Jackson Case: WHAT THE PUBLIC DID NOT HEAR
The continuation of the previous post took longer than I expected. It is meant to be a counter balance to the list called “Jackson Case: What the jury didn’t hear”, compiled by the CNN Court TV on the eve of 2008.
The present list includes facts meant to be never heard by the public, and this is the reason why it is much longer than the one made by CNN - the facts the jury didn’t hear are very few or even none, while what the public did not hear is a huge lot.
The CNN headline is not quite right because even the most salacious of their stories were presented to the jury as I myself read them in the transcripts, so the idea to republish them on the eve of 2008 – several years after the acquittal verdict and a year after Jackson returned to the US – could have no other reason but sheer malice. The Court TV wanted to refresh the old nasty lies in people’s minds, guide them on how to properly remember Michael Jackson on the eve of restarting his career, as well as send Michael a certain message we can only guess of.
Judging by the stories selected for their archive, like the one about a “lubricant” passed by a bodyguard to the “naked sweaty star” to “entertain” Jordan Chandler with, the Court TV drew its inspiration from the book written by Victor Gutierrez where this informant of Diane Dimond and self-confessed attendee of a NAMBLA conference relished this kind of writing. His story is called “Michael Jackson Was My Lover” and it is due to its totally false content and openly pro-pedophilia character that it is still banned in the US. The degree of lies told there is manifested by the fact that the bodyguard in question could not see any of the above even in theory as Jordan Chandler was hardly familiar with Michael Jackson in the period described.
My list of facts has a goal similar to that of the CNN Court TV – it is to tell people the facts they were never meant to hear, see or remember, with the only big difference that my sources are not dubious authors like Gutierrez, but the mainstream US media everyone can check up for themselves. These facts were reported by the media just once but were later completely dropped for some reason.
Long as it is the list will be far from full as the ocean of true but unreported facts about Michael Jackson is simply boundless. Many of them are already well-known for the readers of this blog while some are relatively new as they were previously mentioned only in the comments.
1. THEY MAY NOT MATCH
We start with a short piece of news so precious on the news market that it is available now for pay only. It is the news which was reported by Reuters and the USA today saying that the police photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia contradicted Jordan Chandler’s lies.
The news came on January 26, 1993 or the next day after the settlement agreement with the Chandlers, so we can imagine how this tiny piece of news was overshadowed by all the roaring, howling and hoopla around the agreement.
Buy Complete Document: Abstract Full Text Purchase Options
Photos may contradict Michael’s accuser
USA TODAY (pre-1997 Fulltext) – McLean, Va.
Date: Jan 28, 1994 Start Page: 02.D Section: LIFE Text Word Count: 106
Abstract (Document Summary)
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.
Some inquisitive readers were good enough to pay for the rest of this tiny text and never regretted it as what they found was a contrast between how the headline and the body of the article were telling the same news – the headline said that the photos may contradict the accuser, while the text itself said that it did contradict his story:
Full Text: 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.
You will agree that there is a big difference between the supposition in the headline and the sure way the news is actually reported by Reuters. The photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia did not match the description given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct and there is no place for doubt here. The fact of the mismatch is undeniable.
The difference in the headline and the story itself made me think a funny thought that for free most people browsing the internet are getting doubt and uncertainty which allows further trashing of Michael Jackson, but for money the inquisitive few are allowed to learn the solid truth about his innocence. Is it a new type of discrimination – by the income and wealth of the reader? Or is it a test of public desire to know the truth – if you want to know the truth work for it and you will finally get it?
The media definitely doesn’t want people to know the truth about Jackson as the news about the photos contradicting the boy’s description was reported just once and by two or three sources only. Now you will not be able to find it anywhere else except the above source and this casts an interesting light on the picture of the media objectiveness and the so-called freedom of information, at least in respect of Michael Jackson.
The contradiction between the photos and the liar’s story is actually all we needed to know about the 1993 allegations, so we could very well stop here and consider the mission fulfilled - Jordan is a liar, Michael Jackson was innocent and was simply slandered by the Chandlers in 1993.
However all these media manipulations with information make me curious to know how the media machine is working against Jackson and take me further to look for its hidden mechanics. It is the same kind of a thrill and curiosity that makes a child lift the cover of an old clock to see its inner mechanism and find out why all its wheels are running so well inside it.
2. LARRY FELDMAN SEEKS TO BAR THE POLICE PHOTOS
Since the photos contradicted the description it is no surprise that soon after Michael Jackson was strip searched and photographed by the police, the boy’s lawyer Larry Feldman wanted to have the photos barred from the civil trial.
Larry Feldman’s request usually makes Michael’s detractors twist and turn as if on a frying pan as it betrays more than anything else the fact that the photos were no match to the boy’s description. Of course Larry Feldman did his best to mask his intentions with a mass of words contradicting his actual purpose, and present the desire to bar the photos as if it were almost a favor to Jackson.
The way it was worded was totally incredible. It was a so-called multiple-choice request filed with the court on January 5, 1994 and insolently demanding that Michael Jackson:
- either provides Jordan Chandler with copies of the police photographs after which he submits to a second search
- or Larry Feldman is going to ask the court to bar the photographs from the civil trial as evidence.
Since it was preceded by an introduction about “Jackson’s guilt” few people reading this precious story realized what he was talking about. Despite all Larry Feldman’s dances around this subject the gist of it was actually a threat: “Michael Jackson, look here, either you give us the photos, we see your genitalia and correctly describe them to the police (with your second strip search being an option) or I’ll arrange for the photos clearing you of suspicion to be barred under some pretext, understand?”
It is no wonder that this beautiful gesture is found nowhere else but in one short article in the Los Angeles Times. To their big credit up till now this paper has not archived this article and it is even freely available to all, for which I am really grateful to the LA Times – they look like an island of credible information in the sea of lies or suppressed truth practised by almost everyone else I see around them.
Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTYNEWS IN BRIEF
LOS ANGELES : Boy’s Lawyer Seeks Photos of Michael Jackson’s Body
Metropolitan Digest / LOS ANGELES COUNTYNEWS IN BRIEF
The attorney representing a 13-year-old boy who claims he was molested by Michael Jackson filed court documents Tuesday in an effort to obtain photographs of the entertainer’s body.
Last month, Jackson submitted to a body search by investigators seeking evidence to corroborate the boy’s claims.
“We think that the fact that my client can establish what Mr. Jackson looks like naked is very substantial evidence of Mr. Jackson’s guilt,” said Larry Feldman, the boy’s attorney.
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.
Feldman said he has asked Jackson’s attorneys and the Los AngelesCounty district attorney’s office for copies, but they refused.
My huge thanks go to the LA Times for this great news all people have the right to know.
3. SNOBS CAN BE TERRIBLE FOOLS
Michael Jackson always said to us that the photos did not corroborate Jordan Chandler’s lies. He appealed to the simple logic of people and explained that if he wasn’t arrested then and there, and there were no criminal charges brought against him and he was sitting there in the Prime Time TV studio together with his wife Lisa Marie Presley giving an interview to Diane Sawyer, all of it should be enough to convey to the public the simple truth that the police had found nothing to match the boy’s false charges.
Here is an excerpt from the June 14, 1995 Prime Time interview where they were discussing this point:
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: You’re not going to ask me about them, are you? [laughing] Sorry. About the markings?
Diane Sawyer: You volunteered.
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.
Michael: Because it isn’t so!
I’ve heard that some Michael’s fans are dissatisfied with Diane Sawyer’s interview with Jackson and they have their own reasons for it. However they will probably warm up a bit to Diane Sawyer if they learn of the amount of mockery and pressure she had to cope with from her colleagues from the New York Times, for example – the paper called by Larry King “the pillar of American journalism”. They labeled Diane Sawyer’s program “just a professional’s inexpensive disclaimer in an hour’s worth of promotion of the latest Michael Jackson blockbuster album, “HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I.”
The NYTimes was furious that the interview could help promote the new album and on two of its pages spat its disgust at both Michael Jackson’s marriage to Ms. Presley and what they called “a true union” – the one between ABC News and Sony. The judgment they passed on Ms. Sawyer degraded her as a journalist as they accused her of the desire to win cheap fame: “Ms. Sawyer must have discovered some time ago that working as a serious journalist is not the surest path to fame and money on television”. Special stress was made on the fact that “she earned her large salary”.
After such a statement the naïve readers could probably imagine that the NY Times would have made a much more balanced interview had their journalists handled the same story, and it is only the specimen of the NY Times own writing about Michael Jackson which will dispel these naïve thoughts.
A month after Reuters published the news about no match between the photos and the accuser’s the NY Times was lamenting over the corrupt state of affairs in this world where the ‘gilded hand of the offence (meaning the “molestation”) shoved the justice’ and the ‘wicked prize (meaning the agreement) buys out the law’.
This quote from Shakespeare was placed by the NYTimes editor on their site as a sad reflection over the sad morals of the society where these poor intellectuals are forced to live. It is indeed deplorable that these respectable people including the newspaper’s editorial staff and its audience who read Shakespeare in their free time, didn’t bother to check a short piece of news from Reuters telling that the ‘offence’ was never there, and the prize was indeed wicked but not for Jackson, but for the Chandler family who never deserved it.
As if the news of all these lies never reached the part of the world where the New York Times is residing, the paper is still keeping that accusatory piece in their choicest articles about Michael Jackson:
MICHAEL JACKSON; Two Kings, Similar Dilemmas
Published: February 27, 1994
To the Editor:
In his essay “What’s Next for the King of Pop?” [ Feb. 6 ] , Jon Pareles ponders the fate of Michael Jackson. Shakespeare wrote of a similar dilemma in “Hamlet” (Act III, Scene III) when the King asks of himself: May one be pardon’d and retain th’ offence?
In the corrupted currents of this world
Offence’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law.
MARSHAL ALAN PHILLIPS Los Angeles
If I understand it right the above piece compares Michael Jackson to the king who killed Hamlet’s father and married his mother - so it is actually a murderer who they are comparing Michael Jackson with! And they are doing it despite the Reuter information that the allegations against Jackson were a lie! Some media indeed wants to “be pardon’d but stil retain th’ offence”.
4. GIL GARCETTI: “HE IS INNOCENT LIKE ANY CITIZEN IN THIS ROOM”
The person who surprised me most among the officials involved in the 1993 case was Gil Garcetti, the LA District attorney who was the first to start a criminal investigation of the Chandler case on August 17, 1993 (the Santa Barbara authorities opened their investigation later) and closed the case without bringing criminal charges against Jackson together with Tom Sneddon on September 22, 1994.
In contrast to Sneddon who trashed Michael Jackson forever after the year 1993 Gil Garcetti said a number of things which sound somewhat fresh to my ear. From Garcetti’s statement made when closing the investigation we learn that:
- Jordan Chandler said he did not want and would not testify against Jackson. Jason Francia also said that he didn’t want to be involved in the case. No mention was made about any fear of fans, the need to heal the shattered nerves of the “victims” and similar factors often cited in connection with the 1993 case.
- From Gil Garcetti we also find that the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” is still valid. He even stressed that Michael Jackson was presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room and should be treated as someone who had never been convicted of a crime (which he sure wasn’t).
The above is completely true of course but after so many years of the media openly calling Michael Jackson a criminal this news sounds a little strange to our untrained ear. It will surely take us some time to get used to what the real law says about the 1993 case – Michael was not charged with a crime, and is therefore innocent and is no worse than any of us sitting at our computers now.
Here is an article quoting Gil Garcetti:
No Charges for Now Against Michael Jackson
By SETH MYDANS
Published: September 22, 1994
…In announcing that no charges would be filed now, Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney, said: “After about 13 or 14 months of investigation this is our conclusion. We have a very important witness who has told us, ‘I am sorry, I do not want to and will not testify.’ And I’m telling you that if he stepped forward a month from now, two months from now, and says, ‘I’m willing to testify,’ we would re-evaluate our case at that time.”
Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney in Santa Barbara, where Mr. Jackson owns an estate, said more than 400 witnesses had been interviewed in the case and that two other possible victims had been identified. But he said one of these, who is now in therapy, had asked not to be involved in the case and the other was out of the country and had made a “general denial” of wrongdoing by Mr. Jackson.
In California, a victim of sexual abuse cannot be required to testify in court.
The two District Attorneys made it clear that they had been prepared to proceed with charges against Mr. Jackson. In a joint statement they said: “We emphasize that our decision is not based on any issue of credibility of the victims. Should circumstances change or new evidence develop within the statute of limitations, this decision will be re-evaluated in light of the evidence available at such time.”
But, responding to questions, Mr. Garcetti told reporters: “Michael Jackson is presumed to be innocent as any citizen in this room is if they are not convicted of a crime. We are not charging Michael jackson with a crime.”
A year later, in his 1995 interview with Diane Sawyer, Michael Jackson allowed himself to simply repeat the same truth, but instead of listening to what the law was saying, the media and the public broke into a roar of indignation, fury and mockery, all of which lead to repercussions against Diane Sawyer and a lawsuit for defamation against Michael Jackson (later tossed out) from Evan Chandler for $60 mln. this time.
None of them wanted Michael Jackson to ever speak about his innocence in public.
5. THE KEY EVIDENCE IS SUPPRESSED
The media agenda against Jackson is manifested extremely well by some people’s fixed idea on erasing everything there is to erase about Jordan Chandler’s wrong description of Michael Jackson, and even manipulating with the evidence and replacing the true facts with fiction.
Changing the color in the description given by Jordan Chandler is a very funny example of it. What Jordan described as the “light splotches the color of his face” allegedly seen on MJ’s genitals and fixed by Detective Deborah Linden in her 1993 report before the photos, after the photos was changed into “one dark spot” about which Sneddon spoke in his declaration many years later, in 2005.
The news about the color of one real spot became known much earlier than 2005 of course, and the first people to learn about Jordan’s mistake were the Chandlers. Therefore Victor Gutierrez, who worked in close collaboration with Evan Chandler when writing his book, was also the first to change the story into the opposite one. He mentioned it in 1995, two years after MJ’s photo session. Then the correct color of the spot was repeated by Maureen Orth in her Vanity Fair article and many years later by Diane Dimond in her book.
This true detail unfortunately added much credibility to their stories and this confused many minds, however the basic fact that it was reported after making the photos was somewhat overlooked by some analysts. The fact that Victor Guttierez was the first to know it betrays the link between Victor Gutierrez and Evan Chandler, and Maureen Orth and Diane Dimond being Gutierrez’s avid readers, however no one rules out still another version – that it was Tom Sneddon or someone in his office who informed these two ladies about the color of a marking found on the photos and consequently the light (not dark) color of the genitals.
Jordan initially spoke of several light splotches “the color of his face”. The genitalia he thought to be dark in reality turned out to be light. This grave mistake was described in minute detail in various earlier posts, so let us not get stuck on that. Instead we need to focus on another more sinister process taking place now and it is a mass, deliberate and artificially incited amnesia of Jordan’s words about the so-called Michael Jackson’s circumcision.
6. CIRCUMCISION AMNESIA
The story of Jordan’s mistake concerning Michael’s non-circumcision is much more difficult to forge and while it was still fresh in people’s minds no one really tried to change things into the opposite. However now that 20 years have passed such an attempt is finally being made.
We know from the autopsy report that Michael Jackson was the way the mother nature made him – he was not circumcised. And Jordan Chandler said that he was. Why he said it is clear – the majority of males in the US are circumcised, Jordan was half Jew himself and neither he nor his father who was inventing the fictional molestation story could ever imagine that Michael Jackson would turn out not to be circumcised like all others are.
But since Michael was not, it became the biggest stumbling block for the police. They tried to play with the idea of the penis being erect at all times, but the theory was not good enough as it still did not explain how someone masturbating someone else didn’t see the foreskin moving during the process (my apologies to the reader).
However nothing is impossible for the media and prosecutors like Sneddon. If you browse the internet for the circumcision issue now you will be greatly amazed that all mention of Jordan’s words was erased and that Michael’s detractors are claiming now that Jordan never said those words.
If you say that he did say it they will demand a source and sadistically add that they need a “credible” source and not some tabloid like the Smoking Gun which they have suddenly stopped believing. They believed every word of it for the past 20 years and now all of a sudden it is no longer good for them, you know.
Never mind the report of Deborah Linden that recorded Jordan’s circumcision words in 1993 (the report or its description are nowhere to be found now). Never mind the quotes from the report recklessly reprinted by the Smoking gun in 2005 – at that time they did not yet know what a terrible strategic mistake they were making by repeating Jordan’s words and only after the autopsy report quickly removed the article from public view (I hear that now it is back though). Never mind the fact that all of us still remember the media frenzy over the circumcision issue and that Jordan did call MJ circumcised.
Despite this fact still well remembered by us all information about this crucial issue was effectively erased from all over the net – except for the books, of course.
Fortunately the “circumcision” point was recorded in the books of that period and it is the first time I thank God that he kept for us the heinous pieces by Victor Gutierrez and Stacy Brown recording Jordan’s lies, as well as several reissues of Randy Taraborrelli’s book where his words are now carved in stone.
As one of the examples of Jordan calling MJ circumcised let me quote Victor Gutierrez as the worst Michael Jackson’s hater. The quote is provided with the sole purpose not to let anyone twist now the original Jordan’s lies the way they were told in 1993.
With all this media manipulation around Michael Jackson we’ve found ourselves in an incredible situation when even their lies have to be recorded for them by truthful Michael’s reporters so that these liars never forget how they lied about Jackson!
- “Then he took off his clothes, and I noticed that he had very little pubic hair, and that his penis was circumcised.” (Victor Gutierrez)
Victor Gutierrez alleged that he had access to the so-called Jordan’s drawing, which he included into his book, and over there the word “circumcised” was written on the very top of the drawing. The piece looked like it was made by Evan Chandler and not Jordan, and had words like “my theory” which pointed to the description being a supposition only, but for fixing Jordan’s words about Mike being “circumcised” it is the best of all documents:
Can anyone tell me why the media is so preoccupied with hating Michael Jackson that it is ready to revise history and deny the obvious, so that they delete every single mention of Jordan’s original words even from their archives?
7. THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS A MATCH
Besides erasing the key evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence a lot of other funny things are taking place around the official version of the 1993 case. One of these things is the fact that all those involved in the investigation say that they were told that the photos and Jordan’s description matched. The only explanation I can find for this strange phenomenon is that no one wants to bear responsibility for this big lie and everyone shifts the blame onto someone else’s shoulders.
Even the then Santa Barbara sheriff Jim Thomas, who led the investigation in 1993 together with Sneddon’s department, joked in ‘The Abrams Report’ of May 26, 2005 that he ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos. Abrams sounded delighted by the joke but evidently totally missed the point that it was actually the Sheriff’s duty to look and compare.
Imagine the same Sheriff saying that he ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos from the scene of a murder, and even joking about it now, and you will realize that the spectacle he arranged for the Abrams’ audience was a cheap comedy:
ABRAMS: Jim Thomas, you led the investigation in 1993. Did you look at the pictures of Michael Jackson‘s genitals?
THOMAS: Well, I had the opportunity to, Dan, and I turned it down. And that‘s a decision that I still cherish to this day.
ABRAMS: Yes, I guess it‘s not exactly one of those things that you want to have sticking in your head for all that time, kind of image. But the bottom line was, though, Jim, how consistent was the picture that the 1993 accuser drew to what the actual photographs showed?
THOMAS: Well, what I hear from my investigators from back then is that it was almost identical. I don‘t know that to be a fact, because I didn‘t view them. But I understand they were very consistent.
ABRAMS: Yes. All right. Well, Jim Thomas‘s claim to fame will be, “I refused to look at the pictures of Michael Jackson‘s genitals.”
THOMAS: And I stick by it.
There can be no doubt that he did compare the photos with the description and now he is making jokes only to avoid the need to give a direct answer about the gross contradiction between these two ‘exhibits’.
And the way he is talking about the alleged ‘consistency’ would be funny if it were not that tragic – he didn’t view them himself, but he heard from his investigators that they were almost identical and very consistent, though he doesn’t know it for a fact. And we hear all this from a person who was actually leading the investigation…
When Dr. Richard Strick was speaking to Geraldo, he also said that he had been told about the match, but his case was different. The doctor was specially assigned by the authorities to compare the photos with Jordan’s description and make the final determination, and with this purpose he took part in Michael Jackson’s body search.
The doctor produces the impression of an honest man, so in his case he was most probably simply not given access to the second part of the ‘exhibits’ – I mean the boy’s description, though the genitalia and the photos he did see.
In the video below Dr. Strick speaks of that notable body search and somewhat in passing mentions that he was told that it was a match. Someone even told him that it was an absolute match:
- “Michael had a disease vitiligo, in which the pigment is lost and attempts had been made to bring the pigment back which had been unsuccessful , then to bleach it out so it would be one color. …The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin.
- I was told later that the description and the photos that were taken, absolutely matched what the child had described.
The full version of the interview is found here:
Aren’t these two top specialists involved in the case making an odd couple? One of them is familiar with the drawing but ‘turned down’ the photos, while the other one is not familiar with the drawing but saw the photos instead. And both say they think it was a match because they were told so!
But look here. If Dr. Strick is familiar with only one side of the story (the photos), so how could he talk about it being strange that the boy could describe the color marks on MJ’s genitals? First of all the boy’s description was not correct in respect of the color marks either. Second, any of us could say that due to vitiligo MJ had spots there, same as on the rest of his body. And third, Dr. Strick didn’t even know what Jordan had said as he didn’t see the drawing or the description himself. He must have heard about it from someone else and is just repeating this person’s words.
Well, the further we go the funnier it gets.
Okay, let’s go over the full list of those who could have access to those photos and drawings, make the determination and inform all the others of a false match.
We learn of all the parties involved in the process from Sneddon’s declaration submitted to the 2005 trial. Here is the first part of it:
DECLARATION OF THOMAS W.SNEDDON, JR.
I, Thomas W.Sneddon, Jr., say:
1. I am a lawyer admitted to practice in all the courts of this state. I am, and since 1983 have been, the elected District Attorney of the County of Santa Barbara. I am the lead counsel for the prosecution in the trial of The People of the State of California v. Michael Joe Jackson, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1133603.
2. In 1993, the Los Angeles Police Department commenced an investigation of allegation by Jordan Chandler, a minor child, and his family that young Jordan had been sexually molested by Defendant in Los Angeles and in Santa Barbara Counties. Los Angeles Police Detective Rosibel Ferrufino was one of the investigators in that investigation. The Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department commenced its own investigation of the allegation, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department. Sheriff’s Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators.
3. In the course of LAPD’s investigation of the allegations, Jordan Chandler was interviewed by Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Lauren Weis on September 1, 1993, during which interview Detective Ferrufino and a court reporter were present. Jordan was asked to relate information concerning his reported relationship with Michael Jackson. In the course of the interview Jordan Chandler made detailed statements concerning the physical appearance of Michael Jackson, in particular the coloration of and marks on the skin of his lower torso, buttocks and genitals, including a particular blemish on his penis. Jordan was asked to draw a picture of Mr. Jackson’s erect penis and to locate on that drawing any distinctive marks he recalled. Jordan did so. The drawing was signed and dated by Jordan Chandler and was attached as Exhibit 1 to Detective Ferrufino’s report in LAPD Case No. 930822245.
4. On December 13,1993, as part of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s investigation into young Chandler’s allegations a search warrant was obtained authorizing the search of Michael Jackson’s person and for the taking of photographs of his genitals. That warrant was executed at Neverland Ranch in Santa Barbara on December 20, 1993. The resulting photographs have been retained by the Sheriff’s Department, under tight security. (Note: the Veritas Project says that the security was so tight that even Geraldo Rivera had a chance to see the photos)
Let me try and sort out this mess for you:
- The Los Angeles police department started a criminal investigation [on August 17, 1993]. The investigation team included Detective Rosibel Ferrufino and other investigators (Bill Dworin was among them but he isn’t even mentioned by Sneddon). The investigation team submitted all their evidence to Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney and Laureen Weis as his Deputy.
- Laurin Weis interviewed Jordan on September 1, 1993 with Ferrufino and a court reporter present. A detailed description was made by Jordan Chandler.
* * *
- Some time later the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s department commenced its own investigation. Detective Deborah Linden was one of the investigators. Her boss was Jim Thomas (the one who later ‘turned down’ to see the photos). The investigators submitted all their findings to Tom Sneddon, the District Attorney of Santa Barbara.
- On December 13, 1993 Deborah Linden interviewed Jordan Chandler and made a so-called Linden affidavit which no one ever saw but everyone heard of as it was there that Jordan spoke of “the light splotches the color of his face” and the circumcision issue.
- On the basis of Linden’s affidavit a search warrant was obtained from the judge to make a body search of Michael Jackson. The search and photographing of Michael’s naked body took place on December 20, 1993. [Dr. Richard Strick representing the authorities was present].
Now let us review this list of the candidates for the one who passed a wrong verdict on the compared exhibits.
1. Dr. Richard Strick, who was specially hired for the job, is out as no one allowed him to look at the drawings and all he knows is that he was ‘told’ that it was an ‘absolute’ match.
2. The Los Angeles Unit
Investigator Rosibel Ferrufino of the Los Angeles sheriff deparment is not the final authority to make any determinations. She and other investigators submitted their findings to the Los Angeles Prosecutors (Gil Garcetti and his deputy Laureen Weis) for further evaluation.
As to Gil Garcetti we already know what he said about Michael – that he was innocent (until proven guilty) and should be treated like all of us sitting in this room. So Gil Garcetti most probably saw both “exhibits” and concluded that they did not match.
His deputy Laureen Weis was the one who was conducting the investigation and actually closed it. In his book Victor Gutierrez complained that this woman “didn’t want to file charges against Michael Jackson as he was too powerful for her”.
However Laureen Weis is not someone to be intimidated by either Michael Jackson or the Sheriff’s investigators or personalities like Gutierrez. She took 40 violent felony cases to the jury trial and worked specifically on sexual assault cases as Acting Head Deputy of the Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Division. After working for 23 years at the District Attorney’s office she became one of the Superior Court Judges. Here is her biography:
The apparent reason why Laureen Weis closed the case was because she saw both exhibits too, determined that there was a huge difference between them and no reason to bring any criminal charges against Michael Jackson .
3. The Santa Barbara unit
Jim Thomas, the Santa Barbara sheriff who ‘turned down’ the opportunity to see the photos, is out too, same as his employee Deborah Linden – I doubt that she was more informed than her boss.
So after striking out of the list all these people the only person we are left with is Tom Sneddon to whom the investigators of the Sheriff department brought all their findings and who could be the only one to make a wrong determination and spread lies about Jackson, making his own employees, the media and the public repeat like parrots that it was an “absolute match”.
8. WHAT SNEDDON SAID
Tom Sneddon is not even hiding the fact that was him who compared the two exhibits and had the final say. He speaks about it in his declaration, and the only way how the declaration is different from the official media version is that the media confidently reported that it was “an absolute match” while nothing can be more vague and uncertain than Tom Sneddon’s declaration.
As a side note let me say that using the Prosecutor instead of an expert or an independent third party is a somewhat novel approach to evaluating the evidence. If one party only is allowed to do the key determinations in the case defense attorneys will also follow this example and make determinations concerning some evidence, imposing on everyone their own version of the story only and denying access to all those who want to check up their findings.
Imagine Thomas Mesereau making a determination over some photos, presenting his findings to the media as the final conclusion and everyone going by what he said only, forever after and without double checking. This is what Tom Sneddon actually did and perfectly got away with.
Here is the second part of Sneddon’s declaration:
5. I have reviewed the statements made by Jordan Chandler in his interview on December 1, 1993. I have examined the drawing made by Jordan Chandler at Detective Ferrufino’s request and the photographs taken of Defendant’s genitalia. 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 or would have guessed about, or could have seen accidentally. I believe Chandler’s graphic representation of the discolored area on the Defendant’s penis is substantially corroborated by the photographs taken by Santa Barbara Sheriff’s detectives at a later time.
Incredible stuff, isn’t it? The “light splotches the color of his face” in Sneddon’s version first morphed into a discolored (i.e. light) area and then into a “brown spot” found at some totally uncertain “relatively same location”.
Similarly Jordan’s words about “circumcision” turned into an “erect penis” implying to those who are unfamiliar with the subject that it is the same thing (while it is absolutely not).
6. I believe evidence of Jordan Chandler’s knowledge, as evidenced by his verbal description and drawing, when considered together with the photograph of Defendant’s penis, substantially rebuts the opinion evidence offered by witnesses for Defendant to the effect that he is of a “shy” and “modest” nature and so would not have exposed his naked body in the presence of young boys.
Let me decipher it a bit. He alleges that Jordan’s Chandler had some knowledge, only does not state what it was. This unspecified vague thing is compared with an absolutely correct opinion of Michael’s defendants that he is shy and modest. The vague thing is mentioned to rebut the defendants’ opinion, but doesn’t do it fully but only substantially.
And this vocabulary acrobatics is stated instead of a simple comparison of Jordan’s exact words with the specifics of the photos? The declaration finishes off with the quintessence of uncertainty where the only thing really clear to its readers is that Sneddon is absolutely not sure even of the above statements and is saying all this crap not to bear responsibility for perjury:
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct except for those statements made on information and belief, and as to those statements, I believe them to be true.
Executed May 26, 2005, at Santa Maria, California.
Our contributor Lynande51 explained what the concept of “information and belief” means:
- “Sneddon based his statement on “information and belief”” which is a term used for information used from a second source other than the photographs or the actual affadavit. In others words someone told him it was a match too but just in case the other person was wrong he could not be held perjurous for giving false information to the jury or the court.”
Very, very nice indeed. So Sneddon was also told about the match.
All of them were.
When you read documents like the above you never know whether to sob or laugh at it. And this mess was presented to all of us as an “absolute match” and for two decades too!
As to the media that shamelessly presented this nonsense as solemn truth all I can say is that Sneddon’s stories you reported about Jackson are complete bulls*t, and over here I am tempted to quote Macaulay Culkin who in Black and White video said “Eat this” before kicking his father across the ocean to face some Michael Jackson’s music there.
Sorry guys, just couldn’t resist the temptation.
9. MICHAEL JACKSON DID NOT HAVE TO, BUT AGREED TO BE DEPOSED
MJ’s haters like talking about Michael’s unwillingness to be deposed though finally Michael did agree to it. We all know that Michael could refuse to testify and very well use his 5th Amendment right like all other people do, however in civil cases it is very much frowned upon and may even be considered as a sign of guilt.
The worst part of it was that if Michael had been deposed he would have been exposed to the prosecution like a barefoot man facing a knight on a horse clad with a sword and shield. They (the prosecution) know everything about him and he knows nothing about them, and only God knows what they have done with all the evidence provided to them beforehand by means of that deposition.
This concerns not only the deposition proper but all findings made by the other side within the civil suit. In 1993 the new Michael’s lawyer Johnny Cochran (and Howard Wietzman) vehemently opposed provision for the criminal investigation of the evidence obtained as a result of the discovery process in a civil case.
Cochran and Wietzman fought against Laureen Weis, Gil Garcetti’s deputy, but she took the upper hand in the argument:
Cochran and Howard Weitzman, two of Jackson’s lawyers, fought vigorously to prevent information obtained during the discovery process in the boy’s lawsuit from being turned over to prosecutors. They argued that investigators were trying to use the suit to advance their criminal investigation, a technique that Jackson’s lawyers said should not be allowed.
But Lauren Weis, who heads the sex crimes unit of the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, said investigators should be able to review that material to assist them in deciding whether criminal charges are warranted against Jackson. Although law enforcement sources previously said a decision about whether to file charges could be reached by January, Cochran said he was recently notified that it will not be concluded before February.
“We have a right to know if these witnesses made contrary statements at other times,” Weis said, in arguing for access to the civil discovery material, which includes sworn statements by possible witnesses. Four people–a chauffeur for Jackson and several maids, including one who alleges that she saw Jackson naked in the shower and in a whirlpool bath with young boys–have been deposed so far in the civil case.
Cochran and Weitzman lost then, but what seemed to be a big disadvantage in 1993 turned into a big advantage twenty years later.
Why? Because it means that Laureen Weis had access to all the evidence obtained by Larry Feldman within the civil suit and this evidence included the worst of what Larry Feldman had - Jordan Chandler’s declaration as well as two depositions of Blanca Francia, Jason Francia’s mother (the one who claimed she had seen Jackson in a shower), the deposition of the driver who allegedly took Michael Jackson for “30 nights” to June Chandler’s home. etc.
Among many other things that evidence included the videotape of Jordan Chandler’s interview with Dr. Richard Gardner made in October 1993.
The fact that the Deputy District Attorney who was head of the sex crimes unit in Los Angeles, saw all that evidence and still found no grounds for bringing criminal charges against Jackson, means that Dr. Richard Gardner most probably made a negative conclusion about the veracity of Jordan Chandler’s words. We have another indirect indication of it as Larry Feldman was forced to take the video to another doctor, Dr. Katz and have it evaluated by him as well.
Dr. Katz’s opinion was also to be made available to Laureen Weis.
Both of those psychiatrists’ conclusions must be somewhere there, in Laureen Wies’s files now. And it was after looking through all that evidence and after the prosecution submitted all of it to the Grand jury that Michael Jackson was nevertheless not indicted, criminal charges were not brought against him and the LA District Attorney Gil Garcetti declared Michael Jackson an innocent man no worse than any of us sitting in this room now.
They saw everything and still found nothing, and this is what we should remember forever after.
Please note that since the photos were made by the Santa Barbara police department there is a chance that Tom Sneddon never showed those photos to the Los Angeles unit. In case he did show them, it means that the Los Angeles unit noted the contradiction between the two exhibits. In case Sneddon did not do it, so much the worse for him – all it shows is that he was keen on suppressing the key evidence exonerating Jackson from his Los Angeles colleagues and should therefore take full responsibility for the lies he was telling about Jackson.
As regards the October interview with psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gardner let me also note that only a month prior to that, in a lawsuit filed on September 13 Larry Feldman described Jordan Chandler in a bad state, saying that “The alleged sexual acts have and continue to cause the boy “great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering and emotional distress”.
However from the transcript of Jordan’s interview with Dr. Gardner I didn’t notice any of his suffering. On the contrary already in October 1993 when his “therapy” had been far from over our brave boy was chirping like a happy bird that he had no stress whatsoever and the only thing he was afraid of was a cross-examination.
And this brings us to a matter which is the next best thing to a cross-examination in a courtroom – a deposition which in a civil suit is to be taken by the accuser by all means.
10. JORDAN’S DEPOSITION WAS IMMINENT
The media will never tell you about this, but Michael Jackson as a defendant in a civil case had an almost unfettered right to have Jordan Chandler deposed in order to listen to what the boy had to say against him, why he was accusing him and what proof he could offer to support his allegations. Jordan’s version was to be challenged by Michael Jackson’s lawyers and the whole procedure was the next closest thing to a cross-examination.
I repeat – Michael Jackson’s right to Jordan’s deposition was practically unlimited.
We know about a deposition being an almost obligatory procedure for a plaintiff in a civil suit from an article that argues that the same system should apply to criminal investigations too, however over there it is practiced less often. This conveys to us the idea that in a criminal investigation Jordan was less likely to be deposed, though it was still possible:
Pretrial Discovery Won’t Harm Justice System
Daily Journal – Mar 8, 2006
Any experienced civil litigator can tell you that depositions (and subsequent investigations to check the truth of deposition testimony) routinely allow civil defendants to prove witness testimony is false.
In light of the fact that a civil defendant has an almost unfettered right to depose a civil plaintiff’s witnesses before trial, it seems illogical to argue that the same discovery in a criminal case would cause “harm that is not correctable on appeal.”
…the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not preclude discovery depositions, or that the rules violate a criminal defendant’s Due Process Clause and Confrontation Clause rights. Daily Journal – Mar 8, 2006
By Dana Cephas
The media always focused on Michael’s unwillingness to be deposed (which I understand perfectly well), but keeps total silence about the fact that Jordan Chandler never took a deposition, though for him it was a procedure to which he simply couldn’t say “No”.
Michael Jackson could at least take his 5th Amendment right, while Jordan Chandler could not, so what was possible for Michael Jackson as a defendant was impossible for his accuser Jordan – he had to face Michael Jackson or his lawyers and answer their questions by all means.
Bert Fields, Michael’s first attorney was planning to depose Jordan and was very much willing to cross-examine him after Jordan gave a description of Michael’s genitals. Howard Weizman worded it in an empatic way: “You got to be kidding me. Mr. Fields is going to depose this young man at the appropriate time”.
Mary Fischer wrote about it in her article ‘Was Michael Jackson framed?”:
It was reported in November 1993 that Jordan Chandler had given a description of the singer’s genitals, and Feldman at that point declined to comment. Howard Weitzman said he was not aware of any search warrant regarding the issue and added “You got to be kidding me. Mr.Fields is going to depose this young man at the appropriate time. And we are not concerned about those issues in this case. We don’t believe it. Period”. It would later emerge that the description was false, and as a result Michael Jackson was not arrested after the search, as he would have been if it matched.
Mr. Fields would later say “They had a very weak case, we wanted to fight. Michael wanted to fight and go through a trial. We felt we could win.”
Michael’s detractors will naturally say that Michael was “afraid” to listen to what Jordan would disclose at a deposition and this will be a grave insult to the truth because at that stage Michael had already nothing to be afraid of.
All of it was already in the press, and nothing could be worse that the so-called Jordan’s declaration or the text of the lawsuit with all its graphic descriptions, or even the Linden affidafit with Jordan’s words leaked to the press and all the dirty gossip freely circulating there.
The only party that could be afraid of that deposition was Jordan himself as his fictional version was to be thoroughly challenged by Michael’s lawyers, and the issue of the wrong description would have been surely raised there too. What would Jordan have said if he had been confronted with the huge discrepancies between his description and real Michael Jackson’s body, I wonder?
In fact if Jordan Chandler had been deposed there would have probably be no need for the settlement at all – he would have surely cracked down there and the case would have simply fallen apart.
All questions why Jordan was not deposed should be addressed to Michael’s lawyers of course, but I see a partial reason for it in Michael’s desire to protect Jordan from an even bigger ordeal than his own father was putting him through. Knowing Evan’s evil temper Michael was sorry for Jordan, and knew that it would only get worse if he was humiliated further, especially if Evan Chandler didn’t get what he wanted. Frank Cascio recalled Evan’s terrible temper in his book “My friend Michael”:
“Thinking back on it, I remembered how Jordy had said that Evan had a terrible temper, that when he was upset he’d scream and bang things around the house. “
Many years after the 1993 events Michael told Frank that he did not believe that it was Jordan’s fault and thought that the boy was not to answer for his father’s nastiness and greed. He was probably mistaken here, same as with Gavin Arvizo, but this is what Michael Jackson was all about – he was simply unable to imagine innocent children to be capable of any wrongdoing, and it was only life itself which taught him otherwise.
Frank Cascio wrote about it:
AS FAR AS WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH JORDY’S FAMILY, we only talked to Michael about it when he brought it up. When he did speak about it, it was often in a wistful tone, and I could tell that he was still trying to comprehend the fact that this horrible thing had occurred.
“I did so much for his family,” he’d say.
I would almost always respond with anger, saying things like “I just don’t understand how he could do such a thing.”
“You don’t understand,” Michael would reply. “I don’t blame Jordy. It’s not his fault. It’s his father’s fault.”
Michael forgave Jordy. He knew that a child wouldn’t come at him and ruthlessly attack him of his own volition. He believed it all came from the father. Later, when I was older, Michael would tell me that Jordy’s father had wanted Michael to invest in a film he wanted to make. Michael initially liked the idea, but his advisers were against it. They dismissed Jordy’s father rather thoughtlessly, and Michael, not one for confrontation, blew him off, too. Michael thought that this, more than anything else, had set Evan Chandler off.
And this brings us to the matter of how much the Chandlers wanted and how much they got as a result of a settlement with Michael Jackson.
11. THEY ASKED FOR $30 MLN. BUT AGREED TO A HALF
While everyone is talking about millions extorted by the Chandlers, some correction should be made as regards the sum they were extorting – when the civil case was not yet opened they wanted $20mln, but when they filed it they demanded $30 mln.
Evan could raise the sum out of sheer spite, as a sort of punishment for Michael Jackson’s resistance. Or he could be thinking that if you want to get 20 ask for 30 instead to be able to go back when the buyer starts bargaining.
The true sum of the lawsuit has never been disclosed by the media though the text of Chandler’s lawsuit has been displayed in full view for everyone to enjoy it and savor its most salacious details.
So you won’t be able to find any other source of information for it except the highly credible article by Mary Fischer’s “Was Michael Jackson framed?” published in the October 1994 issue of the GQ magazine when the ink was not yet dry on the final settlement agreement. For some reason not a single mass media outlet chose to repeat those true words. Instead all of them chose to say that the sum of the lawsuit was not disclosed.
However Mary Fischer’s article clearly names $30 mln. as the sum initially demanded by the Chandlers:
In mid-September, Larry Feldman, a civil attorney who’d served as head of the Los Angeles Trial Lawyers Association, began representing Chandler’s son and immediately took control of the situation. He filed a $30 million civil lawsuit against Jackson, which would prove to be the beginning of the end.
I see only one reason why Michael’s detractors avoid naming the real sum and the media never mentions it. The reason is a stark contrast between what the Chandlers asked for ($30 mln) and what they go ($15,3mln).
What I mean is that if they were asking for 20 and got something around that sum it would have looked like their complete victory, while asking for 30 and getting 15,3 may look like a step back and a forced compromise which may raise questions. Cutting the initial sum by a half looks especially suspicious as it came almost immediately after Michael Jackson submitted himself to a body search and was not arrested then and there.
The small ‘unpleasantness’ with no match between the photos and the description surely affected the sum of the settlement once the Chandlers realized that they were on a road to a complete ruin.
Many focus on the point that the money was paid by the insurance company and not Jackson, but even if Michael was fighting not for his own money the fact that less than a month after the body search the extortionists reduced the sum by a half looks like an impressive sign of sheer panic in the Chandlers’ ranks.
However the question still remains – if the photos did not match and the situation was slowly turning against the Chandlers why did Michael Jackson settle then?
My personal opinion is that the straw that broke the camel’s back was the news that the trial could be televised.
12. THE TRIAL WAS TO BE TELEVISED
This media secret is one of the biggest media secrets of all. You will never hear them talk about it, and you will even see them busy hiding this information. The gist of it is that no matter what trial Michael Jackson was facing – civil or criminal, there was a big chance that it was going to turn into a big every day show.
Surprise-surprise, but the channel planning to broadcast the trial was the CNN Court TV, the one we started this post with. Isn’t it interesting that when CNN was making their recent archive of the most ‘interesting’ articles about Michael Jackson’s molestation cases they totally forgot to mention their own ‘interesting’ role in the 1993 drama.
It is also interesting that the decision to televise the trial was made public almost immediately after Michael Jackson’s strip search, on December 25 which was five days after the photo session (December 20) and three days after he made his teary TV appeal (December 22).
It could be the sight of Michael Jackson almost crying on the screen that set the CNN Court TV on this road, however in my opinion it was the photos which decided it all.
The prospect of seeing the photos of his genitals on the screen showed to the company the gigantic potential of the TV coverage of the trial. For Court TVit was a win-win situation guaranteeing sky-rocketing ratings for the program and the fun of the century for the public, and it was only Michael Jackson who was guaranteed the worst humiliation of his lifetime.
The first time we see the news about Court TV planning to televise the show was three days after Michael’s statement on TV:
Court TV seeks to televise a Michael Jackson trial
December 25, 1993|By Tom Jicha | Tom Jicha,Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
Michael Jackson said Wednesday he is hoping for a speedy trial so he can clear his reputation of allegations he has molested young boys. If and when the entertainer gets his day in court, video voyeurs might be able to follow almost every minute of the proceedings.
Steven Brill, chief executive officer and editor of Court TV, said his network “would seek to cover [a Jackson trial] if it happens.”
Court TV would be interested in either a criminal or civil trial. The civil trial brought on behalf of a 13-year-old boy is tentatively scheduled to start in March. No criminal charges have been brought against Mr. Jackson.
California permits TV cameras in the courtroom. Court TV helped turn the lengthy Menendez brothers murder trial into a daily alternative to soap operas for millions of viewers. That there are minors involved in the Jackson case, however, complicates matters.
Mr. Brill said he is not certain that cameras will be permitted in the courtroom, but he hopes Court TV’s record for discretion and responsibility will help gain TV access.
“The [California] rules are unclear when there are children involved,” Mr. Brill said. “However, we would explain to the judge that it is our policy not to use the names and faces of minors.”
At the first prominent court proceeding in the cable network’s brief history, the Palm Beach rape trial of William Kennedy Smith, Court TV used a blue dot to shield the identity of Patricia Bowman, who after the trial allowed the release of her name.
If no settlement had been made I can bet whatever you like that Court TV would have found a way to explain to the judge that the coverage would be essential for ensuring freedom of information and well-being of the nation as well as the principles of democracy the country was founded on at all. So over here we should have no worry – they would have arranged that TV coverage all right.
It was Michael Jackson who had to do all the worrying.
In order to prove his complete innocence Michael Jackson had nothing else to do but produce those damned photos as the evidence exonerating him – first to the twelve men and women in the jury, the judge, the court reporter, and the police men and women in the courtroom. Then there was a possibility that they would be shown to the media and spectators present at the trial, and then possibly to the world TV audience too…
The next day after the news of a possible TV coverage was reported the LA Times confirmed the story:
Now, those immediate problems have been lifted, and he will avoid the spectacle of a nationally televised civil trial probing the most intimate aspects of his personal life.
Following this December 26, 1993 news a certain silence fell and no one spoke of the subject any further.
After placing all these events in their time perspective I think that it was not after the December 20th strip search that Michael Jackson’s will was finally broken. I think it was after the December 25th announcement of the possible TV coverage of the trial that he realized what a dreadful ordeal was in store for him and that he would be simply unable to cope with it.
Bad as it was the strip search he had to undergo on December 20 was witnessed by several people only, but if the trial is televised his strip search would be witnessed by the whole world.
He was completely innocent as the photos were proving it, but imagine for a second the enlarged photos of your own genitals displayed on the TV screen and you will probably realize that the situation was a total impasse for Michael Jackson, no matter how incredibly innocent he was.
I am sure that the horror of seeing these photos the next morning on the front page of every newspaper existing in the world made the situation even clearer to Jackson and demanded that something should be urgently done to avoid even the slightest danger of it happening.
So when the media and especially the CNN Court TV is feigning surprise as to why that terrible Jackson settled the suit with that little angel Jordan Chandler they should please first look at themselves in the mirror – it is them who forced Jackson into taking this decision and if it were not for the danger that a television camera would stick into his genitals he would have probably never settled and the case could have fallen apart without any trial at all.
But did Michael Jackson know of that TV danger?
Yes, he did.
When Martin Bashir asked him about the 1993 case Michael named a possible TV coverage as the first reason for the settlement.
Before you read the respective quote from the film transcript please pay attention to the shrewd way Bashir is conveying to his audience the wrong idea that Michael could “go to jail” in 1993 and that it was only the financial settlement that prevented it from happening.
Dear readers, the settlement had nothing to do with the criminal case! Jail was not an issue as all civil trials are about money only. Jordan could testify at a criminal trial and refused to do it twice and there was nothing, absolutely nothing (except his fear and probably slight pangs of conscience) that were standing in the way to his testimony.
As for Michael Jackson, by now I am almost ready to cry on his shoulder in full understanding of the terrible prospect he was facing in 1993 and the impasse he found himself in due to that beastly media:
Bashir: “The reason that has been given for why you didn’t go to jail is because, because you reached a financial settlement with the family?”
Jackson: “Yeah, I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ, and all that stupid stuff, you know, it wouldn’t look right. I said, look, get this over with. I want to go on with my life. This is ridiculous, I’ve had enough, go.”
So Michael was fully aware of the TV danger and named it as the first reason for his decision to settle. And it was only due to his shyness that he never focused on that point as even speaking about it and seeing talk shows discussing the prospect of those photos on TV would have been a dreadful humiliation in and of itself.
The Chandlers must have also realized the impasse Michael Jackson found himself in and saw it as a big advantage for themselves.
Now the media is unwilling to accept their fault for what happened to Michael Jackson in 1993. They are trying to hide the fact of a possible TV show of Michael Jackson’s case and cut out all mention of its possible TV coverage.
We know it from the clipped way the same Michael’s words said to Bashir were reported many years later, on the day of Michael Jackson’s death. What initially sounded like “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing on TV like OJ” in the 2009 version turned into a simple “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing”:
Jackson always denied doing anything wrong and justified the pay-out by saying: “I didn’t want to do a long drawn-out thing.”
Jordan Chandler later maintained his silence and refused to testify in the Gavin Arvizo case.
The ommission of what is actually the very essence of the story is so tale-telling that it screams the truth better than any words – the media does not want us to know about this particular fact of the 1993 story and does not want us to know the truth about Jackson in general.
I am not saying that television is a bad thing to have in life – no, it may be very helpful as Conrad Murray’s trial showed it, but if Michael Jackson refused the honor of participating in a trial where his intimate photos were to be used for proving his complete innocence, then his decision should be understood and respected.
No one should be allowed to ridicule a man who was declared innocent even by the prosecutor who was investigating the case and said that he was no worse than any of us sitting in this room now. No one should be mocked for his desire to avoid the terrible humiliation of the TV trial that would have turned his life into an ordeal. Michael Jackson had the right and freedom of making his choices too, and everyone should be respectful of his right.
He was innocent and this is the main point.
All we needed to know is found there in those photos, which proved that Jordan Chandler lied and Michael Jackson never did it – and this is all there is to know about the case. If the media had reported the truth we would have learned it much earlier and Michael Jackson would probably be alive now. The media’s role is to report the truth and not make money, fame or ratings at the expense of lies about the innocent man and his immense suffering.
The fact that the media is not disclosing the whole truth about that story even now makes me think that they know what a disastrous role their disgraceful behavior played in that particular situation and Michael Jackson’s life in general. And there is no need to pretend that we are talking about the freedom of information here – we are talking about the freedom to tell the truth which at some point in history turned into the freedom to tell lies instead.
* * *