Tom Mesereau had WITNESSES to prove Jordan Chandler lied!
There is no doubt that Tom Mesereau would have ripped Jordan Chandler into shreds if the prosecution had managed to make Jordan testify at the 2005 court trial. However Jordan failed to show up…. WHY?
While making my little fact-finding research about the 1993 case I found that Jordan admitted to his classmates he had lied to the police. Thomas Mesereau also spoke about it and said that he had three witnesses ready to testify against Jordan in court.
“The attorney who successfully represented Michael Jackson during the 2005 trial spoke as part of a legal discussion panel back in 2005. He revealed he had witnesses ready to testify against Jordan Chandler if prosecutors had been able to convince him to testify. These witnesses report that Chandler said Jackson never touched him and that he was angry at his father for being made to accuse Michael Jackson.
Tom Mesereau spoke about it at a question/answer session at Harvard University: “He said he would never talk to his parents again for what they made him say”.
In fact Jordan’s mother had to admit that by the year 2005 her son had not spoken to her for 11 years since they filed a civil suit against Michael Jackson in 1993. Mesereau revealed Chandler went to court to get legally emancipated from both of his parents.
Mesereau also spoke of the false testimonies of several ‘witnesses’ for the prosecution whose evidence fell completely apart during the 2005 court trial.”
Here is a video of Thomas Mesereau speaking about three witnesses ready to testify against Jordan Chandler:
Vindicating Michael 
Have these witnesses ever been named? Apart from Mesereau’s word, is there actually any evidence for this? He mentioned this only in a discussion panel at Harvard, not in court. If he really did have these witnesses prepared, then why would he not have called them in when June Chandler testified? Clearly having them testify in one way or another would be crucial in convincing the jury that Michael was innocent. I did find something interesting, though. Danny Wu on YouTube, I think did some kind of podcast with Liam McEwan. He said that a woman spoke to him and wanted to remain anonymous. He did some background checks and found that the woman was a defence witness during the 2005 trial, as she had gone to university with Jordan Chandler. She said that at the time, no one new who he was or what he looked like, so they didn’t know about his connection to Michael Jackson. Now, she was a music major and a lot of the time, the music majors would have debates and talk about MJ. I don’t know what Jordan Chandler was majoring in though, she didn’t say. When the Bashir documentary came out, they would talk about MJ and have debates about him and his allegations. She said that Jordan Chandler would listen to their conversations and slip in things like ‘He’s not a child molester’ and similar things along those lines. Finding the video may be difficult, as I saw it on Instagram, but I think this woman is credible because Danny did background checks and found that she was going to be a defence witness if Jordan testified.
LikeLike
Based on what I’ve heard from not only Tom Mesereau, but also Scott Ross (in his interview on King Jordan Radio) and Geraldine Hughes; I think one of the witnesses may have been Jordan’s GF at the time. According to PI Scott Ross, one of the people who called was possibly someone who dated Jordan at NYU. Also, Geraldine Hughes claimed recently, on Nicole’s View (YouTube channel), that a female who was close to Jordan also called her around the time of the trial.
LikeLike
@ Dialdancer
That’s interesting. I wonder until this day what Sneddon really thinks and believes! I know hate is able to distort people’s judgement and Sneddon had a lot of hate to Michael. Yet it seem so impossible to me that he could really believe the Arvizos!
He must have seen all through these mock trials that something was not right. He must have seen when he saw the timeline that something was not right. In fact, he then helped the Arvizos to change the timeline and say it all happened after the Bashir documentary when it turned out Michael had a strong alibi for before. Also the fact that Zonen still keeps visiting this family somehow tells me they know the truth and they want this family to keep shut up about it. I can’t see why on Earth he would want to keep in touch with these folks otherwise.
LikeLike
Helena said:
“the Arvizos had little time to prepare for their scam and that is why made complete fools of themselves at the trial – even despite every possible help from Tom Sneddon.”
I was looking for an old comment when I read your almost year old post. I am again reading Conspiracy and saw something I overlooked or forgotten. The Arvizos were worse than I thought. This is a statement from Tom Mesereau.
“The DA’s office held numerous “mock” trials.”
They practiced….really, wonder what they were like before they practice for the real thing?
Whatever “help” they got from Sneddon was not enough. Guess he was “practicing” too. Gosh!
LikeLike
Dear Truth, the Arvizos had little time to prepare for their scam and that is why made complete fools of themselves at the trial – even despite every possible help from Tom Sneddon. He was the man who created “molestation victims” out of them. The link you’ve provided points to the moment when Janet Arvizo’s story turned 180 degrees – it was after receiving a card from Tom Sneddon and talking to him.
The 1993 case seems more difficult because the Chandler scammers did their homework much better than the Arvizo clan. The Chandlers were inventive, talented and much more dedicated to their cause, BUT as all liars they left numerous traces which are still there for us to see and take into the broad daylight.
Even the several facts discussed here in parts 1-3 of “All you wanted to know” show that their case has no leg to stand on. If after reading that someone still believes that the Chandler case was genuine they’ll have to admit (to themselves first) that they simply don’t WANT Michael to be innocent, and are ready to believe everything they are TOLD about the guy. It’s high time all of us remembered that some people tell LIES.
Let us also remember that the 2005 trial looked into all the evidence from earlier cases and found NOTHING there. So the acquittal in the 2005 case was simultaneously the acquittal in the 1993 case and all other similar ridiculous situations.
And all this due to the persistent Tom Sneddon! If I didn’t find him crazy in his hate towards Michael, I would probably be grateful to him for leaving no stone unturned in his investigation against the man. After a bulldozer like Tom Sneddon the road to proving Michael’s innocence is so clear…
LikeLike
Wow this is very interesting – to tell you the truth I never really believed the 2005 case but I was always unsure of 1993.
Just did some fact checking – did you know the prosecution in the 2005 case tried to get Jordan to testify but he refused and said he would legally fight a subpoena?
http://buzz.hollywoodreporter.com/2009/12/23/fbi-michael-jackson-computers-no-evidence/
LikeLike