Resource material about the allegations against Michael

HIStory · May 18, 2013

Guys, with Wade Robson's new allegations against Michael you see a lot of falsehoods rehashed about Michael in the media. We have already seen Blanca Francia, Jason Francia and Adrian McManus being interviewed and/or referenced by tabloids - without enligthening the public about what came out about them during the trial.

So I thought it would be useful if I made a seperate resource thread about all those people and the allegations in general with articles that fans can use if they need info or if they have to educate the open-minded segment of the general public about these allegations and the people who make them. If the mods feel fit they can make it a sticky topic.

Table of Content

Blanca and Jason Francia (page 1)

Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool, Adrian McManus (page 1)

The Settlement (page 1)

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police? (page 1)

Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson (page 1)

The LeMarques' allegations and Paul Barresi (page 1)

The Chandlers' Monetary Demands (page 1)

The Media's Role In The Allegations Against Michael Jackson (page 2)

HIStory · May 18, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Blanca and Jason Francia

As discussed it in this article [link] despite an extensive and costly investigation. the prosecution still struggled to find corroborating victims to support the Chandlers’ allegations. In 1993 police officers interviewed 40-60 children who had either spent time with Jackson or at his Neverland Ranch. None of the children corroborated the accuser’s story. They all told authorities that they had never been molested by the star and he had never done anything inappropriate to them.

In desperation, the prosecution engaged in questionable tactics, which are detailed in the above mentioned article, but that still did not result in the discovery of more alleged victims, with the exception of one boy: Jason Francia. He was the only young man whom the prosecution was able to put on the stand in support of the Arvizo allegations at Jackson’s 2005 trial as well. On the other hand, Jackson’s defense put several young men on the stand in support of Jackson – young men about whom the prosecution had previously alleged they were victims based on testimonies of third party “witnesses”. The young men denied the prosecution’s claims and testified that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to them.

Jason Francia was not the only one member of the Francia family who made allegations against Jackson, his mother, Blanca Francia made allegations as well. Let’s take a look at this family, what they alleged and how those allegations emerged.

Blanca Francia

Blanca Francia was an illegal immigrant from El Salvador who worked as a maid for Jackson between 1986 and 1991. She first gained notoriety in December 1993, when she appeared on Diane Dimond’s tabloid television show, Hard Copy and claimed she had witnessed Jackson allegedly showering in the nude with a young boy during the time she worked for him. As it was later revealed, and as she also admitted during Jackson’s 2005 trial, she received $20,000 from Hard Copy [1]. Although she left her job at Jackson’s more than two years before the Hard Copy interview, and allegedly she quit in disgust, she was not disgusted enough to report to authorities what she allegedly witnessed. In actuality, she never mentioned the story to anyone before the Chandler scandal went public in 1993. As a matter of fact, in 1993, while being deposed, Blanca admitted that she had never seen Jackson showering in the nude with anyone. She complained that Hard Copy edited her interview in such a way that she seemed to say things she had never actually said.

Meanwhile, there were ex-employees of Jackson who went public to defend the entertainer from Francia's allegations. Jackson's former maid, Shanda Lujan, who worked with Blanca Francia at Neverland, said of Francia's claims: "I think it's ridiculous. He was great with kids. I think he'd make a very good father. He's just wonderful with them." [2] Another former maid, Francin Orosco said that Blanca Francia was very possessive of Jackson: "You could tell a lot that she had a little crush on him, very jealous of the other housekeepers. She didn't want no one close to Michael. There's a lot of jealousy there." [2]

The claim that Hard Copy edited her interview and the fact she admitted in a 1993-94 deposition that she never saw Jackson shower naked with anyone, did not prevent the prosecution from putting Blanca Francia on the stand at Jackson’s 2005 trial, where she went back to her Hard Copy story and now alleged again that she did witness Jackson shower naked with a young boy, Wade Robson. In 2005 her explanation for the contradiction with her 1993-94 depositions was that “Well, at that time I guess I was tired and nervous, I guess”[1].

On direct examination during Jackson’s 2005 trial, Blanca Francia claimed that once while Wade Robson was visiting with Jackson, she walked into Jackson’s bedroom suite and heard voices laughing and playing coming from the bathroom. She claimed when she went up to see what was going on, she saw two pairs of underwear in front of the shower belonging to Jackson and Wade Robson. She claimed she could identify Robson’s underwear because she used to do the laundry for the guests of Neverland. She claimed she witnessed two figures inside the shower through the fogged up window of the shower, the size and of Jackson and Robson, and she heard the voices of Jackson and Robson. [1]

On cross-examination Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau confronted Francia with the fact that in her 1993-94 depositions she admitted that she only saw one figure in the shower.

Q. Okay. You only saw one person in the shower, right?

A. I saw him in the shower and the little kid.
Q. But in your deposition you said you could only see one person, but you heard giggling, right?
A. Yeah, but I hear two people --
Q. You heard two people. You could only see one through the glass, right?
A. Mostly, yeah. Mostly. [1]

[…]

Q. Do you remember in the deposition saying you never saw anyone else in the shower but Mr. Jackson?
A. I don’t think I say that.
Q. Would it refresh your recollection if I show you the transcript?
A. Okay.
[…]
Q. Have you had a chance to look at that page of the deposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it refresh your memory about what you said about the shower?
A. Yeah.
Q. You saw one person, Mr. Jackson, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Or it looked like him through the glass, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the only voice you really heard was Mr. Jackson, correct?
A. No.
Q. That wasn’t correct?
A. I hear two -- two. [1]

Although Francia still insisted she heard two voices, in her 1993-94 depositions at one point she admitted she actually heard only one.

Q. Do you remember you were asked in your deposition, “Did you hear anything else other than Michael laughing?” And you said, “No”?

A. Yeah.
Q. Was that the truth?

A. Yes.[1]

It also has to be noted that according to Francia’s testimony the water was running and the radio was on while she claimed to hear all those voices - or one voice, considering which of version of her testimony you want to believe.

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->
 A month later, when Jackson’s defense presented their side of the case, they called Wade Robson himself to testify. Wade Robson by this time was an adult man. He was adamant that Jackson never molested him and was never inappropriate with him in any way and more specifically, that they never showered together.

Q. Have you ever taken a shower with Mr. Jackson?

A. No.[3]

and

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

A. No. Never been in a shower with him. [3]

and

Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today, that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson molested you?

A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest you at any time?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?
A. Never, no.
Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever inappropriately touched any part of your body at any time?
A. No. [3]

During Blanca Francia’s testimony it was also revealed that she stole things from Jackson’s bedroom, such as a watch or a jacket. She and the prosecution attempted to downplay these thefts by claiming the watch Blanca took from Jackson's bedroom was not an expensive item, just some promotional material, and by claiming that she did not try to hide from Jackson that she took those items: “At one time I was wearing it, one of his jackets, and he say -- and he told me that it was his jacket. And I say, “Yeah, I was cold.” And he say, “Oh, that’s okay” [1], she said.

On another occasion, Francia was caught looking into the purse of another employee, Gayle Goforth. Francia said she did that to see how much Goforth was paid. It was claimed on Hard Copy that Blanca Francia left her employment at Neverland in disgust because of what she claimed to have seen occur between Jackson and little boys but incidents like these are a far more likely reason of why she had to leave.

During her testimony in 2005, Blanca Francia also admitted that in 1993, besides Hard Copy, she contemplated selling her story to the National Enquirer. One of the reporters who used to work for the Enquirer, Jim Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. When he died his tapes were inherited by private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi. The Mitteager tapes reportedly include a conversation in which it is claimed that in 1993, Enquirer reporter, Lydia Encinas befriended Blanca Francia and at the time allegedly helped transcribe Francia’s police interview. On the Mitteager tapes, Enquirer editor, David Perel tells Mitteager on March 23, 1994, that: “the reason why Lydia Encinas is involved is because she speaks Spanish and she’s got a good relationship with Blanca.” [4]

In April 2005, journalist, Michelle Caruso claimed to have questioned detective Russ Birchim, who interviewed Francia in 1993, about Encinas' involvement. “Lydia Encinas was not the translator. But I did meet with her in Los Angeles” [4], answered Birchim. "Caruso also noted, that when asked to explain why, in the course of a criminal investigation, he had met up with a National Enquirer reporter in the first place – Birchim refused to elaborate." [4]

Another journalist, Victor Gutierrez, also claimed to have befriended Blanca Francia [5]. To explore why this connection is significant, please see our article about Gutierrez’s involvement in the allegations against Michael Jackson [link].

Jason Francia

While Blanca Francia accused Jackson of being inappropriate with Wade Robson, her son, Jason too made allegations against the star: he claimed Jackson inappropriately tickled him three times during the period his mother was employed by the entertainer.

When the police first interviewed Jason Francia in 1993, the only boy claiming abuse by Jackson was the original accuser, Jordan Chandler. The police interviewed dozens of children but could not find any other child willing to corroborate the Chandlers' claims, despite the investigators engaging in questionable methods [link]. This is how they got to Blanca Francia’s then 13-year-old son, Jason, on November 4, 1993 and then again on March 24, 1994. It was the police who initiated the contact, Blanca and Jason Francia never turned to authorities.

To the police, Jason Francia initially denied that Jackson had ever done anything inappropriate to him. He said: "I’ll just say this out flat. I don’t remember him trying anything with me except for the tickling" [6]. When the police pressured him to “remember” wrongdoings by Jackson, he maintained: "If I don’t remember, I don’t remember" [6].

At Jackson’s 2005 trial, Jason claimed that he initially denied improprietybecause of embarrassment. However, audio tapes and the police transcripts of his 1993-94 interviews reveal how investigators pressured and lead him to create allegations against the star. In a Motion in opposition to the DA's Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses, Jackson’s defense classified these interviews as “textbook examples of improperly suggestive interrogations” [7].

A paper written by Kenneth E. Blackstone
(http://www.blackstonepolygraph.com/articles/Fallibility_of_Forensic_Interviewing.pdf), a member of the American College of Forensic Examiners International and an expert of sexual offense investigation explains how interviewing methods can make a child’s testimony tainted and unreliable, leading to false allegations.<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

On page 11-12 of his paper, Blackstone lists nine factors which raise suspicion of improper interrogations techniques that can lead to false allegations. Those are:

- Absence of spontaneous recall;

- Interviewer bias against defendant - a preconceived idea of what the child should be disclosing;
- Repeated leading questions;
- Multiple interviews;
- Incessant questioning;
- Vilification of defendant;
- Ongoing contact with peers and references to their statements;
- Use of threats, bribes and cajoling; and
- Failure to videotape or otherwise document the initial interview sessions.

Eight of those nine factors (1-8) can be observed in the interrogations of Jason Francia.

For example, on November 4, 1993, in a police interview, Francia told investigators he did not remember Jackson ever putting his hand anywhere that made him feel uncomfortable. Detective Vincent Neglia was not satisfied with that answer and made it very clear what answer he would be satisfied with, by suggesting to the boy that his memories were wrong and blatantly suggesting what he should “remember”:

Det. Neglia: Okay, but what I am getting at is that maybe I am not being obvious enough. What I am saying is maybe he put his hands someplace on you where he shouldn’t have. Maybe he put his hands on you someplace that made you feel uncomfortable. And that’s why you are not remembering. It's like there is a little bit of "Oh, I can't remember that guy's name and I don't remember his last name, and I just don' remember that. No I don't want to remember that, no I can't remember." It’s a little of bit of a different kind of not remembering, one is because you are choosing not to, and one is that you just can’t call back the uh, the event. And I think of what you doing is tickling and all this stuff, is trying forcing yourself not to remember. And you also kind of got to the one where you're saying that fourth time at the party you said something like, "That was the time." What time was it Jason: What was the time?“ [7]

At other times during the interviews investigators lied to the boy and said that other boys, such as Macaulay Culkin, had been molested by Jackson and the only way they could rescue them was if Jason said incriminating things about Jackson.

“Det. Neglia: I realize how hard this is. I realize how painful it is to think of these things you tried so hard not to think about but you are doing fine. And you are also helping the kid that he is bothering now.

Jason Francia: What do you mean he’s bothering?
Det. Birchim: He’s doing the same thing.
Jason Francia: Macaulay Culkin.
Det. Neglia: Only he’s getting a lot more into it. Like your mother pulled you out of there. Macaulay’s mother is not going to pull him out of there. They are feeding him.
Det. Birchim: He’s doing worse stuff.
Det. Neglia: It’s much worse with him.” [7]

They claimed Corey Feldman had drug problems because Jackson molested him:

“Det. Neglia: He’s a junkie now, he gets arrested, he doesn’t act or anything. He gets high. He packs his nose with cocaine and he’s going to die by the time he is 22 years old.

Jason Francia: How old is he?
Det. Neglia: About 21. But that’s the kind of life he is living, and it’s got to do with being exposed to people like this, and having nobody to protect them and to take them out.
Det. Birchim: Like you had your mom.
Det. Neglia: Like your mom pulled you out, and you’re, you’re candid, and you’re (sic) honesty with us is going to help us. To pull the next kid out, it might even be too late for Macauly (sic) already. But these kids that he’s traveling with are on tour right now. Maybe we can pull them out of it… “ [7]

Both Culkin and Feldman stated very firmly to authorities and the public alike that Jackson never molested them and never touched them in an inappropriate way.

The investigators referred to Jackson as a “molester”[6] in their interviews with Francia, even though they did not have any evidence against him. They also used derogatory profanity against Jackson, for example, saying: “he makes great music, he’s a great guy, bullshit" [6]. At one point, after the investigators told Francia what they thought Jackson did to him, the boy said "Well, I’ll have to work on that" [6]. In one of the interviews Francia said: “They [the interrogators] made me come out with a lot more stuff I didn’t want to say. They kept pushing. I wanted to get up and hit them in the head” [6]. In the second interview, on March 24, 1994 Francia indicated he was aware of the fact that another boy (Jordan Chandler) had sued Jackson for money [6].

In his 1993-94 interviews, after initially denying any wrongdoing by Jackson, Jason Francia gave in to the pressure. Case in point, in 2005, while under cross-examination by Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau, he admitted that he said things in those interviews because he “was trying to figure out how to get out of there” [6]:

Q. Remember telling the police, “You guys are pushy”?

A. Yeah. I remember telling the police that.

Q. Okay. And after they kept pushing you, you finally said, “You know, I think he did tickle me,”right?

A. No.

Q. Do you remember that? Do you remember at first saying you didn’t know, and then after --

A. Yeah, I remember saying at first, “I don’t know.”

Q. And after telling the police, “You guys are pushy,” you eventually finally said, “Yes, he tickled me,” right?

A. I believe that’s how it went.

Q. Okay. You kind of went back and forth during the interview, didn’t you? One second you’d say, “He tickled me,” and the next second you’d say you’re not sure, right?

A. I was trying to figure out how to get out of there.

Q. I understand. And you remember exactly how you felt in 1993 during the interview, right?

A. The feeling of, yeah, crying and crappiness. [6]

It was also revealed that after the police’s first interrogation of Jason Francia in 1993 he was sent for therapy with a counselor by the name of Mike Craft. District Attorney Thomas Sneddon was present at least one time in Craft’s office while Jason was there, though Jason could not explain what communication went on between the two men and why Sneddon was there at all. According to an article in USA Today on February 7, 1994, the therapist Jason Francia was sent to was arranged and paid for by the county Sheriff’s office after the boy’s mother expressed concern that Sheriff Deputies had called and met with her son while she was not present [9].

There had never been charges filed against Jackson based on Jason Francia’s claims, although the prosecution was obviously desperate to find another alleged victim besides Jordan Chandler.

However, Jason’s mother, Blanca Francia, taking a page out of the Chandlers’ playbook: hired civil lawyers and at the end of 1994 threatened Jackson with a civil lawsuit. With the Chandler case behind him and a plan to release a new album in 1995, Jackson settled with the Francias out of court. As testified to during Jackson’s 2005 trial, two settlements were signed with the Francias – one with Blanca and another one with Jason Francia. Reportedly Jackson paid them $2.4 million.

It must be noted that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award, so, like the Chandler settlement, this was not a case of Jackson buying his way out of a criminal indictment. Two Grand Juries had already decided in the spring of 1994 not to indict Jackson. However, a civil trial could have resulted in a long, drawn out court process with lots of negative publicity for Jackson, which, regardless of the lack of credibility of the allegations and the outcome, would have affected Jackson’s ability to promote a new album, that he planned to release in 1995. To put the $2.4 million he paid out to the Francias into a perspective: Jackson’s record label, Sony Music spent $30 million on the promotion of Jackson’s double album released in 1995, entitled HIStory. The first video of the album, Scream, cost $7 million and a teaser that was shot for the album in Budapest, Hungary cost $4 million.

The language in both the settlements with Blanca and with Jason Francia emphasized that there was no admission of any wrongdoing on Jackson’s part. The fact that both Jason and Blanca Francia were called to testify at Jackson’s 2005 trial is a clear indication that such settlements of civil lawsuits do not and cannot prohibit anyone testifying at a criminal court.

During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Jason alleged the first act of impropriety occurred in 1987, at Jackson’s Century City condo, in Los Angeles, when Jason was about seven years old. According to his story, while his mother was cleaning the condo, he and Jackson watched cartoons on the television and Jackson supposedly started to tickle him which resulted in a “tickle contest” between the two. Jason claimed that while tickling him Jackson’s hand moved down to his crotch and he touched his genital area above his clothes.

A second act of impropriety was described, similar to the first one, occurring in the same place, again while watching cartoons, one and a half years later, this time when Jason was about eight, eight and a half years old. Jason again claimed, while watching cartoons, Jackson moved behind him and began “spooning” him. Jason claimed he started to tickle him and while doing so Jackson again touched his genitalia above his clothes. He claimed the contact with his genital area lasted at least about four, five minutes.

A third act of impropriety was claimed to have happened at Neverland in the arcade when Jason was about ten and a half years old. He claimed while playing a video game, Jackson again started to tickle him and somehow they ended up on the couch in a “spooning” position. Jason claimed that this time Jackson put his hand in his shorts and touched his testicles. He alleged this lasted about three to four minutes. At this point Jason felt the need to emphasize to the jury: “It took a lot of counseling to get over, just to let you know.” [6]

Jason further alleged that every time Jackson tickled him, the star put a hundred dollar bill in his pants. Jason claimed he never told his mother about the alleged abuse: "I don’t even think to this day she knows"[6], he said on the stand in 2005, even though his mother hired civil lawyers and threatened to sue Jackson over the allegations in 1994.

During the 2005 trial, Jason's Francia's testimony was not considered credible by the jury, and the improper police interrogations those led to his allegations were not the only reason. Other than the alleged impropriety, Jason Francia did not seem to know or remember anything on the stand and was caught in several contradictions and lies. At the very least, this young man seemed to have an extremely bad, unreliable and ever-changing memory.

At age of 24, he sat on the stand and claimed he did not know if he ever signed a settlement with Jackson. He claimed he had not heared about the payment his mother received from Hard Copy until two days before his testimony and that he never discussed it with his mother.

At first, he claimed he never told his mother he was improperly touched but then admitted he did, claiming he was "mistaken" earlier. He claimed he never told the lawyers who represented him in 1994, Terry Cannon and Kris Kallman, that he was improperly touched, but later on in the testimony he said he did not know if he ever told them, and even later he said he did tell them.

In one of the 1993-94 interrogations Francia claimed that during a tickling episode he blacked-out and because of that he did not remember anything besides the tickling. In 2005, when Mesereau asked him if he had a black-out how could he have told the police that his mother was not in the room, he answered: “I blocked it out. I didn’t blank it out” [6]. Please note, Jackson’s condo was a small apartment and the alleged improprieties occurred while Blanca Francia was present, cleaning up and able to walk in on them at any time.

When the police asked Jason in 1993-94 if anything inappropriate had ever happened to him at Neverland he said "I was around too many people" and when they pressured him about the third account of tickling in the arcade, the incident where he now alleged Jackson put his hand in his pants - at the time initially Jason said he did not know if Jackson touched him inappropriately while tickling him. In actuality, he said he was not sure if Jackson even tickled him at all [6].

Mesereau pointed out that in an interview with the police in October, 2004 Jason claimed that this third tickling incident lasted more than ten seconds but he did not remember how long. At the trial, only a couple of months later, Jason suddenly remembered that it lasted for three to four minutes.

As for the money Jason allegedly received from Jackson after alleged acts of improper touching, when Jason Francia was initially interviewed by the police in 1993-94, he claimed that Jackson promised him money each time he read a book or achieved a good grade, because Francia had difficulties in school and with learning (in 2005 on the stand he admitted he still had problems with reading). This story later somehow evolved into Jackson putting money in his pants after each tickling.

During the trial, when asked if Attorney, Terry Cannon still represented him, Jason said “I don’t think so, no”[6] but later said he did not know if Cannon represented him. Mesereau reminded him that Cannon was present at a meeting Jason had with the prosecutors on December 6, 2004. At that meeting Jason did not want the interview to be tape-recorded. When Mesereau asked him why, at first he claimed to not remember that he made that request. Then when presented with documents that showed he indeed did, he could not testify what his reason was: “I don’t know”[6] and “Tape-recording is weird. I don’t know. No, I don’t” [6]. Documents also showed that he requested Cannon to be present at the interview but Jason said he did not remember why Cannon was there and whether he asked him to be there or not.

During the trial, when asked whether any criminal charges had ever been filed against Jackson based on his claims (there had never been), Jason answered: “I don’t know much. I don’t watch the news.” [6]
Mesereau asked Jason about another meeting with prosecutors held on November 19, 2004 when his mother was interviewed in the DA’s office. Again, Jason first claimed to not know anything about it: “I don’t know. Me and my mother don’t talk about that stuff much.” [6] However, when Mesereau pointed out to him that he was present at that meeting, Francia all of a sudden remembered: “Now I remember, yes.” [6] In actuality, not only was Jason present, but he too was interviewed by the prosecutors and he asked that the interview not be tape-recorded on that occasion as well. Again, Francia did not remember any of this: he did not remember that an interview by the prosecutors that lasted for about an hour, took place at all, although it happened only a couple of months before his testimony at Jackson’s trial!

So not surprisingly, Jason Francia did not make a good impression on the jury at Jackson’s trial. Jury Foreman, Paul Rodriguez told Nancy Grace in an interview after the verdict.

GRACE: Mr. Rodriguez, did you believe the boy that came in that is now a youth minister* that stated Jackson molested him in the past?

RODRIGUEZ: Well, we got a little problem with that because he had no idea where some of his money came from, and he didn’t want to talk to his mother. And so those kind of things that we kind of didn’t focus on, but it did keep — we kept that in the back of our minds.

GRACE: So would it be safe to say you did not believe him?

RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we had a hard time believing him. …[8]

[…]

GRACE: Yes. What about the one kid that became a youth minister*, who stated plainly Jackson molested his — fondled his genitals?

RODRIGUEZ: Again, like you said earlier, you know, about his scenario or his testimony, it was hard to buy the whole story, when he acted like he knew nothing about it. I mean, he acted so much like the mother of the other accuser, you know, he just didn’t seem that credible. He didn’t seem to convince us, like we wanted to be convinced. And he just — he was leaving too many little loopholes in his statements. [8]

(* The prosecution and the media constantly tried to make Jason Francia look more credible by emphasizing that he used to be a youth minister.)

It is very telling that Rodriguez put Francia’s testimony on par with that of “the mother of the other accuser”, Janet Arvizo, which was widely regarded, even by pro-prosecution journalists, as a disastrous testimony for the prosecution.

Sources:

[1] Blanca Francia’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 5, 2005)

[2] Lisa Campbell – The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour (Branden Publishing Company Inc., Boston, 1994) http://books.google.hu/books/about/Michael_Jackson.html?id=BVC9zltjf-EC&redir_esc=y

[3] Wade Robson’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 5, 2005)

[4] Michael Jackson: The Making Of A Myth - Part 1
http://www.stereoboard.com/pdfs/Michael-Jackson-The-Making-Of-A-Myth-Part-I.pdf

[5] British GQ Magazine (May 2006)

[6] Jason Francia’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 4-5, 2005)

[7] Supplemental Brief In Support Of Opposition To District Attorney's Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses (March 25, 2005)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032505suppopp1108.pdf

[8] Nancy Grace’s interview with jury foreman, Paul Rodriguez (CNN.com, June 13, 2005)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/13/ng.01.html

[9] Officials desperate to nail Michael Jackson (USA Today, February 7, 1994)

HIStory · May 18, 2013

Ralph Chacon, Kassim Abdool and Adrian McManus

The so called “Neverland 5” was a group of five former employees of Jackson: Kassim Abdool, Ralph Chacon, Adrian McManus, Sandy Domz and Melanie Bangall who sued Jackson in the 90s alleging wrongful termination. Three of these five people – Abdool, Chacon and McManus - testified for the prosecution at the Jackson’s 2005 trial in support of their “prior bad acts” case. They claimed that during their employment at Neverland (1990/1991 to 1994) they witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately with children. Former security guard, Chacon claimed he witnessed Jackson sexually molesting Jordan Chandler on one occasion [4]. Former security guard, Abdool, who worked directly with Chacon on the same shift, and described himself as Chacon's friend, did not make that same claim, but he supported Chacon’s allegations by claiming he, too witnessed some of the improprieties Chacon claimed to have witnessed [5]. Former maid, McManus claimed that she witnessed Jackson behave inappropriately with Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin [6]. None of these people ever reported or even mentioned what they had allegedly seen at the time that the alleged molestations and improprieties supposedly occurred. These stories first surfaced in the spring of 1994, more than half a year after the Chandler scandal went public.

In actuality, on December 7, 1993 Adrian McManus testified under oath in a deposition for the Chandler civil case that she never observed any inappropriate behavior or any form of sexual behavior by Jackson towards Jordan Chandler or any other child. She even said she trusted Jackson so much that she would have no problem with leaving her son alone with him. When Jackson’s attorney, Thomas Mesereau confronted her with her 1993 deposition in 2005, McManus simply claimed that she did not tell the truth in that 1993 deposition [6].

Chacon and Abdool first made allegations against Jackson when they were subpoenaed by the prosecution to appear in front of the two Grand Juries which were convened to examine the allegations against Jackson in the spring of 1994. Abdool appeared before the Los Angeles Grand Jury and Chacon appeared before the Santa Barbara Grand Jury. Conveniently, this was also the first time they claimed to have confided in each other about what they had allegedly observed, although they worked on the same shift and they were supposedly friends. Prior to this time they never mentioned to anyone that they witnessed any wrongdoing in regards to Jackson. In fact, on January 13, 1994 Abdool signed a statement for Jackson’s representatives that stated he had never seen Jackson touch any child in a sexually inappropriate manner or in any way that could be construed as sexual [5].

When Chacon and Abdool changed their stories and first came up with claims of improprieties and child molestation, Chacon was deposed by District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon and Detective Russ Birchim for the Chandler case. At the time, Chacon asked Birchim for money to help him relocate his wife. Birchim delivered the money and the gun permit that Chacon had also requested [6]. Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau asked Chacon about it during Jackson’s 2005 trial. First Chacon said he did not remember but when Mesereau showed him a transcript of his deposition, he slowly acknowledged his prior testimony, stating it “probably” happened. When questioned by Sneddon on redirect examination Chacon suddenly remembered everything clearly. However, Sneddon quickly cut him off, stating “it’s not important”.

Q. You indicated that you may have asked Sergeant or now Commander Birchim for money for your wife --

A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- do you recall? Do you remember why that was?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why was that?
A. Well, my wife’s sister-in-law had just died, and --
Q. That’s all right, I’ll withdraw the question. That’s okay. It’s not important. [6]

At the trial Chacon disclosed that towards the end of his employment by Jackson he had conflicts with the star’s personal bodyguards, called the Office of Special Services (OSS) because, according to him, they interfered with his work. Chacon admitted that he and Abdool were upset and dissatisfied because they found out that a new security staff for Jackson was paid more than they were. [4]

During his testimony it was also revealed that in 1994 Chacon was in financial difficulties, owing money on a lost lawsuit. Although documents were shown to prove this, Chacon claimed he did not remember that ruling. [4] Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau also revealed that Chacon owed money on back child support and was missing payments on his rent, but had bragged to his landlady, Linda Allen, that with a lawsuit against Jackson he would win millions and would even be able to drive around in a 450 Mercedes. Chacon denied these. [4]

Shortly after that time, Abdool and Chacon (McManus joined later) went to a civil attorney, Michael Ring, who on their behalf, on December 2, 1994, filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson and other employees of the star demanding $16 million in damages (eventually all five people of the “Neverland 5” group). They claimed that during their employment they were harassed and intimidated, which resulted in emotional distress and various medical problems that made them “emotionally disabled” and unable to work. They also claimed that they were wrongfully terminated by Jackson. Jackson counter-sued and eventually Chacon and McManus were found guilty of stealing from Jackson’s property [4] [5] [6].

At the civil trial the Neverland 5 and their attorney were sanctioned $66,000 for lying during their depositions and on the stand and for discovery violations (ie. for hiding evidence from Jackson’s lawyers). Judge Zel Canter, who presided over the civil trial, left the bench after stating he was disgusted [7]. The jury rejected the wrongful termination lawsuit against Jackson and ordered the Neverland 5 to pay him damages. The court also imposed attorneys fees and costs of $1.4 million against plaintiffs. As of the time of their testimony in 2005 none of them paid the damages to Jackson. According to his testimony, after the verdict in the civil trial Chacon filed for bankruptcy. [4] [5] [6] During the 2005 trial, while on the stand, Chacon denied he knew anything about the amount of money his lawyer demanded from Jackson at the civil trial. However, documents from a deposition of Chacon at the time showed that not only did he know of the $16 million demand from the entertainer, but at one point Chacon even said that $16 million was not enough. Later, on re-cross examination Chacon admitted he knew how much money was demanded in the lawsuit. He also said in a deposition that Jackson should compensate him for the rest of his life [4].
Before their lawsuit in the 90s, under the direction of their attorney, Michael Ring the Neverland 5 contacted a tabloid broker, Gary Morgan from the Splash News and Picture Agency to sell slanderous stories about Jackson and children and also about Jackson and his then wife, Lisa Marie Presley. Morgan arranged interviews with magazines, such as The Star and TV programs, such as Inside Edition [4] [5] [6]. According to McManus’ 2005 testimony, $32,000 or more was received for their stories and almost all of it went to Ring, to finance their civil lawsuit, from which they hoped to get millions of dollars [6]. Chacon admitted that before they went to The Star they also talked to a certain journalist, Victor Gutierrez [4]. Abdool also talked about this connection, stating that he met Gutierrez once and they had a two, three hours conversation [5]. McManus testified that Gutierrez “was going to try to help us in our lawsuit” [6]. For why this connection is significant, please read our article about Gutierrez [link]. On the stand Abdool claimed that he, Chacon and McManus did not discuss and harmonize their stories in advance that they were selling to tabloids. However, this was contradicted by Chacon’s testimony in which he admitted they made drafts about their stories in Ring’s office about what they were going to tell tabloids [4] [5]. Besides making money, another purpose for these interviews and the Neverland 5’s claims of having witnessed Jackson in improper situations with children: putting pressure on him and trying to make him settle the case. Although at Jackson’s 2005 trial Chacon claimed not to have known anything about such tactics, he admitted it would not surprise him if that was the case.

Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: At the time you and Mr. Abdool and Ms. McManus and your lawyer went to a tabloid to give a story about Mr. Jackson, do you know whether or not your lawyer was trying to negotiate money from Mr. Jackson?

A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not your lawyer was trying to pressure Mr. Jackson by threatening bad publicity?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever hear of anything like that going on?
A. No, sir.
Q. Okay. So if that went on, you’d be shocked, true?
A. Probably not, sir.
Q. Probably not?
A. I guess not, no. [4]

One of Chacon’s complaints in the 1995 lawsuit against Jackson was that Jackson caused him emotional distress because he “stared at him all the time” [4]. Because of that he claimed he was entitled to damages. When his claim was found to be false Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau asked him why he said that if it was not true. Chacon’s answer was: “I guess just to say it” [4].

During the civil trial in the 1990s, another former employee of Jackson’s, Francine Orosco testified that McManus asked her to say she witnessed a male employee of Jackson sexually harass McManus. Orosco also testified that she visited McManus at home during their employment and McManus showed her a room filled with watches, posters, clocks, sunglasses, T-shirts and laundry baskets filled with Michael Jackson’s clothes and other items she stole from Neverland. It was also found that McManus stole a drawing Jackson made of Elvis Presley and sold it for $1000 to Gary Morgan from Splash [6].

It also emerged that earlier McManus and her husband were ordered to pay $17,000 each in another lawsuit, in which it was ascertained that they stole money from an estate that was set-up for minor relatives of McManus. They willfully and maliciously defrauded Shane and Megan McManus, a nephew and a niece of Adrian McManus, out of their money. They were sued by Rosalie Hill, the children's guardian ad litem. Judge Richard A. St. John found that the the money was held in the trust for the benefit of those two children and McManus and her husband dissipated those funds [6] [7].

Sources:

[4] Ralph Chacon’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 7, 2005)

[5] Kassim Abdool’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 25, 2005)

[6] Adrian McManus’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 7-8, 2005)

[7] Supplemental Brief In Support Of Opposition To District Attorney's Motion For Admission Of Alleged Prior Offenses (March 25, 2005)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/032505suppopp1108.pdf

Costas · May 18, 2013

Is there any chance of having these articles as link to a webpage or page in Facebook for sharing this information easier ? Copying and posting large pieces of text in Facebook is not working very well ...

HIStory · May 18, 2013

We are working on a website. It should be up soon.

Moonwalker.Fan · May 18, 2013

We fans have to fight against that CONSPIRACY!!!! Its nothing but conspiracy.

rsggamer123 · May 19, 2013

respect77 said:
We are working on a website. It should be up soon.

I would love to help with the website in any way i can. Please don't hesitate to contact me.

HIStory · May 20, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:HyphenationZone>21</w:HyphenationZone> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>HU</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> The Settlement

A frequently asked question regarding the child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson is:

“If he was innocent why did he settle the first case out of court?”

To understand his possible reasons we have to understand the legal circumstances preceding and surrounding the settlement. Michael Jackson and his accuser, Jordan Chandler, reached an out of court settlement on January 25, 1994. The settlement was leaked to Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003, so we know the amount paid into a trust for Jordan Chandler was $15,331,250 (Page 5). (Note: Either Dimond or the person who leaked the document to her omitted the parts after the third paragraph.). Reportedly, the sum was paid by Jackson’s insurance company and not Jackson himself.

As you can see the document emphasizes that it is in no way an admission of guilt by Michael Jackson. On page 4 it states:

"This Confidential Settlement shall not be considered as an admission by Jackson that he has acted wrongfully with respect to the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked], or any other person or at all, or that the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked] have any rights whatsoever against Jackson. Jackson specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful act against, the Minor, [blocked] or [blocked] 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." [1]

One of the myths regarding this settlement is that "Michael Jackson bought his way out of a criminal indictment". The fact is, however, the settlement resolved the civil proceedings, not the criminal. In fact, under American law one is not allowed to settle a criminal case. The criminal proceedings proceeded after this settlement and nothing in the settlement prevented the Chandlers from testifying against Jackson in a criminal court. The Chandlers could have taken the settlement money AND testified against Michael Jackson in a criminal case. They chose not to but it was not because they were forbidden to do so by the settlement. They could have done so, the only requirement in the settlement being that if the Chandlers received any subpoena or request for information from investigating authorities they were required to give notice in writing to Michael Jackson's attorneys within five days following the receipt of the request (Page 15).

After the Chandlers received their settlement money, they were unwilling to co-operate with the authorities investigating the criminal proceedings and were unwilling to testify in a criminal court. The criminal case was convened before two Grand Juries (one in Los Angeles and one in Santa Barbara) in February/April of 1994. After a seven months of investigation, multiple house searches, interviews of dozens of children and other witnesses, police officers traveling all around the world to find corroborating victims and evidence, strip searching Jackson’s body, both Grand Juries determined that they had not seen sufficient evidence to indict Jackson. The prosecution claimed they were not really seeking indictment, that these were only “investigating Grand Juries”, however the fact remains two Grand Juries found that the prosecution had not discovered incriminating evidence during the investigations sufficient to secure an indictment.

The criminal proceedings were never the Chandler’s priority. Less than a month after psychiatrist, Dr. Mathis Abrams reported Jordan Chandler’s claims to the authorities on August 17, 1993, an act that automatically kick-started the criminal investigation, the Chandlers filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson accusing him of sexual battery, battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence. They demanded a recovery of $30 million. (Before taking Jordan to Dr. Abrams the Chandlers had already requested $20 million, which Jackson refused to comply with.) Normally, civil complaints are only filed after criminal proceedings are completed and justice has been served. One would naturally expect the parents of a molested child to pursue justice and not money. Only a criminal trial can result in jail time for the perpetrator. At the end of a civil trial, the only restitution available is monetary.

Between September 1993 and January 1994 the disagreement between Jackson’s attorneys and Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing the Chandlers was in regard to which proceedings should precede the other. Jackson’s attorneys wanted the criminal proceedings to go before the civil proceedings and losing this fight was basically what lead to the settlement.
In 2005, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler in an article he wrote for his now defunct website (atgbook.net) claimed that Jackson’s attorneys tried to postpone the the civil lawsuit for six years, until the statue of limitations on child abuse expired. This is all he said, leaving the impression that Jackson’s side just wanted to hinder the process. However that’s a misleading half-truth. In actuality, Jackson’s attorneys attempted to postpone the civil lawsuit to allow the criminal proceedings to be held ahead of the civil proceedings. They did not try to hinder the criminal proceedings, in fact they tried to get them heard ahead of the civil proceedings.

The reason being if the civil trial is held before the criminal trial it can give the prosecution in the criminal trial a major advantage because they have the opportunity to monitor the civil trial and study the defense's strategy. They can then, therefore, adjust their claims and strategy in kind. Furthermore, unlike in a criminal proceeding, where the defendant can constitutionally refuse to be deposed without consequence, a defendant in a civil trial cannot refuse to submit to a deposition free of consequence. A deposition in a civil case, held prior to a criminal proceeding, has the potential of violating a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify in a criminal case. The prosecution can use the testimony from the civil deposition in the criminal trial and adjust their claims in kind.

In addition, the burden of proof, or the rules for admissibility of hearsay evidence in a civil trial are more relaxed than in a criminal trial. Jackson's attorneys were certainly aware that a civil trial was riskier for a defendant, even if the defendant is innocent. And they knew that if Jackson lost the civil trial it could prejudice the jury in an upcoming criminal trial.

There are many precedents where civil proceedings have been frozen to allow the criminal trial ahead, preserving a defendant's right to a fair trial and preventing that right from being violated. According to precedent cases:

"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."
Cases cited: Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, cert, denied, 371 U.S. 955, 83 S.Ct. 502, 9 L.Ed. 2d 502 (5th Cir. 1962); Perez v. McQuire 36 F.R.D. 272 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Paul Harringan & Sons, Inc. v. Enterprise Animal Oil Co., Inc. 14 F.R.D. 333 (E.D. Pa. 1953).[2]

However, in regards to the case against Michael Jackson, all such attempts by Jackson’s lawyers to stay the civil proceeding were dismissed by Superior CourtJudge David M. Rothman. Apparently, the Chandler's trump card was Jordan's age. Here is what Geraldine Hughes (the legal secretary of Barry Rothman, the attorney who represented the Chandlers before Larry Feldman took over), writes in her book entitled Redemption:

„Michael Jackson lost all four motions. It was obvious from a legal standpoint of view that the scales of justice were not pointing in Michael Jackson's favor. Instead, it was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy. Michael Jackson's attorneys were applying precedent laws which were applied in a similar sexual battery case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court specifically held that it is improper invasion of the defendant's constitutional rights not to stay civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is ongoing. But Mr. Feldman's trump card was, "a child's memory is developing," and their inability to, "remember like an adult." This law was designed to protect a small child's ability to recall for prolonged periods of time after being a victim and/or witness to a crime. This case, however, involved a 13-year old boy, who was soon to be turning 14 years old.”[2]

Using this reasoning, Feldman filed a Motion for Trial Preference for the civil proceedings. "This is a special request to have the trial heard within 120 days after the motion is granted" [2]. In this regard, Hughes writes:

“Mr. Feldman filed a declaration by Dr. Evan Chandler in support of the Motion for Trial Preference which had one statement: that the child was under the age of 14. That was it! Dr. Chandler did not state anything else in his declaration, which is a written statement under oath declaring statements of truth. I have never seen a declaration concerning an important case this short in my entire legal career. A declarant will usually attest to several facts, especially concerning an important case like this one. They will also declare that said facts are true and correct and state their willingness to be called to competently testify under penalty of perjury. Is it possible that the information that Dr. Chandler declared was the only information he could competently testify under penalty of perjury?”[2]

Under extremely unfavorable conditions, Jackson and his attorneys might have found themselves in a position where they would have had to fight and defend Jackson on two fronts at the same time – in both a civil and criminal trial. On top of that they would have to prepare for a civil trial within 120 days, while the police for the criminal proceedings had seized all of Jackson's personal records and refused to provide copies or even a list of what they took. "The District Attorney's office was operating, with the blessings of the Court, in violation of Michael Jackson's constitutional rights, and the Court was weighing heavily in favor of the 13-year old boy [2].”

After all motions to push the civil proceedings behind the criminal had been denied, the Jackson team was left between a rock and a hard place. The start of the civil trial was set for March, 1994 and Jackson was to be deposed at the end of January, beginning of February.

The Chandler's motion papers accused Jackson and his attorneys of applying “delay tactics”, but they knew well that those “delay tactics” were all about getting the criminal proceedings heard ahead of the civil proceedings. Ray Chandler, in his book, All That Glitters, quotes a conversation that took place between Jordan Chandler's father, Evan Chandler and their civil attorney, Larry Feldman and it proves that they were the ones utilizingdelay tactics with regards to criminal proceedings:

„Later in the afternoon, after everyone had consumed their holiday repast, Larry Feldman called Evan with news they could all be thankful for. "Hey, Evan, you gotta hear this one. Howard Weitzman demoted Fields again. They definitely don't want your deposition, or June's deposition. They don't want to preserve anything. If they're gonna make a deal they don't want anything on the record about Jackson."

No shit! Larry, these guys are in a real mess."

"Yeah, they ****ed this up unbelievably. What could be better? But I'm going forward. We're going to push on. So far there ain't a button I've missed. The only thing we gotta do is keep the criminal behind us. I don't want them going first."

Larry had said it before, but it hadn't registered in Evan's brain till now.

"You mean if they indict, the criminal case automatically goes before us?"
"Yeah."
"Jesus Christ!"
"Right! So we don't want that."
"How would you feel if the DA let you try their case?"
"Oh, I'd love it! That'd be the best."
"Would they let you do it?"
"I don't think so."
"Don't you have Jordie's testimony to trade on?"
"Yeah, but I want to use it so they'll stay behind me. Then they won't have to deal with this either."
"It's to their advantage to stay behind you, right?"
"Right, to their political advantage." [3]

It must be reiterated that only a criminal trial can send a perpetrator to jail; a civil trial can only result in a monetary award.

The California law that allowed the Chandlers to push the civil trial ahead of the criminal trial was changed eventually, according to Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon directly because of what happened in the Chandler case. Because of this change, an accuser in a sexual assault case cannot pursue a civil lawsuit right away. The new law restricts a civil trial from preceding a criminal trial. It is for this reason that Jackson's 2003 accuser, Gavin Arvizo, could not use the same strategy as what the Chandlers did in 1993. He had no choice but to begin a criminal trial first:

"The prosecutor in the Michael Jackson case praised a law that can halt civil lawsuits during related criminal cases, saying it would prevent a scenario where the singer's accuser accepted a settlement and then refused to testify in the criminal trial.
The state law was passed because another child backed out of a 1993 molestation case against Jackson after the singer reportedly paid him a multimillion settlement, Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon said.
"It is an irony. The history of the law is that the L.A. district attorney's office carried the legislation as a direct result of the civil settlement in the first investigation," Sneddon told The Associated Press in an interview.” [8]

The hostile media campaign against Michael Jackson might have also contributed to a decision to settle. Tabloid shows paid people for sensational stories that supported the allegations. Several of those people were to be used by the Chandlers in the civil case. The combined stress of a legal proceeding and the media backlash led to a dependency on painkillers for which Michael Jackson eventually sought professional help. Business partners and advisers urged him to put the matter out of his mind and get on with his life and business. It has also been suggested that Jackson settled because the strip search in December 1993 supported his accuser’s claims. This does not hold water and is fully addressed in a separate post.[link]

While Jackson’s motives for the settlement are often questioned, it’s a much less frequently asked question (although it would be similarly valid to ask): why did the accuser’s family settle? Had your child been molested would you want justice or money?

The Chandlers themselves claim they settled because they wanted to move on with their lives and not subject Jordan to media spotlight and scrutiny that would have been unavoidable in a high profile case such as this. They also claimed they received several death threats from Michael Jackson fans and since Los Angeles District Attorney, Gil Garcetti refused to put the family to the Witness Protection Program, they were afraid for their lives. At first this seems reasonable, however Evan Chandler did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight and possible fan reaction when in his taped phone conversation with David Schwartz (the boy’s step father) in July, 1993 (BEFORE his son allegedly “confessed” to him!) he said of his attorney, Barry Rothman:

"[T]his attorney I found… I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and 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, and he's got a bad [tape irregularity]…[4]”

Ray Chandler tries to excuse this quote in his book by claiming that when Evan said Rothman wanted to “get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can” he actually meant going to court, not to the media. The same claim is made about when on the same tapes Evan says of Rothman: “He is nasty, he is mean, he is very smart [tape irregularity], and he's hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him. [4]”

However, there are some additional facts to consider regarding the Chandler’s intentions with publicity: The Chandlers did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight, possible fan reaction, threats and Jordan not being able to move on with his life when when only weeks after the settlement they were shopping a book they have written about the allegations. Publisher Judith Regan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Regan ):

“I received a call from Jordan’s uncle. He wanted to do a book in which he would describe in detail the allegation of molestation against Michael Jackson. So I asked him how he proposed to do this given the fact that the Chandlers had actually signed a confidentiality agreement and taken $20mln. And he said that Jordan’s father had given him all the information he needed for the book and he believed he was outside the bounds of the Confidentiality agreement because he would be the author. At the time I had the impression that the Chandlers were brazen opportunists and I found the entire proposal by the uncle to be distasteful. They enter a Confidentiality agreement and before the ink is even dry they are shopping a deal that violates this agreement?”[5]

That Ray Chandler was indeed shopping a book “within days” after the settlement was signed, is confirmed by none other than Ray Chandler himself in a Motion he filed with the Santa Barbara Court on October 25, 2004.In support of his argument that he should be protected by the Shield Law Ray Chandler disclosed in that Motion (Page 8 of the Motion at [7]):

"Within days after Jordan Chandler's civil lawsuit against Michael Jackson was settled in January, 1994, Raymond Chandler traveled to New York City to seek a publisher for the purpose of putting the information he had gathered in the form of a non-fiction book for dissemination to the public. Such intent on the part of Raymond Chandler is evidenced by an article that appeared in the New York Post revealing his contact with a publisher one day after it occurred." [7]

Ray Chandler, in making his claim that he should be protected by the Shield Law states in the Motion that he traveled to Los Angeles "within two days after the Michael Jackson child molestation scandal became public in August of 1993" (Page 8 of the Motion at [7]) and from late August through December of 1993 lived in the Los Angeles home of Evan and Jordan Chandler with the intent of gathering information about the molestation allegations and then publicly disseminating that information (Page 13 of the Motion at [7]).

Ray Chandler eventually published his book in 2004 at the height of the media frenzy caused by the Arvizo allegations. Ray Chandler made his rounds in the media, giving interviews and appearing in documentaries heavily biased against Jackson. Obiously not concerned about media spotlight and not afraid of possible threats by Jackson fans.

Evan Chandler did not seem to be concerned about media spotlight, possible fan reaction, threats and Jordan not being able to move on with his life when he filed another lawsuit against Michael Jackson in 1996, this time for $60 million and a record deal so that he could release an album about the alleged sexual molestation of his son, titled “EVANstory” . According to the lawsuit „This album will include such songs as: "D.A. Reprised": "You Have No Defense (For My Love)"; "Duck Butter Blues"; "Truth"; and other songs”. [6] The lawsuit got thrown out of Court in 2000.

Sources cited:

[1] Out of court settlement between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler (January 25, 1994) as leaked to and/or by Court TV’s Diane Dimond in 2003
http://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/1993civilsettlementagreement.pdf

[2] Geraldine Hughes – Redemption: The Truth Behind the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Allegations (Hughes Publishing, January 2004)

[3] Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[4] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993) http://jacksonaktak.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/schwartz_chandler.pdf

[5] Judith Regan on Michael Jackson Molestation Allegations on SIRIUS XM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQYeNfHVBtM&feature=player_embedded

[6] Evan Chandler files another lawsuit against Michael Jackson on May 7, 1996 demanding $60 million and a record deal (Court TV Online, Legal Documents) http://web.archive.org/web/20070916092707/http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/newsmakers/jackson.html

[7] Notice of motion and motion of third party Raymond Chandler to quash subpoenas and/or in camera review; authorities; declaration of Raymond Chandler (October 25, 2004) http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/102504nommot3rdpty.pdf

[8] Linda Deutsch - Prosecutor says law won't allow Jackson to pay off accuser before trial (Boston.com/Associated Press, November 20, 2003) http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/jackson_case.htm

HIStory · May 27, 2013

Someone requested info in another thread about Jordan's description. So here is an article.
WARNING! It contains discussion which might be sensitive issue for some, but which inevitably have to be discussed if we are talking about this subject.

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?

On December 20, 1993 Michael Jackson was subjected to a humiliating strip search in which his genitalia and buttocks were photographed and videofilmed. Authorities wanted to compare the photos with the descriptions his accuser, Jordan Chandler gave to the police in order to prove his allegations regarding alleged acts of molestation by Michael Jackson.

Later District Attorney Thomas Sneddon claimed that Jordan’s description was a match and proved Jackson’s guilt. On May 25 2005, about a week before the end of Michael Jackson’s four month long trial, Sneddon attempted to introduce Jordan Chandler's description and drawing as well as the photographs of Jackson’s genitalia. In the Motion Sneddon claimed:

"The photographs reveal a mark on the right side of Defendant's penis at about the same relative location as the dark blemish located by Jordan Chandler on his drawing of Defendant's erect penis. I believe the discoloration Chandler identified in his drawing was not something he could have or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I believe Chandler's graphic representation of the discolored area on Defendant's penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff's detectives at a later time." [1]

[…]

"Jordan Chandler's knowledge on December 1, 1993 is relevant because it could only have been acquired in the course of a close and intimate relationship with Defendant." [1]

What the use of the expression “I believe” means in legal terms is shown in the same document where Sneddon makes his legal declaration:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and to those statements, I believe them to be true." [1]

The timing of Sneddon’s move - it seemed to have been a last minute, desperate attempt to try to prejudice the jury after both the Arvizo case and the “prior bad acts” case against Jackson fell apart - and the fact that Jordan Chandler refused to testify in 2005, so he could not be cross-examined, made it very unlikely that Judge Rodney Melville would allow the introduction of this material, and indeed he did not. Initial media reports after the 1993 strip search (for example, Reuters, USA Today in January 1994), citing law enforcement sources, stated that the boy’s description did not match the photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia. The claim that the photos matched the description spread through the media only later - particularly after an interview Sneddon gave to Vanity Fair’s Maureen Orth in September 1995 where he claimed the photographs matched Jordan’s description [2].

Interestingly, Dr. Richard Strick, the doctor who was present at the strip search from the authorities’ side, indicated in an interview with Fox News in October 2009 that he did not come to a conclusion on his own, but rather someone else told him later that it was a match.

“The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described” [3].

Based on his statement it seems Dr. Strick did not actually see Jordan’s description and drawing; he was only told that there was a match. This is odd; as a medical professional, hired by the authorities to be present at the strip search, one would expect that he would have been asked to make the determination. It is unknown who told Dr. Strick that there was a match but all claims of this nature seem to point to Sneddon as a source.

Putting aside why Dr. Strick was not involved in making a determination and who exactly later told him that the description was a match, the fact that Jackson was not arrested after the strip search and indicted by any of the two Grand Juries which were convened against him, indicates that, despite Sneddon's claims, there was no match.

There are further indications that there was no match. In early January 1994, Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing Jordan Chandler, filed a motion with the Civil Court that contained a “multiple choice request”. On January 5, 1994 the Los Angeles Times reported:

“Feldman said he filed a motion in court that is a "multiple choice" request: Jackson may provide copies of the police photographs, submit to a second search, or the court may bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.” [4]

So Jordan Chandler’s attorney sought to get the photographs barred from the civil trial as evidence. Feldman said he filed the motion because both Jackson's attorneys and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office refused to give him copies of the photographs. However, it is a logical expectation that if Feldman was certain that his client was telling the truth then he would have been certain that the photographs would support and not harm his case. Instead of giving the option of barring the photographs from the court, if Feldman was confident in his client's story, he should have fought to have them introduced.

This action refutes the notion that Jackson settled the civil case out of court with the Chandlers because the photographs matched Jordan’s description. In actuality, Jordan Chandler’s attorney requested that the photographs be barred from the civil court in case his other two requests are not met.

Another indication that the Jordan Chandler description and photographs were a mismatch rather than a match is the fact that when Michael Jackson’s mother, Katherine Jackson was called to testify in front of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in the spring of 1994, investigators sought information from her as to whether her son had altered the appearance of his genitalia. On March 16, 1994 the Los Angeles Times wrote:

“Jackson's mother has frequently given interviews and made public appearances to defend her son, but a source close to the investigation said she may be questioned about Jackson's physical appearance. Investigators have been attempting to determine whether Jackson has done anything to alter his appearance so that it does not match a description provided to them by the alleged victim, who turned 14 in January.” [5]

On January 6, 2005 The Smoking Gun website published an article in which they claimed to have reviewed an affidavit by former Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department Deputy Deborah Linden, which "was filed in 1993 to secure court permission to photograph Jackson’s private parts" [6].

According to the article, based on Linden’s affidavit:

"With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson’s below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive “splotches” on his buttocks and one on his penis, “which is a light color similar to the color of his face.” The boy’s information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson’s penis was erect, the length of the performer’s pubic hair, and that he was circumcised." [6]

If this is indeed what Jordan said, then his description may have been “precise” (as in detailed), but it certainly was not accurate.

We know that Jackson was not circumcised as per his autopsy, released in early 2010 [7]. However, it makes sense that if someone were trying to guess whether a particular American male was circumcised or uncircumcised, the more likely option would be “circumcised”, since the majority of American men are, regardless of religion, especially in older generations, like Jackson who was born in the 1950s [8]. It is also worth noting that Jordan’s father Evan Chandler was Jewish and Jordan himself is most likely circumcised. Michael Jackson, however, was not.

Some pro-prosecution journalists tried to excuse Jordan’s failure to accurately describe Jackson’s penis by suggesting that perhaps Jordan did not notice the difference between a fully erect uncircumcised penis and a circumcised one. However, the allegations of Jordan Chandler describe not only one occasion of alleged molestation, but a very intense series of sexual contacts, including seeing each other naked in the bath and many masturbation sessions in front of each other. Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler claims in his book, All That Glitters, that his nephew saw Jackson’s genitalia many times, “from every possible angle” [9]:

“The problem was not Jordie's memory: he had seen Michael's genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details.” [9]

If this was true, then Jordan certainly would have been able to tell that Jackson was uncircumcised, but he got the description wrong.

It has to be noted that Jordan apparently gave two descriptions. Sneddon’s Motion is confusing on this issue because although it refers to two dates for the description (September 1 and December 1), it does not explicitly state that there were two descriptions. However, Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, states that there was one description given in September to the DA (more precisely, based on Sneddon’s Motion, to Los Angeles District Attorney Deputy, Lauren Weis) and one in December in the office of Larry Feldman, Jordan Chandler’s civil attorney. In this regard, Ray Chandler claims:

“It took several hours for Jordie to provide a description that Feldman could understand. There were numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael's privates, and it was difficult for the boy to explain exactly where they were located, what size they were, and what shape they took.

The problem was not Jordie's memory: he had seen Michael's genitalia so many times and from every possible angle that he had a precise mental picture. The problem was trying to explain the details. But they pressed on and eventually arrived* at a description that turned out to be an accurate match to the photographs taken by the Santa Barbara authorities a few days later.” [9]

(* Emphasis by the author of this article.)

Like many others, Ray Chandler too references Maureen Orth’s above mentioned 1995 interview with Sneddon, and as such Sneddon himself as the source of the claim that the description they “eventually arrived at” was accurate. Neither Sneddon’s Motion or Ray Chandler’s book explains why a second description was needed and if there are differences between the two. It has to be noted that between September and December, on November 26, the offices of Jackson’s dermatologist, Dr. Arnold Klein and plastic surgeon, Dr. Steve Hoefflin were raided by the police and they confiscated medical records of the star.

Also keep in mind that Sneddon’s Motion talks of only one mark as “relatively” matching. He does not address the circumcision issue, nor any other markings that the boy described or which were on Jackson's penis. It is because out of the whole description he could find only one mark as “matching” and even that only as relatively?

Jordan Chandler’s description and drawing was no more than an educated guess. Educated because he and his family knew that Jackson suffered from the skin disease, vitiligo. The entertainer announced that to the world in February, 1993 in an interview conducted by Oprah Winfrey. One of the areas vitiligo affects the most is the genital area [10]. All of the Chandlers could also see discoloration on Jackson’s arms, hands and face. Additionally, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler, in All That Glitters, describes an event on the weekend starting with May 28, 1993, when Jackson stayed in the house of Jordan’s father, Evan Chandler. Evan apparently drugged the singer [link]. In the story it is stated that Evan gave Jackson an injection into his gluteus [9], so Evan would have seen what Jackson’s buttocks looked like.

Among the documents which Victor Gutierrez presents in his book, entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover, and which documents apparently were given to him by either the Chandlers or by the Chandlers’ maid, Norma Salinas, there is a drawing which Gutierrez claims Jordan gave to his father:

[11]

The drawing is dated October 24, 1993, and is probably not the actual drawing and description Jordan gave in December, but it appears to be some kind of draft or instructional rehearsal for that. On the drawing you can see random notes of an alleged "cow-blotchy-pink/brown/not white but pink" skin. On the top you see "Mike circumcised / short pubic", in the middle you can read "body oil stink” and below that “brown patch on ass / left glut" and further below "bleaching cream / Orietta". In the little box on the right you can read “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”.

The rest of the text on the drawing is a graphic fantasy of alleged sexual acts involving Brett Barnes. Brett Barnes has always stated emphatically that Jackson never molested him and never touched him in any inappropriate way whatsoever. In 2005 he testified in support of the entertainer and said he was “very mad” at the insinuation that Jackson molested or inappropriately touched him [12].

As we discussed above, in reality Jackson was uncircumcised, but this diagram evidences that the Chandlers’ guess in 1993 was indeed, like The Smoking Gun article/Linden affidavit stated, that the singer was circumcised.

During the 2005 trial, the same drawing spread in the media and on the Internet, only in a heavily edited fashion. It is not clear who edited it, but the fantasies involving Brett Barnes and the claim about Jackson’s penis being circumcised had been removed. Ray Chandler too fully avoids mentioning the inaccurate circumcision issue in his book that was published in 2004.

It was claimed the diagram was given to Evan Chandler by Jordan, so we are to believe that these notes were the words and writings of a 13-year-old.

However, based on the instructions (eg. “be selective”) and notes like “my theory” it rather seems to be an instructional brainstorming session speculating what Jackson’s private parts looked like. Why would they need to theorize on paper about it if Jordan definitively knew?

Remember that in his book Ray Chandler wrote that in May 1993 Evan injected Jackson in his gluteus. This puts notes like this: “my theory: / ass blotched / shades of / brown – so / how is MJ(?) p. V / be selective / Orietta bleach”, into perspective.

Additionally, consider the references to an “Orietta”. Jackson had a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. In an article in the September 2006 issue of the British GQ magazine it was claimed that Victor Gutierrez befriended many of Jackson’s employees, including Orietta Murdock [13]. Why would Jordan Chandler make references to her while describing Jackson’s private parts? Orietta Murdock no longer worked for Jackson when Jackson spent time with the Chandler family. The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez.

The Chandlers only had to know that Jackson had vitiligo to assume that some kind of blemishes were probably on Jackson’s penis and also conclude, from Evan’s knowledge of how Jackson’s buttocks looked like, that there were discolorations on the lower parts of his body. In All That Glitters the following conversation is quoted from November 25, 1993 between Larry Feldman, the attorney who represented Jordan in his civil lawsuit against Jackson, and Evan Chandler:

"Oh, yeah, Lauren Weis* told me today that this disease Michael says he's got, vitiligo, that it's capable of changing anywhere you look, so that anything Jordie says is irrelevant. It can change very quickly with this disease."

"Shit, these guys seem to have an answer for everything."
"No, that's good for us!"
'Why?" "Because if he's right, he's right. And if he's wrong, we've got an explanation!"
"Ha!"
"Yeah, it's a no-loser for us.""That's very good.""Good? It's terrific! You stick with the teeth, kid. I'm sticking' with the law." [9]

(* The Lauren Weis, who is claimed to have told Larry Feldman that anything Jordan says about the blemishes is irrelevant because they are subject to changes, is the same Lauren Weis to whom Jordan gave his original description in September, which is referenced in Sneddon’s Motion. She was the Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney at the time. In All That Glitters she is also described as a good friend of Richard Hirsch, the attorney who represented Evan Chandler against the extortion charges filed by Jackson.)

In the chapter entitled “December 14” Ray Chandler writes:

"Back in September, Jordie had given a detailed description of Michael's penis and testicles to the DA. Feldman was aware of this, but had yet to discuss it with his young client. If the description matched the police photos it was one more giant straw on the camels back that was Michael's defense. And the poor beast was already swayback.

On the other hand, it had been medically established that the markings of vitiligo were subject to change. So if Jordie's description was wrong, Larry would be able to say the markings had shifted over the months. Either way, Larry's case was solid as a rock and he didn't need it. But since the DA was making a big deal over it, Larry had to be sure what, exactly, Jordie had seen.” [9]

As you can see, the Chandlers cynically played on the fact that vitiligo markings are subject to change and they were preparing excuses for themselves to explain why their description did not match the photographs. However, both the Chandlers and Sneddon failed to acknowledge that if vitiligo markings were subject to change then they are also inadequate to prove Jackson’s guilt, especially considering the fact the Chandlers got the circumcision issue completely wrong.

Sources:

[1] Plaintiff's motion to admit evidence that Jordan Chandler had knowledge of, and accurately described Defendant's distinctively-blemished lower torso and penis in 1994; Declaration of Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr; Memorandum of points and authorities (May 25, 2005)
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf

[FONT=&amp][2] Maureen Orth – The Jackson Jive (Vanity Fair, September 1995)[/FONT]

[3] Craig Rivera’s interview with Dr. Richard Strick (Fox News, October 2009)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHrJTrgKR1o

[4] LOS ANGELES : Boy's Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson's Body (Los Angeles Times, January 5, 1994)
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson

[5] Jim Newton - Grand Jury Calls Michael Jackson’s Mother to Testify (Los Angeles Times, March 16, 1994)
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-16/local/me-34715_1_grand-jury

[6] The case against Michael Jackson - The Telltale "Splotch" (January 6, 2005)
The article has been deleted by TSG since, for a secondary source see:
http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/20...plotch-missing-from-the-smokin-gunpublic-eye/
http://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/smoking-gun-on-linden-affidavit-1.png
http://vindicatemjj.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/smoking-gun-on-linden-affidavit-2.png

[7] Michael Jackson’s autopsy report as released in 2010
http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/jackson, michael_report.pdf (page 18)

[8] Cat Saunders - Circumcision in America (originally published in The New Times in October 2001)
http://www.drcat.org/articles_interviews/html/firstcut.html

[9] Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September, 2004)

[10] Vitiligo Skin Disorder
http://www.curevitiligooil.com/Vitiligo-Skin-Disorder.html

[11] Victor Gutierrez - Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Alamo Square Dist Inc, 1996)

[12] Brett Barnes’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 5, 2005)

[13] British GQ Magazine (May 2006)

-------

Some additional notes:

I believe the second, reducted drawing was circulated by Ray Chandler, but I do not have evidence for it.

Just because Sneddon claims something in a motion it doesn't mean it's true. I think it's obvious for many of us, but Sneddon provably lied and twisted facts in many of his motions. Sometimes his own witnesses refuted things he claimed in his motions.

Just because Sneddon attempted to introduce this evidence it doesn't mean it would have incriminated Michael. He introduced a lot of testimonies and evidence before which ended up hurting his case rather than helping it. I think his main purpose was to humiliate Michael with it, not because it was strong evidence for anything. If it had been strong it should have been the first thing he tried to introduce as soon as "prior bad acts" evidence was allowed.

terrell · Jun 7, 2013

Great Job. Fans need to post this kind of information on websites, facebook, twitter, etc. You fight with FACTS not gossip.

HIStory · Jun 25, 2013

[h=1]Victor Gutierrez and his role in the allegations against Michael Jackson[/h]There were countless of journalists reporting on the Michael Jackson cases and among them there were those who were molding it, often in ethically questionable ways. There is one journalist, however, who stands out as someone who influenced the media’s reporting and possibly even the formation of allegations against Jackson more than anyone else. His name is Victor Gutierrez.

The name Gutierrez might not sound familiar but many of the more popular journalists reporting on the Jackson case used Gutierrez as their source, apparently without vetting the “information” he provided. Diane Dimond called him one of her best sources and said of him “I have never had a doubt about this person, ever” [1]. He was also used as a consultant in “documentaries” televised about the Jackson cases, programs that were full of untrue claims, claims very biased against the entertainer.

Gutierrez not only acted as a source for other journalists but was also in contact with many people who later appeared as prosecution witnesses on the stand at Jackson’s 2005 trial. Additionally, according to journalist Maureen Orth, the prosecution in Jackson’s case relied on Gutierrez’s book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover (discussed below) and believed it to be accurate information: “The sources close to the prosecution I interviewed for this article were all familiar with the book and believed it was an essentially accurate portrayal of Jackson’s relationship with Jordie Chandler” [2], Orth wrote in her article published in the April 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, in which she too seems to give much credit to Gutierrez and his salacious stories.

The first time the wider public heard Gutierrez’s name in connection with the Michael Jackson case was on January 9, 1995 when Diane Dimond announced on KABC-AM radio’s popular morning show that the police had reopened their investigation against Jackson because of an alleged 27 minute video tape, captured by one of the star’s security cameras, supposedly depicting acts of molestation. Dimond painted a very vivid picture of what was on the tape, despite the fact that she had not seen it herself, attributing the story to one of her “best sources”.

Though Gutierrez was not named on that particular show, he was revealed later that day as her source on Dimond’s television show, Hard Copy, where Gutierrez himself made an appearance. Dimond aired the story on Hard Copy despite receiving a letter immediately after her appearance on KABC-AM from Jackson’s lawyer, Howard Weitzman stating that what she had alleged was not true.

Indeed, the whole story turned out to be a total fabrication. The alleged tape did not exist and as such, was never produced. In fact, the only person who had ever claimed to have seen it was Gutierrez. The boy whom Gutierrez claimed was being molested on the tape was Jermaine Jackson’s son and Michael Jackson's nephew, Jeremy Jackson. Jeremy’s mother, Margaret Maldonado recalled the story in her 1995 book entitled 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.” [3]

Jackson sued both Dimond and Gutierrez and while Dimond (with a little help from Santa Barbara District Attorney, Thomas Sneddon) escaped unscathed, Gutierrez was ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million in damages. He never paid and instead fled the country and later filed bankruptcy.

Gutierrez’s next move was to publish a book in 1996 entitled Michael Jackson Was My Lover. The book contains graphic descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and his 1993 accuser, Jordan Chandler. It also contains graphic sexual descriptions of alleged sexual acts between Jackson and other boys – boys, who have always stated, in no uncertain terms, that the singer never molested or touched them in any sexually inappropriate way. Because of its pedophiliac content, major publishers in the United States were unwilling to publish the book. The minor publisher/distributor which did has since went bankrupt.

Gutierrez claimed he based his book on Jordan’s diary, however the Chandlers say Jordan never kept a diary. A diary in which Jordan documented his abuse would have been very important evidence in any investigation against Jackson but no such evidence was ever produced. Again, the only person who ever claimed to have seen the diary was Gutierrez, yet his book was blindly believed, according to Maureen Orth, even by the prosecutors.

It is pretty clear that rather than Jordan’s diary, the graphic sexual content in Gutierrez's book was based on Gutierrez’s own perverted fantasies. Quite disturbingly, Gutierrez does not disapprove of the alleged abuse but instead celebrates it as a consensual love story, a wonderful “relationship”; it is no wonder since in the foreword of the book, amongst the credits he thanks NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), an infamous pedophile organization [4].

When Michael Jackson was accused of molesting Gavin Arvizo in 2003, Gutierrez, perhaps sensing another opportunity to further his agenda, became very active in the media. He assisted in the making of slanderous “documentaries” about Jackson. Apparently the people who employed him as an expert on the allegations against Jackson did not find his history, the fact that he was Court ordered to pay Jackson $2.7 million for lying about him, the pedophiliac theme of his book or his apparent association with NAMBLA problematic.

Snapshot of the credit list of NBC Dateline’s Inside The Jackson Case program with Victor Gutierrez listed as a consulting producer (though his name is misspelled)

In a September 2006 British GQ article about Gutierrez it is claimed he was even engaged to work on Martin Bashir's Jackson documentary [5].

The most revealing interview with Gutierrez, however, appeared in a German newspaper, Tageszeitung, in April 2005 while Jackson was on trial. According to a 2010 article in the German Spiegel magazine, Tageszeitung actively advocated pedophilia in a series of articles in the late 70s and early 80s [6].

The newspaper’s journalist met with Gutierrez at a Hollywood hotel. The article is entitled “Es war Liebe!” (“It Was Love!&#8221, referring to the alleged "relationship" between Michael Jackson and Jordan Chandler. It starts with the lie that Gutierrez’s book was based on Jordan’s diary and then details about Gutierrez’s life are presented. He grew up in Chile and became a journalist, later traveling to the USA in 1984, where he worked as a photographer at the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. Afterwards, he did not return to his country, instead he found a job with a Spanish newspaper. Then:

“In 1986 he reports from a conference of the North American Man Boy Love Association. The so called NAMBLA was founded at the end of the 70s. At the beginning, the “Support Group for Relationships Between Generations” was promoted prominently by Gore Vidal and Allen Ginsberg, then it was quickly isolated from the rest of the gay movement. At the conference Gutierrez hears for the first time: “Michael is one of us.” A pedophile. “Jackson was treated like an idol there, as a hope for social acceptance.”
Gutierrez quits his job at the newspaper, talks to employees of Jackson, interviews the first boys. Soon he runs out of money for the research. He sells his car, saves money on food. He learns: there are different type of pedophiles, pedophilia is as old as the human race, not every game they play is a horrible crime. Victor Gutierrez says: “In the the five months of their relationship Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler were happy. It was love.” [7]

[Note: Jackson has never been a member of NAMBLA and never had any association with them. What members express here is wishful thinking.]

To the question why aren’t there more boys accusing Jackson, Gutierrez again gives revealing insight into his “philosophy”:

“They are all afraid”, says Gutierrez. Not of Michael and his power but of public opinion. “It is about homosexuality”, Gutierrez opines, “nobody wants to be the gay Jackson boy”. His theory: if Madonna had an affair or a love relationship with a minor boy it would be a much smaller scandal. At the schoolyard the boy would be a hero. As Jackson’s lover he is a faggot.
“In a hundred years maybe such relationships will be accepted by society”, says Gutierrez. The story reminds him of Oscar Wild and his young lover, Bosi. As Gutierrez, who is a heterosexual himself*, was looking for a publisher for his book in 1995, he hears people say that he glamourizes pedophiles.” [7]

[* Note: In different interviews over the years Gutierrez has made conflicting statements about his own sexuality.]

While in this article Gutierrez does not protest against the claim that he “glamorizes pedophiles” and the journalist never challenges Gutierrez’s portrayal of pedophilia as some kind of consensual love relationship, in English language publications Gutierrez is more cautious.

In the September 2006 issue of the British GQ Magazine, in an article that is based on Gutierrez’s version of the events and thus clearly biased for him and against Jackson, the story of Gutierrez’s visit to the NAMBLA conference is rehashed but without naming the organization:

"Gutierrez began his investigation in 1986 when he went undercover with the LAPD. While attending a secret conference held by a suspect organization in LA, Gutierrez heard many references to Michael Jackson. So far as the world knew at the time, "***** *****" was just an eccentric. The fact he liked the company of young boys seemed no more suspicious back then than his hanging out with a chimp called Bubbles." [5]

While in the Tageszeitung article it was suggested he was there as a reporter, in GQ it is claimed he went there “undercover with the LAPD”. It is very unlikely that the LAPD would engage untrained outsiders for undercover operations over their own trained officers. In actuality, it is very unlikely Gutierrez would have been present at a NAMBLA conference as an outsider (let alone as a reporter) because the organization is very cautious about who they let in and very secretive about the exact wherabouts of their annual conferences. [8] [9] Only members and people who NAMBLA trusts receive an invitation.

The GQ article’s main subject is a film that Gutierrez planned to make of his book with the help of Randy Barbato and Fenton Bailey, founders of the World of Wonder production company. Based on what is said by the two producers in the article, like the book, the film would have also served the agenda of portraying supposed child molestation as a consensual, love relationship.

“Despite the explosive nature of the events it describes, the script is actually a model of amorous propriety. “We wanted to capture the intoxicating feeling of the first love which was what it was for Jordie”, says Bailey.
[…]
Central to the film, and the most controversial element in it, is the presentation of Jordie as a willing, even eager, participant in a relationship with a man he had worshipped since the age of four. "The only way the general public can view somebody like Jordie is as a victim," says Bailey. "The fact that he might have entered into the relationship with Michael Jackson of his own volition is, for many people, tremendously problematic." [5]

Earlier in the article Barbato is quoted as saying:

"In America we are up against the 'eek' factor. The Europeans don't have that kind of squeamishness. America can deal with the sanitized version of the story, but our story is based on the tabloid version." [5]

Barbato also acknowledges that their movie “goes outside of any of the acceptable norms”:

“However, the producer remains understandably cautious about the ultimate success of his undertaking. "Indie movies have gone mainstream in the States," says Barbato. "They've become a genre. But this project is independent in the true sense of the word. It goes outside any of the acceptable norms." [5]

After Gutierrez visited the conference of the “suspect organization” in 1986, the 2006 GQ article states, he started to “strike up friendships” with some of Jackson’s employees:

"For the next five years Gutierrez tracked down as many of Jackson's current and former associates as he could. Being Latino himself helped - it was relatively easy for him to strike up friendships with Jackson's El Salvadorean maid, Blanca Francia, who left Jackson's employment in 1991, and the star's Costa Rican PA (personal assistant), Orietta Murdock, who sued him for unfair dismissal in 1992." [5]

Again we read that after that NAMBLA conference, where pedophiles express the wish that Jackson become one of them, a celebrity poster boy as a “hope for social acceptance” [7] of pedophilia, Gutierrez goes on a mission and strikes up friendships with some of Jackson’s employees. The same employees who would later make allegations against the star.

There are also facts to consider about a possible connection between Gutierrez and Jackson’s first accusers, the Chandler family. According to the 2006 GQ article, Gutierrez became interested in the Chandlers when he saw Jordan, his mother and sister in Jackson’s company at several events during that time, including the 1993 World Music Awards in Monaco.

"A pariah in the celebrity-sucking world of freelance entertainment journalism, Gutierrez was forced to give up his writing and for a while supported himself by selling satellite dishes. Then, in 1993, his interest was reawakaned when he heard about a boy called Jordie Chandler with whom Jackson was appearing at huge media events, such as the World Music Awards in Monaco." [5]

The Chandler accusations did not originate from Jordan Chandler himself. It was his father, Evan Chandler who first had the preconceived idea that the friendship between his son and Jackson was sexual; it was Evan Chandler who pressured and threatened the boy into corroborating his idea.

Remarkably, like Gutierrez, Evan Chandler spoke of supposed child molestation as if it was a consensual romance. In Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, they even feel the need to explain in a footnote why the alleged "relationship" between Jordan and Jackson is described as a love story:

"Evan and Monique's belief at the time, that Jordie and Michael were "in love," is significant to the problem of understanding sexual molestation in older children. It did not occur to them that the thirteen-year-old was not a willing participant." [10; page 45]

In a secretly taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz that took place on July 8, 1993 (so before Jordan allegedly “confessed” to Evan about the alleged molestation), Evan claims that it were other people who convinced him of the harmfulness of the friendship between Jackson and Jordan. He calls these people “experts”, although does not make it clear who these alleged experts were and in what field they had an expertise in. [11] Whether one of these alleged “experts” was Victor Gutierrez or not, we cannot tell, however there are additional facts to consider about a possible connection between Victor Gutierrez and Evan Chandler:

In his book, Gutierrez presents legal correspondence, letters belonging to the Chandlers and private photographs of Jordan, his room and the Chandler’s house. Gutierrez befriended the Chandlers’ maid, Norma Salinas, so those documents could have been provided by her. However, Gutierrez’s book also contains stories, with varying details, identical to entries that appear in Ray Chandler’s All That Glitters, a book which was published almost ten years after Gutierrez’s publication.

Another inference to a probable collaboration between the Chandlers and Gutierrez is the fact that a drawing allegedly made in October of 1993, by Jordan of Jackson’s private parts includes text that makes mention of the name "Orietta" twice.Jackson employed a personal assistant named Orietta Murdock whom he fired in 1992. Orietta Murdock, however, no longer worked for Jackson in 1993, when the star spent time with the Chandler family. Why would Jordan or any of the Chandlers make references to an "Orietta" while attempting to describe Jackson’s private parts? The link between Murdock and the Chandlers is Gutierrez. In the 2006 GQ article Orietta Murdock is mentioned as one of the Jackson employees that Victor Gutierrez befriended.

If there was indeed a collaboration regarding the allegations in 1993 between the Chandlers and Gutierrez, the relationship must have turned sour later because in 2004 Ray Chandler, while making his rounds in the media and promoting his book, called Gutierrez a “sleazebag” [12] and stated that he did not endorse his book.

In the 2006 GQ Magazine article it is claimed that “after the first phase of his research” [5] Gutierrez sent a copy of his book to the LAPD, but they took no action "because I was a nobody, just a Latino reporter in LA" [5]. (Take note that just a couple of paragraphs earlier it is claimed that Gutierrez was at that NAMBLA conference in 1986 “undercover with the LAPD”.) In Michael Jackson’s FBI files, released in 2009, a couple of months after the singer's death, there is no information about a book sent to the LAPD. However, there is a document concerning a writer who called the LAPD on December 27, 1993, claiming that "he has been writing a book about Michael Jackson concerning allegations of sexual molestation of children" [13]. The caller, whose name is concealed in the FBI document, claimed that "he had information that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1985 or 1986, investigated allegations against Jackson for reportedly molesting two Mexican boys" [13]. He also claimed the investigation was "covered up" [13] because "Jackson was to receive an honor at the White House from the President" [13]. Jackson actually received the honor at the White House in 1984.

The LAPD did not take action, not because the caller was “a nobody” but because the claim was absolutely untrue. The document states that they checked the FBI indexes both automatically and manually and found no reference to such an investigation. Keep in mind that at the time the Chandler investigation was ongoing and the LAPD was eager to find evidence against the singer. It is nonsensical that the FBI would ignore any damning information against Jackson. The FBI ignored the information because it had no basis in reality.

In a Los Angeles Times article dated August 28, 1993, it is claimed that Victor Gurierrez was among the people whom the police interviewed in regards to the case against Jackson (the allegations were formally made on August 17, 1993): “One of those interviewed was Victor Gutierrez, a Southern California free-lance journalist who has been working on a book about Jackson for several years. Gutierrez spoke to LAPD officers for two hours Thursday and was interviewed again Friday. He would not disclose what transpired during those sessions, but he told The Times that he has interviewed for his book some of the same youngsters being sought for questioning by the LAPD.” [14]

Many of the witnesses who testified for the prosecution at Jackson’s 2005 trial, and on whom the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” case was mostly built, were people who had contact with Victor Gutierrez. Former security guard, Ralph Chacon testified he and other ex-employees of Jackson (whom the media often called the “Neverland 5&#8221

spoke to Gutierrez before they went to sell their story to The Star magazine [15]. Former security guard, Kassim Abdool testified that he met Gutierrez once and they had a two, three hours conversation [16]. Former maid, Adrian McManus testified that Gutierrez “was going to try to help us in our lawsuit” [17]. Another prosecution witness was former maid, Blanca Francia, who is mentioned in the 2006 GQ article as one of the Jackson employees Gutierrez befriended [5]. In Gutierrez’s book there is a photo of the two together [4].

Other people whom Gutierrez befriended, such as as Orietta Murdock or the Chandlers’ El Salvadorean maid, Norma Salinas, did not testify but they made their rounds in the media selling salacious lies about Jackson to tabloids.

Michael Jackson was the most internationally famous victim of Gutierrez’s lies and manipulation, but he was not the only one. In late 2003 in his home country Chile, Gutierrez published an article in which he linked a politician of a right-wing political party to a pedophile ring. Gutierrez’s article gave a detailed description of what allegedly went on in the house of a businessman, Claudio Spiniak, who was arrested just a few days earlier for operating a pedophile ring. Gutierrez claimed that a senator of the Alliance for Chile (a coalition of right-wing political parties) participated in those pedophile orgies. He did not name the politician in his article but alleged that the senator's name was given to authorities. Later in an interview conducted by Gutierrez for a TV program, a minor boy, a street child, claimed to have seen a well-known right-wing politician at Spiniak’s orgies. [18] The boy later retracted his claim and it was revealed that Gutierrez paid him 10,000 to 20,000 Chilean pesos. In February, 2004 Gutierrez’s lawyer acknowledged the payment but claimed it was only a "humanitarian gesture", not something given in exchange for the interview and false accusations. Authorities could not find any link between the pedophile ring and any politician of the party accused by Gutierrez but the rumors were enough to tarnish the public image of the right-wing coalition and certain politicians. [19] [20] [21]

In 2008 Gutierrez was sentenced to 61 days in jail and ordered to pay 30 million Chilean pesos (approximately $60,000) to former Miss Universe, the ex-wife of Argentina’s former president, Carlos Menem, Cecilia Bolocco for untrue and slanderous claims he made about her private life. This was considered a precedent, the highest amount of compensation ever awarded in this type of case in Chile [22].

Victor Gutierrez, the man accredited by media journalists and the prosecution as being a reliable source of information on Michael Jackson, whose stories inspired many media articles and “documentaries” about the star, and to whom the very origin of the allegations against Jackson may be traced is a man who has been convicted as a liar in a court of law, not once but at least twice and not in one but in two different countries.

Victor Gutierrez, a man who has expressed disturbing views about pedophilia, who has written a graphically sexual work of fiction, replete with pedophiliac fantasies about an alleged mutual “relationship” between a man and a child; a man who had the audacity to thank NAMBLA in the foreword of this book; who by his own account, visited a NAMBLA conference in 1986 was directly involved in the false allegations made against Jackson.

Sources:
[1] Interview with Diane Dimond on The Ken and Barkley Company morning show (KABC-AM Radio, January 9, 1995)
[2] Maureen Orth - Losing His Grip (Vanity Fair, April 2003)
http://www.vanityfair.com/fame/features/2003/04/orth200304 (page 4)
[3] Margaret Maldonado - Jackson Family Values: Memories of Madness (Newstar Pr, November 1995)
[4] Victor Gutierrez - Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Alamo Square Dist Inc, 1996)
[5] Robert Sandall - Michael Jackson Was My Lover (Brtish GQ Magazine, September 2006)
[6] Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen - The Sexual Revolution and Children, How the Left Took Things Too Far (Der Spiegel, July 2, 2010)
http://www.spiegel.de/international...-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679-3.html
[7] "Es war Liebe!" (Die Tageszeitung, April 5, 2005)
http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/?id=archivseite&dig=2005/04/05/a0170
[8] FBI Agent Robert Hamer's undercover operation as described in Order Amending Opinion and Amended Opinion - USA v. David Cary Mayer
Page 8.: "He requested an invitation to NAMBLA’s 2002 conference but was denied because he had not been a member for a long enough period of time."
[9] Onell R. Soto - Little-known group promotes 'benevolent' sex (February 17, 2005)
Quote: "The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs. Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was not disclosed until the last minute.
"They don't want press and they don't want the cops showing up," he said."
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050217-2208-manboy-daily.html
[10] Raymond Chandler - All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)
[11] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993)
[12] *****: Accuser's Uncle to Publish Exposé (FoxNews, September 8, 2004)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131615,00.html
[13] Michael Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%202%20of%203/view (Page 52)
[14] Charles P. Wallace and Jim Newton - Jackson Back on Stage; Inquiry Continues (Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson
[15] Ralph Chacon’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 7, 2005)
[16] Kassim Abdool’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 25, 2005)
[17] Adrian McManus’ testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)
[18] La prensa y el caso Spiniak (El Periodista, August 27, 2004)
http://www.elperiodista.cl/newtenberg/1682/printer-63826.html
[19] Abogado confirma que Víctor Gutiérrez entregó dinero a L.Z. (Emol.com, February 11, 2004)
http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacion...que-victor-gutierrez-entrego-dinero-a-lz.html
[20] UDI: se confirma tesis del montaje (LaNacioncl, February 12, 2004)
http://rie.cl/lanacioncl/?a=15112
[21] Víctor Gutiérrez reconoce que pasó su billetito a menor del caso Spiniak (La Cuarta, February 12, 2004)
http://www.lacuarta.cl/diario/2004/02/12/12.04.4a.CRO.GUTIERREZ.html
[22] Millonaria sentencia a favor de Cecilia Bolocco remece a la farándula local (El Mercurio, October 30, 2008)
http://www.emol.com/mundografico/?F_ID=657315

HIStory · Jun 30, 2013

The LeMarques' allegations and Paul Barresi

Another “prior bad acts” witness of the prosecution was Phillip LeMarque. LeMarque and his wife, Stella Marcroft worked for Jackson at Neverland for about ten months beginning in 1991. Marcroft was a cook and her husband was in charge of serving the food to guests. After they left Neverland they opened a restaurant in Encino, but it went bankrupt and at the time when the Chandler allegations went public they were heavily in debt. Later in the 1990s they went into the pornographic website business.

At Jackson’s 2005 trial, LeMarque claimed that on one occasion he witnessed Jackson put his hand into Macaulay Culkin’s pants. Though LeMarque claimed he was so shocked by the sight that he almost dropped the French fries he was about to serve, he never bothered to report to authorities what he had allegedly witnessed. His story only emerged in 1993, after the Chandler allegations went public, and at the time he and his wife tried to sell it to tabloids [1].

They met with private investigator and tabloid broker, Paul Barresi, whom LeMarque said was an old friend of his wife. Barresi negotiated with tabloids for them as did their lawyer, Arnold Kessler.

At first the LeMarques claimed they did not discuss the price of their story with Barresi but later admitted they did. LeMarque tried to distance himself from the money negotiations by saying he and his wife just listened to what Barresi had to offer. However, Barresi taped their conversations and it came out that when Barresi offered them $100,000 for a story the LeMarques tried to up it to $500,000.

Q. You upped the price to 500 from $100,000 at one point?
A. Yeah, to see if we were going to do it. [1]

and

Q. Did you have a discussion with Paul Baressi where you said, “We don’t want 100,000. We want 500,000”? Yes or no.
A. Yes. [1]

LeMarque admitted that Barresi told them they could get more money if they said Jackson’s hand was in Culkin’s pants [1].

During the testimony LeMarque said he stopped negotiating with Barresi because he realized he was “sleazy” [1]. Jackson’s lawyer, Thomas Mesereau asked him why he thought that and LeMarque said he thought so because Barresi secretly taped their conversations. However, on cross-examination he contradicted himself by saying he learned that Barresi taped them only a couple of days before his testimony at the 2005 trial [1]. He also said he learned that from the news, although earlier in his testimony he claimed he did not follow the news regarding the allegations which Mesereau pointed out to him when he asked: “I thought you didn’t follow the news about the case” [1].

Barresi then allegedly went to various media outlets and sold the LeMarques’ story, but Phillip LeMarque claimed they had nothing to do with that; that Barresi acted on his own, without their consent. However, the LeMarques’ lawyer, Arnold Kessler also contacted tabloids at the time trying to sell the LeMarques’ story. Again, LeMarque claimed on the stand that Kessler acted on his own, without their consent. LeMarque also claimed on the stand that he was not aware of the tabloid articles that were published in 1993 about their story, quoting them. As he sat there in 2005 he claimed that he had never even heard about them [1].

LeMarque gave a written statement to the police on September 10, 1993 about what he allegedly witnessed. On further recross examination, Mesereau asked him if he gave this statement to the police after he had already talked to Barresi about selling stories to tabloids. At first he said he did not think so, then that he was not sure and eventually he admitted that he gave the statement “probably after” they had already talked to Barresi [1].

The final blow to LeMarques’ credibility and testimony came about a month later, when Jackson’s defense presented their side of the case and called Macaulay Culkin who testified that Jackson never molested him and never touched him in any improper way.

Macaulay Culkin was shocked that the prosecution and the media made allegations about Jackson being inappropriate with him, without even consulting him, the alleged victim, about whether those allegations were true or not – and completely ignoring earlier statements of his in which he stated in no uncertain terms that Jackson never did anything inappropriate to him.

Q. You heard about some of the allegations about whether or not Mr. Jackson improperly ever touched you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever molest you?
A. Never.
Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever improperly touch you?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in any sexual type of way?
A. No.
Q. Has he ever touched you in any offensive way?
A. No.
Q. What do you think of these allegations?
A. I think they’re absolutely ridiculous.
Q. When did you first learn that these prosecutors were claiming that you were improperly touched?
A. When did I first learn that?
Q. Yes.
A. I -- somebody called me up and said, “You should probably check out CNN, because they’re saying something about you.”
Q. And did you check it out?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what did you learn?
A. I learned that it was a former cook had done something to me, and there was something about a maid or something like that. It was just one of those things where I just couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or -- let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me. And at the same time it was amazing to me that they -- that nobody approached me and even asked me whether or not the allegations were true. They kind of just were -- threw it out there just like -- they didn’t even -- they didn’t even double-check it basically. I mean, even if they assumed that they knew the answer, what got me was that they didn’t even ask.
Q. Now, are you saying these prosecutors never tried to reach you to ask you your position on this?
A. No, they didn’t.
Q. Do you know if any police officer from Santa Barbara has ever tried to call you to see what the truth is?
A. No. [2]

Sources:

[1] Phillip LeMarque’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (April 8, 2005)

[2] Macaulay Culkin’s testimony at Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial (May 11, 2005)

HIStory · Jun 30, 2013

Since it was claimed in a recent article that Michael paid off boys and their families left and right to not to go to authorities or public, let's see what the Chandlers themselves say about it. This is mainly based on what they wrote in their own book, so no one can say it's made up by fans or people biased for MJ! It's in their own book! They tell about how they wanted to get a pay-off from Michael from the beginning to not to go public. At one point they were prepared not to go public for $1 million. Michael REFUSED! That was the Chandlers' problem! That's why they went public! So how does it jive with this narrative of MJ routinely paying off boys and families and that's why they do not go public?

The Chandlers’ Monetary Demands

The fact that Michael Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser in 1994 is often brought up against him as a sign of guilt. The settlement and the events leading to it is discussed in another article [link]. The critics who bring up the settlement do not realize had Jackson wanted to “hush” his accuser he could have done so before the allegations went public and before the authorities were involved. In fact, the accusing side’s goal was to get a pay-off from the very beginning. It is clear that the reason they turned to the public and the authorities with their allegations (indirectly, by capitalizing on the rule that all psychiatrists must report allegations of abuse) was because they did not get the pay-off they desired.

Before disclosing their allegations to a person mandated to report the alleged abuse, a psychiatrist, and going public with the allegations, Jordan Chandler’s father, Evan Chandler demanded money from Michael Jackson. In his book, All That Glitters, Jordan’s uncle, Ray Chandler vehemently denies that the demand was an act of extortion and prefers to call it “negotiations”. Whatever you want to call it, this is how it went:

According to Ray Chandler’s book, All That Glitters, with Dr. Mathis Abrams’ letter in his hand, Evan attempted to “negotiate” with Michael Jackson and wanted to do so alone. In the chapter entitled “August 1” the book states:

“Although Evan was certain Michael’s actions toward Jordie were harmful, he still did not believe them to be intentional. As twisted as Michael was, Evan believed Michael genuinely cared about Jordie, and that if he could talk to Michael alone and explain his concerns, Michael would understand and together they could work out a solution, “without the damn lawyers.” [1; page 99]

Jackson, however, refused to negotiate with Evan “without the damn lawyers”. According to All That Glitters, Jordan’s step father, David Schwartz had already delivered the news of the Abrams’ letter to Jackson’s private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, so Jackson already could suspect that Evan was up to something. Additionally, Jackson had already listened to the secretly taped phone conversation between Evan and Schwartz, recorded on July 8, 1993. Nevertheless, Jackson agreed to meet with Evan but only in the presence of his lawyer, Bert Fields or Pellicano. The telephone conversation between Evan and Jackson is described as follows in All That Glitters:

“I just want to find out what’s going on between you two,” Evan explained.
“You don’t need a lawyer. We can work this out ourselves.”
Michael wouldn’t budge: Pellicano or Fields had to attend.
“We may talk about some embarrassing things for both of you,” Evan cautioned.
“Anything you say to me, you can say to Bert,” Michael insisted.
“But I don’t think anyone else should hear these things. I don’t want you to get in trouble. I just…” Click.
This phone call was a turning point for Evan. “I understood that a man in Michael’s position needed lawyers for everything, but this was not business, not to me. I really thought we could work it out if we could get all the lawyers out of the picture, and I thought Michael would want that too. If I wasn’t bringing a lawyer, why did he need one?” [1; page 100]

The meeting took place on August 4 at the Westwood Marquis Hotel. Present were Michael Jackson, Anthony Pellicano and Evan and Jordan Chandler. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 GQ magazine article:

“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.” [2]

The hug is mentioned in Ray Chandler’s book as well: “Evan then walked over to Michael and embraced the star with a big, happy-to-see-you hug, patting him on the back like an old friend.”[1; page 102]

And then it is explained in a peculiar way:

“In an interview for Vanity Fair six months after the Westwood Marquis meeting, Pellicano drew attention to the fact that Evan hugged Michael at the start of the meeting.”If I believed somebody molested my kid and I got that close to him, I’d be on death row right now.” Supposedly this means that because Evan didn’t kill Michael right then and there, he really didn’t believe the molestation occurred.

Pellicano, of course, would have us believe Evan had already accused Michael of molesting Jordie as part of an extortion attempt, so when Evan hugged him it showed he knew Michael had done no such thing. But if Evan went there to extort Michael, why would he start off by giving him a big hug? Why would he act friendly? Wouldn’t he at least pretend that he believed Michael had molested Jordie and that he was angry? Especially with Michael’s audio expert/private investigator present as a witness!

That Evan walked into the meeting and gave Michael a big hug only corroborates that Evan went there with the belief that Michael genuinely cared for Jordie and hadn’t done anything intentional to hurt him. After all, the idea that Michael was being accused of intentionally harming the boy — that a “molestation” had occurred — did not originate in Evan’s mind. It was Anthony Pellicano and Bert Fields who first used the term.” [1; page 107]

How many parents would give the person whom they suspect to have molested their child a “happy-to-see-you hug” and would “pat him on the back like an old friend”? And how many parents would have to “pretend” to be angry with the alleged molester, instead of genuinely be angry?
Another remarkable aspect of the above quoted text is Evan’s apparent attempt to refrain from the use of the term “molestation”.Remember, this meeting took place after Jordan allegedly already “confessed” to Evan.

Jackson and his people understood that Jackson was being accused of child molestation, even if Evan was careful not to make that accusation himself. At the Westwood Marquis Hotel Evan had only read Dr. Abrams’ letter, he did not make any accusation in his own words. Apparently, Evan and his attorney Barry Rothman were trying to make sure that Evan could not be sued later if the allegations were proven to be false. Actually, according to Ray Chandler’s book, Rothman warned Pellicano on August 1, that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be untrue:

“But Barry was not intimidated. He informed Pellicano that Evan had made no public statements of defamatory remarks about Michael in any way. And further, that Evan, as a dentist, was a mandatory reporter governed by the same requirements as any licensed health professional. Not only was he required to report his suspicions to the proper authorities, but he could not be sued for doing so even if they turned out to be incorrect.” [1; page 100]

According to All That Glitters, a day after Rothaman warned Pellicano that Evan could not be sued even if the allegations were found to be false, allegedly Pellicano called Rothman and “announced he had a way of working everything out. Michael would help Jordie and Evan “reestablish their relationship” by assisting them in setting up a screenwriting career. That way they could spend lots of time together doing what they loved best.” [1; page 101]

According to the book, this offer was the first thing that Evan brought up at the Westwood Marquis Hotel on August 4, but Pellicano denied making the offer and it became clear that he was not willing to offer him anything. According to All That Glitters, this made Evan “frustrated by Pellicano’s attitude, and Michael’s apparent condoning of it” [1; page 102-103] and Evan allegedly told the entertainer that he knew what he had done to Jordan and that the boy had confirmed it. The book claims “Evan then asked his son to confirm that he had, and the boy nodded affirmatively” [1; page 103], to which Jackson looked straight into Jordan’s eyes and said: “I didn’t do anything.”[1; page 103]

Allegedly, for Evan this was “the defining moment”:

“For Evan, it was the defining moment. “I knew Michael was screwed up, but until that point I wasn’t sure where he was coming from. Part of me still believed he was genuinely in love with Jordie and was acting innocently out of a warped mind, without any forethought or cunning.

“But his smile was chilling, like the smile you see on a serial killer or rapist who continually declares his innocence despite mountains of evidence against him. I knew it immediately; Michael Jackson was a child molester! It was suddenly so obvious, June had been fooled, Jordie had been fooled, and I had been fooled. The entire world had been fooled by this pitiful creature with a brilliant but criminal mind.” [1; page 103]

According to All That Glitters Jordan “confessed” to Evan on July 16, yet Ray Chandler describes this moment on August 4 as the defining moment; a moment in which Jackson looked into Jordan’s eyes and said he didn’t do anything. We are to believe that this is what convinced Evan that Jackson was a child molester? Not that his son had earlier “confessed” to him? Ray Chandler closes the account of the meeting by stating:

“Evan felt victorious. Not because he had won anything, but because he had finally solved the puzzle. Not only had there been sex between his son and Michael, but he now understood Michael’s true feelings. He had glimpse into the man’s heart, and it was not a pretty sight.” [1; page 104]

Jordan allegedly “confessed” to his father on July 16, but according to this storyline Evan “solved the puzzle” only on August 4, and does that by interpreting Jackson’s denial in a rather peculiar way.

Evan’s new conviction, however, didn’t prevent him from continuing his “negotiations” with Jackson. After the Westwood Marquis Hotel meeting, Pellicano was invited to meet with Barry Rothman and Evan at Rothman’s office and that is when Evan and Rothman made their $20 million demand.

Ray Chandler’s reasoning for that is:

“Evan had two goals. First and foremost was the welfare of his son. On the surface Jordie seemed fine, but this wasn’t surface stuff. Dr. Abrams had expressed deep concern for the boy and left Evan with the impression that serious damage might already have occurred. [Note: Dr. Abrams had not met Jordan yet at this point. Evan refers to Dr. Abrams’ letter here, which was in answer of the version of events that he and his lawyer presented to Abrams.] Evan hoped for the best but needed to prepare for the worst.

If Jordie needed long-term counseling it could be expensive, and they would have to find a state that did not require psychotherapists to report child abuse to the authorities. That could mean relocating and closing his dental practice. How would he support his family? A worst case scenario to be sure, but possible. Soured by his experience with Pellicano and Michael — in particular, “Michael looking into Jordie’s eyes and denying their intimacy” — Evan’s second goal was to punish Michael. “I didn’t want him to get off scot-free. But a few million is chump change to him. I figured twenty million was definitely punishing amount. At the very least it would give him something to think about. If it turned out Jordie was okay and didn’t need a lot of counseling, so much the better*. He’d be set for life. He deserved it after what Michael did to him.

“And it wasn’t just the sex part. Everyone made a big deal about the sex – the press, the cops, the DA. That was important, sure, but it wasn’t the main thing for me. It was what Michael did to him to get to that point. He took over his mind and isolated him from his family and friends and everyone he cared for. He made him his own little slave. On the outside it looked like he was showing Jordie the time of his life, but on the inside he was robbing him of his individuality, his soul. That was the real crime, and that’s what I wanted Michael to pay for.” [1; page 108-109]

(*Not surprisingly, Jordan indeed did not need a lot of counseling.)

Others have differing account about where the $20 million sum demanded by Evan came from. On August 28, 1993 the Los Angeles Times wrote: “Film industry sources have said that the boy’s father sought a $20-million movie production and financing deal with Jackson.” [4]

A friend of Jackson, painter David Nordahl elaborated that in an interview he gave to the Reflections on the Dance website in 2010:

“I was working on sketches for his [Jackson’s] film production company, called Lost Boys Productions. Sony had given him (Michael) $40 million to start this production company and that little boy’s dad (Evan Chandler), who considered himself to be show business material, because he had written part of a script. After that he considered himself a Hollywood screenwriter, and being friends with Michael and his son being friends with Michael, this guy had assumed that Michael was going to make him a partner in this film production company and that’s where the $20 million figure came from. He wanted half of that Sony money. It was proven. It was an extortion. Michael listened to his business advisors and they all told him to keep his mouth shut and to go on to Korea, go on with your tour, you’re in the middle of a tour. We’ll take care of it.” [5]

Back to Evan Chandler’s opinion that $20 million was “punishing amount”: why not leave punishment up to the proper authorities? The answer in All That Glitters is that Evan thought they would not believe them and he was concerned about the publicity that the allegations would bring. Ray Chandler writes about that concern:

“It wasn’t just after the fact that Evan made these claims. He expressed his fears about a public airing on Dave’s secret tape, six weeks before the affair became public. “It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight.” His son and himself included.” [1; page 109]

However, there’s a problem with this claim. In the taped phone conversation between Evan and David Schwartz, and in the context, that statement wasn’t an expression of concern. On the contrary.

“MR. CHANDLER: It’s unfortunately gonna be too late, then, and nothing’s gonna matter at that point.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Because the fact is so ****ing overwhelming –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah?
MR. CHANDLER: — that everybody’s going to be destroyed in the process. The facts themselves are gonna – once this thing starts rolling –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — the facts themselves are gonna overwhelm. It’s gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing’s just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That’s [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah. And is that good?
MR. CHANDLER: Yeah. It’s great.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Why?
MR. CHANDLER: Great, because –
MR. SCHWARTZ: I mean, is that how you’re –
MR. CHANDLER: Because June and Jordy and Michael –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — have forced me to take it to the extreme –
MR. SCHWARTZ: Yeah.
MR. CHANDLER: — to get their attention. How pitiful, piti****ingful they are to have done that.”[3]

According to All That Glitters, Rothman was convinced that Jackson would not pay $20 million, so he tried to talk Evan down to $5 million, but Evan was intractable because he believed “five million was a pay-off, not a punishment.” He wanted Michael punished for what he now believed was a blatant molestation.” [1; page 109]

According to the book, on August 9 Pellicano came back with a counteroffer of $1 million to fund three screenplays written by Evan and Jordan. Pellicano later said the offer was a gesture on Jackson’s part that would allow father and son to work together and reestablish their relationship. Evan turned it down. Then on August 13 Pellicano’s next offer shocked Rothman and Evan: $350,000.

“Barry couldn’t believe his ears. Pellicano was completely ignoring the rules of the game. Barry started at twenty million, Pellicano had countered with one million, surely the next number should be somewhere in between. And strange as it was that Pellicano had lowered his million dollar offer, it was even crazier that he refused to reinstate it when Barry told him that he had “busted [his] hump for three days…getting Evan to hopefully agree.” [1; page 117-118]

According to the book, on August 17 Pellicano called Rothman to find out if Evan accepted the offer.

“Barry told him no, but suggested again that Evan might be willing to take the original million dollar offer if Pellicano was willing to renew it. “It’s never going to happen,” the investigator insisted.” [1; page 121]

The day before, on August 16, June Chandler’s attorney, Michael Freeman informed Rothman that they had filed a motion for a Court Order to have Jordan returned to his mother, June Chandler. In response to that and frustrated by Jackson’s refusal to pay him off, on August 17 Evan took Jordan to Dr. Abrams where the boy made his allegations against Michael Jackson, which inevitably involved the authorities and afforded Evan the ability to get custody of Jordan.

According to All That Glitters:

“In a phone conversation the night before Freeman’s request was to be heard in court, Barry counseled Evan that unless he was willing to walk into the courtroom and accuse Michael of molesting Jordie, he didn’t have a prayer of winning; June had legal custody and that was all she needed to get Jordie back.” [1; page 119]

If one were to follow the above events, it is clear that Jackson had plenty of opportunities to pay off the Chandlers, had he really wanted to, before the case went public or to the authorities. He chose not to do so, which baffled Evan. Ray Chandler writes in his book:

“Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you’ve got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money’s no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn’t work, you can always come out swingin’ anyway.” [1; page 126]

and

“On the morning of August 17, 1993, as he negotiated with Barry Rothman, Anthony Pellicano had in his possession a copy of the psychiatrists report with the names omitted. He held in his hand the future of the most famous entertainer in human history. Yet the tape is replete with examples of Pellicano refusing to compromise on what would amount to chump change to Jackson. Why take the chance of Michael’s name ending up on that report and triggering an investigation?” [1; page 138]

Whether you use the term extortion to describe the above events or not, Ray Chandler closes the chapter about the “negotiations” with a standalone paragraph, as if to summarize the chapter and emphasize:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”[1; page 128]

Sources:

[1] Raymond Chandler – All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-Up (Windsong Press Ltd, September 2004)

[2] Mary A. Fischer: Was Michael Jackson Framed? (GQ, October 1994)
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

[3] Taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler and David Schwartz (July 8, 1993)

[4] Charles P. Wallace and Jim Newton – Jackson Back on Stage; Inquiry Continues (Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1993)
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-08-28/news/mn-28760_1_michael-jackson

[5] Friendship & A Paintbrush – Interview with David Nordahl (2010)
Original source: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/interviewwithdavidnordahl.html – the audio clips those contained the conversation are no longer available. For a secondary source, see, for example: http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/transcript-of-“frozen-in-time-a-riveting-behind-the-scenes-view-of-the-michael-jackson-cases”-part-3/

avisto · Jul 1, 2013

I'm SO happy and proud that fans have proved so ready to document the truth from those old stories... Looking from above, Michael must be so incredibly proud of all of you guys!!

tinkerbelle74 · Jul 3, 2013

I have emailed this letter to two nationwide news papers in Sweden who has recycled the article from Sunday People. I have translated it to English (sorry for any mistakes, I am not native speaking) and if you wish to use it in any way to get the message out there, please feel free to do so!

__________________________________

I see that [optional recipient] has now picked up the article published by the Sunday People 4 days ago. If you are interested in reading more background information on the story and find out the facts behind these allegations, there is a lot of documentation to take note of this:
http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.se/2013/07/of-sunday-people-trash-story.html?m=1

I would appreciate very much if you would spend some time researching how much truth there is in the stories you publish. I fully understand the motivation behind sensational articles that draw readers, but regurgitating old stories and lies about "allegations" in regard to Michael Jackson makes most of your readers yawn and perhaps feel that you should leave him alone and let him rest in peace (at least for the sake of his children).

What would be truly sensational would be to publish the truth behind allegations of pedophilia that has dogged Michael Jackson for 20 years now. Not any nationwide or for that matter international media have bothered much about the story, even though there are a lot of exciting information to share for those interested. Reading about how the public prosecutor in Santa Barbara have tried planting fabricated evidence and also traveled around the whole world (including to Australia and Canada) to find alleged victims or credible witnesses without finding one, how unethical reporters have bribed dozens "witnesses" to get them to talk about abuse that never happened, and to read revelations in black and white about the people behind this smear campaign (which large sections of the media hangs on seemingly reflexively because it is so" lucrative "business) – that would be much more worth reading and spectacular!

By contrast, to continue to publish sordid stories about these pedophile accusations despite the overwhelming evidence that they are not true (e.g., that two independent courts dropped the charges against Jackson in 1993 for lack of evidence, that he was acquitted in the trial in 2005, that the FBI files released after Jackson's death in 2009 (over 300 pages) virtually frees him from all suspicion, and that dozens of people who knew Jackson personally have testified to his innocence, including the boys that he has been accused of exploiting, as Brett Barnes, Macauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis, Frank and Eddie Cascio, Sean Lennon, Omer Bhatti, etc), however, is a real dead end.

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual

terrell · Jul 3, 2013

tinkerbelle74;3860651 said:
I have emailed this letter to two nationwide news papers in Sweden who has recycled the article from Sunday People. I have translated it to English (sorry for any mistakes, I am not native speaking) and if you wish to use it in any way to get the message out there, please feel free to do so!
__________________________________

I see that [optional recipient] has now picked up the article published by the Sunday People 4 days ago. If you are interested in reading more background information on the story and find out the facts behind these allegations, there is a lot of documentation to take note of this:
http://mjandjustice4some.blogspot.se/2013/07/of-sunday-people-trash-story.html?m=1

I would appreciate very much if you would spend some time researching how much truth there is in the stories you publish. I fully understand the motivation behind sensational articles that draw readers, but regurgitating old stories and lies about "allegations" in regard to Michael Jackson makes most of your readers yawn and perhaps feel that you should leave him alone and let him rest in peace (at least for the sake of his children).

What would be truly sensational would be to publish the truth behind allegations of pedophilia that has dogged Michael Jackson for 20 years now. Not any nationwide or for that matter international media have bothered much about the story, even though there are a lot of exciting information to share for those interested. Reading about how the public prosecutor in Santa Barbara have tried planting fabricated evidence and also traveled around the whole world (including to Australia and Canada) to find alleged victims or credible witnesses without finding one, how unethical reporters have bribed dozens "witnesses" to get them to talk about abuse that never happened, and to read revelations in black and white about the people behind this smear campaign (which large sections of the media hangs on seemingly reflexively because it is so" lucrative "business) – that would be much more worth reading and spectacular!

By contrast, to continue to publish sordid stories about these pedophile accusations despite the overwhelming evidence that they are not true (e.g., that two independent courts dropped the charges against Jackson in 1993 for lack of evidence, that he was acquitted in the trial in 2005, that the FBI files released after Jackson's death in 2009 (over 300 pages) virtually frees him from all suspicion, and that dozens of people who knew Jackson personally have testified to his innocence, including the boys that he has been accused of exploiting, as Brett Barnes, Macauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis, Frank and Eddie Cascio, Sean Lennon, Omer Bhatti, etc), however, is a real dead end.

Just because you read it in a magazine
Or see it on the TV screen
Don't make it factual

Great job tinkerbelle

terrell · Jul 3, 2013

Respect77, thank you for reposting all of that info. And that is what fans need to post on any website that talks about MJ and this mess.

HIStory · Jul 7, 2013

Since the tabloid media are out against Michael in full force again, I thought this would be useful. In it you can also find info about Terry George's allegations, since the Mirror have brought them up again.

The Media’s Role In The Allegations Against Michael Jackson

While the prosecution, both in 1993 and in 2005, struggled to find credible corroborating “victims” in support of their case against Michael Jackson [link], much of the media, rather than report impartial and factual events, corrupted the legal proceedings by offering monetary rewards to people who were willing to make up slanderous lies about Jackson and his relationship with children. In this article we will show you some examples of what is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Those who were tempted, but resisted

During Jackson’s 2005 trial, Fox News’ Roger Friedman met with a family, the Newts, who told him that when Jackson’s first scandal went public in 1993, the National Enquirer offered them $200,000 to say that in the 1980s the then 11-year-old twin boys of the family had been molested or improperly touched by Jackson.

In the mid-80s the twin boys, Robert and Ronald Newt Jr. were aspiring child performers, managed by Michael Jackson’s father, Joseph Jackson. The Newts explained that the National Enquirer had learned that in 1985 they spent two weeks in the Jackson’s Encino family home as guests. They approached the family and offered the boys’ father, Ronald Newt Sr. $200,000 to say Michael Jackson was sexually inappropriate with his sons.

Robert Newt was 18 years old in 1993 when he and his father were contacted by a National Enquirer reporter, Jim Mitteager, whom they agreed to meet with at the Marriot Hotel in San Francisco. Mitteager wanted to pay them to lie.

“He said, ‘Say he grabbed you on the butt. Say he grabbed you and touched you in any kind of way,’” Newt said. “He told us he took all these people down. Now he was going to take Michael down. That he would really destroy him. He told us he took all these other famous people down. All the major people that had scandals against them. He said, ‘We take these people down. That’s what we do.’”
[…] “My dad said these dudes are offering this money to take Michael Jackson down. And the guy [Mitteager] said, ‘Say he touched you. All you have to do is say it. But you might have to take the stand. You might have to go on ‘Oprah’ in front of all these people. You have to be prepared for this thing. Just say it. And we’ll give you money,’” Newt said.” [1]

According to Friedman, the Newts had evidence of their story, the contract that was given to them by Mitteager and signed by David Perel, who was the editor of the tabloid at the time. The Newts refused to sign the contract and told the tabloid that they were not willing to accuse Jackson of anything.

“The contract, written as a letter, says it’s an agreement between the tabloid and the Newts for their exclusive story regarding “your relationship with and knowledge of Michael Jackson, and his sexuality, your knowledge of Michael Jackson’s sexual contact and attempts at sexual contact with Robert Newt and others.” [1]

According to Robert Newt, Mitteager knew nothing had happened but wanted them to lie nevertheless:

“He didn’t care! He was like, ‘Just say it and we’ll give you the money.’ And I was like, ‘He [Jackson] never touched me!” Newt said. “He [Mitteager] was really fishing and really digging. Think about it — most people you say it to, ‘We’ll give you this money,’ even [if it's not true]. And they’d take it.”
[…]
“He was trying to coach me — if I decided to take the money, what would happen. He said ‘You know, it’s going to be a huge scandal. You’ll probably have a lot of people not liking you. You’re going to be famous!’ But to me, you’d be ruined. And the truth is Michael didn’t do anything even close to trying to molest us.” [1]

Friedman had another piece of evidence, independent from the Newts, to back up their story: Mitteager had a habit of taping his conversations. After he died, his tapes were handed over to private investigator, Paul Barresi. Those tapes, according to Friedman, included Mitteager’s negotiations with the Newts.

The Newts’ story is not unique and could be considered the norm in the media’s handling of the allegations against Michael Jackson. In 1993, Jackson’s cousin, Tim Whitehead disclosed to Geraldo Riveira’s television show that he was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say Jackson was gay. In the same episode, television show actor Alfonso Ribeiro, who as a child in 1984 appeared in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson (and who is best known for his role as Carlton in the Will Smith sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air) told that his father “was offered $100,000 by a tabloid to say anything negative about Michael Jackson”. Whitehead and Ribeiro firmly stated that they never saw Jackson act sexually inappropriate with any child and they never felt uncomfortable around him. [2]

In his 2011 book, You Are Not Alone, Michael Jackson’s brother, Jermaine Jackson tells the story of how Joy Robson, the mother of Wade Robson (a child protege of Jackson) was offered a six-figure sum by the National Enquirer to change her story and say that Jackson molested her son:

“As the media invited ex-employees to run with their wildest allegations, induced by large six figure payments and the racier the allegation, the bigger the cheque. I’ve since learned that Wade’s mother Joy Robson was approached by the National Enquirer and offered a six-figure sum if she changed her story ‘to say that Michael had molested your son.’ [3]

Not everyone resisted the temptation of the money being offered by the tabloids. Many of these people, however, were quickly ruled out as credible witnesses even by this prosecution’s low standard for credibility.

Daniel Kapon

In 2003, Daniel Kapon was 18 years old when he, accompanied by his mother, contacted the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Los Angeles Police Department claiming he had been sexually molested by Michael Jackson when he was a child. The young man was represented by Gloria Allred, an attorney who also represented the Chandlers for a short period of time in 1993. The claim was that Kapon had “repressed memories” of the molestation and therefore only recently recalled the abuse. The psychiatrist who helped Kapon “remember” was Dr. Carole Lieberman. Allred and Lieberman had filed earlier complaints against Jackson for the so called “baby dangling incident” and campaigned for Jackson’s children to be taken away from him. [4]

The police interviewed the boy but they did not find him credible. He described horrendously sadistic acts, kept changing his story and he claimed impossibilities. Most importantly, when the police contacted Kapon’s father, they learned the boy had never even met Michael Jackson. On May 28, 2004 the police closed the investigation stating “after an extensive investigation, which included hours of interviews with the person making the allegations, detectives concluded there was no evidence that any crime occurred. No charges will be sought”. [5]

After the police closed their investigation, Kapon sold his story to the tabloid publication, News of the World. Reportedly, the tabloid paid him $500,000 for an approximate half hour video tape where he described the alleged abuse in graphic detail [6]. On May 30, 2004 the paper printed the story of Kapon’s allegations, but failed to mention that the police had already investigated his claims and did not find them credible.The article was published two days after the police released the statement stating that the case had been closed but at the end of the article, the journalist claimed that the investigation in Kapon’s case was actually ongoing [7].

Kapon also filed a civil complaint against Jackson. In his case, besides the allegations of sexual abuse, he claimed that a number of Jackson’s hit songs had been stolen from him, including songs on Jackson’s Bad album which was released in 1987. In 1987, Kapon was two years old. Kapon also claimed that he fathered the singer’s two eldest children; that his mother appeared in Jackson’s Thriller video and that Jackson was “madly in love” with her; that “his mother married Jackson multiple times, and testified that the ceremonies were attended by Elizabeth Taylor, Celine Dion, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Beyonce Knowles and Diana Ross” [8].

Daniel Kapon did not show up at start of the civil trial and the case was thrown out of court in January 2008.

Joseph Bartucci Jr.

Another accuser who, as it later turned out never even met Jackson, was a man called Joseph Bartucci Jr. Although he did not go to tabloids and “only” filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson, we will briefly discuss him in this article because his case has similarities to Kapon’s in terms of absurdity.

In 2004 Bartucci filed a civil lawsuit against Jackson claiming the star kidnapped and molested him in New Orleans between May 19 and May 27, 1984. Bartucci alleged that Jackson cut him, licked the blood off of his arm and proceeded to snort coke off of the laceration – all while raping him. Bartucci was 18 years old at the time of the alleged assault. As an explanation for why he waited until 2004, twenty years later to report this kidnapping, he too cited “repressed memories” that he claimed he only recalled when he heard that Thomas Sneddon was calling for alleged victims to come forward in November, 2003.

Jackson was not in New Orleans but in California at the time of the alleged assault, a fact that could be easilly proven by the entertainer’s attorneys, so Judge Eldon Fallon tossed the lawsuit. It also emerged that Bartucci was, as Judge Fallon put it, a “professional litigator”. He had been involved in 18 civil and criminal suits over the previous 17 years and had also formally accused a minister of sexual abuse [9]. According to The Smoking Gun website, in 1996 Bartucci was arrested for stalking a woman: “According to court records, Bartucci took a plea to a reduced count of harassment and was fined, sentenced to probation, and hit with a 90-day suspended jail term.” [10]

Terry George

Terry George never filed a lawsuit against Jackson and in fact never reported his allegations to authorities but he was a frequent source for British tabloid stories in the wake of the 1993 Chandler scandal and has since been at their disposal whenever a fictitious story about Michael Jackson being inappropriate with children is required.

George, a disc jockey at the time, gained notoriety on August 29, 1993 when only six days after the Chandler case was first reported by the media, he appeared in British tabloids claiming that Jackson had been inappropriate with him in 1979, when Jackson was 20 and he was 13 years old.

George was a celebrity-obsessed teenager who regularly sought out celebrities, sneaked into their hotels to meet them, asked for their autographs and hoarded photos and taped interviews of them. As an adult George, who now amongst other businesses, runs a gay adult phone chat service, still likes to present himself as someone associated with celebrities. According to George, he met Michael Jackson in a hotel in February of 1979 while the Jacksons were on tour in the UK. He actually taped an interview with Michael and his brother, Randy, which was later aired on local radio stations. After the interview, George claimed, Michael Jackson asked for his telephone number and Jackson then regularly called him for about three months. George alleged that during these phone calls Jackson was once inappropriate with him, speaking about masturbation and masturbating while he was on the phone with him.

In the article it is claimed that the phone contact ended when George’s parents realized that he had run up a high telephone bill calling the US. George then tried to reach Jackson from a phone box but claimed that Jackson would not take his calls: according to one of the original 1993 tabloid articles “it became clear his superstar friend didn’t want to know” [11].

George, however, kept stalking Jackson. According to the article, “the final rejection came four years later when Terry tried to rekindle their friendship when Jackson came to London again. Terry tracked him down and was even photographed alongside his idol, but now the management were on hand to issue the polite brush-off.” [11]

In the article George concludes that Jackson rejected him because he was no longer a child, however this contradicts the earlier claim that Jackson actually refused to take his phone calls four years earlier, when George was still 13.

In a 2003 documentary made by British broadcaster, Louis Theroux, George spoke about his alleged “friendship” with Jackson. George proudly recalled his phone conversations with Jackson as a happy and joyful experience. It is Theroux who brings up his 1993 tabloid allegation that Jackson was inappropriate with him on the phone. George is reluctant to talk about that and claims what was printed “came out really without my authority”. When Theroux asks him if the story was true, George claims “parts of it are true” but adds that papers twisted and sensationalized it. Then, after stating he did not want to talk about that because “it is well documented in the papers”, he tries to go back to discussing what a great “friendship” he had with Jackson. [12]

Unfortunately the contradiction between the story being “well documented” in the papers and the claim that papers twisted and sensationalized it, is not resolved in the interview and George makes no attempt to make it clear what parts of the story, according to his current position, are true and what parts are not.

In the Theroux interview, George also says that it is unfortunate that the focus of the media has been on this small detail of the story, when they had such a great “friendship” otherwise. We are to believe that when George went to the tabloid media with these claims, six days after the Chandler allegations became public, he did not know what impact this story would have and what people would focus on. In actuality, it is safe to say that this hook, the masturbation claim, is just what George needed to include in his story to be picked up and printed by the tabloid media at all and to lend George national and international notoriety. Why did he make his allegations in the tabloids, which are known to pay money for such claims, instead of contacting the prosecutors in the Chandler case?

In January 2005, on his website George criticized tabloids for rehashing his story from 1993 and claiming that he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Despite this criticism and George’s claim to Theroux that the original story had been released without his authority, sensationalized by the media and that the “small detail” about the alleged masturbation had received disproportionate attention, in February 2005, shortly after Jackson’s trial began, George appeared in Martin Bashir’s slanderous documentary entitled Michael Jackson’s Secret World and rehashed the original story that was printed in the tabloids in 1993, adding even more focus on the masturbation claim.

Although the tabloid articles in 1993 claimed that George was ready to help investigators in the Chandler case, he never did. Based on Jackson’s FBI files, the FBI looked into George’s claims in the tabloid media, but then the prosecution never used him. In 2005, on his website, he vehemently denied media reports that claimed he would be a prosecution witness at Jackson’s upcoming trial. Instead of testifying at Jackson’s trial and subjecting himself to cross-examination he chose to smear Jackson in the media and in Bashir’s documentary. His platform to make allegations against the star was always only the media and mainly the tabloids which are known to pay money for such allegations. George never testified about his claims under oath and was never cross-examined about them.

In 2009, in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, George once again made his rounds in the British tabloids, now posing as a “friend” of the star and recounting stories with very questionable credibility. According to a June 28, 2009 Mirror article, George conveniently claimed that just before his death Jackson called him to apologize and they made up. “He phoned me out of the blue and we both made our peace about what had happened in the past. I’ve forgiven him for what happened” [13]. Not surprisingly, he had no evidence for this alleged phone call and once again we are just supposed to take George’s word for it.

George used the opportunity to make false statements in order to promote a website he set up in 2005, Gone Too Soon, curiously bearing the name of a Michael Jackson song, although it has no association with the star.

“Terry also revealed that ***** had taken a strong interest in the website he’d founded, Gonetoosoon.org – where users post tributes to people who die young.
“He had been on the site and said he was touched to see some of the messages,” he said. “It had left him very sad and emotional.” [13]

No other child has ever claimed that Jackson told them inappropriate things on the phone and certainly no child has ever suggested Jackson masturbated while on the phone. Several recordings exist of private phone conversations Jackson had with children, as people often taped their telephone conversations with him without his knowledge, but no tapes have shown that Jackson ever behaved inappropriately with children. Terry George has never presented evidence for his claims either, though there is plenty evidence of his opportunism.

Prosecution witnesses sponsored by tabloids

Although the likes of Kapon, Bartucci and George never made it on the stand, the prosecution did not shy away from using people who were previously paid money by tabloids. Most of the people called in support of the prosecution’s “prior bad acts” allegations were these types of witnesses and you can read about them in this article [link].

There are former employees who did not appear at Jackson’s trial as prosecution witnesses but instead made their rounds in the media and were richly compensated for making slanderous claims. The “Hayvenhurst 5”, as dubbed by the media, was a group of bodyguards (Leroy Thomas, Morris Williams, Donald Starks, Fred Hammond, Aaron White) who formally worked at the Jackson family’s Encino home. In November 1993 they went to Diane Dimond’s televised news program, Hard Copy and claimed they were fired because they “knew too much” about Jackson’s relationship with children. According to Mary A. Fischer’s 1994 GQ Magazine article:

“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.”[13]

The bodyguards never reported to authorities that they saw any inappropriate behavior by Jackson towards children. In fact, in depositions given to the police they admitted they never saw anything inappropriate.

A Filipino couple, Mariano “Mark” and Ofelia “Faye” Quindoy, who worked for Jackson between 1989 and 1990, sold stories to the tabloid media in 1993 in the wake of the Chandler allegations, claiming that they quit because they were so disturbed by what they witnessed Jackson do with children. However, they were not disturbed enough to report what they saw to the authorities. In actuality, a lawsuit filed against Jackson reveals that the real reason they left their employment with Jackson was because of disagreement about their wages.

Additionally, the Quindoys gave an interview about a year before the Chandler scandal, in which they never mentioned any impropriety by Jackson towards children. In that interview they described Jackson as “the shyest person in the world”. [2]

In 1993, the Quindoys’ own nephew, Glen Veneracion, a law student at the time, came forward and denounced his aunt and uncle as opportunists:

“I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment It really is.”
[…] “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon. They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.” [2]

At the time, Veneracion said he would be willing to testify against his relatives if the case went to court.

It is unknown exactly how much money the media paid out for the slander of Michael Jackson but it is safe to say it is probably in the millions. Instead of reporting facts and uncovering the truth, a large segment of the media enabled false allegations by paying people to make up stories about Jackson, knowing full well that they were lies that they could potentially put Jackson behind bars for the rest of his life. A jury could have been prejudiced by such articles and influenced by the prosecution witnesses who created their allegations only after being paid by the media for them. These were not innocent white lies, Jackson’s life was deeply affected by the character assassination and the emotional distress they put him through, yet the media and much of their audience actually considered these stories “entertainment”.

In addition to paying people for false allegations, the media also did their part in misleading the public and biased reporting on the Jackson criminal proceedings. During Jackson’s 2005 trial much of the media reported the salacious claims of the prosecution witnesses while failing to report the cross-examination of those same witness, where they were totally discredited. Although the payments for false allegations were mainly offered by tabloids, in the reporting of the Jackson trial there was hardly any difference between the tabloid stories and many “legitimate” news reports. Additionally the “serious media” often used, and still continues to use, tabloids as sources about Michael Jackson, thus blurring the line between tabloid journalism and serious reporting.

Sources:

[1] Roger Friedman – Former Protégé Vouches for ***** (FoxNews.com, April 7, 2005)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152708,00.html

[2] Lisa Campbell – The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour (Branden Publishing Company Inc., Boston, 1994)

[3] Jermaine Jackson – You Are Not Alone (Touchstone, September 2011)

[4] Jennifer Vineyard – Jackson Camp Calls New Allegations A Smear Campaign (MTV.com, June 1, 2004)
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1488069/new-jackson-allegations-called-malicious.jhtml

[5] Press release by the Los Angeles Police Department (June 2, 2004)
http://vindicatemj.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/police-release-on-kapons-case-june-2-2004.png

[6] Mozart an Idiot! (OCweekly.com, January 12, 2006)
http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-01-12/music/mozart-an-idiot/

[7] Carole Aye Maung – ***** filmed as he abused me; News Of the World investigates (News of the World, May 30, 2004) [8] Lawsuit accusing Michael Jackson of molestation is dismissed (The Daily Breeze, January 15, 2008)
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_7969754

[9] Judge: Jackson in California during claim (USA Today, April 18, 2006)
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-04-18-jackson-follow-up_x.htm?csp=34

[10] New Jackson Accuser’s Stalk Rap (The Smoking Gun, November 10, 2004)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/new-jackson-accusers-stalk-rap

[11] Tabloid articles of Terry George from 1993 attached to Jackson’s FBI files as released in 2009
http://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson/Michael%20Jackson%2062%20File%20Part%201%20of%203/view

[12] Interview with Terry George from the documentary “Louis, Martin & Michael” (documentary by Louis Theroux, November 16, 2003)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jba0HwBp3NQ&feature=player_embedded

[13] First target of Michael Jackson’s obsession with boys says: ‘What he did was wrong.. but I forgive him’ (Mirror, June 28, 2009)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/first-target-of-michael-jacksons-obsession-402845

[14] Mary A. Fischer: Was Michael Jackson Framed? (GQ, October 1994)
http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html

Resource material about the allegations against Michael

HIStory

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

Costas

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

Moonwalker.Fan

Proud Member

rsggamer123

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

terrell

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member

avisto

Proud Member

tinkerbelle74

Proud Member

terrell

Proud Member

terrell

Proud Member

HIStory

Proud Member