NO MORE Groundhog Days for Michael Jackson
In a recent Youtube interrogation I had to sustain from Michael’s haters some important details of the 1993 case were mentioned but not elaborated on for lack of space. Up till now these details were only occasionally stated in the comments of this blog and now need to be grouped together into a separate post. Also some conclusions from that nasty, hasty and technically limited Youtube conversation need to be made and put into words.
1. NON-STOP RERUN OF THE CASE
One thing has become clear to me. After three days of going on errands of Michael Jackson’s detractors to explain the specks of dust picked from the various allegations here and there, I’ve realized that there is something basically wrong in having to go over and over again over every little scrap of evidence taken from the Chandler or Arvizo cases. The three sides involved in the process (prosecution, defense and jury) already examined every tiny bit of every possible rumor heard about Jackson in the period of 1993-2005 and gave them their evaluation, so there is no point in constant rerunning the process and turning it into a never-ending explanation routine.
Questions like “How can you explain the picture on page 5?” are basically wrong because they were already answered at the trial or sorted out at the stages prior to it, so if we keep going through the trial archives again and again it will mean that the trial will never end. It will overstep the boundaries of the courtroom in time and space, and disregard the not-guilty verdict that was already passed.
Of course we can look at page 5 and say what we think of it, but it may come as an exception only as retracing the steps and starting it all over again will be disrespectful to the legal system proper and therefore fundamentally wrong.
The general public must realize that if Michael Jackson was scrutinized by every law enforcement body existing in the US and several times over too, it is time for this search of Michael’s “misbehavior” to stop.
It is simply pointless to search for the remnants of some fictional guilt of Michael Jackson in a house where every wall was already pulled down in an effort to find something incriminating. The house is already a ruin from a hundred of previous searches and all that remains to be done now is close it not to display the ugly sight of the devastation that took place there.
This does not mean that we should not be searching for the truth. Since very few really looked for the evidence exonerating Jackson we still reserve the right for ourselves to go to that house and seek something no one ever tried to find there. It could be very well lying there in full view of the public with no one picking it for lack of necessity.
2. PUBLIC OPINION POLLS TO DETERMINE GUILT
When we are interrogated about Michael Jackson they constantly remind of OJ Simpson. And this makes me wonder.
What’s the point of comparing these two cases if Michael Jackson was examined inside out by every law enforcement body existing in the country and for 12 years too, while in Simpson’s case even some grave technical blunders were made which allowed loopholes for the defense?
So what if Johnny Cochran was involved in both cases? He defended many other people as well, so does it mean that all those who were acquitted with his help were actually guilty? Shall we doubt the outcome of all the other cases too?
If Michael Jackson’s detractors continue to constantly raise Simpson in connection with Michael’s acquittal I will be forced to make a couple of suggestions.
If OJ Simpson’s case is to be forever used as a reproach to the legal system and “proof” of MJ’s guilt, now we will have the right to disregard every not guilty verdict passed by the US justice system. Whenever they tell us that someone was acquitted, we will have the full right to say that the justice system is unreliable and that despite all their effort we are sure that those acquitted are actually guilty as hell. Or vice versa, that those convicted and jailed are actually the innocent little angels.
I wonder how they will like all this confusion and possible unrest which is the inevitable outcome of their own doubt in their own legal system.
What I mean is that if they choose to call Michael Jackson guilty even after his full acquittal in the court of law it means that they don’t believe their legal system themselves. And if they don’t believe it themselves why should we then?
And what are we supposed to think of all those people who scrutinized Michael Jackson for more than 12 years and never found anything bad? Are we supposed to call all of them star-struck, corrupt or unprofessional? Actually this is what the press and MJ’s haters practically tell us on a daily basis, so why not start thinking that way too? The fact that they are forcing us into this frame of mind themselves is what makes things only funnier.
How many more law-enforcement bodies do people need to make sure that Michael Jackson was innocent of the crime he was accused of? Aren’t the two Sheriff departments, two District Attorney offices, two Grand juries of Santa Barbara and Los Angeles in addition to the DCFS and FBI not enough for them? How much more scrutiny must a person undergo to finally convince the public that it is simply impossible to find fault with an innocent person if he is really innocent, no matter how hard you try?
Well, if they say that their justice system is so helpless or unreliable in determining the truth, I suggest we abandon this old outdated stuff and go by something new instead - public opinion polls for example. The system seems not to be working anyway, as people doubt its verdicts and believe tabloids instead, so what’s the point of keeping it then?
Only imagine how much more economical and thrilling it would be if TV channels replaced the existing justice system and arranged their own trials. They could invite an assortment of TV pundits and Hollywood stars, and upon covering the case a public opinion poll could be taken to determine which side was the best and decide the fate of the accused person.
If the majority thinks that he is guilty let the police throw the villain into jail. If everyone thinks that he is a lovely little angel let him go free and award him with a prize.
It will be a modern day version of the ancient crowd in a Rome arena which decided the fate of their gladiators by a mere move of their thumbs, but on the other hand it can also be regarded as a triumph of true democracy too.
It all depends on how you look at it.
3. THE OLD-FASHIONED SYSTEM
In comparison with the above novel and exciting approach the existing justice system is much more complex, boring and is no fun.
If a crime happens or is suspected it starts with opening a criminal case. The investigators rush to do their job, the prosecutor looks into everything the investigation team collected and decides whether to bring criminal charges against the accused person or the case should be dropped for lack of the necessary proof.
Sometimes prosecutors take all the evidence to the Grand jury which is a sort of a preliminary test on how good or bad their case is (or how good or bad the work of the investigators was). If the Grand jury does not indict it means that the prosecutor cannot bring any criminal charges and there is no case.
The existing legal system is explained in very simple language by this site:
Who Is Authorized to File Criminal Charges in Court?
By Michael J. Scott, eHow Contributor
The criminal trial always begins with the filing of charges. Until formal charges have been files against you–even if you have been arrested–you have not been charged with a crime. Contrary to what you see in movies and television shows, the decision to file charges rests not with the victim, but with the prosecutor.
- A criminal charge is the formal declaration from the state that a person is suspected of committing a crime. Charges are filed only when a prosecutor believes he has a reasonable likelihood of conviction.
- Only the prosecutor has final say on filing charges. The prosecutor has unfettered discretion when determining whether to file changes and what kind should be filed.
- Contrary to popular belief, victims do not have right to file charges. By pressing charges, a victim is letting the prosecutor know that he/she wants the charges filed and is willing to proceed with the case, but the decision still rests with the prosecutor. Prosecutors can file in cases where the victim wants charges dropped, and can refuse to file in cases where the victim wants to proceed.
Who is the Victim
- Under the American criminal justice system, the “victim” is actually the state. The prosecutor is representing the entire citizenry, and ultimately must make the decision as to what is best for everyone, not just the individual victim.
Law Enforcement Input
- In addition to the victim, law enforcement officers are also allowed to state whether they think charges should be filed. Again, while the prosecutor takes that opinion under advisement, only he has final say.
- Police and other law enforcement agencies are integral to the filing of charges against criminal defendants. These professionals conduct investigations, and the evidence they gather is used by prosecutors in determining whether or not to file charges.
- Private citizens (those who are not employed by the state) play a role in the filing of criminal charges whenever they give testimony or provide evidence to investigators. Filing a complaint with the police is one of the more common ways they provide this evidence.
- A prosecutor must be able to show they have enough evidence to show probable cause exists that the person charged with a crime committed it. This is less than the evidentiary standard required for a conviction in a court of law.
- Grand juries can be convened by some prosecutors to investigate whether or not there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges. If the grand jury believes there is, an indictment (criminal charges) will be filed against the defendant(s).
So the person who is considered to be a victim does not have the right to file criminal charges. Neither can he stop the prosecution from carrying on with the case if he extorted money from the accused person and wishes to stop at that.
That is why the Chandler civil case was standing absolutely apart from the criminal case. The latter was the subject of the criminal justice system while the civil case is a matter between the two parties where lawyers are kind of negotiators debating the sum. The criminal case was running parallel to the civil suit, and could never be stopped even if the civil suit was amicably settled.
In order to take Jackson to court the police first had to charge him with a crime and all they needed for it was a declaration of the alleged victim containing at least some evidence (for example, description of the man’s intimate parts) and the photos of the real genitalia to coincide with that description. This was all the proof they needed. No, it wasn’t determining the final truth yet (this can be done only in court) but this was the minimum required for bringing criminal charges against Michael Jackson as the very first step necessary for a trial at all.
4. THREE ACTS OF THE ORDEAL
Jordan Chandler spoke to the police and they put down a certain description of the intimate parts he as a ‘victim’ had allegedly seen. The description was given at the very beginning of the criminal investigation, first to the Los Angeles police in September 1993 and then to the Santa Barbara investigators in December 1993. Then the Santa Barbara people proceeded to make the photos of the actual genitalia, and this was done on December 20, 1993.
What was a thrilling story for the public was a dehumanizing and humiliating ordeal for Michael Jackson.
But even after the body search, when everyone was waiting for the sensational front page news of Jackson being arrested and the criminal charges brought against him at last, a sudden lull followed.
Two days later Jackson was still free and on December 22,1993 he even made a public statement via a satellite saying in a trembling voice that he had been submitted to a humiliating strip search of his penis, lower torso, etc. It was the most terrifying experience of his life but he nevertheless agreed to endure it in order to prove his innocence.
The police, the Chandlers and their lawyer Larry Feldman fell into silence and produced the impression of being in a confusion.
The confusion was over the fact that there was no match between the photos and the description provided by the boy.
When Larry Feldman finally came to himself he issued a declaration in the name of Jordan Chander (Decembler 28, 1993) repeating the same old lies, only this time extra care was taken not to mention that the boy ever saw MJ naked. Otherwise it was just the same old stuff, completely vague, indefinite and uncertain, but graphic as before. The boy was a talent, you know.
Random voices began to be voiced hinting that the photos “matched”, however no one bothered to explain why, if this was the case, they could not bring criminal charges against the man then.
A month later an agreement in the civil suit was signed and the media sighed with relief that now they knew what to trash Michael Jackson for. There was so much hoopla around the settlement that no one paid attention to the news published by the USA today, saying that there was actually no match at all.
Well, probably no one just noticed it because the truth was printed in so tiny letters, using Lisa Marie’s expression, that it was simply impossible to notice it.
Now the truth about the photos contradicting the description is also extremely difficult to find. It is not only as tiny as it was before, but now it can be bought for money only, and this makes you think that those who have no money or are unwilling to pay will have to satisfy themselves with lies which are freely available to all, while the truth is rstricted and for the few.
The criminal investigation of Michael Jackson lasted for another eight months after the strip search, until September 1994 when it ended in a zero result as you know.
The eight months that passed between the strip search and closing the case meant that the photos baffled the police so much that all the remaining time they tried to figure out how come the photos could be so different from the accuser’s description. It was so vivid and graphic, you know…
The two Grand juries refused to indict Jackson even after listening to 400 witnesses and reshuffling all the evidence, and this sent the general public into wild guesses about the biggest mystery of all times - how could the grand jury not indict Jackson if it was supposed to be a match as they were constantly told by the media and police? The answer to the mystery was in a total mismatch of course, but with so much media poison in their ears and cotton wool in their eyes the people’s brains simply refused to function.
The prosecution explained their fiasco of bringing no charges against Jackson by the fact that there was no second victim.
If anyone wondered why they needed a second victim if they allegedly had the first one, and with a so-called match too, this question was never answered and was left hanging in the air. The police simply diverted everyone’s attention from the fundamental absence of proof of Jordan’s words to another topic and invited the public to search for a second accuser instead.
The search was more or less successful as after several sessions with a son of Michael Jackson’s maid they finally managed to convince him that the two cases of tickling he had allegedly suffered in the hands of a predator were absolutely sexual in their nature and intent. To the Grand jury the boy noted the atmosphere in which this groundbreaking confession was made (this we know from the transcripts produced by Thomas Mesereau at the 2005 trial). The boy said that he wanted to strike his interviewers with something heavy on the head – so this is how bad it was.
However despite all this resistance from the boy the end result was still quite satisfactory for the police – Jason Francia agreed to bolster Jordan Chandler’s story with his tickling account.
But at this point another blow was awaiting the police. For several months after the January settlement with Michael Jackson the first accuser Jordan Chandler had been cooperating with the authorities, but now he flatly refused to testify:
“…it was not until July 6, according to Feldman and Weiss, that the boy finally decided he could not take the stand against Jackson.”
The official tale has it that he was afraid of threats from Michael Jackson’s fans, though the real reason was different – it stemmed from Jordan’s fear of a cross-examination, which he himself admitted to in his notable interview with a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner.
Since now the prosecution lost their main witness (in addition to having no match and no evidence of the crime) they made a loud announcement that without the first witness they could not carry on with the case. The criminal case would be suspended until after the main witness changed his mind.
Everyone believed the official story. The witness was still a child and children are exempt from the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment says that those who accuse someone of a crime are obliged to come and face the defendant in the courtroom, to enable the defendant to ask them questions.
Fortunately for Jordan Chandler he was still a child, and no one could force him to come and testify against his alleged abuser. Thus the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution saved the face of the prosecutors and their investigators. They did a splendid job, however the boy refused to testify, so what could the poor police do?
5. THE SECOND ACT OF THE PROSECUTION PERFOFMANCE
With the first act of the drama over but its closing scene somewhat inconclusive for the audience, the second act was opened by Tom Sneddon and Gil Garcetti (the LA District Attorney) by approaching the legislators with a request to amend the law and let them take the case to court without a child witness, on the basis of the evidence alone. If accepted, the proposed change would make Jordan Chandler free as a bird and would not require him to face the defendant in court or need to undergo a cross-examination.
The good news came for Jordan Chandler sometime in 1995 with an amendment to the law which allowed him as a child to no longer testify. The legislators met the prosecutors’ request and made an exception for those child abuse cases when the prosecution had enough evidence to prove their case without a child’s testimony.
Those who knew of the new legal procedure must have held their breath waiting for Sneddon to reopen the case against Jackson. Now he no longer needed Jordan Chandler to prove his case in court. All he had to do was submitting the evidence of the supposed “match” to bring criminal charges against Jackson and if the match was proven to be true the case could be won.
However all those who expected Sneddon to make the next step for which he actually had the law amended fell flat in their faces. Sneddon simply did not make that step and didn’t reopen the case. What he was waiting for was unclear as now he allegedly had everything he needed to do away with Jackson – the supposed “match” and the right to prosecute on this basis alone.
But instead of doing what he was supposed to do Sneddon simply continued spreading lies about Jackson and the media had tremendous fun trashing Michael solely on Sneddon’s words.
Isn’t it interesting that the media is so selective towards the system of justice – Sneddon they do believe even if he simply says so, while the acquittal verdict passed by the jury they do not?
6. THE CULMINATION SCENE
When the first two acts of the fake ‘molestation’ performance were over and the Arvizos finally made their entrance it became clear what Sneddon was waiting for these 12 long years – it turned out that he did not have enough evidence and was waiting for a second victim again!
If anyone wonders why all this time he needed a second victim though he could do with the “match” alone and did not need even the first victim (not to mention the second one) due to changes in the law, their questions will remain unanswered and hang in the air again.
The third act of the performance opened with new problems for the prosecution. Even though now Sneddon had Gavin Arvizo as another alleged victim, the first liar Jordan Chandler had already become an adult and now the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution became fully applicable to him.
It meant that if Sneddon wanted to produce the photos of a supposed “match” in the 1993 case he was also obliged to provide a live testimony from the liar himself. The liar was 25 years old, and now Jackson and his lawyers had the full right to look him in the face and even ask him a couple of questions in the courtroom.
Of course the liar could refuse to testify as technically he was still an “abuse victim” and these people are not forced to appear in court. The only difference in his position is that while he was a child the photos could be introduced without his testimony in accordance with the law changes, while now that he was an adult the photos could not be produced in his absence. Other than that nothing changed and he could still refuse to testify as the concept of protecting real abuse victims and consideration for their feelings is valid for all times.
The problem Sneddon had with the first liar Jordan Chandler was that he refused to come to court the second time. Sneddon approached the FBI for help. But when the FBI and police went to see the liar in New York in September 2004 he was still uncooperative, dropped a mysterious phrase that he “had done his part” and even said he would sue them if they insisted on his testimony further.
This is how Sneddon lost his main victim again. The first time Jordan refused him in 1994. The next year due to the changes in the law Sneddon could reopen the case without Jordan but didn’t do it (as he had no evidence to produce), and ten years later, in 2004 he had Jordan’s refusal again, only this time as an adult.
The root of the problem was in no evidence of course. The witness was needed for Sneddon to produce at least something in court and probably even shift the blame for Jordan’s lies onto his shoulders once there were discovered in the trial process. Sneddon wanted to use this fake witness for himself only and this is probably why Jordan flatly refused to take part in Sneddon’s games.
However Jordan’s refusal did not stop Sneddon from playing his own part and making a dramatic stage appearance with the photos of Michael Jackson’s intimate parts made in 1993.
The photos actually proved that there was no match, so it was absolutely not in Sneddon’s interests to disclose them to anyone.
The very idea of the third act of this theatre performance was to pretend that Sneddon possessed some evidence as proof of Jordan’s words and at the same time have a legitimate reason not to show it to the jury.
Since Jordan wasn’t there Sneddon could wave the photos from a distance and tease the jury and the public into thinking that they were proving his case, while those in the legal profession knew that they were not, and the whole performance was an impressive but an empty gesture meant for vile purposes only.
Without the first liar the photos could never be used, so after throwing Sneddon a tired look the judge had to remind him of the 6th Amendment which meant that either the photos came in a package with the liar or Sneddon could not use them at all.
Fortunately Sneddon’s fake scene with waving the photos ended in no legal consequences for Jackson as the jury went by the words of the judge. But the general public was immensely taken in by Sneddon’s thrilling performance and was outraged that the jury followed the 6th Amendment and not the prosecution, and if it were not for a minor thing like the jury’s diligence and dedication to the sanctity of the law, the raging public would have sent Jackson into jail until the end of his time and would have probably lynched him on the way.
After looking at all this noisy bazaar involving the prosecution, public and the media Michael’s defense lawyers advised him to leave the country which Michael Jackson actually did. However while he was abroad he grew somewhat forgetful that his not guilty verdict meant nothing for his countrymen and in December 2007 he decided to return home.
7. CNN WELCOMES MICHAEL JACKSON’S RETURN
A year after Michael Jackson returned from Ireland CNN suddenly decided to remind Jackson and the public of the most notable points of the 2005 trial and retrieved from that period their most “interesting” articles archiving them into a special file dedicated to Jackson.
The file could be a way to bring together their doubts in Michael Jackson’s innocence despite his full acquittal, or a tool to register all dirty gossip around the trial for it not to get lost, God forbid, on future generations.
So on December 31, 2007, exactly when Michael Jackson was thinking of restarting his career, the CNN Court TV reprinted some of their articles which they considered the most “interesting” among everything they ever said about him and the ‘molestation’ issues.
All in all there were 11 articles. One of them was given a flashy and promising title: “Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear”.
December 31, 2007 — Updated 1518 GMT (2318 HKT)
Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear
Editor’s Note: As part of CNN.com’s new Crime section, we are archiving some of the most interesting content from CourtTVNews.com. This story was first published in 2005.
(Court TV) – From the witnesses lawyers chose not to call to evidence ruled inadmissible, some of the most intriguing details of Michael Jackson’s molestation trial never made it to the jury. A look at what the jury didn’t hear:
The blemished penis
The judge nixed photos and drawings of Michael Jackson’s private parts. The images were collected during the 1993 investigation into the singer’s allegedly inappropriate relationship with then-13-year-old Jordie Chandler. Prosecutors hoped Chandler’s drawing of Jackson’s distinctive blemishes, allegedly corroborated by search-warrant photos, would prove Jackson was not ‘shy and modest” with sleepover guests.
The missing sleepover guests
Prosecutors scored a major victory when the judge allowed evidence about Jackson’s alleged “bad acts” more than a decade ago. A parade of witnesses testified they saw the singer putting his hands in inappropriate places on the bodies of five different boys, actor Macaulay Culkin among them, but jurors heard nothing about two of the boys. Prosecutors say Jackson “groomed” the two with special attention, but the judge denied the evidence because no witnesses actually saw Jackson touch them.
Cash for silence, but how much?
Jackson never faced charges or admitted wrongdoing in any of the alleged prior bad acts. Jurors learned, however, that Jackson settled with 1993 accuser Jordie Chandler, who did not testify, and a 1994 accuser, who told jurors Jackson groped him during tickle games. But the judge ruled that the dollar amounts the boys and their families received, about $20 million and $2.4 million, respectively, would not be divulged.
Former Neverland employee Charlie Michaels claimed she saw Jackson and Jordie Chandler practicing dance moves in the singer”s studio when Jackson grabbed the boy’s genitals. Demonstrating his famous crotch-grabbing dance move on the boy was presumably a pretense to touch his groin, from the prosecution point-of-view, but the judge ruled out Michaels’ testimony.
A late-night lubricant request
Former Jackson security guard Kassim Abdool told jurors that he saw Jackson and Jordie Chandler frolicking in a Jacuzzi and sharing a lingering embrace under a Peter Pan display. But jurors were not allowed to hear about an uncorroborated story the time Abdool claims he delivered a jar of Vaseline to the sweaty, naked pop star, who was entertaining Chandler in his bedroom.
King of Talk silent
Talk show host Larry King was set to testify that he met last year with Larry Feldman, the civil attorney representing the accuser and his family. King said that during their breakfast meeting, Feldman revealed that he thought the accuser’s mother was a “wacko” who was only in it for the money. The judge found his proposed testimony inadmissible.
Actor Macaulay Culkin testified that the charges against his “childlike” friend were “absolutely ridiculous.” Prosecutors were not allowed to question the “Home Alone” star about his own pending charges. Culkin was pulled over for speeding last year in Oklahoma City and was nabbed for possession of marijuana and prescription drugs.
Former bodyguard Chris Carter was expected to testify that he confronted the accuser one night about being drunk, and the boy allegedly told him, “Michael said if I can handle it, it’s OK. It’s part of being a man.” Carter, who is facing armed robbery and bank-robbing charges in Nevada, promised to plead the Fifth if called. Prosecutors decided not to call him.
The defense lost its bid to call two security agents involved in the 1998 scuffle outside JCPenney, which resulted in a $152,000 settlement for the accuser’s family. Dexter Mason and Paul Krugman were expected to testify that the mother apologized and hugged them the next day, in an attempt to support the defense’s claim that the family’s suit against JCPenney was fraudulent. The judge ruled that he would not allow attorneys to relitigate the JCPenney case.
Chef’s other interest
Attorneys bickered over the proposed testimony of Angel Vivanco, an assistant chef at Neverland who became close with the accuser’s 16-year-old sister during the time the family was allegedly held captive. In the end, Vivanco was not questioned about what prosecutors called a “quasi-sexual” relationship with the minor sister, nor about her alleged statement to him that her mother was “a psycho.”
The writer who escaped the stand
Journalist Ian Drew was asked by the Jackson camp to interview the accuser and his family in spring 2003 for a positive story about Jackson’s friendship with the boy. But Drew said a Jackson aide canceled the interview because of the family’s “escape” from Neverland. When questioned outside the presence of jurors, Drew said he wasn’t completely certain the word “escape” was used. The judge ruled that his testimony could not be used.
The librarian and the profiler
The defense wanted to call librarian Mary Minow to analyze the singer’s book shelves and testify about the artistic merits of such books as “Boys Will Be Boys” and “The Boy: A Photographic Essay.” But prosecutors argued that if Minow was in, then former FBI Special Agent Ken Lanning, who specializes in pedophile profiling, should be allowed to testify that Jackson’s reading materials, some of which was seized during a search by police (pictured), could also be used to arouse young boys. Both sides agreed to pull their witnesses.
Diana’s cousin, the duke
Michael Jackson’s hide-and-seek games with the 5-year-old son of a duke did not come in when the judge denied testimony from Alexander Charles David Francis George Edward William Kimble Drogo Montagu, who also goes by Alexander Montagu Manchester — the 13th Duke of Manchester and cousin of Princess Diana. The duke claims that after a family visit to Neverland, Jackson would call his Newport Beach, Calif., home at all hours, crying and asking to see his “hide and seek” partner.
Celebrity character witnesses
The defense’s star-studded witness list promised appearances from such Jackson pals as Elizabeth Taylor, Stevie Wonder and Diana Ross. But prosecutors threatened to conduct the same kind of pornography showdown with these celebs that choreographer Wade Robson endured. They also threatened to introduce evidence that Jackson shared his bed with children while addicted to Demerol and that LaToya Jackson once stated she saw a $1 million payment in hush money to one boy’s family. The defense opted to pare down its list. E-mail to a friend
I don’t know what impression you get from the above but to me the list looks like a page from Victor Gutierrez’s book, from the point of view of its salaciousness and agenda underlying the story.
It is clear to anybody familiar with reality that a story of a “lubticant” for the “sweaty naked star” “entertaining” Jordan Chandler in Neverland can be science fiction only. In fact Kassim Abdool probably said something of the kind at the trial and for sure Victor Gutierrez described that thrilling scene in minute detail in his book, only the problem is that Kassim Abdool was proven in court to be a terrible liar and Victor Gutierrez was proven to be such a liar that he even had to flee the US due to the need to pay Michael Jackson $2,7mln. in a defamation suit.
For your information let me say that Jordan Chandler wasn’t even in Neverland at the time described by Abdool (1992) and even if this liar allegedly saw another boy (for example, Brett Barnes) the worst Michael Jackson haters always said that the ‘molestation’ never entered the stage when any ‘lubricants’ were needed at all, if you understand what I mean. Abdool got so carried away by his lies that he exaggerated them out of every proportion and the sheer size of them began to work against their author, debunking his stories without extra need from the defense.
However the above explanation you will not hear from the CNN.
And that is why I agree with the general idea of their headline – some things have indeed been hidden from the people’s eyes and ears, only it is not what the CNN means.
The truly intriguing details of the lies told about Jackson are rarely reported by the press as they are terribly awkward and inconvenient for the official media. The media never wanted us to know these hidden facts which will be enumerated in the second part of this post (which is still in the making).
In the meantime let me say that it is even not that bad that Court TV recorded all those outrageous stories about Jackson as their basic archive about the man – there will surely come a time when this impressive historic document will be used against the CNN Court TV to show their bias and lurid lies they kept telling to their audience instead of the truth.
This makes me wonder. If such a powerful and seemingly credible media network as CNN selected only this trash to present to its readers what can we expect of ordinary citizens then? How can we expect them to be different if this is what they are listening to? No wonder that people’s heads are filled with so much garbage…
8. BILL DWORIN AND GROUNDHOD DAY
In their lies against Jackson the media often uses people who were working in the investigation team at the preliminary stage of the 1993 case, even before the evidence was presented to the prosecutor and to the Grand jury where these facts were scrutinized and eventually rejected. One of such people is Bill Dworin.
Who is Bill Dworin? He is one of the investigators in the Los Angeles police department who collected everything there was to collect against Jackson in 1993 and submit it to the prosecutor to decide what to do with it further.
In the 2005 era he was often invited on TV to share his views on the earlier Chandler case. Their favorite subject for discussion were the two books with half-naked boys (one boy was shown fully naked) swimming and playing on the beach, which were found in Michael’s home in 1993.
It is simply impossible to have to talk about these books for so long, but let me still say here that one of the books was a present from a fan as it had the respective inscription, and the other book was intended for a fan as it had Michael Jackson’s inscription and even his signature on it (you don’t inscribe and sign books for yourself, don’t you?).
Both books were absolutely legal of course and the unsuspecting Michael surely had no idea what Bill Dworin would think of it. And Bill Dworin thinks that such books may be used for arousal of (real) child molesters. Probably they are, only we ordinary citizens may be totally unaware of it, same as Michael Jackson.
Since the prosecution did not regard the facts collected by Bill Dworin as valid enough for an indictment, we can very well understand his hurt feelings – he worked so hard, but neither the prosecution nor the Grand Jury saw anything incriminating in his findings.
His frustration is easy to explain. The zero end result in the 1993 case either points to his poor professional performance (which is a blow to his self-esteem) or it is the assertion of Michael Jackson’s innocence, which means that he wasted a year of his work on a hopeless case. If Dworin appears on TV again and attempts to throw MJ into a bad class again, someone should ask him which way he prefers it – does the absence of incriminating evidence point to MJ’s innocence or did Dworin simply fail in his job?
The most probable answer you will get is that everyone involved overlooked some crucial evidence, which is hardly likely, but even this will not be able to explain why the boy’s description didn’t coincide with the photos, which is all that matters in this case.
Many other investigators were disappointed that all the work brought them nowhere, but the chief spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department Cmdr. David J. Gascon had no criticism for the prosecutors – they see the whole picture and have the final say:
For the investigating agencies that led the Jackson investigation, Wednesday’s decision brought disappointment and resignation. Although it was expected, some police and social workers grumbled that the district attorneys had demanded an airtight case since the target was such a rich and powerful figure.
Nevertheless, Cmdr. David J. Gascon, chief spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department, declined to criticize the prosecutors.
“It’s our responsibility to conduct an investigation,” Gascon said. “That’s what we did. We presented the information to the district attorneys, and they have made their decision.”
At the Department of Children’s Services, whose investigators conducted one of the first interviews with the boy whose complaint sparked the probe, some workers were disappointed, while others said they had long expected Wednesday’s announcement.
“We thought there would be a lot of attention given to this case because of who is involved, but when you get down to the facts of the case, you can’t always proceed,” said Ivy Mondy, a supervisor in the department’s sexual abuse unit. “There might be some disappointment in how it was handled. If it had not become such a media event, it might have had a different outcome.”
So all the prosecutors demanded was a “airtight case” not allowing mistakes. And their statement that “when you get down to the facts of the case, you can’t always proceed” conveys to us that there were no facts to support the initial accusations. And by “the different outcome” they mean that if had not been such a media event, the criminal investigation would not have taken so much and effort and would have closed much earlier.
Someone should now explain to Dworin, his TV hosts and other media personalities that we cannot return again and again to the very beginning of the case and disregard the follow-up events that proved the initial accusations to be wrong. Once the end has been reached we cannot go over to the start of it again and constantly rerun it as if it were the Groundhog Day movie.
Some respect should be finally shown for the justice system and its verdict, so could we ask Michael’s detractors to please stop making rounds on TV and speak of the 1993 case as if it was not yet over?
If they continue to do so the very least we can do for them is stop watching their shows and stop listening and reading their news. I did it with our TV channels six years ago, and have felt only much better ever since.
* * *