of 2005.

On March 22, 2005, a motion was filed in court on behalf of Michael Jackson and within the said court document, numerous statements were made that an insurance carrier had negotiated and settled the 1993 civil case. The relevant section from the document is transcribed below:

“The 1993 Civil Settlement was Made by Mr. Jackson’s Insurance Company and was not within Mr.Jackson’s control. The settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr. Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr.Jackson and his personal legal counsel.

It is unfair for an insurance company’s settlement to be now held against Mr. Jackson or for the Settlement Agreement to be admitted as evidence of Mr. Jackson’s prior conduct or guilt. Mr. Jackson could NOT CONTROL NOR INTERFERE with his insurance carrier’s demand to settle the dispute”.

Word Picture Source for both images: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/the-questions-asked-about-the1993-settlement/

The document below showed Michael Jackson did NOT pay out the settlement; his Insurance carrier did and it was for Global Claims of NEGLIGENCE NOT molestation (as stated above)! It was the media who erroneously kept reporting that Michael Jackson settled the “molestation” lawsuit.

Negligence claims were the easiest suit to bring against someone because they didn’t necessarily require corroborating evidence. Many Insurance Companies have immediately paid out negligence claims despite a client’s protest or objection. This one lady I know, throws a huge party every year with food and drinks and makes sure EVERYONE signs a LIABILITY WAIVER contract so they can’t sue her for NEGLIGENCE. Had MJ made the Chandlers sign a LIABILITY WAIVER Evan’s chances of suing MJ would have been low to non-existent b/c he would have forfeited his rights to sue. This case was all about money. It was a CIVIL case meaning payouts and MONEY! He got what he wanted ALL ALONG: MONEY! He knew by suing for negligence would ensure a quick payout. Had he filed molestation charges against Michael he would have had to prove it occurred and possibly testify against Michael in court.

– 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. – The Floacist (As stated in previous posts, people admitted to being approached by tabloids to lie on Michael Jackson for money, some said “no” and some agreed to go along like the Quindoys).

Evan Chandler had up to 10 years to file criminal charges against Michael Jackson and NEVER did. He never pursued those molestation charges b/c odds are him, his son and MJ would have had to take the stand and face cross examination! When Tom Sneddon asked both Evan and Jordan to testify in the 2005 trial they said “no” … so what does this tell you? It was all about M-O-N-E-Y from day one.

Insurance?

Where do your loyalties lie?

– Lyric from ‘Money’ – Michael Jackson’s History Album, 1995

settlementinsurance1 settlementinsurance2 settlementinsurance3

settlementinsurance4

The link where you can download the full document:

032205mjmemospprtobj

Private Investigator Scott Ross breaks down the insurance company payment even further. He worked on the 2005 case for Michael Jackson and his lawyers.

Even once Jordan Chandler began to toe his father’s line, his testimony was so unconvincing that DA Tom Sneddon took his case to three separate grand juries and none of them allowed him to bring charges against Michael Jackson. Contrary to widely reported myth, Jordan Chandler did not accurately describe Jackson’s genitals. Among other inaccuracies, he claimed that Jackson was circumcised while police photographs proved that he was not.

Unsurprisingly, none of this information has made its way into the mainstream media’s reportage of Evan Chandler’s death. Instead, Chandler’s suicide is seen as another opportunity to sling mud at Michael Jackson and perpetuate the same, tired old myths about the 1993 allegations – particularly with regard to the settlement.

News outlets the world over are once more reporting that in 1994 Jackson paid the Chandlers a settlement. This is total fiction.

Court documents which came to light in 2005 state clearly that Jackson’s insurance carrier “negotiated and paid the settlement over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.”

Jackson didn’t even agree with the settlement, let alone pay it.

– Charles Thomson, award winning journalist, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

Interestingly enough in Ray Chandler’s book “All That Glitters” he pointed out that Evan Chandler didn’t like the possibility of the criminal trial proceeding the civil trial:

Evan Chandler

Once the Chandlers got their money, they stopped co-operating with the police and wanted to be left alone. They never pursued criminal charges against Michael Jackson even after they received the money.

DA Tom Sneddon extended the amount of time the Chandlers could pursue criminal charges against Michael Jackson by up to 10 years – and guess what? They never did.

 

Chandler (2).jpgpicture source: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/michael-jacksons-first-accuser-meet-the-chandler-family/

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a0422-05-opn.html

Rush Limbaugh Defending Michael Jackson in 1994!

Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

The truth of the 1993 case and her part in it had fallen on deaf ears. As the legal secretary for the Chandler’s lawyers, Geraldine Hughes was a very important witness in the 1993 case. She had access to information the general public and mainstream media didn’t have at the time. She heard and saw things that most of us wouldn’t. She knew the case was nothing more than an extortion plot. Back in the 2000s, before the 2005 trial, she tried to go to mainstream media outlets to reveal the truth, but wasn’t met with welcoming arms.

In 1993, after being investigated by the Los Angeles Sheriff, the Los Angeles LAPD, the Santa Barbara Sheriffs, the Santa Barbara LAPD and, we later learned after his death, there was an FBI probe, he was exonerated of all accusations of child molestation from 1993 and 2003. – Geraldine Hughes, Legal secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s attorney in 1993; http://geraldinehughes.blogspot.com/

Tom Mesereau Had Witnesses Ready to Testify Against Chandler in 2005

“According to Jackson’s FBI files, when prosecutors asked him to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial Jordan refused and he told them that “he would legally fight any attempt” to make him testify against Jackson [8]. Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau said that he had witnesses whom he would have called if Jordan had testified. These witnesses were people who personally knew Jordan and according to Mesereau Jordan privately confided in them that Jackson never molested him [9].” – https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2016/12/26/michael-jacksons-first-accuser-meet-the-chandler-family/

… Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson’s 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson’s legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan – who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name – had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson’s innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months before Jackson’s insurance carrier negotiated a settlement, Michael Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged with any crime.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. The aforementioned tape recorded telephone conversation heard him dismiss the boy’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’ and claim that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth. – Award winning journalist, Charles Thomson, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

Elizabeth Taylor defends Michael Jackson – Larry King Live

She describes that she was a witness to the sleepovers.

and according to people who worked with Tom Sneddon racism may have played a huge role in his pursuit against Michael Jackson

Tom Sneddon's Secret Motives for Michael Jackson WitchHunt

Picture Source: MJJ-777.com http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8062

Just how easy was it to make a false child molestation claim against Michael Jackson?

Look at the video below.

’95 Michael Jackson Canada Scam Exposed

very important comment on original video (video has been since taken down and we had look for another copy, however, we managed to save important comment)

…This is a SCAM that some other ENEMY of MJ tried to manufacture in Canada. But it proves how ANYONE can be coached to LIE about molestation. But unlike LA where they did NO INVESTIGATION of the Chandlers, in Canada THE POLICE DID THEIR JOB and investigated. See in the Chandler case, the police allowed EXTORTION of MJ and had no questions of the credibility of them. They accepted the Chandler story without ever questioning MOTIVES of Evan Chandler. – MJMedia09Returns

Ron Newt, befriended Michael and talked about how tabloids offered him up to $200,000 to say MJ touched his son.

Alfonso Ribeiro appeared on Geraldo, to say there was never a time when he felt uncomfortable with Michael Jackson. Ribeiro, at the age of twelve, had starred with Michael and the other Jacksons in a Pepsi commercial in 1984. Ribeiro felt like Michael was one of his buddies and felt the allegations were “preposterous”. He also disclosed that his own father was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson.

– Lisa Campbell’s, “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”

The defense witnesses included Tim Whitehead, Michael’s cousin who is very close to Michael, who told the jury he had been offered $100,000 to say that Michael is gay. He refused and said he has never seen any behavior that could be construed as child abuse.

– Lisa Campbell’s, “King of Pop’s Darkest Hour”

Daniel Kapon – Paid $500k By The News Of The World

A lawsuit filed by a young man who alleged he was molested as a boy by Michael Jackson — and who also claimed he fathered the singer’s two oldest children and saw him dine with Fidel Castro — was dismissed today by a judge.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted a motion by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas C. Mundell, to throw out the case after the 22-year- old plaintiff, {Daniel Kapon}, failed to show up for the scheduled start of today’s trial.

“I think the judge realized how crazy the lawsuit was,” Mundell said outside the courtroom.”

http://rhythmofthetide.com/

 

This book publisher was approached by members of the Chandler family to write a book about their story. She believed they were “brazen opportunists.”

sean-lennon

In 1996 Evan Chandler tried unsuccessfully to again sue Jackson (and 300 “co-conspirators”) seeking at least $60,000,000 and the opportunity to produce his own musical album. But never had any interest in the criminal investigation.

Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory.

From the lawsuit:

As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s and others’ material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”; “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs.

That’s right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.

 

Evan Chandler2.jpg

RARE Michael Jackson 1993 POLICE Investigation MEDIA Footage!!

What many people don’t realize is the Evan Chandler case eventually led to Janet Arvizo attempting to do the same thing in 2003 with the help of the Martin Bashir documentary and of course Tom Sneddon

(2005) How is the current case (2005) an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?

Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until after the criminal trial was resolved. The law was changed after 1993 (with the help of Tom Sneddon and the 1993 MJ case) so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. There is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.

In addition to that, if Jackson is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse.

Here is something to think about: Had this law been in effect before 1993, Michael Jackson would have been vindicated (remember TWO grand juries did not indict him) and there would have not been a civil lawsuit (i.e. settlement). The Chandlers would have had no choice but to have the criminal trial FIRST before the civil lawsuit. Remember, Evan Chandler did not pursue criminal charges against Michael and did not want a criminal trial to go before the civil lawsuit! After he got the money, he stopped cooperating with the police and wanted to be left alone. Let that sink in for a moment.

MJ’s 2003 accuser, LIED. He admitted to his middle school classmate and the principal, that Michael never did anything to him, and that he was taught to do this by his mother (to lie for gain) and that he was bragging to classmates about hanging out with MJ right before the Bashir documentary and then suddenly the family’s story changed. This is IMPORTANT information.

William Wagener Interviews MJ’s Women (2005 trial) :

My nagging question is, why MJ attorneys did not bring in the 4 or 5 gorgeous women, MJ has secretly dated over the past years to prove he is…. well…. normal. To me that would have put more “REASONABLE DOUBT”. I have spoken to two, and they both said, it is part of the deal. If MJ trusts you to date him you can’t blab about it to the tabloids or anyone. Okay. I understand, and that is smart, but heck his life, his kids, his freedom is on the line here. MJ won’t budge. His girlfriends keep their mouths shut. MJ keeps his shut.”

“Michael Jackson faced more frivolous lawsuits than any individual in American history.” – Joseph Vogel

Rumors Vs. Facts – 1993 and 2003 cases.

The-Trial-January-2005-michael-jackson-21538737-1441-1200f

1. Have there been other accusers?

In December 2003, former Sheriff Jim Thomas told the media that there was a second boy who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse in 1993. According to Thomas: “It was a boy [whose] mother was actually an employee of the [Jackson] family.” Thomas alleged that the boy would not cooperate with authorities because he was too “embarrassed.”

The boy in question is the son of Blanca Francia, Jackson’s former maid. Authorities got in contact with Francia after she appeared on Hard Copy and told the tabloid show that she had witnessed Jackson act inappropriately with her son. She repeated these statements in a sworn deposition for the Chandlers’ civil lawsuit but when questioned by authorities, Francia claimed that the boy had never accused Jackson of any wrongdoing. Under deposition by one of Jackson’s attorneys, Francia also admitted that she had exaggerated during her Hard Copy interview.

Still, investigators insisted on interviewing Francia’s son and even offered to send him to a therapist. According to an article from USA Today: “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 article explains that the offer of a therapist was made because Francia “felt uncomfortable” with the way authorities had been harassing her son.

Francia later blackmailed Jackson by threatening to accuse him of molesting her son unless she received a financial settlement from the Jackson camp. Jackson’s associates advised him to pay Francia off, fearing that the bad publicity from a second accusation would irreparably harm his record sales. After receiving $2 million, Francia did not file suit against Jackson.

Given the fact that Francia only made accusations against Jackson in exchange for financial compensation, one must question why Jim Thomas would be so quick to claim that her son was a “victim” of Jackson’s. Perhaps he is trying to taint the jury pool? Thomas is, afterall, admittedly good friends with the District Attorney [Tom Sneddon].

While we are on the subject of jury pool tainting, in April 2004, news broke that an 18-year-old man named Daniel Kapon had told the Santa Barbara Police Department he’d been molested by Jackson when he was 3 years old. He claimed that he had repressed the memories and as a result, only recently remembered being abused. The SBPD turned him away because they could not determine whether or not the man had even met Michael Jackson. For some reason, however, the SBPD did not file charges against Kapon. Consequently, he took his story to the Los Angeles Police Department who also concluded that his allegations were bogus.

It was later revealed that attorney Gloria Allred and psychiatrist Carole Lieberman were behind the man’s accusations. For those unfamiliar with the names, Lieberman is the self-proclaimed “media” psychiatrist whose official website declares her “the first psychiatrist to have made formal child abuse complaints against Michael Jackson, beginning in November 2002” and Allred is the Jackson-obsessed attorney who keeps making public requests for the singer’s children to be removed from his custody. Allred also briefly represented Jackson’s first accuser Jordan Chandler in 1993 but was fired after she told the media that the Chandlers were interested in justice. Since then, Allred’s relationship with Jackson has been contentious; in 2002, he publicly told her to “go to hell.”

After Lieberman helped Kapon “remember” the abuse he allegedly suffered 15 years earlier, Allred signed on as his attorney. Their plans to go forward with the case were derailed, however, when the LAPD issued a statement saying they would not press charges. Although Jackson was cleared of any wrongdoing, the news of another accuser had already done significant damage to his image. “This appears to be a malicious attempt to undermine Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending,” Jackson’s lawyers said in a statement.

The only person who benefited from the ordeal was Daniel Kapon who sold his story to the British tabloid News of the World.

Daniel Kapon – Paid $500k By The News Of The World

A lawsuit filed by a young man who alleged he was molested as a boy by Michael Jackson — and who also claimed he fathered the singer’s two oldest children and saw him dine with Fidel Castro — was dismissed today by a judge.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Rolf M. Treu granted a motion by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas C. Mundell, to throw out the case after the 22-year- old plaintiff, {tag Daniel Kapon}, failed to show up for the scheduled start of today’s trial.

“I think the judge realized how crazy the lawsuit was,” Mundell said outside the courtroom.”

—————-

2. Was Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s genitalia accurate?

In 1994, sources told USA Today that “photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.” Because this statement came from anonymous sources, some Jackson critics are quick to dismiss the article as erroneous and continue to insist that Jordan Chandler’s description was accurate. There has never been any evidence to substantiate this claim; on the other hand, the fact that no charges were ever brought against Jackson indicates that the description did NOT match. A member of the grand jury in 1994 even told CNN that “no damaging evidence was heard.”

3. Should a 45-year-old man be allowed to have children sleep over at his house?

Michael Jackson has been widely criticized for his statements regarding children sharing his bedroom. It is not illegal for him to do this and it does not make him guilty of anything besides going against a societal norm.

Sexual abuse does not always occur at night or in a bed. If you argue that the sleepovers are wrong because they provide an opportunity for sexual abuse to occur, then I guess you could also argue that no adult should ever be alone with any child. Whether or not they’re related is irrelevant because there’s something called incest that people seem to have forgotten about.

So why are the sleepovers viewed as wrong? It’s Jackson’s personal belief that there’s nothing inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child and there’s no logical reason that proves otherwise. Perhaps he should keep children out of his bedroom to avoid any appearance of impropriety but, again, bad judgement does not make a person guilty.

With that said, I’d like to point out that if there was anything inappropriate going on during those sleepovers, why would Jackson draw attention to his behaviour by talking about the sleepovers so openly on national television? Also, if he really wanted to molest children, why wouldn’t he do it somewhere that wouldn’t look suspicious?

Finally, we do not know the context of the sleepovers, how often they occur, with whom, if there is supervision, etc. Any conclusions drawn about Jackson’s behaviour are presumptuous and speculative at best. What we do know is that Michael Jackson has said that he never invites children into his bedroom; even his current accuser made it clear that he was the one who asked Jackson if he could stay with him one night. Keep in mind that the boy was a recovering cancer patient at the time; when you take this fact into consideration, his request to spend the night with an adult he trusted does not seem unusual.

4. Isn’t it hard to believe that he’s been falsely accused twice?

No. The second set of accusations only materialized after the first allegations made headline news again in February 2003. After the 1993 case, ten years passed without any accusations being made against Michael Jackson. Suddenly, the controversial Living with Michael Jackson documentary aired, the District Attorney released a press statement about the 1993 case, the civil lawyer from the 1993 case started doing the TV rounds, the boy’s deposition from the 1993 case was leaked on the Internet, Maureen Orth’s slanderous Vanity Fair article was published and finally, after all of that controversy, a second accuser came forward. And not just any accuser- the second alleged victim just happened to be the same boy who appeared on the documentary and caused all of the uproar in the first place.

Furthermore, the two allegations are not isolated from one another. The same District Attorney, the same civil lawyer and the same psychiatrist were all involved in both sets of accusations. I definitely see a pattern but it has nothing to do with Michael Jackson’s alleged criminal behaviour.

5. Even if Jackson is innocent, why did he put himself in this position again?

Answer this question: if a man is falsely accused of rape, should he stay away from women for the rest of his life? And if he is falsely accused of rape again, is it his fault?

The only way Michael Jackson could have protected himself from being the victim of another false allegation is if he had completely cut off contact with children after 1993. Molestation can occur anywhere, not just at night and not just in a bed. He could have put an end to the sleepovers and still have been accused of abusing a child someplace else.

The sleepovers might give more credence to the allegations in the minds of the general public but their opinions should be irrelevant because they are not the ones responsible for investigating claims of child molestation. That job belongs to members of law enforcement and regardless of how “strange” Michael Jackson’s behavior might appear to some, falling asleep next to a child is not a crime. People’s opinions on the sleepovers should not matter; the facts of this case should be the only determinants of Michael Jackson’s innocence or guilt. If members of law enforcement are not doing their jobs properly, that is not Michael Jackson’s fault. The justice system is supposed to protect the innocent, regardless of their lifestyle choices and supposed eccentricities.

6. Although Evan Chandler only wanted money, isn’t it possible that his son really was molested?

No. Remember, before carrying out his plan, Evan Chandler went to Michael Jackson first and asked for money. Chandler used a letter from a psychiatrist to try to blackmail Jackson and was turned away. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why didn’t he take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid up right then and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he refused to pay the Chandlers. If he was guilty, please explain to me why he did that.

It’s undeniable that Evan Chandler only wanted money; knowing this, why didn’t Michael Jackson just buy his silence in the beginning? Imagine how different things would have been for him. His career would not have been jeopardized, his image would not have been tarnished and, again, assuming he was indeed a pedophile, he could have carried on with his activities without people suspecting anything. The only logical reason to explain why he didn’t pay off Evan Chandler is because he was innocent and naively assumed that justice would be on his side.

Also, keep in mind that pedophiles have hundreds of victims. Out of the thousands of children who have been to Neverland, you expect me to believe that Jackson only molests children whose parents are dishonest and greedy? Surely he would have other victims besides Jordan Chandler and the new accuser. Why haven’t they come forward? Let me guess, he paid them all off? None of his victims have parents who are normal, honest people? None of them want justice for their sexually abused children? Bullshit.

7. Why put so much faith in the GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”?

Why not? First of all, Mary A. Fischer (the author of the article) is not known for writing about celebrities. She is a well-respected investigative reporter who has had a successful 18-year career. Her article on Gulf War Syndrome won an award from Northwestern University and she has been nominated twice for the National Magazine Award. She has also been published in Rolling Stone, Life Magazine, Men’s Journal and the New York Times. Why would this woman put her credibility on the line by writing an inaccurate article in Michael Jackson’s defense?

Secondly, let’s look at her sources:
– Geraldine Hughes, the legal secretary for Jordan Chandler’s attorney.
– Michael Freeman, the lawyer who represented June Chandler in her custody case.
– Bert Fields, Jackson’s first lawyer who resigned due to conflict within the legal team.
– Anthony Pellicano, Jackson’s private investigator who also backed out of the case.
– Court records and legal documents.
– Several psychiatrists and medical experts.
– An audio tape of a conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz.
– Mark Torbiner, the anesthesiologist who administered the sodium amytal to Jordan Chandler.

All of Mary Fischer’s sources were involved with the case and some of the information she reported is indisputable as it is backed up by court documents, audio/video recordings, etc. Also, Bert Fields and Anthony Pellicano left Michael Jackson’s legal team because they were unhappy with the new lawyers who were brought in. They had no reason to remain loyal to Jackson when being interviewed for the article as they were no longer being employed by him.

In addition, when Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz and June Chandler for invasion of privacy in 1994, Mary Fischer was subpoenaed to produce information concerning her article. Evan Chandler and his attorneys were well aware of what Fischer wrote. If she had not referenced the information in her article, Evan Chandler would have had grounds for a lawsuit. Chandler, however, did not sue. This indicates that all of the information in Fischer’s article was backed up by sources so the validity of the article boils down to the credibility of those who provided Fischer with information. Since all of the sources were actually involved in the case, did not have any apparent agenda in coming forward and all opted to reveal their identities (except for Geraldine Hughes, who later came forward with all of her information), there is no reason to assume that Ms. Fischer’s article was untrue. But if you choose to continue living in denial, that’s your prerogative…

8. How do you know Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth about the Chandlers?

If the information Geraldine Hughes has written about is untrue, why hasn’t Barry Rothman (the attorney she worked for) taken legal action against her? He sued Michael Jackson for defamation of character and didn’t get any money. Why isn’t he suing Geraldine Hughes? Surely her book is far more damaging to his legal practice than anything Michael Jackson has ever said. Perhaps Rothman has not sued Ms. Hughes because the ultimate defense against being accused of defamation of character is if you are telling the truth.

One might ask if Geraldine Hughes is telling the truth, why hasn’t Rothman sued her for violating attorney/client priviliges. In response to this question, Ms. Hughes cited the following California evidentiary code:

§956 Exception: Crime or fraud

There is no privilege under this article if the services of the lawyer were sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.

Ms. Hughes’ defense is that Rothman was hired to commit extortion so obviously she has evidence to back up her claims. This evidence could protect her in either a slander lawsuit or a violation of attorney/client priviliges lawsuit. Why else would she risk getting sued? To help Michael Jackson? I think we’ve all seen that writing salacious stories about him makes for a much more profitable career.

Furthermore, it’s not like Ms. Hughes came out and said “Evan Chandler told me he made the whole thing up.” To prove her contention that the Chandlers were guilty of extortion, Hughes uses the details surrounding the custody battle (backed up by court documents), the motions that were filed in relation to the civil lawsuit (backed up by court documents) and Evan Chandler’s own words (backed up by an audio tape). She did witness some suspicious behaviours but these were not the basis of her arguments. Instead, her own personal observations merely served to corroborate the overwhelming amount of documented evidence that proves Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion plot.

Michael Jackson NEVER paid the $20 million dollar settlement…The public thought it was a case of child molestation, but behind the scenes it was all about extortion. When Michael Jackson refused to give Evan Chandler $20 million to make a movie, he launched the false allegation of child molestation solely to ruin Michael Jackson’s career and so that he could get paid.

– Geraldine Hughes, the Legal Secretary who worked for Evan Chandler’s lawyer in 1993.

9. What about all of those employees who came forward during the 1993 investigation?

In 1993, many of Michael Jackson’s former employees ran to the media with their stories of alleged inappropriate behaviour on Jackson’s part. These employees included Jackson’s maid Blanca Francia, several security guards, and Orietta Murdoch, one of Jackson’s administrative assistants. Under deposition, all of the employees admitted they were paid to fabricate stories about Jackson. As a result of their televised accusations, however, they were subpoenaed to appear in front of the grand jury in 1994. The fact that no charges were brought indicates that the employees did not reveal anything incriminating about Jackson during their testimonies.

Some of the employees later filed a wrongful termination suit against Jackson claiming that they were fired because they refused to tell Jackson what they said in front of the grand jury. Jackson denied their allegations and even counter sued, alleging that the employees had stolen items from his home and sold them to tabloids. The jury sided with Jackson saying there wasn’t any evidence to substantiate the employees’ claims. Jackson was awarded $60,000 from each employee.

Another opportunist from the 1993 case is Robert Wegner, Jackson’s former head of security. Wegner wrote a book called “My Three Years Working for Michael Jackson” where he alleged that Jackson frequently invited boys into his bedroom. Wegner claims he released the book because he wanted to “protect children”; you would think calling the police would be a more logical alternative but that seems to be the last place people go when accusing Michael Jackson of wrongdoing.

When asked why he did not testify to his claims in front of the grand jury in 1994, Wegner replied: “I got injured… and they convinced LAPD that I could not come to the grand jury hearing… if I had testified there, there wouldn’t have been a book.” Right.

10. How do you know the taped conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz is real?

The tape does, in fact, exist because Evan Chandler sued Dave Schwartz for invasion of privacy in 1994. Chandler complained that Schwartz recorded their conversation and gave the tape to a third party who in turn broadcast the tape on national television. Sorry to break your heart, but the tape is real. That is indeed Evan Chandler making his twisted motives crystal clear. That’s him saying, “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.” He also says his son’s best interests are “irrelevant” to him and threatens that it will be a “massacre if I don’t get what I want.” Indeed.

11. Did Evan Chandler try to sue Michael after 1993?

Yes. Evan Chandler tried to sue Michael Jackson in 1996, claiming that Jackson violated the terms of their civil settlement by denying that he ever sexually abused the boy. In his lawsuit, Chandler cited Jackson’s 1995 album HIStory as well as an interview that Jackson did with Diane Sawyer. In addition to the $60 million he demanded, Chandler also wanted a court order to allow him to produce and distribute his own album called EVANstory. From the lawsuit:

As an additional direct and proximate result of Defendant Jackson’s and others’ material breach of the agreement as herein alleged, and because of the need to repair the reputation of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff seeks the equitable remedy of an order to allow him to publish and cause to be distributed to the public for sale a certain musical composition entitled “EVANstory.” This album will include such songs as: “D.A. Reprised”; “You Have No Defense (For My Love)”; “Duck Butter Blues”; “Truth”; and other songs.

That’s right. Instead of getting justice for his son who was allegedly molested, Evan Chandler wanted to sing songs about it. The lawsuit was thrown out of court.

12. Who is Diane Dimond and how is she involved in this case?

Diane Dimond is the former host of Hard Copy who has apparently declared herself the expert on the Michael Jackson case. She’s obviously very close to the District Attorney Tom Sneddon but is far from accurate in her reporting. Here’s a little history lesson on Diane Dimond:

– In 1993, Dimond did a segment with two of Jackson’s former bodyguards. They claimed they were fired because they knew too much about Jackson’s alleged relationships with young boys. Dimond swore that the bodyguards were not paid for their story. A contract later revealed that they were given $100,000 to appear on her show. When taken to court, both bodyguards admitted that they had made the whole thing up.

– That same year, Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia appeared on Hard Copy claiming she’d seen Jackson naked with young boys. A copy of Francia’s testimony reveals that Hard Copy paid her $20,000 to make this story up. Again, under oath, the disgruntled ex-employee admitted she had lied.

– A man named Victor Gutierrez appeared on Hard Copy claiming he’d seen a tape of Michael Jackson sexually abusing his nephews. Dimond later repeated his comments on a Los Angeles TV station. When it was proven that Gutierrez made the entire thing up, Jackson filed a lawsuit against him and Hard Copy. Although Dimond was dismissed from the lawsuit because of “journalistic integrity” (which should not even be used in the same sentence with the name “Diane Dimond”), Gutierrez was forced to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages.

– When Jackson’s former sister-in-law was tragically murdered, Dimond implied that Jackson might have had something to do with it.

– In 1995, Dimond found a random street kid from Toronto who told her that Michael Jackson had sexually abused him. Diane escorted the boy to the police station where investigators questioned him for hours. Dimond was ready to report the story on Hard Copy but the boy confessed that he had made it all up. Since Dimond had already signed on to the story, she was forced to report it. She tried to make it seem as if she was also a victim of the boy’s lie but it’s obvious that she was the one who sought him out. Why would a kid go to her of all people and make accusations against Michael Jackson?

– In June 2003, Dimond appeared on television and said: “When I saw the part of the documentary with that little cancer boy sitting next to Michael Jackson holding his hand I thought ‘this is the proof that it’s still going on.'”

– Dimond admitted that she knew about the new allegations in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist? She was also at Neverland when the police conducted their search of the grounds.

– In November, Dimond reported that police found love letters addressed to Jackson’s accuser at Neverland. It was later revealed that no such letters existed. Perhaps the DA realized it was an illogical story (why would Jackson store incriminating evidence at his house, especially when he suspected in February that this family would accuse him?) and that’s why he denied it.

– When a man who won a collection of Jackson memorabilia started doing the rounds on various TV shows, Diane Dimond got in contact with him. While visiting him, Dimond found a pair of 20-year-old, dirty underwear (which could have belonged to any member of the Jackson family). She phoned Tom Sneddon and told him to take DNA samples from the item. She then proceeded to pick up the underwear and parade them around on television.

– Dimond, after getting a copy of a confidential document revealing the details of Jackson’s 1993 civil settlement, leaked the contents of the document to the press. She also falsely stated that Jackson admitted to wrongdoing in the agreement.

Do not be fooled by Diane’s sudden emergence as a credible journalist. The only reason why the District Attorney is giving her confidential information (among other possible reasons) is because they both have a grudge against Michael Jackson stemming from the 1993 allegations.

13. Don’t you think Michael Jackson seems weird based on what he said in that documentary?

Living with Michael Jackson is precisely what started this whole mess. Martin Bashir wanted to make a documentary that would raise eyebrows, cause controversy and get people talking and that is exactly what he did. The documentary put great emphasis on Michael Jackson’s relationship with children, particularly with the boy who is now making accusations. After Living with Michael Jackson aired, people were already implying that Jackson had abused the boy on the documentary. Not only that, but the allegations from 1993 resurfaced and were being discussed all over again. It was only a matter of time before a new allegation surfaced.

If you watched The Michael Jackson Interview: The Footage You Were Never Meant to See, Michael Jackson was painted in a much more positive light. It just goes to show that the person who compiles the footage, writes the commentary, and conducts the voiceovers has the most influence on how the documentary turns out. It has nothing to do with the actual subject and much to do with the agenda of the person producing the documentary. Both programs showed footage from the exact same interview but one painted Jackson out to be completely irresponsible with children while the other portrayed him as a loving, devoted father. Which one shows the real Michael Jackson? There are very few people who can answer this question for certain. People need to understand that watching a heavily edited 2 hour documentary on Michael Jackson does not give anyone insight into who he is as a person. Do you have any idea what Michael Jackson is like when there are no cameras on him? Probably not.

14. Hasn’t it occurred to you that maybe the new accuser was too scared to come forward when he was initially asked about the abuse?

So after having every opportunity in the world to come forward, this boy finally confessed his dark and painful secret to Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who just happened to represent Michael Jackson’s first accuser in 1993? And he must have told Larry Feldman because Feldman was the one who sent him to see a psychiatrist. How was Feldman able to get a confession out of him when several social workers were unable to? I guess it’s official- Larry Feldman is now the saviour of abused children everywhere.

15. How is the current case an extortion attempt if the mother is not filing a civil lawsuit?

Everybody has been saying that because the family has not filed a civil suit, they do not want money. Of course nobody mentions the fact that if the family did file a civil lawsuit, nothing would be done with it until after the criminal trial was resolved. The law was changed after 1993 so that if there was a civil trial and a criminal trial dealing with the same allegation, the civil proceedings would remain inactive until after the criminal proceedings. It would make no sense for the family to file a civil lawsuit now. They were obviously considering it at one point seeing as how they went to Larry Feldman (the civil lawyer from the 1993 case) first. There is nothing stopping the family from filing a civil suit later. They could also make a vast amount of money from TV appearances, books, interviews, etc.

In addition to that, if Jackson is convicted, the family can seek restitution, which is money provided to the victims of physical or sexual assault, rape, incest, and other forms of abuse.

16. Is there any truth to Maureen Orth’s recent article about the Michael Jackson case?

Vanity Fair magazine recently acknowledged that the bulk of information from Maureen Orth’s article on Michael Jackson came from former Jackson chief financial officer Myung-Ho Lee. Lee told Orth that Jackson had once given a Japanese boy alcohol in a soda can to get him drunk. Orth used this story to show a pattern of behaviour on Jackson’s part, as he is accused of giving his alleged victim wine in a soda can.

Shortly after the article was written, however, the boy Orth had written about came forward. In an interview with NBC’s Mike Taibbi, Richard Matsuura said the allegations in Orth’s article were “completely false” and that Jackson had never acted inappropriately around him. The boy’s father also said the information in the Vanity Fair magazine article was untrue.

Orth admitted that she had never actually spoken with Matsuura but said she stood by her source. Myung-Ho Lee, who provided Orth with most of her information, also stood by his story, which begs the question: how much of Orth’s report was actually true? If Orth did not bother to follow up on Lee’s story about the Japanese boy, what else did she fail to look into?

The February 2004 article was not Orth’s first forray into “investigative reporting.” In 2003, she wrote a similar article about Jackson where she reported that the singer had participated in a ritual blood bath to put a voodoo spell on Steven Spielberg. According to Orth’s “source,” Jackson had hundreds of cows ritually sacrificed for this little venture. So far, no witch doctors have come forward to deny the story but if the source of this information is as credible as Myung-Ho Lee, one has to wonder about the validity of Orth’s claims. Besides, last time I checked, Steven Spielberg was alive and well.

So why do members of the media frequently invite Maureen Orth onto their shows, hail her as a Jackson “expert” and continue to provide a platform for her stupidity? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that she is married to Tim Russert, the senior vice president of NBC News.

17. Does Michael Jackson fit the profile of a pedophile?

No. According to Michael Borak, a forensic psychiatrist who has evaluated many pedophiles, Michael Jackson’s eccentric behavior is “not typical of most offenders. Most offenders are ‘normal’ people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird.” In response to people who think Jackson’s image is typical of pedophiles, another psychiatrist, Dr. Ralph Underwager, who has treated pedophiles and victims of incest since 1953 says, “There’s no such thing as a classic pedophile. They made a completely foolish and illogical error.” He says Jackson is an easy target because “misconceptions like these have been allowed to parade as fact in an era of hysteria.”

One undisputable fact about pedophiles is that they have hundreds of victims. Why does Michael Jackson only have two accusers? Why were both allegations made under such questionable circumstances (one boy was under the influence of a psychiatric drug and the other only came forward after getting involved with the same civil lawyer from the first case)? You can speculate about Jackson’s supposed resemblance to all of the pedophiles you know (or perhaps you don’t actually know any pedophiles and you’re just buying into media hype) but the facts surrounding the case remain the same.

18. Michael doesn’t seem to have normal relationships with women. Doesn’t this make him seem kind of suspicious?

It’s funny how in the absence of any tangible evidence, people will resort to making useless observations about Michael Jackson’s personal relationships. The fact of the matter is, you don’t know Michael Jackson any better than I do. I could sit here and list everything he’s ever said and done that is indicative of his heterosexuality but it would be pointless because I don’t know him. Neither do you so how can you possibly say that he doesn’t have normal relationships with women? Perhaps he likes to keep his private life private. Perhaps he’s seen from his last two marriages that any woman who gets involved with him will be subjected to the most severe media scrutiny imaginable. Perhaps he doesn’t want strangers discussing his personal life. Whatever the case may be, using what you (don’t) know about Michael’s personal life to try to convict him is grasping at straws.

William Wagener Interviews MJ’s Women:

My nagging question is, why MJ attorneys did not bring in the 4 or 5 gorgeous women, MJ has secretly dated over the past years to prove he is…. well…. normal. To me that would have put more “REASONABLE DOUBT”. I have spoken to two, and they both said, it is part of the deal. If MJ trusts you to date him you can’t blab about it to the tabloids or anyone. Okay. I understand, and that is smart, but heck his life, his kids, his freedom is on the line here. MJ won’t budge. His girlfriends keep their mouths shut. MJ keeps his shut.”

19. If there is so much evidence pointing to Michael Jackson’s innocence, why has this case come so far?

The case has only come this far because of Tom Sneddon’s vendetta against Michael Jackson. First of all, Sneddon charged Jackson under a penal code that does not require any corroborating evidence. All he needs for a conviction is the accuser’s testimony.

Secondly, by taking his case to a grand jury, Sneddon avoided a preliminary hearing. During a preliminary hearing, the defense would have had an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and ask the judge to have the case thrown out.

Finally, it has been alleged that Sneddon did not conduct the grand jury proceedings appropriately and failed to show exculpatory evidence properly.

By charging Jackson under a penal code that requires no evidence, taking away Jackson’s right to a preliminary hearing and conducting the grand jury proceedings in a biased, unfair manner, Sneddon has ensured that his case will go to trial.

 

Michael Jackson vs. District Attorney Tom Sneddon

090412-music-reasons-we-love-michael-jackson-kick-dance-move tom sneddon

    “D.S.” – Michael Jackson 

They wanna get my ass
Dead or alive
You know he really tried to take me
Down by surpriseI bet he missioned with the CIA
He don’t do half what he sayDom Sheldon is a cold man

Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man

Dom Sheldon is a cold manHe out shock in every single way
He’ll stop at nothing just to get his political say
He think he bad cause he’s BSTA
I bet he never had a social life anyway
You think he brother with the KKK?
I know his mother never taught himright anyway

He want your vote just to remain TA.
He don’t do half what he sayDom Sheldon is a cold man [x2]
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold manDoes he send letters to the FBI?
Did he say to either do it or die?

Dom Sheldon is a cold man [x2]
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man
Dom Sheldon is a cold man

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

– 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, Jackson claims that he was over-targetted by the DA’s office and accuses Sneddon of being obsessed with attaining political fame. Click here to read the lyrics. (Because Michael Jackson couldn’t actually use Tom Sneddon’s name, he titled it D.S. for legal reasons.)

– 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. Read on to learn about the second set of allegations against Michael Jackson.

Malicious Prosecution?

You’ve already read about Tom Sneddon’s ten year vendetta against Michael Jackson. It seems that Sneddon is not trying to hide the fact that he has it in for Jackson. Read about the unfair treatment Jackson has received since authorities raided Neverland:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.)

4. During the press conference announcing the accusations against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon laughed and made several jokes at Jackson’s expense.

5. 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?

6. At the press conference, Sneddon invited more victims to come forward.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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)

10. Sneddon gave an interview to tabloid journalist Diane Dimond where he referred to Michael Jackson as “Jacko Wacko.”

11. Dimond admitted to knowing about the allegations months in advance. Why was the DA leaking information to a tabloid journalist?

12. Sneddon delayed filing charges until December so that the Santa Barbara Police Department could set up a website exclusively for members of the press.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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?

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Jackson also alleged during the interview that he still had not received a list of what was taken from Neverland.

19. 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.

20. 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?

21. 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?

22. Court documents filed by the prosecution indicate that Sneddon sends his investigators to read fan discussion boards like MJJForum.

23. Sneddon took his case to a grand jury in order to avoid a public preliminary hearing. This is unfair to the Defendant.

24. 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?

25. 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.”

26. The grand jury transcripts reveal that Sneddon allowed the accuser’s mother to refer to Jackson as “the devil” when she testified.

27. 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.

28. 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.”

29. 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.

30. 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?

31. 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.”

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?

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
Efren Cruz
Thambiah Sundaram
Slick Gardner
The Adams Brothers
Emilio Sutti
Nuevo Energy Company
Art Montandon
William Wagener
Diana Hall
Members of the SBPD
Police Abuse Lawsuit
The case Sneddon ignored
Druyan Byrne
Conrad Jess Zapien
Anthenasios Boulas
James William Herring
Richard Joal Wagner

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 favourable 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.

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.

All credit goes to: Mjjr.net – http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/tomsneddon.html

And racism play a HUGE role in Tom Sneddon’s witch hunt against Michael Jackson.

Tom Sneddon's Secret Motives for Michael Jackson WitchHunt

Picture Source: MJJ-777.com http://www.mj-777.com/?p=8062

Michael Jackson, Evan Chandler and 1993 Allegations…

lily2

 “[Jordan’s welfare is] irrelevant to me. 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.” – Evan Chandler

– In 1992, Michael Jackson met and befriended the Chandler family, becoming particularly close to 12-year-old Jordan, his half-sister Lily and their mother June Schwartz. Jackson often travelled with the family and they were frequent guests at his Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara.

Michael Jackson met his first accuser, Jordan Chandler in May, 1992 after the star’s car broke down while he was driving on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles and went to a nearby car-rental agency that was owned by the boy’s step-father, David Schwartz. Schwartz called his wife, June Chandler(sometimes mentioned as June Schwartz or June Chandler Schwartz) to tell her of the illustrious client and to ask to bring her 12-year-old son, Jordan who was a big fan of the star. David Schwartz offered Jackson a deal: he would rent him a car for free if Jackson would agree to take Jordan’s phone number and call him. Jackson accepted the deal, kept his promise and called the boy a couple of days later. An employee of Schwartz, Mel Green recalled:


hqdefault

“It was almost like [the boy’s mother] was forcing [the boy] on him,” Green recalls. “I think Michael thought he owed the boy something, and that’s when it all started.”

– According to June Schwartz’s former divorce attorney Michael Freeman, the boy’s father and June’s ex-husband Evan Chandler “began to get jealous of their involvement [with Jackson] and felt left out.”

– In June 1993, Evan Chandler hired attorney Barry Rothman to represent him in his custody case against June Schwartz. Rothman was not a family lawyer but he had recently handled a custody case that involved child molestation allegations.

– At Jordan’s 8th grade graduation that month, Evan Chandler confronted his ex-wife with his alleged suspicions of sexual misconduct on Jackson’s part. Freeman says that June Schwartz “thought the whole thing was baloney” and announced that she and her children still planned to accompany Jackson on his Dangerous world tour. According to Freeman, Chandler then threatened to go to the press with his suspicions.

– Chandler’s behaviour prompted Jackson to hire lawyer Bert Fields and Private Investigator Anthony Pellicano. Taking Pellicano’s advice, Jordan Chandler’s stepfather Dave Schwartz recorded a telephone conversation that took place between him and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Chandler said:

“I had good communication with Michael. We were friends. I like him and I respect 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. I’ve been rehearsed about what to say and not to say.”

“[Jackson] broke up the family. [Jordan] has been seduced by this guy’s power and money.”

“I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. 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.”

“[Jordan’s welfare is] irrelevant to me. 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.”

– Upon hearing the taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and Dave Schwartz, Pellicano immediately interviewed the boy in question. According to Pellicano, Jordan Chandler denied any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part.

– In mid-July, Evan Chandler convinced his ex-wife to allow him a one-week visitation period with their son. From that point on, the boy was isolated from his friends and family members.

– According to Rothman’s former legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, Chandler was receiving advice from Rothman on how to report child abuse without liability to the parent.

Geraldine Hughes:

– Taking Rothman’s advice, Chandler contacted psychiatrist Mathis Abrams and presented him with a hypothetical situation (i.e- my son spent time alone with an adult male- is it possible that sexual abuse might have occurred and if so, what are the various ways that it can be reported to authorities?). In a written response to Chandler’s phone call, Abrams wrote that if a child were to come out with sexual abuse allegations during a therapy session, the therapist would be required by law to report it to the police.

– Chandler took this letter and, according to Pellicano, attempted to blackmail Jackson with it. In a meeting that took place in early August 1993, Chandler allegedly made a demand for a $20 million screenwriting deal in return for his not going forward with the child abuse allegations.

’93 Who was Evan Chandler? A Hollywood SCRIPT WRITER!

10289927_795604463785502_8438604098579982596_n (1)

Several days after the meeting, Pellicano tape recorded a conversation that took place between him, Barry Rothman and Evan Chandler. On the tape, Rothman and Chandler can be heard negotiating the amount of money it would take to keep Chandler from going forward with the child molestation allegations. Chandler restated his demand for $20 million and, according to Geraldine Hughes, was later told by Pellicano that Jackson would not pay him any money. Keep in mind that if Jackson had paid Chandler at that point, the entire criminal investigation would have been avoided.

– According to an investigative reporter from KCBS-TV, Evan Chandler then gave his son a controversial psychiatric drug known as sodium amytal. It has been widely documented that you can easily plant false memories into a person’s mind when they are under the influence of this drug.

– Evan Chandler claimed that he only used sodium amytal to pull Jordan’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with the allegations. According to Mark Torbiner, the anaesthesiologist who administered the drug: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.” Numerous medical experts have agreed, however, that the use of sodium amytal to pull a tooth would be a highly questionable practice at best.

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.

– Mary A. Fischer, “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”, GQ 1994

– During an interview with a psychiatrist, Jordan Chandler recalled the first time that he told his father about the alleged sexual abuse. His story corroborates the allegation that his father used sodium amytal to extract a confession from him: “[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said could you put me to sleep? And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up my tooth was out, and I was alright – a little out of it but conscious. And my Dad said – and his friend was gone, it was just him and me – and my dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.” [Note: The transcript of Jordan Chandler’s interview with the psychiatrist was made public by the boy’s uncle Ray Chandler]

– On August 16th, 1993, June Schwartz’s attorney filed an ex-parte motion on her behalf to assist her in getting her son back. While in court the next day, Chandler never made any mention of child abuse allegations. If Chandler had told the judge about the supposed suspicions he’d had for the past three weeks, the judge would have immediately ordered for the boy to be taken away from his mother. But Chandler said nothing, presumably because his plan was to report the abuse using a third party (the psychiatrist). By filing the ex-parte motion, June Schwartz had thrown her ex-husband a curveball. The court ordered Evan Chandler to return Jordan to his mother immediately.

– On August 17th, 1993, the same day that Jordan Chandler was supposed to be returned to his mother, Evan Chandler took him to see Dr. Abrams. While there, the boy came out with the sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson and so began the police investigation into alleged misconduct on Jackson’s part.

Rush Limbaugh Defending Michael Jackson in 1994!

Source(s): http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/1993.html

http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/michael-jacksons-first-accuser-meet-the-chandler-family/ (they have included the citations on                       their site)

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/analyzing-the-media’s-hypocrisy-in-reporting-on-michael-jackson’s-settlements-vs-the-settlements-of-other-celebrities-part-1/

 

Michael Jackson, Evan Chandler and 1993 Allegations… The Civil Lawsuit

71712_1282493245600_full

“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.” – Mary A. Fischer; GQ Article, “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”,;1994

– Because of double jeopardy, anyone accused of a crime will never have to defend themselves for the same allegation twice unless one trial takes place in civil court and the other in criminal court. This was the situation with Michael Jackson in 1993.

– On September 14 1993, less than a month after the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson had been reported to the police, the accusing family filed a $30 million lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.

– Up until that point, the alleged victim’s mother June Schwartz had maintained that Jackson was innocent of the allegations. As soon as the civil suit was filed, however, she changed her tune and joined forces with her ex-husband Evan Chandler and their son Jordan. At that point, June Schwartz’s divorce attorney Michael Freeman resigned.

– The Chandlers sued Jackson for sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

– The civil suit was filed while the police investigation was still ongoing. As a result, the civil trial was scheduled to take place before the criminal trial began which would have been a violation of Jackson’s constitutional right to not self-incriminate. Typically, when there are two trials dealing with the same allegation, the criminal trial takes place before the civil trial (i.e- the O.J Simpson case). This is to ensure that the Defendant’s defense in the criminal case will not be compromised as a result of the civil proceedings.

– Jackson’s attorneys filed a motion asking for the civil trial to be delayed until after the criminal trial was over. They cited numerous cases such as Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court to support their request. The Federal case held that, “when both criminal and civil proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the Defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved.” Other cases cited include Dustin W. Brown v. The Superior Court, Dwyer v. Crocker National Bank, Patterson v. White and Huot v. Gendron.

– Larry Feldman argued that if the civil trial were to be postponed, the plaintiff, being a minor, might forget certain details about what had supposedly happened to him. The judge felt that the boy’s “fragile state” was more important than Jackson’s 5th Amendment rights and ruled in the boy’s favour.

– Jackson’s attorneys filed another motion asking that District Attorney Tom Sneddon be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil trial. Again, the Jackson team lost the motion. The DA made it clear that he was planning to use the evidence from the civil proceedings to assist him in his criminal case against Jackson.

– If Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, he would have put his entire defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing it to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.

– Let’s pretend for a moment that Michael Jackson had gone through with the civil trial. What would have happened? He would have presented the court with all of his evidence of extortion and Sneddon would have been watching the entire thing unfold. He could have then taken Jackson’s most critical exonerating evidence from the civil trial and found ways to discredit it so that Jackson would have nothing left to defend himself with in the criminal trial.

– During the civil trial, Jackson’s lawyers would have undoubtedly revealed any inconsistencies in the accuser’s story. This would have given Sneddon the opportunity to examine and amend the weaknesses in his own case against Jackson.

– As you can see, allowing the civil trial to proceed would have given the prosecution the upper hand in the far more important criminal trial. Although this is the primary reason behind Michael Jackson’s decision to settle the case, there were many other factors involved:

1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the affirmative; in other words, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty of a crime. In civil trials, if the jury thinks the Defendant might be responsible for what he or she is accused of, they can still hold the Defendant liable.

2) In criminal law, if the Defendant chooses not to testify, their refusal cannot be used against them. In a civil trial, however, the Defendant must be cooperative for all depositions and testimony. If the Defendant in a civil trial invokes his or her Fifth Amendment privilege, the judge will tell the jury that they may make an inference against the party who refused to testify. If Michael Jackson had not settled the civil lawsuit, his entire personal life would have been put on display. Defendants in sex abuse crimes are often asked extremely personal questions on the stand; imagine what this process would be like for somebody like Michael Jackson who is admittedly shy and whose personal life is always subject to severe media scrutiny.

3) In civil trials the jury’s verdict does not have to be unanimous. If at least 50% of the jurors find the Defendant liable, the Plaintiff will still get money.

4) The Defendant in a civil trial has fewer rights. In criminal law, police must obtain search warrants before searching or seizing items from a person’s property. In civil law, a lawyer may demand information from the defense about any matter relevant to the case. This is known as the discovery process and it does not usually involve the court. Discovery may include: written questions to be answered under oath; oral deposition under oath; requests for pertinent documents; physical or mental examinations where injury is claimed; and requests to admit facts not in dispute. If Jackson had allowed the civil trial to proceed, Larry Feldman would have had access to Jackson’s medical and financial records without obtaining a warrant.

5) The civil trial would have taken months to resolve. Michael Jackson would have been paying millions of dollars in legal fees while at the same time limiting his source of income by putting his career on hold. There was probably also a lot of pressure from his record company to settle the lawsuit because the case was affecting his career.

6) Such a long, drawn out process would have caused Michael Jackson and his family immeasurable amounts of stress. Even after the civil trial was resolved, he would still have the criminal proceedings to contend with. Why go through all of that twice?

7) According to Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit might have prompted Jackson’s insurance company to force him to settle the case. “I have brought child molestation cases against Defendants and I always include a negligence allegation,” Oxman explained. “That means that the homeowners’ insurance policy takes over and a homeowners’ insurance policy can settle right out from under the Defendant. The Defendant can scream, ‘I will not settle that case,’ and they have no choice because the insurance company settles it.” (We later learned in 2005, this was exactly what happened, MJ’s Insurance Co settled the case despite his and his legal’s team protest because Evan Chandler’s team made sure to put the “negligence” claim in the lawsuit!)

For the above reasons, Michael Jackson reluctantly settled the civil lawsuit that had been filed against him.

All credit goes to: Mjjr.net http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/civilsuit.html

Michael Jackson, Evan Chandler and 1993 Allegations… The Civil Settlement and Criminal Investigation

 

65639_10151793330824389_113622719_n

THE CIVIL SETTLEMENT

For various legal, personal, professional, financial and practical reasons, Michael Jackson settled the civil lawsuit filed against him by his accuser’s family in 1993. The recently leaked settlement document reveals several interesting facts:

1) Michael Jackson denied any wrongdoing.

2) The boy and his parents could have still testified against Jackson in the criminal trial.

3) Jackson only settled over claims of negligence and not over claims of child molestation.

Tabloid reporter Diane Dimond, who leaked the details of the settlement, tried to make it seem as if Jackson admitted to molesting the boy simply because he settled over the negligence allegation. Dimond pointed out that the original lawsuit said: “Defendant Michael Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.” It is clear, however, from the wording of the settlement document, that the “negligence” allegation was redefined:

“Such claims include claims for bodily injuries resulting from negligence; whereas, Evan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress; whereas, Jordan Chandler has made claims against Jackson for bodily injuries resulting from negligent infliction of emotional distress.”

Negligence has been defined in the settlement as the “infliction of emotional distress”; there is no mention of sexual abuse. Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Furthermore, if the negligence allegation was directly related to the child molestation allegations, why did Evan Chandler also claim to be the victim of negligence?

OTHER INTERESTING EXCEPRTS FROM THE DOCUMENT:

“This Confidential Settlement shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, Evan Chandler and June Chandler have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts against the Minor, Evan Chandler or June Chandler or any other persons. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson is a public figure and that his name, image and likeness have commercial value and are an important element of his earning capacity. The Parties acknowledge that Jackson claims that he has elected to settle the claims in the Action in view of the impact the Action has had and could have in the future on his earnings and potential income.”

Jackson repeatedly asserts his innocence while the accusing family does not once maintain that the boy’s allegations are true.

“The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.”

Sorry Diane.

THE PAYMENT:

The document states that $15,331,250 was put into a trust fund for Jordan Chandler. Both of his parents, as well as their attorney Larry Feldman, got a cut of the settlement. (Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz, two principle players in the case who were left out of the settlement, later filed their own individual lawsuits against Jackson). Eight pages detailing the payment were allegedly missing from Dimond’s copy of the settlement but according to Jackson’s current attorney, the negligence allegation included in the lawsuit prompted Jackson’s insurance company to step in and settle the case for him. This means that Jackson might not have paid the Chandlers anything. It also means that the insurance company most likely conducted their own investigation into the allegations and concluded that Jackson did not molest the boy; insurance companies generally do not settle if they believe the Defendant is liable. They will, however, settle for negligent behaviour.

DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION:

The document also shows that the Chandlers dropped the child molestation allegations from their complaint:

“Forthwith upon the signing of this Confidential Settlement by the Parties hereto, the Minor through his Guardian ad Litem shall dismiss, without prejudice, the first through sixth causes of action of the complaint on file in the Action, leaving only the seventh cause of action pending.”

“Upon the full and complete payment of all Settlement Payments… the Minor, through his Guardian ad Litem, shall dismiss the entire action with prejduice.”

The first through sixth causes of action were the sexual abuse allegations; the seventh cause of action was negligence. Again, Jackson settled over the family’s claims of negligence and not over their claims of child molestation.

WAS IT HUSH MONEY?

Finally, the document makes it clear that the Chandlers could have still testified against Jackson in a criminal trial:

“The Minor, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, and Evan Chandler and June Chandler , and each of them individually and on behalf of their respective agents, attorneys, media representatives, partners, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, agree not to cooperate with, represent, or provide any information, to any person or entity that initiates any civil claim or action which relates in any manner to the subject matter of the Action against Jackson or any of the Jackson Releases, except as may be required by law.”

The only stipulation in the settlement is that the parties could not testify about the allegations in civil court.

“In the event the Minor, the Minor’s Legal Guardians, the Minor’s Guardian ad Litem, the Minor’s attorneys, Evan Chandler or June Chandler, or any of them individually… receive a subpoena or request for information from any person or entity who has asserted or is investigating, any claim against Jackson… they agree to give notice in writing to Jackson’s attorneys regarding the nature and scope of any such subpoena request for information, to the extent permitted by law. This notice shall be given before responding to the request.”

The above paragraph makes it clear that the Chandlers were not prohibited from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial, as long as they notified Jackson’s attorneys beforehand. Contrary to popular belief, the settlement did NOT silence anybody. It was the family’s own decision not to testify in the criminal case; they could have gotten money and justice but they only opted to take the money.

Ask yourself this: if your child was molested, would you not do everything in your power to put the person responsible behind bars? The Chandlers did not. Instead, they dropped the claims of child abuse against Jackson, signed a document where he basically called them liars, took his money and refused to talk to authorities. I have already pointed out the numerous reasons why Jackson settled the case; what reason did the Chandlers have to not testify?

One could argue that they did not want to be put through a public trial, however, this assertion does not make sense when you consider the fact that the Chandlers were more than willing to testify in the civil trial. In fact, court documents reveal that the only reason the judge refused to stay the civil proceedings was because Feldman was allegedly worried that Jordan Chandler would forget his story when testifying. Furthermore, Evan Chandler later sued Jackson and asked the court to allow him to produce an album of songs about the allegations. The actions of the Chandlers are not indicative of a family reluctant to tell their story.

For the past ten years, the media have been referring to the settlement as a “pay off” but here is my question: what exactly did Michael Jackson “buy” when he settled the civil lawsuit? How can anyone call it “hush money” when it did not prevent the accuser from testifying against him? How can anyone call it “hush money” when the entire world already knew about the allegations? How can anyone call it “hush money” when there was still an ongoing criminal investigation that was not affected by the civil suit?

Finally, Evan Chandler asked for $20 million before the allegations were reported to authorities. Assuming Michael Jackson had actually molested Jordan Chandler, why did he not take that opportunity to avoid getting caught? He could have paid Evan Chandler and avoided the entire ordeal. Instead, he rejected Chandler’s initial demand for money. If he was guilty, why did he do that?

If it is still your contention that Jackson’s plan was to settle the civil lawsuit in order to bribe the boy into not testifying against him in the criminal trial, can you please explain to me why Michael Jackson asked for the civil trial to be postponed? He wanted the civil trial to take place after the criminal trial was resolved, which means any potential settlement would have been negotiated after Jackson was either acquitted or convicted. This would have made it impossible for him to “bribe” the boy into not testifying. Jackson’s actions contradict the notion that he wanted to buy Jordan Chandler’s silence.

A more logical explanation as to why Michael Jackson settled is that he was innocent and although he initially refused to be blackmailed by Evan Chandler, he had no choice in the end. Once the alleged abuse was brought to the attention of authorities, it suddenly became apparent to Jackson just how ugly things would get. The media went into overkill, the justice system was not working in his favor and the civil lawsuit filed by the Chandlers had backed Jackson into a corner. He could have either gone through with the civil trial and risked a weakened defense in the more important criminal trial or settled the civil lawsuit and risked people thinking he had something to hide. Obviously, Michael Jackson valued his life more than he valued the opinions of other people so he opted to settle the lawsuit.

Once the civil lawsuit was settled, Michael Jackson still had the criminal investigation to contend with.

 

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? Read on to find out.

All credit goes to the following:

Mjjr.net – http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/settlement.html

Mjjr.net – http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/investigation.html

 

Michael Jackson Asked Us “Do You Know Where Your Children Are?”

I came across this article about Michael Jackson’s unreleased song “Do You Know Where Your Children Are?” (now released on his latest posthumous album “XSCAPE” and the columnist wrote:

“Even more unfortunate is “Do You Know Where Your Children Are,” especially given the child-sex allegations that hung over Jackson’s career for more than two decades. The track’s harrowing narrative, about a 12-year-old runaway who is abused by her stepfather and then becomes a child prostitute in Hollywood, is the kind of cautionary tale that raises more questions about the songwriter’s issues than the world’s. To resurrect it only calls to mind how delusional the singer could appear in the way he sometimes presented himself to the public.” – Chicago Tribune writer 

This last sentence, raised an eyebrow, to say the least. I wanted to see if Michael Jackson was being as delusional about teenage prostitution as he claimed in his editorial.  According to this writer, MJ was living in some delusional world, but I don’t know, according to a Google search I did, the results seem to be on Michael’s side.

Do You Know Where Your Children Are - Google Search

Do You Know Where Your Children Are - Google Search2

Judging by the many links that came up in this search engine, one can assume that teenage prostitution in the U.S. is something that shouldn’t be ignored. Michael knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. If you look further down, even a movie was made about it called “Children of The Night”

 

 

Do You Know Where Your Children Are - Google Search4

This movie was released in 1985 and it was based on a true story about TEENAGE PROSTITUTES IN HOLLYWOOD!

Here is a trailer …

The movie was released in 1985 and “Do You Know Where Your Children Are” was written in 1990-1991 (2-3 years before those BOGUS allegations would surface) … So one must ask, was Michael perhaps inspired to write/record the song b/c of the movie and doing more research on his end.

An organization was created also called “Children of The Night”

DR. LOIS LEE, FOUNDER, AND PRESIDENT

Dr. Lois Lee is a pioneer in saving the helpless children who are victims of human sex trafficking, blazing the trail for academics, researchers, law enforcement, social service providers and legislators. She is the founder and president of Children of the Night, the first established and only comprehensive sex trafficking program in North America. Since 1979, she has rescued over 10,000 American children from prostitution in the United States—that is more children than all of the other sex trafficking programs combined. – Children of the Night website

Do You Know Where Your Children Are - Google Search3

 

Their website is http://childrenofthenight.org/

Also, the question “It’s 10pm Do You Know Where Your Children Are?” appeared on news stations too –

Do You Know Where Your Children Are - Google Search5

and here is a video

So now Chicago Tribune editor, you tell, me who is living in a delusional world?

The one thing I have to say to this writer is Michael Jackson wouldn’t have written this song if there wasn’t any truth to it. My google search just proved it. It’s interesting how this song is even more relevant some 23 years later as the 200 missing Nigerian girls are in the hearts and prayers of many who wish for their safe return (oh and just so the editor knows, they’ve been kidnapped for teenage prostitution).

With this song, Michael Jackson was yet, again way ahead of his time and was once again, not afraid to go there and bring to the surface, another dark secret of this great nation that no one wants talks about teenage prostitution; Michael was simply being the messenger.

To resurrect it only calls to mind how delusional the singer could appear in the way he sometimes presented himself to the public.” – Chicago Tribune writer 

If anything, I’d call the editor delusional in the sense that he’s insinuating stuff like this doesn’t happen in our country, when clearly it has and has been and not only in the U.S. but around the world right now as I type.

Anytime, Michael Jackson talked/wrote/sang about topics that we as a society, either neglected, or swept under the rug, he got labeled crazy, delusional, and etcetera when in actuality, he had facts on his side to back him up. His critics were too lazy (or chose not) to do their research.

People forget that Michael Jackson was a voracious learner; always reading, learning, and studying about issues of the world and issues in our own backyard.

He brought to the forefront what stayed in the background.

Teenage prostitution is another ugly secret in the U.S. that Michael Jackson had chosen to expose not only to us but, to the world.

Do You Know Where Your Children Are? is about the secret yet a prevalent world of underage prostitution.

 

Michael Jackson Sued For Slander and Defamation

I remember a radio show host speaking to Howard Bloom and he stated that after Jackson’s huge rise in the early 80’s, a newspaper editor in Boston specifically requested one of the journalists for the paper to write a story about Jackson every day and it didn’t matter if it was true or not — he wanted something written every day. As all of these stories were coming out, most were unsubstantiated but were printed anyway, the rivaling Boston newspaper began to do the same. This became the pattern for journalism regarding Jackson. Mr. Bloom (who I think was the Jackson PR man during the Victory tour – not exactly sure) stated that he had worked with numerous entertainers, including Billy Joel and a host of others and none of the others could hold a candle to Michael Jackson the person. – So what does that tell us? Any story about MJ whether true or false was printed to bring in a higher audience (and most of the stories were untrue).

Many people don’t know that when Michael Jackson was alive he went after and sued many tabloid magazines for lies, slander and defamation of his character. One of the reasons they can get away with trashing his name now is because he is no longer here to defend himself. His estate cannot go after these people and entities who continue to lie and smear his name. 

Michael Jackson wins $2.7 million in lawsuit

Michael Jackson won $2.7 million in his slander suit against a freelance writer who claimed to have a videotape of the pop singer having sex with a teenage boy.

“Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money,” Jackson’s lawyer, Zia Modabber, said after a jury decided against Victor Gutierrez on Thursday.Jackson sued Gutierrez for $100 million in 1995, claiming he told “Hard Copy” reporter Diane Dimond that there was a video of Jackson having sex with a 13-year-old boy and that she repeated the comments on KABC-AM.

In 1994, Jackson reached an out-of-court settlement in a sexual molestation lawsuit stemming from the entertainer’s friendship with a 13-year-old boy.

Investigations against the entertainer failed to produce criminal charges. Jackson repeatedly denied the allegations.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/623505/Michael-Jackson-wins-27-million-in-lawsuit.html?pg=all

More to come. Stay tuned.

Janet and Gavin Arviso – The 2005 Trial – The Anatomy of a Scam

“One day he told me, ‘God forgive me, and don’t tell Katherine I ever said this, but I hate that kid. I so hate that kid…Part of me thinks that’s not right. You shouldn’t hate. But then I think, I can’t help it. I hate that kid for what he did to me.  My therapist is telling me that I need to get real and feel what I feel, not suppress it like I usually do. Well, how I feel is that I hate that kid. I do.’”-Michael Jackson, as quoted in The Magic, The Madness, The Whole Story 1958-2009 by J. Randy Taraborrelli.

Part I: The Anatomy of a Scam

In January 2000, a woman named Janet Arvizo consulted with a civil lawyer about suing Michael Jackson for having allegedly molested her son.1 This would have been the second child molestation lawsuit filed against Jackson, the first being the result of sexual abuse allegations that were made by a 13-year-old boy in 1993.

The problem, however, is that in January 2000, Janet Arvizo had never met Michael Jackson; neither had her son. In fact, it would still be another seven months before Jackson would even be introduced to the Arvizo family.

Three years after their initial meeting in August 2000, Janet Arvizo’s son accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse; the pop star is currently preparing to fight these claims in court. During a recent pre-trial hearing, Arvizo’s plans to sue Michael Jackson before she had even met him were made public by Jackson’s lead defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. According to Mesereau, Arvizo had revealed this information to investigators in June 2003, when she and her children first made accusations against Jackson.2

Did Janet Arvizo set out to meet Michael Jackson with the intention of eventually filing a child abuse lawsuit against him? And if they were aware of Arvizo’s potential motives before they arrested and charged Jackson, why did authorities choose to go forward with the case?

The following report takes an in-depth look at the Arvizo family, their history of making sexual abuse allegations for personal gain, their attempts to cash in on their connection to Michael Jackson and, finally, their involvement with several major players from the 1993 child molestation case against Jackson.

BEFORE THE BEGINNING

Prior to accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation, the Arvizo family had been involved in two other sexual abuse cases. In 1998, Janet Arvizo, her husband David and their three children Anne*, John* and Rob* accused security guards from JCPenney and Tower Records of physically assaulting them after pulling them over for shoplifting.

The mother of Jackson's accuserTwo years after filing a $3 million lawsuit against the companies, Janet Arvizo also accused the security guards of sexually assaulting her during the altercation, an allegation that had never come up in her initial deposition. The companies settled out of court for $152,500 without admitting guilt.3

Tom Griffin, the attorney who represented JCPenney in the case, told NBC’s Mike Taibbi that the Arvizo family had no evidence to substantiate their claims. “[The mother] just came up with this fairy tale, not a fairy tale, it’s a horror story, and just ran with it,”4 Griffin said.

A psychiatrist hired by JCPenney during the investigation said that the children’s testimonies sounded scripted and rehearsed,5 a suspicion that was confirmed by their father. In an affidavit, David Arvizo admitted that the children had been coached by their mother to lie. According to Russell Halpern, an attorney for Mr. Arvizo, “[The mother] wrote all of their testimony. I actually saw the script.”6

Halpern was hired when a bitter custody battle arose between the Arvizos following their divorce in 2001. The dispute took an unexpected turn when Janet Arvizo accused her ex-husband of being abusive, an allegation that was initially denied by the couple’s three children.

In October 2001, social workers were called to investigate the Arvizo family following an altercation that had taken place in their home. When questioned on their own, the children did not allude to any abuse on the father’s part. “There was no hitting, just yelling, and not a lot of yelling,” the children told social workers.

When Janet Arvizo returned home and discovered that the Department of Children and Family Services had interviewed her children without her there, she immediately got in contact with the agency. Social workers returned to the family’s apartment and interviewed the Arvizos again. In the presence of their mother, the children drastically changed their story, alleging that their father was indeed abusive.

In the follow-up report, David Arvizo is accused of kicking Anne and allegedly breaking her tailbone, hitting Rob in the head and punching him in the stomach, slapping one of John’s scars while it was still in the process of healing and holding Janet Arvizo’s head under water. The children alleged that their father had threatened to have them killed if they ever told anybody about the purported abuse.7

Janet Arvizo further claimed that her ex-husband had molested and falsely imprisoned their daughter 12 years earlier, allegations that only materialized during the custody battle. According to court documents, Mrs. Arvizo “could not provide any other pertinent information regarding [the alleged molestation].”8 Years later, Janet Arvizo and her children would level similar allegations against Michael Jackson.

David Arvizo pleaded no-contest to the charges and was barred from seeing his children as a result. During an interview on Larry King Live, Russell Halpern, who is currently trying to obtain visitation rights for his client, discussed court documents that indicate that the abuse allegations against the father were false.

“[Janet] was specifically asked, ‘did he ever hit you?’ and she said ‘no’ and then she elaborated by saying he was a wonderful husband, he had never touched her, he didn’t have it in him to touch a woman and he had never touched the children, never as far as even spanking the kids.”9

Read Janet Arvizo's declarationIn court papers that were later filed during the custody proceedings, Janet Arvizo painted a startlingly different picture of her ex-husband, claiming that her children were terrified of him. “Every single night, one of my sons barricades the front door by putting two chairs in front of the door,” she alleged. “He also puts a boogie board and an archery arrow against the front door… Both boys sleep with baseball bats.”10

How can Janet Arvizo’s conflicting statements regarding her ex-husband be explained? It should be noted that the allegations against the children’s father only materialized in October 2001 – exactly one month before the Arvizos were set to receive a $152,500 settlement from JCPenney.

The above incidents lend credence to the defense theory that Janet Arvizo has a propensity for telling contradictory stories, coaching her children to lie and using abuse allegations for her own personal gain.

JACKSON MEETS HIS ACCUSER

But just how did Michael Jackson, arguably one of the most famous entertainers on the planet, get involved with the troubled Arvizo family?

Four years ago, Janet Arvizo’s oldest son John, a recovering cancer patient, made a request through the Make a Wish Foundation to meet Michael Jackson. Jackson obliged and eventually formed a friendship with the boy and his family. Mrs. Arvizo characterized her children’s relationship with the singer as a “loving father, sons and daughters one,” even crediting Jackson with helping John overcome his bout with cancer.11

Court documents reveal that this was not the first time that the Arvizos had used the boy’s cancer as a way to get close to celebrities. According to a report filed by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services: “Mom said that they met the celebrities due to her son’s illness and that the celebrities are very supportive of her son and their family.”

Janet Arvizo also told a caseworker that through her son’s cancer, she had “found ways to get things for her kids,”12 a claim that is supported by the following stories.

In late 2000, a local newspaper ran an article about the Arvizo family after Mrs. Arvizo told the editors about her son’s plight with cancer. “She pleaded her case that her son needed all sorts of medical care and they had no financial means to provide it,” recalls editor Connie Keenan. At Mrs. Arvizo’s request, Keenan asked her readers to donate money to help the family pay for John Arvizo’s cancer treatments. The newspaper managed to raise a total of $965 for the Arvizo family, money that Mrs. Arvizo wanted to have “sent to her in her name, at her home address.”

Investigative reporter Harvey Levin later revealed that all of John Arvizo’s medical bills were covered by insurance. “There were no medical bills,” Levin reported. “The father of this boy was covered, the entire family covered, by insurance, one hundred percent. They didn’t have to pay a cent.” Evidently, Mrs. Arvizo had lied to the newspaper, using her son’s illness as a means to con readers into giving her money.

When interviewed by Celebrity Justice, Connie Keenan expressed outrage over Mrs. Arvizo’s actions. “My readers were used. My staff was used. It’s sickening.”13

A similar incident occured less than a year later. In October 2001, John and Rob Arvizo were cutting class when two members of the Los Angeles Police Department approached them. When the officers asked the children why they were not in school, Rob began to cry and explained that they were on their way to the hospital to visit their mother who had just undergone surgery. The officers took pity on the boys and offered to drive them.

On route, John announced to the officers that he had just had a 16-pound tumour, his spleen and his kidney removed; he then proceeded to show them his scars.

Coincidentally, the same officers ran into Janet Arvizo several weeks later. Mrs. Arvizo informed them that she was unemployed and on her way to a job interview. Deciding that they needed to help the Arvizos, the officers bought the family Christmas dinner, presents, ornaments for their tree (which had been donated to them by another group of officers) and school supplies.14

While the officers involved deserve to be commended for their generosity, it remains to be seen why the Arvizos were accepting money and gifts from strangers less than a month after receiving a six figure out of court settlement from JCPenney.

Just like the LAPD officers, Jackson got involved with the Arvizo family because he “felt bad.” In an interview with journalist Ed Bradley, Jackson explained that he simply wanted to give John “a chance to have a life… he was told he was going to die… they told his parents [to] prepare for his funeral, that’s how bad it was. And I put him on a program. I’ve helped many children doing this. I put him on a mental program.”15

In February 2003, John Arvizo was featured in Living with Michael Jackson, a British documentary on Jackson’s life. While journalist Martin Bashir’s interview with John briefly touched on the positive influence that Jackson had had on the boy’s recovery, the focus of the interview shifted when John announced – seemingly out of nowhere – that he had once spent the night in Jackson’s bedroom.

Jackson with his accuser“There was one night, I asked him if I could stay in the bedroom and he let me stay in the bedroom,” John told Bashir. Jackson quickly pointed out that the boy, accompanied by his younger brother, had slept in Jackson’s bed while Jackson slept in a sleeping bag on the floor.16

Regardless, this scene – along with Jackson’s claim that there is nothing inappropriate about falling asleep next to a child – led to a firestorm of controversy.

As the public outcry against Michael Jackson reached a fevered pitch, sexual abuse allegations that had been made against the singer ten years earlier would soon come back to haunt him.

1993: REVISTED

The media backlash that accompanied the February 2003 airing of Martin Bashir’s documentary reached its pinnacle when a past scandal involving Jackson and child molestation allegations resurfaced. In 1993, a 13-year-old boy named Jordan Chandler had accused the singer of sexual abuse. Several days after Living with Michael Jackson aired, the boy’s graphic deposition from that case was released on the Internet.17 Many felt that given the nature of those allegations, it was highly inappropriate for Jackson to be sharing his bedroom with children.

Although Jackson was never criminally charged in 1993, it is a widely known fact that he settled a civil lawsuit that had been filed against him by Jordan Chandler and his parents. The boy then refused to testify against Jackson, leading many to believe that his silence had been bought. Court documents reveal, however, that the settlement did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal trial; it was their own decision not to cooperate with authorities.18

Jackson proclaims his innocence in a videotaped statementSo why did Michael Jackson opt to settle the civil lawsuit? According to legal secretary Geraldine Hughes, the civil trial was scheduled to precede the criminal trial, which would have been a violation of Jackson’s constitutional right to not self-incriminate. This, Hughes contends, prompted Jackson’s lawyers to advise him to settle the case.

Consistent with Hughes’ explanation, court documents show that Jackson’s lawyers filed a motion in 1994 asking for the civil proceedings to be stayed until after the criminal case was resolved; had their request been granted, any potential settlement would have been negotiated after the criminal trial was over. The motion, however, was denied.

Hughes describes the implications that would have resulted from the judge’s refusal to postpone the civil proceedings. “There was the threat of Michael Jackson having to face double jeopardy in having to defend himself in the criminal case as well as the civil case, even though the law is clearly designed to prevent a defendant from having to be tried twice on the same issue at the same time.”

Jackson’s lawyers filed another motion in 1994 asking for the District Attorney to be blocked from obtaining evidence used in the civil proceedings, a request that was also rejected. Hughes explains, “The District Attorney’s office was also laying in wait to utilize the information that was going to be uncovered or revealed in the civil lawsuit for use in their criminal investigation.”

Had Jackson not settled the civil case, he would have put his defense strategy in jeopardy by revealing his exculpatory evidence to the prosecution months before the criminal case went to trial.

Hughes was a legal secretary for Barry Rothman, the divorce lawyer who represented Jackson’s accuser’s father Evan Chandler. In her book Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations, Hughes asserts that the allegations were part of an elaborate plan conceived by Chandler and Rothman to extort money from Jackson,19 an opinion that is substantiated by an audiotape of Chandler speaking to his son’s stepfather on the phone.

On the tape, which was recorded before the boy had made any allegations, Chandler can be heard saying, “I am prepared to move against Michael Jackson. 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.”

He continues, “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 Michael’s career will be over.”

“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.”

In 1994, journalist Mary Fischer did a five-month investigation into the allegations and also concluded that Jackson was the victim of extortion. Her article Was Michael Jackson Framed appeared in GQ Magazine and explores the case from its inception. Citing a KCBS-TV newsman (Harvey Levin) as her source, Fischer reported that Jordan Chandler did not make any allegations against Michael Jackson until he took a trip to his father’s dental office where he was given a memory-altering drug. “In the presence of [Evan] Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium amytal… and it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson.”20

In a lengthy rebuttal to Fischer’s article, the boy’s uncle Ray Chandler claimed that the sodium amytal allegation was false; he even went so far as to declare that the entire story was a “fairytale” concocted by somebody within the Jackson camp.21

Surprisingly enough, official documents that are currently for sale on Ray Chandler’s website corroborate Fischer’s report. A transcript from one of Jordan Chandler’s therapy sessions describes the circumstances under which the boy first told his father about the alleged abuse. Jordan Chandler’s account of what happened is exactly consistent with Fischer’s.

According to the boy: “[My father] had to pull my tooth out one time, like, while I was there. And I don’t like pain, so I said, ‘could you put me to sleep?’ And he said sure. So his friend put me to sleep; he’s an anesthesiologist. And um, when I woke up… my Dad said, ‘I just want you to let me know, did anything happen between you and Michael?’ And I said ‘Yes,’ and he gave me a big hug and that was it.”22

Based on Jordan Chandler’s own recollection of events, he was indeed given a drug before he came forward with the abuse allegations against Michael Jackson. While the boy never specified the name of the drug, it is likely that it was in fact sodium amytal because every other detail from Fischer’s report turned out to be accurate.

If Jordan Chandler was given sodium amytal before he accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse, what implications does this have on the veracity of the boy’s allegations?

Although sodium amytal was originally believed to be a truth serum, subsequent experiments found statements made by those under its influence to be highly unreliable. “Investigations noted that the drug makes patients vulnerable to either accidental or deliberate suggestions from the interviewer,” explains August Piper Jr., an expert on false memory syndrome.23 According to Jordan Chandler, it was only after he had been drugged that his father began to probe him about his relationship with Jackson.

In his rebuttal to Fischer’s article, Ray Chandler expressed scepticism about the drug’s ability to convince the boy that he had been molested but psychiatrist Peggy Elam insists that sodium amytal can “increase the patient’s confidence in his or her memory – even when the memory may be false.”24

After the drug had been administered, Evan Chandler took his son to see a psychiatrist; while there, the boy came out with the explicit allegations against Michael Jackson, prompting a police investigation.

The prosecution, led by Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon and Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, was unable to find any credible corroborating evidence; once the boy refused to testify, the case fell apart. Fischer sums up the 1993 case by saying, “police and prosecutors spent millions of dollars to create a case whose foundation never existed.”25

Tom Sneddon clearly disagreed with Fischer’s assessment of his case. He repeatedly implied that there was indeed evidence to corroborate the boy’s story but failed to provide an explanation as to why two grand juries did not indict the pop star if such evidence actually existed.26 In 1995, he told Vanity Fair magazine: “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward.”27

Upon viewing the Living with Michael Jackson documentary, Sneddon saw an opportunity to re-open the case. In a press statement released on February 5, 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 he had allowed children to sleep in his bedroom, Sneddon replied by saying that it was, “unusual at best. For this reason, all local departments having responsibility in this are taking the matter seriously.”

Elsewhere in the statement, Sneddon stressed the fact that the case could not go forward without a “cooperative victim.”28 Coincidentally, the very same boy who appeared in the documentary would later become Jackson’s second accuser.

Sneddon was not the only principal player from the 1993 case who came out of the woodwork after the airing of the Bashir documentary. In February 2003, the Chandlers’ former civil attorney Gloria Allred made numerous television appearances where she demanded that Jackson’s children be removed from his custody.29

Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who negotiated the $15 million settlement on behalf of the Chandlers in 1994, also spoke to the press, vehemently denying that his office was responsible for leaking Jordan Chandler’s deposition.30

Finally, in a salacious Dateline NBC special entitled Michael Jackson Unmasked, Bill Dworin, a retired LAPD officer who had worked on the Jackson case and Ray Chandler, the uncle of Jackson’s accuser, spoke to correspondent Josh Mankiewicz. Both Dworin and Chandler claimed that there was strong evidence to prove Jackson’s guilt in the 1993 case.31

According to the defense, it was during this time that the Arvizo family began to cause problems within the Jackson camp. The family’s alleged suspicious behaviour coupled with the public relations disaster that ensued after the airing of Living with Michael Jackson prompted Jackson to hire criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos.

THE ARVIZOS GO ON RECORD

Jackson's former defense attorney“I was brought in [in February 2003] when somebody wisely, in retrospect, felt that there was something wrong here with this particular family,” Michael Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos explained during an interview on Larry King Live. “We put a plan into action in terms of investigating and documenting things because people… suspected that something was going to happen.”

The “plan” involved getting the Arvizos to sign numerous affidavits where they swore that nothing inappropriate had ever happened between John Arvizo and Michael Jackson. Geragos also had his Private Investigator make video and audio recordings of the Arvizo family defending Jackson.32

The prosecution would later claim that the Arvizos were intimidated into making these statements33 but testimony from Janet Arvizo’s husband Jay Jackson seems to contradict this theory. According to Jay Jackson, the Arvizos were at his house, not Michael Jackson’s, when Geragos’ Private Investigator interviewed them.34

Jackson’s former videographer Christian Robinson recalls taping another interview with the Arvizo family where he repeatedly asked them whether or not Jackson had done anything wrong. “They were very up front and they of course said absolutely not. All of them… I’d ask them one thing and it’s almost like they were getting mad at me, [saying] ‘why are you asking us this? Michael is innocent.’”35

Journalist Ed Bradley had a similar experience with the Arvizo family when he visited Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in February 2003. “We sat in the kitchen having coffee and doughnuts and sodas and [Janet Arvizo] and the kids said they were willing to go on television to say what a great person Michael Jackson was.”36

In addition to making positive statements about Jackson to his defense team and to his employees, the Arvizos also denied any wrong doing on Jackson’s part to social workers throughout February 2003.

AUTHORITIES GET INVOLVED

Prompted by what was shown on the Living with Michael Jackson documentary, a school official contacted the Department of Children and Family Services and requested that they investigate Jackson. From February 14th to February 27th, 2003, social workers interviewed the Arvizos, who all maintained that Jackson had never acted inappropriately around them. Mrs. Arvizo stated that her children had never been left alone with Jackson and that they had never slept in a bed with him.37

Another investigation was launched when media psychiatrist Carole Lieberman filed a complaint with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department in February 2003. She asked for Jackson to be investigated and also demanded that his children be removed from his custody. “Bubbles the Chimp [Jackson’s former pet] is reportedly now living in an animal sanctuary. One would wonder how and why that came about. If Mr. Jackson is unable to take good enough care of his pet chimpanzee, shouldn’t you be concerned about his children?”

About the boy in the documentary, Lieberman noted: “There was an unmistakable sense that something sexual had occurred with [the boy], as evidenced by his body language and his submissive demeanour towards Michael.”38

The SBCSD investigated and closed the case on April 16th with “no further action required.” The SBCSD report cites interviews with the Arvizos that were conducted by three Los Angeles social workers. According to the alleged victim: “Michael is like a father to me, he’s never done anything to me sexually.” He added that he had “never slept in bed with Michael,” and that his mother was “always aware of what goes on in Neverland.”

Janet Arvizo told social workers that: “Michael is like a father to my children, he loves them and I trust my children with him.” Of Jackson, she said he had “never been anything but wonderful. My children have never felt uncomfortable in his presence. Michael has been a blessing.” The boy’s older sister also defended Jackson saying, “Michael is so kind and loving.”39

How did the Arvizo family go from praising Jackson to making such serious allegations against him?

If we are to believe the prosecution’s version of events, Jackson’s employees intimidated the Arvizo family into defending Jackson to social workers, Private Investigators, journalists and virtually every other person who had come into contact with the family after Living with Michael Jackson aired. Once Jackson had all of their statements on record, he then molested the boy.

But if Michael Jackson is telling the truth, the family only made accusations against him when their other attempts to get money from him failed.

NOT AFTER MONEY?

After the airing of the Bashir interview, Janet Arvizo and her then-boyfriend Jay Jackson made several attempts to cash in on their connection to Michael Jackson. They sold their story to a British tabloid but, at that point, only had positive things to say about the pop star.40 Janet Arvizo seemed outraged by people’s reaction to Bashir’s documentary and filed an official complaint with the Broadcasting Standards Commission.41

Janet Arvizo also planned to file a lawsuit against the company that aired the documentary and, in February 2003, hired civil lawyer William Dickerman to represent her in the case. Dickerman told ABC News: “[The boy] had been on camera, there had been no consent given and when she found out about it, she was absolutely livid.”42

Michael Jackson seemed equally angered by the tone of the documentary and began compiling footage for a rebuttal video. To counter the negative publicity surrounding his relationships with children, Jackson had John Arvizo and his family film interviews where they made statements in the pop star’s defense. The footage was supposed to be included in the rebuttal video but Jay Jackson demanded financial compensation in return for the family’s participation.

Jackson's accuser's stepfatherDuring a pre-trial hearing, Jackson recalled saying to one of Michael Jackson’s associates: “This family has nothing and you’re making millions from [the rebuttal video] and what are you going to do for this little family?” To appease Jay Jackson, the associate offered the family a house and the children a college education in exchange for their permission to use the footage. Jackson refused the offer, instead making a demand for money.

Jay Jackson also testified that in February 2003, he was approached by two British journalists who were interested in paying for the family’s story.43 According to one of the journalists who got in contact with the family, “The starting figure was $500 from myself, and that’s supposedly when [Jackson] consulted with the mother.” Jackson came back with a demand for $15,000 and was turned away.44

When their attempts to cash in on the post-Bashir controversy failed, the Arvizo family filed for emergency help in March 2003. Court documents reveal that a week later, Janet Arvizo filed for an increase in alimony from her ex-husband and asked for her child support to be doubled.45

Shortly after, she returned to Dickerman with plans to sue Michael Jackson for an issue unrelated to child molestation.

Dickerman began writing a series of letters to Mark Geragos, claiming that Jackson was in possession of some of the family’s belongings including furniture and passports. Dickerman demanded the return of these items and also alleged that the family was being “harassed” and “terrorized” by Mark Geragos’ Private Investigator Bradley Miller.46 It would be months before the Arvizo family would take these claims to the police.

While the letters were seemingly sent to assist the Arvizos in getting their furniture and passports back, it appears that Dickerman was more interested in gaining access to any evidence that could potentially prove Jackson’s innocence if the family were to later accuse the pop star of child molestation.

In a letter dated March 26, 2003, Dickerman wrote: “The Arvizos demand that Jackson immediately provide the originals and all copies of all tapes, films and audio recordings… that were made by or on behalf of Jackson… and return to them the papers they have signed including… documents in connection with the legal action in Britain concerning Living with Michael Jackson and anything else bearing their signatures.”47

While the relationship between Michael Jackson and the Arvizos had obviously become contentious after the airing of the Bashir documentary, they maintained all along that Jackson had never sexually abused the boy. That all changed in May 2003, when Larry Feldman – the civil lawyer who brokered a $15 million settlement for Jackson’s first accuser – entered the picture.

ENTER: LARRY FELDMAN

After meeting with Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who had represented Michael Jackson’s first accuser, John Arvizo finally came forward with the sexual abuse allegations against the pop star; his younger brother Rob backed up his story, claiming to have witnessed the alleged abuse. Feldman sent the boys to see psychiatrist Stan Katz, who had also been involved in the 1993 case.

According to documents obtained by NBC, Dr. Katz told John Arvizo, “Look, if you go ahead with this civil lawsuit, your family will get money if they win.” Suddenly, lurid details about the alleged abuse began to materialize. John Arvizo claimed that while at Neverland he “drank alcohol every night and got buzzed.” When he told Jackson that his head hurt, he was supposedly told to: “keep drinking, it will make it feel better.”

Rob Arvizo alleged that he and his brother “constantly sleep in Michael’s room with Michael… in Michael’s bed.” He claimed to have witnessed Jackson touch his brother inappropriately on at least two separate occasions.48

These were the same children who, less than four months earlier, had vehemently defended Jackson to social workers. For some reason, after all of their previous denials of abuse on Jackson’s part, the Arvizo children drastically changed their story after getting involved with Feldman and Katz, two key players from the 1993 case against Jackson.

Larry Feldman, the civil lawyer who represented both of Jackson's accusersFeldman visited the Department of Children and Family Services and asked them to overturn their “unfounded” ruling from February 2003. The DCFS refused, saying that because the boy was not in immediate danger, there was nothing else they could do.49 Dr. Katz then reported the alleged abuse to the Santa Barbara Police Department who subsequently launched an investigation in June 2003.

In addition to having been involved with both Jordan Chandler and John Arvizo, Dr. Katz had another connection to the Jackson case – his list of patients also included Bradley Miller, the Private Investigator who had been hired by Mark Geragos to keep an eye on the Arvizo family throughout February 2003.

Katz told authorities about Miller’s involvement in the case and also informed them about a tape that Miller had made of the family defending Jackson in mid-February.50 In what appears to be a highly unusual move, Santa Barbara authorities then asked the accuser’s stepfather Jay Jackson to help them investigate Miller. Working as a “confidential agent,” Jackson was sent to scope out the location of Miller’s office and report his findings back to the SBPD.51

After five months of investigating, the Santa Barbara Police Department was ready to go forward with its case. But first, the Arvizo family would have to agree to put their civil lawsuit on hold and go forward with the criminal case against Michael Jackson.

JACKSON IS ARRESTED AND CHARGED

In June 2003, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon began to personally investigate the Arvizo family’s claims against Michael Jackson. In a police interview, Janet Arvizo alleged that Jackson’s employees had relentlessly victimized her and her family. In one instance, Jackson’s representatives allegedly showed up at the Arvizos’ apartment and demanded that the family move to Brazil. “One of the reasons was because there was [sic] people that were gonna kill the children and me… mostly my children,” Mrs. Arvizo told investigators.

Janet Arvizo believed that the true motive behind the alleged proposed trip was to prevent the family from speaking to investigators.

She further claimed that Jackson had begun to spy on her when he felt that she was asking too many questions about his alleged relationship with her son. “One time I remember the kids telling me that up on the top of the hill, there’s like a little… like, a thing. And Michael had taken up the kids up there to look in my bedroom. Like a telescope thing and I thought they were kidding. Michael wanted to see what I was doing in there.”

When Mrs. Arvizo eventually tried to put an end to her son’s alleged relationship with Michael Jackson, the boy supposedly shot her in her pinkie toe with a BB gun.

During the interview, Janet Arvizo assured investigators that she was not after Michael Jackson’s money. “God handpicked me and the kids because he knew that we weren’t going to fall for any of their money. That it was going to be justice more than anything.”52 On the contrary, notes from the boy’s therapist reveal that at the time, the Arvizos were planning to file a lawsuit against Jackson with the help of civil attorney Larry Feldman.53

Their plans to sue the pop star, however, would have to wait; after 1993, Sneddon amended California law so that if civil and criminal proceedings arose over the same allegation, the civil proceedings would be stayed until after the criminal case was resolved.54 Consequently, if the family had chosen to go forward with their lawsuit, the proceedings would have remained inactive until the statute of limitations in the criminal case expired.

While it would be years before the Arvizo family could seek monetary damages from Jackson in court, Sneddon informed them of a state victim’s fund that would provide them with financial compensation if they persisted with the allegations. In November, Sneddon met with Janet Arvizo in an empty parking lot to provide her with the necessary paperwork to apply for the fund.55 Less than a month later, the case went forward.

John Arvizo and his family provided authorities with a fifty-page affidavit detailing their allegations. In addition to the child molestation accusations, the Arvizos also claimed that they had been held hostage at Jackson’s Neverland ranch for several weeks in February 2003, the same month throughout which the family had made numerous attempts to cash in on their connection to Jackson.56 Using the affidavit to show probable cause, Sneddon obtained a warrant for Michael Jackson’s arrest as well as a warrant to search Neverland Ranch.

After raiding Neverland on November 18th, 2003, authorities also searched the office of Mark Geragos’ Private Investigator Bradley Miller and the home of Jackson’s former videographer Hamid Moslehi. During the raid of Moslehi’s home, Sneddon confiscated a tape that featured footage of the accusing family praising Jackson.

The contents of the tape would present a problem for the prosecution: the interview with the family was conducted in February 2003 but according to the family’s affidavit, Jackson had molested the boy and kidnapped the family that very same month.57 Having access to this tape gave Sneddon an opportunity to familiarize himself with Jackson’s defense strategy, which would most likely centre on the Arvizo family’s inconsistent statements.

In spite of this evidence, Sneddon continued with the case. On November 19, he 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.58

After Jackson was arrested, Sneddon gave an exclusive interview to tabloid reporter Diane Dimond where he referred to the pop star as “Jacko Wacko” but strongly denied having a vendetta against him.59 He later apologized for his comments, saying, “If my mom was still alive she would take me to task for not being a good person.”60

On December 18th, 2003, Jackson was charged with 7 counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 and 2 counts of administering an intoxicating agent. These alleged acts took place on or between February 7th and March 10th.61

As soon as the charges against Jackson were filed, many inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case were revealed. The Arvizo family’s litigious past, for example, immediately became the focus of much media attention. The general public learned about the accusations that Janet Arvizo had levelled against JCPenney and her ex-husband, as well as her alleged history of coaching her children to lie under oath.

Many also began to question the timing of the supposed abuse. According to the charges, the alleged molestation began on February 7th – the day after Martin Bashir’s Living with Michael Jacksondocumentary aired in the United States. Many found it implausible that Jackson would have started to molest the boy while in the midst of a huge scandal involving him and past accusations of child abuse.

Furthermore, both the Department of Children and Family Services and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department had investigated Jackson in February 2003 and concluded based on their interviews with the Arvizos that no abuse had taken place. It seems unlikely that Jackson could have molested the boy while being investigated for suspected child abuse by two separate government agencies.

But perhaps the most damning blow to the prosecution’s case was Mark Geragos’ claim that Jackson had an alibi. “The timeline is ridiculous. Michael has a concrete, ironclad alibi for the dates they are saying this abuse took place. The fact of the matter is, no abuse ever happened.”62

To overcome these inconsistencies, Tom Sneddon made several changes to the charges against Jackson.

JACKSON CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO KIDNAP

Although Tom Sneddon had officially filed a criminal complaint against Michael Jackson in December 2003, he later brought his case in front of a grand jury, which resulted in a new 10-count indictment. The new charges indicate that either the Arvizos drastically changed their story or Tom Sneddon intentionally made alterations to his case in order to make the accusations appear more logical.

Michael Jackson pleads 'Not Guilty'On April 30th, 2004, Jackson was indicted by a grand jury on four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor, four counts of administering an intoxicating agent, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy. These alleged acts took place on or between February 20th and March 12th 2003.63

According to the original complaint, the sexual abuse timeline began on February 7th. A memo from the Department of Children and Family Services, however, reveals that on February 20th, the entire family defended Jackson to social workers and maintained that he had never even been alone with the boy. Based on these statements, it seems highly unlikely that any abuse occurred between February 7th and February 20th. In the new set of charges, these three weeks have disappeared from the timeline. The abuse is now alleged to have begun after February 20th, rendering the family’s initial statements to social workers irrelevant.

Another notable difference in the accuser’s story – besides the shift in the timeline and the change in the amount of times he was allegedly abused – is that the charges in the complaint state that John Arvizo was only given alcohol twice, indicating that he was sober throughout most of the occurrences of alleged abuse. The charges in the indictment, however, suggest that the boy was intoxicated throughout every incidence of alleged abuse.

The most questionable change, however, is that the conspiracy allegation was not included in the original charges. In the indictment, Jackson is accused of 28 overt acts of conspiracy including child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.64 The prosecution alleges that Jackson conspired with five unnamed employees to kidnap the Arvizo family and force them into making positive statements on his behalf. According to prosecutor Gordon Auchincloss, Jackson did this to improve his public image after the airing of the Living with Michael Jackson documentary.65 He then allegedly molested the boy.

As a result of the conspiracy charge, the prosecution can now attempt to discredit all of Jackson’s exculpatory evidence. The Arvizo family’s previous denials of abuse, for example, can be justified by the allegation that the family was forced to defend him.

Secondly, testimony from potential defense witnesses who may have observed erratic or suspicious behaviour on the part of the Arvizos can now be discredited by the charge that Jackson’s associates were involved in a criminal conspiracy against the family.

Finally, if Jackson does have an alibi for all of the dates of the purported abuse, the prosecution can simply claim that the alibi was also involved in the supposed conspiracy.

To the average observer, the allegations against Michael Jackson might now appear consistent but to those who have followed the case closely, the question remains why the charges only took their current form after Jackson’s defense strategy was revealed to the prosecution.

Although the major discrepancies in Sneddon’s case have been eradicated, there are still several problems with the charges against Jackson, particularly with the allegation that he held the Arvizo family hostage at Neverland throughout February and March 2003.

According to Janet Arvizo’s divorce attorney Michael Manning, his client was still praising Michael Jackson as late as May 2003. “‘He was really good to us’ – that’s what she said at the time,” Manning recalled. “If it turned sour, I don’t know how.”66

Another problem with the conspiracy allegation is that although five of Jackson’s associates were allegedly involved in the kidnapping of the family, Jackson is the only one who has been charged with a crime. The five alleged co-conspirators remain un-indicted and have all been offered immunity if they agree to testify against Jackson.

Joe Tacopina, an attorney for one of the accused co-conspirators, insists that his client has rejected Sneddon’s offer of immunity and maintains that the Arvizo family’s claims are ludicrous.

“If [Mrs. Arvizo] were being held hostage, then I guess during one of her shopping sprees on Rodeo Drive she could have told a store manager while she was buying a thousand-dollar dress,” Tacopina told the Santa Barbara News Press.67 In another interview, Tacopina claimed that the kidnapping allegations “are going to fall by the wayside when tested, when challenged, when examined under cross examination… there are documents out there that will absolutely shred these allegations.”68

An attorney for another alleged co-conspirator had a similar story to tell. “From what [my client] saw, [the Arvizos] were certainly in no way under any type of duress,” Michael Bachner told a reporter. “They freely went around to speak to whomever they wanted. They went shopping. They made phone calls. They did everything free people do.”69

Ron Konitzer, a former employee of Jackson’s who is now accused of conspiring against the Arvizos, insists that innocent facts have been twisted to fit the prosecution’s version of events. “It was a very natural development of events and a normal professional move that has been taken out of context,” Konitzer said of the measures that were taken to restore Jackson’s image after Living with Michael Jackson aired, measures that are now being used by the prosecution as evidence of a conspiracy.

“There was no cover-up,” Konitzer continued. “We were working around the clock at the ranch for 10 days in a row – with my family even there – and I can tell you the one thing I remember is a bunch of kids running around and having fun. There was nothing I saw that even resembled anything near imprisonment.”70

Even testimony from Janet Arvizo’s husband seems to contradict the family’s claims of kidnapping. Jay Jackson testified that Janet Arvizo and her children had returned to Neverland several times in April 2003 – one month after the conspiracy timeline ended. “She somehow or another got back there,” Jackson told the court.71

If Michael Jackson had kidnapped the family in February 2003, why was Janet Arvizo still praising the pop star in May 2003? Why did she return to Neverland after allegedly being held hostage there? Why did it take her three months to contact the police? Why did she contact a civil lawyer first?

District Attorney Tom Sneddon.Another aspect of the case that has come into question is the behaviour of the authorities involved. Recently, Jackson’s defense team challenged the indictment, alleging that the prosecution engaged in excessive misconduct throughout the grand jury proceedings. In a 126-page motion filed by the defense, Sneddon is accused of bullying witnesses, failing to properly present exculpatory evidence, refusing to let the jurors question the prosecution witnesses and providing the jurors with a false legal definition of the term ‘conspiracy.’

According to the motion: “There is simply no evidence that Mr. Jackson had the specific intent to agree or conspire with anyone about anything.”

To support this contention, the defense pointed out that a key witness to the alleged conspiracy had never even met Jackson. Transcripts reveal that when she testified, the witness, who was employed by Jackson for ten days in February 2003, answered questions with responses such as “I’m not sure,” “I guess,” “I assume,” “I don’t know exactly” and “I think.” 72

It was also revealed that Sneddon used Jackson’s predilection for a clean household to support the conspiracy allegation. 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.”73

In another motion, the defense charged that because Private Investigator Bradley Miller worked for Jackson’s former defense attorney Mark Geragos, the evidence taken from his office during the November 18th raid is protected by attorney-client privilege. Although Sneddon admittedly told Jackson’s defense team that he was aware of Miller’s professional relationship with Geragos at the time of the raid, he later retracted his confession, claiming it was a “mistake borne out of being upset and angry.”74 Judge Rodney Melville ruled in favour of the prosecution, deeming the raid on Miller’s office legal despite the fact that Jackson’s attorney-client privileges had been violated.75

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.”76

The question still remains, however, why a veteran prosecutor would risk his reputation by filing such dubious charges, especially when the case in question has garnered unprecedented media attention. Does Sneddon truly believe that Michael Jackson is guilty of the crimes of which he has been accused or are there other motives involved in his relentless pursuit of the pop star? A careful examination of these questions reveals a sordid pattern of greed, corruption and blackmail within the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office.

Menu    Part II

Endnotes:

1“Ms. Doe testifies that she hired a lawyer before meeting Michael.” Online posting. 18 Sept. 2004. MJJForum. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=37558)

2Team MJJSource. “Mesereau Calls Prosecution ‘Vindictive.'” MJJSource. 29 Dec. 2004.(http://mjjsource.com/main/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=304&Itemid=44)

3Murr, Andrew and Jennifer Ordonez. “King of the Tabloid Case.” Newsweek. 15 Dec. 2003. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3660632)

4“Is the Michael Jackson Case a Shakedown?” Today Show. NBC. 4 Mar. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4448227)

5“Is the Michael Jackson Case a Shakedown?” Today Show. NBC. 4 Mar. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4448227)

6Deutsch, Linda. “Mother Coached Children to Lie in Court Before?” Associated Press. 25 Dec. 2003.

7 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report. Oct 2001. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/01/jacko_dept.pdf)

8 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson’s Accuser’s Mom Made Similar Claims in 2001.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 12 Oct. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/101204accusersmom.htm)

9 Interview with Russell Halpern. Larry King Live. CNN. 13 Feb. 2004. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/13/lkl.00.html)

10 “Jackson Accuser ‘Afraid’ of His Estranged Father?” Celebrity Justice. 17 Mar. 2004. TTC West Coast Inc. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0403/17a.html)

11“Take 2: The Interview They Wouldn’t Show You.” Fox. 20 Feb. 2003.

12 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services Report. Oct 2001. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/01/jacko_dept.pdf)

13“Jackson Accuser’s Mom Falsely Solicited Charity for Son.” Celebrity Justice. 3 Jan. 2005. TTC West Coast Inc. (http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0501/03a.html)

14 Heard, Bill. “Chance Encounters with Cops Lead to Merry Christmas for LA Family.” MTA Report. 21 Dec. 2001. (http://intranet2.mta.net/mtanews_info/report/transit_family.htm)

15Interview with Michael Jackson. Sixty Minutes. CBS. 28 Dec. 2003. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/60minutes/main590381.shtml)

16 “Living with Michael Jackson.” ITV. 3 Feb. 2003.

17Steepleton, Scott. “Explicit Story of Jackson ‘Old News’ to Sneddon.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 12 Feb. 2003.

18“Michael Jackson’s Big Payoff.” The Smoking Gun. 16 Jun 2004. Courtroom Television Network. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html)

19Hughes, Geraldine. Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations. Radford: Branch and Vine Publishers, LLC. 2004.

20 Fischer, Mary A. “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” GQ Magazine. Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.

21Chandler, Ray. “GQ Article.” Media Analysis. (http://www.atgbook.net/GQFinal.html)

22“Psychiatric Interview with Jackson’s First Accuser.” Michael Jackson Molestation Case. Court TV Online, pp. 30-31. 10 Jan. 2005. (http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/docs/psychiatric.html?page=30)

23Piper, August. “Truth Serum and What Really Happened.” Selected Columns of August Piper, Jr., M.D. (http://www.fmsfonline.org/APiper.html#AP1)

24 Elam, Peggy. “Dissociative Disorders and Sodium Amytal Interview.” Ivillage Health. (http://www.ivillagehealth.com/experts/emotional/qas/0,,234280_1280-1,00.html)

25Fischer, Mary A. “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” GQ Magazine. Oct. 1994: Pg. 214.

26“Grand Jury Disbanded in Michael Jackson Case.” Showbiz Today. CNN. 2 May 1994.

27 “The DA in the Michael Jackson Case.” TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. 19 Nov. 2003. CrimeLynx. (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004397.html#004397)

28“Current Events and Press Releases.” Michael Jackson Case Information. 5 Feb. 2003. County of Santa Barbara. (http://www.countyofsb.org/da/press.asp)

29Steepleton, Scott. “Explicit Story of Jackson ‘Old News’ to Sneddon.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 12 Feb. 2003.

30Friedman, Roger. “Jacko’s Got Dubious Character Witnesses.” Fox 411. Fox News. 12 Feb. 2003. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78351,00.html)

31Mankiewicz, Josh. “Michael Jackson Unmasked.” Dateline NBC. NBC. 17 Feb. 2003. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080078)

32Interview with Mark Geragos. Larry King Live. CNN. 18 Dec. 2003. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/18/lkl.00.html)

33 Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

34 Deutsch, Linda. ” Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

35 “Did Jackson’s Accuser Declare Star as Innocent?” Good Morning America. ABC News. 26 Feb. 2004. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=128004&page=1)

36Interview with Ed Bradley. Larry King Live. CNN. 4 Feb. 2004. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/04/lkl.01.html)

37“Michael Jackson Bombshell.” The Smoking Gun. 9 Dec. 2003. Courtroom Television Network. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html)

38 “Latest News.” The Official Website of Carole Lieberman, M.D. 11 Feb. 2003. (http://www.dr.carole.com/news.htm)

39“New Revelations in Michael Jackson Case.” The Today Show. NBC News. 16 Mar. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4513744)

40“Michael is My Children’s Angel.” Sunday Telegraph. 8 Feb. 2003. (http://www.mjni.com/news/details.aspx?ArticleNo=195)

41 “Take 2: The Interview They Wouldn’t Show You.” Fox. 20 Feb. 2003.

42 “Former Lawyer for Jackson Accuser Speaks.” Primetime Live. ABC News. 29 Jan. 2004. (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132405&page=1)

43 Deutsch, Linda. ” Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

44 The Abrams Report. MSNBC. 20 Aug. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5796832)

45 Friedman, Roger. “Jacko Accuser’s Mom Was in Mental Hospital.” Fox 411. 5 Feb. 2004. Fox News. 20 Jul. 2004. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110526,00.html)

46 “Former Lawyer for Jackson Accuser Speaks.” Primetime Live. ABC News. 29 Jan. 2004. (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=132405&page=1)

47 Order for Release of Redacted Documents. [Exhibits 2-18 from Pen. C. §1538.5 Hearings (Parts 1 and 2)] 12 Nov. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=602&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=601)

48“Civil Suit Brought up by Therapist.” The Today Show. 19 Mar. 2004. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=17&lid=95)

49Blankstein, Andrew and Richard Winton. “Leak of Jackson Memo Criticized.” LA Times. 8 Jan. 2004.

50 Deutsch, Linda. “Lawyer: Psychologist’s patients on both sides of Jackson case.” Associated Press. 17 Aug. 2004.

51Deutsch, Linda. “Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

52“Accuser’s Mother Police Videotape.” The Insider. 15 Sept. 2004. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=24&lid=227)

53 “Civil Suit Brought up by Therapist.” The Today Show. 19 Mar. 2004. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=17&lid=95)

54Deutsch, Linda and Tim Molloy. “Prosecutor Says Law Won’t Allow Jackson to Pay Off Accuser Before Trial.” Associated Press. 19 Nov. 2003.

55“Does Memo Suggest DA Vendetta Against Jackson?” Good Morning America. ABC News. 29 Apr. 2004. (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116524&page=1)

56Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

57Hobbs, Dawn. “Tape Called Evidence of Jackson Conspiracy.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 11 Aug. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0811tapeevidence.htm)

58 Press Conference. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon. 19 Nov. 2003.

59Bean, Matt. “Court TV Exclusive: D.A. discusses case against Michael Jackson.” Court TV. 20 Nov. 2003. (http://courttv.com/people/2003/1120/jackson_exclusive_ctv.html)

60“DA Apologizes for Joking at Jackson News Conference.” CNN. 5 Dec. 2003. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/26/sneddon/index.html)

61Hobbs, Dawn. “Sneddon Comes Out Swinging.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 19 Dec. 2003. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/1219sneddonswinging.htm)

62Brown, Stacey. “Geragos says he’s in charge of Jackson Defense.” MSNBC. 6 Jan. 2004. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3891212)

63Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Pleads Not Guilty.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 1 May 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0501pleadsnot.htm)

64Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Pleads Not Guilty.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 1 May 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0501pleadsnot.htm)

65Deutsch, Linda. “Prosecution Alleges Jackson Imprisoned Boy, Family at Neverland Ranch.” Associated Press. 28 Jul. 2004.

66Molloy, Tim. “Accuser’s Mother Said to Praise Jackson.” Associated Press. 25 Nov. 2003.

67Hobbs, Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0731timeline.htm)

68The Abrams Report. MSNBC. 22 Apr. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4806856)

69Hobbs, Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0731timeline.htm)

70Hobbs, Dawn. “Timeline Emerges in Jackson Abuse Case.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 31 Jul. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0731timeline.htm)

71Deutsch, Linda. “Stepfather Says He Sought Money for Michael Jackson Accuser, Family.” Associated Press. 20 Aug. 2004.

72Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code §995) 6 Jul. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=61&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=188)

73Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside the Indictment. (Pen. Code §995) 23 Jul. 2004. Page 12 (http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=212&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=214)

74Hadly, Scott and Dawn Hobbs. “Jackson Team Goes on Offense.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0817jacksonteam.htm)

75Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson Case Judge Rules in Favor of DA.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 15 Oct. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/101504judgerules.htm)

76Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code §995) 6 Jul. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=61&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=188)

Part II: Tom Sneddon – A Strange Obsession

“Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving.”– Attorney Michael Cooney

PATTERN OF ABUSE

When it comes to political corruption in Santa Barbara, anyone familiar with the workings of this county knows that nothing happens without the tacit approval of the good District Attorney Tom Sneddon. Often referred to as “the single most powerful person in all of Santa Barbara County,”1 his admirers point to the fact that he has run unopposed for the last six terms as evidence of his beloved status. Butterball sidekick Jim Thomas, former sheriff of Santa Barbara, defends him, insisting: “Tom Sneddon is and has always been an aggressive prosecutor, which is why he’s been re-elected so many times unopposed.”2 To understand the method of Tom Sneddon and how he operates, one only needs to consider the testimony of several persons who have borne the wrath of his prosecutorial obsession.

GARY DUNLAP

One of the worst examples of such behavior is Sneddon’s attack on Santa Maria attorney Gary Dunlap. Sneddon had charged Dunlap with a slew of charges including perjury and witness tampering. After being acquitted of all charges, Dunlap filed a $10 million lawsuit against Sneddon and his hood of bandits for violating his civil rights during the investigation.3 In an interview with the highly respected MJJForum, Dunlap leveled a number of serious charges against Sneddon and those in his office. This gentleman has been a practicing attorney in the Santa Maria and Santa Barbara area for nearly forty years and is not pulling stories of horrific prosecutorial misconduct out of his behind. In fact, a number of persons who do not even know each other are claiming the exact same thing with tangible proof of said misconduct. Among the many charges that Dunlap levelled against Sneddon:

§ Sneddon and the law enforcement officials assigned to Dunlap’s investigation performed illegal searches and seizures. “Well, they engaged in a sting operation, which they manufactured and allowed to get out of hand, and it essentially became just a real witch hunt. There were a number of violations of my rights in the investigatory stage as well as during the prosecution stage.”

§ Stacking charges against defendants. “…I don’t know if you realize how difficult it is when they throw the kitchen sink at you, I mean, when they throw seven felonies against you, how difficult it is to get an acquittal on all charges. You know, I mean it’s one thing to be charged with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the District Attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on something.” Sneddon’s kitchen sink manufacturer must be working overtime, tossing sinks at the Michael Jackson case like friends toss Krispy Kreme donuts at Rosie O’Donnell.

§ Intimidation of officials whom they cannot control. “…but in one instance there is a gentleman in Santa Maria who had announced his candidacy for a public office and shortly thereafter he was illegally detained by sheriff’s deputies on what were pretty clearly bogus charges, and instead of the District Attorney acknowledging that, the District Attorney attempted to cover up the police officers’ excessive force by filing charges against him and attempted to prosecute him on those charges and essentially ruined his opportunity to run for public office. He ultimately sued the District Attorney as well as the law enforcement officers and won a judgment in the federal court for several thousand dollars and several hundred thousand dollars in attorney’s fees.”4 This particular story from Dunlap sounds remarkably similar to Bill Wegener’s experiences. Is it any wonder that Dunlap is suing Sneddon and his cronies?

JUDGE DIANA HALL 

Intimidating foes he can no longer control is a particular talent for Sneddon. Just ask Judge Diana Hall. When the judge “ran” for the bench (more on that later), she was actually seen as an ally to the Sneddon regime but for whatever reason, that changed and so did Sneddon’s approach to dealing with her. In September 2003, Hall was convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving but was cleared of the more serious charges that had been brought against her such as brandishing a weapon and battery. While Hall’s legal troubles had seemingly come to an end with the resolution of the trial, her contentious relationship with the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office would only intesify when she was later accused of election funding fraud.

During the 2002 re-election bid, Hall’s ex-lover Deidre Dykeman had donated an unreported $20,000 to Hall’s campaign, a donation that eventually led to eight new misdemeaner charges being brought against Hall in 2004. Her attorney Mike Scott is none too pleased. “The District Attorney knew about this gift from her former roommate in December 2002,” he said. “They did nothing with it until the DA failed to secure a felony conviction against Judge Hall last August. It was well known prior to the trial and should have been included in the original charges.”5

To say that Sneddon and his people were not thrilled that the felony charges did not stick the first time they prosecuted Hall is no doubt an understatement according to unnamed sources. Despite the prosecution’s stance that they were merely punishing a judge who had violated state campaign funding laws, someone with a brain and glasses not fogged by corruption thought differently and prevented the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office from prosecuting Hall. Perhaps the most important reason for removing the DA’s office from the case is the fact that Hall is slated to serve as a witness for Gary Dunlap in his civil lawsuit against Tom Sneddon.6 Can you say conflict of interest?

Now, if I was a District Attorney who was being targeted for violating the civil rights of some local attorney and I knew that one of the judges on my watch was testifying for the plaintiff (Dunlap, in this case), I would do my best to make sure that by the time she testified, her reputation would be so soiled with political and criminal scandal that she would not be considered credible. If making Hall look bad meant stacking a bunch of ridiculous charges against her or prosecuting her for essentially covering up a gay relationship, so be it. Of course, this is merely the hypothetical meanderings of a curious observer.

We doubt that Ms. Hall, once she has hopefully been freed from the vengeful clutches of a twisted legal scene in Santa Barbara, will allow Sneddon to rest much. We see him being sued big time for his illegal and unethical antics. Not shockingly, Hall is not the only public official Sneddon has it in for.

ART MONTANDON

Just when you thought that massage parlor lovin’ had given way to chat room sex, two sisters in Santa Maria set out to prove that there is still a market for this hands-on service to the male segment of the community, even law enforcement officials (allegedly). Two sisters, April and Irene Cummings, were accused of running a prostitution ring through the guise of a massage parlor. Art Montandon, the Santa Maria city lawyer at the time, was conducting his own investigation in an attempt to get information on one of the persons alleged to have been serviced at the parlor – the Santa Maria police Chief John Sterling. A number of rumors swirled as names were floated as possible customers of the Cummings sisters, the biggest being one very important person: Tom Sneddon.

As one could imagine, Sneddon vehemently denied the allegations, even threatening to sue the sisters if they did not recant. “It’s outrageous…”I’ve never had a massage in my life,” Sneddon claimed. After meeting with Sneddon about the allegation, the Cummings’ sisters attorney Michael Clayton said that “the sisters likely confused the District Attorney with a man named ‘Tom’ who looked similar to Sneddon and allegedly visited their business on that day” and that he thought “(April) was genuinely mistaken… I don’t believe (Sneddon) was a client of either of them.”7

Making matters even more interesting was the rumor that Bill Wegener (yes, that Bill Wegener), had caught Chief Sterling on tape but none of the parties – Wegener, Montandon, or even the members of Sneddon’s office – have ever claimed to have seen such a tape.8

Enter Tom Sneddon and the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office whose job it was to prosecute the case. And this is where the trouble truly begins. As it turns out, Montandon had evidence that would prove beneficial not for the prosecution but for the defense. Upon learning about the existence of this evidence, the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office accused Montandon of bribery and interfering with their case. Although the DA’s office attempted to prevent Montandon from providing the evidence to defense attorneys, a judge would ruled that Sneddon’s office did not have the authority to stop Montandon from doing his own investigation. Montandon later promised that he would provide “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.”

Montandon also fired back his own assaults on Sneddon and his office, accusing them of “prosecutorial misconduct in pursuing a local attorney.” Just who was Montandon referring to? That’s right – Gary Dunlap. In addition, Montandon even found time to chide his enemies: “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.”9

After “retiring” after 19 years of service, Montandon filed an official complaint against Sneddon and his office, citing that Sneddon and his employees had engaged in “discriminatory, abusive, defamatory (and) negligent” tactics against him.10 After it was revealed that the California Bar Association was investigating Sneddon and others for misconduct Montandon added that: “We’re geared up to file a federal court lawsuit in the next two months.”11

We in no way necessarily endorse the actions of any of the parties who have accused Sneddon nor do we support coddling criminals in such a way that they have carte blanche to whatever they please. We believe in law and order. We also happen to believe in due process. But it only gets more interesting when we consider another often overlooked and often threatened person who had the courage to speak up about what really goes on in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria: Dr. Thambiah Sundaram.

Thambiah Sundaram

In an interview with Online Legal Review’s Ron Sweet, Thambiah Sundaram claimed that he was arrested and prosecuted by the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office for, among other things, grand theft, malicious mischief, and impersonating a doctor.

The case was later dismissed by then Judge Barbara Beck, who called the allegations against Sundaram “ridiculous.” The seriousness of Beck’s charge is quite obvious and adds proverbial fuel to speculation that Sneddon has a predilection to misuse his prosecutorial authority. It is little wonder that Sundaram sued Sneddon and his office for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of power, and conspiracy and was awarded over $300,000 for his trouble. But Sundaram also had a great deal to say about Tom Sneddon and his subordinates in the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s office in regards to the way they operate in other ways.

Sundaram alleges that in late 1994 or early 1995, he heard racist comments being made by the likes of now Senior Deputy District Attorney Mag Nicola as well as Tim Rooney – all in the glorious presence of Tom Sneddon – at a private fundraising function. For instance, a man named Rajan Ayyar was referred to as a “nigger” by Nicola as he and other government officials allegedly plotted about how they were going to “go after” him. Apparently, the fact that Ayyar was a Black man who claimed to be a Stanford alum was simply too much for these respectable white folks. Moreover, they were alleged to have believed that they could get whatever they wanted since they had just put a judge on the bench whom they were blackmailing at the time with some “dirt” on her personal life. That judge? Diana Hall.12

It would take ten years and would come without Hall’s involvement but their plotting paid off and Ayyar was convicted last year of “10 counts of grand theft, four of forgery and one each of securities fraud and commission of a fraudulent securities scheme.” And take a guess who Rajan Ayyar’s attorney was? Gary Dunlap.13 Ayyar was not the only “nigger” against whom they were purportedly plotting. Sundaram also maintains that the group discussed what to do with Michael Jackson. Among the things that authorities allegedly said about Jackson:

– 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.”14

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.

SNEDDON’S OBSESSION WITH JACKSON

Not too long after the now-infamous November 2003 press conference in which Tom Sneddon joked about Michael Jackson with Sheriff Jim Anderson, Sneddon was quick to point out that he did not have a vendetta against the superstar.15 In light of the aforementioned accusations from others in the Santa Barbara area along the same lines, one should at least be willing to consider the possibility. Sneddon went so far as to state that he had not even thought about the singer or the allegations during the ten-year interval between the cases. However, a plethora of articles from news outlets from 1994-2003 reveal something altogether different. The following quotes, courtesy of Talkleft.com, are evidence of Sneddon’s lack of attention to Jackson:

The Independent (London), August 20, 1994 :

A ruddy-faced veteran prosecutor with a reputation for bloody-mindedness, Thomas Sneddon is not burdened by a litany of heavily publicised previous blunders. Nor is he willing to accept that his case is hopeless without the testimony of its central figure – Jordan Chandler. ”The Santa Barbara office is still quite involved in investigation of the Jackson allegations,” says Michael Cooney, an attorney who knows Sneddon well. ”Tom Sneddon is a very determined individual who will go further than almost anyone to prove something which he feels needs proving. Once he decides action is worth taking, he will pursue it to the very end.”

The New York Times, September 22, 1994:

Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, where Mr. Jackson owns an estate, said more than 400 witnesses had been interviewed in the case and that two other possible victims had been identified. But he said one of these, who is now in therapy, had asked not to be involved in the case and the other was out of the country and had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.

Showbiz Today, September 22, 1994:

GIL GARCETTI, Los Angeles County District Attorney: We have concluded that because the young boy who was the catalyst for this investigation has recently informed us that he does not wish to participate in any criminal proceeding where he is named as a victim, that we must decline prosecution involving Mr. Jackson.

VERCAMMEN: Prosecutors said their investigation also turned up two other children allegedly molested by Michael Jackson. But the district attorneys added one boy is out of the country and denies wrongdoing by Jackson, and the third alleged victim is reluctant to testify. Prosecutors said they will reopen the case should any witnesses have a change of heart.

TOM SNEDDON, Santa Barbara County District Attorney: Should circumstances change, should other evidence become available within this period of the statute of limitations, like Los Angeles County, we would re-evaluate the situation based upon what information is available to us at that particular point in time.

The Chattanooga Times, August 19, 1995:

Meanwhile, Saturday’s Today newspaper said Santa Barbara, Calif., District Attorney Tom Sneddon had twice contacted Presley’s mother, Priscilla, for information about Jackson’s relationships with young boys.

The New York Beacon August 23, 1995

Magazine: Michael Jackson Lied To Interviewer Diane Sawyer. Michael Jackson lied to Diane Sawyer about his relationship with young boys and withheld information about a pending civil action, Vanity Fair reported. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon told the magazine that Jackson has not been “cleared” of sexual involvement with two boys, as Sawyer said during his interview of Jackson on ABC’s “Prime Time Live.”

“The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward,” Sneddon said. The magazine also reported, quoting unidentified sources, that there is a third boy whose lawyer is working on a settlement with Jackson. In the June 14 interview, Jackson told Sawyer there was “not one iota of information that was found that could connect me to these charges” of child molestation. But Sneddon told the magazine in its September issue that he has seen photos of Jackson’s genitalia, and “his statement on TV is untrue and incorrect and not consistent with the evidence in the case.” Others familiar with the evidence told Vanity Fair that the photos match descriptions given by a young boy to investigators.

The Advertiser January 27, 1996:

“But the reality is, no matter what he does, he can’t escape the fact that he paid out millions of dollars to prevent a 13-year-old boy from testifying against him in court,” says Santa Barbara District-Attorney Tom Sneddon, who originally investigated claims Jackson had molested the boy at his Neverland ranch. Charges against Jackson were dropped when the boy refused to testify. But Mr Sneddon says, contrary to popular belief, it would be “inaccurate” to say Jackson was cleared of all charges. “The state of the investigation is in suspension until somebody comes forward and testifies,” he says.

Daily News (New York) February 14, 2001:

Michael Jackson is not out of the woods. So says Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, the man who brought child molestation charges against the singer in 1993. Jackson is scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at Carnegie Hall on behalf of his Heal the Kids initiative. Although Sneddon can’t be there in person, he’s definitely arching an eyebrow from 3,000 miles away. “The case against Michael Jackson was never closed, and he was never exonerated,” Sneddon says. “It’s in suspended animation and can be reopened at any time.” 16

Clearly, Mr. Sneddon had been doing a great deal of thinking about Jackson and the 1993 case that he did not get to prosecute. Furthermore, either Sneddon had the gift of prophecy or he was smelling pay dirt in February 2003 when, in an interview with Court TV investigative reporter Diane Dimond (we’ll get to her later), Sneddon once again stated that all he needed was “one more victim” to re-open his case against Mr. Jackson.17

QUESTIONABLE LEGAL TACTICS

Despite the protests of Sneddon and his supporters, the tactics that the defense allege he has engaged in throughout the investigation support the idea that a vendetta is indeed the driving force behind this entire “case”. There are so many egregious acts on the district attorney’s part, that a list might be more practical:

§ Excessive number of search warrants (over 105 at the present writing), the majority of which came after Jackson was indicted by a grand jury.18

§ Bullying witnesses at the grand jury hearing.19

§ Lying to the media and the general public about the actual nature of the two grand juries that were called in 1993-94. While Sneddon insisted that neither were asked to indict Jackson, blaming collapse of the case on the fact that Jackson had settled with the Chandler family, both grand juries could have returned indictments. Based on the flimsy evidence, however, both grand juries wisely decided not to do so.20 Sneddon once again proves himself to be something else besides “Mad Dog”: A liar.

§ Harassment of persons close to Jackson with the express attempt to get them to turn on Jackson.21

§ Tossing in a conspiracy charge while not indicting the other five alleged co-conspirators (how can there be a conspiracy with only one person being charge?)22

§ Intentionally violating Jackson’s attorney-client privilege by (1) breaking in to the office of private investigator Bradley Miller, who worked for then-Jackson defense attorney Mark Geragos;23 (2) seizing material from the home of Jackson’s personal assistant Evelyn Tavvasci, material clearly marked “Mesereau” (the surname of Jackson’s current defense attorney)24

§ Allegedly leaking damaging information through Diane Dimond (isn’t it obvious?)

§ Searching Neverland with 60 officers over a year after Jackson’s arrest, all to allegedly “take pictures” and “get measurements” of some of the rooms in Jackson’s home.25

§ Seizing records that clearly have nothing to do with child molestation: financial, bank, land, rental car records.

§ Attempting to harass Jackson supporters, particularly online fan communities such as MJJForum. Sneddon actually went so far as to accuse MJJForum of being Jackson’s official site and, therefore, violating the gag order by showing public support for Jackson.26

§ Inappropriately joking and laughing at the now-infamous press conference announcing Jackon’s arrest in November 2003 27

§ Inappropriately interjecting himself into the case as a witness during grand jury testimony. He made himself a witness and was summarily examined by Tom Mesereau at a later hearing.28

The list literally could go on and on but we have decided to end it here. The sad fact is that Sneddon, based upon the documented cases of so many others, has used the courts as his own little playground to metaphorically assassinate if not convict his enemies. And it does not help when the judge (who has already sat as trial judge over other questionable Sneddon cases) overseeing the Michael Jackson case has a history of reversing himself on certain key motions and also being checked by higher courts. Now that both Melville and the Attorney General of California have blocked any chance of Sneddon and his office from being recused, Sneddon may appear to have the upper hand. But do not bet it on for a minute.

Even as this is project is being written, there are other investigative bodies who have fleshed out a number of other documented cases where Sneddon and his office have been cited for prosecutorial misconduct.29 Egregious judicial and government malfeasance of this kind cannot and will not last forever. The chickens will, in the words of Malcolm X, come home to roost. The kingdom of Sneddon is a ticking time bomb.

Menu     Part III

Endnotes:

1“Prosecutor Profile.” National District Attorney’s Association. 2004.

(http://www.ndaa-apri.org/ndaa/profile/tom_sneddon_jan_feb_2003.html)

2Hobbs, Dawn. “DA has locked Horns with Defense Lawyers in Past.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 2 Nov. 2004.

3Abramsam, Mark. “Dunlap Sues Over Arrest.” The Lompoc Record. 5 Dec. 2003.

4Brown, Patricia and Ron Sweet. Interview with Gary Dunlap. MJJForum Talk Radio. 2 Jan. 2004.

5Hobbs, Dawn. “Judge’s Lawyer Accuses DA of Unfair Retaliation.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 13 Jul. 2004.

6Cushner, Quintin. “D.A’s Office Recused from Case.” The Santa Maria Times. 31 Aug. 2004.

7Cushner, Quintin. “Sneddon rejects masseuse’s allegations.” The Santa Maria Times. 28 Dec. 2003.

8Cushner, Quintin. “City, D.A. office clash.” The Santa Maria Times. 3 Dec. 2003.

9Cushner, Quintin. “City attorney fires back at D.A.” The Santa Maria Times. 13 Feb. 2004.

10Cushner, Quintin. “Montandon Files Claim Against D.A.” The Santa Maria Times. 1 Jul. 2004.

11Cushner, Quintin. “State Bar Looks into Complaint Against D.A.” The Santa Maria Times. 17 Jul. 2004.

12Arceneaux, K.C. “New Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael Jackson.” The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004. (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm).

13“Rajan Ayyar Sentencing Set for Thursday.” News and Articles on Gary Real Estate. Real Estate News. 2004. (http://news.surfwax.com/realestate/files/Real_Estate_Gary.html)

14Arceneaux, K.C. “New Allegations Against Prosecutor of Michael Jackson.” The Raw Story. 2004. Exclusives. 30 Apr. 2004. (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/contributors/sneddon_allegations_michael_jackson.htm).

15Bean, Matt. “Court TV Exclusive: D.A. discusses case against Michael Jackson.” Court TV. 20 Nov. 2003. (http://courttv.com/people/2003/1120/jackson_exclusive_ctv.html)

16“The DA in the Michael Jackson Case.” TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime. 19 Nov. 2003. CrimeLynx. (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004397.html#004397)

17Friedman, Roger. “Jacko: A Valentine From the District Attorney.” Fox 411. 14 Feb. 2003. Fox News. 25 Jun. 2004. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,78599,00.html)

18Hobbs, Dawn. “Pop star’s legal battles began year ago today.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 18 Nov. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/111804legalbattles.htm)

19Notice of Motion and Motion to Set Aside the Indictment (Penal Code §995) 6 Jul. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=61&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=188)

20 Hobbes, Dawn. “Pop Superstar Can’t Shake 1993 Allegations.” Santa Barbara News-press. 5 Apr. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0405cantshake.htm)

21Spilbor, Jonna M. “The Michael Jackson Case.” Find Law Commentary. Find Law. 4 May 2004. (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040504_spilbor.html)

22 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson defense blasts attempt to use evidence from ’93.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 8 Jan. 2005. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/010805defenseblasts.html)

23 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson team goes on offense.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0817jacksonteam.htm)

24 Hobbs, Dawn. “Authorities searched home of Jackson’s assistant.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 23 Sept. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/092304searched.html)

25 Hobbs, Dawn. “Authorities conduct raid on Neverland.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 4 Dec. 2004.(http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/120404raid.html)

26Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification Re: Court’s Protective Order. 2004 Jun. 25. (http://207.58.140.95/main/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=61&func=fileinfo&parent=folder&filecatid=194)

27Press Conference. Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon. 19 Nov. 2003.

28 Hobbs, Dawn. “Jackson team goes on offense.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 17 Aug. 2004. (http://www.newspress.com/mjacksonupdate/0817jacksonteam.htm)

28“Prosecutorial Misconduct Investigation.” MJJF Investigates. MJJForum. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=44168)

For more examples of prosecutorial misconduct on Sneddon’s part, see the following websites:

http://www.mj-case.net/santabarbara.html

http://www.mjredemption.com

http://www.mjeol.com

Part III – Diane Dimond: Paragon of Deceit 

“During all the coverage of Michael Jackson’s supposed molestation of this teenage boy, I turned on ‘CBS This Morning’ and saw Diane Dimond being interviewed by Paula Zahn. And I remember thinking, ‘This is a seminal moment in the regression of TV journalism.'”1

– Los Angeles times TV critic Howard Rosenberg

DIANE PUTS HER FOOT IN HER MOUTH… AGAIN

The moment Michael Jackson was arrested and charged with child molestation, Diane Dimond insisted that she did not go looking for this story but rather it came looking for her. Of course, she must have forgotten ever making such a statement when, during another interview, she asserted, “I’ve been working this story for 10 years.”2 We would, however, prefer to call her work “jury tainting” in light of several absolutely unprofessional and unethical activities that have caused observers to question her “journalistic” inclinations and sensibilities.

Dimond, like her good buddy Tom Sneddon has often decried any assertion that she has a vendetta against Jackson or that she is obsessed with the child molestation allegations. In her own words, she is just a determined investigative journalist who is determined to get to the bottom of a huge story. To her credit, Dimond did offer some sound advice concerning how to evaluate a story: “You have to listen carefully to the reporters. If they’re giving their opinion, that’s not necessarily the truth. You have to, as a listener or viewer, think logically for yourself. What is true and what is false?”3 Following these wise words, we invite readers to assess the veracity of several stories Ms. Dimond has reported.

For instance, Dimond stated confidently, “I am 99.9% sure that Jordan Chandler will testify during the grand jury.”4 The only problem was that it never happened. Dimond did her best to make it appear as if the prosecution had scored a windfall. Of course, one has to ask logically: If Jordan Chandler was so eager to testify as Dimond was reporting, why did the prosecution (or sources close to them) whine about not being able to serve him a subpoena? If Chandler was eager to see justice done for the alleged injustice done to him, one would logically assume that no writ or court order would have even been necessary to get him to the stand. Score one for logic and against Dimond’s “objective” and truth-centered reporting.

Dimond was also one of the first to report the erroneous story that the prosecution had seized love letters allegedly written by Jackson to the latest accuser. On a November 24, 2003 edition of Larry King Live,5Dimond, along with famed attorney Johnnie Cochran, Chris Pixley and Court TV’s Nancy Grace, did not hesitate much when discussing them:

KING: Do we — hold it! Does anyone here — does anyone here — anyone — know of the existence of these letters?

DIMOND: I absolutely know of their existence!

KING: Diane, have you read them?

DIMOND: No, I have not read them, but I absolutely know that that was tops on the list of the DA and sheriff’s department, things to look for inside Neverland. Listen, Larry, these are letters that are written in Michael Jackson’s hand. They are said to be — no, I’ve not read them, but they — they went after them because they’re said to be so sensational and so salacious in nature that this could be a key to the prosecution.

When pressed about her certainty of the letters Dimond got very defensive. Consider this entertaining exchange between her and Pixley :

PIXLEY: I think it’s inevitable that they’re going to report the story in one way, though, Larry, and that’s to say that Michael Jackson is guilty of these charges…

DIMOND: Oh, BS!

PIXLEY: … before there are even charges. I’m sorry, Diane…

DIMOND: Baloney!

PIXLEY:… have you entertained for a moment the idea that these love letters that you know nothing about may be just that, nothing?

DIMOND: First of all, Chris, I do know about them, and I know about them from high law enforcement sources. But I have always said, I don’t know if Michael Jackson is a pedophile. This charge should go to court.

PIXLEY: You said they play it close to the chest, you think this is a good DA’s office that doesn’t leak stories, that play it close to the chest. But you know from high-ranking officials exactly what these letters say, or at least…

DIMOND: I didn’t say I know what they say!

PIXLEY: … what they are likely to say…

DIMOND: If you’re going to…

PIXLEY:… that they’re salacious.

DIMOND: And you know what, Chris? Get it right! I get it right when I quote somebody! You get it right when you quote me!

PIXLEY:Who are you quoting about the letters, then, Diane, so we can get it right? Who is it that you’re quoting?

DIMOND: I’m not going to…

PIXLEY: You don’t have anyone to quote.

DIMOND: … give you my sources! I’m not giving you my sources!

PIXLEY:Then why are we talking about this as though it’s a fact?

Of course, Dimond did not “get it right” at all concerning this story and her merely quoting a source did not make the story right either. As Pixley hinted, the story was as phony as a three dollar bill,6 adding fuel to the notion that Dimond has little intention of reporting the truth but rather reporting what she knows to be false and potentially damaging to Jackson and his defense team. We will not even bother to speculate as to who her “source” was (the person’s identity should be quite obvious). It suffices to say that this person appears to have had little intention of disseminating truth and used whatever willing vessel he (or she) could find. Dimond fit the bill. Yet we are supposed to trust this king of reporting to provide “unbiased” information concerning the case.

DIANE PLAYS THE BLAME GAME

Perhaps the most egregious transgression Dimond committed revolved around the now-not-so-confidential settlement Jackson reached with his 1993 accuser’s family. Note the following excerpts from her “reports” on the matter:

‘The Abrams Report’ for June 15

“Right here on the top of page 14, the amount of the trust fund Jackson agrees to set up is not redacted — $15,331,250. His mom and dad both got $1.5 million each upon signing the settlement, and sources say that Michael Jackson also agreed to pay the family‘s attorney, Larry Feldman, at least $5 million plus expenses.

This is the civil suit that the boy‘s family filed way back in 1993. Check out the complaints here. They charge sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud and negligence. In the end, in the final settlement agreement, Jackson agrees to pay only for alleged negligence. But look at what was alleged in the original lawsuit. It‘s on page 44 and 45.

‘Defendant, Michael Jackson, negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff, which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise. As a direct result of the negligence, the plaintiff has suffered injury to his health, strength, and activity, injury to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system.’ We do need to point out, though, that in the final settlement, Michael Jackson specifically says that this agreement shall not be construed, this is a quote, shall not be construed as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the minor.7

June 16, 2004 (Court TV)

Diane Dimond: In that settlement, there was no definition of negligence, just that Jackson agreed to the allegation of negligence from the civil suit. If you’ll look at the civil suit posted on our website, and that is case # SC026226, and look at page 15, paragraphs 44-45, that’s the allegation Michael Jackson agreed to pay for. As you can see, it mentions that “Jackson negligently had offensive contacts with plaintiff which were both explicitly sexual and otherwise.” My reaction to this is: I can’t figure out how someone can be negligently explicitly sexual with a child and still deny sexual molestation occurred.8

Dimond leaked information about the confidential (that means confidential, folks) 1994 settlement agreement between Jackson and the Chandlers. Please note the highlighted portions. One day she is at least halfway clear that she is discussing two separate documents: Evan Chandler’s lawsuit that accuses Jackson of horrific deeds with his son; and another document where Jackson settles with the Chandler family over claims of “negligence.” The next day, Dimond goes out of her way to somehow tie negligence to sexual abuse, something that the settlement does not support. In fact, it is clear from the wording of the settlement document that the negligence claim had nothing to do with sexual abuse. According to the document: “The Parties recognize that the Settlement Payment set forth in this paragraph 3 are in settlement of claims by Jordan Chandler, Evan Chandler and June Chandler for alleged compensatory damages for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrongful acts of sexual molestation.” Referring to the lawsuit’s definition of “negligence” is inconclusive because each legal document intentionally defines the terms to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.

While she was intent on pointing out that Jackson’s settlement was not meant to be construed as an admission of guilt, she conveniently forgot to acknowledge the fact that the Chandler family agreed to all of the terms that Jackson’s lawyers outlined – namely, that Jackson did not molest the boy.9 Dimond combined information from a lawsuit Evan Chandler filed against Jackson, a suit wracked with defamatory accusations of Jackson being a sexual predator, with Jackson’s actual settlement. To make matters even more ridiculous, she blamed Jackson’s ex-wife Lisa Marie Presley for being responsible for the leaking of the documents.10

LET’S TRY TO UNDERSTAND DIANE…

There is, perhaps, a psychological reason for Dimond’s treatment of Jackson. Cognitive dissonance refers to the “psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation.”11 Such a description could easily call to mind the Court TV investigative correspondent, who clearly has turned covering Michael Jackson into a one-woman industry.

Cognitive dissonance rears its head in Dimond’s psyche in her own inability to recognize her assumptions about Jackson. For instance, she comments that “I’ve learned a lot that I’ve put on the air and learned a lot that I could never put on the air because I couldn’t substantiate it,” she said. “But I’m going to keep my opinion to myself.” The funny thing is, Ms. Dimond would go on to state just a few lines later in the same interview: “Look at him. Look at what he’s done to himself. He must be so full of self-loathing to carve off the tip of his nose and plant things in his cheeks. My overwhelming feeling for him is pity.”12 One could almost believe that Dimond indeed feels sorry for Jackson if not for her unceasingly biased negative reporting on him. In addition, if one looks closely at her statement, she contends that Jackson has had things done to his face (i.e. cheek implants) that he has repeatedly denied having done. Even worse, her slanted comments about Jackson on the air and in print (too numerous to list here) are proof positive that she feels anything but sorry for him but loathes him as much as she claims he loathes himself.

Dimond drowns in a Jeffersonian-like cognitive dissonance that blinds her to her own queasy obsession with a figure she claims she is not obsessed with. Of course, much of the media has the same problem, for in one breath they proclaim the “death” of everything Jackson while simultaneously dropping his name everywhere in order to garner attention and ratings. Dimond’s slapdash and downright unethical coverage of both Jackson and the child molestation allegations against him, not surprisingly, stay true to form.

Lately, the tabloid reporter has been mysteriously silent. Perhaps her silence is connected to speculation that her close ties to the prosecution have in fact made her a potential witness in the case should it go to trial. In addition, the very fact that Dimond was dropping hints in June 2003 that Jackson would soon go “splat” is all the more amazing considering that this is the exact same month that Sneddon jumpstarted his “investigation” into the allegations. Her obsession with inserting herself into this poorly scripted flim-flam job may find her on the hot seat before a jury and the glare of her own network’s (Court TV) cameras.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon appears to have the same problem. Professional help will be provided once the cases against Mr. Jackson are dealt with and debunked. One has the feeling that neither Sneddon nor Dimond will be psychologically prepared for Jackson’s innocence or for the ramifications of perpetuating what they may have known was a blatant lie in the first place.

Menu     Part IV

Endnotes:

1Schone, Mark. “Tabloid TV.” Salon.Com Archived Articles. Apr. 9, 1997. (http://www.salon.com/april97/tabloidtv2970409.html)

2Wallenstein, Andrew. “Court TV Coup: Diane Dimond Lands Another Scoop.” The Hollywood Reporter. 20 Nov. 2003. (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/television/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2032800)

3Court TV Online – Michael Jackson Accused. Transcripts. 15 Jan. 2004. (http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0115jackson-dimond.html)

4“The Big Story Weekend with Rita Cosby.” 27 Mar. 2004. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=545)

5“Analysis of Michael Jackson Arrest.” Larry King Live. CNN. 24 Nov. 2003.

6“‘Love Letters’ Story from London Tabloid?” MJEOL Bullets. MJEOL. 24 Nov. 2003. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=319)

7The Abrams Report. MSNBC. 15 Jun. 2004. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5224531)

8Court TV Online – Michael Jackson Accused. Transcripts. 16 Jun. 2004. (http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0616jackson-dimond.html)

9“Michael Jackson’s Big Payoff.” The Smoking Gun. 16 Jun. 2004. Courtroom Television Network. 21 Jun. 2004. (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html)

10“Catherine Crier Live.” Court TV. 17 Jul. 2004. (http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=729)

11 Atherton, J.S. “Learning and Teaching: Cognitive Dissonance.” 2003. (http://www.dmu.ac.uk/~jamesa/learning/dissonance.htm)

12Bauder, David. “Diane Dimond’s reporting has put Court TV at forefront of Jackson story.” The Standard Times. 5 Jan. 2004: Pg. B1

Part IV – Jury Pool Tainting, Gag Order Style

One of the customary acts of a judge who presides over a high-profile case such as the Michael Jackson case is to issue a gag order, binding all parties pertinent to the case to silence in order to prevent leaks and to maintain fairness for both sides. Not surprisingly, the minute Michael Jackson was arrested, his former defense attorney Mark Geragos called a press conference declaring the innocence of his client and labelling the latest accuser’s mother a scam artist. Shortly after, there a gag order was issued and press conferences became a thing of the past. This was supposed to prevent public grandstanding, jury tainting, and leaking of prejudicial information that could prevent Mr. Jackson from receiving a fair trial. Despite these limitations, however, Tom Sneddon has creatively found several viable and willing avenues by which to sidestep that trite and flimsy thing known as a gag order:

TELLEM INTERNATIONAL

Susan TellemAsk anyone in the public relations business (other than Susan Tellem, of course) whether or not there is any issue with a public relations firm representing a District Attorney’s office and you might get more than your share of stares and questions. Yet, Sneddon and Ms. Tellem insist that Tellem International is merely handling media requests and concerns for the sake of efficiency. In addition, Ms. Tellem offered her services for free. Wow! Score one point for benevolence! Not.

Tellem, via its prime connections to Sneddon’s Girl Friday Diane Dimond and other major media outlets like Fox, has been instrumental in spreading poisonous and venomous stories about Jackson. Even worse, the firm also managed to sponsor jury tainting stories that have been carried by such illustrious news programs as the Dan Abrams show and Catherine Crier Live. There are far too many examples of these shady jury pool tainting tactics. Consider this crass comment from their website concerning the case and their standing in it:

“The first thing you learn in Journalism School is to check sources. Some media have relied on third-tier sources like Brian Oxman, a self-appointed Jackson family spokesman, to do their fact checking for them. This has resulted in inaccurate information. We request that media give us call if they need to check facts.”1

It simply makes little sense to us that a public relations firm with no bias concerning Jackson’s guilt or innocence would be accusing a Jackson defense attorney of lying. This statement is an obvious attempt to discredit any source that provides information that contradicts what their client would like to surface. Contrary to popular belief, the majority of reliable sources are the ones providing information favorable to the defense.

In addition, Tellem should be the very last place for one to “check facts” considering that they only know how to tell one side of a story. We do understand that they are faithfully representing their client; however, they would do well to take others to task for merely saying things their “client” would agree with.

When Tellem is not taking personal swipes at Jackson attorneys and supporters, they are pushing the envelope of professional ethics. Consider one of their prime acts as representatives for the prosecution: “In addition, Tellem used AP as a breaking news tool since the DA’s office had no budget for BusinessWire or other fast acting national distribution service. When a story needed telling, Tellem contacted AP, and they put it on the wire immediately.” But Tellem gets even bolder concerning their “mission” when they remind us that “On January 8, 2004, the DA requested a gag order, which remains in place. While this has reduced the number of calls, each time there is a court appearance, they begin again. An unexpected consequence of working with the DA were death threats from Jackson fans (these were turned over to the FBI).”2

We are simply floored by the blurring of professional and ethical lines in the media. How are we to receive objective news from AP when Tellem uses it as its own little mouthpiece to spread the gospel of Sneddon? One would think that Tellem had the “budget” to use BusinessWire to accommodate their client. We are not simply arguing that they do not have the right but merely pointing out the blurring of ethical lines that could jeopardize news on any case or issue being reported objectively.

Equally troubling to us are the claims that Jackson fans have threatened Tellem. We do not under any circumstance condone any so-called fan threatening the life of anyone regardless of what side of this case they happen to be on. Such behavior is not only illegal and abominable but morally repugnant. We do, however, believe that it is absolutely necessary that such claims be followed up and reported on in order to remove the specter or stain of guilt upon anyone who supports Jackson or may happen to be a fan.

JIM THOMAS

For someone who has not been sheriff of Santa Barbara since 2003, Jim Thomas sure has gotten a great deal of mileage out of tossing his status around on television in order to cop TV time. Thomas of course has been a mouthpiece for Sneddon over the last eleven years. Eager for face time and free drinks (please Dimond segment), Thomas has done nothing but lie on national television, repeating his mantra that he knows of numerous “other victims” who are too afraid to come forward and accuse Jackson.

Thomas, from the time this nonsensical railroad job began, has made a big issue that Jackson’s settling of the 1993 allegations should be a strong indication that the pop legend is guilty and clearly has something to hide.

One has to wonder, however, if Thomas really believes this since he was a part of a settlement in February 2001 involving the Santa Barbara County Libertarian Party (SBLP). The SBLP had accused the good former sheriff of misappropriation of tax payer dollars after he apparently used $10,000 to produce an endorsement video of a measure he was supporting. Thomas insisted that the $15,000 settlement that Santa Barbara County officials procured “doesn’t assign blame. It is an agreement between sides not to go any further.” Of course, Bill Hansult, the attorney representing the SBLP in the case, had another take. “In essence, the sheriff stole taxpayer money, defended himself with taxpayer money, and the fine was paid with taxpayer money.”3

This is not the first time actions attributed to Thomas or his department has cost Santa Barbara big money. Thomas and his merry band of deputies also cost Santa Barbara County taxpayers a cool $1 million after some of his subordinates allegedly beat up two men at a bar in Lompoc in 2001.4 If we follow Thomas’ line of reasoning that a settlement on Jackson’s part is a clear sign of guilt, then what are we to make of the settlements he was involved in?

We are not surprised that Thomas is involved in the current case against Mr. Jackson. After all, according to one source, he was spotted having drinks after a court hearing with Diane Dimond and Maureen Orth, two tabloid writers who are anything but objective when it comes to reporting on Jackson. From what we understand, the loquacious Thomas appeared to be mighty chummy with Dimond and Orth.

RAY CHANDLER

Ray Chandler is the kind of uncle anyone would want to have. He spends countless years selling his “story” of sordid tales of the sexual abuse of his “victimized” nephew Jordan Chandler. Furthermore, he continues to show his love for his nephew by writing a book about the boy’s alleged ordeal, questioning the young man’s sexuality, and continuing to profit off of an alleged childhood incidence of sexual abuse at the hands of a living music legend. Of course, there is no mention as to whether Chandler’s troubled nephew will receive any of the proceeds from All That Glitters, a book that tells the story of a poorly written sham with as much flatness and banal imagery as one would find in a Bill O’Reilly novel (Yes, he wrote one and it is a flaming hot mess).

To put it succinctly, Ray Chandler is a liar. Hence, it should not be shocking that, in an attempt to perpetuate a distorted and felonious image of Jackson, Dateline NBC used this man as a source for a number of their damaging exposes concerning the case. But do not think for a minute that Chandler suddenly stumbled upon the idea to use an alleged devastating incident to his own economic gain. Chandler has been hocking his version of the events surrounding the 1993 allegations for several years. In 1998, Chandler claimed to have already had what we now call All That Glitters completed and even threatened to release dozens of pages of the project onto the Internet.5

Even more ridiculous was a 1995 interview he conducted with Entertainment Weekly in which he claimed that despite Jackson’s alleged victimization of his nephew, “It’s too bad to see his career take the hit it did and we all hope he gets it back.”6 Does this care and concern for Jackson and his career square with the care and concern one would have for a predator who preys on innocent children? This simply does not make sense.

The contradictions did not stop with this nearly ten year old interview. In his book All That Glitters, Chandler makes a number of bumbling and utterly ridiculous contradictory statements about the 1993 case.

First, he admits that the main reason media whore lawyer Gloria Allred was dismissed as the leading attorney for Evan Chandler and his son was because she was too insistent on seeking media attention. He maintains that the last thing his brother Evan and his brother’s attorney Barry Rothman wanted was too much media attention since they wanted to settle the case quietly and get the money as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Enter crooked tort lawyer and crooked toothed Larry Feldman.

Such an admission is utterly amazing. Ray Chandler rants throughout the book about how irate and disturbed Evan Chandler was over the possibility that Mr. Jackson had molested his son. It is highly unlikely that the average father would have taken great pains to protect the privacy of the man who victimized his young son unless of course there was no molestation, just a merciless scam to get money from the unsuspecting Jackson. Clearly Evan Chandler was more concerned with getting his multi-million dollar settlement than he was with his son. In a phrase, it was “all about the benjamins.”

Another ridiculous and contradictory element of Chandler’s book was the documentation he provided to support his claims. Contrary to his claim that his documents provide the hard facts of Jackson’s guilt, they actually point to something altogether different. For instance, the authenticity of several documents has been called into question by Barry Rothman’s former secretary Geraldine Hughes. On MJJF.com, Ms. Hughes insisted that she is certain that a number of the documents purported to be typed by her are actual forgeries since she did not type them.7 Her accusation is also supported by clear evidence of the forgery of Barry Rothman’s signature. Compare the following signatures:

Though none involved with the Veritas Project are, as far as we know, handwriting experts, the Three Blind Mice could see that the “Rothman” signatures do not match. Even more remarkable is the fact that one of the documents is not even signed by “Rothman.” It is one thing to use authentic legal documents to substantiate your point. It is quite another thing, however, to use falsified papers to attempt to do the same. One could wonder how Ray Chandler, a lawyer since 2001, could commit such an act of fraud in a book not even worth the paper it is written on. However, considering that Chandler got his “law” degree from the very college where Tom Sneddon “teaches” law students every unethical thing he knows, one has to assume that Chandler took notes well from his master.

Some of Chandler’s “proof” supplied at the end of his book actually support the claims of Hughes and Mary Fischer, the investigative reporter who wrote the GQ Magazine article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” The documents concerning the custody issues as well the negotiations between then-Jackson investigator Anthony Pellicano and Barry Rothman only support what Hughes and Fischer wrote, not what Chandler is trying to put over on us.

Perhaps the most despicable element about Chandler’s book is its dogged portrayal of Michael Jackson’s sexuality. The loving uncle spends essentially the entire book trying to get readers to believe one thing: Michael Jackson is a closet homosexual. Chandler even tries to cite psychological studies to prove that Jackson is a gay pedophile. Consider this quote: “Whatever the nature of his son’s relationship with Michael, Evan believed the singer truly loved Jordie and would not put either of their lives in jeopardy just to conceal his homosexuality.”8 Chandler makes this comment after a discussion about Evan Chandler’s concerns that Jackson may have been exposed to the AIDS virus due to being treated by a dentist who was allegedly infected with the deadly virus.

Chandler’s assumption that Jackson is gay is also supposed to be supported by a “love letter” Jackson allegedly wrote to Jordan:

“[Boy’s name], you’re not only my cousin but also my best friend. I can’t stop loving your mother and sister. I have found true love in all of you. If more people were like us the world would change instantly. I have such golden dreams for you. I want you to be a giant in the industry. You are my new inspiration. I love you. Doo doo head. Applehead. Disneyland soon. Love, doo doo. Call soon, bye, doo doo head. Tell Mom I love her.”9

The substance of the letter is not convincing. In fact, one would be better served inferring Jackson’s fondness for Jordan’s mother June rather than for the boy. Anyone who can detect the slightest sexual tension or innuendo between Jackson and the boy needs as much counseling as Jackson critics claim he needs. If nothing else, the letter he leaked to prove Jackson’s proclivity for Jordan actually shows Jackson having a loving relationship with Jordie’s entire family, particularly Jordan’s mother June as well as his sister. It is not the least bit shocking that Chandler may have been a source for Victor Gutierrez’s horrific bookMichael Jackson Was My Lover (more on that nonsense later).

Shamefully, Ray Chandler’s book has garnered more attention than Ms. Hughes’ Redemption, a book whose documentation is far more reliable than the former. Even worse, NBC has placed a great deal of faith in Chandler’s lies, giving him a place on another Jackson-bashing Dateline exclusive in September 2004. But the media feeds on sensational lies and innuendos to grab big ratings and advertising dollars. There is, however, one silver lining in this dark cloud of a sham: Ray Chandler did get the attention of someone with his stories – Jackson’s defense attorneys, who promptly subpoenaed him as a “custodian of documents.” Now, the caring uncle will get to tell an eager audience of his “peers” whether or not the documents he has been shopping around to the media are actually authentic. In addition, he will have to explain how he, not even a part of this 1993 settlement, has possession of those records. Ray Chandler, you’re going to be a STAR!

VICTOR GUTIERREZ: TABLOID FUGITIVE

As damaging as Diane Dimond’s and Ray Chandler’s respective smear campaigns have been against Jackson, none of their activities could have been possible without the help of Victor Gutierrez. In 1997, Victor Gutierrez released Michael Jackson was my Lover, a tell-all book that describes in detail the alleged relationship that took place between Michael Jackson and his accuser. Included in Gutierrez’s supposed expose are exclusive documents from the case, never before seen photographs of Jordan Chandler and excerpts from a “secret diary” that was allegedly kept by the boy. Because this information could have only been provided to Gutierrez by somebody close to the case, many began to speculate that the accuser’s father Evan Chandler might have assisted Gutierrez in writing the book.

In addition, this sophomoric, pornographic, C-Level farce of a book claimed that Jackson had given the boy a venereal disease. One book reviewer described Michael Jackson was my Lover as a “pedophiliac opus” and recounted some of the salacious details contained in the book: “…the photo section alone includes sketches of the [Jackson’s] genitalia, photos of the ‘actual bathroom’ where alleged sexual transgression took place, as well as snapshots of one of the reputed victim’s ‘shit and urine stain[ed]’ underwear… results of [the boy’s] VD test, explicit transcripts detailing [Jackson’s] seduction techniques… [and] the identities of several other child stars who reportedly had sex with Jackson.”10 Needless to say, the book was banned from the United States due to its explicit content.

Shortly after releasing Michael Jackson was my Lover, Gutierrez began making the TV rounds. During an appearance on the tabloid television show Hard Copy, Gutierrez told reporter Diane Dimond that he had seen a videotape of Michael Jackson molesting his nephew Jeremy. According to Gutierrez, the alleged tape had been captured by one of Jackson’s security cameras and given to the boy’s mother by an unknown source. Upon viewing the tape’s contents, Gutierrez says, the mother contacted the Los Angeles Police Department only to have her claims ignored by investigators. Unsure of what to do, she got in contact with Gutierrez, arranged a meeting with him in a hotel room and showed him the alleged tape.

“And now she is scared,” Gutierrez told Dimond. “The District Attorney is trying to get these tapes and I guess through my sources, they already (sic) been in contact with the mother. So, it’s up to the mother now to make the final decision.”11

LEGAL FALLOUT

In response to the allegations, Jackson filed a defamation of character lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez and Hard Copy. During the civil proceedings, the boy’s mother Margaret Maldonado testified that, contrary to what Gutierrez had reported, neither of her two sons had been molested by Jackson, she had not received any money from Jackson and she had never met Victor Gutierrez.12

Maldonado later discussed the case in her book Jackson Family Values:

“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 L.A. radio station KABC-AM on 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.”13

In court, Gutierrez could not produce the videotape that he claimed to have viewed and he refused to reveal his source. According to Jackson’s attorney Zia Modabber, “Gutierrez told a D.A. Investigator and two witnesses who testified at the trial that the boy’s mother was his source. He told anyone who would listen. The only people he would not tell were the ladies and gentlemen of his jury – that’s when he became ethical. Now he’s getting on his high horse saying he’s protecting his source.”

Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn ruled that Gutierrez’s story was false and the jury subsequently awarded Jackson $2.7 million in damages. “[Gutierrez] made the whole thing up, and we sued him for it,” Modabber said.14

According to Ruben Rasso, a member of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, Gutierrez then fled from the United States and moved to Chile in order to avoid paying Jackson the money.15

In November 2003, when Jackson was accused of child molestation for a second time, Gutierrez began giving interviews about the case to Chilean newspapers. He claimed that the new set of allegations validated the contents of his book and as a result, Jackson had defamed his character and now owed him money. Gutierrez even went so far as to say that Jackson’s 2,700-acre ranch would soon be his.16

During an interview with La Cuarta, Gutierrez alleged that Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon had contacted him about being a potential witness in the current case against Jackson. A week later, a member of the District Attorney’s office contacted La Cuarta to refute those claims.17

In early 2004, Gutierrez was offered $25, 000 a month from Dateline NBC to cover the Jackson case. He accepted the offer and is now a consulting producer for the news program. Given the fact that Gutierrez has irrefutably fabricated stories about Jackson in the past, one must question NBC’s decision to hire Gutierrez to cover the case.18

Recently, Dateline NBC aired a report entitled Inside the Michael Jackson Case; the credits reveal that Gutierrez was the consulting producer for the program. Not surprisingly, Inside the Michael Jackson Case was heavily slanted in favour of the prosecution’s version of events and was laced with numerous falsehoods, half-truths and innuendos. Again, Gutierrez is a proven liar, particularly when it comes to Michael Jackson. Is NBC intentionally trying to taint the jury pool by hiring a man who clearly has an axe to grind with Jackson to produce a program about his case?

So far, NBC has not commented on Gutierrez’s involvement with Inside the Michael Jackson Case. How this man has enough credibility to have a job with ANY network is beyond belief. Whether due to hypnotic stupidity or mean-spirited revenge against Jackson, Gutierrez and Dateline have turned trashing Jackson into an Olympic sport. But rest assured, we see Gutierrez involved in another Olympic sport once Jackson’s good name has been cleared: dodging a subpoena.

Menu     Epilogue

Endnotes:

1“Tried by the Media.” Spin of the Day. PR Watch Forums. 26 Dec. 2003. (http://www.prwatch.org/forum/showthread.php?p=6983&mode=linear)

2“Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office – Michael Jackson Case.” Case Histories. Tellem Worldwide. 2004. (http://www.tellem.com/case_histories_santa_barbara_da.html)

3Moeeziai, Ladan. “SB Board of Supervisors Pays SB Libertarian Party Settlement.” Daily Nexus Online. 7 Feb. 2001. (http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2001/345.html)

4White, Karen. “Man files suit against 8 officers.” The Santa Maria Times. 5 Mar. 2002.

5South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), October 31, 1998.

6Diana Kennedy et al, “Can He Beat It?” Entertainment Weekly. 16 Jun. 1995.

7Hughes, Geraldine. “Redemption vs. All that Glitters.” Online Posting. MJJForum. 13 Sept. 2004. (http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36789)

8Chandler, Ray. All That Glitters. Las Vegas: Windsong Press LTD, 2004, 51.

9Friedman, Roger. “MJ First Accuser: Parents Thought he was Gay.” Fox 411. Fox News.(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131860,00.html)

10Book Review – Victor Gutierrez

11MICHAEL JACKSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

12Ryan, Joal. “Michael Jackson’s Victory.” Latest News. E! Online News. (http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,2828,00.html)

13Maldonado, Margaret. Jackson Family Values. 1998. California: Dove Books.

14Robb, David. “$2.7 million to Jackson for free-lancer’s sex-tape lie.” The Hollywood Reporter. 13 Apr. 1998.

15“Jackson arriesga más que la cárcel: Podría perder hasta a sus tres hijos.” La Cuarta. 24 Nov. 2003. (http://www.lacuarta.cl/diario/2003/11/24/24.23.4a.ESP.JACKSON.html)

16“Víctor Gutiérrez prepara revancha: ‘El rancho de Jackson será mío…'” La Cuarta. 22 Nov. 2003. (http://www.lacuarta.cl/diario/2003/11/22/22.17.4a.ESP.GUTIERREZ.html)

17Ibid

18“Jackson arriesga más que la cárcel: Podría perder hasta a sus tres hijos.” La Cuarta. 24 Nov. 2003. (http://www.lacuarta.cl/diario/2003/11/24/24.23.4a.ESP.JACKSON.html)

19“Víctor Gutiérrez firmó millonario contrato.” El Diario Austral de Valdivia. 4 Jan. 2004. (http://www.australvaldivia.cl/site/edic/20040104042125/pags/20040104053827.html)

20Mankiewicz, Josh. “New Details About 1993 Jackson Case.” Dateline NBC. MSNBC. 3 Sept. 2004. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5906855)

Epilogue

To say that all of Michael Jackson’s enemies have converged in Santa Barbara might be an understatement. Contrary to the flimsy observations of the likes of paperboy Dan Abrams of “The Dan Abrams Show” as well as those of media ho Diane Dimond, this is a setup, folks. Just take a look at our chart below. One would have to suffer from cataracts not to see the “pattern” of conspiracy perpetrated against Jackson, not by him.

From the very beginning, the 2003 case against Michael Jackson looked like a bad rerun of 1993 with essentially the same cast of ridiculous characters:

Click on the image to view how the following people are connected to one another.

When persons involved with this project first resolved to do it, we took it on with the sole purpose of reporting what mainstreaming media appears to be afraid to report. For reasons still not clear (alright we think we know why), few if any news/media outlets have even touched on the subject of the suspicious involvement of virtually the same players from the 1993 allegations in the latest case against Mr. Jackson. It is our hope that persons reading this report will take the time to ponder what we have found, process the information, and decide for themselves. We are particularly hopeful that journalists interested in reporting the story as objectively as possible will consider this modest offering and perhaps decide to investigate both sides of the case for themselves. All we can do is hope.

The Veritas Project

All credit for article goes to the following page: http://mjjr.net/content/mjcase/part1.html

More coming soon, stay tuned. In the Mean time enjoy the following videos

May 10, 2010:

“… I want to ask the judges why they didn’t demand that Tom Sneddon be indicted for falsifying evidence in the Michael Jackson trial. I was a witness… I was right there in the courtroom, watched him get caught falsifying the fingerprints evidence, the phone evidence that they tried to create saying it was a conspiracy. Half a day on that! Then Tom Sneddon wanted to withdraw it from the evidence pool in the court. No, the Defender Tomas Mesereau said “That stays on”. The jury looked at all this evidence: “There is no way we can convict this guy. We got a pile of crap from Tom Sneddon”.

This guy literally falsified evidence and it is under record. This thing which he did to Michael Jackson was so beyond the pale of forgiveness. Thomas Sneddon should be serving time in prison. You cannot falsify evidence and then just say, “Oh, we lost the case”. No, no..

He had that boy put his fingerprints on the magazine at the grand jury and the reason we know that is because the alert Tom Mesereau the Defense Attorney got the grand jury transcript and one the jurors said: “Shouldn’t that boy be wearing gloves?”. Then after the grand jury they sent it out for fingerprints analysis.

So when did the boy have his fingerprints on the magazine when the boy testified he hadn’t even been at Neverland for months when that magazine was published? And yet he claimed it was the magazine Michael Jackson gave him in bed.

If the DA were green behind the ears and he made a stupid mistake like giving the evidence to a boy and then sending it out… Ok, he made a mistake and we could let it go. But 25 years?

We shouldn’t be forgiving Tom Sneddon. The man should be serving time in jail… The man is guilty as sin”.

  • William Wagener

True Crime Tv – Michael Jackson reported by Aphrodite Jones

Martin Bashir Set Michael Jackson up!

B. J. Hickman reports on the non-trial/court appearance of Janet ARVIZO in L.A. for WELFARE FRAUD, which was also proven during the Michael J. Jackson 2005 phony b.s. – molestation trial.

The Jurors from the trial

 

Chris Tucker 2005 Trial.jpg

 

For further reading of this Chris Tucker article:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/25/jackson.trial/

Also, thanks to Deborah Kunesh at Reflections on the Dance for receiving information from April Smith, an employee of the County of Los Angeles. She provided the following information.

Tom Sneddons Secret Motives For Michael Jackson WitchHunt Revealed  Tom Sneddons Secret Motives For Michael Jackson WitchHunt Revealed2

Tom Sneddons Secret Motives For Michael Jackson WitchHunt Revealed33

To read and see more, PLEASE visit her blog! http://reflectionsonthedance.blogspot.com/

Her in-depth, blog  http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/

 

20.jpg

https://mjjtruthnow.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/rumors-vs-facts-1993-and-2003-cases/

 

William Wagener Interviews MJ’s Women:

My nagging question is, why MJ attorneys did not bring in the 4 or 5 gorgeous women, MJ has secretly dated over the past years to prove he is…. well…. normal. To me that would have put more “REASONABLE DOUBT”. I have spoken to two, and they both said, it is part of the deal. If MJ trusts you to date him you can’t blab about it to the tabloids or anyone. Okay. I understand, and that is smart, but heck his life, his kids, his freedom is on the line here. MJ won’t budge. His girlfriends keep their mouths shut. MJ keeps his shut.”

NEW! 2003 Michael Jackson Accuser’s former classmate speaks out!

 

 

 

Gavin and his siblings BEGGED MJ to sleep in his room

 

Next post: Michael Jackson and Martin Bashir – Why A Positive + Negative Will ALWAYS Equal A Negative