The DCFS says there was NO evidence against Michael Jackson. GIVE THE TRUTH A CHANCE
All of us were waiting for this moment – and when it came we took the news for granted, because we knew only too well that the allegations against Michael were false.
Now the DCFS authorities are confirming that Michael was no child molester, was innocent and there was absolutely no evidence in ALL the cases they investigated which could have ever given a hint at Michael being someone who I do not want even to pronounce here.
Here is the long-awaited news:
Posted on May 05, 2011 @ 07:30PM
Radar Legal Editor
With Katherine Jackson ratcheting up the debate about her son Michael Jackson‘s relationship with children by saying he was no child molester, a well-placed government source tells RadarOnline she’s right.
“The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services absolutely agrees with Katherine that her son never molested any child in cases the department investigated,” a source told RadarOnline.
Michael Jackson was investigated by DCFS on and off for at least 10 years. The department undertook a first extensive investigation of allegations made by an underage accuser in 1993.
“Michael was fully cooperative during all of his interactions with DCFS,” the source said. “Michael was interviewed for hours without his lawyer. He held nothing back. He couldn’t understand why these allegations were being made against him. DCFS cleared him on any wrongdoing in ALL investigations.
“Did Michael put himself in precarious situations that most normal people wouldn’t? Absolutely . . . The questioning was very, very hard on Michael, he just couldn’t fathom that anyone could accuse him of being a child molester.”
Another accuser, in 2005, “had absolutely no credibility,” the source said. “There were differing accounts of what happened from the accuser and his family members.”
Los Angeles’ DCFS also investigated claims of abuse last year involving Michael Jackson’s three children. Michael’s nephew, Jaafar, allegedly used a stun gun on Michael’s son, Blanket. After an extensive investigation, DCFS again took no action in the 2010 stun gun incident.
“Katherine was questioned by officials from the department, and as always, she was cooperative but saddened,” the source said. “Katherine feels that her family has been targeted by opportunists over the years, and she just hopes that was the last time she ever has to go through that.”
The DCFS says Michael was interviewed for hours and hours (can you imagine the pain of it?), that he never tried to hold anything back and was very cooperative with the authorities. They say their questioning was very, very hard on Michael but still no evidence was found to confirm the molestation allegations against him.
Some would probably wonder whether the DCFS investigation was thorough enough. Indeed, can we be sure that they did not shrug off the complicated 1993 Jordan Chandler case after the first initial interviews and took into account the new ‘witnesses’ emerging in the case later on? Could they be slack in their job as Tom Sneddon would later claim in connection with the Arvizo 2003 case?
The little research I’ve made gives no reason for doubting the seriousness of their scrutiny. Actually despite the surprising fact that the LA Police Department’s tried to oust the DCFS from the Chandler case they stubbornly continued the investigation and interviewed everyone involved in the case even after they were accused of a leak from their office:
“In Los Angeles, child abuse reports normally are called in to police or the Department of Children’s Services, which cross-references their cases. While Children’s Services investigates to determine if a child is in danger and should be removed from a home, police typically undertake a parallel investigation only if there is reason to suspect criminal activity.
An employee with the Los Angeles County Department of Children’s Services, which is investigating the case with the Los Angeles Police Department, said Thursday that the 13-year-old boy has identified four or five other children whom he believes were molested by Jackson.
At least three other young people have been interviewed, say sources familiar with the investigation.
All three youngsters are well-known, those sources said, and the reports detailing their interviews are being closely guarded by investigators. A fourth young boy also was interviewed because he was at Jackson’s ranch when search warrants were served last weekend; that boy has acknowledged that he slept in the same bed as Jackson on occasion but has fiercely defended the singer and said he never sexually molested him.
Copies of the boy’s interview by police and social workers were obtained by The Times, and they include detailed, graphic descriptions of alleged sexual advances by Jackson.
The case has sparked an intensely sensitive and competitive slew of investigations. The two primary agencies involved–the county Department of Children’s Services and the LAPD–have feuded over control of the case, while Pellicano has aggressively waged an inquiry on the singer’s behalf.
The bickering between LAPD and Children’s Service erupted on the investigation’s first day. Children’s Services received the initial complaint from the boy’s therapist and informed the LAPD’s West Bureau, which sent officers to the interview with the boy.
For reasons unstated in the case file, an LAPD sergeant named Thomas L. Felix requested that Children’s Services end its investigation. As a result, the social worker was “unable to interview (father), (mother) or sibling.”
Despite the LAPD’s attempts to force Children’s Services off the case, however, social workers did resume a role in the investigation. Interviews of possible victims are now being conducted jointly.
The relationship between the LAPD and Children’s Services remains tense, however, and some police sources blamed their counterparts for leaking information to the media.
The mother’s lawyer, Michael Freeman, echoed that complaint and said he had scheduled an afternoon meeting at the Department of Children’s Services to discuss how the case files had been leaked.
“Do you understand how confidential a document like that is?” he asked. “I am really pissed.” He refused to comment further.
At the Children’s Services headquarters, one source close to the case said supervisors were going desk to desk looking for purloined copies of the department’s files on the Jackson case.
“Everyone is tearing up their copies and flushing them down the toilet,” the source said. “It’s like the Gestapo. Everyone is scared to death. . . . It has been made plain and clear someone is leaking the information and that they will be terminated.”
The DCFS looked into every detail of the graphic story Jordan Chandler told them. To analyse the case the top DCFS authority was summoned from his vacation:
In case files obtained by The Times, the 13-year-old boy recounted for a social worker the origins and evolution of his relationship with Jackson, one that allegedly went from affectionate cuddling to sexual intimacy. The boy, according to the case files, had difficulty remembering the times and dates. “However, the minor was consistent in his story,” one document states.
Officers from the LAPD’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit are overseeing the police inquiry, while a source said that a respected investigator from Children’s Services was brought back from vacation to lead the department’s part of the investigation.
Michael Jackson was fully cooperating not only with the DCFS but with the Los Angeles Police Department as well:
Gascon Los Angeles Police Cmdr. David Gascon said LAPD detectives “have met with cooperation throughout the course of the investigation,” and Pellicano said the singer “is going to cooperate with police in every way.”
Despite examining the case from every angle possible, the horrifying “evidence” Evan Chandler claimed he had against Jackson did not prove to be anything substantial:
“I have the evidence (against Jackson),” the father said. “You’ll hear it on tape recordings.” Police have said their investigation has not produced physical or medical evidence that would support a criminal filing, but they are still interviewing people and reviewing photographs confiscated from Jackson.
Of the molestation charges, the investigator said: “If this was a true and legitimate claim, why didn’t this guy go to law enforcement right off the bat? If you molested my kid, it would take an act of God to keep me from ripping your heart out of your frigging chest.”
And now comes the most amazing news.
It turns out that it weren’t only Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti who were investigating Jackson on a continuous basis, but the DCFS was also making its probe into the allegations against Michael for at least several months!
The article below says that four months after the 1993 case was reported to the Department of Children and Family Services they were still conducting their investigation and were questioning every new witness emerging in the case.
Thus, in December 1993 the DCFS experts were interviewing Jason Francia and had been talking to him for already two months. His name is not provided directly but the context of the article suggests it is him. If they interviewed Jason Francia for at least two months how much longer should they have interviewed Jordan Chandler then?
December 22, 1993
JIMNEWTONand SONIA NAZARIO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS
… New details emerged Tuesday about a potential second child molestation victim who has been interviewed by police and social service workers during the last two months.
The child and his parent, a former Jackson employee, were interviewed jointly by investigators and told them that Jackson fondled the boy’s buttocks on several occasions, according to a source close to the investigation.
Although the allegations made by the boy and his parent are less serious than those brought by a 13-year-old at the center of the criminal investigation, sources said they believe the other boy’s allegations could help the authorities’ case. “It’s good backup for the first case, but it can’t stand on its own,” one source said.
The new allegations come amid news of the shake-up in theJacksoncamp. Private investigator Anthony Pellicano and lawyer Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s team of legal advisers, resigned privately in recent weeks–Pellicano quit last Wednesday and Fields quit Dec. 3–sources close to the entertainer said.
The above article is dated December 22 or two days after the photos of Michael’s genitalia had been made – which gives us reasons to believe that besides interviews with various witnesses the DCFS research could have gone as far as comparing Michael’s photos with the description provided by Jordan Chandler.
We can’t say for certain that they did compare them. But the very least I can say about the possibility of the DCFS scrutinizing those photos is that given the rivalry between the LAPD and DCFS and Tom Sneddon’s complaints about the “poor work” of the children services experts, I have no doubt whatsoever that if the photos HAD matched the description Tom Sneddon would have NEVER missed a chance to triumphantly shove these photos into the face of the DCFS to prove “how slack these guys are”.
But evidently Tom Sneddon did nothing of the kind or the DCFS wouldn’t be saying now that they never found evidence to prove Michael’s guilt.
So whether the children service experts did or didn’t see the photos it doesn’t really matter as the result is still the same –Tom Sneddon had nothing incriminating to boast to the DCFS about, the DCFS never changed their opinion about Michael and this makes us conclude for a hundredth time that those photos never matched.
Michael was absolutely right when he said to Diane Sawyer in that notable interview with Lisa Marie that if there had been a similarity he wouldn’t be sitting in front of her:
Diane Sawyer: How about the police photographs, though? How was there enough information from this boy about those kinds of things?
Michael: The police photographs?
Diane Sawyer: The police photographs.
Michael: That they took of me? ….
Diane Sawyer: Yeah.
Michael: There was nothing that matched me to those charges, there was nothing.
Lisa Marie: There was nothing they could connect to him.
Michael: That’s why I’m sitting here talking to you today. There was not one iota of information that was found, that could connect me …..
Diane Sawyer: So when we’ve heard the charges….
Michael: There was nothing……
Diane Sawyer: …markings of some kind?
Michael: No markings.
Diane Sawyer: No markings?
Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the…..
Michael: Why am I still here then?
Lisa Marie was right in her amazement that the lies about the “match” were hammered into people’s heads for hours, days and weeks on end while the news about the description and the photos being different was published in a tiny paragraph, only once, and in two media outlets only.
- Lisa Marie: No, I’m just….the point is, is that when that finally got concluded that there was no match-up, then, it was printed this big [showing a tiny area], as opposed to how big it was, what the match-up was supposed to be.
Scarce information about the mismatch was provided only by the USA Today and Reuters:
Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser
USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext). McLean, Va.: J an 28, 1994
Copyright USA Today Information Network Jan 28, 1994
An unidentified source told Reuters news service Thursday that photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match descriptions given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct. If so, this could weaken any possible criminal actions against the singer. Already, speculation that the 14-year-old boy may not be willing to cooperate with officials is swirling. The boy’s civil suit was settled out of court this week. The boy’s lawyers say the settlement does not preclude the teen from testifying in a criminal case, though prosecutors cannot force him to testify against his will. Lawyers for both sides could not be reached for comment Thursday.http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/55226686.html?did=55226686&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT& desc=Photos+may+contradict+Michael%27s+accuser
Both Michael and Lisa Marie tried to explain that it wasn’t Michael’s fault that children kept following him wherever he went and that he was too soft in his heart to never say NO to them:
- Michael: Right. OK, when you say boys, it’s not just boys, and I’ve never invited just boys to come in my room. Come on, that’s just ridiculous. And that’s a ridiculous question. But since people want to hear it…you know, the answer , I’ll be happy to answer it. I have never invited anyone into my bed, ever. Children love me, I love them. They follow me, they want to be with me. But… anybody can come in my bed, a child can come in my bed if they want.
- Lisa Marie: I can say ….I can, I can say…sorry. I’ve seen this, I’ve seen it a lot. I’ve seen kids. I’ve seen him with children in the last year. I’ve seen it enough to where I can see how that can happen. It’s…y’know…I understand ….
- Lisa Marie: I, I just wanted to say I’ve seen these children. They don’t let him go to the bathroom…without…running in there with him.
So what Michael said to us all along and what he screamed about in his songs turned out to be completely true – there were never any signs of pedophilia in his behavior and the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services finally had the courage to admit it.
In fact they said nothing new and confirmed what the accusers and those around them knew very well themselves.
The forensic psychologist Dr. Katz who was approached by Larry Feldman to interview the Arvizos and who eventually reported their case to the authorities said in the “off-the-record” taped telephone conversation with a police investigator (after he made his report) that he did not think that Michael fit the profile of a ped-le.
This is a well-known fact but very few people know that this psychologist – same as the DCFS, Tom Sneddon, Gil Garcetti and the FBI - also studied Michael’s behavior on and off for ten years as he was the one who reviewed the Jordan Chandler case as well.
So in the succession of all those numerous investigators the psychologist comes as number five party investigating Michael Jackson, doesn’t he?
Let me remind you that besides his involvement in the 2003 case ten years before that Dr. Katz was asked by Larry Feldman to look into Jordan Chandler’s interview with another psychiatrist and give his own opinion of the veracity of Jordan’s words.
And if ten years later Dr. Katz still considered Michael unsuitable for the role of a p-le it means he found him not guilty in the first case as well – otherwise he wouldn’t have been so definite in his positive assessment of the man in a private conversation with a police officer in 2003.
No, despite their studying Michael Jackson for full ten years none of those pundits ever believed the accusations…
By the way isn’t it surprising that we have never heard of the report of the first psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner? Why has it never surfaced?
Because Dr. Gardner was the best authority on false sexual accusations and must have made a negative report about Jordan’s lies. If he had confirmed Jordan’s words Larry Feldman wouldn’t have had to seek Dr. Katz’s second opinion at all. Instead he would have trumpeted all over the world that the “best expert on false sexual accusations proved credibility of his witness” – but he did not and could never say it….
In fact Larry Feldman did not believe the allegations of both accusers (Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo) either and had to keep up the official façade of loyalty to his clients for business purposes only – as he was in a position of their attorney.
How do we know he didn’t believe the cases he was supporting?
Well, from Ray Chandler’s book we know that in Jordan Chandler’s case Feldman spent two or three hours trying to make his client come up with a more or less accurate description of Michael’s genitalia – but when the terribly humiliating police photos were finally made they were evidently at so much variance with Jordan’s description that Larry Feldman didn’t find anything better than demand that the photos be barred from the civil trial!
Would he have done so if the photos and the description had really matched? Who said he would? Are you kidding?
Of course Larry Feldman tried to make his announcement about barring the photos (or alternatively photographing Michael again after showing the photos to the accuser) in such a twisted way that no one guessed the true meaning of his demand.
The embarrassment of the mismatch discovery was apparently so big that the media raised themselves to report it only once, only in brief and in a very controversial way – which does not change the essence of Larry Feldman’s demand though: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson
So in Jordan Chandler’s case Larry Feldman knew that the boy’s description did not match…. And in the nonsense Arvizo case Larry Feldman flatly said in a private conversation with the highly reputable Larry King that the family was lying and was only after money – which is a fact about which Larry King was ready to testify in court, only the judge prevented him from talking there for some reason.
For the record, Larry King had one of the CNN producers as a witness to that conversation…
The information that the family was after money and that Feldman was preparing a civil suit for the Arvizos was confirmed by Dr. Katz in his telephone conversation with Detective Paul Zelis where he said it point blank (evidently not knowing he was disclosing a closely guarded secret) that “there was a lawsuit that Feldman’s gonna file”.
Larry Feldman was very much on his guard that no evidence exonerating Michael Jackson should ever be made known to the public. Therefore, despite his own total disbelief in the Arvizo case Feldman was outraged by the DCFS’s leak which confirmed that the family’s allegations against Michael Jackson were unfounded.
In fact Larry Feldman sued the DCFS for the truth they fearlessly told on a ridiculous pretext that the Memo “violated the family’s privacy”:
So the DCFS people are the ones who did try to fight the injustice in 2005 and are doing it now - for which all of us should be deeply grateful to them…
While reading this latest long-awaited news from the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services I asked myself a question if I was happy to hear this news. Yes, of course – I’m very happy to hear it. Moreover, being accustomed to the media lies I am even incredulous that the authorities decided to disclose information about Michael’s innocence at last.
But does this news bring the final feeling of satisfaction? Is it enough to meet the need for full Michael’s exoneration in the eyes of the general public?
No, far from it.
The fact is that the coverage of this news is too scarce – very few media outlets are reporting it.
The truth about Jackson’s innocence should be repeated again and again, and in the same thunderous way the media hammered their lies into our poor unsuspecting heads (and for so many years too). However the way they treat this news now is absolutely incomparable to the amount of harm they did to Michael Jackson and to the simply unheard of scope of his vilification done earlier.
Everything points at the media’s unwillingness to spread the truth about Michael Jackson while they still jump at every chance to tell another lie about him.
Pro-Jackson information is still unwelcome.
We remember that Aphrodite Jones had to self publish her book “Michael Jackson Conspiracy” because each of the numerous publishers she approached flatly told her that pro-Jackson material was simply not accepted.
- “I was told flat-out by numerous publishers and agents in New York that nobody wants a pro-Jackson book,” said Jones. “Can you believe that? It’s just weird that even what you read in a book is getting designated by someone making executive decisions about people’s lives and reputations. It’s not only weird, it’s actually scary.”
Thomas Mesereau faced the same problem when he received numerous offers for a book about Jackson after the trial – however when he made it clear to the publishers that he intended to speak of Michael’s innocence all of them suddenly disappeared the moment he broke this undesirable news to them.
Aphrodite Jones also disclosed a carefully guarded secret of the media – when Michael was still alive the official position of the news channels was to report only negative news about him – and this is one of the reasons why she vilified him too during the trial:
- ‘ … while the trial was going on, Jones herself was a popular talking head on television, especially for the Fox News network. “I was one of the leaders of the pack,” she admitted. “We did as much as we could to make [Jackson] look bad. That’s what people wanted. To be quite honest, that’s what Fox wanted. They didn’t want any exculpatory information.”
- “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”
Yes, the media is power and this power simply doesn’t WANT any exculpatory information about Michael Jackson!
They call it freedom of speech.
And we call it their freedom to tell lies about Michael Jackson.
However if they don’t want to tell the truth it will have to be taken care of by us.
This is why I beg all those who are reading these words to do their utmost to spread the DCFS news of Michael’ s innocence so that it reaches the ears of the general public.
- Here are the links to the articles telling the news of the DCFS disclosure for you to leave your comments there:
LET US GIVE THE TRUTH A CHANCE
* * * * *
If anyone still doubts that the DCFS people don’t do their work properly below are the facts showing that they never lose sight of Michael Jackson and his family. Only now they are thoroughly scrutinizing Michael Jackson’s children.
First they checked whether their living conditions were suitable for minors:
Welfare Of Michael Jackson’s Children
Saturday, Jul 4, 2009 | Updated 8:00 PM PDT
Access Hollywood has learned that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is conducting an investigation into the welfare of Michael Jackson’s three children, in light of the unanswered questions about his death.
The investigators will also look into conditions at the Encino house, such as who would care for the children should Katherine not be available. The investigation is expected to take a month but could be extended, depending on the results of toxicology tests done as part of Michael Jackson’s autopsy. Those results are expected in approximately two weeks.
Michael Jackson kids quizzed after death
Michael Jackson’s children have been quizzed by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services to see if they were ever exposed to prescription drugs.
Michael Jackson’s children have been quizzed by the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services to see if they were ever exposed to prescription drugs.
Michael Jackson’s children were quizzed by social workers hours after the star’s death.
Less than a day after the ‘Thriller’ singer passed away from a suspected cardiac arrest, the kids – Prince Michael, 12, Paris, 11, and seven-year-old Prince Michael II, known as ‘Blanket’ – were subjected to a series of meetings with the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) following allegations the 50-year-old star was addicted to painkillers to see if they had been exposed to narcotics, including the heroin substitute methadone.
A source said: ‘The investigation was initially launched because drugs are so heavily involved. But in this particular case there are red flags from all the family history and from Michael’s prior involvement in molestation cases.’
The DCFS investigation could also affect any custody disputes between the late star’s mother Katherine – who was named legal guardian of the children – and Debbie Rowe, mother to the two eldest children.
The source added to Britain’s The Sun newspaper: ‘The DCFS has 27 days to investigate the case and close it.
‘They will check everyone involved in the children’s lives for a criminal background.
‘If they are satisfied the kids have been raised in a decent environment, then no further action will be taken.
‘But if they’re not satisfied, that’s when they take it to court.’
Legal experts believe Katherine will be granted custody, but she is also likely to be assessed.
Attorney and family law expert Michael Dave said: ‘The DCFS investigate areas such as neglect and abuse.
‘They are likely to give Katherine an evaluation, carried out by a neutral expert, to determine how suitable the potential guardian is to take custody of the children full-time.’
And later they returned to see whether the children were in danger because of the stun gun incident in their home. In short with so much attention to Michael’s children we cannot doubt that they are in really good hands:
Reports claim that the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services payed several visits to the Jackson family home in Encino, and were forced to confiscate a stun gun that was ordered by Jermaine Jackson’s son.
But Randy Jackson tells X17online exclusively:
“The story is false. I spoke to my children who were present at the time. The stun gun arrived 2-3 weeks ago and was retrieved immediately by security at our family home. The children never played with it and Blanket was nowhere near the vicinity. Since our security handled the situation appropriately and the children were safe, there was nothing for The Department of Child Protective Services to confiscate.
The lies are outrageous and horrific. Enough is enough.”
Katherine Jackson’s attorney, Adam Streisand gave this statement to X17online:
Two weeks ago, Jermaine Jackson’s 13-year old son, Jafar, who lives with his mother Alejandra at the home of Mrs. Katherine Jackson, received a package with a taser he ordered online. Jafar opened the package alone in his bathroom and tested it on a piece of paper. Mrs. Jackson and security heard the sound coming from the second floor of the house. Immediately, security went upstairs and confiscated the taser. Mrs. Jackson took control over it and then had it removed from the house. There was no other incident. Blanket Jackson never saw or heard the taser. Neither did Paris Jackson. Prince saw the taser in the possession of security. There is no second taser.
Streisand adds, “All of the kids are happy, healthy and wonderful and that is Mrs. Jackson’s only objective and concern.”